Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 2, 2021 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:30:26

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #102

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
	Welcome to the podcast of Lotus Eaters for Friday, the 2nd of April 2021.
	Thank God we are past not only April Fool's Days, but the rest of the week.
	So we've got a nice...
	In fact, it's bank holiday, isn't it?
	Yeah, we don't have bank holidays here.
	I get told that legally that they're allowed them, but, you know, I don't know.
	Anyway, Callum tells me that legally I'm not supposed to be forcing him to come in.
	I did 9,000.
	But anyway.
	What else am I going to do?
	Yeah, exactly.
	Go on holiday.
	Leave the country.
	Go out for a drink.
	Yeah, exactly.
	May as well come into work.
	But anyway, yeah.
	Friday.
	Good day.
	And it's been very interesting.
	Anyway, before we start, we will have the Brave New Podcast up at 3pm today.
	Brave New World Podcast.
	Brave New World.
	What did I say?
	Brave New Podcast.
	That's a catchy title, to be honest.
	Okay, fair enough.
	I should have called it that.
	Yeah.
	Brave New Podcast.
	That's a...
	God damn it.
	Anyway.
	The Brave New World Podcast will be up at three o'clock and we're very proud of it.
	And we've got some premium articles going up as well, don't we?
	I just can't remember what they are.
	We have some more premium articles going up by very interesting authors.
	And so basically lots of content.
	Go and subscribe.
	Go and support us.
	Check it out.
	It's all really good.
	Let's get on to the fun stuff now.
	That's not what I should introduce that is!
	Should we restart that?
	Going on to a very sombre and concerning court case that's going on in the United States.
	Let me just introduce it.
	Okay, so the George Floyd-Derek Chauvin court case has been progressing, and we covered it yesterday, we've covered the opening arguments, all the rest of it.
	I didn't expect us to be covering it again this soon, because...
	Good lord.
	Stuff happened yesterday, and stuff happening yesterday is very big, so we're going to have to cover it.
	So the first thing I want to mention is this first article here on Notices.com from Rory.
	He's been doing updates on the court case, the different witnesses giving their version of events and whatnot.
	But this is incredibly interesting.
	So this is a chap called Mr.
	Hall.
	Mr.
	Hall was in the car with George Floyd when he was arrested, and Mr.
	Hall is a drug dealer.
	Mr.
	Hall was...
	Alleged.
	I'm pretty sure, actually, no, we can say he was a drug dealer.
	I mean, what's he going to do?
	Sue us?
	Well, the witnesses have already said that he deals drugs.
	So the obvious suspected thing being that he was in the car with him, dealing him drugs, presumably the fentanyl methamphetamine cut drugs, which he then took and then died of an overdose.
	That's the argument from the defense, right?
	Mm-hmm.
	So he was meant to be a star witness in all of this.
	You know, did you give him the drugs?
	What was in the drugs?
	How many?
	Blah, blah, blah.
	And being a drug dealer, he took the smart thing and pleaded the fifth.
	So he released a statement saying, Mr.
	Hall hereby provides notice to all parties in this matter that if called to testify, he will invoke his fifth amendment of privilege against self-incrimination.
	Which, very annoying, for the truth, because it would be good to get him on the stand and find out what the facts are, but very smart for him personally, because if you were a drug dealer in this case, would you want to go to the court case and give your view?
	I think you would plead the fifth.
	But the thing is, if you're going to say, well look, I'm going to plead the fifth and not self-incriminate, then that's kind of an admission of guilt.
	Yeah, it doesn't look great.
	It's not amazing.
	Apparently the state here, because it's the state who's prosecuting the cop, could force him to come and give testimony, but he of course could then probably sit in the courtroom and be like, I plead the fifth, plead the fifth, plead the fifth.
	But the thing is, that's just him saying basically yes.
	But that's the, well, not necessarily, but the defence could ask him questions that he should be able to answer and not incriminate himself, but of course would make him look bad.
	I appreciate it's not necessarily, as in there could be an alternative explanation, but I would say that it's strongly implied by the evidence that we have that he is the drug dealer and it would just be self-incrimination.
	Yeah, so the state is not using that right that they have to bring him to the stand because it would only help the defense.
	So that's of interest because, I mean, how much justice is there in this case?
	It will be something asked afterwards, weren't there?
	When the cities are on fire, yeah, it will.
	Yeah, I mean, if you want to know what Mr.
	Hall looks like, we can go to the next one.
	This is from the body cam footage.
	So this is just a, you know, you can see the timestamp.
	You guys can check this out yourself in the show notes, hopefully.
	You're not going to give his prices as well, are you?
	Yeah.
	No, but this is the chap.
	So this is, you know, that's the car.
	George Floyd is literally in the seat next to him.
	Seems like we're advertising for him at this point.
	You can find him at 5th and Main.
	Anyway, but what's interesting about this as well, just to mention, this is the body cam footage that's all been released.
	This is an hour long.
	And you can see all the likes and dislikes, overwhelmingly likes.
	And if you check the comments, overwhelmingly people saying, I'm glad I wait for the full footage to make my opinion, because this is obviously not as cut and dry as the BLM types want to make it out to be.
	Yeah.
	But there's also some other complexities here that have emerged.
	So they found out, well, it was brought to the surface again, that of the body cam footage, you can actually find out.
	So we mentioned previously that a witness had said he was foaming around his mouth when he was on the ground.
	So if we go to the next one here, this is a tweet from Jack Sobiak, who's got some footage of the cop here questioning him.
	And he mentions in here that he can see when he stood up, he's foaming around the mouth as well.
	So you've got foam coming in around your mouth.
	Yeah, I've been hooping earlier.
	Hooping being basketball, presumably.
	Right, right.
	And so that leads to the point that he had foam around his mouth before he was put on the ground and when he was put on the ground.
	And this will come in handy later when we talk about his previous interactions with drugs.
	So that's what's going on there.
	So this leads up to day four.
	So this is starting us on day four.
	And I'm going to go through this backwards maybe because I want to leave the girlfriend to the end because she's the one of most interest.
	So they interviewed the paramedics who appeared on scene to protect him.
	The paramedics didn't offer too much, but they offered some points here, which is that they did a load and scoot, is what they called it.
	So they turned up, threw him in, scooted out there, because presumably of the threat from the crowd.
	They did not feel comfortable doing protection there.
	They wanted to resuscitate him two blocks away.
	They literally just drove to a different block and then started again.
	So this is not because of any medical reason, it is clearly because they felt they were threatened.
	The prosecution tried to argue with them and say that they weren't physically attacked, which has nothing to do with it.
	The question was, was there an impending attack?
	Was there a perception of hostile actors there who could have harmed you?
	That's the entire question.
	So the prosecution wasting its time.
	And then there's also the point that one of the cops joined them in the ambulance to help resuscitate George Floyd, which is a very normal thing to do for a racist cop who wants to kill black men.
	Just making that point.
	And then they also mentioned they saw Floyd when they arrived on his left side.
	And this seems...
	Like nothing, but it's worthy because the prosecution had argued that he was prone and therefore this was worse for him and they weren't taking proper care of him.
	But if he's on his left side, then the defense can argue they'd apply the recovery position to make sure he didn't die.
	So the paramedics giving evidence for the defense's side there.
	And just thinking of the video, he was definitely on his left side.
	Yeah.
	So then the more senior ambulance worker was interviewed afterwards.
	He didn't really provide too much, except the fact that he had an estimated guess that when they arrived on scene, he was dead.
	When they put him in the ambulance, he was dead.
	When they were resuscitating him, he was dead.
	And when he got to the hospital, he was probably dead.
	So for the whole thing, he's saying, well, probably dead the whole time.
	So we can't be the ones to blame, which there's no reasons to doubt him on that.
	So there's also a police officer who was interviewed.
	This wasn't of much use from what I can find.
	This website here being a lawyer who's going over this because I'm not a legal expert so I wanted to take some advice.
	So he gave some statements that could help either side but mostly a waste of time for purposes of finding out new things.
	So then there's the other footage that came out.
	So this is one that's been circulating on Twitter.
	I want to play the first clip, which is just something that's been circulating, which is footage inside the store of Floyd.
	So he was described as being clearly high by the store workers.
	This is how clearly.
	Let's just play this clip here.
	So you can see him sort of jigging on the spot, really weirdly, and then backwards, looking around the store.
	And then later on, someone comes through, he jigs back, jigs forwards.
	Sort of like he's having fun or dancing.
	I don't mean to laugh, but...
	It's very strange.
	Again, acting strange there.
	I mean, he's clearly off his tits.
	Yeah, so just for people listening, he's sort of walking around the store, clearly off his tits, as you say.
	And then we want to get into what I'm going to describe as Mama, because that is the pet name used for her.
	So this is Mrs.
	Ross, who is supposedly George Floyd's girlfriend or female accomplice or something like this.
	Apparently they met together when they were both addicted to drugs, so they've both been addicts when they met.
	Apparently they've done each other for about three years, something like that.
	The complexity here is apparently in these kind of cases, it's a very common tactic for the prosecution to say, oh, they had an intense romantic relationship or build it up as much as possible because then it lends emotional credence to the side that this is a terrible thing that's happened and therefore try and pull on your heartstrings.
	So for the purpose of this, this isn't to be rude or anything.
	We're just going to call her his lady friend because that's how the lawyer does it because it's like, well, that's the easiest way to put these things because they're not married, for example.
	friend uh got together for a long time and she gives evidence mostly around the fact of their drug use together which again does not vote well for the prosecution trying to argue it was the knee on the neck that killed him but rather the defense's side which it was the drugs that killed him the knee on the neck wouldn't have harmed anyone normally ergo why it's police procedure so she explained that uh Sorry, there's a quote from him here.
	She partly explained her reaction by noting how devastated Floyd had been over the loss of his mother.
	So this is where the prosecution's questioning her.
	Appealing to the video of Floyd shouting out, Mama, Mama, as he died.
	So he's on the floor, everyone's seen the footage, him shouting out, Mama, Mama.
	And she's saying that's because his mom died recently.
	But that doesn't seem to be true.
	And I'm going to play you a clip from her admitting that she's Mama.
	Let's play.
	You and Floyd, Mr.
	Floyd, excuse me, I'm assuming like most couples had pet names for each other.
	Yeah.
	And what was his name for you?
	I mean, what were you saved?
	Let me strike that.
	What were you saved in his phone as?
	Mama.
	So, him shouting Mama on the floor, people thought him shouting for his mother, but his mother's dead.
	Yeah.
	And she is saved in his phone as Mama.
	This isn't to be rude about their pet names or anything like that.
	No, no, no.
	I don't care, obviously.
	But it's just, when he's shouting that, it's actually likely he's referring to her, not...
	And she seems to know that by the fact that she looks down and says mama.
	She looks caught.
	Because she had previously, just a few minutes earlier, tried to claim it was because of his mother, which doesn't seem to be the case.
	And then she gave evidence about his previous drug use, which again does not vote well for the prosecution.
	Which I'm sure, I mean, this is the reason we're covering this as well.
	Usually I would just ignore this whole thing, wait until it's over.
	But the media have been so deceitful, I have to cut these things and play it because I want people to know what reality is.
	So let's just play this clip, which is about the overdose he had had two months previous.
	And was there an incident in March that required Mr.
	Floyd to be hospitalized?
	Yes.
	And that was, can you describe for the jury what that incident was?
	I went to go pick Floyd up from his house that night.
	I thought I was taking him to work.
	He wasn't feeling good.
	His stomach really hurt.
	He was doubled over in pain.
	Just wasn't feeling well, and he said he had to go to the hospital, so I took him straight to the hospital.
	We went to the ER, and they were checking him out in the ER, and it was getting late.
	And I had to get home to my son, so I left that Friday night.
	You later learned that that was due to an overdose?
	Yes.
	You spent several days with him at the hospital, correct?
	Yes.
	And did you learn what caused that overdose?
	No.
	At that time frame, did you learn that Mr.
	Floyd was taking anything other than opioids?
	No.
	Now, then in March of 2020, you got some pills, right?
	You remember describing that?
	Yes.
	And can you describe what those pills were like?
	They looked different to me than a normal pill.
	They seemed like they were thicker.
	Were they uniform in their size?
	They weren't.
	Did they have markings on them?
	Yes, they did.
	And you and Mr.
	Floyd both had those pills?
	Yes.
	And did you consume some of those pills?
	I did.
	Did they have the same effect on you as they did as your other types of opioids you had taken in the past?
	No.
	What was the effect this time?
	And what was different?
	Usually, an opioid to me is a pain reliever.
	It's something that is kind of relaxing, takes your pain away.
	The pill that time, it seemed like it was a really strong stimulant.
	I couldn't sleep all night.
	I felt very jittery.
	You felt what?
	Very jittery.
	Okay.
	And so these were pills that were not bought from someone who you knew to have a valid prescription for Percocets.
	Wow.
	So, in March, sorry, May.
	Is that right?
	March.
	Yeah, March, sorry.
	They brought pills.
	They were irregular in shape, so presumably they've been cut with something else by the evidence we have now.
	Or just homemade.
	Yeah, likely with fentanyl and meth added together, is what we likely know.
	They got them in March.
	They had the same pills in May.
	They had taken opioids for a long time, the experienced users, let's say, and these pills were different than the normal pills they'd taken.
	These ones stimulated them.
	They were jittery, they'd stay up all night.
	And this is bad for the prosecution because they were arguing he couldn't have died of a fentanyl overdose because if you'd taken that, he would be very sleepy and drowsy and you can see he's very jittery.
	Well, now that she's saying that the pills they got were from the supplier who gave them pills that were not normal, they were instead different.
	They were clearly some kind of stimulant, and George Floyd jumping around in the video previously, and having had a previous overdose that he survived.
	A previous overdose in which he had intense stomach pain.
	Just like the stomach pain that he reports in this one.
	Yeah, so this RPA was what we have.
	That's another timestamp in which you can hear him complaining.
	It's not just, I can't breathe.
	You remember he says at times, I've got pains in my stomach or my stomach hurts.
	Why does his stomach hurt?
	There's no knee on his stomach.
	So the stomach hurting, again, looks like it's from the same issue, which is a drug overdose.
	So again, very bad for the prosecution's side.
	I mean, they're just taking a series of L's in all of this.
	And then there's the point about where these pills come from.
	So she was asked about this, and the pills almost certainly came from the drug dealer he was in the car with, Mr.
	Hall.
	So let's play.
	You knew Mr.
	Floyd would purchase narcotics from Mr.
	Reese, or Maurice Hall?
	I don't know that.
	I don't.
	I speculated that.
	Do you recall the FBI agents asking you, did Mr.
	Floyd purchase controlled substances from Mr.
	Maurice Hall?
	Yes.
	And do you recall saying yes?
	I did say yes, but I did not see it with my own eyes.
	I'm going to object at this point.
	Follow me.
	Okay.
	Now, the pills that were purchased in March that you described, did you know that those were purchased from Mr. Hall?
	Hall?
	The pills that you described in March of 2020?
	No, I didn't know them.
	But those are the pills that kept you up, you said, all night, right?
	Yes.
	Did those pills continue to be around from March through May?
	I don't know.
	Do you recall the FBI asking whether you were getting those same pills from the same source from March to May?
	I don't recall that question.
	Would it refresh your recollection to review a transcript?
	Yes.
	Honestly, I was in such shock then.
	I don't even know what I mean by some of the things I said.
	So you've now had an opportunity to review that portion of the transcript, right?
	Yes.
	Would you agree with me that the FBI agents asked you from March to May if you continued to purchase those pills from the same source?
	Did they ask you that question?
	They did.
	And you responded once in a while when we were desperate.
	Agreed?
	That's what it says, yes.
	And when you took him to the hospital, did you notice foam coming from his mouth?
	I noticed some kind of foam building in the corners of his mouth.
	A dry white substance?
	Yes.
	Sorry.
	Those same pills, you ultimately got some of those same pills from March or similar pills in May of 2020, correct?
	We got pills in May that reminded me of the same I don't know if they were the same pills.
	I don't know where they came from.
	So you had a second experience with those pills, right?
	Or a similar feeling to those pills?
	I had a similar experience, yes.
	And that was approximately a week before Mr.
	Floyd's passing?
	Yes.
	And by similar experience, you Do you recall telling the FBI that when you had that, you felt like you were going to die?
	I don't remember saying that, but I did see it in the transcript.
	And is that how you felt, like you were going to die?
	I don't remember feeling that way, no.
	I didn't recall even saying that.
	Well there we go.
	I mean, it seems pretty cut and dry to me.
	You couldn't ask for a better witness for the defense argument here, which is it was the pills that seemed to have killed him, not the knee on the neck, because they've argued previously, there doesn't seem to be any muscle damage there, blah, blah, blah.
	And there is a whole bunch of evidence here for the ideas that the pills caused him to death.
	So, I mean, there is something to be said of the selective memory she seems to be expressing there.
	I'm not trying to question her judgment, but it did only go one way in the questioning, that when it looked bad for the prosecution, she suddenly had forgotten things and had to be shown the transcript.
	Thank God for the transcripts, because it keeps everyone honest.
	So, she said she felt like she was going to die when she took the pills.
	Yeah, that's something she said.
	The pills that were found in the cop car after tussling with George Floyd that were also covered in his saliva, they had fentanyl and traces of meth in them, and when Floyd was taken for the toxicology report, he had almost four times the amount of fentanyl, which kills a normal person, and traces of meth.
	So it seems that they cover drugs with meth, and therefore it makes it into a stimulant.
	i'm not a drug expert or a drug dealer but i'm just guessing from the evidence that is presented here and the meth would also explain why his pupils were not a pinprick so the uh medical team when they were questioned talked about this they said if we're looking for someone who's od'd and the sort of thing we'd look for like their pupils becoming very small and they weren't and the Defense is saying here, well, if there's meth included and it being a stimulant, then this would explain that difference.
	So the prosecution trying to argue that, well, he doesn't have pinprick eyes, therefore it couldn't have been a fentanyl overdose, that argument is now destroyed by the looks of it.
	So bad luck for them.
	She also mentioned in this, so she said she took the pills a week before him dying.
	She said she believed that George Floyd had been clean for two weeks, so not taking these pills for two weeks up until the point of his death.
	There's no way to know if this is true or not, obviously.
	But if it is true, then it brings into the question of tolerance.
	Because the prosecution had argued that George Floyd might have taken almost four times the amount of fentanyl that would kill a normal person.
	That he takes fentanyl regularly, therefore he's built for tolerance.
	But if he's off for two weeks, again, we'll hear from experts later on about how significant that is.
	Maybe that would affect it.
	But, I mean, him taking almost four times the amount that would kill a person is not a small amount.
	It is quite a large amount.
	There's a large amount of evidence that gives us the inductively strong conclusion that it may well have been a drug.
	Yeah, I mean, the lawyer who I was quoting from his blog on this, he sort of just makes the point, well, even if he's tolerant, does the tolerance of an addict make him more resilient to death?
	Like, if you get to the point that it will kill you, you know, again, he says he's no expert, but if you're taking, if the amount for a death is X amount and you're taking more than that, I don't know.
	I mean, the fact that he had to, like a month before, be hospitalized for ODing on the same drug, what appears to be the same drug, Yeah, the same or similar.
	And the fact that the consequence after the police arrived, and just before in fact, he seems to have been exhibiting the same behaviours, the same sort of foam-flecked mouth, the same stomach pains, can't breathe, is delirious.
	I mean, it all just looks like he took more drugs.
	So his lady friend here seems to have given all the evidence necessary for the defense to make this case pretty solid for their point of view just on the witnesses before we get into the expert testimony, which is that he was a user of drugs.
	These are a specific kind of pill that explain away any of the abnormalities of this case and would explain a reason for an overdose.
	And again, with the mentioning of foam there.
	So when he overdosed two months prior, she mentions there was foam around his mouth for the same or similar pills when he OD'd and had to give medical treatment and was saved.
	And then again here, the cops mention he's got foam around his mouth after he's arrested and we can see in the video, seems to shove something in his mouth.
	He's in the car with the drug dealer who sells these pills.
	Find the pill with his saliva on it in the cop car.
	When they're wrestling in the car, they find traces of the pills in the car with his saliva on it.
	I mean, come on.
	And then he's on the floor and another bystander who is completely neutral believes the cops killed him said yes, he had foam around his mouth when he was on the floor.
	And it's like...
	This is a pretty cohesive case.
	Then the toxicology report of after he's dead, this guy has large, large amounts of fentanyl and trace amounts of meth.
	Yeah.
	So...
	I don't know what to say.
	It is pretty, you know, I'm not going to say it's open shot.
	I don't know the complexities of what may come out later in the trial.
	But the defense is looking incredibly strong.
	And the prosecution not looking so strong.
	So they tried to save this mess after this testimony by trying to argue that, yeah, well, hmm, he's taken the pills before and he didn't die.
	So how could he have died this time?
	Yes, I was shot previously and didn't die.
	So how is it this bullet wound killed me?
	Literally.
	That's their argument.
	It's like, yeah, but did you die?
	It's John's argument.
	So let's play the next clip, which is them trying to defend it.
	When you took that pill in March, that seemed different.
	Obviously you did not die for it.
	No.
	And did you see yourself, Mr.
	Floyd, taking one of those types of pills in March?
	No.
	Didn't say that again, I'm sorry.
	So the pills that we were talking about you obtained in March.
	Yes.
	That caused you to feel jittery and were different.
	Did you also see Mr.
	Floyd taking that kind of pill?
	We did not take them together that time.
	Did you think that he had some of them for himself?
	Yes.
	Obviously he did not die in March.
	No.
	And the pill that gave you a similar experience in May, yes?
	Yes.
	Did he have some of those pills as well?
	Yes.
	Did he take some of those pills in May?
	Yes.
	He did not die before May 25th of 2020, correct?
	Yes.
	Yeah, but this cumulative damage...
	What a nonsense argument.
	That's ridiculous.
	He's taken pills in the past and didn't die.
	Therefore, he could take as many pills as he wants and he would never die.
	It's like...
	What?
	That's ridiculous.
	It's literally cumulative damage.
	The more you do it, the more damaged your body becomes, and therefore the more likely you are to die in subsequent overdoses.
	Because the claim from the defence is that he's clearly high in the store, so he's clearly taken something, presumably these pills.
	And then when he's got into the car, he's with his drug dealer, presumably he brought more than one dose.
	And then when the police approach him, you can see him pop something into his mouth to try and get rid of it, presumably eating his stash, in which case he's taking a ton of drugs and is likely killing himself.
	And they're like, yeah, but previously he'd taken a dose and not died.
	And previously he may have OD'd, but he didn't die.
	It's like, what?
	I don't get it.
	And then he had four times the amount of fentanyl needed to kill a man and he did die.
	It's like, yeah, but he couldn't have died.
	He'd probably taken half of that amount before.
	But in fact, it appears to be logically sound that if it keeps getting worse and he keeps taking more, then eventually he will die from it.
	And this is the argument they gave in that opening statement as well.
	They're like, you know, George Floyd eats fentanyl for breakfast, therefore he's got high tolerance and doesn't die.
	If he takes a lot, it's just like, what?
	The Mithridates defense.
	What are you saying, man?
	Very silly.
	And the thing to mention here is that that defense lawyer that you've seen a lot of, there's only one of him, and then there's 12 lawyers for the state prosecuting on this.
	So the public perception of him being able to show this, people paying attention, have quite become fond of him, let's say, because they're just like, wow, this guy's destroying the prosecution, and there are loads of them, just him.
	And it's just him.
	It's just the absolute god of this case so far.
	Right.
	Let's skip the memes though because we're running out of time.
	Come on, I want to show them real quick.
	Very quick then, go on.
	So there's a lot of memes being made.
	So this is the first one, just him with a cigar.
	The objection.
	The next one, there's a guy with a top hat and a glass.
	And then him being...
	Super Saiyan?
	Super Saiyan, yeah.
	And then him with some of the dishonest witnesses who tried to hide some things.
	And the next one is the opposition's lawyer, where he's just like, you guys are getting destroyed.
	And the next one, just him as British general.
	I think it's Nelson.
	Is that Nelson?
	Yeah, I think it's Nelson.
	Anyway, let's go next.
	Tell me three things about you.
	Because every time he keeps opening, the witness is like, tell me some stuff about you.
	And then the next one...
	And busting down the door.
	He looks like such a mild-mannered chap as well.
	Yeah, he's just some guy.
	But he was like, I'm not taking any Marxist nonsense in his opening statements.
	And the last one here, I think, is here with the muscles.
	Barges into any party, demands you tell him three facts about yourself, refuses to elaborate further, strikes.
	So yeah, that's the memes coming out of this.
	But I look forward to more of the case.
	I'm not saying that we have all the evidence.
	Of course, there are more things that may come out.
	But the four days that have gone so well, that have gone past so far, have gone incredibly bad for the prosecution.
	I just can't put it any other way.
	Which is why I'm so frustrated with the media's reporting on this.
	We didn't even talk radio when we were coming in.
	They had someone on who was paying attention to the case, describing it.
	They were like, oh, I don't know what the defense is doing.
	They're losing everything.
	I was like...
	What fantasy world are you living in?
	Remember, I think that the Westminster bubble actually has quite a thin grasp of American politics, whereas we tend to be imbued and indulged in it because of the internet constantly.
	It's like when Kay Burley said to so-and-so, Like, you know, well, you know, Trump insiders like...
	Scaramucci!
	Yeah, it's like, what?
	This laughing stock that was in the White House for like three months, like four years ago or something.
	You know, why are you bringing him as an expert on what's going on?
	You know, but the point being made is they don't know what they're talking about.
	And I think this is one of those cases.
	But anyway...
	Let's go to the section that you were going to do yesterday, but we didn't have time.
	And I'm kind of glad that we didn't have time to do this yesterday, because it allowed the story to kind of mature and further events to happen that kind of bring it to a close.
	So, this is something you posted on Twitter yesterday.
	No, the day before, in fact.
	And it was, as you captioned it, socialist radicalising schoolchildren in London.
	If we can just get those pictures up, John, just so we can see what's happening.
	This is graffiti.
	White schools for brown kids.
	Are you mad?
	Next one.
	You can see a large protest with a few hundred students in this Pimlico school.
	Next one.
	It's a secondary school.
	Secondary school, yeah.
	So these are about 13, 14, 15 years old.
	16 at the top.
	Students at Pimlico Academy walk out over racism and sexism shown by the head teacher according to the South London Socialist Workers' Party, as you can see.
	A Trotskyist party.
	Exactly.
	A revolutionary communist party.
	Next one.
	And as you can see, it's some 14-year-old looking kids with hijabs on and face masks with a socialist worker banner that says, If we can go to the next link, John, it's the same one.
	But you can see that the Socialist Workers' Party of South London have tweeted this out going, Students at Pimlico Academy forced the school to close early today due to their mass revolt against racism.
	While the British establishment washes the hands of their own racism, Britain's youth are fighting back.
	Britain's youth are fighting back.
	That's exactly what I would say when seeing that picture.
	But as you can see, this is clearly communist agitators are radicalizing kids in South London.
	No one should be able to do this.
	Yeah, no, no one should be able to do this.
	And there was another video, there was a video going around again, that the socialist worker...
	At socialist worker had posted on Twitter, which is the head teacher, who we'll be talking about shortly, being followed around the school by one of these radicalized students demanding a comment and demanding he address their communist concerns.
	And so, let's get into the problem.
	Let's address their rhetoric and their list of demands.
	Because it's very much like 1984.
	It's very much like the radicalization of the kids against the adults in the room.
	So, if we go to the link, you can see a list of their statement on Pimlico Academy.
	This has apparently come from the students themselves.
	Although, as we go through this, you'll realize that they are not the authors of any of this.
	They bought the website, coded it, wrote all this.
	But anyway, no, they may well have done that, right?
	I think it's totally possible that a bunch of 14-year-olds could have built this fairly simple website.
	Totally possible.
	To get domain names like £2 a year or something, if you want to get just some rando one, costs you nothing.
	And so, yeah, I can completely believe the students would create a website, but they are certainly not the author of these thoughts that are contained within it, right?
	So they want to basically be communist revolutionaries.
	We believe the school has unfairly targeted groups of students.
	The school should protect marginalized races, religions, and all other groups instead of target them.
	Already you can see the communist rhetoric here.
	But it begins with racism.
	The academy placed new rules who would punish students with Afro hairstyles, clearly discriminating against black students.
	Oh yeah, 14-year-olds came up with this.
	That new policy that has been brought in is racist because it says haircuts that block views, but it implies afros, says an anonymous student speaking to South London Press.
	Right, so an anonymous student thinks that haircuts that block views means afros, it implies afros, and therefore that's racism.
	This is stupid, right?
	But that's not where it ends.
	Students were outraged that there was no recognition of Black Lives Matter movement or Black History Month.
	So the students were outraged that the school doesn't honour American holidays and American problems that they learned about via Twitter.
	I know, but just that statement.
	That's why I find this so hard to believe the students wrote it.
	Students were outraged.
	There was no recognition of Black Lives Matter or Black History Month.
	B.S. Of course the students.
	I mean, the students may well have been, but they're not the authors of those ideas.
	Four of them, maybe.
	Yeah, but even if it's all of them, they all went on Twitter, saw what some Americans were doing, got this American academic language, and have now been like, yeah, we're communist revolutionaries too.
	And so anyway, with commencement of the new leadership, it's clear our voices aren't being heard, and there are efforts being made to silence blackness.
	They didn't make this up themselves.
	This is from an anonymous student.
	Again, what are you talking about, kid?
	The next one being Islamophobia.
	And this one's pretty golden, actually.
	The Academy has faced further accusations of discrimination, saying hijabs must be black, but other clothing can be any colour.
	Which I find odd, because they have to wear school uniforms.
	So, you know...
	They have no opposition for that.
	Yeah.
	You've got to wear a black hijab and it's part of your school uniform now.
	This is according to the school's rules.
	I also love the Islamic sounding school here, where it's just like, no, no, no.
	The Taliban position, it must be black.
	Yeah.
	Well, we'll get into that.
	This challenges young Muslim girls' identity.
	As a student who is both black and Muslim, I've always felt that my culture and religious beliefs have been welcomed and respected.
	However, with more and more of these policies that limit our ability to express ourselves, I feel uncomfortable in my own skin because I feel like huge parts of my identity aren't being respected.
	This is box cutter, cookie cutter leftist rhetoric.
	But this comes from an anonymous year 12 student.
	So this person is apparently 16 and speaks like that.
	Bull.
	Absolute bull.
	This has been written by leftist activists.
	The new uniform policy includes that if students choose to wear a headscarf, it must completely cover the hair.
	This is harmful and insensitive towards girls who have just started to wear the hijab or are struggling with it.
	What this is, is the fact that in Islamic communities there is a proper way to wear the hijab, And there is a proper kind of hijab to wear.
	And the school, out of deference to the customs of the Islamic community, are applying those standards as part of the school uniform.
	And the standards themselves, the Islamic standards of what the hijab is and how it's supposed to be worn, are now being represented as a form of Islamophobia.
	It is absurd.
	I just want to mention the whole point about it must cover all of the hair.
	That's not universal, of course.
	Many Islamic countries permit hair being shown.
	But how is it in Pakistan?
	I know.
	They've taken the Pakistani-Saudi approach of being like, it all must be covered.
	It's just like, okay, literal Sharia from the school here.
	The very hardline Diabandi approach from Pakistan is being applied.
	The Sharia position is Islamophobic.
	That's what they're saying.
	That's what they're saying.
	The school adopting that for the Muslim students.
	And again, it's because, look at it, it challenges young Muslim girls' identity.
	How can applying the Sharia to Muslim girls challenge their identity?
	Makes them more Muslim, I guess.
	Good question.
	Anyway, transphobia.
	We believe that the idea of gendered uniform for all students is a ridiculous backwards ideal.
	This ostracizes non-binary and gender non-conforming students who are struggling with their gender identity.
	Well, now I know you're not the author of these thoughts.
	We get to hear about a kid who has been apparently a female to male transgender for years and was forced to do PE with the girls.
	Shut up, kid.
	Poverty.
	Right, the next one.
	We believe that the school has been inconsiderate of students and families who are living in poverty.
	It's not the school's problem to fix poverty.
	The school has a set of standards that they're supposed to enforce, and apparently hijabs being incorporated into that is now Islamophobic.
	But the point is, this is something that all British schools have.
	You have to wear a certain kind of uniform, you have to have a certain kind of haircut, or at least not anything ostentatious, and you have to be within a certain prescribed boundaries.
	I mean, I remember when I was at school, I actually hated wearing the shirts, right?
	And so I would wear the black jumper without a shirt on, and every day I'd get in trouble with the headmaster, and I'd get detentions and things, you know, but it was worth it because I just really didn't like wearing the shirts.
	But anyway, poverty, not the school's job.
	Sexual assault.
	We believe that students are not protected to or listened to when it comes to sexual assault.
	We want the school to feel safe for all students.
	I don't believe you.
	I don't believe you at all.
	Academics.
	We believe that the curriculum does not currently represent its pupils.
	We should see ourselves and our backgrounds represented in our studies.
	Again, you didn't write this yourself.
	But what you're saying there is we don't want to become British.
	This school is a colony of globalism.
	That is what is being said, right?
	Now, the Daily Mail did an amazing, a really amazing piece, actually.
	I don't normally feel the need to give props to the Daily Mail for their reporting, but they've done a bloody good job here.
	I haven't got it in specific order, but there are just a few subjects I want to talk about that they mention in this.
	So, as you can see, the teachers joined the protests at Pimlico Academy as the pupils demanded the union flag is torn down, and they scrawled, run by racists on the walls, after the new headmaster tried to add the kings and queens of Britain to their history class, banned coloured hijabs, and forced a trans boy to do girls PE. As in, it was normal.
	They did the normal British thing by having a British education, having a unified and codified school uniform, and said, right, the biological girls have got to do the girls' PE, and the biological boys have got to do the boys' PE. End of conversation.
	That's all totally reasonable, right?
	Anyway, this new policy, all these policies were ushered in by the new headteacher, Daniel Smith, last year.
	And the most contentious one, to be honest, seems to be the fact that it stated that hairstyles that block the view of others would not be allowed and the hijabs that were too colourful, of course, had to be black.
	A mutiny erupted at the London School today as the pupils protested against the rules forbidding the colourful jobs and the haircuts in the new heads back to basics regime, which calls for U-turns on policies to toughen up discipline and adopt a traditional history curriculum, emphasising, as we've said, all fair, right?
	And teachers, of course, caved down to demands to take down the union flag.
	So the union flag that was on the school was taken down, but it was also burned by the students.
	Unreal.
	Hundreds of pupils and parents gathered outside Pimlico Academy this morning holding the Black Lives Matter flags and chanting, We want change.
	The protest, which took place three weeks after schools returned, was originally meant to take place on a football pitch in the grounds, but this was allegedly locked by staff.
	The rebellion has now extended to include other policies viewed as discriminatory by the protesters, including changes to the history curriculum and to make it more chronological, which emphasises the British kings and queens.
	So teaching British history in a British school, right?
	That would be integration to teach students of foreign extraction British history in a British school to make them British.
	But what they're saying is that we actually don't want that.
	And as you saw from the white schooling for brown kids, are you mad?
	What they're saying is we want to be a colony.
	We do not want integration.
	That's the express message here.
	The express complaint was that when they're taught British history, the people in British history are white, not brown-skinned, and that's a problem.
	But then, as we'll see in a minute, they're a bunch of racists.
	Opposition, which includes threats for staff to strike, was originally focused on the uniforms and the hairstyles, but of course this expanded to all of this.
	And critics claimed that this would penalise Muslims and people with Afro hairstyles at the school, where three-quarters of the children are from ethnic minorities.
	So the school is three-fourths, non-English, and they're all unionising against the headmaster who's like, well, we're going to teach British history because this is a London school and London is the capital of Britain.
	And they're like, why would you do this?
	You're mad.
	But also the flag.
	Like, he's also like, we should have the flag.
	They're like, burn it.
	They are also burn the flag.
	Burn the flag of the country I'm in.
	Also, the history of the country I'm in, I don't want to know.
	Yeah.
	But none of the demands made upon the kids are in any way unusual.
	You have to show consideration for the other kids, so don't have the world's largest hairstyle that blocks people's views.
	The right of your desire for self-expression cannot be absolute because rights end up conflicting.
	Again...
	If you have the world's biggest hair, then someone's right to be able to see the classroom is impaired.
	So there has to be, and you have, you are forced by these conflicts to introduce sensible, reasonable standards, one of which in this is don't have giant hair.
	That's totally reasonable.
	So let's go for some of the pictures of the graffiti, because this is mad, right?
	Pimlico Academy, run by racists for profit.
	Yeah?
	It's run for profit, so it's an anti-capitalist attack, and of course run by racists because they want to teach British history.
	Next one.
	Headmaster Smith should get the sack.
	Okay, yeah, I'm sure that kids think that.
	Next one.
	Ain't no black in the Union, Jack.
	That's amazing.
	That is an amazing statement.
	Now, for people outside of the UK and who didn't grow up in the 80s and 90s, they might not have known where the origin of this phrase is.
	But the origin of this phrase is in neo-Nazi groups in Britain, which they would say, there ain't no black in the Union Jacks, so you need to go back, or something like this.
	As in, go away, black people don't belong in Britain.
	That was the message that was said by the neo-Nazis with this phrase, there ain't no black in the Union Jacks.
	And now, black kids in London are writing it as their own graffiti on the walls, and as the reason to get rid of the Union Jack.
	I mean, the horseshoe, the eternal horseshoe, has arrived, and Blacks shouldn't be here, say the neo-Nazis.
	Blacks shouldn't be here, say the far left.
	And I guess they're just kissing cousins.
	Again, just we will not integrate is the message.
	And the neo-Nazis are saying, yeah, you can't integrate.
	And so they're both like, yes, shake hands.
	Or the grabbing hands meme is exactly the same.
	The school itself is run by Future Academies, which is a multi-academy trust set up by conservative peer Lord Nash, who is on the board.
	And it's like, okay, well then let's have the state appropriate it.
	And then let's imply the new rule that the government's brought in, that all government property has to have a union jack on it.
	What now?
	Did you want this?
	Is this what you wanted?
	Because it's what you're going to get.
	The British History Program, which is available on their website, outlines a plan for, quote, great events and people from British history, from Augustine's mission to the trial and execution of Charles I. You know, things that happened in British history.
	It covers significant events and individuals which shaped the country, including Alfred the Great, the Norman Conquest, Henry II, Thomas Beckett, Richard the Lionheart, Saladin the Merciful, I mean, also not all white.
	I mean, Saladin the Merciful there, being an Arab.
	Well, yeah, absolutely.
	And the Spanish Armada being Spanish.
	And the gunpowder plot.
	I mean, this is about religious troubles that we've had throughout the history of the country, which have lent us to become the birthplace of the idea of religious tolerance.
	Why wouldn't you want kids to know that?
	If they live in this country, why wouldn't they know that?
	Why shouldn't they know that?
	Because they want to abolish everything that came before.
	Because they're a colony of the global sort of world order.
	A teacher at Pimlico Academy who resigned and is set to leave this year told The Guardian that staff were feeling demoralized, good, and had fundamental disagreements with some of the choices made by the Academy Trust leadership, as in they are the agents of this global order.
	She said that she could no longer work at a school that no longer...
	What are you talking about?
	Your values are not applying any standards to the kids and not teaching them anything about the history of the country in which they live.
	And do this because they're black.
	What a set of values.
	What a set of values.
	Also, there ain't no black in the Union Jag.
	Does she disavow that?
	The kids are writing it.
	Where did they get that from?
	Anyway, she says, Pimlico has a proud history of celebrating its diverse community.
	So blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, communist rhetoric.
	So to have a situation where young people do not feel represented and staff voices are not being heard is very sad.
	Quit.
	Oh, you did?
	Good.
	The National Education Union members for Pimlico Academy said that they'd overwhelmingly passed a motion of no confidence in the headteacher and moved towards the ballot for industrial action.
	An indicative ballot is scheduled to be held after the Easter break, which could potentially lead to strikes.
	The NEU said that Mr.
	Smith took over as principal and the entire senior leadership at the team at the school resigned.
	So this is a socialist industrial action against this guy for not being a globalist communist shill and for being a British patriot.
	I'd like to educate the children, not be a place for indoctrination.
	And to create revolutionary racial socialism, if that's okay, if that's not radical enough.
	But anyway, so after all of this, the school capitulated.
	Daniel Smith caved, which is really disappointing, and we'll go through what he should have done shortly.
	But he sent a letter to the parents promising to revise abandon the hairstyles that block the view of others.
	Measures surrounding the hijabs, all of that, all of it will go.
	All of these complaints he completely capitulates on.
	In his letter, he announced that there's going to be a review of flying the Union flag outside the school building.
	Like, everything.
	You know, saying that the symbol evokes often intense reactions.
	Yeah, from the people who we wrecked.
	Like, sorry, but not the people who we helped.
	Right.
	After Easter, we will conduct a review of this and as part consult with the Academy stakeholders to elicit their feedback.
	In the meantime, the Union flag will not be flown at the Academy.
	The right to protest is a civil liberty, which in the United Kingdom we all enjoy.
	Yeah, but they're busy burning the flag.
	They don't agree with the right to protest.
	I don't know if you can just see there, there are other flags being flown still.
	Scroll up a little bit.
	The Union flag has been taken down.
	Presumably, like most universities, they will have trans flags and LGBT flags up.
	And they'll have flags of other countries.
	But the flag of the country they are in, destroy it.
	I bet they've got an EU flag up still.
	Anyway, but yeah, complete capitulation, right?
	But even then, one of the parents apparently said, well, you know, he made an apology of sorts.
	He has ample opportunity to address the issues raised, but he hasn't until now, so I cannot help but question whether it was genuine contrition there.
	I don't think there should be genuine contrition there, but that just goes to show, no matter what you do, nobody's ever happy.
	They're not going to be satisfied.
	What he's done here is not enough.
	And so I'm absolutely sick of it.
	Thankfully, a couple of the Conservatives have kind of awoken from their slumber, like, oh, the Communists are busy overthrowing parts of the United Kingdom again.
	Oh, maybe we should say something about this.
	Scott Benton, the MP for Blackpool South and a former teacher, said...
	I love this.
	Oh, it's woke people again.
	Scott, they've just made the school, the headmaster capitulate.
	They've just destroyed the idea of having the British flag flying in the school, and they have just had a victory for what is a minor communist uprising based on racial lines.
	Would you wake up?
	This isn't schools.
	This isn't like on the internet.
	You know, this isn't just some rando on the internet going, oh yeah, well, you know...
	Like, this website is going to take down their comment section because of Patriots posting and because of wokeness.
	This is the future of these kids are based on, again, racial lines.
	They are spouting neo-Nazi phrases.
	You lazy idiots.
	I can't get over how just extreme this is.
	Like, no one would expect national action walking into a school, radicalising the youth to protest against the fact they're teaching Black History Month or something, right?
	Like, that would be unequivocally devounced by everyone on the political spectrum.
	But this, I mean, literal Trotskyists organising this kind of thing...
	Getting kids to write literal Nazi slogans on the walls, and they're like, well, this seems like a woke mob making unreasonable demands and expecting the rest of us to bend the knee.
	You've already bent the knee.
	He's already bent the knee.
	But I wish they would just take this a bit more seriously, because these people are incredibly well-organized and incredibly well-motivated, if you can't tell.
	And they're winning.
	Tom Randall, the MP for Gedling and the former editor of the Flag Institute's Quarterly Journal said,"...the flag is a symbol of our national identity.
	It represents all people, regardless of their backgrounds.
	It should be a uniting symbol, and in the sense that the school that were calling for it to be hauled down have completely misunderstood what it should stand for, and perhaps it should go back to the classroom for some learning." It is currently in some parts of the world, like in Hong Kong, being used as a symbol of protest by democracy for protesters who do not have voice.
	Then spend some time actually exploring why things are as they are in this country.
	Why do these people look at the British flag, as Ken D'Andrews said, worse than the Nazi flag?
	Why do they look at it like that?
	Why do they want to burn it?
	Why are they burning the flag of the country that ended slavery?
	That's what you should be asking.
	And if you don't, start prescribing some alternative views with some moral force rather than just, eh, it's a woke mob.
	Like, this weak, tepid response to a bunch of literal neo-Nazis in communist garb, then you'll get people like Zahra Sultana who will do it for you, right?
	Zahra Sultana, the MP for Coventry South, the radical leftist MP who constantly is posting about her own economic illiteracy, Anti-white hatred and anti-British hatred all over social media and pro-communists, obviously, advocacy.
	She said these protesters were heroes.
	Confronting a racist banning of Afro hair and colourful hijabs, students protested and refused to go to class.
	You're going to let her carry this.
	Yishir's going to win this argument with these students if you can't explain why what they're doing is wrong.
	And the worst part about it is, I know the Conservatives can't explain why they're doing what is wrong.
	And so I'm going to explain it in pedantic detail.
	And if you guys...
	I don't know, maybe in the constituency of any of these conservatives, or perhaps your MP is a conservative, do me a favour, send the segment to them.
	You know, find the segment on Bitshoot or on Facebook or wherever else we put it, and send it to them and say, look, I'd like you to listen to what this guy's saying, because he's actually spent a lot of time thinking about why the British flag should be considered inclusive, right?
	So we'll go through it, right?
	Let's talk about how the school uniforms themselves, right?
	It's a totally unremarkable thing that was asked of the students, as one of the conservative MPs pointed out, right?
	And so what we can conclude from this is the rules were not unreasonable.
	And if the rules were not unreasonable, we have to ask why, and it's because they were for the general comfort of everyone else.
	The general comfort, all the students.
	If a student has a massive giant afro, then the student behind him is put out because he can't see what's going on.
	And so that person has done something to him that is improper.
	And so it is proper to say, no, we'll all have sensible sized haircuts or, you know, we won't have big, you know, headdresses or whatever else it is.
	So make sure that everyone can get their own education, right?
	And so what you are doing Is saying that they have a selfish desire, right?
	You are preventing this selfish desire.
	Well, I want my giant afro.
	That's nice, but it's not just about you.
	There are other people to be concerned about because this shows that what you had and what you're trying to impose with your standards is a high trust and relations-based order.
	The order of the school and the order of the rules, the purpose of the rules, is to make sure that everyone understands they have a form of personal responsibility to the other people around them.
	And instead, what you're doing is saying, no, actually, or what the left is doing is saying, no, what they can do is say, my feelings matter more than anyone else's.
	That's a deeply selfish way of viewing things.
	That is a low trust, high self-centered position.
	These are traditional British standards that were being applied.
	And if you can't speak in their defense vociferously, then they will be taken away by communists.
	And notice that what you're saying, the difference here, the main core of the difference, and again, I know that you conservatives aren't thinking about this, but you need to start doing it, is it's not based on abstract principle.
	It's based on direct local individuals, things you can point to, people you can point to, that guy, that guy, that guy.
	The guy sat behind me.
	I know his name.
	I know his face.
	I have a personal relationship with this guy.
	And I'm being an arsehole by having my giant hair.
	So why don't you stop being an arsehole?
	That's what these rules are about.
	Like terms and principles like black and Asian and Muslim and women.
	You know, these are not things that we are talking about in a confined local sense that actually has a real basis on day-to-day life.
	These are abstract like classes that are being introduced by the socialists.
	You need to stop referring to these.
	You need to stop engaging with these.
	You need to start saying local things, local people, particular things.
	Don't universalize.
	Anyway, the final thing there is that teaching British history and British values in a British way in a British school is not unreasonable.
	It is not unreasonable in the capital of Britain to do this.
	So any question, to the contrary, you should say no.
	That's an unreasonable request.
	And that's the basis on which you deny it.
	You do not have to assent to unreasonable requests.
	And so it doesn't matter what they call you, it doesn't matter what they say, it doesn't matter what they threaten to do.
	You say no, your requests are unreasonable, so the answer is just no.
	And instead of this kind of strength coming out of the conservatives, the students engaged with your weakness.
	They said, oh, you can take the other flag if we burn it.
	Great.
	Now we're going to scroll neo-Nazi rhetoric on the walls.
	What now?
	What now?
	You've been, you are proliferating this in these schools with your weakness, right?
	And so the question is, what should the headteacher have done?
	And the headteacher should have come out on day one and issued a warning to all the teachers and pupils that disciplinary measures would be taken if this carries on, if this racism carries on, if this, honestly, anti-British attitude carried on, right?
	It is openly racist what they're doing.
	It's openly communist activism that is being done by the Socialist Workers' Party, and this is hurting the education of the children.
	These particular children.
	Notice I'm not appealing to universal values.
	I'm like, oh, but Muslims everywhere, women, no.
	These kids.
	These ones.
	Not other ones.
	These ones.
	Particular, not universal.
	Get it in your heads, right?
	And so, issue the warning, and after it elapsed, fire those teachers.
	Every single one of them.
	Fired.
	Start hiring new teachers.
	And then a short period of time should elapse after that happened, and then any kids who refuse to go back to their classrooms, you suspend them.
	And then after that suspension has been expired, if they refuse to go back to the classrooms, you expel them.
	That's what you do.
	And you do it without any kind of apology.
	You don't bend the knee in any way, shape or form.
	You say, look, if you want a good education and under British standards in a British school, this is what you do.
	These are standards for everyone.
	There are no exceptions made to them.
	You won't be an exception either.
	End of story.
	And then you sit them down and say, right, you're in Britain now.
	This is British history.
	And if you don't like it, there are many other options for you out there.
	But we're not encouraging you to leave.
	We're actually encouraging you to learn British history.
	Because actually, we think it's really quite inclusive.
	We think that there's a lot here that's of great value to the world.
	All the liberal democracies of the world have been the beneficiaries of the British history that has accumulated in them being in this country, right?
	I know I'm going off on one because I'm really angry about this, but God, I'm so sick of the conservatives going, oh, it seems like Wokeneth on Twitter.
	I hate it.
	I hate it so much, and I just want you to just think about what's going on.
	There is real depth there, and you can win.
	We have all the tools at our disposal, but if you utter the words Muslim, black, or women, you've lost.
	Every single time.
	If you utter those words, you've lost.
	Sorry, I'm getting angry.
	No, it's true.
	Every word of that is true.
	Thank you.
	I'm absolutely convinced of it.
	Which is why it's so unbelievable that they have such a majority.
	They have all the right ministers, and yet things still can't be fixed.
	They have the institutional power.
	Fire the teachers, suspend the students.
	What the hell are you doing?
	Why are you taking moral lessons from kids?
	Why are you taking moral lessons from Nazis?
	They literally have, there's no black in the Union Jack, white schools for black kids.
	Like, what are you doing?
	That's disgusting.
	It's absolutely disgusting.
	And now I'm too wound up for the next segment, because the next segment is good news!
	Like, we're going to squeeze it in, because I don't want to go without having this one on, even if it means we have a few fewer comments.
	But right, so...
	Yeah, honestly, I need a few moments to wind down.
	Talk to me about something normal.
	Something normal?
	Yeah.
	What is normal?
	I wonder, should we mention the protests that are coming up over the weekend?
	Oh yeah, right, yeah.
	Should we invite people?
	Yeah, yeah.
	On Saturday afternoon at 2 o'clock there's going to be a Kill the Bill protest in Regent Circus in Swindon.
	And we're going to go down there and film it and see if we can interview a few people.
	It might be exciting.
	And if nothing's really going on there, we might pop over to Bristol where apparently at 4pm there's going to be another Kill the Bill protest there.
	Probably not quite as safe as the one in Swindon.
	I imagine the one in Swindon is going to be a bit more tepid.
	Yeah.
	But if you're in the area and you want to come down, there's nothing stopping you now.
	The police have taken the position that they will do nothing.
	Yeah, just make sure you bring your mask, I guess, so they can't be like you, you don't have a mask.
	Yeah, that's it.
	So if you're in Swindon or nearby Swindon.
	Yeah.
	So looking forward to that tomorrow, because it's been ages since we've been out, man.
	Yeah.
	Because we used to get out and get in people's faces and it was great fun.
	And we used to do some good stuff.
	And we haven't been able to do that thanks to COVID. And so it's kind of exciting to be able to get back into it.
	Anyway, speaking of things that are kind of exciting and things I'm absolutely happy about, our good friend and the absolute mad lad, Count Dankula, the man Mark Meakin, is standing for the Scottish Parliament, Holyrood.
	It's not going...
	It's not being received very well by certain left-wing elements of the Scottish press, and I thought it might be worth us covering it.
	And, of course, you might want to do a bit of social media activism on Dankula's behalf, because wouldn't it be amazing if he was elected to the Scottish Parliament opposite Hamza Youssef to be able to, you know...
	Be able to counter the narrative.
	Also, I mean, this is where it's at, you know?
	I'm actually standing for election.
	Good on him.
	Yes.
	Yeah, this is where things actually can be changed.
	And so it would be good for him to do this.
	Anyway, so this is how I learned about it.
	It's from The Scotsman.
	And it's just a race for Holyrood, your Scottish election briefing for Thursday, April 1st.
	Well, it's April the 1st.
	I love that it's April the 1st.
	But anyway, I mean, it's pretty tepid stuff.
	I mean, you know, on Thursday morning, Nicola Sturgeon appeared to distance herself from previous claims that independence was essential for a successful economic recovery from the pandemic.
	Blah, blah, blah.
	Meanwhile, the Scottish Libertarian Party unveiled its star candidate for the Motherwell and Whishaw constituency contest at the coming election.
	Mark Meakin, a.k.a.
	Count Dankula, He first made headlines in 2019 when he was fined £800 for filming his partner's pug giving Nazi salutes in response to racist and anti-Semitic phrases.
	Honestly, that's a pretty tepid way of describing what Dank did.
	They could have pointed out that it was a joke, but otherwise it's not essentially a derogatory way of describing what happened.
	It's all fairly true.
	Mark Meekin, yeah, sorry.
	The 33-year-old latterly of UKIP is hoping to unseat the SNP's Claire Adamson, who won 52.5% of the vote in 2016.
	Yeah, well, good luck, to be honest.
	I mean, I doubt he'll do it.
	He's running with the Libertarian part.
	Dankula is a nationalist as well.
	He wants Scottish independence.
	He does.
	But that doesn't mean being in the EU, which is correct.
	The SNP are unbearably literal Nazis, to be honest.
	Not trying to be rude, but they keep going in that direction.
	But the next one was, mystery surrounds the status of the Alba Party's national headquarters in Edinburgh, as in talking about Alex Salmon's new party they don't have any information on.
	I find it really interesting that Dankula gets higher billing than Alex Salmon's party in the article.
	I think that's brilliant.
	But anyway, then Scottish paper The Daily Record gets hold of it, and look at this absolute beauty.
	All the people that are still butthurt.
	Yeah, by Chris McCall, the dirty, dirty smear merchant.
	Nazi pug thug who taught Girlfriend's Pet to salute to stand at Scottish Parliament election.
	Thug?
	He's not a thug.
	He's such a lovely guy.
	You don't know him.
	Like, even the image they use there.
	Look at him.
	Oh, yeah.
	Look at that thug hugging his dog and smiling.
	God, what a Nazi.
	He was, you know, they go on about, you know, he's fined £800 for statements such as Gas the Jews and Zig Heil.
	It's like, yep, yep, keep going.
	You need to get those out there.
	As if this is representative of his libertarian position.
	He was found guilty, blah, blah, blah.
	And he keeps going down, keep going down.
	And eventually, you get to the video blogger who posts under the name Count Dankula is standing for the little-known Scottish Libertarian Party.
	Finally, we get some political information about what he's doing.
	The well is poisoned enough after, like, five paragraphs of calling him a Nazi and saying he's a thug.
	And finally...
	This Nazi is standing for libertarianism.
	But that's the point, you know, it's like the word Nazi is mentioned long before, and all this Nazi stuff is long before we get to the point that he is actually running in the exact opposite capacity as a Nazi, which is for minimum government, which is literally the opposite of what the fascists want.
	But anyway, the Scotch Libertarian website claims we all know government is a cancer.
	True.
	It will not go away by simply ignoring it.
	True.
	If our people are not throwing a spanner in the works, then it will continue to tax you and make illiberal legislation that will force you to comply with.
	True.
	The Record asked Meekin if he would confirm if he was standing, and he was just like, nope, it's just some extremely handsome guy with the same name as me.
	Wow, what a coincidence.
	Yeah, I do.
	He's great.
	Asked why voters should back him in May, he said, I think everyone deserves freedom of speech, individual liberty, and autonomy over their own bodies and lives.
	You know, just like the Nazis thought.
	The current Scottish government is not only not delivering that, but actively trying to prevent it, because protecting their own power matters more to them than the human rights of the people they're supposed to serve.
	Fully endorse.
	What's interesting is the day after this, they published another article that was basically the same article, but just with a different headline.
	Well, it's better than calling him a thug.
	Are they going to publish the same article every day until the election?
	I guess so.
	Are you aware that we don't like this guy?
	This guy bad.
	You know, Scottish man bad.
	But yeah, it's basically the same article, so I won't bother going through it.
	But it's just got a less inflammatory headline.
	The Scottish son, of course, for some reason, don't like him.
	The guys who literally endorsed the Nazis back in the day.
	Yeah, like, hang on.
	That explains why you're defending the SNP, actually, Scottish son.
	Nazi pug lout Mark Meakin to stand as MSP candidate.
	Nazi pug Meakin is set to stand.
	The webcomic joined the ballot paper for the Scottish Libertarian Party.
	Yes, so you say Nazi twice before letting us know that he's a libertarian.
	Right, thank you.
	That's good propaganda there, Scottish son.
	Very professional.
	It's exactly what I'd expect a smear merchant to do.
	Ironically, though, we do actually get this information from this smear merchant the quickest.
	Like, it's literally the second paragraph we get to hear is Scottish, well, they call it Scottish Liberation Party, but it's a libertarian party.
	So, that's the quickest way we get to the actual political position that Dank has.
	But again, they're that useless.
	They don't even get the fucking name right.
	No, they didn't get the name right.
	But they also say Nazi twice before they manage it.
	But anyway...
	Same thing.
	When asked, they're led by army veteran Tam Laird, which sounds good.
	I'd rather some veteran doing this.
	Again, it's starting to sound a lot like a prophecy, isn't it?
	The website adds, we stand with the people of Scotland in favour of individual liberty, a free and sound economy, foreign neutrality and political independence.
	Totally based.
	Who disagrees with that?
	And so yeah, good luck to Dank.
	I mean, don't get me wrong, I don't think he's going to unseat the SNP because his party's not called the Braveheart Party like I suggested he start.
	You're still salty about that.
	I am salty about it, I'm telling you.
	I'm telling you, if you call it the Braveheart Party, people just vote for it because of what it sounds like in their own heads, what the impression they already have.
	But obviously, you know, we wish him all the best and we hope that he wins.
	Like, anyone in his constituency or nearby, please help him out and vote for him.
	Yes.
	Good guy.
	And if you feel like doing any campaigning for him, I'm sure you can get in contact with him.
	I'm sure he's got an email address or something like that.
	Or just tweet at him saying, Dank, where can we go?
	He's probably got a Discord or something.
	Go and help him out.
	Come on, it's Discord.
	Yeah, okay, it's not going to be wholesome.
	But, like, you know, go and help him out because it would be nice to have him.
	John's got some comments.
	Is this from...
	Right, okay.
	Right, okay.
	Well, do you want to read out any of the comments you've grabbed?
	I didn't grab any.
	Didn't you?
	No.
	They're Ramvia's, not mine.
	Okay, right.
	Well, Ramvia's giving us some comments because Vicky's not here because it's a bank holiday.
	Obviously, we've got Oh yeah, of course.
	Sorry, right, yeah.
	Okay, well, like I said, good luck, Dank.
	We want you to win.
	We want you to be able to give Hamza Youssef a piece of your mind in person and see what he says.
	That pug, White.
	Wrong, Hamza!
	What about the Black Pug?
	You don't want that he taught the Blackwise Manifest.
	Oh yeah, good point.
	Let's go for the video comments.
	Many of us are looking for a white pill, so here one is.
	Our institutions have gone mad, so it appears all is lost, but we're not alone in noticing this, and a lot of people who previously relied on these institutions for education or entertainment or whatever are going to lose faith in them and are therefore going to be looking for something new in their lives to fill the space left behind.
	This is an enormous opportunity that didn't previously exist, and the ones who are best able to make use of it will become very successful and beloved." Fair point.
	And one of the things that...
	I just had something that was...
	The institutions that he's talking about, it reminds me of Robert Conquest's third law, that to explain the behavior of any bureaucratic institution, assume it's controlled by a cabal of its enemies, Well, in the case of the Pimlico School, you can see that it is controlled by a cabal, literally, of its enemies.
	If you want to have a British education in a British school, well, it's controlled by a bunch of foreign communists, basically.
	And so, using American rhetoric, they are distinctly against it.
	So conquest is proven right again.
	Man is a damn prophet.
	Let's go for the next one.
	This will probably be boring for everybody, but regarding color that you discussed yesterday, color is a matter of absorption and reflecting color.
	Light, not of an intrinsic property in the material.
	You have black objects which absorbed all color, white objects which absorb no color, and any color that is seen is the one wavelength that isn't absorbed.
	See?
	So the color must be intrinsic in the light ray itself.
	It is the ray of light that is colorful, not the object.
	It doesn't make any...
	What object?
	The object the light's bouncing off of.
	There is nothing bouncing off in my example.
	Well, it doesn't matter.
	What we're talking about in the example that we're actually speaking of is...
	The example you're speaking of?
	I haven't mentioned the objects.
	The question, is colour an intrinsic property of an object?
	And the answer's no.
	That wasn't my question at all.
	That is the question that we're talking about.
	It's the question you're having in your head that I never engaged with.
	With Josh, that you got involved in.
	No, no.
	I was always having the point of, is light the colour that it is, intrinsically of itself, or does it take an observer to observe it and then say it is that?
	And that's a question that can't be solved.
	Well, no.
	To apply the concept of colour to it, you'd have to have some kind of observer.
	Not necessarily, because of course there's the problem of what is a colour.
	Yeah, and we construct what we call colours based on our subjective view of what that thing is.
	And so yeah, a ray of light floating through the universe, if there's nothing to apply the concept of colour to it...
	Can I say it's blue light?
	Because I know it's blue light.
	Yeah, because you're a human being who has the concept of the colour blue.
	Yeah, but that's not unreasonable.
	It's not unreasonable for a human being to use the human definition of what the colour blue is.
	There's also the complexity of observing a thing changes the thing in the quantum world, but again, like I said, my understanding of this is that it can't really be solved.
	You have a theory about how to solve it, I understand, but I'm not saying it's not compelling either, I'm just saying...
	Yeah, I'm not resolving the particle physics question.
	No, but the question of, is it the observer?
	Can the observer just say, well, I observe it, therefore that's all I need to know?
	But my understanding of the textbook view on all this, it is the same as the tree falling in the forest, and if no one hears it, did it happen?
	Well, then it's the question of, is the sound wave the thing, or is it the vibration of the ear the thing?
	I'm not giving a view on either of these, I'm just saying that is the view, that there are multiple views on this.
	We clear?
	Sure, but you're still wrong.
	I'm not even arguing anything.
	I'm literally saying other people say this and this.
	And those people are wrong.
	Dan Wright says, why not let them completely have their own...
	Oh, is there?
	Oh, sorry.
	Okay, yeah.
	Hey guys, I think I can explain what's going on with the race report.
	What you're experiencing is the racism of deception.
	See, you think that you found racism, but it's deceiving you.
	Um, basically, right?
	What's interesting about the race report is they're reduced now on, like, LBC to sit there and argue, yeah, but I was microaggressed.
	It's like, okay, but that's not an institution, is it?
	So you're not suffering from institutional racism, which was what the parameters of your complaint were.
	This report has found that statistically there is no institutional racism, and so the worst you can say is, yeah, but I was microaggressed.
	That's an individual who you're calling a racist for doing or saying something that, let's be fair, probably wasn't racist, and you're really kind of at the very end point of your argument, where every other premise that you had has been blown out, and now you're like, yeah, but I felt racism?
	Well, tough.
	That's you.
	Anyway.
	Dan Wright says, why not let them completely have their own way?
	Let them study lesbian dance theory and closely monitor how poorly they perform in higher education afterwards.
	You act like we haven't already done this.
	Use the failure of the project to bolster against the idea of these pro-critical race theory schools.
	Well, we kind of have.
	We've had all this for ages.
	And, you know, students in America are like, oh, I'm in hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt.
	And my lesbian dance theory study doesn't help me with this.
	It's like, well...
	Not my problem.
	Can we have debt relief?
	No.
	Why would we?
	Well, that would be the sensible reaction.
	If you don't want to learn about British history, why are you in Britain?
	Why are you raising your kids here?
	But the thing is, right...
	Fundamentally, none of the kids really have much of an opinion on this.
	They have been taught this opinion by communists on the internet and the Socialist Workers' Party who have been essentially grooming them into hating Britain.
	You could easily present a very positive narrative from the perspective of, I don't know, a black person about what Britain's contribution to world history and therefore black history is, obviously, because of the abolition of the slave trade and equal rights.
	But this is being undermined by the Communists, and the Conservatives are doing nothing about it.
	Or at least, no, they're doing something about it, but it's tepid and weak, and they don't understand the depth of the problem and the strength of their moral resolve to fight it.
	They need to do this.
	Anyway, Jesse Martin says, Oh yeah, it's all very Orwellian.
	The next book club, we've got Brave New World going up today, but the next book club we do will be 1984, just because at the time that Orwell and Huxley were writing, and various other authors were writing this kind of dystopian fiction, at the sort of time just after World War II, you can see that they're realising,
	oh my goodness, there's something that's arrived in our civilisation with the sort of scientific, technocratic, industrial civilisation we've created, And it's going to take away things that we previously valued, such as the thick concepts that we were talking about leading up to it.
	And these are important.
	And so using the same toolkit, we can also analyze 1984 and see this.
	And we'll probably do a follow-up sort of talking about the distinctions and the correctness of the prophecies being made in these dystopian fictions.
	And A, it's good to get it all done and out of the way.
	And B, I think it'll be very instructive and illuminating.
	Because the Brave New World outcome is definitely the outcome the SJWs are going to get, but the 1984 process is definitely the way that the SJWs are going to achieve it.
	Anyway, Scott Lane says for Carl, sorry, I just moved my position on my page by accident and now I can't see it.
	My apologies, everyone.
	I have to make you wait.
	Right, Scott was saying, for Carl, water making things wet is a scientific approach.
	Water being wet is a thick concept.
	You got me.
	Okay, you have me there.
	I can't contest that.
	That is true.
	Water making things wet is the scientific approach, and water being wet is the thick concept that we have when we think of a watery substance.
	Andrew Sutton says, Why does there seem to be no conservative opposition to the constant barrage of communist rhetoric coming from the media and our political leaders?
	Why aren't people standing up to the one-sided arguments outside of Twitter?
	Congratulations on the success of the website.
	Well, thank you for the current congratulations.
	And I honestly think the Conservatives are just ignorant, or they're morally weak.
	In fact, it's probably a combination of both, to be fair.
	But again, feel free to send any of our stuff to any of your local Conservative MPs.
	They represent you, and if you think that what we're saying here represents what you think, then you have every reason to have them hear what you think.
	And one of the things we get told a lot is that we articulate the concepts that people are thinking in a way that they're We're good to go.
	In fact, besides one anecdotal account of a rabble rouser in first century Judea, no one ever successfully executed a felon that has ever re-offended.
	Good point.
	Happy Easter.
	Michael Metcalf says, you guys should make the podcast a bit longer so we have more time for memes.
	We would, but we've got other work to do.
	We've got to do premium content and premium podcasts.
	We have an interview at three.
	Yeah, we've got an interview at 3 today as well, so we can't, I'm afraid.
	But we are expanding the team, so hopefully we'll be able to make more time.
	Robin Hood says, Do you have any book suggestions that I can give to my family to red-pill them?
	Red Pill books, Callum?
	Sorry, I'm doing comments.
	Red Pill books?
	What do you mean?
	Books to Red Pill people.
	Oh, God.
	What's that book you gave me that's about Mal's Great Famine?
	Oh, yeah.
	Right, there's a section in there that everyone should read.
	I'll have to clip it and put it on Twitter later, which is...
	So this is the point that really got me.
	I'd always been a bit tepid on socialists.
	And this is the point that got me to the point where I'm like, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah.
	These people are evil.
	And you were reading about the famine, and it was a discussion about the difference between people eating and corpse eating.
	So cannibalism does exist in all societies that undergo famines, but it's not widespread, which is an interesting find.
	People don't go out of their way to kill someone and eat them.
	They wait for people to die, and then they eat the corpse if they're going for a famine.
	This is much more common.
	And in China, there was a big problem that the kids die first, and then the elderly, and it goes down by generations.
	So there were loads and loads of dead toddlers, but of course there were loads of coffins.
	And you couldn't put one toddler in a coffin, it's too big.
	So you put two or three in a coffin, and then lower the coffin, right?
	But then it got to the point where things got worse and worse.
	People started digging up the graves of the toddlers, and they'd eat the toddlers, because there's nothing else to eat.
	You'd die otherwise, right?
	I'm just thinking in my head, because these are, you know, people in communes who are being run by the party and they've been forced into this position by the party.
	How many dead toddlers do you have to eat before you think, maybe this doesn't work?
	Maybe this whole system is so evil and corrupt it should never have been put into place?
	It should never be practiced again?
	That's a really great question.
	How many dead toddlers?
	There's too many.
	Because that's the thing, a famine, this is, you know, I think- A man-made famine.
	Krupp actually made this point of all people, which is, he has a criticism of PragerU, which is true, that you see their arguments that, like, communism killed 20 million people here, 100 million.
	Explain how.
	And it just, it's so boring, it doesn't convince anyone.
	But when you're reading the case of the, you know, Chinese peasants, and this is being docked down in government documents, these are now public, so the government kind of screwed up here.
	So we know that they're legitimate, which is that they're jotting down that the people in this commune that we've created are so starving they're digging up toddlers that were buried last year and eating them en masse.
	I mean, who's going to disagree here?
	Who's going to say, actually, no, it's all right.
	It's a good thing.
	But that wasn't real socialism.
	Yeah, and this is the same book in which there's the government people visiting an orphanage.
	It's not really an orphanage.
	They set up the commune.
	They want the mothers to work in the commune because of gender equality, because women can work the land just as hard as men.
	these like kindergartens run by the state and they can't man them properly so the government inspectors go into the kindergarten they find half of the kids dead the ones that aren't dead are covered in maggots like i told you this one which is they found one child it was covered in its own feces and had maggots eating it alive from its armpits and its groin and it's like this is in a government report as well so we know it's legitimate So how many of these examples are enough for us to be persuaded that socialism is actually evil?
	So Mel's Great Famine is a great book for socialism.
	Who is going to argue against these examples?
	It is fairly long, but I'll take the quotes out and put them somewhere for people to read, because it's unbelievable.
	Yeah.
	Failing that anything by Robert Conquest, probably, because he is just absolutely ruthless against communism.
	He's a historian, 20th century historian, who really takes the same view on communism that we do.
	It's a form of evil.
	Anyway, Kyle M. says, George Floyd eats fentanyl for breakfast, according to his defense.
	That's true.
	Have you had your fentibix?
	Well, I haven't.
	Land of the White People says, I was so disappointed that Kyle didn't start on OnlyFans on April 1st.
	I didn't even think about it.
	Robert Dunn says, My friend Mick the farmer firmly believes that George Floyd was murdered, but in fairness, Mick has always been a bit of a chauvinist.
	Oof.
	Bill Potee says, I call out to my daughter Dixie who got me started on you guys, plus what do you do with old bananas that make banana bread?
	I don't think that's keto-friendly, so I've got to disavow that, But thank you, Bill, and thank you to Bill's daughter, Dixie.
	Thank you for, you know, sharing us around.
	Coming soon?
	How do you think this office is run?
	Please send help.
	Micah says, I've just become a premium member so I can comment on these shows.
	Thank you.
	Love your work and watching the podcast.
	And now the available premium content has done really well towards pushing me to improve.
	I've been on keto for a week now due to seeing the results on Carl and it's been great.
	I was wondering what pushes you towards self-improvement?
	What do you struggle with when trying to change for the better?
	Me personally, Callum's never tried to change for the better, so he will...
	Callum's one of these keto heretics who eats sugar and it's disgusting and you should shame him on Twitter.
	I get this lecture every day.
	You keep eating carbs every day.
	Don't blame me.
	What was it?
	Like yesterday, I came in with a potato, and you were just like, oh, it smells really good.
	And then he went over to the pool bus, pulling himself up, and it's literally like John the Savage whipping himself, going, strump it, strump it!
	Absolutely is.
	You'll enjoy a Brave New World review.
	But no, honestly, I'm not even joking.
	It was the temptation of it.
	Because this is the thing, right?
	Food smells good.
	Temptation, vices, are always immediately pleasurable.
	Every vice is a pleasure, an immediate pleasure.
	The virtue is not an immediate pleasure.
	The virtue is deferred satisfaction.
	And you've got to learn to love.
	Not doing the wrong thing, which is eating bread or potatoes and things like this.
	And yes, I did go and do some pull-ups or some dips or whatever it was out of a sense of chastisement because I was being tempted by your sinful food.
	Thank you very much.
	Start ordering pizzas to the office.
	I'm not going to eat them.
	I'm just going to have them lying around.
	I'm not going to be happy about that.
	Although saying that, I could probably take the cheese and ham or something off the top of it and eat that.
	So, checkmate.
	I've got to figure out how to make bread toppings.
	But it's just a desire not to be like the communists.
	I don't think that we should adopt the lowest standard and say that this is correct and perfect.
	And that's what the communists do.
	You're beautiful just as you are.
	You're perfect as you are.
	No, you're not.
	You're crap.
	Well, I believe he will be.
	And yeah.
	Who better to hold them to account?
	Yeah, I know, right?
	It could be so good.
	Mr.
	Wynn says, in the interest of seeing the lotuses grow and reach a wider audience, how is the group going to achieve this outside of a massive platform such as YouTube?
	It really seems like the website alone would be quite insular.
	Do you have a strategy for expansion or do you rely on alt tech?
	Well, we've got to rely on all sorts of social media because how else are you going to do it?
	But, I mean, we've got a two-week ban from YouTube.
	We're not removing ourselves from YouTube.
	It'll be up to YouTube to remove us from YouTube.
	But, you know, so we'll still use the channel when we're allowed in like two weeks' time.
	Thanks, YouTube.
	But we're still on Facebook, Instagram, you know, all of the other major platforms, all of the old tech platforms.
	And we're not going anywhere.
	So, you know, just keep sharing, I guess.
	Phrenetic Burn says, you go anywhere in Minneapolis and you do the pinched finger to your mouth like you're hitting a joint and you'll have a drug dealer literally running towards you.
	They're everywhere.
	How dare that drug dealer give them fake drugs?
	He's the real criminal here, says Fair.
	There's a reason that he was like, plead the fifth.
	Royne Malgram says, look up David Dorn.
	He did not deserve to die because of this effing SJW crap.
	More importantly, he didn't deserve to die because of George Floyd taking and being overdosing on drugs, which is essentially what's happened here, as far as we can tell.
	ASD says, wasn't there meth in his system as per the toxicology report?
	A lot.
	I love the way the lawyer looks like Gavin McInnes.
	I wonder if he watches Gavin McInnes.
	I died before, so I have a tolerance to dying.
	It's great logic.
	But I just, I love the prosecution.
	Yeah, but did you die?
	You once took the drugs, lady.
	Did you die?
	No.
	Well, how come George Floyd?
	They said to die.
	He could not die.
	It was clearly murder.
	Hood drug dealers always cut to addict users to have more supply.
	Yeah, this is what I'm using, but hearing you talking about drugs is really funny because you obviously have no experience of this.
	I tried weed once.
	I hated it.
	It's terrible.
	It's not good.
	Okay.
	Well, as I said, you clearly have no experience of drug culture.
	Yeah.
	So, yeah, it's amusing listening to you talk about it.
	But he's correct, by the way.
	Every junkie knows that what they're doing is going to kill them eventually.
	Yes.
	Lots of sites make sites for you, too.
	I don't know what that's in...
	Zanthonium says, Sargon of detention.
	Yeah.
	Well, not even detention.
	Suspension.
	If you start writing racist graffiti and saying we want to overthrow this school and burn the flag and get rid of the principal and get rid of the curriculum because it's about white people, yeah, that's racism and you get suspended for that.
	And any teachers who are engaging in it should be fired for being racist.
	And any questions should be referred to my middle finger.
	Anyway...
	See people in the chat talking about caffeine and whatnot.
	I will admit, I'm actually more and more getting to the position of the...
	What would you call them?
	The temptress movement?
	What is it?
	Oh, the temperance movement.
	Temperance movement, yeah.
	I think they might actually be right.
	I think alcohol is bad.
	I'm not a drinker, so...
	Yeah.
	Well, not much anyway.
	Well, there you go.
	There's a vice I'm giving up if you're looking for something.
	Right, okay.
	So the thing with vices is...
	Except for my keto despising.
	In every other...
	I'm going to say, look, special pleading for my keto pathology.
	But for most vices, just in moderation is probably the best thing.
	It's fine to have a drink as long as you're not drunk all the time.
	You know, it's fine to eat a bit of bread or maybe a cake or something, as long as you're not having cake after every meal, right?
	Like, sometimes.
	Maybe.
	On birthday special occasions, if you accidentally pick up the wrong food and you didn't realize, something like that.
	But just don't eat lots of sugar.
	Don't drink lots of alcohol.
	Don't smoke lots of cigarettes.
	You know, do everything in moderation.
	You'll be fine.
	You know, being autistic about it is actually being autistic about it.
	And this is why it's a joke about the keto stuff.
	Because it's funny.
	I've never had something to be autistic about before.
	So it's nice to have a prescriptive thou shalt not that I can wag my finger about.
	Also, please note, Callum is lying.
	He's definitely drinking tonight.
	No.
	He's lying.
	Apparently you're lying, Callum.
	No.
	I'm on good authority.
	I'm getting closer to the temperance in the sense that drinking is bad.
	Is Callum drinking tonight?
	No.
	Just say yes!
	See, I've got two witnesses now.
	Two sources say you do.
	You've got two witnesses that are saying, in the future, I will drink.
	Like, I'm not saying I'm giving up drinking forever or anything.
	I'm just saying the position of drinking is bad.
	Sharia, Calum.
	Yeah, I think the Sharia might be right.
	Islam is right about a lot of things.
	Calum Dara, 2021.
	That's true.
	Invite an MP onto the show.
	I doubt they'd be allowed to come, to be honest.
	There is one guy I'm interested in.
	There was a Conservative MP who has taken the position he doesn't do mainstream media interviews anymore.
	I've forgotten his name.
	He only does alt media interviews.
	I really should email him and ask him.
	Yeah, definitely email him.
	Because, yeah, we'd love to have them on.
	We just think they're going to be too cowardly to come.
	But if they're brave enough, then let's have it.
	But that's the thing.
	We don't necessarily hate the Conservative Party in and of itself.
	It's just, why does it not have the backbone it needs?
	Yeah, and that it's earned as well.
	If you're like, look, we're going to defend the traditional moral conditions of, say, in this example, British education, they're very easy premises that I set out.
	Do the children have a responsibility to be considerate of their fellow students?
	Yes, they do.
	Is having a massive Afro haircut inconsiderate of the fellow students?
	No, it is inconsiderate, yes.
	So is it unreasonable to ask them not to have a haircut or to enforce that as a standard?
	No, it's not unreasonable.
	And reasonableness is the standard from which you ask.
	Is it proper?
	You know, is it appropriate?
	Is it conducive for the common good in that classroom?
	If they start going, well, about my black heritage, about my Afro hair, don't care.
	Don't care at all.
	Not even my problem.
	Go to a country where that's not a problem, I guess.
	But in this country, you're concerned about the guy sat behind you.
	End of story.
	Anyway, I'm going to...
	Stop going off on a rant about it.
	Folks, if you want to check out more from us, you can go to lowseas.com.
	We've got loads of great reporting, loads of great free content, and if you would like to support us, you can sign up and get access to all of our premium content.
	It's only £5 a month, and we have got absolutely loads on there now.
	It genuinely amazes me just how much we've been able to put together in such good quality, in such good time, and there's only better to come.
	Later on this month, we've got some new people starting, and we're going to be producing even more And more fun, brilliant content.
	And the Brave New World one will be up soon, and we'll have a premium podcast next week about David Lammy's Englishness.
	So if you want to catch that, you can go to Loses.com, and we'll see you on Monday.

▲