Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 12, 2021 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:29:45

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #108

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters for the 12th of April 2021.
	I'm joined by Carl and just a little announcement about the amount of premium content we have on the site.
	I haven't read the new article from Hugo, but I heard it's great.
	It's the new premium article we have on there.
	We also have loads of other premium content.
	David Lammy being the only true Englishman.
	Sorry, but I actually do quite like that one.
	Yeah, I really like that one.
	It's really good fun.
	Your interview with Helen Dale and so on and so forth for people who have not checked out the site.
	Do go there and sign up.
	We have plenty of good content.
	But otherwise, let's get right into the news.
	So I wanted to get into the ADL versus Tucker Carlson.
	Yeah, you've been chomping at the bit for this one.
	Yeah, because this really annoyed me because it's just evil.
	Like, I wouldn't think to do this to anyone.
	I mean...
	Let's just say what it is first, and then I'm going to say why I think it's so bad.
	So, you can see here, this is Brian Stelter from CNN retweeting The Daily Show, talking about the fact that The Daily Show has spliced together Tucker Carlson's speeches on the show with the El Paso and Christchurch Shooters Manifestos.
	Wow.
	They read The Christchurch Shooters Manifesto?
	How often does Brian Stelter and The Daily Show read The Christchurch Shooters Manifesto?
	I'm very curious.
	I'd like to know just exactly how many times they've been through it.
	But I just can't get over, like, this is real?
	They're trying to accuse Tucker Coulson of being the person who inspired the El Paso and Chrysler shootings.
	Because he occasionally used a word that was sometimes used in their manifesto.
	And you'll see in a bit, it's like, oh, he used the word replacement.
	They used the word replacement.
	how the english language works you moron amazing but i just wanted to preempt this to be like this is why i've never really or at least i don't think i've ever said that aoc for example is responsible for the ice attack in which a antifa guy went down he wrote in his manifesto that he thought them concentration camps like she used the word and then firebombed the place i went in with a rifle they had to shoot him to death thankfully he wasn't able to kill anyone i mean i would say that we suggested that she was inciting I would say that she's definitely responsible for raising attention.
	She's definitely responsible for that phrasing.
	She called it concentration camps.
	This is exactly the language you used, and this will be the argument they use, saying, well, Christchurch guy said it was a replacement, and Tucker Carlson said the word replacement, and therefore...
	Yeah, but that's the thing.
	I would never say that AOC, or at least I don't think I've ever said, and I shouldn't say, that she is responsible for that attack.
	It's the attacker who is responsible for it.
	Sure, she's guilty of ramping up tension.
	Sure, she's guilty of exaggerating the truth.
	But that doesn't mean she is responsible for the terrorist attack itself.
	Like, sure, it's a thing of like, well, maybe you should be a little more careful about representing the truth.
	Because if you are telling a lie that then incites an attack, that's pretty bad.
	But this is not why I think the Daily Show have decided it.
	And again, the Daily Show.
	The Daily Show.
	Not like some, I don't know, far-left outlet.
	It is!
	It's incredibly far-left.
	What are you talking about?
	It's so sad to see.
	There's Jon Stewart's Daily Show and then there's this.
	This is just awful.
	The fact that it's degenerated to this level.
	And you know what?
	You know, before we go any further, let's just play the first clip, which is their version of events.
	If you use the term replacement, the Democratic Party is trying to replace the current electorate, the voters now casting ballots with new people, more obedient voters from the third world.
	That's what's happening, actually.
	Let's just say it.
	That's true.
	Democrats know if they keep up the flood of illegals into the country, they can eventually turn it into a flood of voters for them.
	When you offer someone citizenship, free healthcare, free education, housing vouchers, and free food, all things they don't have in their own country, their political success does not depend on good policies, but on demographic replacement.
	And they'll do anything to make sure it happens.
	So every time they import a new voter, I become disenfranchised as a current voter.
	They're diluting it.
	No, they're not allowed to do that.
	Why are we putting up with this?
	Well, how's he wrong?
	Well, that's the point.
	He's saying that as citizens, we're losing out on our votes because if people come here legally or illegally en masse, then we lose our power over time in the electorate.
	Well, that's true.
	I've been saying this for years.
	That's like exactly how this works.
	The argument goes that he used the word disenfranchisement.
	Well, he also used the word illegal immigrant or something like this.
	And therefore, that also appeared in the manifesto.
	See?
	We're drawing the links.
	We've got them, boys.
	But what Tucker Carlson there is saying is true.
	Each vote is a share of the overall political power in the United States, and if you bring in more people and give them the vote, then it does dilute the power of everyone else's vote.
	That's totally true.
	It's just like basic civic nationalism 101.
	Yeah, it also doesn't mean that therefore we need to go out and kill people who are immigrants to this country.
	No, no, it doesn't mean that.
	I mean, the thing that was wrong with the guy who did the Christchurch shooting was not that he thought immigration should be lowered.
	It was that he thought immigrants should die for being immigrants.
	And worse, Muslim.
	Yeah, I mean, specifically Muslims with him.
	I think he had views internationally that that was the case as well.
	Like, when he went to France, he spoke about that.
	I'm not as familiar with the El Paso shooter because it didn't transfer over to the UK as much.
	Like The Daily Show, I actually read the guy's manifesto too, and we know what radicalised him by reading the manifesto, and it wasn't Tucker Carlson.
	No.
	It was actually going to France and seeing lots of Muslim immigrants in France that radicalised him, in his own words.
	I think then he went to Pakistan, loads of other countries, and then formed his opinion.
	Which, in case you're a moron, of course is wrong.
	Like the idea that, therefore, let's kill all the immigrants.
	Obviously no one shares his opinion.
	But of course, Tucker Carlson doesn't share that opinion.
	He's just saying, look, I think if you import loads of people, it disenfranchises the people already here.
	Which it does.
	Which has got nothing to do with the two.
	Like, that's two worlds away.
	But the weird thing is the Democrats would deny that they like new voting blocs because, I mean, that's exactly who they cater to.
	Immigrants, minorities, refugees, all of these.
	What they consider to be the disenfranchised.
	The marginalised groups.
	The marginalised groups.
	I mean, this is a straw man of their position.
	This is their position.
	This is their position as expressed by them.
	So, I don't know what to say.
	It's just unbelievable.
	I just can't get over how...
	I used to really like The Daily Show.
	I mean, most people, I think you did as well.
	Yeah, I did, yeah.
	Good God, America is broken if this is the state of late night comedy.
	I'm viewing The Daily Show as basically deeply subversive at this point, like the Jon Stewart Daily Show, because in later years I found that there were a few segments that he had essentially lied about.
	They totally lied about Gavin McGuinness when he was on there.
	They did an interview with him and then just chopped it up to make him literally be saying something he wasn't saying and things like this.
	And it's like, "Oh my God." So what deceptive practices was I subject to while not knowing?
	And I've soured on it quite a lot recently.
	Yeah, I mean, that's a valid point.
	I don't think he's ever accused mainstream figures who criticize immigration of being responsible for the mass murder of Muslims in New Zealand.
	I don't know if he ever went that far, but Trevor Noah, sure, why not?
	And I just wanted to point out as well, like, these are the people we're getting this information from.
	I wanted to play the next clip, which is just, I guess, Trevor Noah had on his show trying to argue that heroin is good for you.
	Oh, this chap?
	Yeah.
	I'll be talking about him later.
	If you said to me six years ago, hey, Trevor, weed, should it be legal?
	And I'd be like, that is the devil.
	How are we all so wrong?
	How did we all become programmed incorrectly then?
	Well, so the first thing people have to understand is in the United States, drugs are not banned because of pharmacology or science.
	Drugs are banned because of racism.
	We banned all of these drugs originally because of their association with despised groups.
	The opioids were banned because of our hate of Asian-Chinese folks.
	Cocaine because of our hate of Black people.
	Marijuana because of our hate of Mexican-Americans and Black people.
	And so when we understand why drugs are banned in the first place, Then we can start to look behind the curtain and see what the reality really is.
	Like you said, with marijuana, you can no longer fool people because more than 50% of adults have used marijuana in their life.
	So it's harder to fool them.
	But with something like cocaine or crack, it's still easy to fool people because most people haven't used that drug.
	It's still easy to fool people about heroin because most people haven't tried heroin.
	And so as we increase the number of users with these drugs, it becomes more difficult to fool people.
	What on earth?
	Well, that's exactly the kind of reason I'd expect from a heroin addict.
	But just, you know, we've been able to relieve people of the myths that, you know, cannabis is ungodly and will kill you.
	As we get more people using these other drugs, they'll become more accepting.
	Now we're going to crack the myth that heroin is bad for you.
	What?
	And to do that, we're going to make more users.
	But what?
	Okay, let's assume that in America that was the case, and it was just literally they just hated other races.
	How do you explain it in...
	Well, that's the other argument.
	How do you explain it in Britain and places like Glasgow?
	Well, how do you explain it in China?
	Like, why did the Chinese ban opium imports?
	Racism?
	They're just racist against the British.
	That's what went on there.
	They hated us.
	They're just irrational.
	It's not like the British Empire was poisoning their society with opium to make loads of money out of them.
	But how do you explain it in Glasgow, where it's like, look, you've got literally almost all white people, and you've got a very stratified thing, which is normal people and drug addicts, and everyone is, you know, like, very, very prejudiced against the sort of, you know, dropout drug addicts.
	Like, there's no racism involved, because they're all Glaswegians.
	Yeah.
	I went back, because I know he'll argue that, oh, well, it was 1914 or whatever it was when they banned opium, and therefore it's racism against the Chinese at the time.
	I happened to just look that up.
	I think it was like 1880 or something.
	The US and the Qing Empire signed an agreement that they would ban imports of opium to either country, because both of them had a problem with this.
	It was like, okay, yeah, that's just anti-Chinese racism.
	I assume the Chinese were being racist against the Americans by also signing the same document.
	But I mean, I expected him to say something about moral panics, not racism.
	And so that's why I was totally taken aback.
	So I was expecting to go, it's a moral panic because it's going to destroy the fabric of society or whatever.
	And that was exactly what the argument was at the time.
	And I mean, like, you know, look at someone who's addicted to heroin or meth or something like that.
	It's hardly good.
	Well, at least they're anti-racist.
	You don't take heroin, you're a racist.
	That's true.
	That's true.
	I, uh...
	I've never taken heroin and I've got no interest in taking heroin.
	Unlike Trevor Noah who's pumping up every evening because he's such an anti-racist.
	Yeah, he's there slapping his wrist.
	Because heroin is actually good for you.
	I just want to note as well the similarities between that and the prosecution of the George Floyd trial during the claim that fentanyl can't kill you.
	It's just like, oh boy, it's a weird week.
	It's a weird week for statements about drugs.
	Yeah, but we'll get back to that guy later.
	Yeah, so this is Trevor Noah and The Daily Show trying to push this, and they're not the only ones.
	Importantly, the entire left decided to fall in line over the weekend about this.
	So you can see Sleeping Giants here, the advocacy group for getting rid of anyone who ever disagrees with them, trying to claim here.
	If Tucker Carlson wasn't a white supremacist, you'd think that after the last 24 hours, he'd make a statement on his show that he does not support white supremacy, right?
	Why?
	Why?
	What reason?
	Tucker Carlson's just, you know, does his show, be like, by the way, I think there's something wrong here.
	Goes home, has a nap, makes some dinner, and then suddenly everyone's like, are you white supremacist?
	It's like, what?
	Just with a piece of toast hanging out of his mouth.
	What are you talking about?
	He's such a weird thing, right?
	Nothing that he's said is about white supremacy, unless, of course, you think that non-white people don't live in the United States and don't vote.
	But a bunch of kooks in the middle of Twitter land are obsessed that you might be a white supremacist, therefore you have to make a statement that's like, nah.
	But then Nazi is regularly trending on Twitter.
	Holocaust and Jews are always trending on Twitter.
	But it's the same argument of, I don't know, the World Health Organization or something.
	Let's say there's a bunch of neo-Nazis who think they're run by the Jew, and therefore they must come out and give a statement about that they're not run by the Jews because these people think so.
	It's like, no, you guys are just crazy.
	There's no reason I'll listen to you at all on this, especially when you think heroin cures the body.
	But that's another thing.
	Anyway.
	So, they're not the only ones, obviously.
	Last week's the night, jumped on the bandwagon, trying to post a clip that was from a long time ago, in which that...
	I forget his name, the fucking boring British guy.
	John Oliver.
	John Oliver.
	Tried to go after Tucker Carlson for being a white supremacist, on the basis of that he says things that are not leftist.
	This crack cocaine, white!
	So...
	Oh, man.
	Heroin not good for you.
	Shut up, rightoid.
	LAUGHTER This far-right propaganda has to stop.
	Yeah, and then CNN jumped on, so Don Lemon being the mouthpiece for CNN, trying to jump on that Tucker Carlson was definitely a white supremacist.
	Is it Don Lemon calling something white supremacist?
	It must be a day ending with Y! Yeah, I know, right?
	God!
	So this is the mainstreaming of white supremacist propaganda.
	I bet every day he's got a teleprompter and someone who's writing up the teleprompter, and the guy's like, wait, I can actually just cut and paste?
	I don't have to do anything!
	Same day, every day.
	So let's play the first clip here where he explains his position.
	We've got to talk about what is happening over on the propaganda network, the Fox propaganda network.
	The lie that liberal elites are plotting to replace the white population with immigrants of color.
	Now I know that the left and all the little gatekeepers on Twitter become literally hysterical if you use the term replacement.
	If you suggest that the Democratic Party is trying to replace the current The voters now casting ballots with new people, more obedient voters from the third world.
	But they become hysterical because that's what's happening, actually.
	Let's just say it, that's true.
	If this was happening in your house, if you were in sixth grade, for example, and without telling you, your parents adopted a bunch of new siblings and gave them brand new bikes and let them stay up later and help them with their homework and gave them twice the allowance that they gave you, You would say to your siblings, you know, I think we're being replaced by kids that our parents love more.
	And it would be kind of hard to argue against you because look at the evidence.
	So this matters on a bunch of different levels, but on the most basic level, it's a voting rights question.
	In a democracy, one person equals one vote.
	If you change the population, you dilute the political power of the people who live there.
	So every time they import a new voter, I become disenfranchised as a current voter.
	So I don't understand why we don't understand this.
	I mean, everyone wants to make a racial issue out of it.
	Ooh, the, you know, white replacement theory.
	No, no, no.
	This is a voting rights question.
	I have less political power because they're importing a brand new electorate.
	Why should I sit back and take that?
	The power that I have as an American guaranteed at birth is one man, one vote, and they're diluting it.
	No, they're not allowed to do that.
	Why are we putting up with this?
	I've been saying this for years.
	It's great to see Tucker Carlson being like, you know, I've come to the Sargon position.
	Because this is exactly, that's word for word what I've been saying about this.
	But did you not see that there?
	So, like, Don opens it with, well, he's spreading the lie that liberal elites are trying to replace white people with people of colour.
	And he explicitly states in the clip he then shows him saying, it's not about white replacement, I'm interested in that, it's about the dilution of the voters' power.
	I mean, explicitly, it's not about white people.
	I'm not even talking about that.
	I'm just talking about in general.
	So you've got, like, Tucker Carlson and a bunch of black Americans, white Americans, Indian Americans, all stood behind him being like, hey, we have a problem.
	And he's like, white supremacist.
	It's just so pathetic.
	Like, they literally play the clip of him saying that, and then they say that he's saying the exact opposite.
	But you can go to any left-wing news site and found articles titled things like The Browning of America and things like this, because they are consciously trying to do that because they do hate white people.
	Because they don't think of the terms of citizen non-citizens or stuff like this.
	They think of the terms of white and brown people.
	Yeah, and they think they own the browns and the whites can never be, like, mixed with the browns or something.
	And this, to them, if you are against, like, the mass importation of new voters, then you're a white supremacist.
	Yeah.
	Okay, well...
	It's really...
	That's stupid.
	I mean, that is their position, though.
	And it's not like he doesn't have a point, either.
	So I just loaded this up.
	It's just from Wikipedia, which is just a line here showing you the percentage of millions of people who are foreign-born in the United States.
	So you can see that it's...
	You know, the United States has been an immigrant country, sure.
	It's been taking people for years.
	But you have the potential going down there, and now it's up in an upswing again.
	So what is that, about 15% or something?
	People being foreign-born?
	No, but look at that though, right?
	It's huge.
	The number of foreign-born people over time, in like 1900, it's like 5 million people, 10 million people, you know, somewhere between there.
	And then to 2000, it goes up to over 15 million people.
	And then it skyrockets to like 40 million people.
	Hmm.
	It's like London.
	But I mean, you've got to look at the percentages as well, because that's obviously more important.
	But again, it's a massive uptick.
	Like, sure, you're not having a world war going on.
	But this is colossal.
	And the thing is, America has had instances in periods of time where it's had high immigration, then it's contracted, and then high immigration.
	And this is like, it's gone to high immigration, then they're like, right, we just want to keep this here forever now.
	So that's not how this works.
	You need to incorporate these people into the citizen body of the country.
	Americanize them.
	Otherwise you're going to get ghettos.
	But also, it's the point of, surely this decision as well should be up to the people of America.
	The citizens already have to live there.
	How many people they want to let in?
	How about we put it up to the decision of Vox.com?
	Yeah.
	Instead, it's left up to the decision of elites who just decide more immigrants good because I get more kinds of food.
	White people bad.
	And I don't live in an area that has any immigrants because I work at Vox.com.
	Or I'm a grifter for Black Lives Matter.
	That sort of thing.
	Who happens to have seven homes?
	But I'm sure we'll talk about that later.
	We will.
	But there's also the point here.
	There's no global war.
	You look back at the 1900s or whatever.
	There's a lot of people moving around.
	United States not fully occupied.
	There's still loads of land to get out.
	2019...
	I mean, this is not like the expansion West.
	This is not like the Wild West still exists or anything.
	There's no global war going on.
	I don't know why this is going up so much and people just don't say no.
	Because the majority of this immigration as well, like, US immigration has always been very diverse.
	I mean, actually diverse.
	You had loads of Swedes, loads of Germans, loads of British people, all the rest of it.
	Well, they would say they're Europeans.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, that's how they sit, but that's not true.
	Diversity is actually something that isn't just white and brown.
	There's a diverse continent called Europe made up of literally loads of ethnic groups.
	But the majority of immigration these days is almost entirely Mexican.
	And it's one of the interesting things.
	Just look at a graph of by state, the largest immigrant group.
	By the late 2000s, it's just all Mexican.
	That's just how it is.
	You've got a 6,000 mile long border with Mexico.
	What do you expect?
	I know, so he's denying that there's a problem here, or that loads of immigrants are coming from such countries, and he then goes on to say that even though Tucker Carlson said this wasn't about white and brown, it was about the electorate, no, no, he's arguing that the white vote should not be diluted, which is explicitly what he didn't say.
	But it also dilutes the black vote!
	I know, but...
	And the legal immigrant vote from, like, Cuba or wherever else, you know?
	Don Lemon can't think in such terms, it's too high Q for him, so let's see.
	Diluting.
	First of all, as he was singing it, diluting.
	One person, one vote.
	Isn't that the whole argument about people getting rid of the Electoral College?
	That it dilutes the vote.
	I'm just saying.
	Is he suggesting that?
	What is he talking about?
	A lot of talk there about diluting the political power of the current electorate, which is mostly white people.
	The white vote should not be diluted.
	That's what he's saying.
	He talks about voting rights, about one person, one vote.
	He is twisting those concepts for his own ends.
	And what ends are those?
	The point is to fuel up the audience with a false sense of grievance.
	Grievance, outrage.
	To justify voter suppression based on anger and fear and lies and insecurity and racism.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	I mean, the idea that you feel that you're in a position to point fingers when it's about grievance mongering and stirring up hatred is staggering, Don.
	But okay, that's your interpretation.
	But a reasonable interpretation is just, I don't want my country to be overwhelmed by the millions and millions and millions of people who live elsewhere in the world.
	Like, what is it for the US? I think it's like 1 to 2 million per year?
	Something like that?
	Legal?
	Legal?
	Trump got it down to something like 600,000.
	Yeah, he did do a good job.
	Yeah, he did.
	But I also just love the fact that he's like, ah, Tucker Carlson's making this argument about white and people of colour.
	And then, clip of Tucker Carlson saying, this is nothing to do with white people, it's to do with the electorate.
	You see?
	He's saying the white vote should not be diluted.
	What a moron.
	And let's just play the last clip of his argument, in which he shows people chanting, Jews will not replace us.
	And then says, that's what Tucker Carlson was arguing?
	What?
	It's not the first time that we have heard this replacement BS. Remember the far-right extremists and white supremacists who marched in Charlottesville?
	So basically they're saying immigrants will not replace us.
	Immigrants will not.
	That's kind of what they're saying over there, even though we're all immigrants.
	There's literally not enough Jews on the planet to replace them.
	That's never gonna happen, man.
	But I just love how he literally listens to them, has the subtitles on screen, so you can explicitly hear they're not saying you, but Jews.
	And he's like, yeah, well, he's talking about immigrants.
	He's like, what?
	What were you talking about?
	They literally just said Jews will not replace us.
	Millions of Israeli immigrants moving to the US. For what?
	Dunno.
	It's just so comical.
	This is how bad the argument is.
	But literally, there are only 15 million Jews in the entire world.
	Even if all of them moved to the United States, it wouldn't cause the same sort of population shift that just this mass uncontrolled immigration over time has done.
	Yeah, it doesn't make any sense.
	But they're not the only ones to fall in line.
	So CNN, I had to play some clips from him just because he was so bad.
	But Huffington Post also just fell in line.
	Just wanted to demonstrate that.
	And then the ADL got on board because of course they did.
	So let's go to the next one.
	What?
	So the Daily Beast reporting here that the ADL decided to get involved.
	So you can scroll down just so we can see the title of this article before we go along.
	Anti-Defamation League calls for Tucker Carlson's firing for openly endorsing white supremacy.
	Keep in mind, Anti-Defamation League calls for Tucker's firing.
	Sure.
	What did they title the...
	Yeah, they didn't title it very well.
	They titled it, Jewish Groups Blast Carlson.
	I mean, that sounds like a Daily Stormer headline.
	It really does.
	What's wrong with you?
	Like, the framing there?
	Just the harmonisation of the left and the right.
	They changed the headline.
	Jewish Groups, they just call them.
	Because the headline must have been ADL for them to post that link.
	And then they changed it to Jewish Groups.
	Oh boy.
	I mean, I do love the fact that the ADL's name is so dirt these days that you can't just say ADL because no one will believe it.
	But, like, I just don't understand why they're getting involved.
	Because Tucker Carlson's like, hey guys, did you know as a citizen your vote is being diluted?
	Because, you know, millions and millions, tens of millions of Mexican immigrants are just free to come across the border because of Joe Biden.
	And the ADL are like, no, this is anti-Semitism!
	Just jumping in the way.
	It's like, what the hell are you talking about?
	Yeah, doesn't make any sense.
	To be fair to them here, they did include two other Jewish groups to give a statement.
	Great!
	So they could justify the headline.
	Because, I mean, otherwise, what is wrong with you?
	Are they trying to...
	It sounds like they're trying to gin up anti-Semitism.
	Yeah, it really does.
	Hey guys, have you looked at these Jews recently?
	Don't you hate these Jews?
	And everyone's like, what the hell are you talking about?
	Talk about Mexicans, man.
	The state of the left.
	So they had a statement from Jewish Progressive Group If Not Now, in which they say that the Great Replacement Theory is xenophobic and anti-Semitic conspiracy.
	What the hell are you?
	Not what he brought up.
	Racist extremists like Tucker will only amplify it as more climate change increasingly drives dislocation and migration.
	The fight for Jewish safety is the fight for migrant and climate justice.
	Oh, take a bow.
	Take a bow.
	I love it.
	You've got everything in there.
	Oh, it's the climate change, even though that's not why they're coming.
	And they're not Jewish anyway, but it doesn't matter.
	It's anti-Semitic.
	Jewish safety, climate justice.
	Just everything harmonizing.
	One true narrative.
	It's just going to be one statement by the end of the decade, you know?
	Yeah, it's going to be one line.
	That's the leftist manifesto.
	And there's some other group called J Street who condemned Carlson.
	Both of them don't seem very big, so I'm just going to ignore them.
	But also, I do love the fact that the ADL have been downvoted to just Jewish group.
	They're not even worth mentioning anymore.
	And there's a reason for this, because the ADL is trash, for anyone who doesn't know.
	I mean, it is, but...
	So here's just the...
	I gotta run through these quick.
	So this is Pepe the Frog, which they declared a hate symbol.
	And then there's the OK symbol.
	They declared a hate symbol.
	And then there's ACAB, which they undeclared a hate symbol in their article, in which they say that it's a long-standing phrase that you use with skinheads.
	However, some non-racist skinheads use this phrase, and you must take careful to consider the context in which it appears.
	It's like...
	Yeah, all of a sudden context matters, I suppose.
	But not any other time.
	Yeah, you're right, ADL. Context really does matter.
	Jesus, it's embarrassing.
	But it's good to see that their name is Dirt, because they are just liars.
	So then there's the Independent, I just wanted to mention, Felon Line, and then the Hill as well.
	Felon Line, so we get the next one.
	The only reason I'm bringing these up is just how impressed I am with how the left-wing media works.
	They all just, as you say, turn like a phalanx and move.
	Jonathan Greenblatt's out again.
	Tucker must go, says Jonathan Greenblatt.
	That's nice.
	Should he be replaced with Borat, like you were promoting the other day?
	I mean, he's never said anything anti-Semitic, has he?
	The new messiah.
	Yeah.
	Anyway, so then there's people pointing out that, hang on, what about the fact that the left keeps making exactly the same argument Tucker is making and saying that's our strategy?
	So if you get the next tweet up, there's Stacey Abrams here, who's got a lovely little graph.
	Ooh.
	George's diversifying electorate.
	Can we click on that graph just to get it a little bit bigger?
	Just so people can see what she's saying.
	Oh look, the number of white voters is going down.
	The number of voters of colour is going up.
	George's electorate is growing fast and changing rapidly.
	We need a strategy with big early investments to take advantage of George's strengths by expanding the electorate.
	Particularly with voters of colour, with a graph that shows white voters going down and voters of colour, disgusting phrase, I can't believe I can talk like that, going from 25% to 40%.
	Stacey Abrams, noted anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist and advocate of Christchurch shooting, has this to say.
	Well, that's...
	That's the same argument.
	I mean, if Tucker Carlson can't talk about this, then Stacey Abrams can't either.
	Stacey, why do you hate the Jews?
	It's also just, I wanted to run through the point, I'm sure people have heard this before, but just to make the point as well, that, you know, Tucker's not wrong when he says that overwhelmingly immigrants vote certain ways, and that's exactly the reason Stacey Abrams is promoting it.
	Yeah, that's what she's doing!
	So the next link we can get up is just some peer research, a notoriously far-right outlet, just pointing out, if you can go to the first graph, if you can scroll down a little bit more, so Hispanics overwhelmingly votes Democrat, whites there are slightly more Republican by, what is that, like a 10-point difference, blacks overwhelmingly Democrat, Asian overwhelmingly Democrat, and this is meant to be of, you know, mostly people who would come from immigrant backgrounds as well.
	Yeah.
	So, it's just true.
	When Tucker points out that immigrants overwhelmingly vote Democrat, and that's why the Democrats are promoting it.
	Which is why the Democrats, like Stapes and Abrams, promote exactly that.
	I mean, it's not a difficult argument.
	It doesn't involve endorsing Christchurch, you'll notice.
	Doesn't have anything to do with Jews.
	I don't know who's bringing that in, ADL. And then there's also the point he makes of, well, it's not just a small thing either.
	So if you go to the next Pew Research, again, far-right outlet, I'm sure, they make the point here that most of the 23 million immigrants eligible to vote in 2020 live in just five states.
	Imagine living in one of these five states, and you've got like six million new people who are also voting.
	You're thinking, wow, my vote actually is worth a hell of a lot less.
	Yeah, so they say here about one in ten people eligible to vote in this year's US presidential election, the Joe Biden-Trump election, are immigrants.
	And 61% of those 23 million live in just five states.
	Amazing.
	First one being California, with 5.5 million voters who have first immigrant background.
	And you only need 5.1 million votes to swing that state, even though it's heavily blue.
	So that would be enough.
	New York, 2.5 million immigrants who are able to vote.
	1.9 million would need to swing the state.
	So these are the two heavily blue seats, which are heavily blue for exactly that reason, presumably.
	And then you look at Florida, 2.5 million immigrant citizens who are eligible to vote.
	300,000 to swing.
	On the plus side, though, in Florida, it's probably them that made it really deep red.
	Exactly.
	And then you go to Texas, though.
	1.8 million immigrants living in that state who are eligible to vote, and you only need 600,000 votes to swing it.
	Interesting.
	Like, interesting in the Republican areas, it's kind of tough.
	But in the Democrat areas, with loads and loads of immigrants, very easy to win as a Democrat.
	Let's ask Stacey Abrams what she thinks of it.
	Yeah, I suppose let's find out her opinion on it.
	Sorry, that took a little while, but I just...
	No, no, no, that's fine.
	Because I just...
	I'm so evil.
	Like, imagine making an argument about someone who just runs a talk show.
	Like, you're responsible for this, you know, mass murder across the ocean, because you used the same English language words that they used in their manifesto.
	And then Jonathan Greenblatt leaps out with a happy merchant meme going, look, you hate the Jews!
	I never mentioned the Jews, mate.
	Yeah, why are you bringing this up?
	I explicitly said it wasn't about race as well.
	So yeah, I just feel bad for Tucker Carlson.
	That's horrible.
	It's just bizarre that ADL is just leaping in the way of this discussion.
	Because, I mean, why do they care?
	I want to know why Jonathan Greenblatt is in favour of unchecked mass immigration into the United States.
	And if he is in favour of that, which he appears to be, how is Tucker Carlson wrong?
	Yeah, give me the argument.
	Tell me why it's not the democratic strategy for the next 10-5 years or whatever to become a one-party state.
	And how is this connected to anti-Semitism, Jonathan?
	What's it got to do with Jews?
	Anyway.
	So I figured that we'd go and debunk four progressive myths because these are things that came across my timeline and I found them very amusing.
	Now, I didn't realize that you'd be featuring that professor who we saw on The Daily Show who was trying to persuade everyone, actually, once we get everyone taking heroin, they'll be more accepting of taking heroin.
	Which I suppose they would.
	But the New York Times have responsibly titled their article with him, This heroin-using professor wants to change how we think about drugs.
	I suppose he would.
	It seems a bit self-serving, doesn't it?
	Yeah.
	I mean, like, I'm committing a crime.
	I wish it was legal.
	Oh, no, no, no, I'm not even bothered about the crime.
	I'm bothered, I mean, obviously, but, like, I don't think that drugs should be criminalised, and you know this, right?
	But that doesn't mean that I think that taking drugs is a moral good, especially when, and let's not just lump drugs into one category, there is...
	Different kinds of drugs.
	As he said, there is a sliding scale.
	There is caffeine and nicotine.
	And then there's heroin.
	There is alcohol and weed.
	There is cocaine, and then you've got meth, and then you've got heroin, and you get to the sort of scale where it's like, these are the life-destroying drugs that we have seen destroy people's lives over and over.
	And I come from a working-class background.
	A lot of my family is working-class and have spent a lot of their time taking drugs.
	I can tell you that it is not good to take drugs past a certain kind of intensity, because They are life-riding, right?
	You get horribly addicted to them.
	You can't stop them.
	I mean, it's difficult enough stopping smoking, you know?
	Or if you're an alcoholic, stop drinking, let alone when you have, like, a deeply physically addictive drug like heroin.
	And so, I mean, it's just deeply irresponsible that the New York Times would promote such a thing.
	But he says, Professor Carl Hart saw drugs as destroyers of communities.
	Then he saw the positive side.
	What after he's injected?
	So, yeah, yeah.
	By the way, this is great.
	Oh, that's brilliant.
	Like, sorry, no, this is not good.
	This is just totally irresponsible.
	We have miseducated the public, yet actually, heroin addiction's good.
	Sorry, I just can't go over the argument.
	Actually, heroin's good for you.
	Look at George Floyd.
	It took a knee on the neck for fentanyl to kill him.
	So the interview is amazing.
	Dr.
	Hart, are you on anything now?
	No.
	I'm in interview season now.
	Why would you waste your substance on an interview you have to concentrate and focus on?
	Stop you there, Dr.
	Hart.
	That kind of implies that there is some sort of cognitive impairment that is created by taking these highly addictive drugs, and the fact that you don't do them when you're trying to do an interview implies that you would function less optimally were you to do so.
	It's almost like there is a detrimental effect that taking heroin has on not only, you know, your self-control, but also your ability to function in the real world.
	Stop me if I'm wrong, doctor.
	You know, but then you didn't, you weren't on heroin when you did the interview.
	These are just your words, right?
	And so the New York Times, John Leland, the very responsible reporter, he's like, well, I mean, maybe you'd take it to deal with the stress or boredom of interviews.
	And it's like, do you want him taking it?
	Like, excuse me, could you take some now?
	People are finding out that it's literally SOMA, isn't it?
	Thanks everyone in the chat for sneaking me there.
	But yeah, so he says, well, perhaps if it was an academic reception, oh yeah, go to an academic reception, just totally off my tits.
	Why not?
	Why wouldn't I do that, right?
	He said, now you might take something that will help you get through it, like a low dose of opioids and a low dose of stimulants, something of that nature.
	Is this guy a dealer?
	Have you seen my prices?
	Yeah, exactly.
	This academic perception is really boring, but this, just for a tenner, he's the first tenured African-American science professor at Columbia, and he's a gadfly among drug researchers and a rock star among advocates for decriminalizing drugs.
	Look, I think we should decriminalize drugs, and I think this is a terrible person.
	Who's advocating terrible things.
	In drug use for grown-ups, chasing liberty in the land of fear.
	That's right.
	That's right.
	Liberty is being off your face on crack.
	That's what liberty is.
	You see the down-and-outs who are there under the interpasses, like, snuffling around.
	Hunter Biden-style, snorting Parmesan cheese instead of Coke.
	Yeah, that's liberty, according to this guy.
	He confides that he has used heroin regularly for the last four years and describes the time he took morphine daily for three weeks in order to experience withdrawal.
	Stunning and brave.
	That's just breaking new boundaries.
	Every adult, he said, should have the freedom to do the same.
	The problem is that too many of them adopt that freedom to do the same.
	The pursuit of happiness and liberty, he said.
	So he's literally framing being a wasted drug addict as being the intention of the Founding Fathers.
	That's what they were after.
	It wasn't liberty from a tyrannical monarchy or anything like that.
	No, no, no.
	It was the freedom to get high off your face.
	So basically, the Opium Wars were justified.
	I suppose so.
	Very libertarian of the British.
	It was very libertarian.
	The Chinaman must be free to take his opium.
	Yeah.
	Are you preventing that free market for our drugs?
	How dare you, sir?
	It's not very liberal of you.
	Enjoy this broadside.
	So yeah, he says much of the blame...
	It falls onto his own profession.
	We in the field are overstating the harmful effects of drugs.
	We have miseducated the public, and it's wholly un-American and wrong.
	Yes, being constantly doped on Soma is totally virtuous.
	And it also is just like, hey, fellow heroin addict, have you considered?
	But there are many critics of him, thankfully.
	Call these assertions both wrong and dangerous.
	Oh, I'm glad there are still some adults in academia.
	That's good to see.
	He's fast and loose with the science to advance the case.
	Says Bertha Kay Madras.
	Yeah, it's almost like...
	Did you know taking heroin's not a virtue?
	But the case for taking heroin, it's not as strong as it looks, right?
	Bertha has come out and said, no, no, he's fast and loose with the science.
	I'll show you a study about this.
	But it's not even a repudiation.
	It's just like, well, he's a bit wrong.
	Yes.
	He could be more disciplined in his application of these studies.
	You don't ignore the adverse consequences, the parents, the families, the spouses who have to live and deal with the opioid use disorder, traffic fatalities, workplace errors, absenteeism, workman's compensation, drug-fueled violence, school dropouts, drug-related crimes and murders.
	I just don't see Carl ever wanting to address these things.
	Why would he?
	He's a tenured professor.
	He gets paid no matter what.
	It doesn't matter how many drugs he takes.
	He still gets his paycheck.
	But anyway, thank you grown-ups who are not addicted to heroin.
	Let's move on to the next one, so we're not running out of time.
	So mass shootings, according to the Washington Post, are actually not disproportionately white.
	Another progressive myth just collapses in on itself.
	This is just...
	I don't know how they're going to get by.
	Don Lemon's probably calling up this professor, in fact, for his latest hit, because he's going to need something to cope, right?
	Shortly after the news broke of the mass shooting underway in Boulder, Colorado, the sequence began to play out on social media, condemning the white male entitlement assumed to fuel the majority of such attacks.
	To be fair, this is actually a brave article to be published in the Washington Post.
	Extremely tired of people's lives depending on whether a white man with an AR-15 is having a bad day, tweeted Julie DiCario of Deadspin.
	It's always an angry white man, always, wrote Hamal Javari of USA Today.
	And many tweets were deleted after it emerged that the suspect was Ahmad al-Awawi, some Middle Eastern name I can't pronounce, right?
	Because it turned out he was a 21-year-old from Syria and obviously a Muslim.
	Not a white European.
	And so this was a big oof for the left-wing Twitter Brigade.
	They couldn't take it, right?
	And so they say, look, one can argue it's an understandable mistake.
	Mina Harris, the Vice President's niece, suggested, I made an assumption based on his being taken into custody alive and the fact that the majority of mass shootings in the US are carried out by white men.
	That doesn't justify inferring some sort of white pathology, however, because the data doesn't support it.
	However, her bigotry completely supports it.
	James Alan Fox, a criminologist at Northeastern University, also not a heroin addict to the best of my knowledge, maintains a database, but we've got to check with all these academics, right?
	So some academics promote heroin use, some academics don't, some academics are persistent heroin users and opioid users.
	That's my new favourite put-down for any academic.
	Shut up, heroin over there.
	Heroin addict over here.
	But James Allen Fox, to the best of my knowledge, has never OD'd on heroin.
	And so he maintains this database in collaboration with USA Today and the Associated Press, which covers all mass shootings in the US since 2006.
	And when asked to analyse the data around the incidents such as the Boulder Massacre, he confirms that 55% of perpetrators in such incidents have been reported as white.
	This means that, in fact, white people are underrepresented in mass shootings if we care about diversity and representation.
	Now, this is obviously not a recommendation that anyone goes and does anything about this lack of diversity, or this over-representation of diversity, because we are very much pro-diversity here.
	We actually would like less mass shootings across the board.
	We're not progressives.
	Because we're Nazis.
	Sorry, ADL. I know that might be anti-Semitic, but fewer mass shootings would be the better, if that's okay.
	Yeah.
	Seriously, I'm expecting them to call us all sorts of names for wanting less mass shootings.
	That's anti-Semitism.
	I wouldn't put it past them.
	You're an Islamophobe.
	I mean, what are they going to call us?
	I don't know.
	The anti-mass shooting brigade.
	I will accept that bigotry against mass shootings.
	Like I'll accept the bigotry against heroin use.
	Wait till we get to the fatphobic bit.
	Anyway, so yeah, what is happening here is a common statistical fallacy that they just happen to be confirming this bias because they only pay attention to the ones where it's mass shooters who are white.
	Because there's a narrative to push.
	Because there's a narrative to push.
	And so with this latest chap, the Syrian chap, he was quite pale because Syria is actually not simply as just brown.
	The Middle East is, in fact, a big mishmash of different racial groups that have been there for a long time.
	And so they kind of had to embarrassingly retract, but they saw a pasty guy and they're like, I knew it!
	White men are the problem.
	God damn those Europeans.
	But...
	And they're Islam.
	And they're Islam, yeah.
	The heroin overdoses.
	But anyway, yeah, so white people might actually be more likely to be apprehended alive after these massacres, but apparently they commit suicide more often so the police can't get them as well.
	And overall, if you were to flip a coin, you would be more accurate...
	Than the people on Twitter.
	So it turns out that...
	Don't go to Twitter to find out if there's a white guy.
	Just literally get a call and flip it.
	Heads, it's a white guy.
	Tails is not.
	You've literally got more accuracy that way.
	And I would suggest that white people get arrested more often because they surrender more often as well.
	You just put down your guns and they'll take you into custody.
	Anyway, let's go.
	I'm like an ISIS terrorist who's out to die.
	Yeah, who literally is a martyr.
	He's trying to become a martyr.
	ISIS is now white, so...
	Welcome to the white race, ISIS. We don't have a greeting.
	We don't have a code word.
	The progressive left's position.
	ISIS is a white Sharia state.
	LAUGHTER Anyway, let's go on to female fertility, because science has discovered that Awa Mahawadi, or whatever her name is, has made the right choice by being a 30-something childless woman, and science has admitted, apparently, and finally admits, as if science was lying to everyone this whole time, that female fertility does not fall off a cliff at 35.
	Well, science doesn't admit that, actually.
	I've got the statistics that we'll go into in a minute.
	But she's like, good news, ladies!
	We've officially been granted two more years of useful life, according to a new study.
	She's being ironical there.
	She's saying, look, you're only saying women's only use comes from giving birth and having kids.
	And it's like, no, you're saying that.
	You know, we're saying that at some point in your life, you'll want to have kids.
	It's not much of a dunk, though, is it?
	Like, haha, we don't fall off a cliff at 35.
	It's 37.1.
	Checkmate.
	Bigots.
	Anyway, so, yeah, a new study has shown that reproductive years for women in the United States has increased from 35 to 37.
	So, you know, freeze those eggs, I guess.
	What?
	So what?
	You know, let's assume that's true.
	It's still not a good idea to wait until you're 37 before trying to start a family.
	It's a terrible idea, in fact.
	Right?
	In fact, there is just no particular reason, other than working for your corporate masters in whatever corporation you work at, that you would want to wait till that age generally, frankly.
	And I'm saying someone who became a father at 35.
	I wish I had done this sooner in my life.
	It was silly.
	Honestly, it's knackering.
	It's incredibly tiring running around after kids.
	If I was in my 20s, it would be a lot easier.
	But anyway...
	She goes, this study obviously doesn't mean that having kids after the age of 35 is a breeze.
	Then why are you framing this as if it's a good thing?
	However, I really hope it prompts us to stop treating 35 like it's some sort of fertility cliff.
	The magic number you're officially described as being of advanced maternal age or a geriatric mother.
	You're given dire warnings about how hard it will be to get pregnant and all the problems you and your baby might face.
	Your pregnancy is immediately labelled high risk and subject to extra monitoring if you try to get pregnant after 35.
	It's a process that's often shrouded in stress and judgement.
	That's because it's really tough, right?
	So according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, at 35, there is a 20% risk of miscarriage if you're having a baby, right?
	But by the age of 40, this goes up to 40%.
	So you have a 40% chance of losing your child just through natural processes, right?
	But by the age of 45, this becomes 80%.
	So it's like, oh, well, you know, we don't fall off a cliff.
	Yes, you do.
	Yes, you do.
	Mother Nature is just a cruel and heartless mistress when it comes to this sort of thing.
	If you want to guarantee yourself having a family, you don't want to be like the woman who froze her eggs and then 10 years later finds none of these eggs work.
	And even then, after like, well, not even none of them worked, like something like six of them didn't work.
	And then a few of them were still viable and so she attached them, but they failed because she was 40.
	So there we go.
	At 40, you have a 40% risk of losing that.
	It's...
	45, 80%.
	Unreal.
	If that's not a cliff.
	If that's not a cliff, what is?
	Right?
	But she's like, the quality of your eggs declines over time.
	That's very clear.
	But the current obsession with the age of 35 as a fertility threshold is outdated and unscientific.
	Well, let's say it is.
	Let's say it's outdated and unscientific.
	It's still good advice not to wait till that long if you're starting a family.
	End of story, love.
	Right, but again, it's also...
	Like it's miles away from 37.
	Exactly, but look how self-serving it is.
	She's clearly in her mid to late 30s and obviously has no children.
	And so it's like, good news, fellow single wine aunts!
	It's like, be more like me.
	You can wait, you can wait, you can wait.
	No, you can't wait.
	Stop waiting.
	She loves this.
	Take, for example, the off-site statistic that one in three women aged 35 to 39 will not be pregnant after a year of trying.
	Want to know where that statistic's from?
	Data from 1700s France.
	Okay, but has there been a massive, dramatic shift in the biology of women in the last 300 years?
	And the answer is no.
	And she's like, no, actually, it's actually 78% of women who don't get pregnant within the first year.
	Oh, brilliant.
	That's so much better.
	If it was 15%, maybe I'd be like, okay, good point.
	You've really turned that around.
	But no, it's only 22% who actually fall outside of that original statistic that was found in revolutionary France.
	The current obsession with the age of 35 being fertility cliff isn't just unscientific, it's unhelpful.
	Oh yeah, unhelpful.
	As one gynecologist recently wrote in Slate, this monolithic thinking creates stress and a stigma.
	Stigma.
	You know who isn't treated as over the hill the moment they reach 35, Callum?
	No idea.
	Men.
	That's literally the next line.
	Men.
	But like, why would you even?
	Like, why would you?
	Who cares?
	Who cares?
	It doesn't matter.
	We're not in a war against each other.
	But a lot of it's just putting fingers, no, men aren't treated this way.
	Well, why would they be?
	They don't have to carry a baby to 10.
	They don't get an 80% chance of failure at 45.
	They have 100% chance.
	They're all no eggs having.
	Yeah, exactly.
	She's like, yeah, but men's sperm declines over time.
	Yeah, great.
	We never produce eggs.
	Yeah, but don't start a family if you're in your 50s.
	Try and do it sooner than that if you can.
	Same advice goes.
	Anyway, moving on to the next one because we're out of time.
	BMI is being used to weight shame and it must go, says overweight MPs for the government.
	Again, it's all very self-serving stuff, right?
	The government's stance on addressing eating disorders and poor body image is dangerous and health professionals use the body mass index must be axed now, MPs say.
	John agrees with this, but for completely different reasons.
	We'll get to it in a second.
	A report by the Women and Equalities Committee.
	Late thirties, overweight, often single, just saying.
	They found that the coronavirus crisis had created devastating repercussions for people who have or are at high risk of eating disorders, as well as exacerbating body image anxieties, to which I can only say, okay fatty.
	Caroline Noakes, the committee's chair, said BMI has turned into a justification for weight shaming and noted body image anxiety will be compounded by gyms and beauty salons reopening their doors Monday on lockdown as lockdown eases.
	Based.
	That's good.
	BMI was intended as a way of looking at the whole population, but has been used as a health risk indicator in specific patients who are then placed on weight loss or weight gain programs after scoring too high or too low.
	I agree.
	Keto Sharia now.
	This is what we need.
	We need to be shaming.
	This is working just as intended.
	Miss Noakes says, anyone can suffer from body dissatisfaction.
	Over the past 10 years, there's been a wealth of research and recommendations on how to tackle negative body image, but government action in this area is limited.
	We need to see urgent action.
	The use of BMI as a measure of healthy weight became a kind of proxy or justification for weight shaming.
	This has to stop.
	No, it has to continue.
	Down with sugar, down with people saying it's okay to be giant and fat.
	What a ridiculous way of thinking.
	People have a bad image of their body.
	How do we solve this?
	Do we make them improve their bodies, or do we just confuse them into believing that there's nothing wrong with them?
	And we went with the propaganda solution.
	I don't know, but I'm going to keep going.
	We are particularly alarmed by the rise in eating disorders.
	Eating disorders?
	Yeah, sure.
	The rise in bloody waistlines.
	And concerns the obesity strategy and data collection of obesity levels in kids is making things worse by failing to promote healthy behaviours.
	You know, healthy behaviours like being under a lockdown so they can't leave the house.
	You know?
	The government must ensure its policies are not contributing to body image pressures.
	The government's not doing enough to say, look, you are not good enough in your current obese form.
	That's all I'm saying, right?
	The thing is, science is developing new ways of body shaming, and it's glorious, right?
	Let's go to the link there.
	Right, so BMI, according to John, is not nearly good enough, right?
	BMI doesn't actually distinguish between people who are morbidly obese and people who are just buff, right?
	And so we need advanced techniques, because, you know, there's no point...
	Exactly.
	There's no point body shaming someone who's going to the gym and working out.
	The rugby player.
	Exactly, the rugby player.
	But you do need to work out exactly how fat they are.
	So, using the Archimedes principle, which states that the buoyant force on the submerged object is equal to the weight of the fluid that is displaced by the object, you can use this principle to determine the percentage of body fat because the density and mass of muscle and fat are different.
	So, Caroline Noakes, get in the tank.
	We're about to start shaming you.
	I'm not ashamed of my shaming either.
	You're not good enough as you are.
	You need to change.
	You need to improve.
	You need to get better.
	Improvise.
	Adapt.
	Overcome.
	You know how it goes.
	Right, and the final thing, since we've got ten minutes left, that I wanted to cover is more cope about the race report.
	In fact, I was...
	We need...
	The race report!
	But the race report's been doing great rounds, right?
	Because it's been just destroying left-wing narratives on Britain and racism, and they can't deal with it.
	In fact, everything that they come out with on this has been nothing but a massive cope, and it's been deeply embarrassing to watch, right?
	So this is Sir Michael Marmot, who decided to write in The Guardian.
	He led a pioneering work into health inequalities in 2010, which was updated and said there was much good in the report's chapter on public health but was concerned about shortcomings.
	He said that the subsequent study he led on structural factors behind the varying COVID outcomes wasn't included in COVID. The latest reports.
	It's like, yes, but there's good reasons for this because your study presupposes the existence of structural racism.
	And in fact, all of these other studies presuppose the existence of structural racism.
	And what was this study about?
	To establish if there was data to support the idea, the presupposition that there was structural racism.
	So why would we include them?
	Yeah.
	Why would I look at this?
	Because otherwise I look like I've got nothing.
	And that's exactly what the progressives are arguing now, right?
	The argument is basically the race report didn't consider that COVID was also racist.
	But I don't agree that it's structural racism that caused the disparities in COVID outcomes.
	Like the data didn't agree that COVID was racist.
	What do you want?
	But I was presupposing this.
	My entire argument hinges on this.
	I'm looking forward to the ADL jumping in and calling this anti-Semitic now.
	Mahm also criticised the report's contention that health inequality should be considered an outcome of factors such as deprivation and poor housing rather than ethnicity.
	Such social conditions are themselves the result of long-standing inequalities and structural racism.
	Again, he is asserting that the thing we are trying to investigate is already the thing.
	It gets better, though.
	Because it means that the English working class, the white English working class who live in the same conditions as the people who are disproportionately impacted are also the victims of structural racism.
	Racism by who?
	I'm not sure.
	The structures.
	Systems of systemic oppression.
	They're all around us, Callan.
	Can't you feel them closing in?
	They're oppressing the white English working class.
	Because they're racist.
	On the basis of the white English working class being white.
	Okay.
	It all makes sense, right?
	The report's focus on disparities due to social class were only part of the story.
	He argued, there are health differences between races that are not fully explained by class, therefore racism must play some role.
	That is an argument, if it were applied to religion, that would be called the God of the Gaps argument.
	As in, I don't know what's causing this discrepancy in my data.
	I can explain to this, and I can explain to that, but there's a gap here, I can't explain, therefore God.
	That's literally his position.
	He literally says, and so therefore racism must play a role.
	You don't know that.
	And it's unbelievable that, like, you'd be given a platform that you are, you know, some respected scientist and you're sat there going, well, this unidentified bit, racism, obviously.
	It's everywhere.
	It's in everything.
	It's literally the view of God that the Christians have.
	Not that I'm dunking on the Christians or anything.
	But just that particular argument.
	That particular argument.
	But the thing is, to assert that means that you have to believe, in the same way that the religious believe that God is literally in everything all around us, and always has been, that racism must also be filling that role.
	You're forgetting that races are minichlorians, except in all things, Carl.
	That explains so much.
	While the commissioners correctly cited his report on 2010 into health inequalities, he was complaining that they didn't use the Build Back Fairer report that he did from the deaths from COVID. Had the CRED commissioners consulted our 2020 report, they would have had a more pertinent insight.
	The links between ill health, including COVID-19 and deprivation, are all too familiar.
	Yes.
	But that's nothing to do with race.
	Not that that matters.
	He's got loads of stuff.
	The findings have been shockingly high to find the COVID mortality rates among the British people who identify as Black, Bangladeshi, Pakistani, and Indian.
	But the Indians are not being placed in the same communities as the Bangladeshis, the Pakistanis, and the blacks.
	In fact, the Indians are really high up on the list of people who are doing well in education and financially.
	They aren't in ghettos.
	They're living in very nice middle-class houses.
	Which they deserve as well.
	Absolutely!
	Which they were very hard to achieve.
	So why did they also suffer disproportionately from COVID? If not racism, Callum.
	If not racism.
	Much, but not all, of this excess can be attributed to living in deprived areas.
	Sorry, Indians.
	You're brown, therefore you're deprived.
	I know that you just bought yourself a nice new house and a nice new car.
	Stop being so deprived and depressed.
	Your mere existence deprives the area in which you live.
	Oh!
	I mean, that's the argument.
	God, the ADL are going to come in and call that anti-Semitic, I tell you.
	Well, that's not my fault.
	I didn't say it.
	They said it.
	Well, they kind of are, yeah.
	That is basically what they're saying, right?
	But anyway.
	As well as considering the causes of ill health, such as poor housing or exposure to the coronavirus or through public-facing jobs, he said the report should have focused on the causes of the causes.
	Structural racism is the cause of their poverty, and therefore we've come full loop into the circular argument that structural racism is the cause of structural racism, is the cause of structural racism, which causes structural racism, even for the Indians who are doing great and who don't appear to be oppressed.
	And the West Africans who are doing great and don't appear to be oppressed.
	It's just amazing.
	And this white man is just explaining it to the brown people because they can't figure it out for themselves.
	Anyway.
	Next one is the leftists who are furious about this.
	Again, another Guardian article.
	I just thought it'd be funny to go through.
	Officials at Downing...
	It really makes the point about how much they're S-ing the bed over this whole thing.
	Totally.
	Like, they're completely paralysed.
	They have nothing else to do now.
	Yeah.
	Because, I mean, this is the foundation upon the entire movement.
	Yeah.
	I mean, if the UK isn't a racist country, then what's the Guardian going to write about?
	But what's the entire British left going to do with itself?
	It's sexist.
	There's nothing left.
	Well, yeah.
	The cope has been amazing from this race report.
	I love it.
	Especially as it was done by black people.
	So they're just like...
	Uncle Tom's?
	Well, it's not even just black people.
	You know, it was a diverse group of people from all over the place.
	So they can't even say it's just, you know, that phrase.
	Officials at Downing Street have been accused of rewriting much of the controversial report into race and ethnic disparities, despite appointing an independent commission...
	Kunle Olulodi, an anti-racism activist and director for the charity Voice for Change, is the first commissioner to condemn the government publicly for its lack of transparency.
	Lack of transparency.
	It's all in the report.
	Like, every source they list, everything they do, it's all in the report.
	It's a non-argument, you know?
	Yeah, imagine, like, the entire 258-page report.
	I haven't even read the first, like, 50 pages of it so far, because it's boring.
	Like, I hate to say it, it's just, but here's some data, here's some data, here's some data, here's some data.
	Oh, God.
	The report does not give enough to show its understanding of institutional structural discrimination.
	Evidence in sections that assertive conclusions are based on is selective.
	You didn't assume that I was correct.
	And I know you're trying to find out if I am correct, but you should assume that I am before taking the first step in this process.
	And that's the whole argument entirely.
	You didn't presuppose that this existed and therefore.
	Right?
	Again, circular nonsense.
	Circular nonsense.
	The report gives no clear direction on what expectation of the role of public institutions and political leadership should take in tackling race and ethnic disparities.
	What is the role of the state in all this?
	Ah yes, the state.
	The godlike state.
	It couldn't be something that these people are doing autonomously and independently of the state.
	What can the state do to change the makeup of racial outcomes in society?
	I don't want race communism or fascism or any kind of race anything, really.
	Like, can you just leave us alone?
	They never will.
	No, because they're paid to do this.
	They're paid handsomely to do this, which we'll get to in a second.
	It's not just that.
	They're ideologically possessed as well.
	So even if they weren't being paid, I think they'd still campaign for it.
	They indeed are.
	I mean, like, the fact that it's like, what's the state's role in all this?
	Well, I'll tell you what the state's role in all this.
	The state needs to knock the welfare state on the head, it seems.
	That actually seems to be the consequence.
	Because family breakup and the possibility of having single-parent families as if there was no drawback to that is pretty much, I think, the root of it.
	But thankfully, a spokesperson for the Commission on Race and Ethics, Farrity, said, shut up, leftist.
	Not quite as concise as that, but basically that was the message.
	Recent evidence showed that everyone's doing quite great.
	Actually, shut up.
	But anyway, meanwhile, what are the radical left discussing?
	Let's just go back into Black Lives Matter world, where everything's about race.
	Guardian published this.
	Why celebrating mixed-race beauty has its problematic side?
	Again, how is this not a Daily Stormer headline?
	The anti-racist.
	Race mixing is bad.
	The anti-racist says this.
	Jewish groups object to race mixing.
	What are we looking at?
	ADL leaps in with the, eh, this is anti-Semitic.
	But this is like, you know, you just look at this and it's like, the trend has had an impact on mixed women because apparently mixed women are attractive, which is bad.
	According to The Guardian.
	According to The Guardian.
	It's an impact on mixed women, at least those of us with black and white heritage.
	I'm glad that we actually get to define as well, because, I mean, obviously there are going to be lots of other races that have mixed in a way that the Guardian disapproves of, and this article isn't about them this time.
	As we found that our features became covetable and desirable, just as long as they were wrapped in the palatable package that comes with proximity to whiteness.
	That's pretty much what I expected, to be honest.
	People find me attractive, I will with me.
	This is white supremacy.
	Anyway, moving on to the next one, right?
	Let's just have a look at what the noble founders of Black Lives Matter have been doing.
	Well, they've been buying their fourth homes.
	This was going around because obviously it looks really bad when you're like, hey, I'm the co-founder of a non-profit activist organization called Black Lives Matter.
	I'm a trained Marxist, so I'm obviously against capitalism.
	But yes, I do own four homes with a combined worth of about $3.5 million, and I am turning into something of a property magnate.
	Recently, how much?
	How much is that all put together?
	Well, it's...
	510, so that's 600, 1.1 mil.
	Yeah, we're looking at 3.5 mil.
	And then we've got to add another 800,000, 2.7 mil.
	Jesus Christ, that's a lot of money.
	Did you include the 1.4 million house in LA that you just bought?
	No, I didn't.
	Millions upon millions there.
	Four million pounds worth of, four million dollars worth of homes.
	In four years.
	In four years.
	This Black Lives Matter activism is a bloody effective grift.
	I'd consider a career change, just saying.
	I mean, you know...
	Holy moly, that's a lot of money.
	That's a huge amount of money, and...
	I mean, how many black lives have been improved by Black Lives Matter?
	Just out of interest.
	Where are all those houses as well?
	Give me the demographics of those neighbourhoods.
	I know the one in LA is certainly something.
	Well, Inglewood, which is predominantly black, she has a home there for...
	There's one in South Los Angeles, no idea about that.
	A rural ranch in Georgia.
	Who knows?
	I'd have to go and look.
	But we know that the one in LA was in an area that was 1.4% black.
	She took all of that money, donated by corporations and other international organizations, and decided to move to one of the least black places in America.
	Really gets the old noggin-joggin, doesn't it?
	But anyway.
	So I just can't think of anything more embarrassing.
	It's incredible.
	It's incredible that Black Lives Matter, like, supporters aren't furious at the people running Black Lives Matter.
	Oh, man.
	It's like Richard Spencer moving to, like, Zimbabwe or something and living in the, like, the Black Rich area or something.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Well, I'm for the white race, but I'm not going to live in a white country.
	I'm not going to live next to the white people.
	They're awful.
	Just read what they say about Northern Guardian.
	But yeah, so yeah, that was just a lot of fun stuff, where the progressives were showing their manifest hypocrisy and the fact that they need to be shamed, deeply shamed.
	I love the black professor as well.
	Like, he becomes a black professor, still deals drugs, for God's sake.
	Like, stop, man!
	Fat women on the Women's Equality Commission who are like, stop body shaming us.
	Yeah, I looked up the person you were talking about as well.
	Not saying I'm perfect or nothing, but she could probably...
	Just saying, let's put her in the BMI tank.
	Yeah, I think she probably belongs in the tank.
	More shaming.
	Less wasting time.
	Let's go to the comments.
	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 think we did this one last week didn't we?
	I remember a similar question.
	I think it might be slightly different.
	Basically the same answer as before.
	I mean, we're liberals and we're patriots.
	So we agree with him, basically.
	Which is presumably why he subscribed to us.
	We did the premium podcast.
	I don't know if you've seen it, but we thought there was more going on there.
	Yeah, yeah.
	I mean, yeah.
	We've done three podcasts about Brave New World.
	We really should just do a podcast segment in which we're saying, here's a thing from Brave New World that's disgusting.
	Here's the left promoting it.
	So I was thinking about it the other day.
	There's a lot of stuff in there they promote.
	I mean, it's a SOMA thing as well.
	Well, this is the thing about 1984 as well.
	Like, the left position that is power is where truth originates is genuinely the position of Ingsoc.
	And it's like, okay, well, if that's your view of the world, then you are actually as evil as Ingsoc.
	Yeah.
	Like, how are you not a member of the party?
	Because you are.
	Let's go to the next one.
	So it's my impression based on Friday's episode that Gammon in the UK is sort of similar to Redneck here in the South.
	Yes.
	I was wondering if that was at all accurate.
	And I take Alexander's beautiful woodworking skills and raise him two poorly made coasters that I just made.
	This is the best I've been able to do so far.
	Color me thoroughly impressed.
	That's way better than anything I can do.
	Yeah, I know.
	I'd be cack-handed and break whatever I was touching.
	I do think Redneck's a little different, because Redneck is considered southern or at least rural, whereas Gammon can be urban as well.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Redneck does have a kind of geographic implication to it, because it implies the sun is constantly on you, whereas Gammon implies something intrinsic.
	It's just a white person who gets emotional and then you get more blood to the body and it turns red.
	Greetings, Lotus Eaters.
	Are there any required tets for dadism?
	I would recommend Do Hard Things, A Teenage Rebellion Against Low Expectations by Alice and Brett Harris.
	Really changed my life when I read it the first time in middle school.
	Also, now that Callum's in charge...
	Carl, do you have more time to do other things?
	And shout out to Captain Doombeard.
	Well, no specific texts, although pretty much anything we've got in the book club is a good start.
	Any kind of stoicism is a good start as well, really.
	It's basically it.
	I haven't had any extra time to do new things yet, but one day I'm sure I will.
	I'd like to start writing a bit more, like doing scripted videos, scripted content and stuff like this.
	But we're currently expanding the team, so it'll be a few months yet.
	Yeah, I did want to show you this one.
	You see the Mao Zedong stuff?
	Oh yeah.
	I've got the other two books so now you can see his full face.
	Oh, he's so happy looking.
	Yeah.
	He's such a chubby, smiley man.
	I should read the other two then.
	We should body shame him.
	Well, I mean, the famine kind of did that to himself.
	Good point.
	Did he lose weight in that period a lot?
	I doubt he missed a single meal throughout the entire famine.
	Well, there was that one segment in there in which they're talking about the fact that he wants the entire nation of China to go vegan because they wanted to export all pork from China.
	They did.
	To deal with their debts.
	Well, they've got to overtake the capitalist West, you see.
	I'm a Googler.
	See if he did lose some weight during that period.
	probably didn't but let's find out uh george happ says why do you think jewish interest groups like the adl or islamic ones like care have so much influence in society is it simply the fear of we're not racist so listen how do you discredit them in the view of the public i don't think they have much credit in the view of the public but i think that what it is is they claim to represent uh an entire demographic group and then they use this as bargaining power um
	Our first failure there is calling the ADL a Jewish lobbying group or a Muslim lobbying group.
	They're not.
	They don't represent Jews.
	They don't represent Muslims.
	But they are radical left-wing.
	They're radical left-wing.
	It's like the trans activists who will say, I'm a representative of the trans lobby.
	No, you're not.
	They don't represent any trans people.
	I mean, maybe five who you met on your degenerate Discord.
	But if you go to any other space, trans people don't support those types.
	If you go to spaces talking about, you know, you go and meet most Jews, they probably won't support the ADL. The Muslim Council of Britain is the best example.
	When polled 3% of Muslims in the UK say they support it.
	Because people know these things are just...
	What would you call them?
	Hustlers, grifters?
	Self-interested grifters, yeah.
	They're not there for anyone's betterment.
	They're there to beat their chest about, I've got this identity, therefore I'm a good person.
	I can weaponize your existence for my benefit.
	That's what the ADL, Kehr, and all these other groups are.
	And, yeah, they don't represent anyone, apart from their own interests.
	How to tackle them, though?
	Yeah, how to tackle them?
	Well, good question.
	I think discrediting them.
	In the way with, what is it, the Muslim Council of Britain pointing out that they don't represent no one.
	With the ADL, I mean, they've discredited themselves quite a lot.
	It's the point that they're being referred to as a Jewish group instead of the ADL, because their name is worthless.
	So...
	You guys still care about the Holocaust, right?
	That's basically what the Daily Beast is saying by changing that.
	You guys don't care about the ADL because everyone knows the ADL is garbage.
	But you're not Nazis, are you?
	Of course not.
	Matthew says, Is the mainstream media attacking Tucker because he is effective or is it because they do not watch him and only create cuts created by underpaid interns?
	100% because he is effective.
	100%.
	If Tucker Carlson wasn't getting the staggering ratings that he gets, then they wouldn't care.
	But because he does, and he says things that are generally patriotic, they can't stand him.
	Alexander Soberg says, Good God, American politics is literally like a sports game.
	Yay, red team, boo, blue team.
	Same S, loons on both sides, enlightened center.
	That's exactly right.
	And the thing is, I wouldn't even object to...
	You get left-wingers who are not insane, radical...
	Like, Bill Maher is still good.
	I still enjoy watching Bill Maher's segments, because he's the last person on the left who's probably going, like, hey, these guys, even further to the left, are effing crazy.
	Why are we spending any time listening to them?
	And, like, he must feel toasty and rounded by them now, like they've encroached not every aspect of his life.
	It's the point Helen Dale made the other day when she was in the office as well.
	I asked her about the George Floyd trial, if she'd been paying attention.
	She was like, nothing in America works anymore, so don't pay attention to it.
	I was like, what do you mean?
	She said, well, look at the court case.
	I haven't seen any of it.
	I already know that it's a bipartisan-esque show.
	Because the politics is a bipartisan-esque show.
	It's a partisan-esque show.
	Sorry, partisan.
	It's awful.
	Everything can't work.
	Everything is along the lines of teams, and therefore nothing functions.
	And it's like, she's not wrong.
	No, she's totally right.
	The United States is a bit broken.
	Yeah, but the left has done this.
	I'm certain that it's the left that's done this.
	Where has the right been like, we will not sit down and have an accord with you?
	The right does want to do these things, as far as I can tell.
	I mean, there probably are some loopy evangelicals who are like, no, death to communism.
	But they're based.
	Anyway, Aaron...
	Maybe the abortion point, but that's pretty much about it I can't see them ever flexing on.
	Another subject on which we should start shaming.
	Aaron Watkins says, Tucker Carlson's toast, white.
	Benjamin Charles says, That something was said by a person who committed violence does not make it less true.
	The Nazis recognising the implications of general relativity is not a valid argument against it, and the people who argue this way are meretricious buffoons.
	That's completely true.
	The Nazis denouncing it as Jewish science is another mistake.
	Which part, sorry?
	The general theory of relativity.
	Oh, yeah.
	They denounce a lot of things as Jewish science.
	Yeah.
	And they were generally against, like, IQ and things like that, weren't they?
	Yeah.
	I think they denounced nuclear technology as well as Jewish science in the first part of the war, and then they realized, ah, wait, it might be useful.
	Could have been useful, but it was created by Jews.
	Yenels says, you see, son, that man over there with a stable job and the perfect teeth?
	He's a racist.
	And you see that perfectly acceptable gentleman with no teeth, smoke, and crack?
	He's not racist.
	Now go play.
	My son, you must make a choice.
	Will you be a racist and be successful?
	Will you be a heroin addict and progressive?
	Take the Soma, my son.
	Nick says, Don Lemon talking about grievance mongering, pots meets kettle.
	Yeah, can you even imagine the lack of humility in Don Lemon's soul for him to call someone else a grievance monger?
	It's like, Don.
	Don, come on.
	Anyway.
	Long Talks on the Neat says, Why do leftist talking heads...
	Why does the leftist talking heads all do what Don Lemon did?
	They think they're talking slow with pauses every three words to make the manipulation of the facts less obvious.
	I can't be the only one whose blood boils when they do this.
	It's one thing to lie to our faces, but don't waste my time.
	Yeah, that's the thing about Don Lemon.
	Like, he speaks for about a third of his segments.
	And the rest of it is him just looking, hmm...
	I don't think it helps.
	No, I don't think it helps.
	It makes him look like he doesn't have a point.
	It makes him look really condescending.
	Well, have you ever seen, there was a clip from, I think it was The View, in which they played the Nancy Pelosi advert in which he's got the fridge.
	You remember the Donald Trump one, which is like, and Nancy Pelosi has an expensive fridge full of ice cream while Americans starve.
	Whatever it was.
	They played that clip on The View, and all the View people being pro-Nancy Pelosi, they had nothing.
	There was massive awkward silences where they were just like, someone else say something.
	No, they probably all had the same fridge.
	But that's what I mean, right?
	It looks like you don't have an argument, and that's entirely what Don Lemon is like when he has those pauses.
	Yep.
	Brave Instance says, did a dude seriously get on US primetime television saying heroin ain't that bad?
	Yeah, and they also wrote an article about it in the New York Post.
	Trevor Noah agreed with him.
	There's never any pushback.
	Imagine someone saying that on this show, heroin's actually good for you, and you'd be like, interesting, tell me more.
	And how long have you been a professor?
	S.H. Silver says, this man is spouting white supremacist replacement nonsense.
	Now let me tell you why it's great that the demographics of the country are changing.
	They're not mad at supposing bigotry, they're mad because they're being exposed.
	Yeah, that's basically true.
	I'm just going to move on because we're running out of time.
	Michael Waters.
	So, in New Zealand, it's illegal to own and shoot McDickhead's manifesto.
	I've read it.
	He's a rambling accelerationist, basically an Aussie Charles Manson.
	Why are people making his ramblings more publicly known?
	And why are they taking them seriously as well?
	The Daily Show is treating what he has said as if it's something worth talking about.
	Yeah, I mean, like, Candace Owen points out in there.
	He says, what was it?
	Spyro the Dragon and Sonic the Hedgehog got him into violence or whatever the hell it was.
	Like, there's a segment in there where he's just rambling for no reason.
	Video games caused my violence!
	Yeah, literally.
	Like, he's having fun with the reader.
	Like, you can tell he's just mocking whoever's reading this.
	Oh, yeah.
	Because you know the guys at CNN will read it and they'll take it 100% literally.
	Yeah.
	It's like, no.
	And a bunch of them did.
	A bunch of them did write articles.
	Yeah, I remember.
	I think there was one article actually saying, what was it?
	Spyro encouraged the shooting in New Zealand.
	It was just like, you have to be this stupid.
	Yeah.
	I mean, the guy was obviously a regular user of, like, you know, internet forums and was clearly well-versed in memes.
	Yeah.
	And this was obviously laden in layers of irony to throw progressive journalists off the scent of what he was really going for.
	Because it's something J-Ray talks about as well.
	Like, the new way irony works.
	Like, it's not just people are ironic.
	There's, like, meta-irony and irony laels upon that.
	And that's how that's written.
	And left-wingers don't seem to get that for some reason.
	Well, I mean, I wouldn't expect someone at CNN to really get that, you know, in their defence.
	But then, if you don't understand something, don't talk about it.
	Just leave it alone.
	Yeah.
	Anyway, Heathcliff says, I've devised the term for what all left-wing politics seems to do.
	Unsolve problems.
	They can somehow unsolve problems that have been solved for millennia.
	Gender identities, unsolved.
	Family structures, unsolved.
	Economics and wealth, unsolved.
	Multicultural societies, unsolved.
	What will they unsolve next?
	The wheel, probably.
	That's a great way of looking at it.
	Yeah.
	Actually, because that is exactly right.
	I mean, the solution to all these problems is not exactly rocket science, but I mean, you know, taking heroin is good now.
	I really liked your way of framing them as well.
	They always look at Marxism or whatever, like it's a problem to be solved.
	It's like, no, that just can't be done.
	It's just wrong.
	Stop wasting your time.
	Alexander again, lost my best friend, drugs, very bright, handsome young man who started hanging out with rogue people and got into heroin.
	He became homeless and a prostitute.
	Don't do drugs.
	He became immune to heroin and then lived a happy life.
	Yeah.
	It's just such obvious nonsense.
	Guys, heroin isn't so bad.
	Actually, it's pretty good.
	Heroin, it's just the best.
	Professors in current year.
	Modern academia truly is dead.
	Or at least it's shooting up in a trap house.
	Joseph Smith says, I guess Tom Lair's The Old Dope Peddler wouldn't work nowadays.
	These people would literally take it as serious rather than a joke.
	The song literally ends with the guy's argument.
	It's The Old Dope Peddler with his powdered happiness.
	It is just like, look, Soma is the key to happiness.
	This is what your liberty is about.
	It's like...
	I don't think it is.
	Anyway, uh, Joe Rittenhouse says, My sister is a heroin addict, thankfully clean now for nine years, but it was destructive to an absurd degree.
	Constantly high, can't remember years of her life, stole thousands of dollars from my parents and myself.
	Her life was stolen from her and she was complicit.
	It blows me away that someone pushed burning out as a virtue.
	Uh, yeah, that's, that's the thing.
	Like, like, one of my cousins sold my guitar.
	I was like, you owe me a play guitar, you dick!
	Ha ha!
	Was he doing heroin?
	It was something.
	Something quite addictive.
	But it was, you know, decades ago now, but it was like, Christ's sake, man.
	It was mine.
	And it was not like at the time I had lots of money so I could just buy a new one or something.
	But anyway, he says, What saved my sister?
	Having my nephew, who brought her endless joy to her and me and to everyone around her.
	She married the father of a child, has a stable job, a home, deep meaning in her life.
	No amount of heroin will equal the highs of sorting yourself out and planting roots for the future.
	That's a great way to put it.
	That's fantastic.
	Chris says, Morning, gents.
	This is from Kyle.
	Seeing as how pro-child you are, yeah, well, am I pro-abortion?
	Like, yeah, I guess I'm pro-child if I'm not pro-abortion, right?
	What was the rest of the question?
	It's just a funny way of framing it, that's all.
	Pro-child.
	I'm anti-child.
	What would you say to folks who want kids but objectively can't afford them for various reasons?
	Is it responsible to say F it and go for it anyway or is it wrong to any eventual child to put them through what would like to be a poor quality of life?
	This poor quality of life argument is I think kind of bunk because to be honest with you, having kids isn't that expensive.
	What it is, is you wanting to buy things they don't actually need that's that expensive.
	Like, you know, you can get a fairly cheap secondhand pram off eBay or somewhere like that, you know, literally 10, 20 quid, or you can spend a thousand pounds on a brand new one.
	What are you going to do?
	Well, if you're in a fairly stable job and you're working hard and your wife said, I'd really like that pram for the baby, you're like, okay, fine.
	I'll go do some extra hours so we can get that pram for the baby, right?
	Or if you really need it, you'll just go get the cheaper one, right?
	And don't worry, I'm not saying it's not expensive, there are no costs or anything like that.
	But the costs are It's dependent on how much you are willing to go in these ways.
	And a lot of the time, like, you know, you buy something and the kids have it and that's them dealt with, right?
	And then they go watch TV or whatever it is.
	It's not nearly as extreme as people make it out.
	And you know this because loads of poor people have kids.
	They've been poor people, incredibly impoverished people have been having kids since day dot.
	This is a very modern, very Western way of looking at families and it's not really accurate in my opinion.
	But also the point is, oh, I'm not ready, I'm not ready.
	Yeah, no one's ready.
	That's the thing.
	No one's ready until they do it and then they are ready and then they figure it out.
	All of these things are basically a cope and just get over it.
	I don't have any experience on anything meaningful to say.
	Don't get pregnant in secondary school.
	Well, that's good advice.
	Yeah, I mean, Ben Shapiro's three things, you know, don't have children out of wedlock, get an education, get a job.
	You'll be fine.
	You're unlikely to mess it up.
	Yeah, you will do well.
	But the quality of life as well.
	Stop thinking the quality of life can be measured in wealth because it can't.
	You look at some of the richest people around and they're totally dysfunctional and deeply unhappy people who are constantly going, hey, take some more heroin.
	It'll make you feel better, right?
	How many kids does he have, I wonder?
	Why don't we go and film a new video for a song called WAP? You know, like, these people are not happy, even though they're massively wealthy.
	Although, growing up, you know, we were not massively wealthy, and a lot of my family were a lot poorer than we were, and we were all very happy.
	You know, we were all very happy, because it's the relationships in which you find the meaning.
	He has three children.
	He lives in New York and Switzerland.
	God, he must be rich!
	Oh, he's a professor.
	Does he have a wife?
	Zen Chan says, hey Carl, slaving away for your corporate masters is the only way for a lot of people to get food on the table.
	So maybe don't be a judgmental twat about it because people can't afford another mouse to feed.
	Jesus Christ, I thought you come from a working class family.
	Yes, I do come from a working class family, but that doesn't mean you have to have a corporate master.
	There are other options.
	Well, I mean, there were other options before the great shutdown of 2020.
	I think you're misinterpreting me.
	So what I'm saying is the argument for women to have children later is to slave away for corporate masters.
	But if you've got a way of getting out of that, which is becoming a mother, then I would take it any day of the week over going to work.
	And again, there's more than one way to skin a cat.
	You know, it's not the only thing.
	And it's because I come from a working class family that I think this.
	It's because nothing was ever given to me for free.
	My dad was always like, get a job.
	Like, I had a paper round when I was like 12 years old, 13 years old.
	But the thing is, we were living out in Germany and there was no paper round.
	So what I'd have to do is on Friday evenings, just literally go around knocking the doors on the streets and go, hi, would you like me to deliver you a paper on Sunday?
	And it'd be like, you know, it was Deutschmarks back then, right?
	It's before the Euro.
	And the paper costs like three marks, and I'm charging an extra mark for delivery.
	And so if I do the 30 papers, I make 30 Deutschmarks.
	But the thing is, 30 Deutschmarks is a lot of money for a 13-year-old.
	And so I had an amazing Warhammer army because I could afford to buy the lead miniatures to have.
	All my friends had crap armies.
	And I was like, yeah, why?
	Because I worked hard, that's why.
	Jihad!
	I got this big struggle!
	How did you get these miniatures?
	Through jihad!
	Exactly, right?
	But that's the point.
	It's not just taking what's given to you.
	It's about going out and being proactive and getting ahead yourself.
	I wasn't just sat around going, well, hopefully some corporate master will give me a job.
	No, there are other ways of doing things and you should look into it.
	And it's because I come from a working class family that I hold these opinions.
	Anyway, Michael Waters, are they claiming that fatties are oppressed by the existence of gyms?
	I mean, yes.
	Yes.
	I mean, we've just seen the clip of the fat woman smashing up, what was it, a weighing scale?
	Yeah.
	Declaring it a symbol of oppression?
	Yes.
	Free!
	I'm finally free!
	Michael Waters says, the BMI argument is dumb.
	A doctor isn't going to look at a six-day week in Gymbro and go, mate, your BMI is really high.
	You should really go on a diet.
	It's just an excuse for chubby science denial.
	Chubby science, I like that.
	Herberth says, the insanity that takes you when you stop yourself from hearing different opinions alone is always so disturbing.
	Add on top of the physical isolation that can only create a breed of people who will not function in any real-world setting.
	That's correct.
	I'm just going to move on a little bit because we haven't got to the last one and we're only five, ten minutes left.
	Is there any hope for a transatlantic conservative movement to match the international effect of BLM? I just became a member and miss myself.
	Love watching your show and tell our friends about it.
	Thanks.
	Well, I mean, that's the best way to do it because it's not like Silicon Valley is going to promote us using their algorithms, is it?
	But I don't know, man.
	This has been something I've been thinking about a lot since we went to Poland, I think it was.
	Well, I was thinking about the internationalism of the left and how effective they are at that and how the right isn't because they're all nationalists.
	So, like, the international nationalists isn't...
	Like, it's a funny meme, but it doesn't really exist.
	But it really should.
	Like, I don't know why it shouldn't.
	Like, why shouldn't there be these large alliances, especially across, you know, Kanzuk US, for example, between these groups?
	I mean, I look at myself as basically a Westphalian.
	So it's like, you know, your country for you.
	Yeah, but that's not good enough.
	Because it's other people's country for them.
	I mean, I don't know why we shouldn't help them out.
	Well, I'm not saying we shouldn't help them out.
	What I'm saying is, if they want to protect their borders and have a liberal democracy, we should be in support of that.
	Yeah, but that's the point I'm getting at.
	We very much look at it, at least on the liberal white ring side, to be like, well, this is our problem for us, and then we don't have the same kind of internationalist bent that the left do, for obvious reasons.
	It is a weakness.
	Sure, but I don't think there's anything that stops us cooperating, you know, with people in other countries, you know?
	I'm not saying that I'm optimistic for an international conservative movement or something.
	But I would really like if we had some kind of European...
	What do the Americans call it?
	They have that conference with...
	The international?
	No, no, no.
	The American conservatives.
	Oh, CPAC. CPAC, for example.
	We don't really have that in the UK or in our European version.
	No, it's embarrassing.
	We really need something like that.
	Yes.
	I don't have the money to set that up.
	I guess subscribe to the Lotus Eaters so we can set up an international conservative conference at some point in the future.
	Student of History says, million dollar homes for me and not for thee.
	John Martin said, Yeah, I mean...
	That's it, isn't it?
	Give me that for free because I don't want to have to do the work to go and get it.
	Sorry.
	Yanal says, I just watched the True Englishman Premium Podcast, and throughout the video, two words were pounding through my head.
	Debate Lammy, debate Lammy, debate Lammy.
	I would love to debate David Lammy.
	And David Lammy, if you happen to be watching this clip, feel free to send me an email at contactatloses.com, and I would love to have a conversation with you about your previous stances on the damage the family breakup did to the black community, and your current modern stances of, I'm an idiot, get me out of here.
	Just saying, David.
	Honestly, it'd be quite interesting to see.
	However, I know the chance of that happening is slim to none, obviously.
	I'd also like to ask if it'd be possible to create a short video series on what it means to be British or even English.
	So I think too many people don't understand the concept of it.
	Like you said, it's a very thick, complicated topic to wrap your head around.
	Yes, it will be something that I will do in the future.
	It's going to be like a long-term project.
	But to be honest with you, I'm kind of...
	I'm kind of working stuff out in a way that other people I think aren't working out or are kind of coming to similar conclusions and I think this is because I'm part of the same cultural zeitgeist as a bunch of others and it's interesting and I don't want to turn it into a manifesto so I need to find a way of presenting a bunch of ideas that don't also end up getting me anathematized.
	Like, this isn't Carlist thinking.
	Yes.
	But I think I can accurately identify part of reality that's important that we're not talking about properly.
	But anyway, I'll talk about that for another time.
	Dean Goldstar says, That's exactly the kind of attitude I'm talking about.
	You know, I want Denmark to do well.
	I want our country to do well.
	Even France can do okay.
	BraveInstant says, I've been on keto for a month and lost one stone.
	Only one more to go.
	See?
	Brilliant.
	Like, works.
	Works.
	Keto Sharia.
	Disagree with your beliefs on bread, Carl.
	As soon as I'm in shape, I'm migrating back to carbs.
	Moderation of ki.
	You'll get destroyed by the same guy.
	No, but that's not destroyed.
	That's proving my point.
	Go back to bread.
	Yeah, if I do this diet, then I lose all this weight.
	If I eat bread, then I gain weight and I deserve to be fat shamed.
	Alright.
	Destroys himself.
	Tom says, Have you considered that the economic cycle is about 10 to 15 years and the 2020 shutdown is 13 years after the Great Recession?
	I have not considered that.
	I don't really know anything about it.
	Sorry.
	Anyway, that's the last comment.
	Alright, well, that's us done.
	We are back tomorrow at 1pm.
	I don't know what we'll be covering.
	Probably going to be covering the George Floyd trial because the thing I was waiting for is apparently today it's the last witness for the prosecution side.
	So it's, you know, it's halftime and then we can judge how the side's doing and then it's on to the defense to give their side.
	I don't want to cover it like every day as well because it's just kind of boring.
	Are we going to get little team Chauvin flags?
	No.
	No.
	I still don't really care, but I do love Nelson as a lawyer.
	He's an amazing guy, which is why there's so much fan art being made about him now, which I'm going to show you after the show.
	So let's wrap this up.

▲