Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 21, 2021 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:33:59

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #115

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters for the 21st of April 2021.
	I am joined by Carl and today we're going to be talking about the Chauvin trial in which he was found guilty, guilty, guilty on all three charges, manslaughter and homicide charges.
	And the fact that the left's position on this is that justice was not done.
	Yeah, okay.
	I'll take them up on that offer in a minute.
	So, the other point is that the Democratic Party mainstream response has also been amazing, and we're going to get into whether or not Britain, as a concept, should even exist or will continue to exist.
	So, let's get into that.
	But first, I wanted to promote a couple of things on the website.
	So first thing here, Hugo's done an article going into insider pressure groups trying to pressure the Biden administration to clamp down on QAnon conspiracy theories as a threat to the state.
	Their solutions are all censorship because, of course, they are.
	The most extreme being that the Biden administration needs to set up an interagency organization, which will be there to counter disinformation.
	So, I mean, sort of sounding like the disinformation department or the Ministry of Truth, if you will.
	Hmm.
	Look forward to that.
	But give that a read.
	That's premium content.
	So sign up to lotuseaters.com to go and read that.
	We also have an interview with Lawrence Fox going up from Hannah Gell.
	So that'll be up later today after the stream.
	I think...
	Are we doing free or premium on that?
	I'm not sure.
	I have no idea.
	We'll make a decision.
	But anyway, go to lotuseaters.com.
	I can't say their name.
	Go to LotusEast.com and sign up to read the premium content.
	Anyway, without further ado, and before I F up even more, let's get into the Chauvin trial.
	So, Derek Chauvin, we've been covering the trial in and out just to get the details of it, and we had the position of we don't care if he's found guilty or not, as long as justice is done, as long as the process is fair, and he's found on the merits of the case.
	and the problem we saw with the media's perception on this was that they were presenting the prosecution side extremely well you know go the prosecution slamming down evil chauvin but they were not representing the defense's side at all and that's just not fair like the defense has legitimate things to say they have legitimate arguments you should look at both of them and then make a decision you shouldn't just propagandize the public into believing uh one side of the case and so that's why we were covering it come on that sounds quite in antiquated now doesn't it what
	You shouldn't propagandise the public on one side of the issue.
	Yeah.
	Where have you been for the last 10 years?
	I am saying how things should be.
	I'm not saying they're ever being like this ever again, by the looks of it.
	That ship has sailed, my friend.
	So this is just the situation outside where we left off, which was the cities on knife edge, as the BBC report.
	So one of the interesting things is they write in here that the court is being protected by barbed wire, high barriers, and armed soldiers from the National Guard.
	Cities across the country are braced for protests regardless of the verdict.
	You know, because we're expecting justice.
	Brace for protests.
	Yeah, you always need the National Guard to protect yourself from protests, BBC. I love that.
	Like, not even going to put in riots now.
	They're just protests.
	Just peaceful protests.
	So, this didn't go that way, obviously, but the...
	Point here in case you've just joined and you have no idea what the defense's argument is, and I can't blame you because the media has been terrible on this.
	So if we can get the next one up, this is just Jack Posobiec listing the argument for the use of force.
	So the fact that Derek Chauvin's side was arguing that, well, we are trained to use the knee hole as exemplified by our literature, which we are given to learn how to hold people in said position, which is not a bad point.
	And also the fact that George Floyd was on three times the lethal dose of fentanyl with meth in his system.
	And the argument being that he, if not overdosed, at least the drugs contributed to his death and he wouldn't have otherwise died.
	And therefore, it's not my fault.
	And this was evidenced by the fact that he had three times the lethal dose of fentanyl in his system.
	And there were pills with fentanyl in them found in the car that contained his saliva.
	I mean, this wasn't the first time he had overdosed on fentanyl.
	Yeah.
	In fact, on these pills.
	So, they had some very serious points, but nah, nah, guilty.
	Guilty, guilty, guilty.
	So this was...
	Don't forget the fact there was no damage done to George Floyd either.
	So there was no bruising on his neck and so forth.
	So the jury, after listening to two weeks of testimony, witnesses, evidence, all the rest of it, deliberated for apparently ten hours.
	Ten hours.
	Then decided that he was guilty on all three charges unanimously.
	Which...
	I'm not surprised by it, to be honest.
	Because there are some problems with this case that are legitimate criticisms on it.
	The first one, I think, the fact that the jury all came from the state of Minnesota, so they've all got an incentive here that if they don't vote the way certain people want, well, probably their property or people they know or properties in the areas they live will be burnt to the ground.
	So there's that part.
	There was also the part that one of the jurors lived in...
	What was it?
	The city beginning would be where Duante...
	Waitemore?
	Yeah, he was stationed there.
	That was his home.
	And that had experienced riots during the court case from exactly the same folks who would then extend them, of course, if he voted the wrong way.
	And none of them were sequestered for that part of the trial.
	They were only sequestered after the closing arguments.
	So all of the cultural commentary, the continuous riots that went on, the fact that they live in the state...
	These seem like reasonable criticisms of the procedure of the case, which I'm not unsympathetic to.
	Those seem like correct and proper criticisms, which will then be brought up on appeal by the defense's side, because why wouldn't they?
	Not to mention the fact you had Maxine Waters coming down to try and incite violence.
	You had the President of the United States, Joe Biden.
	spark the situation even more.
	You had other senators, Bernie Sanders and whatnot, getting involved.
	After being explicitly told by the judge, "Don't do this," because then Derek Chauvin can apply for appeal and he'll likely get it.
	So that's the state of that.
	I don't know the law about appeals, but it seems to me like there's some reasonable arguments as to why the trial wasn't correct in procedure.
	Anyway, so they got the verdict that they presumably wanted, although I don't think they actually wanted this verdict.
	They wanted to burn everything down.
	So the reaction.
	So the first thing here is the Minneapolis Police Federation released a statement saying, we need the political pandering to stop and the race-baiting of electric officials to stop.
	That's a pretty on-the-nose statement.
	But it is also just to the point.
	Like, okay, we've done this trial.
	You guys have been race-baiting about it.
	Now, end.
	Because you've got the guilty verdict.
	Yeah, but the term race-baiting is usually considered to be a partisan term, right?
	Sure.
	Normally it's one side accusing the other side, the Republicans accusing the Democrats, and now it's just become the official position of the Minneapolis police.
	Police Federation.
	Independent organisation, I believe.
	Yeah, I mean, it's not untrue, so I'm not going to condemn for that.
	But of course, what was the reaction from the race baiters?
	Al Sharpton?
	Nah.
	Nah.
	It's never gonna stop, mate.
	Never gonna stop.
	We can do the next one up.
	So Al Sharpton, the war and the fight is not over.
	Of course it's not.
	And also the response being that this isn't proof that the system is broken.
	So says Black Lives Matter.
	So look at this.
	This isn't proof that the system works.
	It's proof of how broken it is.
	The fact that he got found guilty.
	Because it took us this long, and this much attention, until we have a world where our communities can thrive free from fear, there will be no justice.
	What do you mean he took him so long?
	I kind of agree, actually.
	It's proof that the system is broken.
	If these huge mobs can get a guy essentially lynched in the court.
	That would be a point.
	But the idea that this took so long, and I've seen this from a lot of folks on the left, he was literally arrested the day after, and the court case has been done seemingly as fast as they can, by the looks of it.
	There's been no undue delays or anything like this.
	So it's just obvious nonsense.
	But the point that the jury should be free from fear, and if not, then there are questions about the case.
	That's a true point.
	No, no, I like the way they frame this.
	Until we have a world where our communities can thrive free from fear, there will be no justice.
	Okay, so justice is an absence of fear.
	Okay, well, what can we do?
	I mean, if they're like, well, we don't want any white policemen in our communities, okay.
	Do you think you're going to be free from fear then?
	Probably not.
	I also love how this tweet and all their other tweets now, you can see there, only Blackplies Matter and their followers can reply.
	They just cut off all the public conversation, like the good socialists that they are.
	We don't need to hear your counterpoints.
	But that point there, that this isn't justice, and it's proof that the system is broken, that the guy got found guilty on all three charges.
	I mean, the most extreme version.
	I mean, most legal commentators weren't expecting this.
	They were expecting maybe manslaughter, and then the homicide charges being a bit of a stretch.
	I mean, even the state thought this.
	That's why they dropped one of the charges and then brought it back, because they thought they weren't going to get it.
	So the response I've seen, and it's like the cathedral got an update or something, because everyone's saying the same damn thing.
	So Minnesota Attorney General, if we can get that up...
	Saying the verdict is not justice, but accountability.
	Okay, weird wording.
	It's not justice.
	What's his definition of justice then?
	So the left's definition of justice in all this seems to be that when we have the end of systemic racism, then we have justice.
	But of course, that's a phantom term for finding thetans, which will never be found.
	Or when they can thrive without fear.
	It's like, God, who can live without fear?
	Like, they literally can't exist.
	So yeah, it's not justice, so says the Attorney General of Minnesota, Democrat.
	Okay, fair enough.
	So Bernie Sanders, what does he have to say about it?
	He has the exact same thing to say.
	The verdict is accountability, not justice.
	Then what is justice?
	What's accountability about?
	If accountability isn't a component of justice, why do we care about it?
	Hmm.
	But also just the left lining up here to be like, this trial is not just.
	There is no justice in this trial.
	I mean, based.
	Not what I expected.
	I guess they have the same concerns about the process.
	So then AOC as well.
	Hang on a second.
	Before we go on, if the trial was not about justice, why did they care about it so much?
	You know, suddenly it looks like George Floyd and Derek Chauvin don't matter at all to the left.
	This is just passed on.
	Oh, no, yeah, well, that wasn't justice.
	Moving on to the next victim that we can hold up as a martyr.
	But aren't you pleased about this?
	No, we're not pleased.
	No, it didn't give us a socialist revolution.
	Yeah.
	Why is that of note?
	Which is exactly what Bernie Sanders is talking about, isn't it?
	Yeah, and then AOC as well, doing a little video, which we'll play later, but her saying this is not justice in response to the verdict.
	So she argues in here that justice would have been Floyd going home, but that couldn't have happened.
	He's dead.
	That sounds like necromancy to me.
	I don't know how that's going to work.
	So she says that justice would be the end of systemic racism, again, a term used by exclusively the left to mean something that they can't define.
	There are no laws they can define it to, there are no people they can define it to, except the system, like the thing we live in.
	Undefined.
	So a waste of your time.
	But the point here is justice would be, of course, it can't apply to George Floyd because he's not there.
	It's justice for Derek Chauvin.
	And it might sound like a strange phrase, but it is true.
	Because justice is getting what you deserve.
	And so justice for Derek Chauvin is him getting what he deserves.
	And if he deserves to go to jail for 40 years, that's the thing.
	and if he deserves to not go to jail because he was not the cause of death as his defense was arguing that would be what he deserves and they're not interested in that uh because if they're if they're well they are interested in that by the sounds of it because if they're saying that there's been no justice in the case and the justice would be entirely about whether or not he goes to jail hang on a sec like aoc bernie sanders and the attorney general like there's no justice chauvin walk free Godspeed!
	But again, you have to ask, did Chauvin not get what he deserves?
	And they'll be like, oh, that's accountability.
	I say, okay, well then, justice is something that you can't define.
	Yeah, they don't believe it exists by the sounds of it.
	So if we go to the next one, this is the response I've seen from the law guys I've been quoting because I don't know everything about law in the United States, obviously.
	So he's a use-of-force expert, law of self-defense.
	And he points out here,"...facts and law don't matter when the jury knows anything other than guilty means they and their families face serious threats of physical, social, and economic destruction." Totally true.
	That's one of the things to keep in mind here.
	I mean, the fact that they spent weeks of evidence looking at this and then within 10 hours came to their conclusion shocked a lot of people because it was like, hang on, you didn't look over all the evidence then.
	You had your conclusion before you went in there, which, well, if they're under the amount of threats that they clearly are, well, it brings into question their judgment, doesn't it?
	So the other point about this that I wanted to bring up was that they themselves are not just interpreting this from out of the ether.
	A lot of their personal details have been made public.
	So as the postmillennial shows, everything but their names, they say here, have been exposed to the public by local press.
	So their profession, marital status, race, general age, and some information about immigration and moves that they've done.
	So if you live locally and you can tick off a bunch of boxes, you can probably guess who they were.
	You can probably find those people on Facebook.
	Yeah, if you know those details, you'd be able to find them, which is just doxing.
	Like, that's the local press doing their work there, and I assume the jurors know this, because I'm sure people have sent them the articles with this detail, and be like, hey, did you know that basically everyone knows you're the juror?
	Keep that in mind when you vote.
	And it's not like the guy's house or previous house wasn't attacked as well with the pig's blood.
	Yeah, one of the witnesses.
	Yeah, one of the witnesses.
	Before they were sequestered as well.
	Exactly.
	So you know that there's a huge, angry activist contingent who are actually going to make your life hell if you don't do as they say.
	So it's just easier to throw Chauvin to the wolves and hope they eat someone else.
	So, I mean, that's a perspective from the defense, which seems absolutely true.
	Can't fault them on that.
	The Democrats seem to agree with that as well by saying there's no justice in this case.
	Wasn't expecting that one.
	But also the activists themselves are claiming this is the case, which I also did not expect.
	But okay.
	So if we can get the next one up.
	So this is MSNBC talking about it, saying the verdict was not enough.
	The triple guilty verdict was not enough.
	And then if you scroll down to this guy, he notes that the commenter admits that the guilty verdict was a result of the protests and a wake-up call.
	Hmm.
	Yeah, saying the quiet bit out loud there, aren't you?
	And then we have Antifa taking credit for this verdict.
	How could they take credit for this verdict?
	I thought Antifa weren't an organisation.
	But also just them being like, yeah, we're the responsible for this verdict, not the jurors.
	Well, all you guys do is terrorism.
	So you're literally saying, like, our terrorism caused them to vote this way.
	Which is true.
	I mean, give it to the fence, I guess.
	I don't know what else to say.
	So...
	There's also the point, as previously mentioned, that Joe Biden called the family of George Floyd before they were sequestered to give them support, hoping for a guilty verdict.
	So, eek.
	He apparently has said publicly that he thought he was calling them after they were sequestered, but they weren't.
	And I don't know how the President of the United States could make that mistake, unless he really is as duttering and old as everyone says he is.
	Yeah, how would that even work?
	Yeah.
	He also called them after to congratulate the family on the guilty verdict on all three.
	So something for the defense to also bring up in their appeal.
	And his response from this is also to just give a speech, and one of the quotes from the speech has been widely circulated, was that systemic racism in the United States is a stain on our nation's soul.
	And again, just to bring up, no claims about racism were made in the courtroom.
	Hmm.
	Everyone thinks this case is about race.
	No.
	None of the lawyers involved said anything about this being racism.
	None of the evidence was about racism.
	None of the charges were about racism.
	This is just something that came up out of the ether.
	It's just not true.
	I mean, there's just no evidence to suggest that Chauvin is a racist.
	I mean, the best they've got is he married an Asian, so...
	But this is why the verdict of him being guilty of intentional murder is now being repackaged by the left into Derek Chauvin is guilty of being a racist.
	It's like, okay, but that isn't really true.
	And the thing is, from their own logic, if that's not really true, then the question is, why did Derek Chauvin murder George Floyd?
	And if they don't have an answer for that, is it true that Derek Chauvin murdered George Floyd?
	And it kind of undermines the whole thing.
	So now we have to buy in to the, what I would say, a fiction that Derek Chauvin is a white supremacist murderer.
	And I don't see any reason that we should, I mean, maybe he's a murderer, but I don't see why we should call him a white supremacist.
	And there are actually reasons to think that maybe he wasn't trying to kill George Floyd.
	Maybe it was manslaughter.
	Maybe it was something out of his hands entirely.
	But now we're stuck with the lie.
	We're stuck with the lie.
	Derek Chauvin, I don't give a damn about Derek Chauvin, but we're stuck with a lie that we now have to publicly profess that Derek Chauvin was a white supremacist murderer who murdered a black man.
	I mean, he wasn't charged with a hate crime.
	No one spoke about this in the courtroom, because why would you?
	But it's always the background of, ooh, it must be racism, because he's white and the victim is black.
	There's just absolutely no evidence to suggest it.
	Proves absolutely nothing.
	And it's also the big lie that comes from the activists here.
	I mean, the fact that Black Lives Matter, an explicitly racist organisation, is involved in this sort of thing, on the basis that they believe everything is racist.
	Yeah, they shouldn't have any involvement in this if you're actually looking at the facts, but no one is, apparently.
	Except there's one person in the United States that believed justice was done.
	I mean, we said none of the Democrats, but one Democrat, Nancy Pelosi, saying that justice was done here.
	And she thanks George Floyd for sacrificing his life for that justice.
	We'll get into that.
	We'll get into a bit, but oof.
	Just going to leave that hanging in the air.
	Thank you, George Floyd, for sacrificing your life.
	So says Nancy Pelosi.
	Hmm.
	But, I mean, this is a lady that knows all about justice.
	I mean, one of her own members was out there calling for violence, and in response she made sure that she was censured from her position.
	No, of course she didn't.
	No.
	The vote we talked about in which the GOP was trying to get rid of Maxine Waters' position because she went down there and tried to incite violence, there was a vote in the House, and Pelosi and the Democrats stood with Maxine Waters' promotion of violence.
	They all voted to keep her there.
	Stunning and brave.
	Stunning and brave.
	So what are the lessons learned from this entire escapade?
	Well, I've got a couple of quotes I just wanted to read.
	So I found this quote.
	This is Gary Young, the former editor of The Guardian in 2005.
	You've got to think of The Guardian in 2005.
	So this is left back in the day.
	When all non-violent, democratic means of achieving a just end are unavailable, redundant or exhausted, rioting is justifiable.
	However, rioting should neither be celebrated or fetishised.
	I mean, this was the position of the left in the early 2000s, that once you've run out of democratic means, then you can riot.
	However, you shouldn't fetishise it because this isn't good.
	Rioting in and of itself is a bad thing.
	Yeah, it's something brave.
	But also that first point there, the fact that all democratic means are redundant or exhausted, that never was.
	Derek Chauvin was arrested on day one.
	He had a trial, he was convicted, you got everything you wanted, what the hell can you possibly be complaining about?
	Oh, systemic racism.
	But them trying to be like, yes, our riots did all this.
	We're so glad about our riots.
	It's like, no, you should be ashamed of them no matter what.
	Because what you've done is evil.
	Like, you did not wait for the process to go through.
	He was being charged.
	It wasn't like the state was like...
	You're intimidating the witnesses and the jury.
	You know, they're forcing them.
	That's coercion to give a certain kind of result.
	But on the threat of a massive uprising of, like, radical left-wing racial activists who are going to burn down cities and shoot people.
	But I know if a left-winger is watching this, they'll be like, well, there was no choice, the system's racist, blah, blah, blah.
	No, it wasn't.
	They arrested him on day one and they charged him through the legal process.
	There was no justification for any of this.
	I want to reiterate that point.
	Because the thing we've learned from all this is, if you recognize, like the left here, that there are no moral limits whatsoever, I mean, just use terrorism because it will get the result you want, as they are claiming, then the lesson learned is that violence will get your way.
	And inch by inch, we become less free.
	Yeah.
	That's what we've learned from all this.
	Well, this is the end of civil society.
	If we're going to have to demand that violence is the gold standard by which all of our society is conducted, then it's no surprise that the Minneapolis courthouse would look like a fortress.
	It's no surprise it looked like an occupied city because that's what the breakdown of civil society looks like.
	Men with guns standing around saying, this is the particular way that things are going to happen.
	If you disagree, we'll shoot you.
	But also that if you ever want to get anything done in the United States, the lesson learned from that is that, well, you ought to intimidate the witnesses, you ought to cause violence, you ought to riot, and you'll be celebrated.
	I mean, it's not a good thing to learn.
	Pretty dire precedent.
	And of course, this is just the lesson.
	So the response is, of course, that George Floyd...
	Who is he?
	Didn't really matter.
	Let's just move on to the next hero who didn't do nothing.
	So here's BLM Chicago saying that unfortunately we have evidence that the police will not stop killing despite a trial or a guilty verdict.
	Columbus police murdered a 15-year-old.
	That's amazing.
	The police will not stop killing.
	Yeah, they're just walking through the streets.
	They're literal death squads.
	Yeah.
	Oh, man.
	So they say here that the police, Columbus police murdered a 15-year-old just two hours before the verdict was read in the George Floyd trial.
	Oh, no.
	Okay, yeah.
	Let's get back on Mr.
	Bone's wild ride and carry on, is it?
	So the ambulance chaser activist also, of course, turned up in response to this.
	We can get the next one.
	So this is just...
	You know, people spontaneously going to their streets with all the same riot shield.
	Well, I mean, they made these.
	It probably took ages to make these.
	You only get multiple uses out of them.
	It just takes them five minutes.
	This is a popular uprising that just happened.
	There's nothing else going on here.
	It's not obviously an organised grift.
	And the response is, of course, just a relief.
	The body-worn footage, and immediately we can tell, nah, this is nothing.
	Oh wow, she's holding a knife and stabbing someone.
	So this lady was trying to stab someone to death, and the cop shot her to death for trying to stab someone to death.
	And he's the evil one here.
	So says BLM. What was the guy who got crippled after sexually assaulting a woman?
	What was the...
	Was it Jacob Blake?
	There was one guy, we covered it a little while ago, where he was sexually assaulting some woman in front of her kids.
	That was Jacob Blake, yeah.
	That was Jacob Blake, yeah, and he got shot.
	They tried to make him into a martyr as well.
	It's like, what, this rapist?
	Well, no, because it's not just his past here.
	Like, this is in the action.
	Yeah, but he was in the action.
	That's why the police were called.
	Because he was sexually assaulting a woman.
	No, he was shot holding a knife.
	Yeah, but he was shot because he went to his car to get a knife.
	But that's because he wasn't cooperating.
	But the reason the police were called is because he was in the process of sexually assaulting a woman.
	Sure, that's why the warrant was out for him.
	He wasn't in the action of it.
	He was.
	He was.
	He was not in the action of assaulting her when they turned up.
	I don't believe that's the case.
	I would have to check.
	But I'm sure she was phoning the police because of it.
	Or someone was.
	My understanding, I might be wrong, is she phoned the police because this had happened in the past and then he turned up again and then he had the knife there.
	I'm pretty sure he did it on the day.
	I'll check.
	But the point is, again, another wonderful didn't do nothing martyr who is in the process of doing something terrible.
	But just, we're never going to get off Mr.
	Bone's wild ride, are we?
	Doesn't matter.
	Doesn't matter.
	I mean, these jurors who were, in my opinion, and by the evidence, seem to have reasonable threat against them, which is going to be what's brought up on appeal, and there was no way of stopping that unless you tried to take the jury from, say, Alaska in the middle of nowhere, or something like that.
	Which they could have done, and they didn't.
	They could have sequestered them immediately, they didn't, all the rest of it.
	And again, I don't care.
	I don't care if he's charged with manslaughter and murder and whatnot.
	But it has to be on the basis of the evidence.
	If the procedure is wrong and it is improper, it is right to criticise that procedure.
	And that's just the situation of it.
	Yeah, I mean, let's just extend this to wherever the Black Lives Matter actor is trying to go.
	So you don't want police to be able to take potentially lethal force action and use lethal force against...
	Violent criminals.
	So okay, that's fine.
	Let's assume that's the case.
	What happens from that?
	You end up with communities that are just completely riddled with gangs and violence, where people are being killed all of the time.
	You get people who have the means to flee, will flee, the economy will absolutely collapse, there'll be no money, no opportunities, and it will literally be like Escape from New York, where people will be forced to build a bloody wall around this city and prevent you from leaving.
	Yeah, we can't police you, but we can sure make sure you can't come and do this to our communities.
	That's the end state of Black Lives Matter.
	It's so unbelievably ignorant.
	It's so unbelievably obvious as well.
	Everyone's like, here's more money.
	A lot of the sort of 90s dystopian films really kind of revolve around this premise that...
	Essentially, bad behaviour will not be punished, as it should be punished, and this will keep escalating out of control until you have young people just who are wildly out of control running around burning things down for whatever reasons, and you just have to essentially reassert a different kind of order, and that's the collapse of democracy.
	And I'm not going to lie, it kind of looks like they might have been right.
	Anyway, let's have a look at the bizarro reactions to the conviction of Derek Chauvin, because I find these very, very interesting.
	So this is a very short clip of his girlfriend explaining what happened.
	I loved him with all my heart, and I'd do anything to have him standing next to me again today.
	But I know...
	I know he gave his life so this could happen.
	And I know that he gave his life so that other people's cases can get reopened.
	We can re-examine the cases that were closed.
	We can get justice for people that deserve it.
	Okay, so George Floyd, when he was being killed, apparently, by Derek Chauvin, he was giving his life for justice.
	Like, one gives their life for the country by joining the army.
	Well, think of a Christian martyr, right?
	When the pagans are like, listen, you give up Jesus or we kill you.
	And he's like, no, I don't think I will, actually.
	And they're like, fine, we're going to kill you.
	That was basically what George Floyd was doing.
	So, like, Derek Chauvin was whispering in his ear, give up black rights.
	That's just absurd.
	Give up the fentanyl.
	And as you said with Nancy Pelosi, this was her comment.
	So Nancy Pelosi's comment was actually part of about four and a half minutes worth of her talking, but I couldn't find a good quality audio of the rest of it.
	But the thing is, it wasn't even very interesting.
	But it was kind of airy, right?
	It was kind of detached, and I honestly feel that she doesn't really care about this at all.
	Let's watch the clip.
	So again, thank you, George Floyd, for sacrificing your life for justice, for being there to call out to your mom.
	How heartbreaking was that?
	Call out for your mom.
	I can't read.
	But because of you and because of thousands, millions of people around the world who came out for justice, your name will always be synonymous with justice.
	How embarrassing, after what we learned about George Floyd after the trial.
	I mean, literally Christ.
	He gave his life for our sins.
	But doesn't she look flippant?
	She's like, oh, and wasn't that tragic?
	You know, it's like, who are you trying to persuade?
	We all agree.
	Like, I'm kind of surprised, though.
	Like, Nancy Pelosi is, you know, virtue signaller-in-chief.
	Obviously.
	Like, I half expected to turn up with that, like, scarf they had in the Senate and take a knee while giving the speech.
	But the tone of voice she had kind of implied boredom more than anything else.
	Just like, so we thank you, George Floyd.
	It's like, oh, my God, are we in church?
	Like, you're bored of what you have to say here?
	But this is the thing, though.
	At what point, though?
	Because we've got the full footage, right?
	We know exactly what happened from the moment he left the...
	In fact, while he was in the shop, tweaking, and dancing around, and waving his banana, and then goes outside, gets accosted by the police, gets put into the...
	taken out of his car, gets put into the police car, and then put on the ground for the eight and a half minutes or nine minutes, whatever it was, With Derek Chauvin on him.
	At what point was George Floyd sacrificing himself for justice?
	At what point was this thought in his head?
	I want to know.
	I want to know what Nancy Pelosi thinks.
	Because, like, you know, was it when he was cramming the pills into his mouth so the cop didn't find him?
	He shouted BLM before he did that.
	Exactly.
	And notice it sounds kind of like an ISIS thing.
	So, you know, we thank the martyrs for their sacrifice and their glory in heaven and all this sort of stuff.
	It's like, oh my God, you know, what is wrong with you people?
	Anyway, let's listen to AOC explain why this isn't justice.
	It's not justice.
	And I'll explain to you why it's not justice.
	It's not justice because justice is George Floyd going home tonight to be with his family.
	Justice is Adam Toledo getting tucked in by his mom tonight.
	Justice is when you're pulled over there not being a gun that's part of that interaction because you have a headlight out.
	Justice is your school system not having or being part of a school to prison pipeline.
	Justice is a municipality and a government That does not, because it trickles down, right?
	That does not value military and armaments more than it values healthcare and education and housing.
	Okay, thanks, Bolshevik.
	Justice involves George Floyd going home.
	He can't.
	He's dead.
	Unfortunately, people die.
	This is something that happens.
	You can't undo it.
	Once the past has happened, the past is permanent.
	And setting up a standard that would require us to change the past to fit present moral circumstances is kind of like the ideology of Ingsoc.
	In fact, as espoused by O'Brien, the past isn't real, you see.
	It doesn't exist.
	Show me the past.
	Oh, you can't.
	You can only show me the present, the material present.
	And so whoever controls the present controls the past.
	And so AOC is essentially saying, well, wouldn't it be nice if we could make it so that he was?
	It's like, well, maybe, but we can't.
	Can we?
	Can we?
	You know, you're not going to set up a Ministry of Truth now, are you?
	But I love the way it just expands into her favourite communist talking points.
	Just like, oh, well, you know, government bad.
	I mean, I agree with that, but like, you know, the United States bad, blah, blah, blah, blah.
	But like you said earlier, justice is really a person getting what they deserve.
	And so if Chauvin has been convicted and the evidence suggests that Chauvin killed him...
	Why are you not confident in saying that's what he deserves?
	Then why aren't you...
	Exactly.
	Why can't you say it's what Chauvin deserves and why is it not justice?
	But of course, if that's the case, it kind of implies that the mission is over, doesn't it?
	That's the problem.
	That's why they don't like it.
	Because if the mission is over, if the evil police officer, the white supremacist who murdered the black man because he hates black people, was put behind bars, then it shows that, actually, in America, the white supremacists do go to jail when they murder black people.
	The system works.
	Oh no, wait, what?
	That's our entire platform.
	What, the white supremacy?
	No!
	Exactly.
	You're stripping everything away from them.
	And they have to be like, right, so what you're saying is that we should follow the laws.
	We should do what we're supposed to do.
	Wow, that sounds terrible.
	That's not going to get us a socialist revolution, is it?
	Bolshevism is never going to succeed if we agree that actually...
	Derek Chauvin was justly convicted.
	Anyway, we'll watch Biden's statement.
	This was from a 10-minute clip.
	He obviously waffles about systemic racism and wanting change, so systemic racism has convicted a white supremacist for murdering a black man, according to Joe Biden.
	I also spoke to Gianna, George's young daughter, again.
	When I met her last year, I've said this before, at George's funeral, I told her how brave I thought she was.
	And I sort of knelt down and hold her hand.
	I said, Daddy's looking down on you, he's so proud.
	She said to me then, I'll never forget it, Daddy changed the world.
	And I told her this afternoon, Daddy did change the world.
	Let that be his legacy.
	A legacy of peace, not violence, of justice.
	Peaceful expression of that legacy are inevitable and appropriate, but violent protest is not.
	And there are those who will seek to exploit the raw emotions of the moment, agitators and extremists who have no interest in social justice, who seek to carry out violence, destroy property, fan the flames of hate and division, who do everything in their power to stop this country's march toward racial justice.
	We can't let them succeed.
	This is a time for this country to come together, to unite as Americans.
	There can never be any safe harbor for hate in America.
	Okay, that's a very interesting statement.
	Now's the time for us to unite as Americans.
	By rallying behind the white supremacist system that just convicted Derek Chauvin.
	Not my f***ing ideology.
	Like, I don't think it's white supremacy, but, like, that's literally their position.
	In that statement, he's like, yeah, so we've got systemic racism everywhere.
	This is a big problem.
	Also, the systemic racism has delivered justice for George Floyd.
	Don't know how I'm going to square that.
	But also, don't go out and loot, burn, and murder, even though that's pretty much all you've been doing for the last year, and I've been like, well, they kind of deserve to do it, don't they?
	Because they've been oppressed by the white supremacy that won't convict a police officer for murdering black people unjustly.
	Trump's stormtroopers are trying to stop them.
	Yeah, I mean like look okay, so now you're in a position where you've got to disavow people like this chap Can we play this clip?
	That's what the power of the people is!
	We are powerful!
	We can get change if we want it!
	Let me tell you, the only reason this system, this capitalist system, remains intact is because the Democrats and Republicans are working together to maintain it!
	That's why I'm not an independent, I'm not a Republican, I'm not a Democrat, I'm a goddamn revolutionary!
	Stunning and brave.
	I mean, that's the guys on the streets there.
	Yeah, they're the activists.
	And Andy Ngo tweeted this clip out saying, well, here we go, he's a revolutionary communist, which he obviously is.
	Capitalist, opposing both parties, opposing the system itself, saying he's a revolutionary, obviously a communist, anti-capitalist.
	And people in the comments are just like, well, I didn't hear him say he was a communist.
	It's like, oh, really?
	What other kind of revolutionary do you think he is?
	I didn't hear a single ISIS attacker say, for ISIS, either.
	But they all yelled Allahu Akbar before they blew themselves up or did whatever they did.
	You don't actually need to have them admit what they are to identify what it is that they are.
	This guy's a communist.
	This is a Bolshevik, really.
	And now all the right-wing opposition has been defeated, Biden has had to turn his sights on them.
	Because, hang on a second, if we've convicted Chauvin, all of these angry race warriors are on the streets, racial communists are on the streets, I'm the one responsible if they go and start burning things down.
	Like, I've had them in my group.
	I've been defending them against the evil Trump, but now the evil Trump is gone.
	The right wing has been routed.
	The Democrats control almost all of the United States at this point.
	So, who's responsible when the looting and burning starts happening, Joe?
	It, of course, is you.
	And so this is why he's turned his sights on them.
	And it's like, okay, that's fine.
	This is typical French Revolution stuff.
	When the right wing has been defeated, the revolution begins turning on its own.
	Now it becomes an interesting death spiral until we get the Thermian reaction in a few years.
	But that's not going to be for a while yet, so strap in people because it's not going to change.
	AOC, in fact, has already been feeling the heat from people like Jimmy Dore.
	It's been great.
	There's been a great amount of mutterings on, it's not BreadTube, but like left-wing YouTube, about how AOC has sold out and become a Washington establishment type.
	And it's like, kind of, because she's been thrust into a position where she's like, right, so I'm not in total control and I have to make compromises.
	Hmm, that's a problem because I come from a philosophy that doesn't make compromises and assumes total control or fundamental injustice.
	And so she's between a rock and a hard place, which is fantastic.
	And it's all about to start going downhill.
	There's no way that the left-wing coalition, the defeated Trumpism, quote-unquote, quote-unquote on the defeat, that is, is going to hold together.
	I mean, AOC has previously said, me and Joe Biden shouldn't be in the same party, and you know it.
	So ice picks at dawn is what we're talking about, and I look forward to see what happens.
	I mean, AOC is obviously going to be the one who gets ice picked.
	There's no question about it.
	The machine behind Biden is not going to let AOC take over.
	They're ruthless and they're going to do what they need to do.
	I just wanted to pick up something from that Biden quote as well.
	The intro there in which he's redefining the legacy of Floyd is like, we'll redefine it as something that was peaceful and not as one of violence.
	It's like, yeah, but there was a year of violence.
	I mean, multiple cities burned to the ground, multiple people dead, a lot of people injured.
	I guess all of that will be scrubbed from Google.
	Use DuckDuckGo if you want to find out what happened during the George Floyd riots.
	Oh, boy.
	Because, I mean, literally, this is, again, the Ingsoc position.
	Hang on, we can just change the past.
	It doesn't really exist anywhere, except in records and in our memories, and memories fade eventually, so what we need to do is just change the records, which is why what Silicon Valley does with their search results is actually so pernicious.
	But anyway, this obviously is being parroted by midwit Labour MPs, which I love, and I just thought we'd go through a few, just because it's a laugh.
	British and left have always got to jump in for no reason.
	Yeah, no, no, it's because they're on Twitter, and they see the American left doing something like, oh god, I really want to be a part of that.
	That looks so heroic and noble, and instead it comes over here and looks cringe and embarrassing.
	This is Nadia Witton.
	She's the youngest MP in the UK, apparently, which isn't...
	A badge of pride, but anyway.
	Derek Chauvin's conviction is not justice, it's accountability.
	Okay, what's the difference, Nadia?
	I see you got your NPC programming from left-wing Twitter, and now you need to explain what that means.
	George Floyd is still dead, right?
	Okay, so there's no justice if dead people don't come back to life.
	Is that what you're saying?
	Necromancy is justice.
	Yeah, necromancy is the true form of justice.
	Black lives continue to be lost at the hands of the state in the US and in the UK. Is that true?
	I mean, sure, but is it justified or not?
	No, it's not...
	Is it...
	But in, like, what was it, like, ten people in nine years, or nine people in ten years, something like that, right?
	That's what I mean.
	Like, a black person still might die in the UK, but were they killed by the police in a justified or an unjustified way?
	Even if...
	Even if we agree that every single one of those deaths in police custody was totally unjust, that's nine people in a decade.
	How many black people were stabbed by other black people in London last year?
	It was something like 100, right?
	So let's just take that back.
	Say it's like 40 a year or something like this.
	So you've got 400 dead black people that Nadia Whitton is just ignoring, and then nine dead black people that she's like, oh my god, look at this, this is a terrible oppression.
	It doesn't make sense to try and transpose the situation in America to here, right?
	And even then, I don't even agree with her characterization of the situation in America.
	Was it the Washington Post or the New York Times?
	New York Times did their 2015 murders at the hands of the police, and it was something like 27 unarmed black people, over a thousand different cases of people being killed by the police, and 27 of them were unarmed blacks, so it's like, okay, that's a very small problem as well.
	And even then, like, I went through, because they gave a short description of each event, and I went through, and it's something like, tried to get the gun, or something like that, and it's like, tried to, and it's like, right, okay, so unarmed is technically true, but, you know, wouldn't have been true right a few seconds later, so...
	We'll take, like, the Tamir Rice case, for example.
	So this is one I used to believe.
	I don't know if you remember it.
	Yeah, yeah.
	There's a kid playing with a toy gun.
	A kid playing with an airsoft gun.
	He took the cap off that, you know, shows it's obviously a fake gun.
	And then someone called it in, and so there's a kid walking around with a gunner here pointing at people and all that's going on.
	And the dispatch didn't tell the cop that it might be a BB because they didn't know.
	The caller hadn't told them.
	So he turned up.
	Kid's got a gun.
	Points the gun.
	He's like, right, okay.
	And then kills the kid.
	Yeah.
	It's terrible, but it's not a case of this is something that's even unjust, because it's like, well, it's horrible, but if he didn't know, you can't convict the guy, and that's why he wasn't.
	If I'm remembering the Tamir Wright case correctly, I'm sure there's video footage of the cop pulling up, and he's pulling him like an absolute madman.
	Yeah.
	And you can say, well, he's trying to prevent deaths and things like this.
	It's like, yes, but he doesn't even try to engage with the kid.
	And so I can see the argument.
	This is why he wasn't convicted.
	Because he turned up and he was like, well, he's got a gun.
	I'm trained to do what I do.
	Yeah.
	And that's the case.
	But I'm not saying there's no legitimate complaint on the other side.
	Oh, sure.
	Right.
	And so this is what I'm saying.
	I'm not saying the guy did anything necessarily wrong either.
	But anyway...
	So yeah, justice demands we dismantle the systemic racism which enabled George Floyd's murder.
	I think that actually would also entail us dismantling the systemic racism that convicted Derek Chauvin.
	So Derek Chauvin walks free.
	We defined justice earlier as necromancy, so the necromancers demand we dismantle the systemic racism.
	Okay, so Diane Abbott came out and contradicted this, saying, Right up until minutes before they read out the verdict, I was frightened that the US judicial system would once again say that black lives did not matter.
	Thankfully, justice prevailed.
	So it was justice.
	She's on the Nancy Pelosi camp.
	When the murderer is convicted and goes to jail, that's justice.
	I mean, I agree, don't get me wrong, you know, if that's the case.
	So yeah, I mean, who knows?
	And then David Lammy, real leaders don't deny that structural racism exists when it stares them in the face.
	They act to fix it.
	Our Prime Minister should learn serious lessons from this President.
	Joe Biden has made no structural changes to the United States, like, well, yet, that would affect the Derek Chauvin trial, anyway.
	And what exactly is Boris Johnson supposed to do about a murder case that happens in the United States?
	I mean, literally, what action would David Lammy have Boris Johnson take?
	Real leaders, Prime Minister, should learn.
	Okay, David, what should he do?
	What would you have him do?
	I don't know.
	Convict Derek Chauvin?
	He was convicted.
	Threaten the jury?
	He's not found guilty or bombed Minneapolis.
	But what should Boris Johnson do, David?
	I really want to know.
	And the thing is, it's not because I want to defend Boris Johnson.
	It's just that David Lambert's statements are just so dumb that I, as a fellow Englishman, think, oh, God, he's embarrassing us on the world stage, as usual.
	Idiot.
	But anyway, should we go on to the third segment?
	Because it's going to be a nice, easy, calm one where we don't...
	Should Britain exist?
	Yeah, kind of.
	The question...
	This is an article raised by a chap called Nezrin Malik.
	Now, Nezrin Malik is...
	No, it's a man.
	No, it's a lady.
	Is it?
	Yeah.
	I thought it was a man.
	Okay, now I'm lost and confused.
	Okay, Nezrin Malik.
	I'm sure they can identify as a man, so don't worry about it.
	Yeah, don't be a bit bigger.
	But the point is, Nezrin is a left-wing Muslim Guardian columnist.
	And so what this means is that Nezrin Malik has spent her entire professional career saying Britain is an evil white supremacist place, and we should get rid of it.
	And now she's like, oh, compulsory worship of national symbols is the sure sign of a culture in decline.
	That's correct.
	Because the West is in decline.
	And there's no particular dispute in this, I think.
	I mean, where are Western values not in retreat?
	Where is democracy not in retreat?
	Where is law and order not being undermined?
	Where does the moral force come from from which to push back?
	It seems to have become entirely absent.
	South Korea, maybe?
	Possibly.
	Not the West.
	Yeah, not the West, and that surely is because the alternative is a dictatorial regime.
	Yeah.
	So yeah, I agree that the compulsory worship of national signals is indeed this sign of a weakness of Western culture.
	We have after all been undermined for more than a century by communist subversion, and so now we have the weak and frail further commitment to the icons of the now undermined order.
	It won't change the flow of the forces that have caused this erosion.
	And that's true.
	That's a good point, I think, that Malik's raising.
	And she gives us an example of what's happened in Islam, which I actually think is really interesting.
	The prohibition of the images of the Prophet Muhammad is widely accepted today, but because there are so many historical examples, it shows that this wasn't always the case.
	There is, of course, a pre...
	And she also notes that there's no such instruction in the Quran.
	Obviously, they say don't be idolatrous, but they don't say don't paint a picture of the Prophet Muhammad, because why would they?
	I mean, it's pretty condescending to think that Muslims are so dumb they can't tell the difference between a picture of Prophet Muhammad and God.
	You'd have to be really dumb.
	No, this picture is what organizes the world.
	This picture flew up to heaven to see itself in heaven and then flew back down and is now on my wall.
	I am a true...
	I mean, Muslims are not that stupid.
	We're going to credit them with a bit more brain power than that.
	Which is fair, you know.
	But this is the point, right?
	She says, the pre-Islamic aversion to idol worship was shared by all the monotheistic religions, and this became, this wore away depictions of Mohammed and Islamic art, but this is only a prelude to the modern charge of blasphemy which arrived in the 20th century after the Muslim world had fractured into nation-states.
	This is a very interesting point worth considering because it shows the damage that the Enlightenment has effectively done to Islam.
	Because really, under Islam there should be a united caliphate, right?
	The ideal Muslim view of the world would be all of those people under the caliph who essentially has the kind of role of the pope and the person who makes ideological or religious prescriptions.
	This would be the Islamic fundamentalist position.
	Yeah, and that's why they're trying to set one up.
	Yeah, that's kind of the problem with Islamic fundamentalism is the fundamentals of Islam.
	Yeah, and then there's just, you know, the nature of the thing, and I'm not saying it's good or bad, it's just that's how Islam is.
	And so Malik says, the modern Muslim-majority nation-state is a weak and unwieldy creature.
	From across Africa and South Asia, colonial forces lumped together disparate tribes and languages, drew boundary lines around them, and then abruptly decamped to Europe.
	I love the way they say abruptly decamped, as if we did something wrong by leaving.
	But then she's not wrong.
	How dare you come conquer us again.
	Well, yes.
	But she's not wrong, and it has left these previously tribal areas that were built around sort of private relationships between the head man of various tribes and various kings and warlords and things like that.
	They're left with actually something different, which is a separate structure of a nation state.
	So they've been given a bunch of Western-inspired institutions and said, right, okay, now operate.
	And they're like, well, this isn't how things work.
	And so Islam becomes the common denominator among these tribes because they don't see themselves as a people in the same way that the European nations see themselves as a people that can be politicized into a nation state.
	They weren't nations.
	And that's why you get the problem with Iraq and everyone's like, oh, the Kurds, what are we going to do about the Kurds?
	It's like, I don't know.
	I mean, in the European view, we'd give them a nation state, but you can't do that because you've already given nation states to things that aren't nations.
	And I don't want to get into it, but like...
	The point is, as she says, the ruling elites have fastened onto Islam as a binding agent.
	And so, from this, it was an easy step to pick out some sacred icons, such as the image of the Prophet, and to draw arbitrary theological red lines useful for dispensing with political opponents.
	The story of blasphemy in contemporary Islamism is about doctrine.
	It's about decline and dictatorship.
	And that's true.
	I think that if you have a particularly thin and abstract binding agent, then it isn't very useful.
	Actually, the relationships between the people and the way they see themselves is much more firm, which is why England has been a United Nation for over a thousand years, and I imagine will continue to be a United Nation even if the United Kingdom itself breaks up.
	But anyway, she says, There's a lesson in this tale for all of us.
	The more the society is preoccupied by its symbols, the more insecure it has become.
	And I think that's true.
	uk the conservative government and its court press have seized upon the veneration of national symbols as a consolation for a decade of economic pain and social fracture we used to visit our historic landmarks now we must swear allegiance to them what do you reckon i mean sort of true but i think she's going to give the example of like the the winston churchill statue or something right yeah
	And that's at least false, because I know the example there, that she'll say, well, the police walk around it and defend it from the leftist who turned up and were graffitiing it and attacking it.
	But they would do exactly the same for any other statue.
	Like if the, what is it, Emily Pankhurst or whatever, one of the feminist statues down there, had the same treatment from, I don't know, like a mob of misogynists who go down there and destroy Emily Pankhurst.
	Something like this.
	The police would do exactly the same thing and protect it.
	So, I mean, it's kind of bull to say that this is a huge thing that we're doing with that example, I believe.
	But she's talking more metaphorically, as in, we are forced to find ourselves with a commitment to Winston Churchill as a sort of world historic figure in the mythology of what the United Kingdom itself is or was during the 20th century.
	Because the Titanic struggle with the Nazis was obviously something that shaped the post-war character of the British and changed them.
	Winston Churchill being a core part of that makes Winston Churchill a bit of an icon for British and Britishness.
	Sure.
	And this all comes from the fact that you're sort of losing, well, the nation's faith in just being British has been eroded.
	But a lot of that, I mean, as Peter Hitchens will correctly point out, I think comes from leftist institutions.
	Oh yeah, I'm not going to let the left off the hook here.
	They're the ones who've done all this.
	Yeah, she's like, oh no, it's been attacked so much.
	Yeah, by who?
	It's you.
	Yeah, exactly.
	I'm not suggesting this happened naturally and it was completely just, oh, well, you know, it just happened.
	That's the way things are.
	No, it's been a deliberate attack on the concept of Britain and Britishness.
	And that raises the question then, why are there so many people in Britain who are opposed to Britain and would attack British culture and statues and icons?
	Why do they want to do that?
	And the answer seems to be that it's a sort of radicalized youth who know nothing about the world and history apart from a very tiny sliver of leftist curated history of oppression.
	But even then, that's, like, not the end of the world.
	The question really is, why did we let this happen?
	But anyway, she carries on.
	We are not meant to study and scrutinise a figure such as Winston Churchill.
	He is now an icon who must be protected from blasphemers.
	And in a way, that's true.
	Especially with, like, the boomers.
	Britain statues are now symbols of national anxiety, each one a concrete voodoo doll.
	Which, if pricked, will cause the whole country to bleed.
	They now enjoy the over-the-top police protection with political bodyguards introducing harsher punishments to protect statues from baying mobs.
	This referring to the 10-year sentence you can get for tearing down a statue now.
	And I agree.
	I mean, 10 years is way over the top.
	But why did they feel the need to do this?
	And the reason they felt the need to do this is because they felt weak.
	This is not a position of strength they're operating from.
	But the question is, why do we have baying mobs?
	Because we allowed them to happen.
	Why did we allow them to happen?
	Well, it was our moral weakness that allowed this to happen.
	When the Communists spent all of their time attacking British culture, British values, and British propriety, we should have resisted them on the grounds that they are Communists attacking us.
	Exactly the same with Ian Smith.
	Why are you even giving any countenance to the Communist allegations of racism?
	Why would you care?
	It's coming out of the mouth of a communist.
	It literally cannot be taken as anything other than an attack.
	And Nezrin has written other articles saying, oh, I'm being accused of doing Britain down because I'm constantly saying Britain's crap.
	And I said, yeah, okay, well, that should have been unacceptable then, shouldn't it?
	You know, the people at the Guardian are like, why the hell are we hosting this subversive stuff?
	You know, this person's trying to undermine Britain.
	Why are we doing this?
	Yeah, don't I live here.
	Yeah, don't I live here.
	Exactly.
	I think you're right about the moral part.
	I think there's also a practical part that needs to be mentioned with regards to the situation in the UK. So when the Edward Coulson statue was taken down, the law, I believe, was that you would be charged for the damage done to X statue.
	But the police chief in charge of that area when this was going on gave a statement saying, well, why didn't you intervene?
	And he said, well, because I didn't want to cause a steen.
	It was like, I didn't want to cause a ruckus in which we'd have to defend it.
	And it was like...
	Right, okay.
	So that's a problem of enforcement of the law.
	It's a problem of moral fortitude.
	That's what that problem is.
	Sure.
	The police have got every, every right.
	It is proper for the police to stop a mob from tearing down a statue, no matter what the mob believes, no matter who's the statue of, right?
	There is a democratic process that we can go through.
	You know, you can have a town hall meeting in Bristol.
	You can have a vote in Bristol and say, right, do we want the statue?
	No, we don't want the statue.
	And this is how it should have been done, in a civil way.
	And so the police, with the obligation to protect civil society, have every moral justification they ever need to stop a mob tearing down a statue.
	The police do?
	I'm just making that point with regards to the Home Office.
	No, no, but the reason that connects to the police chief in Bristol, he's like, well, I just didn't want to do it.
	Why?
	You know, why didn't you want to do it?
	You should do it.
	You know, it's the right thing to do is for you to have stopped that mob.
	I don't care if you're sympathetic.
	I don't care if you, you know, you think that Edward Colston deserves it or whatever.
	Who cares?
	You know, what matters is there are standards.
	And the standard is you don't act like a bloody mob tearing things down that you don't like.
	And I agree, and I agree with the standards.
	But the home office, like let's say you're Priti Patel, and you're being told that the police officers on the ground literally just aren't enforcing the law.
	So the only weapon you have is to just bump up the charge for doing such a thing.
	And that's part of the reason I think she went for like 10 years or what the ridiculous law was.
	Absolutely, but Nezrin Malik isn't wrong when she says that this reveals the fundamental weakness of the moral structure of British culture.
	Happens with the police and it has that effect at the Home Office.
	Yeah, exactly.
	If the Bristol's chief of police doesn't have the moral fortitude to be able to enforce the laws and defend the way things should be done in this country, then someone else is just going to roll in and do exactly as they please, which is what we're seeing here.
	You are the police, after all.
	Yeah.
	I don't know how else you're expecting to enforce the rules.
	Yeah, what?
	Exactly.
	Why are you like, well, I didn't want to cause a scene?
	What are you talking about you didn't want to cause a scene?
	Anyway, right?
	It just doesn't make any sense.
	Yeah, it is mind-numbing.
	But the thing is, what it does reveal is a complete moral collapse, right?
	It's like, you know, you cause the scene because these people are attacking the moral framework of this country.
	Yeah.
	Like, if they were attacking one of those police fans with, like, the massive gay flag on it with being offensive is an offence, and they started attacking that, what would you have done?
	Exactly.
	You would have been all over them.
	Oh, no, we're going to cause this scene.
	And that's the point.
	Anyway, she carries on.
	And then, of course, there is the flag.
	The latest icon to be invested with a sanctity that demands it be flown longer and larger.
	The government has decreed after the summit that the flag could fly on all official buildings every day rather than 20 days a year.
	No longer is it just jolly bunting on special occasions.
	This is the end point of a journey that began when Nigel Farage took a small Union flag and placed it in front of him at the European Parliament.
	In all its absurdity, that moment comes closest to representing what the flag came to symbolise today.
	A false but potent claim of liberation from oppressive forces.
	Oh, the irony from the side that claims that that flag is an oppressive force.
	Just saying.
	But I think that Faraj and Boris truly do believe in the values and the people that the flag is meant to represent.
	Whereas, of course, the Islamists and leftists like Malik, Islamo-leftists, in fact, I should just say.
	Well, no, she is an Islamo-leftist.
	Yeah, I just love that Macron's made that a popular term.
	It's based Macron's Islamo-leftism is rearing its head here.
	But these people don't.
	They hate the flag and the civilisation that it represents.
	And this does represent a clash of civilisations.
	Someone from the alien civilisation does not understand what the flag is meant to represent and naturally, therefore, sees nothing sacred in it.
	of moral pride and a point and the the things that it represents a moral force that he can push forward with which is why he puts it on the the European stand and good I would have done the same I mean especially when the European Union in that case was literally saying you can't bring flags because they want to make a European super state yeah so Nigel Farage mean that no I'm British I'll do as I want you You know, that's exactly the proper thing to do.
	But the thing is, if your values are in opposition to the values represented by the British flag, then why wouldn't you tear it down, which is what they were doing at Pimlico Academy?
	Deliberately tearing it down and painting on the walls, there's no black in the Union Jack.
	Like, why wouldn't you tear it down?
	Because you don't respect the moral order that this flag represents.
	It's only natural that the people who then look at you attacking the representation of their moral order would cling to that symbol more firmly and with more pride.
	But again, it does demonstrate the weakness on the part of the old order.
	Your enemies are arounding you and enclosing you and moving in and attacking things that you held dear.
	Why are they wrong to do it?
	That's what the Conservatives need to do.
	Explain why it is wrong to oppose the British moral order.
	And they can't.
	But they have to.
	They have to be able to morally defend themselves.
	They can't just say, well, this is the flag and therefore.
	That's not a persuasive argument.
	And it's disappointing.
	But anyway, she carries on.
	That contrived sense of persecution and affront inspires powerful emotions that can easily turn dissent into treason.
	In a chilling episode last month, a BBC presenter had to apologise for liking tweets mocking the size of a flag in a minister's office.
	And I agree that it is kind of pathetic that that's something we have to care about.
	Like, you know, I wouldn't have forced the BBC presenter to unlike or, you know, apologise for liking a tweet.
	But, look at where we are.
	Why?
	Why was she thinking this way?
	Why was she like, oh God, you've got a British flag behind you.
	And you see her laughing.
	It looked pathetic.
	It looked like it was like, what are you doing?
	I felt like it would be the way I would laugh if I had found myself accidentally in a furry convention.
	And they had a giant furry flag.
	And they're like, yeah, furry rights, furry pride.
	I would be laughing in exactly the same way that she was laughing at the British flag.
	And so it's like, why have we got to this point?
	Why is Britain's public broadcaster staffed with presenters that demean and belittle our national symbols?
	Why is that the case?
	How did this come?
	Like, Malik and her fellow comrades are just not self-aware enough to understand that they are the occupiers of the space of a civilization that is in retreat.
	And it's only through articles like this that we get glimpses of this kind of self-understanding of what they've done.
	We ruined this, is what they're saying.
	I don't really understand your previous point about the fact that you would be in the same situation laughing at it.
	Yeah.
	Why?
	Well, if I was...
	Because I don't believe in anything in it.
	I see it as being antiquated.
	I see it as being embarrassing.
	I see it as being cringe.
	What, having the flag in the government office?
	Yeah, but...
	Yes, in exactly the same way.
	Why?
	Because I don't believe in it.
	Because I don't agree.
	I don't have the same narrative about Britain and the moral structures of Britain that the people who are complaining do.
	And she couldn't even understand...
	I mean, for her, it was a laughable thing...
	To have a British flag or a big British flag there.
	It's like, well, why?
	I mean, I don't see anything laughable about it, but then I believe that the things that Britain stood for were actually good things, whereas she doesn't.
	She views these things in the same way that I view a furry flag, you know, or a My Little Pony convention or something like this.
	She's looking at it with the same kind of derision and kind of, you know, cringe repulsion.
	It's like, oh, God, why would I do that?
	I've spent all this time demonizing and belittling this thing.
	Why would I consider that?
	Oh, God.
	And now I'm being told off, oh, I guess the bronies are mad at me.
	You know, this is how she's thinking about it.
	It's especially weird coming from them, because I remember watching the coverage of Prince Charles' funeral, and they had people from all over the Commonwealth calling into the BBC. And you'd have, like, the head of state, and there was the one from Malta.
	It was, like, the Maltese flag and then the European Union flag, as large as possible.
	And it was just like...
	Yeah, you can't complain about people having flags in government offices when you've got stuff like that.
	But the thing is, this is the way.
	If you had to have a big European flag or something and someone was pointing out, you'd find it cringe and laugh at it too.
	But that's the way that she views it.
	Anyway, we're running out of time, so I'll try and move on a bit.
	The BBC's new Director General hastened to reassure the furious public that his staff are very proud of being British, which they're obviously not, and the union flag flies proudly over the Broadcasting House on most days.
	That's a short step from demanding the sort of prostration to the holiness of national emblems to wielding it to marshal people in line.
	It's true.
	There's no way people believe that...
	People at the BBC are proud to be British or they give a damn about the flag or the country, right?
	And so why are we even discussing this?
	You know, in what way would it be improper for the BBC to fly a British flag?
	The only way it could be improper is if the BBC did not support British values and had adopted a new set of values, which is evidenced by the presenter laughing at the very idea of The flag.
	It just doesn't...
	Go back a hundred years and this would never have been the case.
	Absolutely never been.
	It's unthinkable, right?
	And so it seems that it's essentially an admission of impropriety on the part of Malik and the BBC anchors who are amused by the idea of flying a British flag in the same way that I'd be amused at flying the EU flag.
	It is a relic of a past order to which we have no moral commitment, and that's it fundamentally.
	If you don't have a moral commitment to the previous order, then it's an embarrassment.
	You'd rather get rid of it, which is kind of sad.
	But anyway, I'll...
	I'll skip over the last bit because we're running out of time because it was just me saying, well, who did this to us?
	Well, obviously the leftists.
	I meant Prince, Philip, not Prince Charles.
	I don't know why I said Charles.
	All right, I didn't even catch that.
	Chat's like the carbs are going to your head.
	The chat is not wrong.
	But yeah, so basically, who's done this to us?
	Well, communists.
	Islamo-leftists have done this to us, like you, Nazarene Malik.
	Like, you're usually so proud of it as well, that's what's weird.
	Yeah, and now you've realised that you're actually, oh my god, have we actually done some damage here?
	You've done tremendous damage here.
	Anyway, let's go for the video comments.
	G'day guys, I was wondering if there were any plans to have an area where members of the websites, especially gold members, could talk to each other.
	I'm thinking about starting my own podcast, just covering issues from Australia and New Zealand.
	And I'd like to see if there's anyone else who'd like to get involved, but I also don't want to open it up to just generic internet crazies.
	So I was thinking, seeing if there were any members of the site who'd like to join me, would at least be an efficient way of using your system to at least gatekeep some of the crazies out.
	Any ideas?
	Cheers!
	We haven't got any plans for it, but I'm not...
	Never say never or anything.
	But I mean, if there's another member watching, I suppose...
	He didn't mention a YouTube channel or a way to get in contact with him.
	Yeah.
	I mean, I'm sure he could leave his email address or something as a comment on the podcast.
	Yeah, there you go.
	I love how we're being used as, like, advertising space for...
	Yeah, it works.
	I don't mind, yeah.
	Sure.
	All right, let's go to the next comment.
	This is a nihilistic response to your argument rationale that people have an obligation to society into which they are born.
	I believe you can posit that being born without a choice satisfies any debt that follows from that birth.
	That debt only begins to accrue once you have the capacity to reject the benefits of society.
	I personally do not believe this, but I think it's an argument against what it is.
	He's not wrong that that could be framed as a valid argument, but the thing is, the consequences, the corollary of that argument is that that means that people don't really have any obligation to children.
	That's kind of an evil world, isn't it?
	So if you saw a kid just wandering around the street, you'd be like, pfft, not my problem.
	I didn't catch very well because it's a bit clipping, but it was this argument essentially that you don't, once you're an adult, then you have the decision to say if I have duties.
	Because you didn't get to choose to be born, which obviously you didn't, then this absolves you of the obligation that you accrue after being born and raised in the civilization that provides you with the life that you have.
	I don't think that's true, and he doesn't think that's true either, for various reasons, but I think one of them is because it ends up winding back to no one has any obligation to anyone else.
	But there is a subsequent there, which I made sure we made, which is that, well, you do make that decision about whether or not you like what you were brought up with.
	And if you do, well, then definitely you do have a duty to uphold it for future generations.
	Because, what, you benefit from it and therefore no one else?
	Does it make any sense?
	I mean, I can see the argument, like, because really what we're talking about is, like, familial relationships, right?
	You have an obligation to your parents.
	And I think that generally, you do, but generally most parents aren't abusive, right?
	Most parents aren't I'm just trying to think of a society where they would be.
	Most parents fall within the acceptable boundaries, the moral boundaries of the society, and raise their kids within them to a degree that I think most kids don't resent their parents in the sort of explicit left-wing way that we see now.
	And so...
	I think that you do end up with an obligation to your parents, even if you can say, well, I didn't like my parents, you know, I didn't want to be born, even if you can essentially break all of these bonds, I think there is still something that suggests that maybe you do, even if you don't like them.
	So, for example, if your abusive father goes mad and, like, you know, I don't know, does something terrible and needs help in some way, some tragedy befalls him, It is still proper for you to help.
	No one's going to blame you if you don't, but it is respectable and above board, going beyond what is necessary for you to do that, and that there is something right and proper about you actually doing that.
	And it's a sacrifice on your part.
	Is it right or understandable?
	No, I think it's laudable.
	Because it shows a sort of being above it, being forgiving, a kind of Christian morality, dare I say it, about doing what is right.
	And it is right to take care of your father.
	Even if your father is a terrible person, it is still abstractly a priori.
	It is right to take care of your father.
	And so even in the face of what your father may have done to you, you are still doing something very noble and honorable.
	I suppose afterwards, the thing I've got in my head is like the parents who, they grow their son, their son's an adult now, and he goes and commits, you know, a murder or something, something terrible.
	And then he's served his time and he's got out.
	Like, it wouldn't be right for them to back him up at the point of him being, you know, doing it or anything.
	But once he's served his time, it is right that they get him back on his feet and rehabilitate him into society.
	Yeah.
	Okay, yeah.
	I mean, I think that these are definitional relationships and bonds.
	I don't know if you can get rid of them.
	And it seems very, I don't want to say nihilistic, but I can't think of a better term.
	This is one of the things about objectivism that really turned me off, is the idea that you just have no obligation to your parents at all.
	I don't think that's true.
	They have no obligation to you either.
	Exactly, by that standard.
	Why would they have an obligation to you?
	And it's very self-centered and it breaks all of these bonds that I think are intact even if you're in a bad situation.
	And I say this because I've got a great relationship with my parents.
	My parents are brilliant.
	But I've known lots of people who haven't had great relationships with their parents and who have wanted to get away from them.
	But because of the nature of the human connection between parents and their children, they can't.
	Their parents loom large in their lives.
	They can't just leave them behind.
	They still think about them.
	They still judge themselves by their own parents' standards and these are You know, they've been abusive and things like this, and it's like, okay, you know, whether you want it to be a certain way or not, it definitely is that this has a real hold over those people, and they can't just escape it.
	So I think we have to acknowledge that.
	Yeah.
	Let's go to the next comment.
	So I wanted to tie in the verdict on the Chauvin trial with what you were talking about with bravery against the cathedral the other day.
	If we constantly are telling people to just keep their head still, The left has got to keep winning.
	I know it's going to look like, oh, well, it's easy for me to tell you, hey, challenge your professor, don't keep your mouth shut at work, because, yeah, you won't be personally affected by that, but the people who are listening to that advice may very well be negatively affected by that.
	I get why you don't want to be the one encouraging that, but we need to encourage that, because as we saw there with the jury on the show of Yeah, I don't think that's going to work.
	If you're standing in a line and a guy with the gun at the end says, right, anyone who steps out of line gets thrown into this meat grinder, and then you go, yeah, I'll throw myself into the meat grinder, I don't think you've won.
	That's the problem.
	You need to be the guy with the gun who's deciding who gets thrown into the meat grinder.
	If you're a guy with a gun in the queue, then it might be worth jumping out to shoot at him.
	Sure, but you're not.
	But the point is, you're going through their institutions.
	These are leftist-controlled institutions that believe in social justice and oppose your particular personal philosophy.
	So what are your options?
	Your options are to become a martyr, and maybe you'll do well.
	Maybe you'll be a successful commentator.
	Maybe you'll, you know, like, dank your style.
	It wasn't intentional, but you might end up landing on your feet.
	However, I think that most people probably aren't going to be landing on their feet, and it'll probably be a very difficult period of their life if they stand up and do what's right.
	And that is noble, and it will do something, but I don't think it's going to overthrow the left-wing order.
	And so what did I do other than encourage someone to just leap into the meat grinder?
	And I don't really want to do that because there are other options.
	And unfortunately, these other options are the long game, which is obviously a part of what we're doing here.
	But I think this is actually more likely to bear productive fruit rather than just being like, how many bodies can we fill the wall up with our English dead?
	It's like, well, I'd rather take the crown.
	And to do that, we have to do our own long march.
	We have to be prepared.
	We have to have our own way of being able to frame moral problems that the left can't win on.
	And that's what I'm working on personally.
	And I think that's more responsible.
	I don't agree that's a perfect analogy.
	So the reason I brought up the guy, you know, say you're in the queue with a gun, maybe it's worth jumping out to shoot the guy pushing everyone to a meat grinder, is you get these examples where it could be worth jumping out.
	And that is the case.
	Yeah, but I don't think any of the people in the queue have a gun.
	Well, some do.
	I mean, some people look at that example and decide whether or not it's worth it.
	And the position I think you're more putting is, it's up to you.
	You have to determine whether the cost-benefit is worth it.
	And I think there are examples whether it is worth it.
	There are, but I think that one thing that we've seen is that the cathedral does not show mercy.
	I don't think that anyone who becomes a martyr for our side, metaphorically speaking in their public life, is going to win anything.
	The avenues for that are closed.
	What we have to do is change the nature of what's being discussed.
	I'm not saying cower.
	I'm saying be smart.
	There's no point just throwing your life or your career away.
	I mean, like, for example, if everyone who could potentially become a professor that could challenge Marxist professors later on in their life gets thrown under the bus before they've even graduated, then we end up with zero conservative professors in opposition to the communist professors.
	So what good was that?
	Well, that's my point.
	It's a cost-benefit analysis on every single instance.
	Is this worth it?
	Is it worth waiting until later to do more damage?
	To the fellow's point, I mean, I saw Jordan Peterson tweeting this sort of argument on his Twitter account where someone's saying, oh, what is it, blah, blah, blah.
	And he says, nope, always tell the truth, refuse to tell a lie ever.
	And sure, as a moral principle, that is true.
	But if you're in North Korea and you're in Kim Il-sung Square...
	And they demand that you shout something, you'll be shot in the head.
	I don't know if it's worth it.
	I think as a single individual, maybe you could do more damage later down the line and therefore cost-benefit.
	Yeah.
	I just don't see how essentially sacrificing yourself...
	When there doesn't appear to be any tangible outcome or benefit to it, it's worth it.
	But there can be.
	There can be, and if you're lucky, there would be.
	Yeah, if the cost-benefit is worth it, then it might be worth it.
	But you don't know.
	But again, it's up for them.
	It's not for some stranger to say.
	But it could be that literally nothing happens, or you end up getting other people that you love hurt through no fault of their own.
	It could be...
	This could blow up into a massive George Floyd case or something like that.
	And suddenly, you and the people around you are the center of literally international.
	Millions of people are all focused on this.
	The media is all over your place.
	Activists are busy throwing things through your window.
	You're like, I just wanted to play video games, you know?
	I just wanted to tell the truth.
	And it's like, yeah, okay, but you don't know where these things are going to go.
	And I don't want to be the one who's like, someone sat there going, God, if only I hadn't listened to that guy, then none of this would be happening.
	I think there are better options that don't...
	Lead down that road for people.
	I think that we can do things.
	Because they're not in control of everything.
	We can have things that exist outside of their control, and we will.
	It just takes us time to build them.
	This is why it's like the 20-year plan.
	Unfortunately, this isn't going to happen overnight.
	I know it's frustrating.
	People are like, oh, but I want the climax now.
	It's like, okay, well, then you get thrown into the meat grinder.
	We just do not have the infrastructure to be able to resist left-wing deplatforming attempts.
	We just don't have it.
	I agree with your sentiment and points.
	I think you're not explaining yourself very well that it sounds very much like you're saying it's definitely not worth it, but it is the case that it's a cost-benefit, I think.
	Well, just consider it to be a war.
	Yeah, there are attacks that are worthwhile and there are attacks which is just for done.
	It's literally like the Charge of the Light Brigade.
	You know, it's glorious, but it's not war.
	You know, this is what the French general said when he was watching the Light Brigade just barrelling across the battlefield into the Russian guns.
	It's like, don't get me wrong, that looks amazing.
	Good job.
	But that's not how we win, because look at the casualties you've taken, look at the damage that you've done to your own force, when we should have been more conservative about our positioning, and then moved when we were ready to move.
	And we are nowhere near ready to move, to unseat the left from their position of cultural dominance.
	There's no point saying, well, I'm just going to stand up and put my head above the...
	You get shot, that's it.
	Well, you're sounding very defeatist in all of it there.
	You don't seem to be saying that there's a possibility for standing up.
	Of course there's a possibility, but just not now.
	So, of course, don't take advice on a specific case that they don't know anything about someone in another country, right?
	But take Jordan Peterson, for example, like him standing up on the issue of, I'm not just going to use the pronouns you make me say, because he knows, he took the cost-benefit, he was like, yeah, I can probably win this, I assume.
	Yeah.
	He's a tenured professor.
	It wasn't just, I'm going to gun for it or whatever.
	He thought through his position and he decided, yeah, this is so nonsensical that I think I can come back on the other side and get a victory.
	And therefore he did do what he did and he won that cost-benefit.
	And therefore those kind of instances, yeah, that's worth doing.
	But again, you can't take advice from someone across the world to comment on your specific circumstance they don't know about.
	But that's not even the problem.
	Like, John says, hey, if you consider Brexit and Tory landslides, you actually have the numbers.
	That's not the problem, though.
	The problem is not...
	I mean, A, we can't seem to get anyone productive elected, apart from Kimmy Baden-Ock and Liz Truss, I guess.
	But the problem isn't that, because this isn't going to be about democracy.
	Like, you aren't going to be winning elections when you are getting your career destroyed.
	Nothing about that will be about elections.
	What that will be about is the moral arguments and the moral sentiments of the people around you.
	And those moral sentiments will be, you're a Nazi.
	You deserve to be destroyed.
	And everyone will round around you and go, oh, that guy was a white supremacist.
	Kill him.
	And this happened to Peter Cern and multiple other people.
	And is it worth it?
	Is it not?
	That's the question, surely.
	Yes, in a very practical...
	John, I'm not talking about cowering, right?
	There's...
	If an alien race invaded tomorrow, right, and everyone who stood more than five feet tall was arbitrarily gunned down by the aliens, who's going to be like, yeah, well, what you need to do is stand up straight so the aliens go and you're like, that's stupid.
	No, what you need to do is...
	Yeah, that's not worth it.
	Exactly.
	You have to understand where you are from your power relation between them and whatever else is going on, and then look at the battlefield and go, okay, where can I move without the enemy being able to tag me?
	Yeah, and I think that's the point I'm trying to make, which is, is this move a successful one?
	Is it not really successful?
	Yeah, and it's not successful for you to go, right, I'm going to throw away my potential career as a professor to stand on a point of principle that no one's going to remember and no one's going to care about.
	And that's assuming the left even allow you to be a martyr.
	I think that they, I mean, who has come since Jordan Peterson?
	Like Lindsay Shepard, right?
	Yeah, there's one.
	There's the lady we covered who was being deplatformed by her university for saying, what was it, Royal Britannia?
	I mean, you get people like this.
	I can't name them all off the top of my head, but they do exist.
	But what do they do?
	What's been achieved?
	Well, in that case, she got mass media coverage on the issue and the university cut.
	They backed out.
	Which one is this, sorry?
	The lady we covered who ruled Britannia in the chat, and then the university kicked her out from her position.
	I can't remember her name.
	She was reinstated, was she?
	I believe the university cucked on this and were like, no, no, no, oh wait, no, we don't hate Britain.
	And it was like, yeah, of course, because of the amount of pressure that was brought to bear.
	Sure, and if you're lucky, you'll be in that position.
	But it's very unlikely that you're going to be lucky in that way.
	And so, essentially, I would treat the ground as being hostile and something that you need to infiltrate.
	As in, you have to look at this and be like, right, our weapons of war are not going to be direct confrontation in the way they've been doing previously, because the left wins those.
	You know, they have the munitions...
	To be able to defeat us on that ground.
	So, okay, well, we will do what the left has done and become subversive.
	We've got no other choice.
	We've got no choice.
	So what you need to do is essentially continue.
	Like, in 20 years' time, your conservative beliefs, you may well find yourself with, like, in the same way the left has, is a group of like-minded people who then suddenly hold levers that you can all start pushing, and then suddenly you see the edifice of leftism start toppling over.
	And that's how it has to be done.
	I think we agree.
	It's just, I think your phrasing is very glass half empty.
	Yeah, but I mean, it's very narrow-minded and myopic to think that it must be immediate personal sacrifice.
	That is the only brave and noble thing.
	And we agree on that.
	Like I was saying, Jordan Peterson is...
	This is sort of John's position here.
	It's like, I'm not saying...
	I'm not...
	Okay, but I'm not saying don't do something.
	What I'm saying is make sure that what you do counts.
	Let's go to the next one.
	I wanted to respond to the young lady who sent in the video message about the cat lady you spoke about.
	Yes, technically the right is outbreeding these people.
	They tend to either abort their kids or just never have kids to begin with.
	The problem being, they're in control of the structures of society.
	The term cathedral encompasses everything, way more than just politics, the media, school.
	So sure, maybe you're outbreeding them.
	them you're having kids and they're not but then are you sending your kids to the school where they're teaching to the university where they're teaching and then they go and get a job at some corporation that's going to be pushing all this same nonsense the only way you're going to win is not just outbreeding them you have to homeschool you have to pull your kids out of these institutions that they have total control over see now that he's right in the diagnosis but wrong on the solution because that is just reducing your area of
	If you're not even in the schools, then how could you do anything against what's being taught in the schools?
	Because, I mean, at least if you're a student in the schools and they go, right, social justice, one-on-one, blah, blah, blah, you know, and if you've got a classmate who's standing next to you going, This all seems a bit awful.
	You can be like, ah, but you can look at this video, check this out.
	You know, look at this guy who's explaining things in a different way.
	Right, okay, so you can be subversive.
	But if you're not in the school, you can't do that.
	You know, you have to be there challenging the things.
	I suppose the best example you could give for that is probably the cultural movement on feminism in general.
	Like, I remember when I was at school and early university, it was very, like...
	I remember people being worried about your videos, for example.
	People being like, oh, you watch that guy?
	And now it's just a joke.
	The entire feminist movement is an international joke.
	And I honestly think that the YouTube anti-SJW genre was largely responsible for that.
	All the feminist cringe compilations, all the hour-long deconstruction videos, and all this sort of stuff.
	I think that really had a massive impact in that regard.
	And it's, you know, this is the point.
	You've got to be engaging with these things.
	You can't just, like, pull back.
	But he's completely correct.
	There's no point.
	All you're doing is providing, you know, it's like you're sat at home manufacturing ammunition and then giving it to your enemy to put into their guns, right, when your kids are going to their schools.
	He's absolutely right.
	But we need a way of being able to push back and reconquering these institutions.
	And clearly, the sort of previous moral order isn't sufficient to do that.
	I mean, the enemy's just openly laughing at them.
	They're on the BBC laughing at the British flag.
	Wait, why is everyone angry at us?
	You know, but the time will pass, the anger will subside, people will go back to their lives, and yet that person is Nagamanchetti, or whatever her name is, is still at the BBC. And do we think her opinions have changed on Britain?
	Of course not.
	You know, so she's still there, and she's still in the institution.
	What the hell are we going to do?
	And so it has to be our own long march.
	I do have a white pill on the school's example he gave that you need to homeschool.
	I can't remember the full details, but we were watching a V video yesterday in which he was covering some school where they were teaching anti-racism trading to primary school kids.
	The parents just essentially unionized and went down there and went, right, take this off.
	This is absolute nonsense.
	And I believe the school did.
	So that is one way of fighting back there.
	True, but this is the thing, right?
	The left only has to win one battle, whereas we have to win every battle.
	And we're not winning every battle.
	The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
	Yeah.
	But why aren't they running from us?
	Why are we running from them?
	They're more powerful.
	Why are they more powerful?
	They control more institutions.
	Like, we're not disagreeing at all.
	Yeah, but how did they get to control more institutions?
	Because they took them over.
	How did they take them over?
	Endless ways, but I don't want to get on.
	No, no, but this is important, right?
	Not endless ways.
	There's one way.
	Because they present a moral argument, and the people who they're presenting the moral argument to agree with it.
	Because they don't have the moral fortune to say, no, what you've presented is actually an immoral argument.
	Which is what we think.
	And why have they not done that?
	Because they don't understand why their position is morally justified in the first place.
	Okay, fine.
	Let's say the left has spent a century crafting incredibly good arguments against the established sort of moral order and undermining it, subverting it, changing the way people view these things.
	We need to do that very same thing to the left.
	This doesn't happen overnight.
	This is going to take decades.
	But we have no other choice.
	I mean, turning feminism into a joke word took years.
	Yeah, it took five years, ten years.
	Well, probably about six years.
	And that was with the lowest hanging fruit and the easiest target.
	Like, feminism's just an obviously transparent grift.
	I mean, you'd think wokeism would be, but...
	Well, the racial stuff's very sensitive.
	The racial stuff actually has, like, roots, you know, and it's difficult to undermine it because slavery did happen.
	You know, black people were oppressed in America.
	You know, it's hard to just openly refute that.
	Whereas with feminism, it's like, well, the white women are saying they've been oppressed.
	Shut up.
	You know, it's obviously not true.
	But anyway, let's go on to the next one.
	Part one of The Principle of Mayhem.
	Backstory.
	Adam and Eve have just left the garden.
	They've been told why they do animal sacrifice.
	They have a bunch of their kids become Satanists.
	And then right after that, they have the perfect sons, Cain and Abel.
	And that will lead into Part 2, Why Cain Murders.
	Okay.
	Alright.
	I love how this shows, like, the Daily Wire, Ben Shapiro used to do a section where he would go through books and he would do, like, chapter by chapter the Bible or the Constitution or whatever.
	I like how our comments are turning into that.
	Like, I'll teach you about the Talmud, I'll teach you about the Book of Mormon.
	Sure, I mean...
	Let's go to the next one.
	Greetings, fellow Lotus Eaters.
	I'm wearing a suit today as Carl's wife, I hear, quite likes them.
	This is a 1940s vintage suit.
	I'm wearing some of my cufflinks, etc.
	And I thought I'd be dressed appropriately on...
	I can't show you the whole thing, but unfortunately with the view that I've got, I just wanted to make a comment.
	Those who are worried about whether or not having children is an appropriate thing to do given your current circumstances and are fearful of bad parenting, I have to say that if you are not a bad person, you will not be a bad parent.
	If you think that you are going to be a bad parent, it is probably because you're a bad person.
	That's a judgement of you, I'm sorry to say, and one that you should take to heart.
	Any time is the right time to have a child.
	I have nine of them.
	You can actually see this way, I should say.
	You can see some of them above my head in the photo behind me.
	They all play sport or have played sports at various times.
	And I must say that overall I think that my family is a net contributor as opposed to a net drain on society.
	And I would find it quite offensive to have suggested otherwise.
	I raise my children well.
	Dadism is an appropriate text to be following.
	Specifically I think viewed through the light of the lens of the Bible.
	But, you know, that's just me.
	So I found it interesting how he frames that, because I would say the opposite, actually.
	If you find yourself doubting whether you're going to be a good parent or not, that, to me, is one of the indications that you probably are going to be a good parent, because people who are bad parents don't have that kind of doubt.
	They just don't care.
	Why would they care?
	They're bad people.
	They're selfish.
	They aren't interested in the well-being of their children.
	And if you're questioning, will I do a good enough job, then that means, fundamentally, you are concerned about the well-being of your children.
	So...
	And the Nazis saying, are we the baddies?
	Yeah, exactly.
	So I think that the very nature of people having that kind of self-doubt should actually be a source of reassurance.
	You'll probably be a good parent because you're concerned that you might be a bad parent.
	Bad parents aren't concerned whether they might be bad parents.
	They're not even concerned whether they'll be good parents.
	Let's go for it.
	Hey guys, this month's Gold Tier Chat fast approaching and considering the number of members in last month, we're obviously going to need some sort of system to determine whose turn it is to speak.
	I would suggest a meritocratic patriarchal hierarchy.
	Let's go with beard quality.
	Now, I don't want to say that's self-serving, because you have a magnificent beard, that oil guy, but it's exactly the same as Black Lives Matter, saying that we black people need reparations.
	But he is right, we do need a system.
	I guess we'll have to do like a hand-up, because there's a little hand-up system in there.
	We'll have some standards.
	Yeah, we'll have some standards.
	Okay, well, that's fine.
	The standards will be the hand-up.
	No, the standards will be the traditional British first-come, first-served.
	So the first people in, they get to put their hands up, and there we go.
	There we go.
	Yeah, well done.
	Hey guys, fighting with the left all the time is pretty tiring.
	Maybe we could just try some appeasement to make them a bit happy.
	How about we give them the first black British Prime Minister?
	We could even make it a woman.
	How about Prime Minister Kemi?
	They couldn't complain about that, right?
	There is a part of me that kind of wants to go full appeasement with them, actually.
	Yeah, we were discussing this before we started.
	Out of sheer maliciousness, because they're so obviously ill-equipped to be able to build anything of any practical value...
	If we're like, okay, no, no, we all agree.
	We all agree.
	Here's as much money as you could ever need.
	We'll just keep printing it.
	Just keep filling your pockets with gold.
	Here's access to absolutely everything you can want.
	Remake society.
	Go ahead.
	Let's see what you do.
	And when it's an absolute S show, we can be like, right now, up against the wall.
	You did this.
	There's literally no one else.
	We put you in charge.
	I have a different policy proposal, which is my liberal policy of socialist camps for socialists, where we literally give them, it's not like a small jail or overcrowded, we give them huge strips of land, which is like, go for it.
	Make the commune.
	Let's see what happens.
	And if you want to leave, you have to sign a document giving up your voting rights, because you're a clear moron.
	But that's two policy proposals.
	I don't know, we came up with some ones about what to do with Bradford and whatnot, but we'll save that for another time.
	Let's go for the next comment.
	Okay, one question, one point.
	Question is, have you read the Atrahasis?
	Because it's suspiciously like Noah, I think, or that kind of example of biblical patriarch.
	But also, this will probably be two videos, right?
	But I've noticed that there are, like for the politically For the people who aren't very interested in politics, they seem to know that there's something going on with the left.
	Like, just for people in my everyday life, like family members, friends, just random people you see on social media, stuff like that, they seem to be aware that, like, they'll make jokes about, oh, I identify as an attack helicopter, ha ha ha!
	But...
	They'll then go along with BLM and riots are justified, etc.
	Trump's a big liar all the time.
	Do you have any comment on that?
	It seems like they lack a deeper understanding of it.
	Thanks.
	I actually haven't read the Atrahasis.
	I've read various other Middle Eastern pre-flood documents.
	Stories about the time before the flood.
	But I actually haven't read this one, so I'm going to put that on my list.
	But yeah, there is clearly a feeling that something's wrong with the left, I think, in wider society.
	In fact, I see this myself.
	Neighbours and just my family members.
	Everyone can see there is something wrong with the left.
	I'm not very often running...
	Well, I haven't at all actually run into someone who would go along with anti-PC jokes, you know, haha, I'm an attack helicopter, but then would go along with BLM. I mean, maybe I just have a small group of friends or something.
	Maybe.
	But I think he is right.
	They'll be like, oh yeah, but Black Lives Matter.
	It's like...
	I mean, okay, but what is Black Lives Matter?
	Oh, it's just a statement, is it?
	Then why is it a giant multi-million dollar funded organization?
	It's just a statement.
	Why are these people Marxists?
	And they don't know anything about this, obviously.
	I'd like to think it's just someone who's learning.
	I mean, they've learned some things, obviously, that the self-IT is wrong, and they're then going to go on to learn more.
	But I'm very positive about those things.
	I would hope so, but we can't expect that to be widespread.
	Honestly, I think a lot of the revulsion towards Jeremy Corbyn was kind of couched in this, there is something wrong with the left.
	Jeremy Corbyn represents something that is wrong with the left, and Boris Johnson is clearly not from that ilk.
	Boris Johnson is very obviously British, and he's embarrassingly British at times.
	So I think there's a kind of ethos that's being voted on there.
	But like I said, I don't know what can be done about this offhand.
	Well, I'll put some time into it thinking.
	I love how that's a Tony Blair quote as well.
	There's something deeply wrong with the left.
	Is it?
	Remember from my based Blair compilation.
	That's his introduction.
	Anyway.
	Well, he's right.
	He's a weird guy.
	He's able to identify that there's something deeply wrong with the left, which is just good for him.
	Shame it was a bit late for him.
	Would have been useful when you were in office.
	Did we have a video compilation of Tony Blair, did we?
	I could cut it off.
	I could find it again.
	Yeah, that'd be awesome.
	Anyway, should we go for some comments or are we going to end?
	We haven't got time.
	We haven't got time.
	Okay, so go to logacies.com.
	We have the premium stuff from Hugo.
	We should have the interview with Lawrence Fox up later today.
	Sign up and support us.
	See you soon.

▲