All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 15, 2021 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters
01:30:51
The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #263
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen.
Welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters for the 15th of November 2021.
I'm joined by a new presenter called John.
Hello, Lotus Eaters.
be talking about how the media is consistently lying to you, the mysterious explosion that happened in Liverpool.
I believe it's an explosion of peace, is that correct?
I believe that would be the accurate way to describe it, yes.
The official orthodox media way of describing it.
And why we have so many illegal immigrants crossing the border is because the border force don't really seem very inclined to do anything about it.
But we'll talk about that shortly.
First, we've got some announcements of things that are up on the website.
Of course, we have new episodes of Epochs and Contemplations.
This one's really good.
Me and Bo are doing a short series on Belisarius because he did a lot in his life since we covered the Nika riots.
Bo wanted to go on to this and we'll probably end up going back a few centuries to cover how things got to the position they were in, in fact.
In coming weeks.
So we're doing some nice stuff on the later Roman Empire and Eastern Roman Empire at the moment, which is fun.
And in contemplations this week, Thomas and Josh decide to discuss philosophical idealism.
This is essentially his specialist subject, so it's going to be very detailed.
I haven't had time to watch this one yet, but I am going to watch it after the podcast.
We also have various other things, such as this premium podcast that Harry did about the January the 6th rioters and what has happened to them.
Not good, basically, but didn't feel that was appropriate for YouTube because you know what they're like with their editorial policies.
And finally, we have a wonderful interview that I did with an activist called Philip Tanzan.
You may be familiar with him if you have been following the men's rights movement at all, but he calls himself a libertarian conservative, and we had a very easy ex-gay porn actor...
And he is a very fascinating chap.
He sounds like it.
Very unique life, basically, he's had.
And it was a really, really thought-provoking conversation.
Go and check out the comments on there if you want to see what kind of things we were talking about.
It's really fascinating.
I totally recommend it.
But last but not least, go and follow us on Getter.
Getter's a fantastic platform.
Everything's going really well on there.
There's a huge number of users on there already.
And we would like to grow our presence there.
So go follow us there.
But before we begin, right?
We got some emails from people rightfully chewing us out for not doing anything for Armistice Day and Remembrance Sunday.
And that's true, we didn't.
And it's probably my fault, because I'm the one in charge, so I should probably take the responsibility for it.
And all I can say is, honestly, I didn't realise.
I didn't realise what the date was, even though every day we're like, oh, this is the date.
I think a lot of it is just our noses are too close to the grindstone, and so every day it's like, right, what are we doing tomorrow, what are we doing tomorrow, news-wise, rather than thinking about significant events.
And you notice we haven't celebrated anything, really.
John had to bully me into being on the podcast on the day that it was our one-year anniversary because I didn't even realize.
And the way the schedule was laid out, I had things planned.
So I was like, I can't do the podcast there.
I've got to do this, this, and this.
And I realized this sounding like excuses, so I'm not trying to make excuses.
I just think that was the reason for it.
But we will be more mindful of this in future.
We are sorry.
So, without further ado, let's talk about how the media hates you.
That's right, you.
You watching this right now.
You are hated by the corporate media.
Why?
Because you're not in their big club.
That's why.
And they are going to frame everything that might affect you personally to your disadvantage on purpose.
Now, we've got a million examples of this, but we're just going to go through a few of the more recent ones and the more high-profile ones because it is genuinely despicable Just how obviously intentional these lies are.
So let's talk about this one article from NBC News about the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, where they are framing an exchange that happened in the trial, where a pathologist, a forensic pathologist called Dr.
Doug Kelly, was being cross-examined by the prosecution.
And the prosecution was essentially trying to...
Get Dr.
Kelly to admit that Joseph Rosenbaum was no threat to Carl Rittenhouse, because he was essentially laying on the floor, or was basically on the floor, while he was being shot.
Now, there is some truth to that, because Rosenbaum had lunged at Carl Rittenhouse, Carl Rittenhouse had fired in his own defence, and he'd fired four times, so two of the shots had hit him as he was falling.
Now, if you watch the footage, and you can watch the footage, we're not going to play it here because of You know, various community guidelines reasons.
If you watch the footage, it's very clear that this happens in a split second, and Rosenbaum is attacking Rittenhouse, and Rittenhouse is defending himself.
And so, how did NBC News frame it?
Well, they said, one of the men fatally shot by Carl Rittenhouse was in a horizontal position, a forensic pathologist told Wisconsin jurors on Tuesday, suggesting the victim wasn't a threat when he was gunned down.
He was probably in a horizontal position after he was shot.
Well, yes, exactly.
He was shot, and then he was shot twice, then he started falling, and then Kyle was in the process of shooting, because it was literally less than a second, or it must have been a second or two, that this event happened.
It was so quick and so close.
In the night, they're acting like, essentially, Rosenbaum was just laying on the floor, and Kyle Rittenhouse walked past and just shot him.
Obviously not the case, but you wouldn't know that from their framing.
And that's the point.
The district attorney, James Krauss, sought to paint Rosenbaum's killing as particularly egregious as he was falling or perpendicular when the shots were fired.
The back-to-front shots to the head, and when the kill shot to the back would have been as he was falling or perpendicular to the ground, Krauss asked, and the doctor agreed.
Because that is technically true, but the framing of it completely absolves any moral responsibility from Rosenbaum for attacking someone and trying to take a gun.
From the person he was...
He literally was hiding behind some cars and then leapt out and attacked him.
So it's like, why would you frame it this way?
And why, as the media, would you report it like that?
This is not true.
Anyway, so this is just like, just par for the course.
This is just one example of many, many, many different examples of articles like this and news reports that you can find like this.
And, I mean, they do, to their credit, point out that defense attorney Mark Richards implied that Rosenbaum could still have been a threat to his client.
I mean, he was in the middle of being an active threat.
But again, implied that he could still have been a threat to the client implies that Rosenbaum wasn't like maybe laying in wait on the ground or something.
Not that he was in the middle of the attack, but they do include the quote, you know, so if I was charging like a bull and diving, that would be consistent.
Which, of course, the doctor said, well, yes, that would be because that's what happened.
Rosenbaum was literally charging at him.
And we have a video of Rosenbaum lunging, but if we can go to the next one, John, I don't think we will actually play it because, again, it's a video of him being shot and you should probably disapprove of that.
So let's move on to this next one.
I just love this.
We can go to the next thing.
Look at this framing from The Independent.
Rittenhouse victim blasts his childlike performance in the doc, says this graphic from The Independent.
Rittenhouse victim.
He wasn't the victim.
He was a 20-something-year-old man who was trying to murder a 17-year-old.
He had a gun.
This is Gage Grosskreutz who got shot in the arm, and there's obviously pictures of him holding his arm and the gun still in his hand.
But Rittenhouse is basically a child.
I mean, he was 17 when this happened, like when Grosskreutz tried to murder him.
Like, he was 17 years old.
And the only reason he didn't get murdered is because Rittenhouse is the quickest draw in Kenosha.
I mean, sorry.
What is this framing, though?
This is just disgusting.
Shooting said survivor gauged gross crowds.
You mean attempted murder gauged gross crowds.
Says the video footage.
Whoa, whoa, whoa.
One man's attempted murderer is another man's victim.
Which is exactly what we're looking at here with The Independence.
That's exactly right, right?
But anyway, going on to the article.
This goddamn framing.
I can't take it, right?
Rittenhouse victim calls Tina an active shooter in a homicide trial.
What?
Unbelievable.
So they say a paramedic, Mr.
Grosskraut, he's just a paramedic, right?
He's a member of a communist organization.
He's got numerous charges on his record for drunken and disorderly behavior.
And he was part of a communist mob that was running around looting, rioting, and burning things.
And yet he's just framed as a paramedic.
Mr.
Grosskraut's 27, so he's 10 years older than the person he was trying to kill, was the only survivor of the three people that Mr.
Rittenhouse shot on 25th of August 2020 in Kenosha.
As if, like, they were just standing around, giving each other daisies, and then Carl Rittenhouse rocks up and starts shooting.
Yeah.
It's wild.
And again, the footage is all on the internet.
You can find it.
It's not hard.
Mr.
Grosskraut said it was emotional to watch his would-be murderer testifying about the attack, according to ABC News.
So again, uncritically presenting this person's view of things as if this was just the way things were.
And he then went on Good Morning America, where he again calls Carl Rittenhouse a would-be murderer.
As in, that's you.
You're the would-be murderer.
Because you were the one who ran up to him with the gun, which you admitted on the stand that Carl Rittenhouse only shot you when you pulled the gun on him.
Oh man, how do I get the slot on Good Morning America?
That sounds great.
Exactly.
And it's wild.
Anyway...
Yeah, as John says, he lied.
He absolutely lied.
And there's a great thread by a chap called Giulio Rosas, if we can go to the next one.
I'm just going to pull a few, this is a long thread, but I'm going to pull a few quotes out.
It says, Grosskraut said he felt in danger of being shot by Rittenhouse because the AR-15 was pointed at him.
Grosskraut said that Rittenhouse racked the bolt back when his hands were in the air.
I was never trying to kill the defendant, Grosskraut said.
The defense said that Grosskraut told officers shortly after the shooting that I dropped my firearm.
The defense said that was a lie because Grosskraut had chased after Rittenhouse and just testified he pulled out his gun.
Grosskraut said it was not true to say he chased after Rittenhouse.
The defense then showed Grosskraut this picture of him grabbing his handgun while charging towards Rittenhouse.
The media could have told you all of this, they could have told you all of this stuff, but instead they deliberately withheld this all in order to frame Grosskreutz as the victim of Karl Rittenhouse, the man he was trying to victimise.
Matt, this could happen to you.
This could happen to anyone, right?
And so, there are many such cases, and they all get boiled down into this following post that I posted on my account on Getter, right?
This was doing the rounds.
Top 10 ways fascists are defending Kyle Rittenhouse, right?
Let's have a look at these.
He was acting in self-defense.
I mean, is that unique to fascists?
Are only fascists concerned about self-defense?
Or are there other people in the world?
He was crying real tears.
Well, if you look at the picture, there is definitely a tear on his cheek.
He deserves due process.
Ah, yes.
Classic fascism.
People deserve due process.
Hitler, that man was a very big fellow when it came to due process.
He was very concerned about the rule of law.
You know, this isn't about white supremacy.
The victims were white.
Well, they were.
Like, everyone involved in this is white.
How is this about racism?
He's being vilified the media.
We don't know all the facts.
Demonstrably true, given how the left-wing activists are constantly parroting things that aren't true.
Sea-lying.
Sea-lining.
How is Kyle racist?
How is this white supremacy?
How is he not acting in self-defense?
How are they not reasonable questions?
It's almost as if asking questions is the problem here.
Well, that is exactly the problem, isn't it?
Because then they're forced to try and fill in parts of the narrative they don't have answers for.
As in, how is he not acting in self-defense?
If you watch the video, he's so obviously acting in self-defense.
The facts of the case say, blah, blah, blah, put himself in your shoes.
The victims were no angels.
They weren't.
They were awful.
And of course these left-wing people being anti-prison and the court result being a justified result.
They don't care about any of that.
They don't care about any of these things.
But these are eerily similar to arguments we've had from other cases that have been misrepresented by the media.
So we're going to go through a few of them just to show and prove the point.
The first one being the Covington Catholic ploys versus the native elder.
Do you remember this?
I do indeed.
Yes.
This was awful.
Again, children being framed by the media as being white supremacists who are, and as you can see here, surrounding a Native American elder and intimidating him.
And what was the chap?
Nicholas Sandman apparently smirking there.
And the thing is, from this angle, it kind of does look like a bit of a smirk.
But from other angles, it didn't look like a smirk.
That's the thing.
You know, is it just a deceptive thing from the camera?
Yeah.
But the New York Times here is reporting that they were Catholic students.
He was a Native American elder who was there to raise awareness at the Indigenous People's March.
Interestingly, he did have a lot of blood and soil talking points.
Very interesting.
Yeah, Europeans go home.
This land is for Native Americans only.
Hmm.
Very progressive.
But because they were wearing Make America Great Again gear, they were surrounding the Native American elder.
The episode is being investigated and the students could face punishment up until including expulsion, their school said in the statement, because the media was going wild with this and demanding answers.
Now...
If you go to the next one, the Daily Caller, you know, then shortly afterwards found this other footage from the event.
It was like five hours long and showed absolutely everything that was going on.
And it turned out that none of what the media was reporting about this was true.
And it genuinely takes the sort of verified checkmark, knee-jerk reacting to something they don't understand.
To generate a catastrophe of this magnitude.
The Native American, and it wasn't just him, there were a couple of them, the boys were just stood there doing nothing, doing their little school chants and things like that, and the Native American elder had walked into the crowd of them, and a bunch of them had moved aside, except Nicholas Salmon, who just stood there and just looked at him.
He didn't do anything, he didn't make any movements, and the Native elder was essentially trying to intimidate him into moving, and he didn't.
And so the New York Times had to publish an article and go, well, actually, now we have the fuller picture.
We're in a better position to make an informed judgment.
It's like, well, why are we making any kind of judgments at all if you didn't have the full facts?
They, of course, had to essentially retract this in this article and They say, in a statement, Mr.
Sandman said he did not antagonize or tried to block Mr.
Phillips.
I didn't speak to him.
I didn't make any hand gestures or any other aggressive moves.
He just stood there.
But basically, the New York Times is unrepentant after unleashing a hate mob on these children, because that's what they were, and probably still are, to be honest.
I was going to say last year, but it's 2019.
And the thing is, the New York Times is far from the worst of it either.
So you've got the...
Again, the progressive verified class on Twitter, I don't know how else to describe them, but there's definitely something that is, you know, an organism that is there.
The most hilarious one I thought was Kathy Griffin saying that they were throwing up Nazi signs.
No, they didn't.
There's no evidence of that on the video, and of course she deleted that.
Then you've got progressive takes such as Salon.com saying this was white victimology.
I'm sorry?
Well, they've made a mistake there because one of those gentlemen isn't white, he's orange.
Well, that's a good point.
But also among the Covington kids, they were a mixed race demographic.
I mean, they had an engagement with the Hebrew Israelites, who are a black activist group.
And one of the Covington Catholic kids was black.
And so they were saying, look, you're black, you have to come over to here with us.
And the kids were like, no, you don't have to do anything with us.
You're one of us.
Seems pretty racist if you ask me.
Well, the only people who were racially abused that day were the Covington kids by the Hebrew Israelites, as far as I could tell.
But listen to this framing.
The mere accusation of racism against a white person is worse than the impact of racism on the safety, security, lives, and literal existence of non-whites.
What racism?
What happened here that you think is racist?
White people are the real victims of racism.
In Donald Trump, at the help of Vladimir Putin in Russia, wrote this lie to the White House.
Incorporating the hoax narrative of Russia collusion and Russian interference in the 2016 election.
No evidence for it at all.
There was a three-year-long investigation that found absolutely nothing, and yet they don't care.
So they're calling the Cunnington kids racists, and this is a product of Trump and the fixed election by Vladimir Putin.
Just...
They're just lying.
It's just such obvious lies.
And so now they go, white people are somehow oppressed by non-whites, political correctness, and civil rights.
Whiteness is benign.
White people, regardless of the evidence of their bad behavior or ill intent, are always entitled to the benefit of the doubt.
What ill behavior?
All of this is based on a lie.
And then you get amazing takes, like this next one, from Dr.
Eugene Gu, who decided to explain the nature of white supremacy using this example.
I'm glad someone can.
Let's see what he's got to say.
He says black teens get gunned down on the streets for just wearing a hoodie while white teens have expensive PR teams that gaslight us through respected journalists and make us second-guess racist actions seen on video.
That is the nature of white supremacy.
It's powerful and insidious.
Total fancy.
Total fancy.
It was because they were white that these kids got the treatment they got because this Native American elder decided to try and intimidate them.
And this was written after the other video had gone out, I believe.
So it's not like he wasn't aware or able to find the facts.
So anyway, after all of this, CNN, The Washington Post and others had to settle for literally hundreds of millions with Nicholas Sandman after defaming him.
In total, I think he got something over $200 million.
The suits didn't go through court because they all just settled.
Yeah, The Washington Post settled, CNN, ABC, CBS, The Guardian, The Hill and NBC all settled.
And it would have been to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars for Nicholas Sandman in the end.
But good.
Good for him.
Because he didn't deserve any of that.
And it's because this racist media was looking at them going, right, a white person, we can victimize.
It doesn't matter that they're a child.
We're doing it anyway.
That was what this was about.
Sandman's lawsuit against the New York Times was somehow dismissed as not defamatory.
It's lucky for them, because they started it.
But anyway, moving on, let's talk about the McCloskeys, shall we?
And how the McCloskeys, you might remember again in 2020, during Black Lives Matter protests, saw that a bunch of Black Lives Matter activists had Broken into their gated community, as in literally smashed down the gate, and were marching in, chanting aggressive slogans.
And so the McCloskeys went out on their own property, armed, and said, you're not going to come and burn my house.
Which I think's fair.
Because it's not like Black Lives Matter don't have a history of burning property or something.
I mean, these people had broken in.
And while doing this, of course, the media went wild because the pictures of them...
Again, they were white, and they were confronting a mob of mixed ethnicities, so it wasn't, I guess, clear what was going on, maybe, from the media's point of view.
But they saw this and were like, oh, look at this.
Racist white people who are going to attack black people who didn't do anything wrong.
And therefore they are the problem.
And so the McCloskeys, both lawyers, have to come out and say, well look, no, we actually support Black Lives Matter, but we were definitely feeling like we were under threat and felt that we needed to defend our property.
And the ironic thing is, right, the McCloskeys, the house they were protecting, it looks really nice, right?
I looked into this.
They had bought this in the 70s for virtually nothing, and it was totally run down.
They even have pictures of what the house was like in the 70s.
Complete ramshackle.
And they'd spent the last 50 years beautifying this house, restoring it all.
And so now it's a gorgeous, gorgeous piece of property.
And it wasn't even expensive in the 70s because it was a ramshackle.
And so no wonder they wanted to protect this investment of their lives that they put into it.
But they, at this point, have realised that, oh yes, this is all what the Democrats have been doing.
They were saying, this is all private property.
There are no public sidewalks or public streets.
We were told we'd be killed.
Our home burned and our dog killed.
We were alone facing an angry mob.
It was like the storming of the Bastille.
The gate came down and a large crowd of angry, aggressive people poured through.
I was terrified we'd be murdered within seconds.
Our house would burn down and our pets killed.
And after this, the McCluskey's became basically activists, because why wouldn't you?
If we go to the next one, John, they released a video statement in August, in 2020, talking about their right to self-defense.
And they have a right to self-defense.
This is like the first law of nature.
If you're being attacked, then you get to defend yourself.
And this is so unbelievably baked into the liberal theory that underpins our democracies.
There's no point even questioning it.
And it hasn't been questioned until communists arrived on the scene.
But what I find interesting is that Mr.
McCluskey says, It seems as if the Democrats no longer view the government's job as protecting honest citizens from criminals, but rather protecting criminals from honest citizens.
Not a single person in the out-of-control mob you saw at our house was charged with a crime.
But you know who was?
They were.
They were not satisfied with spreading chaos and the violence into our communities.
They want to abolish the suburbs altogether.
Make no mistake, no matter where you live, your family will not be safe in the radical Democrats' America.
Now, partisanly charged as that statement is, how's it wrong?
I'm sorry, it just seems completely what the intent is, and this was one of the reasons that Bolsonaro was so successful in Brazil.
He made exactly the same points.
The left wing are protecting criminals against the law-abiding.
That can't be allowed.
But they got harassed because they were the centre of a media firestorm.
They got harassed when they were going to pick up Christmas cards.
Interestingly, the person who was harassing them was shouting, abolish the suburbs at them and calling them terrorists.
The total opposite of reality.
But anyway, the next one we'll go through is just the whipping of the migrants.
Are you aware of this one?
I'm not, no.
Right, so it turns out that somehow...
Thousands of migrants from Haiti arrived on the southern border in Texas, and that's a good question how they got there.
I mean...
It's a Haitian island.
Yes.
Curious, that one.
Yeah.
And it's fairly far away from the United States as well.
It's not like you'd nip over from Haiti to the United States.
You'd go to some Central American country or South American country and then walk up.
Or perhaps they're just the reincarnation of Jesus.
But one picture in particular went viral.
Can we scroll down?
Maybe the picture's in this article.
I can't remember if the picture's actually in this one or not.
There we go, right.
So it's not this particular picture, but as you can see, the man in his hand is holding something.
Something probably made of leather.
I think I can speculate as to what that might be.
It's the rain.
Yes.
It's the rain of the horse.
But one particular picture, when he's riding past to grab one of the migrants, the rain is, like, looping out.
And so the media, and members of the media, as you can see by this particular verified checkmark, claims that he had a whip.
The agent swung his whip menacingly, charging his horse towards the men in the river.
There is no whip there, because these people don't have whips.
The Border Patrol in Texas are not equipped with whips.
And yet this was the narrative that all of the left-wing media pursued, as if the Border Force were doing something wrong by doing their jobs.
I think the verified checkmarks may have been watching too many Westerns lately.
Or they just, I think they've actually been reading too much about books on slavery, to be honest.
That might be it as well.
Because they saw black men being pursued by the Border Force and were like, well, this is just slavery.
And some of these takes on what was a total non-issue, just the apprehension of illegal immigrants crossing the border illegally, It's just wild.
So this woman is a PBS NewsHour correspondent.
Border Patrol agents on horseback cracking whips and charging into crowds of Haitian asylum seekers in Texas shouting them to go back to Mexico.
Strong reporting, blah, blah.
That's not true.
My God, said Sonny Hostin from The View.
This is absolutely horrifying, like something out of the 19th century, said an Atlantic staff writer Adam Swerter.
I don't know about anyone else, but I wasn't aware that border patrol agents were authorised to use whips on human beings.
They're not.
They don't carry whips.
You're making this up.
You're seeing what you want to see because you think that your country is just some sort of racist slave colony or something like that.
But anyway, so just to summarize all of this, this particular article went viral.
I saw this being shared around by those people who are in the mainstream bubble and are yet going, okay, Things are going wrong.
So we're going to go to the next one.
This is by a chap called Andrew Sullivan, who's a former editor of the New Republic and now, I guess, does independent blogging.
And I love the title of this article, When All the Media Narratives Collapse.
In case after case, the US MSM just keeps getting it wrong.
Well, they're either wildly incompetent or they're doing it on purpose, aren't they, Andrew?
And the answer is, of course, they're doing it on purpose.
Because it always goes one way, as you note.
He says, when all the sources keep getting things wrong, when all the errors lie in the same direction and they are reluctant to acknowledge the error, we have a problem.
Well, we do have a problem, but it's not an accident.
And that's the problem, isn't it?
You're framing this as an accident rather than an orchestrated campaign.
Now, I don't know why they're doing this.
I can make a lot of speculations.
I could suggest that possibly this is an expression of Marcuse's repressive tolerance on display, where tolerance is rescinded from the enemy and given only to the ally.
But the point is, this keeps happening and it's got to stop.
Maybe it's just a product of being on Twitter and being in certain echo chambers on Twitter.
Because you'll notice that one of the things that connects all of these journalists is they're all verified on Twitter, which is why we call them verified checkmarks.
But he goes through a series of events, especially speaking about the Carl Rittenhouse trial.
And he says that he didn't realise, and a lot of people didn't realise just how things were.
This is the New York Times on the 26th of August, the morning after the killings.
The authorities were investigating whether the white teenager who was arrested was part of a vigilante group.
His social media accounts appeared to show an intense affinity for guns, law enforcement, and President Trump.
Carl Rittenhouse's race is specified, but the race of the men he killed and injured were not.
They were also white.
And it also is deliberately framed to make Kyle sound like he was out to get them and not the other way around.
And then he says, Not to people who didn't read the MSM when it came to finding out what happened in this trial.
It only came as a shock to the insulated bubble of the commentariat on Twitter.
And he says the money quote from the defense lawyer, it wasn't until you pointed your gun at him and advanced on him with your gun and your hands down pointed at him that you fired.
Right?
To which Grosskraut answered, correct.
And the New York Times also, in their video footage of this, cut off the key moments showing Rittenhouse defense trial, this moment that had proved so critical in court.
And there are lots of other examples of the Jussie Smollett hoax, the Russia hoax, the Steele dossier, lying about critical race theories in schools, calling anyone who's skeptical about any COVID narratives an anti-vaxxer, blah, blah, blah.
But what's...
What's the end goal of this?
That's the question.
Why are they doing this?
And I think that Washington Post opinion editor Jennifer Rubin is just going to tell us straight up.
Let's watch her video.
The mainstream media is part of this.
They cover these issues and then they go right back to having Republicans on talk shows, asking them about other issues, allowing them to air their phony grievances rather than grilling them incessantly about why they tolerate this behavior.
This is fascistic behavior.
This is what fascist regimes do.
They use Extra, outside the bounds of reasonable democratic, small d, methods of getting their way.
They intimidate, they threat, they use the threat of violence.
And this is absolutely intolerable.
And it's been going on for years now in the Republican Party.
And I think, number one, the House should do something about it.
By the way, I think they might get a couple of Republican votes at least.
Both Congresswoman Liz Cheney and Congressman Adam Kinzinger have said they might be inclined to go along with it, which I think would be very healthy.
But I think you also have to have some new ground rules for the media.
I think they have to stop treating Republicans like normal politicians.
They're not normal politicians.
This is not normal conduct.
This is a party that spends its entire time And that's the Washington Post's opinion editor.
Just saying this on MSNBC, I think it was.
I mean, if they're going to just call, they're going to tell all of these lies, call their opponents a bunch of fascists when they themselves are acting like fascists, and again, decide to rescind any kind of charity or tolerance from them, it seems that the media are the problem.
They hate you.
Anyway.
Hopefully you've got a less stressful...
Well, I think this may be less stressful, provided you don't live in Liverpool, but we're going to see this one.
So this is about the current event.
So the first caveat is that everything we talk about here may be subject to change as the facts emerge afterwards.
But buckle up because I've got a mystery for you, technically a murder mystery.
You can get out your deerstalkers and your long-handled pipes and just enjoy this as the evidence unfolds.
We speculate on what may have happened.
So, welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to the mysterious case of the exploding taxi.
Yesterday, there was an explosion in Liverpool.
As you can see from the map we have here, this happened outside Liverpool Women's Hospital at 10.59am.
We have some news about this.
A terrorist incident has been declared after a taxi exploded outside Liverpool Women's Hospital yesterday morning.
According to the Telegraph, there was a large explosion which blew out all of the windows and sent the windscreen flying into the air.
White smoke came billowing out of the car.
It is extraordinary that the driver managed to survive, let alone escape.
One theory being explored by counter-terror police is that the detonator exploded, but the main charge did not.
Unfortunately, we can confirm that one person has died and another has been taken to hospital where he is being treated for his injuries, which thankfully are not life-threatening.
As far as we are aware, the person who has died was the terrorist, the man with the bomb.
Subsequent to that, police then showed up in Rutland Avenue and then in Sutcliffe Street, where they made three arrests of young men all in their twenties.
It is believed that the passenger of this taxi was a terrorist carrying a suicide bomb.
According to mainstream reports, he initially planned to go to Liverpool's Anglican Cathedral, which is marked down there.
And if we move to the next slide, this is one photo of the interior of Liverpool Anglican Cathedral.
So it's a beautiful cathedral.
Absolutely stunning.
I had a great deal of difficulty choosing a picture for this segment because whether you take a photo from the outside or the inside looking at the nave or the vestry, everything just looks beautiful about it.
It's hard to really show the extent and grandeur of this cathedral, even though I'm not sure that it was built that long ago.
Right, okay.
So a lovely piece of architecture.
So let's just unpack this little factoid that we have about the case.
The bomber wanted to go to a Christian church on a Sunday morning when it would be presumably packed with worshippers attending Sunday service.
On Remembrance Sunday.
Indeed.
Mainstream media has yet to make any comment on the significance of this choice of target.
We are instead informed that counter-terrorism police have said they are keeping an open mind about the cause of the explosion and are working closely with Merseyside Police and, according to reports, MI5. So we can at least rest easy that our police are not closed-minded or bigoted about this case.
They're keeping an open-minded mind and all options open.
Not leaping to any assumptions about any particular religions that have problems with other religions.
Indeed.
So if we can go to the next clip.
So this is a video of the explosion.
If we can just play the clip.
So what you'll see is a car pulling up outside of a hospital.
There's a big explosion and it looks like something flies out of the top.
There's big white smoke everywhere.
Someone runs towards the black taxi.
Then the driver gets out and staggers away.
So does the person in the fluorescent jacket.
Someone else moves towards the car to see if anyone's alright in there.
Now the smoke's turning black as it comes out of the car.
Luckily no one seems to be too close.
Someone runs in to check whether there's anyone still inside the taxi.
At this point, a fire starts, and very soon the taxi is completely covered in flames.
So, we have some more information about this.
The terrorist was apparently delayed in traffic, so he diverted the taxi to Liverpool's Women's Hospital, where the taxi exploded.
I don't mean to laugh, but that is just the most British reason why a church didn't get blown up.
Well, I was targeting Remembrance Sunday services at an Anglican church, but the traffic was terrible.
I mean, I've been in taxis in this country, I can very much sympathise.
God, okay, sorry, I didn't mean to laugh.
No offence to any taxi drivers out there, just saying.
It's not your fault that the traffic's terrible.
No, no.
Sorry, Karen.
So the driver, the man apparently called Dave Perry, was knocked unconscious by an explosion in the passenger seat behind him.
It is believed that he may have locked the taxi doors, preventing the terrorist from disembarking and causing more damage with his bomb at the hospital.
When David arrived, said an eyewitness, he noticed something not right about him.
David remembers a bang, then going unconscious, then managing to escape the car, luckily by a strand of hair, before it went into flames.
So he's also a hero then?
By this report, though, we do have other reports which claim that he did not lock the doors and the bomb simply went off perhaps because it was timed or the terrorist was a klutz or an idiot as well as a murderess.
They're not sending their best.
Indeed.
So, yeah, let's just consider the timing of this attack now that we have surveyed the location.
What might be important about 11 a.m.
on the Sunday after the 11th day of the 11th month each year?
You got it right earlier?
Yes.
Spoiling our investigation.
I'm sorry.
Indeed.
It was Remembrance Sunday.
Yes.
And this photo that we've had up here is just a photo from 2015 of what Remembrance Sunday looks like in Liverpool.
So this isn't by the cathedral, but this is in the centre of the city.
You can see there are rows of soldiers serving and ceremonial and big crowds, lots of flags, families, women and children, everyone wearing the poppy like we should have been last week.
Yes.
And it looks very nice, very wholesome.
It's a point of mythic significance for the British.
Absolutely.
So, for those who don't know, Remembrance Sunday is a big, solemn religious and civic festival to commemorate the sacrifices of an entire generation of young men, mainly Europeans, who died in World War I. Between 9 and 11 million soldiers died within those four years, as well as 6 to 13 million civilians.
So we're talking about a horrific death toll.
Since this day is also used to remember military sacrifices from other conflicts, it's known in other countries as Veterans Day, and that might be more familiar to our American viewers.
So, what do we know about the bomber?
Can you guess?
Was he an extra in four lines?
The last chance to place your bets.
I'm afraid I cannot comment on his filmographic history, but it's quite possible.
John, can you look up his IMDB page?
So, last chance to place your bets.
Going once, going twice.
An anonymous source tells us that he is a Muslim man.
He may have come from Sefton Park, which is known by locals to be a Somali ghetto.
Right.
His initial target was allegedly the Duke of Lancaster's Regimental Parade, a remembrance parade which draws large crowds, particularly of families and children.
And this is a picture of children at a Duke of Lancaster's Regimental Parade in another town.
I believe this is Manchester.
Looking very cute and smiley as they're looking out for the soldiers marching by with their marching band and their red coats.
If you're in Britain, you'll probably be aware of this spectacle.
It's quite a normal thing.
It's incredibly wholesome.
Absolutely.
So, intelligence sources believe this explosion may be part of a larger wave of attacks and not an isolated incident, so our viewers in England are advised to be on their guard.
Though, to be honest, how you can be on your guard against random acts of violence and terrorism is...
Anyone's guess.
Anyone's guess.
I think if you're an MP, you can hire private security.
That's probably your best bet.
You probably can if you're very rich as well, but if you're a normal person like the rest of us, good luck.
Just don't go outside, I suppose.
Our specialised counter-terrorism units are allegedly on the ground in Liverpool in case there are further attacks.
So let's just take a step back and summarise what we have here.
We have a young Muslim man who attempts to bomb in order of priority...
A Christian church.
A parade of soldiers attended by families and children.
A women's hospital full of pregnant women and newborns.
And he does this on Remembrance Sunday.
So what does this choice of targets have in common with previous Islamist terrorist attacks?
Well, considering the character of Islamist violence across the Middle East and beyond, why might non-Islamic places of worship be seen as desirable targets by Islamists?
Better than blowing up a boot's.
I see someone's been watching four lines.
Well, honestly, it really is giving me echoes of that, to be honest.
And one of the lines in that film is when they're in the takeaway or whatever, and it's like, you know, I don't want to blow up in the boots.
And I've been thinking about this for a while, because it's just like, I mean, these things just don't matter.
They'll just be rebuilt.
No one will care.
But something with mythic significance, like Remembrance Sunday or a church or something like this, These are genuinely important things, and so I'm surprised, honestly, we haven't been getting more attacks on these things previously.
That's true.
That's true.
Yes, absolutely.
We then look at the next target, which was a military parade.
And by attempting to attack a British military parade, again, rife with pomp and mythic significance, as you put it, what does that tell us about the attacker's attitude towards this country in which he lives, presumably?
Well, obviously, it's not a very pro-British attitude that he has.
I suspect he wasn't buying a poppy this year.
No, I can't imagine he's bought many poppies.
In his life.
No, that's quite right.
We then look at the next target, which was where he actually failed his terrorist attack, and this was a women's hospital.
Why attack a women's hospital?
Now, this I don't think is necessarily unique to Islam, because if you look at terrorist attacks around the world, there is a tendency to attack what's perceived as the most vulnerable or precious people in society in order to provoke the most shock and impact.
Knife attacks on kindergartens are actually very common in communist China, as far as we're aware.
And also lone wolf terrorist attacks are often school shootings worldwide, whether it's America.
We had one in Lockerbie, I believe.
We did.
There was one in Cumbria, I can't remember.
Yes, I'm getting these mixed up, I think.
There was a shooting and a bombing.
The Lockerbie bombing was the plane.
Quite right, and that was linked to Libya.
It was.
Indeed, I got that wrong.
It's okay.
But then we look at Islamist terrorism in this country, and I'm strongly reminded of the Manchester Arena bombing.
Well, yeah.
So just to remind viewers, in the Manchester Arena bombing, 22 people apart from the terrorist were killed and 1,017 people were injured, many of them young girls attending an Ariana Grande concert.
And if I recall correctly, one of the security guards noticed the chap was acting very strangely.
But didn't want to say anything just in case he was called a racist.
Yes, that's absolutely correct.
This was because the actual attack happened very shortly after a simulation of what a terror attack might look like, because in this year there had been a lot of terrorist attacks and the police were on high alert.
And the exercise was criticised for using a Muslim man who was non-white as the target.
I believe the Lotus Eaters reported on this last year.
We may well have done.
It's been a long year.
Indeed, indeed.
And so it was partly because of that exercise that we believe that the security guard was reluctant to act in case he would play into the criticisms that they'd received for their trial run.
And so I'll just close this by asking the question, is there something in the Islamist view of women that makes a women's hospital a particularly eligible target?
Especially women, non-Islamic women particularly.
Indeed.
Women who are not abiding by the rules set down in the Quran on how they should behave and dress and comport themselves.
So just to close this, again, much of this is pure speculation on our part, and the facts will obviously make themselves known in due course.
But since this had happened so recently, and there are a number of significant points about the details of the attack which the mainstream media does not seem inclined to comment on, we thought we would cover it.
And speaking of Middle Eastern migrants, they appear to actively be invading Britain.
Now, I don't use the term invasion lightly.
It doesn't apply to migrants who come here legally.
But I think that when you get on a boat and then illegally arrive on the shores of a place, that's suitably termed an invasion.
I don't think that's an unfair characterisation, which is why I'm going to use it, even though lots of people have been using it for regular immigration, which I don't agree with.
But for this particular case of the Channel Crossings into Britain, it is an invasion, and it's now twice the size of the Norman army that invaded in 1066 and conquered England.
So, just saying, it's getting rather concerning.
This has been going on for years now, where...
Apparently, migrants are somehow able to find seaworthy boats, dinghies and things like that, and just sail across the Channel, as if there's no one who can stop them.
And for some reason, in July this year, the Crown Prosecution Service was like, well, we're not going to prosecute them for committing a crime anymore.
I wonder why.
The agreement was made between police, prosecutors and the National Crime Agency, Border Force and the Home Office over cases of illegal entry, also covering those arriving by lorry.
The guidance sets out circumstances in which attempting to cross the English Channel is considered criminal, and apparently these migrants don't fulfil that guidance now.
So legally breaking into the country is no longer a crime.
So there's something about these cases which always rubs me up the wrong way.
So this seems to be an agreement between police, prosecutors, NCA, Border Force, Home Office.
That's five institutions.
None of them are elected.
None of them make laws.
But they are taking it into their own hands to decide which laws to enforce.
So they are making themselves de facto lawmakers in this country without election.
That's a fantastic point, and I will show people why they're doing this in a minute, because you are absolutely correct.
The very nature of what they're doing is frankly abhorrent, totally unaccountable, and totally against the traditions of this country.
But before we get to that, this is accelerating.
This is not slowing down.
Now, last year there was something like 12,000 people who came across.
Well, we have reached record-breaking numbers now, because it turns out that if you decriminalize breaking into this country, And the French government helps facilitate people breaking into this country, then you'll get a lot of people breaking in.
So the other day, on Thursday, it surpassed the previous day's daily record of 853, with 1,200.
I think it was actually 1,182 or something like that.
But 1,200 will do for layman's work.
That means that more than 23,500 people have reached the UK on small boats this year.
William the Conqueror only had about 9,800 men.
Just a thought.
Anyway, a home office spokesperson said the public have had enough of the crossings and the number was unacceptable.
But what's the Home Office's position on the crossings?
I mean, I accept that the public has had enough of this, and it is unacceptable, but why doesn't the Home Office take a position on this that's not decriminalised it?
The number of illegal immigrants we have seen departing from France today is unacceptable.
The British public have had enough of seeing people die in the Channel, while ruthless criminal gangs profit from their misery, and our new plan for immigration will fix this broken system which encourages migrants to make this lethal journey.
That wasn't the concern.
I mean, don't get me wrong.
It was a concern.
It was a concern that was slightly lower down the list.
I mean, nobody wants to see anyone die, obviously.
But the main concern is that tens of thousands of illegal immigrants are invading Britain from across the continent.
That's the problem.
I mean, the public does generally, when polled, want less immigration overall.
And this is consistent for decades.
It's literally for, well, I mean, since the immigration began, frankly.
And possibly before.
Well, yeah, that's probably why immigration wasn't something that happened.
It's because people didn't want it.
And now, I mean, this is all in total defiance of public opinion, and always has been, as you say.
But the point there, note the framing.
And again, the framing is important because this is coming from an unnamed Home Office spokesperson.
But they don't want people dying in the channel, and they're going to fix the system which encourages them to make this lethal journey.
Well, what does that fix look like?
We don't know yet, because this is all very recent, but it's going to be giving them easier access to the country.
That's what it's going to be.
People who have got no legal claim to come into the country, and I don't know why they don't just take the same legal routes that literally 700,000 people last year took.
Who knows?
But anyway, Priti Patel had apparently promised two years ago that migrant crossings would be an infrequent phenomenon, but of course this did not happen.
And in an attempt to fulfil this promise, the government has agreed to pay France millions of pounds, 54 million pounds in fact.
To increase security on its northern coast, but the number of migrants reaching UK shores has, of course, continued to increase, although it still sees fewer asylum claims than many other European countries.
Well, that's because they were in the Schengen zone, and Germany agreed to take in somewhere in the number of 2 million illegal immigrants, because Merkel opened the German people's hearts And should be held responsible for all of the terrible things that have happened since.
But because of the Schengen Zone, that means they can just go anywhere.
And we weren't in it.
So they couldn't come here.
For good reason.
So, are France doing this despite us over Brexit?
Asked The Telegraph.
Hard to imagine they're not.
It's genuinely hard.
I mean, don't get me wrong.
They could be doing it for a layered series of reasons, all of them based in spite, and all of them based over the last thousand-odd years of history.
But Britain has accused France, says the Telegraph Report, of ceding sovereign territory to criminal people smugglers.
Not the first time they've done that.
I mean, that is how Normandy was created, when the French kings ceded territory on the northern coast.
I think we're going back a bit too far here.
Well, you say that, but I mean, you know, to criminal people smugglers, yes, the Vikings did trade slaves.
It's just weird how history has this repeating aspect to it.
France is said to have stopped just, quote, a couple of boats so far, which means, of course, thousands of migrants are coming across.
Is that to refit them with better engines?
Well, I mean, I can only imagine.
Where do they keep getting these boats from?
Boats aren't cheap.
How do these penniless migrants somehow keep getting access to boats?
But anyway, this of course, after France pledged that they would have a 100% rate in return in exchange for £54 million a year that we're going to give them, a Whitehall source, again an unnamed source, says, Again, see the problem.
Okay, yes, I agree that there is a risk of death when crossing the Channel illegally, and I don't want to see anyone die, but that isn't my major concern.
My major concern is that France is facilitating tens of thousands of illegal immigrants entering into Britain.
You'll notice that completely absent from this Home Office narrative is any reference to the people of Britain.
It's almost as if they don't exist.
They're irrelevant to this problem.
Well, the only reference we had was people are tired of watching migrants die in the Channel.
They want an easier route for them to enter the country.
When they say the people of Britain, they probably mean the people who live in about a square mile around Westminster.
But anyway, yeah, so this, again, with nearly 24,000 people, terrible, terrible thing, but never mind.
So there seems to be a distinct lack of understanding among the people running the Border Force and the Home Office and all of the other government agencies involved in this.
And interestingly, a speech was leaked from Mr.
Paul Lincoln, who has served as the Director General of the Border Force since 2017, making his departure speech.
And there were some fascinating comments from this.
This position, by the way, £135,000 a year.
Good job if you can get it.
Especially if you don't have to do it.
If you can just say, well, I'm in charge of enforcing our borders, but also I'm not enforcing our borders, and none of the other institutions who are responsible for enforcing the borders are going to hold me to any kind of account.
Why would this be?
Well, it's because the Civil Service, the Border Force, all of the Home Office, all of these institutions are packed with Remainers.
Apparently 95% of them voted to remain.
Not very representative of a country that at least half and over half of the people wanted to leave.
Anyway, there are excerpts of the speech that Breitbart got hold of, and things like where he was quoting Shane McGowan of the Pogue song, saying, people are talking about immigration, emigration, the rest of the bloody thing, it's all bloody crap.
I think that if you're in charge of policing the borders, maybe you should have a more serious opinion on borders.
One has to wonder who hired this guy, because they are at least as bad.
I can guarantee it.
That would be the Conservative Party, because this was done in 2017, but then...
And what are you going to do?
But again, like the chief of the Border Patrol force, quoting the pogues on immigration, not terribly serious, but apparently he concluded his remarks by proclaiming, quote, we're all human beings, we're all mammals, we're all rocks, plants and rivers.
Not a rock, disavow.
Yeah, I've never been a river, either.
I don't think I'm a plant, although maybe when I have hay fever, maybe there's enough pollen in my nose to count.
But bloody borders are such a pain in the bloody arse.
So the chief of border patrol says those borders are a pain in the arse, aren't they?
We're all just humans after all, aren't we?
We're all just the same.
You would think that being the border chief of an island would be the easiest job in the world, wouldn't you?
I mean, Japan does not have these problems, I can assure you.
Poland and Belarus are currently having a very similar set to, and the Polish are doing a much better job than we are, and we've got the natural defences of the English Channel.
I mean, it's hard to imagine this is not intentional, especially given this kind of attitude.
Well, there's no difference between the British and, say, the Somali migrants who are currently making their way across.
There's just no difference whatsoever.
So, I mean, apparently we're all rocks, plants and rivers.
Whatever that's supposed to mean.
These borders are a pain in the bum.
And it's like, yes.
Yes, they are.
For the people whose job it is to patrol them, yours, for six figures a year, that you're not doing.
Just do your job.
That's it.
That's all we want you to do.
Just do your job.
I mean, it's not like not being handsomely rewarded for it either.
But the point is, look what he's appealed to here.
This is something I covered in a video, a speech I did at the live event called the Universal Human.
And it's because, as Roger Scruton observed, that during the Age of Enlightenment, the Age of Sail, Europeans went around the world and were like, oh, look, there's humans everywhere, and they've all got certain similar traits.
Yes, they do.
And so these are essentially the key essential traits of what it is to be a human.
You have to have these things to be a human, and that's true.
But when you do that, what you do to be able to abstract away into a universal view of what a human being is, and we're all human beings, we're all mammals, we're all rocks, plants, and rivers...
What you have to do is subtract those things that aren't universal.
As in, we particularly speak English where a lot of these migrants don't.
We are a Christian country where these migrants don't come from a Christian country.
We have particular views on women that are not shared by these migrants and things like that.
So all of the particulars that are unique to us, or not unique or just particular to us, but are not particular to these migrants, they have to be essentially subtracted away from your calculus.
So you can arrive at the condition where, well, we're all human beings, therefore there are no differences between us.
And that's what I was talking about in there.
But anyway, returning to the article, I just want to bring this up because these are things that genuinely are going on here.
This is the way these people view the world.
But returning to the article, Breitbart said that rather than protecting the nation's borders, the border force has been accused of acting as a taxi service for illegal immigrants.
Because they are.
Because they are, yes, rightfully have been accused of this, because Border Force boats regularly pick up migrants in the middle of the Channel and ferry them to the port of Dover.
The Border Force has also reportedly travelled into French territorial waters to pick up migrants and bring them back to Britain.
And suddenly it becomes a lot more apparent why they're doing this, because the people running the Border Force are against borders.
How does someone who is an anti-borders activist get in charge of the nation's borders?
It's a mystery.
It's a mystery that only the Conservatives can answer for us.
Anyway, Prince Patel's Home Office has called for the Border Force to begun turning migrants back to France.
I guess just today I saw something, because they could have been doing this since the Conservatives came to power in 2010.
However, last week a Border Force official told the media there is no appetite within the agency of enacting the government's wishes, saying there is a fairly universal agreement this is not likely to ever happen.
Then fire them.
Then defund the border force.
Then create a new institution that will do what the government, the elected government of the country, is actually going to do to protect its territorial integrity, as it has a legal, not just right, but obligation to do.
It's mad, isn't it?
It goes back to what I said at the start of it.
It's these unelected institutions which have got together around the table.
Same social class, same set of beliefs.
And they've said to themselves, well, this is what the public wants and this is what the government wants.
But we're the state and what we want to do is what gets done.
And we don't want to do this.
We're all just trees and rivers, really, aren't we?
Yeah, yeah.
Them trees, them rivers, them rocks.
All the same.
I mean, it's the xenophobic, bigoted, right-wing, Brexit-voting, gammon public that doesn't seem to understand that, you know, the Somali immigrants are just the same as people from small towns in England.
It's exactly the same.
There's no difference at all.
No cultural differences whatsoever.
I mean, you do get this sort of example from, say, Wigan, where Lisa Nandy, a famously...
Left-wing, pro-immigration, pro-refugee Labour politician has had to ask Wigan Hotels to stop putting up these illegal immigrants because they're harassing schoolgirls.
We all just harass schoolgirls, don't we?
It's just what happens all over this country.
Twelve-year-olds getting harassed by adult men everywhere they go.
It's been a long-standing problem in this country.
And when I say problem, I mean that implies that we're doing something wrong when doing it, but if we're all the same and everyone's good and just and has done nothing wrong by illegally invading our country, then how can we condemn this?
I mean, I personally, as a father, think this is despicable, and these people should be fired off of the cliffs of Dover out of a catapult.
But then what do I know?
I'm a gammon, I'm a right-winger.
What do I know about this, right?
So several parents from this school had told Wigan today, this outlet, that they are stopping their daughters from going out because groups of men have been filming their PE sessions at the local school, winking and passing comments at them in the street, and in one instance, surrounding a 12-year-old girl and filming her.
We're all just the same.
We're all just humans, you see.
We've all got the same social standards.
Nothing about cultures is different across anywhere in the world, and that's diversity.
One mum said, and I love this because this goes to show you the depth of programming in the regular British public here, the behaviour of a small number of men from the Britannia Hotel has been causing a lot of upset.
They're not from the hotel.
Yeah, they weren't born there.
No, they're from Algeria and Morocco and Somalia and Afghanistan and wherever.
But no, it's a small number of these men, because the rest of them haven't done anything yet.
But they clearly need educating.
If you flee from your own country and want to be accepted in a new one, then you need to learn the new country's ways.
What if you don't want to learn the new country's ways?
What if you like harassing 12-year-olds?
Which they seem to.
Otherwise they wouldn't be doing it, would they?
It'd be kind of weird.
Yeah, good idea to have something like a border to stop that sort of person getting in, wouldn't it?
If we had any information on them at all, that would be useful.
But we don't know that we haven't just allowed in 23,000 paedophile criminal rapists because they entered illegally.
And we're just like, here's a four-star hotel.
Would you like to stay in here for a while?
Would you like some money from the taxpayer?
Because that's what you're going to get.
And Lisa Landy was like, yeah, that's a great idea.
Until they start...
Harassing children.
But obviously, that's the sort of thing a toxic bigot would say.
You got me.
I do.
In fact, she's got you.
She knew you were going to say that, right?
You need to learn the new country's ways.
The last thing we want is all the right-wing thugs using this as an excuse to bring their toxic messages to Wigan again and whipping up racism.
That's right.
It's just racism.
The only reason you could possibly dislike illegal immigrants who invade your country and they start harassing children is because you hate brown people.
That's it.
And if you've got any other reason, you're a liar.
And, yeah, so, you know, this is the general state of the country at the moment.
Another one said they've got police around Standish High now, which is their school.
just after the school because of what's been going on, and that offers some reassurance.
Brilliant.
Brilliant.
So now, the school has to be guarded by the police.
So not only do the MPs have bodyguards, now the schools have bodyguards.
Yes.
So it's spreading.
In the end, there will be no one but bodyguards in this country.
But at least they accept the significance and the usefulness of a guarded border.
Even if it's just at the schools.
Just not the national border.
Just not the national border.
Anyway, let's go to the video comments.
How do you think TNG-era Star Trek has influenced our moral outlook and aspirations?
Maybe it's one of those things that everyone can use to support their politics.
Is it a socialist utopia or liberal post-capitalism?
What about our changing relationship to the importance of wealth from a brutal history into a future of abundance?
How would you identify the socio-economic systems of the Klingons, the Cardassians and the Borg?
Great question.
I think there's room for an essay in that one.
I agree.
Thanks for that question.
I think it's great.
So my view on the Star Trek narrative is that it is a genuinely hopeful and optimistic vision of the future from a time when the left and right wasn't quite as each other's throats in the same way that it is now.
No.
I mean, if you go back and watch just news debates from the 60s and 70s, it is shocking how cordial they are.
How polite.
Yes.
And there's a lot in Star Trek which people can agree with no matter their political persuasion.
So it seems like whoever designed this fiction was designing it from a perspective where they wanted to show the best and they didn't have politics in the front of their mind.
They weren't on Twitter 24-7.
Every minute of their waking lives wasn't injected with some reference to deeply upsetting and emotional current events.
And they were literally able to create a fictional world without politics of the modern day.
I think that's where a lot of good comes from.
I'm going to criticise that.
That's not true.
Gene Roddenberry is quite explicit, actually, in some ways about being progressive and wanting to push boundaries.
And, I mean, don't get me wrong, you know, as a product of the Star Trek, post-Star Trek generations, I mean, I agree morally with all of the points that he's making, obviously, and I'm a liberal as well, so I agree with him.
But it definitely was political.
It wants to talk about progressive issues.
It wants to cast something like the George Floyd trial into the episodes and that's just, well, it destroys the work they're trying to make.
Oh, I totally agree.
But you are right.
That deserves an essay.
That's a really great question.
But I just want to be clear.
I'm of the opinion that Star Trek doesn't represent socialism.
It represents post-scarcity liberal utopia.
You know, there's hierarchy, meritocracy.
There's a coherent civic religion or civic way of life in Star Trek.
There is.
And you can tell that the Federation is a product of not just diversity but a coherent moral outlook on the universe.
Yeah.
Yeah, no, that's exactly right.
And a product of the kind of 20th century drive to essentially create the universal man like this.
You notice how the whole thing, you get the small pockets of non-humans who get their particular local customs, like war for the Klingons and things like that.
Yeah, but when he mentions the other races, as the last comment, we'll be on this all day, they are basically there, I think, to act as a foil to the Federation, really.
Yes, they are.
When they're used well, they're not really supposed to be self-contained, oh, look at this society, what would it be like if blah, blah, blah.
They are the sense of, well, okay, what if this wholesome Federation ran into genuine authoritarians or bloodthirsty barbarians, this sort of thing?
What would happen?
And then they set that scenario up and they just let it roll from there.
But you notice they've always got this out in the prime directive.
Well, we can't interfere with the culture.
But no, you are right.
But that's the point, though, isn't it?
Because what we're describing is sort of like a non-universal culture versus the universal culture of the Federation.
And it's very much a product of 20th century philosophy, where it was the accumulation of the past 200 years of...
European thought that led to, well, if we create, like, the universal view, then we can just step into that and become that.
But it's like, okay, but then we end up actually looking at foreign cultures as if they're somehow inferior or below us and inappropriate, right?
But then you get the people from within the universal culture who start fetishizing them, you know, and failing to understand they've got their own.
They do, because in the universal culture of the Federation, there is no mythical aesthetic.
No.
So, yes, you can fall in love with the designs of the starships and the uniforms and this, that, and the other, and many people do.
But in terms of if you were in that society, there isn't a mythic narrative that ties together the Federation as something great and grand.
It is, like all progressive philosophies, looking forwards towards something that's very vaguely defined.
Mm-hmm.
So I think that's a flaw of the Federation in that sense, that it is universalist and not syncretic.
I think that's a core flaw of the universalist philosophy itself.
The idea that it has to have a grand plan for every human means that the grand plan is very, very thinned out and is hard to put in terms that are just not materialist.
Once the Federation has passed scarcity, well, what now?
Oh, we're just going to explore the galaxy.
Where do they find meanings?
Well, that's the thing.
The meaning is found in discovering the particular non-universal cultures and seeing what's interesting about them.
Turning them into the Federation, a bit like the Borg, as I think was remarked on in one episode.
Not necessarily, though, because they've got the prime director, so they just study and, you know, they're very abstract.
But notice how there's nothing...
Up to a point.
But there's nothing interesting about their own culture.
In Star Trek, all the music and things that they play, they're always referring to ancient works.
You know, they play ancient music.
From their own time.
Because it seems that the Federation is not capable of actually creating culture.
And they've got to go, oh, now we've got this lust to explore and find other cultures.
And it's actually, like, when you think about it, it's actually kind of sad.
There's a sadness that underpins it.
But I don't want to spend all day on this one.
We'll do something on this at some point if you want.
Because no one else in the office has watched Star Trek.
And so John's the only person...
We got that video coming and Michael was like, has anyone watched Star Trek?
I've never watched it.
I'm like, well, I have.
And thankfully someone else is here to talk about it.
But we'll talk about this at length another time.
Let's go to the next comment.
Well, I would like to once again say thank you to yourself, Harry, all the other Lotus Eaters, and the members of the community who share their kind words.
I'll detail my experience more in due time, but I want to direct you to this video here first.
It's Dr.
Campbell interviewing Kyle, who's been having the same adverse reactions that I've been having since getting vaccinated back in the spring.
I have actually seen this.
Oh really?
Can you tell me about it?
I haven't seen it.
It's probably best that you look at the details because otherwise I may get the medicine wrong.
But it's a, so this is, I think it's called Dr.
John, that he is a respected doctor who trains nurses and is involved in this kind of thing.
He's trusted by both sides of the political spectrum, so a proper neutral voice.
And he's going through the cases of this American athlete who had the coronavirus vaccine and then started experiencing quite serious heart problems.
And so they talk about it from a proper, neutral medical perspective.
And I think it's useful to you, whoever you are, especially if you're in this media bubble or you know someone in this media bubble where they have shut out all criticism of the vaccine.
Honestly, I'm amazed that he's still allowed on YouTube.
They have editorial policies that are very strict on this sort of stuff.
I think he had enough of a following that they can't get rid of him.
Well, incidentally, I've actually got Harry working on a premium podcast at the moment, specifically talking about the media view on why the human race is suddenly developing so many heart problems.
Ah, yes.
Who knows why?
Who knows?
Anyway, let's go on to the next one.
So I got done watching that stream of the game developer, and I will say though, your approach was basically like Alex Jones in a way, where he was just so off-put as to what was even going on, he wasn't able to fully connect to what the heck you were actually talking about.
One angle could have been like, well, all these kids are, this is all being taught in colleges, and then eventually they end up at y'all's companies, and then they end up creating all this nonsense.
So that could be one way to help out.
What was the...
I missed the thing.
What stream was he talking about?
Oh, John, don't worry.
I missed the reference to the stream, so I kind of missed where I was going.
Sorry.
Yeah, do you mind?
Just the first few seconds of it.
So I got done watching that stream of the game developer.
I had a chat with David Jaffe, who developed God of War, and he's got a good criticism, to be honest.
I should have been less forthright about what was going on, because I kind of did jump into the deep end.
But the thing is, David Jaffe has been dealing with these people for a very long time, so I'm surprised he was so bewildered about everything I was saying.
But you are right.
I should have had a more softly, softly approach.
It's first thing Sunday morning.
I've got my excuses.
Let's go for the next one.
Mark Hamill, you must read the most detailed, comprehensive account yet of domestic terrorists' attempt to overthrow our government and the quagmire of dysfunction that threatens our democracy on a day that will forever live in infamy.
In for me!
In for me!
They've all got it in for me!
I am loving the carry-on memes.
Well, they're right.
That's why.
I mean, look at the hysteria from Mark Hamill.
God.
Bunch of boomers just wandering around, not even destroying anything in the castle.
I do feel sorry for Mark Hamill, though, after what they did to him in the...
Well, I'm starting to lose my sympathy, to be honest.
You know, if you're going to get whipped and then say, oh, can I have another, please?
The person who's whipping me did nothing wrong.
Well, that's just Hollywood for you.
Well, yes, per se, yeah.
Let's go for the next one.
Howdy.
As there is a trend where people send in timelapses or projects, I decide to get in on the action.
You know, me being a shameless shill and all.
This is my commission for Based Ape.
Seems all the fitting that I have this piece to be the first timelapse I present since its inception is through this very podcast.
Link to my Ko-Fi is on screen.
P.S. For extra shill points, subscribe to Seltans of Chatelay on YouTube.
Have a wonderful day and weekend, everybody.
That's fantastic.
I love time-lapse stuff of things being made, no matter what it is.
I mean, I could literally watch anything, but just the process of something coming about out of nothing.
I love it.
I love the pencil drawing there as well.
I wish I could draw like that.
Oh, yeah.
That looked fantastic as well, by the way.
Yeah.
So, well done.
You're right, lads.
So, Alexandria Ohtana-Cortez.
I assume she's in Glasgow for COP26. Scrolling through my Facebook feed, and she's advertising Iron Brew.
If you wanted any more proof that we live in a clown world, AOC is advertising Iron Brew.
I'm sorry if you've already seen it, but...
What?
I was not aware of this.
It's amazing.
I think it was on Instagram where she was like, I'm in Glasgow, I've got an Iron Brew, this is a regional delicacy or something like that is how she was framing it.
As if this was, you know, I've gone to India and they've presented me the lovely spread and said, oh, this is their local food.
They should have given her a special brew.
Well, yeah, they should.
Or Buckfast, one of the other.
But that's the thing.
She's treating Ironbrew like it's some sort of native delicacy.
And it was genuinely hilarious to watch.
It's like, okay, but you're just shilling for a corporation now, Miss Socialist.
Well, what's new?
Well, yeah, exactly.
So I know Scotland gets a bad rep on the lotus eaters, and rightly so.
It's only because half our staff are Scottish.
But I actually sought refuge here from the European continent where vaccine passport madness is completely rampant at the moment.
It's really not that bad here.
Just have to be a bit careful not to commit any hate crimes.
I hope this isn't one.
I wouldn't want to live under a regime like the National Socialist Party of Scotland.
Me neither.
I mean, I do like Scotland.
I grew up there.
I think it has one advantage, which is there are remote places.
He's driving in the Shetlands there.
I mean, even Hitler would have a tough time getting stormtroopers to the Shetlands.
Good point.
The logistics are in your favour for now.
But I mean, it's just an openly woke government.
I just...
I can't stand it.
I mean, maybe that's just, you know, the Englishman in me being like, how can the Scots be like this?
But they are.
I mean, they vote for it.
You know, so what are you going to do?
We should do an in-depth podcast or article or something about Scotland, I think.
I think so too.
Like I said, half the office is basically Scottish as well, which is terrible.
I hope that's not a hate crime as well.
But you know it's true.
Just teasing, my Scottish friends.
Let's carry on.
Regardless of how the Kyle Rittenhouse trial ends, the activists on the left will say that it proves their point one way or another.
Either that he was a murderer all along, or that America has decided to side with a white person over justice.
But how are we supposed to interact with these people if they refuse to admit that they're wrong, that they do not have the honor to do so?
I feel like this is something that we as a society need guidance for.
Can you help?
Yeah, I can.
It's not going to be very flattering, though.
Um...
Essentially, you have to treat them as if they're the inmates of an asylum, because they are in many ways.
They consume only media that lies to them about the extent and circumstances of the outside world, much in the same way as a mental patient in an asylum says, well, the voices in my head say you're X, Y, and Z. It's like, okay, they might, but that doesn't actually reflect reality.
And it's because you consume this particularly curated diet of social media that you think...
X, Y, and Z happen whereas they didn't.
And so essentially you have to – it's what Peter Strawson – so myself and Josh did a podcast, a debate on free will.
And one of the things in there is that Peter Strawson is a philosopher who said basically, look, if we don't believe in free will, then any of our reactive attitudes don't make sense.
So, like, the way that we treat someone who has wronged us would always have to be as a form of acceptance, like we would with someone with mental disabilities or something like that.
You know, if a kid with Down syndrome comes in and knocks over your drink, you don't get angry at them.
Like, I might get angry at you for coming and knocking on my drinks.
I know you should know better, and I can make moral judgments of you as an equal, whereas you don't do that with someone with Down syndrome.
And so, essentially, you have to kind of do that with these people.
And remember, they are in many ways victims themselves, honestly, of their own social media habits, but they are people who are trapped in a kind of asylum, and you've got to take it slow and gentle with them.
Yeah, I agree with that.
But I'd like to pick up on that.
I think they are victims of their own worldview, definitely.
And Jordan Peterson points that you've pointed this out very well years ago when he was talking about these people as basically being possessed by the ideology to which they subscribe.
I think that's a good way of viewing it.
And I would also point out Michael Malice's advice on this, which is just wait.
Because the worldview, the asylum that they're in is not a nice place.
It's very harsh and eventually the people you know will get burned and they won't be able to turn to anyone they know because they're all in the cult or the asylum or whatever you call it.
And that's when you come in because it's at that moment when they'll be looking for answers outside of their worldview and they'll be ready to accept ideas from outside more than usual.
And the lucky thing about the Kyle Rittenhouse case as well is it's so obviously indefensible.
As I said, the footage is out there.
When these people come to you and say, I can't believe our country is so racist because Kyle Rittenhouse shot a bunch of non-white people.
And this is just white supremacy.
I mean, I've seen tweets going around where people have said, oh, I thought the people he shot weren't white.
No, weren't white, as if that makes it any better or anything, but for some reason, for them, it does.
But the point is, people can't believe what they're being told in the media narrative, because...
They don't know what's happened.
And so you can just watch the video with them and go, look, he's running away.
He chased him down.
He knocks him to the floor.
They're attacking him.
And then he defends himself.
Who's in the right here?
What would you have done in that position?
And, yeah, the one good thing about the Carl Rittenhouse case is it's so clearly black and white.
And the video evidence is so good as well.
There are so many different angles of what's happened.
So good luck, basically.
Let's go for the next one.
Okay Lotus Eaters, so I have done the lighting inside of the bus now.
So yeah, got the lights there.
We've got a three-way switching system set up in here, which is unique.
Got a wall switch in the bathroom.
Toilets go in there.
Got a switch for the vanity light and the shower light.
And yeah, lights in the bedroom.
I love watching stuff being made.
Just love it.
So these chaps, Callum was complaining they have six buses.
I've been following them on the podcast.
They're amazing.
Big fun.
Yeah, yeah.
I just love it when people build stuff.
I think it's great.
Well, there's this channel on YouTube.
I think it's two men, perhaps in Indonesia, who they called primitive something.
Yeah, I've seen the videos.
A lot of people have, very viral.
And they literally build houses with their bare hands, out of mud.
And they can throw up one of these houses in less time than it takes us to apply for planning permission.
But luckily, when it comes to something like a bus or a coach, I think the regulations are a little nicer, so you can actually go to town and make what you want.
Yeah, and there's something about having a very nice mobile house like that that's appealing as well.
I don't know why I find it appealing, but I do.
So anyway, let's go for the next one.
So during the Rittenhouse trial, it was brought up that an AR-15 is so much bigger than a pistol, correct?
Strictly defined, the term small arms means any firearm with a caliper of.60 inches or smaller and all shotguns.
Gage's 40 cal pistol and Kyle's AR-15 are both small arms.
Neither is particularly bigger than the other.
Want to see what the sailor thinks is bigger?
Sure.
But I agree.
I mean, like, most deaths in the United States are because of handguns.
So acting like a handgun isn't a lethal weapon or something is just absurd.
You know, you approach a man with a gun with a gun of your own.
I don't care if it's the smallest gun in the world.
You know, you shouldn't be doing it.
And you know you shouldn't be doing it.
So, you know, there we go.
Let's go for the next one.
So I have a great-grandfather who was in the Battle of the Psalm in World War I and his brother passed away in battle.
And my grandfather was in World War II in the Desert Rats Division in the North Africa Campaign in Italy and actually snuck through a camp full of drunk Germans.
Anyways, and I have another grandfather whose story Carl would actually find very interesting.
Much love and respect to all our fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers from different backgrounds who gave their lives for our future.
Excellent.
And I find all these stories interesting, to be honest.
Yeah, absolutely.
I love family war stories.
I think people don't tell them enough.
I mean, I bore all of my friends with my family stories with a few drinks because I think they're fascinating.
I think they're as well.
My granddad did so much crazy stuff that I would never get away with today.
And I wouldn't even have the balls to try.
That's the thing, you know.
But no, I love all these stories.
It's the right day for it as well.
Thank you for your family's service.
Yes.
Well, Sony G, I have been writing fanfiction for over a decade and I honestly just enjoy it as a hobby.
It's for fun.
I do it for fun.
Like, people like to play a game of D&D in the evening.
And when I was struggling with mental health, it really helped me a lot.
I really think it's so healthy just to make something, anything, rather than just Sit and consume stuff other people create.
It's healthy, I think, and it's fun.
Yeah, I think it's important to exercise your creative muscles as well.
One day I'll probably write something, maybe.
You watch videos and, okay, what should I know?
And basically the one thing is just do it.
Just stop thinking about it, just get on with it, do, do, do.
Yeah, put black on white.
Yeah, exactly.
Exactly.
And it's nice to see that Tony, he does, I'm sure you're aware if you watch the podcast, the Pines guy, the video, the book's out of stock on Amazon.
And he's getting some sales.
Good.
Let's hear it.
Yeah.
That's why you should upgrade to gold.
Yeah.
And show your creativity through our site.
Yeah.
Let's go for the next one.
If you're happy and you know it, stomp your feet.
This is actually one of the more interesting inclusions in this movie, yet it is talked about very rarely.
So I'm here at least attempting to fix that.
Arthur is incredibly bad when he comes to expressing himself for linguistics, so much so he can't even get out a decent joke.
Yet he is very comfortable at expressing himself for body movement and of course dance.
So, when Arthur is happy and he knows it, he stomps his feet That's a good point.
I didn't pick up on that.
Absolutely.
I also didn't pick up on that.
I think that's a great point.
But I also think if you look at our modern lives, for most people, they are rarely on the day-to-day basis in a situation where they can sing or dance or do any of these things which humans have done for generations.
In Japan, they solve it by having karaoke booths and places where you can go and you can do these things.
But in the day-to-day life, I think in Britain, it's quite tough.
No, no, that's a great point.
And you are exactly right.
Like, for literally thousands of years, up until the invention of essentially portable music, people had to create their own music.
So they would have just been singing and dancing a lot more on a personal level.
I mean, yeah.
Barn dances, Kaylees, that sort of thing.
Yeah, you don't think about it until something like that pops it in your mind, do you?
It's one of those, like, genuinely different...
And as John puts out, it signifies positive emotions.
In body language, they call it gravity-defying behaviour.
Very interesting.
That's amazing.
I've never heard of that before, but now that you mention it, it just makes sense.
Yeah, so John's saying that when you're happy, you feel gravity-defying behaviour.
When you're sad, you feel heavy.
That's why you say uplifting.
Yeah, exactly.
I never really thought about it, but it is true.
Let's go for the next one.
Howdy.
I've been watching the Lotus Eaters for a little while now, and I've really enjoyed y'all's different takes on political issues.
I recently moved to Japan for work, and I was wondering if you knew of any people or organizations that gave explanations about where Japan and South Korea and their political parties stand on current issues.
If you have any recommendations, I would be extremely grateful.
Thanks.
Keep up the good work.
What a strangely auspicious video comment.
Yeah.
So I lived in Japan for two years and I also lived in Korea for a summer.
It is difficult because basically the political landscape out there is just a completely alien organism.
And attempting to overlay your views of Western politics, your conception of the way things work here and there, doesn't get you very far.
So basically I think if you really want to understand it, and I've been trying to understand Japanese political philosophy, You basically have to start reading.
Wikipedia is not that bad for just describing the basic surface of what each party is out for, but why these things are important is completely obscure.
So, for example, in the Japanese elections, which were, I think, two or three weeks ago, One of the big issues was whether they would allow women to not change their surname or change their surname to something other than their husband's name after marriage.
Now, you actually need quite a lot of knowledge of the Japanese birth registration system to really understand what that means.
And then you need to speak to actual Japanese people to understand why that's important.
So it's something which seems like perhaps a complete non-issue, yet it becomes something of the center of the discussion.
So my answer is going to be it's probably going to be a lot harder than you think at first.
But if you keep reading, then you build up this knowledge.
If you talk to people about these issues, you get a local picture.
And that's fundamentally what you have to do wherever you are.
Talk to the locals because they know what the local issues are.
Hmm.
There we go.
I don't know anything about Japanese politics.
They're not very...
So I think the widely held perception is there is basically a shadow council of 90-year-old men that runs things, but don't quote me on that.
Hmm.
I can believe it.
Yeah.
Let's go to the next one.
I wanted to make a comment for the first year anniversary, but I've been busy, so cheers.
Fair enough, and thank you very much.
But in relation to the written house trial, a common saying thrown out is, life is more valuable than property.
And I have some thoughts formulating on this, but I wanted to ask you guys' opinion first.
Is human life always more valuable than property?
While it's good to hold life as sacred, I don't think it applies in all circumstances.
Well, the problem is that human life is not actually sacred and can never be sacred.
The great innovation, I think, of the Christians was that they invented these things called spirit and soul, which they weren't the first people to do this, of course.
They definitely adopted it, didn't they?
Indeed.
And then for a thousand, two thousand years, they then ingrained that view of what humanity is into the whole of European continent.
And so that means that...
I was thinking about this the other day, that's why I'm jumping in straight away.
No, no, no.
times have the right to take a human life because it's a regrettable necessity.
If someone commits heinous crimes or in the Rittenhouse case where you have to use deadly force to prevent them from using deadly force against you, you end up in a position where you can judge that their human life should be taken.
However, you're never at a point where you can judge their soul.
You don't know if their whole life leading up to that point was right.
You don't know if you can judge their spirit.
So you have this entity called God, which is empowered to do that, and it takes the weight of judgment of other people to that level off their shoulders.
So life is not sacred, but something close to life is, would be my case.
But it's the soul that's sacred, and you are right.
In Christianity and other religions, that's exactly right, isn't it?
The life itself is transient.
In this view, but the soul being eternal, that makes it sacred, right?
Yes.
And you'll notice that the sort of materialistic view that there is no soul has compressed that down into, well, something's sacred.
Well, it has to be that human life.
It has to be life because nothing else exists in the materialistic view.
Exactly.
But then you're forced into the position of saying, well, yeah, even Hitler's life was sacred.
It's like, was it?
Yeah, but then to take this one step further, there's an aspect of the Black Lives Matter movement, which I don't think many people have picked up on.
And that's that they explicitly claim that a life is coloured.
So they're essentially elevating the colour of your skin, your race, to the level of your soul, the most essential and...
Yeah, the most essential part of humanity.
So they're saying that, they're implying by that, that if everyone were to die, then we would go to separate heavens and that sort of thing.
It's a really fundamental division that they make from that.
And it was because of that rhetorical trick that I was very outspoken against it at the time.
Or if we were in the same heaven, you'd have different colours of souls in the heaven, yeah.
And I don't think that's the case.
I think, I'm not religious, but I do think that the essential humanity that people have is shared between races.
It would be ridiculous not to.
Well, yeah, I mean, you'd have to be a massive racist not to think that.
Which is why they don't think that white people have souls.
But no, that's such a fantastic point.
And again, like the whole like, oh, well, you know, a human life is sacred.
No, it's not.
And they don't think so.
It's just there is it is a kind of rhetorical trick to say, well, you know, human life is more important than property.
Is that is it is the life of a murder is Saddam Hussein's life more important than anything else?
I don't agree.
There are things, and again, what this does is it's a kind of abolition of moral agency as well.
This is to say, well, look, there are things you can do that mean you deserve to die.
Like Joseph Rosenbaum raped five children.
So God might be judging...
You might be like, well, only God can judge his soul.
Well, I'm going to judge his soul as well, actually.
And this is someone for whom I've got very little sympathy, and I think that there are definitely things that...
Sorry, we are almost out of time, in fact.
Right, okay.
But there are definitely things that a human being can do that show that they are not moral agents as we understand them.
But anyway, we are out of time at that point.
So if you want more from us, you can go to lowseas.com.
We've got a huge library of stuff.
So sign up, support the show.
That's how we keep everything going.
That's how we hire fantastic new commentators like John.
Tell us in the comments how you think he did on his...
This is his very first day, you know.
And what I love about getting a new person is, right, you're on the podcast for his first day.
Well, they know this now.
Yeah.
I know, yeah.
But tell us how you think he did.
I think he did well.
And we'll see you tomorrow.
All right.
▲
Export Selection