Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 29, 2021 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:31:15

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #230

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast The Lotus Seeders for the 29th of September 2021.
	I'm joined by Josh.
	Hello!
	And today we're going to be talking about Labour Conference Day 2.
	They're currently on Day 4, but I've only catched up with Day 2's recordings.
	The generals who blame Biden for Afghanistan, which seems right there.
	I imagine generals.
	Also, swearing is now white privilege, because if you swear in your brown skin, that shows that you're an underclass of a human being.
	If you swear on your white skins, that shows you're an upper class of human beings.
	Is that true of all swear words, though?
	Because I can think of a few that might...
	It's not true of anything, but it's...
	Well, yeah.
	I mean, but in their opinion.
	Yeah, this actually takes me back to the University of Kent, because some critical racerist nonsense is coming through there, so I thought we'd enjoy that, going down memory lane.
	But anyway, let's start off with this.
	So, a couple of things to mention first on the site, of course.
	First thing being the Carl's interview with Michael Manning.
	Sorry, not Michael Manning.
	Sorry, I read the name there.
	I read Michael's name from the answer list.
	Sorry.
	There's Carl's interview with Steve Hughes, not Michael.
	Interview with Steve Hughes about all sorts of things.
	Apparently this was a very good interview.
	I haven't had time to watch it, so I can't speak, but Carl seemed to come away with a very interesting point that Steve seems to be a very deep thinker, like understanding the problems of the Enlightenment eventually leading to socialist thinking, and therefore can you really say that's a route to go down again, or should you make something new?
	Apart from that, I haven't had the time.
	But go and enjoy.
	That's premium.
	One out of three.
	Legendary comedian.
	And Michael did a good job on that.
	Let's go to the next thing here.
	So this is Bo's article looking back at the Met Gala.
	And I believe this one also has audio.
	It does indeed.
	That's available for silver and gold tier members if you'd like to listen instead of do the reading.
	I did the proofreading on this and it's a very funny article and with Bo's writing style, I imagine it's going to be very funny to hear the audio recording because the contrast between Jonathan's lovely smooth voice and Bo's firebrand writing style, I mean, you've got to listen to really know what I mean.
	So go and enjoy, otherwise we're going to get into the news.
	So...
	Labour conference.
	Labour's had their second day of conference.
	They're currently on day four as we record this, but I've only caught up with the recordings because I have to watch the whole live stream, otherwise I don't feel like I'm doing my job.
	So that's been another eight hours of hell.
	Sorry to hear that.
	We're going to enjoy.
	So first thing is to go around the conference, so some of the media interviews that were going on, because we had cervix gait that didn't die.
	So this is, of course, the story that...
	Rosie Duffield said, women have a cervix, and in response, the Labour Party is in a civil war, about whether or not this is the case.
	And we'll go with the first link here, so you can see Andrew Doyle making the post here of someone who went on, what is this, LBC talk about it.
	And we're going to play this clip in which we're going to have the first part with Keir Starmer coming down on the side of women don't have cervixes, I'm not really sure.
	And then this lady who kind of melts down, and it's wonderful to watch, so let's enjoy.
	Is it transphobic to say only women have a cervix?
	Well, it is something that shouldn't be said.
	It is not, right?
	But, Andrew, I don't think that...
	So, Rosie Duffield should not have said that.
	Can you explain to people watching why she should not have said that?
	Well, Andrew, I don't think that we can just go through various things that people say.
	Is it transphobic to say only women have a cervix?
	Good morning.
	Good morning, Nick, and it's great to talk to you.
	Good to have you on.
	I just think that this issue has just become so divisive and toxic.
	And it pits people against each other, both groups who face discrimination in society, women and trans women.
	And I just find this debate incredibly unhelpful and unproductive, to be totally honest.
	At this conference, I want to speak about issues that affect people, whatever their gender and whatever their sexuality.
	And we will get to those, I assure you.
	But is it transphobic, yes or no?
	Is it transphobic?
	Look, I don't even know how to start answering these questions.
	I just don't find them helpful.
	The party leader suggests it is, so what do you as Shadow Chancellor say?
	I think that people should be able to identify with the gender that they feel comfortable with.
	Respectfully, Shadow Chancellor, that wasn't my question.
	My question is, is it transphobic to say only women have a cervix?
	I wouldn't say that.
	I wouldn't say that.
	Why is that?
	Because if somebody...
	Look, why are we having to discuss parts of women's anatomy?
	Because one of your colleagues feels unable to attend your conference.
	And she should feel safe attending our conference.
	But I don't feel comfortable talking about women's anatomies and different parts of women's bodies with you, Nick, or frankly with anybody else.
	But if somebody identifies as a woman and a man, or a man, they should be able to do so whatever their body parts are.
	Collapses.
	I mean, utter collapse, as you can see.
	Keir Starmer could at least give an answer to that, which is he took the unscientific response of saying that men also have cervixes.
	She couldn't at all.
	I think she's like, I can't remember what position she has in the party, but she's a senior minister as well.
	She's shadow chancellor.
	Yeah, so I love that though.
	You saw her calling for unity on this issue, like we shouldn't debate this issue, which is always a telltale sign while a socialist does that, because that means they're losing.
	As you could obviously see.
	But also she takes both positions at once, seemingly.
	So she says that she wouldn't say only women have a cervix is a transphobic phrase, but also people should be able to identify as whatever they like.
	So typical politician, useless, can't even take up a side.
	So then we'll go to the BBC. So the BBC decided to have this debate as well.
	And of course, being the BBC, they had two leftists on to agree with each other and then to move on.
	So we'll play this next one.
	Do you agree with Keir Starmer?
	It's something that shouldn't be said.
	It isn't right.
	Well, it's factually inaccurate.
	There are men who have cervixes.
	There are men who are trans.
	And they're men.
	And so it's not, I mean, it's just factually wrong.
	That's it.
	I'm joyful because finally someone has given what I consider an answer that is actually responding to the question.
	Yeah, and do you think people don't give?
	Well, no, they don't.
	They don't.
	And I think a lot of that is the fact that they don't really believe it themselves and they feel that they have to say it or their activists will scream at them.
	Emily's entirely right.
	There are people who don't self-define as women who nonetheless have female biology.
	But what's really important about that is to say that that's fine, but we do need to record gender and sex differently.
	There are times, if you want to have NHS records and your NHS record says you're male, we still need a way to know that some of those people need to be invited for cervical smears.
	And so we have to, in law and policy, differentiate between sex and gender.
	And you haven't.
	And she goes on to say that, well, the trans rights activists want us to think they're the same.
	What is the phrase, men have a cervix, if not exactly that point, that the gender and sex have been brought into one being?
	That there is no definition between these two things.
	And that's what leads people to say things like, yes, it's absolutely right that men have a cervix.
	It's amazing to see people actually just come to the conclusion that two plus two does really equal five.
	Yeah.
	Live on the BBC. Yeah.
	Fantastic.
	But there's one more from Cervixgate I think we're going to enjoy.
	So this is the last one here.
	You can see Stephen posting here.
	This is Talk Radio.
	So Julia the Turf comes in to just whack this down.
	So let's go to the next video.
	Only women have a cervix.
	Keir Starmer, your Labour leader, asked yesterday on the Andrew Marsh show, is it transphobic to say only women have a cervix?
	To which he replied, it is something that shouldn't be said.
	It is not right.
	Do you agree?
	I'm not sure that reducing the debate and discussion in this area to slogans and choice of language in that way...
	Is there a slogan, only women have a cervix?
	Is that a slogan or is that a statement of biological fact?
	I'm not sure it advances the debate, and I find it quite troubling sometimes that much of it becomes very unpleasant and abusive and toxic in a way where I think there is...
	We, of course, should discuss these issues, and we should discuss the fact that trans people face unacceptable discrimination.
	What's that got to do with Only Women Have a Sew?
	Because I'm wearing a T-shirt here.
	Women.
	Woman.
	Noun.
	Adult.
	Human.
	Female.
	Is it transphobic to say that?
	I think you're entitled to express your opinion.
	Is it transphobic to wear this t-shirt?
	I've already been called a transphobic at this party conference.
	I don't think levelling terms at people necessarily advances a wider respectful discussion.
	Again, massive cop-out from that Labour MP who's just like, I don't want to talk about this.
	This is making the conversation difficult.
	That's because it is.
	It's because your party and your ideology goes into a place that is obviously insane, and that's why even the entire media is just having fun at this.
	You're like, come on, call him on, ask him about it.
	Because no one at home can agree to this, of the people you have lost in the Red Wall, for example, or anywhere else in the country, and yet you're going to keep burying along that route of insisting that, yes, men can have cervixes.
	Which, no, no, no.
	I mean, you think you'd just at least pick a path if you're going to be that pathetic, but politicians are what they are and will be sleazy.
	I thought we'd go around also some social media bullying that I found.
	So, Twitter listing here.
	So, Ellie says, fantastic to finally meet the future Prime Minister with a picture of Keir Starmer.
	And this was listed by Twitter as a funny tweet.
	Oh, cool.
	Anyway, moving on, let's go to the next one.
	So, this is YouTube, who I was watching the conference on, and they listed...
	The conference as suitable for YouTube kids.
	So we get the next link.
	So when you try and minimize it, it says mini player is off for made for kids videos.
	Tap to review.
	So the conference is specifically made for children.
	So the thing there as well, for people who don't make YouTube videos, that means the person at labor conference, click that.
	The person uploading the live stream was like, yes, this is for kids.
	This is essentially a child's product.
	Our entire conference.
	Nice self-admission, I guess.
	The extent of political debate is perhaps that of children, but that's about it.
	But anyway, getting back to conference.
	So that's the outside of conference stuff, which, come on, we have to look at because it's just so funny.
	I thought we'd just start enjoying ourselves some more.
	So this clip we're going to play is about the climate change debate and how that went.
	Let's enjoy.
	It's 2021 and no progressive party, no socialist party should be supporting fossil fuels.
	At all.
	We need a radical, internationalist, socialist Green New Deal, not a watered-down motion in favour of delay.
	That will do nothing for workers.
	At all.
	And we will pay for it by taxing the rich.
	And yes, Rachel Reeves, there is a money tree.
	It's called the top 1%.
	So let's tax them.
	It's a forest.
	It is a forest.
	We will tax them and we will save this planet.
	And it can be done and we will do it.
	Solidarity, comrades!
	Solidarity!
	At least he didn't do a salute.
	Nice of him to dress up for the conference as well.
	Turning up in dungarees like he's ready to plant some turnips with his Palestinian lanyard there.
	This literal child.
	The thing I want to keep in mind as well, some people might think this is some rando or something.
	No, these are delegates.
	So the local branch sent these people to represent the retired branch, each one of these people.
	And that means they're not just some party member.
	But there you go.
	There's the climate change debate.
	The context on that as well is he's arguing against some...
	There were some gas workers, steel workers, and nuclear workers who had all their representatives, right?
	Traditional, like, working class kind of labor talking points, right?
	They all came up and said, no, we need to transition.
	We can't lose our jobs.
	You know, don't put us out of a job.
	And you had the rest of them, like that child, being like, no, death to the workers.
	Not giving you jobs.
	We just need to change the planet now by using the money tree that is the rich.
	So the party that's meant to be for the workers is also for putting lots of people out of jobs, probably working class people.
	Specifically trade unions of gas workers, steel workers, and nuclear workers.
	Great way to alienate your own support base.
	I mean, to be fair, their own fault for joining the Labour Party.
	Come on, it's bleedingly obvious what this is about now.
	And speaking of what it's about, anti-white.
	I'm not joking, we have gone through this clip before, but I'm going to enjoy it again.
	So you can see Andy Ngo posting here.
	There are too many white men putting their hands up.
	Video of UK Labour Party leader Mark Ferguson speaking at the party conference.
	And let's play this crap.
	One second before everyone puts their hands up.
	I am going to use this opportunity to ask for more speakers, but before anyone puts their hands up, I am aware, sitting here, one, it is very difficult to see all of you.
	There are very bright lights, which you can't really see when you sat down there.
	And two, the people putting their hands up do not reflect the diversity of the people in this hall, and that is very clear to me.
	I am afraid, and I'm not speaking from a position of particular strength here, there are too many white men putting their hands up.
	I am not anti-white men.
	Some of my favourite people.
	My dad's a white man.
	But I do not want white men to exclusively dominate this or any other debate at this conference.
	And following on, from my comrade in the chair this morning, I do wish to see the diversity of the hall reflected.
	I'm not putting anybody on the spot here.
	If you want to speak, do not be afraid to put your hand up.
	We want to hear from you.
	This is an inclusive conference.
	Hands up now, please, bearing that in mind.
	Thank you.
	Alright, that clip should be seen by everybody in the country.
	Because there is so much in there, it's unbelievable.
	He also assumed their gender as well, which is very bad of him, isn't it?
	He looked at them and made an assumption about their gender identity.
	It could have been a trans woman, my friend.
	But anyway, he makes the point, no white men speaking at the podium, and that's because diversity.
	But we are an inclusive conference, but keep it in mind, white men, you're not welcome.
	Right, okay.
	Also, the comrades are in the middle of that.
	For, you know, tradition.
	Added effect, yeah.
	Yeah, but the white men, the kind of people who literally made the Labour Party back in the days of yore.
	And yeah, no, they're not welcome.
	I also loved after that, you could see some footage of like the audience and you could see like the white men dotted around and were just like, "Why the hell are we members?" And they shouldn't be.
	What the hell are you doing with your life?
	Yeah, I'm amazed that there were so many in the first place.
	Surely they've been pushed out already.
	I mean, we're going to talk about anti-Semitism in the Labour Party a minute.
	Imagine if you say, well, there are too many Jews, and this conference needs to be more diverse because Jews are only some percentage, but there's too many of them speaking.
	What would the Jewish members think?
	What would be the response from the media or the public at large?
	The correct one of, what the hell is wrong with you?
	Why do you think that's an appropriate thing to say at a national conference about your own members?
	Let's forget.
	You know, these are your fellow comrades, but they've got the wrong skin tone.
	And of course, imagine the reverse.
	Tory party conference, can you imagine them saying, you know, too many black women, black women, get out, re.
	And then...
	The media have just been like, well, fair enough.
	No, it's not going to happen.
	But speaking of some of the media who did good on this, so I want to give them a shout-out.
	You see GB News who took that clip and put it up.
	230,000 views there.
	Make people aware of this situation.
	Share it with your friends.
	Take it online.
	Share it to everyone you can.
	Good for GB News to put that up.
	If we go to the next one, we have Lawrence Fox who shared this as well.
	So, why is the UK Labour Party so openly racist against white-skinned people?
	Don't know.
	They're just, they are, aren't they?
	They are leftists and therefore hate whitey because whitey is the enemy.
	And that's how their ideology runs, because white man overrepresented.
	So, talking about overrepresentation, let's go to antisemitism.
	This is the thing as well.
	Like, he complains about there being too many white men, and then moves on to a debate about antisemitism, in which he's apologising for discriminating against Jews.
	So it's apparently lost on him, the weird parallels there.
	Nothing.
	No thinking.
	I mean, his mind is literally just like an empty tunnel where nothing goes in or out and makes any sense.
	It's just like, yeah, discrimination against Jews, bad.
	White men, good.
	Right.
	Okay.
	So let's play this next clip in which the audience boo and jeer him for saying we should apologize for being anti-Semites.
	Let's play.
	We are going to conduct this debate, this serious debate, in the way it was intended.
	I will not accept heckling, booing or any other attempts to hassle myself or any other person speaking from this platform now or at any other time for the rest of this session.
	Amazing.
	I mean, we're going to have a debate conference on whether anti-Semitism is bad.
	We've got two options.
	They're like, boo!
	Shouldn't even debate this.
	Of course it's good, because those are the people from the old faction, let's say, who have all stuck around.
	Although they don't seem to be small numbers.
	They were able to boo and jeer to the point that the chairman had to literally shout them down, screeching that, no, we're not going to do that.
	By the way, we're live-streaming that.
	I mean, that's the best part.
	These people are so laxed about their behaviour, they don't even care that they're being live-streamed to the rest of the world.
	The reason I was laughing was because he was just addressing them at his conference and telling them off.
	It's just a really weird way of phrasing it, I suppose.
	I like Connor's meme about this, spooing an apology for recorded incidents of anti-Semitism.
	Never has this been more appropriate.
	Are we the baddies' hands?
	Yeah.
	Reference.
	Good reference.
	He then subsequently decided to double down on the anti-white rhetoric after making that statement.
	So it wasn't just like he made that one about no more white men, also we shouldn't discriminate against Jews, and then move on.
	No, he went back to keep in mind, no white men.
	So there should be a clip here if we can play the next one.
	We are now looking once again for another round of speakers.
	I'd like to remind Conference what I said earlier about trying to ensure that we reflect the diversity of the whole.
	Yeah, so that's him re-reminding everyone, no white men.
	But we're discussing whether or not we should discriminate against Jews for being Jews.
	Does anything really need to be said?
	What about if a white man is Jewish?
	Don't know.
	Imagine there were a few there.
	Are there any base Jewish white men at a Labour conference?
	I don't know what you're doing there, but ask him.
	I want to know the answer.
	If anyone interviews him, ask the bastard.
	I really want to know.
	I can't believe they just get away with this openly and no one seems to pick up on it.
	I mean, it's being live-streamed.
	Everyone can see it.
	Anyway, let's move on.
	So, they had that, and then this horrible man decided he would also...
	Because, of course, it's not just the white part, it's also the men part, so he went on to complain that there were also too many men.
	Yet again, let's play.
	I am trying to gender balance this conference, but this debate appears to have a large number of men wishing to speak.
	Yes, yes, this delegate here, thank you.
	I mean, literal chairman SJW, but then leftism, so quality of outcome doctrine.
	I don't need to say anything about that.
	Let's just leave that there.
	Come on, everyone can see through that.
	The next thing we're going to go through is that the conference then went on to debate a leadership rule change.
	So previously, if you wanted to become a leader, to be candidate, you needed 10% of the MPs in the party to back you.
	They wanted to change that to 20% because Corbyn can't do that again.
	So they had this debate and the people who didn't want to change it complained that if they did this, the conference would look too much pale, male and stale.
	Let's play this clip.
	And in 2020, we were being faced with a very simple choice.
	Keir Starmer or Keir Starmer.
	Now...
	However we voted in that election, can we really say that the debate would have been stronger had we not heard the voices of Emily Thornberry, Rebecca Long Bailey or Lisa Nandy?
	And there's something that those There's something those three names have in common.
	They're all women.
	In fact, can you guess how many women have had 20% of MPs in the last 40 years?
	Just one.
	And how many black candidates?
	Zero.
	If we vote for Card Vote 19, our debate will be paler, maler, and staler.
	Our movement will be weaker.
	Our movement will be weaker if we have white men representing us.
	Isn't that a bit of a condemnation of their own party by their own standards, by saying...
	We never vote for blacks or women.
	Yeah.
	I mean, you would have thought...
	He wasn't the only one either.
	There were multiple speakers who made that same point.
	I was like, did none of you have some cogs in your head that are ticking?
	And I was just like, hang on, why do we never vote for women candidates?
	Why do we never vote for BAME? No, there's nothing going on in there, is there?
	Just a hamster wheel or something.
	Yeah.
	Oh, God.
	So, this was the complaint.
	Again, just some rando.
	He's just a delegate, after all, to the entire conference.
	No, the NEC and MP member decided to stand up and support him in that position, as we can see from this tweet.
	Labour MP Shambana Mahmood also said that they would not return a pale, male and stale leadership contest.
	Let's play the next clip.
	Parliamentary Labour Party, you know, for the first time ever, is over 50% women.
	And...
	It is the most diverse it has ever been when it comes to Black, Asian and ethnic minority members of Parliament.
	Now, look at my face.
	Look at every female member of Parliament for the Labour Party.
	Look at every single Black, Asian and ethnic minority Labour member of Parliament.
	The idea that we stand quietly by and deliver you a future contest that is pale, male and stale, you're having a laugh.
	It ain't gonna happen, folks.
	Like, yes, I don't want a position in this party either.
	Good God.
	So yeah, they agree with that.
	I love how she frames it as like, we the diversity are going to be the guardian against white men.
	Like, us, because we've got brown faces, we're never going to vote for white men.
	Don't you worry, conference.
	We hate white men too.
	But the obvious point of being like, your current leader's Keir Starmer, and you're the ones who made him there, so it doesn't even make any sense under their own logic, but whatever.
	Oh god.
	So I've cut this up again, as I did for day one.
	Remember, this is only day two.
	I mean, we've got like five more days or whatever the hell is of this.
	They're really spoiling us, aren't they?
	Yeah.
	So there's a full version of Day 2 on the second channel.
	If you can scroll down to show people the channel name, because I've forgotten how you write it out.
	But the section in there, there's way more we don't have time to cover on the podcast.
	I mean, there's some sections in the anti-Semitism part where you've got Jews talking about the fact that people are laughing around them when anti-Semitism came up, or they're being told by fellow comrades that they need to check up this YouTube channel, which is totally non-biased and is...
	You know, White Lives, 1488.
	He's got some views on the Holocaust.
	Okay, whatever.
	So it's way worse than I'm making it out to be.
	And enjoy just looking at it and also share it with people because people, I think, need to see how bad they are.
	I mean, Tories got their problems.
	Don't get me wrong.
	We complain about them a lot.
	Labour Party on another planet of insane.
	I also wanted to go to the last link here, which is just to show the live stream, in case people are wondering where I'm getting this from, which is the late party YouTube channel.
	If you can scroll down on this, one of the things I found interesting is that they have a bunch of dislikes on their own live streams.
	So you can see the Civil War in real time.
	It's like, you know, Biden's videos where 100% dislikes, but this one is 50%.
	So you can see the endless Civil War there as well.
	Anyway, that's that.
	Scum.
	Let's move on.
	Okay, so I was looking to talk about how military officials have said that they urged Biden against an Afghanistan withdrawal, but Biden claims that he didn't receive this advice.
	So this is all centred around a Senate hearing which was looking at, obviously, the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan that the US has conducted recently.
	Of course, 13 US servicemen died.
	And also, in the attempts to make the exit safe, there was a drone strike which ended up killing a family of 10 Afghan civilians who were actually set to move to the US. And I believe that one of the family members...
	It wasn't just random Afghans.
	No, they had worked with the US and their reward alongside their offer of citizenship was a drone strike which killed 10 civilians, mostly children as well.
	That's way worse than I thought it was.
	Yeah, so obviously this isn't a great look for the United States.
	So they spoke to General Mark Milley, the Secretary of Defence Lloyd Austin, and General Kenneth McKenzie, and they spoke to them for six hours yesterday about the Afghan withdrawal, and this was the United States Senate Committee on the Armed Services, sorry.
	So, before we get to the withdrawal itself, it's worth mentioning General Milley.
	General Milley?
	Exactly.
	We have covered him before, but I want to quickly go over some stuff because he was talking about his dealings with Trump and other things unrelated to the Afghan withdrawal, which I thought was very interesting, actually.
	And there's some very important things that can be drawn from what he says.
	So, obviously, in a book recently, he admits to going behind Trump's back and talking to his Chinese counterpart.
	He claims that he was concerned about Trump going rogue, and in the aftermath of the election, he stated that he had experienced serious mental decline, and he was worried for the safety of the United States, which is...
	Obviously ridiculous.
	You make it sound like Millie had serious mental decline and started worrying for the safety of the United States.
	I think that's more truthful and accurate, but no, that's what he thought about Trump.
	So, yeah, he was worried about nuclear war with China specifically.
	And he also spoke to Pelosi privately without any public knowledge to try and wrestle the nuclear controls from Trump, which is obviously horrible treasonous behavior going to the Chinese.
	Don't worry, I've got the nukes.
	Yeah, this is terrible.
	This is like military court-level stuff.
	So, in the hearing, he actually insists that his calls to the Chinese counterpart in the meeting in which he told generals to alert him if Trump tried to launch a nuclear weapon were part of his duties as the country's top military officer.
	So, not the commander-in-chief.
	That's not their role, you know, the president.
	It's his role to undermine the person that's at the very top.
	I don't think that's how the military works, is it?
	Well, it doesn't mean it's head.
	Yeah, apparently you've got to be disobedient to the person who is your boss in the military.
	Anyone who's in the military obviously knows that that's not the case.
	But also the guy who ended up getting kicked out for saying that they withdraw from Afghanistan was a S-show.
	Stating the obvious, yeah.
	Yeah, and he got kicked out of the entire army for that.
	Ridiculous.
	Millie literally doing a nuclear coup.
	Yeah, so in the hearing he states, My loyalty to this nation, its people, and the constitution hasn't changed, and it never will change as long as I have breath to give.
	Loyalty to the constitution?
	You mean where, you know, the president is the commander-in-chief?
	And he says, I firmly believe in civilian control of the military as a bedrock principle essential to this republic, and I am committed to ensuring the military stays clear of domestic politics.
	What exactly was he doing then?
	When he was going behind the president's back and talking to the Chinese and talking to Pelosi, he should have no business with Pelosi because she's the House majority leader, but she's not part of the executive, is she?
	She's not in the president's office, obviously.
	But that's the political realm, exactly what he's saying you must be avoidance of.
	Yeah, so he's obviously a massive hypocrite as well as being a traitor as far as I'm concerned.
	So we've got an article which has a quote about what Trump makes of General Milley, which I think is always interesting to read out.
	So...
	Trump states that Milley should be tried for treason if the story is true, which he doesn't deny it's true.
	He actually says it is true.
	For the record, I have never thought of attacking China and China knows that.
	And then I'm going to read a full quote from Trump.
	I wish I could do a decent impression of him where he says, the people that fabricated the story are sick and demented and the people who print it are just as bad.
	He's on about him, you know, starting a war with China.
	In fact, I'm the only president in decades who didn't get the US into a war, a well-known fact that is seldom reported.
	The good news is that the story is fake news concocted by a weak and ineffective general together with two authors who I refuse to give an interview to because they write fiction, not fact.
	Action should be taken immediately against Milley and better generals in our military, of which we have many, should get involved so that another Afghanistan disaster never happens again.
	Remember, I was the one that took out 100% of the ISIS caliphate.
	Milley said it couldn't be done.
	So basically, Trump's saying exactly what I was saying, that he's a traitor, and also that he doesn't know what he's talking about, as in saying he didn't think you could get rid of ISIS, and then Trump did it.
	So, well done to Trump.
	Obviously, Milley's not to be trusted, but it wasn't just him being quizzed, of course.
	So, the Republican for Arkansas, the Senator, Tom Cotton, confronted Milley and asked, well, if...
	You recommended to Biden that we should keep a steady 2,500 people in Afghanistan.
	He explicitly said in this committee hearing that he advised Biden not to withdraw and that it would be a disaster.
	He says he wanted to keep about 2,500 US troops there.
	And it could bounce up to about 3,500, maybe something like that, in order to move towards a negotiated, gated solution.
	And Cotton points out that obviously your advice wasn't heeded, and then all this happened.
	How come you didn't resign?
	And he says, I can only conclude that your advice about staying in Afghanistan was rejected.
	I'm shocked to learn that your advice wasn't sought until August 25th on staying past the August 31st deadline.
	Understand that you're the principal military advisor and that you advise.
	You don't decide.
	The president decides.
	But if all this is true, General Milley, why haven't you resigned?
	And he says, as a senior military officer, resigning is a really serious thing.
	It's a political act if I'm resigning in protest.
	My job is to provide advice, my statutory responsibility to provide legal advice or best military advice to the president.
	And that's my legal requirement.
	That's what the law is.
	Ah, BS. The whole thing's BS. Sorry, as a senior military officer, resigning is a really serious thing, which is why you're not doing it, because you're not a serious person.
	It's a political act if I'm resigning in protest.
	No, you're taking accountability.
	You'd actually be taking heat off the president if you did that.
	You'd say, no, this is my fault.
	Don't blame Biden.
	You know, all the rest of it.
	You know, I was the one who messed up because I'm the military advisor.
	That wouldn't be political.
	That would be, no, you have messed up.
	You're the individual responsible.
	No, actually, you staying there is a political act as well because you're making Biden look worse and worse and as it's his fault.
	But isn't the military politics by other means anyway?
	So isn't everything political?
	There's also that.
	If you're trying to make this distinction between the two worlds, then his idea that, oh, if I resign it looks bad and Biden is obvious BS. And it's just him being like, no, no, no, these are my excuses for not taking accountability.
	I mean, there are a million reasons why this guy should have been fired, either by Trump or actually Biden as well as a hanger-offer.
	But the other point there of him being like, oh no, I'm not getting involved in politics.
	It gets much worse than that.
	Sorry, that's just that I've peed me off a lot.
	No, it is ridiculous, isn't it?
	The president doesn't have to agree with the advice, he says.
	He doesn't have to make those decisions just because we're generals and it would be an incredible act of political defiance for a commissioned officer to just resign because my advice is not taken.
	This country does not want generals figuring out what orders we're going to accept and do or not.
	That's not our job.
	These words are coming out of his mouth.
	After what he did.
	Yeah.
	I mean, that's amazing.
	But the first part there, which is like, well, you know, he doesn't have to take my advice.
	I'm just a general.
	And Biden's, uh, what?
	Sorry, what?
	He done with his life.
	He's been a senator for 120 years, according to him.
	Big military man.
	Anyway, but there's that.
	But there's also the fact that, OK, maybe he did make a decision.
	He had more information than you.
	But then your advice not being heeded led to the deaths of at least 14 American service personnel who were suicide bombed.
	Not to mention anyone else who was killed that we don't know about at this point.
	Not to mention the 10 civilians who were trying to come to the U.S. You would guarantee you'd come to the U.S. You then drone-striked.
	Not to mention the entire collapse of the Afghan government.
	This is all your fault.
	This is not just, well, I advised him one thing and we lost a bit of the front line and oh well.
	It's not a tiny thing at all.
	You lost the war.
	Yeah.
	So that's more than enough grounds to resign if he so wanted to.
	His excuse is pitiful.
	And the fact that he's saying the country doesn't want generals figuring out what orders we're going to accept or not whilst he went behind President Trump is appalling.
	He's really done that.
	How on earth can he say that with a straight face?
	It's good to know when you've got proof that someone is just an absolute snake.
	But anyway, this isn't even actually the main focus of the hearing.
	This is just a side thing that I thought was very important to point out.
	So, if we go on to this post-millennial article, which is very good...
	It's titled, Biden accused of lying after his top generals contradict his ABC interview on Afghanistan withdrawal.
	So, obviously, in this ABC interview, Biden says, well...
	So there should be one more link, I assume.
	Yeah.
	Sorry.
	Never mind.
	It's okay.
	I've got all the quotes I need anyway.
	But...
	They spoke to General Kenneth McKenzie, who basically supports the notion put forward by Millie as well, that they should have stayed there.
	I mean, I do think, although Millie is a bit of a liar, clearly, that anyone who knows anything about the military, the situation was bad.
	They should have kept people there.
	And I know my predictions in the past weren't great.
	But I've learned the error of my ways about Afghanistan.
	I got a different view.
	I look at the thing and being like, look, there was Trump's deadline.
	He moved it back to September 11th for weird satanic reasons, presumably.
	And because he hasn't given one.
	And therefore, the collapse is on him.
	Should have pulled out.
	Oh, yeah, yeah.
	And the collapse happened while you remember there?
	That's your fault.
	I still think it's Biden's fault, but I think...
	But the place was never going to stay stable.
	We could stay there for another 10 years.
	Why?
	For what?
	But nevertheless, what they're trying to say here is that they should have kept troops there because it was never going to last, right?
	And that's what both generals seem to agree on.
	So General Kenneth McKenzie, apparently not as much of a scumbag as Millie, says...
	I will give you my honest opinion, and my honest opinion and view shapes my recommendation.
	I recommended that we maintained 2,500 troops in Afghanistan, which was the same as Millie, and I also recommended earlier in the fall of 2020 that we maintain 4,500 troops at the time.
	Those are my personal views.
	I also have the view that withdrawal of those forces would lead inevitably to the collapse of the Afghan military forces and eventually the Afghan government.
	And then he was asked, So he's saying, yes, these recommendations were passed on to Biden.
	But Biden says in his ABC interview...
	So the interviewer says, your top military advisors warned against withdrawing on this timeline.
	They wanted you to keep about 2,500 troops.
	And Biden interrupts saying, no, they didn't.
	It was split.
	That wasn't true.
	That wasn't true.
	And he says, they didn't tell you that they wanted troops to stay.
	And Biden says, no, not in terms or whether we were going to get out immediately.
	In a time frame, all troops.
	That's Biden's own words.
	It's difficult to read Joe Biden and make sense of it, so sorry.
	They didn't argue against that, he says.
	So no one told you.
	Your military advisors did not tell you no.
	We should just keep 2,500 troops.
	It's been a stable situation for the past couple of years.
	We can do that.
	We can continue to do that.
	And Biden says no.
	No one said that, that I can recall.
	Saliva.
	Biden's got a terrible memory, which...
	Perfectly possible.
	Or someone here is lying.
	I wonder who it might be.
	I mean, I don't trust Millie.
	I don't trust Biden.
	You've got McKenzie.
	I don't know anything about him.
	Yeah, I think he seems relatively okay.
	I don't know too much about him.
	But he's certainly not as bad as Millie.
	I wouldn't be surprised either that it would be true that the military guys were advising just keep a lot of troops there and stay there.
	Yeah, it's believable, right?
	It was the status quo.
	I mean, that is the position which also certifies their own continued usefulness, right?
	It would break the deal that Trump made with, well, the United States made with the Taliban.
	It would also mean that you never leave, ever.
	But I can imagine them making it.
	So, I think Biden's either probably lying or he's misremembering, which both of them are pretty easily...
	Yes, but because these kinds of things go on for a long time and they're not very interesting to go through, this is going to get a little bit overlooked.
	But it is important to hammer home these two things that...
	General Milley is a liar and a traitor, a backstabber and a hypocrite, and that either the generals or Biden are lying about who is to blame for the Afghanistan withdrawal.
	Because someone is, and they're not clearly...
	They're just fighting each other.
	Yeah, exactly.
	So one final thing, which is quite amusing, is that Elizabeth Warren came out...
	Pocahontas has something to say.
	LAUGHTER So she spoke about this hearing on MSNBC last night and she said that it was actually an amazing undertaking.
	It was done under chaotic circumstances because the government had collapsed, because the army had melted away, the Afghan army, and that even in the midst of all that, our military was able to get about 124,000 people out and they left no American-owned equipment behind.
	They managed to execute that and yes, it was a risk and We lost a young woman from Massachusetts.
	I'm working now on getting the Congressional Medal of Honor for the people who we lost right at the end, but we knew it was a risky undertaking and the military performed.
	We should be proud of President Biden and proud of our military.
	What world is she living in?
	He's just deluded.
	I mean, number one, no military equipment was left behind.
	You can literally see it in the videos made by the Taliban.
	They have the rifles, the uniform, all of the equipment, the vehicles.
	How does the Taliban now have the third largest air force on planet Earth?
	How did that happen?
	They just had it hiding in the caves.
	Don't you know?
	They had it the whole time.
	So absurd.
	But also, we should be proud of President Biden and proud of our military.
	What?
	We should be ashamed.
	We should be proud of the American military in the sense that they did their evacuation.
	The Harper brass and all the rest of it obviously completely goofed the whole situation.
	But then again, they're being commanded by the Commander-in-Chief, who ultimately takes all decisions on this regard and also takes all the blame, which he should.
	And therefore, to be proud of him, for what?
	I think the only people who are blameless in this are the people who are actually the boots on the ground.
	Yeah, I don't have any saying anything.
	Yeah, exactly.
	You should be proud of them.
	And, you know, the people that died to get other people out, yes.
	That's obviously something to be proud of.
	The emperor, the man who is totally the President of the United States, that's the one you should be proud of.
	Ugh.
	What's wrong with these people?
	Anyway, moving on.
	Pocahontas' position.
	Let's move into Nostalgia Street.
	Swearing is a white privilege.
	Also, apparently wearing secondhand clothes is also a white privilege.
	What?
	We're going to get into that.
	So this is a story which resolves around the University of Kent, which is a university I went to, so I thought we'd have a trip down memory lane and just enjoy a little bit of nostalgia because I want to and try and stop me.
	So we're going to go through a few things first just to get the context of some of the nonsense that goes on at the University of Kent over the last few years.
	And there's a fair bit of it.
	It's not the worst university in the country, I hope, but there are some bad stuff.
	So the first thing to go for is the University of Kent is to blame for the situation coming in.
	And you can see the first post here is an Instagram post.
	Now this is an Instagram post from the Afro-Diasporic Legal Network.
	I'm sure they have some perfectly reasonable things to say.
	So this is in response to the George Floyd killing in the US and therefore...
	What?
	I don't know what that has to do with the University of Kent, but okay.
	So they give some demands.
	What do they demand?
	Number one.
	We demand that a short and long-term strategy be implemented that enhances political discourses and political education on both Canterbury and Medway campuses.
	So we need political education of the student body.
	Even if they're taking, I don't know, science and not queer theory, but whatever.
	They say in here in this big long blocco text, because that's how leftists write, First thing, students must adopt a critical lens and then blah blah blah blah.
	In particular, many disciplines are void of black, queer, feminist, socio-political thought and theory.
	I'm not kidding, you can read that in the middle there.
	That's a complaint.
	That's a complaint that the engineering department doesn't have black, queer, feminist, socio-political thought in it.
	Sounds like a positive to me.
	I know, but I love how it reads literally like that Simpsons sketch, you know, when they go to a campus and it's a bunch of SJWs running in place.
	Literally, that's what their demand was.
	And we're going to end up getting it, apparently.
	So they also end up in this list of demands demanding segregated spaces, so where they can explore themselves or some crap, I can't remember, but I remember this at the time.
	And they also demanded, what was it, black-only mentors, because they're a bunch of critical race theorists.
	This is fundamentally where this all comes from, that's why they can...
	Have themselves a position that we're anti-racist.
	That's why I'm for segregation.
	Yeah, I can only be mentored by a black person.
	Yes.
	But I'm not racist.
	So, I mean, it's a great example of just a student organization on campus demanding this kind of crap.
	And probably the worst one.
	I love that.
	Many disciplines are void of black, queer, feminist, social, political thought.
	Yes, I did physics.
	Lucky for them.
	You've been weirdos.
	I mean, this is why the law department is kind of a joke, but whatever.
	So the Islamic Society also endorsed this.
	Or they have to do with them.
	God knows.
	Let's go to the next link.
	Because, of course, the Afro-law society has got nothing to do with black people.
	Never did.
	Let's hammer that down real quick.
	It's got to do with leftists.
	And this is an example.
	What happened to Free Palestine?
	What's that got to do with Afro-law?
	Nada.
	What's that got to do with us either, really?
	No.
	Again, it's just leftists.
	Another front for leftism.
	Let's not waste our time with anything else there.
	So we'll get to the next link here.
	The other reason I'm particularly tied into this, I find interesting, because Carl's tied into it as well.
	So Carl came to come and give a speech at the University of Kent.
	He was invited.
	And you can see this headline here.
	Controversial YouTuber Carl Benjamin, a.k.a.
	Sargon of a Cad, to speak at the University of Kent, Canterbury, despite protests.
	Who are the protests?
	What protests?
	Can you guess?
	Was it leftists?
	Yeah.
	Oh, wow.
	Dishonest leftists.
	Big shock.
	I am very shook.
	So let's go to the next one.
	It's a really grainy photograph.
	Yeah.
	Let's go to the next link.
	So you can see here the Enquirer, which is a student newspaper.
	I think this is a web archive because they deleted the original, which is interesting.
	So as you can see, yeah, literal antifa.
	A bunch of dishonest leftists were very butthurt that someone who isn't a dishonest leftist would be given a space to say something.
	That's it.
	Literally, he came to campus to give a talk.
	I think it was on, like, populism or something?
	And it ended up divulging into just arguing with them because they were the worst.
	So, you can see from some of the quotes in here.
	So, exclusive.
	Let's bait people into being abusive.
	Antifar group chat exposed.
	Then anti-fascist.
	Open brackets, Antifar.
	Facebook group chat, which included Kent Union officers, discussed intent to bait people into being abusive at Carl Benjamin's controversial talk at the university, while ignoring requests from the union to conduct security for student safety.
	They were told, look, if you're really so upset, just call student safety.
	They're like, nah, because they're not scared of anything.
	There's nothing going on there.
	They're trying to scare other people and intimidate them into not turning up, right?
	Yes.
	So we have the quote in here from one of the group chats.
	The plan at the moment is to hand out leaflets with his most virulent anti-Semitic comments and try to bait people into being abusive.
	I actually, I wish I kept the piece of paper because we got a copy of him.
	The comments, they're tweets that were fake and made by the alt-right.
	That was the funniest part.
	It was like the fans of Richard Spencer had made them.
	And the Antifa are like, yes, this totally happens.
	Like, why are you handing out alt-right propaganda?
	But they...
	Two in the feather, let's say.
	Horseshoe theory vindicated.
	Every single time.
	So the group has been identified as UKC Anti-Fascists, organised in the Facebook group chat KentAntifaLads.
	The group chat was created in order to clean up Nazi graffiti that was found on campus on the 9th of November, the anniversary of Kristallnacht.
	Hmm.
	Convenient, that.
	All of a sudden, there was a swastika on campus.
	It was drawn the wrong way.
	In case you're wondering.
	So they weren't an expert then, were they?
	Whoever graffitied this.
	Whoever.
	Whoever it could have been happened to have done it the wrong way, and then all of a sudden they needed an anti-far group on campus who were totally here to defend people and not just stir the crap.
	And the best part was I managed to meet someone who said they had access to the, had like seen the security footage or something, and they were like, it was a bit diverse.
	The chubby did it.
	I couldn't confirm that, but I just, big think.
	So, members of the group included around 40 student activists, many of whom were committee members for the Feminist Society, Marxist Society, Labour Society, and an associate lecturer from the School of English.
	Imagine my shock.
	Imagine my shock.
	Literally every goddamn time.
	Four Kent Union officers, the Union officers, again, imagine my shock, including the Vice President for Welfare, Omolade something, who were also members of the secretive group.
	It's just amazing.
	But anyway, let's get into the story itself.
	So that's my setup for just like the, let's say, leftist activity on that campus.
	So let's go to the full story.
	So next link, please.
	Students at University of Kent must take white privilege course.
	Oh, great.
	Fantastic.
	It's all coming from America to us.
	So this is a...
	I'm pretty sure this was on...
	So you have like an online portal, which is Moodle.
	And I signed up to this when I was there, but it was just like one of the modules in the thing that I found.
	And I'm assuming it's now been mandatory.
	So let's go through it.
	All students at the University of Kent must take a diversity course, which suggests that wearing secondhand clothes and using swear words can be examples of white privilege.
	What?
	In what world?
	And surely, surely buying new clothes is more privileged than getting second-hand ones?
	What are they like?
	All these white people are buying fancy vintage clothes that I can't get, or is that their take?
	It's like Uber hipster or something, you know?
	It's like, nah, rich people get second-hand clothes.
	Yeah, we have to buy new, it's disgusting.
	What on earth are you talking about?
	The university has told every student, regardless of the subject they are studying, or if they are an undergraduate or postgraduate, to complete the four-hour online course, which covers topics including white privilege, microaggressions, and preferred pronouns.
	Because of course it bloody does.
	But also, again, no matter the subject.
	If you're taking engineering, too bad.
	You can't be a non-political person.
	You must be part of the cult.
	Or you're getting kicked out.
	Presumably because it's mandatory.
	I can't imagine what would happen if you didn't.
	They would probably call you in in front of a hearing and then tell you that Islam is a race.
	Which actually happened to one of my friends.
	So, the Expect Respect course is described as outlining, quote, the true behaviours we expect of you whilst you are with us, as well as what you can expect of both the university and the student union, according to the university website.
	It includes a white privilege quiz, which participants are asked to select societal benefits allegedly enjoyed by white people in Britain from 13 options.
	According to the Daily Telegraph, a student who ticks all 13, correctly, gets a gold star.
	Because this is a primary school or something.
	Otherwise, a button appears telling them to try the quiz again.
	So you must correctly identify all 13 instances of white privilege.
	And one of them is apparently wearing second-hand clothes, so...
	That's a bit of a curveball.
	Yeah.
	That wouldn't be my go-to thing if I were guessing what they wanted.
	It's like, yeah, you're wearing too much second-hand stuff.
	Yeah.
	Anyway, we'll continue on this.
	The module aims to dig deep into issues of racism, bias, sexual harassment, and consent.
	A challenge students to, quote, to think about your own behavior, the way you interact with others, and the impact this could have on someone else's experience, it adds.
	One example of white privilege featured in the quiz reads, quote, What?
	What the hell are you talking about?
	Sorry.
	So I'm defined as white, therefore I can swear where second I'm close, and people won't say that that's me having bad morals, or that I live in poverty, or that I'm illiterate, because I'm white.
	No.
	What world are you living in?
	There's a lot of people who don't appreciate my swearing.
	Carl, mostly, actually.
	Swearing is a sign of bad morals.
	That is very based.
	Again, see?
	You see the bigotry I have to put up with?
	Yes.
	It's just so, like, pathetic.
	A black person can't swear.
	If someone says stop swearing, that's oppression.
	But again, the reason I set it up with all that extra crap there, and the fact that they're making it mandatory, goes back to the Afro-Diaspora Instagram post, which is like, yes, there's nothing of black queer feminist theory.
	Now there is.
	You happy lads?
	This is what they asked for and the university just buckled, apparently.
	So, one example of white privilege.
	Oh, I've read that one.
	Another example includes, I can go shopping without being followed or harassed.
	As someone who keeps going to the Tesco's around the corner and quite often gets followed by the black security guard, because I've got a huge rucksack and I'm walking around buying stuff, fair enough.
	But no, apparently I'm being racially oppressed by that black security guard.
	Also, when I used to go to work in a suit...
	Walking down the street, quite often, three times in about 10-15 minutes, people would come up to me asking for money.
	Sorry, you're being racially oppressed by the homeless, is that?
	Yes.
	The homeless are racist, didn't you know?
	Makes as much sense as this.
	I can do well in challenging situations without being called a credit to my race.
	Does anyone ever say that to anyone?
	Whoever talks like this...
	I can do well in a challenging situation without being called a credit to my race.
	Again, not true.
	I mean, we've just seen the late party conference.
	I mean, you're a good white man.
	You didn't put your hand up.
	You can add that there.
	In an internal email, the university's lecturers were told, quote, We expect all students, regardless of program, level, or site of study, to complete the module.
	However, some members of staff have resisted.
	Good lads.
	There are a couple of good lads on campus.
	I think, what is his name, ma'am?
	I'm forgetting his name now.
	There's an academic at the University of Canada, just politics, who I'm sure the chap will remember.
	Maybe you could read the chap and remind me, because I imagine people will be putting it in.
	I don't have it open, unfortunately.
	Dang, but he's great, so that'll be him.
	Godwinson or something like that?
	Sorry.
	So, next quote.
	I'm not going to tell students to do this module, Ella Lee, a professor of family and parenting research at the university, said.
	She said, quote, quite a lot of her colleagues felt the same way.
	Good.
	And resist this nonsense.
	I mean, literally, it's the black queer feminist theory that the lunatics who wanted segregation were calling for.
	So, quote, Encouraging people in the academy to narrow their field of reading and narrow students' reading seems to me to be a bit philistine and irresponsible.
	No S. Students are being instructed through this module that there is a correct way of thinking.
	The party's way of thinking.
	Professor Frank Frudy, a sociologist at Kent and author of 100 Years of Identity Crisis, also criticised the course as thought policing, adding, quote, there's a real danger of promoting conformism on campus under the guise of education that you indoctrinate people into woke dogma.
	100% correct.
	It's great to see that lots of professors are actually coming out, putting their name to comments like, this is bad.
	Yeah.
	Because it kind of frustrates me a little bit when, particularly Americans, I think their university is certainly more far gone than ours, but they say, oh, just don't go to university.
	You know, it's all taken over when my experience is I didn't come across any wokeness unless I actually sought it out.
	But also they're incredibly weak.
	I mean, I imagine like five, ten years ago that the red terror of an environment that wokeism could bring to bear was far worse.
	But I remember on university and whatnot, it kind of is a joke at this point because it's so absurd.
	I remember talking to some of my lecturers when it first started coming about, and they were just kind of laughing about it, like, yeah, you just keep...
	Just kind of ignore them.
	But even publicly.
	I mean, when your opposition is like, yeah, race segregation, you don't have to take them seriously.
	And I'm very glad that a lot of lecturers at the university are getting that position as well.
	So last quote here.
	A spokesman for the university said that the module was, quote, supporting everyone.
	Who believes that?
	Sorry, you're literally lecturing the white kids that they're bad for having second-hand clothes, but whatever.
	So, supports everyone to ensure all members of our community are treated with dignity and respect.
	Except the white ones, the men, maybe straight.
	I don't know how deep the course goes into intersectional theory, but there's always some enemy class, isn't there?
	And that's how they define them.
	So I thought we'd go for the next link here, which is the Free Speech Union, who are supporting this.
	Good boys, Free Speech Union.
	Very good support.
	I would recommend joining, especially if you're on university and being oppressed by these lunatics.
	So this isn't education, it's indoctrination.
	100% correct.
	And I thought we'd enjoy a...
	Nice little quote from a friend of mine who, I'm not going to mention his name, but he sent me a message about this and they sent me a little bit of extra information because he was quite in-depth with the union at the university and is now pretty peed off.
	So let's go to the next link here so you can see.
	I've got sources from inside the last union that proves that jobs were internally allocated by race.
	Like organising Black History Month.
	Beyond remit by the diversity head, the woman who said Islam is a race, something I mentioned earlier, and that non-white elected officers were formally reprimanded for not wanting to do them.
	May take to print.
	I hope he does.
	And if he doesn't, I'm happy to talk about it because it's really funny.
	I just can't get over there just like, yeah, brown people, you're bad for not wanting to do Black History Month, and I'm just like, Leave me alone.
	That's the state of the University of Kent, and why swearing is now white privilege, or wearing second-hand clothes.
	They still didn't explain that, either.
	No, I mean, they did the swearing one.
	They were like, yeah, you can swear without being considered a racial inferior?
	I don't really understand their argument.
	It's like a moral degenerate.
	That wasn't what they said, but...
	Is wearing second-hand clothes degenerate?
	I don't know.
	Probably not, but...
	I mean, if they fit, who cares?
	Whatever.
	Yeah, that's that.
	Let's move to the video comments.
	This is more of a noble question, but this is also mostly geared towards the psychologists.
	Jordan Pearson did say in his research that countries that have more infectious diseases tend to have more conservative values.
	So what do you think is going to happen at the end of this whole COVID thing since this stuff is absolutely everywhere?
	I just want to know what your opinion is about that.
	That's a really good question, actually, because, of course, the conservative link to countries that have high amounts of disease, obviously, you're more standoffish with other people because coming into contact with other people raises your risk of contracting a disease if it's contagious, right?
	And therefore, it encourages conservatism, as in conservatism with a small c, right?
	Not the political movement, right?
	But, you know, you're conservative in your values.
	So would COVID actually encourage this?
	And we might see it socially.
	I think people certainly are moving to be a bit more socially conservative, not in the way that you might think.
	It's not like, yeah, we're going to promote family values or things like that, although it might actually happen in some cases.
	But people are keeping to themselves more, it seems, and things like that where, I mean, it's very difficult to say though because I've only got my anecdotal experiences and it's one of those things where you need some hard data to show that people's attitudes have concretely changed and that just doesn't exist yet because we haven't had the chance to look.
	But I agree with the premise of your argument and I think it's certainly possible, but I just can't possibly say with any certainty.
	What do you reckon?
	I have no idea.
	That's why I was leaving it to you, because it's your domain.
	Okay.
	I just remembered I forgot to mention one thing in my notes over the last segment, which is I also had a friend who did the OK symbol, and then the university investigated him for racism.
	He was like, you're kidding me?
	In the interview, he was giving him pictures of Obama doing it.
	I was like, is this guy racist too?
	That's so funny.
	The administration are insane.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Greetings from Canada.
	This is my dad's seventh bus.
	It's right here, but I'm going to fix this one up.
	It's been around on the property since I was little.
	Really little.
	It's an older four-speed, which is cool.
	I like that about it.
	And then I framed it all myself.
	I'm going to put a bed in the back and a couch and a fireplace up here and just have my own portable little home.
	I've always wanted to do that.
	That's awesome.
	I kind of feel like you should make the...
	I'm imagining that turning into the Fortnite bus or something, and the driver's seat is a gamer chair or something.
	Just for the meme.
	I don't know.
	I hope you enjoy it.
	So, most people have probably heard about the ACLU changing their quotes from woman to person, and it gave me an idea for a meme challenge.
	The other day, I posted in the Lotus Eater subreddit my first entry of it.
	Basically, the challenge is, take a Ruth Bader Ginsburg quote and replace the word woman with the word person or people to make the original meaning of the quote effectively meaningless.
	And we all know what the underlying implication of that is.
	I'll be looking forward to seeing some in the subreddit.
	That's an awesome challenge, and also if some people do that and have gold membership, please send them in those video comments.
	People belong in all places where decisions are being made.
	It means nothing.
	It's worthless.
	It's such a great point.
	Sorry, did you have something to say?
	No, no, no, it's fine.
	Protect vaccinated workers from unvaccinated co-workers.
	The folks out there tonight shouting.
	The anti-vaxxers.
	Those people are putting us all at risk.
	This is a pandemic of the unvaccinated.
	You need to condemn those people.
	You need to correct them.
	You're selfish.
	Because if I'm protected and you're around me, then I'm fine.
	But you're me.
	Sorry.
	If you're not vaccinated, then you're not...
	It's your...
	You're racist.
	Next up after the break, why your four-year-old not wearing a hazmat suit to preschool is a threat to my safety.
	Love it.
	I also had that in-between clip.
	I think it's from...
	I think it's from TikTok or Twitter or something.
	The guy being like, you need to wear the...
	Oh, hang on.
	That was really good as well.
	Thanks, Baysteep.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Is that Baysteep again?
	That guy said it.
	That was a man with a live event.
	Like, what a ridiculous statement.
	So let me be clear.
	The people who know me best will not be surprised by what I'm about to tell you.
	I am not a man.
	Who sells dildos?
	That's one bass liner.
	Oh, that's fantastic.
	Fair enough.
	Minister for bass.
	Official ministry.
	I assume he works for the Taliban, actually.
	Because they have a minister for memes, don't they?
	They do.
	Do you not remember?
	We did a segment on it.
	He was like, yeah, this guy, the minister of memes.
	Okay.
	But yeah, no.
	Minister of bass.
	Bass ape.
	Two different guys.
	One of them sells dildos.
	The other, memes.
	Let's go to the next one.
	I have a slight disagreement that the Enlightenment led to the destruction of the sacred.
	In my previous comment, I brought up an Israeli historian named Yuval Harari.
	One thing that he brings up in his books is that the Enlightenment didn't lead to the dissolution of religion or myths, but a shift from theism to humanism.
	These humanist religions are liberalism, communism, and fascism.
	All of these view the sacred as human beings, but have different interpretations.
	Liberalism holds that the individual is sacred while communism and fascism states that the collective is sacred.
	Your thoughts?
	Liberalism.
	Individualism.
	Yes.
	If I understood your last point, that they hold the collective secret, I mean, that's true.
	Yeah, it's true.
	I'm familiar with his work.
	I haven't read too much of it, though, as in Yuval Harari.
	But my understanding is that, you know, individualism is the only way that you don't become a lunatic, pretty much.
	The other alternatives, the collectivist alternatives, are never good and they never seem to work.
	Yeah, in theory they're mad, in practice murderous.
	I mean, we can currently see from the Labour Party summations I did, there's quite a few times where the literature was like, yes, our values of collectivism, as Angela Rayner said, the deputy leader, and there are multiple delegates who kept saying, we're going to build an economy based on collectivism.
	And I was like, we've done this many a time.
	But I don't know enough about the history of the time around the Enlightenment where I can say with any certainty whether things change from theism to humanism.
	I mean, I don't know.
	Yeah, I'm not too familiar with that stuff either, so I don't want to come on that.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Good evening.
	Violent clashes have put six police officers in hospital with broken bones after they were attacked and stomped on by freedom fighters.
	They blocked almost every road in and out of the city, deploying 2,000 officers, shutting down the suburb walls of armed and mounted police.
	This is a human rights protest.
	protesting gets you nowhere people can see that we are not the bad people precedented pressure due to surging cases surging coronavirus caseload one death a shepparton woman in her 70s great edit That's fantastic edit.
	If we've got any viewers who are in the Australian police, particularly the Victoria police, I saw Helen Dale talking about how corrupt that police force is, so there's a little sympathy there.
	But also, after the puppy murdering, from a British shot, you're never going to get sympathy ever again.
	I don't care how many injuries there are from enforcing this lockdown.
	No one cares.
	So that's why I don't.
	But the editing, fantastic.
	There's another potential base individual there.
	I feel like all the meme editors should have based in the name somewhere.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Hey Lotus Eaters, Tony D and Little Joan here with another Legend of the Pines, the Absecan Lighthouse.
	The Absecan Lighthouse in Absecan, New Jersey.
	It's on the coast.
	I know there's buildings in the background, but this was a nice spooky picture.
	It has been the site of many ghost sightings and there are ghost tours.
	It was built in 1854, stands at 171 feet tall.
	It is the tallest lighthouse in New Jersey and the third tallest in the nation, but it's probably most famous for a sighting in 1905 of the Jersey Devil.
	Enjoy these, as always.
	I always have to wonder, how many have you got?
	Because we've been through at least, I don't know, maybe 50 or something?
	He's an expert on the history of New Jersey.
	Well, it's not so much that.
	It's more like, why are there so many myths?
	It's great.
	I mean, a lot of it gets forgotten.
	This stuff still exists everywhere in Britain, but it doesn't get the same attention.
	There's lots of things that I can say after the podcast about where I grew up.
	Loads of weird ghost stories and stuff like that, where they say these sorts of things.
	Why wait till I have to ask the best one?
	Alright, there's one that, you know, Dartmoor National Park.
	Massive Park.
	No.
	Don't be difficult.
	You obviously do.
	No, I don't.
	Sorry.
	You know it exists.
	I know of it.
	Yeah, it exists, right?
	It's a great big national park.
	So I'm ruining it.
	You are, you've ruined it now.
	But no, there's a great big national park and supposedly there have been lots of cases of car accidents and they report a great big hairy hand comes in and takes the wheel and steers them off.
	Which just sounds like they've had too many pints at the pub and they don't own up to it.
	It was a ghost, it was a ghostly hand.
	I promised I hadn't been on the cider.
	I wasn't drink driving officer, it was a ghost.
	But no, that is supposedly one of them that's been around for quite a while.
	It's almost as good as there was a true story in Britain of a guy who was pulled over for doing like 100 on the motorway or something, and the police pulled him over and he asked him why.
	He said, well, there was a bee in the back, and I thought if I drove faster, the bee would stay in the back.
	This was real.
	That was the excuse given on the paper.
	I suppose it would work, wouldn't it?
	Because, I mean, if you go fast enough, it gets pulled back, right?
	No.
	No?
	It's in a car.
	It's like saying if you're on a train you're gonna go to the back of the train or something.
	Oh yeah.
	This is why you've studied physics and I'm a psychologist.
	That's why I know nothing about psychology either.
	Well you can tell me about why people think it's a hairy hand.
	It's scarier.
	Let's go to the next one.
	So how's it going in Denmark since we locked everything up?
	Everyone is sick.
	The flu season that didn't happen last year It's now three months early and it's bad.
	I've been sick with the stomach flu, but at least I managed to watch the Squid Game.
	It was really, really good.
	Sorry to hear that you've been ill, but yeah, obviously the flu and stuff is going to come back a lot worse because people haven't been exposed to it.
	You don't have the same natural immunity to it, I imagine.
	I saw a BBC article the other day that the common cold is making a comeback.
	This is a comeback nobody expected.
	What did you say?
	He was watching the Skype squeak something?
	I didn't catch that part, actually.
	Yeah, if that's the other video comments, we'll go to the written comments on the site.
	Oh, there we go.
	Do you want me to read these out, or she'll...
	I'll do some for a bit.
	My voice isn't hurting that bad.
	So, Thomas Hardman says, It seems like we have the new litmus test for remotely decent politicians.
	Do women have a cervix?
	Yes, actually.
	This is Liz's trust position, isn't it?
	Yeah, I mean, you can see them.
	They're so, like, deer in the headlights where they don't know which way is going to win, so they're just pathetic politicians, but also the ideological aspect cripples them.
	It's glorious to see.
	Also, we didn't mention, but Rosie Duffield, the lady who said women have a cervix and is therefore responsible for all this, she's not going to conference, but she has apparently today gone down to meet an unofficial conference around the corner, which is full of turfs, just to have a chat and be like, you know, I stand with you sisters or all the rest of it, which is really cute.
	Cervixes assemble.
	Yeah, I'll make my own conference with women and cervixes.
	Anyway, so let's move on.
	So Mario Zari says, Big-brained NPC Rachel Reeves spurging out as factual code hits the woke malware.
	Robert Longshore says, Where do trans people face discrimination?
	I hear this a lot and have never been given any examples.
	I think quite often they work backwards.
	They see that they have high rates of suicide and just conclude, oh, that must be because they're discriminated against.
	It sounds like to me it's going to be a quality of outcome doctrine.
	Which is like, oh, look, unequal outcome, therefore discrimination, even though there's no evidence.
	Shaker Silver says the 1% is a forest and that lunatic child's got the chainsaw.
	Yeah, I like how they never recognised that they can move as well.
	I mean, I know they're literal children, but still, you would have thought if you were a billionaire, you might just go to the US or Switzerland or anywhere else.
	It's not like the government doesn't want more tax money.
	It's that they literally can't extract it from people in power.
	I mean, this is something that Tony Blair realised that actually, you know, if I raise taxes, they're all going to move.
	That's a great point, though.
	Do you really think the government wants less tax?
	It wants as much as it can get.
	Sardock Spamfish.
	Well, the Labour conference is such a train wreck, but here's to the Conservative Party losing in the polls to this.
	Yeah, that's a great point.
	I don't know how.
	It's going to lose to that crap fest.
	Comedy eats.
	Trans-comedy eats.
	Alexander L. Labour's climate conference.
	You know what?
	Thatcher was right.
	Yeah.
	Student of history.
	Actually, yeah, I mean, Boris did that as well, where he said, thanks to Thatcher, we have less CO2 in the world.
	But the children were actually arguing that.
	Student of history says, oh, hey, look at another middle class child commie who is for democide?
	I've not heard of that one before.
	It's like a genocide of a demographic, I think.
	Oh, right.
	Okay.
	I think that's what it is.
	I'm going to double check first.
	That's what genocide was.
	But anyway, so who's for genocide?
	I don't know.
	On a massive scale, don't believe me, think of what happens in the first week of all fossil fuels not being used currently.
	These people are psychopathic nutjobs.
	I've looked up a definition.
	Democide is the murder of people by a government which has power over them.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	So I was wrong.
	They were very much just like no fossil fuels whatsoever.
	Let's just go green immediately, which as we spoke of before.
	Collapse of society, more or less.
	That is what you're going to get.
	And the steel coal workers and nuclear workers of the UK can go to hell, as far as the party's concerned.
	So, Alexander Holt.
	People at the Labour Conference.
	Quote, Yeah, totally true.
	Bomb Tom Bellado.
	They can't commit to their own nonsensical worldview.
	By their own logic, they must think it is transphobic to say only women have cervixes.
	Perhaps even in their confused little minds, they still cannot fully deny the biological facts, only to avoid them and run.
	Which was also true of Mao, which is when he declared war on nature.
	The same thing happening here.
	Nature won.
	Nature is a class traitor.
	Nature will win in the end.
	This is why my prediction is that the Turks will eventually win.
	Even if they're not within the Labour Party, who cares?
	It's like, nature will win.
	You can't fight it.
	As Jeff Goldblum says in Jurassic Park, life finds a way.
	Yes.
	Noel Noel says, if British Labour Party want to build a woke empire upon trans-Islam communism and their loyalty to foreign billionaires, just let them try.
	It's not polite to interrupt an enemy when he's making a mistake.
	True, but I do wonder, because I keep putting these compilations up, and I did it last time as well, and there's a couple of guys from the old one in the old compilation that started following me on social media.
	I'm like, oh, hello.
	I think you're nuts.
	So presumably they're aware of how they look as well, and they just keep going.
	But anyway, do you want to read the ones on Biden's generals?
	Sure.
	M1ping, don't worry guys, no one has been fired over giving the orders to blow up those kids, but the lieutenant colonel who criticised the withdrawal on social media has now been thrown in the brig.
	He's been imprisoned.
	I don't know.
	But that's what this comment says.
	But good point.
	That person was thrown under the bus for just saying it was a mistake which the whole world could recognise.
	And apparently people who actually are responsible for actual crimes are going to go without punishment.
	Didn't do nothing.
	Sean Grubb, the Marine who called out the military leadership was brought up on charges yesterday.
	He will likely be court-martialed.
	What?
	I hope not.
	Okay, so that's what's happened to him.
	Yeah, yeah.
	I didn't actually hear about that.
	I did see the statement from the Marine Corps in response to when he first made his announcement, which is that they're taking care of him and his family.
	I was like, that sounds a bit sadistic, but okay.
	No, people are pretty good to one another in the military when it comes to stuff like this.
	They're not going to...
	Maybe not the high command, but his...
	Hopefully.
	I'm going to shut up.
	Student of history, who do you trust, the idiot politician or the traitorous general?
	He said they've both earned the boot at the minimum.
	Yes.
	It's essentially the game we're at now.
	This guy's corrupt and this guy's retarded.
	Which one's right?
	Can we pick neither?
	They're both wrong, even though it doesn't make any sense.
	No, because the good guy's too busy playing golf in Florida because he's banned from engaging in politics.
	USA lost the war in Afghanistan the minute they went full woke.
	The Allied themselves were useless local parasites instead of decent nationalists because, in the woke mind, any national interests are heresy.
	I don't know.
	Again, not an expert in Afghanistan, but what I saw was that the whole region is just hell.
	There is no good guys.
	So...
	So, do you want to read out this next one?
	Oh yeah, I'll do it.
	James, imagine going up to black engineering colleagues and saying, you're a credit to your race.
	Who does that?
	You know, right?
	Yeah, that's what I thought.
	You speak with a posh accent.
	What a good black person you are.
	What?
	What would you think of such a person that did that to you, you know?
	It's like, yes, you're a very good white man.
	I mean, I'd be like, well, thank you, but that's weird.
	You're making us fellow white people look very good.
	I'd be very weirded out, but I'd be like, well, come weird as a compliment.
	You're weirded out right now, aren't you?
	Because it is weird.
	No, no.
	I think that the Woke Nebula as a religion, with its own inquisition and banning of heresy, a religion without gods, without paradise, without mercy or forgiveness, Woke has potential to be worse than Islam and communism combined, taking the worst from both of them.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, I think that's well put, pretty much.
	This is why I try and use the definition of wokeness that we got from Ash Sarkar, of all people, which is fantastic, because it means they're like, no, it's not right-wing.
	Anyway, but the fact that wokeness is socialism along the lines of class, race, and gender, and any other intersectionality you cook about what those people do, basically for explaining it to a normie, which is why I get a bit annoyed when people say some woke for anything.
	It's like, no, no, no, this does have a definition that can be used.
	Don't overuse it.
	But yeah, it is worse than all of them because it takes the worst aspects from all of them and just applies it to everything.
	Patrick, so isn't it time we call these Critical Race Ferious Razzies, as in race socialists, just to rub the similarities in their silly faces?
	I'm not opposed to it.
	The Razzies are coming.
	I did like Woko Haram, but they never really took off.
	I like that one as well.
	It also doesn't really work because in, I think it's Arabic or whatever, it technically would mean Woke is banned.
	Yeah, which would be based...
	Yeah, I mean, technically we're Woko Haram, because, like, no, no wokeness.
	That's going to be...
	If we ever rebrand the podcast, that's what we're going to call it.
	Yeah.
	I love it, literally, like, Boko Haram, like, the book is banned.
	Like, okay.
	Student of History.
	There are three groups who draw swastikas.
	Um...
	Swastie Fs.
	Yeah, I didn't know how to get around that.
	Who'd get it right?
	Commies who might F it up.
	American World War II fighter pilots who might F it up on purpose.
	Let's have a bit of a thunk.
	Who's near the campus?
	And who had an interest in setting up a random swastika and then declaring their movement totally needed on campus?
	Who knows?
	Who could benefit from such a thing?
	Yeah.
	Free will.
	I presume decolonising the curriculum means not learning engineering, maths or physics, but learning critical race theory instead?
	100% correct, as you can see by the actions of the university, which is to make a four-hour course on CRT essentially mandatory, instead of the hours you could spend doing your course.
	And it's truly awful that they made that mandatory as well.
	I mean, it's one thing to have it at all, but then it's even worse to be like, yes, everyone has to do this.
	Yeah.
	I mean, we've seen a few of these across the United States.
	Some of the funnier, I suppose funnier ones has been like, yes, we must have mandatory training on not to rate people.
	It's like, do you need that?
	Really?
	Is this city really that bad?
	That's not really what you're meant to learn at university.
	I think you should have figured that out a long time before.
	Yeah, but they took that principle and applied it to everything, haven't they?
	Of course it was never really about not raping people, it was instead feminist theory, back in like 2010 or whatever.
	Yeah, taking me back now, I remember it well.
	Yeah, good old days.
	SGW cringe compilation number 9 instead of number 9000.
	Still have all of those clips fresh in my mind.
	It's amazing.
	You're a fucking white male!
	Alex, the expect-respect course, priceless, because to radicals, respect is a right, not an earned privilege.
	Yes, that's a great point as well.
	Student of history, I wore hammy downs because I was broke, but okay, I'll add that to the fake privilege along with being white.
	Being broke is being privileged.
	Only if you're a white man, though.
	So, I'm imagining it must have had vintage clothes in mind.
	Like, yeah, they can go out and buy second-hand stuff.
	It's all trendy and hipstery, and that's what really matters to them, apparently.
	Because that's the only possible reason that they'd specify second-hand clothes, right?
	I assume so.
	I mean, they're the kind of, like, fashion weirdos who spend their time with that.
	But then it could also be, like, they can wear second-hand clothes and not be criticised, and therefore it's a sign of their privilege.
	Well, that's the thing.
	You can wear the vintage clothes and not seem like you're wearing second-hand clothes.
	I assume that's their argument.
	But again, none of it makes any sense from any direction, other than just some weird racists who are obsessed with something new today.
	I mean, I don't know why I'm even trying to read into it.
	It's like trying to make sense of the schizophrenic ramblings of someone muttering on the bus or something.
	I saw a similar theory, but it was smeared in S on the toilet wall.
	Thou shall not wear second clothes.
	To be honest, that would be more enlightening.
	It would be more understandable.
	It clearly is just mentally ill.
	George R.E. Swearing.
	Callum, could you kindly remind Josh that one who swears is not, by definition, any less moral than average, but has, in fact, a more expansive and therefore nuanced vocabulary for F's sake?
	I mean, we're under cult Sharia, so we can't do it on the podcast, but yeah, I'm not a fan of the interpretation of...
	Because I'm going to get in trouble for this, but there's a book about profanity, which I've mentioned to you before.
	It's called the...
	What is it?
	H-N-F-F... I mean, other profane terms are now widely used.
	That's a way of looking at it.
	And when you compare that to another culture, completely different hierarchy of profane words.
	Yeah, so they have different groups, like it might be sexually related, like body excreta related.
	I remember covering this in my linguistics classes in psychology and how it reflects different cultural differences, which swear words we view as most vulgar.
	But these, let's say, ideas of strictness around profanity are usually pretty absurdist.
	I was only joking, by the way.
	I just wanted to wind you up, but I don't actually care.
	People can swear if they want.
	Student of history, a credit to your race.
	Isn't that literally a quote from Hitler to Jesse Haynes?
	I don't know if it is, but it sounds like one, doesn't it?
	Yeah, it does.
	Oh, Mr Owens.
	Her Owens.
	Say good.
	I don't know why he's gay in my mind.
	What's in my handy?
	No, no.
	When they say danger of conformity, they are old school liberals.
	The woke liberals see no danger.
	They find it desirable to achieve conformity.
	What do you mean?
	The old liberals?
	What does he mean by that?
	Old school liberals, I guess.
	Actual liberals.
	Oh, sorry, sorry.
	Yeah, the woke liberals are the ones who find no danger because they desire conformity.
	Yeah.
	Well, because they're not liberals.
	That's why.
	Yeah, they're not.
	They're progressives.
	Well, they've got the socialist doctrine, which progressives also have, of equality as a doctrine, which is something that's desirable, which it's obviously not.
	Have you ever read Conquest of Bread?
	No, I haven't.
	You should.
	There's probably a PDF online.
	It's not very long.
	It's the funniest thing you've ever read, man.
	Because it's this guy who's an anarcho-socialist, and he's put up in the left as this interesting thinker, but we won't do it because it's a bit mad.
	It tells you something about your whole ideology.
	But he's essentially arguing for when we set up the anarcho-communist commune, how are we going to live?
	And of course, everything's on the basis of everything must be equal.
	So he comes to assert his conclusions like, okay, we're going to have one kitchen for the entire commune, and we're all going to eat the same thing.
	I'm not joking.
	He's like, we're going to have one big pot, we're going to make all the food in there and then dish out at the end of the day to everyone who's done their work.
	And it's like, yeah, but what if you want something different?
	You moron.
	What if you're...
	Say someone's, like, lactose intolerant or allergic to nuts, just no one else is ever allowed to have them then.
	You can imagine someone, some social spin, I don't know, there's a solution to that.
	We'll just build a couple more kitchens where you can have a slightly different thing.
	Yeah, what if I want more specialised...
	We'll keep going, we'll keep going, until the number of kitchens fits the number of houses and then the number of people.
	And it's like, Yeah, that's the ideal.
	It's just absurd.
	There's another one where he says we should get all the coats, because we've got to redistribute clothing, because...
	Socialists.
	So he wants to put all the coats in a pile, and then we'll just redistribute them according to need, because some women have too many coats, and some women don't have very good coats.
	And he says, my critics will say that some women will get a very good coat, and some women will get very bad coats, and they'll be upset with this.
	Do not worry.
	Most women are very happy with the coats they will get.
	Yeah.
	Your wife.
	Not mine.
	Has he ever spoke to a woman?
	No.
	I mean, presumably not.
	It's so full of stuff like that, you just burst out laughing.
	How can you think that you'll be happy with the coat you're given?
	I know, right?
	It just doesn't elaborate.
	It's like a veiled threat, isn't it?
	It's just like, that guy's clearly nuts, so his doctrine's clearly nuts, which means basically all of the left is clearly nuts.
	They would lie...
	Speak One's Mind.
	Ah, yes.
	Diversity, the hypocrite's wet dream.
	A level of doublethink from these universities are shocking.
	Yeah.
	More diversity, both.
	more bands uh ty buffett wondering when it comes to the history books will the quote will that will they quote viden i can't even speak just mentioning his name uh will they quote biden verbatim or will they fix his grammar and mistakes that make him sound like a senile old fart i mean it's difficult to work with what biden gives you though isn't it To be charitable to him.
	This happens with all spoken speech, especially around interviews or speeches.
	They report on the ums and ahs and stuff like that, and it makes it more difficult to...
	It's not just that.
	I mean, like, when I quoted Kemi Baden-Ock from the Vice article, she keeps saying, yeah, so you know, like, and you like, and when you're reading that, it sounds super strange.
	But it's meant to be speech, but then surely a president should know, okay, this is being written down, this is going to go out in the press.
	I'm going to choose my words carefully, not sound like I'm telling some kind of story in a rocking chair to my grandkids...
	Also, the difference, obviously, being that with Kemi, even when she's on the airing, there's a train of thought, and with Biden, there's just random dots.
	I got these legs!
	That quote never fails to amuse me when he's talking in front of that swimming pool.
	But anyway...
	I'm not going to say any of those quotes.
	It's too tempting.
	I really want to know.
	Nitrocellulose doormat.
	It sometimes defies logic at how stupid humans can be.
	Swearing being white privilege.
	Seriously?
	On an even more important note, have you heard that iron brew shortages might be happening?
	Scotland is going to go into meltdown.
	Dankula most affected.
	Very upset.
	I used to have iron brew when I was a kid.
	It was my Scottish grandparents that would give it to me as well.
	I quite like Iron Brew.
	It's not too bad.
	It's weird.
	I mean, it's fluorescent orange, which kind of makes you think, well, most fizzy drinks at least present themselves as, okay, this is like orange juice or something like that.
	This is just like, yeah, this is orange.
	It's like drain cleaner.
	You see Coca-Cola, it's black.
	I know.
	They're the exception.
	They're also the most popular in the world, but never mind that.
	I want to pretend that my rule works.
	There's only two countries on Earth that officially don't have Coca-Cola.
	It's Cuba and North Korea.
	If you want to escape it.
	So if I want to escape it, I've got to live in communism.
	There's that, but then there's only one country on Earth, I think, which Coca-Cola is outbeat in the sales of soft drinks, and it's Scotland, because Iron Brew beats Coca-Cola in Scotland.
	So this is actually a very important shortage.
	We need to continue this tradition, Scotland.
	This is one of your few lasting traditions left that are worth protecting.
	You want me to read some?
	Sure.
	Peter Lovejoy says, do trans men have prostates?
	The leftist answer is yes.
	The biological answer is...
	No.
	No.
	Justin B says, no American-owned equipment left behind.
	So the US donated that equipment to the Taliban before they withdraw.
	Dot, dot, dot.
	Big think.
	Yeah, that's a good point, actually.
	M1Ping.
	If swearing is white privilege, then the Lotus Eaters podcast has been actively anti-white privilege from the start.
	That's right!
	We accept no bigotry here.
	I've been preserving white privilege, apparently.
	My no swearing.
	Off-camera, you're just constantly...
	Yeah, white privilege.
	Keep it around.
	I swear all I want.
	Alfred the Vader, Shadow Chancellors, Shadow Intellect, Shadow Courage, Shadow Liberal, Shadow Reality.
	That's a great way.
	Noel Noel says, Labour wants Britain filled with the illiterates and people of little or no education, because these are the only ones who will vote for them.
	I still can't get over this when I knock on doors with people.
	You get someone who says they're voting Labour, I'm just like, have you seen the conference?
	I'm sorry to harp on about it, but when I started watching it for the first time, I was like, everyone has to see this.
	I'm probably not going to do one of the Tory party conferences I did last time.
	Because it's just boring.
	It's just stupid MPs and whatnot giving statements that they already make publicly.
	So there's nothing interesting there.
	But with Labour, oh God, I'll say anything.
	So Chris Wolfe says, it seems to me that climate change fever stems from a fear of mortality.
	Those who are liberal can be conservative about their mental health, having to create coping mechanisms in order to survive.
	Because of their poor mental health and nature's positive effects on their mental health, they see attacks on nature as attacks on their own body.
	Not quite sure I understand that, but I don't think that's true.
	So they seek to make things pristine without understanding that the climate is an issue that you should hope your great-great-grandchildren will struggle through.
	The alternative to the turbulent climate is an arid stagnation.
	That is not desirable.
	Liberals want life without death.
	Conservatives know that you get life through death.
	Yeah, okay.
	I mean, I assume that's essentially just memento mori, which is the conservative position.
	Yeah.
	Unless I fucked up.
	No, I think that's it.
	You may have no interest in politics.
	However, politics can and will take great interest in you.
	Absolutely true.
	It's also my favorite quote from Gerald Bann.
	Just because you're paranoid, that won't prove that nobody is watching you.
	Look at Assange.
	They'll use the hammer from time to time.
	I'm only speaking because I'm not important enough to stomp.
	Yeah, I mean, you'll see that with suddenly the cathedral will go after a certain person, and it's because they're getting breakthrough.
	Well, I mean, we saw that with Kemi Badenoch, didn't we, where everyone just turned against her in the media, all of a sudden, just like, hmm, what's going on here?
	It's almost like they've recognised that there's someone who is a threat to them.
	Also the fact that politics has an endless interest in you.
	I mean, they'll take away your money, take your kids, kill you.
	Literally, they'll do anything they want.
	I mean, the socialists recognise no limits to their authority.
	Probably the last one here.
	Carl Gardner, it was nice catching up with you guys on Saturday.
	Are you going to be posting the footage from the United Anypoint?
	Yes, so the speeches from me and Carl should be premium on the website, so again, sign up the premium.
	And the comedy skits will be given to the respective comedians who did their thing.
	And I imagine we'll have them up on the site as well, just because if you don't know where to find them.
	But that's that.
	Anyway, we're out of time, so...
	By the way, it was good to meet everyone on the live event.
	I know you got a bit drunk.
	Yeah, well...
	I got bought more drinks than I can possibly fathom.
	Yeah.
	And that didn't go well.
	You should have stayed for the second night.
	It's good.
	Anyway, but we're out of time, so if you want more from us, sign up to LouisLotuses.com, get access to all the premium stuff, including the speeches from the live event, which will be on there when we get round to them.
	And if you want more from us for another podcast, tomorrow, 1 o'clock.

▲