Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 10, 2021 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:31:08

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #217

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello, welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Seaters for the 10th of September 2021.
	I am joined by Carl.
	Hello!
	And I am Josh.
	And let's get into some of the events.
	So Hugo's got a good article called The New Normal is Upon Us, where he talks about the COVID restrictions and how they are likely to remain in place and which ones he thinks are going to stay and which ones he thinks are going to go.
	And the tactics that the government, our government have used in the past to preserve so-called temporary measures.
	This isn't good news, is it?
	No, it's not.
	It's kind of a bit depressing.
	And of course, there's even talk about there being a, was it a firebreak lockdown or something like that?
	But the thing is, they did come out and say, oh, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
	We definitely haven't been talking about that, which means they definitely have been talking about that.
	And we're definitely having a lockdown.
	They do protest a bit too much there, don't they?
	Absolutely, yeah.
	Hugo's cynical enough to probably get right on the money with this.
	I bet these are going to be predictions that age well, which is awful.
	And there is a contemplations coming up this weekend, which I did, so obviously it's going to be very good.
	It's looking at conformity and some of the classical studies into that and also some of the modern neuroscience research and there's some very interesting findings there that I think most people wouldn't really know about anecdotally.
	They're totally terrifying as well aren't they?
	Oh yeah.
	That's the problem I have with all of this psychological research and informity.
	Because it's like, right, it turns out that people are just sheep that will do exactly what they're told.
	Some of the neuroscientific research, not to spoil too much of it, it actually suggests that the presence of people alone automatically makes you perceive reality slightly differently than otherwise.
	And it alters the visual perception, for example, areas of your brain.
	And does it make you more conformist just having people around?
	Yeah, and it's something you have basically no control over.
	But enough depressing stuff.
	So we're all going to be sheep.
	They're going to be locked down forever.
	Yes, but we've got something a bit more, I suppose, exciting.
	Yeah, yeah.
	So last week's Epochs is, of course, up.
	This is Tacitus' Germania.
	This is amazing, actually.
	Because it's a really good account of what the ancient Germanic tribes were like, through the eyes, of course, of a Roman historian.
	And the Germans are totally different to the Romans.
	They're a bunch of savage barbarians with really weird customs.
	And it's surprisingly clear and...
	Tracks well with other accounts of the Germans, right?
	So it seems to be a fairly reliable ethnography of the ancient German tribes.
	And it's just a fascinating thing.
	It's not even that long either.
	There's only an hour and a half of us talking about it only.
	But it's really good fun.
	And you can see where the roots of certain Anglo-Saxon institutions come from and the attitude of the king shouldn't be above the law and shouldn't really be much above us anyway and things like this.
	It's all rooted in...
	You know, the ancient Germans in the woodlands, basically.
	And they're not like the modern Germans at all.
	They're so weird, they're totally different.
	But we've got another APOX coming up on Sunday that I really love doing, and I've been looking forward to doing this one for ages.
	It's the Battle of Tunis from the First Punic War.
	Now, this is like the Roman high point in the First Punic War, where the Romans had defeated the Carthaginian navy a bunch of times, finally landed in Africa, and then what happened next?
	And why the Carthaginians needed to get a Spartan general to come and save them.
	But I'm not going to spoil it.
	Honestly, I've been looking forward to doing this episode for hours of the age.
	It's going to be up on Sunday.
	It's going to be great.
	I'm looking forward to watching that one, actually.
	No, it's really good.
	And, of course, there is still tickets for the live event coming up at the end of September.
	Are there any left for the Saturday?
	Right, so the Saturday's sold out, but come and see us on the Friday, because the Friday is going to be the big one anyway.
	So Friday is going to be the one with lots of interesting special guests and people in the audience that you may recognize, and we're going to be giving bigger presentations, because that's the bigger event.
	So yeah, it's in South London.
	So what we're actually going to be talking about today, which I should have said earlier really, was Google's leaked anti-racism training, the gradual dismantling of British heritage and the EU's chief Brexit negotiator admitting that Britain was right all along.
	Good to hear.
	We told you.
	So let's talk about Google's leaked anti-racism training.
	So to put this in context, you are probably aware that Google is a Californian company and because in California it has a significantly left-wing bias.
	You may remember that when Trump was elected to the presidency, the leadership of Google literally wept.
	Literally.
	I didn't know about that.
	Oh, they did.
	They do these Thank God It's Friday meetings in Google, and someone recorded them and leaked them.
	And you can see it says Confidential Internal Learning.
	Well, someone leaked them in 2018.
	And you can see the dismay on their faces.
	They look like they've just been conquered by Hitler.
	And it's just like, oh, God, this has gone badly.
	It's like, look...
	It was great.
	Shut up.
	You know, everything was fine.
	But it was just incredible.
	And when I say, like, they think they've been conquered by Hitler, I'm not joking, right?
	Co-founder Sergi Brin can be heard comparing Trump supporters to fascists and extremists.
	Ah, yes, the moderates at Google are saying that Trump supporters are extremists, right?
	He argues that, like other extremists, Trump supporters were motivated by boredom.
	What?
	That's the weirdest interpretation of any political motivation ever.
	Oh, you're only voting for them because you're bored?
	Yeah, that's not why MAGA voters were voting Trump.
	You know, there's nothing to do with boredom.
	There's nothing to do with the leftists taking over the country.
	But he thinks that it's boredom that leads to fascism and communism?
	What a bizarre perspective Google have.
	I don't think I've ever heard someone use boredom to explain any political position.
	It's just so ridiculous.
	Yeah, so the fascists were all just bored, you see.
	It's like something a condescending parent would say to their child.
	Oh, you're just bored.
	Go do something else.
	Go on.
	Idle hands are the devil's work, says Sergei Brin, and that's how Hitler came to power.
	The Vice President for Global Affairs, Ken Walker, argued that supporters of populist causes like the Trump campaign were motivated by fear, xenophobia, hatred, and a desire for answers that may or may not be there.
	There's a bit.
	May or may not be there.
	Can we resolve that Schrodinger's point and are they there or not?
	You know?
	Schrodinger's bigotry.
	Yeah, but like a desire for answers that may or may not be there.
	So yeah, a desire for answers.
	Yeah, that's...
	What's wrong with that?
	Like, it's so weird.
	But anyway, so Walker also said that Google should fight to ensure that the populist movement, not just in the US but around the world, is merely a blip and a hiccup in a historical arc that bends towards progress.
	It's obviously a pastiche of what Martin Luther King said, where it bends towards justice.
	But no, it's all progress now, you have to understand.
	So, populism just in general as well?
	Yes.
	Worldwide populism.
	They've just outed themselves as elitists.
	Yes.
	Openly.
	I mean, they do run Google, so...
	I mean, it's difficult to deny at that point.
	Yeah, it is.
	Sundar Pichai, the CEO, stated that the company would develop a machine learning and AI to combat what an employee described as misinformation shared by low-information voters.
	keep tarnishing yourself with that elitist label, can't you?
	And the CFO, Ruth Porat, appeared to break down in tears described in the 2016 election results, saying Trump's win was really painful and the election went the wrong way.
	So pathetic.
	Just breaking down in tears at an election at all.
	Yeah, it's embarrassing, you know?
	Why would you even let people know about that?
	That should be a point of shame.
	It is a point of shame.
	I mean, if Jeremy Corbyn had been elected, I wouldn't cry for it.
	I'd expect tax rises like we've got under Boris.
	Anyway, so Christopher Rufo is the goodest boy when it comes to exposing anti-racism training, critical race theory, in various institutions.
	And someone leaked to him Google's anti-racism initiative.
	And it is as full-on, balls-to-the-wall, wacko as you can imagine.
	I mean, it is the most extreme interpretation of anti-racism that one could have.
	No other concerns outside of the Marxist framework, the racial Marxist framework, have been presented at all.
	And so we'll go through his thread here that's been widely reported on, because it's just staggering the things that internally Google is brainwashing its own employees to believe.
	Google launched an anti-racism initiative claiming that America is a system of white supremacy and that all Americans are raised to be racist, including Ben Shapiro, who is depicted as a layer of the white supremacy pyramid that culminates in genocide.
	Ben Shapiro.
	Ben Shapiro is part of the white supremacy pyramid and is going to end in genocide.
	I don't know how you can come to that conclusion.
	Well, you have to see, right?
	I'm about halfway through doing the notes on the massive critical race theory book.
	This is boilerplate for their perspective on all of this.
	This is exactly what they say, right?
	So they think that America is a system of white supremacy because a colourblind, race-neutral system allows white people to succeed more than others because of history and their...
	Just privilege, I guess we'd describe it as.
	And this means that all Americans who support a neutral system are in fact supporting racism and therefore the entire country is racist, the system is racist, all the Americans are racist, and they're lunatics.
	There's a weird juxtaposition here between them behaving in a very elitist way and also saying, yeah, the system that we are at the top of is a system of white supremacy.
	Isn't that just a really huge condemnation of their own company?
	We know because we're at the top of it.
	And the thing is, as well, the people that they're recommended to read, people like Robin DiAngelo, the white people who are critical race theorists, openly call themselves racists.
	It's like, right, okay.
	Yeah, exactly.
	That's exactly what I was going to say.
	Self-professed.
	But anyway, moving on to the next one.
	So first we get to the racial re-education program.
	Rufo says, I've obtained a trove of whistleblower documents from inside Google that reveal the company's extensive racial re-education program based on the core tenets of critical race theory, including intersectionality, white privilege, and systemic racism.
	So it is as dyed in the wool as you can imagine.
	I mean, calling anything a re-education program gives it a sinister tone straight out of the Soviet Union, so I don't know why they would choose that.
	In their defense, Rufo characterized it like that.
	But the thing is, I suspect his characterization is accurate, because as you can see here, exactly what's going on.
	But yeah, intersectionality, white privilege, and systemic racism, so you're getting the full Robin DiAngelo experience here.
	So the next one is allyship.
	Let's talk about allyship in action.
	Google trained employees to deconstruct their racial and sexual identities, then rank themselves on a hierarchy of power and privilege, then manage their three actions through crying and accessing their happy place.
	So Google's trying to make their employees cry.
	Yes.
	And also getting them to do stuff which is in no way whatsoever related to their job.
	Well, I mean, this to me sounds very much like a cult.
	Well, yeah.
	You're going to have to confess your sins and then amend those sins.
	In a group struggle session.
	Exactly.
	And to the point where you break them down to tears.
	That's like 101 cult recruiting strategy.
	You break someone down to their most fundamental level where they're emotionally unstable and then you're just like, well, here is a solution to your bad feelings.
	Here we go.
	Adhere to Google.
	Worship at the altar of technology.
	Yeah, and I read a book and did a study on it.
	It was called The Wrong Way Home by Dr.
	Arthur Diekman, who was a Californian psychologist in the 70s.
	And he went through various cults, and it was all about cult behaviors.
	And one of them is literally, they call this processing.
	So the cult that he was studying, they would process people and get them around in a room, literally do exactly this, break them down, deconstruct all of their ideas about themselves and their relationships to other people to the point where they're crying, and the rest of the group is basically literally struggle session style, like pointing fingers at them.
	And then they sit there on one-on-one sessions, processing them, bringing them into the ideology of the cult.
	And so then they become incredibly insular, and then they hate outsiders and things like that.
	And it's bringing them into what they describe as a safe area, a happy place.
	We did also do a video on the website, didn't we, about cults at one point.
	That was quite a while ago now.
	Yeah, but still worth checking out, because this apparently is what is happening at Google.
	If you can get up the Wheel of Power and Privilege, please...
	Josh, John, this is what I think is the best one.
	This is them explaining how everyone other than white people are weak and pathetic and lack power.
	And those are their words, right?
	Well, that's just what this is.
	As you can see, the power is in the centre and the marginalised are on the outside.
	So if you look at the race one, the skin colour, power is white, marginalised is dark.
	Oprah Winfrey's just like, yeah, God, if only I could get some power.
	If only someone would pay me some attention.
	Barack Obama.
	Never had any power.
	Exactly, it's mad.
	And so, just to let you know who the most important people are, they're English, rich, cisgender, owned property, slim, robust, neurotypical, heterosexual, able-bodied, post-secondary education, white and citizens.
	I mean, I guess, if that's your opinion, but I just see them as people.
	But I mean, most of these things, speaking English in an English-speaking country, That should be a prerequisite for being there in the first place, right?
	But it's naturally an advantage.
	Like, if I went to France, I would be marginalised because I don't speak French.
	You know, that's not an intersectional, like, hierarchy of oppression.
	And as John points out, Asians top whites anyway in the US, which they do.
	And Indians over here, everyone tops the English over here.
	So, you know, these are all based on assumptions that aren't really true.
	But, like, owns property or is homeless.
	Well, yes, there's an advantage to own property rather than being homeless.
	Like, I mean, well observed, but that's not an inherent racial privilege or something.
	You know, so these are just, you know, neurotypical, as in not mad, or significant neurodivergence, as in insane.
	Would you rather be sane or insane, Josh?
	That's a difficult one.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Check your privilege.
	You've got to be careful.
	So this is the way that they view the world.
	White, cisgender, English-speaking people are superior to all of those browns.
	And they're not racist.
	Well, no, they are racist, actually.
	They actually call themselves racist.
	And they have lots of rationale for it.
	Anyway, moving on.
	They, of course, have people like Ibram Kendi, the most credible of credible academics, having video lectures to the rest of the Google staff.
	In this one, guest lecturer Ibram Kendi claimed that all Americans, including children as young as three months old, are racist.
	Two-month-old children, babies, not racist.
	Once they hit three, though, boom.
	I don't even understand what basis he has for that because I think you have to be over a couple of years old to even get that level of socialisation.
	I hate to say it, but the perception of race and racism in general, it requires a bit more time to develop.
	It's not an inherent thing.
	My son goes to school, they're like kids of all different races, and he never mentions their skin colour.
	He calls them by name, because they're named individuals in his world of network of relations.
	He's not thinking right, they're an abstract class of race, and he doesn't think in this way.
	And so the fact that they can call three-month-olds racist, I mean, come on.
	It's awful, really.
	Well, yeah, it's ridiculous, though.
	Like, come on.
	Like, they're babies, they can't even crawl.
	Like, they goo-goo-ga-ga, and they crap themselves.
	They're not sat there going, black people are inferior.
	They don't do that, believe it or not.
	But he says, to be raised in the United States is to be raised to be racist.
	And to be racist is to be raised to be almost addicted to racist ideas.
	Addicted to racist ideas.
	But surely he was raised in America, wasn't he?
	That's a good point.
	Surely he would also be raised with racist ideas.
	But he would counter this by saying, yes.
	Yes.
	Then why should we listen to him, then?
	Because he's a racist.
	That's his argument.
	He's a racist, therefore he's an expert on racism.
	But you're in denial that you're a racist.
	That's the thing.
	And once you get on his level, you can all be racist together.
	I don't know why they want this.
	It's just...
	Why?
	He carries on.
	The youngest of people are not colourblind.
	Toddlers are beginning to understand race and see race by two years old.
	If we're just imagining that they're colourblind, then we're not protecting them with racist ideas.
	Protecting them with racist ideas.
	I don't know how he's qualified to make these.
	He's not.
	Yeah, because I know that the only difference really in that kind of stage is that infants and babies can recognise faces of their own race slightly easier and more quickly than others, but...
	Shock and surprise.
	That's not really a racist thing.
	That's biologically imprinted.
	Yeah.
	Babies recognise people who look like them more than they do with people who don't look like them.
	What a shock.
	Revelation.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Who could have imagined?
	Anyway, moving on.
	They're very much anti-science.
	Denial of racism is proof that a person is racist.
	Checkmate.
	You thought you weren't racist?
	Well, that's what a racist would say.
	For me, the heartbeat of racism is denial, and the sound of denial is, I'm not racist, Kendi told Google employees.
	It's a critically important step for Americans to no longer be in denial about their own racism.
	A critically important step for him to gaslight and grift his way into getting you into his cult.
	That's what it is.
	Americans must not be in denial of their own racism.
	This is as unscientific as Marx and Freud.
	No, it's totally unfalsifiable.
	You're either racist or you're a racist in denial.
	This is how this works.
	I appreciate that you're saying Freud is unscientific.
	I really despise...
	It brings a bad name to psychologists, although we don't help ourselves.
	No.
	Moving on.
	So, everything is slavery.
	The next one is Nicole Hannah-Jones, who claimed this is the author of the 1619 Project, you know, the project the New York Times had to come out and disavow because it was ahistorical and obviously about...
	Lulling people into a cult.
	She said that she created the 1619 Project to verify her lifelong theory that everything in the modern-day United States can be traced back to slavery.
	If you name anything in America, I can relate it back to slavery.
	Yes, you can.
	Because that's all you talk about.
	That's all you think about.
	I believe that you can.
	Let's pick a random one out of the air.
	The anti-slavery movement.
	That's related to slavery.
	Checkmate, Whitey.
	Gotcha.
	You want to abolish slavery, that's related to slavery.
	She's got us, man.
	She's got us.
	Moving on.
	She talks about the 1619 Project nonsense.
	Jones claimed that the first African Americans being sold in 1619 is more foundational to the American story than the Pilgrims landing at Plymouth Rock.
	Makes you wonder, because if it wasn't for the Pilgrim's Landing, how would they have sold slaves in America?
	Yeah, that's kind of a prerequisite, isn't it?
	Yeah.
	It literally is required.
	To have people there to do it in the first place.
	Yeah.
	Hmm.
	So, yeah.
	Interesting.
	You know?
	So, the first Africans being sold on the white line is more foundational to the American story.
	Don't see how it could be.
	Anyway, moving on.
	Let's talk about the overt slash covert pyramid of white supremacy.
	I love this.
	Do you want to get this image up, John?
	This is amazing, right?
	Look at the top.
	You've got lynching, hate crimes, blackface, Justin Trudeau, the N-word, racist jokes...
	Racial slurs, the KKK, burning crosses in neonatis.
	These are overt signs of white supremacy, and most of those were democrat initiatives, just to point that out.
	So the left wing has been overtly white supremacist, so now they've gone to covert white supremacy.
	Get a load of some of this.
	So, calling the police on black people.
	Colorblindness, white parents self-segregating, Eurocentric curriculum, education funding from property...
	Education funding from property taxes.
	Tone policing.
	Believing the experiences of BIPOC. MAGA. Don't blame me, I never owned slaves.
	Bootstrap theory.
	The high infant mortality rate for non-white people.
	All lives matter.
	Assuming good intentions are enough.
	Anti-immigration policies.
	Fearing people of colour.
	Paternalism.
	Listed twice.
	for some reason saying there's only one human race and considering African American vernacular English uneducated.
	Pretty much everything is there.
	Yeah.
	Thank you.
	It's mad, isn't it?
	Literally everything there is totally normal.
	Like, respectability politics.
	Don't be a piece of S. So, conducting yourself in a way in which people can admire rather than being a complete horrible person, yeah.
	Having standards is covert white supremacy.
	Socially acceptable white supremacy.
	What a condemnation of anyone who isn't white, though, by saying that.
	Just to be clear, these people do not speak for people who aren't white.
	They speak for lunatic leftists, you know.
	Yeah, go on.
	But yeah, it's just bizarre that they say these things that are just taken for granted as premises for their own assertions about white supremacy that are far more demeaning than many of the things that actual explicit racists say about people.
	I mean, I've just seen one there that I didn't mention because there are obviously loads I haven't mentioned.
	Denial of racism is covert white supremacy.
	But that's not the best pyramid.
	They love their pyramids for some reason.
	And this is all being brainwashed into the Google employees.
	So the next one is the pyramid of white supremacy.
	And this is hilarious, right?
	Because when we get this one up, this is how we tie Ben Shapiro to anti-Semitic genocides.
	So it begins, as you can see, it's the seven stages of normalization, from normalization to genocide.
	So indifference, minimization, veiled racism, discrimination, calls for violence, violence, and mass murder.
	And there we have people as the examples.
	The All Lives Matter movement is indifference.
	Ben Shapiro is minimization.
	MAGA is veiled racism.
	And Trump and whoever is next to him is discrimination.
	Which is racial profiling, mass incarceration, racial slurs, fear of POC, and anti-immigration policies.
	Trump doesn't fit into half of that, but anyway.
	And the next level up is calls for violence, like Gavin McGinnis, Tommy Robinson, and Richard Spencer.
	Now, Gavin McGinnis, I think, actually has calls for violence, not racial violence, but against the Democrats.
	But I can't think of an example of Richard Spencer or Tommy Robinson calling for violence.
	So, don't know why they're there.
	But anyway, then it goes up to violence itself, which is, I guess, like lynchings.
	But I'm not familiar with these pictures.
	One of them is a police officer arresting someone.
	And then the top is, of course, mass murder.
	We've got mass shooters like Brenton Tarrant and Anders Breivik.
	So that's how Ben Shapiro is basically Anders Breivik.
	It's a continuum, you see.
	It's a slippery slope, as it were.
	How can anyone take this seriously?
	It's so ridiculous.
	Well, they shouldn't.
	And, you know, this is absurd.
	Well, the fact that Google, one of the largest companies in the world, has this being proselytized to their employees, probably they have no option as well, whether they get this brainwashing or not.
	And I wonder how much this costs Google, too.
	Because Ibram X. Kendi will probably be charging tens of thousands of dollars for his seminars.
	It's absurd.
	But this is what they're doing at Google.
	So it's not even like, you know, it's not they're saying, well, maybe we could just be aware of people's pronouns.
	That would be nice.
	You know, maybe we don't call each other ethnic slurs or something.
	Be cautious.
	No.
	Full-on balls to the wall.
	Oh, by the way, Ben Shapiro is on a continuum to black genocide.
	So be careful.
	You know, this is where Google is, as a company, philosophically on the inside.
	It's just absurd.
	Oh dear, that's depressing.
	And for some more depressing stuff, I'm going to talk about the gradual dismantling of British heritage.
	And I've got some pretty awful news, at least in my opinion, that the Queen supposedly supports Black Lives Matter, claims Sir Ken Alyssa OBE, her first black lord lieutenant for London, So supposedly, he says, I have discussed with the royal household this whole issue of race, particularly in the last 12 months since the George Floyd incident, Sir Ken said.
	He added that the royal family care passionately about making this one nation bound by the same values.
	And he says that race, it's a hot conversation topic.
	The question is, what more can we do to bind society to remove these barriers?
	What barriers?
	What are you talking about?
	Be passionately bound by the same values.
	It's hard when the left-wing activists...
	They're trying to destroy that, aren't they?
	And they're all saying, by the way, this country's a white supremacist country.
	It needs to be decolonised.
	Sorry, I don't share those values, and I don't see how I could.
	I mean, it's also difficult to be bound by values of the left, where they hate the very country that they live in.
	And they're also pure deconstructionist values as well.
	They can't build anything positive.
	It's just all about burning things down, really.
	Yeah.
	Both literally and metaphorically.
	Yeah, yeah.
	But anyway, he goes on to say, when asked if the palace supports the Black Lives Matter movement, Sir Ken said, the answer is easily yes.
	Oh, No, come out and say Chad no.
	Obviously not.
	Why would I support a bunch of race communists in their uprising against the country I rule over?
	And this is also really awful because for people abroad, I imagine they probably don't know, that the Queen is meant to stay apolitical.
	She's not meant to have any political status.
	Not meant to be partisan, yeah.
	Yeah, and she's not meant to have these kinds of opinions, so someone in her employ coming out and saying all this stuff is bad enough in and of itself, and the fact he's saying this as well, a movement which is not very popular with the British public anyway, Black Lives Matter,
	and my only kind of thought is that it's some kind of 4D chess move by the palace as some kind of immune system response to the incoming attack from Meghan and Harry, because of course They recently signed a book deal, didn't they?
	I think it's 18 million for four books, which Harry is supposed to be writing, despite having never written anything before.
	And for that kind of money, you'd expect that they're going to be naming names of the royal racists, aren't they?
	So I imagine that through saying this beforehand, they're like, well, the Queen's been very supportive of the movement.
	Yeah, preemptive antibody response.
	So maybe she doesn't actually believe it and it's just some kind of means to avoid this future attack.
	But that's the cope that I have subscribed to.
	It feels like a bit of a cope, but it's probably also true.
	Yeah, like she's obviously been around for quite a while.
	She was probably quite savvy about how to preserve her reputation and her political...
	She must be looking back at how things are now and being like, God, I miss the past.
	Well, so do I. Yeah, who doesn't?
	But anyway, it doesn't stop there.
	Another prominent figure, probably the most prominent figure, and according to a 2002 BBC poll, the greatest Briton of all time, Sir Winston Churchill, his charity, named after him, set up close to his death with his approval, has decided to change its name and disassociate...
	From the wartime Prime Minister.
	So we need to talk about those shared values that we have, Josh.
	If we can't say that Winston Churchill did a good job in World War II and we have to disassociate ourselves from him, these aren't values I share.
	So, they have gone from the Winston Churchill Memorial Trust to the Churchill Fellowship.
	So, they've still got Churchill in the name, I suppose, but that's only probably to avoid legal repercussions from...
	The people who donate money to them.
	Not just that, public image as well, probably.
	What are they going to call it?
	The George Floyd Fellowship?
	We're only a few years away, I'm sure.
	They have apparently removed all images of the former Prime Minister from their website.
	LAUGHTER Winston Churchill's cancelled by the Winston Churchill Memorial Trust.
	However, when the media reported on this, they actually backtracked and put one photo, just the token photo, so they can say, well, we've got one photo of him, so that's all right.
	Not good enough.
	I want a thousand photos of him.
	Yeah, he needs to be everywhere.
	It's his charity, isn't it?
	Yeah.
	So yeah, the charity itself is headed by Julia Weston, who is paid between £90,000 and £100,000 a year.
	Ridiculous salary for her to say things such as, for some time we have known that our previous name was confusing as it did not reflect what we are about today.
	How do you end up heading the Winston Churchill charity and being like, well, I don't support Winston Churchill in his fight against the Nazis.
	It's also so dishonest as well.
	It was just confusing, that's why we've changed it.
	It's not because of anything to do with the man himself.
	People don't know what they're donating to when they donate to the Winston Churchill charity, do they?
	Yeah, John's right.
	Here's a skin suit.
	Absolute body snatchers.
	So she also, in an email announcing the name change and the purge of any of Churchill's association with the charity, she said, many of his views on race are widely seen as unacceptable today, a view that we share.
	Who cares?
	So I've actually got the specific comment that she takes exception to.
	Okay, go on.
	So...
	It is, when he's talking about the indigenous Australians and Americans being kind of displaced, he says, I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact a stronger race, a higher grade race, a more worldly, wise race, to put it in that way, has come in and taken their place.
	And I think the reason that that is kind of a little bit questionable, I will admit.
	Well, absolutely.
	But I think there's also an argument to be...
	They probably said it in, like, 1930, though.
	It was 37, yeah.
	There we go.
	That's the sort of thing they said in 1937.
	But there's also an interpretation of this where you can change the word race for nation because people used the term race to just be interchangeable with a nation.
	And when you put the word nation in its place, it doesn't seem quite as bad.
	It's basically the might makes right position.
	It is, which isn't a morally acceptable position, but you are right about the use of the term race.
	It is something of a misnomer there, because they'll say things like, the German race, and the French race, and the British race, and it's like, you mean just political entities.
	Yes.
	That's what you mean.
	Civilizations is what he means.
	And, I mean, I disagree, but, you know, I think there is a wrong there that you can admit to.
	You know, it's just something that happened in history.
	History is full of wrongs, you know.
	Viewing a historical figure based on one thing they've said.
	Yeah, by modern standards.
	Yeah, it's not really very reasonable, is it?
	No.
	So one of the charity's actual volunteers commented on the decision to disassociate from Churchill, stating, it's beggar's belief that the man who saved this nation in our darkest hour finds himself cancelled in this way.
	Yeah.
	So their own volunteers are annoyed with them about this.
	Well, if you volunteer for the Winston Churchill Trust, they're like, yeah, we're going to change it so it's nothing to do with Winston Churchill.
	I can see why you'd be annoyed.
	But it's another one of those things that is just another managerial elite decision, just like, yeah, we don't want to associate them, never mind what all of our...
	Our hard-working volunteers do.
	But anyway, Ian Duncan-Smith, the former Conservative Party leader, also commented on this with a very good view, I think.
	He also happens to hold Winston Churchill's former seat, although I think it's been slightly redrawn since then, because of course...
	It's been a long time, he says.
	I think it is ridiculous.
	It was set up as the Winston Churchill Trust.
	He is the most popular British person to have lived in poll after poll.
	What we are left with here is another group of individuals who fail to recognise the most important thing Churchill said to us, which is that those who sit in judgement of the past will lose the future.
	Without him, they would not be sat where they are making these ridiculous decisions.
	They need to think about that for a second and recognise quite how ridiculous what they are doing will appear to the wider British public, who are proud of what Winston Churchill achieved and find all the process of judging historical figures as an absurdity.
	Well, I mean, you know, Churchill did have one bad take.
	Have you considered that he said something in like a letter or whatever and, you know, a hundred years later nearly, we disagree with that.
	Apparently that's enough.
	Yeah, you know, being the person who maintained Britain's moral spine during World War II when we're fighting the Nazis, not good enough.
	Surely that dwarfs any questionable things he said in 1937.
	Obviously.
	And of course he may also have changed his mind.
	They're not entertaining the fact that that is something that happens.
	People do change their minds and their opinions.
	So, there's one final thing I wanted to mention, that Churchill's grandson, Nicholas Soames, supported the charity, stating, The Churchill family is wholly and unreservedly supportive of the wonderful work done by the Churchill Fellowship.
	Its record speaks for itself.
	But let's not forget what Nicholas Soames has actually done.
	He was expelled from the Conservative Party when he was standing as an MP for refusing to vote for the Brexit deal and he has been a staunch anti-Brexit campaigner so he seems to have a certain amount of contempt for what the British people actually want.
	What we could call a traitorous cuck.
	That's actually what I've got in my notes.
	Took the words right out of my mouth.
	Okay, there we go.
	So, it does also get a little bit worse.
	So, there's this story from Sheffield, how they've been looking at racism, oppression and empire in plain sight in Sheffield street names.
	Really?
	Yeah, so apparently there was a review which found that city place names, museum collections, public art perpetuate racist, outdated and uncomfortable messages.
	For who?
	Yeah, that's what I want to know and what quite often goes unanswered.
	Anti-British leftists are not comfortable that Britain was the seat of a world empire.
	So this article says, The review was co-produced by Sheffield Council, Sheffield Museums, the University of Sheffield, Sheffield Hallam University, and presented to Sheffield's Race Equality Commission this week during hearings on sport and culture.
	Why does such a thing as Sheffield's Race Equality Commission exist?
	I was...
	About to say that, actually.
	It's mad.
	Why does a city need its own board where they assess race equality?
	Surely, even if you consider that an issue, that's something for perhaps the national government, not a city's own council.
	Isn't that a little bit presumptuous to be taking that role?
	This is the sort of thing communists would do.
	I don't doubt there are some communists involved, to be honest.
	Oh, I'm sure they're all bloody communists.
	So, also, why are all of these organisations after, you know, pandemic and lockdown, the economy is not doing too well, why are they spending their time and money, all of these prominent organisations in Sheffield, wasting their time doing this?
	It's like, yeah, these road names, these street names, they're racist, they're going to hurt people's feelings.
	How much time do you have on your hands and money to be wasting it on this?
	No cause more worthy, I imagine.
	So, they say the street names identified included those referring to people who were heavily involved in slavery, such as Canning Street, Cannon Hall Road, Dundas Road...
	I don't even know who those people are.
	Nobody knows who those people are.
	Until it was explained to me that they are named after people involved in slavery, I would have had no idea.
	And the thing is, like Colston, slavery is not going to be the only thing that they did.
	They probably weren't cackling over a bunch of slaves going, finally, I have oppressed black people.
	It's also a weird notion to think that just by merit of selling slaves, you're going to get a road named after you.
	Yeah, it's probably something else.
	Yeah.
	Like philanthropy, they've got the road named after them.
	Like most people who have any commemoration in British society did something other than just run a business.
	Hey, this guy sold some slaves, put a statue up in him, quick!
	It's such an absurd understanding.
	Treat us like Bond villains, you know?
	So, the review also found a stark lack of diversity in the city's monuments.
	Of the 100 on the council asset register, none are dedicated to a non-white figure.
	And of 20 Sheffield legend plaques celebrating contemporary Sheffield personalities set into the pavement outside the town hall, there's only one, Dame Jessica Ennis Hill, celebrating someone of an ethnically diverse heritage.
	Ethnically diverse.
	Just say non-English, because that's what you mean.
	I mean, what a shock.
	Of the hundred monuments in Sheffield, they're all about people from Sheffield, who happen to have been English.
	Because Sheffield was an English city at one point in its history.
	Unbelievable.
	Just the presumption that you're just going to get a plaque or a statue.
	You know what, well done, you're an ethnic minority.
	You have to do something to get this commemoration.
	Yeah, trading through slaves or something.
	I think Jessica Ennis Hill is an athlete of some kind.
	Right, okay.
	So she's done something to deserve it, right?
	Oh, yeah.
	So if there aren't the people doing the things to be commemorated, there aren't going to be the statues.
	So it's just ridiculous.
	It's so stupid.
	It's also noted, this is even more stupid, that historical figures celebrated in Sheffield, some of them are abolitionist campaigners such as James Montgomery or Mary Ann Rawson, but apparently these are still not representative enough.
	But they're English.
	Yeah.
	For the abolition of slavery, they're clearly not so-called white supremacists or whatever they want to call them.
	Got to be removed.
	Apparently so.
	The kind of olive branch here is that the library reviewed its books, and although it found some problematic books, which do not reflect society and its thinking at a particular time, they thought it was not prudent to remove them.
	Oh, at least they didn't do what they did in Ontario and burn them then.
	Yeah, so they're at least charitable enough not to burn books.
	Yet.
	That is the extent to which our heritage is being preserved.
	Wow.
	I might get to read about what people 100 years ago did.
	How thoughtful of them.
	Anyway, let's have something a bit more uplifting in the French admitting that we were right.
	Oh yeah, absolutely.
	Right, okay.
	So what's nice about Brexit is having been through it and done it and now it's over.
	Because now it's over, the foreigners, particularly Michel Barnier, the lead negotiator for Brexit on behalf of the European Union, has come out and just admitted that we were right and they were wrong.
	About it all.
	It's good to hear.
	It's very good to hear, isn't it?
	Anyway, so yeah, Barnier, just so you know, in 2016 was appointed by Jean-Claude Juncker to head the Brexit negotiation and he said at the time, I'm very glad that my friend Michel Barnier has accepted this important and challenging task.
	I wanted an experienced politician for this difficult job.
	He's a skilled negotiator with rich experience in major policy areas relevant to negotiations.
	This is important just so you get a level of his qualifications.
	This guy knows what he's doing.
	He knows what he's talking about.
	He's an expert negotiator and veteran politician.
	So when he says something, you can take it to the bank, right?
	I'm sure he will live up to this new challenge and help us develop a new partnership with the United Kingdom after it leaves the European Union.
	Which he did.
	He, of course, if you can get to the next one, himself said, well, the EU will not accept any deal that undermines the four freedoms.
	This is when he was speaking at the European Parliament, and he said he wouldn't negotiate and compromise on the four freedoms.
	These are the movement of goods, capital, services, and people.
	So they must be really, really necessary and morally just.
	And something that Hacy says he won't compromise on.
	And in 2018, he did a speech praising these freedoms.
	He says, thanks to the single market, both talent and knowledge move freely between our countries.
	This boosts the dynamism of our economies.
	Thanks to the single market, companies can offer products and services in other EU countries as if they're in their own market.
	Thanks to our customs union and commercial policy, businesses can export more easily.
	In her Mansion House speech, Theresa May had clarified that the UK will be leaving the Single Market and Customs Union, and with these red lines, the UK is closing doors!
	Ooh, we don't want closed doors.
	Ooh, that's terrible.
	And so this, as you can see, he's praising to the rafters the EU's policies here, which is very, very interesting, because they actually have some serious knock-on effects to people.
	Do you remember people?
	I think I can.
	I'm not too sure.
	The people, the things over whom governments are supposed to be managing and, well, helping, you know, those people, well, you know, it turns out there's something that actually has happened because of Brexit.
	And Michel Barnier today came out and said, well, actually, Britain was right.
	I'm a hard-line neurosceptic now.
	F the EU. F the single market.
	F the four freedoms.
	Viva la France.
	Yeah.
	This is a brilliant article.
	His most firm opposition was against us cherry-picking our terms of departure.
	But now he's gone back to France and he's hoping to run for the presidency.
	So he'd like to take it off Macron.
	And he appears to have conveniently forgotten the episode and, whisper it, is almost sounding like a Eurosceptic.
	How interesting.
	Speaking to the Republican Party gathering in Nimes, he said that it was time for France to regain its legal sovereignty and no longer be subjugated to the judgments of the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights.
	What?
	I mean, this is the one person I would like to hear those words come out of his mouth just to revel in it.
	It's amazing.
	It's great, isn't it?
	Yeah.
	I mean, that's exactly what we were saying.
	He was such a stick in the mud for our Brexit negotiations.
	Now he's just admitting we were right all along.
	Exactly.
	France should regain its legal sovereignty.
	Well, that was what the point of Brexit was.
	Everyone, like, you know, you look at the Lord Ashcroft polling, and the sole highest thing in every Leave category, the reason they did it is decisions about Britain should be made in Britain.
	Sovereignty.
	That was the main concern.
	And, yeah, no longer be subjected to the judgment of the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights.
	What's wrong with them?
	A couple of years ago, you were saying how brilliant they were and how we needed these.
	What's the problem with them now?
	So Barnier is the underdog in the five-way race, apparently, as it comes up to April's elections.
	And as part of his campaign, in a theme familiar to Brexit here, he has pledged to hold a referendum to impose a five-year moratorium on immigration to France from outside of the European Union.
	So does that mean for five years there's not going to be any immigration to France outside of...
	Europe.
	Yes, that's a shockingly based and Brexiteer position.
	Because, again, if you look at the Lord Ashcroft polling, number one was sovereignty.
	What was number two?
	Immigration.
	For all of the Leave campaigners and all of the Leave voters, immigration was the second most important thing.
	And so, right, okay, that's very, very interesting.
	How suddenly the Brexiteer position is being vindicated by its most harsh opponents.
	Unilateral actions would breach commitments under EU law.
	Again, we were told we weren't allowed to do that.
	You can't have the border with Ireland and things like this.
	this, this would be in breach of treaties, we're not going to do this, this will be unilateral, and it's like, okay, we're going to do it anyway.
	But Barnier says the referendum would also prove a constitutional shield that would protect France from rulings against it by the European Court of Justice and the Strasbourg Court, which are part of the non-EU Council of Europe.
	We must regain our legal sovereignty in order to no longer be subjected to the judgments of the European Court of Justice or the European Court of Human Rights.
	Why?
	I mean, all the years they were brow-bitting us, like, no, no, no, this is good, this is good, this is pro-European, this is all, you know, this is how we're going to have justice.
	And suddenly it's like, no, no, no, no, we need a constitutional shield.
	Oh, do you?
	Oh, do you?
	I'm still astounded by the fact that he was such a defender of the four principles of the European Union, which, of course, one of them was freedom of movement, and then he's gone about as far from that as possible, just like, yes, anyone outside of Europe, no.
	Yeah.
	Presumably he's waving a UKIP flag as he does this.
	I mean, come on.
	This is the most far-right position he could hold on it.
	And he's gone from the most far-left position.
	But anyway, yeah.
	He says we'll propose a referendum in September 2022 on the question of immigration.
	Now this, for anyone in Britain, we should be pushing for this.
	We should be demanding that the government gives us a referendum on immigration.
	That's really, if we can do it for Brexit, then we can do it for this.
	Because you know how the country's going to vote.
	If it was 55% in favour of leaving and 45% in staying, what do you reckon it would be if we vote on, do we want more immigrants?
	I think it would actually be more in the favour of less, right?
	Of course.
	Than Brexit would be.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	I think it's going to be like 70% of people are going to be like, no more.
	You get all the sort of silent voters, because when they do the pollings, people are sometimes, oh, I don't want to say it because it sounds politically incorrect.
	But if it comes to just an anonymous vote in a booth when you're on your own, it's going to be like 80% piss off foreigners, which is what it's going to be like in France, incidentally, as well.
	Anyway, so as they finish on this one, his comments caused a degree of incredulity when they filtered back to Whitehall.
	It is good to see that he found our arguments so compelling, one government figure said.
	Eyebrows have also been raised in Brussels, where Barnier was a French commissioner before leading the Brexit negotiation in Britain.
	However, his stance has caused little surprise in France, where frustration with Brussels was a standard theme for most of campaigning politicians, particularly on the right.
	So there we go.
	Anyway, so I thought we'd talk about the consequences of Brexit, you know, some of the consequences for the regular person, because Brexit has vindicated those, you know, evil, xenophobic gammons when they were saying, oh, the foreigners coming over here taking our jobs.
	Yeah, yeah, that's exactly what it was.
	And the Guardian has no idea.
	I mean, look at the headline.
	The puzzle of rising UK wages.
	What do you mean?
	Go back up to the top.
	Reveals an unprecedented and tragic truth.
	Oh, we're losing low-paid jobs.
	I mean, so, that's good.
	Yeah, I mean, reducing the number of people means that there is more competition to get employees, which means that employees have to offer higher wages.
	It's not very difficult, really.
	It's not complicated in any way.
	But they're just scratching their head going, how has this happened?
	What is economics?
	Exactly.
	And I'm no economist, but my God, this is just such...
	This is the sort of economy you can have in your own household.
	It's like, I really want someone to do the hoovering up.
	I'll have to offer my children more pocket money or something if I'm going to incentivise them.
	Although I've got to say I run a dictatorship in my household so they do it or they lose privileges.
	Anyway...
	Labor economists say they've never seen anything like this before.
	It appears that it's happened in both the UK and the US as part of the lower part of the wage distribution.
	The lowest paid workers have just dropped out.
	Really?
	They're just not getting paid, is it?
	Or is it something else?
	It's like a batting average effect, if you like.
	The team average rises because batsmen 10 and 11 are not counted anymore.
	We are not exactly sure, but it looks like bad news.
	Why?
	Is it bad news, though?
	Of course it's not.
	No.
	I mean, you have to be earning a certain amount of money to be a net contributor to the economy, so having low-wage people, even if they have a job, they're not going to be able to pull by weight in the society, so it's not in anyone's interest to have them here.
	Well, let me finish, right?
	Sure.
	We're not exactly sure, but it looks like bad news.
	Ahem, ahem.
	The issue is whether these jobs, many in pubs, clubs and restaurants, return after the furlough payments stop.
	But many jobs won't return if there are long-run changes in behaviour after the pandemic as expected.
	So it's unclear after Brexit and the end of the lockdown whether those jobs are coming back.
	So, okay, it could be what happens if a low-wage job disappears.
	It leaves the category of being low wage.
	So if it was, say, £7 an hour, then if you change that job to paying £8 an hour, or £9, whatever it is to get out of that category, suddenly that job's disappeared.
	But the actual job, the person doing the work, has gone nowhere, right?
	It's just out of the economist category, and they just go, oh, we've disappeared.
	No, it's because hospitality pay has risen, right?
	If we go to the next one...
	I love the way this is framed.
	Ending free movement wasn't meant to boost wages.
	Are we now being proved wrong about Brexit?
	It depends how elitist you are, really, doesn't it?
	You know, it depends.
	I mean, if you're in favour of, you know, working people earning a fair wage because they're not being out-competed in the market by a bunch of Polish people, then...
	You know, it's bad for you, but I'm in favor of those people being paid well, so it's good for me.
	But that's the thing.
	Yeah, they're being paid more, so they're not low-paid jobs anymore because there's no reason for them to be low-paid jobs because the employer needs them to work, so they've raised the wages.
	I love the way they frame this.
	Were our earlier estimates incorrect?
	My short answer is more research is needed.
	Is it?
	But that doesn't mean there aren't some useful things we know now.
	Recent headlines about how average salaries and hospitality and retail have risen posed some interesting questions.
	On Twitter I was asked, how do economists reconcile the idea that EU immigration was not impacting wages?
	Timing, sector, nothing to do with Brexit, or were our models wrong?
	It's obvious, obvious, that if you have an abundance of labour, then the cost of labour goes down.
	Again, not an economist, but this is demonstrably true.
	That's one of the most fundamental aspects of economics.
	Yes.
	And the fact that they've been sat there arguing the whole time, well it didn't, well the proof is in the pudding.
	You know, you can cope all you like, but since these jobs are no longer even considered low-paid jobs because they've had to raise the wages for them, it just shows that you're wrong.
	So he says, so far the data is hard to interpret, but there's no sign of any wage explosion in relevant sectors except there is.
	He says, that said, there are very clear and consistent reports of staff shortages as businesses, especially in the hospitality sector, have reopened.
	And there is clear evidence there was indeed a large exodus of EU-origin workers during the pandemic.
	It is entirely reasonable to suggest that the two are connected.
	Because they are.
	And we can see another example of how these are connected in the truck driver wages.
	So the great concerns, oh look, Brexit has left our shelves unstocked.
	Well, some of them.
	A little bit.
	I haven't really seen any of it myself.
	But, you know, apparently that's been happening around the country.
	And that's good for lorry drivers, because that means they get paid more.
	Because we're not using, you know, Romanian lorry drivers who work for half the wage.
	Right?
	So Britain was apparently short of 60,000 lorry drivers out of about 320,000 that they had.
	And as the BBC are forced to say, the laws of supply and demand are in full swing, pushing up wages.
	Big supermarket chains, desperate to ensure their food gets to their stores, are offering drivers nearly double the going rate.
	That's great.
	That's fantastic.
	And it's also that we need to recruit lots and lots of new people in a time where the economy has not been doing too well.
	Well, people know, well, if I go into this industry, I'm going to get a good wage and maintain a career, right?
	So having that security...
	60,000 free jobs, double the going rate.
	Yeah, that is absurdly good.
	Yeah.
	Who does that hurt?
	That hurts the people at the very top.
	You know, leftists, those people you were saying, the evil capitalists who were just leeching money off of the workers.
	They can't do that now.
	They've got to pay the workers or they don't get their job done and they don't make money.
	So it's in their interests to do it.
	Isn't that amazing?
	Didn't have to steal from them or anything like that.
	If you don't deform the market with a huge amount of cheap foreign labour, the problem solves itself.
	It's almost like capitalism actually works.
	Yeah, well, free enterprise, I think we should call it.
	Well, yeah, of course.
	As Milton Friedman called it, and he's right on this.
	So yeah, the big supermarket chains are getting double the normal rate, and small firms, of course, are having to compete as well.
	And one driver said he has just received a 25% pay rise.
	There were other companies that were just offering a couple of grand just to start with them and stuff like this.
	And so it's like, right, okay, great.
	You know, no wonder Michel Barnier is just like, oh, maybe we should do the same as Britain.
	Turns out if you look after your working people, then everything goes well for them.
	Who would have guessed?
	Yeah, I know.
	This is a miracle.
	I don't know.
	It's just, you know, who's seen this coming?
	So there we go.
	Brexit vindicated.
	It's good to hear.
	All right.
	Better get your ear thing in.
	There we go.
	Right.
	Let's go.
	So, stiff upper lip of British culture, had to cheer myself up, so I found a Warhammer shop while out in the city with a friend.
	And there was a they-them feminist trying to subvert Warhammer as a member of staff, bought my book, put on a mask so they wouldn't be able to record my face, and told the feminist, you're a woman, you belong in the kitchen, women are inferior to men, the patriarchy will always win, oh and by the way, you will always be a girl and you're a she-her.
	The reaction was hilarious.
	That's probably not very nice.
	Yeah, disavow.
	I bet it was hilarious though, I'm not going to lie.
	I have to resist laughing, I'm not going to lie.
	You are accused of treason and anti-Soviet behaviour.
	The court finds you guilty and sentences you to be shot.
	Get him out of here!
	Well, that's got it done.
	That's literally what's happening to the Turfs at the moment.
	It's good to see, though.
	I didn't expect it to happen this quickly, though.
	It's kind of amazing how quickly they've splintered.
	Oh, I feel bad for them.
	It's not even they've been splintered.
	They've been actively oppressed by the left.
	They've learnt their lesson, at least.
	Have they?
	Maybe not.
	I just wanted to wish a wonderful weekend to all the bass boys out there.
	It is wonderful to see so many wonderful guys who are strong, intelligent, funny and taking their own life into their own hands.
	You are doing great and you shall have a wonderful weekend.
	Also, shut up Carl.
	I am a catch.
	I might be coping a bit.
	I never said you weren't a catch unless you wrote that article.
	I don't even know what you're talking about.
	It was yesterday's article.
	I'm sure she...
	You are obviously a catch.
	You're not the feminist who's written that article.
	I didn't say that at all.
	I disavow that too.
	In response to my last video comment, it's funny you should mention Jordan Peterson since I actually got the idea to treat my future self as my own son while reading Beyond Order, where Peterson mentions treating yourself across time as a community.
	Also, God being his own father and his own son in Christianity is very much orthodox because it is the doctrine of the Holy Trinity.
	One God in three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
	Yeah.
	It's one of the reasons I'm not a Christian.
	It's all very confusing to me, God also being his own son.
	I'm kind of lost, but then I haven't had the same biblical teaching, I imagine, as most people.
	This is why I hate talking about religion, because then they're like, ah, let's talk about the theology of the Bible.
	And it's like, yeah, but that's nonsense.
	I like what Jesus has to say about loving thy neighbour, turning the other cheek.
	This is all good stuff, good values.
	And then it's like, yeah, so God's actually three beings in one, and he's his own son and his own father.
	And it's like, okay, you're losing me here.
	There might be a parallel to just like, yes, I'm three people in my head, and my gender switches.
	What it is, is they've got to try and reconcile the things that are in the canonical text that don't really make sense, because they weren't cohesively written by a single author.
	They're trying to reconcile these things together to form a proper doctrine out of them.
	Just accept that some of this is nonsense.
	That's my view.
	I don't want to be mean to them, though.
	They're mostly good people.
	It's just like, I'm not going to believe that.
	But that's not the point of it.
	Stop trying to emphasise that as the point of it.
	Because that's not the point of it.
	And so, you know, you don't need to rationalise that.
	You just be like, we don't know.
	But this seems to work.
	I think looking at it, even in a secular way, as useful analogies, you get the same amount of value out of it.
	Yeah, I think so.
	Hello, Lotus Eaters.
	The People's Party of Canada is the only party in Canada that has a balanced platform in regards to concerns of splitting the vote between the Conservative Party of Canada and the PPC. A vote for PPC is a rejection of the CPC's platform and sends them and other parties a clear message that we do not accept the current climate of draconian practices and identity politics.
	It will never be a wasted vote.
	Perhaps in the future we could see a Contemplations episode on voting strategies.
	Do you vote with your heart?
	Do you vote with your mind?
	Thank you.
	Great question.
	Yeah.
	I've always voted strategically, although occasionally when I know that my vote isn't going to count at all, I'll follow who I actually want to vote for.
	So quite often, if I'm in a really safe seat, I feel comfortable if I'm voting against the incumbent candidate to just vote for whoever I feel like is actually the candidate I want, even if they stand no chance.
	The thing is, with the safe and strategic voting strategies, you end up with this kind of interesting lock where you flip between the same two parties.
	This is how a two-party system is maintained.
	Because it's like, oh, I'll strategically vote for the other one if I don't like this one.
	So yeah, okay, but if everyone is doing that, then you've locked in that these are the only two real options that are going to vie for power.
	So essentially what you have to do is just commit to the smaller ones, and more and more people will commit.
	And then eventually that will change the balance of the sort of political landscape.
	But if you just vote tactically, then it will always be the same political landscape, just with very small distinction between the two main parties.
	And so I kind of hate tactical voting.
	I think we should just vote for what we actually believe.
	I'm a very large proponent of changing first past the post, so I also hold that view, but I work within the kind of...
	You've got to work within the system you're in.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, I mean, I wouldn't mind some sort of proportional representation at this point.
	Anything to have, like, the radicals in Parliament.
	There are so many different systems as well.
	There is a good Contemplations episode about the different voting systems, but we haven't actually talked about voting strategies yet, so that's one that I will add to the list.
	But it's nice to see that the PPC are 11% in the latest poll in Canada.
	Double digits!
	It's on!
	It's going!
	Mad Max is coming!
	Anyway, let's go for the next one.
	Hello, Lotus Eaters.
	The People's Party of Canada is the only party in Canada that has a balanced platform in regards to concerns...
	I think we did, yeah.
	No worries.
	It drives me nuts that socialists are claiming that this tax rise is a tax on the poor, when in fact the poor are the only people who benefit from it.
	A person earning 100 grand will pay nine times more of this new tax than someone earning 20 grand.
	And if you have assets of over 100 grand, you will not receive any social care.
	So anyone who owns a house and has an even halfway decent job will be paying into a system and they will receive nothing.
	Yep.
	I hate it.
	I'm so angry.
	Honestly, I can't stand it.
	It's worthless as well.
	Boris Johnson said, ha, we're going to be more socialist than the socialists.
	Is that what we voted for?
	It's not what I was voting for.
	Email your MPs.
	Let's go for the next one.
	And don't know what to do with the honesty, strength, intelligence, and independence that is portrayed by a woman of strength.
	Some men cannot handle the emotional chaos that comes up with this type of demeanor.
	You just said you're single.
	You don't have a boyfriend.
	You what, you celibate?
	That's my choice!
	Yeah, look, you're miserable.
	You would be so much happier with...
	My grandfather suffered from schizophrenia.
	If the doctors had said to him, Nate, you're fine.
	We believe that the radio is actually talking to you.
	That is not a service to him.
	That would have been terrible for him.
	Well, how do you know something's a delusion?
	If you act on the delusion, does your ship sink?
	If your ship sinks, then it was a delusion.
	Fair points.
	I love Gavin McGinnis.
	Yeah, that's one of my favourite political clips of all time.
	Because she's got no argument.
	I love it when she's just like, yeah, I don't want you.
	And he's just like, yeah, you don't have to have me.
	Get a hunk.
	She's got nothing to say to it as well.
	She just ends up looking ridiculous.
	And he's just making those, like, they're almost schoolyard sort of points.
	That's why I found it so funny.
	I know, it's great.
	Anyway, let's go for the next one.
	Actually, Carl and Callum, they already got to the robots.
	There was a big feminist kerfuffle about sex robots a few years back, talking about how they needed rights.
	Of course, it could have been just, you know, hey, we're sex workers, you need to pay us instead of using the robots.
	Anyway, I hope you, Carl, had a good birthday.
	Mine's tomorrow.
	Many happy returns.
	I did, and happy birthday for tomorrow.
	And the thing, there's a distinction there, though, because what they were arguing with the sex robots is that it would train men to view women as objects.
	And I was just like, well, we already do.
	What are you talking about?
	You know, that was your primary complaint in the first place, wasn't it?
	Men see women as objects, and therefore, you know.
	And so, like, so it's not actually they want the robots themselves invested with rights.
	It's that they think that they will lead to, like, violations of women's rights, right?
	But the issue is that they can't, the robots themselves can never have rights.
	Yeah, I think that's reasonable.
	I also think it's funny that the feminists view objects like women.
	Like, it's like a drunk interpretation of feminism.
	You view us as women, as objects.
	It's like, well, you view objects as women, so, I mean, what are we supposed to take from this?
	Anyway, let's see those games.
	No, this is a different one.
	This is just making me feel really guilty.
	I've been telling myself I need to join a gym and I haven't done it.
	Now you need to.
	Are they £150?
	Yeah, they do look massive.
	Look at the size of his arms.
	Yeah, I know.
	They must be heavy.
	Well done, lad.
	That's all I'm saying.
	Bloody hell.
	Hi, guys.
	I've been thinking about Warhammer 40k and it struck me as a thought...
	What is your favourite Primarch and what is the virtue that you think they embody?
	My personal being, Vulcan, as he embodies the virtue of nobility.
	Thanks guys.
	Vulcan herbs!
	See, I'm actually not very good on the sort of lore of 40k or anything like that.
	I really just painted the models and played the game.
	I know nothing about it whatsoever, so I'm even worse.
	Yeah, so I'm actually terrible when it comes to that, so you'll have to ask Callum again on Monday, because he probably knows a lot more than I do.
	Let's go for the next one.
	Carl, you mentioned the enjoyment of painting Warhammer miniatures yesterday.
	Oddly...
	I too have just rediscovered this simple delight.
	I spent a good chunk of my stimulus check on Tyranids and am finding it almost meditative to just listen to you guys and pain away.
	But I'm curious, what are your favourite Warhammer factions and why?
	I detect a theme here.
	Yeah, I mean, but I agree with you.
	It's meditative.
	And honestly, it really is.
	I've actually kind of stopped playing video games instead.
	I've just been painting stuff and listening to audiobooks and stuff.
	But I personally like Tyranids.
	I also like Chaos, because they're funny and fun.
	Callum's a big fan of the Orcs.
	And at the moment, I'm collecting a Space Marine army, because I've never had one before.
	You're not a fan of 40k, are you?
	I don't know anything about it whatsoever.
	Don't worry.
	I like painting, though.
	Yeah, well, there we go.
	So, yeah, I like Tyranids and Chaos.
	I like Genestealer Cults, actually.
	The Genestealer Cults are great, because they're crap.
	But they're so weird and gross, and hodgepodge, that after I've got the Space Marines sorted, I'll probably do them, because I really like them.
	I often hear Democrats and activist types say that America was built on protest.
	If they're talking about the modern, degenerate American culture, then sure.
	But it's an eternal truism that the belligerent activist types are not the same kind of people who build good things that people want.
	Sure, the right to petition government for redress of grievances is important.
	But America was founded and built by virtuous, not religious men.
	Most recently, the ones who came back from World War II. Not faux-revolutionary complainer types.
	Carl Callum, your thoughts?
	Correct.
	Yeah, I agree.
	Although, I'll never forgive the crimes against tea that happened in Boston Harbour.
	You go to Boston now, you can actually literally have a cup of tea, watching people symbolically throw tea into the harbour.
	It's disgusting.
	It's a practice that needs to be brought to an end.
	We need to make a stand against this.
	Well, it's moreover it's an anti-British hate crime, so think about that.
	Don't give the poor tea.
	But I do agree that the American founders would look at what's going on now and disavow it in the same way they disavowed the French Revolution.
	Hey, Lotus Eaters!
	Tony D and Little Joan here with another legend of the Pines, Dr.
	James Still.
	He was known as the Black Doctor of the Pines, and even though he didn't have a medical degree, he was an herbalist that lived between 1812 to 1882, treating the people of the Pine Barrens with all his folksy ways.
	His son went on to graduate from Harvard with honors, with an actual medical degree.
	Human beings like plants thrive best by being cultivated, quote, by Dr.
	James Still.
	Hmm.
	That's a good quote, actually.
	Yeah.
	I noticed that Joan of Arc isn't causing trouble.
	Yeah, I'm almost disappointed.
	Callum's not here and suddenly she's a good girl.
	Good afternoon, Lotus Eaters.
	I just finished watching the trailer for the new Matrix film, and I have a prediction.
	I have a feeling that they are simply going to retread talking points from the first film, thinking that that's what the fans want, and they're going to try and add woke political talking points to the new film, which is going to inevitably lead to the film bombing in the cinemas.
	And then from there, they're going to start accusing people who didn't like the film of being transphobic.
	That's my thoughts anyway.
	I hate to say it, but that's actually not a very outrageous prediction.
	Did you see the trailer for it?
	No, I refuse to watch it, just because the amount of time that's gone by is obviously just a money grab, and I refuse to do it.
	I care a great deal about good films, and I want to see original, innovative, and interesting things, not a rehash to make money.
	I'm actually looking forward to hate watching it.
	I can tell it's going to be terrible, right?
	So I watched the trailer, and it's just awful.
	At one point, doesn't Neo take the blue pill?
	It's like, what are you doing?
	On the nose, could this be?
	And it is exactly as Jonathan was saying.
	It's just a rehash of like, oh, here's a thing from The Matrix you remember.
	Here's a thing from The Matrix you remember.
	Here's a thing from The Matrix you remember.
	It's like, I don't care about any of this now.
	You know, you're producing nothing new, you're just going back to the old ground, because you've got nothing original to say, and you just want the money out of my wallet.
	So, you know...
	I hate-watched the most recent Star Wars films, and I couldn't get through it.
	I got fed up in the end and walked out.
	At least the most recent one.
	I was just like, this is absolutely ridiculous.
	I mean, and you can see from the trailer as well, it's like, the first thing is, you know, some psychologists are going, are you triggered?
	And it's like, oh...
	I am now.
	The worst part, though, was you've got this kind of insufferable Hollywood millennial way of talking about the thing in the film.
	So at one point, one guy's like, you're going back to the Matrix.
	And it's like, look, that's you just breaking the fourth wall and talking directly to the audience.
	I don't appreciate it.
	It's insincere.
	It takes me out of the moment.
	It takes me out of your film, and it makes me think that you don't care about this either.
	What you're doing is an obvious cash grab and...
	Trying to, you know, just redeem a bunch of Hollywood celebrities who no one cares about anymore.
	It could be a really big brain move where he takes the blue pill and then it's just loads of woke politics.
	And it's just a massive dunk on them somehow.
	And they've just portrayed it in a weird way.
	Hey, I'm not saying it's not.
	You know, I don't know.
	I haven't seen it yet.
	And if it is, you know, well done.
	If it's a big critique of woke politics by taking the blue pill and everything going to S, then fine.
	But I am sceptical.
	Me too, actually.
	I wasn't being serious.
	S.H. Silver says, this is legitimately a Maoist struggle session at Google.
	How the hell does anyone tolerate this?
	Yeah, it is, isn't it?
	Literally, we're going to break you down, deconstruct everything about your personality, make you cry, and then we're going to present you with your new worldview.
	I imagine they probably pay well.
	That might be part of the reason people put up with it.
	I guess so.
	Yeah, I guess so.
	A student of history says, quote, I'm the good racist, says Ibram Kendi and Robin DiAngelo.
	And that's exactly how they view themselves.
	They are the good racists.
	Omar says, strongly paraphrase Thomas Jefferson's quote for the modern day.
	It's better to be a low information voter than a misinformed voter through the mainstream media.
	The original, of course, as he says here, man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them.
	Inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer the truth, then he whose mind is full of falsehoods and errors.
	He who reads nothing will still learn the great facts and the details are all false.
	Yeah, and that's true.
	I mean, if there's one thing that the modern era and the internet has shown us, I mean, this is the thing.
	It does make me worry how much of the sort of 20th century media, you know, fact regime is total nonsense.
	Like, it does ruin a reading of history where you can actually respect, especially when you use sources as well, to kind of base your arguments upon.
	And I remember going through old newspapers and stuff like that, but of course, that would be the worst source of information possible, because it's the most likely to be false.
	And politicised.
	Exactly.
	So, anyway, Tiber says, How long until the LGBT flag gets replaced with the oppression circle with a black fist and a sickle in the background?
	Can't be long now.
	I mean, they're already chewing away at the pride flag with the invasive arrows.
	It can't be long.
	JJHW says, tracing everything back to slavery is no different to tracing everything back to Jews.
	That's correct.
	It's literally, again, an unfalsifiable conclusion you've presumptively asserted.
	It's like, okay, everything is this.
	Or it's just this and you didn't know it.
	That's not an argument.
	It's definitely not science.
	Taffy says, America has an epidemic of crack babies, not racist babies.
	Man, so one thing that's interesting is in the Critical Race Theory book, one of the essays that you've got to read is dedicated to trying to find a way...
	That it should be legal for black women to have crack babies.
	I remember you telling me about this and it's...
	Because it turns out that if you give birth to a crack baby, then you've committed to crime because you've given a minor drugs.
	And so babies that are addicted to crack, when they come out of their mother's wombs, the mother has committed a crime.
	Rightfully so.
	And so they start going, hmm, how can we make this about freedom of expression or freedom of association or something?
	It's like, you can't.
	That's an awful thing to have done.
	And the sort of people who try and get those people off the hook are awful people too.
	Robert says, two-year-olds only just understand the concept of a sandwich, let alone the wider concept of race and all the stereotypes that contain within that concept, morons.
	Yeah, exactly.
	They have no idea what they're talking about, you know, about any of these things.
	Justin says, the progressives have done the first six steps on that white supremacy pyramid against white people, and with Australia building concentration camps, seven doesn't sound too far off.
	That was a good point.
	All the things that they've done on the white supremacy pyramid have been ways that they've pathologised white people.
	I don't disagree.
	No, no, North Antonian Night.
	So let me get this straight.
	By CRT Logic, denying racism against white people is proof of white supremacy.
	The CRT proponents are truly deranged.
	Yes, but of course, you remember, they've preloaded these assumptions with the axiom that you can't be racist against white people because they are the oppressor.
	And so they've given themselves, again, another philosophically incoherent out.
	So it is, and it just is, and it just is, no matter how much evidence you have against the contrary, it still is.
	Anyway, Free Will says, So a charity bearing Winston Churchill's name, drop that name.
	The absolute disgrace of it.
	Churchill saved Western civilization.
	After the fall of France in June 1940, Britain stood alone for a whole year.
	Agree.
	America did not join the war until December 1941, and the Soviet Union was in an alliance with Nazi Germany, called the Molotov-Rimentrop Pact, and was supplying Germany with raw materials, including oil.
	If the UK had thrown in the towel then, either Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia would have come to dominate Europe.
	So what was Churchill's crime?
	His real crime is that he saved Western civilization from both the Nazis, and later, with his warnings about the Iron Curtain speech, made at Fulton, Missouri, from communism.
	For this latter crime, the hard left will not forgive him, and they are seizing the opportunity in the current woke climate, and the remaining World War II veterans dwindling fast to try and destroy his name, They are the real criminals.
	Man, that's a hell of a good comment, and that's absolutely true.
	All of that's true.
	And I do agree that this is the woke left, the communists among them, doing everything they can to sully the man who we actually need to hold up as one of our heroes, don't we?
	Absolutely, because it doesn't mention one of the few things you have avoided mentioning here is that the appetite in Britain with war with Germany wasn't exactly there to begin with, and Winston Churchill was seen as a bit hard-line to begin with, because they were all very willing to placate Hitler, of course.
	Well, yeah, after...
	Why can't I remember his name?
	The appeaser.
	I wouldn't say Chamberlain, but that's not right.
	Yeah, Neville Chamberlain, yeah.
	Yeah, exactly.
	You know, you had years of that before Churchill was like, look, this can't go on.
	And, yeah.
	So he was the political force that made it happen in the first place.
	Yes.
	Anyway, JJHW says, in a couple of years, the Churchill Fellowship will change to its final form, Hitler Fellowship.
	Well, I mean, if Churchill's the villain, then it implies that the people who were fighting weren't villains.
	That's the problem.
	Like, sorry, I don't agree.
	Anyway, Zios says...
	Yeah, the only thing they hate more than Nazis is the right wing.
	Because Nazis weren't right wing.
	Free Will again says...
	They have not changed that much.
	No, they haven't.
	John says, given that it's a French tradition for all politicians to suddenly transform into populists before an election affair, I'm calling it now.
	Barnier's Eurosceptic U-turn is totally insincere and will disappear within five minutes after the first round of voting.
	Now, that may well be true, but it's just nice that he has to come out and say, yes, the British were right about Brexit in his attempt to be a populist.
	This tradition comes from France's two-stage voting system, whereby only two parties progress to the second round, often to the Ressemblement National and one other.
	After scalping the votes off Le Pen and co., the other party immediately pivots to the left to hoover up the votes of the anti-populist to get into office.
	Doubtless true.
	I'm not a big fan of it.
	But I am aware that they have two rounds.
	This is definitely something that I've seen with Macron shifting around his politics a lot.
	It seems very insincere a lot of the time.
	Yeah.
	Student of History says, when your grandfather helped kick the S out of a German-led pan-European empire, and now you're supporting a German-led pan-European empire.
	Yep.
	Locustita says, I love the way that they've been talking about wage rises and their confusion.
	We have been saying this for years.
	I was arguing with someone on this very point I use to work in a warehouse where 70% of the workers are from Europe.
	Pure copium, and I love it.
	I mean, I just don't understand how they can rationalise it to themselves that this isn't affecting wages.
	I mean, the Bank of England did a study on this.
	They showed that there was wage dips.
	And I've seen loads of them saying, well, there's no evidence.
	There's no evidence.
	It's just common sense.
	It's just logic.
	There is also the fact that when you talk to a left-winger about economics, they always bring up morality.
	Every time.
	It's like, well, there is an objective basis to an economy.
	It's not all just moral questions.
	I mean, morality is important.
	Sure.
	But it's not the focal point of a discussion about economics.
	No.
	And again, if you're going to bring morality into economics, the question is the morality of how a transaction is conducted.
	It was ethical that that transaction was conducted.
	And if you're a socialist and you're stealing people's money, the answer is no.
	If you're a free enterpriser and it's a consensual exchange at an agreed price, then the answer is yes.
	So that's as far as the morality argument needs to go.
	My money, my choice.
	Exactly.
	Callum says, were our earlier estimates incorrect?
	My short answer is more research is needed.
	Of course it is.
	Dunces.
	Again, the way they're like, wow, we just don't know.
	We just can't figure out.
	Well, everyone else knows.
	The people who are just getting double the salary now, they know.
	Oh, where have all the low-paid jobs gone?
	They've disappeared.
	And that's a good thing.
	Because the people still need their beers to be delivered.
	They still want food to be given out of the table.
	But they're no longer low-paid jobs.
	Oh, no.
	How awful.
	Again, the assumption, isn't it?
	Oh, well, no, we need low-paid jobs.
	Do we?
	Yeah.
	Why can't we all be paid a decent wage where you can actually have a good life even at the lowest rung?
	Surely that's what we should be aiming for in the first place.
	Yes, but that's because we aren't elitists and we don't hate the working class.
	AngelBrain says, well, of course, the people that write for or read The Guardian are worried about low-paid jobs disappearing.
	They will rely on those types of workers as support staff to the vanity project that is their life.
	Ooh.
	Yes, sharp!
	But that's true.
	You know, again, the eternal question.
	Well, who'll serve our coffee in Pret?
	Yeah, the price of coffee's going to go up.
	Oh, no.
	Yeah, but, like, who's going to serve it?
	Well, I guess it won't be a European fugitive.
	You know, it'll have to be someone local, I guess, and they'll have to be paid a living wage.
	Anyway, I love the way they're talking about the wage rises and their confusion.
	Oh, no, I read that one already.
	Alex says, the Remainers who said that the supermarket shelves would be empty are merely showing the socialist understanding of economics.
	Supermarket shelves would be empty in a centralised command economy where supply chains and logistics are enforced.
	In a fully free economy, supermarkets can manage their own logistics to keep supply coming and continue to make profits.
	Yes, and we can see the exact outgrowth of that, which is wages going up.
	Love it.
	Love to see it.
	Henry says, I originally voted to remain, although thinking that though the EU had its flaws, it could be reformed.
	Now, however, having decided to respect the outcome of the vote and having seen the mask come well and truly off, I've moved over to the hardcore Brexiteer position, and I get the feeling many others will agree too.
	So, yes, opinions change over time.
	It's hard to agree on shared national values to the left, as their values are, this country is awful, burn it all down.
	Correct.
	I don't see why I should have to have a shared value with them.
	They're terrible people.
	They've got terrible opinions.
	The kind of notion that you're compelled to share values with people if they're at odds with one another, how do you reconcile that?
	It's impossible, really.
	Yeah, I'm not sharing values with communists.
	I don't value the same things communists value.
	I'm against paedophilia, for example.
	I value human life.
	Yeah.
	I value private property, you know, personal autonomy, not being sent to a gulag or being shot for being insufficiently woke.
	You know, there are lots of reasons to oppose these people.
	Anyway, Radnor says, Hey Carl and Josh, I wanted to ask what should be the plan for actual Conservatives in the next election?
	I can't bring myself to vote Conservative after this and reforming them seems unlikely when their members are going home and Crying about the political identity.
	Did you see that yesterday?
	Yeah, it's ridiculous.
	Literally, Conservative MPs crying.
	What is a Tory?
	I burst out laughing when I read it.
	I was just like, well, you're not going to be very Conservative if you're bursting into tears talking to your wife, are you?
	But it's not even that.
	It's not even that.
	It's saying I'm so emotionally broken because I don't know what being a Conservative is.
	It just goes to show the length and depth of the subversion of the Conservative Party.
	Of course, yeah.
	They don't know what they're doing.
	They don't know how to be Conservative.
	So the question is what to do about it, right?
	Obviously, Labour's not an option, and third parties don't have a chance.
	Well, third parties only don't have a chance while we have that kind of attitude.
	So I actually think that the Reform Party is Lawrence Fox's or Reclaim.
	I can't remember which one it is.
	Is it Reform or Reclaim?
	I'm not sure.
	I can't remember.
	But just choose one of the third parties and just stick with it.
	That's what we're going to do.
	You know, the initial votes won't be massive, but the more people we bring over in time, we've just got to, like, start putting the pressure on.
	Because what are the other options?
	You know, you're going to just continue voting for Boris's socialism.
	We do know that the Conservatives pay very close attention to elections because you can see their behaviour adjust depending on how they're doing in the polls and how other parties are doing.
	So through putting pressure on by voting for these third parties, even if they don't have a chance of winning, then you're sending a clear message like you're not doing what you're supposed to, Conservative Party.
	Yeah, I mean, I don't know why they thought outflanking Labour by going to the left was a good idea.
	Especially when they were polling so high as well.
	Yeah.
	Look, that's the losing position.
	I don't know why they think that's the winning position.
	How Labour keeps losing is their leftward drift.
	Okay, whatever.
	Matthew says, why are people surprised about rising wages?
	When Trump put the brakes on immigration and asylum seekers, the US saw real wage growth for the working class for the first time in 30 years.
	Yeah, in one of those things, there was literally exactly that, the chart.
	You can see it going down, down, down, and then it just starts shooting up, and it's like, why is this happening?
	Because you're not an economist, that's why.
	I'm not an economist either, but you're definitely not an economist.
	Ghost of Adelaide says, I live in South Australia and I have flu symptoms.
	There's no damn way I'm getting a COVID test.
	Yeah, don't.
	Don't do it.
	I'm potentially falling into the infinite rabbit hole of Australian quarantine, a.k.a.
	the Gulag.
	My state is currently trialling facial recognition for enforcing quarantine.
	Ugh.
	Literally, you're in the cyberpunk dystopia.
	Which is to send a photo of your face within 15 minutes of getting a text or else the police will come?
	Let them come.
	just just couldn't be that they're sick in bed or anything no dystopian nightmare s-hole no instead i will exercise my own good sense i stay home thank you very much to all australian premiers and prime minister f you and your authoritarianism too well i mean one of them did say it was literally you know social distancing in the new world order didn't Yeah, they used the words, the New World Order, which is...
	How can you use that term?
	I mean, how can you be that naive?
	Because I guess that's the term they use.
	That's what they call it, I guess.
	I mean, Laurie Lightfoot used the same term as well, calling it literally the New World Order.
	Well, all the people worried about the Illuminati are now freaking out.
	Yeah, well, Alex Jones is just like, well, I was right, you know.
	Again.
	SmallLibertarian says, I love how the progressives keep calling us populists.
	Isn't that basically just democracy?
	Yes, for most people, yeah.
	Hammurabi says, about the onset of robot rights, I think there's something there to unpack.
	I remember a few years ago that women were screeching that men would prefer dating AI and doing the dirty with something brought off the shelf.
	As technology advances, I imagine such scenarios would become more common.
	Why would I want some agender, non-binary, otherkin, queer freak who lectures me about my pronouns when I could have a pregnant, barefoot robo-wife in the kitchen who keeps the house clean and gets me beer without crying the whole time about oppression?
	I mean, if you're getting out-competed by an inanimate object, there's something wrong with you, really.
	Yeah.
	I mean, literally, if a robot is more feminine and womanly than you, a biological female, then the problem is with you, isn't it?
	Let's just be frank about this.
	But yeah, I mean...
	You get what you deserve.
	Did you think that men were going to be like, well, I guess you can just cut off all your hair and then cut off your breasts and then tell me that I'm an oppressor and I'll just get married to you.
	I'll just settle down with you.
	That's exactly what I'm looking for.
	No, men actually do have standards, believe it or not.
	Just not for what they're going to have sex with.
	They have standards for their relationships.
	James says to Josh, without Freud psychology, it would still be pseudoscience.
	Freud brought the scientific method into the mainstream of psychology.
	How do you feel about that, Josh?
	That's so wrong.
	What, are you nuts?
	It's just like, yeah, well, this person had a dream and, you know, that must mean that they fancy their mother and they want to sleep with them.
	I mean, what's scientific about that?
	But it's the unfalsifiable nature of it as well, isn't it?
	So if you either agree with me or you're hiding it.
	And he also used, he relied on case studies where he was the sole interpreter of the case, and there are lots of cases where people more than likely had physical health conditions, they weren't even psychological to begin with, and he's just like, yeah, this is obviously a case of hysteria, which of course doesn't exist anymore, but...
	Yeah, his contribution to the concept of the unconscious mind is very important, so I don't want to demean all of it.
	There's still things of worth there, but to suggest he's a scientist is a horrible condemnation of all of science, and I don't want any association with him.
	Right, he says Freud was also one of the first psychologists to push for long-form analysis of patients rather than trying to lobotomise or just drug them up.
	I support that, though.
	Yeah, yeah, that's fair.
	There are good aspects of it, but not good practice now.
	Things have come a long way.
	Yep.
	Another one by Small Level Libertarian.
	So there are some good things and some bad things.
	Western Australian here.
	Our borders have been closed for 18 months.
	My income doubled.
	I'm so busy I've had to employ family members to get work done.
	The authoritarianism sucks, but the borders closed is going to buy my family a home.
	But that's the point, isn't it?
	If you don't allow in the world's poor to come and compete with your own poor, then your wages go up.
	It's just no question of it.
	Speak One's Mind says, After Biden's not tyrannical speech yesterday, it made me wonder there'll be any Western countries who aren't ruled by tyrants.
	To quote Biden's speech, it's not about personal choice, it's about protecting others.
	Remember, ladies and gentlemen, it's not your responsibility to protect others who are capable of protecting and looking after themselves.
	Yeah, I haven't actually seen Biden's speech yet, but I've seen the reaction to it, and...
	At one point he was apparently saying we're running out of patience with people who aren't vaccinated.
	That's scary.
	What are you going to do about it?
	That's like Goebbels level.
	We've only got so much patience.
	That is actually something more or less that Goebbels said.
	It just sounds like a threat.
	Anyway, NorthamptonianNight says, Just following on from yesterday's talk of robot rights.
	Wow, I didn't realise this was such a...
	You have to have contemplations on robot rights.
	You may recall that the robot humanoid Sophia was granted citizenship of Saudi Arabia and thus technically has human rights.
	Although Futurama made a joke of people preferring robots when Fry starts dating the robot with Lucy Liu.
	Yeah, but I think the Saudi men have just got suspect motivations for that.
	But yeah, I mean, I honestly reject robot rights.
	I'm telling you now.
	You'll regret it if you don't.
	Duffy says, a general question on the voting system since you brought it up.
	What's your opinion on the U.S. Electoral College?
	From a U.S. perspective, while flawed only by population density in certain states, having more weight is the system that prevents the absolute tyranny of the majority.
	Well, I agree with that completely.
	They were absolutely prescient to foresee that the coastal cities would boom in population.
	Leaving the farming hinterlands to be completely tyrannized by the cities, aka in the same way the Soviet Union Mao's China did.
	And the electoral college is preventing that, and so keep it.
	I think we're out of time.
	Thank you very much for watching.
	Is there anything we need to say?
	No, just sign up to lotuses.com if you want to support us, because that's how this is all bought and paid for.
	There's loads of great content on there.
	We've got Book Club, Epochs Contemplations, and various premium podcasts.
	I've got a really good premium podcast coming Monday, in fact.
	Talking about immigration to the UK, not even talking about the practical things like the wages and things like that.
	That's all kind of ancillary.
	Getting into the sort of nitty-gritty of what's happened to the people of the country because of mass immigration and rebutting a bunch of really prominent arguments.
	It's very in-depth.
	It's just me talking for about an hour, but I'm telling you, you're going to be very pleased with all the information I've got together there.

▲