Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 5, 2021 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:25:44

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #168

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Ears for the 5th of July 2021.
	I'm joined by Carl.
	Hello.
	And today we're going to be talking about how leftists are rejecting the 4th of July, Chicago's weekend massacres and also critical race theorists on the defence, because they're realising that no one likes them.
	No.
	Because segregation bad.
	Yeah, it's going well.
	I mean, controversial opinion, anyway.
	The first thing I wanted to mention was some of the premium content we have on the website.
	So, first thing here is just the contemplations that went up on Saturday, because they're premium now, because so many of us don't know.
	So, go and check that out.
	This is on the evolution of humans and what makes them unique.
	So, that's between Hugo and Josh.
	And also, the next thing here is just the epochs you've been doing with Bo.
	So, this one about...
	You didn't do this one, actually.
	It was an interview with Magest...
	Apolistic Majesty.
	There we go.
	Difficult phrase.
	Justinian's one of the, probably the most interesting Eastern Roman Emperor, to be honest.
	And his attempted reconquest of the Roman Empire was a very fascinating thing, but it's not just that.
	He codified, he's got a series of laws that became like the legal system for almost a thousand years in the East and things like that.
	He's a really, really fascinating guy.
	Definitely recommend it.
	Speaking of tribalism, that's why I love the Nica riots as well.
	Oh yeah, yeah, yeah.
	The Nica riots, yeah.
	It's just my team.
	Yeah.
	And then Justin is like, no, no team.
	And then 30,000 people are killed in one afternoon.
	Yeah, that's not a good part of it.
	But anyway, let's get right into it.
	Let's start off with the leftists rejecting the 4th of July.
	So the Americans were celebrating their...
	Do they call it a holiday?
	Well, I assume it's a holiday.
	Yeah, the 4th of July.
	They call it independence.
	We see it as a lucky escape.
	Because, I mean, who wants to be saddled with that?
	But...
	So, just very briefly, for any Americans watching, we don't care about this at all in Britain, and I get so...
	Like, every year on the 4th of July, I'll wake up, and the only reason I know it's the 4th of July is because my mentions are filled with Americans going, ah, suck it, Colonials.
	Yeah, just yank, spamming it, and the British are just like...
	Yeah, it's like, the British are like, look, we had a world-spanning empire, you were a really small part of it, you know?
	Plus, I mean...
	But, you know, take pride.
	There's a lot not to want, is there?
	No, no, no.
	That's fine.
	Anyway, so there's that.
	But the leftists in the United States, of course, hate America.
	So what do they have to do?
	They have to reject the founding of America, 4th of July, 1776, not 1619 or whatever the heck they're trying to make it out to be.
	So this is the first thing here.
	Cori Bush, member of the squad.
	The newest member of the squad.
	Yeah.
	So this is her saying, when they say that the 4th of July is about American freedom, Remember this.
	The freedom they're referring to is for white people.
	This land is stolen land, and black people still aren't free.
	But they do get elected to Congress.
	The elected member of Congress, tweeting on Twitter, verified checkmark.
	I mean, not going to get the platform anytime soon, because notability is the squad.
	46,000 likes!
	Also parroting the politically correct orthodoxy.
	No one in any institution is going to give serious challenge to this.
	This is just the assumed reality of the situation now.
	But the freedom they're referring to is freedom for white people.
	Oprah Winfrey.
	Oppressed.
	But it's still the case.
	The freedom for white people, that's all it applies to.
	I'm still not free, from my position of elected representative.
	But there's also the point of her getting paid $200,000 or whatever a member of Congress gets paid these days.
	That's her salary.
	What is that, top 1%?
	Well, Dallas.
	So there's that.
	And also, her district, if you look it up, there's not been a white representative since 1969, even though 40% of the constituency are white.
	So, hmm.
	There's that as well.
	But this is fantastic.
	Of course, I just...
	There is no thinking on the left where it's just like American Independence Day.
	Yeah, black people, we're still slaves at the point and therefore we're still not free even though we have all the same rights, we have all the same freedoms.
	In fact, you as a person of such prestige are a member of the government.
	And just no challenge whatsoever.
	I did see some good challenges from, you know, let's say the right-wingers, the scary right-wingers being like, well, I mean, if you're not free, could deport you?
	LAUGHTER Pick a country.
	Anyone you like.
	Where would you rather live?
	Yeah, exactly.
	Yeah, I think Andy Noah was just like, I mean, pick a country.
	I'll pay for the flight.
	Don't worry.
	Even though she could pay for the flight herself, but never mind.
	Yeah, and I'll probably buy her own house.
	Anyway, so let's go for the next one here, which is the MSNBC corporate lab dog, Torell.
	So I don't know much about this guy, but I loved his take on all this because it was so insanely dumb, as usual.
	F Independence Day.
	Not only were we not free, the whole reason the colonies wanted independence was because Britain was moving towards abolishing slavery.
	False.
	I mean, just unbelievably false.
	Yeah.
	That's just not a true statement.
	The abolition movement wasn't anywhere near coming to fruition at this point.
	1776.
	No.
	And there are various historians we talked about the other day who said, look, there's just no evidence that any of the colonists were concerned about the abolition of slavery.
	Hmm.
	None of their writing, none of their complaints, nothing that they say about Britain mentions abolishing slavery.
	So he says, why would black people celebrate a day wrapped up in our enslavement?
	It's almost because the United States founding and its revolution are the things that made you not slaves.
	It's a shame this narrative's not true, to be honest, because it'd be a good stick to beat the Americans with.
	Yeah.
	But it's just not true.
	You're a lucky escape this time, Yankees.
	You got this one.
	But just the idea that...
	So the left's idea is always like, you know, black people are still slaves at the point, therefore the entire thing is about keeping us a slave.
	And it's like, yeah, but most countries still had slavery.
	Most of them kept slavery long after the US abolished it.
	It was a latecomer to the whole thing anyway.
	Like, the American Revolution and the revolutionary ideas are what got rid of slavery because they were liberal.
	Yeah, that's absolutely right.
	And the Founding Fathers absolutely knew it.
	And the only reason the whole thing worked is because they had to compromise on the values.
	But they knew that within the American Revolution lay the abolition of slavery.
	They knew that.
	Thomas Jefferson himself.
	I mean, we'll get into it in a second.
	So this corporate lab dog for corporate media, MSNBC, has written a piece about this.
	So if we go to the next one, this is him saying, F, 4th of July.
	The only independence day I recognize is Juneteenth.
	Okay.
	Okay, if you want to.
	So he says, America wanted to protect its cash cow.
	And even more, it was wealth derived from slavery that allowed the colonies to afford to pay for the War of Independence.
	The founding of this country is intertwined with slavery.
	Why would we celebrate that?
	Because of the founding of your nation, the United States.
	Not if you reject the American Republic as being a white project.
	Or just reject the United States in its entirety.
	Yeah, well that's it.
	Rejecting the entire thing.
	But I love it.
	They're just saying it.
	Just like, I hate the United States.
	Not interested in that thing.
	Why?
	Because it's tied with slavery.
	It's like every other nation on Earth.
	Yeah.
	Name a country that didn't have slavery.
	But name a country that fought a civil war to end it as well.
	So he says in here, Thomas Jefferson...
	But even more though, the thing that's really most important there is that it's the North, which is the sort of seat of the revolutionary ideas, the progressive area, that is imposing these modern views on the South.
	It's not like it was the American colonists in the North were like, right, okay, the British are going to get rid of slavery.
	We need to get our independence now.
	And then the same process of the rails that the Republic has been put on lead to the Civil War.
	It's not like these are disconnected events.
	It's emancipational war.
	Yeah, but it's not like these are disconnected events.
	This is a consequence of the American Revolution that the Civil War happens.
	Yeah, and to explain this exact point, he undermines his own argument by pointing out that point, by saying, Thomas Jefferson's first draft of the Declaration of Independence had a part where slavery was condemned, even as one of his 600 slaves stood by ready to do whatever he said.
	I love this so much.
	Ah, you know, we should improve society somewhat, but you participate in society.
	Yeah.
	I do, I'm a smart person.
	Yeah, exactly.
	It's exactly right.
	Okay, Thomas Jefferson's like, okay, yeah, but economically we all have to do this, but this is bad.
	You know, I don't like this.
	It's like working a zero-hour contract, saying I'd like a full contract.
	Oh, but you work on a zero-hour contract.
	Like, sorry, that's not an argument.
	And the left is the first to run up and say, oh, that's not an argument.
	So he says, Jefferson's section blamed slavery on Britain, which was pretty Cope, suggesting King George had forced it on America.
	Congress ended up rejecting that section and created a constitution that protected slavery without mentioning it.
	So, I mean, this is the thing.
	I went back and read his original draft, and it does read like Cope.
	It's like Yankee Cope, where it's like, King George, he has put this upon us.
	What?
	How did King George do this to you?
	This doesn't make any sense.
	King George wasn't alive in 1619.
	But okay, so there's that.
	But the point there is Jefferson, one of the founding fathers, pointing out, hey, slavery's immoral and we're going to have to end this.
	And it got taken out because of the slave class in the South.
	People were like, yeah, well, we can't deal with that.
	Like, we need our slaves.
	So therefore it got taken out.
	But then you can see again, the revolution of the United States leads to the abolition of slavery by its own founding fathers saying, this is wrong.
	yes i don't know why he put that in there anyway this reminds me of today a time where white supremacy shapes american life this story i've made up reminds me of today we're gonna make up another story okay shapes american life so deeply that white people are fighting against the teaching of critical race theory i mean i guess they are yeah Defending slavery.
	There are black people doing that too.
	Okay.
	Defending slavery is just like getting rid of the political race theory, isn't it?
	Because nowadays, as it was back in the early days of America, this country is both engaged by racism and in working hard to pretend it's not.
	Why on earth would the slave owners be pretending they weren't engaging in racism?
	Ha ha!
	Oh, you may be a slaver, but at least I'm not a racist.
	Exactly, like...
	You've insulted me for the last time, sir.
	Off my plantation.
	Boy, take this guy off my plantation.
	Call me a racist.
	I'll say to a Jefferson, you rule the day.
	Stupid.
	Oh, gosh.
	The guys who are fighting against critical race theory, they're just like the slavers of the South.
	The critical race theorists are advocating segregation.
	They have segregated kids multiple times in classrooms already.
	It is why Florida Man decided to ban it.
	One of the direct things he cited was segregating kids in Florida classrooms.
	And you're like, yeah, no, they're the racists because they don't want segregation.
	So, I mean, there's also the point of just, like, why do the American...
	They're racist because they don't want segregation.
	It's even worse.
	Unlike the Southerners, they were perfectly fine people.
	Yeah, but it's just, like...
	Anyway, sorry, Karen.
	Yeah, but I just wanted to mention the point as well, just in case there's a leftist watching.
	Saudi Arabia didn't abolish slavery until 1962.
	1962.
	And because we made them.
	Yeah.
	Whereas the Americans, I mean, the Americans, late to the party, had to have a civil war over it.
	A bit embarrassing for the Anglosphere.
	But it was at least like 100 years ago, or 150 years ago.
	Yeah.
	There's one of the weird things with American history as well.
	They endlessly talk about the slave trade and non-slavery.
	I'm just like, none of you know a slaver.
	None of you know any slaves.
	Never met one.
	No, but there are people in Saudi Arabia still alive who did.
	So, it's just, what the hell are you talking about?
	Like, there's a meme of just, like, there's this son of a slaver, and, like, the slaveholder used to own a slave, and now this guy's his son, and that guy's that son.
	It was like, you owe me reparations.
	For what?
	Like, from one generation already, it's like, I own nothing.
	I own nothing to do with that.
	Like, it's not my fault.
	When I was born, it was abolished.
	Now I'm growing up, it's still abolished.
	And if it's true then, it's true 150-odd years later.
	Anyway, also, Qatar still has slaves, as John...
	So is Libya and various other parts of Africa that we've decided to tamper with.
	Well, thanks to Barack Obama, we reintroduced Libya, didn't we?
	Yeah, yeah, well, yeah.
	I say we.
	Well, yeah.
	Yeah, the Democrats.
	Well, no, it's the Africans enslaving other Africans, but that's...
	Yeah, but the only reason they were given that opportunity is through Democrat policies.
	Yeah.
	What could I have to really do wrong?
	Anyway, so, important person.
	Elisa Milano has something to say about this.
	So important.
	And if we can get this next one up.
	Verified checkmark.
	And I love this.
	Like, look at her there.
	Like, video of herself, and then a message there saying, Reminder, the United States was founded on the unjust treatment of Native Americans, Africans, and or other people of color.
	And it just reminds me of the joke memes when BLM was popping up and you had all these white women who were like, you know, just paint their face with a fist.
	Yeah.
	We got the next one here.
	I mean, just like that.
	Yeah.
	That's what this reminds me of.
	Yeah.
	I need attention too.
	Yeah.
	White women for five seconds not getting the attention.
	Well, here we go.
	Did you know I'm against racism?
	Oh, brave.
	Stunning and brave.
	Just like a southern slaveholder.
	Anyway, someone a little bit more important, NPR, so funded by the taxpayer, decided to take a dump on the whole concept of the Declaration of Independence, weirdly.
	So in here they say, 245 years ago today, leaders representing 13 British colonies assigned a document to declare independence.
	It says that all men are created equal, but women, enslaved people and indigenous people and many others were not held as equal at the time.
	Yeah, everyone knows.
	This is not some big surprise.
	Like, most men also couldn't vote.
	You had to have property and whatnot.
	I mean, this is precisely why we say that it is within the American Declaration of Independence that you get the principles that put America on the rails to normalizing all of these things in the future.
	If your principle is all men are created equal, then you know where that goes.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Exactly where we are now, instead.
	If your founding principle is the ubermensch have special rights over the untermensch...
	Yeah.
	Well, then that doesn't lead to everyone getting the same rights.
	No.
	So, I can't get it.
	But also the fact that they've thrown in women there.
	We're not talking about slaves anymore.
	But it's so interesting how it's just like, oh, well, when they set up these progressive new ideas, not everyone agreed with them.
	No, that's right.
	They didn't.
	That's why they needed them, incidentally.
	We're talking about rights now, not just enslaved people.
	So, women.
	The fact that they couldn't vote, I assume, is what they're referencing there.
	I mean, men also couldn't vote if they didn't have property, so I don't know why they don't get mentioned.
	But, yeah, they're not oppressed enough, I guess.
	So, if we go to the next one, this is a section here, which I just found really funny, in which they write, Editor's note contains a racist slur against indigenous people.
	What are you talking about?
	So the quote from the Declaration here is, so blaming King George, he has excited domestic insurrections among us.
	He has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions.
	So they're referring to American Indians who are killing people of all ages and all sexes, and then they're referring to them as savages.
	And NPR's like, this is a racist slur.
	But yeah, if they kill children, I think we can call them savages.
	Sure.
	Like, if you're turning up and murdering the kids and women not involved in the battle, I don't care if you're an Indian.
	You're still a savage.
	Yeah.
	So, I just, I find it amazing that just, like, these people just want to say racist, don't they?
	I mean, you know, by this standard, the Germans were savages.
	In some ways, we were savages, you know, like...
	But then that's a racist slur against the Anglers.
	I guess so.
	Until you talk like this.
	Anti-German hate speech.
	I love how these people, there's no substance at all.
	I just want to say the word racist and call someone bad, and then move on.
	Well, it's about condemning America as a project, as if there would be...
	Imagine if the United States had never come into being, and it was just the English colonies that were essentially run like the South.
	How do they think they'll ever have arrived at equality and anti-racism and anti-slavery from that position?
	You couldn't have done it.
	You have to have the introduction of an ideological revolution to arrive at that point.
	And they're going, yeah, well, this ideological revolution is the problem because it wasn't brought into existence fully formed and perfect.
	It's like, no, it was a really hard struggle and a desperate one.
	And thank God that they won and not the other way around.
	Surely?
	No, because of course the critical race theorists want to throw the hole in the bin, don't they?
	Of course.
	But that's the point, though.
	They are rejecting the American Republic in its entirety, the entire project.
	I just find it embarrassing.
	I mean, I'm not a carer of Americans' holiday.
	I don't even want to call it Independence Day.
	It's just like the Americans' day.
	Yeah, they do their thing.
	But the thing is, right, it's this framework that ensures that Americans stay on the side of being against racism, being against slavery, being against all these things.
	If you want to get rid of this framework, what are you replacing with?
	Because it could just return to tribalism.
	It could just return to whatever.
	Racial consciousness.
	Well, exactly.
	That's exactly it.
	It returns to racial consciousness as expressly desired by the critical race theorists.
	And so if they turn around and like, yeah, okay, so we want to get rid of the colorblind nature of the American Republic.
	It's like, Well then, there's only one thing to replace it with?
	That's not good.
	Racial consciousness?
	You didn't like that.
	Which is what I want, says the critical race theorist.
	Yeah.
	But anyway.
	The last thing I just wanted to mention on here was just another piece of weird cope I found.
	The Washington Post opinion.
	Independence Day 2021 is an apt occasion to celebrate America's liberation from Trump.
	From democracy.
	God, they do miss him, don't they?
	Like...
	I've got nothing to say.
	Just add Trump in here.
	Why?
	We're free from Trump.
	Why?
	Because we're free from King George.
	I'm not even going to bother with this article because it wasn't very interesting.
	We're free from Trump because we're free from King George.
	But anyway, I just love the cope and I thought we'd just enjoy a little bit of that.
	That's all.
	Okay, well, speaking of Cope, let's talk about Laurie Lightfoot's Chicago, because Chicago is a war zone.
	It seems to literally be hell on earth.
	And you just read through these things, it's just numbers.
	It just becomes numbers after a while.
	You know, Stalin's dictum, whereas, you know, a million, or is it Lenin's?
	You know, one death is a tragedy and millions a statistic.
	Well, that's where we're getting into here.
	So not this weekend just gone, but the weekend before, there were 78 people shot in Chicago in two days.
	Two days, 78 people shot.
	This is genuine war zone levels of people being shot and killed.
	Four mass shootings accounted for a third of these people who were shot in one city.
	How many people lied in a rock at the same time?
	Well, exactly.
	Exactly.
	Like, ten dead from this.
	So only ten died out of the 78 people killed.
	But this means that so far this year, so about halfway through the year now, 331 homicides compared to 319 at this point last year and 247 at this point in 2019.
	So the graph is going up.
	So the shooting's just going up.
	So that's a 34% increase compared to 2019.
	Laurie Lightfoot, Chicago.
	I mean, that's awful, right?
	And this is at least 1,842 shootings this year, right?
	So thankfully, most shootings are actually not fatal, I guess, thank God, you know?
	And compared to in 2019, 1,171.
	So 700 more shootings, just raw numbers.
	And so that's a 57% increase or something like that.
	So literally a war zone, right?
	And so over that weekend, people were shot in 17 of the city's 22 police districts.
	So most of the police districts have shootings, right?
	The most violent was the Grand Crossing district in the south side, where six were shot in one attack, four in another, and a 14-year-old boy was shot in a third attack.
	The most serious attack in the district was in the South Shore neighborhood, where a gunman in a black SUV sprayed bullets at a group of people around 8.45pm on Sunday, killing one woman and wounding five other people, according to the police.
	Can you imagine living like this?
	Who wants to live like this?
	Like, this is insane.
	Hours later, Nyoka Bowie, 37, was killed and at least 10 other people were shot in Marquette Park when gunmen stepped from an alley and just started open fire.
	Why not?
	Group of people.
	I'd better shoot them.
	No one was in custody in either shooting and there have been at least eight other mass shootings in Chicago this month.
	And I went through all of these things.
	There are loads of articles.
	It's just local news reports.
	We're using the Chicago Sun-Times here.
	Local news reports.
	And they, of course, give you all the details.
	And you just go through it and it's just like, oh my god, oh my god.
	And so many of them, it's like, no suspects have been apprehended.
	No suspects have been arrested or anything like that.
	And it's like, right, so loads of them, no one's getting arrested for this.
	Is it even gangs or just...
	Well, who knows?
	We don't know who's done it because no one's been arrested.
	But I assume that it is.
	So it's not like they can even outlaw guns.
	I believe that Chicago has remarkably restrictive gun laws in local gun laws.
	I mean, like in New York, you can't even get a handgun without a ridiculous amount of paperwork.
	Yeah, and so, right, okay, so the gun laws didn't work, right?
	Don't worry, we've banned owning guns.
	Like, you have to go through all this nonsense.
	Don't worry, the illegal guns, they're easy to get.
	Yeah, just like banning drugs made people stop taking drugs.
	But Chicago is on pace to recover 12,000 illegal guns by the end of the year, which be at records, passing last year's record of 11,000 illegal guns.
	We also have strong advocacy in courts for offenders and very little for victims, showing the general theme of leftist-run areas, which is to say, oh, well, they're victims of society, not the people they've shot.
	They're not the real victims.
	The perpetrators are the real victims.
	Brown also notes that officers are being shot at higher numbers than last year as well.
	31 officers have been shot or shot at this year, and by the end of 2020, 79 officers have been shot or shot at.
	Thanks, BLM. Yeah, thanks, BLM. So, if one were to turn, understandably, to Laurie Lightfoot and go, okay, this is your city, why?
	Well, that's a racist or sexist criticism.
	It's really weird.
	According to Laurie Lightfoot.
	99% of critics motivated by racism, sexism.
	That's right.
	Sorry, if you point out that there's a huge crime wave in her city, I imagine it's really, really hard for an average citizen there to get a gun, legally.
	She's defended by armed guards.
	Criticise her, you're a racist.
	Because her city is falling apart into an absolute, just a hellhole.
	What's the voting like here as well?
	Like, I wonder, is she sat on 70-plus Democrat or what?
	Chicago's been Democrat for literally decades.
	This is the thing that kills me, because there is going to be no recompense for these people, and they totally deserve it.
	Yeah, if the people of Chicago are going to continue voting Democrat, and this is where it's led them, then what can you do?
	You lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
	But anyway, yeah, she's, of course, this is all about her general race.
	Look at my predecessor, she says.
	Women and people of colour are always held to a different standard.
	I understand that.
	I've known that my whole life.
	Yeah, white male mayors never get complaints about murders.
	Murders go on all the time and no one cares.
	No, no, no, that's probably true.
	I mean, if you go to, you know, some Republican-held area, they'll be like, so what are the major problems that people come to with?
	Oh, you know, things about taxes and It's because people are killing each other in the streets in unprecedented numbers on a daily basis.
	Genuine, just harrowing how bad this is.
	Laurie's just like, no.
	Has Chicago been like the butt of a joke for a long time on this issue?
	Yes.
	She says, I mean, listen, right?
	Or is that Detroit?
	No, no, no.
	Detroit and Chicago, both same problem, basically.
	I believe that violence is a manifestation of systemic problems.
	She ever met a murderer?
	Clearly not.
	She's got armed guards.
	But this is the point.
	If you're going to say, right, the people who are doing all of the murdering are actually not the perpetrators.
	They themselves are the victims, and they're the victims of systemic problems.
	This becomes a public health crisis.
	Then now you can't even bring the perpetrators to justice.
	Why are you randomly shooting at a group of eight people?
	Because of the history of slavery.
	Society.
	That's why.
	But, like, systemic problems, she's saying, which is going to be systemic racism in Democrats' peak.
	So it's like, yeah, the history of American racism has made me do this.
	Like, my great-great-grandfather was a slave, therefore die.
	And he's shooting black people as well.
	Yeah, exactly.
	But why are you shooting that black person over there, then?
	It's not even Congress.
	No, it's internalised racism.
	It's a massive cope to get around the fact that she's not doing her job.
	And, let's be fair, you're probably going to need to use some fairly heavy-handed tactics to bring these areas into something that can be considered civilized.
	Like, you can't allow these people to operate like this.
	Like, look at all the murders.
	I just, I can't stand it.
	Well, I mean, you can't feel the mayor.
	Well, I suppose if you're the mayor and you've got armed guards and you can deflect any criticism of your terrible policies as racism, then I suppose you can.
	But you see, in way too many neighbourhoods, there's a lack of jobs, a lack of investment.
	These are historic decade-long problems.
	Yes.
	I'm not investing in a community where there are literally mass shootings every weekend.
	Why would you?
	Who would?
	The chat's calling it Chirac.
	Well, that's the colloquialism that the Americans use for it.
	Chirac, yes.
	Because, I mean, it's worse, to be honest.
	Because, I mean, at least with Iraq, you know it's the Americans and the jihadis, right?
	You've got two identifiable groups that are fighting, but in this, what the hell's happening?
	Anyway, joined by the Chicago Department of Public Health, Laurie said there's a 9.2-year life expectancy gap between black and non-black Chicagoans.
	Yes.
	I wonder why.
	Because shootings.
	Don't know how to tell it.
	Their hospitals are racist.
	Lightfoot said the city would be willing to implementing a will-to-act initiative that will focus on addressing the impacts of historical policies like Jim Crow restrictions, redlining and other forms of financial and housing segregation and discrimination.
	That's not going to fix the shootings.
	And of course, as we talked about the other day, the city's public health department will allocate $10 million in coronavirus relief funds to establish six healthy Chicago equity zones.
	What does that even mean?
	Oh, I don't know.
	It's not going to do anything.
	But anyway, so...
	That's just corruption.
	That's someone pocketing 10 mil.
	Yeah.
	It's like the gender programs of Pakistan.
	Yes, it is very much the gender programs of Pakistan.
	We have money left over from the coronavirus stuff.
	We may as well funnel it into our pet projects that will do nothing good.
	But anyway, so that was the weekend before last.
	And this weekend, 15 people shot.
	So good weekend for Chicago.
	Only 15 people shot.
	I mean, in all of the southwest of England, no one was shot.
	Was anyone stabbed?
	Not to my knowledge.
	I haven't seen any news reports.
	Go to London for that.
	Yeah, exactly.
	We'll talk about that in a minute.
	So yeah, 15 more shots, 6 dead.
	Just reading through this is tragic.
	This is actually a really good article by the Daily Mail where if you scroll down, John, you can see they're just giving...
	Further, please.
	They're just giving each thing, like this 10pm, 6pm, whatever, just going through a timeline of the shootings.
	And it's just all across the city, just bang, bang, just random...
	It's awful.
	So it's just tragic.
	Reading through this is just tragic.
	And it's awful that Laurie Lightfoot is just like, yeah, so the fact that you bring this up makes you a racist.
	Okay, fine.
	So moving...
	I'm reading, though.
	It's just like someone driving down the street.
	Yeah.
	And just a 17-year-old boy gets shot.
	Yeah, it's awful.
	Yeah, a 17-year-old boy killed at 5.30pm.
	Then at 5.50pm, a 41-year-old man was shot in the leg while driving because someone shot his car from the sidewalk.
	Why?
	Why?
	Lunacy!
	This is what I mean.
	I'm not entitled to believe all of these victims are some kind of gang-related violence.
	I mean, I don't know, but...
	It's just a bizarre licentiousness when it comes to violence.
	This complete callousness and disregard for human life that seems to have taken hold in her city.
	I'll just shoot a random car driving past.
	Why?
	The hell's wrong with you?
	You know, you've got to be a lunatic.
	But anyway, so moving back over to the UK, the UK does not want to defund the police.
	17% of public were in favour of it, according to one poll.
	And, of course, 59% opposed, and 15% having no opinion.
	18 to 24-year-olds were divided between, with 36 supporting and 35 opposing, which shows that young people are propagandised idiots.
	And have been taken for a ride by the left.
	But this is not young people in specific communities, because if you go to specific communities, such as in Birmingham, where there has been a spate of knife deaths recently, of course, knives replacing guns in the British context, you've got one Desmond Jadu, a Birmingham community activist, who says, we need to, because the same sort of thing is happening in Birmingham.
	It's just, again, it's just young black men stabbing each other in inner cities.
	This is just insane violence and no one seems to be able to do anything about it.
	This happened because of the killing of a 14-year-old boy just on the main road, middle of the day, Monday.
	Why not?
	Right?
	Terrible stuff.
	He says, we need to claim these streets back as a matter of urgency.
	Are we going to end up living in a state of anarchy and terror?
	I don't think I'm being overdramatic in saying that.
	Our youngsters have their lives ahead of them and our elders should not be burying their children.
	Yeah, well, he's not wrong.
	He's not over-egging this at all.
	He's not being overdramatic.
	If you think that living in a state of anarchy is something that's unlikely, look at Chicago.
	We've just got people randomly shooting cars, randomly shooting into crowds.
	Like, that really is something that is happening, and this is something that seems to be being exported to British black communities.
	And no kidding that the activists are like, look, we do not want this.
	This is anarchy and terror, because this is exactly what it is.
	I'd love to see the breakdown again, because remember in the race report, what was it?
	West Africans versus black Caribbeans?
	Same genetic type, and yet the performance in society was vastly different.
	West Africans overperforming, and then Caribbeans massively underperforming in education wealth.
	I'd like to see the crime statistics break down of that as well, because I think the police just list black.
	Yeah, I doubt that they actually have that fine granulation in their data.
	But if you go into it, I wonder what the results will be.
	I do too.
	But anyway, he says, "Young people have been out of schools, so they've been more susceptible to issues around exploitation, joining gangs, issues with boredom and nothing to do, and not wanting to stay in their households.
	So then you end up with mass groups of young people on the streets," says Craig Pinkney, who's an activist in this.
	But then it gets the, "Okay, well, what can we do?
	What's the problem?" "Anytime there are issues around austerity, lack of education, poor housing, high levels of trauma, you're going to find high levels of violence.
	All we focus on is the punishment.
	Thinking giving harsh sentences is going to solve the problem.
	What the kids have been saying in the research is that they're scared.
	We don't address the fear, we only address the consequences of their actions.
	Okay, so what does that require?
	What does it require for young people to not live in fear of their peers when walking down the street?
	You get rid of the knives.
	But that's not possible.
	It's not.
	So then what?
	Armed guards.
	You need literally French-style military occupation.
	That's the only solution that we're going to be able to provide.
	Because the problems are internal.
	They're not something that we can talk about.
	We can't critique the ethical standards of these communities.
	And so, okay, well, we have to look at it from an outsider perspective.
	Right, okay, we're going to need armed guards on the streets, just in case some lunatic whips out a nugget and starts stabbing people in the middle of the day.
	What other choices are there?
	But that would be refunding the police, wouldn't it?
	That would be refunding the police, which is, incidentally...
	But it's interesting, because you make the point, which is exactly true, which is that if you look just where the rich are and how they deal with this, the government, what do they do whenever there's a terrorist attack?
	They bring out armed guards, they bring out the military, or just on police officers to walk up and down around Whitehall and whatnot.
	They know that that's the response.
	It's the only response.
	If the person who was going to go on an attack, not a terror attack, just an attack, whether it's a gang-related thing or whatever, sees that there are armed guards around who are going to shoot them when they pull out a knife or pull out a gun or whatever, then they're probably less inclined to do it.
	But then the same with Chicago.
	Why not just send a National Guard unit and sit around until they stop killing tens of people?
	What other options are there?
	They're all illegal guns.
	It's not, oh, we banned guns.
	Oh, well, let's not stop the shootings.
	We banned knives.
	Well, that's not going to stop the stabbings.
	Also banned knives.
	It's stupid.
	Well, our government's trying to do it.
	Well, yeah, they are.
	But it's the fact that there is an impulse within these communities to be violent in this way that needs to be addressed.
	And it seems that the only options that we really have are just to make sure that if someone tries something, they get shot.
	Which is a step up, I suppose, from just allowing them to go stabbing and shooting.
	You've got to make murder expensive.
	Yeah, you've got to make it not worth their time.
	But what's really interesting is in 2019 The Guardian reported that the situation in Britain, specifically in London, but I imagine it's getting that way in Birmingham too, is getting so bad that Somalian parents who have moved to this country are sending their children back to Somalia where they will be safer.
	Wait, are they from Somaliland or Southern Somalia?
	Both.
	Somalia, Somaliland and Kenya.
	Somaliland, yep, sure.
	Probably is better.
	Well, apparently even Somalia is better.
	Well, even Southern part.
	Yeah.
	With Boko Haram.
	Or Al-Shabaab or whichever one it is.
	How many people did they kill this weekend?
	Tons.
	I mean, there's bombs that go off every other week, but...
	Sure, but the casualty rating is just not that high.
	But anyway, so, for example, Rekia Ismail, Islington's deputy mayor, says, sending them away has become the only way they can be safer.
	The issue of safety has repeatedly been raised by the community, but nobody has listened.
	So many children have gone abroad.
	Two weeks ago, there was a stabbing and a child was taken back home two days later.
	Okay, but why was there a stabbing?
	Like, whose community is this coming out of?
	You said they're going, no one's doing anything.
	They're your kids.
	What are we supposed to do?
	We're not raising them.
	You guys are raising them.
	How is this supposed to be someone else's fault?
	But anyway, 17 people had died in attacks in London alone since the start of 2019.
	This was written in 2019, March of 2019.
	So in three months, there had been 17 children who had died.
	This has only gotten worse.
	And it's only gotten worse, obviously.
	Sadiq Khan's London, because of course any criticism of Sadiq Khan is also racism, so he's got the Laurie Lightfoot defence.
	And Birmingham is, of course, having the same problem.
	I mean, again, back in 2019, there were three knife fatalities within days in May and February.
	And this level of violence apparently is facing parts of British society that are evident in testimony of Islington's sizable Somali community.
	Representatives say that 50-70% have been directly affected by county lines and knife crime.
	Okay?
	So, why?
	Why are your young people in these communities killing each other?
	Again, I'd love to see the breakdown, if you could break it down among ethnic groups rather than just race.
	Oh yeah, it's bound to be something like that.
	I'd love to see Nigerians versus Somalians, which ones are the people who are stabbing on the streets.
	Yeah, but the point is, as Sadia Ali, the treasurer of Islington Somalia Forum and founder of Minority Matters said, hundreds of youngsters have been taken to Somalia, Somaliland and Kenya, some all the way to the rural areas.
	Parents feel they have no choice if they want their son to be safe.
	Not safe in British cities.
	Well, London.
	London and Bristol.
	No, London and Birmingham.
	I'll go ahead, Bristol, and then why not?
	Yeah, but Bristol's probably on its way to becoming like this because they're leftists, and they seem to have a problem with law, order, and discipline.
	And, I mean, what are the options?
	I just don't see what the options are at this point.
	I wonder how much it would even cost to just send out...
	I mean, in the UK, you've got the problem spread over a large area, but I mean, with Chicago, it's pretty centralized.
	It's quite a large city, Chicago.
	I know, but I mean, in the sense of, like, if you want to get guys everywhere to cover for knife crime, it's more difficult, I reckon, than trying to cover Detroit or Chicago.
	I mean, not to mention, you've got the National Guard, you've got various armed units all over the place in the United States you could deploy.
	Why not do it?
	I mean, you could save tens of people just in a weekend.
	Because they'll come out and say, well, that's racism.
	Saving black lives is racism.
	Yeah, because you'll be like, okay, well, we're going to find the neighbourhoods that have particularly high rates of crime, and the same would be true if this happened in the UK, and we'll put the troops there, because any sensible allocation of resources would demand that.
	And then they'd say, yeah, but you're only putting troops in the black neighbourhoods.
	I'm putting them in neighbourhoods with crime.
	I don't care what they're racist.
	And they'd say, yeah, but that's racism.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, they would.
	But that's because they're critical race theorists.
	And thank God the critical race theorists are on defence.
	They have taken a few good batterings recently from the valiant parents in America who have been rising up against critical race theory in their classrooms.
	The first defence being, oh, we're not teaching it there.
	Yeah, you are.
	Shut up.
	But good for the parents, good for the Republicans.
	Do not let up on this.
	Critical race theory is essentially racist.
	They can't frame anything without being racist and without framing it as if white people are the perennial oppressors of blacks.
	So don't let up.
	These people are racists.
	And you're not.
	And they recognize that you're not, incidentally.
	So, this is an article that was written in Polisco by a one, Gary Peller.
	Now, Gary Peller, I actually didn't bring the book over with me.
	It's on my desk.
	But the Critical Race Theory, the writings that form the movement, he's got essays in there.
	He is, in fact, the editor of that.
	Sorry, the co-editor of Critical Race Theory, key writings that form the movement.
	And this is the book I've been quoted from extensively.
	This is one of the originals.
	He's one of the founders of critical race theory.
	And so he, a constitutional law professor at Georgetown University Law Center, a white man, has come out to defend his I was going to say baby, but maybe I should say abomination.
	So he says, some 25 states have already enacted or are considering laws to ban teaching what they call critical race theory, quote unquote, in public schools, a concept that school officials around the country deny they even teach.
	Well, if they're not even teaching it, there's no problem banning it, is there?
	Not a problem.
	Doesn't affect anything, apparently, Gary.
	So, what are you crying about?
	A parents group in Washoe County, Nevada, wants teachers to wear body cams just to make sure.
	Based.
	And Ted Cruz just charged that critical race theory is every bit as racist as the Klansman in white sheets.
	Good Republicans.
	I'm sorry, but has standards slipped so far that teachers need to wear body cams like police to keep them accountable just so they're not teaching Nazism to kids?
	Yeah, I mean, if I thought there was a significant chance they were going to teach Nazis them to kids, I'd agree with that.
	So good on the parents.
	Because the parents are exactly right here.
	They are advocating for a colorblind form of society, whereas the critical race theorists want a society based on racial consciousness and collective guilt.
	So no, the good Republicans, bad Democrats.
	As a law professor closely associated with the critical race theory movement for more than 30 years, I am astonished.
	Yeah, I can't believe that the people are like, we don't want racism.
	Most academic work never gets noticed at all, and ours is being publicly vilified, even banned.
	Yes.
	While we wrote footnotes and taught our classes, did our ideas become the new orthodoxy in American society and the foundation of K-12 education as our critics charge?
	Hardly.
	It kind of has though, actually, because there have been a large swathe of leftist teachers who have become indoctrinated into critical race theory, and they are going to teach from this position, with these assumptions, with these presuppositions.
	And that's not acceptable in a society that would like to move beyond racism.
	There's just no other option.
	It has to be banned.
	And these teachers aren't allowed to teach from that perspective.
	And again, the same way that, like, you know, German teachers shouldn't be teaching from the Nazi perspective in schools, you know?
	I mean, Methodist has been doing a great job of getting Zoom calls between teachers, just openly accepting that's how it comes to the classroom.
	If you did the same thing in Germany and you found federal school teachers who were talking in this language like, yeah, I bring the Nazis into the classroom.
	We don't explicitly do it about Mein Kampf, but...
	You know, I separate the Jews from the Germans in the class or something.
	Then everyone will be like, no, that's fired.
	You're firing him right now.
	Exactly.
	In fact, he says critical theory is not a racialist ideology.
	It's all it is.
	I mean, it's called critical race theory.
	It's all you talk about.
	But it's not a racialist ideology that declares all whites to be privileged oppressors and CRT is not taught in public schools.
	No.
	Both lies.
	Both lies.
	Yeah, it's like...
	If you're not taught in schools, you wouldn't care.
	I mean, like I said, I'm reading through the book now, and they're just constantly talking about, like, one of the essays I'm on now is currently talking about how, oh, all of the academic scholarship in legal theory, in legal circles, it's white men citing white men, and they don't understand their privilege.
	And he literally says these exact words.
	Imagine reducing all the philosophy and laws of that.
	Well, yeah.
	There's all these different perspectives, all these traditions, all these different kinds of jurisprudence, like how you can think about stuff.
	No, it's just white men citing white men.
	Yeah.
	Oh, that's what they've boiled it down to.
	The entire, like, decades upon decades of work.
	Yeah, but saying, oh, critical theory is not taught in public schools.
	Yeah, I mean, brilliant, but critical theory doesn't need to be taught for the consequences of critical theory to express themselves.
	And it's like, it's literally like saying, you know, we don't declare all Jews to be capitalist parasites, and we don't teach Nazism in schools.
	Now let's talk about how Jewish money is destroying the Reich.
	It's like...
	You've adopted all of their assumptions.
	But over the last nine months or so, first slowly in right-wing media conversation, and now quickly in state houses and even mainstream newspapers, conservative activists have branded all race reform efforts in education and employment as CRT, a disinformation campaign designed to rally disaffected middle and working class white people against progressive change.
	The only thing incorrect there is the misinformation part.
	It's not misinformation.
	It's true.
	That's the thing.
	He's trying to establish a very, very narrow definition of what is critical race theory, as if critical race theory has no consequence when it's adopted by the teachers who will then go on to use it.
	But the reason that the lay ideology that is being described as critical race theory, and again, you doubtless find there are very, very fine distinctions.
	Like, when you're talking to the communists, it's like, actually, I'm an anarcho-syndicalist.
	It's like, okay.
	Okay, commie.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Okay.
	But I can accurately put all of this under the banner of communism, and in this case, critical race theory, because they're easy to spot because they use the same kind of language, they have the same kind of goals, and they rest on the same shared foundations.
	They all assume that America is a white supremacist project, that there is no such thing as a colour-blind world or a colour-blind republic, and that white people are oppressing black people.
	They all share these assumptions.
	If you understand what critical race theory actually is, though, and we'll get to that in a minute, it's easy to see that it has nothing to do with the cartoonish picture of reverse racism that critics depict.
	The very fact that you use the word reverse racism shows that you're a critical theorist and not a normal person.
	And more importantly, CRT is a pretty good lens for understanding why the campaign against it has been able to spread so fast.
	Hmm.
	It's also an inaccurate way of viewing it.
	If you call the American Republic whiteness, and you say that the people who are interested in preserving the values of the American public are white, then you've now described that every person, black and white and Mexican and whatever, who's interested in preserving the impartial values of the Republic are now white.
	So it doesn't even work.
	So it's like, ah, we can explain how all these people love whiteness because they're all white.
	Even the non-white ones.
	So that doesn't work.
	It's not a good way.
	It's also a terrible lens because they'll just take the liberal standards, the Martin Luther King standards, being like colorblindness.
	That's white supremacy.
	So the reason they're opposing us is because they're white supremacists.
	That is his lens when he thinks about...
	When you look through political race theory, you can see why there's so much opposition.
	No, I mean, it's just such a distortion.
	Well, it's just all the white supremacists coming up to defend their white supremacy, you see.
	That's how the critical race theorists view it, and that's obviously not the case.
	In their own terms, in fact, they believe in what they call a victim framework, whereas the Republicans believe in a perpetrator framework.
	And what this is, just down to intention, is exactly the same as the Chicago segment, right?
	Where it's like Laurie Lightfoot saying, well, no, the perpetrators, the people doing the shootings, are the victims of society.
	And the perpetrator framework is as in concerned about the intent of the perpetrator.
	The person pulling the gun, why did he do this?
	He's the person who did something wrong.
	So if you were someone who was, you know, a white person and you weren't going to hire that black person because they're black, then that's the perpetrator framework you can identify.
	The perpetrator, you can identify the intention, you can identify the consequence, and therefore there we have an example of racism.
	Whereas in Laurie Lightfoot's view, the critical race theory view, it's just a world that's just always and at all times and all places.
	And so there is no way that a black person can evade it.
	And of course, this leads them into this perspective.
	But anyway, he carries on.
	Critical race theory in the real world describes a diverse work of a small group of scholars who write about the shortcomings of conventional civil rights approaches to understanding and transforming racial power in American society.
	And that very framing is the core reason why critical race theory is racism.
	They think that white people operate through the frame of racial power, and that's faulty.
	However, it is typical Democrat thinking.
	It's exactly how they always thought about it.
	It's always been concerned with racial power, whereas that's not how the Republicans think about things.
	He says, it's a complex critique that wouldn't easily fit into a K-12 curriculum.
	Even law students find the ideas challenging.
	We find ourselves, we ourselves struggle to put it in understandable terms.
	We embrace no simpler orthodox set of principles, so no one can really be trained in CRT. Well, then there's no problem banning this non-discipline.
	Hang on, though.
	Like, he's very high-minded academicizing this whole thing.
	He's like, there's no way you could teach the whole complexes to K-12 education.
	You just go to TikTok and check out the SJWs of that age group, you can see it being simplified.
	Yeah.
	And it gets simplified to white's bad.
	Yeah, but notice how he's just throwing every defence out he can, even where he contradicts himself.
	If you understand what CRT actually is, it's easy to see.
	It's not a cartoonish picture.
	Okay, what's CRT? Well, we don't know.
	Even law students don't understand.
	We ourselves, the authors of critical race theory, are struggling to put it in understandable terms.
	We don't have any orthodox centre principles.
	No one can be trained in CRT. Then we should ban it on the grounds that it's nonsense.
	Exactly, on the grounds that it's not a discipline.
	It sounds like a fiction.
	If you've made this stuff up, you don't even understand it.
	How can you teach it?
	You grifters!
	But the absolute cope.
	It's like, oh no, no, no.
	It's all...
	Embarrassing to watch, actually.
	And anyway, so this is what's called obscurantism, where you try to essentially define out of existence the thing that is being attacked.
	But the thing is, we buy their textbooks.
	We listen to lectures by their scholars.
	He himself is a scholar.
	And if he can't understand his own ideas, what right does he have to teach them?
	But this is, of course, pure lies.
	He's lying.
	He's lying to you.
	And yeah, this would obviously be reason to ban this hokey pseudo-ideology, if even the practitioners can't understand it.
	He says, Yeah.
	Maybe.
	But committing to the view of racial power is not going to help abolish the view of racial power.
	There's racial power everywhere.
	Maybe in the 70s, maybe, probably, in fact.
	How do we get rid of it?
	By committing to racial power.
	It's not going to work.
	It's not the way it works.
	We just do the flip side of the coin.
	Yes.
	What they're advocating for is, in fact, black supremacy over white supremacy.
	It's like, can we just have no supremacy?
	Anyway, so he continues.
	Critical race theory was first articulated in the 1980s by a new generation of scholars who confronted this kind of racial power in universities we attended in the law schools we would eventually teach.
	As the American constitutional law embraced colorblindness as the ideal of racial justice, we focused on all the ways that racial power was exercised in supposedly colorblind ways.
	And this is down to interpretation.
	The race crits, of course, interpret everything through the lens of race and racial power.
	And if you've got a bunch of people saying, well, look, I'm not going to judge the world on the basis of racial power, and you have a bunch of people who are saying, I'm going to judge the world on the basis of racial power, they have a conflict of worldview.
	There's no reconciling this.
	And the most important thing as well is there are a number of other reasons that adequately explain circumstances that are just ignored by the lens of racial power.
	You can't explain how you end up with black billionaires if the white race are keeping the blacks down.
	How do you end up with a black congresswoman?
	How do you end up with a black president?
	Doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
	No, you can't account for these things.
	But he says...
	Total nonsense.
	Total nonsense.
	From the viewpoint of traditional liberal thinking, the problem of civil rights was that the policy of racial integration was never implemented strongly enough.
	But from a critical perspective, black students getting admitted into mainstream institutions wasn't enough to achieve racial equality because once inside the gates, they confronted norms organizing what was taught and how it was taught that had been created exclusively by whites operating in all-white institutions.
	Let's just assume that's true.
	Maybe that's true.
	Maybe there was, in the 80s, an aspect of that.
	And maybe there is an aspect of that now.
	Who knows?
	What I think he's mentioning there is that the colourblind worldview had been adopted, the Martin Luther King dream had been adopted, and that had been implemented in writing, but it was written by white people, therefore it's bad.
	All white people wrote those rules saying you can't discriminate on the basis of race.
	Sure, they did.
	But what he's complaining about is the sort of normative behaviours of the white people in these structures.
	Apparently, it's some kind of barrier to black people.
	But the problem is, why is it only black people who seem to be encountering these problems?
	Why is this not a problem with Chinese, Indian, or Jewish pupils?
	Why is it not a problem for them?
	I mean, these are the three most successful ethnic groups in the United States.
	And in Britain.
	Like, they do brilliantly.
	Well, that makes them white.
	Exactly, exactly.
	That's the thing.
	You now have to say, right, all of these groups are now white supremacists if they support the American Republic.
	You came to America for freedom, and you got it?
	You're a Nazi.
	Yeah.
	In the same way the neo-Nazis just turn around and be like, yeah, that's because it's Jewish.
	It's like, that's not an argument.
	It's not.
	Like, this Indian guy's done really well.
	Yeah, Jew.
	It's like, what?
	That doesn't make any sense.
	Yeah, exactly.
	You know, Priti Patel, white supremacist.
	But this is the thing.
	Study hard, attend the classes, hand in your work on time, and these are all aspects of racial power.
	Ridiculous.
	There were, or could be, could be, we've gone to, there were, oh no, well there might be.
	It is possible that there are racial power dynamics embedded even in what was called knowledge in academia, or neutrality in law.
	Well, I mean, we can't explain how the shaman calls the lightning.
	He's right, he's got us.
	Rather than seeing racism as an irrational deviation from rationality, we began to explore how liberal categories of reason and neutrality themselves might bear the marks of history and struggle, including racial and other forms of social power.
	And that all is based on the assumption that black people fall outside of the category of people who can engage in such concepts.
	That assumes that reason is some kind of tool outside of the black toolbox.
	Exactly, right?
	It's mad how this white professor is saying, well, listen, right?
	This reason stuff, thinking, using your old TikTok, you know?
	Ah, well, I can think of a few communities who can't use those.
	And by the way, I'm a racist and you're a racist and everyone's a racist because you think like me.
	It's like, I don't think like you, I'm sorry.
	Who's letting this homeless man?
	Yeah, exactly.
	No, no, this is a professor of law, 30 years experience.
	One of the founders of the movement that's tearing apart the West.
	Black people can't reason.
	This is not the first time that this has been asserted by critical race theorists, and I doubt it will be the last.
	Critical race theorists analyse social practices, and the law is a social practice, in terms of how they can help construct or maintain the subordination of the black community.
	That's how law works.
	Subjugating the black community.
	See, when you had Edward Coke and all these old English jurists, they were like, listen...
	We need to figure out how to oppress the blacks.
	So what blacks?
	The blacks in America.
	What America?
	What are you talking about?
	Well, eventually, the colonies will revolt, you see, and the slave class there will need to be oppressed by the laws.
	And so we in England, where we don't have any black people or any slaves...
	I don't even know what a black person is.
	Yeah, well, we may have had some idea, but we need to construct a series of laws and legal institutions that the Americans can inherit so in the future they can oppress the blacks.
	You don't get it.
	Have a long game.
	But the thing is, the subordination of the black community, he means the black race, right?
	And there's no reason that the black race can't flourish under the rule of law.
	In fact, I would suggest that it would be a good thing if they had the rules of law, as in if they weren't just allowed to shoot each other in the street, maybe, maybe their economic position and social position could improve.
	This is another great example of people, well, leftists in the United States never leaving the United States.
	Because, I mean, just think of all the ex-British colonies that have adopted rule of law, capitalism, and so on and so forth.
	Common law, yeah.
	And are successful.
	I mean, the success stories of Africa are ones that have accepted those principles.
	Yes.
	Because they are the principles that create a successful society.
	We reject colour blindness as an ideal because being conscious about race is the only way to tell whether the situation of the black community is improving or not.
	If we stop segregating the blacks, we might lose focus on the blacks, is his argument, says the Democrat.
	I don't know how these people are able to walk around in public.
	No, no one alone cares.
	Just able to do whatever.
	Well, ironically, it's race consciousness that is preventing justice from being done in places like Chicago, London, and Birmingham, right?
	Because everyone who has the authority and the duty to do something about these degenerate communities is unable to because that would be racist.
	Oh, that would be racist, that would be racist.
	If it wasn't for race consciousness, we could say, right, what's happening?
	Well, in Community X, doesn't matter who that community is, there have been 78 shootings in this one weekend.
	Send in the military.
	I mean, if that was happening in Chippenham or something, I'm like, why are the people of Chippenham shooting each other?
	Don't care, actually.
	Send in the military.
	You know, put them all in a boot camp.
	Send them off to our latest, you know, war.
	No, you just put the lads on the streets to stop them shooting each other.
	No, I probably wouldn't.
	I'd probably advocate a bit further.
	Look, if for some reason in Chippenham, they are unable to...
	You're going to the Crimea, boys!
	Yes!
	We didn't want to get enrolled.
	Well, that's too bad.
	Maybe we should have stopped shooting each other.
	Something has to be done.
	A firm hand has to be shown.
	Charge of the Chippenham Brigade.
	There's nothing ignoble about that.
	The problem would be that they're committing all of these crimes.
	But anyway, as appealing as colour blindness might sound to some, it's also dangerous.
	It can lull decision makers wrongly to assume that once they no longer explicitly discriminate along racial lines that admissions are hiring, then racial power no longer plays a part in social life.
	Yeah.
	And it also means that if we stop obsessing about race, then this guy has no job.
	Yeah, I mean, as the chat's pointing out, I mean, we are talking as if they want to end racism, whereas, as the guy says, racism is what he's selling.
	That's a good point, yeah.
	I mean, ending racism is the end of this man's career.
	Well, we reject colour blindness.
	Well, no kidding you do.
	So when you come down and you'll be like, yeah, I want to end racism, and you should stop doing what you're doing, he's like, well, what happens to my house?
	Oh, it's the meme, isn't it?
	You know, critical race theorists, southern plantation owners, rejecting colour blindness.
	But that's literally what it is.
	Anyway, so he says, in thinking about police reform, a critical race theory perspective would focus on the historical relations between the community and the police, rather than simply on the idea of neutral enforcement of rules like probable cause requirements.
	But that's the problem, is the enforcement of the rules.
	Like, the historical relationship, like, going back and say, so, in 1780, the police and the black community had a really contentious relationship.
	Sure, how does that help the black mothers who are now burying their children?
	In 2021.
	Yeah.
	Anyway, and also, it also completely misses the point, right?
	Because, and I don't know why I have to say this, but if there are 78 shootings in one weekend in a community, that community needs to change.
	This can't go on forever.
	It has to change.
	It comes from within the community, the ethics of the community, not something intrinsic to them.
	It's not about your biology.
	It's not about something the way you were made by God or anything.
	No, it's the way you've been raised and the things you think are acceptable to do.
	And these are not intrinsic.
	These are not unchangeable.
	These are things in which you have to make decisions and you have to decide to change your mind.
	That's the only way you can do it.
	And if we can't address their day-to-day ethics, how can the community get any better without outside force, without authoritarianism?
	How can it get better?
	He says, the idea of imposing race-neutral standards of reasonableness on police is hollow in the actual context of white suburban police officers sealed off in high-tech patrol cars patrolling the urban streets of black neighborhoods.
	Well, why can't they just walk around like normal?
	Oh, because of the terrible crime in these communities from the degenerate gangs of drug dealers and pimps who have literally no concept of human decency.
	That's why.
	You've allowed it to get this bad, and still, at this point, you're still being like, oh, well, you know, it's the police's fault.
	Sorry, it's not.
	So I realise we're running out of time here, right?
	So I'm going to skip ahead.
	Because he, um, he, he said, complains that racialised police violence disappears when no racial statistics are kept on police interactions.
	Racial redlining looks like simple risk-based pricing if one doesn't look at racialised zip codes.
	The way to end racial subordination is to end it in fact, not to define it away.
	And the worst thing is, is like when you racialize police violence, it actually seems to disappear just when you record it.
	So we've got the Washington Post database where they are talking, if you can go to the next link, John, where they're talking about, they started this because of Ferguson, and they just started recording every time a police officer shoots someone.
	And it turns out in like 2015, there were like 27 shootings of police and people who are unarmed.
	And so the 946 people, or whoever it was that was shot that year, as they say, the vast majority of people shot and killed by police are armed.
	What?
	As if that's meant to be a shock?
	Yeah.
	Nearly 6 in 10 people were shot and killed by police had a gun.
	Many others were armed with a knife or other weapon.
	And so if you go through the database, you just find, oh, you know, was reaching for a gun, had a gun, had a knife.
	It's like...
	It wasn't because of his skin type.
	No, it was because they had a weapon, and they were violent, and they wouldn't surrender.
	But anyway, so I'm not going to continue with the article, because it is actually quite long, and I didn't think it would take so much time.
	But he finishes with, It's worth bearing in mind that what's really under attack right now isn't the boogeyman of critical race theory.
	It's the modest and long-overdue change being ushered in by teachers and school administrators, so the practitioners of critical race theory, who aren't teaching critical race theory and this having no effect on the classrooms, They may never have heard of critical race theory, but they intuitively understand why it exists and rightfully see the absurdity of conservative charge that teaching about racism itself is racist.
	But you aren't teaching racism.
	You're specifically teaching with the intention of changing, as in you're trying to undermine the American Republic.
	I mean, no.
	I can't get over how he writes pieces in something like Politico.
	Like, imagine being a critical race theorist at this point.
	Imagine contradicting yourself in so many different ways.
	He's got no duty to the truth whatsoever, has he?
	Well, that's true.
	That's a good point.
	Anyway, let's go to the video comments.
	Some general points about good anime manga before posting summaries.
	It's not both, except for Americanized ripoffs.
	It's very sincere despite how absurd the setting often is.
	There is no ironic millennial humor.
	Characters are distinct and interesting, as opposed to inclusive.
	Of the minority of anime that is truly good, I believe that there is moral and philosophical value, and I'm going to attempt to demonstrate that.
	So if anyone decides to watch anime, English dubs are a travesty.
	Use subs.
	Still no.
	Still big, disavowable anime.
	I don't know what it is.
	I don't know if it's the style, like the animation style or whatever.
	I've not found one I've ever cared about and found engaging.
	Even though Girls and Panzer...
	I love the concept.
	The concept's hilarious.
	It's a bunch of girls who are pretending to be in a school, and they're different tank groups.
	You've got the Germans and then the British and whatnot, and it's full of stereotypes that are funny.
	The British ones are always drinking tea, for example.
	Always think they're better than everyone else.
	But still.
	So the British ones are correct.
	The only animes I've watched that I've enjoyed are Hellsing and Trigun.
	Which were actually really good.
	But the rest I'm not prepared to give any time to because I'm lazy.
	I just don't like it.
	I don't know what it is.
	I'm not trying to have a go either.
	It's just not for me.
	Well, I'm going to have a go.
	I'm judging you.
	No, no, I'm joking.
	Omar, do we have another comment?
	Hi guys.
	So this is the Independence Hall, where we declared our freedom from you.
	It's been nice to live in such a historic city as Philadelphia.
	However, it is not worth the price of living in this liberal craft heap.
	I lived a 15-minute walk from here, but it's time to move on.
	I don't know if we're going to start declaring cities that are 70% blue.
	It's just lost.
	Well, pretty much.
	I mean, what are you going to say?
	If they haven't had a Republican governor in like 50 years or something, it's like...
	I mean, any crisis.
	I mean, take the crisis we've had of BLM, which has been burning stuff down.
	What's the response?
	Vote Democrat.
	Hello, everyone.
	Now that I've seen essentially the increased number of subscribers to my YouTube channel, I can see that there is...
	Indeed, a demand for the politics of Attack on Titan, and I guess I'll be the supply.
	With that being said, though, everyone please be patient with me, because I've mentioned this in the delays video, but of course, I'm not quite finished reading my books yet, and we could just half-donkey-a-word this, or we could do it properly.
	And you should do it properly.
	Hey, I know that SJWs do not understand history, but I'm going somewhere with this.
	I've met an SJW that certainly has the opinion of, it's our turn to be oppressive.
	Now, the reason why I think this is horrible, and a horrible, stupid, idiotic idea is the following.
	Okay, when does your turn end?
	And when your turn ends, okay, by force, or just by time, what argument do you have that we don't get to oppress them, and they don't have arguments, but it's kids, okay, that's a very dark road.
	Yeah, well, you've legitimised oppression and said, I'm an oppressor with this road, so okay.
	Hey, Callum, please repeat the words coming up on screen now.
	No, wait.
	The stupid student, not the stupid student.
	I used to do the same thing, but since you wanted to correct your pronunciation on Friday...
	I thought I might be good.
	Have a kitten.
	No, no, he's right.
	It's stupid.
	Stupid?
	Not stupid.
	Sounds so posh, though.
	It sounds like an American taking the mickey out of British.
	But you sound American when you say stupid.
	It's pronunciation.
	Yeah.
	Stupid.
	Stupid.
	Yes.
	But remember when you started, what was it?
	What was the phrase you started saying?
	And then you corrected it because you were like, yeah, I sound like a posh T. I can't remember what it was.
	Issue rather than issue.
	Issue.
	Yeah.
	Like a tissue.
	There's a kind of Westminster way of saying it.
	You can tell who's been in politics for too long.
	It's a Westminster way of saying student, isn't it?
	No, no.
	This is just an English way of saying stupid.
	Turning you into ooh is an American import, and we should resist this at all costs.
	No more American colonization.
	Black Lives Matter.
	Got another video?
	In case y'all forgot over the weekend, y'all really should look into army.mil.
	It's absolutely full of amazing articles, like this, and this, and all of these.
	Actually, that does sound great.
	I might have a go and look at that.
	God, no, they've got, because I remember, I don't know perfectly, but I've seen this stuff bubble up more and more, and it wasn't that bad amongst army stuff in the US. In the UK, it's awful.
	Like, the leaks we've got, for example, are the tip of the iceberg on that, but the public stuff as well.
	It was just endless, but you know, like, someone's writing this all day every day, and that's their entire job.
	It's just a make-up nonsense.
	That's all they do, and they take your money.
	It's not to make up nonsense.
	What it is is to filter all aspects of the military through the ideology.
	But that's a commissar.
	That's not a warfighter.
	No, yeah, that's absolutely a commissar.
	You're right.
	Callum, when you lament the failure of Christianity to evolve into a civic religion, you are indirectly demonstrating the proof of God that you do not believe exists.
	God says that the proof of his existence is written in the hearts of man.
	Our current social situation is what happens when you attempt to develop Christianity without God.
	Wokeism is, ironically, proof that God is real.
	It isn't scientific proof, though, and as long as you expect scientific proof of God, you will be disappointed.
	Scientific proof of God will never exist.
	Checkmate, atheist.
	I didn't catch the start, so that kind of went over my head.
	Basically, social justice is what happens when you try to create a civic religion out of Christianity.
	Ah, that's not a bad point.
	Yeah.
	Return to Odinism.
	What about a civic religion out of Islam?
	What does that end up as?
	It is a civic religion.
	Like, it's entirely political.
	Yeah, but if we get rid of the Allah and Muhammad part, and we just keep all of the cultural tenets, not so keen on the anti-homosexuality stuff, but...
	I'm happy for this return to paganism.
	Okay.
	Us, us, us, us.
	There is something wholesome.
	I mean, I've mentioned before, I live near Stonehenge, where I grew up, and the pagans there are unironic.
	They are nutjobs, and it's hilarious.
	Like, the druids, they have no real ties to any old druid nonsense.
	It was invented in the 50s.
	But we had a candidate run for office, like run for MP. It was called King Arthur Uther Pendragon, and he was a druid.
	And his main campaigning pledge was Stonehenge is a religious site, therefore there shouldn't be any charge for parking.
	Based.
	Because we druids should be able to go to our holy sites.
	Yeah, I had to pay for parking at Stonehenge.
	And to be honest, none of them seem like a threat at all.
	They're just like, yeah, they just want to go around and just worship the sun.
	Yeah, but that's because they haven't got to the ritual sacrifices.
	Maybe.
	But I don't know if, what is it, the mystery of the druids is based on fact or fiction or not.
	Well, I mean, druids used to conduct ritual sacrifices.
	We've got loads of peat bodies.
	They used to throw them into peat bogs, and peat bogs preserve really, really well.
	And so you've got literally a guy with a noose around his neck, wearing clothes from 2,000 years ago, and he looks like he died yesterday.
	I wonder if he's still campaigning, because I'd love to get him on a stage and ask him that question.
	Well, yeah, there'll be a dramatic increase in bog bodies after the Druid administration.
	What's Mr Pendragon's opinion on ritual sacrifice?
	Well, yeah, but other problems will go down dramatically.
	The sun god demands it!
	Maybe it'd make more sense than BLM, so...
	Vote Pendragon.
	I'm an antiquarian bookseller from Lancashire.
	And I'd like to show you something that I found.
	So, this is a 1938 English edition of Mine Count.
	And right here, under the Demands section, we have, We demand that the profits from wholesale trade shall be shared out.
	We demand the nationalisation of all businesses which have been up to the present formed into companies.
	We demand land reforms suitable to our national requirements.
	Sounds a lot like socialism.
	Yes.
	Demonstrably.
	I've mentioned it before, Tick's video on Hitler was a socialist.
	It's fantastic, because you can't listen to Hitler or the Nazi Party talk about anything without it sounding like a socialist.
	And the defences you hear from historians are like, yes, so the Nazi Party took this business owned by a Jewish person, put a party member in charge, and that was them privatizing the business.
	It doesn't make any goddamn sense.
	It's such cope.
	It's a totalitarian country.
	There is no privatization.
	You privatised it into the state.
	But even if it was someone else, it's still not privatisation, because that implies private property rights.
	That implies that you have constitutionally guaranteed rights, which you don't in a Nazi organisation.
	You could say it's untouched, like this private business existed, we haven't touched it by the party.
	Sure, it might be uninterfered with, but that's still not a right.
	It's not a guarantee.
	I just love the idea that, yes, we've privatised it to the German state.
	Like, you're not even thinking, are you?
	Which is also an Nazi party member, you know.
	But no, it's not even to the membership.
	It's like, we've privatized this business into the state.
	It's like, that's just nationalization.
	And you'll have an historian actually write that as if he's not obviously being made fun of.
	He's like, yeah, yeah, this is privatization.
	They're a capitalist country.
	Historians aren't philosophers.
	Anyway, next one.
	On your live stream, Carl, as Sarkhan of Akkad, On Saturday, at the end of it, you stated you were looking forward to seeing how orcs would be construed by the wokists as victims of circumstance.
	Tolkien already did this in their origin, which is actually tragic.
	The orcs were created from captured elves against their wills.
	They are a perversion of elves.
	Those original lost elves and their descendant orcs are truly tragic.
	There is no place to blame the orcs for their origin.
	In other words, they didn't actually do it to themselves, but rather this magnifies the wickedness of Morgoth.
	This does not excuse the wickedness of orcs, but it multiplies the wickedness of Morgoth.
	The only ones to be pitied are the original victim.
	It's going to be the argument.
	Morgoth is responsible for all this.
	Sure, but they're still killing people.
	Yeah, that's not their fault.
	They're just misled elves.
	Yeah, I know.
	It's not our fault.
	It's not the fault of the mosquito that he bites, but he still spreads malaria, and so we still have to do something about it.
	Crush.
	Yeah.
	On this 4th of July, I am at the beach, drinking some Mountain Dew S.A., not owned by Woka Cola, mixed with Smirnoff, Red, White, and Berry.
	Disgusting.
	I call this blend Remoralization.
	Yeah.
	God bless America, and take the L, you Brits.
	That is awful.
	See, this is the thing.
	You guys try to dunk on it, but you do it in the worst way.
	You could dunk on us and be like, yeah, I've got free speech, I'm going to say this, and you can't say that, or something like this.
	But instead, you're just like, yeah, Mountain Duesa.
	It looks like sewage water.
	It looks horrible.
	The thing is, I'm just sitting here like the Don Draper meme, just like, I don't think about that at all.
	It sort of reminds me of when Boogie decided to get, what was it, nachos and Mountain Dew and blend them, and then try and eat it.
	It's just like, I know you're free to, but should you?
	Yeah, exactly.
	Let's go for the next one.
	Happy Treason Day, gents!
	So I was about to go celebrate, but I wanted to let you know that two weeks ago, Brett Weinstein proposed a final solution for COVID, a solution that will end the entire pandemic, and it involves employing the use of 2,000 ferrets.
	I have yet to see a single meme on this, and I am sorely disappointed in my community.
	2,000 ferrets?
	What's he going to do?
	Well, the ferrets are going to suck up the COVIDs, or...?
	I don't know!
	He's going to get the ferrets to kill everyone, and then when there's no people, there's no COVID, so...
	You'd need more than 2,000 ferrets.
	You could train the ferrets.
	Even if you had a crack squad of ferrets, you'd...
	Just the numbers alone.
	The birth rate's way more than the number that the ferrets can kill in a day.
	Can ferrets get rabies?
	Probably, yeah.
	So then you could manufacture a new virus.
	Rabid ferrets.
	Well, no, you could go to Wuhan and use the rabies ferrets to make a new virus that gives human rabies.
	and then you'd have a zombie apocalypse within covid.
	Let's go for the next one.
	What?
	How are we the colonists?
	What are we?
	Colonize them?
	But there are colonists.
	Yeah.
	That's the point.
	Right, okay.
	Alright.
	So...
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	How are the guys in the mother country the colonists?
	But the thing is, Brittany, you're the colonials as well.
	Like, you're colonists.
	But, like, you've got the 13 colonies and then what's the rest of it?
	Well, you've got to take that too.
	Bit of Manifest Destiny going on.
	But again, I just love the fact...
	California is a colony.
	Yeah, like, no one in Britain laments the American Revolution.
	No, we're not that mad about it.
	We lament the Indian Revolution.
	We're mad about the end of the Empire after the Second World War, but the 1700s, not so mad.
	We do actually lament the Indian Revolution more, but yeah, that's true.
	We talk about it way more.
	There were a billion people in India.
	That's a lot of tea.
	Exactly.
	This is a foundational part of the English economy.
	To be honest with you, America basically has the same things as England.
	I love the idea that Egypt would just, how much tea have we lost is the measure of how bad we are, like how mad we are about the whole thing.
	Yes.
	Hello.
	So, a few days ago, I managed to get cocoa all over my face in an accident.
	Tragic, I know.
	But I started wondering, does that mean I'm actually trans brown person?
	Or at least I was.
	Now I've watched it all, so I detransitioned.
	So, at least there's that.
	I think it's got to be permanent.
	Well, I mean, to be honest with you, I don't think it does actually have to be permanent.
	And transracial kids are super heckin' valid and cute.
	So, yeah, we support your transracialism.
	I don't know, because it's the thing of the surgery.
	If it's reversible, I feel like it's not as valid in the SJW worldview.
	No.
	So therefore, if you want to be transracial, you've got to do what Ollie did and literally get surgery in her eyes that's permanent.
	No, that's actually transracial phobic.
	But then why the requirement?
	In the same way that requiring a woman not to have a penis is transphobic, requiring Ollie from London to have surgery to make his eyes look East Asian is transracial phobic.
	But then it's...
	See, I know there's a contradiction here in the fact that they're both biologically essentialist and also self-ID. But if we are to take the point in which they say biological essentially, you get the surgery to be more of a trans woman, then therefore the cocoa dust isn't enough for T.F. Allspark.
	No.
	He needs to get a tattoo.
	No, he doesn't need to do anything.
	He just needs to be able to say, I identify as a Somalian today.
	And you are a bigot if you say he's not.
	In the same way that a man, myself, could say, I identify as a woman, and my womanly parts have always been womanly parts.
	But this is self-ID, and as we saw, Hassan Paikar has admitted this is over.
	This is a dead doctrine.
	He is the king of intersectionism, and that's a real shame.
	Their defence has to become, well, you only become a trans woman when you've got the surgery.
	That's the only thing they can do, surely.
	But then the presuppositions that rests on means that there is a biological connection to, say, a vagina and womanhood.
	Sure, but trans women are women because they've got the vagina now.
	No, because then trans women who haven't had the surgery are no longer women, and that's transphobic.
	They're transitioning.
	They've already done it.
	No, no, no, they're transitioning.
	They're not there yet.
	Just merely the assertion.
	It's like not real communism, where it's just not there yet.
	We have to respect that they're transitioning and therefore a woman, but they are going to get there.
	No, because you're still resting on the foundation that there is a biological component to your self-identification.
	I still feel like there's something that can be, not selfish, because of course it's all nonsense, but something that could be constructed, like some nonsense funeral pyre.
	Anything can be constructed out of this.
	That Hassan Piker can stand on and be like, yeah, still valid, still valid, I swear.
	No, because ultimately, in the final analysis, any kind of biological intervention in the ideology will be considered as a phobia, as resisting to the ideology.
	It all has to be done by self-ID, and it has to be to the point where literally anything can be anything for it to be satisfied.
	Go to the next one.
	Hi guys.
	I bought a new bike.
	Nice.
	Having lots of fun with it.
	But there was a thought that occurred to me today, which was cycling to work is quite hard.
	In a sense, it's suffering.
	And I smiled when I thought of this, because I realised that cycling into work, despite being hard, is good for me.
	And that suffering will make me a better person.
	I thought that was quite a nice thought.
	You guys have a nice day.
	That's precisely why I cycle into work.
	Like, every goddamn day, even when I don't feel like it, I cycle into work.
	That's a good comment.
	I like that.
	Thanks for that.
	It's good for the next one.
	Hey guys, some of you will have seen the Greens reeing over a minor oil incident last week.
	Well, Turkmenistan would like you to hold their beer.
	I invite you to Google the Darvaza crater.
	The gates of hell.
	Known as the gates to hell.
	That crater is about 3,500 square metres and produced something like 10 million tonnes of carbon, not carbon dioxide, carbon.
	And it's been burning since 1971.
	And guess what?
	The Soviets did it on purpose.
	Well, I don't think they did it...
	This is why capitalism's bad!
	So they did it on purpose, because they thought it wouldn't burn that long, and then it didn't stop.
	50 years on, it's so well.
	Well, it was meant to burn for like a day, and then the day passed, and then it kept going, and they were like, huh?
	And then the Soviet Union passed, and it kept going.
	And it's like, huh?
	So there's that.
	But I love all the...
	The stupidity out of this is unbelievable.
	The response from leftists is like, this is capitalism at work.
	Oh god, yeah, because it's a state-owned Mexican oil company, isn't it?
	Yeah, state-owned.
	How is this country?
	The state-owned company is still out for profit, therefore it's capitalism.
	It's so unbelievable.
	It's like when it's nationalised, it's still capitalism.
	But also the fact that that's...
	It's just like saying Jews, though.
	My understanding is that...
	Jewish oil company burns this.
	Like, thanks, Nazi.
	Yes.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Socialists are Nazis.
	Yeah, but that's the point.
	It's like, you know, whenever you want to know the root cause of something, if you know what their ideology is, you can already assume, right, okay, the Nazis are saying it's the Jews, the Socialists are saying it's the Capitalists, you know, the Islamists are saying it's the Kafar, you know, I know what their opinions are.
	They're monomaniacal lunatics, you know?
	It's like...
	Anyway...
	But also, I heard that that fire in the ocean was put out within five hours.
	So that one's solved.
	The Soviet one's still going.
	30-odd years.
	50 years.
	50 years, sorry.
	let's go to the next one is this a test?
	It is a test.
	So he's standing in front of signs that say face masks are mandatory, and he's not wearing a mask.
	Let's see if anyone intervenes.
	It's a good test.
	I hear we're getting rid of our masks on July 19th.
	Yeah, but will our building manager allow us to wander around the building without masks?
	I'll have to.
	That'd be nice, wouldn't it?
	Let's go to the next one.
	Hi guys.
	Sorry, my living room was the only uninhabited bit of my house just now that I could film this in.
	Looking a bit communist.
	It was great.
	Well done, Ball.
	I really like that period of history.
	But do you not think that Basil II, the empire around his time, had a really satisfying shape?
	I always kind of thought it looked complete.
	Also that oil guy.
	Stop dragging my beard.
	I didn't want to grow a beard.
	I wasn't trying to grow a beard.
	I just was lazy and refused to shave.
	I mean, we can't all be descendants of Vikings, or in the case of TF Allspark, we can't all just be straight up Vikings.
	Anyway, I would support TF in the fight, given your horrible comments.
	Yeah, but this is what you get for being lazy and not shaving.
	Doesn't this kind of fall down with you being Scottish, though?
	The idea that you're not a descendant of the Vikings.
	Didn't the Vikings raid the Scottish all the time and do what Vikings do?
	There was lots of rape, yeah.
	Yeah.
	I don't know.
	I mean, you only need to get 21 and me, or 21 and 3, or whatever the hell it's called.
	23 and me.
	23 and me.
	And then find out whatever you are.
	But we're actually out of time, so I'm going to have to end there.
	So, it's upset.
	But, thanks for tuning in.
	We will be back next...
	Tomorrow?
	Next day?
	Next day!
	My brain is fried today.
	I don't do well on Mondays.
	We'll be back tomorrow, 1 o'clock.
	If you want more from us, go to losis.com.
	Thank you for tuning in.
	We will be back tomorrow.

▲