Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 9, 2021 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:31:21

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #107

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast The Lotus Eaters for the 9th of April 2021.
	I'm joined by Carl and today we're going to be talking about how white lives don't matter according to certain people in Cambridge.
	Dr.
	Gopal.
	Doctor.
	And Andrew Neal's hate crime and what was the last topic?
	Ash Sharkar.
	Ash Sharkar's alternative race report.
	Yeah, in which she loves Britain, but only things that aren't British in Britain.
	Yeah.
	Amazing.
	So a couple of announcements first.
	So first, we are looking for a full-time video editor.
	So if you want to find this, go to, what is it?
	Is it Opportunities or Careers?
	LotusEaters.com forward slash careers.
	Also, we have a bunch of premium content up at the moment.
	So we have the Helen Dale interview and the conversation we had about David Lammy's True Englishman, in which he is the only true Englishman.
	Well, we've got all the resources and, you know, facts to back up what we've said.
	So it's not like we're making anything up.
	Yeah, it's his argument that we're just repackaging back to him.
	Yeah, so that's a good reason to subscribe.
	We have loads of premium content on there.
	Those are just the two most recent ones.
	Also, an announcement because I don't know how many people know, but we are suspended from YouTube.
	We got suspension for two weeks.
	I think we have a week left, and then there are clips back on YouTube.
	I get messages from people asking why and emails.
	That is why we are suspended by YouTube for saying things that YouTube doesn't like.
	It'll be some point next week that we're back, but whatever they allow us.
	Stay in here.
	Which is better, because we get to discuss spicy things like white lives don't matter.
	So tell me about how white lives don't matter, Carl.
	Well, this was Dr...
	How do I even pronounce her name?
	Priyamvada Gopal.
	Who is a professor at Cambridge University.
	And so you can imagine how well this went down when on Twitter she said, I'll say it again, white lives don't matter as white lives.
	Since posting this, she received a bunch of death threats and abuse and a petition was launched demanding that she'd be fired by Cambridge.
	The tweet itself was deleted by Twitter, but she said that she stood by it as it was about structure and ideology rather than about people.
	She wrote, I would like to make it very clear I stand by my tweets, now deleted by Twitter, not by me.
	They were very clearly speaking to a structure and ideology, not about people.
	My tweet said, whiteness is not special, not a criterion for making lives matter.
	I stand by that.
	So the question is, okay, well, is blackness a criterion by which we value lives?
	Because if so, why don't you just tweet out, black lives don't matter as black lives?
	And the answer is, of course, because everyone would be freaking out and she'd lose her job.
	Instead, at Cambridge, she got promoted for this.
	Cambridge University came out on Twitter defending her, saying, no, no, no, we stand by academic freedom, which they don't because they de-platformed Jordan Peterson over one photograph with a fan and various other people who are anti-woke who've been de-platformed.
	But Gopal not only got defence from the university, she got a promotion to full professorship over this.
	So, white lives don't matter, thumbs up.
	Anything else, thumbs down.
	It's very embarrassing, isn't it?
	Like, them defending academic freedom.
	It's like, free speech matters.
	That's not their position, it's our free speech matters.
	Yeah, our speech matters.
	They literally got rid of Jordan Peterson over a photo, and there were some other people who had also been kicked for being anti-woke as well.
	Yeah, it's absolutely insufferable.
	And it's transparent, that's the thing.
	It's obvious that there's a political bias here.
	But anyway, what I wanted to do is actually dissect this view.
	And so I dug through more of her social media history to find if she elaborated on any of this.
	And so she's got explanations of what whiteness is to her.
	Because I think I know, but I just want to be clear from her own words.
	She thinks it's sad that Chaucer and Shakespeare are turned into mindless geniuses and facile metaphors for Englishness and whiteness, which she believes they're far better than their faux advocates.
	When Chaucer and Shakespeare were being talked about being taken off English curriculums, incidentally, she was like, yeah, well, they're better than the English.
	And these are, as she says, facile metaphors for Englishness and whiteness.
	And this next tweet was pretty good.
	If we can get to the next one, John.
	The Labour Party, Labour List, had tweeted out, which I don't think is an unfair statement, but she translates this as saying, Next one is her talking about civility.
	Civility absolutely means whiteness, and by civil society, they mean white society, which is an incredibly hot take, right?
	Because in Britain, in England, and in America, and in all of the other sort of...
	European countries, I guess we'll say, not just the English-speaking world.
	A civil society is essentially sort of a Lockean society, where it's a voluntary society where people come together in which to be a society rather than being oppressed, enforced, and stratified.
	And so a civil society is essentially a voluntary society in which people respect the privacy and feelings of those around them, the property of those around them, and the dignity of those around them.
	And they don't work to harm them in their daily interactions.
	That's the ethos of a civil society.
	It's one where each person is kind of not treated as an enemy, but they're treated as an ally in some way.
	But it's also exactly the same wording, and as your explanation, of an 18th century imperialist talking about how the British need to civilize the uncivilized world.
	Yeah, I mean, it sounds like Cecil Rhodes.
	Yeah.
	They absolutely sound like Clive of India.
	She believes that white civilization is civil society and non-white civilization is not civil society and therefore uncivilized.
	Not my opinion, her opinion.
	Yeah, I mean, I totally disavow the position of white supremacists and Miss Gopal.
	Dr.
	Gopal, sorry.
	I just don't agree.
	But we'll go through the last one.
	Sorry, the next one.
	This is her promoting Noel Ignatieff.
	Do you remember who he is?
	He was an American Jewish professor who was famous for saying, treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity.
	This aroused the ire of the alt-right, because they thought that he was talking about white people as human beings when he would give Dr.
	Gopal's defence and say, I'm talking about the ideology of whiteness.
	But either way, it came across awfully, absolutely awfully.
	I know that this is true.
	Academically, they are talking like this.
	But I must say, in any common usage of these words, it does just sound like they hate white people.
	I'm not even sure that you can distinguish them, but we'll talk about that in a bit.
	Anyway, she said, and previously she has also said that if she can be demonstrated to be a racist, we can go to the next one, John, then she says she has been publicly committed to resigning from Cambridge if this claim can be validated.
	There is no place for racists in universities, free speech or no free speech.
	So, yeah, I mean, I'm personally of the view that she's a massive racist.
	And so what I think we can gather from what she has said here is when she says whiteness, because she lives in England and she is a professor at Cambridge, she means Englishness.
	And she conflates these two in many different ways.
	The most obvious one being the Labour one where we must speak to English people about English issues and she's like, yeah, so your white lives matter most.
	It's like, okay, that's fine.
	That actually gives us...
	Also, what a take.
	Brown people can't be English.
	Yeah, A. Again, another white nationalist talking point, which, again, I don't agree with.
	And I just, I mean, this is, not to spoil the Lammy discussion, but we kind of came to the conclusion, well, he's not the product of anywhere else.
	Yeah, he's not French.
	He's not French, he's not German, we can't really say he's not something else.
	But anyway, the point being, that's her opinion, but she is conflating and informing the term whiteness with some content for us, and what she's talking about is Englishness.
	That's, you know...
	Reasonable for us to summarize from what she said here, I think.
	So, returning to her White Lives Matter tweet, this I think is worth some dissection and some discussion, because it's actually quite heavily laden in theory, right?
	So, I'll say it again, white lives don't matter as white lives.
	So, note first that white lives don't matter would, in and of itself, in abstract, be a statement about race, as most people would understand it.
	It would say something like, people with white skin, their lives don't matter, right?
	That's how a reasonable, normal person would interpret it.
	Yeah, translate this into another race.
	Black lives don't matter.
	That would be someone from the KKK. But they would be talking about people with that colour skin, their lives don't matter.
	But what she's done here is, white lives don't matter, full stop, and then as white lives.
	This is a different statement, and it's been framed in such a way as to provoke most people to think that you are saying white coloured skin people's lives don't matter when you're not.
	It is, of course, deliberately inflammatory, which is fine.
	I love troll statements.
	I love trolling.
	I think it's hilarious.
	But don't be upset when people are upset by what you've said, because that was clearly the point.
	So what does as white lives mean on the end of that, though?
	That's what we actually need to talk about.
	And so Gopal repeatedly says she's talking about the ideology of whiteness, which I think we can establish is English and Englishness when she says white and whiteness.
	And I think we can infer this reasonably because she's a professor at Cambridge and not like Frankfurt or something.
	So whatever content she pours into the word whiteness is going to be the emergent culture of the European country that she is in.
	It's going to be what she found when she arrived there.
	I don't know whether she was born here or not, but if she was born here, what she grew up with.
	It is not something that has been artificially imposed from outside.
	It's natural.
	It wasn't imposed from the population from above, either.
	Often, given the course of English history, you notice that it's actually a lot of upswing coming from the peasantry that forces the aristocracy to change.
	This is, in fact, the change in the aristocracy is what really prevented a French Revolution-style event happening in Britain, in my opinion.
	So, we can conclude that what we're talking about is actually quite an ancient mode of existence that is very deeply baked into what it means to be an Englishman or Englishwoman.
	Do you object to any of this?
	No.
	So what we're saying is it layers across all levels of society and it's existed for literally over a thousand years of social negotiation between classes and regions and interests and all of these different things.
	And it hasn't always been very pretty.
	A lot of the time it's actually been quite awful.
	Sometimes it's caused civil wars.
	Other times it's caused peasants' revolts and things like this.
	So it's not like it's just...
	I'm just saying, oh, it's all golden and glorious and everyone was happy all the way through.
	No, obviously that wasn't the case.
	But what we have come to after this thousand plus years of discussion...
	On how the country should be run is actually to a point where we had quite good universal human rights, we had protected property rights, and we had the rule of law.
	And it was the common law, not the Napoleonic and imperial inquisitorial law that they have on the continent.
	So there's a lot to be said for what the English managed to achieve on a cultural level in England, and that's what she's pathologizing as whiteness, I think.
	I'm sort of cringing throughout all of this is not because I disagree that they've defined whiteness as this and therefore that's what they're saying but what I found just so hard to stomach is this is exactly the same as the clan the clan if you see like Daryl Davis the guy who de-radicalized a bunch of them interact with them will argue oh no we're not against all black people just like black culture thugs things like this.
	This is what we define blackness as, black culture, and therefore we're against this.
	And they'll try and define, oh, I don't mean the N-word to mean all black people, I mean it for these kinds of black people, or some nonsense like this.
	And everyone sees through it.
	Like, no one's wasting their time with the Klan being like, no, they're very intellectual, you know.
	They're not really bigots.
	They have a nuanced definition.
	They just have this critical race theory about blacks in America.
	No, of course not.
	No one wastes their time like this, which is why I find it insufferable that these kind of people are in positions like in Cambridge, and they get given the time of day, and we give them the intellectual point of like, oh, well, you know, they're actually thinking like this, and blah, blah, blah.
	But I would prefer it if as a culture we just went, nah, pfft.
	Yeah, I mean, I don't disagree with you at all, but I think it's worth steelmanning her position and trying to really understand what she's trying to say.
	So to say as white lives is to say as their native European cultures, which to us means as Englishmen.
	Yeah.
	So if the English give up being English, then white lives matter.
	But as the English, as being English, their lives do not matter.
	Now, I think you can reasonably interpret that as being a racist statement.
	Because, I mean, if you were to apply that same logic to say, you know, oh, American blacks, lives matter, but not as blacks as in American culture of blackness, like rap culture, you know, the way that...
	The Klan would define it.
	The way the clown would define it, I would disagree.
	I think even as that culture, their lives still matter.
	And you can't really separate the culture from the people who are perpetuating the culture either, at least not without some great artificial intervention.
	Because it's, again, the natural thing that has come out organically from that group of people.
	And so it, I think, is a form of racism.
	And then you can abstract it to something else, like religion, is Muslims and Muslimness.
	It's like, I don't know.
	A, that would be considered to be a racist statement.
	If Muslim lives matter but not as Muslims, that's very interesting.
	What are you even saying there?
	The identity of Muslim is no longer a valid one.
	And so if we can walk that back, is it the identity of English is no longer So while you think of yourself as an Englishman, your life doesn't matter.
	This is all true.
	And again, she is in England making this statement.
	A doctor at Cambridge.
	We have laws on the books.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	And so what I think she's saying is essentially just, I don't like the culture of the English, and I don't think English lives matter, but if they stopped being English, I would be happy with them.
	Which is still a very bigoted thing to say.
	It's incredibly bigoted.
	Yeah.
	But the natural question arises from this is like, well, if you don't like the English, why do you live in England?
	It's just, why?
	I just don't get it.
	And obviously the answer is because she's privileged.
	Yeah.
	It's not like she doesn't have the money or the resources or the power.
	Or the influence or the repute.
	You know, she's a professor at Cambridge.
	You know, she's a doctor of whatever woke nonsense she's a doctor of.
	And she's, of course, very much anti-anything patriotic, because she hates the English, or so it seems.
	So anyway, the reason that this is notable now, because you can see this happened last year, is that she was part of the woke backlash against Dr Sewell's race report, in which he found that Britain was actually a model of race relations, and it was a bunch of race-hustling grievance mongers who were trying to dredge up ghosts of the past that don't really apply in modern Britain.
	Did she accuse him of being white or something?
	Well, essentially, yeah.
	I mean, this is what she said.
	She initially questioned whether Dr.
	Tony Sewell even had a doctorate.
	And it's like, what, is it because he's black?
	You know?
	It's like the cop saying, do you own this car?
	Yeah, exactly.
	Do you own this doctorate?
	Well, you are black and you are supporting the racists, says the racist.
	And so, after finding out that he possessed one from the University of Nottingham, she made a comparison to Goebbels, saying, okay, established, it is in fact Dr.
	Sewell, fair enough, even Dr.
	Goebbels had a research PhD from the University of Heidenberg.
	Mad.
	That's absolutely mad.
	Like, I mean, given the state of her Twitter feed, I guess we should be thankful that she didn't just call him the N-word.
	This is the kind of people Cambridge is promoting.
	I mean, I think we skipped over a little bit of context as well.
	Like, a young English man in response to the Black Lives Matter movement flew a plane with a message on the black saying, White Lives Matter.
	Yeah.
	And subsequently, he was fired from his job.
	He was disowned by society.
	I think the only person who supported him were people like Tommy Robinson.
	But in response, she made that tweet.
	Yeah.
	And then she was promoted.
	Yeah.
	After the backlash, she was promoted.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	So yeah, I mean, the point is, like, you know, a black doctor gets his credentials questioned because he looked at the data and found categorically from the data that you can't reasonably conclude that Britain's a racist country.
	She's like, well, he's not a real doctor.
	And it turns out he is a real doctor.
	Yeah, but he's a Nazi.
	Do you know who else are doctors?
	The Nazis.
	Exactly.
	You're a doctor, Dr.
	Gopal.
	Oh no!
	That's right, you're the Nazi!
	Yes, we've got there.
	Finally, you're the Nazi.
	But anyway, so in response to this, there's been a huge amount of backlash on social media to her, and she posted this next one.
	And I've got to say, this is a good question.
	She says,"...at this point, the truth is, I'm pondering giving the Daily Mail what they want." To resign my job from Cambridge and just go, mate, just go.
	Leave the country, why not?
	Basta already, I'm not able to get any work done at all, in which case, really, what is the point?
	What work?
	Well, that's the question, isn't it?
	It's like, why not indeed?
	Why not leave a country that's full of people that you hate?
	Like, why are you here?
	Like, what work is she even attempting to do here, really?
	And it seems to me that her work in anti-racist colonial studies, whatever it is she's doing, is an attempt, really, to de-anglicize the English.
	Which seems like a bizarre thing to want to do, but also it seems like a monumental uphill struggle to move to a culture and say, hi, you need to abandon your culture.
	I mean, like, even if there was a genuine goodwill in that culture, be like, yeah, our culture is terrible.
	You're right.
	We need to get rid of it and do whatever you say, doctor, right?
	Such as Sweden.
	Yeah, it's just Sweden, right?
	Even if there was such a case, like an old country's culture is so baked into the people, it's in the language.
	Like English as a language is very swift to place blame because English culture and always, not always, but for a long, long time now, English culture has been very focused on individual personal accountability.
	Now, in, say, French, Spanish, and Italian, that's not the case.
	It's actually quite hard to place blame, naturally, in those languages, because there are excuses made.
	And this is, honestly, one of the reasons I think they lose wars, right?
	No, I'm not even joking.
	I think it's this culture of not taking account for what you have done, your responsibility, That is actually why Britain has succeeded where these countries have failed.
	It's not about natural resources or, like, you know, innate physical superiority or anything like that.
	One of the things that can help a country.
	Sure.
	But I think it's fundamental.
	I think the main thing that causes it is attitude, right?
	And it's this attitude that's baked into England.
	And other attitudes are baked into these other countries.
	So it's like, why would you think that you can do that?
	It's such a mammoth task to be like, right, I'm going to go and de-Anglicise the English.
	I'm going to go de-Germanise the Germans.
	I'm going to de-Francise the French.
	So look, that is wild.
	And after all of this kickback, going, no, we're not bad people and we don't care what you think.
	She's like, God, this is tiring.
	I think I might just leave.
	It's like...
	Okay, you know, that's fine.
	That's your choice.
	Who's holding you back?
	Well, I suppose the state right now.
	Well, yeah, your paycheck at Cambridge.
	But, like, we're not really a fan of you, and honestly, you're not really the kind of immigrant I want here.
	Like, there are lots of immigrants I'm very happy having here, and I employ some of them myself, right?
	And it's because they're team players, they don't...
	They came here because they like the country, and they're not trying to tear it apart, and they're not trying to be like, yeah, no, you need to get rid of this culture.
	They don't have that opinion, and so that's great, they can stay, but if you have that opinion, why would I want you here?
	Why would anyone want you here?
	Oh, apparently they're turning on the fire alarm in five minutes.
	It's kind of awkward.
	He could have notified us about this in advance.
	Should we delay my segment five minutes?
	No, let's just...
	We'll just keep going and then we'll just take a break.
	I mean, it doesn't go on for long.
	Sorry about the fire alarm if you hear it.
	Yeah.
	We'll see.
	We'll see.
	Okay.
	Yeah, so anyway, basically, I think that she's free to leave because we're a free country, and I don't see...
	Not due to COVID right now, but...
	Well, yeah, okay, yeah, yeah.
	As soon as we go back to being a free country...
	In principle, she should be free to leave.
	Yeah.
	To be honest, in principle, I don't know why she should stay either.
	No.
	What's her argument?
	This is a good country and I like it here.
	I really lie.
	No, no, but that's not her argument at all.
	Her argument is this is a white supremacist country and she wants to...
	I've got to fix them?
	She wants to fix it, yeah.
	Or you could just accept that we've left India and then return home.
	Unless she wants us to take back India and bring civil society back to it.
	Oh no, but that's whiteness.
	No, but she's the imperialist here.
	Anyway, let's start on the next segment for time.
	I don't know what's going to happen with the fire alarm, but things will happen.
	So the thing I wanted to talk about was Andrew Neil's hate crime.
	So Andrew Neil has been a victim of a hate crime online, and this started trending.
	And I think it's really interesting because it gets back to the point I was arguing with Helen Dale about whether or not the anti-discrimination legislation, so on and so forth, actually now favors the English or white population, depending on the statistic you want to argue about.
	So the first thing here is just, if you can scroll up a little bit so we can see Andrew Neal's post.
	So he posted just some stats about how his paper that he helps edit The Spectator had some good few months in data, you know, more sales.
	They're doing pretty well.
	70,000...
	30,000 digital subscribers.
	We've only got 6,000 digital subscribers.
	Go to Lucy's.com and subscribe so we can beat Andrew Neil, please.
	Would actually be pretty good.
	That would be awesome, actually, yeah.
	But I'm not upset about the spectator doing well, because the spectator isn't the Guardian, for example.
	They're not trying to destroy the country, yeah.
	Yep, which is, that's the bar.
	So some guy here is like, oh, I just brought a print copy for the first time on the weekend, really enjoying it.
	You know, just some guy who likes the spectator.
	And in response, you've got some leftist who just calls him a gammon.
	And for people who don't know what the term gammon means, this is something that's popped up in British culture in the last, what was it, two years?
	Actually, probably since Brexit.
	It's an insult the left likes to use all the time.
	So we can get the next one up just to demonstrate their argument of what a gammon is.
	So if you can scroll down just so we can see the image.
	Of what they think gammon is.
	So it's a term that's come out of them watching people on Question Time, and obviously more generally in life, of what they say, so I'm going to steelman their position, which is it's sort of middle class men who get very patriotic, and as they get patriotic in a speech about politics, they turn a bit red because you get a bit flustered.
	I think we should push back on this, though.
	That's their steel man.
	Yeah, no, no, I agree.
	But I think we should push back on this, because I don't think that gammon is a middle class slur.
	I think it's a slur against the working class.
	And that's how I always see it used.
	It's against the more theftsy people.
	Which class is more patriotic?
	Exactly.
	The middle class are not very patriotic.
	But the working class are very patriotic, and often they are not in the best of health when they get into their 40s and 50s, should we say?
	And this gives them a ruddy complexion.
	I mean, you've seen plenty of people when they're out drinking, turning heads as well.
	So this is also sort of a...
	I mean, I don't know what class any of these chaps are in, but I've seen them using plenty of different images of people, and many of them have been working class.
	So that's their steel man, but I don't think it's true.
	They're trying to make themselves look better than they want to.
	And just to be clear, they're trying to make themselves look better because they are a bunch of socialists, and they have created a racial and class-based slur against the working class of Britain.
	And they can't be shown to be the ones doing that.
	That looks terrible.
	I mean, I wouldn't do that, but okay.
	So this guy trying to defend the term, because of course it is getting construed as pretty racist.
	So he's saying in here that the English writer Charles Dickens used the term in 1838.
	Oh, good appeal to traditionalism there.
	Okay.
	Nice try.
	The second point, it isn't about skin, white skin, but people so inflamed by patriotic bigotry their blood appears to boil.
	So would you apply it to the Ugandan man who used to dress up in the British flag suit?
	Is he a gammon?
	No, because he's got dark skin.
	Wouldn't make any sense.
	He can't be a gammon.
	It applies only to white English people.
	So, this is complete nonsense.
	And then third point, race is a construct.
	Oh, very clever.
	And then just some upset emojis.
	So, Andrew O'Neill saw the guy...
	Oh, no, no, no.
	That's an angry face and a lie.
	So, he's happy that they're angry.
	Yeah, so Andrew Neal saw the comment saying that the people liking his magazine were Gammon, and then responded to it, and the response is just, racist, so blocked, and then blocked him.
	And this is what caused an S show, so people getting really mad that Andrew Neal would dare to say that he's a victim of racism, because he's white, and white people can never be victims of anything ever, for all time, in the left's view.
	So someone pointing out in the next one that Gammon is a state of mind, and...
	Wow, this is really...
	Imagine replacing gammon with a certain n-word.
	Hmm.
	So, it's just a state of mind.
	It's not all white people.
	It's a state of mind among certain white people.
	I mean, this is literally Chris Rock's argument.
	Like, you know, there are black people and there are n-words.
	And this is what public Benjamin here is saying.
	Oh, it's white people and gammons.
	And it's like, wow, that's really nice, actually.
	I'm glad that they've done this, because it's made it kind of in that category, the same as the N-word, and various other slurs like that.
	They certainly have, but Andrew Neal, not taking any BS from them, responds with, it refers to colour, ipso-faxo, it's racist.
	So...
	Oh, we have the alarm.
	It's not even that loud, let's keep going.
	Let's keep going.
	So, him pointing out that if you were to say, like Chris Rock does, for example, oh no, I'm not against black people, I'm just against N-words...
	No one's going to fall for that?
	No one's going to be like, oh no, he's being clever and nuanced.
	No.
	No one's saying that that's going to be the case.
	No one's going to accept that.
	And the same should be true of Gavin.
	It's not just certain kinds of white people.
	All white people, when they get flustered, turn red.
	I just love the way that they've defaulted to the defense that they denied to the people who are like, well no, I don't think all black people are like this.
	I just think it's a certain kind of behavior.
	And now it's like, oh no, it's not all white people are like this.
	It's a certain kind of behavior.
	Honestly, Gov.
	It's like, well, it didn't work for those people.
	Why should it work for you?
	Why should we buy this from you people?
	So then Andrew Neil with the next one, someone arguing that Gammon isn't a race, don't be stupid.
	It's like, okay, but which other group of people with a certain kind of skin tone also turn red when they get flustered?
	I mean, it is white people who do this the most.
	And it's most obvious on them because they've got light skin.
	Yeah, it's not the case that you can see this very easily on the chap, as you discussed.
	The British chap outside, who is black.
	I wish I could remember his name, because he's such a hero.
	But he's like the image of Britain.
	I love the images of him and Steve, covered in EU stuff.
	And this black guy just covered in Union Jacks, like Britain's gate, mate.
	Chad, Chad, Chad immigrant, you know.
	Virgin Steve.
	Anyway, so then Andrew Neil responding that colour equals race.
	Educate yourself and join 2021.
	Get over it.
	And then people also are arguing that Gammon is definitely not a race.
	So if we get the next one up.
	So you think Gammon is a race?
	And he's like, well, I have chosen to take this use of Gammon as an attack on my race.
	And the law now allows me to do that.
	It's a hate crime.
	So he's a racist.
	Yes!
	Come on!
	Totally true.
	That is exactly how the law works.
	That is exactly how the law in Britain works.
	I know some people might find this absurd, but the way the wording of the law about racial bigotry or hatred and all the rest of it is if you perceive it...
	Or someone else perceives it.
	It doesn't even have to be Andrew Neil.
	I, sitting here, can perceive that man calling Andrew Neil a gammon and say, I think that's racist.
	That is enough for the law.
	And I also concur, so I think that we have more than enough evidence that these people are racists.
	That's just how the law works.
	I'm sorry, this is real.
	And combine that with Section 127, which is that anything grossly offensive online is a crime, punishable with, I think it's what is it, up to a year in jail, and like an unlimited fine, potentially.
	So, I'll take your 800 quid, just like Count Dankula, I suppose.
	Thanks, mate.
	So, anyone calling anyone a gammon, better watch your tongue.
	So...
	And then there's the next one in which people are still trying to argue with him.
	So, do you get to choose what he meant and what is racist?
	Andrew Neal's response, that's on us.
	Now the law.
	Now here come the judge.
	But he's right.
	He's absolutely right.
	That's exactly how it's defined in law.
	And you can thank the Labour Party for that.
	Thanks, Tony Blair.
	You did a solid there, didn't you?
	But this guy, he's saying, oh, I'm calling you a gammon.
	I'm not, you know, disparaging you for being white.
	Doesn't actually matter.
	It's completely up to the person this thing to describe whether or not you were trying to be racially hatred in your use of language, which is totally true.
	That's just how the law works.
	God bless Tony Blair, I guess.
	I mean, that's where we are.
	Deal with it, you racists.
	Get in the gulag.
	And someone else pointing out that because one of the other characteristics protected is age, someone saying here, I've been called a boomer before now, even though I'm not.
	Is that a hate crime too?
	If you perceive it to be a hate crime, then it is.
	I tell you, chat, you're in so much trouble.
	You're in so much trouble.
	And the thing is, we've got all your email addresses.
	Good news is, if you're American, none of this applies to you.
	Oh, well, yeah.
	Any British posters.
	Yeah, I'm going to get you.
	I'm going to be watching my tongue.
	I don't know about you guys.
	Not worth the risk.
	But then you've got the people trying to, you know, weasel their way out of this, as the previous folks, trying to say that it's got nothing to do with that.
	I just picked out this example because it's another, you know, checkmark.
	And him, if you can scroll down to see the image, it's a piece of gammon meat with Andrew Neil's face put in it, and the obvious comparison being his skin tone looks more like the piece of meat in its colour.
	It's exactly about his skin tone.
	It doesn't make sense if it's not about skin tone.
	If it's not about skin tone, what is it?
	Yeah.
	It is absolutely about skin tone.
	There's nothing else it can be.
	And yet people continue to argue this.
	So the next chap, if we can get him up, is saying, Gammon is so-called because of a similarity between Gammon and the white people's skin colour.
	Gammon is a racist as calling a black person chocolate.
	Or worse, if you're aware of some of the other insults that neo-nazis have for black people.
	Yeah, and Andrew Neil pointing out this is exactly true.
	Because it is exactly true.
	And it literally doesn't make sense if it's not about a sort of ruddy coloured skin.
	Because if it's not about that, and then that's, you know, if the leftist version of this is true, then calling a black man chocolate wouldn't be racist, and it doesn't make any sense.
	Or even worse things.
	Which is why it doesn't make sense when they're outraged by it.
	So Gorka, when it used to exist, made this post in which they found out that in Romania apparently you could buy cookies that are literally called black man, and it has chocolates on it.
	And of course it looks pretty racist, so that's why they were complaining about it.
	How does that make any sense if your version is that gammon has nothing to do with skin tone?
	It doesn't, does it?
	So these people are just full of S. And then the next one here, someone trying to define it, it's like, well, it's not all white people, it's certain kinds of white people.
	Okay, that's fine.
	He gives the quote from Charles Dickens in here.
	Sure, but, I mean, A, Alan, you weren't quoting Dickens?
	Like, the guy on Twitter was not quoting Dickens when he was tweeting that Andrew Neil is a gammon.
	That's not what was happening there.
	It's the Charles Dickens fan club.
	Yeah, exactly.
	It wasn't the Charles Dickens fan club.
	but even if it only applies to certain white people certain kinds of white people it's still based on an immutable characteristic that they can't change that we could describe as their race yeah so he gives the example from charles dickens here in which he's describing a person who is overly patriotic and blah blah blah right but it's in the time of charles dickens in which everyone is white in the uk or at least 99 or whatever that was so that's the thing and then there's another person always trying to argue that this is only applying to certain kinds of race so that check mark
	because of course it is if gammon were a racial term then it would apply to all white people instead of just certain type of pompous old white racist dude I have seen it apply to all kinds of white people.
	Men and women.
	Yeah, but what do you mean?
	If it only applies to all white people, then it's a slur.
	Okay, well if we take that as true, then we have to accept some other things, don't we?
	Such as when people criticise the race report, in a very, very colourful language.
	Let's get the Breitbart link up.
	So this is a lady who leads a BLM movement, in response to finding out that a group of diverse people wrote a race report saying that Britain is racist.
	She responded with, they need hanging, because they were a bunch of House N. Yeah.
	That isn't a racist term, though, because it only applies to some black people, Callum.
	The people who wrote the report, not people like her who are also black.
	Therefore, this is not racism.
	This is something else.
	Very interesting conundrum that the left has found itself in here, isn't it?
	So, I mean, we've all got our n-word passes back, provided we don't use it for all black people.
	I suppose so.
	I suppose that's where we're at.
	I mean, good job, left.
	But of course this is not going to be accepted by the law.
	No, obviously.
	Which is why Gammon actually does have to be accepted by the law as a racist turn.
	Yes.
	In which case, if you are called a Gammon online, well, the British state has laws about this.
	And that leftist better watch his tongue.
	So Sadiq Khan has been questioned about this, which I just love.
	So David Curtin, who is running for the Mayor of London, he's a great guy.
	I think he's running for the Heritage Party now.
	He used to be in UKIP. You did an interview with him.
	He's great.
	We'll probably interview him again at some point.
	Yeah.
	But he got, because he's on the London Assembly, he was in the privileged position to ask Sadiq Khan, well, the term gammon, if I get called it and I'm a white man, is that a hate crime?
	And Sadiq Khan kind of panics.
	So let's get the link up just so you can see the thing yourself.
	So the question, do you consider it a racially motivated hate crime when white people are referred to as, quote, gammon?
	And how would you deal with such a crime?
	And Sadiq Khan's panic was to respond with...
	Let me read this.
	It is not the role of the London Mayor to determine what is a hate crime, nor to deal with hate crimes when they occur.
	Oh, that's amazing.
	Pump that off.
	Not my job, son.
	Not my job.
	I'm not answering this.
	Imagine the hornet's nest I'll be kicking if I answer this.
	Thankfully, it's not the London Mayor's job to determine this.
	When an incident is reported, the police will establish whether a crime has been committed, and along with the person reporting the incident, determine the motivation.
	If a crime is taking place, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
	Right, yeah.
	Not my job.
	Brilliant response.
	He was a lawyer, by the way, before he was mayor of London.
	He was a lawyer.
	For jihadis.
	Yes.
	What I can do is work to ensure that Londoners are not defined or targeted by who they are and that we celebrate diversity in our great city.
	So we celebrate the diversity of the Gammons, I suppose.
	Because how else can you phrase that?
	Hashtag Gammon Lives Matter.
	But how is it that people can't be defined by who they are?
	What does that mean?
	Like, what are you going to do about that?
	How else are we defining them?
	But the mayor's going to do it.
	He's going to be the one stopping you.
	But how else do you define someone if not by what they are?
	Who they are?
	But he's very clearly...
	How's that not who they are though, John?
	People can't hear John.
	So he's very clearly just sort of like panicking and sort of S-ing himself, which I sort of love because it just exposes how he doesn't know what to do.
	And imagine if he was asked this question, it's like, well, if a black person's walking down the street and they're called the N-word, would the mayor of London describe that as a hate crime?
	He'd be like, well, it's not up to me to consider what a hate crime is.
	It's for the police to do.
	I don't have anything to do with this.
	Nice knots you've taught yourself into, lads.
	Yeah, but that's the state of it, and we have laws on the books, just to remind everyone.
	So, Andrew Neal is actually a victim of a hate crime when he is called a gammon, and him and his supporters have been regularly called a gammon by a lot of people.
	All of them leftists, so...
	And with the race report coming through, this is the argument I had with Helen Dale, which is that positive discrimination is legal in the UK if the characteristic you're discriminating in favour of has faced adversities in their lives.
	So they've placed what they call barriers or so on and so forth.
	And this was always argued that for Black Caribbean, for example, you could hire them over a wife applicant because they are scoring lower on education, scoring lower on income.
	But with the race report coming out, White English or White British scoring almost at the bottom.
	Second to bottom.
	I mean, only beaten by the Gypsies or Irish Travellers in the categories of education, for example.
	I thought Black Caribbeans were slightly below.
	For education, Black Caribbeans were higher.
	Oh, were they?
	But it's for earnings, they were lower.
	Yeah, so for other things, but then if that's the case...
	Okay, we now have positive discrimination in favour of whites.
	That should be the case, if the law is talking itself as it is.
	But that essentially is turning us into South Africa, having positive discrimination for the majority.
	But also, if you call us names on the basis of being white, you're going to jail.
	So if you call us crackers, you can get a jail sentence.
	And also, I'm just going to hire white people because they face discrimination.
	Jesus Christ, this is not the world...
	Not the world we wanted.
	This is not legal advice either, but thanks Labour, I guess.
	This is all the Labour Party's doing.
	They brought this in.
	4D chess, you see, playing the long game.
	Like Tony Blair's going to play the long game.
	I'm going to bring in the white ethnostate.
	How?
	By passing the Equality Act.
	This is not the world we wanted.
	Honestly, get rid of everything Tony Blair did.
	Just get rid of it.
	It was all wrong, all bad.
	All needs to stop.
	We're not in favour of any of this.
	I just had to talk about it because that is the state of Britain.
	In fact, this is why this is all bad and has to stop.
	This is why.
	It was bad to begin with.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	But we knew it would get to points where it was just so riddled with its own internal contradictions and it would create such negative outcomes that we are experiencing now for both sides that this was unworkable.
	And we've been saying this for years, but...
	So now we live in apartheid Britain.
	Alrighty.
	Thanks, Labour.
	Thanks, Labour.
	Let's move on.
	So let's move on to Ash Sarkar.
	Yeah, let's move on to the race report.
	We do need to get a theme because this keeps coming back up.
	It does.
	Yeah, if someone wants to make us a theme, feel free to send it across.
	Contact at lowsees.com.
	But yeah, the race report, this Tony Sewell's race report, has just utterly obliterated the left-wing narrative in Britain, and it's been absolutely wonderful.
	That's why this has been a very Britain-heavy episode, but there's been so much happening in the sphere of identity politics that is actually relevant outside of it, it felt that it was worth focusing on.
	And so, in response to the race report, Novara Media's literal communist, Ash Sarkar, decided to go on Double Down News.
	I don't know what her other interactions and, like, relationship is with them, but I guess Double Down News appears to be some small communist news outlet.
	Honestly, kind of like a counterpoint to us, actually.
	Kind of like doing the same sort of things that we're doing.
	They're more like Unilad or something like that, from what I've seen, where they're trying to be kind of cultural, but of course it's just through the lens of left-wing nonsense.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Maybe.
	But the point is, they're radical left-wingers, which is why they have Ash Sarkar making videos for them, incidentally.
	And this is a video that she made.
	Now, as you can see, it's been age-restricted on YouTube because she used some protest footage in it, which hopefully we won't be doing the same, not what we can upload to YouTube anyway.
	But anyway, so this had 35,000 views at the time that we broadcast this, so it's not insignificant.
	Some people had seen it, so it was worth going over.
	So let's begin.
	I always find it funny when people accuse me of hating this country and its culture and its people.
	Why?
	I mean, it just seems so obvious that you do.
	It just comes out with everything you say is just Britain bad, Britain bad, Britain bad.
	Oh, Gammon's bad.
	And it's like, hmm.
	Just saying.
	Just every time.
	This is why people don't like you, and this is why you're being constantly accused of it, Ash, just so you know.
	Anyway, let's go for the next clip.
	Because one, I'm fucking here, ain't I? And two, there is no other country on this earth which could make somebody as obnoxious as me.
	Only Britain could do it.
	Come on, there are plenty of people here who hate Britain, as our first segment demonstrated.
	But also, like, how is that a redeeming quality?
	Look, I might hate Britain, but I'm here, aren't I? Yeah, that's the problem.
	It's weird.
	Like, have you considered following the footsteps of Dr.
	Degopal?
	But the fact is, one, I'm here, aren't I? In a fake Cockney accent and swearing.
	You know, A, okay, right, Ash, if you like Britain, if you love being here, don't swear so much.
	It's kind of disgusting.
	And also, don't put on a fake Cockney accent when you're not a Cockney.
	You know, it's just kind of weird and cringe.
	It'd be like me putting on a fake Yorkshire accent, saying, oh, I'm from the country, you know, E by gum.
	It sounds stupid.
	Like, you know, you're not that thing.
	Don't try and pretend to be that thing, right?
	And saying I'm obnoxious is not exactly a redeeming quality.
	Like, what?
	I'm obnoxious, aren't I? Only Britain could have made me this obnoxious.
	And it really feels like it speaks to a kind of moral weakness that underpins her case.
	It's a very backhanded compliment, isn't it?
	It's like, oh, I love Britain.
	It makes me obnoxious.
	Yeah, look how bad a person I am.
	No, but it's a dig on Britain.
	Britain makes you obnoxious.
	Yeah, I know.
	That's the point.
	And the thing is, she gives the example of David Starkey.
	Her with David Starkey pulling this stupid face when he was busy owning her.
	And the thing is, Ash, right...
	If you do like Britain, you do like Britishness, you do like England and the people in it, then I would suggest that A, swear this, it's embarrassing, and B, you actually disrespecting Dr David Starkey was deeply inappropriate, and you owe him an apology.
	Like, a public apology.
	Look, I'm actually really sorry that I acted in this way to you when you were making a point that I disagreed with.
	It's just wrong, Ash.
	But I guess the question is, do you consider yourself British?
	I mean, you're here, so I guess we'll have a look.
	So this next link, if you can get it up, John, is just Callum, in fact, on Twitter, just clipping bits of Ash's Twitter timeline.
	So one where she says, I'm Bengali, so it probably wouldn't have been a great deal of fun in the early 40s.
	Next one.
	Lol, F off, I'm not British.
	Again, Ash, cut down on swearingness.
	It's not ladylike, okay?
	Next one, mate.
	I'm campaigning for the abolition of private property, but I'm neither English nor a nationalist, and I have no wish to be.
	Okay, so she's a non-English communist.
	Next one.
	The final solution has the irredeemable Nazi associations.
	I am British, you absolute melt.
	So, are you British or not?
	I mean, if we can go to the next one.
	Next link.
	Where, if you can scroll up a bit, just so you can see the context of this, she had told someone that, she's like, how can I hate British people when I'm so in love with myself?
	And then she goes down, if you can go down, she goes, I'm Bengali, you racist.
	C-word, again, Ash, this...
	And I say this as someone who's sworn a lot in his life.
	This is just gross.
	And it's because he called me Pakistani and not British.
	Why don't you just say you're British?
	Yeah.
	Why don't you just say you're British?
	And that's, in fact, what the guy below says.
	I'm British would have caused less confusion, which it would.
	But that's clearly not how she describes herself because she literally has said, I'm not British.
	I'm not English.
	I'm Bengali.
	And she's trying to abolish private property.
	She's a self-admitted communist.
	She is a Bengali communist.
	Right.
	Cleared up.
	Got it.
	Let's go for the next clip.
	And I love this country's culture and history.
	I did English literature for fuck's sake.
	You don't do that unless you really like something about it.
	Right.
	That's an incredibly cringe statement, right?
	Can we play that clip again, John?
	What a self-dunk.
	I did English literature for fuck's sake.
	And I love this country's culture and history.
	I did English literature for fuck's sake.
	You don't do that unless you really like something about it.
	How disingenuous does that sound?
	I love this country's culture and history.
	Oh, do you?
	There are many, many public statements to the exact opposite of that that we're going to go through in explicit detail in a minute.
	But it just doesn't sound genuine, right?
	And then, exactly, as you say, you know, what a self-dunk.
	You do English literature if you don't want to do any heavy lifting with your brain, Ash.
	That's what you do.
	If you want a degree, but you don't want to have to do something hard, like mathematics or physics or logic or something like this, you do English literature.
	And I'm not dunking on English literature.
	Like, there's nothing wrong...
	No, but there's nothing wrong with...
	No, it's just elitism.
	There's nothing wrong with...
	Yeah, okay, and there is something to be said with STEM elitism, that's correct, and proper and appropriate, right?
	But there's nothing wrong with doing something aesthetic, right?
	Talking about old stories is worth it.
	There's a lot there, and it's worthwhile.
	But it's not the same level of complexity and difficulty.
	And I agree that, as you're saying, it's kind of an easy opt-out.
	If you want a degree, but you don't want to do something hard, you do English Lit.
	Easy.
	It's not necessarily an indicator of anything, really, you absolute fraud, Ash.
	Not an indicator of your obvious love for England.
	It's just ridiculous.
	Because, I mean, frankly, I don't believe it if you say that you love this country's culture and history, and I'm reasonably sure that under any other circumstance, she would call English culture white supremacy.
	So, weird how you've backtracked on all of that.
	And the thing is, it's hard to believe just because you've got a record of openly supporting anti-British ethno-nationalist terrorism.
	This is an article that she wrote in 2018.
	We've covered it before.
	We may as well cover it again, because why not?
	As you can see, my great-great-aunt was a terrorist.
	Women's politics went beyond the vote.
	And in this, she says, my great-great-aunt was a terrorist.
	I'm not talking in the sense in which the pacifist Mahatma Gandhi was branded a terrorist by the British Parliament in 1932.
	Pitilata Wadia was an active participant in an armed struggle against the British state.
	She supplied explosives, she fired a gun, and I'm proud of it.
	For her and other female participants in the freedom struggle, armed anti-colonial insurrection was the only means by which women could achieve their liberation.
	In 1932, Wadedia participated in her final raid.
	Disguised as a Punjabi man, she led a team of fighters on an attack on the Paharati European Club in Chittagong, killing one British woman and injuring 11 others.
	Doesn't sound like the hero of a British patriot to me.
	I mean, her war cry is literally, Bangladesh for the Bangladeshis, get out Brits.
	And then kills one.
	Wounds a bunch of others.
	I also want to point out that she says, what is it, politics goes beyond the vote.
	Politics does not include terrorism.
	No.
	I'm sorry, but that is not part of...
	But I mean, she did brag that her mum met Mao once, and as Mao famously said, power grows from the barrel of a gun.
	So, maybe that's...
	I mean, Carve von Klauswitz, war is a continuation of politics by the means.
	Let's see.
	The promotion of terrorism is a crime in the UK. Just keep in mind.
	No, no, no.
	But that's not what I'm saying.
	What I'm saying is...
	No, I mean as a dunk on her.
	Yes.
	Yes, indeed.
	But what I'm saying is this was the sort of political miracle of liberal democracy is we were able to manage power without resorting to the barrel of a gun.
	That was the point of it.
	And she's glorifying a terrorist.
	And she has done previously with Mao.
	Look at this British hero who murdered British people as a terrorist for ethno-nationalism.
	Yeah, screaming Bangladesh for the Bangladeshis.
	Okay, leftist, learning new things every day.
	So, that National Socialist line is getting pretty blurred at this point, isn't it?
	But anyway, so this is just one thing.
	So the next one is that she...
	If we can go back to the links, John.
	She seems outright thrilled at the demographic changes in Britain.
	This is Ash Sarkar in 2013, who shared a link from the Daily Mail, which is surprising in and of itself, that says, British whites are the minority in London for the first time as census shows the number of UK immigrants.
	And Ash Sarkar posts this saying, we're winning.
	Kind of makes it sound like she's engaged in a demographic war, which is pretty bad.
	And you might think, yeah, but maybe you're taking that out of context, you're misreading that.
	It's like, maybe.
	But then she also did a video called Against Integration in 2016, in which she points out, as you can see here, that the number of non-white wards in London with a non-white majority has grown by three or four times.
	And this, again, she makes the joke, yes, lads, we're winning.
	And it's like, hmm...
	So, she clearly seems to have an us-versus-them dichotomy.
	But I just love the idea that she's endorsing...
	We'll go back to clip four in a second.
	Sorry, I did miss that.
	She's endorsing, like, anti-British terrorism, and then when the Brits are becoming, you know, white Brits become minorities, she's like, we're winning.
	I was like, okay, this sounds a lot like ethno-nationalism.
	Yes, it really does.
	Why do you have the same language as the Klan?
	And even if it's not ethno-nationalism explicitly, it is still anti-English animus, where she's glad that the English are being driven out of certain areas.
	We're winning, which implies that she sees the world in this clear us-versus-them dichotomy with immigrants versus the English.
	And like I said, this is a video called Against Integration, where she's advocating against immigrants assimilating into British culture, right?
	In one part she says, it's demanding we participate in that which oppresses us with a glad heart.
	God, you can imagine, like, some white nationalists making this video?
	Yeah.
	Just, like, replace the image for a minute of her with Richard Spencer.
	Yeah.
	Or what BNP guy?
	Nick Griffin.
	Nick Griffin.
	Going, look, you know, the number of electoral awards...
	Here's my argument against integration.
	They can't integrate.
	You know, something like that.
	Yeah, they can't integrate.
	They don't want to integrate.
	And they're taking over London, which is literally what she's saying in this video.
	I mean, that would be a BNP video.
	It literally is a BNP advert.
	And she's so unselfaware that she doesn't understand that's what she's doing.
	Because she thinks she's on the winning team at this point, right?
	But anyway, we'll go through these and then we'll go back to clip four if that's all right, John.
	She literally says in this next tweet that this is essentially Britain getting what it deserves, right?
	Because when someone posts, Labour is intrinsically unpatriotic in its current form, so it's going to lose and lose and lose.
	Welcome to the era of the nation-state populism, the charisma, strongman, strongwoman, ethnic nationalism...
	I, for one, am looking forward to it.
	It says Becky for Britain.
	So Ash Sarkar replies, if Britain wanted to be an ethnostate, it should have thought twice before.
	And it's like, well, okay, anything that comes after that is saying people in the present are responsible for the decisions of people who made in the past, which isn't the case.
	They're only responsible for their own decisions.
	But then, you know, colonizing the world, relying on soldiers from colonies to fend off fascism, and encouraging people from former colonies to immigrate and build the public services we hold dear.
	The underpinning of this message is you deserve it.
	That's what she's saying with this.
	As if it's something bad as well.
	And as if it's something bad.
	As if it's something to the detriment.
	We are punishing you by coming here.
	Exactly.
	And she sees the immigrants as being dichotomous to the English, and she thinks the immigrants are winning.
	But the immigrants coming there is a punishment to the English as well.
	That's her framing.
	As if I should be punished for what my ancestors did.
	But you're punished by us being here.
	Yeah.
	Like, we're not here to cooperate with you.
	Yes.
	We're against immigration.
	We're against all of these things.
	We view you as a white supremacist, colonialist operation, and we're here to decolonize you, going back to Miss Gopal's view of Englishness.
	Just to be clear as well, I don't believe for a second that the majority of ethnic minorities buy into this nonsense.
	No, this is radical left-wing activism.
	But it's the radical leftists who argue this sort of thing, and this is how they view the world.
	Yeah, literal communists who view the world this way.
	This is not like the regular immigrant.
	The regular immigrant's probably fairly patriotic towards Britain, so they're like, oh, Britain's a good country.
	Which is why she hates those immigrants.
	We'll get to her calling those immigrants a bunch of Uncle Tom's in a bit.
	Anyway, let's play clip four.
	And the things I've always loved most about this country are the ways in which diaspora have shaped what it is to be British, what it means to live here.
	So, not even the people who live in Britain, it's the people who have moved to Britain.
	What I love most about Britain are the immigrants!
	Yeah, we know, Ash!
	Yeah!
	We know it's the English that you have a problem with.
	And you're glad that the immigrants are winning over them.
	We know that's how you feel about this.
	It's maddening.
	I love Britain.
	The royal family?
	Any of the institutions?
	Nah, the immigrants that come here.
	Okay.
	Why?
	Because they're displacing the English.
	Huh.
	Yeah, I think I'm going to go back to saying you don't like Britain.
	Yeah.
	I mean, I think it's just fair that that's the case.
	I mean, literally, the only thing you can say about Britain is, I did an English literature degree and I like the immigrants.
	That's such a weird way of being a patriot, Ash.
	That's all I'm saying.
	Boy, I love being in India.
	Why?
	Because this English enclave I'm living in is lovely.
	Yeah, that's it.
	That's exactly how they felt about it.
	That's exactly how they felt.
	She's an imperialist, as were the British.
	I love China.
	I live in British Hong Kong, surrounded by British people.
	I'd be like, I'm not sure you love China then.
	Yeah, exactly.
	And the thing is, I'm not an imperialist.
	I don't think we should be colonizing the world.
	I don't think that we should be intruding in these people, in their cultures, and forcing them to do things.
	If they want to live how they want to live, okay, fine.
	Not my business.
	And for her, it's like, you deserve it as well.
	That's the thing.
	It's mad.
	Anyway, we're running out of time, so we might have to go on, because I want to get through all this.
	Let's go to the next one.
	But because it's not draped in a union, Jack, because it's not making excuses for slavery and colonialism, because it's not falling at the feet of Winston Churchill, that's not seen as love for country.
	Well, that was an attack on Britain.
	Like, all of those things were an attack on Britain.
	Britain engaged in slavery, Britain engaged in colonialism, and, you know, I don't like Winston Churchill, who's the British icon of the 20th century.
	I also love the idea to be a true Brit is to hate Winston Churchill.
	Yeah, exactly!
	That's literally the Nazi view!
	They literally think that the wrong side won.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, again, just...
	It's just weird.
	But again, attacking Britain's sort of pre-immigration history is not really love of country, or at least widely seen as that way.
	No, Ash.
	Believe it or not, the Brits were here long before you were.
	And they did things that were important.
	But anyway, let's go to the next clip.
	It's a love for the wrong bit of the country, right?
	The brown bit, the black bit, the working class bit, and not for ruling class ideology.
	So the foreign bit.
	That's what she loves.
	And if you don't like that, you is racist.
	Because it's just you hate brown people.
	Don't you understand?
	It's not that she hates the English.
	And I love the way she gives a ruling class ideology, right?
	But this is the thing, right?
	I think Ash Sarkar is British.
	She's obviously British.
	Unfortunately, she's embarrassingly British.
	She couldn't have come from anywhere else.
	Exactly.
	She couldn't have come from anywhere else.
	Even though she might be personally very confused about her identity, although I don't think she is.
	I think she views herself as an oppressed Bengali under the British imperial state.
	She views herself as Bengali, not English.
	But that doesn't mean she's not British.
	She is clearly a product of Britain and the Empire.
	And so...
	That's fine.
	That's just the way it is.
	But, like, claiming she cares about the working class, who are the white English of the countryside and the towns and cities of the country...
	Yeah, majority white.
	Yeah, mostly white.
	No one believes that.
	No one believes for a second that the people she would otherwise scornfully call gammons...
	Which is why she literally wrote an article redefining the working class as literally like the young and the immigrants of London.
	Yes.
	Huh.
	Yeah, no one's going to agree to that.
	Yeah.
	So when she says working class, she doesn't mean what anyone else thinks.
	Yeah, not even slightly.
	Her attempt there, she's saying to be patriotic in England means you can't be proud of anything that's non-white British.
	Have you ever stepped outside?
	I mean, like the Gurkhas.
	Yeah, I was about to say, have you ever met a Gurkha?
	What are you talking about?
	The idea that white British people couldn't be patriotic when they're showing pride in the Gurkhas?
	What on earth are you talking about?
	In the military, the Brits are tremendously proud of the Sikhs as well.
	The Sikhs are tremendously good soldiers.
	Everyone really liked them.
	Let's go to the next clip.
	Here's the thing about Britain is that it's had a remarkably stable, consistent and resilient rule and class.
	We have had pretty much the same monarchy with a little hiccup in the Civil War for about 1,200 years.
	You have a hereditary aristocracy which still owns swathes of this country and has representation in our legislature in the form of the House of Lords.
	And that's bad.
	Why?
	I mean, she's wrong.
	It's not 1,200 years because William the Conqueror purged the Anglo-Saxon aristocracy, right, and replaced the Anglo-Saxon kings with Norman kings.
	But, like, let's say for 1,000 years, right, Britain's had remarkable stability with its ruling class.
	Yes.
	God, yes.
	A million times yes.
	As a regular person, what you don't want is an unstable aristocracy, because it's the aristocracy that used to go to war.
	You know, they were the ones who were fighting constantly, and if your aristocracy is unstable, then what you're talking about is civil wars all over the countryside.
	It's not productive for anyone underneath the aristocracy.
	So a stable aristocracy is actually a tremendously useful thing and is part of the source of Britain's strength, longevity, and prosperity.
	It is the fact that the aristocracy has been stable.
	And one of the things that's made it stable is constitutionalism that was developed in England over the course of the last 800 years.
	There's more, but like, you know, from the legal standpoint.
	Like, the last 800 years of English political history is withdrawing power from the government, placing limits on the power of the state and the aristocrats.
	And that has been the reason they've survived, because otherwise they would have gone the way of the French Revolution.
	If they didn't give up that, they would have been beheaded.
	But this, in my opinion, should be preserved.
	If we want stability, yeah, preserve it then.
	Right?
	Because what we've ended up with is a...
	Well, what we had ended up with before Tony Blair was actually a really quite reasonable country where, like...
	People were just living their lives and having their property protected under the common law, getting on with things, not being held back arbitrarily.
	You know, in what way has your life been held back by an aristocracy?
	What have you not been able to do because you're not an aristocrat?
	I mean, the only thing in my life that I've been explicitly rejected from doing was applying for that civil service internship.
	And that wasn't because of the aristocracy.
	It was because you were white.
	Yeah.
	But it was woke people putting those laws in there that said, because I'm white, too bad.
	So, what Ash is saying, she's trying to pathologize the upper class.
	And the thing is, I don't hate the upper class.
	And, I mean, a lot of the middle class...
	They're just kooky.
	Yeah, but they are just kooky.
	And like I was saying the other day to Helen Dale, right, they're kind of like our Pokemon, right?
	We expect them to go out into the world and do something useful.
	You know, sort out Johnny Foreigner so he doesn't come over here and interfere with my goddamn life.
	I don't want him invading.
	I don't want him ruining what we have.
	And so that's the job of the aristocracy.
	It's a negotiation.
	It's why in Britain you get mass working class support for an aristocratic candidate, such as Jacob Rees-Mogg.
	Or Boris Johnson.
	Boris Johnson is tremendously popular because the working class, like an aristocrat who fights in their corner, But you can't get this in some foreign countries, for example.
	God, no.
	But the point is, it's the result of centuries, centuries of political conflict and negotiation that resolved itself into an effective bureaucracy, a decentralized culture with regional characteristics all of its own, And look how successful that was.
	So Ash Salkar is attacking the very root and branch of English success, British success, with what she's doing here, and it's like, no, I don't want to get rid of this.
	Because it's not foreign.
	Because it's not foreign, yeah.
	That's exactly it, because it's native.
	But that's the point.
	But look at the picture we've currently got on the screen here.
	You can't just make this up.
	What we're seeing here is the product of a thousand years of history, and millions and millions of people, all in some small way...
	Contributing to the narrative, the story that creates this magnificent scene that has depth and weight to it.
	There's a great deal of pomp and ceremony and it all has meaning.
	And Ash is just like, yeah, so we should scrap this.
	Why?
	Because I'm a communist.
	No, shut up.
	I hate it.
	I hate it.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Because of that fact, I think we have got this idea of our history being the kind of reorganisation of chairs at the top of the dining club, rather than the heaves of history powered by working class struggle and working class resistance.
	Shut up, you fucking communist.
	Like, this is not applicable to the actual scenes going through England.
	Like, what Tyler wasn't going, yeah, up with the proletariat, working-class struggle.
	You know, that's just not what was happening.
	That's not what the Civil War was about.
	That just doesn't apply.
	Marx was wrong about the class-based view of history.
	And that's just not how we see ourselves.
	We're not, like...
	The proletariat or anything like this is not how we see ourselves.
	But this is just a basic bitch class analysis from a communist that sucks the soul out of the country.
	You can't explain why people like the monarchy, why the monarchy is overwhelmingly successful and popular in the United Kingdom with a Marxist class analysis.
	You just can't explain.
	And yet it is.
	70% of people are proof.
	How is that?
	Because there's something else going on there.
	There's an aesthetic going on there.
	There's moral claims going on there.
	It's not just, m'class, m'class.
	But she's a dullard, so she doesn't understand this.
	But the irony of this is that she's basically making a claim to what Tyler, the Levellers, which were kind of proto-communists, to be honest, or even like the Black British Panthers, the British Black Panthers.
	And it's like, that's really interesting, because none of those are hers to claim.
	She doesn't care about the English.
	She doesn't like the English.
	She's Bengali.
	She's someone who's been oppressed by the Empire.
	She likes it when the English are displaced from where they previously lived.
	And then she supports her great aunt crying Bangladesh for the Bangladeshis out with the British as she attacks them.
	And it's just like, yeah.
	I'm imagining like Pepe memes.
	But it's like, you know, so yeah, I support what Tyler and the Levelers.
	It's like, Why?
	Yeah, they, you don't, no you don't, you know, and everything she says is hollow, you know, and not sincere.
	But anyway, let's go for the next clip.
	I mean, this idea that all you need are brown faces and high places is just absolutely for the birds.
	Margaret Thatcher was this country's first female prime minister.
	She was the daughter of a grocer.
	Do you think she was good for women?
	Do you think she was good for working class people or indeed, you know, lower middle class people?
	No!
	Nonsense.
	Total nonsense.
	Shut up, communist, is basically the answer to that.
	It's a pointless vector of analysis.
	I mean, A, she's gone from being the daughter of a grocer to being the prime minister of the country as a woman in the 1980s.
	So, I mean, if you were going to apply an identity politics analysis or a Marxist analysis, there should be actually quite a lot of redeeming characteristics there.
	But it's because Margaret Thatcher literally said, I owe nothing to women's liberation.
	I'm not a feminist.
	I'm not a feminist.
	You know, she repudiates all this because Margaret Thatcher was acting from a sort of, you know, classically liberal, personal empowerment view of the world.
	And I do think that what she did during her time was overall good.
	And I love her patriotic attitude.
	There are so many interviews of Margaret Thatcher's BTFOing foreigners, where they're just like, are you saying the British are better than other people?
	And she's like, better at defending our interests, better at defending freedom.
	No, I throw my own people under the bus.
	Yeah.
	Like, why would I do that?
	There was one where she's like, look, we're British.
	We're proud of being British.
	We're proud of our institutions.
	We're proud of our culture.
	And we're proud of what we've done.
	So no, we're not going to back down.
	It's like, yeah, good.
	What a weird thing to expect from a country's leader.
	Like, do you think the British are better?
	No, I think they're terrible and I want to destroy the country I rule.
	What?
	You'd never expect that.
	Exactly.
	But her response was just like, well, we weren't defeated.
	And all the Swedish journalists or the German journalists were just like, hmm.
	What are you going to say?
	Yeah, exactly.
	No, no, no.
	I'm proud of my past.
	No, you can't say you're proud of your past, can you?
	But that was the point.
	Exactly.
	And that was the point.
	She was just like, well, we defended freedom better than you did.
	And it's like, well, that's true.
	But let's, oh, before we do, I love this, you know, was she good for women?
	It's like, well, A, I mean, yes, but are you saying that representation doesn't count?
	You know, black faces in high places, that doesn't matter now?
	That can go to the wind?
	Now that it's been achieved, it's now a system of white supremacy.
	Yeah, now that it's been achieved, it was never useful in the first place.
	You know, now it wasn't desirable.
	It's like, okay, fine.
	Let's go for the last clip.
	So we should have learned this lesson a while ago, that just because somebody shares some of your identity attributes, it doesn't mean that they're going to be organizing in your interests.
	Nobody is more interested in identity politics than black and brown Tories, because they will tell you the story of how their grandparents sailed here in a shoe with nothing but a halfpenny in their pocket, all the while deporting your grandparents.
	That's the game that they play.
	What they are are a flimsy cover for the ongoing institutional racism of the state.
	Just what are you talking about?
	The institutional racism of a state that puts black and brown people in charge of guarding the state from communist insurgents.
	I love that intro as well.
	Ash Sarkar, the classical liberals in Sarkon were right all along.
	It turns out being black doesn't mean you're a communist.
	Yeah, we told you that.
	Just because you share characteristics doesn't mean that you're part of the same group.
	Doesn't mean they want the race war.
	Huh, weird.
	Yeah, who could have predicted this?
	Now I need to throw those Uncle Toms under the bus.
	Like, amazing how she's come to our position on it.
	We shouldn't be treating these things along racial or gendered lines.
	Yeah, it's almost like we should treat them as individuals.
	This thing the liberals have been arguing for decades upon decades upon decades.
	Literally allow them to self-associate in politics.
	So if they go into conservative politics, then that's based on their convictions.
	And it's okay that they have convictions that differ from yours.
	Because we're not racists.
	And we don't own the blacks, Ash.
	Dr.
	Tony Sewell is allowed to make the political decisions he wants to make because he's a free man.
	Ash felt personally attacked by that.
	She did.
	But yeah, okay, no more diversity.
	Ash Sarkar, 2021.
	Well, at least she finally came to the liberal position, you know?
	Yeah, I guess so.
	You know, good job, Dr.
	Tony Sewell.
	You appear to have defeated them.
	You appear to have absolutely routed them.
	Pritiya Gopala is like, I'm going to leave.
	Ash Sarkar is like, maybe we need to have an individualistic politics that's based on identity.
	Like, well, then you've destroyed them.
	Andrew Neil is busy about to start suing people for calling them gammons.
	You know, there are hate crime allegations flying around.
	You've won.
	You did a great job.
	Really well done.
	Very pleased.
	It's good for the comments.
	Yeah, it's good for the first video comment.
	Good morning, Carl.
	I just want to let you guys know that I started watching your videos, Carl, back in 2015 with that white background and that black and white Sargon II head when you were complaining about Sarkeesian.
	And ever since then, I dropped out of school, got a new job, making way more than I ever thought I was.
	I got married at the end of August last year.
	We have a new kid on the way.
	As of Easter, we knew that she was pregnant.
	And I'm going to finish my engineering degree at the end of this year.
	So thanks, guys, and keep up the good work.
	Man, that is a really nice and wholesome sort of story to hear.
	It's nice that you're doing so great, man.
	I love hearing success stories.
	Love it.
	Let's go for the next one.
	When I first read Brave New World, I viewed it as a dichotomy between two extremes, the anti-individual world state and the tragic condition of John as an individual without social belonging.
	The message I took away was that there needed to be a mutual respect between the individual and the social structures, ideally embodied in a form of liberal patriotism, which is why I am such an ardent defender of both liberalism and patriotism.
	Thoughts?
	I mean, I don't disagree with the analysis, but I mean, John, I wouldn't say he was an individualist.
	He's a traditionalist.
	So he's not like, you know, some sort of base classical liberal or something.
	I mean, individualism does sort of come along with that, though.
	Like with, what's his name, Bernard looking over the sea and wanting to feel like an individual and realising there's something wrong with the...
	Yeah, I'm not saying that the Brave New World is an individualist world either, but the traditionalist world and the Brave New World socialist world...
	The tribe John lives in isn't necessarily hyper-individual.
	No, not at all.
	Not even slightly.
	And so that's not what the story's about, and so I wouldn't take that.
	But I would take it in the way that we described, obviously, that it's the dichotomy between the mythic and the scientific worldviews that are coming into contact.
	And John wants to be a man, whereas the people in the Brave New World want to be cogs in a machine, components who are bred for their stations in life.
	Things that can be measured.
	Yeah, things that can be measured.
	You can't measure what a true man is.
	That doesn't make any sense.
	Yeah, that's true.
	On a matter of Mr.
	Floyd's death, I am not an expert.
	I have no leg in this fight.
	But back in the day, I had to do some restraining practice.
	And during it, They needed six guys because of me to keep me pinned on the ground.
	I'm not a strong guy.
	I'm not a big guy.
	My wife disagrees, but I'm not.
	You know, I had one guy on a limb and two on my back before I was forced to admit that there was nothing I could do to struggle myself freely.
	Just too much weight on me.
	And then I see all these pictures of Mr.
	Floyd, a very big guy being kept on the ground by a single man.
	And I'm just, no, that doesn't make any sense.
	It just doesn't.
	If he just relaxed for a moment and then suddenly, you know, lift him up with one arm, he could toss Jorben on his back.
	Well, that's not, well, that's my opinion, not an expert opinion, but that's all.
	That's not the case, I'm happy to say.
	Yeah, he had like three officers holding him.
	So there's Chauvin at the front, then there is one officer next to Chauvin who is holding the center of Floyd, and I believe there's segments where he's got a knee on his back area, let's say.
	And then there's another officer holding his legs down.
	So it is not just one officer holding Floyd.
	But you are right to point out that something I haven't actually mentioned in our coverage of that is that Floyd's 6'6", or something like that.
	Chauvin's like 5'9".
	And then there's a hundred pounds difference between those two characters.
	So that's another one of the arguments from the defense being like, well, the use of force is proportionate to the threat.
	This guy's friggin' huge, and he weighs a lot.
	He's very...
	You can see his muscles.
	He's very muscular, yeah.
	I mean, like, George Floyd's 240 pounds.
	Chauvin was 140 pounds.
	Like, Chauvin's a small guy.
	Like, I'm 200 pounds.
	Like, Chauvin...
	And you can see his arms.
	He has quite thin arms.
	You know, he's not like a big, muscular, like, super cop who's, like, you know...
	He's just quite regular.
	Very average.
	If people aren't wondering why we're covering that today, I haven't caught up on all the footage.
	There was a long segment yesterday.
	It seemed to be an actually good day for the prosecution yesterday, but the thing to keep in mind is that's how every day should have been up until now.
	I mean, it is there.
	It's their witnesses.
	It should have been going well for them.
	They've had a good day, it seems, yesterday, but I'll catch up with them Friday.
	I will take this opportunity to shill the Red Skulls new book.
	And if there's a long order, pretty good.
	But we'll do another bit later.
	I've been converted.
	This is what you did.
	What was his name?
	Coates, Ta-Nehisi Coates.
	But one thing I find interesting about this is that if Red Skull is the villain, and we define him as the villain, okay, and the villain starts saying, take care of yourself because making yourself weak is making yourself vulnerable and unhappy, which is essentially the message from Jordan Peterson, then...
	Why is he trying to take away personal strength from the people who are supposed to be joining the good guys?
	The good guys are supposed to be personally weak, morally kind of suspect in a way, not responsible for things.
	And I don't like it.
	I really don't like it.
	The message of personal responsibility being the message of the villain That's the people around him, and he thinks he's on the right side of history.
	Exactly.
	Right?
	Now we've got a bunch of weak, you know, kind of not very good people who are not taking responsibility for what they should be doing.
	They're the good guys.
	I don't think they are.
	I think they're the villains.
	They're the feminists.
	Yeah, exactly.
	I think they're the villains.
	Hi guys.
	I was perusing around a book on how to make old Celtic chairs when I happened across a saying that struck me as very meaningful.
	The saying is that life without industry is guilt and industry without art is brutality.
	I'm just wondering what your thoughts on it were.
	And I've recently finished the third of the four sash clamps I have to make.
	I'm just going to show you that now.
	Oh yeah, with all this woodwork being done, I definitely need to clean my floor.
	I don't know.
	That's awesome though.
	Well, that's an interesting one.
	So, life without industry is guilt, which means you're taking advantage of someone else's...
	I think it's art without industry.
	No, it's life without industry is guilt.
	And then industry without art is brutality.
	And so, I mean, life without industry is guilt.
	Yeah, I can see that because you're taking advantage of someone else's labor.
	So, you're leeching of someone else.
	So, you should feel guilty about that.
	That's fair.
	And then industry without art is brutality and it's like...
	Sure, it could be.
	I mean, it could be either like weapons of war or things like this.
	Or it could be just things that are ugly and inconsiderate to other people, like brutalist architecture, right?
	So it's stuff that is deeply inconsiderate.
	We should really do, just for a laugh, a segment on the proposals of the buildings around the Palace of Westminster, all of Whitehall.
	They wanted to tear down.
	We'll do a premium podcast.
	And do like brutalist architecture.
	People should look it up.
	We'll do a premium podcast on it.
	Well, it's public so they can look it up.
	Yeah, but we'll put it all together and do a premium podcast and it'll be worth it.
	Right, anyway, Andrew Johnson says, Gopal seems to think that English equals white.
	Where does that leave the Celts, Gauls, Italians, etc.?
	Well, the Celts are also white in their own countries, obviously.
	Hamza Yusuf.
	Minister of Justice, white!
	But isn't that just from his perspective of being in Scotland?
	My cup of tea, white!
	Surely if he moved down to England, all of a sudden the Celts aren't white for the leftist ideology.
	Well, maybe the Celts would be an oppressed minority, yeah.
	Yeah.
	But since the majority in Scotland, they're the oppressors.
	Yes.
	That's literally how leftist power dynamics works, yes.
	But yeah, so in their own countries, they're white.
	Outside of it, they're people of colour.
	I like the way you look over at me, Vicky.
	Carl's looking at Vicky and Vicky's looking back.
	Yeah, I just looked over Vicky looking at her the same time because she's Scottish.
	You're a person of colour.
	Bart says, Regarding the woman and her anti-whiteness, time to report her for hate speech to the police, I think.
	Race and nationality are covered.
	She needs a non-crime hate incident against her name.
	Use the weapons against them.
	Yes, Andrew Nealit.
	Long Talks on the Neach says, Miss Gopal, Dr.
	Gopal to you, Must not have had a two weeks notice.
	There's so much easier ways to resign from a job than trying to get yourself cancelled for being a racist.
	I really like the idea that was the reason for the tweet.
	She's just like, I'm sick of it.
	I'm going to write something really racist.
	They'll get rid of me now, and then they promote her.
	She sat there in a new desk in a nice comfy chair like...
	Also, as a white person in America, the idea that my community and society is English by default is laughable.
	We literally had a revolution over this.
	Didn't you get the memo?
	Actually, your revolution was a very English revolution.
	Didn't come from France.
	Anyway, never mind.
	We'll talk about that another time.
	Chris Simone says, Morning, gent.
	It's been giving me some thoughts.
	Growing back up in the 90s, I don't remember racism being much of an issue, and people only seem to care what people did as individuals.
	Yeah, and I'm sure that you remember there were lots of non-white people on TV as well, right?
	There were loads of, like, you know, just football personalities, TV performances.
	What year?
	Just back in the 90s and early 2000s.
	There's just always been, and in the 80s, look at all the 80s action movies.
	Like, look at Predator, look at Total Recall, look at Aliens.
	You know, they've all got, like, ethnic minorities in them.
	It's just never brought to attention.
	And so it's like, Vasquez isn't notable because she's Mexican.
	She's notable because she's a badass.
	Yeah.
	You know?
	And it's just like, you know, I love it when Hudson's like, have you ever been mistaken for a man?
	And she's like, no, have you?
	And it's like, oof.
	Oof.
	You know, that's a great takedown.
	And it was good banter.
	And it was like, no one was like, oh yeah, she's a Mexican woman of colour.
	It's like, yeah, that wasn't relevant.
	It was relevant that she kicks ass, man.
	But anyway.
	That's the thing, I've never really grown up in that world.
	Like, the world for me has always been run by these radical nutjobs who are always trying to tell me that being white is evil.
	I'm just like, for what?
	What did I do?
	Literally, go back and watch like 80s and 90s action movies.
	I've seen some of them.
	I'll send you a list of movies, just watch.
	It's all very diverse and multicultural, well not multicultural, multiracial, but that doesn't matter.
	The characters are all memorable and notable.
	I can remember character attributes about the characters, even that aren't regarding and relating to their race.
	That's the point, that was good character development.
	But anyway, growing up in the 90s, I don't remember racism being an issue, and people seem to care what people did as individuals.
	As the focus on race has increased, it seems that racial tensions have increased and become more prominent.
	Could some sort of societal confirmation bias, or is it that I just noticed it because of all the screeching?
	No, I think that's how it was.
	I think it was a lot more like that than it was as you describe it, and it is a lot more like we perceive it to be now.
	HR Slave says, Gopal is a name from the Gopalese caste in India, caste, sorry, who believe they are descended from Krishna and therefore see themselves as superior to the other castes.
	I'm not surprised to see this kind of discrimination from someone with such elitist lineage.
	Shots fired.
	George Hap says, Yes, of course.
	It's obvious they are there to protect minorities, like women.
	Interesting.
	It's the letter of the law.
	It is the letter of the law.
	So it has obviously been biased in the past against the oppressed group.
	But with the new statistics, the law has to go along with it, surely.
	That was the argument I made with Helen Dale.
	There would be an argument to be made there, I think.
	Her response was, I'd love to see some test cases.
	Same here.
	I hope Andrew Neil actually does take this to the police and tries to get something done about it.
	But you are right that initially what they were brought in for by the Labour Party was indeed to, as you say, punish dissidents for hate speech.
	And that's a good point.
	I think there was a case, but it's interesting how it's become reversed.
	Get what you deserve, don't you?
	What steps can we try to make to humanize white men in the public view?
	Stop talking about them as white men.
	The easiest way to humanize someone is to talk about them as an individual.
	Speak about that person.
	So if I were to talk about Callum, I'd be saying, well, he's a friend of mine who's worked with me for years and he's always been very reliable.
	He did a great job in Gibraltar and tell other character attributes about Callum.
	I wouldn't say, as a white man, he's this, that, and the other, right?
	That's deliberately abstracting away from the individual and the particular that is Callum Dara.
	And that's the entire problem.
	So speak about the particular thing.
	Don't abstract it.
	Don't be like white men.
	Be like this person, or brown person, whatever it is.
	Be that person.
	Don't be an abstract property.
	Jack William says, if colour isn't an intrinsic property of an object, then skin...
	I'm so glad I'm winning this argument, too.
	Then skin colour isn't an intrinsic property of a person.
	Nobody is black or white, and it appears that certain people just have skin colour due to how the light reflects off their skin.
	Racism, BCFO. Love it.
	Love everything about it.
	I'm not even going to respond.
	Yes, and that's what's behind Ash Sarkar going, I'm British, me.
	I love me British.
	Look at my Cockney accent, Governor.
	That's what this is about.
	That's what this is about.
	She knows the grift is over.
	The grift is coming to an end.
	The statistics, the facts, the objective reality of this case is that non-white people can get ahead in England.
	Your case is over.
	And now you're going to be like, yeah, but this is all based on me hating the English.
	So, yeah, well, that's not acceptable.
	That's racism.
	We've got it literally in the law here.
	Look, we'll see what it's written.
	See?
	Racism.
	You're not allowed to do that.
	And so it's like, oh no, love me, British me.
	Don't deport me, governor.
	It's like, yeah, no, piss off.
	Self-deport, please, Ash, because I'm so sick of it.
	Bengal for the Bengalis, as her grandmother would say.
	Yes, indeed.
	Great aunt.
	Great aunt.
	Great, great aunt.
	Gammon comes from pigs, so it's not just racist in terms of colour, it's calling people pigs.
	That's right, they're calling white people pigs.
	Well, I thought that was for the police.
	Yeah, but that's a voluntary association, right?
	You can choose to become a policeman so you're not being racist against the police when you say they're pigs, right?
	Do they call white people pigs?
	No, but gammon is pork.
	Oh!
	Yeah, well.
	So they're calling white people pigs?
	Yes.
	Based on their skin colour and tone.
	Yeah.
	Unbelievable.
	Good point.
	It only applies to men also due to men's thicker, more collagen-filled neck.
	Check the pictures.
	Therefore, it's also sexist.
	I have seen it applied to women.
	I have seen it applied to women as well.
	But it definitely is a white-specific term.
	And more importantly, an English-specific term.
	Express the anglophobic as well.
	I mean, I've never seen it applied to a Celt.
	I'm sure it would be, though.
	I haven't either, but I'm sure it's possible.
	Unless Andrew Neil...
	Andrew Neil's Scottish, actually, isn't he?
	So there we go.
	We have seen it.
	Is Andrew Neil Scottish?
	I'll Google it.
	Yeah, Google it.
	I'm pretty sure he is Scottish, actually.
	So I'm sure he is.
	But Reuben says, good on Andrew Neil calling the communist racist.
	We need to normalize this kind of attack on these idiots.
	Yes, we do.
	Yeah, there we go.
	So there we go.
	It's not even just English.
	It's just white British is the racial slur that Gammon means.
	Kauki says, I think Kuki says, they have ran the Charles Dickens reference to justify their racism when using gammon.
	In an article by the New Statesman, it uses the term, turns out, when discussing the Dickens definition, yeah, I've seen that, the Umbrages have to retrospectively find something to fit their narrative, not an origin, to give them the excuse to differ the word gammon from words like coconut or the ginger jumble.
	Yeah, but I mean, that's right.
	I've seen that.
	It turns out it was used by Charles Dickens, which means you weren't used.
	I read Charles Dickens' definition and then decided to follow it.
	Yeah, he was a great definition.
	Ergo, it's not the Charles Dickens fan club.
	Exactly, it's not.
	And you know you're not.
	And the thing is, right, okay, you want to call white people a racial slur based on the colour of their skin.
	That's fine.
	I'm a free speech absolutist.
	I think you should be allowed to do that.
	Now please sign this petition to get rid of section 127.
	Exactly.
	Let's get rid of section 127 because, man, have I got some words for you.
	I'm joking, obviously.
	I can't remember the time I've ever actually called a non-white person a racial slur.
	I think the only racial slurs I've ever used have been against white people.
	That's weird.
	Every time I get deplatformed, I call a bunch of Nazis on Twitter, the K-word, which got my Twitter account yeeted.
	Call a bunch of Nazis, the N-word, which got my Patreon yeeted.
	You need to stop your anti-naughty hate speech.
	Silicon Valley is really against it.
	Callum McAllister says, earlier when you were speaking about being responsible for one's actions as an inherently British trait compared to the rest of European cultures, that's not what I was trying to say.
	It's not a dichotomy.
	It's not one or the other.
	It's that the English language has it naturally built into it, and English culture specifically has personal responsibility as kind of a cardinal value.
	But it's not to say, obviously, that no Frenchman has ever taken personal responsibility.
	Although...
	For his wife?
	Can you think of one?
	Emmanuel Macron, by the looks of it.
	Fair enough.
	BTF owed by Macron.
	But that's not to say, obviously, that other cultures don't have the value of personal responsibility, but that is to say that English, in particular, has a high value on personal responsibility.
	So I just want to be very clear there, because when you are used to thinking in universals and someone says, this culture values this thing, the implication is that other cultures don't.
	And that's not the case.
	It's just that, you know, this happens to be a particular English value.
	I was wondering if you could expand on this.
	I hope I just did.
	I imagine you'll point to certain philosophers from your enlightenment.
	We could do a podcast on this at some point, actually.
	Because I'll have to go and dig up a bunch of old stuff I was reading a while ago.
	But I will do this.
	This is a worthwhile thing doing.
	Because there was research done about, like, different values, and the Germans have got an interesting set of values as well.
	Anyway, Henry Ashman says, You don't study something unless you like it.
	It looks pretty bad in all the whiteness studies crowd and all the historians who specialize in things like Nazi Germany.
	That's a great point.
	Of course I love Nazi Germany.
	I did a degree in the Nazis.
	Oof.
	Good point, Ash.
	You know, I mean, I read all this communist manuals and like race stuff and stuff like that because I love it.
	Great point, Henry.
	Harry says, Ash loves England but is trying to abolish private property, a cornerstone of English culture.
	Doctors love cancer because they study cancer.
	Exactly.
	Amazing, isn't it?
	What a line of logic.
	But yeah, Ash is trying to abolish private property, a cornerstone of English culture, and advocates for foreign ideology, communism, but loves England.
	I don't buy it.
	Another great point.
	Like, private property ownership is one of the principal, like, cardinal principles of Englishness and English culture.
	And this has been remarked upon so frequently by foreigners.
	My favorite one was Carol Chapek, right?
	Czech philosopher and poet comes over and he's like, they've got a magic word in England.
	That word is private.
	It does the same work.
	The word private in England does the same work as all of the fences and hedgerows of the continent.
	You know, all of the gates and sealed off areas.
	The English just put up a sign that says private and everyone leaves it alone.
	That's how sacred private property is in England.
	And exactly, trying to abolish private property is like, no, get effed.
	No way do I believe it, Ash.
	You're a charlatan.
	An absolute charlatan.
	And it's because you know that the race grift is coming to an end.
	The communist grift is coming to an end.
	And you've got to repackage yourself as some sort of patriotic defender of the working class.
	My arse.
	Anyway.
	Patrick says, And that was Britain in the effing 40s.
	Yeah.
	You've seen this before.
	I know exactly the propaganda film he's talking about.
	Yeah.
	It's super weird.
	Because as an English person, I didn't even clock until...
	So the way it goes is that the black guy and the white guy are on a train.
	And some old white lady's like, oh, it's funny you come from Birmingham.
	I come from Birmingham.
	Oh, you must come around to my house and have tea.
	Birmingham, Alabama, yeah.
	And they both say, oh, thank you very much.
	And they walk off.
	And I didn't clock that this was anything.
	I thought it was just, oh, that's boring.
	That's cute.
	And then the black guy walks off and the white guy, he turns around to the camera and is like, listen, men, that's normal here.
	I was just like...
	It's so out of character.
	I was like, wait, what?
	It's like, we might not do that kind of thing at home, but they do that here.
	The point, though, being is that Britain had most of Africa under its thumb by this point, so it's not like we didn't know what a black person was.
	It's not like the Americans didn't either.
	It's just their history is completely different to ours.
	Yeah, yeah, absolutely.
	But the point is, we knew what black people were.
	For an English lady to see a black person...
	Okay, it's not going to be a common sight in 1940s England.
	But it's not going to be like, oh my god, an alien has descended from...
	She'll know it's someone from Africa.
	But it's also not something that's...
	It's not taboo in the same way as the United States, for example.
	It wasn't the ingrained prejudice.
	That's correct.
	I'm just going to find the video to put in the chat for the chat.
	But it's really funny that they're not racist over there, so don't make a scene.
	But it's the way it's done as well.
	I'm telling you, the way he acts is just like...
	Understand.
	Anyone watching who's British is just like, this is just a boring section.
	I don't know what you're talking about.
	Right.
	One more, one more.
	I encountered the Prince of Chads many times in my life, first as a teenager on the parade ground, then receiving my gold DOE award later at the palace, finally as the head of my Masonic Order.
	Oh my god, Masons.
	He would be sure to make an off-color remark in his honor.
	Well, in honour of Prince Philip, is there a racist remark you'd like to make?
	No.
	The funniest one I think he ever did was actually about the Scots.
	So he was visiting a Scottish driving instructor and he said, how do you keep the natives off the drink so long that they pass the test?
	So there was one.
	What, one Scot off the drink?
	No, no, no, one racist joke about the Scots.
	Well, we're allowed to do the ones about the Scots.
	I know, it's good.
	Right, I think we're done.
	We're done?
	Alright, so...
	That's us done.
	Yeah, this is half two.
	We will be back Monday, 1pm, hopefully talking about the George Floyd updates to the trial.

▲