Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 4, 2021 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:25:14

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #190

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters for the 4th of August 2021.
	I am joined by Josh.
	Hello.
	Sorry for any technical problems, just things in the background we needed to fix beforehand, but we're here now.
	So today we're going to be talking about the reprehensible pro-freedom views of Lawrence Fox.
	That is how one outlet decided to describe his opinion on all of this.
	And also the Taliban's reconquest of Afghanistan, because we lost.
	By the way, it's just lost here.
	Let's be frank about it.
	We lost the war, but maybe not, you know, in the end.
	I mean, have something somewhat optimistic at the end.
	You've got a very small white pill.
	Yeah, well, I'm going to mainly depress you for about 20 minutes and then right at the end...
	Give you a glimmer of hope.
	Okay.
	Which is almost more cruel.
	We also have YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki trying to defend freedom of speech, in which she wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal of all outlets, the one that came after her because of PewDiePie, hardest, in which she's trying to defend freedom of speech, but it's placid at best, but we'll go through it.
	So, first things I wanted to mention was the premium stuff we have on the website.
	So, the first thing here being the Masters of the Universe revelations, the new He-Man, and the controversy around it.
	The fact that, yeah, okay, there's some woke stuff in there, but there's also some other things going on that Carl explained.
	Carl's a huge fan of He-Man, growing up, obviously, the pro-Western propaganda within it.
	There's actually a series on YouTube of just the messages at the end, you know, like, I've learned something today.
	It's always just pro-Western propaganda.
	So, one of them's talking about Magna Carta and whatnot.
	Anyway, so...
	I didn't know that.
	So we're discussing that in the remake there, so go and give that a check out.
	Also the next thing here being the contemplations you've done.
	It is, yeah.
	So I did a little contemplations about virtue and the concepts thereof, and also how you can develop it yourself, and I outlined kind of a four-step process.
	I know that sounds like a self-help thing, but it's relatively intuitive, and I just talk about how you can think about virtues and And how that can help you develop certain things in your life and make it better.
	And it's something that is very much needed, I think, that we're talking about lots of depressing stuff all the time.
	Let's talk about some things that are actually nice and nourishing and make you feel good about yourself and the world rather than the opposite, rather than what we're going to talk about for the next hour or so.
	And last thing to mention was the definition of a woman video called it.
	So the direct video, that should be up at 5pm today, so look forward to that.
	So without further ado, let's get into the reprehensible pro-freedom views.
	So this is going to focus around Lawrence Fox and his horrible pro-freedom views.
	And the first thing I wanted to mention was a clip that was a while ago, but he went on GB News to promote his movement, himself, whatever.
	And Tom Harwood, the pocket leftist, I guess, on GB News, was giving him a hard time over the fact that he hadn't decided to tell all of his supporters that they need to go and get the vaccine, particularly young supporters, to support herd immunity.
	And Fox's position is just, you know, each to their own.
	Do what you want.
	Not my problem.
	And Tom Harwood wasn't happy with that, let's say.
	So let's play this first clip in which you see that.
	The fear that's been generated by this government is absolutely disproportionate to the risk that this virus causes young people particularly, and I'm trying to bring those two sides together, not further apart.
	Are you trying to bring these sides together though?
	Because I've seen what you've tweeted about vaccines in the past.
	You've used the word vaccine in a quote as if this isn't a real vaccine.
	You've said that these haven't passed their trials, and they have passed.
	They're phase 3 clinical trials.
	You've said that young people shouldn't get the vaccine when really we know that in order to reach herd immunity young people have to get this vaccine.
	Aren't you part of the problem here?
	Should I get a Tom Harwood tweet approval passport as well?
	Would that help?
	I think everyone should really.
	That would really help.
	I feel for you as a person, because as a young man, you're very disproportionately worried about this thing that's not going to do you any harm.
	So, you know, and also you constantly yourself tweet the endlessly follow the government line and, you know, journalism is about...
	I think deeply critical of this.
	I think they were slow to introduce masks.
	I think that they have slowed down on the vaccine rollout.
	I think there have been many, many missteps that this government have taken, and they've been weak on the borders.
	So I have not been at all recalcitrant in my criticism of the government.
	But I do think that there is a real, genuine problem when people with large followings tweet out to many, many people That they shouldn't take this vaccine.
	When we know the hell that this country has been through for the last year and a half, the way out of this is the vaccine.
	And potentially it would be a good thing if you were to tell your legions of followers to actually get the jab.
	That was amazing.
	I love the idea that he's being anti-government by saying that the government needs to crack down harder, of all things.
	Like, what were your criticisms of the government?
	And Tom's like, yeah, they weren't hard enough in introducing mask mandates and further with the vaccines.
	And it's like, right, okay.
	That's not my idea of criticism towards the government, really.
	They didn't go far enough.
	They're not authoritarian enough.
	Oh, okay.
	So, I mean, Lawrence has...
	He's not forcing anyone to do anything.
	His position on this is that, well, here's my opinion on the thing, and you do what you want, because he's very libertarian.
	And Tom's very upset with him, because he thinks that young people need to go and get the vaccine.
	And one of the things I noticed there was the language of disproportionality.
	The fact that Lawrence was being sensible in mentioning that, well, you have to be proportional to these things.
	What is the risk to you?
	Is that a reason to mandate these things, and so on and so forth, if the risk is high enough?
	You know, the language you would get from a sensible debate, and, you know, if you were talking about the statistics kind of thing, and ignoring the morality for a second, which is another debate we'll get back into a second.
	But let's just look at the statistics for a minute.
	So this is the government's own website on the amount of people who have taken the vaccine.
	If we can scroll down to the bottom here, there's a list by age, so you can see the different age groups of who's taken the vaccine.
	So I think it's the one after this, so you can keep going.
	Keep going, keep going.
	It's like a bunch of bar graphs along the lines.
	It's right at the bottom, right at the bottom.
	There we are.
	So you can see the 90 plus and all the different age brackets there of who's got it.
	And in the 18 to 24 section, 61.5% of the population have had the jab.
	So I mean, that's what Tom is complaining about here, that only 61% of 18 to 24 year olds have had the jab.
	It doesn't seem very proportionate of an outrage to be like, no, you need to encourage more young people to take it, when only under 40% have not.
	And when you look at those at-risk, so the over-60s, so everything over 60 is over 90% of the people who have taken it.
	The people at risk of actually dying from it, yeah.
	It makes sense that they've done it, yeah.
	But, um, wasn't there recently a study that suggested that something like 70, I can't remember the figures off the top of my head, but something like 70% of young people already have the COVID antibodies anyway, just from coming into contact with it.
	I saw, I've seen variable figures, it seems to be all over the place, so I don't know.
	Yeah, I mean, it depends on the sample, doesn't it, and where they get it from.
	But if we go to the next one here, you can see the death rate, as published by the BBC. I've mentioned this a lot of times, so the first graph on this article just shows you the death rate per age group, and as you can see, proportionality is something to keep in mind.
	If you are older, the chance of death exponentially gets larger.
	Equally, if you are longer, it gets exponentially smaller.
	And as you see there for the 19 to 29 group, it's barely visible on the graph because it is a low rate because of the age.
	So Lawrence Fox is right to say, well, we need to be proportionate about these things.
	That group, who have such a low risk from this already, have got 65%.
	You could say you could want it higher.
	That's okay, you can say that.
	But to talk about mandating it or to being autistic about the fact that it's not high enough is strange and quite disproportional.
	But whatever.
	So, what about herd immunity?
	Because this was the other pace of his argument, that, well, we've got herd immunity to worry about.
	Yeah, sure, okay, that's something you could argue.
	But if you just Google herd immunity, this is the first thing I got here, just talking about COVID-19 and herd immunity.
	So what's the percentage?
	Because I asked this question before.
	Where is it?
	So they say in here, for example, the measles is a highly contagious illness.
	It's estimated that 94% of the population must be immune to interrupt the chain of transmission.
	This is what we've all been edging towards with the vaccines and Boris's initial idea of herd immunity by infection.
	Both of those play a role.
	So they also say health impacts.
	Experts estimate that in the US, 70% of the population, more than 200 million people, would have to recover from COVID-19 to halt the pandemic.
	So you get about 70% because that's what's needed for COVID, not the measles, which was 94.
	That would work.
	So we just look at the vaccination uptake.
	So we've got the next link here.
	This is the next image.
	The vaccine uptake in here.
	So they say that 88.5% of the UK have had the first dose.
	72% have had their second dose.
	And in the US, it's 50% are fully vaccinated.
	So they're getting there as well.
	But in the UK, 88% have already had a first dose.
	72% have had a second dose.
	And that's before you take into the effect of people who are infected.
	Because if you have been infected, then you've had the virus, as you mentioned, with the antibodies.
	We don't know about how many people, because that's impossible, but we know how many people have been recorded, because we have the positive tests, and they totally work, right?
	So, if you take into this, now the 10% of the US population is immune, and 8.8% of the UK. And if you go to educational videos that were made before medicine became hyper-partisan, you can see people talking about the same thing here.
	So this is just some guy, I quite like him for physics, actually, back when I was studying, just explaining these thresholds for different diseases for herd immunity, the thing we're going for.
	And one has to wonder, okay, it's represented on the R0 value.
	There's a study on this.
	What was the estimation of what we would need to get herd immunity?
	Go to the next link.
	Well, they say in here that the R0 value is between 5.8 in the US and ranges between 3.6 and 6.1 in around the world.
	And therefore, herd immunity would be at 71% and 84% in the US. Well, the UK's got 72% vaccinated, 8% already had it, so up to 81% of the people have definitely had this disease in the vaccine or the illness form.
	Well, then we're done.
	Like, you've got the herd immunity you're asking for, Tom.
	I know that was a bit boring to go through, but that's the point.
	Just to look through the statistics here, we take the win.
	It's weird for you to be obsessive that people definitely need to get it.
	So, Lawrence Fox is right.
	Proportionality is important.
	Also, if you're arguing about herd immunity, according to the data, we're pretty much there, if not higher, because how many people have had it and not had a positive test?
	So, who cares what Tom Harwood has to say on that issue?
	Well...
	Lawrence Fox is also arguing for freedom.
	That's the ultimate problem, isn't it?
	Because this isn't about the science.
	Because when you get down to the data here, there's on his side, but that doesn't matter.
	So here's the article.
	Lawrence Fox says Neil Oliver speaks for us all with reprehensible pro-freedom views.
	Freedom.
	Such a horrible, reprehensible value, isn't it?
	Letting people do what they want.
	Freedom.
	That's the evil thing here.
	That's the thing we're all fighting against.
	Because it's not the COVID. We're dealt with that.
	The deaths are minuscule.
	The herd immunity you wanted, while the percentage has been reached, it's about the freedom to use, isn't it?
	Did you catch that they misquoted Neil Oliver here as well?
	So in the kind of article byline there, if my freedom means you might catch COVID from me, then so be it.
	He actually says the complete opposite.
	He says, if your freedom means I might catch COVID, then so be it.
	That's exactly what he says.
	The freedom is fine.
	If you want that, you have to take the risk on board.
	But he's not saying, I'm willing to risk you getting ill for my freedom.
	He's saying it the other way around in that...
	I am willing to get ill for your freedom.
	To be fair to them, it does go both ways.
	But both sides get freedom, and that's the desirable goal.
	If you're not a goddamn socialist...
	They're trying to get the most uncharitable interpretation of it, right?
	So they write in here about these disgusting pro-freedom views of appearing on GB News.
	The former BBC presenter claimed that he would, quote, cheerfully risk catching the deadly disease for the sake of personal freedom.
	Personal.
	Because that's how the law works.
	It only applies to him if we were to give more freedoms to the citizens.
	Only him specifically.
	No one else.
	It's not for that.
	It's for the entirety of society.
	Idiot.
	He then went on to compare those who refused to comply with the current guidance to those who fought in the Battle of Britain, saying, quote, It was a minority of people outgunned and shouted down by fellow citizens who felt deals might be struck with tyrants who stood up against fascism during the Second World War.
	But I don't know why that comparison's improper.
	The ex-Coast presenter who has a weekly show on the controversial channel.
	Controversial.
	GB News.
	Controversial.
	Why it's not a leftist.
	That's it.
	They've had no controversies other than the sound.
	And that's fixed.
	Technical issues are the controversies really, isn't it?
	If that's it, well, okay.
	That's done now, so.
	For me, without freedom, there is no point in anything.
	So, take away all the numbers, all the statistics, all the models, all the predictions.
	For me, it boils down to something simple.
	So there's the argument.
	You've got all the statistical stuff, which I tried to show you.
	You know, not some expert on Edison, but I can look at what is available, and seems to show that the evidence is on the side of Mr.
	Fox and his point of view.
	And, well, then there's just a moral argument of, no, we should be free.
	And I'm going to play the second clip of him making that argument, because it's very well done.
	I declare that I am a free man.
	I was born 54 years ago into a part of the world, just a relatively small part of the world, where I was taught that my freedom had been won for me by men and women who had fought and died to make it so.
	I was born just 22 years after World War II, into a world still full of those men and women who had fought for my freedom and lived to tell the tale.
	If your freedom means I might catch Covid from you, then so be it.
	If my freedom means you might catch Covid from me, then so be it.
	That's honestly how I see it.
	For the sake of freedom, yours and mine together, I will cheerfully risk catching Covid.
	That is a chance, one among many, that I am prepared to take and happily.
	Life is not safe.
	Freedom is not safe.
	That's the reprehensible view.
	Life isn't safe, we all take risks, the risks here are low, therefore we should both be free to engage in life.
	I mean, I've seen the full video, and I couldn't agree more with everything he says, to be honest.
	Like, none of it should be controversial, but apparently it is, for some reason.
	I didn't have time for the full video, but if we can go back to show people, go and check that out if you do want to see the full speech, because I am enjoying his little, you know, straight videos there, so good for him.
	But let's go on to the next one here, because it reminded me actually of an article when everyone joined UKIP.
	There was an article published in the Mirror, meet the new face of UKIP, the free speech extremists who can make UKIP dangerous again.
	Free speech extremists.
	Reprehensible freedom views.
	I mean, this is the thing.
	This is the language they use.
	They utterly hate you for being pro-freedom.
	It is not about COVID. It's not about hate speech or hate or any of this crap.
	That is just a front for their ideology.
	Anyway, so I suppose you should be scared a little bit of posting pro-freedom views online, because as Sky News has found out, no one's immune.
	Remember, if they can go after Trump, they can go after anyone.
	And it's not just small creators either.
	Sky News Australia banned from YouTube for seven days over COVID misinformation.
	Sky News Australia.
	They're like the best corporate press going.
	That's the thing.
	They're owned by the, what is it, News Corp that owns Fox News.
	But this is not some small beans organization, you know, some channel or some individual they can go after.
	Like, this is part of the woodwork, let's say, of the system, in the sense that it's from the non-socialist perspective, at least.
	So I will give them props for that.
	Scania's Australia do a great job at giving the other side.
	But that's the thing.
	They're not afraid to go after anyone.
	And what's the COVID misinformation?
	Well, YouTube nor Sky News Australia say, because no one on Sky News Australia knows, and no one at YouTube is willing to tell them.
	So not only do they have guidelines that they're willing to enforce pretty liberally, they also don't tell you what you've done wrong as well, even after the fact.
	If you want to improve for next time, you're destined to fail again because you don't know what you did wrong in the first place.
	This is one of the huge problems of the response from social media.
	They never tell you what you've done wrong and how to not do that.
	They would argue that it's so they don't help terrorist groups or criminal groups try and get around the guidance.
	Which is, okay, there's some validity there.
	Ryan Harwick interview, if you want to know about that.
	But in this case, it's obviously nothing to do with terrorism and whatnot.
	Sky News Australia certainly aren't up to no good in that sense.
	Interesting they mention in here, the strike was revealed on the same day as Sky News Australia launched a free-to-air channel, Sky News Regional, across regional Australia.
	So, the same day that they decide to expand, gonna take down a YouTube account.
	It's convenient, isn't it?
	Competition, isn't it?
	Yeah, so what did the political class in Australia think of all this?
	Well, they're just responding with glee, because why not?
	So let's go to the next one here.
	This is a Green Party senator who's ecstatic about censorship, because of course she is.
	What a damning indictment of our political and media landscape that this extremist, conspiratorial, racist news channel is still considered normal and acceptable.
	Sky News time is up in response to them being banned.
	So it's not just her whining because leftists like the wine.
	She knows they've been banned.
	They've been censored for saying something that YouTube doesn't like and can't determine what it is.
	And she's like, yeah, more of this.
	Love it.
	I'm sure these are the kind of people that lock down the entirety of Australia, even though they've got a handful of cases.
	Yeah, I have no doubt that she's voting for that sort of thing.
	She describes herself as a Green Senator for New South Wales.
	Feminist.
	Engineer.
	Migrant.
	Raised fist emoji.
	Because, of course.
	She's from Pakistan, so I don't know why she doesn't live there, because there's a thing, isn't it?
	What's wrong with Pakistan?
	The government's censorious and totalitarian in many aspects.
	Yeah.
	That would be awful if it came to Australia.
	No, you'd just clap it on, wouldn't you?
	You bent.
	Anyway, so they're YouTube claiming, of course, that they have policies that are very clear on COVID misinformation.
	Somebody uses YouTube and reads those every day.
	They keep changing.
	Shut up.
	That's not true.
	But also, what is misinformation?
	Don't know.
	But one thing I do know is a certain mad lad needs to be stopped for spreading such misinformation.
	And I love one of these Gun News Australia hosts who just tweeted out Fauci versus Fauci here, and then just him contradicting himself endlessly to make the point.
	Let's play this clip.
	There's not been any indication that putting a mask on and wearing a mask for a considerable period of time has any deleterious effects.
	There are unintended consequences.
	People keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face.
	And can you get some schmutz sort of staying inside there?
	Of course.
	You do not need to wear a mask indoors if, in fact, You've been vaccinated.
	Good that you're vaccinated, but in a situation where you have people indoors, particularly crowded, you should wear a mask.
	So even if you are vaccinated, you should wear a mask.
	If, in fact, you are vaccinated, fully vaccinated, you are protected, and you do not need to wear a mask outdoors or indoors.
	When the children go out into the community, you want them to continue to wear masks.
	You know, if you look at children outside, particularly when they're with the family of Walking down the street, playing a game or what have you, don't have to wear a mask.
	The Pediatric, the Academy of Pediatric actually makes that recommendation that children should be wearing masks from two years old onward.
	And you're asking now if your child is a member of your household, can you walk outdoors with your child without a mask?
	According to that chart, the answer is yes.
	I don't think I can make it any clearer.
	I'm not saying that masks don't play a role in stopping the spread of COVID or are harmful in some way, but it's the point of like, right, even on just the question of mask wearing, we've got our experts here, and the expert can't even figure out who should wear them when, which ones, you know, what kinds of masks in any given time, because it's a complex question and at certain times you might have different answers to all of this.
	So, okay, fine, that's the standard that the experts are going to take, which is difficult, let's say.
	But then, why on earth, if you know the experts can't be consistent on this, as a social media firm like YouTube or Facebook or whatnot, would you take on the role of being the arbiter of truth?
	They're the ones who are going to determine it, and if you don't, Scannous Australia.
	Just spend it for seven days.
	It's a nonsensical thing for them to put on themselves.
	And they did it to themselves.
	So enjoy the hatred for it.
	It reminds me of the COVID lab leak theory because I remember when that was first about and I realised that there was a COVID researching lab in Wuhan.
	I was just like, well, that's really fishy.
	That seems strange.
	I remember having to talk to people and I was just like, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, by the way, because of course it was all framed in that lens.
	But I think there's something to that.
	And I almost was just like, well, Why is this being suppressed?
	And then all of a sudden, the media just U-turns, just like, yes, actually, it's not a conspiracy theory, you're not going to be demonetised, you're not going to be struck off.
	This is actually now mainstream news, and something that mainstream outlets are now saying is likely as well.
	That's the point I'm trying to get at, even on just the topic of masks.
	A million problems for you to determine what truth is.
	But then to extend it to the Wuhan lab theory.
	Something even more complicated, yeah.
	All the rest of it.
	Don't do this.
	Why would you take on the job of being like, I know what the truth is and I'm going to determine it for billions of people?
	Remember, like, what is it?
	Two billion, three billion people use YouTube every day?
	What a task.
	Like, why would you take that on unless you're a maniac?
	I mean, even with scientists who are experts in their field, you know, there's lots of debate between things about the intricacies of things they've dedicated their entire lives to studying, right?
	So if they can't work it out, the actual people who are supposed to know about this sort of thing, then why on earth does anyone ever feel like they are a valid authority on that sort of thing?
	It's ridiculous.
	Let's move on to Afghanistan.
	Sure.
	We're running out of time.
	Okay, no worries.
	That's alright.
	So, as people might be aware, the US and the UK have slightly been going through a withdrawal in Afghanistan.
	I think it's the entire coalition, isn't it?
	Yeah, yes it is.
	So we're leaving it under the autonomy of the Afghan government with some kind of outside support.
	But Hugo's got a good article on our website about the gradual end of the war in Afghanistan, where...
	He said on the 4th of July that US and NATO were in the process of withdrawing from their bases after about 20 years of fighting.
	Of course, we went into Afghanistan after 9-11, the attacks in 2001, targeting...
	We said to the Afghan government, who were the Taliban, you've got Bin Laden, Gibbs.
	Yeah, they didn't want to cooperate with us, did they?
	They said, make us, so we did.
	And he ended up turning out to be in Pakistan.
	Yeah, well, funny that, isn't it?
	But that's a whole other kettle of fish.
	But anyway, after several months of fighting Al-Qaeda, we basically whittled the numbers down to a point where we shifted our focus to the Taliban, who of course impeded us getting to them in the first place.
	And of course, there is the fact as well that in 1980, The CIA funded, armed and trained the Taliban to fight the USSR. So we did turn against our former allies, against the Soviets, which quite often happens in these sorts of things.
	But to move on to the modern day, this withdrawal obviously is an admission of defeat, right?
	We weren't able to get rid of them.
	And here they are, taking...
	Taking over things, and it's just been quiet.
	Supposedly, in Bagram Air Base, the US just slunk away in the night without telling anyone.
	It's like they're embarrassed.
	Yeah, see you tomorrow, mate.
	No, they're just not there.
	Yeah, well, we didn't even tell the Afghan government's forces that we were, well, I say we, but the US was leaving, so they didn't even know, so they must have turned up to the base thinking, oh, hello, and then there's no one there.
	So it's a little bit strange, but I suppose from a tactical standpoint...
	And the logistics, you don't want to tell anyone that you're moving because then you'll be vulnerable.
	So I think that's probably what they did.
	But anyway, the withdrawal agreement wasn't actually done under Biden.
	It was signed by Trump in the Doha agreement last year.
	So to say, oh, it's Biden's fault is to be a bit uncharitable here.
	Biden has continued on with the agreement, as, you know, is customary.
	It's not very good for the US to then go back on an agreement when the president changes.
	But I mean, you know, even going back to Obama, people have been trying to leave Afghanistan for a long time.
	Well, yeah, it's one of those things where, had you told someone that invading will take 20 years, and then you'll lose in the end anyway, I imagine people would be even more sceptical of it in the first place.
	So, when Biden was Vice President, he stated, nation-building was a waste of time and instead the US should focus on a stand-off approach to counter-terrorism using airstrikes and special forces raids.
	And I think that's the position that he still maintains.
	I don't necessarily disagree either.
	I think having boots on the ground is just an unnecessary risk of our soldiers' lives.
	Well, regime change.
	Like when you're overthrowing an entire country or whatnot.
	Like just some special forces to deal with it or some guys to guard area sounds better.
	I mean, it's not like the current government is particularly inept either they've been trained by the US over a number of years.
	Obviously, they're not to Western standards, but, you know, a lot better than they were beforehand.
	But anyway, the war in Afghanistan so far has seen 2,300 US troops killed, 405 UK troops killed, and the US has spent about a trillion dollars in keeping the country so-called secure, which it hasn't.
	So, I mean...
	Make of that what you will, whether it is worthwhile, but I think to most people they probably think that that was a waste of a lot of lives and money for very little in return.
	I mean, the Taliban now controls about half of the country.
	But anyway, the Taliban so far has captured nine out of ten districts in the capital of Helmand province.
	I'm sure you've heard Helmand province quite a lot.
	It's part of southern...
	are particularly popular as opposed to the north, where the capital of Kabul is-- - Every time there's a dead British soldier, it's Helmand, usually. - Yeah, Helmand became synonymous with people being killed by the Taliban.
	So the district of Lashkar Gah, I hope I've pronounced that correctly, This is where they seize the 9 out of 10 districts, which there's currently an ongoing conflict with the Afghan government's forces.
	And they've also seized things such as TV and radio stations.
	So they've got a decent amount of infrastructure to try and recruit other people.
	And apparently the Taliban are keeping people in their homes and preventing them from leaving.
	So at least they've got something in common with the UK government.
	That's what I was saying, yeah.
	No alcohol, you must self-isolate, hands, face, mouth, whatever it is.
	They're also preventing people from actually leaving and getting supplies, so I think they've taken a little bit further, unsurprisingly.
	So people are having to stay in their homes under force of violence, even if they have no food.
	So it's obviously a horrendous humanitarian thing.
	And...
	Most of the Taliban are Islamists.
	They are proper Islamists.
	The Quran says so, so do it.
	So, yeah, it's not just stay in your homes, it's entirely...
	Obey the will of Allah, right.
	It's an Islamic state.
	So, in Lashkargarh, the residents have been encouraged to evacuate, and so far 100,000 civilians have done so.
	Just to kind of put this in perspective, only yesterday 40 civilians were killed that we know about.
	Um...
	And this is only one of three of the province capitals that are currently under attack by the Taliban.
	So far they've also targeted specifically airports in the cities of Kandahar and Herat and General Sadat of the Afghan government's military He said to the citizens, I mention this because it was just unusually polite, it's in the middle of a civil war, more or less, maybe a war, however you want to define it, but he says, I know it is very difficult for you to leave your houses, it is hard for us too, but if you are displaced for a few days, please forgive us.
	And I've included this just for a bit of...
	Has he been trained by the British?
	Yeah, well, we've been training him in grammar while the US has been training him in...
	Terribly sorry chaps, but we had to blow up their house, so...
	It's just like, yeah, you're being forced to stay in your homes, but we're ever so sorry that you have to leave.
	I mean, okay, that's not really relevant to the entire picture, but I just thought it was nice that he was so polite about it.
	You've got to appreciate these things and horrendously depressing stories, but...
	So yeah, he said to the BBC as well that he believed the Taliban would not be able to sustain their efforts because, of course, they're not quite as well funded as the government itself.
	One civilian said to the BBC that neither the Taliban will have mercy on us, nor the government will stop the bombing.
	There are corpses on the roads.
	We do not know if they are civilians or Taliban.
	So that's the picture on the ground.
	They kind of feel...
	A little bit hopeless, as you probably would, because, of course, you've lived in amongst it for 20 years.
	I imagine you're going to see it as something that can't be resolved.
	So the Afghan president has issued a call to arms against the Taliban, saying that this is President Afram Ghani, which sounds confusingly like Afghani.
	But nevertheless, he's calling for a holy war against the Taliban saying, We're good to
	go.
	It feels weird to gin up religious language to fight the Taliban, but whatever.
	Well, it's good because the Taliban are recruiting from religious zealots, right?
	So if you can win them to your side and use that same language back at them, then it's effective, I think.
	Islamic s-hole countries are always going to be like this, aren't they?
	Is there any chance of the Taliban losing this?
	Are they going to win, or is it just going to be endless war?
	It's funny you should say that, because this next article by Al Jazeera does a really good job of comparing the...
	The two forces against one another.
	So although the Taliban controls half of Afghanistan's district so far, the total strength of the Afghan National Security Forces, including the Army, Special Forces, Air Force, Police and Intelligence, was more than 307,000.
	So this was at the end of April, whereas the UN Security Council's estimation is that The Taliban number between 55,000 and 85,000, so they're severely outnumbered by pretty much even the most liberal of estimates there.
	I have to wonder how loyal those numbers are, though, because I remember watching that documentary, This Is What Winning Looks Like, in which one of the, I think it was Vice who ended up publishing it, this guy went down there, he just interviewed people in Helmand and whatnot, the police, the army and whatnot, and they were useless.
	They were just there for the pay to get high, nothing else.
	They were paper forces.
	Well, I mean, we have been training them for a long time, so hopefully something has changed.
	Even so, they're probably going to be better than the Taliban, just by merit of their equipment.
	Taliban would be better.
	Veteran fighters?
	I don't know about that.
	They've probably all been blown up by now.
	They're probably fresh, new, young faces, I imagine.
	But...
	Afghanistan spends about five to six billion US dollars annually on its military, whereas the Taliban spends between 300 million to 1.5 billion a year.
	So spending is very different as well.
	It's also worth adding that the US subsidizes 75% of the Afghanistani military budget.
	So that's your tax money.
	And of course the Taliban, rather than being funded by the US, is funded by narcotics, extorting businesses, and imposing taxes on the locals.
	And Pakistan, but let's not mention that.
	Well, we can't make allegations, but maybe.
	Only when they're blatant.
	In terms of equipment, the US has spent billions on ensuring that the Afghan defence forces are superior to the Taliban.
	They have Western rifles, night vision goggles, armoured vehicles, artillery, surveillance drones.
	They also have an air force, which the Taliban do not, which includes a fleet of 167 aircraft, including attack helicopters and a SIGAR. I don't know what that is.
	S-I-G-A-R. Someone's going to correct me and call me an idiot, but fair enough.
	Um, so the Taliban, of course, as you can imagine, are only equipped with small arms such as AK-47s, RPGs and anti-aircraft rocket launchers, snipers and IEDs, the latter of which, of course, being the most deadly, um...
	And of course the Taliban have captured some Western equipment that was left behind by the Americans.
	I don't know how you do this.
	Just like, yeah, let's just leave these guns behind.
	So, well done.
	Your sneaky withdrawal wasn't as good as you thought.
	However, on the Taliban's defence is that their morale is a lot higher than the Afghan forces because they have the forces of religious zealotry behind them alongside the fact that the Afghan forces have had quite bad losses.
	And of course, the Taliban taking half the country can't be good for morale, right?
	You must feel pretty inept if you've got all of that Western power backing you and you can't even keep...
	Well, you couldn't even win the war originally.
	Well, yeah, I suppose so.
	And just to emphasise how bad it is at the minute, just this morning, this was only a few hours ago, there was a terrorist attack targeting the guesthouse of Defence Minister Bismillah Khan Mohammadi, which killed eight civilians.
	And thankfully it didn't kill the actual Defence Minister they were going after.
	But it just goes to show that...
	The chaos is ongoing, but hopefully based on just the vast difference between the Afghan force and the Taliban, and with US financial and hopefully bombing and special forces support, they should be able to win, but at the minute it's not looking particularly good for the people on the ground.
	Well, they haven't been able to win all the whole time, so I'm sort of just like, well, the best circumstance is hopefully it just remains a war over there forever, I guess.
	I don't know what else to wish for.
	I think just by the sheer numbers, they're outnumbered like three to one.
	So even now, John says, Cigar reported it's an agency.
	Okay.
	Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	I must have just misread that, but thank you.
	So, to kind of end that, yeah, things aren't looking good, but there is chances that things have changed and hopefully the training that we're providing and the support that we're providing is enough, but make of our choice to withdraw what you will.
	I should never have gotten it.
	It was justified, but I should never have gotten it.
	Anyway, that's my opinion, but who cares about that, because I don't know what the hell I'm talking about.
	So let's go to Susan Wojcicki, which is something I do know I'm talking about.
	Susan Wojcicki, the CEO of YouTube, has decided to try and defend free speech, and I have some sympathies.
	I know it's going to be an unpopular opinion, sympathizing with Susan on some of her points, but most of it is the usual garbage, but I thought we'd go through it because it's interesting, in my opinion.
	So, first thing is just her tweeting.
	As CEO of YouTube, I see important issues around free expression and responsibility every day.
	Today, in the Wall Street Journal...
	The Wall Street Journal.
	The one that spent their time attacking YouTube because PewDiePie is a bad boy, and therefore YouTube needs to suffer.
	Remember, they got rid of all those advertisers.
	That was them.
	But okay.
	Write an article for them.
	Whatever.
	I wrote about three principles that should guide discussion about the regulation of online speech.
	Well, one of those principles.
	So if we go to the article itself...
	We should have put it in an archive link for people who want to get this, because the interesting thing as well is buying a paywall, which is a little bit strange for a free speech article, but whatever.
	I'm surprised you didn't mention the fact that the Wall Street Journal were criticising YouTube, so the fact she's making a free speech argument on their website is quite funny as well.
	It's just like going to the house and dirtying your shoes on the carpet.
	Yes, we care about free speech.
	The Wall Street Journal, it's again the skin suit.
	It's such fakes.
	Anyway, she wrote this.
	So she starts off with a story she tells every time she talks about free speech.
	When I was growing up, every time I wrote a letter to my grandfather, I worried it might be censored.
	My father had fled communist Poland for the United States, but my grandfather was unable to escape and still lived behind the Iron Curtain.
	I learned very young that it could be very dangerous when governments reach too far.
	She tells this story every single time she talks about censorship.
	Every single time.
	And it's kind of weird, because you would have thought...
	I know she wants it to come off as like, I know about how censorship is bad.
	That's why I'm a free speech person.
	But all it does, because she's massively overreaching within her own company, as in her guidance and whatnot overreach...
	It just comes off like, yeah, I know about real censorship.
	Don't worry, put me in charge.
	I'll do a good job.
	Susan.
	Anyway, so she says, As CEO of YouTube, I grapple every day with issues related to free expression and responsibility.
	Companies, civil society, and governments are facing unprecedented challenges and sorting through complicated questions, determining where to draw the lines on free speech in the 12th century.
	I have some sympathy with this point, because it's...
	All great and right for us to criticize YouTube when it's overbearing in a lot of ways.
	But some of this is difficult because you've got to put yourself in her shoes.
	She can't be a dictator, surely, with all the pressure she gets from the leftists who run the company from the bottom down, let's say.
	But also the governments like the democratic government that's currently in charge of the United States constantly pressuring them to get rid of misinformation because that's constitutional.
	So I've got some sympathy with her.
	You can see her working out there.
	It's not my fault.
	It's definitely the government who pressure us as well.
	Well, she's trying to shift the blame, right?
	And she is the one ultimately in control.
	I don't know.
	Maybe I'm just a bit bitter, but I find it hard to be as charitable to her.
	Well, this is the weird thing.
	As bad as YouTube is, it's not as bad as, say, Twitter or Facebook in the written terms that they do.
	I mean, the leaks we've had from Facebook, I mean, I keep calling out Ryan Hartwood because he's just such a goddamn hero on this, is the way Facebook got just, new rule, this person's banned, that's the new guidance.
	So not, they even haven't broken any of the rules whatsoever, but we'll just write a new rule, this person is banned.
	We don't like that person.
	They're gone.
	It's really, really pathetic.
	And there are some claims YouTubers engaged in that.
	I mean, Mumpkey Jones, the one Tim Paul keeps mentioning.
	I don't know.
	I haven't seen a specific example of that.
	That hasn't come from pressure from governments such as Robin Tominson.
	That's a clip of that.
	Anyway, policymakers around the world are introducing regulatory proposals, some arguing that too much content is left up on platforms, while others say that too much is taken down.
	There's a right side to that debate.
	YouTube, we're working to protect our community while enabling new and diverse voices to break through.
	Kind of a ridiculous thing to say.
	New and diverse voices.
	More new and diverse voices.
	Diverse.
	Well, I suppose if you take the leftist opinion of diverse, because, of course, it's like, you know, we have a boardroom.
	100% women.
	Therefore, it's 100% diverse.
	That's my favourite meme John came up with.
	So you've got that.
	That's what diverse means to you.
	All progressive, I guess, is the term diverse here, which that could be true.
	But the idea that there is a diverse range of YouTubers, particularly in the political content sphere, it's much worse than it used to be.
	Really much worse.
	So she says three principles should guide discussions about the regulation of online speech.
	First, YouTube makes information available to anyone with an internet connection.
	People around the world come to YouTube to find information, to learn, and to build community.
	By creating a space that's open to everyone means that bad actors will sometimes cross the line.
	True.
	Again, we have to deal with...
	They're not just dealing with naughty words.
	There's also the element of terrorist groups, criminal groups, so on and so forth.
	It's a very wide topic.
	We remove content that could cause real harm, such as violent extremism, copyright infringement, and dangerous pranks.
	Some of our decisions are controversial, putting it lightly, but we apply our policies equally regardless of who posts the content or the political viewpoint expressed.
	Just open liar on this one.
	Don't believe you, Susan.
	And if you think I'm wrong, well, go to your hate speech policies and look at them.
	And then compare them to the current mainstream thought of the right, the Republican Party, the Conservatives in the UK, around the world.
	I mean, even in the US, you don't even have to go elsewhere to see this is openly partisan.
	One side believes in the things you have in that policy, and the other side doesn't believe in them.
	Which means expressly, your policies are partisan.
	In the same way that Twitter, for example, you cannot misgender someone on Twitter.
	You'll get a ban if you do.
	That's an expressly partisan point.
	Tim Paul made that perfectly clear to Jack Dorsey when he had the interview on Joe Rogan.
	It's a great point.
	And every policy about hate speech is the same.
	The right doesn't believe in hate speech.
	They believe in free speech.
	It's kind of the point.
	They don't believe that words that cause hurt feelings should be a crime.
	If you put in there excitement of violence, then no one would have a problem with it.
	It wouldn't be partisan.
	But, uh...
	One thing that I've noticed that is quite amusing to me is the fact that they're talking about content that could cause real harm, and of course they validly talk about violent extremism and then juxtapose that next to copyright infringement.
	It causes real-world harm.
	Well, it causes financial harm.
	It causes harm, yeah, but to put the two next to each other kind of seems a bit silly.
	She says the second principle, democratic governments must provide companies with clear guidance about illegal speech that helps us remove illegal content more quickly and efficiently.
	These laws must be grounded in international norms as officials balance the right to information with the risk of harms.
	Oh god, because here's the thing, I agree with her that the governments need to be clear on what is illegal, because if you're a company, BitChute's a great one for this, in which they've had to deal with the nonsense that comes out of Westminster, where they're just like, yeah, this thing is illegal now, completely undefined terms, and they're just like, what the fuck am I censoring?
	What do you want me to do here?
	The law is the law, and the company has to comply with the law, but that blame is not on YouTube or BitChute, it's on Westminster, Washington, and that's true, but then her saying that it should be based on international norms...
	Why not liberal principles?
	Why not the principles of, you know, free expression, liberal rights in which we have incitement of violence that's illegal, but speech that isn't causing any damage?
	Isn't?
	Because it just hurts feelings, but...
	What even is an international norm, anyway?
	It's the globalists of greed.
	They're going to consider North Korea, you know, they're going to have an equal saying what can go on YouTube.
	I see John's written there, well, China does have the largest population, so, I mean, the international norm is one of a China so-so, so...
	That's a great point.
	Anyway, but she continues.
	But not everything about content moderation will be overseen by governments, which is why I believe strongly in the third principle.
	Companies should have flexibility to develop responsible practices to handle legal but potentially harmful speech.
	If it's potentially harmful, why is it legal?
	Think about that for a minute, Susan.
	Because there's a lot of things, there's a lot of speech that's legal in the United States.
	Why?
	Because it doesn't cause harm.
	That's the point.
	That's the point of the Constitution, the First Amendment there.
	And when you go to a country like the UK, we criminalize a lot of legal speech that doesn't cause any harm, that isn't just hurt feels.
	And again, if that's not enough, that's not enough for you.
	I don't know what to say.
	You're a tyrant.
	You're a tyrant in your policies when you enact them.
	It's an absurd thing to say.
	There are lots of other potentially harmful things that people in Western society are completely okay with tolerating as well.
	Getting in a car is potentially harmful, but people still think nothing of it, right?
	We are speaking about speech specifically.
	I know.
	So it's even less harmful than something like that.
	But she continues, some policy makers are debating what legal speech should be allowed on platforms.
	But such prescriptive rules could have serious consequences.
	And she gives some examples later on that we're about to go into.
	But the statement, some policymakers are debating what legal speech we should be forced to have on this platform.
	Big sus.
	Just thinking about Trump.
	Donald Trump, you know the guy that's banned on your platform when everyone else is?
	Maybe he should be allowed?
	The leader of the free world should be forced to be allowed on your platform.
	What's wrong with that?
	It's not censorship.
	It's platforming the man.
	But whatever.
	So she gave some examples instead that, I mean, who could disagree with, in which she says, I don't know what third world country's doing this.
	Evidence on YouTube helped prosecutors in Sweden hold the Syrian regime and rebel fighters accountable for war crimes.
	What if these videos had been taken down because they were deemed too graphic?
	It's a valid point.
	Who's going to disagree with that?
	No one, except the Dutch jobs who were trying to get droll videos removed, I guess.
	last Last year, when mobile phone towers in the UK were set on fire after conspiracy theories blamed COVID-19 on 5G networks, we updated our policies in a single day to remove harmful content.
	See, this is the problem.
	This is the goddamn problem.
	Right.
	If someone tells a lie, if they say some nonsense, and someone else believes that nonsense, and then goes out and commits a violent action, sending fires to the towers, shooting at workers on the towers, whatever, that's not the original person's fault.
	The original liar hasn't shot anyone.
	He hasn't burnt anything.
	So you're saying, well, we took down the videos as if the videos were to blame.
	Fundamentally, they're not.
	The individual is to blame for doing it, but whatever.
	It's another one of those.
	So, I don't know why.
	Again, I have to think, if you're going to say that someone spreads an extremist idea, and then someone else acts on that extremist idea, therefore the original poster is to blame.
	Weren't you talking about communism earlier, and how communist ideas had spread to Poland, and they'd been enacted, and they'd censored your messages?
	So shouldn't the communist creators of YouTube be banned for that?
	No, I guess not.
	Whatever.
	The theory never goes away that might be useful to writers, let's say.
	Some may suggest that governments should oversee online speech, but we need flexibility to strike the right balance between openness and responsibility.
	When we get it wrong or lean too heavily in either direction, our business and millions of small creators and small businesses built on YouTube are hurt.
	Advertisers have pulled spending from YouTube when their ads are next to problematic content.
	This is where I look at it and I think there's a little bit of a hostage message there.
	It's She's trying to be like, they're coming after me.
	But then she says, we're working with the Global Alliance for Responsible Media to develop industry definitions of content that is not suitable for advertising.
	But that's not subverted.
	Global Alliance for Responsible Media.
	Just the name alone is a massive red flag, just like, hmm.
	So NHSN works with some international terrorist group as well, which I'm less concerned about, but the idea of a global alliance to determine what YouTube content should get ads?
	Oh, come on, no one's fallen for that, being responsible.
	Managing our platform's responsibility is good for business.
	We're also working to provide more transparency about our efforts.
	We recently released our Violative View Rate, which estimates how frequently viewers see content that violates their policies.
	So, even with YouTube's quite strict policies that go well beyond what is illegal, they go well into the realms of what is legal, and also well into the realms of what is truth, because I don't know why they annex that to themselves.
	Even then, so this is how bad the scary far-rights are, or whoever who's trying to get kids to see their content.
	The rates fell more by 70% compared with 2017, thanks in large part to investments in machine learning and help flag potentially violative content.
	In the first quarter, the rate was 0.16%.
	That's pretty tiny.
	0.16%.
	So that means that every 10,000 viewers on YouTube, 16 to 18 came from violative content.
	And that obviously includes pornography or whatever else people have posted.
	So this message you keep getting sent from the public, sorry, from the media, not the public, public, this is corporate media, but like, there's loads of far-right stuff on YouTube or whatever.
	Endless moral panics.
	No.
	No, there isn't.
	You could even probably go looking for it and not find it, let alone stumble across it.
	A tenth of a percent.
	It is an absolute nothing burger in terms of views.
	But the reason I take all of this with a large pinch of salt is because we have an article on lotuses.com about Susan Wojcicki in which she explains why she ruined YouTube.
	And I thought I'd just bring it back up again and you should go read it out because I'm not going to do the whole thing.
	But I wanted to mention here, so the YouTube algorithm used to function, as they explained in her interview, on a concept called more of the same.
	So the guys who ran the algorithms were like, right, we'll give you more of the same.
	You like cat videos, we'll give you more cat videos.
	And then more views, YouTube, numbers go up, well, more good.
	Simple as.
	That was the ideology.
	And then Susan was made manager, and she got upset.
	So in 2016, there was a terrorist attack that happened in France.
	And I remember reading that and being extremely upset and thinking, our users need to know about it.
	Okay, Mom, that's not your business.
	Like, I don't want to look at it.
	I don't know why you're trying to force people to look at it, but whatever.
	So she says that YouTube started pushing news about the attack on homepages of French users, and searches about the attack started algorithmically being manipulated to prioritize authoritative sources.
	This is where the problem begins.
	But that didn't perform very well on our platform, she says.
	The users didn't actually want to see it.
	Yeah, big shock.
	And so, what do you do as a platform?
	Okay, option number one, you stop being mum, because you're not the mum of the internet, and you decide that users should be able to decide what users want to see.
	Stunning idea, I know.
	But she didn't go with that.
	She said, do you show it to them anyway?
	I remember that very clearly, because that was the first time I said to them, the YouTube software engineers, you know what?
	It doesn't matter.
	We have a responsibility.
	Something happened in the world, and it's important for our users to know.
	And it was the first time that we started using the word responsibility and the fact that we needed to put information in our site that was relevant even if our users were not necessarily engaging with it and the same way they could view the world for entertainment videos.
	Great, that's how she ruined YouTube.
	She had a panic about the terrorist attack in France.
	And as John points out, it is also the moment they explicitly became a publisher.
	Because not only are they deciding that, no, you need to see this, which I never wanted to.
	In fact, no one was clicking on it.
	And she didn't care.
	She was like, no, keep throwing it up in their faces.
	In case you're wondering why you keep getting so much woke stuff on YouTube on occasion, that's why, because they want you to.
	And also when you Google certain people, it's just not there.
	Their content isn't there.
	Instead, there's just corporate news.
	Because authoritative sources is what she decided to put in everyone's faces.
	And yeah, that's how she did it.
	So she also goes on to explain how she rolled out the destruction of the rest of YouTube.
	She destroyed all borderline content, which is never defined, because if they did, it would look bad, I suppose.
	And also why the news and politics tab is always filled with corporate media.
	That's the authoritative sources part, in which she was like, ah, it's too much misinformation.
	Therefore, anyone who has an opinion that's not corporate media, banned.
	And we'll just have corporate media instead.
	So there's a thing that I don't know if she's been blackmailed by corporate media because they're dying on TV, dying on their websites, and then they need the views from YouTube.
	Well, they were the ones that whipped up the fervour about the adpocalypse, weren't they?
	They were the ones saying, oh, YouTube is the home of dangerous content and such and such that resulted in huge damages to their profits.
	So they kind of had to placate them in some way to survive as a business.
	Which had nothing to do with extremist content being viewed.
	It was entirely to do with corporate media losing out on its hegemony of information.
	Absolutely, yeah.
	Because people were going elsewhere, because the truth was not being found on corporate media.
	And in response, they essentially blackmailed YouTube into doing this, is my opinion.
	En masse, they have just bullied YouTube into putting corporate media in front of you.
	Which is why this happened.
	So if we go to the next link here...
	If you Google a certain man's name, and this is not the only one, this is just the most striking one, he has a YouTube channel, which he posts content.
	It's quarantined at this point.
	Don't know how that's normal.
	But you can see there, if we just scroll, the Independent, Al Jazeera, Oxford Union, couldn't censor that one.
	Good Morning Britain, BBC News, Navarra Media, Joe Politics, Ruppley, Russia Today.
	You don't get him.
	He's not there.
	And you can do it with Alex Jones.
	You can do it with a large part with Carl as well, in which most of the links are, again, corporate press.
	Anyone who builds up a platform...
	Who is known for being a social media person.
	That gets destroyed as soon as they enter the realm of politics because all of the results become corporate media and none of the people who might vote for them or support them can find them.
	All they find is the smears instead.
	It's purposely done.
	I think they wanted that power.
	That's why they decided they would bully them into it.
	All of this is why it looks so ridiculous when YouTube just awards itself free speech awards.
	I thought I just had to add this just to end on.
	2021 free speech awards presented by signature sponsor YouTube.
	Free expression award going to Susan Wojcicki, CEO of YouTube.
	Just like, I've created an award, and do you know who wins it?
	Me!
	For free expression.
	I am the most free speech person.
	Awards for me for free...
	I mean, it's like the Communist Party leader of Poland, Susan, giving himself an award for free speech, because, you know, he totally...
	Just look at the dislikes.
	I mean, at least they had the balls to keep them up, let's say.
	99% dislikes, because the hypocrisy is stunning.
	But anyway, that's Susan Wojcicki's attempt at trying to defend free speech.
	Very bad one.
	I don't know how dishonest it is.
	Make up your own views on that.
	Let's go to the video comments.
	Hey.
	This is just a reiteration of a previous video that I showed to you guys, which I believe was so poor in quality that you didn't understand it.
	But here it is.
	What are your thoughts about Europe collapsing under a feudalist society brought on by socialism and political divides?
	And the idea of the Middle East has their own renaissance and form of enlightenment.
	I assume he means in the future?
	Yeah, I think the likelihood of both a Middle Eastern Enlightenment and Europe collapsing is pretty unlikely.
	Sure, America is going under lots of changes, but the same...
	Sure, there's pressure, but it's all coming from the States, right?
	It's not necessarily domestic, and other than the kind of immigration stuff, which can be solved...
	You've got that and you've got the EU for Europe, I guess.
	Both of those aren't going to kill it overnight, but it's going to be like a 10-20 year process.
	There'll be nothing worth saving.
	So, there's that.
	Maybe, but I'm really hopeful there's going to be some reform instead.
	An Islamic renaissance is probably even less likely.
	Yeah, we had it.
	It did them a lot of good.
	No, no, I mean, we had it as in Sam Harris makes this point.
	He's like, well, you know, some people will say, well, you know, Islam's a younger religion.
	They haven't gone through the Reformation yet.
	They'll become liberal at some point, as if this makes any sense.
	And Sam Harris points out, no, they've had the Reformation.
	The Reformation was ISIS. The guys who looked at the original scripture, like Martin Luther, and said, no, actually, we should just kill everyone who disagrees with us.
	That was the Reformation in the Islamic world, and...
	Yeah, that's as good as it's getting.
	To be fair, they would get top marks in their book reading.
	They actually understood the book that they're trying to interpret.
	Yeah, I mean, when you try and replicate the ideology and world life of a man who was just a warlord for his entire life, murdering people and conquering Arabia, yeah, it tends to look like ISIS. It doesn't tend to look like the Jains, so...
	Let's go to the next one.
	I warned about Gen Z. You've got Hmm.
	30% who believe in all of the f***ing nonsense.
	10% who believe in the reason and stuff.
	The rest are too brain dead to realise the difference.
	Nice footage of...
	I thought the complaint was going to be labelled at the drivers.
	Also, don't use these generational terms.
	I wrote an article about this because it really gets under my skin.
	Don't call people like Gen Z, Gen X, Millennials.
	It's all rubbish and basically it works on the same way that communists divide society in that they separate people who otherwise would have more in common than not.
	Just based on these contrived labels, and therefore they play up the in-group preference, where otherwise it wouldn't exist.
	So it's just a way of dividing people, basically.
	Because, of course, there's no such thing as generations.
	People aren't born in batches.
	We're not frogs.
	We're not spawned.
	There is a difference, though, in the upbringing.
	There are the people who grew up before the internet and the people who grew up in it.
	But does it make sense to put age, which is a continuous category, into nominal little categories, into little boxes?
	I mean, we could put one roughly where people started just having their entire lives on computers and the internet, and then say these are the two different groups.
	Well, you can say these are important points, but to delineate them into neat 15-year categories, it's just silly.
	And I do like the Boomer-Zoomer alliance term.
	I enjoy that one.
	Boomer is the only one that I actually respect because there's a noticeable spike in the birth rate where you can say, okay, this is like a new generation of people, like post-World War II. Fair enough, that exists.
	The rest, nonsense.
	Getting back to the chap's point, though, about Gen Z being cringe.
	I mean, I don't know.
	I didn't know how bad TikTok was until that libs of TikTok account opened my eyes.
	Jesus Christ.
	Because one of the weird things, we played some clips of TikTokers being retarded.
	And you can check out the little ads on there.
	And I checked out all of them because I was like, come on, it's got to be a troll.
	All of them have got to be a troll.
	They're all real.
	And they all have, like, hundreds of thousands of followers and continue to make videos.
	And I'm just like, okay, yeah.
	I mean, stupid kids being cringy isn't anything new.
	I remember it pre...
	The level of it, you know.
	I mean, the capacity to spread your stupidity has never been better.
	But the stupidity hasn't been isolated like it used to be pre-internet.
	But that's mainly it.
	It's just that people can see it more.
	And also it gets elevated because it's funny to laugh at that sort of stuff.
	In the ideological sense, they can connect more and therefore the ideology can spread more.
	What, the idiot ideology?
	Well, yeah, wokeism is the idiot ideology.
	Yeah, I didn't realise we were on about that.
	Anyway, let's go to the next one.
	So instead of donating to a private charity which will defend us, how about doing stocks and bonds?
	I mean, I would like to own a piece of a warship.
	And everybody did some guns already, so I'll show you something.
	Is this the war on fish?
	I missed.
	No, it's just that Americans go fishing generally.
	What's a fishing rod?
	Got a nuke.
	Anyway, but I do love the idea of buying shares in US Army Incorporated.
	That's just something fun.
	Can that actually be done?
	I have no idea.
	I mean, this is the ANCAP's, you know, idea of universe, isn't it?
	There's a private army that runs the country that's a corporation.
	Something like that.
	Well, the US is going to be invading someone.
	They're going to have, like, a McDonald's logo and, like, a Burger King on the other side.
	They stormed Bin Laden's house and they're just like, 30 bucks, you can make us go away.
	You can buy the premium pass.
	You've got to advertise our new food.
	If you don't, we'll shoot you.
	Well, they killed Bin Laden and what are they, released a picture of his dead body?
	They're just going to cover it in like, I don't know, brand logos?
	Something like that?
	Like, sponsored by McDonald's.
	No, you get a finger with each Happy Meal random chance.
	Yeah, sounds like a good idea.
	Don't know what the downsides are.
	Couldn't imagine them, but I do want to buy stocks in US Army Corp.
	So, yeah, let's go to the next one.
	So here's a little preview of something I've been working on.
	It's basically just a time lapse of what I do while I listen to the podcast.
	I was thinking of uploading it to YouTube, but I'm not sure if I should just leave it with peaceful music over it or actually use it as background footage for some kind of political commentary.
	So I'm asking, what are you guys' thoughts?
	Do you think this would be best with just some kind of peaceful music, or do you think this would actually work with commentary so I'm not just using a still image because I'm bad at video editing?
	I think the commentary idea is good, because there's something really cathartic.
	I don't know whether it's just my male brain, but watching people build stuff is really enjoyable.
	Because watching people build cars, I don't even have a car, so it's of no use to me whatsoever.
	But just watching people do it, there's something really satisfying about it, I suppose.
	Pretty much everyone releases footage like that with some nice calming music as well, so stop that.
	Do be different.
	I think it's a great idea for it to be political commentary background footage, because also it gives you credence that you're not just political commentary only.
	You've got something going on in your life, you know how to build things, you're a confident person.
	There's a lot of virtue being shown there, surely.
	You're not just one of those losers on the internet that talks about politics all day.
	Like us, yeah.
	Anyway, I've got a lot of stuff to do.
	So here's the thing.
	Instead of everyone practicing to use spheres, for when the nonce people and Antifa...
	And the trans people and all those people, when they turn things into a hot civil war, I suggest strength training so that we can use wrecking bars as efficiently as a normal spear, because any makeshift armour they create will just be completely ruined by wrecking bars.
	We are going to dominate so hard it will not even be funny.
	We will be Chad Kings.
	Come on, let's do this.
	I don't think there's some kind of civil war.
	I disavow all violence.
	We do not endorse generating any violence.
	A little note though, you should keep fit.
	Yeah, going to the gym is always an important thing.
	Or even better, exercise outside of a gym because it's cheaper and more fun.
	Did you see Stone Toss' cartoon on this?
	No, I didn't.
	So he had the idea of dog whistles, so you know how they'll say that, I don't know, the Gadsden flag, the don't tread on me, that's a dog whistle for the far right.
	It's literally the opposite, but whatever.
	So then they'll move on to, I don't know, the OK symbol or something, and they're like, yeah, that's a far right dog, OK, whatever.
	And you just jump and jump and jump, and eventually it's like, right, what if we just make weightlifting?
	Our dog whistle?
	And then they can't say that's far right because I look stupid.
	And then it's just like, yeah, bro.
	Being in good shape is a dog whistle.
	Yeah, that means you're a rightist.
	I mean, it does work.
	I mean, if you smell bad, you're a leftist.
	Unbaved masses.
	What's that song?
	Ain't I Right?
	You know, the anti-communist song?
	You're the expert on this.
	I listen to music.
	Yeah, I just love propaganda.
	Let's go to the next one.
	So I know I'm a little bit late on this, but I can actually explain why Hamza Yusuf's kids are not getting into nursery.
	So obviously I was raised in Scotland.
	My mum was a carer and my dad worked for the local council.
	And everything in Scotland, everything, has a racial quota to it.
	And by racial quota, what I mean is there must be exactly X amount of Muslim students.
	There must be exactly Y amount of white students, etc.
	So why are Hamza's kids not getting into nursery?
	Because they've already filled their Muslim quota.
	It's literally left-wing policy backfiring.
	That's great.
	Oh, that's fantastic.
	Oh, that's beautiful.
	I really want to see him in court and be told that.
	Well, they've already got too many Muslims, you Hamza.
	Wait, who did that?
	You.
	You were complaining about there being too many whites, so we made some quotas, and we're full.
	I remember the Australian meme where F off we're full.
	Literally, it's like a nursery.
	Oh, that's fantastic.
	Except the quotas.
	That's awful.
	Because that's disgusting.
	I can't imagine living in a world...
	I guess I do.
	I suppose his children don't deserve it.
	They can't help that...
	No, but that's his fault.
	This is his bloody fault.
	I mean, his ideological foundations, his arguments for equality, representation, all this crap, identity lines...
	I mean, him complaining, there are too many white people in this position, that position.
	Okay, we need the quotas.
	Hamza, you get what you deserve.
	I'm sorry.
	If that is the case, it couldn't have happened to a worse person.
	I don't think their children can help.
	His children can help that he's an idiot, though.
	I mean, that's not within their control.
	I get that point, that it's not necessarily the kid's fault, but good God.
	I mean, the man responsible gets the comeuppance, and it's on his own.
	There is a little bit of poetic justice there, I'll give you that.
	Yeah, his kid should hold it against him for the rest of his life.
	They should really dislike him.
	Among many other things.
	God, what an awful human being.
	That's a good white pill, thanks for that.
	So, my school has recently decided to return to the mask mandate.
	However, they gave a couple caveats.
	Now, the caveat is that you don't have to wear a mask if you are lifting heavy weights.
	So, my friends and I had an idea.
	If you're constantly lifting, every day and every night, they can't make you wear a mask.
	So, never put down those dumbbells, boys.
	That's genius.
	America is gonna create an army of gym bros.
	Just all the Proud Boys.
	Like, quit that.
	Come on.
	They're going to ban the Proud Boys.
	Instead, we're all just weightlifters.
	Just whistling weights, bro.
	What are you really talking about?
	Donald Trump?
	Never heard of him.
	Just like weights.
	That has to be the new symbol of the right.
	Just weightlifting.
	It works.
	It's like you have the communist hammer and sickle and you've got the communist dumbbell.
	No, the right-wing dumbbell.
	I've ruined that.
	Just a yellow flag for, like, the Gadsden.
	Replace the snake and it's just like, yeah, try and tread on me.
	This is for all the young guys out there.
	You shouldn't go out and try to find a girlfriend.
	Do what I did.
	Actually go out and get a job.
	Because once you get a job, you actually could afford a car.
	Or you could drive yourself around and be more self-sufficient.
	A lot of women start to pay attention to you.
	And a lot of women actually start to approach you.
	And you'll start to learn that simping ain't king-ish.
	Thank you.
	I wonder where those cards are coming from.
	I was expecting a magic trick.
	Yeah, I was kind of expecting them to throw them at the camera or something.
	Good shirt.
	And also, I'm not sure about the message, though.
	Carl put this in a way that was like, you shouldn't chase after women.
	Okay, maybe, but the idea that you shouldn't try and get a girlfriend at all until you're like 25 or something.
	No.
	I mean, it makes sense that you get your life in order beforehand, because if you don't, you're going to be more harm than good to other people, right?
	That makes sense.
	Also, I think the girl's going to appreciate some relationship and probably some sex education beforehand, surely.
	I see John's trying to explain the position Cole had, but if there's going to be a lot of text, I'm not going to be able to do it on stream.
	It's not about making priority, it's about...
	Sorry, it is a side effect that happens when you upgrade yourself.
	So that's the argument when you turn 30, you become more desirable, right?
	It's about...
	Don't worry about it, it's not that important anyway.
	It's about not making girls a priority.
	If you make yourself better as a priority, you decide the fact that we're going to find you attractive anyway.
	And then you just have it.
	We got a mic for John.
	He's both our video producer and dating advisor.
	Actually, yes.
	Let's go to the next one.
	I'm a Brit who moved to the States, and yes, these are indeed a lot of fun.
	This is just running in.
	That's good fun though. - You're getting really loud, okay? - Oh, okay? - Oh, that is the bassest video that's ever been set up.
	I'm really jealous.
	Yes, I stand by everything, especially all anime sucks.
	Oh, it's fantastic.
	I will admit, it is the one thing I goddamn hate about being British, the gun laws.
	Because the thing is, as well, Peter Hitchens explained this.
	our gun laws in the uk in the 50s makes modern day texas look effeminate because you could just have guns and there was no problem there was there was a couple of instances where british bobbies turned up to a bank robbery and the bank robbers had guns and the police didn't so they turned to passers-by like excuse me could i borrow your gun and they took shotguns and pistols off the public did the bank robbery and then gave the guns back and it's just so wholesome yeah A wholesome bank robbery.
	It's not my first word that comes to mind.
	Yeah, fair enough.
	You know, it's also a great...
	I love that the United States still has this and will ever, for all times, have it, if they have any sense, the ownership of guns and the culture of it.
	Because it just shows up all the lies we get told in the West constantly.
	Oh no, if you have guns, you have endless gun violence and all these deaths and everything.
	It's just like, going to any of the statistics about it, it's complete bollocks.
	Everyone knows it.
	And, uh, God, I wish we could return to tradition, but...
	I mean, Switzerland, more guns than people, less gun violence than the UK. Yep.
	Simple.
	Follow the swiss model.
	I would like to know what your favorite firearm is.
	I like SCARs just from the video games I've played.
	I've always wanted to purchase a SCAR. I can't get SCAR-A, just pull it automatic, so I'm just gonna settle for a SCAR-L, which is a semi-automatic, although it's probably not legal in my state, but who knows, honestly.
	And there are people who do, like, customization for guns.
	My sister actually knows someone, and she offered to, like, have me meet him because I wanted to get a gun that's lightweight because I'm a weakling, and so When I shoot rifles, my arms get tired from holding the gun up.
	I know I should just get strong instead of just trying to make a lighter weapon, but I mean, por que no no stops?
	I mean, we can't own guns, but if I were to choose, probably something like a World War II bolt-action rifle, something like that.
	It's probably even legal in the UK, but there's something just cool about it.
	Like, it's old, a bit retro, but still fun.
	Would it have to be British, or would you want a car German?
	I don't know.
	I think there's something interesting about each.
	It's like a little piece of history.
	Again, I can only get this knowledge from video games here because it's a tyrannical asshole.
	And my current favourite has got to be the M1 Garand or M1 Garand?
	M1 Garand, yeah.
	I don't know.
	Actually, it's the worst thing in the world to have to use because of the thumb.
	Oh yeah, you get the grand thumb, right?
	For people who don't know, you pull the bolt back and you put in the cartridge, I don't know if the name's right, shoot me, you put in the bullets, and then it pings back, and if you have your thumb in there, it will ping and get your thumb.
	I think you hold back the mechanism with one hand and then put in the thing, but if you put it in and don't draw your finger out in time when you release it, then it gets caught.
	But there's also just the wonderful beauty of when you run out of ammo, the thing pops out and it makes a nice sound.
	But the downside of if you're in warfare, everyone knows you're out of ammo.
	Supposedly, it doesn't really make that noise.
	If you hear one firing, it doesn't make the ching noise that you hear.
	My voice just cracked midway through doing that as well.
	That's awful.
	I've seen it on YouTube.
	People shooting it.
	It makes the noise.
	Yeah, but I've seen ones where they're completely quiet and they're like debunking the myth that it makes any noise.
	Maybe, I don't know.
	Don't listen to me, I am English, therefore I don't know anything about guns.
	No about bow and arrows, though.
	I mean, that's the best we got.
	I've got no sympathy for bow and arrows.
	There's no excitement for them at all.
	Yeah, but if you can go out into the wilderness and make one with your own bare hands, that's a bit better, right?
	We're living in the 200s.
	Like, get some guns.
	It's just a modern way to do it.
	More fun.
	That's me whining.
	But, yeah, actually, I'd like to see the chats of you on the best guns as well, to be honest.
	And also maybe the video content creators.
	If you guys have got some guns and you think one's the best one, tell us.
	The biggest one.
	Biggest best.
	Do you want to read these?
	Yeah, sure.
	Student of History.
	It isn't about the science.
	Aims Gunn at the back of the head.
	It never was.
	Bang!
	This is the pro-freedom stuff, by the way.
	James Hayes.
	Proper great speech from Neil Oliver.
	I wish people understood how important freedom is to their way of life.
	Absolutely.
	And I thought it was great as well.
	Henry Ashman, the biggest issue I have with the media's attitude towards COVID is that people are obsessed with deaths with COVID and there hasn't really been any analysis around deaths because of lockdown due to factors like mental health, delayed surgeries, immune suppression, reluctance to get treatment.
	It almost feels like the media couldn't give a monkey's if thousands die of other things as long as no one dies of COVID. Well, supposedly, the impact of the lockdowns actually was more negative on young people.
	More people were committing suicide than they were dying of COVID. So, at least for the young.
	I don't know if that's...
	I looked at it.
	I was preparing a video.
	So I actually did look at that.
	Oh, wow.
	That's bad.
	I mean, it depends how you define young people, but it's like under 30s, I think.
	Reading that book, The Great Leap Forward or Mal's Great Family, I can't remember what the title is now.
	I imagine there's going to be a book like that in 20 years.
	It's just like the cost of lockdowns.
	It just explains how everything went wrong and everything was worse than it would have been.
	I mean, isn't our GDP almost the same as our national debt now?
	Our national debt is almost as large as our entire economy now.
	Remember leftists?
	Remember how, what was it, austerity has caused 100,000 people to die or something?
	You know, crap, labor, all you can find out.
	How much is this going to cost in deaths?
	Only one Xi Jinping policy has cost the entire economy billions and billions, if not trillions.
	There's got to be a despite meme in there somewhere.
	I deliberately avoided that.
	Matthew Hammond, it seems that GB News is not complete trash.
	Yeah, I thought that, although I'd call it rubbish, personally.
	I like it, but there's the problem they've got.
	Because of the way the UK works, you've got to be regulated by Ox...
	Or, I was going to say Oxfam.
	I was going to say Oxfam, then.
	Oxcom.
	And apparently they have a duty to have a range of opinions, but of course that's decided by the regulator, and the regulator, let's guess how they think of these things.
	So you've got to have your...
	Tom Harwoods.
	Your inferior commentators there.
	There was one lady the other day, I was telling my parents, and I'm watching GB News live on a TV, because I don't own a TV, so I was like, oh, look.
	You don't own a TV? No.
	You're talking about it being the 21st century and denigrating bow and arrows and you don't even own a TV. No, it's modern not to have a TV. No one buys TVs anymore.
	Anyway, whatever.
	So I was down there watching it and the two people on screen were arguing about how the government needs to shut down more speech online because there's racial slurs online.
	And I was just like, oh man.
	They really do have like a mix of just like idiots and then...
	Farage's.
	That's the scale.
	For all his problems that people have with Farage, he's not those people.
	Lucas Kennedy.
	Safety is a lie propagated by those who want to place you within a cage.
	Absolutely.
	Nothing is safe.
	It's a jail.
	Omar Awad, every goddamn midwit that's equating herd immunity to vaccine uptake clearly didn't believe in the science before they changed the definition of herd immunity.
	I have yet to hear an argument why I shouldn't just wait for the narrative to flip-flop back to my position so I can at least be right twice a day.
	The slow clocks in the government seem determined to not be right for as long as possible.
	That's a great way of looking at it.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	It's just, I'm going to give up now.
	I don't know what I believe.
	I'll just stick here and it'll come back to me at some point.
	Well, it's true.
	I mean, things that I believe that were conspiracy theories one day are now mainstream opinion the next.
	And it's like, well...
	Yeah, Vicky calls them spoilers.
	Yeah, I also didn't know what to include for the infected part of herd immunity, because of course there's loads of people who have had it and not tested positive, but I didn't know who to trust on that, because how do you even measure that?
	Yeah, it's one of those things where I've just kind of almost given up caring a little bit.
	Michael Megios?
	I don't know, sorry if I mispronounced your second name.
	Considering the effects of the coup on the obese and morbidly obese, has any government given any advice to eat healthier or exercise to lose weight to protect against the severe effects of the virus?
	No.
	Well, Boris was trying to get a scheme where people would eat more healthily and exercise, wasn't he?
	Trying to reward people for doing it as well, which is...
	Backwards.
	He didn't explain it, though, and there is already ready schemes for trying to get people to be less fat because of the NHS, and therefore, if you're fat, you cost the government money.
	To get into the NHS, you've got to run on a treadmill for half an hour, otherwise you don't get in.
	I just like the idea that there's a hard cap.
	Your healthcare cuts off when you reach this BMI or something.
	I don't know, I'm just making up policies.
	If you smoke this many a day, there's also no NHS for you.
	Fair enough, I mean...
	But that's the evil thing of universal healthcare.
	They're like, oh, healthcare's alright.
	Yeah, until it isn't.
	Until you cost the government money and then we just make a million policies to stop you.
	It's not good value for money for us, anyway.
	But also it's the coercion.
	The fact that you're no longer free to do the hearty American thing and downing 12 litres of soda a day.
	But they enforce what you can and can't do with your life.
	moving on to the stuff about the uh taliban takeover chad koala with the ccp and the taliban now forging a cozy relationship i wonder how it will manifest in the future both the ussr and the us has tried to win over the afghan people both ended up sending in more and more troops before withdrawing with nothing to show for it but a bloody nose i think it's good actually that the chinese are getting involved because afghanistan is just like a black hole for money It just goes in.
	You can't get it out again.
	Yeah.
	If China wants to burn all its money doing that rather than spreading communism into countries where it will succeed, then go ahead.
	In fact, China may as well invest all their money in there for all I care.
	Afghanistan, great investment opportunity for Chinese businesses to make a PowerPoint.
	I was kind of worried because I'm thinking, well, are they going to use this as an opportunity to basically train Islamists and then use them to harm the West?
	They're always up to some 5D chess in their heads, so I wonder if it's that.
	Well, maybe they're going to train them and then they're just going to let them go, and then obviously they're not telling them to do stuff, but they're going to do that on their own anyway.
	So they have the deniability, don't they?
	There is the rule of play stupid games, win stupid prizes, so if they do do that, they'll end up getting bombed themselves.
	Well, yeah.
	I mean, any involvement in Afghanistan seems to result in nothing positive for that country.
	Yeah, but the sheer numbers and technological difference now is a bit different.
	And sure, they might be incompetent, but...
	Have you seen This Is What Winning Looks Like, the documentary?
	No.
	I've just said it to you afterwards.
	You'll be turned to my opinion by the end of it.
	I just fail to see how superior weapons, control of the most economic centres, more money, more people...
	It's all as weak as the man holding it.
	Well, how can all of those odds be stacked against them?
	Yeah, you underestimate the incompetence of the Afghan army.
	I mean, I underestimate people's incompetence all the time.
	Anyway, I'm telling you this.
	Sure.
	Student of history.
	The reason why the equipment does not come back is because it's cheaper just to get more.
	I say send it back and auction the old S to the public.
	But hey, that's just me.
	IG lol.
	Wait, what do they mean?
	As in take the stuff back and sell it back to the public to get a bit of money back, because it's cheaper to leave it behind and then cut the losses than to take it back with you all the way back to the US. Which I suppose makes sense, but you should at least leave it with the Afghan forces.
	I mean, by the sounds of it, they need all the help they can get.
	They'd probably just sell it for money anyway.
	As long as they're using it to fight the Taliban, then fine.
	They don't know that.
	So there's an example in This is What Winning Looks Like, where they go to a police station and they've got six vans, right, that they put guns on and then they drive around in.
	All but one are inoperable, and they're still claiming gas for all of them, for example.
	Like, everything is so corrupt.
	Oh, it's just like all a scam to get money.
	Yeah, like the requisition, the whole process is just such a scam.
	It's really that bad.
	I mean, the US is still paying for it.
	75% of the Afghani budget.
	Back to starting the gender programme.
	I'll stop going on about it, though.
	So, on to Susan, and student of history says, Now, someone tell Susie that nobody that...
	Susie Nobody, that if the international community come out and say free speech is no-go, I'm going to say my fellow citizens ain't stipping me of my rights, Winnie G., God damn poo, ain't saying S on it.
	My rights aren't up for a democratic vote.
	If the international community, you have no rights.
	Susan's like, what am I going to do about it?
	No, Susan, come on.
	We need...
	Because that's the thing, there's nothing actually stopping the, let's say, industry leaders of the West being able to come out and be like, nah, based.
	Just be based people.
	I mean, Elon Musk has a few good memes.
	But if Susan, or whoever, get rid of her and put someone else in charge, and just give out, no, YouTube is a liberal company, we apply liberal standards.
	I'm really stopping them from doing that.
	There's a parallel universe somewhere where that's happening, and that's the one I want to live in.
	Yeah.
	I mean, we'd all like to see less censorship of stuff that is clearly, you know, actually useful.
	I mean, terrorist stuff, fine, get rid of it, but...
	It's illegal.
	That's the thing.
	Like, they have no remit to even keep it up.
	Enforce the law, and beyond that, you're kind of overstepping the mark, aren't you?
	There's no justifying it.
	So Omar Awad, wait, what if approved narrative, trademark, inspires a shooting?
	Will they take down the unvaccinated, are killing grandma by not taking the vax videos for inducing harm?
	Doubt it, truth isn't even a consideration, it's just whether or not they like what's being said.
	Yeah, best example we have is the bombing of the ICE facility in the United States, because he had been told by AOC and everyone else, the ICE organization were running concentration camps of migrants.
	So he bombed them, because that's what you would do if they were concentration camps.
	You know, you'd resist it, but they weren't.
	So he just got shot.
	I mean, this guy was going to go in and kill a bunch of US agents, and no response to that, who cares?
	AOC just told us along.
	Yeah.
	Marcus Horne.
	So, we aren't allowed to hear what this person thinks.
	We are only allowed to hear what Fox and CNN says they think.
	Thanks, YouTube.
	Yeah.
	I will end on that note as well, because we're out of time, but that's the worst thing about the authoritative sources.
	Authoritative my ass.
	Anyway.
	But if you want more from us, go to Logosies.com.
	There's good content on there.
	If you want to get access to the premium content, please do sign up, because that's how we keep everything running.
	Otherwise, we'll be back tomorrow, one o'clock.

▲