Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 27, 2021 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:32:37

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #119

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters for the 27th of April 2021.
	I'm joined by Carl, and today we're not going to be talking about the Orcs, although I'd want to.
	We're going to be talking about Boris under pressure.
	He seems to be getting attacks from all sides, and I don't know what to make of it, but it certainly is interesting.
	So also tying up some loose ends.
	So there's a bunch of like small updates to a bunch of stories we've covered and they're all really interesting but we don't really know if we can make a whole segment out of them.
	So we're going to just throw them all together and then hopefully it'll be good fun.
	A lot of them are white pills.
	At least the ones I've got in there.
	We'd also, I've forgotten the chap's name, but we'd also like to thank the chap who has made the Stormbolt Cell, the Bolt Pistol, and the Purity Seal, which I don't know whether you can see is...
	Probably a little bit blurry.
	Probably a bit blurry, but it's pinned to the sword that we were also given.
	And so this is very nicely rounding out what we have.
	Like the writing as well for Carl's thing, it's got the Keto message there.
	Thou shalt not eat the bread, thou shalt not eat the sugar, and thou shalt be virtuous.
	Based.
	That's what we'll do later.
	Anyway, so the last thing is just nature thought patrolling women, which we'll get into.
	So without further ado, just wanted to promote a couple of things.
	So first, the Tucker Carlson Anglo-Saxon political traditions podcast is out.
	It's done.
	So talking about the America First caucus coming up with the fact that you should respect Anglo-Saxon political traditions.
	I mean, out there ideas.
	Ooh, not constitutions!
	I don't know about that.
	Free speech, equal rights, gun ownership...
	So I love that thumbnail as well.
	Jon's done a really good job there.
	Just him with the England logo.
	It's great.
	It's so funny.
	Yeah.
	So go and give that a watch.
	Sign up on localseasons.com to view that because it is premium content.
	Also, quick message for the video comments.
	Please, please no swear because then it takes forever to censor out because we have to be family friendly.
	Because we want to be family friendly, not because we have to be.
	Actually, believe it or not, swearing is the one thing we won't get deplatformed for.
	Yeah, I know, right?
	Anyway, without further ado, let's get into it.
	So let the bodies hit the roof.
	So this is apparently Boris Johnson's position on lockdowns now, which is just like, everyone can die.
	No, no, I don't believe this before we get into it.
	Well, I want to believe it.
	I know you want to believe, but...
	So here, this is the story from the BBC News.
	So these, as they say, were made last autumn.
	So they say the remarks were said to have been made last autumn just as England went into the second lockdown.
	So before the second lockdown happened, sources say that he said let the bodies pile high rather than take us into a third lockdown because of presumably the economic cost lockdowns take.
	So the PM has strongly denied saying the phrase, describing the reports as, quote, total rubbish.
	What?
	A government spokesman has said, this is untrue, and the PM has denied it.
	I'm not aware of anyone else making that statement.
	So this was first reported in the Daily Mail, and then the BBC and ITV have said they've got separate and independent sources who also confirm that this happened.
	So you've got three different people, presumably, giving information.
	So there's the debate about whether or not he said it, which...
	I mean, they've got multiple sources, so it's certainly possible...
	And it does sound like something he would say.
	You know, jokingly?
	Not even jokingly.
	The way he said it is obviously hyperbolic, but the principle I think underlying it is something that he probably believed, which is we shouldn't be having lockdowns.
	I mean, I know you're fully on board with this sentiment.
	It's a bit crudely put, I would say.
	But it's the point there, which is, look, how much economic turmoil can you get for how many people dead?
	I mean, what's the trade-off?
	Because there is a trade-off.
	Because economic cost does end up causing deaths as well.
	So it's not as simple as saying, oh, people are dying, therefore we must do X. There are other forms of long-term damage that have been done to the country and the people of the country in the pursuit of making sure that 82-year-olds don't die of a communicable disease.
	Yeah, so maybe Boris has been reading your Memento Mori post.
	I don't think so.
	I'm not the believer that this is true, but I look forward to the sources proving it true.
	I mean, if they've got a recording, if they've got more people saying it, you can't say it, because he would be in trouble for that, because then he's lying to the public about what he said.
	But let me just make my case very quickly.
	I think that the very concept of the lockdowns was, A, invented by Xi Jinping, and imposed in China and then for some reason exported around the world and I have no idea why like there's no no good reason to have done it there are countries that didn't do it that suffered almost exactly the same kinds of curves that we suffered I don't know if the lockdown even had any effect because there's plenty of evidence to suggest that actually it just narrowly funneled people into certain places such as hospitals and supermarkets which cause a huge amount of transmission through these places so it's like okay
	How do we know lockdowns were effective?
	We don't.
	And are they immoral?
	They are.
	Are they the product of the Chinese Communist Party?
	They appear to be.
	So I'm in totally agreement with Boris's flippant comment, no, let the bodies pile up before I tyrannise the country.
	Yeah.
	Sorry, no.
	I hate it.
	Take the same comment with regards to World War II or something.
	Would you rather let the bodies pile high or have to fight the Nazis?
	Or capitulate to the Germans.
	Yeah, I think we'll just fight the Nazis.
	Yeah, sorry.
	There's literally no limit to the number of people who will have to fight the Nazis and may die doing so.
	I'm sorry.
	But the reason I find it hard to believe is because, of course, this is just before he then institutes the second lockdown and now is, you know, insistently saying that, no, lockdowns work in his interviews.
	No, no, no.
	It's totally believable, right?
	Because it's not...
	I do think that, spiritually, Boris does have this kind of, you know, heart of an Englishman sort of thing.
	However, he's also got a spine made of jelly.
	And so, as soon as Keir Starmer and the press start saying something, he's like, okay, well, it's capitulate, just capitulate.
	It's like, you're not Churchill, are you?
	You know, you'd like to be Churchill, but you're not.
	And you understand that Churchill in this position would have just been like, no, just no, not on my watch.
	You know, and if the British public don't like it, come the next election, they can yeet me out, you know?
	But it's just weakness on his part.
	Yeah.
	Anyway, I just don't personally find it true, but we'll see the evidence when they release it, presumably.
	The other thing he's under attack for is because of his flat.
	So, he apparently spent £200,000, this is the given estimate, to refurbish number 11.
	So, of course, the Prime Minister's meant to live at number 10, but when Blair moved in, they decided the flat was too small upstairs, so they annexed number 11 to go and live in, because the flat's bigger, and therefore they could take their kids.
	And subsequently, Prime Ministers have taken the bigger flat, because, I mean, you would, wouldn't you?
	If you're offered the bigger one, you'd take it.
	And you're given a £30,000 public grant to refurbish it in your image, because you're the new Prime Minister, you might want a new layout or something.
	And apparently, no, he decided to go for more than that, so they say the estimate about £200,000 was spent on refurbishing it, and then the question comes, where's the under £170,000 coming from?
	And the Daily Mail reported that Lord Brownlow said in last October that he was making a donation of £58,000 to the Conservative Party, quote,"...to cover the payments the party has already made on behalf of the soon-to-be-formed Downing Street Trust." Except none of that trust exists, to my watch.
	It never seemed to get formed.
	So what was he giving that money for?
	And the accusation seems to be that the Conservative Party gave Boris a loan to refurbish the place.
	And then the obvious question comes, where do you get your money from donors?
	So donors give Conservative Party money, Conservative Party gives Boris money.
	It just looks like legalized bribery.
	Because if the donor's got anything in return...
	Yeah.
	Then there's big questions to be asked there.
	Well, let it never be said that the Conservative Party is above corruption.
	Yeah.
	It's just interesting that both of these attacks come out about at the same time.
	So apparently charitable trusts are sort of a normal thing.
	So apparently it gets done for checkers for revurbishments because that's just how these things go.
	But no one was made for Downing Street.
	And the other question is whether or not it was given, if this is the case that he took the donation from the Conservative Party, sorry, the loan, and then used it, did he make this all clear to the Electoral Commission?
	Because if not, then he's going to be in trouble.
	And this is all unique, that it all comes out at the same time, I think.
	I mean, maybe I'm just being conspiratorial, but it's interesting how all attacks on a Prime Minister usually come out within the span of a few months to try and harm them or to get them out.
	Dominic Cummings responding to this so if you remember a little while ago Dominic Cummings the PM's advisor left number 10 and in the middle of all this we did some reporting on it at the time he went with the communications director and I don't care about number 10 office politics that's why I'm probably not the best knowledgeable person on the inside deets on this and the drama but you know why would you have to care so apparently there was some debate between what's called the Brexit boys so Cummings and his gang and Boris's girlfriend yeah
	Yeah, embarrassing.
	And you can see the results of it as Dominic Cummings is carrying his things out of the office.
	Yeah, he put this up at the time, was like, right, I was planning on leaving anyway, blah, blah, blah.
	But he also went with his communications director, and then the chief of staff and the communications director were people that Boris's girlfriend liked, so looked like she won that.
	You can imagine the conversation, it's like, Dominic, I really like you and everything, but you don't have a WAP. Yeah.
	Yeah, this is an embarrassing thing that's been going on.
	A lot of people got questions about how much influence she has over Boris Johnson and the running of the government, because who elected her?
	Nobody.
	Like, if she proposes policies or decides things, why?
	Like, she's not even his wife, she's a girlfriend.
	Anyway, so Dominic Cummings decided to release, in response to all these accusations about Boris Johnson, Boris Johnson seeming to claim that he was the source of all these leaks about his refurbishment and his claims about saying let the bodies pile high, decided to write a big long blog post on his blog, which was interesting.
	So he, in here, talks about the leak about lockdown.
	So you remember, before the second lockdown was announced, there was a leak in which they were announcing it was going to happen before they were meant to release it.
	And Cummings in here claims that Boris knows it wasn't Cummings who leaked it.
	And he knows that this guy, Henry Newman, is the guy who leaked it instead.
	And Boris knows this, and the guy investigating it, the cabinet secretary...
	Is that like Kathy Newman's husband or something?
	No, it's just some friend of Boris' girlfriend.
	Yeah.
	Just some guy who they made an advisor because he's friends with Boris' girlfriend.
	Yeah, it looks weird.
	So he says in here, in which they found out that Dominic Cummings wasn't the one who leaked it and was likely this guy.
	He says in the blog post, The PM was very upset about this.
	He said to me afterwards, That's bad.
	That's very bad.
	Yeah, that is.
	That's a breach of ministerial code as well, so that's why it matters significantly.
	So in response, Cummings apparently told him, I told him that this was, quote, mad and totally unethical, and that he had ordered the inquiry himself and authorized the cabinet secretary to use more invasive methods than are usually applied to leak inquiries because of the seriousness of the leak, the fact that the lockdown affected millions of people.
	Hmm.
	I told him that he could not possibly cancel an inquiry about a leak that affected millions of people just because it might implicate his girlfriend's friends.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Totally agree.
	Seems a solid thing to say, Dominic Cummings.
	I can't fault you on that.
	And it's pretty disgusting if Boris really is that...
	What do you even call it?
	Incestuous?
	Like held to account by his girlfriend instead of, you know, ethics or the rule of law and things.
	But the thing is, I guess I'm a bit more cynical, because this is just exactly what I'd expect.
	Like, the politicians, oh, I need something done.
	Well, you know, my girlfriend's brother has a construction company, so I'll get him to do the thing, and he, you know, so it's, all politics is basically this kind of incestuous relationships, so...
	Yeah, it is all relationships and it's hard to combat, sure, but it doesn't mean it's any less gross.
	Oh no, it's gross.
	It's doubly embarrassing because you don't see this kind of stuff usually from other leaders.
	You never hear about other leaders' girlfriends or wives controlling them to this extent that you keep to get news out of number 10.
	Maybe it's all false, but so many people keep saying that she's in charge of this, in charge of that, and it seems to show.
	Honestly, I would suspect that practically everything that we're hearing is probably true.
	All of this is probably true.
	So I've got a little reason to doubt Dominic Cummings' side of the story here.
	So he continues that Dominic was accused by the Director of Communications about being the leaker about the flat story.
	So the fact that he had refurbished his flat.
	And he says in response, The PM stopped speaking to me about this matter in 2020.
	me.
	As I told him, I thought his plans to have donors secretly pay for the renovation were unethical, foolish, possibly illegal, and almost certainly broke the rules on proper disclosure of political donations, if conducted in the way he wanted to indeed.
	I refused to help him organise these payments." So, I mean, Dominic Cummings shot across the bow You asked me to set up probably an illegal situation in which you were taking donors' money.
	At the very least, an unethical situation.
	Yeah.
	Well, actually, it might be illegal as well.
	He's correct about that.
	And then saying, yeah, you did this.
	I said no.
	And then you may have carried on with this.
	And I'm not the one leaking that.
	Someone else has leaked that.
	And that's your problem, buddy.
	I don't work at number 10 anymore.
	Hmm.
	I mean, it's not looking good for Boris Johnson there.
	Nice bridge burned there by Dominic, though.
	Yeah, I suppose if he's being accused of such things, I mean, you would burn that bridge.
	I mean, why would you stick around?
	I mean, if you're being a trash like that.
	Oh, yeah, yes.
	So that's basically it.
	It's not too much of a thing, but I wanted to talk about it because it's the big news in the UK at the moment, because a lot of people are trying to go after Boris on these issues.
	I don't really care that much.
	Like, if he's done something improper, sure, he'll be taken out on the ministerial code, have some sanction put against him.
	If he's broken the rules on our electoral commission, yeah, he'll be taking sanctions on him that way.
	But it's not really a huge issue for me.
	What's embarrassing is more just the girlfriend part.
	The fact that the girlfriend seems to be controlling his every move, or at least his communications director, his chief of staff, and also some policy.
	Some of the things that keep coming out, people weren't expecting from him.
	I mean, Brexit, good.
	But Brexit is done.
	You've got that done.
	What's next?
	Fix the country.
	Fix the goddamn country.
	You've got everything.
	We keep saying this, but it's just because it doesn't stop being true.
	Just fix the damn country.
	You've got everything laid out at your feet.
	I mean, like, you know, apologize to Dominic Cummings.
	Bring him back and be like, Dominic, what do I need to do to fix the country?
	And he'll say, do this, this, this, and this.
	And I bet I would co-sign every single suggestion...
	And just do it.
	And when the press complain, just tell them, too bad, not listening.
	When the Labour Party complain, say, shut up, Keir Starmer.
	Just go back to fending off the Corbynites.
	Look at your polling, blah, blah, blah.
	Just make things better.
	You've got all of the options now.
	You really do.
	And I'm so frustrated with the Conservatives.
	Yeah, I mean, I have two people who would you think would be better in place to advise you about how to run the country, Dominic Cummings or your girlfriend.
	I mean, I would go with Dominic Cummings every day of the week.
	Dominic Cummings doesn't have a WAP also.
	Yeah, doesn't have a WAP. Anyway, yeah, it's not too big of a story.
	I didn't want to make too big of a deal out of it.
	It's just a thing that's going on.
	I guess we'll see if he gets charged or sanctioned for if he's done anything wrong.
	But it's also interesting that they have multiple sources saying this did happen, and yet he's still denying it.
	Like, hmm, I don't know.
	But, I mean, if it's just like they said, I said situation, no proof can come of it.
	But to be honest with you, it sounds like something you'd say, and I agree with him.
	Yeah, you agree with the motive, which is just, well, is this worth it?
	The government doesn't have the authority to tell you you can't open your goddamn business.
	The government doesn't have the authority to dictate what consenting adults you can and can't have sex with.
	The government doesn't have the authority to dictate any of these things, and yet they've done it.
	And so, yeah, Boris should have come out and just been hard, like, you know, this is the cause of British liberty we're talking about here.
	We're not talking about just, you know...
	A small thing.
	This is the entire country.
	Everyone here, like 70 million people are going to be affected by this, and many more lives will be ruined as a consequence.
	It's a trade-off, but I've just got to put my foot down and say, look, we just don't have the authority to be like the communist Chinese, and we don't want to be.
	Yeah, irritatingly, apparently this was the positions of Dominic Cummings.
	Good.
	Up until it became government policy that lockdowns were going to happen.
	Yeah.
	I mean, you remember the leaks, people saying that Dominic Cummings was like, yeah, a lot of old people will die, but I mean, is the economic cost worth it?
	And then he was pilloried for these comments, and it's like, well, looking back on it.
	Well, the old people still die, don't they?
	Yep.
	Unfortunately, there's absolutely nothing you can do to stop old people from dying because, unfortunately, that's what happens when you reach your 80s and 90s.
	You're not going on a skiing holiday.
	You're not sailing around the world.
	You're waiting for your grandkids to visit and the unfortunate inevitable end.
	It's just the way of life.
	Can't fight it.
	There's nothing we can do about it until, of course, we start...
	Going down the Alex Jones rabbit hole of, you know, imbibing children's blood or some nonsense like that.
	And I'd rather just die, so I'd rather just let nature take its course.
	Anyway, let's move on.
	So we're going to tie up some loose ends.
	Yes, we are.
	A whole bunch of stories.
	Well, incidentally, we'll start with the most natural thing to move on from that previous story, which is that lockdowns hurt children.
	We now have evidence and a report of this.
	So I just want to be clear, right?
	You didn't need a report to know that this was going to happen, right?
	You just had to have some experience of what children are like, some understanding of the requirements that they had growing up, going to school, socializing, these sort of things.
	And with enough of these pieces of evidence in your favor, you can make a fairly strong inductive argument to say, look, it's very likely that this is going to be harmful to children.
	And therefore, the question is, do we harm children in order to preserve the lives of 80 and 90 year olds?
	Seems slightly vampiric, in my opinion.
	And I have been a firm proponent against lockdowns as being immoral.
	And because the damage that they've done to a generation of children is probably not something that the pensioners themselves would have co-signed were they given the option.
	Especially if framed in these terms, which I think we could have reliably asserted were pretty certain to have happened, But now we obviously have the evidence.
	So this is from the BBC. I can attest to this.
	This is something that I personally have, I mean, I'm not saying, I'm not complaining that I've had to put more work in, but it's just one of those things that, look, that's why I pay for them to go to school, you know, so that they're being taught these things and then I don't have to teach them these things.
	But I mean, don't get me wrong, I actually did quite enjoy, like, sitting down with my son and getting to read and write and things like that, but that's beside the point, you know, that's beside the point.
	The evidence shows poor speech development can have long-term effects on learning.
	The government is now investing £18 million in early years catch-up, which honestly doesn't sound like nearly enough.
	But anyway, the less or no contact with grandparents, social distancing, no playdates, and the wearing of face coverings in public have left children exposed to conversations and everyday experiences.
	To conversations and everyday experiences.
	And it's one of those things that's kind of intangible, right?
	You don't know where your children are picking up the things that they understand, the words they, you know, the expansion of their vocabulary, and the practice on how to properly formulate sentences and thoughts, right?
	You don't know where these happen because these happen in such large numbers in everyday environment, and so it's about the sort of socialization of the children.
	And this is something now we have evidence that, well, this was a problem.
	Yes, it was a problem.
	Children are absolutely at no risk whatsoever.
	If they're not allowed to visit their grandparents anyway, then what's the point in making sure they can't visit each other?
	It defies belief.
	It's like people complaining, oh, I've had the vaccine.
	You should get the vaccine because you're putting me at risk.
	I mean, there were no arguments to begin with.
	I mean, the death rate for children was probably better than if you get an adult that's vaccinated.
	So what was the point?
	Literally sort of 0.01% or something like that.
	It's really, really low.
	You could count on one hand the number of children who died within 28 days of a COVID test, positive COVID test.
	And so it's...
	I think, honestly, it's unconscionable.
	This is going to be essentially a retarded generation, and I imagine they're going to be resentful about this.
	So when I was five, the government locked me in my house for a year, well, I mean, assuming they're intelligent enough to have these thoughts, and actually retarded my development for fear of old people dying of a flu-like disease.
	And we'll be like, yeah, yeah, we did do that.
	Why did you accept it?
	Well, nobody knew what to do.
	Of the 58 primary schools surveyed across England, 76% said that pupils starting school in September 2020 needed more support with communications and 96% were concerned that their speech and language development was held back.
	Again, I told everyone this would happen.
	I started with my own kids.
	This is not good.
	This is just something that's happened and now we have to deal with that consequence.
	Would have been better to have had no lockdowns at all, in my opinion, and just quarantined the elderly.
	But anyway, the next one is Biden is indeed building the wall.
	And that's a good thing.
	So Trump was right all along.
	It's always nice, isn't it?
	This is The Hill saying Biden building a wall is a good thing.
	Joe Biden, in January, Biden issued a proclamation terminating Trump's declaration stopping the border wall construction that had funded.
	Biden's proclamation says it should be the policy of my administration that no more American taxpayer dollars We'll be diverted to the construction of a border wall.
	And I love the way they put this.
	Although that may have seemed appropriate in January, the situation at the border has gotten much worse since then.
	Oh, no, no, no.
	It wasn't appropriate in January.
	This was clearly orange man bad, Trump derangement syndrome policymaking.
	This was very clearly, Trump said it's good, well, we say it's bad then.
	And then reality started catching up, because in 2020, 400,000 people were apprehended at the border.
	So we don't know how many people got across, but we know that 400,000 were stopped.
	A month?
	No, no, in total.
	But that's still a huge number, nearly half a million people just trying to get across the border.
	So again, we don't know exactly how many people have got across, but of course this is...
	Not good.
	But by the end of March 2021, 351,000.
	So essentially it's four times higher this year than it was last year.
	Why?
	Well, we know why, as we've covered in previous podcasts.
	The migrants themselves have been saying, well, Joe Biden told us we could come.
	It's like, oh, and why didn't you come under Trump?
	Well, we knew he'd be sent back and we knew he'd be stopped.
	That's exactly what they said.
	The message matters.
	The message matters.
	What's embarrassing about this is, you know, you go back and look at the State of the Union address Bill Clinton gave in like 1990 or whatever it was.
	Literally, it's Trump's policy, build the wall.
	Yeah, it was in 97 or something.
	But like, yeah, I mean, unironically, Trump is a Clintonian Democrat, you know, and this is just the fact of the matter.
	But anyway, so, of course, Biden is now walking back his proclamation, and he is reportedly returning, considering a return to construction of the southern border wall in order to fill the gaps that undocumented aliens took advantage of when the construction was halted.
	Smugglers send groups of illegal crosses through the gaps that overwhelm the agents.
	Well, the coyotes...
	Oh, when Trump was like, oh yeah, the coyotes are smuggling people across, and they were like, ha ha ha, coyotes can't smuggle people on Twitter.
	It's like, no dunces.
	I know you don't know anything about this, but that's the terminology they use for the people smugglers.
	It's just a nickname, essentially.
	So, once again, proven, Trump was right.
	Trump was completely morally right about all of this.
	If you tell them they can come, they will come, and you will need to build a border wall.
	DHS Secretary, I can't pronounce that, explained the president has ended funding based on Trump's emergency declaration, but this leaves room for work on areas of the wall that need renovation and particular projects that need to be finished.
	So there we go.
	The Department of Homeland Security is like, Trump was right, build the wall.
	End of story.
	And then you go on to the next one where Biden was like, well, I'm going to allow 60,000 refugees to come into the United States each year.
	And he turned around and said, actually, 15,000 limits set by the Trump administration seems kind of reasonable.
	And so we're going to keep that.
	And that caused a massive backlash from Democrats and human rights activists.
	And so Biden has promised, oh, no, we will.
	We will allow it to 62,000 now.
	But of course, Biden's been sat around on his keister for quite some time and has not signed or did not for at least two months sign this presidential determination that would allow refugees to board the flights in the United States.
	The refugees have been waiting around, unable to actually come to the United States, even though Biden said that this was fine.
	Why?
	Because it was a Trump policy and he wanted to just be, I'm anti-Trump.
	However, it's a good point.
	You can't just take unlimited numbers of refugees, especially when you have hundreds of thousands, if not more refugees.
	Illegal immigrants coming across the southern border.
	This is a problem that you have to deal with, and you've got Democratic leaders like Senator Dick Durbin going, oh, this is unacceptable, it's unacceptable.
	No, it's totally acceptable, which is why Trump did it, and which is why Biden is just essentially having to eat crow over this.
	You know, it's just the right thing to do.
	Deal with it.
	The next one, we asked, will Black Lives Matter venerate Micaiah Bryant, the attempted murderer of another young woman who we don't know the name of offhand?
	And the answer is yes.
	This is from Black Lives Matter's website.
	Micaiah Bryant.
	At the exact same time the verdict of Derek Chauvin was being read for murdering George Floyd, police waited no time in senselessly taking another black child.
	Capital Black.
	Senselessly.
	No sense in it.
	No sense in it.
	Micaiah Bryant, we say her name.
	Micaiah Bryant called the police for help.
	Is that true?
	I've seen no evidence of that.
	Yeah, because we've heard the call.
	And the call does not sound like it's her.
	It sounds like it's someone else outside of the group.
	Talking about her.
	Yeah.
	But the confusion appears to come from her mother or aunt or someone who apparently said this, but I don't think that that's true.
	And I think it's someone who was concerned about watching how she was behaving.
	Call the cops.
	But, of course, as they say, Columbus police officer Nicholas Reardon showed up and shot the 16-year-old child point-blank within a matter of seconds.
	Another black life stolen with no regard.
	Well, I mean, he did save a black girl, if that helps, you know.
	I mean, I'd like to honour Nicholas Reardon for saving the life of a black teenager.
	Yeah, I mean, literal hero.
	He's a hero.
	Literal hero.
	A BLM like now.
	Good guy with a gun.
	We'll side with the villain with the knife.
	Why not?
	Because...
	Black life's stolen.
	Together, we're going to uplift, centre and honour this black child for what she loved.
	Doing her hair, making TikToks and being a teenager.
	Okay, that's weird.
	Well, is she using the knife to make TikToks?
	Is that what that was?
	I mean, she's literally an attempted murderer.
	Would have definitely stabbed someone.
	Don't worry, it was just for a TikTok.
	Just for a TikTok.
	But Micaiah Bryant's life mattered.
	Then maybe she shouldn't have tried to stab someone in front of a cop.
	I mean, the cop was literally right there.
	She's already, like, I don't know, barreled over.
	I don't know if she stabbed the other woman, but, like, knocked over another woman.
	Then she goes after the other woman and the cop shoots her.
	It's like, what are you doing?
	There's a cop right there.
	Like, I mean, even if you're, like...
	This is the most open shot case you could get as well.
	Yeah.
	Even if you're so dead set on killing this person, don't try it with the cop right there.
	Be like, okay, well, I'll have to try another time.
	I mean, it's just common sense.
	Common sense murder policy.
	What?
	I mean, it's just ridiculous.
	Obviously, don't go and stab anyone, obviously, but it's just like, how ridiculous does your worldview have to be?
	Like, look, okay, I'm really pissed off at this girl.
	I'm going to go stab her.
	There is a cop with a gun there, but I'm just going to go ahead with it anyway, and there'll be no consequences for this.
	Sorry, this is just ridiculous.
	But it's worth the fact that BLM here, sitting with thousands of miles away, can sit there and think about this old issue, watch the body cam footage, and yet still comes to the conclusion she did nothing wrong and we're going to side with her.
	Yeah, and it's weird that they're attempting to create this narrative as if she's the victim of her own stabbings.
	I mean, you couldn't get a better example of how black lives don't matter to them.
	Yeah.
	The person she was about to kill was black.
	Don't care.
	She was making TikToks.
	She deserved to be able to stab that girl?
	And then you've got the response, of course, all over social media.
	It's like, well, kids, you know, it's just kids being kids, you know, it's just a little bit of light stabbing.
	Don't worry.
	Girls will be girls.
	Yeah, exactly.
	It's ridiculous.
	I think that we can solidly draw a line in the sand and say, listen, right, we shouldn't just leave them to stab each other.
	I know that's radical.
	I know that's really far out there.
	It's a totally far-right position that maybe children shouldn't just be allowed to stab one another, but that's a hill I'm prepared to die on, actually.
	I like how things from the United States usually come over to British politics, and what was embarrassing is around about exactly the same time the entire American left was trying to say that children just have knife fights for fun all the time, that a few people were actually stabbed to death in London, and then you had the British left being like, yeah...
	This is not a hill we're propelled to die on, you know.
	But that's the thing.
	These stabbings happen in London all the time, on a daily basis.
	I suppose with the British left going to come and be like, well, thank God a cop wasn't there to stop it.
	Exactly.
	What could they say?
	Anyway, moving on.
	Let's clean up the Oscars.
	Yeah, so right after we'd done the segment, practically, the viewing figures for the Oscars came out, and this was just...
	I mean, I had oversold the number.
	I saw 10 to 15 million, something like that.
	And it turns out it was 9.8 million.
	Not even 10 million people watched the Oscars.
	So back in 2014, it was 43.7 million.
	This goes down to about half in 2020, 23.6 million, and then 9.8 million.
	Could there be a bigger indictment of left-wing radical politics?
	I mean, destroying it.
	Absolutely.
	Sure, COVID's having a massive impact there, but you saw the clips.
	You saw the kind of people that do this.
	Hang on, hang on.
	Is COVID having an impact there, though?
	Because everyone claims this.
	Sure, but that wasn't the problem.
	They also have Netflix series and all this sort of stuff.
	It's not just movies.
	The problem is it's bloody woke, and nobody cares about that.
	And you can hear the cope in various articles like this next one.
	I love this, right?
	So that's a 58.5% drop.
	If we lost half of our audience, more than half of our audience from one to the next, I would be asking, okay, what did we do wrong?
	Instead, it's just like, oh well, award shows have been in decline for years.
	The last year's Emmys was watched by just 5.1 million people.
	The reason?
	Too many award shows.
	Too much content.
	Too long and boring.
	The hosts are annoying.
	The lack of a host is annoying.
	Yeah, but there is a connective thread that runs through all of this.
	It's not just random for different reasons, right?
	Some will decry the political tenor of many speeches, but these have been part of the deal since Marlon Brando Yeah, maybe, but the kind of politics is what matters.
	The simple truth is that people are tired of award shows and have been for some time.
	Or it could be that people are just sick of being preached at by millionaires.
	Imagine watching that and being like, the problem is the awards.
	But it's not even preached out by millionaires, though, right?
	Because if all of these people got up and were like, you know, America's the greatest country on Earth, we're the best, China sucks, you know, all of these other countries that are communists suck, America, America, America, capitalism, capitalism, capitalism.
	If it came across like a Trump rally...
	Yeah, I'd watch that.
	Exactly.
	I would watch that, too.
	I would enjoy that, you know?
	Get some absolute base hot takes from some of the actors and things like that.
	That would be amazing.
	I would really enjoy it.
	But it turns out there just isn't the market for wokeism that they wish there was.
	Like, I love this.
	The Oscars no longer hold the central position in the discourse that they once did.
	Yeah, they don't, because you effed them up.
	You know, this is pure cope.
	And Bill Maher had the best response to all of this, right?
	Yeah.
	Bill Maher came out and said, look, judging by this year's Best Picture nominees, you couldn't have had a worse time at the movies if there was an active shooter in the theatre.
	Just disavow.
	But that's the point.
	Everything there, it's all woke garbage, and it's being promoted as if this is normal and mainstream, because the progressives are wearing the Oscars as a goddamn skin suit.
	Like, I'm so sick of it.
	Bill Maher.
	An active shooter is better than having to watch this.
	Oh, man.
	It's a good joke.
	It's very spicy.
	I wish we could make jokes like that these days.
	So, what else happened?
	You've got a few extra things you've added onto this.
	Yeah, so I just wanted to add a few things on there, some other loose ends.
	So one of the things I wanted to mention was, folks might remember, we covered Voice of Wales a while ago.
	So these guys had set up a YouTube channel.
	They were, you know, going out...
	Wasn't it like working-class lads from Wales?
	Yeah, they were just going out filming corruption within either the police or the local Labour Party that runs Wales in things they were doing.
	I mean, like setting up the migrant camp, for example, and saying that this was wonderful.
	And in response, the Labour Party decided to lobby YouTube and then got the BBC, the state media involved, to also lobby YouTube and got their channel banned.
	So their channel got completely banned.
	And now they have their own website because they can't just keep things on YouTube, of course, because everything's gone.
	So if you go to the next one, this is their website, just in case you want to find their stuff.
	I know some people from our show signed up to Voice of Wales YouTube channel.
	In case you wondered why it's gone, that's why.
	The media and the state were able to lobby YouTube to get rid of them because they disagreed.
	They didn't engage in any hate speech.
	They didn't break any terms of service.
	That was it.
	I don't think they were racists.
	I mean, they had, like, non-white people on their streams saying, look, we don't care about any of that.
	You know, we care about the fact that, essentially, American philosophy is being imported.
	They didn't say it like that, but that's the crux of their argument, was why are Americans being venerated on, like, the Welsh Heritage Museum or whatever it was?
	Yeah.
	Barack Obama, Welsh heritage.
	Yeah, what the hell is going on?
	It's people on Twitter that have decided that, oh, we need to get on board.
	Yeah, so they also had a Twitter account, and of course that's gone too.
	So the reason that's gone is that, as you can see here, they posted a clip of a black police officer who was invited on to discuss the show in trial, and he did not take the approved opinion.
	Did you see this clip?
	Yeah, it was a pretty good clip.
	That's amazing.
	In which he's just beating out the BBC journalist who was not expecting his response.
	It was amazing.
	Even dropping the 1350 and then going, well, that's just, that's too generous because it's actually a very slim, slim number of black men who are doing this to each other.
	It's like, oof.
	Yeah, so Voice of Wales posted that clip.
	It went viral.
	You can see Candace Owens retweeted it.
	Jack Posobiec retweeted it.
	People from the GOP retweeted it.
	I think it got like a million views and then just gone.
	That Twitter account, gone.
	Why?
	Because it got retweeted.
	That was the problem.
	They did literally nothing wrong.
	Nada.
	They didn't even give a reason.
	I spoke to Voice of Wales.
	We met them on the Freedom March, which we're not allowed to speak about, so we'll just say that.
	Although we have an interview with them I'm hopefully going to put up on the website after this, if I can get anything.
	So just for being popular, that's why they were deleted off Twitter.
	So they have their own website now, so if you want to find them, go on there.
	Although the white pill I want to end on.
	What's the website, Callum?
	Voiceofwales.com.
	Well, there we go.
	Yeah, www.voiceofwales.com.
	Can't tell people they've got a website, but we're not going to tell you what it is.
	We usually have links.
	Yeah, sure, but not everyone's going to be checking the show notes.
	Okay, well, we have show notes and also www.voiceofwales.com.
	There you go.
	So the other point I wanted to mention here, the white pill of the day, is Priti Patel calls on police chiefs to wipe non-hate crime incidents.
	Non-crime hate incidents.
	Non-crime hate incidents from people's records amid fears they could be used to ruin their career prospects.
	Totally true.
	Good.
	Like, non-crime hate incidents for people who live in free countries.
	You might not know what that is.
	And this is when the police get a call that you've engaged in something hateful.
	Like, let's say I'm shopping in Asda, and he comes up here, and he's like, hey, can you pass me a bag?
	And I give him a bag, and because you're very upset about the way I handed you the bag, you might call up the police and say, this guy in Asda, he handed me a bag in a homophobic manner.
	LAUGHTER You think I'm joking, that's actually one that was recorded.
	What?
	I was given in a parliamentary inquiry as an example of a ridiculous non-crime hate.
	How do you hand a bag to someone in a homophobic manner?
	You tell me.
	I mean, it must have been some oppressive acting.
	But they're nonsense.
	I mean, this is just stuff that happens, and then someone, some SJW, takes offence to it, and he calls the police.
	And the police, because it's not a crime, can't arrest him.
	But we can't put it on his permanent record.
	But he didn't say anything, right?
	So...
	I mean, what would the gesture have to be?
	Because normally with these things, you can kind of piece it together and be like, yeah, okay, well, he did this in an uncharitable interpretation.
	Refusing to use the pronouns.
	Yeah, you know, whatever.
	But, you know, through a series of uncharitable interpretations, you can come to the conclusion that actually this guy's a bad person.
	I handed a bag in a homophobic manner.
	Yeah, I don't know.
	They didn't expand on it when I saw this example being given.
	It was just like, kill me.
	This is stupid.
	So the police logged these.
	The worst one I actually saw was when I was at Canterbury University.
	There was a protest against a mosque.
	It was built for students, so I didn't really see that big of a problem with it because it was just for the international students on the university.
	But there were plans, apparently, to build one in central Canterbury.
	Canterbury being a Christian city, as in, you know, like an icon of Christendom.
	There was a protest against this.
	And the people...
	I asked the police one day about that protest and said, well, what will happen with that?
	I mean, that's not a crime, so what will happen to them?
	And they said, oh, we log those as non-crime hate incidents.
	People protesting the building of a mosque.
	That's a non-crime hate incident.
	And that will go on their permanent record.
	So if they get a public sector job or something like that, then they do a background check, they'll find out, oh, you protested against a mosque.
	It's horrible.
	Yeah, it's awful.
	I mean, it's genuinely Orwellian.
	It's the kind of policy that Ingsoc would put in, because it's about thought policing.
	And it doesn't just happen to the plebs either.
	Amber Rudd, the former Home Secretary, apparently got a notice that she had a non-crime hate incident put against her.
	So she checked it up and it was because she gave a speech about immigration and some academic had written up and said, I thought the speech was racist.
	It later transpired that that academic never saw the speech, wasn't in attendance.
	Right.
	They just made it up.
	And I imagine Prima Tell here decided to look up her list of non-crime hate incidents on her record and went, oh good god, this is 10 pages long.
	Saying to the police you must get rid of all of these.
	So a home office source said these so-called non-crime hate incidences have a chilling effect on free speech and potentially stop people expressing views legally and legitimately.
	If people are found to have done nothing wrong, the police shouldn't punish them.
	Good on the home office.
	Doing something good for once.
	So are they actually going to get these removed or what?
	So she's requesting they get rid of them.
	So it's a process because it's done by the police.
	So earlier this year it was revealed how police have recorded non-crime hate incidences against more than 120,000 people in a year, with 2,000 of those people being children.
	They're recording non-crime hate incidences.
	Against children?
	That will go on their permanent record for the rest of their lives.
	And when they apply for jobs in the public sector, that'll get flagged up.
	What an absolutely awful thing to happen.
	So you call someone a name in the playground and that's on your permanent record.
	I can't make a joke!
	Oh god, I really want to make a joke.
	Yeah, I mean, this is awful stuff.
	I don't know why this has been accepted, but apparently the College of Policing introduced us in, like, 2014 to try and log stuff.
	It was a recommendation in response to the murder of Stephen Lawrence and how the police handled that.
	I don't know the details, but I don't care.
	I don't care what the argument is.
	This is Orwellian nonsense.
	So, just a statement from Toby Young, General Secretary of the Free Speech Union.
	Non-crime hate incidents are an invention of the College of Policing, an unelected body, keep in mind.
	They have never been approved by Parliament.
	There is no legal threshold or independent evidentiary test applied to them, and members of the public have no right to appeal against them.
	Indeed, a member of the public can have a non-crime hate incident recorded against them and their name attached to it without ever being informed of that fact.
	So even if it's not against you, you don't get informed.
	it's just on your record and you'll never know why would the conservatives allow this to happen in the first place and you tell me and why haven't they gone hard i mean again this is one of those things fix the country you know this this should be like you know for a week or something prime conservative uh political chum you know be like look this is a wellian nonsense brought in by the labor party you're against the freedoms of the british people you're tyrannizing with this we're against you we're gonna fix this you know easy easy win like a vote to winner yeah i know you
	I hate votes, but...
	I know you hate winning as well, conservatives, but you could really knock it out of the park here, and there would be literally just tyrants on the other side.
	There would be no reasonable argument on the other side.
	It would just be SJW tyranny on that side, and you could just absolutely knock it over.
	So Toby Young continues.
	cases, non-crime hate instances are recorded against a person's name without their knowledge and is only picked up years later when an employer carries out a background check on them.
	This means that a young person training to be an NHS nurse or teacher could be turned down for the job because of a joke they made in the playground when they were 12 years old.
	Oh god, I'm just so on the verge of making a joke.
	But I don't want a non-crime hate incident on my record.
	You've probably got lunch.
	You should write for a Freedom of Information request just to see how many you've got.
	Oh, I wonder if I've got any good ones.
	High points.
	The more you get, the more...
	Because it's not a crime!
	That's the thing!
	There are no crimes being committed here!
	So why are the police involved?
	But yeah, so Priti Patel's written to the College of Policing saying get rid of all of this and the process apparently is that they have to do a review in which everyone discusses it and whatnot because this is how government works and it's tedious.
	But good, good on Priti Patel for saying get rid of all this.
	Go through with it.
	Push hard.
	So a bit of a white pill at least, which is hopefully that gets gone.
	Fingers crossed, man, because this is awful.
	This is just awful Orwellian stuff and it has to go.
	It's not how the country should be run.
	It's improper, you see.
	Yeah, it's not just improper.
	I mean, it's literally communist, totalitarian-style stuff.
	It is also that.
	And that's another good reason why it has to go.
	And that's why it's conservative.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Conservatives, you know, what other points do we need to make, you know?
	I don't get what it is with this country.
	Again, as Toby Young points out, jokes.
	I mean, jokes are what are being criminalised there.
	What's wrong with humour?
	Like, Section 1-7 come after it, the speech laws, you know, malicious communication, non-crime hate incidences...
	It's the Labour Party.
	They want to sanitise the country because they have the view that there is a correct politics.
	And unfortunately for everyone else, the correct politics does not include humour.
	And so everything has to be cracked down on.
	But anyway, ladies, it's time for us to have another talk.
	Another Dadist talk.
	Another sermon from the Book of Dadism.
	Another sermon from the Book of Dadism about how, honestly, nature is just totally unforgiving towards women, and there are women who find this out the hard way, and you don't have to be one of them.
	So this is not a judgement, this is not about berating you, this is not that you've made bad choices or anything like this, but this is just a warning from your fellow sisters who have made bad decisions and now have to live with those consequences.
	You can avoid those consequences by not making those bad decisions.
	So, this is why I love these lifestyle blogs and pages and stuff like that where someone writes in or, you know, they're like, oh, well, you know, this happened to me, what should I do?
	Or this was my experience.
	Because I don't think these are isolated, right?
	I think these are things that many people have happened to them or they do and they don't have any particular way of making this known to other people, right?
	And that's why they do these blogs.
	But anyway, this is one of a woman who, as the title says, I left my boyfriend because of Twitter standards.
	He could not afford five-star holidays and fancy dinners.
	Is that a good reason to leave your boyfriend?
	Like he's not rich enough.
	Yeah.
	She says, "When I started making more money than my boyfriend, I felt like Miss Independent, who needed a man who was on par with her.
	I started to view Bonga, which is the pseudonym that her boyfriend is given in this article, it's not his real name, differently, because he couldn't afford certain things.
	When I could go out with my colleagues or friends, we'd get attention at restaurants and clubs, and men would just settle our bills.
	This would make me question my relationship." It's not good, is it?
	There are men around me who are paying for my stuff.
	Why would the men around me be paying for my stuff?
	Because they want something from you.
	That's why.
	If you're a woman in a relationship, don't let some strange man pay for things.
	Ever.
	I mean, why do Tory donors donor to the Conservative Party?
	Exactly.
	For fun, sure.
	Yeah, it's just for the laughs.
	But again, and I've said this before, gentlemen, for those watching, don't be in a relationship where your woman earns more than you.
	And I know that's going to sound...
	Look at your face, right?
	Oh, well, hang on a second.
	Give me the argument.
	It's not very progressive.
	I'm a Conservative.
	Sure, the woman should be the breadwinner.
	No, it's not very practical.
	It is practical, I think.
	But the argument is just that there appears to be some kind of hypergamous instinct that is baked into human beings, not all of them, and it's not like, you know, 100% all the time, but there's a general current that heads in this direction.
	And you can fight the current, you can be, you know, in opposition to it, but it's still going to be there and it would just be easier if you just went with the flow.
	And the flow is that the man should be the breadwinner.
	That's what nature intends.
	I'm not even joking.
	Okay, sure.
	But saying you shouldn't be in a relationship if the woman earns more than the man is pretty not thinking.
	Like, if you're in a situation in which you're working a dead-end job to get your degree or whatever.
	Sure.
	Well, this is the thing.
	I'm not saying in all times and all places this is just a categoric truth.
	What I'm saying is there is a general...
	That's how you present it.
	Hmm?
	That's how you present it.
	Well, I just said it wasn't!
	Yeah, but that's the problem, like your presentation.
	Yeah, but whenever you make a kind of broad generalization, a broad statement saying X should do Y, you're not saying there are no circumstances in which it can't be done.
	It's a should.
	It's an imperative.
	You mentioned men shouldn't do men.
	If I was to give advice to a young man, I would say be the breadwinner in your relationship.
	That's just the advice.
	That's better framing.
	But then you should be the breadwinner, right?
	That's just that way it is, right?
	Like I said, I'm not saying that in all times and all places that there aren't going to be reasons that you might not be the breadwinner while you're earning your degree, but then the point is so you can earn more money than her.
	But there just appears to be this kind of natural equilibrium in human relationships, and this is what she's seeing.
	She's like, well, I earn more than him, so I feel like Miss Independent.
	Why do you earn more than him, then?
	Like, why do you want to earn more than him if this is, like, something that actually is something that affects you?
	But she says, a day doesn't...
	See, there's lots of terminology in this I'm actually not familiar with, so we're just going to...
	I assume it's because it's Australian colloquialisms.
	A day doesn't pass where Amadoda are not discussed on Twitter.
	I don't know what that is.
	Sayings like, in Doda, like, a man must have money, basically, it translates to.
	And people say things like, what's the point of dating a broke man?
	Rather love yourself, sis, you shouldn't be paying for that dinner bill, are some of the things that got to me.
	These standards, especially those that are prevalent on Twitter, affected my relationship, and I started to view my boyfriend differently.
	So Twitter did this to her, right?
	The sort of selfish, materialistic attitude that people on Twitter expressed, she started thinking, yeah, why am I paying for all these things?
	And it gets back to, yeah, well, I guess nature's asking the same question.
	Why are you paying for these things?
	Yeah, but in that example, she's getting dinner for herself or whatever.
	I don't know what the circumstances are.
	Why am I paying for this?
	Because you want it.
	No, that's not what she's trying to say.
	She's viewing this as an aspect of her relationship that she thinks, well, hang on a second.
	I'm the woman here.
	I probably shouldn't be paying for this.
	The man should be paying for this.
	All these other men are prepared to pay for this.
	Why am I sat with this guy who's not paying for this?
	I mean, she said he didn't earn as much.
	Yeah, but the question is why is she with a man who doesn't earn as much?
	Well, I don't know the circumstances.
	She'll tell us the circumstances in a minute.
	But the point is, this is the first foot forward.
	I had never voiced my concerns to Bonga because it would be insensitive.
	He has black tax and I don't.
	I don't know what that means.
	I assume...
	Oh, this is because he's black and therefore he lives in a world where he has to pay more for things.
	You know, like the, what was it, the pink tax?
	Mm-hmm.
	Remember feminists were trying to push that?
	Yeah, yeah.
	Okay, I've not heard the term black tax before.
	Yeah, it's more nonsense.
	But he earns less than me and there are certain things he can't afford.
	Again, ladies, why do you want to out-earn your man?
	You know, because essentially what you're saying when you are the breadwinner is, I'm the husband.
	And if you're like, okay, you know, I'm not saying that doesn't work for some people, but I think for most people that probably doesn't work, that the woman is the husband in the relationship.
	I think for most people, the woman being the wife in the relationship is probably preferable, especially for the husband's ego and for the wife's expectations.
	You don't disagree.
	I can see you don't like it, but you can't disagree.
	I wasn't trying to say it.
	Yeah, but the look on your face reveals it.
	You say, I don't like where this is going, and that's because you're a conservative person.
	Things took a turn in our relationship when I was yearning for more.
	I wanted to go on international vacations or even local five-star vacations.
	And besides, Bonga was not able to afford them.
	He just wasn't even interested.
	I wanted to have cute date nights where he would dress up and go to fancy restaurants and I would post them on social media.
	I hate this lady already.
	Right, exactly.
	Because what she's looking for is the dopamine hit of lots of likes and shares on social media.
	If people on Twitter validate me, then our relationship will mean something.
	As if it doesn't mean anything already.
	I was yearning for cute surprises, for the cost of my tires to be taken care of, for him to take my car to the car wash and bring it back with a full tank of petrol.
	Bonga did none of these things and I never brought it up.
	Then how's he meant to know?
	He's not a mind reader!
	None of us are mind readers, ladies!
	Yes, maybe I'm thinking of things my own wife has complained about that I didn't know.
	None of us are mind readers, ladies.
	Just tell us what you want.
	I mean, the thing is, these aren't even, like, extreme demands either, you know, it's just like, you know, cute surprises, you know, I'd like for him to have done something, but he obviously doesn't know.
	Yeah, he wouldn't, but he seems incredibly materialistic here.
	Yeah.
	He doesn't even care about this guy at all, at least from what I'm just reading.
	Yes.
	Which is just, I'd like to have loads of materialistic things, and he's not rich, and therefore he sucks.
	Yeah.
	But the thing is, in this article, she's framing that things are good.
	Things are good.
	She's in a happy relationship.
	They're not starving or anything.
	They're doing fine.
	It's just she wants the high life, and he's not...
	It's good, but not good enough, so she's just like me-yearning, right?
	I started meeting men who were always willing to do these things for me in a heartbeat.
	At first, I wouldn't entertain them, but as time progressed, I discovered how accessible they were.
	I thought it was harmless fun, but it made me compare Bonga to them, which was quite unfair.
	I decided to break up with him because he wasn't offering me what I wanted, and I didn't want to continue comparing him to other men.
	It was also a way of setting myself free.
	No, you said Bonga free.
	Bonga's a free man now.
	He doesn't have to deal with you.
	Fuck.
	Sorry.
	That is awful.
	I don't know why someone would write this publicly and be like, I look like the good guy.
	No, you sound terrible to be with.
	I mean, you're literally like, hmm, yeah, I mean, I might get my new husband and he might beat me, but at least he's rich.
	I mean, it's pathetic.
	Yeah, but...
	John just typed his message, Bongo Unchained.
	But this is the thing, right?
	So she's going around and she's got options.
	And so she's like, okay, well, what do I want?
	I want a materialistic lifestyle because Twitter has made me think that that's the only thing that's really valid.
	Well, you're a pathetic person.
	She is.
	Because the grass is, of course, always greener.
	But the thing is, why was she letting other men buy her things?
	Why was she letting this happen?
	And it's because of a fundamental disequilibrium in her relationship.
	She's out-earning her boyfriend, and she thinks that's wrong.
	There's a kind of natural order there that she has violated, and he hasn't sufficiently surpassed, and therefore she's not happy.
	Again, I'm not saying that all times and all places this is always true.
	I'm just saying it's a general rule of life that the man should be the breadwinner in the relationship, and that's what many women expect.
	And so if you're not women, why are you earning more than your men?
	Or men, why are you with a woman who earns more than you?
	It's not the way things should be.
	Irritating, because I think your point about, like, that's the ideal can be argued, and I think I agree with, but you picked the worst example.
	Like, this lady does not make me want to side with her at all.
	Like, this lady makes me want to go just, nah, okay, you're cancer, get out, like...
	Sure, but I don't think that she's malevolent.
	I just think she's a bit self-centred.
	I don't think she is.
	But the thing is, I don't think she's very self-aware, and I don't think she's really sat down and thought, okay, in an ideal relationship, who should be where?
	My boyfriend's great.
	He treats me so well, but, you know, I don't have enough money.
	Bye-bye.
	Just leaves.
	Yeah, okay, and let's carry on.
	What a surprise.
	The relationship was more important than he doesn't buy me enough fancy dinners.
	But she didn't know that, and she broke it off, and that was the thing.
	I mean, there was a part in here I think I missed, actually.
	Does she have a name in here that she gives?
	No, it's a fake name.
	She says, when I broke up with him, Bonga, he was shocked and taken aback.
	He told me I was making the biggest mistake of my life.
	So out of the blue, she hasn't told him any of this.
	Out of the blue, she just breaks up with him because he doesn't have enough money, and she's materialistic.
	It must have been quite the shock for Bonga, poor old guy, but the fact that her life afterwards...
	Did she even explain that it's because you're poor?
	She doesn't say that she did, but I imagine that that's pretty much what she did.
	But the fact that she's single, she dates around for a while, and then finds some rich man, but is like, okay, well, I've got all the material comforts I wanted, but the relationship, and this is something I've been hammering a lot, the true sort of Well-being and human content of a life is in your relationships.
	If you like the people you're around and you have some deep and meaningful connection with that person, a particular connection that you can't get with anyone else, you can lack all of the material comforts on Earth, but if you're happy with the people around you, you won't be unhappy that you're poor.
	And if you are insanely rich but have absolutely no connection to any of the people around you, you won't be happy.
	And that's what she's found.
	Being a trophy girlfriend is not a fulfilling life.
	She says, this new relationship is all good materially but not emotionally.
	We just didn't connect on a level I wanted us to and I started to regret my decision.
	Unfortunately, I'm single now and have lost the love of my life because I was envying people on social media.
	What glitters isn't always gold.
	Get what you deserve.
	Drink your wine.
	Live alone.
	I have no sympathy for this person.
	You've got a vacation to go and love.
	He's out there living the high life.
	He's probably looking for another woman.
	A woman who isn't on Twitter, presumably.
	Now that he's had years to evolve, he probably earns more money as well.
	Yeah, yeah, he's probably doing great.
	And fingers crossed, you know, bros for Bonga.
	Hashtag.
	I see the chat, it's just like, Bonga, Bonga, Bonga.
	Yeah, but what did Bonga do wrong?
	Bonga didn't do nothing.
	Did nothing wrong.
	It's like his woman went on Twitter and was like, yeah, I do deserve a new house and a new car.
	It's like, bitch, you know, how about just go and make some tea or something?
	But yeah, so Bong was right.
	She's now single and regretful, and this is a lesson that you ladies should learn well.
	As she says, you know, what glitters isn't always gold.
	She gave up the gold in order to have a materialistic life, and that wasn't satisfying.
	Don't do it.
	The next one is kind of another...
	This is an Olympian called Lolo Jones who posted this for no reason at all to her Instagram.
	She says, Look, I'm no spring chicken, I'm 38 years old, but I'm not at an age where I can pretend like in my 20s, oh, I'm not looking for anything serious, when I was totally wanting to get married at that age.
	So if you'd wanted to get married in your 20s, why didn't you do it?
	And let's be clear, she's a very attractive lady.
	There are many, many, many men who would have gone for a woman like this when she was in her 20s.
	Olympian?
	Well, just look it, she's an attractive woman.
	Oh god, fitness freaks.
	Okay, yeah, it might be a problem for you, but there are men out there who find fit women attractive.
	Should we order Chinese?
	No.
	Of course we can't.
	She says, now when you talk to the guys at this age, they know most likely you're looking for something serious, they don't even ask.
	The good news about being this age, and talking to other guys my age, is that they're usually serious about dating and meeting their match too.
	What a relief, I'm glad I'm out of my twenties dealing with this, dealing with, I just want to have fun guys.
	But the thing is, everyone comes with a lot of baggage.
	And, you know, I'm only like three years old on her.
	So I'm well aware that everyone at this age comes with baggage, right?
	You know, you've had a 20-year adult lifespan and now you're at the point where it's like, right, okay, what have I accrued?
	What do I have?
	Where am I going?
	And this is the problem that she's facing.
	She says, Well, I mean, she's at virtually no risk of the global pandemic, so I don't think she needs to worry about that.
	But, I mean, one might suggest that's the social circle she's travelling in, if she can only find guys who are in extremes.
	But again, maybe it's because all of the guys who were actually sort of, you know, moderate, in-the-middle types have been taken by the other women when they were younger.
	Don't wait until you're 38 before thinking about settling down.
	She says, so basically I just have phone calls, I get bored, I feel I'm never going to meet someone in person, dammit, I'm losing the last prime year of my life to lock down my husband before my face melts.
	It's a hell of a way of framing it.
	Does she mean she'll get wrinkles?
	Yes.
	Her face will start sagging and she'll get wrinkles.
	She'll be an old lady.
	And that's a good point.
	Why did you wait to your last year, the prime of your life, to try and secure a husband?
	Does she think that men aren't well aware that in 5-10 years time she's not going to look nearly as pretty as she does now?
	Face melts, as she puts it.
	Yeah.
	I mean, like, you know, I don't want to be rude.
	Like she was.
	Like she was.
	I mean, she's a very attractive woman, so it's not like I think that she's got, like, zero options or anything.
	But obviously she's still got standards that she's prepared to adhere to.
	And so it's, yeah, she says, I swear COVID gave me ten extra grey hairs, really not helping the cause to lock someone down before I get old, old.
	Well, you're going to have to be less picky, I suppose.
	But again, ladies, don't wait until your very final year of your sort of youth in order to try and get a husband.
	It just seems like that's unlikely and you're really cutting things a bit fine.
	Secure your future when you're actually in your prime and maybe you don't find yourself with extremist guys, so either extremely this or extremely that.
	Maybe you find yourself with that moderate guy that you like.
	But anyway, so yeah, so she says at the end, cats are not so bad, and it's like, well, that's lucky.
	And there was an article written about this, which is interesting, because she was speaking about this in another time and place, and she said that she was a virgin at the age of 37 because she was saving herself for marriage.
	And she had said that this candidness was a mistake because it killed all of her dates after that.
	So, like, if she told a date that, oh, well, yeah, I'm a virgin, I'm saving myself for marriage, it's like, okay, I don't think so.
	You know, I was hoping to get some, you know.
	And so she's, I hate to say it, made a bunch of poor choices when it comes to the realm of dating.
	Now, this isn't just the end of her life, of course, but it seems to be the end of her youth.
	But the thing is, what's she done for the last 20 years then?
	Well, I mean, her Wikipedia bio is quite impressive, to be honest.
	It's a lot better than mine.
	She's been a fantastic Olympian for the last 20 years.
	And if you scroll up, John, you can see the medals she's won.
	Scroll right to the top of the page.
	There we go.
	So she's got gold in Valencia, gold in Doha, gold in Stuttgart, gold in Costa Rica, gold in St. Moritz, gold in Altenburg.
	Over the various period of like 20 odd years.
	She's been a professional athlete this whole time.
	And so that's what she spent her prime years on and she succeeded.
	She's clearly, you know, one of the best in her field.
	The problem is this isn't what she wants now.
	It turned out that she gets to nearly 40 and she's like, okay, but where's my family?
	Where's my husband and kids?
	I'm not happy with this.
	I'm going to end up being a Catwoman.
	I need to rant and rave about this on my Instagram.
	Because, I mean, who else am I going to tell?
	Like, I need that validation from social media.
	So, ladies, just be aware.
	Just be aware that these stories exist.
	This has happened to your peers.
	And if you make the wrong decisions, it might happen to you as well.
	Thus endeth the lesson.
	Thus endeth the lesson.
	I like the idea we're going to start doing a series of sermons from the Book of Dad.
	Yeah.
	I mean, if anyone finds any good ones about men making bad decisions, I'm happy to cover them too.
	It's just that...
	Women post their L's online.
	They do.
	They do have a habit of doing so.
	For social media validation.
	But the thing is, I mean, like, I don't think anyone is...
	I don't think anyone pulls punches with men.
	I don't think anyone anywhere spares men's feelings.
	And so it's just like, let's do this, or you'll suck, and life will suck for you.
	And it's like, right, okay, well, I better do that then.
	But no one says this to women.
	Oh, you can have everything.
	You can have it all.
	You can have this.
	You can have that.
	It'll be brilliant.
	The world will fall at your feet until you reach about mid-30s and then you'll be all alone.
	So that's a bit of a warning that I think should come in advance.
	Like if I were a young woman, I'm like 20 years old.
	Yeah, everything's going great.
	I'm my most attractive.
	Everyone loves me.
	Everything's going great.
	I've got loads of money.
	I've got a modeling career, whatever it is.
	And then in 15 years, I'm like, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, this all dries up.
	Yeah, this all dries up and now no one cares.
	Goodbye.
	I feel like I've been totally taken advantage of.
	I love the idea that we get, because what is it, in the UK we have like sex relationship, sorry, sex education and we're now having relation education as well.
	There's life education.
	Yeah, but like the relationships education I feel like I should put you in charge of.
	Yeah.
	You could write the curriculum.
	Anyway, let's go to the video.
	Like Stefan Molyneux says, it's going to be a long sort of 40 years for that woman.
	What's she got to do?
	She can't be an Olympian because she's too old.
	Her body's not up to it.
	Well, I mean, she says at the end there, cats.
	Exactly, and that's all she's got now.
	It's like, God, that's awful.
	Anyway, let's go to the video comments.
	I'm not probably going to put this very well, but I was going to...
	I've only just remembered that I was going to do this, so it's a little bit, like, not as clear as what I was thinking about.
	Can we start that one again, John, because I missed the beginning.
	Yeah, it's our fault.
	Yeah.
	We have a turner thing for these earpieces and they were turned off.
	Yeah, it's because they were recording with contemplations.
	I'm not probably going to put this very well, but I've only just remembered that I was going to do this, so it's a little bit not as clear as when I was thinking about it earlier.
	I was going to ask you if you feel that the progressives in the 90s, like 80s, early 90s, started talking about multiculturalism as a way of undermining the concept of multi-ethnic cultures.
	So that instead of talking about a predominant culture, so for example, Britain, you'd be talking about the British culture, And the British culture is a multi-ethnic culture, and what they've done is they've undermined the concept of that British culture by introducing multiculturalism instead of multi-ethnicity under a monoculture, which is what is preferable.
	But yeah, curious about your thoughts around that.
	I think he's put it exactly correct there.
	I mean, Britain, as an island, has always been, and you can even break that down into the regions of the constituent nations that are multi-ethnic and have their own local culture, but it's all part of an overriding monoculture.
	Everyone recognizes something British when they're abroad.
	I've been on holiday to Greece and Spain and stuff, And you're in a bar and you hear someone talking to Scott Jackson, you talk to them rather than you trying to have some conversation with someone from Lithuania or something.
	It's inevitable that this is the case.
	And I think he's right as well.
	For me, the thing I remember is in the late 80s and early 90s, Hearing the term political correctness being used as if it means something or it's got some legitimacy.
	And multiculturalism came in the 2000s, as far as I was aware, sort of early 2000s.
	Oh, but what about multiculturalism?
	What about it?
	Screw multiculturalism.
	Other cultures suck.
	To hell with them.
	You know, be British.
	You know, it's not a commentary about your race or your religion.
	What it's a commentary on is your standards.
	Your properness.
	How you think the world should be.
	And there's no reason that we can't say, well, look, anyone from any race can obviously adhere to the same standards, following the same culture.
	This is why we, in our last True Englishman podcast, we're like, well, yeah, David Lammy is English in the cultural sense.
	You know, he's born and raised here.
	You know, okay, his blood might not be from here, but who cares?
	You know, what difference does that make?
	If David Lammy goes to Africa, he's not going to be treated like he's a native.
	You know, so obviously we're talking about something that goes beyond that.
	And we should have been more firm about this.
	We shouldn't have allowed the left to kind of slip all this in.
	Oh, it's not politically correct to say you're against multiculturalism.
	No, but it is common sense, and it is something that is beneficial for the country as a whole, but then I'm not a communist subverter, and I don't want to see Britain destroyed, so I guess I would hold that opinion, wouldn't I? I mean, the term political correctness, by definition, means something that is politically correct, but not actually correct.
	Exactly.
	So, I don't know about the United States.
	I assume the United States kept monoculturalism as its government policy, because that's the idea, the melting pot.
	Absolutely.
	That's what monoculturalism is.
	America has a very strong ethos of integration.
	You come to America to be an American, and being an American is waving the flag, 4th of July, freedom, burgers.
	Absolutely.
	Yeah, but one of the interesting things in Britain, so the Blair government, the Brown, and then subsequently the Cameron government all had it as government policy.
	The government policy was multiculturalism.
	I mean, this was baked into the way they were meant to operate.
	Even further than that, I recall a few years ago seeing a quote from Gordon Brown in 2007, right?
	Now, this is something you haven't heard for some time.
	There is no British culture.
	You haven't heard that for ages, have you?
	This was, go back 10 years ago, this was a very big buzzword, phrase, sorry, buzz phrase.
	They would use all the time, oh, there's no British culture.
	What is British culture?
	I mean, you still hear that occasionally, but now you've got the Smithsonian going, oh, well, this is the culture of whiteness.
	Let me lay out all the things, and as we did in the Tucker Carlson podcast, which is up, actually, this really is just talking about the culture of Britain, more specifically, England.
	But this is the point.
	They literally were full-on on the sort of, like, there is no native culture to Britain, and therefore all of these other cultures are prestigious and should be considered important.
	Whereas, in fact, that's the total opposite way we should have gone about these things if we wanted integration, which is why in America there does seem to be better integration.
	Although, I think that in the last five, ten years, there'll be many Americans listening who are like, ah, that's not the case now, and it's probably not the case now because of the insidious poison that the left has been pouring into our ears for this...
	I mean, I wasn't political for this period, so looking back on it, I'm just like, why are these insane people saying this and no one's flipping out?
	Like, I mean, Blair and even Cameron, going back to his first government, saying that multiculturalism is what they want.
	I mean, unless they were just thinking that it's different kinds of food or something, but of course they weren't.
	There was other things there.
	Which is why David Cameron in his second government came out and said, actually, we need to end this as government policy, because it doesn't work and it doesn't make any sense.
	I mean, I actually completely agree with David Cameron's muscular liberalism.
	This is the same time.
	Yeah, it was the same time where he was just like, look, this is what we need.
	So yeah, it is what we needed about 10, 15 years ago.
	You're really too late at this point.
	You've gone too far and something needs to be done, but you don't know what that is.
	And so you can come out and say, well, we need this.
	It's like, yeah, but you're not going to do it.
	So shut up.
	Anyway.
	Anyway, let's go on to the next video comment.
	Hello, ladies and gentlemen.
	As for the thing that played on Friday, I'm on a political Facebook chat, and essentially someone said that Carl did not understand my question, so at least I'm not too stupid when it comes to verbalizing things I'm trying to say.
	Hopefully.
	Hopefully.
	And someone, someone got it.
	Someone did understand, thankfully.
	Anyway, have a good day.
	I can't remember what the question was.
	No, me neither.
	Sorry, I can't really respond to that.
	Yeah, sorry.
	It's possible that I didn't understand it though.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Hey guys, I just wanted to flex my skill.
	I'm a dog groomer.
	This is a dog named Kitty and I've been grooming her regularly for about a year now and she's really sweet.
	But I'm kind of sick of dog grooming because it requires empathy, and I want to have empathy for people and not dogs.
	I obviously didn't make the dog, but I did groom her, I think, nicely.
	But this brings up a question.
	People often value their dogs as much as or more than their children.
	Do you agree that this is a problem, and have you seen this in your own life?
	Well, the Chinaman's yelling yes, so that's suspicious.
	In and of itself, John, right?
	But he's typing furiously now.
	Women want dogs, not kids.
	Yeah, so it is a problem.
	I thought it was going to be a joke about Chinese culture.
	There is, and this is the cat lady thing as well, it's surrogate children, right?
	They are imbuing the feelings that they should have for babies and then the children that grow out of being babies.
	Into pets and it's not very healthy and it seems like a massive coping mechanism.
	John's like, more kids for women, more dogs for John!
	But this is clearly some sort of, you know, surrogate coping mechanism where it's like, you know, you know you've got the sort of caregiving feelings that are welling up within you, but you've been conditioned to want to avoid children.
	And so you have a pet because a pet's a lot more convenient.
	It's like, sure, but there's also a lot less nourishment in it.
	You know, the pet can never really give you the experience that having a child has.
	Like when your kids do something that you've wanted them to be able to do for a while, like they put two and two together and make four because you've been trying to explain the concepts to them, they get it.
	You say, yes, you know, that's amazing.
	Or when they're pleased to see you, you know, it's an incredible feeling and you don't really get it from your pets.
	You only get some sort of A kind of shadow of the same effect.
	And as you say, John, they'll never grow beyond being a child, you know, in this thing.
	So you...
	I think Atara is not wrong to suggest that maybe people shouldn't be so concerned about pets, and pets are a coping mechanism for the loss, the absence of a family, frankly.
	So my...
	But you should be nice to dogs, obviously.
	I had a practical question, actually.
	So my parents kind of ties in with that as well.
	My parents, all of my family, you know, brothers have left home.
	So they moved and they've got a new house and they got a dog.
	Because so on and so forth.
	The practical question is just, when you're grooming the dog, so like they have, like the dog has like hair that's coming down and it's like covering its eyes and whatnot.
	Yeah.
	Like, how are you meant to cut all of its face and have it not freak out?
	That's just the question I had for the dog.
	Good boys and girls.
	The dog has had a traumatic background, so it's not very comfortable.
	Oh, that one.
	Right, okay.
	I thought you were talking about in general.
	Like, how do you do it?
	Well, good doggos.
	They sit.
	They're patient.
	They're good.
	But, I mean, in this particular case, obviously, if it's had a traumatic background, fair enough.
	If you have any advice about how to groom that dog, please.
	Next question.
	Man, I'm loving this guy's t-shirt.
	Hi Carl.
	Apologies for the delayed response.
	I had to wait until payday to upgrade my subscription.
	I've got some wise words and a response that might make you understand that you're actually agreeing with my position on water and it is wet, so hear me out.
	It's the modification of the light ray that gives you the impression of colour on the surface.
	So the content that you're receiving can't be from the surface because it requires the light.
	Therefore, it is in the light beam itself.
	Fight me.
	Carl Benjamin, 1st of April 2021.
	It is the application of the water that gives you the impression of wetness on the surface.
	So the content that you are receiving can't be from the surface because it requires the water.
	Therefore it is in the water itself and water is wet.
	Checkmate!
	I don't know, I'm getting distracted by the anti-keto subversive propaganda you had out in the background.
	I couldn't tear my eyes away from it.
	His first point is true.
	Which was that, again?
	That the colour comes from the light, not from the object.
	That was my point!
	He was quoting me!
	Oh, what?
	So now, ha ha!
	You admit, I was right!
	I don't know what we were arguing originally.
	Where colour is, and colour is in light, not in the table surface itself.
	Oh no, we were arguing a more philosophical point about does it come from the observer or the light itself.
	Well, the pattern of the light dictates the colour that you see.
	No, but is the thing blue when it's not observed was the argument we were having.
	Yes, and the answer is no.
	I don't want to have this conversation.
	I'm so done.
	I can't even follow it.
	But going to the second point, I don't know.
	I think I could still find a gap in that and leverage that actually, you know, water can't make itself wet and therefore it's not the water that's wet.
	The water is what makes things wet.
	But someone in the comments, last time we discussed this, someone in the comments pointed out that actually wet is a thick concept and the...
	No, no, no!
	No!
	And this is where it comes from.
	It's just too eagerly runs into WAP, doesn't it?
	What?
	No!
	It didn't until you brought that up!
	But no, I think he's right.
	When you say something's wet, it's like saying something is water, right?
	You're actually making quite a blanket judgment based on very little real information.
	You assume that's water, but you don't know that it is.
	You're not chemically checking the composition of it.
	You don't know what else is in there, blah, blah, blah, right?
	But, you know, a watery substance is what you're saying.
	And there is a watery substance on there, which is why it's wet, and therefore water is wet.
	And that's not scientifically correct, maybe, but it is linguistically correct.
	And I think that's quite a strong argument that I can't really refute.
	I mean, what am I going to say?
	Water's not thick?
	Of course it is.
	She wet, she thick.
	Thanks for lowering the tone, Callum.
	Yeah, I don't even respect this conversation.
	It's because you've lost it.
	Is water wet or not?
	I don't care.
	It's because you've lost.
	I want to talk politics.
	Where's the colour contained, Callum?
	No, it's like...
	Oh, I love it.
	Now I want to talk politics.
	I never wanted to talk about The Observer making it blue or is it blue in the abstract either.
	Well, there we go.
	Let's go for the next one.
	Well, when you're born, you're not good.
	You're seriously not.
	You've got all your individual pathologies.
	So what do you do about that?
	You bear your cross and try and be a better person.
	What else can you do?
	That's a great impression and a correct summary of what Jordan Peterson would say.
	Yeah.
	And he's right.
	Yes, you see, you must understand the rest of the Imperium.
	I, the Emperor of Mankind, am just a normal human being.
	I'm just like you and there's nothing holy or sacred or godlike about me.
	I'm just your average, just like average Joe over there.
	I'm 18 foot tall, I'm more powerful than any man has ever been or ever will be, I have the biggest dick imaginable, and I constantly wear glowing armour, I just constantly glow golden.
	I'm not a god, I promise.
	The Emperor of Mankind.
	Also, gentlemen, in reference to however long ago it was when Carl was talking about water not being wet and all that...
	Shut the f*** up.
	Okay, just shut up.
	Some ideas are just so stupid, only an intellectual could believe them, and that is one of them.
	Just shut up.
	See, this is a man who can't grasp the thickness of water.
	It's only a conversation an intellectual could give a toss about.
	I don't even...
	Anyway, he's right about the Emperor of Mankind, though.
	Like, walking around, oh, hey guys, I'm just like you.
	I'm just eight foot tall.
	Didn't the GigaChad guy post recently on, like, Instagram or something a photo of himself being like, I'm just a regular person?
	Did he?
	Unironically.
	Look it up.
	What?
	Look it up.
	I swear to God.
	I can't remember exactly what he wrote.
	But he basically, he doesn't like, you know, the memes.
	And he was just like...
	How could he not?
	I know, I know, right?
	It's like, God, if I had memes with me, I'd be thrilled.
	I'd be like, oh, well, this is great.
	But he's not a big fan of memes.
	And he was just like, look, I'm just a regular person.
	I don't want to be famous.
	And it's like, well, I'm sorry.
	Sorry for not answering.
	I'm very sociable.
	Please meet in the chat.
	Thanks for your kind words.
	Thank you for your positive energy.
	Just like everyone else.
	No, you're not.
	Exactly.
	Signed a regular person or something like that.
	It's just like, this is basically the Emperor of Mankind shtick.
	Like, we have identified the Emperor.
	Yeah, he is swole.
	Hey guys, me again, just because Callum reminded me of another video that I wanted to put in.
	You can save this for another day if you want, rather than putting it through on Tuesday, you can do it on Wednesday.
	But...
	My thought was that the progressives are interested in a post-discontent society unlike the conservatives and liberals who are actually after a post-scarcity society.
	So a post-scarcity society of course is one where nobody has any more Material wants or needs and therefore can pursue their interests without restriction.
	And the post-disconsent society is one in which the people within it no longer suffer from harm.
	Now, you don't have to be a good society, of course, or a moral society, I should say, to be post-disconsent because, well, you've already done a book cover, one of those, haven't you?
	It's an interesting way of framing it.
	I don't think that's how they would frame it themselves, though.
	It's not...
	For the progressives, I think they would argue about material standards.
	They would find themselves in the kind of Brave New World era, and they would not understand why all of people's relationships have been destroyed.
	But he's not wrong that that's essentially what they're going to get.
	Where the only concern is really harm, physical, material harm.
	But that actually isn't the primary concern, I think, for most people.
	Most people put themselves at risk, to a certain degree, and accept the knocks and bumps that they get throughout life, because they're actually more interested in other things.
	But that's an interesting way of framing it.
	When he brought up the point that they want to pursue a post-scarcity society in which everyone can pursue their own interests, I just realized how nonsense that phrase is when you hear socialists arguing that.
	What do you mean pursue their own interests?
	What if their interests are to overthrow the society?
	Then what?
	Like with Brave New World, the whole point of the whole system was that you can't change the system because then we might go back to an era in which we have scarcity.
	Hmm.
	I mean, like, to what end anyway?
	Like, what are we trying to do?
	Right, so I don't need anything.
	No one around me needs anything.
	Why would I do anything?
	Why wouldn't I just coom?
	And it seems that it'll just be the society of soma drinkers.
	Let's go to the next one.
	So, guys, I just found out that Elon Musk is going to host Saturday Night Live on May 8th.
	That is next Saturday.
	And he tweeted, let's find out how live Saturday Night Live really is.
	Oh, okay.
	So, he's probably gonna shield Doge or something, but...
	What do you guys think would be the most amazing internet-breaking thing that Elon Musk could do live?
	Probably Doge or something, to be honest.
	Nah, he's gotta go hard against the left.
	Literally, he could come out and say, look, there are only two genders or something like that.
	Just something hard.
	Something really hard about this, right?
	It's so sad, though.
	I know, but...
	That's the thing that's hard.
	But if he did this, everyone would flip out.
	Literally, everyone would flip out.
	And don't get me wrong, I'm now excited for Elon Musk hosting Saturday Night Live.
	That sounds awesome, frankly.
	And I'm actually really looking forward to seeing where this goes.
	She walks on stage with a blunt.
	But that wouldn't be offensive.
	It'd be in California.
	Yeah, no, they wouldn't have a problem with that.
	No, not at all.
	That's the thing, right?
	But if you came out and said, Jesus is king, abortion is awful.
	There's no such thing as a transgender person.
	Everyone would be like, what?
	It's like, oh God, you've done it now, Elon.
	You know, why are you watching the Lotus Eaters?
	Hey, hello to sitters.
	About the late-night guys.
	One of the main points I was trying to get across is that we should be focusing on them hard.
	For example, when Tucker was attacked recently from Trevor Noah and John Oliver, he should bite back and bite back hard, he should expose them.
	When they are analyzing politics, then we, maybe Tucker, should analyze their comedy.
	Or rather, how they use comedy to brainwash the masses.
	What do you guys think?
	I think we do, to be honest.
	In fact, what Elon Musk should do is come out and just be like, America's the greatest country of all time.
	America is the best.
	And I'm the richest African there's ever been.
	Exactly.
	I'm the richest African-American.
	But just like, literally, the Donald Trump perspective on America and make them boo for it.
	Because they will boo for it.
	They'll sit there going, no, America's not.
	Good, make them do it.
	Who built SpaceX?
	Where did I base it?
	Exactly.
	It wasn't in Mauritania, was it?
	Say America's the best thing, and everything America has done has been the best thing, better than the alternatives, better than communism, better than this, and make them boo for it.
	Make the Saturday Night Live audience boo for America.
	I bet you can do it.
	Yeah, I agree.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Regarding the Birmingham primary school snitch program, I recommend everyone adopting the phrasing, man up, and grow some balls.
	So when you're reported, you can claim you're trying to be trans-inclusive, and then you can bring charges against the school for intolerance.
	Why not?
	Yeah, sure.
	Is this a question?
	150,000 deaths.
	Can we have that in perspective?
	We don't need your perspective.
	Actually, the number is 137,000.
	And if you graph it, you get this.
	How many people under 30 died?
	It's 215, with 23,000 under 70.
	In fact, the number of deaths over the age of 90 is equal to deaths under 75.
	Here's a graph of deaths over time.
	Lockdowns are enforced here, here, and here, with other stay-at-home orders here, here, and here.
	The number of actual deaths in lockdown is 115,000, while Sage estimates the policy could have cost 91,000 more.
	That's an amazing video.
	Yeah, that's really great.
	That's awesome, man.
	Whoever put that together, do us a favor, leave us a comment on the podcast page, and if it's okay for me to share that on non-YouTube platforms, I absolutely will do.
	Oh, by the way, I have some great news.
	I messaged the pub owner, the Rod guy.
	He got back to me, so we have his number now.
	Wonderful.
	Hopefully we'll be able to get him to come and do a podcast.
	Yeah, if he wants to come in and talk about some stuff, that'd be great.
	Have an interview.
	Yeah, otherwise I think that's the end of the video comments, so we'll do some normal comments and then we'll be off.
	Okay, Kevin Fox.
	In China, a dog is not just for Christmas, it's for Boxing Day lunch too.
	John's just like, you're pro-lockdown, then you're anti-kids brilliant.
	Yes, that's it.
	You're anti-child if you're pro-lockdown.
	And that was one of the things when I was out on the Freedom March interviewing people.
	I mean, every woman we spoke to was just like, no, the kids.
	My kids are suffering, yeah.
	That's what I was saying the whole time.
	The whole time I was saying the same thing.
	And because it was so obvious that it was doing damage to the kids, being just trapped indoors all day, unable to see anyone, is really awful for them.
	Will the Impaler.
	If Boris was that vehemently opposed to the lockdown, isn't it funny that he just went ahead and did it anyway?
	I suspect there was a quick call from the puppet master of the WEF, the World Economic Forum, and he was soon put back on the course.
	Yeah, I mean, Boris Johnson, at the end of the day, is a conspirator with this globalist Build Back Better nonsense.
	He's a member of the party of Davos.
	You know, as bumbling and likable as he might be, he is a part of it.
	So...
	We've not got much time, so I'm going to skip through a few comments that are long.
	Chris says, So I don't have kids yet, so I'm not sure, but with schools being closed, did taxes go down to reflect the reduced overhead in the school system?
	Somehow I doubt it.
	No, of course they didn't, because the teachers still have to be paid, apparently.
	There's no statistical evidence that lockdown saved a single life.
	Boris was right then and bottled it.
	Yeah, true.
	Where's the evidence?
	Show me the evidence.
	There's evidence that it hurts people, and it hurts kids, and it hurts businesses, that it's hurt the future of the country and an entire generation of people, but we, like, you know...
	Maybe there were some old folks who were saved from a flu?
	Yeah, ten years after our Prime Minister, they always start giving interviews about the mistakes of their peerage.
	And one of the interesting things will be to see what Boris actually thinks throughout all of this.
	Because he publicly has to flip-flop all the time because politics is a mess.
	But I bet he does have an opinion.
	Yeah.
	Henry says, I'm waiting for the Voice of Wales coverage when the Welsh artsy lot inevitably jump on.
	Why didn't Chadwick Boseman win an Oscar bandwagon, even though proud Welshman and all-round acting force of nature Sir Anthony Hopkins once won it?
	Yeah, where's the Welsh patriotism?
	Oh, a Welshman won an Oscar.
	That's good.
	Yeah, but it wasn't Chadwick Boseman.
	Well, who cares?
	What's he got to do with Wales?
	White Hot Peppers.
	Hey, dude.
	Keep in mind, gents, some on the left unironically think that black women are gifted with natural black girl magic from their melanin and will hex the patriarchy out of existence by smearing period blood of themselves and screaming in public parks.
	I mean, it probably is something that has happened.
	How long were you stationed in DC? So thinking that stabbing is just a normal teenage girl thing, it really isn't that surprising.
	It's just an honest shanking between friends, you know, all in good fun.
	Hashtag just teen girl things.
	Just sharing the meddling.
	I mean, there are people who believe all this kind of wacko, crazy stuff, so maybe.
	Tyler says, with the egg cartons depleting, what is our, which is young men's, hope of finding women that haven't been brought over by the eternal adolescence and frozen eggs lie?
	I don't know, to be honest, which is why, honestly, I cover this sort of stuff.
	Because it's one of those things, you can see, it's a massive social issue that's not being well addressed.
	And I guess I, the patriarch, will have to address it.
	Ladies, it's not good for you.
	You know, you can't have it all.
	Your eggs do end up, they have a shelf life.
	It ain't gonna last forever.
	Don't waste it.
	From the Aussie Witches blog, I've missed our friendship and how vulnerable I was with him.
	She sounds like she wanted to be dominated as well as having materialism.
	She sounds like a very nasty person.
	I agree with Carl, not malevolent, but deeply confused and self-centered.
	Yeah, but the only reason she's like that is because society allows her to be like that.
	If there were cultural institutions that spoke to women in the same way that they speak to men, and, you know, because there are loads of them saying men have a responsibility, men this, men that, and men the other, but...
	Very rarely do we hear that women have responsibilities and duties towards men.
	And I think that we should have these conversations.
	What are our societies going to do with all the washed-up ethos in the coming decades?
	These women may now be flying high, but once they age out of OnlyFans with no skills, what then?
	Well, that's a great question.
	And I posted this on my Facebook the other day.
	There was a Facebook post or whatever going around.
	Where someone was, like, complaining that men are like, oh, I'll never date a woman who did OnlyFans.
	It's like, oh, you're such, you know, awful people.
	It's like, look, is it really so much to ask that the woman I marry hasn't been seen naked by the entire world?
	Is that really such a high barrier?
	You know, don't be an e-prostitute.
	I mean, would you agree with you who should always date porn stars, for example?
	I mean, ask that person who's advocating a position.
	If almost every woman was actually a porn star and men were like, well, I'm not into that, sorry.
	Would they be like, oh, you're such biggers.
	You're such small dicks or whatever.
	It's like, maybe.
	But at the end of the day, you know...
	Yeah, at least no one's seen it.
	Maybe.
	But you're still going to be lonely and single after having wasted your youth.
	I'm sorry.
	You can say anything about the people who aren't dating you as much as you want, but that's not going to make them date you.
	Anyway, Henry has a disagreement with me.
	I have to disagree on the man has to out-earn the woman point.
	The binary is probably a bit too reductive, as I doubt it makes much of a difference if there's maybe 5-10% in it either way.
	Sure.
	And then given the way careers vary and how quickly someone can reach the wage ceiling in their chosen career.
	As an example, should a 25-year-old woman who left school at 18 and has been working as an office manager ever since not date a 26, 27-year-old man who had a PhD in engineering and has only just joined the workforce?
	Give it 10 years, he'll probably be out-earning her.
	Well, we explained this, I think.
	It's a general rule of thumb.
	You should try to earn more than your wife.
	Hypergamy takes no prisoners.
	Exceptions don't disprove the norm, says John, in his typically brutal Asian conqueror manner.
	But he's right.
	That's the problem.
	He's absolutely right.
	It's just not a good idea.
	Just try to make that the course of your life and you'll be happier for it.
	But we're out of time on.
	Yeah, we're out of time, because you've got an interview after this, hopefully.
	So, check out lolisiers.com.
	We have the Anglo-Saxon political traditions.
	We've also got a new article by Michael Rechtenwald, which is going into the ritual sacrifice of whiteness, which is very interesting.
	I didn't know we did, but that's good.
	So there are two things on that premium content for you to go and check out.
	You sign up at lotuseaters.com.
	Otherwise, I'm going to go give Rod an email and a call, see if we can get him on the podcast.
	And whoever made that video, please, please make sure you send it to us, because I'd love to show him that as well.
	Thank you.
	See you tomorrow at 1 o'clock.

▲