Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 15, 2021 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:31:18

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #220

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast The Lotus Eaters for the 15th of September 2021.
	I'm joined by Carl.
	Hello!
	And today we're going to be talking about Andrew Niels Lee from GB News, Woke Millie's nuclear coup, because he actually did.
	It turns out that story gets way worse than I thought it would.
	And also the critical race theory propagandist being on defence.
	And lying about what critical race theory is.
	Yeah.
	Because when they admit it, they look terrible.
	They do.
	Anyway, some things to mention first on the website.
	The first thing here being the new article from Hugo about abolishing the COVID travel restrictions and how they're more trouble than they're worth.
	So go and check that out.
	Which is correct.
	At loadofseeders.com.
	Next thing is the premium video you did, the progressing to destruction.
	Yep.
	So the effects of mass immigration into the UK. Yeah.
	And demonstrably so.
	Yeah, there are lots of interesting effects and why they're allowed to continue happening under the Conservatives.
	I have some theories.
	Hmm.
	I mean, I saw the bit you did about the Cockneys, and it's just like, yeah, well, there is no ancestral homeland for them to go back to.
	No, that's where they were from.
	Cockney was a word that was first used by the Normans, like, 1300.
	Because I think, for me, they don't exist.
	Yeah.
	Like, they're kind of like a thing in a book.
	Well, that's the thing.
	When I was growing up, you go to London, you meet Cockneys, which is what you expect.
	And the thing is, I actually found the Cockney rhyming slang really annoying.
	I didn't like it.
	I didn't really like the Cockney accent.
	But at least they should be in London.
	You're dog and bone.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Can you Adam and Eve and stuff like this?
	Whatever.
	But I don't think they should be displaced from where they live because of mass immigration and rising rents.
	That is awful.
	I've just never seen them, especially in London.
	The only one I think I've met who spoke like that was Gammon, which is a friend of Simon's.
	I thought he was joking at first as well, so I was just like, that's not real.
	But one professor says that within 30 years they'll be completely gone.
	And that was 10 years ago.
	And they don't even live in London anymore, they live in Essex, and they're kind of becoming Essex-sized.
	So there's that.
	Go and check that out to learn about mass immigration.
	And Jesus Christ, it's...
	And that's an hour long.
	There's loads more in there as well.
	That's just the first five, ten minutes.
	What's that 4chan meme?
	It's just imagine if you knew how bad things really are.
	Yes.
	Yes.
	Essentially that.
	Going through how bad things really are.
	Yeah.
	So go and check that out.
	Next thing to mention is, of course, the live event.
	So we have some announcements we make on this.
	So the secret guest, number one, at least Leo, kind of blurted out yesterday.
	I don't know if you saw that.
	No, I didn't.
	But well done, Leo.
	He's like, secret guest?
	Yeah, I'm appearing there too.
	He's like, oh, fuck.
	Not so secret guest.
	Yeah, so Leo's the first one, and of course the last one being Andrew Lawrence.
	Yeah, I'm a big fan of Andrew Lawrence.
	Kept going to see his live shows.
	Took my wife, she thinks he's great.
	This is hilarious.
	So I'm really pleased with that.
	There was a great point by Leo yesterday as well.
	Like, you know the joke he got in trouble for?
	Like, his whole thing is he plays the character of the woke man, and literally he ran through woke logic.
	So it's like, even if he's in character there, then there's doubly nothing wrong.
	Yeah, I mean, could it be possible?
	I saw his clip.
	Could it be possible that the comedian was joking?
	Yes.
	I guess not, you know.
	Boy, apparently not.
	So anyway, the tickets for, I think it's Saturday, are sold out.
	But the Friday, where Andrew is going to be there, are still available.
	So go and get those.
	It's a big event.
	It's going to be good fun.
	It's in South London.
	The specific location will be given to you via email after buying the tickets.
	But further on.
	Last thing to mention, of course, the Zoom call.
	The Zoom call we do.
	Is that correct?
	Yeah.
	Yeah, the Zoom call we do.
	For the Gold Tier members, we'll be on Thursday this month.
	Last Thursday of the month, not the Friday, because of the live event.
	So, Thursday, we hang out.
	Gold Tiers, do come in.
	It's good fun.
	Yeah.
	Let's give it to Andrew Neal.
	So, Andrew Neal has left GB News.
	I'm not really very impressed, I have to say.
	And I've bitten my tongue about the way that Andrew Neal has comported himself during his leadership.
	Leadership of GB News.
	And now that he's left, I feel that I can rightfully criticise.
	Because I think, like other people, I'm very disappointed and this is not acceptable.
	So let's have a bit of a retrospect.
	What is GB News?
	GB News was meant to be an anti-woke answer to the BBC, a television station where they would be talking about things that are not politically correct, I assume.
	Although that was never really that clear because Andrew Neil, I don't know, he seems to have a very...
	He despises wokeness, but he also doesn't want to be normal.
	He seems to want to have this kind of weird, non-woke, elitist mindset.
	But anyway, so they launched on the 13th of July 2021, and apparently they had promised to deliver impartial journalism.
	The channel's director, John McAndrew, had previously worked for BBC Sky News, NBC and ITN, tweeting that it would be free, fair and impartial, as well as Ofcom regulated.
	And so, OK, OK, well, you know, I was quite excited for this.
	This sounds good.
	Piers Morgan had just left Good Morning Britain after...
	Being outwoked by someone, and so he was in discussions with Andrew Neal, and you think, okay, well, this is good.
	You've got an absolutely veteran broadcaster, you've got a veteran director, you get people like Piers Morgan on board.
	This is all starting to come together.
	They had £65 million worth of funding as their backers.
	This is all starting to come together.
	This could be something really, really good.
	But, you know...
	Didn't go brilliantly, did it?
	Because people instantly started saying, oh, this is going to be British Fox News.
	British Fox News!
	It'll be right-leaning!
	Okay, that sounds great.
	Wonderful.
	Let's hear it.
	And so Andrew Neal's like, no, no, no, it's not going to be British Fox News.
	God forbid.
	Oh, it's not going to be British Fox News.
	I have worked too long and hard to build up a journalistic reputation to consider going down that route.
	There will be a strong editorial charter written into everyone's contracts saying if they spread fake news and conspiracy theories, they will face disciplinary action.
	I don't think Fox News is just fake news and conspiracy theories.
	Why does he think that it is?
	And then, of course, he tweets out again, GB News will not be Fox News, but of course suits you to claim it.
	We don't care.
	It's like, okay, but what's wrong with being Fox News exactly?
	Because Fox News is the most successful TV news network in the entire West.
	I mean, there might be ones in China and India that have literally billions of people watching that are more successful.
	But in the Western English-speaking world, Fox News is by far the most successful, right?
	Like, literally millions of views.
	Now, of course, you wouldn't expect millions of viewers and one thing in Britain because we're a much smaller country than the United States.
	But, like, it's absolutely dominating all of its competitors.
	And Andrew Neal's saying, you know, we're not going to be like that.
	Why?
	Then we go, well, Fox News has done wrong there.
	No.
	Not been woke has been the main problem.
	But anyway, so GB News started quite well.
	They had good ratings to start with.
	They reached 3.7 million viewers in their first month compared to the BBC's 12.6 million, 8.4 million for Sky News, 4.6 million for Sky Sports News, according to the Broadcasters' Audience Research Board.
	I don't know how they come to these figures, and I don't know if they're unique viewing figures or not, or whatever.
	I don't know how these are...
	I've taken together, but let's just assume for the sake of argument that they're reasonably accurate.
	And so that was a fairly good start, you know, and on certain time slots they were beating out Sky News and BBC, and so good, good start.
	It was plagued by technical problems, though, which wasn't a good start.
	And these were really, really insufferable.
	I mean, like, they were embarrassing.
	Really, really cheap-sounding audio.
	We had constant, like, whining in the background.
	It was just insufferable to listen to.
	Bad quality mics.
	Bad lighting.
	Bad sets.
	Misspelled chyrons.
	Misbehaving graphics.
	Lost connections to remote guests and confusion among presenters.
	Okay.
	Don't get me wrong.
	On your first day, I could accept that, right?
	You're all new.
	We've all been there.
	We've all been there, right?
	Even though you guys have been literally, Andrew Neil's been literally doing this for 50 years, you know, the other members of the team apparently have been there for quite some time, you know, doing all this.
	They should have known what they're doing, but they obviously didn't spend the money on the tech team.
	But okay, we've all been there.
	It's all new.
	It's all confusing.
	Everyone has some time to settle in.
	But these errors persisted for literally weeks.
	I mean, still now, I'll listen to some GB News clips and they'll tune in the wrong microphone or something like that for a guest.
	And it's just like, what are you doing?
	You know, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's easy, but I am saying you're supposed to be professionals.
	But problems that should have been fixed in days took instead weeks.
	And they weren't fixed when Andrew Neil decided that after two weeks of being there, he was going to go on a break?
	Is that what the person, the leader, does?
	Just like, ooh, a bit of a rocky start, he admits.
	So I'm going away after two weeks.
	Two whole weeks.
	Having done eight episodes of his flagship show.
	I will admit it was a bit weird, but I suppose there must have been loads of stuff to do beforehand.
	You know, the setting up, all the rest of it.
	Maybe he was in charge of that.
	A bit weird?
	Yeah.
	A bit weird?
	He's not in there for a month?
	Yeah.
	Two weeks?
	It's embarrassing.
	So anyway, he took some time off.
	Colin Brazier stepped into his show.
	He was a Sky broadcaster, I think it was.
	And Andrew Neil puts on a brave face about this.
	In two short weeks, we've already built a loyal audience that has beaten our expectations.
	It's often bigger than the other news channels, and it's growing.
	So on behalf of GB News, I say to all of our viewers, thank you.
	We won't let you down, and you ain't seen nothing yet.
	Two months later...
	Everyone's wondering, well, where is Andrew Neil?
	Is he ever coming back?
	It's been two months, and he's done two weeks' worth of work.
	Where is he?
	What are his excuses for this?
	And so the...
	Everyone is watching as well.
	Andrew Neil's kind of like a Tucker Carlson, let's say.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, yeah.
	He was, like, the mainstream, non-woke broadcaster that everyone tuned into to watch on the BBC. He was huge.
	Massive.
	Like, he's...
	You know, it was under his, like, reputational leadership that GB News was being founded and brought together a bunch of people who people already knew.
	You know, there's very few, like, no-names that were attached to the GB News project.
	And so Andrew Neal, after two weeks, going, right, okay, good luck, guys, and then pissing off for two months.
	Just shocking, right?
	So, anyway...
	Thank you.
	He was expected to return to his 8pm show on the 6th of September.
	So it's like three months off he was taking, for some reason.
	Literally just after it had been started.
	But insiders were like, well, it's unlikely that he's going to return.
	Apparently he'd had a standoff of the channel's chief executive, Angelos Frangopoulos, because Angelos wanted to become more populist, and Andrew Neil wanted to maintain a kind of elitist veneer to it, or something like that.
	And these two apparently didn't get on, and so Anjaniel was like, right, I'm just not going to do the work.
	Is that okay?
	Weird.
	But anyway, so in his absence, he had begun GB News literally saying, we will not be taking the knee on GB News.
	Literally, we will not take the knee.
	And in his absence, well, one of the presenters decided to take the knee.
	And that caused their audience figures to absolutely collapse.
	It's unbelievable.
	I mean, I love Mercy's look of absolute disgust.
	Behind him, of this guy taking the knee, how could you do this?
	You know, there's expressly a woke gesture.
	We're an expressly anti-woke station.
	What are you doing?
	Yeah, but they did do the responsible thing and be like, well, get out now.
	They did fire him, yes.
	But again, like, imagine if Sky News, one of their presenters, was doing a Hitler salute or something.
	You'd be like, what are you doing?
	You know, it's like, well, yeah, we'd fired him.
	They'd say, yeah, of course you fired him, but why would they do that?
	You know, what did they think they were standing to gain?
	But anyway, so...
	This led to an audience boycott, which led them to have no measurable audience on certain shows.
	During the same time slot, BBC was getting 62,000 viewers and Sky News was getting 50,000 viewers.
	And so, with Neil in absentia and the viewing figures collapsing, they did the only thing they could do to save the channel, the station...
	No, it wasn't the channel.
	And bring Nigel Farage on.
	And just say, Nigel Farage did a brilliant job, right?
	His opening episode, fantastic.
	And the whole difference between the sort of showmanship and presentation between the other presenters and Farage was just night and day.
	A lot of the sets on GB News were absolutely awful, looking like some sort of high-flying London apartment or something.
	And it's like, that's not what you're looking for, is it?
	The aesthetic is a terrible aesthetic.
	So Nigel Farage has his well-lit studio, he's got his beer and pints as if he sat in a bar to interview people.
	It all looked very homely, it looked very good, but it looked clean and modern at the same time, and so he did a good job.
	And Farage was getting some serious viewing figures, something like 130,000 on his first day.
	So that's at least something that brings them back.
	And so Andrew Neil apparently doesn't like this because Andrew Neil didn't like Farage.
	This was, as the Guardian points out, considered him to be outflanked by Farage.
	Because Farage obviously being a populist, Andrew Neil being an elitist, has let him essentially come to loggerheads.
	So he made it clear, apparently, that he had little interest in working with Nigel Farage when he left the BBC to join GB News.
	And one year later, Neil is deciding whether to return from a two month holiday to a channel that in his absence has not only promoted Farage to be a star presenter, but is rebuilding much of its schedule in the image of the Brexit Party founder.
	So, well, yeah, that's a good thing.
	A, that's a good thing because he was bringing the numbers, but B, where did you go?
	It's also just the right politics.
	If you're going to make the opposite to the BBC, that's it.
	Yeah.
	That's the whole point.
	That's why you're doing this.
	I mean, Nigel Farage goes on Fox News fairly regularly.
	He campaigned with Donald Trump.
	If you are going to create a British Fox News, then you want Farage at the helm of that.
	He's a flagship presenter.
	Because, I mean, he is a great presenter as well.
	There's just no getting around it.
	He's very experienced.
	He worked on LBC. So, anyway...
	The Guardian can't not just talk about what Neil has done without making him look terrible.
	So far, Neil has hosted eight of the 41 episodes of his eponymous show.
	Yeah, just, that's terrible.
	It's embarrassing.
	As someone who set up his own media company, imagine if after two weeks I'd pissed off and left you to do it all yourself.
	Like, that would be awful.
	I'd be pretty mad.
	Yeah, of course you would.
	Rightfully so.
	It's awful that Andrew Neil has done this.
	It's such terrible leadership, right?
	And so he hadn't decided what to do, apparently, saying that the key dynamic is because of him and Farage.
	But a spokesman for Jim News said, oh, no, no, no.
	Because of populism, that's why.
	Anyway, so the point is, though, Farage is just one man and he can't do it all by himself, and so his ratings have dropped as well, but his ratings are still pretty good, to be honest.
	So, you know, they're complaining that, oh, well, he had 137,000 viewers on the first week or so of his...
	Which has gone down to 43,000.
	But, I mean, 43,000 is still comparable to the BBC and Sky.
	It's still in the same ballpark.
	I just wish they'd given him more time.
	Because, like, his discussion with Peter Hitchens was very interesting.
	Yeah.
	I wish they had more time to have that.
	But, I mean, he's the only thing left on there.
	I mean, it's not like Andrew Neil's getting any ratings on there.
	Not presenting his show.
	And so the question is, why is...
	GBNews doing badly.
	Now, I actually do think that one of the reasons is the kind of boringness of their shows.
	I actually don't watch them.
	And it's not that I don't like the BBC News presenters individually.
	There are lots of them I know personally I think are really nice people, good people.
	But I guess it's the problem when you have, like, literally a new channel and you've got all these shows brand new.
	You don't know what any of them are going to be like, whether any of them are going to stick or anything like that.
	And so, you know, some are going to fail and, you know, they need to start being innovative.
	But one of the reasons, I think, is that leftists have refused to go on there.
	So Owen Jones tweeted out, I keep being bombarded from requests by GB News producers to go on their show, go on their channel.
	Obviously, I say no or ignore.
	I've checked with other left-wing commentators, exactly the same story.
	As their audience collapses, they're looking to us to save them with outrage clicks.
	If we can get to the next one, John, just so you can see it.
	And so someone points out that's like, yeah, but you're saying, you're complaining that it's an echo chamber, so I won't go on.
	But it's an echo chamber because you won't go on.
	And if your message is clearly that strong, why wouldn't you go on?
	Yeah, surely you'd win in any domain.
	You'd just BTFO them.
	But of course you won't, because you know that it's not going to be a curated space for your sensibilities.
	Anyway, so things are not going well, and producers are leaving GB News.
	As the Times reports, three senior producers at GB News quit within days of each other last week.
	If you can scroll down, I can't remember the date of this one.
	It's only a couple of days ago, though.
	Yeah, so literally two days ago.
	So this is because of the station's increasingly populist agenda that polarizes those within the newsroom.
	What do you mean?
	What's polarizing about that?
	What do they think that they're doing at GB News?
	Like, this is meant to be the base station.
	That's the point.
	We're not woke.
	We're going to provide news and coverage that deals with the regular people's interests.
	It's literally how they framed it.
	But populism in our...
	What do you think that means?
	That's what that is.
	Some of the shows I have enjoyed.
	Especially, I don't have a TV, but when I'm done with my parents, I have a TV on or whatnot.
	I've seen some shows where Calvin Robinson does good.
	Andrew Doyle does very good, in my opinion.
	I really enjoy his stuff.
	I can't remember the guy, but there was an ex-BBC guy who did some good segments just chatting with Labour MPs.
	You can see the Labour MPs sweating bullets for the whole thing.
	But the idea that it being populist is a bad idea, what's the point in it if it's not?
	Yeah.
	What are you for?
	You know, with the old elitism, but we just don't want it to be woke.
	Who wants that?
	So that's the thing.
	I mean, this sounds like a good thing to me.
	Like, if all the people who are not populist are just going to purge themselves...
	Oh, don't get me wrong.
	It is.
	It's just, again...
	I'm very disappointed in Andrew Neal's leadership because, again, former BBC anchor Simon McCoy is also believed to be reconsidering his position there.
	And so what this boils down to is a lack of leadership means that people are jumping ship.
	I mean, we can see this in many other places, like in Afghanistan, where if the president runs away, why would anyone else stay?
	You know, and if the leader of the star presenter runs away, well, okay, you clearly don't have faith in your own creation.
	Was he ill or anything?
	No.
	Is he just old?
	Maybe.
	Like, I'm trying to think of reasons as to why.
	But he's not said that it's because I'm an old man.
	Yeah.
	I do find it strange to take a two-month holiday.
	I'm trying to find a reason for it.
	But the thing is, right, so GB News, and I'm trying to be kind about this, but it's not doing very well.
	It's been plagued with problems.
	If there was ever a time for a glorious return for Andrew Neil, it's now.
	Right now.
	But instead, Andrew Neil has left.
	What are you supposed to do then?
	Right, so the guy who set this up and left after two weeks, just isn't coming back.
	We can go to the next one, John.
	Andrew Neil has resigned as chairman and lead presenter of GB News just three months after helping to launch the channel, and he had only been there for eight weeks?
	No, no, ten weeks.
	He hadn't been there for ten weeks.
	He'd been there for two weeks, and then took ten weeks off.
	Unbelievable.
	The channel's three months old.
	What is he doing?
	This is embarrassing.
	What kind of work ethic is this?
	Oh, I couldn't take that there were technical problems and that leftists on Twitter were dunking on me.
	Then the problem is you, Andrew, right?
	Anyway, so he apparently will continue to contribute to GB News as a regular guest commentator.
	And in a statement, I mean, maybe this is him saying he's an old man, but he's saying, I've decided to reduce my commitments on a number of fronts.
	Over the summer, I've had time to reflect on my extensive portfolio of interests and decided it was time to cut back.
	Well, why did you cut back everything?
	Why don't you cut back everything other than GB News?
	Like, you've just started this project.
	It's three months old.
	And like, yeah, so I'm going to abandon that one.
	I don't know what else he does that's important.
	He's the chairman of the Spectator.
	He probably does a few other things.
	Okay.
	But like, you know, cut back on them.
	The Spectator's doing well.
	They clearly don't need you.
	You know, GB News is not doing well.
	They clearly need you.
	Anyway, he says, I wish GB News well and continue to fulfill its founding promise and mission to reach audiences currently underserved by existing news broadcasters.
	Yeah, that would be populism, Andrew.
	Those popular audiences that are underserved by the woke BBC. And of course he announced this on Twitter in the next one.
	It's official.
	I've resigned as chairman and lead presenter of Jimmy News.
	Just embarrassing.
	Because this then led to rightly earned dunking by leftist idiots.
	Like the next one, Jim Felton.
	Jim Felton is like one of the smallest brained leftists in the world, and he gets to say, oh, sad loss for the channel's zero viewers.
	It's a funny dunk.
	You earned that, and it was more liked than your original tweet.
	You earned this.
	The next one.
	After all the years of hard work you put into building up the name of GB News, you deserve this break, Andrew.
	Proud of you.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, yeah, absolutely.
	They're not wrong.
	That was an SNP, a member of the Scottish Parliament.
	Again, other people, you did a solid couple of weeks' work there, fella.
	Sorry to your cultural nonsense wasn't a success.
	Yeah, me too.
	Me too.
	But I mean, maybe if you'd done more than two weeks' worth of work, it would have got better.
	Who knows?
	And then, of course, people carried on.
	There goes the veneer of respectability.
	Now we'll watch GB News descend into the hate-spewing hellmouth we all knew it was destined to become.
	Step forward, Steve Bannon, Seb Gorka, Katie Hopkins, and all the other ghoulish far-right propagandists.
	Oh, come on!
	Come on, let's do it!
	The Steve Bannon and Seb Gorka episode's gonna be good.
	That'd be brilliant.
	Give Katie Hopkins...
	I look forward to Lord Voldemort's Sunday show.
	Wouldn't that be brilliant?
	I would love it.
	This is an underserved audience.
	Now, the elitists are being scythed off.
	I mean, I bet people would start watching.
	I mean, that's the thing.
	I don't feel like dunking on GB News or anything.
	I'm not saying you are.
	No, I'm dunking on Andrew Neal.
	Yeah, because this may very well be a good thing.
	If people in central London types who can't deal with Nigel Farage get over yourself, and if they can't, then they just leave.
	Well, okay, fine.
	Then everyone else is just going to carry on.
	Seriously, get Katie Hopkins.
	She's a good presenter.
	She's a very, very good speaker.
	Get Katie Hopkins.
	Get Tommy Robinson.
	Get all of those people who are not allowed on TV. Let them have their own show.
	See what happens.
	Just have them on as a guest, if not.
	Just for an episode, why not?
	Our long show.
	Tommy Robinson.
	Let's see what he has to say.
	Katie Hopkins, let's see what she has to say.
	Steve Bannon, I want it.
	And the thing is though, if the leftists aren't screeching, are you even doing your job?
	What is the point of doing anything if they're not screeching and howling like you're beating them with a stick?
	Anyway, carry on.
	Like, you know, people just like, you know, hilarious display.
	The meme, just start a news channel on cheap, get upset, run away.
	On the cheap.
	65 million is on the cheap, is it?
	Anyway, so what did we learn from this, right?
	We learned from this that leadership matters.
	Andrew.
	The absence of leadership can destroy even the most well-funded and best-equipped organizations.
	Andrew, you failed them.
	They didn't fail you.
	And we covered this question of leadership, in fact, in last week's epochs that you can go and see on lotusseeds.com, talking specifically in the context of the First Punic War.
	But it was as true then as it is now.
	This is just an eternal truth.
	Like Carthage, unbelievably well equipped, stacks of cash, brilliant talent.
	And yet the leadership of the Carthaginian state was terrible.
	And so what did they get?
	Well, they brought in one Spartan general and turned the entire war around.
	That's why.
	And this is just insufferable.
	This is a classic lesson of history that someone as well-educated as Andrew Neill should know.
	And it doesn't take much spine or backbone to just sit there and go, you know what, I just don't care what the rest of them are going to do.
	I'm just going to do my job and actually present the news as I said I was going to.
	I'm really annoyed about this.
	Really annoyed about it.
	I like in the chat's response to the idea of tea time with Tommy or something like that.
	But there is a good point, though.
	It'd be brilliant, wouldn't it?
	I mean, you don't even have to agree with these people, obviously.
	No, of course.
	You bring on Tommy, Katie, even Alex Jones or whatever, right?
	I mean, like, Piers Morgan did this.
	Yeah.
	You just have them on and then disagree with them if you disagree with them.
	Like, bring up a topic that you know you're going to disagree on if you're worried about optics or something, right?
	They'll be fascinating.
	And then, who cares?
	Like, the discussion still gets to be had.
	Yeah.
	And that's the interesting part and that's kind of the whole point.
	And woke leftists will screech about it all day, which means you're doing a good job.
	Yes.
	Anyway, I suppose we should move on there.
	Yeah.
	So let's go on to Woke Millie's nuclear coup.
	So, Woke Millie, for people who don't know who Woke Millie is, this is, of course, the general who is very woke, as people have been calling him, because he gave this statement after Trump had left, in which he was appearing before the House to talk about critical race theory, and as you can see, AG +, singing his praises here for saying, and I want to understand white rage, and I'm white.
	So him endorsing the premise there, that there's something of note here for military purposes.
	There's apparently a racial rage in white people, says General Millie.
	He said that that is what caused January 6th as well.
	He said this, not Critical Race Theory, which is why everyone is making fun of him.
	Rightfully so, in my opinion, because it's a bit stupid.
	Unbelievably stupid.
	Anyway, so we move on from this.
	What interesting thing is going on with him that I only recently found out about and is much worse than I thought it was...
	Is that there's some book coming out, and it makes some extraordinary claims.
	And for some reason, people are trying to claim this isn't the case, but we can just look back at the record, so get into this.
	So we look at CNN here.
	So CNN, not a friend of Trump.
	Can we get that down?
	We can officially confirm that that's true.
	Yeah.
	Not Trump's friend.
	And they decided to do a big promo of this book that's coming out, and they said, the guys are writing it, worried Trump could go rogue, Millie took secret action to protect nuclear weapons.
	And the guys who wrote this book are Washington Post journalists, so again, not big friends of Trump.
	Like, no one in this story who's alleging any of this is a big friend of Trump.
	But this makes Trump look very good, and it looks like he's been screwed over by Millie.
	Well, it looks like Millie has conducted a coup.
	Yeah, I mean, this is why I put stock in this not being false is because of the record and the fact that the people reporting that Milley did wrong are not friends of Trump.
	Anyway, so let's get into it.
	So they write in CNN, Two days after January 6th attack on the US Capitol, President Donald Trump's top military advisor, Joint Chiefs Chairman General Mark Milley, single-handedly took secret action to limit Trump from potentially ordering a dangerous military strike or launching nuclear weapons, according to Peril, a new book by legendary journalist Bob Woodman and Vetri.
	Veteran Washington Post reporter Robert Costa.
	How has he got the authority to subvert the president like that?
	Of course.
	That's why this is as bad as it gets.
	So Woodward and Costa write that Milley, deeply shaken by the assault, was certain that Trump had gone into a serious mental decline in the aftermath of the election, with Trump now all but manic, screaming at officials and conducting his own alternative reality about endless election conspiracies.
	Ah yes, the most...
	Pure and safe and confirmed, fortified, if you will, election possible.
	Milley worried that Trump could go rogue, the authors write, quote, You never know what the president's trigger point is, Milley told his senior staff, according to the book.
	And again, the way they get this is from statements or transcripts that have been requested.
	So the transcripts do exist as well for much of this.
	So that's why I'm putting stock in it.
	So in response, Milley took extraordinary action and called a secret meeting in his Pentagon office on January 8th, two days after, to review the process for military action, including launching nuclear weapons.
	Speaking to senior military officials in charge of the National Military Command Center, the Pentagon's war room, Milley instructed them not to take orders from anyone unless he was involved.
	Did he think that Trump was going to, like, nuke California or something?
	Apparently he's going to nuke Iran, is what Millie thinks.
	Or nuke China.
	Because...
	memes.
	Because, what, January the 6th, Capitol riot?
	Yeah, so he would nuke China because...
	win election again?
	I don't know.
	Question mark, question mark, profit.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	It doesn't make any goddamn sense, but of course the treasonous act in there being that he's instructing the senior military officials to go through him, not the commander-in-chief, the President of the United States, because he doesn't like the President of the United States.
	Amazing.
	I mean, literal treason, if this is true.
	So, apart from him, no matter what you are told, you do the procedure, you do the process, and I am part of that procedure, Millie told the officers according to the book.
	He then went around the room, looked each officer in the eye, and asked them to verbally confirm they understood.
	Got it, Millie asked according to the book.
	Yes, sir, was the response.
	Then Millie received a blunt phone call from the House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, according to the book.
	Woodward and Costa exclusively obtained a transcript of that call, during which Milley tried to reassure Pelosi that the nuclear weapons were safe.
	Pelosi pushed back.
	What I'm saying to you is that if they couldn't even stop him from assaulting on the Capitol, who even knows what else he could do?
	Because Nancy Pelosi is a lunatic.
	Are these people delusional?
	Yes, I mean, it's Nancy Pelosi.
	These are the people who then brought the impeachment trial against Trump on the idea that he called for it and he did the exact opposite.
	peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.
	Go home.
	Yeah, police didn't care for that.
	And is there anyone in charge at the White House who is doing anything but kissing his fat butt over all of this, Pelosi said.
	Pelosi continued, You know he's crazy.
	He's been crazy for a long time.
	Oh, that's rich.
	According to the book, Milley responded, Madam Speaker, I agree with you on everything.
	Also, I'm going to talk to you about white rage after this conversation.
	But also, Pelosi, a partisan actor, of course, saying that the president is crazy, and Milley, a man who is not meant to be partisan, is like, Yeah, I agree completely.
	That's why I'm subverting the president.
	Not allowed to do this.
	Mad.
	The authors write Milley was overseeing the mobilization of America's national security state without the knowledge of the American people or the rest of the world.
	And again, CNN writing the quote from this.
	The person specifically chose them, not Fox News, to make the point that this is not some partisan attack.
	No, this is black and white.
	So, we spoke about this before.
	Remember, we did an episode called Nancy's Nuclear Coup.
	Because we go to the next one, John.
	So, you can see that Nancy Pelosi, according to the New York Times, was the one who did the call.
	And they said that he called up an unnamed military official.
	Well, we now know the name.
	Ah, it was Millie.
	So, we go to the next one.
	This is the source on this.
	AP source.
	Pelosi tells Dems the top military official assured her steps are in place to prevent Trump nuclear launch.
	It's all coming together, isn't it?
	January 8th, 5.59pm.
	Huh.
	The top military official was Mark Milley.
	This is the thing.
	Like, I'm of more stock in this because we can trace back to the tweets on January 8th and the stories, and it matches up.
	Yeah.
	We continue.
	So if we go to 2017, we have Speaker Pelosi.
	Just wanted to mention that this is a person we should never respect in any of this regard.
	Speaker Pelosi, 2017.
	Our election was hijacked.
	There is no question.
	Congress has a duty to protect our democracy and follow the facts.
	But when Donald Trump says it, it's obviously wrong.
	Which is why he's banned from everything.
	And she's not.
	She carries on to be allowed on everything, because, of course.
	But if we go to the New York Times story about this, so this is the, again, at the time, the recording.
	So this is what we based our episode on because it was what was publicly available at the time.
	We then find out subsequently that actually, yes, this all took place and it was all Milley.
	Milley didn't even need Pelosi to call him to do it.
	He did it of his own volition.
	Really?
	That's the thing.
	So this is the New York Times reporting at the point.
	So in a phone call to Chairman Mark Milley, Mr. Pelosi appeared to be seeking to have the Pentagon leadership essentially remove Mr. Trump from his authorities as the commander-in-chief.
	That could be accomplished by ignoring the president's orders or slowing them by questioning whether they were issued legally.
	But Milley appears to have made no commitments.
	Not true.
	Now we know.
	Yes, he did.
	Short of the cabinet invoking the 25th Amendment or removing Mr. Trump through impeachment in the House and convicted in the Senate, it is unconstitutional to defy legal orders from the commander-in-chief.
	While military officials can refuse to carry out orders they view as illegal or slow the process by sending those orders for careful legal review, they cannot remove the president from the chain of command.
	That would amount to a military coup officially.
	Not true.
	Now we know.
	So Millie literally getting the other staff members around, having a secret meeting, saying, everything has to come through me to make sure that Trump can't issue these orders and can't carry them out.
	I mean, that is a coup.
	Yes.
	According in here, remember, at the time, to the New York Times, big fans of Trump.
	No.
	According to CNN, big fans of Trump?
	No.
	Like, these are people who are not fans of Trump, laying all this out in black and white.
	This guy is a lunatic.
	So it's treason then?
	This is just treason.
	I don't know what else to call it.
	And we can line up the story and the transcript that these guys say they have with the events that were already reported at the time and with the tweets around at the time.
	And it all locks in.
	So if we carry on from this, there is a defense that's been circling around from defenders of Millie.
	It's not very good.
	So, here we go.
	If you scroll up on this one, Pentagon officials, they released a defence saying General Milley did not try to insert himself in the chain of command regarding the launch of nuclear weapons.
	Well, one person's story's true.
	But he made sure everyone knew what their roles were and what they weren't.
	He was just saying what the legal proceedings are, I'm sure.
	They reviewed lawful launch procedures following Pelosi's phone call.
	Pelosi's phone call where she said, take him out of the chain of command.
	Yes.
	And we have the quote from Milley in response to saying the president is crazy.
	Milley saying, Ms.
	Pelosi, I agree with you.
	This is an obvious ball.
	So it continues, I am told that General Milley had two routine phone calls with his Chinese counterparts and more than a dozen calls with NATO allies after January 6th to reassure them that the US government was stable and to reassure China that the US did not plan a surprise attack in an effort to avoid misunderstandings.
	I mean, who thought that they did?
	Who thought there was a US surprise attack on China coming after January the 6th?
	Yeah.
	Now we're in a bit of a political turmoil.
	You know what's perfect now?
	Attack China.
	Yeah.
	Doesn't make any other three cents.
	Okay, whatever.
	So it gets much worse because you mentioned he called up China.
	Yeah.
	Pretty normal to actually call up your enemy sometimes and be like, yeah, we're not planning an attack to make sure that you don't end up with Cuban Missile Crisis.
	Yeah, sure.
	I mean, it can be necessary reasons to do it.
	So that first part of that statement, complete bull.
	Second part, there's some defense there.
	You call up your enemies to talk to them sometimes.
	There are reasons for it.
	I mean, technically China aren't enemies.
	Yeah, they are.
	No, no, no, no.
	Technically they're not.
	Yeah.
	And so, yeah, anyway.
	Yeah, so the quote from him is worse though.
	So we have the quote, and Tucker Carlson featured this on his show.
	General Lee, you and I have known each other for five years.
	Okay, so this is Millie reassuring him.
	Millie went on, if we're going to attack, I'm going to call you ahead of time.
	It's not going to appear as a surprise.
	Right.
	So if there was going to be a US attack on China, Millie would phone them up in advance to let them know.
	That's what he said to the Chinese.
	How gentlemanly.
	That's also, again, a subversion of the procedure.
	There's one thing calling them up to say, no, we're not going to attack you, we have no plans to.
	We are attacking you, here's when.
	Don't worry, I'll call you up when we're doing it, mate.
	That's mad.
	That's mad.
	Imagine, okay, we are going to invade Normandy, but we better phone Hitler first.
	Yeah, don't worry Hitler, I'll tell you.
	Yeah.
	Madness.
	So, Tucker described this as US military staff coordinated with Chinese military staff to undermine Trump's authority, and yeah, it seems to be true.
	How's he wrong?
	So, Trump's son made a response to this on Twitter, because Trump's not there, so Trump's son had to do it.
	The idea that Trump, who has devoted his presidency to ending war, would want war is ridiculous.
	If Milley thought that, he's a moron.
	If he didn't think that, but did what he said to have done anyway...
	He came way closer to a treasonous coup than anyone at the Capitol on January 6th.
	Absolutely true.
	Demonstrate.
	I mean, literally, he was like, yeah, the chain of command.
	I'm the Supreme Commander now.
	Everything comes through me.
	Look at me.
	I'm the commander.
	I'm the captain.
	Literally.
	That is why he's alleged to have taken place, and we have robbering evidence from the dates and subsequent that match up with that.
	I mean, is Millie just going to go and off himself now or something?
	How does he get out of this?
	Just insists that he didn't do nothing, like Biden.
	Because surely this goes to a trial now?
	Some sort of military tribunal?
	Who's going to make him do it?
	The party that's in charge of the United States?
	Well, yeah, of course.
	Of course it's not going to happen.
	Anyway, Trump has made a response to this, so if we go to the next one, there's an article on this on TheListies.com, in which Trump alleges that the guy's a moron and should be tried for treason.
	Right, I agree.
	The full statement is interesting, so I'm going to go through it, and I have some things to say about his response.
	So, Trump says, If the story of dumbass General Mark Milley, love it, the same leader who engineered the worst withdrawal from a country, Afghanistan, in US history, leaving behind many dead and wounded soldiers, many American citizens, and $85 billion worth of the newest and most sophisticated military equipment in the world, and our country's reputation is true, then I assume he would be tried for treason.
	Mm-hmm.
	In that he would have to be dealing with the Chinese counterpart behind the president's back and telling China that he would give them a notification of an attack.
	Can't do that!
	Exclamation point.
	The way Trump writes.
	But he continues.
	But he's right.
	Yeah, like everything about that, correct.
	But then his next bit is the interesting point.
	He decides to say that the story is fake news.
	The whole thing.
	Which is strange.
	So he says, Remember, I was the one who took down 100% of the ISIS caliphate.
	Millie said it couldn't be done.
	Why is he saying it fakes news?
	I don't know.
	That's a very strange flex.
	I don't really get it.
	Because the thing is, we have the tweets from the 8th.
	A, it appears to be real news.
	And B, it's really bad for the Democrats if it's real news.
	Like, this makes them look terrible.
	Yeah.
	The only thing I can think about this is, of all the things, Trump actually being responsible.
	I know, right?
	No!
	It's the fact that we're like, hmm, Trump's being responsible.
	He was good.
	Responsible in the sense of like, okay, this could help me politically, it's true, all the rest of it.
	But it's bad for the United States.
	Internationally, the United States' position should not be that we can be undermined by the Praetorian Guard of Mark Milley.
	The woke Praetorian Guard.
	Yes.
	God damn it.
	We're going to be like, yes, for white rage, kill the emperor.
	Anyway, so he continues with his last part of the statement.
	For the record, I have never thought of attacking China.
	Doubt.
	And China knows that.
	The people that fabricated the story are sick and demented, and the people who print it are just as bad.
	In fact, I am the only president in decades who didn't get the US into a war, a well-known fact that is seldom reported.
	Where's the lie?
	All glory to the Emperor for that.
	He does great work.
	And he prevented war in Syria.
	But I have a big doubt on his claim that it's all fake news.
	And I think it's him just being responsible and being like, yeah, I'm not going to let the international community think that we can be undermined.
	Trump's the most responsible adult in the room somehow.
	He's more responsible than Millie.
	And Pelosi.
	Yes.
	They were just like, yeah, let's just coup the United States because apparently they're doing it with some boomers in a hall.
	So we're going to do it for realsies.
	Just...
	I can't get over it.
	All I can think of is the guy who's just walking past, holding the lectern, waving.
	Melosi's like, give me the codes!
	It's literally what she did.
	Millie was like, no problem, I'll do it.
	What are you doing?
	Trump went on Newsmax to reiterate this point, but he did say that if it's true, then treason.
	It has to be treason.
	And absolutely true.
	And again, all of this, according to people that don't like Trump.
	People that dislike him.
	So...
	Well, imagine if Pelosi...
	I mean, it wouldn't happen because Biden's administration isn't going to do it.
	But in a sensible world, why wouldn't they be put in trial for this?
	Yes.
	But also, imagine the reverse.
	Like, let's say they just decide Joe Biden has dementia tomorrow, and the entire deep state is like, nah, we're the Praetorian Guard.
	We're in charge.
	Screw the Emperor.
	We're just not going to do what he says.
	It's ridiculous.
	And I thought we'd just end on this nice meme.
	So a lot of people are making memes about this.
	There's a nice one.
	General Melee.
	Inform your enemies of your attack plans.
	First part of the Art of War.
	Yes.
	Sun Tzu would be very proud.
	I actually do like the memes about the Art of War.
	Like, do you know the first line?
	Oh, yeah, yeah.
	All warfare is based in Deception.
	Deception, yeah.
	So you just shorten it.
	All warfare is based.
	True story.
	But Sun Tzu is right about that.
	Yeah, no, I'm having fun with that.
	But that is actually a horrible story.
	And if true, then...
	United States is screwed, man.
	Like, if there literally is a Praetorian Guard level of woke generals who just don't want to enact President Trump's orders, or any right-wing president's orders, because mafia will like it.
	I mean, why wouldn't they?
	You know, if someone like, you know, Josh Hawley got elected, someone who isn't Trump but is still a right-winger, would they be like, oh no, he's evil, we're not going to take his orders?
	Why not?
	What stops them?
	Yeah, so the idea that deep state is fake.
	No, deep state doesn't even do it justice.
	It's worse than everyone thought.
	Anyway, moving on, let's talk about how critical race theorists are lying about critical race theory, and I would know because I've read their goddamn Bible, all 500 pages of it, and I'm about, well, about two-thirds of the way through making my notes, and there'll be a big series of book clubs coming about this once I finish doing it all, which is why I'm having a book club so far this month, but I'll be quoting extensively from this, incidentally, in this conversation.
	Because it's important, right?
	So one really good example of how these serpents are just going to lie to your face and pretend like their ideology is not what it seems was actually on GB News.
	Well, I can't remember the name of the presenter, the blonde woman presenting on this, but it's really, really, like, I don't know, not embarrassing, but just like, it's like watching a snake and a mouse negotiate dinner, you know?
	And the mouse is just like, oh, what are we going to have?
	And the snake's like, I don't know.
	You know, what are we going to have?
	And so the host has no idea what the person is talking about.
	So let's play the first clip.
	Where do you stand on critical race theory?
	Is it sort of a necessary process that we must go through?
	Or do you see that perhaps it's being sort of diluted down into something that's become polarizing?
	So I think we have to be clear on the definition first and foremost.
	And obviously critical race theory ultimately is a study of law and infrastructures upon which racial inequality is based upon.
	And so it offers a set of approaches that allow us to understand the way in which racial unfairness has been interwoven into society.
	And so I think that it's an excellent opportunity to understand the legacy of racism and also I think it's an opportunity to gain a greater understanding of how the past informs the future and of course that in turn should allow us to intervene and find the necessary solutions in regards to combating racial disparities.
	That's not what critical race theory is.
	Again, that's like saying Nazism is just about resisting the influence of international finance on Germany.
	That's not what Nazism is.
	It's math.
	This is so underselling what critical race theory is.
	So again, according to Kimberley Crenshaw, who wrote the introduction to this, and gives us a really good summary of it, she says that critical theory is an attempt by, quote, a collection of neo-Marxist intellectuals, former New Left activists and ex-counterculturalists in law schools who have moved beyond vulgar Marxism in order to oppose the classical former New Left activists and ex-counterculturalists in law schools who have moved beyond vulgar Marxism in order to oppose
	Crenshaw tells us, with its explicit embrace of race consciousness, critical race theory aims to re-examine the terms by which race and racism have been negotiated in the American consciousness and recover and revitalize the radical tradition of race consciousness among African-Americans and other people of color.
	a tradition that was discarded when integration, assimilation, and the ideal of colorblindness became the official norms of racial enlightenment.
	It's race supremacy for non-white people.
	That's what it is.
	It's just about racial fairness, bro.
	Exactly.
	And so what this leads them to is being pro-segregation, because integration is a form of black genocide.
	They also want to return to the separate but equal doctrine, only they want society to be run by blacks and segregated by blacks.
	So it is just an inversion of the entire Democrat policy from the 20s.
	That's what it essentially boils down to.
	And it is expressly neo-Marxist.
	Gramscian, in fact, in their approach.
	And they're very clear about this.
	They're crystal clear about this.
	So there's nothing to do with racial unfairness, and it's not about racial disparities.
	Although, actually, no, you could say they are aiming for absolute equality between the races.
	But anyway, let's play the second clip.
	Do you think that taking something born in America and just directly transplanting it into a UK-centric debate actually works?
	I think English people are very quick to separate ourselves from America in regards to the history of colonialism and racism.
	And secondly, we tend to put racism into a homogenous box and we don't tend to deal with the actual details.
	And in actual fact, racism is Three distinct forms, institutionalized racism, overt racism and covert racism.
	As a society, we focus on overt racism and therefore we separate ourselves from America because America tends to exhibit the most forms of overt racism.
	But that does not negate the fact that racism is very much prevalent in this society.
	So I think it's really important to understand that we are all in this together.
	There is no separation in regards to racism.
	Racism manifests here just like it manifests in America.
	Right.
	Now, when she says racism, she's split it into three different forms.
	What she calls covert racism, they would also call institutional racism.
	Well, she actually uses the term.
	But what she's saying, and this is what the critical race theorists believe, is that all of our institutions, our governments, our universities, our legal systems, everything is a product of white racial consciousness.
	And white racial consciousness itself is a form of racism.
	For example, if you've got, I don't know, some African tribe, they have a racial consciousness, right?
	And so their tribal institutions are not the same as our institutions, and the distinction between them is the racism, right?
	So if you want what she would call white civilization, but we would call English civilization, that's a form of race consciousness to her.
	That itself is racist.
	Being English.
	Being English is racist, yeah.
	Yeah.
	She's lying.
	She's deceiving people.
	And again, the critical race theorists are explicit about this in all of their books.
	And just to be clear, we've got a link from the conversation.com, John, where we can see just historically that there is an obvious difference between the views of race in Britain and in America.
	This was when black servicemen during World War II came over to Britain and found that we didn't have Jim Crow.
	So why would you take a racial policy that was based on the idea that Jim Crow created a segregated and inferior two-tiered racial caste system and try and transplant it into a culture that didn't have that, right?
	Here are a few interesting quotes.
	A black servicemen were welcomed into the leisure time of their British hosts in a way that spread solidarity.
	former black gi remembers that at the time the jitterbug was in and the blacks would get bugging and the english just loved that they would go to the dance hall and they would just take over the place because everyone wanted to learn how to do that american dance the jitterbug they went wild over it the town did not share the u.s army segregationist attitudes according to the author anthony burghess who spent time in bambo bridge during the war when the u.s military authorities demanded that the town's pubs impose a color bar the landlords responded with signs that read black troops only to the extent where this this rankled
	the white american troops is shown by the comments of the lieutenant who said one thing i noticed here which i don't like is the fact that the english don't draw any color line The English must be pretty ignorant.
	I can't see how a white girl could associate with a negro.
	I mean, we had a world-spanning empire.
	We controlled most of Africa at this point.
	We know what black people are.
	We knew what black people were, and we didn't have segregation.
	Right.
	But anyway.
	I also love, there's a clip.
	I can't remember the name now, but I've shown you it before, which is the, I think it's like, Know Your Ally Britain?
	Yeah.
	And it's like, yeah, John Britain.
	And they go over and showing you how to eat in Britain and stuff like that.
	Like, you should accept the tea and drink it.
	Yeah.
	Stuff like this.
	And then they have a situation where a white or black American soldiers get on a train.
	They hang out with some white orderly lady.
	And she's like, oh, you come from Birmingham?
	I come from Birmingham too.
	You must come have tea at my place.
	And then the black guy walks off.
	And then the white guy looks into the camera and is like, listen, man, that's normal here.
	Black and a white talking.
	You can even still find the pamphlets.
	I was trying to find one, but I couldn't find it in time.
	Where literally they say, you know, things are actually different in Britain.
	And it's, you know, just when they invite the blacks back for tea, just understand that that's the sort of thing they do there because they're weird.
	But the point is, you can't just transcribe the historical oppression of blacks in the United States into Britain, because it just doesn't fit.
	It's not correct.
	Anyway, let's go to clip three.
	Why do you think, whenever people try and have a conversation about this, it has a tendency to regress into two warring factions, where there's one half the debate saying, I feel under attack, I'm not a racist, this is not a racist country, we must stop saying that about Great Britain.
	And then other people saying, well, you know, walk a day in my shoes.
	Experience things the way I've experienced things.
	And you were breaking the, you know, covert racism, institutional and overt.
	And I think that's a really valid point to make.
	Do you think that we can be reconciled?
	And how do we do that?
	Firstly, in regards to critical race theory, I think we should start at the heart of critical race theory.
	And I think that is more or less to do with the fact that Legislation has been implemented over decades and that is obviously in regards to combating racial discrimination and yet it is still persistent in this country and in America.
	So I think we really should focus on what lays at the heart of critical race fear as opposed to what I find in these types of conversations is people tend to take a very complicated subject such as CRT Which was obviously written by high-level academics,
	and they tend to reduce it to a set of headlining, grabbing kind of set of soundbites, such as blackness equals victimhood, white people are oppressors, and I think naturally if we lead with these types of soundbites, of course, we are going to alienate people.
	These are the core assumptions of critical race theory, though.
	How dare you simplify what we're saying out of the academic jargon?
	Well, not even that.
	The idea that critical race theorists don't think that white people are oppressing black people, if they didn't, none of this would be justified.
	That's the premise upon which it all rests.
	So saying, well, you know, we shouldn't just simplify that, but that's what you believe.
	And that's what underpins this whole thing.
	But as you can see, this, again, is just one of those, well, I mean, we still have racial laws here.
	No, we don't.
	No.
	We don't.
	Point to them.
	Yeah.
	I mean, America actually does.
	America actually has, the Supreme Court has categories of race and ways of determining race.
	We just don't have that here.
	And so bringing that over here is a foreign and invasive new thing.
	And she has to make it up.
	Well, we've got laws here that do that.
	No, we don't.
	We never have.
	We've got other laws that do class.
	I mean, if that's helpful, you can go back to the 16th century when a peasant wasn't allowed to talk to a noble or something.
	You know, that's a different kind of division, but it's not about race.
	But anyway, let's go for the last couple.
	This sort of conversation, the critical race theory conversation in the classroom, or should it be among adults only?
	I don't think racial prejudice or any type of prejudice...
	Kind of starts in adult life.
	It starts more or less as soon as you're born.
	You are consistently affected by everything, whether it's media, your family, your friends, your values.
	So I think having these conversations when you're young is important because we all deal with racism, whether you're 8 or 10 or 50.
	The entire structure of our society is racist to her because it is English, which means white to her.
	And this is not like, you know, she would have to make the same argument about, like, a Ugandan society being racist against white people because it's not white.
	And that's the way that they think.
	The values, your family...
	You know, just everything about your world is a form of racism until she is given full control over it to dismantle it at her leisure.
	And that's the entire point.
	They're very clear about the very nature of the critique is designed to change.
	It's an attack.
	It's a form of trying to rip the thing out and tear it apart from just the very pointing out.
	And this is why they focus on things like inequality.
	It's like, well no, tell me where you've been treated unfairly.
	How about that?
	You can't show me we've been treated unfairly.
	Tell me about how you've had your rights denied.
	You can't do that, because you're not having your rights denied.
	Because having material equality is not a right.
	It's not a guarantee.
	And nobody thinks that it is.
	Anyway, so yeah, you've got some examples of them teaching this.
	She just mentioned, like, yeah, they don't teach it in schools.
	It's like, okay, well, you can just go to the lips of TikTok because they do a great job of having this stuff.
	And this is just another one of these in which a teacher claims that encouraging students to behave is white supremacy.
	Like, literally, if you reinforce them behaving well, that's white culture.
	It is.
	I mean, that's what the Europeans do.
	They think that children should be behaving themselves.
	But as an integrationist, I think that everyone can do that.
	Anyone could do that, but he obviously is not an integrationist.
	I mean, the Chinese do that.
	He's standing in front of a flag that has the black and brown segregated out from the flag.
	Good point.
	So, yeah, what you expect.
	But also, just he admits he's an activist, even if this wasn't enough proof.
	So if we go to the next one, you can see him posting a bunch of stuff.
	And one of the best ones in here is that the only thing I want to teach, like, is an anti-bias, anti-racist, social justice-orientated educator.
	Right, so you're an activist.
	Yeah.
	That's what you do with all your life.
	So this is him going to teach critical race theory in the classroom.
	Okay.
	But anyway, let's play clip five.
	Do you think that in your lifetime you're going to live in a society where you feel that we've reached the end point, we've got to exactly where we need to be a society, the problems are now in the past, and we can all move forward, you know, in this sort of Martin Luther King, all of God's children, join hands and say we are all free.
	So naive.
	I just wanted to make a point with this one, which is just the host there knows nothing.
	Yeah, absolutely nothing.
	And the way she frames the entire thing as if critical race theory is legitimate was diluted, is the term she used, into this divisive thing.
	It's like, no, no, no, it's expressly divisive on purpose in order to overthrow Western liberal democracy because they view Western liberal democracy as a means of maintaining white supremacy.
	But also referencing Martin Luther King?
	Literally like the opening introduction, they say Martin Luther King is not what we want.
	No.
	They want segregation.
	They're expressly committed to this.
	That's Derek Bell, your reference, incidentally.
	Who, by the end of it, he's got an essay about three-quarters of the way through, where essentially he just throws up his hands and goes, oh, we'll never get our segregation.
	Also, segregation is genocide.
	Integration is genocide.
	Publicly sane person.
	Oh, he's mad.
	They're all mad.
	But anyway, so it's not just on GB News where critical race theory is being given a really easy ride for some reason, and I just can't understand it, because as I said, it is expressly about creating a black racial consciousness in order to oppose white people on the grounds that they're white, which means the culture, the civilization, the values, and their families, everything about what they think white people are has to be opposed.
	It's the anti-integrationist vision.
	This was on the YouTube channel Wisecrack, which I used to really like.
	And for some reason, they decided to go completely woke.
	And so they produced this video called Critical Race Theory.
	Why the controversy?
	And you'll see why in a second.
	Let's see what Kimberly Crenshaw, one of the founding scholars of CRT, has to say about the supposed Marxism behind her legal theory.
	Is critical race theory Marxism?
	Look, you know what?
	Here's the thing, Joy.
	Critical race theory is not so much a thing.
	It's a way of looking at a thing.
	It's a way of looking at race.
	It's a way of looking at why, after so many decades, centuries, actually...
	Since the emancipation, we have patterns of inequality that are enduring.
	They are stubborn.
	And the point of critical race theory originally was to think and talk about how law contributed to the subordinate status of African Americans, of indigenous people, and of an entire group of people who were coming to our shores Okay, well, there you go.
	Yeah, there's a lot of words for the word yes.
	That's what she's saying.
	Oh, it's about inequality.
	Okay, well then you're talking about communism.
	But the thing is, again...
	Just on the basis of race instead of class.
	Yes, but I'm going to quote from page 103.
	Oh, there we go.
	It's called Race Reform and Retrenchment, Transformation and Legitimation in Anti-Discrimination Law by Kimberly Williams Crenshaw.
	This is her writing.
	I'm going to quote to you directly.
	Right?
	So she is, in this essay, criticising Thomas Sowell, because Thomas Sowell's like, well, the civil rights movement has won.
	It's got to its end goal.
	You've got all the equal rights you need.
	Now it's up to you to get on with your lives.
	He thinks that the civil rights movement is, in fact, descending into fascism, which, racial fascism, he's right, right?
	And so his criticism is that visionaries have attempted to infuse the law with their own political interpretation, which believes that they're separate from an alien to the true meaning of civil rights, which I agree, it's negative rights.
	Crenshaw highlights what she believes to be the expansive and restrictive view of civil rights, and so the expansive view treats equality as the result, whereas the restrictive view treats equality as a process, as in the results being the communist end and the process being the liberal end.
	So she goes on what she calls the New Left Attack.
	Legal reforms cannot serve as a means for fundamentally restructuring society.
	Critical scholars derive their vision of legal ideology in part from the work of Antonio Gramsci, an Italian neo-Marxist theorist who developed an approach to understanding domination which transcends some of the limitations of traditional Marxist accounts.
	This is the process she's engaged in.
	She identifies that, and quotes, demands for change that do not reflect institutional logic will probably be effective, as in, if we don't couch it in liberal ideology, we won't be able to get through the barrier that will prevent the liberals saying, we're not going to do that because that's communist, right?
	And so this is a very covert way of beginning within the liberal framework and pushing Marxism through it, right?
	And so she is just an advocate for a self-conscious ideological struggle.
	Quote, As long as race consciousness thrives, blacks will often have to rely on rights rhetoric when it is necessary to protect their interests.
	But this of course holds back further progress because whites have rights as well.
	Right.
	She says optimally the destruction, the deconstruction of white racial consciousness might lead to a liberated future for both blacks and whites.
	And so to do this again, I don't agree that this is white racial consciousness.
	But she wants to deconstruct white racial consciousness, which she believes to be liberal democracy, and then construct black racial consciousness, which will be Gramscian Marxism.
	And this is somehow going to lead to, or might lead, to a liberated future for the pair of them?
	It's like, no, what you're going to do is create a supremacist black culture.
	That's what that is.
	And so she says she wants a Gramscian war of position.
	She says, "The most appropriate strategy for change in Western systems is from within liberalism itself, creating ideological and political crisis that reflects the institutional logic of the system." She says, "The challenge in such societies is to create a counter-hegemony by maneuvering within and expanding the dominant ideology to embrace the potential for change." So changing the definitions of what these words mean, which is why she was going at Thomas Sowell so hard, because he was like, "Well, from within the definitions we've got, the civil rights movement's over."
	And she's like, no, that's the restrictive definition.
	We need the expansive definition, man.
	And it's like, so the point is to destroy liberal democracy from within through the Gramsciist Marxist angle of attack by just changing the, expanding the definitions until they include that antonym, right?
	And so this is what Christopher Rufo has been talking about on Twitter.
	And, you know, all glory to Christopher Rufo for all of this, right?
	Because he points out that in The New Yorker, another critical race theorist called Patricia Williams, who wasn't important enough to make it into this, so I've not read her stuff yet, but rough.
	She accused him of definitional theft.
	The absolute irony.
	The absolute irony that these people who are like, yeah, what we're going to do is just redefine what civil rights mean to mean not things that are civil rights.
	That can include segregation.
	Yeah, that can include segregation.
	Literally separate but equal.
	Race consciousness for me but not for thee.
	It's just like, yeah, and that is not definitional theft.
	The irony, right?
	He says, the irony is too rich.
	The same people who believe in the infinite elasticity and social construction of language are mad that their techniques are being used against them.
	Sad.
	We have successfully, and so they give a quote from him here.
	And this is a great quote because everything that Rufo says here is true of critical race theory.
	They're just mad about it, right?
	He says, We have successfully, conservatives, have successfully frozen their brand critical race theory into the public conversation and are steadily driving up negative perceptions.
	We'll eventually turn it toxic as we've put all the various cultural insanities under that brand category.
	And that's fine because Kimberley Crenshaw is the person who coined the term in sectionality.
	Again, let me just remind you of which essay this was.
	Where's Kimberley Crenshaw?
	Kimberley Crenshaw.
	Mapping the margins.
	Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of colour.
	Page 357.
	It's in part six.
	The intersection of race and gender.
	That's where it comes from.
	Critical race theory.
	They are lying to you.
	All of them.
	Christopher Ufo is right about this, right?
	And so anyway...
	brand categories it's true he says accordingly critical race theory has been defined as black supremacist racism false history and the terrible apotheosis of wokeness true all true Everything about that's true.
	From the liberal's position, the colorblind, colorblind racism, colorblindness, by the way, is considered to be a racist, white supremacist form of view in the world, which it's not.
	But to the Marxists, it is.
	But anyway, this is all true.
	And so, yeah, Patricia Williams going, ah, this is a mischaracterization.
	It's definitional theft.
	Nonsense.
	And if we can get to the next one, Rufo explains her strategy on this.
	And there's nothing wrong with any of this, right?
	If we can get to the next tweet.
	Yep, that's one.
	He says, We're
	good to go.
	They're liberal democracies, am I right?
	Well, that's it.
	How dare they give us civil rights and freedom?
	And this is bad for black people.
	We need segregation.
	That's literally Derrick Bell's argument.
	It's mad.
	Anyway, so this is true.
	He's not lying.
	He's not mistaking it.
	He's not even taking it out of context or anything like that.
	And he says, to be clear, this isn't dishonest or inaccurate.
	It isn't creating a bogeyman.
	Critical race theory is the operating ideology behind a lot of policymaking from the Garden Variety internalised white supremacy seminar to the state governments employing positive discrimination to rectify disparate outcomes.
	All from Kimberley Crenshaw's own mouth, all from her own pen.
	Previously, these incidents seem to be disconnected to disparate phenomenon.
	Now we have given people a frame that explains where these policies come from and how they're justified.
	This also provides the central point of attack.
	You don't have to attack each incident individually.
	You can attack them at their theoretical foundation.
	Bravo, Christopher Uffo.
	Absolutely correct.
	And if you would like to know more about this, you can, of course, go and sign up to LowCities.com and check out our Conservatives' Guide to White Fragility.
	So we've got a video, which is like, I don't know, 45 minutes because I was giving it to the German Parliament for 30 minutes.
	But if you scroll down, John, you can see I've actually included the entire script, the essay that I've written about this.
	And you can just go down.
	It's because I did a big study on white fragility by Robin DiAngelo.
	Which is before I'd read this, and it's exactly the same thing.
	It's all the same thing.
	We can just summarize all of this as being critical race theory.
	Rufo's right.
	Kembley Crenshaw is lying and dodging the question.
	It is a neo-Marxist ideology, and it is here to overthrow integration and destroy liberal democracies.
	Not exaggerating anything about that.
	Let's go to the video comments.
	I can't hear anything.
	No, I can't hear anything either.
	In the same way it is for specific categories.
	If something isn't available in one of the categories, it can't be found except for in the latest trending or recommended.
	Let me know if I'm missing something.
	Also, search feature would be nice.
	Thanks.
	On another note, Carl, while not in such a stream this last weekend, it seemed like you said objective morality isn't possible or real.
	Can you elaborate?
	I can, but I'm not going to do it now.
	It's a long conversation.
	On the idea of search feature, I know that's in the recommended list for the updates to the website that need to be done.
	I don't do that, so I can't give you more than that.
	We will at some point in the next few months hire a web developer so we can have an internal web developer.
	We haven't got that yet.
	Let's go to the next one.
	I have really enjoyed watching and learning from the development of your positions, thinking, and the issues you consider important over the years, challenging my established positions at times.
	I never want to become unduly wed to a particular conclusion.
	That's why I listen to you and other folks from positions adjacent to my own, Because we are all finite and fallible, and I may just not have yet come across a pivotal piece of information or a compelling argument.
	I also share your love with the classics.
	If I remember correctly, Stoicism and the virtue ethics of Aristotle are among the primary progenitors of Dadism and your establishment of the glorious Keto-Sharia.
	Question.
	How would you go about concisely and comprehensively defining virtue?
	And what are the arguments that would have led you to this definition?
	I can't just give you a small answer to that either.
	I'll have to make a video on it, but I will do that.
	Sorry, moving on.
	Sargon, I'm not trying to argue the Mongolians are the most morally superior people in human history.
	I'm just trying to find an objective standard to appeal to people who don't already agree with us.
	Your answer of, ooh, that's icky, seems like a might-makes-right argument where you're saying it and it's all about community consensus.
	Now, I love Adam and Sitch, but that conversation is difficult to listen to.
	Yeah, I had a conversation with Adam afterwards, like, you know, offline.
	And I guess I, you know, we went through it clearly.
	He really was making the Mike Makes Right argument with morality.
	I want to sit in Adam's stream.
	And Adam was like, well, you know, essentially, if a moral system is propagating itself and succeeding, then it's the superior moral system.
	And it's like, no, because evil can win.
	That's why I had to bring up the point of the Mongols.
	It's like such a Vichy France position, where it's like, well, fascism BTF owed us, so we're fascists now.
	Well, yeah, and the Mongols are just some of the worst people who have ever lived, really.
	And they did some of the most awful things that have ever happened.
	They were one of the most successful groups of people ever.
	That doesn't validate the moral system, it just shows that evil can win.
	With France, there's a good example of that, though.
	AA's mentioned it before.
	You've got people who were, like, committed to the French Republic, and then they got beaten, so then they were committed to fascism, and then they were liberated, so then they were committed to democracy and good to Gaulism.
	And it's like, no, just because it's winning doesn't mean it's good, you eat it.
	No.
	I haven't seen the stream, though, so I don't know.
	I mean, I suppose it matters, so we've figured it out.
	I'm calling the VG French niddy there, not you, Adam.
	I don't know the stream.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Hey Lotus Eaters, Tony D and Little Joan here with another legend of the Pines, Batstow Village.
	Batstow is a historical site and was the former bog iron and glass making industrial center from 1766 to 1867.
	It was very important during the Revolutionary War.
	The bog iron was used to make cannonballs.
	Some of the villages were burned down, though, by the British who came in the South Jersey to specifically target the bog iron works.
	So we couldn't make our damn cannonballs.
	Damn you, Brits.
	That's what you get.
	Yeah, sounds perfectly reasonable.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Brent did nothing wrong yet again.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Good evening, gentlemen.
	I had a point of contention with a wrong take that you had on your podcast the other day.
	You see, I think it is good that we would indoctrinate our children into being based, because the reward is one day perhaps your son looks up to you and says, Father, you only adopted the based.
	I was born in it, molded by it.
	By the time I saw cringe, I was already a man.
	And isn't that the real prize of fatherhood?
	And all I'll say to my son at that day is, you're welcome, son.
	You're not going to be worried that he's going to turn into Anakin Skywalker?
	No.
	Become too based?
	No.
	For his own good?
	No.
	No?
	No.
	Because that's not based as cringe.
	No.
	We'll see where he has the highland.
	Yeah.
	Alright, let's go to the next one.
	In the news recently there's been a cut to Universal Credit.
	I've never once used unemployment.
	I never intend to use unemployment.
	I have been unemployed.
	I just did other things to make ends meet.
	I did odd jobs just to make ends meet.
	So what is your guys opinion on having Universal Credit or unemployment for people?
	You need it for those who can't work.
	That's number one.
	That's easy-peasy.
	Or disability benefits.
	Yeah, unfit for work is usually how we word it.
	You can have it as a safety net.
	That's useful.
	But to have it as the United States with the UBI or ridiculous amount, we can live off it.
	The way the Conservatives are like, we're going to have to limit it to £25,000 a year because the Labour had it with £500 for every kid you've got.
	Why are we incentivising them to have lots of kids if they don't even have jobs or families?
	They're not married.
	Honestly, I think that when the collapse comes, and the rebuilding has happened, the social scientists of the future will look back and go, right, that was probably part of the problem.
	Hate to say it.
	I saw this video of the Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu tournament and it sickens me.
	One person came to this tournament as an honourable duel of skill, the other person came to this tournament to cripple a guy's arm.
	This should be banned from any and all martial arts in tournaments specifically.
	If someone isn't as good as you and wants to tap out so you don't have their arm broken in an arm bar, let them.
	If someone wants to tap out because you've got them in a rear naked choke and doesn't want to die, let them tap out.
	Honestly, this removes all honour from this tournament, and it really should be banned from tournaments.
	I mean, I agree, but why do we have to keep seeing the guy getting his arm broken over and over again?
	I guess we'll move on.
	Yeah, I don't like watching people get their arms broken, but you are right.
	I disagree with that, I'd be like, yeah, break more arms.
	Hello chaps.
	Firstly, keep up the great work.
	And secondly, Orwellian doublethink is ever more pervasive.
	So how do we turn the tide and fight back?
	It greatly concerns me that we seem to be losing the war of words with the left, particularly the extremists.
	To quote a favourite film of mine, when men run out of words, they reach for their swords.
	I truly hope we do not see this happen.
	No, I think we will win the war of words.
	Eventually, the problem the left have is that they're consuming their own ability to defend their own position, right?
	You can see this with the trans, like we did the segment the other day, the trans activists destroying the feminists.
	The feminists are gone.
	There's no more feminists.
	There's trans LGBT activists.
	And you can't separate the T from the LGB for some reason.
	And so it's just, right, okay, I wonder what the next one will be.
	The next one will be.
	And it'll just continue to spiral down.
	And so basically, just do the right thing and continue to tell the truth, and we win.
	So I like the night.
	Did you make that yourself?
	Yeah, it's awesome.
	I'd like to know.
	More do you need to see?
	I'd like to live just long enough to be there when they cut off your head and stick in on a pike as a warning to the next ten generations that some favours come with too high a price.
	I would look up into your lifeless eyes and wave like this.
	Can you and your associates arrange that for me, Mr.
	Morton?
	I think we might have to disavow that juxtaposition of clips.
	Yeah, I think that's the Steve Ballin position, isn't it?
	Got him in trouble.
	Yeah.
	So this comment is in response to the video question the other day, saying that you should make your kids based instead of letting them discover baseness.
	Not everyone goes through this, but a lot of people have a youthful rebellion at some point in their lives, where they start to just rebel against many of the teachings of their parents.
	I believe this explains why Gen Z is one of the most conservative generations we've seen in a while, since, you know, the liberals dominate most everything in the media.
	They are the counterculture.
	So I worry if we make a conservative generation, it could end up backfiring.
	I fully admit that I could be wrong, and if needed I can explain in more detail in future comments.
	God, I love watching people make stuff.
	I'm just sitting there all day watching them make just shelves, drawers.
	I don't know why, but...
	Are you requesting a live stream?
	Maybe.
	Just the guy making those shelves.
	Yeah, yeah, maybe.
	I mean, literally, I'm down for it, but like...
	Right, so I've been thinking about this.
	There's a way to do it.
	Did you have a youth rebellion?
	Um...
	My parents didn't really indoctrinate me into anything, so there was nothing to rebel against.
	Yeah, I didn't feel like I was being told I had to do anything in particular.
	My youthful rebellion was just kind of dropping out of university, because I was like, I hate this.
	But the thing is, it was just, you know, Tony Blair's sort of like, there's a hole between my butt and shit, oh, too bad.
	You get to see my belly.
	Um...
	I don't know.
	I just went to university because I was supposed to.
	I've got to go and do a degree in computer science.
	But I hated computer science.
	But I could do it, so I was supposed to do it.
	But no, my parents weren't particularly ideological with me.
	I mean, I don't intend on being with my children.
	It's about value judgments.
	When they...
	When they're like, oh, what's right or wrong here?
	You tell them what right and wrong are, and then they'll learn that for themselves and take that on in the future.
	You don't need to give them ideological prescriptions or anything.
	When they ask you, what should I do?
	You tell them the right thing to do.
	And that will form their coherent worldview, I think.
	And that way, there's nothing for them to rebel against.
	They're just being well-guided and well-tutored.
	What's it called?
	Brought up properly?
	Yeah.
	Raised properly.
	Not brought up like a Marxist.
	Yeah.
	Well, that's the thing.
	We don't even think of that as indoctrination because it's just like, well, no, I want my kid to function.
	Yeah, just want them to have good values.
	Yeah.
	And they'll believe your values.
	I don't know about the Gen Z thing.
	I don't think they're going to be conservative.
	It seems for what I've seen, correct me if I'm wrong, is it's just whatever poll you look at.
	Sometimes poll makes them look racist.
	They can be more leftist than the millennials, so it's like...
	But anyway, let's go to the next one.
	Regarding theology, I'll restate that if you don't believe in God, it's pointless to consider theology.
	I do not expect any theological argument to be persuasive, as you have already rejected the necessary presupposition that God exists.
	I do not expect to reason you into faith, though I do believe that the Christian faith is a reasonable thing.
	Put another way, if I could use reason to convince you of God, then there would be no faith.
	But in all of his infinite wisdom, God demands faith of us.
	And so, I do not expect to convince you with reason.
	Yeah, I think the real problem that the conservatives have is actually, believe it or not, the commitment to God.
	Sorry, conservatives, I know that sounds weird, but like, there is plenty of moral good in what Jesus did, right?
	If you extract the moral lesson from his action, perfectly good action, it stands on its own.
	If you read Proverbs, there's plenty of good ancient wisdom in there that stands on its own.
	You don't need to then say, yeah, so God, God, God.
	That's not necessary.
	But there is sense and wisdom and decency that are in the things that Jesus did, or some things that Jesus did, and in various other parts of the Bible.
	Just extract them.
	And that's probably a more tempting way to at least get people to read what you're talking about, rather than browbeat them with, you have to believe about my vision of God and stuff like that.
	I don't know.
	With American Christians, the criticism that they talk about Jesus way too much is already there.
	They kind of treat Jesus like the Muslims treat Muhammad.
	Well, obviously.
	I mean, it is a religion.
	But the Muslims look weird to us, because they treat Muhammad like he's God, and it's like, I thought Allah was God.
	And also, Muhammad isn't exactly a good example.
	No, he's not either.
	At least Jesus is.
	I mean, it depends what you're looking for, isn't it?
	Well...
	If you're looking to be a warlord caliphate...
	Love thy neighbour?
	That's not harsh.
	It's not very warlord caliphate, though, is it?
	That's true, but I'm not looking to create a warlord caliphate.
	I don't want to have to murder entire villages of Jews.
	It's not very Islamic, are you?
	No, I know.
	Let's move on.
	It's quite Christian, though.
	In my last comment, I identified how people don't understand natural rights wrongly mischaracterizing the certain inalienable rights listed in the Declaration of Independence as divine mandate.
	Previously, religion, namely Christianity, has been the vanguard for these philosophical frameworks, instilling these principles into people, but the argument for these frameworks was not being maintained.
	I believe our predecessors have done us a great disservice by not teaching us the argument for good, moral, and philosophical frameworks like natural law and blackstone formulation.
	Now that the vanguard has diminished, the rotting foundation has been exposed, and this has allowed us to subversion of these principles.
	I couldn't hear a lot of that.
	No, me neither.
	It sounded like he was talking about how the idea of rights has been bastardised by the left.
	And now that the vanguard has disappeared, this is becoming apparent for what it is.
	If that's wrong, then...
	Sorry, I'll have to...
	Yeah, I think I remember from yesterday, he was talking about the idea that the Christians are essentially the vanguard for rights, in the same way that now you have the atheists rising up, and that's a bit of a doubtful, which as an atheist is hard to admit, but it's true.
	Well, I mean, it's fairly easy if we want to go back to negative rights to be able to give fairly coherent, sane justifications for all of this.
	Even from a naturalistic perspective, we can say, well, look, evolutionarily, we have ended up in a position where we have these natural abilities.
	These are our rights.
	It's not fair to take it away from one another arbitrarily.
	And so we should protect these because every single individual human benefits from that.
	And we don't need to do anything more than that.
	That's still a defensible position.
	then you get to the French Revolution position of, It doesn't lead us to the future, does it?
	Yeah, exactly.
	That's not progress, right?
	That's safety.
	That's security.
	That's conservative.
	Imagine having a society that worked.
	Yeah, exactly.
	That's conservative perspectives.
	But it doesn't guarantee that everyone lives in a house and has food.
	It guarantees they have the right to try those things and get them themselves.
	But again, different perspectives.
	Was that the last one?
	What more is there to wait for?
	What more do you need to see?
	Data about the long-term consequences of these injections.
	And is anyone to blame if something goes wrong?
	I want you to hold China accountable for their actions.
	Not going ahead with vaccine passports.
	Arrest Fauci.
	Huge, feckless, dementia-ridden, silly, stupid old fool.
	Go sniff a child.
	How about that?
	Come on, man!
	We've got to start putting these out on social media.
	Thank you, BeastApe.
	That's awesome.
	I think he has a YouTube channel as well.
	Excellent.
	Was that the last one?
	Here's the Wollongong Coast, everyone.
	Just out on a walk.
	Oh, look, they have bad weather in Australia, too.
	See, there's a rainbow out there because it's been raining a bit today.
	And I'm gone.
	I keep one in my pocket and I've run into a couple of cops while I'm out and they wear masks but I'm not and I just say hey how's it going they say oh hey how's it going mate so I think it's all right I think for the most part things are going good you sound like you're living in Nazi Germany though Yeah, I know.
	It's so weird.
	Yeah.
	It's like, yeah, I'm wearing blue jeans.
	They're banned.
	Yeah.
	You know, whatever.
	I mean, the cops didn't, you know, take me to the gulag today.
	Maybe they won't tomorrow.
	Yeah.
	Seems to be going all right.
	It's like, sorry.
	Like, it just, honestly, I'm sad to see it, man.
	It looks terrifying.
	That down behind self-sufficiency is that we see these massive supply chains, and not to say that they're not needed, are reliant on them, which is a huge problem when they break down, like we saw with COVID, if the states were still seeing shortages.
	But if there was another run on food, I would go for the raw materials to make the products that I need.
	In the end, it's about me being in the best position possible to do well in one of those types of disaster situations.
	So that's what the end goal is, just so that you have a better understanding of the point of self-sufficiency.
	All right, fair enough.
	I was wondering, you know, would she go as far as making food for herself?
	Well, it seems that she would.
	Yeah.
	I do like the defences, sorry, not defences, but like the weird kind of culture in America where they prep.
	Yeah, the prepper culture.
	Not just the like extreme preppers, but like there's a sponsor for the Daily Wire show, I forget, who sell like a year's worth of emergency food or something.
	I was like, you know, that's a cool sponsor to have, Ben.
	I mean, and when you're being governed by Joe Biden, maybe you think, well, actually, maybe I do need that.
	Well, a lot of people did.
	Yeah.
	There is a single election of a local candidate in each riding.
	The ballot has multiple security features and all of the ballots that are issued to the polling stations are accounted for.
	The ballots contain a signature of the deputy returning officer as well as a ballot number on a removable tab.
	When the voter has marked and refolded the ballot, they return it to the DRO, who verifies their own signature and the ballot number to ensure the ballot has not been switched.
	The DRO then removes the serial number and returns the ballot to the voter who drops it in the ballot box themselves.
	Not quite pottery shards, but...
	Nah, you know what you need?
	You just need a computer that counts it all up that can just be changed because there's numbers on a database.
	That's what you need.
	Safest with secure elections.
	Did they sign the pottery shards back in the day or not?
	Well, no.
	So you just pottery sharded them?
	Yeah.
	Because that's what the masons do, it's just balls.
	Yeah.
	Just a lot of balls.
	Yeah.
	Well, they're most balls and it's bigger than the other balls.
	Pottery shards have the name of the person on.
	Yeah.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Just finished the Bigfoot episode and thought I would show how big Canada really is.
	All of the UK would fit comfortably inside of British Columbia.
	BC has a population of 5.1 million compared to London's 8.9 million.
	London is 115 kilometers or 71 miles from Swindon.
	The closest city to me with more than 20,000 people is Prince George, 575 kilometers or 357 miles away.
	That's an eight-hour drive.
	I mean, it's literally like 600 miles from Land's End to John O'Groats.
	Like, so...
	Sure.
	This is what I'm saying.
	North America is massive.
	Massive, Callum.
	I'm not saying it's impossible.
	I'm saying it seems unlikely.
	That's good, because it's not impossible.
	When you say that, after we made that podcast, I found a clip of Jane Goodall saying that Bigfoot's totally possible.
	I was like, oh, she thinks so.
	You know, come on, what would you mean?
	I don't know who that is.
	She's the Gorillaz and the Mistwoman.
	Don't know.
	Oh, God, such a zoomer.
	Not enough for me.
	It is massive, though.
	Surely someone's going through Google Earth to look for Bigfoot.
	Because you can get quite close.
	Well, I mean, get on it.
	I mean, we did have a joke about us setting up a company trip to Anchorage or wherever it was, that little town that was terrorised by...
	Yeah, we'll do a part two because there are historical accounts that are amazing.
	I'm doing spoilers.
	That'll be in the part two.
	Terrorised by Bigfoot, that would suit his documentary.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Now all we need is to build a wall towards Germany and blow up the Brits that goes to Sweden, and I think Denmark is pretty sad, don't you?
	God, the Danes are sad.
	Say hello, Freya.
	The Danes have actually got a country and a government that aren't insane.
	Yeah.
	They keep doing sensible things.
	But they do have a bridge to Sweden, so...
	Yeah, but you can destroy a bridge either.
	Okay.
	It doesn't take much to blow up a bridge.
	But seriously, the Danes are doing amazing things.
	Migrants, we're not going to treat you like you're special.
	Get a job.
	I do have a question.
	It's kind of a weird one, but I think, what is it, especially Kohlstein?
	A little bit underneath Denmark.
	There used to be Denmark and then the Prussians took it.
	Are there any Danes still living there or not?
	Just a personal question.
	There's no way the Germans ethnically cleansed anyone.
	I'm just wondering.
	Anon says, GB News sounds like right-wing containment centre in all honesty instead of being a place where genuine dissent can be voiced.
	Well, maybe with the expulsion of Andrew Neil, something good can happen there.
	All right.
	Yeah, yeah.
	In fact, you're Robert Conquest.
	Oh, I forgot to mention it.
	Yeah, no, no, no.
	It's all right.
	Kobe says, any organization not explicitly right-wing, sooner or later becomes left-wing, which is like his third law or something like that.
	Also, book club, 50% done.
	Yeah.
	Thought I'd mention.
	Yeah, sorry.
	We will have a book club on this as well.
	It's just, you know, that's huge.
	GB News is anti-woke with that awful Rebecca Hudson, middle-class SJW, forever spouting woke tropes.
	Yeah, I know.
	I know.
	Cringeworthy.
	The Rebecca Hudson lady, I... I can't get over.
	Same as Tom Harwood.
	I know, but people who use the word global south, seriously, is always like a big red flag.
	Amongst all the other red flags there.
	Like Australia.
	New Zealand.
	No, it's like, yeah, the global south don't have all the resources we do.
	It's like, what the fuck is Australia then?
	Africa's full of resources.
	What are you talking about?
	It's South America.
	They like to use the term global south to replace third world, because they think third world doesn't sound right.
	It's like, well, you think global south...
	It's more accurate.
	Literally, Ricky Gervais did an amazing piece on this years ago, where they're like, you know, we've got to stop using the word cripple, because it's got negative connotations.
	And we'll use an acronym, it'll be SCOPE. And then he's just like, yeah, look at that scopey over there.
	He's like, oh no, and he scopes off on his work.
	It's like, whatever it is takes on the negative connotation of the thing you're describing, because the thing you're describing is negative.
	And it's such a stupid way of like, oh, we'll get around that.
	It's like, yeah, oh, the Global South, I don't want to go there.
	That's the third world, basically.
	Anyway.
	But anyway, Marianne says, Crensworthy, every time she speaks, more Mercy Maroki and Inaya Falarian Iman, please.
	Absolutely.
	Lord Nerovar says, GBN has been compromised from the beginning.
	Just look at Tom Harwood for proof of that.
	This may also be because of Ofcom.
	We don't really know, but Ofcom in the UK regulates TV and they require that it be a balanced program, which they never enforce on anyone else.
	but Jimmy News had to take that precaution.
	Andrew Neil's vision for Jimmy News is the vision of the Tories like Boris, not anti-elitist, just sparring with the progressive side of the elites.
	Remember that the Tories were never populist and they don't want to hear what the plebs think of their grand plans.
	They need Whigs to keep them grounded in liberalism but since Labour has become the main opposition, there's Think George Bush versus Trump.
	MC Mulder says is Andrew Neil being blackmailed after so many years of the BBC there must be enough dirt good point Anthony says, go on GB News, go on, why would you not?
	I don't really want to.
	Why?
	Because it caused trouble, and I don't really want to cause trouble.
	Okay.
	Everything's going very well at the moment, and I don't need the Eye of Sauron coming down on it.
	Who would you go on anyway?
	Just tell Tom Harwood he's wrong.
	Yeah.
	Define a woman, Tom.
	Anyone who identifies as a woman, that's not a definition, Tom.
	Idiot.
	Ty Buffett says, Yes, it's really insufferable.
	There's a total lack of leadership on his part and it's really embarrassing in my opinion.
	M1Ping says, I think we're out of time there.
	Sorry.
	Are we?
	We've got a minute left.
	We can do one for the last segment.
	There are people...
	None of them loaded on mine.
	God damn it.
	Technical issues.
	Oh, God.
	How dare I crystallize GB News?
	Base laptop over the Virgin tablet.
	Anyway, Shooting of History says, I want to ask them if they think Zimbabwe is racist against white people just to see the gymnastics in motion.
	South Africa.
	Zimbabwe already works for that, doesn't it?
	But South Africa, they're actively persecuting and bringing affirmative action for the majority.
	But it's the only place on Earth that's got affirmative action for the majority.
	And ironically, Trevor Phillips, you know him, he's argued for that in the UK right now because white boys are underperforming, so he's like, we need affirmative action for the majority of the UK. It's like, Trevor, couldn't we just drop the idea of affirmative action altogether?
	That's how we got in this press.
	Yeah.
	No, no, good point.
	Doesn't learn.
	Anyway, on that, we are out of time, so if you'd like more from us, go to lotuses.com.
	Please sign up to get access to all the premium content, and it also keeps the show running.
	And we're working on the book clubs, but that's where we're off.
	Tomorrow, one o'clock.

▲