Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 3, 2022 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:27:22

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #321

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Good afternoon, folks.
	Welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Caesars for Thursday, the 3rd of February 2022.
	I'm Carl.
	I'm joined by Thomas.
	And today we're going to be talking about whether the US is trying to start war in Ukraine, why literally half of the Democrat voters have gone mental, and why the ADL can't define racism.
	But first, before we go, we've got loads of great content on the website that I thought I'd tell you about first.
	The first one is Jordan Peterson, Saviour of Bitter Souls.
	This is an article by a friend of mine called Billy McGarrity, who's an activist and I've known him for years, and he used to be a part of the alt-right, and it was Jordan Peterson who pulled him away from that.
	By giving him a better insight into his own personality.
	And this is basically his story of how that happened.
	And it's really, really, really interesting.
	So I definitely recommend that.
	The next one is, dare I say even better, which is Harry's new book club on a book called The Grey Lady Winked, which is about the persistent fake news of the New York Times.
	For like a hundred years, the New York Times has been either wrong or lying about loads of things.
	And so it's strange that this is such a cherished institution.
	Weird, isn't it?
	Yeah.
	The next thing is my fifth video in the series Critical Race Theory Explained.
	This is about race consciousness, black genocide, and affirmative action from the perspective of the critical race theorists.
	Basically, this is how they end up being so racist.
	The first video is by a chap called Gary Peller, who it's just explicitly called Race Consciousness.
	It's black Nazism.
	Flat out.
	And so I go through it in detail there.
	That'll be published at 3pm today, so you can watch that after the podcast.
	And we also have another great podcast, a premium podcast that myself and Harry did, called Scientific Nons Advocacy, because this keeps happening.
	It keeps happening.
	That they keep promoting pedophilia, for some reason.
	Don't know why.
	Well, we do know why, actually.
	We'll talk about it in that pre-med podcast.
	So you can sign up to LotusEast.com to get access to those things and support us, because, of course, that's how we're funded.
	And, of course, follow us on Getter at LotusEast.com, because you can get access to, you know, keep track of what we're doing there.
	But anyway, right, let's get into it.
	So, is the US trying to start a war in Ukraine?
	So I'll start by offering an update about the situation between Russia and Ukraine.
	This week, our Prime Minister Boris Johnson flew out to Ukraine on a diplomatic mission to reaffirm the UK's solidarity with the country.
	Sorry to interrupt already.
	Solidarity with Ukraine?
	Yes, solidarity with Ukraine.
	Have we got long-standing ties with Ukraine?
	No.
	Beyond NATO, not really, no.
	And I can't imagine the personal ties that Boris Johnson has with the country.
	Well, that's a different question entirely, yes.
	But many people continue to say that this is a political distraction from the Partygate scandal, which has led to many of his own MPs calling for his resignation.
	To be honest, I think there's a lot more to this for reasons that I will go into.
	So, Boris arrived in Ukraine for talks with the country's president amid rising concerns over a possible Russian invasion, despite Vladimir Putin's repeated insistence that he has no intention of invading Ukraine.
	So, ahead of his visit to the UK government, announced he was giving $88 million to promote stable governance and energy independence from Russia.
	Boris said it is the right of every Ukrainian to determine how they are governed.
	As a friend and a democratic partner, the UK will continue to uphold Ukraine's sovereignty in the face of those who seek to destroy it.
	I mean, there's of course an extremely ironic dimension to this, given the West's involvement in Ukraine's political affairs and acknowledging the sovereignty of their democratic system.
	But anyway, he goes on to say, we urge Russia to step back and engage in dialogue to find a diplomatic resolution and avoid further bloodshed.
	Boris also hopes to speak to Putin later on in the week.
	If you move on to the next, we can see his attempt at solidarity with Ukraine.
	So yeah, we can move on to the next one.
	We can see Boris' official appearance alongside President Volodymyr Zelensky.
	Mr Johnson told his Ukrainian counterpart, Zelensky, that Britain would always stand up for his country's freedom.
	Boris also had a clear warning for Moscow, saying that if a single Russian toe cap crossed the border, they would be met by a resolute Ukrainian army that would put up.
	An incredible, in his own words, a very fierce and bloody resistance.
	I think that parents' mothers in Russia should reflect on that.
	It's a pretty aggressive language, really.
	Highly aggressive language.
	And he went on to warn Moscow that there would be an automacity about any economic sanctions that would be levelled against Russia if it's invaded Ukraine.
	And I can just imagine that there are Russians going, what the hell is an automacity?
	It's a word he's just made up.
	Yeah.
	Well, the Ukrainian president Zelenskyy seemed pretty...
	Which was a confused standing next to him, as this was being said.
	But the messaging is perfectly clear.
	Robust support for Ukraine, robust deterrence for Russia.
	And the Kremlin, as you'd probably expect, issued a response.
	So they moved to belittle Boris Johnson on Wednesday, describing him as an utterly confused attempt at diplomacy, to be perfectly honest, and called British diplomacy a waste of time.
	Pfft.
	And to be perfectly honest, it's hard to argue against that, isn't it?
	It might be right.
	Yes.
	God, embarrassing.
	But if we scroll down a little bit, the Russian deputy ambassador to the UN, Dmitry Polanski, told you the unfortunate surname at this point, Sky News.
	There is always room for diplomacy, but frankly we don't trust British diplomacy.
	I think in recent years British diplomacy has shown that it is absolutely worthless in such issues, I'm sorry to say.
	I really don't want to offend anybody, especially my good friends, British diplomats, but really the results are nothing to boast about.
	And he added the hysteria just does not stop.
	What was happening is only in the heads of Western politicians and not on the ground.
	I mean, he's probably right.
	He is absolutely right.
	Yeah.
	And I can't help but agree with his characterisation of our diplomacy as well.
	Yeah.
	It's embarrassing.
	It's just one big virtue signal.
	Yeah.
	Really.
	But of course, the question is in virtue of what exactly?
	What kind of sentiment, sentimental vetages Boris Johnson do we have to Ukraine?
	But how do we just nationally get BTFO'd by the Russians?
	Yeah.
	Because we just walk into the trap every single time.
	A trap that we set for ourselves, by the way.
	Russia would rather not have to issue a response like this.
	No, I'm sure they wouldn't.
	But this hysteria that the Russian Deputy Ambassador to the UN has pointed to is precisely what I'm going to be focusing on here, because one voice appears to have been forgotten in all of this.
	Ukraine itself.
	If you move on to the next one, Ukraine's response, in fact, has been consistently to its Western allies, like, guys, just chill out.
	This article was published on Sunday.
	British politicians and intelligence chiefs stepped up warnings about the likelihood of a Russian invasion of Ukraine over the past week.
	Yet it is not clear, despite a drumbeat of activity, that a military attack is any more certain.
	On Tuesday, Ben Wallace, the defence secretary, warned that Russian military advanced force operations, mostly thought to be conducted by GRU military intelligence, had already begun in Ukraine.
	Wallace was understood to be largely referring to pro-Prussian disinformation activity.
	Kiev has also noted their presence, but not just in Ukraine, but in the Moscow-backed separatist territories of Donetsk and Luhansk and Russian territory on the border.
	British intelligence officials then warned in briefings that emerged on Thursday that Russia was two to three weeks away from assembling a 150,000-plus invasion force.
	The ratcheting up has helped propel the Ukraine story onto British newspaper front pages at a time when the news in Westminster had been dominated by whether Boris Johnson can survive the Partygate scandal.
	However, it would be too simplistic to say that this is entirely cynical, and I agree with that part of it.
	But this is the really interesting part if we scroll down a bit more.
	Mixed messaging followed a phone call last Thursday between Joe Biden and Zelensky.
	A Ukrainian official claimed the US president that a Russian attack would be imminent once the ground froze in February, prompting a rapid White House rebuttal.
	What Biden had said, US officials insisted, was an invasion in February was a distinct possibility, a serious enough warning nonetheless.
	That is a position that Kiev does not dispute, given its estimates that 119,000 Russian soldiers are camped out near Ukraine's border.
	But nevertheless, senior officials in Kiev believe that the latest signals from Moscow suggest the Kremlin may be moving away from a military confrontation next month.
	God, who wants a military confrontation in February?
	No one.
	Otherwise, I can think of someone who would.
	I can think of some people who did, but that seems inopportune.
	Hmm.
	It is.
	Okay.
	Anyway, Nikolai Petrushev, the Secretary of Russia Security Council, was, of course, dismissive.
	Today, we're saying that Russia is threatening Ukraine.
	That is absolutely ridiculous.
	There is no threat at all.
	We do not want war.
	We don't need it at all.
	Those who are pushing towards it, especially those from the West, they are pursuing some self-serving false goals of their own, he said, adding that a war against Ukraine does not suit us.
	So let's just unpack this.
	Russia is saying they don't want war.
	Ukraine is saying that whilst they're concerned about the growing military presence on the border, it's an overreach to say that an invasion is imminent, and Russia have re-infirmed that at every given opportunity from what we can see.
	But the US mainstream media is presenting a completely different message about this.
	Well, I suppose their counter-argument would be something like, yes, well, Hitler lied to Stalin, and so Putin is lying to us.
	Yeah.
	You can't take anyone's absolute word for any of it, but there's absolutely no question that they are doubling down on this false unification that they would like NATO to be at this point.
	And this, I'm afraid, is evident in the US mainstream media, who do appear to have been ramping up the idea that there is an imminent threat constantly.
	If we moved on to the CNBC article here, for example, look at this headline.
	If war is coming, the West must decide how far it will go to defend Ukraine against Russia.
	I mean, thanks, Holly.
	Yeah.
	And if you look at the point, the top bullet point below, which says that the US State Department urged US citizens in Ukraine to leave the country imminently as Russia's military burden up at the border shows no sign of disabasing.
	I mean, telling all of Ukrainian citizens to leave the country immediately.
	It is hysteria.
	It is.
	If there was a lot of aggressive rhetoric coming from the Russians, then I would say, okay, that's fine.
	But what this expresses for me, and the reason why I chose this article as opposed to some others, is because the person who wrote this is either fear-mongering on purpose, as in has been told to say something like this, for whatever reason, I couldn't imagine, or they don't understand the general situation in Ukraine.
	I think that's probably true, that second one.
	I don't know about the first one.
	Well, for the sake of their integrity as a journalist, I certainly hope that it's the second one.
	I mean, I doubt this person has gone anywhere near Ukraine in her entire life.
	She's sat in a newsroom and is doubtless just filtering things off social media.
	Yeah.
	But Ukraine is a country with, shall we say, a seriously fractured identity on the subject of Russia, which inevitably comes with a series of internal political conflicts.
	The West Side identifies kind of with European ideals, and this was the side that revolted when Yanukovych was elected, which led to him having to go into exile.
	That's, of course, one example of the West signing of an undemocratic uprising, much like the Remainers, who wouldn't accept the referendum results.
	And the east-southern side, which, of course, is near the Russian border, contains people who retain strong cultural ties with Russia and continue to identify with Russia after the Soviet Union collapsed.
	So a considerable portion of the east and southern side of the country probably wouldn't feel obliged to resist the Russian invasion at all, should it have happened.
	It would be a Crimea situation.
	Yes, it would be a Crimea situation.
	They would probably just let them in, perhaps even make tea for them.
	Not all of them.
	Of course, you would get some resistance.
	But to run with the idea that all Ukrainians get out now, the Russians are coming for you, that's either...
	Based on an idea of what Ukraine is not, or something more disingenuous is being suggested.
	But anyway, I mean, Ukraine has never been a United Nations since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
	It's not as if the Russian Federation has brought this onto them entirely.
	It has, however, led them to being caught up in a geopolitical power game for NATO.
	And unfortunately, I've got some evidence for this right here.
	If we get up to Biden's response, which is overruled by the White House.
	And this headline, I want to say from the off, is kind of misleading.
	Right.
	It's the corrected version of what Joe Biden actually said.
	Right.
	What Joe Biden said at his news conference last Wednesday was this.
	There are differences in NATO as to what countries are willing to do, depending on what happens.
	And we know this because Germany aren't exactly united with the US on this because they've got an investment in the Russian pipeline.
	And well, Ukraine, I suppose, isn't really unitedly where it wants to go with this either.
	But if there's a...
	When Biden said at his news conference last Wednesday, there are differences...
	Yeah, I'll read that bit again.
	If there's a...
	If there's Russian forces crossing the border, he said, I think that changes everything.
	What you're going to see is that Russia will be held accountable if it invades, and it depends on what it does, he said.
	It's one thing if it's a minor incursion, and then we end up having to fight about what to do and what not to do, etc.
	But Biden is basically trying to answer for every single member of NATO and finds himself unable to decide what NATO would even decide.
	Yeah.
	I mean, this was at the press conference, wasn't it?
	Yes, it was at the press conference.
	Essentially, everyone was like, well, are you just giving Putin free reign to have minor incursions into Ukraine?
	Which it did sound like, don't get me wrong.
	He probably shouldn't have said that.
	No, maybe not.
	He's not wrong, either.
	That's the thing.
	It's one thing if it's a minor incursion or if it's a full-on invasion.
	And that is true.
	It's different circumstances, but it sounds permissive.
	Yeah, this I think is a genuine case of Biden actually giving an honest hump.
	And being right.
	Maybe by accident.
	The president uttered the truth in short that NATO is not a united front on how to deal with this matter.
	So the White House sought to intervene by clarifying Biden's position after this, saying that if any Russian military forces move across the Ukrainian border, that's a renewed invasion, and it will be met with a swift, severe and united response from the United States and our allies.
	And if you move on to the CNN article, which was published just a week before, first on CNN, US intelligence indicates Russia preparing operation to justify invasion of Ukraine.
	So according to CNN, the US has information that indicates Russia has a pre-positioned group of operatives to conduct a false flag operation in eastern Ukraine.
	The US official told CNN on the CNN, Well, that is yet to happen, isn't it?
	Not that I would put it past the Russians, though.
	No, I wouldn't put it past the Russians, or any of the agents in the matter at the moment.
	Well, yeah.
	Whoever the official is, they said that the US had evidence that both the operatives are trained in urban warfare and in using explosives to carry out acts of sabotage against Russia's own proxy forces.
	Pentagon...
	Press Secretary John Kirby said that the Defense Department has credible information indicating Russia has pre-positioned a group of operatives to execute an operation designed to look like an attack on them or Russian-speaking people in Ukraine in order to create a reason for potential invasion.
	I mean, that's very, very specific, don't you think?
	Yeah, it is awfully specific.
	It's awfully specific.
	I'm getting the feeling of this as sort of like a double trick, right?
	Yeah.
	So like, oh yeah, the Russians are planning this where we're secretly planning to make it look like the Russians are planning this.
	So it's a false flag.
	About a false flag, in effect.
	But if we take a step back and remember what Russia has said, consistently saying it doesn't want an invasion, we can't absolutely take their word for this.
	No.
	And just to be clear, I do think the Russians would like more of Ukraine.
	I mean, it's not like Putin hasn't taken something.
	Yeah, parts of Ukraine would like more of Russia as well.
	That is true.
	So I don't, for a second, think that the Russians have got 100,000 troops on the border for innocent reasons.
	No.
	No.
	Looking for an opportunity, I would imagine.
	Yeah.
	But given that they actually had a phone call to Zelensky about this, and he hasn't exactly, shall we say, peddled the narrative, that suggests to me that he looked into this and found the allegations to be baseless, or had no reason to think that this was happening.
	Because, I mean, if anyone is going to be beating the drum about a Russian invasion, it's going to be the president of Ukraine, isn't it?
	Yeah, you would think so, given that it's his country under threat.
	And it's his position under threat.
	Yeah.
	But it doesn't seem implausible to me that this may have been a completely baseless claim.
	Yeah.
	Then you have to ask, why are you putting a baseless claim out there that could actually bring together, precipitate a war between two world powers?
	Which would not happen in the case of Russia against Ukraine per se.
	It depends on who gets involved.
	Why did the Argentinian junta invade the Falklands?
	Mm-hmm.
	Because unpopularity at home.
	Need a good foreign war to boost our popularity.
	Joe Biden just absolutely, catastrophically mishandled the withdrawal of Afghanistan.
	American prestige is an all-time low.
	Joe Biden's polling numbers are worse than Trump's.
	I mean, a foreign war might be looking like a good option for them to pull it all back.
	Yeah, but it's one that I cannot see would end up...
	No.
	I mean, I don't see any popular support for this.
	No.
	I've seen the check marks on Twitter desperately trying to drum up support, but nobody...
	And each camp, you know, the leftists, the rightists, even the centrists, left and right, are just like, I just don't really want to fight Russia for Ukraine.
	I mean, this is, like, people, like, Ukraine is just Russia's traditional sphere of influence.
	Like, it's always had a presence there.
	It's always going to have a presence there.
	And I don't care.
	Like, no one cares about Ukraine.
	Like, this narrative of, oh, well, our close friends in Ukraine, it's like...
	What, the corrupt oligarchs Biden was dealing with?
	Who are we talking about here?
	Burisma.
	I view Ukraine as just an ex-Soviet satellite state of Russia that's deeply corrupt, and apparently Western politicians are involved in that corruption.
	I've met a load of Ukrainians, they're all really nice people and whatnot, but I don't have any particular care for Ukraine.
	Yeah, but many people in the United States very much do.
	Well, many people in Washington, D.C. do.
	Yes.
	Outside of Washington, D.C., I bet nobody could even mark out Ukraine on a bloody map.
	Yeah.
	No one cares about you.
	No, I would not be surprised.
	But on this subject, I came across a segment from Tucker Carlson, who dared to voice his opinion about neo-contin Washington potentially purposely trying to start a war so they can remove the unofficial veto that Russia has over who can join NATO. He was joined by an expert on Russian politics called Clinton Ehrlich, who has some interesting things to say.
	So if we play this now, Here's part of what Clint Ehrlich told us.
	Here we have people who are arguing that even if the Russians don't invade Ukraine, that we need to invade and kick the Russians out of Crimea.
	That was an op-ed from a senior Obama administration official this week.
	And so I would say that it's even simpler than that.
	Warmongers, unserious people whose policy prescriptions could have deadly serious consequences.
	The deeper irony is that NATO doesn't even want Ukraine, that it's a corrupt country, it's more of a liability than it would be a military asset, and the people who are pushing this simply argue that it needs to happen because Russia shouldn't have a veto over who's in NATO. In other words, even when it's in our mutual interest to not have a state in NATO, we have to insist that they'll be added just to spite the Russians.
	To give them what was said there, does it seem implausible that the US may have just made a false flag operation out of a false flag?
	The Washington DC neocons are trying to do anything they can to start a war?
	Well, it wouldn't be the first time, would it?
	No, it would not.
	And unfortunately, it's not going to be the last.
	And if you move on to the next, you can see that this is exactly what Putin's view is.
	That he's trying to draw Russia into a war, or at least some form of confrontation, as a pretext to impose more sanctions on Russia.
	And it's hard to see where he's wrong here, to be honest.
	And he also said that the US was ignoring Russia's concerns about the expansion of NATO, the Western military alliance which Ukraine is seeking to join.
	And, well...
	He said in talks with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, it seems to me that the United States is not so much concerned about the security of Ukraine.
	Hard to argue against that, but its main task is to contain Russia's development.
	In this sense, Ukraine itself is just a tool to reach this goal.
	It's, of course, a tool of Russia as well.
	Let's not kid ourselves about that.
	But he's not wrong to say that the US quite clearly has no intention of meeting the concerns that would necessitate their withdrawal from Ukraine because they just don't want the conflict to stop.
	The thing is, though, I just can't understand why we're doing everything we can to turn Russia into the villain.
	And it's not that I have any pro-Russian sympathies, really, either.
	Like, I don't know much about Russia, nor care about Russia.
	But the thing that I know is that it's no longer a communist state, and China is, nominally, a communist state.
	A communist state.
	Absolutely, but it's still ideologically possessed with this spirit, which Russia isn't.
	So why are we essentially driving the Russians to form an alliance with China against the United States and the West?
	I don't see why we don't just start teasing the Russians into our orbit instead.
	Yeah.
	I've literally no idea what the geopolitical plan is here.
	It just seems like a bunch of Cold War boomers in Washington, D.C. who are just like, Russia bad, Russia bad, Russia bad.
	Not really.
	I mean, don't get me wrong, Russia corrupt oligarchy, obviously.
	But why would we be bothered about holding them to the same standards as liberal Western democracies when we don't with Saudi Arabia and things like this?
	I would be happy to use Russia as essentially a giant resource block that we buy things from and make wealthy by spending our money on them.
	Instead of doing it with China.
	Why would that not benefit us?
	That would make the Russians better disposed towards us.
	They're a European nation anyway, so it's not like we don't have a long history of being fellow Europeans.
	That often gets forgotten, doesn't it?
	Because the term European has actually been annexed by the European Union projects.
	Well, that's true.
	Yeah, that's true.
	I'm not going to say they're the West, obviously, but they are Europeans, and there is a shared cultural heritage there.
	And they're an ancient and noble civilization in their own right.
	There's nothing to respect there.
	Why can't we just treat them decently?
	Exactly.
	It's not like we don't get loads of resources from them anyway!
	We know that Russia hasn't been, shall we say, the most abiding of the treaties that they've signed over Ukraine's sovereignty over the last 20 years.
	Let's not kid ourselves about that.
	But if we could have an objective justification...
	just leave russia alone yeah and that russia objectively knows that there's no desire from later to encroach on its affairs then surely it'll be in putin's interest as much as ours for to at least coexist maybe not not necessarily as allies but at least as just just self-governing world powers i mean the reason that germany is turning on this has got to be about uh gas right Yes.
	It's got to be about gas access, because obviously Russia has massive gas fields.
	I mean, we're powered by Russian gas, I think, as well.
	And so it's like, okay, well, let's just keep resources flowing across the border.
	What I don't get most of the European Union is actually powered by Russian gas, too.
	So why not, like, start, essentially, you know, bringing Russia into the sphere of orbit, saying, look, we have money, you have resources, we can deal with one another, and, like, let that relationship become settled and reliable and constant.
	This is where I'm still waiting for more European Union nations, European Union states, other than Germany, to actually tell the Biden administration to stuff it, because, look, we actually have an incentive.
	To make peace with Russia and to not get frazzled by this matter.
	They are not communists.
	No, they're not communists.
	They're not sending KGB agents to, you know, indoctrinate our children.
	That's coming from your universities.
	Yes, quite.
	You know, so, you know, just saying, you know...
	Russia has an active role in actually, you could say, actually preserving the moral order that we should be inheriting, but which has come under threat.
	And Putin is not shy about saying it either.
	No.
	And when he makes critiques of the social conditions of the West, he ain't wrong.
	Yeah.
	You know, and so it's just, you know, just saying I would prefer Russia as an ally than an enemy with the Chinese.
	Yes.
	Yes, absolutely certainly.
	I mean, it will be the better enemy to pick if you're going to even posit them as such a thing.
	But to wrap this up and answer the question directly, are the US using Ukraine to start a diplomatic crisis?
	Some certainly are.
	Mm-hmm.
	The Biden administration seems at least pretty keen on provoking, but I'll let everyone make up their own minds about the bigger picture.
	So let's move on to talk about democratic voters.
	Yeah, this is, again, this is all tied up with this whole, what is just generally being called the cathedral of the power structures in the United States.
	And It's turned out that basically half of Democratic voters are just insane tyrants.
	And we know this because Rasmussen have been just polling them.
	Now, Rasmussen is different to a lot of other polling companies.
	And I find them...
	They are the most reliable, in fact, from the last couple of elections, I've noticed.
	Because they do telephone surveys, not just online surveys.
	A lot of polling companies, they just do online surveys and therefore get...
	Disproportionate results.
	And so Rasmussen do these wide-scale telephone surveys, and so they come back with some very interesting results.
	And if these are anything that are even vaguely representative, and in my personal experience of just dealing with Democrat voters on the internet, I've seen a lot of these opinions being expressed, and so I do think there is some measure of reality to them.
	So these polls were released on the 13th of January, so two weeks ago now, just over two weeks ago.
	And they're just insane, and they make the Democrats look insane.
	And so when you see those viral videos of the Karens, Screeching about masks or whatever it is, you know, whatever left-wing talking point it is that they're screeching about in a public place.
	These are the people that we're talking about, right?
	We can get actually quite a good cross-section of this particular part of the electorate, right?
	So it begins with just unbelievable measures that they want against unvaccinated people, right?
	A majority of Democrats embrace restrictive policies, including punitive measures against those who haven't gotten the COVID-19 vaccine.
	Of course they do.
	We all do this, right?
	But this national telephone and online survey found that 48% of voters favour Biden's plan to impose COVID-19 vaccine mandate on employees of large companies and government agencies.
	And that includes 33% who strongly favour the mandate.
	And that's sort of third of the electorate.
	That's an important number.
	With 48% who are opposed to it, including 40% who strongly oppose it.
	So this is an incredibly polarised thing.
	So 33% strongly in favour, 40% strongly opposed.
	The mandate was dropped as unconstitutional because it was shot down by the Supreme Court, so that's good.
	But it just shows you the attitude towards these things, right?
	So when it comes to Anthony Fauci, 45% view Fauci favourably, including 28% who have a very favourable impression of him.
	48% have an unfavourable opinion of him, including 34%.
	We have a very unfavourable view of him.
	So again, you can see very clearly the dramatic partisan split between the Democrats and the Republicans.
	And honestly, I'm kind of pleased that the Republicans are more partisan at this point, because the Democrats have been playing this kind of savage partisan game for the last decade or so.
	And the Republicans took a long time to catch up to the idea.
	Actually, there's a kind of war being waged against Republicanism in the United States, and it seems that a large number of Republicans in the last couple of years I'm like, right, war then.
	It's war.
	And it's like, good, good.
	Andrew Breitbart style.
	This is it.
	They are coming for everything about your country, and they've gone mad, okay?
	You have to be aware of this, right?
	So, 78% of Democrat voters support the Biden administration's COVID-19 plan, only 20% of Republicans and 41% of unaffiliated voters supported it.
	But many of the Democrats would support even harsher measures, including fines for Americans who won't get the vaccine and criminal punishment for vaccine critics.
	What?
	This is not a joke.
	These people are nuts, right?
	They want to turn your country into Australia.
	Sorry, Australians, but you know it's true.
	58% of voters would oppose a proposal for federal or state governments to fine Americans who choose not to get the COVID-19 vaccine.
	Only 58%.
	That's concerning, isn't it?
	Just a bit.
	That's a lot of Democrats who are in favour of it, is what this comes out as.
	55% of Democrat voters would support such a proposal.
	So more than half of likely Democrat voters would support fining people who choose to operate their bodily autonomy.
	That's just mental.
	19% of Republicans supported it and 25% of unaffiliated voters.
	Honestly, though, 19% of Republicans support fining people who don't get the vaccine.
	That's concerning.
	That is.
	I was about to say.
	I mean, I expect tyranny from the Democrats, but come on, Republicans.
	That's poor form, isn't it?
	Yeah, you need to figure out who those people are.
	Maybe they were called in a bad mood.
	Yeah, I guess so, yeah.
	59% of Democrat voters...
	Would favour a government policy requiring that citizens remain confined to their homes at all times, except in emergencies, if they refuse to get the vaccine.
	So nearly 60% of Democratic voters would actually put citizens under house arrest?
	Yes.
	Most Democrat voters would do that.
	For not taking a vaccine?
	Yes.
	Doesn't the vaccine protect you, Democrats?
	What are you scared of?
	Are you saying that it doesn't work?
	Yeah, exactly.
	What are you so scared of?
	Catch yourself some YouTube.
	Such a proposal was opposed by 61% of all likely voters, including 79% of Republicans and 71% of unaffiliated.
	Again, there's 21% of Republicans who'd be in favour of that.
	That's concerning.
	Don't know what's wrong with those people, but we do know what's wrong with Democrats.
	Nearly half, which is 48%, of Democratic voters think federal and state governments should be able to fine or imprison individuals who publicly question the efficacy of the existing COVID-19 vaccines on social media, television, radio, or online digital publications.
	Are they not trying to resurrect Rob Speer from the dead here?
	Something of that...
	Yeah, I mean, like, the question didn't say should they be guillotined, but, I mean, I don't...
	Would you put it past them?
	No, yeah, we're just not there yet.
	Not yet.
	But that's questioning...
	The efficacy of the vaccines on social media or in public, basically.
	That is mad.
	That is absolutely mad.
	That's basically a quarter of your country are Nazis.
	Like actual Nazis.
	So half of Democrats want to bring back heresy laws, basically.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	You can't speak out against the regime, is what they're saying.
	Only 27% of all voters, which is 14% of Republicans and 18% of unaffiliated, favoured criminal punishment of vaccine critics.
	Imagine that.
	Criminal punishment of vaccine critics.
	And half the Democrats are like, yeah.
	No, that's evil.
	45% of Democrats would favour governments requiring citizens to temporarily live in designated facilities or locations if they refuse to get a COVID-19 vaccine.
	Sorry, half of the Democrats nearly want COVID camps.
	Concentration camps for people who won't get vaccinated.
	How progressive.
	I mean, it's not the first time that the left has done this, is it?
	No.
	Anyway, such policy would be opposed by a strong majority of all voters, with 78% of Republicans and 64% of unaffiliated saying they would strongly oppose putting unvaccinated in designated facilities.
	I'm hoping that the remaining 22% of Republicans will mildly oppose.
	And that's strongly opposed.
	So at least most Americans are against...
	Nazi camps, right?
	That's breaking news, right?
	Democrats, you might want to pay attention to this.
	While two-thirds, 66% of likely voters would be against governments using digital devices to track unvaccinated people to ensure they are quarantined or socially distancing from others, 47% of Democrats would favour a government tracking programme for those who won't get the COVID-19 vaccine.
	Got your microchips?
	Bill Gates has gone, probably.
	No, I don't know how to make it up.
	But the point is, the Democrats would be in favour of it if he did.
	Like, half of them, nearly, would be in favour of it.
	China-style social credit.
	This is mad.
	This is insane.
	This is what's happened with the Democratic Party, because of the constant media fear-mongering of COVID. And they're watching, they're talking heads, and they're like, oh my god, they're right.
	We're all going to die if we don't tyrannize these unvaccinated untermensch.
	Evil.
	So how far are the Democrats willing to go in punishing the unvaccinated?
	29% of Democratic voters, so nearly a third, would support temporarily removing parents' custody of their children It's unbelievable.
	This is mad.
	These people are insane.
	That's more than twice the level of support in the rest of the electorate.
	7% of Republicans and 11% of unaffiliated voters for such a policy.
	Again, where are the 7% of Republicans?
	I am concerned that there's even one that would support that.
	You do have to wonder, what the hell are you doing in America?
	Why are you living there?
	You should be in China.
	Yeah.
	That's the one part of the world that actually permits these sorts of policies.
	They've had it enforced for decades, the one-child policy.
	Yep.
	And again, it obviously comes from the premise that you own your children and not the state, whereas the Democrats believe the state owns your children and not you.
	I won't go into it now, but you've seen many, many, many examples of Democrat politicians saying, well, we need to break the idea that parents think they own their children.
	It's like, okay...
	Face the wall now, okay?
	Like, you do not own my kit.
	Anyway, Biden's strongest supporters are most likely to endorse the harshest punishments against those who won't get the COVID-19 vaccine.
	Look at his rhetoric.
	Who's surprised?
	Who's surprised that his constituency are the ones who are the most tyrannical?
	Among voters who have a very favourable impression of Biden, 51% are in favour of the government putting the unvaccinated in designated facilities.
	Over half.
	And 54% favour imposing fines or prison sentences on vaccine critics.
	So Biden is basically leading a Nazi army.
	There's no other way of putting it, is there?
	No other way of putting it.
	It is a quarter of your electorate, a hardcore Nazis, because of Biden's extreme rhetoric and the extreme grooming of the press into this worldview where either you're vaccinated or you're destroying everything.
	It's mental.
	By contrast, among voters who have a very unfavorable view of Biden, 95% are against designated facilities for the unvaccinated and 93% are against criminal punishment for vaccine critics.
	The ideological division could not be more stark, could it?
	But the people who believe that the state grants you your rights and therefore can take them away from you are the Biden supporters, which is about 25% and they're insane.
	And then everyone else who believes your rights are inalienable and inherent to you disagree.
	This is a great series of polls that Rasmussen have done to really highlight this stark ideological division.
	So thank God Biden is deeply unpopular, is basically my conclusion from this.
	We'll go to the next one.
	As you can see from the daily presidential tracking poll that Rasmussen have, you can go down a bit, you can see the graph.
	When this was last taken was the 1st of February, so...
	Yesterday?
	No, the day before.
	So Trump's at 45% approval at this same time in 2018, whereas Biden's at 39% approval.
	And we actually know now who supports Biden.
	Actual Nazis.
	19% strongly approve of him, if you can scroll down to the next one.
	49% strongly disapprove.
	Like, strongly approve versus strongly disapprove.
	That's not good.
	That's really bad.
	And these tracking results are done by telephone surveys.
	So...
	It's not just self-reported, so they actually phone people up and ask them if they need it, blah, blah.
	And interestingly, most voters actually think that the media are the enemy of the people.
	Why could they possibly think that?
	58% of likely voters think that the media are the enemy of the people.
	What a shock!
	This is, again, a telephone survey with 36% not agreeing, including that 23% who strongly disagree.
	Again, this sort of number, the quarter of people who have been essentially the CNN, MSNBC audience that have been groomed by the media into being little cultists for Biden's little Nazi cult.
	And those, again, about a quarter of the country, about half the Democratic base, and these people are really a problem.
	And it is radicalising people with the coverage.
	They did another survey.
	They found only 10% of American adults rate media coverage of the ongoing coronavirus as excellent, and another 25% of it rate it as good.
	So there we go.
	that sort of 35% area and you've got the 10% who are like really radical like the party apparatchiks but there we go obviously everyone else thinks it's crap so there we go that's one of the most encouraging statistics that's come out so far Well, yeah, but still a third of the country think it was good coverage.
	Where it was actually deeply abusive coverage.
	And these, of course, are sort of like this.
	And the reason I think that we can consistently put this 25% as a consistent body of people is because we know what their opinions are.
	Like, these hardcore Biden supporters who want COVID camps, what are their opinions on climate change?
	That it's absolutely happening.
	And that it's...
	It's a catastrophe that's going to wipe out life on Earth?
	That's already doing it, yes.
	Yeah.
	If we can go to the next one, yeah.
	I mean, this is what, like, a third of American adults think that this winter has been worse than ever before.
	And most people say, no, this winter is not worse.
	Well, we know that these are going to be the climate change looms.
	We know how these people have been radicalised.
	It's all the set narrative, the same package of things.
	They believe in your pronouns.
	They believe trans women are women.
	They believe all of these progressive talking points.
	They're all packaged together.
	And Biden represents them all.
	Black Lives Matter, blah, blah, blah.
	And they're all in this little clique that everyone is well aware of now.
	And thankfully, most voters think that the Democrats are radical lunatics.
	Well, that's reassuring.
	It is, isn't it?
	I think in the next one, you can see that everyone thinks they're far too liberal.
	Too liberal.
	Yes, as in they've gone far too far to the left.
	Another survey found that 55% of likely US voters believe Democrats in Congress are too liberal on most issues.
	16% think the Democrats are too moderate, while...
	Too moderate.
	Which is hilarious.
	Where's the moderation?
	Yeah, exactly.
	What moderation?
	Literally advocating for putting people into camps.
	What's moderate about that?
	Yeah, we did a segment the other day where Biden is basically getting chewed out by people like, look, you don't have a mandate to radically change the country.
	And 16% are like, yeah, he does.
	But obviously, you know, 20% think their policies are about right.
	But of course, the rest are like, you're nuts.
	Please stop.
	And of course, there's about a third, a quarter to a third of the electorate who think the US is heading in the right direction.
	Guess who they might be?
	I wonder.
	Yeah, exactly.
	29% of likely US voters think the country is heading in the right direction, which means that more than two-thirds are saying, no, no, this radical quarter of the electorate is dragging the US into hell.
	And that's what everyone else is thinking.
	And half of the people already want Biden impeached.
	I don't actually know over what.
	That is actually pretty radical.
	Yeah, that's actually...
	This is how much Biden has pissed off.
	It's one thing saying he's 50% think he's doing a bad job.
	Yeah.
	50% supporting the idea of him being impeached is quite...
	Wow.
	And the things...
	They're not even accusing him of crime.
	Because with Trump, it was like, oh, he did something, therefore impeach, right?
	Yeah.
	And that was the narrative to drum up.
	But like, nobody's saying, like, none of the Republicans are saying, Joe Biden did this, this is unacceptable, he must be impeached.
	No, there's just people on their own just being like, because the impeachment isn't a narrative that the Republican talking heads are promoting.
	It's just people are just sick of him.
	They just want to get rid of him.
	Like, that's 50% of likely voters want him impeached.
	Only 33% strongly oppose it.
	And what's really interesting, just to finish this off, is that this is causing a large number of the non-radical Democrats to start watching media outside of their own bubbles.
	Which, thank God, for people like Tucker Carlson existing.
	Because it turns out that Tucker Carlson, he is more popular with the Democrats than any self-professed Democratic talking head.
	Really?
	Yes.
	That is extraordinary.
	It's hilarious, isn't it?
	Yeah.
	So they surveyed the demo-aged viewers, which is 25 to 55 or something.
	39% chose Fox News of the Democrats.
	These people self-identify as Democrats.
	39% of them chose Fox News.
	So nearly half of them watch Fox.
	31% chose MSNBC. 30% chose CNN. Wow.
	You know, I can actually believe this to a degree.
	I know!
	David Icke is a bit, shall we say, suspect on several things.
	One thing he said about news coverage was absolutely true.
	It's just, what, 10 or 15 years ago, we would be criticising Fox News in the precise way that we can criticise CNN now, but now the polls have completely reversed.
	As in, the actual counterweight to Washington's madness is now Fox News, and CNN is in bed with Washington.
	Honestly, I remember back when I first started on YouTube using Fox News as the benchmark for what was fake news because no one had the term at the time, partisan news.
	But now, I mean, I watch all of these things, of course, I watch CNN, I watch MSNBC, and Fox News, especially Tucker Carlson, has come across as the most level-headed of all of them.
	And because they're not radicals, that's the thing.
	They might be saying falsehoods or whatever, exaggerating things, but they're at least not saying we need to overthrow the United States.
	And so, just to finish off, in the total day viewership, Fox News grabbed 42% of Democrats aged 25 to 54, whereas CNN got 33 and MSNBC got 25.
	25?
	Tucker Carlson was top among Democrats in the demo across all of cable news in the month they were monitoring, and ranked third among Dems in total viewership too.
	And that's not including the other Fox News shows, it's just Tucker Carlson.
	So even Democrats are not watching their own radical talking heads.
	I'm amazed at MSNBC is that low, 25%.
	It's literally like a million viewers.
	Just the nutters are watching MSNBC. So yeah, they're insane.
	Shall we talk about why the ADL can't define racism, or at least speculate on why maybe they can't?
	I think that we can do a better job than most.
	Yes, I think we can.
	Now, Whoopi Goldberg, of course, came under fire for her appearance on The View recently, where she weighed in on...
	The Holocaust of all subjects, saying that it had nothing to do with race whatsoever.
	To quote some of the things she said, the Holocaust wasn't about race.
	It was about man's inhumanity to man.
	It's not even about white supremacy.
	These are two white groups of people.
	The minute you turn this into race, it goes down the valley.
	Let's talk about it for what it is.
	This is how people treat each other.
	There is, of course, a lot to be picked up on here, but she's absolutely right in one sense, even though she only says this inadvertently.
	When you collapse people into abstract, identitarian concepts, that's where you end up.
	Justifying the genocide of one over the other.
	Take note, critical race theorists, because this is what we have been saying to you all along.
	But anyway, you have to immediately ask what it is that people are taking offence to here.
	Let me just quickly pick up on this, right?
	So you can see, she says it's about humanity to man.
	Yes.
	And then Anna Navarro, one of the co-hosts, responds with, well, it's about white supremacy.
	It's like, oh my god, you American idiots.
	It is not about white supremacy.
	This is a very American construct that wasn't very relevant in Germany, where the colour of one's skin was nearly universally quite a pasty northern area.
	Their idea of race was much more particular than that.
	Exactly.
	In fact, most countries outside of America, if they have a concept of race, it is not about skin colour.
	It's about lineage and heritage, customs and traditions.
	Yes.
	So we have to ask, what is it precisely that people have got so upset about with what she said?
	If you're a post-racialist as I am, there's a legitimate argument to make for the idea that the Holocaust wasn't about race.
	Because the science of race is one that you wouldn't acknowledge, or at least really.
	In the eyes of a post-racialist, the predicates of what it is to be Jewish or Aryan in the case of the Nazis are entirely abstract, with what was the latter being the one that was posited as part of an ideological superiority claimed by the Nazis to the Jews' detriment.
	But moving on, the chief of the Anti-Defamation League, the ADL, committed to fighting anti-Semitism, Jonathan Greenblatt, if we move on to this one here, Has since responded on Don Lemon's show by saying that Whoopi Goldberg's comments were more clumsy than malicious.
	He said, We sometimes have people in public places who can say clumsy things about race or faithful gender.
	I don't believe in cancel culture.
	Fair enough.
	What, from the ADL? From the ADL. The chief of the ADL. I... Fuck, okay.
	Alright.
	I don't...
	Okay.
	Shall we see where this goes?
	I'll quote you on that.
	Jonathan Greenblatt, I don't believe in the cancel culture.
	Fuck, okay.
	This is a remarkably generous...
	Sorry, I'll let you carry on.
	I was just shocked by that.
	He says, I like the phrase that my friend Nick Cannon uses.
	We need council culture, Greenblatt's told Lemon.
	Fair enough.
	In that sense.
	I actually really agree with that.
	I mean, I think her comments were clumsy and not malicious.
	I think it was for the fact that she was a misinformed American, doesn't understand Europe, doesn't understand...
	looks at it from her American spectrum and goes, well, it's just two white people, two groups of white people.
	This can't be about race.
	And in that very thin, flat conception of what racism is, you can see how she came to that conclusion.
	Yeah.
	You know, she's wrong.
	And of course, Adolf Hitler would be like, well, then the Babylon Bee, like Callum did a great job covering yesterday.
	Yeah, yeah.
	The Babylon Bee being like, Hitler learns in hell that it wasn't about race.
	You have to ask, where does the anti-Semitism claim persist?
	Yes.
	Yeah.
	I mean, what part of what she said was anti-Semitic?
	It's quite hard to pin down what that part of it is because she's denying that race was even a factor in the genocide.
	I mean, she did explicitly say it was ethnic.
	So I guess as an ethnicity, maybe she's conceiving of this that the Nazis hate the Jews.
	Yes.
	Just to present a potentially controversial view.
	That some could find inflammatory.
	It's not necessarily the one that I agree with.
	But could the crime be that the anti-Semitic element is that she refused to acknowledge the Jews as a race?
	Well, that's actually something that is presupposed by the Holocaust being racist, is that the Nazis essentially were presupposing the Nazi view of race, that the Jews aren't Germans.
	Yeah.
	And I don't know if I agree with that.
	No.
	So why would I agree with...
	No, I wouldn't either.
	Yeah, so why am I adopting the Nazis' presuppositions about Jewish racialness?
	Yeah.
	But the hystericalness just kind of points you to consider the possibility that this may be how they're viewing it.
	A little bit unsettling, but...
	Well, yeah, it's one of those...
	Sorry to interrupt again, but like...
	It's one of those things where it's like, look, people have got...
	Everyone's freaking out going, Whoopi Goldberg's an anti-Semite.
	It's like, no, I don't think she sees herself that way at all.
	And it...
	You're saying that Jews are a separate race to white people.
	And it's like, okay, but I'm not saying that.
	Why are you saying that?
	That's what the Nazis would say.
	Why are we agreeing with it?
	Yeah, and she hasn't said that either.
	No, she hasn't.
	No.
	So is it that that's caused the upset?
	And if it is, that's quite strange.
	It is.
	Well, there are certainly clues to think that the ADL don't know themselves what anti-Semitism is or what racism is.
	Yes.
	Yes, so it says, Well, no, that's a that's a perfectly liberal view of race, right?
	No, as in the racist part would be what critical race theory is.
	Yeah, the second part is absolutely what critical race theory is.
	This has always been what my understanding of racism is.
	Well, that's right.
	That's why I call critical race theory racist, because it believes, the same as the KKK, that racists should never mix.
	Yeah, as in these are the racists, and that's what, at the present time, the critical race theorists would fall into.
	Absolutely, but let's talk about the first bit, right?
	The belief that the particular race is superior or inferior to another, and the personal, social, and moral traits, moral particularly is the important part, I think, I agree.
	That to me, and this was from 2017, so before all of this really took hold, this is the liberal definition of racism that I support, that you support, that I'm judging when I consider something to be or not to be racism.
	That's a perfectly acceptable decision.
	And by this definition, yes, the Holocaust is racist.
	Demonstrably.
	Yes, because the Nazis took it upon themselves to basically subordinate the Jews into their own science of race to justify their destruction.
	Because literally they considered them inferior racists.
	Yeah, and they built the idea, perpetuating this idea about the Jewish conspiracy theory as a result then, which some idiots conflate with cultural Marxism, is what anti-Semitism post-World War II was understood to be by almost everyone up to this point, or at least up to the George Floyd incident.
	Yeah.
	And this definition of racism makes everything that we already consider to be racist still racist.
	The KKK, slavery, segregation, these are still racist acts.
	And so we don't need to redefine anything in order for them all to be on the same morally abhorrent level.
	framework that the ADL is still adhering to.
	No, because I suspect they've been taken over by wokeism.
	Yes.
	Since George, of course, the George Floyd incident happened in 2020, Black Lives Matter pretty much bullied all of the Western institutions into submission to critical race theory.
	The definition of what racism amounts to has completely shifted, as can be seen here through ADL's updated version in 2020, which has been redefined as the marginalisation and/or oppression of people of colour based on socially constructed racial hierarchy that privileges white people.
	And as you can see, there are also related definitions of race and systemic racism.
	This is, of course, the critical theory definition of racism.
	Or the critical race theory definition of racism.
	Sorry, the critical race theory definition.
	Yes, should have been more clear.
	That is trying to make it so the question of racism can only cut one way.
	Because, of course, under the liberal definition of racism, a black person could hold the opinion that the black race was superior to the white race and the white race was inferior.
	Right.
	And therefore, blah, blah, blah, and that would also be racism.
	But under the critical race theory definition of racism, this black person is defined as marginalized or oppressed, people of color, based on socially constructed racial hierarchy that privileges white people.
	So only white people are the beneficiaries of racism.
	So any racial bigotry that, shall we say, those minorities develop to have is somehow the fault of white society.
	Yes.
	And if Jewish people have white skin and they operate in white society and they are from Europe, then they can't be oppressed because they're not marginalized.
	They're not oppressed people of color.
	They have white privilege.
	They have white privilege.
	And we hear Jewish activists saying this all the time.
	You know, they accept that they're part of the white establishment, as it were.
	And so now the Holocaust is not a racist endeavor.
	Yeah.
	And so Whoopi Goldberg is just giving the critical race theory perspective on the Holocaust as the ADL themselves defined it.
	Yes, and yet she's being called out as a heretic.
	Yes.
	And this is something we've covered in some premium podcasts that people might want to go and support us and sign up and watch.
	The first one is the repressive tolerance, because the whole point of repressive tolerance, as Marcuse, one of the original critical theorists, pointed out, is to make sure that the right is constantly censored, and whatever you consider to be the enemy, tolerance is withdrawn from them.
	And in the previous definition, you can see the way the blade of tolerance is cutting.
	It's only that, oh, non-white people can't be racist, and therefore all racism is directed at white people all of a sudden.
	This is the removal of this tolerance, the way that blade is cutting.
	And we also, of course, go through a lot of the critical theory stuff, because this is important to understand how they got to those definitions.
	What was the next one we've got?
	The critical theory?
	Yeah, the next one is critical theory and overview, which is the original discussion that we had, where I basically claimed there was a radical difference between how Adorno and Mark Hughes are used and thought critical theory should be applied.
	In his book, One Dimensional Man, Mark Hughes concluded that you can't forge a proletariat basically out of those who are benefited from the welfare state or benefited from capitalism's concessions towards humanitarian causes.
	And he said as kind of like a side remark that you'd probably need to look to, I suppose, people of colour, people of alternative sexual orientations to form a new proletariat to, you know, those on the receiving end of the cultural superstructure who, in order to actually forge a case for communism again, and those, of course, other in order to actually forge a case for communism again, and those, of course, other people that makes Well, that's the thing.
	Intersectionality was specifically picked up by Kimberley Crenshaw and coined as a title.
	And she explicitly, and again, we've got loads of this stuff on the website going through exactly why this is.
	But Kimberley Crenshaw, again, takes this intersectional model and, as Marcuse pointed out, says, well, look, we can use gay activists and various kinds of category of activists because they can all be united under the term black.
	If we use the gay, black, trans, whatever it is we're using.
	And we can unify these into a cohesive block to attack liberalism.
	And that's the point.
	They are communists and they are self-avowed communists.
	And they are saying, well, look, capitalism is effectively going to prevent the communist revolution unless we do something about it.
	And Crenshaw specifically uses Gramsci's view and theories on how to attack the society itself using these tactics.
	And they're working.
	And this is what the ADL is now finding themselves in the mire of.
	And I doubt that they know this as well.
	I doubt that they've got this kind of expertise under their belts as well.
	Yeah.
	So anyway, and you can see this, by the way, they're struggling for a definition of racism.
	That previous definition of racism allows Wolfgang Goldberg to say the Holocaust wasn't a racist act.
	And they're looking at their definition going...
	Oh dear, that doesn't stand up now.
	She's got a point, actually, yeah.
	Oh crap, what do we do?
	Jews aren't people of colour.
	She's right.
	Right, what do we do?
	Yeah, so you'd probably think they'd need to change it again, wouldn't you?
	Back to the old one.
	Yeah.
	Only that they haven't.
	They've introduced an interim definition, which is this one.
	An interim definition of racism.
	Interim definition.
	Like, we haven't had the word racism for, you know, 150 years or something.
	Like, we don't know what it means.
	The interim definition is, racism occurs when individuals or institutions show more favourable evaluation or treatment of an individual or group based on race or ethnicity.
	Right.
	So, by this definition, the Holocaust still isn't racist.
	Yeah, that would still...
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Because it's not like they were putting Germans into camps, Jews into camps, and then just letting the Germans out.
	Yeah.
	You know, they weren't giving the Germans favorable or evaluational treatment.
	Because that's a positive thing.
	So by this definition, affirmative action is racist.
	Mm-hmm.
	Because they're giving groups of people, based on their race and ethnicity, so women, black people, whatever, favourable treatment, because there's an institution under which everyone is treated, and one group's getting favourable treatment.
	But the Holocaust wasn't put everyone in a camp and then let the Germans out, so they're not getting favourable treatment.
	That was, again, the marked destruction of the race deliberately because they were in Syria.
	So by this definition, the Holocaust still is not racist.
	No.
	No.
	Unbelievable.
	Yeah, it's extraordinary.
	I mean...
	What?
	What?
	Okay.
	As a matter of fact, if anything, this actually sets the potential cornerstone to the deconstruction of critical race theory.
	Because what amounts to a more favourable evaluation or treatment?
	In using these very terms, favourable, you're actually appealing to a social universal that all people of races and ethnicities recognise.
	But the whole pretext of critical race theory...
	What favourable evaluation and treatment ultimately amounts to depends on your racial identity.
	I mean, this is where ideas about, I don't know, white microaggressions and white fragility are supposed to come in, where...
	In being beneficiaries as members of the parent white culture, we are supposed to inherit the privilege of assuming that everyone has the same conception of favourable evaluation as ourselves.
	That's an expression of white fragility.
	So in short, what the ADL have done, presumably by accident, is retract their commitment to critical race theory's definition of racism because it's completely disfigured where anti-Semitism is supposed to come into it, really.
	Yeah, and I mean, I'm looking at this and thinking, right, okay, so the Moorish Caliphate in Spain was racist by this definition, because Jews and Christians, because of their group identity based on race or ethnicity, were given second-class status.
	So they were shown disfavorable evaluation or treatment by the institutions of that society.
	But the Armenian genocide was not racist because the institutions were not showing more favorable treatment to the Turks than the Armenians.
	They were specifically kicking the Armenians out of Turkish society, marking them off for extermination, and then killing a million and a half of them.
	Hmm.
	So, this is such an incomplete, at the very best, definition.
	But the thing is, it pathologizes a bunch of civilizations and practices that the progressives would want to have called racist.
	Yeah, I know.
	This is amazing.
	I mean, I suppose the big question is, what does this say about the Anti-Defamation League?
	They're completely lost.
	They're completely lost.
	What does the term interim suggest?
	We're going to think of a new one when we can.
	Yes.
	And what does that in itself suggest?
	That it's their concept.
	Well, that's true.
	They want to monopolise the concept of racism in precisely the way that the critical race theorists did.
	Yeah.
	This represents a severing away, or a breaking away from the critical race theory framework.
	But they haven't really...
	They've got nowhere to go.
	They haven't, I suppose, put any content to it yet.
	All they know is that they want to get to define what racism is, for whatever reason.
	And again, that's amazing.
	Interim definition is absolutely incredible.
	We do not know.
	We're going to try this for now.
	This is liable to change later.
	Stay posted.
	Yeah.
	It's like, sorry, I mean, I don't agree.
	I actually still agree with the 2017 definition.
	As do I. And I don't see why I would change that, because I don't have a particular agenda to try and excise white people out of the group that can give them consideration when they're being racially victimized.
	You know, I think white people can be racially victimized, black people can be racially, anyone can be racially victimized.
	I don't need to do that, but then I'm not a critical race theorist, and I'm not an intersectionalist.
	No, but on the subject of critical race theorists, you know, what's amazing is that the penny actually seems to be dropping with some of them.
	If we get Ash Sarka's tweet up here, have a read.
	This is what happens when you think of race as something that's real, rational, and fixed.
	It would be pretty weird to talk about Germans as a racial group today, but the Nazis did it a lot, and that was pretty central to everything that happened as a consequence.
	This is awkward.
	I find myself agreeing with her.
	Well, I don't know if I do, right?
	So Whoopi Goldberg's saying...
	Well, it depends on the position you have.
	Whoopi Goldberg's saying that race...
	She's saying that Whoopi Goldberg thinks of race as something that's real, rational, and fixed.
	Okay, look.
	Race as a biological concept is a real thing.
	We can see from our skeletons, and you can pick up an anthropology textbook and find that there are different haplogroup general collections in certain areas of the world, and these inform the way that we look and certain physical features about us.
	These do not inform moral features about us.
	No.
	And this is a feature of human beings.
	It does not delineate one group of people from another group of people as being human beings.
	Yeah, where I agree with her on this is in positing something as a race, you posit it as something that stands above time as interchangeable.
	And based on how we evolve, that's not actually fundamentally true.
	Race actually has a constraining kind of feature to how we develop as human beings, because it leans you towards a commitment to some form of eugenics idea.
	And my criticism of the critical race theorists is that they're working with this same racialized framework in seeing us as all particularized, irreducibly different entities that can never be brought together by anything, because we are essentially different.
	And Ash Sarkar seems to be agreeing with what my criticism of critical race theory has been all along, that it is extremely weird to present race in this way and to try to forge a progressive framework out of it.
	Sure, but the progressive framework is going to be like, well, race is not fixed and it's not rational.
	And so, okay, if race isn't fixed, it's a social construct that emerged out of just society.
	Okay, maybe.
	But what stops someone from becoming transracial?
	Because this is exactly the same logic.
	That's a good question.
	And I'm sorry.
	It can't be a matter of pure self-identification.
	Exactly.
	And if that's true, why can gender and sex be a matter of pure self-identification?
	In the same way, I know Whoopi Goldberg is black because of her skin colour.
	Yes.
	Right?
	And I'm sorry, there is a biological component to that.
	I didn't make it up.
	I didn't choose it.
	And I don't think it's a moral judgment either.
	In fact, it's because she can't choose it.
	That is not a moral judgment, in fact.
	But there is a biological essence that underpins the social construct of race in the United States, white and black.
	They're based on skin colors.
	And so to say, well, it's something that's real, well, there is a realness to it.
	It's, again, not a moral issue.
	To say it's rational, well, different conversation.
	But to say it's fixed, that's where I think they're going to find themselves with real problems here.
	Because if it's not fixed, what stops me from just being black?
	What stops Whoopi Goldberg from saying, well I'm white?
	That is true.
	And this then undoes all of the transgenderism because it's exactly the same logic.
	And this is what the Hypatia controversy was about in 2017, where this was raised in an academic blog called Hypatia.
	And essentially the answer was, you're not allowed to say it.
	You're just not allowed to say it.
	And so two different strains of logic are currently in contradiction with one another in intersectionality.
	And they're going to resolve at some point.
	Well, they have to, somehow.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Yeah, the ADL can't define racism.
	And probably because they don't know how or where to start.
	Yes.
	And this is going to cause significant problems for left-wing ideology.
	Yes.
	Right, should we get to the video comments?
	Let's do it.
	Carl, I acknowledge my fellow Americans are often very ignorant when it comes to Well, many things, but here's a little anecdote from when I was studying at Newcastle.
	A Liverpoolian once asked me if I had taken the bus from Scotland to Ireland.
	You know, you probably can get the bus from Scotland to Ireland, because you can doubtless just get a ferry.
	I mean, I know there's a ferry from Liverpool to Ireland, and it's a Liverpoolian, not a Liverpoolian, but nice try.
	I wouldn't have known.
	There we go.
	Let's go for the next one.
	Sorry, Callum, I forgot to mute my laptop last time.
	Yeah, Discord sounds are a bit of a white noise to me, so I kind of just forgot about that one.
	Yeah, I get them a lot, because Sultans of Chattelay is an active community, and I'm I have no idea what that's about.
	No, I don't either.
	This is something Caleb was saying.
	But we're glad you're okay.
	Yes.
	Whilst watching a live YouTube video once, I saw one WAG comment, rather sagely, that if I had £10 for every gender there is, I'd have £20 and a stack of counterfeit notes.
	Very clever.
	Yeah, very good.
	As part of that previous claim, the other thing that they're stating is that paramedics are not able to get patients into the cath lab, which is where we would go to treat heart attack patients.
	Now, again, this is where Parliament Hill is.
	This road is the one that is being partially blocked by trucks.
	This is where the Cath Lab is in Ottawa, and for reference, here's where the Cath Lab is in Quebec.
	Right, so they can easily go around it.
	Yeah, I think that's the point.
	Yeah.
	Bus over nothing.
	I actually just wanted to pay you guys a compliment.
	Your coverage of the Freedom Convoy in Canada has been fantastic.
	And your first segment that you guys did was so good.
	So thank you so much.
	Really appreciate it.
	There's lots of optimism in the air here in Canada about what's going on.
	So keep up the good work.
	Thank you.
	And honestly, we are big fans of what the Canadian truckers are doing.
	But moreover, I love watching the general public supporting them.
	It's really nice and really wholesome.
	So keep up the good work yourselves.
	Keep going.
	I started building MyMix because I saw a bunch of people on YouTube spending a bunch of money to build their cool machines in hopes of starting a competition.
	But if you want to have a competition, you've got to start out cheap.
	So I decided to be the change I wanted to see.
	I mean, it's more or less just like Great Big Lego Technic, except you're making your own parts.
	I saw what I thought was wrong and tried to address it best I could.
	Bring back the change you want to see.
	Yeah, right.
	People outside might not have seen Robot Wars.
	It's so much fun.
	Basically, people build fairly large robots and then just get them to destroy each other.
	And whoever's least destroyed wins.
	I was thinking today that, for the most part, white supremacy is a nonsense phrase invented to confuse people of European descent and make them shut up.
	And I was thinking that the best way to combat this might be to embrace it, only taking it to absurdly narrow extremes.
	So I, as a proud descendant of Scottish Highlanders, might just declare myself to be a Highland supremacist.
	I was feeling particularly superior today when I realized that I put engine oil in my antifreeze.
	It's a lovely picture, by the way.
	It is.
	Yeah, I've adopted the tack of narrowing the number of people who are white.
	So I successfully tack feared the Irish, the Italians, at least the Southern French.
	Most of Italy...
	No, I said Italy...
	The Finns.
	And so essentially the range of people who are white is eventually going to arrive at a point about the Faroe Islands where those are the real white people and no one else is white.
	I think that's also an effective way of tackling it.
	So when they say, oh look at these Spanish, they're white.
	Have you ever been to Spain?
	I don't consider them white.
	Again, it's the problematic concept of race, isn't it?
	It is.
	It's ridiculous.
	I just don't care about it.
	No, I don't.
	Tony D and Little Joe with another Legend of the Pines.
	Red Oak Grove, New Jersey.
	A ghost town in the middle of the Pine Barrens.
	Founded in 1846 by a man named Samuel O'Brien.
	The only thing you'll find today are a bunch of foundations and bricks out in the middle of the woods.
	If you search hard enough, you can find Samuel O'Brien's property marker.
	But for some reason, in the late 1890s, the town just died.
	No one's sure what happened to the inhabitants.
	The only thing left of the town now is a road in the Pine Barrens called Red Oak Grove Road.
	Awesome.
	I do love historical mysteries.
	Yeah, I do.
	When the truth offends, we lie and lie until we can no longer remember it is even there, but it is still there.
	Every lie we tell incurs a debt to the truth.
	Sooner or later that debt is paid.
	Pretty good.
	The awakening continues.
	Powerful stuff.
	Carl, I found a video response to your moral, pro-natalist perspective.
	There is a lot of nonsense, but there are two core points.
	The first point, if a moral prescription is made, it should be easy to enforce on most people.
	While this doesn't apply to laws, it does not apply to ethics.
	The logic seems fundamentally anti-heroic.
	The purpose of ethical systems is not to enforce its prescriptions on most people.
	It is to give people an idea of how to be good, and if they're capable, how to be heroic.
	Thoughts?
	Second point and next comment.
	I will make my argument.
	I haven't yet.
	And now we have the stick to all the previous carrots, their portrayal of something negative.
	Well, this is Mineta.
	He's the definition of a kuma.
	He gawks at women, he attempts to grope them, and he generally does little else.
	And he's consistently belittled and given nothing.
	The rare times he does something decent, it's shown it's because he's moving past the kuma instincts in himself.
	You must reject kuma-ism to become a hero.
	My Hero Academia, the deadest anime!
	Yes, rejects kumarism.
	It is the disease of the modern man.
	Yes.
	But I'm not watching anime.
	No.
	Don't do it.
	Is that the last one, was it?
	S.H. Silver says, The fact that the Biden administration would be so desperate for approval that it would provincially provoke a war with a nuclear power is telling of how terrible things are, in addition to being a result of the projection of what they thought Trump would do.
	Would Democrats want that, as in Democratic voters?
	Really?
	They do have a weird pathology against Russia.
	I assume it's because Hillary Clinton was in charge and Biden was in charge.
	I thought that was more of a centrist fad, though.
	I mean, these are the status nutters that we're talking about.
	Yeah, but I honestly think it's their age.
	Because remember, a lot of these people are young politicians and making their bones during the Cold War.
	Yeah, and still feel violated by the fact that Hillary Clinton was wronged by Russia.
	Yeah, maybe.
	But the Russians are this perennial boogeyman.
	I just don't care.
	Anyway, Free Will says, if we go to war with Russia, it is possible that the world could be a radioactive nuclear center within a few weeks.
	I hope cool heads prevail.
	We can beef up Ukraine's army quietly without Boris and Biden's saber.
	I don't think it will get to nuclear war.
	No, I don't think it will get to nuclear war.
	I mean, I'm hoping we won't get to war at all.
	Baron Von Warhawk says, It's quite funny how Biden wants to send young American soldiers to die for the Ukrainian border in case of Russian invasion, while simultaneously allowing and helping Central American invasion of the United States.
	Fix your own borders before you interfere with other countries' borders.
	Yeah, Tucker Carlson did an amazing segment about this.
	I watched the other day.
	Did you hear his point about painting the tanks?
	Yeah, he's exactly right.
	If a migrant's arm's illegal, they just let everyone in.
	They can't possibly have any argument.
	No man is illegal.
	Alfred of the Beta says Boris Johnson has 1% of the concern, if he had 1% of the concern for the territorial integrity of the UK that he does for the territorial integrity of Ukraine, maybe the UK wouldn't be overwhelmed by boat migrants.
	Quite.
	Again, there's nothing we can say because this is just like the sort of Martin Luther theses.
	Just nail it to the wall.
	It's nailed to the wall.
	Nailed to the wall.
	You know, these are all true.
	Alex Bradbury says, Britain, the US, and the EU need a distraction not only from internal political issues, but from the most broad COVID pushback and the countless hidden protests on the streets of major cities.
	It's almost like a war and the global boogeyman is in the interest of all.
	Yeah, like, it is the globalist regime is reaching its most extreme points, right?
	Like, the contradictions and the problems that have been there the whole time are beginning to really manifest.
	Yes.
	And, like, now going, oh, Russia, the villain, it's like, yeah, but are they?
	You know, are they just a strange foreign civilization?
	Yeah.
	I don't know if I hate them.
	Agent000 says, Relativism is a one-way street when it comes to how it works with reality.
	Has the EU set Russia to EU standards while endorsing China and Saudi Arabia?
	Gaslighting at its finest.
	I do not listen to known gaslighters and neither should anyone else.
	Exactly.
	That's exactly what I'm saying.
	You know, it's like, look, we treat China and Saudi Arabia as if they're not, like, I mean, one of them is a genocidal regime and one of them has an opinion on women that isn't shared by the West.
	But Russia are the problem, aren't they?
	No, no.
	And one thing says, to distract people from seeking revenge for our tyrannical COVID policies, we should start a land war with Russia.
	Various build back better buddies, probably.
	Yeah, and this thing, it's like, okay, we're going to invade Ukraine and Russia in the winter.
	It's like, really?
	Really?
	We can't wait till spring, no?
	Drew says, Russia, we don't want war.
	Ukraine, we don't need support.
	We're fine.
	USA, so what you're getting is we need to firebomb the Ukrainian countryside.
	UK, I'll get the matches.
	I mean, if Ukraine was not saying, look, everything's fine, go away, I'd be like, okay, there's a problem.
	If Ukraine were like anything other than we're fine, because the Russians are saying we're not going to do anything, yeah, I don't trust them on that.
	But the Ukrainians being like, this is not a problem.
	I don't know what to say.
	Clearly you need our help.
	Ignacio says, all these politicians whose spine is long disappeared longer and can't make foreigners stay away from our borders or control crime and are banging their big boy war drums.
	Bunch of hot-headed lies.
	If a real war broke out, they'd be crying in their bunkers the second it happened.
	Yeah, that's another thing.
	I do not trust the integrity, the courage of modern politicians to be able to conduct a war.
	No.
	At all.
	I just don't think they have it in them.
	Will says, Ukraine is solely firmly within Russia's sphere of influence.
	I feel like the equivalent to the West getting involved in Ukraine would be like Russia involving itself in the troubles of Northern Ireland.
	Something would be totally unacceptable to us.
	Agreed.
	Completely agreed.
	It's a fair analogy, actually.
	That is an exactly fair analogy.
	It's a Reagan analogy, actually.
	And it's like, yeah, it would be obviously inappropriate.
	It's not our place, I think.
	Catastrophic Regression Threshold says, is Russia a threat to the West?
	Maybe.
	Is China a threat to the West?
	Yes.
	Are the West priorities remotely in order?
	No.
	I'm going to start stockpiling and learning Mandarin.
	Well, insults anyway.
	Anthony says, what do you do when your approval ratings are low?
	Drum up a war.
	Exactly.
	Yeah, because that always works, doesn't it?
	Yeah, absolutely.
	Anyway, Drew says, No.
	Because it is in keeping, isn't it?
	Yeah, actually, nothing under the sun.
	Nothing new.
	M1Ping, add the Rasmussen polling to the stack of reasons why your rights should never be subject to a vote.
	Yeah.
	Ben says, the insanity of the US electorate from the survey is...
	It's not in the US electorate.
	It's the Democrats.
	It's not the Republicans generally.
	Although about 10% of them are...
	There is still a disconcerting level of support from the Republican side for some Dracodian policies, but it's still...
	The overwhelming majority will carry the debt.
	Only a moderate concern.
	But anyway, yeah, it's a very good advertisement for the efficacy of a well-oiled propaganda machine.
	Yes, that's exactly what the point I was trying to make.
	Having the power structure and the media and then the online activists forming this one coherent cathedral, as it were, it shows you can really radicalize a good quarter of the population to That's
	the thing.
	The Republicans had better have a red tidal wave this year and take back the House and Senate.
	All these plans will be put into effect, probably by executive order.
	I mean, if the Republicans can't make good hay out of all of this...
	What are you doing?
	I know.
	As you said, the most horrifying part of this is the Democratic voters, or at least the most committed Biden-based, must know at the back of their minds just how insane and irrational their support is for these mandates.
	But they support them anyway.
	Why is that?
	Because once you started doing something crazy...
	And you've gone...
	Why does Wile E. Coyote keep running once he's gone off the ledge?
	Because if he doesn't keep running, he's going to fall.
	And so they've got to keep pushing it.
	And if they take one step back, then the whole thing was all wrong from the start.
	It's the Freudian pleasure principle again.
	They're egging each other onto a view that they themselves don't believe, necessarily.
	But they can't stop because they're committed.
	The treadmill of collectivism.
	Alex Fite says, pronounced Fite, thank you Alex, counterpoint to why people want Joe Biden impeached rather than just because.
	I spec the Venn diagram between people who want him impeached and people who know about the Biden crime family exploits.
	Hunter Biden's laptop, for example, is a near circle.
	Didn't even think of that.
	Good point.
	And there's probably a fair few people who don't believe in F-curves, as it were.
	Barron Von Warhawk says, You know, after hearing about the Democrats planning to create anti-vaccine camps and taking kids away from their parents combined with all this woke comedy nonsense, I'm starting to think Putin might be the good guy on the world stage.
	He may be a corrupt British gangster, but at least he isn't trying to create a vaccine Third Reich.
	That's true.
	I mean, Russia did have some COVID measures at the start which were no less draconian than our own.
	It's worth remembering that.
	What are we going to do?
	Point the finger?
	Yeah.
	I mean, you're being draconian about COVID. Yeah.
	And at least, you know, like, he's not going to take my children away.
	No, no, no.
	That part of it is true.
	Some wag job with a rainbow flag on their badge is going to come in and steal my children.
	Leave a Russian sympathetic to that idea remotely.
	Yeah, yeah, exactly.
	Alfred of the Beta says, half of Democrat voters are demonstrably insane.
	The other half are better at hiding it.
	No, no, no.
	The other half has started watching Tucker Carlson.
	Frankly, it's not like it.
	Look, these guys are nuts.
	What are the other side saying?
	Nick says, my girlfriend's sister came to visit us from New York City over Christmas, and when she was visiting, we were talking about COVID because the Omicron variant was still kind of new.
	She literally said, quote, I don't know why the city won't go into a lockdown.
	Babbit.
	The Democrat voters are in fact lunatics and want to be locked down and lock you in your home.
	Yeah, they've been propagandized.
	COVID has been a signal exercise in the efficacy of propaganda.
	I have to be honest, I see this in a lot of mask wearers still in the United Kingdom.
	And I think there's a particular reason why I think this will sound sexist, but why a lot of women are falling into line with this, young women in particular.
	Perhaps they just like the idea of Big Daddy looking after them, and the mask helps them continue that idea at the back of their minds.
	They're looking for safety, security, and ultimately, certainty.
	It used to be in previous eras that women would rely on their husbands for these views.
	Yeah, and what's happened to our culture.
	Exactly.
	They don't have husbands.
	I told Callum this the other day, but I went into this health food shop that sells sugar-free chocolate.
	And this was after the mandate had been lifted.
	So no one has to wear a mask anywhere now.
	And the girl's still wearing a mask.
	And I asked her, isn't the mask thing over?
	And she gave me a quite curt, well, I like to wear it for my own safety.
	Yeah, I've had that one.
	And I didn't want to get into it.
	But for anyone who doesn't know, the masks don't protect you, they protect other people from you.
	And so I just let it go.
	We should start calling them morally worse people for wearing them, I think.
	Because they are an instrument into this new normality becoming real.
	Yeah, yeah.
	That's a moral reason to resist it.
	If I didn't want her to serve me the chocolate, I probably would have snorted or something.
	But I decided to be polite.
	Charlie says, regarding half of Dems are tyrants, is anyone surprised?
	No, but it's nice to have some good proof of it, isn't it?
	It's just history repeating itself, and in 50 years the left will contend with that, oh my god, you think fascists are left-wing?
	You're so dumb.
	And this was all Republicans in the right's fault, or they'll default to they weren't real Democrats.
	Yeah, man, one of the things I just hate is watching the Democrats blame the Republicans for their own sins, and then being like, what would Abraham Lincoln think?
	What, the Republican?
	No.
	Why would Joe Biden bring up Abraham Lincoln?
	He's a Democrat.
	Anyway.
	Smaller Libertarian says, so 45% approve of Biden, and 55% think unvaxed concentration camps are a good idea.
	So what I'm getting from this is that Nazi camps would improve Biden's ratings.
	Yeah, through that logic, yes they would.
	This is where we are.
	LAUGHTER Don't get any ideas, dear God.
	What with Russia or Nazi camps?
	Don't read Rasmussen, Biden, please.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Omar says, the ADL defined racism as whatever keeps our grift going.
	They just haven't figured out a way to say it without saying it.
	That is true.
	Pirate Skeleton says, old entertainers in their sunset years might want to consider ending their careers or risk saying something profoundly stupid.
	That is true.
	Student of history, my question, what's their position on the racism of the Rwandan genocide or the rape of Nanjing or Unit 731's actions?
	It's not racist.
	People of colour are subordinating people of colour.
	It's not for the benefit of white people.
	Therefore, by that definition, it wasn't racist.
	Can we get up the other definition of racism in a second?
	The third one, the interim one.
	Interim definition.
	Yeah, the interim definition.
	So racism because when individuals or institutions show more favorable evaluation or treatment of an individual group based on their race and ethnicity.
	Right.
	So if, like with the Rwandan genocide, if like one entire ethnicity has a mass conspiracy to just machete another ethnicity over a given night or period of days, That's not more favorable evaluation or treatment of an individual or group.
	That's murdering people.
	And this is positive, that's the thing.
	Show more favorable evaluation or treatment.
	So some favorable evaluation or treatment must have been given.
	And so if you're like, okay, something that's not favorable, like macheting them to death, is no longer racism.
	It's just mad.
	It's just a mad definition.
	Shall we refresh the page to see if it's changed since we've been talking about it?
	Oh, I see.
	But tomorrow I'm sure they'll have come up with another one.
	X, Y, N, Z says, let's see.
	The US is still majority white.
	MSNBC pushes the anti-white rhetoric.
	Keep telling people how crappy they are.
	See how long they stick around.
	Charlie says, the ADL will never define racism because it will hamstring what they can't deem as defamation.
	Well, they are defining racism and they're coming a cropper with it.
	Honestly, I'm really enjoying watching them struggling in the sort of ideological quagmire they've created.
	If anything, it's just up for redefinition on any given day.
	And it can be radically different to the old definition as well.
	Like, nothing is certain.
	Nothing becomes fixed or, you know, traditional.
	Nothing becomes real, you know, that you can...
	So all of public discourse becomes one exercise in gaslighting.
	That's what this is.
	It's like we've got a new definition today.
	It's our dear, you know, thank you, big brother.
	This is what the party does.
	And so I just find that interesting.
	But anyway, Andre says, finally, affirmative action confirmed racist by the ADL. Completely true.
	My thing isn't reloading, so if you've got any more comments that you want to bring up, because for some reason mine won't.
	No, mine's not either.
	I think I've got the same technical issue.
	Okay.
	Well, I guess we'll end it since we're not getting any more comments, because for some reason I won't reload.
	Anyway, thank you everyone for joining us.
	We will be back tomorrow, because it's Friday tomorrow.
	If you want more from us, you can of course go to lodacies.com, sign up and support the show, because that's how we pave things.

▲