All Episodes
Previous Next
April 23, 2021 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters
01:32:29
The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #117
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Loaded Seeders for the 23rd of April 2021.
I am joined by Carl, and today we'll be talking about Richard Dawkins and his meltdown of the progressives by being able to just say that men are men and women are women.
That's what you get for being a famous biologist.
Yeah, for knowing things.
I mean, I remember he actually did some tweets about race back in the day as well.
He was like, look, it's real, but it doesn't matter.
Yeah, then that's true.
Yeah.
Anyway, we'll get into that one, but we'll get into the woke stuff instead.
So we're also going to go over section 127, because the petition got 10,000.
Thank you very much.
But you guys wanted us to make a video explaining it, so we're going to make a section explaining it, and then that'll be the video.
And also, what was the last thing?
Happy St.
George's Day.
That's what it was.
That's the last thing.
Yeah.
St.
George's Day and the English identity is about to be subverted by the globalists.
Enjoy that.
That'll be nice.
No true Englishman, except Sadiq Khan.
I swear to God, I'm not going to be happy when we get to that segment.
So, a couple of announcements first.
So, the gold-tier Zoom call we'll be doing today at 4pm London time.
So, anyone who has gold-tier membership, come and join us.
We just do a Zoom call, hang out.
We're going to have to do a first-come-first-serve, hands-up situation for questions, though.
Yes.
Getting quite a lot of people.
That's the proper way to do things.
Yeah, it's proper.
Anyway, so that's that.
We also have loads of premium content on lotuses.com, which you should go and sign up for.
You can get the silver tier at £5 a month, so you don't have to just go for...
That's the bronze tier.
Sorry, bronze tier.
You don't have to go for gold to get access to all the premium content.
So some of the stuff here, so Hugo's done a knockdown of a report which was given to the Biden administration to try and...
Oh, very First Amendment.
Some of the suggestions were like, we need to set up an interdepartmental agency, which will focus on disinformation about QAnon.
I was like, oh, Jesus Christ.
So literally an agency for disinformation.
Yeah, interagency organization.
Ministry of Truth.
Go and give a read on the Ministry of Truth because the government's so scared of QAnon.
I mean, that's the thing I don't get over.
Like, it's so a nothing burger.
And yet, like, the Biden administration just, like, pounce about the whole thing.
Bunch of boomers in their basements talking about numerological codes or something.
It's like, right.
Okay.
I can see why you're so worried about this.
Biden's like, they're going to find me out.
What?
Anyway, last thing was just, we're also still hiring for the editor's position.
So go to lotuseaters.com slash careers if you can send an application.
So what is the, I think that's, you get the email there for the contact and then we'll be able to contact people.
Yeah, careersatlotuses.com.
What we're looking for is people who are – someone who can be a video editor, as in make and edit good videos.
If you've done something on YouTube that you can send us, that would be great.
But we are also looking for content creators.
We want people who feel that they would do a good job doing what we're doing.
Because obviously we want to expand and we need bodies to be able to do that, because actually we've had loads of people sign up, so we've got the resources available.
We just need the manpower.
The provisos are that you have to work from the office in Swindon, and you have to use your real name, which are weird provisos, I guess, but there we are.
You have to work from the office in Swindon.
Them's the rules.
Yeah, them's the rules.
That's the proper way of doing things.
Anyway, without further ado, let's get right into the news.
So, tell me about Richard Dawkins and his crimes against political correctness.
You have to stop ripping off.
I just think it's really funny.
It is really funny, but I don't want people to think that that's us.
I don't even dislike him, to be honest.
Anyway, so Richard Dawkins is being cancelled again because he decided to say something sensible.
And he actually hit a really raw nerve in progressive circles here.
And this is probably the Achilles heel of intersectionality and will bring the whole thing down.
So he tweeted out this.
And I don't know why, by the way.
I have no idea why Richard Dawkins, in the current year, was just sat there with his cup of tea and was like, you know what I'm going to do?
I'm going to tweet about transgenderism.
How could this go wrong?
I liked Richard Dawkins.
I'm a fan of Richard Dawkins.
I was a fan of the New Atheists back in the day.
And so I have absolutely no ill will.
And he has, in ways, stood up to the progressives.
So I do respect the man.
So I find this a bizarre thing for him to just randomly tweet out one morning.
He says, I like the way he used the capital B black there.
That's proper, that's correct, from progressive viewpoints.
Political black.
Some men choose to identify as women, and some women choose to identify as men.
You will be vilified if you deny that they literally are what they identify as.
Discuss.
And this went about as well as you might have expected.
And so he had to follow this up with a reply tweet saying, Ah yes.
Virtue signaling against Republican bigots will definitely get you uncancelled, Doctor.
But what Dawkins has hit upon here is something called the Hypatia controversy.
Now, Hypatia is an academic feminist journal.
And this was an article that was published by Rebecca Tuvel, who wrote an article called In Defense of Transracialism.
Now, you can imagine how this is all going, because the thrust of it is to make the argument that, hang on, if we're saying that someone can take an immutable biological category, like sex, and decide, through force of will, to say, actually, I'm going to adopt the gender expression of the opposite biological category, then what exactly prevents someone from doing this with race?
And the answer is nothing.
The answer is this is exactly correct.
You are using precisely the same logic with precisely the same premises and there's no particular reason that a white person therefore cannot identify as a black person.
If a woman can identify as a man, if a man can identify as a woman, and if various other forms of identity can exist.
And so the main thing here is, she says, since we should accept transgender individuals to change sexes, decisions to change sexes, we should also accept transracial individuals' decisions to change races.
If you agree with progressive logic, then the should there, I suppose, is correct.
And therefore, the answer is, yeah, you kind of have to.
Which really undermines a lot about progressiveness.
And it caused an absolute meltdown at the time, because I don't think they were really expecting anyone to make this logical connection, which is weird.
But the thing is, the argument against it from the left, from the intersectionals who are trying to prevent this from being an accepted argument is, well, if you didn't grow up with black people's lives and experiences, and you can just return to being white, you're not black and I don't like it, right?
And that is identical to the TERF argument about men transitioning to become women.
And of course, as anyone who follows any of this will know, the TERFs, the trans-exclusionary radical feminists, or just feminists, traditional gender-critical feminists, as we would call them, have been totally anathematized by the intersectional left.
These are bigots on par with Hitler and must be treated as such, and have been de-platformed in many ways from many different places, and are just treated like absolute dirt, even though, I mean, are they wrong?
I mean, they're class traitors for siding with biology.
Yeah.
And biology is counter-revolutionary.
And so this is the Achilles heel of intersectionality.
So the solution that the intersectionists have is just not talk about it.
You deny the argument can even be raised.
And this is why the humanists have reacted as they did.
Because Richard Dawkins is saying, well, what's stopping it?
And they're like, oh, that's it, cancelled.
From Wikipedia, write an article about this controversy.
Tuvel and the article came under attack on Facebook and Twitter, and she was called a transphobic, racist, crazy, stupid, and she was accused of having engaged in, quote, epistemic violence.
That's an amazing term.
Epistemology is how we know things.
It's how we gain our knowledge.
How could that possibly be considered to be a form of violence?
Because it's heresy.
Exactly, that's it.
That's the only way.
You gained knowledge in a violent way.
By what?
Following a pattern of logic we already use.
So that pattern of logic must already then be violent.
So transgenderism is violence against the TERFs?
Or the TERFs are violence against, like, the trans people?
I mean, this is why speech is violence.
This is why speech is violence.
Several feminists referred to her as a Becky, which is a slur for white women, so racist.
And the article was called Violent Crap and Whack S.
Basically, there was a massive meltdown.
They absolutely lost it.
And so Richard Dawkins, blundering into this, has found himself on the negative side of the American Humanist Association.
And their board has decided to retract the humanist award he was given in 1996.
So 25 years ago, Richard Dawkins was awarded Humanist of the Year for promoting scientific discourse and humanist values.
And they turned around 25 years later and were like, what?
You think that white women can become black women?
You're out.
Okay?
Lunatics.
What happens to all your board members or anyone who was a humanist before then as well?
Because they've all believed the same thing.
Yeah, they gave Richard Dawkins the award.
They must all be bad people too.
Weird, it only stops there.
Anyway, they say, regrettably, Dawkins has, over the past several years, accumulated a history of making statements that use the guise of scientific discourse to demean marginalised groups and approach antithetical to humanist values.
With a link, and we'll go into that in a second.
His latest statement also implies that the identities of transgender individuals are fraudulent, while also simultaneously attacking black identity as one that can be assumed when convenient.
What are you saying there, right?
Okay, so if Richard Dawkins is saying, well, hang on, if we can apply transgender ideology from women to men or men to women, then that logic can be applied to black to white and white to black, and that is an attack on transgenderism and the black identity.
So, okay, but don't you see that you are the ones who have completely set the ground to destroy both of these things?
But Dawkins is the bad guy because he damn mentioned it.
You're not allowed to talk about this.
His subsequent attempts at clarification are inadequate and convey neither sensitivity nor sincerity.
Apparently Dawkins was right.
You will be vilified.
He was like, you'll be vilified for this?
Yes, you will.
And the funny thing about this is when they tweeted this out, all the replies were, you're engaging in a moral panic.
Yes, they are.
They're engaging in a moral panic because there is no logical resolution to this that doesn't also destroy black activism in the same way that, like, women's rights activism has been destroyed.
They are absolutely terrified of the implication of this.
But I found it interesting how they link to the humanist values.
And if we can go to the next one, John, it's like the Ten Commandments of Humanism.
And they call them the Ten Commitments.
It's like, hmm, that's very, very secular.
These are altruism, critical thinking, empathy, environmentalism, ethical development, global awareness, humility, peace, and social justice, responsibility, service, and participation.
Thanks, I hate it.
Right?
I hate it.
So, it sounds good on the surface, doesn't it?
They all sound good.
But like, peace, well, yeah, peace and social justice...
But what if I'm not in favour of, like, pacifism?
Because that's essentially what they're saying.
And social justice, obviously.
We're against justice, the humanists.
Yeah.
We're for social justice.
I will help people solve problems and handle disagreements in ways that are fair to everyone.
Sometimes what's fair is that the criminal gets his just punishment.
Sometimes it's fair that someone gets hanged, right?
Black lady stabbing another black girl gets shot.
It was fair that she got shot.
Exactly.
But is that social justice?
Well, I guess not.
From a left-wing perspective, of course not.
Exactly.
Because she's black and the cop's white.
That's it.
Exactly.
But the thing is, point two was critical thinking, and this is really hilarious that the humanists would apply appeal to their own Ten Commandments, because they are actively denying critical thinking, because that's what Richard Dawkins was doing.
He was saying, well, hang on a second, why doesn't this apply to this if it also applies to that?
And they're like...
Discuss.
Discuss, and they're like, stop thinking.
How dare you?
This is a piece of sacred text that you cannot question.
Say the American Human Society.
Absolutely amazing, right?
And then we get a statement from the Vice President of the American Atheists, who also says, you know, oh, we need science communicators like Richard Dawkins to put in the time to learn this information and then communicate it accurately and clearly to the public, not reinforce dangerous and harmful narratives.
What are you talking about?
He was just like, I want some logical consistency in the propositions I'm being presented with, and you're not showing any of it, and what are you saying in response?
Don't question this.
He didn't even make a proper assertion.
He was like, hey, what do you think of this?
It was a discuss.
Trans people are, of course, attacked across the country.
A record number of fatal attacks against trans and gender non-conforming people, the majority of whom were black and latina trans women, those most at risk.
Attacked by who?
Moving on.
And they finish with, given the repercussions for the millions of trans people across this country, in this one life that we have to live as an atheist and a trans woman, I hope that Professor Dawkins treats this issue with greater understanding and respect in future.
Thank you for that input, obviously sane person.
The only good response...
Well, actually, there were a lot of good responses to this, so I have to give the non-woke atheists their due credit here, because they deserve it, because there was a general and very quite broad response and rejection of the American Humanists Association.
The first one, though, is a group that I'd like to promote, which is Atheists for Liberty.
Which is how I'd describe myself if I had to put that kind of label on it.
Where do you fall?
Well, I'm an atheist and I want liberty.
End of story.
And I have to say, their position was exactly the same as mine, really.
Dawkins' tweets were not bigotry against those who identify as transgender, nor anyone in any particular racial group.
From the perspective of an open-minded individual such as Dawkins, he was merely questioning these topics from a rational, scientific perspective.
Just from a perspective that demands logical consistency, which you would think would be the scientific, rational, atheist view.
Atheists for Liberty stands in support of Richard Dawkins and the many millions of atheists who share his perspective, which I'm sure they do.
In the years leading up to the division within the atheist community and the resulting loss of influence for atheism, and I think that's true, Dawkins was attacked by woke extremists and movement infiltrators.
These attacks, once launched by mere bloggers, turned into condemnations and negative actions by large organizations.
The latest attack is from the American Humanist Association Board of Directors with their decision in 2021 to withdraw the 1996 Humanist of the Year award given to Dawkins.
Additional tax was recently published against Dawkins by other organizations, going down a path that will only lead to the continued decline of the movement of atheism.
And they're right.
They're absolutely right.
The atheist movement was very, very powerful 20 years ago.
10, 20 years ago.
Very powerful.
Now it's nowhere.
It's nothing, and no one cares about it.
Why?
Because it was ruined by social justice activists who are bringing in a particular ethical view of the world that leads to us saying you're not allowed to think.
How dare you question this thing?
But more than that, though, why did atheism collapse into social justice?
It's a very long answer to this question that I'm not going to answer here.
But to summarize it, it's the purely materialistic view of atheism that has of the individual that was used to eject God, the supernatural, has also been used to eject the metaphysical conception of the individual.
And there is a metaphysical conception of the individual.
This is where the atheists went wrong.
But this is why the left can rush in with its purely materialistic Marxist garbage and go, yeah, let me tell you about black bodies.
No, tell me about black people.
I mean, the very term people, a person, is more than merely the material atoms of the thing.
And this is the problem.
And maybe they couldn't avoid it, but maybe it's something that's untenable and will demand that atheism continues to collapse into social justice unless an alternative secular view of what it is to be a human is presented.
But again, I won't go into it here.
Let's go to some of the reactions.
So, you've got most of the sort of new atheist reactions were along the line of Steven Pinkert's.
As you can see here, he's got a page-long letter.
Very sensible.
Very well thought out.
I could co-sign absolutely every statement here.
It's, you know, points out that Margaret Sanger is a eugenicist.
She has a humanist award.
Alice Walker, a notorious anti-Semite, still has a humanist award.
Richard Dawkins!
Could we finish this line of logic, please?
Whee!
There goes your humanist award, because we're for critical thinking, right?
But the best one, without a doubt, was Sam Harris, who is becoming my favourite remaining new atheist.
Bold move for a struggling organisation.
When everyone has forgotten you exist, why not remind them by committing suicide?
That is Trumpian in its eloquence.
Failing American Humanist Association!
That's basically what he said.
It's so good.
That's such a backhander.
And then you've got people like Toby Young, who I suppose is an atheist himself, presumably, who's also a free speech activist and member of the Free Speech Union.
Director of the Free Speech Union.
Sorry, director.
And obviously, if people disprove of what Dawkins had to say, why not debate him?
And the answer is, of course, because that would destroy all of social justice.
And they can't have that because suddenly it would be acceptable for me to identify as black.
And so if I wore blackface, they couldn't accuse me of being a white man.
It would be great.
It's never going to happen.
But yeah, again, props to Sam Harris for the absolute best response to this.
Failing humanist association.
Love it.
Why not kill yourself?
Literally K-Y-S response.
Remind everyone you exist by committing suicide.
So good.
I love it.
But anyway, that's what's happening with Richard Dawkins, why he's in trouble, and why the woke mob are going at him so hard.
They have no choice but to go in this hard, and they can't think about what it is that he said.
I think that's amazing.
Literally just discuss as well.
We're a discusser!
Flip the table!
That's enough.
Get rid of him.
No discussion here.
Critical thinking is for other people.
God, why have a Ten Commandments?
Ten Commandments of atheism.
I don't know much about humanism or humanist groups, but I've always seen it as a bit of a cope.
Like, it's a cope for atheists who still want something religious in their lives.
It's like, why can't you just be an atheist?
Yeah.
Why do you have to do all this other stuff?
I kind of agree.
It's like the LGBTs versus the gays.
Like, they're gay people and they're LGBT people.
One of my favorite thinkers on my friends on Facebook is a chap called Gary Edwards, and he calls himself an English philosopher, and he's like, I'm not a humanist, I'm a naturalist.
And that feels more, like, real, you know, to say, well, I just believe in the natural world, and that we're part of it, and that That's how we should see ourselves, rather than trying to create some sort of abstract category of humanist and then ascribe things to that.
Because you end up with the Ten Commandments.
Again, that's a very continental way.
You're projecting downwards.
You must believe these Ten Commandments.
But the naturalist way is extrapolate from the bottom upwards.
I told you before we started as well, North Korea has a Ten Commandments.
Yes.
And ironically, it's like the ten, what is it, monolithic steps of monolithic thought, something like that.
Yeah.
Like, really disgustingly sounding statement.
Just mask off.
I love it.
Just they have a Ten Commandments.
It's just like, okay, yeah.
Yeah, I don't think an atheist or humanist organization should have a Ten Commandments, just saying.
They've got the humanist prayer as well.
Anyway, let's get into section 127.
So, the petition for section 127 to get rid of it has finally got over 10,000 signatures.
Thank you, everyone, for signing.
That means we will get a government response.
They will have to respond and give the government's position on abolishing section 127.
And the reason I think everyone watching this should go and sign that and share that right now, I'm going to give the argument for, so please stick around.
So, first thing, for people who don't know what this is, Section 127 is a law that criminalises being offensive, so you can go to the government website.
Section 127, a person is guilty of an offence if he, A, sends by the means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive, or of an indecent, obscene, or menacing character, or causes such a message to be sent, with a maximum sentence of two years' imprisonment and or an unlimited fine.
For sending a message which is grossly offensive.
Or causing such a message to be sent.
Yeah.
I hate it.
And you'll notice that this is not about calls for violence, because laws for that sort of thing already exist.
I mean, harassment law already exists for harassment.
Milicious Communications Act covers things of the nature in which you're calling for violence and so forth.
There are laws for that.
This is the only place where grossly offensive is used as well, isn't it?
It's not the only piece of legislation that's ever used that term, but this is the only law like this that exists for British law for speech.
So that's my understanding.
So there is no equal for offline speech.
It is only illegal if you're grossly offensive online, not offline.
And the reason for that is because no one is going to propose that for offline speech because they know they'll be slaughtered.
Hamza Yusuf did.
Yeah, he did.
And he got it passed.
God, never mind.
The Scots are lost.
No one outside of Scotland is going to do that.
Better not.
Looking forward to the Welsh Assembly proving me wrong.
Yeah, also because it's pretty unenforceable, unless you want to bring in a literal socialist state to watch everyone's speech.
Well, I think that they might, actually.
I don't think they're against the idea.
Yeah, so on the other points being like, what is grossly offensive?
Because it's all up to the interpretation of the judge or jury you get, whether or not what you've done is grossly offensive, because there's no way of defining it.
So we can get this first image up.
I mean, imagine if this guy's your judge, this chap.
I mean, what does he think is grossly offensive?
And on the other side, of course, let's think about, what about the Islamists for a second?
Let's get the next image up.
So, what if they think you're being grossly offensive?
And also, why are we taking the Islamist position in British law that if something's grossly offensive, we censor it?
We take the person who's done that and give them a prison sentence or a fine, like we're living in Saudi Arabia, in which you blaspheme, therefore go to jail.
It's ridiculous.
I mean, one of the things to note, if you class that as a blasphemy law against political correctness in the UK, we actually have worse blasphemy laws than Kuwait.
I do classify this as blasphemy law.
And you might think, okay, that's a bit stupid, but not one's ever going to do something that silly.
No, of course they did.
So the first example that's of most hilarity has to be the Twitter joke trial.
So a fella wrote a joke in which he said, you know, Robin Hood Airport is closed, this is bad, I'm going to bomb it if they don't let my girlfriend come here.
Yeah, no, it's because he was on holiday for like a week or something, and the airport was closed and he was supposed to go home, and he was just...
Yeah, it was clearly sarcastic.
And the Crown Prosecution Service, the state, saw this tweet and were like, I'm personally offended by this, and decided to take him to court.
And he had to go all the way to the high court.
Let's play this clip.
Mr Chambers had been prosecuted, sacked from two jobs, criminalised, because the law had decided his attempt to make a joke on Twitter was actually a menacing threat.
He'd suggested he would blow up his local airport if it didn't reopen in thick snow to allow him to fly to see his girlfriend.
But it was a joke nonetheless, and eventually Britain's most senior judges at the Court of Appeal agreed that he should never have been prosecuted in the first place.
Finally, the law has managed to find a distinction between an offensive joke and a malicious threat.
And so hopefully this will never happen again.
The CPS chose to take this all the way to the High Court and that is an absolute disgrace and something that Parliament needs to be looking at.
So you'll see there Conservative MP Louise Mench on the side of Paul Chambers defending his right to free speech against this law and saying that Parliament should be looking at it.
Well, it's still on the books, fellas.
Conservative Party, still there.
That was back in 2011.
Yeah.
Yeah, and you'll notice that the mass political support and cultural support for Paul Chambers there had made a joke, was taken to court over it.
In the defense of I don't care what he said, the point is we should be free in this country to say things that are offensive whether you like them or not.
I mean, you'll see comedians out there with him.
Anyway, so this isn't the only example.
Some of the other examples that are also of absurdity.
So this chap here, this is a British Muslim, I don't need to say, Azhar Ahmed.
So there was a post about some fellows who had died fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, and underneath he said that all soldiers should die and go to hell.
That, he was given 240 hours of community service and a £300 fine.
That's absurd.
For his opinion that the soldiers should go to hell because they're fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
That's his crime.
As much as I disagree with that opinion, I support his right to hold it and express it.
Yeah, and there's also, this doesn't apply to one group, this applies to every political group who's getting screwed by this in the UK. So the next one up here being an Irish pastor who called Islam satanic, because he's an Irish pastor, not an imam.
So he calls Islam satanic, and as a response, the Crown Prosecution Service charged him with being grossly offensive, because he took this speech and put it online.
And I took that personally.
Yeah, Brown Prosecution Service upset about that.
So, of course, this also does happen to apply occasionally to the progressive left because they fall foul of this sort of thing.
So we can get the next one up.
This is a student diversity officer who was charged for tweeting hashtag kill all white men.
She was charged for being grossly offensive.
Now, there could be an argument here that it's a threat because you are saying kill all white men, but in the context it was obviously satirical.
It's her radical feminist ideology.
Yeah, it's a feminist meme.
It's a feminist meme, but not just exclusive to random people posting comments online.
Every different group, every different political perspective is being damaged by Section 127.
And as Helen Dale points out in an article for Quillette, is that this law, where it actually comes from, so it was originally made to deal with people calling up you on the telephone, and like breathing down the telephone because you're a creepy man, or, you know, swearing at you for long amounts of time.
It was to get rid of that sort of thing.
And there's an argument there because, well, you pick up the telephone, it rings and so on and so forth.
But on the internet, you engage with the content.
But that's the ancestry of this law.
It came from this sort of thing.
Ancestry of this law, yeah.
That's where it comes from.
And so when Tony Blair came in and decided to update the legislation, not reading any of it because seven laws a day were being passed at this point, because, I don't know, his government was crazy...
And they proposed the Communications Act, if we can get up the next image.
Every single MP in the opposition voted against it, including every single Conservative MP that was there.
All of them voted against it.
Good.
Most of them there still got seats.
I mean, Boris Johnson, for example, he voted against this.
Theresa May voted against this.
Good.
So do something about it.
I mean, Labour had a majority of only six seats there, right?
So they just scraped this through.
You now have the complete opposite reversal.
You can just hammer it out.
You can get rid of everything that they did.
And just a note as well, the only parliamentary conversation about this law that I can seem to find is one comment of a Labour MP for Liverpool-Walton, the most Labour seat in the country, in which, what was his opinion?
That this was, you know, an affront on free speech?
No.
to ask the Secretary of State for justice what plans his department has to extend the imprisonment term for people found guilty of breaching Section 127.
They wanted to extend it.
So, the biggest case, obviously being Count Dankula, most people will know.
So, a S-poster, who decided to teach his girlfriend's dog to do a little Nazi salute and respond to anti-Semitic phrases because it was like, haha, this dog is Hitler.
I mean, that's making fun of the Nazis.
Didn't matter.
Didn't matter.
They took him to court.
They stragged him through the court process.
They ended up fining him 800 pounds because of how much media attention the case got.
Can I just put out the...
I went to Dang's wedding, right?
And say, I know who that is.
That's Sue next to him.
That's his now wife.
I love the expression she's got on her face there.
Just look what you've done.
But he didn't do anything.
He made a meme.
He made a meme.
It was the state that criminalised him.
And this law that criminalised him.
And at this point, what's interesting is the mass cultural denunciation started taking place of people like Count Dankula.
Unlike Paul Chambers, who got mass cultural support from comedians, because they knew they were next back in the day, and now they've all sipped their mouths, apparently, except David Baddiel and Ricky Gervais.
But even then, their defence was very tepid.
Also, Amnesty International denounced Meechan.
I can't get over.
Thanks, Amnesty.
Myself and the Liberalists and you and Dankula and all the rest of it, we started a letter-writing campaign to MPs to find out, well, you guys need to know about this, you need to get rid of this law.
And so, if we can get the next image up, this is just a map of The respondents we got.
And from the data, we broke it down by party.
Conservative MPs were the ones who were overwhelmingly supportive of Count Dankula's right to free speech in this case, even if they disagreed with his memes.
They were like, you know, I don't like the meme, but this guy shouldn't go to jail for it, shouldn't be prosecuted, blah blah blah.
And the responses we got from the Labour MPs were pretty terrible.
And the worst being, if you can get the next one up, is a Labour MP saying that he should have been charged for animal cruelty.
For teaching his dog...
The MP for Stroud?
That's not even far away.
Labour MP. Shadow Minister for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
I think he might be gone now.
I don't know.
The other reason why this is still in the books, in case you're wondering, is because it's really easy for the police to get convictions.
This is the easiest thing they could possibly do.
So here's the data I got back in 2017 when I was doing the letter-writing campaign, in which you can see the persecuted cases.
I think persecuted is a correct reading of this.
Yeah, persecuted also works.
And you can see the conviction there.
It's about 80% average.
80% of people who get prosecuted get convicted.
I mean, they're complaining that 5% of people who have been accused of rape get convicted.
80% of people who post things on the internet that people don't like.
So it's a really nice, easy conviction if you're a police officer or looking for something to deal with.
I mean, all those burglaries we've solved, eh?
I mean, that's all been dealt with.
All the rapes, all the murders, they've all been solved.
Nah, let's waste our time on this instead.
So, just wanted to mention that.
So, in the Conservative Party manifesto for the 2019 campaign, they have this section there.
We will champion freedom of expression and tolerance, both in the UK and overseas.
That is in their manifesto.
And in which case, if your Conservative MPs wrote back, as we did in the lettering campaign, that they wanted to get rid of this, I think Andrea Leadsom being the most prominent one at the time, and Conservative MPs at the time noting that this was nonsense, well, you've got the majority now, a rather large one.
There's also nothing in your way.
You're the ones in power.
Get rid of this Blairite nonsense.
Literally, you can do this at any time.
Like you were saying, Blair was passing seven laws a day.
You could be repealing seven Blair laws a day if you want.
Yeah, and so we, as the plebs, who are not in government, have at least one method of making them aware of this.
So the petition, we've got it to 10,000, so someone in the government will have the right response.
But I want to get that to 100,000.
That's not good enough.
If we get it to 100,000, there has to be a debate in Parliament on this issue, in which we'll actually see them trying to debate whether or not they should keep this law on the books.
And with all those Conservative MPs who voted against it have given us statements in the letter-writing campaign that this is abhorrent, well, let's see what they say, shall we?
Please sign the petition.
Thank you very much.
Totally agree.
Really well presented, by the way.
Very persuasive.
But yeah, I mean, getting it to 100,000 is much better than getting 10,000, because obviously it shows that there's a great depth of feeling about this than only 10,000, but forcing the debate, I think, is really important, because I want to hear their arguments.
I want to know why we should keep this.
And I want whichever Conservatives in the Conservative Party who support this to out themselves as being the Labour Blairites that they are, And hopefully we can get rid of it.
Yeah.
Seems like the best opportunity that we've had so far, so...
It's one of the things I think is really underutilized between British political circles is the petition's website.
Because people think, oh, it's a petition who gives a toss in it.
And yeah, okay, I get that argument.
But the petition's website, since it's been set up, does have those parameters.
10,000, you get a government response.
I mean, that's not easy to get outside of the world.
I mean, you try and meet with an MP and get them to understand a topic, a minister.
100,000, you get a debate in Parliament.
They are legally mandated to do it.
And then you can see what their opinions are on it and see who's being a little bit of a traitor.
Yes.
And, yeah.
And so, yeah, I think that I really, really want us to be able to get this.
So please do share and sign it.
And harass your local content creator.
Obviously not harass, but, you know, email and badge them.
And imagine they're aware of it.
So then, because especially if they're persecuted by it or they know that it's unjust, well, they're sort of morally bound to make it as wide as possible.
We can actually affect some changes.
So let's give it a go.
For all the whining we do on the show, let's do some stuff that's effective.
Anyway.
Sorry, I know that's a little bit short as well, but...
No, no, it's fine, because we've got loads of video comments today, and we've got to get through them.
So, tell me about St.
George's Day.
Right, well, for a start, happy St.
George's Day.
St.
George, if you don't know, is the patron saint of England, and has been for, oh, I don't know, about 700 years, 800 years, something like that.
It's been a long time.
In fact, the earliest reference of St.
George that I could find was the venerable bead, So back in the 8th century, he mentioned St George.
But St George has been a fixture of English political life for hundreds and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years.
The deeply Christian country of England, that was their patron saint.
And that's not exclusive.
There are other countries that have St George as a patron saint.
But why would you want St George as a patron saint?
Because St George is a patron saint of war.
He's a conqueror.
He's a winner.
Good patron saint.
Yeah, I mean, okay.
St.
Patrick may have defeated a few snakes.
Good.
St.
George defeated a few Turks.
No, I'm joking.
I'm joking.
But anyway, this is Boris's message.
Now, Boris is...
I guess we could describe him as an English patriot.
In 2013, Boris was trying to reclaim the English flag from being, like, purely considered to be a racist symbol.
Obviously, this didn't work because...
You get Kehinde Andrews and people like that now saying, oh, it's the most racist flag in the world and stuff like this.
So this is Boris's message.
A very happy St.
George's Day, Shakespeare's birthday, to everyone celebrating here in England and around the world.
Because today is the day when, without embarrassment, without shame, we can raise a glass to everything that makes England such a great part of our United Kingdom.
Happy St.
George's Day.
That's very, very interesting how he framed it that way, isn't it?
Why would he say, you know, we can, without embarrassment and without shame, raise a glass to St George?
Why would he say that?
What do you think?
Because he knows the left-wing world, and especially the London world and all the rest of it, hate St George.
Because they hate English patriotism.
Because they hate England.
That's right.
That's exactly right.
And it's been pathologised, stigmatised, denigrated.
I mean, this is one of the reasons in 2013 that he was trying to reclaim it for a start.
The left can't accept England as a positive entity because, of course, they're internationalists.
If they accept a positive English identity, then what they are doing is essentially accepting the validity of the oppressor in their worldview.
And that can't be done.
And so you get a lot of cope-like whales online here.
Who was St.
George and did he really slay a dragon?
No, he didn't really slay a dragon and you can keep your Welsh flag that also has a dragon on it.
It cracks me up that the...
Look at the animal symbols of Scotland and Wales.
A dragon and a unicorn.
It's...
They're not real.
What do we have, a lion?
Yeah, we have a lion.
They're at least real animals.
Enjoy your dragons and unicorns, Scotland and Wales.
I'm just teasing.
At least you've got haggis.
Anyway, so the interesting thing about this is actually not so much the fact that...
Well, actually, there are lots of interesting things about this, but I'm going to try and take them one at a time.
So the first thing is the progressives.
Now, since Brexit, the progressive position has become a bit misty and muddled.
They don't really know where they fit, because something they've realized, actually...
Brexit, if you look at a map of the regions of the United Kingdom that voted to leave, you'll see the red parts or the blue parts in stay are Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland.
Actually, was it Northern Ireland?
I think Northern Ireland might have been quite based, actually.
But the pro-leave, the yellow, green part, whatever it is, is all England.
It's all England, baby.
England and Wales.
Well, the sort of anglicised parts of Wales and Scotland.
But, like, it's England, right?
This is the Brexit is an English project.
And they were complaining about this at the time, going, oh, England's taking Scotland out of the European Union, as the SNP complained.
And it's like, yes.
And what?
It's better for us.
It's better for everyone.
Trust us on this.
You don't want to be governed by the French or the Germans.
And I mean that sincerely.
So...
Ask anyone who's been governed by them.
Exactly, yeah.
Who would you rather be governed by?
And the answer is, of course, the English.
Because you think the Polish is saying, yeah, Germany.
Yeah, exactly.
Exactly.
Even the French are just like, gotta be governed by France.
Um...
Anyway, so this is important because now the progressives who were previously proud Europeans, and they all say this, on the census I'm going to be very interested to see how many of them have written European as their ethnicity.
Because there was a big campaign when the census came around for them to do this.
During the era of treason, I'm going to call it, in between the vote and then the accepting of the votes for several years, there was a big push to make everyone European and not to define yourself as English or anything else.
Yes, the treasonous left-wing Europeans in our midst have been attempting to undermine Brexit and undermine everything about the patriotic view of British and particularly English identity.
And so now they've found themselves in a strange position.
So we'll go for this story from Sadiq Khan from 2016, right?
Where he says this, a laissez-faire approach to achieving social integration just doesn't work.
I don't mean assimilation.
People shouldn't have to drop their cultures and traditions.
I'm a proud Londoner, a Brit, a European of Pakistani heritage, a Muslim.
We all have multiple layers of identity.
That makes us who we are.
But he's not an Englishman.
So he didn't have that in that list.
And there was various clips of him going around giving speeches going, I'm a proud European!
It's like, Sadiq, you're of Pakistani heritage.
But I mean, I guess you can be a European?
Sure, it's inclusive, right?
It's incorporative.
But what you're not saying here is, I'm a proud Englishman.
I'm like David Lammy.
Is this him in response to the idea that London wasn't an English city as well?
I think that came after this.
Because he kept insisting, yes, yes, London is a European city.
I was like, well, it can't be English then.
It's got to be one or the other.
Yep.
He's very clear that London was a European city, not an English city.
And as you can see, he doesn't call himself an Englishman, even though he grew up in England.
So, I mean, I would like David Lammy style.
David Lammy could be an Englishman because he grew up in England.
I mean, he claims various other identities, but anyway, the point is, there are identities...
He's a product of England.
He's a product of England.
There are identities that are mutually exclusive, and European and Englishmen are actually, I would say, mutually exclusive.
But anyway, the point is, that was five years ago now, before Brexit, before they thought that they were going to lose the Brexit referendum, before they thought they were going to lose the argument on, are the Brits proud Europeans?
And it turned out that the English were like, no, we're not proud Europeans.
And so, Suneet Khan's like, hello, my fellow Englishman!
Today, he published this article.
It's time to consider what makes us English.
Is it, Sadiq?
Is it really?
Not you.
You're not an Englishman.
You're a proud European.
Stand by that.
You can be crucified on that, Sadiq.
I love this so much.
And again, if we're going to consider what's English, not you.
There's no us.
It's not us.
It's you Londoners, you proud Europeans, and us Brits, us English.
You're a globalist colonizer, in my opinion.
Only in your own words.
Only in your own words, yeah, sorry.
Only because you keep saying this to me, Kyle.
I hate to use your own words against you, but you're a Londoner, a Brit, a European, and a Muslim.
Not very English.
You don't define yourself as English.
Yeah, you don't seem to have any very English attributes.
You don't seem to be concerned about English culture or heritage or anything like this.
And so hearing this, and we're going to go through all of this, coming out of his mouth, it's so disingenuous.
It's so obviously like, oh, actually, I found myself on the outside because I was on the losing team on the Brexit team.
Oh, let me weasel my way back in.
Oh, no.
Hello, fellow Englishmen.
I'm English, too.
Shut up.
Cup of tea.
Yeah, exactly.
Shut up, Sadiq.
You were a proud European.
You know you are, right?
So he says, I'm proud to be the mayor of England's capital city, the beating heart of the country, and full of proud and patriotic Londoners who love this country and what we stand for.
I know this because I count myself among them.
London's a globalist colony.
As John Cleese pointed out, it's not an English city.
You know it's not an English city.
It's a diverse, multicultural, international city.
It is a proud European city.
It's not an English one, and you know it.
He says, the love I have for our country...
Oh yeah, really?
The love that Sadiq Khan has for England and Britain and not Europe.
I just can't stand hearing this.
This is going to make me angry.
I'm sorry about this, folks.
But this is genuinely making me...
I can feel my blood pressure rising.
The love I have for my country...
Our country...
Sorry, our country now...
Explains why I've dedicated my life to public service, working tirelessly to make sure that all Londoners, irrespective of race, religion, and background, have the opportunities they need to fulfill their potential.
Yes, Londoners.
Londoners.
Not Englishmen.
Londoners.
Something different now, isn't it?
And just to be clear, he used to be a defense lawyer for Islamists.
He used to spend his time defending people who were on the pipeline to producing jihadis.
He was like, no, they did nothing wrong.
Oh, shut up, Sadiq.
St George's Day is a time when we discuss what it means to be English.
When do you spend any time discussing what it means to be English, Sadiq?
It's not always an easy thing to pin down.
It's not that hard, actually, but you don't spend any time thinking about this.
And it certainly isn't about what we look like or what religion we follow.
I don't know about that Sadiq.
I don't know about that.
I think there is a fairly strong argument to suggest that the characteristics of an Englishman usually involve a respect for Christianity.
Historically, you could not be an Englishman without being a good Christian man.
The ethics of the English are deeply Christian, and so for a Muslim to be like, ha ha ha, you're not Christians?
Well, I think I might be, for the sake of this conversation.
Like, cultural.
I mean, the fact that we celebrate Christmas, the fact that we respect the monarch.
The fact that we have saints.
Yeah.
The fact that morally we have a Christian ethic is what makes Englishmen Christian, whether they are religious or not.
You can't really get around it.
But like I said, he's a proud European, so he can be as Muslim as he likes.
Instead...
I'm not wrong!
Why are you booing me?
I'm wrong!
I'm not booing, it's funny.
He's such a good put-down.
Instead, it's about our sensibilities.
Shut up, Sadiq.
There is no our, there's you, the European, and me, the Englishman.
Our way of life...
As if London represents England.
God, I'm so angry.
Our adherence to a shared set of values and a commitment to always doing right by our country.
You betrayed this country.
You opposed Brexit.
You did everything you could to undermine it.
And you were desperate for us to stay in the European Union.
Shut up, you weasel.
You absolute midget.
Shared values.
Yeah, exactly.
I have no shared values with Sadiq Khan.
I hate him.
He's awful.
He's an embarrassment.
And unbelievably, he's going to get elected as mayor of London again.
Because of the proud Londoners.
Because of the proud Englishmen in London who love their English mayor so much.
It's about our support for democracy and justice, decency and manners, equal rights and a sense of humour and fair play.
I just can't believe the balls on the man to come out and say all this sort of stuff.
What's for democracy?
Democracy.
So says the man that says, the public have voted for X, I don't want it.
Brexit should be opposed, Sadiq Khan, 2016.
I kind of hate that phrase, like he opposed Brexit or Brexit.
No, it's the public vote.
The public voted for X and he was just like, no, I don't agree with that.
Get rid of it.
I'm not doing it.
So the public voted for you, to be mayor.
I'm glad we can just ignore it.
It's about our cherished institutions like the NHS, the BBC, football, cricket and cups of tea.
Honestly, Sadiq, right?
Jesus Christ, like a meme.
It's like a meme.
But he can wear these things as a skin suit, but the essential view of patriotism for this country will never be authentic coming out of Sadiq Khan's mouth.
He can wear the English attributes, the skin suit of it, all he wants, but we see through you.
We know you are a proud European, Sadiq.
We know you're not a proud Englishman.
That's fine.
You're allowed to be a proud European, but don't expect us to accept you.
For me, he says, Englishness is also about being open, generous, and outward-looking.
Who gives a shit what a foreigner thinks about Englishness, Sadiq?
You are not English.
You are a European.
Live with it.
In fact, one of the great things about this country is that we can have multiple identities and not be subjected to some sort of bogus loyalty test, where we are forced to choose between our flag and our family history, our home and our heritage.
You've already failed the loyalty test, Sadiq.
You are a weasel.
You have pinned your colour to everything else.
Londoner, Brit, proud European, Pakistani, Muslim, and now you need to sneak in English because all of those failed.
Because they were actually on the outside.
And you are going to be trapped in a country you hate.
That's what you think, isn't it?
You're essentially trapped in a country you hate without the connections that you had with the continent, and you're going to try and subvert the identity of being English as hard as you can.
You're going to try and make it universal.
That's what you're going to try and do.
And unfortunately for you, the identity of English actually isn't universal.
It's got boundaries.
It's got particulars.
There are things you should do.
And you've named some of them.
You've named some of them.
Oh, we like football.
We drink tea.
We have fish and chips.
And look at the skin suit I'm wearing.
Because there is an essential nature to being English that you will never capture.
And it's about your values.
And I know that's...
Like, they're going to be like, no, he hasn't got white skin.
No, that's not really it.
It's not really it.
It's about the way he thinks.
And he thinks like a European.
Anyway, we can all have multiple identities that can coexist.
For example, I'm a proud Londoner.
I'm English, British, Pakistani, ethnic origin, an Asian heritage, European, a dad and a husband of Islamic faith.
You're a colonist, Sadiq.
That's what you are.
You are a colonist.
You are not an Englishman.
You are, by most other metrics that you list...
Not English.
All of these other identities you have seem to completely overwhelm that.
And again, you seem to have just tacked on being English at the end.
You're a colonizer.
It's just a con man.
Like him, four years ago, unable.
He's just adding more and more parts to it.
I mean, it's like the LGBTQIA plus TUVZ. It's just adding more and more stuff to be like, yes, yes, I'm totally these things, I swear.
Yep.
Our many identities don't contradict one another, they make us stronger.
No, diversity is not our strength.
That's not the case.
Diversity is your strength because you're a coloniser for the globalist order that has turned London into a non-English city, a global city.
Just think about that statement for a minute.
The more identities you have, therefore it makes you stronger.
Like, is he going to come out as Jewish next week then?
And then just add on, yes, I'm also Christian, I'm also Buddhist, and just so on and so forth.
These aren't contradictory either.
Nah, the more you add, the stronger you get.
It's like steroids or something.
But that's the thing, right?
He's trying to make being English to mean being inclusive of every single identity.
And John's right.
He'll never wear an English shirt for a start, which John is wearing right now.
And so this is the point.
He's like...
That's why we must reject those who claim to be patriots by trying to narrow what it means to be English as a way of excluding others.
The reality is there doesn't need to be any tension between our patriotism and our pluralism.
You aren't patriotic.
You are a weasel.
These identities do contradict one another.
You are a Muslim Pakistani European, not a Christian Englishman.
That's the fact of it.
And you can be a Muslim, Pakistani, European.
There's nothing wrong with that.
But what is wrong is for you to say, actually, the English identity has no boundaries at all.
And so I can also be English while being all of these things that are contradictory to being English.
It's not acceptable, Sadiq.
Of course, we face some difficult times ahead as a country.
Yeah, I bet you think so.
By staying true to our values, by channeling that famous English spirit.
Ah, yes, when I think English spirit, I think Sadiq Khan.
By cherishing and celebrating our diversity, I'm confident that we can put the dark days of the pandemic behind us and build a better and brighter future for everyone in our city and our country.
I'm sure we will.
But this subversion doesn't stop there.
And the next one, again, these are all published today.
They had these all prepared in advance.
They knew what they were going to do.
All of these came out on the same goddamn day.
Sadiq Khan didn't write this over his cornflakes this morning.
Sorry, over...
What do Muslims eat for breakfast?
Cornflakes.
Hummus.
What?
Falafel.
I don't know.
Oh, you just wanted like an Arab-sounding thing?
Yeah, yeah.
I just...
I love hummus.
Cornflakes or halal, don't worry.
Okay.
That's true.
Is milk?
I don't know.
Depends on the cow, I suppose.
No, no.
No, I think it's a lull.
Okay.
Okay, fine.
So he's, yeah, he wrote this over his conflicts this morning.
No, he obviously wrote this in advance.
And all of these others.
Let's go to the next one, John.
All right, look at this.
Sunder Katwala is here to tell us that what it means to be English is changing.
St.
George's Day is the perfect opportunity to celebrate this.
Do you feel subverted yet?
Someone who is obviously not himself English is going to come along and say, hi, do you want me to redefine Englishness for you?
Because I'm going to.
It's like, no, I don't really want you to do that.
I'd like you to piss off.
You know what it's to be English?
It's to be literally every identity under the sun.
Yeah, and none of these contradictory identities contradict.
The more you have, the better it is.
The stronger you get.
I mean, it just doesn't make any sense.
I hate it.
Thanks.
I hate it.
Anyway, a fellow Englishman has arrived to explain Englishness to me and how it's changing.
He says, So, subversion then.
Change what it means to be English.
You aren't happy with what being English is, you're here to change it.
And he uses, of course, David Lammy, whose recent exchange with the LBC radio show, who told him you will never be English because you're African-Caribbean, demonstrated the old racist idea of who and who's not English has not gone away.
Because there are people who are English and who aren't English.
David Lammy himself never claimed to be English until like five minutes ago.
Previously, like in any year beyond this one, David Lammy was like, I'm Afro-Caribbean.
I'm Afro-Caribbean.
It's like, okay, I'm not.
What now?
Oh, I'm English.
Oh, are you?
Yet the warmth of the public reaction to Lammy's response, as well as his political opponents, as well as allies, has captured what's changed.
So I guess we're abandoning what made England English and the English English.
There's a broad appeal for celebrating an inclusive idea of England.
Two-thirds of people in a new poll released today.
Incidentally, weird, released today.
A new poll about English identity released on St.
George's Day.
It's like this is all being done on purpose.
They agree that doing more to Mark St George's Day, ensuring that all of those from all ethnic groups are invited to take part, would be a positive way to foster a shared identity in England today.
Yeah, but that's not saying that people who are not English should just be considered to be English.
I mean, sure, come and take part.
Who's complaining about that?
But that's not to say that everyone's saying, ooh, what we need to do is essentially abolish the English identity and hollow it out and fill it in with Sadiq Khan's Europeanism.
More than half of white respondents in England to our poll believe that a St. George's party is a symbol of Englishness that belongs equally to people of every race and ethnic background in England today.
Only 1 in 10 disagree.
But 4 out of 10 ethnic minority respondents shared this confidence, with 21% disagreeing as many again on the fence.
Well, that's weird.
But the interesting thing about this is that basically most English people are just like, I don't care.
Just leave me alone.
This shows that we need to talk more about England and what we want it to mean today.
Ah yes, I'm so glad that...
Sorry, what was this guy's name?
I can't pronounce it.
I'm so glad.
I wouldn't have known.
You know, sorry, I need your instruction.
It was partly the era of devolution across the UK that generated a new discussion about English identity, and it made the English rather more likely to notice that being British and English are not exactly the same thing, correcting a tendency to treat those as interchangeable synonyms which had long irked the Scottish and the Welsh.
Yet it led to a new fear too, that a new English identity would be atavistic and more ethnic than civic.
English is an ethnic identity.
That's what it is.
It's the identity of an ethnic group.
The same way that Welsh is the identity of an ethnic group and Scottish is the identity of an ethnic group and Irish is the identity of an ethnic group.
I don't know what to tell you.
British isn't an ethnic group.
It is a civic identity.
And now that they're worried that that's going to disappear because they're looking at these devolved separatist parliaments and going, wait, they're going to disappear.
The United Kingdom is going to break up and we're going to be stuck in a country full of English people who view themselves as English and don't view us as English.
We're afraid.
That's what they're saying.
This is from fear.
But what about England?
Many of the first generation Commonwealth immigrants like my father from India were proud to become British, but few felt they were invited to become English too.
Because they weren't English, I guess.
But I mean, that doesn't mean that...
I don't see why they're saying this.
They're acting like non-English people can't live in England.
Who says that?
Who thinks that?
Loads of non-English people live in England.
The National Front, the BMP? I suppose so, yeah.
I suppose they're worried that the BMP's position on things will be the normal position on things.
But I mean, if the polling or the electorate is anything to judge, that doesn't seem to be the case.
But anyway...
The interesting thing, though, on this particular bit, was holding a British passport was symbolised that this was the shared identity of citizenship, while the unspoken assumption was that English, Scottish, and Welsh identities belonged primarily to the native population.
That's a good statement, isn't it?
At least we agree now that there is a native population of Britain, unlike the Conservative government, and that English is one of them?
The English are native to England?
My God, we're breaking new frontiers in identity here!
But it often has been different for their English-born children, who feel a birthright claim to both identities.
Nativism is often treated as a synonym for xenophobia, by the left, because of the way it is reflected in the politics of Donald Trump or the far-right populace of Europe.
Yet the broadening of English identity partly reflects a quieter and more inclusive form of nativism.
David Lammy being born in England like half of the ethnic minority population now ends the argument entirely for all but the hardcore racists.
Right.
So, now, nothing.
Now it's just whoever wants to be it.
Like, if you are born in X area, therefore you are the group there.
That doesn't make any sense.
I could be born in Russia and I'd still be English.
Yeah.
And this is what Constantine Kissing calls, like, a minor meltdown on GMB, Good Morning Britain, with.
Because the guy was like, yeah, but you're English, aren't you?
He's like, no, I'm Russian.
He's like, but you live in London.
Yeah, but I'm from Russia.
He's just I'm in the barn, therefore I'm a horse.
It's like, no, that doesn't work.
Like, Constantine Kissin was born and raised in Russia, but he's currently in London, and therefore he's English?
Yeah.
Doesn't make any sense.
But the implication, again, is that there is something wrong with a foreigner living in England.
There's nothing wrong with it.
No.
So anyway.
They're just not a product of that place.
Yeah.
I mean, if I was a product of Russia, then I would be Russian, but I'm not.
Yeah, but again, it's such a bizarre way of looking at the world, and essentially it looks like a mirror image of the BNP. So it's like, right, either ethnostates or open borders communism.
Why?
Why do we have to do either of those?
Anyway, so St.
George's Day could help fill the gap.
It should be a day to promote this understanding that being English is open to everybody in England.
Who feels a sense of belonging to this nation.
That's what Britishness is.
That's the civic identity.
You can still be British.
Even if the United Kingdom breaks up, you can still say you're British.
No one's going to criticize that or take that away from you.
I don't know why you feel the need to, like, you know, try and skin suit up into the English garb.
I mean, where's St.
George's flags then?
If you're so English, like, show me.
I just want to know.
But anyway, my response to that is get fucked, communist.
You aren't invited.
The next one is St.
George, of course, being a multicultural symbol.
Again, the subversion continues.
Again, this published today.
Oh, we all just happened to, on the same day, have exactly the same narrative about English.
Sure you did.
We're all just eating our full English under the flag of England.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
You know, eating our bacon, you know, frying it on their eggs.
Anyway, St.
George has become a symbol of nationalism in England.
Become.
Become a symbol.
Yeah, 800 years ago.
No, like two months ago.
But there are some good reasons to think his life represents the value of a more benign ideology, multiculturalism.
As if multiculturalism has been a benign ideology, in any way, shape or form.
It was government policy for 20 years.
Yeah, and it's being enforced on us.
And man, you can look at the consequences of multiculturalism.
And one day a reckoning will be had with the government over this.
So subversion it is then, though.
Ah, well actually, St.
George isn't a symbol of English nationalism.
St.
George is actually a symbol of Sadiq Khan's Globo Homo internationalism.
Oh, brilliant.
Great.
Let's just take our leftist, globalist rhetoric and subvert England's national symbol with it.
We hate England right up until now.
Now we've taken it and it's ours.
Get fucked.
Sorry, I just keep swearing.
I'm sorry.
Anyway, they say his background is as multicultural as you can get.
Most historians think George was born in modern-day Turkey to a Greek family.
He served in the army of an Italian city-state and ultimately died living in modern-day Palestine.
His parents, though Greek-speaking, were from Cappadocia in central Turkey and Palestine, respectively.
St.
George's heritage was about as multicultural as you could get in the classical world.
Yeah, so Cappadocia, not Turkish.
It was Anatolia, Greek.
A thousand years before the Turks conquered the region, and he didn't serve in the army of an Italian city-state.
He served in the army of the Roman Empire.
St.
George is supposed to live in the second century AD. The era of city-states was long over.
Rome had been the capital of a global empire for centuries.
Wait, hang on.
So that means he would have, you know, Turkey would have been Roman, surely.
Absolutely.
Palestine, Roman.
Yeah.
Italy, Roman.
Palestine.
I mean, probably after Hadrian, what Hadrian did to Palestine as well.
The end of Judea.
The reason it's called Palestine is because of the Romans, because they were like, no, we're getting rid of Judea.
Sorry.
Bad luck, Jews.
And that began the Diaspora, incidentally, as Hadrian.
But yeah, the point is they call it Palestine because it wasn't Israel or Judea.
He was an immigrant.
George moved country looking for work and probably immigrating from Cappadocia to Palestine to be employed as a palace guard for the Emperor Diocletian.
That's the same empire.
How is that?
Moved country.
Yeah.
Hmm.
Hmm.
What did he do?
Well, he became a palace guard for Diocletian.
Hmm.
Moved country.
It's not exactly how it works.
And that's one of the complaints that, like, native people have about the British Empire.
It's like, look, this is what Afua Hirsch said.
I listened to a series of podcasts that she did on this.
And one of them was her having a discussion with another person from the Empire.
And she was like, one of the complaints was that it was open borders for us, but not for you.
You know, foreigners came to our country in the British Empire and then started being foreign, and we didn't like it.
It's like, that's a fair complaint.
I completely understand why you'd be complaining about that.
Why do we have to have open borders?
You shouldn't.
And that's what's happened here.
But, you know, move country.
Anyway, he spread new religious ideas from abroad.
For centuries, the Roman Empire had worshipped its native pagan gods.
By, like, the second or third centuries, the idea that the Roman pagan gods were, like, Look at that image for that statement.
Yeah, I know.
It's a lovely statement, isn't it?
He spread new ideas.
Here's the Islamic symbols that don't exist for our 600-700 years.
Yeah, yeah.
This is 500 years before Islam.
But the point is that it wasn't Roman pagan gods.
What it was is loads and loads and loads of different religions.
Like Mithraism, Monism, Dualism, all these.
And I'm just giving categories of religions here.
There are so many, it's unreal.
But anyway...
What they're saying, though, is that St.
George was a colonizer because he moved somewhere else and brought a foreign religion and a foreign culture and spread it.
It's like, okay, so St.
George, colonizer.
So did the British Empire do wrong again?
Yeah.
Colonizer who guarded the emperor.
Again, an imperialist.
So imperial colonizer with a foreign religion.
I can see why he's our patron saint.
Yeah, I can see why he's our patron saint.
He's the patron saint of a lot of diverse places, which is the next one, right?
St.
George isn't just the patron saint of England.
He's the patron saint of Bulgaria, Palestine, Ethiopia, Greece, and Lithuania.
Sounds like he's the patron saint of ethnostates.
These are not diverse countries.
These are countries that are unbelievably monoracial.
How many foreigners do you think there are in Lithuania?
Ethiopia is just full of immigrants.
Anyway, he was a soldier for a multicultural European superstate.
It's a very interesting way of describing the Roman Empire.
I mean, other people described it as a conquering empire that was terrifyingly desperate to consume more lands.
One of the interesting things, when the Romans finally defeated the British resistance to the Roman conquest of Britain, they brought Caracalla back to Rome, and he was just like, wow, you've got giants, massive temples, all these marble buildings.
How could you covet our tents?
Because they were just tribesmen.
They lived in tents.
And they couldn't understand why the Romans wanted their land.
You know, what is in it for the Romans?
I love how he describes the Romans in, like, progressive language.
Yes, I know.
Multinatural, super-European state.
It's like a genocidal, monocultural empire.
Yes.
Yeah.
And they say he was persecuted by people intolerant of his foreign religion.
The Romans.
The Romans persecuted him because he was a Christian.
As an immigrant with a foreign religion, St.
George was at the receiving end of discrimination and persecution from the Roman authorities who were becoming wary of Christianity's growing power.
I thought they were famous for their tolerance.
You literally just said they were famous for their tolerance.
Anyway, this is the point, though.
The summary of this is, of course, they're going to try and subvert English identity, and we should be very clear about what it is and what it isn't.
And one thing that is not is European.
It's a separate identity, and there is an essence to the English identity, and that is fair play.
That's the thing.
And so it's not about imposing a view from above.
It's about what is fair to the people up below.
That's the essence, the primary value of the English.
And I've spent a long time thinking about this.
But ask any Englishman what the most important thing to them is, and they'll say fairness before anything else, I bet you.
Let's go to the video comments.
Let's go to the video comments.
Hey guys, it just occurred to me.
The blue checkmarked brigade on Twitter is the living proof that he terms education and intelligence are almost as interchangeable as spark plugs and rectal thermometers.
What do you think?
There are many, many great quotes.
Isn't there one from Orwell that some ideas are so stupid that you have to be an intellectual to understand them?
Probably, yeah.
Yeah, something like that.
But yeah, he's not wrong.
You can be edgy.
Well, I think this is the problem with midwits, right?
Midwits, they get taught about one subject, one thing.
They're like, oh, I know about this thing.
Therefore, I know about everything.
It's like, no, you don't.
You're a midwit.
It's the same with every subject.
I mean, it's, you know, people who learn a bit think they know everything about it.
And then when you learn more and more, you think, okay, that's complex.
Yeah, yeah.
What was it?
Conquest Third Law?
Or was it First Law?
Nobody is more conservative.
Everyone is conservative about that thing they know most about.
That's it, yeah.
Yeah.
Okay, I'll try and be concise as I say this.
My name's Harry, by the way, if it doesn't say on the actual thing on the video.
I'm terrible at being concise, probably due to my Asperger's syndrome, high-functioning form of autism, but I believe there's a time limit, so I will rush this as much as possible.
Right, I personally don't believe in this, that just kind of goes without saying, but how is everything that has happened just essentially temper tantrums to get your way, not the argument for white supremacy, and is there anything in Warhammer law that does not work for you and does not make sense to you?
Bizarre linkage of questions.
Okay, so temper tantrums, can they be connected to white supremacy?
Is it the same process?
I guess if you call political activism temper tantrums, then I guess they all kind of work in basically the same way.
But that also stigmatizes anyone else, like our free speech activism and things like this.
So I don't think it's proper to reduce them to just that.
What do you think?
I don't know.
I mean, things that don't work in 40k for me.
Yeah, I mean, all of it.
It's a hell world.
That's kind of the whole point.
You don't want to live in the world of 40k, but that's what makes it interesting.
Not just all the Xenos and everything, but everything humanity does is also awful.
Yeah.
Let's go to the next one.
So, another video message because I'm bored out of my mind just spending hours applying for jobs because I'm yearning to essentially just be a symbol to inspire others back from before the lockdown when I was inspiring some kids at a martial art club.
Anyway, I'm bored out of my mind so I just thought I'd be a bit of a troll here.
I don't think Carl likes the car game Yu-Gi-Oh, but I remember him talking about Magic the Gathering or something.
Carl would play an Exodia deck just to be a troll if he played that game.
I don't know anything about Yu-Gi-Oh, I'm afraid, so I can't comment.
Yeah, I'm not that familiar with either.
Sorry.
Sorry.
Are you sick and tired of your calm, peaceful life?
Are you sleeping too well at night?
Is your city too safe?
Well, not anymore.
Introducing Democrats.
Politicians so incompetent, they'll fill your neighborhood with riots.
Looting.
Rampant violence and even homelessness.
The secret is a special blend of corruption and good old-fashioned stupidity.
No more pesky law and order.
When Democrats are in charge, nobody's safe.
Simply vote for Democrats, sit back, and watch your neighborhood burn to the ground.
But wait, vote for Democrats now, and they'll include rolling blackouts, election fraud, cancel culture, taxes, and more taxes.
Democrats, bringing chaos right to your front door.
That was incredible.
Can we upload that to the YouTube channel?
If we ever made that, do us a favour, send us an email or something at contactatlotuses.com and let us know that we can upload that to the YouTube channel because that was incredible.
I think the world needs to see more of it.
Hello, Carl and Callum.
I want to teach my children philosophy at a very young age.
Are you doing this with your own children?
And if so, where do you think I should start?
Do you have any specific philosophers or domains of thought or resources or books that you could recommend to me?
Thanks.
Yeah, I mean, it depends how young your children are, but obviously I'm doing that with my children.
Probably best not to burden them with the actual literature.
Probably best to...
Here, son, read The Republic.
Well, I did make my daughter read The Apology of Socrates.
She didn't get it.
Yeah, you're a cruel father.
I know, it was great.
I was very pleased with it.
But basically, essentially, you have to extract the lessons from whatever it is you're teaching them that you want them to know.
But I think it is worthwhile.
Recently, I sat my son down with...
Some old Anglo-Saxon literature, and I read a bunch of it to him.
To link it together, I was like, look, this is what Gandalf thinks, because he likes Gandalf.
I think he took some of it on board.
You have to do it habitually.
You have to make sure it's done over and over and over again, so you've got to nail it into their heads as they're growing up.
But I think it is genuinely worth it.
I guess I would recommend Aristotle.
Good starting point for anything, really.
I don't really have an opinion on this, but I'm just going to say that it exists, which is that philosophical kids' books do exist, obviously.
I mean, you get, like, the progressive ones for, like, three-year-olds.
Like, what is it, Anti-Racism Baby and stuff like this.
Yeah.
Don't promote that.
Yeah, that's terrible.
But what was funny, I saw an academic agent video where he was reading from some kids' book which promoted anti-socialism, but unknowingly, by the looks of it.
And it was literally just like this hen decides it wants to make some bread.
Will you help me?
No.
Will you help me?
No.
Will you help me?
No.
Makes the bread.
Everyone wants the bread.
We don't get it.
We didn't make it.
I made it.
This isn't my bread.
You're right.
It's not your bread.
Literally just Gibbs that for free.
No, I made it.
But what about all the people?
No, they didn't do anything for it.
It's just like, yeah, socialism sucks.
I'll probably...
There are loads of children's books whose message I fundamentally disagree with as well.
But yeah, it's up to you where to start, obviously.
But try to choose something good.
Let's go for the next one.
On Easter, my stepfather made an observation that I think was...
It's rather poignant in its description of how everything is couched, including coronavirus observations or even how the left operates in general.
And it's that the avoidance of risk in all forms.
So I took that to include medical in the coronavirus context or in social risk or any other form of risk.
Yeah, the left is particularly risk-averse.
I think this comes from them being excessively materialistic.
Remember the American humanists?
They're just like, well, we only have this one life.
And yeah, all you think is your physical body is the most precious thing in the world.
So I think there might be something more important, actually.
That's why no one will remember your name.
Exactly.
That's why no one will remember their name.
But yeah, I think he's right.
There's nothing wrong with a bit of risk.
In fact, it's risk that makes life fun.
Everything's a risk.
This is a huge risk.
Yeah.
I mean, literally, the entire economy is a risk.
Yeah.
Everything's a risk.
Living your life is a risk, but it's worth it.
It's good.
Fun.
Hello, gentlemen.
The America First caucus put out a policy platform and in one particular part of it they talk about architecture and mainly how they want to focus on classical architecture or European architecture.
I think this is great because it'll do away with some of the brutalist architecture that we've been seeing lately and I just wanted to know what you guys think about that.
So we did a premium podcast the other day that should be up next week, which is us discussing that exact thing and also how it interlays with Tucker Carlson's podcast.
Just to say on the architecture point, I don't know why this is controversial in the slightest.
Americans are known for their fetishization of classical Rome and Greece, and that's why all your governmental buildings look like they're from Rome or whatever, with the columns and everything.
It's not even slightly controversial.
It's what you people are known for with your buildings.
But it's also a beautiful architectural style.
And like you said, it's either that or Brucellism, really, isn't it?
And who wants Brucellism?
Well, you could do Victorian, but...
Well, you could.
You could do Georgian.
Or you could have a massive concrete block that looks like a tenement and is designed to drive you mad.
Not even joking.
I went to Boston.
And I'm walking around Boston, and it's quite a lovely old city, and so I'm enjoying it.
And then I turn around, and there's just this massive grey, almost, you know, like, just Brick-looking square concrete building.
And it was some sort of mental health facility.
I'm like, are you trying to drive them mad?
That's cruel.
Yeah, it's cruel.
It's a cruel thing to do.
It's a form of aesthetic terrorism.
I hate it.
Honestly, I hate brutalism.
I'm not going to call it that if I ever get a chance to be able to counsel about these sort of things.
Some of your aesthetic terrorism.
Exactly, but I'm not wrong.
Go for T.F. Allspark.
Another thing I'm wondering about When this whole COVID Sharia thing ends, you know, the Comic-Coff and the China flu and whatever the heck we call it, I'm wondering, will we gold members end up perhaps having some kind of meet-up with you guys down in England?
That would be pretty cool.
Yeah.
We'll probably do live events and stuff like that.
We were discussing this before we started actually about now it's getting to somewhere we need to start thinking about setting up these things if we can.
And we will be.
At least we're going to be looking at it.
Yeah, absolutely.
Gentlemen, I've developed a new philosophical theorem I'd like to submit for your review.
It goes like this.
Once you eliminate the oppressed, what remains, no matter how privileged, must be the white.
I'm calling it Acme's Razor.
That's very good.
And that's exactly how Sadiq Khan became a white man.
So, update.
I made yesterday's video about a week ago, and last night I had the same friend over to my apartment, and she asked me what is currently legal that I would make illegal, and I said putting children on puberty blockers, and she agreed with me, and then proceeded to say that men and women are different, and men are misunderstood in popular culture.
So, progress.
I think the only things that we have yet to get her unwoke-ified on are Black Lives Matter and Islam, so apparently I'm better at proselytizing anti-wokeness than I am my own religion.
That's pretty awesome.
Very, very well done.
I'm glad to hear it.
Okay, let's continue our educational book of Mahan.
Why swearing is evil.
And Cain was wroth, and listened not any more to the voice of the Lord, neither to Abel his brother, who walked in holiness before the Lord.
And Adam and his wife mourned before the Lord because of Cain and his brethren.
And it came to pass that Cain took one of his brother's daughters to wife, and they loved Satan more than God.
And Satan said unto Cain, Swear unto me by thy throat.
And if thou tell it, thou shalt die.
And swear thy brethren by their heads, and by the living God, that they tell it not.
For if they tell it, they shall surely die.
And this, that thy father may not know it.
And this day I will deliver thy brother Abel into thine hands.
And Satan swear unto Cain that he would do according to his commandments.
And all this was done in secret.
And Cain said, Truly.
I am Mahan, the master of this great secret, that I me murder and get gain.
Wherefore, Cain was called Master Mahan, and he gloried in his wickedness.
Okay.
Very interesting.
I'm saying that Demonic Pact card looks amazing, by the way.
It's starting to make me think I'd actually quite like to see some animated version of the Bible that's not, you know, for kids, instead of made for adults.
You mean done by Japan, basically.
Yeah, I suppose so.
It could be epic, yeah.
After yesterday's video, I thought I'd give a brief explanation as to what the Hovermort is.
The Hovermort is an Old Norse text written in Old Norse that is believed to be written by Odin, the Allfather himself, and it's like an advice book.
And it covers advice from how to treat a guest if you have a guest come over, relationship advice, and then bits of other stuff as well.
So...
Might give some more quotes.
We'll see.
But yeah, just a brief explanation.
Can you find some quotes that are weird or unique or anything like that?
Probably.
I'd like to think about if you have a guest over at your house, are there any weird traditions they had?
They probably do, yeah.
Yeah, look forward to it.
Hi guys, I have a question and a kind of short anecdote, so bear with me.
The question being, do you have any idea whether you'll be doing any more of the Greenwood Project stuff anytime soon?
Because I enjoyed that stuff.
Also, it seems like the kind of your average leftist is extremely unaware of any history bar the kind of tiny wee bit they've been taught about how the West is evil because I mean I once had an argument with a friend of mine about the European Union and how we would be better off without it because it looks like it's going to collapse and his response was I had said I don't think it's been good for anything up to and including stopping war in Europe I think that's going to happen at some point anyway And his response was,
yeah, because you're going to go into a war with someone you're in a union with.
It's like...
Did I hear you right?
Are you aware of any history of any civil war ever?
The argument that he was using was because the other countries wouldn't agree with it.
His thing was, if France invaded Spain, Poland and Germany wouldn't be fine with that.
If you're at the point of declaring a war, I don't think you're very much concerned by what other countries are gonna say.
Like, oh no, we're gonna go to war but Poland might be upset!
It's ridiculous.
There is something to the idea that the European Union has prevented war in Europe.
But I honestly think it's been overblown because I think that actually World War II is what prevented war in Europe in the post-war era.
Because World War II is awful.
It prevented global wars.
But let's just think about, like, you've got NATO there.
So, I mean, that's most of the European Union as well.
So you're kind of piggybacking off that success.
But apparently, what...
What wars in Europe have the European Union stopped?
Tell me.
Point to them.
They didn't stop the war in the Balkans, did they?
No.
In fact, they may have been exacerbated by the European Union.
I guess the fact that Greece and Turkey haven't been at war, a hot war.
No, they didn't prevent the Cyprus invasion or anything like that, did they?
No.
And then we talk about Ukraine, the most recent one.
Yeah.
I mean, the big divide there being between the Ukrainian types who wanted to join the European Union and then the types who wanted to stay within the Russian sphere.
Hmm.
So, in fact, it may have actually caused a war in Ukraine.
Because I remember seeing Angela Merkel on TV talking about the fact that we need to go to war in Ukraine to secure European interests.
I was like, um...
Oh, really?
The German has Lebensraum concerns.
I see.
In the Ust.
Moscow Ust.
I see.
Let's go for some comments.
George Happ.
Happy St.
George's Day.
Thank you.
I'm honoured to share his name and I do like the symbolism of him being the patron saint of the brave.
Like I said, the Lotus East crew are definitely brave souls for standing up for English values.
Dawkins hasn't learned anything judging by his response and apologetics in the eyes of the mob.
Why did he apologise?
I don't know.
In the eyes of the mob, he's the bigot.
The question is, why shouldn't we just let the SJWs eat themselves?
After all, their infighting is tactically beneficial.
Well, the thing is, their infighting is kind of planned and built in to what they are.
They don't get hurt by their infighting in the same way that other movements do.
No, no, I mean it.
No, no, no.
It's just like the orcs when they just fight each other because it's good fun.
Basically, yeah.
I'm actually going to record a video about this in a minute because the whole point of social justice is to be unresolvable, right?
And so you set up this web of contradictions and say, right, this is how things are.
And so you've narrowed all discussion to whatever is in this web of contradictions.
And so this is a constantly churning mechanism that you can't get out of.
The Gods of Chaos then are a better example because they're always fighting each other.
Exactly.
Because there's no way of resolving which god is more important or blah blah blah.
And social justice really does look like the Chaos Pantheon, doesn't it?
I mean, they keep dressing like the Chaos Pantheon.
Korn, Nurgle, Zensch, and...
Slaanesh.
Slaanesh.
The parades.
I'm just saying.
Slaaneshi parades.
Just saying, it's everywhere, right?
And you've got the academics, the Zensch academics, who are there busy doing awful things with their minds.
And you've got Korn?
I think that's giving them too much credit.
Well, just the ones who like fires.
They just like fires for no bloody reason.
Again, I think I'm still giving too much credit.
Well, there isn't that great a leftist league.
We're not going to say who Khorne is, because we might get in trouble.
And Nurgle are obviously the body pride side.
And of course, Sinesh being the degeneracy.
Because they can't even say that incest is bad.
It's weird.
Anyway, Angel Brain.
They're starting the Death March.
It's behaviour we see in ants, although we don't really know why.
Ants are a former.
It's where all things and aliens come from.
They literally have acid for blood, formic acid, closest we can get is antifreeze.
Anyway, the Death March is where a hive, for reasons unknown to us, start walking in a circle until they all die.
Our best guess is that the foremost ant thinks it's the rearmost, and so it keeps following itself in a circle, and all the ants follow into a circle, a Death March.
Well, kind of.
I think it's actually more that Dawkins isn't woke, really.
And the problem is that this is actually a genuinely difficult thing for them to say we're the defenders of black people.
Also, that's us.
Not you.
Well, it is you as well.
But again, emptying out the English identity.
Anyone's English now.
Anyone's black now.
Anyone's a woman now.
Why do we do any of this?
Dawkins has been expelled from the cathedral for heresy.
Yes, that's correct.
An atheist shouldn't have ten commandments.
Does this mean we have to reject the Red Skull's ten rules for life?
Who said the Red Skull was an atheist?
Doesn't seem very woke to me.
I did like some of the responses to that Norse book.
People saying it's going to be 12 runes for life.
Ah, that's very good.
The cathedral excommunicated its members for the heresy of following logic, it seems.
It's true.
On section 127, Matt says, Maybe, honestly.
There is one interesting tidbit I didn't get to add because it's a bit complex as well.
The person who was in charge of the Crown Prosecution Service was Keir Starmer at one point.
And brought before him was a case in which someone had tweeted, was it Tom Daley, the diver, that he was a homo or something?
And they brought a charge for being this grossly offensive.
Keir Starmer defended the tweeter and he was like, well...
No, he is a homo!
LAUGHTER It was like HIV. It was, you know, that way.
And he said in there that the problem was you couldn't define between offensive and grossly offensive.
Because, of course, Keir Starmer's a bloody midwit.
Comrade steer!
Keir, even.
He was just like, oh, no, the problem isn't that it fundamentally is against free speech, but the fact that it's not precise enough.
I can solve the puzzle of what is offensive.
You moron.
Yeah, I mean, shut up, Keir.
Well done, Callum.
A very persuasive rebuttal to section 127, and you only fluffed one word, and happy St.
George's Day tour.
Yeah, only one.
You did very well.
Charlie says, I emailed my local MP about the petition about a week ago, and after verifying that I live in the area, he's refusing to respond to me.
Typical spineless Welsh labour.
Looking forward to voting him out.
Welsh Labour.
Welsh Labour.
This is the thing.
I don't want to be coming off as some kind of hyper-partisan or something, but when we did that writing campaign, you know, it was like maybe...
Night and day!
70%, 80% of the Conservatives got back and they were just like, yeah, this is cancer.
And the Labour ones, just, you know, animal cruelty.
Ridiculous.
I mean, the Lib Dems were the most depressing as well.
The only person we got back from the Lib Dems who was positive, Tim Farron.
Because Tim Farron's actually alright.
Well, Tim Farron, the Christian who hates the gays.
No.
He was like, no, homosexuality is a sin, which is just the Christian perspective.
And the Lib Dems threw him out for that.
You can no longer be a leader.
I'm not surprised.
They're a bunch of commies.
Of course they threw him out.
But yeah, Tim Ferriss is the only good one for them.
So it was just the only party that even was able to say, yes, free speech is a value we should have, were conservative MPs.
In which case, please get on with it, because you cannot wait for the other side to get back in power.
They're not going to make it any better.
Mad.
Kelly says, Carl has got me crying with laughter, you absolute midget, definitely grossly offensive.
Oh boy.
Before it's the court case of the econ.
Yeah, this is a base take, I've got to say, from Altrasen.
St.
George, with the E asterisked out, good point.
It's not the real patron saint of England.
It'll always be Edward the Confessor, who was the patron saint of England until the Hundred Years War, when the Norman elites adopted the saint that was popular with the Crusades.
That's correct.
And that's based in Anglo-Saxon pills.
Alexander says, It's funny that you laugh at Wales for having a base dragon, yet you lot in England celebrate a man who defeated a fictional enemy.
Cope harder.
Shut up.
What's your national animal, Norwegians?
Probably a troll.
I think it's also a lion, isn't it?
Stealing our national animal!
Come over here, steal our land, steal our symbols, and then complain when we're BTFOing the Welsh.
Honestly.
I mean literally come over here and rape our women when we're talking about the...
So...
So Kextani Freedom Fight says, Can non-English people legitimately self-identify as English?
Give Dawkins his award back then.
You can't be pro and against transracialism at the same time.
There we go.
Richard Dawkins wins.
Good point.
The ultimate inclusivity, like Jewish hat, turban underneath, and cross.
If someone could meme Sadiq Khan as some sort of rabbi-priest-imam combination, that would be amazing.
I know most politicians have this gene in them in which they endlessly have to be just like you, and it makes them cringe, but they're pandering to the extreme point where I'm literally everything.
Being English means being everything under the sun.
Thanks, Sadiq.
The fact that I'm Chinese makes me English.
True facts from John.
Ed Walsh says, I'm sorry, Lositas, but haven't you heard?
There's a new St.
George, St.
George of Minneapolis.
I've heard there are a few miracles ascribed to him already.
Hail the new holy martyr.
Yeah, there have been people apparently going to the site where he died and engaging in religious behavior.
Yeah, I saw there was a sign-up saying instructions for people and then instructions for white people.
And it was like, don't come in here, don't take photos, blah, blah, blah.
Instructions for people and Sadiq Khan.
Okay, Boris, I can't be patriotic for 364 days of a year, but thank you for allowing us this one day to celebrate our historic country.
Yeah, I know.
And again, I hate the framing.
We shouldn't be embarrassed.
No, we shouldn't be embarrassed.
I shouldn't have to say that.
Yeah, exactly.
The fact that you have to say that is because the left are controlling everything.
Ben Cook, if you think that it's funny that Scotland and Wales emblems are not real, then it might be interesting to know that Wales is a Saxon word.
Yeah, Welsh means foreigner.
In English, in Old English.
So anyone who declares themselves to be proudly Welsh declares themselves to be a foreigner.
Which is kind of insulting.
Who are you?
Well, we're the native Brits.
It's, ah, foreigners.
Not wrong.
Uh, Daniel says, I can see the notification before the stream starts.
Brilliant.
Currently 11.40pm here in New Zealand.
Glad I can leave a message behind.
Just want to say you guys do great work and I hope I can finally get a message on the podcast.
Cheers and have a great day.
Well, there we go.
You managed it.
Please inform us what the hell's going on with New Zealand and the Chinese.
Yeah.
I'm only briefly getting information about the whole thing because I've not really had time to look into it properly.
But what on earth?
They know everything about the way we handle intelligence going back to the 40s.
And if they're just affecting to China...
Brilliant.
I mean, we are really screwed.
God, I don't need Beth thinking about...
Let's go back to arguing with Sadiq Khan.
Cameron says, stuck listening to boring corporate drivel for an hour or so today, so many thanks for keeping my lefty entertained while my right withers away.
Our pleasure.
Joseph Hibbert says, hi guys, have you heard the draconian bus announcements telling you that you must refrain from eating and drinking while on board?
I've also been thinking that the communists can't really have a national identity as their ideology cares not for the culture they're demanding a change to...
And want to change that culture to a universal culture that has very little, if any, resemblance to the previous culture.
Could be an effective avenue of attack when properly explained.
False.
Yeah, I mean, they're internationalists by definition.
Well, their culture is the party.
But what's interesting of every communist state that comes into being is they try and do all this, and then they just become honest socialists, which are just fascists, and they become a fascist state.
Yes.
But, yeah, George Orwell in the book club of No Child Nationalism, what we did, He explains, I think that nationalism is the pursuit of power for a higher ideal.
And so you can be a nationalist for communism.
You can be a nationalist for fascism.
You can be a nationalist for a nation state.
And the difference, patriotism being the sort of local, particular, parochial view of things, as in I am patriotic about my office because I know the things here and I like them and I interact with them and stuff like this.
It's not an abstract ideal.
And I think that's a good way of distinguishing.
So, I mean, you are right.
Obviously, any communist can't be patriotic for a country.
They hate these countries.
These are bad.
Which is why they all end up becoming fascists and being like, you know, Korean nationalist communists.
That's the main sense.
Yeah.
Anyway, we're out of time, actually.
Oh, boy.
Okay, so go and sign a petition.
Go and check out our premium content on lowseers.com, the podcast we did about Anglo-Saxon political traditions.
Yes.
And Tucker Carlson's talking about that with his voting rights.
It will be up soon.
I think it will be up next week, something like that.
So look forward to it.
We'll see you Monday, 1 o'clock.
▲
Export Selection