Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 14, 2021 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:34:09

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #110

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast of the load seeders for the 14th of April 2021.
	I have to count the numbers in my head then.
	Joined by Carl.
	A few announcements first.
	So the contemplations of the Lotus Eaters will be on the Lotus Eaters channel on YouTube.
	I think they're going up today at 4pm and then we'll be going for a few days because we need the backlog.
	This is due to our suspension on YouTube for the past two weeks.
	We are back now.
	We'll be uploading there till YouTube kills us because...
	They're wonderful people.
	We want their content creators to thrive, I'm sure.
	The only other thing I wanted to mention was the repeal section 127 petition.
	Just to plug it, because if you haven't seen it, you need to sign this if you are in Britain, because we need to get rid of this law.
	If you can scroll down just so we can see how many signatures this has now.
	This had seven yesterday, and now it has 4,689.
	So we want to get to at least 10,000, so then we get a government response.
	Ideally, 100,000, that's what we need to be to get the debate in Parliament, which we need to have happen.
	And I'd love to see the Conservatives try and defend that.
	So please sign it.
	Please send it to people who live in the UK. Get as many people as possible to sign it who care about free speech.
	I understand there are some spelling mistakes.
	What's interesting about this, sorry to call out the guy who made it, but the spelling mistakes are not necessarily entirely his fault either, because every petition has to be looked over by the Parliamentary Committee on petitions.
	So a bunch of MPs looked over this and still decided, yeah, there was nothing spelled wrong.
	So not entirely your fault.
	But that's not important.
	What's important is the title.
	That's the thing that gets debated.
	And that's what we need to do.
	Repeal Section 127.
	Yeah.
	Send it to all your favourite content creators, UK-based ones, presumably on Twitter and emails, whatever.
	Send it to them and get them to promote it too, because Section 127 is a real present danger to pretty much any content creator in the UK, because it depends on uploading things that cause gross offence.
	Now, you might not even know that you're causing gross offence when you upload something, and you should, of course, have the freedom to be able to upload things that are legal that aren't illegal when you upload them, but only become illegal after you've uploaded them, which is how this works.
	I mean, some of the more ridiculous cases, Count Dankula being the most famous one with the Nazi pug.
	There was a case of a Northern Irish pastor who said Islam was satanic online.
	He was brought before a court.
	There was a Muslim guy in like, I think it was like 2005 or something.
	He criticized British troops operating in Iraq.
	He said they were operating in Muslim lands or something.
	There was a girl in Liverpool whose young friend had died and so she uploaded some rap lyrics to her Instagram.
	She was given a curfew and a fine.
	Yeah.
	A curfew for uploading rap lyrics.
	Yeah, the rap lyrics were the favorite rap lyrics of the boy who she knew died.
	Yeah.
	So why are you punishing her?
	It's an awful law.
	We need to get rid of it.
	So please sign it.
	Please share it.
	If you have content creators outside the UK as well who just have a large UK audiences, also send it to them.
	A favorite of mine for me is probably Jordan Peterson.
	You know, freedom-oriented people.
	Yeah, yeah.
	But let's get right into it because we don't have all the time in the world.
	So tell me first about the LGBT advisory panel.
	Yeah, so recently the UK government's LGBT advisory panel has been disbanded, and that's good, because this is, of course, a communist initiative that the Conservative Party were like, yes, of course we'll promote this.
	We're Conservatives.
	So was this set up by Labour back in the day?
	No, this was set up by Theresa May.
	So in 2017, the UK government did this survey, again under Theresa May, did a survey of 108,000 people, the largest national LGBT survey in the world to date, and 61% of respondents identified as gay or lesbian, a quarter identified as bisexual, 4% as pansexual, 2% as asexual, and 1% as queer, and 13% of the respondents were transgender.
	And so the results from this survey were that the LGBT respondents were generally less satisfied with their life than the general UK population, the general UK population rating themselves 7.7 out of 10 on happiness, which is very arbitrary, and the LGBT respondents rating their life satisfaction as 6.5 out of 10 on average.
	I'm not even sure if that means anything.
	Well, it means that young, gender-confused people are less happy than other people.
	Yeah.
	That's life.
	But, I mean, I don't know what to tell you.
	Like, I'm not sure what the state needs to do about it.
	Yeah, exactly.
	What exactly is the government's responsibility here?
	But anyway, more than two-thirds of the LGBT respondents said they'd avoided holding hands of the same-sex partner for fear of negative reaction from others, and at least two in five respondents had experienced an incident because they were LGBT, such as verbal harassment or physical violence, in the 12 months preceding the survey.
	Apparently, 2% of respondents had undergone conversion or reparative therapy, In an attempt to cure them of being LGBT, with 5% being offered it.
	So, conversion therapy, not exactly a big deal in the UK. Obviously, nothing about it is mandatory.
	It seems to have been voluntary processes.
	But they're trying to ban it anyway, and it's like, okay, well, I mean, if you don't have to do it, who cares?
	Yeah, like, I don't agree with the therapy, but if it's your choice, we should be a liberal country, surely.
	Yeah, I mean, if you want to do it.
	But anyway, 24% of the respondents said they'd accessed mental health services in the 12 months preceding the survey.
	So a quarter of them have mental health problems.
	So again, these are the people who are less happy than the rest of the population.
	Well, you've kind of defined yourself as the group of people who are confused about your life or have an alternative lifestyle.
	And a quarter of you have mental health problems.
	I'm not surprised you rate yourself as less happy than the average person.
	Just seems not what you'd expect.
	Yeah, it's not a condemnation.
	No, no, no, it's not a condemnation.
	It's just, yeah, that's what I would have expected.
	But what's interesting is that 20% almost of the respondents were resident in London.
	15% in the southeast and 12% in the northwest of England, with only 8%, 4%, and 2% being from Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, respectively.
	So I think that's interesting, how I can't walk around holding hands with my gay other.
	However, I happen to live in London.
	So really, what's not progressive about London, then?
	Which borough?
	Name the borough.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Name the borough.
	Name the area.
	You know, northwest of England.
	Where were you?
	You know, name the city.
	I think Douglas Murray spoke about this before.
	They did a survey and they wanted to try and find, you know, some homophobes in Yorkshire or something.
	And then they found out that most of the reports were coming from London and Birmingham.
	Very interesting.
	Very interesting.
	Just a coincidence, I'm sure.
	Anyway, so in July 2018, the Conservatives created an action plan to fix these problems because if there's one thing that screams Conservative, it's social engineering.
	And so Penny Mordaunt, a Conservative, wrote that this government has a proud record in advancing equality for LGBT people.
	From changing the law to allow same-sex couples to marry to introducing the world's first transgender action plan in 2011, we've been at the forefront of change.
	That's right.
	That's what screams conservative to me.
	Being at the forefront for change is what conservatives do.
	You got it, guys.
	You're not the Labour Party wearing a blue uniform or anything, right?
	The UK has been consistently recognised as one of the best countries for LGBT rights in Europe.
	Then why do anything?
	This is one of the best countries in Europe, which means, therefore, the world.
	Oh, we must change.
	Why?
	Change from what?
	Being one of the best?
	To what?
	You know?
	Anyway, the ideological confusion of the Conservative Party was not the purpose of this segment.
	Anyway, so despite these advances, we know that LGBT people continue to face significant barriers to full participation in public life.
	Again, it's just labour rhetoric.
	Full participation?
	What does that mean?
	I don't have a spot on the BBC. Does that mean I'm denied full participation as a public commentator?
	It's been illegal for, what, over a decade now, at least?
	At least?
	To ban people from jobs for being homosexual in the Equality Act 2010.
	There was probably something before that as well.
	Yeah, but that's the point.
	It's like, well, if there are no barriers, what do you mean by full participation?
	They don't.
	It's a Labour gotcha to say, well, yeah, but it's not full thing, is it?
	It's like, well, you're just doing it to move the goalposts.
	You can't name a single law that disparages them.
	But you can say, well, a straight person has this and a gay person doesn't, therefore it's not full.
	It's a way of just moving goalposts continually.
	And the Conservatives fall for it because they don't think about their own ideology.
	Anyway, so when Penny was the Minister for Women and Equalities, she pushed to have a comprehensive LGBT action plan, which was appointing a national LGBT health advisor to provide leadership on reducing health inequalities that LGBT people face.
	Again, just all labor rhetoric.
	Hey, we're going to talk about health inequalities.
	Okay, well, Not different treatment.
	Yeah, okay, that's fine.
	But there's going to be an inequality between promiscuous men who are gay and very socially conservative families who live in the rural areas of society.
	There's going to be a health inequality there.
	There's necessarily going to be.
	And it's going to be along the lines of sexually transmitted diseases.
	Well, it's along the lines of freedom of choice.
	Exactly.
	Which is desirable.
	You want them to have their free choice to do that.
	Exactly.
	It's a consequence of free choice.
	And so if you want to reduce these health inequalities, you're going to have to change someone's behaviour.
	Either we make it worse for the conservative families, or we do something about the behaviour of the single men who live in metropolitan areas.
	Force them to all get married and never...
	I don't think we should do anything about this.
	It's their free choice.
	I just love the idea of the LGBT conservative being like, gay men, you're going to get married to each other, and you'll never have sex outside otherwise death.
	Something like that, you know?
	Some sort of Islamic regime, yeah.
	Yeah, but it's just, you know, we're pro-LGBT authoritarianism.
	What does it look like?
	Anyway, extending the anti-homophobic, biphobic, and transphobic bullying program in school.
	I don't think you should have a transphobic bullying program in school, conservatives.
	LAUGHTER I mean, that's not very well worded, but based.
	Okay.
	Joke.
	Yeah, obviously a joke.
	We're against conservative bullying programs.
	Bringing forward proposals to end the practice of conversion therapy and taking further action on LGBT hate crime.
	That's right.
	Conservatives need to expand those hate crime laws.
	And she says, as a Stonewall straight ally, I've been proud to stand up for LGBT people because I'm running for the Labour Party.
	That's right.
	I'm a conservative.
	And so Theresa May's government in 2018, in response to this, set up the LGBT advisory panel.
	And they literally say in response to the results of this survey, they felt it was their job to engineer their government to be more, and the country to be more conformable to this fringe minority of people.
	The panel will be important to our work in delivering the LGBT Action Plan.
	They'll meet every three months and provide advice.
	It wasn't paid appointments, but obviously there's the prestige and influence that comes with it.
	They appointed 12 members of the panel.
	The Minister for Women and Equalities, which was Penny, invited three organisations to join the panel, which was Stonewall, the LGBT Foundation, and the LGBT Consortium.
	Very conservative organizations.
	Exactly the kind of organizations that the conservative party should be working with.
	And definitely not left-wing activist organizations in any way, shape, or form.
	These organizations represented the breadth and depth of the work within the LGBT voluntary and charitable sector.
	Yeah, just awful activist groups.
	And nine of the members will be selected on merit through an open competition process, which would be voluntary and unpaid, but they were looking for true experts in LGBT equality issues.
	I don't even know what that means.
	I mean, doctorate and being gay?
	Well, it's not about being gay, is it?
	I mean, this is the point Douglas Murray continues.
	So people who don't know Douglas Murray is a gay man, but that's it.
	He's a man who is gay.
	But being gay is not his, you know, sole identity.
	I actually know things about Douglas Murray that aren't reflective of his sexuality at all.
	Yeah, so he makes the point in his book, I think it's the strange, the crowds one.
	Madness of crowds.
	Madness of crowds, in which he says there are gay people Who are people who just happen to be gay and so forth.
	And then there are the kind of people who run these organisations who define themselves as LGBTQI +, blah, blah, blah.
	He, him, pronouns in the bio, blah, blah, blah.
	Yeah.
	But we want to ensure a range of experiences are represented and we will accept applications from individuals whose focus is on individual sexual orientations or gender identities under the LGBT umbrella.
	So we only want to hear one side of the story and that's the radical left-wing side of the story and we're not going to have opposing viewpoints.
	Anyway, so...
	You suck, Penny.
	Moving on, in 2019, Liz Trust was appointed to become the Women's and Equalities Minister, and this is where things started getting exciting, because Liz Trust is not Penny Mordaunt, and clearly Liz Trust didn't vote for the Labour Party.
	She was appointed for the Minister for Women Equalities on the 10th of September.
	This is under Boris Johnson as well.
	This is under Boris Johnson, and she was elected as a Conservative MP for South West Norfolk in 2010.
	Southwest Norfolk being a fairly rural area.
	She's married.
	She's got two kids.
	Not exactly a Labour heartland these days.
	This is sort of traditional conservative territory.
	And so it begins.
	What begins is the, I don't know, the bonfire of the acronyms or something like this.
	Basically, by March 2021...
	So a year and a half into it, three of the appointees to the government panel decided to quit because of Liz Truss and Kemi Badenock, specifically calling them out by name.
	Jane Ozan, a member of the panel, quit on Wednesday accusing the ministers of creating a hostile environment for LGBT people and claiming that Truss and Badenock were ignorant on key issues.
	Well, there's no way.
	More like based on key issues.
	No, like Kelly Badenock and Liz Truss were speaking sense and you couldn't handle this.
	That's what went on.
	Yeah.
	They weren't subverted by radical leftists, and you were like, well, hang on a second, I'm not getting what I want, because you're not agreeing with all the radical left-wing things I'm saying, and therefore, you are creating a hostile environment.
	It's like, well, good.
	What's a hostile environment?
	People disagreeing with it.
	Yes, exactly.
	And then James Morton, who had been the manager at the Scottish Trans Alliance...
	- Yeah.
	- Yeah.
	- Yeah. - He said that he'd been very concerned for several months that Liz Trust and her junior ministers are not committed to LGBT equality.
	Hmm.
	It doesn't appear that we're doing anything useful or helpful to help trans people in terms of government policy.
	And then Ellen Murray, the executive director of Transgender NI, which I think is Northern Ireland, became the third member of the panel to quit, accusing ministers of acting in appalling faith.
	Oh, that's right.
	The radical leftists are like, you're acting in bad faith.
	Oh, really?
	I'm glad you think so.
	As I try to subvert all of the government.
	Exactly.
	But the thing is, I honestly think that a lot of these people are such midwits that they don't know that they're doing that.
	I think they honestly just aren't bright enough to understand what they're doing.
	But she tweeted, There's precious little patience I have left for the government at this point.
	But what remains, get your act together.
	Use the panel for what it was intended.
	And actually prohibit conversion therapy.
	Stop deporting LGBT refugees.
	Drop the trans culture war.
	You are nothing but culture war.
	That's all this is.
	The very term LGBT is part of a radical left-wing culture war against traditional gender roles.
	It's like, drop the culture war.
	Shut up.
	Stop shooting back.
	We've been shooting at you for ages.
	Haven't you surrendered by now?
	MPs from a cross-political divide express frustration at the government's delay.
	Okay, good.
	Find out which one of those was conservatives and kick them out of the party.
	Like, my God.
	Anyway, Tory bankbencher, in fact, we can name some.
	Tory bankbencher Gary Sandbrook complained in Commons this week.
	I want to send a message to the government that it has been three years since this ban to promise to ban conversion therapy.
	We have to get on with it and make sure we deliver on it.
	Who cares?
	It's literally the most fringed 2% of the one survey of only gay LGBT people.
	Like, that was the number of people who'd done conversion therapy.
	Yeah, and again, if there's nothing forced about it, well then what business is it of the state?
	Conservative.
	Like, in what liberal world do we accept that we should be able to force people to stop doing things they want to, if it doesn't harm anyone?
	Yes.
	And, of course, Ozan, Suzanne Ozan, I can't remember her first name now, said Truss and Badenock were known among the community as the ministers for inequality because they did not understand LGBT people, particularly transgender people.
	Good.
	Based.
	Good.
	That is the right place to be.
	Inequality is the result of free choice.
	They are the ministers for freedom, then.
	Wonderful.
	That is not a criticism.
	That's a great way of describing them.
	The ministers for freedom.
	And we covered this in a podcast a little while ago, but they were saying, oh, we're afraid of going back to the days of Thatcher and the days of Section 28.
	Section 28, for anyone who doesn't know, was a British law that was brought in under Thatcher that just prohibited the promotion of homosexuality by local authorities.
	And they did this because local authorities kept getting complaints from local families saying, hi, why is there paedophilia advocacy in this school report, in this schoolwork?
	And they were like, hmm, we don't know.
	And it will forever remain a mystery.
	Anyway, moving on.
	Because those groups like to come under the radar.
	Well, the Pedophile Information Exchange did exist for like 12 years or something in the UK, and it happened to have been a Labour Party initiative.
	It happened to have been headed up by Harriet Harman.
	It just happens that the left wing are constantly promoting these things and these agendas.
	It's just coincidence, coincidence, coincidence piling up.
	Anyway, right, so we get to today...
	Yesterday, actually it was.
	But the advisory panel itself, the LGBT advisory panel, has been disbanded, which is great.
	After the three members quit, Liz Truss just emailed the rest of the members or phoned them up saying, well, thanks for your constructive input, but this is gone.
	We don't need this anymore.
	Thank you very much.
	Have a nice day.
	In the letter seen by the BBC, Liz Truss said, I will also be shortly making an announcement concerning the International LGBT Conference and convening a new body of That will take international LGBT rights forward.
	Maybe you should just not bother.
	Like, how is it your problem?
	You're not the Foreign Office.
	Yeah.
	But also, why, even if you were the Foreign Office, why is it our problem?
	What happens in other countries?
	Hmm.
	Like, I might disapprove of it, but this is not the days of colonialism anymore.
	Yeah, I mean, I'm happy to sit here and disapprove about it all day every day, because it makes some content.
	But, like, we're not the Empire?
	I wish we were, but we're not.
	I thought we were decolonizing.
	The rest of the world is actually not our problem.
	Now it's just these islands that are our problem, and we have many problems, so let's begin at home, right?
	Yeah.
	But there's a good start, anyway.
	Getting rid of the LGBT advisory panel that Theresa May, for some reason, set up.
	Good start.
	But what else needs to be disbanded?
	Well, I would suggest, Liz Truss, perhaps you want to look at the very nature of what it is to have a Minister for Women and Equalities.
	Because this is, of course, something that was set up by Tony Blair.
	Do you agree with Tony Blair?
	Do you agree with Tony Blair's attempt to socially engineer the United Kingdom?
	Not just socially, either, but just in every aspect, in fact.
	This was created by Blair in 1997 when he became Prime Minister as a means of prioritising women's issues across government.
	Should we not just have government issues?
	Does it have to be particular to women?
	But this is Tony Blair's viewpoint, which is, it's not that there's any law stopping you, there are just inequalities in society, and therefore they need to be addressed.
	It's like, but that doesn't mean anything.
	No.
	And if you're the minister for freedom, you expect inequalities.
	But anyway, so this had carried on.
	David Cameron just gave it a new name.
	He accepted that things should exist and gave it a new name.
	And I'm of the opinion that this needs to be abolished, in the same way that you abolish this advisory panel.
	And then anything else that Tony Blair did, you could work on abolishing that too, because honestly, I think the one goal that any conservative government moving forward should have is literally undoing Tony Blair's entire legacy.
	He screwed up this country and everyone can see it.
	Everything comes back to him and his government.
	This needs to go.
	to prove because I don't know if you've seen her talking about it.
	But there's people ask, how come you're the Women's Inequalities Minister and you do other things?
	And she's like, yeah, well, it's nice to have actual work.
	And it's just like, well, if a minister just did that, there wouldn't be much to do.
	And it's the same with Karen Baden-Dog.
	I know she's like a junior minister, but she does a whole bunch of other stuff.
	She's like, well, why would I waste my time just on this?
	In which case, why have the department?
	Yeah.
	But just ask yourself, like, what's this all about?
	Like, do you, you know, why should the state have a role in creating sort of social or financial equality between various categories of people?
	Did you create the category of people?
	LGBT? Did you invent this?
	If you didn't invent this, who did invent this?
	Whose inheritance are you continuing?
	And it turns out it's a radical left-wing, because Tony Blair, like, oh, he was centrist, he was He's the right wing of the Labour Party.
	It's like, yeah, you say that.
	But I watched an interview, sorry, a speech he gave a while ago at a Labour Party conference where he was essentially talking to the radical left in the Labour Party.
	He was like, look, right, I know that you want 100%, but I don't think we can get 100%.
	So I'm going to get 30% of the way there.
	And then we're 30% closer to the goal that we all share.
	And it's like, I don't share his goal of socialism.
	Socialism, yeah.
	I don't think that's right.
	In which case, why should the Conservatives conserve that 30%?
	Exactly.
	Knock that 30% down.
	Exactly.
	You know, go back to being a kind of more traditional style of British government, and I think you'll find a lot of these problems start resolving themselves.
	Anyway.
	Yeah.
	So the thing I want to talk about was CNN. So CNN have done another oopsie.
	They've been caught out flying.
	I just wanted to say, we're going to play a lot of clips from Project Veritas, and God save Project Veritas.
	Oh, yes.
	So we're doing the lore's work out there of actually getting people to say what they won't say publicly on tape.
	And I just wanted to preamble this with a bit of backlog.
	So Project Veritas have been going after...
	CNN for a long time.
	And their reason for going off to CNN is CNN purports to be neutral.
	They are the trusted name of news that is just there to tell you...
	The BBC of America.
	The news and nothing else.
	It's like that's an obvious bull.
	So they've been going undercover and getting the footage.
	And a while back, this was the funniest one for me and I think the one that's most remembered is the Nothing Burger incident in which they...
	I can't remember the guy.
	Van Jones.
	Van Jones.
	So he was reporting on TV when he's on CNN being like...
	Trump, Russia, all this stuff, there's so many connections, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, and the rest of the network was doing it as well.
	And then he was outside, I think he was smoking or drinking, and one of the Project Veritas guys come up with a hidden camera, asks him about Trump, Russia, and he responds, it's a nothing burger.
	I love that Americans actually rate things in the number of burgers.
	I know, it's great.
	It's amazing.
	This one's a zero burger.
	No burgers, I'm afraid.
	Damn.
	I wanted a burger.
	But it was a great moment, because it was just like, right, okay, so we know you guys are just propagandics on Trump-Russia, which we know definitely to be true, because all the investigations have been done, and it's bunk.
	But the funny thing was the response from Van Jones, in which he tried to claim that the whole thing was a hoax.
	So, like...
	So again, the next one, this is him responding, and he called the video a hoax.
	So in response, Project Veritas just released the full clip, unedited, and it obviously wasn't a hoax.
	He walked up, talked to you, asked you about Trump Russia, you said, it's a nothing burger, and then you went off.
	I was like, well...
	Okay, so you're just propagandists.
	And there's been a few of these.
	They've got inside a phone call sometimes and whatnot.
	This is just the funniest one, I think.
	And there's been a new one.
	So I think it was yesterday this came out, in which they have been tailing some senior people within CNN, and they've got some gold.
	So if we can get the first link up just so we can show.
	So this is the source video.
	Go watch the whole thing in your own time.
	We've cut down some of these clips just for the sake of time of this show.
	But this is a CNN director admitting that they are just open propagandists.
	The first clip here is them saying that they are literally just an anti-Trump propaganda outlet.
	Let's play.
	I think what we did, we got Trump out.
	I am 100% going to say it.
	And I 100% believe it, that if it wasn't for CNN, I don't know that Trump would have got voted out.
	I really don't think so.
	Oh, really?
	I think if COVID hadn't happened, it wouldn't have mattered what we covered, and Trump would still be offered.
	No, I don't think so.
	I came to CNN because I wanted to be a part of that.
	Yeah, I mean, like, Trump, we did it.
	Like, when Trump was...
	I don't know, like, his hand was shaking or whatever.
	We brought in, like, so many medical people to, like, all tell a story that, like, it was all speculation that he was, like, neurological damaged, that he was losing it, he's unfit to, you know, whatever.
	We were...
	We were creating a story there that we didn't know anything about, you know?
	So that's...
	I think that's a propaganda, you know?
	We had nothing else to run with at that time.
	We were, like, just...
	That's amazing.
	That's an amazing series of omissions from CNN's technical director.
	We take credit for taking down Donald Trump.
	That's why I came to CNN. Oh yeah, also this story which we just literally made up our thin air about Donald Trump's health.
	We had nothing.
	So yeah, it is propaganda.
	We just made it up because why not?
	That's a staggering series of admissions.
	Technical director saying that.
	So it's not just, you know.
	If it was some, like, intern saying this, you'd be like, yeah, you don't know anything.
	You're a nobody.
	But, man, that is wild.
	Good job, Pratut Veritas.
	Like, this guy reports directly to the president of, what is it, CNN Global or whatever.
	Yeah, Jeff Zucker.
	Yeah.
	So it's coming from the horse's mouth.
	I mean, they've got them previously.
	You know, people who work on the floor at Milligan's kind of stuff, but never this high.
	I mean, just literally, yeah, we are a propaganda outlet who is just anti-Trump.
	And they're not just anti-Trump as in, you know, anti-one thing.
	They're obviously pro-Biden, pro-Democrat.
	They're pro-Democrat.
	That's the thing, yeah.
	So this next clip is him just boasting about it.
	Let's play.
	He's definitely, the whole thing of him running during the entire press, like, run for the campaign, showing him jogging, was obviously a deflection of his eight, and they're trying to make him, like, unhealthy.
	Is that what we did?
	I don't know.
	Like, what do you mean?
	We would always show shots of him jogging.
	Yeah.
	And that I'm healthy, you know, blah, blah, blah, and him in aviator shades, and like, you paint him as a young geriatric.
	I think we got him through this term.
	And then so there are complaints that like, we're not covering that Biden trip up the stairs.
	Oh, did you?
	Like, we talked about it briefly, but...
	But you talk about that briefly.
	We don't make that a huge story.
	Okay, so the fact that we talk about the Trump tripping is a bigger nuance.
	It's a nuanced conversation because that's a sign of...
	Did we harp on Trump tripping?
	I think we talked about it a little bit.
	As long as we talk about a little bit with Biden, then I think we're...
	Like, we didn't cover it all in God.
	Like, we didn't talk about it.
	So they're openly saying, we run footage of Biden jogging with his aviators on to make him look young.
	You know, in the way a campaigner would do?
	Yeah.
	The staff at a campaign headquarters would make that kind of stuff.
	He's saying, yeah, CNN does that.
	Okay.
	And then they speak about that Biden tripped up on the stairs.
	This is something that happened a little while ago.
	And they're making the comparison between when Trump slipped on the stairs once.
	And they were like, oh, we endlessly talked about that.
	And they did.
	And it was really cringe.
	I didn't really find it too big of a deal.
	Because he didn't even fall over like Biden did or anything.
	No.
	And that's that.
	And then the fact that they just sort of brush under the carpet when it happens to their guy.
	So, I mean, yeah, we are just open Democrat partisans.
	Good.
	I mean, we always knew, but it's good to get an admission, you know?
	It's always good to get an admission from the horse's mouth.
	The last thing here that they put in here was that he said that he'd been talking to the higher-ups, and people don't really like talking about COVID anymore, because, I mean, no S. It's...
	It's boring.
	Gone on for so long.
	So instead, the CNN is just going to pump out climate and this sort of stuff, you know, about global warming.
	And this also comes in with the idea of maybe climate lockdowns, which is coming back up.
	People trying to propose this.
	Absolutely nonsense, but let's play it.
	I think there's just, like, a COVID fatigue.
	So, like, whenever a new story comes up, they're going to latch onto it.
	They've already announced in their office that once...
	The public will be open to it.
	We're going to start focusing mainly on climate, global warming.
	That's going to be our next agenda.
	It's going to be our focus.
	Our focus was to get Trump out of office, right?
	Without saying it, that's what it was, right?
	So our next thing is going to be for climate change.
	Awareness.
	What does that look like?
	I don't know.
	I'm not sure.
	I have a feeling it's just going to be constantly showing videos of decline and ice and...
	Who decides that?
	The head of the network.
	Who's that?
	Is that Zucker?
	Zucker, yeah.
	I imagine that he's got his council and they've all discussed where they think...
	So that's like the next pandemic story that will be to death.
	But that one's got longevity.
	You know what I mean?
	It's not like there's a definitive ending to the pandemic.
	It'll taper off to a point that it's not a problem anymore.
	Probably I think it's going to take years.
	So they'll probably be able to miss that for quite a bit.
	Yeah, so, it's all.
	I mean, look at the language.
	They'll be able to milk that.
	But what's the end goal?
	We want to propagandize people into being afraid of COVID. Okay, they're sick of that.
	What about next?
	Climate change.
	And that's why I mentioned the idea of climate lockdowns, because I've seen this popping up more and more within left-wing circles, that we need climate lockdowns to save the planet.
	You people are nuts.
	You can't be trusted with literally anything.
	So that's one thing to keep in mind.
	The news is planned at CNN. I mean, this news outlet that runs 24-hour news is like, nope, nope, it's not news.
	It's got nothing to do with such a thing.
	And I'd be fine if they just came out and said, yep, we are a socialist, a Democrat outlet.
	We love to pump that kind of stuff.
	And that's our shtick.
	If you want to watch, good.
	If you don't, that's fine.
	If they did that, that'd be fine.
	But they don't.
	They are just, we're the most trusted name in news.
	We're here to tell you the news.
	It's like, nah, shut up.
	Shut up.
	You have no idea.
	But I love the way it's coming directly from Jeff Zucker.
	The guy's like, yeah, well, it's his ethical agenda that's being imposed on wider American society as far as they're concerned.
	That's what they're attempting to do.
	Propagandise by their own words people into believing a certain thing.
	Rather than telling them what's happening.
	It's embarrassing.
	Yeah, it's awful.
	But there's also something else in here which is interesting, so they uploaded another clip, and we're going to show you this clip, which is just him explaining why and how the media gets rid of actual conservatives.
	So if you ever wonder why a conservative party in the UK is so bunk, and why the rhinos in the United States are so irritating, he explains that in the media, we just go after everyone who could be useful to the conservative party in either country, and we try and get them deplatformed from the party.
	Let's play.
	Yes!
	Can you define propaganda?
	I don't know.
	Can you define propaganda?
	I think I know, but how is it?
	What's the mechanism?
	If the agenda, say, is to get Matt Gaetz right now, he's a Republican, he's a problem for the Democratic Party because he's so conservative.
	And he can cause a lot of hiccups in passing of laws.
	So, it would be great for them to get them out.
	So we're going to keep running those stories to get hurt again and make it so that it can't be buried and settled outside of court.
	If we keep pushing that, it's helping us.
	That's propagating.
	It's helping us in some way.
	On the subtitles, though, it's helping us, bracket CNN. I don't agree.
	I don't agree.
	I think he's saying us, the Democrats.
	I think that's what he's saying there.
	They are one in the same.
	Yeah.
	But it's interesting how he literally defines himself as a propagandist.
	Yeah.
	For the Democrats.
	Good God.
	Who's targeting Republicans because they are Republican, not because they've done something wrong.
	I don't have a clue who Matt Gaetz is.
	I'm just going to say that he's probably great, because if CNN hate him, and that's how people should look at things in the media.
	If the media comes after a candidate, that candidate's probably wonderful.
	Yeah, he's currently involved in a scandal that I haven't looked into, but it's alleged that he sent text to a 17-year-old lad or something.
	Okay, well that's bad.
	Yeah, I mean, like I said, I don't know anything.
	But that's the thing.
	Do I even know it's true after CNN telling me we run propaganda against this guy?
	Well, that's the thing.
	I saw a clip of him on Fox News saying this is not true, that none of this is true.
	I was like, well, who's to know?
	Yeah, I suppose it'll go through the court, and as he says, they're selling out of court or whatever.
	I assume he'll try and sue CNN if it's false.
	Yeah, and CNN needs to give him a wedge of cash.
	But that's the thing.
	It's just, if you look at candidates, you know how they came after Boris Johnson, for example, in the UK? Or they go after Donald Trump, in which they're like, oh, look, how awful this guy is, and they run a million stories.
	Like, what I'm saying is that's a signal for, this guy's actually probably...
	Got some convictions, and that's what scares them.
	I think it is similar with, let's say, AOC or whatever, the full-on socialists.
	Oh, yeah, yeah.
	The conservative media does the same.
	Yeah, that is good for the socialist movement, and those are the people that the socialists who want that kind of thing should be saying, oh, they're actually our guy, which is fine.
	But it's interesting that they're just openly admitting, yeah, we just run nonsense on people to get rid of them.
	Well, I think one thing that's really important that we pay attention to, though, is the way that the media views themselves as being the kind of influencers and arbiters of the political landscape in society.
	They control the window, right?
	They control the window.
	And they are aware of this, they're very conscious of this, and they actively try to change politics and ruin political careers based on their knowledge of the reach and therefore the power that that reach gives them.
	They're very cognizant of all that.
	It shouldn't be up to politicians to define politics, nor should it be up to the American people.
	It should be up to us.
	Jeff Zucker.
	That's what it's up to.
	A bunch of elites who have, I'm sure, ridiculous salaries and live very well.
	Yes.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	That's not how the country should work.
	That's the worst thing about the country.
	So the last thing here is just that James O'Keefe approached him and they decided to ask him about all of this.
	And he just ran away because, of course, he did.
	So that's why.
	Charlie, is this seat taken?
	I'm James O'Keefe with Project Veritas.
	You're on camera.
	You're recorded.
	You're a technical director at CNN. You're on camera talking about the importance of getting Trump out of office without saying that's what your intent is.
	Well, we're investigative reporters doing a story.
	And I just want to ask you...
	I've asked you now.
	You're within six feet of me.
	I've got your mask on.
	What did you mean when you said that without saying that's what our intent was?
	Why would you want to conceal from...
	Why would you want to conceal from people?
	Are you going to call the police?
	Are you going to call the police on me?
	Go ahead.
	Please do.
	You're in my personal space.
	I don't want to.
	Excuse me?
	You're in my personal space.
	I can stand six feet away from you and ask the same questions.
	That sounds like a good idea.
	So let me ask you this question.
	Why would you want to conceal from voters that CNN's intent was to help Biden?
	You're not going to get me to talk about anything.
	Well, you also said that it was in your words, quote, propaganda.
	What was that about?
	You said, you nonchalantly admit in your medical analysis of Trump that it was all speculation.
	And you used, these are your words, not mine.
	Alright, well you've already spoken with us.
	You've already spoken with us quite a bit.
	You admit your network is helping certain candidates for political office, and you're admitting that you wanted to hide it.
	Why hide it, Charlie?
	Why hide it?
	They never have the courage to say publicly what they will say privately.
	That's courage right there.
	That's courage.
	Oof, bad day for that guy.
	I love James O'Keefe.
	Yeah, he's doing good.
	He's doing great work.
	I love the point he makes, though.
	It's just, why hide it?
	Like, if you want to be partisan, it's a free country.
	You can.
	There's nothing stopping you.
	There are lots of other people who are partisan.
	And that's fine.
	That's part of how the world works.
	But the hiding it, that's deceitful.
	And you know it's deceitful.
	And that's why you won't say publicly what you will say in private.
	I love some of the chat he's putting out.
	It's kind of like watching To Catch a Predator when James O'Keefe turns off.
	CNN, why don't you take a seat?
	Anyway, so James O'Keefe then went on Fox News.
	Again, Fox News, an openly partisan outlet.
	They're not trying to hide it.
	I mean, in this clip, for example, Sean Hannity literally says, I'm a conservative, and I say so up front publicly.
	I'm honest about it.
	They claim to be unbiased when they are liberal socialist hacks.
	It's like...
	That's what I want from CNN. I want CNN to say, look, we're liberal socialists, blah, blah, blah, or whatever, but they won't do that.
	Whereas on Fox News, I mean, with all the problems Fox News has with being partisan, blah, blah, blah, they are just open about it.
	They're like, yeah, we're conservative.
	We're the conservative outlet.
	And that's fine.
	You know exactly the perspective you're going to get from Fox News.
	Because that's more honest.
	Like, sure, they might be biased, but at least they're honest about their bias.
	Yeah.
	You can account for their bias if they're at least being open up front about it.
	But if CNN are going to hide it, then you just have to kind of try and divine it out of the repeated experience you have of their reporting of various subjects.
	And it might be fine for, you know, political addicts who love all this kind of stuff.
	Abandoned people who are just like in a waiting room or at an airport or something like this, and you see CNN on the TV, they don't know.
	They have no idea.
	But we'll get into that in a minute.
	So what's interesting about this is James O'Keefe also says that he'll be releasing part two today.
	So I look forward to that.
	He also said that apparently he's suing CNN or something for lying about them.
	Which, again, got speed to the man.
	Because I think they were trying to claim that one of his clips wasn't real.
	And again, he keeps getting these claims put against him.
	Oh yeah, that's brilliant.
	His wall of attractions is something to be genuinely envious of.
	For people who don't know, he has like a wall of retractions and a whole song and everything.
	And there's hundreds and hundreds of them.
	People lied and said, my footage wasn't real.
	I wrote to them and said, retract it or I'll sue you.
	And they couldn't put up because they knew they were lying.
	So they wrote the retractions.
	So that's that.
	So one of the good news I wanted to end on was that some people, or at least a significant amount of people, are getting the message that this is all bull.
	So this is just some report I looked up to see what apparently Survey of American People think that certain news outlets are biased or not biased in certain ways.
	So they say in here close to half of Americans believe MSNBC, 52%, CNN, 50%, and Huffington Post, 46%, are extremely or very biased.
	So about half of the country is in agreement that they are extremely or heavily biased, CNN being 50%, right in the dead mill.
	And the most extremes in the report were Fox News at 67% and Breitbart News at 57%.
	Seven.
	Which, again, is fine.
	Like, there's nothing wrong with being biased if you are open about your bias.
	And you're like, right, this is my bias.
	Here's my information.
	Make up your own opinion.
	Blah, blah, blah.
	Right?
	But CNN doesn't do that.
	And that's what's deceitful about this whole thing.
	But it is nice to see that at least 50% of the American public see them for what they are.
	Extremely or very biased.
	Yeah, it's sad that the other 50% don't.
	I mean, the other 50% might have said moderately.
	Yeah.
	So the other thing here was the big difference, of course, between the two political clans of the US. So the Republicans, CNN had a rating of minus 87.
	So very few people thought they were unbiased.
	And with the Democrats, they had a rating of plus 29, though.
	So it's overwhelming the Democrats are thinking, oh, no, they're not really biased.
	That's because they're on our side.
	It's our team, as the guy said.
	What was interesting with the Republicans, they also accepted that Fox News was biased and so forth, because they are, and they're open about it.
	And that's fine.
	That's how the world should be.
	That's not deceitful.
	Yeah, I mean, yeah.
	If we can't have, like, you know, neutral and objective news reporting, we can at least have honest reporting.
	Yeah, I mean, this is a thing made by loads of left-wing commentators as well.
	Neutral, objective news reporting doesn't exist.
	It is a fantasy.
	It cannot be achieved.
	this is one of the failures of the bbc it just it cannot be done i'm sorry yeah and there's a whole bunch of reads of this i won't go into the arguments but if that's the case that is the world what do we do about it do we lie to ourselves and pretend that cnn and the bbc have no biases or do we just accept that when you're reporting you should say these are my biases you know blah blah i mean on this show for example people know where we stand we know what groups we dislike blah blah and therefore they can take into account our views on the topic and that's that's the only way to do it there is no other way yes so
	But yeah, good work, Project Veritas.
	God save James O'Keefe.
	Tell me about the...
	Well, the final thing I wanted to talk about was a series of articles written by what I'm going to call a conservative journalist called Katie Glass.
	I think that Katie's probably a pretty decent person.
	Is this a conservative or a conservative?
	A London conservative.
	Ah, sorry, conservative.
	Yeah, yeah.
	But she's clearly part of the London Westminster bubble.
	She writes for places like The Times, The Telegraph, The Evening Standard, The Sun, Spectator, Elle Magazine, Vanity Fair, things like this, right?
	So to my knowledge, she's not a wokest.
	And so this is one of the reasons why I thought this was worth doing a piece on, because she's trying to embrace essentially what we've been saying, which is get out of the cities.
	They're not wholesome, they're unhealthy, they're bad for you.
	And it's really interesting how her, since last October till now, she's been publicly documenting this in the Telegraph.
	And the way that this has been demonstrated is in many ways kind of parallel to my own life.
	And I luckily got out of this kind of mentality a few years ago.
	And I kind of fell into a more sort of traditional family life, whereas she's about the same age as me, and that's put her in a less enviable position, which I think is a bit tragic in some ways.
	And it's not her fault, I would say, because one of the things that you've got to remember is that people around sort of 40, our age, When they were younger, they were given a whole slew of messages that were just false.
	They were told a bunch of things about reality that were not true, and they were kind of tricked, and they've had something taken away from them.
	And I'm lucky to have been able to sort of jump on that train just before it left the station, but there's a part of me that feels that maybe for Katie that's not an option now, and I am genuinely sympathetic to what's happened.
	Again, I don't think she's a bad person.
	This isn't going to be like dunking on her or anything like this.
	But we are going to have to talk about some hard truths.
	And these hard truths are important for young people now.
	So if you are in your 20s now, you're going to want to think about these things that Katie...
	Was encouraged by culture and wider society to not think about.
	Anyway, so, as she says on her website, she's a conservative, well, she doesn't say conservative, but by the standards of today, she's a conservative journalist.
	And she, on the 31st of October, posted this to her Twitter feed.
	Exciting news, midlife crisis fans.
	Having ripped up my whole life during the last lockdown, breaking up with my fiancé, selling my London flat, And deciding to move to the middle of nowhere, the Telegraph have given me a column to write about it all starting Sunday.
	Moving out of London, of course, being a good thing.
	You don't have to be a very smart person to be able to understand that London's actually not a very great place.
	But you do have to be prepared to become a non-Londoner for this to work.
	You can't just take London's grime and then go somewhere nice and expect it to be like London.
	So she published an article called Why I'm Ripping Up My Life and Starting Over.
	And this is a description of how her life in London fell apart.
	And this was on the 1st of November that she published this.
	And it's about the lockdowns, really.
	The lockdowns did this.
	The lockdowns ruined her life and relationship.
	We, of course, have been stridently opposed to lockdown since the very concept was raised, and we thought the lockdown should have been lifted at day one, then day two, and right away until the point where they have been partially lifted.
	And still, any amount of lockdown is outright tyranny that's totally unjustified by any moral standard that we have traditionally in this country anyway.
	So she mentioned she was planning to get married, planning to have children with this guy, and then they broke up.
	What did that happen?
	So, right, during the lockdown, well, before the lockdown, She, with her fiancé of five years, they've been together, been engaged for two years, and they've been attempting to get pregnant for over a year.
	The thing is, she's 39, I think, when she wrote this.
	And this goes back to the piece we did the other day where they were saying, oh, you know, don't worry, your fertile life is now 37.
	It's like, yeah, but, you know, even though technically you might still...
	Have the potential to have children in your late 30s to early 40s.
	The likelihood, yeah, it does fall off a cliff, and Katie found this firsthand.
	She failed to get pregnant.
	And then during the lockdown, basically, she started going a bit stir-crazy, and she says, And so it's like, well, if you're going to have kids, yeah, that is pretty much how your life ends up looking.
	But you're not alone.
	You're constantly worried about what your kids are doing, what they're getting into, what they're destroying, blah, blah, right?
	The lockdown, as I said, it destroyed her relationship with her fiancé.
	And that's fair enough.
	I'm sure this can happen to anyone and has happened to many people.
	The lockdowns are hard on everyone, and I think that they're going to age poorly.
	But she says, At the height of summer lockdown, I learned the wooden floor of the sitting room drinking red wine and eating orange calipos, watching my iPhone light up and ignoring it.
	Sometimes I flick through Instagram pictures my friends have posted of their chubby babies and bearded husbands.
	At 39, I was single again.
	It's pretty sad.
	Ladies, don't wait until you're nearly 40 to start a family.
	It just doesn't work.
	Use your fertile years to get it done.
	Don't use your fertile years in the way that myself and Katie were both encouraged to do, which was to be single and go and party and have no particular commitments and have no structure or thought for the future.
	You know, all of these things.
	And you still see it like the article we covered the other day.
	Ah, you can put it off until you're older.
	You can put it off until you're older.
	Maybe some people can, but should you put it off until you're older?
	And the answer is actually no, right?
	From a common sense perspective of the average person, you know, you're probably not going to be that fringe case who happens at 40 years old.
	To fall into the handsome husband and the healthy brood of kids in a nice cottage in the country that you wanted.
	If you want that, plan for it now.
	Work on it now.
	You have to have a life plan, right?
	And so she says, I reverted to how I lived when I was single.
	Writing all night, dancing around to music, and sometimes I'd chat on the phone with friends.
	The ones in the country sounded happiest, sitting in their gardens and swimming in the sea.
	I remembered how I'd once had a dream of living in the country and writing a book.
	Maybe it's time to try a new life.
	Maybe it'll be a farmhouse in Wales where I'll get my own flock of alpacas or micro pigs.
	Maybe I'll be a novelist who makes jam, or maybe I'll move to a lighthouse and stage immersive theatre productions and meet a hot farmer.
	If this is the end of the world, I may as well try something.
	Not to sound cruel, but this should have been something you did in your 20s.
	Now that you're approaching 40, I fear that the time may have passed.
	Again, I don't want to keep hammering this, but as a warning to young people listening, don't wait.
	Don't think, oh, I'll just go spend my evenings as a singleton getting drunk in London, doing drugs, partying, and working at the BBC or wherever, the Telegraph or wherever.
	If you want something more solid than that, don't spend a decade or two in London.
	Anyway, she then, by November, sorry, I didn't give you this link, I guess, John.
	There's a link in there if you want to grab it up.
	But she posted another article on November 7th, basically saying that she has no idea what she's doing and she thinks she's having a midlife crisis.
	She says, in London, I was excited to live surrounded by screaming bars and hipster cafes and drug dealers with yoga classes, police sirens and raves on my doorstep.
	Sounds like a university student.
	That's awful.
	That's not what's desirable about London.
	Exactly.
	I mean, it is for a few years while you're in university.
	Yeah, maybe.
	And if you're some stock exchange broker maybe for a few years, that's fun and exciting.
	But when you're in your mid to late 30s, you should have moved beyond this.
	Soho is only half an hour away on the bus.
	In the country, I'm drawn to the opposite.
	My cravings are for endless green views, wide empty fields, and lazy sheep.
	I register with estate agents, feeling like a grown-up, but I also like I'm playing at being a grown-up, like Tom Hanks and Big.
	They take my name down as Mrs.
	Glass.
	I correct them and say Miss Glass.
	They send me properties and tell me the local schools are good.
	I say I don't care about that.
	How many bedrooms do you want?
	An estate agent asks.
	She says, I don't mind.
	They say, don't be ridiculous.
	How many children do you have?
	She hasn't become an adult.
	She's been trapped in a sort of extended state of adolescence by living in this, like, I mean, honestly, it sounds a lot like the Pleasure Island from Pinocchio.
	You know, come and drink, come and smoke, come and gamble.
	This will be great.
	And then before you know it, you've turned into a jackass.
	You know, whereas the responsible people didn't go to Pleasure Island and got on with their lives.
	And this is a lesson that Miss Glass didn't learn, and I didn't learn when I was younger.
	And it was kind of luck that I kind of fell out of it.
	But she says, I realize I'm struggling to find a house because what I'm really seeking is a new life, and I don't really know what that looks like yet.
	And so she's nearly 40, and it seems her life effectively consists of nothing at all.
	She's got no dependence.
	No one relies on her for anything.
	And she's totally independent and autonomous and atomized, living in London, living a hedonistic lifestyle, drinking lots of wine, going to parties.
	It's like, okay, that would have been fun when you were 25, but now you're 35.
	What do you have to show for it?
	And the answer is nothing.
	And like I said, this is not me getting at her or anything like this.
	I feel bad for her.
	I feel bad that she was told by all of the people around her that this was an acceptable way of living and not just the people around the culture, the way that pop culture has gone, that this is an acceptable way to live and there will be no consequences.
	But the thing is, there are always consequences.
	There is always a bill for everything.
	Everything will be paid in full.
	And this is Katie finding this out.
	So in December, she moved to the countryside.
	And like I said, she's not a private individual or anything.
	This is all public articles she's written about, so I'm not prying or anything like this.
	This is all stuff she's volunteered for the public, and I thought it was very worth talking about.
	Katie moved into a rose-coloured farmhouse with her friend.
	Her friend is married with kids, and she's previously lived with this friend while her friend lived in London and moved out of London with her husband seven years ago.
	Something like that.
	Five years ago, something like that.
	So they've got a young boy who was a toddler when she...
	She had a house with her in London and now he's seven and so he's running around in the back garden playing bows and arrows and she says, you know, yet somehow in the time that has elapsed, I've still not grown up.
	I'm back to being single, sleeping in his playroom on a broken sofa bed.
	That's right.
	No one relies on you for anything.
	You didn't mature and become an adult.
	I always had a fancy that if I left my fiancé in London, I'd move to a high-rise apartment in New York, write for the Village Voice, go drinking in Williamsburg, and explore the Upper East Side on weekends.
	I did not picture myself in a tiny village in Cornwall being woken up by a child dancing to YMCA at 7am.
	Sounds like you kind of had unrealistic expectations, but I tell you what, one of my favorite things is in the morning when my son comes in and wakes me up.
	It's always fun because he's like, Daddy, I'm here to see you.
	I'm thrilled to see you, and I'm tired as anything, but he wants to play, and it's not bad at all.
	It's incredibly wholesome, and I would never give it up for anything.
	He says that Tanya and Andrew, the couple she lived with, are like The Good Life.
	Did you ever watch The Good Life?
	No.
	Oh, it's adorable.
	It's about a couple who basically try and live off the grid in the 60s and 70s, something like that, and have their own garden in their back garden and stuff like this.
	But Andrew is apparently a Tory voting stand-up comedian who spends his days looking after chicken and baking bread while Tanya, his wife, furiously tweets about feminism.
	Yeah.
	They have the kind of imperfectly perfect relationship that Richard Curtis rom-coms are made of.
	Because COVID times and they don't drink, I can't even get drunk, go down to the pub and snog someone.
	Instead, I sneak bottles of wine to the boys' treehouse, go on Hinge and call my bridesman.
	It's an adventure, says Martin.
	Come back to London, says Rob.
	What's left back in London for you?
	You shouldn't be thinking, how can I go and get drunk?
	You should be thinking, what am I going to do with the rest of my life?
	When I lived alone, meals involved wandering to the fridge at midnight.
	Here we eat dinner at 5pm.
	I've not seen so many shepherd's pies since I was six.
	We eat freshly baked challah, rice puddings and Sunday roasts I put on a stone and I got depressed.
	Even with tiny hugs and bridesmen constantly calling, I feel painfully alone.
	I worry that in the rhythm of family life, country life, sorry, there is no place for a single woman.
	There probably is if you're in your 20s.
	The question is, when you're 40, what are you offering a prospective husband?
	What are you offering a prospective husband that he can't get from a woman 10 years younger than you?
	And again, I don't mean to rub this in.
	I'm not trying to be harsh.
	But this is the reality of the situation.
	It's not very pretty, you know?
	And so for the wider culture to have 20 years ago told her, ah, don't worry about it.
	You'll be fine.
	Go and enjoy yourself.
	It's not very responsible.
	And she's reaping that reward now.
	And so she needs to ask herself, who did this to me?
	Who told me these things?
	Why did I think that I was just going to live forever in this, like, you know, Pleasure Island paradise in London, constantly going to raves and getting off my face on Coke and all this sort of...
	Why did you think that was going to last forever?
	She says, one day I wake up from a nightmare in which I'm being eaten alive by a pig and decide it's time to act.
	I need to establish a new life for myself here.
	I need purpose, I need friends, and to go on a date.
	Well, best of luck.
	So by February 20th, 2021, Katie has a new article she publishes.
	She's moved to a new house in a different village and is surrounded by ex-Londoners.
	She keeps looking for new homes because she can't settle.
	And she says, that night scanning right move, I see the farmhouse I was buying come back on the market for an extra 50 grand.
	I want to scream.
	Suddenly it feels like it's all too much.
	All those months of pointless building castles in the sky, wasting energy, dreaming up something that now seems like it was no more than a distraction.
	They say you cannot run away from yourself.
	I tried.
	I thought I was brave coming all this way to start a new life, but perhaps the braver thing would have been to stay put.
	In my rented fisherman's cottage, I play landslide on repeat, hoping the neighbors can't hear it.
	It's very sad, isn't it?
	She seems lost and alone.
	No one in the world depends on her for anything.
	If she were to die tomorrow...
	It would just be friends in remote other places who'd say, oh god, that's terrible, Katie's died.
	I'm looking at an atomized person and I just feel terribly sorry for them.
	Anyway, by April 3rd, she's moved to a new house, apparently, in another different tiny Cornish village.
	And she says, it's the real Cornwall that interests me.
	So she's starting to understand that she has to change her perspective.
	She has to change her outlook.
	So I head inland, under the arches of spindly trees stripped by winter, past terraces of bungalows waving Cornish flags and multicolour houses on steep hills, fields of cabbages, daffodils and caravan graveyards.
	From the windows, I can see nothing but rolling countryside of lush fields and soft pasture land.
	Here I could hide from tourists in the summer and hang out with farmers.
	I wonder if the side is good.
	Thing is, this is the wrong attitude.
	Like, who are the farmers?
	Why would the farmers want to hang out with you?
	Like, you don't, you're just assuming, you're ascribing.
	Oh, the farmers.
	Name one.
	You don't know them.
	They don't know you.
	Why would they want to?
	You're looking at them as if they're characters in your novel, when they're not.
	They're people who have their own lives, own ambitions, own interests, own dependence, their own responsibilities.
	You don't have any of these things.
	They're busy.
	You're trying to make them something of yours.
	I see a cottage near Grand Pound, a village halfway between St.
	Austell and Truro.
	Just for anyone who's wondering, I went to college at St.
	Austell.
	I know exactly what this area of the country is like.
	I lived there three years in Newquay, and it was an hour bus journey every day to get to St.
	Austell College, even though it was only 14 miles away.
	Because the roads are terrible and it's, you know, constant winding country lanes and stuff like this.
	But it's a lovely area of the country, don't get me wrong.
	But it seems like a place where people really live, although in lockdown it's hard to tell.
	I toured around with an estate agent in his 20s who went to London to do his degree and then came back drawn to be among his friends.
	Now he runs the local brass band.
	As we walk around the village, he says hello to everyone we meet in the street.
	I went to school with her.
	He's my dad's best mate, he informs me, grinning.
	I can't think of anywhere in the world I'd rather live.
	And she says, I want that feeling for me.
	Of course you do.
	It's a feeling of belonging.
	It's a feeling of inclusion.
	It's a feeling of authenticity.
	You'll notice that this guy, he's still in his twenties.
	He went to London.
	He got his degree.
	He got his experience.
	Then he came back.
	He didn't spend a decade and a half in London living it up, you know, as an extended adolescent.
	Again, it's not a judgment about Katie herself.
	All of the cultural signals would have been telling her that that was all just fine.
	But those cultural signals are wrong, and the people who have been giving you these signals have robbed you of something, and that's the thing that they've robbed you of.
	That feeling of being embedded in a community, part of something.
	Anyway.
	Because she doesn't know what it's like to be embedded in a community, because she's used to being essentially an anonymous person in a giant cosmopolitan city, she doesn't know how to handle village life.
	She published this on the 10th of April.
	I'm surprised by how suffocating village life is.
	The novelty has worn off.
	Now back in the cottage, I find myself not charmed but irritated by people staring into my windows when I'm writing or sitting half-dressed.
	I'm frustrated by messages pinging in from people who said they noticed my lights are on, so I must be in, or they've spotted me that day in the shop.
	Someone I've never met messages me to say he saw me out driving my car, and although it's friendly, I'm surprised by how suffocating it feels.
	And so what she's experiencing now is what these sort of close-knit rural communities are like.
	People make demands on individuals and each other that atomized Londoners don't.
	And these demands are a necessary part of being in the community, but they also provide boons that you were looking for.
	You know, how do I feel like I'm a part of the scenery, like I know everyone else?
	That's what they're actually trying to do.
	They're trying to help you incorporate into this community.
	And so it might feel suffocating for an atomized Londoner who's accustomed to no one giving a damn whether you live or die, but this is how these people bring you in.
	And honestly, you've got to kind of get used to it because that's your life now.
	That's what you are.
	You are not some dreamy Londoner who's going to one day move to Manhattan and become famous.
	That's not.
	Your life is over on that regard.
	But you can have a different life now that you were looking for in one in which you invest yourself in the people around you, in your local community.
	That's what you've got to do.
	You have to change.
	You have to change.
	One day I'm standing in a shop doorway taking photographs when a woman walking past loudly tuts.
	You're not trying to hide it much?
	Not trying to hide what?
	I ask, confused.
	That you're not from here, she says.
	I live here, I smile cheerily.
	Where?
	she demands, wanting to know my full address when I moved in.
	You're not from there, Katie.
	You're not from there.
	And you need to respect the people who are from there and show them some deference.
	Show them that you are actually here to do your part as a member of the community that you invaded.
	You came to their community.
	They didn't come to your community.
	You went to them seeking something they did.
	Have.
	You are in, not of.
	Exactly.
	You are in, not of.
	Show some goddamn respect.
	That's what you need to do.
	You need to allow them to get used to you, and that means essentially giving something of yourself.
	A friend who moved to London from a village in Hampshire says this is what all villagers are like, telling me stories of how her neighbours commented on her boyfriends when she gained a lost weight, things like that.
	Other friends who moved to Gloucestershire describe one local woman confronting her saying, we all know you're that rich Londoner.
	Yeah, all of these villagers are like this, and you need to know your place, because your place is not at the top of the hierarchy here.
	You are very much a, you're coming in at the bottom and you have to accept this because frankly you owe them, right?
	You owe them.
	You sought to take advantage of the thing they created and the little village that you also want to call home.
	And now you have to act like you have this responsibility to them because you do.
	and they are right to patrol you, you know, to gatekeep and say, well, look, you know, you need to fit in around it because you do.
	Reputations move fast.
	Another friend warns me, but I'm too late.
	I hear from a neighbor that I have broken the mouse hole code.
	It's a village called Mouse Hole, apparently.
	Tiny village, I've never heard of it.
	Which is something I'd written in this column, in a column of hers, and to which a villager had taken umbrage.
	Another villager calls to tell me off.
	Okay, why weren't you following the mouse hole code?
	What do you think is more important in your life at this point than following that mousehole code, Katie?
	Whatever it is, and whoever you offended, you get off your computer now, and I know you're probably going to be listening to this or something like that and go like, oh, how could these evil, you know, how could they say this?
	No.
	Get off your phone and go and apologize to that person you offended because there was a code that you broke and you didn't know about this code because you were the arrogant foreigner who had invaded their domain and then started acting like it was your own.
	The code is sacred, but you're not.
	You know, if you leave, they're not going to miss you unless you start pulling your weight in the way that this village operates.
	I don't know what the mousehole code is.
	I have no idea.
	But I would go and ask someone, oh God, what did I do to offend them?
	You know, they'd be like, well, around here we've got this thing where you don't do this because of these reasons and it's just the dumb thing around here.
	So, okay, well, I'll do that then.
	And you should do the same.
	This week, for a week, I panic as the granite walls of the Slim Cottage close in and I become overwhelmed by feeling that I've already lost the new start I'm here to gain.
	I find myself longing for pen births, deserted cliffs or even London, where it's easy to be anonymous.
	Why would you move to a tiny village and seek to be anonymous?
	You know, you want everything on your own terms and you expect the world to conform to you.
	But it won't, and it doesn't have to.
	You, in fact, have to conform to the world around you, and the way to do that is to accept that these people have a moral claim on what you do.
	That's what being a part of a community is.
	She says, Sounds like you wasted youth.
	Indulging in, you know, the vain pleasures of the flesh, but not planning for the future.
	Now, don't get me wrong.
	Like I said, I did too.
	Right, but that's how I ended up learning this lesson, and how I ended up knowing where you're going wrong.
	She says, Well, I guess you can go back to London, can't you?
	You know, where else have you got?
	Or you could try to stop feeling like you're some atomized, independent, free, single Londoner and become a local person of the village, someone who builds close relationships.
	Try volunteering.
	Try doing some community organizing.
	Maybe someone needs some help.
	You know, try going and showing the local community that you're actually there for them.
	You're not just there for yourself.
	You're actually there to help people.
	You want to be a part of their lives.
	And if that's not the case, what are you doing there?
	What do you reckon?
	I've sent John an image, I wonder if he can get it on screen, of Mousehole, the place you were talking about.
	It's an adorable tiny Cornish village.
	Yeah, I saw people talk about it in the chat, so I googled it, and yeah, it's pretty pretty, and also very small.
	Yeah.
	So like, look at that.
	You get small towns like this all over Cornwall.
	And they're all lovely.
	All lovely.
	Like, totally picturesque.
	Like, I mean, I'm not familiar with this one, but it looks exactly like every Cornish village.
	Cornwall's quite a rough, sort of uneven terrain as well.
	So you get where they're sort of like climbing up across the hills.
	And it's an absolutely adorable place.
	But if you think you can just come in there as some sort of Londoner and be accepted and everyone's like, oh, deferential to you, you're totally wrong and you're disrespecting the people that live there.
	Anyway, should we give some video comments?
	Yeah, give us the video comments.
	But before we do, actually, like I said, I'm not trying to be harsh.
	I'm not trying to get at her or anything like that.
	And I feel that she has been taken advantage of by a system that was set up to enable her to fail, frankly.
	And so I'm not saying it's her fault, but she does have to accept some hard truths, and it's not fair.
	That's the thing that she has to remember.
	It's not fair that this happened to her.
	But it is the reality of it now, and she has to act within that reality.
	Dadism.
	There's some advice there.
	Yeah.
	I don't really have any counter-arguments.
	I usually have got something.
	I'm right, that's the thing.
	Anyway, let's go for the video comments.
	Hello, Steve Stevens here.
	A couple of days ago, I posted the question on would you want a petition to appeal Section 127?
	And you guys said yes, so I have created it.
	It's up today, and you could be able to find it on the government website.
	So please sign it and share it along.
	Fantastic.
	Thanks for sending it up.
	I wonder if we can get...
	Can we get the link back up just so I can plug this again for anyone who's joined us that didn't see in the start?
	This chap has set up a petition to get rid of Section 127.
	I don't know why we didn't do this sooner, but this is something we need to do.
	We previously did this with the report on grooming gangs.
	We got over 100,000 signatures, got the debate in Parliament at least.
	The Section 127 is more specific, of course, because it's get rid of this piece of legislation.
	Yeah, it's on 5,000.
	Yeah, it's good.
	Keep going, lads.
	We're halfway.
	So we need to get 10,000 to get a government response, which would be interesting to read if nothing else.
	100,000 is the goal.
	100,000 gets us a debate in Parliament on this subject.
	So if you haven't, go over and sign it.
	If you know people who would sign it, send it to them.
	If you know a group that would be interested, or a content creator who is pro-freedom, all the rest of it, and has a large UK audience, send it to them.
	Make sure they promote it.
	Thank you for signing, because this is something I feel really passionate about.
	I mean, this is the reason I got even interested in politics at all.
	Oh, yeah.
	I'm sure I've told you before.
	Dude, totally.
	Yeah, so let's go for the next video comment.
	I'm sorry, Carl, I have to take issue with you saying, oh, at the end of the day, though, that's the law and the cops are supposed to enforce the law.
	Cops generally take an oath to uphold the Constitution.
	So if a law is unconstitutional and they're still enforcing it, the cop is the bad guy.
	For example, see my AK-47 I have in the background there?
	If Biden does some executive order that makes that illegal or the extended magazine I have in there illegal, or if even Congress passes a law that makes it illegal and then the cops come and enforce that and try to take that from me, are you still going to say, oh, well, the cop's just doing his job and he's...
	He's the good guy.
	Don't blame him.
	Am I the bad guy if I resisted and didn't let him just infringe on my rights?
	I knew I was going to get in trouble with this.
	I'm not sure I actually agree with the chap.
	It's not that the cop's a good guy, but he's not a bad guy either.
	He's a neutral agent of the state.
	The bad people are the ones trying to take away your rights.
	So, Biden and his gang passing such things.
	But we're talking about the right to hang an air freshener on your rearview mirror.
	I know, but let's take it to an extreme place.
	Let's not, though.
	That's the point.
	That's the problem, I think, with the framing of what's being presented here.
	Because if we were talking about some sort of fundamental human right, then yeah, sure, I agree.
	If the cop's like, well, we're just going to have to...
	Shuff the Jews into the gas chamber.
	Sorry, it's just the law.
	Yeah, he's completely right.
	But that's not what we're discussing.
	What we're discussing is, do the cops have a responsibility to enforce Minnesota's laws that have not so far been proven to be unconstitutional?
	And I'm not saying a law prohibiting, you know, hanging things in the window, in the mirror, whatever, in the window of your car.
	I don't think you've got a constitutional right to that.
	And so it's not about your constitutional rights.
	We've taken it to a place that is actually outside of the bounds of the discussion that we're having.
	Is it appropriate for the cops to enforce Minnesota's law against hanging things in your windows?
	I mean, you might not agree with the law, but I think that we have to agree that while it is in a law on the books and it's nothing to do with your constitutional rights, then the police probably should.
	But what if it was, you know, Joe Biden passes that all rifles are banned or something like that?
	That's a constitutional question.
	Yeah.
	We're not talking about a constitutional question.
	Could you make a constitutional argument, you know, First Amendment, me being able to hang things in my window?
	I mean, it doesn't have to necessarily be an air freshener.
	Maybe.
	I mean, the counter-argument...
	Fuzzy dice, for example.
	Sure, the counter-argument is going to be something like, well, it's an unsafe thing or something like this, and it'll end up being the sort of seatbelt style, you know, because Americans, like, go back 34 years, they didn't wear seatbelts very often.
	They drank and drove and things like this.
	And these are common sense things you probably don't want to do, right?
	And so it's not a question of constitutional rights.
	It's a question of should the police enforce the laws as they are in the books?
	Yeah, generally.
	But if it does violate the fundamental rights of the citizens, then it's...
	Sure, but then you should be making a legal challenge against the legislator that put this law on the book that said, yeah, Jews go in the gas chamber.
	Or an armed revolution if it's that extreme.
	Yeah, obviously we're not advocating armed revolution.
	But the point is...
	I am in countries that have literally, we're going to kill everyone who opposes us.
	But that's not the United States.
	Yes, that's what I'm saying.
	But like, the point, that's not the subject of the discussion that we're having.
	It's not inappropriate for the cops to enforce Minnesota's anti-hanging things in your window law.
	It's not inappropriate.
	You know, they should.
	It would be weird if they didn't, you know?
	Yeah, I agree.
	I still think you could make a First Amendment argument.
	I'm not saying you couldn't.
	I'd love to see that court case in the screen.
	I'd love to see a legal challenge.
	Because, I mean, like, when it comes...
	Because, I mean, what if it's a crush, though?
	You know, there's all sorts of religious things you could do there.
	I agree.
	And I think it's a silly law.
	You know, I think it's one of those sort of, like, nanny state laws that's overbearing that you kind of would want to get rid of anyway.
	But...
	And, you know, I don't agree with the law, but it's not wrong for the police to be like, well, this is the law, so we have to enforce it.
	You know, this isn't one of those, you know, oh, the cops are fine for gulagging people.
	I don't agree it's the same kind of conversation.
	Let's go for the next video comment.
	Yeah.
	G'day guys.
	There are protests here in Australia over Indigenous deaths in custody, which I feel are being wildly overblown by your typical race grifters.
	There are on average 1.3 Indigenous deaths in custody from all sources per month, including natural causes, suicide, and of course, the actions, whether justified or unjustified, of officers.
	How would you think we'd change the narrative away from institutionalised racism causing the deaths to reducing the contact people have with And do you think it would be worthwhile to independently examine the coronial reports?
	Cheers!
	Yeah, I would definitely independently examine the reports and the data that they're using, because as we did with the British data, it turns out it's basically, what was it, 10 deaths or 9 deaths in 10 years, something like that, for black people in custody in Britain.
	It's actually underrepresented in custody deaths.
	Yeah, it's more likely to die if you're white in custody.
	And so when they import the left-wing narrative from America and say, oh, black people are more likely to die in custody, well, the data doesn't represent that.
	And it probably doesn't in New Zealand or Australia.
	The funniest moment, I think, was the defund the police coming over here.
	Because for the last decade and a half, the Conservatives have been being wined out for cutting the police under austerity after the financial crisis.
	And then they tried to import defund the police to the UK. It really didn't.
	And the Conservatives are like, yes, we are.
	LAUGHTER We've been doing it for years.
	Oh boy.
	But now they're funding the police.
	They're adding more people on.
	But anyway, well, they're adding back to what they took away.
	Yeah.
	2008.
	Otherwise, apart from trying to change the narrative, I mean, a race report would not go amiss if you could get the government to do that.
	Yeah.
	Because, I mean, that seems to work here.
	They're in complete meltdown.
	Yeah.
	It's going great.
	Let's go to the next video comment.
	So I wanted to clarify real quick the reason why Wright had a warrant out for his arrest.
	It was actually because he didn't have one of these.
	Now, this is a permit to carry a pistol in the state of Minnesota.
	He was caught without one.
	So you can own whatever firearm you basically that you want in this state.
	You just have to have the permit to carry it, which he did not.
	And he was arrested for that and then didn't show up to court.
	So that's pretty much just the reason why he had a warrant out for his arrest.
	Also, for any law enforcement officers who watch this podcast, I am not one, but I have a recommendation for you.
	For the love of God, get a white bearing plate carrier or Chest rig.
	That's going to eliminate a lot of the issues with having to keep taser on one side, pistol on the other.
	If you have your taser on your vest, it's going to make it a lot easier for you to differentiate between the two.
	Yeah, that was the point I made.
	Yeah.
	The warrant that Wright had wasn't what they pulled him over for, though.
	I think it's just worth pointing out.
	They pulled him over because his license plates were out of date, and then they ran his license plate.
	What do you think of that, though, having to hold a license for your firearms?
	How is that constitutional?
	You can have a gun, but you're not allowed to carry it.
	The right of the people to keep their arms shall not be in friends, but they must have a license.
	I agree.
	Don't get me wrong, I don't like the way that our gun laws are either.
	Yeah, I mean, we're in a way worse situation, obviously.
	I don't know, it's just weird for the United States.
	If I'm the NRA, I guess.
	Next comment?
	Behold, it is I, Captain Doombeard.
	I have been told by several people on several different channels that I should be a voice actor.
	Well, I am flattered, and I concur.
	If you would like me to participate on some sort of project with you, or just read you a bedtime story or something, you may contact me at captandoombeard at gmail.com, rather than having to resort to video comments.
	Sorry, I quite enjoyed the video comments.
	Let's give the next one.
	Kind of feel like getting to read Hungry Caterpillar or something.
	It's the very Hungry Caterpillar.
	Alright, gotta make this correction fast.
	A few days ago y'all talked about rednecks being country folk from the south.
	It's not just that.
	It is anybody who is a working class blue-collar guy who works outside and whose neck is burnt by the sun, hence redneck.
	Also, The Pennsylvania coal miners by proxy of them wearing red kerchiefs during unionization.
	There you go.
	Thanks very much.
	Is that true?
	Like, if you're a construction worker in the city, are you a redneck?
	I've never heard it applied to those people.
	The way the left...
	He's definitely right.
	It's about people who work outside.
	Oh, yeah, absolutely.
	That's obviously where the redneck comes from, which is why we don't have rednecks in Britain.
	It's not nearly enough sun to justify you having a burnt neck.
	But I have only ever heard it being applied by, like, you know, Coastal elites.
	Two Midwest and Southern outdoor workers, working class people.
	I've never heard of it like being applied to city dwelling working class people.
	Like a construction worker in Los Angeles, for example.
	Yeah, exactly.
	I've never heard them being called redneck.
	But I don't know, I'm not an American.
	So, anyway.
	Thanks for the update.
	Haralamboss says, I'm a 30-year-old Aussie gay man from Adelaide and the politicization of homosexuality is very troubling to me.
	There are supposedly people fighting to the extreme for my rights, others supposedly going up against them with tradition, and supposedly the right outcome will prevail.
	Given the turbulence, should I be concerned about a Poland-style situation coming to fruition in Australia?
	And should I be concerned with transgenderism taking priority over homosexuality?
	Which one is worse for me and people like me, the extreme right or the extreme left?
	I mean, I think that either of the extremes is bad, to be honest, and I know that's a very...
	Big-brained, radical-centrist position where it's like, oh, look how clever I am!
	But at the end of the day, the extreme right-wing position is going to be quite unpleasant, I think.
	And the extreme left-wing position is going to make you surrounded by unpleasant people.
	And if you find yourself in a position where you need some kind of help, that is anything other than do what you want to do at all times, then you'll find yourself pretty much out on a limb when it comes to the extreme left as well.
	So, I don't know, man.
	I don't think you're going to get a Poland-style situation in Australia, and I think the Poland-style situation has been a bit overblown anyway.
	The people who are describing the LGBT-free zones are very specifically talking about ideology.
	So I would be very sceptical of the reporting on that.
	Henry Ashman says on Douglas Murray's distinction between homosexuals and the LGBT lots, not unlike Chris Rock's black people versus n-words distinction, by the way.
	The LGBT grifters are trying to force lazy stereotypes and political statements into the definitions, like how Peter Thiel had his gay card revoked by Stonewall or how Kanye is no longer black.
	All true.
	They don't represent black, gay people, Jews, whatever.
	They just use them as human shields for their ideology.
	Ayanna Pressley expressly said, we don't need any more black people who won't be a black voice or any gay people who won't be a gay voice.
	It's not about you being the identity.
	It's about you being on board with the ideology.
	It's about you being a political megaphone.
	Liking dick isn't enough anymore, it seems, unless you've got the voice, the walk, the dress sense, complete with a handbag, dog, rat, and vote hard left as you can.
	You ain't gay.
	And that's actually their opinion on this.
	Yep.
	Literally.
	I mean, the you ain't black comment.
	Yeah.
	That is it.
	There was another one as well, wasn't there?
	I was going to cover it today, but, like, Idris Elba, someone who, like, some, I can't remember if it was a BBC or an MP, had said that he's not black enough.
	Because he doesn't act black.
	Oh, yeah, no.
	This is an actor in British television.
	And they said he wasn't properly black because he didn't eat enough Caribbean food or have enough black friends.
	He's like, what?
	What?
	But I like Caribbean food.
	Am I more black?
	I suppose so.
	I had Caribbean chicken.
	No, it was great.
	She sent her an email, so you're applying for the job.
	Yeah, hi, I'm black enough.
	I eat Caribbean food.
	I hate Caribbean food.
	I love it.
	It's like, you know, I can't be racist.
	I've got black friends.
	That's not elevated to I can be black.
	I've got black friends.
	You can't be black.
	You don't have black friends, even though you are actually really dark.
	Yeah.
	Sorry, Idris.
	The LGBT survey, says Henry, and the social media activism, racism in football right now.
	I can't remember feeling that the grifters are combining abuse you get because you're gay, black, whatever, and the person doesn't like you.
	And took the cheap shot.
	If someone calls you a fat F, do they hate all fat people?
	Maybe.
	Or is it more likely that they think you're a douchebag and can't come up with a better insult than that?
	Yeah, one of the things I noticed many years ago is that there's, at least in England, there's a particular way of insulting people that isn't about all of the category that you're being insulted by.
	It's about you, right?
	And it's just whatever it is, I look at you and whatever I think that you're going to be upset about, I'll get you on that.
	It could be anything.
	In your case, it'd be your show.
	But everyone in England does this.
	It's a kind of low blow, but it's just like, what do I think he's most hung up about?
	I'm going to get him on that.
	Is that why you think we have so much ethnic banter as well?
	Do you think we can get him on it?
	Yes and no.
	It's a different subject.
	I'll go to another time.
	Bart says, I can barely hear you guys talking about gay issues due to the muffling clouds of smug you're generating.
	Sorry.
	You two clearly don't know about Section 28 or the weaponization of homophobia for votes.
	Section 28 wasn't about the promotion of paedophilia.
	That's a 1980 Tory light.
	We looked into this the other day.
	So this was a section you did.
	You looked at the parliamentary debate.
	Because on the surface, of course, there can be objections.
	In the parliamentary debate, there was an MP or a Lord who was bringing up...
	No, no, no.
	The reason we actually brought this in was because of this particular issue.
	Yeah.
	Parents kept complaining about the promotion of paedophilia.
	Section 28 was about the non-promotion of homosexuality.
	It was to prevent the promotion of pretend family relationships.
	Section 28 was used to defund any service for the GLB people as any service deemed to be promoting homosexuality.
	I'll be clear, we have equality now with no patience for modern activists who need a new dragon to slay, but you two are speaking from a place of historical ignorance.
	I... Don't think we're that ignorant.
	I mean, we did look into it.
	I don't really speak on it because I don't know, but you did a section in which you looked at the parliamentary debate.
	Well, yeah, and like I said, the law was not about pedophilia, obviously, and it wasn't criminalizing homosexuality or preventing homosexuality from existing, but I'm sure that he is right when he says any services that were deemed as promoting homosexuality.
	But if...
	I'll have to go and check again, but I'll do more looking into it.
	Haramblos again.
	In fact, we're running out of time, so I'm going to go to the next segment.
	Dylan says, while it's always nice to see CNN BTFO by Veritas, I don't think they'll do anything differently, and people will continue to watch unless they get a massive financial hit.
	Fear sells, as the director said in the video.
	If we don't make the cost much higher for them, they'll continue to peddle the trash as they have been.
	Yeah, I mean, I'm not saying that Project Veritas is going to take down CNN or anything.
	What do you think?
	But they are clearly having an effect, or at least a lot of people are having an effect.
	At least half the country now sees CNN as a highly partisan outlet.
	And if we can increase that and increase that to make people understand what the reality is, that's a good thing.
	I mean, educating people on what a thing is rather than the lie they tell you can only be good.
	So, I mean, sure, it might not defund CNN, but it'll at least be good that people understand that what they're watching is obviously partisan.
	Yeah.
	I'm not sure what I'm supposed to take from that.
	No evidence from the accuser.
	He is young, good-looking, and has a really attractive girlfriend.
	He has challenged the story and is suing.
	Right, okay.
	Yeah, so that's why he's referencing.
	To date, no woman has come forward to accuse Gates.
	They're going after him because he is effective, aggressive, and in the Trump mold with regards to policy.
	They fear him like they fear DeSantis.
	Fair enough.
	But that's what I find interesting about the guy.
	He's like, look, if there's anyone conservative, we have to hit them hard, otherwise we're screwed.
	Yeah.
	So they are the people who manufacture the rhino's success.
	Yeah.
	That old guy says, people are always talking about defunding the BBC. The BBC has hundreds of millions of pounds of infrastructure paid by the people.
	Surely the correct approach would be to sell it off, perhaps use the money to offset some of the COVID relief.
	I mean, yes, that would be nice.
	Just scaling down the BBC is probably a good idea.
	Well, I mean, the ideal is the government just walks it in and goes, privatize, and that it's not anyone's problem anymore.
	It's up to the people who, you know, the investors to deal with.
	Which, fine, whatever, you know, it's free country, right?
	Stupid service.
	But defunding it, that is the action the plebs can take at least, which is, I don't want to pay this.
	That's all the power you've got, so that's the only way to hurt them.
	That's correct.
	Going on to Katie Glass's Countryside Adventure, Brian says, this generation of women has been sold a bill of goods.
	Brave instance.
	I don't think there's anything wrong with women spending their 20s in London just spending time with friends, assuming they went to university, spent about 15 years in education, wanting to enjoy life independently.
	However, once they hit 30, they should be planning.
	I wouldn't wait till you're 30.
	I'm not saying you shouldn't enjoy your younger years or anything, but you should also have an eye towards a future and be responsible.
	You can work in London, earn money for like 10 years, whilst also Getting a long-term partner, whilst also building up equity in the bank account and not just blowing all your money on booze and coke and whatnot.
	You can still make plans for a future.
	When you're in your 30s, you've got your long-term partner and you get pregnant presumably earlier than 39.
	Try sooner than that because nature is a cruel mistress.
	Don't wait until you're nearly 40.
	It's just bad planning and you're probably not going to get what you want.
	Natalie says, I like to call what Katie is going through as Bridget Jones Syndrome.
	I think you're not the first to call it Bridget Jones Syndrome, incidentally.
	Trevor Box, I don't get why people just don't adopt or foster children.
	Well, I think a lot of people really want kids of their own.
	Yeah, I did.
	I have no experience, so I'm just going to keep my mouth shut.
	I mean, don't get me wrong.
	I think that adopting and fostering will have to be an option for someone like Katie if she finds she can't have kids of her own.
	But I think a lot of people, there's some sort of emotional, thick connectivity between you and that which is yours, directly, biologically yours.
	It would be silly to pretend that there isn't.
	It's not saying people who don't adopt and whatnot aren't doing the Lord's work, because they are.
	Yeah, it's not like they don't form a bond with them.
	Of course, yeah.
	I think it's just perfectly natural for people to want to have their own kids.
	Kartellus says, I find it's the women who have tried to have children and can't who have made the best of a bad situation.
	One became a devoted stepmother, one is a nanny, looking after and helping to raise children.
	I think the realisation that we're physically unable made them grow up and find another direction.
	To help others and be fulfilled.
	And that's basically what I think is on Katie's plate now.
	This is what I was saying.
	Go and help someone.
	Go and do something for someone else.
	Go and organize something.
	You can't just sit there and expect the world to come to you because they're not going to.
	There's also the chat pointing out the whole cruel part in all of this.
	There's also reality is that men can wait, women can't.
	That's true.
	It's just life.
	I mean, yeah, I was like 35 when my son was born, and I married a woman who was eight years younger than me, you know, because I'm smart.
	Because I was lucky, actually, really.
	But the point is, you know, that's how things work.
	Chris says she's still mad for thinking that she's going to find a hot farmer not just because of her age.
	It's because mostly she's from London and any farmer would take a 40-year-old country-born wife compared to a 20-year-old woman who'd spent her entire life in the city, let alone a 40-year-old city folk.
	Could you imagine being that farmer?
	How insufferable it would be to hang out with someone who spent their entire life in the city.
	Hi, I'm some wine-addled woman from the city and I'm going to impose myself on you now.
	Why does your internet suck so much?
	I can't tweet.
	I don't get any signals to tweet.
	Look, the cows need milking.
	I say this to someone who's lived most of my adult life in cities and knows that I could be insufferable about these things as well.
	That's why I'm getting out of it.
	Again, it's this natural kind of self-centeredness that comes from the Londoner perspective.
	Any Londoner who thinks living the farmer's life would be lovely wouldn't last a week getting up at 5am to milk the cattle and the tight budgets, let alone the death of the animals that happen on the farm.
	I agree.
	Sugar Supremacist says, Hi, Callum and Carl.
	I've been a student nurse throughout COVID, worked on a COVID ward during the first lockdown.
	It has been difficult.
	However, we do not know how to deal with this to a good degree, and it looks like we're easing out of the situation.
	However, the lack of self-thought scares me.
	People treat nurses like a deity, and it worries me.
	I've seen the NHS act awfully during the pandemic, and the horrible guilt-tripping adverts now the coercive measures try and help bring vaccine passports.
	I'm finding it hard to live with the idea that I got into this profession because I do love it.
	However, the dancing TikTokers and the secret authoritarians calling out the woodwork makes it difficult for me not to feel complicit.
	I haven't had the vaccine and I'm unsure as if I will.
	My workplace has yet to say if I must.
	I feel like every day I'm one step closer to packing it in and despite working hard for all of this, I still love the work.
	I hate the politics of it all.
	I'm afraid I don't have very much good advice there at all.
	What about you?
	I don't know either.
	I don't even know what to make of the NHS. I just know there's a lot of nonsense going on.
	I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but take the, what is it, Governor Cuomo, the guy from New York, who his orders ended up causing sick people to go back to nursing homes and then cause loads of deaths.
	Whereas in the UK, the NHS is responsible for that.
	The NHS is the thing that did that, apparently.
	And in which case, there's no outrage here.
	Isn't that convenient?
	It's really wrong.
	I met a lady a little while back who...
	She's retired, I think she was 70, 80 or something.
	But she lived through the war.
	She joined up with the NHS as a nurse when it was first founded.
	What was interesting is she openly said to me that she'd been underpaid for her entire life working as a nurse because it's the state you're working for.
	And she still thought, no, it was great and we ought to keep it and all the rest of it.
	And I'm just looking at her like...
	I can see the mythos around the thing, but I mean, this doesn't seem to work.
	I'm sorry.
	I'm not even against the idea of it in principle, but it requires other circumstances surrounding the NHS to be fairly constant and reliable, and it hasn't been.
	I mean, mass immigration is the worst thing.
	Yeah, and especially when you see the foreign criticism of our system.
	It's not like the NHS is the only way to run a healthcare system.
	There are systems on the continent.
	The system in the United States is not desirable, obviously.
	But there are other ways of working this.
	And I don't know.
	I'm just sick of the NHS. Let's just say it.
	There is a lot of nonsense about it.
	Yeah, we're past time now, sir.
	Oh, okay.
	Well, that's us done.
	So we will be back tomorrow at 1 o'clock.
	The petition, section 127, give it a sign, send it to someone you know, send it to a contact creator you know, because this needs to get 100,000 signatures.
	Because if we can do one thing in the world, it's at least trying to get one piece of legislation removed.
	Thank you for tuning in.
	We'll see you tomorrow.

▲