Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 30, 2022 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:30:51

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #360

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	intro music Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters.
	This is episode 360.
	I am your host, Harry Robinson, joined today by my good colleague, John.
	Hello, Lotus Eaters.
	And today we're going to be talking about a number of topics.
	First of all, we're going to be talking about Dominic Raab and the Conservative Party's Aims to shore up free speech in the UK and how hoes mad.
	We're also going to be talking about the latest Ukraine update for the NPCs out there.
	And also we're going to be taking a deep dive into Hollywood's diversity, or queer quotas, as I would like to call them.
	But before we get into that, we've got a few announcements to make.
	First of all, we've got a brand new article from our very own Bo Dade.
	Very time-sensitive.
	It came out this morning.
	Entitled, Will Smith is not suicidal.
	Obviously, a play on Jussie Smollett's court hearings recently when he was being taken away, shouting, I am not suicidal!
	I am not suicidal!
	And we just want to know that Will Smith also is not suicidal.
	I'm just going to say, I read this article yesterday.
	I really enjoy Beau's takes on this.
	He writes these very sort of, perhaps venomous is the right word, takedowns of people in popular culture who totally deserve it.
	And this is just, whether you agree with it or not, I just find the writing very entertaining.
	Bo's got a very sharp tongue and a great eye for a witty retort.
	And we've also got a new article from me and Josh, a collaboration that we did, talking about antitrust and competition laws and questioning whether they actually prevent monopolies or not.
	This is something I've been thinking about recently after I started looking into...
	Antitrust laws as a result of the contemplations that Josh and I did on Monopoly.
	We've had it as a deep think, so this article does come with an audio track for all of our Silver Tier members.
	So please feel free to go out and check that out if you're interested.
	And we've also got Ukraine conflict day 34 from John.
	Yep, this is the latest update for today.
	So this covers what happened yesterday.
	Basically I upload them in the morning covering the previous 24 hours and In this case, we actually have some movements in peace talks with Russian forces allegedly withdrawing from the regions of Chernihiv and Kiev as a sort of goodwill gesture towards the Ukrainians.
	But the full details are in the post on our website.
	So if you're interested in staying up to date on Ukraine, John's been doing a lot of these, so please feel free to check them out because they are very interesting and full of lots of useful information.
	Now that that's all cleared out, let's get into the news.
	So, the Conservative Party, and Dominic Raab in particular, I think his name's pronounced Raab, yep, are trying to shore up free speech within the UK. And as you can imagine, this has got many people who do not care about your rights or the privileges bestowed to them by the institutions of this great nation very, very angry.
	So, first of all, let's take a look at this article.
	Mm-hmm.
	With a British Bill of Rights, so you can see straight away, nice centering of this is British, this is not something that's European, we're not in Europe anymore.
	This is our Bill of Rights for the rights of a British citizenry, which is, if nothing else, a decent step to be taking, I would say.
	The British Bill of Rights would ensure the principle of free speech became a legal trump card.
	The Deputy Prime Minister said the proposals, which are currently out for consultation, would better protect media freedom and put free speech on a different status in the pecking order of rights.
	And I would say to this that you might want to sort out a little bit of the BBC, who are...
	Always a bit averse to allowing different speakers to come onto their shows and discuss topics, primarily because while with private institutions, at least you can say they can determine who and what they have on their shows, BBC is a state-owned institution.
	So they should probably be clear that this needs to apply to them as well, because the BBC are very, very heavily biased in one direction.
	Mm-hmm.
	Mr.
	Raab said that he feared free speech and democratic debate were being whittled away by wokery and political correctness.
	And because of him using the wokery and political correctness terms, this is where a lot of the anger is going to be coming from that we'll see in a few minutes.
	He also said that the thrust is going to be making sure that when we balance rights, whether it's the right to free speech and the right to privacy or other rights, we make sure that the greatest overriding important and weight is attached to free speech.
	Effectively, free speech will be given what will amount to a trump card status in a whole range of areas.
	I mean, this all sounds like.
	Oh, this is always the thing with the Tories, isn't it?
	It sounds good, but it's the Tories implementing it, and I have in the past called them out on what I've referred to as performative anti-wokery, and I can only assume that this, I won't believe it until I see it, is basically what I'm saying.
	This could just be another case of them trying to put forward something that sounds great, but they're going to turn out to be all Barclays.
	A little bit of red meat to people who are getting politically engaged because of the culture war.
	And if they throw this out and it's a bit of red meat for them but doesn't actually have any legal impact, then that would probably be a win for the Conservatives.
	So that might be what this is.
	Alternatively, maybe we're being a little too cynical with our long watch of the ineffectiveness of the Conservative Party.
	I think we're very deserved in our cynicism, personally, but go on.
	And maybe there is going to be some actual positive change coming out of this, you know?
	Hopefully the very fact that they're throwing out the European-style human rights and bringing in British...
	The fact that they even recognise this as something that appeals to voters is a good start, at least.
	That's a good start, yes.
	We will still be clamping down on those who try to use either media or free speech to incite violence to radicalised terrorists or to threaten children, and all of those safeguards will still be in place, so the usual kind of provisions that you would give for freedom of speech, you know, no terrorists, no inciting violence, and don't...
	groom children.
	So all stuff that I can stand behind as far as provisions for this go.
	So it will have a different status in the pecking order of rights, and I think that will go a long way to protecting this country's freedom of speech and our history, which is always very strongly protected freedom of speech.
	Mr. Raab also told the paper that the Bill of Rights would make deportation mandatory for all foreign criminals chained for at least a year, which is a surprising turn of events that they want to crack down so hard, although perhaps Preeti Patel and everything that she's been saying may be getting through to the other although perhaps Preeti Patel and everything that she's been saying may be getting through to the other members, but once again, we'll see if they And
	And meanwhile, The Telegraph has reported that as a part of a wider reform of parole proceedings, Mr. Raab is set to take back powers to override the parole board when it comes to the release of dangerous criminals from jail, which follows the public outcry at the decision to release double child killer and rapist Colin Pitchford from jail.
	That's not his real name, surely.
	I mean, if it is, then it's rather fitting.
	And I can understand why that would elicit some outcry from the public.
	In this next article here, he does seem to be actually making moves against four harsher punishments for people who've committed awful crimes.
	So, Justice Secretary Bloch's bid to move Sadistic Killer to open prison, a bid to move this person who stabbed a woman 60 times during sex in open prison, Mm-hmm.
	He's trying to do things.
	If nothing else, it shows that he's doing something somewhere.
	That's true.
	I mean, and I agree with the call.
	The thing I'm concerned about is that does there not seem to be a rather significant accumulation of power in this sense to ministers?
	Now, the fact that that's a good thing is because the bureaucracies beneath them are so incompetent and subverted that we need to see this kind of thing in order for anything remotely sane to be done.
	So it probably just speaks to a larger problem without actually solving it.
	The fact that we're having to qualify that hopefully something remotely sane will happen within our governmental institutions.
	Which we pay for, of course.
	Which we all pay for is not a great sign.
	No.
	But it at least shows that he is trying to take on some conviction and try to move things along in a more positive direction.
	He's at least posturing that direction.
	At least in that direction.
	But, Dominic, and the Conservatives in general, just changing the Human Rights Act to a Bill of Rights will not necessarily stop a lot of the issues that are going on with online censorship, because it is not from the Human Rights Act that the allowance for...
	It is from section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, which reads, A person is guilty of an offence if he, A, sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene, or menacing character or causes any such message or matter to be so sent.
	And that is one of those laws that has the massive grey area set around the term grossly offensive, which has allowed everything to potentially be at risk when you're putting it online.
	This is what led to Count Dankula being arrested when he posted the Nazi pug video.
	So if you actually want to make some changes, if you're watching this, which who knows if you are or not, hopefully you are, hello Dominic, if you're watching this, that is where you need to aim, that is what you need to sort out and get off the books.
	You need to repeal that law so that we can actually start to talk about free speech within the nation.
	But taking a look just to prove what I'm saying here, that the Human Rights Act is not the cause of the lack of freedom of speech or censorship in the country, the Human Rights Act itself has Article 10, which is freedom of expression, which is everyone has the right to freedom of expression.
	This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.
	This article shall not prevent states from requiring the licensing requirements.
	of broadcasting, television, or cinema enterprises.
	So the state's giving themselves nice monopoly over who can do that sort of stuff still, but the exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions, or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interest of national security, territorial or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interest of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence,
	So that's all pretty typical provisions that you'd give.
	I'd say potentially the only thing that needs shoring up is that for the protection of health or morals...
	aspect of it, given that that is probably where the allowance for things like grossly offensive come into the other laws that have been set in the land.
	But here's what they say on the government website itself.
	for the push for the British Bill of Rights.
	The Bill of Rights will protect essential rights, like the right to a fair trial and the right to life, which are fundamental parts of a modern democratic society.
	But we will reverse the mission creep that has meant human rights law being used for more and more purposes, and often with little regard for the rights of wider society.
	Section 12 has not had any real effect on the way that such issues have been determined by the courts.
	The government proposes that Bill of Rights legislation should contain a stronger and more effective provision, making it clear that the right to freedom of expression is of the utmost importance, and that courts should only grant relief impinging on it where there are exceptional reasons.
	There may also be a case for changing the test currently contained in that section of the Human Rights Act.
	The effect of this is that the person applying for an injunction to stop publication of material must satisfy the court in a trial.
	So there's lots of different things that they say here.
	But once again, this is all going to come down to whether they actually go ahead with it or not, and whether they enforce it in any strict and responsible manner.
	Because once again, This is one of those things the Conservative Party has done time and time again, where they come out, say they're going to do one thing, and then either do the exact opposite of it, or just posture in that direction, and then stick by their words.
	So, we'll see.
	But...
	As you can imagine, the fact that Dominic Raab said wokery and political correctness is what got a lot of people very triggered.
	And here's an article from The Independent illustrating that perfectly.
	Dominic Raab, if you're shouting about woke cancel culture or free speech, you're probably privileged.
	Well...
	I would say there is a certain truth to this, given that if you live in the UK and you are protected under the rights of the British people, that freedom of speech is a privilege.
	It's a privilege that we benefit from because not every country in the world experiences free speech.
	Not every person in their home country...
	Has the right to free speech?
	Just go over and look at China and their social credit system.
	So I'd say it is absolutely a privilege that we have at least the facade of free speech, because I wouldn't say we absolutely have it right now, but to have free speech is a privilege, and it's not something that we should be stripping away from our own citizens for the sake of somebody's hurt feelings.
	But let's see what exactly it is that this Nadine Asbali, who is an English teacher in a school who I'd never heard of before and searched her name and found that all of a sudden she's popped out of nowhere and released an article with The Independent, one with The Guardian, and one with another publication that I can't remember, another very left-leaning one.
	So I wonder if she's going to start making waves in left circles.
	It's funny how with a lot of these people, they just suddenly appear and they're suddenly everywhere.
	Hmm.
	It's not, this is not uncommon at all, and then they just sort of become mainstream, like, fixtures of the mainstream commentary.
	And it happens on the right as well as the left.
	Oh, yes, absolutely.
	It's quite curious.
	It's a phenomenon.
	It does.
	I think it's when you've, the person who's saying the right thing for your side...
	At the right time.
	Yeah, at the right time, a lot of publications are going to be very open, and then after you've got your foot in the door, you can kind of just stick around a bit.
	Has she had some kind of high-profile tweet or something?
	Is that what this is?
	I didn't check out her Twitter, so I wouldn't be able to say.
	Let me know in the comments if she'd ratioed someone or owned a conservative on Twitter or something.
	But what she says is that now, apparently, is the time in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis at the tail end of a pandemic and on the cusp Of World War III? That something must be done about free speech?
	Of course she's saying this as a clear water battery.
	How can you be focusing on free speech?
	How can you be focusing on the traditional institutions of your own country while all this other stuff is going on?
	We can't focus on the deliberate undermining of English values when other things are happening elsewhere in the world as well.
	And to that I just say I can think about and be concerned about and focus my attention on more than one thing at once.
	Shockingly enough...
	No, the whole whataboutery is quite tiresome.
	You see it everywhere on every issue.
	It really is.
	They are deliberately, in reference to wokeness, creating a boogeyman that looks like something a little like a hipster in a gentrified East London borough, wearing ironic glasses and shouting at people for saying things that were once deemed perfectly acceptable in the 1960s.
	You can say that's a boogeyman.
	You can go ahead and say that's a boogeyman if you want.
	You have the freedom to do so.
	But is it inaccurate?
	Is the primary question that you should be asking yourself there.
	Because I can't point to one recently in London, although I'm sure there probably are, but recently in Manchester there was a women's talk going on at an event venue, and of course all of these hipsters in gentrified outfits wearing ironic glasses showed up to scream about trans rights and chant that these women should not have the chance to speak about women's issues.
	So...
	Tell me whether the boogeyman is accurate or not.
	What better than a scapegoat for everyone to hate instead of the government?
	I can hate both.
	Thank you very much.
	Hate equally, right?
	Yes, very much so.
	I'm no fan of the government, I'll tell you that.
	The thing is, freedom of speech is only heralded as a paramount human right by those who aren't on the receiving end of the kind of sentiment that makes you unsafe.
	Can you think of anything that's said about people on perhaps the wrong side of the political aisle that could make them feel unsafe, John?
	Do you mean like death threats and that sort of thing?
	Like death threats, like people like Andy Noe, for instance, trying to report on far-left violence and actually being...
	And getting the whole kill Andy Noe thing being not just a hashtag, but also a regular graffiti...
	And not even just kept two words, it branches out into actions as well, because remember, he almost was killed at one point.
	So I don't know if you've got many a leg to stand on there.
	Sorry.
	And of course, being a teacher, she has to bring it up.
	As teachers, we always have to be impartial in the classroom.
	But how do we teach issues such as the mass genocide and invasion of half the world?
	In a balanced way.
	How do we portray both sides to the humanisation of black people?
	And why should we have to, if free speech is so supreme?
	Is my freedom of speech to teach my students about Churchill's racist views, or that anti-capitalism exists as a political stance, not worth protecting?
	Well, sadly, Nadine, you're an employee by the state.
	These are the sort of people who are teaching your kids, by the way.
	I'm just...
	Yes, she wants to brainwash your kids and she wants to be paid by you, the taxpayer, because she's probably working in a state school, let's be honest, and she wants to be paid by you to do so, to make your kids hate everything about you.
	And once again, if you are working in a professional environment, you do what your bosses tell you to do.
	It's not too unreasonable to say you are a teacher of English Teach them about English.
	Don't start going off on ideological rants about Churchill.
	What does Churchill have to do with the English language, generally speaking?
	Unless they're studying his literature, which I doubt they are.
	I very much doubt they are.
	Because they've not once studied Churchill's literature in an English class.
	Me neither.
	Then...
	Why is that a thing?
	And why does she believe that free speech should start and end with her speech and her right to brainwash kids into her own political views?
	It's a very backward and very, I hate to say it, but a very foreign way of looking at the issue.
	It's all about power and not about any appreciation for universal fairness.
	I would absolutely agree.
	It's because leftist speech is the only correct speech, John.
	Because if you're not speaking leftist speech, you're hurting someone and you're trying to kill people.
	Who knows?
	Don't you know?
	And, of course, alongside this comes the dishonest cope coming from members of the left as well as the newspapers.
	This man, Joe Morgan, saying, can anyone identify a difference between Putin's attack on cancel culture and Raab's attack on wokery?
	I think Raab doesn't have quite as many tanks.
	Yeah, I don't think Raab's invaded any countries recently, so there's one massive difference.
	I don't know if you really need any more, just because Putin's like...
	I haven't noticed the Caliber missiles flying overhead to raise the BBC offices to the ground.
	Yeah, once again, just because Putin is making gestures towards the political right over in the West does not mean that every other indictment of cancel culture and wokery is the same as Putin invading another country, and I hate this expression.
	I hate this comparison.
	The whole thing is awful.
	It's the same rhetorical trick as Hitler loved his dog, therefore if you love your dog, you are literally Hitler.
	It's that rhetorical trick.
	I can't remember the name of it.
	But it's just guilt by association.
	Yes, I think that's probably the name of it.
	And if we move along, we've got Dr.
	Scholar.
	Saying white supremacy to get legal supremacy.
	Do I need to carry on?
	Do I really need to carry on?
	Free speech is white supremacy.
	This is what they're saying now.
	Dominic Raab unveils plan to stamp out resistance against racial and social injustice.
	That's not what wokeness is.
	Wokeness wears that as a facade to bully its political opponents.
	We all know this.
	To be woke is a crime in the UK. No, to infringe other people's free speech...
	I know.
	It's like talking to a child, isn't it?
	Why am I explaining this to Dr.
	Moz Shogbamimu?
	And if we move along, one last one is Femi saying anyone who thinks it's okay for Dominic Raab to replace the Human Rights Act with a British Bill of Rights doesn't understand human rights.
	Human rights protect people from their governments, so they must be international.
	Oh, that's wrong.
	That is wrong.
	The Americans have rights enshrined in their constitution to protect people from government, and by and large they have worked for a long period of time.
	Yes, I would say that's the ideal that human rights should be.
	But also, did the US need an international government overseeing them to ensure those rights for the public?
	That's a no.
	That's a no.
	If I'm worried about government, I would much rather be worried about a small local government, or more local government, than a large global government that's going to be looking over my shoulder wherever I go.
	So I don't think you understand the point there, Femi.
	No, well this is a classic distinction that you often find on the left, between nationalists and internationalists.
	And he's clearly an internationalist.
	Yes.
	I've seen him recently on Jeremy Vine arguing in favour of returning to the EU. Right, absolutely.
	So everything he wants to do is to undermine the state.
	And I'm no friend of the state, but he wants to undermine them in favour of an international organisation, which is just as threatening and dangerous as the state.
	And the only thing it has, and the only difference really, is that it's less accountable.
	Yes.
	But yeah, that's about all I've got for that one.
	Dominic Raab seems to be making some of the right moves and annoying the right people with this, but it still remains to be seen whether anything actually productive or useful will come from it.
	So, will this be another case of Tory anti-woke performity, or will it actually be something with some teeth on it?
	I guess we'll have to wait and see.
	And on that note, I'm going to put my earpiece back in because, yet again, it fell out halfway through the podcast.
	That's alright.
	At least it's better than getting it stuck in your ear this time.
	Indeed.
	Not a great way to start the podcast.
	Nice water break.
	No clips for that one.
	Hopefully it shall stay in for the next ten minutes.
	There we go.
	All right, here we go.
	All right.
	So, you may have noticed that history is a very malleable creature, and there are some things that now never existed.
	A new NPC history update, if you will, particularly regarding Ukraine.
	One thing I found very curious with covering this on a day-to-day basis is that history is literally changing before my eyes.
	It's amazing.
	It's quite incredible how that happens nowadays, isn't it?
	It's just a fact of life.
	I believe George Orwell talked about it extensively in 1984.
	It was something about the memory hole, wasn't it?
	Yeah, whoever controls the past, the present controls the past.
	Whoever controls the past controls the future.
	So, how is the past being controlled?
	Well, there is this fabulous clip that's come out of the BBC post-invasion, which now claims that neo-Nazis in Ukraine basically don't exist and it's a Russian propaganda fantasy.
	And this guy has a 10-minute clip where he's saying that the Azov Battalion are not neo-Nazis.
	So I thought we'd go through it.
	So first of all, let's take a brief look at the presenter we're about to see.
	So let's get his picture up.
	That's him.
	I must say, I genuinely think he's one of the more odious personalities in broadcasting.
	And that might be unfair, because obviously I've never met the guy.
	I've only seen his work like this.
	But I've been following the work he does.
	And he comes out with what I call reactive propaganda all of the time.
	So he's seeing what people are saying online, like us and others.
	And if it disagrees with the narrative that the BBC wants to shape, he then prepares these short segments with interview and commentary that aim to debunk those inconvenient events, facts, and narratives.
	So it's like specially designed to take the talking points that someone like you would be pushing out there, not that I think you have strict talking points per se, but the points that you're using and deliberately trying to counter them.
	Right, absolutely.
	And for fans of Beef Vendetta, I think he's a bit like the voice of fate when it comes to Ukraine.
	Oh, yeah.
	Lewis Prothero's character.
	He also looks quite poisonous, I think, in the briefings he does.
	I don't know what it is.
	Again, this is sounding a bit petty, but I would not buy a used car.
	I also don't want to sound petty or ad homie, but he does have somewhat of a pointy face.
	It's quite disconcerting.
	It's more that I feel like his face doesn't move.
	I don't know if he's had cosmetic work done or something, but he just comes across with his eyes being very cold and measured, like he's glaring into the camera.
	And there's something about it that really puts me off.
	But again, don't let that put it off.
	That's a fairly small point.
	Let's not us obviously poisoning the well poison the well for you.
	But he's also the founder of the 5050 Equality Project, if we go to the next one, which calls itself the biggest collective action on increasing representation in BBC content that there's ever been.
	The BBC is an unbiased and impartial institution, don't you know, John?
	Well, clearly.
	And so if we go to their methodology, it says here, we count contributors in content.
	Teams monitor the numbers of contributors in their content to set benchmarks for their chosen diversity measures.
	They then count regularly as their content is produced to track their progress against the benchmarks.
	The data is based on the perception of the person counting as to what the audience would see, read or hear.
	So, this is a fancy way of saying all the BBC teams count up the number of diverse people you work with, publish it, and rely on social and institutional pressure to ensure that everyone competes to out-diversity each other.
	Well, yeah, because if they're going off of the audience, what the audience would like to see, if you're pandering to a particular audience, that being the audience on the left, they're never happy.
	They're never happy with anything.
	So, like you say, it's just going to be a case of number will just continuously go up until it is 100% diverse.
	I'll have you know that the team is 340% diverse, because we have diversity in LGBT, we have diversity in ethnicity, we have diversity in religion, and the list goes on.
	We have one transgender black female centaur.
	100% diverse, baby.
	I'm speechless.
	Stunning and brave.
	So stunned, so brave.
	But anyway, let's get on to his coverage, and specifically what you might call neo-Nazi apologia, in the same way that...
	Anyway, so he has this clip here.
	You'll have seen multiple false claims that Putin and his supporters are making about Nazis in Ukraine.
	And Putin is making false claims about Nazis in Ukraine.
	Like, they are dramatically exaggerating the case.
	I think everyone can agree with that.
	Of course.
	But we've looked at them in detail, he says.
	So let's...
	I've prepared four clips from this, which we can go through.
	Let's go through the first one.
	Vladimir Putin has given several reasons for his invasion of Ukraine.
	This is one of them.
	We will be aiming at demilitarisation and denazification of Ukraine.
	At a recent Putin rally, a banner declared, for a world without Nazism.
	And Putin has described a gang of drug addicts and neo-Nazis who settled in Kyiv and took the entire Ukrainian people hostage.
	But Russia's claims about Nazis in Ukraine are a mix of falsehoods and distortions.
	For a start, Ukrainians are not being held hostage by Nazis.
	Their president's Volodymyr Zelensky.
	He's Jewish.
	He has relatives who died in the Holocaust.
	And he's president because he won 73% of the vote in 2019.
	The main far-right candidate reached 1.6%.
	And that result is part of a broader shift.
	In the 2012 parliamentary election, the main far-right party won 10%.
	In 2014, it was 6%.
	In 2019, it was 2%.
	No far-right groups have any formal political power in Ukraine.
	And based on polling and results, the far-right's much less popular in Ukraine than, for example, the leader of the far-right in France, Marine Le Pen.
	Right, okay, so...
	I just need to say far-right does not equal Nazi.
	I know.
	I just want to throw that out there.
	That's the thing.
	The incredible vagueness of the terminology for far-right and nationalist and Nazi is a weapon which he's using here.
	Identifying Marine Le Pen with Svoboda is absolutely laughable, and I think that she should actually consider legal action, because that's incredibly defamatory.
	Absolutely.
	Like the far right in France and far right in Ukraine are two very different things.
	But also when he talks about distortions and so on, he is right in a lot of the things he says, but it's such a selective narrative.
	You know, this is why I call this reactive propaganda.
	And this is cherry picking data.
	Absolutely.
	To present a particular case.
	Let's go to the next clip from 1.30 onward.
	In late 2013, under pressure from Putin, Ukraine's then president, Viktor Yanukovych, backed out of a cooperation deal with the EU. Huge protests followed, as would a crackdown.
	In time, Yanukovych would flee to Russia.
	This was a challenge to Putin's ability to influence Ukraine.
	And he retaliated.
	First, Russia annexed Crimea.
	Then it backed separatists in parts of eastern Ukraine.
	And this is where the story connects back to the far right.
	Because in 2014, the Ukrainian military was much smaller than it is now.
	It was struggling.
	And brigades of volunteers joined the fight against the separatists.
	Some of them had far right elements.
	Right, so there's a few things there.
	Again, very, very selective history.
	He's airbrushed out all parties from this other than Ukraine and Russia.
	Nothing about NATO, nothing about American involvement or anything like that.
	Fair enough, he's got time constraints, he's got narrative to push, let that slide.
	But also by admitting the Ukrainian army was so weak in 2014, what he's doing is really underlining the fact that Ukraine has militarized tremendously effectively in the last eight years, again, due to a lot of the training and weapons and equipment that we've been supplying from the West.
	Yeah, I'm sure if this guy just went back over a number of BBC articles, he would probably be able to find all of this information from when it was happening.
	He would, definitely.
	And then he ends on this with, as of us, you can see that symbol there.
	Now, what does that look like to you?
	If I believe correctly, I'm not that familiar with the symbology, but I believe that that sun behind the symbol has some ties to Nazi ideology, as far as Callum has told me.
	Yeah, so as far as I'm aware, there are two symbols here that bear mention.
	One of them is that so-called sun, which is apparently the black sun, which was used by the SS as part of the Nazi occult movement.
	And the other one is the Wolfsangels sign at the front.
	Which was also used by the SS, but the Ukrainians themselves claim that it stands for IN, as in idea of the nation, and is perfectly harmless and nothing to do with the SS. And many Ukrainians don't see this symbology as being directly connected to the SS, and they say, oh, it's just Cossack symbology, dude.
	It's just completely coincidental that we've stacked one Nazi symbol on top of another.
	I mean, oops, what can I say?
	What a gaffe, guys.
	Right.
	But this is the other thing, and I'm going to come back to this point as well.
	If you walked into the BBC offices wearing that, do you think they would be half as charitable as they're being right now?
	I question it.
	I question it.
	Let's go to the next clip.
	This is the Azov emblem being shown to Steve there.
	It's a pagan symbol known as Wolf's Angel, and a version of it was used by some SS units in Nazi Germany.
	Andreas Umland, an expert on Ukrainian nationalism, he's looked at this, writing, the Wolf's Angel has far-right connotations, but it's not considered a fascist symbol by the population in Ukraine.
	That may be, but back in 2015, Azov acknowledged that some of its fighters held Nazi views.
	A spokesperson told USA Today that only 10-20% of the group's members are Nazis.
	And he sought to make a distinction, using one fighter as an example.
	I know Alex is a Nazi, he said, but it's his personal ideology.
	It has nothing to do with the official ideology of the Azov.
	Can you imagine the BBC being this charitable about any other group of Nazis anywhere in the world?
	I spoke to the BBC and they said only 10-20% of their staff were Nazis.
	So it's not a problem!
	Could you imagine if 10-20% of the Trump campaign were Nazis?
	Oh god, we'd still be hearing about it.
	What about the Conservative Party, for example?
	No, it's not a big deal, guys.
	It's just 10-20%, like, seriously.
	Like, or even this.
	Look, yeah, okay, he's a Nazi, but we believe in freedom of thought, you know.
	There's no such thing as the thought crime to the BBC. You could be a Nazi, we'll platform you.
	It's just your personal view.
	I mean, CNN have repeatedly platformed Richard Spencer.
	That's true, but then only Richard Spencer.
	But then they are ideologically aligned with one another.
	They do it specifically to point out to everyone, look, this is what you should hate.
	So, uh...
	No, I think it's because CNN likes to race bait, and so does Richard Spencer.
	They have a lot of common ground in their ideology, which we've probably woken up to a bit on this channel.
	Let's see the next clip.
	Ukraine's armed forces total 250,000, plus 50,000 National Guard.
	Azov is part of the National Guard, with around 1,000 volunteer fighters.
	It's a tiny fraction of the Ukrainian military.
	It's also not the same force as it was in 2014.
	Azov opened its recruitment to the whole of Ukrainian society and eventually this radical core was drowned out by the mass of newcomers who joined the regiment because it was an elite unit.
	And while the membership was evolving, the founder also left to start a new far-right political party, a party which has failed to achieve any electoral success.
	But the Azov regiment that he left behind is high profile and mainstream.
	This is the view of the Ukrainian government.
	The only Nazi elements we have on the territory of Ukraine now are the Russian fascist army.
	So, again, it's the standard stuff.
	We've got like three strands of apologia here.
	One of them is, oh, they're tiny, they're irrelevant, don't worry about them.
	Another is, oh, and they're not even doing very well, and they're not that popular.
	And then finally, the Ukrainian government says it's fine, so it's all kosher.
	We've asked ourselves, we've asked a Frenchman, for some reason, and we've asked the Ukrainian government, the most authoritative sources on this issue.
	Right.
	And it's just amazing.
	I just want you to think the next time the BBC or whoever it is is banging the gavel against alleged neo-Nazis in some group or whatever it might be, just cast your minds back to this when they're saying that it's only 10-20% and that's okay.
	And then finally this little clip.
	The rhetoric is factually wrong.
	Nazis don't hold Ukraine hostage.
	They're not launching attacks on Ukrainians.
	There's no evidence to support this kind of claim.
	Most of the Ukrainians hate these neo-Nazi groups and they pray for Russia and for somebody else to liberate Ukrainian society from Nazi groups.
	Right, so I notice the BBC tends to report on things like this using a trick where they drag out the least coherent, most heavily accented and objectionable person they can find to represent the side they don't like.
	Of course they do.
	It's like when I referenced CNN with Richard Spencer.
	It's something these people always do.
	They don't just cherry-pick information.
	They cherry-pick contributors so they can say, see, we're unbiased.
	See, we open up conversation for everybody.
	We've just found this complete nutter on a street corner who agrees with some talking points on the right.
	It's therefore we're unbiased.
	It's kind of like the medium is the message sort of thing.
	So having said that, immensely selective history aside, Mr Atkins does present a narrative on the Azov Battalion that could be correct.
	So we should bear that in mind.
	They might just be a fringe, unpopular minority.
	Their Wolfsangle and Black Sun might just be Cossack symbols rather than the SS symbols that everyone else would think they are on site.
	And this might be a complete nothing burger drummed up by sneaky Russian propagandists.
	But should we get a second opinion?
	Here's Time magazine.
	In January last year, they claimed that Ukraine's Azov battalion is the centre of a global white supremacist, neo-Nazi, ISIS-style terrorist network.
	Well, that's a hell of a shift.
	I know.
	So, like, share, recruit, how a white supremacist militia uses Facebook to radicalise and train new members.
	And they continue.
	It goes through a little story.
	It's a 4,000-word article, chunky piece of work.
	Not going to read the whole thing, but just a few extracts.
	When they finally rendezvoused, Fuller noticed the swastika tattoo on the middle finger of Furholm, the Azov guy's left hand.
	It didn't surprise him.
	The recruiter had made no secret of his neo-Nazi politics.
	Within the global network of far-right extremists, he served as a point of contact to the Azov movement, the Ukrainian militant group that had trained and inspired white supremacists from around the world.
	So if this article is to be believed, when we always hear about the media crying about, oh, Facebook and all these places are just a network for white supremacists to gather together and recruit new Nazis...
	This might be the one time the example is correct.
	Yeah, that's what they're saying.
	Its fighters resemble the other paramilitary units, and there are dozens of them that have helped defend Ukraine against the Russian military over the past six years.
	But Azov is much more than a militia.
	It has its own political party, two publishing houses, summer camps for children, the Azov Youth, perhaps, and a vigilante force known as the National Militia, which patrols the streets of Ukrainian cities alongside the police.
	Wait, what?
	A vigilante force known as the National Militia which patrols the streets of Ukrainian cities alongside the police.
	Ah, we've got the Nazi jackboots on the streets.
	Don't worry, citizen, you're safe.
	So we have the Azov Youth, the Sturm Azov South.
	Anyway.
	Unlike its ideological peers in the US and Europe, it also has a military wing, with at least two training bases and a vast arsenal of weapons, from drones and armoured vehicles to artillery pieces.
	And yes, we can confirm that Azov is heavily armed and seems to know what it's doing.
	Well, yeah.
	Outside Ukraine, Azov occupies a central role in a network of extremist groups stretching from California across Europe to New Zealand, according to law enforcement officials on three continents.
	And it acts as a magnet for young men eager for combat experience.
	Ali Soufan, a security consultant and former FBI agent who has studied Azov, estimates that more than 17,000 foreign fighters have come to Ukraine over the past six years from 50 countries.
	That's a lot more than just a 1,000-man strong troop, isn't it?
	Isn't it, Mr Atkins?
	And I also wonder whether his 1,000 is the post-casualty figure report since they've been surrounded in Mariupol for over a month.
	Anyway, the US government was also slow to acknowledge the danger of Ukraine's far-right militias, but by March 2018, the US Congress publicly denounced the Azov Battalion, banning the US government from providing any arms training or other assistance to its fighters.
	That's interesting, isn't it?
	Sorry, these statements, they just seem so ridiculous, and then it just kicks into my head.
	Oh, the US government.
	Oh, okay.
	What, helping Nazis?
	Yeah.
	But we actually have it on footage of British and American troops training these guys.
	Oh, okay.
	It's part of Operation Crucible and so on.
	Though largely symbolic, the move discouraged all Western military forces, and especially members of the NATO alliance, from training alongside Azov fighters, or indeed having anything to do with them.
	I wonder why.
	At a hearing of the House Committee on Homeland Security in September 2019, Soufan urged lawmakers to take the threat more seriously.
	The following month, 40 members of Congress signed a letter calling unsuccessfully for the US State Department to designate Azov a foreign terrorist organization.
	Azov has been recruiting, radicalizing and training American citizens for years, the letter said.
	Christopher Wray, the director of the FBI, later confirmed in testimony to the US Senate that American white supremacists are actually traveling overseas to train.
	Oof.
	Big oof.
	The hearings on Capitol Hill glossed over a crucial question.
	How did Azov, an obscure militia started in 2014 with only a few dozen members, become so influential in the global web of far-right extremism?
	Time, in more than a dozen interviews with Azov's leaders and recruits, found that the key to its international growth has been its pervasive use of social media, especially Facebook, which has struggled to keep the group off its platform.
	Facebook is the main channel, says Furholm, the recruiter.
	In a statement to Time, Facebook defended its recent attempts to deal with the proliferation of right-winning extremists, saying it had banned more than 250 white supremacist groups, including Azov.
	As they evolve their efforts to return to the platform, we update our enforcement methods with technology and human expertise to keep them off, the statement said.
	And they continue.
	But finally, they claim that far right groups since 9-11 are responsible for nearly three quarters of the 85 deadly extremist incidents that took place in American soil.
	Which seems like a very doctored statistic.
	Of course.
	According to a report published in 2017.
	And finally, in their letter to the State Department in 2019, US lawmakers noted that, quote, the link between Azov and acts of terror in America is clear.
	Bold statements there, right?
	It's very interesting.
	It's very interesting how all of this has been walked back.
	Now, do you feel like we've been living in two realities over the last 20 minutes?
	Yeah, I feel I've been presented two very different stories.
	Exactly.
	And it goes on and on.
	4,000 words, like I say, claiming Azov sits at the centre of this network, and the authors are clearly trying to pressure Facebook and other big tech companies into swinging the banhammer even harder at right-wing groups.
	So when was the mainstream media cathedral lying to us?
	Was it then, or is it now?
	In 2021, the day after the January 6th Capitol Hill protest, that's when this time article dropped, saying everything was neo-Nazi.
	Neo-Nazis were everywhere, killing people and blowing them up and so on.
	4,000 words and that level of research makes me think that was very well-timed for something that obviously was so well-planned.
	The timing is convenient and revealing.
	An article like this would have taken at least a week to write, probably two, with interviews and everything.
	The authors, Simon Schuster and Billy Perigo, must have written it in anticipation of the Capitol Hill neo-Nazi narrative.
	The far-right white supremacist violence narrative that emerged after January the 6th was Suspicious Speed.
	So maybe they're lying to us.
	And the BBC today has it right.
	Maybe Azov was never really a big deal.
	Their multiple Nazi symbols in their flag aren't a representation of who they are or what they believe.
	It's all just a big misunderstanding aided by people who want you to think Nazis are everywhere.
	So Time magazine, the entire mainstream media in 2021, and Vladimir Putin.
	Or maybe the BBC are lying to us, but Time magazine had it right.
	There are Nazis everywhere, always have been, as of is the epicentre of Nazi terrorism, and Ross Atkins' segment is just modern war propaganda.
	Or perhaps they've both been lying to us relentlessly for years, and the truth sits somewhere outside of their well-curated narratives.
	And I imagine that's going to be one of those things that in the future will be very, very difficult to ascertain what truth is out there.
	I wonder if Ross Atkins is going to bitterly regret that 10-minute segment he did in a few years' time.
	Well, I guess we'll find out.
	Only time will tell, after all.
	Excellent.
	Very interesting.
	Thank you for that one.
	You're welcome.
	Alright, so, let's take a look at Hollywood's queer quotas.
	Now, diversity is everywhere currently, and honestly, it's just making things very confusing.
	Recently, Keir Starmer and his deputy, Angela Rayner, over here in the UK, both failed or refused to answer whether a woman could have a penis.
	Which...
	It's ridiculous, but it's something that has happened and there is video evidence of it.
	So this is something that will live forever in the public consciousness.
	And diversity quotas themselves have played a big role in politics.
	For instance, getting such esteemed politicians as Jess Phillips into the political party that she occupies with Labour.
	It's even got so bad now that it seems that we're getting a quota for men participating in women's sports.
	But nowhere...
	Sorry, I've just got the clown world music running through my head right now.
	But nowhere is the scourge of diversity as bad as the entertainment industry, where it seems to have dug its claws in and infested every element, from the higher-ups within the industry to the actors performing the roles individually.
	To the people on set, probably, cleaning up the tears.
	And Disney, for instance, has recently come out against the anti-groomer bill in Florida, which was called by the media as being, don't say gay, but I think we all know that that's an incredibly dishonest framing of that bill.
	And anti-groomer bill is...
	The proper name for it, DeSantis, you could still just pop that name on there if you felt the need to.
	And obviously, this idea that we've all seen going around in the entertainment industry recently, which there needs to be a certain amount of people, certain quotas of people, is all based on the idea that So, Sarah Connor?
	Ellen Ripley?
	I can't like them.
	I'm not a woman.
	How could I? Walter White?
	I've never experienced what it's like to have lung cancer or make methamphetamine.
	So how can I understand what this guy is going through?
	How could anybody who isn't a Wall Street serial killer enjoy American Psycho?
	How can black people enjoy Lord of the Rings?
	Well, Amazon has the answer for that, which is just crowbar them in there.
	And then recently, this just came out.
	Christopher Rufo shared a clip from an interview with Disney's corporate president, Carrie Burke.
	And I think I'll let the clip speak for itself if we just play this.
	Oh, good.
	I'm here as a mother of two queer children, actually.
	One transgender child.
	And one pansexual child.
	And also as a leader.
	And that was the thing that really got me because I have heard so much from so many of my colleagues over the course of the last couple weeks in open forums and through emails and phone conversations.
	I feel a responsibility to speak, not just for myself, but for them.
	Isn't she ever so virtuous?
	I have these two LGBTQIA plus children, and I must speak on their behalf, and I'm sure that's exactly what was going on when they decided, they decided that they were transgender and or quick.
	How old are these kids?
	I've not been able to look into it, but if they're as young as I'm expecting, which is probably young teens at the most, it's either some trend that they've cottoned onto, or they've been maybe nudged along into this kind of behaviour by, say, a teacher, a supervisor, or maybe even a parent, seeing as these types of Hollywood executives seem to like wearing their children's lifestyles as a fashion accessory.
	And of course, once again, she feels the need to speak for them, because I doubt they've been speaking for themselves for a very, very long time.
	It's not healthy.
	I don't think children can be transgender.
	I especially don't think children can be pansexual.
	Do you know what pansexual means?
	Is it...
	No, I don't.
	Who does?
	No one knows.
	Even people calling themselves that.
	It means I'm special, look at me.
	Yes, no one really knows, but if I'm going by the definition that I've been told in the past, that means that you're not attracted to people based on any physical characteristics or any intrinsic characteristics bar their personality.
	So you're attracted to anyone and everything.
	If I were to meet a little R2-D2 robot and they just really hit it off with me, then, you know, why not give it a go?
	Notice that there isn't a distinction here for age groups.
	That is a very good point.
	Yes, my child is a paedophile.
	Thank you for asking.
	But no, it's also the fact that that would technically mean that you could fall in love with your own reflection.
	Oh, I'm sure these people do.
	I'm sure many in Hollywood have.
	And they're more than happy to push their children into that line of behaviour as well.
	Let's take a look at the rest of the clip that I've got here.
	Oh, there's more?
	Yes, there is.
	To all of us.
	We had an open forum last week at 20th where, again, the home of really incredible, groundbreaking LGBTQIA stories over the years where one of our execs stood up and said, you know, we only have a handful of queer leads in our content.
	And I went, what?
	That can't be true.
	And I realized, oh, It actually is true.
	We have many, many, many LGBTQIA characters in our stories, and yet we don't have enough leads and narratives in which gay characters just get to be characters.
	So the reason you probably don't have enough leads or noticeable gay characters is because if they were more noticeable it'd be difficult to cut them out of the Chinese versions of these products.
	I think I should probably stop referring to them as films at this point because films and movies implies a layer of artistry which Disney really doesn't have.
	It's just content.
	Content is a product, is what it is.
	It's something to be thrown out and disposed of within a week or so.
	But this is, once again, the corporate president of Disney.
	And it really shows you the mentality of the people at the top of these entertainment giants.
	She's complaining about not having enough gay characters, just being characters.
	So how do we fix this?
	I think they were queer characters.
	Sorry, queer characters.
	We don't have enough gay characters or queer characters who are just themselves.
	How do we fix this?
	By mandating it so that you have to have those characters in no matter what.
	So if you just have to force one into the background, I suppose it'll have to do.
	I would also like to point out that with a lot of characters, because their sexuality is not remotely part of the story, you don't even know...
	Necessarily, whether they are straight or gay or whatever.
	Because their sexuality is just not important to their character.
	Do I care about the sexuality of the Emperor in Star Wars?
	Should I care?
	I know in the Disney trilogy it revealed that he had children and they had children.
	Get out!
	Yes, I know.
	It's ridiculous.
	I don't want to know about the Emperor Palpatine's love life, therefore I don't need to know about his sexuality.
	It's probably the Sarlacc sexual.
	Oh, no!
	Oh, God!
	Oh, that's making my skin crawl.
	But anyway, back on topic.
	One of the questions that you really need to ask yourself is why is an ostensibly children-focused company...
	Mm-hmm.
	So obsessed about pushing sexuality, pushing a particular ideology.
	It really doesn't help to deter those claims of grooming or anything like that, especially seeing as a number of your own employees recently have been arrested for taking part in a child sex trafficking ring, but those are just employees at theme parks.
	I'm sure that none of your higher-ups have any affiliations with those as well.
	Um...
	Has a nasty conflict got there.
	I know, it's terrible, isn't it?
	But who is this woman?
	Because I couldn't really find much information on her.
	The most I could find out is this.
	Who is Carrie Burke?
	She doesn't have a Wikipedia page yet.
	She apparently has five children.
	I don't know if much of this information is accurate, but it does say here that before serving Disney, she was the president of ABC Entertainment.
	And what do you know?
	ABC has diversity quotas of their own.
	Of course.
	If we move along to the next article, John?
	Well, I would imagine it's a natural fit for her, seeing as she loves her alphabet soup, to be head of ABC. Oh yes, definitely.
	But so, just let's take a look at some of these guidelines that these people push onto their companies and onto what should ostensibly be creative endeavours, because everybody knows that forcing you to do things you don't want to will inspire the utmost creativity.
	The guidelines generally require that TV content must be about underrepresented communities, backgrounds and experience, or include at least one main cast member who is indigenous from a diverse background Note here, this article from last year, they hadn't added the A yet, so they're already behind the times.
	Is the A asexual or something?
	I don't know.
	It could be asexual.
	I've heard people say allosexual on TikTok.
	Amphibious sexual.
	I don't know if you're only attracted to fish or mermaids or frogs, probably.
	I need to find my frog prince.
	To be fair, good fit for that.
	Yeah, it would be, to be fair.
	Additionally, at least half of the main cast and crew must be female or identify as gender diverse.
	The ABC had previously set a goal to a 50-50 female representation among on-air news talent by the end of last year.
	For non-scripted shows such as documentaries, the new guidelines say the content must be explicitly and predominantly exploring issues of identity relating to underrepresented groups, including indigenous matters, gender, or cultural diversity, or have a specific focus on LGBTQI plus communities, people with disabilities, or underrepresented groups.
	Sorry, you've got that very interesting story that you want to cover a documentary on?
	Well, unless you crowbar a bunch of people who don't fit in there, we're not going to give you any money for that.
	This is a very good business practice, and we are very, very smart.
	Crucially, under the principle, nothing about us without us.
	All productions about a specific diverse community or subject matter Must include at least one person who is representative of that diversity within the core creative team.
	And this is where you get those complaints of somebody like, what was it, Scarlett Johansson when she was cast in Ghost in the Shell.
	Oh, why is it not a Japanese woman?
	This is once again the question of, you do understand that these are actors.
	Mm.
	These are actors.
	They are paid to play pretend.
	Yeah, but I do also want to say on this point, many years ago, I attended...
	This is the most diverse room I've ever walked into, and I've been all around the world.
	I've lived in Japan and Korea and Switzerland and so on.
	But this one time, I walked into a room and there were about two dozen people there.
	It was a British Army thing.
	diverse room I had walked into because people had come from literally all walks of life, all backgrounds, all socioeconomic backgrounds, all lines of work, all careers, all ambitions, all stages of life as well.
	There was a huge amount of diversity in that room and you could go around having conversations with people and it was like you were stepping into a completely different world each person you spoke to.
	I've also been at Cambridge where there is far more capital D diversity there and you're...
	And yet everyone more or less goes to the same type of schools, imbibes the same type of ideas, hang out in the same networks and the same social media platforms.
	And there's actually very little diversity there.
	And so I just want to, I know it's an old point, but the sort of diversity these people are talking about is not diversity at all.
	Of course.
	I agree with everything you just said there.
	And I do think that's one of the things.
	This perversion of the idea of diversity is superficial diversity.
	Whereas the kind of diversity that you or I would be interested in would be, say, having a conversation with somebody who disagrees with us and being able to have an open discussion.
	So it's the idea as well that just the colour of your skin is representative of different experience.
	That's one of the most racist ideas out there, actually.
	It really is.
	But this is not just something that is restricted to the people in the upper echelons of the entertainment industry, because they all exist in the same little bubbles, the same Hollywood circles.
	We've got actors doing the same thing, including, sadly, an actor I actually really like in terms of his performances and his acting ability.
	I don't know, Oscar Isaac.
	Oscar Isaac, have you seen Ex Machina?
	Well, in that case, never mind.
	But he is very good in everything that I've seen him in.
	Let's just play the clip.
	Because, of course, Disney need to talk about the don't say gay, Bill.
	Disney employees are suggesting the don't say gay, Bill.
	I wanted to give you an opportunity to comment on that effort. - I guess my comment would be gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gaaaaaaay!
	Yeah, it's...
	Absolutely ridiculous loss.
	It's insane.
	It's insanity.
	And I hope that Disney as a company comes out as forcefully as possible against this idea.
	And yeah, it's astounding that that even exists in this country.
	Now, if you were cringing out there, so was I. But I just want to say, he's an actor, I wouldn't expect him to actually know what the bill says.
	So he will have just been plugged into the normal normie media environment, which is like, oh, it's the Don't Say Gay bill.
	Oh, oh, okay.
	Well, it is very performative, but I do think that that is the major weakness that they have, which is when, I can tell you for a fact, Oscar Isaac will not have actually read anything of the bill.
	It's seven pages long.
	That's fantastic.
	Far too long.
	If it's not a script...
	But it's worse than that, though.
	They don't have the intellectual nuance or charity to be able to say, well, what if this is drummed up by the media and the media is lying to me and actually, even though I don't like the nasty man in Florida, maybe I could be a bit more charitable about the actual facts of what's happening.
	One of the interesting things that I find about this whole thing is that DeSantis has kind of set a trap.
	For all of these people.
	Because when asked to actually discuss any of the details, they reveal the...
	Depth of their ignorance.
	Yeah, the depth of their ignorance, the hollowness of the actual knowledge that they have regarding this.
	He hasn't actually set the trap.
	The media has set its own trap and stuck its foot in it, which is quite hilarious.
	Yeah, I think DeSantis probably knew that this kind of backlash would happen, but I don't know if he had any idea that it would just be so easy.
	So ridiculously easy.
	And another actor that I actually quite like in his performances I've seen, like in Hellboy and Sons of Anarchy, sadly, Ron Perlman has come out and released this statement directly to Governor Ron DeSantis.
	So let's check this out.
	Good morning, Governor DeSantis.
	It's terrifying, isn't it?
	Don't say yay.
	Don't say, as the first two words in a sentence spoken by a political leader of a state in the United States of America, don't say.
	Don't f*ing say, you f*ing Nazi pig.
	Say!
	First Amendment.
	Read about it.
	Then run for office.
	You piece of s***!
	Can I just say, what if you said, don't say the N-word?
	Oh, yeah!
	In this country, First Amendment, brother!
	Don't you get it?
	Maybe you should read it sometime.
	Maybe you should read the bill sometime, Ron, if you can read.
	Let's be honest, I think, if nothing else, that this has shown that there is unusually high rates of illiteracy among Hollywood stars, seeing as they can't take the time to Check out seven pages of work, but...
	Oh well, but...
	After looking at that, I thought it would be interesting just to take a look at some of the documents from Disney and other ones about their diversity quotas.
	So I've got this one here, the Belong Our Diversity and Inclusion Journey, just so we can see what these companies are prioritising, because this, have no doubt, is the priority.
	They don't care about releasing a good and interesting product with depth that you can talk about.
	They are interested about filling quotas.
	72% of Disney's US workforce are women and or people of colour.
	Clap, please, I suppose.
	But are they good at their jobs?
	That's not important anymore, because merit doesn't matter.
	And 1,500-plus employees participated in community LGBTQ pride celebrations around the world in 2018.
	So what about the IA Plus Pride?
	I guess they've just been left out.
	This is very exclusionary of you, Disney, and you should be ashamed.
	Not impressed.
	I think it shows some...
	Weirdness about what Disney are prioritising, because why are you paying attention to the political activism of your own employees?
	I find that very strange.
	67% of our board of directors are not white men.
	That's something they're proud of.
	That would explain the massive step down in quality of their films, I suppose.
	Only kidding, only kidding.
	We've also got WarnerMedia, because that's Disney.
	Disney owns Fox now.
	Disney owns Marvel, so if you've seen this sort of stuff pop around, those sorts of products and films, I mean, you've got to expect it at this point.
	WarnerMedia, they own Turner.
	They also own HBO. And Warner, they...
	The document that I found for these guys is ridiculous.
	In 2020, the world changed.
	The murder of George Floyd.
	The racial reckoning.
	Good God, it sounds like the opening to a film about race war, doesn't it?
	It does.
	And they also have a point where they're not referring to...
	They refer to...
	Oh, sorry.
	This just reminds me of the opening scene of Avatar.
	Everything was peaceful.
	And then Derek Chauvin attacks.
	Oh, we need to do something on Avatar.
	Yeah, we do.
	But the document's not on this page, John.
	I just decided to bring the page up for a convenience.
	But there's a point where they refer to themselves as having 30,000 changemakers as part of their teams.
	These are not filmmakers anymore.
	These are changemakers now.
	They see themselves as social engineers.
	They are no longer providing a fun product for the family and the audiences to enjoy.
	They're definitely making change.
	They're changing their bottom line and their product quality for the worse.
	Oh, absolutely.
	So congratulations.
	They also have stats keeping track of how many women they have.
	Same as the BBC, I mentioned.
	Same as the BBC, where of course the only standard is more equal better.
	Stats keeping track of how many non-white people they have writing and directing.
	Yeah, that's not racist at all.
	This all comes across very concerning, to be honest.
	And they also have a page about a superhero for everyone.
	And just to draw the distinction, they are not talking about a single superhero, for instance, like Superman, who could be recognised and related to by anybody, but the idea that a single superhero for every individual identity characteristic that you could list right now.
	I'm looking forward to seeing the Russian superhero.
	I had a concept which I pitched earlier, Captain Stolichnaya.
	We'll see if that goes.
	Well, I guess we'll put it out there.
	And if you don't accept it, then you're being racist.
	But honestly, I can't describe to you how disgusting I find all of this.
	As somebody who respects the art form of film and television and media in general, this is just sapping creativity.
	The art in it isn't second or even third fiddle to the quotas and wanting to push their ideology.
	And I hate it.
	I enjoy stories told from interesting perspectives, but...
	Like mine.
	Yes, exactly.
	But the reasons that these stories are being made is a perversion of the creative drive.
	It's done to fit corporate mandate, not from a sincere desire to tell these stories.
	And that will always compromise the quality...
	We've got a Paramount Diversity document as well, but honestly, you can expect what to find in there.
	If we skip over to Pink News, that bastion of journalistic integrity, they talk about how back in 2020, the Oscars announced a landmark new diversity rules for best picture hopefuls to try and boost LGBT +, or very behind the times, Pink News.
	I'm disappointed.
	and other underrepresented groups.
	Beginning in 2024 with the 96th Oscars, films hoping to qualify for the top Oscar will have to meet a set of off and on-camera inclusion quotas that includes LGBT plus representation, which is another mandate that will restrict the creativity and push these studios to want to only make a very particular type of film.
	So if you're looking for creativity in film, Just leave Hollywood altogether.
	Just don't go towards anything they're putting out.
	They hate you.
	Don't buy their stuff.
	But to make the prestigious Best Picture category, the filmmakers must now outline exactly how they have strived to make their productions more diverse on and off screen.
	For example, to meet on-screen representation, at least one lead or major supporting actor must be from an underrepresented racial or ethnic group.
	In the United States.
	So this is one thing which annoys me, right?
	So you could make, say, a film in Taiwan with Taiwanese actors, and that would qualify, even though every single person is from the majority of North Korea.
	Well, a few years ago, in 2019, do you remember that Parasite, the South Korean film, was...
	How many black people were there in Parasite?
	Was that zero?
	Yeah, in fact, how many Japanese people or Chinese people were there in Parasite?
	Very good point.
	In fact, other than in a very distant shot where there was a German family shown for about five seconds, I believe it was all South Korean people.
	Well, this is the thing.
	The Oscars has always been very America-centric, and even its anti-Americanism is America-centric, which is quite laughable.
	Well, that's the irony of it all, isn't it?
	And if not, around 30% of actors in secondary or minor roles must be at least two of the following.
	Women from an underrepresented racial or ethnic group, part of the LGBT plus community, or disabled, or overall the film's main storyline, must focus on an underrepresented group and just burn it all down.
	Because, once again, Hollywood, why are you pandering to these people?
	Skip over to The Guardian, if you please.
	It will never be enough.
	It will never be enough.
	These people don't watch your programs.
	They don't watch your films.
	They don't buy your comic books.
	They do not care.
	They only care that they can see headlines saying that you are promoting the right thing.
	And even if you're doing that, they will find somewhere else to go, because if you give them an inch, they will take a mile.
	They're anti-fans, fundamentally.
	These are all restrictions on creativity at the end of the day.
	To go along with the types of typical restrictions studios hand out to filmmakers anyway, that's if studios hire people nowadays that are creative and aren't just ideologues that agree with everything they have to say already.
	You're limiting the kinds of stories that can be told.
	For instance, Dog Soldiers.
	Are you aware of Dog Soldiers?
	Great horror thriller from the early 2000s.
	It's about a platoon of white guys in the woods in England fighting a werewolf.
	Oh, I've heard about this.
	It's fantastic.
	It's quite classic, isn't it?
	Yes, absolute classic.
	And if they were to try and make it today, apparently it wouldn't get made.
	Because, what, you want a bunch of English men out in the woods?
	Not hitting the quote of sorry, mate.
	And I do not appreciate that that level of creativity is being hamstrung by this.
	God, I hope there is an entertainment industry crash soon.
	That's the only thing I can hope and see fixing this.
	Absolutely.
	There we go.
	I'm going to put my earpiece back in again.
	Yes!
	Bear with us for a moment and then we'll get straight onto the video comments.
	Let's go.
	So I know Jon said he would rather just have a longer sword, but here's the reason you don't.
	Your primary weapon is a spear, and you are never going to have a sword that is longer than a spear.
	Your sword is your sidearm for when your spear breaks.
	And if you're at that point, the only way you're going to fight the opponent with a spear using a sword is by closing the distance as quickly as you can to where the spear is no longer effective.
	And then when you're that close, you want the shorter sword, which is why the Spartans are correct.
	I can't remember the context in which I was talking about swords.
	It's very interesting though.
	Honestly, I appreciate that sort of stuff recently.
	I've been watching lots of Forged in Fire recently.
	I only just recently discovered that show and it's just making me want to go and forge a blade.
	I think that should be an office day out.
	Yeah, I'd agree.
	That'd be really cool.
	I think Cole did one back in the day, so I'm sure he's got the know-how.
	But on that note as well, there's a curious thing.
	I think it was Lindy Beige did a demonstration years and years ago where he had a group of people with shields and spears and so on.
	And if you try and punch your spear at the guy right in front of you, it's actually very hard to hit them.
	Whereas if you stab the guy to the side, so not right in front of you, but to either side, you're much more likely to be able to get around the shield and get them.
	And I wondered, looking at that, maybe that's why pawns in chess capture diagonally but bump up against each other.
	If you've thought about that in the comments or you've got some interesting ideas on that, please let me know.
	That's very, very interesting.
	Good point there, John.
	Nice.
	Let's move on to the next comment.
	Alright, so my name is Belinda Karaholios and I am the Member of Provincial Parliament for the riding of Cambridge in the province of Ontario.
	So I'm a provincial politician, not federal.
	I was initially elected in 2018 with the PC government led by Doug Ford because I too was fooled thinking that we actually had Conservatives coming in.
	Just as Maxine Bernier is providing a properly Conservative movement at the federal level, this brave couple are within Ontario.
	Their party will get my vote later this year.
	Excellent.
	And Canadian voters who are eligible to vote for that, please check them out and give them your support, because we could do with a bit more.
	Yes, absolutely.
	We could do with a few more actually conservative parties out in politics at the moment.
	Yeah, rather than just liberals wearing a skin suit.
	Or just socialists wearing a skin suit, let's be honest.
	I've got some good news to share.
	I know you guys said you like it when people in the Lotus Eaters community collaborate on things.
	Well, after I gave that little preview of the Winsorian on Getter, I had two people reach out to me about potentially writing articles for it, including one of which who is a well-known gold-tier member.
	You can try to take your guess as to who that will be.
	Maybe they'll want to reveal it themselves.
	But either way, their article on the 133rd Trans Division going out to help Ukrainian refugees will be live when you see this video comment.
	Anyone who wants to write satire articles, hit me up at the Winsorian on Getter.
	I'd be happy to publish them.
	Great, and you can go and check him out at the Windsorian on Getter, and yeah, we look forward to seeing what you do.
	I might mosey on over and see what's been published later.
	That's really great.
	I think it's super wholesome that parts of the community just get together like that and collaborate.
	I think it's fantastic.
	We're okay now, jeez!
	Jeepers, mister!
	You're really strong!
	It's all thanks to Veil Riders by Guardbro.
	Go check out his YouTube channel, you can become as strong as me.
	laughs Well if nothing else you've reminded me of a time when Disney were far more wholesome and made films I would actually want to watch.
	I like that.
	Sneaky.
	Yeah, that was a lovely clip of the women's weightlifting champion.
	Good job.
	Thanks very much.
	Check them out if you're interested.
	So these are the first two Epic Armory brand swords that I bought over 10 years ago, and then this cutlass shortly thereafter.
	Then several years later, I got these two swords and the shield, and then I followed it up with these two long swords.
	Several Epic Armory swords have a really rough textured handle wrap that's really nice.
	The guards are made out of a weaker material compared to the Kalamazil swords because they're just foam.
	And so some of them are starting to show signs of wear and tear.
	This is the ten-year-old sword, though.
	That's good, guys.
	God, people just keep showing me weapons, and I just want a sword now.
	I mean, I've got a LARPing sword for my outfit with my band.
	When I dress as a pirate, I've got a LARPing cutlass.
	Hey, man, you've never lived until you've been standing on stage pointing a cutlass at members of the front row.
	It's fantastic.
	But I like your collection there.
	You've got some nice stuff.
	Yeah.
	Tony D and Little Joan with another Legend of the Pines, the airport at Kettle Run Road in Marlton, New Jersey.
	This is an abandoned ghost airport in more ways than one.
	Rumor has it that the place was burned to the ground by an angry employee whose ghost still haunts the area along Kettle Run Road, so be careful if you go there.
	Oddly enough, the airport's no longer in existence, but it still is open for reviews on Google Maps.
	Oh, very interesting.
	Yeah.
	Also, it's nice to hear Joan speak up a little bit.
	Yeah, made some very good points, I thought, did Joan?
	I think she's always a very calm and collected speaker.
	Absolutely.
	Thank you again.
	Since Callum mentioned American cars that are basically just boxes, this is basically what he was referring to.
	This is the 1980s Chevy Monte Carlo, and there is another car that I would like to affectionately refer to as the Brick.
	Meanwhile, this...
	Chevy Cavalier.
	It is a little over 10 years newer than the Monte Carlo, and it is significantly less brick.
	That's probably because they're a bit crumpled, but they remind me of when you were a kid and you make cars and things out of cereal packets.
	Oh, yeah, yeah, when you put that sort of stuff together, or just like a little Lego car or something.
	I do really like the American style, just cars that are obviously just made so they can be totaled.
	I think there's something cool about them.
	Also, I noticed there was a...
	Yeah, there was a Louder with Crowder sticker on the back of your car right there.
	It's nice to see in places like that you can still proudly assert your conservativeness.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	Yes.
	I think it's time to get on to the written comments from the website.
	So for my free speech segment, we've got Free Will 2112...
	A frequent commenter says free speech is a crucial component holding power to account, but the Tories have a track record of only talking the talk, not walking the walk.
	I absolutely agree.
	If the Tories are serious about this, then they need to begin with their own party and also tackle the woke culture in the civil service, which blocks many attempts at reform despite having no mandate to do so.
	Yeah, and I make this point every time politicians are in the...
	Limelight.
	It's like the civil service are the real problem.
	Even if you had good politicians, they wouldn't be able to get that.
	There's so many layers and layers of bureaucracy because bureaucrats just try and find ways to expand their own roles to keep themselves in a job and just hand out jobs to other people because now I'm at the top of the food chain.
	Even then, I'm sure there are many people in the bureaucracy who are good people, have good intentions, and they genuinely believe in this woke stuff that they're propagating...
	But the problem is that the system itself pushes people towards more bureaucratisation.
	Well yeah, that's the thing.
	I don't blame the people for behaving the way they do within government bureaucracy.
	They're all acting, as Milton Friedman would say, in their own self-interest.
	It's just that the incentives that government and bureaucracy pushes for them Are not conducive to efficiency or making the right decisions.
	And when you're talking about they need to sort out their own party, I mean, I'm sure someone will cover it maybe tomorrow or Friday, but there's the new Tory MP who's come out as being a trans woman, and the Conservatives, for some stupid reason, are going, ha, see Labour, we've out-progressived you.
	Yeah, but then you look into this guy's history and it gets worse.
	I'm sure they're going to cover it.
	Oh, I'm sure.
	But also, it's like, why are we trying to beat them on their own terms?
	Their terms are stupid, and we deny them.
	Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
	Well, all those Tories who have gone on record about being like, oh, the Labour can't even determine whether a woman has a penis or not.
	And it's like, well, now you've got a woman with a penis in your party.
	Great.
	This is not...
	Not just in the party.
	In the Houses of Parliament.
	Yeah, in the Houses of Parliament.
	This is not great for us.
	Anyway, HR Slaves says, We should instead focus our efforts on building decentralized, fully anonymous methods of communication and information sharing to work around the oppressive laws, rather than hopelessly trying to change them.
	Yeah, an alternative technist would be a good start.
	But I also think here that...
	I think it's a little bit defeatist.
	To a certain extent.
	I think that, yes, it's good to have these anonymous methods of communication.
	I recently spoke to Bill from Minds and spoke a lot about how he's trying to set up a social media platform that will allow people, that's decentralized, allow people to not have to worry about their speech being curtailed.
	But at the same time, if we just give up, we're ceding it to them.
	We're just saying the left has won this battle.
	We're being pushed back and not taking any ground for ourselves.
	And if we just keep letting them take ground, this is why people say that conservatism is just progressivism with the speed brakes on.
	Sure, but this is actually a proactive method of attempting to solve the problem.
	In that sense, I agree with that.
	I agree, but still from a legal standpoint.
	Fundamentally, I don't see any way that you win the battle which is getting Facebook and so on to respect free speech.
	I don't see the way that is won except through...
	I still think that there could be some good progress made just by repealing Section 127.
	We can definitely make good progress in certain areas and we can make things happen, but I think the ultimate solution is going to look more like what H.L. Slave has suggested here.
	I also wanted to make the point, sorry, before you cut me off, which is that when I think it was John...
	I'm going to get confused between J.S. Mill and John Locke.
	I think it was Locke's defense of free speech.
	It's quite likely that he was actually only supporting the free speech of a very small sector of society, i.e.
	the intellectuals of which he was one.
	And further to that point, at any point in society, there's usually a very small number of people who are actually incentivized to care about free speech.
	Because most people don't have the quality or originality of speech to really – they don't have the quality or originality of speech or the – speeches and ideas are such a small part of their actual lives that it doesn't matter to them so much.
	And then there are people at the top who benefit from their not being free speech because they rule the power structure so that they can ensure that a non-free speech society suppresses dissenting voices and opinions.
	So it's only a small sector of the middle class that engages with ideas and so on that are actually threatened by free speech.
	And that's why when he says that no one is willing to die on that hill, that's always been the case.
	It's always been a small number of people.
	Those are fair points, but I do think it's starting to branch out of that intellectual bubble when people are starting to recognize that what I could get in trouble for saying a woman is a woman now.
	At my own dinner table in Scotland.
	Yeah, exactly, at your own dinner table in Scotland.
	This is where all of a sudden the people who maybe weren't as part of the conversation before start to come into it.
	So I think there's absolutely room for the average people.
	And plus also, it's just one of those things, whether or not the average person on the ground takes advantage of it, it's not something I want taken away from them.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	Edward of Numenor says the appeal to, is this the best time for insert discussion I wish to avoid here, when bad things are happening?
	This is a constant and dishonest tactic designed to silence an important conversation.
	There will always be something going on, but to be quite frank, we can do de-all about Ukraine and the pandemic, but talk about them.
	And without this conversation, we can't have honest conversations about either of those subjects.
	It is always time to speak about free speech.
	It may be a privilege, but it is also a human right bestowed upon you by virtue of being a sentient being.
	I agree with that entirely.
	Seeing as we've gone over a little bit on that one, do you want to move on to your comments, John?
	Sure, yeah, there's a lot on that, so if we have more time, we should go back to it again.
	Yeah, of course.
	SupremeDuck says, one thing I've noticed is that mainstream medias are constantly flip-flopping on what they consider the truth.
	I cannot tell if it is on purpose or it is plain bad research.
	Because of this, I'm slowly gotten numb on media news, as everything has to be taken with a grain of salt.
	I do appreciate loads.
	It seems to be in a perspective where we can see things that may not be true.
	Thank you very much.
	I've said before, I think the advantage of good alternative media is that We don't try and control the narrative.
	At worst, what we do is push a narrative with the full understanding that what we say is not going to change the world.
	So we could say something.
	So, for example, we could say, as we have done, that there might be food shortages.
	If we were the BBC, that would be irresponsible because it would create a panic buying spree.
	But because we are not the BBC, we don't have that reach, our audience is international and so on.
	Even if every single one of our subscribers went out and stockpiled tinned food, it would not affect anything negatively in that sense.
	It wouldn't create that panic.
	So it's a very different game in that way.
	Um, Reese Sims says, imagine going back to a year ago and saying Russia will invade Ukraine.
	You'd be told that's unlikely.
	America will further their inflation.
	Well, that's stupid.
	They'd continue.
	And the left will support Ukrainian neo-Nazis because they're not Russian.
	Well, at least they're being honest.
	Yeah.
	Oh, dear.
	Zen-chan says, When it's people we hate, then the Nazis are unforgivable and to be torn down and punched in the streets.
	But when they're useful in fighting our enemies, well, it's just their personal beliefs.
	Don't worry about it.
	Rings to mind when we sided with the commies in World War II against Germany.
	Yes, the left, I think, at heart are the side, beyond any ideological beliefs, purely in terms of the practice of their tactics, that it's pure cold pragmatism, which is what makes them so dangerous.
	Absolutely.
	Avatar says, when were the media lying to us?
	Was it then or is it now?
	Yes.
	You got us there, Avatar.
	I gotta say, you really got us.
	Absolutely correct.
	Silly Midon says, It's interesting that the BBC chap points to the far right having no official power.
	That doesn't necessarily mean they aren't there.
	For example, we've had a Tory-led government for 12 years now.
	The leftists have never held official power, and yet the British people live in fear of the Twitter mobs.
	Just because we've got a Tory-led government doesn't mean we're not ruled by leftists.
	Taffy Duck says, that's a good name, if only 10-20% of the Azov are Nazis, what percentage of, say, the UK Green Party or SAGE are communists?
	Is that okay, according to the BBC? That's a good point.
	There's no equivalency, okay, like the communists are left-wing, which means they're fundamentally well-intentioned.
	John, you've got a good point, because the communist body count far outstrips the Nazi body count.
	Edward of Numenor says they have not one but two SS symbols on their heraldry.
	Also, they're saying that it's only 10-20% as they realise that if they say, yes, we are Nazis, they will lose support from clueless wonders such as those in the BBC. They have more goodwill for the Azov Battalion than for British Voldemort.
	That's a good point, actually, yeah.
	They really do.
	And I'll read one last one from this segment.
	Andrew Narog says, I know Name is a communist, but it's their personal ideology.
	It has nothing to do with the official ideology of insert leftist party.
	I suppose it's not an unfamiliar line.
	Yes, I know that Jeremy Corbyn is a communist, but it has nothing to do with Labour's policies.
	On to the Hollywood Queers segment.
	Lee B says, My housemate works in TV production.
	The diversity quotas for Sky are insane.
	I know I've not applied for Sky personally.
	I've applied for BBC in the past, when I was still a little bit more naive, and got rejected for being white and male.
	True story, actually.
	It's similar here, but...
	Yeah, and make it impossible to write a show that isn't set in the current day.
	Authentically represent...
	Well, you could, say, for instance, write a story about maybe Anne Boleyn, for instance, where you might just need to, you know, be a little bit choosy.
	Blacker up a bit.
	Yeah, blacker up a bit.
	Break out the shoe polish.
	Authentically representing history is now impossible when you need to have a certain number of ethnic minorities and LGBT characters.
	If you don't have the quotas, your show doesn't get on TV.
	You'll lose all your contracts and your company will go under.
	There are also diversity quotas for production staff and crew that apply to your company and all of the companies you might outsource to work as a production house.
	If you can't find enough minorities applying for your job openings, tough luck.
	There are also carbon emissions quotas that apply to all of the companies.
	So this is why...
	I am so annoyed that you didn't finish your BlackRock research, because that looked really promising.
	Well, I've handed it over to Rory.
	But a lot of this stuff does come straight from the top.
	It comes from these ridiculously, stupendously wealthy companies that just say, okay, well, anyone working under us, they have to fit the rules, and they get to write the rules that way.
	And then anyone working under that company or for that company to announce, they also have to work that.
	So these rules end up propagating all the way down the economic tree.
	And it's basically the World Economic Forum method of...
	Yes.
	It's awful.
	I would go as far as to say the World Economic Forum in doing so are pretty fascist in their approach, but, you know, that's just one man's opinion.
	Grant Gibson says Disney will delete black people from our posters in China, will still do business with China despite their genocides, and will also thank China and the Xinjiang province in particular, because we filmed Mulan there, despite their genocides and intolerance of LGBT. But goddammit, if we're going to stand idly by while Florida decides that they don't want little kids learning about gender identity, and isn't that the truth?
	Student of history, if I were DeSantis, I would invite all of these people to come down for a public live chat and then be like, hmm, so, what's your complaints?
	Specifics, please.
	That would be beautiful.
	That would be beautiful, but Hollywood, as much as they are a hive of scum and retards, their PR agents and managers are at least smart enough to tell them, no, that's a terrible idea, don't do that.
	But he called me out on Twitter, bud.
	Oh, there goes your headphones.
	Third time, Lucky.
	There we go.
	Well, thankfully we're past all the video comments.
	There you go.
	Yeah, rock and roll, man.
	M1ping, these Disney story guidelines are a bigger threat to free speech than the Don't Sexualise Kids Bill-based Florida man just signed.
	Yeah, they really are.
	Hello World says, going to see any film these days, let alone Disney, is honestly like seeing something from a Nazi director, Lenny Riefenstahl.
	Thank you.
	Virtue signaling about someone's identity while villainizing others.
	Can't believe we've gone back to an era like that.
	Yeah, it was really annoying.
	I recently went to go see the new Batman film in the cinema.
	What was your first mistake?
	Which I honestly, for the most part, thought was really good and genuinely sort of created an environment and atmosphere that drew you into the story.
	Until Catwoman says, we need to get these white, privileged, rich assholes.
	And it's like...
	Oh, okay.
	Sorry, I forgot that I needed to be reminded of modern world events, modern world attitudes and ideas.
	I can't just enjoy a film as a standalone piece of art.
	I need to be dragged kicking and streaming out of this immersive experience into the hellhole we currently experience.
	They really want to cover current events, or I think they should cover the Siege of Mariupol.
	Send all of the California Hollywood degenerates in to film a live documentary with Mario Pulse.
	They can stream it live on the social media if they want.
	I'm sure it'll get loads of clicks.
	Robert Longshore says that Disney exec has ruined her kids and they will need therapy for the rest of their lives until they eventually become a hero in just a few short years.
	X, Y, and Z, brackets E. Good.
	Got ya.
	One good thing about the Disney Troubles, the Disney Troubles, is that we now have a renewable energy source.
	Old Walt is absolutely turning in his grave.
	If there's one thing he hated, it was commies!
	He'd have sacked all of these sleazy groomers.
	If only.
	Can we find some way of just reviving him?
	Temporarily, he can return control.
	And in the Honourable Mentions, we have Lee Buttle saying, Do go and read Bo's writing.
	The brutality makes being Thanos snapped out of existence seem trivial.
	It really does.
	Charlie Rogers also said, No, Harry, being a robosexual is a sin.
	Yep.
	True, true.
	George Hap says, We'll do that to you.
	If you spend too much time on Twitter, that's what happened.
	You get a Putin tattoo.
	Yeah, but with...
	See Harry's.
	But with that, I think that's about all we've got time for.
	Thank you very much for tuning in.
	Check us out again tomorrow, 1pm British Springtime, or is it Summertime?
	British Summertime.
	And we'll be there with more news for you.

▲