Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 9, 2021 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:31:48

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #150

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters for the 9th of June 2021.
	I'm joined by Carl, and today we're going to be going over the crashing and burning of pink news, which is glorious to watch, anyway.
	Also, Tony Blair promoting vaccine passports, because, I don't know, the Dark Lord won't just lay down in his coffin and die.
	And also the Pentagon, turning out that they gave 39 million to a charity that was then involved with the coronavirus research.
	Peter Dazax.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, we'll talk about it.
	Not good.
	Anyway, first thing I just wanted to mention is we have a new article from John Tangney on lodices.com, so go and check that out.
	It's called IQ and the Regressive Left.
	I'm sure it's going to be spicy, so go and enjoy.
	You can see where that's going.
	That's a premium article.
	Also, the next thing we have here is an article from Hugo talking about lifting lockdowns and why they're lifting them for the wrong reasons.
	Yeah, he makes a really good point in this as well, because if they lift them for certain kinds of reasons, then they can reimpose them for those very same reasons.
	It's a good article.
	Also, I just wanted to mention, don't send any video comments, the chaps who get to send us video comments in the gold tier that break UK law.
	I mentioned this before, I'm going to have to mention it again, because remember, this isn't a free country, so be responsible about that.
	Yeah, we have no First Amendment.
	Anyway.
	There is nothing else there.
	No, there's other announcements.
	All right, right.
	So I'll get right into it.
	I'm excited for the Pink News thing because this is obviously great.
	So, Pink News.
	Pink News is garbage.
	It really is.
	They produce nothing but leftist progressive nonsense.
	And their CEO decided to go and give an interview about Stonewall.
	You remember Stonewall?
	Yeah.
	The organization that's being dumped.
	Yeah, that's collapsing completely and all of the governmental institutions are pulling out going not an efficient use of funds or something like this.
	Which is obviously a lie.
	It's because they decided to insist on trans nonsense.
	The example being that they seem to think that everyone who's gay is trans, which no.
	And if you disagree, you're an anti-Semite.
	Which is something a brave tactic to accuse everyone who disagrees of you of being an anti-Semite, but whatever.
	So this is a tweet from Benjamin Cohen.
	He's the CEO, as I'm going to understand, of Pink News.
	And he says here, I've turned down a few ridiculous interviews, but I have agreed to go on BBC Radio 4 today to discuss the onslaught against Stonewall UK from a Pink News perspective.
	It's a Pink News perspective.
	And around 7.50am, wish me luck.
	How do you think it went?
	I imagine it went great, because Stonewall's in definitely a very defensible position at the moment, and the entire edifice of intersectional ideology isn't falling down.
	Let's have a guess at how he went from his next tweet.
	So we go to the next one.
	This is him after the interview.
	As is typical of the media right now, Justin on web on Radio 4 today asked me to defend things that Stonewall UK and its staff haven't done or said.
	It's not as if truth means anything anymore for our discriminatory media in the middle of its attack on LGBT plus people.
	Okay.
	Yeah, it didn't go well.
	It really didn't go well.
	So the interview, if you go to the next link, is a clip from some guy on YouTube.
	So you can go check it out there in full.
	In which they have some guy who's, I presume, a liberal conservative type who's arguing that women should have women spaces because of the fundamental biology of men and women.
	What a bigot.
	And then Cohen comes on.
	And Cohen, I guess, hasn't debated anyone in like 50 years or something.
	He has no idea what he's doing and just loses it.
	So let's play the first clip here.
	Well, firstly, thank you for having me on.
	It's obviously a delight that during Pride Month and the beginning of Pink News' Pride for All event, which happens today, which is about bringing together the LGBT community, the BBC has instead decided to have a debate with two different gay people talking about trans issues.
	And it's quite odd to have, I'm a cisgender man, I'm not transgender.
	Simon is also not transgender.
	You're not transgender.
	So once again, it's a debate about trans issues without a single trans Hang on a sec.
	Number one, you don't know anything about me.
	Number two, I asked you a question.
	Would you answer it?
	Sure, but I've made a statement.
	Is this a debate about trans issues with no trans voice?
	Yeah, you've made your statement.
	Now, could you answer the question?
	You made the statement, which is that the provisions around who gets access to single-sex spaces has changed.
	That hasn't changed.
	The Equality Act was passed in 2010.
	There's been no changes to that.
	Hang on, what I'm suggesting is that Stonewall would like to change it.
	And a lot of women are worried about that.
	Sorry, you just claimed that, but that's not actually true.
	So Stonewall supports self-ID, which is simply about paperwork.
	So you've been able to self-ID for practical purposes for the Equality Act since 2010.
	Yes, but not, for instance, to go to a safe space for women, like a women's refuge.
	Hang on a second, those are protected, aren't they?
	Yeah, and they continue to be protected.
	And does Stonewall...
	Answer me a question, Justin.
	Has Stonewall said that those spaces should be open to trans people?
	I don't believe they have.
	He's lying.
	Yeah, they obviously have.
	On their website, they've advocated for getting rid of women's only spaces.
	I mean, that's their default position.
	If trans women aren't allowed into women's spaces, then trans women aren't women by admission, and they can't have that.
	But I also love how Cohen there is just completely losing it.
	You can tell he's got no real defensible position, so he's reduced to just saying falsehoods and saying that you're saying falsehoods, which is not true, as this user shows.
	If you just go to Stonewall's website, if you can scroll down a little bit, they have it on their website, which they say, in August 2015, Stonewall's submission to the Women and Equality Select Committee says that MPs should amend the Equality Act to, quote, remove exemptions such as access to single-sex spaces.
	So, Cohen's just a liar.
	Not just, are they doing this?
	They've been doing this for over half a decade now.
	Like, they've been telling the government to get rid of this since 2015.
	So, yeah, just a complete bull.
	And it got worse, so he decided, in response to looking like a moron, that everyone who criticises him should be criminalised.
	Let's go for the next clip.
	Is it the case or is it not the case that Stonewall is campaigning for those safe spaces not to be women only?
	They aren't campaigning for that.
	That's just misinformation being spread by a homophobic and transphobic media, I'm afraid.
	And when the boss of Stonewall compares people who believe in the immutability of sex, of biological sex, with anti-Semites, what are we to make of that?
	Well, that was an interview with the BBC, and you're quoting something that she didn't actually say, but of course that doesn't matter, because of course that's a good headline.
	What she did was she described different forms of hate speech.
	She described gender-critical views, which is the polite way of saying transphobia, anti-Semitism, No, it's not.
	It's not.
	Hang on a second.
	Gender critical feminism is not a polite way of saying transphobia.
	You know that, and I know that.
	No, that's what he really thinks.
	Yeah, and he really thinks that you're breaking the law, because we have hate speech laws on the books, and if you violate any of the characteristics of Equality Act 2010, you go to prison.
	Just, yeah, also to mention this, this is another user who pointed out that, I don't know how Cohen can be confused about Stonewall's position on this idea of trans women being in women's spaces, because his own outlet has been promoting this sort of thing as well.
	Yeah, yeah, of course.
	It's complete nonsense that he, you know, he's obviously just a liar in this case, so I can't think of any other solution.
	Because, well, your own outlet pushes this stuff.
	It's on their website.
	They've been doing this since 2015.
	It's a core part of intersectional ideology.
	There is no other real conversation about this sort of question of whether trans women are women if you are to allow the exemption because that's an admission that it's not.
	You can't do that.
	They all know, basically, they've completely messed up.
	One thing I wanted to know is, like, he mentioned there were no trans speakers in this debate.
	Radio 4 reached out to Stonewall and said, do you have anyone?
	Stonewall sent no one.
	It's not just like they didn't send a trans person, they sent no one at all.
	Because they're in a bunker mentality now, being like, right, we screw up every interview we do.
	Shut up for a minute.
	And this guy went on instead.
	And again, just as bad.
	So I don't know why they're trying to blame them for not having trans people on.
	All the people at Stonewall apparently are too busy cowering.
	So if we go to the final clip, this is just him admitting that the Equality Act 2010 is trash.
	That she compared it to anti-Semitism, but actually the quote on the BBC wasn't what you just quoted.
	Whether it's, hang on, hang on a second, she said whether it's anti-Semitic beliefs, gender-critical beliefs, beliefs about disability, we have legal systems that are in place for people who are harmed by that.
	Justin, is that true?
	Is that true?
	Sorry, is that true?
	They are all protected by the Equality Act.
	No, I am someone who's a member of the LGBT community, I am Jewish, and I'm also someone who has a disability.
	That's the point, isn't it?
	If you discriminate against me on any of those bases, it's the same.
	It's as bad as each other.
	No, it's not about discrimination, it's about speech.
	I'm asking you the question, if you discriminate against me because I'm Jewish or because I'm gay, which is worse?
	Can you define which is worse, Justin?
	Sorry, it's just such a silly interview.
	Like, him losing it, and the interviewer's like, trying to keep it on track.
	I'm like, we're talking about speech!
	Like, gender-critical views!
	Not like, I'm not gonna give you customership, I'm not gonna bake the cake, or anything like this.
	We're way away from that stuff.
	We're in the realms of, can you even have these views, and not be sent to jail?
	Because, I mean, there's a woman in Scotland who's facing, what was it, six months to a year, in prison, for exactly this.
	Yes, for tweets.
	And, what was it, the putting up the suffragette ribbon.
	Yeah, because it's a noose.
	God, it's not about discrimination, it's about speech.
	But even if it was about discrimination, if you want a solution to that question, Cohen, it would actually be...
	Well, the liberal one is that, well, you didn't get to choose either of them, but the progressive one, of course, is that there's a progressive stack, and the Jewish part of you is valued less than your homosexual part, therefore it would be worse to discriminate on the basis of you being homosexual, according to the progressives.
	I can see why Benjamin's asking this, because it's not like Jews or homosexuals are actually very highly valued by the left these days.
	I've seen much chatter that white homosexuals are essentially straight white men these days.
	And, of course, you don't really want to know what the left's opinion on Jews is.
	So, yeah, I mean, this is a valid question from Benjamin's perspective, actually.
	But if he was talking to a progressive, if he was talking to a liberal like the interviewer there...
	Yeah, he's like, well, it's all bad for exactly the same reasons and exactly the same amount.
	And also, they're not even talking about that at all.
	That's Cohen bringing it up.
	The interviewer there is talking about views, talking about speech.
	But they can't argue in that realm, because they know how bad they look.
	They want to criminalise literally everyone in the opposition.
	You're not dealing with someone who can be reasoned with in a liberal democracy.
	If they're just saying anyone who disagrees, jail.
	I love his appeal to in Pride Month as well.
	When else should we talk about it?
	Sacred month of pride.
	Yeah, exactly.
	I realise it's Ramadan for you guys.
	It's pink news.
	But for us atheists, we don't care about that, just like we don't care about Ramadan.
	Sorry.
	Also, it turns out this guy is kind of a loon.
	So this is a tweet in which someone's posted a Guardian headline.
	Stonewall risks all it has fought for in accusing those who disagree with it of hate speech.
	True.
	If you start calling everyone who disagrees with you an anti-Semite, you're not really going to do great for your movement.
	But he responded to this, so this is his response underneath here, in which he quotes that Stonewalls characterized this as a series of bad faith attacks by right-wing media and the political establishment.
	They have, and it's not.
	It's everyone, actually.
	They were just like, no, you guys are nuts.
	And his response is, is the Guardian the right-wing media or the establishment or both?
	Right, okay.
	So I love how the Guardian's right-wing now.
	This is fantastic.
	So let's talk about Pride for a minute, as all this is going on, because Pride is a joke.
	Pride is a big old joke.
	And you could demonstrate this better than the Canadian government.
	Canadian government here.
	Free to be me.
	Verified account.
	Connected with the Canadian government.
	One month isn't enough to celebrate Pride in Canada.
	Hashtag Pride season takes place from June to September, with local events across the country celebrating the resilience and spirit of LGBTQ2 people in Canada.
	Right, so everyone's like, right, okay, we're going to have a month to celebrate gays, and Canada's like, that's not gay enough.
	We need a Pride season, and then Pride year, Pride decade!
	Like, where does it stop?
	Why ever stop?
	Why not just have everything in Canada in rainbow colours?
	You can see how they're using the racial Pride colours there as well.
	The black and brown stripe to represent sexually identifying as black and brown.
	The trans, white, pink stripe in the middle.
	Yeah.
	Very progressive.
	But, um...
	So the account there is Government of Canada Action on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Expression Issues.
	So that is a government account.
	They link to a government website.
	So progressives in Canada.
	Enjoy that.
	So we're going to the next one.
	This is Brent, who's not doing much better.
	So you can see Calvin Robertson posting here.
	The rainbow flag seems to have evolved.
	Subscribers to Identity Politics used to claim that it was inclusive of minority sexualities, now it covers race and gender too.
	Isn't it easier to just say, quote, we welcome all except straight white males?
	Which is indeed the allegation.
	So this is the racial pride flag with the...
	I presume we're just going to shorthand it as trans colours and the black and brown stripes been adding on.
	And you can see how it's slowly getting rid of the original.
	So I wonder what percentage is going to be gone by 2050.
	It does look something like a conquest to me, I've got to say.
	Yeah.
	Also, I'm right with him in which, you know, companies, if you just posted F straight white males on every month, it'd be more honest.
	It'd be less cringe.
	So the police have gotten into using this, of course.
	So this is met LGBT plus advisors.
	Oh, God.
	Verified checkmark.
	Working with the British police conservatives.
	Disown them.
	Like, they should not be anywhere near police force.
	Ban them doing this.
	This is political activity by a government organisation.
	It's not even just slight political activity, it's abhorrent political activity as well, in which they're using intersectionality here.
	So, we stand with Black, Asian, Minority, Ethnic.
	I thought that term was verboten now.
	I thought we were using Yukma Gamers, you racists.
	Hashtag LGBT plus people and queer people of colour in the fight against racism.
	For Pride Month.
	I don't know what.
	Okay.
	We are part of the LGBT Police UK hashtag intersectionality working group to amplify their voices within the at Met Police UK and across the communities.
	Hashtag Pride Month.
	Hashtag Police with Pride.
	And then the racial pride flag.
	Which, just everything about it is awful.
	You should not be engaging in this.
	You guys should be nowhere near the police force who are meant to be impartial.
	Yeah, I mean, I hate to tell you this, but actually the police have to protect racists as well.
	They're also people, and therefore have human rights.
	Yeah, and they pay their taxes, and you're obligated to do it.
	Whether you like it or not, that's your job.
	I suppose not, I guess.
	We just criminalise them, that'll be one thing.
	Well, they are criminalised, practically now.
	But the police are not the only organisation using this.
	Google have decided to do this, and what's funny is they used to use the normal pride flag of, you know, rainbows that had nothing to do with...
	You know, race.
	And instead it was about sexuality.
	And now you've got the racial pride flag there at Google.
	They've dumped the old one.
	Fantastic.
	And they're not the only ones.
	If you go to the next one here, this should be the political parties.
	And one of the things to note is every major political party in Britain decided to use the racial pride flag this year.
	Except the Conservatives.
	They're the only ones to just use normal collectivism on the basis of being gay.
	You know, because I'm a Conservative.
	The traditional Conservative pride flag.
	LAUGHTER Which is the phrase, Conservative Pride Flag.
	Yeah, just for any Conservatives listening who might happen to be thinking, oh man, is this normal?
	Do we have a Conservative Pride Flag?
	The answer is no.
	You can't have a Conservative Pride Flag.
	You have individualism.
	There are gay people, there are people, and that's it.
	There are not some collective to be used in political means.
	Because what you're doing is conscripting them into your political movement that you don't understand and shouldn't really support, because it's communist fundamentally at the end of the day, and you shouldn't be communist.
	Don't know why I have to say that, but anyway, let's move on.
	Well, it's Conservative Party, so obviously Italian.
	Also the SNP news there, which...
	Communism, bad conservatives.
	Just remember that.
	The Greens have tried to explain this weirdo move, because apparently they're the ones who have pushed this into political theatre, and now I've got it adopted by every party except the Conservatives.
	But there's always next year.
	So they say here, LGBTIQA+. I mean, why stop?
	It is important that we as a community acknowledge the contributions of trans and queer people of colour.
	Love the Americanism there.
	Why not just spell it without the U, I guess.
	The new pride flag.
	New pride flag.
	Something wrong with the old one.
	Who invented this?
	Visibly centers trans BBI POC. What?
	I don't know what BBI POC means.
	I'm sure it means black, brown, indigenous people of colour.
	Why are black and brown separate?
	I don't know.
	I never really got that.
	Why not just say brown?
	Black people aren't actually black.
	They're not the colour of black holes.
	They have brown skin.
	But whatever.
	I just want to know where...
	I mean, where are these coming from?
	Is there some sort of progressive 4chan that produces these?
	I think 4chan actually did produce a few of these as a joke, and then they get adopted, so presumably that's how the pipeline works.
	I guess so.
	4chan to...
	4chan to SJW pipeline.
	I mean, it worked with a few other things.
	Anyway.
	That's true.
	And also, as people have noted, this race pride flag conveniently turns into a swastika.
	So, if you put it on its side, which kind of makes me think that, yeah, it probably was from 4chan.
	Yeah.
	I imagine they did just meme them into doing this, and yeah.
	So, feel some pride in that pride flag there, folks.
	Boy, thanks, Labour.
	Anyway, so we've got the next one as well.
	This is some good news.
	So the UK government accounts, who shouldn't be engaging in any of this, two of them, the Cabinet Office and Her Majesty's Covenant Restrooms, in the tweet below...
	Revenue and Customs, but yeah.
	Sorry, Revenue and Customs.
	They used to use the racial pride flag on the start of Pride, and they've now changed them back.
	So if you can scroll down a little bit, so we can see the tweet below, you can see those two used to have the racial pride flag, whereas everyone else...
	Now they're just the conservative pride flag.
	Oh, thank goodness.
	Conservative pride.
	God, it really is.
	Like, in 50 years' time, well, no, I'm not for transgenderism for babies.
	I'm just for transgenderism for toddlers.
	You know, I'm a conservative.
	But, I mean, at least there's a small move back there.
	Someone at least recognised that this was wrong, now recognised that the rest of it is wrong, because you shouldn't be collectivising gays.
	It's not a normal thing to do, at all, under any circumstances.
	We, the government, own the gays.
	Yeah.
	Anyway, so racial pride is apparently cancelled, according to the government.
	But this isn't the weirdest thing.
	The Nickelodeon decided to outdo everyone this pride and produced this song, which I think people should go and watch.
	We're not going to play it because of copyright and whatnot.
	But this is The Meaning of Pride, featuring drag queen Nina West.
	And it's aimed at kids.
	Why kids?
	Something I have to wonder.
	Not just with this song, but leftists in general.
	Oh yeah, well you know exactly why.
	Why kids?
	Why have you always got to advertise as kids?
	Why can't you advertise to adults?
	Because they don't buy you.
	That's why.
	And also other reasons.
	But anyway.
	So if we go to the first image.
	So this is her defining her...
	The drag queen.
	There we go.
	We'll use the drag queen.
	The drag queen...
	The individual in the video.
	The person, there we go, nice and dehumanizing, is just defining red, and then she goes through all the other colors, and this one, for example, she said red means life, because loving is a gift.
	And it's like, okay, so all the colors of the normal pride flag are just random things that they've picked up.
	But then, of course, the other ones are to be explained, because they have to be explained, because no one knows how you're talking about.
	So the next image here is the person talking about the...
	Transgender parts, I guess, the pink, blue, and white, and says, pink, white, and blue represent transgender people, because every letter in LGBTQ is equal.
	T is not a sexuality.
	Just want to make that clear.
	Like, that's why it's always been a bit weird, the LGBT part.
	Like, T isn't a sexuality.
	No, not even slimy.
	It's weird that it's been tacked on, but then neither has been black and brown, so...
	But that's fundamentally one of the problems here.
	The pride flag representing sexualities, regardless of race, that would work.
	But then you add T on and it's like, right, okay, then we add the transgender part.
	And this is what has led to the adding of the racial part, which is the next image, which is the person explaining with a BLM fist on screen, again, aimed at kids.
	I'm BLM sexual.
	Yeah, I'm BLM section.
	This is just a fetish parade.
	Yeah, it really is.
	So the person says, and the black and brown represent the trans and queer people of colour.
	Why?
	Why aren't they represented by the other bits?
	Why are you segregating the black and brown people from the other people in your own flag?
	How are they not represented?
	A gay, brown person is still represented by the G in LGBT. No, I mean, we've got to keep them separate but equal.
	Separate but equal.
	We're progressives here.
	Because that's what they've done.
	I mean, you've got the non-black and brown gays who get the rest of the pride flag, and then the black and brown gays, we'll give them a separate space.
	I don't know, Callum.
	It's alright, because their part of the flag will be three-fifths of it.
	I mean, what I want to put percentage is being taken off already by the additional parts.
	They're such racist.
	Also, being black and brown, not the sexuality, Patrick.
	Just have to point that out.
	Also, the whole point of the original flag, as mentioned, was to ignore race.
	It was to be, regardless of race, your sexuality should be accepted.
	And also, if you hammer black and browns, I mean, I've got to say, the term black and brown just sounds really racist to me.
	Yes.
	Like, black and browns.
	You know, the blacks and the browns.
	It sounds like a progressive slur.
	Yes.
	But the fact that they are literally not allowing them to be included along with all of the other races in the other sexual categories really implies that actually this is about segregation.
	Yeah, they are to be separate but equal from a progressive standpoint.
	But also, if you're allowing black and brown people here on the basis that they're black and brown to have their own separate but equal section, why not make a separate but equal section for everything else on planet Earth?
	Yeah.
	Which, yeah, they've been doing.
	So, pink news.
	Again, going back to pink news here, we'll go to the next link.
	This is them doing exactly that.
	They've decided to redesign the pride flag to better represent intersex people.
	But notice how it's creeping along.
	We're nearly at three-fifths of it colours.
	It's getting there.
	We're going to be there by 2030.
	It's all going to be gone.
	That's a promise.
	We'll be LGBT zero by 2030.
	That's the pledge from the progressives of Pink News.
	Oh, boy.
	So the circle represents intersex people, does it?
	Presumably.
	Who designed that?
	Who cares?
	I want to know.
	I remember they used to actually have a big red thing in the middle as well where the point of the black was, which was meant to represent gypsies, which was like last year or something.
	I don't know why gypsies got their own sexuality.
	What?
	It was because black and brown people, I guess, are there, and therefore gypsy sexuality is also valid.
	I mean, why not?
	What's the argument?
	Has anyone asked the gypsies about this?
	Oh, sexually identify as a gypsy.
	Anyway, so, I mean, one of the things is just like, if you wanted a better example of why this whole thing is just, look at me, I mean, that's it.
	It is.
	But I really want to know who the author of these things is.
	I want to know who gets to make the executive decision that for literally all of these corporations, even our own government, Canada for like a third of the year or whatever it is now, who makes the decision that this is a flag they're going to fly?
	Who created it?
	I want to know.
	Next year, so I guess Labour, Greens and SNP and all the rest of it will be flying this flag and the Conservative Party will be flying the racial pride flag because, come on, we're not radicals.
	We're not going to do anything silly.
	We're just going to do racial pride, not intersex racial pride.
	True conservatism is just this flag.
	And we can also see into the future already.
	So we have some examples of some new redesigns that will be coming next year.
	So, hot off the presses, we'll go to the next one here.
	This is someone's redesign, in which...
	Static.
	Yeah.
	This is actually a flag which is called the Barco flag for the EU as a recommended version.
	That's why I've taken a special interest in it, because I mean, look at it.
	It's hideous.
	What a mess.
	But then all of the other ones were hideous as well, so...
	There should be one more in there, but it might have been deleted because a bunch of these are slowly getting deleted, so I won't worry about it.
	But yeah, look forward to Pride 2050, which there is, well, 2030 probably, in which there is zero LGBT in the LGBT flags because it's all been replaced with racial pride.
	It's alright, I guess the LGBT can join the TERFs in the radical right.
	Well, actually, no, we should re-say that.
	It's the LGB part that's all going.
	Yes.
	Tees will still get in that section.
	Yep, the TQ plus...
	But the sexualities...
	TQIA plus, in fact.
	But the sexualities.
	All of the sexualities from the sexuality back...
	Will actually be erased from pride.
	Will be gone by 2030.
	And instead, we will have race groups and...
	I don't know, what do you even call the transgenders?
	Like, sex groups?
	Are they trying to argue?
	Gender groups?
	Well, maybe.
	I mean, I'm not even sure, but like...
	God knows.
	But the point is, they'll all be forced to do what the TERFs have done and join the far right.
	Yeah.
	When the flag looks like this, this is one of the examples being brought up.
	It's just like, oh man, that's not inclusive enough.
	Add some more stuff and just throw on any old tack, because I mean, why not?
	Literally, that's where it's going to end up.
	Oh, they've got a Saudi logo there.
	Nice hammer and sickle.
	Oppressed Muslims of colour out there need to be represented.
	Oh boy.
	But yeah, pink news, crashing and burning, so all is well.
	It takes some rejoice from that.
	That's amazing.
	Anyway, right, let's talk about Tony Blair's vaccine passports, because this is what Tony Blair has been pushing, and I don't like it very much.
	So just from the government's own coronavirus data, right, so this is the official data of the current state of the country in respect to the coronavirus.
	And it's good news, actually, to be honest.
	So, in the last week, there have been 5.6 million tests conducted.
	5.6 million tests.
	That's a lot of tests.
	And out of that, only 6,000 people tested positive.
	So, 5,600,000 tests, 6,000 positive results.
	Makes it sound, I mean, if I were in charge of doing this as a private venture, I'd be like, right, we can scale that back.
	We're doing way too many tests, getting far too many hits.
	This is not a productive use of our time, but, you know, obviously government money, so no one cares.
	And so out of these 6,000 positive identifications in the last week, 869 of them have gone to hospital.
	So if I had 6,000 positively identified people and only 869 of them were like a proper, you know, something that needed treatment, I'd be like, okay, this is definitely on its way out.
	I mean, remember, we had thousands of the people, like 4,000 or 5,000 or something in hospital.
	But even then, the NHS, totally under capacity now, everything's fine.
	It depends fundamentally on what the government's strategy is.
	I mean, I presume, considering they're acting like this, they're going for eradication.
	Well, they must be.
	Because if this is something to be concerned about, then we're absolutely out of it.
	This is not overflowing the NHS. This is not overflowing anything.
	To get 6,000 positive tests, they've got to conduct 5.5 million tests.
	Tests overall.
	That's, like, it's wild.
	And so the deaths in the last week have been 72, which puts us at around 10 per day.
	But the thing is, there are a bunch of days where there have been zero deaths.
	On Sunday there were four deaths.
	The day before yesterday there were two deaths.
	So it's, you know, fits and starts, I guess.
	But, like, 72 in a week.
	That's it.
	That's it.
	You think it's over.
	And that's tests within 28 days.
	That's not necessarily died of coronavirus.
	But we'll just, for the sake of it, just go with it, because it makes it as bad as it can be.
	And recently, California...
	So we can return the freedoms.
	Well, yes.
	The data does not justify lockdown.
	But let's talk about the lockdown-lifting delay, because why not?
	So this is reported by The Times.
	We were supposed to come out of lockdown fully on June 21st.
	Now, I don't even know what that's actually supposed to mean at this point, because...
	I'm just going around my life as normal, you know, and the pubs are open, restaurants are open, just doing things I want to do.
	So, I mean, what's left, right?
	Big outdoor events?
	I guess so.
	Yeah.
	Travel.
	International travel.
	But anyway, apparently Britain's roadmap for easing lockdown could be delayed by a fortnight, of course, with cabinet ministers increasingly pessimistic after a downbeat briefing from Chris Whitty and Sir Patrick Vallance.
	Downbeat about what?
	They're like, oh, the Indian COVID variant has got much more infectious transmissibility.
	Okay, but isn't like three quarters of the country vaccinated at this point?
	You know, half of them are like double vaccinated, something like this.
	And as you can see, the death rate on Sundays is zero.
	Seems optimistic to me.
	This is obviously not a particularly dangerous variant.
	But anyway, the delay would enable all over 50s to be fully vaccinated, which is double vaccinated, and leave sufficient time for jabs to take effect before restrictions are lifted.
	Witty, the chief medical officer, and the valence scientific advisor said that the latest data was described as fairly grim.
	Fairly grim.
	Zero people died in England on, whether it was Friday or Saturday last week.
	Zero people.
	This is grim data.
	They emphasised concerns about the rate of transmission of new strains of coronavirus, such as the Indian variant, and that vaccinations did not provide 100% protection.
	Well, nothing's 100%.
	One cabinet source said they expected a delay of between two weeks and a month, and suggested that the political fallout was likely to be limited as long as full reopening took place before the start of the school summer holidays late next month.
	Another said that a delay made more sense than a partial lifting of lockdown restrictions to avoid any confusion in messaging.
	Prime Minister's spokesman said that while there was nothing in the data that suggests that restrictions could not be eased on June 21st, the government would look closely at the case numbers and hospitalisations.
	Okay.
	Well, like...
	Hang on.
	They looked at the data.
	There was no argument.
	So we'll look at the data again.
	But for some reason, the advisors are like, oh, this is terribly concerning.
	I'm really concerned about how this is going.
	It's like, okay.
	Yeah, but they just said, we looked at the data.
	Presumably the data is the hospitalisation.
	Well, that was the Prime Minister's spokesman said that.
	Whereas the Chief Scientific Advisor and Chief Medical Officer are like, oh, this is looking grim.
	It's like, hmm...
	It's not, though.
	It's not looking grim.
	It's looking pretty good.
	Again, it looks like the government won.
	The Conservative government defeated the coronavirus.
	That's how it looks.
	All of the vulnerable people have been vaccinated at least once, and almost, I think it's all over 60s or something, have been double vaccinated, something like this.
	It's really amazing, actually, how many they've got done.
	To their credit, again, take the credit, take the win, but never mind.
	I mean, thankfully there is at least one lone voice in the Conservatives who's like, hey guys, is it really right for us to continue oppressing the public like this?
	Steve Baker, the Conservative backbencher, the sort of sole libertarian in the Conservatives, has come out against this, obviously.
	The Guardian framing this as a sharp rise in cases.
	And it's like, yeah, but these things are all relative.
	It went from something like 4,000 infections to 6,000 infections.
	I mean, that is a sharp rise, but overall it's a very, very low number.
	Anyway.
	Matt Hancock had said in the House of Commons that ministers faced a challenging decision as to whether to proceed as planned with the final stage of the roadmap.
	All these groups represent about 99...
	Steve Baker, sorry, says...
	The groups that have been vaccinated represent about 99% of COVID deaths and 80% of hospitalisations.
	According to the announcements made by the government, these groups should have all been offered the chance to get a second dose.
	It would be helpful for the government to clarify if this has been achieved.
	As far as I'm aware, it's been achieved.
	I mean, if we've got any further information, I'd love to have it.
	If this brilliant milestone isn't enough to convince ministers that we all need to lift remaining restrictions, especially social distancing requirements on June 21st, nothing will ever get us out of this.
	Because Matt Hancock is warning about the Delta variant of the virus, which is the Indian variant, which appears to be around 40% more transmissible than the previous strain.
	Okay.
	Everyone's vaccinated.
	But I also just don't care.
	Yeah, I just don't care.
	Oh, you get this more frequently.
	Okay.
	I've had it.
	I've had the coronavirus anyway.
	But all the vulnerable people are vaccinated.
	All of this government regulation, lockdowns, all the rest of it, it's all predicated on the NHS being overwhelmed.
	Yeah.
	Fine.
	You can have that argument.
	No one's arguing that that's going to happen.
	The NHS was not overwhelmed and it's no chance of being overwhelmed now.
	So, don't know why we're still having this conversation, but there we go.
	But anyway, so, moving on.
	For some reason, the Dark Lord himself has returned from Hell, and is doing a new round of...
	When I say Hell, I mean Davos.
	He's giving us a new round of fear-mongering, which is weird, and has decided that actually we need a two-tiered system.
	We need...
	Some people have privileges.
	The people who have had the vaccine need certain privileges over others.
	Because...
	That would be more evil than not.
	He says that the people who have been vaccinated against COVID should be able to travel abroad using a new digital passport and to go to vaccine-only venues such as restaurants or sports stadiums.
	So he literally wants to segregate the country.
	Have you had the vaccine?
	Have you not had the vaccine?
	This is a report entitled Less Risk, More Freedom by the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change.
	I hate everything about it.
	Where he says the time has come to distinguish for the purposes of freedom from restriction between the vaccinated and unvaccinated.
	Yes, that's right.
	We will create a privileged class called the vaccinated.
	Freedom is slavery, though.
	They will be able to do all of the things the government allows them to do because freedom comes from the government.
	In Tony Blair's view.
	What's John Major's view on all this, or David Cameron's?
	Who cares?
	But I mean, that's the point.
	Where the hell are they?
	They're not there, because they shouldn't be here.
	Why the hell is he here?
	I don't know, and why would the Conservatives take any sort of marching orders from this guy?
	I mean, the guy who ruined the country, he's got some views.
	I don't care.
	The opposition PM who ruined the country.
	I can see the chat being like, back to hell.
	Yeah, back to hell.
	Exactly, yeah.
	Sorry, you know, go back to hell with Mandelson and the rest of your cronies.
	But anyway, yeah, so the report argues that the measures intended to reduce spread of disease have treated populations as largely homogenous groups.
	As a result, restrictions such as national lockdowns, regional tier systems, entire schools closed following outbreaks have been blunt instruments.
	Yes, that's right.
	Let's actually start separating the population out into non-homogeneous groups.
	So we're going to be like, right, who's the virus affecting most?
	Blacks, Indians, Pakistanis.
	Well, there's no point...
	Suppressing everyone else's freedoms for them, is there?
	They can just be the ones suppressed.
	Because otherwise, we're going to be unfairly taking away the freedoms of the non-vulnerable groups.
	And it's like, do you understand that you are literally going to create a racial-tiered system of freedom?
	Because I'm a progressive.
	Exactly, yeah, exactly.
	That's very progressive.
	And again, the thing is, he's not wrong to say the population's been treated this way, yes, because that's what we call fair.
	That's what we call fairness.
	You know, the fact that the disease may well affect different people in different regards and because of their lifestyles and various other things, that doesn't matter.
	What matters is the government doesn't start creating racial hierarchies based on gifts that it gives out.
	Sorry, the government just isn't offering young black men from 18 to 24 vaccines at this time.
	So you've got no freedoms.
	You've got to stay at home.
	You're a danger to other people around you.
	And we're going to use the police to make sure that you don't do anything.
	I hope you're okay with this kind of racial apartheid.
	From Tony Blair.
	It's mad.
	What he's asking for is disgusting, and I just can't stand it.
	I cannot stand it.
	No self-awareness at all, right?
	So the report argues that vaccinations have changed this, blah, blah, blah.
	Under a new system, a new past system that would operate domestically and ultimately internationally, no venue would be forced to become vaccine-only, but those that opted to do so would be subject to fewer restrictions.
	Why should there be restrictions on any of them?
	None of these restrictions are justified at this point anymore.
	As Steve Baker points out, as the data implies, the restrictions are not necessary.
	It also advocates a globally interoperable system of health passes, global vaccine passports for COVID, which would enable citizens to prove their status in a secure, privacy-preserving way.
	Who trusts that?
	Who's going to operate that, Tony?
	Who's going to have access to that data?
	Oh, but no, we are sure it'll be secure and privacy preserving.
	Yeah, I don't trust you.
	You're the one who set up the mass surveillance state in the UK as well.
	So, you know, sorry, Tony, you've got a really bad history when it comes to preserving privacy.
	No.
	Absolutely not.
	The health pass needs to be usable by both national border authorities and other organisations within countries.
	It should also include the ability to demonstrate time-restricted testing status for those who aren't able to be vaccinated.
	With this ability to securely prove vaccination status, we can move beyond blunt catch-all tools and align with the other countries by removing certain restrictions for the fully vaccinated, thereby enabling us to sustainably reopen the economy.
	Or we could just reopen the economy because the NHS isn't going to get overwhelmed and the deaths are virtually none.
	But then Tony Blair isn't in charge of the entire world then, is he?
	And that's clearly what this is about, in my opinion.
	It's quite disgraceful, and I hate it.
	But anyway, this was rejected by Andrew Marr when he was interviewing him as being, quote, unworkable.
	Now, that is the worst way to reject this.
	This is harking back to Hugo's article, because it implies, Andrew, that if it becomes workable, then it's right, then it's able, it's decent to do.
	And you should have rejected it for being immoral, creating racial and age hierarchies, where the government, international governments, will let you travel and enjoy your life based on your intrinsic characteristics, and whether they have deigned to give you The vaccine yet.
	Seems just evil to me.
	Seems like the sort of thing a villain would do.
	But then Tony Blair is obviously a villain, so I'm not surprised that he would do this.
	Ma asked, this is ID cards by the back door, isn't it?
	The least of my worries is that we'd be forced to have an ID card at this point.
	It's looking like it's going to be way worse than that.
	There's going to be an international passport set up.
	How is this not a step towards global governance?
	But Tony Blair doesn't even reply sensibly.
	He says, I was then, I remain even more convinced today, particularly with biometric technology.
	Oh, I see where this is going.
	The world will move to biometric ID and they will do it because in the end it's better for people.
	Get the biometric chip under your skin so governments and other countries can keep tabs on you.
	It's better for you.
	Unreal.
	It's just full-on coming out, isn't it?
	He's literally saying it!
	This isn't like Alex Jones conspiracy.
	He's like, hi, you're going to need a biometric passport so you can go on holiday to France or something like this.
	Like the two people who agree the most are Alex Jones and Tony Blair.
	On what's coming.
	And it's just so we can create a sort of, you know, hierarchy of race based on government privileges.
	Because I'm a progressive.
	Because we're progressive.
	And this is what decent people do.
	It's just better for people.
	It's just better for them.
	But the thing is, this is the problem, right?
	Anything that starts as being optional quite often becomes mandatory simply because of the fact that infrastructure changes around the new initiative in order to make it work and therefore everyone can get sucked into it and then you just don't have the option of exempting yourself from it.
	Try using the internet without having a credit card.
	It's really difficult.
	What are you going to buy?
	How are you going to pay for anything?
	What services are you going to access?
	Not many.
	Anyway, so yeah, Andrew Marr finishes by going, oh, we'll be unworkable.
	No, be immoral, Andrew.
	But the EU's all in favour of it.
	Oh, no, sorry, before we go to the EU one, actually, no.
	So yeah, the Conservative government said, oh, well, we're definitely not going to have domestic vaccine passports if we go to the next one, John.
	That turned out to be a lie.
	So Euro 2020, it turns out that the companies can just do it themselves.
	They don't need the government's permission for this.
	So fans attending England's Euro 2020 group games at the Wembley Stadium will be required to show proof of vaccination or a negative test before entry.
	Sorry, are the private companies required or is it up to them?
	I think they're just being given the ability to do it.
	They could follow the Ron DeSantis model of banning the very concept of vaccine passports, but unfortunately we're governed by progressives.
	I mean, any company that refuses based go there.
	Yeah.
	I mean, if not, there isn't just support.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	Go and support your local company that refuses vaccine passports.
	But yeah, so this is going to be something that UEFA is going to do.
	Great.
	That's what I like to see.
	Them ruining themselves.
	Don't go.
	On principle, frankly.
	But yeah, the EU is going to bring in vaccine passports.
	Currently...
	The countries in question, if you're going to move between two countries, they've got their own rules.
	And so the EU's like, well, we need to streamline this.
	And so they're going to make sure they have vaccine passports.
	They're going to be voting on this very soon.
	It's expected to pass with a landslide majority.
	Because they're Europeans.
	Because they're Europeans.
	And the holder's vaccination record, negative tests, and record of previous infection will be registered on the information.
	But that's not where it's going to end, obviously.
	It's going to be expanded to various other pieces of information.
	And this will be on a digitally signed QR code or a piece of actual paper.
	But yeah, so there we go.
	The scheme officially starts on July 1st.
	So Europe is going to have vaccine passports.
	Tony Blair wants us to have vaccine passports, presumably because the Europeans are going to do it.
	And we already are having them internally.
	So far, nine EU member states have signed up, which are Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Lithuania, Poland and Spain.
	Based France for staying out of this, to be honest.
	It doesn't even make sense, though.
	If you're comparing countries like, say, Iceland or France, one is definitely riskier than the other in terms of coronavirus, in which case, why bother with having the same rules for both?
	If one's clean, if one's good to go, 90% of the population is vaccinated, why would you even need any of this?
	Because you're thinking like someone who is concerned about how things are for the people using the system.
	You're not thinking like a bureaucrat.
	What you need to think of is a spreadsheet.
	There's a load of rules for different countries.
	Look at all these different rules.
	Yeah, it'd be much easier if you just had one rule for all of the countries and then that would save me a lot of time.
	That's why.
	That's the entire mindset of the way this works.
	And I hate it.
	But it's going to happen.
	Kind of embarrassed by the Conservative government as well there.
	Being like, we're just going to abdicate responsibility entirely.
	Just shift it off to the companies.
	The unspoken rule being, you should do this.
	They should do as DeSantis has done and ban the concept.
	That would be the proper and decent thing to do.
	In direct opposition to Tony Blair being indecent.
	So, anyway, let's carry on with talking about the current state of the coronavirus pandemic and crisis by looking into what's happening with Fauci and his funding of the Wuhan lab.
	This seems important because he's changing his mind.
	So Fauci, the other day, came out and said, well, I'm not convinced that this developed naturally, and then his emails were released, and he had been given evidence in the emails from scientists that suggested that actually it was manufactured in a lab, and for some reason today he's decided to walk this back.
	So he lied, he came out and admitted that he had lied, and now he's just going to lie again.
	Got to admire the balls on the mound, to be honest.
	Because this is just...
	I can't imagine getting away with this.
	Like, how do you do it?
	No, no, it definitely wasn't created in a lab.
	Definitely wasn't.
	Your emails have come out and the scientists are saying it looks like I was creating a lab.
	Oh, right, okay, well...
	Does he have everyone's in Washington's nudes or something?
	Well, I don't know.
	I assume so.
	I can only assume.
	Because how he's allowed to get away with this is mad.
	He walked back his previous comment saying that he was not convinced COVID-19 developed naturally.
	But you were not convinced that it was...
	Okay, anyway, so he told a reporter the other day that he believes it is highly likely that the virus did, in fact, originate naturally.
	Fauci told CBS News' Weijia Jiang that it was highly likely that the novel coronavirus first occurred naturally before spreading from animal to human, though he added he is open to a thorough investigation.
	Okay, but the virus has not been found in nature.
	They've been looking extensively, and you've had emails from people who are telling you the virus looks manufactured.
	Why would you say this?
	Because who did it come from?
	Well, that's a good question.
	Anyway, so this is obviously hot on the heels of the emails, as he's got as a report by the New York Post here, because this has been taken up, thankfully, by a bunch of Republican senators.
	Senator Rand Paul, in fact, has been most firm on this.
	We can get to the next one, John.
	The emails paint a disturbing picture of Dr.
	Fauci, From the very beginning, worrying that he'd been funding gain-of-function research, because that's what it looks like he's most concerned about.
	Fauci, I think, has come to the realization, because it was Obama in 2014 who banned funding for gain-of-function research, for exactly the reason that you might think, if you create a virus or modify a virus to be more transmissible, then you risk a deadly global pandemic.
	And so Obama, actually very sensibly, was like, we won't do that.
	You know, that's not allowed.
	That becomes illegal.
	And Fauci's email shows that, in fact, it may have been that gain-of-function money was sent from the US to research, specifically gain-of-function research, after this has been...
	So Obama, I assume, banned it in the US, and then they've just sent this money abroad to China, who are still doing it.
	Well, it's not even that.
	They banned funding of it, even if it's another country.
	And he did that in 2014.
	But anyway, so you might remember that, of course, from Fauci's emails, it was Robert Daszak, a British virologist and zoologist, who had emailed him saying, you know, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
	I just want to say a personal thank you on behalf of our staff and collaborators for publicly standing up and stating that scientific evidence supports a natural origin for COVID-19 from bats-human spillover, even though there's no evidence of that.
	That's all.
	It's not been found about.
	We haven't got any particular human subjects that we can point to and say they're the ones who got it.
	And you've got other scientists saying this looks like it was made in a lab.
	But for some reason, he's thanking them.
	From my perspective, your comments are brave.
	Coming from your trusted voice, it will help dispel the myths being spun around the virus's origins.
	Hmm.
	So anyway, it turns out that the Pentagon, through Fauci, gave Daszak's charity, the EcoHealth Alliance, at least $39 million.
	And Daszak's in charge of finding out where it's come from, right?
	He's in charge of the EcoHealth Alliance, and so it's Fauci who's given him $39 million, or more in fact, but at least $39 million from the Pentagon.
	I mean, when that email was sent, I remember, he's the one who's in partnership working to try and find out the origins of the virus.
	That's why he sent the email to Fauci saying, oh, thank you for dispelling that it came from a lab.
	Yeah, but he's been working on it, not just looking for the origins of it.
	Yeah, he's been working with the lab.
	Hand in glove with the lab.
	But that's why it's so important, because that shows that you can't really put this guy in charge of trying to find out where he comes from if he's got a conflict of interest in, hey, my research might have done it.
	Yeah, and I saw a few tweets from people who were looking into this, although I hadn't had time to confirm them, so I wasn't going to bring them up.
	But so far, independent investigators on the Twitter have found at least seven of the 15 people involved who have got obvious conflicts of interest.
	But that shouldn't be too much of a surprise.
	But anyway, EcoHealth Alliance has come under intense scrutiny after it emerged that it was using federal grants to fund research into coronavirus at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
	The US nonprofit, set up to research new diseases, has also partly funded the controversial gain-of-function experiments.
	A political storm broke when former President Donald Trump cancelled a $3.7 million grant to the charity last year amid claims that COVID-19 was created in or leaked from the Wuhan lab and funded by EHA. The federal grant data assembled by independent researchers shows that the charity has received more than $123 million from the US government from 2017 to 2020, and that one of its biggest funders was the Department of Defense, which is where the $39 million number comes in, and that has been funding it since 2013.
	Why is the Pentagon funding gain-of-function research and new viral research in the Wuhan lab?
	Why are they sending money to China full stop?
	Well, that's a great question.
	But why this in particular?
	I don't have any answers.
	I'm just here to ask the question.
	Just asking questions, bro.
	Oh God, this is bad.
	Yep.
	And of course, we don't know how much money actually went to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
	Once the money is sort of gone, then we just trust the Chinese.
	I mean, as Fauci said at his congressional or senatorial hearing, well, we haven't got any reason not to trust them.
	They haven't put it on their website, so we're just going to assume they're telling us the truth, the full details.
	CCP, no lies.
	No one who works within China ever lies, Westerners, ever.
	In fact, it's impossible for a Chinese person to lie, according to Fauci.
	I mean, when we're dealing with something that is directly controlled by the CCP, I mean, the biology institute here, it's going to be controlled by the state.
	Of course, directly.
	We know that it is.
	And the people involved are going to be CCP members.
	Point.
	But anyway, so Daszak has been accused of orchestrating a behind-the-scenes bullying campaign to ensure the blame for COVID-19 did not fall on the Wuhan lab that he funded.
	He worked with the lab's batwoman, quote-unquote, Shi Zhengli, in her studies of coronavirus.
	And he persuaded, in 2020, February 2020, he persuaded more than two dozen other scientists to sign off on the letter he had written to The Lancet.
	Do you remember we talked about him leveraging The Lancet, which is a respected medical journal, to essentially treat anyone who has any questions about the origin of the coronavirus as some sort of wacky conspiracy theorist, right?
	Because that's how science works.
	Because that's how science works.
	Question the consensus and you're a conspiracy theorist.
	To be honest with you, that actually is how science works, but we'll do a premium podcast.
	Well, that's how the broken version of academic science works.
	Human science works that way.
	But anyway, yes, leveraging powerful institutions in order to silence other scientists.
	But The Lancet was seen as so influential that it cowed most experts into refusing even to consider that the virus...
	Could have been man-made and escaped from the Wiener Institute.
	Former high-level Clinton administration staffer Jamie Metzl, who now sits on the WHO's advisory committee on human genome editing, told DailyMail.com that the Lancet letter was scientific propaganda and a form of thuggery and intimidation.
	Which we said that it was.
	So it's nice to have, again, Clinton staffer, Clinton administration staffer, sits on the World Health Organization's advisory committee on genome editing.
	Literally says, this was scientific propaganda and thuggery and intimidation.
	What a conspiracy theorist.
	But she works with Alex Jones.
	Yeah.
	Well, again, like all people, they end up coming to the Alex Jones position, don't they?
	Tony Blair, this guy, Jamie Metzl, Alex Jones, peas in a pod.
	All saying the same things.
	The Freedom of Information Act disclosures reveal that Daszak tried to distance his charity from the letter to make it appear that the letter was coming from a community supporting our colleagues.
	So he was also trying to obfuscate the origins of the letter to the Lancet that was to leverage the Lancet's influence over the scientific community.
	So this looks like a plot.
	Yeah, he's basically being caught red-handed.
	He has been caught red-handed.
	We can name the people who are accusing him and what they are accusing him of.
	This is not just a they or anything like this.
	This is very specific.
	The charity chief told his fellow signatories in an email that the letter would not be sent under the EcoHealth logo and will not be identifiable as coming from any one organisation or person.
	Why?
	Why would you need to obscure that?
	If you're such a reputable organization and you're following the science, why do you need to create this kind of smokescreen?
	Why do you need to obfuscate and throw people off the track?
	Why do you need to intimidate people?
	Why will you do things that are described as thuggery and intimidation?
	The joint letter, which was published in the journal on February 19th, praised the Chinese, who continue to save lives and protect global health during the challenge of the COVID-19 outbreak, and added, We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories, suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.
	So like Fauci, basically, the other day, until he changed his opinion again.
	But Fauci, for about a week, was a conspiracy theorist, and then he went back to taking his stacks.
	I really hate this double standard in the West as well, especially within media and social media.
	Like, if you allege corruption and you live in a third-world country and you allege corruption in the government, you're alleging corruption and therefore weather your defence.
	If you allege corruption in the West against the authorities, you're a conspiracy theorist.
	I'm sorry, I hate it so much.
	No.
	If you allege corruption in the West against China, you're a conspiracy theorist.
	The leftists are constantly alleging corruption against Boris Johnson.
	Of course there is.
	And they're not called conspiracy theorists, because it's fine to say that Boris Johnson is corrupt for allowing a donor to paint his house.
	He's been lying to people.
	Saying that Fauci or the people who are funding money to the Wuhan lab to gain-of-function research on humanized mice for a disease that's never been found in the wild?
	Yeah, that's conspiracy theory.
	You're a lunatic.
	Don't know why you're even here, Callum.
	How dare you?
	It's mad.
	It's mad.
	I can't stand it.
	But yeah, so this is wild.
	And recently, in fact, the other day, yesterday, in fact, New York Post reports that a Chinese military scientist who is now mysteriously dead, he filed a patent on February the 24th, 2020, for a vaccine, I think it was.
	Let me just find it.
	But anyway, I'll go through it and it'll come up as we go through it.
	So, Zhu Yusen was a military scientist for the People's Liberation Army, worked alongside the Wuhan Institute of Virology as well as a US scientist.
	Yeah, he filed the patent according to documents obtained by The Australian.
	The patent was filed just five weeks after China admitted there was human-to-human transmission of the virus and months before Zhu died under mysterious circumstances.
	Hang on, how does that even work?
	How do you file a patent in a communist country?
	Well, no, it was filed in the United States.
	Right, okay.
	And he was claiming he had a cure in February?
	He had a vaccine, I believe it was.
	Right.
	So, yeah, a COVID-19 vaccine.
	Probably sounds like Chinese nonsense to me.
	Well, it might be, but...
	I mean, he's dead now, so we can't exactly ask him.
	Yeah, but there was no vaccine available that's known.
	So I imagine it's some Chinese medicine.
	Why would you imagine that?
	I don't know, just people make nonsense claims a lot.
	Sure, but this isn't a nonsense claim.
	Yeah, but I mean right at the start, February 2020.
	I mean, that's when it started to go global.
	Yeah, but it seems that in November 2019, there are cases of it.
	Sure, but he's not going to have a vaccine by then.
	Well, it depends who made it and how long they've had it for.
	Right.
	So this is the point.
	This is why this matters.
	Because if we take the framing that, like, oh, it was just...
	If it did come from a bat, you're absolutely right.
	I get your point.
	If it's been in a lab and they've been researching this...
	But that's the thing.
	Saochi has said they've been doing work with the Wuhan labs for 2008.
	That's the Chinese argument as well, is we do this research so we can make a vaccine preemptively.
	But where was the virus in nature?
	And anyway, so adding to this, Zhu died in mysterious circumstances, and despite being an award-winning military scientist, there were no reports or tributes with him just listed as deceased in a Chinese media report in July, and in a December scientific paper.
	So we don't know how he died.
	Don't know anything else about him, even though he was an award-winning scientist in the Chinese military, working for the CCP. He worked closely with Wuhan lab at the heart of the increasing international focus with Xi Zhengli.
	All of these things are going back to that thing, isn't it?
	Just very, very suspicious.
	All a bit sus.
	I haven't got any further information, I'm afraid, but I think it's important that people know these things, because I don't think you're going to get much reporting on this on Sky or the BBC. No.
	I mean, zero.
	CNN haven't mentioned it.
	The only thing I have is, well, I was about to say they have a death counter, but CNN have gone rid of that one, haven't they?
	Well, yeah.
	But the thing is, it's all looking incredibly sus.
	And, I mean, if you were born yesterday, maybe you'd be like, oh, well, there's nothing here.
	But I'm sorry, I think there is something there.
	There's huge amounts of money involved.
	There's huge amounts of political prestige.
	You have Peter Daszak or Robert Daszak.
	I can't remember his first name.
	I think it's pizza.
	But you've gone literally bullying them.
	Bullying the scientific community through the Lancet.
	Thanking Fauci for being on his side on this.
	Taking these fat stacks of cash and then there's the vaccine that's available or patent for a vaccine in February last year.
	Sorry, it's just like the stench around the subject is unbearable.
	I agree with some of those indicators, but I have to say the most compelling part for me is probably the CCP's attitude around the whole thing.
	The fact that, as was previously mentioned, I think by my dad's team or something, or one of the team, not him personally.
	It was that they weren't keen on them checking in on the biology lab and trying to find out with the people who were sick the month before and whatnot, and trying to see if it came from the lab.
	CCP were very, no, no, no, we're not going to talk about that.
	Why?
	Because if it hasn't, then who cares?
	Wouldn't you want to know?
	If this was a big accident or something that blew up out of nowhere that you had no idea about, you'd want to know.
	You'd have a full investigation.
	Although, to be honest, I'm still in the camp.
	I probably believe that it's just a cock-up.
	Because I was speaking to a mate of mine as well, and he was saying about the Chinese work ethic, especially...
	Well, not especially, but even in high-level jobs, I've just come not...
	What's the right word?
	I'm not paying attention to detail.
	I'm just not really caring about when stuff goes wrong.
	Safety procedures, that kind of thing.
	I can imagine someone just...
	Oh, I'm not saying that it was not accidentally released.
	I don't know.
	What I'm saying is I don't think this was a natural virus, and I think there's enough evidence to suggest that that's a viable theory now.
	Which is why it's been repersoned.
	Which is why it's been repersoned.
	And the fact that Daszak is acting in the way that he is acting implies that he's essentially trying to cover his rear.
	He's doing rearguard actions.
	He's intimidating other scientists.
	This is mad.
	And, of course, he's securing his own funding.
	So, you know, it's just too suspicious for me.
	Let's go for the first review.
	Hey Carl, hey Cal.
	I'm wondering if you've changed your mind at all on the necessity of religion in society and how maybe it is a force that kind of keeps things in check.
	The last couple of years, things certainly could use a little bit of fear of God into people.
	This question was longer, but I needed to fit it into 30 seconds, so do your best.
	How do you feel about it?
	Well, society keeps things in check.
	Religion keeps things in check.
	I mean, it keeps things in check.
	I mean, not all things being in check is positive, though.
	I mean, the best example, I've seen people, I think there was one video we made where we were mocking, what was it, Islamic attitudes towards women and whatnot.
	And they were like, yeah, but I mean, they don't have all the degeneracy, someone was saying.
	I was like, sure, but there's a heck of a price to be paid there.
	Like, why can't we just have some kind of middle ground?
	But, I don't know.
	I mean, if that's not possible, then I guess.
	But I would argue that it probably is.
	I mean, we don't have to go full SJW or full Islam.
	Surely.
	Well, I mean, I would say so.
	And this is coming from atheists.
	The major advantage of religion when it comes to what I think we just call moral questions is that it gives us an absolute moral position to start from.
	God says, and then you've got the holy scriptures to interpret from, and therefore at least the conversation is contained within reasonable boundaries, Whether you agree with someone's interpretation, you come up with your own interpretation, whatever, you at least agree on a foundational starting point.
	But the problem with this sort of unmooring of morality from religion, which is a relatively recent event, like this is not something...
	Go back 300 years and the idea of unmooring morality from religion is blasphemous and it's also considered to be wildly dangerous.
	This is exactly what Locke is saying.
	Look, atheism will have to be Outlawed.
	And George Berkeley was like, Locke is going to provide a state in which literally God is not necessary and therefore everything will become permissible.
	And he was right.
	That's true.
	That's where we are now.
	Exactly what you get with the material.
	Exactly.
	And then Kant gives you this formulation where Everyone can be a moral legislator.
	And I mean, everyone is a moral legislator in a way.
	But what essentially he does is tries to give them a way of creating foundational moral beliefs with this categorical imperative.
	And it's like, look, I don't even think...
	I don't know if that's a good idea.
	But I'm not a religious man, obviously.
	And I don't really want someone dictating morality to me.
	I'd like to be able to be the author of my own morality.
	So it's not even that I'm like, oh yeah, let's bring back religion.
	I don't really want that.
	But like...
	Look where we are.
	Look at where we are.
	Look at the things that are happening.
	Drag Queen Story Hour is just too far.
	I'd love to be able to tell her and just be like, nah, God says blasphemous.
	Yeah, it would be a lot easier.
	So easy.
	And so that's what the religious types are appealing to, saying, look, it'd be a lot easier to resist this with that.
	And they are right.
	It would be easier to resist progressivism with religion.
	Unfortunately, though, we're out of luck, aren't we?
	Yeah.
	I don't think we're going to be able to reconvert the irreligious at this point either.
	I mean, I personally don't even think that's desirable, necessarily.
	No, no, I'm not saying it is.
	But I don't even think it's possible, even if it was.
	Anyway, let's go for the next one.
	In terms of flaws to one side, probably should only be watched by teenagers due to more violence and stuff in this show called My Hero Academia, which the author of the manga was a fan of 90s superhero stories and hated how superhero stories went woke.
	So he made his own superhero story and it shows in parts why it's good to be a hero.
	Hmm.
	I've never watched it.
	I didn't understand any of that.
	Anti-woke superhero stuff?
	So, I mean, good for people making their own stuff.
	I mean, I've heard My Hero Academia is really good from people who like that thing, that sort of thing, but it's not my kind of thing.
	But if it's expressly anti-woke and it's good, good.
	Even if I don't like it, good.
	Alright, let's go to the next one.
	In reference to the charity made by the Conservatives that was for AOC's grandmother, Carl, you raised a lot of issues and Callum, you raised a lot of good counterpoints.
	But my question is, would it have been better if the charity was to all of the people affected by the hurricane or storm, whatever, than just AOC's parents?
	Without a doubt.
	It was her grandmother, and I apologize for nothing because of my mispronunciation of a Spanish word.
	You have to understand, the only interaction that the English have with the Spanish is defeating them and sinking their fleets.
	You guys over in America obviously have much more exposure to this.
	There aren't many grandmothers on their fleets.
	Yeah, yeah, we don't have to feel guilty about it at all.
	No, I think he was right.
	We mentioned that point.
	Yeah, that was your point.
	No, it was yours.
	But it was a good point.
	Fundamentally, for me, it came down to, as Lou Levi said in a good stream, which is essentially playing Russian roulette with five bullets in the chamber.
	Unnecessarily risky that they could just take it and then spend on what they want.
	There was one counter-argument I read in the comment section, which was not bad, which is, well, if she took the money, you know, worst-case scenario, Matt Walsh is like, oh, shit, messed up.
	But if she then takes that money and spends it on BLM or whatnot, does it not make her look even worse?
	Because it's like you were given this money to help.
	Yeah, but there are easy outs for her there, because she could just take some money of her own and be like, sorry, I've already paid for my grandmother's thing.
	You're too late.
	Before I received that money, I'd already done it.
	Sorry, slow conservatives, but thanks for the hundred grand, because what we're going to do is have a massive gay pride parade through the most conservative place in the world, funded by conservatives I don't think her constituents or supporters would even care.
	No, they wouldn't.
	If she just took the 100 grand and was like, well, no, I already said my grandmother had a place to stay anyway, so thanks for the cash.
	And then spend it on BLM, you know, bailouts.
	Abortion clinics or something like that.
	Her constituents would be like, yeah, master move.
	Just take 100 grand for the retard.
	Exactly.
	And all of the progressives, she would suddenly be like the darling of the progressive movement because what's she done?
	Or she's handing out fast stacks.
	Exactly.
	But she can be like, look, I'm putting abortion clinics in every Conservative neighbourhood now, funded by the Conservatives.
	Look at those idiots.
	And it would be, I mean, he's exactly right.
	Literally, the luck that the one chamber that came up and she just got cold feet and, like, you know, fled.
	It's an insanely risky move.
	Sorry.
	But yeah, just the chap's point, he's absolutely right.
	They should have done it independently of her and done for the people of Puerto Rico.
	The thing in my mind, I've read a whole bunch of the comments of people trying to make counter-arguments, and just fundamentally, none of them convinced me that it was essentially taking bullets out of the chamber.
	It was still a fine chamber, which is not worth the risk.
	I mean, you got damn lucky.
	It's glad that it happened this time.
	Lucky that she miscarried on her end, because she obviously got scared by what was going on, and just rejected everything to keep herself safe.
	But if she'd been a bit more cunning and a bit smarter, then it really could have ended up quite badly for the Conservatives, in my opinion.
	Way too risky.
	Don't fund leftists.
	Ever.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Callum, you were correct in identifying the holier-than-thou attitude as a vice.
	In fact, this was Jesus' main critique of the priestly caste in his time, the Pharisees.
	For in Christian theology, pride is the chief vice and the father of all other vices.
	The truly virtuous man ought to love the good of the virtue itself rather than seek after the moral status conferred by the virtue, to regard himself as fortunate for his virtue rather than as intrinsically superior to other men because of it.
	Yeah, this is why Jesus is saying don't pray at the church or the synagogue or wherever.
	Pray in your own house.
	He castigates those people who pray on street corners and stuff like that because they're obviously virtue signaling.
	Yeah.
	In Islam, you're meant to pray at mosque altogether because the more of you pray together, the more holy it is or something.
	Seems like a cope to me.
	It's like orc religion.
	Yeah.
	The more of us who believe!
	I ran talking about this sort of thing.
	Charity is her example.
	And it's the same here, I think.
	But even in the case of a man who prays at home, he does soup kitchens, doesn't tweet about it, and all the rest of it.
	Fundamentally, you are still getting joy out of doing all of these activities, is her critique.
	And therefore, it is kind of for yourself in that way.
	And I don't think she's entirely wrong.
	I mean, it's a bit...
	Because it's like, well, I'm mostly helping other people.
	But you are getting the self-satisfaction of knowing that you've helped other people.
	That is true.
	That's the objectivist critique of the very concept of altruism, though.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Doing good for its own sake.
	Oh, you enjoyed it.
	Oh, God, now I can't even enjoy doing the right thing.
	Yeah, that's why I find it on shaky ground.
	I mean, I think fundamentally she's not got nothing there because, I mean, when you do do a good thing and you feel good, you do get that self-satisfaction.
	And then in the future, if you do the good thing, you know you have a good feeling.
	But it really is a road to hell if you're deciding that any good thing ever is also wrong.
	Now I have to do good things and hate doing the good things.
	But then that, again, you'd be rationalizing back.
	It's just a rabbit hole of...
	Or maybe I just have to choose good things I hate to do.
	So I force myself to do them.
	She would probably come back and be like, yeah, but then you're enjoying the pain or something.
	Oh god, no, I'm not.
	This is what I mean.
	I don't think it really leads anywhere.
	It's an interesting thought, but I don't really fundamentally get it.
	But it is true in the case of when you see people who are holier-than-thou priests and whatnot.
	They're totally...
	You don't even have to go around to point out that's just you self-serving yourself.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Carl, you said a couple days ago that you would like to Americanize Britain.
	Would you be willing to elaborate further on what you mean by that?
	I want the First Amendment.
	I want guns.
	And the First Amendment.
	And a lot of taxes.
	Yeah, I want lower taxes.
	More representatives in a way that is...
	Do you know about local government?
	You ever read about local government in this country?
	Yeah, it's awful.
	It's a weird mess.
	I don't know why our system...
	Well, you know why, because it's evolved over a millennium.
	But the American situation, directly electing a leader, I think that's important, really.
	Because one of the problems we have in our system is people look at the leaders and they vote in their constituency on that basis, and that doesn't really make much sense because your constituency MP could be in the left wing of the Conservatives, you could be a right wing Labourite or whatever, and then you're not voting for that person and then you completely don't know what the hell you're doing with your vote.
	Like, having a directly elected leader, I think, would help in that regard.
	But I haven't thought through this, so I might completely go wrong.
	One of the things that our system prevents is a Donald Trump.
	You can't have that.
	You've got to go through the party machine for years to get anywhere near the top.
	Yeah, and I would like it so we could elect someone who could do something like Donald Trump.
	But mainly I'm thinking in the realms of limits on what the government can and can't do.
	I think the Americans have got that right.
	That stuff's very behind just getting First Amendment and then being able to defend that First Amendment.
	Because fundamentally, I think you're actually right.
	That is what the Second Amendment is about.
	It's defending the First.
	Oh, absolutely.
	It's very important.
	Afternoon, chaps.
	Take a listen to this passage from a book called The Coming of the Third Reich.
	On 27 May Heidegger delivered his inaugural address as rector.
	Speaking to the assembled professors and brown-shirted Nazi dignitaries, he declared that academic freedom would no longer be the basis of life in the German university, for this freedom was not genuine, because it is only negative.
	It was time, he said, for the universities to find their anchor in the German nation and to play their part in the historic mission it was now fulfilling.
	In the very first sentence he told his audience he had taken over the spiritual leadership of this university, and he used a pseudo-feudal term, retinue, to refer to the students and staff, much as leading Nazis were doing in the general sphere of employment and labor relations at this time.
	With concepts such as these being used by the university's new rector, it was clear that academic freedom, however it was defined, was definitely a thing of the past.
	It's a very interesting statement.
	When anyone says anything like freedom is only being defined negatively, that's because freedom is a negative concept.
	Positive freedom to do something is always a privilege and is contingent on something else.
	But freedom from something is the natural state of affairs and requires outside influence.
	But basically what they're saying there is that the state controls your rights.
	The Nazis obviously being continuation of the socialists, French socialists, and the rest.
	It's exactly the kind of thing I'd expect them to have.
	It's a command society under the state.
	It's terrifying.
	It's not terribly different to what we're entering into now, which is why, in fact, speaking of the objectivists, Leonard Peikoff's The Ominous Parallels When I first started reading that, it was a long time ago now, so I've learned a lot since I read it.
	But when I first started reading it, I thought, oh no, this is overblowing it.
	But when you actually strip it down to philosophical fundamentals, it's no different to Nazism.
	On the assumptions that it makes about the world around it, which is...
	Who, objectivism?
	No, no, the Nazis and the progressives.
	They have the same assumptions, which is human rights are constructed by the state, rights are dictated by power, and therefore if the state is powerful enough, it can guarantee any rights.
	And that's just not the English liberal way of viewing things, because what they have actually done there is created the state as God.
	And Heidegger's perspective there is, like, totally in line with the French syndicalists who peeled off of the Communist movement and became fascists.
	I've nearly finished this Neither Left Nor Right book by Sternhell, an Israeli historian, and we'll do a book club on it because he's...
	We've gone through in unbelievable detail the thought process of the French syndicalists as they became the fascists and why they did it.
	And Heidegger is just speaking purely from their hymn sheet there.
	So you can see the direct ancestry of the ideas out of socialism.
	And this is why Mussolini was like, it's a dead doctrine.
	This is why Lenin was like, we need vanguardism.
	Because fundamentally, it all came down to the same premise that the proletariat is not a revolutionary force.
	And just to say, as a proletariat that is deeply, deeply right-wing, that's true.
	Totally true.
	The proletariat are the most conservative part of the country, frankly.
	Which is why the Labour Party considers the population here to be far right.
	Yep.
	Right-wing Brexiteer gammons.
	Yeah.
	That's us.
	Freaking proles rise up.
	But I mean, it shouldn't really be a surprise considering fascism is trade unionism.
	It's exactly what it is.
	Yeah, it's entirely revolutionary as well.
	Which is why I love Hearts of Iron.
	I think I've mentioned this before, but the, what is it, the Kaiserreich mod, where they're like, oh, the guys who made it, there's like a socialist revolution of syndicalists in France and Britain and whatnot, because of alternate history.
	And then, like, Oswald mostly becomes the leader of one of the syndicalist factions, and then you can have him as leader in the game from Great Britain, and they're like, Yeah, socialism.
	Yeah.
	I mean, yes, but it's fascism.
	Like, that's what cynicalism is.
	It is trade unionism.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Absolutely.
	And the fascists were very...
	On the basis of the state.
	You're nationalizing the state.
	Yeah.
	Well, they were very conscious of the idea of corporatizing the state to reintegrate the proletariat into the national organism.
	These are the exact words they were using.
	And it's just...
	Essentially just socialism where the proletariat are replaced with the nation.
	But anyway...
	So, Carl has been talking about vices and everything else, and I have a major one, which is smoking cigarettes.
	Welcome to the club.
	And I thought that I'd just share with you guys, since listening to Carl, I figured I'd stop being a loser and, you know, actually do something about this terrible vice that's actually killing me.
	I just thought that the, you know, shot of the clouds would be fitting for this.
	Oh, good.
	Well done.
	And I'm glad to have inspired someone in what I consider to be the right direction.
	One of the reasons I get these are just nicotine tablets, so I don't smoke.
	And I realise that's actually the lazy way of Avoiding the vice.
	And I should just stop altogether, but frankly I haven't had the willpower.
	I thought you did at one point.
	I did, and then I kind of lapsed.
	Because it's not easy.
	I'm not perfect, obviously.
	But what I'm saying is correct.
	You shouldn't.
	You should conquer your vices.
	And even if I am in perfect model of it, that doesn't mean you can't be better.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Hello, Sargon.
	I've been hearing people give you not-so-great anime recommendations, and I thought I'd just give one of my own that I actually find really good, which is the saga of Tanya of Evil.
	And the anime itself, people don't like the art style, they prefer the manga, which is pretty good.
	But there's also the short novels that Delve more into detail, into the political and philosophical sides of the discussions that are had.
	And the anime itself, it's not too stereotypical whenever it comes to anime, because, you know, let's be real, it's really distracting whenever a character is going, every five seconds.
	I blame the rise of anime on the collapse of the Western entertainment industry.
	This is only a problem, and it is a problem, because of the total failure of Western entertainment.
	Because everything produces crap.
	And when they produce something good, like Joker, like we were saying before the podcast actually, it's treated as if this is like a heretic in the cathedral.
	The guy had to answer all sorts of progressive questions about what he's doing.
	You're pandering to right-wing male terrorists and all this sort of nonsense.
	He's like, I just think this is a sign of the times.
	I think this is a cultural commentary on what you're doing.
	And yet, here we are.
	Here's a mirror.
	Exactly.
	Here's a mirror.
	Which is why it resonated.
	We were literally talking about this.
	What has Hollywood produced in the last 10 years that's been good?
	Joker.
	What was that movie?
	Interstellar?
	I quite like that.
	That's because of a physics nerd.
	Right, okay.
	You watched Interstellar?
	I'm not.
	I'm not a physics nerd.
	White Hot Peppers says...
	I just want to say as well, I've got to be blunt, I don't care about anime.
	Please don't recommend.
	Yeah, no.
	It's the aesthetic of it.
	Honestly, it's the aesthetic of it.
	The only one I ever enjoyed was Helsing and Trigun, because they were obviously not aimed at kids.
	But all of the rest of them have got kids in them, and I'm like...
	I'm not letting my kids watch this, because I don't want to be disgusting weebs.
	Anyway, I'm just teasing, obviously.
	No, I really...
	I've tried.
	Don't go into it, but I don't care.
	Yeah, it's something about the style of storytelling that just doesn't do it for me.
	Anyway, WhiteHardPep says, Another thing the general was spewing at us the other night, hi, by the way, was about how much we need to watch what we say out of uniform.
	He was telling us about how they have dishonorably discharged so many soldiers for talking badly about our elected officials.
	Wow.
	Wow, that's not scary, is it?
	America, the home of the brave, land of the free, or whatever it is, but don't criticise your elected officials.
	They're above you.
	Oh, man.
	I mean, after you guys have to deal with the food and all that as well.
	Yeah.
	But you're not allowed to talk bad about Biden.
	And the weird thing about it as well is the Americans actually have a much higher opinion of their elected officials than the Brits do.
	Even the people you like, you don't have much respect for them.
	And that seems to be morally correct, to be honest.
	Seems to be right, doesn't it?
	I don't know.
	I mean, you've seen the comparisons between the chambers, the American chamber, everyone's silent and lets the nuns do the talking.
	And then the British chamber office just screaming over each other because it's funny.
	But no, no, no.
	There's something about it that's humanizing.
	Yeah, it's the commons.
	Yeah, it's the commons, exactly.
	It lords everyone's quiet.
	They are.
	But it brings things down to a more equal level.
	And I think there is a kind of drive for equality in the way that people talk to the politicians.
	Like, look, we may have elected you, but you're not better than us.
	Even though you've got loads more money and much better education, you've ancestral connections, lands.
	Better education.
	You know, but in principle you're not, and that's important.
	But anyway, he made the point to let us know that we're sworn to protect the government from the people and from foreign threats.
	I don't think that's actually what it is.
	I think you're sworn to uphold the Constitution in the United States?
	Not protect the government from the people?
	That's weird.
	It makes it sound like someone's got something to hide, doesn't it?
	I never swore an oath to the damned government.
	I swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America.
	I can't believe what I was hearing come out of his mouth.
	It made my blood boil.
	Dude, I don't blame you at all.
	I find this annoying, and I'm not an American.
	Um...
	I'm reaching the very end of my contract with the army in November of this year.
	They are begging me to stay in and stay in for my retirement and for how many benefits the army gives me.
	I don't want it.
	I don't want anything they want to give me.
	I refuse to be a cooma for the state and do their bidding anymore after this contract is up.
	I'm moving into the woods far away from you insane people and take care of myself.
	I'm planting trees.
	Bravo.
	It's like the British government saying to them, like, you're not here to protect the Queen.
	It's like we literally pledge allegiance to the Queen.
	Yeah, that is why we're here.
	The British army pledges allegiance to the Queen, not a constitution.
	No, you're here to protect the Labour Party from the people.
	Yeah, no.
	We're here to protect Her Majesty from you.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Anyway, John Tangney, hey dude, says the racial pride flag is clearly designed to remind us of the Palestinian flag.
	Maybe.
	Yeah, it could be, actually.
	Yeah, no, no, it's exactly the same sort of...
	Yeah, that's right.
	Why is it not just extra lines?
	Yeah, that's a great question.
	Alexander says, the ever-increasing arrow on the pride flag is starting to remind me of the Dad's Army opening.
	Yes!
	That's...
	I knew.
	I had that in the back of my head, but I couldn't put my finger on it.
	Student of history says gay Ramadan.
	That's the new name.
	I'm sticking with it.
	Well, look, they wanted the entire month.
	Well, they wanted the entire period, not just a month.
	They're actually getting their own kind of sacred calendar.
	I'm no papist, but isn't pride a sin?
	You don't have to be a papist to agree that pride's a sin.
	Protestants think it's a sin, too.
	Not even that.
	You go back to the Greeks.
	Excessive pride always comes before a downfall because you assume things about the world that are not true because they flatter your ego.
	And then when they turn out to be true, you're not prepared for them, and then boom, you go down.
	Just where is gluttony month?
	It's got to be December.
	Surely.
	Yeah, okay.
	It's got to be December.
	That's true.
	But I want it renamed.
	I want gluttony pride.
	I don't want the sins to be something we lionize.
	Come on, it'll be funny.
	It will be funny.
	Just to make fun of the pride nonsense.
	That's true.
	So, Fat Awareness Month.
	There is probably a...
	Is there a Fat Awareness Month?
	There probably is.
	I just want to call it Gluttony Month.
	Like Pride Month, Gluttony Month, you know, so on and so forth.
	Which one's Wrath Month?
	I don't think we'll make any more jokes.
	Moving on.
	It happens every single year.
	ISIS makes me up their attacks.
	I know, I know.
	Colin says, restrictions on free speech by big tech woke culture make the world more dangerous for me as a gay man.
	I'm now unable to easily identify those who consider me their enemy.
	Yeah, that's a good point.
	And that's another great point as well.
	I hate this, like, oh, we've got to stamp out bigotry online.
	Why?
	I want to know who the bigots are.
	Follow.
	Keep the football out of racism.
	No, but seriously, I don't know that I might be following a bunch of Nazis if they're not allowed to tell people they're Nazis.
	I'd like to know if they're Nazis, because I don't really want to follow a bunch of Nazis online, if that's okay with the progressive government.
	Like, social media, if that's okay with them.
	But anyway, Dougal says, are you really surprised the Met Police are being partisan leftists?
	No.
	Brad says, didn't you know being trans has now replaced storming the beaches of Normandy?
	And for some reason this is all Normally, as the new benchmark for courage, according to Vice President Joe Biden.
	Yeah, I saw this MSNBC segment that they did, where they began it with, in like, I don't know, what was the date of the Normandy landings?
	I don't remember.
	Well, whatever.
	1942 or whatever it was.
	Oh, 1944.
	1944, right, okay.
	But they're like, you know, the original anti-fascists storming the beaches of Normandy.
	It's like not one of them was a communist.
	Not one of them.
	You know, not one of them.
	I hated it.
	1944.
	Literally afterwards, like we went to war with the communists in the Cold War.
	Yeah.
	Anyway.
	And it's not like the Nazis and the communists were particularly different.
	Again, the thing people have got to remember is fascism is just a form of revolutionary socialism.
	It's just one form of it.
	Vanguardism is another.
	It's all the same monster.
	This is why I quite like the supposition where it's like you've got Marxism, socialism of workers, you've got fascism, socialism of the nation, you've got the Nazis, socialism of the race, and then you've got the intersectionists above who are like, no, we'll do them all.
	Yeah, socialism of everything.
	Anyway, Stephen Smith says, what would an actual conservative pride flag look like, a silhouette of a nuclear family?
	No, there would be no such thing as a conservative pride flag, because the conservatives would say pride is a sin.
	Conservative skull and crossbones.
	It's not the black flag of Labour.
	No, no, no, you remember the conservative.
	Yeah, the conservative, yeah, the momentum or, yeah.
	Brad Dillon says, but no, seriously, there shouldn't be a conservative pride flag, there should just be a British flag.
	End of story.
	Brad Dillon says, if trans women are really women, then isn't the trans flag a hate crime against trans women by highlighting the fact they're actually something other than women?
	That's the point of the racist thing as well.
	It's like, you know, if you're going to segregate these things off, you're kind of admitting there are fundamental differences between them.
	And, I mean, I just don't agree with that race idea either.
	Like, it's a horrible thing.
	It's a horrible thing.
	Like there are gays and there are black gays.
	There are black gays.
	Wait, what?
	Yeah.
	Anyway, Anthony says, Pride flag, white.
	That's true.
	Rose says, that flag was a barcode.
	We should run it under a scanner and see how much all this nonsense is going to cost us.
	But that might be disappointing.
	Oh God, really that much?
	Omar says, if ever there was a reason to blindly oppose something, it would be anything Tony Blair has signed off on as good policy.
	Yes.
	Literally, if Tony Blair does it or suggests it, do the exact opposite.
	I'm not sure if it's more amusing or slimy watching him trying to argue his way out of black people most affected when minorities are less likely to be vaccinated.
	Squirm harder, you vile little gremlin.
	Yeah, I mean, like, we need privileges for white people is essentially what he's saying there.
	That's literally what's going to end up.
	There's going to be a group of people like, can we get on the plane?
	They'll be like, no.
	There's a white only plane.
	It will be a plane full of white people.
	God.
	It's just terrible.
	We told you, though.
	We told you years ago this is going to create segregation between the races and it's going to be open persecution.
	And here we are.
	Elaine says, life events are still restricted until after the 21st of June.
	I'm still waiting to have a wake for my husband.
	I'm sorry to hear that.
	I was forced to pick which 30 people could attend this funeral.
	You can have loads more people in a shop, a pub, even up to 10,000 people at Wendley Stadium at this point.
	Yeah, it's awful, isn't it?
	I can't stand this.
	That's why we have to make jokes about it, because otherwise it's very, very depressing.
	Brian says, Has anyone told Tony Blair that our country would be a better place if they'd sent millions of vaccines to the Middle East instead of billions of pounds from killing machines?
	Well, you have now, but you were right.
	I'm just going to move on to the next segment because we're running out of time.
	Chris says, We may never know the amount that was sent to the Wuhan Institute, but we do know that whatever the dollar figure was, it was enough to kick off the clown show we're currently living in.
	S.H. Silver says, I don't doubt that the Obama admin, as evidenced by the Pentagon, was permissive of Fauci's NIH funding the research in Wuhan.
	Actually, no, they're the ones who banned the gain-of-function stuff.
	They can outsource the risk of accidental spread to some other country who doesn't care about the people and will give the U.S. access to the medical products the research creates for their big pharma buddies.
	Now we realize how dumb it was to trust an asshole commie nation with top-level biolab and that any sort of leak could not be contained to one country's borders.
	Of course, they had to censor the story last year.
	It would have made the Obama-Biden admin look just as culpable for the virus as China.
	Actually, the one person who really isn't culpable for anything appears to actually be Obama.
	Yeah, credit where credit's worth.
	Yeah, exactly.
	I don't particularly like Obama, but I have to admit, William White says, science has been terribly corrupted by the fact that governments now throw around huge amounts of grant money.
	Hugh pays the piper, calls the tune, and the people receiving grants do what the government granters want them to do.
	It also crops up extensively in climate science.
	There is no way you can get a grant for work that does not confirm anthropogenic warming, and the great bulk of work done is under government grant.
	That's true.
	Free Will says, Well, it's conquest third law, isn't it?
	To explain the behaviour of any bureaucratic organisation, assume it's being captured by a cabal of its enemies.
	I'm really not liking this stuff we do about the Wuhan lab and whatnot.
	No, I don't like any of that.
	Well, it's reality, isn't it?
	Yeah, but that's the point.
	It seems important, and it seems that this is going to just be buried by the mainstream media.
	But, I mean, there's no story...
	Well, I mean, maybe the grooming gags, actually.
	There's no story that's more blackpilling, I was going to say, but...
	Well, yeah.
	I mean, the fact that the government let that go, I'm still doesn't care.
	Yeah, I'm sure tomorrow we'll talk about the continued immigration into Britain from across the channel, which is also blackpilling.
	And, of course, the...
	I was trying to put a white pill there.
	And then also, the fact that Kamala Harris, after like 78 days now, having a massive border crisis in the US, is doing nothing about it.
	And doesn't care.
	And won't go to the border and do anything about it.
	The US has got record numbers of people crossing into it now, illegally.
	At least pink news is dying.
	On the plus side, at least Stonewall is collapsing.
	One more day.
	One more day.
	Okay.
	Anyway, we're out of time.
	If you want to get more from us, as I mentioned, go to lotuseaters.com and read the new articles we have up there or check out all the premium content if you want to sign up and get access to that.
	Otherwise, check out the lotuseaters.com YouTube channel as well for the new video, Plant the Trees.
	I just like the video.
	That's why I keep saying it.
	So we'll be doing another one.
	You've written a new script.
	I have.
	We'll record it tomorrow, probably.
	Yeah, alright.
	Otherwise, we're going.
	We'll be back tomorrow, 1 o'clock.

▲