Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Dec. 14, 2021 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:31:25

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #284

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters for the 14th of December 2021.
	I'm joined by John.
	Hello Lotus Eaters.
	And today we're going to be talking about how Vosch and Hassan have been banned for racism.
	Oh, what a shame.
	Big F's in the chat for that, of course.
	The online harm bill returning.
	And also the vaccine passports being the new norm.
	So that is the new normal.
	The rule warning as well.
	That is now what is going on.
	Some things to mention first on the website.
	So first thing here would be an article from you, so I'll let you sell this one.
	Yes, so this is the second article I put up on the website.
	It's the second part to a previous analysis where I look at leftism and basically make the case that it's made up of four things.
	And then in this one I show how they can be taken apart, which I think is a worthy exercise.
	So go check that one out.
	I think that's free, isn't it?
	Yes, this is free, so you don't need a premium subscription.
	You can go and check that out.
	There'll be links in the description.
	Or just go to LotusEars.com and you'll find it presumably on the front page there somewhere.
	So if we go to the next one, we have the next thing to mention, which is the premium video that Carl and I did about Eric Zemmour and his blockbuster speech as it was titled.
	So this was an American outlet that went to one of his speeches before he ran for the president.
	And it was a pretty good speech.
	And he's speaking, as Carl would put it, outside of the Enlightenment philosophy that we find ourselves in, which...
	And there's an incredible thing with French rhetoric as well.
	When the French get going, as we know from Napoleon, they don't go halves.
	And just some of the way he expresses himself is very unique to hear in English.
	Yeah, so anyway, this is before he's run for president.
	So, you know, ignore even the amazing speech he gave when he did his run, and while he's doing his run, the announcement speech.
	This is one that was before that was also as good, so worth going and listening to and finding out what he had to say, because he's probably one of the four thinkers of our time, whether you like him or not.
	Anyway, so the last thing to mention here is something that will be going up after the podcast.
	So this is the premium video Thomas and Harry have done, which is about what did the anti-vaxxers get right.
	So you have the anti-vaxx movement, as you may call it, and loads of claims have been made, and what's right and what's wrong.
	And some of the right stuff is, of course, because we were told that the anti-vaxxers believe in, like, compulsory vaccination's going to happen.
	And then it did.
	And it's like, oh, fantastic.
	So go and check that out at 3pm after the podcast.
	But otherwise, let's get into it.
	So first thing to mention, of course, Vosh and Hassan having a bad day.
	Having a very bad time because they've been banned.
	Oh no.
	They've been banned from Twitch.
	Oh no, what happened?
	So this is the first one here being from Vosh.
	This is him saying, it's a massacre.
	And hello, Vosh Vidya.
	Banned?
	Why?
	Reasons?
	Hateful slurs or symbols?
	Hmm, what could it have been?
	So if we go to the next one, we of course have Hassan, who is also banned.
	As you can see, streamer bans, noticing that he's banned.
	And his response was, yes, it is for exactly what you think it is.
	Anti-white racism for using the term cracker.
	And of course his followers are like, this is an outrage!
	How could this happen?
	Because it's the TOS. I mean, I'm not a fan of Western Company's TOS, but the rules should apply to everyone.
	And interestingly, of course, he's been banned from Twitch and the other one for anti-white racism, for using anti-white slurs.
	Right.
	And this does not apply on Twitter or Facebook or YouTube, apparently.
	Oh, okay.
	Anti-black slurs, banned.
	Anti-Asian slurs, banned, all the rest of it.
	Doesn't matter if anyone was offended or not.
	Doesn't matter what the context was, apparently.
	That video can still be gone, or your channel deleted, or your account deleted.
	As we can even see with Carl, actually, who is insulting neo-Nazis by using their own rhetoric against them.
	But slurs were used, so banned.
	And if it happens to Hassan and Vosh and they're like, well, this isn't injustice.
	Is it?
	Is it now?
	Right.
	Okay.
	It's tyrannical and arbitrary on these platforms, isn't it?
	Yeah, but the interesting thing about this on just a conversation about racial profanity is the – I can't say the book's title because it's full of profanity, but there's a book written about profanity that I've mentioned before.
	It goes through the HSFN principle, as he calls it, is that, of course, the context is what matters with profanity.
	And not that this matters to any of the companies involved with their policies, but it'll come up as they try and defend themselves.
	So if we go to the next one, we of course have Ethan Klein who decided to chip in.
	So he's friends with Hassan, has him on his show, all the rest of it.
	And he says, can I say cracker as a white man or am I not allowed to say it as a Jew?
	What are the parameters?
	Well, there's a conversation we have, isn't it?
	Which is, are Jews white?
	And that determines whether or not you're allowed to say it if your language is, I can say it because I'm white.
	You know, when you're having these kinds of conversations, you've usually gone way too far down the wrong lane, I think.
	Sort of wasting your time.
	But there's also the obvious point there that they're trying to argue, well, if I'm a black man, I'm not able to say anti-black slurs.
	And it's like, no, not really.
	That's not how racial profanity works.
	The point of racial profanity and the reasons it's off-limits in the West is because, well, it's the context that matters, not the word itself, as you have with all other profanity.
	You know, Cartman saying the F word on South Park 12 times in a row, of course he's making the point that it doesn't harm anyone.
	But it's the context in which you use the term, so it could be anyone of any race using any racial slurs, but the context is what determines whether or not you should take it seriously, or if it's a joke, or if it's a political point, or anything else.
	That would be a sensible way of looking at it.
	Or we could just look at who's the race of the person saying it, which is retarded.
	Anyway, so moving on, so let's go to the next one, in which we have Hasan being upset.
	Absolutely insane that Twitch banned two of my mods for using the word cracker, so this is before.
	One of which is black, and the other is brown.
	As if...
	Yes.
	As if...
	Okay, they're not even white, so they're not allowed to use the anti-white slurs if we were using Ethan's defense, but okay, whatever.
	Does Twitch actually believe cracker is a slur?
	Yes.
	Why wouldn't it be?
	It reaches all the parameters for racial profanity.
	And while they used it, even on your standard of them being white, they would be allowed to say it.
	Well, one of them's black and one of them's brown, as you say.
	So new.
	So banned.
	I mean, they're actually applying their rules consistency there.
	Do I agree with the rules?
	I mean, generally not, if I could help it.
	But whatever.
	That's their rules, and they're applying them in both ways.
	And that's what he's mad about.
	He's not mad about the fact they have these rules against, say, anti-black slurs.
	No.
	It is anti-white slurs that he's like, well, this isn't on.
	How dare you censor me?
	Anyway.
	So if we go to the next one, we have a response from someone who said, Absolutely deserved.
	White people who never owned a slave, let alone cracked a black person with a whip, definitely don't like being called slave owner.
	That's incredibly insulting and disgusting.
	And it's like...
	Sure, okay, here's an individual who's offended by it.
	But again, the offence of this individual is not what justifies whether or not racial profanity is off-limits.
	It's the context in which it is said, whether the person is sincere.
	And do I believe, sincerely, the left hates white people?
	God, don't be silly.
	Of course we do.
	How much more rhetoric do we have to go through about white privilege, white fragility, and all the rest of it?
	We have covered it quite extensively.
	Oh, God, we're going to waste our time on that.
	Anyway, but also the obvious point of just, well, you know, white persons never owned a slave.
	Name them.
	Name the white person who owns a slave.
	Canadians are black people who own slaves.
	Really?
	And trade slaves.
	Well, because we have the investigations, thankfully, from weirdly the mainstream media.
	So if we go to the next one here, we have an investigation into Libya's slave auctions, in which you can see people bought and sold for just whatever's going.
	They have an auction in which they got $100, $200.
	So we're talking about modern-day slavery that's just ongoing.
	No one's talking about it.
	Everyone's busy talking about the slavery that happened across the Atlantic 200 years ago, and no one cares about Libya.
	No, no.
	Instead you have this collectivist guilt on white people, which is not how justice works at all, of course.
	You know they have collectivist guilt in North Korea as well in the same way, which Big Shook, like the socialists, believe in it.
	If you are guilty of plotting against the state, such as fighting for the South Koreans during the war, then your grandchildren will also be interned.
	Ah, I see.
	Because it's collective guilt on the family there, which is, of course, nonsense.
	But, you know, Hassan using anti-white racial slurs for collective guilt against white people.
	Again, doesn't make any sense, but doesn't care.
	Anyway, moving on, he learned nothing from that interaction.
	So he just responds with, shut your sultai- sultain?
	I've never seen that word before.
	Ass up, you fragile little b-word.
	I was like, no, because he's got you.
	You've got nothing, have you, Hassan?
	Yeah.
	Absolutely nothing.
	Like, no, there is no collectivist guilt, and therefore racial slurs against a collective group on that basis is a racial slur, by definition, and you've broken the terms, and you agree to these terms, you're just but hurt that it applies to white people as well, instead of just people who aren't white.
	Okay.
	Well, these people in general have no moral consistency of their own, so why should we expect them to value moral consistency in someone like Twitter?
	They don't.
	They just want their team to win and other teams to lose.
	Just power.
	All they care about.
	And also you can see, as some of the previous tweets he's mentioning as well, Twitter does not enforce their rules consistently, and this is yet another example.
	We don't even have to look at Donald Trump and all the rest of it, even though that's blatantly obvious.
	But just a very simple one.
	Is calling someone racial slurs allowed?
	If no, well then everyone who does it is banned.
	Whether it's anti-white, anti-black.
	And it only goes one way.
	So we go to the next one as well, which I thought was funny.
	So there's another interaction.
	So if we can click on the image first, just so we can give that a read.
	So this is a conversation going on.
	If it's derogatory, it's a effing slur.
	No one gets to decide what offends other people to say cracker means slave owner.
	It is a pathetic excuse to be racist against whites.
	Do we call black males killers because they committed half of the murders in the United States in the last 30 years?
	Edgy boy.
	So someone responds with, I don't think you're too concerned about racism if you actually invoke the 1350 myth to whine about the word cracker, to which the person responds with a data table from the FBI. Of which groups are committing crimes and black males commit in that particular data table.
	I think that's 53.3%.
	Looks like it.
	Yeah, there you are.
	So, myth, go to hell.
	You're just a data denier, I suppose.
	But again, the point being made, is collective guilt something we can use in racial slurs and be okay with it?
	Well, if no, then it applies to everyone.
	Not just black people or brown people.
	Also, white people or whatever other group of people you're bloody using.
	I do love that it's a great example though and of course Hassan is only concerned with one way and as you can see his response.
	This is a cracker by the way.
	Since many people wonder who's the type of person that is offended by the word, a word I've probably never used before this weekend, it's mother effers like this.
	It doesn't even matter if he's offended or not.
	Let's assume no one is.
	Right.
	I assume this is Assam's position, that anti-white slurs have no power because it's power plus prejudice.
	I mean, he still has loads of prejudice, so it still equals a large number, but whatever.
	He has quite a lot of power as well with the following he's got.
	He does.
	But even if no one was offended, if everyone's faking it, if everyone in the world who is white and is upset about being called a slave owner for collective guilt reasons is not offended by it, it doesn't actually matter.
	Because, of course, it is the context that matters.
	Does the individual actually hate the group that they are talking about?
	And if they don't, well, it's not really of interest.
	And do I believe the left hate the white people?
	Yes.
	Anyway, moving on.
	I think these leftists certainly do.
	We're talking about the critical race theory leftists, and they absolutely have so many writings and statements that collected...
	I mean, Hassan being a vocal advocate defender of critical race theory in schools.
	Whenever it was brought up, he's just like, no, it's not happening, but also if it does, that's good.
	Nom, nom, nom.
	Yeah, say no more.
	So, moving on.
	There's some other good stuff I found funny.
	So, this one is just the point in case you are a dunce and don't understand that the context matters.
	Penn and Teller can teach you this in a very simple clip in which he is like, I'm going to run over this little dog.
	I'm going to kill you, little buddy.
	I'm going to pull out your entrails and destroy you.
	And the dog's loving it.
	And then he just screams at the dog, I love you, dog.
	And the dog...
	terrified, of course.
	But it's obviously just a metaphor for the point that it's the not the words themselves that matter, but the context in which they are used.
	Anyway, so let's go to the next one, which is more people being mad.
	So this is another leftist.
	So Cracker, being a bannable offence, is so hilariously deranged, just placating the most fragile man-children in the world, who themselves know they're just feigning outrage over nothing.
	Who else could we say that about?
	Imagine if someone got banned for saying the N-word, and the people, who were so mad about it, were insincere.
	Then we would just let the person hang out, because even though they hated black people, it doesn't matter, because, no, that's just man-children complaining.
	Black fragility, I think we could label that.
	No, we wouldn't be allowed to do that, would we?
	No, but we can do it with white fragility and so on and so forth.
	She continues, There's a lot of projection going on here.
	I love it.
	It's just like, okay, flip them around.
	Oh no.
	Now we're having to call the police because I've just committed a non-crime hate incident or whatever else.
	But, fantastic.
	But also the absurdity of being like, how dare you have a discussion about racial profanity when it's okay?
	Why not...
	Lunatic?
	And of course the answer is always not because power or collective guilt, but instead the individual person saying it and what is the context in which it is used.
	It's also a point that no one cares about the words themselves.
	No one.
	No one ever cares about the words because that's not how profanity works.
	No one is offended by the abstract...
	I disagree, actually.
	I would say that the original profanity, when we were a very sort of Christian moralistic society, even just saying a simple word like damn or bloody, regardless of the context, would be seen as a moral outrage.
	My gran would certainly not be happy with that.
	She wouldn't stand that at her dinner table.
	But we have evolved to a stage where we do use those in everyday life.
	I don't agree, because it could certainly be used on, let's say, if we're talking in that period, the uncivilized tribes of the world that have gone and killed a British garrison.
	Not around my gran's dinner table, it could.
	Maybe your gran's dinner table was different, but I would certainly describe it with the Ottomans or anyone else.
	Anyway, so let's move on.
	So that's some other whining from Hassan here, who, let's be honest, he's probably going to get it back like that.
	And if not, then he'll have everything else protected.
	Apparently he's going on Ethan Klein's podcast or whatever to get more cheetos down his throat and some more money in his bank account.
	A Reddit moment brought to you by a cracker discourse where this Redditor says my anti-white racism would make the most racist person in the 1900s.
	You know, when Hitler was alive along with Jim Crow laws in the South.
	He's talking about some Reddit post in which someone's making the point that he's legitimately mad because he can't insult someone for the colour of their skin.
	That's all he's mad about.
	I can't say cracker.
	Damn!
	Like, it's not that, no, I've got some nuanced point, I've got something else.
	No, he just wants to sit there and insult white people, and I think he legitimately does hate white people from his proposal of critical race theory being allowed.
	And then this person ending it with, dude would 100% be the most racist person ever in the 1900s.
	Lamal, he gets a lot of pleasure out of insulting people for eight hours straight every day and defending racial slurs, only because society hasn't said that they're bad yet.
	That's true.
	That's true.
	He is one of the most professional racists out there by that measure.
	And has no standards, except that, well, society says it's bad or not bad.
	That's not a standard for using these kind of things.
	But whatever.
	The context is important.
	Does the person unironically hate the group they're talking about?
	And in the case of the left, yes.
	Anyway, there's also obviously, you know, Destiny versus Richard Spencer using the M-word.
	Which one of these is more legitimate?
	Right.
	Yeah.
	Not going to waste my time with that.
	So we go to Destiny's response, because I mentioned him.
	Who's loving it, by the way?
	Because, of course, Destiny is apparently the inspiration for Vosch to start his stuff.
	Oh, right.
	I think they hate each other, because Vosch is a communist, and Destiny's not.
	And, well, of course they hate each other for that.
	So someone's saying in here, the funny thing is that Cracker is short for Whip Cracker.
	Being called out for being a cracker of whips on oppressed people's backs does not make the cracker oppressed.
	Boo-hoo, the colonizer is being called a colonizer.
	How awful and uncomfortable for them.
	And Destiny's response, white people in the US today don't own slaves or colonize, though.
	Yeah, I can't think of the last time I picked up a whip.
	I don't know if it was ever.
	Let's just name the person.
	And again, it's just collective guilt.
	And then, you know, then the example comes back of the spicy chat before saying, should we just call black males killers?
	Why not?
	You know, you can actually point to a real world data figure there because it's collective guilt instead of individual guilt.
	Right, and they're both ridiculous ideas.
	Yeah, we don't believe in collective guilt, otherwise you'd be a socialist hellhole.
	Anyway, so moving on, Vosch fans also took it well that Destiny was like, well, get screwed, bye.
	And this is an individual Vosch fan, presumably, with all his Marxist religalia, studying Marxism, hammer and sickle there.
	She, her, lesbian, trans woman.
	Trans woman.
	You're a snow roach, KKK cracker albino ape, tighty whitey and hunky.
	Delete your account if you're gonna whine about these while defending saying the n-word racist piece of s.
	I was like, learn nothing.
	None of the words are important.
	What is important is the context.
	That's a perfect NPC response right there.
	Yeah, anyway.
	There's also Big Joel, the online leftist, who kind of pissed his pant.
	And we'll go to him, because I thought that was funny as well.
	So you can see Destiny making the point that racism for everyone else is a pretty simple game.
	Do you hate the person based on the race?
	Do you insult them based on the race?
	That'll be racism then.
	Exactly.
	And then the pro-cracker mental gymnastics, he lists it there.
	Snow roaches were slaves.
	Anyway, good meme.
	And then Big Joel is very upset about this, and him responding with, Wait, I'm sorry, is there even a kind of person who's offended by the word cracker?
	And again, it's not the word that's important, it's the context of the word.
	But even way, that's not how twitch.com works, is it?
	Like, do we even need mental gymnastics to defend calling people white in a spicy way?
	That's how we're referring to it.
	Okay, but I'll use that in the future.
	I wasn't racially abusing him, Gov.
	No, I was just calling him black in a spicy way.
	The courts in this country would sentence you to prison or a fine.
	Whichever's greater.
	We need to have a conversation about what makes words a slur.
	Lol.
	Okay, well you could have that conversation and you can pick up that chap's book I've mentioned about the H.S.F.N. principle.
	I don't know what that is or what that means.
	They're all different profanities.
	I'm afraid my lexicon of racial profanities isn't advanced enough to decode.
	Well, they're not all racial.
	I'll lay it out because I'm not giving enough context.
	You have religious profanity, sexual profanity, profanity that's about human excretions, and then racial profanity.
	And his point in the book is these seem to be the four distinct categories of all languages around the world.
	Right, yes, this does sound familiar.
	Yeah.
	But the other interesting point is that different cultures value different groups more or less.
	Of course.
	And in the West, in the current era, we value racial profanity the most, and other countries don't, obviously.
	India comes to mind.
	Yeah, but a hundred years ago, religious profanity would have been the most...
	Exactly, but there's a shift.
	But there's also an obvious difference between English and German, for example, that they value excretion profanity in a way we don't.
	Really?
	Scheisse!
	Anyway, so on and so forth.
	But you go and read that in your own time.
	But let's go on to the next thing, which I've forgotten what it is.
	Oh yeah, it's Big Joe.
	Coming out and saying it, which is, you know, in the end, yeah, I guess I do think white people should simply be more okay with being teased for their whiteness than other kinds of people.
	Ding, ding, ding.
	We have a racist.
	We have it.
	We have it, folks.
	You know, we've got the admission, finally.
	He's like, I just want to call white people cracker.
	Why?
	Because I don't like white people.
	Thank you.
	Thank you, Big Joel.
	Thank you, Hassan.
	Thank you, Vosh.
	Thank you for making the point.
	Which is that, yeah, it is the person and the way they're saying it, and if they do genuinely believe that they should just be able to call white people cracker because they don't like them, well, yeah, that would be racism.
	That's a-racism.
	You've done one.
	Anyway.
	So we're going to the next one here, which is Omni-Liberal getting, sorry, Destiny, obviously getting the point.
	There it is, finally.
	Was it so hard to say?
	Sigh.
	Apparently it wasn't.
	So it's going to Hassan also defending racial slurs before.
	So I'm not familiar with this one, but this also popped back up because, of course, anyone who thinks Guasano is a racial slur has to start...
	Calling it G-word going forward.
	Never heard of it.
	And this was him because he'd used it.
	And it's a word that apparently refers to the Cuban exile.
	So Castro first used it.
	It means worm.
	To refer to counter-revolutionaries.
	Right.
	The people who didn't want to be killed and have their property stolen.
	And that includes, of course, all of them are now in Florida, waiting to return home one day.
	Which, well, they're not going to, are they?
	Because it's still a communist hellhole.
	And, um, yeah, no, they've been there so long, they are not just a political group, but an ethnic group.
	And therefore, well, yeah, there is also a racial slur, and is classified as such, apparently.
	So, doesn't care about that either.
	So, and I thought we'd just end on in case you were doubting our sincerity about the fact that the left hates white people.
	Well, let's just go to a white, anti-white racist and see what she thinks.
	So, just the last one here, may recognize her.
	I will never stop marveling at how white people have ruined the world and this planet.
	Stays up on twitter.com, replace that with black, you'd be banned.
	With any other racial group.
	You could reproduce a lot of very spicy historical movements, couldn't you?
	You may remember her, I don't know if you do, but she did an interview with Carl for about 15 minutes before getting butthurt and leaving.
	I didn't know that.
	Carl brought up the point that most black Africans who were sold to white Europeans that were then taken to Brazil, the Caribbean, and the United States...
	Was sold to them by who?
	Yeah.
	Not white people.
	Yeah.
	Sold to them by black people.
	And then she had a Windows XP meltdown and left.
	Anyway.
	But there's that.
	There's them getting banned for anti-white racism, and quite frankly, it's an application of the rules.
	You don't have to like the rules, but they are what they are.
	The rules are the rules.
	Yeah.
	Sometimes, except when they aren't.
	And I do not care about these people, because they do not care on any inch of anyone else getting banned ever, so I have no idea why we should care about them getting banned on this.
	Same with the Vara Media, when they got banned.
	I know if you remember that.
	They were like, yes, but my free speech.
	And it was like, yes, we've all been saying this for years, and you told us to get stuff counter-revolutionary.
	Always comes home to roost, doesn't it?
	But as we're touching on the subject of big tech and how they are generally terrible when it comes to enforcing their terms and conditions and everything, I thought I would cover the opening salvos of the battle between the nanny state and the big tech, and big tech corporations.
	So this is something like the timeless conflict between the poisonous spider and the scorpion.
	You don't know which of them to root for, you hope both of them lose, but you're not sure what's going to happen to you out of it.
	So this article is mainly talking about the online harms bill, which is where all of this is manifesting in UK law.
	This is an excellent job that Josh did of covering the groundwork about this time last year.
	And now it's come back into circulation for various reasons that we'll get on with.
	So just to give you a refresher about what the online harms bill is, if we can scroll down a bit.
	So, according to this piece of legislation, which is proposed and not yet effective, Ofcom, the regulatory body for telecommunications in the UK, will be granted powers to find companies up to either 10% of their annual global turnover, or £18 million, whichever is higher, if a company is deemed to be failing in their duty of care to protect vulnerable users.
	The bill would apply to any company that hosts user-generated content accessible to UK viewers, with the exception of comment sections of news websites and small business product or service reviews.
	This could result in technology companies receiving ludicrously large fines alongside requirements to publish audits if standards are not met.
	For example, based on its most recent earnings reports last year, Facebook could face fines up to $7.1 billion...
	And YouTube's owner Google, $16.1 billion.
	This is not chump change.
	Even for a company of this size, that's quite a fine.
	The proposed bill introduces a novel element to pre-existing legislation.
	Technology companies are to be legally compelled to regulate content that is currently considered legal but harmful, such as images depicting self-harm or promoting eating disorders.
	And that'll be just where it ends, I'm sure.
	I mean, I remember reading, I think it was Baroness Worsi's document in relation to this.
	She had Pepe memes in there, as like symbols of the far right that we need to stamp down on.
	Pepe memes.
	I mean, like the meme of what the left are screaming about is actually in government reports from a conservative lord.
	Yep.
	I mean, who determines what is harmful in this case?
	Pepe memes are harmful but legal.
	So this comes as governments are increasingly recognising Facebook, Google and Twitter and Amazon to be, I would say, extremely powerful players in the political arena, with revenues larger than the GDP of some countries.
	And just to illustrate that point, if we put the next slide...
	Google posted a revenue of $180 billion in 2020.
	This would place them the 55th country in the world between Kazakhstan and Hungary if revenue were GDP. In real terms, Google probably has much more wealth and power than Hungary.
	Then there are 140,000 employees at Google, so if you were to calculate GDP per capita, or revenue per capita, Google would knock all the other countries well out of the park.
	It makes $1.3 million of revenue per employee, which is over 10 times higher than the GDP per capita of Luxembourg.
	This gives you an idea of how much wealth and power is concentrated in these companies, and that's without going into what they do and how they police the online realm.
	So governments clearly want a slice of that cash, and they're using the toxic effects of social media corporations on online discourse as the excuse to do so.
	Moving back to the Online Harms Bill, in October this year, Conservative MP David Amess was assassinated, prompting bizarre calls for an extension to the Online Harms Bill.
	We have a quote here.
	Conservative former minister has urged Boris Johnson to toughen up the Online Harms Bill as he proposed David's law in memory of Sir David Amess.
	Mark Francois, MP for Raleigh and Wickford, Conservative, said Sir David had become increasingly concerned about the toxic environment that MPs were having to operate in and suggested a ban on social media anonymity to tackle the issue.
	Sir David Amess was knifed to death in Lyon Sea on Friday while holding a constituency surgery.
	Ali Harbi Ali, 25, was arrested on suspicion of his murder and remains in custody.
	They have a lot of Twitter accounts.
	They used to tweet hurtful things at David Armis.
	I haven't heard of anyone tweeting knives yet.
	Maybe that's a technical innovation that's slipped me by.
	We've covered it before, but it's just...
	You can glare daggers, I know that much.
	It is so insulting, isn't it?
	Mm-hmm.
	It's just like, yeah, the toxic environment online killed David Armis.
	He wasn't killed by tweets.
	He was killed by an Islamist.
	Stabbed him to death.
	In a church.
	The toxic environment is not the internet.
	Yep.
	The toxic environment is the one you were allowing to create in the UK, right?
	Conservatives.
	Nothing on immigration, endlessly importing Islamism.
	And then they're like, oh no, it's the internet that's the problem.
	Well, if you live in the Westminster bubble, that is probably where all the problems seem to be to you, but that's where you are all the time.
	If you go into the real world to see the real country, you'll see there are real problems here.
	Addressing the House of Commons during a series of tributes to Sir David on Monday, Mr Francois highlighted the vitriol faced by female MPs online, saying he was appalled by the vile misogynistic abuse directed towards elected officials on social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter.
	Man stabbed to death.
	Women's tweets most affected.
	Yep.
	He told the House of Commons if the social media companies don't want to help us drain the Twitter swamp, then let's compel them to do it by law because they've had more than enough chances to do it voluntarily.
	I hate these people.
	I'm sorry, but it's so insulting.
	So, despite the fact that online anonymity has absolutely nothing to do with this, the assassin, I believe, was radicalised by watching radical Islamists like Anjum Chowdhury on YouTube, I think we can say that, and he enacted his worldview by stabbing a British MP to death in a Christian church, not posting mean tweets under an anonymous handle.
	Personally, I think standing on someone's grave in this manner by calling the provisions David's Law is disgraceful, and that's probably why the term has dropped.
	You haven't heard it since October, it's been quietly shelved.
	Moving to the present, we have a new government report aiming to toughen up the Online Harms Bill, which is now called the Online Safety Bill.
	It seems to be a trend that the worse the legislation gets, the nicer the name becomes.
	So, new offences and tighter rules.
	I'm going to quote this article in depth because it covers it the best out of the current outlets that have an interest.
	The online safety bill is seen as one of the most far-reaching attempts to date to regulate online content, which could have global implications.
	The first draft, published in May, put a duty of care on large social websites to remove harmful or illegal content and protect children.
	But it was largely left up to the tech giants themselves, to police, with oversight from media regulator Ofcom.
	So duty of care in the British context is an interesting statement because duty of care would normally apply to, for example, a parent or guardian or a teacher who's teaching children in school.
	So to then apply that to social media companies like Twitter and Facebook seems to me rather concerning, but that's just my take on it.
	The parliamentary report calls for Ofcom to set much more explicit standards and have even greater powers to investigate and find big tech firms.
	Among the many recommendations made over its 191 pages are an explicit duty for all pornography sites to make sure children cannot access them, So this is the wanking pass that they're proposing, which is that British citizens should go to their local offee and hand over their driving license so they can get a wanking pass with a 12-digit code on it that you would then go home and type in the 12-digit code with your name attached to it so you could then browse whatever you want to browse on Pornhub.
	Very sensible legislation.
	Yep, I'm sure that's very secure.
	Scams and fraud, such as fake adverts designed to trick users, should be covered.
	The bill should cover not just content, but the potential harmful impact of algorithms.
	Well, that, that is just an incredibly broad remit.
	The potentially harmful impact of algorithms.
	I don't even know where to start there, so I'm just going to move on.
	It should also be expanded to cover paid-for advertising, such as those involving scams.
	The report also recommends that a wide range of new criminal offences should be created based on proposals from the Law Commission and carried in the bill, including promoting or stirring up violence against women or based on gender or disability.
	I don't know why they limited it there.
	Why not race and transgender identity and all the rest that they usually throw in?
	But stirring up violence against women.
	Well, I thought that was already a hate crime, if I'm not mistaken.
	Well, stirring up violence is a crime already.
	That's inciting hatred.
	You don't need the women part.
	I don't know who's throwing that in.
	Right.
	But also just the, like, if you're stirring up violence, like if you're outside a group of women and saying we should kill those women, that would be the stock example.
	My feeling on this...
	But saying that this woman's a hoe...
	Yeah.
	But that's what is going to be useful.
	Sounds like it, doesn't it?
	With my experience of these sorts of committees, I can very well expect that there was a feminist group within these.
	Say, one MP who thinks herself is a big feminist in the support of women's issues, has not read to the legislation, has a very limited understanding of how the law actually stands, and made such a noise about putting this provision in that eventually they just put it in to shut her up.
	But that's my theory on this, what we shall have to see.
	I imagine that's how the committees usually go.
	Yes.
	Knowingly distributing seriously harmful misinformation should also be a criminal offense.
	Now, who's going to define harmful misinformation?
	What if a medical doctor has a spicy opinion on a certain issue of note in the modern era?
	Well, I can enjoy the prison sentence, can't I? Exactly.
	It does remind me of one story, though.
	I've got to tell you because I think it's funny.
	There was someone posting on 4chan who was just like, oh, I want to make heroin or something, right?
	I think it was crystal meth.
	How do I make crystal meth?
	Someone gave them instructions, and the instructions would make mustard gas.
	LAUGHTER It's just like, here you go, go ahead.
	They didn't post back, so either they choked it down or lost the gas.
	So, you know, that could be an example.
	I mean, that's sort of a stupidity test there, but, yeah.
	Oh, the internet, what a glorious era we live in.
	Another possible crime that we have here.
	Don't do that.
	No, please don't.
	Content promoting self-harm should be made illegal.
	Again, how you define promoting self-harm is interesting.
	I'm going to move on from there.
	Cyber flashing, the sending of unwanted naked images, should be illegal.
	Now again, I think everyone would agree that the internet would probably be a nicer space if there weren't a load of naked pictures floating around.
	Meta, for example, has recently called for all users to send Facebook their nudes so that Meta's algorithms can preemptively stop your nudes from being shared.
	But if you don't send Meta your nudes, then they will not be able to prevent your nudes from being shared.
	In their secure server.
	That never gets hacked.
	Their little folder over there is definitely not pawnmunk.exe.
	Because we know how good Meta is at looking after its users' security.
	It's not like it uses any of this information for its own personal profit.
	What do you make of that, though?
	Let's say it's only on the basis of private messages, so not scrolling through Twitter and I found someone's dick, arrest them.
	But instead, you know, someone actually just sending you nudes.
	You can block them.
	Yeah, I mean, that is the traditional solution.
	I don't know what they could do to try and get around that.
	Yeah, I suppose that is the solution, rather than legislating it.
	Yeah, I think that's the best way.
	But it is tricky, and we'll get in towards the end of this segment some of the more real conversations to have about this, rather than just the ridiculous ideas that our social media overlords come up with on one side and our state overlords come up with on the other.
	So, also, deliberately sending flashing images to those with epilepsy with the goal of causing a seizure is also illegal.
	Now, I do wonder whether Christmas lights are going to be made illegal, because my neighbours have got quite the display up at the moment.
	But I do think that this is a bad thing.
	Whether it's effectively translated into law or not, we shall have to wait and see.
	Mr Collins said these changes would bring more offences clearly within the scope of the online safety bill, give Ofcom the power in law to set minimum safety standards for the services they will regulate, and to take enforcement action against companies if they don't comply.
	I'd also like to note that Frances Horgan, the rather suspicious Facebook whistleblower who called for a lot of censorship on these platforms, was also consulted during these parliamentary hearings.
	Yeah, I saw she was invited by Nadine Dorris, which is incredibly disappointing to see.
	Yes, yes.
	I was considering doing a feature on Nadine Doris here because she's got quite the story as to how she got here.
	She's essentially the main, the chief of this whole process at this point.
	She's not the chairman of the report, but she's the new digital secretary.
	She was put in charge of culture and digital, which she looked very promising and then has just done what?
	I mean, nothing useful.
	So, another major addition is the recommendation that tech firms must appoint a, quote, safety controller who would be made liable for an offence if there were repeated and systemic failings.
	So, a professional scapegoat.
	Interesting role.
	The idea has recently been pushed by the new Digital Secretary, Nadine Dorris, who warned of potential prison sentences for serious offenders and that the planned two-year grace period would end up being three to six months.
	So they want to speed this up.
	And you can understand why they want to speed it up, because technology moves so fast that within two years all of the platforms will be completely different anyway.
	But of course there is a free speech question here.
	Think Tank, the Adam Smith Institute, said the report fails to alleviate the gigantic threats posed by the draft online safety bill to freedom of speech, privacy and innovation.
	Three words which we don't hear very often these days.
	The report recommends removing a controversial section dealing with legal but harmful content for adults, which critics had feared could lead to unintended widespread censorship.
	And I think they continue to fear that, so I don't know why the BBC is throwing in the old past tense there.
	I think that is a very real threat.
	So I think there is a discussion to be had about the internet here.
	I personally have the opinion that social media has caused more damage to society than the atom bomb.
	That's my spicy take for the day.
	That's why I don't use social media as much as I can.
	I think that the most successful platforms are addictive drugs designed to hack into the human dopamine system and reduce users to habitually scrolling through advert-laden pages.
	There's also been a great deal of study on the effects of pornography on brain chemistry, and suffice to say, porn is just as addictive and destructive as many drugs and alcohol.
	Clearly it's not a good idea for children to be interacting with this kind of stuff.
	But the question is really how you solve this problem.
	The internet is an ecosystem on multiple levels, and for me, the most effective way to childblock the internet is to install controls at the point of access.
	So your smartphones, your computers, that sort of thing.
	Or just be an adult.
	Like, you're the one in charge of it, what your kid interacts with.
	Yes.
	Oh yeah, absolutely.
	For any parents out there, watch what your children are doing online.
	Be apparent.
	Yeah.
	So South Korea tried blocking the points of access with its Smart Sheriff app, but bad implementation and bad coding led to the project being scrapped in 2015 due to hilariously large security flaws.
	It was basically an OmniSpy application which anyone could hack into very easily.
	It's a bit of a fail.
	But I think they were at least trying the right thing.
	The current approach to online safety, in quotation marks, is to police and regulate the internet itself to make it all child-friendly.
	This approach is immediately appealing to government because it extends state power into the online space.
	Instead of creating child-friendly access points, the entire internet has to be turned into a sanitized, child-friendly environment.
	Currently, the only way to reliably prove that the user is an adult is to require them to upload official ID, like you said before, with the wanker's passport.
	or it's other passport and driving licenses.
	That's a good term.
	Not only does this indirectly abolish internet anonymity, because you have to put your official ID online, but it places sensitive personal data in the hands of irresponsible tech companies.
	Especially when we say irresponsible, let's remind ourselves that Facebook at least has no qualms when it comes to targeting its content at under 13s and 6 to 9 year olds.
	If we look at the next article.
	If we can look at the next clip, John.
	So if we scroll down, there's an image here.
	Can we scroll down, John?
	Down a bit.
	Next one.
	There we go.
	Today, we only looked at customers above the age of 13, and we said to the younger people, don't use our service.
	But in the future, Facebook is going to be for everyone from the age of six upwards.
	We're going to target kids, we're going to target tweens, we're going to target early teens and later teens.
	Yeah, I don't trust these people.
	What about you?
	This is the other scorpion in the room.
	I mean, literally, yeah, we stopped targeting under 13 because, well, that's creepy as hell and also probably illegal, but we'll just do it anyway.
	There is something wrong with you if you're making that as your plans.
	Absolutely.
	It seems like they're trying to engineer society when you look at some of their internal briefings.
	It's very creepy.
	So I thought I'd just finish off this segment with the chairman of the report and his comments on this legislation, which will be coming to us sometime in 2022, and reported by the Daily Mail, which has an interesting article on this, which I wouldn't say is very useful, but the tone is amusing.
	Tory MP Damien Collins is chairman of the Joint Committee on the Draft Online Safety Bill and has heard from victims, ministers, regulators and tech giants.
	He said the committee were unanimous in their conclusion that we need to call time on the Wild West Online.
	Wild West?
	I thought that had long since vanished.
	I think the Wild West is the fact that the tech companies are doing the content themselves rather than the regulating, rather than the state.
	And the state's annoyed that that's not their power.
	Yeah, but if we want to put this in history, we have left the Wild West behind and it is now the oil barons who are running the internet.
	Facebook, Google, so on.
	What's illegal offline should be regulated online for too long.
	Big tech has got away with being the land of the lawless.
	Well, no, it does have laws, its own laws, and they're tyrannical and arbitrary.
	In Britain, though, we even have more laws for online speech than offline speech.
	I mean, during the email campaign, John will remember, because we were selecting all the responses from MPs, the stock response from the Conservatives was, well, anything that's illegal offline should be illegal online.
	I was like, no, grossly offensive speech is not illegal offline.
	You're allowed to engage in that.
	Online, it becomes a crime.
	If Count Dankula had posted his video as a presentation in which he had jumped around and done it in front of his girlfriend, no problems whatsoever.
	But because he put it online, that was the crime.
	Yeah, and that's section 127 of the Communications Act that makes that a problem.
	It's also just factually wrong.
	Finally, he says, a lack of regulation online has left too many people vulnerable to abuse, fraud, violence, and in some cases, even loss of life.
	So again, you can see the framing devices using there.
	Either we have the nanny state, or we have the oil barons of big tech.
	Pick your poison.
	Anyway, that was a black pill, so let's move on to another black pill.
	Anyway, so, can we talk about vaccine passports?
	Oh, please don't.
	I don't want to talk about vaccine passports.
	Can we talk about fluffy clouds and rainbows?
	We'll do a miles update tomorrow or something, because I wanted to do some more stuff.
	Sounds good.
	It's a bit serious.
	But anyway, vaccine passports are coming in to be the new norm, as everyone can see.
	So this is the news in the UK. Rolling story, essentially, that Boris Johnson was caught partying for the ninth time in a month or whatever else when he locked everyone else down.
	And so has S'd the bed and decided, I'll just double down and make everyone else, you know, in another lockdown with more restrictions.
	And vaccine passports and clubs can't open after 1pm or whatever other random policies he gets from that random policy generator.
	He keeps clicking.
	Anyway, so this is the story from the BBC here, as listed.
	PM faces big rebellion as MPs vote against new restrictions.
	New regulation will make it compulsory to wear a face covering in most indoor settings, except for pubs and restaurants.
	Why...
	Because making it compulsory for frontline NHS staff and social care to be fully vaccinated from April 2020, is this as deadly as hepatitis B, which you have to be vaccinated for?
	No, but no one cares.
	So again, just ignoring it.
	It would also mean that from Wednesday, people will have to prove that they are fully vaccinated or have a negative lateral flow test to enter large venues.
	This is the vaccine passports.
	So this is the first instance.
	So in large venues, you will have to have the vaccine passports and then it will become every venue, as it usually does.
	So this is why there is such a big rebellion.
	And also at the same time, this buffoon is trying to insist that we just ignore that he broke his own rules.
	You have no authority.
	The silver lining being, of course, that everyone is ignoring him when they can.
	But the law is the law, so we have to see it.
	So if we go to the next one, we have the Spectator, which is the Spectator actually do list the number of MPs.
	And we mentioned last time, I think it was 75 we mentioned.
	It's going up.
	We're going to get it in triple figures by the end of the week or whenever they're voting.
	I think they're voting today, actually.
	So I guess we'll see.
	But if you scroll down on this, just to scroll through all the names really quickly, just a quick scroll, you can just see the fact that there's loads of names on there.
	You can go check out if your MP was on it.
	If he is, send him an email.
	Yeah, say well done.
	Thank you very much.
	It'll be like base to the mail or whatever else.
	Maybe not to the one Labour MP who's voting against, because she won't know what that means, because they don't understand memes.
	But anyway, so as for the rest of them, I don't know, send them, I suppose I can't call it hate mail, but upset mail about how they're taking away your freedoms.
	Yeah, I think they're taking away your freedoms, they're materially affecting your life, and I think you're well within your rights to say, this isn't on, Governor.
	Yeah, my MP wasn't on there, so I'd send him a message being like, oi, what's this about?
	So we'll see.
	Anyway, so let's go on to the next one here, because of course, as mentioned, it's about his multiple parties, and I'd also thought we should never forget whether the G7, G9, G59, or whatever it was, in which they had everyone down whilst they were mandating that everyone wear masks and no parties as well.
	He's never not followed the rules.
	So this isn't a surprise, which is why I'm a bit confused as to why people are so like, you know, he's done this.
	He's never not followed them anyway.
	But anyway, there is one more Labour MP rather than that one who is coming out against the situation.
	Can you guess who?
	It's Corbyn.
	It's Corbyn.
	I knew it!
	Oh, Jeremy!
	How the f*** has that happened?
	You know, I'm on Corbyn's side.
	Anyway, let's play the clip of what Corbyn had to say.
	Let me ask you about the votes that are coming.
	Obviously, you're still an MP. Are you going to be voting to introduce COVID certification at large events?
	I don't think it's a particularly good idea and what I want to see is a process where we are asking people to recognize the severity and dangers of COVID, but you achieve far more in public health by cooperation and persuasion than you do by compulsion.
	I'm worried about the direction of travel we're going to with COVID passports.
	And then the danger, which I see as quite serious, of compulsory vaccination for NHS staff.
	Testing is an appropriate way of doing things.
	I mean, you do a temperature check when people come in here.
	Most people do that kind of thing.
	That seems to me to be fair enough.
	Eminently sensible.
	Yeah.
	From Jeremy Corbyn.
	Well, to be fair, I think with Jeremy Corbyn, maybe our viewers may agree.
	Although he is a raving socialist, he is an old school socialist and not so much of an intersectional.
	And especially now that he's no longer head of the party, he can come out with some half reasonable takes on some of the more extreme lunacy.
	It may also just be the people around him, because this does have an impact on how you think, of course.
	And him being surrounded by the Labour knife-behind-the-back intersectional lunatics probably hasn't done any good during his time.
	And now he's out, I'm sure he's hanging around with Piers Corbyn, his brother, a bit more.
	And he's red-pilling him ever so slowly.
	So we have the response here, which is obviously just sensible as well.
	If you want medical advancement, if you want public health to work, it has to be voluntary.
	It has to be cooperation, not coercion.
	I mean, amazing.
	I don't know how it's got to this point.
	We're on the same team, and Keir Starmer and Boris Johnson are on the same...
	Anyway, so let's move on from that.
	So, mentioned that the vote is going on today.
	There should be one link in the middle of here, John, if you can get it, which is that the vote's going on as we record this today.
	I think when this clip goes up on YouTube, they will have already done it, so we'll know the outcome.
	Of course, the electoral calculus is not favourable to us on the freedom side of things.
	Being that the Conservatives don't have quite enough.
	They have enough to sink it if Labour don't vote with it.
	But you think Labour's going to go all authoritarian?
	I think they will.
	I think they will.
	Well, their consistent policy in Covid has been whatever the government does, it's not strict and authoritarian enough and not enough regions are being crushed.
	But also we're seeing the government stuff, which is a nice little leak.
	So because all the government lives on Twitter.com, they decided to tweet out this.
	From the 15th of December in England, you will need to show your NHS COVID past to enter places where large crowds gather like nightclubs or sporting events.
	And they quickly deleted this, but not before Steve Baker had retweeted it.
	So everyone found it.
	So they couldn't pretend that, no, they haven't actually already got this all in place, and they're just waiting for the vote so then they can enforce what their plan was all along.
	Good to know.
	Good to know that it really has been taken for a ride.
	Yep.
	Also, in case you're thinking, base Jeremy Corbyn, maybe Labour's not so bad.
	No.
	Of course, we'll go back to Labour for a minute, which is Ken Livingstone, the former Mayor of London, Labour, who decided to come out with on GB News that we should be in a lockdown right now, and perpetually be in a cycle of lockdowns, forever.
	Okay.
	I don't know.
	Did Hitler support lockdowns?
	No.
	Famous quotes from him.
	But anyway, moving on.
	So we've got the Labour Party proper as it is, of course, which you'll remember in April, Keir Starmer said that vaccine passports are not British.
	So what is he doing now?
	Go to the next one.
	His response?
	It's Labour's patriotic duty to vote for Plan B COVID restrictions, being the vaccine passport.
	That British flag looks so new, I bet he hasn't even taken the label off it as well.
	The whole set's new, you can tell.
	There's no dust anywhere, is there?
	But also just, vaccine passports are not British, therefore it is our patriotic duty to vote for vaccine passports.
	Right, so what are you patriotic towards?
	Because it isn't Britain...
	By your own words.
	You're patriotic to something else.
	I mean, being an EU nationalist, I'm sure there's a lot of things he's patriotic towards that aren't Britain, but this is also one of them.
	Anyway, moving on.
	So if we go to the next one, we also have the fact that...
	Are you jabbed?
	Did you get two jabs, maybe?
	No, you didn't.
	You got zero.
	At least according to the government.
	Anyone who is vaccinated, whether you got the one or the two, you are no longer vaccinated, according to the standards.
	You need to get the booster jab to be someone who is jabbed.
	You are now officially an anti-vaxxer, I do believe.
	Yeah.
	Yes, and probably a racist as well, as Starbucks will refer to you.
	As you can see here, Savage Javid says vaccine passports will not be valid unless people have had two jabs and a booster, rather than just having two jabs, once all adults have had a reasonable chance to get the booster jab.
	So, no, you're not vaccinated.
	No, you are.
	Unless you had your booster, in which case...
	According to the government, that is.
	Because the government has a strange idea of the truth.
	And it's not just the British government, either.
	This is across Europe, as well, they have this attitude, and across most of the developed world.
	When we were going to get lunch, you made a very valid point, which is just that...
	Okay, so, you've had two jabs.
	You've got 90% effectiveness, or 95%, or whatever the hell else they said it was, right?
	Against, say, the alpha variant.
	Yeah, so what have they done in the booster jab that suddenly we need it?
	Because you've already got 95%...
	If you've already got this high immunity, then surely the problem is that the new variant is evading that immunity.
	So if you're going to then provoke an immune response using the same jab, then why would that make it more effective?
	So one of two things has happened.
	Either that is making it more effective because of some reason that is beyond my understanding of cell biology.
	Or they're talking out of their rear end, and I'll leave you to do your own research on that.
	Unless this jab is somehow new and is, you know, in the few months that Omicron's even been around, specially made to fight Omicron.
	I don't understand how that works.
	Well, it might have been that they adapted it for Delta as well.
	That's also a possibility.
	Again, we don't know.
	We're not giving advice here.
	No, let us know.
	But I'm befuddled by it, because, you know, it's not my field.
	Anyway, so moving on from that, we also have, of course, the percentages of people who are booster-jabbed, which is incredibly high in the UK, because, well...
	You know, you don't want to die of COVID. So people got the jabs and they continued.
	But interestingly, you can see, of course, the age brackets here as this chat blaze out.
	53.9% of the English are vaccinated and have had their booster.
	And of those are risk.
	So, I mean, it goes from 60 upwards, basically a high risk zone, let's say.
	So 60, it's 78%.
	65 and on.
	70, sorry, 87%.
	Then 91%, 96%.
	So if you add all those up, the average for the people at risk is 91% of people who are high risk have got their jabs.
	Well, great.
	Job achieved.
	90% of the people who are most at risk have already had their booster.
	Take the win!
	Take the win!
	I know, we all know why.
	They just want power.
	But it kills me that no one looks at the science.
	Anyway, so let's move on to the death rate by age, of course, as well.
	Just to make this point, yet again, I love that they keep this article up because it doesn't work with them, does it?
	Just see, as you can see, the different age brackets, those at risk.
	Again, what was it, like 40% of...
	How long does that go?
	60% of 50-year-olds have had the boost jab.
	And look at the death rates.
	You can see once you get down to 20 and under, it's not really visible on this craft, for example.
	What percentage is that?
	Have a guess.
	And you won't be able to.
	And yet we are insistent that 18-year-olds go and get their jabs right now.
	Don't worry about the cancer patients.
	They can wait.
	I mean, they'll die, but they can wait and die.
	But the 18-year-olds, they need their booster jabs right now.
	And I think, of all people, Darren Grimes made a very good point about this.
	Oh, yeah.
	So we go to the next one, which is just, of course, how is it the NHS is focusing on vaccine an 18-year-old, a bigger priority than this government working through the NHS cancer backlog?
	Yep.
	Last I looked, there's an estimated 7 million people who'll need routine surgery because they haven't been going because of coronavirus and so on.
	But cancer isn't the only...
	7 million people, if that's true, is over 10% of the UK population.
	So that means 1 in 10 people that you know, statistically, will be waiting for routine surgery.
	But it's not exactly a great accolade for the health service to have that kind of statistic.
	I'm sorry, but it really does get me down.
	We are just killing people now.
	Everyone knows it.
	Everyone in power knows it.
	They're not scared of the virus.
	We're letting people die in this way.
	No, but the government interference is just going to kill people.
	Everyone involved knows it, and we're just carrying on.
	When I read the Mal's Great Famine book club with Bo, which everyone should check out because it's great...
	um of course this isn't as disastrous as that but there's so many points where you're reading through the government conversations and the policies are coming up with and you just think this is obviously insane this is obviously just going to get people killed needlessly and this is this is one of the same things as i look at it but anyway but all of this is of course to try and distract you from the fact that this man should go and resign on the basis that he locked down the country and then violated his own law so which is a pattern again across all developed countries
	all people in my office they seem to be making one rule for you and completely disregarding it for them Yeah, so he just came up with some other S to try and distract people.
	So we mentioned the COVID random generator button.
	There's a website where you can just type in random...
	You click the button, you get random policies.
	But it seems they did this last night, and they came up with a few more.
	Let's go through them, so you can see Jonathan making the point here.
	Pubs with dance floors won't have to check any COVID passes until 1am.
	And then they will have to check the COVID passes of those on the dance floor.
	So I'm going to make another guess that the minister who came up with this idea, he goes to his local pub, which has a dance floor.
	He parties till 1am, then he goes home.
	Yes, that may be it.
	Or they've hit the random button generator, because what kind of standard is that?
	Anyway, we'll move on to the next one, which is, of course, that it won't stop there.
	Apparently Whitehall is also discussing locking this down.
	So we go to the next one, please, John.
	You can see that the Whitehall officials have drawn up plans to restrict the numbers in pubs and restaurants and even close them during the coming weeks.
	Ah, small businesses take another whack.
	You know, the NHS is overwhelmed, so we'll have to just lock down the economy again.
	Thank you.
	And we have a statement from Nadine Doris, which is very masked off, so I must say thank you to Nadine Doris for putting this out.
	Oh yeah.
	But also what is wrong with you.
	So we go to the next one.
	You can see Nadine Doris saying here.
	So someone says to her, just saying, but is there any evidence anywhere that vaccine passports work to protect public health?
	The answer's no, but we have that answer through the sides of what she's saying in Nadine Doris' tweet.
	You're asking the wrong question.
	So, hang on, you want this policy of vaccine passports?
	Does that protect anyone?
	You're asking the wrong question.
	What's it really about, then?
	Ask, would vaccine passports or negative lateral flow tests to enter venues be an incentive to encourage people to get jabbed?
	It's not about having the virus.
	It's not about protecting public health.
	It's about people getting the jab.
	Thanks, Nadine, for telling us.
	And then she goes on to justify that.
	You know, just give up your freedoms.
	Carry papers, please, for the rest of your life.
	Mutations of the virus take place in the unvaccinated.
	Again, Nadine Doris, MD, I'm sure.
	Virus mutates...
	Before I get to that, I just want to mention on that first paragraph, what she is asking you is give up your rights not to carry compulsory identity papers.
	Yes.
	You no longer have that right.
	You'd have to carry that in the form of that.
	And on that point, I want to mention a quote by Boris Johnson, which I don't think you have in later.
	So he was big against identity papers, as we both know.
	And he comes out and says, if any elimination of the state forces me to take an ID card, I will eat it in front of them.
	He says this about three times.
	Well, it's hard to digest a smartphone, but I'll be up for watching that live stream.
	But the point I'm getting at is she's mentioning you should give up that right.
	You shouldn't have that ancient English right.
	Why?
	Because more jabs need to be used.
	We paid for them.
	They're all sitting around.
	Might as well use them or people will think we wasted them.
	Fantastic.
	I just mask off entirely.
	But then she gives this whimsical scientific justification, which we'll show in a minute isn't scientific.
	So mutations of the virus take place in the unvaccinated.
	ICU beds, hospital admissions, majority of patients unvaccinated.
	B.S. You're talking S. So we go to the next one.
	Complete misinformation.
	The data.
	So we've done this before, but the first image there is just of, well, who's taken up the hospital beds, the fully vaccinated, as you would expect, let's say, except that maybe if you're fully vaccinated, you shouldn't be going to hospital at all, but that's how this vaccine works.
	So we go to the next one as well, just who's vaccinated.
	As you can see, age 12 plus, 41% have had a booster.
	Nevermind, 81% have had second doses.
	89% have had a first dose.
	Just a liar.
	So the scientific part there, ignore it, it's a lie.
	The first part is what it's really about, which is give up your freedoms because get a jab.
	But it's just wrong on so many levels, and it really makes me angry when people are that wrong about something that's a scientific question.
	The scientific part is irrelevant.
	We've not been following the science for a long time.
	No one cares about that.
	But the first part there where she's going, give up your freedoms because stonks of Pfizer.
	You know, Pfizer needs its stonk to go up.
	Just get the jab.
	Anyway, so moving on, we also just have...
	She deleted the ability to even comment on that, which is telling.
	I'm not surprised.
	Yeah, speaking of which...
	That's probably why she's pushing all of this online harm spill stuff, isn't it?
	Didn't like people responding to that.
	She's making comments this dumb on Twitter.
	Anyway, but also if you'd like to fight, there should be a link in there for the YouTube ban, John, which is just if you'd like to fight the YouTube dislike ban as well, of course, which is another form of we don't like you saying that this video is crap.
	Yeah, we don't like you unknowing how many other people agree with you that we are being horrible tyrants.
	Yeah.
	I mean, I love that the dislike feature was always, is this video progressive garbage?
	If the dislikes are big, then yeah, usually is.
	Or it's Rebecca Black's Friday, which is just, there's an install link there for a plugin, which apparently works on pretty much all browsers, which will allow you to load the dislikes.
	Yes.
	And you can get it back.
	So, small way to fight the power.
	Mm-hmm.
	But anyway, going on to talk about Fight the Power, we have Steve Baker out there campaigning.
	Glory to him, together here, tweeting it out.
	So, you know, contact your politicians as to his advice, as it would be, because that is how our system works.
	I like it or love it.
	Anyways, moving on.
	So then we have Andrew Neal, who was a proposer of vaccine passports, seems to have woken up.
	Mm-hmm.
	Yes.
	Yes, Andrew.
	I don't know.
	Maybe you just found this out.
	Everyone else found this out when it happened, but okay.
	Maybe he's finally realized that maybe vaccine passports are a bad thing.
	We also have some encouraging data.
	Better late than never, yep.
	It's not just that one doctor, so if we go to the next one, we have the data, of course, that...
	Well, NHS, there should be one in here about the data world, John, as well.
	But the fact is that apparently the first analysis of Omicron has shown in South Africa that it's 29% milder than the initial COVID variant.
	Which is good news.
	So that's, you know, it's not just one doctor.
	It's also the analysis, apparently, is that, yes, it's not as bad as the initial variant, never mind Delta or whatever else.
	So...
	But anyway, the NHS could be overwhelmed.
	Don't know what by, but it could be.
	Oh, do we know what by?
	Incompetent?
	Yes, on the Prime Minister's part.
	So if we go to the next one, we just have, of course, the NHS has been overwhelmed by millions, answering the call for coaster booster jabs, and also lateral flow tests that are now at zero.
	The stocks are at zero because they've all been gone.
	So, Boris had a party.
	Yes.
	And, oh my goodness.
	Decided, quick, let's distract everyone, I'll make a big fuss about Omicron.
	Look, the virus!
	And has actually overwhelmed the NHS. By his own actions.
	That is what he did.
	He is the one who done it.
	Anyway, so putting aside the fact, of course, that this also happens every year, I thought this is worth an honourable mention, as you can see by this chap here.
	2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, so forth.
	Isn't this just a normal slow news story thing?
	I mean, I know that the NHS does struggle in winter.
	As you would expect, because that's how these things work.
	And every single year, there is a lot of media hoo-ha about how this time, this time, the NHS is going to be overwhelmed.
	And they're sad when it doesn't happen, presumably.
	And if you could scroll just to show that this chap has the receipts as well.
	As you can see, just endlessly being like, well, it could be overwhelmed.
	What about this time?
	Yeah, it could be overwhelmed this time.
	And it's like, yeah, but it's not.
	And if it is failing this often, perhaps we should get rid of it.
	Perhaps the NHS doesn't work if it cannot survive a winter.
	Ever.
	Not even during a pandemic.
	Just in a normal year like 2014.
	Can't deal with it.
	Okay.
	It certainly seems like it needs massive reform, doesn't it?
	Maybe we need a new system.
	Anyway, so we also move on.
	So we have the news from Steve Baker as well, which is an incredible find and very important, which is that the government talking about this, he has their papers, in which they mention that because of the compulsory vaccination, they've lost or are going to lose an estimated between 62,000 to 115,000 healthcare workers.
	That's a lot of healthcare workers.
	Yeah, either NHS staff or independent health sector workers are all just gone.
	Just 100,000 staff, gone.
	Oh no, the NHS is being overwhelmed.
	I wonder who did that.
	Could have been you, Boris.
	But okay.
	But we also just have personal stories, because of course these are just statistics.
	If we go to a personal story, there's a chap here.
	Five years in the army, a working lifetime in the NHS, volunteered to go back to work during COVID, but the government has made me a second-class citizen and can deprive me of my citizenship.
	No words for how angry this makes me.
	This is a guy who worked in the army as a medic and then worked in the NHS as, I think it was a GP, and now he's just gone.
	Just can't work there.
	He's one of those 100,000 that are just kicked out because of compulsory vaccination for a disease that is nowhere near as dangerous as anything else.
	I mean, we looked up, I mentioned when we were having lunch, about yellow fever.
	If you go out into a country that's got yellow fever, well, okay, you have to get a vaccine passable.
	This is an argument that's brought up.
	It's for traveling abroad, not for the pub, so whatever.
	But if you get yellow fever, I read that the death chance is like 50%.
	There's a half chance that you are just going to die if you don't have a vaccine.
	So it's a simple calculation.
	The reasoning's so simple.
	Okay, if you're going to travel there, we don't want you just dying on us.
	So take the bloody thing.
	COVID, I mean, what is it?
	3%?
	Lower than 3% or whatever?
	I mean, Omicron, it's one in how many people have had it, apparently.
	So it's not there.
	Anyway, so we move on to the last one here, which is just something that shouldn't be buried in history.
	The Vice article here that should be remembered.
	Anti-vaxxers are terrified the government will enforce a vaccine for coronavirus.
	I don't know why they've got the quotation marks there.
	No.
	This is, of course, from 2020, so this is when the vaccine was first coming out, and now we have the evidence.
	We have this chap here, a single individual who has lost his job, along with 100,000 other people.
	I just hate them.
	I'm sorry.
	All of this is predicated on the fact that he doesn't want to take the whip of the fact that I've really messed up.
	I should just resign.
	Can't be bothered to do the right thing.
	So he's just punishing everyone else.
	Yeah.
	Evil.
	Let's go to the video comments.
	So, seeing as you didn't get it, this meme is effectively how both me and Oyl are treating Tier 4 Sparks.
	Basically, just giving him commissions for him to do a piece of art for us.
	Though, mine's at the bottom of the list currently, where the whole point of it is just trying to do it to f**k with him.
	And the problem is, though, is he's a good sport about it, but if you try to f**k with him too much and make it painful enough, he will increase the price, so effectively...
	Yeah, fair's fair and all, but you didn't get it, so I thought I'd elaborate.
	Okay, well, I suppose.
	If you want to mess with him, I'm sure he takes that good humor, so I guess that's that.
	I'll move on to the next one.
	I am unbelievably excited for the start of the new year, because all the people at the gym, for two reasons specifically.
	One, I love seeing people go there and, you know, be able to improve themselves and become the greatest version of themselves and, you know, focus on these hard things that they do.
	And I just love seeing people use gym equipment incorrectly.
	Ha ha ha ha!
	Don't worry about being that guy.
	Friends, if you don't know how to use a machine, ask someone.
	They'll help you out.
	Jesus, that looked like a bad suicide attempt.
	What the fuck was he expecting to happen?
	To be fair, the guy must have neck muscles like a tree trunk, but don't do that.
	Jesus Christ.
	God, yeah, that didn't look fun.
	Well, anyway, if anyone's going to the gym for their new year anniversary, what was the advice?
	New year resolution.
	Whatever.
	Are you going, Callum?
	Are you going?
	No.
	Anyway, let's go to the next one.
	I'm back in the UK this week because Dad's had some health issues that trump my opinions on PCR tests and being tracked and traced.
	It also means I have the dubious pleasure of watching the BBC again and I've just watched David Baddiel's programme on social media.
	When shown tweet replies while having his brain scanned, the positive ones excited dopamine and the nasty ones fear.
	Since pleasure can trigger addiction, I was disappointed but not surprised that his program failed to show viewers the dangers of feeling good about bad behavior but instead only claimed that nastiness is caused by fear.
	The implication is that we need more rules when we need better philosophy.
	That is a very good observation there.
	I think we did touch on that, but I just had something in my head and now I've forgotten it.
	But pleasure can be, like a dopamine response, can be just as insidious as a fear response.
	I was going to say that I'd love to do that on Carl because there is definitely part of him and some people who like the combat.
	They like the fighting with each other online.
	And I bet even the negative responses would trigger dopamine.
	They'd be like, yes, okay, let's have a fight.
	Yeah, that's a good point.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Well, I appreciate the well-wishers, but don't worry.
	Charity Stream's still going ahead.
	A week from today, actually.
	I'll talk about it more next Monday.
	In the meantime, I want to show off a little project I've been doing.
	I've been painting Tau battlesuits in the style of Power Rangers.
	The blue light from my webcam's making that a bit bad, but he's blue here.
	This one came out a bit scuffed, because GW's white paints are awful, but eh, I'm making do.
	I thought GW had quite good paints.
	I haven't used them in years and years.
	I don't.
	I think the last time I actually brought something from them was when I was a kid.
	It was my mother who brought it for me.
	I just wanted to mention, I don't really have an opinion on your tail models because I don't play the figures.
	But there is a YouTube channel I thought I'd mention which is really funny called...
	Pancreas No Work.
	He's a channel that's done a series called Do or Don'ts for the different races in 40k, and I think his summations of them are really funny.
	I know a lot of people play 40k and love the universe like me, and if you're looking for something that might brighten you up, like the Adeptus Ridiculous podcast, I found another one that I think might be fun.
	So, go and enjoy.
	Pancreas No Work.
	Hello, Lotus Eaters.
	This is Art Gaines from artgaines.com.
	Just became a gold member and thought I should say hello.
	I'm a digital artist, as you can see here.
	And this is an unfinished piece I started several years ago called Memento Mori.
	In ancient Rome, when a victorious general was parading through the streets, it was tradition for a slave to come along behind him holding a skull in the air.
	I didn't know they actually carried the skull.
	I heard the story about them whispering, you're only a man.
	It's a very good piece of art, though.
	The skull idea is actually not a bad idea, either.
	Like, being like, this is you.
	Whose skull do you use, though?
	I don't know, just some barbarians.
	But it's just the point of, you will die, and you must die.
	So, remember it.
	Yeah, nice, thanks.
	Previously...
	Gotta drive 50km to get back home, so hopefully the highways aren't too bad.
	The highways are just absolutely awful.
	They haven't plowed this hill.
	This is a 100 kilometer an hour zone.
	We're doing 30 kilometers an hour.
	So this usually 45 minute drive is going to take us over an hour.
	Alright, well, I hope you had some good fun in the car at least.
	I don't really know what to say to that.
	Yeah, I haven't seen snow like that in a long time.
	I actually do quite...
	Like, the last time I drove off-road, I really enjoyed it.
	Yeah.
	I want to get, like, a...
	When I do buy a car again, I want to get, like, a proper truck and just go on the Salisbury plane, have some fun.
	Let's go to the next one.
	As a response to Harry's video comment from yesterday, um...
	It's about him and oil giving me different commissions.
	And I've always said everyone has their price.
	And sometimes it might get degenerate even more than what I'm comfortable with.
	But I just increased the price.
	Just used the purity of capitalism to wash away the shame.
	What were we talking about here?
	It's just the commissions he's getting from other subscribers.
	I mean, this is a subscriber-on-subscriber conversation rather than us being involved.
	But, you know, the capitalist in me salutes you of just raising the prices and keep going, I guess.
	It's your labour, so it's worth your time.
	Hello, gentlemen.
	Biggest thanks for the Eric Simmers podcast.
	Yesterday, the premium podcast.
	Probably the best piece you guys have done so far.
	The whole point of him talking about this being the biggest threat to the French people.
	Sounds eerily like Limer's Realm, doesn't it?
	Albeit infected from the inside, not from the outside.
	Generally terrifying, but really, really good stuff.
	Also, I wanted to recommend you guys a book by a little-known author, Will Jordan.
	It's called Redemption.
	It's this one right over here.
	It's just a great read.
	No particular reason.
	Thanks.
	Yeah, thank you.
	Yeah, Eric Zemore's been blown out of the park.
	I've subscribed to his channel.
	I've started watching a few of his interviews.
	There was one the other day where he talked to some French guy.
	And you can auto-translate the text.
	It's not great, but you get the gist of what's being said.
	And yeah, it still seems it's based in person.
	Yeah, it's nice to hear someone speak with conviction.
	It's actually encouraged me to maybe brush up on my French for the first time in a long time because someone's saying something worth hearing.
	Yeah.
	I'm a little bit worried because every bad idea does come from France.
	That's true.
	I wonder where it's going, but we'll see.
	So...
	Tony D and Little Joan with another Legend of the Pines from Weird New Jersey Magazine.
	It's the Mount Holly Witch Trials.
	It took place not too far from my house here near Mount Holly on October 22nd, 1730.
	They dunked people in the river to see if they would float and lots of other scientific things that you did during witch trials.
	We know about this due to the efforts of a young reporter by the name of Benjamin Franklin who wrote about it in his gazette.
	Ah.
	Cool.
	Yeah.
	I mean... I never really know what to say to his stories, but they're always neat.
	They are pretty cool.
	Yeah, it's nice to have that little bit of local knowledge every now and again.
	To reiterate on my last video, the counter-protest that was held in Newtown did not call themselves the Anti-Freedom Protest.
	However, they were pro-government and pro-mandate, not to mention pro-restrictions.
	So yeah, they were against freedom.
	Good news is that there was only 30 of them compared to our rally, which was over 10,000.
	Anyway, by the time you get this video, we in Australia will be getting our freedoms back with an announcement to end all restrictions.
	Wish us luck.
	We need it.
	I hope everything goes well.
	Yeah, good luck, Australia.
	How much were those 30 guys paid?
	Because, I mean, that's the sort of levels of support where it's just like, this is definitely paid.
	Yeah.
	I don't know who's getting paid to stand for anti-freedom.
	I mean, was it like a Yoko YouTuber who was doing a prank or something?
	I don't know.
	Anyway, I hope Australia is finally free once again.
	We'll go back to the written comments on the site.
	So on the racist commies being gone, so Jimbo G says, I don't care about being called a cracker, but anyone looking to justify openly hostile slurs to an entire group is not on the good team.
	Yeah, I probably agree with that.
	Also, this idea that white people can't be victims ever is nonsensical.
	I don't want to engage with this collective guilt mindset, but even if we were, the anti-imperialist movement is the most laughable on this basis, because I think it's like 13 countries now in existence that used to be under empires in Eastern Europe.
	Okay, so all of these people were under empires being suppressed, just like everyone else who was being suppressed in the world.
	But the anti-imperialist movement has nothing to say for those people.
	Yep.
	Because they're white.
	Yeah.
	Right.
	That tells you all you need to know.
	Blatant.
	The student of history says, Welcome to the world you made, Hassan and Vosh.
	Hashtag hate not welcome.
	Hashtag that's our word.
	Yeah.
	Hashtag no racist refugees welcome.
	Anyway, Baron von Moorhawk, when it comes to Vosch and Hassan getting banned, it's very hard to feel sorry for them.
	This is because those two spent so long either banning or cheering and laughing when other people got banned.
	Therefore, I find it quite funny when those two get a taste of their own medicine.
	Yeah, I'm kind of annoyed when I saw people being like, when Navarro Media got banned, there were even Conservative MPs coming out of the woodwork to be like, well, this isn't on.
	I was like, why have you never said this before?
	Why all of a sudden when the communists get banned, you're like, well, free speech is important.
	Like, dude, everyone else is already gone.
	Occasionally a communist will fall short of the standards that them and their friends wrote, and then they'll get their channel back in a day anyway, so it doesn't really matter.
	It's just like, there is no point.
	There's absolutely no point, unless you side with them, but...
	Conservative Party, anyway.
	Callum Dayton, dear Twitch, please step in and kick...
	Sorry, please step and kick on Hassan and Vaush more.
	Please shove them down to our level so they can see the foundations of their ivory towers and their effluent and manure of the world.
	The socialist one, that is.
	Yeah.
	They deserve everything they get.
	And to be honest, I don't even think they're going to get anything.
	I think they'll get those Twitch accounts back diddly-squit.
	Mm-hmm.
	George Windsor, in regards to the cracker, Well, So I actually think there's a lot of nuance in here, and I do quite like having these conversations about language.
	One of the problems is that they can go on forever.
	But I think there are several standards you can have.
	One of them is, like I was saying before, like the migran standard of slurs, which is the most mild and milquetoast thing is out, right out.
	So everything from the N-word to that is.
	And that's like the old...
	Right, exactly.
	That's right out.
	So all of the old stuff is out, but everything is out so it's at least consistent.
	It's repressive and it's stifling, but it's consistent.
	Nowadays we've moved to a standard where there's a lot of profanities and expletives which we just say on a daily basis, anyway, because they're quite mild.
	And then there's a handful, a very small handful of words which we do censor.
	And the N-word has entered that domain.
	But there's a lot of milder ones, like cracker, for example, where they haven't entered that one yet.
	And I think actually that makes sense on an informal level, because even though it is a racial slur, it doesn't have the same feeling of intensity as some of the others.
	But I do not like this irregularity.
	And when it comes down to something like Twitter or Facebook having to censor things, then they have to draw the line somewhere because they set a very formal line between banned and not banned.
	So that's the only thing that matters.
	And that is essentially demarcating formally what is acceptable normal speech and what isn't, whereas before in informal conversation you have normal speech, then you have profanities that you can say, and then you have profanities that you can't say that are taboo.
	Sure, but it doesn't make any sense.
	I mean, either the grand position or the everything's okay position seems to make more sense if you want to be consistent on that basis.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Putting that as a goal.
	I mean, this is part of the book I mentioned.
	I can't remember the name, for God's sakes, but when he lays it all out, you endlessly end up coming to the conclusion that, quite frankly, Profanti is a bit dumb, and it's nice to have as a thing that's drawn off.
	But to get all butthurt about the thing is absurd.
	And it's even more absurd.
	I mean, like you mentioned, the difference between cracker and the N-word.
	We can't say that, especially because of section 127.
	But I have my N-word pass from Cedric Purcell.
	Thank you very much.
	But I can't use it.
	The idea that there is a profanity which some people can say and some people can't is very strange.
	But that's all very simple.
	But the idea with the N-word being sectioned off for something special and the argument is usually because racism and slavery and stuff.
	It's like, well, name...
	It's really weird to meet a black American who is obsessed that white people can't say the M-word because of slavery.
	It's like, have you met any?
	Did you free any?
	Did you ever give one some food?
	Have you been to Libya?
	No, you haven't.
	You have no interaction with any such thing.
	You have no interaction even with systemic racism or personal racism.
	Nothing.
	It doesn't hold you back at all.
	And instead, there is an insistence, no, we will have linguistic segregation.
	It's just so cringe.
	It's very strange.
	But we all know, and we can't get past it.
	Shall we move on to online harms?
	Sure, sure.
	Sorry, it's just a subject, though.
	I started the waffle, to be fair.
	It can go on forever.
	So Justin B says, the online harms bill will just increase the speed of consolidation into larger companies.
	Companies like Google and Twitter will be able to implement the needed to suppress speech enough to stop this, and if enough get through to warrant a fine, 10% won't really harm them.
	However, small companies will live in fear of one misstep that will see them find out of existence.
	Yet, that is one point that they have there.
	However, 10% of online revenue, it won't really harm them, but it's just the government laying out, like laying a claim in law so that they have a weapon, they have a stick which they can wave when they're negotiating with people like Facebook and Twitter.
	Drew Doomhand says, based on the things you guys have said, this online harms bill seems to be more about protecting the tweets and posts of elected officials than anything else.
	That's a very good observation.
	It's all they're concerned with.
	Yeah.
	I mean, in their own writing, someone gets stabbed to death and they're like, yeah, but my Twitter feed.
	Yeah.
	Like, one of your colleagues was just murdered.
	Nadine Doris is busy spreading medical misinformation on Twitter and people don't like her for doing that.
	And she's like, well, women most affected.
	I mean, I don't know if there's any artists who are just bored, if you want an idea.
	I mean, the image I've got in my head is of, like, David Edmonds in the back being stabbed to death.
	The other stabber comes out with a knife covered in blood, and then Dean Doris is just like, oh, okay, just looks back at her phone, scrolling.
	Yeah.
	Christopher Fisher says,"...the long-term issue is that restrictions, scrubbing of information and censorship will not change.
	The ridiculous swing to the left wrecked the open net.
	Now that it's controlled by conglomerates, it will stabilise but not reform at all." Everything that's happened in the West since roughly 2008 has been sponsored by global money and is a symptom of the corporate governance of this great reset.
	Yes, it is a hostile corporate takeover of the globe by centralized finance.
	So I'm not going to comment on the second part, which I think is room for a big debate.
	But on the first one, I think it's right.
	It's the...
	The centralization is the problem.
	However, the idea that it won't reform at all is mistaken, and I'm preparing a podcast about blockchain which will come up eventually, which I think could see some big paradigm shifts in how the internet works.
	Have you looked into blockchain?
	No, it's not a topic I know anything about.
	Grant Gibson, duty of care exists for any entity that could be negligent of anything.
	What it means in legal terms is that anytime you're doing something that has a possibility of hurting another person, you have a duty of care to take such reasonable precautions as necessary to minimize the possibility of this harm.
	It is an element of suing for negligence.
	That's a good addition there.
	Freewill2112 says, The legislation is deliberately vague, so they can tailor it to fit any context they need, typical of latent authoritarianism.
	Lord Nerevar says, Zuckerberg really just said, Send nudes to the entire world.
	Yep.
	Pretty much.
	Don't do it.
	Base tape.
	I've always loved the term unsolicited dick pic, as it logically implies that there is such a thing as soliciting dick pics, which means there is such a thing as a dick pic solicitor, and that makes me giggle.
	Yeah, that is true.
	Henry Ashman says, the fight between the nanny state and the social media companies really is a no-win situation.
	Yes, the tech firms are a mess and need sorting out, but the government are technologically illiterate, at best malicious at worst.
	I also don't like the idea of technocrats taking over to handle said illiteracy either.
	Maybe there should be something akin to jury duty, where a software engineer and a normie get to sit in on the proposals.
	They can pass a vetting process and be there to cover off the it won't work and no sending Facebook nudes to combat revenge porn is just stupid type situations.
	There is a point.
	I mean, our parliament does have a lower average age and has a lot more young people in it who at least know what the technology is, let's say.
	Yeah.
	And I love when you see, especially the US Senate, where you get, because the American system, you end up with people much older, just being like, so Facebook, how do you make your money?
	Facebook's looking at them like, what?
	We run ads, Senator.
	We run ads.
	Yeah.
	But it's not just that moment.
	There's a load of good moments where...
	Well, I mean, how old is Joe Biden now?
	He's nearly 80, 79?
	Is that what old he is?
	Do you reckon he's ever posted anything on his social media accounts by himself?
	By himself?
	Yeah.
	I don't know.
	That's a very good question.
	But you can't imagine him, for example, in a briefing about the internet and blockchain and online hubs and all of this, you can't imagine him giving very lucid suggestions, can you?
	So, Senator, what is Snapchat?
	Joe Biden starts talking about kids again.
	It's just like, okay.
	Oh, God.
	Student of history says, has the government ever considered that when I'm looking for porn, I would like to be anonymous?
	And moreover, they don't need to know my interests.
	Thank you.
	I mean, you know, they probably have.
	And they've also considered that, well, you know, have you considered that they would like to know what categories you're clicking on and then use that against you when you run for MP to make you vote with those who are in charge?
	Yes.
	On to COVID tyranny.
	Sure.
	So Anthony M says, I've just answered a YouGov poll as of 12 o'clock.
	65% are in favour of MPs voting for all the COVID restrictions, including masks and passports.
	Madness.
	Parliament is full of fools, or they think we are.
	I bet when the poll closes, it'll be 72%.
	It'll be 72%.
	It'll always be 72%.
	So, just to give some context, YouGov was part-founded by, I think, a Conservative MP, actually, wasn't it?
	The former CEO and part-founder.
	I've forgotten how to say his name now.
	I think it's Zahawi or something, Mr.
	Zahawi.
	He was the health minister.
	He's now in charge of education.
	And mysteriously, the polling company he founded always agrees with government policy now that he's in government.
	Funny that, isn't it?
	Interesting.
	So, yeah, your YouGov poll I would take with a huge pinch of salt.
	It is nice, though, the way that we've sort of found that, and it's become a meme, because there's, I don't know if you say his name, Mr.
	Havel, the guy who ran Czech Republic after Fall of Communism.
	Vaclav Havel?
	Yeah, so he makes the point where he talks about the whole way the system works is essentially...
	Slowly and slowly, everyone started to realise that the whole thing was corrupt and broken and didn't work, and only when everyone recognised what everyone else knew.
	So it wasn't enough for everyone to know.
	The moment everyone else recognised, everyone else also knew that this was BS. That's when the thing fell down, in his opinion, and we're getting there.
	We are.
	Once people are starting to realise all of these polls are just clearly fake, because no one believes this crap, then we're reaching the point.
	Heathcliff Flowen says, I wrote to my MP and explained how he is a literal Nazi if he votes for this.
	A bit of Godwin's Law there, but I mean, not technically wrong.
	I mean, for people who don't know, look up what is the Gesundheit Pass.
	Yep.
	I doubt it will make a difference.
	You know, academics spent 80 years debating how it was possible for a nation to commit genocide on millions of their own people.
	But right now, I'm sitting next to a work colleague who will tell me in a general manner that the unvaccinated don't deserve human rights.
	time to make space under your floorboards lads i don't know what's wrong with some people i mentioned it yesterday i don't know if you were watching there's i was walking to get my hair cut some like 20 year old morons were holding hands walking past like fully masked on and this busker's playing and he just ends up looking at them and just going so how many more shots are you going to take before you realize it's a con and these two these 20 year olds for christ's sake turn around it's We're all in public.
	We'll go to the street.
	Turn around to the busker and go as many as it takes.
	Fucking sheep, man.
	Oh, dear.
	Thank you for running your MP, though.
	Exactly.
	With some of these people as well, you just kind of feel like...
	Yeah, but does it bother you that if the Nazis had invaded you would be an enthusiastic collaborator?
	Because that would bother me, I think.
	Wouldn't bother them in the slightest.
	It's conforming, everyone does it, it's okay.
	Love Island's still on.
	Think for yourself.
	Football's still going.
	Yes.
	Anyway, but yeah, writing to the MPs, I know it feels pointless sometimes, but it is how our system works, and I do not know how to advocate other than that or volunteering with a party to make change there.
	It kills me that our system is so elitist, but it's the one we're in, so I can't advocate anything else for now.
	So, Chet Christolm says...
	Chism.
	Again, as if I'm going to change.
	It's an English name, Gallop.
	So?
	Let's see if that helps.
	There is something I would very much like to stress about, vaccine passports and mandates.
	These come from those who are seeking a means to control others and not from those of us working in the healthcare system who are interested in seeking to help others.
	In my discussions with my friends and colleagues through my work as a paramedic, it is largely agreed upon that these mandates are unnecessary, unethical, and immoral.
	We do not practice medicine through the means of coercion.
	Good medicine is achieved through concordance and consent.
	I have distanced myself from members of my family and those whom I call friends because of their toxic and vile outlook regarding these issues.
	One of those in question had indicated that my colleague and I should put anyone who is unvaccinated lower on the triage list to those that are vaccinated.
	These people do not get to tell me how to do my job because not only do they lack the medical education and training, but the key components of empathy, compassion, and human decency required to do my job.
	The moral training there.
	I mean, rule one, I read a quote from that guy who worked in the army as a medic as well.
	Rule one, even if there's an enemy who's wounded, you treat him.
	Yeah.
	Doesn't matter.
	But if they're unvaccinated...
	You know, stomp out their face, I guess.
	Yeah, make space under your floorboards, lads.
	That seems to be the moral of the story.
	I assume that's the chap who comes on the Gold Tier Zoom calls with us, who advised us about some of the knowledge we wouldn't have on the Floyd case.
	I'm not sure how I feel about you distancing yourself from your friends and family.
	I mean, that is horrific, but someone's got to change their mind.
	I don't know.
	I feel like with all of this, you just have to take a deep breath and just be there for when they finally get their...
	Their red pill moment.
	You know how people see conspiracy theorists and they're like, oh, they cut off all their friends and family and become more and more extreme?
	That's how I see those people.
	They're so detached from the rest of humanity to the point that they're like, oh, just kill them.
	Someone's got to try and put that into them.
	I'm not telling you how to live your life.
	Maybe they're worse than you've listed there.
	Yeah, the unvaccinated are obviously anti-medicine, so we should just put them on the bottom of the triage list.
	They should be back of the queue for life-saving medical treatment, obviously.
	These people, honestly...
	Also, thanks for telling us that it's not you guys.
	It is, of course, politicians.
	It's always been a bit fuzzy, let's say, for most people, but with the latest thing with Boris, it's clear-cut.
	Oh, yeah, absolutely.
	There's nothing to do with the NHS. Oh, and when we're talking about the NHS as well, although we're quite hostile to the NHS in some things, that's not to say that we're anti-doctors or anti-nurses or anti-paramedics.
	I think we're very pro-doctors.
	Who's anti-doctor?
	Exactly.
	What am I, Pol Pot?
	LAUGHTER Stalin.
	He's wearing glasses, get him!
	Right, exactly, so...
	Yeah.
	Just making that clear.
	I don't actually know what I do to reform the healthcare system.
	I mean, we've always argued for getting rid of it.
	Carl's come around to the approach of just...
	We just do some kind of insurance system, like the Germans or the Americans or whatever else, or Kuwait or whatever.
	The American system's a garbage house.
	I fear that what we will actually end up doing is we will let it fail more and more and more until...
	Everyone cannot use it as a reliable healthcare system, but they're still paying for it, and everyone gradually shifts to private.
	That's where we are, yes, but it just gets worse and worse and worse.
	I mean, I was looking at buying Bupa insurance, because I was just like, can you actually rely on the NHS? And the answer's no.
	No, you can't.
	But I think it's like, what is it, 60% of our government spending goes on it?
	Yeah.
	Mad.
	Jimbo G. Starmer appealing to the patriotic duty when voting for Plan B. I'm not sure that's a way to get the progressives in Labour to support it.
	Don't have to worry about the progressives.
	They'll vote for any authoritarianism.
	Notes on nationalism.
	Carl did a book club on it.
	There's a point in there.
	The patriotism or nationalism that the left have is not for the country, but for socialism.
	They have a patriotic duty to socialism.
	And that's how they would see it.
	Anyway, we are out of time, so I will end it there.
	But if you'd like more from us, go over to lotuses.com, subscribe to get access to all the premium content, and also check out the free content, such as your article about the four pillars of leftism.
	Also, good news, which is I finished my speech, at least one of them, from the live event, which we'll put up when we can, on the German question and the solutions to the German question, as proposed by Theodor Kaufmann in his book, Germany Must Perish.
	Oh dear.
	That sounds pretty spicy.
	You're going to enjoy some of that, which is just an S post, but it was great fun to do and meet everyone.
	I look forward to when we get to the next ones.
	But other than that, thank you.
	Goodbye.

▲