Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 6, 2021 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:30:33

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #235

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hi folks, welcome to the podcast of the Load Seaters for the 6th of October 2021.
	I'm joined by a new presenter that we have, Thomas.
	Hello.
	How are you doing?
	I'm very good, thank you very much.
	I'm delighted to be here.
	Great.
	Right, so, before we get started, do you want to introduce yourself?
	Yeah, sure.
	Tell us a little bit about yourself.
	Well, I'm, of course, Thomas.
	I'm currently completing a PhD in German Idealism and Critical Theory at the University of York, Department of Philosophy, now part-time because I've taken this position.
	Admittedly, I have a rather unique political history.
	Having been the leader of the UK Independence Party, Ashford Youth Brig in 2013, I did an appalling job of it, but nonetheless, it's a title.
	I campaigned for Brexit with Vote Leave in 2016.
	In the same year, I converted to Marxist-Leninism, so yeah, I was an actual Bolshevik at some point in my intellectual life.
	What would you consider yourself now?
	Not that.
	But in recent years, I've evolved more into a scholar of Hegel, who, combined with some elements of Marxist critique, which I think have some value, has allowed me to develop a rather unique way of conceptualising wokeness in a way that present Marxists don't like very much.
	So, my disdain for sympathetic progressive as a menace, in essence, is what has brought me here.
	And, yeah, I'm just delighted to be getting started.
	Okay.
	Well, hopefully we'll be speaking about things that are a bit more easy to understand than all of that.
	But, yeah, so, I mean, like, what would you describe yourself as politically now, if you had to put a label on?
	If I had to put a label on myself, I'm probably more in the blue labour camp.
	I find it quite hard to subscribe to fiscally conservative values, given that I still have a lot of strong opinions about, for example, the financial crisis of 2008, which was...
	I would almost feel like I have to align myself with that class, really, if I'm to be a fiscal conservative.
	And I can't really say that Thatcherism has done all that much for conservatism itself in the long run, unfortunately.
	But I'm definitely socially conservative insofar as I see a lot of things that are currently under attack as things that deserve to be preserved in some way, or at least play an important part in continuing to advance things in the right way.
	So yeah, I guess you could say that I'm still kind of aligned with the old left, but the left doesn't want me for that reason anymore.
	Yeah, there's more, I suppose, potential for rational discourse.
	I think that Scruton's critiques of Thatcher and sort of neoconservativism, neoliberalism, sorry, are perfectly lucid though, you know, from both like a traditional conservative and a traditional Labour perspective.
	They mesh up, I think, quite well.
	But we'll talk about it another time because we're not going to go off on a tangent, but we will talk about all this.
	Anyway, so, today we're going to be talking about why the establishment is attacking Facebook.
	Now, I know Callum talked about this yesterday, but there's more that's come around, and I think that there's a little bit more to dig up out of this, which I think is interesting.
	Why football isn't full of racists, and, of course, how the Conservatives are being subverted by the left at their own party conference, because, of course, they are.
	But before we start, there's some new things on the website, such as a video I did at the live event called The Universal Human.
	Now this, I think, is actually one of the most important things that I've done.
	I wasn't going to do this at the live event, but I kind of wrote it in the car on the way down.
	Because suddenly, like, the stars aligned and I could see, like, all of these things had come into alignment.
	I was like, right, I can trace a line through all of this to essentially establish why the globalists are as they are and why they're doing what they're doing and why we aren't like them.
	I'm not going to spoil it, it's free on the website, you can go watch it.
	Callum has put up Day 5, his edit of Day 5 of the Labour Conference, Abridged.
	So thankfully for him, he doesn't have to now watch the endless nonsense coming out of the Labour Party.
	But of course, if you have a friend who is thinking about voting for Labour, ask them why they're voting for this, send them this, ask them why this, what is it about this that appeals to you so much.
	The next one is an article that Hugo did, that Callum wants to promote, that was published on the 13th of September, called The Tories in the NHS, probably because of the way the Conservative Party conference is going.
	And this is now, oh no, sorry, now this has audio available.
	So what we're doing is for the Silver members, they can get access to an audio track of the articles, so they can listen to it rather than having to read it.
	And we're going back through the older articles as time goes on.
	So this is a new audio track available on that, so you can find that in show notes.
	And of course, if you want to sign up and support us, you can check out our epochs or the contemplations.
	This last one was talking about the Battle of Cressy.
	I happen to be a particular fan of this era, because it's fun.
	Not for the French, but that's their problem.
	We've got the Battle of Poitiers that we recorded yesterday and the Battle of Agincourt that will be coming the week after this one.
	So it's a very good series of podcasts talking about what was going on in the Hundred Years' War.
	But anyway, let's get into it.
	So, why is the establishment attacking Facebook?
	Because from a sort of normal reading of the politics of Silicon Valley, people would think, well, Mark Zuckerberg is one of these leftist social media barons in Silicon Valley, part of the cartel.
	He's in the club, so what's the problem?
	Well, the problem is the nature of Facebook itself, and incidentally, Zuckerberg's commitment to free expression...
	Now, I realise there are going to be a bunch of people hearing that going, wait a minute.
	Give me a minute.
	We'll get to it.
	So let's talk about the whistleblower.
	The whistleblower, whose name was Frances Hogan, who was a former Facebook product manager who worked on civic integrity issues, did a 60 Minutes interview where she pointed out, as we covered earlier this week in the podcast, that there are bad things to Facebook and Instagram and leaked these to the Wall Street Journal.
	These were...
	Part of a sort of combined arms attack on Facebook because of Facebook's dominance.
	One of the points that they bring up over and over again is just how dominant in the social media market Facebook is, because if we don't consider YouTube to be a social media platform, which I don't think it is in the traditional sense, Facebook is by far the biggest and probably is bigger than all of the others combined.
	And so they don't like this, because what that means is if you have 3 billion users, well, there's a fairly good chance that some of them will be right-wing.
	That's bad.
	Right-wingers need to be stopped.
	So, basically, she's complaining that we have evidence from a variety of sources that hate speech, divisive political speech and misinformation on Facebook and the family of apps are affecting societies around the world.
	It's like, well, sure.
	I mean, any amount of communication affects societies.
	That's the point of communication.
	Why would we talk if it wasn't going to have an effect?
	Quite.
	But anyway, moving on.
	She started at Facebook in 2019 after previously working for other tech giants like Google, Pinterest, and Yelp.
	And she had a testimony before a Senate subcommittee on consumer protection, product safety, and data security yesterday.
	And that makes me suspicious.
	That gets the old almonds activated.
	Is she a plant?
	I mean, I don't know.
	But do I think that the internal politics of Silicon Valley are going to be ruthless because of the amount of money and influence involved?
	Of course I do.
	And you'd be a fool not to, in my opinion.
	But she said that she believes that Mark Zuckerberg never set out to make a hateful platform.
	Because that's how Facebook is in this characterisation.
	It's just hateful.
	I mean, most people are on there sharing pictures of their grandmothers, but no, it's a hateful platform.
	And that kind of pathologising is important, because otherwise we don't have the narrative justification in order to take action against Facebook.
	But he has allowed choices to be made where the side effects of those choices are hateful, that hateful and polarising content gets more distribution and more reach.
	So she had her Senate hearing, which was very interesting, and reported well by TechCrunch.
	They say throughout the hearing, she makes it clear that she thinks Facebook's current algorithm, which rewards posts that generate meaningful social interactions, is dangerous.
	This was rolled out in 2018, where the newsfeed algorithm prioritises interactions such as comments and likes from the people who Facebook thinks you're closest to, like friends and family.
	But she claims that the leaked documents show that this system yields unhealthy side effects on important slices of public content, such as politics and news.
	And...
	Obviously, this is all framed in the, oh, it's right-wing misinformation, as if there isn't plenty of left-wing misinformation as well.
	But because Facebook isn't a one-sided, left-wing-dominated platform, this means it's a right-wing platform in their view, but we'll get to that in a minute.
	So, she has some good suggestions.
	She points out that Facebook uses this user-based engagement ranking in which AI displays the content that it thinks will be most interesting to individual users.
	This means that content that elicits stronger reactions from users will be prioritized, boosting misinformation, toxicity, and violent content.
	And she thinks, in fact, a chronological ranking would help mitigate these negative impacts.
	Now, I just want to be clear.
	All I've ever wanted from social media sites is just show me in chronological order that which I am subscribed to.
	I mean, it's not really much to ask for, is it?
	No, not really.
	No.
	But this kind of prioritising of reactive content, again, not a right-wing thing particularly, a left-wing thing as well, Is part of their attempt to increase your user engagement with the site.
	Because in their interest, they want to keep you on the site for as long as possible because it's their business.
	But it's not necessarily your business.
	It's not a bad suggestion on her part.
	But she had this 60 Minutes interview and this has been well covered by the press.
	And that's something to make me suspicious because there are lots of other whistleblowers who have come from within Facebook.
	And you may have seen them on Project Veritas.
	And they don't get 60 Minutes interviews.
	They don't get all this positive coverage.
	And so the fact that she does makes me very, very suspicious.
	But anyway, she says that after the 2020 election, or leading up to it in fact, they had a civic integrity committee in Facebook which was dissolved after the 2020 election.
	So you can see that there they are engaging in what I guess you'd call some sort of election manipulation or information manipulation regarding the election.
	And they implemented these safeguards to reduce misinformation, quote-unquote, before the election.
	But after the election, they turned off these safeguards, of course, to encourage user interaction.
	She thinks that is, quote, deeply problematic.
	She says, the thing I'm asking for is a move away from short-termism, which is what Facebook is run under today.
	It's being led by metrics and not people.
	With appropriate oversights and some of these constraints, it is possible that Facebook could actually be a much more profitable company five or ten years down the road.
	If it wasn't so toxic, people wouldn't quit it.
	I think that's rather ironic, given that literally half the planet uses Facebook.
	So it doesn't really have a problem with people quitting Facebook.
	And I don't think that Facebook is nearly as toxic as perhaps some of the alternatives, like Twitter.
	But that's not the issue here, because the issue is that this is being used as a method to try and gain control of information distribution on Facebook.
	Now, that's not good if you are a person who thinks that you should be the one In charge of the information you distribute and how it gets distributed.
	Because it's a social media platform, not a publisher.
	Anyway.
	So she wants Facebook run like Twitter, put in summary.
	And she even suggests that they have soft interventions like they do on Twitter and various other things.
	And they do have these on Facebook.
	You know, if you post something about COVID, they'll put up a little panel that says, you know, click here for COVID information, blah, blah, from our verified fact checkers.
	And what's interesting about this is she doesn't want Facebook broken up.
	She doesn't want Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp broken up because that would reduce the influence of people who wish to reform these companies.
	And so what she's looking for is control over these companies.
	And the press loved it.
	If we can get to the next one, John.
	Independent here posting, you can see it.
	Facebook whistleblower.
	Hagen called 21st century hero by Senate.
	Zuckerberg told, toxic, time is up.
	So, Zuckerberg, evil, toxic.
	This woman, 21st century hero.
	Okay.
	I'm not a big fan of having to defend Zuckerberg, but unfortunately, that's going to be something we're going to have to talk about.
	This, of course, caused Facebook's stock to plummet, and Zuckerberg lost billions of dollars in value.
	But anyway, moving on, Bloomberg.
	Again, you've got to see how the press is reporting this.
	Left Mark Zuckerberg speechless.
	He wasn't at the hearing, so he didn't get a chance to respond.
	But anyway, the Bloomberg article informs us that she is someone who has an MBA from Harvard and is well-versed in these algorithms, so she can't just be discredited.
	Right, okay.
	But why her?
	Other people have come forward from Facebook who are also credentialed, but they don't get to be heard.
	Weird.
	But anyway, New York Times had a great take on this, and I like this particularly, if you can scroll down a little bit so you can see the headline, Facebook is weaker than we knew.
	That's very interesting.
	Speaking now in the language of strategy and power politics, how can Facebook the titan be toppled is the implication from this article.
	But, I mean, literally, they say Facebook's in trouble, not financial trouble or legal trouble, or even senators yelling at Mark Zuckerberg trouble.
	What I'm talking about is a kind of slow, steady decline that anyone who's ever seen a dying company up close can recognize.
	They're trying to introduce a sort of pall over Facebook, the most successful company in all of human history.
	No company has ever had as many customers as Facebook has had, and yet it's a dying company.
	Yeah, and it's also an expression of a fact, maybe, that it's not accepted as part of the, shall we say, Silicon Valley intellectual vanguard anymore.
	Exactly.
	It's a seismic moment for San Francisco.
	Yes.
	And notice how all of these, again, all the major sort of power players when it comes to setting the intellectual tenure, like the Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, New York Times, they've all formed ranks against Facebook and are now pouring fire into them using militaristic language.
	They say it's a cloud of existential dread that hangs over an organization whose best days are behind it.
	How do you know?
	Whose opinion is this?
	That's almost come out of nowhere, hasn't it?
	Yeah, exactly.
	We've just made this up.
	We're just saying it.
	This is like internet blood sports, but for Silicon Valley.
	But anyway, so the point is, this momentum is clearly being astroturfed.
	We go to the Wall Street Journal.
	This...
	Facebook whistleblowers testimony builds momentum for tougher tech laws.
	So you can see how the sort of left-wing elite class in America are all rallying around, gathering the troops and saying, oh, we've got to constantly start attacking Facebook now.
	And this is how it's done.
	It can't have been done by James O'Keefe or any, what I guess we'll call right-wing whistleblowers.
	Now it has to be done through left-wing means.
	But yeah, so they just pour onto this even more, even more.
	And so this gives us some of the responses from the lawmakers.
	One said, oh no, sorry.
	So Facebook did actually give a response to this and said, one thing we agree on, it's time to create standard rules for the internet.
	Instead of expecting the industry to make societal decisions that belong to legislators, it's time for Congress to act.
	So Facebook aren't even, like, necessarily resisting this.
	So Senator John Thune, who's a Republican, said, I would simply say, let's get to work.
	We've got some things we can do here.
	We're talking about algorithm transparency.
	And Amy Klobuchar said, well, there are lobbyists around every single corner of this building.
	They've been hired by the tech industry.
	Facebook and other big companies are throwing a bunch of money around this town and people listen to them.
	So they are all, like, the entire structure is wide awake now and is talking about this.
	And so this whistleblower, I find it interesting how she's got a fundraiser that's been raised by Whistleblower Aid.
	Again, they didn't do this for any of the right-wing whistleblowers.
	None of this happened.
	It's all just for this particular one because of, I'm assuming, a series of connections and political alignments that she has.
	But 37 grand out of 100 grand they've raised so far.
	We need your support to make sure she's got the backup she needs as she stands up to speak the truth.
	Everyone appears to be on her side.
	Yeah, and it's effectively her word against the entire Facebook corporation.
	Yeah.
	And the very fact that, well, everyone has pivoted to her side on what is at present completely arbitrary grounds is extremely revealing.
	Yeah.
	I mean, there's more than one way to read the leaked information that Facebook put out, like one that they didn't put out, that she put out.
	Because, I mean, for a quarter or so of women, your girls, Instagram is bad for them.
	But for 75%, it's either neutral or positive.
	So, you know, it's, I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying, oh, well, throw those quarter under the bus or anything.
	But like, there are multiple ways of reading this.
	And it depends on how you're trying to, what result you're trying to get out of it.
	So the question is, why is she doing this?
	Now, it's probably not just money.
	She says that she's doing it because she lost a friend to misinformation.
	Now, this wasn't misinformation about Russia interfering with the elections.
	It wasn't misinformation gotten by any Democrat source.
	No, this was right-wing misinformation.
	All of this, you don't even hear the terms left-wing misinformation out of these people.
	Of course not.
	No, of course not.
	As if the left-wing has never said something untrue.
	But anyway, she claims that she doesn't hate Facebook, she loves Facebook and wants to save it.
	And saving it means giving her and her, again, I think vanguard is the best term for it, control over Facebook's editorial policies.
	She says that a family friend was hired to help her with her daily tasks after she became ill, but their relationship deteriorated as he became obsessed with online forums touting conspiracy theories about dark forces manipulating politics.
	Not Koch Brothers money or anything like that.
	No, no, no, no, no.
	Of course, it's George Soros money.
	You know, as if the left wing and right wing don't have mirror image conspiracy theories at this point.
	But she says, QAnon and white nationalism were both banned from Facebook.
	So I don't know how he fell into this.
	But I mean, maybe it was before it was banned, I suppose.
	When was it banned?
	Sorry, the world of the occult and white nationalism, she says.
	It was a couple of years ago.
	It was not recent that this was banned.
	at least not recent on a sort of political commentary timeline.
	But anyway, and so you can see this feeding into the left-wing media ecosphere.
	If we can go to the next one, see Salon.com, Amanda Marcote.
	Facebook whistleblower exposes dark reality.
	Right-wing disinformation is popular and profitable.
	And this is part of an ongoing media narrative that has been spun around Facebook because, again, Facebook has been remarkably lenient with the kind of content that it allows, as in conservatives are allowed to use Facebook.
	That's the problem that they have.
	The mere fact that disinfo is out there already circulating is in itself a form of social permission.
	If other people are lying to advance their political goals, Facebook users can believe it's okay to engage with and promote the lie as well.
	Or it could be that they don't believe their lies and they just have different interpretations of the same events.
	But anyway, this, again, like I was saying, if you go to the next one, John, is part of a very long and storied history of them complaining that right-wing people are doing very well on Facebook because Facebook is full of boomers.
	Boomers tend to be more conservative than millennials and Generation Z. And this one's from March 2021, where they're complaining that the right-wing misinformation on Facebook is more engaging than its left-wing counterpart.
	Research finds.
	It's funny that they think the engagement has less to do with whether there might actually be substance to why they're being attracted to certain ideas, and more to do with Facebook's algorithm.
	Yeah.
	But yes, it's basically an admission that the left can't meme from the research.
	Sorry, I realise we're running a bit low on time.
	Let's carry on.
	So, Vanity Fair, Facebook is now the social media home of the right...
	They wish, absolutely wish that was the case.
	But this is because, basically, Mark Zuckerberg didn't want to be the police of information online.
	This was from 2020, this one.
	But anyway, so what this was about is that on Twitter, Jack Dorsey had decided to start labelling Trump's most dangerous posts as glorifying violence and fact-checking them.
	Whereas Zuckerberg decided to go in the opposite direction, ceding that he is not the arbiter of free speech, and even going as far as to have a call with Trump on himself to talk about Facebook stance.
	Well, I mean, I hate to say it, but Mark Zuckerberg has done the morally correct thing here.
	Yeah.
	He's not the arbiter of free speech.
	Yeah, and he's not acting in contempt of the US Constitution, which arguably Twitter does directly.
	That's a great point.
	Moving on, the sort of popular viral trash sites like Mashable...
	Oh, Facebook is the right-wing social network now.
	The right-wing has just taken over Facebook.
	The transformation of Facebook is complete.
	Yeah, so moving on from this, you can see that in 2020, Politico, again, the media narratives, they're constant.
	The right-wing has a massive advantage on Facebook.
	Again, this just comes back to the left can't meme, and so they're upset by this.
	And this has been going on since 2018, at the very least, where you can see Media Matters claiming that Facebook is a right-wing propaganda machine.
	Okay, but by that standard, every other social media network is a left-wing propaganda machine, and no one cares.
	They don't care because they're left-wingers, obviously.
	And so this basically drills down to why.
	Why is Facebook the right-wing propaganda machine?
	And it's because Mark Zuckerberg is actually better on free speech than most people would want to give him credit for.
	In 2019, he spoke at Georgetown University about the importance of protecting free inspection, and he underscored his belief that giving everyone a voice empowers the powerless and pushes society to be better over time, and that's basically his core belief.
	And he does seem to have stood on this.
	The New York Times described him as, quote, defiant.
	We can go to the next one.
	Senator Warren accused him of, Elizabeth Warren accused him of being a disinformation for profit machine, which was a bit harsh, I think.
	All things considered.
	But anyway, so Zuckerberg has been saying this for quite some time, and he's got quite a good statement here.
	People having the power to express themselves at scale is a new kind of force in the world, a fifth estate alongside the other power structures of society.
	The journey towards greater progress requires confronting ideas that challenge us.
	And he's here today because he believes that we must continue to stand for free expression.
	Now that's a good point, the fifth estate alongside the other power structures of society.
	Because the fourth estate, the media, are clearly not happy about this.
	And that's what they're doing.
	And ironically, you could actually say this is the closest thing to a Habermasian platform for communicative discourse that there has ever been in cyberspace.
	Oh, absolutely.
	It couldn't make the point more clearly that this is the media being concerned, that the power of their narratives is being challenged by grassroots use of the internet.
	And they hate it.
	And it's Facebook that is actually facilitating this, believe it or not.
	Now, again, that is not to say that Facebook hasn't censored or isn't censored.
	Guilty of doing this, as we know, they deplatformed Tommy Robinson unjustly, I think, because of a lie.
	They deplatformed Alex Jones, which I don't really think was justified either, but probably more justified than Voldemort.
	And, of course, they deplatformed Trump...
	All in one day, and that still wasn't good enough according to the Carnegie Foundation.
	So it's not to say that Facebook has not been guilty in its own way of doing this.
	But I don't think really this comes from Mark Zuckerberg's intuitions or motivations.
	It seems that this is because of outside pressure from, you can see that the media maelstrom operating around him.
	I mean, like, after Zuckerberg gave his 2019 defense of free speech, it was like, oh, Facebook and the free speech excuse.
	Various articles like this at the time.
	And so it was like, right.
	But again, I really want to hand this point home.
	Zuckerberg has actually defended free speech on many occasions and in many unpopular ways.
	And the one I keep coming back to is in 2018, where he didn't want to take Holocaust denial off of Facebook.
	Now, that's a remarkable hill to die on.
	Zuckerberg himself is Jewish, and so he, I guess, had a bit of leniency on this, because he was like, well, look, I'm Jewish, and I don't think we should get rid of it.
	Because, in his words, people have sincere convictions, whether they're right or wrong.
	And so he says...
	I don't believe our platform should take things down because I think there are things that different people get wrong.
	He doesn't support Holocaust denial.
	He doesn't believe Holocaust denial.
	But he does think that people with sincere convictions should be allowed to say things that are wrong.
	Because the alternative, as much as you don't like it, is entering into this kind of scientific, technocratic, managerial frame of the internet where you're not even allowed to be wrong.
	Yeah.
	And that's awful.
	Yeah.
	He did end up caving on this a couple of years later, and eventually, because of all the pressure groups, I think, and essentially had to get rid of QAnon.
	It was in 2020 they got rid of QAnon and Holocaust denial and all of that sort of stuff.
	And so we end now, I guess, where we are now, with...
	Facebook basically being slowly but surely eaten up by left-wing activists and left-wing control.
	And so that means that the Daily Wire is probably going to see its reach limited substantially because that's their main concern.
	Outlets like the Daily Wire, Fox News are dominating Facebook because that's where the boomers are and that's what they want to see.
	It's not that Facebook is some sort of right-wing propaganda platform.
	It's that the people using it make it what it is.
	Yeah.
	And the longer the perch goes on, the more these right-wing fanatics, as they're being ostracized as, are going to mobilize on social media and be, well, shall we say, unfairly castigated again.
	Yeah.
	And it's because of the left-wing intolerance to the existence of right-wing ideas.
	All they can do is pathologize them as being misinformation because they don't come to the same conclusions as left-wing.
	It's a heresy charge, in effect.
	Yes.
	Yeah.
	That's exactly it.
	It is a charge of heresy.
	That's exactly it.
	Right, so tell me about Sparta Prague.
	Sparta Prague, yes.
	This is actually quite alarming, but nonetheless extremely revealing as well.
	Last Thursday, Scottish champions Rangers faced off against Czech side Sparta Prague in their second Europa League group fixture.
	They're making use of a loophole that allowed Sparta the home team to get around a stadium ban enforced by UEFA for reasons I'll explain in a minute.
	The Czech side offered free admission to children from local schools aged between 6 and 14, accompanied, of course, by their parents.
	And this was a proposal that was approved by UEFA before the match, so it's all legit.
	But during the match, it was being widely reported that Finnish midfielder Glenn Kamara was being jeered by the young Sparta Park supporters every time he touched the ball.
	And if we scroll down a little bit on this article...
	Yeah, so he was targeted by a crowd of children in Prague on Thursday night.
	Right.
	And in effect, the media has been pretty ubiquitous in...
	Well, this is racist, clearly.
	Yes.
	Yes.
	There's a bunch of racist children.
	A bunch of racist children.
	And, well, quite frankly...
	As we're going to see, this is maybe slight overreach.
	Imagine my shock.
	Yes.
	And if we get the video up now, I think we'll see.
	- Hey, come on! - Let's just live on it! - Let's go! - Let's go! - Let's go! - F*** up, come on up!
	Woo!
	Fck up camera! Fck up camera! Fck up camera! Fck up!
	Okay, so just to disambiguate what's going on here.
	The first part of that is quite simply the fans acting in kind of, you could say, either support for Sparta Prague or contempt for the Rangers supporters for taking the knee.
	And as we know, whenever someone does such a thing, the UK media essentially, or the sports media in particular, immediately renders it As an endorsement of racism of the very, very worst kind.
	Needless to say, this is egregious.
	And the second part is a little bit more open to interpretation.
	But it's...
	I mean, I didn't hear them shouting the end.
	No, they're hurling abuse at camera.
	But you can hear quite clearly, if you hear the uncensored version, there's no racial language that is being used.
	But the reason that this is being stirred up as a racial incident...
	It's because of the context leading up to this.
	But first...
	First, I think it might actually be funny to see how Sparta Prague officially actually responded to the accusations that the kids that they had let into the stadium were acting explicitly racist.
	So if we get this up from the Daily Record...
	Yep.
	Yep.
	Or is there another video here?
	I can just read it out.
	This is a quote from Spotify themselves.
	It is absolutely unbelievable that after a match we have had to watch innocent children being attacked and face unfounded accusations of racism.
	Insulting children on the internet and in the media is unacceptable, desperate and ridiculous.
	Stop attacking our children.
	Our club will proudly defend our children, our future and our pride.
	Slandering children on the internet is extremely cowardly.
	We are seeing unprecedented xenophobic statements against the Czech Republic, its citizens and even its children on social media.
	You are describing the behaviour of children incorrectly, arrogating to yourself the right to judge the expression of emotions of six-year-old children who have no idea what racism is.
	It's an impertinence.
	Needless to say, they're not holding back.
	I love that it's an impertinence.
	It's an impertinence.
	It's a great statement.
	I've honestly never come across such a, you could say, a base response from a football club on this matter.
	That's not to say that racism is completely absent here.
	Sure, sure.
	There's a bunch of kids.
	This is basically being reported as a case of almost like a...
	A group collectivised effort by children who have been coerced to do this in some way, I don't know.
	But to put this in the context of why this has been received as racist, the staging ban was implemented by UEFA in the first place.
	Well, it was implemented in virtue of Sparta being unable to prevent Monaco's, and I'm sorry if I pronounce his name wrong, Aurelien Schumeni from being subject to monkey gestures during the previous Europa League fixture against Monaco.
	Needless to say, that's awful.
	But the context underwriting the UK media's reaction goes back further, and this is where Rangers come into this.
	Last season on March the 18th, when Rangers played Sparta's rival Slavia Prague in the round of 16, there was another incident involving Glenn Kamara and Andre Kajula.
	So is this going to be these kids know this history and don't like this individual player?
	In effect, yes.
	And because of that, they must be expressing content because they're racist.
	Yeah, because they're yelling...
	In the video, you can hear them yelling his name particularly.
	Because there were other black players on the pitch.
	They weren't yelling at them.
	and they were yelling at this one guy.
	Yeah.
	If we take a look at the Guardian coverage of this particular match, the defender found guilty of racist abuse, and I've got his car banned for three games for assaulting Kadela.
	So let's see what this is all about.
	So he was reported to have called Kamara, again, there's no nice way of putting this, among you during the match.
	And having been found guilty of this offence by UEFA, he was subsequently banned for 10 matches.
	Kadela has continued to deny making the remark ever since.
	But the media has, in effect, arrived at the non-sequitur that the jeering from the Sparta Prague supporters, in short, is assumed to be related to this incident in March, and thus an expression of contempt for the charge, and by extension, solidarity with the rival player who has been charged as racist.
	Right.
	Do we not have any proof that he called him a monkey?
	It's just an allegation, is it?
	Well, it was reported by the Rangers players.
	And I imagine there must have been some lip-reading involved as well.
	The evidence seems pretty strong when you consider the weight of the testimonies.
	I've got no reason to think that this did not happen.
	So it's on these grounds, in effect.
	This...
	It's tracing it back to this incident and mixing this with the during for the children.
	The UK media has interpreted this during as racially motivated.
	But as I'm sure, at least I heard and you can hear, it seems like the level of the abuse is pretty low.
	It's personal.
	It doesn't seem like it's racial.
	It seems...
	We're not like, we hate black people, we hate you.
	It's extremely...
	Yeah, I mean, I've been to ten football matches in my life.
	There were some pretty, like, contemporaneous things that are said that don't actually mean anything in the spirit of competition.
	That's not to say that some of the things are not awful because they are.
	But nonetheless, to jump on a child's utterance like this, I think, is pretty low.
	And even though it does appear that there does seem to be a bit of a problem with Sparta's and Slavia Prague's supporters in these cases, they are absolutely right.
	To, in effect, call the media out and call Rangers out for saying that, look, you've jumped on this without even having the extent of knowledge to launch such a charge.
	If we can just go quickly back to their response, I find this really, really interesting because their response is deeply moral.
	And that's normally not the kind of response you get.
	Like you said, it's a deeply based response.
	Their response is based completely on the moral intuitions to defend their children, as they say, our future and our pride.
	Slandering children on the internet is extremely cowardly.
	My God, like, you think you make honour charges against journos these days?
	Yeah.
	Of course it's cowardly.
	They're a bunch of cowards.
	They're slimiest people on earth.
	Yeah.
	Like, sorry, of course.
	Like, yeah, that's...
	It feels like I'm hearing something from the 16th century.
	This is the kind of insult that I would have heard then.
	They don't care about honour whatsoever.
	But again, I find it very interesting.
	It's a deeply moralistic response.
	We just don't see anymore.
	That's the thing.
	Could we be able to go back to the Metro article again so we can actually see some of the responses from the UK media here?
	If we just go down a bit.
	Up a little bit.
	Yeah, that's it.
	So the Athletics' Jordan Campbell, who was reporting on this on Twitter, reported that Cameron is now being booed with every touch.
	Let's just make it perfectly clear that there were other black players on the pitch.
	They weren't booing him.
	I can't remember what the player's name is.
	That would in itself suggest that this is aimed at a particular individual, may not...
	in virtue of their race. - Yeah. - And BT Sports commentator in former Rangers midfielder, Alex Ray said, "There's no two ways about it.
	"He's been targeted by these kids.
	"It's difficult to hear in this day and age, "but this is the case.
	"He's clearly been to..." I don't know where exactly the commentary box was.
	Maybe they were right next to that child.
	But from what we could hear, was there a massive chorus of chanting of anything? - No, it sounded localized, but localized.
	No.
	Okay, so there are a bunch of kids at a game who don't like Kamara because of an interaction he had had that got a previous footballer they obviously like banned for 10 games.
	And so they're booing him and not the other black guy.
	So it's not the fact that he's black.
	It's the fact that they think he's an arsehole.
	In effect, yes.
	I mean, there may be some people who genuinely think he deserves this in virtue of his race, but there is nothing conclusive to suggest that, and to jump to that conclusion off the back of, well, utterances by children, to leech onto that is...
	It just goes to show you exactly the kind of mindset that the media are in, doesn't it?
	They want this.
	They want it to be racism.
	They want this.
	They're finding...
	Cases of racism where there aren't.
	And in this particular case, there is more merit than others.
	But even so, I think the act of opportunism is pretty low.
	Yeah.
	I mean, do you listen to TalkSport all that much?
	I'm not sure if you are a man of sports.
	I'm not a sports fan.
	I prefer to play rather than watch.
	If you tune in, I mean, pretty much...
	All they talk about is racism.
	I wouldn't have a problem with this at all if they actually talk about it in the nuanced way that such an important issue deserves.
	But they quite literally still think, many of them still think, that the narrative is with this post-racial idea of not judging people because of the colour of their skin.
	They don't seem to realise that this is all being peddled with diversity as the end of it.
	But moreover, this is a great example of that.
	It just goes to show you that any sort of public criticism or animus against an individual who happens to be black is then always conflated into being racism.
	I mean, I don't doubt there are other players who are not black who have sections of the fans who dislike them.
	Yeah.
	They're bound to be.
	And, you know, oh, this guy is a jerk because for whatever reason.
	And so there are always going to be a section of fans that boo this guy because of who he is and what he's done.
	And Kamara is, in fact, being treated like everyone else in that way.
	Pretty much.
	And yet, because he's black, that means he's not allowed to be booed by a bunch of kids.
	That's what it personally means.
	Yeah.
	Do you remember when Ashley Cole went from Arsenal to Chelsea?
	I do not.
	You do not?
	Well, needless to say, Arsenal and Chelsea absolutely hate each other.
	This is like the equivalent of crossing the Rubicon for Arsenal fans, right?
	Right, right.
	And he was basically absolutely hammered by the media for making a move, which was perceived to have been entirely on monetary grounds.
	He was being called greedy, flash, all these sorts of things.
	Basically called a sleaze for allowing himself to be tapped up by the then Chelsea chief executive, Peter Kenyon.
	And on the kickoff, which is a footballing podcast, which was a special edition in response to, it was amidst the George Floyd fallout.
	They had somehow arrived at the conclusion, the very reason that Ashley Cole was given this level of abuse was because he was black.
	It had nothing to do with the fact that he had gone from Arsenal to Chelsea.
	Not the fact that he was literally Benedict Arnold.
	Yeah.
	Of the football team.
	Yes.
	I mean, you can understand...
	So I've never been a football fan, but if there's one thing you can see from the outside, it's that there are some very deep passions involved in this.
	And very long-held grudges involved in this.
	Oh, yeah.
	And so, like, you know, like the Benedict Arnold of football is going to get booed every time the opposing fans are watching him play, obviously.
	Yeah, but they've made a race issue even out of this.
	I had honestly not heard a single racial utterance aimed at Ashley Cole in this entire measure.
	And I bet they all cheered him when he was scoring for Chelsea or whatever.
	Oh, yeah.
	They were like, you know, Ashley Cole, he's our boy.
	Now he's gone to the others.
	Oh, no, we hate him now.
	Oh, you're a racist.
	That's not what this is.
	No, no.
	But just to illustrate the change in focus and discourse at the moment, insofar as sport is concerned, there was something called the Rooney Rule, which was, I think the FA were discussing or something like that, which, it was about the...
	It was a means of attempting to give more managerial opportunities to players of different ethnicities.
	Class backgrounds.
	Class backgrounds.
	They all hated it, basically, but now they've decided that they like it.
	Perhaps we can cover this another time.
	Yeah, we'll cover it another time.
	So just to summarise then, this is probably nonsense.
	Yes.
	And it's unashamed opportunism at the expense of, well, people that aren't as of yet recognised legally as rational beings because they're children.
	Yes.
	I mean, why is the media bullying a bunch of 6- to 14-year-olds?
	Yeah, it's pretty low.
	But it's unbelievable, isn't it, that that's more important to them than the propriety about the way that they should treat children.
	They think, oh no, these children are racist and therefore it's justified for us to use the collective power of the media to bully a bunch of kids.
	And so, like you were saying about the statement from the football side, appropriately moral.
	Say, no, you're wrong for...
	Daring to treat children this way.
	Like, it would be totally irresponsible.
	I would never dream of publishing something attacking a bunch of children on our website.
	God!
	You know, it would be totally wrong.
	Oh, these children are a bunch of communists.
	Well, okay, but they're kids.
	You know, like, we're not going to, you know, we'll talk about, like, Carrie Simmons being a communist, but we're not going to talk about a bunch of kids being communists, you know?
	Anyway, moving on.
	Speaking about communists, let's talk about the Conservative Party conference.
	Because it turns out there were some commies there, for some reason.
	Much conservatism.
	So Kerry Johnson, Boris Johnson's wife and not an elected politician, or anyone of any note other than the fact that she sleeps with Boris Johnson, gave a speech there about extending gay rights.
	Is there a right that a gay person doesn't have that I have?
	I can't.
	They can get married.
	They can, like, you know, live.
	Get jobs.
	That equates to equal recognition, isn't it?
	I thought that we had the same rights, but apparently these rights need to be extended, so let's listen to a clip from Carrie's speech.
	It is really fantastic to be here.
	Whether you are LGBT +, Or an ally like me.
	We are all committed to equality and acceptance for everyone, whoever you are and whomever you love.
	There are still those that will tell you that being LGBT plus notori is somehow incompatible.
	Well, looking around the room tonight, we can see that is blatantly untrue.
	The idea that your sexual orientation or your gender identity should determine your politics is now as illogical as saying it's your height or your hair colour should.
	Many of you here tonight have helped play a part in the journey our party has taken on gay rights.
	And we can now say with huge pride that it was a Conservative Prime Minister who delivered equal marriage in the way.
	And I want you all to know that we now have a Prime Minister who is completely committed to protecting those gains and extending their funds.
	But for all the progress we have made as a society, we know there is still a long way to go.
	The LGBT plus community still faces stigma, harassment and discrimination, with hate crimes still a fact of life.
	I heard myself and the victims of such a crime I did think he was going to do a Trudeau there.
	Go on.
	Nearly.
	But I mean, how conservative did that sound to you?
	It's almost, um...
	Sounds like a Labour Party conference.
	Yeah, I was just going to say that.
	Doesn't it?
	You can't differentiate the two at all.
	We're for equality, we're for progress, that's right, we're conservatives.
	She used exactly the same buzzwords as the Labour Party, and needless to say, all of the progressives.
	Yeah, it's saturated in left-wing ideology.
	The fact that she's saying, well, your sexuality no longer determines your politics...
	Who said it did?
	Well, the left, when they tried to create identity categories that are politicized along certain kinds of lines.
	They're deliberately trying to gain control of the gay voting bloc, the lesbian voting bloc, and they're trying to squeeze these all together in the acronym LGBT, which we can talk about in a minute.
	So the whole thing there, again, the progress, the equality, this is the language of the communist.
	That's what they're after.
	They think that there is a glorious future ahead of us, that we can attain if only we level the playing field enough until everything is exactly the same.
	That is the opposite of conservatism, which is to protect and conserve, dare I say, those things we have inherited from the past, which were not the product of progress, they were the product of tradition.
	So the total opposite and subversion of the Conservative Party, right there, from an unelected person who happens to be sleeping with the Prime Minister.
	Anyway, so where does LGBT come from?
	Because the first thing shows up, they're saying you can't be LGBT in a Tory.
	It's like, well, I mean, it's like, you know, what does it mean?
	Where does it come from?
	What is it?
	Well, as Wikipedia tells us, it's been in use since the 1990s.
	The initialism, as well as some of its common variants, functions as an umbrella term for sexuality and gender identity.
	And they link to a study as their first link there.
	So we can get to the next one.
	This is what they link to.
	The approaches to research and intersectionality perspectives on gender, LGBT, and racial ethnic identities.
	And in the abstract, they point out that intersectionality theories, or the recognition of multiple interlocking identities, defined by relative sociocultural power and privilege, sounding very conservative this, isn't it?
	Oh, very.
	Constitute a vital step forward in research and on multiple domains of inquiry.
	To provide common ground for this work, each paper in this special issue addresses the intersections of gender, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender, and racial, ethnic identities and related experiences.
	In this introduction, we provide an overview of the definitions, conceptualizations, etc., etc., and they go into the history of it.
	And so, where does this all come from?
	Well, this all comes from Kimberley Crenshaw.
	Do you know who she is?
	No idea.
	She is one of the prime movers of critical race theory, and she is the lady who coined the term intersectionality in her 1989 paper, quote, demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex, a black feminist critique of anti-discrimination doctrine, feminist theory, and anti-racist politics.
	Much conservatism.
	Needless to say, this is the exact abstract universalism that aspires to, or at least, justifies the dissolving of the institutions that conservatives wish to preserve, not defend them in virtue of progress.
	Absolutely.
	And that's exactly right.
	Abstract universalism, which is exactly where we've arrived here, in contrast to concrete particularism, which is what the Conservatives are supposed to be, preserving these demonstrable, you know, unique institutions that are not universal, that are particular to our country.
	And so in this essay, right, I've read through it.
	In this essay, she maps through three legal cases in America that she feels that black women are entitled to a particular identity claim that is not recognized by the American legal system.
	This is the origin point of intersectionality.
	A black and a capital B black, so a racial identitarian, a gender identitarian, and a communist trying to achieve, quote, equality by manipulation of US law, has found its way into being LGBT and a Tory.
	They are not the same thing.
	They're contradictory things.
	You cannot be LGBT. But this is not the same as saying, can you be gay and a Tory?
	Because LGBT is an acronym, a sort of Frankenstein's monster of an acronym.
	So obviously L, G and B are sexualities and T is a gender identity.
	Not the same thing.
	Why are they together?
	Doesn't make sense.
	Only makes sense if you're interested in coalition building, left-wing politics, which Kimberley Crenshaw is, and if you're intersectional.
	If you're not intersectional, you can't be LGBT. If you're a Tory, why are you intersectional?
	Because you're now critiquing the intersections of racial and gender hierarchies and trying to achieve equality.
	Is that what conservative is about?
	I wouldn't have said so.
	But basically, what she's saying is, if you can be an LGBT and a Tory, you can say, I'm a communist and a conservative at the same time.
	No.
	No, you can't.
	And so, Pink News were thrilled with this, and Pink News being like a leftist subversive rag, as you can imagine, they're thrilled with this.
	And if Pink News are thrilled with what's going on at the Conservative Party conference, you're doing something wrong.
	You're not being very conservative, right?
	So they say, in a speech at the Conservative Party conference, pride drinks reception.
	Why would there be a pride?
	Pride is a sin, isn't it?
	Isn't pride a sin in the conservative worldview?
	I thought it was, you know, there are seven deadly sins, Pride being one of them.
	Are you going to have a wrath conference next?
	Call me old-fashioned.
	Anyway, Carrie Johnson insisted that it was blatantly untrue and incompatible to be queer and a Tory.
	Johnson said her husband, the Prime Minister Boris, was completely committed to LGBT rights at the Pride event with partnership with Stonewall at the Midland Hotel.
	Do you know who Stonewall are?
	I have some idea.
	Radical left-wing gay activist group.
	Looking for communism.
	Very conservative.
	Speaking to an audience of around 100, including her husband and Women and Equalities Minister Liz Truss, who we'll get onto in a minute, she said, you know, there are still those who say what she said.
	And so, just to be clear, being LGBT, as in identifying with an acronym, and being a homosexual are not the same thing.
	There is actually a conservative tradition of homosexuals, but this isn't it.
	And she's conflating being gay with being a left-wing activist, which is precisely what identity politicians want.
	The Conservatives have completely blundered into all of these things, and that's why they lose every battle with the left.
	They've actually just sleepwalked into the process of reification that the left are trying.
	Yes, they have.
	Yeah.
	That's exactly it.
	And they can't even understand why that would be bad.
	That's the thing.
	The worst part about it.
	The Conservatives are so out to lunch that they have no idea.
	It's because they have absolutely no size of what they're trying to conserve.
	Because if they did, they would notice that this entire framework only works in complete opposition to those very things which British Conservatives see value in.
	Yeah.
	I mean, things like, I don't know, the nuclear family, the bourgeois family, as Marxists would put it, and the patriarchal structure, as feminists put it, as intersectionists put it, which stands over and above what it regards as true human freedoms.
	If you're going to legitimise all of those things, of which, as we know, are politicised, you can't possibly be advocating for a conservative position.
	And the entire point of them, as Crenshaw herself notes in Critical Race Theory key writings that form the movement, is to critique and change at once.
	So the very purpose of looking at things through this lens is to deconstruct.
	Not very conservative.
	Anyway, what do I know?
	So, moving on, this has led us into cervix gate.
	Cervix gate.
	Following cervix gate...
	For like three weeks now, the political class of this country has been gripped by the question, do women have a cervix?
	And it's been embarrassing watching them, again, fumble around in this nightmare void where they have no idea, and this is Boris's response.
	Oh, God.
	Okay.
	And just finally, Keir Starmer, of course, said last week that it's not right to say that only women have a cervix.
	Do you agree?
	No, what I think about this is that...
	Biology is very important, but we've got a system now in our country for many, many years in which people can change gender, we help them to do that, and what I absolutely passionately believe, and I've fought for this for a long time, is everybody should be treated with dignity and respect.
	So what would you say to a To someone who identifies as a woman, but doesn't have a cervix.
	I would say everybody needs to be treated with dignity and respect, and that's my strong...
	So Boris doesn't think that women have a cervix?
	In short.
	In short.
	But you can see he's just parroting Carrie's position on this, the left-wing position, because he just doesn't want to get into it because he doesn't know.
	He doesn't know what he should be saying.
	He thinks that arbitrary decisions are more scientific than biology.
	Yeah, but moreover, this hits at the problem at the heart of the issue, which happens to actually be, what is the definition of a woman?
	Is it adult human female, which is the essential definition that speaks to biological characteristics, or is it nothing at all?
	Anyone who identifies as such.
	That's the point.
	And Boris has been like, well, yeah, well, I mean, no one's disagreeing with, you know, people should be treated with dignity.
	Yeah, everyone agrees that people should be treated with dignity.
	But the question is, what is a woman, Boris?
	And you're like, well, I don't have an answer.
	And so, yeah, like, you know, do we have an identity that's grounded in concrete reality or the sort of floating abstract definitions of self-identity?
	The alternative, though, is Liz Truss, who happens to be the Women Inequalities Minister, And she is definitely very much a conservative.
	So, God willing, maybe she'll gain control of the conservative party from Boris somehow, because she thinks that women have vaginas.
	She had to say this on the radio?
	They have vaginas.
	Radical.
	I know, absolutely.
	But this is the insane place that we're at here.
	This at the time caused a massive furor about the very concept, because how dare you say that all of these men in dresses are not women?
	And she was like, well, they don't have cervixes, do they?
	But anyway, so just a quick aside on this, it's nice that she's in charge of the women's inequalities system.
	Commission, because if we can go to the next one, John, she's apparently recently signed off on a massive £183 million cut to Women's Inequalities Aid in her first week as Foreign Secretary.
	So you can see that she's just not having any of this left-wing nonsense, and we're not sending hundreds of millions of pounds overseas for women inequalities in other countries.
	The budget was £308 million, and she's cut it to £125 million, so there are 183 million.
	And hopefully she'll get rid of the rest of it soon.
	Because I don't want them sending our money because Pakistan needs those gender studies programs.
	Just not interested.
	Sorry.
	As you can imagine, this didn't go around very well with the left.
	Liberal Democrat Spokesperson for Equalities, Vera Hobhouse, said, How can the Minister for Women and Equalities be pushing forward such a huge and cruel cut which will damage the prospects of millions of vulnerable women and girls?
	This is utterly unacceptable.
	Trust has a clear choice.
	If she wants to press ahead with the cut, she must resign as Women and Equalities Minister.
	Well, if she did that, she probably wouldn't get the cut, so she probably shouldn't do that.
	But I find it very interesting how this is a distinctly imperial mindset, isn't it?
	You know, Britain should be sorting out things around the world.
	I thought we gave up the empire.
	Thought we weren't in charge of these foreign countries.
	More to the point, exporting infrastructure was a form of colonialism to some.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, it does feel like a really gross colonial project that the Imperial Democrats...
	That's not a bad term for them, actually.
	The Liberal Democrats, the Universalists, have got in their heads where we should be interfering with native traditions all around the world.
	I don't think we should.
	That's definitely colonialism.
	But anyway, moving on.
	Liz Truss definitely has views on whether women have cervixes.
	She at least is in favour of the idea that they do.
	I mean, she agrees with Labour MP Rosie Duffield that only women have a cervix.
	What a reactionary.
	But she's not unsympathetic to helping trans people, though.
	That's the thing, right?
	There's one thing saying, well, look, you know, we have a specific essential definition of what a woman is, but there is also, well, we recognize that some people have problems, right?
	Some people are in a position where they don't happen to fit neatly into either category, and so those people shouldn't be, you know, cast out into the wilderness.
	We don't want to hurt them.
	You know, you want to be sympathetic, and so...
	She's said that trans people shouldn't be able to declare their own identity, but should have some sort of medical checks.
	As she puts it, checks and balances on this.
	Because she said at the Conservative Party conference, you see the absurdity of identity politics last week at the Labour conference.
	Presumably she watched Callum's clip shows.
	Which ended up saying that women don't have cervixes or whatever.
	Rosie Duffield is right that women have cervixes, but more than that, she's also right to be able to express her view, and obviously we want an open, honest debate.
	And she thinks there's a huge problem for British politics, and she is actually right.
	And it's infesting her own party.
	It's completely taken over the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, and so it's just like reform, reclaiming UKIP outside of the Conservative Party, and like, A large chunk of the Conservative Party that have moved to the left on this.
	Because, again, they don't understand what's going on.
	And so we can ask, say, famous libertarian MP Steve Baker what he thinks of the Conservative Party.
	And as Maya Artusi points out, when asked whether the Conservative government is Conservative, Steve Baker says, no, I'm afraid we're socialists now.
	Even their own MPs.
	Can see that they're socialist.
	I mean, there was an example a week or two ago where one Conservative MP had apparently been reported to go home crying to his wife.
	Crying, literally, literally crying that he didn't know what a Tory was anymore.
	The absolute state of it It's disgusting.
	Like, give Liz Truss control over the party and allow her to just get rid of all this left-wing nonsense.
	It is worth remembering that she was a Liberal Democrat herself once as well, wasn't she?
	Clearly she's had a change of heart.
	I mean, you used to be a Bolshevik.
	That's a fair point.
	And now she's currently, you know, putting her knee on the neck of the leftists in the Conservative Party.
	So, you know, people change.
	People, you know, get this.
	And an example of this is, of course, you know, Today the Serial Proof Supposed rape victim of Julian Assange,
	Anna Arden, will be speaking at my school today.
	It's been ten years.
	She just published a book.
	Maybe it will give her more publicity.
	Wow.
	There we go.
	You always know that someone's claims are legit when they start publishing books on them.
	First thing...
	What did you make of the Julian Assange thing?
	To be honest, I don't know all that much about it, really.
	but um no I think I'll abstain from commenting at the moment - That's right.
	First thing, um, Callum, the people shoving Tess at baby's noses, those people are called slaves.
	I've mentioned this before, get it right already, buddy.
	Second, Oil said something on the Sultans of Chandelier podcast, which I very much agree with, but I know I'll lose the tournament, is a sort of a, um, load-seater's version of this year in Stupid, a top 10 or top 100 this year's Video comments, which I love the idea, but I'll lose the tournament.
	And thirdly, I might be getting my dream job soon.
	Thank you again, Carl, for the good luck.
	Did he come for an interview here?
	No, no, no, he's gone somewhere else.
	I don't know where.
	Oh.
	But good luck on getting your dream job.
	I hope you get it.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Let's go to the next one.
	So I've been reading up on the crazy, that is Frances Kresswelsing, and alongside her theory that white people are mutants that were expelled from Africa by blacks, she also states that homosexuality amongst the black population is a white conspiracy to kill off blacks.
	And also it appears that her definition of racism seems to be a proto-version of P plus P equals R, so there's that too.
	Wow, that person sounds absolutely sane.
	Yeah, no, certainly.
	You know, the critical race theorists, they oppose integration.
	So, you know, after the abolition of Jim Crow laws in America, they were like, yeah, so, you know, white kids should be able to go to black schools and black kids should be able to go to white schools.
	And what other party believed in racial essentialism?
	Can you remember?
	I think it was the Democrats.
	And they still are.
	Yeah, there is another one.
	Which one?
	Oh, well, I mean, a German party I can think of, yeah.
	So I was thinking American parties.
	There were certain German parties that believed these sort of things.
	But the critical race theorists, very much like a lot of their essays, are focused around resisting integration.
	And I quote, because it would be black, genocide.
	If we allow the blacks and the whites to mix, then that would be a genocide of the blacks.
	That honestly sounds like the reverse of the York right to me.
	Yes.
	It's exactly the same.
	Yeah.
	It's not even a revert.
	That's precisely what it is.
	It's crazy.
	Richard Spence would be all over this.
	Yeah, well, he could probably describe himself as a critical race theorist.
	Yeah, yeah.
	That would make sense, actually.
	I don't know why he doesn't.
	He could at least, you know, fit in with them.
	Anyway, moving on to the next one.
	Okay, Norwegian boat guy, I'll let you have this.
	You do have seniority rights on all of those.
	But let's not forget the magical first-come-first-serve, and Carl himself said that I'm that boat guy.
	So you can have all the other ones.
	Men igen, det er aldrig greit å skjå det er flere based folk her i Norge også.
	Trevlig treft, da var det assen.
	God tur!
	Okay, so there's a weird thing where we seem to have a remarkable number of Norwegian boat chefs subscribe to the podcast and subscribe to the website.
	And so now there is a conflict going on between which one gets to call themselves that boat guy, because they usually send the videos from on the boats.
	And so T.F. Allspark is making a good point that he did it first, and so he gets seniority there, which I think is fair.
	First come, first serve is Traditional Valley, which I think we can uphold.
	Can't argue the fairness of that, so the other boat guy is going to have to consult something other than that boat guy.
	Poor him.
	Yeah.
	So moving on.
	That other boat guy.
	Yeah.
	Moving on.
	Since your diversity hire non-binary gender queer host keeps telling lies, I just want to say that the punt gun is legal in the United States.
	What's a punt gun?
	A punt gun is apparently some massive gun that was used to shoot ducks or something.
	I have no idea what it's actually.
	I assume it's a big collection of shrapnel or something.
	And then there's this enormous boom and then you shred a bunch of birds.
	So it doesn't actually fire anything as such?
	Well, it fires shrapnel.
	Oh, shrapnel, yeah.
	And it shreds an area of space which contains birds.
	I've never used one myself, so...
	I thought even in heaven you've got to be on your diet.
	In my mind, like, bread or eating bread is a pleasurable activity.
	Well, as far as I'm concerned, it is.
	Like, thank you for just saying it.
	I'm going to have some fun with this.
	Really?
	Okay.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	I'm into that.
	Go on.
	Yeah.
	Brilliant.
	Yeah.
	Woo!
	Team man!
	Orcs, orcs, orcs.
	Yeah, exactly.
	That was a fun over.
	Anyway.
	Thank you and goodbye.
	What a fantastic edit.
	Yeah, I know.
	I don't even know what's going on there.
	I had a critical race training Thursday.
	It was brutal.
	It made me so furious.
	And they said, there is no done to this work.
	And I was like, of course, so that you can grift forever.
	However, I have to make a consciousness journey map.
	So like my under when I began to understand that I was an oppressor, race was the only important characteristic.
	And I have to present this map to the head of SBP Houston.
	And I originally wrote mine about my transition from liberal to conservative.
	And my question is this.
	Do you think I should share the original work, or do you think I should edit it in order to make it more palatable to leftists?
	Thanks for your advice.
	I wouldn't edit it for the simple reason that the leftists are already persuaded.
	It depends how much trouble you want to get in, really.
	Doesn't it?
	From my experience, trying to pander...
	It's not pandering as such.
	It's a pragmatic technique of trying to level with them to some extent.
	But I would go with your original tactic, in short.
	Yeah, I mean, at the end of the day...
	If you're not one of the cores, if you're not a diehard supporter already, they basically view you as a heretic and as an object of suspicion anyway.
	So if you're trying to modify yourself to blend in a bit, they're going to smell it on you, the heresy on you.
	And so you may as well just go full conservative on it.
	I probably would.
	Yeah.
	But I mean, that will land you in more trouble than if you bent the knee to them somewhat.
	Because they will at least, you know, look around for someone more offensive than you first.
	But I wouldn't take any prisoners with it.
	No, nor would I. No, screw it.
	Hey, Little Seeders!
	Tony D and Little Joan here with another legend on the pines, the Ghost of Haddonfield.
	There's about 80 ghosts altogether, and Bill Meehan of Haddonfield, who gives ghost tours, wrote Haunted Haddonfield and talks about the various ghosts.
	This one inhabits Christ is King Church in Haddonfield.
	It is the ghost of an old lady who was the church organist who returns every once in a while to play the organ and not really scare anybody.
	I love these stories.
	So every day he sends a story in the Pine Barrens in America, in the East Coast of America.
	And they're just weird old folktales.
	They're just fun.
	I'll tell you all of them.
	Oh yeah, I'm sure he'll send more in there.
	For an idea for a t-shirt.
	Lotus Eaters.
	For 30 quid a month, you can turn yourself into a meme too.
	CSCooper.com.au Moving on.
	To answer the question about how the vaccine passport system works here, it's intentionally simple.
	All you have to have is your personal health card and an email address to get a vaccine passport.
	Once you've filled out all the information and proved that you are in fact who you say you are, you'll get a digital card automatically and you'll get a physical copy if you request one.
	Both have a QR code to scan that will let you in.
	Medical exemptions do require a doctor's note or some such for it, though.
	How do you feel about vaccine passports?
	It just reeks of papers, please, doesn't it?
	Awful idea.
	Yeah, terrible.
	That's what the Soviet Union would do.
	I mean, vaccines on the whole seem to have been scientifically accepted as a good thing, but to compare it in this way leaves a sour taste for me.
	And the problem I have is that a vaccine usually takes like a decade to develop.
	And it's like, okay, good.
	A well-developed vaccine is a good thing, obviously.
	But there seem to be too many vested interests who are constantly like, you have to do it, you have to do it, you have to do it, you have to do it.
	It's like, why?
	I've had COVID. Why would I bother getting a vaccine for something I've already had?
	It doesn't make any sense.
	Well, it's going to give you antibodies.
	I have antibodies.
	Okay, well now we just really want you to do it.
	Why?
	Because Pfizer need those payouts, baby.
	That's what it's about, isn't it?
	Or it's about just increasing vanguard control over society.
	And that's what it looks like to me.
	It's a bunch of people saying, well look, we just want more and more controls on your life.
	I say, yeah, but I don't want you to have that.
	Yeah, I think one of the worst things that can come out of this is actually the creation of another abstract class that we do not need.
	Yes.
	And needless to say, we're already seeing the effects of that.
	Let's not make it any worse.
	Yeah, and Wales has just started imposing vaccine passports for live events and stuff like that.
	It's like, good, go to the Socialist Republic of Wales if you want to be tyrannised.
	God.
	Anyway, let's carry on.
	Through joy, you will find everlasting happiness.
	Wow, that was remarkably insightful from George Lucas.
	State of human flourishing.
	Satisfaction.
	Come on, give us the Empire take on that.
	Oh, I got you, mother.
	Why, he's wrong.
	Oh, that is the Empire take.
	What were the rebels trying to achieve, really?
	Satisfy their base desires.
	That's what I think it was.
	I thought we were trying to get back to the Republic.
	Yeah, base desire.
	Electing your leaders.
	They're wrong.
	Why?
	They stand for everything you stand for.
	That's brilliant.
	Yeah, and you've yet to prove me wrong.
	Moving on.
	Do you want to read out?
	Can you see the comments at the bottom of the doc?
	Not yet.
	No, I'll do it then.
	Noel says, at some point Zuckerberg and Facebook will have to realise the obvious.
	You really can't bargain or reason with woke, you may as well stop trying.
	That's correct.
	Ty Buffett says, who wants to bet that when Facebook whistleblower says she lost her friend, what she meant was he would no longer tow the left-wing party line, so he might as well no longer exist.
	Well, that's very much how it came across, isn't it?
	I lost my friend.
	Well, he became right wing.
	Kevin says, if Facebook is a platform and not a publisher, how can they have an editorial policy?
	Surely the existence of editorial policies makes it a publisher.
	Correct.
	For some reason, this tension is never resolved, though.
	Just no one ever forces it.
	Ignacio says, the angle of attack used by the whistleblower paled with the S show of Facebook and its services going down gives me a strong suspicion this is just another operation from inside Facebook as some corporate office power game.
	Yeah, I don't know, because on the same day, while Facebook was down, Zuckerberg did a live address to Instagram, making the same argument he had made in 2019.
	He looked at those at the same university as well, making the case for free speech and freedom of expression.
	And so it looks to me like it's...
	A power struggle in the ruling class, is what we're looking at.
	Yeah.
	And I think that Zuckerberg's on the raw end of it.
	But the thing is, he owns like 58% of Facebook shares, so they can't get rid of him.
	They can't.
	So what they're going to have to do is try and take Facebook down, I guess.
	Yeah, and are people going to leave Facebook in virtue of this new vanguard position?
	Absolutely not.
	Yeah, but you saw the New York Times article where they were like, well, it's a dying company, it's eroding on the inside, you know, talent's leaving it and stuff like that.
	And it's all about to put this general negative atmosphere around the company from an insider perspective.
	Yeah.
	Do you really think it'll wash, though?
	I have no idea.
	I mean, I would have thought that Facebook has more than enough money to just replace or, you know, improve the conditions for the people working there.
	You know, I just like, okay, like, you know, what the New York Times might have said might be true, but we're going to give you an extra 50 grand a year.
	How do you feel about that?
	You know, and it's like, well, hmm.
	Right, then.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Oh, no, a dying company.
	Exactly.
	So, I can't imagine.
	But Radnan says, I guess Facebook is being excommunicated from the equality cult.
	I guess they were progressive, but not progressive enough to make cult standards.
	Yeah, I mean, it's, again, very obviously a power game that's being played here.
	Callum says, Facebook become the social media home of the right.
	There goes as well together as revolutionary France as a safe haven of the Bourbons and the British.
	True.
	Yes, absolutely.
	Student Fish says, this woman is most likely a natural-born glow.
	Yeah, well, her parents were both academics, apparently.
	So she comes from, like, the upper crust herself.
	I don't think she's entirely in on the take, but she's very much useful, casus belli, for social media regulation now rather than, say, one or two years ago.
	Specifically because who has the wheel?
	Why?
	Because despite past freedom of speech issues, some people like Ben Shapiro have continued to be successful, and that's a problem.
	Yeah, exactly.
	I mean, they've been complaining about the Daily Wire dominating.
	The Daily Wire is apparently half of Facebook's political traffic.
	It's like, good.
	Yeah.
	What does that mean?
	That's successful.
	The Daily Wire didn't have special machinations in Facebook.
	They were just successful at what they did.
	He adds, yes, right-wing misinformation will lead to hating the Jews and sacrificing goats to Beelzebub.
	Yeah, it's definitely the right that hates the Jews.
	Definitely not anyone else.
	Oh no, absolutely not.
	Tiber says, if these journalists subscribe to the idea that racism is prejudice plus power, then they're saying a bunch of children have more power than an overplayed black football player.
	How much does that football player get paid, do you reckon?
	Probably, I would guess, in the SPL, around at least £30,000 a week.
	Jesus Christ!
	Plus bonuses.
	I mean, I thought you were saying a year.
	I was like, well, that's not that much.
	But yeah, £30,000 a week.
	Bloody hell.
	Okay.
	Yeah, well, that's a good point.
	Okay, so by their own standards, then, if racism is prejudice plus power, these children don't have power over this wealthy footballer, and so they are incapable of being racist to him.
	Yeah.
	By their own logic.
	There's no question of it.
	Student of History says, Good on Prague for standing up for the kiddos.
	The media is a hammer looking for a nail, and if it means going for kids, they dox and run them through the mud at the slightest whiff of racism.
	Well, they did with the Covington Catholic kids, didn't they?
	Yeah, they did.
	Anyone who thinks I'm being hyperbolic, remember Covington Catholic.
	Here we go.
	Good on Sparta Pro.
	But good on Sparta Pro.
	Primarily, again, the moral resistance.
	There is a good reason, morally, not to do this.
	And it's good that they articulated that.
	Tom Wise said, as a Czech football fan, it appears to me that there is a level of condescension held by British football teams, journos, and some fans against the backwards, dirty, racist East Europeans.
	Yes, there definitely is.
	A hundred percent.
	Yeah.
	And if anything, this actually is the firmest expression of it.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	You can see this generally in the way that they treat Eastern Europeans anyway.
	They treat them as if they're an inferior tribe that has been discovered in the wilds of Africa or something.
	These people have been part of European history for thousands of years.
	They have their own renaissance and enlightenment.
	Let's not forget having subjected to some of the worst parts of it.
	Absolutely.
	Yeah, exactly.
	And it's just like, you know, they're not like some undiscovered tribe.
	And if they are these awful racists as the media likes to project them as, what does that say about communism turning them that way?
	Well, yeah, I mean, yeah.
	But you are right, but the horrific tyranny.
	Maybe a slight ear of sympathy would have been nicer, especially as it was a bunch of kids.
	You lunatics.
	But anyway...
	And that's another thing as well, right?
	What I love about this...
	Okay, let's talk about power dynamics and racism and prejudice, right?
	So, how about the wealthiest, most successful country in Europe in all of history, the British, don't sit there and pretend to be the victims of a bunch of Czech children whose parents grew up under the Iron Curtain.
	You're not the victims of those.
	You're not the victims of those people.
	You are very privileged, you're very safe, you've been very lucky, They haven't been very privileged and very safe and very lucky, and now you're being like, stop oppressing me, you evil peasants.
	You are not being oppressed by these people.
	That's when the middle class says, stop misgendering me to someone who hasn't even got a job to go home to.
	This is precisely what Andrew Doyle said about why woke politics has become so funny.
	No, yeah, it's absurd.
	The power dynamics are just glaring, and yet they're playing the victim when they've got all the privileges.
	The oppressors claiming to be oppressed.
	Yeah, the aristocracy literally saying I'm being oppressed by the peasants.
	Boo-hoo.
	Go cry into your mountains of money.
	Henry says, the Sparta Prague situation is just for the proof that things like hate crime legislation need to go.
	Correct.
	Abuse that is not overtly racist towards a non-white player is not automatically racially motivated, especially when it appears to have an actual root in behaviour.
	If you have enough oppression points, any and all criticism directed towards them will become illegal.
	Correct.
	Searching for cases of racisms where it isn't.
	We have a term for that that dates back to the centuries.
	Witch hunt.
	Yes, and they always find their witches, don't they?
	Tomasz says, have you seen the stadium decoration from between Leicester City and Ligia, Warsaw?
	I think it is.
	BLM kneeling was trolled.
	Yeah, they basically, obviously the English team took the knee like a bunch of cucks.
	And the Polish team had like, you know, take the knee for the king or something in the picture of a king, a Polish king in the background.
	And it's just like dunked, absolutely dunked.
	You got that.
	You had that coming.
	Yeah.
	Anyway, Noel says, if you see racism all the time and everywhere, you're probably a racist.
	Takes one to no one.
	Anyway, S.H. Silver says, if there is no classically liberal opposition and the culture is dominated by progressives, there will be no good for the conservatives to conserve.
	There needs to be a bottom up cultural shift that does more than vote in Tories and call it a day, expecting the tofs to be your culture warriors.
	I mean, I wouldn't mind if the Toffs would be culture warriors, you know?
	Yeah.
	If they would assert their traditional aristocratic hereditary privileges, it would at least be anti-communist.
	Yeah.
	I think there definitely does need to be, I think...
	If there's going to be any Conservative resurgence, it has to be built on something like a little platoon.
	Yes.
	Which you could say is kind of like what we have here, in a sense.
	And what you extended to the public in your live event.
	It's a, for want of a better phrase, a safe space for, shall we say, like-minded, shall we say, non-woke-based people who...
	See things in a way that kind of cuts them off from...
	The marginalised, as Kimberly Crenshaw would describe.
	Yeah, precisely.
	So I think it does need to be a bottom-up movement.
	It is.
	But that's the great thing about everything we're doing here.
	This is Edmund Burke's phrase, the sort of little platoons of society that make everything run, that's not under state direction and things like that.
	And yeah, we have the privilege of being able to do that.
	So thanks to everyone who subscribed, by the way, because you're the ones who make sure that we can exist.
	Yeah.
	Henry says, okay, cervix gate has nailed it for me.
	Boris out.
	Kenny, Liz, trust for PM. Yeah, I agree.
	Like, if Boris can't even be like, yeah, well, women do have cervixes, because Carrie Johnson's like, you're not getting any tonight, then sorry, Boris, you know, grow a spine.
	M1 says, if only Boris could have answered that in a better, more feminine, gender-neutral way.
	I'd like to see him try.
	Yeah, me too.
	I mean, like, ah, just so embarrassed by the whole thing.
	Like, And then, have you seen the Build Back Better propaganda?
	I've heard about it, yeah.
	And he's like, you know, Build Back Bitter and stuff, and drinking a pint.
	Boris, look, we all know that this is some sort of globalist initiative that's going on.
	It's not a coincidence that in Australia they're using it, in America they're using it, in Canada they're using it, and you're all using it on the same stage, and it's like, why are you all using the same phrase if you're not on the same team?
	It's not a coincidence.
	No, he's not fooling anyone.
	No, exactly, he's not fooling anyone.
	Noll says biology is cancelled because woke.
	Yes.
	Free Will says that it could be argued, at least in the UK and Europe anyway, that the establishment's adoption of woke and critical race theory in its implementation is the establishment's way of getting its own back on the gammons who dared to vote for Brexit, which threw a bag of spanners into the globalist machine.
	I think they were woke before that, to be honest.
	I don't think they need a form of revenge to get on the Gammons.
	The problem with the Gammons is that they got their way.
	They got this sort of common insurrection.
	They outwitted the system, in effect.
	Yeah.
	Because they didn't think that people would vote for Brexit.
	No.
	And the very reason that all the likes of James O'Brien, Nick Leggett, don't like it, is precisely because someone expressed contempt against something that they believe to be sacrosanct.
	Yeah.
	It's as simple as that.
	But yeah, it's a pathology that goes much, much further back than Brexit.
	Much further back.
	Oh yeah.
	They've been woke for a long time.
	Again, Brexit is one of those things they're never going to get over.
	In the same way that the progressives in gaming never got over Gamergate, Brexit is going to be viewed as one of those conservative insurrections that they can't stand.
	Anyway, Alpha of the Beta says, I'm a communist and a conservative.
	I'm a man and a woman.
	I'm pro-equality and pro-feedom.
	This level of doublethink from our ruling elites is not a reassuring sign for the longevity of our civilization.
	That's true.
	And he says, Liz Trust is dangerously coherent for the modern Conservative Party.
	Yeah, I know.
	I'm amazed she's managed to get to the top strata of it.
	Because she's not crazy.
	Yunalis says, Well, if we don't know that Boris was being led around by his wife, I'm pretty sure we all do now.
	Well, that's the thing, isn't it?
	Because everyone was speculating, Oh, well, you know, is Boris being controlled by Carrie?
	And I was like, Well, I don't know.
	I've got enough evidence.
	And now I think we do have enough evidence.
	Dare I say it?
	Is this Meghan Markle II? Yes.
	It looks very much like it, doesn't it?
	Yeah.
	Because Boris used to be quite based.
	Oh, yeah.
	Unless his baseness was just an act of pandering in the way that he's pandering now.
	I don't think it was, though.
	This is what David Starkey was pointing out.
	Boris has got a long history of genuinely being a British patriot.
	Long before he became anyone significant in politics...
	He was quite patriotic.
	He did win London on a very kind of progressive-y basis, though, didn't he?
	He is also a wet liberal, that's right.
	And he's always been a bit of a spineless wet.
	Yeah, he flirted with that One Nation camp very intimately.
	And it wasn't until Brexit was a thing that he actually made an effort to break away from that.
	I guess I'd be speculating as to how much he actually believed in that side of conservatism.
	I mean, I think in his heart he does believe it.
	But, like, if he's not got any stomach for the fight and he's just going to roll over and be like, yeah, well, I mean, men can have cervixes.
	It's like, shut up, Boris.
	Just shut up.
	This is, you know, done.
	Anyway, Marcus says, when has there ever been a more pressing time to really hammer into our politicians that we don't like what they're doing?
	Well, I mean, at the Conservative Party conference.
	Like, if you're at the Conservative Party conference, make your voice heard on the issue.
	You pay to be a member of that party.
	Ask them why they have communists in the Conservative Party.
	Because they do.
	They're constantly banging on about equality.
	That's a communist concern.
	And if that's their only concern, which it seems to be, then you can say, well, then you just seem to be a commie.
	Alex says, demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex, a black feminist critique of anti-discrimination doctrine, feminist theory, and anti-racist politics.
	Got it.
	Critiquing anti-discrimination and anti-racist politics.
	Doesn't sound very progressive.
	Oh, no, no, no, no, no.
	It's very progressive, right?
	Because if you read through the essay, and what it is, is she complains that they claim to be anti-racist, but they're not being anti-racist enough.
	They claim to be feminist, but they're not being feminist enough.
	And so, basically, it's ultra-progressive.
	Alex says, quote, Zuckerberg is Jewish.
	When I pointed that out, I'm talking about the Holocaust.
	Ah, that explains the left's need to attack him relentlessly.
	Luke says, after watching Labour abridged, I hope Josh has assessed him Callum for negative slash suicidal thoughts.
	What do you think I gave him the day off the podcast, man?
	Like, he's had a rough week watching the Labour Party conference.
	But again, not much of it is very different to the Conservatives now.
	I mean, like, Carrie could have been quite at home at the Labour conference.
	Yeah, I mean, at least you can watch Labour almost through the lens of kind of comedic value to a point, whereas the Conservatives genuinely look like, at times, with the exception of Kerry Johnson.
	Like, they're saying this stuff whilst eating glass at the same time.
	Yeah, yeah, absolutely.
	Sunderbrace, hey man, are we witnessing the start of Conservative Plus or something?
	That's right, I'm a Conservative.
	Yeah, that's a great way of framing.
	We should frame it for them as conservative plus.
	Callum came up with this, you know, men have cervixes as women plus as well.
	You know, like, you know, add the plus onto it and because it's all like, you know, this whole thing is just nonsense and they should be stigmatized.
	You know, conservatives were like, I'm a conservative for equality.
	You should be stigmatized by other conservatives for being a communist.
	So conservative plus is pretty good.
	Henry says, It's irrelevant to her role as a whistleblayer, but my god, Hagen has a case of the crazy eyes.
	It's looking like a serial killer, a requirement to work at Facebook.
	I think there's a requirement to work at San Francisco, to be honest.
	Yeah.
	Duffy says, Zuckerberg made the mistake of believing that playing the left's game, he would curry favour.
	Yet, as usual, the left will salt the earth and then march to totalitarianism.
	Nothing but absolute compliance is acceptable.
	Will companies ever learn that no matter how deep the pockets or how many tweets during Pride, they are only buying time?
	That's a great point as well.
	The conclusion has already been established.
	The totalizing conclusions have been established.
	And this is why they're never stopping.
	This is why they never take a day off.
	Every day, it's not exactly perfect.
	Well, we've got to keep going.
	We've got to keep going.
	And it'll never be perfect, of course.
	And so they'll never end.
	Tiber says, can we move past cervix gate now?
	Stop asking, do women have a cervix?
	And start asking, does any Tory have balls?
	Faced.
	That's excellent.
	But unfortunately, our political class is still gripped with cervix gate.
	And it's unbelievable.
	Michael points out that Boris is pussy whipped.
	Mm-hmm.
	Yeah.
	Couldn't put it any better.
	No, it means exactly what's happened.
	Just like Meghan Markle and Harry.
	Watching it happen in real time is embarrassing.
	Chris says, Republicans and Democrats seem to have opposing fantasies of utopia, one of freedom and one of comfort.
	I don't think either can happen.
	Using the group to solve problems for the group is silly.
	People can do things for the group and the group can do things for people.
	The group doesn't exist.
	We stop being human when bonds are our masters.
	I think there are a few things I'd take issue with there, but it would take too long, so I'm just going to move on and say possibly.
	Carl says, Guys, don't ever forget.
	Far-right Nazi Richard Spencer, when he came out in opposition to Donald Trump and in favour of the Democrats, was given almost unlimited airtime on CNN and MSNBC. Yeah, CNN contributor Richard Spencer, Biden voter Richard Spencer.
	I'm actually convinced that he's controlled opposition, though.
	Really?
	He did a debate with Styx the other day, where he was trying to claim that Biden was doing a good job, and it's like, who's paying you?
	Who's paying you to say that?
	David says,"...on the socialist Welsh glorified councillors, or Welsh government as they're called, I'm English but have lived in Wales since three years old.
	I detest the Welsh government.
	I hate remembering our socialist teachers convincing us back in the day that we needed our own government because they would have our interests at heart." Now we're entering a Nazi state.
	Nice one, teachers.
	Yeah, well, that's the problem, isn't it, with essentially the Celtic world.
	I've noticed this.
	We're running out of time, but I'm going to quickly talk about this.
	The Celtic world has got this deep strain of ethnocentrism, and they're also going very, very woke and very socialist.
	And so you end up with essentially a kind of...
	And David Starkey called it in 2014.
	He was like, well, look, the SNP are basically a modern Nazi party.
	And he'd go, oh, how could you say this?
	He's like, because it's true.
	They're a bunch of Nazis.
	And look at now.
	The Celtic regions are going tyrannical based on their ethnicities.
	It's like, sorry, how are you not Nazis?
	It's hard to argue otherwise, I'll be honest.
	It is.
	It's like they're just going awful.
	But anyway, on that bombshell, as Callum would say, we're out of time.
	So if you want more from us, you can go to logistics.com.
	If you'd like to support us, you can sign up for £5 a month and get access to all of our premium content.
	And we're really proud of it.
	There'll be more coming.
	There's another book club coming soon, in fact.
	Orwell's Shooting an Elephant that me and Bo did.
	It was a very interesting one I'm looking forward to.

▲