Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Jan. 14, 2022 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:31:31

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #307

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the number 307 of the podcast of the Lotus Eaters for the 14th of January 2022.
	I just learned that 307 is a prime number and the lowest in the 300s, if you're interested.
	But before we get, we're going to talk today about the Royal Rumbles, the news from the palace, which is shaking the foundations of British society.
	Okay, not quite, but it's pretty interesting stuff related to the Partygate scandal.
	We'll also be going into the question, did Trump benefit from his Twitter ban, as which Thomas will be covering here?
	Gladly.
	And finally, we will be talking about the decision for Democrats in New Jersey.
	To legalise full-term abortions.
	But before we get into that smorgasbord of interesting news snippets, we'll discuss this stuff we have up on our site.
	So we have here an article by Beau, The Crimes and Follies of Tony Blair.
	I believe this genre is referred to as a ballistic missile, is that correct?
	He has a particularly acid tongue when he sets his mind to it.
	Next, we have The War on Everything by John Tangley, which has recently been republished with audio.
	This is premium content, which if you have a Silver Tear membership, you can listen to the audio.
	If you have Bronze Day, you can read the article.
	We also have a new premium book club up number 20 in this series.
	I've been doing quite a lot of these actually.
	And this one is on a very important book which I myself got bored halfway through reading.
	It's important but it's a little tough.
	It's Edmund Burke's Reflections on the Revolutions in France.
	And this is like a cornerstone of conservative thought.
	Yes, 100%.
	Very important book to understand even if it's a bit heavy going.
	But finally, we also have a presence on Getter.
	You can follow us here at loadseaters underscore com, or you can follow our individual writers and creators.
	So we have here Rory, looking dashing in his hoodie.
	And we also have Josh, also looking dashing outdoors with aviators.
	No, his followers are not quite as dashing and impressive as Rory's at presence.
	So you might want to help Josh out.
	Exactly.
	Right, so that's enough of that.
	Let's get into the segments.
	So, what's happening in the Palace?
	As aftershocks from the Partygate scandal continue to rumble, seismologists speculate that this could bring Boris's premiership crumbling to the ground.
	Mm-hmm.
	So it turns out that Downing Street was dancing while the Queen was having a socially distanced funeral for Prince Philip.
	And you can see here the picture of the Queen sitting alone at the funeral of her husband for 70 years?
	Yeah.
	Something like that.
	Sounds about right.
	Because of coronavirus regulations, with a mask on, no less.
	Anyway, so we have this tweet here from Tony Diver of the Daily Telegraph.
	Exclusive, number 10 held two boozy parties the night before the Queen mourned Prince Philip alone.
	Staff drank and at points danced until the early hours of the night of April 16th.
	Hours later, the Queen went to a socially distanced funeral for Philip.
	Now, what do you make of that?
	I'm just looking at that picture and thinking...
	How awful must that have been for the Queen?
	I mean, this has surely got to have been, for reasons we're going to be discussing today, the most difficult year of her life, potentially.
	And, well, she can't even trust the...
	Well, she has no idea, I presume that it's going on at this point, that her trusted government can even...
	Follow its own policies.
	Yeah, it's quite shocking.
	It's a picture of many pictures, really.
	Yes, there's a lot contained in this, and this happens to even the Queen as well, is the victim of these sort of whimsical scientific civil service policies.
	Tony continues, We have spoken to eyewitnesses.
	At a leaving due for a number 10 photographer, it's alleged staff partied in the basement of number 10 to music DJed by a special advisor.
	One broke Wilf Johnson's swing in the number 10 garden.
	Another was sent to the co-op with a suitcase to buy booze.
	I mean, this just sounds like a student house party, doesn't it?
	It does, yeah.
	It doesn't sound like a responsible government...
	Behaving responsibly in the middle of a supposedly deadly pandemic.
	It does begin to sound like a little bit more than just a casual, small, bring your own booze kind of event.
	It's almost as if the party's been set up to laugh at us at our expense for following their rules.
	Yeah, that's very true.
	And then continue: "Another event held to mark the departure of James Slack, Mr. Johnson's chief spinner, saw staff gathered for a speech from Slack, with others dialing in via Zoom, booze drunk and attendees spilling into the garden, chatting and drinking in the early hours.
	At the time, Britain was in step two of lockdown easing, which banned indoor gatherings and imposed the rule of six outside." Which I think viewers will remember.
	Oh yes, yes.
	But the celebrations in Number 10 meant around 30 people were gathered for what a source declares were definitely parties.
	Can Number 10 really claim there were work events?
	Well, we're led to believe that these were events that Boris attended, just so that he could say thank you very much for all of your hard work, when it actually sounds like the hard work that they're committing to is of a very different kind to what we were led to believe.
	Yes, yes indeed.
	Now, as far as I can ascertain, Boris was not present at these.
	He was in Chequers, according to sources.
	We haven't really got the names of anyone important, so this may just have been staffers and civil servants who are by no means uninfluential, I would say, if they're having parties in the basement of 10 Downing Street.
	But there we go.
	This was the scene in St George's Chapel.
	He continues at Windsor Castle the next day.
	Prince Philip's funeral was restricted to 30 people, and the PM declined to attend to make more space for family.
	How convenient.
	Indeed.
	So the funeral was restricted for 30 people, but the party in the basement of Downing Street...
	The Queen did not participate in the service.
	Now, as I say, it's worth emphasising that it's the civil service having these parties, you know, the unelected civil service, and not Boris himself.
	Nonetheless, speculation has been amusing, as we'll see here.
	Can confirm it was a work event in the basement, actually.
	And we have a picture for our listeners of Boris Johnson boogieing on a...
	Why is she holding a lightsaber?
	Why indeed.
	Why indeed.
	You're not the good guys, aren't you?
	She doesn't deserve a funny new line, sir.
	Boris, you're using the force there.
	It's cringery.
	It reminds me of the Theresa May shuffle.
	Yes.
	Is Boris really old enough to be dancing like that?
	It's appropriate.
	Goodness me.
	What was that?
	And we have another commenter suspecting that he has the answer to who broke the swing.
	If we scroll down here.
	Yeah, that's a 4am shot right there, isn't it?
	Not a good look, is it, for the leader of a respected country?
	I think the child hiding underneath the pipe is a pretty good encapsulation of what probably the public's view of this is.
	Indeed.
	Now, surely this has been photoshopped.
	It's too good to be otherwise, but still it's a glorious image.
	So my suggestion for what should happen is off with their heads.
	What do you reckon?
	I don't know.
	We have, because it's not just the Queen who was thrown under the bus by arbitrary and tyrannical public health restrictions, which were ignored by the people making them.
	We all know this at this point.
	We also have real people.
	I mean, that's not to say the Queen isn't real, but we mean ordinary British people who don't perhaps have the cameras on them 24-7, whose stories are not exactly making it to front page news.
	So here we have English examiner saying, FFS, we weren't allowed dancing at my son's wedding in July 2021.
	It makes me sick.
	Fair assessment.
	Yeah, so plebs couldn't dance at their weddings, but Downing Street could dance at leaving parties.
	Interesting.
	Then we have the next one.
	Lance Foreman points out quite astutely, once again, the police surround 10 Downing Street.
	If a party was going on and it was illegal, why didn't the police close it down?
	Good question.
	This is crucial.
	They were shutting down parties across the country.
	Would it be fair to say it's one rule for them and another rule for everyone else?
	Seems to be the case.
	Seems to be the case, doesn't it?
	The police, it seems, know who they work for.
	And then we have one here from...
	And next, so this is from Christine saying, if this is true, I'm done for with him and all of them.
	I had to sort out a funeral on a path for Frank as no one was allowed in my home.
	We had five people at his funeral.
	I sat on my own after.
	The worst is that he couldn't have his girls and me visit and died alone in April 2020.
	And there are many, many more stories like this.
	Many, many more, yes.
	Again, have you realised you're the bad guys yet?
	We're all waiting.
	No, they're probably attaining some, or getting some sociopathic sense of pleasure from being the bad guys, given the contempt that they have shown for everyone and how stupid they seem to think that we are, in hiding behind what they hope to be the result of the Grey Inquiry, which is going to end Boris inevitably.
	He doesn't seem to have any intention of going out gracefully.
	He doesn't seem to have anything left.
	I mean, Boris is one of those leaders who largely was quite popular, I think, before he came into power.
	And he started off by dealing with the Brexit issue in a way that May was unable to do, although there are obviously problems with that, especially regarding Northern Ireland.
	And it seemed like he had a certain amount of popularity, but now I think that's all disappeared and he just seems to be on a slope careering towards his inevitable career crash.
	I mean, he's had a political career of being a very, very good antithesis when I suppose there's a fall guy for everything that's ultimately going wrong.
	But when he actually has to moderate that himself as that person, he just completely cracks.
	It's also the fact that he has this persona of, oh, I'm scruffy, I'm just one of the lads, I can dance with a titty at a party.
	You can't hide behind that veneer anymore when you're actually in power.
	Yes, and acting like an utter elitist.
	And many of his policies align with this as well, like the Green Industrial Revolution, for example.
	This is going to add a third to people's gas and electricity bills.
	He doesn't care about his gas and electricity bill, I dare say.
	No, we pay for it, don't we?
	I don't think he even understands what it means to worry about a gas or electricity bill.
	No.
	So there we go.
	But speaking of baddies, there is another development on the royal front.
	Prince Andrew has been stripped of his royal titles.
	I'll let you finish cheering.
	Statement from Buckingham Palace should be here.
	Here we go.
	With the Queen's approval and agreement, the Grand Old Duke of York's military affiliations and royal patronages have been returned to the Queen.
	The Duke of York will continue not to undertake any public duties and is defending this case as a private citizen.
	That is the nicest to hell review I have ever read.
	Yes, the royal family is quite good at that, to be fair.
	So the charges are sexual assault and battery, but from Virginia Jeffrey, and there is a civil case ongoing in the States, as you'll see here from this Sky News article.
	The Duke of York is being sued by Virginia Jeffrey, formerly known as Virginia Roberts, who claims he committed sexual assault and battery upon her when she was a teenager.
	Andrew vehemently denies the allegations.
	She alleges that she was trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein, the late disgraced financier who definitely killed himself, to have sex with Andrew when she was aged 17.
	The Duke's lawyers had asked for the civil lawsuit in New York to be dismissed after arguing Miss Jeffrey waived her right to sue him when she signed a $500,000 settlement agreement with Epstein.
	The 2009 document said Miss Geoffrey had agreed to release, acquit, satisfy, and forever discharge Epstein and any other person or entity who could have been included as a potential defendant.
	So she was essentially paid off.
	But the court, just to be clear, has said that Prince Andrew cannot use this in his defence.
	Yes.
	So essentially they were trying various ways of dodging the lawsuit altogether on legalistic grounds, which have failed, so now the case will go ahead.
	Mm-hmm.
	As a civil case, right?
	Yes.
	And I do think this is good for the public interest.
	It's good for the public interest, yes.
	So, there we go.
	I think pretty much everyone is on board with this.
	Prince Andrew does not have many fans, even among ultra-monarchists.
	Partly this is due to the miasma of salacious gossip surrounding his suspiciously wealthy lifestyle, which has prompted muted allegations of corruption.
	Let's go to The Sun.
	Best place for salacious gossip.
	Prince Andrew lives a billionaire's lifestyle on £270,000 a year.
	so where does all his money come from?
	He somehow lives this billionaire lifestyle, jetting around the world, lounging on super yachts, or relaxing on the beach at Saint-Tropez.
	On top of that, he continues to support Sarah Ferguson, to whom he has never quite married or divorced in her lifestyle.
	But even with these expenses, he has managed to buy a £13 million ski chalet in the sought-after Swiss resort of Verbier, with a staff of six, to give daughters Beatrice and Eugenie a permanent base in this billionaire's playground.
	With its living quarters full of priceless antiques, seven bedrooms, massive indoor pool, sauna, sun terrace and bar, Chalet Hellera would cost nearly £25,000 a week to rent.
	Where does this come from?
	Where indeed.
	Where indeed.
	Remarkably, when he bought the magnificent Swiss chalet in 2014, the prince also splashed out 7.5 million to refurbish Royal Lodge, his 30-room home in Windsor Great Park.
	Nor does he skimp on his personal possessions.
	He was snapped in 2015 wearing the latest £12,000 18-carat Apple watch, and he drives a Bentley with the personal number plate D-O-Y. Perfectly standard watch, perfectly standard car.
	Very interesting.
	There's so much conjecture, in fact, about Andrew's alleged underhand dealings and undiplomatic behaviour, ranging from the 2010 WikiLeaks cables to bribery and corruption surrounding arms deals with Saudi Arabia.
	We can only scratch the surface here.
	But we will scratch that surface.
	Prince Andrew, according to The Guardian in 2010, used his royal position to demand a special briefing from the Sirius Fraud Office weeks before launching a tirade against the agency's idiotic investigators.
	At a lunch with businessmen in Kyrgyzstan.
	The prince, who is also a UK trade ambassador, was briefed on the investigation into allegations of bribery by arms firm BAE at Buckingham Palace in May 2008.
	Soon after, believing he was speaking in private to a group of sympathetic British businessmen, he appeared to condone bribery and scorned the work of the Sirius Fraud Office's anti-corruption investigators in investigating the Saudi royal family.
	What do we reckon?
	I don't know what to think of the fact that he's just a complete and utter moron.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, no, I think that's pretty clear.
	Suffice to say that Andrew is widely unpopular and many people were not surprised when he was implicated in Epstein's sex trafficking.
	It seemed, yeah.
	Including the army.
	Top army figures tell of widespread relief as Prince Andrew is stripped of all honorary military titles.
	Just a little bit.
	Last night, a colleague of Andrew from the 1982 Falklands campaign said he was stunned by the palace move.
	While a former head of the army said there would be widespread relief in units associated with the disgraced prince.
	I can imagine the banter would be pretty spicy.
	I can imagine, yes.
	He wouldn't be able to tell if it was at his expense or not.
	Yesterday's announcement drew a veil over Andrew's 43-year association with the UK's armed forces.
	However, the prince will retain his honorary rank of vice-admiral, having been granted this by the navy on his 55th birthday in 2015.
	Presumably, he kept this title because it has the word Vice in it.
	He's the Admiral of Vice, perhaps, rather than the Vice Admiral.
	Andrew is not the only member, though, of the royal household to be stripped of his royal titles.
	Can you remember a certain other individual?
	I can, but you'll have to...
	Yes, that's Harry and Meghan.
	Oh, those two!
	He also lost his titles, not recently.
	And what are they getting up to these days?
	Well, they're raising money for charity.
	But not very much of it.
	Very unsuccessfully, in fact.
	And there's this glorious article here by the Daily Mail.
	How a tiny cat sanctuary in Wales and a boy in a tent raised more for charity in 2020 than Harry and Meghan's global foundation in Archwell.
	A bit embarrassing.
	When you have the profile that they do, that is incredibly bad.
	Or the profile they're trying to give themselves.
	Well, they did have a huge profile.
	If they'd stayed in the royal family, they would still have it.
	But they've annoyed an awful lot of people, I think, with their behaviour.
	Yes, and the more that you have to tell the entire world that you are important, as they have been doing, by striking all sorts of agreements with Oprah Winfrey, publishers and whatnot.
	It's like this phenomenon where if you say you are the king too many times, again and again and again, your legitimacy becomes less and less plausible.
	And that's precisely what's happened with Harry and Meghan.
	They've become to like the sound of their own voice so much.
	Well, I think Meghan particularly.
	Harry seems a lot more confused than he used to since getting into this relationship.
	Well, he'd have to be confused to have agreed to this departure in the first place, to be quite frank.
	It sounds like a cult victim, to be honest, sometimes.
	That's not a bad way of putting it.
	But we have a nice little list of the tiny organisations which have raised more money than Harry and Meghan.
	Oh, brilliant.
	We have the T-Nut Cat Sanctuary near Port Talbot in South Wales.
	We have...
	The Surrey and Hampshire Canal Society, the French Porcelain Society, the Hindley Amateur Rugby League Football Club.
	And yeah, they didn't draw in millions of pounds either.
	They recorded incomes of about £37,900, £44,000 for the year.
	And that's more than the less than $50,000 or £36,000 declared as income in 2020 by the Archwell Foundation.
	Oh dear.
	It's pitiful, isn't it?
	And relating to his being stripped of royal titles, many have speculated that Harry may not actually be related to the royal family and instead be the bastard child of Princess Diana and an officer from the household cavalry.
	I don't see any resemblance.
	I'll leave you to decide who's the father with this image of all three of them at the same age.
	Food for thought.
	Food for thought.
	Harry's the one on the far right, right?
	No, Harry's in the middle.
	I know, I know.
	Power of suggestion.
	It's just a strange sort of clueless expression that Charles has never quite lost.
	What is it you say?
	World Economic Forum?
	Oh yes, Mr.
	Sproul.
	That's my son, is it?
	Right.
	I think that's enough of mocking the royals for one day.
	Okay.
	So, as we know, the capital insurrection happened last year, unfortunately on my birthday, on the 6th of January.
	So, an insurrection that was, as we know, so dreadfully cynical.
	whether by the time the trespassers actually got into the building, they didn't really know what they were doing.
	Anyway, the insurrection was reported to have happened as a result of Trump using language that incited violence in the address following his defeat, which is, as we know, not quite true, as you'd be able to garner if you actually look at the words used in his statements.
	But in any case, it got the then US president banned from Twitter and Facebook and YouTube, marking a watershed moment, I would argue, where big tech corporations become more powerful than elected governments.
	Anyone concerned with democracy could actually have brought that up.
	One could even say it's a greater attack on democracy than the insurrection itself.
	But anyway...
	Well, yes, but it's not a great attack on our democracy, TM, is it?
	Oh, no, no.
	It's your democracy that's being messed up.
	Oh yes, we must reaffirm this distinction.
	So while Twitter proceeded to ban Trump permanently, Facebook have so far kept it as a two-year suspension, which is due to end on the 7th of January 2023.
	The Democrats were, when the event happened, expectedly up in arms about Trump's actions, saying that the insurrection was an attack on democracy at the hands of fascists, blah blah blah, QAnon enthusiasts.
	There were, of course, QAnon What do you think of QAnon?
	Well, very, very sensationalistic.
	For the most part, everything that I've seen is, I'm sorry to have to say some of our viewers tuned into QAnon, but nearly all of it was misguided for me.
	I think I agree with that.
	As in, it seems to appeal to phenomena that actually happens but makes a narrative out of it that doesn't make sense.
	The most convincing explanation of the QAnon phenomenon for me has been that it was a PSYOP, but obviously I can't verify those statements.
	There was someone who subscribed to it quite heavily, and I had an awful time trying to unpack precisely why he couldn't really join the dots.
	But anyway, I'm not a fan of this.
	I'd certainly discourage all of our viewers to not use this as a reliable source of news, use it as a source of entertainment as much as some other outlets that come to mind.
	Anyway, of course, we all know that had Black Lives Matter stormed the Capitol building, they would have hailed it as an uprising against America's history of white supremacy and some sort of a triumph for the democracy that the Founding Fathers established.
	Anyway, moving on to today, given the sheer weight that Twitter and Facebook have, you'd think that this would have dealt the final blow to Trump's political career and his influence, especially given how, I suppose, useful Twitter was as a tool to his rise to prominence.
	But according to the BBC, this isn't the case at all.
	Really?
	Yeah, apparently he's actually doing better without it.
	What?
	That doesn't sound right.
	Well, they start off by rightly saying that, as I've said already, Twitter were, of course, instrumental in his rise to power, racking up more than 20,000 tweets during his presidency.
	According to the BBC, Mr Trump's strategy was to dominate the news cycle.
	Twitter, in particular, that is just me copying and pasting the same thing twice.
	I'm sorry.
	Journalists in newsrooms around the world waited for his daily tweets to drop.
	He's up was the popular refrain.
	He was a news-making machine.
	Now, I just have to cut in here.
	Did Trump write his own tweets, do you think?
	I would guess probably not.
	Not all of them, at least.
	Yeah, it's a curious subject of debate.
	For a long time, I assumed that everyone was responsible for their own tweets.
	But until I found out that there was some discrepancy between, you know, the footballer Phil Foden and his, I don't know, media management company about that.
	Apparently, they submitted a tweet that was misinformative about something COVID related or whatever.
	And he issued an apology on his own Twitter page saying that this isn't my view.
	It was a mistake by my representative or whatever.
	Anyway, before this, it never occurred to me that people didn't actually tweet their own tweets.
	So I've always suspended judgment from that point.
	Most of Trump's tweets, I must say, seem pretty authentic.
	But if you're going to assume the role as president...
	You would think he'd probably pass that on to someone else some of the time.
	It must be a very intelligent person, if it isn't him, to be able to make so many tweets that are authentically Trumpy.
	That's true.
	What do you think?
	I'm the same.
	I'm on the fence.
	I think it's quite likely either he did it or he didn't.
	I mean, according to Bannon, it was Trump.
	He was putting them out, and that's not unbelievable.
	Very efficient use of time.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, I stand corrected, then.
	Yes, the BBC goes on to say, in fact, there is a school of thought that being off social media at least has actually helped for Donald Trump.
	And the broad theory is that Mr Trump, by staying relatively quiet, is following Napoleon's advice.
	Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.
	Hmm.
	Making a mistake, and well, there have certainly been many of those.
	Well, there's been barely anything but.
	Oh, yes.
	Barely anything but.
	The shameless gaslighting of Let's Go Brandon, the incorporation of, well, critical race theory and genderqueer theory in schools, some parents of whom have found pornographic content in school libraries for children younger than 12.
	No serious, very serious matter there.
	The culture of self-loathing that they're trying to place on white Americans, let's just call it what it is.
	Of course, there is the reckless borrowing, the list goes on.
	If we take a look at Biden's approval ratings, according to Quinnipiac, I can't pronounce this.
	So yeah, these are his approval ratings at the moment.
	So his ratings have crashed to 33%.
	Yes.
	That's pretty bad.
	Yes, 53% outright disapprove.
	On the economy, 34% approve.
	57% disapprove.
	Foreign policy, 35%.
	54% disapprove.
	And on COVID, it's a lot more balanced.
	But still, the majority are in disagreement with who is unquestionably the greatest president in the UK's history.
	What is equally interesting, if we move on to the next one, is that according to a poll by Politico, more voters want Trump to run in 2024 than Biden.
	Wasn't that the same in 2020?
	Hmm.
	Yes.
	Only that there's a difference here.
	Okay.
	Because, well, it was very early on in 2020 that Trump actually lost his entire social media presence.
	Right, yeah.
	Hmm.
	But if we scroll down to the key facts, the important thing to bear in mind with this is that whilst more voters want Trump to stand in the next election than Biden, most would prefer it that neither did.
	50% of those who said Trump probably should or definitely should not, one in 58% said the same of Joe Biden.
	But if we move on to the Rasmussen poll...
	Now, the Rasmussen poll, I've got to say, is particularly interesting, because unlike other polls, I found this out from Kyle earlier, they actually dare to phone people and ask what they think, which may offer them a more accurate understanding of what the United States actually thinks, where its people actually stand.
	From the information they've gathered, Biden's ratings are 40% approval and 58% disapproval.
	Yes.
	And if we move on to the next one, we can see that Trump's approval was 70% higher at this point in his premiership, if you like, than Biden's is now.
	Gosh.
	And if we can actually take a closer look at this, we can see it pretty clearly here anyway.
	We can see that on the same day on Trump's term, and this is yesterday, his approval was 46%, whereas Biden's approval is 39%.
	And we can see that whilst Biden's approval ratings are at an all-time low, if I'm reading this correctly, his approval ratings, despite the fact that Trump is as good as completely censored on this, are the highest they've been since January 2018.
	Does that surprise you at all?
	Yes and no.
	I do think that the quieter he is, the more people will miss him.
	Especially journalists.
	I mean, they spent four years doing nothing but talking about Trump.
	They must miss him terribly.
	Their ratings certainly do.
	The second they stop talking about it, because of course they've got their man, they've got their...
	How dare I even say it?
	The messiah, if you like.
	He's actually...
	Trump seems to be almost elevating.
	He's like...
	Trump is basically an anti-messiah to the American mainstream media, I think.
	Mm-hmm.
	It's very curious.
	Yeah.
	So if you put this in a hypothetical, the context of a hypothetical election, if we get the next one up, please.
	If a hypothetical election was conducted at this point, according to big league politics, Donald Trump would have walloped Joe Biden with a considerable six percentage point lead.
	Well, it depends whether they've considered mail-in balloting, though, doesn't it?
	That's true.
	And on that, I'm not entirely sure.
	But it reads that 46% of likely 2024 voters indicate they would vote to re-elect Trump in the poll, with only 40% opting to give Biden a second term.
	Over a majority, that is 52% of Americans, view Biden unfavourably, with 42% viewing him as very unfavourably.
	In contrast, a majority of voters, 51% view Trump favourably, with 31% viewing him very unfavourably.
	Well, I just want to say to that 40% of Americans who want to give Biden a second term, How cruel can you be?
	Look, the old man needs a nap.
	He's already knackered.
	He's barely done a year.
	Do you think he's going to do eight?
	Do you really think he'll make it?
	It looks to me like he's napping on the job.
	Seems like cruel and unusual punishment to me.
	Yeah, he was having a nap on that pewting question he was asked.
	I think he barely remembers where Afghanistan is, let alone that he completely ruined the withdrawal.
	Yeah, what's particularly important here, as we go on, is the poll which surveyed 1,106...
	No, if we just go back, I'm just looking at the bottom paragraph at the beginning of the poll.
	The poll which surveyed 1,106 likely 20, 24 voters over the telephone may represent President Trump's largest lead yet in a poll of a rematch with his successor.
	Voters cited Biden's poor performance on national security and...
	Yep.
	And the economy, again, terrible.
	With inflation and economic dysfunction already eroding the value of Americans' savings or their values as a nation.
	It's like a deliberate heist at this point.
	It is.
	Like how badly the economy is performing.
	He's basically running America from a position of fiscal self-hatred and rising the cost of living in America in the first weeks of 2022.
	So yes, the poll also did find that personal character very much took a back seat to make way for a focus on general political ineptitude as it articulates on Biden's part.
	His failure to pass legislation and failure to deliver on his signature goal to shut down COVID were noted as particular reasons behind the results which placed him behind Trump.
	So it does seem in short like the BBC have a point for once.
	I'm shocked.
	Yes.
	Now, of course, we can interpret this point about COVID in several different ways.
	Okay.
	Because those who think that...
	There are some who think he's being too strict, and then there are others who think he's being too lenient.
	Both could disapprove of that, so we have to bear that in mind.
	But if we get the next one up here, as you can see, the majority of Democrats...
	These seem to be continuing to embrace, for the most part, restrictive policies, including punitive measures against those who haven't gotten the COVID-19 vaccine, whereas others have become sceptical towards the federal government's response to the pandemic, and the sceptics, as you can see, are overwhelmingly Republican voters.
	Is it accurate to say that the main thing categorising the Democrat voter at this point is that they listen and believe mainstream media?
	Almost entirely.
	If that's the case, then it's no surprise that they're more in favour of restrictive policies, even if their ideology, you might say, would in points be more pro-liberty.
	Yeah, and of course, there is the fact that they're almost entirely based into cities.
	And of course, groupthink is going to be a lot stronger in those areas.
	Yes.
	Yes.
	So opinions on these mandates, despite how draconian they are, have split 48-48, pretty much 50-50.
	Of course, the other 4% clearly don't know.
	If we move on to Fauci's approval rating...
	45%.
	That's actually higher than I would have expected, to be honest.
	Well, he's going to run for president, do you think?
	New Democrat candidate.
	God forbid.
	Could you imagine that?
	He's already got the political tactics down.
	He never says the same thing twice.
	He contradicts himself in every press conference.
	I think he could make a stunning bid for politics.
	I'm pretty sure he could to the Democrats.
	I mean, look at that.
	21% Republican, 75% Democrat.
	That's almost a declaration of love for Dr.
	Fauci from the Democrats.
	Oh, wouldn't you love the Democratic primary that Fauci versus Clinton?
	Oh my God, could you imagine?
	I would be watching popcorn very, very keenly, but my God, please no.
	I mean, even for the Democrats, you can do better than that.
	I would actually pick Sanders over Fauci.
	100%.
	Yeah, I think so.
	He's the one person who could get us to vote Sanders, I think.
	Yeah.
	But in short, it's absolutely no wonder why, really, Dr.
	Fauci's approval raisings are not particularly good.
	And it's because, well, if we move on to the next one...
	Well, of course, he encouraged Biden to order policies such as this, compelling US companies to vaccinate all staff by January 4th or face fines up to $136,000.
	Yes.
	Now, I find this very interesting.
	First of all, the way that the fines operate, it is brutal for small businesses and barely noticeable for large ones.
	Barely noticeable.
	That's very interesting.
	Barely noticeable.
	But it's almost like he's the enemy of small business.
	And the other thing I noticed is, have you noticed with all of the coronavirus restrictions, the most effective ones have always been targeted at companies, forcing companies to force workers to do things?
	Because the government knows if they pick on individuals, first of all, there are millions and millions of individuals, whereas there are only hundreds of thousands to a few million companies, so it's easier administratively.
	And also, if you bankrupt and oppress an individual, it gets headline news.
	Whereas if you drive a load of small businesses out of business, no one seems to care.
	It's merely a statistic.
	Yeah.
	And the Supreme Court apparently shot this down yesterday, which is...
	It's a mandate for healthcare staff at Medicare.
	The Medicaid remains.
	Great.
	So yes, excellent idea, Mr Biden, because what America needs at this time is even more unemployment, as US jobless claims are reported to have risen to 230,000.
	Wow.
	230,000.
	You could make an army out of 230,000.
	Yes, you could.
	And, yeah, I mean, you could even make the moral case that there'd be better off doing that than taking this money.
	Disavow, disavow.
	Yes, don't read into that too much.
	So, yes, no one.
	If we move on to the next one, where we can actually see how favourably these filing polities are being taken...
	Republican 19%, Democrat 55%.
	38% overall disapproval.
	That's the approval, so it's 62% overall disapproved with this policy, and it's absolutely no wonder, really.
	What do you think it's going to be for something like home lockdowns?
	I imagine the Democrats are very pro.
	Yes.
	Well, let's have a look at what Rasmussen has provided.
	Yep.
	34%.
	Democrats, 59%.
	Six out of ten Democrats want lockdowns at home for vaccine non-compliance.
	So the policy of subjecting those not complying with vaccine mandates to home lockdowns isn't being received.
	But that's a ridiculous policy idea.
	It is.
	And as we've covered many, many times, it has destroyed lives.
	People know that it is destroying lives.
	The very process of treating people almost as if there's just statistics to ostracise themselves.
	And just to hark back to our first segment, while this is going on, do you think the White House staffers are locking themselves in homes?
	Or are they having parties in the same way that the Downing Street lot did?
	Because, I mean, I have no evidence to back this up, but I would absolutely put money on the fact that they are living it up.
	Yes.
	And not enough questions are maybe being asked.
	And that may be because of the monolithic hold that the Biden ministers maybe has over the media that could bring them to account for it.
	What is the American media doing?
	Why aren't they investigating this sort of thing?
	Why are they just on the same side as the establishment here?
	I have an idea.
	Yep.
	They may be partying with them.
	Mmm.
	Mmm.
	I'm actually eagerly waiting for the video where Jonathan Van Tam is dancing with Boris Johnson, not having a lightsaber fight, holding a red one, as he'd make a great Sith Lord, Darth Van Tam.
	So just remind viewers who Van Tam is?
	Jonathan Van Tam is the ex-deputy medical officer for England.
	second in command to Chris Whitty, who is known as Professor Lockdown.
	Right.
	Yes.
	And I gave him an all-too-kind send-off in this segment.
	You're going to see it the weekend, but anyway.
	All the evidence suggests that Americans feel that COVID authoritarianism is going far enough, and that probably has something to do with why people are starting to perhaps regret letting Trump go, perhaps seeing him as a less bad option.
	And this is probably some of the things that they are fearing.
	If we get the next clip up here...
	Of course, as far as I know, are there actual COVID camps in the United States?
	Not that I'm aware of.
	Not that I'm aware of.
	In Australia they have this.
	In Austria, they have this system, perhaps.
	Scotland, they probably do.
	Yeah, if there's the sense that this is where the Biden administration are going to go, especially if you look at the Let's Go Brandon stuff and how it's just a shameless spin, really.
	This may have something to do with why they're trying to look beyond Biden at this point, clutching straws to someone who is actually, well, he's slightly younger than Biden, but still not exactly a spring chicken himself.
	In Scotland, they probably do.
	No, but he doesn't look like a doddery old fool at least.
	No, he doesn't.
	He's full of energy.
	No, he looks far, far fresher and sounds far fresher and seems to be more psychologically coherent.
	He's the only person I've seen in modern politics to be the head of a country for a full term and not age 20 years.
	I suppose the most draconian of all COVID policies that we have been introduced to up to this point is the possibility of being imprisoned for questioning the efficacy of We're good to go.
	Okay.
	Anyway, I'm going to sum up because I am rambling a little bit.
	But all of this suggests, really, that there isn't a first in America for more draconian COVID measures.
	And there is a general sense, there seems to be this general sense that Biden's administration may be flirting in that direction, or at least...
	With the idea of doing so, in addition to everything else of his various incompetencies, this may have something to do with why Trump is outdoing him in the polls without having the reach that he once had during his 2016 presidential campaign.
	He is playing Napoleon's game, as the BBC says, and to his credit, he seems to be doing it well.
	Yeah, I think that's a very good analysis then.
	So I'm going to talk about something which we don't too often talk about, which is abortion.
	Now, abortion is a topic which is evergreen on the debating circuit.
	Ever since I was in school, people have been talking about it, rolling their eyes as one of those intractable debating subjects where people just talk past each other all the time and no one can agree on anything.
	Well, maybe you can agree on this.
	Is it wrong to kill a baby immediately before it's born?
	Yes.
	Yes, that's a hell yes for me as well.
	But the Democrat-run state of New Jersey has legalised full-term abortions, which is killing babies at any point during pregnancy.
	Now, how have they done this?
	I don't understand, but here we have a report from Life News.
	A breaking Catholic New Jersey governor, Phil Murphy, just signed into law a bill that legalizes abortions up to birth.
	You can't be a faithful Catholic and enable killing babies in abortions.
	Okay, I'm not a Christian per se, but you absolute satanic cretin.
	Right.
	Right.
	And to claim that you are Catholic, not just Christian, but Catholic and have this policy, it boggles the mind.
	Absolutely.
	Disgraceful doesn't even come close.
	Yeah, and without even getting into the weeds of the abortion debate, suffice to say that there are many on the pro-choice side who think this is barbaric as well.
	Theoretically, this legalizes killing a baby as the mother goes into labor almost.
	It's really bad.
	Now, as someone who believes personally in a woman's right to choose, I think mothers should be allowed to abort their children up until the child reaches retirement age, provided the child is a leftist coming up with these sorts of brain-dead ideas.
	Unfortunately, the surgical procedure of abortion by helicopter remains controversial and has not widely caught on, despite some transitory enthusiasm in Chile.
	But moving back to the argument, there are abortion advocates who claim that legal limits on when an abortion may be carried out are merely a tactic.
	So if you have a limit saying 20 weeks, which is quite common, that's a tactic.
	And if there is that limit...
	The nefarious pro-lifers and Republicans will use delaying tactics to prevent the mother from ever having an abortion until the deadline has passed, at which point it may not be stopped.
	And I think it would be mistaken to call this an unfounded claim, because it is something that particularly religious communities have practiced, as far as I'm aware.
	And they back up this argument by talking about statistics.
	So they cite in this article, the abortion term limit is also aimed at addressing a non-existent crisis of late-term abortions.
	The CDC, Centre for Disease Control, estimates that 98.2% of abortions occur by the end of the 20th week of pregnancy and 96.9% by 17 weeks.
	Now, I find it in extremely bad taste to use percentages this way when discussed in human lives.
	For me, it's much like saying 96.9% of the inhabitants of Nazi Germany were not sent to the death camps, so this is a non-existent crisis.
	Am I being uncharitable here?
	No, you're not.
	It's vulgar to suggest that you can instrumentalise one of the closest issues to the human hearts, the question of life.
	Absolutely.
	So it is egregious to present the issue in this way, regardless of how you use those statistics.
	Absolutely.
	Couldn't agree more.
	This is not a statistical problem.
	It's a matter of moral consideration.
	Why is it, and there's another question here, why is it that mainstream media never shows what an abortion actually looks like, despite the wealth of documentary filmmaking on the subject?
	Peter Hitchens rightly points out that they do not avert their cameras because they are squeamish.
	Indeed, the progressive ideology driving this debate has no compunction with showing all kinds of sex, blood and gore on screen.
	The more lurid and shocking, the better.
	The reason they don't show abortions is because they would turn pro-lifers...
	Sorry, they would turn...
	I was getting confused with these terms.
	They would turn pro-choices into pro-lifers, and the wrong side would win the argument.
	Yes, because the majority of people would have a conscience or would find themselves quite struck by seeing something like that.
	Yes.
	It's a deeply human reaction.
	Absolutely.
	When you see what is clearly a baby that has been medically killed, it's not something you can unsee.
	No.
	A late-term abortion cannot be unseen.
	The same activists who gleefully plaster the airwaves with footage from butcher's shops and abattoirs in order to shock people into becoming vegetarians seem to take the opposite stance with abortion footage.
	Curious.
	Double standards there.
	Yes.
	Much of the public perception driving the relentless drive for legalizing late-term abortions comes from popular media, or propaganda, as I think it's fair to say.
	I'm going to read an extract from Hitchens' complaints about a BBC program called Call the Midwife, which shows a particular pro-abortion bias.
	He says, it's quite long, but I think it's worth going through.
	Based on the memoirs of an actual midwife, Jennifer Worth, Call the Midwife gathered high ratings.
	It might at least have been able to find a small corner for a conservative moral view.
	But don't take my bitter right-wing word for what happened next.
	Private Eye, the former satirical, now rather left-wing magazine, said in a recent issue that Call the Midwife has lately become a series of liberal editorials on medical and social issues.
	Wikipedia concurs, producing an interminable, almost comically correct list of the issues tackled by the supposedly cozy drama.
	These include miscarriage and stillbirths, abortion and unwanted pregnancies, birth defects, poverty, illness and disease epidemics, prostitution, incest, religion and faith, racism and prejudice, alcoholism, disability, homosexuality between men, lesbianism, female genital mutilation...
	It's quite a list, isn't it?
	It is quite a list.
	It may have been a little saccharine before, but its fervent political correctness is now so relentless as it is almost embarrassing.
	Is generous endorsement of a program by pressure groups on one side of a controversial issue evidence of bias?
	Surely it must at least tend to be.
	A recent letter from a group of pro-abortion lobbies to the BBC pronounced that Call the Midwife has repeatedly handled this issue, abortion, extremely sensitively and courageously.
	Their only complaint was that the BBC Action Line response after the drama's second portrayal of a backstreet abortion had not been pro-abortion enough.
	Diane Munday, long one of Britain's most dogged campaigners for easier abortion, also wrote to The Guardian to describe the series as excellent and disclosed that she had been contacted by its makers to help them with their research.
	I have asked the BBC if they have sought comparable help from any opponents of abortion liberalisation.
	They haven't.
	I mean, it's classic propaganda in media, I think.
	Yes, and I'll expect in their latest series, whenever that comes out, on the assumption that it hasn't finished, of course, they're actually going to have cheerleaders at the end of the exit of the abortion clinic, if this is the direction they're going to be taking it.
	One can well imagine.
	He continues.
	I find it almost funny that the BBC will not admit that it is biased on this subject when it so obviously is and has been for half a century.
	In the most recent drama on the issue, set in 1964, the following words are put into the mouth of a nurse, a likeable and sympathetic character.
	We see this backstreet abortion all the time.
	Young, young girls, exhausted older women, mothers who don't know where their next penny or next beating is coming from, and others who want to take control of their bodies and their lives.
	No simply sympathetic, articulate voice offers any opposition to this.
	In fact, no voice at all suggests that there is or ever was or ever again will be any other view or any other answer to the problem of unwanted children than to abort them.
	By our own growing silence on this issue, we create a greater silence for those who come after us.
	I think that's very eloquently put, to be honest.
	It is, and I think you may just have put Peter Hitchens' voice out of a job.
	It is quite a unique voice, I must say.
	It is.
	And I think, just to dial back the accent a little, he does make a really good point here.
	We...
	We are very one-sided on this because generally most of us, certainly men, just avoid the issue because it's an eye-roller.
	It's something that causes arguments and you get people coming in with the standard feminist talking points.
	Ah, why should men be able to talk about things that only affect women?
	Well, it affects the whole of society and men are members of society so I think we are fair to have a voice.
	Yes, I think it's fair to say women do not have a monopoly on what the concept of life amounts to and its importance.
	That is a very succinct way of putting it.
	Absolutely.
	Yes.
	Of course, they have a say as much as any rational being deserves to say.
	But the principle of, shall we say, my body, my rules, when discussing this particular argument, does not entirely stand up.
	Because whilst, of course, nature has given them the misfortune to have them to bear this child, which, in my view, would give them the final say on the matter by natural right, We're good to go.
	Is outright egregious.
	Yes.
	And myopic.
	I think so.
	But it's also the sort of propagandising that many viewers would probably not really notice.
	No, it's not.
	Unless they had strong contrary issues.
	But subliminally, subconsciously, it would be very effective, I imagine.
	Exactly.
	And then when they do end up in a conversation about abortion...
	The thing that will come to mind is the messaging from Call the Midwife or similar series.
	Recall that Matt Hancock sent off the UK's order for lots and lots of vaccines after watching a movie.
	Yeah.
	Right.
	What movie was that?
	What's that?
	Do we know what movie it was?
	I think it was Infection or Pandemic or something like that.
	Oh my god.
	It was some cheesy disaster flick, pandemic disaster flick.
	And, yeah, are we really to think that popular culture doesn't have an impact on people's thoughts and decision making?
	No, it absolutely does.
	Of course.
	But apparently, aborting a child up to the point of birth is not enough, according to ACLU. ACLU stands for the American Civil Liberties Union, but don't let that deceive you.
	ACLU is a progressive skin suit.
	Here we have their tweet.
	New Jersey just passed a bill that will permanently protect abortion access in the state, even if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v.
	Wade.
	This is big, but we can't stop here!
	So, are they taking up my suggestion of aborting the children after the point of birth?
	It seems to be the case.
	There's still more to be done to ensure everyone in New Jersey can get the care they need.
	Interesting.
	And they say here, affirming the right to abortion is the first step.
	Well, if this is how bad your first step is, I tremble to think of what the second and third are.
	Yeah.
	But then there has been a bit of pushback, so this is again from Life News.
	A bill to codify a woman's right to choose interstate law and expand access to reproductive health care for all just past both houses of the legislature.
	I will sign this bill into law this week.
	With Roe v.
	Wade under attack, the need for this bill is more urgent than ever, Governor Phil Murphy said on Twitter.
	The pro-life group American Life League, A-L-L, says Murphy is violating the pro-life teachings of the Catholic Church.
	No S, Sherlock.
	No S, indeed.
	It called on the Catholic leaders in New Jersey to deny him communion.
	And yes, please do.
	We prayerfully call upon the bishops of New Jersey to enforce Canon 915.
	We respectfully ask them to join together in a statement advising Governor Murphy that, if he does currently receive the Body and Blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, he may no longer receive him until such time as he repents of his public support for the killing of the innocent and the vulnerable, A.L.L. said.
	Now, this is the Catholic version of cancelling someone, I understand.
	Yes.
	Now, I doubt the Church will actually do anything.
	However, there is a tendency not to stand up for your religious principles in modern Christianity.
	Yes, there is, especially if you're on one side of this...
	Issue.
	Yes.
	Now, I must say, when I say that, I'm not ragging on individual Christians.
	The individual Christians I've met are generally quite principled people.
	But it's the institutions themselves seem, if anything, more liberal and atheist.
	Yes, and this is much of a problem with Protestant institutions as it is Catholic institutions.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	Now, who do you think is the most progressive on the abortion issue?
	Where else in the world are abortions legal up to the point of birth?
	Oh, goodness me.
	It's not here, is it?
	It's not here.
	Thank goodness.
	Enlighten me.
	The answer is Communist China.
	Oh, brilliant.
	What many people in the West don't realise about the one-child policy is that it was enforced by mandatory forced abortions.
	I'll let that sink in.
	This is allegedly happening less now since China is moving towards encouraging a population boom.
	They've gone from a one-child policy to a two-child and now I believe a three-child policy and access to abortion is being severely limited.
	So there is speculation that China is going to mandate children.
	Anyway, without leaning into that speculation too much, Wikipedia has a well-sourced account of this happening, which I will read it in.
	Now, if you're feeling a bit squeamish, you might want to go and make a cup of tea for the next couple of minutes, because this is not good.
	Are we ready?
	So, in 2021, Feng Jianmei from Shanxi in China was pregnant with her second child, which was illegal under the one-child policy, and this is what happened to her.
	Around May 28, local family planning officials phoned Feng to try to persuade her to have an abortion.
	The attempt was unsuccessful, so on May 30, they visited the family house while Feng's husband was away at work.
	At first, authorities tried to persuade her to voluntarily have an abortion.
	After several hours, she told the officials she was going out to buy food and left them in her living room.
	Instead, she went to an aunt's house, but around 15 officials followed her.
	They did not immediately arrest Feng, instead setting up shifts to keep watch over her at the aunt's house.
	Early the next morning, Feng escaped, causing the guards to panic.
	She flagged down a van and persuaded the driver to help her.
	The driver let her out down the road and Feng hid in a hillside brush for the next fourteen hours, waiting for the cover of darkness in the cold and rainy weather.
	When night came, she went to a relative's house in the countryside where she hid under the bed.
	Authorities from the family planning office found her regardless and allegedly assaulted her.
	They let her get a night's sleep before taking her to the hospital on June 2nd.
	Several witnesses reported that four men carried Feng out of the house with a pillowcase over her head.
	Simultaneously, family planning officials were in communication with Feng's husband, Deng Ji Yuan.
	On June 1st, they demanded that Deng either transfer his wife's residency status on the next day...
	or pay 100,000 yuan, 15,700 US dollars, to the Birth Planning Social Security Fund.
	Transferring the residency status in one day was impossible, but Deng negotiated the payment down to 30,000 yuan before returning to Zhengping County, where he only had 18,000 yuan that he had borrowed from work but hoped an IOU would cover the balance.
	Sounds like extortion, doesn't it?
	Criminal extortion.
	Just a bit, yeah.
	On his way back, Deng received a text message that demanded that he immediately pay the fee, which was now 40,000 yuan and not a penny less.
	See, it's not just tyrannical, it's also arbitrary, the fact that this fine goes up and down according to the whims of the officials.
	At the hospital, two men forced Feng to apply her thumbprint to a consent form and sign a document authorising the abortion.
	She was taken to an operating room and restrained by two men as she was injected with a poison to kill the fetus.
	Feng later told All Girls Aloud, an American group campaigning against the one-child policy, I could feel the baby jumping around inside me all the time, but then she went still.
	She had been seven months pregnant at the time, so the abortion, voluntary or not, was illegal under Chinese law.
	No family members were allowed to be present for the procedure.
	After the child died of hypoxia, Feng underwent induced labour and delivered a stillborn girl on June 4th.
	Feng later told all girls aloud, The corpse was then placed next to Feng on her bed for her family to dispose of when they arrived.
	Feng was traumatised by the procedure and smashed the door and cabinetry of a nurse's office in a fit of rage.
	A week later, Deng told the South China Morning Post, My wife is not well.
	She is sad and distressed.
	Sometimes she becomes emotional and confused.
	Not surprised.
	No.
	Feng reportedly had a severe headache for several weeks after the abortion and attempted suicide multiple times.
	On June 15th, an uncle told reporters Feng was in poor health and unable to eat.
	On June 26th, Feng was still in the hospital and suffering from headaches.
	She told reporters that she wanted to go home, but that hospital staff would not allow her to leave.
	On June 29th, her family reported that Feng would be released the next day.
	However, her condition worsened and she did not return home until July 10th.
	Deng filed an official complaint with Ang Kang's petition office.
	A deputy mayor allegedly told Deng that they would investigate, but when nothing appeared to be happening, Deng posted his family's story online, later telling CNN that I'm angry and want justice.
	Meanwhile, the township officials had prepared a statement that said Feng was of sound mind and body when she signed the consent form authorising the abortion.
	This is the sort of thing where I just don't know what to say.
	Other than this is one of the most, quite possibly one of the darkest things I've ever heard.
	This was 2012 as well.
	We're not talking about 20th century stuff here.
	It's ten years ago.
	And it seems like this is largely the direction that progressive policies are pushing in when it comes to abortion.
	The way she was treated is almost medieval.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	I mean, it's...
	Well, this is the problem with totalitarian societies.
	This is on a par with King Herod.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	So, come on, New Jersey, what are you waiting for?
	Let's go to the video comments.
	My giant robot is simple by robotic standards.
	There's no computer controls, so it's cheaper and simpler than one of those battle bots you see on TV. Switches and levers for operator controls, bike cables and electrical recliner motors to move stuff, bike car batteries, and an old snowblower to push along.
	It's a real red neck and neck.
	I miss it, actually.
	What have you found that's easier than it looks?
	Have a good day.
	That's awesome.
	Thank you very much for that.
	I needed that.
	It's a small consolation to what we've just covered.
	But no, excellent work.
	What's this?
	A friend of mine likes typefaces and fonts, Helvetica in particular.
	Its creator posited that it's not the lines of the letters, but the space between them that makes it so readable.
	The inverse must be true in postmodern language, where words are imbued with meaning, but the space between those words is stripped away to obfuscate how twisted the meanings are.
	Yes, they use this with aesthetic a lot, if you noticed.
	Are you into vaporwave?
	No.
	I've got mixed feelings about it.
	It's something I'd like to cover.
	But it very much goes into this sort of territory anyway.
	I just want to say I quite like Helvetica.
	Depending on the kerning, it can be quite nice.
	Don't worry, guys.
	I don't mind.
	I appreciate being included in your memes.
	That being said, I actually wasn't lying.
	My second jab was in August and they haven't gone back down and I don't like it.
	I don't like it.
	I haven't gained weight.
	I even check on that, believe me, because I'm vain as f*** and I'm not pregnant.
	I don't like this.
	But it happened and I have been buying new bras.
	So if you missed the previous video, come out.
	After her second jab, she increased in cup size.
	Really?
	Wow.
	Yeah.
	And what?
	Yeah.
	I mean, some people would be pleased about that, others not so.
	Well, it's pretty weird, isn't it?
	It's weird, and well...
	I would say it's unnerving.
	There is no way I can say the right thing on this subject, so I'll just abstain, I think.
	Yeah, I'm also going to move on.
	Guys, last one on this topic about truth in consensus or observation.
	I think the shadowy forces in the world, whatever you want to call them, are well aware of this phenomenon, and they weaponise it mercilessly.
	They can put in a consensus effectively, and it doesn't seem to matter how crazy or contradictory it is, it is just followed.
	What do we do as the liberty-minded, and I like to think, good people of the world?
	Do we replace the consensus?
	Do we play the same game?
	What are your thoughts?
	Thank you.
	Well, we can't replace the consensus.
	We can just speak the truth.
	I know this is going to come across as shameless self-advertising, and to a point it is, but this is a sincere answer from me.
	Everything that the critical base theory series is, is to try to find a way that we can actually...
	It is basically an attempt to deconstruct the left on the left's own terms.
	In order for us to actually forge an effective counter-reaction to it.
	The problem of that is, of course, it doesn't provide us with a philosophy to get behind it necessarily.
	But what it does try to do is to give you a way of identifying wokeness when it exists.
	When people are acting on virtues that quite clearly, whether they're reacting to social signifiers rather than in virtue of something specific, what I'm trying to do is to show that what these shadowed forces are doing is very, very effectively appealing to the majority of their supporters using newspeak, loose, thin concepts and abstractions which are being driven by those like Kimberley Crenge or who know exactly what they are doing.
	As soon as we can actually hammer home that the majority of wokers are quite literally just empty, a-mol social actors, we can actually then, from there, offer an effective It's not the best answer, but I hope that that gives you some hope as to what we're doing on the podcast.
	I would just reiterate, the message from Solzhenitsyn is tyranny is resisted by truth, always.
	And that's what you have to do.
	You have to identify the truth and speak the truth, obviously with some tact and with some care.
	Yeah, but when the very concept of truth is being undermined, you need to go to another level.
	And this is the postmodern problem that we have.
	But I would also argue that things are in a sense better nowadays.
	I was having this discussion yesterday in one particular way, not in general.
	And this is in that more people than ever before know the mainstream is lying to them.
	So before, things were accepted as consensus, which may have been complete fabrication simply because the media was so centralised and its conspiracies were never blown open.
	But nowadays there are alternative media sources, such as what you'll find here, So one way, I know, again, selfless self-promotion, shameless self-promotion, got there, is to just share the lotus eaters and share the things that we do if you think that what we're doing is good for the truth and is spreading that kind of thing.
	But yeah, it's tough.
	We always talk about the long term because this isn't going to solve itself overnight.
	But I think if we just keep speaking the truth and finding the truth, things will get better.
	Yes.
	I mean, I'm not even against a weeb Pope as long as he does something interesting.
	I'm glad that you've mentioned this because the first criteria that I would have to do is, of course, start a holy war against refugees and political correctness in the name of, well, retaking Europe and our culture and fixing our culture.
	Secondly, I would have Twitter fights with the Taliban constantly just because...
	Shits and giggles.
	And then, thirdly, if there were SJWs who protested for, essentially, you're not allowed to do this and, you know, do all these hateful things, just threw Bibles at their weak soy legs till they broke.
	I'd just hate to say that I don't think anime is Catholic canon.
	No, I'm inclined to agree, even though I don't know much about anime, but I'll go with your judgement on that.
	Okay.
	You have such a good heart.
	I found this.
	Let me just go back.
	I'm back.
	Yes.
	Yes.
	Right.
	Right. Right.
	Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.
	It's working.
	It's working.
	It's been a brilliant, brilliant, fantastic editing.
	Loved every second of that.
	I've been meaning to show a friend's blog for a while and keep not getting around to it, but the recent talk about mass formation has forced the issue.
	She came from a socialist country, and a running theme is about Marxist ideas which are so culturally endemic that we believe absolute retarded nonsense without realizing it.
	Monday's post is on how the enemy undoubtedly thinks they are doing mass formation, but the theory has major holes in it.
	The other two I'm showing here tear into the idea that bad times create strong men.
	After all, we are all underneath the global North Korean empire, right?
	You can argue we're inadvertently varying in that direction.
	I do think there is something in saying that the government is trying mass formation but not doing it well.
	My impression has been that the mass formation, or as I prefer to call it, psychic epidemic, mass psychosis, is the result of a behavioural science experiment carried out on the populations of the West.
	And I think it has the hallmarks of an experiment in that they don't know what's going to happen.
	They know that they can make lots and lots of people scared, but they have no idea where that could lead.
	And I think that you may see...
	Just as the people who pushed the mass psychosis of the early 20th century had no idea it would lead to World War II or the Holocaust or anything like that, you cannot really foretell where this wild ride is going, and neither can they.
	So I think they're actually conducting an experiment which is far more dangerous than anything you could do on a virus in a lab.
	Do you think this is unintentionally, shall we say, fostering a generation of men that are stronger than previous generations as a response to this experiment, do you think?
	Not yet.
	I think it is coming, but not yet.
	Yeah, because I have to be honest.
	I don't think that it's quite there either.
	As a matter of fact, I think men, if anything, are still very much on the receiving end of pathological forces that we still haven't articulated.
	Men have far less liberty than they have ever done in human history nowadays.
	So they don't really have room to grow in strength against this.
	When they're getting critical race theory propaganda pumped into them in elementary school, they don't have the room to grow into strong men.
	Go homeschooling, guys.
	It's quite literally suffocating the man out of the man.
	Yes.
	Hello, Lotus Eaters.
	I will be at the Holiday Utah Library from 10.30 to 6 o'clock, and I will be the trans-dimensionally buff man reading this book in this corner.
	Thank you and good night.
	I love it when our subscribers meet up and have these conversations and form a community.
	That's part of the whole purpose of what we're doing is to get people together.
	Nice t-shirt as well, I must say.
	What on earth is this?
	I will be at the Hitler Youth Library in Wisconsin from 5pm to 10pm this Saturday.
	If anyone is interested in discussing how to become the Jesus-loving Ubermensch that we were all meant to be, I will be in the corner wearing a God-Hates-Weaves t-shirt.
	Very nice.
	Awesome.
	Tony D and Little Joan with another Legend of the Pines, the Jersey Devil, a more recent sighting which happened in 2015.
	A man by the name of David Black was driving down Route 9 in Egg Harbor Township.
	As he passed the golf course, he noticed a llama on the grounds and then suddenly the llama sprouted wings and It certainly looks devilish, doesn't it?
	It looks like a goat flung from a catapult.
	I'm not buying it.
	What if the devil did it?
	That would be quite a mind game.
	Yes, it would.
	Actually, yeah, why is it that there are no ghosts that are faked ghosts?
	Interesting.
	That is a very good thing to take away.
	What do we got here?
	I'm just going to be honest, I don't think the left and the right are ever going to get along with the question of pedophilia, because I've seen too many leftists willing to sacrifice their kid at the altar at this point.
	Frankly, it's just disgusting to be honest.
	Yes, it is.
	There is a special circle of hell reserved for parents who throw their children under the bus?
	Yes, there is.
	Especially for ideology?
	Yes.
	And the fact of the matter is, the left is subscribed to a theory of sexual orientation that doesn't correspond or acknowledge age or anything material for that matter.
	It's all in your mind.
	It's all in your mind.
	And the judgment is all on, I suppose, the attractor, by which there are no...
	Possible...
	No object is out of reach, essentially.
	So you only need to read Judith Butler to work that out, if you can decipher what she says.
	But yes, you're absolutely right.
	This is why the left can't get itself out of that mess.
	Mm-hmm.
	Mm-hmm.
	Hello and good morning.
	Here's why it's totally okay to dismiss anime outright and refuse to elaborate.
	It mostly boils down to aesthetics.
	If you think anime looks cartoonish or childish, you won't watch it.
	Anime is also super perverted.
	Every single anime has perverted scenes sprinkled throughout the series.
	Most animes even have a character whose defining trait is being a pervert.
	Even My Hero Academia, the daddest anime, Has an episode where underage school kids go skinny dipping.
	I rest my case.
	However, as John has recently pointed out, some anime movies are worth a watch.
	Films like Akira and Paprika are the exception to what I previously laid out, on top of being visually stunning and wasting less time than a series would.
	I used to love Dragon Ball Z as a kid, but I watched, what was it, the Animatrix once, when I was about nine, and was quite literally put off of it forever because of one particular scene that I will not go over.
	But it very much veered into the sort of territory that was described there.
	Do you think that this is an endemic feature of anime in general?
	I would like to say no.
	I would say hashtag not all, but there is a thing in anime where occasionally they will throw in a filler episode where it will be something like that, like everyone goes to the beach or something like that, and it's like...
	Yeah, it is blatant fan service and it's not exactly dadist.
	Do you think this has anything to do with why men in Japan and South Korea are stereotyped for not getting out enough?
	Do you reckon there's some kind of cybernetic feedback loop going on where they get their entertainment from home?
	Well, there's definitely a feedback loop in the sense that this sort of thing is fetishised, so more people put it on popular media, so more people fetishise it.
	More people create it.
	Yeah.
	There is a kind of anime as well which sort of dissipates.
	So I distinguish between genre anime and medium anime.
	So for me, medium anime is something made in animation.
	So that's, I'm talking a studio, Jay, please, and that sort of thing.
	But genre anime is entirely self-referential.
	So it's made by weeaboo, by Japanese weeaboo, for Japanese weeaboo, essentially, is the way of putting it.
	So it references lots of things from within the anime world, and it's kind of a bit incomprehensible and inaccessible from outside.
	And has much less critical value in general, as well as storytelling ability.
	I see.
	Yeah.
	Blimey, damn, they tricked us into talking about anime.
	Yes, they did.
	We thought we could avoid that for the rest of the time.
	Gosh, ah, rats.
	Never mind.
	Let's move quickly on to the comments.
	So let's start with Royal Rumbles.
	Christopher Fisher says, The saying, a picture is worth a thousand words, is still relevant, regardless what anyone thinks of Monarchs or even this one.
	That is an image of one of our elders left to grieve alone by the ridiculous level of administrative rules that have become nothing more than an excuse to keep the most useless of our societies not only employed but in positions of authority.
	The administrative class aristocracy are the single most damaging thing to human systems.
	The West has become servants of servants.
	It almost makes you think, in that moment, do you reckon the Queen entertained the idea?
	Or at least in finding out in retrospect what was going on at that very moment, that, you know what, I'd be better off revoking Parliament.
	Are we talking about that we are at this level of contemptuousness, if you like?
	I don't know.
	I suspect if the Queen were a little younger she might consider that sort of thing, but I don't know how active she is these days, and I don't think it's too easy to ascertain.
	No, perhaps.
	It's almost as if the palace runs the institution and they're as much an institution as the state.
	No, if I put myself in her boots, I would be insulted to such an extent.
	It would cross my mind.
	If I were in those boots, heads would have rolled a long time ago.
	Lars Peter Simonson says, Is Prince Andrew sweating now?
	I hope so.
	He's always been sweating.
	He's always sweating.
	That's all he bloody does is sweat.
	That's true.
	And be creepy, obviously.
	X-Y-N-Z-E says, one thing that can be said about HRH is that she's very cognizant of her position in English public life.
	She publicly followed the rules, showing she's suffering like the common people.
	Unlike the civil service's obvious disdain for the plebs.
	Yeah, which has been pretty consistent for, what, five years now?
	Or at least on public display.
	I'm sure it's always been that way.
	Rhys Sim says, Honestly, it's remarkable that in the 95 years of Queen Elizabeth's life, she has been able to avoid any real controversy and stay an example of how a royal should rule for almost 70 years now.
	Are you listening, people, doing the Is the Monarchy Worth It podcast in the afternoon?
	Sadly, her progenies couldn't stay the same way, especially the scumbag Andrew.
	I'm sure it's hard for any mother to see their children turn to smut, but I'm glad she was able to see she had to take Andrew's honours from him.
	It's almost a shame she can't part the title of Queen on Anne, Princess Royal, as she is a much better example of a royal than Scandalous Charles.
	I've met Anne, actually.
	Have you really?
	Briefly.
	Oh, wow.
	Yeah, no, but she seems very professional, so what can I say?
	Kevin says, It is high time the civil servants were moved to parties.
	That way, when the party gets voted out, so do the civil servants.
	They already have more power than they should without public support and one heck of a pension system.
	Plus, they can do F all of use for 25 years, keep their heads down, kiss the right butts, and get a knighthood.
	They make elections pointless, since no matter who is politically in power, the same civil servants hold the reins.
	Give that man a medal.
	That is exactly what I've been saying for the last five years.
	I've never even thought about it, but that really is an excellent idea.
	Like, why has no one in Parliament remotely suggested this?
	At least to my knowledge, no one has.
	I mean, this is more radical than Dominic Cummings' proposal.
	Yeah, yeah.
	No, honestly, excellent comment.
	No, I think so.
	Move civil servants to parties.
	Yes.
	George Windsor says, Ari Thomas' remark on Harry and Meghan's posturing, in the words of George R.R. Martin, as transmitted in inimitable fashion by the great Charles Dance.
	Can I do his voice?
	Any king who must say I am the king is no true king.
	I can hear a chorus of applause from our audience.
	Thank you, thank you, thank you.
	Freewill2112 says, There is no point in voting for any of these parliamentary clowns.
	Every party is controlled by the powers behind the scene who control big tech, big pharma, and all the other globalist interests, and they have no interest in anything we want if it conflicts with their agenda.
	Thankfully, we have had an authentic form of opposition in the form of the backbenchers, the Desmond Swains, the Philip Davies, what's his name?
	Steve something.
	Steve Baker was one of them.
	The 1922 committee in general, who have been gold for us in this respect.
	Absolutely.
	There are always a handful of voices, and I think it is a feature of our political system that they are in Parliament, rather than only on the fringes like we are.
	This is why they expend so much effort on attacking genuine populists who pose a real threat to their plans.
	Bang on!
	So, people like...
	Oh, who's that American white supremacist?
	Richard Spencer.
	Richard Spencer, right.
	He's all over American media.
	Why is that?
	Like, surely they're all about de-platforming people with unpalatable views, but Richard Spencer is all over the media, and people with our sort of position, who are actually common sense and popular, absolutely not.
	We are the anathema, we are the enemy as far as they're concerned.
	Alpha of the Betas says, Prince Andrew, the smug, elitist playboy, serial philanderer and accused paedophile, is competing with woke Prince Harry to see who can explode the royal family first.
	Harry and Meghan are loading the torpedoes.
	Who do you think's winning?
	Actually, you reckon Meghan's winning?
	Yeah.
	Well, everyone's losing, but in that context, yeah.
	Because she came from outside the royal family and is destroying it, whereas the others came from...
	And he's managing to compete with Prince Andrew on the subject of humiliating herself.
	Yeah.
	Incredible achievement, Megan.
	Keep it up.
	Girl power.
	Oh dear.
	Robert Longshaw says, The Queen is basically the country's grandmother at this point.
	Imagine your grandmother having to bury her husband of 70 years on her own.
	Boris has got to go.
	A suitcase for buying booze was only used for hiding the booze from public eyes.
	You can also get a lot of boosiness.
	Anyway, I'm afraid, though, that the alternative is just as bad.
	Student of History says, as an American, I am by default a non-monarchist.
	Boo!
	But my God, the woman's burying her husband and you're going to party?
	Nah.
	Alright, based.
	We'll forgive you.
	Indeed.
	Let's move on to the Trump bans.
	Yes, so Harry Ashman says, I feel like the biggest benefit to Trump about being off social media is it starved the middle class of ammunition to throw at him.
	So the media either have to find something else to talk about or keep trying to recycle the same old crap, which both have the benefits of making them look bad and reducing public goodwill towards them.
	Didn't CNN's audience collapse almost overnight last year?
	Big indicator that their influence is waning.
	Yep, I think it is.
	Yes, it certainly is.
	And Almighty Wizard says, could Biden even physically survive a second term?
	Well, that's the point I was making, is it?
	I'm not sure he's going to survive his first at this rate.
	No, I don't.
	And, well, yeah, that actually...
	I know I've got some more.
	I think some people who hate Trump actually miss him.
	He was the gift that kept...
	I'll give this his Jimbo G, by the way.
	You wake up going, what's he said now?
	He was an avatar of all that was wrong with our culture.
	This is a man who is the WWE Hall of Fame, a good heel.
	Now that the good guy is in charge, who do we blame for that hollow void in our souls?
	Hmm.
	Isn't it incredible, despite being successfully caricatured in such a way, and almost living up to the caricature, the good guy has ended up managing looking worse in almost every single way.
	The good guy, by the way.
	The good guy, yes.
	I mean, can you think of a single area where he's actually winning on policy, on his deliverance?
	Hang on.
	I'll get back to you on that one.
	You know, there is one area where he's winning, and that's just political spin.
	Right.
	Yeah, because he's got all of the right people on his side.
	He's been spinning so fast, it looks like his head stays in the same place.
	Yeah, well, yes.
	Anyway, Small Old Libertarian says, Now Trump's tweets were his own.
	Yes, we found that out.
	Thank you very much, John, for that.
	You couldn't get a media manager to tweet like him.
	That is a fair point.
	It's extremely...
	You have to be very talented.
	I'm sure someone could do it.
	Yeah, such idiosyncrasies are very, very hard to imitate.
	But you get Elvis impersonators and Beatles tribute bands who dress up in that way.
	You could imagine a Trump impersonator who can actually tweet like him, right?
	That's imaginable.
	No, no.
	It would be quite an art.
	And yes, you can actually see the strings on Biden, almost literally at times.
	I think the actual quote is, it's not the people who vote that counts, it's the people that count the votes.
	Allegedly, yeah.
	Kevin Fox says, what the Biden administration seems to overlook is that throwing the odd crumb to BLM and Antifa by not jailing their thugs will not ingratiate them to Biden in 2024.
	They're absolutely right on that.
	This centrist pandering is going to come back to eat them.
	It goes on to say, they definitely won't work for Trump, they just won't vote.
	Meanwhile, the Black and Hispanics who voted for Biden in 2020 will definitely vote for Trump in the hope that he will stop BLM and Antifa destroying their businesses again.
	There was actually some data that I was going to show as part of that segment that shows that the Hispanic vote has actually gone up exponentially in Trump's support on this matter.
	And it probably is business-related.
	Yes.
	Almost certainly.
	But there is a curious thing with BLM that...
	You know chikadas, right?
	Who?
	Chikadas, the insect.
	So it's like a little insect.
	You hear them in anime, funnily enough, but they have this very distinctive tss-ts-ts-ts sound in hot countries in summer.
	Yes.
	And they come out every few years at a set period and then they make a load of noise and eat and mate and then go back into the ground.
	Well, BLM is kind of like a cicada with a four-year time cycle on it in many places because it goes underground and then it comes out in election year, smashes up anything it can and goes back down again.
	They came up in 2016, they came back in 2020 and they will be back to their old tricks in 2024.
	That's not to say they've completely disappeared.
	There are places like Portland where they appear to run the streets.
	Yeah, though unlike before, there has actually been a strident attempt from our side to present who they actually are and what their intentions are.
	And they're as good as explicit, really, in what they actually want to, in the message that they want to present of American history.
	The entire nation from its very roots is rooted in white supremacy.
	There is absolutely, they may, this pandering may work in so far as Yeah.
	is concerned but you cannot claim to be an advocate or party built on the context of american democracy and claim to be on the side of black lives matter who have actually established themselves in utter contempt of that position yeah so this this political allegiance is one that's only going to go one way if it continues and student of history says a question honest question for the media trump is he pure distilled dumbass or napoleon level grand strategist to pick one please
	yes He's both.
	Yeah, I would say he's...
	I was more on the side of Napoleon, but I would say Napoleon as a leader was more a man of, I don't know, brevity than...
	He was very witty.
	Very, very witty.
	Yeah, very, very different characters.
	I certainly wouldn't want to collapse Donald Trump into Napoleon's kind of character.
	I think that's quite a lot different between...
	Quite a lot, without question.
	I would veer at the latter.
	I think he's more intelligent than a lot of people give him credit for.
	Yes, I think that's fair.
	So, in the Mostly Peaceful Infantside section, which is a great thumbnail quote, write that down, Alex Ogle says, As Bishop Tutu once said, we need to stop fishing people out of the river and go upstream to find why they are falling in.
	Pictures of abortions would go a long way to redressing the immorality of late-term abortions, but we should be cautious we don't encourage the banning of abortion altogether as it can be necessary.
	Yes, I agree with that.
	But the real issue is with a woman who has been pregnant for nine months suddenly deciding to abort.
	Why would she do that?
	What help or counselling might she need?
	What root causes make for such an inhumane decision?
	Those are the issues to address.
	Jimbo G says, there is a tendency on the left to push everything to its absolute limits to own the Republicans.
	Abortion is just another medium for this.
	What was once a fairly reasonable principle, safe, legal and rare, is now barbaric birth control.
	Reminds me of that abortion activist in America who died after too many abortions.
	I've never heard of that.
	But he's right in saying that it goes to the limit just to own the Republicans.
	It's become entirely partisan.
	The actual issue itself doesn't even really matter, it's just how strongly you can signal for your team.
	Yeah.
	Alpha of the Betas says, That is a depressingly accurate description, Alpha of the Betas.
	Well done.
	Yeah, and I mean, if you follow libs of TikTok, you'll quickly understand that to be true.
	We need to talk about that a bit more at some point.
	TikTok is just terrible for mental health and it's obvious.
	And anyway.
	Callum Dayton says, feeling cynical.
	Well, if anything, this BS by the Democrats in New Jersey will be another testbed for another Democrat-Communist policy.
	They've done a fair few already, I believe, and it's bringing America closer to China.
	Great progress.
	Also genuine.
	I'm sorry for Fang.
	Things like her story should never happen.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	It's just shocking.
	George Windsor says, Ari, New Jersey abortion.
	I'm neither religious nor particularly spiritual, and I do not try to square it in these currents, but babies are effing sacred.
	Yeah, actually, there's one thing.
	If you want to find one thing that currently really distinguishes the right from the left and politics, it's that the right believes in the innocence of children.
	The left believes that children are tools.
	Yes.
	Hence why they're so keen on their mutilation.
	Their mutilation.
	Their sexual abuse.
	Their mental indoctrination.
	And all of those things are the things that the right stand against.
	If there's one thing that the right does well, it's drawing the line and saying, okay, below this you are a child and we need to preserve the innocence as much as is possible in this cruel world of that state of affairs.
	The left doesn't do that at all.
	Yeah, and that's all about setting it up for...
	For a world that is, perhaps, in many ways hostile to people, but is one that nonetheless responds positively to those that want to make peace with it.
	That is, of course, one of the achievements of the civilised world.
	Whereas the left sets that child up to believe that this is a world that will never emancipate them and to raise them with a vengeance towards it.
	And you, of course, end up being literally russo.
	A leftist world is one in which every child from birth is either a young pioneer or a Hitler Youth member.
	It's a horrible world.
	Kevin Fox says, Phil Murphy doesn't realise that if this law had been in place when his mother was carrying him and she'd known what he'd turn out like, she'd have used it.
	Absolutely.
	Halford the Beta says, human decency these days means hormone blockers for minors, COVID vaccines for children without parental consent, that's another thing we were talking about, and abortion up to the moment of birth.
	Yeah, again.
	Again, just no innocence of children in the left's conception.
	In my liberal youth, says Chris Wolfe, my friends and I were educated on abortion by our religious teachers with videos of the abortion process.
	It was pretty scarring.
	Oof.
	Funnily enough, we all thought the Christians were evil for showing that to children.
	Too bad it took a decade to realise that the advocates were evil for ripping apart children.
	And on that note, we're out of time, so I think we'll leave it there.
	Thank you for watching us.
	You can follow us on Getter.

▲