Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 24, 2021 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:32:01

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #227

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters for the 24th of September 2021.
	I'm joined by Carl.
	Hello!
	And today we're going to be talking about OKCupid's Degenerate adverts, which they literally are Degenerate.
	Also, the Jedi are prophylactic.
	Yep.
	Hmm.
	Oh, they are.
	Yeah.
	Deeply.
	I just, I, the mob boys are looking at that, but okay.
	Anyway.
	So, also, the UK's establishment is to ban opposition.
	Now, I'm not talking opposition parties, I'm talking opposition candidates.
	It's like, if there is a candidate they don't like, you shouldn't be able to stand full stop.
	Oh my god.
	Anyway, wonderful.
	What a wonderful world we live in.
	Jess Phillips gets her will.
	Actually, yes.
	I'll save it for when we get into it.
	So first thing to mention, of course, is the stuff we have on the website, so the premium stuff.
	Yeah, I didn't think we'd do too much shilling today because we've been really busy.
	But we've got an interview with comedian Steve Hughes coming up.
	And we've also got a book club, a mini book club coming up, which is going to be Orwell's Shooting an Elephant and a couple of other essays, The Spike, and there was another one in this little book I got of it.
	So we're going to do that next week, just because the Critical Race Theory thing's just taking forever, because it's like a Bible.
	It's just unbelievable.
	This is done.
	Robert Conquest.
	Reflections on a Rabid Century.
	If anyone was reading along, we'll be doing that next week, presumably, as well.
	It'll all be done.
	I'll go to the last bit.
	His views on imperialism are fantastic.
	Interestingly, the opposite of George Orwell's views of imperialism.
	It'll be a good comparison.
	Yeah, it will.
	So go check out our book club.
	We've already got loads of book clubs on there, and they're all really good.
	And this is definitely the best content that we do.
	So worth backing us for, I would think.
	Last thing to mention, of course, is the live event, which we will be doing tonight.
	Tonight!
	Yes!
	We will see you in London!
	It's going to be fun.
	Yeah, so there's that.
	Callum's nervous, so be kind on him.
	I just haven't spoken publicly before.
	I know.
	Anyway, getting into the degenerates.
	I like the way you think this is in public.
	It's not really.
	It's not the same.
	So anyway, let's get into OkCupid's degenerate adverts.
	So OkCupid decided it would put some lovely adverts on the New York subway to advertise their wonderful platform, which is totally not full of whores.
	I don't know.
	I don't know.
	OkCupid, I just want to make fun of them here.
	Because, quite frankly, given the adverts, that's a fair impression.
	I would imagine.
	So, let's go to this first article here.
	So, this is from Rory, writing on LondonSeers.com.
	Women rips down pro-LGBTQ ads in New York subway.
	So, based queen, I think is how we're supposed to be describing that.
	Officially.
	So, the quote in here.
	The woman told fellow commuters that the images were, quote, propaganda designed to, quote, affect the next generation.
	Several passengers seemed to agree.
	And she was tearing down these pieces of paper, which have the general adverts on top.
	Good for her.
	There was a lot of this, like back and forth with the commuters and her just saying this is all degenerate crap and everyone was kind of in applause.
	They were like, yeah, this is weird.
	Not happy about this.
	Well, what were the adverts?
	I didn't actually see them.
	So before we get to the adverts, I'd like to set the stage for what the Islamo-leftist position is on adverts.
	Oh, okay.
	So let's go to the next one.
	So we'll have the BBC. Just want to make everyone remember this.
	I remember this.
	You remember this.
	So this is Sadiq Khan, the Islamo-leftist mayor of London, who decided that he would ban unhealthy or unrealistic body images.
	So if we can scroll down a little bit, John, just so we can see.
	That's the unhealthy or unrealistic body.
	That's not a degenerate picture.
	Now she is in a bikini, but that's about it.
	Not unusual for women in the summer when they're on beaches.
	Skinny.
	That's not unrealistic or unhealthy, because she is a real person and is a health nut.
	Yeah, I looked into this at the time.
	It turns out she's just a vegan.
	She stays slim by just controlling her diet.
	But apparently at the time, 378 fat people complained to the Transport for London.
	No, no, no, no.
	Come on, come on.
	378 fat feminists.
	Yes, to be more specific.
	Or is this?
	Because there was also the debate at the time whether or not CityCon was doing this for religious reasons.
	Should she be wearing a burqa?
	Yeah, so the watchdog investigated this and ruled it was not offensive or irresponsible, so...
	Women's bodies are not offensive.
	Official government watchdog.
	TFL commercial development director said, advertising on our network is unlike TV, online, and print media.
	Our customers cannot simply switch off or turn a page if an advertisement offends or upsets them, and we have a duty to ensure the copy we carry reflects that unique environment.
	Man, All I'm picturing is the soy wojak of a fat feminist crying, sat on the tube, with this picture of a normal-looking, more attractive woman sat in front of her, just crying hard.
	So if that's enough to be kicked, that's enough to get kicked from the lobby of being on the subway as an advert?
	I guess from the Islamofeminist position.
	Let's go back to OkCupid.
	So let's go to OkCupid's stuff here.
	And we'll just go through these images if you can click on them.
	And someone's saying this is unreal.
	So first one here.
	It's okay to choose Mr.
	Right based on how far he leans left.
	So literally promoting left-wing politics in OkCupid's advert.
	But also that you should pick your partners based on political swings.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, okay, so that's the first one.
	But hang on, before we move on, how ironic is this?
	Given the trend in left-wing female circles of saying those stupid sexy MAGA bros...
	Look at them with their big, hulking muscles.
	I can't stop thinking about them.
	You're going to get that feeling a lot, I think.
	A lot of this does come off as cope.
	It feels like cope.
	Date left-wing people.
	Date left-wing men because they're a bunch of lonely incels.
	What if I just don't want to?
	So let's go to the next one.
	So the next one is, it's okay to choose to only date someone who's pro-choice.
	This is propaganda.
	Yeah, it is propaganda.
	It is blatant, and it's blatantly political on a state-run medium here, being the New York subway.
	So we go to the next one here, the next image.
	It's okay to not date a man who won't vote for a woman.
	Ha!
	But then the reverse of that must be okay.
	It's okay to date a man who won't vote for a woman.
	Yeah, I love how they're still insulted about Hillary.
	Get stuffed.
	It's not her turn, I'm afraid.
	Yeah, so we'll go to the next one.
	Next link, because there's more of these, and they're endless.
	Here's another one.
	It's okay to have strong convictions and abandon them for a night.
	No, it's not.
	Okay, Cupid.
	That's not okay at all.
	Why would you say that?
	It doesn't make any sense.
	Well, yeah.
	I think it's, again, given the rest of the propaganda is about it's okay to date left-wingers, it's like right-wingers, please date left-wingers.
	Even though you're right-wing, just date a left-winger for once, please.
	No, what that is is trying to encourage women to have one-night stands.
	There's also that.
	But the irony of this is that it's not okay.
	That will happen.
	You will have strong convictions and you will be weak on them occasionally.
	And so you'll, you know, fail to live up to your own expectations of yourself.
	But that doesn't make it okay because the point is here to ameliorate the guilt that one feels for betraying their own convictions.
	You should feel that guilt.
	But also that you should have the same moral standard as Vorsch.
	That, you know, say things until they're inconvenient, and then just go for whatever gives you power.
	Good point.
	Because why not?
	Anyway, so go to the next one.
	There's also the weird sex ones.
	So you have this.
	So these were also on the subway.
	These are just clear images so we can see them.
	You have the one on the left here.
	Every single pansexual.
	And then it's two people, I suppose, sharing a...
	What is that?
	Chewing gum?
	Looks like it.
	Bubble gum?
	There we go.
	And then the one next to it, every single non-monogamous.
	And then it's like a portrait of...
	I don't know.
	It's meant to be, I think, like five people hugging over each other on a park bench.
	Just looks stupid, but yeah.
	Kind of having sex, I mean, by the lady with her head down there.
	But yeah, yeah, there's more of this.
	So if we keep going, so we go to the next one, we have the lady tearing them down, because she don't like them.
	Absolute queen.
	So she saw this stuff and was just going around tearing it carriage to carriage, being like, nope, this is degenerate propaganda, get out of here.
	I love the fact that nobody's, yeah, that's true.
	Yeah, well, we're not going to play the audio, but the audio was, everyone was kind of agreeing with her.
	Yeah.
	I mean...
	Or has she wrong?
	Yeah.
	I mean, even in New York, I imagine most people are like, oh, come on.
	Like, this is ridiculous.
	And it is.
	So let's keep going.
	So let's go to the next one.
	We have some more screenshots that I tried to take out of that footage.
	So if we click on the first one here, we've got the biggest tug in the world there.
	Gross.
	So it's got the word pansexual next to an image of presumably a black woman and a white woman, and the black woman's putting this humongous tongue into the throat of the white woman, and it really looks like Alien or something.
	Yeah, it looks gross.
	And also, a lot of people said it reminded them of the Stone Toss comic.
	You know, the one where it's like, they're kissing, all this might help us sell more burgers.
	Selling burgers!
	Yeah, again, I don't think this has to do with sign-ups to OKCupid, to be honest.
	It has to do with something else.
	So let's go to the next screenshot here.
	So you have a finger going through a hole in an apple.
	Okay, nice innuendo.
	Okay, whatever.
	Hang on, what a weird finger!
	I know.
	Look how long that finger is!
	It's like Alien again.
	It's not normal.
	Let's go to the next one.
	It's just another screenshot in there.
	You can see them, it's like, it's okay to date a feminist, and then there's much hands.
	More cope, isn't it?
	It's okay to date a feminist.
	Please do it.
	Yeah, so why aren't people?
	We've got to pull up adverts to convince people.
	Yeah, I know it's the MAGA guys don't feel like it's okay to date a Trump supporter.
	People already are.
	Not bothered with that.
	And then we go to the last one here.
	So this is just one more image for every single person.
	Okay, Cupid.
	I mean, that...
	Where's the limit?
	No, no, no.
	For every single person, as in single people should use IQ. That's the one example that's not degenerate.
	I have an inkling feeling in my head of the LGBTQ +, that might include a P at some point, in my head as well.
	I'm sure that that's true.
	But we'll give them the benefit of the doubt.
	But that, in and of itself, taken in abstract, there's nothing wrong with that.
	Also, that does disagree with their previous propaganda, though.
	What?
	That you should be monogamous and pansexual and all the rest of it.
	Sure, sure.
	But a single...
	Yeah, well, that's true.
	But in abstract, that itself is not objectionable for a dating site.
	That's the one thing.
	If they'd just chosen that, no one would care.
	No.
	But they didn't.
	So let's go to the last example here.
	So this is just the one on the left at the bottom here that says every single submissive was just the other one.
	And also every single introvert with...
	You know, it's openly sexual.
	That own one is gross.
	Yeah, I mean, look at it.
	Look at how long it is.
	It looks like something out of aliens.
	Imagine editing that and be like, yeah, this is a good idea.
	It's terrible.
	God, every single vaxxer.
	I have some unfortunate news for that lady who's going around tearing down the paper versions that are on the subways because they've also done digital ads because, of course, they have on the subway.
	So we go to the next one here.
	You can see some, like, screens up.
	This does remind me again, what was the video we did about everything looks like a post-apocalyptics?
	Oh, the cyberpunk future, yeah, here we are.
	Yeah, yeah, like that one on the left.
	It does...
	Every single vaxxer, and then it's the image of the alien tongue going into the white woman's throat.
	Which...
	It just feels very cyberpunk, doesn't it?
	Rightio.
	And it's not just OkCupid that are doing this kind of weirdo stuff.
	So we go to the next one here.
	This is one other she was tearing down, which is Dear Women, with some weird E, everywhere.
	We're starting a fashion revolution and would love, love for you to join us.
	Old Navy.
	And then body equality being the sign off there.
	So again, it's just leftist, stock, woke kind of...
	Revolution!
	I'm so sick of revolutions.
	Well, is this allowed?
	That's the question.
	Is this allowed?
	Because it's not just about whether or not you think it's degenerate, or you think it's leftist.
	Is this even legal, according to the authority in charge?
	So we go to the first one here, because apparently the Metropolitan Transport Authority, the state organisation that runs subways, has a long history with this debate.
	Because, of course, First Amendment, America, all the rest of it.
	So here we have the first one, which is from the ACLU back in the day, in which they actually defended freedom of speech.
	And on here, they took the MTA to court over adverts.
	So an advertisement featuring a photograph of a crowded subway car with the headline, With livestock, it's animal cruelty.
	With people, it's a morning commute.
	So making fun of the crap service.
	MTA stated it was rejecting the ad because the headline is directly adverse to the commercial interests of MTA.
	And that it's highly critical of the MTA's performance and its current mass transit services.
	Yeah, no S.
	I'm not going to put that one.
	Why?
	Because it makes us look bad!
	Yeah, but it was a First Amendment issue at the time, and they took it to court, and the ACLU won for the claimant.
	And the MTA today informed the ACLU and the United States District Judge Alan Schwartz that it would permit the ad to run.
	They had to run it.
	They ran an ad against their own commercial interests by force, because your state-run entity, your offer advertising, First Amendment, simple as.
	So are they going to make the same argument for these degenerate adverts?
	Well, no, because then everyone saw that and thought, well, that's funny.
	Imagine what I could put up.
	And they did.
	So let's go to the next one.
	There are some supporters of Israel, as they describe themselves.
	We put up some interesting adverts.
	So this one, they have a quote.
	In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man.
	Support Israel.
	Defeat jihad.
	Okay.
	I just love how brazen they're are.
	Why not?
	Yeah, First Amendment.
	Yeah, go for it.
	This was Pam Geller.
	She's now banned from entering the UK, I believe.
	She's on the banned list.
	You're banned for this.
	So the MTA is not permitted to block pro-Israeli group from running hateful anti-jihad ads on public buses according to the federal government yesterday.
	Oh yes, hateful anti-jihad.
	Yep, that's how this is described.
	If you can't be against suicide bombers, you're a hate-monger.
	So the ad, commissioned by pro-Israel activist Pamela Geller, they put activist in quotes because they don't like her, and her American Freedom Defense initiative were blocked by the MTA last year, after the authority argued that they might incite violence.
	Geller argued that the MTA's move was a violation of her free speech, and Judge John Cottle sided with her yesterday.
	Quote, it strains credulity to believe that New Yorkers would be incited to violence by ads that did not incite residents of Chicago and San Francisco to similar acts.
	So they'd already put them up in two other cities.
	They were like, look, New Yorkers aren't going to start killing people over some ad if this has already been proven that no one else cared about this.
	Especially when the ad is against the people who kill people.
	Yeah, but then they did one more, and this also went to court, and it also got through.
	So the ad they mention, the ad shows a man with a scarf across his face, next to the words, quote, Killing Jews is worship that draws us closer to Allah, attributed to Hamas MTV. Below it, it reads, quote, That's his jihad, what's yours?
	Again, pretty spicy.
	Yeah, that is very spicy.
	Go to the next link.
	Yeah.
	They put it up.
	They forced him to put it up.
	They put it on the buses, the metro.
	The thing is, have you ever seen any Palestinian TV? Yeah.
	That's the sort of thing they put on Palestinian TV. Not very PC. Let's put it that way.
	No, absolutely not.
	God, I just go look up memory TV points on the Jews.
	I mean, you don't even know it's a good Palestinian TV. Yeah, no, it's just...
	Endemic to the Middle East.
	But also, I look at that, and I must admit, there's a bit of me that's like, oh, that's freedom.
	That's a free country.
	Where you can put up stuff like this, and it's fine, and they literally can't do anything about it.
	And so, there's also the point in the United States, the First Amendment is supposed to be around political speech.
	Specifically.
	You know, that's the one that is most offended.
	And this is a form of political speech, as you could very easily see.
	But then where is political speech?
	Where does it end?
	When does it start?
	You know, is the OKCupid staff political speech?
	Obviously, right?
	So therefore, they should be allowed to do it because these guys are allowed to do it.
	Seems that way.
	Eww.
	Not really.
	Big new.
	Really?
	Why?
	Because after this, they got cold feet about people putting on whatever they wanted.
	Big surprise.
	Maybe there should be some limits to these things, who knows?
	Yeah, so we go to the next one.
	MTV votes to ban all political ads from subways and buses in response to Pam Geller doing whatever the hell they wanted.
	No political adverts at all for anyone.
	Quote here.
	Advertisements expressing viewpoint messages, regardless of the viewpoint being expressed, will no longer be accepted.
	That's a quote from the state.
	So how are the OkCupid ones allowed?
	That's the big question, isn't it?
	So they had a quote.
	We drew the line when we thought our customers, employees, and the public were in danger.
	The judge gave short shift to those concerns.
	They weren't in danger.
	Literally no one did anything.
	So, that's the point.
	However, he could argue with the GoKeyCupid ones, well, it didn't cite one lady to start tearing them down.
	So, I wonder what can happen.
	They have a quote from the ACLU in response to them banning all ads.
	"It is unconscionable that you are thinking of banning all political ads from the transit system," said Christopher Dunn.
	Pamela Guller should be totally free to call Muslims jihadis.
	Yeah.
	The ACLU.
	Yeah.
	It's not just freedom to do it.
	It's freedom to buy up government advertising space to do it.
	That's the debate, right?
	That's amazing.
	That's amazing that America used to be that free.
	Not anymore.
	Anyway, so they banned it.
	And I thought we'd just mention the ACLU because, I mean, doing interesting things back in the day.
	And I just had to insert this to remember that why you shouldn't support them is because they changed.
	Here you have the quote.
	ACLU, verified checkmark on Twitter.
	With Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death, we lost a champion for abortion and gender equality.
	Imagine being a champion for abortion.
	Weird thing.
	And on the anniversary of her death, the fight to protect abortion access is more urgent than ever.
	And then they have a quote here, in which you can see, if you scroll down, I'm not going to read the full thing, but you can see they have the words person and their.
	In square brackets, because they've replaced the word her, right?
	Her and woman.
	They removed the words from the quote and replaced them with gender-neutral ones because they didn't like what she said.
	Because Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a reactionary who thought that only women gave birth.
	Horrible turf.
	And they want to still claim her as part of the left, but of course it's inconvenient because she believed that women were women.
	So they've had to rewrite this.
	And that's another example of the ACLU's fall down into the rabbit hole of wokeism.
	But anyway, we'll leave that there.
	So then we go on from this, because you might argue, well, okay, the OkCupid one's not political, if you're an idiot, and for some reason you're going to argue it's about commercial attitudes or something.
	And, no, they also ban lewd things at the MTA. So here's a story in which they banned sex toys.
	And you can see that one on the left is kind of explicit, but the one on the right, not so explicit.
	I mean, it's really just a bunch of...
	I mean, it says toys for sex.
	If your six-year-old's reading that, Daddy, what's sex?
	You could argue that, but there's no big penis in the middle of it, like the one on the left.
	I guess.
	So if we have in there the quote, the MTA advertising policy prohibits any advertisement that promotes a sexually orientated business and advertisements for sex toys or devices for any gender fall within this category.
	See, I actually quite like the political adverts and I don't think they should be banned at all.
	I can totally understand the sexual one, of course, because children use the subway.
	And you don't want to sexualize children or expose them to sexual things because you're not a leftist man.
	And so I can understand this being, you know, I'm obviously a free speech extremist, but, you know, there are times and places and this isn't it.
	There's also a quote here, in enacting the ban, New York follows in the footsteps of Los Angeles, Chicago and Philadelphia, along with the political ban as well.
	So a lot of other state-run subways like, I don't want to get involved with this.
	The political ban I'm disappointed with though.
	No, I quite liked it.
	Wild West, go for it.
	That's true freedom.
	But that's the thing.
	So the reason I've laid that all out around the degenerate ads, because the degenerate ads are what you'd expect from leftists.
	But they're sexual.
	Degenerate and sexual in nature.
	But the interesting thing for me is looking at that with the context of the surrounding parts of MTA, the organization that runs it, which is state-run, and the arguments about free speech here, Because, of course, there's only two real acceptable points, which is that eBay have with the Wild West, which Pat and Geller can do interesting things, and the opposition can also do interesting things.
	God, that'd be funny, but they shut it down.
	And also, the other version, which is, of course, the Average Joe test, which is, what would the Average Joe make of this?
	Does he want his kids seeing it?
	In Britain, we call it, what is it, the Man on the Clapham Omnibus?
	Really?
	Is the phrase?
	It's just the Reasonable Person test, I thought it was called.
	What is a random guy thing?
	It's a tradition to pick something stupid like that because it's Britain.
	And you've got to pick one of them.
	Well, the MTA picked neither.
	They decided that they would just allow degenerate political stuff if it came from the left.
	Their own rules prohibit this sort of thing and they didn't care.
	So that woman there is actually enacting their own policy.
	So if she goes to court over this, just want her to be aware of that, if nothing else.
	You can argue in court, I was doing my duty as a citizen and making sure that these political ads and these sexual ads did not stay up because they're not meant to.
	What an absolute hero she was.
	Yeah, literally.
	By MTO's own policy as written.
	Let's move on.
	Anyway.
	Did you know the Jedi are problematic according to Scientific American?
	Scientific.
	Yes.
	We're talking about Jedi.
	Yes, for some reason.
	Radio.
	We'll explain why.
	But Scientific American have decided to publish this opinion piece by J.W. Harmon, Sarah E. Brownell, Anita Kenda-Hath, Susan Chong, W. Carson Bird.
	So this was a group effort.
	This piece, right?
	And I want you to remember that.
	Lots of people got around and were like, right, we're going to have to write the most Tumblr screed about Star Wars, against Star Wars, that we can possibly put together, and then that's going to be published by Scientific American.
	And this is the world we're in.
	So when I'm like, oh, look, the SJWs are taking over everything, we're going to be everywhere, and it's going to be non-stop, well, how much more prestigious a publication do they need to destroy with their ideology, right?
	So let's just begin, because...
	I'm not understanding this.
	The acronym JEDI has become a popular term for branding academic committees labelling STEM, science, technology, engineering, mathematics and medicine initiatives focused on social justice issues.
	Used in this context, JEDI stands for Justice, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion.
	You're hating it already, Callum?
	Yeah, God.
	I also hate there's a version of the word STEM there.
	Yeah.
	I don't know when the extra N gets...
	Where did medicine come from?
	I mean, sorry, medicine.
	I'm not trying to be rude to them, but...
	Anyway.
	Get out.
	Used in this context, Jedi, STEM, and blah, blah.
	In recent years, this acronym has been employed by a growing number of prominent institutions and organisations, including the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, At first glance, Jedi may seem to appear to be an elegant way to explicitly build justice into the more common formula of DEI, which is diversity, equity, and inclusion.
	Or how I would like to prefer it is diversity, inclusion, and then equity.
	Die.
	Productively shifting our ethical focus in the process.
	So, I hate everything about this, because this is just like moral bureaucracy at this point.
	They're like, yeah, but my framing, right?
	So carrying on, Jedi has these important affordances, but also inherits another notable set of meanings.
	It shares a name with the superheroic protagonists of the science fiction Star Wars franchise, the Jedi.
	Within the narrative world of Star Wars, to be a member of the Jedi is seemingly to be a paragon of goodness, a principled guardian of order and protector of the innocent.
	This set of pop cultural associations is one that some Jedi initiatives and advocates explicitly allude to.
	Well, why wouldn't they?
	As if the people doing this, the group of people who have written this article and who are trying to be the moral bureaucrats of the scientific world, how is it they don't think of themselves as the Jedi?
	I'm sorry, but the idea that the Dai people are protecting innocents?
	From their own perspective, we don't agree with them, but from their own perspective, they surely see themselves as paragons of goodness and principled guardians of order and protector of the innocent.
	They absolutely...
	The innocent being the marginalized.
	The order being the social justice order that they're imposing on everything.
	And that, in their view, is to be a paragon of goodness.
	That's a totally accurate representation of what they are.
	And which is why the Jedi, the SJWs of the Star Wars universe, just for anyone who's wondering, the Empire did nothing wrong and, you know, Palpatine maybe had a few points.
	But moving on from that, right...
	This is the core of their belief, I think, and I think it accurately is represented metaphorically by the Jedi, and they don't like that because they're like, well, hang on a second, because the Jedi are a religious cult?
	A hierarchical religious cult?
	It's like, yeah.
	Yes, they are.
	Doctor so-and-so.
	You know, doctor this, doctor that.
	You know, professor this.
	A hierarchical religious cult.
	Brown people studies.
	Exactly.
	Right?
	So they say, whether intentionally or not, the labels we choose for our justice-oriented initiatives open them up to a broader universe of associations, branding them with meaning.
	And in the case of Jedi, binding them to consumer brands.
	Ooh, no.
	Consumer brands.
	Through its connection with Star Wars, the name Jedi can inadvertently associate our justice work with stories and stereotypes that are a galaxy far, far away from the values of justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion.
	The question we must ask is whether the conversations started by these connections are ones we want to have.
	You can see where this is going already.
	You can see it.
	What they're talking about is the way that the philosophy is oriented is the Jedi are a kind of warrior-monk cult, and they don't want to think of themselves as a particular kind of culture.
	They want to think of themselves as a universal culture.
	Jedi also groomed kids into the Order.
	That's interesting.
	They did.
	Anakin Skywalker did nothing wrong.
	Maybe that's not the solution.
	Moving on.
	Obviously, we're not Empire sympathizers here.
	We're agnostic on the Star Wars universe because of what they've done to it.
	The Jedi are inappropriate mascots for social justice.
	Which is weird, because they seem like the perfect mascots for social justice.
	Moralizing busybodies who think they know better than everyone else.
	And who'll just attack those people who think the opposite of them, and are so tolerant that balance means eradicating the Sith.
	That's what balance to the Force.
	What do you mean?
	Well, we've got to kill all the Sith.
	And what, we'll have balance then?
	That's not balance.
	No, that very much leftist dogma.
	Exactly!
	Once we just kill this group of people, everything will be solved.
	Exactly.
	This is exactly...
	The Jedi are the perfect mascots for these people, right?
	They say, although they're ostensibly heroes within the Star Wars universe, the Jedi are inappropriate symbols for just this work.
	They are a religious order of intergalactic police monks prone to white saviourism, toxically masculine approaches to conflict resolution, violent duels with phallic lightsabers, gaslighting by means of Jedi mind tricks, etc.
	That's what you'll do, apart from the phallic symbol, like, lightsaber fight.
	The labor rainbow dildo monkey.
	Basically, yes.
	But no, like everything else, like the gaslighting by means of Jedi mind tricks, as in changing the language.
	Oh, you're against racism, that must mean you want to tear down structures and systems and blah blah blah.
	It's like, no, that's not what anyone meant.
	And I love the prone to white saviourism.
	Oh yeah, like you guys aren't.
	You know, like the insufferable white, you know, what do they call them in China?
	There's a Baizu?
	Basically, I think it's great.
	Yeah, white left.
	You know, that's what they are.
	And that's what everyone else views you as, because you're a bunch of insufferable, upper-class white leftists who are taking on the tones of a religious order of international police monks who have come to save everything.
	I love how the chat's like, what are they talking about a laser dildo?
	Well, that's the only thing that they're missing, actually, is violent duels with phallic lightsabers.
	I love that the lightsabers are phallic now, are they?
	Really?
	No one thought that.
	No one thought that.
	Six foot long?
	It's a laser sword.
	Saints Row, maybe?
	It burns through walls.
	Like, no one's like, oh, phallic.
	You know, anyway.
	So they carry on.
	The Jedi are also an exclusionary cult.
	Yes.
	Where have I seen exclusionary cults before?
	or social justice, right?
	Membership to which is partly predicated on the possession of heightened psychic and physical abilities, force sensitivity.
	Strikingly, force-wielding talents are narratively explained in Star Wars, not merely in spiritual terms, but also in ableist and eugenic ones.
	These superpowers are naturalized as biological hereditary attributes.
	And if there's one thing we can't have, it's biological hereditary attributes.
	That would be awful.
	It speaks of hierarchy, intrinsic differences.
	They're trying to erase the concept of differences between humans, and therefore you can't have that.
	That's terrible.
	And there's no difference between any humans.
	Everywhere.
	Ever.
	Everything is open to every human, Callum.
	You have to understand.
	So it is that force potential is framed as a dynastic property of noble bloodlines, for example the Skywalker dynasty, and force disparities are rendered innate physical properties, measurable via mid-chlorian counts, not unlike a force genetics test, and argumentable via humanoid engineering, the heroic Jedi are thus emblems for a host of dangerously reactionary values and assumptions.
	I love this.
	The Jedi are dangerously reactionary.
	They're very traditionalists, aren't they?
	I mean, let's be fair.
	Sorry, you're going to 180 on your position on the Jedi by the end of this.
	No, no, no, but they're traditionalists too.
	The social justice wars have traditions.
	This is part of it.
	Yeah, they're terrible.
	Yeah, exactly.
	They're awful.
	Just like the Jedi was.
	Sending the message that the justice work is akin to cosplay is bad enough.
	Dressing up our initiative in the symbolic garb of the Jedi is worse.
	So, I love this, because what they're doing is, once again, outing themselves as being exactly like the Jedi, right?
	The Jedi are a chosen few of moral elites who get to establish a world order.
	What are you doing?
	What do you think you're doing?
	And they'll say, well, the only difference is the Jedi have it thrust upon them by narrative fate, rather than being ostensibly something every individual chooses.
	But they also do subvert the Galactic Senate.
	Sure.
	And all the governments of the world are being subverted by leftists.
	Yes.
	It's exactly the same.
	We vote base, and yet we still get cringe.
	Yes.
	Anyway, carry on.
	So is it so different?
	Because they're talking about, well, it's hereditable.
	You inherited this.
	You need a particular level of midichlorian count to be a Jedi.
	But to be one of the moral scientific elite, you need a certain high IQ. You need a certain inheritance.
	Because it turns out, and this is not a secret by any means, high IQ is in many ways a biological privilege.
	Now, of course, your IQ is affected by your environment, but your sort of maximum capacity is innate, it seems.
	Science has discovered.
	So the big brain people have realized that, oh my god, actually, this is like my midichlorian count.
	It's not so very different at all.
	It is not available to everyone because of their genetics.
	Some people just don't have the capacity to have a high IQ and therefore can't join the moral and scientific elite who are currently setting the world order and infiltrating all of these establishments.
	And again, this is not secret.
	This has been known about for years.
	I mean, this is just one article that's talking about it.
	You can go to the IFL Science one where they're like, oh, but this is controversial because they're leftists.
	And they're like, wait a minute.
	If my big brain IQ is linked to my biological inheritance from my parents, that means that some people don't have big brain IQ. And then they start...
	And they're like, yeah, but I'm a racist, and so I think in racial terms.
	So that implies...
	And it's like, oh, God, right now, that's controversial.
	We're not going to talk about that.
	But the thing is, there's no doubt about it.
	There's this woman called Catherine Page...
	Can you go to the next one, John?
	I didn't write down her name.
	Catherine Page Harden, right?
	Who, she's just found...
	Studies show that this correlates to how well you succeed in life.
	How far you go in school is correlated to your educational, your IQ is correlated to your educational success, right?
	So going back to the Jedi article, what this means is that the scientific and ethical managerial class are a lot closer to being Jedi's than they're willing to admit.
	It's not just a vocation that's open to everyone.
	There are biological barriers that they dare not admit to themselves.
	There is still a narrative of fate interwoven into what they're doing.
	And they just want to pretend that there isn't because it's offensive to the moral values they are trying to assert as being superior to the Jedi, when in fact they are exactly the same.
	It's amazing how well this all lines up.
	So anyway, any thoughts on that with that?
	No, not really.
	I'm just thinking in my mind of which SJW character to mix and which character of the Jedi.
	Feel free to, in the comments, start pointing out which ones actually represent which.
	Mace Windu didn't have any hair, but he did have a purple lightsaber.
	Good point.
	Anyway, returning to the article, Star Wars has a problematic cultural legacy.
	The space opera franchise has been critiqued for trafficking in injustices such as sexism, racism and ableism.
	Think, for example, of the so-called Slave Leia costume, infamous for stripping down and chaining up the movie's leading woman as a part of an Orientalist subplot.
	Nah, I didn't really think about that, to be honest.
	I've got better things to do with my day.
	Sorry, they're claiming the pirates of the galaxy are going to be civilised.
	Well, they're sexist.
	Yeah, but like, the idea that they would be not.
	It's problematic.
	Right.
	Star Wars arguably conflates alien-ness with non-whiteness.
	I didn't think that.
	When Lando Calrissian walked in, I wasn't like, oh, an alien.
	He's human.
	They did, but okay.
	But, you know.
	He's the one black guy in the galaxy.
	I mean, yeah, but I still assumed he was a human.
	Yeah.
	Like, anyway, often seem to rely on racist stereotypes when depicting non-human species.
	Right.
	Yes.
	Exploring the harsher aspects of humanity and the human experience through fiction is deeply problematic and definitely not fun at all.
	And not, you know, in many ways cathartic and makes for a good story.
	The series regularly defaults into ableist tropes memorably in its portrayal of Darth Vader, which links the villain's physical disability with the mechanic inhumanity and moral deviance, presenting his technology-assisted breathing as sinister auditory marker of danger and doom.
	That's interesting, isn't it?
	Because it's actually the other way around.
	How did Darth Vader end up to be crippled, requiring his breathing apparatus?
	Do you remember?
	Yeah.
	What happened?
	He didn't have the high ground.
	Exactly.
	But why was he fighting Obi-Wan Kenobi?
	Because he murdered a bunch of kids.
	Yes!
	Yes, his moral deviance led to his disabilities, led to his terrible degenerate state, where he requires technology to assist him.
	Obi-Wan Kenobi didn't go down that road and didn't get all his limbs chopped off.
	Isn't it interesting how they've got this completely the wrong way round?
	What's more, the bodies and voices centered in the Star Wars universe have, with a few exceptions, historically been those of white men.
	Oh, bloody hell.
	And while recent...
	I mean, it's full of aliens, but okay, fine, whatever.
	Jabba the Hutt.
	Yeah.
	Yoda.
	Man.
	White man.
	You know, like, okay, whatever you say.
	Just this full of alien races, you lunatics.
	While recent films have increased gender and racial diversity, important questions remain regarding how meaningfully such changes represent a departure from the series' problematic past.
	Right, so the J.J. Abrams, Kathleen Kennedy Star Wars are still racist and are still problematic, even though they feature far fewer straight white men.
	Bad luck, lads.
	Well, I tell it's 100% diverse, isn't it?
	Good point.
	Good point.
	So what we're looking for, black, transgender, disabled, trans women?
	Yeah, and a few hundred of them to make the film.
	Yeah, I mean, there probably aren't that many of them in existence.
	Anyway, indeed, a notable segment of the Star Wars fandom has aggressively advocated the re-centering of white men in the franchise with some recently casting decisions with white genocide, equating cast decisions with white genocide.
	I doubt it.
	I mean, I notice they don't give us any examples of this.
	It's mostly to do with the bad writing.
	Yes.
	Like, the Mary Sue example.
	Yes.
	But that's the thing, though, right?
	They don't give us any examples, because I don't think there are any examples of...
	I mean, actually, they do give an example.
	I didn't click on it.
	But I don't think that matters, right?
	Yeah.
	Because what this is, is they think that they're consciously removing white people from something, and therefore that could be framed in such a manner as to say, oh, this is white genocide, and therefore the potential for this is proof enough that there must be someone who exists there somewhere who thinks that, therefore that's what we're going to cast as.
	Anyway, additionally, the franchise's cultural footprint can be tracked in the saga of the United States' military industrial investment and expansion, from debates around Reagan's Star Wars Strategic Defense Initiative to the planned Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure, another Jedi program, sometimes winkingly framed with Star Wars illusions.
	Yeah, acting like that's wrong.
	Jedi connects Justice Initiative to corporate capital.
	They go on to whine about Disney, Don't get me wrong, I hate Disney as much as the next normal human being, but this is incredibly reductionist, right?
	Because they say, well look, it's more than...
	Jedi is more than just a name, it's a product.
	It's like, yeah, but you're reducing it to just a product by saying it's more than just a name, it's a product.
	You've reduced it to just being the product.
	And what's interesting is actually quite a foundational mythology of 20th century Western entertainment.
	Like, Star Wars is, like, everywhere.
	Everyone knows Star Wars.
	Everyone knows the story.
	Like, I don't think I've ever actually watched one of the original Star Wars films from end to end.
	I think I've always got, you know, interrupted halfway or something.
	And yet I still know exactly what happens in all of them, in the same way that, like, you know, the average Greek boy probably knew all the advantages of Hercules, you know?
	But anyway...
	The point of it is, it shows you that the good people are the Jedi, the bad people are the Sith, and Star Wars explains why and what happens to them because of that.
	But anyway, moving on.
	It may also serve to rebrand and whitewash Disney by linking one of its signature product lines to social justice.
	The Force is female.
	Like, they're already doing that.
	They're doing that of their own bloody volition.
	I know.
	And you guys are so gullible, you'll buy it.
	Yeah, it's mad.
	Like, the idea that, oh, well, if we don't call ourselves the Jedi, then we're not going to be linked to Disney's oppressive exploitation.
	But anyway, after all, Disney has a long and troubling history of circulating racist, sexist, heterosexist and orientalist narratives of imagery, with the corporation and subsidiaries like Pixar publicly reckoning with.
	Furthermore, Disney is an overtly political entity, critiqued not only for its labour practice, but also its donations and lobbying.
	Joining forces with Disney's multimedia empire is thus a dangerous co-branding strategy for justice advocates and activists.
	So every SJW who works at Disney, BTFO'd here.
	You're evil because you're working with the evil corporation.
	You are working with the Empire, as it was, from this Jedi perspective right here.
	Hang on, this is like the Empire is run by a Jedi Emperor, is staffed by Jedi staff, and carries out Jedi orders, but they're still the Empire?
	Yeah.
	Structurally, they're bad.
	Even if no one in there is anti-Jedi.
	In the sense that...
	Racists without racism, Callum!
	All of Disney's apparatus is always woke.
	All of its products are always woke.
	All of its donations to BLM are woke.
	But you know, listen, it's the structure of the thing.
	So, you know, this is literally how they argue you can get racism without racists.
	Anyway...
	So, you know, we obviously want to avoid the systemic systems of systematic systemism.
	And so they say, You're not a Jedi, Caleb.
	Don't you feel excluded?
	You got me.
	Star Wars is popular but divisive.
	Identifying our initiatives with it may nudge them closer to the realm of fandom, manufacturing in-groups and out-groups.
	Now this I love more than anything, because you, your D-I-E or D-E-I, whatever it is, you're deliberately formulating a moral identity in order to exclude those people who don't agree with you anyway.
	You've already called them white genocidists or reactionaries.
	You're calling the Jedi reactionaries.
	You've got your outgroup already.
	You've already identified them.
	And you're starting to go, yeah, well, we don't want to call ourselves Jedi because some people might not consider themselves Jedi.
	You've already identified the Sith.
	You've already identified those people who need to be eradicated from the world.
	So the inherent nature of the project you've set up here is divisive.
	For someone who doesn't agree with your sort of anti-human die philosophy, they just have to, well, die.
	Because you can't be universal if there are some people who don't agree with you.
	Anyway, those unfamiliar or uncomfortable with Star Wars, including those hurt by the messages it sends, ah yes, those people who are wounded by the messages in Star Wars, may feel alienated by the parade of jokes.
	Is that alien friendly?
	Anyone else use alienated?
	There are probably aliens who are feeling bad about that.
	They may feel alienated by the parade of jokes, puns, and references surrounding the term Jedi.
	Consider, as one example, its gender-exclusionary potential.
	Studies suggest that in the presence of Star Wars and Star Trek memorabilia, such as posters, in computer science classrooms, this can reinforce masculinist stereotypes about computer science.
	That's right.
	Manly computer scientists.
	Contributing to women's sense that they don't belong in the field.
	It's exclusively, Callum, just the very nature of the thing.
	But what I love about this, right, is that not including them makes them feel that nerds aren't included.
	What now, right?
	So, like, there is just, like, it's a part of life that some people will feel excluded by some things, right?
	So, take their example.
	Computer science classrooms.
	It's not very inclusive.
	It's not very inclusive at all.
	What about like, you know, North FC? And they're like, oh yeah, put me in a computer science classroom, lad.
	You know, like plumbers and builders being put in computer science classrooms may feel excluded because this isn't an environment they're comfortable with.
	And I'm not trying to be offensive, but like, if you take someone who's very sort of like manual labor, not very conceptual, putting them in a computer science classroom, they're going to be like, well, look, I'm just not, this isn't my thing.
	You know, I work with my hands.
	You know, I'm not like an academic.
	I don't, you know, type a lot or whatever.
	And so they might, you know, I'm not trying to be mean, but like not be smart enough to conceptually understand what it is a computer does.
	But then in the same way that you could take that nerd, put them in a builder's apprenticeship and be like, right, now start moving those heavy things.
	Well, I actually don't belong here either because I'm not strong enough to do the work physically.
	Because people have strengths and weaknesses and these things are different.
	And so, like, the very nature of the framing of them saying, well, look, it could be exclusive.
	Well, it's exclusive itself!
	But they just don't realise it because they're deeply trapped within their own paradigm and are utter hypocrites, right?
	So anyway, relatedly, research indicates that even for self-identified female fans of Star Wars, a sense of belonging within the fandom can be experienced as highly conditional, contingent on performances proving their conformity to the pre-existing gender norms of dominant fan culture.
	I love the way they're whining about Star Wars fan culture here.
	At a moment where many professional sectors, including higher education, are seeking to eliminate barriers to inclusion and to change the narrative about who counts as a scientist, political scientist, STEM professional or historian, adopting the term Jedi is an ironic move backwards.
	It's very ironic.
	Hang on, is this just Cope from the humanities that are not included in STEM? Possibly.
	But I just love the way that they're trying to achieve a goal that is definitionally impossible by the framework that they're using.
	We want to include everyone.
	And that means you've all got to be big brain, high IQ scientists like us.
	Okay, but half the population is below average intelligence.
	They're never going to be genetically prevented from being big brain, high IQ scientists.
	What now?
	What now?
	We can't include them.
	Well, yeah, they're reactionaries.
	What do you do with reactionaries?
	Anyway, so I'll wrap it up there because they just basically carry on coping.
	But, yeah, I very much enjoy the fact that they have actually disavowed the Jedi while acting exactly like the Jedi.
	So it's only a matter of time until they burst into the younglings and...
	Do as Anakin did.
	Have you played or I suppose you've not really seen any more Star Wars stuff coming out recently?
	Not recently.
	I haven't been looking.
	Because I saw Battlefront 2 was on sale for like four quid so I was like, eh, why not?
	And I played the campaign and you play as this girl who's part of the Empire and like a special team and it's like the coolest story ever in my opinion until she joins the Jedi and it's the most boring stock crap you've ever seen.
	Well there we go.
	The Jedi are literally the woke of the Star Wars universe.
	Anyway, so moving on from that, let's go to the British establishment trying to ban opposition.
	So, they're not going to ban opposition parties, but instead opposition candidates is how this is going to work.
	So individual candidates?
	Yes.
	And the way they're going to do that is section 127.
	I'm not joking.
	Oh, Conservatives get rid of this!
	It really just, like, doesn't die, does it?
	It goes into everything else.
	So there we go.
	Here's the article from Spikes and this chap.
	So I got forwarded an email from...
	Well, I'm signed up to the Free Speech Union, so they sent me an email.
	And there's a whole list of stuff they do every Friday of just, like, a million things that are wrong with the country and the world.
	Go sign up to the Free Speech Union, they're good boys.
	Yeah, and this is one of them, and this chap here who's writing it works with them, he's an advisor for them, and he found something that would have gone under the radar otherwise.
	So as you can see, the elections bill protecting politicians from democracy, being the title, and he says critical commentary on the UK elections bill tended to focus on the proposal for mandatory voter ID, because this country looked at America and went, not doing that.
	So moving forward, he says in here, Clauses 26 and 27 of the bill say that if a person was motivated by hostility towards an elected politician,
	candidate or campaigner, even committing one of the longer list of offences, then the court could disqualify that individual from holding elected office for five years.
	So if you offend a politician, and well that's a crime in the UK, if you do it online especially, you can be banned from running for office for five years.
	I get a lot of people still ask me, oh, are you going to stand for office again?
	It's like, well, I have offended a lot of politicians.
	So you might not be able to.
	Anyway, so elected office here includes membership of the Commons and devolved assemblies, councillorships, right down to the parish council level, membership of London Assembly and moralities.
	Parish councils, for far out of those who don't know, so few people want to stand for election, usually there aren't, Yeah.
	Like, people just get given the job.
	Win by default.
	Yeah, because it's not a thing with a huge amount of power.
	It's about, like, dealing with the bus stops or the greenery or things like that.
	Anyway, so you're going to get kicked from all of them if you dare commit a crime which could be offending someone.
	I'm not joking.
	Literally offending a politician.
	I mean, that's my daily bread and butter, to give a keto unfriendly...
	So the list of offences that could lead to disqualification includes not just serious crimes such as common assault, it also includes public order, malicious communications, and hate speech offences.
	So Dank's out.
	Yeah, Dank is literally out if this passes.
	It even includes the crime under the Communications Act 2003 of saying anything, quote, grossly offensive on the internet.
	Literally.
	They're going to ban Count Dankula from running for office.
	And also, if you get a conviction for saying something grossly offensive on the internet, you too.
	Oh, I'm a very good boy on the internet these days.
	But you also think the motivations in all of this...
	Literally because I don't want to go to jail.
	But there's now a wonderful motivation for every politician to be...
	Very offended.
	Oh yeah.
	Whatever people say to them on the internet.
	Just think about this for a minute, he writes: "An over-enthusiastic Hustings heckler, or an excessively outspoken rival candidate, can face becoming 'legally unelectable' to any office for five years.
	The same would apply to anyone who, like a campaigner imprisoned a couple of years ago, followed an MP or councillor around to make a point he or she didn't want to hear.
	And of course, it could apply to anyone who tweets unpleasant things about a rival politician." So if you dare say something about a politician you don't like, and they're a politician, then you literally turn around and be like, hey, police, I'm making a complaint.
	And if you end up getting charged with it, because the law is so loose that Nazi pugs are a crime.
	Well, the legal standard is, did you perceive it to be?
	Yeah, I mean, there was a lady whose name escapes me in Manchester.
	Her friend died in a car accident.
	She put on Instagram a song he liked by an American rapper.
	Oh, that was a Liverpool one.
	Sorry, Liverpool.
	And the American rapper said American rapper words, the gamer word.
	And because she had put the song up, she was charged.
	Yeah.
	Because a 15-year-old friend of hers had been killed in a car accident or something.
	Yeah.
	And she had to wear an ankle tag or something else.
	If you've ever even just put up a song that's not you saying it, too bad.
	You can't stand for office for five years.
	So think about the extra power this would give to politicians, he writes.
	The police and pressure groups.
	They could silence anyone that they decided were troublesome, or at least threatened to.
	Take the example of a councillor who engages in a no-holds-bars discussion on social media about her council leader conduct.
	At present, in England, she can sit tight and say, if you don't like it, ask the voters.
	Which is the correct position.
	The English position.
	It's just like, we have these disagreements and then that's it.
	The voters will decide.
	Under the elections bill, it would be very different.
	The council leaders could threaten to report her for an offence under the Communications Act unless she pipes down.
	I hate this...
	Continental managerial politics.
	Vanguard politics, this is.
	Do you guess who did it?
	I'm Tory.
	Every goddamn time.
	Chloe Smith, the minister in charge of the bill, trumpets the plan as much-needed measure to stop the intimidation of people in public life.
	You're a moron, Chloe.
	You're an absolute brainlet.
	Careful, you're not going to be allowed to run for office for the next five years if you keep on like this.
	Oh, the bill's not yet passed.
	So let's get out of the system while we can.
	You stupid brainlet, for Christ's sakes.
	If you pass this sort of thing, or even promote this sort of thing, there's no hope for you.
	And just to be clear, if you can't take your political opponents disagreeing with you on social media and maybe even insulting you, you don't deserve to be in politics.
	You should not be in politics.
	It's too rough a game for you.
	You're not needed there.
	You're not welcome there.
	You should leave.
	I must admit, I also am not hugely keen on the endless whining from politicians.
	No.
	And you get it globally.
	This isn't just a British thing.
	Oh, I'm being attacked on social media.
	Then put the phone down and go do something useful for your constituents.
	It's part of life.
	If they're harassing you, that's one thing.
	Saying mean things on the internet, nah.
	No, it's just not.
	So he says in here the last bit, these bits of the election bill come across as a means to intimidate people, yes, a way to say that those on the edges of public life, that they had better show proper respect to their betters, or else...
	Not very inclusive.
	Perhaps this is what the bill is.
	An attempt to protect the governing class from democracy.
	Yes.
	Fantastic find.
	Want to give full respect to the Free Speech Union and this chap in particular for finding this.
	Because I have no idea.
	This is in there.
	I mean, I imagine very few people, except from Chloe and whoever the hell else wrote this, is aware that that's in there.
	But if we go to the next one, this is a link just to the Bill reference.
	It's sort of the full notes, if you want to go through it in your own time, is what he gives as the link.
	I couldn't go through it and read it because it's in lawyer speak, so just something for people to look at.
	But it's not the only way to...
	It's 158 pages long as well.
	Yeah, it's not the only way to attack people in elected offices, is it?
	So I thought I'd pair this with another story, which is amazing.
	So let's go to the next one.
	Schoolchildren hold mock trial of an MP, Richard Drax, over ancestral slavery links.
	Why is this being allowed?
	I don't know.
	Why are they acting like children should have moral authority over adults, let alone elected MPs?
	Because someone who wasn't him owns slaves.
	So sit down, child, before you get a detention.
	Yeah, so let's go through this.
	School children hold mock trial of MP Richard Drax of Ancestral Slavery Links.
	School children took part in an eight-hour mock trial.
	Eight hours!
	Of millionaire Tory MP accused of benefiting from the proceeds of slavery.
	Where's the communist teacher, labour voting teacher, who did this?
	An actual struggle session is what they were suggesting.
	40 pupils aged 12 to 18 were involved.
	Literal children, because that's how this is always done.
	Taking on the roles of the prosecution and defence lawyers, while others were split into free joys.
	Here we go, look.
	Clive Stafford Smith, a leading human rights lawyer, organised the mock trial and act as a judge.
	Right, so lefty, insufferable, labour-voting, human rights liar.
	I don't even need to look him up.
	I know that's what he is.
	You wouldn't do this otherwise.
	This is unbelievable.
	Trying to, yeah, literally have the Chinese Cultural Revolution style weaponising the students against the adults as if they have any moral authority.
	And remember, never take a moral lecture from a child.
	It's a child.
	Tell them to be quiet.
	This guy thought this was an appropriate thing to try and set up.
	Unbelievable.
	So all the three jurors found Drex guilty as charged.
	Oh, what a shock.
	Although they dismissed a second charge that he had, quote, had acted like his ancestors while performing his role as an MP. Yeah, he hadn't been a slave owner in 2020.
	Amazing.
	Big shock, yeah.
	So he gives a quote in here, that leftist, in which he says, Why did he agree to go along with this?
	That's the thing.
	Thankfully, the MP himself was like, get stuffed.
	I just didn't do it.
	I was like, go to hell.
	So they put it on without him and hired a posh guy to represent him.
	And then put this all on to get a jab at this MP. But this...
	Was it a teacher who did it, or was it just an outside...
	Whoever was in the school who permitted this to happen should be fired.
	This is not acceptable.
	So the centre that set this up says that young people have been, quote, handed a poisoned planet by the previous generations, and that the trials are, quote, to hold the perpetrators accountable, even only, if symbolically.
	I hate these lefty human rights lawyers.
	What does Robert Conquest have to say about him?
	I can't remember off the top of my head, actually.
	Oh, he doesn't like them.
	No, I imagine.
	But I just...
	I love how they think this is appropriate, and if they get power...
	Do you know what Scruton thinks of them?
	They will do this for real.
	Scum.
	Accurate.
	So the organisation said it was holding mock trials of these powerful figures.
	It's just an MP. Mock trials.
	Who the hell invested you with any authority whatsoever?
	To learn about where they went wrong.
	To learn about where they went wrong.
	Bro, he didn't own the slaves.
	He just met a slave, you haven't met a slave, no one's met a slave.
	Sins of the great-great-grandfather!
	Yeah, Jesus.
	And where they had opportunities to avoid the catastrophes they created.
	He was born.
	Really?
	His crime is being born here.
	That's what's wrong.
	Drax had previously faced demands to pay reparations because he controls the 250-acre Drax Hall plantation in Barbados, where his ancestors created one of the first slave-work sugar plantations in the British Empire.
	Yeah, but it's not a slave-worked sugar plantation now, is it?
	I don't know for 200 years, so you got that.
	But also, reparations to who is the endless question when you ever deal with this situation.
	Blacks?
	Not a certain black.
	We'll get into that in a minute.
	So the MP refused to take part in the mock trial, but has said in the past, quote, no one can be held responsible today for what happened many hundreds of years ago.
	I mean, obvious and demonstrable truth.
	Yeah.
	An actor was drafted to play the role of a posh defendant in Bridgeport Town Hall.
	This is disgusting.
	He's just got a posh guy.
	Other right-wing figures who face prosecution for perceived crimes are likely to be Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson and Priti Patel.
	Priti Patel?
	Or a slave she owned.
	I don't even know.
	The Indian woman needs to be held accountable for her ancestors' crimes.
	So some education campaigners have criticised the events, saying that they will lack impartiality and risk brainwashing students.
	Oh really?
	Oh really?
	No S, you know?
	Yeah, that's exactly what they're designed to do.
	I thought we'd go into Richard Drax for a minute, because I think the narrative around him and his ancestors' slaves is quite funny.
	So let's go to the next one, which is the BBC reporting on this, back when they found out he was on the database of ancestors who had slaves.
	And they're saying here, the Tory MP, Richard Drax, is descendant from John Swarbridge L. Drax, who was awarded £4,293 worth £3 million a day for 189 slaves.
	Yes.
	He's not awarded them.
	Like, the British state, the British government, the British people, paid for the slaves' freedom.
	He didn't, like, win the lottery.
	That's not what happened there.
	He owned people that were property in law, and we kept the rule of, sorry, the principle of protection of property.
	Like, this is actually, like, they can complain all they want.
	Contracts.
	Exactly.
	What the British actually managed to do with this is navigate this particularly thorny issue without compounding one injustice with another.
	And no bloodshed.
	Exactly.
	No bloodshed, no injustice.
	What's going to happen?
	Well, we're going to buy those people's freedom, and then they're free.
	You didn't have anything arbitrarily taken from you by the state, and so no one has any position to complain about, and the British Empire sails on cleanly through these very troubled waters.
	Yeah.
	It's a very clever idea, frankly.
	It's the best one, but they're not happy about that.
	You'd think maybe they'd be happy with a load of people dying over it, but they don't care about the American Civil War either, do they?
	No, that's all about racism.
	600,000 dead Americans doesn't matter even.
	Literally, they're killing each other over freeing the slaves, and you think this is all about the South, do you?
	Anyway, I love Drax's response to this, though.
	So let's go to the next one.
	This is election 2010.
	Drax hits back at the slave smear.
	And he gives a quote here.
	It's not what I stand for.
	I should think not.
	I should think you don't stand for bringing back the slave trade.
	Yeah, I'm not for slavery.
	Simple as.
	Vote for me.
	I mean, any one of these activists or children or revolutionaries, if any of their ancestors murdered someone, raped someone or something like that, you're like, right, well, you're a descendant from a rapist.
	What now?
	Oh, God, I don't know.
	Slavery wasn't the only crime in history.
	But I love how Drax can sit back and be like, well, you've asked the Tory candidate.
	I don't stand for it.
	Labour.
	I'm forced to agree with my colleague across the hall.
	I think it was a really funny comeback and fair enough to him.
	He's not had enough of this.
	He also served in the British Army for nine years.
	Typical slave owner.
	Yeah, that's what they do.
	Anyway, but the reason I mentioned that a certain black wouldn't be getting his reparations out of this is because, of course, the question of who do you give reparations to?
	How do you track down who is only a descendant of slaves and not a descendant of slave owners?
	Is it going to be millionaires?
	No.
	No, because you think everyone's like, I'll just give it to brown-skinned people or black people.
	That's what I mean.
	How do you define that?
	Big, big think for a minute.
	What if there are black people who are also descendant of slave owners?
	What if there are white people like me who are descendants of slaves?
	Yeah.
	Hey, where are my reparations?
	Let's go to the YouTube link here, just to make the last point, which is Ainsley Harriot.
	Ainsley Harriot, appalled by his own family, were slave owners.
	This is a clip from Who Do You Think You Are?
	Oh, that's rough.
	Ainsley Harriot.
	This is very much like the black people in America who do a DNA test, like, yeah, 80% European.
	It's like, what?
	I have absolutely nothing against Ainsley Harrier.
	No, of course not.
	He's a very funny character.
	Beat your meat, all the rest of that.
	But I love this, because looking at his skin tone, for example, just to make this point you wouldn't usually, is that he's blacker than most black Americans.
	Yes.
	Black Americans.
	Every black American.
	Yeah, that's ended there.
	But I love that.
	Even he's a descendant of slave owners.
	So if you did do reparations in this country, Drax would owe your family money, and so would Ainsley.
	Pay up, Ainsley.
	I'm waiting.
	I mean, it's not like you haven't done very well from your position, is it?
	Yeah.
	But I thought we got...
	That's amazing.
	I think it's fantastic.
	Oh, yeah.
	The whole idea of historical reparations.
	As you can see, it completely fraughts with many contradictory problems.
	Maybe we should just drop it and move on.
	Otherwise, British establishment going to ban people from running for office if they dare offend politicians, and also reparations for Carl from Ainsley.
	Solidarity, brothers.
	Yeah, we'll end that one there.
	We'll go to the video comments from here.
	Hey Craig, I know this is the internet, but if you want help to make fun of me, just ask, and I'll give you the help any day of the week, and just give you the video file for you to set up one of my videos.
	You see, I know this is the internet, and the Loadseater's live chat may have changed since...
	I have not seen the Loadseater's live chat for a while, but...
	I know this is the internet, but I'm not like the Lucita's live chat where I constantly need my confidence and masculinity reassured by anyone and everyone.
	The confidence just speaks for itself, I don't need to overcompensate, so if you want to make fun of me, I'll literally help you do it.
	Good sir.
	Just ask for the video file, I'll give it to you.
	Not really.
	I have no idea what it's about, but I assume it's all good-natured bants.
	The only thing that comes to mind for contact is cscooper.com.au.
	Just drill it into my head.
	Craig, do us a favour, set up some sort of exchange where people can go through you to get things sent to each other.
	It's just a button that's just like loads of contacts.
	Maybe that's the Discord channel.
	Zoom dating sites.
	There's Craig at home, he's just like, goddammit, what have I done?
	Anyway, let's get to the next one.
	So I thought I might treat you guys to the view that we have while we're working up on roofs here in Western Australia.
	And at the same time, I might just add, my premier the other week said that the protests here were pointless because we don't have any lockdowns and therefore we live in a free society.
	And I didn't actually think that's how free societies work if it goes away at the whim of one man.
	Ah yes, if I'm not being tyrannised this moment, I must be free.
	So really, we'll try and do something you're not currently doing and see if you get tyrannised for it.
	I had trouble with the wind there.
	I would recommend in future do a voiceover after the footage.
	Yeah, that might be useful.
	But also, I did see this morning, there's loads of footage of people who went to these protests who are now getting a knock on the door.
	And the police are asking to have a friendly chat with them.
	It's like, this is literally what China does.
	Yes, and if you're in Australia and you have to have a friendly chat with the police, you don't know anything.
	You didn't see anything.
	What are you talking about, officer?
	What's COVID? Never heard of that.
	Nice to see you.
	Thanks for stopping by.
	Everything's bonzer.
	Yeah, go to hell, you puppy murderers.
	Don't say that.
	I would.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Good morning from South Texas.
	Made my husband a sandwich this morning.
	And, yeah, we've been married for 16 years, five kids, and working on retirement.
	Girls, make the sandwich.
	That's going to be a merch idea now.
	Would you just make the sandwich?
	I mean, she's not wrong.
	No.
	You know, she's got everything she wants.
	Yeah.
	You know, been married 16 years, got a bunch of kids, going to work on retirement.
	This is a successful life.
	But I still can't go over how it was so basic.
	It was, like, the argument fundamentally was, like, you should never massage your partner or get them food or buy them a gift.
	Yeah, don't treat them kindly.
	Like, don't do anything.
	Don't even meet them.
	Don't kiss them.
	Like, don't even add their number to your phone.
	It's like, where does this end?
	I mean, literally, like, my wife should be someone I've never heard of.
	My wife should be someone who I'm basically constantly in a state of war with, trying to get the edge on her.
	If I can harm her in some way, then that'd be advantageous.
	That's a healthy relationship.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Don't be like this.
	Rightio.
	Let's go to the next one.
	As a follow-up about building non-woke institutions, do you have any advice about securing venues that won't be dissuaded by the smear merchants?
	I know it's not easy, but some people manage to do it.
	Didn't you and Dank and Milo pull it off a few times ago in the past few years?
	Are there brokers that have experience dealing with controversial events or certain conventions that are chains that have reputation for hosting people that will draw complaints and threats?
	Can you help out a fellow datist?
	I'd appreciate any advice you can give.
	Right, well you've got a couple of options.
	The first one is be sneaky.
	Stay under the radar, if possible.
	You know, make yourself not obviously what you are.
	But secondly, and this is probably the most reliable one, is you have to find people with relationships.
	Form relationships with those people.
	So, you know, people who know you and I'm not going to back down for, you know, just the media smears.
	Because a lot of the time, nothing happens from these media smears.
	They put them out, oh, look at that, people on Twitter, but nothing happens.
	But it's the fear that, oh, we're just going to pull back just in case.
	Well, if you know the people who are owning and running the venues then, they're not going to do that, presumably.
	And so that's probably the safest way.
	But, you know, what can you do?
	Yeah, it's not really much advice, but that's the same thing.
	The example that comes to mind for me is probably the most cancelled man in Britain has to be Lord Voldemort, Mr.
	Robinson.
	And even he can get venues, but the way he gets them is that it's invite-only, of course, and he knows the owner, so the owner and him have a relationship, therefore you can do this.
	And it's the same with the left.
	This isn't unique to right-wings at all.
	If they want to put on a communist event, they go to their friends, who own property, who are landlords.
	Don't know how that works, but that's what they do.
	No one looks to a communist for moral consistency, though.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Two things.
	Gun owners know, at least responsible gun owners know, that it's always important to identify what you're shooting at before you take your shot.
	The second is, don't always trust the packaging.
	I thought I was getting an exceptional deal, and now I find out some things, when they're too good to be true, They are.
	I was looking at that thinking, well, what's wrong with that?
	It looks alright.
	Yeah.
	It reminds me of that meme where the guy picks up his shoe and looks at the bottom of it, you know?
	Something on my shoe.
	Oh, yeah, yeah.
	Made in China.
	Oh, you know where this is going.
	This is for all of the base boys.
	Freedom!
	Excellent.
	Love it.
	Germany is having elections this Sunday, and while the smear merchants will not talk about it like this, we will see the consequences of Merkel's lack of planning beyond her time in power.
	She never cultivated political airs.
	In fact, her primary modus operandi seems to have been to keep promising candidates far away in order not to have challengers to the throne.
	And to make her Conservative Party less and less conservative by adopting policies from the Greens only a bit slower, now the leadership of her party seems to be staffed entirely with incompetent morons and is slated to lose approximately a third of her voting share.
	Oof.
	Yeah.
	Can I have a go about how the greens spike so much in Germany?
	No.
	I mean, best of luck to the AFD guys then, I guess.
	I mean, the leading ones there.
	I saw that there was a story.
	I don't know if this is confirmed.
	Maybe someone from AFD or Germany can correct us in the comments if it's wrong.
	The AFD put out some posters in Turkish saying that Ataturk would have voted AFD. That's based.
	It would, actually.
	Yeah.
	And it's like, wow, okay.
	That's clever.
	Yeah, that's very clever.
	I wonder if it increases the Turkish air.
	I'd be very interested in seeing that.
	But that's interesting, right?
	Because this is exactly the kind of leadership style that leads to the end of Empires, right?
	This is what Marcus Aurelius did.
	He was trying to cultivate, like, his son, who was terrible, right?
	Whereas all the previous emperors, the good emperors, have cultivated competence.
	And the person who doesn't cultivate a competent successor is the person who is afraid of being overthrown by that competent successor before their time.
	And so it kind of implies the weird insecurity in Merkel's own position, which is strange because she's been there for, what, 12 years or something?
	20 or something?
	The Germans literally elect kings and queens.
	Like the heroes.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Well, chancellors, I think we call them.
	Hitler was also Chancellor.
	Yes.
	That's why we call them Chancellors.
	But yeah, no, it's very interesting that she's not cultivated anyone to replace her.
	And now her party's going to collapse.
	It'll be exciting in German politics.
	Who knows what'll happen?
	Nothing good, probably.
	But anyway, moving on.
	Something beautiful from the anti-mandate rally in Ottawa.
	We heard the Canadian national anthem, True North, Strong and Free.
	We heard a wholesome anthem from indigenous culture, appropriate.
	And then one of the speakers who was indigenous noted to the crowd that we are all human together and that we are not guilty of residential schools because it was not our generation that did that, so stop worrying about it.
	Rather, she noted that it was government policy that created that hell and which is now settling on us.
	They get it and they've got our back.
	Very cool.
	That was awesome.
	Yeah, very cool.
	What a great statement.
	The original Calico company no longer exists.
	However, there is a new company operating under the same name, which is very, very slowly doing development work on the design.
	And eventually, they do plan on expanding the number of calibers the gun is available in, beyond just.22 long rifle,.19mm, eventually including the one true caliber.
	I expect to hear her screaming in the chat.
	I have no idea what that is.
	So, sorry.
	I guess I'll have to look at the chat when it updates.
	4, 5?
	I'm just guessing.
	But anyway, I just love how it looks so much like a meme gun.
	And he made the point there that people have used that in Spaceballs.
	But there's a mission in Fallout New Vegas as well when you've got to get this trigger for...
	There's a satellite on Earth that can launch a death ray on the Earth.
	And you need to get a gun off this kid.
	And it kind of looks like that as well.
	Where it's just like, you've got to get this gun.
	And he's like, it's just a play gun.
	Pew pew pew pew pew.
	He's like, yeah, kid, I'll give you 2,000 caps for that.
	There we go.
	Thank you.
	Hey Lotus Eaters, Tony Day and Little Joan here.
	Just wanted to announce that my new book, The Pineys, Book 7, The Paradox Piney, has just dropped on Amazon.
	E-book, trade paperback, Kindle Unlimited is free, and deals with two legends of the pines.
	One that U-boat crews snuck into the Jersey Pinelands during World War II to resupply their subs, and the other is that Joseph Bonaparte, who lived in South Jersey, shot a cannonball through the chest of the Jersey Devil.
	Sounds awesome.
	Did he say U-boats?
	Yes, apparently.
	I mean, I guess why it's Legends of the Pines, but...
	G'day Gems!
	Today I wanted to show everyone this.
	This was made by a fan of mine in Ohio, a recreation of a character from the Axom Saga.
	His name is Kerberos.
	He is a flying teddy bear with a New York accent and an insatiable sweet tooth, and he guides one of my characters on her magical journey.
	If you want to grab your own one of these, this person is really keen to make more, so contact me at cscooper.com.au contact and we'll find a way to get you one.
	See you later.
	Just contact them for any Gemma inquiries if that's alright.
	If you're lonely.
	If you're bored.
	We're joking, don't flood his inbox.
	Your oven's on the blink and you just want to tell someone.
	Don't flood his inbox.
	Don't do it.
	Go on.
	That's cool, man.
	when thinking about the imperial martial autism it's more fun to imagine them as 40k chaos factions as opposed to the potential destruction of the west yeah this is what me and pete did when we went to games workshop the other day Hmm.
	I mean, you've literally got all of it.
	You've got Zinch, which is...
	Why is Zinch child-loving?
	Well, Foucault.
	Zench is the sort of intellectual magical side.
	I always call him just a trickster.
	Yeah, but they end up in the child-loving sphere, like all the French do.
	And then you've got, of course, the fat acceptance.
	You know, body standards, beauty standards are oppressive.
	Then you have Slaanesh being the raw degeneracy.
	And they were more generous than we were to call it BLM, being a party of corn.
	Guess what we call corn?
	Moving on.
	I'm having trouble guessing, to be honest.
	Migrants of Peace.
	Oh, there we go.
	Well, you know, Europeanized, isn't it?
	Anyway, Robert says, those Metro adverts are basically, please date left-wing men who don't see a future of themselves, you or your offspring.
	Would you want to be the guy who came up with it?
	He's just crying.
	He's just like, no one will match with me.
	Obviously.
	Maria says, one does not need to be approved to recognise degeneracy is destructive against maintaining a decent wider society, although those who might qualify for the woodchipper are pushing it.
	Keeping the bedroom in the bedroom is not Puritan.
	That's a great point, actually.
	That's a really good point that we need to emphasise.
	We're not asking for prudishness.
	You know, we're not saying you have to be this or that or the other.
	We're just saying, look, do we have to have, like, kids exposed to these weird sexual things?
	Literally do whatever the hell you want in the bedroom.
	It's yours.
	Exactly.
	Jay says, OKCupid needs a rebrand.
	It's 2021 and they are tethered to a baby who fires arrow at people to remove their consent.
	Wait.
	That's a good point.
	Good luck this evening, folks.
	Thank you very much.
	George says, Yeah, that's another good point.
	Kevin says, Ooh, that's a good point.
	I remember reading some article back in the day that was an argument about whether or not the perfect dating app is one that purposely misaligns you endlessly.
	Well, you're going to be on it forever.
	I think there's actually a Rick and Morty episode about that.
	I mean, well, that's a great point.
	I never really considered that.
	Matthew says, when did these companies feel it was okay to express any opinion except that they have the best product and why you should buy it?
	Yeah, that's a great question.
	Because they don't?
	Yeah.
	I mean, there is no moral authority from any of these companies.
	Just shut up.
	Don't want to hear it.
	Christian says, Yeah, but the Siths are less moral busybodies.
	I don't see Emperor Palpatine being like, oh, you know, use the right pronouns or anything.
	But I could totally see Yoda saying that.
	I'm just thinking to the scenes out of Battlefront 2, because you actually visit an Imperial planet, and for no reason, the Imperials blow it up.
	Again, I mean, it's like the Star Wars propaganda, right?
	But it actually looks like somewhere that could produce things, unlike the Jedi planets that just look like a bar in the middle of the jungle.
	They do.
	Michael says, have you ever heard of the Sith Holocaust?
	The Jedi Order is founded on genocide?
	Yep, that's what Bringing Balance to the Force is for the SJW Jedi.
	It's not like the Sith didn't do the same.
	We literally ordered 66.
	What, kill the Jedis?
	Yeah.
	Including kids, because they'll just grow up to be Jedis.
	Well, I mean, okay, well, sorry, we ordered 66 the Nazis.
	Why?
	Because they were genocidal maniacs.
	The Jedi's have already committed a genocide.
	Sorry, Kaufman of you.
	Well, I'm sorry, you know, just, you know, the Jedi must perish.
	Michael says, the last I checked, Mace Windu wasn't white.
	He also got a purple lightsaber because he's Samuel Jackson.
	Jonathan Crowe says, if lightsabers are phallic, so are tampons.
	I mean, if you've got to design something that fits inside of a vagina, it's probably inevitably going to be a bit phallic, isn't it?
	Do you know about the purple lightsaber thing as well?
	There's some behind-the-scenes footage where...
	Oh, because he just wanted it.
	Yeah, he's just arguing with them and being like, yeah, but did they have to be?
	Yeah, well, that's the thing.
	They were all blue and red up until that point.
	He's like, yeah, but I want a purple one.
	George Lucas is like, no, they have to be blue and red.
	Yeah, but...
	But anyway, so M1Ping says, White saviourism?
	Their leadership council has a green alien dwarf, a conehead, a slug, Samuel L. Jackson and a squid-headed man on it.
	Yeah, it sounds like an SJW. I mean, literally.
	Actually, no.
	Green Alien Dwarf of the Conehead?
	I'm pretty sure it does.
	Think of the average Antifa mugshot.
	No, you've got to think of the Antifa meetups versus the 4chan meetups.
	The 4chan meetups are more racially diverse.
	Yeah, but they're also more neckbeardy.
	Yeah, so...
	With these weird freakish aliens, squid-headed aliens.
	Yeah, this is like an Anthem meet-up, man.
	Henry says, Jedi-ness was not inherited or about bloodlines.
	Yeah, it wasn't until the prequels and then George Lucas screwed the whole thing.
	The Jedi were not allowed to have relationships with children.
	Obviously SJWs.
	Which is the whole reason why Anakin was able to be seduced to the dark side.
	They want to claim the Jedi as an SAW thing?
	Fine.
	No, they don't.
	They really don't.
	But we can have the Chad Mandalorians.
	Their culture is essentially space Spartans with a strong culture of making things, passing their armor through their family lines based on merit, valuing men and women based on their output and not their characteristics.
	Their technological prowess made them fame throughout the galaxy as non-Force-sensitives or effective Jedi killers.
	Best of all, they were isolationist and rejected the Galactic Senate, preferring to be led by their own.
	Also, their armor looks sick as hell.
	That's good.
	Azrael says, That's a great point.
	It's also why they actively destroy the franchise of the sequels in my opinion.
	Yeah, but what I love about it is they just are the Jedi.
	I mean, that's exactly how the Jedi...
	The Jedi are like, no, we can't have any other moral competition.
	We've got to wipe out the Sith.
	We've got to dominate the moral order of the galaxy.
	You know, no one's allowed, I mean, go, go to your free markets and stuff.
	Because you see on all the planets, like in the background, there's huge industrial zones and all this, you know, massive...
	But they're like, no, no, no, but people just can't think differently to us.
	And if they do, we've got to kill them.
	We're going to genocide them.
	That's literally the social justice view.
	But anyway, Callum says, the Jedi are problematic.
	I wonder how much Sheldon Cooper from the Big Bang Theory is going to have a meltdown on this.
	I've got to be honest, Callum, I don't.
	But I'm just going to have to reload this, so do you want to do a couple of ones?
	Sure, so we've got the opposition stuff.
	So Callum again says, how much further off is Ingsoc, guys?
	Here in Scotland, on the surface, looks normal and likable British place, but under the surface, but only under the surface, the illusion remains.
	Under the surface, the Jedi are in control.
	Yeah, it really is.
	I mean, Scotland is particularly bad.
	I mean, there was one other article I was going to include, but I've left it for another time, in which the Scottish establishment is complaining that, I don't know if you've read this book, A Tiger Comes to Tea?
	Yeah, I've not read the book, but I've heard of it.
	They're going to purge it from all Scottish schools, because they've decided that it has...
	So no tigers in Scotland?
	What?
	Yeah, it promotes harmful stereotypes, and it's like, it's a tiger love.
	What, about tigers?
	Yeah.
	They're justified.
	All stereotypes are true, especially the ones about tigers.
	They think the tiger is a man, and therefore it's about men, and it makes the tiger look good, in their opinion.
	But the tiger literally turns up, eats all the food, and then sods off.
	Well, at least it doesn't eat the children.
	But anyway, we'll do that another time.
	Right, okay, yeah, yeah, yeah.
	An abusable system.
	Yeah, I mean, that's the only backlash we've got, which I've advocated for a long time now, which is...
	Malicious compliance.
	If this is going to be the law, everything Ash Harkov says is a crime.
	Everything Owen Jones says is a crime.
	Same goes for Diane Abbott.
	Yeah, just a bunch...
	I can think of a bunch of leftist MPs I could probably frame something as.
	Yeah, I mean, the list is endless.
	And if they don't like it, change the law.
	So, not my problem.
	So Speak On's Mind says, there are three guarantees in life.
	You live, you die, leftists get triggered.
	We may as well make the most of that third guarantee by being based.
	Good point.
	Yeah, I mean, if we're going to go down, let's go down with Naughty Pugs.
	Don't let your memes be dreams.
	Luke.
	I do want me to carry on.
	Luke's Kennedy.
	I'm half Brazilian and my great-great-grandmother being an Amazonian.
	Do I get reparations from Portugal despite having never lived in Brazil?
	I mean, I guess you do.
	It's all, like, unlike the desire for the Jedi, it's done on hereditary bloodlines.
	Like, you know, that's a problem right up until it's not.
	Free Will says, But which were really done to prop up the power-crazed egos of a bunch of sociopathic murderers.
	If we really needed any more proof of the intent of these lunatics, if they get power, now we have it.
	Get ready to defend yourselves.
	They will not limit themselves to the descendants of slave owners.
	Nope, they will literally say yes, but that civilization, you know, systematize this, right, so the slave owners didn't exist in abstract.
	They were part of a system of white supremacy and exploitation, and you've inherited that, so you are now connected to the slave owners.
	Even though you're not related to one and you come from a family that may have been enslaved themselves.
	I mean, it feels weird to say this, but that's actually a fantastic idea for Vladimir Putin and United Russia to make themselves look more authoritative than the West, is to put on some kind of trial in which they just get their own communists and a bunch of foreign ones extradited and then put them on trial and be like, yeah, the West didn't do this like they did with the Nazis, but we will.
	That would be based.
	I mean, the West could do it as well, but we won't for some reason.
	No.
	Lord Nerevar says, I think the Melbourne protesters are a good model on how to deal with democracy gone bad.
	Yep.
	Alfred Bater says, the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 was the first government buyback program.
	Again, I hate the phrase buyback because it implies the government owned them to start with.
	Yeah, they never owned your guns.
	No, exactly.
	They never owned your slaves.
	You did.
	Before you, African king.
	Yeah, well, literally.
	Kings we can name.
	Will the Impaler says, Looking forward to the live event later.
	Really hoping I don't get held up by eco-hippies glued to the road.
	Yeah, same here.
	Jonathan says, Is two tongues Callum?
	Two.
	Is it two tongues?
	I couldn't tell.
	It just looked like one gross, thick monster tongue.
	From where I'm sitting with the HD footage, it looks like one big monster tongue.
	Yeah.
	Edward Woodstock says, is the every single vaxxer, actually 4D chess, that they're actually saying the vaccines cause your tongue to mutate?
	Also excited for tonight.
	Become a leftist to form yourself.
	George Windsor, Sith, serious-minded, individualist, traditional, human?
	Question mark.
	Why, they're like turf.
	Jensen says, how long until the Islam is right about women ads?
	Well, since they've banned political ads, not soon.
	But I don't think they've banned them ever in the US. It's, you know, authority by authority.
	So if you're in somewhere where there is an underground that's owned by the state, look up their rules and if you've got the money, have some fun.
	Chris says, We are so worried about protecting everyone that we forgot who does the protecting here.
	The Brave.
	Society is a garden protected by those who adventure forth and face the dangers of the day.
	Those who desire to return to life at the expense of the brave forget that they keep the burglars away.
	If your comfort is worth sending the brave home, don't be surprised when the burglars come out to play.
	You won't let the brave stand on the front lines since you found the boredom of living in a cowardly way.
	Yeah, that's another thing as well.
	They really think that the world is as pacified as it seems to be in their own living rooms.
	It's like, no.
	Out there is actually quite awful, and so we should have strong defences.
	Rowan says, I must go on record in repudiating the Jedi article totally out of hand.
	be the matter of time before the SJWs come for past the Farianism and its mythos of beer volcanoes and stripper factories with such single minded vengeance that not even the magnificent flying spaghetti monsters noodley appendages will be sufficient to fend the unwashed rat bags off fair uh Long Talks on the Neat says, Star Wars has a eugenics message, and it's in the clones.
	When everyone was on the same level, even genetically, they used this cannon fodder.
	But no use midichlorians as an argument.
	The use thing literally no one ever talks about before the prequels.
	How are these people allowed to write items this stupid?
	Well, I just love the fact that it just reflects them perfectly, you know?
	And yeah, George Lucas, like, you shouldn't have brought in mid-chlorians.
	That was a terrible, terrible addition.
	Because before it was about, like, spiritual purity that anyone could have attained, you know?
	So, like, you know, if you...
	Got in touch with the essence of what it was to be a moral being, sort of thing.
	That was the implication.
	How does that explain the Sith?
	The essence of being evil, I guess.
	But it was never like, this is genetically a part of you.
	That was never the implication I took from it, anyway.
	And so, yeah.
	Alexander has left a really, really long comment that I don't want to read.
	Sorry, Alexander.
	I'm going to read my head.
	Freewell says, Ingsok, your only love should be big brother.
	SmallerLibertarian says, OK, the wind noise wasn't as bad on my end.
	I had to compress the video to get it below 15 meg.
	Yeah, but just do a quick voiceover afterwards, man.
	Matt Brown has left a really long comment that I don't think we have time to read, but I may as well since we've got four minutes.
	I've finally figured out why lefties are so strange.
	It's taken me years of observation and introspection to figure out where my aversion to them comes from.
	I've finally figured out that, for me, at a fundamental level.
	That I cannot respect what they are.
	I myself have an incredibly deep love and respect for the tribe, land, people and place that I come from.
	I view my home as the epitome of all creation, where men, only men like me, can come from.
	But I have noticed in my friends who grew up that a majority of them cannot feel as zealously as I do in regards to this home of mine.
	Maybe they can, but they choose not to.
	I've been working on a script today, I was on the way in today, I was working on a script, and I'm totally on your wavelength here.
	And the conversation we had with Steve Hughes earlier, I had with Steve Hughes, he's totally on this wavelength as well.
	And so there must be something in the sort of cultural waters that is making this paradigm apparent.
	They can't sincerely be a part of a culture.
	And it's because they're trying to insincerely be a part of every culture.
	And so they've got to reduce men down to those things that are only universal to them.
	But the good parts of life are not actually in the essential universal characteristics.
	They're in the non-essential particular characteristics.
	That piece of time, place and people that makes a unique culture what is unique.
	The unique parts of the culture aren't the fact that you have men and women who have children and they work jobs.
	That's not unique.
	It's how they do things.
	It's the textual quality that's not essential.
	It's necessary and it is essential for the culture to be the culture that it is.
	And so I'm totally with you on this.
	And like the sort of managerial international elites have basically peeled away from that and are just saying, well, look, this is what it is to be a human.
	So you get this very beige, very gray, very boring culture that can't produce any real art like high civilization.
	All they can do is micromanage what already exists.
	And I'm totally with this.
	And so the way I'm thinking about it is like...
	It's like sincerely being a part of a culture.
	And the thing is, I come from this kind of culture, this kind of cosmopolitan culture, where in university you're trained to not see yourself as English.
	And so I remember on the day of the Freedom Rally, everyone's singing the national anthem and waving the flag, and I was inwardly cringing.
	It's not that I wanted to, it's that I've been trained to, right?
	Whereas it was entirely right and proper for me to have sung the national anthem and wave the flag, it was difficult because there's an emotional blockage there, basically.
	And this is deliberately implanted in you by this kind of managerial culture.
	That's being bred in the universities.
	So I'm toasty with you on this point.
	I think this is important.
	But he says, Steve Hughes said in our interview, they've never fought for the place.
	They've never fought for it.
	And they're welcome everywhere as far as they're concerned.
	Because they don't belong to anywhere.
	And this is what these sort of international cosmopolitans are.
	I'll just move from city to city and city and everything will be basically the same for me.
	Because I've got nothing I essentially need about the place in which I live.
	Because I've shed all of these cultural norms that made me feel safe and at home.
	And so I can just go anywhere.
	And that's a really lonely and lost nomadic life.
	You know, that's not good.
	It's almost as if they spit on the gift of their forebears who have created this place through blood, sweat and tears.
	I think this disregard and disrespect for those who came before and the disrespect towards the land is what really irks right-meaning people here.
	But don't get me wrong, it's also, and this is one of the things that Roger Scruton points out, It's also a contract that you have for the future.
	Future generations are going to inherit what you have inherited from the past.
	Look at it in the architecture.
	Brutalist architecture.
	Brutalist architecture is a form of architectural terrorism.
	You may have had It's a lovely little English city.
	Santorini is a great example.
	And all of the houses, I guess they have to be blue and white.
	But it makes the whole place look beautiful.
	It's a beautiful, beautiful island.
	And if you just build a big grey Bruce with this building, A, what a horrific thing to do, but B, that's what you're imposing on future generations.
	And so the sort of civilizational contract between the past, the present, and the future, that we're all a part of, has been completely severed and completely broken, and now you've just shattered it down into these little individualistic, like, you know, globalist cosmopolitans who don't belong anywhere.
	It's like, no, no, no, that's awful.
	That's awful.
	And so, yeah, I'm toasting the only wavelength in that, right?
	And so he says, it feels as if these lefties spit on the gifts they've been given.
	Instead of taking these gifts and husbanding them, yes, turning them into a greater and more beautiful gift to those who will follow you.
	I know this is most likely a purpose of today's podcast, but I feel that this personal revelation may assist others.
	Also, this comment is long held, so I don't expect to be read out.
	Well, I'm glad that I wasn't too lazy to read out, because I completely agree with you.
	I think that you're directly on something.
	It is about viewing yourself as the caretaker of a civilization.
	It's important.
	It's what we're here for.
	As long as that bombshell, it's time to end the show.
	So if you want more from us, go to lotuses.com, check out all the premium content, please sign up, and we'll be doing book clubs as soon as possible to get that more stuff out.
	By the way, we'll be seeing you at a live event.
	See you at night.

▲