Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 11, 2021 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:31:57

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #129

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters for the 11th of May 2021.
	I am joined by Josh.
	Hello.
	And today we're going to be talking about how voter ID is totally transphobic, bros.
	The media cartel that is forming, or being proposed, as I say, in law.
	And also the fact that the Labour Party has learnt nothing.
	Absolutely nothing.
	So that's going to be good fun to have a laugh at.
	So, before we get into it, let's just do a little bit of shilling.
	So, first thing here is the Voice of Wales interview that I promised you guys yesterday.
	That'll be up at 3 o'clock today, because we had to make the MP3, but there we go, it'll be up then.
	Otherwise, we have a new premium article from Ian Miles Chong on Lotuses.com, which you can check out, talking about why boys are not supposed to beat girls.
	Shock, horror, these dissenting opinions that we have in the world.
	But go and give that a read, it's great.
	But without further ado, let's get into the show.
	So...
	Voter ID. I mean, you may have heard endlessly from the United States the argument over there is it's very racist because black people are essentially people who can't have ID or use the internet or so on and so forth.
	In the UK, no, we're more woke than that.
	The problem is that voter ID is transphobic.
	So, first thing I want to lead off here is just a quote from Joe Biden.
	A quote, shall we say.
	So, this is a tweet that went viral.
	A lot of people were sharing it, in which Joe Biden is allegedly to have said,"...my comment regarding minorities not being able to use the internet was taken out of context.
	It's not they don't know how to use it, it's just that they don't know any better.
	Those people don't know about computers because they lack the resources, education, and overall commitment to their communities." It's not that they're dumb, it's just that they don't like to do anything.
	Hope this clears this up.
	That is so condescending.
	And don't worry, this is fake.
	This is made up.
	This is not real.
	So if we can go to the Reuters link, you can hear them fact-checking this fabricated Joe Biden tweet about minorities using the internet.
	Except they also mention here some kind of speech he gave or something at a town hall.
	I'm not too sure, but let's play the first clip of what he says that then caused that tweet.
	The other portion is a lot of people don't know how to register.
	Not everybody in the community, in the Hispanic and the African American community, particularly in rural areas that are distant and or inner city districts, know how to use I know how to get online to determine how to get in line for that COVID vaccination at the Walgreens or at the particular store.
	So we're also, I've committed to spend a billion dollars on public education to help people figure out how they can get in there.
	So this became known as the black people are too stupid to use the internet speech.
	I wonder why.
	And the direct quote, not everybody in the community, in the Hispanic and African American community, particularly in rural areas, are distant or in inner city districts, know how to use, know how to get online to determine how to get in line for the COVID vaccination.
	So literally, black people don't know how to get online to get the COVID vaccine.
	And that's why it became known as the speech of black people are too stupid to use the internet, quote Joe Biden.
	And then why that tweet was made.
	And then you've got to wonder, well, is it a fake tweet or is it a joke tweet?
	I mean, it represents reality.
	He really did give a speech in which he was talking about that black people are too dumb to use the internet.
	So is the Democrats.
	It's mostly true, I'd say.
	No, it's not.
	Anyway, but the point there being that it's obviously something that runs in Democrat circles, and Amy Horowitz, as you can see here, has experienced this before, so this is a great video.
	It's been viral for so long.
	But I thought I'd play a bit of it, just in case someone hadn't seen it, but let's play him asking white students at college about voter ID laws, and then going to the Bronx and asking the people there.
	Do you have an opinion on voter ID laws?
	Yeah, they're usually pretty racist and they're bad.
	I think voter ID laws are a way to perpetuate racism.
	Would you go as far to say those laws are racist?
	For sure.
	Do you think it suppresses the African American vote?
	Definitely.
	Because they're less likely to have state IDs.
	Minority voters are less likely to have the kinds of IDs that have been described or required.
	These type of people don't live in Areas with easy access to DMVs or other places where they can get identification.
	You can always get IDs over the internet.
	Does that also make it difficult for black people in particular?
	Yeah, you have to have access to the internet.
	You have to be able to pay an internet service provider for certain fees.
	Do you think that's harder for black people to go online?
	Well, I feel like they don't have the knowledge of how it works.
	A lot of people have smartphones, but you might not have data.
	For most of the communities, they don't really know what is out there just because they're not aware or they're not informed.
	I also think there's a repression of black voting with how if you're a convicted felon, you're not allowed to vote and everything.
	And when you look at swing states like Florida, that's a huge population of the African Americans.
	Now I'm here in East Harlem to ask black people their thoughts on what you just heard.
	Do you have ID normally?
	Do you carry ID around?
	Yes, I have state ID. Do you carry ID? Yes, I do.
	Do you know any black person who doesn't carry ID? No.
	Everyone that I know has ID. Why would they think we don't have ID? That's a lie.
	Why would they say that?
	Do you have ID? Yes.
	Because I have my ID and my friends have their ID, so we know what we need to carry around.
	Everybody that I know has ID. That's one of the things you need to walk around with New York with, an ID. Do you know any black adult who does not have ID? No, I don't.
	Is it a weird thing to even say that?
	Yes, it is.
	What is this?
	Some type of trick candy cameras?
	I know, right?
	That's the only thing I brought with me.
	Those are legit IDs.
	I heard a lot also that black people can't figure out how to get to the DMV. Me?
	What's that saying to you?
	I know where it's at, it's on the 25th Street.
	Do you know where the ID, the DMV is right here?
	It's on 125th Street and 3rd Avenue, I believe.
	You know where to get there?
	Yeah.
	Do you have a problem getting there if you have to get there?
	No.
	I mean, you get the picture.
	This goes on longer, but we're not going to clip it down because of the sake of time.
	But, you know, black people are too stupid to even pay the internet bill.
	So says one of the white students there.
	That's their opinion.
	You can't really blame these children at the university there.
	I mean, I know they're adults legally, but come on.
	Because it's not entirely their fault.
	They're propagandized by people in the mainstream media endlessly that voter ID is some kind of huge racist thing that takes place.
	So the prime example being here, the Washington Post, saying that do voter identification laws suppress minority voting?
	Yes, we did the research.
	And they're saying here, we, sorry, as we detail below, our research shows that these laws lower minority turnout and benefit the Republican Party.
	But why doesn't this mesh with the on-the-ground knowledge?
	I mean, just going to these areas and asking people.
	That's because it's complete BS. Like, absolute BS. And you don't have to trust me.
	You don't have to go to Fox News and find out some right-wing person saying it's BS. No, we'll go to Vox.
	We'll go to Vox.com.
	I mean, openly leftist outlet, openly partisan, and that's fine.
	They're upfront about it, so I actually have more respect for them than they do CNN. And they just say, yeah, it's complete nonsense.
	A major study finding that voter ID laws hurt minorities isn't standing well up to scrutiny.
	And they say in here, according to the researchers at Stanford, Yale, and the University of Pennsylvania, the original study was based on surveys of voters that are extremely unreliable, skewing the results.
	On top of that, several calculation errors led to even more problems.
	When the errors are corrected, the follow-up researchers found that there is no evidence that they analyzed data that voter ID laws have a statistically significant impact on voter turnout.
	So it was based on flawed methodological practices, the original studies that seemed to suggest it, and they've now reanalyzed the same data and found that actually there's a load of rubbish in the first place, which kind of matches the on-the-ground stuff, right?
	Yeah, and this is from a left-wing outlet, so we have no reason to believe that they're trying to push the narrative that the Republicans' law, you know, push for their ID's laws is, you know, fueled by racism or something.
	Like, they've got no reason to like the Republican Party.
	They hate them.
	And that's, you know, whatever.
	That's their opinion.
	It's just common sense as well, that people need ID to function in society, and it's a very basic thing, and it's so condescending to say, oh, they don't have it, oh, I have ID, but these people don't.
	It's talking down to them, and it really annoys me.
	They can't even pay the bills.
	That was the opinion, as you saw by Joe Biden in his speech.
	Him echoing exactly the same sentiment.
	They don't know how to get online.
	People with brown skin just can't use the internet, Jim Crow Joe.
	It's just like passively bigging themselves up.
	It's so annoying.
	It gets on my skin.
	So basically this is a myth among progressives because they want to feel like white saviours.
	And this is what has inspired the American experience of voter ID laws, as I've said, in which voter ID is racist.
	But if you go to the UK, we're more woke.
	We're on a new level of understanding.
	It's not just they're racist.
	So here, just as we said yesterday, the Guardian reporting in the Queen's speech that's taking place right now.
	She'll be giving a speech in which she lays out the government's position, because that's how things work here.
	And in there will be the fact that voters will now need voter ID to go to the polls and vote in elections.
	And they say in here that this law is seen as a means of tackling fraud, which critics claim could deter poorer and ethnic minority voters from taking part in democracy.
	Tackling fraud hurts ethnic minorities, so says the Guardian.
	Sheesh.
	I mean, just everyone who commits fraud is ethnic minorities now, I guess.
	But if you go to the Tory party manifesto, like in here, you can actually read that this isn't new.
	They put this in their manifesto.
	They wanted people to know that we are going to do this if we get in.
	And the quote from them is that we will protect the integrity of our democracy by introducing identification to vote at polling stations, stopping postal vote harvesting, and measures to prevent any foreign interference in our elections.
	We did have problems with this, though, didn't we?
	We had cases, I can't remember where it was, but there were huge boxes of ballots turning up for the Labour Party.
	Birmingham, yeah.
	Birmingham's the best one.
	Again, YouTube, talking about Britain, cases that have been in court.
	We're definitely not talking about another country.
	No, we're not.
	So, the thing here is just that, you know, they put that in their manifesto.
	This is the 2019 manifesto.
	They've got a stonking majority on the thing.
	So, there really is no argument.
	They've got a mandate for it.
	There's no way you can battle against this.
	Ah, yes, there is.
	You can claim they're transphobic.
	Oh, my.
	So, let's go to Pink News.
	Just the headline tells it all.
	So, Tory plots to make voters show photo ID will disenfranchise trans and non-binary people.
	Can you guess how?
	Is it because their gender identity will be different on their ID than they identify with?
	But there's no gender identity on your IDs.
	Is there not?
	I should know this.
	I have one.
	I haven't thought to check.
	What's on there is your sex.
	Not your gender identity.
	Something to keep in mind as we listen to the absolute nutjobs who try and argue this.
	So, ministers will position the move as an effort to curtail electoral fraud.
	However, statistics show that this problem doesn't really exist.
	It doesn't really exist in the UK. Well, we'll come back to that.
	So, they take a quote.
	If this becomes a requirement, it will disenfranchise trans and non-binary people who do not have access to representative ID. Mermaid's Director of Legal and Policy says.
	Representative ID. Are we really going to listen to mermaids?
	They're awful.
	We'll get into mermaids in a minute.
	I'll just use they.
	Maybe that's what they want.
	Also, why are you worried about sex?
	Because as I said, you don't get gender identity on British passports and whatnot.
	You have sex.
	In which case, why are you even worried about it?
	You can still go and vote, but I might have to hand over my passport.
	My passport says I'm a man.
	What happened to assigned a birth?
	I mean, why do you care what the state says about your gender identity?
	Trans activists.
	I mean, even the radical trans activists here.
	Like, their whole point is that, you know, I was assigned at birth the wrong gender.
	In which case, why do you care what the state calls you?
	Surely what matters is what happens in your mind in which you think you're a woman or a man.
	And therefore, that's what's important.
	Not if the state says you're a man or a woman.
	They'd probably argue that it's not right for the state to invalidate their gender identity, and in enforcing this biological sex, they're going to somehow be damaged by this.
	That would be their argument, I would imagine.
	I just can't buy it.
	If I was trans and the state was, you know, let's say tomorrow I come in and I'm like, no, I'm a woman definitely.
	I become like a trans activist.
	But then the government says, no, you're a man.
	I'd be like, why do I care what you think?
	Why would you?
	But then you're a reasonable person, so...
	So they also say that, you know, non-binaries would be effective.
	Non-binaries are not recognized in British law at all, because it seems to be a bunk thing.
	Like, Douglas Murray liked to call it, look at me.
	So it's just like, come out as non-binary, call me they from that one.
	Why?
	Has anything changed?
	No, just look at me.
	I've changed.
	Okay.
	So she continues in here, most of us do not have a birth certificate that reflects our gender identity.
	Not everyone has a passport.
	Not everyone has a driver's license.
	Those of us who do may not have the money to update during our transition.
	This means the process will indirectly require many of us to out ourselves in order to vote.
	What do you mean out yourself?
	Hand over the piece of government documentation to be like, hey, I'm allowed to vote and then do the vote.
	What's the worst going to happen?
	Eight-year-old woman who mans the polling booth is going to be like, so is your man on here?
	Okay, whatever.
	Go through.
	Like, they're not going to make a fuss about it.
	It's complete nonsense.
	But also, she knows nothing about this mermaid director.
	Because if you actually just checked, in here they linked the pilot scheme, the government's been running on this, in which in the pilot scheme they hand out free of charge local electoral identity documents.
	So if you want it, if you want to, you know, not get a driving license or a passport, but you still want to vote, sure, whatever.
	We'll give you a little card that just says you're definitely you.
	You can go down there, cost you nothing, and then you can vote.
	So there's no way it's going to disenfranchise anyone, really.
	And they're just making a fuss over nothing.
	They're using transgender issues, so to speak, as a way of just trying to strike down something that they don't like for other reasons.
	The reason they don't like it is because they're a partisan organisation, and they think that clamping down on voter fraud will help one party and harm another.
	Don't know which ones.
	Don't know what they're talking about.
	But also, I still can't get over the whole, like, I don't care what the state says, I'm not signed as birth as male, but also the state needs to validate my agenda and their identities.
	Pathetic people.
	So in case you're wondering about mermaids, and you mentioned that mermaids are an awful organization, well, there's a lot of people who agree with you on that.
	So this is, just if you Google mermaids, just see what they've been up to.
	And this is the top result I got.
	And as you can see here, parent in bitter battle over their child's gender.
	Father brands controversial transgender charity as meddlers in yet another case of a mother dressing her son five as a girl.
	And the story in here is that the mother believes that the boy, five years old, should wear a girl's uniform to school and is being supported by mermaids on this basis that they should be able to make the child of five years old wear a female uniform.
	But the father claims that the son has simply been confused by his mother, who has been dressing him as a girl ever since the son was two and a half.
	That sounds like a very feasible argument to me, especially two and a half.
	The kid is not going to be able to form their own mindset, and if an authoritative figure, especially their own mother, is the one forcing this upon them, they're going to go along with it regardless.
	So this just shouldn't be happening, really.
	This is how worthless Mermaid's opinion are on things.
	This two and a half year old chose their gender identity, didn't they?
	Sure.
	I'll believe that.
	I mean, I don't believe in literally anything under 18 here.
	Like, the children can't consent.
	So don't give me this...
	Absolutely.
	Anyway.
	But they give an example of what's been happening.
	So he claims that the boy's school has been bullied by mermaids into supporting the mother's wish that he should wear a dress.
	Mermaids allegedly told school staff that they would be guilty of discrimination if they did not let the boy wear a girl's uniform.
	And I've seen that mermaids are complaining that they get caricatured as child snatchers.
	I can see why.
	There we go on.
	That's a pretty charitable interpretation of what they do, really.
	That's how they get caricatured.
	So the thing in here is they also give an example of this has already happened and already gone to court and in court the father won because the mother was a lunatic.
	So they say last week it emerged that mermaids had also been supporting another mother who was found to have caused her son quote significant emotional harm by forcing him to live as a girl.
	she had the boy removed from her foster care by a judge so the boy was removed from the mother by the judge after he found out there was quote no independent or supportive evidence that this seven-year-old wanted to be a girl he said the boy who now lives with his father has been quote pressed into a gender identification that had far more to do with his mother's needs than his own the mother had needs What needs did she have?
	Ideological ones, apparently.
	Sick.
	And the judge condemned social workers for failing to challenge the mother because they were enthralled to transgender equality.
	That's a direct quote of what the judge said was the problem with the state here.
	I don't know what else we need to say.
	This is a crackpot organisation.
	And in response, what did they do?
	They said the ruling was a huge injustice.
	Because of course they did.
	Like, this has gone through the legal system.
	The judge is like, look at the evidence.
	She's a nutjob.
	She's making this child live as a girl for no other reason than her needs, whatever the heck they are.
	And therefore, I don't know why on earth we even listen to them or even need to.
	I don't care what their arguments are in the bin with that entire organization and Pink News for giving them a platform.
	I'm amazed that Child Protective Services haven't actually just closed them down outright, because we've had these rulings now where it's illegal to have these medical interventions in people who are not adults.
	They can't be given any medical treatment that is against the law now, thankfully.
	So why would this still be allowed?
	Just because it's socialising and there's no medical interference, it's still damaging just to a lesser extent.
	But anyway, just to get back to photo ID, because that's what the topic was.
	So you mentioned that previously some things have happened.
	Well, okay, talking about the UK, YouTube.
	So this was the previous one we covered, in which in 2005, this is the Guardian reporting, so again, a left-wing outlet, that a warehouse was electoral fraud factory.
	We covered this with Carl.
	There were local elections for councillors.
	And these guys set up an electoral fraud factory in which they would come to the count with loads of postal votes that were all Labour.
	And they were like, "Oh, look at that." And then they were convicted.
	It went to the legal system and they were convicted of it.
	So six councillors, Mohammed Islam, Mohammed Avsvel, Mohammed Qazi, Shah Jahain, Shafiq Ahmed and Azad Khan denied...
	I see no pattern there.
	Deny any involvement in the fraud.
	And I'm just wondering about the fact that the Guardian said that the combating fraud was racist.
	I don't know what they were talking about.
	No idea.
	No idea.
	Is this what they meant?
	Like, just the guys who have been convicted are all, you know, BAME, or we'll use the old terminology, rather than Yooka Mugama, the New Era one.
	And, you know, in their case, therefore, clamping down on fraud is racist, because the people who have been convicted of fraud disproportionately have brown skin.
	They could have gone with the Islamophobic card, really.
	Yeah, I don't know why they didn't, but I suppose they would also say that's a form of racism.
	And the other main example that's of note that we have a conviction for would be in Tower Hamlets.
	So if we go to the BBC article on this, multiple failings in Tower Hamlets electoral fraud probe.
	So this was after the Met Police were investigated for the fact that they hadn't got this guy properly.
	So, this meant that the Met Police had failed to catch electoral fraud during the 2014 Tower Hamlets mayoral election, according to a watchdog.
	The former mayor, Lüfter Rahman, was found guilty of corrupt and illegal practices by an electoral court in 2015.
	Lüfter Rahman was suspended, sorry, subsequently removed from office, but was not facing prosecution.
	I mean, that's a hell of a message, isn't it?
	Cheat.
	You'll get the position.
	And if you get found out, nothing will happen.
	You'll just lose the position.
	That's not justice.
	No, he deserves to go to jail.
	Sorry.
	For a long time.
	There is nothing worse than you can do in this country, I think.
	I mean, it should be essentially akin to treason.
	You're trying to destroy the system that it is for immoral reasons.
	So, I mean, there's the thing.
	Like, you're saying, you know, the Labour Party...
	You know, Pink News, all the rest of it.
	Like, how dare they do these things?
	It's like, well, but we have the evidence.
	Like, we have multiple instances in the UK of people doing electoral fraud, and in Birmingham, they had an electoral fraud factory in which they pumped out postal votes.
	So, what do you want?
	I mean, what better evidence do you want?
	And they're saying, it doesn't exist.
	We have the convictions.
	Like, this is not something that's not been proved.
	Like, they're done.
	They removed from OSIS. They got rid of the councillors.
	It's so obvious that they're just against it because it harms the Labour Party, and they're using these so-called causes as ways of scapegoating the main issue here, that it's going to damage the Labour Party if they clamp down on voter fraud, and that's why they don't want them to do it.
	It's obviously not about transgender issues because it doesn't make any sense.
	I want them to say that out loud.
	Just, we can't ban voter fraud, it'll harm the Labour Party.
	Go on, David Lammy, say it.
	Anyway, sorry.
	Let's move on to the great big media cartel.
	Sorry, it just sounds like how Trump would say it, you know?
	That's what I was thinking.
	So there's this act that's going through the Senate in the US at the minute called the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act.
	This is the 2021 iteration.
	I think there's a 2019 one as well, which would create special legal exemptions in antitrust laws and allow media companies to band together in a way which would otherwise be illegal.
	So I'm not sure if you're familiar with antitrust laws, but it's just a way of preventing companies from acting against consumer interests and in their own interests.
	So it might be that lots of companies band together and say, OK, we're going to fix prices or we're going to...
	Kind of just form this cartel-like structure where we're not really going to compete with one another and it's just a means of ensuring that there's competition when there are only a few players.
	That's why these laws exist.
	However, this act seems to want to repeal that for the case of media companies when they're dealing with big tech.
	We already know that big tech is essentially a cartel.
	They want the media to have the same privilege?
	They want media to be able to form a cartel in dealing with big tech, and it's kind of framed as, well, these tech companies are publishing these news articles by these media companies, but they're not paying for them.
	They're getting ad revenue from it.
	And it's similar to what happened in Australia, you know, they wanted these companies to pay for the news that they're publishing, and that's how it's being framed, but as we'll get onto in a second, it seems to me to be solidifying their spot in prominence.
	From the actual act itself, it says here, a news content creator may not be held liable under the antitrust laws for engaging in negotiations with any other news content creator during the four-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this act to collectively withhold content from or negotiate with an online a news content creator may not be held liable under the antitrust laws for engaging in negotiations with any other news content creator during the four-year period beginning on the date of the
	So that's a very wordy way of saying that they can work together and affect how their news is being published online in a way that they wouldn't otherwise be able to with these antitrust laws in existence at the minute.
	I mean, if that doesn't sound terrible, I don't know what does.
	I know, and we'll find out that there are lots of big names behind it, so it's been kind of devised in close collaboration with an alliance of different media companies known as the News Media Alliance, which doesn't sound sinister whatsoever.
	And that includes the New York Times, the Minneapolis Star Tribune, the Tampa Bay Times, the Boston Globe, Dallas Morning News, USA Today, Fox News, Wall Street Journal, New York Post, and the owners of News Corporation.
	So there's lots of big names in there.
	I just want to get into the actual wording of it so it uses the term news content creator quite a lot and I want to kind of reiterate what that means so it's any print or broadcast or digital news organization and I'm quoting directly here has a dedicated professional editorial staff that creates and distributes original news and related content concerning local national or international matters of public interest on at least a weekly basis And also an organisation that is marketed through subscriptions,
	advertising or sponsorship and provides original news related content with editorial content consisting of not less than 25% of current news and related content.
	That's pretty all-encompassing, really, isn't it?
	That's a lot of things that they're including there, defining what a news content creator is.
	And these online content distributors, which are basically your Facebooks, your Googles, they say, are an entity that operates a website or other online service that displays, distributes and directs users to news articles, works of journalism or other content on the Internet that is generated by third party news content works of journalism or other content on the Internet that is generated by third party news content creator and has no fewer than one million monthly active users in the aggregate of all
	So it seems to me that this is directly targeting larger news companies and their ability to influence what big tech has to say and what it can cover and things like that and how much money they make off of it.
	Um...
	So the person actually proposing this is someone known as Ken Buck, who is, I believe, a Republican for Colorado and also co-sponsored by another person called David Cicilline or something like that.
	I don't know how to pronounce his name, but I'm not going to focus on that second guy.
	I'm going to focus on Ken Buck because there's some very interesting stuff about lots of unusual payments he's received.
	Is he the type of, yeah, I'm a Republican type?
	Yeah.
	He definitely is.
	Well, he was actually an author of a book called Drain the Swamp, How Washington Corruption is Worse Than You Think.
	Sounds correct.
	As we'll get on to in a minute, he's received a lot of money about this.
	It's worse than you think, and I'm part of it.
	Well, at least he's got first-hand experience.
	But here he's defending the bill.
	He says, this legislation makes Google and Facebook pay for stolen advertising dollars.
	How is this big media, Newsmax, Washington Times, Town Hall, Daily Caller, Fox News and Washington Examiner support the bill?
	I think I misread that.
	It is literally anti-big tech and anti-big media.
	I don't know about that.
	I'm strongly getting the impression that this is the type of guy who's just a bit of a boomer and doesn't understand what's going on here.
	I think you might be right, because...
	I mean, Alan Bukhari there.
	I mean, he's responding to Alan Bukhari, who works for Breitbart.
	We've interviewed Alan.
	Alan knows a heck of a lot on the problems with big tech.
	And if his opinion is that this is bad, I'm going to side with him every day.
	Yeah, I think he definitely has a reasonable take on it.
	And I did read some of the things that he'd wrote, but haven't included it here.
	So if we can move on to his second tweet about it, he says, Google and Facebook are working overtime to undermine my conservative antitrust agenda.
	I will not back down from these trillion dollar monopolists.
	We have to rein in big tech before it's too late.
	So it's weird that he's framing it in the sense like it's almost in a way where it's trying to win over Republicans.
	It's saying big tech is controlling things.
	He's trying to kind of curry favor with Trump Republicans, that sort of thing, because of all the censorship.
	However, this bill that he's proposed is kind of widely supported by the Democrats, and most Republicans are very skeptical of it.
	I mean, you think there'll be a red flag?
	Yeah.
	I mean, he's not really going to fool anyone with this.
	I mean, I do kind of think that there is some kind of merit to the argument that maybe he just doesn't understand.
	And I think that might be the case a little bit because he defended Trump and his legal challenges to stuff recently.
	I don't want to mention specifically Trump.
	I think he is on the side of the Republicans and I think it's more that he is just misunderstanding the situation here.
	And he's he's seeing it as in he's tackling big tech, but actually he's just helping establish all of these large media companies and them having more influence over what is permissible and what is not.
	So FEC filings show that Buck has received at least $18,000 in the past two months from special interest groups, political action committees and those who support the bill.
	So Buck took $1,000 from David Cheverne, who is the president and CEO of the News Media Alliance, who was the company or the organization that I was talking about earlier.
	And then he took another $1,000 from Daniel Coffey, I think it is, the general counsel for News Media Alliance.
	And then he also took $1,500 from a lobbying firm, Called Williams and Jensen, who, mysteriously enough, represent News Media Alliance.
	And a further $1,000 from William Jensen's Political Action Committee.
	And then Fox News just flat out gave him $3,000.
	$500.
	Let's not even set up a subsidiary to, you know, try and hide it.
	Just, here's three grand.
	And then, just as the icing on the cake, the National Association of Broadcasters donated $5,000.
	So he's been paid quite a considerable amount of money.
	I mean, it's not a difficult thing to then turn around and be like, hey, you've been paid off to say this.
	Yeah.
	I mean, you've literally been paid thousands.
	It's a real conflict of interest here, and normally I'd be more willing to give someone the benefit of the doubt, but the fact that he's going against the majority will of the Republicans and he's received all of this money...
	Two and two together!
	It's not a very difficult leap, is it really?
	Yeah.
	So, Representative Jim Jordan, who represents Ohio, said it would give establishment media outlets cartel-like power, and in, surprisingly, an unprecedented move, Kevin McCarthy, the House Republican leader, said it is the antithesis of conservatism, And the attempts by big media and Democrats in Congress to collude and monopolize economic models poses a tremendous threat to free speech and the free press.
	I certainly trust Jim Jordan on this topic, because I've seen him raking Silicon Valley over the coals every time they turn up.
	I've seen his name thrown about, but what has he actually been doing?
	Yeah, so you know the House meetings in which they have Zuckerberg and whatnot on?
	He's been very good at being able to rake them over the coals and be like, hey, you did this, why'd you do that?
	And then making them look like they are, which is a bunch of scandals.
	Has this been to do with getting Trump off of media and stuff like that?
	Yeah, stuff like that.
	Just banning people outright because they don't like their politics and him being able to show for what they are.
	So, if he's against it, okay.
	Yeah, and it seems like lots of people who have been against this are the people that are actually critical of big media and big tech.
	And this is being posed as something that is reigning in big tech, but it's really not.
	By a man who got $18,000 to propose this.
	Okay.
	Yeah, and that's just in the last two months as well.
	So that's a lot of money in such a short space of time.
	Go on then, go on then.
	Go on then, Ken.
	Give the $18,000 back and then continue to propose it.
	It's unbelievable, really.
	It's just out in the open as well.
	You can look on the FEC records and you can see it there plain as day, and yet here he is going against the majority will of his party.
	Sure, I agree that people can go against what the majority of the people in their party believe, but then at the same time, it seems like it's under suspicious circumstances, doesn't it?
	So, kind of my understanding of it is that this is going to allow big media companies just to form a really close relationship with big tech companies so that smaller companies are going to be suppressed and, of course, with the fact that it's big tech as well, they're going to be suppressing right-wing media disproportionately.
	And I think...
	It's a bit unusual in that Fox News is trying to get in on this as well, and I was quite surprised to see them involved in it.
	Well, they're still a huge media company.
	Yeah, and I think they might just be trying to save their skin a little bit, because there was obviously the case of the Democrats saying that they wanted to get rid of Fox News entire...
	But I mean, Rupert Murdoch's in charge of them, obviously, and Rupert Murdoch was the one pushing for it in Australia as well.
	It's a weird thing, but it's a case of...
	It's the businessmen that run the thing, not the commentators you see on the show.
	It seems counterintuitive, but I think when you're a large enough company, you can actually deal with these regulations and it stops smaller companies from challenging you and it stifles competition.
	And that's why they're pushing for the so-called...
	Regulation.
	Not only that, but also it means they get more money out of it as well.
	So it's kind of win-win for them.
	Not only do they have a stranglehold on the market and they get to have greater control over big tech, they also get more money out of it.
	So no wonder that they're so unanimously in support of it.
	But I don't think it's good for anyone because if you have this stratified group at the top that is determining what can and can't be said on social media...
	Isn't that an infringement on free speech at the end of the day?
	Because you're having these special groups determine what is right and wrong and what can and can't be published.
	And they're also, of course, determining how much money they deserve from big tech as well.
	And it seems pretty unusual that they're going to be sidelining these people.
	So the journalist Glenn Greenwald said to the House Judiciary Committee back in March that if you empower this industry without very clear and concrete safeguards, you could very well be essentially accelerating some of the worst industry trends, ensuring that, say, hedge funds control the industry or media giants that exert overwhelming power like the hedge funds control the industry or media giants that exert overwhelming power like the New York Times can further entrench the power through this negotiating force that becomes an antitrust exemption, which is very much what
	He says, I do absolutely believe that the problem of Silicon Valley's monopolistic power and its ability to interfere in our politics and impede a free press is a very serious one, but oftentimes it's the media itself, it's journalists themselves who are demanding that power be exercised in a censorious way, in a way that undermines it's journalists themselves who are demanding that power be exercised in a censorious way, in I think he's spot on there, to be honest.
	Glenn Greenwald is usually pretty good on this.
	Mm.
	So, in terms of the bill itself, at the minute, I think it's being examined by the Senate Judiciary Committee, and I think for it to pass through the Senate, at least 10 Republican senators would need to vote in favour of it, with the Democrats, who will probably vote unanimously in favour of it.
	So, it's one of those cases where...
	How expensive is 10 senators?
	I mean, if one of them's 18 grand...
	I mean, it's certainly possible.
	And there's a lot of money riding on this for these big media companies.
	And although big tech is obviously pushing against it because they stand to lose money, I'm sure that the media companies are going to be able to band together and raise a large sum of money.
	Because you could see through that news media alliance that they were able to funnel money into his campaign in the space of two months to the sum of towards 18 grand.
	It's only a matter of ten senators that is protecting against this, really.
	And we've seen, like, Silicon Valley being able to bully organizations like, sorry, being able to see the media type bully Silicon Valley as well.
	I mean, the best example, we've got an article on LotusDiz.com called, what is it, How Susan Wojcicki Ruins YouTube?
	Like, she explains why she ruined it.
	And one of the things she implemented under her stewardship was that they would give priority to trusted sources, and all the trusted sources just happen to be all the mainstream media.
	Who all happen to, you know, share certain opinions on certain events, don't they?
	And therefore, whenever you look for something, you just get them.
	And the worst part of this is probably with Carl, actually, because his YouTube channel suddenly got deranked, you couldn't see him.
	And if you type in Carl's name, first thing you get, loads of mainstream media just slandering him because they hate him, because he stands against them.
	He's not in the same league as them, and he doesn't like them, he hates them.
	And therefore, you don't actually get to see any of his content.
	So when we were running for office, for example, if you looked up his name, that's what you got as a voter.
	You didn't get the reality, which is the guy you're looking for.
	Yeah, and that's a perfect example of how this may actually end up looking in, say, Facebook or Twitter or organisations that are the focus of this, in that these media companies are going to be able to dictate what is going to be published and how much money they're going to get for it.
	And I think their incentive would be if they have a smaller market share as possible, if they're getting money out of this, that works in their favor.
	So they want as few companies involved in this as possible so they can make the most money.
	And the fact that they're going to be able to kind of pass off their narrative as the one true truth is just a bonus on top of making shed loads of cash.
	Great.
	So a bit of a black pill today.
	Well, after that black pill, let's go for a bit of a white pill.
	So, I know we're kind of going over the Labour Party's failure a lot, but I love it.
	And also, there's just loads of content because they keep effing up.
	So, we mentioned their response to it, which was to change nothing.
	But they really have learned nothing, and we seem to have the best responses.
	So, first thing here is just Keir Starmer polling.
	How's he doing?
	Oh, how's he doing with the public?
	65% say badly, net rating minus 48%.
	You got there.
	Yeah.
	How's the time in the office, buddy?
	Not going well.
	So the response I've also seen is Sadiq Khan, after his inevitable victory, is he decided to release this statement and say that a crude culture war is pushing us further apart.
	So criticizing the idea of culture wars being a problem, it's like, Sadiq?
	Sadiq Khan?
	Saying that culture wars are pushing us apart.
	It's a bit rich coming from him, isn't it?
	You mean like the ones you've been pushing?
	I mean, just go to the next...
	Look at that image.
	Look at that image.
	You remember this?
	There's a London fireworks, and he got a bunch of drones to make the BLM sign, and then there was a voiceover.
	What was it?
	This year, blah, blah, blah, blah, Black Lives Matter.
	And everyone clapped, because it's London.
	It's like, look, you.
	You are the one who pushes culture wars endlessly.
	And on the right turn around and be like, hey, their culture wars stuff is all retarded.
	They're like, oh no, don't point that out.
	I don't want to fight culture wars.
	They're like, This actually ruined my New Year's Eve.
	I just saw this and it depressed me to the point where I was just like, I'm going to bed.
	Yeah, they're happy to do culture warring every single day until they start losing, and then it's, no, no, we shouldn't fight culture wars, those pull us apart.
	It's like, that's literally all you do.
	It's 24-7 your campaign.
	I mean, you literally spend public money on this.
	I mean, that is what you do.
	Sorry, I can't even read it.
	Obvious hypocrisy of this man.
	I mean, there's a million quotes you could get.
	I just think this is the best example, because he's just hijacking a public event.
	Let's get public money spent on it to push his agenda on cultural issues.
	It would be unanimously unpopular as well.
	People just want to have a good time on New Year's Eve.
	People's politics just forced down their throat.
	Anyway, sorry, let's go to the next one.
	The next one is just a good guy, Matt Godwinson, who works at University of Kent, and he's just pointing out here that the centre-left vote throughout the entire continent is kind of effed.
	So UK, lowest since 1935.
	Austria, lowest since 1911.
	Germany, lowest since 1932.
	Oof.
	And also, in Germany, the greens have overtaken the centre-left there, so they've now got the watermelons, green on the outside, red on the inside there.
	France, lowest ever.
	Italy, lowest ever.
	Netherlands, lowest ever.
	Sweden, lowest ever.
	You know, it goes on and on and on, but it's just the fact that they're all getting BTFO'd, so good times.
	Good to hear.
	But also, I wanted to mention, because I believe I forgot about this.
	I didn't realise until I saw Dankula's tweet.
	Cam Dankula, remember he ran with the Scottish Libertarians in Scotland.
	So if you get the...
	Oh, sorry, I wanted to talk about the state of the left first.
	So just in the United States.
	I know they've won, but I mean, look at this image.
	So this is Cori Bush.
	Today's decision to defund the police marks a new future for our city.
	And then just lots of people being shot in her own district.
	Yeah.
	Is it surprising?
	Yeah.
	I mean, do you find the police get more murders?
	I mean, this is why the left deserve to get no votes, because this is what they'll do to your neighbourhood.
	They don't even understand cause and effect.
	Let's go to Count Dankula, because I just, I love, you know, good boy, he ran.
	Of course he wasn't expecting to win, but I just, I love this.
	BTFO, Communist Party of Great Britain there.
	194 votes in that council.
	Mark Meacham, Count Dankula, 254.
	254 votes for the Nazi pug man!
	But also the Communist Party being banned, sorry, blocked.
	They blocked Count Dankula in response to losing.
	Losers.
	So sore losers, those communists.
	So sore losers, they're just like, no, they won't talk.
	But in the Labour Party, let's go back to them.
	So Lisa Nandy, one of the candidates for the leader, decided to release a statement about the meetings they had afterwards.
	So she was in the shadow cabinet, and the meeting was pretty jovial.
	Afterwards, we all went for coffee.
	Things are going well in the Labour Party.
	Yeah, right.
	Things are good in the Labour Party, she says.
	Is that why there was a huge cabinet reshuffle?
	No, there wasn't.
	They just moved people around, but nothing really happened.
	The party's still the party.
	It's like the orcas at SeaWorld.
	They're just moving them around.
	Essentially, but all is good.
	All is good.
	Outside the Labour Party, where people actually vote.
	Not so good, but I guess you don't care about them or that.
	But Angela Rayner did something actually interesting.
	It seems like she's the only person that's learned anything from this, so I won't say the whole party's learned nothing.
	It seems she's learned at least a little crumb of something.
	So Angela Rayner says that the Labour Party has talked down to voters for too long, and if you go to her article in which she lists her reasoning, and you can read the full thing in your full time, but I just wanted to go to the bit where she says the party's been talking down to people.
	For too long, we have given off the air of talking down to people and telling people what they need, or even what they should want or what they should think.
	Yes!
	Factually correct.
	Yes.
	Fact check true.
	That has been the Labour Party manifesto.
	That has been the Labour Party movement and everything you stand for.
	And that's why you are awful.
	Everything about you is awful.
	It's not just, you need this, but I don't need that.
	No, no, you need it.
	But also how you think.
	I mean, she's openly accepting that, yes, the left and the Labour Party in the UK have been the thought police of the last, you know, God, 20, 30 years at least.
	So, and she continues, working class people don't want a handout or someone telling us what we should think.
	Yep.
	We want the opportunities to do it ourselves.
	It's like, there's a Conservative Party talking point here.
	She's like, the working class don't need to be slaves of the state.
	They need opportunity and shouldn't be told how to think.
	They can think for themselves, thank you very much.
	I mean, that's stock Conservative Party rhetoric.
	And, you know, Labour deputy leader here saying exactly that.
	So, someone who's learnt something.
	But at least she's learnt that, essentially, the Conservative movement and how they think is the correct way to do things.
	The Labour movement of turning you into a slave, not useful.
	But also, look who's talking.
	Like, she really didn't learn this the easy way.
	Like, it's been a long road for her.
	So let's go for this clip.
	This is a clip on Question Time, where she's just labelled Angela Rayner Gets Destroyed, but let's play.
	I'd like to actually ask the members of Parliament that are present on the panel what part of democracy they don't actually understand.
	Parliament had a ballot, did it not?
	In order to have the referendum, they voted 6 to 1 to have the ballot.
	You took that ballot, you took the chance, we had the referendum, you didn't get the answer that you wanted, and now we want to turn it round.
	I didn't vote for the last government.
	Can I have a ballot?
	Can I answer your question?
	I mean, what I was saying, and my clarity is, is that I'm not saying, and I'm not suggesting we ignore the vote.
	The vote is quite clear, but as a member of parliament, I have a responsibility for British jobs, British workers...
	No, you have a representative!
	I have a responsibility for the government.
	Sorry, your job is to represent the public, the people who elect you.
	Start doing your job.
	home.
	If you do it now, you get cleared off.
	Simple.
	Thank you.
	You're welcome.
	You've been satisfied.
	Absolutely great.
	Or a great guy.
	Yeah, but it seems finally she has learned something out of that.
	So, I mean, it took a long time, but, you know, Angela Rayner there being able to know right that the left shouldn't tell people how to think.
	Oh, thank God for that, Mercy.
	I mean, at least you're there.
	I mean, the Conservative Party in power still telling us how to think, not repealing Section 127 of the hate crime laws.
	So, hmm, waiting for that to happen.
	So she's done that, but unlike some.
	Some have not learned anything, and a certain somebody who's learned nothing is Ash Sarkar, who's been having a meltdown.
	Instead.
	This is great.
	I just found this tweet.
	John sent me this yesterday.
	London, the city of FTA maca-sipping bourgeois elites.
	I don't live in London, so I don't know what Starbucks is.
	What on earth is that?
	But also criminal hellhole, where everyone's got a machete and you'll get shanked as soon as you get within an Oyster card range.
	Truly the land of contrasts.
	Yes, yes, Ash.
	Yes, London is awful.
	And who runs London, Ash?
	Who's been inviting all the people with the machetes?
	Who's the type of people who live in North, what is it, Islington or whatever?
	Where Jeremy Corbyn is and all the posh people who vote Labour because they love socialism.
	But not for us, thank you.
	For the plebs.
	Yes, yes, everything about the Labour Party movement is awful, and this is exactly it in a tweet.
	She's like, oh god, imagine this being true.
	Yeah, but it is.
	Like, it absolutely is.
	I mean, the amount of stabbings, the amount of people being cut to death in London is ridiculous.
	And who runs it?
	Sadiq Khan.
	What does Sadiq Khan do?
	He got rid of Stopping Church.
	It's a poignant thing you can point to.
	I don't know the percentage effectiveness, but it certainly shouldn't have been gotten rid of, and everyone knows it.
	Stop and search did work, though, and there's significant evidence for it.
	The only reason he stopped it was because he said it was racist.
	It's not racism when black people all die.
	It stopped murders, but it inconvenienced people, therefore we must stop it.
	I'd rather kill 500 black people than be accused of racism, Sadiq Khan.
	And yeah, he gets re-elected.
	He could have probably still got re-elected on that campaign slogan.
	Yeah, he probably could have.
	And then also the fact that you've got the unbelievable wealthy socialist.
	I just can't get over how she can write such a thing and not realise how much of a moron she looks.
	And then there's also the next thing here.
	There's a whole bunch of her real-hood meltdown, but this is just the best one.
	But the next one here is an article she wrote in which she said that everyone who's doing identity politics, especially those who profess to hate it...
	Hmm.
	Let's have a look.
	So if you go to the article itself, you can see her argument, and she says in the tagline there, merely referring to the working class every 10 seconds can't conjure up a shared political identity.
	Yeah, just like LGBTQI plus HIBG, or Yook McImmers, or BAME, or any such nonsense.
	Like, you can't create a collective just by saying, no, this is the political group of brown people, this is the political group of gay people, and therefore they represent all brown and gay people.
	It doesn't work.
	It doesn't make any goddamn sense.
	But you know this, and you're just going to ignore it because you want to argue it on class instead.
	But also the fact that a communist is like, yeah, just saying working class doesn't make it true.
	Yeah, interesting.
	Anyway, but she writes in here, Why did Labour lose Hartlepool?
	As we've just seen, it's because you had based voters like that guy there, who were like, We vote for Leave, you guys won't support it, your traders to democracy get lost.
	That's why.
	Simple as.
	If Labour MP and the scandal-prone ex-frontbencher Khalid Massoud is to be believed, the problem is that the party is too woke for the working class.
	Khalid is right.
	That is one of the major problems, but that's not the reason you lost Hartlepool.
	The reason you lost Hartlepool, as I said, and as the people of Hartlepool are essentially telling you, they voted for Brexit.
	You guys were like, get stuffed.
	We hate democracy.
	And they were like, well, we still have the vote.
	Get stuffed.
	It's good to see, though, that the voters are beating the Labour Party over the head with their own arrogance.
	Yeah, but last thing here, so she says, The problem is framed in identitarian terms.
	Students and thin-skinned city-dwelling snowflakes, describing yourself well, have abandoned and alienated the ordinary voter.
	True, true diagnosis.
	Class politics has been abandoned in favour of intersectionality.
	BLM, transgender rights and esoteric coffee orders.
	True.
	I'm not going to read the rest of it because I don't give a toss.
	Because I know you're just going to explain that this is utter nonsense.
	So instead, if you don't believe me and you're like, oh, come on, why are you just judging a book by the cover, isn't it?
	Let's just look at your party.
	Let's look at Labour Party Conference and determine whether or not the party has been taken over by thin-skinned, city-dwelling snowflakes who don't care about class politics and instead care about intersectionality, BLM, and transgender rights.
	Play.
	Comrades.
	Transgender comrades.
	Trans comrades.
	LGBT plus community.
	LGBT+ young people LGBT+ people LGBT+ LGBTQ+ LGBT+ pay gap Trans and non-binary people I'm sent here by my CRP to represent our Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic members.
	for black, Asian and minority adults, black, Asian, minority, ethnic children.
	An inclusive and equitable national education service requires an ambitious and overarching plan for black, Asian and minority ethnic students, staff, including migrant children, adult learners and refugees.
	This is crucial in a time of rising racism.
	Tom Barringer, Tottenham CLP, he/him pronouns.
	One society, one species, all working together.
	No borders, no discrimination.
	Everybody working.
	If you've seen Star Trek, then you might appreciate that metaphor.
	I just wanted to get up and speak and show my solidarity with all the different women we've had speaking today.
	We need to challenge the patriarchy.
	And we need to challenge patriarchal structures.
	Patriarchy is about who holds the power, what they do with that power, and who makes the decisions.
	The feminist, Bell Hooks, she says that patriarchy isn't gendered.
	And we all know women, Margaret Thatcher, Theresa May, but we all know women in our own circles who are not necessarily sympathetic to the issues that women face.
	That black and Asian and immigrant delegates are given priority to speak.
	That it is not just our role as a party to fight against injustices that we see today, but we must also correct the injustices of the past.
	They're referring to the Kashmiris as committing terrorist acts.
	I mean, it's more like acts of resistance, in my personal opinion.
	I think there should be a reference map on that.
	Thank you.
	Nothing good will come of Brexit.
	It is a far-right project.
	Liverpool won CLP, the safest seat in the United Kingdom, 85.7% Labour.
	And we are kicking the fascists out of Liverpool again and again and again!
	We are not Leavers and Remainers.
	We are socialists!
	To fight imperialism, to truly defeat it, we must do so on a class basis, on the basis of socialist internationalism and working-class solidarity.
	I stand before you as a trans woman, a lesbian and a Pisces.
	I know, right?
	Why can't they have a better acronym than that?
	LGBTQ+. I note that yesterday evening, one of the fringe events was held by a transphobic hate group.
	We delegates are being asked to vote for members of the National Constitutional Committee and there is no gender quota in that ballot.
	That is outrageous.
	We must end capitalism.
	And we can only do that with a Labour government led by Jeremy Corbyn.
	The last speaker was defamatory towards Composite 17.
	And I know in law, defamation has a certain standing.
	I'm sorry, it's not a point of order.
	He wasn't defamatory.
	He just raised a different point of view.
	I haven't seen a black man speaking today.
	I lift my heart.
	I wasn't there.
	We exist.
	It's the only thing I want to say.
	We do exist.
	It gets better.
	Delegate, thank you for your point of order.
	And as the first East Asian woman ever chairing conference, I understand the importance of representation.
	Ours is a migrant nation.
	Epidemic of sexist and sexual bullying and harassment, fuelled by online porn.
	Conference, the reason for this failure is down to one thing.
	Capitalism.
	Capitalism is immoral.
	I second.
	Thank you.
	Workers of the world, unite.
	You have nothing to lose but your chains!
	But if we don't pull together, if we don't get our sh** together, Boris Johnson is going to win.
	I know that was long, but I have no other way of making that point.
	I'm not going to give a million arguments about why the late party's bad.
	I'm just going to show them.
	That is their conference.
	That is a summation of their conference right there.
	The clips I took that from is like 10 minutes long of just stuff I have of them being awful.
	I don't have to say anything.
	I don't have to say anything.
	Just look at that.
	Look at that, Ash, and tell me whether or not it's too woke.
	Khalid Mohammed is right.
	I'd have rather watched TikTok cringe, to be honest.
	That was worse.
	Awful.
	God, the problem is framed as if thin-skinned students and city dwellers have overtaken the Labour Party.
	They seem to care about intersectionality, BLM, and transgender rights.
	Ha ha ha, how can the right claim this?
	Because we can look at your own conference.
	You live stream it on your YouTube channel.
	This isn't some hidden, like, esoteric video I've pulled from inside, like, Labour Party's HQ's, you know, archives or something.
	That's on YouTube.
	You can go see it yourself.
	Sorry.
	God, I hate these people.
	It's like a convention of bullied kids in school.
	I saw some people, like some guy, I'm not trying to be rude, but the guy sent us a message being like, hey, how would you salvage the Labour Party?
	And here's your response.
	Look at that.
	Is it worth salvaging?
	Can you salvage that?
	No.
	The whole thing is worthless.
	It all needs to die.
	The entire party is just nothing relevant to British politics.
	It should not exist in British politics.
	It should be selling pencils on the street.
	Anyway, let's go to the video comments.
	Callum, you said as an atheist you weren't interested in Christianity.
	Allow me to Christ pill you.
	So in communism, everyone starves.
	There are bread lines, but barely anyone gets bread.
	Carl is a keto fascist, and so he denies bread.
	Christianity has set up the only actual effective bread lines.
	Jesus hooked up a ton of people with bread, and it's part of communion.
	Checkmate, bread-loving atheists.
	I'm converted.
	I'm not going to be converted by bread, but...
	I mean, one of the things, like, one of the funny things, we go down and get lunch at Tesco's, usually, and there's not a line there because of COVID, obviously, and we just refer to it as the bread line.
	Because really, it just is.
	It's become, like, common terminology now.
	We just say, oh, the bread line was too long today.
	Yeah, just so-and-so, he was in the bread line.
	Yeah, it's not even, like, a significant thing anymore.
	It's just synonymous with the Tesco's COVID line.
	But it's, you know, government regulation.
	They regulated Tesco's.
	I mean, sure, Tesco's want more people in the buying stuff.
	And instead, they can't.
	So there is literally a line that, like, goes around the block to buy bread because I can't buy my sandwiches otherwise.
	It's been a nice insight into what it was like in the Soviet Union.
	Yeah, except at least when we get in there, there is bread.
	That is true.
	Imagine waiting all that time and then there's no bread.
	It gets screwed.
	So, yeah, let's go for the next one.
	Hey guys, I saw something truly beautiful yesterday.
	I encountered a former female feminist colleague, now turned trans man.
	He was telling me his story of woe, that his active campaigning was having no traction when he was trying to get his male rights.
	Welcome to being a man.
	I haven't forgiven Carl yet for his subjecting us to all that vaccine nonsense last week.
	I think we should welcome him back on Monday with a slew of pro-bread propaganda videos from the gold tier.
	You are challenged.
	Yes.
	Keto Sharia must die.
	Next Monday, there must be bread propaganda.
	What was that, John?
	It's the Monday after.
	It's the Monday after.
	He's not coming back for quite a while, actually.
	But, um, I don't know.
	I mean, should we just order a bunch of bread and just keep it around the office?
	Like, put it next to the air conditioning unit, so just the waft of bread smell?
	Just open a merch store and just have a bakery.
	Just our own bread.
	A load of seeds of merch.
	Food.
	It's all just different kinds of bread.
	Yeah.
	Lotus Bakers, as John says.
	Yeah.
	Alright, why not?
	Yeah.
	No, I don't think we'll be able to do that.
	But when he gets back, we'll have something planned for him.
	We'll torture him.
	Don't worry.
	I'm sure that's what people are donating for us to do.
	Shall I read some comments?
	Yeah, yeah, sure.
	Let's go for comments.
	So, Brian Tomlinson says, Voter ID improves democracy so it is anti-communist.
	That's why only communists are complaining.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Fair enough, yeah.
	I see nothing wrong there.
	Hammurabi, the sixth.
	How useful even are IDs when people are still being forced to hide behind the face diapers, I mean masks?
	So, I mean, at least you can see part of their face, like their eyes at least, I guess.
	But you're not forced to at the polls here, at least when I went to vote.
	And as the chap who sent us the video explained, you're right, the vote comes first, so if you don't want to wear them, you don't have to.
	But yeah, it is pretty silly.
	I agree with that.
	Yeah, my polling card said, it actually said on it you don't need to wear a mask to go and vote, so that was at least some small mercy, although I still wore one just not to freak anyone out.
	Duh.
	I know.
	No, I went down, I just wanted to enjoy life.
	The thing is, there's always loads of old people at the polling booths, and they're probably a bit, they have a reasonable worry.
	I thought you were vaccinated as well, I thought you did that.
	No.
	I know, with Rory you've got the voucher.
	I'm still nowhere near the list.
	I've been put off, if anything.
	Have you?
	Really?
	Yeah.
	Well, it seems to have worked.
	It's more or less gone.
	So, by the time it gets round to me, what's the point?
	Yeah, I can see that.
	Maybe if I want to go on holiday, I might consider it.
	Yeah, I mean, like I said, I've got to go to countries that are going to demand it.
	I'll win that open.
	So, student of history.
	Progressive students.
	Black can't figure out how to get IDs.
	Black people.
	Defug.
	It's so stupid.
	Like, there's just no thinking whatsoever.
	I mean, like, that's the beauty of Amy Horowitz.
	Like, I know he gets some shtick for some of the stuff he does.
	Like, maybe he's cutting it or something.
	I don't really believe you even have to.
	Like, with him, I bet he can go down there and get the responses he wants and not have to do anything.
	Because, I mean, the best one he's done, I think, was actually...
	He went down with an Israeli flag to a college campus.
	I think this might have been Yale or something.
	I just waved the Israeli flag around for, like, an hour.
	And he just got people shouting at him, like, you know, F off.
	You know, screw yourself.
	Bloody Jew.
	Things like this.
	And then he went out with an ISIS flag.
	I just waved the ISIS flag about for an hour.
	LAUGHTER Like, people were coming up to him and thanking him.
	What?
	I didn't know about that.
	I'll have to show you after.
	I think it was just before ISIS became, like, massive.
	Oh, so maybe people didn't recognise it.
	So people thought he was some kind of, like, Islamic freedom fighter or something?
	And he was like, yeah, Israel's oppressing us.
	With a damn ISIS flag.
	Yeah, if you haven't seen it, go look it up and I'll send it to you in the chat now.
	Sure.
	So, Janelle's J. Mullock says, sometimes when I watch these videos on white democratic voters talking about ID, I just sit back and wonder if they know what they say is openly racist.
	That's exactly what I think.
	But we live in a clown world, so I guess it's okay to be racist so long as you're the bureaucratic left.
	It's politically correct racism, so therefore it's kosher, I guess.
	It's so condescending as well, just like, yeah, they don't have access to these things.
	They can't pay bills.
	Unlike me, with all my privilege, I have ID, but these other people, I'm so much better than them.
	That's pretty much what they're saying by implication.
	Well, I mean, it was almost believable.
	Saying that, you know, very basic, just white people have this percentage of IDs, Asians this much, and black people this much, and whatnot.
	And then saying the black percentage was lower than whites, therefore it's disproportionate.
	Like, that could be an argument.
	It's obvious BS for an argument for anything, but it could be something you could slay that wouldn't be racist.
	But they went with, they don't know how to pay the bills.
	Like, you've got to pay the internet bill, you've got to set it up.
	Oh, God, I mean, imagine trying to figure that out.
	Yeah, okay, okay, buddy.
	Like, not all of us have, like, sub-60 IQ like you, but...
	I mean, if they were that worried, couldn't they just help people to get IDs if they didn't know how to do it?
	That's a more proactive way of actually helping people.
	And then you also have the benefit of having voter IDs as well.
	Because, I mean, like Joe Biden said, though, you need to spend a billion dollars on an outreach program to teach black people to use the internet.
	Could you imagine?
	Like, you know that advert, surfing on the internet?
	Like, you know the famous internet advert from, like, the 90s?
	It's like when the internet was new.
	I probably have come across it, but I've probably purged it from my mind.
	Yeah, they're like, oh, this is a web page, and they're explaining it.
	Just that, except it's made for black people, I guess.
	Except, you know, it's high definition, because it's just Joe Biden explaining.
	It costs a billion dollars to produce.
	If Joe Biden explains it, then they'll never be able to understand it.
	They'll never be able to understand it.
	Israel Hayes, what, Callum, what on earth do you mean it's not the fault if they think minorities can't get ID? If you have two functioning brain cells to rub together, someone tells you blacks can't get IDs, and you don't usually think, what, that's BS, how did they get into university?
	What do you mean how did they get into university?
	You've seen universities.
	That's the thing.
	Obviously, they are adults, so they are responsible for their own actions.
	But at the same time, look at the society that brings them up to that position.
	There's no checks or balance against them.
	The university isn't going to be a barrier to them that teaches them to grow up at all.
	The media around them doesn't teach them to grow up at all.
	Half of the country's political system doesn't as well, because it also buys into this nonsense.
	I mean, what were you expecting?
	If you never have a means to change your opinion, you know, take some student, put them through this propaganda stream, well, what are you going to turn up on the other side?
	But I suppose fundamentally, yes, yes, I probably should have said they are adults, therefore they're responsible for believing utter nonsense.
	So, caffeinated century name.
	After watching American cop shows, I think that most black dudes would have idea out of fear of not having it when the cop asks for it.
	Yeah, I mean, that's not a bad argument.
	If you want to convince people in leftist language, you'd be like, yeah, well, the cops shoot black people all the time.
	And therefore, if we give them all IDs, again, the language is like, I'm going to give it to you.
	Did I show you that there was a clip?
	I clipped.
	There's like a documentary from the 50s or something.
	around when slavery had just been abolished or no when slavery was still around and he goes up to this uh ex-slave who doesn't have the right to vote and so on and so forth and he's like i want to give you the right to vote i want to i want to set you free i want to do all these things and the based slave just turns around and is like you still got the disease you can't give me the right to vote you can't give me freedom i'm born with it you take it away from me like yes you Yes!
	A base slave is beating the FO of this college student who wants to give him things.
	That's why I don't like that language.
	Yeah, I understand that.
	But if you wanted to put it in rhetoric of the left, I guess you would put it in that rhetoric, which is just, well, the cops will kill you if they don't have it, therefore, give them IDs.
	Take it.
	Everything can be framed as a good thing if you know how their mindset works.
	So, Justin B. Good to hear the Tories are delivering on something else that's good for the country with voter ID. I don't like the party, but they're still the best option at the moment.
	I kind of agree with that.
	I knew it was in the manifesto.
	I didn't expect them to actually do it.
	Isn't that a sorry condemnation of the state of politics?
	We have it in the manifesto.
	We have a majority.
	We still might not do it.
	Yeah.
	I mean, they have in there that they'll defend freedom of expression.
	I think that's just a given that that's not going to happen.
	So I wasn't really expecting much else, but okay, good, good, good, good.
	If you get on getting rid of Section 127 or some other, you know, actual moves to make people in Britain free, then okay, cool.
	I will vote for you for the end of time.
	So, Ignacio Juncara, to add to the lie of ID lowest turnout in Madrid and Spain in general, it's mandatory to present the original of the national ID. We just had local elections with 76.25% vote turnout, which is an absolute historical high.
	Yeah, that's really high.
	Isn't local election turnout here like 40-something percent, 45%?
	I had a friend who knew about Turkish elections and he would tell me it's like 80% or something in Turkey because people actually take it seriously because they know the value that it has and therefore they go out and use it.
	It's great to hear that turnout.
	As for the SVID stuff, I mean, I remember we spoke about this.
	Hugo was telling us about it because he lives in And he has an ID that he has to carry and then show the police if they ask for it.
	Absolutely not.
	But for voting?
	You know, I'm just coming around to the argument.
	It's too important and there have been too many instances of convicted frauds in the UK. I think we need to be certain that the outcome that we get is legitimate and to maintain a faith in the democracy in the first place you need to have confidence that the result you've got is legitimate and that is only really guaranteed by voter ID. It's not rare enough either.
	I mean, like, if someone messages you and you're watching this and they're like, oh no, voter fraud doesn't exist in the UK or something like that, just send them the article from 2019 looking at Tower Hamlets or send them the one from 2005 Birmingham.
	It's like, this isn't even old.
	It's very recent in political terms.
	That's just the examples we know about as well.
	Yeah, that's the ones where we've got convictions.
	They're done.
	Been to court.
	Andy D. Apparently, according to ITV, four-year-old trans kid is normal.
	Why are they platforming the same argument that child molesters used?
	John's got it on screen.
	I don't know if it's up yet.
	This morning, our four-year-old son is transgender.
	No, you're a child abuser.
	That's what that is.
	Ugh.
	No, the child can't consent.
	I'm sorry.
	I'm sorry that you have...
	One of the judges said she has needs to have a transgender child, but no.
	So backwards as well.
	Surely the child has needs to be raised normally without having ideological nonsense imposed upon them.
	Yeah, I mean, if they turn 18, they want to wear different dresses and blah blah blah.
	It's up to them, yeah.
	But when they're still developing, you don't want to be impeding people's normal development by imposing artificially created nonsense on them.
	It's so bad for them as well.
	And we have an example.
	I mean, as the Daily Mail point out, you know, it's Daily Mail, but it was an actual court case.
	It went to court, and the judge determined that, yeah, this mother and her knees.
	I still can't get over that.
	Sorry, it's a disgusting term.
	Like, I have a need for a transgender child.
	What?
	No, you're a child abuser.
	That's what you are.
	Henry Ashman.
	So things that are now transphobic according to mermaids as you could need photo ID. Voting, driving, travelling abroad, going to nightclubs, buying alcohol, lottery tickets, cigarettes, energy drinks, knives and lighters, getting a job, getting a mortgage, opening a bank account.
	Ashley was right.
	Mermaids should have to choose between legs or a voice.
	Get back in the sea.
	LAUGHTER I didn't spell that, but that was funny.
	It took me a while to get it, but...
	I don't know, I see you.
	I don't know, I see you.
	Brian Tomlinson, the polling station staff will ask a man his address, not why he's in a dress.
	That's true, though.
	I mean, you really think the polling people are going to get a toss?
	They're probably just waiting to get home.
	They normally stay there until 10 o'clock at night, and they're normally pensioners, so they're probably well past their bedtime.
	So, Cynthia Poole, interesting how these mothers are desperate for daughters, really need to send the mothers for mental health treatment or just be prosecuted for child abuse.
	Yes.
	Why not both?
	Yeah.
	I'm sorry, but I have a need for a transgender two-year-old.
	What?
	Like, nunsies also have needs for children.
	No, get in the woodshipper.
	End of.
	Is that John?
	Just someone singing under the sea?
	Student of history, I have a natural inclination to dislike governments getting its pecker in the weeds, and this bill sounds shady as holy hell, especially suddenly tossing out antitrust laws for the entire sector.
	Yes, it seemed really strange to me as well, and loads of media outlets, funnily enough, were reporting on it as being this amazing thing.
	We're sticking it to big tech, yes, we're going to get money, and funnily enough, yeah...
	It's not a good thing for the average person.
	Why do you support this bill?
	Money.
	Mr.
	Krabs mean.
	Well, I don't think they said it quite as explicitly.
	That is what it is.
	SH Silver?
	Is that Shaker Silver?
	Is that shortened down?
	I can't remember.
	Yeah, Shaker Silver.
	He's a good friend.
	It's not surprising Fox would be for this bill.
	They're big business neocons who only want to be part of the in-crowd, of which the neolibs and business.
	They only played lip service to populism when Trump was in.
	The big problem with tech censorship is Section 230, but not in the way most people realise.
	Really, the only way these platforms could exist as platforms is a protection from legal liability from users' speech that they aren't publishing, which is what 230 provides.
	However, because of the clause that allows them to moderate in good faith to remove obscene content, it's been stretched so much to allow these platforms to moderate and algorithmically suppress as much content as they want while dodging liability for the content of their platform.
	This needs to be challenged, especially by the US state legislation like Texas, by protecting users' speech and challenging the protection from liability these platforms have if they continue down this route.
	Florida's bill doesn't do it so well and could be seen as infringing on the speech rights of the platforms on 230 grounds.
	That was a mouthful.
	I don't know the legalities of it.
	He's probably more knowledgeable on this than me, so I don't want to say anything.
	Yeah, he seems to know his stuff.
	I did come across Section 230, but I didn't really look into it too much because it seemed to be something separate, I think, as he says.
	So if you publish something on Facebook, for example, again, rudimentary understanding, it's you that are liable, not Facebook, for hosting it.
	Yeah.
	So, Michael Waters, I own a small manufacturing company, and yes, literally all industry regulatory oversight and associations and crap like that is just gatekeeping.
	My product is 100 times better than the industry standard.
	I don't believe you at all, I know.
	I'm liking his wholesome quotes.
	My Irish parents couldn't understand why the working class would vote for Boris Johnson's Conservatives over the Labour Party.
	Explained it like this.
	Want to see if you agree.
	Labour care more about immigrants than British people.
	They care more about minorities of any class than the working class.
	They care more about culture of foreign peoples than British culture.
	Yeah.
	That's not bad.
	Just yes.
	Yeah.
	I don't know what to post with that.
	I did see something earlier.
	It was in my head.
	I've completely forgotten me now.
	It was just like, you know, we hate this country.
	Like a three-step manifesto pledge was like, that's the Labour Party, but that'll work as well.
	So, sugar supremacist, we need to meme Tiger Patel into being a political superpower on his platform of fix swings and suck this.
	A platform everyone can truly get behind.
	Labor Party, suck this, I'm going to fix the swings.
	He says, on a side note, have you found hosting Callum?
	How have you found hosting Callum?
	Are you enjoying it?
	So first thing on Tiger Patel, you know Parks and Rec, that TV show?
	Do we have a ministerial position for that sort of thing?
	I know you've got the Department of Digital Culture and Sport and whatnot, and the Treasury and so forth.
	There must be a department for public parks or something.
	Why stop there?
	Why not make him Prime Minister?
	I don't know.
	I mean, I don't know the rest of his policies, but I know he's solid on parks, so I want to put him in charge of parks, and then what could possibly go wrong?
	We need some more evidence, but then after that, I think, running for Prime Minister is...
	God, could you imagine if he doesn't get the parks fixed?
	He's going to crucify in the next election.
	Although, if I was Boris Johnson, I'd probably call him up after the election and be like, it's done.
	The central party will fix it.
	We'll donate Conservative Party money if we have to.
	It's going to be like the most futuristic park in existence in Britain.
	It's going to be second to none.
	Because think about it, I mean, you just, because everyone knows him at this point, in which case, next general election, Boris Johnson goes down there, does a big interview about the whole thing, and is like, hey, look, look, voter conservative!
	He could co-host Boris, and they do, like, a video where neither of them would say anything, and they just walk around, like, swing the futuristic swings, and be like, yeah, look at that, and then, like, look at the floor, yeah, yeah, diamond-crusted, like...
	We're going to have an enclosure.
	There's just going to be a live tiger in there.
	It's just the question of who's better.
	Pretty Patel or Tiger Patel?
	We'll see.
	It's a tough one.
	Alistair Crowley.
	The other comment, though.
	Hosting.
	Oh, sorry.
	It's weird, but you get used to it.
	Alistair Crowley.
	I live in London.
	Again, stop and search due to it being a violation of privacy.
	The correct solution would be get rid of the duty retreat and the right to bear arms.
	I'd agree with that, but the government's not going to do it, so stopgap, I guess, but I would love to bring back right to bare arms.
	I see the chat is asking whether or not Taika Patel speaks English or not.
	We don't know.
	It doesn't matter.
	Well, we don't know.
	That's the brilliant thing.
	We've seen enough.
	That's all that matters.
	Doesn't speak a word of English, but knows what's right.
	It's like the North Korean defector who was running for the Conservatives.
	Did he get the C or not?
	Did we know?
	I didn't actually look that up.
	That was one of the few Cs I wanted to find out.
	North Korean defector Conservative Party.
	So I'll read this next one anyway.
	So, Angel Brain.
	I mean, Labour are starting to identify with their name.
	Painful contractions.
	A fear of immediate future.
	Cursing your partner.
	Any way they deviate is replacing the mother with a birther and getting rid of red spreading everywhere.
	Birther.
	All right.
	Thanks for the horrible imagery.
	Yeah, thanks, mate.
	North Korean defector Yin Yun Park hopes to make history as Tory candidate for local elections.
	Did they make history?
	13 years ago, standing for the Conservatives in Greater Manchester, so probably not.
	Tory ballot in Burry?
	Well, let's check out Burry.
	See how many votes you got?
	Based Burry, Council...
	I'm just doing this live.
	Do you want to read more questions?
	Yeah, sure.
	So, Henry Ashman.
	The other big issue Labour have with working class is they don't distinguish between those who are poor and those who want to work.
	Getting a fair day's pay for honest work and the dosser class that Tony Blair created.
	The dossers want the gibbs.
	The workers want to work.
	Who are Labour made up of and target their manifesto at because it's not the latter.
	That's true.
	You know what's weird as well?
	I think it was Rachel Reeves, the person they've just been in charge of chancellorship in Labour, she actually got in a load of trouble because back in, I think it was 2016, she had said the Labour Party needs to be the party of the working class, not the, I think she used like slum class or some phrase like that, which essentially meaning if you're on the dole and don't want to work, F you, we're not going to represent you.
	Yes.
	Which I mean, what's wrong with that?
	Like there are reasons like, you know, I'm so disabled I literally can't work.
	Okay, there's a reason there.
	But the people who just don't want to.
	Why should Labour represent them?
	Why should anyone care about them if they're not contributing?
	Literally freeloading off them.
	Alex Ogle, FFS, even Angela Rayner's lesson is dripping with class warfare.
	Socialists can never get past their need for power.
	By the way, matcha, pronounced maca, is a green tea that tastes like pulverised lawn clippings.
	Very appealing.
	It's the kind of drink that women who want to convince themselves that they need to eat healthily claim is delicious.
	See Jorg Rockall Schmitt's wonderful video on Selling Starvation, the shameful story of Teddy Mellencamp for logical conclusions of women who obsess over diet.
	Just sent John the North Korean stuff.
	Sorry, I missed that question entirely because I was...
	It's essentially about the weird tea that supposedly these metropolitan types drink that taste like lawn clippings.
	I think I've tried Maco cake and whatnot before, and yeah, you're right, it doesn't really taste of anything.
	I've never even heard of it before.
	Yeah, I think it's Japanese or something, but not a huge fan of their T anyway.
	Yeah, if you do Ctrl-F and type in Park, because that's her last name, and then she should come up, hopefully.
	She didn't win.
	Park.
	So, yeah, Park Yehun, or however you say it.
	She got 984 votes, so where's that?
	About 500 short of the Communist.
	Kevin Eric Peel for the Labour Party there, and then someone else who also got a seat.
	At least she tried.
	At least she tried.
	Good gal.
	What if she should do an interview?
	I'd do that.
	It'd be fun.
	So why do you hate the Labour Party?
	I bet she's got amazing things to say about the Labour Party.
	So, Duffy B, these colourised clips from the rally in Nuremberg are wild.
	The guy at the end, he literally does that, and you're just like, oh my god.
	He literally does it.
	The best part is, I've sort of clipped it there, because that's the full clip.
	I couldn't go back and find the original from the time stream.
	But he does it, and then he changes it to a fist, and he's like, no, no, I meant this, I meant this.
	Like that's any better.
	Radical centrist God.
	A Labour Party conference clip.
	My mind, the stupidity.
	We need a referendum whether or not shooting people out of cannons is morally repugnant when the ammunition are literal communists.
	Disavow that comment.
	I disavow also, but also found it funny.
	I would also have a firing squad to shoot them if they left the cannon, but that's just me.
	Goddamn communists.
	I do not condone these comments.
	Disavow that comment too.
	So, Andy D, lads, it's my birthday.
	Can I get a wag?
	Wag!
	Boys, let's get to fighting!
	Happy birthday, by the way.
	Happy birthday.
	Probably could have said that.
	Dylan Bradford, apparently, do-do-do-do-do, Dr Fauci says mask wearing may become seasonal to prevent flu spread.
	I call this mumps in advance.
	I asked, based on their logic, where is the Democrat line in the sand that's going to prevent them from making us do this all the time for something like the flu?
	Dr.
	Fauci!
	Well, the funny thing is, before all of this kicked off, I kind of admired people in, like, Japan, because when they're ill, they wear a mask so they don't get anyone else ill.
	I think that's, like, great social responsibility.
	So if people do it in that sense, I don't mind.
	If it's, like, an optional thing that's, like, civically minded, then fine.
	There's what we already had, and now we don't have that.
	I know.
	Instead, they're forcing it on people who are not ill.
	And it's like, okay, why?
	It's a bit unnecessary, isn't it?
	Nitrocellulose doormat.
	Had the misfortune of having to do training on being an ally for work this week.
	I like to say something positive about it, but I had more informative training on how to smile to the customer when I worked for a supermarket as a teenager.
	Only its very low rating brought a smile to my face.
	This is a reminder to everyone to shout out to your boss, directors, and call it what it is, a waste of money that is coming out of your company's training budget that should be spent on improving your skills, not massaging the ego of someone who can't do a proper job.
	Most bosses will not want to argue with you, and the more you complain, the more likely the companies will stop wasting money.
	100% agree.
	I mean, if you're in a position to get rid of these kind of things, I mean, there are going to be loads of people below you who are not in that position and would love to be, to defund it.
	And if you're in that position, defund it.
	I mean, it's your money you're wasting here.
	I mean, take some of that and add it to your salary, if you're the boss.
	Because, I mean, otherwise it's just burnt cash.
	I mean, you can even just point, you don't even need to say anything too controversial.
	You could just say, okay, well, the UK government has banned this for the civil service and there's no real evidence that it works and it can backfire.
	So why spend money on it?
	Frame it like that and just say, well, I don't really believe in it, but I'll do it if it means, you know, I keep my job.
	And then who's going to see that as unreasonable unless you've got a really unreasonable boss?
	But I think it's important to let people know that you don't agree with it.
	If you just silently go along with it, then it's never going to change.
	I don't want to get back at this debate.
	I've had this debate with Carl, sorry.
	Do you believe in keeping your head down or something?
	It depends on the circumstances.
	Okay.
	Can you do something?
	Can you do something?
	Well, if you just say something very reasonable, just like, I don't necessarily agree with this and I just wanted to let you know, but I'll still go along with it.
	What can they do?
	Why would you still go along with it?
	Yeah.
	Well, if you want to keep your job, you're going to just put up with it, right?
	I'm not going to get into the debate because we've had this a million times.
	Hammurabi VI, I read a report yesterday on the literal millions of non-biodegradable masks being tossed every day.
	What are the chances we get an article or video on the ever-rising cost of lockdowns?
	Good luck.
	How would you even calculate it?
	I mean, I'm thankful to the insurance industry being able to calculate the cost of the George Floyd riots, which was, what, like $6 billion or something?
	Really that much?
	Yeah.
	Wow.
	Because it's insurance claims, so the amount of people have had their stuff burnt down.
	And that was their estimate, so...
	I mean, they've got no reason to lie.
	Or at least none I can think of.
	Just incredible.
	Hello, gents and Vicky.
	Callum, you're doing a mighty fine job leading the show.
	It's nice to see you evolving in your role.
	I subscribed as a Silver member in January, but I'm considering moving up just because of all your great efforts and work.
	I'm getting on it again with the marathon preparations.
	Just hearing you guys laugh your hearts out about politics and the state of the world while I'm jogging away is just the best.
	Wish you all the best and keep the memes coming.
	That's nice.
	Very nice to hear.
	We cheer up your running.
	Carl will be back.
	I see some people asking, what is it?
	It's not this week.
	Next Monday I think he's off, and then I think he's back.
	But don't quote me.
	I might be wrong.
	He might need more days or something, but we'll come to that bridge when we come to it.
	Also, good luck with the marathon.
	Josh likes running.
	Not so much anymore.
	After Christmas, it got a lot harder.
	Freakish Rash, I've been hearing that the UK will be using the NHS track and trace app to somehow prove if we've had the jab or not.
	If that's the case, I won't be going abroad anytime soon.
	So my question is, what are some nice places in the UK to visit you guys recommend?
	Well, I'm from the southwest, so I'm going to say Devon and Cornwall, always good for a holiday.
	Lovely countryside, particularly recommend Dartmoor.
	Lots of beaches.
	It's about as warm as you can get without going to France, which at the minute I probably don't want to do.
	Not too hospitable to us.
	Just get some scones and just enjoy it, you know?
	Mm-hmm.
	Mm-hmm.
	When we went to Newcastle, it was great.
	I don't know why, but just the people there.
	It was just a million times better than being, especially London, but the south or central Reading, where I live, for example.
	Everyone's friendly.
	You feel like you can get along with everyone there.
	We just sat out looking at the sea and eating KFC for the evening.
	It was great.
	I wasn't expecting you to say that against Newcastle.
	Just for a day if you want to.
	It's either right.
	Right.
	So, David Fake, last name.
	Good morning, lads.
	Glad to see someone else hates Blafrica wall in Reading 2.
	I grew up there and had to see that rubbish every time I went to LaserQuest.
	Q for Callum.
	Are you involved in local politics or town council?
	You'd be a great asset.
	No, I'm not.
	Black Africa is a bit of a weird way of putting it, but it's certainly...
	Because it's not that.
	It's not even got anything really to do with Africa.
	It's just leftist ideology.
	They start with, you know, blacks run ancient Egypt.
	It's just like, oh god, the amount of memes you can bring out.
	But then they just go on to quote loads of civil rights movements in the US. And, you know, shock horror, I'm in favour of the civil rights movements in the US. But what does it have to do with British history?
	Nothing.
	What does it have to do with history in Reading?
	It gets even worse when you say it's a local monument.
	It's like, for what?
	Ancient Egypt stuff isn't even correct.
	The Ptolemaic dynasty.
	That's why it's such a meme, you know?
	I mean, literally...
	They didn't even get that part right that isn't even related.
	The Labour Run Council is literally we was Kangs.
	It's like, oh, okay.
	I've got to get the image someday.
	I'll put it up after we finish the segment at some point.
	There's some guys who went down there and they had a shirt which was a bunch of Like a white family, like a white dad, a white mom, and they brought their white kid.
	They had a shirt, all of them wearing it.
	I'm sorry for slavery.
	And then they had like this wooden thing that was like connecting their necks with like chains on.
	And they knelt in front of this mural that's just loads of like, you know, leftist ideology.
	It's the weirdest thing to see, but it really gets across.
	It's just people say, you know, what's the point in local politics?
	You know, as you say, 40% turnout.
	Why is that there?
	Why is that still being funded with my tax money?
	I mean, if you own it, if you own those bricks and you want to paint something on it, don't care.
	Do what you want.
	Write whatever, you know, scroll your name with the word, you know, wuzzier or something.
	But to waste my tax money on something that's so obviously got nothing to do with British history, never mind Reading's history, it's awful.
	It's also annoying that it always has to be political.
	I wouldn't even mind, like, money being spent on beautifying certain areas, but just make it apolitical.
	Like, I don't know, draw a nice scenery on some horrendous brickwork, make it look a bit better.
	Yeah, a picture of the countryside around Reading, so we can feel like we don't live in the city too much.
	But no, we was Kangs.
	They literally went with that.
	It's...
	I'm going to Google it, so I wonder if there's a good photo for John to get on the screen, in case his forehead is watching, who don't know.
	So, Ignacio Junquera, the need for a transgender daughter is one of the things that makes me see the argument of children belong to their parents that Carl makes as an avenue to allowing things like that to happen.
	I don't have a solution, but I still think that children are the property of anyone.
	I think he means aren't.
	But no, I agree that...
	Parents shouldn't really be imposing things like that on their children, and it's obviously going to be damaging to them.
	So, no, obviously don't do that.
	Okay, we've got the image of the...
	I don't know why you can see it, but you see that there, on the far left there?
	That's where the mural starts.
	I mean, it's literally a meme.
	It's not a very charitable depiction, either.
	No, it's...
	God.
	And then it goes off to African kings, who probably would have been selling slaves anyway, so I don't know why they included that.
	But then it goes on to Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement in the US, and they've got quotes from Malcolm X there.
	It's not the person you really want to be quoting on your walls.
	It's got nothing to do with Reading, never mind Britain.
	It's really weird.
	And my money pays for that.
	It's my money.
	That's why I'm sorry about it.
	Someone else's money, who do I care?
	Looking at it now, I can see why you're annoyed, because it's not even like they did a good job.
	It's cartoonish, almost.
	Anyway, caffeinated century name.
	The year is 2765.
	No one knows why we wear masks every winter, but it's a celebration called flu season.
	Everyone buys special masks and cards from Amazon.
	The Ides of Fauci or something.
	Anyway, we've run out of time, so we will end there.
	As I say, go and check out at 3 o'clock, so that's in an hour and a half.
	The Voice of Wales interview will be up at lotuses.com.
	That's one where we did the...
	Me and John went down to the March of Freedom, and we ran into Voice of Wales, the guys who have been persecuted by the British state, and then...
	I mean, this is the horrible thing.
	They had a YouTube account, they had a Facebook account, Twitter account.
	Okay, they're censorious B-words at the best of times, and they'll censor you.
	Now, the reason they censored them was because the local Welsh government and the national broadcaster, the BBC... They decided to lobby those organisations to get rid of them.
	That's why they're gone.
	It's like government organisations that are meant to be non-partisan, and they're going out of their way.
	The Labour Party is essentially the government of Wales, so that would be obviously partisan.
	But they went out of their way to do that, and that's horrifying.
	Imagine that happening.
	It's like a Soviet official just writing, he's a bad egg, and then you're gone.
	So there's that.
	That's 3 o'clock.
	Go and check that out.
	I didn't assume to have done anything wrong and the way they've been treated is unbelievable.
	Also, the article from Ian Malchong.
	Go and check out that.
	But that's just for premium members.
	The Voice of Wales thing is free.
	Otherwise, we'll be back tomorrow at 1 o'clock.
	Thank you and goodbye.

▲