Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 9, 2021 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:36:44

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #84

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen.
	Welcome to the podcast of The Lotus Eaters for Tuesday, the 9th of March 2021.
	I'm John McCallum, and before we begin, I have an announcement.
	The premium podcast on thick concepts will be up at 3pm this afternoon.
	This, I feel, is actually a very important thing for us to have done.
	There's been the accumulation of a lot of work, and there will be a part two...
	Following it up next week, I think, or maybe the week after.
	But as soon as it's done, because there are a lot of deep concepts that we need to talk about that are contained within our language itself that has been modified without our knowledge or permission, and it's worth talking about.
	But anyway, Callum, do you want to talk about the Royals?
	No, no one does.
	But we have to.
	Yeah.
	So, okay.
	Did you watch Meghan Markle's interview with Oprah Winfrey?
	No, I don't care about her at all.
	No, I had to though.
	You know what this actually reminds me of?
	You remember when that satellite finally made it to Pluto like a year ago or something?
	No.
	Because it was sent when it was a planet, and then when it arrived it wasn't a planet anymore.
	Bad luck Pluto.
	Yeah, and then all the physicists were like, just don't care.
	Like none of them even gave a toss about the whole thing.
	Oh no, it doesn't matter.
	Yeah, it's sort of like that, where it's like, not a royal, just a pleb, don't care.
	Damning indictment of Prince Harry.
	It was always a pleb, so...
	We'll get to that.
	Anyway, so I watched the entire interview, like hour and a half interview, and I did find it quite unbearable to watch.
	I didn't think it was as one-sidedly bad as a lot of people have been saying, and I think there is actually quite a lot of information that we can glean about From this, though it may not have been the intention to reveal this information.
	So the most obvious thing about it, if you can see a picture of it, is of course the amazing scenery that they are.
	I mean, I don't know where they are.
	Well, I do know where they are.
	They're in Los Angeles.
	They live apparently just down the street from Oprah Winfrey.
	Imagine living just down the street from Oprah Winfrey.
	Just imagine what their house must be like.
	Sure, it's a tough neighbourhood.
	Massive, luxurious mansion.
	And the thing is, this is neither of their houses either.
	So they have, like, some other famous friend who lives between them who loaned them their house.
	And it's like, oh, so they get to live in this nice...
	They get to do the infy in this nice, spacious country garden setting.
	And, I mean, don't get me wrong, it looks beautiful.
	And so it just really...
	This reinforces the point that we are dealing with the most rich and powerful people in the world, incredibly influential, incredibly well-connected.
	These are not people who are suffering any kind of material deprivation.
	Oprah went to the wedding of Harry and Meghan So, again, this is all very tied in together.
	And to be honest with you, this came across to me very much like American elites playing at old-world politics.
	And that was one of the interesting points that Meghan actually raised, is that she was very naive going into the royal family.
	She didn't really know what she was supposed to do from the perspective of, like, courtesy in British politics.
	The Queen was apparently very nice, though.
	And she was like, oh, these are just famous people.
	And she was like, actually, it's not.
	She didn't understand the system or the structure or the significance of the monarchy, it seems.
	So one of the first allegations she makes about how she, in response to the bullying allegation, that she, in fact, she didn't make Kate cry.
	Kate made her cry.
	And Kate has apparently apologized to her for this.
	And so it's totally reversed the claim that has been made.
	And The wrong is on Kate rather than Megan.
	I don't know.
	It seems like a woman's fight.
	It just seems very bitchy, frankly.
	That's the way it came across.
	But anyway, the interesting part is the fact that when she's revealing the internal structure of the monarchy itself...
	As an institution.
	And I think this was actually really revealing.
	Because it speaks to things that I personally have been saying for quite some time.
	And, I mean, just in the past, whenever the royal family has come up, I've pointed out that, look, it probably is a gilded cage.
	And these people probably aren't free in the terms that we would understand free to be.
	As in, they can't just go and do the things they want to do.
	There's always someone watching them.
	They've always got security with them.
	They've always got, like, a schedule.
	And they're always on a leash.
	And so I've always said this about the monarchy.
	It's not really something I would want to be a part of.
	And she's actually confirmed a lot of my suspicions about it, that it's essentially a family business.
	And I think that's a fair way of describing it from an American perspective.
	She says that it's hard to distinguish between the royal family, the family themselves, and the institution of the monarchy, which is run by probably hundreds or thousands of people.
	And so you've got a very, very complex and intertwined nexus of power, where you've got lots of people at each level who all have an interest going in the same direction, and her going in at the top level of this put her in a very difficult position, right?
	So she said that she was welcomed in by everyone, but then felt that she became trapped by it.
	And so there was mass media coverage of her everywhere.
	Welcome to the family.
	Yeah, welcome to the family.
	I mean, what do you expect, right?
	And so she becomes trapped by it.
	So, like, she's everywhere in the papers, and they're not letting her leave her home, right?
	Because she wants to, like, go for dinner with a friend or something.
	Like, no, no, you can't do that because the press will get you, and, you know, you'll be everywhere even more, and it'll just be bad, and so you can't do it.
	And so she says she was a prisoner in a way, which I do think is probably true.
	But it's not because of a race, if you can believe it.
	It's nothing to do with race.
	I don't think any of this is to do with race, in fact.
	But of course, this is the primary charge that's made by the Americans, because Americans really care about race.
	Something that's really high up on their agenda.
	Interestingly, she talks about mental health, which I actually find to be a believable thing.
	It probably is very difficult for your mental health to be in this kind of position, especially if you're not used to it and you find yourself unable to escape it.
	The British press is as cancerous as she makes out.
	I mean, that is true.
	And she seemed quite genuine when she was saying this.
	So I can believe that that was a real problem that she had.
	And she says at one point that everything has to be a public performance.
	You have to be on all the time.
	And Harry makes the same point.
	So when you're going out and meeting people, you've got to smile and look like everything's fine.
	And that's probably true.
	And so there's a bunch of stuff there that I don't think is wrong and I think is actually very interesting and revealing about the institution of the monarchy itself.
	And then Harry...
	For anyone who knows about these things, it's been known in time immemorial, you know?
	Yeah.
	Which is a big surprise.
	Like, how did you not know this?
	Yeah, well, again, like, it's known in Britain, you know, it's an understood thing that this is, you know...
	I feel like if I was marrying one of them, someone would have...
	Hey, you know what this is about?
	Yeah, I mean, at one point she does complain that there's no guidance.
	And it's like, well, I mean, to be honest with you, you'd think there would be.
	I would have thought there would actually be some kind of manual that they were given or an instructor was assigned to them or something like this.
	Say, look, you're joining the royal family.
	This is not like a normal family.
	This is the political linchpin of the United Kingdom.
	This is what holds it all together.
	This is what it's named after.
	This is how it all functions.
	So there should, I would have thought, been some guidance.
	Especially for an American coming in.
	I mean, what's an American going to know about any of this, right?
	Anything.
	I mean, look, if it was like, you know, a Spanish or Dutch princess or woman or something like that who was marrying into the British royal family, they would have a much better cultural background to understand the importance of the royal families in European politics and European culture.
	But Meghan herself, of course, she says she has no guidance.
	But the funny thing is she's like, I had to do some work myself.
	It's like, well, yeah, like learning the national anthem.
	Oh, really?
	You learn the national anthem of the country you became a princess in?
	How thoughtful of you.
	You know, she didn't know how to curtsy, apparently.
	Well, I'm not surprised.
	But again, you would actually think there would be some sort of instruction here.
	But anyway, when Harry joins the conversation after about an hour or so, he seems quite genuine.
	And I really actually found myself quite warming to him because she is very clearly trying to control the...
	I don't just say the narrative.
	It's too simple.
	It's the shape of the narrative that she knows is going to come out of this conversation she's having with Oprah.
	She's definitely trying to control this.
	And so when he will say something, she will correct the way in which he said it in order to kind of shape it around into this particular form that she's looking for.
	But he seemed, like I said, quite genuine.
	And I found myself quite liking him.
	He seems to be, you know, sort of genuinely happy to have a family and concerned about the fact that the royal family has removed security from them.
	And one of the reasons that he said he left is that he didn't find help within the royal family because she has brought in all of these new concerns into his life that were there but he never really noticed.
	And so this has changed his worldview on being a part of the royal family and He says if it wasn't for her, he wouldn't have been able to leave it.
	And if you do view it as a slightly oppressive thing to live within, then I can see his point of view.
	I can see why he would consider it kind of liberatory to leave this family.
	I think it's true.
	I think it's real.
	Why are you smiling?
	Was he ever in it?
	We'll get to that.
	Stop ruining, spoiling what we're going to talk about.
	But anyway...
	Basically, it seems that they wanted to have their cake and eat it too.
	They wanted the title of being royals, be like minor members of the family.
	There are plenty of them, apparently.
	But they didn't want to be sort of prominent ones, and they wanted to kind of have their cake and eat it too.
	So be members of the royal family, but go off and do Hollywood stuff, right?
	When you say they, do you mean they or do you mean her?
	Well, I mean her, probably.
	Woko Ono.
	Woko Ono.
	But the thing is, he cosigns everything she says on this.
	So...
	You know, they.
	It has to be a they.
	I feel like it's when you've got a best mate, and they get a wife, and then it becomes a them.
	Well, it kind of is.
	Where's him?
	Yeah, it kind of is.
	You know, I mean, he's not going hunting anymore with his £50,000 rifles, is he?
	Right.
	You know, so, anyway.
	But the thing is, I didn't find myself disliking him at all.
	She's clearly controlling the interview, and I mean, at one point she holds his hand, and you can see her domineeringly holding his hand.
	It's really weird.
	She's grabbing his hands under hers, and it's like, oh god, okay.
	But she...
	I don't know.
	I don't want to read too much into it, because who knows, right?
	But anyway, so the royal family have this invisible relationship with the press that they're trapped within.
	It's controlled by fear.
	They're worried about the tabloids turning on the monarchy.
	And this is interesting because it shows the cosy relationship the royal family has with the press and the fact that they're wined and dined.
	And in return, the press give them glowing coverage and the royal family could do nothing wrong.
	Anyway, let's get to the race question, because the race question seems to be the one that the Americans want to talk about, whereas the Brits have got no interest in talking about this at all.
	So it comes really down to...
	Yeah, it is.
	It's nonsense, right?
	And it's Oprah who is inserting the race question into the interview, right?
	Megan isn't even projecting this until Oprah starts prompting her in this direction, and...
	I mean, literally, like, Megan's saying, well, they didn't want to make Archie a prince, and he won't be given a title or security.
	And Oprah just goes, do you think it was because of his race?
	Because of his race?
	Can we get this link up, John, so we can see his race?
	Because...
	Behold, a black baby!
	Yeah, do you think it was because he wasn't white?
	Are we serious?
	Is it because it was race Oprah?
	They were looking and being like, oh God, he's not white.
	So Archie is as non-white, exactly as non-white as I am.
	He's exactly as non-white.
	And he has been described as being of color.
	So I am officially a person of color by Meghan Markle standards.
	Which, of course, reveals the entire lie of this.
	He's not a person of colour by any progressive standard.
	Otherwise, anyone who's ever criticised you is also a racist.
	Exactly.
	And good God, I look forward to wielding that weapon against certain leftists.
	But this is the thing.
	And so the main response that Megan had to this was, quote, there were concerns and conversations about how dark his skin will be.
	Now, we're told that this didn't come from Prince Philip, but I have trouble believing that.
	Because if you read just Google Prince Philip quotes and he comes across like the most base Chad in the world, right?
	And he strikes me as exactly the kind of person who'd say that.
	But the question's kind of silly because, I mean, she's very light-skinned.
	Harry is ginger.
	I mean, what did we expect?
	Even if I believed this happened and everyone clapped, it would have been Prince Philip making a joke.
	Probably, yeah.
	Harry claims that's not the case, but they don't give any details about this.
	So we're just left wondering, and the implication is just out there, but no details or firm allegations being made.
	Right, okay.
	And the thing is, concerns and conversations about how dark his skin will be, that's such a vague way of putting it.
	That's not a direct allegation.
	Someone wasn't being racist.
	Because it's not an unreasonable concern or discussion to ask how dark a mixed-race baby will be.
	It's something that can be raised In a non-racist way, it's just a question or a point of conversation.
	It's only if you give it that kind of negative intonation that it becomes something that you could describe as racism.
	But there's no particular reason to think that that was the case, because she actually doesn't say that that was the case, but it's implied.
	So Oprah presses this by saying, concerns he will be too brown.
	Are you saying that?
	And she replies with, if that's the assumption you're making, it feels like a pretty safe one.
	So she doesn't even say yes.
	She dodges.
	It's not that there were concerns that he was too brown.
	It's just that she wants you to believe that if that's the assumption you're making, I'm not saying it, then it's a safe one.
	But who said that?
	It's Oprah.
	Oprah is the one making that assumption.
	Oprah is the one making that assertion.
	And Meghan's just not denying it.
	And so it seems deliberately dishonest.
	But as we were talking about, Archie is not a baby of colour.
	And, I mean, just come on, you know.
	But Meghan, throughout this, she's like, yeah, well, I wanted...
	She talks about Britain being a massive colonial empire.
	Previously, the Commonwealth is enormous and filled with non-white people, and therefore, Meghan, joining the royal family, she wants African girls to be able to look up to her and Archie as a fellow person of colour and say, see, look how inclusive it is that you can see someone who looks like you in this family.
	That's a direct quote.
	Look how inclusive it is that you can see someone who looks like you in this family, meaning a non-white person in the royal family.
	Come on.
	Come on.
	You know, I don't, I can't even.
	This is genuinely, really, black girls in sub-Saharan Africa are looking at Archie and going, finally, a black person in the world family, are they?
	Total fiction.
	That is literally my ancestors' meme in real life.
	It's so obviously dishonest.
	Anyway, this goes on into Oprah and Meghan's race obsession.
	And it's genuinely theirs.
	Again, Harry doesn't want to talk about this.
	This is not what he's talking about.
	But he has been indoctrinated into leftism, which is basically like an American worldview, which now views everything through the lens of race.
	And so, I mean, at one point, Harry says, well, everyone was worried that me and Meghan were going to be a thing, sort of as if they were going to date.
	And Oprah just jumps in with, because she's mixed race.
	And he was like, no, I hadn't thought about being mixed race.
	It's like, because she's a bloody American, that's what.
	It's not about being, I mean, like, if you didn't tell me, I wouldn't know she was mixed race.
	But it's obviously because she's a foreigner, because she's from America.
	She's from a republic.
	You're a republican, joining a monarchy.
	Seems weird, doesn't it?
	Mm-hmm.
	Doesn't know anything about the culture or customs of the land that she's come to.
	I mean, there are loads of other reasons, but Oprah's just like, is it because she's mixed race?
	No, Oprah, it's not that.
	Britain is not America.
	No, we are not America.
	And Harry goes, well, look, I didn't know anything about race or unconscious bias or anything, but I've been indoctrinated into it, and now he recognizes the, quote, race element.
	And the colonial undertones of press reporting, which I don't want to have to defend the British press.
	The British press are cancer, every single one of them, without exception.
	But on this, it's not that they're racist.
	It's that they're just weird, like, monarchist fangirls is basically it.
	And if they're not weird monarchist fangirls, they're communists.
	And so they hate the monarchy for that reason.
	But none of this is about race.
	Absolutely none of it.
	This is a total American insertion into the conversation.
	But anyway, the problems with Harry and his concerns about being cut off from what he refers to as my father, Prince Charles.
	The royal family had financially cut him off, but his mother Diana left him 10 million pounds in her will because she knew something like this might happen.
	Where's that quite from?
	Him, in the interview.
	She knew something like the royal family cutting him off and refusing Archie a royal title might happen.
	So I guess she would know, wouldn't she?
	James Hewitt claims not to be Harry's father.
	Very recently, in fact, in November, he responds to these rumors that he's Prince Harry's dad, saying, no, though I had an affair with Princess Diana in the 90s, and Harry was born in 84, he certainly isn't.
	And he says, no, I'm not.
	And it's probably because it sells papers that this is the question.
	And it's like, yeah, okay, buddy.
	If we just look at a picture of you, Harry, and Charles...
	James Hewitt being a cavalry officer, by the way, in the 80s.
	If we just look at them, who does he resemble?
	Sorry, just...
	Which one of these does he look like?
	I mean, those two guys look the same.
	I don't...
	Look at their noses!
	It's exactly the same nose.
	Look at their mouths.
	It's exactly the same mouth.
	Even the sort of shape of the forehead is exactly the same.
	Like, the only difference is the shape of the ears and the sort of, like, more gingerishness of Harry.
	But obviously Diana was quite auburn-haired herself.
	But in no way does he look at all like Charles, right?
	And so this, I think, is probably the root of the reason that Archie isn't getting a title because Archie is not related to the Queen.
	That's what it seems.
	And I think that there's people in the royal family who know this.
	And I would imagine that it's not something that they've ever, you know, talked to Harry about, obviously, because what a horrible conversation that would be.
	But the firm, the institution of it is like, well, look, this is not democratic politics.
	This is feudal politics of heredity.
	And if we're talking about feudal politics of heredity, a bastard prince...
	His son probably ain't getting a noble title, you know?
	And I'm not for feudal politics, so this is not my choice.
	Within the monarchy, feudal politics is the only way.
	Sure, but I'm not pro this, is what I'm saying.
	I'm saying this is what it is, I think.
	It's no wonder the monarchy didn't want to give Archie a title, because he is not of royal blood.
	And that's how monarchies work, and so if that's how monarchies work, you kind of have to accept that that's how these things are.
	And so it's no surprise to me.
	It's nothing to do with race.
	It's everything to do about heredity, lineage, and the fact that there is none between Archie and the Queen, in my opinion.
	I mean, this isn't anything new either.
	This theory has been floating around in Britain for decades.
	Because it's so obviously true.
	In the same way, if you get a picture of Justin Trudeau and Fidel Castro and Pierre Trudeau up...
	It ain't Pierre Trudeau.
	It just ain't.
	I'm sorry.
	And the fact that Harry and William look nothing like each other.
	You would think they were adopted.
	It's like, sorry.
	Again, I don't want to be rude about it, but it's like you're asking me...
	Think of dadism.
	If you're a dad and you're Prince Charles and you come home and your wife brings back this ginger baby who looks kind of like one of your friends, you'd be like, hmm.
	I have doubts, right?
	And if your dadist instincts have doubts, then you should at least investigate those.
	Crack out our DNA test.
	I don't see why not.
	I wonder if they ever have.
	Clearly not.
	Harry talks fluently as if the conversation, this has never happened.
	Charles is his father.
	Don't get me wrong.
	I can say that I have actually some respect for the royal family for essentially taking this on the chin and treating Harry well.
	Because it's not Harry's fault.
	Harry didn't cause this.
	He's not the author of it.
	He's been born into this situation where it seems quite unfortunate.
	You know, it's not a nice thing.
	You know, it's not a nice thing to be on the receiving end of, I imagine.
	You know, finding out that you're an illegitimate son or something like this.
	And so it is nice that his feelings have been protected in this way.
	But sitting there going, well, it's definitely because Archie's black that they're not giving him a Prince title.
	He's not black, and it's nothing to do with that at all.
	You know, it's obviously not.
	But anyway, let's go on to the fallout from this nuclear bomb that was an interview, because this is just...
	I'm just so sick of hearing about this.
	Just so completely sick of it.
	But the thing is, there is actually something important going on here.
	As the Mirror have described it, it's been utter devastation in the palace.
	It's like...
	I mean, to be fair to them, as much as royal scandals go, this is a big one.
	Because, I mean, most of the royal scandals are like, you know, Prince Philip said a thing, and then that's a thing in the papers for like two days.
	Yeah, but then that would actually be a legitimate allegation of racism.
	Eh.
	I mean, it would.
	Are you folks still throwing spears at each other?
	Yes, thank you for being on this diplomatic mission.
	When he, you know, they got coronated in the 50s, they probably were still throwing spears at each other in parts of the world in the Commonwealth.
	Do you know that there's a cult of Prince Philip?
	Yes.
	Yes.
	Based.
	Yes.
	They probably do throw spears at each other.
	It's in Papua New Guinea.
	Yeah.
	No, I think it's very noble.
	I think they're going to be disappointed when he dies.
	Anyway, so as the Mirror points out, the response from the British press has been very amusing to this, in my opinion.
	So the palace apparently aids, because of course, as Megan's pointing out, the media have a special relationship with the monarchy, and so they get all these insider tidbits.
	The palace were locked in crisis talks after these shocking revelations.
	The couple spent two hours on TV, quote, desecrating their relationship with the family, according to the Mirror.
	Desecrating their relationship.
	That's true.
	That's totally true.
	You should not be doing interviews in public, ever.
	Never mind on a massive radio.
	Especially not with Oprah Winfrey.
	Yeah, I mean, it's bad enough if you did it with a British outlet.
	Imagine doing it with Piers Morgan.
	Yeah, that would be cringe, but doing it on a...
	The more popular the outlet and the less prestige it has, the more disgusting it is, and anything American is low prestige.
	Yeah.
	From the perspective of the monarchy, yeah.
	But again, the Mirror using this kind of language, desecrating their relationship.
	This is a moral outrage, right?
	This is what you have to remember.
	This is not just a question of, oh, are they racist?
	No, this is, how dare you affront the royal family and the Okay.
	So, insiders said an official inquiry would be the only answer to the bottom of the long list of grievances of the couple, which are racism, peddling lies, and ignoring the Duchess's desperate cries for help.
	Okay.
	One source said, I don't think anyone would have predicted or even will quantify the utter devastation this will cause, There'll be no coming back from this for Harry and Meghan.
	The palace needs to strike the right tone with its response rather than creating a knee-jerk reaction.
	Which is true.
	And obviously the BBC is just full of these articles.
	Let me get to the next one, John.
	There must literally be a dozen articles about this.
	on the BBC right now and this is just one of them.
	This was published like 10 minutes ago.
	Meghan and Harry interview Urgent Palace talks over claims.
	The Royal Correspondent says Buckingham Palace will not want to feel rushed into saying something which is wise.
	Joe Biden's spokeswoman said he would praise anyone for having the courage to speak up about mental health and White House Press Secretary Jem Saki Describe Prince Harry and Meghan as private citizens who are sharing their own story with the struggles.
	No, they're not private citizens.
	They're very, very much public citizens.
	And these are definitely politically tinged attacks.
	And this is why the British press has been circling the wagons.
	The Daily Mail have got absolutely everything that they can thrown at Meghan, which, you know, based.
	well done Daily Mail Megan's half-sister has come out against her slamming her as they point out she's no sympathy for Megan who revealed during the shocking interview that she battled with suicidal thoughts during her time as a royal instead accusing the Duchess of using her depression as an excuse for treating people like dishrags didn't you see a poll about this yeah what was the poll it was what is it british public 56 had no sympathy whatsoever for megan yeah based um
	Good British public.
	Well done.
	Head pats all around.
	Her own father has come out against her, in fact.
	Mark Halsvarger, again in another Daily Mail article, her estranged father Thomas denies his daughter's claims that he'd betrayed her before branding his son-in-law snotty and declaring, We all make mistakes, but I've never played naked pool or dressed like Hitler like Harry did.
	But that was the good part about Harry.
	Mr.
	Markle said that he has apologized 100 times for dealing with a paparazzi photographer in 2018.
	He also denied that the royal family or Britain is racist, saying if it is true, a royal asked about how dark Archie's skin would be, it would probably be just a dumb question, and calling Meghan and Harry's claims bull, which I think is very interesting.
	Piers Morgan had a very negative reaction to this.
	Did you see this going around?
	Piers Morgan had an argument with the weatherman on Good Morning Britain and lost and stormed off the set.
	What?
	No, I'm joking.
	He had an argument with the weatherman.
	Yeah, the weatherman was speaking up in Meghan Markle's defense, saying, I understand that you don't like Meghan, but you've made it so clear a number of times in this program, a number of times.
	I understand that you had a personal relationship with Markle, or had one, and she cut you off, and she's entitled to cut you off.
	Has she said anything about you since she cut you off?
	I don't think she has, but you continue to trash her, and Morgan stood up and said, okay, I'm done with this.
	Sorry, you can trash me, mate, but not on my own show.
	See you later.
	And stormed off.
	I'm not sure whose side I'm on there.
	No, I'm not.
	God, why does Piers Morgan exist?
	I just don't get it.
	Just trying to avoid the man, to be honest.
	Unbearable.
	Unless he's publicly embarrassing himself, in which case I'm happy to feature it.
	So the Telegraph, of course, did their duty for Queen and Country, saying that the Sussexes did their duty to Queen and Oprah.
	Well, to Queen Oprah.
	Yeah, well, yeah.
	But unsurprisingly, you know, the Telegraph is very much against criticism of the monarchy.
	Charles Moorhead doing his duty.
	It's not even that.
	It's the doing the interview itself is gross.
	Yes.
	So I don't know if there's a better point for me to put this in, but Hannah Gell sent me an article about this.
	And it's the real problem here.
	What she's saying is completely irrelevant.
	It's what she has done, the fact that she's done this.
	And the example Hannah Gell gives is like, so the whole point of the monarchy, at least one of the major points, is non-politicization in the slightest.
	I mean, the smallest thing is an upset.
	That's a story.
	So, I mean, where does the Queen stand on Donald Trump?
	Does she like him or dislike him?
	We don't know, but she seems to have a good time with him when he came to visit.
	Yeah, but that's the thing.
	She has a good time with everyone, but you can't tell whether or not she loves him or hates him or anything like this.
	I bet she secretly loves him.
	And yeah, the Duchess of Sussex decided that she'd avoid him when he came for a state dinner.
	She was invited.
	She said no.
	And then the next couple of days, she was invited again to meet him, and she said no because she was on, what was it, like pregnancy leave.
	But yeah, two days after he left, she was doing public events then.
	I was like, okay, obvious lie.
	Or she'd be making covers for Vogue, in which she'd list the 16 most influential women, and they're all wokest.
	Is that right?
	So, I mean, we know you dislike Donald Trump, and we know you're a wokest.
	That's not good.
	That's not good enough.
	None of that should exist if you're a royal.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	Anyway, moving on, even Spiked Magazine did their patriotic duty, throwing Harry under the bus.
	Misfit Prince doesn't like England all that much, and he's about to find out that the feeling is very much mutual.
	Again, it's very interesting how the battle line's been very much drawn, because, of course, if you go to the other side of the aisle, where do you think the Guardian found themselves on this?
	Death to the Monarchy, probably.
	Basically, yeah.
	Basically, that's it.
	The Guardian actually had a more temperate view on the Death to the Monarchy position.
	Obviously, they're concerned about the claims of racism, because what else is the Guardian going to talk about?
	The palace was under pressure to respond to allegations of racism within the highest echelons of the royal family.
	In the most shocking disclosure, Harry and Meghan described how someone within the household asked about the dark skin tone of their baby son Archie, and racism was a large part of why the couple left Britain, said Harry, claiming though the UK was not bigoted, the UK press, specifically the tabloids, were.
	Again, like...
	So the archetypal example they'll give is...
	There's one example where Kate is, like, cradling her baby bump and all the press are, like, fawning.
	Oh, look at her.
	She's glowing with pregnancy.
	And then Megan was doing the same thing and they were like, oh, look at this villain.
	You know, like, cradling her baby bump.
	And it's a really fair point from the position of Megan and Harry because...
	I bet they're cherry-picked, to be honest.
	No, no, they're not.
	That's the thing.
	It was totally fair, right?
	It was like night and day.
	And it is the press, here's a hero, here's a villain, right?
	But it's not, again, about race.
	It's about respect for the institution.
	It's about respect for the procedure and the thing that has been established, the tradition.
	Megan doesn't know anything about the tradition.
	She doesn't show any respect.
	And she's come in, like, with this kind of...
	Honestly, a kind of hoity-toity attitude.
	As if she's deserving of special treatment.
	Whereas Kate has done everything that is required of a British princess.
	What is it?
	Golden Globes or whatever, you know, Ricky Gervais went to and burnt them all.
	The people there, how they act as celebrities who are there to do a bit of activism.
	Yeah.
	Whereas that's not what any of the monarchy is.
	That's all duty.
	Yeah, exactly.
	And so she...
	The problem that the British press have with Megan...
	Is that she has a woke agenda and she's not doing her duty as a princess in the monarchy should be.
	And this is the difference.
	It's not because of her race.
	It is because of the way she carries herself and the way she acts and the way that she I don't know how to describe, but kind of the impression she's giving everyone, right?
	And the kind of look she has and the actions she takes, they are not in line with the expectations that the press have.
	And therefore, she is a villain.
	And it is night and day that she's absolutely right that the coverage was not fair or anything like that.
	But if you're at this point expecting fair coverage from the press, my God, what world do you live in, right?
	Sorry, I thought you were going to say something there.
	So, anyway, moving on, the Independent decided to take this a step up by taking, I think, possibly the most anti-British person in Britain right now, which is Shola Moz Shogbamimu.
	This racial activist, a racist activist.
	Pocket anglophobe.
	Just, yeah, she's here to pop up and say, no disgrace, you are English and I hate you.
	This is her opinion.
	They should be held accountable for their actions and mistakes.
	It's like, okay, but what have they done?
	One of them asked how dark Archie would be.
	Well, I mean, she keeps going on about being mixed race.
	Maybe that is a question.
	Does it matter?
	We don't know.
	We haven't been given any information.
	And yet now it's just like, oh, well, it's racism.
	You see racism in everything.
	It's literally your career to complain about racism all day, every day.
	It's every waking thought you have.
	I can't remember if it's her or not who was arguing about England being not English.
	She was like, this is our racist statement.
	And then you had Constantine being like, what are you talking about?
	Like, if it was all Scottish, it would be less English as well.
	But she had to insert race politics into that.
	Of course, right, because that's what she does.
	But anyway, she says, the truth is now out there.
	Racism and a lack of support from the royal family and their advisors over racist attacks and threats to their lives is what Harry and Meghan say led them to step back from senior royal duties and leave the United Kingdom.
	That's actually not what they said.
	Archie was not to be given the status, protection, or security or title afforded to his cousins, Prince George, Princess Charlotte, or Prince Louis.
	Yes, that's because of him being black, isn't it?
	Shola.
	Is that her name?
	Shola?
	Yeah, it is.
	It looks unequivocal that the royal family have treated Archie differently because of his proximity to blackness.
	What?
	So they're not even saying it's racist, he's proximal to blackness.
	Exactly.
	It's not that he's black, obviously, because that would be a ridiculous statement, but he has a proximity to blackness that is the reason why they've treated him differently.
	Now, again, as we've just gone through, I think it's actually because Archie is the product of a bastard father who has no lineal connection to the Queen.
	I think that's a much more likely explanation.
	It could just be they're all racist, though.
	When it comes to Meghan Markle, let's be honest and admit one of the reasons some of the British media can do this is because a section of the British public want it.
	Parts of the British population drive this irrational and unjustifiable ugliness against the Duke and Duchess.
	So there we go.
	We finally get to the Britain bad.
	British people bad.
	Sections of the British public.
	Well, why don't you name them, Shola?
	Just say the English.
	Just say it.
	Because that's what you're thinking.
	We all know you're thinking that.
	Just say it.
	The royal family has a lot to answer for, and we deserve a full response.
	And even if people are supporters of the monarchy are now, Queen Elizabeth...
	Oh, you're our queen, is it?
	Suddenly you're a British patriot, are you?
	Yeah, Britain rules the waves, is it, Dr.
	Scholar?
	We must all remember that Sheen or the institution is beyond reproach.
	They must be held accountable, of course.
	And a Black Lives Matter founder called Opal Tometi has called for a boycott of the royal family.
	What are you going to do?
	Stop using stamps?
	I mean, I don't know.
	I guess I'm not going to marry a royal, if that's what you're asking.
	I would marry a royal, but I hear they're all racist.
	I mean, I don't know what a boycott of the royal family even means, really.
	I mean, is it boycott Britain?
	Because I would love it if Black Lives Matter would boycott Britain.
	But apparently she claims that the royals do not care about black people.
	This is it.
	They don't care about black people.
	They don't care about anyone but the royal family.
	Yeah.
	I mean, maybe they care about the dominions.
	Yeah.
	Maybe.
	But anyway, she told TMZ that people should turn their backs on the royal family, and it highlights how problematic the institution is, and added that black women like Meghan should be believed when they speak out.
	So cancel the royal family.
	Black Lives Matter, cancel the royal family.
	That's where we are.
	And so what has the Crown done about this?
	Well, nothing as of yet.
	And I have to say, I think this is the wisest move.
	Do nothing.
	You don't need to do anything.
	There is nothing that the Americans can actually take.
	The Queen has refused to sign off an official statement.
	Nothing's been done.
	Basically, a lot of people want to say, but no one wins in a tip-tap battle, so there's no point getting into it.
	And so what this comes down to is a question of legitimacy.
	Where does legitimacy lie?
	Now, it seems to me that if you're going to be talking about legitimacy, then how are you framing it?
	I mean, the Americans are framing it in what is the least racist, and the Brits frame it in what is the oldest and most enduring.
	That's the way that the Brits view these things, and so the Americans have to contest with a monarchy that goes back to Æthelstan the Glorious, the uniter of the English kingdoms in, like, the 9th century.
	That's how old the British monarchy is.
	And if I were the British monarchs, if I were the monarchy, if I were the palace, I would just lean back into this and just say nothing.
	You actually, if any allegations are made, you say, sorry, they're not true.
	And that's all we have to say on it.
	We have the business of waving to crowds now and going to see the Commonwealth.
	Helping kids in Africa and things like that.
	You definitely should not make any rash statements.
	Anything that is said is essentially going to be taken and amplified by the radical left-wing press.
	The British press, if nothing is said, will simply return to being the lapdogs of the monarchy.
	See, this is why you need to watch The Crown.
	Because you can see, this is an act of strength here.
	Her saying nothing.
	I'm pretty sure I'm paraphrasing this.
	But she says in, I know it's monarchist propaganda, but it's great monarchist propaganda.
	She makes the point of, like, the hardest thing in being the monarch is saying nothing.
	It is the most tough thing to do, to do and say nothing.
	But it is also the right thing to do more than not.
	Yes, that's correct.
	Again, like you say, it shows strength.
	Any weak person can issue a statement going, oh, I'm not the racist.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Don't, though.
	A strong person is just like, don't even care what you have to say.
	Yeah, your allegations are so meaningless that I'm not even going to respond to them.
	I'm the queen of a country that goes back over a thousand years.
	I don't care about your opinion, Americans.
	In fact, aren't you colonists?
	Why are we even talking to you?
	You could have all sorts of...
	Anyway, but the point is, don't have any kind of response.
	And this is, I think, the correct thing, because, I mean, what happens if they respond?
	If they respond rashly, then obviously whatever is taken is going to be taken by the leftist press.
	The Americans will denounce the monarchy, and that matters, I suppose.
	And the progressive attack of racism will have been shown to be able to crack even the toughest and oldest of institutions.
	I think that's a bad move.
	So yeah, I mean, and the thing is, if they respond as well, then they're actually taking on quite a giant.
	because not only will they be taking on the sort of american elite led you know represented by oprah winfrey um who of course is not getting their side of the story in this interview at all but they'll also be taking on the black lives matter movement which i think they could do and it seems that the public support would be there if more than half the public are like to hell with megan markle you know and like and the yeah strangely enough we're more loyal to the monarchy than this foreign nonsense
	Yeah, and the fact that it's just the radical left-wing section of the press that, you know, is always against the monarchy anyway in every situation.
	But, like, you know, The Times, The Telegraph, The Sun...
	The Daily Mail, The Mirror, you know, all like the huge segment of the British press have defaulted to just being, and even spiked, and just like, no, monarchy good, Americans bad.
	It's like, okay, well, good boys.
	You know, like, the attack won't go any further if they simply just take it on the chin.
	I mean, they could fight a culture war against all of this.
	It would be a very difficult one.
	I don't think they've got the steel to do it within them, but I think they could do it, but I don't think they should do it.
	I think that it would be more damaging to the Crown to be able to do this, whereas they could just weather this obvious nonsense and move on from it by just giving no particular statement at all.
	So speaking of Black Lives Matter...
	Have you ever seen...
	Do you know about Aberfan?
	No.
	So it's a town in Wales in which they had coal stacks, and the coal stacks...
	It's one of the episodes in The Crown that's great at demonstrating the point.
	These coal stacks came down, and they went through, I think it was a primary school, with like 50-odd kids.
	And it killed almost half the kids instantly.
	Jesus.
	And the rest of them were buried alive under this hot coal.
	And you had the fathers coming down, and they were literally using their hands to dig up the coal to bury their kids out.
	And then the police got involved, you know, trying to dig them out.
	And the message got to the royal family, should we do something?
	And the Queen's decision was, no, I'm not going to go down there.
	Because she said, the worst thing I could do right now is to put the Queen in the middle of an emergency situation.
	It would slow everything down.
	So I think it was, I think it might have been Philip or someone went there instead, incognito, just to see what was going on.
	And then called them up, and then afterwards she went after all the kids were dead or living.
	The few little survived.
	And she says it's her greatest regret, actually.
	She still goes there, I think it's like every year or every other year, to the memorial of all the dead kids.
	Bloody hell.
	To be like, you know.
	Yeah, it's horrible.
	Yeah, it's absolutely a horrible situation, but it's that moment of actually the right thing to do was to stay away and say nothing, and still you get to...
	Don't get in the way.
	I mean, God.
	I mean, that's real commitment to duty.
	She could have made it all about herself or something like that.
	Yes.
	Imagine Megan putting that up.
	Would have been a hell of a photo opportunity for Megan.
	Yeah, and you would have killed some kids.
	Good job.
	Yeah.
	BLM. Anyway, yes.
	Talking about BLM. So, this is something I wanted to cover, which is the trial of Derek Chauvin, or the George Floyd trial as it's being known, whether you like it or not.
	Because, of course, George Floyd is not on trial because he's dead.
	I mean, he probably has been on trial a few times, right?
	Probably.
	But the trial is about Derek Chauvin, but no one remembers his damn name, so it's getting called the George Floyd trial.
	So the charges are as follows.
	Derek Chauvin, the officer who put his knee on the neck of George Floyd, was originally being charged with third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter.
	They then added unintentional second-degree murder and dropped the third-degree murder.
	Third-degree murder would have been hard to get him on, apparently.
	So third-degree murder would have been causing an unintentional death in an obviously dangerous act So they would have argued that he was being obviously dangerous, but they didn't want to argue that.
	Because that wouldn't have flown?
	No.
	So they went for second degree murder instead, causing an unintentional death while committing or attempting to commit a felony.
	The felony here being third degree assault.
	But that's obviously not what Chauvin was doing.
	Well, third degree assault, I'm just getting these paraphrasings from reading the legislation.
	So it'd be recklessly, non-intentionally, infliction of fear or serious bodily injury upon George Floyd.
	But he's under arrest.
	So, I mean, how do you arrest someone without committing assault?
	So I don't know how that works.
	But if you want a more detailed lawyer version, I imagine go to Viva LaFry.
	I'm just laying out the basics here.
	Yep.
	And then second-degree manslaughter would be consciously creating an uneasy, unnecessary risk, which causes death.
	So him would be consciously putting his knee on there, even though it was unnecessary, and then caused him.
	That would be the argument.
	And I went and watched the full body cam video before we started this, just to remind myself of all of the details.
	And I don't think they're going to get him.
	I don't think they're going to get him at all.
	I think he's going to get away with all of these charges from my brief...
	I mean, I watched this when it first came out, and one of the things...
	I mean, you just...
	When he sat in the car saying he can't breathe...
	Yeah, so...
	And he asked them to put him on the floor.
	Just a small recap of what happens.
	You can watch the full thing yourself.
	I recommend you do it.
	They pull him over, they pull him out.
	He's acting delirious.
	He's saying, I can't breathe, even when he's stood up.
	Yeah, it's weird.
	And then they try and get him into a cop car, because they're like, the suspect could run.
	he's acting weird and then he refuses to get in the car he's saying i i'm claustrophobic so i don't want to do this they try and force him in doesn't really work so he's like put me on the ground so they put him on the ground and they're like right call the ambulance they call the ambulance because it's better to get him out of there than to keep him there if he's on drugs and crazy and then they put him once called the recovery position which includes the knee on the neck apparently so this is to keep him from um hurting himself or hurting officers running into traffic this sort of thing and then you put him in the ambulance
	and this is the argument of the defense attorney so So if we go to the next link, this is the notes.
	This is the defense attorney arguing that his position is that, well, George Floyd killed George Floyd, not my client, which is the officer with the knee on the neck.
	And if you just scroll down a little bit, just so we can see the first image there, because this is central to his argument, this is a slide, first image, which is a slide showing what to do when you've got someone who is acting delirious.
	You put them in this hold here, and if you can see from the image, there is the officer at the front with his knee on the other officer's neck to demonstrate this keeps him in a position, which is known as the recovery position, until they can get medical assistance.
	Yeah.
	a few claims in here.
	So the fact that he was saying, I can't breathe, even when he stood up.
	So when he's saying, I can't breathe on the floor, well, what did you expect him to do?
	Take this incredibly seriously or to take it as this guy's still moaning?
	When something serious happens, then I will change my position.
	And then there's also the problems of just the video evidence from that, you know, the little handheld cameras they have on.
	So if we go to the first image, you can see here there is something in his mouth.
	Looks like a pill, doesn't it?
	Yeah, it looks like a pill.
	And the defense is alleging that this is fentanyl.
	This is the fentanyl dose they found in his system afterwards.
	And he is instead dying from the fentanyl.
	So the next image is just a screenshot I got from the body cam video.
	It's a little lower quality, but it's definitely not fake.
	It is a real thing.
	He had something in his mouth.
	Maybe it's gum, if you want to make that kind of argument.
	Could be.
	Could be gum.
	But then you have the fact that when they searched him after arresting him, next image, you see in the bottom left there, they pulled out a crack pipe.
	I was like, right, okay, so...
	I'm inclined to believe he might have been taking drugs.
	And if you don't take my word for it, you can take the people investigating his body's word for it.
	The toxicology report.
	Yeah, so they did lab tests, which apparently was better than the autopsy, the notes here.
	Him arguing that that's the reason they did this.
	And they found fentanyl at 11 nanograms per milliliter.
	Just to read from his notes, this is higher than a chronic pain patient.
	If he were found dead in a home alone with no other apparent cause, this would be acceptable to be called an overdose.
	That's the medical professional here saying that if he had been found with no other obvious symptoms, this would be an overdose.
	That's how he died.
	Open shot.
	I mean, 11 nanograms per milliliter.
	I don't know anything about the measurements.
	Yeah, so a death could be certified at 3 nanograms per milliliter.
	So he's got almost four times as much fentanyl in the system as this medical professional is saying could cause death.
	Although I should note, he puts underneath, I'm not saying this killed him.
	Because he has to cover himself with saying, this is something that could kill him, but I'm not the arbiter of truth here.
	Yes, it's just that he happens to have a lot of fentanyl in his system.
	Yeah, there's also some other notes that I have to read because if I had nothing else, they're just strange.
	So he says there's meth, 19 nanograms per milliliter.
	This is exceedingly low, but meth is bad for your heart.
	Well, good to know.
	It certainly is.
	From the videos I've seen, it appears that the knee is on the side of his neck, not where the, and then unintelligible, are.
	So he's saying there's something on his neck.
	Presumably not where blood flow is.
	Presumably bruises or something.
	I couldn't read it because it's in doctor's handwriting.
	I've even had Josh look at it, couldn't read it.
	But he's saying that where the knee was doesn't seem to have been the place where it would kill him.
	They also mention the fact in the original argument from the defense, well, we also have that his major heart arteries were functioning at 75% blocked.
	So it's like, okay, so he's got a weak heart.
	He also had COVID, as we found out.
	He was an ex-COVID patient, shall we say.
	So that might have had an effect on his ability to breathe.
	He had the small amount of meth in there, which is bad for your heart, ladies and gentlemen.
	And he had significant amounts of fentanyl in his system, which again, very bad for you.
	So the argument is, of course, well, we had him down on the floor and any normal person might have been able to survive this.
	That's why it's recommended by the police to do this.
	But this might be an extreme case in which he died.
	And is my client meant to have known this?
	This guy completely off his face on drugs with a bad heart.
	Yeah.
	Like, is my client meant to just magically know that this guy's got these health conditions and so on and so forth?
	If you don't want him doing this, don't teach him to do this.
	And it seems like a fair argument to me.
	So if we can go back to the defense, so he argues that the police were following their training as given, and that the suspect was at risk of dying due to the drug overdose, so therefore we put him in the recovery position as you advise.
	In which case...
	This definitely isn't murder, because there's no intent to kill.
	Because, I mean, also him calling the ambulance for George Floyd twice.
	I mean, if he wanted to kill the guy, I don't think I'd call an ambulance.
	Derek Chauvin seems to have followed procedure.
	Yeah, that's the defense's argument here, and I have sympathy with the argument.
	It seems to be true by the evidence he's provided.
	They also go on to talk about his views on why people haven't intervened, and this defense attorney is not woke, let's put it that way.
	So he says the case is being used by neo-Marxists and opportunistic criminals across the country as a pretext to riot, loot, and burn.
	Based and true.
	Prove him wrong.
	How's that not true?
	I love that he uses neo-Marxists there as well.
	Yeah, no, they should.
	Everyone should be calling them neo-Marxists, because they are.
	And then he goes on to talk about, well, the people in charge, the mayor, city council, the people in charge of the police, you all know that this is the procedure, you've all been told this, or you are the ones writing this to tell them to do it.
	So when they've gone and done it, why did you throw them under the bus?
	Why did you not make the point of, well, this is the procedure, it's unfortunate?
	Public pressure and riots?
	People being murdered in George Floyd's name?
	Seemingly in their interest.
	So he says in here, would the agitators have been so successful in causing nationwide mayhem if Mayor Frey, a Democrat, or even a single member of the Minneapolis City Council had publicly acknowledged the plain undeniable truth that far from murdering George Floyd, these police officers were acting...
	Pursuant to their official MPD training to reduce the risk of sudden death.
	Certainly wouldn't have grabbed headlines like it did.
	It's like, well, that's the other point here.
	Like, they're acting not just in a way that's, oh, procedural.
	The fact that they called the ambulance and then were trying to hold him, the point of procedure in there is to save the suspect.
	They think the suspect is in serious danger.
	He's, you know, over his head on some kind of drugs or something like this.
	We need to take care of him.
	Quite obviously so, if you watch the footage.
	Yeah, you're not trying to hurt the guy, you're trying to take care of the guy.
	But that doesn't line up with the white nationalist narrative, does it?
	No, it certainly doesn't.
	But the reason I've given you all this is not because I'm some legal expert who can predict the case.
	I'm not making this claim.
	No, no, no.
	These are all facts.
	It's because I want to give what I consider at least an honest interpretation of what is going on.
	I don't want to give you just, like, the BLM side, for example, who will argue nothing.
	So the prosecutors are arguing...
	Well, they'll argue racism.
	Yeah, the prosecutors are arguing, knee on the neck, helped cause the death, therefore we think its primary cause of death was that, therefore you're guilty.
	And the defense is arguing, no, guy's high on drugs, we were also told to act like this, therefore my client didn't do nothing.
	So that's the case.
	But BLM are not being told this.
	So this is just some tweets from Jack Posobiec, who is giving you updates on the court case.
	So the first one here is that prosecutors will not include the medical examinations performed by the doctors hired by George Floyd's family in the murder case.
	That's weird.
	Why wouldn't they include that?
	So the prosecutors, arguing that this police officer did wrong, they have a medical examination by a private doctor, and they're not including it.
	I wonder if it's because the private doctor is like, wow.
	11 nanograms per whatever it is.
	Milliliter of fentanyl.
	That's enough to fell a horse.
	What's going on here?
	So the prosecutors are deciding that no, they're not going to show that side of the argument.
	So it'll be up to the defense.
	And I guess we hope the defense won't show that side either.
	I don't know.
	Yeah, I don't know what else they're going to do.
	Let's go to the next one.
	So can we go to the BLM one where the jury's being asked about the BLM riots?
	No, back.
	There are tweets before this, so I'll just say it instead.
	So the jury they brought in were asked about the BLM riots, so was any of your property damaged in the summer riots?
	And if you answer yes, you're not on the jury anymore.
	Oh really?
	Well that means a lot of people are off the jury then.
	Yeah, because I mean, what is it, half a millionapolis is on fire, so anyone involved in that, too bad.
	And then they're also asking them about their views on BLM and Blue Lives Matter.
	Well, if you back the blue, we can't have you on the jury.
	And I don't think this is wrong either.
	If you want an impartial jury, you can't have people who have a vested interest in the case.
	Sure.
	But conversely, if you have literally society-wide issues...
	What do you do?
	...that have impacted absolutely everyone, you're not going to be able to get jurors who don't have an opinion on Black Lives Matter.
	Exactly.
	And I mean, how far do you take this even?
	Because I know there will be BLM people arguing that any white person on that jury is biased.
	Is a racist, yeah.
	And of course you could get the opposite argument of any black person will be biased, in the same way that people made these arguments about O.J. Simpson's case.
	Well, in which case are we just going to stack it full of Asians?
	Well, I guess they're proto-white supremacists, so therefore they also have to go...
	They've been folded into the white supremacists.
	Jews, they're white supremacists, so there's no ending that line of logic, in my view.
	Yeah.
	So, the BLM type's not happy about this, and the state is acting accordingly.
	So let's go to the barriers being put up.
	So in response, the state is putting up literal walls, because walls don't work, folks, to protect the courthouse and the city.
	Presumably from white supremacist uprising?
	Yeah, when he gets sent down, the KKK are going to come and riot, I guess.
	Likely.
	And they also called in the National Guard.
	Interesting how that's nice and easy to be done.
	I mean, remember when Trump asked for the National Guard to be present on January 6th?
	It didn't happen when burning, looting and murdering was going on, but it does happen now.
	All of a sudden, they're pretty sure that this is going to happen.
	It's almost as if they don't think they can blame this on the President.
	Yeah.
	And therefore, they need to actually protect their own citizens.
	Yeah, now that there's no political capital to be made out of it, and it looks like, well, Floyd did this to himself.
	Black Lives Matter aren't going to be happy about this, aren't they?
	Yeah, and of course the leftists' view on this is that, how dare they do this?
	Why are they calling a thousand National Guard in Minneapolis?
	Oh, good question, Jill Winebanks.
	There's only a crowd of largely peaceful people outside the trial.
	It's like, okay.
	I guess what you can say is this is a way of ensuring they will remain largely peaceful, isn't it?
	And, of course, the video evidence suggests that they might not remain peaceful.
	Oh, wow.
	So the next link is them shouting, F the police.
	If justice don't get it, shut it down.
	Really?
	People looking for justice, I'm sure.
	They care deeply about what the law says and not just what their own narratives say.
	And this isn't just a small group of people arguing outside.
	Apparently something much worse has taken place in this city.
	So the George Floyd zone has been set up.
	Ah, yes.
	So this is another autonomous zone in which leftists are trying to protect their own interests.
	Fox News is going to invade our podcast with.
	Sorry, go on.
	Sorry, terrible websites and the pop-ups.
	So this is also interesting because Fox News is saying there's an autonomous zone being set up, the George Floyd zone, and a police spokesman, John Elder, told Fox News, there is no autonomous zone, but that crowds do interrupt police and medical responders.
	So if we just deny it exists, then it doesn't exist.
	I can sort of get what he might be saying.
	If to be ultra charitable, which is that we don't recognise it.
	Yeah, but you should have said that.
	In which case you'd shut it down.
	But that's not what the city is doing.
	So if we go to the next one, the city is instead negotiating with the Autonomous Zone.
	Why?
	Why?
	They're insurgents.
	Shut up now!
	Yeah, exactly.
	You insurgents have got no right to do any of this.
	You're going to jail for these crimes you've committed.
	Could you imagine the Iraqi government negotiating with al-Qaeda for zones of Baghdad back, please?
	I don't know.
	Weird.
	So I also wanted to mention here that the defence is blaming the mayor for lying to the public, and then it's the mayor here also who is negotiating with the autonomous zone instead of shutting it down and condemning it.
	And everyone knew where this was going, and it has happened.
	There has been a shooting.
	So the next link is there's been a shooting nearby.
	Why are we not using our own reporting on this?
	I didn't know we had one.
	So according to the Times on Sunday night, no white people were allowed inside the autonomous zone.
	Oh, this isn't racist.
	Local activists were keeping white people out, and there has been a fatal shooting of a black man nearby.
	The suspect allegedly shot the man after having an argument, and then fled the scene.
	Oh, wow.
	I mean, surprise, surprise.
	Not until, like, the previous autonomous zones.
	So we're waiting for this trial.
	It's going to keep going ahead because they're just at the jury stage.
	They will go into the opening statements and eventually the verdict, which I don't think BLM are going to be happy with.
	I mean, even if he gets manslaughter or something, they're not going to be happy with that.
	They'll declare that a miscarriage of justice and burn the place down because, I mean, he's a white supremacist, don't we know?
	Or do we?
	Well, that's what I've been told.
	What was the evidence for him being a white supremacist, folks?
	Oh, he's white.
	He was a white man, and the suspect was black.
	Yep.
	That was it.
	And then, literally, that is the entire stock of evidence to suggest that Derek Chauvin was a white supremacist.
	I'm not saying that secretly he might hate the black people or something.
	I'm sure there's, like, a possibility that that's true.
	But is he a white supremacist, white nationalist, as we keep getting told?
	Well, let's just look at his family.
	So if you go to the next link, this is an article from before any of this happened, in which they're celebrating his then-wife here, who divorced him when the charges came in to distance herself from it.
	But there seems to be no arguments about him treating her wrong.
	She's a refugee from Laos.
	She's a Laotian refugee, and here's what she looks like.
	Right, so she's...
	Not white.
	And there's their son there, who again...
	He's also not white.
	Not white.
	I think he's a pretty bad white supremacist, if this is what he's going for.
	I mean, to me, this just looks like you can argue it's police brutality, it's, you know, overreach, or something like this.
	But the racial angle, the reason BLM is involved in this whole thing...
	It's a nothing burger.
	This is all a lie.
	We've all been fed this utter lie for months.
	And it's justified the deaths of, what, at least 20 people over the summer?
	At least.
	And another one, apparently.
	And there'll be more.
	There will be more.
	Right, okay.
	So, I haven't got any...
	Well, I look forward to Black Lives Matter taking the lawfully handed down judgment in good faith and with patience and understanding and the recognition that, in fact, the facts were adhered to and that...
	It's all going to go badly.
	It's all going to go horribly, horribly.
	No, they won't listen to a damn thing.
	They'll burn the place down and then say, Whitey did this.
	Yeah.
	If I lived in Minnesota, I'd probably get out for a while.
	Yeah.
	To be honest, it doesn't seem worth it.
	But apparently we have 10 video comments today, so we'll, I guess, go through some of them.
	Don't know how many we'll go through.
	But one of them had apparently inaudible commentary on it, and the other one was using copyrighted music.
	Don't send us stuff with copyrighted music on or anything like that, and make sure that the audio is clear, because otherwise we can't hear what you're saying.
	But let's play the first one, John.
	Hello, my name is Andrew Damaris.
	I'm a college student in Connecticut, and I want to deliver copies of Starship Troopers in person to the National Guard station in D.C. I think there's a chance to make a splash on the national stage regarding this literature, and you can find my donation page on GoFundMe at Starship Troopers for D.C. Guard.
	All the details will be there, and thank you for your time.
	Okay, I'm just going to say I think they're going to stop you from doing this.
	I have a funny feeling they'll say that this is political activism and this is verboten.
	What did he say?
	I missed the whole thing.
	He's going to go to the National Guard unit and give him copies of Starship Troopers, which don't get me wrong, I think is a great idea.
	But I do think they'll stop him from doing this.
	I mean, there's no curfew anymore there.
	It's just the zone area in which they're...
	Sure, but they're going to be like, you can't give political materials to the National Guard.
	They'll find a reason.
	I'm sure of it.
	But I mean, like I said, I don't think it's a bad idea.
	If you could do it, I'd like to know what happened.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Let's go for the next one.
	Hi, Carl and Callum and everyone.
	I'm wondering if you've heard of the term narrativium, which is a concept that Sir Terry Pratchett used in his writing for the Discworld.
	And it's a type of phlogistine.
	I think I'm pronouncing that correctly.
	So it infuses the world.
	What it is, is a way that human focus and interest then drives story forward.
	And it's a way of expressing that in a quasi-scientific way.
	Curious as to whether or not you think that that is what is occurring with the progressives.
	The progressives have the idea of utopia, and they are creating a narrative which pushes people towards that utopia, and that's what generates the gestalt that they need.
	And I'm wondering if, as a counterpoint to that, conservatives and liberals, basically everyone who opposes the progressives' concept of utopia, needs to create their own grand narrative, which we can then use as a counter towards the progressives with their utopian narrative.
	And what's a good way of doing that?
	And I'm hoping it's something that your Thick Concepts podcast is going to help address.
	Alright.
	Sorry this is a bit long.
	Cheers.
	Bye.
	It's a very good question and one that I'd have to spend a bit more time thinking of.
	I think of a good answer to.
	I haven't heard...
	I've read a lot of Terry Pratchett in my life and I can't remember this concept that Phlogiston Do you remember us talking about this?
	Yeah, it's the mythical substance that people thought existed and led to a bunch of scientific discoveries, and then they realized that flodgestone doesn't exist.
	And so Terry Pratchett is obviously using this as a kind of springboard to point out that what he's essentially saying is human perception drives paradigms, which is true, I think, according to Thomas Kuhn.
	And it seems that this is something that is a phenomenon in science, and not just science either, but particularly in sciences where Kuhn was talking about.
	And yes, there probably is something to this.
	We do need to be able to create our own paradigm with our own I don't want to say utopia, but, I mean, our own goals.
	Personally, I think...
	Aiming for something a bit more grounded is more realistic and more persuasive.
	So when they say, oh, we can have a communist utopia, you could say, well, you could end up with a wife and kids and a house and a good job and, you know, be happy and have barbecues with your neighbors and actually live a nice, relaxing life where you're productive, healthy, you know, thriving and prosperous and everyone doesn't die.
	I mean, that seems like a really great alternative to everyone dying in a communist revolution.
	I mean, this is an argument we've made before, which is like the difference between socialists and liberals.
	The socialists are like, yeah, but we could do this amazing thing, make the crystal world that's perfect.
	And the liberals are like, yeah, but we could just make it a little less S every day.
	It's progressively better.
	And a couple of years would be pretty good, and then it would just get gooder.
	And this actually seems to work.
	Yeah, the important difference is that, sure, we're not promising you perfection, but we are promising you that you won't starve to death in a labour camp.
	And the communists are like, well, we can't promise that, but we're going to promise you perfection.
	It's like, okay...
	You always see this in, like, modern progressive outlets as well, where they're like, we could live in a world without bigotry, we could live in a world that's perfect, without poverty and all this.
	And you're just like, oh, shut up.
	This is just the same socialist garbage of a world without need, and instead you've repackaged it as a world without prejudice.
	I agree.
	We should deport all the leftists and get rid of the bigotry, but, like, you know, I understand things are going to happen.
	There should be a lot of deaths.
	I don't want to deal with that.
	Exactly.
	Exactly.
	I just want to grill.
	I really do.
	And so, you know, especially as the weather's starting to pick up again, you know.
	I'd rather make a world where more people can grill.
	Yes, yes, exactly.
	Let's get around to grilling, for Christ's sake.
	Right, let's go for the next one.
	Just a quick one that I just thought about.
	If Hugo is an anarchist, what is his solution to the problem of force application?
	How does he, as an anarchist, stop the most powerful individual from exerting their will over other people?
	It's always the question I've never had an anarchist successfully answer, and it's the best way I can think of catamanding that argument.
	I will do a premium podcast with Hugo about anarchism at some point.
	I don't want to answer for him while he's not here to defend his obviously wrong and irrational position on anarchism.
	Let's go for the next one.
	On the thought of the morally challenged and infantilist, do any of you see a structural pattern there?
	I mean, it seems like the morally challenged act as the infantilist leader, thereby giving the morally challenged a cult that follows them, while the morally challenged fulfill the infantilist's need to be mothered.
	What are your thoughts on this?
	I think he's covered everything.
	I think about it.
	I agree.
	The morally challenged absolutely do act as these leaders to the infantilized population, and this is how they gain their power.
	I mean, this sounds a lot like North Korea, doesn't it?
	Literal.
	Literal interpretation.
	I'm kind of spoiling it.
	I don't want to spoil it.
	Okay, but give us a little bit because Callum's a North Korea simp, as it were.
	I prefer the term expert.
	Oh, right.
	But he's read an awful lot of books on North Korea and desires to travel there one day.
	So, um, the regime's view of its own people is weird.
	Like, they're superior, but they're not making the claims of, like, a Nazi regime or something like this, where it's like, the people are the ubermensch and we're the strongest race on earth and all this.
	They make the claims...
	Because they're not even stronger than the South Koreans.
	No, that's one thing.
	But even at the time of the separation, they weren't making these claims.
	They're making the claim that they're morally superior, and it means that the regime, in all of their movies, their music, everything about the party, it treats the people as children, even the soldiers.
	It's very progressive.
	Grown 30-year-old batten-hardened men run to their general and hug him in his bosom, in which he holds them and keeps them dear.
	I mean, what?
	Could you ever imagine, like, you know, a strongman militarist?
	Kind of sounds like what Caesar was like with his soldiers, to be honest.
	But it's not just them.
	It's everyone.
	Everyone is essentially a child that needs to be taken care of.
	And you see it in progressive movements.
	Like, occasionally some idiot will come out and say that, you know, Obama's like the dad of the country and he takes care of everyone.
	Yeah, yeah, totally.
	And it's just like, oh, shut up.
	You have no idea what to do.
	They're acting this way with Joe Biden.
	It's like America's grandpa.
	It's like, okay, I don't want to get sniffed.
	I mean, that lady we had that tweeted, what was it?
	She can sit back in the seat and like a child falling asleep knowing dad's driving.
	Exactly.
	I don't have to take any responsibility now.
	Horrible worldview.
	Yeah.
	Absolutely horrible.
	You're leading yourself to genocide.
	There we go.
	What's that oil guy saying?
	Hey guys.
	A couple of comments from Friday's podcast.
	First, if you're unable to change around bedtime, you probably shouldn't be able to change your sex.
	That's a good standard.
	If being male doesn't give you any athletic advantage, why aren't trans men smashing records?
	Good question.
	Well, the answer is, of course, that it gives you a massive unfair advantage if you become a male who then becomes a female.
	There's no question about it.
	I mean, everyone knows the science is very secure on this.
	It seems to be incontroversible, but I love, I love that formulation.
	You can't change your gender if you're unable to set your own bedtime.
	Perfect.
	This is the perfect daddist formulation.
	You know, it's like, because as soon as you say it, it's like, well, damn.
	I can't.
	My mum's going to send me to bed now.
	It's like, yeah, so you don't get to make decisions about your gender.
	And we literally got sent a letter from a primary school that was asking the parents to list if their primary school kids were transgender or non-binary.
	The answer is no.
	No, he goes to bed at six.
	Yeah, exactly.
	That's quite early.
	I don't know.
	I don't have kids.
	Seven, seven, seven thirty.
	That's reasonable.
	Is that where Daniel goes?
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	Seven o'clock every night.
	Let's go for the next one.
	Hey, guys.
	If you want to cancel convenience abortions, you need to get experts at cancelling things to do it.
	So I suggest we get the left to do the heavy lifting.
	We should advocate for more abortion.
	So all pregnancies have to be aborted unless consent can be gathered from both genetic parents, including pregnancies from sperm donors.
	That'd be fun.
	Well, I mean, who's the founder of Planned Parenthood?
	What was the name?
	Margaret Sanger.
	Wasn't she the one who wanted to kill black people?
	She was an open racist.
	She devised Planned Parenthood as a way of reducing the black population.
	So, I mean, that seems, I mean, just like enough in and of itself to cancel Planned Parenthood, doesn't it?
	I mean, literally, the black nationalists will argue that Planned Parenthood is engaging in a, quote, Negro baby holocaust because they're aborting so many black children.
	Well, more black children are aborted than born.
	So how are they wrong?
	It's a black nationalist position here that they're trying to exterminate us.
	Yeah.
	I mean, she was an open racist and wanted to promote abortions within the black community.
	To reduce the number of black people in America.
	I mean, like, I agree.
	She's a racist and you should cancel Planned Parenthood.
	If that's not racist enough, I don't know what you want.
	The monarchy is currently being cancelled because someone was just inquiring about the race of a mixed-race woman's child.
	So it's like, if that's...
	I mean, they're not saying, you know, abort black people from America.
	They're not marching around going, we need to murder more black babies.
	Yeah.
	But someone was.
	Yeah, exactly.
	So if that's enough, then Planned Parenthood must know they're on the chopping block for a cancelling.
	Right, let's go to the next one.
	Nice shirt, by the way.
	Hello, Carl and Callum.
	My name is Joshua.
	I live in the States.
	Very nice to meet you.
	This is my favorite political podcast.
	Thank you.
	I wanted to ask the two of you, what do you think of Donald Trump Jr.?
	Do you think he should run, shouldn't run?
	What do you think of his positions just from following him on Twitter, that kind of thing?
	I know you like his dad, but what about the son?
	And I'm also wearing the shirt of a quote from my favorite...
	Thomas Sowell.
	Thank you for taking my question.
	I thought that was Thomas Sowell, but yeah, Churchill's right about that.
	I don't think that Don Jr.
	has the kind of gravitas required.
	Trump had it because he was Donald Trump, and he built up this brand over decades.
	But Trump Jr., the problem is he's always going to be in his father's shadow, and I don't think he carries the weight that his father carries.
	And it's not like he's a bad guy or anything.
	He seems pretty good, actually.
	But I don't think he's going to have the necessary force or ability to just blindly look facts in the face and just not care.
	That takes real thick skin.
	Real deliberate bullheadishness like Trump has.
	I really admire it.
	I'm not old enough, but the thing in my head is thinking, you know, Bush Senior and Junior.
	Like, how did Junior come about then?
	Yeah.
	Well, I mean, who knows?
	But I don't know.
	I think he should be someone else.
	I mean, I also agree.
	Again, from no dislike of Don Junior or anything like that, it's just I just don't think he's the right guy.
	Joshua again.
	Wanted to ask the Lotus Eaters, what do you two think of right-wing populism?
	I know that Carl has talked about Josh Hawley, and I think he's talked about having some populist leanings.
	Do you think it's a good thing, a bad thing?
	What exactly is it?
	And what does it mean to be a for-the-people movement?
	Is that democratic in nature?
	What do you think of populism, but specifically right-wing populism?
	Thank you.
	Well, I mean, I don't think there's such a thing as left-wing populism.
	I think all people who say I'm a left-wing populist are fundamentally liars and end up siding with Joe Biden and end up siding with the power structures and end up promoting elitist philosophies that very wealthy German socialists create.
	And then end up going against the interests or desires or concerns of the regular working man and woman.
	And if you're going to be a populist, then surely they are the people that you're supposed to be giving a damn about.
	And I would say part one of giving a damn about those people is listening to their concerns.
	You know, actually hearing what they have to say.
	I mean, how is it that the left-wing populists are all in favor of the mega-national corporations, all in favor of immigration, mass immigration, all in favor of UBI and other innovating, like, Kuma initiatives?
	How are they all in favor of these things that would just do damage to the working class?
	You know, they're not populists at all.
	And so there's no such thing as, like, a left-wing populist, which means there's no such thing as a right-wing populist.
	All the populists are just people who are for the working class.
	And if you're some sort of massively ideological socialist, then you're not it.
	And so, I mean, yeah, I think you probably have to take some sort of democratic form, just because it seems to be the safest way to prevent tyranny, just obviously.
	And if you're a working man or woman, you don't want to be tyrannized.
	I mean, the left-wing populists will openly say to you, like...
	Vote Joe Biden.
	Yeah, shut the hell up.
	We need to be there to guarantee the working class interests, not necessarily working class desires.
	Yeah.
	So they will say, like, the people might have a desire for X, but their interests really are Y. They'll make claims about false consciousness and say, actually, you know what you need to do is abandon your private property.
	I know that you spent your life working towards it.
	I know you don't need property rights, because I say so.
	This is in your interest.
	The government will do it for you.
	I'm a populist.
	But I don't know.
	Whenever I see right-wing populists, if they are polled and they know that a policy is massively unpopular, I feel like it would hurt their will to do it.
	Like, they'd feel wounded.
	Whereas with the left-wing populists, they're like, yeah, I don't care, but it's in their interest.
	Shut up, racist.
	You know, yeah, exactly.
	There's no such thing as a left-wing populist.
	And everyone who claims that they are is lying to themselves and voted for Joe Biden.
	Or Nancy Pelosi, AOC. Yeah, one of the elitists.
	No, I mean, she was literally saying, you know, we, the populist left, will not vote for Nancy Pelosi.
	She's destroying things.
	And then voted for her to become Speaker.
	Bernie Sanders turns up at Joe Biden's inauguration.
	What are you doing?
	Anyway, sorry.
	Let's carry on.
	Good afternoon, Lotus Eaters.
	I very much enjoyed the content you provided over the last few months I've been watching you.
	Although, to be honest, I am getting a bit tired of the usual American drivel permeating our society.
	However, onto my question.
	When you're faced with someone who appears to reject your values, how confident can you be that you are right and they are wrong?
	That's a great question, because it speaks to the nature of what a value is.
	And a value is merely something that you value.
	It is something you imbue with importance.
	And if someone doesn't imbue something with importance, there is no objective standard by which you can say you should value.
	Have this as an important thing.
	And so it means you can't ever be proven wrong about your values, the things you value.
	They're just, I value it.
	That's it.
	And it's like, okay, well, that's interesting.
	Well, I have a strategy at least.
	I mean, we were just talking about the fact that to be a socialist is to say that property rights don't matter.
	You can, yeah.
	And you get this sort of bump, especially among younger generations that they're interested in this sort of thing.
	Well, give them something to value there.
	I mean, if they're all renting, that's...
	Of course they don't think property rights matter.
	They don't have any property.
	They're happy to steal it off someone else.
	So if you can make it so house ownership goes up, I think you will actually have a tangible impact there.
	Oh, absolutely.
	Which is one of the main reasons I'm massively anti-mass immigration because it's one of the main problems with getting housing in the UK. If you're just bringing hundreds to hundreds of thousands of people, demand isn't going to keep up.
	Yeah, it's mad.
	But the thing that's underlying this is...
	If someone doesn't recognize your values, then it probably means you're not speaking to them in a language they understand.
	So they don't understand why you imbue something with value.
	And this is why the Thick Concepts podcast is an important one.
	And I'm going to keep chilling because it's really important.
	Because the way to approach it, I would say, is listen to the language that they're using.
	Because they'll probably end up using a language that actually isn't very dense.
	The language they're using is actually quite narrow.
	Like the term racism.
	It's like, what does this even mean these days?
	There's not very much tangible meaning put into the word racism, and you have to go quite a long way to try and find it in a lot of circumstances.
	Whereas if you are to talk about, I don't know, the familial connections, the words we use to describe relationships, like mother and father, there's a lot of really quite deep and emotive language and concepts that are built into those words.
	And this is why the left tends to avoid and wants to abolish these words.
	This is why you get the Australian medical system.
	They're like, oh, we're going to use parent instead.
	It's like, why?
	Because you don't care about the word parent.
	At no point are you like, oh God, my parent, I love you so much.
	That just doesn't flow.
	But my mother, I love her so much.
	That makes so much more sense and it resonates on a deeper level.
	So it could well be that if they come to a position where they say, well, I don't consider what you value to be a value, it could be that you're framing it in a way that they don't recognize because of the, honestly, kind of pseudoscientific language they've been brought up with.
	And I think it is incumbent on us to be able to change our linguistic strategy in order to engage some of the sort of deeper, more lizard brain concepts.
	But I won't go into too much detail with it here.
	But that's about the best I can think of off the top of my head.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Hey guys, in today's update from the Land Down Under, do you remember South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commissions and the outstanding effects those have had for the South African people?
	Well, The Guardian today reports that the Australian state Victoria has launched a Truth Commission into the ongoing effect of violent colonisation on Aboriginal people.
	What do you think their expected outcome for this is, and what do you think the actual outcome is likely to be?
	Cheers!
	What do you reckon, Callan?
	The violent impact on Aboriginal people of what, sorry?
	Of Australia, yeah, by colonisation.
	I mean, they've got some legitimate claims, I mean, like the taking of the children to civilise them, and then, you know, basically stealing kids from them.
	Yep.
	Pretty bad.
	Yeah.
	I mean, unless we're going to argue the colonization of it, that's what they're going to argue, isn't it?
	The colonization in and of itself was evil.
	I mean, the English coming to settle.
	Yeah.
	So, I don't know, probably worthless.
	I imagine they won't focus on anything that's legitimate.
	They'll just focus on, you know, broad concepts.
	I think they probably will focus on things that are legitimate.
	The thing is, like, if the Aboriginals didn't have a concept of property, how are they going to argue from their own perspective that it was wrong for the English to turn up and build cities?
	Yeah.
	Do I have one?
	Well, I guess not.
	But I guess they'll have to rely on European property rights to do that.
	But anyway, I don't see anything good coming of it.
	The very fact that this is a question is an attempt to undermine your civilization, just so you know.
	They're not interested in my grievances.
	At least I suspect they're not.
	No.
	I would put this in the same category as the Atheist Republic asking, why is incest bad?
	It's like, why are you even asking that question?
	Why are you having that discussion?
	Nobody.
	Atheist Republic.
	So why can't I fuck my brother?
	Yeah, exactly.
	It's like, what are you doing?
	You're making atheists look bad by asking questions like that.
	And this is the point.
	It makes Australia look bad by having inquiries like this.
	Nothing to your benefit is the answer.
	We won't go for any more.
	I don't know if we've got any more.
	Sorry?
	Yeah, we'll just go for some comments that have been left for the last five minutes.
	So George Happ says, in the previous podcast you said the main problem with the death penalty is proving guilt.
	Not to sound too libertarian, but the state having the power to execute citizens is quite terrifying.
	They can easily fabricate some evidence for whatever crime is punishable by death to get rid of dissidents.
	You think someone like Tommy Robinson would be alive today if the UK had a death penalty?
	Just to clarify, I don't think there are no crimes that deserve death, but I rather wouldn't give that power to the government.
	I did mention that was the second argument about it.
	Yeah, this is a fairly common libertarian argument against it.
	The thing is, if you think that the government should have guns and defend the borders, then you kind of already are endorsing the government, having the power to decide life and death.
	And the thing is, if the government is an extension of society and created by society, then it's supposed to reflect society's wills.
	And if society wills that paedophiles get the wood chipper too, then they probably should.
	Otherwise your government is telling you you don't get what you want.
	A more domestic version of that argument is made by Peter Hitchens, which is that the government already has the right to do the death penalty.
	They do it whenever they bring armed police officers into a city to deal with the situation.
	They shoot the guy.
	They hand out the death penalty then and there.
	And I don't even think that it's actually that terrifying that the government should have the ability to have access to the death penalty.
	I don't think that's...
	Beyond what they already have anyway, really.
	And I don't think that Tommy Robinson would have been put to death, actually.
	I watched a documentary on this the other day.
	No, in fact, I watched a documentary.
	I watched Philosophy Tube's video on the death penalty.
	And what was interesting is how reluctant the public was in certain cases.
	Like, it...
	People, like the juries, would vote that a person was innocent because they knew that if they voted guilty, they'd get the death penalty.
	And they didn't actually want someone who had done something wrong to get a penalty of death, right?
	And so I don't think the death penalty should be frivolous and thrown around for every case.
	But I do think there are some crimes in which you can prove guilt.
	There is no coming back from it because of just the moral depth of the crime.
	Why do we hand out life sentences?
	Yeah, exactly.
	What's the difference between a life sentence and a death sentence, right?
	Right.
	Specifically, we're talking about here in case someone doesn't know.
	We covered the Redding stabber, who we know he's done it.
	He admitted to doing it.
	He murdered, I think it was like three people, injured another one.
	We gave him a sentence, whole life order, meaning he will never leave prison because he's previously been convicted of this sort of thing.
	Why not just kill him?
	The question is one of epistemological soundness, right?
	Can we rule out that it is not the case that they are innocent?
	And there are some ones you can actually rule out.
	There are some where it's just the evidence is cast iron.
	They've been filmed doing it.
	All of the DNA evidence shows them doing it.
	They've admitted to doing it.
	There are certain cases where it is actually without doubt that they have committed this crime.
	I mean, just an admittance isn't actually enough.
	No, not at all.
	People admit to crimes they didn't commit all the time.
	Yeah, for various reasons.
	But if you've got stacks upon stacks upon stacks of reasoning here, unlike the Reading Stabber...
	Multiple witnesses, video evidence, DNA evidence, you know, all of this stuff, then, you know, if it can't be proved that they didn't do it...
	In light of the evidence that we have, then I don't actually see too much of a problem with that.
	Now, I'm not saying the government is necessarily going to hold those standards all the time, but I don't think we should rule out the death penalty in certain cases.
	Because, I mean, there are some people who just, you know, have tortured and murdered children, and it's just like...
	I'm sorry, I think that deserves death.
	You deserve to be shot for that.
	That's what you deserve.
	Justice would be you getting your comeuppance.
	Not drawing one more breath.
	Not enjoying one more meal.
	Not having one more wank.
	No more good things for you.
	You get the firing squad in those cases.
	And I think there is a dearth of justice in cases where these murderers end up getting out of prison.
	It's like, sorry?
	Why the hell should he have a life when he denied so many people theirs?
	I can't stand it.
	And I can see the arguments.
	Fuzzy Logic says...
	It's not even to say that there's no legitimacy to the other side.
	I understand why people...
	No, no, I used to be on the other side.
	I understand it.
	I was.
	I've changed my view.
	Same here.
	Exactly.
	I... Very much was on the other side.
	Fuzzy Logic says, someone give Jeremy Kyle a call, tell him to dust off the DNA tester.
	That show would have more viewers in their wedding.
	Ka-ching!
	Yeah, exactly, right?
	I mean, I would love, I would love to see what the results would be.
	Prince Charles, you are not the father!
	Oh!
	I mean, just think of that.
	That's the destruction of the monarchy, because it's so gauche, it's so disgusting, it's so...
	It's certainly not necessarily the destruction of the monarchy.
	But that's the point I'm getting at.
	The fact that she went and did an interview with Oprah, it's so wrong.
	Yes, it would be the destruction of Princess Diana's legacy.
	I don't know.
	I just mean the fact that if they went on Jeremy Kyle, Jeremy Kyle is like a pleb of pleb shows in the UK in which we have...
	Yeah, but what do you think Oprah Winfrey was?
	Exactly, right?
	Oprah Winfrey's just some Jeremy Kyle-style drama show.
	I feel like Oprah Winfrey's above Jeremy Kyle.
	Yeah, now that she's a billionaire, but if you go back 20, 30 years, that's what she was doing.
	Exactly that nonsense.
	Which is why it's disgusting.
	It is.
	Sam Jackson says, And anything she
	says should be taken with a grain of salt.
	I do not agree with what she is doing.
	But it's nice to see a royal family that spent years trying to appease the woke mob, finally getting thrown under the bus.
	Yeah, I mean, you wouldn't set a monarchy up if you had the option.
	But the thing is, what this is, is us applying reason to an institution that was not created by reason.
	The monarchy is very, very old.
	Predates the Norman Conquest.
	It's an ancient, ancient institution that came out of the mythical past.
	And this is where the monarchies get their legitimacy from.
	And so applying any kind of rational standard to that, of course, makes no sense.
	I mean, this is the difference between the United States and the UK. The United States, they're really, why would you make a king?
	No, it's a product of reasons.
	Right, but if that's your complaint, your complaint is it doesn't adhere to, you know, reason here.
	Well, of course it doesn't.
	But even our system in the UK, you know, Parliament doesn't adhere to reason, in my view.
	Because, I mean, like, let's take representatives for a second.
	I mean, how many people can you actually vote for to represent you in England?
	One.
	You can vote for your councillor, and you can vote for your MP. That's it.
	And nine times out of ten, they'll just ignore you, because why wouldn't they?
	Nine times out of ten, they're probably Labour.
	And even then, you're in a constituency...
	There's a lot of ways to argue there, but does it work?
	Yeah?
	Yeah.
	On the whole?
	Yeah, it exists.
	Does the monarchy work?
	Does it keep the place stable, even in times of complete political collapse?
	Haven't had a civil war in 400 years, so it seems to be doing the job.
	Like, the monarchy is something...
	Watch The Crown, trust me.
	But the point is, it depends what you're looking for, right?
	Because the way that Sam Jackson's approached this is if reason is the highest good, and reason is a good, obviously, but the question is, is it the highest good?
	Because if you make it the highest good, Then suddenly you realise that actually everything we inherited from our unreasonable, irrational past becomes haram.
	Everything becomes verboten, everything becomes heresy and must be overthrown.
	And that's what turns the communists into revolutionaries.
	That's what makes it so that everything we have inherited is actually bad and so now we're knocking down these ancient buildings because these are a product Of an irrational past.
	And we're setting up now brutalist square buildings, because why would you have a building that was any shape other than square?
	It's totally reasonable to have a giant square concrete block.
	It's like, sure, maybe if, you know, on paper, when I was measuring up the numbers, yeah, this is the most efficient use of space.
	So sure, yeah, yeah.
	But instead, I would actually rather live in a world that looks nice, right?
	And so the question is one of reason versus aesthetics.
	and there is an aesthetic to the crown the monarchy of britain and england as ancient countries that matters and these are not things that can be rebuilt easily take the anointment for a second yeah they literally walk her in put her under a cloth the guy wipes some oil on her and then suddenly she's gone from a princess to a queen yeah doesn't make any sense It's magic.
	Yeah, it is magic.
	Literally.
	But we all respect it in some way.
	But even just the practical sense, taking it out of the point of reasoning, like when the American president falls out with a head of state, who can he call on to call them up and be like, oh no, we'll have a meeting instead?
	No one.
	He can't call out, you know, if he pisses off the President of Mexico, that's it.
	Their relationship's on rocky ground.
	But if the Prime Minister of England pisses off the United States President, the Queen can still call him up and say, let's have dinner.
	And he can't refuse that.
	It's wonderful, because it means he can bring him back in and then woo him.
	That's the thing, right?
	So the reason that this is important, the reason is a very useful tool, but is not the supreme good, is because it's not the only thing that affects reality, right?
	Like you're saying, even though it's like magical, mythical thinking, again, this is what this premium podcast is all about, and this is why I'm able to speak fluently on this.
	Reason is not the only thing that can affect the world, and it's not the only thing that can get things done.
	And I think there is an emotional good in having these inherited things.
	I mean, like the...
	And it's very, very English.
	The English mindset is something that's valuable if it's old.
	There must have been a reason it existed.
	It must have shown some virtue to be able to last for a thousand years.
	It must have.
	And then it becomes deeply embedded in the English mindset that actually, no, There should be a king, there should be a queen, we should have this, and they should be accountable to us.
	And they are accountable.
	It's just not in direct democratic accountability in the way that Sam is envisaging it here.
	And that's not to say that obviously democratic process isn't important, democratic accountability isn't important.
	This is why we have the supremacy of Parliament over the king.
	That was what we fought a civil war over.
	These things are obviously important, but they're not the only things that are important.
	And this is why Piers Morgan is getting upset and storming off the set of Good Morning Britain.
	It's not because there's something uniquely surprising about someone attacking the monarchy, but it's because he feels this irrational sort of aesthetic and moral connection to the institution that in some ways represents Britain as a project, and it upsets him that this is being attacked.
	It's a moral question.
	He was also being embarrassed for wanting Meghan Markle's calls back.
	Yeah, of course.
	But on a fundamental level, it's a deep moral thing that's been...
	Probed in him.
	He clearly doesn't like it.
	So, I don't like the idea of Charles being the next king either.
	To be honest, you know, it's going to be dull.
	What's he going to do?
	Hopefully he won't.
	Hopefully he'll give it to William.
	Yeah, yeah, and William will be alright.
	But the point is, it's a part of our tradition and heritage, and tradition and heritage is not necessarily a bad thing.
	And I don't think we should allow reason to destroy them all if they're not doing any particular harm, which I don't think the monarchy is.
	Because otherwise you end up doing what the French did.
	Yes.
	And when you make reason the soul good, you realise that actually you turn into a pure materialist.
	And being a pure materialist means that you have no time for sentimentality.
	And then you end up doing stupid and crazy things and it's all go bad.
	But anyway, thank you very much for joining us, folks.
	If you'd like more content from us, like the Premium Podcast on Thick Concepts, you can sign up to LoadsToEase.com and support us and enjoy all of the...
	We've got loads and loads of premium content.
	I don't do nearly enough shilling of it, but we have absolutely loads on there.
	So there's absolutely loads to check out.
	But we've also got loads of free content on LoadsToEase.com because we've just hired a new chap called Rory and he's been doing our dispatches, which is short segments of news that's on the front page.
	Can we get it up, John?
	And I'm really, really, really pleased with the way this is going, because what this means is that we've got small segments of shareable news reporting that hopefully will summarize and cover the subject adequately without having to...
	Like, bog you down in unnecessary details.
	And as you can see here, UK Chief Medical Advisor on COVID-19.
	I think it's very easy to forget quite how quickly things can turn bad and get an update on what the UK's Chief Medical Advisor said.
	And if you click on that, John, for us, just to show people, This then goes to our dispatches page.
	So you can scroll down and you can see these are today's updates and you can use the date organizer to view previous days or previous weeks, dispatches, blah, blah, blah.
	And I'm really, really, really pleased with how this is going.
	Roy's got a great writing style for it because it's crisp and clean and just the facts.
	Virtually no editorializing and I think he's doing a great job.

▲