All Episodes
Previous Next
March 11, 2021 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters
01:32:18
The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #86
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen Welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters for Thursday, the 11th of March 2021.
I'm joined by Callum and we're going to be talking about the woke takeover of Good Morning Britain for some reason.
The fact that there's a, I mean, well, not just that, but there's also a public discussion on conversion therapy that we need to have for some reason.
And of course, we're going to be talking about how Mumford and Sons, what is it, banjo player or something?
Yeah, he's decided to cancel himself by the looks of it.
Okay, not necessary.
There are plenty of people who cancel you for you.
But before we start, we have a wonderful premium podcast where me and Callum talk about the depth of moral concepts called Thick Concepts.
And this is important because I think...
Drawing the distinction between the scientific and what I'm just going to call the mythological is actually really useful and we are currently working on part two of this and this is a lead up to the analysis we're going to do on the book Brave New World for the book club.
So there's lots that we've had to go through and I'm very, very happy with the response to this so far.
People in the comments seem to be really...
A, I'm happy that people seem to be understanding what I'm saying because it's quite unusual things that we're talking about.
It's quite a weird conversation to approach and people seem to really be enjoying and appreciating the discussion of it.
So I'm really looking forward to doing the second part.
We also have a new section on the website called Dispatches where Rory has been giving us some amazing updates.
This is all just fast news and I use it myself because it's just such a useful thing to have.
But there are so many small stories that would otherwise go under the radar that I don't want us to miss and Rory's doing a great job here.
And I feel like shilling our Reddit page because, I mean, it's only got 700 followers and Ranveer keeps...
Obviously, he's the social media manager, so he's posting everything to these pages, but he's getting hardly any interaction on Reddit, and I just feel kind of gutted about it.
It's like, we're making him do all of this stuff, and no one uses the Reddit page.
So go follow us on Reddit if you use Reddit, and go and have some discussion.
Post some stuff, because we're always happy to take suggestions and tips and things like that.
But right, let's get into it.
So let's talk about the woke takeover of Good Morning Britain, because obviously in Britain this is a big deal, right?
Because it's one of the largest breakfast shows, and it's a major fixture of mainstream British life, and so it is important for this country.
And Piers Morgan being the sort of last bastion of patriotism just on British TV is an embarrassment, of course, but it was unfortunately a necessary function that he fulfilled.
Apparently they get 32% of all morning viewer share.
There we go, 32%.
And obviously the main contender to that is the BBC Breakfast Programme.
Which is going to be woke because that's the BBC. And so Piers Morgan left, stormed out famously, although I didn't even think his storming out was even particularly ignoble.
Like, I was hoping that it'd be, you know, kind of ridiculous and he'd be shouting and he was just like, no, I'm not having this, I'm off.
And it was like, okay, that was kind of dignified, actually.
Sort of like, I got better things to do than the weatherman.
It wasn't like angry or anything.
It was just, nah, bored.
I honestly was hoping it would be an embarrassment, because I'm not really a fan of Piers Morgan.
But it wasn't.
He actually held himself quite well.
But he tweeted out, one goal I had when I joined Good Morning Britain was to beat BBC Breakfast in the ratings, and we did it on the last day.
It was down to the hard work and dedication of the whole team.
Blah, blah, blah.
Thanks, guys.
I'll miss you.
Good for him.
But he's like, you know, they've got the highest ratings, which is nice, and they won't be matched again, obviously, because Good Morning Britain is now going to go woke.
Interestingly, they lost £200 million in market value, ITV, the channel that it's shown on, just because of that.
The share price sunk by nearly 4%.
So that's interesting, isn't it?
Piers Morgan is worth £200 million in influence there.
Let's find that interesting.
And that's not going to be recouped when Owen Jones joins the team, as he tweets out.
Big news.
Really delighted to announce I'm joining the Good Morning Britain team.
Really excited to take on this new challenge.
Tune in tomorrow morning.
And of course that was a lie.
That's not really happening.
He meant I'm joining as a guest at 8.15 to debate free speech.
What did you all think?
Ha ha ha, Owen.
But the thing is, Owen, I really hope they do hire someone like Owen Jones to replace Piers Morgan on Good Morning Britain.
Especially if he's going to talk about his views on free speech.
Yeah.
We've covered this before.
On his own podcast, someone was openly saying the left needs to do what the right accuses them of, shut down free speech by cancelling people we don't like.
And he just nodded along and then went, that's brilliant.
Yeah.
So that's his view on free speech.
Yeah.
He totally agrees with the most insane radicals that free speech is actually bad and should be opposed, which is why it's really interesting how when asked about free speech, he actually tried to pretend he was in favour of it.
Let's watch the first clip.
Free speech doesn't mean you have the right to a TV program or to a newspaper column.
It doesn't mean that you have the right to any form of public platform.
Most people in the country don't have a public platform and they still have the right to freedom of speech.
So the audio and the video seem to be misaligned, but that was how it was, because I was recording it from their website, you know, I guess from their playback or whatever, so there's nothing I can do about that.
But notice that he's just there really kind of opposing a free society.
If he's saying, well, I mean, you don't have a right to a platform, well then what does that even mean?
Like, you don't have a right to a TV show, why not?
If you've been offered a TV show, you actually kind of do have a right to it, because it's being offered to by whoever owns the TV station.
And if a bunch of activists come along on Twitter and demand you to be taken down, then they are actually depriving you of the right to a platform that you otherwise have every right to.
And the reason for this is because Owen Jones believes in the Soviet Union definition of free speech, which is, if you're allowed to think it, that's freedom.
As soon as you exercise it to anyone else, that's not a lie.
I love his definition.
Well, I mean, you can go out in the street and say this thing.
It's like, oh, thanks, Owen.
I appreciate that you're giving me this right to be able to just speak in the street.
I would have liked to have talked to people on the internet.
Is that not okay?
For these people, it's nothing about human rights.
They don't believe in human rights.
It's just about power.
And they have a big stack of lies that they tell the public on a daily basis.
And if you dare point that out in a significant way, well, that threatens their power base because it's built on lies.
Yes, it does.
So if you can only do it to two people or just yourself in a bedroom, No one cares.
But if you're able to threaten them on national TV, for example, then that's got to go.
Yeah, and which is why it was very interesting how, like, the next thing he says is basically, I hate Katie Hopkins.
It's like, oh, and who the hell was talking about Katie Hopkins?
Let's go for it.
When Katie Hopkins lost her job on LBC after what she said, because the right to free speech doesn't mean the right to freedom of speech without consequences, that wasn't an attack on her freedom of speech.
She could carry on being as hateful and as nasty and bigoted as she wanted and has continued to be and hasn't been arrested for doing so.
Sounds disappointed there, doesn't he?
She hasn't been arrested for doing so.
But you would like it if she was, wouldn't you, Owen?
That's the thing.
You would actually like it if she was.
If she was murdered, he'd be happy.
Yeah.
I mean, just before we started the show, someone's tweeted that exact phrase, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences, with just images of people murdered by Islamists.
Yeah.
Because that's what that phrase is, is a threat.
And it is.
It is exactly a threat.
And the thing is, you'd think Owen Jones, a man who has been beaten up for his political positions, which of course we don't support, don't attack anyone because they have an opinion...
You would think that someone who has had consequences because of his freedom of speech would actually be against that argument, because it seems like he's kind of validating the people who beat him up.
It's like, well, you know, it's just consequences, isn't it?
You know, whereas I actually do take the complete line that, no, freedom of speech, the point of it does mean freedom from consequences, or at least, you know, direct malicious vengeance being enacted upon you.
That's actually what it's supposed to mean.
So Owen Jones is just lying here and totally inverting the thing.
And then he's like, well look, you know, I should be able to, you know, be as horrible as I want and people are allowed to be offended.
I mean, what's this?
And I just think it's a very skewed debate because people portray it as the left being offended by everyone, by others using their freedom of speech.
But I get constantly bombarded by people on the right who are offended by me just expressing my opinions.
If I start talking about, as I've said, British history, the British Empire, It's weird how he's barely able to stop himself from laughing about that, isn't it?
Like, as soon as you can be like, well, you know, they just get offended, the right of the snowflakes, ha ha ha.
It's like, what are you laughing about?
You know, aren't you genuinely worried about these death threats?
I mean, you have been beaten up previously.
So, like, if I were Owen Jones, I would genuinely be a bit more cautious about being so provocative if I thought that there were actually consequences for the things I was going to say like this, which I don't see why he wouldn't think that.
But like you were saying, it's like...
Why, why, why do you have to, in fact you weren't saying this, I was going to say this, like the whole thing about like, oh well, millions of people starved in India.
Yeah, it's because there was a drought.
It wasn't British policy to starve Indians.
It was Soviet policy to starve kulaks.
It was Chinese policy to starve peasants.
And it's weird that the socialist is pointing to the British Empire and saying, you're the bad guys.
When in fact, it's like, well, I mean, you know...
On a record of famines?
Yeah, it's weird that the socialists would bring up famines and be like, yeah, so you've got a problem there.
I have an opposition of strength here.
It's very, very weird.
But yeah, I mean...
But also just that ridiculousness there where he's saying that what he sees is people complaining that the left gets offended by things.
No one cares if the left are offended by things.
What we care about is them demanding that you lose your position.
Them contacting your advertisers.
Like multiple organizations, what is it?
We have Stop Funding Hate in the UK, Sleeping Giants in the US. They literally just try and steal money away from content creators they don't like.
That's not you being offended.
That's you engaging in torturous interference.
Yeah, and that's being openly malevolent.
You know, that's trying to hurt someone because of their political opinions, which incidentally is what happened to you, Owen.
So again, I'm surprised that you're in favour of such a thing, but I guess you just are.
I mean, it's total hypocrisy.
And I think that's what the smirk's about.
I think that's what the fact that he's smiling about.
He's like...
Look, I know that I have the whip hand here, right?
Like, there's nothing you can say to me because I have identity politics defences, I'm left-wing, I'm therefore considered morally correct.
And so I can sit here and advocate for immoral policies that when they are applied to me, like consequences, I deride on TV and I'm the victim.
But if they apply to you, well, you know, you shouldn't have opened your mouth.
Like I said, it sounds like a threat, and I really dislike it.
And for some reason, Owen Jones just brings up gays and pedos just out of nowhere.
It used to be a live debate that gay people were associated with paedophilia.
That was a mainstream view.
That helped justify Section 28 in this country.
It helped justify in the 1970s an attempt to ban gay teachers.
We would say now, you can't, of course we shouldn't be having that discussion or that debate.
And we would also say it would have real-life consequences.
Okay, thanks, Owen.
Thanks for bringing that up.
I'm assuming that's an argument for, like, that used to be a rights suppression of speech that we couldn't talk about being gay.
We used to have that conversation, but we shouldn't be having that conversation.
Have the conversation if you want.
I don't care.
Yeah, who cares?
Like, surely that's the free speech position here.
More conversations.
Incidentally, we're going to put a pin in that and come back to it because we did have these conversations, Owen.
And it's weird that they bring up Section 28.
Because, I mean, who the hell knows what Section 28 is, right?
Or Clause 28, it's often called.
Who knows what that is?
It's largely forgotten these days.
Do you know what it is?
So it was, what was it?
It was the Thatcher government saying that you shouldn't teach homosexuality within schools as being a natural thing or something like this.
It should be that you teach maybe sex ed between men and women and that was it.
Yeah, so pretty just standard conservative.
Nothing controversial there.
But we'll talk about Section 28 in a little bit, actually, because since Owen and various other people are bringing it up, I mean, it might be worth revisiting the concept and revisiting the conversation, because it seems that the Blair government made a mistake, in my opinion.
But anyway, the reason this is important, and the reason that I bring any of this up, is because it seems that there is going to be...
I mean, like, the day Piers Morgan leaves, the next day you have Owen Jones on, deriding free speech, and the British Empire, and Winston Churchill, and various other...
just all these sacred cows of the British Republic.
And so this is what you're going to get.
It begins with Owen Jones, and it's going to get more and more woke as time goes on.
And it's going to feature more and more woke segments.
There's going to be more woke commentators.
And like I said, I really hope that Piers Morgan is replaced with just the wokest of the woke.
You know, someone who is fully committed, presumably a disabled, non-binary, trans person of colour.
That's what I'd be aiming for.
All of the categories.
And then woke as hell on top.
And then woke as hell on top.
We want the very apotheosis of wokeness to be the new presenter who replaced Piers Morgan.
And also Susanna Reid, the white feminist woman who's cis next to her.
And all she's going to have to be saying is yes, that's all true.
Because if I say anything's wrong, then suddenly I'm a privileged oppressor and I made the bed that I'm going to have to lie in.
So, you know, it's definitely going to go further.
And when I say it's going to get even more woke, the very same day, today, this morning's This Morning Good Britain, they had various pieces on.
One of them was the Owen Jones one, talking about free speech.
So, of course, Owen Jones gets to sit there and say the British Empire is bad and free speech is also bad and I should have a free speech platform to air those views.
And they also had a segment on a woman who went missing.
She went for a walk at night or something and went missing.
And so, of course, loads of feminists were going on about this and this has become a big feminist thing.
We'll probably talk about it tomorrow, actually, because it seems to be kind of blowing up.
But they also had this segment on conversion therapy.
Now, conversion therapy is kind of an alien term in Britain.
It's not something that the British public even, I would say, is probably aware of or has any particular knowledge of because we don't really have, like, a religious right that's actively trying to deconvert gays from being gay.
And we're quite, I guess we'll say, biologically essentialist in England.
We think that there is a biological reality of a human being and that this connects directly to their experiences in the world.
And so the common theme, and you'll see this all through this next segment, is that you can't change the way you're born.
And I agree.
I fully agree with this.
In the broad stroke definition, you can't change the fact that you're gay, you can't change the fact that you're black, you can't change the fact that you're whatever it is.
And I completely agree.
I think that's right.
But that's actually not the position of the left at the moment.
The left at the moment is the intersectional left who don't believe in any kind of biological essentialism.
And they believe that, in fact, all of this is down to choice because everything is a social construct.
And if everything is a social construct, we can just choose to reconstruct it and construct it differently.
This, of course, is total nonsense.
But anyway, the question is, why now are we talking about conversion therapy on Good Morning Britain?
And it's because of woke activists that have just taken over.
This is Jane Ozane, who was a member of the Conservative Party and a member of the government's LGBT advisory panel, and the third one to quit in recent days because of, well, the way that Kenny Badendock's running the place.
Not woke.
It's great, isn't it?
Yeah.
Oh, the wokest are purging themselves because of Kemi.
Excellent.
Great job, Kemi.
But let's watch this clip.
So in a religious context, it's normally the religious leader who will conduct and pray.
And wonderfully, in the UK, a coalition of all the major medical and mental health professions came together back in 2017 and made a statement which outlawed the practice of conversion therapy in talking therapies.
Now, there are some rogue, supposed counsellors who will offer their services, but that goes against that agreement that all the mental and medical health practitioners have signed up to.
So it's rare.
These are rogue things, yes.
It's not something that happens often, right?
It's not an institutional practice in the UK to engage in conversion therapy, and it's probably because the Church of England's woke.
It's probably because the Archbishop of Canterbury is in favour of all of these progressive things.
There is no religious right in the UK, or if there is, I mean, name them.
Who are they?
Where are they?
I mean, when Samuel Pathy was murdered, for example, he was spending his time instead whining about climate change or something.
Yeah.
Which is like, you're the leader of the Christian faith in England, and you have no time for the, this guy's been murdered by Islamists.
Nothing to say about him, man.
Because woke matters are more important.
Greta Thunberg has tweeted something.
I don't know what to tell you.
But anyway, so the Independent have produced an article about this, saying that apparently, according to a national survey of 108,000 members of the LGBTQ plus community, it suggests that 2% have undergone the practice of conversion therapy, while another 5% have been offered it.
This means that 2,000 people in Britain have been through this, and 5,000 people have been offered it.
Now, I don't actually know anything about this therapy.
I don't know...
How it's conducted, what is involved.
But I do know that it's by consent.
You have to consent to do it.
So it's consenting adults.
It's consenting adults.
Do they give you a time period for those 2,000 as well?
They do not.
So it could be over 10 years.
Well, it could be over 50 years.
It could be people from the 80s who are saying, yeah, in the 80s I underwent conversion therapy and now I'm still gay or whatever.
So it could be decades old.
But a complete nothing burger in terms of numbers.
Yeah, you would be very, very hard-pressed to find someone in your daily life who is, I mean, just in any way even knows anything about this.
But yeah, so it's not promoted by British therapists or anything like this.
It's just a total non-issue.
And it's very interesting because in this article, as you can see here, if you go down a bit, it says, is conversion therapy harmful?
Notice it's the American Psychiatric Association, the Pan-American Health Organization, the World Health Organization.
Oh, we have to go to America to find out anything about conversion therapy because it's just not a problem in Britain.
It doesn't really happen here, and we don't really have anything to say about it.
And so we have to go find the American religious conservatives, which is what they're trying to frame this in.
But the thing is, it just seems really weird and an obvious American import into this country, because obviously we don't have a big lobby of religious writers who are like, yeah, deconvert the gays.
We don't have a religious right at all.
No, at all.
And so, in fact, let's watch the next clip.
I think what Jay and others would argue is that religious freedom is all very well until the point at which you threaten harm to others by trying to convince them that they can change their sexuality or their gender identity.
Sorry, threaten?
Yes.
Threatening them with your religious beliefs by trying to persuade them.
That's not a threat.
Persuasion is now a form of threat.
What?
I don't know.
I mean, you and me are an atheist, so anything religious just sounds nonsense.
But if a religious person tries to persuade me that there is a god and he cares for you and so on and so forth...
Sorry, but have I just been threatened now?
I guess so.
Can I file a police report?
I'm threatened with hell or something.
What are we saying?
My immortal soul.
But I find this really interesting.
The intersectional position is that these things are not biologically essential.
And so it is now a threat.
If that's the case, if it's threatening to say that someone can change their sex or sexuality, then the intersectional left has been threatening everyone by this standard.
Like, they believe that everything is literally up for change.
I mean, there are plenty of articles from places like Vice, like, you should give being gay a girl or something like this.
It's like, well, okay, stop threatening people, I guess.
And how is that not, like, heterosexual conversion therapy?
Yeah.
How is that not a form of conversion therapy in and of itself?
If we're going down this line of logic.
Exactly.
And if that's a threat, because apparently these things are unchangeable, these are things that you're born with and never change throughout your life, which again, I think is much more accurate than anyone can just be anything at any time, then, I mean, do we not have to stop left-wing outlets from threatening people over this?
It's weird, isn't it?
But this next clip, I think, is an argument that applies to lots of different things.
This is an editor from the Daily Mail who himself is gay and is promoting Boris, saying, well, look, Boris is the most LGBT-friendly Prime Minister, so the Conservatives did nothing wrong here.
It's like, well, I mean, I guess.
But let's hear his argument.
My real worry is that people who are maybe 16, 17, 18, 19, vulnerable, struggling with their sexuality, struggling with their gender, could be forced into these brutal clinics.
They are Dickensian, they are appalling, and they should be closed down.
No, he's not talking about Tavistock.
He's talking about gender...
He's talking about religious therapy clinics, apparently, which, again, I don't know how many exist.
I'm just going to believe him on the face of it, that the horrible places, I don't know, you'll berate it endlessly.
And I agree, for teenagers, no, like, not to be done.
But if it is a consenting adult, I mean, consenting adults do all sorts of things which are just obvious nonsense every day.
In my opinion, any religious activity is just you wasting your time.
And if people are free to do that, I don't know why they shouldn't be free to pay someone to berate them for being gay.
I mean, that's up to them.
I mean, if that's what you're into, you know, I'm not here to judge.
But I just can't help but think, okay, well, what other brutal therapies for transitioning from one status to another shouldn't be available to children?
Great argument.
Any.
Children.
We're talking about children.
Literally, any is the right answer.
And so, yeah, I mean, I agree that kids shouldn't be forced to go through, like, you know, some sort of conversion therapy, obviously.
But again, it's not happening.
Like, the numbers just don't bear it out.
So it's like, okay.
And it's not funded by the state, either.
It's not funded by the state.
It's not approved of by any of the official associations, though there might be a couple of rogue ones who do it.
Like, so what the hell is the problem here?
Why are you discussing this?
And they're like, oh, we have to ban it.
It's like, It's not happening.
We've got to ban something that's just not really happening.
But anyway, the next one is very, very good as well.
Let's watch it.
And sadly, there has been never any mention of protecting our trans friends who are twice as likely to be offered and to be forced to go through conversion therapy.
And I fear it's this government's attitude to the trans community that is right at the heart of this.
They need to embrace the trans community and protect them rather than vilify them, which I'm afraid both Liz Truss and Kemi have been committed to doing at the moment.
It's weird because it's not government policy to promote, endorse, or force anyone into conversion therapy.
I don't think Liz Truss has been doing this.
I can't imagine them doing it.
But again, it's really interesting how we've arrived at the same position of we have to protect trans people from being forced to undergo any kind of procedures or groomed into any kind of procedures they might not have otherwise gone through themselves, willingly, because they're just children.
children.
They don't know.
I mean, I agree with that.
I do.
Anyway, so Jane Ozan quit her position.
And this is where it starts getting quite interesting, in my opinion, because she's the director of the Ozan Foundation, which I guess she named after herself, which works with religious organizations to eliminate discrimination based on sexuality or gender.
That's really interesting.
How many of those organizations are Muslim organizations?
I really want to know.
Should we just round it?
I'll round it to an even zero.
Yeah.
Love my zeros.
Yeah.
And she resigned from the panel, the LGBT panel, but also from the Conservative Party itself, which I take as a net positive whenever a communist resigns from the Conservative Party.
And the thing is, this is, of course, not the only person.
And Secretary of State for Equalities, Kemi Badenock, gave no timeline on banning conversion therapy, no specifics related to potential legislation.
She was like, I've got other things to deal with.
And repeatedly refused to use the word ban.
She's so great.
The thing is, right, I bet if you asked her, she would just go, I don't care about conversion therapy and I'm not interested in promoting it.
But I'm not going to play your game.
I'm not going to do what you say.
Oh, we want you to do this.
That's nice.
Leftist.
What now?
But that's the thing you're getting at, where this is a big issue for leftists online who are concerned about this because it happens in the United States and places like Twitter, places like Reddit or Tumblr, whatever, it crosses over those concerns.
So those people are heavily concerned about it because they see it on social media.
Yeah.
and they think this is a huge issue you've got to deal with it and they're like yeah no britain has its own problems uh see me some other time i'm busy yeah i've got a job and and they can't stand it yes um so uh the she says for me the straw that broke the camel's back was they not speak on month speech on monday at the extra at the end of an extraordinary debate on the need to ban conversion Again, this is just, nobody is demanding this.
She said that while the Secretary of State for Equalities did discuss the need to protect minors, she showed no understanding of the impact conversion therapy has on adults like myself who consented to it.
Uh-huh.
So you, she, has gone through conversion therapy.
She paid the person to do this.
She paid the person to do this.
She consented to doing it.
And she didn't like it.
She says she nearly ended up dying because of it.
I mean, I don't even know what it involves.
Jesus, what are they doing there?
I don't know, but I'm just going to assume it's really bad.
I agree.
You know, don't go through it.
If someone asks you, would you like to go through conversion therapy?
Just don't consent.
Like, that's where the point we're at.
Just don't consent.
That's my opinion.
I actually feel the same way about, you know, especially when they're saying here, well, we don't want children going through this.
Yeah, and there are other kinds of transitional therapies that I don't think children should go through either.
Again, just don't consent.
I mean, something you and the government can actually do something about because you are funding it.
Yes.
This is not randos in the society doing it of their own accord.
No, it's not.
This is the Tavistock Clinic.
So this is NHS, government funded, publicly funded.
But you don't have to consent.
And so I recommend that you don't.
Anyway, she continued, They do not have the confidence of many senior religious leaders who have also called for a ban.
Okay, did the Muslim Council of Britain sign off on this?
I'm very curious.
I want to know their opinion.
But I mean, they've got a progressive lady running them now as well, so they'll probably sign off on it.
So we'll get to hear from the Birmingham dads who are just like, what?
We're in favour of this!
Don't get me wrong, I love the Birmingham dads, to be honest.
But Badenock and her boss, Equality Minister Liz Truss, when referring to them, Ozan added, they are known amongst the community as the Ministers for Inequality.
Good.
Inequality is a good thing, and equality will never happen.
Inequality is a natural part of life.
The question is why people are unequal.
Is it because of them being artificially held back, or is it because they're being artificially raised, or is it that they have legitimately earned what they have?
And in that case, I think it's justice.
When people get what they deserve, that is justice.
And some people don't get something because they don't deserve it.
That is justice and that is an inequality.
So we can say that equality is actually a state of injustice.
But that's also the point here.
If the rules are equal and people earn their lot by fair means, well then the inequality here is actually good, in which case the equality would be evil.
Yes.
So why are you aiming for that?
Yes.
And if equality just meant the same rules applying to all...
Indiscriminately.
That's not what it means.
Then there would be no question about the concept of equality, and that would be...
But the thing is, the debate would have been over, because we've had that since the Middle Ages.
So, like, this has unironically been, like, one of the great achievements of English history is to get the king to have to follow the rules that come from the king.
You know, it's like, well, I've got to make rules that apply to me.
Yes.
And we're going to fight civil war over it if you don't.
I don't want to get patriotic about it, but that's actually really...
One of the things England can be proud of is the creation of the rule of law.
So the consequent material inequality is actually morally just.
And inequality under this circumstance is not morally just.
But anyway, let's talk about Section 28.
Because they keep bringing this up.
And I didn't really have an opinion on it until they started bringing it up, and so I had to look into it.
And I realise we're going quite long now, so I'm going to try and hurry up a bit.
So yeah, this is a British law that prohibited the promotion of homosexuality by local authorities.
It was introduced by Thatcher in the 80s, repealed by Blair in 2000.
And this is a quote from a 1999 House of Lords debate that was had on it.
And I find this really fascinating because they're discussing the exact same things we're discussing now.
This is from an archive.
So the Baroness Knight of Colantry says, So already it's sounding like the Muslim parents from Birmingham coming to us with, like, look at this stuff, you know, we don't want this taught to our children, and under British law we actually have the right to intervene here, which they do, and I can't help but agree with them completely on this.
I think what's going on here is wrong.
I have a book that everyone should remember.
It was called Jenny Lives with Eric and Martin.
It depicted on its cover a little girl of about six years old sitting up in bed with her naked father on one side and his naked lover on the other.
I shall quote the exact words used in the book because that more than anything else shows the age for which it was intended.
It stated, Anything to say about that Owen Jones?
You know, you're the one who brought up paedophilia and gays.
Anything to say about that book?
Why is that book being promoted in extremely left-wing boroughs in London back in 1999?
Why is that the case?
Why is it always the case with Labour?
And things like this is not gays, right?
This is left-wing activism, right?
There are going to be loads of right-wing gays who are conservative when it comes to things like, in fact, that Daily Mail guy.
He was actively saying, well look, I don't want children to be harmed by any of these things.
I'm sure that he's completely sincere in that.
And so a person who I guess we'd consider right-wing, who would not be in favour of this, could be gay.
So it's not about them being gay or straight.
It's about them being right-wing or left-wing.
And it's a constant theme from the left to try and erase the age of consent.
It's just constant press.
They've done it for years and years and years, and they will continue to do it.
You can look at the French intellectuals in the 70s.
You can look at Harriet Harman being part of the Pi, Pedophile Information Exchange or something.
I can't remember.
She was part of a group called Pi, P-I-E. And they were trying to promote pedophile rights, basically, back in the 80s.
And it's like, what the hell is wrong with you people?
And then in the 90s, it's like, well, look, it's just little Jenny in bed with her naked dad and his lover.
Nothing to worry about here.
On a kid's book, it's like, what the hell is wrong with you people?
You've seen the same intellectual arguments with the voting age.
They do not want to limit it to adults.
In fact, they are expressly arguing if Labour get in, they will give it to teenagers.
The Green Party want to go even further and give it to literal children.
Yes, yes.
And that's the thing.
They view children as being the mental equals of adults, and they're just not.
And I'm saying this as a dad.
I know my kids are not the mental equals of adults and should not be given.
Anyone who lives in reality knows this.
Anyone who lives in reality knows this.
But nature is a class traitor and must be overcome.
Yes, exactly.
Nature is.
And this is the problem.
Kids will make decisions that are bad decisions that they don't have the foresight to be able to...
See the chat.
Just show your child this book, Bigot.
Yeah, exactly.
Just let them read this book.
And it's like, no.
And the thing is, there's another one, right?
I referred to the earlier noble lord, Lord Harris of Harringey.
Harringey Council made a video called How to Become a Lesbian in 35 Minutes.
So if we're talking about gay conversion therapy, how is that not gay conversion therapy?
It was intended to be shown in a school for mentally handicapped girls, some of whom were extremely young.
In the course of my many years as a local counsellor, I took great interest in the mentally handicapped children in my area.
I served in the boards of the schools.
From my experience of those children, it is difficult enough for them to understand normal human sexual relations without having homosexuality foisted upon them.
And all of this is stopped by Clause 28.
Clause 28 was introduced for that purpose and that purpose alone.
It was not intended to harm people who as adults decided that this was the way of life for them.
Clause 28 had nothing to say about that.
Then Clause 28 did nothing wrong.
Yeah, I mean, by her argument there, what's there to disagree with?
So, them screaming, oh, there's going to be a return to Section 28 and Clause 28.
It's like, okay, if we're lucky, I don't really want my children to have gay propaganda foisted on them, especially not like mentally disabled children.
Because that's the thing.
What the hell's wrong with you?
It's put today as if it was you couldn't teach that gay people existed and you must deny that homosexuality was real.
Or that adult gays were being oppressed by it or something like that.
It's not true at all.
Doesn't seem to be the argument.
The argument was you can't talk about these things to children because they're children.
Try not to give mentally disabled girls how to become a lesbian in 35 minutes videos.
Is that unreasonable?
To the left, yes.
Well, yeah, okay, yeah, to the left, yeah.
And Nick Seaton, the chairman for the Campaign for Real Education, once said, Before Section 28 came into force, we were getting considerable numbers of parents complaining to us about the promotion of homosexuality in schools.
After Section 28, it almost disappeared as an issue.
If Section 28 were to be repealed, it is almost certain that the promotion of homosexuality would become a huge bone of contention between parents and schools.
And lo and behold, what were the Muslim parents complaining to us about?
Exactly that.
It's just the fact that the Labour Party seem to be wanting to promote this in schools.
And it's really, really frustrating because it's like, well, it's just not appropriate.
Call me a social conservative on that regard if you like, but I'm just concerned about the mental well-being of my children.
And it's so weird that they're like, yeah, we want the right to be able to promote homosexuality, but you're not allowed to stop us promoting homosexuality or else we're being oppressed.
I mean, we've spoken about this before, but it's, what is it called?
Like sex and relationships education or whatever term they're using it now.
But it's, you know, across the board I actually agree you shouldn't be teaching this in primary schools and secondary schools if possible at all.
Yeah.
Like, I don't see it as legitimate.
It's the parents' job to teach them about, like, the birds and the bees, right?
Yeah, in my view it's not just homosexuality, it's heterosexuality as well.
Yeah.
So, I mean, expanding section 28, essentially.
I mean, if you want to talk about, like, you know, if you've got, like, the biological diagrams, this is, you know, the various anatomy of an organ.
So when I was at school, which is younger than yours, we had, I think it was biology classes, we went into sexual reproduction, and then in the, like, relationships or sex ed classes, you went into the other stuff.
Yeah.
So those are two different things.
So you can teach biological reproduction without having to go into the other section.
Yeah, I just think that should be the responsibility of the parents.
But anyway, let's wrap this up very quickly by pointing out that Ben Bradley has joined the Women's Inequalities Committee, and the left is howling about this.
Ben Bradley is a very sensible man, a northern conservative, and he seems to just be a normal guy.
But the thing is, being a normal guy at this point makes him basically an MRA, Being an actually sane person.
Yes, being an actually sane person puts him in the realm of, well, Nazi, basically, according to Pink News.
I love the way this is.
Conservative MP Bren Bradley is joining the Women's Inequality Select Committee months after calling on the government to protect the rights of straight men.
Yeah.
What's wrong with that?
What's wrong with protecting rights?
Suddenly, Pink News is on the side of destroy human rights.
Yeah.
Well, I mean, suddenly.
Does straight men not have human rights, Pink News?
Like, I'm genuinely curious.
I want to know your opinion on this.
I hope you would write a response to me saying, oh yeah, the notorious bigot Sagan of Akkad says that straight men have rights.
What an evil man!
I was like, sorry!
He announced that he was becoming a committee member to be part of the debate on some really important and pressing issues, which is fair.
He replaces 21-year-old Conservative MP Sarah Brickcliffe, becoming one of three men in the 11-member group and the only straight man.
So previously, no, but think about it.
Previously, despite being like roughly half the country, straight men had zero representation on this panel.
Now, all we hear from the left is that representation matters.
And if representation matters, then I'm afraid it is incumbent on some straight white men to demand this representation.
And so Ben Bradley is doing the progressive thing by being the representation you want to see.
If you can see it, you can be it.
Well, by their definition, the Women's and Equalities Committee is actually heterophobic.
Yes.
And has been for years.
Yes.
And male-phobic, whatever, andro-phobic or whatever it is.
But yeah, so, you know, they're like, how dare he?
It seems a surprising career move for the MP who has proudly refused to take part in the unconscious bias training to tackle sexism, racism and homophobia last year.
So, good.
Good.
Ben Braddy was one of those conservative MPs who was like, I'm not doing unconscious bias training.
Good man.
Yeah, he didn't want to be witch-dunked.
Yeah, sorry.
I'm not going to go through a struggle session.
Right, okay, good man.
So this is basically Ben Bradley saying, look, I'm not a communist.
Good.
And Piggy is complaining why there are not enough communists on our board.
And Jane, whatever, faces going, well, he's not a communist and I'm out.
I'm leaving this Conservative Party.
I thought this was a communist party.
Yeah, exactly.
They're not real conservatives.
But yeah, so he complained apparently on International Men's Day that there was no minister for men to ensure that straight people are equally protected as gays are.
Which is like, wow, that would be equal.
That would be what equality would look like.
Equal treatment.
Which is why they're so upset about it.
Men are talked about all too often as the problem which must be rectified.
Too often the constant drive for equality and diversity seeks to drag others down and lift everyone up.
It's perfect.
Word for word, what I would have said.
And yeah, so he's just like, I won't continue on, but Ben Bradley basically is based and red-pilled on the left is implementing privileges and not rights.
And of course, women condemn the choice of Ben Bradley for the equalities role.
Women.
Women.
The women's.
We've done a poll.
Yeah, the women's have got stuff to say.
Or 30 million of them.
Yep, and the women's weren't happy with this.
Obviously, what they mean is female Labour MPs.
Like Kim Johnson, one of Ben Bradley's new colleagues on the Women's Equality Committee, tweeted in disbelief, Ben Bradley, he of the FSM vouchers go to crack dens and brothels.
I don't know what an FSM voucher is.
I don't know either.
But who wants a minister for men because the Equality Act doesn't give enough protection to the woefully marginalized straight white men is now the Tory pick for the Women Inequalities Committee speechless.
Well, I mean, he is the only straight white man on the Women's Inequalities Committee.
So if he's saying that that's the case, you seem to be confirming it.
Free school meals.
Free school meals, right.
I don't recognize.
Well, where's the line?
Changed my mind, that's all I'm saying.
Ben Bradley being the Conservative Choice for Women's Inequalities Committee is, I can only assume, someone's idea of a joke, agreed Lib Dem Councillor Hannah Perkin.
In reality, it's just incomprehensibly awful.
Yes!
Incomprehensible awfulness for the Lib Dems and Labour.
Yes, I love how this is going, right?
Their shock was shared by Leanne Patrick, a specialist nurse in gender-based violence and founding member of the Feminist Network for Nurses, who said it was hard to imagine a worse pick for this important position.
Yes!
Yes!
That's what I like to hear, Conservatives!
Kemi just looking at them going, yes!
Destroy them all!
Make them weep all over social media!
God, no, they're not appointing a communist!
Yes!
Yes!
He has repeatedly demonstrated a clear lack of understanding on key issues relevant to his role in the Equalities Act.
He hasn't read enough communist theory.
He has shown contempt for women, struggling families in the Black Lives Matter movement.
Yes!
Well done.
I want more of that.
More from Ben Bradley.
More from Kimmy Bain-Duck.
More weeping feminists on Twitter.
That's what the Conservatives should be doing every day of your lives.
Love it.
Totally right.
I just love how that actually sounds like a Soviet complaining as well.
He's not never enough theory.
He's not been to the marches.
He's not a communist.
He's a member of the Conservative Party.
I'm resigning from this Conservative Party.
A bit of a white pill there.
Anything out of the inequalities department seems to be white pills.
Because it's just Kemi bashering everything down, going, this is all communism, get out of here.
God, I love Kemi.
Anyway, last thing here is Mumford& Sons.
I don't really follow music that well, so sorry for the ignorance around this.
They sound like a shoemaking shop or something.
That's so true.
Anyway, they're a band.
I think this guy is the banjo player or something.
Josh is probably ripping out his ears listening to this.
So he is in trouble.
I like the way they have a banjo player.
I mean, this is sounding rather traditional.
He's in trouble for liking a book.
He read a book.
He liked it.
He said that he liked it.
And that's it.
That's enough.
Get up against the wall.
Was it Mein Kampf?
Bring in the firing squad.
No.
I mean, if it was Mein Kampf, I could actually understand.
Yeah, I mean, if he was reading The Jews and Their Lies, and he was like, really important book guys, or something like this, he'd be like, okay, I can see why people...
Martin Luther raises some good points.
You'd see why people would be like, wow, this seems pretty out of place.
But no, the book in question was Andy Knows, which we have on the bookshop there.
Oh, that we've done a book club on.
The Unmasked.
Check out the book club.
We did an interview with Andy Knows.
It's great.
And the book is just a journalistic documentation of what Antifa believe, what they have done, their theory been put into practice in Chaz, and the results.
And he has some inside documentation, which everyone should look at.
And he went to the Chas as well, didn't he?
Yeah.
I mean, it was a brave thing for him to do.
The thing that is the most striking is him being well-known in Antifa circles, you know, them sending him death threats, they'd come to his house, they'd beat him up, and he was still like, no, I still want to report on, you know, how they act.
And he went to the Chas, an area which law enforcement had already said, we will not come to.
If you are in trouble, you will have to leave, and then we will pick you up.
So if you die in there, you're dead.
He went undercover, covered himself up, and he ran into someone in there who had previously given him death threats, and then was in the chas, armed.
The person had a firearm.
And he was still in there recording and documenting what went on.
And we know that they're on the hunt for him because they kept accosting random Korean-looking men, or South Asian-looking men.
Oh, that's optimistic of their understanding.
They went for anyone with Asian characteristics.
I mean, the video of the guy being like, you think I'm anti-no, don't you?
You racist C-words, you know, like, how dare you?
And they're like, well, you just look like him, bro.
So for the crime of actual journalism, going to the scene, risking his own safety to find out what this organization believes and then putting it in book form, that's it.
That's what it is.
It is not Mein Kampf.
It is not, you know, a manifesto of talking about how we need to save the white race or anything like this.
It's just journalism.
That's not what Mein Kampf is.
But like, Mein Kampf is that Germans should rule everything.
Yeah, it's German supremacy.
Yeah, but like, and you know, it's not any kind of manifesto.
It's, like you said, a journalistic endeavour.
Yeah, and so Mumford& Sons bandry player, Winston Marshall, decided to read this, and he decided to tweet out that it was important.
So if we can scroll down, there's the first tweet from him, which is him saying that it's important.
So congratulations, Andy Ngo.
Finally had the time to read your book.
You're a brave man.
It's an important book, and he's a brave man.
Right.
Well, I mean, wouldn't a reasonable person sign off on that?
It is important.
It's the only documentation of Antifa in depth that I've ever seen that's great.
That's not pro-Antifa as well.
Yeah.
I mean, there was a guy in Germany we met who did a few of these, but I can't read German, so sorry about that.
Maybe we should clarify in English then.
Yeah, in the Anglosphere.
I mean, you can get pro-Antifa books, which, I mean, no one cares about, apparently.
The Antifa, what is it, the handbook?
Yeah, the Antifa handbook, yeah.
I mean, this is just a documentation of what they've done, and it's the best one out there.
And him being a brave man, I mean, he did risk his own personal safety to do the reporting.
And has done many times.
So, yeah, braver than me, I ain't done anything like that.
So, for this, he got massive backlash, they say, and the massive backlash was from leftists who were upset about this.
But one of the things I want to keep in mind is just, this doesn't seem to have been as big as it sort of made out.
I don't feel like he was actually under immense pressure, except maybe from the other band members, as we'll see in a sec.
So, the first one, the first tweet I want to show is some musician who I don't know.
Again, sorry for the ignorance.
And he's saying, the fact that this T-word from Mumford is openly showing his support for continued oppression slash fascism slash the interests of greed is almost normal now.
Almost normal to say Antifa is bad because they're a bunch of socialist terrorists.
The fact that this guy from Mumford is openly showing his opposition to terrorists, communists, and the interests of destroying Western civilization is almost normal now.
Good.
How horrible.
Good.
And then he ends it with, it's effed.
Nope, this is a good thing.
And then the next one I want to show was someone saying that Munford and Sons are the landlords of rock and roll.
Yeah, the landlord rights.
That's what we say.
I know, but it's great because it's actually a little reference there to the fact that, yes, they are communists.
They think landlords are not people and deserve to be killed.
Yeah.
Or, you know, all their property deserves to be stolen.
Yeah.
Which is why on this podcast we support landlord rights.
Yes.
And then the next one here is just like upset press being very mad about some of the things.
Oh, not Jordan Peterson as well!
So this was some heresy he had done before in which him and the band had taken a picture with Jordan Peterson.
If we can scroll down, you can eventually see the picture.
And it's just them hanging out with Jordan Peterson.
A moderate Canadian psychologist.
They met a psychologist.
That was it.
That was a piece of heresy.
So apparently they've been upset with him for a little while.
And he buckled.
He released a hostage statement in response to this.
And it's kind of sad.
So...
He says here, Okay, just stop there for a second.
Random people on the internet upset.
Bandmates upset.
Well, why are your bandmates upset?
Because you said communism bad.
I mean, if they're meeting Jordan Peterson as well, I doubt that that's their position.
They would have called him a reactionary and hit him or something.
So I'm not too inclined to believe that.
2,000 quote tweets on this, though.
Yeah.
So, hmm.
Last part here.
Oh yeah, also the fact that he's leaving to examine his own thoughts.
I mean, it's like a prisoner serving a sentence.
He's literally doing this to himself.
For now, please know that I realise how my endorsements have the potential to be viewed as approvals of hatred-divisive behaviour.
Hatred-divisive behaviour.
Documenting terrorists.
I apologise, as this was not all my intention.
So, I mean, what they're saying is either agree with Antifa or be considered hateful and divisive.
Yeah, and this hostage statement just reads like, I love communism, please don't kill me, to me.
I will retire myself, therefore you don't have to gulag me.
Yeah, but he didn't need to do this.
Like, the backlash, from what I've seen, is actually kind of pathetic.
I mean, maybe in his personal life he had something going on, and then, you know, maybe I have more sympathy for this, but I find it hard to believe that especially it's coming from your bandmates who are happy to hang out with Jordan Peterson.
And then you just see the numbers here.
So there were, like, 2,000 quote teats, only 700 likes.
There were 9,000 comments on this tweet alone.
Bloody hell.
Of conservatives, centrists, reasonable people.
Basically saying, don't do this.
This is cringe to watch.
And it didn't help him at all.
The response to this just carried on from the communists because no hostage statement is ever enough.
So let's go to the next one.
So this is an opinion journalist for CNN. Otherwise known as Communism Incorporated.
So Andy Ngo is neither conservative nor a journalist.
He's probably best described as a fascist groupie, but okay.
In response to him saying that he would be stepping away from the band.
I mean, there was no point in apologizing to these people.
But, like, that's just the most wrong description of Andy Ngo that I've ever seen.
He's obviously just a regular American conservative, and he obviously is a journalist because, I mean, that was his job before you guys started demonizing him, and no one ever said he's not a journalist then.
He writes for the Wall Street Journal, places like this.
And suddenly he's now a fascism groupie.
But there's columnists for CNN Opinions.
I bet you've done more journalism.
Oh yeah, you're right.
Very few people have done as much as Andy has in the last few years.
I like the way he looks like the sort of Kuma face.
The yelling Kuma face.
The eternal Kuma.
Anyway, but the nice thing about this as well was, at least on my timeline, I could see that basically every British conservative was backing up Andy Ngo here and sort of saying, that's dumb.
So the narrative is very much the push from the left here actually is kind of pathetic.
Usually it's them overwhelmingly in the spotlight because they're the ones all on Twitter.
Everyone else has been banned except tepid people.
But this is Kelvin Robertson, a British conservative, saying that he highly recommends Andy No's book.
And yeah, I certainly do because Antifa are fascists.
And then the next one here is just Lawrence Fox doubling down saying he seconded it.
And then we've got copies of Andy's book.
I think both of them have probably interviewed him or met him for this.
And they're right.
And Andy made a good response to this as well, this whole drama.
I grieve for those who are made to suffer because they dare to read my work or talk to me.
The danger of Antifa and their allies is not only their willingness to carry out or support maining, killing, and terrorism, but also how they close curious minds from independent thought.
Excellent.
Excellent statement.
20,000 likes.
But I like how this is a weird example because...
This would be simple enough to be like, oh look, the guy's been cancelled by the far left who are hating him, but I don't see the pressure there.
I can't actually envision what pressure was on him from the online discourse, in which case I can only assume it's coming from maybe his girlfriend or something like this.
Yeah, I mean, it's interesting how the left hate Andy Ngo beyond anything, but Andy Ngo is...
So credible on this subject that none of the conservatives go against him, right?
So there's never any kind of mutual agreement that Andy Ngo is actually evil and therefore.
And so it always just seems that they're just shouting at a wall and just throwing everything they can.
And it becomes hysterical, you know, fascist groupie.
What the...
Yeah, I mean, this is a point.
So, Tarko made a response to this, and I absolutely agree with him on the point I made earlier, which is their worldview, Antifa, is just built on endless lies, and the left have openly accepted them at least over the last 20 years.
Yes.
CNN have been defending them.
The Guardian used to demand that they should be arrested back in 2009, and now they openly defend them.
This has seeped into modern left-wing thought and has destroyed their movement, in my view.
It has made them so laughable, it's absurd.
I mean, openly simping for communist terrorists in the West.
And Andy Ngo is the man who looks at that wall of lies and says, right, that's wrong.
Here's the journalistic evidence to show it.
Here's their insider documents saying that they openly know that they're liars.
They openly know that they're committing terrorism.
They openly say we want destruction of the United States because it's Western liberalism.
And they can't have it.
Liberals get the bullet too.
Exactly, right?
And they can't have this because they're having their entire mountain of lies exposed.
So they try and silence Andy, but it's never going to work because he's just sat on a mountain of truth.
There's no amount of lying that will take that down.
And it's cringe to see the guy from Month and Sons...
Well, this is why they have to attack him constantly, physically attack him.
Yeah, but it's cringe to see because the strength, I think, culturally is exactly on Andy's side now.
I mean, maybe ten, five years ago, this was definitely on Antifa's side.
Practically untouchable, only anti-fascists.
But I mean, after the year of riots we've had especially, there is no public sympathy for such things.
In which case, I just view it as the guy cancelling himself.
I mean, even Black Lives Matter are turning on Antifa, going, look, it's the white kids that are the problem.
Yeah, that's an amazing clip.
I mean, I probably won't be able to find it, but basically there's a really cool clip of some Black Lives Matter people shouting in the early days before it became openly known as Marxist, so I imagine a lot of people there were just sympathetic.
And then there's this white kid in a balaclava or covered up in black block, smashing up the floor to bring chunks of rock out to throw at the police.
And three black guys just turn around and look at him and go, it's the goddamn white people!
And they grab him!
They grab him, throw him over to the police, and just go like, arrest that guy!
And they do, and it's great.
Because I'm just like, yep, okay, that's good.
Antifa brings solidarity between the cops and Black Lives Matter.
Yeah, just like, get rid of the communist terrorists.
It's like, okay, good, good.
Because you can tell those were actual, just like, normal guys, and not the radical Marxists who run the BLM organization.
People who actually have, you know, probably genuine concerns about police and things like this.
But yeah.
Excellent.
Well, I mean, apart from the guy self-canceling, at least I don't feel that things are going terribly.
No, that was a good shot in the culture war, I think, of actually seeing that, no, there is no weight on the anti-far side anymore.
I don't think the 2020s should be considered an era in which that exists.
They're dead, culturally.
Everyone hates them.
Hopefully.
Fingers crossed.
Right, let's go to some video comments.
Good afternoon, gentlemen.
As an American traveling abroad, I can't help but notice that you were prisoners of the crown.
And they didn't even have the decency to lock you in the tower like proper villains.
So my question is, what's the way forward for Great Britain?
Is it now an eternal question of communism versus communism light?
Or is there some opportunity for someone like Farage to come to power?
Also, if you need any assistance with a tyrannical British monarchy, All you have to do is ask.
After all, we are 2-0.
Well, you say that, but you seem to have your own tyrannical American monarchy at the moment.
How about 2-0?
Did he forget 1812?
I think he did.
But, I mean, he's not wrong, though.
We are all prisoners in our own bloody homes at this point.
So...
I don't think anyone can blame the Crown for this.
Because I know we were discussing, the whole point of the monarchy is to be very hard to tell where they side politically.
But I did remember something the other day, which is, I think it was either this Queen's speech or the last one at Christmas I watched.
And she was giving the speech, she was talking about the moon landing.
She was like, it was a great moment for all of mankind.
And a woman kind.
And you could tell in the tone of voice that she was like, who wrote this crap?
Yeah.
It's like that a-men and woman-men.
Yeah.
A-woman.
Like, she gave a big pause.
Like, she was reading it being like, what?
And then she said it like, goddammit.
So, yeah, I don't actually have the view that the Crown is the political part of the UK. Unfortunately, it would be so much easier if it was, but unfortunately, hundreds of years have passed since the Revolutionary War.
Constitutional amendments have been updated, and the supremacy of Parliament...
Has become the problem in this country.
And yeah, so that means...
And honestly, the media.
It's the media that has so much control at the moment.
But what do you make of his point about, is it communism or communism-lite?
Well, I mean, that's...
It's communism, communism-lite, or chemi-ism.
And I'm down with chemi-ism.
Yeah, I'm down with chemism.
Let's do it.
Yeah, if she wants to be Prime Minister, hell yeah.
That'll be amazing.
As long as she keeps putting a knee on the neck of leftists, I'm fine with it.
Or Liz Truss, actually.
Liz Truss is also pretty good.
Yeah.
Because they understand the problem, which is the Communist bad.
Yeah.
That's all I'm asking for.
It's not that hard.
It's really not that hard.
Just when they say, can we have something, you just say no.
Win an election.
Yeah.
We'd like to ban conversion therapy.
Just no.
I'm not in favour of conversion therapy.
I'd rather it didn't happen.
We're not going to ban it because you're asking.
Shut up.
You could not like hockey, for example, but I'm not going to ban it.
Yeah, exactly.
It's not being forced upon you, so just don't do it.
Anyway, simple as.
Yeah, simple as.
Next one.
Hey, I'm wondering if you're ever going to do a book review or a Starship Trooper's breakdown of World War C. It's a really good book with a lot of social-political commentaries, chief of which is how the entire apocalypse was completely unavoidable, but because of government's lack of transparency and ability to step up allowed A lot of business moguls and opportunists just abuse it until everything just collapsed around them.
It'd be interesting to hear your take of it.
Well, I haven't read World War Z, but I've heard good things about it.
I tried watching the film, and the film was atrocious.
I didn't hear good things about it being related to the original text, so maybe I will read it.
But it seems like it's something that could logically follow from the Brave New World book club, because I think it's the problem of the scientists taking over and Making a bunch of unethical decisions because they've abolished the moral language that we would otherwise have used that leads to this sort of thing.
But like I said, I haven't read it, so I don't want to comment there.
I haven't read it either, but I did know something in the chat here.
People were like, if that's the case, then maybe Q is the queen.
Like, she's the secretly based one who's leaking everything.
Obvious nonsense, but I'd love the idea.
Yeah, let's go for the next one.
Hey Carl.
Hey Callum.
I found your response to the abortion question the other day, a little telling when you said you didn't want to stop and think about it.
That tells me that, you know, if you stopped and thought about it, rape exceptions for abortions are not morally justifiable.
Anyway, my question to you though is, given everything going on in the United States right now, should violence actually break out, what do you think the rest of the world's response to that would be?
Thank you.
That's a big question, because it depends on a lot of factors.
I mean, it depends what the US military do.
If the military gets involved with domestic issues, then it'll start removing itself from deployments, and that'll produce...
Vacuums into which places like Russia and China and Iran are going to be able to enter.
And so it's like, well, you know, but if that doesn't happen, it becomes an exclusively sort of civilian affair.
I mean, NATO should be fine, in Europe at least.
South Korea Japan would be fine.
I mean, maybe some problems in the Middle East, but...
I mean, how would we respond if they're...
Well, you say that, but what if?
What if they're not?
What if they're like, okay, we're going to pull troops back from wherever to fight against the communist uprising or to fight the militias or something?
You know, which Joe Biden could quite easily do.
The Chinese are definitely going to start taking...
The Chinese are going to go to Taiwan, probably, yeah.
Yeah.
I'm not saying they'll be safe.
Yeah, they're definitely going to start making moves.
And so...
And the Russians will do the same in the Middle East.
So, yeah.
I mean, it's pretty bad.
I mean, they'll do it in Ukraine is what I was thinking.
Yeah, but they'll also, like...
I mean, don't they still have troops in the Middle East, the Russians?
They have them in Syria, as far as I'm aware.
Well, that is the Middle East.
Yeah, but what are they going to do?
Well, I don't know.
That's the point, isn't it?
We don't know what will happen.
I mean, as for a diplomatic response, I mean, it would be interesting.
I mean, our response to the last American Civil War, like, we didn't recognize the South.
Yeah, well, we did send them money and resources.
I don't think we did.
Yeah, we did.
Do you mean on the outside?
Do you mean for the whole thing?
I'd have to go back and look, but I know that we essentially supported this elf.
It might not have been formal, but we sent them ships, we sent them money.
If for no other reason, but for a laugh.
If for no other reason, just screw the North.
Because the North were obviously going to win.
But I know we eventually fell out with them because it was just like, oh, we can offer you cotton.
We were like, yeah, but we can get it in India or in Egypt.
No real interest there.
And we didn't use slaves to make it.
But no, I'm sure we did support the South.
Fact check me.
I'm sure we did, though.
But it wasn't like full-throated support or anything, because really, the North was right.
I imagine the government would probably just abstain, see who wins, and then side with them.
I think it was just power politics.
Oh, the Americans have become weakened, have they?
Great, let's weaken them some more, so we can continue doing what we're doing.
I imagine that was what the real root of it was.
We've got another one?
Hey, guys.
I was just thinking, isn't the ultimate end result of keto and communism the same?
An absence of bread?
So I have said, if you write a dad as a manifesto, there has to be a section on there about Keto, as you've said.
You have to title it The Conquest of Bread.
But I mean, he's not wrong.
I can't identify the lie, if that's the mission here.
I guess that's it.
I guess I'm a communist.
Right.
Next one.
I'm actually reading or listening to the audiobook for Starship Troopers right now.
And they're going through the value systems and how if you won the 100 meter dash first place but you didn't actually do it, it has no value to you.
And they brought up the concept of ultimate cost equals...
The best, highest, perfect value.
And I just wanted to know if, like, there was any possible reputation to that because it seems pretty solid.
Well, I mean, I think...
So he's referring to a piece in which Radcheck...
I think he's probably talking to Johnny Rico.
I can't remember the character he's talking to.
And it's not even Radcheck.
There's a guy called Dubois in the book.
They compress these two characters into the character of Radcheck.
But Radcheck is just saying, well, look, I'm going to give you first place in the running, even though you came fourth.
Are you happy with it?
And he's like, no, of course I'm not happy with it.
Because it's embarrassing.
It's like everyone's looking around and going, hey, you don't deserve this, but you can have it.
And you'd feel humiliated.
You'd be like, what the hell are you doing this?
Exactly.
You'd take your fourth place and you'd earned it.
You'd be proud of the amount of work that you did and how well you did.
Even if you didn't come first, you can still take honor and pride in what you have done there.
And that's the point.
If you're just given something, it just doesn't have value to it.
It has to be earned.
And I haven't seen a reputation to it.
I think that's a true aspect of social life.
I think that is true.
Right, let's go for a couple questions.
These are, obviously we don't have Super Chats now, so if you want to send us a question, you can post it on the podcast page and we'll read a few out.
We've got 20 minutes or so, so we've got a while.
Heathcliff says, I'd like to pass the message to the lady from yesterday who was trying to convince her man to have children.
A quote from Edward Snowden.
You cannot wait for the world to get better because it never will.
Ooh, that's good.
That's very good.
Awesome.
Well, let's hope so.
Adam says, I mean, I am convinced he's turning trans next year.
Yeah, I mean, I actually support Owen Jones' transition.
Yeah.
Whether he likes it or not.
I mean, we're not banning transition therapy, are we?
That would be transphobic, wouldn't it?
That would be far right, wouldn't it?
So, put the dress on.
You know how it goes.
Elliot Scopes, can our new chant be, we like reality?
We like reality.
Maybe, only it depends if reality sucks or not, doesn't it?
It doesn't really matter.
I'd rather there than the fucking idealism of the communists.
That's true.
Joan Lord, to be fair, to Jones, during the Second World War, we did prioritise the Western Front over India for provisioning, causing some starvation during the conflict.
Yeah, but that was because the Japanese invaded, wasn't it?
Yeah, it's such a stupid argument at the time.
Whenever you see these, like, you know, now this clips on Facebook.
Did you know millions of people starved in India?
Top 10 horrible things the British Empire did.
A famine in the middle of World War II. Yeah.
Like, the Japanese invaded all of Burma, millions of refugees, and also the loss of all the farming in Burma.
What did you think was going to happen?
And this is the British's fault.
It's like, nah, I'm not sure it is, mate.
Yeah, I don't blame the British for that at all.
It's a war.
Terrible things happen in war.
The question is, why were there so many famines in the Soviet and socialist-controlled areas of the world when there weren't wars?
Explain that.
That actually speaks to an ill will, doesn't it?
It's not like the British Empire are like, great, now, after 400 years of ruling India, we can starve them to death.
I mean, in the Soviet case, we have the archives.
We have the notes of being like the Kulaks are being killed or the Ukrainians are being killed.
Good.
And we've also got the insane people at the top who are like, well, actually, this is how plants grow.
You can listen to us and trust us.
It's like, no, we can't.
You know, plants are not naturally socialist.
I don't know why I have to say that, but I do know why I have to say that.
The Kulak has solidarity with each other.
If you planted closer, it's like, okay.
And three metres under the ground.
Yeah.
It's just so dumb!
Anyway, Joseph says, as an American, all I've ever heard about Margaret Thatcher is that she was a right-wing Nazi.
But man, learning about her from you guys, all I can think is base bitch.
Yeah, the best quote is, I owe nothing to women's liberation.
I love it.
Feminists, I owe you nothing.
Well, she hated feminists.
I know, it was great.
Because they're just socialists.
They are.
Yeah, she's not a right-wing nut.
Even in the UK, in every conservative movement, even in the conservative party, as much as there are leftists in there, everyone loves Thatcher.
No one is like, Thatcher terrible.
The people who dislike Thatcher would be either leftists or people in the mining communities who got screwed over by our policies, which they did, but it was not unjustified because, well, the coal didn't make any money.
No, no, no.
That's the thing, right?
It's not that it was unjustified to end the industry.
It was the way it was done.
It was the way it was done.
And I completely agree.
I completely agree.
The way it was done was bad.
But yeah, she used to carry around a copy of Hayek's Constitution of Liberty in a handbag, apparently.
So that tells you everything you need to know.
She's a libertarian.
She was great.
Milo Emis says, You've always said that you don't want to leave the Ukraine.
You'll stay and fight the good fight.
With you saying that it's going to get worse before it gets better, is there a point in your head where it gets so bad you would consider moving to another country?
What, like Wales?
I mean...
No!
Being arrested by the state for thought crimes?
I mean, that's probably where I am, to be honest.
It's probably going to happen.
Yeah.
But I mean, are you really going to stay after the state just starts arresting you and putting you in jail for a couple of weeks every time you tweet something?
It's just like, yeah, I'm not sure I want to be here.
I mean, in the same way you'd have Solzhenitsyn or whatever leaving, because I don't want to get sent to Gorky for the next ten years.
Yeah, I just kind of hate the idea of fleeing.
Yeah, but...
What can you do?
Let's hope the Conservatives don't turn into a Communist Party.
Section 28.
Teaching pretend family relationships.
funny Owen Jones refused to condemn the Muslim parents who were saying exactly that gays had to seduce their kids because they couldn't breed instead OJ said Muslims Owen Jones said Muslims and gays should join up against the real enemy the far right he's a prick and we're embarrassed as gay yeah he is embarrassing frankly Very many gays do not like Owen Jones because he is a socialist.
Very many Muslims don't like Owen Jones because he's a socialist.
Maybe they can team up together against the far left.
Who seem to have plans for them.
So I always thought, what was it?
I just always loved the idea of seeing all the Muslim dads and Milos holding hands around the school being stopped.
United against Owen Jones.
Socialism bad.
Tom says, Conversion therapy, in my experience in the USA, is like March 4th fears.
I've never heard anyone seriously discuss it from the religious right.
A lot of fear-mongering from the left that if gays support the right, the right will electrocute them.
Even Pence's support of it, when he looked at it, honestly, was that patient and health professionals should have all options available.
Yeah, Mike Pence wasn't really the master of lightning as the left portrayed him to be, which is a real shame, because it was a great meme.
No, it's good that he wasn't that, but it was a funny meme.
Exactly.
A great meme?
Like, boogeyman's from the left, there's so many.
Can we start calling them conspiracy theories?
Because that's what they are.
Well, I mean, it kind of seems like one.
In Britain, it's definitely a conspiracy theory.
In the last X number of decades, 2,000 people have experienced it.
There are way more rape victims from grooming gangs.
Why can't we talk about that?
Because white people haven't been historically oppressed.
Well, yeah, exactly.
I mean, how long does it have to be before it's historic, huh?
Yeah, Theronix says, the same way that unconscious bias training doesn't work, because conversion therapy doesn't work either.
Yeah, I mean, don't remember, I'm totally willing to believe it.
It's a snake oil, you know?
I don't, you know, I've never spent any time looking into it, but I very much doubt it.
It does what it says it's supposed to do.
I was half expecting you to say, well, I did it and it worked.
Now I've got a wife and two kids.
Joking.
Left logic.
You can change your sex and gender at will, but suggesting you can change your sexual preference is violence.
Yeah, but then again, suggesting that you can't change your sexual preference is patriarchal.
So there's no winning.
Elliot says, didn't the guy in the conversion therapy video say we should stop people saying that you can change your sexuality or gender identity?
Shouldn't this guy get cancelled now?
Well, that's the point.
He actually should get cancelled because he's just flown in the face of intersectional theory, which is behind all of this nonsense.
Andy says, conversion therapy, BLM, etc., all imported from the USA. Can we legitimately criticise this as cultural imperialism, even if it only upsets the wokes?
But it is cultural imperialism.
That's the problem.
The left is guilty of cultural imperialism at every opportunity, at every point.
I mean, look at all of the problems that they are projecting that just come from Twitter.
These are not, like, homegrown things.
And it's not like the left are shy about it, either.
All they can do is talk about America.
There's a good point in the chat.
You know all the absurdities they come out with?
I think it was Jack Posobiec got on Urban Dictionary, Blue Anon, to be a thing.
So it's just the left-wing version whenever they come up with nonsense.
Maybe that's what we should call it.
Urban Dictionary actually took down that definition after they disliked it.
Oh, sorry, Woke Urban Dictionary.
It used to be cool.
Zen Chan, it's all in good saying that's for the parents to teach, but what if the parents don't, Carl?
What do you do if the parents are teaching their kids bad sexual ideas, like unequal ideas of consent?
The schools should absolutely teach them this stuff to keep them safe.
Well, the schools are run by communists, so I would rather take the risk that the parents don't and have social pressure put on the parents to teach them right from wrong.
I'm not sure where that argument really ends either.
We can't trust the parents to do this part of parenting.
Why can you trust them with any part of parenting?
Absolutely.
And at some point you'll end up going, well, yeah, actually the state owns the children.
Well, why should we not do what the Chinese did and set up these daycare centres where you kept them for months?
Yeah, there's no reason.
But then again...
And then the parents returned and half the kids were dead.
Yeah, and then when you adopt the position that actually the state owns the children, why are the Canadians and the Australians in the wrong for taking native children and trying to socialize them into Western habits?
Yeah.
The parents don't own those kids.
So those people now have done nothing wrong, even though I think that's a horrible thing to do.
You know, I totally oppose that.
I don't think the state owns your children at all.
You own your children.
Your children are your property.
Mine.
You can't talk about them without reference to mine.
You own those children.
Own them!
And Short Fat Otaku is going to be messaging me on Discord going, no, no, no!
What, he believes the state owns the kids?
No, he thinks they own themselves, and he's wrong.
What?
Doesn't make any sense.
Well, yeah, he thinks that kids own themselves, and it's like, yeah, but you don't have kids, and you would realise if you had kids, they have no self-possession whatsoever.
They do not own themselves.
They are not responsible for their actions.
I just started on another argument.
Thatcher was not libertarian.
She and Reagan started the neoliberal hell we're in now.
They just had socially conservative coats of paint instead of progressive paint job that we have now.
To be honest with you, I think they were libertarians, though.
I agree that they created the neoliberal world order that we have now.
But I think that that fundamentally comes from a libertarian perspective.
And that's the problem with it.
Like, I'm not a libertarian for this reason, to be honest.
I'm not for open borders.
I'm not for exporting industry around the world because it's cheaper.
You know, all of these things are done in the name of capitalism.
And it's probably made sense in the Cold War when you've got massive communist blocs that are abolishing property, like expanding property by like, you know, oh, look, you could manufacture for us and then, you know, build a capitalist world economy.
I don't doubt that made sense.
But we're not in that world anymore.
Things have changed.
When it comes to the Mumford & Sons stuff, Dylan Tucker says, "A banjo player would have to leave his band after a public backlash for reading a book.
Would be hilarious if it wasn't so terrifying." Yeah, it's crazy, isn't it?
Uh, JHW says, "Mumford & Sons shoemakers?
You mean cobblers?" Yeah, that's what I meant, actually.
Sorry.
I couldn't think of the correct word.
But yeah, they sound like a cladless shop.
I thought they were two different things.
The person who makes the shoes and the person who repairs the shoes.
I don't know.
I'm going to Google it.
I'd have to check.
Half expected my ex to be shown bashing Mumford& Sons, since she's a full-blown Christian socialist.
Ugh.
Feels good to be two years free from that woman.
Thanks for all the stuff you guys do.
You helped me through a tough time.
Well, thank you very much.
And a few general questions.
Just sent an update.
Oh, this is from Kayla.
The lady who was like, how can I get my boyfriend to have babies with me?
Just an update.
Sent a pic of an empty egg carton to my boyfriend.
He came home from work for the new carton.
We'll keep working on this.
LAUGHTER So next time, right, what you want to do is get a picture of an egg carton that's half full and Photoshop Stefan Molyneux heads on each egg.
And then send him that.
Probably make that for her.
Yeah, we probably should.
But then send him that and take the hint.
Nicholas Melson.
I finally had some time to listen to the Thick Concepts episode and I must say that is an incredible work you've done there.
Oh, thank you very much.
It made me understand some things on the current speech manners and why some people talk like they do.
Destroying passion for science, I think that's a short way of describing my perspective on it.
Also, I like Callum's comment on the Berenstain, Berenstain Bears books as an investment.
I'm confident that Baron Stonks will be a thing.
In short, guys, keep up the excellent work.
You deserve all the praise you get.
Thank you.
It is already paying off.
The people who brought those Dr.
Seuss books, they've gone up, I think it's like 500% or something.
Really?
They're worth like thousands now.
If only you can get a copy.
Yeah, but you can only buy them off places, so you can't buy them on Amazon or eBay.
You can't get them on eBay.
And apparently a cobbler is someone who repairs and a shoemaker is someone who makes.
So I was right.
Checkmate.
Who's coming?
Well, I can't remember.
Whoever you were.
J.H.W. Owned.
But no, thank you for the kind words about the thick concepts.
This is something I've been thinking about a lot.
And I think it's key and core to understanding why some people are excellent writers and some people aren't.
Because you get these people who use these thick concepts and say a lot in very few words.
And this is...
When we did the Christopher Hitchens Premium Podcast, I was studying the same thing at the same time.
And so I was noticing that he would use a lot of this very morally loaded language.
And that, I think, is why he had such power in his rhetoric.
Like, that's how you master English.
Yes.
Yes, it is.
I mean, his brother as well.
Yeah.
But part two of it, we're going to be talking about ethical knowledge and the nature of good.
Sounds good, isn't it?
What are we doing now?
We'll probably do it next week.
I'm still working on the notes for the moment.
Because the thing is not actually the concepts themselves, but the difficulty is structuring in a way that flows naturally from what has already come and to make sure that everything sort of builds the ideas.
So it's comprehensible.
So it's comprehensible, yeah.
And then we'll be doing the Brave New World Book Club.
You know the guy who made Three Lions?
Three Lions?
Was it Three Lions or Four Lions?
Four Lions.
Yeah, that show.
He was doing a bunch of research for it.
I watched a behind-the-scenes thing.
And apparently he ran into someone who was very knowledgeable in Islam.
He asked four questions in a three-hour interview.
Just going on and on.
And he asked him, the first question was, what are the arguments against violence from the Koran?
Yeah.
well, how do you get this into the heads of 20-year-old men who want to go out and blow themselves up?
He says, well, my books are available in any good library.
But that's the point.
You've got to make this stuff actually accessible.
Otherwise, it's not good.
Yeah.
So Baron von Merxhausen says, I completely disagree with the position on bread that you took on yesterday's podcast.
As someone who did a lot of running, including running half marathon, I consider all forms of carbs vital fuel.
Yeah, but I'm the communist here, aren't I? I mean, you are getting rid of bread, so yes.
I'm going to formulate a response to this.
Why bread is actually the tool of the communists.
Part one of my treatise in 3,300 parts.
Read more keto theory.
Yeah, exactly.
Read more keto theory.
I've done a marathon on cheese.
Done a marathon on cheese.
Ah, yeah, base cheese for the win.
Vegans BTFO'd as well.
Exactly.
So your vegan sympathies are coming out here, Baron.
I love ideologies.
They're funny though, because as soon as you understand one, you can just play off them all from one another.
James Harvey.
Hey guys, I left a comment a few Fridays ago about my new job as a public affairs officer.
Interesting...
Oh yeah, I remember.
I remember.
I have an interesting announcement from the government yesterday on the extension of the evictions ban.
That means evictions can't take place until May 31st, until March next year.
So shelter, generation rent, ACORN are all tenants' rights groups.
And there are lots of socialists in there as well.
Of course there are.
They've encouraged tenants to stop paying rent to landlords because a landlord can't do anything.
I've spoken to loads of people whose tenants have stopped paying, which means they risk defaulting on their mortgages, going bankrupt, etc.
There's been no support for landlords through this whole pandemic despite rising rent debts.
And for those who face financial ruin, the government has basically said, it's your problem.
The state of affairs in the residential property sector is beyond shocking, and the renter's reform bill will restrict the landlord's rights to get his possession and his property back even more.
Private property is becoming a myth.
Yeah, it's horrible.
Yeah, it is.
We've got a friend of ours who's a landlord.
He's been completely screwed by this.
Oh, is he a multi-millionaire, is he?
No, he's got loads of mortgages and is in debt because he took a risk setting up these buildings so people could live in them.
He took the risk here.
People have been able to get their rooms.
And it's been horrible to get tenants in.
And the government's screwing him.
But one guy's just not been paying rent, and if they all decide to not pay rent for no reason, he's done.
Especially if the government's like, well, nothing will happen if they don't pay their rent.
Yeah.
So, I mean, he goes out of business.
I guess the banks or whoever foreclose on the mortgages, and they send around...
Like, bailiffs to get these people out of their houses.
Yeah, and no one has these houses.
They'll be sold off at auction and no one can rent anymore.
Good job.
Yeah.
But again, the landlords have property rights and they should be respected.
You know, we are a landlord rights-friendly podcast in the same that we're a super straight, super gay and super lesbian-friendly podcast.
All people are welcome here.
I mean, actually, literally, though.
Yeah, I mean, actually, literally, yeah.
Well, except Peter's.
Yeah, well, actually, yeah.
Yeah, except them.
Cameron Lowe.
Afternoon, all.
Just a quick hypothetical from a chat I had with a friend.
A rhetorical question that more than one needs to find a definite answer.
If two or more lockdowns can be considered functionally identical in duration and severity, should they also be considered equally bad or is, as in the subsequent lockdowns, You've progressively acclimatised the mistreatment and are better prepared for it, and thus suffer less adverse consequences from both mental and physical, and should the subsequent lockdowns be considered progressively less bad than their previous ones?
No, I would consider them more bad, because, I mean, you don't know what the long-term effects of lockdowns are going to be on human beings, and it could be that there's some kind of stochastic problem.
With lockdowns that isn't immediately manifested, and I feel this way actually.
Because in the first lockdown, it really wasn't too bad, right?
And so it wasn't, you know, because this was a thing we've had to do once, it'll be a one-time thing, three weeks or whatever to stop the curve, whatever it was.
And then, so it wasn't too bad.
So you've got light at the end of the tunnel, and you, right, okay, there's a one-time temporary thing, that's fine.
Then you've got the second one, it's like, oh God, you know, it's not great, but okay, the first one wasn't too bad.
And now we're in the third one.
Man, I hate it.
I hate it so much.
And I swear to God, I've, you know, I'm stressed from it.
Like, I feel like I'm under stress.
And there was a study that showed that, like, it was like being in a really stressful work environment, being in a lockdown.
It's not good for people.
And it could be that it's incrementally worse.
And I don't think we just acclimatize to it and just, oh, everything's normal now.
You know, so I think your friend's wrong, Cameron.
I can't pronounce that.
Wow, that is old.
I'm catching up on a couple of these podcasts I've missed in the past few days on 84.
Prettiest years.
Shalvin's wife cannot even be jokingly called honorary.
Anyone who claims that he is a white supremacist can be completely disregarded.
Keep up the good work.
Hope this is the start of BBC's future rival.
Well, we can but hope.
And if you'd like to help us become a BBC's future rival...
You can, of course, sign up to Lotasease.com.
And if you are interested in being a video content producer, you can go to Lotasease.com slash careers and send us an email.
Send us a producer, video content, host, creator, someone who talks to people like we do.
The provisors are, of course, that you have to use your real name and face because you've been on video.
And you have to be able to work from the office so you can use the equipment that we have to make the videos.
So if you can do that, send us your CV, send us some examples of your work, and we may well be in touch with you.
Anyway, somewhat off-topic, I'd like to request Fs in the chat for a starties.
Unfortunately, the creator joined Games Workshop and now the series has gone from YouTube.
These companies truly are tyranids trying to absorb and destroy everything.
I don't know.
The creator said that he wanted to work with them, so it's like, okay, if you want to.
But it doesn't seem like a good move.
I mean, the fact that the series has gone from YouTube is gutting.
Yeah.
He had, what was it, almost 900,000 subs just from this series.
Yeah.
You could have done it yourself, man.
Yeah.
But, I mean, maybe there would have been legal issues or something.
Maybe, yeah.
But, like, it's gutting because, like, if I was bored, I'd just find, like, an Astartes full compilation where someone had stitched them all together and just watched, like, five minutes of Glory.
You know, the single best representation of Space Marines in media, and now it's been taken off YouTube by Games Workshop.
Thanks, Games Workshop.
God.
Sell it back to you for $5 a watch.
Yeah, exactly.
But, I mean, all I'm saying is, Games Workshop, if they were smart, what they would do is be like, right, you see what you're doing, right?
You carry on, and we will do nothing but keep giving you stacks of money until you've produced a feature-length film, 90-minute film, of the Astartes clips just for 90 minutes.
I mean, I don't even care if there's no speech in it at all.
You know, if it's just Space Marines storming around doing stuff...
Ideally, no speech to be honest.
Ideally, yeah, yeah.
Because the previous Games Workshop movies have been terrible.
Absolutely terrible.
So they said they were going to send the animation team to work with him.
I mean, that could be okay as long as they don't mess it up too much.
But I'm not hopeful.
Work with him or under him.
Because your animation team is not as good as this guy.
And neither is the sound team or anything else, right?
One of the things about Astartes was just how much of a polished product it was.
It wasn't...
Because it's not just like, okay, here's a nice-looking 3D-rendered model of a space marine in a bulkhead or whatever.
It's the motion of the space marines.
They feel like space marines should move.
The bolters sounded like bolters should sound.
The accuracy, the...
The predatory way that space marines act.
They're here to kill everything.
There's no question about it.
The unbelievable efficiency.
But also the editing, the camera angles, the lighting.
It was excellent.
Genuinely excellent.
A level above everything else.
I don't want Games Workshop screwing that up, to be honest.
I'm kind of cynical.
I spoke to Arch Warhammer about it, and he was like...
They're going to ruin it.
And I'm like, God, they are, aren't they?
It's like some guy's just done the Sistine Chapel or something, and then the church has been like, oh, we'll hire him, take that down, and then make him do something else with a bunch of other people.
It's like, nah, the guy on his own seemed best.
He seems to have a vision.
Let him work.
Let the man work.
Student of History says, I'm going to ping an idea off you.
The idea of combo guild slash collective philanthropy where people donate like $20 to the local state and national chapters and the money is used for ideas like local culture festivals or fronting money for enterprising youth to learn a skill or building a local community and business.
I've been thinking about this on and off ever since the outbreak of the George Floyd riots.
When the St.
Paul Firefighters Sports Bar got torched before it was even open, and his GoFundMe got him like a million dollars, but what about the others?
Yeah, I mean, this sounds very much like Victorian-era sort of social charity, doesn't it?
Yeah, actually building up the era.
Yeah, philanthropy.
But the thing is, people like Edward Colston and stuff, who did this, they're getting their statues torn down now, because the method by which they accumulated the money was unacceptable.
And so all his philanthropy is out of the window.
Any landlord donating.
Yeah, exactly.
You know, that's the thing.
Heathcliff says, is the most famous line in cinema history when Darth Vader says...
Excuse me.
Is the most famous line in cinema history when Darth Vader says, Luke, I am your biological birth organism.
Yes.
My old dear works as a food hygiene officer for the council.
Two days ago, she received an email from Unison, a union group for the councils across the UK, to inform all workers for her council that there are to be black workers' meetings specifically for people of colour.
So all non-whites have been compressed into the word black.
That's very interesting.
It's clear that this agenda has poisoned the very functions of our local communities.
She also attended an equality, diversity and inclusion workshop.
Right, so she's being brainwashed into the intersectional race communism.
That's what you're saying.
It's not good.
And it will continue as well.
This is not gonna stop.
It's gonna go on until you make the government stop this happening.
You might not be interested in politics, but they're interested in your family.
Yeah.
And they're definitely interested in sending you some books.
I can't believe they gave that to kids.
Oh, this is just Jane's father naked in bed with his lover.
Yeah.
It's just normal.
Getting the wood chipper.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Many may get some flack for this, but when speaking to people on the issue of homosexuality, I've often run into the discomfort among gay peers of feminized gay men.
Do you think this is due to the natural attractiveness inherent in the ability to do manly things?
I don't really understand the feminization of gay men, to be honest.
I don't really understand why.
Why would gay men be attracted to feminized men?
I would have thought that gay men would have been attracted to manly men, right?
Because you're gay.
I'm attracted to men.
But what if this man looks like a woman?
Well, then I'd be less attracted to him, wouldn't I? I mean, if you're attracted to men, you're attracted to manliness, surely?
Am I wrong?
I mean, I guess I must be wrong.
I'm not qualified to answer this.
Yeah, I guess I'm not.
What message?
Logically, I just look at it and think, well, that's weird.
Like, hey, I'm into men, so dress like a chick.
Sounds like you're into women, just in denial.
It's okay to be straight.
It's not a moral fault.
Like, I don't...
I mean, so can we gay?
I just don't care.
Just leave children alone for the love of God, everyone.
Everyone's sexual politics out of the schools.
Just out.
Shaka Saber says, Corn is the bigger culprit for empty carb gain than whatever bread does.
Look, I'm not hearing defences of bread here, okay?
I have spoken!
My manifesto against bread will be out soon.
Whatever the US overproduces, so much corn it puts into everything in the form of syrup, starch, etc.
You can at least get important fibers from bread or you get nothing out of the corn syrup and everything processed.
Corn syrup is one of those unknown foods that almost everyone eats that is really gross and bad for you.
Do you know anything about corn syrup?
Like, don't the Americans have it in their bread?
They have it in literally everything.
Yeah.
It's weird.
Hey, we've got something.
Let's put corn syrup in it.
I mean, it...
Just a way of getting rid of corn.
I guess so.
You could just stop growing it.
Well, they subsidize it in the US, so it's just like, just stop subsidizing it.
You don't have to put it in everything you make.
You could grow avocados instead, which is keto-friendly.
Well, look, there's a lot of things you can actually grow in the US. I think you can actually grow sugarcane in the south of it.
Yeah.
So...
Yeah.
Stop subsidizing corn.
But why would you do that?
If bread's bad enough, I'm not growing sugar cane.
Jesus Christ.
The Keto Puritans running this state.
I understand that you're addicted to cocaine, but have you tried heroin?
Like, no.
We're going the opposite direction.
God, you've got to start the sugar wars.
Like the opium wars, except in reverse.
The cheese supremacists are going to win this.
No, the Chinese are going to turn up with their boats selling sugar to people, and you're going to start a war over it.
But they shouldn't be poisoning the public.
Poisoning, I say.
No, one of the interesting things, though, is there's no good argument against not eating sugar.
It's there.
I get this every week.
Every goddamn week.
If you want to see more from us folks, you can go to lowsees.com where we've got a wonderful amount of, obviously, loads of free content, news, reporting, and our dispatches section.
And if you would like to see more, you can check out our previous podcasts, or you can sign up, become a preview member, which is how we are paid, and you get access to all of our great premium content, which is the nourishing content.
It doesn't contain any sugar at all.
Chat is spamming, we like the bread.
That's it, they're all banned.
▲
Export Selection