All Episodes
Previous Next
July 1, 2021 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters
01:32:03
The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #166
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters for the 1st of July 2021.
I think the holy month of Ramadan is over.
Happy end of Pride month.
I'm joined by Carl, and today we're going to be talking about how leftists want kink at Pride, and wonder what their promotion of that is for.
Social justice nonsense and the fact that it's going even further than before.
I mean, it's just goddamn everywhere.
This is a full-on sort of push over the top, you know.
It's going to charge the enemy trenches now.
That's where the social justice warriors are at this point.
And also the NSA spying on Tucker Carlson, which, yeah, probably, probably, mate.
Like, they've lied about it before and they're not even denying that they're doing it to you.
So, yeah, probably the case.
Anyway, firstly to mention was the Critical Race Theory video here, Critical Race Theory Explained, that you did, which I'm quite proud of.
And I quite like that some people have been making sure they're sending this to, like, the conservative friends and whatnot.
Because if you've got normies and they don't know, well then this is what people ask for, and hopefully this is good enough to help explain what the critical race theorists really believe from their own textbook, which is F Martin Luther King, I hate his dream, I want race consciousness for black and brown people.
It's Nazism for American blacks.
That's what it is.
It's unbelievable.
But they just say it.
So it's great to have a place where you can just send that to your friends, maybe if they don't know what critical race theory is, or a politician, because most of them, not so bright on this yet, but we'll make them.
Anyway, next thing to mention was just no copyrighted music for the videos.
So if you send in a video by...
What was it?
The video messages.
The video messages.
Please don't use any copyrighted music.
Vicky asked me to say that.
But the last thing was just the new article from Hugo on notices.com.
Socialism is still scientific.
So go and check that out.
I haven't had time to read this one yet, but I'm very interested because one of my core problems with socialism, I suppose, is that it's not scientific.
It can't be falsified.
And this is one of the key problems with Marx.
But I won't go into it now.
It's up on the website.
Go check it out.
Look, what a debate.
Anyway, tell me about kink of pride.
Yeah, so the leftists want kink of pride.
And they're not shy about saying it.
In fact, there was an article published yesterday.
Oh no, two days ago now.
In the Washington Post.
So not small time, not, you know, some fringe lunatics who aren't being given a platform.
No, the Washington Post.
And this...
I don't think that being in the mainstream discounts them from being fringe lunatics.
That is apparently true, yeah.
So the corporate press has decided to publish this article saying, yes, kink belongs at Pride, and I want my kids to see it.
which sounds like nonce advocacy to me.
What kind of person wants to expose their children to explicitly sexual content?
A nonce would.
Yeah.
So, the nonce says, our elementary schooler, sorry, their own child, they're talking about their own children here, when they're at a pride parade, pointed in the direction of oncoming floats, raising an eyebrow at a bare-chested man in dark sunglasses whose black suspenders clipped into a leather thong.
This is all sounding very wholesome already, isn't it?
Like, first sentence in.
The man paused to be playfully spanked by a partner with a flog.
What are they doing?
My curious kid asked as our toddler cheered them on.
This is just a vision of hell, isn't it, really?
The pair was the first of a few dozen kinksters who danced down the street, laughing together as they twirled their whips and batons, accompanied some leading companions by leashes.
At the time, my children were too young to understand the nuance of the situation.
Thank God.
I mean, grief.
Like, I told them the truth.
These folks were members of our community celebrating who they are and what they like to do.
Our community.
Yes.
Her community is the kink community, I guess.
The LGBT pride community, whatever they want to call it.
And they are happy for them to be sexual in front of their children.
I mean, I wouldn't be happy if this was heterosexual people doing this in front of kids.
I wouldn't be happy if there were no kids involved at this point, even.
Take it back for a second.
Yeah, don't do it in public.
People doing their kinks in public is weird enough anyway.
Not proper.
But then doing it in front of kids?
Yeah.
And then being proud, and then being like, yes, kids, enjoy the kink parade.
Let me explain to you why these gay men in leather are whipping each other.
And have leashes on.
Okay.
Like I said, I wouldn't want this being done by heterosexuals in front of kids.
It's not about them being gay, it's about them openly demonstrating a fetish in front of children.
Your kink is not a sexuality that is oppressed.
Yeah, I mean, it's obvious exhibitionism, and you are doing it to children.
But anyway, the kink community has apparently participated in Pride since its inception, risking their jobs and safety to be authentically themselves in public.
Amazing, isn't it?
You can't be authentically yourself in public unless you're exhibiting your fetishes.
That's so weird.
And gross.
Where does that even end?
What even line of reasoning is that?
What limits them to doing anything?
If you can't go to the bathroom in public, you're not being authentically yourself?
I mean, why fetishes?
Why are those something?
I don't know, but I like the way that you brought up going to the bathroom in public and fetishes as if these are separate categories.
I have actually seen, obviously we can't show any of these sort of pictures, but I've seen plenty of Images from Pride Parades that are...
I mean, the one that really strikes...
I can't get out of my mind is a giant fat woman sitting in a bath naked.
Sorry, an inflatable paddling pool with a bunch of gay men peeing on her.
They're all naked.
In public?
In public.
Just in the middle of the day in a San Francisco street.
And it's not right.
You deserve oppression.
I agree that Pride should be a welcoming space for children and teens.
Well, I bloody don't, if that's where it's going.
But policing how others show up doesn't protect or uplift young people.
No, I guess not.
Instead, homogenizing self-expression at Pride will do more harm to our children than good.
She states without any evidence to back this up.
Well, I disagree.
That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, and I'm dismissing this on the evidence that I don't think that you should be sexualising children.
Which is a much stronger argument, I would guess.
I mean, to me it is, but then I'm one of those old-fashioned parents who doesn't want their children exposed to sexuality before they're even teenagers.
My toddler cheered them on?
Yes.
Okay.
If we want our children to learn and grow from their experiences at Pride, we should hope they'll encounter kink when they attend.
There's just pure nonce advocacy here.
Why would you want...
I don't know.
How else can they learn about the scope and vitality of queer life?
If they can't watch gay men getting it on in the middle of the street, how else are they going to know about queer life, Callum?
Does that imply that everyone who is gay or bi or so forth is only there because they experience as a child gay men in front of them?
Not necessarily, but it does imply that queer is literally just kink.
Right.
If we can't exhibit our fetishes, we're not queer, is essentially what she's saying there.
Now, I don't agree with that.
I'm sure that there are queer people who can be completely normal in everyday life, and they go and have the private life that they want.
There's the difference between, as Douglas Murray points out, gay and queer.
Yeah, I suppose so, yeah.
You know, there's gay people, bi people, all lesbians, they're just people, and then being their sexuality is part of them.
them and then there are the queers as Douglas Murray would say and he's like those are the people where their entire personality and life is just their sexuality and apparently they're the fetishers too parade it in public the most outrageous claim is that innocent bystanders are forced to participate in kink simply by sharing space with the kink community as if the presence of kink at pride is a perverse exhibition that kinksters pursue for their own gratification yes Yes.
Yes, it is.
And you know that it is.
Why else are they doing it?
Because they hate it?
Exactly.
Why else can't they just do it in private?
No, they've got to do it in a public street in the middle of the day.
Why would they do it if they're not getting gratification?
If they're de-gratified from it, if they're not getting anything out of it, why would you do it?
Don't know.
Don't know how to explain it.
But she says, Yes, they are, and yes, we can.
Any other questions?
Like, when a guy in leather is smacking the arse of his friend with a whip, yeah, that's a sexual act.
Okay?
That's a sexual act.
End of story.
Why do we even have to defend this?
What's this weird Mott and Bailey as well?
Yeah.
Like, we should expose them to sexual acts, but also there's no sexual act.
Yeah, exactly.
Gaslight us at the same time.
If this all sounds familiar, it's because anti-kink rhetoric echoes the same socialized disgust people have projected onto other queer people when they claim our love is not appropriate for public spaces.
Nobody's love is appropriate for public spaces!
I don't know why...
Oh yeah, all those heteros just out in the street, just look at them!
All having sex in the middle of the street with the women that...
Just...
No!
It's illegal.
Yeah, it's literally illegal.
Even if you're hetero.
Like, are you going to say that hetero people are oppressed by the, what is it, the anti-obscenity laws that you can't give someone a blowie in the middle of the beach?
Like, what are you talking about?
Yeah, I mean, I don't want to end up like Dubai or anything, but like, you know, there's time and a place in the middle of the street during the middle of the day when there are a bunch of kids running around.
It doesn't matter what your sexuality is, that ain't it.
That ain't it, chief.
And I love the way that they've effectively got to the point where it's like, look, if we can't perform degenerate sex acts in public, you're prohibiting queer public displays of affection.
It's like, no, have a kiss on the lips, that's fine.
You know, hold hands, that's fine.
Don't start fingering each other in the middle of the street if that's all right.
I mean, I just...
Get a room?
Yeah, yeah, get a room.
Yeah, exactly.
I mean, this is in Washington Post.
Like, this is not like some fringe pink news or something like this.
Like, pink news haven't even published something this, like, overt.
Children who witness kink culture are reassured that the alternative experiences of sexuality and expression are valid, no matter who they become as they mature, helping them recognise that their personal experiences aren't bad or wrong, and they aren't alone in their experiences.
Right, okay, so what you're saying is if a bunch of adult men or women sexualise a bunch of children, you're saying that's not bad or wrong.
Wrong, pedo.
End of story.
She literally wants to see kids watching adults engaging in sex.
What else is there to call that?
Nonce advocacy.
And no, a nonce amnesty.
That's the thing.
That's what she's suggesting.
Saying, look, all these people who want to be exhibitionists in front of children, you know, and sexualize themselves in front of children, that's fine.
And you should all be fine with it.
And it's like, no, Baz from North FC is going to have real problems with this.
And I really agree with him on that.
I also want to mention loads of gay people and so on and so forth.
They're also like, no, get out.
We'll get to all of this, right?
Because there are, of course, lots of people on the other side in the queer community who are like, no.
But anyway, including kink and pride, open space for families to have necessary and powerful conversations with young people about health, safety, and consent.
And we'll talk about consent in a bit.
And most uniquely, pleasure.
Want to talk to your parents about gay pleasure?
No.
No, I'd really rather not.
Are you sure?
Yeah.
King Visibility is a reminder that any person can and should shamelessly explore what brings joy and excitement.
Your feelings are disgusting and wrong, and the answer's no.
We don't talk to our children enough about pursuing sex to fulfill carnal needs that delight and captivate us in the moment.
God, no.
I don't want to talk to my parents about that.
Why do I have to talk to my parents about that?
That's not even like, let's have the talk.
We don't talk enough to our children about their carnal needs and pleasures.
Listen, little Jimmy, Mummy needs to talk to you about her carnal pleasures.
Oh God, please no.
But no, the wording there is not about mummy's carnal pleasure, it's about the child.
Well, that's about pursuing sex to fulfil carnal needs that delight and captivate us in the moment.
I think she's including the children, though.
The way the rest of this article is phrased.
Yeah, exactly.
I was going to say, well, charitably we could say she's talking about herself, but I mean...
This is full on, so I mean, who knows?
If we're afraid to talk about kink with our children, we prioritise the status quo.
The status quo of not sexualising children.
Which, I mean, yes.
Sanitising and censoring their access to information about appropriate and normal self-expression.
Right, okay, so now we're on the free speech argument.
Well, hang on.
If you don't let us spank each other in front of your children, you're censoring us.
LAUGHTER Chad, yes.
Just why not?
Yeah, yeah, okay.
Turns out I have full censorship now.
I didn't want it to be this way, but...
Yeah, no sex in front of my kids.
I don't care if we get it straight.
Yeah, end of story.
But anyway, the status quo is, of course, concerned with preserving the innocence of children from the sordid desires of adults, if that's okay.
Kink embodies the freedom that pride stands for, reminding attendees to unapologetically take up space as an act of resistance and celebration, refusing to bend to social pressure that asks...
Like, there's no, like, death gangs walking around killing leather fetishists.
Like, this isn't happening.
What are you talking about?
It's resistance and celebration.
Refusing to bend social pressure that asks us to be presentable.
Yeah, that's right.
Being presentable is now awful.
That's a value I want my children to learn.
Affirming the kink community helps our children to love themselves and others with courage and resilience.
What a total horse.
Not even...
Just...
But the most remarkable thing, of course, that's The Washington Post.
I mean, you've got...
Democracy dies in darkness.
I get to hear the top.
Shh!
So, I mean, this wasn't the only article, of course.
You've got the San Francisco Examiner, Saul Sugarman, which is presumably a pseudonym, who says, in more than seven praise that I've been part of in San Francisco, I've not once witnessed nudity, let alone supposed raucous sex act that would scar the eyes of children.
Yes, there are also leather daddies, porn actors, and other scantily clad attendees, but I'd wager to guess that this isn't what critics mean when they say no kink at pride and think of the children.
No, that's exactly what we mean.
That's exactly, like, word for word.
What else could I do?
Like, sorry, what do you think we mean?
This is funny as well.
I met a guy in the pub a while back who was Irish, and he went over to San Francisco, and he was quite left-wing, he was pro-Palestine, all this stuff, and then when we talked about pride at San Francisco, he turned to me and went, degeneracy.
It's just like this left-wing guy's just like, no, never again.
Well, that's basically what Rose McGowan's point was.
Apparently she tweeted out in 2014 that drew the ire of the LGBT community.
I see now people who have basically fought for the right to stand on top of a float wearing an orange Speedo and take Molly.
And that's really what the latest squabble is all about.
It's that many attendees are expressing themselves and enjoying the event in ways in which others don't want to indulge.
Yes, that's the point.
You are doing things that are inappropriate to be seen in public because there are children in public and presumably people who are a bit more faint-hearted than you guys, and perhaps there should be a limit on just how much you indulge.
But I love this last line.
Just keep them away from the Folsom and Dorr street fairs, which are definitely for adults only.
So you accept that Pride is a degenerate sex fest that shouldn't be used in...
It's been 18 plus only space.
Yes.
The kind of thing you would put four walls around and a roof to make sure that people can just wander upon it.
Yeah.
And you want to do it on a street.
Yeah.
So, I mean, for this kind of thing to be legal, you do have to do it indoors normally.
Yeah.
But for some reason San Francisco's like, no, that's fine.
Well, a strip club's going to be like, yeah, well, what about our rights?
Yeah.
Yeah, and for some reason, I mean, this has been a hot issue.
There's been loads of, you know, the minor sort of fringe outlets going, oh, yeah, look at the history of kink at Pride.
Look at all these guys.
Definitely not doing stuff that's sexual in public.
And it turned out the woman who invented Pride was a kink fetishist.
So there we go.
How do you separate the things?
Brenda Howard was dubbed the Mother of Pride for her work coordinating the very first Pride March.
She was involved in many activist organizations and is pictured here marching with TES. Hashtag Pride Month.
Hashtag New York Pride.
Hashtag Leather Belongs at Pride.
Hashtag Kink Belongs at Pride.
She's wrong.
Well, she organized it.
She's still wrong.
This, of course, is not new with the left transsexualized children, as you might imagine.
I mean, in the 70s and 80s, there was an organization in Britain called the Pedophile Information Exchange.
This was, as Wikipedia tells us, a pro-pedophile activist group founded in October 1974, disbanded in 1984.
So this lasted 10 years, right?
The organization had something like 250 members, and one of the people who supported it was Labour's Harriet Harman.
Between 78 and 82, she was the legal officer for the National Council for Civil Liberties.
Her husband was Labour's shadow police minister, and he chaired the NCCL in the 1970s.
And this organisation had links to the paedophile information exchange that they've known about for years, and as the independents say, have been a stain on its reputation, although as far as I'm aware, she's never apologised for this.
I believe she went on to deny that she knew anything about it.
And that's why she's like, I'm not apologizing because I didn't know anything.
It's not my fault.
And it's like, tough to believe.
And in America, you have, of course, NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association.
I remember first hearing about this from South Park, and I thought this was a joke.
I didn't realise this was real, right?
But apparently it was.
And what's really funny, if you scroll down to the controversy bits, you can see...
Oh, really?
Controversy?
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
The opposition part, sorry.
You can see that they literally spent decades trying to separate them from left-wing activist groups.
As in, you know, the gay pride stuff, all of that, you know, the leftist activism.
They spent a lot of time trying to extract Nambla from their movements.
And this took a long time.
He didn't just take a bullet?
Well, no.
But anyway, this of course is followed by recent revelations of Michel Foucault.
Foucault?
Foucault?
French?
I don't know.
But apparently he was a paedophile and he abused boys in Tunisia.
Apparently, according to one chap who knew him, a chap called Sawman, I can't remember his first name now, they were 8, 9, 10 years old and he was throwing money at them and say, let's meet at 10pm in the usual place.
And this was apparently a local cemetery.
And then he would have sex with the boys on the gravestones and the question of consent wasn't even raised.
Of course, he says Foucault could never have done this, he wouldn't have dared to do this in France.
There was a colonial dimension to this, a white imperialist dimension to this.
Yeah, okay, let's blame it on imperialism.
This guy's like the founder of modern leftist philosophy, right?
Yeah, the reason that he's noteworthy in this regard is because literally all of the woke nonsense that we're seeing now is a consequence of Foucault, Derrida, Simone de Beauvoir, and a bunch of other French academics who all signed a public letter to the French government in the 70s asking them to reduce the age of consent in France to 13.
Frankly, I'm just amazed that France has got an age of consent.
But their argument being that we as socialists think that that's a barrier to inclusion, or what?
Basically, yeah.
So, I actually would have to go re-read the letter to hear their reasoning.
But basically, there is the progressive cope on this in the next one.
So, obviously, leftists have got to explain.
Hang on a second.
Why do we follow an ideology by what appears to be a noted paedophile?
The guy in charge of Nambler as well, the David guy, he's a communist.
Of course he is.
But this was an amazing article.
It's like, should Michel Foucault be cancelled?
It's like, yes, for lots of reasons.
And if pedophilia is one of those reasons, that's fine.
If pedophilia isn't one of those reasons, what's wrong with you?
That's a great question.
He says, although no victims have yet come forward to substantially...
At least I'm not a racist.
What?
What?
But apparently he was a racist, so now he needs to be cancelled.
So, you know, white imperialism.
But though no victims have come forward to substantiate Solman's claims, moments from Foucault's life and work do not reflect favourably on his reputation.
His allegations, along with extracts from his books, which defend paedophilia against arguments that is immoral, yield evidence for the case that Foucault was a paedophile.
Yes.
In 1977, Foucault and a litany of other French intellectuals, including Samantha Beauvoir, Roland Bathes, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Jacques Derrida, signed a petition that was sought to reduce the legal age of consent to 13.
So it seems that there's lots of evidence that this is probably true.
There is a man who says, look, I saw him doing it.
I mean, what do we need?
Like, what more do we need?
This guy seems to just be a pedo.
But anyway, going back to the Washington Post article, this, of course, dropped like an absolute stone on Twitter.
Well, I mean, you say that, actually.
I say that, but, like, there were plenty of people who were in favour.
Thankfully, though, all the quotes eats are a bunch of what few conservatives remain on Twitter, going, look at this.
This is pedophile advocacy, just straight up.
Like, how much more could you get?
I mean, and there were thousands.
It was the most ratioed thing I've ever seen.
And, of course, you've got a lot of people replying who were furry pedos for some reason.
Just, that's one.
Go to the next one.
Just, and there's him in a little dog face thing.
Next one.
Just...
What the f...
Yeah, no, these are the people who want your children to watch them, engaging in their fetishes as they get past.
I'm very liberal about this.
You want to do that in your bedroom?
Do that.
On the streets in front of kids?
Nah.
I mean, just saying, if you keep pushing, I might be slightly less liberal on these things in future.
And then you get the objections.
So the first one that I found was entertaining from a verified checkmark.
FFS, no!
No means no!
You're setting us back years with your BS. I'm not saying it's wrong though.
You're saying it's bad optics.
That's a good point.
That's interesting, isn't it, James?
But you do actually finally find some people who are making an argument from a left-wing position, but even then I kind of have problems with this argument.
So this one was quite good.
The kink community bangs on about how consent makes violence, inequality, humiliation, and so on A-OK, and how nobody should question what adults do in private, then wants to inflict kink on kids and the unconsenting public.
Thinking face.
Exactly.
If we go to the next one, kink is for adults.
Again, another verified checkmark.
Consent is part of kink.
Why would you say this?
You are doing more damage to pride than you will ever know from a transsexual kinky man.
Okay, that's fair, and they have got a reasonably morally defensible position.
If a core component of kink is consent, and I agree that it seems that that's fair, that's the thing that keeps it not pushed off to the side for all time, that's fine.
But notice how the appeal here is to the sanctity of kink itself.
You are violating, you are degrading the concept of kink by excluding consent from it, because of course the public and children are not consenting to this.
But he's not appealing to the sanctity of children, which implies that if somehow they could agree that kids were consenting to this, then it would all just be fine.
Isn't that literally what Desmond is amazing or whatever is?
Yeah.
Where it's like, oh no, he's consenting to this.
He's a child.
Yes.
And so there's no concern to the damage that it does to children to interfere with them sexually at such a young age.
No, it's about now whether kink is being properly represented and preserved and protected.
So, I guess the next one was just a conservative, Ali Beth Stuckley, who I saw on Twitter, and she makes a great point.
So now that showing little kids' kink at pride is apparently mainstream enough to be written about in the Washington Post, can someone on the left tell me at what point the slippery slope stops?
What logical or moral obstacle stands in the way of progressives openly celebrating paedophilia?
Well, nothing.
And they've done this in decades past, and it's all coming back around, because of course...
Like the father of your ideological position.
Nothing stopped him.
Yeah, exactly.
He was a pedophile.
And the point is there's nothing stopping them because the left's drive to abolish all kinds of barriers.
Well, this is probably going to be the last barrier.
I mean, this is one of the great ways I think you mentioned about the fetishization of inclusivity and inclusion.
It's like, no, no.
The only valuable things in society are exclusive.
For starters, your wife.
That's not inclusive because she's your wife.
The only valuable things at all are exclusive.
But anyway, let's keep going because this is not the end of where social justice stops.
This is merely the beginning.
Because social justice is going fully over the top.
This is the big push to have social justice absolutely everywhere.
And it's winning.
It's absolutely everywhere.
This midwifery magazine shares gorgeous cover celebrating trans men who give birth.
How many people does that actually represent?
In numbers.
I saw one on, what was it, Leicester Hospital's verified checkmark account calling the person giving birth a he.
So that's one.
One.
But not a man.
One.
I don't know how you can make that more clear.
Like, they're giving birth.
How is that a man?
Hey.
Not my argument for this part.
But anyway, so this of course features a trans black man after giving birth to a baby as his partner looks on in pride.
Fist raised in the air, showing a rainbow tattoo with words right on underneath.
Presumably off to a pride parade directly afterwards.
But this is just, you know, okay, midwife magazine, don't care about that.
What about your banks?
Are your banks all social justice woke?
Of course they are.
Here's Barclays Bank promoting pronouns.
He, him, she, her, they, them.
Pronouns may just be a few letters, but they can mean everything.
David explains how asking someone which pronouns they prefer instead of assuming can make all the difference.
Hashtag with pride.
Can you just sell me banking services?
Could you not just say, like, interest rates might be a few decibels, but they mean everything instead?
That would be far more interesting.
Far more useful.
It's mad.
I mean, this is genuinely the expression of it being a civic religion, because this has nothing to do with anything that Barclay should be publishing anywhere at all.
I don't want to hear about their opinions on Islamic jurisprudence.
I don't really want to hear their opinions on conservative metaphysics.
I don't want to hear their opinions on pronouns or progressive issues or communism or anything like that.
I just want to hear what kind of packages they're selling for when I'm banking with them, what kind of loan I could get, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, right?
There's no need for any of this And, of course, this is not just Barclays.
It's all of them, practically.
Lloyds have got this next one, where Calvin Robinson had tweeted out, look, I'm looking for a new bank.
Don't want them to be woke, obviously, because why would you?
Lloyds Bank, with their pride flag in the bio.
Not just pride flag.
The racial pride flag.
Hi, I'm Roz.
Good morning, Calvin.
Here's a link for further details on our brand's purpose and values.
And his reply was pretty great, to be honest.
Nope.
Just no.
Just, no.
This is a great thing as well.
Anyone gives you a business card with their pronouns on, any company uses this kind of logo on their social media, don't get the business.
They just don't get the business.
That's how we should think about these things.
Yeah, so anyway, let's move on.
IKEA have decided, yep, everything needs to be pride now.
IKEA is gay.
It's amazing how much of a bomb this was.
So Ikea unveiled a...
Company founded by a fascist.
It's very progressive.
As Pink News put it, Ikea unveils surreal, terrifying prized sofas.
We scroll down a bit so you can see the picture of the sofa.
I mean, that looks like...
Sexual assault.
Yes, exactly, right?
When you change to and, or to and, nobody believes you.
So just having the words, nobody believes you, on the Pride sofa.
And the sofa is covered in, like...
Groping hands.
But you can see on the edge, they actually have, like, models of hands, like, holding...
It's like, right...
Imagine if you came back to a guy's place and he's got that sofa.
That's a rapist.
And you leave.
Like, what else are you meant to think?
Nobody believes you.
Also, sit on my sofa full of grasping hands.
Everything will be just fine, we promise.
So, according to a press release on IKEA's website, the sofas were designed and created by artists active in the 2SLGBTQ plus community.
Yeah, I was going to say, I assume that's two-spirit, but I'm not got confirmation on that.
What the hell is two-spirit?
Oh, I'll explain it another time.
It's nonsense.
And they're a platform to celebrate identity and share stories of love.
Nobody will believe you though.
Nobody's going to believe you when you start telling us your stories.
So yeah, as well as the sofa's inspired bunny non-binary flag, the transgender flag, the pansexual flag, the two-spirit flag is a bisexual-themed IKEA sofa that will haunt your dreams forever.
Can I just get a sofa that's inspired by comfort?
Nope.
It's got to get one that's inspired by rape.
What else is that inspired by?
I don't know.
It looks like a rapist's couch, I'm just saying.
Ike is like fellow rapists.
Here we go, the couch for you.
We support the LGBT community.
Anyway...
The Progress Flag loveseat has an array of kaleidoscopic flowers attached to it.
They've got like 10 of these different things.
And one of them, if we can go to the next Twitter link, is...
If we can go to the next one, John.
It looks like an endorsement of Kink at Pride.
So it's a sofa and it's covered in straps.
They're all tied together very tightly.
It looks like the sofa itself has been strapped up.
It looks like it's about to muffle something at you.
As if someone's going to hump that sofa.
Anyway, moving on.
Nestle.
Nestle, shut up.
Just shut up.
No one wants to hear from anything, on anything like this.
What matters to people, together with Nestle Pride Alliance, we're proud to support LGBTQ plus communities and build an equitable workplace culture that empowers our employees to bring the most authentic selves to work.
In leather, I hope.
Well, you remember Nestle?
We spoke about them with the ethical companies, didn't we?
Killing kids in West Africa, didn't they?
With your formula.
So that's the thing, remember.
Remember, there's always something in the closet with people who vice-signal, and this is one of them.
Child murderers at Nestle.
We support the LGBT-class community.
Yeah, I mean, if you can click on the next page, the next image on this, John.
No, no, sorry, on that one.
They actually have a great example of this.
Today, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of Nestle, who argued they could not be sued for funding, overseeing and profiting from a system of child slavery in Africa, because the conduct did not occur in US soil.
It's not American slavery.
They're not gay.
The African slaves are not LGBTQ, so who cares?
Yeah, exactly.
Like, what's their argument?
It's just mad.
It's so mad how, like, this is just being used as a giant front for evil corporations to do evil things around the world.
And for pink news, sit there going, oh, that rapey pride couch is so stunning and brave.
Like, this is evil.
Like, if the West African slavers were wearing pink suits, then I'd be okay.
Yeah, they'd be like, well, you know, trans women are women.
So anyway, carrying on, this is, of course, ruining the Olympics.
Now, this was a shot putter or a hammer thrower?
I don't know.
I kept seeing this image.
Why is everyone excited about it?
Well, it's because, as you can see a couple of years ago, this athlete was very proudly displaying the American flag.
And then, of course, critical race theory came along, and now she turned her back on the other Olympiads.
Who had won.
She came in third place, and so she decided to make it all about herself by protesting the United States.
Jesse Owen, you've got to come first.
Exactly.
If you didn't come first, you'd just make it look like you're an attention seeker.
But I mean, she's stapled her lips together, so apparently she can't speak now.
Oh, I just thought that was a shit lipstick.
No, don't swear.
Sorry.
So this is a nice political statement, because why not?
Everyone is making political statements.
Such as the England and Germany football teams.
I think I've put these in the wrong order.
That is the England team making a statement.
That is the England team making a political statement back in 1938, where they gave the Nazi salute.
So England said, oh, look at these nice rainbow hearts for the England team.
They're going to be wearing a rainbow captain's armband.
Armbands.
Political armbands.
Like Sir Reich.
Just part of a long tradition for the England team, apparently.
Because the three lions stand in allyship with the LGBTQ plus communities around the world.
You know the guy, the Scottish liberal guy, who went to the count with Hamza Yusuf with an armband like that?
And then got kicked out?
Because they were like, you're a fascist wearing that armband?
He was just before his time.
I agree.
Anyone wearing an armband is a fascist.
Except the Polish resistance fires.
I give them a pass.
Fair.
But anyway, yeah, so of course this is why we should keep politics out of sport because politics rarely ages well, to be honest.
There's no point like, oh, we're going to join in this new fad.
But they might end up looking bad in the future.
I mean, there's nothing about the LGBTQ activism that could age poorly, is there?
I mean, I guess the previous segment is probably the...
Yeah, exactly.
So, you know, when in 20 years' time these things are associated very closely with Foucault's hobbies, just saying, might age badly.
And of course, the German team were like, hey!
Politics is going to age badly.
We're into that.
And so, as you can see, he's got his rainbow armband on.
We stand for tolerance.
How do you?
It looks so bad as well.
It literally does remind me of the Nazis.
I know, I know.
We stand for tolerance and stand against any form of discrimination.
We want to show solidarity with the England national team, so we'll be taking the knee as well.
We're happy to join them in this and did not need long to make that decision.
Diversity is a strength.
Literally, oh, you guys are all marching in formation.
Let's join.
Like, okay, Jones.
But, I mean, it was really, really progressive.
They even engaged in a bit of buck-breaking on the pitch, which I thought was very noble.
Again with his armband.
I mean, literally, this is Tariq Nishi's entire thesis that's being played out right here.
For people listening, there's a black, I assume, English chap there, bent over, and then a white German chap behind him.
No, he's got German on his shirt.
Oh, he's German, okay.
So it's the English guy who's buck-breaking the German chap there.
With his pride armband.
Yeah.
But yeah, someone tells Tariq that he turned out he was right.
And of course, there's social justice nonsense everywhere, even in the Conservative Party.
This was posted to the Conservatives' Instagram page.
Thankfully, though, it's the conservative pride flag.
No trans or racial elements to it, it's just conservative pride.
It's just sexuality collectivism.
Because that's useful.
That's conservatism.
Conservatives, I don't know why I have to tell you this, but there is no conservative pride flag.
It's a joke.
There is no conservative pride flag.
You are not supposed to indulge in any of this communist nonsense, and doing so just makes you look compromised.
What was the link you've got here?
The last one?
Yeah, the next one.
So the next one here?
We can get the next link up, John.
So this is just the flag.
It's just something I've seen.
The memes might demonstrate them.
So the Steve Kahn pincer movement flag just looks like a USSR and Nazi Germany invading Poland.
I mean, it really does!
Yeah, it certainly does.
And of course, the fact that this is literally eating up the Pride flag is...
Just completely amusing.
But then it goes so much further.
The invasion of Pride Land.
Yeah.
The invasion of Pride Land is going ahead very well from the intersectional forces.
But I just love the guy who tweeted this.
Do you remember that this was meant to be about gay people?
Because they've got this pride flag here.
Pride flag that's...
So on the previous flag, I think 50.4% remained.
But on this new image here, I mean, what is it?
Like 20% if we're lucky?
If they're lucky.
And the text on it reads, Happy Pride.
As in, defund the police.
Honour indigenous land and people.
Dismantle white supremacy.
End capitalism.
So we're not concerned about the gays at all now?
This is why when I originally saw The Circle, I thought it stood for some native tribe or something.
I thought they just added it in because why not?
I guess, I guess.
But yeah, thank God, though, that we have reached the end of Pride Ramadan and the companies are going to obviously ignore this and just drop it in the bin with the rest of the things that they obviously don't care about.
I would not be so sure.
You think so?
There's a whole bunch of them that have still got it up.
There's a whole bunch of them still posting being like, Pride never ends.
You cannot get off Mr.
Pride's wild ride.
Doesn't happen.
Why do you think we've got the sofa with all the grabbing hands?
I'm sorry, could you imagine being a woman coming home to some guy's house and you see that?
I can't imagine being a man coming back to a woman's house and seeing that.
Here, drink this.
I've got to go home.
Nobody will believe you.
Oh.
Hmm.
Oh, man.
Let's go on to something that's normal.
So, back to normal politics in normal realms.
Before we go on, though, I mean, it's like a bizarro fever dream, isn't it?
Like, imagine going back 20 years and just presenting these pictures.
Armbands.
Yeah.
So, did you get conquered by the gay natties?
I mean, there is a Red Dwarf sketch in which they conquer a ship, well, they go to a ship, and it's a society of people who can't criticize.
I don't know if you've seen it.
Oh, probably.
Like, one of the cops dressed up in a full pink cop outfit, and it's all ridiculous.
And it really does look like that.
Like, if you took all those elements and put it into one guy's house, like, he's walking around with his armband, his sofa like that, you know, it just looks like a meme.
Like, the entire thing was, like, something someone would make up in 2010 for a joke.
But the thing is, this is why it's such a good example of it being a new religion, because it looks like everyone's converted to a completely new way of thinking, and a completely new moral system that is doing bizarro things.
I mean, yeah, if you got someone from the 1500s, brought them back, they'd be like, where's the Christianity?
Why have you replaced it with this?
Yeah, exactly.
I mean, you get someone from the 90s, and they're like, what the hell is this?
But anyway...
But I mean, they would recognise its obvious religion aspect.
Yes, yes, they would, yeah.
Anyway, so let's move on.
Tucker Carlson has been alleging that the NSA are spying on him, and the NSA would never do such a thing, would they?
They would never spy on America.
Yeah, they probably have.
Do they do anything other than spy on people?
Well, they're meant to spy on foreigners, because that's how that works.
You're allowed to spy on foreigners, but you're not allowed to spy on your own people.
But it's the NSA. What do they care?
Well, they collect everything.
Yeah, and they've been caught multiple times doing it to Americans.
So, I mean, not to mention the Five Eyes Agreement where we spy on the Americans, they spy on us, and then we sell it to each other, which makes it legal.
Don't know how that works.
So, the first thing here is just him making a video about this, in which he alleds that a whistleblower contacted Taka's team, and was able to prove with them that, yeah, your emails and text messages are being read, and I can confirm it, because...
I'm going to read them back to you.
Yeah, here you go.
Like, how do I have access to these things?
So, if we play the first clip, this is him, allegedly, he's been spied on.
Yesterday we heard from a whistleblower within the U.S. government who reached out to warn us that the NSA, the National Security Agency, is monitoring our electronic communications and is planning to leak them in an attempt to take the show off the air.
Now that's a shocking claim, and ordinarily we'd be skeptical of it.
It's illegal for the NSA to spy on American citizens.
It's a crime.
It's not a third world country.
Things like that should not happen in America.
But unfortunately they do happen, and in this case they did happen.
The whistleblower, who is in a position to know, repeated back to us information about a story that we are working on that could have only come directly from my texts and emails.
There's no other possible source for that information, period.
The NSA captured that information without our knowledge and did it for political reasons.
The Biden administration is spying on us.
We have confirmed that.
This morning we filed a FOIA request, a Freedom of Information Act request, asking for all information that the NSA and other agencies have gathered about this show.
We did it mostly as a formality.
We've also contacted the press office at both NSA and the FBI. We don't expect to hear much back.
That's the way that usually goes.
Only Congress can force transparency on the intelligence agencies, and they should do that immediately.
Spying on opposition journalists is incompatible with democracy.
If they are doing it to us, and again, they are definitely doing it to us, they are almost certainly doing it to others.
I mean, he's got a story he's working on.
Some whistleblower is able to parrot back to him his own emails.
Yeah, and text messages.
That's got to be them spying, aren't you?
I don't know how else it could possibly happen unless they've hacked your phone or something, but then there's no evidence of that.
So he made that issue public, and would the NSA ever spy on the American people?
Yeah, they would, wouldn't they?
Because why is Edward Snowden in Russia?
Why is he not in the United States?
And this link, as Roya shows, I mean, even just a segment of what Snowden was able to leak showed that the mass surveillance program they were undertaking was illegal, and they were found in US court to be illegal.
So, I mean, everyone knows this at this point, but just to make the point perfectly clear, the NSA don't care.
The NSA will break the law and not give a toss.
So the idea that it's absurd that they would ever spy on Tucker Carlson...
No, it's not.
It's in fact entirely within the realm of possibility, to the point of modernity even.
It's not even an outlandish claim.
I would be more surprised if they said they weren't, to be honest.
So then we also have Obamagate, as we mentioned before, in which you have the Obama administration spying on its opposition and then leaking information in some way.
So they say in here, McEnany detailed how Vice President Joe Biden was found to have requested the unmasking of General Michael Flynn just one day before the Washington Post published a story on Flynn that relayed on leaks from the Obama administration.
So the intelligence agencies who worked with Joe Biden at the time Helping them out to hit their enemies.
She also laid out several former Obama administration officials who had testified that they found no empirical evidence that Trump-Russia collusion, but said the opposite publicly.
Well, haven't they bugged Trump Tower?
I think they were bugging an associate of his, which is what was found, and then they were able to, you know, Trump was like, well, why'd you do that?
And they were like, oh, we're just circumstantially looking at someone else.
Yeah, because it was obvious that they were spying on candidate Trump.
But you want to make it not direct, because then, big no doubt.
So, why is there a motive for going off the tucker?
You might wonder, well, because he's smashing it, isn't he?
He's absolutely smashing it.
I mean, this is just a segment in which he's talking about a story in which there's video evidence of the forces picking up illegals at the border and then driving them hundreds of miles inland to just drop them off to make sure they're not caught by the border guards.
And he's like, well, that's them trying to suffer our democracy.
Oh, this one got even worse as well, because they were annoyed that the buses that they were using to drive them around were being filmed by local people, so they started flying them instead.
Why'd you do that?
Why'd you keep importing people illegally and knowingly?
So we play the next clip, there's him making this point as to why.
Since we've been talking a lot about democracy in this country, everything is a threat to democracy.
If you change the population of a country without the consent of the people who live there, is that democracy?
Doesn't that country belong to the people who live there?
It's their country.
That's what democracy is.
But what if a small number of hardened ideologues decided to take it away from those people and give it to foreign nationals?
That would not be democracy.
That's a great point.
That's such a good point.
Literally, mass immigration against the will of the population is anti-democratic.
That's a great point.
And he's absolutely right.
Because as we've described before, if you look at democracy as a sort of like parceling out of power...
Decision-making power of the state.
Then what you're doing is completely diluting the power of the existing population and giving it to people who are not legitimate to have it.
They're not authorized to have it.
Why should any foreigner have any amount of voting power in this country or that country or any other country?
Why should I have voting power if I go to Pakistan or India or something like that?
There's enough of a problem there of mass importing people and then giving them the ability to get citizenship and vote.
But in the UK it's even worse because of course in Scotland, Wales, you can vote even if you're not a citizen.
Yeah.
So you can literally be on holiday, turn up at the time of an election and vote.
It's insane.
It's mad.
Absolutely insane.
It's anti-democratic.
It's a great point by Tucker.
He's an amazing speaker.
And because of these amazing speeches, he's killing it, isn't he?
So this is the ratings for all different shows on the United States television.
CNN drops 68% in prime time as Fox News Channel crushes competition from Forbes.
I bet they love publishing this.
So they're saying that overall Fox News has the four of the top five most watched shows in cable news, with Tucker Carlson's Tonight being in first place with a total of 2.9 million viewers per show.
So live viewers, 2.9 million.
Absolutely destroying it.
And he's had this place for a long time.
I mean, he is a complete titan in the scene here.
And as you show with CNN, 68% drop.
Well, without Trump, they can't exactly...
Why is that?
Yeah, what are they going to report on?
Their own corruption, I guess.
So the NSA has responded to this, and they've responded by a guy, nah, governor, wouldn't do that.
We'd never spy on the American people.
Statement from the NSA regarding the recent allegations.
I haven't actually read this, so let me read this.
So the way they did the thing as well I want to mention is you can't respond.
Oh, really?
So there's no response?
Oh, really?
Let me read this one.
So, on June 28th, 2021, Tucker Carlson alleged that the National Security Agency had been monitoring our electronic communications and is planning to leak them in an attempt to take this show off the air.
This allegation is untrue.
Tucker Carlson has never been an intelligence target of the agency and the NSA has never had any plans to try and take his program off the air.
The NSA has a foreign intelligence mission.
We target foreign powers to generate insights on foreign activities that could harm the United States.
With limited exceptions, e.g.
an emergency, the NSA may not target US citizens without a court order explicitly authorizing targeting.
Wow.
Wow.
That's bold that you would come out and say just something like that, to be honest.
May not, but not will not.
Yeah.
Because we have, in the past, multiple times.
I mean, if it wasn't a matter of public record, maybe I'd be like, see, they're not that bad.
But also notice some of the languaging in there.
I mean, the fact that Tucker Carlson's not a target of us, but they're not denying that they actually spied on him.
Because the thing is, someone can be a target.
Anyone they interact with, you can then get their information.
So you could make someone near the person a target and then get information on them through that means and then have it kept legal, which is what is the allegation with Trump, which is like, look, you got a guy right next to me and made sure you were essentially siphoning off his information while he's working with me, so you're spying on me.
Don't they call it a dragnet?
Essentially, yeah.
As in, like, literally we're just going to get everything that we can.
So the thing is that Tucker has responded to this, and Tucker's response is pretty good.
He also points out that Joe Biden used to be against this, but times change, I guess.
So if we go to the next clip here.
Yesterday, we had a long conversation with officials at the National Security Agency.
We got a statement out of them, and they effectively conceded, yes, they read our emails.
They have some justification for it, but it's not justified.
It never is, except in cases when national security is threatened, and nothing that we did would ever threaten national security, period.
Liberals used to understand that.
They were very worried about this program.
Back in 2006, Joe Biden himself said he was worried about the NSA spying on American citizens.
I don't have to listen to your phone calls to know what you're doing.
If I know every single phone call you made, I'm able to determine every single person you talk to, I can get a pattern about your life that is very, very intrusive.
And the real question here is, what do they do with this information that they collect that does not have anything to do with al-Qaeda?
And we're going to trust the President and the Vice President of the United States that they're doing the right thing.
Don't count me in on that.
Certainly.
Base Joe Biden!
I mean, look how cogent he used to be.
Understandable.
Oh yeah, I mean, I can actually follow his points and agree with them, which is amazing.
What a different man.
It was only in 2006 as well.
But he's not wrong as well, that's the thing.
He's actually making a really good point.
Why would you trust the president of the first president of the United States?
He's spying on you?
And now he is the president.
It's like, oh, well, that's gone.
Don't worry, we don't trust you.
That's not changed at least.
Anyway, so there's that point.
But Glenn Greenwald went on and made exactly his point as well, which is that, isn't it funny?
Like, there has been a massive shift in left-wing American mainstream politics of, maybe we should distrust the government, maybe the Patriot Act's a bad thing, to the point of being like, nah, I love the NSA. Between 2000 and 2010, I just generally consider myself to be left-wing because the general theme of left-wing politics was just distrust of solidified power.
If you've got a group of people who are operating the machinery of government or any giant institution...
Those people should be treated sceptically because you don't know how to hold them to account.
They should be held to account, and they shouldn't just be trusted because power is a corrupting factor.
And the left has completely lost this opinion since they gained the power.
That's the problem.
Like, looking back, I've always wondered, because, I mean, the foundational ideology of left-wing thought is, of course, a Tartarian and nonsensical, but the culture of the American left, for example, certainly has changed.
It has not always been the way it is now.
And Glenn Greenwald makes this point perfectly.
Well, it used to be liberal, you know...
So let's go to the next one.
So your position on this has remained consistent for more than a decade.
American citizens, unless they pose some obvious national security threat, imminent national security threat, shouldn't be targeted by their own government for spying.
Why is that not the position of everyone in journalism?
That's a really good question.
You know, it's interesting when I did the reporting with Edward Snowden in 2013 and 2014, liberals loved that reporting so much that they gave us every award that they have to offer.
The Pulitzer, the Polk, the film that was done about My work with Edward Snowden was given an Oscar.
I went up on the Oscar stage.
They couldn't lavish enough prizes and praise on us.
And now here we are after the Trump years and we know that the Democratic Party and journalism in general has aligned with the CIA, the NSA and the FBI and has aligned and merged with the security state.
And so in response to the report that you did, you would think other journalists Just out of self-interest, even if they dislike your ideology, and you would say, we want to know whether the NSA is abusing their powers in order to spy on journalists they dislike.
Great point.
It's unbelievable.
I mean, one of the things I was thinking of just then was, I mean, what happened?
I mean, was it the Obama Registration that essentially broke the culture of the American left?
And now it's what it is.
He definitely opened the door to the radicalization that we've seen now.
Because even looking back, I remember watching, I think it was like the 1990-something conference for the Democratic Party.
Like, there was some, you know, fringe, strange stuff in there, but almost all of it was actually sensible.
Like, they're talking about the border, all the rest of it, the fact that we should be tolerant for homosexuality.
Like, tolerance, not celebration and kink praise.
Well, I mean, honestly, I still agree with basically Bill Clinton's 1997 sort of platform.
Honestly, it's still good.
If he's still cogent, he should really come out and be the guy.
Well, actually, he's not really the face of the guy of anything these days except for Jeffrey Epstein.
Yeah, exactly.
I don't want to have him being something I have to support now.
But the position is still one that I agree with.
But...
Abortion, safely or rare.
Tolerance, that's where it should be.
Yeah.
Like, we should control our borders.
America, good.
Support families.
Yeah.
Like, these were all very sensible points that the Democrats used to make.
And now they're really just socialists.
Well, they are.
Now there's full-on communist, like, race radicals.
It's like, okay, no, okay.
And if Glenn Greenwell's point could have been proved faster, Tucker did that segment, and then immediately after that segment, you have the editor of Vox here, the leftist outlet jumping in, and being like, no, the holy NSA! Don't criticize my boy!
Tucker Carlson lies that the NSA effectively conceded, yes, they read our emails.
In fact, the NSA said in a statement on Tuesday that it is untrue that it has monitored Tucker's electronic communications.
Oh, we would never do that.
We're just the NSA. And Vox are like, we believe the NSA, the holy NSA, who would never lie to the American people.
But also, they're just, again, false.
As I mentioned earlier, they said that Tucker was not a target.
The wording used by government agencies is always very specific.
Even when they're not lying, they will try and use the language to make sure they can give themselves as much leeway as possible.
The fact that he's not the target himself does not mean they have not read his emails.
If he is next to someone who is a target and they get access to communications, then they can read his emails, no problem.
And that's completely legal, my understanding.
If they've got a reason to be spying on that original person, if they don't, then they're just being the NSA, aren't they?
Just breaking the law, because why not?
I just find it amazing.
Like, the...
The guy with the hammer has been accused of smashing a window.
He's like, no, no, I only smash windows, I'm allowed to smash.
It's like, yeah, sure you do.
That's literally all you do is smash windows all day, and we've got a bunch of smashed windows, but you're like, no, it wasn't me.
Come on.
But also just the leftists.
I mean, the editor of Vox there.
Vox.com is like the NSA. Don't criticize my boy.
They're the good guys.
Also, the CIA and FBI did nothing wrong.
Jesus Christ.
I know.
I hate it.
I almost want to just call them a front for intelligence agencies at this point.
I mean, considering they've been taken over by woke-ism, as we demonstrated with the CIA. If the CIA is run by woke-ists...
Well, it's amazing how just the left used to be the party that was sceptical, the wing of politics that was sceptical of the accumulation of power.
And now the power has been accumulated and centralised in a very, very small number of bodies.
They're like, yeah, this is perfect.
Because they're our bodies.
Yeah, exactly.
That's exactly because they think they're going to be theirs forever.
So the next thing here is the GOP leader has called for an investigation into Tucker Carlson's claim because the thing is he made that freedom of information request.
He said he had a long conversation.
That's going to get him nowhere.
It's only Congress that has any kind of power to initiate getting information out of them.
So the Republicans are doing the right thing here.
The leader of the GOP, I don't know the guy.
I don't know if he's a rhino or not.
He says Tucker Carlson made the statement, and I want all the information regarding that to the NSA.
So we'll see what comes out of that.
But also Matt Gaetz.
Matt Gaetz has also demanded an investigation into the situation.
And he has a clip in this in which he points out, as I mentioned earlier, the NSA's wording is very specific because it always is from a government department and leaves some room for the points that they said he's monitored.
But also, they didn't say that they wouldn't leak anything if they did get it.
They weren't like, no, no, we'd never do that.
So, let's play the next clip.
The NSA says, Tucker Carlson has never been an intelligence target of the agency, and the NSA has never had any plans to try to take his program off the air.
And the statement continues.
But what's interesting is that there is no denial that they were monitoring Tucker Carlson Even if he wasn't the target.
We saw this exact playbook with Carter Page and Donald Trump, where in order to try to assess information from one person, the intelligence community will utilize authorities to go after someone else to try to ensnare their true target.
I think that's why they were going after Democrat staff, to try to get to Schiff and Swalwell.
I think it's the reason they were going after Republican staff.
Perhaps to target Mr.
Nunes or others.
I think it's why they were going after Carter Page to get to Trump.
And I think that there was probably somebody in Tucker Carlson's orbit that NSA was monitoring.
And there's no denial that they caught up Tucker Carlson in that monitoring.
And by the way, there's also no denial that there was a plan to leak the information to try to, in some way, embarrass Tucker Carlson.
The only denial is that they weren't What I find is really interesting about that is the guy read Tucker's emails back to him.
So they definitely have his text messages and emails.
So...
What's the argument?
Yeah.
Like, the idea that not getting his information, well, how did he get those emails and read them back at Tucker?
Yeah.
What are we supposed to draw from this, other than they're obviously playing defence, because that's what government agencies like the NSA do?
But you have the NSA's word that he's not the target.
For all that's worth.
We'd never monitor you.
So, I suppose, are the NSA targeting Tucker Carlson?
Yeah, probably.
Just like they've done to loads of other people.
So, no surprise, but it's absolutely disgusting.
And it's good to see the Republicans fighting back on that.
Yeah.
Let's go to the video comments.
Hey guys, how's it going?
I wanted to make a few requests for the history podcast.
First off, the Crusades would be nice.
People often use the, ah, Christianity is terrible because of my Crusades.
Well, it would be actually nice to know a little bit more about why they were started.
I understand that it's not all evil.
And also, the founding of England.
How did that actually happen from old Wessex and Northumbria, etc.?
How about the founding of Britain?
We don't actually learn any of this in history, or at least I didn't when I was at school, and I should know.
Thanks very much.
Good recommendations.
I'll pass them along to Beau and we'll get on it.
Great one you should do.
When someone brings up the Crusades, everyone thinks of Jerusalem, and that just leaves my mind entirely.
And all I can think of is Spain.
That's a Crusade.
Tell me what's wrong with that.
Oh, well, they're attacking the Muslims, who are native to Spain, are they?
Like, that's how that works, is it?
Yeah, how did they get there?
God knows.
Incidentally...
And it was also a success, that's the thing.
It's the foundation of the Spanish state.
So, you can't say, oh, it's a big failure.
No, it's a massive success.
Not this week's epochs, but next week's will actually be about Charles Martel and the Battle of Tours, and why they had to kick the Muslims out of France.
Again, what were they doing in France in the 8th century?
How did they get there?
That's where Mecca is, right?
Yeah, why were there 80,000 armed Muslims...
Sacking and looting France.
And they got right up into the middle of France.
Well, they weren't just on the borders.
They were right up near Paris, to be honest.
It's like, okay, this is something that we need to talk about.
And so that will be in about two weeks' time, I think.
But that will be a good one.
So definitely sign up for that.
But I just hate how, in America at least, when I talk to people about the Crusades, they always seem to think that it's some kind of defensive war on the part of the Muslims.
And I'm like, on what universe does that make sense?
No, it's the complete opposite way around.
The Crusades are a defensive war on the part of Christianity.
Yeah.
Let's go for the next one.
This isn't medical advice, but a physician's perspective on diet affecting multiple sclerosis.
Multiple sclerosis is an autoimmune-mediated disease.
As such, it is well within the mechanisms of the disease that a flare of the immune system Either by environment or by diet would precipitate MS symptoms.
And it follows that removal of an antigen via a changing diet will reduce the number of autoimmune events.
That said, it is not a functional cure, but fewer symptoms would mean slower disease progression in theory.
too long didn't read it is reasonable to attribute dietary change to the change in the course of MS but it isn't definitive proof that it does Alright, that's from a comment yesterday.
Somebody said about he did keto.
Wait, no, he went pure carnival.
It seemed to have helped his MS. Oh, right.
Well, this isn't a new thing either.
I mean, a lot of ancient Greek medicine was about your diet.
So they, like, and especially when it came to things like behavior, there were all sorts of medicine.
No, no, no.
No, I love it.
You remember AA did a video about, like, he had an old book that was, like, the size of your skull determines things?
Yeah.
Yeah, obviously pseudoscience.
I love the idea that it's like, hmm, if you want to be more, you know, contemplative and rational, eat more, you know, greens or something like that.
Well, no, that's literally it, because, like, they had found through trial and error that if you eat certain kind of foods, you end up with a certain kind of sort of predisposition.
And there's probably something to it.
Why wouldn't there be?
I just love, like, if you need anger, eat beef, and if you need serenity, eat pork.
Well, no, I mean, look at the soy boys, you know.
Yeah, I mean, on a grando scale, sure.
Look at the meeting gym chads.
They've got different behaviour than the plant-eating soy boys.
But I really want to find some pseudoscience version of it, just for a laugh.
Well, I mean, I'm not saying it's necessarily scientific, but, like, I think there probably is something to it, you know.
But, again, not medical advice.
I'm not an expert.
Let's go to the next one.
For anyone who's wondered what percentage of the UK population is actually gay, here is the statistics as provided by the ONS. In orange is the statistics from 2019 and in blue is from 2014.
So that is 93 or 94% of the population are straight.
About 2% identify as gay or lesbian, compared to actually about 3% who say they don't know or refuse to answer.
Already.
So 98% are not gay or lesbian.
How long have they got those data points for?
Because I'd love to get a graph over a long period of time.
You can see...
No, no, I've seen it.
You can see the sort of, like, the increase of the share.
Because, of course, constant, unremitting activism on part of all aspects of society.
The point for me has to come about 2012.
Because you remember the articles, you know, number of times intersectionality was mentioned.
Flatlined, and then 2012.
Yeah, yeah.
And racism as well.
So I have to wonder if you get there, would you start getting responses, you know, like I identify as an attack helicopter, for example.
I mean, like the most recent census is going to be a hell of a mess.
I can't wait till it's released.
When is it released?
Next year, isn't it?
I don't know.
The self-identity question I think is a bit botched as well, thanks to the intersectional lobby, because I can't recall the details, but Posey Parker made a point about this.
They changed the question halfway through the census, so the whole thing's...
Right, okay.
Let's go to the next one.
Hello.
I have been trying to reach you about your car's extended warranty.
No, but in all seriousness, I would just like to know why about 7% of the population can strong arm these giant corporations into giving in to the woke mob and why we even allow it.
I mean, our society is just kind of so self-indulgent in these products that we're paying for our own demise.
I think that's something I'll have to do a separate video on or something like that because I think there's quite a lot to say there.
But it comes down to the retreat of Christianity and Christian values in the face of this new civic religion.
It's like a jihad that's going on.
But how can such a small number of people take over so much?
Because the people who take over anything are always only a small number.
Okay, but then there's just no resistance, you're saying?
Yeah, there's no resistance because the moral framework that was underpinning the traditional moral standards of the West have totally collapsed from the assault from the intersectional side of things.
So they've attacked on certain very effective angles.
Equality, inclusion, tolerance...
There's such a vacuum that, of course, even though this is so obviously nonsensical, there's no resistance.
Exactly.
And so they fill it with their new spirituality that's been developed in academia.
As I said, it is a civic religion that is replacing Christianity at the moment.
And the Christians need to modernize, basically.
That actually makes sense when you think about Atheism Plus and that whole saga.
Oh, totally.
It's a huge vacuum.
I keep seeing massive atheist pages, millions of followers on Facebook, posting stuff like, why is bestiality wrong?
And stuff like that.
Because you can see that the leftists have come in, annihilated all of the structures, all of the moral arguments that prevented these things from being even considered.
And now, in the absence of these moral structures that were previously determining the scope and the scale and the way that the conversation goes, now that they've been obliterated, the field's opening.
Anything can be open.
So the atheists are like, so is it wrong to have sex with a pig?
It's like, yes.
And the atheists have gone down the wrong road.
As an atheist, I'm saying, yes, it is wrong to have sex with a pig.
Fellow atheists...
I don't know why I have to say that, but like, you know, these are the questions that you guys are contemplating now, and so, you know.
You should probably give a shout-out to Atheists for Liberty.
Go and follow them on their various social medias.
Yes.
There's some sensible ones.
People are always mentioning 3%ers as well.
It's a good point.
It takes 3% of the population to overthrow.
All revolutions are done by a tiny minority of people.
Go for the next one.
You look over at Joe Biden and he could be outside a hundred feet from the nearest person, okay?
And he's got on the biggest mask you've ever seen.
It is huge.
You've never seen anything like it.
And now he wants to destroy our big, beautiful border, okay?
And the media is running defense for him.
I mean, even Fox News, you look over at Fox News and they're not as amazing as they used to be, frankly.
I mean, I do miss Trump.
Good God.
Did you see he went somewhere...
I don't know if he gave a speech or something, but I saw Jim Acosta trying to get a rise out of him, and just the crowd starts booing.
Like, just booing over the press.
I'll just be like, shut up!
Like, we're here for this!
You're ruining it!
Sit down!
Literally no one is here for Jim Acosta.
Yeah.
Let's go for the next one.
When are y'all going to put the woke army training on your website?
Because I think all of us would be very interested in seeing it.
I suppose when it gets through.
I don't know if Whitehop has sent it to the writing staff.
Yeah, there was also concerns about that because she could get dishonorably discharged, which is a black mark on her name.
She said she's leaving in a few months or something like that?
Yeah, so don't do anything until you've been honourably discharged, basically.
Right, okay.
But yeah, I don't think we're going anywhere, at least not yet.
I hope.
Next one.
Hey guys, I'm really glad to see the continuing increase in membership, especially in the gold tier.
However, I have noticed a really steep decline in beard quality.
Ha ha!
Something's really going to have to be done.
Phoebe's especially is atrocious.
Who's going to say that?
We can't really make the women grow beards.
We can encourage it.
If they were a veil, then we'd never know.
That's a good point.
I like to think that that's the purpose in Islam.
Because you know, it may not be meant to not trim the beards below a fist, whatever it is.
Do you not remember the Turkish Iman who's like, men without beards are turning me gay?
I think that says more about him.
Exactly.
Men without beards are basically women.
And I want to have sex with them, yeah.
Is that okay?
I mean, that old guy raises a good point.
Oh, no.
I don't even know what it is.
Vegemite.
Never tried it.
I like Marmite.
Oh, no way, though.
Look at that.
Oh, my God.
He's not even crying.
LAUGHTER He just...
LAUGHTER For anyone who was listening to that and not watching, he had a big spoonful of Vegemite, which I understand is basically the Australian version of Marmite, and just put it all in his mouth and chewed it and swallowed it.
As a man test, and then his shirt says, how's that?
Yeah, I mean, that's pretty manly, to be honest.
Saying that, I got some Marmite cheese the other day, Marmite cheddar.
It was gorgeous.
I was reading the other day, there was a Twitter thread being like, what was it?
Fellow men, what's something about men that you find annoying?
And one of the respondents was like, when people make fruity drinks unmanly, like, doesn't a bro just want to have a sweet tooth while he's drinking instead of drinking, like, bitter beer?
And I was looking at that, and then he wrote underneath, could you imagine if men said that cake was not manly?
I was like, you know what, base.
Like, imagine just telling her about you're eating cake.
Ugh.
Yeah, I like this angle, because I have no cake in ages.
So, yeah.
But no, the answer to that is, of course, catboys.
Anyone who associates or is even vaguely seen near a catboy is officially not a man anymore.
But you could do the same with just unhealthy food in general.
It's just like you're eating something really sugary and you're like, what are you, a woman?
Hmm.
What's wrong with that?
Like, for someone who likes sugar, just not excessive amounts of it.
No, no, I agree.
Pathologize sugar.
Sugar is for women.
The women will agree.
Exactly.
Israel says, what do you do in your bedroom is none of your own business.
Progressives, not anymore.
Yeah, exactly.
Why?
What you do in your bedroom is none of your business.
Yeah, well...
George Hap says, considering the Pride story, are we ready to implement Russia's laws against public displays of alphabet propaganda now?
Could you imagine writing the law and writing the word alphabet?
I mean, if they did it, I don't think I'd complain.
Because again, it's the point.
It's the point about, you know, there's gay tolerance, there's toleration of homosexuality and the rest of it, and there's the alphabet people.
Yeah.
I really wish Douglas Murray had said alphabet people instead of queer, to be honest.
Yeah, but I mean, like...
I think they really forget what tolerance is, right?
Tolerance is me just accepting that something exists.
But that's all we want.
Yeah, that's all I want.
I mean, I tolerate furries.
I tolerate socialists.
Tolerate.
But the point is, it doesn't mean I can't be critical or strongly condemned.
Or even hate.
Or even hate.
I... Sorry about this point, but I really hate in English law that we've criminalized hate, so religious hatred is a crime in the UK. And I can't get over how anyone just accepts that.
I see conservatives saying, yes, yes, we must have laws against promoting terrorism and rising hate.
And I'm just like, what do you mean?
Religious hatred has to be fundamental to the freedom of religion.
If you can't hate someone, you can tolerate them.
That's a fine standard.
That's a great standard.
That makes a welcoming society that you can live in.
But to say you can't hate someone?
I don't know how on earth that can be a standard.
Well, it can't, and it's kind of alien to common law as well, because tolerance is regarding your behaviour, right?
So you can't hurt someone, you can't, you know, destroy their property, try and interfere with their lives, blah, blah, blah, because you've got to be tolerant of the fact that they exist, and that's fine.
But that doesn't speak to your opinion on what they do, on who they are, whatever it is.
Whereas hate is specifically based on opinion, and common law is not built on opinion.
Common law is built on behaviour, and so this is obviously a foreign read, continental, Introduction into our system.
And it's terrible.
You're absolutely right.
The Conservatives should be like, no, you should have the freedom to have any opinion on something that you want, but your behaviour...
Even just the individual can hate.
That's not even the thing.
The law is that you can't incite racial hatred or something.
But that's, again, just an opinion.
That's not an action.
To incite racial violence, that could be something we could use as standard.
That's fantastic.
But to say that hatred should be a crime, I don't know how on earth that's become mainstream.
And there's no barrier.
There's no hard line that you can draw between one side and the other.
So it becomes whatever the governing authority wants it to be.
The margin can shift.
Which is why some people in the UK get arrested for handing out flyers and they say you're inciting religious hatred for saying Allah is gay.
Chris says, isn't it considered child abuse in most places to show child pornographic material?
How is this any different?
It's not.
Omar says, forget kinks, public displays of affection should be private.
I mean, it depends what we mean by public displays of affection.
These people, I mean, if it's holding hands or having a kiss in public, I don't care about that.
But like walking around naked and spanking each other, possibly a bit too far.
These people don't understand morals or boundaries anymore.
That's true.
They're so desperate for attention and validation because they don't know how to obtain self-satisfaction from anything else on life other than Twitter likes or group chants.
That's true.
You get articles all the time framed like something is a common problem instead of a massive projection of their neuroticism or narcissism.
They feel no shame in airing their dirty laundry because they need constant affirmation from external sources because, as he's pointing out, they are deeply unfulfilled people.
They target children because they don't know enough to make proper judgment and tell them what they're doing is disgusting.
I'm reminded of the article about the journalist and their husband letting their adult daughter think they're cheating rather than tell her they're in an open relationship.
On some level, they think it's wrong, and they feel it's wrong, and would rather pretend they're having affairs.
I doubt that they could articulate it without breaking their progressive conditioning, but it's just cheating with extra steps and they know it.
Yeah, but I mean, I'm not against people holding hands in public or anything.
That's too far.
Allowed us not allow this.
Yeah, exactly.
Well, they allow Saudi men to do it.
Yeah, well that's with your bro.
That's not gay.
Even in Djibouti, they're like, hold hands.
It's like, yeah, but being gay is illegal here.
I'm not gay.
Me and Abdul are not gay.
Yeah, we're just holding hands for the fun of it.
Just very good friends.
Just masculine hand-holding.
Yeah, exactly.
Well, that's the point, isn't it?
The right to be able to wander around naked in public and perform sex acts in public.
And it's like, sure.
But there are duties, and a duty of care towards, say, the sanctity and innocence of children is the one that we're arguing from, because I guess we're conservatives that way.
It's also the idea that, like, you know, gay rights include, like, we need the equal right to fist each other in public.
It's like, straight people don't have that either.
Yeah, exactly.
This isn't an equal right.
This is now a privilege.
Janalis says, whatever happened to the days when your sex life was just left in the bedroom?
The kink parade is just a way to posture to the public.
Look at me.
Look how kinky I am.
I'm definitely not a pedo.
I'm just here getting your child to participate in our parade.
This is all just disturbing.
I'm not surprised by the media's response.
After all, the BBC did protect Savile's public image.
Yes.
Chad Kuala says, remember in South Park when Mr. Garrison shoved a gerbil up Mr. Slave's ass in front of the fourth grade class?
And we laughed because nothing that insane would ever be allowed in front of kids.
God damn, we were innocent then.
I know.
Like I said, I didn't know Nambla was a real thing.
Have you seen that episode?
I thought it was a joke.
Yeah.
So for people who don't know that episode, actually, it makes me wonder.
So Garrison is trying to get fired because he knows if he gets fired, he can say, oh, you'll find me for being gay and get a million dollars.
So he starts doing really inappropriate things in front of the class to get fired.
And they just won't fire him because they're like, oh, tolerant.
So inclusive.
And they just keep clapping him on.
And eventually Garrison's just like, right, what the hell is wrong with you?
You should have kicked me out ages ago.
And then they send him to the mines of tolerance.
And now we're here.
But it's almost like the pride parades, they're sort of tempting us.
They're like, come on, attack us or something.
Like, we're literally doing this in front of children.
Yeah, but that's the point.
There's no pushback, there's no resistance.
And it seems that, not just conservatives, but, like, normal people can no longer protect the innocence of children.
Like, I half expect the leather dog man to get up and look at the mother with her child there and be like, go home!
Take your kid home!
What are you doing here?
I mean, the thing is, I would actually have more respect for them if they did that.
But like, look, okay, this is for adults, you know, this is like, you know, the pride parade for adults.
There's not, I mean, in fact, that's the Saul Sugarman.
Guy who wrote the article, he was like, hey, don't let kids go to these ones because these are for adults.
Okay, fine.
At least we've got some barriers there.
We've got some acknowledgement that maybe kids shouldn't see the most hardcore stuff that happens at Gay Pride Prize.
At least someone's finally willing to say it.
And it wasn't an appeal to the sanctity of pride either, the sanctity of kink.
You know, oh, well, I mean, you know, kink's about consent.
It's like, yeah, but what about the kids?
Like, anyway.
Sam says, well, I mean, honestly, it's just the Weimar Republic all over again, isn't it?
The left's like, yes.
I mean, they actually are.
I didn't read the article, she did, you know?
Yeah, exactly.
It's not right-wingers doing this.
The left-wingers are saying, yeah, we're after your kids.
Well, I mean, everything the right was saying in the 90s has been proven correct by the Pride people.
Literally, they're coming for your kids, they want to turn everyone gay, they're going to be trying to normalise sexual acts in front of children.
Not even turn everyone gay, just make everyone participate.
Yeah.
They want the kids to understand and participate in the kinks.
It's like...
No.
Yeah.
We'd never do that.
Oh, here we are.
Satan worship, yeah.
Well, on that note, CEY says, Slaanesh is pleased with these new parades.
Yes, he is.
Sure, she.
I don't know what Slaanesh's pronouns are, actually.
I think it's he and her.
It's got to be, surely.
They.
Yeah.
Ruben Sanchez says, you know what, maybe we should...
I'm not going to advocate for oppressing anyone, but...
No, no, I'm full on.
Oppression for pedos.
Because it's not oppression.
Alexander says, I do not consent to being involved in your kink, checkmate.
No, I didn't think so.
Ryan says, deeply disturbing that instead of arguing from the point of sanctity of the innocence of the child, they go for, this makes my kink look bad.
Yeah, exactly.
Exactly.
Yeah, and that's the thing, right?
Like, again...
They're not wrong about the optics point.
Don't think that this LGBT pride ideology actually represents a majority of gay people, or anyone.
It doesn't.
It just doesn't represent a majority of anything.
I mean, like we covered before as well, the acceptance of LGBT people.
It's going down.
Every survey just goes down and down.
Yeah.
And it's like, it's not, you know, it's going down so fast, it's not because of mass migration.
It's because of stuff like this.
No, if you're going to allow furry pedos dressed in leather to whip each other in a public street in front of a bunch of kids, yeah, my acceptance of that goes down.
Don't know why I have to say that, but it's just beyond the pale, man.
It's way too far.
But anyway...
I want to make a very spicy joke about current events in Canada, and I can't.
It is part of those matriarchal societies that accept the blurring of the gender roles.
I know this from reading Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls Report in Canada.
It turns out the reason that women and girls are going missing and getting murdered is almost entirely due to the indigenous.
There's a shocking story of a woman thanking her partner for saving her life by keeping her in when she wanted to go out and kill herself.
The reason she wanted to kill herself?
Because her lesbian partner was so horrifically abusive to her.
Well, what's interesting is if you look at domestic violence, it's lesbian relationships where you get the highest amount of domestic violence.
Half of lesbians...
I assume per capita?
No, just half of all of them.
I mean, not half of all domestic violence is lesbians, but like per capita.
Yeah, yeah.
Well, half of all of lesbians in lesbian relationships have been abused by their partner physically.
The other half of the abusers?
Well, yeah, of course they are.
But the statistics actually go up to something like 60% for bisexual women in a relationship with a lesbian.
60% of them have been physically abused, according to polling.
That's something you won't learn about in school.
What's up for straights?
Oh, something like 30%.
No, no, 24%, I think it was.
Yeah, it's a big difference.
Yeah, it's massive.
It's literally like three times the number of bisexual women who are being abused by lesbians.
It's crazy.
But I mean, you know, hate facts.
Bart says, generally speaking, you guys are pretty ignorant on gay issues.
Oh, okay, good.
You opine a great deal, but for example, making comments on two spirits on Section 28, seeing all through the eyes of us wanting to access your kids, they can't reproduce, they need to seduce, as they used to say and still do in Birmingham, is revolting.
I hope you research other topics better than this.
What do you think of that?
I don't know how looking at that person saying, I want kids to experience King of Pride, and coming away from that article with anything other than disgust is the correct response.
Like, I know he's mentioning, so the Two-Spirit thing?
I don't have to know about that to know that her saying, my kids should be cheering on people whipping each other at Pride is wrong.
I don't have to know anything about that.
The Section 28 thing, this is a section you did, in which you looked back at the parliamentary records, was it?
Yep.
Like, was someone in the House of Lords?
Yeah, it was in the House of Lords.
The House of Lords, sorry.
Well, they were talking about this because from Thatcher until Tony Blair, they simply weren't allowed to teach pro-gay propaganda in schools because parents kept complaining that it was bleeding into pedophilia.
If I remember correctly, the Conservative Minister wasn't arguing.
So pro-gay propaganda, I mean, this is the problem with the language.
She was arguing not that gay people exist, as some people might say, that being gay was something good to be, or something like this.
It's like, no, it's morally neutral.
It's not important.
That's the whole dream, is that this isn't important.
Yeah, none of this is morally good or bad.
And I always thought it was because you didn't really have a choice in how your sexuality was.
But I mean, if that's changed, then maybe we could add a moral dimension to sexuality.
Why not?
Although I don't think it does.
No, I agree.
But if the left is saying, well, actually, it's all just my choice and I can choose anything at any point in time, it's like, okay, well, then your choices now have a moral dimension because it's a choice.
If it's not a choice, it doesn't have a moral dimension, does it?
So, anyway.
Student of history.
Are the good old days when pride was, I'm gay and it's all right?
Yeah.
Will the Impaler.
We all knew rainbow armbands were coming.
A thousand queer Reich marches on.
It looks like an alt-right meme.
And the England team's like, yeah, we'll do that.
Yeah, it looks like it's come a 4chan, man.
All of this does.
What do you mean about the whole team's 4channers and they're just like, accelerate?
No, I bet it's not.
Anyway, Free Will says, the end of the West is in sight.
When the US falls to totalitarianism, the rest of us will go too.
They're not even hiding their power grab anymore.
Most of the population will go like sheep to their shearing.
Yeah, they absolutely will, and that's the issue, isn't it?
Like, look at the woke generals, man.
Literally the guy being like, you know, I'm offended.
I want to know about white rage.
How about you go on Tumblr and find out then?
You know, because that's where you're getting all of this from.
But it's just, like, when the military goes well, we'll talk about this later, actually.
There's another segment we're going to do at some point about the fact that the rest of the world is like, oh, right, so they're weak.
They're not going to be able to resist us.
Good times ahead.
Yes, I fully agree.
I don't believe them for a second.
JJHW says, What about the rest of the US government?
Well, yeah, exactly.
um student of history says yeah the nsa is spying on you but so is the fbi the cia the dea the atf mi6 and probably a dozen dozen other foreign intel agencies as well as google facebook twitter and other social media and phone providers you have zero right to privacy anymore and they know when you go to lunch or hell when you even need to praise the porcelain god uh wow senator and Another add to that.
Senator Joe Biden from 2006 should debate President Joe Biden in 2021.
Yeah.
Big a debate, wouldn't it?
It would.
Although with the NSA and whatnot, it's illegal.
That's the thing.
So, I mean, Facebook, you can turn off.
Although I imagine how squeaky clean does Tucker Carlson have to be at this point to not be taken down?
I mean, we were saying before the podcast, when you look at the Hancock incident, the fact that that was filmed in March and has been sat on for so long, it was leaked as well.
Apparently the camera has been moved.
So it's meant to look at a window and it was moved to look at the door for him snogging his secretary.
And then whoever took that footage has been sat on it for months and And then all of a sudden released it just as he's getting a lot of shit.
And we still don't know who did it.
Yeah.
SH Silver says, notice how slimy the NSA is when they repeat the supposed allegation.
We would never spy on him to take him off the air.
Tucker never said they were trying to take him off the air, just that they were spying on him, always with the Weasley denials.
Remember the AP spying scandal?
Remember the IRS weaponized against conservative groups?
Yeah, I should have brought that up.
I forgot about that.
Yeah, so the IRS was targeting conservatives specifically to harm them.
Biden is already starting up those Obama-era policies again.
Yes, they are.
Caffeinated Sentry Gnome says, with six degrees of separation, the NSA could legally spy on anyone.
Yes, basically.
Anyway, Ty Buffett says, have you seen the story that the judge in Columbus, Ohio, when sentencing a man for improper use of a firearm, part of the order was that he had to get a COVID vaccine and show proof of same within 30 days.
How do they get away with that?
There has to be an overreach of powers.
I have no idea.
I didn't see that.
Did you see that?
Improper use of a firearm.
Sorry, you had to get a COVID vaccine to use the firearm?
No, part of the sentencing, what he had to do to make restitution, was get a COVID vaccine.
According to the judge.
That's cruel and unusual.
I mean, I saw another one like this where I think it was someone who was in the capital.
Their terms of bail were that they had to wear a mask and then they were like, that's ridiculous.
So they got one of those stupid masks where it's like a fishnet.
It obviously does nothing like the rest of them.
And she wore that and he called her back to court and then reprimanded her about this whole thing and then set a cash bail instead.
How is that legal?
That's not law.
That's a meme.
Dominic says, Greetings from Canada.
Today we are supposed to be celebrating the founding of our country, yet a few Conservative MPs, nearly all the Liberal and NDP MPs, have successfully demoralized the nation and gotten Canada Day cancelled, as we must flagellate ourselves in penance for the sins of generations past.
There are a good number of us who are not going to comply.
We will fly a flag and celebrate with our families, keep up the good work with the site.
Yeah, I mean, like, don't get me wrong, the discoveries of bodies from the 70s...
Yeah, what's going on there?
I haven't really paid much attention.
So in the 70s, places like Canada and Australia had an initiative to try and integrate young people, children from native populations, which meant they essentially stole them from their families and apparently mistreated them to the point where hundreds of them died.
So I imagine the argument at the time were like, well, they're still savages.
We take their kids and raise them.
It seems that way, yeah.
They'll bring up their civilization, and instead they just, what, mistreated them?
I haven't looked into it in detail, but I imagine it's something like that.
So it's like the old workhouses in England.
Yes.
So you just don't properly take care of them and they start dying.
Yes.
And don't get me wrong, it's awful, you know, obviously.
Does that mean that Canada shouldn't exist?
Yeah, because some people in the 70s made some really terrible decisions.
Like, we've had workhouses, therefore death to Britain.
Yeah.
It's not really an argument.
Yeah.
Spring Valley Itland says, Proposal for a solution to Big Tech's cowardly censorship.
They could still censor and ban anyone from breaking their rules, but they have to point to exactly how their rules were broken.
SoundCloud shouldn't just say that Andy Ngo broke the rules, but be really specific about which post broke which rule.
Facebook should show the post, not just claim that Voldemort did advocate for the beheading of Muslims.
In any case, they don't comply, fine them 100k a day...
This should apply retroactively also, so Facebook should be fined from the day that Voldemort was banned.
Interestingly, DeSantis tried to bring in a Poland-style rule, saying that if you ban any foreign residents from social media, then you get fined or whatever.
And the Supreme Court overthrew this on grounds that it violated the freedom of speech.
Facebook, Twitter and whatnot.
Facebook and Twitter, yeah.
That was one of the legal problems it was going to end up running.
Of course.
But that's a great point.
It's just ironic though, isn't it?
I don't know how they could refuse that point.
That's fantastic.
If a company does ban you, they have to be specific.
That's a fantastic idea.
I don't think I've ever thought about how wonderful that is.
Because them just saying community guidelines and then moving on, it's really easy for them.
But if you can see in every single instance why the person was banned, I mean, we've got, for example, people send us messages of like, I made this comment on Facebook and I got a 30-day ban.
And it's always just like a picture of the England flag or something like that.
And you can put those together and it's obviously embarrassing.
If they could do that for public figures, you know, major figures, so why was Andy no banned?
This podcast with Douglas Murray, like that's fantastic.
Because then you can attack them very specifically instead of just having to say you're censoring us, so on and so forth.
And they'd have to try and defend themselves, and it would work.
Especially if they try and argue with Andy Ngo that they went and say, you glorified terrorism, because that's a crime.
And then they can also be sued for lying.
I don't know how that would violate their free speech rights to ban you.
You can still ban the person, but you have to tell them what for.
Well, that's the thing about Voldemort, isn't it?
I mean, when they came out and openly admitted, okay, it wasn't any one post.
We just thought the tenor of his social media presence was behead Muslims.
I mean, that's pretty outrageous.
But they said to the BBC there was a post in which he said that.
Exactly.
So show the post because, I mean, the legal system would be interested if Lord Voldemort had put up a post inciting violence.
He would be going to jail.
Yeah.
So why don't we get to see it?
It doesn't exist.
That's a fantastic point.
If anyone's in a position to message to Santos or whatever about that, if he wants to do some good, that would be a fantastic thing to do because that would not violate anything on the side of Silicon Valley.
They wouldn't be able to argue against that.
On any constitutional grounds.
They still have the ability to ban you.
You just have to be specific.
That's fantastic.
Anyway, we're out of time, so we're going to end the show there.
But if you want more from us, go over to thelotesties.com.
Massive amount of content.
We're going to do some weekend podcasts out of this.
Just some segments that we put up on the weekends now, in case you guys hadn't noticed.
Otherwise, we'll see you tomorrow at 1 o'clock.
Thank you and goodbye.
▲
Export Selection