Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 4, 2021 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:31:41

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #147

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters for the 4th of June 2021.
	And today I'm joined by Josh.
	Hello.
	And we're going to be going over a man who has been given five years jail time in the UK for owning three legal books but having the wrong views.
	I'm not joking, it's kind of a messed up story.
	Also Hotel Britannia and how every migrant that comes here is going to be given a hotel now because we can't dare to put them in a barracks because that's so inhumane.
	Yeah.
	Also, the Republicans have done a good thing.
	So they're defunding Woka-Cola.
	And it sounds weird, but I'm not joking.
	Like, if you have actually done this, and I'm hoping it'll spread throughout the states, and it's good news.
	Anyway, a little bit of shilling first.
	So we have loads of premium content, as we mentioned a million times, at Latacies.com, the things that are going up over the weekend.
	So we have Contemplations, which is now going premium, the chats you and Hugo have.
	That's going premium.
	That'll be up on Saturday.
	Do you want to tell us about the ones coming up?
	Yeah, sure.
	So, in contemplations, we're talking about the human sciences and the social sciences in particular and how they have a replicability crisis and what that means and whether you can actually trust the research that's coming out of it.
	And we talk about that in great detail.
	And, of course, something I know a lot about Being a psychological background.
	So also contemplations on Saturday, Epochs, the history podcast with Bo going up on Sunday between Bo and Carl.
	And we also have the Alex Jones Was Right podcast.
	So things Alex Jones was right about.
	Which is almost done.
	We'll have it up as soon as possible.
	I don't want to give a specific date on that yet because I'm not entirely sure.
	But that should be going up very soon.
	So if you're looking forward to that, it's done.
	We just have to get it finished and then throw it up.
	So I hope people enjoy it.
	A lot, it turns out, is what Alex Jones was right about.
	I'm looking forward to watching this, actually.
	Yeah.
	Anyway, that's good.
	I'm really going to get sued by Keemstar if I keep this up.
	Anyway.
	So a British man has been given five years imprisonment for owning books, which are all legal.
	But he does have views that are also legal, but they're extremist.
	So therefore, he's going to jail.
	Yeah, you tell me how this works.
	Anyway, so this is a story I found from CrimeBodge, which is a YouTube channel that everyone should subscribe to.
	He's a great guy.
	He covers the ridiculousness coming from British police when they act outside of the law.
	And usually it's about, you know, things like filming the police and the police all getting pissy about it.
	And then being like, no, we're taking you to jail for filming them.
	Stuff like that.
	And then there's the occasional story he does, like the police trying to persecute someone.
	You know, they met police YouTube Twitter account that persecuted someone and threatened them because they dared to say that, what was it?
	Is all of Team GB black or ethnic or whatever it was?
	No, gay or ethnic, sorry.
	And they threatened him by saying, like, we know your wife's name.
	Perfectly normal thing to do.
	So he sued them and won that.
	And then this is a court case which has come up which has been convicted, which is just mad.
	So if you're wondering, go and watch the full thing.
	We're not going to do all the details here, but CrimeBodge, well worth your time.
	So if we go to the next link, this is CPS definition of the law he was charged with.
	So Section 58 of the Terrorism Act.
	Section 58 makes it an offence to collect or make a record of information of a kind that is likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism.
	So, likely to be useful for a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism.
	What does that mean?
	I mean, is a penknife likely to be useful?
	I mean, is that enough?
	I'd imagine explosives, something like that, would make sense under this law.
	Yeah, I mean, that's what you'd be looking for if you were being serious about it.
	Or to possess a document or record containing information of that kind.
	The maximum sentence for Section 58 is 10 years' imprisonment.
	Examples include cases such as R.V. Mustafa Abdullah.
	Eight people were convicted of Section 58 in the year ending in September 2016.
	You'll notice that there's no need for a reasonable suspicion that you are actually going to carry out this attack that they think you're planning.
	So that is a major shortfall in the legislation.
	Thank you, Tony Blair.
	So the case they give is, as I mentioned, R.V. Abdullah.
	And if you go to the next link, this is the Guardian reporting on R.V. Abdullah, which is an example of this sort of thing.
	So in here they say, London jihadi found guilty of possessing terror training videos.
	Muslim convert Mustafa Abdullah was stopped at Gatwick Airport last year as he returned from a trip to Syria.
	Police examined his phone and computers and discovered gun instruction video and audio files on guerrilla warfare and combat equipment The jury was shown a photograph of him in April 2014 of Abdullah with an automatic rifle on his shoulder recovered from his mobile presumably in Syria there so you can see the picture of him with the rifle and his defense was he went to Syria for humanitarian work which What kind of humanitarian work involves a rifle?
	I mean, if you're shooting ISIS, I could count that as humanitarian, but there's no evidence of that.
	And yeah, not seeming to be telling the full story there.
	And then his phone containing the instructions for how to use firearms and guerrilla tactics, so on and so forth.
	He travelled, I think it was to Germany, then Sweden, then came to the UK. And the British police stopped him and charged him with this.
	Okay, that seems like a place you could charge someone and a usefulness for this law.
	And as you can see there, a guy who's just come from Syria with that kind of stuff on his phone.
	Yeah, okay, I can see the reasoning.
	The jury deliberated for 12 hours and found him guilty of 13 offences of possessing documents like to be useful to a person committing an act of terrorism.
	The videos on his phone were showing how to use weapons, as I mentioned.
	And there were also videos preaching fundamental Islamic doctrines, such as jihad against the non-believers.
	So, yeah, I mean...
	Good job.
	I mean, this is the kind of guy you'd think they'd be looking for.
	So let's go back to Crime Bodge, the guy they've just charged.
	So in here, as he mentions, they jail a guy for only three books.
	If we go to the first clip, this is the intro clip here, and I'm just going to play and let Crime Bodge explain it.
	It's a depressing prospect to defend somebody else's offensive beliefs, but protecting your own right to free speech and freedom of thought Inevitably means having to protect everyone else's, regardless of how reprehensible those beliefs may be.
	Nicholas Brock, a 53-year-old man from Berkshire, has been sentenced to five years for having what the judge described as a toxic right-wing ideology.
	This man had no links with any terror organisations.
	He had no plans to undertake any terrorist activity.
	What he had was three books in his possession, all of which can be purchased legally online.
	Those books were The Anarchist Cookbook, Knife Fighting Techniques from Fulton Prison and Kill or Get Killed.
	None of these books are prohibited and the mere owning of them is not an offence.
	So, a book on close combat history, a book on self-defense, and a book, The Anarchist Cookbook, of course, containing instructions that are freely available and legal to own on how to make bombs and, you know, Molotov cocktails, things like this.
	Like, sure, it could be suspect, I agree, and you'll see why he's slightly suspect with his beliefs as well, as to why he would be interested, but not criminal.
	That's the thing.
	None of those books are criminal things to own.
	You can own them.
	That's fine.
	So where's the crime?
	So if we go to the BBC link here, they're saying, I love how they put extremist in quotes there, as if they're disbelieving it, but okay.
	I mean, I'd say it is an extremist from his views, which, just to be clear, don't like, disavow, but not criminal.
	It's not criminal to hold these views.
	So a right-wing extremist has been jailed for possessing manuals on knife fighting and making explosives, the Anarchist Cookbook and the knife fighting book there, both legal to own.
	Police found a horde of Nazi-era daggers, far-right literature, and a framed Ku Klux Klan certificate in Nicholas Brooks' bedroom in Berkshire.
	And as you can see the picture there, that's his bedroom.
	Bit of a weirdo.
	Stole this with his mum.
	Has a bunch of SS knives that he's presumably brought on the internet.
	You know, other Nazi memorabilia and whatnot.
	Weird.
	Creepy, even.
	But not illegal.
	None of those things are illegal to own.
	I mean, if I did walk in there, I'd think, hmm, this guy might have a bit of a screw loose.
	Yeah, certainly.
	Like, that's why the investigation certainly warranted.
	But did he break the law?
	Did he threaten anyone?
	Doesn't seem like it, no.
	So...
	They say he was jailed for four years at Kingston Thames Crown Court.
	Incorrect.
	It's four years and plus one year on license after he served the four years, so that's why Crime Bodge says five years.
	Brooke Collection included a copy of Hitler's Mein Kampf Manifesto.
	Weird by putting it.
	And a video of a white supremacist attack on two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand.
	I mean, this is pretty clear evidence that he is a right-wing extremist.
	Well, Nazi extremist, I'm going to say, because I don't think Nazism is right-wing.
	I think it's socialist, because it's race-socialism.
	But anyway, different conversation.
	So, I mean, he's got the videos, he's got Mein Kampf there.
	Does he have a reasonable excuse?
	It's like, oh, I study this stuff, or anything like that?
	No, but even then, not illegal to own any of these things.
	I mean, if you want to read Mein Kampf, go for it.
	It's a garbage book, but whatever.
	So Judge Peter Lodder QC told him, It is clear from the wide range of other material found on your computer and from your hard drive that you are a right-wing extremist.
	Sure, if you want to describe them like that.
	But not a crime.
	Not a crime.
	Your enthusiasm for this repulsive and toxic ideology is demonstrated by graphic, racist, Islamophobic and white supremacist iconography that you have stored.
	Where's the crime?
	Yeah.
	Like, he owns this stuff.
	Yeah, it's pathetic, but it's not a crime.
	Like, if he wanted to own a bunch of communist stuff, if he wanted to own statues of Lenin and Stalin and, you know, symbols to the Workers' Party of Korea or whatever, still wouldn't be a crime.
	That'd be equally strange, though, if you just had, like, a shrine to Lenin in your house.
	Yeah, or the Black Flag of Islam, you know, ISIS flag, or a bunch of stuff.
	Yeah, suspect, worthy of investigation, maybe.
	But, uh, not a crime.
	Nothing criminal there.
	Because he's just thinking.
	He's not doing anything.
	I mean, there was no evidence, as they mentioned, of him preparing an attack, other than he owned some books that are legal to own.
	Yeah, I don't really know how they could justify, just based on him owning lots of stuff, how's that associated with terror?
	Just because they assume that him being far right is an inevitable thing that he would be a terrorist.
	Like, you own the Anarchist Cookbook, and you're a far right.
	Sure, suspect, but both of those things are legal, no crime there, and therefore you're going to make a terrorist act.
	No real evidence, I'm sorry.
	There's nothing there.
	I mean, in the previous example with Abdullah, he'd been to Syria.
	You could see pictures of him with rifles in Syria.
	Pretty reasonable to suspect that, yeah, okay, you've had combat training, you could be carrying out a terrorist attack, why have you come back to the UK after converting to Islam?
	What's this about?
	With this chap, Along that vein, though, I mean, the only thing I can think of is that he had lots of knives, and he had a book on how to use knives.
	Yeah, but there are ceremonial knives as well.
	Those things will break if you use them, because they're just things you buy off the internet.
	They're not proper knives.
	I mean, I obviously agree that it shouldn't be criminal, but...
	At the same time, I'm trying to understand why they're actually arresting this guy.
	I'm siding with them on the side that it's suspect, it might be worth the investigation, but there's no evidence there of him committing a crime.
	And his defence defended it on that basis.
	Edward Butler, defending, says there was no evidence that his client intended to put or carry out an attack.
	Which there wasn't.
	So, what?
	Brooke of Lancaster Road previously told police he had an interest in military memorabilia, which stemmed from his love of action man as a child.
	Yeah, not buying that, because you've got the New Zealand mosque shooting on your hard drive as well, and I'm just like, did that stem from your love of action, man?
	I don't think so.
	Anyway, so the head of counterterrorism policing, South East, said the material Brock had in his possession is dangerous and concerning.
	Could be concerning.
	I don't know how it's dangerous.
	I mean, none of that stuff is being used for anything dangerous, but okay.
	He had books which would provide techniques on how to fight, assisting someone who was potentially preparing a terrorist act.
	Maybe.
	But again, not a crime.
	He owns these books, perfectly legal to own.
	They're couched in the language of self-defence, presumably, except the Anarchist Cookbook, perhaps.
	But even then, it's a legal book to own.
	There is nothing illegal about owning it.
	I've read some of it, and it's interesting stuff.
	I can understand why someone would want to read through it, but, you know, it's a perfectly reasonable thing to own if you're just curious.
	I also have a book by Che Guevara talking about guerrilla warfare.
	It doesn't mean I'm going to actually go out and Go into the trees with a band of people with guns.
	It just means I'm interested in that.
	Like, I've got two Korans.
	I have no plans to go to London Bridge on Friday or something.
	I've got plenty of books on North Korea there.
	I've got communist books.
	So, you know, that doesn't mean I'm a communist.
	It's such silly arguing, and they put this guy in jail over it.
	I'm flabbergasted, because, I mean, what if they raid my house, and they're just like, yeah, you've got these communist books.
	You're a communist terrorist.
	LAUGHTER Okay, what am I going to argue?
	I don't own the books?
	Anyway, so if we go to the next clip, this is from CrimeBodge again, who just did some digging into the judge who did this, and it's revealing, let's say, with the fact that with cases of Islamists, he's very lenient.
	But with cases such as this man, who could be described as the far right, not so much.
	So let's play this.
	It's just a shame that Judge Lodder doesn't hold consistent views toward other disciples of toxic ideology that appear before him.
	In 2019 he delayed sentencing a teenage supporter of Islamic terrorism who'd been planning random attacks on innocent members of the public with a hunting knife and had publicly announced his intention to stab people in the face and raise money to join ISIS. The judge wasn't happy with the first probation's report on the defendant I assume because it was unfavorable to him and he therefore granted a six-week recess insisting that a report be undertaken by someone who has When
	the teenager was finally sentenced, the judge chose to blame the game rather than the player, mitigating the man's murderous intent by saying, I very much hope that you take advantage of the programs available to you in prison and realize radicalization is not the way forward for you.
	He then handed him three years.
	Nicholas Brock was given five years and spared the apologetic send-off that's characteristic of Judge Peter Lodder.
	So, I mean, the difference there.
	The Islamist made a public, you know, his public views, his public intentions known, that he wanted to stab people, was raising money for ISIS. That's a crime.
	Like, there you go.
	That's easy peasy.
	I mean, that's evidence of him wanting to commit attack to terrorism.
	Owning books?
	No.
	And yet one guy gets his, you know, case suspended and then has his three years slapped on him.
	Whereas this guy who owns books...
	Which are legal.
	Gets four years.
	Plus one for license.
	It is definitely backwards.
	The only thing I could see really there that could explain that is the fact that the Islamic guy was, what, 16, 17?
	And, you know...
	Plenty of terrorists at that age, though.
	I know.
	I'm not excusing him, obviously, but I'm just trying to think of why he would do such a thing, other than, of course, just being a hypocrite, which is probably likely.
	It's just being utterly biased.
	So this isn't the first time the anarchist cookbook has been on trial either.
	A legal book to own in the UK. So this is a trial in which the BBC tells it anarchist cookbook trial.
	Waste of time and money.
	Interesting how it's a waste of time and money here, but in this case of this, this Nazi guy, not so much.
	Strange.
	So they say in here, a student cleared of possessing terrorist information after he was found with a copy of the anarchist cookbook.
	Says his trial was overzealous waste of time money.
	Joshua Walker, 27, from Bristol, travelled to Syria in the summer of 2016 to help a Kurdish militia group.
	You'll see here how this has more weight than the owning books guy, because he's gone to Syria.
	And then the police, like, wanted to make sure you weren't fighting for ISIS or the PKK, for example.
	I mean, presumably he was fighting for the, what was it, the YPG or whatever, you know, Kurdish group in Syria that's not listed as a terrorist group yet.
	But the PKK, for example, are listed as a terrorist group by the UK. So, if he's been fighting for it for them, worthy of an investigation, they did it, and then everyone's like, yeah, that was a waste of time just because he owns an anarchist cookbook isn't good enough evidence.
	But...
	For the other chap, that's enough to not only do the trial, it's enough to put him away for five years.
	Interesting.
	So, is it just that, you know, that guy could be seen as believing in terrorism there.
	That's the point I'm getting.
	It's not just belief.
	So why bother?
	Why do they bother with this?
	Come on, we all know the answer.
	Because there's a wider conversation going on about all this, in which there are too many Muslim terrorists on the British terrorist list.
	That's the problem.
	Not that there are too many Muslim terrorists, but there are too many on the list.
	Because then it looks disproportionate.
	Like the PREVENT program is trying to target Muslims.
	Not that there are a lot of Muslim terrorists in the UK. And therefore, that's why they're overrepresented.
	So if we go to the next link here, you can see this is an article you wrote.
	It is indeed, yeah.
	Exactly this kind of nonsense policing in which after being criticized for there being too many Muslims on the PREVENT scheme, they decided to investigate more far-right terrorism and the pensioner threat went up 90%.
	Yeah, so I think there was political pressure supposedly put on the people who are at Prevent, I assume, and in trying to inflate the figures for the far right, it turned out that actually it was just loads of pensioners that were being classified as extremists.
	I love the chat here.
	Yeah, diversify the terrorist list.
	Essentially, that's it.
	Diversity and inclusion for the terrorism list.
	So you wrote here the figures for 2019-2020.
	97 people over the age of 60 were flagged for PREVENT, which is the strategy for identifying extremists.
	This was double of the previous year, 53, and three times the number for 2016-2017.
	Many security experts believe the majority of those extremist pensioners would be considered far-right terrorist suspects.
	These figures come after the Prevent strategy was branded toxic in 2015 for predominantly targeting those from a Muslim background.
	The comments came two years prior to the 2017 suicide bombing at Manchester Arena.
	Not to mention all the other literally terrorist attacks below that.
	Overwhelmingly Islamic.
	Surprise, surprise.
	So, if we go to the graphs, also for just Islamist terror, like, you can see that sort of thing, but if we, like, it's right at the bottom, the graph.
	So, I think it might be right at the bottom, but there's, like, a list, you have a graph, yeah, there.
	So you can see the referrals for Islamist terror dropping like a stone since 2015.
	Interesting.
	I'm glad Islamist terror's dried up.
	Glad ISIS didn't come out.
	Anyway.
	So, if we go to the next link, you'll have The Guardian pushing this exact same thing from the media here.
	Fastest-growing UK terror threat is the far right, says police.
	Sure, but if it's going from 2 to 4, that might be the fastest growing, you know, 100%, but that's not representative of a huge spike in a mashup issue.
	And thank God for the Global Terrorism Index that does actually consolidate these things.
	So if you go to the next thing, this is the Global Terrorism Index.
	It's free.
	Just Google it.
	Check it out yourself.
	They do it every year.
	And if we go to the first image, this is what is in there for far right and far left terror incidents in the West.
	Between 1970 to 2019.
	And as you can see, right at the tail end there, far-right terrorism incidents, yeah, they are going up.
	Along with left-wing terrorism incidents there, just not as much.
	But that never gets a mention, does it?
	But as you can see, historically, comparison there, not too much compared to the horror of the 70s with left-wing terrorism.
	Surely left-wing terrorism would be going up from 2015 still because of all the Black Lives Matter stuff.
	Yeah, I mean, it is going up a little bit there.
	I mean, I don't know how they class far-left specifically with regards to Black Lives Matter, but that'll be an interesting question.
	But if we go to the next one here, I mean, this is just a map of ISIL-related terrorism deaths.
	We know even incidences.
	I mean, this is just ISIL, never mind all the other Islamist groups.
	And as you can see, it's not like it doesn't affect the West or anything.
	In fact, it's, you know, 90% of terror deaths globally every single year because of Islamist groups.
	And then when you look in the West, yeah, it's overwhelmingly disproportionate.
	Again, as you can see, France being particularly harmed by this, but also Germany, Sweden, the UK, US, obviously.
	It's just BS to say that the far right is a growing threat, that's true, but to say that it's like the biggest thing ever in the West, no, Islamist terror is still the biggest thing.
	I'm not sure if you saw in my article, but I think it was either someone thought MI5 or MI6 or something.
	Actually came out and said, like, we're being pressured to inflate the far right because of political pressure, and that's the only reason that these numbers are going up, pretty much.
	Which would explain that conviction, because it's like, well, look, this guy owns two books, they're legal, he owns, you know, dumb paraphernalia for the Nazis.
	I mean, cringe, you know, disgusting, but legal.
	He has views which are gross, but legal.
	And yet he gets five years in jail.
	It's a political conviction to bump up the numbers, it seems to me.
	Yeah.
	I don't like the guy at all.
	I don't have to even meet the guy.
	I know I'm not going to like the guy, but still, that just looks like a political imprisonment.
	I'm sorry, he hasn't done anything illegal.
	He just has retarded views.
	Anyway, so we can also just see this for yourself.
	If you just go to the Wikipedia list of terrorist incidents in the UK, and then we'll just run it backwards, shall we?
	Let's go from now until the last far-right terror attack and just see how this plays out.
	So, 2020 Reading Stabbings.
	Kahiri Sadala, a fake asylum seeker, shouting Allahu Akbar, kills people with knives, killing three and injuring three in Reading.
	2020, Sturtham Stabbing.
	Right at the bottom, John.
	You want to go to the bottom?
	Other way around.
	So, Sturtham Stabbing.
	Sudesh Amen, wearing a fake suicide vest, was shot dead by armed police after stabbing two people.
	Inmates at Whitmore Prison in Cambridgeshire, wearing realistic fake suicide vests and carrying improvised bladed weapons, stabbed one prison officer several times, causing him...
	To the next one.
	2019, London Bridge Stabbing.
	Two people were killed in the attack and three were left injured.
	The attacker, 28-year-old Usman Khan, was shot dead by the police.
	2018, Mahid Mahmoud, a Dutch national from a Somali family, stabbed three with a knife at Manchester Victoria Station.
	Mahmoud shouted Allahu Akbar and long live the Caliphate during the attack.
	2018, Westminster car attack.
	A Ford Fiesta ran down pedestrians outside the Palace of Westminster Suspect Salah Qatar, a 20-year-old British citizen from Birmingham who entered the UK in 2010 as a refugee from Sudan.
	You notice how many refugees keep popping up here.
	2017, Parsons Green bombing.
	A London tube train was targeted and witnesses reported flash and bangs.
	30 people were injured.
	An 18-year-old Iraqi asylum seeker, Ahmed Hassan, who came here illegally, was arrested.
	Then we get to a far-right terror attack.
	I mean, it's just pathetic.
	It's this list of just endless, like, Islamist terror attack, and then the spotty one from the far-right, and it's like, you can't lie to me.
	I'm sorry, we have the attacks.
	It's not even when we have reports or something.
	I don't know.
	These are big events.
	And then we get Finsbury Park Mosque, 2017.
	So you have to go back all that far for a whole bunch of refugees from the Religion of Peace, and then you get a far-right one.
	Finsbury Park Mosque, Derek and Osborne, 27-year-old British male, He was radicalized by the BBC. It's something you don't hear about, do you?
	Well, I don't know about that.
	Like, literally, his wife is saying that he watched the docudrama about three girls, had no real opinions on Islam, and then just went nuts.
	I mean, we just started getting radicalised and radicalised.
	So it's like, okay, you can say that all these other guys are being radicalised by stuff, but...
	I just hate how they're like, look, the far right's on the rise, the far right's on the rise.
	And I'm like, yeah, sure, okay, we can investigate it.
	But when a guy has some books and opinions, it's not crime.
	And when you just look at the numbers, I'm sorry, it is overwhelmingly Islamic.
	I don't know if you don't like that, but that's the truth.
	It's ridiculous, really, because even just someone who loosely follows the news can tell that the threat of Islamic terror is obviously the most significant one, and anyone else trying to inflate either the left or the right, at least in the UK, they're just crazy, aren't they?
	There aren't really very many left or right-wing terror cases, it's just Islam that's the problem in the UK. Overwhelmingly.
	I mean, from a population that's, what, like 80% of the population or something like that?
	Ridiculously overrepresented.
	Yeah, like 90% of the terrorism.
	Funny how that works.
	Yeah, it's strange.
	But yeah, guys with books and opinions, which are gross, but both legal, that can get you in jail.
	So I guess burn your books.
	I don't know what to say.
	Talking of terrorism...
	Well, that's a transition.
	Yeah, so I wanted to talk about the recent ruling about how it is unlawful to house migrants in a military barracks, which is the Napier Barracks in Folkestone in Kent, after six asylum seekers actually brought the case to court, describing that the barracks were unsafe, apparently, if you actually have a look at the picture at the top there.
	Was this before or after they burnt them down?
	You're spoiling my...
	I was getting on to that.
	Sorry, but it's just like, yeah, it's unsafe.
	Yeah, so we're going to destroy it.
	Yeah, okay, that'll make it safer.
	Sorry.
	You've ruined it now.
	Sorry, I didn't know you were using it as a surprise.
	But, yeah, I mean, obviously it's not...
	Luxury, but it is better.
	And if they truly are asylum seekers escaping war, you'd think that, OK, somewhere with walls and, you know, a perimeter fence would make them feel really safe.
	And especially considering it's in the middle of a pandemic and we're kind of at the point where really high numbers of people are coming across.
	I think...
	The fact this is being used as like an overflow facility, it's not really that surprising.
	And the judge said about this ruling, which obviously he ruled against the use of this facility, he says, I do not accept that the accommodation there ensured a standard of living which was adequate for the health of the claimants.
	Insofar as the defendant considered that the accommodation was adequate for their needs, that view was irrational, he says.
	He says that the Home Office is irrational to use military barracks, and They were supposed to live voluntarily pending a determination of their application for asylum.
	When this is considered a decision that accommodates in a detention-like setting, a site enclosed by a perimeter fence topped with barbed wire, access to which is through a padlock gate guarded by uniform security personnel, will be adequate for their needs, begins to look questionable.
	Sorry, that's his complaint?
	Yeah.
	I mean, never mind that they tried to, you know, break in illegally to the UK in boats.
	Like, forgetting that, you know.
	Sorry, so the problem with this whole place is they had to go through a gate?
	Yeah, pretty much.
	I mean, the facilities aren't exactly amazing, but it's habitable, at the very least.
	Yeah, I mean, it's an army park.
	But surely you want to be keeping an eye on people like this.
	If they're just coming into your country, what's the point in even having borders in the first place?
	After that list?
	How many of them were asylum seekers, right?
	Exactly.
	And you want to be keeping an eye on these people.
	They could just go missing before their asylum claim has been evaluated.
	They have to be deported.
	It makes sense to keep people under lock and key, so I don't understand why...
	They're not doing that in the first place.
	And, of course, we had the thing where they were putting people in hotels, which I'll get onto later.
	It doesn't seem they were necessarily even under lock and key.
	There was just a gate they had to go through.
	Well, there were security guards there.
	Yeah, but you could leave.
	It's not like they would be like, halt, you can't leave the camp.
	No, you could go out if you wanted to, but this is where you are.
	Because I've seen them protesting outside the place, and presumably they didn't have to ask the guards for permission.
	No.
	And supposedly this ruling as well could actually lead to damage claims against the Home Secretary, Priti Patel, which is just ridiculous that, you know, she's got to provide damages to these asylum seekers.
	So if we actually have a look at some of the images I've found of the barracks, there they are, playing football in the courtyard.
	It's pure oppression right there.
	Yeah, I mean, uninhabitable.
	Maybe they're all about the weather, just like, oh, it rains here too much.
	And then we have a look at the next one as well.
	Here are the actual buildings themselves, you know, standard military barracks.
	It's not like there are holes in the roof and, you know, falling apart.
	They still look fine.
	And the final one.
	That's the facilities?
	Okay.
	I mean, I know I wouldn't be particularly happy living there.
	But if you were a refugee after a British civil war?
	Yeah.
	I mean, I'll take what I could get.
	I mean, they've got curtains, they've got privacy, they've got walls.
	It's better than having nothing whatsoever.
	It's better than being shot at.
	Yeah, exactly.
	And I can see why people would think, okay, this doesn't look great, but at the same time, if they truly are the asylum seekers that they claim to be, this would still be better, surely.
	So, on February the 14th, as you mentioned, Oh no, no, it's February.
	14 asylum seekers, sorry, were arrested following a fire at the barracks and then you can see one of the buildings there basically destroyed.
	And why did this happen?
	Was it just a mistake where they were cooking and they accidentally burnt the whole thing down?
	Yeah, it's just so bad.
	Oh wait, no.
	Actually, it turned out that they vandalised the facility.
	So supposedly a fire broke out, and they also vandalised the on-site canteen where they get their food, and they smashed loads of windows.
	They get all this for free, as I can see the chat screaming about.
	Yeah.
	So they were not happy with the free stuff that we provided for them, the British taxpayer, so they burnt it down.
	They said it wasn't good enough for us, us asylum seekers.
	It's ridiculous.
	But it's also irritating because the previous situation was, of course, that anyone who hopped across the border was being sent to, what was it, like four-star hotels until Nigel Farage embarrassed the government.
	And then that stopped and they started sending them to these barracks.
	So I got to wonder whether they were like, oh, I'm expecting a four-star hotel, let's jump over.
	And then they went over and then they got sent to the barracks and they're like, this isn't a four-star hotel.
	Yeah.
	I think there is a certain element of that, as we'll get onto in a second.
	There are some quotes by one of the border enforcers, and they're saying, like, they were impetuous and demanding people give them better accommodation, but...
	Where's my free biscuits?
	You do actually get free biscuits in the canteen, so...
	So, one of the people prosecuted for the fire was 31-year-old Mohammed A. He was one of the 14 arrested for this vandalism, so, of course...
	Religion of peace strikes again, burning down free accommodation.
	I don't think this was a form of jihad.
	I'll give them that one.
	So the police said of this, significant amount of damage was caused to one part of the site following a fire, which is believed to have been started deliberately.
	So yeah, I mean, confirmation there.
	Deliberate thing.
	It's not even criminally negligent arson, this is just arson.
	Mm-hmm.
	So supposedly part of the kind of protests of the people there were in part because of 120 people staying in the barracks had tested positive for COVID out of the, I think, 300, 400 people that are there.
	And this actually ended up meaning that some of the protesters were not protesters.
	The asylum seekers were moved because of the rapidly spreading COVID. Yeah, we didn't just detain them all and then die.
	Yeah.
	Exactly.
	And this is Folkstone's Conservative Council leader, David Monk, here, saying, one building has been virtually destroyed, but there is no intention to remove the people from the site.
	And he was actually complaining about this.
	Like, this is atrocious.
	So yeah, conservative.
	What do you mean by complaining?
	Complaining of the conditions?
	Yes, exactly.
	So he was siding with the left this year.
	He wants to put them up in hotels, yeah.
	I want four-star hotels for these poor refugees.
	These, what is it, 99% men.
	I mean, I'm yet to see a woman, so I'm just saying that there might exist with that 99% stuff.
	I think there were a few families there, but mostly men.
	I'd like to see pictures.
	Young men, yeah.
	So, the migrant charity Care for Calais accused the government of deliberately housing them in unacceptable conditions as not to undermine public confidence in the asylum system.
	I think public confidence in the asylum system has already been undermined.
	So, undermined by you?
	Care for Calais?
	I'm going to get annoyed because I used to live in Canterbury and I know the leftist scum who organised it in Kent.
	And they're all very incestuous, of course, in the fact that it's all the same organisation.
	They set up new faces for it.
	so their opinion on this is absolutely worthless it's not to be taken seriously in the slightest absolutely so if we look at a tweet from Care for Calais they actually reveal something that's quite interesting So, you know, they were complaining about the facilities.
	Well, they actually say that the Napier Barracks residents have been without adequate health care, mental health support and COVID safety for months.
	Since the fire in the building two days ago, they've had no heating, electricity or communication from those who should care for them.
	So they destroyed their own infrastructure.
	Since I burnt down my house, I haven't been able to cook food in my house.
	I haven't been able to take a lovely bath.
	I mean, what on earth are they saying?
	My bookcase is gone, too!
	I mean, how quickly do they think that you can just pop infrastructure out of nowhere?
	Just like, yeah, they burnt it down, oh well.
	I'm just going to immediately give them some more.
	That sends a good message.
	I just love it, like, since I smashed up my car, I can't drive it.
	Yeah, I know.
	Which part was that?
	Oh dear.
	So there was also protests outside.
	The chat's like, who did this?
	Who?
	So a Guardian journalist documented some of the protests outside, who are the real enablers of this.
	So they say, protesters have today, this was quite a while ago, targeted Napier Barracks, the UK Home Office's widely condemned refugee camp on These are the people who invite the migrants, lie to them, tell them our streets are paved with gold and they'll get lovely four-star hotels.
	Sometimes they do, obviously.
	And then you can come here, you must come here.
	And then when they do, and the government's like, we'll just put them in reasonable housing instead of a four-star hotel for once.
	And then they'll campaign and argue about how horrible this is, because their fundamental goal is no borders.
	And they will tell you this themselves.
	They think borders are racist.
	Well, it's funny you should say that.
	We can find out.
	The activists here wrote a letter about what they were actually campaigning against.
	It's It's ridiculous.
	So if you'd actually go to just the main part there, John.
	Thank you.
	So they say, activists take radical action at Napier Barracks.
	They also talk about themselves in the third person for some reason.
	They use the royal pronoun.
	Yeah, of course.
	So, activists dressed in white suits and masks throw buckets of fake blood through the gates of Napier Barracks to send a clear message to Priti Patel in the home office.
	Close Napier camp or there'll be blood on your hands.
	I mean, is that a threat?
	We're going to kill all the migrants.
	I mean, that's some new age anti-border terrorism there, isn't it?
	Free the migrants or we're going to kill them all.
	This letter is just ridiculous.
	I'm not going to read too much of it because I don't want to give it any more publicity than it deserves because they're just complaining how it's racist, evil, blah, blah, blah, blah.
	You've heard it all before.
	Yes, there's free housing with free food and a free canteen and free fucking sports facilities.
	Yeah, that's all racism there.
	Yeah, the British taxpayer pays for it all, but never mind, it's racist.
	So, if we can move on to another thing by The Guardian.
	I'm really over-representing them here today, but it's good to use left-wing sources when they're making your points for you.
	So, they say, small boats carrying migrants across the Channel hits record levels in May.
	So, at the minute, there are more migrant boats than ever before.
	So, in May, 568 migrants crossed the Channel in the last four days of the month.
	Which is a huge number of people.
	Whose fault is that?
	Come on, Kefokale.
	Whose fault is that?
	Why are there so many activists for no borders on the other side telling them, yeah, come, come.
	You should be able to come to the UK. Helping them out.
	Why, instead, do you not have activists over there telling them, don't come, we don't have the facilities.
	Stay in France, it's safe.
	Yes, and we'll find out that France is taking a much more based approach here.
	Supposedly the situation in Calais is unspeakable, which is driving lots of the migrants across.
	Calais is not that bad.
	I've been there, it's alright.
	I have been to France, I kind of know what they mean.
	I've been to Calais, it's fine.
	Apparently, in the first four months of 2021, the number of crossings was at just over 2,000, which was more than double that of 2020, which was the previous record year.
	Home Office staff are apparently working 20-hour shifts to provide processing of all the migrants that are coming across, and...
	A Home Office spokesperson said that a relatively new development in the last few weeks is for Vietnamese, not classically a nationality that seek asylum, using small boats rather than lorries.
	Wow.
	So yeah, we're getting migrants from Vietnam.
	Not currently at war.
	I think we had a border with Vietnam as well, don't we?
	Oh yeah, that's just down the road, isn't it?
	How many countries do you have to walk through from Vietnam before you get to the UK? They are not asylum seekers.
	There's no war going on.
	Well, you can argue from the communist government, but then I've got to argue, well, how many countries did you get to before you came here?
	I mean, for starters, France.
	I mean, France, not a country that is also run by, you know, the Communist Party, as far as I'm aware, so that would also be a suitable place to claim asylum if you are a real asylum seeker, and not just a chancer.
	Because so many times, as we've covered, there have been people who have been chancers, got to France, claimed asylum, lost it, because they're a clear chancer, and they'll be like, right, I'll try in the UK. And then...
	That's exactly it.
	Most of the people who...
	Getting to the UK aren't really real asylum seekers, it seems like, because most of the time they're not from countries that have any problems, and it's just ridiculous.
	I mean, what was it?
	People from, like, Iran.
	I mean, sure.
	I don't blame you wanting to leave Iran, but...
	But you've taken a plane to Serbia, and then you've walked through Croatia, you've walked through Austria, Germany, got to France, and then came here.
	It's like, you should have stopped anywhere on the way there.
	It's not criminal to be gay in Germany.
	You're not really an asylum seeker if you're able to travel halfway around the world.
	I think that's a fair statement.
	So supposedly the situation in Calais is what's driving most of the people there.
	It's mainly people who are already in France.
	And supposedly they say that there continues to be a ban on distribution on food in some parts of the town of Calais.
	And actions by the police against migrants are unrelenting.
	In parts of Calais, areas of wasteland have been stripped bare of trees and scrubs so that people cannot even erect tents to sleep in.
	We're seeing people sleeping outside in the bare tarmac and disused petrol stations and behind derelict shops.
	It's entirely understandable that it would take a great risk to escape these desperate cases.
	The lack of safe alternative pathways is making a dangerous trip in an unsuitable boat the only viable alternative.
	I'm sorry.
	I watched the parliamentary debate on this.
	I've seen every Labour MP under the sun say, why are there no alternatives?
	There are.
	We take in thousands of refugees from around the world every single year who are sincere because we take them from the place next door to where the conflict is.
	We process them and then we fly them out here.
	There is no alternative pathway.
	You're just a chancer.
	They don't make it to Calais and just like, oh, actually, we're just going to stay here for a little while.
	Never mind that it's, you know, the closest place to cross into the UK. So the whole reason for them being there in the first place is to cross into the UK. Let's not be around the bush here.
	It's obvious.
	Like, it's ridiculous that they're saying, oh, well, we're going to claim asylum in France, but we were just going to...
	Yeah, but I failed because I'm a liar.
	No, I'll go to the UK then.
	Like...
	Yeah, there's no reason for them to be in Calais other than to get into the UK. Because, you know, it's not like France is a small country, and then it's just going to be like, oh, we just happen to be here in Calais.
	But also, it's not bordered by totalitarian dictatorships, like you could go to Switzerland, you could go to Belgium, you could go to Luxembourg, you could go to Germany, you could go to Spain, you could go to Adora, and claim there.
	All of them have processes for refugees as well, but you know you're not going to be accepted.
	Exactly.
	So, the actual next article here from Telegraph kind of highlights the problem even more.
	So they say there are record numbers of legal migrants expected to move quickly to actual accommodation as well.
	So they're being put up in hotels again, it seems.
	So thanks to this judge saying that, oh, there's a fence, therefore it's inhumane.
	That means that legally the barracks have to be shut down now, and everyone has to be moved back to these four-star hotels.
	Which then sends the message to the rest of the migrants, hey, we'll give you a four-star hotel.
	Wonderful.
	Thanks, judge.
	Yeah, because previously, I think it was like 90 hotels were being used, and the government, the Home Office in particular, had a £4 billion 10-year contract with hotel companies to house these migrants.
	So it's £4 billion.
	That's how much it's costing you to house these people who are getting into the country illegally.
	Taking the...
	and then sometimes just killing people afterwards, as we saw on the list of 10s.
	Burning down the facilities and they're not...
	the vast majority are not actual...
	They're welcome.
	Asylum seekers.
	Lawrence Southern, not welcome.
	It's ridiculous, isn't it?
	So anyway, I'll move on from that.
	Sorry, it makes me mad.
	I've made a couple of videos about this myself.
	I really can't stand the opposition on this.
	Because you've got the Conservatives.
	The Conservatives, at least the MPs, when I see them arguing, are being based on this.
	In which they come out and say that this is obvious bollocks.
	People are obviously asylum shoppers.
	They are not people who are here sincerely to claim asylum.
	Because you can see it in their actions.
	The fact that they walk through multiple safe countries.
	And then I saw the Labour, Green Party, Lib Dems, SNP, I mean, you name them, any MP on the opposition, they all parroted the same phrase that there is no alternative pathways.
	And then the Minister for Immigration Enforcement was just like, yeah, there's this one, this one, this one, and we've taken thousands every single year from each one of these schemes.
	What do you want?
	They can't be doing anymore, can they?
	But also, if there's no alternatives, where did these asylum seekers come from?
	The ones that we've just imported, like 2,000 people from around the world, people from North Korea or China or whatnot, who are fleeing the government.
	Where do they come from if that scheme doesn't exist?
	I mean, you just lie.
	I can't stand them on this issue.
	I mean, it's just the obvious ridiculousness of it as well, in that we're an island off the coast of Europe.
	We're about as far removed from pretty much everywhere, unless they're coming in from, like, the Atlantic somewhere.
	But that war in Mongolia, though.
	We need to take more refugees.
	They're coming from like halfway around the world as well.
	Anyway.
	White belt.
	So Republicans.
	Republicans are doing good things again.
	So praise be to them.
	Mashallah.
	So Republicans are defunding Woka-Cola.
	So if you go to the first link here, this is just a compilation I found.
	So you can see Coca-Cola HQ there.
	I presume this is meant to be some symbol for pride.
	If it's not, then I guess they just have it as a placeholder now for the first one.
	And then you can see Coca-Cola Euro-Pacific Partners with the Pride logo there.
	Coca-Cola Iberia, Pride logo.
	Coca-Cola Middle East, nah.
	Funny that, isn't it?
	You'll notice how these are the regional groups as well.
	The individual, like UK and whatnot, aren't doing it, but the regional Coca-Cola accounts are all doing it, and the Middle Eastern one has been like...
	Not today.
	So that's something to keep in mind as we go forwards.
	Love how that works.
	So if we go to the next one, it's just things where Coca-Cola stand on.
	I mean, why?
	No, my smart water.
	Before someone else bugged me.
	So Coca-Cola here saying, where we stand on social justice, together we must.
	Companies like ours must speak up as allies to the Black Lives Matter movement.
	Bunch of communists.
	We stand with those seeking justice and equality.
	A communist value.
	Equality.
	Not a liberal one.
	A liberal one would be freedom.
	Today we are announcing $2.5 million in grants from the Coca-Cola Foundation for the Equal Justice Initiative to assist advocates and policy makers in critically important work of criminal justice reform.
	So we're going to give $2.5 million to a bunch of Marxists.
	And also we stand with Black Lives Matter.
	So says Coca-Cola.
	I guess not Black Lives Matter, Middle East though.
	I'm sure that's what everyone wants to hear from their favourite brand of sugar water.
	Yeah.
	Great.
	Pathetic.
	And this isn't the only stupid blog post they've done.
	They've got loads of stuff.
	So we're going to go through it because I want to really throw them under the bus here.
	So we've got the next one.
	This is recognising our duty to strive together for racial equity.
	And it's ridiculous.
	So they want to recognise their duty for greater racial equity within our communities.
	Race socialism.
	Thank God, Coke.
	I mean, I'm sure the old Nazi detachment you had would actually agree with you on that one.
	They want racial equity but for the German race.
	And your one is like, yeah, they want racial equity for the black race of America.
	They're carrying on the mantle of their company.
	What can you say?
	Part of the founding principles.
	The company and some of our brands are using our voice to reach and take a stand.
	I also love this because you think during World War II, Coca-Cola was a symbol of American individualism, freedom, so on and so forth.
	And now they're just race socialists.
	Great.
	I mean, how long did it take?
	60 years?
	And then they literally took the German position on things in Volkenreich.
	I mean, it's obviously just part of a PR campaign, right?
	No, no, no.
	This is real.
	I'm going to prove it to you.
	The people at the top are not just running along with it because they think they can make some cash.
	They are true believers in this crap.
	The series was an extension of the Together We Must pledge.
	$500,000 had been donated to 100 Black Men of America Incorporated.
	Don't know what that is, but I mean, that sounds like woke ink if you ever asked for it.
	Black Men of America, ink.
	Like, white men of America, ink.
	Oh, boy.
	Donating $1 million to the WCK to fight food insecurity around the world.
	That could be something to do.
	I mean, if you want to help people who are going to die from famine.
	That's probably better spent than 100 black men of America or whatever it was.
	And support communities of colour that have been disproportionately affected by COVID-19.
	There's the race socialism.
	Never just goes further.
	Let's do good things.
	Let's do good things, but only for certain racial groups.
	The brand also donated $500,000 to the Black Lives Matter Global Network to support the groups of voting education efforts and not buy houses for its leaders.
	But I guess that's where the money went, didn't it?
	I'm sure Patrice Cullors is very grateful for her fourth home.
	Thanks for that house.
	Co-Cullor.
	She should do an advert for them.
	I mean, why not?
	They paid for it.
	So if you go to the next link as well, this is just them posting on their Facebook account here.
	They say, We are pausing advertising on all social media for 30 days.
	Oh, noble and brave.
	During this time, we will reassess platforms and practices to drive accountability towards a safer, hate-free environment.
	You do spread a lot of hate, Coca-Cola.
	So, I mean, if you logging off for 30 days ends the hate, as you're saying, yeah, at least that's an admittance of where it's coming from.
	Good.
	And as you can see, the top comment there, goodbye.
	Coke, you have lost another customer thanks to your wokeness.
	I was just reading that, actually.
	Well done, Todd.
	Good guy.
	I love how he's the highest comment there.
	That's great.
	But just like, yeah, there's too much racism online, so Coca-Cola's logging off.
	Okay.
	Okay then.
	And this isn't coming from nowhere.
	I mean, Coca-Cola, as people know, if we go to the next one, told white people to be less white.
	Their own employees.
	So this is Carolyn Borisenko posting here.
	Breaking.
	Coca-Cola is trying to force employees to complete online training, telling them to be less white.
	These images are from an internal whistleblower.
	As you can see, this is, what's it, Robin DiAngelo, the race nationalist.
	Her training.
	Remember, White Fragility is her book that everyone's being forced to buy if you're a wokest.
	So to be less white is to be less oppressive, to be less arrogant, to be less certain, to be less defensive, ignorant, humble, to listen, to believe, to break with apathy, break with white solidarity.
	Hmm.
	Right.
	Yeah, most people don't think of being white like that.
	They think of it just being skin tone.
	That's it.
	But if you ask the white nationalist, I guess, thanks, Rom D'Angelo, for the white nationalist perspective.
	I mean, she holds it sincerely.
	If you go to the last one here, which is just the slide that she's referring to, of Rom D'Angelo telling you to be less white.
	Go out in the sun.
	Get a time.
	I mean, that's Coca-Cola.
	So they're only employees here.
	Yeah, that's them.
	So this is a LinkedIn Learning lecture series as well.
	What was interesting is LinkedIn Learning deleted this series after it went viral that Coca-Cola were enforcing this racist nonsense upon their staff.
	Isn't that interesting?
	LinkedIn Learning thinks that this is racist.
	So they got rid of it.
	Surely it was just because it was giving them bad PR. Because I've heard other stuff about LinkedIn being a bit questionable.
	Yeah, why would it give them bad PR? Well, because it is racist.
	Yeah.
	Nice admittance there.
	Robin DiAngelo, racist.
	So says LinkedIn Learning.
	Coke also first denied that this was being sent to staff, and then confirmed that yes, it is.
	After, you know, Carol and whatnot were like, we have internal leakers.
	Like, they're taking screenshots of your internal stuff.
	What, you think you're gonna, this is all fake or something?
	Like, if members of your organisation are leaking stuff, you can't deny that it's there.
	That's not gonna work.
	Anyway.
	Coca-Cola's saying it's a conspiracy against them.
	Everyone's just trying to trip them up.
	That's what it is.
	Yeah, I mean, never mind the fact that it fits in entirely with your previous actions and further actions.
	So this is something where I'm going to prove to you that it's not just a fad or something.
	So, GLAAD here.
	So this is an organisation of less of nonsense.
	Tonight on 60 Minutes, some woman shared a shameful story of fear-mongering about trans youth.
	Parents of trans youth could walk away from that story with a false belief that young people are being rushed into medical transition.
	This is simply untrue.
	Rubbish.
	Liar.
	I did liar.
	Like, how many more cases?
	I mean, in the UK, I don't know too much about the American situation in which we have organizations that have been, you know, thrown in front of high courts and deemed to have been doing the wrong thing.
	The Tavistock Clinic, it was, what, three hour-long consultations before you get put on puberty blockers as a child?
	That's too long.
	It's ruled against.
	It should be one hour.
	Let's so say glad.
	So yeah, there's this organization.
	I mean, just obvious garbage.
	But guess who's a director of GLAAD? That would be the president of Coca-Cola on the Western Post, isn't it?
	So this lady here.
	So it gets worse.
	GLAAD partnerships with companies that donated to legislatures advancing anti-trans youth bills.
	Coca-Cola, for instance, donated to the Arkansas legislature that banned trans youth healthcare.
	And who's on the head of GLAAD's board of directors?
	I know you can click on the first image there.
	This is GLAAD board of directors, Pamela Stewart.
	Publicly available information.
	This isn't new.
	And if you go to the next image, you can see...
	Yeah, there's Pamela Stewart.
	President of Western Operations and North America Operating Unit at Coca-Cola Company and also Chair and Board of Directors at GLAD. These are the people running it.
	People at the top are wokists.
	They honestly believe this garbage.
	And it's not just...
	Let's just put up the logo.
	Like some companies have been.
	Volkswagen.
	So...
	I'm just amazed that they can actually run a company without running it into the ground already.
	Like...
	Yeah, well, I mean, that's where it is getting run into the ground.
	Because all of this stuff doesn't come at no cost, and it shouldn't come at no cost.
	Because this is unbelievably racist.
	It is unacceptable for an organization to tell you to be less white.
	To stop white people.
	White people are the problem.
	If an organization is telling you that...
	Don't give me money.
	Why would you give me money?
	Why would you fund your enemies?
	Anyway, so we're going to the next link here.
	This is them becoming openly partisan beyond what they already were, which is Coca-Cola's CEO saying that Georgia's new voting law was unacceptable.
	It's a step backwards.
	And this legislation is wrong and needs to be remedied.
	We will continue to advocate for it, both private and in public.
	He looks absolutely thrilled there.
	I love he's got a little pride Coca-Cola behind him as well.
	He's a little stage manager, isn't he?
	I've never seen someone as miserable as that before in my entire life.
	So, yeah, Georgia passed some voting legislation to make their voting system safer for democracy, and in response, the wokeists and the Democrats were like, yo, you can't do this.
	What about meh?
	Censored, because we can't say what they're arguing for, can we, on YouTube?
	Oh, yeah, of course.
	So they demanded more of that, and the Republicans were like, nah.
	So the companies like Coca-Cola, who are not just there for a fad, they are sincere believers, are advocating against it.
	And so what have the Republicans done?
	Defunded it.
	Because why wouldn't you?
	I mean, they're literally going to fund your opposition.
	Don't work with them.
	So we go to the next one here.
	So this is Breitbart reporting.
	North Carolina county officials ban Coca-Cola machines due to left-wing politics.
	I mean, if you can hit them anywhere, and especially if you're in a position of power to do it, I mean, the commissioners at Carolina here being in a perfect position to do it, because they have Coca-Cola machines in all the government buildings.
	So the guy in charge was like, we don't really have to have you here.
	This is a privilege.
	We don't have to have your machines.
	We can have anyone else's machines.
	We can have no machines.
	We can help people just get their own drinks, dammit.
	Or we can just set up the water fountains or something and everyone can be healthier.
	That would be the best alternative, really.
	Yeah, so hats off to this chap.
	He's done a good job here, which is like, right, if you're going to keep funding the opposition party, if you're going to keep being openly race socialists against white people, incidentally...
	I don't care if you're against black people, white people, whatever.
	It's still disgusting that you would do this.
	We're not going to take the money away from you.
	We don't have to have your machines.
	We're not going to pay you a cent, especially taxpayers' money here because it's government buildings.
	So we go to the next clip.
	This is the commissioner explaining why he's banned Coke.
	The county commissioner leading this Coke boycott says he hopes it spreads across North Carolina.
	He says it's time that someone spoke out against left-wing politics.
	The left-wing in America, they...
	They defund, they boycott, they cancel, they tear down statues, all sorts of egregious actions.
	And the expectation from them is that the opposing political side We'll cower in the corner and we're supposed to accept that and it's supposed to be okay and it's not okay.
	In a 3-2 vote, County Commissioners adopt a resolution banning coke machines from any of its buildings.
	So I think it was like Quincy or something.
	But hats off to you, chap.
	Good thing.
	He also advocates that we need to spread this across the United States.
	Like all the Republicans in a position of power within their states, why have Coke machines at your offices?
	Why have them anywhere near the government?
	I mean, you don't have to be there.
	They have no right to be there.
	It's a privilege to be able to get that kind of access.
	I mean, quite frankly, fundamentally, you shouldn't be giving out stuff like that.
	Because, I mean, why Coca-Cola?
	Why not Pepsi?
	It's obviously biased in favor of one company or another using taxpayers' money.
	Which you should be doing.
	But they don't deserve any special treatment by the state.
	And any Republicans, I guess, in the United States, if you want to contact your local commissioners or legislations, they'll be like, hey, this guy's done this.
	It's probably a good idea, considering they're funding the enemy.
	So probably we should do the same.
	Because why not?
	I mean, he makes a great point there, which is if the left are going to engage in boycotts and so on and so forth and do all this stuff and the right wing doesn't, well then if you were, I mean, Coca-Cola honestly believes, but if you were not an honest believer, you would think, screw it, I'll just side with the left and then no pain to me.
	There has to be comeback.
	If you are going to side with race nationalism and the Democratic Party, there has to be comeuppance for that action because it's evil.
	And to be able to just say we're not going to give you government money or we're going to boycott you, perfectly reasonable.
	Yep, it's the best way to get their attention as well.
	If you're damaging their profit margins, then they're going to take notice no matter what you're saying.
	Well, in the case of Coca-Cola, I don't believe they will.
	I think they're happy to lose the money, but that's good.
	They deserve to lose the money.
	And the mantra should continue to be true.
	Go woke, go broke.
	And if you can make them go broke, that'll be their comeuppance.
	It's not just about them taking notice.
	I want them to not take notice and drive themselves into the ground if they're going to continue with the garbage.
	It's not like they have a monopoly already.
	I mean, it's probably better for everyone if they disappeared anyway, to be honest.
	Yeah, sugar water.
	I mean, I know we have arguments about keto on the show, but sugar water I'm not a fan of.
	No, I don't like Coca-Cola anyway, so fair enough.
	Unless it's got rum in it, then it's alright.
	Based Republicans doing the Lord's work.
	Well done, Republicans, yeah.
	Anyway, just end that there.
	Let's go to the video comments.
	I had a question for Carl.
	I was thinking about for the past year of marrying my white girlfriend and I don't know when or how to pop the question because we've been dating for five years now and she's kind of been egging me on for a while but I'm 24 and she's 27 now and it's one of those difficult things.
	I don't know what your dad's view is.
	I'm texting him now.
	How should you ask a woman to marry?
	And then we'll get his response because he's not on today.
	I'm not going to make a joke about the white thing.
	That's funny enough.
	You've done it for me.
	So, a couple of podcasts ago, Callum decided to call the Dutch a bunch of swamp Germans.
	Well, I actually informed that those swamp Germans in the Second Anglo-Dutch War in 1667 sailed up the Metway where they raided the British fleet at harbour.
	They stole the fleet's flagship, the HMS Royal Charles, and the stern piece of which we still have to this very day.
	Some have called it the most serious defeat the British Navy has had in its home waters.
	A very good film was made out of it, and considering the Waterloo review by Bowen the Critical Drinker, it may be a good film to add to the review list.
	That's great.
	I'm going to write that down.
	I was going to write...
	What was it?
	Mikhail?
	The film was called Admiral, wasn't it?
	Admiral.
	Okay.
	Admiral.
	I'm typing it down, so we'll get it.
	But I love the banter.
	I love the banter.
	Although you are...
	I mean, you're siding with the Germans there, sinking British fleets.
	We're the only thing keeping them from taking over the world.
	Keep in mind.
	I mean, not you guys.
	You guys surrendered.
	We're going to bomb...
	What was it?
	They threatened to bomb...
	I think it was Amsterdam and whatnot.
	And then that's the point in which the Dutch government surrendered in World War II. It's like the French.
	We're going to bomb Paris and you just surrender.
	Not a fan.
	Anyway.
	Bomb London to the ground.
	Don't care.
	Build it back.
	Brick by brick.
	We'll build it back worse.
	Yeah, well, you know, all the roads are broken and whatnot.
	The fact that it's aged.
	And we weren't like, oh, let's redesign it.
	This is the perfect opportunity.
	Like, nah.
	Back.
	Brick by brick.
	Exactly how bad it was before.
	And then still no one's able to drive in London properly.
	Anyway.
	It's good for the next one.
	Hello everyone.
	To the one person who said, well, we can't really do moderation, to the one person who suggested that, considering I'm the person who suggested moderation versus ketoism, it's kind of obvious that that's like a reply to my position.
	Reason why if I sound condescending I must apologise.
	It is not intentional, but I thought this was the side of politics and intellectualism that does not use mental gymnastics.
	I know I perhaps should not find this as annoying as I do, but it's so obviously wrong of an idea that I actually find it just irritating.
	Either someone has the will to resist temptation, And they will do that by either doing moderation and or keto, or they don't have the will to moderate their diet, and it can't be both at the same time.
	Furthermore, bread's actually really useful in terms of situations where I nearly starved to death as a child, so no, I'll defend bread.
	By this, what I mean is you simultaneously say that someone who is not mentally strong enough to just moderate and control their diet I don't really
	understand the point, though.
	I think he's responding to one of the previous video comments where he's saying that, you know, if you just have no dietary restrictions but you just moderate what you eat to be healthy or you have keto, it's both involving moderation in what you eat.
	So it's kind of more equivalent than the other person was presenting it as.
	Okay.
	We're kind of killing the keto meme as well because it's just kind of going on too much.
	So don't worry about it.
	Let's go to the next one.
	So here I am enjoying the beautiful nature of Norway.
	Think about the wise words of spoon.
	Maybe pizza is the way.
	Because regardless of dietary habits, both sides are daddists.
	So I will be the bigger man except oil's olive branch.
	On one condition.
	Stop going after my darn job.
	Also, Callum, you want to learn a little bit of Norwegian, right?
	So here's the sentence for you.
	Homework, I want to translate it by Monday.
	And here it is.
	Come on, come on, come on, come on.
	Come on, come on.
	Good luck translating that.
	Oh god, I made up the word communist at least.
	I know communist is in there somewhere, but I'll get the file afterwards and I'll have some fun.
	I'm not trying to learn Norwegian at the moment, but yeah, why not?
	It'll be funny.
	Just add it to the list of many languages that you seem to know.
	Little bits of.
	Little bits of.
	Let's be fair about this.
	I like learning languages for a bit to learn basics, and then I just think it's really interesting.
	I know you know communism to Yeah, so?
	John's like, yeah, well what about the fact that you know communist in 50 languages?
	The internationally.
	Anyway, let's go to the next one.
	A relevant C.S. Lewis quote.
	I dread scientists in power because they're specialists speaking outside their special subjects.
	Let scientists tell us about the sciences.
	But government involves questions about the good for men and on justice and what things are worth having at what price.
	And so on.
	Let the doctor tell me I shall die unless I do so-and-so, but whether life is worth having on those terms is no more a question for him than for any other man.
	True.
	That's true, and I am a scientist, so I have every reason to disagree.
	I did physics.
	True.
	I don't get, because it's one of these things, like, anyone who does science, I think, will actually agree as well.
	Like, they don't, serious ones don't come out and be like, yeah, and I've got the formulas of the world, except maybe the Marxists, but I don't know, I never really found many Marxists in my STEM section of university.
	I don't think it's really relevant to psychology, so I didn't really hear any of it either.
	In fact, I don't think Karl Marx's name was ever uttered once.
	Kamau, based.
	Good.
	All right, chaps.
	So, a while ago on Discord, I got in trouble for repeatedly misgendering someone.
	They were a damn tanky, and therefore wrong and annoying.
	But then I thought, wait a minute, their individual feeling is the judging arbiter of that misgendering.
	Please shoot me if I keep using that phrase, by the way.
	But if I switch the judging arbiter from individual feeling to the scientific collective, I can make their case for the collective taking precedent.
	And if they say, oh, but our site also has scientific consensus, yeah, perhaps, but yours is enforced by the state, under penalty if I violate via social faux pas.
	I'm still the oppressed minority.
	I'm right out of the way.
	So checkmate, you stupid tankies.
	So that's the kind of thing you should make YouTube videos about.
	Like just you going on rants.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Where's this going?
	Yeah.
	Was that it?
	That was it.
	That was it.
	What?
	I love the oil, guys.
	He's got good bands.
	For people who are listening, there's a book that's SQL for dummies.
	In silence, he just brings up a little chef from The Muppets or whatever.
	He just waves his hand and then takes it back down.
	Shall I read some comments?
	Dear Conservatives, Woman is charged with malicious communication over transphobic tweet.
	Marion Miller, feminist campaigner charged with hate crime, it is understood one tweet included a picture of a ribbon in the purple, white and green of the suffragette movement.
	This is the picture.
	Wow.
	It's the women won't be weashed, which is translated from Scottish nonsense to women won't be silenced.
	Which, that's the tweet.
	That's just her.
	Women won't be silent.
	And then that's a malicious communication worthy of police interrogation and prosecution thanks to the Scottish National Party.
	I hate it.
	I must say the Malicious Communication Act is already in law across the UK and does get abused, but in the context of the SNP criminalizing anything that dare offend wokeism, I imagine the police feel fully justified in going after anyone and everyone with it.
	So, because it's one of these things, I... There's a whole bunch of laws that have problems with them.
	The Militia Communication Act, Section 127, things like this.
	There are some that are irredeemable, like Section 127, which just criminalizes gross offense.
	So it's like, right, that's completely useless then.
	Because that's not getting rid of terrorist content or pedophilia and whatnot.
	That's just getting rid of offensive stuff.
	But the culture around it is also important.
	And the SNP making a political culture in which anyone who disagrees with wokeism is a criminal.
	Well, what did you think was going to happen?
	Women's rights campaigners go to jail.
	Scotland's not a free country.
	Britain's not a free country.
	Anyway, John's saying, tell the first guy tonight to get on your knees.
	You can interpret that as you wish.
	Ask tonight and get on your knees.
	I've messaged Carl, I haven't got a response yet, but we'll tell you if we do get one.
	Do you want to read the comments?
	Sure.
	So, David Edward.
	In the guy's defence, you're more likely to hurt yourself than anyone else if you follow the instructions of the anarchist cookbook.
	So, supposedly, it's not very good to follow.
	Yeah, is it you who knows something about this?
	I heard a rumour that some of the recipes have messed with, and if you do them, you'll end up killing yourself.
	Yeah, I think that they've deliberately sabotaged some of them so that the person actually trying to follow it, kind of word for word, will actually end up hurting themselves.
	Yeah.
	I don't think that was me saying it, but I've certainly heard it before.
	I'm not sure if it's true, because I've never tried to do any of it, so I wouldn't know, but...
	I've seen it happen once on 4chan as well.
	There's a famous green text post about this, in which someone was like, oh yeah, how do I make a bomb?
	And someone gave them the instructions to make mustard gas.
	So they did it.
	That's so horrible.
	And then they stopped posting.
	It was like, oh yeah, one less terrorist.
	Nick, a few years ago on Joe Rogan's podcast, Alex Jones talked about how you will be called a Nazi for simply owning Nazi-era artifacts.
	Once again, he'll be proven right.
	Yeah, the British media referred to this guy as a neo-Nazi.
	I'm willing to believe that he's probably a neo-Nazi from the other material he had.
	I have not met him, so it could be that he just loves history stuff.
	Joseph Woodland, you also have to wonder how police knew about his ownership of books.
	Was he ratted out by someone he knew, or was he watching from the start?
	They raided his house, so presumably they took his bookshelf and interrogated that to check his place.
	Yeah, but why did they raid it in the first place?
	He told me.
	He brought some legal books.
	Student of history, you arrest someone purely for the reasoning of being an extremist.
	You simply speak to them and talk them down, and if you want to troll playing the 10-hour trap version of Uni and Dixie at him, keck.
	What?
	Sorry, read that again?
	So, you arrest someone purely for the reasoning of being an extremist, you simply speak to them and talk them down, and if you want to troll, play a 10-hour trap version of Uni and Dixie at him.
	That might deradicalise him, I guess?
	I would imagine that would radicalise people more, to be honest.
	Yeah, but you'd think that would be the solution to radicals, but instead put them in prison, which, I mean, that's not going to help, is it?
	It's probably going to make them worse.
	Loads of people have been radicalised in prison.
	Henry Ashman.
	Hmm, this guy might be a bit radical but has no connections with terror or extremist networks or plans to do anything.
	Let's chuck him in prison.
	He won't get radicalised or run into terror or extremist networks.
	Let's hope he doesn't come back to bite people like the London Bridge attack did.
	He's going to come out an Islamist terrorist.
	Let's face it.
	Because that's what happens in British prisons.
	I don't think he'll go in with all the Nazi memorabilia and come out an Islamist.
	You'd be surprised.
	Does that really happen?
	So there was a post recently, I think it was the CIA posted it, and it's a really funny post as well, everyone taking the mickey out of them, which they had pictures of this guy's memorabilia, and they were like, yeah, we arrested this name because of terrorism offences.
	And then there was, like, the Nazi flag, the flag of Saudi Arabia, the flag of ISIS, the flag of, like, the group in Ukraine that are far right and whatnot.
	Wasn't there a Confederate flag as well?
	Confederate flag.
	He was like, yeah, this guy believes in everything.
	He's very inclusive with his terrorist beliefs.
	Alex Powell.
	Lol, I bet they went around and found the most racist old people they can find and said, yep, that's far right.
	That's, I think, in response to my article.
	Stephen Johnson, that white supremacist guy with the mosque shooting on his hard drive, is a perfect example of...
	One of the infringements of our Second Amendment, I'm American, that I'm totally okay with.
	The guy shouldn't have guns, but yeah, I do agree with you guys that they shouldn't be able to jail him for mere thought crime.
	Put him on a list, watch him like a hawk and take away his guns, but pre-crime...
	His guns aren't real.
	Those are legally owned replicas or deactivated and whatnot.
	I forgot to mention that.
	I should have.
	Sorry.
	Yeah, I don't think it was like an FAL on the wall, wasn't it?
	Yeah, they're not real.
	They're not real guns.
	He wouldn't be able to own that, I don't think.
	No.
	What was it?
	Where was I? The pre-crime thought crime is a road to tyranny far more dangerous than any single deranged psycho could ever be.
	Absolutely.
	The real gross offensiveness of the country is that you keep jailing people for thinking.
	Alexander Schoberg.
	As an immigrant, I hate the term immigrant.
	Name me the privileged Scandinavians get in the UK as immigrants none.
	Immigrant is always used as a euphemism for third world nut job and I wish such pandering would stop.
	Myself and Hugo's continental brethren are not the ones raving their way across Europe.
	Depends if you're Swedish, though.
	I mean, then you are from a third-world nutjob state, so don't worry about it.
	Oh, dear.
	Feminist government, yeah, okay.
	Tal Bell.
	So, when do you get to start accusing, charging your politicians with treason for letting terrorists into your country through the BS Asylum claims that more than a decade of evidence shows aren't real asylum.
	They're importing enemy religious soldiers.
	Treason is accurate.
	Yeah, it's really annoying, isn't it?
	I mean, ISIS said that this is what they're doing.
	I mean, ISIS literally said publicly, hey, you know those migrant trains?
	We've sent terrorists with them.
	I mean, they told us that they would do this, and they did.
	I mean, it happened, yeah.
	Yeah.
	It's ridiculous.
	I mean, we'll start with Tony Blair, I guess, but he seems to be avoiding The Hague.
	Joseph Woodland, when you go on about the terror attacks, all I can think of is service equals citizenship, mandatory carry for all citizens.
	I have to chaperone my girlfriend a lot of the time now because London is a hellhole full of traditional British values that totally didn't appear over the last 20 years.
	I know what you're getting at there, although I don't think some parts of London are as bad as others.
	I went there recently, it was very nice.
	You say I went there, like you went on holiday or something?
	Well, I've never lived near London, so it's like a holiday for me.
	It's a different culture, isn't it?
	I mean, it's one of the things I hate when you see rich MPs talk about this, though.
	They live outside London and they love visiting it because it's a nice, fun holiday to go see all the cultures.
	It's like, yeah, but when you live there, it's awful.
	Because it's nice to have diversity, let's say, but it's not nice when you're living in a place that has no English people and no English shops.
	So it's that difference.
	It's nice to go and visit the, I don't know, kebab shop, but it's not nice to live around people who can't speak English.
	It's not nice if you don't like kebabs.
	I think they're gross, and I don't understand why people eat them.
	There's that as well.
	I remember going to the shop in Reading, and just no one spoke English in there.
	I could hear them all speaking Arabic and Polish to each other.
	I was just like, kill me, kill me.
	Arabic and Polish, that's a weird combination.
	Reading.
	Chris Randall, as a person living on a barracks for 15 years, I think I'll be getting in touch with my lawyer.
	Plus, going easy on terrorists equals more neo-Nazis.
	Who knew?
	Yeah.
	Ty Buffett, why would the judge care if those men go missing or merge into the populace?
	They won't flee to his neighbourhood.
	Compare the security here versus the facilities on the USA border.
	They would have free reign to walk about before you even had the chance to process their claims and see if they have criminal histories.
	Michael Waters, see us Aussies do the same thing to asylum seekers that you guys did to us.
	Keep them offshore.
	No need for a gate when it just leads to a 500km swim.
	Why did you guys bother fighting for the Falklands if you ain't going to use them?
	He's not wrong.
	I mean, we have the islands around the world.
	I mean, we've got the Channel Islands that I mentioned.
	I'm sure we can buy a couple of the locals there and just turn them into detention facilities.
	Or we could use St Helena or all the Falklands.
	Although I must give credit where credit is due.
	Apparently Priti Patel did propose that in Cameron.
	Yeah, I remember that.
	Yeah, but she got presumably shot down on it.
	Although she did also suggest Gibraltar as well.
	And I'm just like, you've never been to Gibraltar if you think that's possible.
	There's no rumours it is.
	Didn't they suggest an island which was just completely barren?
	It was just nothing was there.
	It was just a rock in the middle of the ocean and nothing.
	Exactly.
	Develop the land.
	There's nothing wrong with that.
	All land was barren at some point.
	Well, no.
	That's not how it works.
	Humans come along and just grow all of the things.
	Well, all the buildings.
	Right, that's ridiculous.
	I'm joking.
	I know.
	Michael Ebel, I spent years living in army barracks stateside and overseas.
	I'm sorry, you must have suffered.
	Privacy curtains are a luxury.
	Yeah, that's exactly what I thought.
	It's kind of insulting to the military as well, isn't it?
	It's like, yeah, we're asylum seekers, but your barracks, they're disgusting.
	We won't live in these, we'd rather burn them down.
	And then all the people in the military are like, oh, right, thanks.
	We just live in these all the time.
	Thanks.
	But also, have you just seen how the UN houses refugees in Turkey and whatnot?
	No, I haven't.
	It's a very cheap tent.
	You put a whole family in it.
	So, pick one.
	I mean, what would you rather go and live in?
	I'd rather live in there, to be honest.
	A solid building, yeah.
	In the tent.
	Joseph Woodland, with the advent of 23andMe, couldn't we just dump the migrants at their ancestral home if they have no paperwork?
	I think genetic testing has a bit of a negative connotation when it comes to...
	I think it also has limitations there, because it doesn't give you precise results on which specific country they're from.
	But he's raising a good point, which is we've seen the footage.
	I mean, they put it on their own TikTok stories of when they're crossing.
	Like, they're in the boat, and they will film their documents, throwing them into the sea.
	Yeah, I remember seeing that.
	And then they'll be like, haha, I've made it to the UK. And it's like, you guys are scum.
	Like, you are not here legitimately, in the slightest.
	Which is why you're throwing your documents in the sea.
	Hannibal reincarnate.
	I think it's disgusting that these asylum seekers, if you can call them that, as they're actually economic migrants, 100% agree.
	Yeah.
	Declare the army barracks as unfit to live in.
	If they are truly escaping an untenable situation then they would be grateful for a roof over their heads.
	The army barracks, just as untenable as the war.
	Yeah, apparently so.
	If it's good enough for the army, then it's good enough for them.
	It shows how little respect those particular illegals have for the UK, judging how they set fire to the building after throwing a tantrum.
	Rude, especially as our taxes pay for them.
	Deport them, I say.
	Absolutely.
	I mean, I've never known such demanding so-called asylum seekers in my life.
	Just like, yeah, not only do we want to come to your country illegally, we also want to be put up in a hotel.
	If you don't do it, we're going to burn down the building.
	There There is the other idea we came up with as a joke, but to be honest, the more I think about it, the more I'm actually considering it.
	Like, just pay some poor country that needs cash.
	It's like, right, we'll build a detention facility on your shore.
	I mean, I don't know, I'm just going to name an African country, Senegal.
	And just to say that we'll put this detention facility there, we'll ship them over, and you get paid for everyone we have here.
	And if they escape, all the BS people, like, where are they going to go?
	Like, you're in Africa.
	I'd have a good idea.
	If Scotland ever becomes independent, or just in general, just send them to Scotland, they'd be very welcoming of them.
	We did, and one of them stabbed three people to death in Glasgow.
	Okay, maybe not a good idea then.
	We could send them to the Orkneys or something, and just turn one of the Orkney Islands into a detention facility.
	That'll work.
	Miles Mitchell, I've personally stayed at the Napier Barracks whilst it was still a transit camp.
	It was warm and dry and had decent facilities, food and washing, good enough for squaddies.
	These people are criminal chances and should be kicked back over the channel.
	It's pronounced...
	Folkstone?
	Oh, I just mispronounced it again.
	How did you say it?
	I pronounced it Folkstone, but here he's got it.
	It's Folkstone.
	Folkstone, okay.
	Yeah, I don't know.
	Not that big of a deal.
	But one of the other things I saw about Napier Barracks is them complaining that the toilet facilities were all clogged, and then they post a picture, like some activist had gotten the picture off them, and it was full of like masks and like the, you know, when you get rid of all the toilet roll and you got the cardboard there.
	They're putting that into the toilet, and it was clogged.
	They were like, this is unlivable.
	And it's like, right, number one, you've done that.
	So you can't blame anyone else.
	Number two, it's a clogged toilet.
	Just unclog it.
	It's not hard.
	Just get a stick out.
	Wimp it out, put it in a bin, and then make sure you can flush it.
	It's not the worst thing in the world to have a bunch of your trash in the toilet.
	Maybe they are from the third world if they can't even use the toilet properly.
	It's not that they can't be bothered.
	I'm only joking.
	The Civic Nationalist, the barracks in Kent, I've been there.
	I don't know what they're complaining about.
	The billets are nice, the showers, the scuffle.
	I spent a week in the field before I went to the barracks.
	Seems like they're nice, apparently.
	They're fine.
	They're more than adequate for asylum seekers.
	And if they're not, you're not an asylum seeker.
	Mm-hmm.
	Kevin Fox, easy.
	Issue each asylum seeker, a mangy dog and a cardboard box and dump them on the streets and give Napier to the homeless servicemen.
	No, they'll go out and stab people.
	Sorry, it just keeps happening.
	Every now and time, there's a terrorist attack.
	It seems to be an asylum seeker.
	Just from the list we had, what was it, seven there before we got to the far right one, and four of them were asylum seekers?
	Yeah, it's ridiculous.
	Student of history, so I'm at the point of thinking that female and child migrants are the myth.
	No, John, that's too cruel!
	John's like, send them to a Labour borough in London, take them to Hackney, enjoy that!
	Look, we're civilised.
	We ain't doing that.
	Sorry, I interrupted you.
	Yeah, it's alright.
	Student of history, so I'm at the point of thinking that female and child migrants are a myth.
	All the pics are of men aged approximately 27.
	Migrant, Gibbs, British government.
	Here's an army base, not the greatest, but probably a good setup compared to the dirt, ice and rain.
	Migrants, no, better Gibbs.
	Then you just get effing mud huts.
	Sorry, earthbag homes.
	Bah, bah, bah.
	Oh, come on, let's not be cruel here.
	Earthbag homes are not fit for anyone but communists.
	Can you get so much aid for that?
	Anyway.
	I don't care.
	To be honest, I can imagine them going to the four-star hotels and still complaining.
	Because, I mean, if you've clogged up your toilet and you're complaining about that, you've got to clog it up at the four-star hotel and they'll be like, oh, the toilet's clogged.
	Where's my four-star hotel?
	Where some woman comes in and cleans it for me because I'm too stupid.
	So I put masks and cardboard.
	It's like the Middle East have sent their Karens to us.
	They're just like...
	The hardest to maintain.
	That's a great way of putting it.
	Just stop being a Karen.
	Just unclog the toilet, for Christ's sake.
	It's your stuff in there.
	Uh...
	Clear solution to migrant problem.
	Change it to a sponsorship program.
	Any migrant to stay has to be sponsored by a leftist.
	Make them vouch for them and financially support and house them.
	If they don't sponsor, they leave.
	When they have to use their own money, their own homes and vouch to lack of criminality, all of a sudden they will change their views.
	It's always easier to use other people's money and never have to deal with them in your neighbourhood.
	Yeah, we should also make them take four per person.
	So if a family, you know, leftist family, presumably daddy and daddy want to get migrants, they have to take four Mohammeds into their house.
	Someone's name I can't pronounce.
	Swap them with peeps from Hong Kong.
	Leave them to the CCP. Yeah, we do like a prisoner exchange.
	Too cruel.
	Look, because here's the thing, there are plenty of genuine asylum seekers who valiantly deserve it.
	I mean, like fleeing unbelievable regimes that will kill them if they return.
	I think you get these chancers who just turn up and like, yeah, my country, I couldn't find a job, so I thought I'd just come to England.
	No.
	You are taking the position of someone who is legitimately going to die if they return home.
	That's why I'm so passionate about these guys being scum, because they really are.
	It's not just that they're taking our money, it's not just that they're not grateful, it's the fact that they take a position of someone who genuinely deserves it.
	Absolutely.
	And a lot of the migrants as well.
	North African, now Vietnamese as well.
	I mean, we're going to get migrants from all over the world at this point.
	Antarctic migrants.
	I'd at least get used to the weather here.
	So, Justin B. It's a shame that I gave up drinking fizzy drinks two years ago.
	It would be nice to start boycotting Woka-Cola.
	Carbohydrate crusader.
	Coca-Cola once had a different plan for black people than it does today.
	Just as exploitative though.
	Yeah.
	I think that's probably a reference to the Nazi.
	Yeah.
	Like when they're the sponsors of the 36 Olympics.
	They were indeed, yeah.
	You can Google just Coca-Cola Nazi and there's like a little swastikas they used to sell with their logo on.
	I have a feeling they might come back.
	Yeah.
	And now they're using racial pride again.
	Daniel Williamson, it's time to ban Coke in all its forms, powder and liquid alike.
	Marcos Pires, Pepsi has the opportunity to enter the base market niche in opposition to Coca-Cola.
	All hail the Pepsi man!
	I know, right?
	Like, they could be doing that.
	And instead they did, what was it, like the Black Lives Matter advert in 2016, which they had the, what was it, the can of Coke and they gave it to the cop and they were trying to celebrate that.
	But, I mean, they could just come out and just be based in red pill and they'd buy it.
	One of the weird things, though, with them is, you remember their trade with the Soviet Union?
	Like, Pepsi was the drink of the Soviet Union for soda.
	So it wasn't even that they believed in the Soviet Union.
	It was just that Coca-Cola supported the Nazis.
	So they were just like, well, we're going to support the Soviets then.
	The Soviets had the opinion that Coca-Cola was too individualist and American and therefore liberalism and all that.
	God, all that's changed.
	So then Pepsi didn't have that veneer so they could trade under just being a drink.
	Okay.
	Duffy B, Coca-Cola, a Southern company founded by a Confederate officer and morphine addict, John Pemberton.
	Hmm, flavors may change, but Democrats never do.
	It's a Southern Democrat who's addicted to drugs.
	Democrats.
	Scott Lane, hi guys.
	I really like the idea of fic concepts and using them to appeal to the average person's more base side.
	I'd like to be more fluent in fic speech.
	For that reason, my workspace has decided to have everyone test themselves twice a week for COVID despite the small risk that was there being all but gone.
	I came up with a potential response.
	Any advice for using fic concepts when talking to a normie?
	Just genuinely, they're good.
	I mean, I'm also trying to get used to more thick speech than a scientific speech, but it's difficult.
	I am very much in favour of scientific speech.
	No, no, trust me, it's bad, because it's like when you talk about stuff and you say, oh, this is inadequate, or so on and so forth.
	There's no moral weight to that analysis.
	But that's like Bureaucratic speech, though.
	Exactly.
	That's what I mean by scientific speech.
	Science and bureaucracy.
	No, because it is scientific because you take all of the considerations out of it.
	It's just purely describing the thing.
	And that's why it's scientific.
	You're not having any judgment on it.
	But that's not useful for when you're trying to describe something moral or immoral, like something happening in politics or in your life.
	So, I guess just keep trying.
	I mean, assess the words you've written down.
	Just be like, wait, are any of these hyper-scientific?
	Is there a replacement I could use that would be more moral?
	Like, the best example Carl gave me was the speech from Henry V, in which it's him saying...
	If it is our destiny to die, then blah, blah, blah, blah.
	And it's like, yeah, that's the point.
	It's your destiny.
	There's no getting away from it.
	So if you're going to go and die, yeah, all right, well, this is part of it.
	But it's that kind of thick wording, whereas if you were saying that speech today, you say, if we are to die.
	Well, I think that's better, because I don't believe in destiny.
	But if you want to rally your men, what are you going to say?
	It's your destiny to die.
	Are you going to sell it to them?
	If it is our destiny to die here.
	Rather than if we are to die.
	One of those is thick, one of them is scientific.
	Anyway, so I just, for advice, just check it and see what you can replace.
	But it's tough.
	I don't know about these thick concepts, I'm afraid.
	Righteous speech, as John's written there.
	Two number nines.
	I split up with my short-term girlfriend last year because COVID put a lot of pressure on the relationship as it made it difficult to see each other.
	However, it seems like I dodged a bullet as she posted both times she got the vaccine as well as a vaccine selfie and I've had my vaccine...
	Profile picture.
	So yeah.
	Anyone who's just like, yeah, I'm vaccinated.
	Yeah, look at me.
	Really proud of it.
	I mean, it's a bit weird.
	But you saw it with those kinds of women at the BLM stuff as well.
	There's some great footage.
	You just type in women BLM influencer or something, right?
	And you'll get loads of people that are clearly dressed up for the shot.
	And then they're down at the march and they'll do one picture like this and then they're off home.
	It's really embarrassing, because you've just got people on a passersby, just with their camera filming them, and they look pathetic.
	They'll take three or four shots to make sure they've got the right one.
	Yeah, it's good fun to watch.
	Well, to be fair, I imagine that the rallies are pretty boring.
	It's more Marxism, so of course it is.
	Michael Metcalf, regarding COVID, have you guys heard of Ivermectin?
	Brett Weinstein just did a podcast on it.
	It's an off-patent antiviral that's basically a cure.
	He's calling it suppression the crime of the century.
	Please go and listen to his podcast.
	I probably have to disavow all of this because I remember reading the name on YouTube's terms of service and I imagine Facebook has the same thing and whatnot.
	Just be sure, disavow this whole thing.
	But yes, I have heard of it.
	But if you want to Google it, go for it.
	I've also heard Brett Weinstein talk about it, and he's always very good.
	That is what I will say.
	That is what I am permitted.
	But he is wrong about this, according to our laws and masters.
	Yes, absolutely.
	George Happ.
	Callum often pointed out how pride parades in more conservative countries like Japan and Russia are more wholesome, but isn't that just a front for until they get more powerful to push the more degenerate fetishes?
	I'd argue that having pride in something as private as your sexuality to the point where you have a parade...
	It, for everyone to see, suggests that you have an authoritarian mindset.
	Maybe Josh can correct me on that.
	I can kind of see what you're getting at there.
	I don't know enough about that sort of thing.
	I can see his argument.
	I imagine there are some, but you can see it in the old, like, civil rights campaigners for gay tolerance and acceptance on the basis of just, just let me be legal.
	You know, those guys.
	If you see them today, I mean, like the guy who left Stonewall, he's like, yeah, no, they're just a bunch of nut jobs now.
	Like, they're not caring for tolerance or anything.
	And, you know, I've been with them the whole time.
	So, of course, in those countries you'll have the same thing.
	There'll be some people in those groups who are just there for just make me legal, okay, and then I don't have to interact with the government.
	And sure, great, that's what everyone wants, who is liberal.
	And the...
	People who are subverting Marxists who want to bring on degeneracy as fast as possible.
	Yeah, they'll also be there.
	I can see John typing down about degenerates in Japan, anime, hentai.
	I mean, could you get worse?
	Yeah, my kind of impression of them having these parades is that it's all about having an identity and they just want to feel like they're a somebody and the fact they're shaping it around their sexuality is a bit sad.
	I mean...
	If being gay is what's important about you, you're pathetic.
	No, being the person is what is important about you.
	If I was going around just like, yeah, I'm so proud to be straight, yeah, it's great.
	I'd be like, what are you on about?
	Get some hobbies, you loser.
	As Calvin Robertson would say, pride is a sin as well.
	And where's the glutton month?
	Come on.
	Where's the other seven sins months, you know?
	Anyway, we're going to have to end, because we're out of time.
	But thank you for tuning in.
	As I mentioned, we'll have contemplations with you and Hugo up on Saturday on the lotuses.com website, Premium.
	We also have the new Epoch between Carl and Bo on Sunday, and we will have the Was Alex Jones Right podcast up as soon as possible.
	Thank you for tuning in.
	We'll be back Monday.
	Carl's back Monday, should be, so don't worry about that until I get emails about that.
	But thank you for tuning in.
	Bye-bye.

▲