All Episodes
Previous Next
May 3, 2021 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters
01:32:09
The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #123
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
*intro music* Allahu Akbar and welcome habibis to the Calumphate.
No, no, Carl's on holiday, so it's my place now.
I'm joined by Josh.
Hello!
Sorry, I'll do it properly.
Hello and welcome to the podcast of Lotus Eaters for the 3rd of March 2021.
I'm joined by Josh.
Hello.
So we're going to be talking about the rogue George Floyd Jorah.
The rogue George Floyd trial of Jorah, who decided to go out and spill the beans about the deliberations, which was pretty unfortunate.
There's also the revolt of the musicians, all the musicians coming out in favour of death to woke-ism.
And also the left's push of the knife of peace crusade, in which they're trying to convince you that Michaela Bryant, the lady with the knife, who's the new BLM face, is actually still the one who is just engaging in peace.
But anyway, before we get into that, let's just do some shilling, because shilling's always good.
Also, a lot of this content is free.
So the first one here is the Richard Tice interview we have up.
So I did an interview with Richard Tice, leader of Reform UK, formerly known as the Brexit Party.
We spoke about a few other things in their manifesto and what they're campaigning on for the Mayor of London and London elections and local elections and so forth.
Welcome to my show!
Form 1 at 8pm.
Form 1 at 8pm.
Right.
Sorry, listening is John there.
So the full interview is going at 8pm.
This is Carl interviewing David Curtin.
David Curtin is also running for Mayor of London.
And he's representing the Heritage Party, so more of a socially conservative version of politics.
And also the Kelvin Robertson interview is up.
So this is premium content, so you have to go to lovelaceers.com and sign up for the premium content there, £5 a month, to get access to this.
So this is Carl interviewing Kelvin Robertson, who's a...
I don't know, conservative activist, but he's with the Lawrence Fox Reclaim UK group at the moment, but his views on what's wrong with the establishment, particularly the Tory party, because, I mean, they are the establishment.
Anyway, without further ado, let's get into it.
So, first thing I want to talk about was the George Floyd drawer admitting that the result they got to was sort of pre-approved.
So, I've seen two narratives on this.
So he went out and gave a bunch of interviews saying that, you know, I was one of the jurors and here's, you know, my views on what took place in the jury room and between all the different jurors.
And the left has gone with one particular part and then the right have gone with another part here.
So the first part here is the left's version of it.
So this is an interview he gave on CBS and in here at this point he says that they felt no outside pressure in the jury room.
Tell me if you believe that.
And the result of that is that the left is pushing that this means that Derek Chauvin's appeal is going to be rejected because the jurors have said, we felt no outside pressure, which is you just believe them on face value, even if you might have different views on that, I guess.
So if we get to the next link, this is Raw Story reporting here.
So I think there's, what is it?
They took a quote from a different left-wing news outlet that we're promoting that the appeal is definitely doomed because the juror came out and said, we felt no pressure.
So, supposedly, the people protesting outside of the courts and both Joe Biden calling George Floyd's brother had absolutely no effect whatsoever?
Absolutely none.
I find that very hard to believe.
And, of course, the explicit threats of, we're going to burn this country to the ground if he's not convicted.
I mean, no pressure at all.
Really?
Yeah, I mean, it's difficult to believe, but it's also especially difficult to believe from this particular juror.
So I think, what was it, there were 12 jurors in the jury room, starting on this case, if I've got that correct, and he was one of them.
And you might think he's just some rando juror, you know, completely average.
I mean, remember, they filtered the jurors to decide whether or not they would accept them.
And if you had strong views on BLM or George Floyd's case or something, then you were struck off because, I mean, that's the correct thing to do.
And so if we can get to the next link, this is some of the reporting at the time.
So Judge Carhill asked juror number 52, this juror here, whether he heard anything about the George Floyd civil case.
He says no.
He explained hearing some basic info about trial dates, etc.
from the news in recent months, but nothing that would keep him from serving as an impartial juror.
That's on the 15th of March.
Completely impartial juror.
Sure.
Sure.
Except that afterwards he's been, I'm going to say, running his mouth here, because he's been going out and exposing, ah, no, actually, he wasn't an impartial juror.
So we go to the next link here.
This is a podcast in which this person here has noted that in here he says that, you know, she asks, why should you go on jury duty and serve on jurors?
And his response is that, well, if you want to see change, you need to get on the jury.
That doesn't sound like an impartial juror to me.
Yeah, as if that's what the jury is for.
So let's play this clip.
We're talking to Brandon Mitchell.
He was juror number 52 in the Derek Chauvin murder trial.
Brandon, before we wrap, many people don't like jury duty and probably wouldn't respond to the letter that you get in the mail.
So what message would you leave to those about saying yes to jury duty?
I mean, it's important.
If we want to see some change, we want to see some things going different.
So we got to get out there and get into these avenues and get into these rules to try to spark some change.
And that's one of the things.
Jury duty voting, all of those things are things we got to do.
And how can people follow you on social media or tune into your podcast?
Yeah, so the Wholesome Pod...
So yeah, he's just plugging his podcast there, but you can see as he says, if we want to see some change, if we want to see some things going different, we've got to get out there and we've got to go into those avenues to spark some change.
Aren't there any rules against them just going out and talking about the case as well?
I'd imagine that there'd be some limitations to jurors just going around, and especially in a big case like this, it seems like he's trying to make a career out of it almost as someone who helped get Derek Chauvin in prison.
I don't think there's any rules against after the case, because, I mean, then you're a free citizen, do as you wish kind of thing.
I mean, the case is done.
There's no restrictions on him there.
But, I mean, it's pretty telling.
I mean, the fact that he's coming out there and saying you need to, you know, if you want change in society, get on a jury.
And it's like, right, that's not the purpose of a jury.
The purpose of a jury is to be impartial and judge them on the case of the merit.
But if he's coming out of it and doing all these media tours and plugging a podcast, isn't he clearly getting something out of it?
Sure, but that's, you know, he's free to do so.
I don't think there's any laws against it.
I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe there is.
So this is not the only thing here.
So there was also reporting on him when they were going through the candidates.
And as you can see here, this lady, she lists like all the information about all the different jurors, which again leads to the whole thing about them all kind of being doxxed.
I mean, local papers releasing so much information that you could reasonably find out who the jurors were on the case.
So, hmm.
Anyway, so she says here that jury number 52, he's a black male in his 30s, he works in banking, coaches kids, has witnessed police excessive force.
Discrimination is beyond what the media can even report, is his opinion.
The discrimination in the policing is beyond what the media can even report.
So, right, that should have been a red flag.
Yeah, impartial, and then that is apparently what impartial means.
Yeah.
How do they not screen that out?
Surely that's a pretty fringe view, even for many Black Lives Matter activists.
So if you can scroll down, I think there's a tweet below this in which he also says that he's not a huge fan of Blue Lives Matter, and says it arose in opposition to Black Lives Matter.
I mean, it's true that that's, you know, the phraseology became new, but of course the thin blue line is a long-standing, let's say, cultural meme of, you know, protecting police.
But saying that he's not a huge fan of Blue Lives Matter, I mean, again, this is the sort of thing where he's aware of the Black Lives Matter movement, he's aware of the Blue Lives Matter movement, he thinks that the amount of discrimination in policing is beyond what the media can even report, and there are some more red flags coming up.
It's like, okay, did this guy actually, was he impartial or not?
So then we have him giving another interview in which he gave an interview to Law Crime Network, and he gave them his view on why they took 10 hours to come up with the deliberation that Shobin was guilty on all three charges.
So you remember that this was the thing where they went in there for 10 hours.
He says, no, we didn't actually spend 10 hours on this, because you've got to take into account that we had the day off and whatnot, and therefore it took a lot shorter than people think.
So if we can play this second clip.
And when you look at 10 hours of deliberations, was there one issue that the jury was struggling with over another?
See, I look at it as there was cause of death and there was the use of force.
Were you guys struggling over one of the issues?
No, not in terms of that.
Even over the 10 hours, it wasn't exactly 10 hours.
It was more like six hours, five or six hours.
But during that time, we more so...
Focused on the third-degree murder and just the terminology used within it was a little bit confusing.
But in terms of use of force or anything like that, I think we were all on the same page and there was no really disputing or debating about that.
So you're saying when you walked into the deliberation room, did the jury come to a decision pretty quickly on some of the charges within the first hour?
Yeah, we definitely figured out manslaughter within the first hour right away.
Then we took a break for dinner, actually, and then came back the next morning.
But yeah, manslaughter figured out right away.
Third degree took maybe three and a half hours.
And then the second degree murder, we figured out maybe 30, 45 minutes.
So the manslaughter took about one hour to figure out, then they went for dinner, and then third degree murder took them three to four hours to talk about, and then second degree murder about 30 minutes.
And he says in other interviews that it was the case that all of them agreed that basically he was guilty on everything except one, and that one juror was someone who was just saying, I'm not sure about the terminology of the law, can we go over that?
So it wasn't even, I want to go through the evidence again.
Let's go through the arguments for both sides, this is a very serious case, blah blah blah.
They were just saying, let's go for the wording of the law, because it's a bit confusing.
And that sort of makes me wonder, like, okay, the argument that these guys weren't taking it very seriously, I think, has more merit to it.
If they're literally just spending like 30 minutes on second degree murder, three to four hours on third degree murder, it seems very lax.
And were they, I was following the case relatively closely, but were they deliberating after each day's evidence or was it just that they were there when it was presented and then they finally got to deliberate at the end?
So it was like two weeks of evidence, you know, testimony, presenting videos, blah blah blah, and then deliberations, and the deliberations took, as he says, not ten hours but six hours.
That's kind of ridiculous, then, if it's split up and, you know, one of them was half an hour.
That hardly seems like they're doing their due diligence.
But you're totally right.
I mean, it's certainly true that it's fine if there's, you know, say some guy comes before the court, you're on the jury, I didn't commit the murder, the evidence is overwhelming, you go to the jury room, guilty, guilty, guilty, and then you're done, right?
And that's certainly true, that they could have taken that position.
But, I mean, most people who followed the case, I mean, it was a pretty complex case.
There were a lot of different arguments being made.
There was a lot of evidence to go through.
And it wasn't like the defense wasn't without merit.
I mean, they had arguments for all three counts, and none of them, you know, trivial.
And also people weren't expecting, especially to get him on the murder charges.
Most legal experts looking at this that I've seen from the United States were saying, that's a bit of a stretch.
I mean, definitely you can probably get him on the manslaughter charge, but the murder charges is kind of pushing it.
Yeah, I found the defence's case quite compelling, to be honest.
I know I'm certainly no legal expert, but it seemed to me that they had a pretty reasonable case and they had their own counter-medical experts to suggest that there was reasonable doubt.
So when he was charged for all three counts, I was very surprised that they'd even come to this.
And it kind of makes a bit more sense now, considering that this guy perhaps might not have been as impartial as he might have suggested.
And in case you're wondering, okay, well, he said a few things like, I think you should use jurors to make change, which is not what they're for, or the fact that he was talking about that he's not a fan of Blue Lives Matter.
Okay, I mean, these are pretty tepid things, maybe.
What's not tepid is, you know, video evidence of him being partisan before the case.
So this is an article from, what is it, Postmillennial, in which they put here, the Chauvin juror who promised judge impartiality now says that people should join juries to spark some change.
And as you saw, we saw that part.
But also wore BLM's shirt in 2020.
So if we can scroll down, eventually you're going to get to an image, so not this one, but if you keep going, in which he posted on Facebook of him wearing a shirt that's clearly inspired by the George Floyd trial and BLM. So you can see here, he's on the right there with a hat, says Black Lives Matter.
Black Lives Matter was around before, maybe.
But then, get your knee off our necks, BLM, with two red fists in the center there.
That's not exactly mild.
He's both got the shirt and the hat as well, so...
I mean, he's literally wearing a shirt saying, get your knee off our necks.
I mean, if that's not a reference to George Floyd, I don't know what other case was going on with knees on necks that I'm not aware of.
But that's just blatant.
He was an individual who was aware of the case.
He was also politically active in one side of this, which is that this was an atrocious abuse of civil rights and therefore miscamping against it.
That means he's not impartial.
That means he lied to the judge and the people and to the council on either side when he says, oh, I'm impartial.
I've not heard much about the case, blah, blah, blah.
We have the video evidence.
You're a liar, mate.
I can't believe that he's actually managed to get away with this.
Wouldn't this alone be a case for an appeal?
Because, you know, I suppose it's one of the jurors that wouldn't really change the decision overall.
I think they might need more evidence on some of the other jurors.
But even so, this guy, you're not going to have the full Black Lives Matter get-up if you're not involved in any way, are you?
Yeah, I mean, it was pretty ridiculous with the jury not being sequestered from the get-go.
I mean, the defense was arguing this, which is like, you know, there's loads of stuff going on, loads of protests.
One of these guys even lives in a city where rioting was taking place during the case.
It's like, well, these guys can't be impartial by definition.
But then when you've got jurors themselves who are now released to have been political activists on the jury, yeah, I mean, this is why I find it so absurd that the left-wing media I've seen on this have been saying that this guy's been giving interviews and that's good because he's able to say there was no outside pressure and therefore the appeal's going to fall flat on its face.
That's just not the case.
I mean, the evidence of him being a political activist doesn't help the state against the appeal.
No, it helps the appeal, which is the point that, no, there's a miscarriage of justice, which is what the defense would be arguing.
Again, I don't really care about Derek Chauvin, as we've said multiple times.
I don't really care if he's guilty or not, but the fact that there's not a proper procedure being taken place is a valid criticism, and something that should be pointed out, I think.
So if you can scroll up as well, just so we can see...
No, if you can scroll up a little bit, just so we can see his Facebook post.
Sorry, just so we can see the top of that Facebook post where he's writing.
So the next generation being socially active, representing in DC, my son, Mazel, nephew, blah, blah, blah, and brother, blah, blah, blah.
So, I mean, him saying that, that he's being politically active, wants people to get politically active in the sense of being Black Lives Matter activists, which he then went on to be on the jury in his own words.
I mean, he was causing social change.
I mean, that's his words of what he was doing on the jury.
Yeah, and even alongside the kind of threats of violence and burning stuff down, they were more or less living in that neighbourhood as well, and surely that's got to play a part.
I would have imagined that if you wanted a truly impartial jury, you would have probably gone out of the state entirely and gone somewhere else.
at least then there would be less of a threat of violence because of course in minneapolis there's a lot of ties to this sort of thing and they're going to be far more willing to be active and out and causing trouble and destruction and rioting yeah i mean i don't I've heard some criticisms about getting people outside of the state to come in.
But either way, I mean, definitely take it out of Minneapolis.
I can't think of a sillier thing to do.
Which is what the defense will be bringing up.
But also the idea that there was no pressure from the outside, as he said in the initial interview.
Eh, I mean, who believes this?
Who honestly believes that?
I mean, one of the jurors living in a neighborhood that had rioting during the trial.
But, okay, fine.
Except when you look outside, I mean, we saw the footage when we covered it of people outside chanting guilty, guilty, guilty when they were deliberating.
But there's this great video I found from Amy Horowitz.
He just went down there and started asking them questions.
And, of course, he's running into the BLM type, so he's going to run into some absolute nutters.
But one of the worst parts is, as you can get the quote there, one woman he interviews right at the end there says, I don't want to say that we have to start killing all white folks, but maybe they need to feel the pain and the hurt.
And it's like...
Yeah.
Yeah, I mean, if you didn't want it clearly enough that these people want a race war, I mean, saying we've got to kill all the white folks.
But.
It's like, I don't want to kill all the white folks, but.
I love that.
Anyway, but this is the state outside.
I mean, these are the protesters outside.
You saw them chanting.
You've seen the amount of riots.
The idea that there was no influence on the jury from the outside world.
Who buys it?
It's just obvious nonsense.
And then when you dismiss with that, you've got the other side of it, which is him saying that, yeah, I was essentially an activist on the jury.
I mean, we don't know about all the rest of them, obviously.
But no, it just seems like great evidence for the appeal.
Great evidence for Nelson to say that this was a miscarriage of justice.
I think the best thing out of everything is the fact that they had their details published while the case was still going on and then there were the threats of violence and people protesting outside of the courts.
If they knew who these jurors were and they were found to vote in favour of Chauvin, then surely these people would be hunted down.
And that's got to be kind of a case for...
Everyone knows it, right?
Yeah.
And I'm amazed that no one's been talking about that and that's not been the focus, really.
But there's also just the fact that this guy, if you just kept your mouth shut as well, he didn't help his side here very much by going out and saying, yes, I was an activist on the jury.
I mean, he didn't help his side by lying and saying, I've not heard of the George Floyd trial, and then, as you can see with the shirt, definitely had.
Well, he's clearly grifting.
He's got a podcast that he's plugging, and there's no way that he's not trying to make money off of being on the jury.
And that's surely got to sway his decision a little bit.
I mean, I'll characterise that as an uncharitable interpretation, but it's certainly possible.
But I mean, if we want to be most charitable as possible, even at best, he's an open activist for the case that he was going to get this guy guilty no matter what happened, no matter what the evidence was.
And that alone is horrible.
Yeah, I don't doubt that, to be honest.
Yeah.
Anyway, so we'll end that there.
But if you want to tell me about the revolt of the musicians...
Yes, so there have been increasingly far more musicians coming out against kind of woke culture and cancel culture and that sort of thing and I know there have been lots of cases of people being cancelled but I'd like to focus on the people that are so-called uncancellables and that sort of thing because I think people despair way too much about the state of culture and they think that oh my god everything is going badly and There's no
way that we can reclaim music, art, film, TV, but there's still lots of people out there who have stayed until now very quiet, but they're starting to come out, starting with Roger Daltrey of The Who, and we've got a good dispatch here from Rory where he covers this.
And recently, Roger Daltrey of The Who.
If you don't know The Who, a big band in the late 60s.
Got some good songs.
Some of my favourites.
My Generation, The Seeker, great ones.
Not such a fan of the stuff post-70s.
Just going into this, I don't know any of the musicians because I'm terrible at music.
I've been a musician for like 10 years, so this is something close to my heart.
And it's good to see some people I respect and some that I don't as well.
But this sort of world has definitely been seen as sort of a leftist space that's been given up.
Same with like Hollywood in the US, for example.
Yeah, and I don't want people to kind of catastrophize it because it's really not the case.
And a lot of the kind of rebellious music genres are still very much in that same vein.
And there's been lots of emphasis on creativity in music not following kind of social pressures and social norms.
And I don't think this is really going to change.
I think people care about their artistry more than they care about being politically correct and I think this is going to continue although it might be a bit more underground.
I think that's more to do with popular music just being more of a commodity rather than an art form and a lot of the chart music I know most people don't really listen to that and everyone knows that you don't really listen to what is popular anymore because it's just There's no artistry there.
You've got the things like the familiarity effect where it's just manufactured to sound very similar to pre-existing stuff to make the most money.
So that's the antithesis of being creative.
But nevertheless, that's a bit of a tangent.
But I felt like I needed to get that out there.
So anyway, back to Roger Daltrey.
He recently had an interview on BBC Radio 1, and he talked about the golden era of music, which I very much agree, which is kind of the late 60s to the mid-70s.
I'm going to read a quote here.
Because it's becoming so absurd now with AI, all the tricks it can do.
So I think he's trying to complain here about algorithms, but in a very Luddite way, just reject the internet entirely.
Return to monkey.
Yeah, he may as well be saying that.
Let's go live in the woods, forget about...
You know, the spoken word.
But no.
So he explicitly mentioned the woke generation and having some kind of compulsion to create a miserable world for everyone, including themselves, which I think is fair enough.
I think that's...
They certainly don't seem like happy people, do they?
These people that are supposedly the morally upstanding folks that they claim to be.
They're always very miserable.
And you can see it just in their faces.
Like, a great place to look is, like, Andy Nose.
Screenshots of all the Antifa people and it's like spot the happy person.
I mean people living stellar lives.
So he says anyone who's lived life and you see what they're doing you just know that it's a route to nowhere.
And he says that growing up in post-war Britain and living through socialist governments and the failure of communism in the Soviet Union I've been to communist countries where they were actually communist and I've seen how wonderful it really is.
So, he's saying that he's seen what they want, and it's awful, and I think he's just calling them naive here, which is surprisingly, you know, accurate as far as it goes.
A bit tepid, but yeah, pretty good.
He is 77 years old now, so I mean, he's probably stopped caring a little bit with...
The current goings on.
So you can't really blame him for not having his finger on the pulse with everything that's going on.
And then the next person who came out was Glenn Danzig of The Misfits.
This isn't someone I'm very familiar with, unlike The Who.
She said that cancel culture...
He's saying that in the past lots of things wouldn't have been created if there was the same atmosphere today and that it's holding artistry back.
He says, people don't understand because everything's so cancel culture.
Woke BS nowadays.
You never have the punk explosion nowadays because of cancel culture.
Woke BS. He just repeated himself.
You can never have it.
It would never have happened.
We're lucky it happened when it did, because it will never happen again.
So he's pretty blackpilled on this.
He's saying that, you know, our time for good artistry is over, but then he's a punk, so he's not going to be optimistic like that.
It's all going to be great.
It's good to see, though, that the old rebels are just like, yeah, the woke retards are the worst thing on the planet.
Yeah, and it's not even like a kind of a certain genre.
It's just a cross-genre thing where there's lots of different people agreeing on the same things, whereas otherwise they never would have agreed with one another and probably disliked each other at the time.
But I mean, in the way that, you know, the woke types represent themselves, it's like, were the resistance, were fighting the system or whatever?
And it's like, no, you're the most manufactured movement the world has ever seen.
You came out of academia, you're endlessly funded, you're endlessly promoted by every, you know, governmental organisation and company out there.
You know, BS. I've got a quote that's almost exactly that, but I don't want to spoil it.
So, moving on to Johnny Rotten of the Sex Pistols.
He's come out with some hilarious stuff, and the fact that this kind of guy, if you see a picture of him...
Like, for people who are listening, he looks kind of deranged in the photo they've used.
I have an even funnier photo as well, from when he was younger.
He did...
It's a bit more charitable, but not much, really.
They used to go on stage in bin bags and stuff like that.
They're not known for being highbrow.
But nevertheless, he recently had an interview where he condemned wokeness and cancel culture and...
I think he has a bit of an agenda in being against council culture because I think it was around the 70s they released God Save the Queen.
I'm not sure if you're familiar with that song, but basically it was a song against the monarchy and it was released during Queen Elizabeth II's Silver Jubilee, so 25 years ago.
And both the BBC and the Independent Broadcasting Authority refuse to play the song at all, even though it's number one in the NME charts and number two in the UK charts.
And just to read some of the lyrics, because why not?
He says stuff like, God save the Queen, the fascist regime, and then another one, God save the Queen, she ain't no human being, there's no future, and England's dreaming.
So he's not exactly tepid.
He's not holding back, and this was kind of mid-70s.
It's not very like, you know, British patriotism or nationalism by any sorts.
I mean, you never see, like, conservatives arguing, God save the Queen, it's a fascist regime.
Yeah.
But I wasn't around for this kind of music, so is it sort of ironic or not?
Well, he's saying God Save the Queen, like, ironically, yes, but he's very much against the kind of royal family.
But at the same time, you know, they had, on the album that this was released on, they had the Union flag as the cover.
And there's lots of iconography of kind of the Union flag everywhere.
And...
It isn't necessarily a rejection of Britishness, but it's more left-wing.
They also had a song called Anarchy in the UK as well.
So you kind of get that it's just subversive sort of stuff.
So he goes on to criticise leftist iconoclasm and things like sabotaging the statue of Winston Churchill.
So you can see that he's not necessarily against British values per se.
It's more about he's kind of typically left-wing, I would say.
And he blamed social media on the whole, which is, you know, the go-to thing for particularly some of the older people.
They're like, oh, it's all social media.
We never had this back in our day.
He's not entirely wrong, though.
The way social media works, particularly Twitter, is a heavy incentive for the woke types.
The fact that you can cancel someone online over something they've said on Twitter, and the fact that you get the mobs in that way.
I don't think you could do that as effective back in the before times, before the internet.
But I have seen some research that suggests the opposite, that actually being exposed to people's opposing views can make you more polarised rather than less.
And in living in these echo chambers actually has the opposite effect to what people might think.
So it may be less clear than we might actually believe.
But I mean, it's still kind of the jury's out there.
But nevertheless, he says, these people aren't really genuinely disenfranchised at all, which is pretty much what you said a second ago.
They just view themselves as special, it's selfishness, and in that respect, it's divisive and can only lead to trouble.
I can't believe that TV stations give some of these lunatics the space.
And would you be able to pull up that picture I have there?
Because there he is, back in the day, calling these people lunatics.
And I mean, if this is the guy...
He's calling you out as a lunatic when he was wearing bin bags on stage, calling for anarchy, and looking like that.
I mean, totally true, but it's the point you were getting at, which is, like, he comes at, like, his songs and his, you know, way of saying, you know, his songs to attacking Britain.
It's more along the lines of kind of, like, old left-wing thought.
Like, whenever you talk to left-wingers, they're like, yeah, a real patriot is the type who criticizes their country because I want to improve it, and stuff like that.
I've never been able to buy this because the individuals you interact with on the left these days, at least, totally false.
No way.
No way do you want to improve Britain.
You want to destroy Britain.
I mean, you openly say at times that all of our values are fascist and blah blah blah blah.
It's unbelievable.
But I imagine maybe back in the day that was the case, and now he's looking at them, and they're the types who do want to destroy everything.
I mean, why is he defending the statue of Winston Churchill, for example?
Yeah, I don't really see any other alternative, but then I suppose he is the man who fought against the mid-century Germans, so you can kind of see...
That's a great phrase.
The mid-century Germans.
I've stole it off of Academic Agent.
It's just a way of avoiding the YouTube censors, because if you say the name, then it gets...
The N-word.
Not that one.
Well, it begins with nasty.
You pretty much said it there.
But the final quote here, he says, is where is this moral majority nonsense coming from when they're basically the ones doing all the wrong for being so bloody judgmental and vicious against anybody that doesn't go with the current popular opinion?
It's just horrible, horribly contemptuous, spoiled children coming out of colleges and universities with total S for brains.
I mean, fair enough.
I don't disagree.
He's like the third musician here that's big time coming out against us.
Yeah, and just to go to some of the stuff in the past, he actually defended Donald Trump as well.
And he says, What I dislike about the left-wing media in America is that they're trying to smear the bloke as racist, and that's completely not true.
There's many, many problems with him as a human being, but he's not that.
There might just be a chance that something good will come out of the situation because he terrifies politicians.
So he's kind of a conventional, anti-establishment sort of person.
And he says...
Donald Trump is the archetypal anti-establishment character, dare I say, a possible friend.
So, maybe not a typical left-winger there, if he's calling...
I mean, he's totally right there, though.
I mean, if you're a left-wing punk rocker from the old times, I mean, who would you expect them to side with?
An outsider like Donald Trump, who's a businessman who's coming in and is clearly not giving a toss about the rules, or Joe Biden, who's been there for God knows how many decades...
This was back in 2017, I think.
I understand, but I mean, Hillary Clinton, very much the same.
Same candidate, different person.
I mean, who would you back?
I mean, you've got to back the guy who's going to cause some disruptions.
I mean, sure, he might say some things you don't like, but who gives a toss?
I imagine him being a bit of an old-school punk as well.
He likes the idea that Donald Trump's going in there saying stuff that offends the people with the kind of stiff upper lip, like the people who want to be all prim and proper, and he's going in there making them all upset.
I've got to imagine that him getting under their skin has got to make him like him a lot more.
It perfectly exposes, as I was saying, the point about them being essentially a manufactured product.
Why do all the punk rockers hate you?
Why do all the actual rebels from the days actually hate you?
Because you're not something that's emerged out of the ether, you're something that's emerged out of the universities, bit by bit, brainwashed by brainwashed each tube.
Something I've noticed about just the people that present themselves as hippies nowadays is they're such posers because I listen to a lot of late 60s.
I haven't heard that term in a while.
I listen to a lot of late 60s music that's kind of of that cultural shift.
And most of them, I've talked to them about it.
They've got the parachute pants and the horrible patchwork jackets and stuff like that.
They've got the full get-up.
I'm talking to them about this music from the late 60s that I really like, and they've not heard of any of it.
And they're like, well, I kind of just like the DJ stuff.
And then they're coming out with this really basic, modern, milquetoast version of They don't even know about it.
They're just pretending to look like they know something.
But that's just my own personal bias.
I know nothing about music, so I don't even know what you're talking about.
Sorry.
Okay, moving on to someone from a very different genre, although he is connected to the punk world, is Don Letts, who is a videographer for The Clash, who are another punk band, but he's also a reggae DJ. And he said that woke culture is a threat to protest songs.
And he's saying that the best way to protest is through music a lot of the time.
And in making things political through music, you've got to toe the line.
He says, in a world so woke you can't make a joke.
Trying to navigate the minefield of fake news, conspiracy theories and information overload is even trickier by the fear of being accused of cultural appropriation.
In my day, getting into music felt like a rebellious anti-establishment thing.
Today, many see it as a way of becoming part of the establishment, which is very true.
Especially a lot of the popular music now.
All the fans of it just want to be big, they want to be famous, they want to make money, and that's all it's about.
There's no artistry there anymore.
But again, this is me being bitter at all the terrible music out there.
He's hitting on something there, which is the problem with the woke types as well.
Dissent can't be tolerated, because the whole worldview is about power and power.
And if you can't have...
I mean, you can't have that with dissent.
I mean, dissent is antithetical.
It is the problem with the system is people dissenting against wokeness, which is why they go after them in such venomous methods.
Yeah.
I mean, he's pointing out that if you want to be a protest group or actually rebellious, you've got to be the ones criticizing the system.
But if you are the system, the woke types, I mean, every institution...
I mean, every, you know, medium of conversation they even control because they can control the language of the debate.
Yeah.
You only need to look at who donated to Joe Biden and Black Lives Matter and you'll realize that they're not at all apart from the system.
They're not outsiders.
Yeah.
Like you have Google and Facebook donating to Joe Biden.
You also have loads of major companies advertising Black Lives Matter, donating to them.
Yeah.
Well, donating to BLM or they'll set up their own, you know, in the HR institutions, have equity, inclusion, diversity nonsense.
I mean, we get sent endlessly, people from pretty much every private company in the country, if not the world at this point in the West, the mandate that you must take inclusion and equity and diversity training and so on and so forth.
And it's just chock-a-block for the woke, intersectional nonsense.
I've covered lots of it in articles, actually.
And we even, just to go back to something that I know you've mentioned on the podcast before, we even had it in the UK government, even though some of it has been kind of banned.
And that was the kind of institutional racism training in one government department.
So it even pervades when you fight against it, because, of course, Kemi banned unconscious bias training and diversity training, which surely this institutional racism training would come under the kind of umbrella term of diversity training, but it's just called something else, and therefore it kind of stuck through the cracks.
But nevertheless, I'm going to move on to someone who is far more well-known for their outspoken opinions, which is Morrissey from The Smiths.
So I wonder when we're going to get to Morrissey, because Morrissey's the famous one.
So I don't know how many foreigners know, but Morrissey has become a bit of pariah in the UK because he keeps backing for Britain, and for Britain have dangerous opinions about the fact that the country has been becoming more and more Islamic, and they don't like that because Britain isn't an Islamic country.
I mean, shock horror, what a strange criticism.
He's not wrong.
It's funny because he's not really been damaged too much because lots of people are still listening to his music that are very left-wing.
I still listen to some of the Smith stuff.
I'm not a big fan of his solo stuff, but it's still good and kind of very different kind of 1980s kind of alt-rock.
But I know it's probably not up everyone else's street, but nevertheless he's, as you said, been vocally kind of Anti-Brexit, anti-Brexit, pro-Brexit and anti-immigration.
Getting around the wrong way.
And he says, of this, the gates are flooded and anybody can have access to England and join in.
You have to be sensible about everything in life.
You can't say, everybody come into my house, sit on the bed, have what you like, do what you like.
It wouldn't even work.
So...
He's pretty happy to go against most of the people who probably listen to his music now.
And, of course, everyone knows him for his veganism and being very outspoken about that.
I know that the Simpsons have parodied that before.
I know in a kind of...
Earlier episode, they had him as this kind of vegan, kind of left-wing type.
I think he was Lisa's imaginary friend.
And then later on, in a previous episode, when he gained a bit more of this reputation, they have him on stage eating a burger, really fat, just like, I was a vegan, but then I found out veganism is foreign, and therefore I stopped doing it.
Based.
So this is him before, in the Simpsons episode?
You can see before, and then there's also the afterways.
Should we go to the next link?
There he is.
Oh god, yeah.
But yeah, this is also a bit of a comment on the downfall of the Simpsons, because they've kind of gone very much down that woke route.
Well, they've gone woke because they went corporate.
I mean, I don't know how entwined you are with the Simpsons nerds, but I watch a lot of videos of commentators on the Simpsons as a brand and the seasons.
And it's very much the consensus that essentially, like the first, what is it like, I think it's like first dozen or first like nine seasons or whatever, you get good stuff and then you see the ratings collapse.
And I mean, you look at it these days, it's just a corporate shell.
There is nothing about it that's interesting.
Yeah, I've watched kind of up until, well, the first 14 seasons, roughly.
But then after that, it did just lose its touch.
And I think there is also a part of it where it's kind of done everything and it kind of has to die off.
And I think that, although there is certainly the corporate side of it, it would have died off eventually anyway, just because of how long it had been going.
But some more good stuff that Morrissey has said...
In particular, this is outlined quite amusingly in a Guardian article, which is outlining all of the stuff he said in kind of like they're trying to shame him, but it just makes him look really based.
And it made me like him even more.
So in this article, they say, oh, he's surrounded himself with fascist imagery.
And to kind of provide the evidence for that, he wrapped himself in the Union Jack, which...
Fascist imagery.
I mean, the country that defeated fascism.
Yeah.
This is just typical Guardian stuff, really.
And he said Sadiq Khan cannot talk properly.
And he said, even Tesco wouldn't employ Diane Abbott.
I mean, true.
Didn't she come into Parliament with two shoes that weren't matching, got numbers right?
No, I think she went to the polling booth and she took pictures with supporters, all three of them, and she was wearing two shoes that were different and also both of them were left-footed or something.
Say left-wing, she's got two left feet.
And on Me Too, on the topic of Kevin Spacey abusing this 14-year-old boy that came out, he says, one wonders if the boy did not know what would happen when you're in somebody's bedroom, you have to be aware where that can lead.
That's pretty eh.
Yeah, I know.
I thought I'd include the iffy things, just so...
Yeah, to be fair.
Yeah.
And also, he says, on the victims of Harvey Weinstein, he says, they play along, afterwards they feel embarrassed or disliked.
So he's basically saying that they kind of went along with it to forward their career, but then they got a bit embarrassed.
And they're like, well, now we're going to come out and complain all at once.
I mean, I haven't seen too much of the Harvey Weinstein Me Too stuff, to be honest, because I never really paid attention to the whole thing.
It is pretty awful.
What is interesting, he's happy to just be open about his opinions on that stuff, though.
Yeah.
And as you point out, it's not just one person.
It's not just Morrissey.
It's loads of people in the music industry coming out and saying stuff.
So, another controversial figure, kind of to wrap things up, is Tom Araya of the band Slayer, which is an 80s metal band.
He posted a picture in 2017 after Trump got elected with Donald Trump doing the Devil Horns in with the band from back in the 80s, which was just like a joke.
And it does look quite funny, actually.
But he complained that loads of his own fans kind of had a go at him for it, saying that...
And he said, that's what America has become.
It's become a bunch of people that, because they didn't get their way, they're mad.
I showed a picture that I thought was funny.
They can't even joke.
They can't even laugh at themselves.
They can't even have fun.
That's just amazing that it's come to that.
We're a nation of crybabies.
He's not wrong.
He also went on to say, I thought it was funny because all of the rhetoric that Donald Trump is kind of espousing and how everybody hates him, I'm in Slayer and being in Slayer sometimes you have to do stuff just to pee people off, but that's not the word he used.
And the last example I have here is of Winston Marshall from Mumford& Sons getting kicked out of his band, but I believe you've already covered this, and I don't like Mumford& Sons at all.
I think they're really lame.
To be honest, I don't actually remember what happened.
Basically, he complimented Andy Ngo's new book about Antifa, and then everyone crucified him for it.
You've got to be kicked out, and then he deleted the tweet like a cuck, didn't he?
Yeah, he did, and he apologised, and he said he didn't know how problematic the book really was.
It's problematic.
If you read the book, Andy Ngo's book, go and buy it.
It's great.
It's just Andy Ngo putting down in black and white the history of Antifa, especially in Portland and the United States, the terrorist attacks they've carried out, and then here's the reasons why.
Here's their theory, here's what they want for the world, and here's the tactics and the documents they give to their members.
I mean, there's nothing there that harms anyone.
All it is is explaining this, what I'm going to call a terrorist group, to be quite frank.
Yeah, and they certainly are.
And everyone who was against it presented it as this far-right person targeting these innocent left-wing protesters.
And they're so innocent, you know, they've been burning down cities in America.
At least two terrorist attacks.
I mean, people who really didn't do nothing.
I mean, it's ridiculous.
Sorry.
Anyway, I hate people who defend Antifa.
They are so indefensible, aren't they?
It infuriates me that we can't just do what we did in the UK in 2005, just broke them up overnight.
Yeah, we actually have a video about that on the Lotus Eater's YouTube channel, but I'll let people go check them out themselves.
But back in 2005, the British Transport Police actually just raided them across the country and then charged them all with conspiracies to commit violent disorder.
Great.
Do it again.
Anyway.
Let's get into the leftist knife of peace crusade.
So you might remember the new face of the BLM movement because George Floyd is now no longer interesting to anyone.
Apparently he's just...
Because, you know, they got found guilty.
You know, Derek Chauvin.
Therefore...
Oh, well, this doesn't matter.
It's not justice, by the way, and we still have to fight.
What for?
No one really knows.
So they decided to find a new martyr, and the new martyr is, I don't know how to say her name properly, but Michaela Bryant, and this was the lady who was caught on tape with a knife trying to stab some girl, and the police shot her to death for trying to stab someone.
I think it's Makia Bryant?
I don't know, I'm just going to say Michaela.
But the image you can see here, so you can see knife in her right hand about to stab this girl in the pink, and the officer shot her as a hero would, saving someone's life.
I mean, the girl in the pink didn't have an AR-15 or an AK or something, or a knife, she had a dog.
As you can see on the bottom of the floor there, she dropped her dog.
Poor doggo.
Anyway, so the video footage was immediately released, this was obvious nonsense, and then you saw the leftist response of trying to say, nah, it's normal for kids to have knife fights.
God knows in what world, but that defense didn't hold up, so they've decided to carry on trying to defend her.
So I wanted to go through just for some of the new information that's come out regarding this, because, you know, it's been a few days or whatever, so we can go through the facts of the matter that are known, and then we'll go through the response, because the response is well worth it.
So first thing here, you kept hearing that the girl here, the one with the knife, was the one who called the cops for defense.
That's not true, it seems.
So, oh sorry, first thing here, I got these in the wrong order.
order so this is the first thing which is uh that her sister so michaela lives in this house as a foster uh care and her sister lives with her and they say in here that her sister had called the cops uh weeks prior to this incident where she was shot because she was fighting with her sister and said she didn't want to be there anymore so god knows what it's like to live with that lady so i mean it just presents evidence for the fact that she's been violent in the past presumably to her own sister to a degree that she called 911
so there's that does she actually say that it was because she was being violent or just she was being threatening.
I mean, there's lots of differing reasons.
It doesn't have the full details in this AP article.
I don't know why, but that's what I have.
So one of the weird things in this article as well is because no one wants to talk about the facts of the case, which is that she had a knife and was about to stab someone because that makes her look bad and makes BLM look bad.
For some reason in this article, they go on to complain about racism in foster care, which I really...
So they say, the treatment of black children by Ohio's foster care system is already under scrutiny.
Last month, a review ordered by Republican Governor Mike DeWine found that it was infused with racial inequality.
Among other findings, the children's services system sometimes failed to value black voices and experiences, and poorly equipped foster parents to raise multiracial families, sometimes resulting in the children in their care being exposed to racism.
What?
Like, there needs to be special care.
For white parents who want to adopt a child with brown skin, they need special training to be equipped to deal with multiracial families.
I mean, pretty racist thing to say.
It sounds like they're almost saying the foster carers made me do it.
LAUGHTER That is what they're arguing here, which is essentially that Bekela was a poor victim of the systemically racist foster care system, and that's what made her grab a knife and try to stab someone.
I'm not joking, we'll get into it.
So they continue, the system also left foster care youth unprepared for adulthood, and foster parents struggling to help them.
The report found...
In response, the state has launched a new approach to recruiting and retaining foster parents and ordered caseworkers to take racial equity training.
They need to take special training in order to be able to put black kids up for foster care.
Uh-oh.
I know where this goes.
Anyway, so they say there's a quote in here from the administrator group, who's an advocacy group for the foster care system.
The foster care system in Ohio failed Michaela on numerous levels.
Failed her.
Failed her.
As she was shot by the police for trying to stab someone.
She didn't fail them.
Going out and trying to stab someone.
It's a system that's been struggling for a long time with our image of what a family is.
Hmm, yeah, no.
No, I don't think a family includes people stabbing each other to death.
So there's also a quote in here from the attorney for Michaela's family, I presume, trying to sue the state for money or something.
God knows.
So he says in here, the whole world has placed Michaela on trial based on one incident where they see her swinging a knife.
That's because that's the incident that's up for review, mate.
This is the incident why she's known.
This is the incident why she's in trouble and why she's dead.
Because she tried to stab someone and then was shot by the police.
I don't know what to say.
It's just really stupid.
Then he continues, but why aren't we looking further and figuring out who were those girls?
How did they get there?
How did this develop so quickly?
Fine.
We'll take you up on that case.
I'll take you up.
Maybe there's more to this.
Maybe, I don't know, she was...
I don't know.
What's the excuse?
There is nothing.
I mean, she literally stabbed someone outside our house.
I mean, what do you want?
I mean, there was a dog she was holding.
So let's go to the Washington Post article, in which, seemingly, the Washington Post sent someone to the scene to interview everyone to get the full story.
So they established that she was in foster care, and the story is that the group of other black teenagers that are there were apparently some group of kids who used to live at the foster care house, then come back, and they were talking to Michaela and her sister, and an argument broke out.
Apparently because of the state of the house, which is a weird thing to argue about, but whatever.
So they talk with the grandmother of Michaela.
The grandmother is the one who confirms that Michaela called her, the grandmother, for help, and then sent her sister, and the sister called 911.
So there's this myth that's being shown in left-wing media that Michaela called the police and then the police turned up and shoot her.
That's not the case.
Apparently her younger sister called the cops.
She called the cops at 4.32 p.m.
And this is confirmed by the grandmother.
The reason the left has been perpetuating the idea that she had called the cops Michaela is apparently because her mother has said this.
I don't know.
I mean, it may have just been a mess up.
She may have just not known.
And, you know, sister, other sister.
Yeah, I imagine, you know, in a case like this, even if there wasn't the national press, you're not really going to get a straight story from a mother whose kid has been shot.
Yeah, so they say in here, so in the phone calls, so when the sister calls up, we played it before, but I'll just say the quotes again.
She calls up the police and says to the police, we've got these grown girls over here trying to fight us, trying to stab us, trying to put their hands on our grandma.
Get here now.
So she's saying that the group of black teens who turned up were trying to stab them living in the foster care home.
The only thing that I don't get about this is there seems to be no evidence that any of the black teens who approached the house had knives.
Like, she had a dog, the one who was about to get stabbed.
Yeah, the one against the car, right?
I haven't followed this too closely, but it seems like she was just there with her dog in her arms and then drops it.
Unless there's a knife underneath the dog, like a secret pouch or something, I don't know.
But none of the other teens seem to have any knives on them, so God knows what she's talking about.
I just can't say anything, because I don't know.
That's so dumb.
But none of this looks better for her, that's the thing.
None of these new pieces of evidence that they had approached the house makes her look better.
I mean, she still was about to stab a girl to death, and the cop shot her for that, which is the right thing to do, and that cop is a hero for saving the other girl's life.
I mean, it's not her fault, even if she got into an argument with Michaela, you know, that doesn't get the death penalty.
It's not how that works.
So, there's that.
But also, if you take it that it's most charitable, it doesn't help her.
If you take it that it's least charitable, it doesn't help her.
So let's go to the clip number three.
So this is another video angle that's been released.
So if we get clip three up and we'll just play this so people can see the full footage again from another angle.
He's gone up.
And then he shoots four times.
So you can see she pushes over one girl.
I don't know if she stabbed her or not.
It doesn't seem so.
And then she goes to the other girl, and you can see her arm out with a knife, about to stab the girl in the pink, and the cop shoots her for trying to commit murder.
There is nothing more to be said here.
I mean, the guy is a goddamn hero.
Cut and dry.
I mean, the fact that they're complaining about this at all is ridiculous.
Like, this is someone just trying to murder someone in cold blood.
Unprovoked, almost.
The foster care system did this to her.
Those evil foster carers, they're just out to cause more murders, aren't they?
This foster care works.
So we're going to go to some tweets from an Associated Professor, because the professors are all going to chime in on what their views are on the whole thing.
So this is an Associated Professor of Women's and Gender Studies and Africana Studies, of course she is, specializing in intersectionality, African-American culture, and hip-hop feminism.
Right, now I know that one's made up.
That's not true.
Whatever.
Hip-hop feminism.
Let me go Google it.
No way.
No way you're so stupid to write something like that.
So, maybe she is.
So, let's go to her here.
This is her verified checkmark, because of course it is the internal symbol of having retardation.
So she says, I am still thinking about Michaela Bryant, still feeling betrayed by black people, men and women, who continue to justify the cops shooting her.
Despite the extended video saying that he had time, despite a range of teachers and social workers who deescalate flights daily, I am sad and angry.
What do you mean?
Black people saying that this was justified.
Everyone's saying this is justified.
It's just you clowns who think this isn't justified.
I just want the girl in the pink to be murdered, presumably.
And then there's the fact that she points out that the extended video had been released doesn't make her look any better.
There are teachers and social workers who de-escalate fights.
I mean, we have girls with knives who are about to kill other girls with knives.
Yeah, in that situation as well, there was nothing other than what the police officer did to stop her from shooting, stabbing that other girl.
There's no way they could have stopped her other than shooting her.
A taser wouldn't have worked because it could have malfunctioned.
It was kind of a reasonable distance.
So, there's no real other way to prevent it.
There's also the time constraints.
Exactly, yeah.
She's about to execute deadly force on a civilian.
What are you going to do?
Well, you've got to stop her doing it.
Well, you've got a gun.
That'll work.
So, you use the gun.
So, she continues.
So, we can go to the next one.
This just gets more and more stupid as it goes on.
So, no, if you can go to...
Alright, just scroll down to the next tweet here.
So, we can rely on the testimony of black girls like Darnella Fraser and Rachel Genital.
I have no idea what she's referring to there.
To call our democracy to account and then turn around and justify black girls being shot down in the street like dogs.
It's like, right, so there's some people I've never heard of who are used by the left to call our democracy to account, but then she's upset that we turn around and justify that black girls are being shot down in the street like dogs.
Well, yeah, if they're in the middle of killing someone, they should be shot in the street like dogs.
I mean, what do you think should happen to attempted murderers?
In the act of murdering as well.
It's not like she just murdered someone and then was walking to the shops or something, and the cop just pulled out the gun and just executed her.
Like, no, she was in the process of murdering someone and she got shot for it.
So if we go to the next one as well...
So they're in a world where the cops keep on killing black people for no reason at all.
They're just walking around the streets with shotguns, shooting black people.
Be careful out there.
If you ever see a cop and you're black, I mean, he's literally just...
The programming immediately comes in and he'll cap you.
Murder is no reason at all, apparently.
No reason at all.
Absolutely none.
I don't know what on earth she's trying to argue that...
The black girls, when they're trying to murder someone, don't get the benefit of the doubt, but black boys do.
I mean, weird condemnation of other Black Lives Matter martyrs, but okay.
And then there's the last thing here.
Oh, and this isn't a debate.
You say anything even remotely justifying this killing and I'm blocking you.
Yeah, of course you are.
Wonderful.
I mean, great professor there.
I mean, no debate.
No debate.
I mean, literally, if you just point out that she had a knife and she was about to kill someone, blocked.
What's the point of her even tweeting?
Don't even know.
I mean, this is what I mean.
Preaching to the converted.
Any dissent, nah.
Can't have it.
Can't have it.
It's pathetic.
So, she's not the only one, of course.
So, there's also another chap here.
I just looked up Michaela Bryant's name this morning.
I looked up some of the highest tweets.
We'll go to the next one, which is someone saying, I'm sorry, but I'm not letting this go.
The fact that people, especially black people, believe the police officer shot Michaela Bryant to save the other black girl is wild.
Wild.
I mean, it's not like the video evidence demonstrates that he was saving the other black girl, but I guess the black people who don't believe your racist nonsense are just taken over by the white supremacy.
He shot Michaela to kill her.
Yes!
He didn't give an F about the other black person.
What?
What?
Like, do you think he shot her because she was about to, like...
You know, vandalise the car.
Like, what are you talking about?
Like, she had a knife, she was going towards the girl in a car behind her.
You're like, nah, he doesn't care about the black girl.
He cares that, I don't know, she's gonna put the knife into the window and break some glass, and he's like, no, the holy glass, and then shoot her.
Of course not, I mean, moron.
I'm sure the last thing a police officer would want to do as well is shoot a black person, seeing what happens to them afterwards.
Like...
There's no incentive there anymore.
Or ever, really.
I mean, even if they're in the process of murdering someone, you're right.
I mean, it's not easy to take that and not realise that there's political charges.
Yeah, the fact that this is even a debate will surely make people hesitate, and it's not going to help in the long run.
Helps nobody.
I mean, it helps murderers.
I mean, that's true.
I mean, they take the cop out of the situation.
You have a dead black girl.
Good job.
Good job, progressives.
So, I mean, you might just think, okay, these are the idiots and the professors of the world.
Professors, Jesus Christ.
On Twitter and whatnot.
But it's not just them.
Left-wing media is also piped back up in their full-on defense of murdering black girls because, oh boy, I'm a progressive, I guess.
So we can go to the Vox article.
And this was amazing.
At least I did see that this got ratioed whenever they post it anywhere.
But this is just great.
Why they're not saying Michaela Bryant's name.
The 16-year-old black girl could never be the perfect victim.
What?
The perfect victim.
She's the victim, don't you know?
The attempted murderer.
Poor, poor victim.
Poor victim.
I can't get over the framing.
It's like, yes, I'm going to murder this girl.
Please remember me for being a victim.
Like, what are you talking about?
Also, there is a standard of perfect victim as well.
Like, there's some kind of ideal victim that you've got to aspire to be.
Well, you know, I mean, Rosa Parks would be the perfect victim.
She's a victim of an unjust law.
She's well-dressed.
She was polite, you know, proper person, all the rest of it.
That could be a perfect victim.
Like a virtuous victim.
Attempted murderer.
In the process of murdering.
They're certainly not a perfect victim, they are right.
It's far from perfect.
Anyway, so I'm going to blast through some of these quotes.
So this article is fantastic because you can see the absolute descent to madness.
So after watching 15 seconds of police body camera footage last week, viewers of various races and political affiliations had made a decision.
The 16-year-old Michaela Bryant was the aggressor, the, quote, fat, huge, knife-wielding attacker...
Steady on, Fox.
I mean, I was just calling her an attempted murderer, she is, but you're like, nah, she's fat and huge, and a knife-wielding attacker.
Okay?
Who deserved to be faithfully shot by the police, because she did.
She was in the process of trying to kill someone, and the cop is a hero for saving that girl's life.
I mean, cut and dry.
They continue, according to these viewers, Nicholas Riardson, the police officer who immediately shot and killed Bryant, who was holding a knife, was justified.
Because they're right.
They're right.
He saved a girl's life by killing the murderer.
Continues.
That she was a teenager in the middle of an altercation in which she was presumed to be defending herself did not matter.
Defending herself from the pink girl with a dog.
Pink girl's got a dog, she's got a knife.
That tiny little lap dog was very scary, didn't you know?
Who's the aggressor here?
Must be the girl with the dog.
She's got a dog!
Get out!
So stupid.
Anyway, it continues.
The cries for justice that apply to George Floyd did not ring out as loudly for Brian.
I wonder why.
I wonder why.
Even after it was discovered that Bryant was living in foster care, as if that has anything to do with the matter, that she was in the middle of a fight with an older woman when the police arrived, as if that has anything to do with the matter, and that she was allegedly the one who summoned the police for help, not true.
Some people who called out for justice in the George Floyd case used police talking points to justify the four bullets that Riotsen unloaded into Bryant's chest.
Aren't Vox trying to justify a murder here?
Yes.
Justifying the four bullets in targeting a murder.
Oh no.
Yeah.
It's a bit rich coming from them.
Isn't it perfect though?
A lot of people have been making the point that Black Lives Matter don't care about black lives.
And it's been sort of difficult to get that message across.
This is perfect.
This is absolutely perfect.
A black girl is about to be murdered and they're like, screw her!
I care about black corpses, not black lives.
Why are people not celebrating this attempted murderer?
Pathetic.
It's because it was a police officer, obviously.
And that makes everything different, because it fits their agenda at the minute.
Yeah, but if Michaela had gone on to kill that girl, and let's just say kill all the rest of the girls, Fox would have no problem with that.
We probably wouldn't have even heard about it.
No, Fox would have no interest.
She could murder as many black people or as many black girls as she likes.
No one cares.
No one cares on the left.
What they care about is when someone is shot by the police and they're black, regardless of what they did.
I mean, they could be murdering...
I bet...
I'm going to call it now, in a year or two, there'll be someone in the act of trying to rape a woman, and the cops will shoot the rapist, and they'll be like, Black Lives Matter, man.
I bet I'm calling it now.
Anyway...
So they continue, she was brandishing a knife, many pointed out, which meant that the other black woman needed to be protected.
Yep.
Yep, that's how that works.
That's how that works, Vox Rider.
Continues, the crisis response experts noted, however, that de-escalation tactics like commanding Bryant to drop the weapon, which he did, and she refused to comply, physically getting between the women, why would he?
Why would he lunge in front and be stabbed himself?
Why not just kill the attacker?
Or simply communicating with her, he did, told her multiple times, get down, drop it, and she didn't, and then he shot her.
Could have kept everyone alive.
Nonsense.
Not thinking.
I mean, the kind of people who sit back in their armchairs are like, yes, yes, he could have fixed the whole thing and done nothing.
It's like, no.
Get some reality.
It's quite impressive that they did that in the space of a split second as well.
The amount of...
The cop himself.
Yeah, yeah.
I mean, absolute hero.
And you can see the level of training there.
Perfect shots, saved one girl from the killer, and he did it extremely fast, as you said.
This is like the perfect example of going the opposite way to defunding the police and give them more training, because they handled that great.
And if you train them more, there's a greater chance that this kind of conduct is going to be more common.
More cops like this guy, please.
So they continued, In many recorded encounters between police and white people carrying weapons, for instance, of course we have to go into the race category, officers didn't shoot first or even reach for their guns.
They successfully managed to peaceably apprehend the suspect.
They don't give you specifics of how that would happen, because of course if they gave you the specifics, the specific cases would be completely different.
It would not be a white attacker within the space of, like, two seconds about to stab some white person to death.
It would be completely different, and they know it.
Anyway, so they continue.
Bryant's death has become a debate that questions a child's actions and worthiness to live instead of another example of racism in policing.
The case has become an instance in which we question her actions rather than just blindly saying this is racist policing.
That's the complaint from Vox.
The complaint is that we were like, hey, this lady who brought a knife and tried to kill someone, let's question her actions.
That's the thing that's wrong with it.
I don't know how these people can actually write this because if they've actually seen the video, how can you say that, you know, that police officer was being racist?
This is what progressivism does to your brain.
I mean, that's all I can say.
It doesn't matter.
I mean, the individual circumstances literally don't matter because the social justice of the thing in which a white man shot a brown woman, that's all that matters.
No matter if he was saving another brown woman's life.
It doesn't matter.
It's pathetic.
Anyway, I'm going to skip over just a little bit here in which she quotes some other professor who is really upset that Bryant isn't seen as a victim of the police, the police hero who saved a woman's life, and then they take a quote from the sensible people, the sensible people being the interim Columbus police chief Michael Woods, who called the shooting a terrible tragedy for all those involved, but said that the department policy states that any officer can use deadly force against someone when they appear to be inflicting harm upon another person.
Which she was, so he used deadly force and saved someone's life.
He explained that the officers did not use a taser because there was an immediate threat of death.
Absolutely.
I mean, just look at it.
But one of the things I love is just the argument racism made her stab her.
Oh no, she's the victim in this whole situation.
I love it.
Go for it.
Push this narrative, you absolute lunatics.
And you'll get what you deserve.
Anyway, I know we're running out of time, so I wanted to wrap that up.
But we'll go into the...
Do we have video questions or do we just have questions today?
Just comments, I think, yeah.
Do you want to listen to my voice as hoarse?
Yeah, of course.
So, George Hap says, now that Carl's out the picture...
What was that, sorry?
Oh, there are video comments.
Okay, close.
Sorry, Carl.
Just to clarify something, I wasn't taking anything personally, it's just I really don't respect the whole water-wet debate.
Never have, because I've always viewed it as intellectual postmodernism.
It's like, oh, behold how clever I am as I deconstruct the old thousand years' definition of what water and wetness is.
But, I mean, you said that you can actually feel the heat through your hands, so it's not the same thing.
Can you not perceive the wetness of water through your own fingers?
You've got me doing it, thanks.
I mean, I'm totally in agreement that the debate is stupid.
I agree.
I mean, I believe that we should tackle questions that are useful, and that's not one.
I mean, philosophy is definitely useful and something you should learn and read and all the rest of it, but you can see when it gets to the discussion of his water wet...
I'm just...
No, turn off.
Don't care.
Anyway.
I remember we were talking about it in the office and I started talking about it for like a minute and I was just like, actually, I really don't care.
On a more important topic in relation to politics, which is what I came for, we've seen from the lockdown how many people just blindly obey without question the TV and government.
And the thing is, is there might not essentially be laws Making people into slaves?
But I have to ask, at what point if you just obey and submit to everything you're told to do by the government and or TV, at what point are you no longer free?
Because honestly, this does disturb me.
Yeah.
I mean, it's on a case-by-case basis, I presume, and you have to establish whether or not they're violating enough of your rights for you not to be free.
I mean, you're certainly not free to travel at the moment.
Yeah.
And just from a psychological perspective here, fear is probably one of the best ways to make people willing to give up their freedom.
So if they feel like their life is a threat, then they're far more willing to forfeit things that they would otherwise hold dear.
And that is the best avenue to do it.
And I think we see lots of evidence of that in the real world as well.
I mean, ergo the fear mongers.
And I'm not just saying, you know, the mainstream media or whatever.
I mean, we covered a very specific example of a doctor's lobbying group in response to the Freedom March in which there were basically no COVID cases in the UK. This was safe to do.
She was like, yes, but people are dying in India of COVID. Right, you're a fear monger.
That's all you are.
And therefore, you're the kind of person who just wants to take rights away from people.
That's all you're propagating there.
Yeah, there's definitely a kind of concealed political agenda there.
All right, let's go to the next one.
Oh yeah, so I just thought I'd show you a bit about what I do in my spare time.
I collect comics, mostly older ones to be honest, the artwork's much better.
I like collecting comics because they're snapshot into history, so a lot of these ones I've got here.
We're printed during the Cold War era.
So you see the public reaction to communism, so the Red Scare.
I've also got a lot about Vietnam here, the arms race.
It's all really interesting stuff.
Alrighty, yeah?
I'm all for anti-communist propaganda.
Yeah, I've never really been into comics, but I do love the old, like, cultural atmosphere of the Cold War in American media.
It's a great era, isn't it?
Just to look at the media from that kind of time.
Which they're just like, yes, communism is awful, and you just, you never see it now.
It's depressing.
Let's go to the next one.
As a COVID-denying nation, Tanzania is sailing close to the wind.
This island, Zanzibar, is both accessible and, like the rest of Tanzania, restriction-free.
The place is virtually PPE-free.
Masks are few and far between.
And wherever you go, social distancing is non-existent.
It's almost a year since the Tanzanian government released any coronavirus statistics.
Since then, official policy has been COVID denial.
The consequence of that is virtually zero awareness among the people.
I don't know anything about Tanzania and their policy, but I am looking up flights right now.
Yeah, I'm going on holiday.
Cheapest month.
What comes up?
£400 from London.
Is it really only £400?
£400 return.
Should we go on a trip, office trip to Tanzania?
When Carl gets back from his holiday, I'm going on holiday to Zanzibar.
Zanzibar.
I don't know anything about Tanzania or their government's approach to COVID, but I love the disdain on the guy's voice, He's like, the COVID denier nation.
Or do they just not have as much fear as other people?
I bet he's lying.
I bet they admit that COVID exists and all the rest of it.
I mean, compared with probably some of the diseases that they're exposed to on a daily basis, it's not really that bad.
Yeah, there was things to worry about.
Alright, let's go for the next one.
I just want to respond to all of the people who are like, oh, I eat bread and I look good.
Where's the harm?
Where's the harm?
No, where is the virtue?
Have you listened to me talking about thick concepts?
There is moral content within the idea of eating bread.
Within indulgence and temperance, there is intrinsic moral value.
I don't give a shit about the outcome.
Ah, thanks, man.
Don't worry, the ketofascism is over for two weeks at least.
My people are free.
We can eat bread once more.
Why don't you just order pizzas to the office?
Why not?
Anyway, let's go for the next one.
You and me both, Callum.
We would have both.
So I'm probably a bit late to the party on this one, but I would like to set up a GoFundMe for Callum's therapy and a lawsuit against Carl for putting him through this cruel and unusual torture.
I've already spoken to the Employment Tribunal where we're going to get him, boys.
I'll give you some therapy if you want.
I'm not a therapist, just a psychologist, but...
Oh, don't take me back to that day, though.
We're never doing a segment like that again.
I don't care what he says.
That was terrible.
It's awful.
Now you've said that.
That just makes me want to do it more.
Next comment.
Good afternoon, Lotus Eaters.
I'm here to defend the stay-at-home dads.
For the first three years of my son's life, I got to stay at home with him.
I was training mixed martial arts, coaching, and fighting as my full-time job, so it worked really well with my particular schedule.
My wife made enough money to support us and then save So it was a good situation for us.
I didn't have to trust some stranger or something or force one of my older family members to watch my child all day.
And now he's a really masculine alpha boy.
Smart, intelligent, strong.
I don't think that I raised him any worse than a mother would have.
Glad to hear it.
I don't really see any problem with either kind of person in a relationship staying at home looking after the kid.
As long as they have contact with both.
I imagine Daddist Carl would say that the ideal is that the man go out and earn the money because women are better at raising children and home beginners and all the rest of it.
I would say my ideal would be to put my feet up and do less.
I don't really want to comment on this kind of stuff too much because, as I say whenever he talks about it, I don't really have enough life experience to give a proper opinion.
But that does sound perfectly wholesome, the commenter there.
But yeah, I mean, DJing the boy would be alpha?
What's wrong with that?
Sounds very good to me.
No, not saying that.
Okay, I don't want to read the comments, so you'll stop.
Sure.
So, back to George Happ.
Now that Carl is out of the picture, you guys should bring out the secret bread stash.
You could even make a premium video where you guys are duelling with baguettes.
Well, funny thing you say that.
On Friday, the last day that Carl was here, I actually bought a baguette and...
I was chastised on walking in the office, both for looking French and having bread.
So now we are liberated.
I sympathise with the anti-French position.
Then again, we look at the generals.
We'll do that tomorrow or something.
There's been some polling in France, and the polling of the public about the generals' letter and the coup.
Overwhelmingly supportive.
I actually laughed when I saw that headline.
I was just like, what?
French are pro-coup to get rid of Macron, isn't it?
I know they like their revolutions.
So, from Radical Centrist God, two weeks, you have two weeks.
Celebrate Calamism as you choose.
I suggest bread, occasional bounce of wah, and the total and utter domination of all Keto environments.
Conquer that territory while you can, in the name of Calamism.
He'll be back, though.
He'll be back.
God, chastisement.
Wouldn't be worth it.
So, Danny Morgan.
If they're saying foster care system failed, Michaela, I think that's the right name, Michaela Bryant, then hasn't the Minneapolis Police Department failed Derek Shervin?
Well, yes, they have.
Because there's an interesting attack there as well, because the chief of police threw him under the bus.
He did, yeah.
And then testified against him in a hostile manner.
I knew this would happen as well.
I was just like, there's no way that they're going to stick up to him with all this pressure.
Yeah.
Who would be a cop in the United States?
I mean, it's bad enough being a cop in the UK, Australia, or whatever, with the amount of political correctness.
But in the United States, where the entire structure is heavily politicised, because it's, you know, elected positions appointed by the mayor, or so on and so forth.
Screw that.
I do remember seeing something where they were talking about their inability to recruit police officers, and they're having to resort to looking to the black community to get police officers to try...
Wait, is that what they said?
It was along those lines.
I might be paraphrasing a little bit.
That's horrible.
They didn't put it in charitable terms, even though it's a progressive article.
Well, the progressives, so...
So, Justin B. The Offspring's latest album, Let the Bad Times Roll, is pretty bass too.
The titular tracks video basically mocks people that are scared of Covid.
I don't use Twitter or read gossip, so I don't know if they've come out and said anything, but the album is good.
That's good to know.
I've never actually listened to them before.
More on musicians.
Look up Five for Fighting on Facebook.
Just posted yesterday calling out the left for Uncle Tim trend.
What's the Uncle Tim trend?
So this is a story we did in which the Republican response to Joe Biden's speech was by Tim Scott.
And he mentioned that he experiences racism mostly from the left, being they calling him the N-word or Uncle Tom.
And then in response, the left got Uncle Tim trending on Twitter.
To totally own him?
No, this just proves his point, which is that you guys are a bunch of racists.
It always backfires, doesn't it?
They never do something that actually works effectively.
Well, I don't think so.
Herbert Hernandez, Josh, could you use your degree to analyse the bro code?
I don't need to analyse it, I live by it.
I'm only joking, of course.
Christian S. You're not a bro?
Have I been outed?
Christian S. When the lead singer of the Sex Pistols is telling you today's radical youth to slow their role and have gone too far, you know that your society has turned the bend.
Strange times indeed.
Conservatism is now the new punk.
Leftism is the new corporate fascism.
Morrissey is the great apologist of the British Empire.
We'd love to hear what the Misfits and Black Flag has to say.
I mean, he's totally right there.
I mean, I remember, what was it, Paul Joseph Watson made a new video called, what was like, conservatism is the new counterculture or something.
He got mocked by this by leftists, like, haha, but, you know, Trump is in office and Boris Johnson is in office or whatever.
Like, that doesn't mean anything.
Like, it's the cultural part of this.
And as he points out, leftism is corporate fascism.
Well, if it isn't, You tell me why all of their profile pictures for certain months, they just change it to whatever the woke mob demands, and why they're funding diversity training in literally every department across every country except the Middle East.
It's insufferable.
Even when I was playing Call of Duty Warzone, there was like a Black Lives Matter screen before you parachuted into the game, and I was just like, for God's sake.
Just huge letters as well.
I know exactly what you're talking about.
It is insufferable.
I actually stopped playing the game while it was going on because it annoyed me too much.
It's already an annoying game as it was.
There's that one.
I agree with that.
That was pretty cringe.
But also, I think the cringest one had to be football.
So I was watching...
I must have mentioned this before.
I was watching with my brother, and you see the players run along.
And then when they get near the goal, the camera pans out for some reason.
And you can see on the stand, they've coloured in because there's no crowd.
So they coloured in all the chairs, and they just have Black Lives Matter on each side.
So whenever you get near the goal, they had Black Lives Matter symbols being shown to you.
And then occasionally you'd have like the score up here, right?
You know, the teams and the scores.
It would just come up with a little slider saying, Black Lives Matter.
And let's go back in.
Because it's kind of like Ink Sock, just like popping in to be like, hey, by the way.
But to answer the kind of end of your question, I know that I did mention what the Misfits said.
And I know Henry Rollins of Black Flag as well is pretty against kind of woke stuff as far as I'm aware.
It's just overly sensitive.
I know that much, but I'm not a big Black Flag fan.
All right.
But music is definitely not a lost scene to the left.
No, definitely not.
I think you need to just look more underground, but then that's where all the good artistry is in the first place.
And it's also more satisfying when you find something.
I'm laughing because I'm not into music at all.
I mean, you've seen my music face.
But just the fact that it's so pompous, the whole scene, like everyone wants to find the new thing.
I'm not saying you're wrong either.
I'm not saying I'm happy that it's all underground.
I'd rather the music I like be popular so I'm not subjected to stuff I hate.
But all the popular stuff is terrible.
It is, yeah.
I agree with that.
So, Alan McNeil, silver contributors should be offered one video comment per month.
I'll put it to Carl, I guess.
Yeah, you can forward that on.
So, Chris Wolfe.
I wish we could, as a deterrent, acquit anyone who feels pressure on their trial due to public opinion, but I fear that those pressuring the case would just be angry at the system instead of their own actions.
How do we stop the media from lifting the blindfold on Lady Justice?
I don't know.
To be honest, it's a pretty big question.
It is a difficult one to answer, and I think it varies depending on the justice system that you're on about.
And I'm certainly no legal scholar of the US system, so I can't really come up with an answer for that one, unfortunately.
I mean, people might be willing to point to the UK system, maybe in America, and think, oh, there's some advantages there, because certain cases, for example, have reporting restrictions, and you just can't report on them until it's done, and therefore the jury can't be swayed one way or another by the media because they are literally not allowed to report on it.
as we've seen with British Voldemort.
He went down there and filmed and showed the suspects going in, and he asked them how do you feel about the case, and for this he ended up in jail.
And it was pretty horrible that that happened to him, especially in the procedure it was done, and the court agreed.
Because remember, he did an appeal, and the court agreed, yeah, the procedure was not followed, even with him.
So they were just desperate to lock him up.
But that's the swings and roundabouts.
Like, sure, you can get rid of the media biasing the jury in the UK, but the swings and roundabouts is the...
Well, what if we need them to report on something and they just don't?
Yeah, because any politically difficult cases are just going to be kind of put under this label of you're not allowed to report on it.
And then all of the cases that are instrumental in developing the kind of common law of the United Kingdom are going to go under the radar and we're not going to...
No, until after the fact what the outcome is.
This is why I think I prefer the American system where the media just blanket reports and stuff, but the caveat being that you need to do what people suggested, which is, if it's a huge case, sequester the jury immediately, get them away from the media, get them cut off like in the OJ trial or whatever, and then they aren't affected by the outside world.
But they didn't do that in this case.
Yeah, it certainly seems to have affected them in some ways at least.
So, Chad Koala, great name.
As much as I hate woke totalitarianism because it is a matted mess of contradictions and its followers strive to be weak, I'm getting less worried that it will succeed long term and more worried about what other totalitarian forces will succeed at using the same infrastructure the woke have left them.
If it does fail, what forces would you worry about taking its place?
I don't think it's going to fail.
I mean, like, it's...
I mean, what if they lost?
What if they actually lost a position and really taken a hit?
I think they're never going to win over normal people on some issues.
They don't need to, that's the thing.
Like, they're not trying to.
They're just trying to accrue power.
And they just seem to get more and more powerful.
They take over more and more institutions.
I mean, a lot of what they demand is now law in the UK, thanks to Tony Blair.
I mean, with the hate speech legislation, for example.
I mean, this is their position that they must make your dissent criminal.
Like, they need only push, like, transitioning for children, and the average person is going to be like, whoa, this is awful, why would you want to do that?
And then all of a sudden, they're going to be kind of thrust into the political world where they're like, actually, lots of this stuff is really awful, we need to push back on this.
Sure.
I mean, you do see it in the Labour Party, that schism there between the working class, you know, proper guys, and the woke types, who just, they're never going to mix.
I mean, the guys who want the death penalty for nonces are the guys who want to legalise noncery.
I mean, yeah, not going to work.
Yeah, funny they don't agree.
So, Alex Ogle.
Is Callum's new reign going to be the Sultanate of Calumny?
Caliphate.
The chat demanded this last Friday, so that's why I opened with Allahu Akbar.
Hello, babies.
You didn't have your finger in the air.
That was what was missing.
I need to do the Islamic symbol.
Long talks on the Nietzsche.
The fact that the jury member, which is supposed to be a civil duty as a citizen, is then trying to use that for internet clout shows that they were never interested in being a fair jury.
You wouldn't get these interviews if they were, yeah, if they found Chauvin innocent.
More evidence that a leftist...
More evidence that the left is just the cycle of grifters chasing clout, becoming internet famous, getting too controversial, I think that's meant to be, and eventually getting eaten by their own and cancelled by new people seeking clout.
That does seem to be a cycle that you can kind of see happening over and over again.
I hate to overuse the term grift because grift is like you're trying to make money off lying or something.
And I think this guy is just an activist.
I mean, he seems to be willing to lie by the fact that he joined the jury that's meant to be impartial.
He obviously wasn't a lie to the judge.
I don't know if he's trying to make money out of this.
I think he might just be the kind of, what Jordan Peterson calls them, ideologically possessed people who will just chase this goal.
I mean, they might not become super rich out of it.
He seemed to mention his podcast pretty quickly, unless that was just an unfavourable cut.
He's just like, yeah, I've got this podcast.
I'm the one who convicted Chauvin.
The wholesome podcast.
Run by a man who openly said I lied to get on jury.
yeah very awesome alex ogle again it is not legal for criminals to profit from their crimes and it sounds like josh may advocate for the same to apply to jurors however i'd argue the opposite is better for the low iq biased jurors to come out as soon as possible to let their jaws flap and reveal their motivated reasons in order to try to profit much better for justice
i mean ideally i would like stupid people who are going to have a biased perspective to open up but i think that That takes a level of stupidity that many...
That we've just seen?
Well, there's only one of twelve.
Well, that's the thing.
I think if you make it illegal for them to go out and talk about the case, you won't get...
I mean, this example is perfect argument against that, which is like, look, okay, well, there are questions about the fact that the jury was impartial or not.
This guy's come out and openly saying, well, at least one twelfth of it wasn't me.
So it's good that he comes out and says that because then people can show it.
But I would imagine that there are people who are biased and probably kept it themselves as well, right?
Sure, but is it better that you make it illegal and therefore we don't hear this guy doing it or not?
It's better that they're out in the open, surely.
Yeah, I do agree.
Yay.
So...
Changed my mind.
Danny Morgan, here we go.
Two weeks of sugar and bread.
Absolutely.
Isn't that actually like a British recipe, sugar sandwiches or something?
Yeah, it's like when you're really kind of down and out, you don't have much money.
Just put sugar in a sandwich.
I mean, I do love British food, but there are a few recipes that become memes.
It's true that they're memes because they are memes.
Like, what was it, the toast sandwich?
Where you get a piece of bread, you toast it, and then you get two bits of bread and put it in between, and then you've got a toast sandwich.
What a monstrosity.
Yeah, I know.
But it's a real recipe.
It's not common, of course, but good God.
I'm going to do a bit of British blasphemy here and say I don't actually like fish and chips.
I like the chip part, but battered fish that comes with the chips ruins it.
Yeah, I'm not a fan either.
I prefer fish cakes or something.
We've come out as traitors to our country, I'm sorry.
It's not the best example of our food anyway.
I feel like Sunday roasts and therefore Christmas dinners is the best thing.
Roast dinners, yes.
Yeah, absolutely.
White Hot Peppers Army.
Quick Carl mods are gone post-images of fresh, steamy broad.
Okay, we'll do a segment on bread tomorrow.
I love how you've become from White Hot Peppers to White Hot Peppers Army now.
I assume that is White Hot Peppers.
He's been recruiting.
Hammurabi VI. What are the chances we get daily reviews of local speciality breads?
We're actually going to have to do this now, aren't we?
Should we do a bread review while Carl's going?
Yeah, because I think Tesco still has their bakery or whatever.
They do, yeah.
You can just start buying different types of bread and just butter.
You know, bread and butter or something like that.
I'm all for that.
Yeah.
Alright, why not?
We'll make that a thing.
Because we've got a little table, so...
Yeah.
Mr.
Winter, could we get a statement of values and podcast with everyone from the Office of the Lotus Eaters?
I know you have to put up a mission statement.
I just think something more in-depth involving everyone would be very interesting.
Maybe.
I mean, we did have this when we started.
I said to Carl, I mean, that's your homework, to write up a statement of values and mission statement of the Lotus Eaters, but he never really got around to it.
I mean, to be honest, I don't know why you can't just, you know, watch how the operation acts and then get the values from that.
I mean, that's how you're able to watch CNN, and it doesn't matter what they have written in their mission statement about fair journalism and honesty and all that crap.
We've got them on camera when they're on their Tinder dates openly admitting that they're propagandists.
I feel like how they act is more important than what's written.
We do have one?
Oh, Carl actually did write one.
We do have one.
We have one on the About page, actually.
Yeah, but I'm not a fan of it anyway, as I kind of explained.
I feel like what you do on screen is more important than what you have written down.
I'm pretty upfront with what I believe anyway, so...
Did you just cough?
What's that?
Got something to say?
Oh, right.
Yeah.
I do have a dossier of based takes that I keep very secret that get recorded in the office.
Josh kept saying really based things and they were just really funny and eventually we were like, we need to write these down in a book so we set up a Discord chat and we just add them occasionally and we're not going to release them because you can't.
They're like devoid of context on purpose but they're good.
Anyway, last question from Robin Hood saying, when is the merch store coming?
Hopefully soon we spoke to a merch guy on Friday who's being able to sort this out.
We're going to compare the prices, the feasibility of doing it with him.
Should be able to.
It looks fine.
He seems great.
And then we'll be able to set up the designs and then we'll be opening for merch.
But without further ado, we are out of time, so we're going to have to head off.
So goodbye from the Callum fate, I suppose.
But we'll just end with definitely go and check out the Richard Tice interview for seeing what reform you care about.
The David Curtin interview with Carl to see what Heritage Party and David Curtin are about, especially if you're voting in the London elections or the local elections.
There are candidates from Reform UK up and down the country.
And compare them to the Conservatives and decide where you want to vote on that.
Because, again, I don't really have an opinion on which party, but I think people should be aware of what they believe.
And then the Kelvin Robertson interview is premium content on Logistics.com.
So go over to Logistics.com and sign up to watch that on the premium side.
But otherwise, we will see you.
Sorry, we'll do that tomorrow, though.
So we will see you tomorrow at 1 o'clock.
Thank you very much.
Bye-bye.
▲
Export Selection