Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 8, 2021 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:31:06

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #258

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Seeders at the 8th of November 2021.
	I'm joined by Carl.
	Hello!
	And today we're going to be talking about Project Veritas getting raided by the feds.
	It's okay to be white is now a hate crime.
	Unironically in the UK for many a year.
	And also how the left is weaponizing language and how the right is responding, let's say.
	Yeah.
	Let's talk about that.
	So the first thing to mention on the website, there's some new stuff.
	So we have, I think this is a premium article.
	Hear this one first from Hugo, which is, this is extremely dangerous to our democracy.
	So the endless threats against our democracy that just never end.
	Well, the our democracy bit, I think is the important thing.
	Who's democracy?
	But it also very much reminds me of when people say we have 24 hours to save the NHS. We have three months to save the NHS. Oh, we've got 12 years to save the planet.
	Yeah.
	But I don't know if you've seen the list.
	There's a great list.
	I think it's like Guardian headlines of, you know, X time to save the NHS going back to like, you know, 1980.
	Yeah.
	And it's like, okay, whatever.
	Anyway, there's also the audio track there for Silver and Gold Tier members to go and check out because reading is a pain.
	And if we carry on, we have the Contemplations.
	So this is how bad people can become popular.
	I believe, what is it, Josh and...
	Harry, I think it was.
	I can't remember, sorry.
	But they did this about how do horrible people basically become popular and somehow liked, even though they're horrible people.
	So go and check that out.
	Being a sociopath means that you're remarkably detached and you can manipulate people by not really caring about them.
	So we'll carry on.
	We have a new article from John Tangney as well.
	Yeah, I listened to this.
	It was really good.
	It is framed around Dune, but it's not really about Dune.
	But I'm not going to spoil it.
	It's very interesting.
	I'll say more about that as well, except that there is, of course, the audio track for Silver and Gold.
	And the last thing to mention is the epochs of the Nika riots, red versus blues.
	No, no, it's greens versus blues.
	Oh, greens versus blues, sorry.
	There were red and white teams, but they became less important at the time.
	But this is a really interesting...
	It's only about two weeks' worth of Byzantine history that happens, but Bo and I go into the context surrounding it, what it's all about, and why it ends up in a massive bloodbath with, like, 30,000 people being murdered.
	It's mad.
	All I know is the justifications seem to have been just ultra-tribalism.
	Yes.
	Nothing else.
	Yes.
	Which is amazing.
	The whole thing is incredible amounts of tribalism.
	And the thing is, the worst part about the whole thing is that the Empire is going fairly well at this point as well, the Eastern Roman Empire, and they're just doing this to themselves.
	Constantinople is just this flaming ruin.
	And all the other cities around must be seeing these pillars of smoke going, what are they doing?
	You know, everything's going great.
	Why are they doing this to themselves?
	These are all self-inflicted wounds.
	And they're not even religious either.
	I know.
	That's the funniest part.
	Sport.
	It's unbelievable.
	Just imagine, like, North FC, South FC, and London's just on fire in the middle of the Imperial Age.
	Yeah, basically.
	But it's mad.
	And it just goes to show you what happens if you choose arbitrary distinctions and then politicise all of society along those distinctions.
	It ends up with civil war.
	And it's not good.
	And tens of thousands of people die.
	And it's something to be avoided.
	Just so you know.
	I don't know.
	Part of me would just go based.
	Because it's so pointless.
	It makes no sense whatsoever.
	Just green team.
	Like, that's it.
	No, I'm blue.
	That's it.
	Anyway, moving on.
	So, last thing to mention from the editor is keep the video comments to 30 seconds.
	That is the limit.
	And we can't deal with ones that go over because, well, there's not enough time or not.
	Anyway, so, apart from that, let's get into Project Veritas.
	Yeah, so Project Veritas have recently been raided by the Feds because this is an aspect of the continued politicization of the United States under the Biden regime.
	So this begins with the release of the alleged diary of Ashley Biden.
	Now, this was released by National File, a right-wing website that published the entire 112 pages of this.
	So I had a read of it.
	I read about 50, 60 pages of it.
	And it was written in 2019.
	It's 112 pages long.
	And it's got consistent handwriting throughout while using different pens.
	And the handwriting's pretty unique.
	And so if it's a fake diary and it's the contribution of many different people, well, I would be surprised, frankly.
	It looks very particular and I'd recognize it in other contexts, and I'm no handwriting expert.
	But it seems to be the diary of a woman who has had a significant amount of emotional trauma in her life and is attempting to figure out what she even wants with her life.
	It maps out in the beginning where she is and where she wants to be in a year's time.
	It was written in 2019, so in a year's time, 2020, she wanted...
	How old is she?
	She was 37, I think 38, when she wrote this.
	And she's 40-odd now.
	But she's painfully single, and she's getting over a breakup with a chap called Kevin.
	And on page 9, she complains that she's 38, single, with no children and no clear path forward.
	And I'm just like, wow.
	Like, women, don't let that be you, I'm telling you.
	She meets other people's children, and then she longs for having children herself, and she lists the good and the bad of her previous relationships, and she's attracted to a man called Kevin, who already has children and is emotionally distant.
	She calls him as emotionally immature as I am.
	She's very jealous and makes up visions of him spending time with other women, which she admits is irrational.
	She complains that he still loves his ex and calls herself an incredible catch.
	Halfway through the diary, she splits up with him, and then she finds out her estranged husband has found another woman, and she's furious about this.
	She's like, do I love my estranged husband?
	I don't know what's going on.
	She's struggling with her own emotions.
	Parts of it are very sexually charged, and on page 25 is the Part where most of the right-wing commentariat have seized on.
	Because she says, I've always been boy crazy.
	I remember pulling up my skirt in second grade and showing the boys my underpants.
	Hypersexualized at a young age, what is this due to?
	Was I molested?
	I think so.
	I can't remember specifics, but I do remember trauma.
	I remember not liking the Wolzak's house, which is a family of some sort.
	I remember being somewhat sexualized with Caroline.
	I remember having sex with friends at a young age.
	Showers with my dad, probably not appropriate.
	Being turned on when I wasn't supposed to be, etc, etc.
	And so she doesn't level any accusations against Joe Biden.
	Wait, does Joe Biden know her dad?
	Yes.
	Showers with my dad?
	Yeah.
	But she doesn't say what age is she showering with him.
	Right.
	So, I don't know, right?
	Yeah.
	And I don't want to, you know, say anything that I can't validate.
	But this is the quote from it, and...
	This is what's been seized upon, as you can see with the National Files headline there.
	But, like, the whole thing really, well, what I read, the half I read, was an emotional rollercoaster.
	But she's just trying to figure out, like, you know, why she is as she is and what she wants.
	And there's quite a lot of, like, table making.
	So she'll have pros and cons, and she'll list...
	And, I mean, if this is a fraud, then whoever wrote it should probably just start writing novels because it's quite a gripping read.
	It's like, okay, well, you know, these problems seem like real human problems.
	She's engaged in real human relationships and she's on this emotional rollercoaster where she doesn't know how to get her life back on track.
	It's like, okay, well, write a book.
	You're going to sell a lot of copies.
	But we don't know how the National File got this, whether it's authentic or not or anything like that.
	And that's why Project Veritas didn't publish it.
	So anyway, come November 5th, the New York Times posted this article about how people tied to Project Veritas are being scrutinised in the theft of diary from Biden's daughter.
	So as they report, the Justice Department searched two locations associated with Project Veritas as part of an investigation into how a diary stolen from President Biden's daughter Ashley came to be publicly disclosed a week and a half before the 2020 presidential election, according to People Briefed on the Matter.
	Well, that implies that the diary is valid.
	It is a real diary, that it's not fake.
	And to be honest with you, after reading half of it, I don't think it's fake.
	Why was the Justice Department care enough to go raiding places?
	If it wasn't in some way real, exactly.
	And after reading it, it seems real to me.
	Federal agency in New York conducted court-ordered searches on Thursday, one in New York City and one in a suburban Westchester County, targeting people who had worked for the group and its leader, James O'Keefe.
	And so, basically, what they're describing as scrutiny is literally the feds banging on the doors and saying, right, let us in, we're searching the place and we're taking stuff.
	I'm like, right, okay, why?
	Project Veritas didn't publish this diary, why would you be doing this?
	But also it's just a diary.
	Yeah.
	I'm sorry, but there's nothing in there that threatens Homeland Security.
	So what kind of justification is there for the federal government?
	Great question.
	Even if they had stolen it?
	Yeah, so the New York Times admit that Project Veritas didn't publish the diary, but dozens of handwritten pages from it were posted on a right-wing website.
	They don't even name national file in this.
	Just a right-wing website?
	You don't need to know any more than that.
	Don't go looking for it.
	I had to go dig this up myself.
	And so this was around the time when Trump was trying to undermine Biden's credibility by portraying Hunter Biden as engaging in corrupt business dealings, which he did.
	This was ignored by most of the media.
	To be honest with you, I didn't find the post that scandalous.
	I mean, the only allegation against Biden in there is that he had a shower with her, but we don't know how old she was, and she says probably inappropriate.
	It's like, well, maybe.
	I mean, if she's 15, yes, that's obviously inappropriate, but if she's 7, that's not, like, the same thing.
	So I don't know.
	But she doesn't accuse Biden of molesting her, although she does claim that she had some sort of trauma as a child.
	The website said it obtained the diary from a whistleblower who worked for a media organisation that refused to publish a story about it before the election.
	It claimed to know where the actual diary is located and what the whistleblower said in an audio recording of Ashley Biden admitting it was hers.
	But again, we don't know who these people are and I haven't seen it or heard it, so I don't want to commit to anything there.
	But the Trump administration's Justice Department, which was then under Barr, opened an investigation into the matter.
	Shortly after, a representative of the Biden family reported to federal authorities that several of her items were stolen in a burglary.
	And this is where this has all come from, and so Project Veritas are the ones in trouble by this.
	An FBI spokesman in New York said they wouldn't comment on the investigation, only saying they performed law enforcement activity related to an ongoing investigation.
	What, raiding journalists?
	That's a yes as well.
	Yeah, exactly.
	A, that's a yes.
	But B, raiding journalists?
	Is that just law enforcement activity?
	I don't know.
	But this is...
	I think we're talking about this like it's the jewels of the nation or something, right?
	It's a book with some confessions in about someone's opinions.
	It's a diary.
	It's not...
	It's how Ashley Biden feels.
	And honestly, it feels like a teenage girl's diary.
	It's written in that kind of style where it's just very emotive.
	And she's just talking about her personal problems most of the time.
	It's not the launch codes.
	No, no, it's not.
	It's not that important.
	So a more fair representation of this was the New York Post, raided by the feds, which I think is a more accurate description of what's going on there.
	They don't give us any new information on that, so we'll just move over to the Project Veritas video.
	So Project Veritas released a video about this.
	The other day, if we can go to the next one, where James O'Keefe is, and I think rightly, upset by the way that they've been treated by a government institution.
	Because I do think this is, and he implies and in fact directly states, this is a part of the continued politicization of the institutions of the United States in a long part of the United States, and I think he's right.
	So the Justice Department, when they subpoenaed them, they asked them not to disclose that they'd been subpoenaed.
	Why?
	What are you ashamed of?
	Why don't you want the public knowing that you're going after Project Veritas, Department of Justice?
	I think that's a fair question.
	But anyway, he says that within an hour of the SBI raid on Spencer Mead's apartment, Spencer Mead being one of the journalists at Project Veritas, the New York Times contacted them for comment.
	So an hour after it happened, the New York Times ring up saying, hey, have you got a comment on this?
	Sorry, how do you know that happened?
	This is very typical in England.
	What happens is the cops just ring up the media and tell them that this is going to happen.
	Yes.
	And then it happens and then the media are there at the doorstop with the cops.
	Yes.
	And that seems to have been what happened here because this was a secret investigation.
	So how else would the New York Times have been aware of it?
	O'Keefe points out that his organisation acted properly and ethically by refusing to publish the diary because they couldn't verify it.
	You know, like journalists should.
	You need two sources, apparently.
	And if you can't verify a thing, you don't publish it.
	Unlike the pissed dossier BuzzFeed.
	So they couldn't confirm whether the diary was real, whether it belonged to Ashley Biden, or the events in there were real, so they didn't do anything with it.
	In fact, they attempted to give the diary to Ashley Biden's attorneys, who refused to authenticate it and wouldn't take it, so they attempted to give it to law enforcement and did not publish it.
	So they just gave it to the cops.
	Right.
	See, this is what makes me think, because the thing there is that, well, they've already got it back.
	Yeah.
	Right?
	So, and the fact that it's a bloody diary is not really that important anyway.
	It's been on the internet for over a year.
	Exactly.
	So, Project Veritas almost certainly actually just investigating something else that is going to embarrass the Biden administration.
	Well, it's possible.
	And therefore, oh, we'll do a raid over that diary thing.
	It's possible, but I can't say I've got...
	That's my speculation.
	Yeah, that...
	I don't know why else they'd waste so much time on such a thing.
	Well, again, it could be about intimidating political opposition, frankly.
	If they are that petty, sure.
	Well, I do believe they are that petty.
	But anyway, yeah, so obviously James O'Keefe said that Project Veritas did nothing wrong, and he seems to be correct.
	If anything, I'm actually surprised that there's any outlet with any kind of integrity to, you know, Verify things?
	Double-check them?
	Not publish something if they can't prove that they're real?
	I mean, I'm actually quite impressed, to be honest.
	But he finishes by characterizing this as Biden's Department of Justice attacking American journalism, as further evidence of the deep partisanship of the current political environment.
	And, well, he's not really wrong, is he?
	Because there seems to be quite a lot of evidence of the deep partisanship and politicization of American institutions.
	Like back in May this year, Epoch Times published a very long and quite comprehensive article about how Biden is politicizing the Department of Justice.
	What he has done in this, as reported, is put Brookings Institute alumni, so Brookings Institute being a left-wing think tank, A chap called Hennessy and Brookings contributor Monaco, both of whom are deeply entangled in promoting the Russia collusion hoax, have now both got enormously influential positions in the Department of Justice.
	So Russiagate conspiracy theorists and partisans are deeply influential in the Department of Justice.
	Fine example, frankly.
	And the Federalist thinks that the politicization of these institutions goes back at least to Obama, where you may remember that the FBI used political opposition research paid for by the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign to get a secret court warrant to spy on a Trump campaign member.
	You remember that there was a bug at Trump Tower?
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	So it seems to be openly politicized.
	It also showed the FBI omitted vital information as warrants to request to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the FISA court.
	Namely, the FBI kept asking for warrant renewals without telling the court the FBI itself had dismissed Christopher Steele, who generated the opposition research for lying to the FBI and leaking his relationship with the agency to the press.
	Both are not only unethical, but likely illegal.
	But, of course, nothing's going to happen because of the political nature of the people involved.
	Steele being the person who put together the pissed LCA, which, of course, turned out to be absolutely nothing.
	In fact, when checked, Trump wasn't anywhere near Russia when he was supposed to have been and things like that.
	Just literal fake news.
	No proof that he pissed on a bed or whatever Obama had been in.
	I believe the allegation was he got prostitutes to piss on the bed.
	Oh, sorry, that was right.
	That's right.
	It was not real.
	Literal fake news.
	Obviously a lie.
	There was no evidence of Russia collusion and these people are deeply influential in America's institutions.
	The next one I found was an interesting accusation from a foreign think tank called the School of International Studies from Singapore.
	But one thing that they pointed out in this is that by retiring, they say, quote, by recycling retired FSOs into government as Schedule Cs, the Democrats are not doing career foreign service professionals any favors.
	And so they give a bunch of examples where basically people who are Democrat partisans are being put in influential positions, and this is weakening the efficacy of the institutions by party loyalty over merit.
	Where have you seen this before?
	Every socialist country ever.
	Such behaviour, they say, plays into long-standing Republican accusations that career foreign service is de facto a partisan institution, an optic that makes it harder for State Department to do its job, even during normal Republican administrations.
	And it seems that these are accusations with merit, doesn't it?
	If they're actually doing it, the Republicans are saying, hey, you're politicizing this institution?
	Well, yeah, and the Democrats don't seem to care.
	Another example of this is Joe Biden's attack on the military, and the reason I think that the military got absolutely trounced recently, because they're just going down the drain.
	But Biden has been claiming that the military is rife with white supremacy when he first came in this year, and this is a chap called Kash Patel who doesn't agree.
	He's not white.
	Doubt he's a white supremacist.
	But he is part of a socio-economic group that's at the higher echelons of American society and therefore upholding the system of white supremacy.
	He was part of the Trump administration.
	You got him.
	Yeah.
	Therefore.
	In my two tools at the Department of Defense, white supremacy is not rampant throughout the Department of Defense, but is outrageous and offensive.
	This is the continued politicization of the Defense Department at the expense of our national security.
	Well, I believe it, to be honest.
	And I think this is best seen in the treatment of the January 6th rioters.
	Like, the things they did were not as extreme as it was being claimed.
	I was going to say it would come from the leaks you get out of the military these days.
	All just their open advertisements.
	Well, yeah.
	Yeah, obviously.
	But the whole institutions, the sort of governing institutions in the United States, do appear to be deliberately politicized by the Democrats.
	Yeah.
	Marjorie Taylor Greene met with several people who were arrested for allegedly taking part in the riots, describing them as political prisoners who are being kept in deplorable conditions.
	I agree with this.
	I think this is correct.
	The prisoners have been denied bail and forced to stay in horrible conditions.
	They've been in these terrible conditions.
	Broken toilets where they can't use, there's mold on the wall.
	Imagine on misdemeanor charges being treated this way.
	We're seeing high crime and we're seeing people live in god-awful conditions that should not exist.
	And I think that that's true.
	I think this is being done deliberately.
	I think they're being used as an example, frankly, by the Biden administration to essentially say, don't step out of line because we will weaponize the force of the state against you.
	Even though, what did they even do?
	We've moved a few things around.
	They're not being charged with treason, is my understanding.
	A bunch of people in there are being charged with petty misdemeanors.
	Yes.
	And therefore they're being treated like Gitmo prisoners.
	And they've been held for like 10 months as if they are in Gitmo.
	And this is totally unfair.
	But why?
	Because they're right-wing and it's being done by left-wingers.
	We actually have a premium podcast about exactly what has happened to the January 6th rioters done by Harry the other day that will be coming out later this week.
	So you can find out about that on Notices.com because, honestly, it's awful the way these people have been treated.
	And I don't want to talk about it on YouTube because, I mean, who knows what they're going to do?
	You know, who knows what their editorial policy will be tomorrow?
	I hate the idea that a couple of them are going to end up dying in there or committing suicide and you won't be able to say it.
	Well, it's possible.
	Honestly, it sounds awful.
	Because we've got the reports firsthand from the people who are in there that we talk about in the podcast.
	And it's just like, why would anyone treat anyone like this?
	I swear to God, it has to be deliberate.
	Anyway, speaking about deliberate mistreatment, so...
	It's okay to be white is a hate crime.
	As in, that phrase there.
	In fact, I think under British law, technically, I've just broken the law as well.
	Fantastic.
	Well, you can get your criminal sentence.
	Well, oh well.
	What's he gonna do?
	I disavow.
	This is the story here.
	Politics are all reporting.
	Posters saying it's okay to be white have sparked a police hate crime investigation reported by the BBC. So not even just some local gazette or something that's made this story up, probably put the posts on themselves or something.
	No, no, no.
	This is a real thing.
	So if we continue on this, I just wanted to demonstrate, firstly, the response from normal people, such as Lawrence Fox, who just like, yeah?
	Yeah.
	Yeah, it's okay to be white.
	It is okay to be white.
	You got me.
	It's not a morally loaded statement, normally, to normal people.
	No.
	I mean, you could make the argument, as Boris Johnson no doubt has many a time, with, I disagree with BLM, but black lives do matter.
	That would be his argument, right?
	And you don't get the same response in response to this.
	Of course you don't.
	This isn't even some sort of positive step forward.
	This is just saying, well, this position is fine.
	It's not even a position.
	It's not even that white people are good or white is good.
	It's okay.
	It's neutral.
	That's the brilliance of this as a political tactic, to be honest.
	Because it's a morally neutral statement.
	It's okay to be anything, any color.
	I mean, I love the fact that this is, so the origins of this, for people who might not know, is I think it was in 2017, this popped up first on 4chan as a bit of a joke.
	Yeah.
	It's like, imagine if we all went on Halloween, put these posters up, people are going to lose their minds.
	And they did.
	They absolutely did.
	So then they did it next year.
	Yeah.
	The next year.
	And it was just like, okay, well, here's the yearly tradition of what to do on Halloween.
	But the question is, why is the BBC covering it?
	Because, I mean, like, okay, so what happened here?
	Well, someone put up a single sheet of A4 on a lamppost in some town in England.
	But that's the thing.
	Why did it carry on and take off?
	Well, it's because it's so simple.
	And because it gets them.
	And because it gets them.
	But also, it gets them for a reason.
	Yeah.
	And it's because they know that, well, there's positive discrimination in our country and many others.
	But anyway, let's go through the response.
	So if we go to the next one here, this is the BBC article itself in which they say, Basingstoke, it's okay to be white, posters spark investigation.
	Posters saying it's okay to be white have sparked a police hate crime investigation.
	Presumably when they get the guy, they're going to shove him in the slammer.
	I want to know what the hate crime is.
	I want them to detail to the public why this is a hateful statement.
	Towards who?
	Who's the victim?
	Who's the perceived victim?
	Yeah.
	Non-white people in general?
	And a victim of what?
	And does that, yeah, that implies that they hold the position that being white is bad.
	Yes.
	Which I don't think they do.
	I mean, the proponent is not saying it's good, he's saying it's okay.
	Yeah.
	And therefore, well, that's what's going to mean.
	Like, it's okay to be gay.
	To be honest, the guy who put up that poster, hand yourself in.
	I want to see the court case.
	I mean, I'll donate to your GoFundMe or whatever else you do.
	Well, calm down, he might be a Nazi.
	I don't know.
	To be honest, it doesn't matter.
	Like, that's the point.
	I want to see in the courtroom, like, even if he is a genuine neo-nazi, let's go for steel man position, you know, this guy is like, yeah, white race, all the rest of it, right?
	I still don't know how you get him for saying it's okay to be white, in the same way as if he said, humans need to drink water to survive, being like, well, shut him down.
	He is a Nazi, so, you know.
	It's like, well, he hasn't said anything that's untrue, and again, just because Hitler says you need oxygen to breathe, I'm not going to hold my breath.
	Anyway, so they're saying here, they found on lampposts two roads in Basingstoke, near Basingstoke College of Technology.
	The Hampshire Constabulary was alerted to the posters by residents on Thursday, and they said they were treating it as a hate crime.
	But again, as you say, a hate crime against who?
	Whom?
	Well, we have the name of the, well, singular person who decided to report it.
	So Basingstoke and Dean Borough Council has arranged for the posters to be removed.
	That's your...
	What the hell is Basingstoke and Dean?
	I don't know.
	It's somewhere nowhere!
	It's, you know, it's not London.
	It's some tiny shire place somewhere.
	Yeah.
	So resident Priya Brown said, these tactics are divisive and they have no place in today's world.
	These tactics that are used to divide deliberately by neo-Nazi groups and white supremacist groups.
	It started in the US, but now we've seen it here in the UK. So these are tactics.
	How does she know it's a tactic?
	But also, I love the phrasing.
	Just replace neo-Nazi with socialists and you have BLM. These are tactics to divide us.
	They're being done deliberately.
	Okay, what is the Black Lives Matter organisation?
	What are they doing?
	Okay, there are a bunch of socialists who are doing exactly the same thing.
	But does this mean that Priya Brown doesn't believe it's okay to be white?
	Presumably yes.
	She never states that no.
	And it's interesting how she happens to be a non-white person herself.
	So it seems that she's some kind of racial supremacist.
	But also the Hampshire constabulary here, the people who are investigating this as a hate crime, what's their opinion on whether or not it's okay to be white?
	Probably not good.
	No, we can prove it.
	So if we go to the next one here, I just found online them celebrating diversity and inclusion.
	I think it's on the third tweet I have here.
	They are responding to some interview in which they've won an award for being the best employers for race.
	Really?
	Don't know what the hell that is, but whatever.
	We have racial awards nowadays.
	Yeah, and if we go to the next one on this, you can see them responding.
	No, no, hang on.
	Wear that racial award with pride.
	Say, look, yeah, we're the best racial employers.
	We're the race police.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Yeah, you should be proud of that.
	That's definitely what we were looking for in this country, isn't it?
	How did they get it?
	Well, they say how they got it in the interview.
	So if we go to the next image on that, you can see them saying that as well as our positive action internship, they did racial discrimination against white applicants.
	Our Black Ethnic and Minority Network group are so experienced and passionate about improving all we do for our BAME communities and stuff, and today's acknowledgement is a testament to that.
	Wow.
	But they literally did a positive action internship.
	So right, you deliberately discriminated against white applicants to get an award for being the best race police in the country, and now you're investigating a guy putting up a sign that says it's okay to be white.
	I mean, it does, by implication, say that we don't care about the white communities.
	But it's also the point of the sign.
	So, I mean, it's a meme in the US. It's a meme because it's funny.
	They respond to it.
	But in the UK and other countries...
	No, but the sign actually does have an argument, which is, well, Hampshire constabulary, as a point of example, as a local group, are engaging in racial discrimination.
	Yes.
	That's wrong.
	It is okay to be white.
	You don't or you shouldn't discriminate against white applicants for jobs.
	There's actually a line of logic there.
	I mean, that's correct.
	And no, no, you do not get to engage in such civil rights action for white people not to be discriminated against for internships.
	Not allowed.
	The police will investigate you if you dare do it.
	Imagine the reverse.
	Who is this Priya Brown again?
	What does she do?
	So, she was an activist for the Women's and Equality Party, so this is an archive of her tweet.
	Thankfully, she did say it's okay to be white.
	She added a capital white for some reason.
	Yeah, I don't know why she'd add a capital white, because white is a descriptive term, as in describes a person's colour of the skin.
	It's not an identifier to denote a nationality.
	Yeah, that's not what's taking place, but whatever.
	Okay, so she says it is okay to be white.
	Of course it is.
	Located these posters on the wall.
	And then she's reported them to Hampshire Constabulary.
	And also then tags above the groups.
	Excuse me, police!
	There's a sign I don't like.
	Oh God, what's it say, Miss?
	It says it's okay to be white.
	We'll be right there!
	Literally.
	That's how the phone went.
	I love how later on she's like, thank you for taking my call.
	It's like, yeah, could you imagine the patience on those people having to deal with that nonsense?
	But anyway, she posts a bunch of ads, and she ads the Women's Inequality Party, for example, also the Lib Dems, because she's an activist for them.
	She is a leftist activist.
	People who don't know the Women's In Equality Party, they are a meme.
	Oh yeah.
	Well, they're a feminist party.
	So there are a bunch of feminists and leftists who got together to advocate for equality, socialist value, of course.
	You might remember Jordan Peterson absolutely destroying their leader on Breakfast TV once.
	And what's interesting is, since the story blew up, she deleted that part of her description.
	So you can see there, I stand for equality, Women In Equality Party activist, and then her email address for the party, deleted.
	Deleted that part of her bio.
	Didn't want people to know.
	Interesting how she didn't gain any followers out of this.
	No.
	There's also a response, which I found funny in the comments.
	So, in the comments section of her original tweet, there was someone who responded with, people baffle me, I'm sorry this happens.
	What?
	What harm was done?
	This bloody poster.
	And she responds with, when you see, hear this stuff all the time, it breaks you down bit by bit, sadly.
	What, there are just people constantly going, it's okay to be white, you know, Korea?
	She's like, God, I just don't know about that.
	Starts flinching.
	Yeah.
	Oh, God.
	Anyway, so...
	I mean, she never asked why people keep saying that to her.
	You know, why do they keep saying that?
	You know, you say something, they're like, well, it is okay to be white.
	What were you saying that they felt the need to defend, like, you know, people's existence as white people?
	Yeah.
	But I can't get over all this because, I mean, I mentioned I won't go on a rant again because you've heard it a million times, me ranting about all the different internships in the UK, which you cannot apply for.
	All will be denied because you are white.
	Literally melanin content of your skin.
	Yeah.
	So, I mean, this was all kind of a joke in the US, but over here, I do actually view that as an action of civil rights.
	Yeah.
	Because it is.
	We do have government institutions.
	We're run in the way that California wishes it was run.
	Yes, unironically.
	The Equality Act apparently allows this to take place.
	Do you not recall that the Californian State Senate was trying to get it to repeal the anti-discrimination laws so they could have positive discrimination?
	In California's constitution it said you can't discriminate on race.
	And they're like, well, hang on a second.
	The California Democrats were like, what about white people?
	So they wanted that deleted.
	But anyway, this isn't the first time either.
	That's what I find really interesting as well, is that this is not the first time this has happened.
	And she posted a story in 2020 underneath her tweet, which is funny to read.
	So this is 1st July 2020.
	Quote here, posters carrying the slogan, it's okay to be white, have been found in a Somerset town.
	Again, the fact that the BBC reports on this as if this is momentous, newsworthy or important really shows their hand, doesn't it?
	But also sparking a police probe yet again.
	The Somerset police were also...
	And what did they find?
	Well, nothing.
	Because there's a bloody poster.
	What are you going to go on?
	We're going to dust it for prints.
	I mean, maybe.
	I don't know.
	It didn't find anything.
	CCTV footage?
	I don't know.
	There's a man who's been putting up posters all over the place saying it's okay to be your skin tone.
	Right.
	If we carry on, there's more of these as well.
	So the BBC, yet again, I mean, listen, getting a BBC story published about some minor thing in your town is not easy.
	So that's why, you know, you'll get into the point there.
	That's why I keep highlighting it.
	It's like, well, look, I mean, they're really triggered by this.
	And what I honestly think this is, though, is that I think they do want to have having white skin as being some kind of condemnation.
	I do honestly think that's the case.
	And obviously it's because I've read so much critical race theory.
	Well, it's stock rhetoric for being a left winger these days.
	Yeah, but like, the thing that this challenges is the idea that whiteness is entirely, being white, having the property of being white, is not entirely negative.
	And if you can carve out a sort of small space that says, well look...
	It's neutral.
	Yeah, exactly, exactly.
	It's not even affirmative, it's just neutral, then that actually does damage to the entirely negative construct that they're trying to impose on people with white skin.
	Yeah, I mean, the neutral position is the liberal position on race.
	Yes.
	It's not positive.
	It's the colourblind position on race.
	I don't know why we have to say this, but okay, the BBC doesn't know.
	But again, that's what they're attacking, is the colourblind position on race.
	And as people who hold the colourblind position on race, well, that's why we're covering this.
	But anyway, here's a third example.
	Because this happened again a little while before as well.
	So we have that.
	If we go back on that one.
	So that was the Bristol University one I wanted to talk about.
	So if you go back, John.
	So this is Bristol University students condemn white supremacist posters.
	That was how they framed it this time around.
	A student group has condemned the appearance of posters carrying the slogan, it's okay to be white.
	Again, same thing.
	Because, you know, this is the long-standing running joke at this point.
	This phrase seems innocent on the surface, but in reality, it's a popular dog whistle among white supremacists.
	I'm not a dog.
	I don't hear the dog whistle.
	Yeah.
	Literally, it is the phrase, "It's okay to be white." In the same way you could say, "Well yeah, Black Lives Matter is a fine phrase of its own, but all the socialists behind it is a problem." Sure, you can get that argument, but you're not making that argument, are you?
	You're saying the phrase in and of itself is the problem.
	I love this.
	Bristol West MP Thangham Debonair said, "She was disgusted by the press." I love the- It's okay to be white.
	How dare you, sir?
	Just literally revolted by the idea.
	So they say in here, this is not what Bristol is about.
	Bristol is about condemning white people, okay?
	It's okay to be white.
	This is not what Bristol is about.
	Bristol is a welcoming city.
	Which thrives on all kinds of difference, whether it is race, culture, religion, or something else.
	Amazing.
	But not neutrality.
	We're not having that.
	The university has been working with staff and students to reaffirm, quote, its commitment to inclusion, diversity, and equality in response, according to a spokesman.
	And that's the ideology that is in play here.
	Exactly.
	So in the statement, a liberal statement on race, which is it's okay to be white in the same way it's okay to be black and the rest of it.
	In response to that, the university's like, well, doubling down on equality versus inclusion.
	Which shows you that they have an animus against white people.
	And this happened again as well, in which the BBC ended up reporting on it.
	So we go back, this is like 2019 here.
	I can't get over it.
	So this was the funniest one.
	I had to go through these.
	So, Perth City Centre, it's okay to be white stickers, condemned.
	Condemned by who?
	John Swinney, who is also a member of the Scottish Parliament for Persia North, says the atrocious stickers had no place in Perth or any other part of our country.
	See...
	They are really stepping on the rake here, because if they were just like, well, we don't really know what it's about.
	I mean, you know, obviously we don't have a particular opinion on people because of their race, because that would be unfair and illiberal.
	And so we view this as possibly something that troublemakers are doing, so we're just going to tear them down and ignore them, and have a mature response to it, right?
	That would be like, you know, so we're just going to, you know, move on.
	It would be a nothing.
	This would be a total nothing story.
	But it's the fact that, like, no, this is atrocious.
	There's no place for this.
	It's like, okay.
	What's going on?
	There's clearly some nefarious agenda behind what you're doing, and that's why you're so triggered by this very bland statement.
	There's also no nuance in there.
	There's no, like, condemn 4chan.
	It gives a toss about that.
	Yeah, yeah, disadown 4chan, obviously.
	But at the same time, I agree that, yeah, it's okay to be white.
	Don't say that.
	No.
	They're more obsessed with, no, this needs to be slumped out.
	Police Scotland said it was currently looking into the matter.
	Again, the fourth time.
	The National Socialist Police.
	But it's not just them, you know, Somerset Police.
	You know, Hampshire police.
	We're no better on this front.
	We must stand together to resist this unacceptable material.
	Okay, Mr.
	Swinney.
	It's not okay to be white.
	You've got us.
	We've got to resist it.
	I mean, can you imagine the response being, you know, let's say the BLM movement props up in 2015 or whatever, and the response from Hampshire police is, we're looking into the matter.
	We're going to find the people who put up these posters.
	And the local MP's like, we must stand together to resist this movement and this organisation.
	The Black Lives Matter organisation must be crushed from our country.
	I mean, that would be hilarious.
	Not gonna happen, though.
	And it would probably end up making me defend Black Lives Matter and say, well, look, you know, it's okay to be black.
	Literally.
	That would be the liberal response.
	It's like, whoa, whoa, whoa, calm down, folks.
	Jesus.
	But, no.
	I mean, that's all I'd be able to say is to calm down.
	I mean, again, that's why I view all this through the same lens of civil rights here.
	Oh, yeah.
	There may be why extremists are involved in this sort of thing.
	Sure.
	I mean, Malcolm X was part of the civil rights movement.
	Yeah.
	That doesn't really matter.
	The point is whether or not it should be the law that we can discriminate against applicants for jobs.
	And, well, Hampshire police were and then investigated the person who called them out.
	Yeah.
	By definition there.
	So anyway, continuing on this, sickening and disgusting, right?
	I mean, turn up the rhetoric.
	Don't tone it down.
	The fact that they read so much into this just really implies that what this has done is hit on their own personal agenda.
	Yes.
	That's all I can hear from this, is that they can't take a position of neutrality because they have a position of antipathy.
	So they say in here, the message originally appeared in 2017 as a poster campaign in the United States, organised by an internet messaging board.
	Well, it's 4chan, just they say 4chan.
	As if that makes it more credible.
	With the aim of provoking reactions.
	Which worked.
	What are you doing?
	Great job just reeling out, throwing out the bait and then reeling it in.
	It was later picked up and spread by neo-Nazi groups.
	It doesn't matter, because what's weird is this is antithetical to their own ideology.
	Yeah, yeah, they don't agree with that.
	They don't actually agree it's okay to be white.
	They think it's bloody great to be white or something like that.
	They think it's the messiah.
	Yeah, yeah, absolutely.
	Which is not actually what their own ideology states, which is funny, but okay.
	It's like getting the Black Lives Matter guys to put those posters up.
	You guys know that your ideology doesn't agree with this, but whatever.
	I love this.
	One person told the group, I am certainly worried now for my daughters, who are not white but are from Perth.
	That was Perth against racism.
	Worried about their daughters.
	Yeah, what do you think is going to happen?
	Yeah.
	My daughters might have a neutral view on white people.
	Then what?
	Yeah.
	Oh, no.
	The Liberal World Order might come about.
	It's sickening and disgusting to know that people think like this.
	Yeah.
	I mean, this is all the layout as I've tried to make it.
	I love it.
	Which is just that it's okay to be white.
	That's the phrase.
	Right.
	That's the problem.
	Right.
	And then we compare this, obviously, to BLM. So I can just think about the reaction to the BLM stuff.
	So we go to the next one here.
	We have the London fireworks.
	You remember when they had the Black Lives Matter fist and the overseer?
	Yep.
	I don't know what you call them, screaming out, Black Lives Matter, in a big PA to all the people of London.
	Can you imagine if Boris was like, we need to shut that down.
	We need to put those people in their place.
	It's sickening and disgusting that they're able to do this.
	Boris, it's okay to be black.
	Calm down, bro.
	Just stop, man.
	Yeah, and then, of course, we have the extremists behind BLM, because, I mean, that's not spent too long on this, but gets you to the point.
	So this is one of the co-founders.
	What was her name?
	Patrice Cullens.
	Patrice Cullens, who said she was a trained Marxist.
	And then if we go to the next one, we have another one of the founders.
	This was Elisa Garcia.
	Is this the one with all the mansions?
	I think this is the one with the property empire that she's building.
	And she said in here, I believe that all we have to do is keep dismantling the organisation principle of the society, which creates inequalities for everyone, even white people.
	Which is amazing, considering how many mansions she now owns.
	My favourite bit about this is when Channel 4 came out and said, me owning lots of mansions is Marxism.
	I agree.
	The Marxism long game.
	But also the violence.
	Because, of course, the It's Okay to Be White movement hasn't burned down any neighbourhoods or any white neighbourhoods.
	I don't even know if it's a movement.
	No, it's just people putting up stickers.
	Yeah, this is my opinion on race.
	Yeah, except, you know, I couldn't pick a specific image for this because there's just so many.
	But the BLO movement did actually end up burning down loads of black neighbourhoods and black-owned businesses.
	I wonder if people went around putting up It's Okay to Be Black signs, what kind of response would they get?
	That was part of the evolution.
	People did start doing that.
	Oh, did they?
	No response.
	Weird.
	Anyway, carrying on with this.
	So I thought we'd also just go around some of the funny stuff that happened in the past, because why not?
	So this is Pauline Hanson, who said in the Senate of Australia, she forced the Senate to have a vote on whether or not it's okay to be white.
	I remember.
	Let's play.
	I ask the General Business Notice of Motion Number 1092, standing in my name for today, relating to anti-white racism, be taken as a formal motion.
	Anyone who pays attention to the news or spends any time on social media has to acknowledge that there has been a rise in anti-white racism and a rise in attacks on the very ideals of Western civilisation.
	I would also hope the Senate does the right thing and acknowledges It is indeed okay to be white.
	Such a simple sentence should go without saying, but I suspect many members in this place would struggle to say it.
	People have a right to be proud of their cultural background, whether they are black, white or brindle.
	If we cannot agree on this, I think it's safe to say any white racism is well and truly rife in our society.
	Oh, wow.
	Said it each.
	The federal election looming, I'm starting to think that Senator Hanson and a former colleague, Senator Anning, are now locked in a race to see who can be the biggest, the loudest, racist bigot.
	Order, there being 28 ayes and 31 noes, the matter is resolved in the negative.
	They voted no.
	I mean, I'm aware that Pauline Hanson's got quite a controversial history, generally.
	She's quite an outspoken, but I mean, based on that, you know, well, I think there are a lot of people who are racist against white people, and I think we should agree that there's nothing wrong with being a white person.
	It's like, you racist bigots!
	But even part of the speech was, you have a right to be proud of your culture, whether you're black, white, or Brendon.
	I don't care what colour you are, it's just, it's okay.
	Look at your racist bigotry.
	God damn!
	But they voted no, overwhelmingly.
	Yeah, I know.
	So, it's okay to be white.
	Let's put that to a vote.
	The Senate voted no.
	Right.
	Okay.
	Message received.
	So this is why in Australian media you ended up with scenes like this.
	It's just like, you know, hosts wearing it's okay to be white shirts.
	Or why when Lauren Southern went there, she wore the shirt.
	Because it was just like, what the hell's wrong with this place?
	Like, you're a senate's phone, it's not okay.
	Okay.
	Hanson also won re-election, so good on her.
	Let's carry on from this.
	This is also why you had soy boys back in the day denouncing this.
	If you scroll down on this, just see the like-dislikes, because, I mean...
	How did they think this was going to go?
	Yeah.
	Oh wow, 24,000 dislikes.
	Nearly 2,000 upvotes.
	Not even visible, the upvotes there.
	And then we'll just end on this last bit, which is that the evolution of this prank is also very funny.
	And remember, it is a prank.
	Well, it is a prank.
	Unless you're in a society that actually does discriminate against white people, in which case, well, it becomes political speech that the cops try to shut down.
	Yeah, because what it is, it's a torch, isn't it?
	A flashlight that's on a particular problem.
	And they can't bear that, so that's got to be stopped.
	Yeah, the police are not investigating people in the United States, presumably.
	But in the UK, no, you will actually get investigated for a hate crime and take them to court and charge, presumably.
	So this was the funny evolution, which some mad lad did for a joke, and then it also blew up, which is the flyer saying, Islam is right about women.
	Oh, yes.
	Let's just enjoy this.
	Islam is right about women?
	What?
	For women, the message is insulting and unnerving.
	I think it's disgusting.
	It's unsettling.
	It's somewhat of a misconception that, like, Islam...
	I guess hates women.
	Two were posted downtown, several more found at the elementary and high schools, and Unitarian Church.
	It's unclear who they target, women or Islam.
	It's either about women, it's either about Islam, it's about both.
	I'm not really sure what point they were trying to make, but either way it was just...
	It was terrible.
	That kind of sign is very upsetting to anyone with either an Islamic background or for many women.
	I love that.
	I mean, literal NPCs are like, it's wrong, why?
	Don't know.
	I mean, it's attacking women and Muslims.
	It's like, no, I think the Muslims would support that.
	I think they would have to support, a good Muslim would have to support the idea that Islam is correct about what women are.
	I couldn't find it.
	I really should have now.
	There was one other interview in which I think it was a different news station.
	They interviewed a lady in a burka who lived in the same town and she went, well, I think people have a right to say whatever they want.
	That was her response.
	Is I right about women?
	Yes.
	That was her answer.
	But also, she defended free speech and every other NPC in the town was like, I'm offended.
	Shut it down.
	Why are you offended?
	I don't know.
	Okay.
	Literal NPCs.
	There's definitely something at play here.
	Yeah, but also the people who are offended by it's okay to be white.
	White.
	Because it shines a light on what is in the UK should be criminal activity, which the public rightly perceived as criminal.
	But anyway, let's leave that there.
	This actually leads into the next story very well, actually, because we're talking about the weaponization of language.
	And so today I decided to log into Twitter to see what's going on, and I saw Woke was trending with like 130,000 tweets.
	And it's because Ben Shapiro and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez were complaining Well, we're arguing about the term Woken.
	AOC was complaining, oh, well, the rights weaponizing language.
	It's like, oh, really?
	Really?
	The rights weaponizing language?
	Well, what do you mean?
	Well, they've learned all of our dirty tricks, and now they're playing them.
	Christopher Ufo has, you know, We've polarized critical race theory and frozen it in the minds of conservatives that it's a form of racist activism that seeks to overthrow the United States because it's a white supremacist project in their view, which is an accurate description of how they think of things.
	And so good, the conservatives have realized that critical race theory is the main tool of evil that the left is using.
	And they're not happy about it.
	And they're complaining that the same thing has been done with the word woke.
	Because, of course, this was originally a left-wing word to signify awareness of systemic oppression.
	I can't prove it, and I've mentioned it before, but I'll mention it again.
	I swear, and I swear on my life, it was actually a word used by 4chaners before the left did.
	Maybe.
	It would be, you're woke on the Jews.
	That was the thing.
	I swear it was in that neonati-like phrase, and then it somehow jumped to the left, and then it became the mainstream of them.
	I think they may have picked it up from the left.
	Yeah.
	Maybe.
	Because the left certainly have been using this for quite some time.
	There's a nice pipeline between those two.
	There is indeed.
	And so it seems to focus around this article written by Alternet that was done, what was the date?
	Back in May or something this year.
	But it was posted out by a bunch of people, got picked up by a bunch of checkmarkers, and there's a huge...
	But I thought it was actually a very interesting article, and it speaks to a lot of the stuff that we've been working on, and what you need to be aware of.
	And I do think the Conservatives need to start getting sharp on these issues, because the left has been weaponizing language, your language, against you, and it's something you need to know.
	So, let's just go through what they're saying here.
	So they begin with, right-wing operatives have recently mounted a campaign against the idea and practice of wokeness.
	The word has the pretense of a neutral reference but is increasingly used to debase and belittle the underlying meaning of anti-racism and anti-bigotry.
	Similar rhetorical tactics have a long history in conservatism and they allow the GOP to obscure policy objectives while simultaneously evoking negative and positive emotions.
	Overall, the GOP benefits from imprecise language soaked with connotation.
	God, imagine.
	Imprecise language soaked with connotation.
	Oh, you're a white supremacist.
	God, what does that mean?
	Well, lots of definitions.
	It's a person and a system.
	Yeah, exactly.
	And so, yeah, it's definitely not just the right that's doing this, although I will concede that the right-wing are also doing this.
	But subversion of language isn't exclusive to the right, is it?
	After all, define racism.
	A-racism.
	Define woman.
	Define any of these things.
	I mean, one of the things that Kim Blue Crenshaw and the other critical race theorists expressly say is that what we're going to do is expand language to mean things it doesn't mean.
	And in this way, destroy essentially the liberal understanding of the world.
	And this is what they've done.
	So they say, in the case of woke and wokeness, conservatives are undermining a positive idea with derisive figurative language.
	Well, is it a positive idea?
	That's a value judgment.
	If you don't agree with what wokeism is, then you don't see it as being a positive idea, do you?
	Consider a converse example in which Republicans advanced an ugly principle through positive framing: waterboarding.
	It was described as "enhanced interrogation by conservatives" and this was repeated by the press corps.
	Yeah.
	And that's correct.
	That's exactly the way that you have been operating.
	By reducing the language, devaluing the language, as we discussed in our premium podcast on the subject.
	We've got a couple that are actually really important, and we go into this in great depth.
	Do you remember them?
	The ones in which we talked about the thick concepts?
	Yep, and the devaluing of language.
	The ethics of social justice.
	How social justice ends up justifying evil is because what they do is reframe what's going on, and this is exactly what they're complaining about, the enhanced interrogation.
	Again, value-free language is used in place of value-laden language, which you would otherwise have said torture.
	Torture has got many negative connotations, but enhanced interrogation, well, it could be anything.
	And this is how social justice advocates do the same thing on their side.
	Definitely worth your time.
	I did a lot of work on this, so it's totally worth it.
	And we also went on to, what is this value-laden language?
	Well, these are what they call, well, what was it, Peter Strawson, I think it was, called thick concepts.
	Concepts that are descriptive and judgmental at the same time.
	It's a murder or a theft, things like this.
	Rather than a criminal.
	Yes.
	Yes.
	And again, I did a lot of work on this.
	Totally worth your time.
	And this essentially means that the combination of these two things is what we call ethical knowledge, which we can get to the next one.
	Again, like I said, we've been doing a hell of a lot of work on this, but I do think it is important because this will cover what I think you need to know about this subject in detail.
	And you do need to know about it because the left are definitely waging this war linguistically against you.
	They've been playing this game for a long time and they're very, very good at it.
	Conservatives are actually kind of immature when it comes to it.
	Oh, well, this waterboarding is enhanced interrogation.
	Okay, maybe, maybe, but that's not going to ruin society if you call waterboarding enhanced interrogation.
	But what will ruin society is if you define all, like, law enforcement as Nazism, which is what they're doing, right?
	So let's move on.
	Going back to the article.
	They say, words convey meaning in two ways.
	By denotation, the actual real-world reference of a given word or a phrase.
	And by connotations, the feelings they invoke.
	There is actually way more to it than this.
	You've got, like, implicature, metaphysics, idioms, and various other things that make language a lot more complex than just, like, the things you say denote something and the things you don't say connote something.
	But it's fine.
	For the sake of this argument, that's fine.
	The GOP systematically uses language that obscures denotation and advances connotation.
	As if the left-wing theorists aren't rife with this.
	The use of the term whiteness and white supremacy is done deliberately to obscure what is being denoted and to connotate references to the KKK and to the Nazis.
	They are using them to denote things that are not racial politics and to connotate that they are racial politics.
	For example, if you have, like, Republican patriots, the recent Virginia election of the lieutenant governor.
	Oh, well, she's a white supremacist.
	What, this black woman?
	Yes, because she supports the American Republic.
	Okay, what tortured logic are you using?
	Well, I actually know the tortured logic, and we'll get into it shortly.
	But there is no denotation in the American Republic that demands that it is for white people only.
	So calling it white supremacy is deliberately trying to connotate that it is racist against non-white people, which is surprising because the United States is really popular with non-white immigrants.
	They really like it.
	They like the idea of individual freedoms because, of course, none of this is about race.
	It's not a mistake on their part.
	It's a calculated move.
	They know what they're doing.
	So anyway, going back, they say, the case of wokeness is not so different from enhanced interrogation.
	But in this case, the underlying denotation, an awareness of social injustice, highly contested term, not an objective fact, not something that everyone's like, well, I mean, yeah, there's a blue table or whatever, yeah, fair enough.
	But like, you've got this different word to use.
	No, no, no.
	This is a highly contested term, deeply theoretical, and something on which there is no consensus, even within left-wing activism.
	But they say this awareness of social injustice is good, whereas the connotations are unfortunately negative.
	Again, good if you think that's good.
	If you don't think that's good, then it's not.
	Consider what woke actually denotes.
	The origin of the expression is unknown.
	Okay, maybe it is from 4chan.
	But references to staying woke in African American English can be traced back to Lead Belly's recording of Scottsboro Boys, a song about young black men who are falsely accused of rape.
	Recently, woke gained prominence during the 2014 Ferguson protests when it was used to signal an awareness of anti-black racism.
	Woke then proliferated online where its meaning is broadened to describe anyone who is aware of systemic racism.
	Finally, the meaning shifted to encompass an awareness of bigotry in general.
	Now, lexicographers define woke as aware of, sorry, aware of, and actively attentive to important facts and issues, especially of those of racial and social justice.
	So this is a deeply subjective and politicized interpretation of any term, in this case, woke, right?
	It's a partisan term in favor of a particular political lobby, because systemic racism Is not some kind of objective, settled word.
	It's a phrase.
	Racism is, at this point, essentially undefined.
	And whenever you press these people to define racism, they essentially give you a definition that means systemic racism.
	A great example would be the left's refutation that FBI crime statistics are systemically racist, even if it can be proven that every single murderer we have in jail is rightfully there.
	Yeah.
	Because 50% of them are black, therefore systemic racism.
	It's like, right, but all of them did the murder.
	All of the Hispanic guys who got in there did the murder and we proved it.
	But then they expand...
	Because the thing about systemic anything is that whenever you point to a position, you say, right, okay, this is the case.
	Well, they can just move the goalposts and expand the terms.
	Say, well, okay, but the reason that they were in a position to commit these crimes is because of a racist history and blah, blah.
	You can trace this back to anywhere, and nothing is exempt from it, and there's no particular point in which you'd stop.
	I think that example also gets to a better definition as well, which is that, well, they're looking for equality of outcome in those crime statistics.
	Okay, so that's socialism on this basis.
	And therefore, we can describe wokeness, I think, as Ash Sarkar better did, which is that it's...
	Racial socialism.
	Race, gender, class, socialism, all of them together.
	That's why it's able to go on a million different topics at once.
	Yeah, and again, the very notion of racism there is dramatically different to the liberal notion of racism.
	The liberal notion of racism is it's based on intent done by an agent or an institution consciously.
	As in, you've said, I don't like X race and therefore I'm going to discriminate or take action against them.
	If you don't agree with that definition, you can't agree with systemic racism.
	Sorry, if you do hold that definition, you don't agree that systemic racism exists because the institutions are not taking action on the basis that they're black.
	You can't point to the racist law.
	Exactly.
	They're taking action on the basis that they've committed a crime, and that's unique circumstances in each one.
	But anyway, put simply, this is all purely a matter of interpretation.
	And what is considered social injustice from a systemic intersectional view has other interpretations because they don't believe in the concept of a colourblind institution.
	And they don't believe in the concept of a colourblind institution because they think that the standards to which the institution is held are considered to be white or black or whatever because of the framework of the systemic thinking born from critical race theory.
	Again, very particular kind of ideological position that is not just objective.
	We've done a lot of work on this.
	Again, on Lotuses.com, we just do a huge amount on this sort of stuff because this is important.
	This podcast about critical race theory's overview, where it is, what it is, where it's come from, and what it intends, I think, is most useful.
	But we're going to have more coming this week or next week, probably, by the time we record it.
	And so this particular left-wing view, born out of, as they say, neo-Marxists, in Kimberley Crenshaw's estimation, is against what it is to be American.
	And they honestly view black people as not being Americans, because they view Americans as being white.
	I don't agree with that at all.
	Anyway, returning to the article, they say, so what wokeness denotes is overwhelmingly positive.
	Not if you don't agree that the United States is a white supremacist project.
	You can't just say it's overwhelmingly positive if you don't agree with it.
	Awareness of bigotry and concomitant opposition.
	Yet recently, as conservatives have co-opted it, the term has become derisive.
	Woke people are unserious.
	You're allowed to roll your eyes at them.
	The race socialist looks funny.
	We don't take them seriously.
	Well, we've seen libs of TikTok on Twitter, you see.
	I It's not just them, though.
	You actually put them in government and see what they do.
	They will do the same things as their ancestors.
	Well, that's exactly what Joe Biden's doing.
	The purge of the military because it's too white.
	Anyway, so yeah, they're unserious.
	You're allowed to roll your eyes at them because they're sensitive and sanctimonious.
	But again, what is bigotry in your regard?
	How do you think of it?
	And how these things are framed through a racial lens is deeply divisive.
	So you're saying, well, it's just bigotry and intolerance that shows you don't want to be racially divisive.
	This is like...
	If you don't want segregation, you're a bigot.
	Yeah, and just to be clear, the critical race theorists are pro-segregation.
	They lament integration.
	They think it was bad for the black community.
	It really hasn't encompassed the antonym.
	Yes.
	And that's exactly what they did.
	They're explicit about this.
	But this is based on a particular and very aggressive form of anti-Republican, anti-integrationist, anti-Enlightenment politics that actively rejects the idea of objectivity.
	So you can't sit there and go, well, this is just good.
	From whose perspective?
	Well, not everyone's perspective.
	You just like it.
	I know, but it's like Adolf Hitler just telling you, look, Nazism's good for the German people, but it's good for the world.
	And you just look at him like...
	Yeah, but I don't agree.
	No one else agrees.
	Yeah, exactly.
	But he would say, well, I've committed to subjectivity in the way that Charles Lawrence commits to...
	Derek Bell, I think it is, commits to subjectivity.
	But yeah, the author is presenting systemic racism and awareness of bigotry as if they object to categories to which anyone can assent.
	This is a flat-out deception.
	We know that they don't.
	And consider also the scope of what is being justified through woke politics.
	A total radical change to avoid white supremacy.
	So this is a license for any kind of insanity and violence, given this framing, which is why the Black Lives Matter protests are literally cities on fire.
	The entire system that is responsible for the creation of everything within it, given the fascist conception of the world, all needs to go.
	All of these things.
	Any shop, any institution, a courthouse, a police force.
	A public bin.
	A public bin, yeah.
	You've seen the footage of them feeding it up.
	Yes, there's an anti-fire of constantly waste disposal.
	It's a form of white supremacy.
	Everything is a form of white supremacy, and so it all has to be attacked.
	Regardless of whether it's owned by black people or not, as one of the ones in Minneapolis where this black guy had saved up for ages and ages, finally bought this pub or whatever.
	Sports bar.
	Sports bar, that was it.
	And then it got it burned down.
	It's like, thanks.
	Black Lives Matter.
	Solidarity.
	Screw you.
	But he was complicit in the white supremacy as well.
	And so this is all ridiculous.
	I'm pretty sure the car dealership down the road was also owned by a black guy, and that was the one where it had the sign that said, Black Lives Matter, and then they set fire to his cars.
	So you've got that wonderful picture of the Black Lives Matter that's surrounded just by burning cars.
	Yeah.
	And so the scope of what is being advocated here is just so radical, it beggars belief, Anyway, so they carry on.
	What's denoted by woke has been eclipsed by connotations.
	Well, thank God.
	Because the thing is, the connotations and the denotation are actually really similar.
	They just don't want to admit it.
	You know, well, I like this.
	Okay, but you do still want to burn down the United States.
	Yeah, but I like it.
	It's like, okay, but I'm not wrong when I say that.
	And, you know, there are lots of people who don't like that.
	Anyway, when we hear woke now, we think of its history, not of its history as a metaphor for awareness.
	Yes, that's it.
	It's just a metaphor for awareness.
	That's all it is.
	That's how you describe every ideology.
	I am liberal.
	I have awareness.
	Exactly.
	The Nazis could say the same thing.
	We certainly do not think of the Enlightenment.
	We think of pious, woke scolds.
	And perhaps unwittingly, we transfer this pejorative connotation to the underlying principles of social justice.
	But again, that is just ironic because that's exactly what they mean.
	They are repudiating the Enlightenment.
	They are saying, well, we're not universal men.
	We are particular men.
	They say we are the black community.
	We are deliberately subjective.
	We reject objectivity expressly, explicitly in these terms.
	And so, like, this guy going, oh, well, you know, we don't think of the Enlightenment with good reason.
	They don't want you to think of the Enlightenment.
	They picture themselves literally as radical racial crusaders against a white hegemony that uses colourblind institutions as a form of deception in order to protect white property ownership across the United States and preventing the communist redistribution or levelling of all of this property.
	They're literally just pretending not to be racist.
	Well, no, no, it's worse.
	They're pretending not to be racist in order to hide racial oppression.
	I know, but that's really funny where it's like, right, but it's been 60 years of no racism.
	How are they trying to uphold the racial oppression?
	By not being racist.
	Right, okay, hang on.
	Well, I mean, you would think that the existence of black billionaires would, multi-millionaires would, you know, give light to this, but they don't think in those terms.
	They think systemically.
	So an individual black person who works hard, succeeds, and becomes a billionaire like Oprah Winfrey is not proof that black people aren't being held back.
	You know, because the fact that in Chicago, wherever, You've got ghettos of black people who have got a very poor culture and can't get out of that.
	That shows that this is a deliberate attempt at racial oppression, especially as there are white people in America who live in nice areas.
	And so that needs to be stopped.
	But anyway.
	They say, so if an elected official claims that wokeness is bad, journalists should just ask them what they mean.
	Journalists could ask, for example, is anti-racism bad?
	What about anti-bigotry in general?
	If they refuse to define what they intend, ironic, and when they deride wokeness, journalists should do it for them by citing the dictionary definition.
	How about we cite the dictionary definition when asked what a woman is?
	So when they say, what do you mean?
	What a conservative should reply to this is, we mean the intersectional worldview that sees American institutions as the product of a systemic racial attack designed to hurt non-white people.
	That's what they mean.
	And that's what you can say in response.
	When they say, is anti-racism bad?
	You can say, we do not agree on the definition of racism.
	And I'm aware of your definition of racism.
	Your definition pathologizes the institutions of the United States as being racist.
	And so being an anti-racism crusader also places you against the operation of said institutions, like the Department of Justice, like the courts, the juries.
	Habeas corpus, you know, the Constitution itself, the Declaration of Independence, that being an anti-racism crusader places you against all of these things.
	And when they say, well, is anti-bigotry bad?
	You can say, well, define bigotry.
	If it means the opposition to those who hold different views or hold a devotion to their own opinions and prejudices, then anti-bigotry means introducing a general element of intolerance into society, and we are not for intolerance.
	People are allowed to hold opinions of which left-wing activists do not approve.
	And as I said, conservatives need to get sharp on this stuff, because the left-wing activists are sharp on this, and they are using these philosophical weapons against you.
	And just to really hammer this point home, in the final paragraph, they say, quote, we are in an existential battle.
	That's how they view this.
	An existential battle.
	Either the United States goes down or they go down.
	That's how they view it.
	There is no tolerance.
	And so for them to complain about bigotry, them saying, oh, you're a bigot, what do you mean?
	So you have a commitment to your own prior belief system.
	Yeah.
	They believe they're infallible as well.
	Yes.
	Well, yeah, but the allegation of bigotry is literally to get you to detach yourself from a commitment to your own belief system in, say, the American Republic.
	That's what they're doing when they try to do this.
	They say the forces of bigotry are strong and in many ways our electoral system allows them to flourish, which goes to show you now the electoral system is the problem.
	The electoral system of the United States allows bigotry to flourish, so this is complicit in the hegemony of white supremacy in the United States, according to this position.
	And the thing is, this is a massive amount of bigotry for their own position.
	Like, bigotry, as defined in the dictionary, is just a devotion to one's own opinions and prejudices.
	Well, their opinions and prejudices are insane!
	The most insane animating forces in them, right?
	And so, they finish with, the evidence is clear.
	The actual principle of wokeness, the broad awareness of social injustice, is increasingly popular.
	We cannot let conservative rhetorical manipulations muddy this fact.
	But their own rhetorical manipulations have done good work so far for them, really, haven't they?
	And they're upset that there are conservatives who understand and challenge it.
	Let's go to video comments.
	Hey Carl, I know you said you don't like recent history, but I was wondering if you would consider doing a history podcast on the Alamo.
	I think that it's a really wonderful unifying story.
	Like, when you visit the Alamo, you see flags from, like, Every state, every country, like tons of countries, like all of these people who, you know, pitched in.
	And so I would love to hear your take on it.
	I don't know much about the Alamo, but as I understand it, this would be a unification against Mexico.
	Well, my understanding is the Northern Mexicans are also fighting with the Americans against the Southern Mexicans because, well, they're oppressive because they're a bunch of Spanish institutions, so...
	Yes.
	Chad, yes.
	I don't know that much about it either, though.
	I'll see if Beau wants to do it sometime.
	For financial reasons, this will be my last video comment for a while, so I'd like to end it on a white pill.
	A week ago, I quit nicotine.
	And I've not had any sense, and so now I feel it is time to part ways with my paraphernalia.
	I have the right to do anything, but I will not be mastered by anything.
	That's great.
	Yeah, that's fantastic.
	Good man.
	And hopefully situation changes so we can see you back again in the future, man.
	Yeah, I need more impressions.
	Yeah, I'm going to miss your video comments, to be honest.
	That's actually just incredibly awesome.
	I mean, getting off an addiction like that can't have been easy.
	It's not easy.
	Great to see.
	Well done, man.
	Well, everyone, it looks like Callum's back.
	Hooray!
	Hope you're feeling better, Callum.
	And as a welcome back present, I have for you a reading recommendation following on from your article about the Crown.
	If you want to know about monarchies, how they could work, how they do work, how they might work, Check out the Star Spangled Crown.
	You can find it on Amazon.
	Ignore the plot, if you will.
	That's mainly a device the author uses to discuss his main ideas.
	So, yeah, take a look.
	You never know, you might like it.
	Alrighty, well, thanks for the recommendation.
	I always find it weird when people talk about the idea of, you know, old history where America gets a king when it's Washington or something.
	It just never really makes any sense.
	It's like, literally the whole war was about getting rid of a king.
	Yeah, I can't really imagine it.
	But anyway, thanks.
	Anyway, lads, so I'm just thinking a bit about the culture wars, as they're called.
	I'm just wondering what you think the end game will be.
	If left-wing, will we have a horrible decade like the 70s where everything's nationalised and nothing works?
	And will we have a right-wing revival afterwards?
	Or will it be a lot worse?
	I don't know, just some food for thought.
	Right, so I've actually got some thoughts on this.
	I think that in previous decades and eras, that's what would have happened.
	But I think the left at this point has realised that it's the people that are the problem.
	The people have to be changed.
	They have come to the realisation that the general public are...
	Right wing or conservative or just not interested in radical politics.
	And so they, I think, are going full indoctrination.
	And this is what we're seeing.
	The result of this is of Marcuse's students.
	When they're revolutionaries, they hate everything.
	They hate every institution.
	They hate their parents.
	They hate...
	They hate their families, they hate their friends, they hate the universities themselves, they hate everything around them, and so everything has to be changed.
	And the framing that we get from critical race theory, the way that they think about the world around them after being indoctrinated into this, prevents them from seeing any value or virtue in any of it.
	And I think this is essentially the position the left have found themselves in because everything else has failed.
	And so now they're going for absolutely everything.
	So I'm actually, I mean, I think that 10 years of left-wing indoctrination will be so bad for future generations that I can't see how it will recover.
	I was just going to say it depends who gets the power.
	Because, I mean, you're looking at...
	So there's essentially two camps of the left which are in a position to ever take power in these things.
	And you've got the Starmerites, or I can't think of an American comparison, but let's say just Joe Biden for now.
	If you put them in charge for 20-odd years, they will just bugger everything up and it will become economic retardation, such as...
	Yeah, but you can see in America, though, It's not that simple.
	I'm about to get to that point.
	That's one aspect.
	If it was just them, then yeah, okay, it's just economic retardation.
	Yeah, we could get through that.
	But the other guys, they more understand the ideology, they understand what needs to be done for them to get their utopia, which is not going to happen, whatever.
	And for them, it's got to be cultural revolution, the changing of the humans inside of it drastically to create the new men and women that will build their society.
	Yes.
	And if they ever get power, it will be like China.
	But they do have power.
	That's the thing.
	And I think we can see the consequences of this.
	I've got a video coming up this week about Generation Z. Is that video going up today, John?
	Do you know?
	But the thing is, the information on Generation Z is actually in.
	And it turns out they have no metaphysics.
	They're just purely atomized individualistic materialists.
	And these are the sort of ideological children of the millennials.
	And it's like, right, okay, but once you've flattened down a person's...
	Like, they hate Donald Trump because Donald Trump represents something metaphysical.
	He represents the idea of America and this big kind of intellectual construct.
	You know the gif of Donald Trump on the tank and, you know...
	Stars exploding around and the eagles and stuff like that.
	This is what we're talking about.
	The narrative of America.
	Donald Trump buys into and believes.
	They don't believe in any of these narratives.
	So there's just my material comfort and how I feel about things.
	And they're constantly worried about their mental health and stuff like that because of it.
	And these people, these children, I was going to say, but a lot of them aren't children now, are the product of left-wing indoctrination.
	And the right has really dropped the ball on this.
	And I don't see how they can get out of it.
	I think that once you've been compressed down into this monomaniacal worldview, you're kind of stuck there.
	I might be wrong, obviously, but I'm not very optimistic, frankly.
	To get back to the chap's point about whether or not, you know, if the left win the culture wars, then they'll be able to...
	But I think that's them winning the culture war.
	Well, you can proofly point to examples of it as well.
	And like we were mentioning with the fact in the UK, the police will actually investigate you for a hate crime if you say it's okay to be white.
	That's one example.
	There's a million stories we've covered in a million ways about the...
	Diversity and inclusion lobby that have taken over the UK. And that's an example of them culturally having a revolution in British culture to the point that they are able to control what you think and what you're able to say in professional life and public life.
	But the problem, though, is that that is an outside force imposing inwards, as in they can control what you can think and say, implying that you would like to think and say things that would be offensive and You're not allowed to do.
	But what they've done is engineered a generation of people who don't understand why they should, or can't really even conceive, of thinking something that isn't approved by the powers that be.
	Generation Z are totally the children of fascism.
	They believe the state should do everything for them.
	They believe the state should do everything for everyone.
	They don't see that they should have an opinion that differs from the mainstream state-enforced consensus.
	And it's like, right, so that's even more scary.
	People who are not just...
	We've arrived out there, where it's not any people who are being oppressed, but people who don't realize they're being oppressed and don't think of it as oppression.
	They're not the same kind of people.
	I haven't seen the podcast.
	You've done.
	Well, it's just a direct video that I've gone through.
	But we've done the Brave New World podcast.
	We're arriving in that place.
	And that's why, if the left was to take over now, like it is in America, and frankly, it has been doing in British schools anyway.
	The Conservatives have totally dropped the ball on this.
	But basically, I think there's kind of unrecoverable at some point.
	And so it's pretty bad if we lose the culture war.
	And it seems that we are losing the culture war.
	Ergo all the glory in that to the guys who are fighting critical race here in America.
	Because, well, that's dead here.
	This country buggered up.
	The Conservatives have got nothing here.
	My note on why the doctor was cutting me off in my hospital experience, I don't know how it is in Britain, but in Canada the amount of doctor graduates is limited each year and so there's a limited amount of doctors that come in because the doctor's unions want to keep the doctor's wages up.
	So when a doctor is cutting me off mid-sentence, it's because he's so busy because of the limited amount of doctors that he basically has to do it Which reduces the care for everyone and causes long waiting lines.
	Who knew socialized medicine for the lose?
	I hate unions.
	I just can't get over how awful they are.
	I remember there was a video John Stossel did on a similar situation in the United States.
	I think it was with people who drive buses.
	And all of the buses in New York had to be run by this one union and they limited the number of bus drivers which threw up their wages ridiculously.
	Like five times what you could get doing riding buses elsewhere.
	Yeah.
	But the point is, it's totally artificial, isn't it?
	It's not a product of the free hand.
	Well, the worst part was, in New York, it was also law that if you worked for the state as an employee for the federal government, you had to join a federal union as well.
	So you didn't even get a choice.
	Sounds a bit fascist.
	Yeah, it was.
	It probably still is.
	Yeah, it was mad.
	Awful.
	It's not kilt.
	They want them to wear the girly skirts.
	Yes.
	And look at that picture.
	Those are not kilts that these children are wearing.
	That's a very interesting point.
	Not many black or brown students.
	And race!
	There's nothing to be afraid of!
	Oh, I don't know, though.
	Man, the Carry On films are great.
	I never used to like them when I was a kid, but it's only in retrospect that I appreciate how subversive.
	Really?
	Not even subversive, actually.
	That's the wrong word.
	Subversive towards modern morality there.
	They're very reactionary, I guess.
	Well, in this day and age, yeah.
	I used to watch Carry On camping and stuff when I was a teenager.
	I was never a fan.
	I was.
	I thought it was funny.
	I used to view it as silliness.
	Yeah.
	Anyway, let's carry on.
	The first question I would ask if a child told me they were transgender is, well, who else have you been talking to?
	Kids, they're highly influenced by adults.
	They emulate what they see.
	A child that's four or five, they didn't get this idea on their own.
	So, first thing I would wonder is, who put this idea in your head?
	Yep.
	I read a story.
	There's no way I can prove it because, you know, it's a random internet story.
	And there was a guy who said he separated from his wife, the other kids, share the kids on weekends or whatever it is.
	And suddenly his son was like, yeah, I'm trans.
	And apparently his mom was a leftist.
	So he was like, bugger, what do I do?
	Yeah.
	So he went, accelerate.
	So he got really, really into it.
	And it like to the point where he was like wearing dresses when the kid would come and visit him.
	And like over the top to the point of being like, so when are you transitioning, son?
	And then the son was just like, I don't know, the story goes like, oh, it's been five years or whatever since he stopped, and we were out having a burger, and he asked, and he was like, yeah, it was a bum.
	And he was like, yeah.
	There we go.
	He's got a girlfriend now.
	Good, good.
	I suppose that's a response.
	I have no idea if that works.
	I bet it would.
	Yeah, it probably would.
	But he's also, you know, like, because he's absolutely right.
	The children are not the authors of these thoughts, and they're definitely being put in their head from external sources.
	Just diagnosing someone transgender over a Zoom call is medical malpractice because when you diagnose anyone with any mental issues you have to make damn sure that you diagnose the correct one because once a person has one diagnosis it is really hard getting another.
	Many of these people declaring themselves transgender have underlying mental issues that are not being addressed because they are just being told to transition.
	Then they transition.
	The mental issue has not been addressed.
	They're unhappy.
	They don't know why.
	That leads to this extreme suicide rate.
	And that is why transitioning should always be considered a last resort, never a first solution, like it is being done now.
	Says a doctor in psychology.
	Yeah, I mean, I agree.
	It should be the last resort, not the first solution.
	Well, obviously.
	The debate there, I don't know if you weren't here, but it was a story about, so this gender clinic had set up in Mayfair.
	He's doing well for himself, set up in Mayfair.
	But he would take calls for like 50 minutes and then just be like, yeah, here's the hormones or whatever.
	Yeah, I saw the video, transgender in one hour.
	Yeah, yeah.
	It's mad.
	Yeah, I have no idea what kind of...
	You said medical malpractice, and it's just like...
	It wasn't even clear if he'd actually done anything legally wrong, because there is no defined legal practice around this sort of stuff, because he was just handing out hormones, which apparently just wasn't the law there, which is friggin' weird.
	Hormones with long-term effects that we're still kind of unsure about.
	Yeah, basically Xanax.
	You can just take them over the counter, get some paracetamol.
	Small ones.
	I don't know.
	It's strange.
	In 20 years time, there are going to be so many problems.
	Let's carry on.
	Carl, I think the truck is a thick concept.
	My grandfather's old sedan that I've been driving for over half a decade got totaled by a garbage truck, so I've had to upgrade.
	It's the first vehicle I've ever actually owned.
	I think there's a reason it's a symbol of masculinity.
	From the moment I took the keys, I can just feel the power.
	I can haul things, carry building materials, etc.
	It grants me power to impact my environment that a sedan just can't.
	It's only a mid-sized truck, so I'm not compensating.
	In case any lionesses are curious, no compensation is necessary.
	It's a crew cab, plenty of space for the Kido Sharia mandated minimum of 2.2 wee bairns.
	It has a skid plate for counter-protesting.
	Is it weird that I kind of want to pat her on the flank and feed her an apple?
	Um, maybe.
	I mean, I'm not saying it's not a thick concept, but I'm also saying maybe you're getting a bit of a fetish for it.
	I remember when I got...
	I think we were going out with Simon.
	We went to a piece of land he owns in Wales.
	And we had to go off-road.
	And it was the first time I've been in a truck off-road, and I can really see the advantage.
	So if you're in a situation of driving off-road, definitely get a truck.
	It's worth it.
	But other than that, I don't want to have sex with a truck, so yeah.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Hang on, hang on.
	He's not wrong, though.
	We can form these kind of emotional attachments to things.
	That have a great deal of depth when we describe them.
	And you can see this in the names you give them.
	You know, people give their cars particular pet names.
	Do you have an object you've given a name?
	I personally can't think of anything that I have, but there's definitely strands of emotional attachment that you get to certain places and things.
	You get nostalgic for, right?
	When you go to a thing, you can feel it.
	There's a feeling within you when you're in the thing.
	And he's not wrong.
	I've got an example in my head, but it's going to sound super weird until I explain it.
	Okay, well then...
	No, it's a gif we got from Poland.
	It's a piece of crap, but I kept it because it's just emotional attachment.
	Go to the next one.
	Hey there.
	So me and the gang at the Sultans of Chalet podcast just went through the usual stuff by going over the this week and stupid, you could say.
	And we got to something that made me so angry that I literally got a goddamn headache.
	There's a guy down in the Arabian world who had to sell his own daughter because he is so poor.
	His nine-year-old daughter to a 50-year-old man.
	Then, of course, the news people that interviewed the father, then interviewed the daughter, then interviewed the guy who bought her.
	F*** this planet.
	And f*** these people on it.
	Sorry.
	I'm just so damn tired of this whole s***.
	Sorry, it's just a bad way to start a week, but oh boy.
	Sometimes you just wonder.
	That was in Afghanistan, I believe.
	Is that the one where they tried to claim they were selling the kid for food?
	Yeah.
	And the daughter, apparently they interviewed the daughter and she was like, I understand it's because we're very poor and we can't afford food.
	I don't buy it.
	I just remember reading about how kids would get sold in North Korea for food and whatnot.
	No, no way it's that bad that they're doing that there for food.
	Well, I mean, Afghan's economy has collapsed, basically.
	I don't buy that there's a level of starvation where people are selling their kids for food yet.
	That takes time.
	It's been a few months, man.
	Not enough.
	Okay.
	Go to the next one.
	It's Christmas time!
	And for the months of November and December, I'm offering up to 25% discount on shipping to Australia, the US, and the UK. And that's on all my products.
	You can get a 20% discount with the promo code WHITECHRISTMAS. So go to the website, you know what it is, and go and get yourself a good signed copy of some awesome sci-fi.
	You know...
	At cscooper.com.au And honestly, the capitalist in me kind of appreciates his level of shilling.
	I like the work he's doing into it.
	You know, to be honest, that makes it worthwhile.
	Yeah.
	White Christmas.
	One thing you probably wouldn't have noticed is that when my dad first started working on the bus, he leveled out the floor.
	The bus had like a gentle slope starting from here all the way to the back.
	So he built an entire new floor so that it would be flat everywhere.
	He's got a bunch of panelling up inside of the kitchen.
	He's got the dining room table where it goes now.
	And, yeah, I've got to stick some wires on with him this weekend.
	That little thing there is the furnace.
	That's really cool, man.
	Yeah.
	I think it's great.
	Yeah.
	I wonder if you can get a double-decker in America or not.
	Hmm.
	I wanted to see what you'd do with it.
	Hmm.
	Hi guys.
	I was thinking earlier what virtues I'd like to embody and honour came quite quickly.
	But when I tried to define it, I couldn't.
	It seemed alien, distant, foreign.
	And so we beg the question, is honour something that British people value?
	And if not, what does that mean for our wider society?
	What does that mean for us as a people?
	I think probably yes, but you know, I don't want to get all autistic about it because there's people who are like, you know, for example, we accept adultery these days.
	I'm happy to get autistic about it.
	No, because you shouldn't, and also that's not how it's ever worked.
	People romanticise the past being like, there's a time of honour where people care about these things, now we don't.
	Ah, but there was.
	But there's still dishonour and people accepting dishonour in the past.
	Well, yes, of course, to have the existence of something, its antonym has to have existed to define it.
	Yeah, but people seem to define these past periods as some kind of perfect, where people care about honour implicitly and massively all the time, and it's like, eh, not really.
	No, no, I think they did.
	There's more than now, but to say that they would always care about it is not true.
	Well, the thing is, you have to understand what honour is, right?
	Well, take adultery, for example.
	Yeah, and so what's that?
	Well, that's a dishonorable act, therefore people like you and not want to interact with you because you've broken your oath that you would not do that.
	I'm going to go off on an extremely long rant about this at some point in the future.
	So I won't do it now, but there is no honour in materialism because honour is a metaphysical concept and the more materialistic we become, the less honour becomes anything.
	So honour is being eroded.
	I can disagree with that.
	I'm not disagreeing that it's been eroded.
	But the point is, people in the past were much more metaphysical than we are.
	All of their language was deeply loaded with metaphysical assumptions.
	And in the 20th century, this changed, and now we've come to a point where there is no such thing in the minds of Generation Z. And so, yes, honour is completely eroded.
	But as he's saying, Englishmen absolutely care about honour.
	I didn't disagree with any of that.
	I just said that I hate this perception of the past as being a period in which it was always honored.
	As in, honor was always a thing people cared about.
	Literally in every sentence you would speak, something like that would be constructed out of it.
	Sure, but there's still dishonor taking place in society, and there's still people who don't care about it.
	And to pretend that that's not taking place irritates me.
	Yeah, but nobody's pretending that.
	Some people do.
	I'm not saying you do.
	I'm saying some people do.
	But those people must be like fringe loontists, because that'd be like saying, well, look, they had laws against murder in the past, therefore no one ever murdered each other.
	It's like, no.
	There was obviously people who were dishonourable like there were people who were murderers.
	But the point is what was valued.
	And it is valued, or it was valued, that honour was a thing.
	And you would expect to be a man of your word.
	You expect to treat people with a certain level of decency and respect.
	But that's rapidly disappearing.
	And I think there is qualitatively.
	I wouldn't disagree on that.
	It's just a certain kind of history I see people.
	No one says.
	I see it online and I hate it.
	Okay, okay.
	I hate it so much.
	So I've finally gone from plebeian to premium.
	Remember, remember the 5th of November, the gunpowder treason and plot, the original English conspiracy.
	If you guys ever need an expert on conspiracy theories, that's me.
	I decided to put my philosophy degree to good use and study years worth of conspiracies, because why not?
	Happy Guy Fawkes, Lotus Eaters!
	I do love conspiracy theories.
	I really like that you have Guy Fawkes today.
	Yeah, me too.
	Anything that celebrates burning a Catholic is wholesome in my opinion.
	Did you see the protests down at Parliament that got all rowdy on the 5th?
	No, no, I didn't.
	Some guys went down with Guy Fawkes' mass, ended up fighting the cops, pushed them out of Parliament Square.
	Cops came back and beaten, but it's just like, you know, part of me always, always want to see that plot.
	I'm going to shut up.
	It'd be something magical, wouldn't it?
	Like, if there's going to be a British Revolution where the government is over threat, it's got to be, like V for Vendetta, that's got to be part of it.
	It will definitely take on that kind of iconography.
	The thing I dislike about the argument that we have to have representation for everything is that if you were to take me, for instance...
	I wouldn't be able to play any games with female protagonists.
	I wouldn't be able to play any games with protagonists of different ethnicities than myself.
	And I wouldn't be able to play any games in which the main character is either of a different nationality than myself or lives in a different time period than myself.
	And that means that I basically can't play any game, ever.
	Yeah, I mean, he's completely right.
	Literally every game I play involves either aliens or people who died thousands of years ago.
	I'm not represented in anything.
	Like, why would I care?
	It's why I'm playing it.
	I'm represented in my daily life.
	I know exactly what being me is like.
	I think I've told you before, but there's EU4. It's a game where you play in the colonial era and you control a country.
	And all the reviews are just like, finally, I can live as the SJWs tell me to.
	Anyway, let's go to the next one.
	Tony D and Little Joan with another legend of the Pines, the White Hill Mansion in Bordentown, New Jersey, built in the early 1700s.
	It was the home of Robert Field, who wanted to be a member of British Parliament, but he mysteriously drowned in 1775, and there was some rumor that his widow had dealings with the rebels.
	The ghosts wander the house to this day, and starting in January of 2022, if you're an experienced paranormal investigator, you can book your own private ghost hunting experience.
	I love the idea that there's this ghost from 1775 that haunts this house saying British propaganda.
	I can't believe people actually take that stuff seriously in America, though.
	So, Colin, I heard that you were having difficulty in being able to read this book, and it's no wonder because, as the author has noted in his letter that he has written on the back of Book 3, is that this is an example of persecuted literature.
	This book was basically written in three separate locations and they never saw each other until after he got raided and these three books got shipped over west to be printed in France.
	So that's why it is the way it is.
	Yeah, but I said I read the abridged version.
	So the abridged version, I don't know if you have it, but in there they say in the foreword as well, they squashed them down and tried to make it readable and then, in my opinion, failed doing that.
	I only read a part of the abridged version because it was just so long.
	Yeah.
	Anyway, we're out of time.
	Yeah, we are.
	We're not going to have to end.
	But I'll go away.
	Keep the comments to 30 seconds.
	Otherwise, if you want more from us, go to loadershears.com.
	Please subscribe to get access to all the premium content.
	And also, that's how we keep the show running.
	But other than that, we'll be back tomorrow, 1 o'clock.

▲