Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 20, 2021 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:33:03

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #114

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters for the 20th of April 2021.
	I am joined by Carl.
	Hello.
	We're going to be getting into Joe Biden, the fact that the Joe Biden administration is controlled by Joe Biden, we swear.
	The Democrats abandoning the rule of law entirely, declaring it an enemy of the state, apparently.
	And also that cancer culture is just complete criticism.
	It is just polite notes about how it's just criticism.
	But more importantly, how Lindsay Ellis has found herself in exactly the same position as Milo Yiannopoulos.
	Yeah.
	God, I love 2021.
	Yeah, me too.
	So, a few things first.
	So, the first thing I want to go over is some of the new content we have on Notices.com.
	Some of it free, some of it premium.
	So, the first thing here is a free article.
	It's an open letter from Dr.
	Ella Hill, who is a survivor of grooming gangs.
	I don't know if that term is...
	The Rotherham grooming gangs, specifically.
	Yeah.
	I don't know if that term survivor's correct to use or not.
	But anyway, she's gone through this, come out on the other side, incredibly brave.
	She does lots of interviews and talks about this publicly.
	And this article, she's explaining to the home office in an open letter why what she experienced was a hate crime.
	Because the people who targeted her were doing it on the basis, in their own words, of her being white.
	She was a white S or things like this.
	White W.
	And this is how they acted.
	This is how they operated.
	And in which case, when you take these people to court, you should be charging them with a hate crime on top of their crimes of rape and all the rest of it.
	Which is just true.
	I have no way of understanding how this couldn't be the case.
	According to the law as written, this should be the case.
	Yeah, other than just we don't want to go after these people and therefore we want to apply less censor to them.
	I mean, as we saw with Maggie Oliver, them being charged with, was it trafficking instead of rape because it gave them a lower sentence?
	Why?
	Anyway, really advise people to go and read this.
	It's a great argument, and it's also one of the things I'm going to have to add to the list of racism perpetuated by the British state.
	And I suppose there's nothing that prevents you from emailing it to the Home Office.
	Yeah, or your MP. Yeah, or your MP saying, excuse me, why is this something that's going on, and why will there be no redress for it?
	Hmm.
	So anyway, go and give that a read.
	We also have some more premium content going up, so we have the interview, sorry, the discussion between you and Joss about Hunter Biden.
	Well, it's...
	The life and times of Hunter Biden.
	Yeah, it's a bit more than that.
	Joss had done a really good job categorizing just Hunter Biden's sort of origin story, which is very tragic, and then the things that Hunter Biden has done consequently, which is all either deeply embarrassing, totally degenerate, or completely corrupt and selling out the United States...
	I mean, Hunter Biden is part of the chain of corruption that gives China leverage over Joe Biden and his administration.
	Hunter Biden is directly implicated in this from his own emails.
	And we go through it all in great depth and really, really pleased with how it came out.
	And it's what I think is very good value content.
	So if you'd like to watch it, you can sign up, become a member, and then you get access to all these other perks because you can comment on the website, send us video comments, all this other sort of stuff.
	Get access to our massive library of premium content.
	We're very proud of it.
	We do a lot of good work.
	Speaking for the perks, the gold members, we will be having a Zoom call in which we just hang out for an hour on this coming Friday.
	I think it's what we usually do at 4 o'clock till 5.
	We'll just be hanging out, chatting.
	If you guys want to ask questions in there, we just, you know, just hanging out.
	So become a gold member, sign up to get access to the premium content of any of the other tiers with the other perks that are listed on there.
	But without further ado, let's get into the news.
	So, Weekend of Bidens.
	Yeah, let's talk about the plot of Weekend at Bernie's being played out in the White House as we speak.
	Now, I don't know whether you've seen the film Weekend at Bernie's, but it's about a couple of guys who have to pretend that a dead man isn't dead for a weekend or gets inheritance or something.
	I can't remember.
	I was a kid when I watched it last.
	But the point is that the whole thing is comedic shenanigans as they're running around trying to make it look like this dead guy's still alive.
	And honestly, that's what the Biden administration is turning into.
	And it's quite obvious that Kamala Harris is launching some kind of a bid for power.
	But it isn't just Kamala Harris.
	It's the entire network, I suppose we'll call it.
	I mean, in Time magazine, they called it a cabal, but I don't feel I can call it that.
	So we'll say network around that can be labeled as the White House, however we are describing this.
	But anyway, so this is an article from The Guardian in 2016, and it's useful because it's got a series of opinions from the kind of people who would support such an operation.
	This, as they frame it, is Kamala Harris becoming America's first female, first black, and first South Asian American vice president.
	Which is very important.
	Bakari Sellers, who's a personal friend of hers and also a lawyer, says it will be an amazing moment for Harris and her sister Maya.
	And this is, she says, personally going to be an awesome feeling.
	Then she'll have a sense of history because from the historical perspective, there's so many women who chipped away at the glass ceiling and now she's broken it.
	I think that she will feel the weight of that history on her shoulders.
	Total cringe.
	Manisha Sinha, a history professor at the University of Connecticut and an author of a book called The Slave's Cause, A History of Abolition, said that it's galvanized enthusiasm among black women, Indian American and Asian American communities.
	No evidence of that, of course.
	Kamala Harris is deeply unpopular generally, dropped out of the primary race, went like 5% really early on.
	Everyone hates her.
	That's how she ended up here.
	Even among Democrats, not entirely popular.
	No, not popular at all.
	Again, 5-10% popularity, approval rating among Democrats.
	That's really unpopular.
	But she's well-connected and she's got the right background and she's got the right promotion here.
	But anyway, this is the thing.
	So she's a symbol to the rest of the world that has been watching the United States in horror.
	Just to have her and Biden take over is really important.
	It signals to the world that we are an interracial democracy and that certainly her election is a rejection of the kind of white supremacist politics that Trump brought back into vogue.
	No one thinks that.
	No one thinks that.
	But she warns, though, that, of course, people who oppose to this will demonstrate a tremendous racist backlash.
	So if you oppose the identity politics of this and it being forced into the White House and it being the main framing of the thing, then you're just a racist.
	Obviously, you just hate black South Asian women.
	Clearly.
	Anyway, they say that her role is going to be far from symbolic, though, because she's going to, and they say, wield considerable power.
	Biden has vowed that Harris will be the last person in the room making important decisions modeled on his relationship as vice president with Obama.
	But the thing is, no one thought that Joe Biden was stealing office from Obama.
	That's just not how it worked.
	And I'll explain why in a minute.
	Jennifer Lawless, a professor of politics at the University of Virginia, said that Harris's pivotal role in the Senate means she will be cast in a very different light than previous vice presidents.
	See the foreshadowing here.
	This is back in January.
	Oh, yeah, well, she's going to have a lot of power.
	It'll be very different from previous vice presidents.
	If you don't like it, you're a racist.
	You see how this is all being set up?
	All the narrative points are coming together.
	That's why this is such a useful article.
	But she says, I can't remember another time, and in contemporary history, there isn't one, where the vice president is basically the person determining whether legislation gets to the president's desk.
	That's very interesting, isn't it?
	That's very interesting, really.
	Should the vice president be curating the presidency for the president?
	Obviously, this hasn't happened in the past.
	This wasn't the same with Obama and Joe Biden.
	This wasn't Trump and Pence or any of the ones before within living memory.
	So why is it okay now?
	There's a lot of things that are new and different with this presidency.
	Because it's totally on the up and up.
	If Biden's just a rubber stamp on something that goes through her, well then she's the one on top.
	Yes.
	I mean it actually makes me think of our system for a little bit.
	Like the Queen here being a rubber stamp for whatever the other executives are the Prime Minister.
	And that's the situation they seem to be saying is now the case in the United States.
	That Kamala is the Prime Minister and Biden's just the King who rubber stamps things.
	That's exactly what we're being told by The Guardian and these experts.
	Anyway, so moving on to the month later, February, literally a month later, Kamala Harris is really settling into this role of being in charge.
	She is calling foreign leaders, having independent private calls with them, so Joe Biden isn't even in the room while she's talking to Trudeau and Macron.
	About, you know, the United States foreign policy and how they're going to deal with their allies.
	But also what's interesting is that...
	She sent him to bed or something?
	Well, that's the question.
	Who knows?
	He just wasn't there.
	I guess he put a lid on it.
	I mean, he's an old man.
	He needs his rest.
	He did apparently have a broken foot at some point as well.
	So, you know, he probably needs to rest up.
	But anyway, she takes the calls, but of course, Pence never did.
	He didn't take, or very rarely, took calls of foreign leaders, and then didn't speak on behalf of Trump.
	He only spoke on his own behalf, which is really weird.
	But this is what we're told about from one Republican senator, right?
	So Senator Kevin Kramer said that Biden had invited Republican senators to the White House to reach a bipartisan deal on the coronavirus relief in February.
	It was Ron Klain, his Chief of Staff, not the President, who set the tone of the meeting.
	Biden was apparently very well engaged and prepared for the meeting, said Kevin Kramer, but he also heard that his Chief of Staff stood at the back of the room and shook his head no for every Republican point.
	And with Ms.
	Harris taking the lead in diplomacy and the White House Chief of Staff, Ron Klain, dominating the outcome of White House meetings, one has to wonder, as the Washington Times asks, who is calling the shots at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?
	Jem Psaki told reporters that the president himself would tell you that we keep him pretty busy and he has a full schedule this week.
	Who's we?
	We keep him busy.
	Kamala Harris curates the legislation that gets to his desk.
	The wrong claim, the White House chief of staff, is organizing and dominating all of these White House meetings.
	You can see the outline, the structure of the organization around Biden in the center, who apparently just seems to literally, as you say, just be rubber stamping whatever these people are making him do.
	And they keep him pretty busy.
	So anyway, moving on, just to hammer the point home on the international diplomatic role, Joel Goldstein, the author of The White House Vice-Presidency, The Path to Significance, Mondale to Biden, says that Biden basically established his plans and signals his plans to re-establish the global connection after Trump's America First doctrine.
	And so Harris has spoken to Trudeau, World Health Organization Director General Tedros, and meets regularly with Antony Blinken, as well as speaking to Macron, as we saw in the past one.
	So you can see how the network is formed, and Kamala Harris has essentially put herself in front of, we say, the power behind the throne with Joe Biden.
	She's the one who all of the connections are actually going to, but it's Biden's face that's on the front of all of this.
	Isn't that interesting?
	All of this is just out there.
	This is all demonstrable.
	Means the left-wing outlets as well, with the Guardian there.
	Well, it's left and right-wing people.
	Yeah, but the fact that the left-wing outlaw, like The Guardian, can say that openly, tells you that they accept that, yeah, this is the case.
	Yeah, this is the case, and they know this is the case.
	And Harris is well-positioned for this, because she spent time on the Senate Select Committee and the Intelligence and Homeland Security Committee.
	So she has got all of these connections.
	So she's the right place in the right time, with the right connections, to enact what I guess we'll call the internationalist agenda, which is what they're talking about with meeting with all of these international NGOs.
	But anyway, going on to last month.
	We're in April now.
	Last month, again, like a month later, and people are beginning to notice that it's weird how much time Kamala Harris spends around Joe Biden.
	I mean, one commentator on Twitter describes her as a vulture circling around him.
	And if we can just scroll through some of these pictures, John, for anyone listening, I'll just read out some of the quotes.
	It's really interesting.
	So Joe Biden and Kamala Harris spend a lot of time together these days.
	They ride around in cars to get telling people to mask up together.
	They always seem to be seen at public meetings together.
	They go on the road and speak about public events and sell a covid relief package that had already been passed together.
	Incidentally, on that, they basically ignored Republican objections.
	The bosom buddies travel on Marine One together, The only time you don't see Kamala is when Biden needs her help climbing up the stairs.
	This is the only time, really, in recent public events that she hadn't been present.
	And that's interesting because as Vice President, Biden himself rarely traveled with Obama, right?
	As Politico reported in 2013, anytime the President or Vice President travel outside of Washington, they face increased risks security-wise, and having them both traveling at the same time presents a risk that most administrations don't take.
	If something tragic could happen to both of them, the presidency would be left in the hands of the third in presidential line of succession, which is instead Nancy Pelosi.
	So maybe Pelosi's playing the long game here.
	But the point is...
	She's going to die out of both of them.
	Well, I'm not saying that she is.
	But, I mean, you know, if we end up with President Pelosi at some point...
	Just saying, the pieces are all aligned for her to just check, check, check, check on the board.
	But anyway, the point is, it's weird that she spends so much personal time in the presence of Joe Biden, especially when they're traveling around and doing things.
	They should be separately governing.
	The vice president should be going off and doing speeches or whatever it is, as the president's sort of vanguard, I guess.
	But it's weird.
	And it just seems to imply a level of direct control that the Vice President has never previously had over the President.
	And then on the two days later after this, in fact, it was released, it was revealed, although not officially notified, but it was someone within the Biden administration who notified the Washington Times and was like, hey, by the way, Sorry, it was a report outspoken, sorry, but the Washington Times are reporting on it.
	A top White House communications team member has told us that there was an email sent directing that all official usage at all official agencies refer to the Biden administration as the Biden-Harris administration.
	That's weird.
	And again, if we're looking at this from the position of the vice president, seizing power from the president, and essentially taking over the presidency, well, this would be a way of, again, indicating that that is happening.
	Why should the vice president have this kind of prominence over the president?
	I mean, we very rarely hear Trump-Pence administration.
	It was always the Trump administration.
	Always the Trump administration.
	Always the Obama administration.
	Always the Clinton administration.
	The Bush administration.
	You know, go back as far as you want.
	It's never the president and vice president administration.
	So this is very, very interesting and very revealing, obviously.
	Someone in the chat, at least they didn't do Harris-Biden administration.
	I mean...
	Thank God for small mercies, I suppose.
	Maybe that would have been a step just too far.
	But yeah, please be sure to refer to the current administration as the Biden-Harris administration in all official public communications, the directive read.
	So there we go.
	That's pretty much open and shut.
	And then we come to the immigration crisis.
	Now, we've reported on the immigration crisis.
	We covered it in podcast 80.
	We've got a bunch of articles.
	Sorry, 90.
	Even we've got a bunch of articles because in this podcast we show that Joe Biden is himself causing the immigrant crisis.
	It's his rhetoric regarding immigration that is causing the immigrants to come and we show videos of the immigrants saying well I wouldn't have come under Trump because he would have just built a wall and told me to go home but Joe Biden's gonna let me in because he said he was gonna let me in therefore I have come and that means not just young adventurous men but also families With women and children.
	100,000 people in March alone have turned up, which is something two or three times the number that they usually get per month.
	Can you put that up on the screen?
	So, John, where's this from?
	This is just a protester...
	Right, okay.
	So this is some Democrat sign in which you've got Biden-Harris on one side, and on the other side you've got Harris-Biden.
	And then Trump pens out now.
	So it's obviously a campaigning thing, so it's not an official thing.
	Or at least, well, I mean, it might be.
	It looked high quality, but anyway.
	But anyway, so the reason I bring all of this up is to build up to an article that CNN published yesterday, which is amazing.
	Absolutely amazing.
	Because this is the full mask off thing.
	Point.
	So the article is called White House backtracks after Biden calls border situation a crisis.
	Now, I think by any reasonable definition, it actually is a crisis.
	And so when Joe Biden was speaking to reporters after a round of golf at the Wilmington Country Club...
	He said this, we're going to increase the numbers.
	The problem was that the refugee part was working on the crisis that ended up on the border with young people, and we couldn't do two things at once, and now we're going to increase the numbers.
	The number of people who are helping, I presume.
	Fairly decent description of events, all things considered, and this was apparently something that the White House decided to repudiate.
	So, the President's use of the crisis label doesn't represent the administration's official position, the White House said on Monday in regards to him saying this.
	That's incredible.
	No, we don't agree with the President.
	Right, carry on, Mr.
	President.
	What the hell?
	How could that be said?
	The administration that bears his name does not agree with the president, and we will contradict and refute him to the public.
	President Biden, there's a crisis on the border.
	Biden administration, no, there isn't.
	President Biden's wrong.
	Yes.
	And that's not our position.
	Literally, the crisis label does not represent the Biden administration's official position.
	Say, the Biden administration, in contradiction to the president.
	The Biden-Harris administration.
	The Biden-Harris administration, I apologize.
	Like the pronouns.
	That's such...
	Yeah, but that's...
	That is a wild position to be in.
	I mean...
	I don't even know how to compare it.
	If Elon Musk came out and was like, yeah, so SpaceX is going to fly a man to Mars, and then you've got a statement from the official SpaceX account saying Elon Musk doesn't represent SpaceX, you're like, what?
	Of course he does.
	He's your CEO. How could he not?
	How are his statements not representative?
	Whose statements are, then?
	Who wrote this?
	Who is contradicting him?
	Who does represent the Biden-Harris administration, if not Joe Biden?
	That's the question.
	And anyway, so they say there's no change in position.
	Children coming to our border seeking refuge from violence, economic hardships, and other dire circumstances is not a crisis.
	But Biden was apparently, the official who said this, unnamed official, who said this, said that Biden was referring to the crisis in Central America as the dire circumstances that people are fleeing from, not the federal government's response.
	It's like, okay, that's all well and good, but who is saying this?
	Who's making this decision?
	The party has said that actually Big Brother's position is not what it is.
	You know, Big Brother was wrong and was misspoken, and you shall now just accept the party's position on this?
	Like, who's making...
	Jerusalem doesn't represent the position of the Soviet Union.
	Exactly.
	Exactly.
	And Jen Psaki made the same distinction on Monday afternoon.
	So who's she taking orders from?
	It apparently is not from Joe Biden, and they feel that they have enough authority to be able to contradict the president in his own statements.
	So who are they taking their marching orders from?
	Like I said, this is, in my opinion, the biggest mask-off moment so far.
	I don't know how else you could describe it, and I would love to hear the answer to these questions.
	So my charitable interpretation, shall we say, would be that he, obviously they've been trying to ignore the situation at the border for as long as possible.
	And now they're saying, you know, he's messed up by saying the word crisis and they're like, no, no, no, we were told not to say that word.
	But I must say, even after he's done that blunder, you wouldn't back down.
	You'd be like, no, no, the president's right.
	Why would you disavow?
	Why even bring it up?
	Well, if it is a blunder, right?
	They're trying to avoid the word crisis.
	He uses it.
	I don't know why you wouldn't just back him up at that point.
	Like, why would you try and throw his own words under the bus?
	Well, that's the point.
	Like, why is it important that they contradict and correct him on this?
	Because if Joe Biden says the word crisis once, if they were stage managing him behind the scenes, which I assume they are, why couldn't they just ignore that?
	And then when he comes back in, be like...
	Next time, don't use the crisis word.
	That makes it sound weak.
	That makes it sound like we don't have it.
	And that's what the complaint is.
	It does make them sound like they're weak, like they've made a mistake, like the party is fallible.
	Yeah, I mean, they're literally the position where they want to build the wall again.
	Literally.
	Yeah, exactly.
	But the point is, they're trying to project this kind of unvarnished position of strength, where nothing bad ever happens, and all bad things are because of forces outside of the party.
	I mean, they are actually taking on the position of Ingsoc here.
	And it's not wrong to say that your administration is facing a crisis.
	It's not even wrong to admit that maybe Biden made a mistake by hyping up the rhetoric.
	But if you can never be wrong, then any amount of mistake is undermining your entire case.
	And so what they're trying to do is be like, no, no, no, there was nothing to see here.
	There was no crisis.
	Circle the wagons.
	It's a big display of weakness.
	Yeah, I mean, any government doesn't want to face up to its mistakes, that's one thing.
	But I mean, what I would have expected is him after saying that, if, you know, he's your guy and he's the guy in charge, you'd back him up completely and say, yeah, and we're going to deal with that crisis, we're going to do this and that, and, you know, we're going to fund foreign aid over there, would be the left-wing response, to stop them coming, or something like this.
	We're going to build more migrant camps.
	We're going to send them aid.
	There are loads of things that, from a left-wing position, you can do to actually strengthen your position.
	But instead, what they did is weaken their position and revealed their hand.
	And been like, yeah, well, you know, don't listen to this doddering old fool.
	I've never heard of him.
	He didn't speak for us.
	You know, and it's like, it's mad.
	Like, literally wearing the rosette that says Biden.
	Yeah.
	Oh man.
	Yeah, that's weird.
	So the thing I wanted to go on to was the Democrats disavow the rule of law.
	The rule of law is a fascist concept now, I presume, because they're just openly calling for blood.
	And you might think I'm being a bit uncharitable with all of that.
	I don't think I am, and let's go through it.
	So where we left off yesterday was the closing witnesses from the George Floyd Derek Chauvin trial, in which the response was uncivilized to say the least.
	So the first thing here being that one of the witnesses who was on the side of the defense, activists went to his former house and decided to throw a pig's head on it and throw pig's blood all over this house.
	A house he's not even in because it's his former house.
	So perfectly civilized, rational response from people who want justice and not just mob rule.
	But okay, that's just activists.
	But then there was Maxine Waters, a congresswoman, who came out and said some pretty horrible things by saying that she was asked, what should we do?
	And she was like, you need to stay on the streets.
	We need to be more confrontational with people.
	We need to get a guilty verdict for homicide, first-degree homicide, which he's not charged with, so they can't get that.
	And if we don't get that, we should stay on the streets, be more confrontational, more combative, you know, that sort of thing.
	Nothing new for Maxine Waters here, by the way.
	That's the thing.
	It's not new for her.
	She's done this multiple times.
	So if we can get the next one up, this is her back in the day CNN reporting here, so it's not like it's the Fox News or anything.
	Maxine Waters encouraged supporters to harass...
	Maxine Waters encouraged supporters to harass Trump administration officials because she was saying if there's...
	You see someone from the Trump administration, form a crowd, you know, make sure they know...
	Get in their face.
	Yeah, make sure they know they're not welcome here.
	Like if they're in a diner or just getting gas or anything.
	I mean, it's got shades of cultural revolution, frankly.
	Yeah, she's not interested in a democratic society in which there's the opposition and we debate about things and so on and so forth.
	And when you're out of politics, you're with your family, that's fine.
	She doesn't believe in civil society.
	Civil society is the enemy to her.
	And she also did this apparently a long time ago during the So she's been doing this shtick for literally decades.
	She says in there, I don't want to see violence, but don't do the violence.
	And it's like, yeah, I know what that is.
	That's a dog whistle.
	That's you, I don't want to say the thing.
	So that's not new for her, and this is what led after her speech that we saw some other acts of violence take place, exactly as anyone would expect.
	So the National Guard being shot at in a drive-by shooting, which is perfectly normal.
	Normal things for a normal country that's experiencing normality.
	You have to bring in the National Guard and they're getting shot at by the populace.
	But what happened?
	Well, it was a drive-by.
	Oh, God.
	Yeah, just a drive-by on the National Guard, of all things.
	And it's not that they're there because of just people want to attack them or the police station.
	Apparently, they're trying to attack all emergency services.
	They're trying to help people in Minneapolis.
	So if you can get the next one, this is the National Guard pointing out that they have to have their officers, sorry, their soldiers, at every emergency service to protect them.
	From people attacking them.
	I mean, the fire service here, with the National Guard protecting them.
	The police, of course.
	And then...
	The police require the National Guard's protection.
	Yeah, and then ambulances requiring the protection of the National Guard.
	I mean, sort of the kind of stuff you would expect from, I don't know, Iraq or something like that.
	Yeah.
	No, Minneapolis.
	An occupied war zone requires this kind of military presence.
	Paris requires this kind of military presence.
	Belgium.
	Yeah, Belgium.
	Apparently now Minneapolis...
	Freedom is retreating.
	So the court case, this obviously had an effect on, which is the defense were pointing out, well, the jury weren't yet sequestered at the time of all this.
	They haven't been sequestered throughout some of the other rioting that's been taking place in response to different cases.
	And then, well, this looks like enough for them to argue that we should get a mistrial on this, because how are these jurors not going to be affected by it?
	Sure, you've told them not to look at the news, but the Floyd stuff and the left-wing paradigm on this isn't just in the news.
	It's within popular culture.
	I mean, you can't get away from it.
	I mean, Nelson even points out, I didn't have it in here, in which he watched two fiction shows, and in both of those shows they get references to this case.
	And he's like, look, you can't just say don't watch the news and that's enough.
	We've got to do something about this.
	And I have sympathy with him.
	I don't know the lore about what is a mistrial, but let's just play the clip for his argument here.
	Specifically referencing that an elected official, a United States congressperson, was making what I interpreted to be, and what I think are reasonably interpreted to be, threats against the sanctity of the jury process, threatening and intimidating a jury, demanding that if there's not a guilty verdict, that there would be further evidence.
	Further problems, Your Honor.
	And given the fact that this jury has not been sequestered, it has been my position all along throughout the course of this case that this jury should have been sequestered at the outset.
	The jury has not been continually...
	has not been continually...
	We're told to stay away from media, only media, about this case.
	There is a high probability that members of this jury have seen these comments, are familiar with these comments, and things that have happened throughout the course of this trial.
	And he's right.
	I don't know how on earth these people would not be aware that if they come to the conclusion that he's not guilty, that there will be riots outside and around the state in which they live.
	He even points out in there that one of the jurors lives in the city where, what was it, Duante White, the fellow who was shot, and there were riots.
	He lives in that city, the city where all the rioting took place in response to that, during the time that he's our juror for this trial.
	It's like, well...
	He's not, I think, unreasonable to point this out.
	But the state had a position in response, and I'm just going to play the judge's comments, that Maxine Waters has given him grounds for appeal and the state's position.
	Let's play.
	Well, I'll give you that Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned.
	But what's the state's position?
	I don't know that this particular representative made a specified threat of violence.
	I don't know what the context of the statement is.
	So we just don't know what it is.
	They went on to say you'd have to give us this in specifics and writing.
	It's like, okay, but whatever.
	He doesn't grant the motion for appeal.
	Sorry for mistrial.
	But he did have some pretty damning things to say about people like Maxine Waters, who are just openly trying to stoke violence.
	Let's play.
	I'm aware of the media reports.
	I'm aware that Congresswoman Waters was talking specifically about this trial and about the unacceptability of anything less than a murder conviction and talk about being confrontational, but you can submit the press articles about that.
	This goes back to what I've been saying from the beginning.
	I wish elected officials would stop talking about this case, especially in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch in our function.
	I think if they want to give their opinions, they should do so in a respectful and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution to respect the co-equal branch of government.
	Their failure to do so, I think, is abhorrent, but I don't think it has prejudiced us with additional material that would prejudice this jury.
	They have been told not to watch the news.
	I trust they are following those instructions and that there is not in any way a prejudice beyond the articles that we're talking specifically about the facts of this case.
	A congresswoman's opinion really doesn't matter a whole lot.
	Anyway, so, motion for Mistral is denied.
	You can see Nelson smirking about her in response.
	I mean, I agree, but she is causing trouble.
	Like, it doesn't matter how much to the nation at large, but it doesn't matter enough to those people on the ground who are going to be committing those acts of violence in response to any outcome.
	They can find him guilty on all three of the charges, the two manslaughter ones and the unintentional homicide.
	It still won't be enough for them.
	They're not interested in the case.
	They're not interested in the outcome.
	Well, I mean, she's literally defined it, that if we don't get something he's not being charged with, then this will not be good enough.
	And if he's not being charged with it, he can't possibly be convicted of it.
	And so we know in advance that it won't be good enough.
	Which is why he points out that he wants elected officials to stop talking in this way, being disrespectful to the rule of law, because that's what it is.
	He's saying the rule of law doesn't matter.
	Just, I think he should be charged with this thing, convicted on this thing that he's not being charged with because it would be impossible to prove.
	And if he doesn't get that, we should just, as she's saying in a very unveiled way, we should just burn it all down.
	Yeah, but I mean, Maxine Waters is openly hostile to the concept of civil society, which is embedded in the concept of the rule of law.
	And you would think, in response to that, you'd just be like, get her out.
	Like, I don't care what political party you want.
	You'd be like, just no, that is beyond the pale.
	And we do have some of this in the UK, to a good extent.
	So, I mean, you do see it on occasion.
	I mean, it's rough, but it does happen that the Conservatives and the Labour Party throw these people out.
	Yeah.
	Because they don't want anything to do with them.
	I mean, people like Claudia Webb, for example, being thrown out.
	There's also just people who break the law that get thrown out.
	Claudia Webb got thrown out?
	Yeah, she's not a Labour Party MP because she got thrown out by Keir Starmer.
	This thing does happen on occasion, but in American politics it doesn't seem to happen at all.
	It's really weird.
	So the only option left is for the other side to try and censor her.
	So this is Breitbart reporting that they're trying to get rid of her position.
	She has a chairmanship on some committee or another, which is a way of harming her.
	So, she was also asked about that speech from the judge, telling her she should shut her mouth, and she didn't shut her mouth, because of course she wouldn't.
	So she said she was surprised at the fact that the judge said, my words don't matter.
	And then Waters stood by the use of the word confrontational, saying, the whole civil rights movement was confrontational.
	So what?
	This isn't the same thing?
	This isn't the same thing.
	We have the footage from last year, in which they were burning down the whole city.
	Yeah, but you're not suggesting that anyone is being...
	Well, you are suggesting this, but this is not about that.
	This is about whether Derek Chauvin killed George Floyd.
	This is not about changing law to prevent black people from being able to vote or whatever.
	It's not about any of that.
	But it's also just disingenuous in the sense of, like, she's trying to phrase this.
	Oh, I'm just calling for peaceful protest.
	No, you aren't.
	Oh, no, absolutely not.
	Don't lie to us.
	So the GOP House leader has responded by saying, I'm introducing a resolution to censor representative Waters for these dangerous comments, and I hope that all my colleagues, both Republican and Democrat, will stand up for peace on American streets.
	Perfectly responsible thing to do.
	I mean, he just looks in the right.
	And the Democrat House leader, Nancy Pelosi, has done the perfectly...
	No, she didn't.
	Of course she didn't.
	No.
	No, let's get the next one up.
	So she stands by.
	She stands by her.
	Her denunciation of the rule of law.
	Because, I mean, you would.
	Dangerous lunatic.
	So she's asked, should she apologise?
	And she responds with, absolutely not, to CNN. So CNN asked her.
	This is exactly emblematic of the entire problem with left-wing politics at the moment.
	They do not agree that there should be a civil society with the right-wing.
	And so every time a Democrat does something wrong, they have to decide with a Democrat, even if the Democrat did something demonstrably wrong.
	That they themselves, in a neutral setting, would condemn.
	You know, if this was like a Democratic Party conference or something, and Maxine Waters was like, yeah, harass the other faction of the Democrats.
	No, you can't do that.
	We need peace.
	But they don't extend that.
	You should have some standards.
	Exactly.
	Which is, if you go over this line, I mean, what is it for the Democrats?
	Well, they will extend it to one another, but they won't extend it to the Republicans.
	I mean, what is the standard they have of a Democrat can say this and then we will kick you out?
	I mean, if calling for violence on the streets and saying the rule of law is evil isn't good enough.
	I'm sure that if it's a Democratic conference or something, then yeah, Maxine Waters would be reprimanded for doing damage to the party and all this sort of stuff.
	But they don't view the Republicans as like the loyal opposition.
	They view them as the enemy, and that's how they're treating them.
	Sure, but she did say this in public.
	This is one of her girls.
	And she's just standing by her, saying that you should absolutely not apologise.
	Us, us, us.
	Maxine talked about confrontation in the manner of the civil rights movement was also her defence.
	And it's just like, that's not a defence.
	Because you know that's BS. Everyone knows that's BS. And I don't know how she has the amount of influence to stand there and say a fundamental principle, an Anglo-Saxon political tradition of the rule of law is evil and still stay around in polite society.
	I mean, she's not wrong that it's an Anglo-Saxon political tradition, but it's also...
	I'm bringing that up.
	Yeah, but...
	Okay, but I mean, that is true, and that is probably how they'll end up pathologising it.
	They'll say, oh, the English invented this, therefore it's bad.
	The white supremacy thing.
	Yeah.
	That's what they're saying.
	It's also embarrassing because, of course, she wasn't smacked down for this, that everyone else has jumped on the bandwagon who feels like it.
	So the mayor of Minneapolis responded by also trying to stir up tensions.
	So you can see here he gave a speech.
	Regardless of the decision made by the jury, there is one true reality...
	Which is that George Floyd was killed at the hands of the police.
	That's an unbelievably irresponsible thing to say.
	And it's very interesting.
	I watched the clip.
	He sounds and looks very much like Justin Trudeau, that kind of false-coached left-wing politician that you see.
	And I'm sure there are right-wing ones that are very similar, but you don't see them so often.
	But, I mean, look at his mannerisms.
	They're overly accentuated.
	He's obviously putting it on.
	But then to say that there's only one true reality, and that is that George Floyd was killed at the hands of the police, then what you're saying is the judicial branch is wrong for having scepticism as to whether that is the outcome.
	Well, the whole function of it is wrong.
	Yeah, the whole function of it.
	It should not be a place in which you are innocent until proven guilty, and we go through all the evidence and make a...
	What's the point of it?
	No, it should be a Soviet-style position in which it's just, if you violated the party, the judge will rule that you violated the party's rules.
	But that's the point.
	What's the point of the judicial system if you can just a priori assume that someone is wrong because you define them as being wrong and therefore why do we have these courts in the first place?
	That is the position of this mayor by saying this.
	I mean, regardless of the decision made by the jury.
	I mean, the people who have sat there for 15 odd days looking at the evidence on both sides and they've been sequestered now and they're going to debate with each other about what they think is the case and then come to a reasoned decision.
	Screw all of that.
	There's one true reality, mashallah, in which I have seen the footage and that's it.
	I've not listened to any of the evidence, but I've made my decision.
	But it really does undermine the sort of, I guess we'll call it the Anglo-Saxon legal framework of your country, which is trial by, you know, the judgment of your peers, right?
	So it's not one particular point of authority where the god emperor, the king, you know, the absolute king has the executive authority to be the sole person who makes that decision.
	Because you're right, what would be the point in having courts in that...
	Time and place.
	What would be the point of that?
	Instead, the whole point is that, look, you're being judged on a lower level by a jury of your peers, people who are just regular people, who are not, like, have a directed vested interest in making sure that one outcome or the other outcome comes out.
	It's people who are like, well, my vested interest is in having that fair trial.
	And he's totally flying in the face of this.
	This is probably, I mean, this is worse than anything Maxine Waters said.
	Yeah.
	But you might think, okay, it's one congresswoman who's being stupid, and then this mayor who went out and said this after she was defended by the House Democrat leader.
	This mayor who's promoting tyranny in kangaroo courts.
	Yeah, okay, it's a few Democrat politicians.
	No, no, there are more, because of course there are.
	So another congresswoman from Pennsylvania, tweet something out, so if we can get the next one up.
	So this is her response saying, I'm praying for justice for George Floyd, his family and loved ones.
	This nation needs healing.
	Accountability is a vital part of the process.
	You might think this sounds a bit blasé, but the fact she's saying accountability is part of the vital process, she's assuming there that guilty is the only version of accountability.
	I assume so.
	I mean, a charitable reading would say that any form of justice is justice, so whether he's convicted or not, that's the just outcome because the process is what dictates what the just outcome is.
	That is an interpretation.
	But Bernie Sanders went a little bit further because, of course, Bernie Sanders had to come in here.
	Justice for George Floyd, Adam Toledo, Duante Wright, and too many before them must include a national transformation that brings accountability for all officers who murder, including firings, criminal and civil penalties.
	I mean, just assuming that Chauvin here is a murderer.
	Yeah.
	Great, great.
	I mean, the judge here literally telling you, hey, elected officials, Democrats, shut up!
	Like, you are interfering with this trial, and it's leading to defense being able to call for a mistrial.
	Yeah.
	And they're like, no, no, push harder.
	You're literally going to get Chauvin off the hook, regardless of what the actual evidence suggests.
	Which is even worse.
	I mean, like, how stupid are you people?
	But that's okay for them.
	I mean, because if Chauvin, if they do manage to get this prejudiced and we find out that the jury was able to listen to some biased comments or something, and the whole thing has to be thrown out, this would be a win for them.
	Because they can say, ha ha, look, this system is broken, even though...
	We're the ones that broke it.
	Exactly.
	These are the people who are going to tear the United States apart.
	And can we just highlight Comrade Haimb, just below, at Big Stinky Boy on Twitter, who, look at that profile picture.
	I mean, unbelievable stereotype.
	I just can't believe this.
	The first comment, we need to abolish the police and look after our own communities.
	Like, you have a community.
	Like, oh my god.
	Sorry, anyway, I just love a stereotype.
	I mean...
	This is definitely also the whole thing.
	It's like these people who care about the rule of law are coming from the hashtag defund the police type.
	So the next thing I want to show is just that outside the courthouse in which the jury are presumably having their discussions, there are huge crowds of BLM types screaming chauvin guilty, which I'm sure they can't hear.
	Oh, I wonder where they got that idea from.
	Would it be the media that's been misrepresenting the trial as it's been going along?
	Would it be the politicians?
	Would it be, you know, any...
	The activists, like, listen...
	There's no call for reason.
	There's no call for...
	Just be reasonable.
	Like, consider the evidence.
	It's not just hard, hard.
	I'm following Sean King's posts all over social media and it's just, I mean, like, he may as well be calling for them to be put against the wall and shot.
	You know, he is just so radical.
	Exactly.
	He's, to me, looks like open incitement to violence.
	And yet he is just there with his millions of followers of accounts, massively well-shared posts going, yep, this is it.
	This is basically going to be the boog.
	From his point of view.
	And it's like, okay, well that's just all left up, is it?
	That's just all fine.
	And this is something to keep in mind.
	We just get the images from last year's riots just to demonstrate.
	Oh yeah.
	This is what we're expecting.
	So after whatever decision is made, this is what you can look forward to in that city.
	Get out of Minneapolis, man.
	We're just burning stuff down because they're perfectly reasonable.
	So what are the, shall we say...
	Trusted name in news has to say about this, in which they're totally moderate.
	CNN. CNN's response here.
	The far right is using the circumstances of the Chauvin trial as a proxy to describe a so-called attack on law and order.
	That's true, Chris Cuomo.
	That's only because it's happening.
	I love it as well, because they literally just accuse you of everything that they believe.
	I mean, the idea that the far right is using the trial as a proxy to attack law and order.
	I mean, that is literally the left's position in any given day.
	They're using the trial as a proxy to describe a so-called...
	I mean, look at all the caveats here, right?
	It's deliberately done to confuse you.
	So they're using the trial as a proxy.
	So the trial's there, so the proxy is something next to it, to describe a so-called, so that's another proxy that we've gone to, attack on law and order.
	It's like, okay, if I just say yes to all of that, then it collapses back down to you are attacking law and order.
	So yes, Chris, yes, that's exactly true.
	You are attacking law and order.
	These people are attacking law and order.
	You're defending their attack on law and order.
	And you're trying to stigmatize those people who are saying, well, maybe we should have some law and order, as if they're not accurately describing something that's happening in reality, which they are.
	I mean, how else would he describe the folks who are like, defund the police, you know, Maxine Ward is saying, F the rule of law.
	Well, we could use exactly that.
	But what would they do except attacking law and order?
	But we could say it in the same way.
	Well, the Black Lives Matter, the far left, are using the circumstances of the death of George Floyd as a proxy to describe a so-called attack on black people.
	You can frame it in exactly the same way.
	But again, they would just say yes, and the whole thing collapses back down to, you are doing this.
	So there we go.
	But anyway, that was just a little highlight on what's been going on there.
	I thought we would just be able to ignore it, but of course we can't be able to ignore it.
	I don't know why I thought that.
	Maybe people would be at least a little bit reasonable and the activists would be the unreasonable ones.
	But no, the entire Democratic Party, it seems, is infected with that nonsense.
	And the Democratic Party's PR outreach, which is the media.
	Yeah, so they're just going to keep pushing it until it gets worse and worse, no matter what the truth of the matter is.
	Oh boy, get out of Minneapolis.
	I wouldn't live there.
	Screw that.
	Yeah.
	Let's move on.
	Let's go on to Lindsay Ellis.
	Yeah, so I thought we'd...
	There was a video that Lindsay Ellis posted the other day called Mask Off.
	And for some reason this is being very widely promoted by YouTube's algorithm, and I don't know why.
	But it's actually a really interesting video and very revealing in many different ways.
	And it's fascinating that Lindsay Ellis...
	Coming on 35 has finally harmonized with the position of Milo Yiannopoulos, where literally she's saying the exact same words as Milo.
	And she's not wrong, now that she's adopted his position.
	So the question is, a few weeks ago we covered this, I think, why was Lindsay Ellis cancelled?
	Cancelled, being the word in question, the definition of cancelled is what we're going to be looking at.
	But apparently in a now deleted tweet she had written, also I watched Rhea and the Last Dragon, I think, which needs to come up with a name for this genre that is basically Avatar The Last Airbender Reduxes.
	And it's like, right, okay.
	And so people were angry because if you are a very uncharitable Twitter user, you can say, oh, well, she's making a racial comment about Asian...
	And this is unflattering, apparently, being compared to Avatar The Last Airbender, and therefore she bad.
	And the Twitter mob did what the Twitter mob did.
	She ended up deleting her account for a day or so.
	She ended up restoring it because there was nothing that happened to her.
	She did it to herself, so she could just go back on.
	After the emotional pain had subsided, she was like, yeah, I do need my fix, though.
	And she had to log back in.
	And so she puts out this mask-off video.
	And talking about this.
	And like I said, it's a million and a half views, so it's like, okay, we'll talk about this.
	And so I guess we'll begin with how she frames it.
	What do you do?
	So I told her my name, and she's like, I'm going to Google you.
	And I was like, okay, but I'm super cancelled right now.
	And she laughed and clearly thought I was kidding.
	Or maybe didn't know what that meant, or knew it in some right-wing way.
	So this is her in just some town at a restaurant, talking to a waitress with her mother, and the waitress is like, oh, you're a famous YouTuber, who are you?
	And she says she Googles them.
	And then, like, I'm super cancelled right now, and she either didn't understand what I meant or understood it in a right-wing way.
	And that's really, really useful, right?
	Because, I mean, imagine the frame of mind you have to be in to think a waitress at a restaurant thinks you're a bad person because you're cancelled on Twitter.
	Imagine that being a moral barometer of, oh god, this person's cancelled on Twitter.
	Oh, they must be bad.
	And so she's like, look, I'm sorry I'm cancelled on Twitter right now.
	Don't judge me.
	That's so pathetic, right?
	But the main point of that is the importance is the distinction between the left-wing way of understanding cancel culture and the right-wing way of understanding cancel culture.
	And I'm glad that Lindsay can admit that there are two different ways of viewing this, because it definitely does have two different effects on the people being cancelled.
	Anyway, so let's go on to her definition of being cancelled.
	What is it to be cancelled?
	Cancelling is a public shaming of a member of a community for some violation of that community standards by other members of that community.
	Eh, wrong.
	That's not what that is, Lindsay.
	That's just you living with a bunch of people in your community who want to find something negative about you to have a go at you for because they're like...
	Metaphorically tearing down idols.
	No, being cancelled is way, way worse than that.
	And if you'd ever been cancelled for anything in your life, you would know this.
	I suppose you could say left-wing cancelling is just being shamed, whereas right-wing cancelling is something else.
	Yes, that's exactly what that is.
	Left-wing cancelling is indeed that.
	So it's a bunch of people on Twitter who say, I don't like Lindsay Ellis.
	Lindsay Ellis is a bad person.
	Therefore, we should all unsubscribe from Lindsay Ellis or bully her or whatever it is they do, right?
	And they've got a community on Twitter that does this.
	They enjoy doing it.
	And she spends a lot of this video calling them out, which is great, I suppose, but you could have done this years ago when it was affecting other people.
	But yeah, as we're saying, the right-wing experience of cancel culture is way more vicious than that.
	It is people being deplatformed from all of their social media accounts, and this can happen as a cascade effect, where eventually Alex Jones is on his Twitter account and everyone's looking at Jack Dorsey going, so...
	And Jack's like, what?
	Aren't you going to cancel Alex Jones and take away his Twitter account?
	He's like, well, he hasn't broken the rules yet.
	As if that mattered?
	Yeah, as if that mattered.
	Yeah, exactly.
	That's exactly the point.
	And so, of course, when it came to the cancelling of a sitting president, he not only got all of his social media taken away, even though he didn't incite riots and violence on January the 6th, he also got bank accounts closed and he got various other financial attacks on him.
	So what they've done is try to ruin him.
	So Lindsay Ellis...
	A little bit of shame.
	No, it was not a...
	I mean, God, imagine, like, if she was subjected to one minute's worth of the shame that Trump got on Twitter on a daily basis, she'd probably top herself.
	Like, she thinks what happened to her if this tweet was bad...
	Imagine living in Trump's shoes.
	But of course she can't do that because evil right wing.
	But this is the point.
	She has no experience or knowledge of what cancel culture actually is.
	And it is just the most mild form of it brushed up against her and she deleted her account.
	She shut down her own Twitter account.
	So she is absolutely talking from a position of ignorance on this.
	Was there anything you wanted to add to this, by the way?
	Not really, except the fact that she referenced it as being, oh, it's when a member of the community is shamed by members of that community against them, as if it's just inter-community.
	That's never inter-community.
	I mean, the right-wing experience is entirely, except with a few exceptions, let's say, that it's the left trying to cancel members of the right.
	Yeah, I mean, the only notable right-wing person who has been cancelled by the right-wing is Milo Yiannopoulos, when it was at the Reagan Battalion, which strike me again as a kind of leftist skin suit, wearing a conservative mask, decided to dig up his position on his own view on his personal abuse, and then he got cancelled for it.
	Yeah.
	By the Conservatives.
	And there's a reason she views it like that, because most cancel culture she views as just, like, left-on-left violence, whereas...
	No, no, no.
	Most of it seems to be them trying to cancel right-wingers of things that are notable.
	The left-on-left violence is just...
	Well, it used to be, right?
	It used to be, but...
	I imagine that what has really happened is, from the perspective of Lindsay Ellis, she's not going to be watching Fox News, Tucker Carlson.
	She's not going to be following Donald Trump or Stephen Crowder or anything like that.
	Or maybe she followed Trump because she was president.
	But she's not going to be following the right-wing echo chamber.
	And so she doesn't watch as these people literally get their...
	Lives destroyed by cancel culture.
	British Voldemort.
	You know, Alex Jones, Milo, you know, all of these people just taken away.
	And so she doesn't see that.
	What she sees is a big, angry, buzzing mob of left-wingers on Twitter.
	But she sees them when they're coming for her, when they're in her mentions.
	If they're in someone else's right-wingers mentions, and if they're in the mentions of some company, you know, getting that person shut down from that service, and any other service that they can get access to, then she doesn't know about it.
	So to her, it does just look like when a bunch of lefties on Twitter shame you.
	But that's because they're not going after your PayPal, Lindsay.
	They're not taking down your Patreon, Lindsay.
	They're not getting your channel demonetized, Lindsay.
	They're not getting your channel removed from YouTube, Lindsay.
	Your bank account.
	Getting your bank account shut down, Lindsay.
	It's a bit worse than you're letting on, Lindsay.
	You bloody self-centered bint.
	Anyway, let's go for the next clip.
	So to cancel someone wasn't a call to deplatform, it was more just saying, you stepped out of line, so I'm done with you.
	The connotation of this term with callouts and deplatforming didn't happen until a few years ago, as MeToo began and callouts did lead to some powerful people actually losing things.
	According to Washington Post writer Clyde McGrady, as callouts led to greater consequences, some people became nervous about how social media had changed power dynamics in the court of public opinion.
	Cancel culture was the diagnosis, and the term became a catch-all defense for those trying to evade public criticism of any kind.
	But now, cancel is just another word that white people have taken and run into the ground.
	So like woke before it, it has gone from AAVE vernacular to right-wing grievance buzzword.
	Which is more or less where we are today.
	She doesn't care that right-wingers have been suffering in exactly the same way she complains about suffering to a much greater extent.
	It's okay because they're right-wing.
	That's Lindsay Ellis' moral framework.
	It's okay to do this to the right-wing because they are the bad guys.
	She's like a child.
	An absolute child.
	But again, the framing and dismissiveness aside, this...
	Most effective and most dangerous view of cancel culture probably won't happen to Lindsay Ellis because she'll just bend the knee and submit to whatever the left-wing mob is going to demand of her because she agrees with those political positions.
	But let's not rule it out, Lindsay.
	Let's absolutely not rule out that at some point you will be considered so problematic that this will come for you.
	It could be that PayPal will one day say, no, Lindsay Ellis has to go.
	But also, like...
	I noticed that that article she had was from April this year, after the deplatforming of Donald Trump, I believe.
	So literally every other major right-winger who can be cancelled has been cancelled, including the president, and now it's nipping at Lindsay Ellis' heels.
	What did you expect them to do?
	When Donald Trump was deplatformed, about 100,000 other active users on Twitter, not big accounts, just normal users, were also deplatformed.
	So the right wing on Twitter just got completely shunted off, which is why they went to Parler, which is why Parler got cancelled.
	And which is now back on Apple in a very sanitized form.
	They just got shamed by members of their community.
	Exactly.
	And it's like, so it's an enemy community doing this.
	A community that has deep enmity towards the right wing, totally dismissive of them, and they're suffering as human beings.
	Lindsay can't even understand that right wing is human beings at this point.
	And she was just unaware of it because she lives in a bubble of privilege.
	Anyway, so we can actually see.
	We've mapped these out.
	Well, I haven't, but various academics have mapped out these sort of Twitter bubbles.
	And I couldn't find the one for YouTube.
	I can't remember what it was called, and so I couldn't dig it up.
	But this is just one study done by professors at Harvard University that just analyzes the overall structure of the media landscape, which shows the media systems on the left and the right on Twitter operate differently.
	There's an asymmetric polarization of media as is evident in both the open web linking and social media sharing measures.
	Prominent media on the left are well distributed across the center, center left and the left, whereas on the right, prominent media are highly partisan, which means that the left, the far left, dominates the middle ground.
	The far left, the left, the center left, and then the center is all left-wing dominated, and it's only in those exclusively right-wing spaces that right-wing media is prominent.
	Again, conquest, second law in full effect here.
	Anything that's not explicitly anti-leftist becomes leftist over time, which is why The centre is now a left-wing haven, according to these professors.
	And of course, after the mass deplatforming of...
	This was in 2017, this was done.
	But the point is, we can identify these political landscapes, these territories on Twitter, and we can see them move in real time.
	And so, yeah, this is definitely a real phenomenon that's going on.
	It's definitely a left-wing cancel culture mob that is getting their rocks off by attacking people on Twitter.
	And now they're running out of right-wingers.
	And so, Lindsay, how does it feel?
	It's really only now that I can make sense of it that I got so many hate follows after that, that people were so eager to screencap anything and everything I said on Twitter, no matter how minor or petty, to create this narrative of me as a secret horrible person just because I stood up for my friend.
	And I don't regret doing it.
	I would do it again.
	But it is insane that I am paying such a high price for that now.
	And now my other colleagues are being targeted for no other reason than the crime of being friends with me.
	For not publicly denouncing me.
	For not validating their anger.
	Yeah.
	It's called a struggle session, and it's happened to us all.
	When everyone goes, you're a racist, you're a racist, and you sit there going, no, I'm not.
	Look, here are reasons why I'm not.
	They go, no, we don't care.
	You're a racist.
	This is a struggle session.
	This is where you can't win.
	And the fact that, like, you're paying such a high price for this now, when your book gets removed, like Josh Hawley, You know, when you lose all of your financial income, when you lose your platform on YouTube, then you can talk to us about it paying a high price.
	As it is now, you have paid no price.
	In fact, you have just gained.
	You've gained a million and a half views, probably loads of new subscribers, loads of new patrons.
	Oh, she's been under attack.
	There has actually been no price here.
	When you pay a price, you'll know how that feels.
	I mean, we can literally say zero dollars.
	Zero dollars.
	Probably net up dollars.
	Yeah, net positive dollars.
	Yes.
	I just want to play another clip, which is her talking about Donald Trump and the fact that you could never cancel Donald Trump.
	And it's like, Jesus Christ.
	Why are you wasting so much energy on this?
	Because you can't impact people who are actually doing your community harm.
	You can't shame the shameless.
	Trump will never face justice.
	Brett Kavanaugh's on the Supreme Court for life.
	Ben Shapiro gets off on your outrage.
	So you'll shame those who can be shamed.
	And if you call one of us bigoted enough times, people will start to believe it.
	And then you can feel like you solved racism by spreading lies about a person you have never met and never will and was doing you and your community no harm well done.
	Well done, Lindsay.
	Level of self-awareness.
	Well done.
	Arriving at that position that every right-winger has been saying right up until this point where you have now adopted that position.
	That is honestly amazing.
	People lie.
	They lie constantly.
	They lie constantly on Twitter about you in order to hurt your reputation, in order to try and get you removed from the public discourse.
	That's what they've done.
	I mean, if they can't cancel Donald Trump, how exactly is it that they cancel Donald Trump?
	I mean, what are you going to do?
	Tweet at him?
	Why don't you go to his Facebook page?
	Find out what his view on this is.
	Maybe his YouTube channel.
	Contact his bank.
	Who are you going to ask?
	Anyway, let's get to Lindsay coming to the final conclusion of what the problem is.
	Thank you.
	That is just so...
	That is perfect.
	What do we call it?
	We call it the left.
	Yeah.
	I don't know what you call it.
	This is your audience.
	This isn't my audience that's doing this.
	This isn't Callum's audience.
	This isn't Steven Crowder's audience.
	It's your audience that does this.
	You have courted these people.
	The online Twitter left, the woke mob that you're a part of and pander to on every video.
	And I love the framing, though.
	I love the framing.
	Just like, well, I mean, the right will take it and gain power.
	Well, why do you want the beast to have power?
	Because that's how this works at the moment.
	You are feeding the beast.
	You're the one who made it strong.
	And now it's bitten you and you're like, oh god, that bites hard.
	I don't like that very much.
	And everyone's like, you can't talk about how bad the beast bites.
	It's like five guys with their heads bitten off.
	Yeah.
	Well, yeah, exactly.
	I mean, literally, loads of people with their heads bitten off, but I didn't like those people, so I'm not worried about them.
	And in fact, I don't really consider them to be people, so it's better that they're gone.
	But now, what's going on?
	Oh, it's biting me!
	No, you can't talk about how powerfully the beast bites.
	You've got to continue feeding it.
	I love the open admission there.
	We say that cancel culture doesn't exist because otherwise it would harm us.
	Yeah.
	Great, so you've been lying.
	Like, all of those articles, cancer culture is fake, there were conservatives complaining about cancer culture, it's not real.
	Okay, yeah, it's a lie.
	Just open a mission.
	Yeah, we've been lying to you.
	Lindsay Ellis, ContraPoints, Philosophy Tube, all of these left-wingers, big, prominent left-wingers, bunch of liars.
	All of the media outlets, bunch of liars.
	All of the politicians who aren't talking about this, bunch of liars.
	So the people telling the truth are the YouTubers like us, the right-wing media and the right-wing politicians, and Donald Trump.
	But they gain power from it.
	It's like, really?
	That's interesting.
	You gain power from telling the truth.
	That's very interesting.
	Or you can gain power from feeding the beast.
	The thing is, only one of these things is dangerous and comes along to bite you.
	Let's go for the next one.
	It isn't even about saying something tone deaf or insensitive.
	A mere difference in opinion might get you fired from your job if enough people raise a stink about it.
	And just so we're clear, I'm not really even talking about me.
	I will be fine.
	But living under the shadow of the beast makes it hard to just create at all.
	My god.
	Didn't we say the same thing in 2016, 2017, Lindsay?
	We were saying exactly those words.
	Welcome to the far right.
	Yes!
	Don't worry, Lindsay, we're not going to cancel you.
	But this is literally word for word how right-wingers described cancel culture.
	But Lindsay doesn't like this because this apparently is, you know, my right-wing, my power.
	But it's true.
	It's just a true statement of reality.
	You've caused this.
	It's never even been a position of the right, in my opinion.
	It's always been a position of centrists, even center-left and right-wingers.
	It's just you guys categorized everyone as right-wing who possibly said that the beast here was a bad idea.
	While you thought you were holding the lead and the beast was biting your opponents, you liked the beast.
	And now the beast has run out of things to devour and is turning on you.
	You're the closest thing that it can devour.
	Oh, suddenly we've got to call this out and admit this is bad.
	No, you're bad.
	You're a bad person, Lanzielis.
	You did this.
	You played into this.
	You helped gestate this thing.
	You gave birth to it on Twitter, and you are just as implicated in the development of the thing as any of your peers, any of your colleagues, as you say.
	All of the left wing, all of these activists, all of these media outlets, you're all complicit in it.
	You're all guilty of creating this beast.
	I hope it eats every single one of you.
	I'm sick of it.
	Absolutely sick of it.
	It's disgusting.
	And the selfishness as well.
	Oh, this only matters now.
	It's biting me.
	Get fucked.
	The fact that she's just being shamed.
	Yeah.
	That's it.
	Yeah, and it's just what happened.
	They didn't let you tweet.
	When you start losing things, then we can talk.
	Anyway, should we go on to the comments?
	Was this a forbidden argument?
	Yeah, we'll talk about that in a bit.
	Let's go for a few of the comments.
	Okay, let's go for the video comments.
	I am here to once again shill for the abolition of man by C.S. Lewis.
	It's a short read which covers the removal of moral content from language, the reduction of moral understanding by ideologues to mere fragments of the whole, and the potential arrogance and rule by scientists in the future, and he explicitly does not argue from an appeal to the authority of God.
	Given your recent interest in thick concepts, I think you would find the book quite illuminating.
	You know, I've never read The Abolition of Man.
	I don't know what's in it either, but I get told by a lot of people that I should read this.
	I'm very glad that my own investigative research has brought me to a similar concordant position because it suggests to me that there is probably something behind the things that I've been saying and things that I've been saying.
	Looking into.
	I will read The Abolition of Man, but when I'm satisfied that I've come to the conclusion on my own, but I suspect that I'll read through The Abolition of Man and be like, okay, yeah, he was right about all this, but at least I'm right about all this as well.
	But I appreciate the recommendation.
	I will do it.
	We'll do a book club on it at some point, probably.
	But it'll just be me going, yeah, well, I called it, and so did he.
	But it's not my fault he lived a long time before I did, so shut up.
	Go to the next one.
	Yeah.
	Hello again, Lotus Eaters.
	First off, Callum, no my suit isn't made out of wood.
	That stuff is really heavy and not practical.
	I use EVA foam, as I stated before.
	Anyhow, while pictures are of the 489 day build process play in the background, I wanted to ask two questions.
	One, what is your favorite Imperial faction?
	And two, when are you setting up a PO box?
	For no particular reason, of course.
	You can't set us a super power armor.
	Well...
	Hang on a second.
	So...
	Favourite Imperial faction, he said.
	In 40k, I assume he means.
	I'm gonna have to go with the Sisters of Battle at this point because of just reading certain things where I'm just like, nah, kill it with fire.
	The Sisters of Battle of the Imperial seems the best for that kind of job.
	When there's just something so horrible, you're just like, nah, just send in the Sisters of Battle, deal with it.
	I used to collect the Imperial Guard when I was a kid, but I don't know, it's just because I liked big armies and now they're kind of boring because it's just real human beings.
	I don't have a particular favourite Imperial faction.
	I always played Chaos or Tyranids or Orcs or something like that.
	I was good in my daily life, so I wanted to play something evil in a fantasy game.
	There's no point of being good in a fantasy game, or the good guys.
	Do you count the treasonous Imperials as an Imperial faction?
	I guess not.
	Okay.
	Anyway, let's go to the next one.
	Oh, for the P.O. Box.
	Do we have a P.O. Box now?
	We don't have a P.O. Box.
	Okay, so we will at some point.
	At some point.
	So whenever I see those 50-year-old women with no kids, it makes me happy because they're choosing not to propagate their terrible, selfish ideals.
	If I were to have four kids, let's just say, and they have zero kids...
	You know, in order to perpetuate their society, their ideals, they have to indoctrinate my kids, but it's much harder to do if I have a stronger grounding at home.
	They will outnumber this ideology, which means that it'll take, you know, another 20, 30 years for the paradigm to shift back because their ideology is unsustainable.
	See, that is actually a very good counter-argument to what I was saying, and it's totally valid.
	And in fact, I mean, I suppose this is as good a time as any to go through the response to the forbidden argument, because they have, and I knew this was going to happen, and so it's really about the framing that she had presented, as in, I should be celebrated for being a childless old woman, And this something we celebrate is something worthy of emulation.
	And that's the point.
	It's a bad standard set.
	So this is why I call it the forbidden argument, because essentially it's the civilizational argument.
	The argument that you're part of civilization.
	Now, Atara's point, of course, Very well taken.
	She is right that it would be better to have her not propagating these very dangerous left-wing ideals, but it also accepts the framing that the old lady without children has created.
	So I thought I'd go through it.
	I've got a few notes.
	Unfortunately, it's going to be quite dull.
	It's going to be Me making points, but let me know what you think about it in a bit.
	So we did receive a lot of emails about this, and so I wanted to make the argument in a more subtle and nuanced way that I wasn't in the other one.
	But the question fundamentally is about whether the individual owes society at large for something.
	But when we say society, we tend to think of a sort of single snapshot in time, whereas if we think of it in a more sort of longitudinal way, then we're talking about the civilization itself.
	Do we owe British civilization something?
	And I think there is an argument saying yes, we do.
	It's a question of moral rectitude between what is right and wrong.
	And the implication is that people who choose not to have children are committing some kind of sin, some kind of moral infraction.
	And so naturally, many people who don't have children and couldn't have children felt a bit sort of, you know, put out by this, saying, well, hang on, why am I a bad person?
	Because I was deprived of the opportunity of doing this thing.
	And why should I be considered a bad person for that?
	Obviously, I don't think they should.
	But I didn't stake out the ground adequately, so I thought I would do it in a fairly comprehensive way, hopefully here.
	So, it is true that we are born, whether we approve of this or not, and we are raised before we have the capacity to be a self-sustaining person in the world.
	This gives us a kind of debt, a kind of obligation, a kind of understanding that actually you do owe something to other people because other people gave something to you out of a system of obligation.
	Your parents are obliged.
	What are you giving me the look for?
	Depends on whether or not what they gave you is good, I think.
	Well, yeah, okay.
	We're talking in general terms.
	If you can think of an exception, ignore it because we're talking about the rule, right?
	The exceptions do not prove the rule.
	They don't define the rule.
	They are defined by the rule.
	And so if my rule is true and you can think of an exception, then you're saying my rule is correct.
	The thing in my mind is just like, well, there are only certain civilizations, I would say, that are a net positive that you grew up in.
	It doesn't matter, right?
	Because that's just your feeling about the civilization.
	From an abstracted standpoint, whether you agree with the civilization or not, you can agree to this formulation, right?
	So the point is...
	We rely on others.
	They have an obligation to us.
	Parents and adults as well.
	Adults have an obligation.
	If you see a kid wandering around lost in the street, you've got an obligation to help that kid find its parents.
	You know, take them to the police, whatever it is, right?
	You help a child who's lost.
	And you'd have to be a monster to be like, I don't know that kid anything, and walk on.
	What an awful person you would have to be, right?
	And so there is moral obligation on you here.
	Because we enjoyed the grace that brought us to the time and place where we were healthy, functioning adults, and therefore we have an obligation not only to help other people, but to support and endorse the system that has produced us.
	Assuming we think the system is good and we're good people, and that we can do good things.
	But I think that it is a fairly good system that we, at least in Britain, have, and we should acknowledge its virtues.
	So to maintain this system, we must first value it, which is intangible.
	It's just intention-based.
	It doesn't mean we have to do anything.
	We probably don't even have to profess the values on most things.
	We just have to get on with our lives, which is working within, which is the second point, which is working within its boundaries and towards its goals.
	So it's a passive action, not working against the system.
	So as you just go about your daily life, you follow the rules, you obey the law, you know, you help out your neighbor if they don't have some sugar or something, don't have some keto-friendly food, you can give them a, you know, and just be a part of society and not work against society and the civilization itself.
	Now, you can take this further and obviously produce children to continue it, which is a very active action.
	It's something very proactive you're doing to actually promote the civilization, which is one of the reasons why you'll find leftists going, oh, white people shouldn't have children, because they know this.
	They know that if you have children, you'll instill, as Atara said, instill those children with your values, and those values will go on to be replicated in them and their children, and this is how a civilization exists over time and space.
	This is how it continues.
	And if you can't do that because life isn't fair and some people have these options and opportunities denied to them, then there is an alternative course of sort of active, proactive action, which is activism in service and trying to persuade people or becoming a teacher and helping kids to learn or adopting other kids or various other things that you can do if you personally can't be a part of that sort of continuity of civilisation.
	But for any of this to be a moral consideration, it has to be something that you had a choice over.
	Because there's no point shaming someone or praising someone for things they personally couldn't do or couldn't change.
	And so if you never had the choice of becoming a parent, one cannot rightly say that you did something wrong by not becoming a parent, even if the general theme of society is family good.
	Yep.
	Doesn't seem objectionable.
	So if it wasn't an option for you to have children, I mean, it could be that you were just simply unable to find a husband.
	You as a woman may have been in various relationships trying to make them work, so you tried to form a marriageable partner.
	And for some reason, you know, bad luck or bad choices or whatever, this just didn't happen and that's not your fault.
	You know, you did your best.
	And so you shouldn't be judged by that or it might be that you're infertile or there could be any number of reasons.
	But the point is, because it was out of your control, it would be improper to place blame, at least beyond a certain point.
	Especially if you happen to be supportive of this kind of culture as well.
	So I just want to say I apologise to anyone who felt that I was having a go or anything like that.
	I wasn't.
	I just wasn't being very nuanced when I was presenting my forbidden argument because of the way that the woman had presented hers.
	But I do think it is still important to, in the abstract, have sort of a theoretical, generally positive view towards this civilizational perspective and understand that, in general, it might not be for every individual case, especially if it's been denied by...
	I think we're good to go.
	That they've been sold a lie and are being forced to miss out on one particularly fulfilling aspect of life.
	They were told that they could have kids when they were 40.
	Well, maybe not.
	Nature isn't a very forgiving mistress in this way.
	The meme of the woman who froze her eggs, then 10 years later, all of them failed and she's screaming on the floor.
	I feel bad for her, but she was sold a lie that she could defer her fertility, and that wasn't the case.
	So in the context of speaking to the 53-year-old socialite who feels that she owes nothing to anyone, I think that the forbidden argument can be deployed effectively, because she's acting like she's some kind of ethereal being who floats atop of civilization, when in fact she contributes precious little and There's a certain kind of service that is expected generally of everyone,
	and obviously that's deferred if you can't fulfill that service, but there's a general expectation that you should have children, and there is, in my opinion, a moral failing from this elderly lady for failing to do her part, but not just failing to do it, but just openly repudiating it, openly saying, no, I'm better than that.
	I don't have to do that.
	Well, sure, but you are taking without giving.
	And so there is a failure on her part there.
	And the important part here is to note that this is a consequence of the active choice on her part.
	This isn't something that was forced upon her.
	This is something that she chose and glories in.
	It's something she revels in and she's trying to use as an example for other women.
	And I think that's a bad idea.
	So, even if, let's say, let's give her the most charitable position, even if she was like, yeah, no, I'm genuinely happy and fulfilled, being a 53-year-old singleton with no children, okay, maybe you are, but for most women, I don't think that's going to be the case, and I think it would be irresponsible to promote that as a civilizational narrative.
	I hope that explains my forbidden argument, that how, actually, civilisation, you kind of have a debt to it.
	And this is, I think, true.
	Any rebuttals?
	Not really so much a rebuttal.
	I've just got two things I find of interest.
	Like that caveat you had to add of we presume that you like the civilization.
	A thing has to be there.
	Because it's the example of like, well, what if you grew up in a Satanist society and you hate Satanism because it doesn't produce any good outcomes?
	You're like, no, I'm not going to contribute to the society's continuation.
	Fine.
	Yeah, makes perfect sense, right?
	Sure.
	And there's people pointing out that tradition is just peer pressure from your ancestors.
	I mean, sort of true, sure.
	But if you agree with your ancestors that what they produced seems to be good, well, then you probably should uphold it.
	Why would you assume they were bad people?
	Well, if they have produced a tradition that's awful, for example, like burning widows, you'd be like, well, it's not good.
	We shouldn't keep that around, and therefore you wouldn't uphold that part.
	Sure.
	But the point is, it's ours to deal with, and it's our responsibility to deal with it in our own time.
	And it could be, as you say, a tradition that needs to go, but it could also be that the tradition includes a certain reason, or not this particular one, obviously, that burning widows, But like the tradition of being polite to your parents.
	It's about upholding a certain kind of standard because you end up with a certain kind of civilization that has a certain kind of texture and a certain moral gradient.
	And if you want that to be higher, then you've got to try and aspire to those standards.
	You've got to uphold them.
	And this is why, you know, you might say, well, it's the dead lecturing us, maybe, but they probably learned a few things that we stand to learn ourselves.
	So I don't think we should be so arrogant as to think we are beyond it because I don't think we are.
	The only other thing I had in mind was, sure, it might be great if someone with a completely, you know, badass ideology doesn't have kids that they're going to indoctrinate them with.
	I mean, I'm thinking of Islamists, for example, who teach their kids to essentially become terrorists, in my mind.
	But, I mean, at least they don't become professors as well.
	That's the other thing to keep in mind.
	I guess.
	Like, think about all the far-left professors who go in there and they just indoctrinate other people's kids.
	Yep.
	That's also something to keep in mind.
	But apart from that, I've got nothing.
	Yep.
	So...
	There we go.
	So basically, radical left-wing professors and deliberately childless old women, leeches.
	Let's give her the next comment.
	Hi guys.
	If you don't have the courage to stand up in college when you're paying to be there, will you have the courage to stand up at your job when you're getting paid to be there?
	No.
	Second thing, growing up a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, there's a thick concept called the principle of mayhem, and I'm going to share that with you guys over the next few weeks.
	Okay, cool.
	So the point about standing up in college, I don't want to be someone who creates martyrs.
	And so I don't want to say you must do this and suffer the consequences because it's really easy for someone who doesn't stand to lose anything to tell you to lose everything.
	Also, you don't know the circumstances.
	Exactly.
	I have no idea.
	And so I don't want to say, yeah, you have to, under all circumstances, resist this by any means necessary, because I may be ruining people without knowing it, and I'll just go home to my nice happy life, and I won't know the mayhem, the destruction that I've caused by telling people to do something that may not, in the short term at the very least, be very wise.
	Now, The counter argument would be yes, but it is necessary in the civilizational perspective for the fight against social justice.
	Yes, that's true.
	But I think that these opportunities are going to come up more than enough anyway.
	I mean, how many examples of them ruining people do we need?
	We've got loads.
	They did it to the president.
	You're not really so important, but it could be very useful for you on your own individual life.
	To get your degree and maybe become a professor and then you can be part of the woke vanguard, anti-woke vanguard against Marxism in the universities.
	So I don't want to be like, yeah, so instead, actually cause a huge problem, get yourself kicked out, waste all of your money, potentially ruin your future career prospects for a very...
	Immediate emotional payoff.
	I don't want to be the guy who does that.
	It's not to say that, of course, over my YouTube career and us doing this, we, of course, you know, completely honor those people who do.
	Anyone who is brave enough to say, look, I'm actually going to risk it all on this point of principle.
	I will happily call a comrade, or, you know, for whatever reason, because, or whatever it is we're going to call them.
	I don't want to use the term comrade, obviously, but like, I will consider you to have done your service, you know?
	But I don't think I should be the person pressuring people into doing that.
	Because I could be doing way more damage than I'm not.
	More harm than help that I'm doing.
	And I don't want to be the guy who you may end up becoming resentful for, you know, I did this because I'm an idiot.
	Yeah, like Space Marines like a brother.
	Yeah, exactly.
	But I will happily call you one.
	Freakmas has come back into it, huh?
	I didn't want to use that.
	That's the thing.
	All of these good terms have been used.
	Let's call you the boys.
	The old boys.
	Us, us, us, us.
	Sorry.
	We're going to have to get into that.
	It's a podcast just on us.
	Anyway, but the other point that I think is just more poignant, which is the practical point, I think actually comes down to your argument there, which is that it's a cost-benefit analysis for every individual in every interval circumstance.
	There is no way on earth someone living in a different country, a million miles away, can figure out whether or not it's worth the cost-benefit.
	Yeah, I mean, like, return to the civilizational argument that I was making about the woman.
	Like, what I'm saying here is a general principle of, you know, be sensible.
	But if you find...
	It should be something you think about.
	Exactly.
	Whenever you're talking about any kind of abstract principle, what you've done specifically is remove it from any one individual circumstance by removing that information.
	And so extracting this is subtracting necessary information about whether you should make this decision or not.
	And that's you.
	You've got to make the decision.
	I can't make the decision for you.
	And I do think it would be irresponsible for me to say, look, just in every circumstance, do this.
	You know, it's very, very honorable for you to do, but I'm not going to try and pressure you into it.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Hey, guys.
	I brought my friends down here with a message from his culture.
	As a representative of my culture, I would like to present my excuses.
	I'm sorry that your kitchen is as popular as your house.
	If that was our case, I can see how we would feel the need to self-validate thanks to the useless tasks.
	Health, on the other side of the table.
	That was fantastic.
	That was great.
	Very much enjoyed that one.
	Thank you.
	Plus, I mean, we're kind of in an awkward space as well with Macron.
	Yeah, I know.
	Where it's sort of like God save the French every day.
	Yeah, I know.
	Cutting my throat at the same time for treason.
	Literally, we have to pledge allegiance to Macron every time we come into the office.
	It's not because I make us do it.
	It's because the news comes up and we're like, wow, based.
	So, you know, didn't expect it.
	Right.
	We've got some questions.
	T.F. Allspark.
	So Kamala...
	I can't pronounce that.
	Kamala's administration is finally shedding its Biden skin.
	We're not even halfway through his only year.
	He has to be in worse shape than we first thought.
	Which is saying something.
	Not to mention Maxine's public display of hypocrisy 2021 is going to be more interesting than I originally believed.
	Love you all, platonically, of course, of course.
	Dylan says, It's really interesting to me to see how all the politicians seem to not understand this isn't 1988 anymore.
	The internet means we can simply pull up all the BS that they spouted previously to rebut the BS they're spouting now, and they still act like the news media is just the memory hole that they used to without question.
	Yeah, it's very interesting, isn't it?
	I wonder if anyone's...
	There might be a study at some point of political reputational damage and polling and stuff like this.
	But...
	One of the things I find interesting looking back as well, especially, I got this notice when I was looking at Emperor Hirohito, the fact that he very, I don't think he ever spoke to the Japanese people publicly en masse until the surrender, in which his national address about we will bear the unbearable.
	And it's that thing of like the people who are respected, who have that proper power in that way, only speak very rarely.
	And in the 80s and the era before the internet, you very rarely hear from them.
	Whereas these politicians, you hear from them all the time now.
	Yeah, they're on Twitter.
	And it kind of makes them not respectable.
	Yeah.
	Scarcity.
	Scarcity is the thing.
	When it's very rare that a person gives a particular input in something, then their input becomes more valuable because it's rare.
	I mean, if your input every day is death to the West.
	Calm down, Bernie.
	Biden's comments do not reflect the opinion of the White House.
	King's opinions do not reflect the opinion of the court.
	Imperator Augustus Joe Biden at Imperator Caesar Kamala Harris.
	Yes, but that's exactly it.
	It's amazing.
	Honestly, that is just the most incredible thing.
	The president's words do not reflect his administration.
	Then who do they reflect?
	I mean, didn't people vote for Joe Biden overwhelmingly?
	81 million, wasn't it?
	The most popular president ever.
	And yet, for some reason, the administration of the White House don't think that his view is actually appropriate.
	White Hot Peppers.
	Hey, dude.
	Morning, gents.
	I want to know who in the National Guard got shot.
	I have a few friends from AIT from the area and I'm dreading seeing their name pulled across the screen.
	I tried messaging them and they haven't responded.
	If we are given the option to take orders to go, I'm going.
	No people were shot.
	There was a drive-by, but no one was actually hit.
	So the bullets didn't hit anyone.
	My understanding is one of the National Guards got a bunch of glass.
	It hit him.
	I assume it cut him or went in his eye or something, because they did take him to hospital.
	But that's it.
	That's all I have.
	Yeah.
	Two number nine says, what Maxine Waters said is mind-boggling to me.
	It's crazy that I can think of at least three Democrats that are around 80 years old, yet all go on like they're teenagers with zero life experience.
	It's Biden, Pelosi, and Waters.
	Yeah, it's mad, isn't it?
	The Democratic leadership, the senior leadership, is irresponsible.
	Just deeply irresponsible.
	They shouldn't be saying these things.
	They shouldn't be behaving this way, and they know they shouldn't.
	They learned their ideas when they were teenagers, and they've learned nothing else ever since.
	But they know they shouldn't be behaving this way.
	20 years ago, they would never have behaved this way.
	I mean, Maxine Waters would.
	But she's got the privilege of being a black woman, hasn't she?
	But Nancy Pelosi, I doubt, would have done this in the 80s.
	This is too far.
	This is way too far.
	It's open abandonment of civil society.
	It's awful.
	Waters.
	Trump is an insurrectionist.
	Also Waters.
	If we don't get what we want, get more confrontational.
	Yeah, exactly.
	The only thing that would shut them up would be voter records showing George Floyd being Republican.
	God, that would be funny.
	Oh my God, what would they say?
	What would they say if it turned out that George Floyd had a MAGA cap at home?
	I can't make the joke.
	I'm going to make a joke.
	Just football lads chanting, we love you chauvin, Democrat caps.
	Alexander Drake says, I don't know who those people are, and so I'm not aware of it.
	I'm just, I guess, speaking from the ignorant Lindsay Ellis position on this.
	I believe that there is, like I said, there is a right-wing cancel culture.
	It was most obvious with Milo then.
	I'm just not familiar with these people.
	So I guess they're just not as well known.
	But you are right.
	There is a right-wing cancel culture.
	But the thing is, it's the left-wing cancel culture on Twitter that is really kind of metastasized into something that's doing civilizational harm, I think.
	But you are right.
	You are, of course, right.
	Lee says, Lindsay saying cancel culture was appropriated by white people from African people is just the most insane and nonsensical thing I've seen today.
	What the hell goes through these people's heads?
	Also, Lindsay needs to stop having thoughts of her own if she doesn't want to get thrown out by the left.
	Yeah, it's mad, isn't it?
	I love the way that it's racist cultural appropriation of cancel culture.
	It's like, well, can they have it back?
	You know, I don't want, you know, I'm not even going to say I don't want white people cancelling each other.
	That's the total wrong framing.
	But I love the way they had to make it racist as well.
	Oh, yeah, it's been ruined by white people.
	The hell are you talking about, dude?
	It's been ruined by Twitter.
	There's another weird bit in that video where her point is that we live in a white supremacist system, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, and therefore we're all stuck with the stink of racism, you included, whoever you are.
	Like, even if you're a person of colour, transgender, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, you're still a racist.
	Maxine Waters is the cloying stink of racism on her.
	But that's her position, and then she's like, and also, the Circle Firing Squad, where we try and blame everyone and say everyone is bad is bad.
	Yes, that's true.
	Don't get it.
	Thank you.
	There's just no self-awareness in her.
	No, it's mad.
	It's mad.
	I love that it's got to the point now that she is like 2015 Milo Yiannopoulos.
	It's very interesting.
	Very interesting.
	Recovering Socialist says, no, no, the beast has a name.
	The name is socialism.
	The constant fear of saying something.
	That's been the lived experience of all of the people in Eastern Germany for over 40 years.
	Yeah, no, that is true.
	That is true.
	It is the...
	We can just call it socialism.
	The regime that the socialists slash fascists, which I repeat myself, bring in is this reign of terror.
	And like we were doing in the dictator's book, one of the...
	Salient points that Frank DeCotta is making is it creates a society full of liars.
	Everyone has to buy into a lie and then profess the lie, and so everyone is afraid of not adhering to the lie.
	And that's the fear that Lindsay Ellis is talking about.
	That's the beast.
	But I'm glad that they've called it The Beast.
	I love it.
	The Beast sounds great.
	I mean, Shadow of the Beast was a great old Amiga game.
	You probably can't get screenshots of it.
	It looked great, right?
	But it's a classic old game and amazing soundtrack.
	But it's good aesthetic because The Beast is this giant evil thing in the game that you're trying to kill.
	And this is...
	That one.
	That one?
	Yeah.
	What the heck?
	It's a side-scrolling platform.
	Also, did you want to put it on screen?
	Don't worry about it.
	But the point is, The Beast is a great name for it, because it is this dark thing that lives on Twitter, and it comes out of the left.
	I mean, it's interesting how she's explicitly saying, yes, the left are awful throughout this entire video, and you can see her audience massively upvoting it, massively being promoted, and it's like, huh, weird.
	Oh no, giving power to the right.
	It's like, stop.
	What a weird session in which you're just like, yes, we're the problem with America, we're the problem with discourse in the West, and also we're terrible.
	Please subscribe for more of us.
	You can't get the aesthetic out of it unless you're playing it, so don't worry about it.
	We're over time now.
	So go and check out LotusEas.com.
	They have more content going up there today.
	We have loads of good content on there.
	The most recent, it's free.
	The open letter from Dr.
	Ella Hill we mentioned.
	The new premium content.
	The Hunter Biden one, yep.
	You and Josh about Hunter Biden's life.
	A life of degeneracy.
	More importantly, the life of corruption.
	To be honest, what is worse, the degeneracy or the corruption?
	The corruption, because it affects loads of other people, and it's dragging America into the orbit of China.
	It's not just like he's a furry, it's worse than that, though.
	Are you sure?
	But, like, no, the corruption is worse.
	Discussion to have.
	Anyway, apart from that, we will be doing on Friday a Zoom call with all the gold members, so please go and sign up.
	We will see you tomorrow at 1 o'clock.

▲