Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 23, 2021 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:30:58

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #160

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters for the 23rd of June 2021.
	I'm joined by Carl.
	Hello.
	And today we're going to be talking about how journalists keep defecting to Project Veritas en masse, live on air, which is a great tactic.
	I love that they're doing that.
	En masse has been too, but it's interesting nonetheless.
	Well, it keeps on coming, doesn't it?
	Yeah.
	I mean, you say it's two this time around, but I mean, they've got a long history of this.
	Yeah, they do.
	They do.
	It's true.
	Also, the attacks on GB News utterly failed, so says the left, and in which case, what are they going to do about it?
	Like, their commanders, shall we say, are strategizing about what do we do now, because that didn't work, did it?
	And also, what was the last segment today?
	Oh, we're going to be talking about the wonderful interaction between the very honorable Ethan Klein and Stephen Crowder, a podcast host who asked him for a debate, and Ethan, well...
	Honestly, it was a public embarrassment about it, frankly.
	And it's really weird watching the left act as if this is some sort of great victory over Stephen.
	Ethan lied to you, Stephen.
	Aren't you been dunked on?
	It's like, no?
	But we'll get to it.
	Yeah.
	Weird situation.
	Anyway, a couple of things to say first.
	So the first thing here is the new article we have from Hannah Gell, who's put this up.
	So the boy crisis resides where the fathers don't reside.
	So get rid of the fathers and you get a boy crisis.
	I mean...
	Big shock.
	Like, boys don't have the dads around, therefore everything's worse.
	But no one told the left, apparently.
	So that's why it's become government policy and social policy for how many decades.
	And yeah, we're enjoying the crisis of it.
	Well, we can see exactly the crisis of that going on in the black community in America at the moment.
	This is what happens when fathers aren't maintaining discipline in the home.
	Well, I mean, that's the most extreme example, but it's not like it hasn't come to anyone else.
	Oh yeah, it's not like it's not everywhere.
	This is wherever.
	It's just this happens to be one particular community that happens to be feeling it worse than others.
	So, first thing to mention as well was also the Gold Tier membership.
	We have a Zoom call this Friday for the Gold Tiers, in which we just hang out, because that's fun.
	Answer questions.
	Yeah, so that'll be at 4pm this Friday coming up, so if you are a Gold Tier member, please make sure to look up the link to the Zoom call and join the Zoom call, because they're always good fun.
	I enjoyed it.
	Oh yeah, they're good.
	Oh yeah, and also we have the book club to mention.
	Yes.
	So the Neither Left Nor Right book club in which the...
	Who is it, Bayer?
	I can't remember.
	It's Bayer, an Israeli historian called Ziv Sternhell.
	He was considered to be the leading authority on fascism, and he wrote a book explaining, look, fascism comes directly out of Marxism, and it comes from France.
	Because when the French got hold of Marxism, they couldn't really understand it because it's purely materialistic, and of course the French have got their heads in the clouds, and so they did a revision of it, which turned out to be awful.
	It turned out to be fascism.
	Well, yeah, exactly.
	And they viewed it as being essentially an honest form of socialism.
	They accepted that Marxism actually wasn't really just directly predictive.
	It actually has a moral impetus concealed within it.
	And the French fascists were like, well, we'll just take off the masks and be like, yeah, so this is the moral teleology we're going to adopt.
	And Marx is right.
	We should go with his ideas.
	It turns into a huge problem for the 20th century.
	I really enjoyed doing that one.
	So when that's up, there should be up tomorrow.
	What is it?
	3 p.m.
	I think it's scheduled for.
	So check that out.
	Best part is literally just watching the liberals and conservatives for so many years in the West saying, you guys are just honest socialists.
	That's all they are.
	And the socialists are like, no, no, no, no, nothing's happening.
	It's like, okay, let's go back to the historical sources.
	Why do they all keep saying we're socialists?
	We're socialists without the mask?
	Yeah.
	I mean, there were socialists for decades before they decided that Marxism didn't work, they found that Marxism didn't work, and they were like, okay, we need a new way to achieve socialism.
	And we're going to call it fascism.
	And the fundamental thing not working, the fact that the proletariat didn't rise up.
	Yes.
	So, well, we'll just get the country socialized.
	Yeah, we'll create a vanguard that will rise up for them.
	It sounds brilliant.
	But again, admission that it's all nonsense.
	But really, really good book club.
	Well worth signing up.
	So let's get into the Project Veritas.
	Yeah, so journalists keep defecting to Project Veritas, and not just journalists either.
	There's also insiders from social media platforms like Facebook.
	And this is obviously bad for those people who are working at these corporate media sources or in these social Silicon Valley giants, social media giants.
	But the thing is, we can't really talk about this on YouTube.
	So this part I'm giving you now is just going to have to go up on YouTube as a kind of teaser, with a link to the podcast in the description or pinned in the comments, saying, well, you're going to have to come and watch it on our website.
	Because, honestly, we may have to say things about certain drugs that YouTube actually has editorial policies against the same.
	Legal drugs.
	Legal drugs, yeah.
	Sorry, I didn't mean to imply this all, you know, like...
	Psychotropic drugs or something.
	No, like normal drugs that are used for other purposes to help people that we're not allowed to talk about in respect to a certain disease that did certain things last year.
	Again, editorial policies, don't want to find ourselves in violation of them and get a strike.
	So if you want to watch the full thing, come to our website.
	It's linked in the description.
	For those people who are on the website...
	Right, let's begin.
	So this began a few days ago with a local Fox26 reporter, so one of Fox News' local affiliates, called Ivory Hecker.
	And she, on a public broadcast, on a live broadcast...
	Just turned around and said, look, I'm going to go on Project Veritas and tell them about what's going on here because I'm not happy with this.
	And then she went and did her segment and everyone in the newsroom must have been like, oh my god, start sweating.
	And so she went and did a sit-down interview with Project Veritas.
	And I just find this very, very interesting because she claims the station's editorial decisions are an affront to honest journalism, which I can totally believe.
	Because this isn't really about left and right, because we've got one from CBS directly afterwards.
	So you can see this is an example from the left and from the right.
	What this is, is about the corporate press versus the interests of regular people.
	And that is why she has decided that she can't go on with this.
	She says, viewers are being deceived about some of the things that are going on.
	Fox came from my throat for standing up against censorship.
	She secretly recorded two calls with her supervisors, Vice President and News Director Susan Schiller and the Assistant News Director Lee Meyer.
	Schiller says, you need to cease and desist about posting about hydroxychloroquine.
	You failed as a reporter.
	And Lania, someone else, says, we hire producers right out of college that just regurgitate what they're fed.
	As in, these are the secret, you know, the sort of Project Veritas style where they get, you know, the recording where the people don't really realize they're being recorded and therefore say things that are actually true.
	In an unfiltered way.
	And so this doesn't look good, does it?
	I mean, she needs to shut up about hydroxychloroquine.
	Why is that the case?
	And that's because Jennifer Bourgeois, the sales coordinator for Fox 6, admitted on tape that the CDC is heavily influencing stations.
	The Center for Disease Control is heavily influencing stations such as theirs due to the amount of money they are pouring into ad campaigns.
	As in, get your vaccine, get your vaccine, get your vaccine.
	They're making stacks of cash.
	And this has affected the network's coverage of major health because, of course, if you're sat there going, well, the vaccine is the only way to do it and the CDC is pouring gold into your pockets, if there is actually a cheap alternative, such as hydroxychloroquine, which many doctors now have said...
	This does work if combined with zinc.
	Again, not medical advice.
	I'm not a medical expert.
	I'm just saying what a marginalized group of doctors have been saying for literally about a year now, I think it is, that they've been saying this.
	But this has obviously flown in the face of the other narrative surrounding...
	Not just hydroxychloroquine, but just COVID itself, because I suppose there's money in vaccines.
	And if you can make vaccines mandatory for literally billions of people, Big Pharma does very well out of this.
	But she says, yeah, they, the CDC, are spending money.
	They're spending money because they can.
	Yeah, they can.
	They're in the pocket.
	You know they're there.
	So vaccines are a potential moneymaker for Fox, she explained.
	Fox gets paid for that.
	As a viewer, you need to look at who is advertising on this TV station.
	And you've got to realise, surely, that the TV station doesn't want to hurt its advertisers.
	Couldn't be any more clear, could it?
	I mean, it's literally about being paid to promote the vaccine so she can shut up about things like hydroxychloroquine, even though, like, there have been a bunch of studies.
	Some have found, like, we didn't find the effect.
	Some have found really good effects.
	Actual doctors who have been treating patients with hydroxychloroquine and zinc have said, well, look, we've brought people back from the brink of death using this.
	Maybe it's worth considering at the very least.
	and she's not allowed to say any of this.
	Viewers are being, she says, viewers are being carefully deceived by, sorry, deceived by carefully crafted narratives in some stories.
	In some areas they do fantastic journalism, but for some reason some of these stories have an incredible slant.
	If you accidentally step outside the narrative, they try to internally destroy you, as I've witnessed firsthand.
	At this point I just want out of this narrative news telling.
	I want out of the corruption, I want to tell true stories without fear, whether it fits the corporate narrative.
	She, of course, then went on Tim Pool's podcast and had a nice chat with Tim, which was very interesting, but again, just reiterating the main points, and says that there's just a lot of drug corporate advertising on these local news stations, and that's why they're so biased.
	This was reported again by more media outlets than just Project Veritas, of course.
	The Houston Chronicle did a report on this.
	I actually can't remember why I included this, because I think it's...
	Oh no, there we go.
	So, yeah, so...
	No, okay, no, I have actually covered that, so I'm just going to move on.
	But anyway, yeah, so next thing is she gets fired for this, of course.
	So Fox26 just issued a statement saying that she's no longer with us.
	Fox26 adheres to the highest editorial standards of accuracy and impartiality.
	This incident involves nothing more than a disgruntled former employee seeking publicity by promoting a false narrative produced through selective editing and misinterpretation or misrepresentation.
	Yeah, bull.
	I mean, obviously.
	You're not addressing...
	This is the accusation.
	Every single time Project Veritas released everything, you selectively edited it.
	Here's the full version.
	Yeah, but you still selectively edited it.
	Yeah.
	I mean, she was on Timple's podcast, right?
	So she can just speak for an indefinite amount of time, and she just explains her position again.
	Look, they get money from the CDC... They're not, the people at Fox are obviously doing this because they don't want to lose that money, and this challenges that narrative, and this is just part of a kind of corporate machine.
	And they're just like, well, we're not going to address that point.
	Well, okay, if you're not going to address that point, that makes me think it's a real point.
	You know, why wouldn't I just assume that she's telling the truth?
	What does she, you know, why would she just sacrifice her career as, you know, a local news reporter if there was nothing else behind it?
	Oh, it's a disgruntled former employee.
	Well, she wasn't a former employee and she wasn't disgruntled, apart from the fact that you were making her disgruntled by saying she couldn't report on certain things.
	Unless, of course, she's just lying, but you haven't said she's lying.
	You've implied it, but you haven't stated it.
	You know, this is factually wrong.
	You're just saying, oh, this is a false narrative through selective editing misrepresentation, as you say, as they always say with Project Veritas, because addressing the actual points might lead to a bit of pushback.
	I mean, you would have thought in response, they would have been like, here's the evidence on hydroxychloroquine, you know, here's why it doesn't work, so on and so forth.
	And then they say, that's why we got rid of her, because, I mean, she's just saying something that's not true.
	But they can't do that.
	So, who am I led to believe?
	Well, that's, exactly.
	But that's the point.
	It seems there probably is some sort of, some credibility to the idea that there might be some benefit to hydroxychloroquine.
	And at the end of the day, if you're on death's door with COVID, who cares?
	Give me any experimental treatment at that point, in my opinion.
	But anyway, like I said, it's not medical advice because I'm not a doctor.
	Anyway, the next one was CBS reporter April Moss.
	Again, like I was saying, not left or right.
	It's more corporate versus populist, I suppose we'll say.
	You know, the establishment versus the people.
	But a local CBS TV news journalist called April Moss announced that she, during her weather report, and I love the fact that they're doing this on the live broadcast, because there's nothing you can do at that point.
	There's nothing you can do, right?
	You're live, you go and you've got a script, and they've gone off script, and you're like, great.
	Got to wait for the car crash to finish before you can pick up the pieces now.
	But blowing the whistle on what she sees as discrimination at her Detroit station.
	Marking the second time in a week, a reporter seemingly blew up her career with an off-script announcement designed to embarrass her employer.
	She said that,"...I will be sitting down this week with Project Veritas to discuss the discrimination that CBS is enforcing on its employees." Now, this discrimination, again, is around COVID, but we'll get to that in a second.
	But, again, what I love about this is you can see that Project Veritas is getting a kind of mythical status in these media organizations.
	It's just, oh, really?
	You're annoyed at what your bosses are doing?
	You're annoyed at the lies you're being forced?
	You're annoyed at the way they're treating you?
	Project Veritas are the words that you're going to use to really put it up them.
	So good job on James O'Keefe.
	Consistently good boy for the past, what, five years now?
	You know, there was something in 2013 that he was accused of doing, but again, it's the same narrative that they're accusing of him now, like misrepresenting and selectively editing, but this is not what's happening here, so why would I believe it in 2013?
	Which one was that?
	Was it the abortion one?
	I can't remember.
	I remember there was a big hubbub about, what was it, he was accusing them of using aborted fetuses, tissues for things, and then they were like, you selected it, so he released all the footage, and they couldn't show where he selectively did it.
	But also, in the Alex Jones Was Right podcast, we showed that that's what they did.
	Yeah, in 2016, 2017, or whatever it was, it came out that yeah, that was definitely true, so then what?
	But anyway, of course, Mrs Moss, sorry, April Moss was fired from her job, She had worked for CBS for nearly a decade and couldn't stand by any longer and allow the audience to be manipulated by the corporate agenda.
	Next one, John.
	At one point she referred to CBS's news practices as propaganda being pushed on people and said acts of discrimination have taken place with the station, quote, segregating co-workers based on health assumptions.
	It's really interesting, isn't it?
	Like, why a bunch of segregation happening at CBS? Yeah.
	What does she mean by segregation?
	Well, keeping people apart, of course.
	Yeah, but I mean, like, I see she's in her home there for the broadcast.
	Do they mean that if you don't get vaccinated, you can't come back to work?
	It seems that way.
	Yeah, it seems that way.
	So, honestly, I'm actually not too sure what kind of segregation that was gone in.
	But the thing seems to be around the concept of, quote, vaccine hesitancy.
	So it seems the people who are not vaccinated and who are vaccinated are being separated at CBS. But, of course, CBS had nothing to say about this, and they were like, oh, we'll just let her go, because why wouldn't you, I suppose.
	But it's not the first time that the sort of Queries around the vaccine have been a problem, but we'll talk about Facebook's response to vaccine hesitancy in a minute.
	I should want to mention, I remember seeing the other day, I think it was like Thought Park trending or something, because they said on the account that if you weren't vaccinated or you didn't have a mask or something, please go to the back of the buses to wait so you'd be separated from those who have been vaccinated.
	And she's like, right, okay.
	That's a very strange...
	Why the back of the bus?
	Yeah, and the back of the bus.
	Yeah, why?
	And why do they think the back of the bus was the bad place to be?
	That was where the cool kids were.
	But, I mean, it's not just about the way that they're treating the COVID outbreak.
	She says that they also have extreme political leanings, which means that...
	They wouldn't talk to Candace Owens, but they would talk to Democratic Governor Gretchen Whitmer.
	So Candace Owens was too political for the show, but the actual politician wasn't for some reason.
	But this comes from her position of sort of...
	Concern about the general state of the country.
	She says, Of course, she was officially fired, saying that her statements are completely false, so at least they denied them.
	I mean, that's something, you know.
	But, of course, she's been fired.
	When was that Candace Owens interview happening then?
	Yeah, when's that Candace Owens interview happening?
	You know, what's the deal?
	Are you segregating unvaccinated people?
	Is that correct?
	Is that true?
	You know, why don't you deny that?
	But anyway, so this leads on to Facebook issues.
	Leakers, who of course went to Project Veritas.
	Facebook are not really having a very good time about this, especially when the videos of them talking about the people leaking to Project Veritas get leaked themselves, and you can see the They're not happy.
	But there's very much, you know, Mark Zuckerberg has got a very practiced, placid face.
	And you can see when, if you watch enough of these videos, you can see the ticks at the side of the mouth and you see him reconstructing his frame and then going with that, even though he's very angry about things.
	But anyway, so Facebook announced in March, as the Washington Times point out, that they had a campaign to help connect people to vaccinations through its apps as part of a partnership with the Boston Children's Hospital, as well as seeking to reduce vaccine misinformation.
	They say, building on our goal to promote authoritative information about COVID-19 vaccines, we've implemented several temporary measures to further limit the spread of potentially harmful COVID-19 and vaccine information during the pandemic.
	Because everyone knows everything about COVID-19 at all times and always have.
	They can be sure that they're correct.
	I mean, they didn't have to, you know, drag something out of the memory hole recently.
	What was it they had to re-person?
	Oh, the Wuhan lab theory.
	That's right.
	So Facebook, you know, have been essentially admitted that they were wrong about the Wuhan lab theory being obvious nonsense because it's not obvious nonsense.
	Not only just admitting, oh, we were incorrect about this, all those suspensions, all of those bannings that we did, all of them were unjust.
	Yes.
	And we had no solid information on which to do it.
	So we were protecting a partisan narrative.
	A partisan narrative that happened to protect the vaccine industrial complex.
	I watched your chat with Michael Malish yesterday.
	He made a great point about it, which is that not only is this, you know, them accepting that they're wrong on this, therefore how many others have they been wrong on?
	But let's say, you know, tomorrow the Chinese Communist Party do decide to do a bioweapon situation.
	You know, the worst of the worst of the theories.
	Facebook will cover up for them.
	Seems that way.
	Seems that way.
	Zuckerberg had tweeted out that the data shows the vaccines are safe and they work.
	Our best hope is for getting past this virus and getting back to normal life.
	I'm looking forward to getting mine, and I hope you are too, and I'm sure that absolutely no money changed hands here, did it, Mark?
	Anyway, Facebook began suppressing vaccine hesitancy, quote-unquote, behind the scenes.
	Limiting the reach of comments that expressed concerns about the COVID-19 vaccines or shared negative experiences, Even if accurate, according to an investigation released by Project Veritas.
	The leaked documents indicate that the tech giant set up a vaccine hesitancy comment demotion tier system run on 1.5% of Facebook and Instagram accounts.
	Now, you might think, well, that's not a very large number of accounts, but the question is, where are these located?
	Because, you know, 2.5 billion people use Facebook.
	300 million, you know, at most, are going to be in America.
	And so that might not be a, oh no, sorry, 3.8 billion Instagram and Facebook accounts, sorry, not 2.5, it's grown.
	So they could literally just be saying, well look, for the Western world, we are just going to remove these things, and we don't care what people in Indonesia think about the vaccine, so we're not bothered.
	1.5% of the global users, so that was roughly about 15% of American population.
	I don't know.
	I'd actually have to get a calculator.
	But they could essentially censor the entire freedom movement in the United States.
	Oh, totally.
	Totally.
	But it's going to be a huge number, and it's going to be locally targeted in the West.
	It's not going to be elsewhere.
	And so, yeah, Facebook uses classifiers in their algorithms to determine certain content to be what they call vaccine-hesitant, and what they call vaccine-hesitancy, without the user's knowledge.
	They assign a score to these comments, and YouTube did the same thing.
	They had...
	A particular credibility number or something that was embedded in the code that people found, and then they just removed it from that code, so it's now hidden.
	So you didn't even know your credibility rating with YouTube.
	But these things exist, and they do do this.
	Which is why when you look up certain names, for example, you are my favorite example of this.
	You look up Carl Benjamin in YouTube, what do you get?
	Do you get any of your content?
	No.
	Well, you do now, actually.
	No, if you type in your name, you get all the lists of the hit pieces from different organizations.
	And the same is true for every other major figure, let's say.
	If they have content on YouTube and they've been on YouTube for ages, it doesn't matter.
	If they've done interviews with mainstream media, corporate media, that's what you get.
	You get the corporate media side of it.
	Yeah, there's an obvious.
	And it's not just that.
	In the video recommendations, if you look at the first page worth of video recommendations, it's all corporate media, officially approved stuff.
	And you have to go quite down into the list to get to anything that is alternative.
	So I just googled it, just to make sure.
	And yeah, top results, all corporate media.
	There are three links that are yours, and the rest of it is all corporate media.
	There we go.
	But anyway, on Facebook, it's called a VH score, a vaccine hesitancy score, and it's based on that score that will demote or leave the comment alone.
	It doesn't match the narrative, said one anonymous insider.
	The narrative being, get the vaccine, the vaccine is good for you, everyone should get it, and if you don't, you'll be singled out as an enemy of society.
	Tier 2 was described as indirect discouragement, which includes people who promote vaccine alternatives, such as herd immunity, or share potentially or actually true facts or events, such as critical studies or descriptions of their own painful side effects.
	There have been a bunch of people who have posted on social media about how loved ones of theirs have died directly after taking the vaccine.
	Two BBC presenters have died since taking this vaccine.
	Again, you can see why we couldn't put this on YouTube.
	And Facebook are just like, well, we're going to demote that.
	If you personally have had a terrible example of something happening from the vaccine, we don't care.
	Potentially or actually true events or facts will be suppressed.
	So, true thing, reality, both of those, Facebook will demote it.
	They'll do it in this case, they will do it for anything else.
	Yeah.
	It's mad, isn't it?
	This is the amount of power that Facebook have, and they've decided we have an ethical agenda here, and it involves selling you a vaccine.
	And like I said, I haven't got any evidence, but I'm just sure that absolutely no money changed hands.
	Basically, your comment is going to be suppressed.
	As to the scale of that suppression, it's hard to say.
	We'd have to look at it on a case-by-case basis, and they call it a position change.
	Another Facebook anonymous insider, identified as a data center engineer, compared the company's quelching of COVID vaccine commentary as having a relationship with someone that's controlling and abusive.
	It's the platform that they want to build.
	It's the community that they want to build.
	They want to build a community where everyone complies, not where people can have open discourse and dialogue about the most personal and private and intimate decisions that anyone could ever face in their life, which is regarding their own body and their own health.
	Facebook spokesperson did not deny the allegations and just responding saying the policy had been posted.
	We proactively announced this policy on our company blog and we updated our help center with this information.
	Right.
	Okay, well thanks for admitting it, Vegas Facebook.
	So that's something Facebook does.
	And of course, the whistleblower, who turned out to be a 1 Morgan Carman, was terminated, as you can imagine.
	He just got a note when he got back in.
	I was at work, I got a message from my supervisor, out of the blue, basically saying, go ahead and wrap up your area and clean up your stuff, gather your personal belongings, meet me in the room of the lobby, then you're going to be investigated.
	And yeah, so...
	Let's get rid of these people, obviously.
	Zuckerberg, as I said, there was a leaked video conference call of Zuckerberg and some other Heidi Schwartz discussing Carmen, Morgan Carmen, and what to be done.
	And Zuckerberg was like, well, you know, we try to have an open culture here, and then all these leakers are ruining this open culture.
	That's weird.
	Have you seen the full clip of them having this discussion?
	And she's like, yeah, you're doing damage by leaking the damage that we're doing.
	Who are we doing damage to?
	Yeah.
	The people who are telling their real experiences of having this vaccine, maybe?
	I mean, I don't know.
	But yeah, so they're just, apparently, they're rather good, Zuckerberg says, at finding those people and getting rid of them.
	So yeah, there we go.
	Good news, though, is that the Kalman, Morgan Kalman, launched a fundraiser and raised half a million dollars in contributions.
	So of course, he's just destroyed his career as a data center engineer or whatever he was.
	And so at least he's done good out of that.
	He, yeah, you know, so...
	He used a crowdsourcing site called GiveSendGo, because I imagine things like GoFundMe would have just deplatformed him like they have done a bunch of other things.
	For offending their allies.
	Yeah, exactly, because they've all got this giant narrative to protect, and they're all in on it.
	But yeah, so he's raised plenty of money, so he's going to be fine.
	I imagine that the other lady, April...
	I can't remember her name now...
	Sorry, Ivory Hecker.
	She seems like she'll probably become a commentator, so she'll probably do fine.
	So at least Project Veritas, the good thing about Project Veritas existing is when these people who otherwise might not have had an ability to come out because they're like, well, okay, I'd like to say something, but I'm going to destroy myself, I'm going to be homeless, blah, blah, blah.
	At least there's a kind of cushion for them to land on so they can actually do things, which is nice.
	Good job, Project Veritas.
	Salute Project Veritas.
	Every time we do a story on it, it's always amazing.
	And doing the Lord's work.
	So the next thing, GB News.
	GB News was under attack, and it's failed.
	Utterly failed.
	So it's at the left.
	So just to recap on this, so this is your video on Unbiased Media about this, in which we can see a quote from Octopus Energy founder Greg Jackson, which was the funniest thing to come out of the attack, which is him issuing a hostage statement, saying that I give 15,000 times more money to progressive stuff than I did for this £1,000 ad on GB News.
	Therefore, don't kill me, I guess.
	It only costs £1,000 to advertise on GB News.
	Well, everyone has their price.
	So then there's the next thing here, which is Nigel Farage pointing out that this failed, but it's no surprise that the organization trying to cancel GB News also happens to be hardline remainers.
	They failed to stop Brexit, and they will fail again now that their efforts to suppress free speech.
	And to suppress free speech is exactly what these people are about.
	They may say, oh no, we're only about advertising and whatnot.
	You go and read their supporters and they will explicitly tell you, yeah, we hate free speech because it's a rightist concept.
	So, if we go to the Guardian article on this, this is the main thing of this.
	So, Nezrin Malik is an extreme leftist who I love.
	She's a representative of the left.
	She's the standard bearer for the leftist cause and all of this.
	Standing around with her article here saying, GB News is no joke, despite the risible start.
	So, she's going to make the argument that Well, good job, chaps, on the assault.
	Storming Normandy didn't go so well, so we now have to reassess about how we're going to destroy GB News, because it didn't work.
	Just before we go on, I just want to point out that get Farage on as a permanent commentator, host.
	Give him his own show.
	It was like Sunday Night with Nigel Farage or something like this, right?
	Because Farage's LBC show is remarkably popular, as you can imagine.
	Farage himself has always been a very popular commentator in politics and what's going on.
	He's got a great style of delivery.
	And where's Piers Morgan?
	Come on, I want you guys to win, damn it!
	You know, win!
	So, she says in here, right-wing grievance politics has a new home, as much as it might like to, the left can't pretend the channel doesn't exist.
	Well, left-wing grievance politics has got home everywhere else, you know?
	But I don't know if it's just, yeah, grievance politics.
	I mean, who else are grievances?
	Yeah, who engages in grievance politics?
	Can't imagine.
	But also, like, who's causing rightist grievances?
	Well, right-wing grievances are almost entirely...
	I mean, as you say, there's no real oomph of, like, what does the conservative world look like from modern conservatives.
	It's more just the left is attacking us.
	So all right-wing grievance culture is just them saying the left is awful.
	And, well, if there's so much of that that it can even have its own home and be the most popular thing on TV... I mean, good God.
	I mean, if that's not a condemnation of you folks, I don't know what it is.
	I mean, they control every other news station with their narratives.
	Left-wing narrative.
	And so, good.
	I'm glad.
	Yeah, so we'll go through this.
	So she says, The most striking thing about GB News, the television news channel that launched this month, is not how original it is, but how familiar it feels.
	For a project that is supposed to be taking a fresh approach to news, according to its founder, Andrew Neil, the only novelty lies in the fact that it's on television.
	Isn't that something?
	The novelty is that it's on television.
	Because nothing else like that exists on television.
	This is entirely new.
	That's why it's fresh.
	Because the entire sphere of television in the UK is entirely leftist.
	And therefore there's this new thing.
	And even she notes that's the interesting thing about it.
	Because, I mean, sure, you've got talk radio on radio, for example.
	There are right-wing newspapers.
	They exist.
	They're...
	Pathetic at times, I'll be honest.
	Especially the newspapers.
	Talk radio seems alright, mostly.
	And Andrew Neil launching this on TV, well that's, yeah, it is the only thing there.
	She admits it.
	What I love about this is, you know, it's not original and it feels familiar.
	It's like, yeah, but that's actually a good thing.
	You've got to understand, you want people to feel comfortable with the thing that you're doing.
	This is what the world used to be like.
	Exactly.
	Sensible.
	So, after watching it this past week, my impression is that the channel is essentially a combination of the sensationalism of print tabloid press with the ill-temperedness of phone and radio.
	Sounds great.
	The project is building on the political energy that is already out there.
	Rather than generating it, GB News has gathered up the material of grievance that has been floating around for years.
	That material, from Brexit-based resentment against the EU to anti-wokeness and all the positions associated with it.
	Hostility to immigration, racial equality movements, cancel culture, she puts in quotes, and lockdown is an inexhaustible source of cheap content.
	Yeah, there's a lot of problems with the world, and most of them, as you are listening there, are caused by leftists like yourself.
	This really seems like a giant mea culpa.
	It's like, yes, we have done all of this, and we've allowed GB News to spring into existence because of our bad behaviour.
	But also, the grievance is already out there, caused by us, because we're that bad, and we've caused so much damage, and therefore GB News is the most popular thing on television.
	There must have been something to it.
	I mean, I don't know how someone writes something like this and doesn't realise there's something wrong with them, but okay.
	Neil's show has a slot called Woke Watch.
	Good.
	In this first episode, he said the police had become more like social workers in uniform, guardians of political correctness, arbiters of our thoughts, who seem to spend more time policing what we post on Twitter than patrolling the streets.
	So he sounds like Sagan of a Cat.
	Yeah.
	Another GB News presenter, Andrew Doyle, then turns up and agrees with Neil.
	That's good.
	This is true.
	What's false about that statement, Guardian?
	She doesn't actually issue any counter to that point.
	No.
	It seems that not a lot of care has gone into how that content is pulled together.
	But slickness isn't the point either.
	The purpose is to give these broadly right-wing sentiments a full-time home of their own.
	Right-wing sentiments!
	Yeah, but...
	Why not?
	Left-wing sentiments have got a full-time home everywhere else.
	GB News' motto might as well be, you're in our house now.
	Based.
	Yeah, that's awesome.
	They do it.
	I love it.
	Whenever leftists try to spit on right-wing organisations, it always makes the right-wing organisations sound based, which is weird.
	Way more based than they actually are as well.
	You're in our home now.
	Like, television?
	We own it.
	Done.
	Like, you guys are out of the door.
	And they have been for years.
	I mean, they're all dying.
	In his launch speech, Neil declared that GB News would not slavishly follow the existing news agenda, that it was not a conventional news bulletin provider, but a channel built round passionate presenters with character, flair, attitude, and opinion.
	Yeah, something of interest.
	which was to puncture the pomposity of elites and expose their growing promotion of cancel culture for the threat to free speech and democracy that it really is good yeah again i'm sounding at base uh there is a real appetite for such an offering yeah but how does that how does that not make you think for a second Like, why is there such an appetite for such a thing?
	I mean, if it's all nonsense, if cancel culture isn't real, if the destruction of free speech by leftists is not real and it's all right-wing myth, why is there so much appetite for such a thing among the public?
	Riddle me this.
	Because the public are far right, that's why.
	The ratings so far are good.
	This shouldn't be surprising.
	GB News is a natural extension of the increasingly popular of a sort of government grievance politics, more concerned about what pictures students have on their walls and then how the economy works or the outcomes of public policy.
	Please, you're sitting there talking about gender bathrooms every goddamn day.
	Just shut up.
	But also, the complaint is like, yeah, the Conservatives used to be these pathetic creatures who didn't know what culture wars were, knew nothing of importance.
	They just endlessly muddled about what tax rate.
	Oh, I want to raise it by a percent.
	I want to lower it by a percent.
	Such reverting conversation.
	And they would just let the left run rampant throughout society.
	And now they're waking up and she's like, oh, God, this is awful.
	Because the Conservative narrative on this is way more popular than us.
	Go back to talking about the economy.
	LAUGHTER It is presented as an institution built in exile, forced out from the mainstream, but the reality is the politics is so popular and handsomely backed by funders that it has outgrown its space in the mainstream broadcast world.
	I mean, again, it's just a massive endorsement.
	Massively popular, people are throwing money at it like there's no tomorrow.
	They just keep winning and we hate it!
	They're only a week old.
	This is why I really like Nazarene, because the way she writes is just really comical.
	She thinks she's putting them down.
	Everything she does is just making the rights sound amazing.
	Is she a double agent or something?
	So, when those political views are rehoused away from the production standards of, say, the BBC, the end result looks impossible to take seriously.
	And then she talks about the technical issues they have had, which, yeah, fair enough.
	But it would be a mistake to write it off as a rickety project that will be sunk by its poor quality.
	It may be plagued by comical technical issues, but it is entirely serious.
	Yeah, the thing they're going to have to remember is that the technical issues won't last forever.
	No.
	And then what?
	Steadily, a political worldview reveals itself.
	Ooh!
	Dan Wootham, who has a 9pm show, wrote...
	Sorry, I just...
	A political...
	Oh no!
	Someone from The Guardian saying that a political worldview is coming into being!
	I can't believe it!
	I'll just...
	No way!
	No way!
	Other people have political worldviews that you don't like!
	Oh, scary!
	You'll understand afterwards, when I show the clips, which is that her major problem is opposition exists.
	Yes.
	The smallest part of opposition exists and has to die.
	So Dan Witten said, True.
	Yeah.
	That's not a criticism of Dan Witten.
	It's not even a controversial statement.
	He and his colleagues are part of a broadcasting revolution in the UK where presenters like me are honest about what we believe.
	Good.
	One of his first acts in that revolution was to quote an article from The Sun which asked whether there is a link between lockdown and the government's drastic zero emissions green agenda.
	Good question.
	Boris Johnson seemed to have been brown-nosing at the G7 with the Build Back Greener and Build Back Better, more feminine and gender-neutral nonsense that he knows he shouldn't be coming out with.
	But she uses it again as like, oh look, he's quite in the sun, therefore this isn't a revolution.
	But he's asking a question there, which is not being asked.
	Like, you saw the interview with Rishi Sunak, where Neil's like, oh how much is it going to cost?
	Never gets asked anywhere else.
	Trillion pounds is what it costs.
	But neither should we take the bait entirely, and become engulfed in a reactionary outrage that feeds the sort of polarisation upon which such ventures thrive.
	Yeah, but you know you can't resist.
	I mean, that's what this column is.
	That's what this column is.
	You can't resist it.
	You can't stop yourself.
	GB News is planted in a soil that has already been tilled by a right-wing press.
	In government, in power...
	Every time they say right-wing, I'm going to make the ghost noise.
	I don't care, right?
	Because that's the way they say it.
	Like, literally, it's like the left-wing, like, the right-wing, the right-wing, whoo!
	You just sat in the ether.
	In power is a government that is only too happy to comment on and nourish culture war confections, giving such stories a stamp of legitimacy.
	Oh, the bloody irony!
	Late party's never done that.
	They're fighting back, that's the complaint.
	As the days and months pass, the GB News audience will slowly be radicalised.
	Helping to push Boris Johnson post-Brexit England even further to the right.
	Trans women are women.
	Trans women are women.
	Oh, you're getting radicalised!
	It is incumbent upon us to pay attention.
	Call it GB News Watch.
	So, she's accepting.
	We attacked.
	We failed.
	What did we do as the left?
	Well, I mean, it's disgusting that there's opposition.
	It's disgusting that the Conservatives think that we're wrong on things and are able to say it.
	They're awful.
	And I can't believe we've got ourselves into this position.
	So, what are we going to do?
	And they're sort of panicking.
	They're just going to watch it, I guess.
	So, one solution.
	Just watch TV News.
	Good, maybe you get radicalized.
	But this person, Nezrin, you remember, we covered this before and I have to play it again because it's just so good.
	I'm never going to let this die.
	So this is Owen Jones asking her on his podcast what the left should do to try and take away the mantle of the right being the home of free speech.
	Play this clip.
	But how do we make the arguments that this isn't actually about all sorts of free speech, and actually it's the right with, for example, the government's new legislation on a free speech czar, which is a very Orwellian concept, forcing people to platform individuals against their will, which is an attack on free association, independent organisations.
	How do we make the arguments?
	I assume my headphones are broken.
	Yeah, I can hear it fine.
	But how do we make the argument that the right is anti-free speech?
	And what's Nezrin's response?
	We don't.
	F free speech.
	Death to free speech.
	Play this club.
	So this is an unpopular answer, but we basically don't make the argument.
	We shouldn't let them guilt us via the kind of moral shaming of free speech.
	into chilling us into ceding our right to object.
	And I think that a very big danger in these kind of civility discourse and the free speech discourse is that we end up ceding space because we don't want to look unreasonable.
	We don't want to look like we're impolite, like we're uncivil, like we're anti-free speech.
	But we are in a basically huge conflict, a defining conflict between Right and left wing values at the moment, and the right is dominant.
	And what we need to do is basically enact and practice what we believe is free speech.
	And that includes, you know, being quite strident about no platforming, being quite confident about- You can see your own face.
	You just don't want to entertain and not then be distracted by all these kind of red herring conversations about what free speech is and what free speech isn't.
	I think most people know what free speech is.
	And I think the purpose of the free speech argument is that we get bogged down in who's a good free speech person, who is a bad free speech person.
	And while we do that, all the objectionable speech that we should be spending time, you know, objecting to, boycotting, no platforming, objecting to, basically goes unchallenged.
	So I think the whole free speech argument, we've done it, we've been doing this for two, three years now.
	I think the arguments are clear.
	I think we should move on to doing the things that the right accuses us of doing all the time, which is shutting down free speech.
	If we think it deserves to be shut down and we're not throwing anybody in jail or saying they're right, then go for it.
	I think less arguments, more practice is the way forward.
	More practice.
	Love this.
	Owen completely endorses.
	That's amazing.
	That's the centrist position in Labour.
	Opposition exists.
	Shut it down.
	And we just destroy it.
	But literally, we are opposed to free speech, and we want to reserve to ourselves the right to shut them down.
	It's like, sorry, you don't have that right.
	You don't have the right to just take away people's human rights.
	I don't know why that's such a controversial position.
	I guess we'll have to ask the right.
	Okay.
	Well, I just love it.
	We need to practice free speech such as censorship.
	That's what free speech is to the left.
	Leftist free speech is enacting censorship.
	That's their freedom.
	Their freedom to censor.
	Whereas for right-wingers, it's the freedom to say things...
	I mean, what an amazing standard.
	One of those things is free speech and the other isn't.
	Yeah.
	So, I mean, there's no shortage of her on this as well, because she's an Islamo-leftist.
	And she's also made excuses in the past for Islamists who murder people for engaging in criticism of Islam.
	And this is just to make the point that...
	People who also are not in favour of free speech.
	She would have no problem if the leftists were just Allahu Akbar-ing every rightist in existence.
	So if we play the next clip, I don't know if there's a little pause.
	So the freedom of speech under attack is a myth that I think began...
	Kind of post-Dorkin's delusion where people began to criticize Islam.
	I think patient zero with the freedom of speech is in crisis myth.
	When people began to criticize Islam and Muslims and when there was pushback against that, the critics of Muslims or the Islamophobes would say, but it's our freedom of speech.
	You know, we can say whatever we want.
	Do you want to introduce blasphemy laws from, you know, from...
	Well, I was going to say, doesn't it go back to Rushdie?
	Yes, I guess.
	But with Rushdie, it's different because with Rushdie, the critics were on the Muslim side.
	So they were on the kind of, the critics of Rushdie were on the Oriental side.
	But with Dawkins, the critics of Islam were very much in the West.
	And so the freedom of speech excuse as a canard was rolled out far more frequently after, I would say, Islamophobia 2.0, which is the past 10 years or so.
	So if you disagree with me, that's an excuse.
	You're using a free speech excuse to have dissent.
	You can't do that.
	I like the critics of Salman Rushdie, the people who tried to bomb him.
	Like, they tried to kill him.
	They put a fat one on his head and a bunch of money if you did it.
	Yeah.
	So then when it happens to Richard Dawkins and whatnot, that's different, because, I mean, they're white, so therefore they shouldn't be able to criticise Islam.
	Mad.
	Yeah.
	I mean, this is her opinion.
	And this is why I like that GB News has sections like this, of Andrew Doyle being my personal favourite on here so far, in which he says on here, like, why is it that the UK police are still investigating citizens for non-crime, a real thing in the UK? And it's because people like Nazreen have corrupted the police.
	All of the non-crime hate incidences nonsense comes from people like her wanting to keep a check on dissent because dissent is evil and therefore should be criminal if they can help it.
	Why do we have hate speech laws?
	Because of the socialists like Noreen.
	So if we go to the next one here, this is also just a segment he has, which is the new show, what is it, the Free Speech Zone or whatever it is, the new name he has.
	Free Speech Nation.
	Free Speech Nation.
	Why do they have to have that?
	Why does that exist?
	Why does the Free Speech Union exist in the UK? Andrew Dawes is the president of the Free Speech Union.
	I don't think he's a president.
	He's a founding director or something like that.
	The organization has a strange structure.
	But yeah, could you get a better example of the two camps?
	I mean, team rightists and team leftists in the UK. Not to say that the rightists can never be censorious, obviously, but the current situation in the UK is the leftists saying, dissent evil, shut it down.
	It's our free speech to be able to censor things.
	Mm-hmm.
	And the writers being like, hey, come on our show and just talk about whatever you want.
	I mean, Peter Tatchell on here coming up and talking to you.
	Notorious right-winger, Peter Tatchell.
	Anyway.
	But yeah, the assault failed.
	Good.
	Good job.
	So let's, we've got 15 minutes, so let's try and get through as much of this YouTube drama as we can.
	Now I... Can I do the intro?
	Yes, you can do the intro.
	Right, so there was a debate set up between Ethan Klein and Steven Crowder.
	Now, both of these are very, very large YouTubers in slightly different fields, but not as different as you might think.
	So, of course, Steven Crowder is a political conservative commentator.
	Ethan Klein is a leftist.
	He's meant to be a leftist comedian, but honestly, I mean, who finds him funny these days?
	But the...
	I thought he was just a YouTuber.
	Well, he is.
	And he used to be slightly kind of normal and would occasionally poke at woke stuff.
	But then he kind of flipped and has become entirely woke.
	He sort of subsumed into the leftist Twittersphere and that dominates his thoughts.
	And it's turned him into the kind of person I'm surprised he's proud to be.
	That's weird, because I remember back in the day he used to be defending Count Dankula and whatnot.
	Yeah, exactly.
	So a lot of them on Twitter, like Anthony Fantano, a lot of them, essentially who were like, oh, this woke stuff's a bit racist, have just gone full woke.
	Oh, that's really funny.
	Oh yeah, it's totally disappointing.
	But it's because of the sort of grooming effect that Twitter is having on them, because of course all the right-wing voices have been deplatformed.
	But anyway, so the point is that this is important, right?
	Because millions of people are seeing this, and they're seeing Ethan Klein act in a very deceptive way.
	Now, I'm not saying that Crowder couldn't have handled himself better.
	He absolutely could.
	But the thing is, people have got to remember that these debates aren't actually a big deal.
	You've got millions of people watching, your reputations are on the line.
	And to have a productive debate that isn't just a slanging match of people shouting over each other, you need to go into them with good faith.
	How much good faith did Ethan show?
	Well, not much.
	So Ethan's position that they were going to debate was that we should essentially uncritically listen to scientists and turn off our brains and do none of our own research.
	Why?
	Why would you do that for anything?
	I suppose he would argue that they're the experts, therefore they know better than you, who's just Googled something, you know, they've got years in the field.
	Yeah, but there are doctors on both sides of the issue.
	Yeah, I'm trying to make the argument.
	Yeah, I know, exactly, right?
	And Crowder's view is, of course, the opposite, that you should read around the subject and form your own opinion.
	And so this was meant to be what they were debating, but this is what happened instead.
	This is Ethan Klein's footage of his debate with Stephen Crowder.
	All right, so what we were going to talk about is, you know, the initial quote that happened.
	I think he's looking off there.
	The initial quote that kind of was turned into a little bit of a meme, which wasn't intentional.
	And was you saying you don't even have to think about it regarding the CDC? And I disagree with that.
	I think people should think about it, I believe.
	And we talked about this through playful ribbing in an aggregation of medical authorities and scientific voices to make an informed and rational decision.
	So where do you think that I'm wrong on that?
	Stephen, do you know that the Spartans are...
	Did they practice man-love with children?
	Oh, jeez.
	Okay, so this is what's going to happen.
	What did I tell you?
	He was going to do anything he could to avoid...
	Oh!
	Oh, there he is!
	Oh, no!
	Sam Seder!
	What a fucking nightmare!
	I had no idea this was going to happen!
	I thought Ethan was a stand-up guy.
	This is where we are.
	Yeah, Dave, Dave, remember I told you?
	I told you.
	I said, I guarantee you he's going to do anything he can to avoid the debate.
	Oh, I just think he believes that he should debate you.
	No, no, he doesn't.
	He just takes advantage of women with, you know, mental health issues.
	Stephen, you know, I gotta say...
	If you would do anything to avoid talking to me, I think you're...
	The point that you made...
	Joe Rogan and Dave Rubin and Dave Rubin and Jordan Peterson and Noam Shotsky and Sam Harris, everyone's been avoiding...
	Right.
	So you can see what's happened there.
	And the one thing I don't understand is why Crowder is so upset by this.
	But as you can see, Ethan Klein has set up this debate, and he's allowed some commentator called Sam Cedar in.
	Now, Sam Cedar is not very popular.
	He's got a million subscribers.
	We had less than 10,000 views a video.
	So it's essentially a dead channel until he does like big drama like this.
	And so he's gained a reputation for being perpetually bad faith.
	And so this is why Stephen Crowder was like, well, you know, Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris, none of them are going to talk to you because you seem like a snake.
	And so Ethan decided that this would be a good way to set up the debate between Crowder and Sam Seder.
	And this was their reaction when Crowder eventually is like, well, I'm not going to have the debate with you, and cuts off the call.
	This is their reaction from Ethan Street.
	Wow.
	Wow.
	Dude, I can't believe he had met in the following...
	He admitted that he followed the show last week!
	We got him!
	He admitted that he watched the show last week!
	We got him!
	Dude, we played him so hard because he literally was following.
	He saw that you went live, dude.
	We fucking got him.
	Oh my god!
	We fucking nailed him!
	Holy shit.
	That's so weak.
	And pathetic.
	And childish.
	That's a genuinely embarrassing reaction.
	I mean, like, Sam, you come across as being so unlikable and uninteresting that you have to do this as a gotcha?
	And then you're like, yeah, we got him, we got him.
	It's like, who's impressed by this?
	I wanted to hear the debate about, like, the COVID studies.
	That sounded interesting.
	Yeah, I mean, Ethan's first answer there didn't sound very compelling.
	I mean, it was kind of a point for Crowder's position anyway.
	It was like, did you know the Spartan authorities believe this nonsense?
	It's like, yeah, exactly.
	So we don't listen to the authorities.
	We look at what's true.
	Well, that's actually a great point.
	I didn't even think of that.
	Your opening argument kind of destroyed yourself, but okay.
	But the point is, he wouldn't address...
	Crowder asked a very reasonable question.
	It's like, okay, so there's a plurality of studies.
	I think we should read them all and come to our own conclusions.
	And Ethan, what's your point?
	And he's like, Spartans were gay.
	Well, no, they were pedos.
	Oh, yeah, gay pedos.
	Yeah, even worse.
	And it's like, okay, that's a good reason not to follow the authorities.
	You're right.
	But then...
	I mean, Crowder's going to just tell her, yeah, and if the CDC comes out and says that's good for your health, are you going to do it?
	Yeah, exactly.
	Right?
	Exactly.
	But, of course, they snuck Sam Cedar in there.
	But, again, the position that Sam Cedar's in is totally embarrassing, because he's the butt of the joke, and he doesn't seem to realize it.
	It's like, oh, look, no one wants to talk to Sam Cedar, but, ah, we snuck him on!
	Okay.
	And it's like, we got him, we got him, we got him to...
	Face me and so disconnect the call?
	It's like, that's not a win, Sam.
	That makes you look like a disgusting, untouchable property that no one wants to have anything to do with.
	Who is he?
	I don't know anymore.
	He's just some progressive commentator that no one watches.
	Oh, is it just because he's in bad faith?
	Totally.
	Totally.
	Bad faith on everything all the time, which is why no one wants to have anything to do with him.
	But yeah, so this was meant to be some sort of huge win for the left.
	I'm like, okay, this is your huge wins.
	That's sad.
	You know, because you just come across as deeply embarrassing.
	But then Ethan gives the perfect example of why he's a brain load.
	Let's play the next clip.
	You know, look, I do a political show every day.
	It's dry, it's boring, and you don't!
	Yeah, exactly.
	And so if he wants to debate the issues, what's the difference between me and anybody in the world?
	What?
	That's such a dumb point, right?
	The debate was about your position.
	His argument is that I'm a comedian, and I don't know anything about politics, and therefore I'll get someone who knows about politics, and then he's like, yeah, so what's the difference between debating me and anyone else in the world?
	Ethan, you're an idiot.
	Like, you're an absolute idiot.
	You're supposed to be arguing that you don't know about this.
	And saying there's no difference between you and anyone else means that you do.
	But anyway, so Crowder went and released the full thing, which I watched, and I found this very funny because literally just before they end up getting their call hooked up, Crowder sat there doing a mic check, and he's like, yeah, so he's going to try and bring on Sam Cedar, I bet.
	Let's watch him.
	All right, let me check this.
	Check one, two, three.
	Good?
	All right.
	Okay, you guys are gonna call him and sound check him?
	Yeah.
	I bet this guy's gonna do anything he can to avoid actually debating.
	Yeah.
	I think he wants to do anything that he possibly can to avoid.
	Yeah, I mean, I don't know.
	When you want me to admit him into the room, I'll just do that.
	Sure, well, yeah.
	You guys do the sound check.
	I don't want to sit there and talk with our producer, Dean, and stuff, but I don't think this guy wants to do this.
	I wouldn't be surprised if he...
	He's probably going to bring someone else on.
	Who's his producer?
	Like a fan of that Cedar character.
	Yeah, that'd be my bet, but hey, hopefully he mans up.
	Okay, you can do your sound check.
	Alrighty, here we go.
	So he literally predicts that he's going to try and sneak on Sam Cedar.
	And then, of course...
	That's what happens.
	So Crowder releases the DMs that he had with Ethan.
	And the thing is, this is why Ethan, he doesn't seem to understand just how bad he looks.
	Because, of course, this wouldn't be something I think that Crowder would normally do.
	But basically, it begins with Ethan Klein messaging Stephen, going, hey, I'm down for a debate.
	Could be fun.
	Maybe since about COVID, since the Fauci mask thing started this all.
	I'm open, though.
	Let me know how you want to do it.
	And Crowder replies, okay, that sounds great.
	No tricks, no zags, just you and me.
	And Ethan agrees, and they set it up.
	Okay, sounds great at the end.
	Crowder even says that I'll make sure that none of my buddies are in the studio to be any kind of distraction.
	Yeah.
	So Crowder is clearly just saying, well, look, I want to have an actual debate from the left-wing position to the right-wing position on the COVID pandemic.
	You know, nothing untoward.
	And before he brings on Sam Seder, he obviously lays out a very sensible and fair assessment of the situation.
	Ethan, what's your opinion?
	And Ethan just, well, is the...
	The pigeon crapping all over the chessboard.
	That's exactly what he does.
	And so you gave me this little Twitter explainer from the left.
	Because this has been wild on Twitter.
	And I'm just like, look, you guys don't seem to understand.
	You're embarrassing yourselves.
	So someone had posted on Reddit and this had gone...
	Fairly well around Twitter.
	But basically, apparently, Sam Cedar had recorded his show in advance to try and make Crowder to fool him into thinking that he would be live at the same time, so he was forced to debate him or something like this.
	Which, again, I mean, my body, my choice.
	What happened to that leftist?
	My show, my choice.
	But anyway, so this is how he snuck his way on, and they're like, oh, we got him, we got him.
	But the problem that this is, is it another highlight of the perennial bad faith of the left?
	It's just Ethan doing exactly what the Conservatives point out, rightly so, that the left is doing wrong.
	It's not good to do this.
	It's not good to do this in public, and it makes you look really bad.
	Which is why all the Conservatives are giving a moral judgement about Ethan here.
	And Ethan, obviously, is an idiot, so he can't understand that.
	But he spent the first half of the show as well front-loading this by just calling characters, you know, racist, sexist, dumb folk, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, smearing his character.
	And the thing is, I'm not even saying that Crowder is like a man of high character or something, but he at least appears to have approached this in good faith.
	And they're openly bad faith.
	They're being absolute scum, and they're just like, okay, well, this is our victory because we were scummy, Stephen Crowder.
	How's that a win?
	How is that a win?
	And so the question is, okay, well, why not debate Sam Seder?
	It's like, well, good question.
	Sam's not exactly a great debater.
	He's also renowned for his bad faith, which is why so few people are willing to engage him.
	If I'd book a debate with someone and someone else turns up in their place, I would be annoyed enough to leave.
	Regardless of who the person was, to be honest.
	I mean, but the thing is, even then, there are ways of doing it.
	You can say, look, sorry, so-and-so couldn't make it.
	I think Crowder's way of leaving was weird as well.
	The fact that he's...
	Because he's incredibly calm for that opening start, right?
	And then he gets a bit...
	We'll talk about Crowder in a minute.
	I'll go through the condemnation of Ethan first, because this is just embarrassing.
	It's genuinely pathetic.
	I haven't been involved in any Twitter dramas for a long time, obviously, or any YouTube dramas.
	Watching this after going away and doing real work is just an embarrassing thing, right?
	So this bad faith attitude that comes out of the left is obviously why so few people are willing to engage certain leftists.
	Sam Seder is just not relevant.
	Nobody watches his show, and everyone has been making this point, and that is true.
	And, oh, well, are you saying that you should engage with someone if they've got a big shirt?
	No, but if it's someone who's got an obvious bad faith approach, and they're just doing it to try and get you, and it's very obvious that that's all they're going to do, they're not here to debate the issues, they're just going to be slimy about it, and they're just going to try and trick you, why would you waste your time?
	Why would you give them a platform?
	And moreover, Crowder shouldn't be rewarding this kind of behaviour with his attention.
	Like, if this person's going to act like a spoiled child, you don't reward that.
	I wouldn't reward my children with that.
	I would punish my children if they were acting this way.
	So yeah, I mean, if there's a content creator, or debater, let's say, who's openly being...
	God, what's the right word?
	Disingenuous.
	Deceitful?
	Deceitful, yes.
	Then why would you engage with them?
	Well, that's exactly right.
	And so the question is one of personal conduct, which is what Cedar keeps violating and offending against, and this is why no one wants to have anything to do with Sam Cedar.
	And he's also insanely boring, and his argumentation style is just dishonest.
	I mean, even if it wasn't him, if it was just some faceless, nameless person, let's say, who's got no baggage whatsoever, it's like, well, I'm very sorry, but I booked this interview with Ethan.
	Yeah.
	Yes, and we'll get to that in a second.
	But the thing is, if, for some reason, no one will go and talk to Crowder, apart from Sam Seder, because everyone is well aware of Sam Seder's fundamental dishonesty, and it's like, okay, well, if no one wants to talk to Sam Seder because of the kind of person that he has demonstrated himself repeatedly to be, why can't the left find a good-faith interlocutor to present to Crowder?
	I mean, he thought he was getting one in Ethan Klein, which...
	A bit of short-sighted in retrospect, wasn't it?
	But, like, why can't the left line someone who is good faith to go and debate and destroy Stephen Crowder?
	And it's because their narratives on everything are terrible.
	Obviously.
	Terrible.
	Like, uncritically believed scientists is a bizarro position to adopt.
	I mean, you'd never say that at any other time in any other place.
	And no scientist would ever say uncritically believed scientists.
	Or at least any real scientist.
	So it's unbelievable.
	An indefensible position.
	And it also contradicts everything the left is saying.
	Don't the left believe in unconscious bias anymore?
	Are scientists unbiased all of a sudden?
	That's been the main leftist attack against objective science for the last ten years.
	Is science no longer a white supremacist endeavour?
	Have we worked out how the shaman calls the lightning?
	I'm sorry, there's so much here that Crowder could have whacked them on.
	And then you get on to Ethan's behaviour on Twitter afterwards.
	And this is just the pigeon.
	Ethan's pigeon brain.
	Coming out and dunking all over his own chessboard, right?
	I mean, look at this.
	Dear Crowder, you claim to be against communism, yet you get publicly owned.
	You didn't publicly own anything, Ethan.
	You are self-owning yourself by posting this nonsense.
	The next one.
	Ethan is a Trojan horse.
	Like, literally, like...
	This is not the win that you think it is.
	I can already predict some of the comments as well.
	So, I mean, him being sneaky.
	The fact that he's getting Sam Cedar here.
	Not the win that you think it is, Ethan.
	No matter what the Twitter echo chamber tell you.
	Not what I do to myself.
	Yeah, that's not something to be proud of.
	Say, Ethan Klein, Trojan horse!
	Liar is not the one you're looking for, right?
	And the next one, I love this one.
	So this episode of Founder Guide, they've animated it so it's like Crowder and Clyde.
	But in this episode of Founder Guide, the dad is bullying the son, and the son finds a bigger bully and punches the dad.
	But that's not what's happening.
	That's not what's happening.
	Ethan went to Steve and said, hey, do you want a debate?
	Like, Crowder wasn't bullying Ethan Clyde.
	It's not like Ethan Clyde doesn't have YouTube channels with millions of subscribers anyway.
	Sorry, American Dad, not Founder Guide, obviously.
	But it's like, okay, that's not what's happening, Ethan.
	And again, it isn't making you look good, it makes you look weak and pathetic that you need someone else's help to deal with Steven Crowder.
	A person that you consider to be an idiot.
	I mean, they spend all their time going, oh yeah, Steven Crowder's stupid, he didn't do anything.
	Go give him some then.
	No, I've got to get Sam Seder.
	Why?
	But this, though, is absolutely the best one, right?
	Jeremy from The Quartering says, now I've seen the level of slime Ethan applied to all of the left's massive cope last night.
	It all makes sense.
	They're so desperate to call this a win and it's just pathetic for everyone.
	Correct.
	This is not a win for anyone, right?
	And we'll get on to Crowder in a minute.
	But Ethan's response, I just peed in my basement, is that the new pigeon crapping on the chessboard, Ethan?
	Leftists peeing in their basement.
	That's what happens when you debate them or try to debate them.
	They just go and pee in their own basements for some reason, Ethan.
	Like, debasing yourself like this is not impressing anyone, surely?
	And then the next one is, ooh, but Crowder surprises people.
	Yeah, sometimes he'll approach people on the street and say, have you got anything to say about this?
	But that's not a pre-existing arrangement, is it?
	So this is the ones where they've threatened his life or something like that, and he's like, can you stand up for this?
	Yeah.
	Do you agree with your own statements or not?
	Yeah.
	But it's not, you know, I agree to have a debate with...
	Yeah, he didn't message the SJW professor here to meet up for coffee or something and have a debate in good faith and all the rest of it, and then turn up and say, do you stand by your death threats?
	Yeah.
	I mean, yeah, exactly.
	It's not the same thing.
	And so really what this comes down to is the fact that Ethan made an agreement with Crowder.
	This is what the Conservatives should be really highlighting.
	He made an agreement with him.
	He said, and appeared to be in good faith with Crowder, that, you know...
	Gentleman's agreement.
	Let's have a debate.
	No tricks.
	Exactly.
	Fundamentally, he broke a promise.
	That's what it comes down to.
	He betrayed this agreement.
	This is not what an honorable person does.
	It's openly deceitful, what Ethan Klein has done.
	And he's done it specifically to try and play the big man on Twitter, which is an ironic statement at the very best of times.
	There's no such thing as playing the big man on Twitter.
	But even then, it's a big self-own for anyone who is a human.
	So it's weird.
	It's, you know, reveling in his own debasement.
	I peed in my basement.
	Okay, Ethan, why would anyone give you the time of day?
	Especially if you're going to Crowder.
	Yeah.
	So, okay, so...
	Well, no, the last thing is weird and gross.
	And the thing is, it's the worst example of, like, a father that I can think of.
	And apparently, Ethan Klein is going to be a father.
	So, you know, great example for your kids.
	But Stephen Crowder, I think, could have approached this in totally a different way.
	If he had strong suspicions in advance that Ethan was going to try and sneak in Sam Cedar, why...
	Why did he seem so nervous?
	There is a nervous thing here.
	Now, I think it's down to him worried about the public spectacle of the thing that has happened and the worst happened here.
	I don't think it's actually that he's afraid of defending his own position here, because his own position is really solid.
	You would have to be a genuine party man to be like, oh, you can't question the science.
	It's just so anti-scientific.
	It's such a ridiculous position.
	I don't see how Crowder could have lost that.
	I don't know why Crowder was so upset about it, but I think it's because he felt like he was being attacked and undermined and various other things, so he got kind of nervous about it.
	But he really should have approached it with just a more...
	Centred view.
	He should've...
	After Ethan, you know, was like, oh, well, what about Spartans being gay boy lovers?
	Ethan, can you just answer the question?
	Just calmly.
	Well, I mean, if that's the answer to the question.
	I mean, as we said, that's a terrible argument.
	That's actually an argument for Stephen's position.
	But that's not the answer to the question.
	It's like, why should we just believe the scientists?
	Oh, do you know Spartans are boy lovers?
	I mean, when Sam came on, I would've thought the most advantageous thing to do would've just been calmly, like, hey, Sam, yeah, I booked this with Ethan, I don't...
	Exactly.
	But I think with Stephen is that there was emotional, and I think with a lot of conservatives, when you make these kind of gentlemen's agreements, there's an expectation and there's an emotional investment in them, even if it's small and even if it's with an enemy.
	There is something there.
	And for some reason, Crowder was very upset by all this, and I don't know why.
	He should have just calmly been like, right, okay...
	That's not the answer to the question, Ethan.
	Do you have an answer to the question?
	And if Ethan had shat the bed some more, he would have gone like, okay, that's not an answer to the question.
	Do you have one?
	And then when Sam Cedar would come and be like, okay, Sam, why are you here?
	Oh, I've come to debate you, but I didn't invite you, Sam.
	The Conservatives need to learn how to fall back on propriety.
	It is improper for Sam Cedar to be there.
	You shouldn't be there.
	Sam, I didn't invite you.
	Why are you here?
	In fact, explicitly in the organisation of that, he said, no tricks, just have a chat.
	Exactly.
	I said to Ethan, no tricks.
	You're here as part of a trick.
	Why are you here, Sam?
	And, like, Sam could have been like, I want to debate you on COVID, or I don't care.
	Why are you here?
	You know, I'm not, what are you here to do?
	Why did you come?
	You know, why did you think I was going to engage with you?
	I'm not talking to you in this way because this is openly disrespectful to me.
	It is improper.
	You owe me an apology now, Sam Seedy.
	You see how suddenly all of this crowd would then be grounded in conservative propriety and be able to tell Sam Seedy he's a bad person and be like, sorry, we're just going to get rid of you.
	If Ethan wants to talk, he can come back, but I'm not debating you.
	Or, the alternative, he could have debated Sam Sudham, like, look, these are just the positions, and if you disagree with them, I don't think you're correct, and I think you're lying, frankly, because that's the kind of person you are.
	And he could have easily routed them, I think, on their own terms.
	And it's unfortunate that he was a bit of a nervous wreck, really.
	And I say this as someone who likes Crowder.
	It's difficult to say what you would do in that situation.
	It is.
	Everyone's looking at hindsight and it's always great.
	Yes.
	Well, yeah, yeah.
	It's very easy to talk about these things, you know, armchair generally in hindsight.
	Yeah, but it was a poor position.
	It was a poor position.
	I would imagine Jordan Peterson with a man like that who's dealt with so much more stress than anything like this would have been able to easily do that.
	I mean, I've been in, you know, stressful debate positions like that, and so it's easy for me to be like, yeah, well, this is what you should have done.
	But I think this is genuinely something that the Conservatives need to be aware of, that you're not going to get good-faith interpretations of the leftists.
	And when they break that, if you're prepared in advance...
	Yeah, exactly.
	End it.
	Like, bring it to the halt and make sure that you're sat there judging them.
	But anyway, way over time now, so let's go.
	Go to video comments.
	Hello, Callum.
	If you want me to give you the short version of this take, it is essentially that lying to God is to deny reality in front of you, to intellectualize and break down the idea that the sun, the sky, the moon, that people around you do not exist.
	It is to redefine reality as you so speak.
	The man who declares himself to be good, therefore he can get away with doing no wrong.
	What the Marxists do, and how many murders that leads to.
	That's why it's more morally wrong, and I love this take.
	Great.
	Okay.
	Okay, I like the fact that you had to speed up the voice.
	Let's go for the next one.
	No, no, Helen, before we go on, I think he's got a fairly interesting point there, because I think this is, when religious folk are talking about God, they obviously have the kind of deep spiritual view, but they also have a practical view, and that was the practical view of what God is.
	God is basically a description of the setup of reality and how it impacts on a human.
	I just don't care that much about the argument.
	It's been going on for weeks now.
	It's like the water is wet thing.
	It's gone and I'm just like...
	What's what makes things wet?
	Oh, dear Lotus Eaters viewers, it has been brought to my attention that my distinguished accent has earned the ire of some of the unwashed masses.
	And so it is with great reverence I wish to inform you I shall do nothing to address your concerns.
	Be gone, peasants.
	Anyway, I picked up a book yesterday, China Coup by Roger Garside, a former diplomat of the British embassies in Beijing.
	He's actually been following the Chinese development since 1958, and he writes a fictitious account of how a coup could happen, but also why it inevitably will.
	Dangerous economic problems and demoralization amongst the Chinese culture and so on.
	And here's a bit I thought was rather interesting.
	Like the police officers and censors, most of these officials have been doing these jobs for pragmatic reasons.
	They are self-interested, not motivated by political loyalty.
	Indeed, their work exposes them more than most people to the dark side of the regime and the corrupt behavior of its high officials, making them cynical.
	Their first priority is self-preservation.
	Now that their own finances are being hard hit, organizational discipline is weakening and political trouble is looming.
	That's a good point.
	That's the thing that fundamentally has killed all the other communist groups.
	Sure, but they've been in power for quite some time now.
	Sure, but if we want to actually hit them, it's not going to go to war.
	It's not going to happen.
	A coup is obviously the sort of thing that we should be doing.
	It's important to remember that that's the route to victory there.
	But the point about your accent as well, none to apologise for.
	I mean, that's a gift to be born with if you grew up with it, and if you learned it, good God, that's some talent.
	So, I wish I had an accent like that.
	So, Woke of the Rings, huh?
	I mean, we haven't seen a We haven't seen a clip.
	We haven't seen a single uniform.
	We haven't seen anything.
	Not even a picture from the set.
	Not even a leaked part of the script.
	And already, they're just going on diversity, diversity, diversity, diversity.
	I mean, the latest thing I've heard, they've gone to actually pretty stringent lengths about the old virus and everything.
	Or is it the left hand?
	It doesn't count when they do it on the left hand.
	I just wonder, what are your thoughts about that?
	Because it does not seem good in my opinion.
	Also, creative nature.
	Are you in a boat?
	I'm personally looking forward to the diverse goblins and orcs.
	Goblins of peace and orcs of diversity and inclusion and tolerance.
	The thing with Americans, they just don't get it, do they?
	You see it with the...
	Extra Credit was the best example.
	Orcs, they're black people, right?
	And just all the English look at them like, are you brain dead?
	What?
	It's the British working class.
	It's the accent.
	The words being used there.
	That's the whole point of it.
	Because it's made from an English guy.
	Isn't he middle or upper class?
	Tolkien, yeah.
	Yeah, like he's writing there and then taking the different parts.
	I mean, the shires, the hobbits coming from the shires.
	I mean, he's specifically drawing on Anglo-Saxon mythology to create an English mythos.
	Wiltshire, you know, so on and so forth.
	That's the shires, that's the hobbits.
	So, you know, that's those people.
	And then there's the orcs and whatnot from the urban centers.
	The power centers.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Which is why you have Mordor as a center of production.
	Industry and, yeah, exactly.
	That's the whole point.
	Like, it's so easily mapped onto Britain and the Americans are like, yeah, it's mapped on America.
	Those are black people.
	Nobody said that.
	But yeah, no, it's going to be great.
	I can't wait for the new Lord of the Rings movies and series and all that.
	It's going to be absolute trash.
	Let's go to the next one.
	I want to ask about the Peterson perspective on God.
	I may get this wrong, but we'll try.
	The reasoning is the nature of the human conscience.
	People tend to be drawn to or recognize the value of virtue, or they invert that structure and deliberately flaunt their vice and sin in order to spite God or reality.
	God in this conception is not the caricature of some old man in the sky, but the perfect divine manifestation of truth and virtue.
	I have trouble following those questions.
	I don't know if you're using your phone or something, but please.
	I can hear it.
	Basically, they view God as the organization of the universe and what benefits a human being behaviorally in it.
	So if you tell the truth and act virtuously, you personally get good outcomes, and that is viewed as God rewarding you.
	Yeah.
	And it's not wrong.
	No, that works.
	But I mean, it's just one of those fundamental truths as well.
	Like the whole, I don't know who has karma in their religion, but the whole thing about, yeah, you do good and good things will happen to you.
	Yeah.
	It's just universally true because it's not...
	It's like the golden rule, you know.
	There's no, like, you know, omnipotent being.
	It's just, well, if everyone thinks you're a good guy, they're not going to dick you over.
	Yeah.
	And this is just the way the universe is structured.
	Work hard and you get the product of that.
	Mm-hmm.
	G'day, gents.
	Quick thing.
	I did actually say World War II, Carl.
	Also, I want to give a big shout-out to all the people who bought my book, in particular Ewan McNulty, Kevin Macquarie, Nick Fryer, Brittany Johns, and Carl Powers.
	If you're all out there and you're all watching, thank you so much for buying my books.
	I hope you like them.
	Also guys, any chance that you could announce the Zoom chats a couple of days in advance?
	I missed the last one and I was very disappointed.
	Looking forward to talking to you in person.
	Bye!
	So they're the last Friday of every month.
	That should be the way we're doing it, right?
	So that's the schedule.
	And we've been announcing this one all week.
	Zoom chat, Friday, 4 o'clock, British time.
	But yeah, you didn't answer my question about there being Aussie planes though.
	Hmm.
	It seems to think I might have won that point.
	I noticed that dodge, yeah.
	I mean, I may have got the war wrong, but...
	There were no Aussie planes, no British planes.
	Student of History says, Ave, Veritas Invicta.
	Veritas is doing everything right.
	That's right.
	What do the Lotuses believe about global warming, considering how Project Veritas exposed CNN once it propagandised the public about climate change?
	I don't know.
	Don't know.
	Got any thoughts on it?
	Wouldn't mind it warming up a little bit, to be honest.
	Especially in Britain.
	Although I think the prediction models are meant to say that we're going to turn into a frozen hellspake, which I don't understand why, but...
	David Taylor says, I haven't, but I did hear that it got pulled from YouTube and that he got two strikes or something.
	Yeah, which is just disgusting.
	Yeah, I mean...
	I don't have any opinion on any of that stuff.
	Like, if a bunch of doctors can't sit around and talk about doctor-y things without Silicon Valley having an editorial policy on it...
	Then what are you, then?
	A commissar?
	Yeah, exactly.
	Then why does...
	Why does...
	Was Wajinsky think that she know better?
	Yeah, this goes against Loysenkoism.
	I don't care.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Like, we're looking for the truth.
	I mean, you must think, like, the people who run...
	Party orthodoxy comrade!
	I can't stand it.
	But going back to the previous question, I don't feel like we answered it properly, but the only thing I have got an opinion on with the green stuff is especially the question Andrew Neil asked, which no one asks when regards to this, is when the British government will come out and say, net zero by X year, how much is that going to cost?
	I don't have an opinion on the damn thing.
	I don't know enough about it.
	But the cost part always gets thrown out the window, and with green stuff, it's always trillions.
	You know, it's unbelievable.
	And then you've got to ask, well, really?
	I mean, like, the UK produces 1% of global emissions.
	From us going to 1 to 0, what's that worth?
	Is that really worth a trillion pounds?
	Not to me, it's not.
	Alex says, Well, they get advertisers too.
	Yeah.
	Jordan Peterson did this point best, actually.
	I think it was with Michael Nallis he was making this point, which is that it's just for a corporate media, it's too expensive to have some individual presenter have their own opinions.
	They're just a mouthpiece of the corporation because bandwidth is too expensive.
	It's not just that.
	You want to be able to make them interchangeable as well.
	Exactly.
	But it's a structural thing there up until the age of the internet, in which case they're not needed anymore, which is why it's so embarrassing, which is why all of it looks so pathetic when compared to people who are just making their own channels.
	Yeah.
	North Antonio Knight says, Project Veritas keeps winning because they keep dropping truth bombs like Napalm on NAMM. P.S. What is the ship on the shelf behind Calum and can you deploy it to Dover?
	That model would probably be more effective at stopping legal immigrants than the border fast cutter.
	So, yeah, well, finally, someone asked about the ship.
	If you want to explain it, it's yours.
	No, you can explain it, you're not bad.
	HMS Victory, isn't it?
	Yeah.
	Yeah, so Carl went to the Isle of Wight, he went to the, what was it, the pub with no sheep rule?
	No, no COVID mask.
	No, actually, it was just a hotel and you couldn't dine in there if you weren't staying there, so we couldn't go there again.
	It's disappointing.
	I really wanted to go there.
	Because you told me this myth of this pub that had the no sheep rule, and if you wore a mask, they would kick you out.
	It's not a myth, I just wasn't allowed there, because I wasn't staying there.
	Anyway, so then, yeah, there's HMS Victory.
	It still exists, I believe.
	It's in a port, I can't remember the port's name, but just north of Vanilla White.
	You can go visit it.
	I really should.
	I was planning to do a thing with Gerard Batten on it, actually, because he knows all about the whole thing.
	But what is special about the HMS Victory game?
	So it's the one which Nelson died upon.
	And I can't remember if it's in the British War Museum or in Gibraltar, but his clothes still exist, and they're on display with the blood from the bullet wounds going up there.
	And if there's anyone who's a true hero in British history, it has to be either Nelson or Churchill, isn't it?
	Sure.
	I mean, they're the biggest figures.
	And the fact that we keep that in preservation, and it's still officially part of the British Navy.
	I mean, the fact that he's got a giant column in Falga Square named after him.
	The ship.
	The ship's the interesting thing for me, rather than the column.
	But the fact that that's still listed as part of the British Navy.
	Like, if you look up British Navy on Wikipedia or whatever, like, you'll get all the modern ships, though it's just like HMS Victory.
	The wooden ship.
	Still part of it.
	Excellent.
	So that's what it is, and that's why we've got it.
	Free Will says, Yeah, it is.
	Robert says, Yeah.
	Well, it's all about undermining power structures, isn't it?
	I mean, if two journalists in a week essentially defect to Project Veritas, other people who are going to be disgruntled are going to look at their success and be like, why not?
	Plus, you can see how scared the people in power are.
	Like when the leaks from Facebook.
	But also half the town just realise this guy's a rapist and they're not going to interact with him at least.
	Yeah, there are other social penalties.
	But the point is making them understand that they're the ones under siege.
	You know, they're the ones who actually, and we can't even be sure about our own organization.
	We're just trapped in here with you.
	You're trapped in here with us.
	Exactly.
	People keep defecting away.
	That's the value of Project Varitas.
	Anyway, Omar says, I'm torn between wanting GB News to find massive success and never wanting to consume MSM ever again.
	Oh well, we all have to make sacrifices.
	Yeah, at the moment to me, GB News just seems like a very useful strategic thing to have in the war against the woke.
	So, good.
	Keep going.
	Benjamin says, the UK media keeps trying to cancel GB News and they choke like a virgin at a prison rodeo.
	Okay, that's a nice metaphor.
	There may be a few Brits yet, and that explains it as an American.
	Matt Howland says, will GB News maintain a backbone?
	Yeah, that's the question, isn't it?
	That's the question.
	From a US observer, it seems that the rest of the UK falls in line with whatever the government wants since Britain does not have the First Amendment.
	Yeah.
	So there's been two embarrassments so far, in my opinion.
	One was Inaya went on to talk about free speech and the fact that we have Sharia law in this country with regards to publishing an image of Hamid.
	And the presenter next to her, like, est herself, was just clearly like, I don't want to die.
	Like, the Muslims are going to kill me.
	Like, that was what was clearly in her mind.
	Mm-hmm.
	Because, I don't know, that's her opinion of them.
	And was like, no, no, we shouldn't show it.
	It's very offensive.
	It's very offensive.
	Which is kind of pathetic.
	But it was a good segment because Anaya was able to just be like, you know, completely in control.
	You're a moron.
	And it showed.
	And the other part that's very sus for me is Tom Harwood.
	Like, if you saw him the other day, he was arguing again that, like, penises can be female.
	Why?
	I don't know.
	I think he's just on there as a diversity hire to show that, yes, we have a plurality of voices.
	We have a token leftist.
	Yeah, we have a token idiot.
	And yeah, that's the only reason I think he's there.
	I think if that Ofcom regulation wasn't there, they'd probably get rid of him.
	But otherwise, it seems solid.
	I want to hear Tom Harwood's theory on gender.
	Bart says, go on, advertise on GB News, it's 1k, you can afford that, go, go, go.
	Well, we can if you sign up to LotusEast.com and get access to all our great premium content.
	I think we looked it up and we couldn't figure out how to do it, but if someone's got a link and just know how to do it, like, that's...
	Yeah, why not?
	It'd be funny.
	Matt says, I'd rather watch Sunday Night with Sargon on GB News than Nigel Farage.
	Yeah, well, you would say that because you're watching us, wouldn't you?
	But I think Farage would be a good draw for GB News.
	Him and Piers Morgan.
	I don't know why they haven't done it.
	Could do less cameos.
	Talking about Big Chungus.
	Oh god, I hate watching Farage's cameos.
	For people who don't know, there's a website called Cameo where you can pay someone to make a five second video.
	And Farage has been doing them.
	There's been some really funny clips coming out of him talking about Big Chungus.
	Or saying, based?
	Based on what?
	Things like this.
	It's like, no, you're an unbelievably famous international celebrity, unbelievably successful political figure in your own right.
	You should be doing talk shows, you should have your own show on some channel, you should be earning lots of money and being influential, not doing sad things on Cameo.
	I think they're very funny.
	I mean, the Vosch one was especially funny.
	Here's a message from the boss.
	Stay away from teenage girls.
	It's just Nigel Farage saying that.
	Like, no idea who the hell boss is.
	I mean, don't get me wrong, that is funny.
	But it detracts from his majesty, right?
	Because Farage has accomplished a lot in his life.
	He knows a lot of stuff.
	He's a good orator.
	He should be putting that to good use.
	You know, actually doing something against the wokest rather than just being silly on cameo.
	Anyway, Matt again...
	Oh my god, Matt, you've got loads of comments today.
	GB News knows that reality has a distinct right-wing bias.
	Any time anyone says right-wing, I'm just going to do that now.
	The leftists are all constantly going, oh no, that's right-wing.
	The blurb in the news article about GB News says, Adam, is GB News a threat to democracy?
	Lol, such an extreme question implies some sort of secret desire.
	Yeah, and it also implies the understanding of their own hegemony, right?
	This is a left-wing democracy.
	This is left-wing this, left-wing that.
	Oh, right-wing!
	So, yeah.
	Edward says, our leftists with no idea on how to make something popular off the bat.
	Oh, this is nothing new.
	This resentment has been around for ages.
	Yes, so what you're saying is there was always a niche, but it was never filled, and so GB News filled it.
	Hey, you know what?
	If you actually paid attention, you too can fulfill demand and be successful.
	Supply and demand.
	There's a lot of demand for right-wing commentary on TV and GB News is supplying.
	Yeah, but the left obviously don't understand economics.
	Sorry, what demands are they going to fill?
	There isn't one.
	For what they're selling, there's no demand.
	I mean, what, like 2% of the population, maybe?
	And then that's it.
	And they're all fighting over it.
	Free will makes another good point here.
	They're basically taking on Stalin's view of free speech.
	You're free to speak, but we're also free to put you in a gulag.
	So yes, that's Nezrin Malik's opinion.
	Free speech ends in your mind.
	Come on, we gave you that.
	Jonathan Crowe, hey man, there is something about Klein's smug face that just makes more to punch it.
	Yeah, why do you think we use them as the thumbnail for this podcast?
	You know, just punch it with your mouse clicks.
	But it's just insufferable.
	He's like, look, I'm literally going to cover myself in feces and roll around, and I'm the winner, says Ethan Klein.
	It's like, you don't understand how embarrassing you are, do you?
	George Hap says, Ethan Klein exemplifies a typical leftist.
	They have no principles, they don't think about the issues and blindly trust the authorities.
	They don't care about an honest debate with the opposition.
	It's all about power and considering.
	He has the ear of Susan Wojcicki.
	Yeah, him, his wife, and Susan Wojcicki used to be his Twitter banner.
	And it's like, oh, God.
	So we probably shouldn't be criticizing, because, you know, who knows what strings he can pull.
	I mean, I used to watch Ethan a while back on occasion.
	I mean, like, when he defended Count Dankler and whatnot.
	It was really interesting.
	I'm surprised he's fallen this far.
	I haven't watched him in ages.
	Oh, he's becoming embarrassing.
	It's like Anthony Fantano.
	Really that bad?
	He used to be a rational person and is now just a screeching leftist Twitter account.
	It's like, God.
	But yeah, he's part of the YouTube elite, or YouTube royalty, as Arch calls them, which I think is a better way of putting it.
	It's almost like someone dying.
	Yeah, kind of.
	Like the person, the person Ethan Klein before, is dead.
	That's gone.
	Honestly, that's how I feel about Anthony Fantana.
	I used to really like the guy.
	We used to have some really good conversations.
	And now he just treats me as if I'm a fucking Nazi.
	Sorry, swearing, but like...
	You know, it's just like, Anthony, I haven't changed.
	Like, what happened...
	All of my opinions from 2017, I still hold.
	Like, the concept of what everyone knew was Anthony Fontano, it just, you know, died.
	And this avatar of him is there now.
	But he's embraced this really quite radical change, and it's treating me like I've changed.
	It's like, okay, whatever.
	But anyway, yeah, just like the party members in communism.
	Nitrocellulose Dormat says, don't know who Klein is, so they must be irrelevant.
	Well, honestly, sorry for ruining that.
	Alexander says, who are these e-celebs and why should I care?
	It's because it's a really good example of how just phenomenally dishonest and disingenuous left-wingers are.
	That's what it is.
	They won't come and have an honest conversation with you about things.
	Which is sad, but what are you going to do?
	Yeah, it's weird that they're taking pride in deceit.
	That's why this is important.
	You know, taking pride in deceit is a gross thing to do.
	Henry says, the Ethan versus Crowder thing just felt very 2013.
	Yeah, it is.
	Perhaps I'm tired of just the whole debate me bro format where two sides nitpick complain about semantics and insult each other and both go away claiming they won.
	Well, Crowder didn't go away claiming he won, you know.
	Obviously, Crowder didn't feel like this was a win.
	But it just feels like a betrayal.
	That's the thing.
	I quite like Crowder's debate style usually, to be honest.
	The Change My Minds are very watchable because he's not doing gotchas.
	The only boring thing of it is when he's talking to college students.
	They're a bit stupid.
	What else can you get?
	But that's the thing.
	If leftists were willing to have a debate with him and be like, Ethan, that sounded like it would have been really interesting.
	And then it just got killed like that.
	I was genuinely quite interested.
	Okay, what was Ethan going to say?
	How's he going to defend, like, blind obedience?
	It's just weird.
	Yeah.
	Well, the party say it, Stephen, you know.
	But yeah, it feels childish and it's no way to win at all.
	What do you think of Ethan Klein's stunt has done to online political discourse in the long run?
	Well, I think that it's...
	Interestingly, I think it's drawn a kind of boundary around the left.
	This is one of the reasons why I think it's highlighting it.
	So all of the people are like, oh yeah, Ethan's so great, Crowder's a coward.
	It's like...
	Okay, but why would anyone bother with you?
	There must be other left-wing content creators who are smaller who are actually willing to have a conversation about things, right?
	There must be.
	They can't just be the screeching, childish Twitter mob.
	There has to be more to it than that.
	Cindy says, Craddle was upset with the agreement because the agreement was that debate would be a one-on-one conversation with Ethan.
	I would have been upset too.
	Yeah, I would have been genuinely disappointed.
	I imagine Craddle prepared and he was like, okay, we're going to have a gentleman's agreement.
	This is what we're going to do.
	We're not going to be trying to get one over on each other or play stance.
	We're going to have a conversation and he was betrayed.
	I just wish he'd remain calm and be like, I'd book this with Ethan, Sam.
	And then if he has any complaints, I'd be like, I'm sorry, I booked this with Ethan.
	I'm not interested in talking to you.
	Yeah.
	Alexander says, ah, you shouldn't be covering this YouTube drama as cringe.
	If you admit many of the actors involved are irrelevant, why report on it?
	They're not irrelevant, that's the problem.
	They've got millions of followers.
	This has been a unifying event for the left as well.
	So it's not irrelevant, that's the thing.
	It's something that is really happening, and it exemplifies a certain kind of negative behaviour that they engage in, and it's worth you being aware of that.
	And on that bombshell, it's time to end the show.
	Bombshell.
	Breaking news, leftist and dishonest.
	No, I just don't want to start stealing everyone's intros and outros.
	I've got Jeremy Clarksons now, that's fine.
	So, anyway, if you want more content from us, go over to lodases.com.
	We've got loads of premium content up there, so please don't go over and sign up to support the show and also get access to all that stuff.
	But otherwise, we'll be back tomorrow at 1 o'clock.

▲