All Episodes
Previous Next
May 26, 2021 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters
01:30:10
The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #140
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters for the 26th of May 2021.
I'm joined by Beau, and today we're going to be talking about the Home Office obfuscation of anti-white hate crimes, the National Trust and how that went broke, sorry, went woke, and is now almost broke, and also the Tory Islamophobia report.
So, you know, the Labour Party accused themselves of Islamophobia.
Tories have decided to do the same, I guess, for good fun, good measure, whatever, weird party.
So, the first thing I wanted to mention was some of the stuff we have on notice.com.
So, this is the article by Hugo that he's put out recently.
So, this story, I haven't been able to focus on it massively, but he's done a good summation here, of Belarus hijacking a commercial flight to then arrest a journalist who was on the plane.
It was a really messed up situation, and it's causing a big stir in Europe and in Britain.
Because the plane was flying over Belarus and then the Belarusian government decided they'd land it in Belarus under suspicious circumstances, I'd say.
And they've taken a guy off the plane and arrested him for criticising the country.
So every flight is now redirecting themselves around the country because essentially they're like sky pirates stealing planes out of the sky.
Makes sense.
The guy's like an old-school dictator, isn't he?
Yeah, proper type.
So, good God, what a mess.
But I don't know what's going to happen in response, but it's a hell of a tense situation.
Anyway, so the only other thing I wanted to mention here is the first thing we're going to go over, as I mentioned, was the Home Office obfuscation of anti-white hate crimes.
So it's a rather long article we're going to go through, and if you want to share this with someone who doesn't have the time to look through a whole video or a whole bunch of stuff, Rory's done a summation here that he's just finished, so this is a summation of the details of what we're about to go through.
But without further ado, let's go through them.
So this is going to be kind of long, I think, but it's going to be good.
So previously, a lady called Ella Hill contacted us and wanted to publish an open letter to response to the Home Office.
She's a victim of the grooming gangs, I believe, in Rotherham.
And is now, you know, out there being an activist of trying to, you know, find ways to stop that sort of thing and to hinder their crimes.
So this was the open letter she wrote, accusing the UK Home Office of Institutional Racism in this respect of not taking seriously anti-white hate crime, especially.
So when you're convicting someone from a grooming gang and they say, I raped her because she's a white S-word or a effing kafar, you know, non-believer, Well, okay, if this was any other way around, we would say this is hate crime and the government isn't.
So she made that.
The Home Office has responded, which is just the next link we have here.
So they responded in here.
But they didn't really address Ella's points in this response, which I found weird, like her points about hate crime.
So she's issued a second response, which should be the next link here.
And we're going to go through that because she's done some digging.
And being the smart cookie she is, she's really found some stuff here.
And we're going to go through it and assess it.
So, in this we're going to be talking about hate crimes and non-crime hate incidences, which in the UK are used as a measure of intolerance, in case you're wondering.
I asked a police officer this personally, and he said, yeah, that's the reason we do it, to measure intolerance, which, yeah, okay, then you have to measure the intolerance of every group, surely.
And for what purpose?
Are you keeping records on your degree of intolerance?
Why?
For what purpose?
Because the government tells them to, and the government of the day that made this happen was Tony Blair's government, the Marxist government.
So, yeah.
So, just for the links, so this is very quick, we have the first link here, which is just the population stats, so that's where we're getting population from, from the government.
Next one here is the hate crime stats, which again are from the government.
And then the third one here is a parliamentary report from the government.
So that's where all of the information is coming from if you want to find out these specific screenshots in your own time, or you can go to the article on notices.com and get the links from there without further ado.
So if we go back to the article...
This is Ella Hill saying in here, so she argues, I am writing in response to your kind letter dated 19th of May.
Thank you for acknowledging that grooming gang crime is hate crime, but the Home Office still hasn't addressed my complaint about racial and religious discrimination, outlined in my open letter dated 19th of April.
The institutional racism and religious discrimination that I have experienced from police, CPS, media, counselling services, the BBC, and hate crime services, outlined in my previous letter, all stems from the biased practices and misleading documents produced by the Home Office Hate Crime Unit.
Hate Crime Unit here being the wokest part of the Home Office.
I mean, no surprise there.
I was just going to say, what a surprise.
Yeah, I mean, if you're looking for people who would be rabid wokest, the people who work in the Hope Crime Office...
Isn't it just another symptom of the upside-down world, the clown world, various things people want to say, just the inversion, the subversion of anything and everything?
And it's at the most core level, like you say, where they've infiltrated the very intelligence services, the hate crime unit of the Home Office.
I mean, my opinion's always long been that this shouldn't really exist, but if it is going to exist, as Ella points out correctly, well, if it does exist, then it needs to do its job properly, and its job properly would be perpetrating against hate crime, people who commit hate crimes on all spectrums, whether or not it's against white people, white people, or so on and so forth.
So that's what she argues that they're not doing.
She says, for years now, the Home Office hate reports and House of Commons briefing papers are deeply statistically flawed, racially and religious discriminatory, and demonstrate a harmful left-wing political ideological bias.
So, point one she makes.
The way the race hate data is presented deliberately hides the fact that the largest proportion of hate, sorry, race hate crimes in England and Wales are anti-white hate crimes, over 41%.
So if we go to the first image here, so this is the first piece of data they show here.
So this is what you find in the report.
And as you can see, it's a percentage of adults over age 16 who were victims of racially motivated hate crime.
And then it has the weighting, so it doesn't give you a percentage per group.
And in the white section there, it's 0.1.
So 0.1% of the white population of England and Wales over two years will be victims of a hate crime.
Well, that seems very low.
So, yeah, that's how they present it.
You can see it's high for every other group there.
And so this is what you'd get from it.
If you're a layman or just a minister or anyone else and you saw the Home Office, you know, civil servants have brought you, okay, yeah, white hate crime seems to be very low, the lowest, in fact, so therefore not really worthy of consideration.
It appears there's hardly any hate crime being committed against white people.
Yeah, so she...
Because you can take this number and you can just run it backwards and then see what the actual numbers were that they're hiding from you.
And she did.
So if we can get the next image up, this is, as you list, the hidden data of those over age 16 who were victims of racially motivated hate crime.
As you can see there, the white waiting census data.
So then you make the approximate number of crimes.
And then there you go.
41% of hate crimes committed in the England world over two years are against white people.
So to show it as a weighting percentage is just a cheap statistical trick.
Well, it's a useful piece of data because you want to show what number of people in the category.
But to represent it like that, just like that, that's just cheap.
What's misleading is to just have the weighting and nothing else, when you know that's not the full story.
And they'll do the reverse later on.
They'll show the percentage, but not the weighting.
And there'll be the obvious reason for that.
And you might be thinking, well, okay, white people in 2010, out-of-date data, but it's the best we have, 87% of the population of Britain were classified as white, whereas only 41% of the victims of hate crimes are white.
Therefore, you know, they're underrepresented and whatnot.
That doesn't really make sense when you think about it, though, because you've got to think, well, 14% of the population are non-white, and presumably white people aren't committing hate crimes against each other on the basis of being white...
I mean, this is racially motivated hate crime, not ethnically motivating hate crime.
So we're not looking at English people who hate Polish people and are committing hate crime.
We're looking at non-white people who attack white people.
So 14% of the population, the non-white population, are committing 41% of the hate crimes.
Those against white people there.
And the Home Office chose to not include that statistic and instead just include the weightings.
So 0.1% of all white people are hate crime victims within two years.
So to do that just speaks to me of just a dirty, underhanded use of statistics.
Deliberately misleading.
If you are a wokist in the Home Office, this is what you would do.
And they did do this, and I don't know why you'd have any other argument for not including the full data, as Ella has calculated here, except ideological.
So she's not wrong that that's disgusting that they left that out there.
It's just the case.
But yeah, okay.
And you can guess what the reasons are, obviously.
So if we go on to the next image, so this is another section they have in here, in which they say that victims of racist hate crimes in London in the 12 months from June 2017, those of black ethnicity constituted the largest proportion, 30% of all victims who have suffered racist hate crime, following those of Asian and white North European descent being 25% each.
So in London, 25% of the victims are white, North European, 25% Asian, 30% black, and therefore it's showing you here that black people are the most victimized group of hate crimes.
She says, There's also been a cherry-picking of the data from high black ethnicity population areas of England, where there are proportionally more anti-black hate crime, 30%, compared to the national average of 15%, which was hidden from us in the report.
Didn't list the fact that nationally it's 15%, so raising up there.
The national anti-white hate crime percentage, which is the highest overall percentage of race hate crime, 41%, so the largest group nationally, this has been deliberately completely admitted from the report.
And the data is deliberately skewed to deceive readers into thinking that anti-white hate crime is a much smaller problem nationally, which is not true.
Right, so you've got lying by omission there, you've got cherry-picking, you've just got the sort of untruthful use of statistics, really, across the board.
All against white people from our own home office.
Why, though?
It's odd, isn't it?
I mean, we know wokeness...
Just virtual signalling wokeness, is that it?
Is there anything more sinister than that?
It's not just virtue signalling, they're promoting an ideological worldview here.
And, you know, they've done it, as we did our last podcast on, within the military, they've done it within the RAF, they've done it within the security services.
Why would they not do it in the hate crimes unit?
I mean, why does the hate crime unit even exist?
Because of these kind of people.
One other thing she doesn't mention, but Carl brought up when she mentioned all this, was localization is something that would be important here.
So this 41% is 41% nationally of all hate crimes.
But you've got to think, in Devon, how many white-on-white hate crimes are there, or non-white-on-white hate crimes?
Right, yeah.
Well, there's no racial diversity.
You're not going to get racial hate crimes across racial lines, because it just can't happen.
That doesn't make any logical sense.
So in which case, that 41% only accounts for racially diverse areas.
And in which case, you're not looking at comparing 41% to the national average of 87% white.
You're looking at comparing it to what is that percentage of white people in those racially diverse areas.
Right, so in a place that is very racially diverse, you know, somewhere in Birmingham or Ilford, Stratford, something like that in London.
What's the percentage of white people?
So it's just white people having hate crimes committed against them on a large scale, on a massive scale.
It's not happening in Devon and Cornwall, so it's going to be happening there, in which case what's the percentage of white people in Peckham?
We don't know because they don't give the data, but that's something that is not considered at all.
So the next image here is image four.
So this is the sentencing data, so she mentions.
The report doesn't have categories for hate crimes targeted against someone's, quote, lack of religion or, quote, lack of religious belief.
This omission is clear religious discrimination against victims targeted for having a perceived lack of religious belief.
This includes grooming gang victims.
Certainly does.
When the groomers are saying, you're an effing kaffir, you're a non-believer, you're a non-Muslim, therefore it's okay to rape you, that's discrimination, that's them committing a hate crime on the basis of you not believing.
In case you're wondering, yes, in the UK we have rules on this sort of thing, as she links in the current legislation about this sort of thing, references to religious groups are to a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief.
So it's not just being an atheist, but if the chap who's attacking you attacks you because you don't believe in his belief, because you don't believe in anything, that's a hate crime.
And that is not listed in the hate crime data we have in the UK. The hate crime unit doesn't collect data on lack of religious belief, even though the legislation around this entire topic says that you must.
That's interesting.
I wonder why they would do that.
I wonder why they'd take that angle.
Interesting, isn't it?
Just to minimise...
Like, you know, apostasy.
If you leave...
If you're an apostate, if you leave the religion...
If you leave Islam, the punishment in Islam is death.
Yeah.
So if someone goes around and kills you for leaving Islam, is that a hate crime?
Right, that's going to be my question.
According to the Home Office, no.
So we go to the next one here.
So this is another point she makes here.
So you see, again, the switcheroo, in which they present the data that is most favorable to the wokest position.
So this is a data table showing the number of religious motivated hate crimes that are recorded to the police.
As you can see there, Muslim listed as 50% of all hate crimes over the year that's given.
So 50% of all hate crimes in that year are against Muslims.
And what would you construe from that?
Well, Muslims are a very oppressed group in the UK. Look how much they're being attacked for their religious beliefs.
How horrible is this?
Except, no.
The way that the religious hate crime data is presented emphasizes the overall proportion of recorded hate crime against people who are perceived to be Muslim.
50%.
This has the effect of disproportionately inflating the suffering by false statistical comparison of Muslim hate crime victims.
Might sound rough, but it's true.
So if you give us the next slide here, this is her data, because of course you have to take into account the per capita, how many hate crimes per capita of Muslims.
So if you go to the next slide, John.
This is up here.
So then she's done exactly this.
She's taken the number from the last slide.
She's taken the census data from the government of how many Muslims are in the UK, weighting 0.1%.
A Muslim is as likely to be a victim of hate crime as a white person on average throughout the country.
Home Office says that.
Home Office data.
No one else's.
As you can see, they're Jewish.
As for them, five times more likely than a Muslim to be targeted for their religious belief, according to the Home Office.
Something that was not clear in the previous class.
Instead, it was like 19% of them are Jewish.
Is there a breakdown if it's Muslim or Muslim?
You know, the Shia, Sunni, when they battle each other in the streets and things?
Or is it just assumed that it's white people committing...
It's assumed that it's non-Muslims attacking Muslims, because that sort of data, too much for the Home Office, I guess.
So she mentions in here...
The report hides the fact that weighting anti-Muslim hate crimes is only 0.1% of the population of Muslim who are victims, which is the same weighting as anti-white hate crimes as listed by the Home Office.
So when someone comes to you, Home Office, and says, look at this data, 50% of all victims of hate crimes are Muslims, you must give Telmama millions of pounds or whatever.
No.
They're just giving you a skewed data in the hopes that you will be misled.
Well, that is what the hate crime unit presumably did in the writings here in which they sent to the parliamentary inquiry.
Interesting why they do that.
Do they think that the average person is stupid or can't read or can't use a calculator or something?
What do they think?
Who do they think?
Oh, no one's going to bother reading it and going in there.
But people like Ella Hill exist and she's done a good job.
So if we go to the next one here, this is just the next link.
This is amazing.
The report says that data for anti-Muslim terrorist attacks is included as hate crime, including Finsbury Park mosque attack.
But not data for religiously aggravated attacks carried out by Muslims against people perceived to be non-Muslims, including the Manchester Arena bombing.
This is clearly religious discrimination against the victims who are targeted for, quote, lack of Muslim belief.
And the quote from the Home Office here, Some terrorist attacks may be targeted against the general British or Western values, rather than one of the five specific strands.
Attacks of this nature are therefore not covered by the statistical bulletin, although they were clearly motivated by hate.
However, other terrorist attacks are motivated by a hatred towards one centrally monitored hate crime strands covered by this statistical bulletin.
For example, the Finsbury Park Mosque attack in 2017 has been classed as a hate crime.
So for people who don't know, Finsbury Park Mosque attack was after a series of Islamically inspired terrorist attacks.
A guy went in his van who hated Muslims and drove down some Muslim guys at Finsbury Park Mosque.
And that's classified as a hate crime because he's clearly targeting them because of being Muslim.
That's true.
Everything there is by the books.
But in those terrorist attacks that came before, so London Bridge, if a guy goes on London Bridge and he's Muslim and he shouts, and then drives his van into a bunch of non-believers, that's not a hate crime because he's targeting the general British or he is against Western values.
So says the Home Office.
So it's hard at this point, at this kind of point, to view them as anything other than working directly against our interests.
I mean, that's simply what's going on.
The Finsbury Park mosque attack is a hate crime and Manchester Arena wasn't.
What on earth?
I mean, I like using the example of London Bridge there because, I mean, it's literally, you know, almost exactly the same.
Guy in a van running down people on the sidewalk.
In one instance, it's a non-Muslim running down Muslims.
And in the other instance, it's Muslims running down non-Muslims.
One is a hate crime, one is not.
But again, this thing that if it's against one of the five specific strands, I don't even know really what that means or anything.
It's nonsense, isn't it?
Gender, religious belief, sexuality, so on and so forth.
Yeah, nonsense.
So it just doesn't really seem to make any sense.
Again, it's like a very cheap, simplistic word game, word trick that they're trying to play on you to justify some nonsense.
No?
This is Wokest Strategy 101.
I mean, it's not that complicated or deep or anything, though.
It's sort of right in your face, isn't it?
Yeah.
Anyone who actually reads it, I mean, like we're presenting here, and like Ella made us aware, thank you, Ella, it's absurd.
But we'll go to the next one here.
So the next one here is when we look at offenders by ethnicity.
So this is an image showing the percentage of offenders by ethnicity, and this is accurate data they present here.
So it is the data they have, which is, so in 2012, 87% of offenders were white, 4.8% were black, and then 4.3% were Asian.
These are offenders, so the people committing the crimes.
And then in 2016, because of demographic shift, presumably, 83% of them are white, 7.4% are black, and 6.4% are Asian.
So the white percentage there is pretty much in line with what you would expect the white population to be.
White population is about 87% white in 2010, and therefore as it slowly goes down because of demographic shift presumably, it's in line with that.
But at the same time as they present this, they see that the biggest group committing hate crimes are white people, a big shot.
Most people in the UK are white.
What's of interest in this sort of thing is the disproportionality, something that they don't make clear.
So Ella says, Which is not true.
Black perpetrators are.
That's a fact, no matter how you feel about it.
Read the next link here.
So this is just the convictions.
Again, home office data by ethnicity.
And then Ella's done the good work here in the next one, which is just of her listing the weightings.
And as you can see, for the offenders, the weightings here, 0.01% of the black community are hate crime offenders in any given year.
That's the data.
That's raw data.
No arguing with it.
If you want to know the white percentage, because it only went to 2.6 figs, it was a half of that.
And for whites, it was 0.00469, if we want to get a large number of significant figures there.
But it's half the percentage.
And yet, the presentation that the Home Office gave was...
Look, white people are being the most ones who are being offenders.
It's not accurate.
It's just not accurate.
What weirdo freak traitors?
Why are they doing that?
Why?
I don't get it.
There's also the thing there, the 0.01%, I must make clear.
It is small, it is very small, but it is statistically significant.
That is why it's worth looking at.
I don't want to give anyone the impression that black people are all hate crime offenders or something like that in case someone's drinking paint thinnerism thinking.
It's 0.01% of the population of blacks in the UK are convicted of hate crime every single year.
But it is much lower for whites, and why did the Home Office misrepresent those results?
So, if we go to the next one, someone mentioned not all hate crimes are equal in their weight.
That's a true statement.
Someone saying mean words to you online is not the same as someone raping you because of your skin tone.
Simple as.
However, this is what was presented by the Home Office in their report about hate crimes.
Now, as you can see here, sexual offences that are, you know, the fullest of hate crimes by the prosecution, you know, category for offence.
You can see sexual offence is 0.2%.
So, Ella says on here...
Only 0.2% of the prosecuted hate crimes are sexual assaults, which confirms what we have been told.
Police and CPS have not been trained to record or prosecute sexual assaults as racially or religiously aggravated offenses, whilst they have been actively encouraged to prescribe public disorder offenses and online communications as racially and religiously aggravated offenses.
So someone's mean words on Twitter.
When multiple sexual offences are prosecuted as racially aggravated, they are often only charged as one single rape.
So, 100 rape counts are the same as one hate speech hate crime.
This is unfair.
Putting it mildly.
So if one girl is raped by 100 men, I mean we saw recently, what was it, 52 men, sorry, it was 29 men or something like that, we're all convicted of raping one girl, well that's one rape, because that's one girl, and that's equal to one mean tweet in the data.
So that's something to keep in mind.
Because remember, when we're talking about the grooming gang situation, we're not talking about mean tweets.
We're talking about rapes.
She finishes off here by saying, the combined effects of these factors, and then she lists all the factors, it's too long to read right now, but there's all of them in there, you can read in the article, proves that there has been a deliberate institutional cover-up of grooming gang crime for the past 14 years.
So her argument is that the hate crime unit, the wokest unit in the home office, presents data in a way to admit stark data points, such as Muslims being just at risk of being victims as the average white person.
To omit them.
Yeah, to omit them.
Or the most likely perpetrator of a hate crime is a black male.
Why are they omitting these things?
Well, ideology.
Well, that's what I was asking before, just very quickly.
You say, well, we know why, because of sort of the wokest ideology, but...
Does that fully explain it?
Just to my mind, it doesn't seem to fully explain it.
It seems like there's something even more perverse going on psychologically in the minds of these permanent secretaries and the civil servants that work at the Home Office.
So we have a few supporters who work at the civil service and everything they tell me is the entire thing is woke as heck and it really does influence everything they do, which is why they're so awful.
So, our central argument being that they're admitting all this data, and this helps the gooming grangs by hiding the level of anti-white or anti-non-believer kuffar hate crimes, many of which the Home Office admits or doesn't even take record of.
I mean, for example, terrorism instance there.
If I bomb someone tomorrow after converting to Islam, that's not a hate crime because I'm attacking the general public.
But if I don't convert, that is a hate crime.
It doesn't make any sense.
I mean, also the point of excluding under-16s.
Very valid point by Ella.
Most of the grooming gang victims are under-16, in which case if they are convicted of the men when the victim is 14, well, they're not put down as a victim of a hate crime, even though they've been raped for their race and religion.
And also the admission of lack of belief crime.
If someone is not a Muslim and they are raped by a Muslim man who rapes them because he believes raping non-Muslims is okay, he's not committing a hate crime, according to the Home Office.
Whereas if the opposite was true, of course it would be a hate crime.
She's just correct on this, and I look forward to the Home Office response.
Defend yourselves, because this is awful.
I can't believe they would leave all of this stuff out, and we know why, let's be honest.
I mean, it's sickening, isn't it?
It's the act of enemies.
It's what enemies would do to us, isn't it?
You're right.
I don't really have anything else to say, so...
It's just gross, isn't it?
So yeah, let's go to the next segment.
So, you want to tell me about the National Trust?
Oh, right, yeah, okay.
Yeah, well, people might know I've been on a couple times before, I did a white pill Wednesday.
The numbers weren't great on that, so we're going to revert back to a good old-fashioned red pill.
Yeah, just talk about, I thought I'd talk a bit about the National Trust, because that's sort of in my wheelhouse, being a history nerd, massive fan of history, I thought I'd talk about that.
And the National Trust, for any Americans or any foreigners who might not necessarily know, There's two main organisations in Britain, English Heritage and the National Trust that look after, basically are supposed to look after a lot of our heritage physically, the stately homes and the gardens, the landscaped parks, all things like this, palaces, various things.
And so it's their job to have looked after those and they've been doing that for over 120 odd years.
It's sort of a Victorian thing originally, just, you know, wanted to preserve our history in many ways.
When they were first established, one of the main tenants they gave themselves was to, quote, promote the permanent preservation of lands and buildings of beauty or historic interest.
So that's what the National Trust is supposed to be.
That's what they're supposed to do.
But as we were saying earlier, so many different organisations or parts of our culture and society have been taken over by WOKIS. And unfortunately, English Heritage and the National Trusts are way up there.
And it feeds into part of what you guys were talking about earlier in the week with the George Floyd, how would you describe?
Cultural hysteria.
Yeah, the cultural history in Britain, specifically though in Britain, about George Floyd and how it's nothing to do with our culture, nothing to do with our laws, our judiciary, nothing at all.
And yet, for example, here in this picture in Liverpool, they put the lights up in Liverpool to commemorate...
Norwich did this, Rochdale did this, and then this is Liverpool as well, to commemorate the death of George Floyd.
And you said, wasn't it also the anniversary of Lee Rigby's...
Yeah, so it's the anniversary of Lee Rigby's beheading or the Manchester Arena bombing.
And the Manchester Arena bombing.
Neither of them are important, but George Floyd's death in a foreign country under circumstances that are not relevant to the UK, far more important.
Criminal drug addict, George Floyd.
Yeah, so let's commemorate his killing.
I hesitate to call it a murder.
He's killing.
There's another one with...
What's the other link there?
We've got the London Eye.
Also London, of course, had to get in on it.
I mean, all these areas run by Labour.
Yeah, yeah.
So that's why.
Yeah, Sadiq Khan, yeah.
Yeah, so, and just this thing that we're sort of, I don't know if it's actually definitely true, but the perception that we're ever more abandoning our own culture and history and heritage for the sake of weirdo American wokest culture.
And anyway, the National Trust has come in for some criticisms.
Well, the president is actually Prince Charles, but the leader of it was a bloke called Tim Parker.
It looks like he is going to resign.
He won't be out until October, but it looks like he's going to resign because of a grassroots, I wouldn't say insurrection, The National Trust are very much more civilised than that.
Is it normal people getting rid of him?
Basically, members, yeah.
Sort of, yeah.
And so, because he's been described as a bourgeois and politically correct, which is just the tip of the iceberg, really.
I mean, he seems to be...
That same sort of mentality as the people were talking about in the Home Office there, where, to you or I, it's almost inexplicable.
Why are you betraying your own so hard?
It's just odd.
Yeah, you have one job in this case to protect Britain's heritage, being the National Trust, and yet we've got more important things to do.
Culture wars for America.
Yeah, right.
We're supposed to be looking after stately homes in the home counties, but...
Let's have him say something about BLM, which he did.
He called it a human rights movement with no party political affiliations.
Apparently he left it at that.
That's his description of BLM. So this is the next link, the National Trust thing?
Right, so yeah, here's just an article.
Because it is actually in the news right now.
I haven't picked something just completely out of left field.
It is actually relevant today, so there's a Daily Mail article there.
So he's quit.
He's actually gone now.
Well, it says he won't leave until October.
He'll sort of see out his term or something.
But yeah, I think he has formally resigned.
So yeah, he was apparently also, well, he did also say on record that he is, and the National Trust under his leadership is, quote, committed to anti-racism and to creating a diverse, inclusive and welcoming environment.
Yeah, whatever.
Socialist.
So all the buzzwords.
Yeah, I'm a socialist.
That's what he's saying there.
You know, committed to anti-racism.
So less white, just please, working for us and visiting.
He's not committed to ending racism or even minimising it.
No, he's committed to anti-racism, which is just left-wing racism.
That's all that is.
A few other bits and bobs, just like he wanted people to wear badges or lanyards or something like that with the rainbow thing on it.
I thought you were going to say that pronoun.
Just anything and everything to undermine us, really.
And so, yeah, what they also did, not too long ago, I think it was last year, summer or autumn last year, is they released a big report.
And there it is, the report is Addressing Our Histories and Colonialism and Historic Slavery.
That's actually, there's a longer, fuller name to it than that.
But anyways...
Sorry, how do they plan on addressing it?
Or is it even within their remit?
I thought you were just supposed to make sure...
I mean, this has happened in the past, and what?
They're going to...
Well, what it is, what it actually is, is just pouring scorn on us and our history and our heritage at every possible turn, and really scraping the bottom of the barrel as well, so people don't necessarily have to read it particularly.
They'll pick out, I mean, the National Trust is supposed to look after a few hundred properties, and they picked out about 93 that they, in inverted commas, blacklisted, Which is nearly like a third of all of them.
Now, some of them, even though it's an anachronism and complete insanity, some of these buildings were built entirely from the profits of slavery.
So, whatever, but that is the fact.
But lots, most of, the vast majority of them, it's just nothing like that.
Like, for example, one of them was, it's a property that Rudyard Kipling used to live in.
What's Roger Kipling's quote?
Well he wrote a few poems that were pro-empire.
That's his quote and that's why that building now is blacklisted in inverted commas.
Another one for example, it belonged to Wordsworth, the poet Wordsworth.
Not a famous racist or bigot but what it was, his brother was the commander of an East India ship at one point.
So, scraping the bottom of the barrel.
I mean, really scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Not even things that people have done.
Your brother did a thing.
Yeah, or loads of them.
If you look through the list, loads of them are like, this property was briefly owned in the 18th century by someone who inherited money that was made out of sugar interests from Barbados or Jamaica or something.
So it's like, so someone owned it a bit who didn't do anything but inherited some money that came off the back of exploitation.
Come on.
Yeah.
I mean, what are they going to do with this?
It's an insanity that's going on.
What are they going to do with these places anyway?
Right.
Well, a friend of mine did point out that perhaps, you know, I've been a card-carrying member of the National Trust a couple of times in my life.
I'm not anymore at the moment.
Yeah.
But it does seem that the membership is very white and quite old and they're probably losing a lot of money and members.
And so somewhere in the top brass at the National Trust, you can only imagine they made the decision, well, we need to diversify.
We need to make it more appealing to BAME people.
You know, at the expense of whites, obviously, because that's how it works.
It's a zero-sum game, apparently, in their mind.
Yeah, to the leftists, that's the entire world.
Yeah, yeah.
So it's just the National Trust, just the thing that is supposed to, like I keep saying, protect or hold a lot of our heritage in trust.
You can imagine the Victorians and every generation of National Trust people up until recently.
It's been held in trust for us for future generations, and it's simply been subverted, perverted, inverted.
Just really quick and really hard.
Well, it looks like this guy at least is going to get the boot, but there are other people that are high up in it that are just the same.
There's the General Secretary, a woman called Hilary McGrady, an Irish lady who seems very, very disingenuous and pretends they aren't doing anything wrong at the National Trust, when obviously they are.
I mean, there's the MP Hayes, is it John Hayes?
Yeah, he said, quote, the National Trust has sadly lost sight of its purpose.
It is preoccupied with the prejudices of a woke minority.
Seems perfectly correct, doesn't it?
So yeah, that seems to be what's happening.
But as I say, an element of a white pill in there, amongst this red pill, is just that, yeah, the Restore Trusts, this movement within the National Trust, Restore Trusts, It looked like they've got their acts together quite well.
I'd like to speak to somebody from that organisation, apparently the guy mentioned in the Daily Mail articles, a bloke called Tony Adler.
He said, for example, the plan is to change the whole ethos formally, talking about the National Trust, their plan, Restore Trusts, Yeah, well said.
No doubt.
No doubt that that's true.
And as I mentioned before, what I think is the disingenuous General Secretary did say that it was a mistake, that they made a mistake in releasing this nearly 120-page report.
I hesitate to just call her an outlier.
I think disingenuous is closer because how is it a mistake exactly?
What do you mean?
You accidentally commissioned a 120-page report which goes into detail.
I tripped and fell and wrote to 120 pages.
Yeah, I accidentally fell and signed off on that and greenlit it.
Just nonsense.
I don't trust her as far as I can throw her.
That seems to be what's going on with the National Trust and just hopefully that things can be reversed there to some degree.
I love how the chat is pointing out the blacklisting word there because if they're blacklisting properties as being anti-slavery...
I think you know the word blacklist has been banned.
It's a racist term, don't you know?
Well, one of them, one of these properties, one of these houses, which is apparently bad now, is that in the...
The house is bad.
What does the house do?
Yeah, the landscaped gardens around the country estate are bigoted or something.
Well, one of them, it was really, the thing that they said while it was marked up as any sort of problem is that in their inventories from the 19th century, it mentioned a couple of their black servants, they were referred to as blackamoors.
In the 19th century, when there was no problem with using that word, but now that's just beyond the power, apparently, that that happened a couple hundred years ago.
I don't understand.
Like, in the 19th century, someone said the N-word, therefore we must give up all our money.
Is that the argument?
Apparently.
There was a guy, I can't remember the guy's name, he was in NASCAR, and his father had said the N-word in the 1960s, and apparently not even in a derogatory context, although I'm not sure, but his father said the N-word decades and decades and decades ago.
It had been...
It had been rediscovered that that was a fact, and he got fired.
He lost his seat in that race car.
You just want to meet every woke person average blight.
Don't you know your great-great-granddad's at the M-word?
Therefore you're guilty.
And we want an apology immediately for it.
Otherwise we'll take away your income.
Well, yeah, so hopefully there is a slight element of a white pill to it.
It does seem that at least within the National Trust there are people with guts and determination and a bit of a nous that are actually pushing back and at least marginally successful in doing so.
So good luck to them.
Good luck to them, I say.
It's great.
It's fantastic.
It's good to hear, because I think I remember Jacob Rees-Mogg making a big story about this back when it first clumped up as well, and them saying that we're going to give up all our money and destroy our heritage.
Why?
Because someone in the past said the N-word.
It seems to have taken hold, at least in the Conservative Party here, that people are actually like, no, this is absolutely nonsense.
Because they get, you know...
Let's say insider status granted by the government.
The fact that they're an organisation the government trusts with things.
They trust them with sacred land.
And they shouldn't be getting that if they're just going to become a partisan outlet.
They've utterly betrayed that trust in the last few years.
Anyway, let's go to the next talk because I want to go over the Tory Islamophobia report.
So this is great.
Oh, man.
I don't know why they decided to.
Well, I do know why, but let's start off.
So, the conservative Islamophobia report came out a day or two ago, and I just think it's really good to compare this to the Labour Islamophobia report, which people may remember what we reported on.
So the first one here is just the video in which we did this.
So Labour at the time were being accused of anti-Semitism by anti-Semitism reports, and in response, they accused themselves of Islamophobia.
Yeah.
Real pro-gamer move there.
It's like, right, how do we distract from the anti-Semitism?
Do we stop being anti-Semites?
Nah.
We'll just say we're Islamophobes.
Great idea.
This is actually what they did.
It was amazing.
I can't believe it.
This is where the black flag of Islamine came as well, because right at the last page, they just have the black flag of Labour, which is just like the Islamic symbol and then the Labour rose.
Not joking.
They put that in there.
It's not me.
I'll keep the black flag flying here.
Yeah.
Anyway, so first thing to say, which is Islamophobia is a BS word.
It should not be taken seriously, as if it's some kind of Islamophobia.
It's an accusation of hatred on the basis of race, is it?
The race of Muslims.
Anophobia is irrational.
Yeah.
There's nothing irrational about trucks of peace.
There's nothing irrational about hating a religion.
So, I mean, the term Christophobia exposes this perfectly, because is it irrational to hate Christianity if you want to?
Well, no, if you don't like Christianity, you should be able to hate it.
I mean, religious hatred, and it's going to sound weird, is sacred to a free society.
If you can't hate a religion, what can you hate?
Can you hate an ideology then?
Well, presumably not, because if there's religious ideology and you can't hate that because that's bigoted, that's racial hatred.
Well, what if I hate communism?
What if I hate Nazism?
You can't do that.
It's still an idea system.
So you have to be able to hate on religious grounds to be a free country.
So that's nonsense.
If you wanted to use a term to explain, you know, actions of, like, blowing, you know, Finsbury Park Mosque or whatever, you'd used anti-Muslim bigotry.
Because that's what it was.
It is a guy saying that all Muslims believe this when they don't.
Say, for example, that all Muslims want to kill everyone they see or something like that, or whatever the heck the guy believed.
And then he used his van to mow down Muslims.
And that is an act of anti-Muslim bigotry.
That makes sense.
And that is a term that can be used for basically anything on this basis, and it makes sense.
But calling it Islamophobia doesn't work because then that can be expanded to anything and anything that just criticises Islam.
And here they had that exact problem.
The Labour Party defined Islamophobia as a kind of racism that's rooted in racism.
So circular definition there.
Islamophobia is racism that's rooted in racism, which is found in racism, which is rooted in just a waste of time.
Was it an actual nine-year-old who figured that through?
The entire party's run by nine adults.
God, I wish there were nine.
It would make no sense.
So they also ended up defining in here that if you were an Islamist, you were also an Islamophobe.
So it's presumably like Nash Charles sweating bullets about the whole thing.
Is that because they think that Islamists aren't real Muslims?
No, they defined that if you believe that, what was it, like, Kashmir has the right to self-determination, you're an Islamophobe.
And it's just like, oh my god, I want to...
Anyway, so in here this is the slide showing that this is Labour Party data.
About 90% of all Muslims vote Labour.
So it really is the black flag of Labour, folks.
So they also said that half of the Muslims in the party don't trust the party on Islamophobia.
Well, if you define Islamophobia as broad as possible, that's true.
I mean, why would you?
Why would you trust them on anything if you define Islamophobia as anything that criticises Islam ever?
So, the reason the Tory Islamophobia report has come about is not just directly in response to this, but Savid Javid demanded it.
So if we go to the next one, this is the debate they had about the leadership.
Savid Javid demanded that they have a report on Islamophobia, and they got it because Boris agreed to do it.
And in case you're wondering who Savid Javid is, foreigners, we go to the next one here.
He's a conservative, don't you know?
So, Justice, Black Lives Matter ripped George Floyd from Savid Javid.
After the conviction.
There we go.
BLM. Folk Conservative.
He knows it's Marxist.
He doesn't care.
Whatever.
So, if we go to the response to the Islamophobia report come from the Tories, well, immediately, what was the response?
It's a lie!
It's a whitewash!
How dare they do this?
How dare they say that they're not a bunch of Islamophobes?
So, Tory Islamophobia report is a whitewash.
Same Muslims in the party, reported by The Guardian.
A long-awaited...
Or Lady Warsi.
Lady Warsi, yeah.
We're getting tired in a minute.
A long-awaited review into Islamophobia within the Conservatives has been condemned as a whitewash by Muslim Tories, despite including criticism of the language used by Boris Johnson and a mayoral campaign run by Zach Goldsmith for insensitivity.
So, if you're looking to criticize the niqab looks like a letterbox, I suppose, yeah, any investigation would look like a whitewash, because that's not a crime.
It should never be a crime.
They're saying that the niqab looks like a letterbox.
I mean, there are plenty of Muslim countries that will agree with you on that fact, which is why they banned it.
So, they say, Lady Worsi, the party's former chair, who first demanded an inquiry into anti-Muslim sentiment within its ranks, you notice anti-Muslim sentiment, not Islamophobia, I love how it's exactly the same as the race report.
Like, there's no institutional racism.
This is wrong, there must be.
But there's no evidence.
Yeah, but there must be!
Yeah.
So, Worsey, as I imagine you're about to say, is a moron on this issue.
Yeah.
So, we go to the next link here.
So, this is Baroness Worsey writing an article for The Guardian, because she's a conservative, saying that Trevor Phillips doesn't understand Islamophobia and whining that Trevor Phillips is an Islamophobe who should be kicked out of the Labour Party.
Trevor Phillips is a man who deals with fact and logic, and that is why he ended up getting kicked out of the Labour Party and now is sort of a rogue element.
Yeah.
Baroness Worsi is scum.
I mean, I'm perfectly at ease calling her that.
I mean, she is the type of person who is, it's very, very difficult to see her as anything other than just an enemy, again, of the average British person, of the white working class Brits.
She hates us.
I mean, her disavowing Trevor Phillips here and saying he's an Islamophobe is just ridiculous, because if we go back to why Trevor Phillips was suspended as well, so the next article here is the BBC talking about exactly this, Mr.
Phillips has been suspended pending investigation over remarks, including expressing concerns about Pakistani Muslim men sexually abusing children in the north of British towns, according to the Times.
We can't have truth.
Can't have him saying that.
We can't have him talking the truth.
I mean, the Home Office has confirmed that's real, but Baroness Worsley has a problem with that.
Of course she does.
It also says that there was a complaint over his covers...
Sorry, the complaint also covers his comments about the failure of some Muslims to wear poppies for Remembrance Sunday and having sympathy for some of the opinion polls showing the motives of the Charlie Hebdo attackers.
So him pointing out that there are community behaviours that are anti-British within the Muslim community makes him an Islamophobe.
Criticising the Islamic community, that's Islamophobia, regardless of if it's true or not.
Thanks, Baroness Worsi.
Your opinion's worthwhile, aren't it?
It brings to mind something Christopher Hitchens said once.
He said, criticise Islam if you want to, and do it while you can.
Yeah, because the right will be taken away from you.
Yep.
So we go back to the article.
So we're just going to skip over Baroness Worsi because she can go F herself.
She's completely useless on this topic.
So they say in here, the report found that anti-Muslim sentiment was still present at local association and individual levels.
So, randos.
Rando's might have anti-Muslim sentiment.
You'll find them for the anti-Jewish sentiment and all the rest of it.
Anti-white sentiment in the Labour Party en masse as well.
But claims of institutional racism were not borne out by the evidence.
Yep.
Except I disagree on one point there.
I would say that nope, there are evidence of institutional racism in the Tory party, but I can't provide it because I didn't record the conversation.
I've had conversations with Tories who have mentioned to me that positive discrimination does take place within the party for its candidates.
And of course it's only in one direction.
It is discriminating against straight white Christian atheists and men.
So there is institutional racism, but it's not the kind the Guardian would care about.
So let's move on.
So Sajid Karim, who was a Tory MEP for 12 years and has chaired the European Parliament's Working Group on Islamophobia, said the report had failed to identify endemic party prejudice aimed at Muslims.
Do you want us to invent some so we can find it?
Like, we've looked for it.
There is none.
How could you do this?
Like, you want me to find some, or you want me to make some, and then we can report on it?
Because it currently doesn't exist.
I think that is what someone like him would want.
That is exactly what they want.
They just make it up, you know, like...
Well, like happens all the time, made up hate crimes and things.
Yeah, that is what they would rather...
So another senior Tory said, this report is a sad reflection on how little the party cares about inclusivity.
Good.
It shouldn't care about inclusivity.
It is the enemy of conservatism.
They should care about exclusivity, because that's all that makes anything valuable.
And remember, as Carl says, inclusivity for the left is not what anyone thinks it means of, oh, we'll just be nicer to people.
No, it's about the lowering of standards.
It is taking standards to zero, which is why they're happy to have people in dog suits at pride parades in front of kids.
I mean, really, is that where you want to go?
With your fetishizing of inclusivity?
Anyway.
The Prime Minister was cleared by a majority of an independent panel over a complaint that he broke the party's code of conduct in a Daily Telegraph column in 2018, in which he described Muslim women who wear the burqa as looking like letterboxes and bank robbers.
Wrong, instead of car, but whatever.
Can't even expect accurate reporting from The Guardian.
Johnson was said he was sorry for any offense taken.
It's not sorry for the comment.
Sorry for you being butthurt.
Yeah, sorry for any offence taken is quite different to just being sorry, isn't it?
Yeah.
I'm sorry you're dumb.
If you're butthurt, your problem.
I'm sorry you need to hear me say the sorry word, but I'm not actually sorry.
Sorry.
So he told the Singh investigation, would I use the offending language in my past writings today?
Now that I'm Prime Minister, I would not.
Yeah, it's because you're Prime Minister and you've got to keep your mouth shut for everything.
But, uh, you...
Yeah.
No, you probably should if you add any, uh, balls in that issue.
You should just still...
Yeah, they look like bank robbers.
Well, you just kill me.
Because if you go back to the original article, it's ridiculous.
So if you go back to the one here, as you can see, it's Boris Johnson arguing, yes, the burqa is oppressive and ridiculous, but no, that's not a reason to ban it.
And the offending comments is him saying in here, it is absolutely ridiculous that people should choose to go around looking like letterboxes.
Something many Muslim countries will agree with, which is why they banned it.
But in Turkey, you're not allowed to wear it, are you?
In Turkey, is that right?
I think that's correct.
We're talking about the niqab here as well.
We're not even talking about the hijab, we're talking about the niqab, where you've got a slot, like a letterbox.
That's the complaint.
If a constituent came to my MP surgery with her face obscured, I would feel fully entitled, like Jack's jaw, to ask her to remove it so that I could talk to her properly.
If a female student turned up to the school or university lecture looking like a bank robber, then ditto.
That's not Islamophobia.
Sorry.
That's not anti-Muslim bigotry there.
That's the equal application of custom and law.
Someone comes to you, doesn't matter what their religious beliefs are, if they're doing this thing, I will not talk to them.
That is not anti-Muslim bigotry.
but it is Islamophobia because that's the difference here.
It could be a fear of Islam because the guy's wearing, as Boris Johnson describes, the bank robber uniform there, but it is not anti-Muslim bigotry.
This is why the term is important and why the Tories should not have accepted this term at all.
I mean, it is in law.
Get rid of it.
Get this term out of there and instead replace it with anti-Muslim bigotry because then all of this makes sense.
The fact that they're coming after you for saying that the Niqab looks like a letterbox.
It does.
Most Muslim countries will agree with you on that.
It just does.
There's no complaint about this.
That is not anti-Muslim bigotry, though.
But there could be you being fearful of Islam.
It's not fearful of letterboxes.
The thing is, a letterbox is actually more friendly and inviting.
It's got a bright colour, at least.
Well, you can get multicoloured niqabs.
I mean, I don't know how many people wear them.
Yeah, I don't think they'll be particularly encouraged.
That's against the point of it, really, isn't it?
I'm not sure how ISIS and Saudi Arabia would say about it.
His overall point and the title of this article, can you scroll up, John?
I mean, even that...
The niqab should be legal and we should apply the law equally.
That's what they're upset about.
Yeah, but I mean, I don't even agree with that.
He says it's oppressive, etc., etc.
There's no need to ban it.
Well, I don't agree with that.
Yeah, I wonder how his mood's changed on this.
No, it is oppressive.
A lot has happened in three years.
Why don't we ban it?
I mean, places like, I think Turkey, I might be getting that wrong, anyone in the comments going mad, but there are a fair few Muslim countries, aren't there, that ban it.
So, what's the problem with that?
Why can't we copy that?
You know?
Tunis.
Islamophobic nation.
Anyway.
So, in response to this report that says there's no institutional racism, Ho's mad, because Ho's always mad.
Ho mad that we're going to look at today, Ash Sarkar.
Islamophobia isn't an institutional problem in the Conservative Party, report finds.
Up next, an interview with Michael Fabricant.
In case you're wondering who Michael Fabricant is, he's a base MP. And so his crime, if you just Google his name and then Islamophobia, first thing that comes up is this article from The Guardian.
So if you get the next one up, this is just a Tory MP will face no further actions for Anglo-Muslim relations tweet.
In case you're wondering what on earth, you could be complaining about that.
In the tweet, Fabricant wrote, Your spite and unpleasantness, neither does the cause of tolerance in this country nor the cause of Anglo-Muslim relations any good at all.
The tweet was later deleted.
I wonder if you can guess what's wrong with it.
And it was replaced with, Your spite and unpleasantness, neither does the cause of tolerance in this country nor the cause of relations between Muslims and non-Muslims any good at all.
He replaced Anglo with non-Muslims.
And he says why he did this.
So he's asked about it.
He says, True.
Well, let them.
Jesus, why do people just keep capitulating?
Well, it's not really capitulating in my mind there, because he's like, these people are just complaining that I've said Anglo.
I mean, maybe I agree that he should have just kept it up.
It is technically correct, sorry, incorrect, because you could have an Anglo-Muslim.
Like, the Anglo person could become a Muslim, that's sure.
It's really beside the point.
It's arguing about a grain of rice when there's an elephant in the room.
Ultimately, he's right at what he's saying.
But that's his crime.
That's peak Islamophobia, according to Ash Harkar.
Someone saying Anglo is a non-believer.
Oh boy.
You need to kick him out of all society for that.
Meanwhile, you're calling for gender communism.
So, the next one here is just Asharka complaining again, because ho's mad.
On the conservative Islamophobia report, it's an absolute whitewash.
Last year, a sitting conservative councillor, tweeting under the name Crusader Ian, based, tweeted expressing the sentiment that I deserve and invite racist abuse.
Liar!
Lie!
We can look at the tweet itself.
So if you do on the first image here, and then we'll go to the next one for his statement.
So if you go to the next one here, this is what he actually said.
Maybe if you didn't fill every tweet with divisive language, you wouldn't be abused so much.
The kind of language you choose to use sets the tone.
So him saying, Crusader Ian over here, saying that you should be nicer online if your community is so toxic.
Essentially.
Not crime.
It's not lobophobia.
It's not anti-Muslim bigotry.
Are we allowed to ask what Ash Sarkar's problem actually is?
Well, we'll see it.
So if you go back to the...
What's her boggle?
Exactly.
This is what she wrote, and this is the messages she got sent.
So this is Crusader Ian messaging Ash Sarkar.
Ashaka is an anti-white Bengali with an IQ of 105.
Next tweet.
Ashaka, this is normal, you thick Bengali.
Next tweet.
Ashaka, climate change isn't real, Bengali thicko.
Ashaka.
Ashoka is an anti-white Bengali that needs re-immigration tickets.
Next tweet.
Ashoka.
Bengalis have an average IQ of 77.
So there's two complaints possibly from there perhaps, that he said you have an IQ of 105.
Comes to that in a minute.
And also that he said you're Bengali, which isn't racist abuse.
That's him calling you Bengali.
Unless you're not Bengali, then okay, fair enough.
Then we'd find something.
Let's go to the next link here, which is just IQ data.
So if you can scroll down, I wonder if you can hover over Bengal there.
So if you go on the map, the map's interactive.
So if you can't do it, don't worry.
But if you go to this link, you will find the Bengali average IQ. 77%.
So his last tweet there, when he said the average IQ in Bengal is 77, was correct.
Is it?
Is it really?
According to this data, yep.
That seems disastrously low.
Bangladesh, 77 IQ average.
So his last tweet was correct, but not only that, when he said you have an IQ of 105...
It wasn't a diss.
That was a big up.
Come on, you're in the higher echelons of Bangladesh there.
I thought that.
I mean, it's not amazing, but that's not sort of completely, absolutely through the floor, is it?
105.
I mean, it's nothing to write home about, but 105 is okay.
An average of 77.
That seems like you're dealing with...
That's the data.
Can't argue with it.
But if we go to the next one here.
So, I mean, maybe she's not Bengali.
Maybe he's abusing her on the basis of calling her Bengali because she's brown.
Well, this is an old tweet of mine, but I don't know if Shash Sharker is British or not, but I sure know that she doesn't know.
So we click on the first image here.
This is one of her tweets.
I'm Bengali, so probably wouldn't have a great deal of fun in the early 40s.
So she's calling herself Bengali.
So Crusader Ian here, calling her Bengali.
That's not abuse.
That's you.
It's your own words he's using there.
But, I mean, you've got a point.
There's her here saying, lol, F off, I'm not British.
So she's finding herself as not British in this one.
And then the next one.
Cool, cool.
Mate, I'm campaigning for the abolition of private property, but I'm neither English nor a nationalist, and I would not want to be.
So she's not English or British, she's Bengali, according to her.
Except then we have the next one.
Which he also says...
Abolition of private property.
Point number two here, quote, I am British, you absolute melt.
So she's British and not British and English and not English and also Bengali.
But if you dare call her Bengali, that's racist abuse.
Just anything and everything at all times.
Just saying whatever it takes to try and win a point at any given moment.
If you say something, you're an Islamophobe.
What is that?
That's just a complete lack of any conviction, isn't it?
It's just nothing.
It means you're just an empty bottle, just a room without a view.
What is she?
Who is she?
She'll literally say anything, just to get a hit on the Tories there and call them Islamophobes, even though there's nothing there.
So, yeah, Tory party Islamophobia report, nothing in it.
The Labour one.
I was actually full of data and some pretty shocking admissions, but okay.
Yeah, nothing burger.
Good job.
Well, she's so angry.
What I was pointing at, sort of trying to angle that earlier, is just in the more general sense, what is her problem?
Why is she so angry, obviously, with Britain?
Why?
What happened to her?
She's a communist, that's why.
Yeah, but it's a bit beyond that.
I mean, I know, sort of take a John MacDonald type communist.
It's quite different to someone like Ash Sarkar.
She's also an ethno-nationalist, so that might be it.
A Bengali one?
Yeah, yeah.
We read her article before in which she's glorifying, I think it's her great aunt, who, she's like, women's politics went beyond the vote.
Her great aunt, who went beyond the vote, got a gun and started killing British people in India.
I may be talking about that.
Bengal for the Bengalis.
Okay, Ash.
And that's what she was glorifying.
So she's not only a communist, but also an ethno-communist, a national socialist, perhaps, would be more fitting.
So again, in the camp of people that is fairly reasonable to describe simply as an enemy, I mean...
An enemy of liberalism, absolutely, yeah.
I mean, just the absolute opposite of liberalism there, in every regards.
But anyway, let's go to the video comments.
I had fun with that.
Look at this beautiful roast chicken dinner my wife made for dinner on Sunday.
And look at all those glorious juices.
But how will I get to enjoy all of them?
Bread!
Bread!
Bread can mop up the juices.
What are we talking, do you think, kind of a ciabatta?
Oh, delicious.
Oh, thank you, bread.
Make sure the next generation of boys grows up into big strong men...
by feeding them healthy, delicious bread.
I don't even know what to say.
Maybe this meme needs to die.
How far are we going to take this?
But when Carl gets back, please do spam them, because he needs to sit.
I want to see him upset.
I do think that cutting out bread is really good for you, and it feels good to just cut down your bread to almost nothing.
However, a nice bit of fresh bread can sometimes be absolutely delicious, right?
Some really nice, really fresh stuff.
It's the one thing that still irks Carl, so when you come in with fresh bread and he can smell it, you can tell he gets it.
Yeah, the smell sometimes of fresh bread is just gorgeous, isn't it?
See the chat's very divided on this issue.
He will not divide us, we certainly have.
Anyway, let's go for the next one.
So I don't really like touching on the whole transgender issue, but I will say that makeup and dresses does not make you a woman.
When a transitioning male can tell me what menstrual cramps feel like, what PPD feels like, or what menopause feels like, then I might be more inclined to believe them when they tell me they feel like a woman.
No, she's trying to interact with them rationally.
She's right though.
Of course she's right, but the point is that she's actually trying to deal with them as honest actors.
Can you tell me what it's like to go through menopause?
Well, of course they can't.
Never can.
Just to deal with them on the same playing field that they would like to.
There's no real interacting with a rabid communist leftist.
Fair enough.
I think it was V who put this very well.
There's the left and the right, and then there's the centrist, as if it's a different group.
And then V said, nah, it's the spoils to be fought over.
I was like, well, that's essentially it.
I mean, most people in Britain are now of the opinion from the last polling I saw that, yeah, all this, if you just identify as a man, it doesn't work.
No one believes that.
Sorry, no one buys into the leftist narrative on this anymore.
It's dead.
And good, we won the argument, I guess.
We just have to win the legislation.
To be fair, the Conservative government has been pretty good on this, particularly Liz Trust.
So, I've not got many complaints about that.
Like setting up the transgender-only prison section.
I presume they want to set up a transgender-only prison entirely to separate it from the female population.
Because you can't be putting male rapists in with women in prison.
Shock horror.
Biden's doing it, but, you know, whatever.
We've learned that lesson.
I have seen a few clips of Liz Trasser in Parliament.
She does seem fairly good on it.
She's not only anyone either.
There have been some pretty good MPs on that.
So, God, I need to stop praising the Tories.
Yeah, what are we doing?
We're dunking them tomorrow.
Anyway, let's go for the next one.
Hi.
I wanted to show you today what's happening in the beautiful Shetland Islands in the name of so-called Green Energy.
They're building over a hundred huge wind turbines right here in the centre of the main island.
And it's being completely destroyed.
There's really nothing green about this and I think the world needs to know what's happening in this remote corner of the UK. First thing, your drone is awesome.
That's fantastic.
I don't have a huge opinion on climate stuff because I just don't know much, but I do know that the demonization of nuclear power is BS. All these attempts to build endless turbines and whatnot, just build one nuclear power plant, stop messing around.
Yeah, I mean, I don't buy into the idea that wind farms are just in and of themselves ugly and destructive.
I mean, they are a bit, but when they're in very remote places, and there's, I mean, people obviously do live permanently on Shetland, so it doesn't apply there.
But if you've got a truly, completely remote moor, for example, where nobody lives, Yeah, build wind farms there.
Fine.
But yeah, if it's sort of destroying or ruining a relatively pristine habitat where people live and already love like that, it does seem a bit wrong.
There's other ways of doing it.
Yeah, why not?
The safety record on nuclear plants is pretty good across the decades.
I mean, obviously there are famous Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, etc.
You know, wind scale.
There are problems, but We need power.
Like Three Mile Islands, not a huge disaster in comparison to what could happen because of the safety procedures that were in place, and even though this was decades ago.
Chernobyl, it's an F-up because the Soviet Union was a backwards S-hole.
And then Japan with Fukushima.
Yeah, Fukushima.
It was an earthquake and then a tsunami hit it.
Not something that happens in Britain, so not something to worry about there.
And also, our safety procedures are top-notch.
I remember when I was at university, some guy came from EDF and was explaining the procedures they have for the nuclear plant in southern England.
And yeah, it's good.
There is no argument against it other than just, I don't know anything about nuclear power.
And if it saves building loads of weird turbines and ruining the view, that's another reason.
Let's go to the next one.
Why am I so different from them?
Earth's sun is younger and brighter than Krypton's was.
Your cells have drunk in its radiation, strengthening your muscles, your skin, your senses.
Earth's gravity is weaker, yet its atmosphere is more nourishing.
You've grown stronger here than I ever could have imagined.
The only way to know how strong.
Oh, is this Florida man?
It sounds like Russell Crowe, but I don't know the film.
But in time, they will join you in the sun, Cal.
You will help them accomplish wonders.
Yeah.
Oh, that's great.
That's great.
I love it.
It's fantastic.
Keep that up as well.
I want to read some of that.
Oh, I don't mind.
It's like Florida man runs naked through the streets.
Florida man fights alligator naked.
Florida man catches birds.
It's all the same man.
It's just one guy forever.
Never change that law, Florida.
Keep that law about press reporting in place.
Is it Rubio who said it for Florida?
Have I got that right?
Have I got that terribly wrong?
I don't know.
Marco Rubio.
I just know DeSantis is the governor.
Right.
Okay, but yeah, anyway, the point I was going to make was that it does seem like there's a couple of places in America, like Texas, for example, where their political leadership does seem to be un-woke to quite a good degree.
Do you think that plays into the trope or the meme of Florida Man, that they're just not buying any of this nonsense and living it?
I love how Florida is slowly becoming like the bastion of freedom throughout the world.
Like, you know how people think of America as the bastion of freedom for, you know, the world?
And in a more global context, maybe, maybe parts of Europe.
But, I mean, we have some problems compared to China, sure, but huge problems here.
But then if you minimalize it, it's really just becoming Florida and the United States and maybe Texas and whatnot.
But certainly not California, is it?
It'll go down even smaller.
Just Dade County.
Just anyone living around Trump's hotels.
Just South Dade, yeah.
In the immediate vicinity around Trump properties.
Free man.
Anyway, let's go to the next one.
Josh, there's already been a dystopian post-socialism documentary made in Britain.
What did you think the Wombles was about?
LAUGHTER Morning, chaps.
I was just reading that Will Bill Shakespeare, the first Pfizer vaccine recipient, has died at 81.
Are you telling me that an immunity to COVID doesn't make you immortal?
TF. Well, thanks for correctly proportioning my dick.
But low blow, dude.
My revenge will be served much like your bread.
Cold and crusty.
I can't wait to do the next live.
Watch those two fight.
I like that guy.
We're sort of a community boxing match between TF Allspark and Big Oil Guy.
Sorry, that oil guy, not big oil guy.
I suppose if we're talking about your dick, we'd like that.
So anyway, let's move on.
So do you want to read the comments or do you want me to read them?
No, you can go ahead.
Alright, so first comments here on the website.
So Ella Hill, on the Ella Hill reporting.
So Stephen Smith, I just read Ella Hill's most recent letter to the Home Office and it really is disgusting the way statistics are being manipulated to hide the truth.
It makes Sir Humphrey look like an amateur.
It's only true.
For people who might not know, that's Yes Minister, Yes Prime Minister, the civil servant there, Nigel Hawthorne.
If you've never watched Yes Minister, you must.
Yeah, you must.
So, um, these nuts.
It's only a hate crime if you're a racist.
People can't be racist against white people, therefore nobody can commit a hate crime against a white person.
Unless you use the common sense definition of racism.
But if the government did that, all these leftists would be fined or in jail under the laws that they promote.
Totally true.
We have a perfect example of that, in case you're wondering as well.
Was it the hashtag kill all white men lady from the Student Union who tweeted that out and then was investigated under Section 127 of the Communications Act?
Signed the petition to get rid of it.
And there we go.
I mean, that's a law against being grossly offensive.
She was actually investigated for it.
It's a shame that it's not equally applied, though.
Was she prosecuted?
Do we know?
I can't remember the top of my head.
I think they dropped her after embarrassment.
But they didn't do with Count Dankula, did they?
No, they went all the way with Count Dankula.
Gotta get that £800.
What was that?
By Deez Nuts said that.
I got a comment on one of the history ones that was about Alcibiades and it just said, Alcibiades Nuts.
Nice.
I thought that was funny.
I giggled for a good minute on that.
Student of history.
Can't show the hate crime report.
It's too full of hate facts that might upset certain minority communities.
True.
I love that term.
I love the term hate facts as well.
There's like an encyclopedia version of it on the internet.
Is there really?
The library of hate facts.
And there's a whole bunch of them.
I haven't gone through and fact-checked them all, but we went through it for a live event where Carl just read off a bunch of hate facts just for fun.
It was good fun.
What are they?
Things like what?
Oh, like, you know, what percentage of French prisoners are Muslim Islamists, for example.
Things like that.
So, Omar Awad.
Nothing about the grooming gang scandal has disgusted me more than the complete lack of culpability for everyone that allowed it to happen.
The culprits themselves at least might get a slap on the wrist.
I don't mean, quote, I totally agree.
Well bloody said, absolutely.
The crime in and of itself, the, okay, man rapes child, okay?
Bad.
And the correct, you know, we have a system of dealing with this, meant to, where the police come in and arrest child rapist and put him in jail for however number of years is considered commensurate within the legal service.
And if you think it should be higher, then we lobby it for it to be higher.
But if the system of arresting child rapist fails...
Well then, someone in the home office, someone within the police force, someone within the councils, all have to be held accountable for this.
They should get criminal records and prison time.
The worst example, I'm going to have to find at some point, it's in...
Go watch British Voldemort's speech in Russia if you want to learn about this in detail.
And there's a section in there in which a member of the home office went to Rotherham, started collecting data about the perpetrators and the victims...
She put it all in a file.
She was then told by someone, you must never bring that up again by the council.
She went back to her file.
The file was empty.
They'd taken her documents.
Oh, she was on New Culture Forum.
I can't remember her name.
I've seen her in an interview a few times.
She is a hero.
But whoever took those files, they need prison time.
I'm sorry.
It's non-negotiable.
When sometimes it does finally get to some sort of hearing in Parliament or some sort of select committee or something...
And they say, yeah, mistakes were made.
They do a whole report over years.
Mistakes were made.
It's not mistakes.
It's subverting the course of justice.
That's what you've done.
Yeah, to begin with.
To begin with, that's the problem.
Yeah, and they say, mistakes will be made, lessons will be learned, although both those things are not, you know.
And no individual senior police officer or caregiver, social care services...
No one in the police or the Home Office ever get, they occasionally get named, but they never get prosecuted or singled out for actual crime.
I know it's difficult, but we can point to something there with the lady from the Home Office who had her data destroyed.
Whoever did that, fine them, and they need to be put in jail for certain justice.
It's not even that difficult.
So, for example, just take whoever, I can't remember the guy's name now, but whoever was in charge of Greater Manchester Police through the 90s and 2000s.
How is that guy...
Sorry, how is that guy not being brought to account in any way?
Here he is.
Right now?
I don't know where he is right now.
Last I spoke to someone, the guy who was in charge of the Greater Manchester Police, he got a promotion.
He was sent to, I think it was Cardiff Police.
Huh.
Anyway.
Omar Awad.
I probably shouldn't be giving them ideas, but I think you'll find that attacking someone for their lack of religion or melanin is recorded under love crimes.
Ooh.
Ooh.
Because they are only killing for the love of their religious beliefs.
God, you can see it now, can't you?
The Ministry of Love recording that.
So, Justin B. Yeah, if someone criticizes you, someone calls you a cracker or something, who cares?
True.
As such, I would expect there are plenty of anti-white hate crimes that go unreported slash underreported.
Oh, yeah.
Oh, absolutely.
Sure.
I mean, if Gammon's a hate crime.
Yeah, I mean, yeah, sorry, carry on.
Luke says, Great work from Ella Hill.
The more we can get this out of the public, the more likely Wocus will have to acknowledge what is happening in this country.
Certainly true.
Student of history.
The issue with hate crime tracking is that it has a presupposition towards leftist ideology, meaning the, quote, dominant group can't be targeted unjustly by the non-dominant groups.
Great way of putting it.
It's exactly the same with Twitter's Terms of Service.
As Tim Paul correctly laid out, if you make misgendering a break of the Terms of Service, that's ideological.
And that can only go one way, you'll never do it the other way.
So it's clearly partisan law.
In the instance of Twitter, they make the laws, whatever, for the stupid platform.
But in the instance of the government of Britain, when the conservative government's in charge, get rid of leftist laws.
It's not hard.
Brian Tomlinson.
Yeah, I was saying it, Josh, yesterday.
Like, the way the Red Scare happened was MacArthur got a list of civil servants who were members of the Communist Party.
I just held up the list and gave a speech about how I've made the government aware that all these people are members of the Communist Party, and yet they still work in the Foreign Office as the government trying to undermine us.
And then the Red Scare happened.
I want to see the same thing happen, where it's just like, look, all these people are wocus, they all write nonsense on their social media and whatnot, because it's much easier to find now.
I've made them aware they haven't got rid of them.
You've said this is an evil ideology, Conservative Party.
What are you going to do about it?
And then...
So McCarthy did get some prosecutions.
There was a Julius Rosenberg, a mum-and-pop outfit, this married couple, the Rosenbergs.
They were convicted of spying for the Soviets and executed for it.
It wasn't just a little bit of photocopying dodgy documents.
They were full-blown Soviet spies, as I understand it.
It doesn't come out of nowhere.
And when you compare it to the Soviets who just started killing everyone, including their own party members, people big up the McCarthy trials as being the worst human rights abuse of all time.
I'm like, it's not.
It's not like McCarthy didn't go after people that were innocent.
I think that did happen.
But it wasn't out of nowhere.
It wasn't just this complete paranoid nonsense.
No, there really was an attempt at subversion.
Anyway, Matthew Wilson.
Bowe needs to study the history of the communist ideological subversion of society.
Then he won't say this makes no sense.
Read the statistics manipulation.
Woke as a downstream of Marxism.
Yuri Bezmenov predicted all of this.
Yeah, I know all that.
I think he must have made that comment before I clarified what I meant.
So I did clarify a bit, didn't I, what I meant when I said I didn't understand.
Of course I understand as being rhetorical to make some content, to have a good conversation.
Of course I do understand it.
Hopefully that's clear.
So Henry Ashman.
Sorry.
I wonder if there is a way to explain why anti-racism is a bad thing and actually just a different type of racism, rather than say, we want no racism.
I'm thinking something like, quote, antimatter is the opposite of matter, but they still have mass.
We'd rather have photon, which has no mass, but less particle physics-y and more layman-friendly.
I can see what you mean.
I haven't really got a great way of putting that in the way you're asking for, but it's something to think about, absolutely.
Something that I'll definitely ask Karl about.
So on the National Trust, Carbohydrate Crusader.
Thank you for your service.
Hi guys, just wanted to say I've seen Carl's post about Liverpool and was curious if it was from an actual Liverpool council page.
Because purple is a theme of the city with the two teams having red and blue kits.
I think it may have just been the lights they normally put on, but I don't know.
They did hold a vigil for St. George of Smack and only 18 people turned up.
Lol.
Congrats on the 140.
I hope you got the cake to celebrate.
Why 140?
Something special about 140?
Anyway, the lights, I think it was the same colour with the London Eye, the same colour for Norwich, and the same colour for Rotherham.
Sorry, Rotherham probably did as well.
So I think it's just the colour scheme of St.
George.
I don't know why he's purple.
Yeah, I don't know why they've chosen purple.
Royal colours, I guess.
Matthew Hammond.
Are the Tories pushing back against the George Floyd support by claiming it is an American thing that has nothing to do with the British or have they accepted it as a legitimate movement in the UK?
I don't really know.
Well, Boris came out not too long, a few weeks ago or something, and he said, do you remember, he said, there's nothing wrong with being woke.
That was one of the sound clips.
So I don't know, again, if he's being disingenuous or that's what he actually thinks or whether he's just an idiot.
It's one of those three things, surely.
But whatever it is, you can imagine, or I imagine, that Boris gets debriefed on things every day and they're just not that in-depth and he doesn't particularly care.
It's really what's in the news cycle, or how to manipulate the news cycle.
I imagine it's more a case of that than really getting down to the truth of things and what's...
True, it's just, how do we manipulate this news cycle?
You can see Liz Truss and Kemi Badenoch are the perfect examples for two ministers who have thought about what they're saying.
You can see the way they think about things, the subjects they bring up, the fact that they bring the philosophy into it.
They've really thought this through.
With Boris and whatnot, it's less clear, as you say.
It might just be that he's good at knowing the zeitgeist.
Well, one little example, I saw just a headline, I didn't even read the article, but I saw a headline, I read the first few lines, where it said there was something about the Super League, Football Super League, don't worry, I'm not going to talk about football, but The point was that because it was very, very unpopular and the idea got put in the bin because it was so unpopular.
But apparently this article was saying that Boris Johnson was really for the idea without really knowing anything about the governance of football and international football.
But then when he realised that the news cycle was that it was unpopular, Then he just changed his mind completely and said, oh yeah, we're not going to do that then, because it's unpopular.
So in other words, it's this thing where you get a briefing, you have a news cycle that you have to deal with in some way, you make a call, you make a decision, you don't really know in detail what you're talking about, and then you throw that out there, see how it plays in the next news cycle, and then re-evaluate.
It's not really got anything to do with truth or honesty.
I think that's what goes on a lot.
It's certainly possible.
I think that's what goes on a lot.
So Elix Ooglu says, isn't the ploy to expand and diversify their membership by the National Trust a bit like the Labour meme?
Quote, our buildings are all racist, come and visit us.
Yeah, it is pretty weird.
So, Moloch, I find it amusing that people like to scream, shout, and belittle our history by only showing the bad part of it and admitting the positive details, the abolition of slavery.
Like how we were the first empire to outlaw slavery, the Slave Trade Act of 1807, and creates the West Africa Squadron at a substantial expense in 1808, just to make sure that the slave trade was being put to an end.
Brilliant.
Brilliant point.
Absolutely.
There's a national trust on that, you know?
Yeah, where's the national trust on William Wilberforce's house?
I don't know.
So on the Tory Islamophobia stuff, Adam Clayton.
It's amazing that the leftists cope so hard when it's found that the Tories are the least racist party in the UK. When the racism report comes out, they come up with copium and layman against writers as Uncle Toms.
Yeah, I love this as well, because you've got the anti-Semitism report in Labour, they call them all anti-Semites.
And then with the Islamophobia report, because they needed the heat taken off, they literally just called themselves Islamophobes in like 20 pages.
It's like, why would you purposely call your party even more racist than it is?
I don't understand what their strategy is.
It's just so dumb.
So that's sort of the point I was making when the guy mentioned the 1970s KGB subversion, you know...
Yeah, but all that, it's something a bit, it's not entirely that, is it?
There's something else, there's something a bit, there's something extra to that going on, isn't there?
Like the psychology of the people in the Tory party, they want to call themselves Islamophobes.
Dunces.
I really think they're just dunces.
You put it down to just sheer idiocy.
Yeah, it's usually idiocy over malicious, however the fuck in my mind is now.
I know what you're saying.
The psychology of being self-hating or self-loathing or despising your own in-group for whatever reason.
There's an interesting number of stupid people who make it to the top of politics.
Yeah.
But anyway, he makes the point there.
But I also love, because they had to accuse themselves of Islamophobia, they can't, in response to this report, say, come to Labour, we're the less anti-Muslim party, when after you've released a report saying that, yeah, you are the most anti-Muslim party, but also we have a black flag of Labour.
God, what a mess.
The Tories are clearly also not Islamophobic, and the left's coping by accusing them of lying is dumb.
True.
Although they should be fearful of Islam, because its fundamentals are at odds with British fundamentals.
This is a great point by Christopher Hitchens.
The problem with fundamentalist Islam is the fundamentals of Islam.
Simple as.
I think the majority of the population are Muslims or something like that, depending on how you draw the borders.
But, yeah.
It was really weird.
So...
You know, I'm not going to get into Kashmir right now, but what a mess.
Matthew Wilson, phobia is an irrational fear, such as arachnophobia.
If spiders drove trucks into pedestrians, fear wouldn't be irrational.
I disavow that comment.
So...
Let's go.
Sorry, I skipped over a thing because I'm an idiot.
Matthew Wilson, in the Niqab debate, aged badly.
Now we all have to hide behind face masks under penalty of law.
Yeah, I follow a bunch of, like, Muslim sites, and I love how they're all crowing about all of this, being like, ha-ha, we were right all along.
It doesn't really make much sense.
Kekistani freedom fighter.
The term Islamophobia was crafted by the Muslim Brotherhood during the 1980s to stigmatize criticism of Islam in the West.
They already had full control over speech about Islam in the Islamic community, and they wanted the same in the West.
Thanks to their leftist allies in the West, they have succeeded.
Hashtag ex-Muslim.
Yeah.
Awful, isn't it?
Literally being controlled by terrorists within our own language.
And the Conservative Party isn't even able to counter this.
It's the most pathetic thing.
Like, imagine now as.
Imagine now as the Lib Dem of all people is getting the right answer on this, saying, use anti-Muslim bigotry, not Islamophobia.
It's a word game.
They're trying to trap you.
And the Tories are like, oh, no, don't be silly.
walking into the trap Peter hi god this is always is there correlation between the IQ data and the fact so many tweets sounded like a child wrote it I've always considered the deliberate misspelling sorry the misinterpretation to be malicious but maybe they really do have problems understanding Might be.
Henry Ashman, Rando, you're just about above average IQ. Ash Sharkar, how dare you?
Yeah, not really an insult.
Like, you have a high average IQ. He's complimenting you.
This is Islamophobia.
Why?
I wonder why.
Francesca Ward.
I was at the live event where Carl read off those hate facts.
I was the blind, gay, obese woman with the eating disorder who playfully told him to F off because he linked all that together.
I'll be the diversity queen.
Yeah, we'll have you read the hate facts next time and then what are they going to say?
James Lee.
Bo, I have a question on classics.
What?
Who are the best classicists to read?
Currently I'm working through Victor Hansen's and Adrian Goldsworthy's books.
Do you have a particular favourite or must-reads from other authors as well?
Also, keep up the great work on the epochs.
They're fantastic.
Thank you.
Yeah, they're both very, very good authors.
Victor Hansen is known as being fairly based.
But they're both good.
They're both excellent reads.
You know, very good.
You could do a lot worse.
Rex Walno is a famous classicist from the 20th century.
Very famous.
Very good.
Lots of things are translated by him.
Robert Graves.
You may have heard of Robert Graves.
He wrote a lot of different things.
Claudius was one of them.
Claudius the God.
But I'm a fan of the historian Edward Gibbon.
I advise anyone who's interested in Rome, certainly the imperial period and later, to read Edward Gibbon, which is very old.
It's from the 19th century or very, very late, 18th turn of the 19th century.
So it's very old.
It's a bit difficult to get into.
You have to get your ear in for very long sentences.
But Edward Gibbon is the gold standard for me, so that's what I'll say.
I don't need my class for this, so I'm going to keep my mouth shut.
So, the ancient history lawyer.
Hi guys!
With the continued pressure put on people to reform things like companies, churches, having to do something with the inherited wealth that it relates to slave statues, curriculum and other SJW crap, we need stock well argued and appealed defences against these people we need stock well argued and appealed defences against these people so that those who aren't aware of what is happening or just want to appease the mob can grasp and put forward to counter and resume
Ideally something where one can go on a site and almost copy and paste slash read out what is said.
True.
I'd also like to know what Beau's view on history at school and whether it is more about learning analytical skills or informing the students of the past.
Cheers.
Interesting.
I don't know.
That's a sort of a fairly tough question to answer, really.
At school, I was always massively into my history.
I didn't come to it late.
I've always been fascinated in it since a small child.
So...
I don't know, how's best to teach?
I think it's one of those things, whenever you learn things, you've got people that genuinely want to learn it, in which case it's not a chore for them, or the teacher, and you've got kids that you have to drag along, kicking and biting every step of the way, and in which case it's just very, very difficult to teach them anything at all, regardless of what angle you take.
I think, you know, I'm no teacher, there's lots of teachers in my family, but...
I think it's more a case of when kids want to learn, just anything and everything you can throw at them will be good.
And the converse is true.
When kids don't want to learn, I know it's true for me, the subjects I didn't care about.
I just didn't work hard, nothing really went in, you know?
So I think the reality is that.
Not if we can just structure it perfectly so that everyone will love history.
You know, I think that's a pipe dream, but there you go.
On his question of, we need a website where you can literally comment and paste arguments, we've tried to do quite a lot of this here.
So personally, the things I've done, so the, what is it, the unfinished list of Antifa violence, which is on the website.
So I mean, that's a great one to just send people like, oh, Antifa is just about peace and Antifa, oh, shut up.
Like, no, here's all the terrorism they engage in.
And that's simple enough.
There's also, like, a few arguments I've made on the LotusEaters.com channel, so that's the alternative channel on YouTube to the podcast one, which people should go and check out.
There's one just demonstrating how the British government cracked down on Antifa in, like, 2001 or 2009 or whatever it was, very successfully.
And also the fact that the Capitol Hill situation, it's like...
I just didn't get how the Democrats can be so surprised, like, oh my god, the Trumpsters are using violence.
It's like...
Yeah, you mean like you guys have been for the last year and promoting that's the only way to do politics?
What do you think was going to happen?
And way worse, like actual fire bombings, you know.
Yeah, I mean, terrorism.
Way worse, yeah.
I mean, the anti-far terrorism, it's not a small list, it's a long list.
Archibald S. As they say in my superior country, Beau is looking Beau.
Beautiful today.
B-E-A-U-B-U. When you rock, a niche moustache or mutton chops would complement nicely with the outfit.
Hmm.
I would love a big bushy set of lamb chops.
I can't grow them.
They won't be good anyway.
I'd like a big General Melchip moustache.
It doesn't come through good enough.
Who doesn't want to be General Melchip?
Ryan Bordewick.
All been doing a great job, guys.
Been loving the history videos with Carl and Bo.
Is there any historical period or event that you would love to do?
Oh, tons.
Tons.
I need another half hour just to list them.
But I would say, well, Alexander the Great is one of my favorites.
We're going to go over all sorts of elements of that at some point, I'm sure.
There's already a long five hours worth of me and Carl chatting about that on my channel, History Bro.
So if anyone wants five hours worth of me and Carl chatting about Alexander, it's already right there.
But one of the ones that really springs to mind is there's a book by Tacitus called The Germania, which, as you can guess, is all about ancient Germany, Germany in the age of, well, the first century AD. And I find that absolutely fascinating.
There's another one called The Agricola, which is about Britain, again, in the same period, the first century AD. Both those things, and they're very short, they're little more than essays, really.
Both of those are absolutely fascinating, and I really hope that me and Carl will talk all about them.
I'm sure we will, given enough time.
But that springs to mind.
All right.
Yeah.
Without further ado, we're going to have to end because we're out of time.
But thank you for tuning in.
If you want more content from us, go to thelotuses.com.
Especially check out Ella's article or the streamlined version if you're in a rush today from Rory.
And we will see you back tomorrow at 1 o'clock.
▲
Export Selection