Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 8, 2021 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:30:29

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #149

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Ears for the, what is it, the 8th of June 2021, the last refuge of the internet, the only thing that's online, apparently.
	Yeah, it's been funny, isn't it?
	Yeah.
	Guardians down, Independence down, New York Times is down, Vox BuzzFeed, yeah, it's been great.
	The White House, JoeBiden.org.
	The gods shine upon us.
	Yeah, I know, yeah.
	We're still here.
	Anyway, so I'm joined by Carl, of course, and today we're going to be going through Shapiro's funding of AOC's mum for 100 grand, which apparently is also abused now.
	Grand, but yeah.
	Yeah, so also conservative MPs are boycotting BLM football in the UK because they've decided, you know what, if football in the UK is just going to become a Black Lives Matter campaigning organisation, it's a point of that.
	There's no game there, which is fair enough.
	They're also getting S'd on for it, so it'll be good to go through.
	Also, Nations of the World versus Silicon Valley, because if you don't like it, Twitter, just build your own Nigeria.
	It's a free country.
	Do whatever you want.
	Incidentally, it's not a free country, and you're not allowed to have a platform there, but, you know, that's how it works.
	You could just buy your own, though.
	Just buy Venezuela.
	Anyway, so first, a couple of things.
	So plant the trees.
	Just wanted to mention this.
	So this is the short video you did about civilizational responsibility.
	Yeah.
	I'm sure we're putting it.
	Yeah.
	But I think we should think about our position in not only our own countries, but also the world.
	And also, the next thing here is a new article from Ian Miles Chung, which you can find...
	Well, that's the Lotus Eaters thing.
	You can also find it on Lotus Eaters, not just on YouTube, which I mentioned.
	This is Ian Miles Chung's new article on notices.com, which is free, so you'd have to sign up for this one, but go and check it out.
	And also, V has written us a new article about stakeholder capitalism there, which is a big pet peeve of mine.
	I really like V's writing style.
	For someone whose first language isn't English, he's got a really nice writing style.
	Surprises me.
	Because I've heard him talk.
	I'm just teasing, I'm just teasing.
	Just pretend the voice isn't, the accent.
	I can't not read it in his voice, that's the thing.
	Anyway, let's get on with it.
	So, the first thing we're going to cover is AOC, getting bullied by money.
	Yeah, so recently, I'm sure you saw, there was an attempt to fund the libs to own the libs, and I really didn't like it.
	And what's annoying is I really like the people involved, apart from AOC, of course.
	And so I was just kind of watching what seems to be some kind of embarrassing blunder...
	And, I mean, it didn't quite make the point they were trying to make.
	But anyway, so this began with AOC tweeting out this tweet thread where she says, Just over a week ago, my abula, which is, I assume, Spanish for grandmother or something like that, fell ill.
	I went to Puerto Rico to see her my first time in a year because of COVID. This is her home.
	Hurricane Maria relief hasn't arrived.
	Trump block relief dollars for public relations.
	People are being forced to flee ancestral homes.
	Ooh, ancestral.
	That sounds important.
	And developers are taking them.
	We immediately got to work reaching out to community leaders and advocates and following the money.
	What happened to Puerto Ricans are systemic.
	Much of it can be traced to Hunter, I think it's pronounced, AKA the Wall Street Connected Fiscal Control Board, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, yeah, corruption in Puerto Rico.
	What a shock, right?
	But I want to be clear, while the Trump admin had a major role, it wasn't just them.
	To turn this around, we need audits and get recovery relief to people ASAP without the onerous strings.
	And for the record, my ebula is doing okay.
	It's not about us.
	It's about what's happening to Puerto Ricans across the island.
	She has a place to go and be cared for, but what about thousands of people who don't?
	And of course, the question is, well, why don't you do something actually, like, tangible with your vast platform of millions of subscribers, most of whom are not in your constituency, obviously.
	And just do a fundraiser for them or something like that.
	You know, you could set up a non-profit, maybe, and make sure that the money goes to the place where it needs to go.
	And this...
	Just noticing that, like, Herb Euler's okay, but these other people aren't.
	Well, then, exactly.
	There's the money for the people who aren't.
	Yeah, why, you know, but instead, she can tweet about it, and that's a lot easier.
	But this got a reply from Matt Walsh from The Daily Wire, who's the sort of Catholic theologian of The Daily Wire.
	But otherwise, to be honest with you, his commentary is generally quite good, which I suppose is an indication of how conservative I've become in the past year.
	But he says, shameful that you live in luxury while allowing your grandmother to suffer in these squalid conditions.
	35,000 likes.
	It's a pretty good response.
	And so she replies to Matt, because she knows how the Twitter wars go, and so do the rest.
	She says, you don't even have a concept for the role that first-gen, first-born daughters play in their families.
	Okay, but then he could just easily turn around and say, you don't have a concept of how the firstborn sons play in their families, blah, blah, blah.
	You know, there's a weird personal attack.
	It's got to do with anything.
	Exactly, it's got to do with anything.
	He's talking about your particular status as an elected representative who earns $174,000 a year, and you're not even going to spend like 10 grand helping out your gran.
	I mean, it is obvious that this is you standing on the suffering of your grandmother for political virtue points on Twitter, so it is gross, don't get me wrong.
	My abula is okay, but instead of only caring for mine and letting others suffer, I'm calling attention to the systemic injustices.
	And you seem totally fine with having a US colony.
	I hate when Spanish speakers, people with the surname Cortes, talk about other people being colonizers.
	I can't stand it.
	Abula is not a native indigenous word.
	It's a Spanish word.
	Because Spain...
	It's a European country and they are all the descendants, the Spanish-speaking people in South America and Portugal, in Portuguese-speaking, are all the descendants of colonizers.
	You're all colonizers.
	All of you.
	I saw a thing going around the other down on Facebook where it's like, you know, the white man colonized the Americas from the natives, but the Latinos will look after it.
	It's like, you're colonizers too!
	What the hell is wrong with you?
	You know, Latin, that indigenous language to South America.
	Exactly, the indigenous language to South America.
	Go back to Italy, Latinos, alright?
	Anyway, enough of this ridiculousness, them trying to paint the Spanish-speaking areas of the Americas as being native or something, right?
	But anyway, so she is obviously bitching and moaning on Twitter.
	But Kathy Griffin had an amazing reply.
	This is the Trump's head actress or comedian.
	And she says this, and this is amazing.
	Thank you for continuing to do a great job.
	You represent Americans better than we represent ourselves.
	You aren't an American, according to Kathy Griffin, but thank you for looking like an American.
	It's amazing.
	You will never be one of us.
	Cortez.
	Yeah, Cortez, exactly.
	I love the reply, just wow.
	It's the achievement unlocked.
	But yeah, just wow.
	Because I mean, that is genuinely...
	That's like, was it the Ozzy Osbourne's daughter who's like, oh no, we need the Mexicans to clean the toilets.
	It's like, ooh...
	It's just bad optics.
	But anyway, so she proceeded to get raked for her luxury lifestyle because the Conservatives realised this was a moment of weakness for AOC, which it was.
	And this is all fine.
	You know, this is great.
	This is, in fact, you know, good political capital to show that, look, she's a giant hypocrite, which of course she is, blah, blah, blah.
	Grubb socialist, won't even have her own family.
	Exactly.
	Lives in luxury.
	Lives in luxury.
	You know, so...
	I mean, this is what they're saying.
	You know, it never fails with these champagne socialists.
	They expect everyone else to be making sacrifices while making them themselves.
	Completely true.
	AOC is willing to redistribute everyone's money but her own, said one of the Parkland school shooting survivors.
	A GOP candidate said, honey, you drive a Tesla and have two apartments.
	If your grandmother is living poor, that's because you don't help her out.
	I'm surprised a socialist wouldn't redistribute that wealth to their own grandmother.
	And this is all good and valid critique.
	And good and valid to people outside of the sort of political Twittersphere, right?
	And that's where I think this is important because, okay, the political Twittersphere, I think from the outside looking in as someone who's not on it, it's kind of gross, kind of obviously partisan, but occasionally interesting and productive things come out of it.
	And this...
	It's actually kind of one of them.
	She looks really bad, you know?
	You're not helping your own grandmother.
	You're making stacks of cash.
	Why aren't you doing something about this?
	Why are you just bleating about it on Twitter for virtue points?
	And the thing, though, is that none of this is something that the left cares about, right?
	The left don't care that she's a giant hypocrite when it comes to this sort of thing.
	You can look at, like, a series of videos that Jimmy Dore has done.
	He's one of her primary critics from the left.
	And you can see, you know, AOC swindles her donors, or AOC defending Biden, AOC, you know, allowing the, you know, not objecting to the cops, intimidating her critics, or just generally talking nonsense, which was the next one.
	Just, you know, word salads, blah, blah, blah.
	And that's fine, because these are sort of, you know, traditional leftist critiques of people who are effectively joining the swamp.
	But not because she has creature comforts, and not because of her ideology.
	So these aren't attacks that are going to impact on the left, but what these attacks are supposed to do is persuade the undecided that actually, yeah, AOC's been pretty selfish, and the Conservatives have a point here.
	And then the Conservatives kind of needed to log off, to be honest.
	Matt Walsh decided he was going to do a fundraiser for AOC's grandmother.
	Why?
	As you've heard, no, only people on Twitter have heard, Matt, AOC's ebula, no, you say grandmother because you're not Spanish, right, is living in a dilapidated home that was ravaged by Hurricane Maria.
	AOC is unable to help her own grandmother for whatever reason.
	No, you don't say that.
	You say she's unwilling to help her own grandmother, and you don't say for whatever reason, say because she's a selfish bitch, right?
	And then that's where that ends.
	They put the pictures of the apartment and that's what they end.
	You don't say, I've set up a GoFundMe to save her home.
	Why do you care about her grandmother's home?
	Is there not someone slightly closer to your own home, like, you know, on the continental United States, that you care about more to help?
	Because he says, I'll kick things off by donating $499, which also happens to be the cost of a monthly lease payment for Tesla.
	She owns a Tesla that costs like 100 grand.
	I challenge Ben Shapiro, Michael Knowles, and Jeremy Boring to match this donation.
	Together we can change the world.
	What?
	Okay, so Devil's Advocate, I can see the meme kind of here, in which he's like, hey, she won't do it, so how about we do it, and then she'll look ridiculous because we've helped her grandmother out, and she hasn't.
	Yeah.
	But...
	No.
	I mean, one, right, this looks like an attempt from conservatives to drive a wedge between AOC and her own grandmother.
	Not good optics for conservatives, because conservatives should be talking primarily about the sanctity of relationships, that the bonds that hold people together, the left are constantly trying to break.
	You're actually kind of doing the same thing here, right?
	You're trying to force AOC's grandmother to choose between your help, which is politically predicated, and the relationship she has with AOC. And you're also trying to shame AOC for the same things.
	So that's not good, right?
	And then you've got the alternative aspect of everyone can see this is a partisan political attack, right?
	From outside of the Twittersphere, anyone looking in knows that The Daily Wire and The Squad are mortal enemies.
	This would be very much like the USSR having screwed something up in Cuba or something, and the Americans are going, well, we're going to go and help those Cubans because we love them so much.
	Here you go, Fidel.
	The USSR wouldn't help you, so here's a bunch of...
	It's like, you know you're doing this just purely for strategic political reasons, right?
	So it doesn't wash with anyone else outside of this bubble.
	But then you've also got the...
	These people are at war with you, you know?
	Has it not become apparent that the left, especially the radical leftist squad, are openly at war with conservatives?
	Like, they will do everything to get you defunded, deplatformed, they will cheer as Donald Trump has taken down from everything, a sitting president.
	They have no concern for the integrity of the system, as Bo did an amazing answer about this.
	Look, when the Democrats are in the Congress and Senate and going, look, we're going to pack the courts, we're going to change the voting thing, we're going to do this, we're going to do that, they are laying out the instruments of the Republic's dismemberment right in front of you, and you're like, hey, we're going to fund AOC's grandmother.
	No, you do not fund your avowed enemies because everyone can see that you are avowed enemies.
	Everyone can see this.
	Is her grandmother political, out of interest?
	No, not to my knowledge.
	She's just an individual.
	The only reason we're talking about this woman is because she's the grandmother of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
	And it's because Matt Walsh and the Daily Wire crew are at war with her and the rest of the squad.
	Rightfully so.
	Don't get me wrong.
	You have to win this as well.
	And the reason I'm saying this is because I like the Daily Wire, right?
	But this was really bad optics, in my opinion.
	And there's a maxim I think that every conservative can live by.
	Don't fund the left ever.
	Do you understand?
	Don't fund the left.
	It doesn't matter what they're doing.
	It doesn't matter what it looks like you could, you know, gain some sort of status out of.
	They are never going to reciprocate.
	And as soon as you show any kind of weakness, they will destroy you.
	They will put you up against the wall.
	And you know it.
	Anyway, the Conservatives managed to raise a hundred grand for AOC's family.
	Now, what are you doing sending a hundred grand to the family of a communist?
	What are you doing that for?
	That's not good, is it?
	Like, do you think that the money wouldn't somehow go somewhere else?
	Like, if you gave, imagine if you gave AOC's grandma a hundred K, do you think none of that goes to AOC? Do you think none of that goes to any sort of socialist causes?
	You know, this is no longer just a charitable donation.
	You know?
	Like, is there no one more deserving?
	Are there no veterans around?
	You know, pro-America hardcore vets that you could have raised a hundred grand for.
	Like, this political stunt starts looking really hollow.
	I mean, that's kind of the point, though.
	If I'm going to take Matt Walsh's position here, I imagine he would say that...
	Well, it's meant to.
	That's the whole point.
	It's to expose that she doesn't care at all.
	And sure, it's petty and partisan and all the rest of it, but...
	But they'd already done that.
	What, by showing that she hadn't given the money?
	Yeah.
	But then the Conservatives are such good guys, we will even defend people we hate.
	But no one thinks that.
	Yeah.
	No one thinks that they just stumbled across some gentle old woman in Puerto Rico, and they're like, oh my god, this woman's house is still damaged by the hurricane.
	We'd better raise some money for her.
	Oh, she just happens to be AOC's grandmother.
	No, this is an obvious partisan political attack, right?
	And this is hollow.
	It looks bad.
	And again, it's because, you know, she earns 174k a year, so you've pointed out all of this, that, you know, she earns loads of money.
	She's got two houses.
	She's got a Tesla.
	What are you doing?
	You know, you've already done the job.
	The job is complete.
	Now you're overreaching and looking bad, right?
	But anyway, so moving on to the next one.
	So it turns out that AOC's family refuses the money.
	And the thing is, like, again, I just really...
	I mean, that's a win.
	Like, it could have been a lot worse.
	They could have taken the money and given it all to Planned Parenthood or something.
	Which would have been the smart thing for her to do, to be honest.
	But if they just say, no, we're not taking the money.
	Well, yeah, so Matt Walsh tweeted out, update, someone in AOC Abula's family told GoFundMe that she won't take the money, even though AOC previously claimed that her grandma was in dire straits and it was Trump's fault.
	She didn't exclusively claim that, but anyway.
	AOC still hasn't acknowledged this effort or thanked us.
	Here's the email from GoFundMe.
	Yeah, well, it's such a bizarre, like, statement, because, again, the world knows your enemies.
	You know, this is like Leonidas, you know, going and being like, right, okay, you're not crossing Persians, and then Xerxes going back to his army saying, well, I offered him to be the king of Greece, and he hasn't even thanked me for this.
	So you're the one invading.
	You know, you're enemies to each other.
	This is not something that people are like, oh, well, they're just going to sit around and have a cup of tea afterwards, you know?
	Of course she's not going to thank you.
	I can't believe she hasn't blocked you.
	I'm trying to be the advocate here.
	I know, I know.
	Does it not kind of come across like they've even made her look even worse?
	Because presumably AOC got in contact with her grandma and was like, yeah, the evil conservatives are trying to give you 100 grand.
	You must take this money and not allow it to come into your bank account.
	I mean, what do you think AOC's grandma actually thinks about that?
	Like, she just got a call saying she can't accept 100 grand.
	The thing is, it's such an obvious partisan attempt to humiliate AOC that there's no way her grandmother can in good conscience accept that money.
	Right.
	Sure, but it's also really bad that AOC would call her up and say you can't accept that money at all.
	Sure.
	And if AOC was smart, she would have been like, you know, despite what the Conservatives said, I have given her money, and then just, you know, put however much money into a bank account behind the scenes.
	Take the 100k, give it a Planned Parenthood, there you go.
	Or you could have done that.
	And to be honest with you, AOC, actually, I think there was a mistake for her to reject it.
	I understand why she did, again, because...
	Don't accept anything from your enemies.
	That's the principle that AOC is operating under, even if it appears that it could be to your immediate benefit and you could have used it.
	Don't accept it because your enemies.
	This has not become deeply clear.
	But he says, tragically, this charitable effort has been sabotaged by forces outside our control.
	No one thinks it's a charitable effort, man.
	It's an obvious political attack on AOC. Like, you could make a charitable effort for loads of people who really deserve it, but no one thinks you have an emotional investment in AOC's grandmother's ancestral home.
	Anyway, he says, Still, I'm grateful for the outpouring of support for Ebola.
	Never matter.
	You don't know.
	Why do you care?
	It's empty.
	It's hollow.
	Don't do this.
	Even if AOC isn't.
	But questions remain.
	Why didn't she help her own grandmother?
	Why was our help turned down?
	We are left to speculate.
	No, we're not left to speculate.
	Everyone knows.
	Everyone knows.
	And it's absolutely transparent to everyone outside of the conservative Twitter bubble.
	I'm sorry to be the one who says it.
	You know, but this is just not good tactics.
	In the end, our campaign raised $100,000.
	It could have solved a problem in 10 hours that AOC couldn't solve in four years, and we can all be proud of that.
	As for Abdullah, all we can do now is go pray.
	Who cares?
	I don't care about her at all.
	If AOC doesn't care about her own grandmother, it's not my problem.
	You know, there are people much closer to me I could feel more deserving, and that is undoubtedly true about all of the people at the Daily Wire.
	And again, I don't mean to sound so angry because I like the Daily Wire, I like all the people on there, but I just felt that this was really, really silly.
	GoFundMe, of course, shut down the campaign and refunded everyone.
	So there's 100 grand that was raised that could have been used for a good charitable cause that the Conservatives have totally squandered.
	Why not do something good?
	Why leave it there?
	You know, the fact that they just leave it there, okay, so you know you can raise 100k for a charitable cause, do it.
	You know, saying, oh, we're just gonna, oh, who knows why AOC refused this, who knows why GoFundMe shut it down, which, no, we're not left to wonder.
	Obvious political defense by AOC, which, I mean, I would probably do in the same position, But instead, now you should start a charitable drive for something good, something worthy.
	Honestly, veterans probably would be the best bet, because there are doubtless going to be lots of veterans under Joe Biden's reign that need help, that Joe Biden isn't going to help.
	I mean, he doesn't even feed the soldiers he's employing, you know.
	So they could doubtless need something and actually use something.
	And a hundred grand could probably go quite a long way.
	But instead, it's a failed political attack.
	And AOC hasn't been hurt by this.
	She's not lost any support by this.
	And I don't think anyone in the public is particularly awed by this.
	I don't think this has worked.
	And Don't fund the libs to own the libs.
	The optics are terrible.
	The strategy is terrible.
	And it's from people who I think should know better.
	That's the thing.
	Again, people I support and like.
	So I'm just really annoyed by it.
	I was trying to think more.
	There's an argument there that essentially they've shown that charity can replace government intervention there.
	Yeah, they could have made that point.
	The Puerto Rican government, the federal government, weren't stepping in.
	That's AOC's complaint because of nasty Trump.
	And they're like, right, okay, charity.
	There you go.
	But the worst part is it makes the Daily Wire guys look excessively cynical, right?
	And so, like Matt Walsh...
	The people of Puerto Rico would have been a better target.
	Exactly.
	You know, you couldn't be like, hmm, AOC is a deeply irresponsible person, but...
	She does raise a good point that the people of Puerto Rico have been left out to dry by the US government, and since Joe Biden's government isn't going to do anything about it, you can still turn it into the partisan attack you want it to be, but you can't turn it into a personal attack against AOC and her grandmother.
	I get it's a good joke, but it was a hundred grand.
	Yeah, but that's the thing.
	It's a good joke inside the confines of the sort of Daily Wire Twittersphere, right?
	Outside of that, I don't think it resonates at all, and it makes them look worse than they think.
	And I, you know, I'm saying this because I want the Daily White to succeed.
	I don't want them to fail.
	I don't want the communists to take over.
	I mean, like, just thank God that they turned it down.
	Because, I mean, as people were saying.
	Yeah, they could have literally just redone a house and turned it into a mansion that was just covered in Che Guevara and Mao.
	Or just given it all to BLM. Yeah, or given it all to BLM. Or Planned Parenthood, or whatever, you know.
	They...
	It could have, you know, sending conservative money to fund anti-conservative causes, which is what would have happened with that money, would have been a massive own goal.
	So, yeah, if conservatives, if you're going to raise money, you send it to the causes you support, not the causes they support.
	don't pretend to care about the relations and the family members of the leftists you hate because we know you don't we know no one thinks you do and I think it just made you look kind of cynical and thank god they rejected the money at least Yeah, but cynical and kind of profiteering on a crisis, right?
	And that's not good optics, in my opinion.
	It was just a really bad move, I thought.
	And it looked ridiculous on the face of it.
	You know, the Daily Wire guys are raising loads of money for AOC's family.
	Why?
	Convoluted Twitter argument is the thing behind it.
	Oh God.
	You know, it's not good.
	It's not good.
	Anyway, something a bit of a more white pill here.
	So, essentially, I'm just going to end up probably calling this segment, like, just do the Nazi salute bigger, or something like that.
	I don't know.
	Because that's the argument that she comes down to.
	So, this is news that's been bubbling in the UK for a long time.
	To pre-athleth this, I'm not a football fan.
	My interest in football goes as far as football chants, I'll be honest.
	Because I think they're hilarious.
	Remarkable interest in football chants.
	They're so tribal, and I love it.
	Anyway, so...
	Us, us, us, us.
	So this is the first story here.
	So England booed again for taking the knee at Euro warm-up.
	So football clubs have been doing this throughout the last year, taking the knee.
	Some of them have stopped because they realized how cringe it was and how the fans didn't like it.
	The England team, not so much.
	The England team have just carried on doing it, even though everyone hates it.
	Because it's obviously just a...
	It's not a question of racial tolerance surrounding such nonsense.
	No, this is an endorsement of BLM. Everyone knows that.
	Don't try and say it's anything else.
	It's expressly political.
	They say in here, after a minority booed the stance before Wednesday's triumphant friendly against Austria, England manager Gareth Southgate on Saturday urged fans to show their support for his squad decision to show its solidarity against racism and inequality.
	Liar.
	I'm sorry.
	There are plenty of things in football already, like show the red card, the armbands, or whatever the heck else.
	You know, there's been a load of different things about get racism out of football.
	But this is not it.
	This is something else.
	Callum's new Brave campaign, get football out of racism.
	I'm so sick of them.
	Anyway.
	So, they say that the Geos return to Middleborough's Riverside Stadium on Sunday.
	so if we get the first clip up this is them booing the uh guys good Yeah, minority my arse.
	No, no, just very quick, right?
	Just keep booing.
	Always gatekeep.
	If they're doing something you don't like, boo and boo harder.
	Boo more.
	You know, all of you, make sure every single person in the stadium is booing.
	Make sure they know that every time they take that goddamn knee, they're going to be met with huge amounts of condemnation and shame.
	Boo.
	Keep booing.
	Booing is the best form of gatekeeping in football, I'm telling you.
	Yep.
	Keep the leftists and their politics out of football.
	And the same would be true if people started running around with right-wing banners or something.
	If you want football to be about football and not about politics, as with every other person's personal hobbies, you have to gatekeep against ideological crusaders.
	Absolutely.
	100%.
	If they're talking about anything other than football, boo them.
	So, correct thing to do.
	Base fans there and keep it up.
	Good work.
	I mean, I'm not even a football fan.
	I don't care at all.
	No, I don't care about football.
	You guys shouldn't have your hobby ruined just because a bunch of leftists want to jump in.
	Exactly.
	It's about protecting the integrity of the space.
	And this goes for every single space.
	If you create a space for a particular interest, if someone's trying to inject some other interest into it, you gatekeep them.
	No, go somewhere else and do that somewhere else.
	Not appropriate.
	Yeah.
	So, what were the leftists online in response to this?
	Well, they're funny, so let's have some fun.
	So, first one here, Gary Lineker.
	If you boo at England players for taking the knee, you're part of the reason why players are taking the knee.
	Right, so he's calling them all racists.
	Yep.
	But also just, I mean, stellar logic.
	Like, if you boo the England players for doing Nazi salutes, you're part of the reason why we need Nazi salutes.
	Yeah.
	I mean, there's just no logic whatsoever there.
	Well, the best part about this is that all it essentially boils down to is any opposition to leftism justifies leftism.
	And the same could be true in any statement for anything ever, which is why it's a nonsensical statement in logical terms.
	But you can see him there obviously being a shill for leftist ideology, as he has done many a time.
	This isn't new for Gary Lineker.
	So if we go to the next one here.
	So this is LBC. So you can see James O'Brien.
	He interviewed someone who was booing, and it's an amazing interview.
	You can see the quote LBC went with here, and I love their racial applied flag in their logo.
	They were the black and brown stripe.
	Yep, black and brown, that's sexuality.
	Sane people run LBC.
	How hard do you have to wave your flag whilst booing England players?
	Why are you using up a seat a proper fan could have had?
	Ooh, ooh, are you?
	Proper fan.
	Like James O'Brien and Labour Party members who would, I don't know, boo the Jewish players instead.
	Anyway, so if we go to the first clip here, this is part of the interview which I think were amazing.
	I was actually at the Riverside yesterday and I booed Denis.
	Okay.
	Why do you think the players are doing it?
	I know the reasons that they've said that they're doing it.
	So you booed that then?
	No.
	So you booed the reasons that they haven't said?
	My undertone is that when I hear the words Black Lives Matter, I think of burning buildings in America, attacking the police and violent protests.
	Have you tried not to?
	Have you tried not to think that?
	Have you tried to think about the words and what they actually mean?
	Well, one of my aunties actually was killed during a Black Lives Matter protest last year.
	And that's appalling, but have you tried thinking about what the words actually mean?
	I mean, it's amazing, isn't it?
	It's like a Socialist Party member.
	James, they killed someone he knows!
	From the USSR or something?
	Like, when I think of the Communist Party of China, I think of genocide and famine.
	Yeah, but if you try not to.
	If you try thinking about the glorious parades we have.
	When I see the England team doing the Nazi salute, I can't help but think of the genocide.
	Yeah, but you could think of the roads.
	Have you tried denying reality?
	Yeah, but my aunt died.
	Yeah, but you could just think about something else.
	30 people died in summer of 2020 because of Black Lives Matter, James.
	You absolute maniac.
	Literally billions of dollars of damage was done.
	Livelihoods were ruined.
	But if you just tried not to?
	If you just tried not to.
	I mean, it really is like some kind of socialist who's in the gulag and just like, yeah, but what if you just pretend?
	Oh, this is just like when Winston is being taken up to room 101 and the guy comes in and he's like, no, I'm glad they got me.
	I didn't want to commit the thought crime.
	Anyway, let's go to the next one here.
	I don't get to tell you why you're kneeling or what you're showing support for.
	I get only to ask you.
	So we've asked the footballers why they're doing it, and they've told us, Tom.
	I think if you make a bold statement rather than just taking the knee every week, actually, I think I would respect it more.
	But it's just a complete, like, politically correct statement done.
	But again, you're telling them why they're doing it, and they're giving you a very different answer to that question.
	So what do you think qualifies you to say, oh, I know that's why you say you're doing it, but I know better?
	Well, again, that's your opinion.
	You know, for me...
	No, no, you boo them.
	They've told you why they're doing it, and you're booing them for completely different reasons.
	Mate, I love that.
	We can now redefine anything we want, and no one can ever complain, because we redefined how we want.
	If I want to do a Nazi salute, and then say it's for love and tolerance, you just have to let me do it.
	What, like the Scottish guys?
	Yeah, like the meme lords.
	Yeah.
	Like, that's James O'Brien's logic there.
	If it obviously stands for one thing, don't worry, I've told you it stands for another.
	That's amazing.
	That's incredible.
	That means that the Christians are all going to appropriate the pride flag because it's a covenant between the Israelites and God.
	Yes.
	And what was God's view on the gays?
	Not brilliant.
	So now the pride flag is an anti-gay flag according to James O'Brien logic.
	But I also love how we can stop the witch hunts over this symbol, the OK symbol, in which everyone's like, yeah, this means white power.
	It's like, no.
	It means OK. Has always meant OK. But leftists are like, yeah, no, there's a W and a P because I've got a big brain and I can figure it out.
	Because I went on 4chan and I definitely wasn't trolled.
	I definitely didn't have the piss ripped out of me on that.
	Yeah, no, it's ridiculous.
	If anyone's wondering where that comes from, that's literally a meme in which Fortran decided they would convince leftists that it means white power, so they would look ridiculous, and then they believed it, and yet they still believe it, even after the post has been pointing out to them that, yeah, you were trolled.
	Jesus Christ.
	The thing about James O'Brien here, though, is, like, sorry, you can say, oh, the England players said that they, I don't know, whatever reason, they were concerned about, like, you know, black people being persecuted by the police and stuff like that.
	So, sure, sure, sure.
	But that's, you know, like, you could have heard someone in the 30s saying, well, look, I don't really support everything Hitler does, but I am concerned about, like, you know, Soviet influence across Eastern Europe, and therefore, and it's like, yeah, okay, but they are also a genocidal regime.
	Like, these are also murderous communists.
	These things matter.
	I mean, like, you could, the BLM taking the knee thing, I mean, BLM are a directly socialist organization.
	You can go to their website, you remember the stuff they've scrubbed, because people start to point out, like, getting rid of the nuclear They're open Marxists, James.
	Do you know what a Marxist is, James?
	It's a genocidal revolutionary against liberal democracy.
	I'm not supporting anything that comes near approaching that.
	And the England Football Club is endorsing that by taking the knee, whether they like it or not.
	Absolutely.
	This is why them doing Nazi salutes in Germany in 1938 was not a good thing.
	We'll get into that in a minute.
	Let's play the last clip.
	Do you think booing them will make them play better or worse?
	But it's not about the football why I'm booing them.
	I don't care.
	Do you think it will make them play better or worse?
	I mean, I guess worse.
	And here you are.
	Are you going to boo them at the Croatia game?
	Yes.
	Cool.
	You're a massive supporter, you are, aren't you?
	How big's your flag?
	Sorry?
	How big's your flag?
	I've got a British flag just to, you know...
	I know you have.
	You don't need to tell me that.
	I'm just wondering how big it is.
	I can't remember, sorry.
	And how hard do you wave it when you're booing the England players?
	Really hard.
	I don't wave a flag.
	Call yourself a football fan.
	I want England to win.
	You don't want them to win.
	Why are you going to the games?
	Why are you using up a seat that a proper fan could have?
	I mean, it's pathetic.
	He looks like he's losing his mind as well there, right?
	But that's amazing.
	It's like, no, James, right?
	We keep using the England example from the 30s.
	But like, okay, if the English team is there giving the Nazi salute, yeah, I want them to lose.
	I want them to lose.
	I don't want the team that's doing the Nazi salute to win.
	And if that's the England team, that's the team I'm supposed to be supporting, they should know better.
	You know, they should know better.
	No, no.
	Whether you win or lose a game of football now is actually beyond the pale.
	Who cares?
	The game's already been ruined because this happens right at the start.
	Exactly.
	They're doing the Nazi salute down there, James.
	You're going to make them perform worse.
	They're supporting genocide, James!
	Also, this guy mentions in another part of the interview that he spends tens of thousands of pounds travelling around Europe and the world with the England team as a real hardcore supporter.
	This is his hobby.
	This is the thing he likes in his life.
	And he's like, yeah, you're not a proper supporter.
	And now the Nazis have taken over.
	But unlike James O'Brien, who goes to these games all the time, I've got no doubt.
	There's also another pathetic take here, so Piers Morgan.
	Disgusting to hear so many supposed England fangs loudly boo a team with many black players for taking the knee to protest racial inequality, then loudly cheer one of those black players when he's scored.
	Next time the idiots boo, the players should walk off.
	Yes, they should walk off.
	The fans should walk off.
	But the players should also walk off.
	So look, we're being booed for taking the knee.
	This is a political event and I don't feel comfortable doing it.
	Sorry.
	I mean, just brain death there.
	Like, they're booing for the politicization and yet they cheer for the goal scoring.
	What is going on here?
	It's like they like the game or something.
	Piers, you're such a dunce.
	Anyway, so let's go to the next one here.
	So this is Lawrence Fox celebrating it, so you can see.
	Yes!
	England fans 2, BLM Kneeling Society, 0.
	Excellent.
	Good job, Lozza.
	Let's go to the next one.
	So Parliament got involved, because of course they did.
	So Downing Street has refused to condemn the England fans who booed the players taking the knee.
	Yes!
	Good!
	Based Downing Street.
	But that's not good enough.
	That's not good enough, right?
	What you need to do, Boris, right?
	You need to come out and endorse.
	You need to go out and do a little video outside of Downing Street and go, I support all of the England fans who boo for Black Lives Matter because it's a communist movement that's part of the infiltration of our public life and the politicization of everything that we hold dear that we don't want to have politicized.
	Good on those England fans, and they should boo harder next time.
	That's what you should do.
	Correct.
	Let's go to the next one here.
	So this is an article talking about why do some of the players boo?
	So the BBC decided to try and ask them instead of just screaming racist.
	What?
	That's a real gleeful they've turned over.
	So one guy says, booing is a way football fans can communicate dissatisfaction, says Andrew.
	He booed to show his objection to what he sees as, quote, an identity politics agenda that focuses on black people and skin colour.
	Well, as far as I'm concerned, we are all England fans regardless of colour.
	I mean, he was right.
	Sounds like a racist.
	Well...
	It's just so ridiculous.
	You see them calling them racist, you know, Gary Lineker and all that.
	Yeah, but they're literally taking the liberal position on race, which is the skin colour isn't what's important.
	And the Marxist BLM types are taking the position that skin colour is what's important.
	Yes, they've adopted the Nazi position on skin colour.
	Anyway.
	But hang on.
	No, but that's absolutely right.
	An identity politics agenda that focuses on black people and skin colour, whereas we're all England fans.
	You're exactly right.
	That is exactly the liberal position.
	And he's correct.
	That's the thing.
	At least Andrew.
	Someone else says, if I wanted to watch politics, I would switch on Westminster Live.
	Yep.
	Apparently that came from a Twitter user, so I guess BBC asked one person.
	But they gave up.
	And they just scrolled Twitter for the rest of the day.
	So if we go to the next one here, so this is a Jewish Times news article which is abasting some MP for daring to compare taking the knee to the Nazi salute.
	And it'll get into their smears now.
	So they say, Batislaw politician Brendan Clark Smith was condemned by Jewish leaders, Jewish leaders, not just leftist leaders, who urged the Conservatives to take action over his comments.
	Or who?
	Are we talking about like Netanyahu or something?
	No.
	In a Facebook post, Clark Smith wrote True.
	Yeah.
	And it's just inappropriate.
	So, of course, what's the criticism?
	It comes from the Director of Antisemitism Policy.
	So he condemns the comparison on Monday.
	Who's that?
	What's that?
	No idea.
	Who cares?
	But this is what makes the news for Jewish News, apparently.
	This is an ill-considered and offensive comparison.
	Why?
	Which, taken together with the additional comments, demonstrate an urgent requirement for education.
	I hope the party will take action, so this MP should be suspended or censored.
	Yeah, no.
	So Brendan Clark Smith is completely correct.
	He should double down on this and say, no, it's wrong to politicize this sport.
	Which he did.
	So we go to the next one.
	So this is, what is it, Politics for All reporting on it?
	And then he's just like, bit of a lazy description, don't you think?
	Because, true, if you actually go to his Facebook post in which he talks about this, which is just the next one here, it's pretty long and it's detailed and it's a well-reasoned argument.
	You can disagree with it or agree with it, but he's not just comparing them and that's kind of controversial.
	So I know it's a correct comparison in this case.
	So he says, "Earlier this week, I was highly critical of the decision to take the knee in a friendly match against Austria." Had to be Austria.
	"And today, the same due to happen with a friendly match against Romania.
	Today's match has a special significance for me, not least because I have not only lived and worked in Romania, but I'm also married to a Romanian and our son is both British and Romanian.
	But the scars of recent history are still apparent.
	I remember as a nine-year-old watching on TV when the dictator Nicolae Czescu and his wife were ousted, put on trial, and executed on Christmas Day 1989.
	My wife's birthday certificate still bears the words Socialist Republic of Romania.
	And at the top, even today, the country is recovering, albeit very well from those days.
	But of course, Romania is not the only communist regime in the world, and we still see this poisonous ideology today, despite the tens of millions of deaths worldwide it has been responsible for, be it the Soviet Union, China, or beyond.
	Based.
	True.
	It is precisely for this point that this sort of ideology must not be glorified.
	It is also precisely the reason why BLM, whose political goals have included crushing capitalism, defunding the police, destroying the nuclear family and attacking Israel, are far more than simply an organisation fighting racism.
	Absolutely excellent description and excellent response.
	Fantastic.
	I couldn't have written it better myself.
	I mean, absolutely perfect.
	Just, communist bad, these guys are communists, therefore they're bad.
	True.
	The logic holds up.
	So, then the comparison comes in.
	Let's travel back in time to Berlin in 1938.
	England had travelled to Germany to play the national team, after controversially hosting them in 1935 at White Hart Lane, where the Germans did a Nazi salute during their anthem being played.
	And the swastika was up there because that was the country's flag, apparently.
	Sure.
	Despite protests, the initial game went ahead and both the Home Secretary and the FA made the point of keeping football and politics independent.
	The players were encouraged when they went to Germany in 1938 to do the Nazi salute prior to the match, so for the start of the match when the German anthem was playing.
	England players, including the great Sir Stanley Matthews, were not impressed and did not want to do it.
	However, they had been reassured that it was merely a form of gesture of courtesy and it did not mean an endorsement of the regime.
	So do our players really want to carry the political baggage that comes with taking the knee?
	I doubt many do, but perhaps it's time to stop and think for once.
	Maybe there are better ways than this.
	Let's learn from history.
	Let's find something we can all support and at the same time keep politics out of football.
	That's a great statement.
	I've shortened that a little bit because it's just really long, but I think I've got all the points that he's making and it's true.
	Good points.
	But I mean, look at that.
	See, literally the England team doing the Nazi salute.
	Isn't that just the most disgraceful thing you've ever seen?
	Yeah, if we go to the next link, we can see it a little bit bigger, because I just decided to look up the history of this, and it's embarrassing.
	It's horrible.
	It's just a symbol, guys.
	But this is what it looks like to me when the England team's taking the knee for Black Lives Matter.
	Sorry, it's a radical communist organisation that he points out does want all of the things he accused them of wanting.
	And so, no, I can't support that.
	I view that as much the same as the Nazis.
	Like 1938, you know, German James O'Brien is like, they're just standing up to Marxism.
	Race-based revolutionary socialism from either wing for, you know, the Germans or black people is bad.
	It's just not good for anyone.
	So the history of this, they've been doing it since Hitler took over.
	The English were informed that they should do it to try and ease tensions because they've just taken Austria and whatnot, so things are a bit tense.
	And there's two versions of the events listed in here.
	So one is from the FA secretary and some of the players who said there were no objections to being told they should do the Nazi salute.
	And then there's Stanley Matthews who later recorded in his life in book form that the dressing room erupted, all the England players were livid and totally opposed to this.
	I don't know which one's true.
	I find that more believable though.
	Like literally none of the English players have got a problem given the Nazis.
	I doubt it.
	You know, no objections.
	Yeah, pfft.
	Plus, the FA are likely to say that there were no objections.
	Of course they are, yeah.
	Why wouldn't they?
	So, if we go to the next one here.
	So, this is just an example which my dad sent me, actually.
	So, this is something you've got to take into account.
	So, here is a footballer who refuses to take the knee as he has doubts over the Black Lives Matter campaign.
	And he says, I would request anyone look into this BLM and to look into what the organisation does and what they stand for, because it's scandalous that the world and the world's media has got behind Black Lives Matter.
	Based.
	Again, that's perfect.
	But the disappointing caveat is he's only really able to say this, and let's be frank, because he's a black football player.
	If any of the white football players have said this, they'd be in big, big trouble.
	And then you've got to think of the white football players who don't agree with Marxism and yet having to take the knee at these matches because they know there's no other choice.
	They're going to be screwed over by all of the football associations and all the rest of it if they dare stand up for what is right.
	So, this isn't the only MP who's pointed out this is nonsense.
	There's one other MP who's being smashed.
	Not smashed.
	He's being panned by the left for daring to say that he's going to boycott the whole thing.
	So, we've got the next one.
	So, this is a Tory MP to boycott England games in row overtaking the knee.
	So, I like how a lot of the Conservatives are starting to take note of this.
	Good.
	It is important.
	And he says, For the first time in my life, I will not be watching my beloved England team whilst they are supporting a political movement whose core principles and aims are to undermine our very way of life.
	Travo!
	Lee Anderson.
	Good guy.
	We're starting to find a few Conservatives, not just with backbones, but actually an understanding of what's going on.
	This is excellent.
	Yeah, this is great news.
	It's a bit of a white pill.
	I'd love to see this go up further through the ranks as well of the Conservative Party.
	Yes.
	Because opposing Marxism, kind of what you're made for?
	Like, presumably you're not there to promote Marxism, Conservative Party.
	Shouldn't be a terribly controversial thing in Conservative circles.
	And to have it in the national team?
	Yeah.
	I realise that the media's going to howl, but when, don't they?
	I mean, the Marxists and the media will howl.
	Who cares?
	You're nearly at a 50% approval rating.
	You could...
	They've been howling a while.
	It does seem to work.
	They've literally been howling the whole time and your popularity just keeps going up while you do nothing.
	Imagine coming out and being like, so I actually don't think that this Marxist movement should be supported by the English team.
	You know, good job, chaps.
	You know, let's hope we win or whatever.
	And keep going.
	I love how there's just like, yeah, Marxist is all nonsense.
	BLM is all nonsense.
	Tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick.
	I love the fact that footballers are just like, look, I've looked into this.
	I had a quick reader.
	He's like, look, I've done my own research on this and I don't believe the media narrative on it.
	That's what he was saying.
	The black footballer.
	It's like, yeah, no, he's right.
	He's absolutely right.
	This is not some sort of innocent, like, you know, like...
	In the 80s, you'd have these charity drives.
	In the 80s and 90s, you'd have the...
	I can't remember the names of them now.
	But the big charity events, the once a year sort of thing.
	And they'd raise half a million for starving kids in Africa.
	Totally apolitical.
	Everyone can get behind it.
	Nothing to concern about.
	So no one needs to get on the high horse about it.
	But this is not that.
	This is expressly political.
	It's got nothing to do with toleration of different races.
	No, no.
	Which is why they talk about racial inequality and not, you know, racist treatment.
	Yeah.
	Why do they say racial inequality?
	Because inequality is a communist value.
	It's not a liberal value.
	A liberal value is freedom.
	A black man should be as free as a white man.
	That's the liberal standard.
	Yeah.
	The communist standard is the black man should be as equal as a white man.
	How does that even work?
	They don't have to say about money.
	They don't have the same life.
	Well, that means that basically Kanye West is going to have to give up some money because I don't have nearly as much as he does.
	Yes.
	Bad luck, Kanye.
	Equality.
	Rip.
	Anyway, Conservative MPs doing a good thing.
	So, praise, because that's how that works.
	Yeah, so let's talk about the nations of the earth rising together against Silicon Valley and social media as a concept, it seems.
	Right, so this begins in 2014, doesn't it?
	Really, with Turkey banning Twitter.
	I had no idea you found this, didn't you?
	Yeah, so the Turks sent three court orders to Twitter.
	So this is Twitter's version of events.
	In which two of them, they'd already suspended the content and the guys.
	So they were like, alright, those are done.
	The third one is just someone claiming that your government's corrupt.
	So they actually cucked and they did a country lock on the third guy.
	So his content couldn't be seen in Turkey, but it could be seen elsewhere.
	And the Turkish government were like, nah, it's not good enough.
	So they continued to block Twitter in response.
	But I love Erdogan's response.
	Yeah, this is amazing.
	And Erdogan...
	Sounding like an Assyrian emperor.
	We now have a court order.
	We'll eradicate Twitter.
	I don't care what the international community says.
	Everyone will witness the power of the Turkish Republic.
	Right, Palpatine?
	Our Death Star is fully operational.
	We're destroying old Iran.
	We're looking at you next, Facebook.
	But yeah, so that's mad.
	And then, of course, in 2020, Twitter suspended over a dozen Venezuelan military and government accounts.
	Swinging their deer round.
	The Venezuelan government were quite shocked by this as well, because it wasn't like something big had happened, as my understanding.
	But just a bunch of their government accounts just gone.
	I was like, okay.
	Why?
	You didn't do this when we were doing the really bad stuff.
	But now we're still doing bad stuff.
	Suddenly you care?
	But yeah, anyway, so this is Twitter getting too big for its boots.
	And I think Twitter and Facebook and YouTube and all of the other social media Silicon Valley platforms really showed that they were too big for their boots when they, of course, banned Donald Trump on January the 8th.
	Permanent suspension and Facebook, it looked like they were going to bring him back on because the council reactivated, but then their independent review board were like, no, it's got to be front of the two years so he can't be running in the next election or something like this.
	So yeah, so they all decided to deplatform at the same day the sitting president of the United States.
	The leader of the free world.
	The leader of the free world.
	Censored by Silicon Valley.
	So everything that happens to Silicon Valley from this point onwards is pretty justified, in my opinion, because this is, as we will see, a massive human rights violation by their own standards.
	Anyway, so let's just look at what's happened this year.
	So 12th of January 2021, Uganda decided to just ban social media.
	Now this isn't an uncommon occurrence in Africa, for corruption reasons, obviously.
	You can always build your own Uganda, don't worry.
	You can always build your own Uganda, Twitter.
	So, yes, two days ahead of a presidential campaign.
	The Twitter was blocked and presumably other social media accounts as well because, you know, campaigning had been marred by brutal crackdowns on opposition rallies that left scores dead.
	Repeated intimidation, arrested opposition candidates.
	So, you know, like banning social media is kind of lower on that totem pole of problems.
	The European Union chimed in and said it expects Uganda to provide a level playing field for all voters to exercise their democratic rights without fear of intimidation.
	Shut up.
	They're killing people.
	But anyway, so obviously it's just about hiding corruption, though.
	And then anyway, so still in January 2021, as we reported, Twitter for some reason refused to take down alleged child porn.
	Weird.
	Hill to die on.
	The Vorsch Hill.
	Don't know why they needed to do that.
	Child protection expert Mark Williams-Thomas said the use of the use of Twitter by pedophiles was out of control.
	and the newspaper's description of the platform was Twitter is a paedophile's playground.
	It is the go-to platform of the left.
	That's true.
	Anyway, so this was used as an excuse in April by Russia as part of their war against Twitter.
	Again, probably actually not the real reason the Russians care about what's going on on Twitter.
	Probably more to do with corruption.
	Did you have to give them this reason?
	Yeah, but I can't exactly say, oh no, Russia, don't.
	Twitter did nothing wrong, since it's full of CP. But yeah, so the communications watchdog, the state communications watchdog, which I'm not going to try and pronounce, because it's a weird Russian word, accused Twitter last month of failing to remove content encouraging suicide among children.
	So presumably that was transphobic.
	As well as information about drugs and child pornography.
	Russian authorities said they've been throttling Twitter, slowing it down until mid-May, but wouldn't block the platform for now because it started to remove the banned content faster.
	An announcement marks somewhat of a reprieve in a recent standoff between the Russian government and the platform.
	But again, it's because of the role of amplifying dissent in Russia, I think.
	I don't think it's really about these moral issues.
	They don't want to be on Twitter either.
	You want them on Russian social media.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Right, and anyway, so moving on to February.
	Australia had a big hoo-ha with Facebook because they were trying to take money from Facebook.
	They were trying to – the same thing the European Union wanted to do, wasn't it, with Article 13 – But they wanted Facebook to have to pay for clicks on Australian newspapers.
	And so Facebook were like, right, we're just going to ban news in Australia.
	And that was it.
	They just banned all this news in Australia.
	They ended up cucking now.
	They did, of course.
	Of course they did.
	But it's interesting how they're just like, yeah, we're going to steal from Silicon Valley.
	Oh, yeah, that's great.
	What are you going to do with it?
	Give it to News Corp.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	Great.
	But the same thing happened in the EU, where they have, and it will come in at some point, I think, because they did pass it a couple of years ago, but I think it's just the glacial speed of bureaucracy in Europe that has not made this happen yet.
	But, yeah, so they essentially want Silicon Valley to stop giving people money because people have clicked on their links.
	It's like, what?
	Normally you have to pay for advertising.
	People sharing things on social media is massive amounts of free advertising.
	And normally you have to pay for advertising.
	And you're like, yeah, so if someone clicks the link, you have to give us money?
	It's clearly just a shakedown.
	It's clearly a shakedown.
	And I don't want to defend Silicon Valley, obviously, duh, you know, I kind of hate Silicon Valley, but like this...
	But it's another war between legislatures and Silicon Valley, in which, frankly, for the Australian Parliament, I reckon it was more about, no, we need to show we have control over you.
	Well, that's the point, isn't it?
	The fact that Silicon Valley companies are in, like, sometimes hot wars with national governments, I mean, let's recall Erdogan's You know, everyone will witness the power of the Turkish Republic.
	What, by suspending Twitter?
	That's the power of the Turkish?
	That's not very impressive.
	You used to have an empire.
	Now the power is Jack Dorsey gets blocked in Turkey.
	Oh no.
	Anyway.
	I bet you didn't even notice.
	I bet you probably overslept that morning.
	You know, it's like, this is the power of the Turkish Republic, is it?
	Right?
	And so that's the point, isn't it?
	Like, the...
	Social media platforms have become so powerful in disseminating information that national governments are now on the warpath against them.
	Maybe if, well, I mean, shame we don't have a president of the United States who might be, I don't know, cognizant of this problem and start putting forward solutions within the country before the rest of the world is banned from social media because social media has grown out of control, like an insane monster that doesn't care about anything else.
	I don't have a leg to stand on either.
	Every single time they get banned from these places, they're always like, yeah, but we're the free speech party.
	Oh god, I hate it.
	We'll get to Twitter's responses to this, because it's just disgusting.
	It's the most disgusting hypocrisy ever.
	But anyway, in April, Twitter decided they would censor criticism of Modi in India, because of how his government...
	Organized and responded to the pandemic.
	They blocked more than 50 tweets that handled the pandemic.
	50 whole tweets.
	It's alright.
	Turkey has destroyed Twitter now.
	Twitter complied, preventing these views, blah blah blah.
	So Twitter's compliant in censorship.
	Thanks, Twitter.
	You always have been.
	Back in 2009, they used to bill themselves as the free speech wing of the Free Speech Party, meaning the Democrats.
	How ironic.
	Again, only like 10 years ago.
	But anyway, so India is going to block Twitter.
	I don't know if this actually happened.
	Because of the massive outage this morning, I couldn't find out this information.
	Because every website I wanted to go to to find out the reporting on this was down.
	My understanding is this was in response to anti-Indian hate speech was the accusation as well.
	It's like you're allowing Hinduphobia on the platform, therefore gone.
	Which, yeah, one way of solving it.
	Who cares about Twitter's stance on free speech?
	Witness the power of India.
	Superpower by 2020.
	But yeah, so there are a bunch of social media users in India, like sending out their final tweets.
	But yeah, basically India set out a bunch of new guidelines and only Facebook followed them.
	I don't know, like I said, I don't know whether these are banned or not.
	So if you're in India, please let me know because I, like I said, I couldn't find out because of the outage.
	But yeah, so this was, you know...
	India's striking back.
	Twitter's going to be gone.
	That's a billion people who don't use Twitter.
	You know, Twitter's only got like 300 million regular users.
	So, like, the fact that Twitter is getting all these national governments up in arms just goes to show you the outsized influence Twitter is being given as a platform.
	But also just the censorship.
	I mean, they're not banning 4chan.
	Oh, yeah.
	They're not interested in what they have to say.
	4chan's probably based on Modi pills.
	But it's the point of like, if these organizations had not taken the mantra on themselves of being the arbiters of truth, if they had not been the people who came in and said, we're going to determine which politicians telling the truth and who's lying and all the rest of it, and just let them play ball.
	If it was just a platform instead of a publisher, none of these governments would really give a toss.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	Absolutely.
	None of this would be happening.
	The best example would probably be in the next one.
	Yeah.
	Well, yeah, exactly.
	And this is the example that inspired this segment because this happened only about a week or so ago.
	No, sorry, the next one, John.
	Sorry.
	Yeah.
	Oh, a day ago.
	Sorry.
	A couple of days ago.
	So basically, the Nigerian government, the president, Mohamed Bari, don't know how to pronounce that, He seemed to threaten violent retaliation against the Southeastern secessionist groups alleged recent attacks on government facilities and personnel.
	Now, is that even wrong?
	What do you mean?
	We've got a bunch of maniac secessionists who have been attacking government institutions, and he's like, we're going to get you.
	Did you see the full tweet?
	No.
	He was like, those of us who grew up in the Nigerian Civil War know what real violence is, and these people who are burning stuff down, we will teach them in the only language they understand.
	But either way, I mean, that's an important tweet to see if you're a Nigerian.
	I would have thought so.
	If for no other reason.
	Perhaps if you're a secessionist, you might want to see that.
	And they were like, delete that, that's gone.
	And he's like, uh-huh.
	I know nothing about this guy, but again, it's them stepping in and being like, we're going to be the arbiters of what's acceptable, ban the president of Nigeria, and he's like, right, ban from Nigeria!
	Well, that's exactly what happened, yeah.
	Twitter claimed the message...
	Build your own Nigeria!
	Twitter claimed the message violated its rules against abusive behaviour, which is really ironic given, like, Arabic Twitter...
	But the move angered, of course, many in the Nigerian government, and so they were just like, yeah, get bent.
	I saw some defences, and those people were like, yeah, but all those people who got banned, Trump, Milo, blah, blah, blah, they broke terms of service.
	It was like, yeah, Twitter broke terms of service of Nigeria.
	Don't insult the president of Nigeria by deleting his tweets.
	Don't silence the president of Nigeria.
	That's the terms of service.
	Yep.
	And you broke them.
	Too bad.
	Oh, but these terms of service are unfair.
	Oh, really?
	What about other Twitters?
	Well, in fact, it goes further than that, because Twitter has declared itself to be a human right.
	Which is weird.
	In response to this.
	Yeah.
	But this is not the first time.
	So, years ago, in fact, because of me, actually, Jack Dorsey was on Joe Rogan's podcast, where he said that he thinks that social media is a human right.
	And this, of course, raises the point, well, that means you're a human rights violator whenever you ban someone.
	You should be on trial in The Hague.
	You should be on trial in The Hague.
	You are unironically as bad as all of these sort of Bosnian and Serbian war criminals.
	In your opinion, Jack, that's you with your opinion.
	If it's a human right, you can't remove someone.
	That means you violated the human rights of Donald Trump, all the conservatives, everyone you've banned.
	And that's probably hundreds of thousands of people.
	I mean, if this was happening in Cambodia or something, we'd be calling this a genocide.
	All of these human rights being violated.
	You've held a digital genocide by your own standards, Jack.
	Didn't think you thought this through.
	But secondly, obviously, it's not a human right, dumbass.
	Like, God, what a stupid, like, I hate this all.
	Human rights are constructed by the state.
	That's what you're saying.
	No, human rights are something that are inherent to you, as in the philosophy of human rights anyway that we have.
	If you can just construct rights, then they're not rights, are they?
	They're privileges.
	So you're wrong, and you're stupid.
	Just the chat's like, Jacko Vladovich.
	Pictures of Jack in the dock with his poisonous...
	When he's on trial, finally, Donald Trump's giving his evidence and Jack just...
	Long live Serbia.
	Long live Silicon Valley.
	You get what you deserve.
	But yeah, so they said that they were a human right, obviously, and it's always embarrassing watching the official Twitter, you know, the Twitter support or whatever it is, tweet this out.
	I don't know if we can get a picture of it going, look, there's the world's worst war criminal at the moment.
	Worst living war crime.
	He does look like a jihadi.
	He does look like he's committed a few war crimes.
	But I was going to say, that's probably not true, actually.
	I think it's...
	I mean, Twitter's not big enough for him to be the world's worst war criminal, social media war criminal.
	It would be Susan Wajinski.
	Or it could be Facebook, Zuckerberg.
	No, YouTube's bigger.
	A third of all internet traffic goes for YouTube.
	Yeah, but they're about the same size.
	But YouTube censors less frequently than Facebook.
	Fair point.
	So, I mean, Voldemort still does have a YouTube account, just no one can see it.
	But Facebook...
	So Zuckerberg might actually be the most brutal man on the internet.
	Did you see his videos of him throwing spears the other day?
	Yeah, it's practice.
	Yeah, based.
	So there we go.
	Genocidal war criminals on social media.
	But Twitter's statement, I hate this, right?
	We are deeply concerned by the blocking of Twitter in Nigeria.
	Access to the free and open internet is an essential human right in a modern society, the company said in a statement.
	I mean, it's just like, okay, well, where's Donald Trump's account?
	Where's my account?
	You violated my human rights because I was insulting Nazis on your platform who you still probably have on your platform.
	Richard Spencer's still there.
	Yeah, Richard Spencer's still there.
	I'm banned.
	And yet, you know, what?
	Like, come on.
	If it's a human right, can I have my human rights back, please, Jack?
	Please.
	Come on.
	Yeah, Spencer's still there.
	I won't tweet anything mean at you.
	I mean, I would.
	If I got my Twitter back, I probably would use it to send one tweet that would get me suspended again.
	Had Jack.
	Just for the fun of it.
	Honestly, get off Twitter.
	It's bad for your mental health.
	But yeah, so this is like something's going on.
	I mean, France recently fined Google.
	A piddling amount, really.
	220 million euros, which is probably about 300 million dollars, something like that.
	Or 270 million dollars.
	Right.
	Yeah, but I don't know.
	But like, you know, a few hundred million dollars.
	But I mean, for Google, that's nothing.
	But this is because Google, of course, like all of these other tech giants, are just looking after their own interests and can't be trusted to operate reliably on their own.
	So they found that Google's ad management platform for large publishers, Google Ad Manager, was favoring the company's own online ad marketplace, Google Ad X. What a shock.
	You know, I mean, they shouldn't be, obviously, because of We're good to go.
	It's like China showing off, isn't it?
	It is, yeah.
	I'm genuinely surprised that Google doesn't have diplomats coming out like the Chinese and being like, yeah, we'll do it again.
	You would know what genocide's like, wouldn't you, Germany?
	I'm surprised they don't come out and say things like this at this point because they are so phenomenally powerful.
	But they actually, like $200 million or whatever, $300 million, there's nothing to Google.
	They do not care.
	But they at least accepted culpability.
	They accept that they did do something wrong and they have to change.
	And it's obviously not the first time the company have done this.
	They were fined 1.49 billion euros by the EU for blocking rival online search advertisers in 2019.
	They were fined 50 million euros in 2019 by the French data regulator For a breach of the EU's data protection rules, and the EU Competition Authority fined the company a record €4.34 billion in 2018 for using its popular Android mobile operating system to block rivals.
	That followed a €2.42 billion fine in 2017 for hindering rivals of shopping comparison websites.
	I mean, it's pretty gross.
	What are they spending these billions on, I wonder, in the EU? Well...
	That's a question, isn't it?
	Where does that 8-odd billion euros go?
	I mean, I... I'm hearing rumours that it's being funneled to Erdogan's army that's launching an attack against Silicon Valley, so based.
	Obviously, this is a joke.
	This is not Intel.
	But yeah, and then we come on to Amazon's wireless sharing because these places have absolutely no more standards.
	But I couldn't prepare this part for the segment because the website was down...
	Oh, no.
	But unfortunately, it's back up.
	So bad news, everyone.
	But yeah, so I think what all of this does is go show the, and again, all of these companies are situated in Silicon Valley, the massive amount of power that these companies have over the world, I think, demands a bit of closer scrutiny.
	I mean, they are human rights violators.
	By their own standards, they are completely out of control.
	I mean, what is this?
	Who wants Amazon to be like, yeah, we're going to just turn everything into an accessible mesh network?
	So anyone who hacks into one thing can see everything anywhere.
	I mean, why would we want this?
	Just because you can build such a thing doesn't mean you should build such a thing.
	And thus ends the lecture of Ian Malcolm.
	Jurassic Park was a dangerous portent.
	I just love the debate here.
	I imagine the guys in Silicon Valley being like, yeah, we're going to ban the president of Belarus.
	The Belarusian dick there is just like, okay, ban Twitter.
	Who do you think was going to win that fight?
	How did you think that was going to go?
	He would have gone, oh, fair enough, just throwing the phone away.
	How many countries do you think they have to get banned in before they start going, okay, maybe we're not the ones in charge of the world?
	All of them, apparently.
	That's the point, isn't it?
	If a social media platform feels it has the authority to ban a world leader, an elected leader or dictator of a country, that's an astounding amount of ego.
	We are above you.
	We are above you.
	Don't you forget it.
	We have access to the Switch.
	We have access to the Switch.
	We can flip it and it's off for you.
	For your president, for your dictator, for your king, whatever it is.
	And it's like, okay, but should you?
	Do you not understand that you are acting like some sort of emperor, some sort of kingmaker when you do this?
	And this has real implications that will genuinely have international consequences.
	Do you think that the president of Nigeria or whatever country is like, oh yeah, well it's just Silicon Valley.
	No, they're going to be looking at the country of America.
	They're not going to be like...
	Oh, well, it's just Jack Dorsey.
	He's not an independent sovereign, like a feudal lord or something.
	That's how the Venezuelans responded to it, when they saw all their government accounts being deleted in real time.
	They issued a statement saying the imperialist United States is doing this to us.
	There we go.
	Exactly my point.
	They're not going to sit there and assume that Silicon Valley is a separate entity to the United States.
	But again, it just speaks to a massive problem with the egos of the people who own and run Silicon Valley.
	Let's go to video comments.
	So I was a moderate conservative up until last year and then this year I just kind of saw the richness from the left.
	I started calling out my leftist friends for what they believe in and a lot of them is where Very much so against it.
	Especially when it came to transitioning kids to adults.
	Kind of weird.
	Okay, yeah.
	Yep, don't disagree.
	I agree.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Afternoon, gentlemen.
	Here's a question for you.
	What on earth makes the progressives think that the natives of distant lands, or the leaders of the neighboring territories that conquered and reconquered the lands over the course of several centuries, were actually fair and competent rulers by whatever standards the progressives would deem as fair?
	Were all conquered people treated with gracious human dignity?
	I think not, and only a fool would believe they were.
	Progressives who constantly whine about things like income inequality and systemic oppression of minority groups of females are seemingly clueless to other cultures using feudal economics, serfdom, slavery, or a caste system.
	And should these people try adopting a Western value or practice that would diminish some of the disparities between the groups, progressives would say they are succumbing to white supremacy.
	Meanwhile, they advocate for an ideology based on the philosophy of a German bloke who had some colorful takes on the Negroes and the Jews.
	Moving along, Well, I mean, he's completely right.
	So one thing that it's important to remember about progressives in particular, when it comes to their fetishization of native cultures, is that this fetishization is entirely aesthetic.
	They view it as a kind of, oh, look at the precious native culture.
	Their ways must be preserved from us evil imperialistic materialistic capitalists, right?
	Because they themselves have no idea or love of the kind of Aesthetic, and when I say this, we're talking about the sort of, you know, moral and artistic and the way the things are in a human sense.
	They've got no sense of that for their own culture because it's been beaten out of them by a hundred years of pure materialism and, you know, anti-religious sentiment and things like this.
	So anything that is supposed to be artistic and appreciated about our own culture is eroded.
	This is why you get all of the progressives, they never say this anymore, but white people have no culture.
	They used to say this all the time.
	Now this is just such an obvious nonsense statement, because A, there's no such thing as humans without a culture.
	There's no such thing.
	But they were conditioned to have it beaten out of them that any of these things are particular to Western European culture, right?
	And in fact...
	More specifically, the individual nations of Western Europe.
	And so if they view these things as not particular to us, then they think, oh, they must be universal to everyone.
	And this is another point about the progressives.
	Oh, these are universal values.
	No, not really.
	They're definitely not universally held.
	They claim as a constituency all people on Earth, but most people on Earth don't ascribe to them.
	And so they have no conception of what Western particularism is like.
	And so when they see local particularism in, say, India, Reza Aslan goes down there, oh yeah, I will eat that human brain.
	Did you not see this?
	No, I remember you talking about it.
	He unironically ate human brain because some lunatic in India was doing it.
	So yeah, but it's this precious native culture.
	It's his religion.
	It's all this.
	Who cares?
	You're eating a human brain.
	But what they can do is create that kind of aesthetic bubble.
	They say, right, the rules, like any piece of art, anything aesthetic creates its own rules.
	It creates a kind of little pocket universe in our own heads, right?
	Where the rules are different.
	So you understand the concept of universes in science fiction, right?
	So the Star Wars universe, the Star Trek universe, they've got different rules.
	They operate on different themes and different logic.
	And you recognize one from the other, and that's what they're doing with these native cultures.
	But they refuse to do it with our own culture, you know, because we have that sort of aesthetic value for British culture and British standards.
	And so we've got, no, you've got to uphold the standards, you've got to do certain things.
	So you go to the tea room, you drink the tea, you eat the scone with the jam and cream on it, and that's what you do when you're in England, because that's the correct thing to do in England.
	And so Razor Aslan takes that mentality.
	He doesn't apply it here, but he does apply it in India to the human brain.
	And that's what all the progressives fetishizing native cultures that otherwise, if they were being done and recommended by any of the people over here, they'd probably be strung up and tarred and feathered, you know?
	Rightfully.
	I mean, this is the best thing about being British is we have a nice history of going over there, finding someone...
	Tarring a feather.
	Well, no, burning his woman with him when he dies and being like, right, anyone who does that's getting hung.
	Yeah.
	I mean, that's literally what we did in India.
	Yeah.
	And God only knows what other things we found in Africa that we had to stamp out.
	But that's the point.
	We didn't say, oh, well, if it's your precious little native aesthetic culture...
	They burn their wives alive.
	Yeah, exactly.
	No, no, that's genuine human suffering, and we're here to stop that.
	By the rope until dead.
	Yeah, exactly.
	That's the rule.
	This is the civilisation of the world, the civilising of the world.
	And this is why the progressives are actually no help at all to any native cultures anyway.
	You see how ignorant Yankee it is as well.
	White culture is American, and then that's English.
	You don't know anything.
	But that's the sort of moral impetus behind it all, and it's bad, frankly.
	It's hypocritical, and it's bad for the people who they think that they're helping, because they are preserving a native culture, but they're also allowing that native culture to continue to victimize the people within it.
	And there are going to be many people in that culture who don't hold the power in the, you know, the hierarchy of the culture who probably would actually not like to get sacrificed to the volcano god or burned alive because their husband died or things like that.
	And these, if you care about human rights, should be more than enough of a motivation for you to say, look, okay, I don't want to take away your native culture, but maybe that part of it kind of has to stop.
	Let's go for the next one.
	So I saw a rainbow while I was driving today, and I thought I'd just share it with you guys.
	Pretty.
	Neat.
	And that's also much nicer than burning people alive.
	Wholesome.
	I appreciate that, yeah.
	Guys, I have to say, I really enjoyed your latest epochs.
	It was so much fun hearing about the adventures of Alcibiades and the Athenians.
	You know, I think it's incredible how different Hellenistic combat was from the 20th century warfare that we know today.
	For a hoplite, the chances of being killed in combat were actually quite low, and you could almost always retreat to a city or fortification.
	Even if you were taken as a slave, it was not the dehumanizing slavery we know from the colonies, Slaves who were captured soldiers were given a degree of respect and duty of care.
	It was illegal to excessively mistreat a slave, and a slave could often earn their freedom.
	So for the Athenians, it really does seem that war was just a bit of fun, and it surprised them when it ended up having really serious consequences.
	Also, it's a funny thing.
	That guy who knocked the dicks off to Hermes one night probably didn't know he was causing the eventual fall of the Athenian civilization.
	Well, the most convincing allegation there is it was done by Corinth, so maybe they did.
	But you are right.
	The Athenians definitely viewed war as a bit of fun.
	I love that.
	It's so orc.
	Yeah, it is.
	But it's more than that.
	It's like they have a tradition of basically sending armies around the Mediterranean and failing.
	So they'll get a bunch of people cut up in Egypt and stuff like that and put up gravestones and go, yeah, they were good.
	And then they'll go, okay, we'll go to Sicily, that'll be good.
	You know, and it'll just be, we'll win, we're Athens.
	It's like, yeah, but you don't always win.
	You know, you win a lot, but you don't always win.
	But anyway, yeah, we're going to be recording part three tomorrow, which will be the end of the Peloponnesian War, and how Athens gets back into the fight after this massive loss, and then loses again because of stupid decisions.
	Story of Athens.
	Love it.
	In The Abolition of Man, C.S. Lewis talks about the importance of the human heart being trained to love the things which merit that love and to hate the things which are truly detestable.
	I feel like this ties into Carl's admonishments in Keto-Fascism that you ought to love liberation from your chains and to hate the thing that keeps you in them.
	That a half-hearted, begrudging intention to escape them is not enough.
	A reluctance and a secret love for the thing you want to be free from is not enough.
	That's correct.
	And I'm drawing directly on Aristotle there because it's his distinction between a continent man and a virtuous man.
	That is being described there.
	Like, the continent man does right, but doesn't really enjoy doing right.
	You know, he knows he's got to do it, but he's kind of resentful of it.
	You know, he'd rather indulge in his vices.
	But the virtuous man doesn't want to indulge in the vices.
	He wants to do the right thing, and he enjoys doing the right thing.
	So he doesn't even need to train himself, or he's been habituated successfully to, like, you know, doing the right thing for the love of doing the right thing.
	That's what a virtuous man is.
	You know, I'm a continent man.
	I do the right thing, but I kind of...
	I love my vices.
	Everyone loves their vices.
	I like smoking.
	I like having a smoke.
	And it's like, okay, but I know I shouldn't.
	Is there really such a thing as a virtuous man by that standard, though?
	Well, that's a good question, and that's a good point, because by Aristotle's standards, it's very, very difficult to become a genuinely virtuous man, but that's because eudaimonia is a difficult thing to accomplish.
	But there's even the Ayn Randian criticism there, in which even the virtuous man who is blah blah blah blah, he's still doing it, and he knows he likes doing it.
	He likes being the virtuous man.
	No, actually, so I've got a story from this weekend.
	So I went down to London, see a bunch of people, got drunk, And I was really hungover the next day and absolutely starving.
	And so we're standing like in the middle of London, Waterloo or something.
	And of course, there's nowhere I can get any keto food, but I'm starving.
	So I had to get a burger, right?
	And I honestly felt bad for eating the burger.
	The burger tasted good.
	You ate the bread or you took the burger out and ate it?
	No, no, I ate the whole thing.
	So I was absolutely hanging.
	And so, you know, the burger tasted good, but I kind of hated eating it.
	And I felt annoyed with myself that, A, this is the first time I'd actually broken my diet, and I didn't I want to, you know, and I, you know, so don't be, don't be autistic about it.
	But like, you know, when it comes to something that you are being virtuous about, I think you can be a genuinely virtuous man in that way.
	But, I mean, you're never going to be like, you know, full spectrum virtue.
	I mean, like the kind of people, you know, the holy than thou priest who really thinks he's proper virtuous, like he loves being that character.
	And therefore that in and of itself is a vice.
	You could possibly interpret it that way.
	First things first.
	Callum, here's the link.
	Write it down.
	We'll do Astro.
	Get rid of bread.
	The main culprit?
	Beer and soft drink.
	Get rid of all that.
	Never drank beer, never drank alcohol, but I used to drink lots of soft drink.
	Me in 2012.
	Me in 2017.
	Me in 2018.
	Me 2019.
	Me 2021.
	Get rid of all the soft drink.
	And then spend half an hour a day at the gym on the exercise bike.
	Really not hard.
	Let's do it, gents.
	That's exactly right.
	And when you say the soft drink, what you mean is the sugar.
	You know, you can probably still have soft drink as a Coke Zero or something because it's got no sugar in it.
	You know, there's no calories in it at all.
	Has anyone read Good Omens?
	Like, it's literally, in Good Omens, the four horsemen of the apocalypse are messing up the world.
	And Famine is responsible for McDonald's.
	And by the...
	That's great.
	Yeah, because by the end of it, everyone's addicted to eating McDonald's, but there's literally no caloric and nutritional content in it.
	And so you actually die from malnutrition by eating McDonald's.
	But yeah, it's fantastic.
	And that's obviously what Coke Zero is.
	But yeah, he's absolutely right.
	Just drop the sugar.
	Just drop the sugar.
	I agree with that.
	I'm not a fan of sugar water.
	You know it's wrong.
	And you don't know how much of it you're drinking as well, because it's easy to go through three or four cans of Coke in a day.
	But that's stacks of sugar that you're drinking.
	All right.
	Christine says, Okay, there are some real incorrect statements in your Puerto Rico discussion.
	My wife is from Puerto Rico, and the bulk of her family lives there.
	The amount of aid sent down for the hurricane was immediate and enormous.
	Most of it was squandered by political division and corruption on the island.
	No one was neglected on the island.
	To be fair, AOC's comment was that it was politics on the island that was creating the problem.
	She did want to blame on Trump, of course.
	He says, additionally, in the recent COVID package, the amount of money given to the residents was egregious, and my wife had four separate family members who received in excess of $20,000 each because they were able to game the system and double dip.
	I'm not even mad.
	You'd get 20 grand.
	Yeah, I'm not even mad.
	The notion of Puerto Rico being a neglected island is a myth.
	They are persecuted, but it's the result of the Spanish tradition of corruption.
	Yes, I believe it.
	But then, you know, they're not colonizers.
	They're the indigenous, oppressed people.
	I'm sorry.
	But, you know, I didn't think that Trump had done it.
	But the thing is, I didn't have time to look into it, and I didn't really...
	I didn't care that much.
	Also, the internet died this morning.
	Yeah, well, that's the problem, isn't it?
	I couldn't do that much into it.
	But it wasn't really very important, and I didn't think Trump was...
	It is interesting he says there about the real problem being the result of Spanish tradition.
	Yeah.
	I mean, I've got to mention, I don't know if you've been watching Kraut's series on America and South America, and sort of the difference between Mexico and the USA. And you can see him, like, begrudgingly sort of admitting, like, yeah, all the Spanish political traditions are trash, and all the English ones, because of the circumstances, is what he says, end up producing good outcomes.
	He's like, yeah.
	Yeah, yeah, they do.
	But you know he doesn't like admitting it because he's a German.
	Yeah.
	AOC blaming Trump is now...
	Sorry, just like German traditions.
	Sorry, Kraut.
	Can't help you.
	But like German traditions, I mean, come on.
	But he's doing great videos.
	I love his work.
	You know, just stay out of the drama.
	Well, I mean, I agree with him as well, apparently.
	I just would have said it in a more polite way.
	Like, I can see the meme, but thank God they rejected it.
	I mean, if they had accepted it and given it to BLM or whatnot, how would you have felt then?
	Built a giant communist centre in Puerto Rico.
	How stupid would you have looked?
	Literally, the Saudis fund mosques and they could have funded a communist outreach centre in Puerto Rico.
	What?
	That's not a W. No, it's not a win.
	Jordan Chandler disagrees with us, though.
	Missing the point regarding Matt Walsh, this charity drive has been a PR masterclass, proving that private charity is an effective solution in comparison to the cumbersome and ineffective government solutions.
	Champagne socialists don't even care to support their own family, let alone anyone else.
	I mean, you're not wrong that that is an underlying sort of message that's in it, but I think it really gets a bit lost in the politics of the thing.
	The fact that it was for the grandmother, not the people of Puerto Rico.
	Yeah.
	I don't personally think it was a PR masterclass.
	You are right that private charity is an effective solution, and the Conservatives, they should have done something more like that.
	But also, if they'd taken the 100 grand and then spent it on communism, would that have been a PR masterclass?
	Yeah, it was in fact kind of AOC's own reactionary weakness.
	She just jumped back and went, no, no, no, we're not having anything from being clear.
	It's a very high-risk game.
	Yeah, it's a very high-risk game.
	But yeah, the Champagne Socialists don't care to support their own family.
	Yeah, we know.
	And they've made that point.
	You know, the point had been made.
	You know, 30,000 people had liked his tweet underneath hers.
	So huge amounts of the people who looked at her tweet had seen his tweet and agreed with him.
	You know, so it's like that point had been made.
	The raising money was a blunder, in my opinion.
	Kevin says, to be fair, Kyle, ASC was using her mother as a political pawn to try and score points against Trump.
	Yeah, I mean, exactly.
	Exactly.
	She was busy disgracing herself on the twatters.
	And Matt had already pointed this out and scored the win.
	So, you know, going too hard, overextending yourself is...
	The mark of a great general is knowing when you can attack and when you shouldn't attack.
	And I think this was one of those.
	Plus, AOC has a history of posting photos that are far from genuine.
	So actions like this push it to come clean.
	I mean, that is true.
	That is true.
	I'm just going to skip the other ones that say I missed the point.
	Because I don't...
	I know what you're saying.
	I do agree that that is sort of intermingled into it.
	But I think that gets lost in the general...
	Hollowness of it, frankly.
	Yeah, I interpreted the AAC fundraiser as a kill them with kindness.
	Alec says, yeah, I mean, yes, but, you know, the problem is it's mortal enemies, you know, and everyone can tell they're mortal enemies.
	It's not secret.
	But it's, you know, I don't mind if people disagree with me.
	This was just my take on it.
	I mean, just the thing in my mind is why they accepted.
	Yeah.
	I mean, then what kind of conversation do we have?
	It's just luck that she was such a reactionary about it.
	Yeah, I mean, like, you know, completely disagree with you on the AOC Matt Walsh thing.
	Conservatives from across the political spectrum like Crowder donated.
	Yes, it's a political attack.
	It makes AOC look horrible, especially when she refused it.
	Yeah, but it also makes you look horrible by just doing that, you know?
	The fact that you would weaponize charity isn't good.
	Right, and it should be beneath the Conservatives to do this.
	The Conservatives would come out of this looking a lot better, in my opinion, if they had been like, well, look, we're just going to help the people of Puerto Rico, as you said, you know, here's a big...
	And the thing is...
	The government funding's failed, what did the charity?
	Apparently it didn't fail, though.
	Apparently it failed because it was too much, but...
	Well, yeah, I mean, like I say, getting 20 grand, good job, actually.
	I'm not even angry.
	Tax rebate.
	Yeah, yeah, exactly.
	But nobody came out of this looking good, that's the thing.
	And I think the Conservatives actually could have, if they'd just stopped a bit short or gone for a more, you know, just generally, we're going to help the people of Puerto Rico.
	It still would have been a bit of a cynical attack, slightly, but it would have been a lot more clean for the normies to see, I think.
	And, yeah, I mean, everyone came out of this looking quite bad, in my opinion.
	And then there's no risk of them spending it on communism.
	And then there's no risk of it becoming a communist or Black Lives Matter nonsense.
	Alexander says, why turn charity into an attack?
	It's sick, not everything needs to be partisan, buy food, water, shelter, whatever, cringe and cruel.
	Yeah, that's honestly how I see it.
	But I appreciate that you guys disagree, and feel free to leave me comments after the podcast, because I'll go on and reply to you and stuff like this.
	We'll talk about it.
	Booing Bliella.
	George Happ says, looking at Linux's comment is basically a repurposed Lewis's Law.
	Funny how these...
	What was Lewis's...
	Can we look up Lewis's Law, John?
	I can't remember.
	I've heard it, but I can't remember what it is.
	Lewis's Law.
	The unofficial principle of the internet that states, oh yes, yes, that's exactly right, yes.
	So it's like this British journalist called Lewis.
	She said that any comments under an article about feminism justify feminism.
	I was like, well, everything's justified by that standard.
	It's just completely circular.
	The fact that there are people who disagree with me Comments that are not saying Nazism prove that Nazism is needed more than ever.
	So says the Guardian.
	So says the England football team.
	Funny how the SJW movements are so shallow they use the same fallacies.
	Watch Dr.
	Random Cam people.
	Yes, you should.
	He put up a really good video about James O'Brien earlier as well.
	I haven't finished watching yet.
	Major props to the football fans, though.
	They seem like the only ones brave enough to call out this lunacy and act like responsible consumers demanding good standards from their entertainment.
	Yes, keep booing.
	Jan says, kneeling is a sign of submission.
	People of faith kneel before the God, who is the God of those that kneel in front of leftist culture.
	Of course, communism.
	And totally agree.
	That is the best statement.
	Kneeling is a sign of submission.
	Don't do it.
	Who you're submitting to.
	Exactly.
	Matthew Hammond says, if sports players are so offended by the National Anthem, then why do they not just stay in the clubhouse until it's over?
	Yeah, good question.
	I don't think this is for the National Anthem over here.
	Because I know you guys have got the Colin Kaepernick situation in the US. I think this is just a pre-match ritual after the National Anthem and all that.
	So everyone gets in their positions and then they'll take their knee for...
	An embarrassing amount of time.
	Yeah.
	Marxist BLM is the personification of Yuri Besmanov's demoralization.
	Nothing will demotivate and demoralize you faster than being told all of society is actively against you and holding you back.
	That's correct.
	Kneeling for BLM is an explicitly political act like the rainbow flag or Nazi salute.
	Totally agree.
	Yeah, the ratings apparently are in the absolute toilet at the moment and...
	Again, keep the pressure on.
	Every time, there's a whiff of anything political in your football games.
	And again, if it was me going, oh, by the way, you guys have to oppose feminism or something like that, boo me.
	Boo me.
	Boo anything that's not about football.
	Gatekeep your hobbies.
	Gatekeep those things you love.
	Boo anything non-football.
	Rose says, actions speak louder than words, and BLM's actions have been horrible.
	I mean, BLM's actions seem like the actions of an invading army.
	We're going to kill people and burn stuff down.
	We're going to loot all the stores.
	Until you submit.
	Yeah, until you give us more money.
	Until you pay us off.
	It's like the Viking invasions.
	You know, like, come on.
	But, yeah, I mean, Rose is completely right.
	The actions have been awful.
	Colin says, have you seen the phenomenon of Trump supporters unfailing large Trump-1 flags at baseball games here in the U.S.? So based?
	Well, you say so based, but also, I think, by the same principle, you shouldn't politicize it.
	I actually really do think that.
	I saw them doing it outside of the airport where Kamala Harris landed at some place, and that's an appropriate place to do it.
	Oh yeah, that's fine.
	She's political.
	She's part of the Junta.
	Sondre says, I can't believe the Nazis stole the love salute.
	James O'Brien likes this post.
	Anyway, Northamptonian Knight says, In his last days in office, Trump could have banned Twitter after they booted him.
	I'm aware Beijing Biden would have just unbanned them, but it would have set an interesting precedent in the US. Yeah, I mean, he probably could have done something.
	Joseph Woodland said, He, Jack Dorsey, probably overslept this morning, but how could you tell, Carl?
	Having seen him angry in real life as a customer service situation, he is truly the least intimidating human I have ever seen.
	Is he?
	I've never actually...
	You met Jack Dorsey and he was a cringe manlet.
	Well, yeah, obviously.
	Caffeinated sentry now.
	To be honest, there are plenty of jihadists who are cringe manlets.
	Yeah, no doubt.
	Silicon Valley, the new kingmakers.
	They shall choose who rules the states in which companies shall succeed and then bury those they dislike.
	Yeah, quick summary of what happened to Parler there, isn't it?
	And what they tried to do to subscribe to them.
	Alexander Schoberg says, It's funny that the companies so invested in decolonizing are forcing white American morals on other lands, which is true.
	Drew says, Really shows you how the left feels about human rights when they believe you don't deserve those rights if you disagree with them.
	Social media giants will take away your right's social media.
	Many leftists claim you have a right to a job unless they want to cancel you and get you fired.
	Not to mention the leftists that also believe in the right to free healthcare unless you're an anti-vaxxer.
	Then they want you and your family to catch COVID and die.
	Yeah, they believe that honestly human rights are constructed by the state or the institution is the source of human rights and therefore they can use the access to human rights to suppress you.
	There are human rights and you have them until you disagree with us in which case we take them away.
	Yeah, until it's politically convenient.
	Not a right then, is it?
	No, exactly.
	Dip.
	Anyway.
	Yeah.
	Sorry, we're going to end there.
	So if you want to get more content from us, as I mentioned, go over to the Plant the Trees video on LotusEaters.com or the YouTube channel, LotusEaters.com as a word, like the word dot and then the word com.
	Or go and check out the new articles we have from Neil Miles Chung and V, of course, on the website.
	But otherwise, we'll be back tomorrow at 1 o'clock London time.

▲