Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 17, 2021 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:31:56

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #90

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
	Welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters for Wednesday, the 17th of March 2021.
	I'm joined by Callum, and before we begin, we have a brand new article by Bodade, otherwise known on YouTube as History Bro, about the Remarkable parallels with the current trouble in Iran and historical precedence, because obviously he is a historian and this is the sort of thing he writes about.
	And we will have an interview with Gad Saad up shortly as well, later on today, which will be a premium interview, but we'll put some clips out on YouTube if you're not premium subscribing.
	You just want to check out some parts of the interview, but if you want to watch the full thing, you'll have to become a member.
	Now the reason I'm saying and advertising this so early is because I would really like to be able to hire on a permanent basis Bo because at the moment he's just writing these articles for the love of it and obviously he can't produce as many as he'd like and also if we could hire him then we would be able to produce really excellent video content especially as we've had a few applications from people who seem like good video content producers themselves especially the very smooth voiced chap who's been sending us some The
	member videos, questions.
	It strikes me that there might be some really good content that can be made out of these things, but at the moment, unfortunately, we don't have enough subscribers to be able to do this.
	And so, if you'd be interested in seeing that kind of content in the future, you can become a member on Losers.com and help us build towards producing these things, because the sooner I can get these guys hired and making really great content, the more you guys have got to enjoy.
	But anyway, right, so let's get on with Britain's tyranny bill.
	What's going on?
	So this is the dovetail of the protesting around, was it Sarah Everard?
	Everard.
	Everard, who was murdered by a police officer.
	The entire movement was hijacked by socialist and Labour Party advocates by the looks of it.
	And of course, this is the reason why, ultimately.
	The government is proposing a new bill surrounding how the police should have powers to shut down protests, how they should be able to respond to different things.
	And the Labour Party want to vote against that.
	So the first thing here is Boris's response to calls from people that he should say something in response to her murder.
	And his response is kind of weird because it doesn't really have any impact on what happened in the case.
	So this is an article listing that Number 10 announces they want to put plainclothes police officers to patrol bars and clubs after COVID to protect women in the bars and clubs.
	That's a really weird response to this, because this didn't happen in a bar or club, obviously.
	They were all shut down, and it was a police officer that murdered her, allegedly.
	So how would this do anything to protect women?
	I don't know.
	I don't know why he thought this would be a good response.
	Most people are just like, what?
	When do we get to go to bars and clubs, Boris?
	What are you talking about?
	Yeah, so we go to the Guardian article.
	But hang on, before we move on though, this should normally be the duty of the friends or boyfriends of the women who are going to these bars and clubs, right?
	If you're worried about the safety of the women that you're with, you would walk them home and then, you know, being a chivalrous gentleman, that was...
	Yeah, but we don't live in Saudi Arabia.
	Women are free to go on their own.
	No, no, I'm not saying they're not free to go on their own.
	What I'm saying is in previous eras, as in when I was a young man, this was the done thing because it's polite and it's a nice thing to do and it makes sure that they get home safe so they can feel secure and they feel cared about and things like this.
	This is not the state's job to do this.
	It's also, as you pointed out, has nothing to do with the case.
	Yeah, it's got nothing to do with the case.
	Really weird response.
	So the Guardian article is responding to this as well, saying that police will be patrolling nightclubs to protect women, which it just seems like...
	It's almost like the knee-on-the-neck protests.
	You know how George Floyd was killed by having a knee on his neck, and then the symbol of the protest became taking a knee...
	Hey women, would you like a cop to follow you around after a cop murdered this woman?
	It's just, I don't get it.
	I don't know why.
	But apparently this is a pilot scheme that's been going on, and then he wanted to expand it because he thinks it's successful.
	But I mean, what a time to do it.
	Anyway, the other point he made in here is he wants to expand funding for street lighting and CCTV, so apparently he's doubled the fund there to £45 million.
	Oh good, more surveillance, yeah.
	I mean, street lighting, generally, good.
	CCTV, eh, I don't know.
	Apparently there's no evidence that that seems to help women walking home.
	Like, there's no cases that have been helped by that.
	I don't know if that's true or not, but it's...
	Yeah, I'm suspicious.
	Anyway, so the Labour MP Stella Creasy responded to this, and she said that she would not oppose the plans, as an improvement to street lighting would be welcome, but they largely missed the point.
	Sarah was not on a night out so the idea that putting plainclothes police officers in nightclubs is going to solve the problem doesn't recognize that women get abused, assaulted, intimidated in all sorts of places.
	Um, you just missed the point there.
	What are you talking about?
	Abused, assaulted and intimidated.
	She was killed.
	Like, she was abducted and murdered.
	And then she goes on to argue that a real response would be making misogyny a hate crime.
	Which, again, missing the point.
	Was it misogyny?
	Was it misogynistic, the murder?
	Or was it a murder?
	We have no evidence, but either way, I'm opposed to all hate crime being on the books.
	How would making misogyny a hate crime have prevented the murder of Sarah Everard?
	Wouldn't.
	Wouldn't have done a thing.
	I mean, the only argument you could say is it would increase his sentence somewhat, but then just increase sentences for murder.
	I don't know why...
	Why would we have light sentences for murderers?
	God, I can't get over how literally everyone interacting with this from mainstream politics is just talking over each other.
	Like, why even bring up the ladies' murder if you're going to do this?
	I don't know.
	Anyway.
	No, no, no, that's exactly the point, though, isn't it?
	Because this is just them pushing an agenda that they've had for years.
	Because, I mean, like, Stella Creasy is the woman, the MP, who said that feminism isn't about women, it's about power.
	And it's purely about advancing a particular kind of radical left-wing agenda.
	And here we are, with absolutely no connection to the case, promoting a solution that would have had no effect on the case.
	So it's like this is just about using the death, grandstanding, standing on this death, to say we need to make X a hate crime because I think this is a good idea.
	Yeah, and also on the same side here, I mean, not quite the same embarrassing steps, but Boris saying that I'm going to put planes closed police officers in nightclubs.
	What are you talking about?
	That's nothing to do with this.
	Like, surely you'd announce that somewhere else.
	And why the hell am I paying for that?
	Yeah, I mean, paying for it, speaking of which, let's go to the Daily Mail article, which we reported on a while ago.
	They did an investigation of 120,000 hate reports that were made with regards to hate crimes.
	And not a single crime could be shown to have been prevented or solved by using hate speech allegations.
	And critics say that the controversial practice of logging non-crime hate incidents has a chilling effect on free speech.
	So, I mean, that second one's definitely true.
	I mean, when people keep getting taken away to the police station for tweets, the effect is bad.
	Yeah, but also this is costing us money.
	All of this is time and resources and money that we have to pay for something that is not illegal and has no measurable effect apart from suppressing our free speech.
	So Stella Creasy demanding that misogyny becomes a hate crime or that we invest more into this?
	No, no, it's a complete waste of time.
	And as you point out, stuff we could use to solve rapes, for example.
	Actual crimes.
	Keep that in mind as we go forward.
	So there was, in response to this, more protesting, as if this means anything or has anything to do with anything.
	It's just people out for the sake of it.
	I bet Christina Dick didn't send the Gestapo after them, though, did she?
	Yes.
	They were shouting, kill the bill, which a lot of people got annoyed about.
	But they were also quoting Assata Shakur again.
	So if we can play the first clip, just so we can see them.
	Keep our duty to fight for our freedom!
	Keep our duty to win!
	Keep our duty to win!
	Just embarrassing.
	Yeah, the American rhetoric.
	I mean, you can see it in the word duty as well.
	Yeah.
	Because they've literally, they haven't even, like, processed and interpreted what's being said.
	They're literally just repeating verbatim, even with the intonation and pronunciation, the American rhetoric.
	But even more importantly, okay, what freedom don't you have?
	We have a duty to fight for our freedom.
	Okay, well...
	Name it.
	Yeah.
	I mean, it's like the picture of the guy in a swimming pool pouring a bottle of water on his face.
	And the meme is just like women in the West fighting for women's rights.
	Yeah.
	So then this Russia Today article is logging a bunch of other chelts about kill the bill.
	And for some people, a lot of people thought that this would kill the bill as in kill the police.
	It's not.
	It is a reference to the bill being passed by the Tories.
	Although there's no doubt that they chose this slogan in order to evoke that reaction.
	I don't want to say necessarily, but...
	I think they did.
	As a savvy internet campaigner, I think that's exactly what I would have done in their position, so I think that's exactly what they did do.
	Okay, so the bill itself is terrible.
	It looks bad.
	Yeah, I mean, don't get me wrong, we're in favour of getting rid of this bill, aren't we?
	I would say so, or at least parts of it, because these things are complex and huge.
	So the first one here, if we go to Count Dan Killers' tweet, this is him making fun of it for being pathetic.
	So the fact that it says in here that if you're doing a protest that can cause a serious annoyance or inconvenience...
	So if a person doesn't act or admits to do an act, they are required to do by any enactment of rule of law, a person's act or omission causes serious harm to the public or section of the public...
	And this can include serious distress, serious annoyance, serious inconvenience, or serious loss of amenity.
	Don't know what that's supposed to mean.
	Or anyone that is put at risk of suffering anything mentioned above.
	They can get 10 years or a fine or both.
	Which is pretty extreme for a serious annoyance, but you also see in there can cause disease and then risk, obviously.
	So if you're at risk of causing disease, you could also be charged.
	If you're breaking COVID done.
	Yeah, which is the other...
	You can get 10 years in prison.
	Or if you've seriously annoyed or inconvenienced or distressed someone...
	So, this is meant to be aimed at, say, Extinction Rebellion protesters gluing themselves to tubes so then people can't move.
	Oh god, now I'm in favour of Extinction Rebellion.
	Ten years?
	Like, what the...
	I know the Tories love to do this because they think it makes them look good because they're like, oh look...
	We're tough on crime.
	Yeah, but you never ever want someone going down for ten years for something like that.
	I know they'll argue, oh, maybe there'll be something in the future that we could say deserves 10 years.
	I just can't imagine it.
	I don't know what on earth you're thinking.
	There is absolutely nothing that is classifiable as annoyance or inconvenience, serious or otherwise, that justifies 10 years in prison.
	It's weird.
	And I don't buy the argument, oh, the judges will never use it.
	Oh, they will.
	I mean, Dankula got his £800 fine for making a joke on the internet.
	They will definitely use it.
	Yeah.
	So he's making fun of it here, saying, like, leftish.
	We had these disagreements for years, and you all told me that vague laws like this could infringe rights are actually fine and okay, and that the only people who would be against it are criminals and bad people.
	So have fun.
	Have fun on your protests.
	We are risking 10 years in jail being a serious annoyance.
	I mean, it's going to be amusing watching feminists going to jail for a decade.
	I mean, that sounds...
	I'm not going to lie.
	I will be like, well, you get what you deserve, don't you?
	I want special privileges into jail for 10 years.
	Yeah, I'm not in favour of it, but I'm not going to shed a tear when you're sent to jail for 10 years for quoting Assata Shakur in public.
	Dankula was also able to make fun of people like Jeremy Corbyn if we can go to the next one, so it's just him having a laugh at him.
	Like, I'll be voting against the crime, sorry, the police crime and sentencing bill in Parliament.
	The last thing we need for the police to have more powers at this time.
	This law just wants to stop protesters from being violent.
	People are only against this law because they want to be violent.
	Ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh.
	I mean, don't get me wrong, Comrade Corbyn all of a sudden.
	Yes, that's right, Jeremy.
	The police don't need as much powers as they have.
	Sorry, go on.
	Yeah, I mean, this is a ridiculousness the left in this country finds themselves in after decades upon decades of arguing for speech laws, of all things.
	Like, if we want to talk about government overreach, speech laws.
	I mean, these are still in your manifesto, guys.
	And you're like, no, but they shouldn't ban protesting.
	Why?
	Yeah, why not?
	What basis have you got for this?
	And they will literally say freedom of expression, freedom of speech.
	It's like, but you criminalize that!
	You don't believe in that!
	Tony Blair brought those in!
	This is perfectly made by David Lammy, of all people, if we can go to the next one.
	David Lammy gave a speech in Parliament in which he's deriding this from being anti-freedom, and I mean, I agree that it's anti-freedom, it is a bad bill, blah blah blah blah blah, you know, all the rest of it.
	Yeah, we agree with you, David.
	But I love it.
	There's a section here where he says, the Conservative Party's principles are rooted in liberty and against the overreach of the state.
	I call on every member of the governing party who believes in freedom to join the opposition against this bill.
	I love that.
	Why do you have to appeal to their principles for freedom, David?
	Like, you can't appeal to Labour principles for freedom.
	You have to appeal to your opposition's principles.
	Doesn't that say something about you, David?
	Doesn't it make you think, well, hang on, am I the wrong one here?
	I mean, it's like the ISIS people who are trying to come back to Britain being like, but the human rights!
	You don't believe in human rights!
	No, but you do!
	But it's a great example of just like, he knows!
	He knows that the Labour Party doesn't believe in freedom, it doesn't believe in liberty, it doesn't believe that the overreach of the state should be limited on any case, in any circumstance, provided it goes with left-wing philosophy.
	It takes away all of our freedoms all of the time.
	Oh, we care about freedoms now, do we?
	But if it harms the left-wing, he's like, but liberals, please help us!
	It's embarrassing.
	Unreal.
	I can't get over how this was meant to be a big, great moment for him.
	You can see Femi tweeting this and getting 23,000 likes.
	A lot of left-wingers retweeted this.
	We're like, good on David Lammy.
	I'm like, this is such an own.
	How do you guys not realise it?
	Oh my god.
	Yeah, so then there's the bill itself, just for some more details.
	So I went to TLDR News, because as I've said, they're a little bit sorry, but they're good on getting the finickety details of bills like this.
	So they say that protesting illegally will now be a crime if this bill passes, which it has now been voted on.
	Isn't protesting illegally already a crime?
	So if you protest in an illegal way, you can only be charged if you knowingly did it.
	So if you thought that you were able to do this and then you weren't, no bother, you can't be charged.
	Now it's argued that you ought to know that it was a crime, which is very suspicious around protesting.
	Just saying that the people who live in London, who are within convenient travel of Parliament, where you need a permit to protest, that means that pretty much all of them will probably be denied and not be allowed, right?
	Yeah, and it gets even more, let's say, harsh on these sorts of people.
	So protests, the static protests, must have a start and finish time.
	So no more extinction rebellion.
	Government-approved protesting!
	This is what you get, left-wingers.
	This is what you wanted, this is what you've got.
	So if the protest is also too noisy, it can be declared illegal by the Home Secretary?
	Got a license for that noisy protest?
	You seem to be seriously inconveniencing the MPs?
	That's ten years in jail, my lad!
	You're nicked, son!
	Yeah, literally.
	The Home Secretary defines serious disruptions herself.
	She doesn't have to get the approval of anyone and can cancel a protest just on the basis that they define this protest to be a serious disruption.
	And who is the current Home Secretary?
	Priti Patel.
	That's interesting, isn't it?
	Yeah.
	Priti, oh, she's a tyrant, Patel.
	She's going to put the knee on our neck, Patel, yes.
	Yes, you get what you deserve.
	So of course they're irritated by this, but of course I'm not in favour of that.
	No!
	Because the Home Secretary, as soon as it changed to being a Labour Home Secretary...
	I'm not in favour of Priti Patel actually denying these idiots their right to protest.
	I'm not in favour of this.
	So the argument here from Priti Patel's side is she says, look at Extinction Rebellion.
	They were able to shut down London for multiple days, gluing themselves to gates and tubes and all sorts, costing lots of money.
	I'm disrupting, you know, if not thousands, maybe tens of thousands of people's day.
	Probably hundreds of thousands.
	Yeah.
	And therefore, we must have an ability to act.
	Because, I mean, we were sitting here not having the ability to act, and the public were asking us to do something, and we couldn't.
	So I'm passing this, so then when that happens, I can intervene a bit.
	Right, no, you guys are not protesting in a reasonable manner.
	Go F yourselves.
	Go to jail.
	But the thing is, I don't agree with that.
	I really don't agree with that.
	I know that Extinction Rebellion are insufferable.
	And I spoke to a bunch of them, and they didn't actually seem like bad people.
	They just seemed like people who are on the internet far too much.
	But like the hardcore activist types?
	Sure.
	But the thing is, I think it should be within our legitimate freedom to be able to create these kind of protests.
	And it should be a negotiation that we as a society have.
	And now you'll notice that everyone thinks Extinction Rebellion are a joke.
	Everyone hates them and just find them to be really annoying.
	And where are they now?
	That's the best part.
	That's why I ultimately disagree with this, even if you're going just on RealPolitik for a minute.
	Every time they do this, they lose support.
	It's fantastic.
	It doesn't help.
	You should incentivize them to do this, not stop them.
	It was interesting as well.
	So the public nuisance and annoyances is also a crime with a maximum of 10 years, as mentioned previously.
	They also upped the problem with damaging statues.
	So if you go down and destroy Edward Coulson's statue or Churchill's, at the moment it is that you can get fined for the damage to the property of up to £5,000 and up to three months in jail for carrying out a legal act.
	And I'm happy with that.
	Yeah, I'm happy with that.
	That seems fine.
	The guys who took down Edward Colston's statue, the mob, charge them all.
	Straight to jail.
	Charge them all the money, put the ones who threw it into the harbour and took it down, put them in jail.
	Three months, that seems commensurate.
	They've upped that to ten years.
	I mean, I was okay with it being three months, right?
	Like the guy who's spray-painted over Churchill's name.
	Churchill was a racist.
	Labour camp, ten years.
	I think I'm wrong.
	I'm not going to go deface any statues, right?
	So I'm not worried about this affecting me.
	And I do agree that...
	I don't think any right-wing is going to do it either.
	No, I don't.
	And I agree that there should be punishments and penalties for defacing this kind of property, either public or private, right?
	You've got no right to do this.
	If it doesn't belong to you, you don't get to destroy it.
	End of story.
	No exceptions.
	However, 10 years in prison, I mean, there are literally examples from the Soviet Union where criminals and wrong thinkers spent less time in gulags than that.
	So I'm just saying that does seem a little harsh.
	And again, the Labour Party are trying to argue that this is like 10 years for defacing a statue, 5 years for rape, and it's like, okay, these are max sentences.
	So it is true to say it's out of proportion.
	It shouldn't be used in that way.
	And that would be the government's argument.
	But again, I just don't believe it.
	Like, why would you do that?
	Why on earth would you put that on law?
	Because if you don't think it should actually be used that way, why did you write it?
	Yeah.
	Like, if you want to be super hard on it, I mean, maybe argue five months or six months or, you know, a stretch a year.
	But you don't honestly believe they should be in jail for 10 years.
	In which case, don't write it.
	You could raise the fines, right?
	And the fines would actually be a better way of doing it.
	Because it's like, right, we'll put it back all shiny and new.
	Yeah, exactly.
	You're going to pay for a replacement for it.
	And it's going to cost you how many?
	$20,000 or pounds or whatever.
	So it's a significant deterrent.
	But 10 years in jail?
	Yeah, I don't know.
	Anyway, so a couple of other things from this bill.
	So they want to make it easier for the police to get rid of gypsies and travellers who turn up.
	So if they are likely to cause distress to the public now and there's just one car on a property, they can make them move.
	So that's basically any gypsy or travellers set up are instantly able to get rid of.
	This was in the manifesto, so there's no real surprises there.
	That was one of the things they wanted.
	And there's also an increase of minimum sentences served, which also I just don't understand this.
	So if you get done for rape or a serious crime in this country, the minimum apparently is that you can serve half your sentence.
	And then if you're on very good behaviour, show real signs of reform, get you out.
	That would be the most charitable way.
	They want to increase that to two-thirds.
	But I don't really get it.
	Why do we have a system where you are given a sentence that you then don't serve?
	I don't understand why you wouldn't just give sentences that you can then serve.
	Well, I mean, it would come back to the idea of it being an attempt to reform.
	And so if someone shows good behavior and follows the rules and doesn't do anything wrong...
	Then it's an incentive to make them realize that the system is actually not there to just hurt them and is in fact trying to help them.
	So I actually do see the good in the idea of this is your sentence, but if you behave in a certain way, because it's about habituation into a new way of being, right?
	And so if you're actually not, like, you know, if you're a violent criminal and then you go to jail and reform yourself so you're actually not a violent criminal, then a reward for that is a good thing.
	I mean, maybe that's the theory, but I mean, like...
	I'm not saying it's correct.
	Yeah, we've seen, like, the people convicted of grooming and raping girls given seven years out in four, you know?
	And it's just like, oh, my God.
	Anyway, so there's leftist propaganda to try and make Priti Patel look bad out of this, but they ultimately failed.
	I just had to show it, because look at this.
	Look at this image.
	I don't even know what they're referencing here, but I'm assuming it's some shooting.
	Suffragettes, I assume.
	Stop making Priti Patel look good when she's doing bad things, please.
	For people that are just listening, it's like a bunch of women crying and holding someone who's been shot.
	And then there's Priti Patel smirking with a rifle, and then Boris Johnson clapping her on.
	This is going to be the Peterloo massacre, I think.
	I don't know.
	No, no, I think it is.
	What an image.
	But again, it just makes them look Chad and makes you look like losers who deserve it.
	Yeah, and the Labour Party's also been arguing on this basis that the Conservatives are failing on rape.
	So they put this image out the other day, in which they have 55,000 recorded rapes this year.
	Look at the way they're framing it!
	And 1,867 rapes charged.
	But look at the way they're framing it.
	Under the Tories, rape has effectively been decriminalised.
	Why are you advertising that?
	Hey, rapists!
	You're not going to get punished, you know.
	Just so you know, rape has been effectively decriminalized.
	The Labour Party!
	I mean, especially as the first commenter points out.
	Labour's history with grooming gangs and rape.
	Yeah, I mean, if you're a certain skin tone, that's correct anyway, isn't it, Labour Party?
	It's been decriminalized.
	Oh, boy.
	But yeah, also, right in the middle of talking about Well, hang on, before we move on from this, so I can't help but notice that there's an assumption that's been made in the Labour Party's propaganda here.
	So they say 55,000 rapes reported to police and 1,867 rapes charged.
	The only...
	The knowledge that we have of the rapes that have been committed are those rapes that have been charged.
	Because obviously they've gone through the court system, the evidence would have been seen.
	The CPS looked at it, can we actually do this?
	The proof would have been provided.
	And so what that is is 55,000 alleged rapes reported to the police.
	And if out of that 55,000 alleged rapes, 1,867 can be proven to be rapes, then we actually are faced with a different...
	Question, aren't we?
	Why are there so many alleged rapes being reported to the police, whereas so few of them are being charged?
	And there are other answers than the concept of rape has been decriminalized?
	Yeah, but it's also just not true.
	Like, if we go to the Guardian article...
	I guess that's also a thing.
	Let's scroll down until you can see a graph.
	There's a graph showing the number of alleged rapes, and then the convictions and the referrals there.
	Again, they say increase in recorded rapes, as if every single one of these is a confirmed instance of rape.
	But you'll notice that that line goes all the way back to the Labour government as well, and it's basically flat lines.
	This is not a huge change.
	The number of people being charged is the same.
	But incidentally, around 2014, there starts to become a dramatic incline in the number of alleged rapes.
	And I don't know what the truth is, and I don't think we will for a couple of years until someone shifts through the data.
	Well, okay, how about this?
	Is there an activist group in society that have a loud and dominating voice that encourage women to report things that might not actually be rape?
	That might be, but I don't want to say how much of that is due to activist groups or how much of it is people coming forward or whatnot, because I just don't know.
	It could be, but look at the numbers.
	12,000, 15,000 normally prior to 2014 to then nearly 60,000?
	Yeah.
	But I mean, just the argument there of the Labour Party that this shows that the Tories have decriminalised rape.
	What are you talking about?
	The actual convictions and referrals seem to have been fairly constant.
	But for some reason, the number of rapes reported has quadrupled.
	Yeah.
	Anyway.
	In five years.
	So this was part of the bill where they wanted to make those sentences harder for convicted rapists and whatnot.
	So actually the Tories ended up looking good on that.
	And the bill did pass.
	If we go to the next Lancashire's Politics Home, reporting that passed.
	359 votes to 263.
	So not even close.
	Like, they got stomped on this.
	And the last thing I wanted to end on was just the socialist propaganda coming out of these protests who hijacked Sarah's death have not worked, which I'm actually quite glad about.
	I'm glad that we have been able to counter this absolute nonsense.
	Not many people have had their minds wiped by reality here.
	So the polling here was that 53% of the police said they were right to act in the vigil in which they arrested people.
	32% said the police were wrong.
	So that's, what, less than a third?
	Whereas over half of the public were like, no, they're right to act.
	Because they didn't act in a brutalizing manner.
	They didn't ban the women.
	They just told them, right, you need to leave.
	This is not an authorized gathering.
	They didn't.
	So they arrested them.
	That was it.
	This is how you can tell that Priti Patel wasn't in charge.
	Yeah, they would have been doing other things.
	So of the polling, some interesting points here.
	Men and women both agreed in majorities that the police were right to act.
	56% for men, 50% of women said the police were right to act in the way they did.
	And even in London, Londoners agreed that this was not...
	They didn't buy the socialist propaganda that this was the end of the world.
	44% of Londoners said the police were right to act versus 38%.
	And this is not necessarily a commentary on...
	Whether or not COVID rules should be how they are or whatnot.
	But it's just, are the police in the wrong here, I feel like, is the question in the public mind.
	And it's not really their fault.
	They're instructed they have to do this sort of thing.
	The rules are no gatherings.
	You're gathering.
	We're going to arrest you.
	Yeah, they didn't act in a way which was disgusting or anything like that, as socialist propaganda was making out to be.
	It wasn't police brutality.
	The murder wasn't police brutality.
	None of these narratives have been able to land with the public, it seems, and I'm just glad to see that that's the case.
	Some good news at the end of that, even though we're having all our freedoms to protest.
	Yeah, I was going to say, this is a terrible, terrible circumstance.
	And again, I honestly think that the Conservatives are put into positions where they feel they have to act, and therefore they do, and then they act in a really silly manner, because they don't really think about the long-term consequences of what's going on.
	And the Labour Party have been demanding the end of our freedoms for, well, decades now.
	And now they're here.
	And now you've got what you want, and you're like, oh no, we're being oppressed.
	But why did you ask for it?
	Literally, like you posted on Facebook earlier, it was like, you guys were all pro-lockdown until it affected a left-wing protest.
	Yeah.
	And then all of a sudden it has to end.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Now we're having our freedoms taken away from us.
	So yeah, but you will still say, well, social media companies need to do something about deplatforming right-wingers that we don't like.
	They need to stop the EDL protesting wherever, blah, blah, blah.
	And it's like, but these are your rights as well.
	As soon as you do it to one group, it can happen to you.
	And, oh, look, now it's happening to you.
	And what's happening?
	Oh, we get a really draconian bill that's come in.
	I mean, they literally want not just social media companies to take stuff down.
	They're not going to just pressure them.
	No, no, everything.
	They want the state to intervene and arrest you for what you post on social media.
	They want hate crime laws as long as they're their hate crime laws.
	Yep.
	Anyway, let's move on.
	Honestly, I'm looking forward to criticism of capitalism being made a hate crime.
	I don't see why not.
	Why not?
	What's the argument that the left is going to make?
	Well, we didn't like your criticism of certain ethnic minorities and therefore their hate crimes.
	It's like, well, okay, well, our hate crimes are you going, socialism works.
	It doesn't.
	And we've got way more data to show that that leads to lots and lots of deaths than you do about, like, people going, grooming gangs are bad.
	Saying socialism works is a dog whistle to I love genocide.
	Yes, it is a dog whistle to genocide.
	Checkmate, Jeremy Corbyn.
	So tell me about Joe Biden.
	Yeah, okay, let's get into...
	Let's talk about Joe Biden's immigration crisis, because Joe Biden is facing an immigration crisis of his own making, and specifically him as well.
	Can we show our wonderful graphic about Trump's border policy, John?
	If we can get that up.
	That's Trump's border policy, is there will be a giant, big, beautiful wall, and if you're an immigrant, you'll stay on the other side of it, and you're going to apply through the normal, legal, lawful channels, or else.
	I mean, looking back, again, just the Trump era just seems like this glorious golden age at this point, compared to Biden's America.
	We'd say what you want all about Trump, but I mean, his policies were very direct.
	I love it.
	And excellent as well.
	This is an excellent policy.
	And I'll show you how we know this by the end of this segment, right?
	So this is Trump's immigration policy.
	Don't come.
	Stay home.
	And he also dramatically reduced not just illegal immigration with the wall, but legal immigration as well through various other legal avenues.
	And that's perfectly sensible.
	America is not just like an open door that you're free to walk into.
	It is not like the 17th century where you have a pristine, almost undiscovered continent that's ripe for colonization.
	That's just not what the United States is now.
	That's not what anything is now.
	This is Biden's immigration policy.
	This is from JoeBiden.com.
	I'm just going to read you some of this because I want you to hear the kind of rhetoric that's being used.
	Pay attention to the tone of the words.
	It's not about being factual or neutral on the subject.
	No, no, no.
	It begins,"...it is a moral failing and a national shame when a father and his baby daughter drowns seeking our shores." Yes, on the part of the country from which the father came, and on the part of the father.
	Anyway, when children are locked away in overcrowded detention centres and the government seeks to keep them there indefinitely, which, that wasn't the case, when our government argues in court against giving those children toothbrushes and soap...
	When President Trump uses family separation as a weapon against desperate mothers, fathers and children seeking safety and a better life.
	When he threatens massive raids that would break up families who have been in this country for years and targets people at sensitive locations like hospitals and schools.
	Wow, this is sounding based.
	Trump has done a great job against illegal immigration.
	No stone unturned, huh?
	Yeah, no stone unturned.
	When children die in custody due to a lack of adequate care, which I'm sure was happening constantly.
	Trump has waged an unrelenting assault on our values and our history as a nation of immigrants.
	It's wrong and it stops when Joe Biden's elected president.
	Joe Biden understands that it's an irrefutable source of our strength.
	Generations of immigrants have come to this country with little more than the clothes on their backs and hope in their heart and a desire to claim their own piece of the American dream.
	It's the reason we have been constantly able to renew ourselves, to grow better and stronger as a nation and meet new challenges.
	Immigration is essential to who we are as a nation, our core values and our aspiration for the future.
	Under a Biden administration, we will never turn our backs on what we are or what makes us uniquely and proudly American.
	The United States deserves an immigration policy that reflects our highest values as a nation.
	So...
	Pretty strong.
	Pretty strong pro-immigrant rhetoric from Biden there.
	As president, Biden will end the Trump administration's cruel and senseless policies that separate parents and their children at our border, which means that he's not going to separate child traffickers from the children they're trafficking, because the child traffickers will just say, well, they're my kids.
	God, it's like Captain Sweden, levels of stupid.
	It is Captain Sweden, levels of stupid.
	They'll end Trump's detrimental asylum policies, this being the catch and release policies that Biden's brought in now.
	Because Trump was like, we'll catch you and we'll deport you.
	And Biden's like, no, we'll catch you and release you into America.
	Good luck, child traffickers, with those kids.
	You know, they did DNA studies.
	30% of the children that were caught at the border with an adult were not related to that adult.
	That really makes you think, doesn't it?
	They're going to end mismanagement of the asylum system, there's going to be a surge in humanitarian resources to the border, then end prolonged detention and reinvest in the case management system, end the so-called national emergency that siphons federal dollars from the Department of Defense to build a wall, rescind the un-American travel and refugee bans, increase the number of visas offered for work, marshal federal resources through the establishment of a task force for new Americans...
	Again, like new Germans, new Swedes, and new Americans, you see.
	Push to repeal extreme anti-immigrant state laws, reassert America's commitment to asylum seekers and refugees, and increase the number of refugees we welcome into the country.
	Couldn't be more obvious a statement to the world that Joe Biden wants loads of refugees to come to the United States.
	And they're not just illegal immigrants, they're irregular migrants.
	Irregular.
	Remember, changing of the language is very important.
	And so this rhetoric, as CNN reported earlier this month, caused a massive surge of illegal immigrants to the U.S.-Mexico border.
	More than 100,000 in one month came to the United States southern border.
	100,000 in one month.
	That is ridiculous.
	I mean, you're looking at, what is it, like 1.2 million for a year there?
	Yes.
	Literally a million a year are going to be coming to the border.
	And Biden's like, yes, we love every refugee.
	You're all valid.
	And of course, we're a nation of immigrants.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Well, you've got us in there fleeing poverty.
	Right?
	I don't buy it.
	Like, Mexico is not an asshole country, Joe.
	You don't have to say that.
	I mean, that's what I always used to say to my parents when I went home at Christmas and raided the fridge.
	It's like, you know, I'm fleeing poverty, man.
	I haven't got any food like this at home.
	But, yeah, so things are...
	Staggeringly out of control.
	And this, of course, is a massive swing upwards on the graph.
	This isn't something that was slowly building.
	Oh, no, no, no.
	Under Trump, it was going down because Trump was like, stay home, you're not coming in.
	We're building a big, beautiful wall that you'll just have the giant, shining words Trump with a golden avatar of him on it, presumably.
	Chad is pointing out a good point here, which is that is 100,000 new voters a month, though.
	That is a good point.
	That is a good point.
	Joe Biden would like 100,000 new voters a month.
	But the thing is, he's so popular, does he need them?
	Just to make sure.
	Thousands of these people, of course, are unaccompanied children.
	There has been a 120% jump in unaccompanied children crossing the border.
	If you can go to the next one, John.
	Crossing the border, according to agency statistics that were released in, I think it was in February, February.
	I can't remember the date exactly.
	It's the last month or so that this has come out.
	But these were numbers from October last year to October, December last year.
	So it has gotten worse.
	And of course, the agency that's usually responsible for dealing with this has fewer beds for these miners to stay in.
	They used to have nearly 14,000, but now they have just under 8,000 because of, quote, COVID social distancing restrictions.
	Sorry kids, you're going to have to sleep on the floor.
	Why?
	Because if you slept on a bed next to another bed, you might catch COVID. Even though COVID is absolutely no threat to you whatsoever.
	Sleep on that floor.
	COVID restrictions.
	Welcome to Biden's America.
	It's humane.
	Anyway, so there were only 2,700 open beds back in December.
	I did see an article that was quoting that 7,000 unaccompanied minors were encountered in the last month with this 100,000 wave.
	So...
	I guess they're all just sleeping on the floor.
	But anyway, unsurprisingly, US border agents are afraid of being overwhelmed because they're a bunch of xenophobic bigots.
	Border patrol agents are overwhelmed with the surge of migrants in parts of Texas and have to restart catch-and-release policies, turning people just loose into the US because what are they going to do with them?
	They haven't got the facilities for them.
	I mean, no one thought there'd be hundreds of thousands of them coming month after month, but then I guess people didn't think Joe Biden was going to win.
	Todd Bensman, a Texas-based Homeland Security expert and senior fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, says,"...we are on the front end of what will very likely turn into a major immigration crisis on the border.
	The catch-and-release practice is the single most powerful incentive that exists on Earth for mass immigration." Nothing else propels mass migration like catch and release and very, very quickly.
	So the fact that they will be caught and just released into the US... I hate this whole framing.
	The idea that this is a policy or this is a measure.
	No, this is an abandonment of your duty to have a border.
	That's all that is.
	That's not, oh no, we have a policy of catching them and then releasing them.
	No, that's just...
	Don't even put the officer there then.
	There is no border.
	Just let them walk across.
	What is the alternative?
	Yeah, just like we do with Wales.
	On the plus side though, the Welsh are becoming so xenophobic against the English, they're going to build a big beautiful wall against us.
	Well, on the bridge.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	I'm okay with that.
	Go for it.
	Anyway, and so what has had to happen because of the hundreds of thousands of people coming and the now nearly 10,000 unaccompanied children is that under Biden's administration, they're putting kids in cages.
	We can go to the next one, John.
	The US is reopening the Texas tent facility that was used to hold immigrant teenagers under Donald Trump's nefarious and evil regime.
	But under Biden's nefarious and evil regime, it's actually nice and shiny and happy and good for them.
	This is the Carrizo Springs facility in Texas, which was converted two years ago into a holding facility under Trump and was closed in July 2019.
	And it had a large tent that serves as a dining hall, assembly area, children's houses and dormitories, bunk beds and tables.
	And it's reopening to account for the coronavirus pandemic and the problems.
	So CNN have referred to this as migrant overflow facilities opening under Biden.
	Migrant overflow facilities.
	That's charitable.
	Especially as it was not so very long ago that these were being described in a very, very different way.
	The Biden administration is opening an overflow facility for unaccompanied migrant children apprehended at the U.S.-Mexico border.
	The reopening of the facility comes amid an increase in apprehensions of unaccompanied children on the southwest border, fueled in part by deteriorating conditions in Latin America and a perceived possible relaxation of enforcement and reduced capacity limits on other facilities due to COVID-19.
	Oh, really?
	Oh, really?
	Can we not remember how they were described?
	Again, just a few months ago.
	The Washington Post, a great example.
	Kids in cages is how they described them.
	Of course, CNN described them the same way.
	They all described them this way because they thought, oh, this sounds bad.
	This makes Trump sound bad.
	Even though it is true, of course, that Obama built those cages.
	But Trump's zero tolerance immigration policy has no precedent.
	That's not true.
	It actually does have precedent.
	I remember at the time as well, we covered this, people were showing around images of kids in cages, being like, look at this horrible stuff.
	From the Obama administration.
	No, but the images were actually from Palestine.
	Okay.
	But there were also pictures going around where they had, like, the tinfoil, you know, blankets.
	Blankets, yeah.
	Which is weird, considering you're in Texas.
	I've been to Texas.
	I don't see why you would need to keep warm.
	Like, it's boiling all the time, and it's awful.
	It was almost as bad as Florida, temperature-wise.
	So, yeah, it's weird.
	Like, you know, these kids who are, like, freezing to death in Texas.
	Weird.
	Anyway, so, and if we can go to the next one, John, of course, the first migrant facility for children opens up under Biden.
	This is a good thing now.
	This is a good thing.
	These aren't kids in cages.
	These are migrant overflow facilities.
	I mean, that's when you're not just deciding that borders are for hippies or something.
	No, borders are for Nazis.
	Yeah, and just, you know, catch and release, meaning no border.
	Yeah.
	John Lennon's like, yes, this is exactly what I wanted.
	You know what I've never understood?
	Why don't the Americans literally just throw them back over the border?
	Like, remember, we read, I think you had a comment from someone who actually worked on the border, and they said that they sat there and they saw them jump over the fence and just sit there waiting to be picked up.
	Because they knew they'd be released.
	I don't know why the government of the United States didn't just say, no, we know you came from Mexico.
	Rock up with the trebuchet in.
	No, but I mean, literally just walk you out to the checkpoint and just be like, bye.
	Like, you came from Mexico, you're not allowed to do that.
	Presumably the same reason that our Navy isn't just escorting the migrants back across the channel to France.
	It's like, where do you think?
	We don't think you came from Syria on a boat.
	Yeah, but there are some more complexities there with maritime law and all the rest of it.
	But I mean, this is a physical land border.
	There's no way you didn't come from Mexico.
	We just watched you jump the fence.
	Makes you wonder.
	But anyway, as the Washington Post points out, we can go to the next one.
	This is not like Trump at all.
	Biden's new border move isn't like Trump's kids in cages.
	It sounds really weird because it sounds exactly the same.
	Trump's policy on the border wasn't controversial merely because it resulted in children being held at the border.
	Which is a long-standing reality on what will happen at this facility.
	Right, okay, so they're doing exactly the same thing.
	Thank you, Aaron Blake.
	Don't worry, we'll put a Black Lives Matter logo on it.
	Exactly.
	It's controversial because it forced children to be separated from their parents, given its hardline policy of requiring the parents to be held and not released into the country.
	Oh yeah, hardline policy.
	Hardline policy of not just merely allowing all of the illegal immigrants in because they arrived.
	That's hardline.
	Having a border is a hardline policy, according to the Washington Post.
	Unreal.
	Whether you caught those cages or chain-linked partitions or anything else, though, it's not the situation at the border facility that Biden administration is reactivating, nor the administration forcing these children to be separating from their parents.
	Whenever one thinks about how these children are handled once they're taken into custody, it bears little resemblance to what happened under Trump.
	Yeah, Trump actually prevented trafficked children from being trafficked.
	Just saying.
	What a Nazi.
	What a Nazi.
	But when a new, I can't remember if it was ABC or CBC or one of the alphabet news agencies, went down to the border and asked the migrants, so why are you coming then?
	And this is what they had to say.
	Do you know that there's a new president in the United States?
	Si?
	Do you think that you have a better chance now?
	Si.
	Si.
	Sergio Chaveria brought one of his four kids, calling back home to Honduras to assure his family they made it across the border.
	And why did you come now?
	Before, I couldn't come, he says, but the new president gave us an opportunity.
	Literally, Biden is why we came.
	Biden saying, you can come in, everyone can come in, we love immigrants, blah blah blah, is why these hundreds of thousands of immigrants are coming.
	And then they're phoning home on their cell phones.
	How do they get reception?
	I don't know, I'm sure they're on the same network or something like that.
	Why?
	Why would someone from Honduras have the same phone?
	No, no, no.
	But the electronics would work in the same place.
	Like when we go to Russia or whatever.
	Yeah, but then you're on roaming charges and stuff like this.
	Are you not?
	Yeah.
	Like, this is going to cost a fortune.
	How can they afford this?
	Because they're not actually refugees.
	Exactly.
	They're not actually refugees.
	They're all kind of, you know, obviously well-fed people from Central America who are just like, that would be a nice opportunity.
	I'm going to take one of my kids.
	With obviously the intent of bringing the rest at some point later on.
	But we can draw a direct line there.
	Biden has caused this.
	I mean, the people themselves are saying that is the case.
	Yeah, that's the only reason.
	Well, I mean, Trump wouldn't let us in.
	But Biden will.
	And so here we are.
	Thanks, Joe.
	And Biden isn't going to go down to the border to help out.
	He's got no plans to visit.
	He doesn't care.
	Not his problem, obviously.
	Someone else's problem.
	They're not going to be in his neighbourhood, are they?
	Not going to be taking his job, are they?
	No.
	None of his problems.
	But yeah, so Biden just doesn't care.
	But the pressure has been mounting because, of course, 100,000 people turning up in a month is absurd.
	And when they're like, literally, you invited us, Joe, and we're just going to get released in because you can't deal with us.
	And the Border Patrol guys are like, this is going to overwhelm us.
	We don't know what to do.
	And so Biden was forced to come out.
	And in a recent interview with ABC, if we can go to the next one, John, had to come out and say, I can say quite clearly, don't come over.
	Don't leave your city or town or community.
	So Joe Biden has arrived back at Donald Trump's border policy.
	Trump was right.
	Trump was right about all of this.
	I'm looking forward to the Joe Biden border wall.
	Looking forward to it.
	I'm looking forward to AOC crying at these new overflowing facilities.
	Exactly.
	I mean, Biden literally was like, we're going to send people back who crossed the border.
	It's like, really?
	So everything you said on your campaign was either a lie or really naive.
	And the thing is, since you've been the vice president already and you've been in politics for 50 years...
	And you built the cages.
	And you built the cages, I have real difficulty believing it's naivety.
	That brought this about.
	It was you lying.
	You saying, well, anything Donald Trump does is bad, therefore I have to be for the opposite.
	Even when the opposite...
	I mean, like, there are going to have been probably thousands of people who got raped and murdered or just died of natural causes or accidents, whatever, on the journey to this place, you know, to this position.
	So his immigration policy was deeply irresponsible and has not helped anything whatsoever.
	Hate it.
	Just...
	Everyone said.
	Everyone said before this was going to happen.
	You're going to cause more people to come.
	It's going to be bad for everyone.
	You're going to be forced to do exactly what Trump was doing as a matter of course.
	I like how we have a clear example of how the vote matters.
	Totally.
	If this guy gets in or that guy gets in, well, there you go.
	Hundreds of thousands of people on the border within a month.
	Yeah, within a month.
	Oh, boy.
	I don't know what's wrong with them as well, because I remember I was arguing with Sean Head on Twitter, where she was arguing that Joe Biden's manifesto hasn't changed much since Bill Clinton's.
	And I was just able to go back to Bill Clinton's manifesto.
	Bill Clinton's manifesto was Trump's manifesto.
	Yeah, I literally just quoted section for section, and it was literally Trump's manifesto.
	He was like, look, immigration can be good for the country, but it must be done legally, and we must secure the border, and we must send troops and funding down there to make sure it's secure.
	And I was like, okay, that's Donald Trump.
	So the Republican Party has come to Democrat 90s, and the Democrat Party is not where it is.
	So it's gone to the communist position of borders are bad.
	No Trump, no wall, no USA at all.
	Joe Biden 2020.
	That's the state.
	Anyway, we have one last thing here.
	So, social media banning itself.
	Tell me this is a good one.
	This is a good one.
	So, well, it's good and bad, but I think mostly good for our perspective.
	Okay.
	So, the first thing here is that Project Veritas released another video.
	God bless Project Veritas doing the Lord's work of actual journalism where none of the mainstream media actually do.
	And this one, this was the Facebook Global Planning Lead...
	Sorry to interrupt as well.
	I watched the video for this the other day.
	I noticed that James O'Keefe is looking pretty cut at the moment.
	James, have you joined the Keto Bros?
	Oh, God.
	Sorry, Cameron.
	Anyway, yeah, so the video is good.
	Give it a watch.
	But I just wanted to take some quotes out of it because we don't have time for the whole thing because it's like 15 minutes.
	And he's just denouncing Facebook endlessly to these reporters who are, I assume, flirting with him or something.
	Yeah, so this is Facebook's global planning lead, right?
	So he's not some just nobody who's at the bottom rungs of Facebook.
	He's one of the most important people in Facebook.
	You know, he doubtless has regular meetings with Zuck and Nick Clegg and various others.
	One of the court.
	One of the court.
	Yeah, so there's a couple of quotes.
	I would break up Facebook, which means I would make less money probably, but I don't care.
	Like, that's what needs to be done.
	Instagram, Facebook, Messenger, Oculus, WhatsApp.
	They all need to be separate companies.
	It's too much power when they're all together like one.
	I agree.
	I agree.
	No king in the history of the world has been the ruler of 2 billion people, but Mark Zuckerberg is, and he's 36.
	That's too much power for a 36-year-old.
	You should not have the power over 2 billion people, and I think that's wrong.
	Now, I just want to say, this essentially gives Mark Zuckerberg the epithet, The Great...
	Yeah.
	I mean, he's surpassed Alexander by degrees here.
	We've actually got more people than the Premier of China as well.
	Yeah, but I mean, this is why we need to hire History Bro, so we can do more podcasts talking about this sort of stuff, because I love this stuff.
	Yeah.
	Sorry, let's go.
	So he goes on to talk about some of the things we would normally care about.
	So he says, there's always built-in algorithmic bias.
	Guess what?
	Human beings wrote that code.
	So he's admitting that, yeah, there are no problems, which everyone has known, but it's good to get an admission.
	And then a journalist was speaking to him who was talking about Joe Biden and saying that he was sure that Joe Biden won that way.
	And in this, he's referring to a voter registration drive Facebook went on to register 4.5 million voters to And the lead for policy agreed, saying, exactly, I think so too.
	So Joe Biden won because we intervened in the way of getting people to go out and vote.
	Because, I mean, the margins that Biden won by were in many places very, very narrow because the votes were concentrated in certain areas, like California and New York.
	And Facebook's saying, we were able to mobilize 4.5 million people to vote.
	If they're across the battleground states, then that's easily...
	I mean, A, you could call it election interference.
	This was a problem brought up in the Senate a long time ago, in which I think it was someone even from Google or Facebook...
	Robert Epstein.
	I don't remember the name.
	It was a chap called Robert Epstein, who was a friend of Hillary Clinton...
	Who had said that Google had essentially siphoned votes to the Democrats, millions of them to the Democrats.
	And he was saying this like three or four years ago.
	And he was like, look, we can do the voter campaign to get people to vote.
	But in reality, on the back end, if we want to mess with that, we can.
	And you would never even know.
	You would never even know if we sent this to three million people and none of them are Republicans because they would never see it.
	And he was like, look, I'm a Democrat, friend of Hillary Clinton.
	But Jesus Christ, this is this is absurd.
	Yeah, again, like, what's this chap's name, sorry?
	I can't remember.
	Thomas.
	Mr.
	Thomas.
	Mr.
	Thomas, right, okay.
	But like Thomas is saying here, it's more power than any king has ever had, more power than any emperor has ever had.
	And he shouldn't have it, it's just wrong.
	Yeah, I mean, we've also seen this admitted from Nick Clegg, a little people who works for Facebook these days, saying that he thinks we need to have a more, what was it, a rule-based order?
	Democratically accountable.
	Yeah.
	He thinks that, essentially, Facebook should be accountable to democratic governments.
	So they're all in agreement in the court there that actually they're terrible, the way the whole company works.
	Actually, what we're doing here is awful.
	We've got way too much power.
	We shouldn't have this.
	This is wrong.
	I mean, I just think that's wrong.
	Yeah, so it's good to have an admission from the horse's mouth.
	I mean, we've all said this for a long time.
	But they're not the only ones who are shooting themselves in the foot endlessly.
	Well, hang on.
	Before we go on, right?
	Now, I've been saying for a while that I actually don't think Mark Zuckerberg is a bad person, right?
	I think Mark Zuckerberg...
	He's only a robot.
	Come on.
	Well, exactly.
	I don't think he's a bad robot either, right?
	I think that he's just trying to become a real boy, and...
	He found himself at first with something quite small that was interesting and fun, and this grew.
	And you can see this in the way that he approached the early stages of Facebook, where he was just like, people just keep giving me their information, like they trust me, they're idiots, right?
	And this turned out that it grew into a massive dragon.
	And now he finds himself riding on the back of this out-of-control beast.
	And it's like, okay, well, you can get off at any time.
	It's like, yeah, but someone else will get on.
	And who do I trust with that kind of responsibility?
	The person directly under him, was it Sheryl Sandberg?
	Yes, Sheryl Sandberg.
	Sandberg.
	She openly admitted on leaked audio that she claimed responsibility for Facebook claiming responsibility.
	What was it?
	Me Too and Black Lives Matter exploding?
	Yeah.
	So it's like, he knows that the person under him, his COO, is an absolute lunatic.
	Yeah.
	So it's like, right, if I do step down...
	Exactly.
	You're riding on this giant beast that's burning down cities, literally, in the case of Black Lives Matter.
	You know, who do you entrust with that responsibility?
	It's like, nobody should have this, as Mr.
	Thomas is well aware.
	But they're not the only ones messing up.
	So there's another court, the court of Twitter.
	A much smaller court on an island somewhere that nobody cares about.
	Yeah, but they're the ones plugged in with the politicians.
	They have that advantage.
	So they really goofed, like goofed big time.
	So they are being sued by the National Center on Sexual Exploitation on the basis that they knew that there's child pornography on their site, had it reported multiple times, knew that it was there and still refused to take it down, and then only intervened when the US government intervened and said, you take this down or you're going to jail.
	Yeah, for anyone who doesn't know, there was a New York Post article, this report on lotuses.com, of course, as I said, we've got loads of great reporting going on there, that the New York Post recounted how there was a lawsuit from a then-now-17-year-old who was harassed and threatened into recording and sharing explicit material showing himself and another then-13-year-old while the exchanges with sex traffickers posing as an underage girl started and took place on Snapchat.
	They Spread on Twitter in 2019, and despite reported multiple times during that year, Twitter did not act to remove what was child pornography, and they eventually took action after the US federal law enforcement got involved.
	The videos had had 167,000 views, and when reported to Twitter for review, Twitter responded that, upon review, the material did not violate any of their policies, so no action was taken.
	Just saying, Twitter, right?
	And I don't think this is controversial.
	Maybe child porn should be illegal and forbidden by your policies.
	Just a thought.
	I mean, for every other company, this is in the same realm as, like, terrorist content, where it's, like, absolutely not very fast acting.
	And I've seen people trying to upload videos to YouTube and whatnot, and they get striked down within like 10 views or whatever, if they're inappropriate.
	Like people making spicy memes, for example.
	The thing is, I can accept the argument and say, well, okay, not every platform works the same.
	Twitter might not be able to create the same kinds of video analysis algorithms that YouTube has.
	But they are able to do it for terrorist stuff.
	No, no, no.
	Right?
	Let's just give them the most charitable interpretation.
	Maybe there is a genuine technological barrier there or something like that.
	Maybe terrorist stuff, there's particular signifiers that can't be identified in other ways.
	Who knows, right?
	But after it's been manually reviewed and you're like, yeah, this child porn doesn't violate our policies, maybe that's something that Twitter actually has the power to solve.
	Yeah, there's that.
	But I also just, I don't want to overlook the fact that this thing had 160,000 views.
	It's not a small amount.
	But it'd been reported loads of times.
	It would have had tens of thousands of reports at that point.
	You know, this is not some, oh, misdemeanor.
	No.
	Like, no, you guys knew about this and you left it up because of your views.
	Twitter are like, yeah, this doesn't violate our policies and we stand by these policies.
	Yeah, so unsurprisingly, people not happy about this, and the person not happy about this the most, it seems, is Russia.
	Russia has decided that they're going to threaten to ban Twitter from the entire Russian Federation, and they quoted that their official reasons for this is stories like this.
	They've already slowed down Russia.
	Sorry, they've already slowed down Twitter in Russia.
	if you try and access it, apparently it's slower than normal because they want to send a warning that no, we're serious about this.
	And they quoted child abuse, videos of children committing suicide, things like this.
	And they were like, right, you are not taking this stuff down.
	We're going to take you down.
	Now, just to be clear, this also includes political content like the Alexis Navalny protests.
	So they quoted, there were videos encouraging children to go to protests.
	About this.
	Well, no, no, it's not just bad, it's actually illegal in Russia.
	That's the point.
	The Russian state also has the view that basically anything that threatens the Kremlin has to go.
	So there's some politicking going on here as well.
	Yeah, but I mean, legally, it is illegal to take a child to a protest in Russia.
	Okay.
	So that's why they're like, you know, that's one of the reasons.
	But I mean, this is not to say that like Vladimir Putin and his government are good guys or anything.
	They're deeply censorious.
	They're constantly assassinating journalists, etc, etc.
	We don't, we're not in favor of them.
	But the point is, they're not wrong when they're like, you need to delete child porn from your platform Twitter.
	They're not wrong.
	I mean, and what a ground to see to these people.
	There's a guy I knew, a libertarian guy in Russia.
	And it's funny, he used to live in Paris and now he's moved to, I think it's St.
	Petersburg or Moscow.
	And when I spoke to him, he was just like, man, if you had told me when I was living in Paris that it would be less safe in Paris in 20 years than Moscow, I would have thought you were nuts.
	Well, it would have been nuts.
	And that's where it is now.
	And for a liberty-minded person, he sort of sat there in Russia being like, Jesus Christ, can the West sort itself out?
	Like, I can't make the case for Western liberalism when you guys keep doing pathetic things like protecting child porn.
	Yeah, but what about?
	And it's like, yeah, okay, that looks bad.
	Yeah, but what about this as well?
	Yeah, okay, that gay pride parade looks kind of bad when they're peeing on each other in the street.
	Like the Russian nationalist is looking here being like, yeah, not sure.
	Yeah, I'm not sold on the concept of liberalism at this point.
	It's like, well, to be fair, it is socialism that's done this.
	It's like, yeah, but, you know.
	But that's the problem.
	It's not just a problem for us.
	If you want to push liberty around the world, we have to sort out our own backyard to advertise it to other people.
	We have to be a good example of it.
	And if we're a disgraceful example of it, then really we need to buck our ideas up.
	But this is why we're advocates of this kind of muscular liberalism that's like, no, you can't have child porn on Twitter.
	Radical statements!
	Denounced by the Guardian.
	Perhaps you shouldn't have sexual fetish parades marching down the street.
	If you're going to have a pride parade, just wear a suit.
	Wear a suit.
	Look like the example that you want to be to the rest of the world.
	I don't know.
	Don't go in a dog collar on all fours.
	What is wrong with you?
	Yeah, so the Russians are giving them 30 days to get rid of everything, and if they don't, then they're just going to turn off Twitter.
	Frankly, at this point, I'm thinking 30 days is probably a bit too generous.
	Apparently it is very generous.
	Other countries have given them much less time to do things.
	So one of the points I also wanted to make in here was it's not just going to be Twitter, obviously.
	The liberals in Russia are upset.
	Which other social media sites allow child porn?
	No, no, no.
	But this will be the argument for Twitter.
	But then the political part, I think, is obviously important in which they will say, well, then also YouTube probably has some stuff on it.
	Facebook, that probably has to go as well.
	And then everyone will be stuck on Russian social media.
	So you'll be on VK, for example.
	You won't be able to go to other places.
	Except for Lord Voldemort.
	Yeah, so it's setting up a firewall, and as I was going to point out, this is not new either, and we can't sit on our high horse and say, oh, we would never do such a thing.
	We do surgical strikes instead of a firewall to get rid of things we don't like, and the example being Lord Voldemort, the man who cannot be named for reasons.
	So, I mean, he was banned from, what was it, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, God knows what else, in Western social media, after lobbying from the state.
	He was not actually banned on YouTube.
	Yeah, but he's been quarantined.
	It is an effective ban.
	He was siloed, yeah.
	Yeah, so I'm just going to call it a ban because it effectively is.
	He can't reach people.
	But it means that he can actually start a new YouTube channel.
	Which will just be quarantined again.
	Sure, at some point.
	Yeah, at some point.
	But, like, just keep creating.
	He's done it.
	He got, like, 2,000 subscribers or whatever, and then it's quarantined again.
	So it's ridiculous.
	Yeah, so they do surgical strikes on things they don't like, politically incorrect people.
	Drone strikes, in fact, because it's all done algorithmically, isn't it?
	Yeah, so then he went over and joined, I think it was like TikTok and VK to try it out and be like, what if I get on Eastern social media?
	Let's see what happens.
	And then they also banned him.
	Why?
	But this seems to be because of all the media reports.
	And then they're like the European department of TikTok or VK or whatever.
	It'd be like, oh, bad man.
	And then they banned him.
	So then he's left with nothing.
	So then we had Parler, which he got good on.
	And then, you know, they took down Parler.
	So this is not some high horse where we can be like, oh, we would never ban such things.
	No, we do it all the time.
	Oh, yeah.
	I mean, Parler's never recovered either.
	I posted a meme on Parler.
	The same meme on Gab and on Parler.
	And the engagement is just palpably worse on Parler now.
	And it's a shame, because I like Parler as a platform.
	But, I mean, to be fair, Gab has really upped their game recently, so I'm actually very happy on Gab now.
	But, like, on Gab, this meme had, like, 2,000 shares, and on Pilot it had, like, 30 shares, and it's exactly the same meme as Harry and Meghan speaking to Oprah, surrounded by piles of cash, right?
	That meme that was going around.
	Like, it just shows you the damage that deplatforming a platform does to the platform itself, even when it gets itself back up.
	The platform is irrevocably damaged.
	Yeah, the pathetic state of Western social media.
	Twitter's going to get itself banned.
	I imagine the Russian government will follow through and then go with everyone else that's Western social media.
	Yes.
	And you don't really have a horse to sit on.
	You can't argue on a point of censorship.
	You've been doing that for years.
	And you can't argue on the point of decency.
	Because you think child porn should be on your platform.
	Doesn't violate our terms of service.
	Don't know what your problem is.
	Jesus Christ, what a mess.
	I mean, how is it not the law prevents that?
	It is the law.
	I mean, obviously it is.
	It's where the federal government got in.
	But, like, why wouldn't you just be like, right, okay, we just have anything that's legal, we will take off, and then these are our policies, right?
	That would just be, well, that would be how I would do it.
	It would be a sane world.
	Yeah, I suppose it would.
	We don't live in a sane world.
	Let's go to video comments.
	Hey, Carl and Callum.
	There have been a lot of high-profile criminal cases recently that have me pondering on the rights of the accused.
	In light of massive media coverage, how can the accused's right to a fair trial with an impartial jury be assured?
	And if their right to a fair trial and impartial jury cannot be assured, is not the fair and just thing to release the accused?
	Cheers.
	Well, that's a really great question, and what's happening in the Derek Chauvin case at the moment, where they're vetting the people on the jury, aren't they?
	Yeah, they are, but that's a bit of a weird conclusion.
	I mean, take Lord Ahmed or whatever who's being tried as well.
	The Rotherham advertiser is in trouble for people saying things under the reporting of it.
	Really?
	What happened?
	Comments.
	So they report something that's in the public domain, and then there'll be a bunch of comments saying, oh, hang him, kill him, this sort of thing.
	And apparently that's interfering with the trial, and the judges got very annoyed about it.
	So if you want to argue that because...
	The jury could be influenced, therefore we should just let the accused go.
	I don't think that's good enough.
	I think it's very tough to get a fair jury, for sure, but that's part of it.
	Well, I mean, this is why in America they sequestered the jury.
	Yeah, which is a good thing to do.
	Yeah, but in this country we sequestered the media.
	Yeah, which is the wrong thing to do.
	Yeah, it's the wrong thing to do, yeah.
	I mean, he's not wrong.
	Who is it that said, I'd rather 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man go to jail?
	Probably someone like Lord Acton or someone.
	And he's not wrong when he says, well, look, if they can't have a fair trial, should they be tried at all?
	And the answer's probably no.
	I don't know, because it runs into the world of theory versus reality here.
	How on earth do you ever get a fully fair trial?
	The concept of a fair trial being judged before a jury of your peers...
	Who have no biases?
	not who have no biases but who are not obviously and openly prejudicial against the person being tried so i mean the vet so if you if you if you're a black guy and you're being accused of raping a white woman and you turn up and all the jury are covered in kkk hoods you're gonna like look this in the fair trial right it's fairly obvious but if there's just a random segment of the population of no particular note or relation to you uh then that's as good as you're gonna get and there's no point aiming for perfection here because life isn't a perfect thing dealing with society
	In that sort of, I don't want to be rude, kind of narrow slice of his example, but when it's Derek Chauvin, Black Lives Matter...
	Then you've got a separate problem.
	God, it's tough.
	It's a good question, but I don't think just letting him go would solve the issue.
	No, I'm not saying it solves the issue, but if you're driven down to that position where it's like, either he gets an unfair trial or he doesn't get tried at all, the right thing would probably be to err on the side of caution, because you might be condemning an innocent man.
	Maybe?
	I don't know.
	If it was you, and you were the innocent man, you'd probably want that.
	I know, but then, I mean, who wouldn't want to be released?
	Yeah, but this is on the proviso that you are being falsely imprisoned.
	Let's slip that around.
	If I was George Floyd's family...
	Which one would you want?
	Well...
	They're also biased in this.
	Yeah, A, they're heavily biased.
	But I mean, B, if it turned out from the evidence that Derek Chauvin didn't kill him and it was actually kind of suicide by fentanyl, then I wouldn't want Chauvin arrested.
	But then we run the trial to find that out.
	Well, we do.
	God, this was a rabbit hole.
	Yeah.
	But it was a good question.
	It's a good question.
	Yeah, good question.
	I like that question.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Hi, Lotus Eaters.
	This is Joshua.
	Hope you're doing very well.
	Have either of you seen Steven Crowder do his Change My Mind videos?
	If you haven't, you definitely should.
	But I was wondering if you'd be willing to do anything like that.
	Go around and talk to various people about different topics and debate them.
	I've seen Carl debate Vosch and Destiny in a really good way where he kept his head and presented the facts logically and won the debate.
	So I think that could be a very interesting thing to watch.
	So have you considered that?
	Yes.
	The problem is that we're currently in house jail, and the government won't let us do anything or go anywhere.
	It's currently illegal to, well, leave the house, really.
	Go on holiday, have sex with someone you're not already married to.
	Again, COVID's sharia, mate.
	I'd love to do all of this.
	But come the summer, and hopefully COVID is in the rearview mirror after every single one of us have been injected five times with a vaccine that gives us blood clots, Joke.
	I don't know.
	What are we up to?
	Like 40% vaccinated?
	Something like that.
	It's ridiculous.
	We're all still locked up.
	Yeah, exactly.
	We're all still locked up.
	The new cases are like, oh, there's 5,000 new cases a day.
	Well, that's good because like a month ago, there were 50,000 new cases a day.
	So I mean, it's obviously having some sort of effect and the deaths have gone down to double digits now.
	So it's like, okay, well then let us out.
	You know, you've done, you've actually, well done, you did it.
	You actually solved the problem.
	Take the W. Yeah, exactly.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Take the win.
	You know, for the love of God.
	But the eternal thing, once you give government all this power, they don't give it up, do they?
	No, they bloody don't.
	Let's go for the next chap with his wonderful t-shirt.
	Hey guys, Tony D and Little Joan again.
	Carl, I met you at Tim Pool's Minds event, and at the time I was working on a book with my friend called Woke-A-Stand-A-Novel, a political satire about how a college is ruined by wokeness.
	I've since written a sequel about Hollywood, Holly-Woke, another novel.
	I have a third book in mind, but the premise of the entire series was, what triggers the wokeness is Trump's re-election.
	Should I continue with this series, is the question.
	I would also love to send you guys copies.
	I don't know if there's an appropriate address.
	Gold tier forever, and thank you.
	I have every confidence that when Trump wins his third term, your book will be completely relevant.
	That'll actually be really good.
	Also, if he doesn't, I mean, it's sort of...
	You ever seen Kaiserreich?
	You missed the point.
	Trump wins his third term.
	Yeah.
	Oh, that's fine.
	Yeah, but we're all in agreement that's true.
	Fine, fine, fine, fine, fine.
	It's not a shock.
	We're not going to put this bit on YouTube, so it's fine.
	I'm going to say it.
	Joe Biden didn't win!
	Oh, man.
	Yeah, go on.
	Hello there.
	I'm just wondering, how would you describe the oppression pyramid Who's on the bottom?
	And who's on the tippity-top?
	Also, with the whole commies transitioning...
	When do you think Vosh is going to openly transition?
	I mean, with his downstairs situation, he's practically halfway.
	Listen, listen, man.
	I support every man's right to have an engorged clit.
	I don't think Vosh is likely to transition.
	I think that there are many, many other left-wingers who are much closer like Owen Jones.
	Are we putting bets on just who's first now?
	It's not even are they going to do it, it's just who's first.
	Yeah, I think so.
	I mean, we'll look at the ones that have gone.
	The Philosophy Tube, Hannah and Jake from Hugo and Jake, the Bible Reloaded guys.
	Sean and Jen transitioned yet?
	Sean, I don't know.
	Or did they get divorced?
	I can't remember.
	Oh, they got divorced.
	But I think it'll be Owen Jones next.
	I mean, he's virtually there.
	I'll take that bet.
	It's a good bet.
	Yeah?
	Okay, well, what are you betting?
	That he doesn't?
	No, he was.
	Well, that's my position.
	Can we short each other?
	No.
	Anyway, let's go for next.
	Musket for home defense.
	dude.
	That was the most based thing I've ever heard.
	I mean, like, if anyone breaks into my house, the first thing I'm going to be yelling is, Fix bayonets!
	That's actually a really good shout.
	Yeah, I know.
	What would you be more scared of if you're a burglar?
	Like, someone shouting, Who's there?
	Or, Fix bayonets!
	Yeah, exactly!
	Oh, God, what have I got myself into?
	I just want to steal his TV. Yeah, let's go for the next one.
	Hello, gentlemen.
	I've been trying to piece together the idea of how someone reaches their potential if they don't have a hobby, something to tend their hand to, and I've not come to an answer for that, and I think it is because you have a hobby, a drive, that you reach your potential.
	Along those lines, I'd like to show you what I've been making over the last week.
	I started making two sash clamps so I can become a carpenter.
	The left is the first one and the right is the second.
	I think you can see the progress, which is why you need to tend your hand to a hobby.
	So this guy's got a really great question, and I really liked what he's produced there and the example of it, right?
	So it doesn't have to be a hobby, but it is whatever it is that you do that you put your interest and time into.
	Because, I mean, when you're doing just a regular desk job, like when Callum's sat there, you can tell he's not putting his effort in.
	But, you know, when he goes to read about North Korean propaganda, he's totally invested, right?
	Yeah.
	It's part of long work.
	It is absolutely true that there is going to be something that you should be pouring your time and energy into.
	It is true.
	This is something that most people have a thing like that, but a lot of people don't.
	My wife doesn't have any hobbies.
	She's always annoyed at me.
	So I don't have a hobby.
	It's like, well, I can't choose a hobby for you.
	Anything I suggest to you, I'm like, no, that's boring.
	How old is she?
	33.
	Nah, I was going to suggest my mother didn't actually get into sewing, but she's not old enough for that yet.
	Well, I don't think there's an age limit.
	We're not sewing, knitting.
	Yeah, but I don't think that you're prevented from doing that if you're below a certain age.
	I don't know, it feels weird when you're younger.
	Doesn't it?
	I think she's got kids.
	She can knit them clothes.
	I thought I might go home and recommend it.
	Well, there we go.
	Done.
	Maybe for her birthday, I'll just buy her all this knitting stuff in an instruction book and be like, hey, yeah, darling.
	Just don't even, like, tell her this is your hobby now or anything.
	Just be like...
	Yeah, I just won't say anything.
	I'll just leave knitting needles and balls around the house.
	Just a hint.
	Maybe one day she'll be like, yeah, I've always knitted.
	What are you talking about?
	Like, my mother makes blankets.
	They're all right.
	Exactly.
	But the point is, like, it is very nice, as I say about reaching potential, it's very nice to have something to invest yourself into.
	Because, like, with his woodwork examples, and I love woodwork.
	I love watching woodwork, and I would love to do it if I had time or space.
	But you see your own improvement, and you've got the progress that's directly in front of your eyes.
	It's something you can feel proud of, and it gives you sort of meaning and makes you feel worthy.
	And I totally agree with the way he was approaching that.
	It was fantastic.
	I'd love to see more progress as the years go on, you know.
	So eventually he's creating these beautiful works of art out of wood.
	That'd be amazing.
	Someone mentioning in the chat, apparently in Belgium, a hobby-less was an insult when he was a kid.
	Really?
	That's a great thing to have in your culture.
	That is fantastic.
	I mean, that's the sort of thing we can essentially say to a lot of left-wing activists.
	You're here because you're hobby-less, aren't you?
	Oh, that's a really good attack.
	So there's the people protesting right now, for example.
	You don't have a hobby, do you?
	Why are you there for everything?
	Yeah.
	Like anything and everything labor, you turn up.
	Like I've been to so many, like when we did- You're childless, you're hobbyless, you're husbandless.
	You're a loser.
	Yeah.
	But like when we did, what was it?
	Like there were Brexit protests, I mean, or Tommy Robinson protests.
	You have different groups of different things and they'd all basically, they're there for the same thing every time.
	It wasn't just, you know.
	They've always got the same signs.
	They're always there for the same people, different issues, but they're all basically the same issues.
	But when I went to left-wing groups, it was always completely different issues every time, but it was the same people.
	It was really weird.
	I went to quite a few different, I think it was stand-up to racism or anti-counter demonstrations to different things, and every time it was exactly the same people.
	I almost got to know the people there by their faces.
	I was just like, why do you just do this?
	The politics of it is their hobby.
	That's what it is.
	Well, it was completely different issues every time, but they were just there.
	I care about global warming.
	I care about women's rights.
	I care about this.
	Oh, Jesus.
	Hobbyless.
	Yeah, hobbyless.
	Go get a hobby.
	Let's go for the next one.
	Good afternoon, Lotus Seaters.
	The majority of Antifa terrorists, white.
	The majority of Black Lives Matter terrorists, white.
	The majority of politicians and far-left parties, the Democrats, Green parties, and other similar parties around the world, white.
	The majority of women's studies and other liberal classes, white.
	The communists in our countries, white.
	The colour of snow, white.
	The Scottish Justice Minister, brown.
	Now, excluding that last one, there seems to be quite a lot of white people in far-left movements who seem to have a sense of self-loathing and hatred against white people.
	Why do you think that might be?
	That's brilliant.
	I really like this commenter.
	In a normal person's view, you in fact decide how good or bad you are compared to your contemporaries.
	So if you're looking around and you've got all of these African and Arab states that are trading slaves, and you come along and say, hey fellows, maybe slavery is wrong, in the future you'll be the one who's told that you're bad for not having ended slavery sooner, despite the fact that you had to impose the imposition of the end of slavery on these people against their will.
	We're the bad people when it comes to slavery in history.
	Let me just check the numbers.
	So we had our first ethnic minority MP 128 years before the Saudis realised slavery of brown people was bad.
	So progressive.
	But the point is, they compare it to perfection.
	It's like, yes, that may well be the case, but why did you ever have any involvement in any of this?
	Because you guys were all doing it.
	Yeah, but we don't believe, just like David Lammy, we don't believe in abolishing slavery, but you do.
	Why didn't you abolish it sooner?
	God, who cares what you think, though?
	Yeah, exactly.
	Why do we even have a conversation?
	Exactly.
	Why would I treat you as if you're a moral legislator?
	Why would I take any kind of moral shaming from you?
	You're a bad person.
	Go away.
	You don't want to reform anything.
	You want to destroy it, so why don't we get the gun?
	You want to end this system so you can bring back slavery.
	That's my opinion of people who hate the West.
	If they want to tear down Britain, tear down the international liberal order that Britain created, it's because you want to return to slavery.
	And we know this is true because of what happened in Libya, where they are still now trading slaves.
	Let's get to the next one.
	Apologies for the fact that I don't have a camera, but I was just having a think about our political party names and was contemplating, rather than naming a political party the patriarchy party, why don't we subvert woke expectations and name a political party diversity, equity and inclusion party and see how that performs.
	For the super straights.
	For the super straights.
	Against the Hindu folks.
	I mean, I'm down for it.
	To be honest, if the Indians have shown up anything, setting up something that is entirely committed to the bit really does work.
	Like, it could be really funny as well.
	He's not wrong.
	I mean, I've got no comeback.
	It's hard to say that's bad.
	Because he's right.
	So Patriarchy Party versus the Inclusion, Diversity and Equity Party.
	But it's run by a bunch of super straights who want equity for the super straights.
	Oh, God.
	The future looks bright.
	Ryan Tomlinson talking about the bill says, Why would he?
	That would really make him look bad, wouldn't he?
	Of course he's not going to do that.
	It's just good that you came to us, made that comment, so we can show the thousands of people who have watched this that that is entirely within the hypocritical realm of Keir's politics.
	Natalie Collier says, If you need more proof that the protesters are uninformed, simply trying to emulate American protesters, I saw Sky News reporting on the protests last night, and one person was holding a sign saying, Abolish ICE! Dear protesters, get off Twitter!
	Fucking hell!
	You know what, I'm going to clip this.
	I'm going to make this one of the clips.
	Dear Russia, please ban Twitter.
	Please, for the sake of your own country, to prevent you becoming the new America.
	Just, God!
	Self-important narcissistic twats try and seem virtuous.
	Oh, that's a generous way of putting it, Natalie, I've got to say.
	Abolish ICE! Abolish ICE! Done!
	Sarah was killed by ICE. Like, what are you talking about?
	But we've done that because we never had it.
	Brave Instant says, everyone say it with me, what do the Conservative Party actually conserve?
	Labour.
	They conserve Labour's reforms.
	They're thrilled with Labour's reforms.
	They're thrilled with our lack of privacy.
	They're thrilled with our open border policy.
	They're thrilled with Labour's hate speech laws.
	The Conservatives are just Labour with less of a moral compass.
	They don't have the backbone to say, we're for Labour policies, but they'll let Labour put them all in and be like, well, we'll continue them.
	I hate it.
	Why haven't they got rid of them?
	Simple question.
	Why have they not got rid of everything Tony Blair did?
	Yeah, just do it tomorrow.
	There's nothing stopping you.
	Repealing all of this crap, all of it, immigration's over, hate speech laws are over, all of this other intrusive state nonsense, where it's social services, removing kids from their parents because they don't want to transition them and stuff like this.
	Over.
	It could all be over tomorrow.
	You could replace any of the things that need replacing with something that isn't infected inherently with left-wing activism.
	But no, the Conservatives are useless.
	The Civic Nationalist says, now if they're paying attention, I think we can start opening them to the free speech argument.
	Yeah, I know, you're right, David Lammy.
	You could own that free speech argument yourself.
	You don't actually just have to appeal to the Conservatives saying, look, I'm the tyrant and being oppressed, so I'd like some of your liberties, please.
	Maybe, have you considered, David, adopting these liberties yourself?
	The Communications Act, the Snoopers Charter, and hate speech laws, I'm hopeful because even if we convince at least 10% of them, that would be enough.
	But the next time this happens, we shall be silenced because there are too many who are too silent for too long.
	Yeah.
	I mean, the next Labour government is going to be brutal, frankly.
	They're going to have so many options.
	Lockdowns, that's an option.
	Ending protests, that's an option.
	Hate speech and all this other nonsense.
	Open borders, these were all options.
	They're not going to contract, are they?
	No, they're not going to contract.
	Jeremy Corbyn, or his facsimile in the future, is like, right, so we can do ending protests and we can do lockdowns.
	Guess what we're going to be doing, boys?
	The Conservatives have set such terrible precedents.
	God, I hate the Conservatives.
	Jonathan Crowes.
	Oh, great.
	So now are we going to have the secret police force?
	Yeah, it kind of seems that way, doesn't it?
	Like secret police in nightclubs, patrolling women.
	The secret thought patrol.
	Okay, I'm listening.
	It is all about the framing, really, isn't it?
	Excuse me, ma'am.
	Are you being a bit of a hoe?
	Because this has nothing to do with protecting the case in question, because that had nothing to do with this.
	No.
	It wasn't a bar or a club.
	No.
	I mean, I like the fancier that one day we'll have bars and clubs again.
	Oh, really?
	I hope they will get secret police in there, because at least then I can go for a drink and say that the government did nothing wrong.
	You're going to sign up to be a plainclothes police officer, are you?
	Why not?
	Just tell them to be like, lady, too many drinks.
	Yeah, just because I just want to have a beer.
	Or a whiskey, in my case.
	Keto for life.
	I want the leftists to get their just desserts, but we all know that it just applies to anyone that's against the establishment.
	Yes.
	Matthew Smith.
	Regarding rape prosecution, the CPS will only charge whether there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction and is in the public interest to pursue the case.
	How many of these cases that weren't prosecuted stem from women making up an accusation, I think we should be told.
	Well, that's the thing, isn't it?
	Like, okay, if you've got like...
	You know, you had 20,000 or 15,000 allegations a year, and now you've got 60,000 a year.
	Either the British public got really rapey over the last five years, or something else has happened.
	And if the conviction rate is fairly stable, something else sounds...
	It did go up after 2013, and when did the migrant crisis start?
	We didn't take very many migrants.
	We didn't...
	We didn't see that many.
	But that's the thing.
	I don't know what the number is.
	I don't know what the reasons are.
	It could be complete BS. It could be a mixture of changes in society and things like this.
	But we don't know.
	That's the problem.
	We've got these numbers, and they're ascribing a cause and a reason to these numbers when we don't know.
	And there are other potential avenues that need to be explored, which are doubtless contributing factors.
	It may be that there are more women who are brave enough to come forward because of the social justice turned society's government.
	Fine, I believe it.
	But there may also be more women coming and thinking, well, because everyone believes women now, I can make allegations and maybe they'll go somewhere.
	But also just the absurdity of the Labour Party being like, the Tories have done this, even though it was exactly the same in their government.
	Like, nothing has changed.
	So it's complete BS.
	Yep.
	Biden has kids in cages because it's clearly easier for him to cure that source of life-giving child blood that the elites love so much.
	Axe Jones is never wrong if you wait long enough.
	Well, no, they've done studies that show that if you infuse an older person with youthful blood, they become younger.
	You what?
	Google it.
	I'm not even joking.
	John, pull that up!
	So if I'm 80 and I get a, what, blood transfusion?
	From a young person.
	Like I kill a child and I put its blood in me.
	You don't have to kill someone to get a blood transfusion.
	Yeah, but they're elitist.
	Of course they will.
	Well, okay, fine.
	I'm sure that they didn't have to.
	It's Joe Biden.
	I'm just making the assumption.
	But I'm not even joking.
	That's genuinely a real thing.
	It was fairly recently this was reported on as well.
	You found it, John?
	Young blood transfusion.
	Particularly a young person to an older one.
	The intonation of creating a health benefit.
	2nd February 2020.
	See?
	Alex Jones turns out, on a long enough timeline, just Alex Jones just turns out to be right about almost everything.
	In the early 2000s, a group of scientists at Stanford University revived a grisly procedure used in the 1950s known as parabiosis.
	They paired living mice, young with old, peeled back their skin, stitched together their sides so the two animals shared the same blood circulatory system.
	Josh, are you hearing me that scientists aren't ethical people?
	A month later, they found signs of rejuvenations in the muscles and livers of the old mice.
	Okay, so it's been done on mice.
	They're not doing it on people.
	Well, we haven't finished the article yet, have we?
	Okay.
	We've not finished the experiment.
	Just saying, Josh, there's more and more evidence that scientists are bad people.
	Every day.
	I already know, yeah.
	Okay, fine.
	Double down on it.
	Anyway, see, I'm telling you, man.
	How did we even get here?
	We got here because this is how Joe Biden is getting the young blood that's keeping him alive.
	Joe Biden was actually born in the 19th century.
	Probably true.
	Fact check.
	Jim Crow joke.
	There's a reason.
	Dylan says, Trump has X number of children in a brand new border facility equals kids in cages.
	Crisis.
	Biden has three times the number of children in what amount to augmented shipping containers.
	Nothing.
	See here.
	Move along.
	They're just holding facilities.
	No crisis here.
	That's true.
	It's absolutely true.
	They know what they're doing as well.
	as well.
	They know what they're doing when they play these language games.
	Curious question says I'm R.
	Aside from the Democrats' ploy to get more voters holding citizenship for eight years, do you think there's a ploy to expand the borders of the US?
	I hadn't thought of it that way, So I don't know.
	I've got no particular reason to think that.
	I think they just generally want to abolish the idea of borders.
	I don't think they need to expand the borders.
	No.
	So they won't.
	But I mean, like Hillary Clinton a few years ago...
	I mean, unless you count putting, what is it, Washington DC and Puerto Rico as states, which they said they are going to do.
	Yeah, yeah.
	But I mean, like a few years ago, Hillary Clinton gave a speech to like a Rockefeller Foundation or something like that.
	You know, one of these banking foundations, she got paid tens of thousands of dollars for 20 minutes work.
	And she was like, well, I'd like a hemispheric open borders system.
	So she'd like to the Northern Hemisphere.
	She'd like open borders.
	So what?
	Open borders with Russia?
	And Germany?
	And Turkey?
	There's a lot on the North there.
	And Mexico?
	But also, you can't have open borders with any country unless you've annexed that country.
	I mean, that's sort of the thing we learned from the EU. Like, every attempt at being like, oh no, you can't close the borders was killed because the sovereign countries of the EU were just like, nah.
	I mean, France putting up their borders, what was it, three weeks after the declaration?
	It's just like, okay, this is nonsense.
	And the problem was you got unilateral decision-making from people like Angela Merkel, who's like, yeah, we'll take millions of Middle Eastern migrants in and then just allow them to go anywhere in Europe that they want.
	Not going to consult Greece, not going to consult Hungary, not going to consult Austria.
	France?
	Or anyone else?
	It's just like, no, sorry, this is Merkel's choice now.
	It's like, oh, really?
	Ignacio Junquera?
	Let me know how I pronounce that.
	I'm very fed up with how complacent the Western countries are that have borders with countries that act as bridges for mass immigration.
	I've worked with literal fencehoppers that to this day are not accepting that they did anything wrong, even with their new citizenship.
	I don't hate the people that come.
	I hate how they do it, and why they do it, and how they are allowed to do it.
	If we keep going like this, we may end up with machine gun towers on borders and gunboats sinking dinghies.
	Well, I mean...
	Well, stop if you do that.
	Well, yeah, it will, because the people coming are not automatons.
	They're people who have thoughts and feelings and opinions.
	And when they hear Joe Biden saying, come to America and we'll just let you in, or Trump saying, come to America and we'll keep you out, they make a decision based on that information.
	And so they knew, well, Trump's not going to let us in, we're not going to come.
	Joe Biden's going to let us in?
	Well, we're going to come then.
	You know, it's just...
	It's obvious.
	And so just the responsibility in the messaging itself is, I think, pertinent.
	Anyway, we're running out of time, in fact.
	Francesca Ward says, Zuck is clearly a fellow autist.
	Deliver him to us and we shall re him into compliance.
	We shall hand slap...
	Hand flap him...
	Slap...
	I can't pronounce the rest of that.
	But I agree with you that I think that Zuck probably is a fellow autist, just trapped on the back of a giant dragon, and we probably do need to slap him.
	Oh, slap a bee up.
	Oh, right, yeah, yeah, yeah.
	But yes, Thug Life Bear, it's worth remembering that Putin is wildly popular in Russia.
	Whatever we think of his views, they represent another majority of the country.
	Is that true?
	I don't believe that's true.
	I mean, he does poll very well, but I don't think the polls are fair.
	He seems to be popular in the sense that, like, Bashar al-Assad is popular.
	It's like, well, there's no real opposition that can be spoken of to be popular, so what are you going to say?
	So even if it's like, you know, 30-40% that love him or think that he's the one to be in charge, you know, at minimum, there's no one anywhere near that kind of popularity because the opposition is completely fractured, so...
	But then, I mean, none of the politicians in Western democracies get more than 30 or 40% either.
	But I don't want to say he gets, like, overwhelming majority or even 50%.
	Yeah, no, no, I'm not saying that.
	But what I'm saying is, how exactly can we point to them and say, well, look, only 40% of your country is...
	I'm largely pointing those numbers out of my behind, so I don't know what accurate polling exists, because who knows?
	I think there have been a few.
	Twitter banning itself is fine.
	Yeah, but happy birthday.
	But anyway, right, thank you folks for joining us and if you would like to support us and help us grow, because like I was saying at the beginning, there are a couple of people I really want to hire and I can only hire one of them, but I would really like to hire the both of them because I think they'll do great work together.
	So if you would like to invest in us and of course get all the access to all of our fantastic premium content, you can sign up at lucides.com, become a member.
	Have the ability to comment on the website and, of course, get access to everything that we pay all.
	In the meantime, there's loads of great free content on listies.com because we have an amazing team.
	We're always producing loads of great stuff.

▲