Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 3, 2021 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:29:50

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #255

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters, episode 255.
	I am Thomas, and I am your host for today, joined by Carl.
	Hello!
	Hello.
	Today we're going to be discussing the Democrats' embarrassing defeat in Virginia, the resignation of a radical SAGE member, and the latest coverage of Kyle Rissenhouse's trial.
	But first, we have some announcements, the first of which is a free article that's available.
	It's called Ask Lerotic Politics.
	It's written by Carl.
	Would you like to say something about it?
	Yeah, it's just me venting my spleen about how, essentially, Tony Blair totally owns this country, and the Conservatives are doing nothing to break out of his paradigm, and it's insufferable.
	So we're on these rails that we know where these go, and they end up in sort of globalist...
	EU-style management just not being part of the EU. It's like, yeah, but I don't want that.
	And so it's me venting my screen.
	But I was really pleased with the article.
	And it's free, so you've got absolutely nothing to lose from giving it a read.
	And I'm afraid I've got to do some self-advertising here.
	This is my article called Capitalism the Less Useful Idiot.
	And this is basically my attempt to explain how, well, conservatism and capitalism are not in the holy alliance that some, shall we say, conservatives like to think.
	Of course, this is premium content, so you'll need to subscribe for this, but nonetheless, it's worth a listen.
	Before we move on, right, so I listened to the audio of this because...
	I've got silver-tier membership.
	I really like the fact that at the bottom you were pointing out, at the end of it, you pointed out that, look, essentially the Conservatives are actually now free to weaponise Marx against the left.
	Obviously we don't become Marxists, but we just say, well, look, Marxist criticism that you rest a lot of your foundations on, well, it actually refutes a lot of your now, you know, points that you've made at the end of that.
	Yes, it does.
	And when you actually hear, for example, well, progressives talking about mass immigration, they justify it on entirely capitalist, realist terms.
	Conservatives have never, ever, not once pointed that contradiction out.
	So I think there is an opportunity here, and well, if you want to read more about it, then please subscribe and give that a listen.
	And there is, of course, Harry's premium video, which is I Cannot Do It Anymore.
	You covered this with Harry, didn't you?
	Yeah, this was really good.
	So we came across an article by a chap from the German public broadcaster ARD because he was not happy with their COVID coverage because there were a lot of questions that were left unanswered.
	And so he was like, well, look, I can't sit here and essentially be a part of propagating a one-sided narrative without at least speaking out.
	And so, Harry and myself have gone through this, and Harry did a really good job of substantiating his points, and saying, well, look, here is the evidence that they're leaving out.
	This is the evidence.
	And of course, because it's critical of the COVID narrative, we can't put that on YouTube, so of course we're going to have to sign up to watch that.
	No, but that is an absolute must, listen.
	I can't recommend it enough.
	But, now, let's, without further ado, let us begin.
	Well, hang on a sec.
	We've got Leo's speech.
	Oh, of course.
	Or, you know, his His live set when we did The Los East Live, so if you weren't able to come, you can come and watch that.
	Honestly, Leo's hilarious, and I had to follow him afterwards, and I was just like, why do I put people who are way more talented than me on stage before me?
	It's insufferable.
	But as a final thing, also, follow us on Getter.
	We're nearly at 10,000 followers, and we'd really like to get to 10,000 followers.
	So do your part and sign up.
	And to be honest with you, the platform's doing really well.
	There are people on there with millions of followers and stuff.
	It's like, well, hang on a second.
	We need to do better than that.
	Come on, lads.
	But anyway, so I guess we'll just get into the events.
	Yes, let's.
	So, the Yunkin, Virginia bloodbath.
	There's a chap on Twitter called Malcolm Nance.
	He's got nearly a million followers and he's losing his mind because yesterday was the Virginia vote to see who the new government would be.
	He says, I'm begging you, Virginia, turn out everyone you know today.
	If you lose this race, democracy will lose.
	Go vote.
	Make sure everyone who voted last year votes.
	See, democracy will lose if you vote for a serial liar.
	But what I love about this is the Democrat framework.
	And if we get to the next one, you can see, again, it's something that's just in the water of the democratic culture.
	Maybe a candidate isn't excited enough.
	Maybe they're too white.
	Maybe they are not white enough, not progressive enough, not moderate enough.
	I don't effing care.
	If you don't show up to vote, we will lose our democracy.
	Because in the minds of these people, if someone votes against you, that's the end of democracy.
	We got a live reaction from MSNBC when the results started coming in.
	Can you see that picture?
	Oh, that's a great selfie, isn't it?
	I mean...
	It just demonstrates the raw partisanship of American media at this point.
	We also have a live reaction from the White House.
	I love this meme so much.
	This is what they get for using this stupid influencer.
	Jen MSNBC is saying we lost Virginia.
	I love that so much.
	Yeah.
	So anyway, so the vote's in, and it turns out that Republican candidate Glenn Youngkin won the Virginia governor's race.
	Now I'm going to use Washington Examiner's summary of this, because of course we're not Americans, so we're not going to have all the details, so we're going to use this.
	So he flipped the Virginia governorship to Republican control, pulling off the wind by embracing hot-button education and cultural issues and signalling trouble for Democrats nationwide in 2022.
	And that's fantastic because it shows that the electorate in certain counties are very concerned about the cultural issues that the Democrats are forcing onto the table.
	Loudoun County, you may recall, is in there, but we'll talk about that in a minute.
	So he led what appears to be a Republican sweep with Winsome Sears winning the Lieutenant Governor's office.
	Jason Millares leading the incumbent Democrat attorney, General Mark Herring, blah, blah, blah.
	So basically the Republicans have essentially taken over Virginia, which is good news for people who don't want to see their countries destroyed by radical leftism.
	They say that he defeated a strategy by his Democratic opponent, former Governor Terry McAuliffe, to paint him as an extremist and tie him to Donald Trump, despite Youngkin having a drastically different temperament and political approach to the former president.
	Youngkin has never had a political office before.
	He was a businessman before.
	So I can see why they would try and tie him to Trump.
	But Youngkin, as they say, he's not Trump.
	He's a very salient man who...
	Isn't a giant orange ego.
	And I say this as a Trump supporter.
	And so that didn't work.
	And you may recall, of course, them bringing out the black white supremacists with their tiki torches to appear outside of his tour bus, his campaigning bus.
	Yes.
	Very persuasive.
	Obviously not black ops.
	So Youngkin is a Virginia native, a former CEO of the Carlisle Group private equity firm, which he left so he could run for office.
	Never run for office before.
	His court campaign pledges including eliminating Virginia's 2.5% grocery tax, so making food cheaper, cussing regulations with the aim of spurring job growth, always a good idea, and doubling the standard deduction for income tax.
	So basically people aren't going to have to pay as much tax.
	So who could argue?
	Doesn't sound bad to me.
	No.
	Who could argue with that?
	Well, I suppose the people who could argue with that.
	The people who rely on those voters who live on handouts, right?
	Yes.
	So not the productive members of society, but those people who are...
	And those who have a fetus for centralising authority.
	There is also those people.
	And so this, of course, comes on the heels of the Loudoun County cover-up, which we covered in a premium video because YouTube gave Steven Crowder a strike when he talked about it.
	So we weren't able to take the risk of talking about it on YouTube.
	So if you'd like to know more about what happened there...
	Feel free to go to Lotases.com and check that out.
	But anyway, so it moves.
	This all comes on the heels of political advocacy for critical race theory in the schools.
	Because this is something that's happening.
	And Politico had some thoughts on this.
	They say, Hmm.
	I love, I love the manoeuvre.
	Well, I mean, you haven't defined critical race theory to my satisfaction.
	Oh, you don't know whether it's bad or anything.
	You know, there's nothing here.
	There's nothing important about critical race theory that's going through the schools.
	They say critical race theory, for example, does not imply white students should feel guilty about past civil rights issues and is not taught in many of the schools where lawmakers seeking to ban it.
	Both lies.
	Just both outright lies.
	I have read the Critical Race Theory Bible, the big university textbook you were given, and that's not true.
	Yeah, it is quite literally perpetuating a culture of guilt amongst white Americans.
	And it is necessarily the case because of the systemic nature of Critical Race Theory.
	If everything is tied to systems and nothing is distinguished from anything else, you are not distinguished from your ancestors, and therefore you inherit the guilt that they incurred from the small percentage of the white people in Virginia who own slaves.
	So it is necessarily that it incurs guilt to white people who live now, who of course do not own slaves.
	And so, anyway, this total cover is not true.
	But anyway, they say their efforts to elevate the issue worked.
	Becky Pringle, the president of the National Education Association, said, We have made many mistakes in this country, but our kids deserve to learn all of that truth.
	Again, you can see the systemic nature of this.
	You know, they can't at any point divorce themselves from what has happened by previous generations 150 years ago that they aren't involved with.
	They didn't have a responsibility over.
	And journalist and author Tana Heshy Coates and Hollywood actress and LGBT activist Lena Waithe, along with dozens of academics and writers, are also backing efforts to support teaching students about systemic racism.
	Again, the systemic nature of it.
	You can't get away from the fact that this will bring about white guilt.
	And so for 25% of Virginia voters, critical race theory was the top concern, whereas 72% called it important.
	So even if you're more concerned about your taxes or, you know, kitchen table issues, as they call them, three quarters nearly are very importantly, you know, consider an important issue that it's happening.
	So what is critical race theory?
	What's it for?
	Well, I did a video on this on the second channel, which you can find linked in the description or pinned in the comments.
	To this, about how critical race theory is essentially a form of Gramscian war of position, as in they've been working for about 30 years with the intent on basically overthrowing Western liberal democracies.
	Yeah.
	That's not an exaggeration.
	That is their plan, and they are explicit about it.
	And I go through the original sources, Kimberly Crenshaw's explicit declarations of that in that video.
	But if you want to know more about Critical Race Theory in detail, again, we're covering a lot of this on Lotuses.com because this is all very important and it is coming to a political head.
	If we go to the next one, John, Callum and I have begun a detailed deep dive into the origin and purpose, and I'll be going through in the next one the theories that underpin Critical Race Theory because they've got their own worldview and series of assertions about how the world works.
	This is important stuff, and if you do want more information, you can go there.
	We also are going to move into whether the...
	Sorry, don't worry about that.
	I was going to say something else.
	Anyway, so they're concerned about this because they think that this is going to make the political environment very pro-Republican.
	And it might, because the Republicans have actually done a very good job of pinning intersectionality on critical race theory.
	And there's a good reason for that.
	Because as I point out in the previous video, in fact, Kimberly Crenshaw, one of the lead critical race theorists and someone who has three essays, I think it is, in the Critical Race Theory Key Writings That Form the Movement Bible, she is also the progenitor of the term intersectionality.
	In various essays that she wrote in 1988, 1989, and 1991.
	So this is all deeply connected.
	You can't separate intersectionality from critical race theory, and the Republicans have done a very good job of nailing these things together.
	I think it's in particular a chap called Christopher Rufo who's done this.
	Top marks.
	Go follow him on Twitter.
	He's doing excellent work.
	Our own Conservative Party should do the same.
	There's no reason they shouldn't do the same.
	And you're absolutely right.
	So anyway, one of the major disappointments for the Democrats, where we start getting to the cope, is that they found, oh, after looking at the votes, it was white women who decided to go Republican for this one.
	We can go to the next one, John.
	So as this verified checkmark here points out...
	In 2020 in Virginia, white women were literally half and half on Biden and Trump.
	Whereas in 2021, 57% went for Youngkin, which is the Republican, whereas 43% went for McAuliffe, which is the Democrat.
	There's a 15-point swing to the GOP with this group.
	Which, and I think, I can't stress this enough, don't go after their kids, don't try to indoctrinate their children into racism, and maybe they wouldn't vote Republican quite so heavily.
	Quite.
	We can get a better breakdown of this, and I find this even more amusing.
	So if we can scroll down a bit.
	Sorry, if you scroll down on this tweet.
	There we go.
	So white women college graduates, 58% Biden, 41% Trump in 2020, whereas in 2021 62% went for McAuliffe and 38% Youngkin.
	So university-educated white women Even more so voted for critical race theory, whereas non-college educated white women, again, about 56% Trump, 44% Biden in 2020, 75% Youngkin, 25% McCauley.
	Now, why could that be?
	It's interesting, isn't it?
	So, family-focused women don't want racist indoctrination, whereas women who have been indoctrinated into the critical race theory cult want others to join their cult.
	That's what that is.
	So anyway, let's get into the cope, because this is the good bit.
	Alright, so, go for the first one.
	Youngkin got the Trump base and then convinced normal people he wasn't Trumpy.
	By not being Trumpy.
	He was careful not to have Trump come and say crazy stuff.
	It was a very smart move.
	He got Trumpism to scale by keeping it at arm's length.
	Ultimately, he's a Trumpist, but he made the people in Virginia think he wasn't as nuts.
	Yes, he adopted a workable political strategy, whereas you didn't.
	A workable patriotic political strategy that wasn't inherently racist.
	I mean, what a fantastic advertisement from the verified check marks.
	You might have just said, well done, you won.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Vote Youngkin.
	Van Jones came out and called Glenn Youngkin the Delta variant of Trumpkin.
	Same disease, but it spreads a lot faster and can get a lot more places.
	Brilliant.
	That's fantastic.
	Like patriotic pro-Americanism, but more effectively delivered than how Trump did it.
	God, let's hope so.
	Next one is how Youngkin won with many people who didn't like Trump.
	That's interesting, isn't it?
	McAuliffe's entire strategy was to try and tie Youngkin to Trump, and then Samir was a white supremacist.
	At some point they had some people with Confederate flags as well, so that's not what's happening.
	But it turns out that one in five voters who disapproved of Trump still voted for Youngkin.
	So it's like, yes, so they must have been concerned about their children being indoctrinated too.
	The next one was great.
	So he made just a statement.
	He was just like, look, we're going to embrace parents.
	We're not going to ignore them.
	We're going to press forward with a curriculum that puts listening to parents' input.
	Compare that to the Biden administration as well.
	You're not the primary stakeholder in your children's education.
	Like, if you've got kids in school, who are you voting for?
	Yeah.
	Something like that would wind up caring parents, wouldn't it?
	Yeah, and you've got these two options.
	One, you're not the primary stakeholder, or we're going to listen to parents and take your input on board.
	I mean, he just sounds very sensible.
	He just sounds really sensible.
	And of course, they're concerned that he's going to follow through with his number one campaign promise to sign an executive order to ban critical race theory in Virginia schools.
	Yay.
	Perfect.
	Keep up the good work.
	Yeah, I wonder how many voters will be surprised when it changes absolutely nothing since it isn't being taught in a single school.
	I mean, it literally is, and you're lying, Ron, with 21,000 likes, Twitter being an absolute engine of misinformation here.
	We can give you an example from the New York Post.
	The Department of Education, Virginia's Department of Education's website, features a presentation urging teachers to embrace critical race theory.
	Under the Northern Administration's Superintendent of Public Instruction, James Lane, sent a memo to Virginia Public Schools endorsing something called the Foundations of Critical Race Theory in Education, calling it an important analytic tool and further spur developments in education.
	I mean, what more do we need?
	I suppose that what they'll do is say, ah, but they're not teaching critical race theory to the children.
	What they're doing is endorsing a methodological framework that promotes the consequences of critical race theory to the children.
	It's like, yes, and that's a distinction that didn't need to be made, is what the parents mean when they say you're teaching critical race theory.
	If you get, like...
	I mean, it would literally be like a bunch of Nazi teachers saying, well, we're not teaching Nazism to the children.
	It's like, yeah...
	But you are teaching whatever it is you're teaching through a Nazi lens.
	And I use the term Nazi because there's literally no real moral difference between critical race theory and Nazis.
	There isn't.
	It's exactly the same thing.
	It absolutely isn't.
	It's just done from different perspectives, basically.
	And this...
	Christopher Ruffo...
	Yeah, you've got the tweet there, in fact.
	Can you bring up the circles bit on that tweet, John, just so you can see it for yourselves?
	Just so you can show that we're not making this up or anything.
	But that image there, you can see it there in the Foundation of Critical Race Theory.
	It takes this off their website.
	Right now on its website, the Virginia Department of Education recommends critical race theory in education as a best practice and derives its definitions of racism, white supremacy, and education equity explicitly from critical race theory.
	There we go.
	Anyway, so they don't know what to do now.
	They've become aware.
	They're like, look, if Democrats are smart, they'll come up with a way to expose this education panic for what it is, because otherwise, buckle up.
	It's like, what are you going to do?
	Explain critical race theory to people and make yourselves look even more racist than you are.
	I mean, you can't win on this issue.
	It's amazing.
	There's nothing for you to win, because critical race theory literally says white people bad.
	Yeah.
	Like, that's all this is.
	And so we get to the denial.
	Because otherwise, you can't win on the issue of critical race theory.
	You've got to deny that it even exists.
	The imaginary critical race theory crisis, really?
	Yes.
	Yes.
	Imaginary.
	And that was more important than preventable deaths of 400,000 Americans, as if the Virginia governor was capable of doing that.
	And the January 6th attack, as if the Virginia governor had anything to do with that, and the GOP war on democracy.
	Ah yes, when they win, it's the end of democracy.
	Moving on, it's a fake boogeyman.
	Republicans won by creating a fake boogeyman and telling suburban voters they will defeat it.
	Well, if they ban it...
	They will have defeated it, and it's not really fake if there is something there to ban.
	Dems didn't come out with a counter-message, because your only counter-message would be actually critical race theory good, which is not going to work.
	Combined with serial lying about coronavirus.
	Of course, and every other subject on this one.
	Hats off to the depraved cynicism and villainy and race-baiting.
	What?
	Accusing the Republicans of race-baiting.
	Amazing.
	That's amazing.
	I suppose the Republicans falsified tiki torches outside of McAuliffe's campaign bus, did they?
	Yes, exactly.
	Anyway, moving on, this is just another manifestation of whiteness.
	What were we saying about race-baiting again?
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	No, it's just...
	No, whiteness remains undefeated.
	Let's wait and see who those white suburban voters went for tonight.
	Any guesses?
	Brilliant.
	And he replies to his own tweet going, for those GOP trying to dunk on this tweet, let me repeat, whiteness wins again.
	They won't get it.
	Ugh.
	But I get it.
	Because what they mean when they say the word whiteness is Americanness.
	That's what they're saying.
	They think the United States of America is a white project.
	And so if you're an American with American values and believe in America, regardless of your race, you are white.
	That's what they think.
	That's how you get black-white supremacy.
	Yes, and they quite literally believe that the entire Enlightenment in the United States is rooted on white supremacy.
	And that it's quite literally what they're trying to indoctrinate the children with.
	Yes.
	And so it's an attempt to overturn the entire Enlightenment project that is the American Revolution.
	Yes.
	And of course, just to be clear, there's nothing about the American Revolution that necessitates anyone being white.
	Of course.
	It requires you to have a racial context in any way.
	And you can see this by the number of non-white people who are trying to get into the United States.
	Because when they see it laid out, oh, you're going to have freedom, private property protections, constitutional rights, yeah, I think that sounds good, and I don't care if that's white.
	Because it's not white.
	It's for everyone.
	Anyway, so along with Youngkin, this is Virginia's new Lieutenant Governor.
	We can just get that picture up.
	I love it.
	I love everything about it.
	There's a black woman with an AR-15 who votes Republican.
	Who is a Republican?
	What are you going to do now?
	Oh, she's an Uncle Tom or an Aunt Jemima, whatever it is.
	Yeah, that's all you've got, isn't it?
	So I guess this is the new Guardian of White Supremacy.
	Keeps winning.
	I watched a speech that she gave on her acceptance speech.
	We'll get the next one.
	She seems very sensible.
	She starts saying USA and the crowds start chanting USA with her.
	I mean, maybe someone should tell her that she's not the right race to be an American, because that's what the critical race theorists are saying.
	She calls herself living proof that integration worked and that black people are free.
	How's she wrong?
	She's just become the lieutenant governor of Virginia.
	Oh, but black people aren't free.
	But Look what she's achieved.
	Exactly.
	She says, and this is her platform, our children are going to get a good education because education lifted my father out of poverty and lifted me out of poverty and will create generational wealth.
	Preach.
	So anyway, in opposition to this, Republican black lady winning, the Democrats were supporting previously Ralph Northwood.
	Who was the previous governor of Virginia, as one of our commenters, in fact, informed us.
	Virginia has one-term limits, so they had to go for someone else.
	Which one do you think Northam is?
	Do you think he's in the KKK hood or doing blackface?
	I wouldn't want to anticipate.
	Take a guess!
	The one on the right?
	Yeah, he's the KKK hood guy.
	Oh, he's not.
	He is.
	He is.
	Democrat politician, cosplaying as a KKK member.
	It's unbelievable.
	I love it.
	And then Republican black woman, they're all like, no, not a Republican black woman with a gun!
	Are they trying to be caricatures of themselves?
	Yes, it's literally...
	It looks like a late-night comedy sketch, doesn't it?
	It honestly does.
	But Red Stee's killing it as usual, by the way.
	Stephen Miller's great.
	Go follow him on Twitter if you use that blasted hell platform.
	Anyway, a Republican woman also won the mayoralty of a New York City called Glen Cove, which is nice.
	But anyway, I just thought I'd add that in just to show that, you know, Democrats don't have a monopoly on blacks or women.
	Why anyone would think they did.
	But anyway, moving on, what a train wreck!
	We need to take a hard look at how we counter the insidious, racist, fear-mongering and messaging.
	Ignoring it isn't working.
	What you're doing, then?
	Yeah, I think it's coming from inside the House, Fred.
	Virginia is, of course, the most racist state.
	Young Kim won because he convinced a lot of Virginians their kids should never ever learn that their state was the last state in the union to desegregate.
	Yeah, exactly.
	It would be one thing if he won with some random party issue, but he ran on straight-up racism.
	What a disgrace.
	The party against segregation is not yours, Walter.
	Yeah, exactly!
	I don't know what to tell you, Walter.
	It was literally the Republicans who were against segregation and slavery and Jim Crow and all of the other bad things that the Democrats did in the past, like wearing KKK hoods.
	Again, another product of the Democrats.
	Why do I have to keep saying this anyway?
	So, moving on.
	Amanda Marcotte, one of the famous lunatics from back in the day, had thoughts.
	If you can scroll a bit, you can see her thread.
	But basically, she says, Oh, I see that the brow-beating until morale improves is still the favourite political theory on Twitter.
	Good luck with that.
	I tend to think it's hard to get people to vote when your argument is, sure, nothing is getting fixed, but also, yeah.
	Good point.
	But then she moves on to say two things can be true.
	Young Kim voters are racist and Democrats stayed at home.
	It's like...
	That's browbeating.
	You don't.
	You are literally browbeating the people in Virginia who voted for Youngkin as racists because they're bad.
	They should have voted for you or they're bad people.
	That's your entire argument.
	Anyway, moving on.
	White people are racist.
	Says MSNBC. Youngkin's victory proves that white ignorance is a powerful weapon.
	It's all those stupid white women who didn't vote for the Democrat because they hadn't been brainwashed in university.
	Who don't know what's good for their children.
	Exactly, yeah.
	I mean, they don't even own their children, do they?
	Hey, moving on.
	MSNBC's Joy Reid is freaking out about this.
	Love it.
	The gubernatorial campaign is coded racial hysteria into its critical race theory hype.
	Hmm.
	Or we could just top it all off by just saying, well look, and this is where the mask comes fully off, this is what they really mean, America simply loves white supremacy.
	So that's always going to be the conclusion when they lose an election.
	Yep.
	All of America is just wearing KKK hoods, say the Democrats.
	Congratulations, Glenn Youngkin.
	Fantastic.
	Love the meltdown.
	Looking forward to more meltdowns in the future.
	Yes, and I sincerely hope that our own party takes note of this political strategy.
	They could win bigly, if they want.
	Yeah, by an even bigger landslide than they did before.
	But anyway, we must move on, because something quite significant...
	Sorry to interrupt, but it's a shame that we've got to move on, because I was really enjoying that segment.
	Oh, it's a shame.
	We could dig into that for the entire podcast.
	Feel free to start again, I didn't mean to interrupt.
	Something major has happened at SAGE. Oh, good.
	Yes.
	Is it the liquidation of SAGE? Unfortunately, it's not quite that extreme.
	However, have you heard of Vaccine Plus?
	No.
	Have you heard of Sir Jeremy Farrah?
	No, I have not.
	No, I didn't hear of any of those either this morning, but unfortunately I have now.
	Because as it turns out, a lobby group within SAGE itself, the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies...
	has been pushing for much more stringent action from the government on clamping down with the apparent surge in COVID-based transmission.
	Surprise, surprise.
	That's, of course, not new there.
	But one of these members was Jeremy Farrar, the director of the Wellcome Trust, who has quit essentially because the government rejected his more stringent approach.
	The only member of SAGE I'm aware of was the communist millionaire who lived in a massive mansion and who had a huge estate in Wales who wanted perpetual lockdowns.
	Yes.
	Well, Sir Jeremy Farrar seems to be very much in line with that kind of idea, as you can probably imagine.
	But yes, it broke on Sky News today, and it reads as follows.
	I mean, yes, Sir Jeremy Farrar, I remember this, and it's what he believes to be concerning coronavirus transmission rates in the United Kingdom.
	So it reads...
	One of Britain's top scientists has quit over the government's pandemic advisory body, warning the COVID crisis is a long way from over and that the situation in the UK is concerning.
	Sir Jeremy Farrar, director of the Wellcome Trust, quit at the end of October.
	Sky News can reveal that Sir Jeremy is advocating for a vaccine-plus strategy to curb the high levels of transmissions seen in the United Kingdom.
	So, hang on a second, is he saying the vaccines don't work?
	Not...
	I'm just joking.
	Well, given that he cited this as Vaccine Plus, or somebody has cited this as Vaccine Plus, you could get that impression.
	There's nothing from what's been included in this report that suggests that.
	But he has...
	Apparently, his lobby were calling for more mask-wearing, ventilation, and continued coronavirus testing to get the nation through what some experts are predicting is going to be another difficult winter.
	He was instrumental in claiming that we should have locked down much, much sooner before Christmas.
	And needless to say, he had very similar plans in mind this time around.
	According to a government spokesperson, Prime Minister Boris Johnson has been perfectly clear that the data does not back up the need for Plan B.
	Wow.
	And needless to say, it doesn't.
	But it's genuinely amazing how keen some people are to try to keep this locked down forever.
	Well, I mean, A, why would we listen to SAGE if there wasn't a pandemic going on?
	Where would their influence over society come from if they weren't able to browbeat the government and say, well, look, you need to shut down all of society.
	So we are the ones who are calling the shots.
	And as I understand it, the high levels of COVID at the moment are among children.
	The people least likely to be affected negatively.
	Yeah, and those who have chosen not to be vaccinated.
	Yes.
	Because that's their right.
	That's their right, of course.
	Yes.
	So the vaccines overwhelmingly seem to be working.
	Good.
	But no, he says nonetheless that the COVID-19 crisis is a long way from over with the global situation being deeply troubling.
	It's weird because I'm not troubled by it at all.
	No.
	And I've had COVID. No, as with the overwhelming majority of people.
	But he's still concerned by the rates, and he stepped down as a participant for the simple reason that he believes that the government is going in the wrong direction and that they're not listening to SAGE. Throughout this crisis...
	Sage has provided vital evidence and independent expert transparent advice to support the UK response, often under huge pressure.
	And he adds, my focus must now be on our work at Wellcome.
	This includes supporting the international research effort to end the pandemic, ensuring the world is better prepared for inevitable future infectious disease threats.
	I'm sure you'd like that very much.
	And making the case so the full potential of science is realised to inform and drive change against all the urgent health threats we face globally.
	I'm shocked that, again, the stars have aligned and the Conservatives have done something based, which is just not bow to pressure.
	For now.
	For now, yeah.
	For now, at the very least.
	But yes.
	But this goes to show that all of this is down to Conservative weakness, and not because they are being strong-armed into it.
	Like, if they just turn around and say no...
	Just that's it.
	And that's all you have to do with all of this critical race theory stuff, all of this leftist agenda.
	All you have to say is, just no.
	Sorry, the answer's no.
	Go away.
	And that's it.
	They'll go away.
	Yeah, I mean, does it not also seem like a little bit of an exaggeration to completely walk away?
	Yes, but I'm glad that he has.
	I'm glad that he has, but you'd think, given he is, in effect, the director of a massive health charity, that even if, I don't know, he's part of a group that doesn't have a united vision, he at least has knowledge to offer.
	Yeah, but if he's an activist rather than a lobbyist who is there for moral and ideological purposes, then I'm very glad that he's walked away.
	I mean, I would love it for the government to have a group of advisors who are just like, well, these are the facts and you make the decision.
	You're the elected politician.
	We're not elected by anyone.
	That would be lovely, but that's obviously not the case.
	And so, good, I want him gone.
	Yeah.
	But shall we take a look at Sir Jeremy Farrar as in his history?
	Let's do that.
	So yes, he is the director of Wellcome, a global charitable foundation which supports science to solve urgent health challenges.
	All well and good.
	His whole career is dedicated to protecting and improving global health.
	As a researcher, he specialised in infectious diseases and has published more than 600 papers.
	Again, all well and good.
	He spent 16 years leading the clinical research unit at the Hospital for Tropical Diseases in Ho Chi Minh City in Vietnam.
	Sorry if I mispronounced that.
	Where he made extremely important advances in the advancing understanding of diseases like tuberculosis, malaria, typhoid, Deng and influenza, as well as helping to train scientists from across the Southeast Asia and beyond.
	He joined Welcome as a director in 2013.
	I mean, off at the back of that, you'd think, you know, it's all well and good.
	Sounds very competent.
	Yeah, but also someone who has a...
	I mean, like, I view this kind of person as...
	Someone essentially who's – like, you know when you're on Twitter and you – sorry, yeah, 18 years.
	18 years, correct.
	But when you're on Twitter and you accidentally curate your feed to being all one thing, right?
	I do this with Bigfoot videos, right?
	And so I'm convinced that there's a Bigfoot behind every tree.
	But that's not really accurate.
	But it's because I constantly am in this cultural atmosphere and I'm obsessing over it every day.
	And this is the problem of these sort of echo chambers.
	I don't want to say he's an echo chamber, but what is presented in front of your face every day becomes the things that you think about.
	And if he's constantly thinking about dangerous diseases, well, he's going to be paranoid about that.
	Yes, it's going to have a reifying effect on how you see literally everything else.
	Yeah.
	Yes.
	And where that takes him ultimately is actually expressed quite explicitly by Welcome themselves.
	Really?
	Yes.
	If we can get up the next webpage here.
	And they've, needless to say, led to define their movement by their response to COVID-19 being something that will help define the 21st century.
	Why would we want that?
	That is a good question.
	Well, they start off describing the nature of the pandemic, for a start, as something that mirrors a snowball effect.
	They don't use that analogy themselves.
	They might as well have done.
	Rather, they describe the pandemic as a crisis which unfolds in four circles.
	And this is the actual description that they've given.
	The innermost circle is the immediate impact of the virus, fear, illness and death.
	The second, larger circle describes COVID-19's indirect health effects, such as missed cancer screenings.
	In the 2014 Ebola outbreak, more people died of malaria in West Africa than of the virus itself.
	It can take years, blood, etc.
	If we move on to the third...
	So I've got some technical difficulties on myself.
	The third, the social and economic impact of rising joblessness and shrinking economies is larger still.
	Like every crisis, the pandemic will suffer or amplify existing social fractures and inequalities.
	This will have political consequences.
	Some governments may fall as a result of COVID-19.
	Governments may fall?
	Because what...
	Strikes alarm bells, doesn't it?
	Well, it seems...
	Rings alarm bells.
	It seems like an extremely unlikely position.
	It does, but it's extremely weird that they've included this, isn't it?
	Yeah, I mean, what are they thinking of?
	Yes.
	Where are they thinking of?
	Perhaps what they have in mind is revealed in the fourth circle, which they've described as the biggest circle.
	Geopolitics.
	How world powers choose to look after themselves versus the rest of the world.
	Which will define global politics over the coming decades.
	So they're essentially seeing COVID as an opportunity and stratagem.
	That seems to be the implicit assumption here, yes.
	That's what I'm taking away from it, especially if some governments are going to fall.
	And this is what we're seeing as well with the climate initiatives as well, isn't it, in COP26, where they're talking about more closely integrating global governments and businesses.
	And so it just seems to be along those lines.
	Yes, and they actually proceed to offer a somewhat curious insight into quite how these world powers work.
	themselves compared to the rest of the world.
	Right.
	And needless to say, they start with the United Kingdom and they say this: "In the UK, there have been increased attacks on minority groups." Have there?
	Well, they haven't even specified the nature of the attack, have they?
	No, and by who?
	Like, is there?
	I mean, is that true?
	I've not checked the data.
	Well, you can cite Diane Abbott.
	She's made this point multiple times, isn't she?
	Has she?
	Well, I suppose she probably has, isn't she?
	Yeah, yeah, yeah, she had.
	Well, when, what's her name?
	The health minister at the time, I can't remember her name.
	I'm terrible with parliamentarians' names.
	She basically said that COVID is disproportionately killing black and ethnic minority people.
	Oh, yeah, yeah.
	If you can call her name, it would probably help.
	I can't recall her name off the top of my head, but the concern was two things, at least.
	One was the health of these communities.
	No, three things, in fact.
	The health of these communities, because they often have a greater body mass index.
	Kemi Bednock.
	Kemi Bednock, that was it.
	Yes.
	And the next one was multi-generational people living in houses.
	So you've got children, parents, grandparents, sometimes great-grandparents.
	And so, of course, if you're all living in one household, you're confined to the same area and someone gets COVID, well, you're all going to get it, and that affects the elderly.
	And vaccine aversion.
	A lot of these communities have a lot of distrust of the government.
	And so when the government's like, hey, get this vaccine, it will help you, they're like, no, you're going to try and kill me.
	And they are also quite prone to conspiracy theories, apparently.
	Yes.
	So...
	Yeah, so, yeah.
	Has everything to do with, what it seems, cultural occupation.
	Yes.
	Nothing to do whatsoever about race.
	No.
	But Wellcome have nonetheless tried to present this almost as if it's a systematic, intentional attack against minorities.
	The government's just like, look, can you have the vaccine?
	We want everyone to have the vaccine.
	What more could they have done?
	Yeah.
	I mean, they do say something that is actually quite, I suppose, based for an NGO, effectively, by saying that Chinese President Xi Jinping has sought to position his country as Africa's friend, promising the continent vaccines as soon as the Chinese citizens get them.
	Only time will tell if Xi's promise was true altruism, which certainly isn't, or maybe diplomatic power play.
	Imagine thinking that anything Xi Jinping could have done would have come from true altruism.
	I know.
	Like, Africa, China is not your friend.
	Yeah, I mean, is supplying coal factories to these nations true altruism?
	Well, not just that.
	There's millions of Chinese people in Africa basically taking over industries and, like, using the Africans as cheap labour.
	Yeah.
	You know, I wouldn't think that the Chinese are good friends to Africans, but I mean, what do I know?
	But it's impressive that they've actually sought to question it, or at least questioned the voters, but it's a little bit...
	Yeah.
	Yeah, nonetheless.
	They proceed to wrap up with a very, shall we say, inclusive message, which is, I wish it was a little bit less predictable, but nonetheless...
	The effects of COVID-19 have been and will continue to be devastating.
	But infectious disease and pandemics are not the only global challenges that we face.
	We urgently need to address other issues, including climate change, access to clean water, antimicrobial resistance and mental health.
	Like coronavirus, these problems transcend borders.
	They will not be defeated by insular nationalism, blaming others or drifting into a more polarised world.
	All this only leaves everyone more vulnerable.
	Rather, they can be solved by enhancing international cooperation and developing a sense shed of destiny.
	How do mental health problems transcend borders?
	I've no idea.
	But I have no doubt that the Charity Foundation will be working very, very closely with Evil Corp.
	I mean, sorry, Good Information Inc.
	in the future.
	Yes, yes.
	George Soros' Truth Factory.
	Yes.
	But it does seem like he's throwing his toys out of the pram here.
	It does.
	Because what he ultimately wanted to achieve with COVID through welcome has pretty...
	The government has basically said nah.
	Good.
	And on your bike.
	And needless to say...
	Shocking day where the Conservatives do something good.
	Yes.
	And pats for the Conservatives.
	Indeed.
	But yes, we must now move on to the Kyle Rissenhouse trial.
	Yeah, so...
	The trial of Kyle Rittenhouse has begun.
	Just to make my bias on this very clear, he did nothing wrong.
	And I think this because I watched the videos.
	We're not going to front load this with what's happened.
	So if you're not aware of what's happened with Kyle Rittenhouse, you'll be able to find lots of explainers and watch the videos yourselves all over the internet.
	Because this was a big deal last year.
	So anyway, let's get on to what's happening with the trial.
	So in the beginning, we have to get a jury, and that's difficult because when you have highly politicised trials, it means that getting an impartial jury is quite difficult.
	And so about a dozen prospective jurors were dismissed Monday after they expressed strong opinions about the case or worried they couldn't be fair.
	Others worried about their own personal safety.
	No one wants to be sitting in this chair, one woman said, but the 20-member panel was finally set by early.
	I figure either way this goes, you're going to have half the country upset with you, and they react poorly, said another woman, who was a special education teacher, who expressed anxiety about serving, but she was indeed chosen.
	There were 12 jurors and 8 alternates, 11 are women, 9 are men.
	The court could not immediately provide a racial breakdown of the group, but the panel appeared to be overwhelmingly white, so let's go to a Twitter racist to find out what the racial breakdown is.
	Oh, one person of colour.
	Sounds about white.
	If you say so.
	Moving on, let's go on to what is the details of the case.
	So, of course, the defence is going to claim that this was self-defence, pure and simple, and I happen to really strongly agree with this, because if you watch the videos of Kyle Rittenhouse being chased and then attacked, By radical left-wing Antifa looters who were trying to hurt him, and obviously trying to hurt him, because you can see them literally assaulting him, that seems to be pretty cut and dried.
	Yeah.
	I mean, I don't see how he can possibly lose that.
	No.
	Rittenhouse is a...
	But again, we could end up with a George Floyd trial scenario, so who knows?
	But his attorneys are saying that he came to Kenosha not to hurt anyone, but to protect businesses from damage and looting.
	And they say that the people he shot left him no choice, which seems to be congruent with the facts.
	This is why you saw him early in the day, you know, cleaning off graffiti.
	And this is why he's protecting a car dealership or something.
	He's got every reason to think they're trying to kill him.
	Oh, absolutely.
	So what do the prosecutors say?
	Now this is where it starts getting creative.
	Rittenhouse's trip to Kenosha will be a key part of their case.
	He crossed state lines!
	He crossed state lines!
	So?
	He's allowed to cross state lines.
	They portray him as a wannabe cop who came looking for trouble and fame.
	By bringing a rifle to the late-night protest, this was the primary cause of the deadly encounters.
	I think the primary cause was the people attacking him, because they're lunatics.
	They also argue that Rittenhouse wasn't there to protect businesses, but to join in other armed counter-protesters with whom he sympathized.
	Rittenhouse was the aggressor, and was there with intent to violently clash with those who opposed his beliefs.
	It's like, okay, well, why didn't he join the other...
	Yes.
	Why was he on his own?
	It's almost as if they hadn't actually seen what happened.
	Yeah, I know.
	I mean, points for creativity, but unfortunately this doesn't seem to map onto the videos that we have seen.
	Prosecutors had hoped to bolster their case by introducing, as evidence, a brief video taken 15 days before the protest shootings, That shows Rittenhouse watching some men exit a CVS pharmacy and commenting that he wished he had his rifle so he could shoot them because prosecutors say he baselessly thought they were shoplifters.
	Thomas Binger, the lead prosecutor, said it showed Rittenhouse's mindset as a teenage vigilante involving himself in things that didn't concern him.
	But Judge Bruce Schroeder questioned the relevance of the video to the charges.
	He ruled that it wouldn't be allowed, though he suggested that that could be reassessed in his ruling later.
	As in, something that he says as an offhanded remark 15 days before he was attacked isn't actually relevant to being attacked.
	So what does Wisconsin law say about the self-defense?
	Well, it allows someone to use deadly force only if, quote, necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm.
	And it sets a two-part test for the jurors.
	First, they have to decide if Rittenhouse really believed that he was in peril.
	Hindsight may show that he was wrong, but did he sincerely believe at the time?
	Now, if you can recall the video of him being beaten to the floor and then clubbed over the head...
	And other men running at him, one of whom had a handgun, although it could be said that Rittenhouse didn't know he had a handgun because he was drawing at the time.
	I think it's fair to say that he thought he was genuinely in peril.
	Yeah.
	I mean, if it were me, I would think I was genuinely in peril.
	And next, they must determine if Rittenhouse's belief was objectively reasonable.
	As in, you're surrounded by a mob of communists who is screeching, get him, get him, get him.
	Is it reasonable to think they're going to attack you?
	Maybe a bit.
	Yeah.
	To make that call, jurors will be instructed to consider whether any reasonable person in Rittenhouse's shoes would have also felt they had no choice but to shoot.
	I would have felt no choice.
	And I would have been a lot less restrained with the shooting than Rittenhouse was as well.
	One of the things I was amazed with after going through it is that Rittenhouse only shoots people who assault him or are about to assault him.
	He doesn't just start firing randomly into the crowd who is chasing him.
	I'm thinking, yeah, but, you know...
	Remarkably controlled for such a perilous situation.
	And for a 17-year-old.
	Yeah.
	You know, he did really, really well, I thought.
	All those sessions on the rifle ranges that he must have enjoyed came to good use.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	So any other legal factors include, Wisconsin law doesn't require someone whose life's in danger to flee before shooting, even though he was fleeing.
	But jurors can consider whether someone tried to move away from danger as they assess the reasonableness of it.
	Self-defense can't be invoked by someone if they were the aggressor, but of course he wasn't the aggressor.
	Again, we've seen the videos.
	Wisconsin doesn't have a stand-your-ground law that permits just defending yourself from any attack no matter how it occurs.
	But again, I think this is outside of that.
	Rittenhouse faces two counts of homicide, one of attempted homicide, and two counts of recklessly endangering safety for firing his gun near people adjacent to those being shot.
	As in, the mob.
	he recklessly endangered the mob that was chasing him uh a successful self-defense argument would seem to apply to all five counts but he faces a sixth count which is possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18 and if the defense uh unsuccessful which the defense unsuccessfully tried to get dismissed uh which is i mean maybe the thing that he did wrong here maybe if that's you know a count that he's actually guilty of he was under 18 he was carrying a lethal weapon yeah maybe that's that
	but if that's all they get him on then much better than the alternatives i would say Yeah, and it's a better alternative than him dying.
	Yeah, I'd rather take the punishment for that than getting my face clubbed in by a bunch of crazies.
	But anyway, so a bunch of legal experts have weighed in on this, of course, because why wouldn't you?
	So, under self-defence law and precedent, Rittenhouse motives for being Kenosha are irrelevant to whether he had a legal right to shoot when threatened.
	Some experts have said what happens is in the minutes surrounding the shooting.
	And one legal expert says, if I had a 17-year-old son, I would not encourage him to engage in this kind of behavior, but poor judgment is not a crime.
	Everybody in that courtroom is going to be thinking he deserved what he got because he put himself in a hostile situation, said another one.
	What are you doing down there with a gun?
	Said one who's against him.
	I suppose that's one thing.
	But most seem to think that he's got a pretty solid case of self-defense here.
	Interestingly, we talked about this the other day, but the judge was like, nope, you can't call the people he shot victims, but you can call them rioters and looters, because...
	That's what they were.
	Yes, and they were attacking him, so they're not his victims, they're actually the people who are trying to victimise him.
	And also, you're not allowed to show links, alleged links, between Rittenhouse and the Proud Boys, because the judge has said, well, that's not relevant, which is very interesting.
	The prosecution wanted to allow evidence that showed that Rittenhouse had links to far-right extremist group the Proud Boys.
	Of course he did.
	I'm not even sure if I agree with that characterization, but anyway, moving on.
	Binger also asked the judge to allow evidence that Rittenhouse attacked a woman in June 2020 as she was fighting his sister.
	He attacked a woman who was defending his sister.
	Interesting choice of words, that, isn't it?
	Nice framing.
	He also was sure that it showed the video from 15 Days 4, but the judge refused it.
	Binger said that Rittenhouse's affiliation with the Proud Boys in the fight show how Rittenhouse had a propensity towards violence.
	He described him as a chaos tourist and a teenage vigilante.
	God, they make him sound bloody cool, don't they?
	They're trying.
	Can we get a picture of Rittenhouse up a second, John?
	Chaos tourist.
	Teenage vigilante.
	My sons have both got really chubby cheeks, and so when I see a young man with chubby cheeks, I just want to grab him and go, oh, he's got chubby cheeks.
	Someone's going to make an email.
	Yeah, but no, he's a chaos tourist.
	This is what chaos looks like.
	The literal devil.
	That's such a cool phrase.
	Anyway, so there was some new footage released that the Postmillennial got hold of.
	We're not going to play it because we don't know what YouTube's rules on these things are at this point, but if we go to the next one...
	I will talk you through it.
	So the video was shot via an FBI plane during the riot in August 2020 when Rittenhouse shot three men and it does show the mob.
	If you can scroll down a little bit so you can see that in the middle there is the mob and they're chasing after him and you can see them running after him.
	Rittenhouse is walking along just shouting anyone need medical as in medical assistance and is Rosenbaum who He decides that he's a bad person and starts yelling, get him, get him, let's get him.
	The mob spots him and then attacks him.
	You see Rosenbaum running and getting shot.
	Someone else, somewhere else, shoots a handgun into the air that you can see on the video because it's a composite of different videos.
	I'm not actually sure which one the new one is.
	I think it's just the above one, but you can see a third person shooting a handgun into the air.
	And again, it just really doesn't do anything to make Carl Rittenhouse look like he initiated the conflict.
	No.
	No.
	At all.
	The FBI have apparently testified in private, according to Jeff Sobiec, who's a source I trust on this, that there is a second version of the surveillance tape in HD, but did not provide it to the defense, as per one member of the courtroom.
	The defense has requested a copy of the HD tape, and if you scroll down he's got a follow-up tweet here, but they have said that the tape no longer exists.
	That's weird, isn't it?
	Hmm.
	That's very strange.
	So we've got a copy.
	Can you have it?
	No.
	Also, it doesn't exist anymore.
	Well, did you destroy the evidence?
	Where did it go?
	Did you just misplace it?
	Is it Hillary Clinton's emails?
	We just don't know what's happened here.
	But Jack thinks that if the FBI had a plane up, they more likely had a stingray up as well and captured all the electronic comms from the night of the Rittenhouse shooting as well, and they were refusing to share it with his legal team.
	Are the FBI a politicised organ of the United States government?
	I mean, if the last five years has anything to go by, I would say yes.
	But what do I know?
	Moving on.
	We get some specific statements from the case, which are amusing, frankly.
	So Mark Richards, the defence attorney, said that Rosenbaum, 36, was filmed saying, shoot me, N-word, shoot me, at Rittenhouse as he ran up to him and tried to wrestle the gun out of his hands, allegedly, which is why Rittenhouse shot him.
	I think it's fairly reasonable to say that if you...
	If you've got a communist trying to wrestle your weapon off you, then he's probably going to use it on you.
	Fair concern in my opinion.
	The jury was also shown the rifle using the killing.
	This was a photo of a teenage shooter killing a skateboarder in the chest with a confrontation, which is the chap who was clubbing him with it.
	The defense argued that Rittenhouse acted in self-defense after the man began beating him with the skateboard in order to decapitate him.
	Now, this is part of the defense that I think...
	Look, you don't need to overstate the case here, right?
	Like...
	And the way that I saw the clip of it as well, where he's like, well, you know, it could, you know, take his head off, like, you know, cut his head off or something like that with the skateboard.
	It's like, look, no one thinks the skateboard is going to cut his head off.
	Just say he's going to brain him.
	You know, you could beat someone to death with a skateboard.
	It's a heavy enough piece of wood.
	You know, you don't need to be like, oh, it's going to decapitate him.
	Yeah, there are lots of forms of damage that skateboards can inflict without decapitation being one of them.
	Exactly, and it's not going to be one of them.
	But prosecutor Thomas Binger said that mayhem broke out in Kenosha in the wake of the Jacob Blake shooting.
	Again, not a good guy.
	Rittenhouse was the sole individual who acted with reckless and malicious intent by shooting Rosenbaum in the back, shooting Huber in the chest, and shooting Gross Krauts in the arm.
	We've got a picture of Gross Krauts after being shot in the arm.
	Anything you notice about that picture?
	Yeah, he's carrying something that looks like...
	A gun?
	Yes.
	Yeah.
	And if you watch the footage, again, we're not going to show the footage, and you can't see the wound on his arm here, thankfully, which is why I chose this picture.
	But if you watch it, he's literally running up to him after he's shot the other two, and he pulls out his gun, and then Rittenhouse shoots him in the arm.
	So, I mean, he's literally rounding on him with the gun to shoot him.
	So, again, don't really see how Rittenhouse is the villain here.
	No.
	That's just such a classic picture as well.
	Yeah.
	Anyway, going back to the article...
	Like moths to a flame, tourists were drawn to the chaos.
	There were hundreds of confrontations that night, yet the only person who killed anyone was Carl Rittenhouse.
	But I mean, he was facing people who were literally attacking him, and one of them had a gun.
	So anyway, the testimony shows that Rosenbaum said that if I get either of you two alone, I'll kill you.
	It's interesting.
	Not a lunatic or anything.
	No.
	But we have a statement from Dominic Black, who was dating Rittenhouse's sister and was with him when...
	And he's facing charges of his own, actually, of supplying the gun to Rittenhouse.
	But he testifies in Rittenhouse's defence.
	And he said that the night was chaotic and he heard gunshots from the direction of Rittenhouse and...
	Rittenhouse came back and he was frightened.
	He said, I shot someone, I shot someone.
	And when he got back, he says that Rittenhouse was pale, scared and sweating like a pig and added that he had helped convince Rittenhouse to turn himself into the police following the riot.
	So it doesn't sound like he was there with a desire to murder.
	Doesn't sound like he was getting off on having done the murder, but, you know, it sounds like he'd defend himself.
	Yeah.
	While in Kenosha, Rittenhouse fatally shot Rosenbaum after he chased Rittenhouse across the parking lot and threw a plastic bag which had something in it.
	At midnight, they'd been arguing after Rittenhouse put out a dumpster fire.
	Wow, what a good citizen.
	Rosenbaum had helped, in fact, Rosenbaum had started the dumpster fire that Rittenhouse put out.
	And the prosecution claimed, though, that Rosenbaum had confronted other armed men that night, but suffered no ramifications because he appeared non-threatening.
	So, and Binger literally says, quote, no one takes him as a serious threat, which is the equivalent of saying, Your Honor, my client wasn't a threat because he's five foot three and a manlet.
	That's literally the defense.
	How is Risenhouse supposed to know this previous experience anyway?
	Yeah, and at the end of the day, if you're trying to wrestle the gun out of someone's hand, the problem with the gun is it's a great equaliser.
	It doesn't matter if you're 5'3 or 6'6, a gun will kill you either way.
	And so, don't try and take someone's gun and you won't get shot.
	And I guess the final part to mention so far about the Kyle Rittenhouse trial is that a lot of the media have noticed that Kyle was yawning during the trial.
	Now, there are, psychologically, and confirming this with Josh, there are reasons that someone might yawn.
	You can yawn out of nerves, right?
	This is apparently something that happens, it never happened to me, but this apparently something that happens.
	But as the independents say, he struggled to stay awake and kept yawning as lawyers from both sides argued their cases on Tuesday, according to several photos taken.
	He let out a yawn when lawyers were giving their opening statements.
	He again yawned when jurors opened the courtroom.
	This repeated throughout the hearing, as if he's somehow being disrespectful, right?
	As if he's been up all night playing video games and, you know, Counter-Strike or something.
	And he's like, oh yeah, no, I've got the trial tomorrow.
	Oh god, I'm going to have three hours sleep.
	I'm going to be so tired.
	Or it could be that maybe the kid has a hard time sleeping because of...
	Being at the centre of a national absolute S-storm?
	Perhaps even international, given that we're covering it.
	Good point, yeah.
	But the unbelievable amount of pressure the poor kid must be under, I'd have a hard time sleeping too.
	Yes.
	So, in conclusion, Carl Rittenhouse has done nothing wrong.
	I expect the trial to reflect that, because it's such an obvious case of self-defence, and the prosecution's position seems to be laughable.
	Yeah.
	So, yeah.
	Needless to say, I mean, dare I say it, he actually sounds like a reasonable bloke.
	And he sounds like he was doing the upstanding thing of, you know, cleaning up the community, putting out fires, and defending it from communist looters.
	Yeah, I mean, again, you can always come back to the fact that, well, what was he doing with a gun there in the first place?
	But, on reflection, it's just as well that he did have it, because otherwise he wouldn't have been able to defend himself.
	Exactly.
	It would have gone a lot worse for him.
	Had he not had it.
	And he was asked to go down and help.
	Because he worked at a place, I think it was.
	And he was asked to go down and help protect it from looters.
	Because apparently it's fine if there are just dozens and dozens of people running around burning the city down.
	I mean, the sick part of this, really, or the egregious part of this, and I think we both, I think, suspected this from the start, really, is that his crime has less to do with the fact that he defended himself and more to do with the side that he's against.
	Yes.
	Which has everything to do with what the riots were all about.
	Yes.
	And you can see that in the attempt at politicising and connecting Rittenhouse to the Proud Boys.
	When they're trying to say, well, I see this is a political agenda, he wants to go and shoot Antifa.
	And it's like, well, you don't have any evidence for that.
	Is there any evidence that he has anything to do with the Proud Boys?
	Retweeting anything?
	I haven't seen it, actually.
	But then the judge refused to have it submitted as evidence.
	But even so, it's not exactly a slam dunk, is it?
	No, not at all.
	I mean, if that's the case, then, I mean...
	Everything is a political crime now.
	Yes.
	Because everyone has some connection to something.
	Yeah.
	In the way that the current cultural atmosphere is, how could you not be connected to something in some way?
	Just another heresy case.
	Yeah, basically.
	They want a political win.
	That's what they're trying to do.
	Yeah.
	And just like the George Floyd thing, I felt it was like...
	In the Carl Rittenhouse case, maybe it is a political thing.
	Maybe you can make that argument.
	But I always felt for the George Floyd thing, it was totally not political at all.
	And so making that a political win for the left, I felt was very cruel.
	I thought an injustice was done there, frankly.
	Shall we move on to the comments?
	Yeah.
	Video comments, that is, of course.
	As I said, is there good application of the energy of the Western Left since Marx and Hegel?
	Has the Western Left arrived at this place via corruption?
	Or is the root of this energy the problem?
	I wanted to ask Karl and Thomas because I know Karl thinks some of this is the inevitable consequence of the Enlightenment.
	And Thomas, I think he said critical theory has some good applications.
	For example, could places like China, and particularly North Korea, benefit from some Western Leftism?
	Well, I certainly think we could benefit from applying its method of deconstruction, because then you can unpack, I suppose, the ideological presuppositions that the left are trying to implement.
	It doesn't offer anything productive, unfortunately, positive in terms of a conservative vision, but it does get us to the first step.
	Yeah, as I understand critical theory, it's literally just a weapon against anything it can be applied to.
	And so if it could be applied to a normative view, which leftism has, then you can deconstruct it.
	Yeah.
	So why not just use their tools to ruin them, if we want?
	There's nothing preventing that.
	They've been doing this with Marx since Marxism began, really.
	And Marx himself has never been able to stand in his defence as to who is furthering the true form of Marxism, not to say that the political form that Marxism assumes communism should be revisited, because it should definitely not be revisited.
	But I think there is some value in the critique which I think North Korea and, needless to say, China could actually benefit from, but of course they'll never allow such things.
	I mean, if we want to destroy China and North Korea as political entities, give them as much Western leftism as you can because that's the point of it.
	Yeah.
	Anyway, next.
	Flashback.
	No, I really look forward to it.
	Because I just genuinely think it's going to happen.
	And if it doesn't happen, right, I don't even have any cope prepared.
	I don't know what I'm going to say.
	I'm like, well, s***.
	I don't have anything.
	If Trump doesn't win, then, okay, my powers of observation are terrible, and I have absolutely no idea why.
	That's all I'll be able to say.
	Because from what I can see, I just have no explanation.
	Otherwise.
	End of flashback.
	She...
	Well, we're in that universe.
	Now, I have some cope now, though, if it helps.
	I didn't think the fortification would be quite so brazen.
	I didn't think we'd get any F-curves or Time magazine articles that said, we fortified the election!
	F-you!
	And at the end of the day, I think my cope might be quite valid there, because it seems that they're just coming out and admitting it.
	Hmm.
	Dr.
	Fauci!
	Kill the dogs, please!
	Cut out vocal cords to silence their screams!
	Keep up the fight against all the dissidents!
	Ron DeSantis has been more persistent!
	Fauci!
	Yes?
	Promise us, please, that you'll let the dogs get eaten by fleas!
	Ethics will die with some ease!
	Dr.
	Fauci, don't forget me.
	I'm amazed you could do that without laughing, but that is such a creative parody of that awful, awful song that someone had done.
	Put some chords to it and record it.
	Surprisingly good, wasn't it?
	Surprisingly catchy.
	Let's go to the next one.
	I've taken up critical dog theory.
	Deconstructing the dog.
	It's a shame Callum's still off.
	Dog deconstruction.
	Dog deconstruction.
	No, but the presuppositions of dogs still pertain.
	Ah, good point.
	No, lovely doll.
	Final Flight of the Runniger by C.S. Cooper.
	Frustration spurred him to his knees over his vanquished enemy, and he wrenched the lifeless mass up by the collar.
	His desperate pleas for peace of mind, for solitude from his torturers, left him in animalistic roars, unintelligible battle, and bloodstained tears.
	But the corpse vexed him with silence, like a vindictive class bait sealing his secret behind a smirk.
	Unintelligible Australian claptrap.
	LAUGHTER I'll stay away from that then.
	Craig is an author and commentator.
	He sends in video comments.
	He hasn't for a while, actually.
	Where have you been, Craig?
	So, that's one review.
	Obviously this isn't me.
	I should have been more specific.
	What I meant is, does the Tales from the Pines guy have any books?
	As it happens, I am very much into folk tales, mythology, fairy tales from all across the world.
	You guys have only seen the bottom of my bookshelf.
	And Cooper, all right.
	All right.
	I'll buy your freaking book!
	Yeah, I believe that Tony does indeed have books of the legends of the Pine Barrens.
	Next one.
	I see Carl is tired of people trying to evangelize him and don't blame him.
	If atheism has brought you peace and purpose, I hope you stay an atheist.
	I only brought up the topic of truth and religion because seeing the channel, primarily Carl and Callum, sometimes mock Christians and religion seems like a missed opportunity.
	I encourage mocking, nothing is above mocking.
	However, Christian philosophy, from Aquinas to G.K. Chesterton, has been rigorously refined over millennia, and gives many of us the tools to frame and challenge the modern sensibilities, driving soul-crushing change in the world.
	That all being said, I thoroughly enjoy your content and hope you all are well.
	I'm glad you mentioned G.K. Chesterton, because I would like to, well, I suppose, develop a follow-up question from that.
	What do you make of the idea that atheism is inscribed in Christianity itself?
	Ooh, I think that's spicy, to be honest.
	I'd have to do a bit of thinking about it.
	But I can see that an argument could be made there.
	Hmm.
	I just want to defend myself.
	I don't think I do mock Christianity.
	No.
	I just don't want to be proselytized at.
	No.
	But one thing that I find interesting is if atheism has brought you X, I'm not an ideological atheist.
	I was just not raised with religion.
	And so I don't feel like I'm missing something.
	I don't feel like...
	I have a need for religion.
	It's just not a part of my psyche.
	And so it's not like, you know, atheism has brought me X. Atheism is just the description I have for not being a religious person.
	You know, it's not something I ever think about in any way, shape, or form.
	It doesn't mean you have an entirely instrumental belief system, for example.
	No, no.
	And, like, you know, it's like...
	You know, it's like saying, well, you know, if not having a bike brings you the happiness of me having a bike brings you, then, you know, I need you to philosophically justify it or something.
	It's like, no, you just don't think about it, you know?
	But again, I'm not trying to make someone be Christian or anti-Christian or anything like that.
	And, uh...
	I think that there is probably a need for a large section of the population to have some kind of religious convictions.
	It seems to be the result of people saying it.
	Yes, and well, I suppose the desire or constant undermining of it has only led to bad things happening for the most part, which Jordan Peterson nonetheless has articulated very, very well many times now.
	I do think that the metaphysical structures that religion provides are actually really useful.
	Opening up a metaphysical space in someone's understanding prevents them from collapsing completely into materialism.
	Because there are metaphysical constructs that we depend upon, that we don't think about.
	And when you become purely materialistic...
	I recorded a video earlier about Gen Z. They are purely materialistic.
	They don't really have any metaphysical constructs.
	And therefore, they look at Donald Trump as being like an alien for another dimension.
	Because he's talking about the ideal of what America is.
	And they just don't have that because the millennials have essentially ground it out of them.
	They almost can't conceptualize or understand the value of having ideals.
	Exactly.
	And so they don't see there is a world that should exist in which Americans are proud to be American.
	They have these freedoms.
	They have these rights.
	The government has restrictions.
	And this view of the world is a positive moral vision.
	They don't understand that.
	And so they look at Donald Trump and literally a quarter of Gen Z were in any way favorable to Trump, whereas a third of millennials, half of Gen X and half of boomers.
	And so it's just like, you know, you can see how the materialism has just collapsed in on itself into, they're literally just about themselves.
	And it's not their fault, they're the product of the millennials.
	But the fact that religion opens up the idea that, look, there is actually something bigger than yourself that you can be a part of and you can help to uphold, like the American way, you know, things like that.
	And they want to take that off Superman now, don't they?
	Truth, justice, and the American way.
	And they're like, yeah, but we don't need the American way.
	But it's like, no, you do, actually.
	You know, it's an ideological, like a metaphysical component of Superman.
	You absolutely need that.
	And so, yeah, I'm not, like, against religion.
	I do think there is that that is useful.
	And it's taken me a long time to really understand, no, no, we actually need to inflate our view of the world and enchant it a bit, you know.
	I'm sure you'll find that to be a very, very satisfying answer.
	I hope so.
	Well, I hope so.
	I've been thinking about it a lot.
	Let's move on to the next video.
	In response to Cat of Kit's comment, I've seen a majority of people going to university with a degree in mind rather than a career, which is very self-destructive.
	People don't understand that education is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself.
	Why spend $50,000 and four years of your life if you might not work in the field you studied for?
	Additionally, only a select number of concentrations will be worth the investment.
	I chose to go to university because I wanted a career in software engineering and needed a degree in computer science.
	You should choose to go to university because you need the degree for the job you want and not because you want a piece of paper.
	I half agree with that.
	The only thing I would say is if you want to, for example, pursue philosophy, I think you have to be open-minded to, or at least being open to pursue knowledge for its own sake.
	Are you saying you didn't do philosophy just to get a job in the philosophy mill?
	Well, it was my contempt for academia that arguably precipitated my interest in philosophy itself, yes.
	Obviously, there are going to be kinds of degrees like philosophy where you don't know what you're going to do with it at the end of it, right?
	I mean, like, you know, Thomas doing a PhD in philosophy, and so, you know, I'm sure you didn't expect to end here, right, to end up here.
	I didn't, so I'm glad that I did end up there.
	Well, good, you have to say that.
	But the point is, at least you can put it to some good use, right?
	You can share the knowledge that you've gained and the insights that you've acquired with people who don't have time or inclination to do it themselves.
	And so there is an application for it.
	But in most degrees, I think he's completely right, where it's like, you said, oh, I'm going to get a degree in English literature.
	Why?
	Well, I just really would like what I say.
	But why?
	This is going to put you into a massive amount of debt.
	If you don't have a plan with what to do with that, you're going to be resentful.
	You have to have an idea of what you want to contribute in order to make that a rational decision and for it to work for you.
	I agree with it insofar as that.
	I just don't think it can be thrown under this utilitarian...
	It's not universal, but I think for most people, having the degree as a step in a career plan is much more useful, and I hate to say utilitarian, but much more practical and prudent than just, oh, I'd like to do a degree because it sounds good.
	It's like, yeah, but you're going to be in a lot of debt, and you might not have anything to do with that, and you might end up working in an office with a wasted degree, desperately trying to pay off the debt that you've accrued.
	Yeah, being in a constantly demoralizing state.
	Exactly.
	And you could have just, you know, essentially just looked up what was on the course and then just read it in your own free time if it was just a personal interest of yours.
	A degree is like a way of condensing down a particular interest into a codified way to get you from one end to the other.
	But if you're just interested in the subject, you can just spend a decade reading around the subject and just be as expert, if not more, than someone who has the degree.
	No, that's true.
	Yeah, and actually most of the philosophy that I read before I even actually did my philosophy degree was actually off the backs of my own interests.
	Yeah, to your interests.
	Yeah, yeah.
	So, you know, but I think he makes a great point, you know, look, use the degree as a stepping stone to a career that you want rather than getting the degree because you think you should have a degree.
	Yes, aesthetic education can be counterproductive.
	Yeah, and especially the costs.
	Yes, go to the next one.
	Tales from my recent hospital visit, and this is just one of the stupid things from it.
	While I was in the ambulance and the paramedic was asking me questions when he found out I was unvaccinated, he said that depending on the hospital policy, unvaccinated people are placed with people who are tested COVID positive.
	Oh my god.
	While I'm not afraid of COVID, I can thankfully say that I wasn't put in a room.
	Instead, I got a reclining chair in a high traffic hallway.
	That's shocking.
	I mean, how is that not a deliberate attempt to infect people with COVID? It's hard to present it as anything other than that.
	And it seems to be in some way malevolent, doesn't it?
	As in, this is a punishment for not getting the vaccine.
	That's what it sounds like.
	I hate to say it, but I have actually seen this at our own health service.
	Really?
	Not quite to this degree, thankfully.
	But no, there was one person in the A&E queue who went deaf.
	He didn't understand why.
	And he was asked, well, exchanging messages that was, whether he'd had the vaccine.
	And when he said, no, I chose not to, they basically just lectured him for like 15 minutes and made him feel like he'd done something wrong.
	Really?
	Yeah, no, no.
	It wasn't nice to see him quite uncomfortable.
	But I feel your pain.
	That's absolutely terrible.
	And all I can say is I'm glad that...
	We survived.
	Well, yeah, absolutely.
	I'm glad you didn't get it, but it just seems vaguely malevolent, doesn't it?
	It's disgraceful.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Okay, so this is a prediction that might be proven wrong by the time my video comment airs, but my prediction is that in the Virginia gubernatorial election, Youngkin will be winning for the majority of it, and then in the last 10% of voters to be counted, it'll swing to McCullough.
	And he'll be the most popular governor of Virginia ever.
	That is my prediction.
	We'll see what happens.
	Right.
	So I've got some thoughts about this because I've been thinking about the fortification of elections in the United States.
	I expected that too.
	And if I recall yesterday, early turnout did show that the Republican was winning.
	And so I was expecting exactly the sort of F-curves coming out of 4 a.m.
	ballot dumps and things like that.
	I was thinking back on the Time article where they were talking about the amount of work it was to fortify the election.
	And it strikes me that that's a loss of energy that has to be pulled together to get everyone on the same page.
	And so, essentially, the amount of danger that the Democrats are in...
	Excuse me.
	It has to justify this amount of effort because it's not something they can just do on a whim.
	They're not God.
	It's pulling together all the activists to play their part, to play their part, to play their part, to make sure the whole thing is fortified correctly.
	And so if it's not like the presidential election or something, Then it becomes a lot more hazy to get to rope people into doing something wrong, you know, because fundamentally, you know, you're encouraging people, look, you need a narrative.
	This is so dangerous.
	If you don't do something bad, then something terrible is going to happen.
	And that's not really plausible with the way that the Virginia race was going.
	The guy obviously wasn't evil.
	He obviously wasn't a terror.
	And it wasn't so widespread a problem that the entire Democrat establishment was going to take a huge knock and be knocked out of power for decades upon decades or whatever.
	And so, like, the energy it requires to fortify, I don't think is possible.
	No.
	I mean, I don't know.
	It's just a theory.
	Let me know what you think.
	But I think that there is a lot of energy going the other way to a fortification.
	That means you have to work very hard to...
	Pump people up to that level to believe it.
	With Trump, I can see how they could do it because you've got non-stop the media, non-stop, and they look at their own internal poll and go, Christ, we're getting caned here.
	I can't believe we put Biden.
	So the fortification becomes justified.
	That's a very, very thorough analysis.
	I think so.
	Like I said, I've been thinking about it a lot because I thought there was going to be a fortification too.
	And in regard to the flashback as well, I just didn't know why it didn't work.
	So anyway, that's my idea.
	Let's go to the next one.
	What the?
	No.
	Not, no.
	Not at all.
	Nope.
	Not acceptable.
	All righty, Virginia!
	We won this thing!
	Yes, you did.
	And you deserve it.
	Yeah, and watching the Republican speeches, I really enjoyed the energy of it.
	Like, they seemed really, you know, like, they felt like they'd fought a fair campaign.
	Yes.
	You know, and they felt like they'd justly won.
	Yes, justly.
	It's not Kamala Harris going, we did it, Joe, on the phone, which feels very phony and empty.
	It felt like they'd earned it.
	They won in addressing something that clearly matters to the people of Virginia.
	Yeah, and matters to the people involved in the election.
	So there was almost no electioneering involved there.
	They appealed to the things that mattered to the people.
	They hate critical race theory.
	They care about their children.
	And nonetheless, they elected themselves on those promises.
	Yeah, and McAuliffe's dirty tricks and saying, oh, he's just Trump, Trump bad, therefore vote me.
	It's so innovating.
	Whereas Youngkin's campaign, again, from the outside, just looked a lot more positive.
	Apolitically speaking, the good guy won.
	Yeah, that's how it looks to us.
	Yeah, let's go to the next one.
	So, I've been watching the Hundred Years' War series, and I've been really enjoying it.
	You're doing very well.
	Bo, Carl, great job on it.
	And if you're interested in more about chivalry, I can recommend to you either A Night Zone Book of Chivalry by Geoffrey de Charny, or you can listen to the Catholic Gentleman's podcast episode, Chivalry in the Modern World, where they bring on a medievalist and historian to talk about chivalry for part of it.
	Other than that, keep up the good work.
	It's a Joan of Arc.
	Ora pranobis.
	Thank you very much.
	I was really enjoying the Hundred Years War series as well, right up until the last episode.
	It was really good, actually.
	It was one of my favourite things to cover, because it's just such a different world.
	Politics just works totally differently in medieval Europe.
	And so it was really fun to do.
	But we recorded the Nika Riots yesterday, so that'll be this week's one.
	And the Nika Riots, again, fascinating.
	It's like an alien world.
	Things are totally different.
	Although some things remain the same, but I won't spoil anything.
	Would you like to read out the Virginia Bloodbath comments?
	I would be happy to.
	Baron Von Warhawk says, That's a great comment.
	That's a really good point.
	Piers, if you're wondering where Callum went, he started getting into anime like Boko no Pico, and so the rest of us took him out behind the woodshed and shot him at point-blank range.
	Fortunately, that's not true.
	Fortunately, he just got COVID. Not anime.
	Hopefully, he'll be back soon.
	We're just waiting for a negative test, basically.
	He's feeling a lot better, I hear.
	So that's good.
	Student of History says, calling the series of elections yesterday a bloodbath as an understatement, to be honest.
	Well, I mean, I can think...
	Bloodbath is a pretty strong statement.
	Yeah.
	Virginia flipped hard.
	New Jersey is neck and neck.
	Yeah, I didn't have time to look into the other ones, unfortunately.
	Shout out to the New Jersey Legends guy and Lil' Joan.
	Buffalo Socialist got BTFO'd by a moderate Dems writing campaign.
	Yeah, yesterday was can A levels of speaking, spanking.
	Yeah, it seems to be.
	I'm very happy with it, frankly.
	I just like to see the critical race deris lose.
	Sardock says, young, young kin bloodbath makes me think of Jim Carrey and liar, liar.
	Stop showing porn to kids, asshole.
	Quite.
	Yes.
	Uh, the island guy says, hopefully young kings victory.
	We'll see the demon KKK rats.
	My favorite way of describing them, uh, double down on their policies for the midterms next November.
	getting rid of police, indoctrination of kids into critical race theory, and muscling toddlers.
	Works so well for them up to now.
	Let's go, Brandon.
	Yeah, I mean...
	What can they do, though?
	Because essentially what they have to do, if they go against critical race theory and muzzling toddlers and get rid of the police, they have to essentially tell and say, yes, the Republicans are right about everything.
	You know, that's basically, because that is the Republican position.
	It's like, don't defund the police, don't muzzle kids, and don't indoctrinate kids into critical race theory.
	All they can do is just double down on what they've already been doing.
	It seems to be the only place they've got to go, or else admit the Republicans are right, which isn't exactly a winning strategy.
	Just find more disagreement.
	Vote for us, our opponent were correct.
	Yeah.
	I don't see where they're going to go.
	So, yeah, fingers crossed.
	George says, the Democrat maniac losing is a bit of a white pill, if only for the complete meltdown of the check marks for a couple of days.
	Yeah, and I'll tell you what, I live for the meltdown.
	It doesn't disappoint, does it?
	No, it never does.
	What they reveal yet again in their screeching by insisting that their democracy will lose is they separate their demos from those who disagree.
	They don't see their fellow citizens as part of the club.
	That's right.
	I know it's their name, but how can they have the audacity to continue using democracy as a word?
	Well, yeah, and honestly, I can't understand how they have the audacity to just call themselves the Democrats.
	They are subscribed to an ideological framework whereby democracy actually can't exist, ultimately.
	Yeah, and in fact gets in the way because it permits reactionary politics.
	They quite literally think that liberal democracy is an expression of white supremacy, so how can they have this?
	So by their own standards, they carry a white supremacist name.
	They do, but also from their own standards.
	If you're not with them, you're against them.
	This is why free speech is bad, because it permits reactionary thought to exist, and therefore democracy allows reactionary parties to win.
	There are multiple layers on why they should be opposed to democracy.
	Great point here, George, though.
	They've literally separated out the two demos.
	It's our democracy and their democracy.
	It's just they never say the word their democracy, but it is implied When they say, our democracy.
	Because it's not theirs.
	It's everyone's, isn't it?
	Drew says, democracy to the left is referring to the Democrats' hegemony, not the process of electing officials by the people's vote.
	Exactly.
	That's why if the opponents win, democracy is over.
	I mean, literally, from your framing there.
	And I think that's exactly the right framing.
	Student of history again, the emethyncopium lemao.
	Yep.
	I was so good.
	I was really enjoying the first section.
	Yes, please tell me more about the virtues of crack babies making institutions actively biased on the basis of immutable characteristics.
	Yeah, I know.
	I know.
	I knew I'd heard Carlisle Group somewhere, but I didn't have time to dredge it all up because we've only got a few hours before the podcast.
	But thanks for pointing that out because that's really weird, isn't it?
	What a weird crossover.
	Anyway, do you want to do the Sage ones?
	Yes, sir.
	That island guy says, so a scientist at Sage has resigned to duty his advice being ignored by the powers that be.
	Good.
	Yes.
	Good.
	Maybe he should consider joining all the eminent doctors and scientists at the Great Barrington Declaration who have been ignored for over a year now despite offering common sense alternatives to current COVID policy.
	And many of them have been censored as well.
	Yes.
	The censorship of scientists has been very concerning.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, it has.
	And needless to say, let's hope this is the beginning of more, shall we say, resignations from those who have ambitions beyond actually dealing with the present crisis.
	Yeah, but they are very clearly.
	Looking at this, as if, right, this is our moment.
	We leverage this, and, you know, then, you know, we get the climate stuff, and we pull it all together.
	Boom, global government.
	Yeah.
	I mean, that's literally their argument.
	Yeah.
	That's literally the argument.
	Yeah, I'd like to hear them argue that's alternatively.
	Avatar says, why do the Twitter racists want coloured people on the Rittenhouse jury?
	Everyone he shots was white.
	No, no, I was going to point that out.
	Everyone involved in this is white, so it's like, oh, we need people of colour.
	I mean, you have one, but why does the race matter?
	Because this wasn't a racial conflict.
	That's the point.
	There's no racial dimension.
	It's all a bunch of white people shooting each other.
	No, and of course, to someone, it has to be, doesn't it?
	Yeah, yeah.
	But Ty Buffett says no matter what happens to Risenhaus, his prospects have been ruined.
	He wanted to be a cop.
	No department will touch him now, even if he gets completely cleared.
	I mean, I hope that's not the case.
	Yeah, I mean, I kind of feel that there's probably going to be some small town...
	Who will dig this.
	Who will dig this, exactly.
	And when he's cleared, as he should be, fingers crossed, then maybe they will just offer him a job.
	I would be surprised if he gets left out in the cold by the Republicans on this.
	Yeah, I'm sure he'd be a good fit for Dirty Harry.
	Well, that's why they didn't want to give up more footage, because every piece of footage they can present makes him look like he's innocent.
	Actually running away.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Yeah, exactly.
	He's actually running away and being attacked.
	But yeah, you are right.
	The prosecution is not doing a great job.
	Yeah.
	Quite right.
	I think the right to self-defence is a moral absolute.
	In the UK, this is not the case as the authorities want you to cower from the world.
	It makes you easier to control.
	Yeah, I absolutely despise it.
	There was a case a few years ago of a chap who, an old guy, someone had broken into his house and was rifling around, so he confronted him.
	He pulled out a screwdriver and tried to stab him, but the old guy got the screwdriver and stabbed him instead.
	And this killed him, I think.
	And there was, oh, well, you know, he's been arrested.
	It's like, why would he be arrested?
	You know, he was defending himself in his own house from burglar.
	And there was such outrage, basically it was dropped.
	But it was because of the outrage that it was dropped.
	Which means every time someone defends themselves of their home, there has to be mass outrage.
	Or else they're going to continue.
	And I mean, again, conservatives, you could change that.
	You could say, no, look, if you break into someone's home and they do something terrible to you, Don't break into their home next time.
	You should have known better, you bloody criminal.
	Unfortunately, we can't rely on moral outrage every time these things happen.
	Exactly.
	And we shouldn't have to.
	You should have the absolute right to defend yourself.
	Because I completely agree.
	The right to self-defense is a natural right and a moral absolute.
	I completely agree with that.
	It's a cult.
	Dacent says, knowing myself and knowing who'd be chasing me, Ristenhouse had far more discipline than I would have in this situation.
	Yeah.
	Honestly, the world is better off with a few more less Antifa murders, arsonists and activists.
	I think the world is indeed a better place.
	I just...
	Oh, absolutely.
	But I just love the fact that, you know, three people attack him from this mob of Antifa, and they're literally pedos, wife-beaters and violent criminals.
	Yeah.
	Yes.
	Yes.
	And they're the ones who they are defending.
	Okay.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Now the Democrats look great.
	This is our new guys.
	Oh, bloody hell.
	Okay, fine.
	Yeah, there are guys.
	You're bad.
	Yeah, I think so.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	CyberFest says, not sure if you are aware, but the first guy Kyle had shot had 11 counts of sexual misconduct with a minor, with three kids aged 9 to 11.
	You did mention that, didn't you?
	Yeah, we talked about it in the previous segment we did about it as well.
	Yeah.
	But he had apparently only been released from a mental facility that day, and he went to the right.
	Why was he released, and why then?
	Good question.
	I mean, let's assume, best case scenario, like he'd been in Memphis City and it's like, right, okay, now your time is up and it's happened to coincide with the events.
	Yes.
	But we don't know.
	There was one that David didn't pop up until afterwards.
	The whole Kyle Rittenhouse trial seems crazy to me.
	Not only is it surely the most open and shut case ever, but when it comes to self-defense backed up by video footage, but the lefty crazies now find themselves sticking up for a paedophile victim with a rap sheet that makes any normal person's stomach churn.
	I feel I must point out that I don't believe anyone deserves to lose their life.
	No, but if you're attacking someone with a gun, don't be surprised when you get shot.
	No, quite.
	Yeah, sorry, I just wanted to pick that one up.
	No, that's alright.
	Just a couple of honourable mentions.
	Did the judge rule on if they can be called pedos?
	I mean, one of them can be.
	Yeah.
	Like, demonstrably.
	Yes.
	Hashtag bring back Callum, but not de Blasio.
	Bill de Blasio.
	De Blasio.
	Proof of life or we press charges.
	Well, unfortunately, he's not allowed in the office.
	Honestly, I'd like proof of life so I don't have to keep paying a dead man.
	I'm just joking.
	I'm sure Calum will be back soon.
	He's just waiting for the negative test.
	Yes, and on that note, that is unfortunately all we have time for for today.
	So thank you very much for tuning in, for watching.
	The segments will be uploaded on YouTube at some point.
	Please like, subscribe, and keep supporting us.
	We do appreciate it.
	It's been a pleasure to present this podcast.
	Thank you very much.
	I hope you enjoyed the rest of your day.
	Goodbye.

▲