Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 28, 2022 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:30:44

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #381

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters for the 28th of April 2022.
	I'm I'm joined by Thomas.
	Hello.
	And today we're going to be talking about why Joe Biden wants you to hate him, apparently.
	I don't understand what the hell he's up to.
	Also, the mail did nothing wrong, and Robinson was right about the Islamist prisons.
	I don't know if I'm going to have to rename that for the YouTube title, but we'll find out, I suppose.
	Anyway, some things to mention first, or at least one thing to mention first, which is the Gold Tier Zoom call, as we've been mentioning all week.
	This Friday, we have the Gold Tier Zoom call coming up.
	If people don't know what it is, if you're a Gold Tier member or you'd like to, then we meet up every end of the week and just, sorry, end of the month and have a chat and talk about whatever questions.
	Have fun.
	So if you are, come and join and it'll be fun.
	Good fun.
	Anyway, without further ado, we shall get into why Joe Biden...
	Well, or at least why it seems that Joe Biden wants you to hate him.
	He's doing an excellent job of that, so I can tell you that from personal experience.
	Yeah.
	So Joe Biden has decided that he wants you to hate him coming into the midterms.
	It's a bold strategy.
	I don't know if he'll pay off, but we'll find out.
	And we'll start this off with a shill, of course, and we'll start this off with the shill here being a premium podcast between Carl and Josh on the life and time of Hunter Biden himself, which is just an absolute S show.
	And I had We're good to go.
	It's not high enough.
	We need higher disapproval numbers, apparently.
	Because he's been doing a whole bunch of stuff, and I thought I'd just put it all together in a segment, because some of it just comes off as kind of evil, especially the immigration stuff that we'll save for the end.
	If we go to the next one, we can see some funny moments.
	At least, I thought they were funny.
	You have Barack Obama saying that you have Vice President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala kind of mocking him.
	But trust me, it's a joke, bro.
	They're just having a joke.
	Okay, okay, just having a joke.
	Go to the next one.
	We have Joe Biden making that joke himself as well.
	My name is Joe Biden.
	I'm Barack Obama's Vice President.
	Okay.
	What?
	There's not really so many times you can make this joke before it just rubs off as...
	Dude, people are already saying that you're run by him in the background.
	But please sleep with my wife.
	It's embarrassing.
	And this is all a joke, bro.
	They're just having a fun time together, you know, all buds.
	Yeah.
	Shaking hands.
	Except, well, we have the footage of that meeting afterwards.
	And I know a lot of people enjoyed it, but we never featured it, so we'll just feature it here.
	We go to the next one.
	We can see him just wandering around aimlessly.
	Aww.
	And no one wants to talk to him?
	I don't know if you can play this, actually, Michael, with the sound, because you just hear the music in the background.
	Oh, that's perfect.
	It's just titanic music.
	This old man wonders.
	Someone could have given him Theresa May.
	If we go to the next one, we can see more of this as well.
	I don't know if you want to go back and get the audio on that one, actually, because otherwise we're going to have hearing the titanic music the whole way out, which is too sad.
	It does kind of work with what we're seeing in a way, but...
	Yeah, there's the other one here, which you see again.
	Joe Biden wants to talk to people, or at least tried, and everyone was like, no.
	No, go away.
	I want to talk to Barack.
	Not you, old man.
	And there's a lot of reasons for why everyone hates him, in case you've been asleep for the last two years, I suppose.
	But if we go to the next one, we can see some more examples of new things he's doing, which are just...
	Again, I don't know if they're calculated to make him unpopular.
	Presumably...
	So we have this one here.
	Darren Grimes calling it racism first instead of America first.
	This one being that he promised that he will have more contracts going to black, brown, Native American and women-owned and veteran-owned small businesses.
	Okay, yeah, that's explicit racism right there.
	Yeah.
	Also explicit sexism as well.
	He also buggers this up.
	He says contacts instead of contracts to begin with because Bidenisms as well.
	Just endless racism from the Biden administration.
	If we go to the next one, we also have a speech he made very recently and we should decide to tell everyone that you don't own your kids.
	What?
	Teachers on your kids.
	You know that person you left with your kid?
	You gave them the kid to look after for an hour?
	They basically own that now.
	You don't have any rights.
	Okay.
	So he's taking inspiration from what country am I trying to think of?
	Cambodia.
	Yeah.
	There should be a clip in there, but if there's not, I don't know if you can just play it from the Twitter link.
	Please, Michael, because it's weird.
	So that's not the right video.
	So if we can go for the Twitter link instead, because it doesn't seem to have loaded up.
	But you can see him there, and this is his speech.
	Let me turn that one up.
	John's 9 today, St. Michael's.
	We have an obligation to help them teach and reach their potential.
	You've heard me say it many times about our children, but it's true.
	They're all our children.
	And the reason you're the teachers of the year is because you recognise that.
	They're not somebody else's children, they're like yours when they're in the classroom.
	You represent a profession that helps them gain the complicated...
	Could he be talking in a more creepy voice if he tried?
	That's a good point.
	He talks like a nonce.
	It's almost as if he's been briefed, like, talk exactly like a paedophile, Mr President.
	LAUGHTER I love children dropping up in my lap.
	Do you, sir?
	Okay, and there we have just him saying that, well, you don't own your kids in the slightest.
	Instead, teachers.
	They're mine.
	Well, they're his, because he's the element, well, he is the state right now.
	But also, the teachers especially are the ones who own your kids.
	Why?
	Because, well, they became teachers, and therefore every child they look after is theirs.
	You could argue saying it in the sense of you just own them for that hour, but then no.
	Just because you teach them doesn't mean you own them, for God's sakes, you would have thought.
	Anyway, absolutely mad.
	It's messed up.
	If we go to the next link, please, we can see also he decided to just remember who these teachers are that he's referring to.
	So we have one here.
	This is a non-binary elementary teacher who says three-year-olds are old enough to learn about gender identity, sexual orientation, and pronouns.
	Yeah, anyone who wants to talk to a three-year-old about sex?
	Yeah.
	I don't think three-year-olds are going to give a toss about any of those things.
	Unless they're forced down their throats ideologically.
	But also the individual who does want to talk to three-year-olds about that, kind of sus.
	Also not ever going to say that they own your kids, or at least Joe Biden will say that's his position.
	If we go to the next one, we also have some other teachers.
	So we have a teacher saying that...
	Right.
	many of such people and if we go to the next one we can also see another teacher uh sorry this one is trump in which he has the opposite position in which he literally just says to the audience instead uh no we're going to protect parents rights no teacher should ever be allowed to teach transgender transgender to our children without parental consent that's not me misreading He said it like that because he's Trumpin.
	I love it.
	I don't know if you can play the audio on this one just because the Trumpisms again are just glorious.
	With a Republican Congress, we will also protect parents' rights.
	No teacher should ever be allowed to teach transgender transgender to our children without parental consent.
	There is something magical about it, isn't there?
	Yeah, there is.
	It's a shame that this has to be a political statement in this day and age, but that is where we are.
	Do you own your kids?
	If we continue, we have this other new tweet in which he continues to try and blame all of his failures on Putin.
	This is all Putin's fault, all the price hikes.
	This is Putin's price hike.
	Again, just openly, everyone knows he's lying.
	So why is he doing all this stuff?
	I mean, it's just endless.
	We've got the next one.
	We also just have some more news on his financial records.
	Apparently, he's unaccounted for $5.2 million.
	That's not a small number, is it?
	Tiny amount of money.
	Presumably the 10% for the big guy.
	How do you not explain that?
	So this is the Daily Mail here, who say, So this goes back to the Chinese stuff.
	Joe Biden agreed to pay his son Hunter's legal fees for his deal with a Chinese government-controlled company emails revealed which was to the tune of about $700,000 that was the legal fees Right.
	To get the company to have Hunter Biden on.
	Remember how he said he had no knowledge of anything to do with China or his son's dealings?
	Except the bills, presumably, that he was paying?
	Doesn't add up, does it?
	No.
	The revelations tie the president ever closer to Hunter Biden's overseas business dealings and makes his previous claims that he never discussed them with his son even less plausible.
	Because how else did he pay out 700 grand?
	Unless that's pocket change.
	But the president's financial filings reveal that he declared almost $7 million more income on his tax returns than he did on his government transparency reports.
	Oops.
	Analysis by Daily Mail has found.
	The missing millions, combined with emails on Hunter's abandoned laptop, suggests Joe would have a 10% share in Hunter's blockbuster deal with the Chinese, which raises a troubling question.
	Did Joe Biden receive money from the foreign venture?
	Hmm.
	Where else do you get millions of dollars?
	Just turn up on your doorstep.
	Hard to imagine.
	I'd love to know.
	I need some.
	If we go to the next one, we can also see the news on the border side of this as well.
	And this is the most incredible thing for me.
	And why I say it's like he's trying to make you hate him.
	Because if we scroll down this, this is just pure data from the border protection guys.
	And the bottom two lines there, those are the last two years of Trump's presidency, the lowest one being the last year of Trump's presidency as well.
	And sure, okay, there's a bit of a spike there for the previous year.
	And then COVID happens, and then he's able to shove that down by saying, hmm, you want to claim asylum?
	Might have COVID. I'm very sorry.
	Bye-bye.
	Literally the policy.
	Very funny.
	But since then, you can see the newest graph, and the blue line there being the one we showed the last time we talked about this, and it just exploded.
	I mean, as soon as he got into office in January, as you can see there, it just explodes.
	Yeah, and I'm not sure how old this is, but it's literally off the scale at this point.
	Well, and then you have the New Year's one, the toppest line there, which is even higher than anything.
	Yeah, that's what I'm referring to.
	There you have it.
	I mean, they're just the numbers there.
	That is appalling.
	So it's a 300% increase between 2020 and 2021 there, and a 650% increase over March 2020 now, for March 2022.
	So they basically just don't have a border there, pretty much.
	Don't have one, bro.
	Don't need a border.
	Just counting the numbers.
	And if we scroll down again, you can see the other graphs here, which show that it's overwhelmingly adult singles in your area, presumably, not unaccompanied children.
	It's not a significant portion of this compared to who's coming, and especially the growth.
	The growth is, again, just adult singles turning up.
	If we go to the next one, the reason for this, and the reason, well, Trump was able to keep it so low, or at least part of the reason, was obviously because of the messaging.
	No, the wall.
	Get lost.
	We're full.
	F off.
	America first.
	Yeah, but then also you have the tools the Border Force had, and this is one of them, as I've been reading about.
	So this is Title 42.
	So this is basically, we think you might have a disease, so go away.
	And they were able to use this to extremes during COVID for the obvious reason that...
	Well, you could get away with anything as long as you said it was for COVID. And this was one of them.
	During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Trump administration used this provision, Section 265, to generally block land entry for many migrants.
	The program has been continued by the Biden administration.
	Keep that in mind.
	Remember those two graphs we saw?
	Have they exploded?
	Yes.
	They were still using this.
	This is one of the most useful tools, and it was still using it.
	If you scroll down on this, Michael, you should be able to find there are some more tables that just show the number of people that have been denied.
	And as you can see, Biden continued using it, but the numbers were still running in the hundreds of thousands.
	So take those graphs, add on 100,000.
	I mean, that says if you don't have this law there, that's the reality of the situation.
	So it's, again, almost doubling the horrible situation they already have.
	Just the hordes and hordes of people.
	That is unbelievable.
	Yeah, so it'd be pretty irresponsible to get rid of it, right?
	Very.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Oh, good.
	Yeah, get rid of it.
	Of course they are.
	US announcers end to Title 42 expulsions at the Mexican border.
	Just actively trying to destroy the country by any and all means.
	I mean, this is what I don't get.
	Like, actively trying to make you hate him.
	I don't know what else you can take away from this.
	The Department of Homeland Security, Secretary, who cares, said Title 42 will be rescinded by May 23rd, but that expulsions of adults and families will continue until then.
	Unaccompanied children have been exempt since January of last year.
	The US Public Health Agency first invokes the Title 42 in March 2020 as COVID-19 swept through the country, saying it was necessary to prevent the spread of the virus.
	Stop the spread.
	Stop the migrants.
	I mean, that's a message I can get behind, but again, you can see it's obviously flim-flam.
	Like, it's not really for the virus, it's because it needs to solve the problem.
	And, well, we'll just use this as an excuse.
	I wonder if they reintroduce it when we have our next wave of a very contagious cold virus.
	They probably won't.
	Yeah.
	It depends on who's in office, doesn't it?
	That would be my guess.
	Yeah.
	I mean, I love in the UK, we had the exact opposite, which is pub sharp borders open.
	That was a real thing.
	Paul Joseph Watson put that perfectly.
	On Friday, it was announced that the measure was no longer needed.
	Why?
	You guys.
	New ideology.
	The rule garnered widespread criticism from rights groups, the United Nations and immigrant advocates, and progressive democratic leaders who said it violated both US and international law.
	Look, if it's against the law to have a border...
	But then being a country is against international law.
	Yeah, I don't care then.
	Stuff international law.
	Quite.
	How dare you enforce your border?
	How illiberal.
	Jesus Christ.
	And then they say emigrant groups also said the measures created confusion at the border.
	Confusion?
	Contributed to higher border apprehensions and put asylum seekers in harm's way.
	I have some legal advice for these people and for these advocates.
	Go to the next image, please.
	Oh, there you are.
	Stop breaking the damn law, then.
	I'm so confused at the situation of being turned away from a border I tried to break into.
	They just don't.
	Just don't do it.
	Just apply through the legal means like everyone else.
	Instead of just being like, eh, don't worry.
	It's mine.
	There's also the endless Western blaming out of all of this as well.
	If we go to Vox, of course, they have some Western blaming in their response to all this.
	There's a quote in here.
	Mexico is woefully ill-equipped to administer to the needs of tens of thousands of migrants who have been waiting in the border towns for a chance to enter the US. Whose problem's that?
	Not the US's problem.
	Mexico's problem.
	I also just love the endless Anglos, please save us.
	Like, we Mexicans cannot possibly deal with this problem at all.
	We basically don't have a...
	You can always say it sounds like an endorsement of white saviourism.
	Yeah, we should turn up and solve all the world's problems, right?
	Because we're the God-blessed eternal Anglo, and we're here to solve everything ever.
	But the second we do that and we make it better, it's then colonialism.
	Of course, it is neocolonialism, if they're just bored and want to add another word.
	The administration is preparing for a worst-case scenario, this being the American administration.
	This is their own admittance, as as many 18,000 migrants arriving daily after Title 42 is lifted, up from an average of 5,900 in February, Secretary such-and-such told CBS. I mean, that's what I don't get.
	He's literally telling the media, yeah, I need to get rid of this law, and what will happen?
	Well, there's going to be a massive migration surge that I've caused that's completely unnecessary, and none of these people have any more right to be here than anyone else.
	They're just breaking in, and therefore we're just going to let them in.
	But it's obvious why, isn't it?
	He sees them as new voters.
	Yeah, you want to destroy the United States as you know it.
	You instead want to be the party of immigrants, as someone might smear you as and say you are the party of immigrants, and not of the natives, not of the voters, instead of, well, the foreigners, exclusively.
	Keep that in mind as we go forward, because Vox might end up doing it.
	There are huge political upsides for Republicans trying to spin the end of Title 42 as the start of a border surge.
	Vox, right?
	Yeah, of course.
	Because it's a policy failure.
	Also the fact that we already have the Biden border surge already in this previous graph.
	So it's an easy win because it's true.
	That'll be why.
	It's not because of evil Republicans politicizing things.
	According to an April 6th Morning Consult Politico poll, 55% of voters somewhat strongly oppose the decision to end the policy, including 88% of Republicans and 27% of Democrats.
	That represents the biggest backlash to any Biden administration policy among dozens tracked by Morning Consultant since January 2021.
	Not surprised.
	I love that.
	Just an open admittance from the Department of Homeland Security.
	This will make things worse.
	Like, this is going to explode.
	The number of people coming in illegally.
	We're going to do it anyway.
	Oh, by the way, it's really unpopular.
	Good.
	Republicans hate it.
	Good.
	No, but not even Republicans.
	I mean, as they say, it's the most backlash policy he has had since getting to office, at least according to the polling.
	And they're like, doesn't matter.
	We'll do it anyway.
	And also Vox decide to remind us that it is the Dems who have lost their minds on this.
	I love how just history comes back to remind them of this.
	The party wasn't always as pro-immigrant as it purports to be today.
	As recently as 2006, 64 House Democrats and 26 in the Senate voted for the Secure Fence Act, which Which built some 7,000 miles of fence.
	Sorry, 700.
	Basically a wall by another name, along the 2,000 mile southern border.
	That included then-Senator Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.
	All of these people who have now been just completely subverted.
	I mean, they weren't doing great at the time.
	Let's not do ourselves.
	No.
	No one was arguing for just open borders.
	2006.
	Well, no.
	Everyone agreed that it was a stupid idea.
	Yeah.
	And these days, not so much.
	It is them who have changed.
	They also say the Democratic Party's identity as the party of immigrants is a relatively new development.
	Thank you.
	That's a direct writing from the leftist Vox writer that yes, the Democratic Party is the party of immigrants, not of the natives, not of the Americans.
	It is of the foreigners.
	I mean, explicitly in this situation in which, yeah, all of the people who vote for us, or at least all the people who are legal voters, are opposed to this.
	Don't care.
	Gonna do it anyway.
	We'll make things worse.
	Don't care.
	Gonna do it anyway.
	I mean, I don't know what else to say, except it looks like he's actively trying to make you hate him.
	I mean, I don't know what else you're meant to get from this.
	Yeah.
	If we go to the next one, you can also see just a weird story that I thought I'd mention in this, which is apparently Ukrainians are turning up on the US-Mexico border.
	And the big thing on my mind is just why.
	Well, yeah.
	If you're fleeing from a war zone...
	Why would you have a think, oh dear God, look what's happened to my home.
	Where do I go now for sanctuary?
	I'm going to go to Mexico.
	Mexico.
	I mean, you could argue they're trying to get into the US, but then you think you'd just apply from Poland or Slovakia.
	Yeah, and the US is unlikely to put any barriers in the way of taking in Ukrainian refugees, surely.
	They've explicitly said they're going to take 100,000.
	Yeah.
	So, I don't understand the logic there.
	Yeah, I don't get the individuals who have done this.
	Presumably, they got family in America.
	And they're thinking, okay, well, I'll just go to America then.
	I was like, well, no.
	Like, we still have procedures for these things.
	We have to check that you're actually proper and that you're not some chancer who's saying they're Ukrainian because...
	And therefore, just apply through the normal means.
	Don't break into the United States because you feel like it.
	That's not appropriate.
	Yeah.
	You can live in Poland for some time.
	It's a wonderful country.
	Yeah.
	And they say in here, as the Russian invasion of Ukraine continues, hundreds of Ukrainian refugees continue to arrive at the US-Mexico border in hopes of getting protection in the United States.
	What, from the cartel?
	It's a weird situation.
	The US accepted Ukrainians from a policy that effectively bars most asylum seekers from having their claims heard at the border.
	This effectively being, you might have COVID go away.
	And Joe Biden also announced that his administration would take as many as 100,000 Ukrainians fleeing the war, and the day he did that, they say, days later an influx of Ukrainians arrived in the Mexico border city of Tijuana.
	Great.
	Good job.
	You don't want to be specific about how you're going to accept them.
	Because the right thing to do would be to say, if they get to the border, no thank you.
	Go to the embassy.
	No matter what country's embassy you go to, we have embassies all over the world, we pay for them.
	Go and apply there.
	Don't just break in.
	Because we actually have to check who you are and make sure you are actually Ukrainian.
	And that seemed perfectly appropriate to me.
	But instead, no, apparently they've waived that at the border now and now there are herds moving in.
	It's just ridiculous.
	I think it's, what is it, they say in here 45 minutes wait time?
	Yeah.
	If you're a Ukrainian on the border, fantastic.
	Again, just destroy the border by any means necessary.
	And this is...
	I don't know why I'm surprised, but I am just surprised by how much he wants you to hate him, or at least seems to do that on purpose.
	And I thought we'd go for our last video here.
	This is a video I made ages ago for a laugh, and it was a joke during Joe Biden's campaign.
	You can call it campaigning.
	And if we go to the next one, please, Michael, you can see the YouTube link, please.
	Which is just the fact that this is an advert for Democrats as well.
	We are Democrats, Biden 2020.
	And then if you redo it, you get the reality of the situation.
	Let's play.
	As Democrats, what are we fighting for?
	For the workers.
	For the dreamers.
	And asylum seekers.
	For those with disabilities.
	For seniors.
	For safer schools, neighborhoods and communities.
	For a secure retirement.
	For opportunity.
	For our country.
	We are the party of the people.
	We are Democrats.
	That's an old meme I made, but to be honest, it becomes more and more true every day.
	Oh, it is true.
	I mean, especially the China one there.
	Like, I kind of put that in as a half-joke, but the more and more we find out about that deal, and the fact that apparently he's got five million just stuck around from who knows where.
	It actually almost mirrors children of men, what you put together.
	It's extraordinary.
	Anyway, so that's Joe Biden's continued, I don't know, messing everything up on purpose, because what else is he doing any of this for at this point?
	I don't know, but I guess we'll see in the midterms.
	Let's move forward.
	So, the Mail did nothing wrong.
	Last Sunday, an unflattering article was released about the Labour Party's Deputy Leader, Angela Rayner.
	Here is a picture of the printed version that I found.
	If we scroll down ever so slightly, we can see.
	So there we are.
	There it is.
	Stone the Crows.
	Tories accuse Rayner of basic instinct ploy to distract Boris.
	This obviously wasn't received particularly warmly.
	For our convenience, let's get the online version up.
	So this is essentially what this is all about.
	A handful of Tories have accused Angela Rayner of uncrossing her legs on purpose as a tactic to distract Boris whenever he's addressing Parliament.
	To be fair, if I was a woman, I'd do that all the time.
	Yeah.
	That's the thing, and we will get on to that.
	But comparisons have been made of a particular scene featuring Sharon Stone in the film Basic Instinct.
	I'm not sure if you've seen it.
	I haven't seen it.
	I know of the scene.
	Yeah, I know of the scene as well.
	And thankfully, in this case, Angela Rayner is fully clothed, thank God.
	But Claire from the Westminster establishment, as we will proceed to see, has taken a very, very one-sided view on this and has reacted by claiming that the very fact that someone has dared to suggest that she may be doing this on purpose and to publish the allegations that she's done this on purpose in an article qualifies as proof that the culture of institutional misogyny lies at the heart of Parliament.
	Claire Fox has already, of course an ex-communist, has already cited this out as absolutely ridiculous, called this out as ridiculous, and she says, A perfectly fair response.
	I mean, if Angela has indeed been fairly unfairly accused, it obviously is vile and it obviously is infuriating.
	But even if that were the case, it isn't proof of institutional sexism.
	They could feasibly be isolated incidents, as with, well, anything else, whether it happens in the workplace, or, you know.
	I know, but this is politics.
	Part of me is just thinking this is kind of funny, because I'd love to see the reverse as well.
	I don't know what the male version of that would be, but the idea of a bunch of Labour MPs being like, stupid, sexy Tories, like, distracting me.
	Yeah, or a man who comes out and says, I've been flashed by a female Member of Parliament.
	Yeah, it also seems like a weird self-own by the Conservatives here that Angela Rayner's too sexy for me to pay attention.
	Angela Rayner.
	Yeah.
	Come on.
	Yeah.
	I mean, she is, at 41, I believe, a grandmother.
	I don't know that.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Correct me if I'm wrong, but I did read that somewhere.
	Anyway, some Tory MPs have allegedly claimed that they heard Rayner say that she likes to do this herself.
	This is how the article reads.
	Conservatives have claimed that this Labour deputy leader, Angela Rayner, likes to put Mr Johnson off his stride in the chamber by crossing and uncrossing her legs when they clash at Prime Minister's questions.
	Tory MPs have mischievously suggested that Miss Rayner likes to distract the PM when he is at the dispatch box by deploying a fully clothed parliamentary equivalent of Sharon Stone's infamous scene in the 1992 film Basic Instinct, with the difference being, of course, that Rayner is fully clothed.
	It is suggested that Miss Rayner also employs the tactic when sitting next to Keir when he faces Mr Johnson at PMQs.
	One MP said she knows she can't compete with Boris's Oxford Union debating training, but she has other skills which he lacks.
	I mean, that's a little bit classist, I have to be honest.
	But if that's what was said, this is where it gets interesting.
	She has admitted, and I am quoting, So this is a statement that she may have said this?
	Yes.
	Yeah.
	So the Tory MPs who presumably gave Dylan, the person who published the article, this information, have also said that she admitted to doing this herself.
	Now, again, that may be completely false.
	It may be the sort of thing that you say, I don't know, when you're joking around, you know, at the pub after work or something like that.
	Worse things have been said.
	But if she did indeed say that...
	Seems grounds to publish an article?
	It seems like grounds to publish an article.
	I mean, after all, it's not completely, like, it's not as if, like, Dylan completely made this up.
	So the claims may well be untrue, however let's just state the obvious.
	There's also the chance that they may be true, that she is actually doing this as a tactic of distracting the PM to make him perform worse at Prime Minister's questions.
	I'd just be disappointed if he falls for it.
	Oh, yeah, but then again, he is married to Carrie.
	Let's not forget that.
	This is quite literally her word against theirs.
	But the Parliamentary Cathedral has, naturally, mobilised with lightning speed to defend Reyna without any proof one way or the other.
	One such member was the Speaker of the House of Commons, Lindsay Hale.
	Hale believed the matter to be so serious that he deemed it necessary to recall Parliament to address MPs about it.
	He basically told off the MPs who were involved, even though I believe they haven't been named, and announced that he had summoned the editor of the Mail Online about the fact that the article was published.
	Let's hear what the man said.
	I took the issue of media freedom very seriously.
	It is one of the building blocks of our democracy.
	However, I share the views expressed by a wide range of members, including, I believe, the Prime Minister, that yesterday's article was reporting obstantiated claims of misogynistic and offensive.
	Those are what we believe.
	I express my sympathy as a right-wing member for Ashland and the last subject to this type of comment.
	In being demeaning, offensive to women in Parliament, it can only deter women who might be considering standing for election to the detriment of us all.
	That is why I am arranging a meeting with the Chair of the Press Lobby, the Editor of the Mail on Sunday, to discuss the issue affecting our parliamentary community.
	I am also arranging separately, and I believe we've now got a time where I will be meeting with the Right Hall Member flashed under the line this evening.
	Okay, so, a free press is fine.
	A bedrock of democracy, in fact.
	But whenever it involves publishing an allegation about a female parliamentarian, perhaps acting indecently to distract her opposition, whether she has done so or not, that is not fine.
	Even though, of course, this wasn't made up.
	It is an allegation from members of the Conservative Party.
	I'm also wondering in my head, frankly, actually trying to do that on purpose.
	If I was a woman and I was in my 20s and ran for office...
	Holy...
	I'd have some fun.
	I'd just see where the line is, frankly.
	I'm not saying she is, I don't know.
	You would be quite, shall we say, inventive with potentially what you could show.
	I'd use my power.
	Yes, you would use your power, your female privilege, if you like.
	But yeah, isn't it extremely odd that he sought to intervene like this?
	I mean, why is it the place of the speaker to decide what should and shouldn't be published?
	It's not.
	It's not.
	So I think this may be a case of Lindsay Hoyle declaring himself as John Bercow II, maybe.
	Hmm.
	But yeah, Dylan, anyway, David Dylan, the guy who published this, has done nothing wrong, in my view, whatsoever.
	There's no evidence that the Tories are lying, nor any evidence that Rainer isn't involved in some form of foul play.
	And I genuinely believe that this is in the public interest.
	If that is what she's doing, and Tories believe it to be compelling enough that she is doing that...
	Then you would think that's a story worth publishing, as distasteful as it may be to some.
	Anyway, from this we can assume that Lindsay is either pandering to the woke, or two, believes that women should have the right to potentially flash other members of Parliament without being judged.
	Well, we have feminism to thank for that, if that is the case.
	Anyway, the editor David Dillon has refused the invitation, like a boss, and the Daily Mail, by extension, is having absolutely none of it, so if we get to the declaration here.
	In the name of a free press, the Mail respectfully declines the common speaker summons for the Mail on Sunday to appear over its Angela Rainey reports.
	As it emerges, she laughed about the Sharon Stone comparisons.
	Which she did, actually.
	She was aware of them back in January and talked about it on a podcast which I can't remember the name of and didn't seem to be kind of that phased by it.
	Shall we listen to that audio clip now?
	There is a tint of misogyny in it.
	I've got to say, you know, I get quizzed on...
	Every time I do a PMQ, somebody has an opinion on what I want.
	Did you see the meme about Sharon Stone like I was doing at the boss PMQs?
	I was mortified!
	You what?
	Like, they did this whole, like, meme about me apparently doing the whole, you know, the whole...
	I was like, when did they do that?
	I hadn't seen that at all.
	Did you not see, like, the Fatal Attraction thing when they did the whole **** thing?
	I mean, I've seen the film, but I wasn't aware of it.
	I wasn't aware I did it, but...
	Granted, she says she's mortified by it, but it doesn't sound like she's losing sleep over it.
	No, it's funny.
	No, it's quite funny.
	And she hasn't exactly, you could say, reversed the stereotype in terms of how she presents herself in Parliament.
	I'm not saying that she should, by the way.
	I don't think she has crossed the line insofar as how she presents herself in Parliament, but she's quite clearly aware of the comparisons.
	Is it really unfeasible that she may think, actually, do you know what?
	That could be quite a funny prank to play on the Prime Minister if it throws him off at the important points and makes us look, you know...
	Well, that's the thing.
	It'll also just be really funny.
	Like I said, if I was a woman, that's what I'd be doing every day, just to mess with the place.
	Yeah, exactly.
	This is bringing up a word of conversation.
	I've seen Jordan Peterson address it in the past, which is, well, how do we deal with the fact that workplaces are now not sex-segregated, they're sex-mixed?
	And he makes the point of, okay, well, when it's just men, what do we do?
	We ended up basically saying, we need everyone to be uniform.
	And how do you do that?
	We make everyone wear a uniform.
	And the uniform for men universally just became the suit.
	And that was the case.
	And this has fallen out of place.
	Most workplaces.
	But in the parliament, for example, everyone is expected basically to wear a suit if you're a man.
	Whereas for women, it's broader.
	We don't really know.
	I mean, this isn't as hard pressed down as it is.
	We're working this out as we go, and this could be one of the potential consequences, that you do actually have some perhaps unconscious flirting going on between, I don't know, the front benches.
	Do we enforce full-length skirts, for example?
	It goes down to the ankles.
	Well, you could go there with that argument, I suppose, but it would seem...
	It seems unappealing, doesn't it?
	Yeah, I don't think anyone really has an answer to this, except the old feminist answer, which is just, like, women should wear...
	Perhaps a good way to start, but perhaps a good way to start would be to suggest maybe we'll be a bit more open to the possibility that women might use this to their advantage in a way that this lioness does in the video that I'm going to show you now.
	She appears to have a plan.
	This is, of course, Angela Rayner.
	This is our age's full agenda.
	Mrs. Johnson.
	Exposing her abdomen makes her extremely vulnerable.
	Yeah, this is a female mammal doing a female mammal thing.
	For those not picking up, this is basically a Linus using flirtation to distract a male from a foreign pack that it fears is going to attack its own herd, effectively.
	So the point that I'm trying to make without...
	I tried to use this video to make this part of the segment a little bit less cringe.
	I feel it might actually have done the opposite.
	But females in the animal kingdom...
	I just love the idea of that happening in Parliament.
	Flirtation has been used by females in the animal kingdom for social and political gain in some form since the beginning of time.
	The most humans are at a heightened state of self-consciousness, thank God.
	It should not be off the table to accuse female parliamentarians of potentially doing the same, especially when you have people like Lindsay Hoyle saying that they should not be accused...
	At all.
	If you want to learn more about female privilege, please check out my essay on why feminists will not talk about OnlyFans, with my arguments ultimately being that feminists won't talk about OnlyFans because it is essentially a platform for women to hurt and subjugate men for financial gain, which is everything that ultimately feminists want, even if they don't like to admit it.
	Anyway, with that shameless advertising, let's return to Angela Rayner.
	So despite disapproving of the article's Despite disapproving of the article's publication, Boris was rather unnerved by the fact that, of course, the Speaker sought to intervene in the way that he did.
	It's a rolling article, but in short, No.
	10 declared that whilst Johnson was disconcerted by the article, he was also uncomfortable about the fact that the Speaker decided to weigh in on how a free press should conduct itself.
	The official statement is as follows.
	And that is absolutely right.
	And it's just simply irresponsible of the Speaker to have done this.
	Boris is absolutely right to be concerned, but unfortunately we may have, needless to say, this might not be the only occasion that it happens.
	So yeah, Lindsay Hole's reaction perfectly represents the worldview of the cathedral, the cultural side of which we are now going to see now.
	Everywhere you look, the support for Angela Rayner is overwhelming, in spite of the fact that, of course, her innocence is unproven, and of course...
	Whether she's guilty or not, that's unproven as well.
	But here's how she was received on Lorraine Kelly, just like Lorraine Kelly showed us to give you an idea.
	Angela Rayner joins me now.
	Angela, oh, it just, I can't, you know, I can't actually believe that we are having this conversation in this day and age.
	Does it feel to you, though, that this is a tipping point?
	That surely something is going to happen, changes will need to be made?
	I hope so.
	I I mean, I've been overwhelmed because when I heard the story that was coming out and we rebutted it instantly and was like, this is disgusting.
	It's completely untrue.
	Please don't run a story like that.
	Because I've got teenage sons and I was with my teenage sons and I felt really sad again that my weekend and I was trying to prepare my children for seeing things online that they don't want to see their mum portrayed that way.
	and I felt really down about that, but I was overwhelmed by people's response because I just thought, is that what people expect and think about what I do?
	You know, all I worry about when I'm at the dispatch box is doing a good job.
	To contrast that with how she spoke about the issue, With her comrades.
	Radically different.
	We have you on audio saying, admittedly, you say, oh no, you didn't realise you did it.
	You say you did, and then here you're saying you didn't.
	She comes across as if she's being sincere.
	I've got to give her that, and for all I know, she may well have had a change of heart on the entire matter.
	But I'm sorry, this reeks of crocodile tears to me.
	And if there's anything, again, I'm terribly sorry if this comes across as misogynistic to some of our female viewers, women are quite good at pretending to cry.
	Yeah, they're better than men.
	Better than men.
	Yes, they're far, far better as emotive manipulation, and that may well be, and again, this is unproven, another example of it there.
	But it's also, women do have sexual power, and the women who recognise that and are able to use it are some of the most formidable women you'll ever meet.
	Yeah, and as someone who had a child at 16, again, not judging, not making a classist statement here, you might think she learned the ropes quite early.
	Maybe, but I'm more interested in the wider aspects of this.
	Like, okay, we don't even know if this is a purposeful thing, right?
	It's rumors, whatever.
	But I'd love to see whatever the male version of this is, and can men even have a way of harnessing such power?
	And if not, well then we have to kind of clamp down especially on the female version of that, surely, to create an equal playing field.
	You would think so, but ultimately, it isn't really in the interest of the cathedral to see men as victims, is it?
	If Boris, for example, was to come out and say, do you know what, Angela has been bullying me in this way for months and months and months, and I actually have nightmares of the underwear that she's exposed for the last few months.
	Do you honestly think that's going to wash with the likes of Caroline Lucas or anyone in the Labour Party, perhaps even, well, the Yeah, it's a joke at the man's expense.
	Yeah, a joke at the man's expense.
	And...
	Yeah, I don't know.
	I think that's the right way to do it.
	But at the same time, then we shouldn't really have that taking place.
	Exactly.
	But there is clearly a double standard here.
	That's the point that I'm trying to make.
	Men and women aren't the same.
	Because they're not the same, and thus you shouldn't hold them to the same standards because they're essentially different.
	But anyway...
	Some of the responses from journalists have been quite amusing.
	One is from Kate McCann, who you may know of quite well, because she was famously known for taking Carl's joke about Jess Phillips, completely out of context.
	Let's have a look at this.
	You see all those raging female MPs and journalists tweeting their rage at this story.
	It's because nearly every single one of us has experienced something like this in the course of doing our jobs, often repeatedly, and we are utterly, utterly sick of it.
	Yep, so that's Kate McCann.
	Let's move on to the world's, well, the second least ethical lawyer in the United Kingdom, Dr Charlotte Proudman, only second to Sadiq Khan.
	As a woman from a working class background who also went to a comprehensive school trying to break my way into a system that was not built for me, our time is now, and the era of boys club is over.
	Hmm.
	I don't know, what is the boys club in this situation?
	I don't even know!
	Exactly.
	Yeah, where is it?
	Let's move on to the next.
	We can see this is Richard Murphy saying that it's absolutely horrible, sexist, profoundly misogynistic, but he also goes as far as to say that it's fascist.
	Questioning why women think they have a role in Parliament, let alone government, is another part of the message, and I'm sickened by all of it.
	Sickened by the fact that men, presumably, have accused a woman of doing something that could be traced back as intrinsically a woman thing to do.
	Given that we've actually broken this down in a primitive way.
	It's just so stupid as well.
	It's not a conversation about whether women should be in politics.
	It's a conversation about how women integrate into politics.
	Well yes, it's entirely besides the point.
	This is all relatively new.
	On a societal level, this is a new thing and there are differences between the sexes and then how do they interact with each other with it being an equal level playing field.
	I'm not even sure that can be done.
	No.
	No.
	And if it can, then we're just going to have to work with, well, we're just going to have to see how it plays out, really, and be sensible about the events that occur in between.
	But anyway, I'm going to conclude.
	The Mail did nothing wrong by publishing this article.
	They reported something that Tories claimed to hear about Rayner's conduct.
	It was irresponsible of the Speaker to do what he did.
	did i'm glad that the the mail online didn't go along with it because that would have that would have um been a huge concession um against free speech and yeah let's hope that um that some some sanity here um takes precedence anyway we shall move on Hmm.
	This is going to be a bit of a black pill.
	Oh, excellent way to end.
	Sorry.
	Anyway, Robinson was right about the prison system, specifically the fact that they're all full of Islamists, and Islamists are recruiting in there.
	And, well, this ain't going to be fun, and this is not really a moment for what to do next.
	I think the what to do next has been put down, and you'll see what it was.
	But we'll just...
	I really wanted to document the fact that all of this took place, and the fact that he was right, and a lot of other people, and they've all got sidelined to the point in which, well, years down the line, the problem is way worse, and now we're having to deal with it.
	And we'll start this off with a show here.
	This is an article made ages ago, Facebook lists criticism of Islam alongside genocide, because this is Ryan Hartwig.
	He used to work as a content moderator for Facebook with Cognizant.
	And in here he just gave us the documents showing that the evil bad man, the man who shall not be named, if you scroll down on here, Michael, you can see some of the images there, just some of the images, in which you can see the people on the hate list, which he is on, alongside Adolf Hitler himself, Goebbels, the leader of the American Nazi Party, goes on and on.
	For pointing out pedophiles.
	Yeah, Gavin McGinnis, basically the same as Hitler, according to Facebook.
	Yep.
	Gavin McInnes denounced the Proud Boys.
	But also, I can't get over how the Proud Boys get put as far right.
	I know.
	That image of him shoving it up and also making out with Milo, but he's definitely far right, lads.
	Anyway, there's the article there.
	Do go and give it a read.
	I just love the final quote there as well.
	So, Mr.
	Robinson is on that list, so if I put a link or if I just write his name, if I literally make a post with just his name...
	That would be deleted because, in a way, it's supporting him because it's mentioning his name.
	That is how the policy is written.
	There's a direct quote from Ryan there, and that's just how insane it is, right?
	I mean, this man was deleted from the internet.
	And part of the reason is because, well, he warned about things that have now come true.
	We go to the next one.
	There's another quote from 2014.
	It still amazes me how, like, normal the press used to be.
	Even talking to him.
	Do you have HuffPo here?
	Who are just like, yeah, we'll interview you.
	I had to blink to check that it is the Huffington Post.
	Yeah.
	Running with this headline.
	They're like, well, yeah, we talked to the guy, he's been behind bars, he would know.
	Almost seems balanced.
	He's an expert on Islamism in the UK. Yeah, he is.
	Publish his own Quran.
	What else are you going to get?
	As you can see here.
	So that's the headline.
	What did they go with?
	A prison is...
	Sorry.
	A prison that is apparently a hotbed of Islamic radicalism is where Tommy Robinson has been held.
	After he was sentenced to 18 months in prison January 2014 for mortgage fraud, Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley Lennon, of course they have to shove in.
	Didn't you know his real name?
	No one cares.
	I had staff telling me that the guards don't run the prisons...
	Islam does, he told the Telegraph.
	In a series of eyebrow-raising claims, he said radical preachers are paid £100 for every prisoner they convert and that these preachers are the enforcing sharia on the wings, preventing non-Muslims from taking showers with Muslims.
	These claims have been denied by the prison, but last year a report by the Prison Officers Union showed how Muslim gangs are growing in power and influence among the prisoners.
	The report suggested that prisons are becoming a breeding ground for extremism, and Robinson said that the inmates are converting to become part of a Muslim gang in order to receive protection.
	Claims in 2014.
	Basically, the prisons are full of Islamists.
	You put them in there for terrorism offences, or for promoting terrorism, because the Terrorism Act got passed.
	And, well, then, what are they doing in there?
	Recruiting everyone left, right, and center.
	You've literally got people with a financial incentive to convert people to extremism.
	They've also got a safety incentive, and also the fact that they're very vulnerable, and, well, down on their luck, if nothing else, for people who should be in prison.
	Yeah.
	We've got the next link as well.
	There's a speech, as you can see here, at the Oxford Union.
	There's also his one in Yorkshire.
	The Yorkshire one's banned for some reason, but the Oxford Union one's...
	I didn't know he did one in York.
	Yeah, but I can't get over how everything he does online is banned, except the one that's on the Oxford Union's YouTube channel.
	That's allowed.
	Okay.
	Right.
	Specific exemption was made.
	You have to credit the Oxford Union for giving him a platform.
	Yeah, but I just...
	So there's scummy social media companies who obviously are like, well, they're okay.
	If we go to the next one here, he warned about it as well.
	But then there's a Ministry of Justice report into exactly this in 2016.
	I don't know how you say his name properly, so Action Report.
	The review recommends that the prison system under which tact and Islamic extremist prisoners are dispersed across the prison should be reviewed and consideration given to containment of known extremists within dedicated specialist units.
	So segregate out the Islamists, put them in their own segregated units, and therefore keep the rest of the prisoners safe from being turned into terrorists.
	Sounds sensible.
	Pretty simple stuff.
	Guy goes on to say, How?
	We'll go to that.
	Which could chime with the radicals' message of victimizations of Muslims.
	Yes, the Muslims are just being victimized and not breaking the law.
	Then he goes on.
	To put that into perspective for you, you might think, well, 800 guys in prison, that's not that much.
	800 Muslims.
	Right.
	Go to the next link, we can see government statistics which show that there are 650 Muslims in the entire British Armed Forces, not just the army.
	The Air Force and the Navy includes, you get up to 650.
	There are more Muslims who went to fight for ISIS in a single year than are in the British Army.
	Wow.
	That's striking.
	That's the state of integration, as you have there.
	Fantastic.
	If you go to the next link, we can see this was UKIP being smeared.
	I was there for this.
	This was the UKIP conference in which me, John, were there, and I can't send a message to them in Birmingham, and we got given the interim manifesto, and then we saw the headlines, because the media decided to come along and smear.
	What did they say?
	Creation of Muslim-only prisons in interim manifesto.
	The Guardian went as far to suggest that we were proposing Muslim concentration camps.
	Oh, I heard about that, yeah.
	Majid Nawaz fell for that and then corrected himself.
	Thank you for that, but I feel like someone should have just made a phone call.
	Anyway, so then this was in the manifesto according to the media.
	It wasn't.
	Quote here.
	This is the first step to Muslim concentration camps, says anti-extremism campaigner.
	What next?
	Deportation of all Muslims from these Muslim-only jails?
	That's one hell of a non-sequitur, isn't it?
	Don't know who said that, but if you actually take that statement...
	Right, so the plan is, we've got a bunch of Islamists in prison.
	Hmm, what are they doing?
	They're radicalising all the inmates.
	Right, so these people can't be put next to anyone.
	Well, they're going to make more terrorists.
	So we'll put them in their own little prisons.
	And then someone's like, oh, what's next?
	Deporting them?
	Yeah.
	Many of them are foreign.
	If we could legally get away with it, but of course.
	Back to Pakistan.
	The European Court of Human Rights prevents us from doing that.
	I don't know.
	Pakistan's very approachable to such people.
	They love the Muslims.
	So, I welcome your brothers.
	It's a fair point, actually.
	Part of the Umrah.
	Anyway, they say, published as part of the party's annual conference, began in Birmingham, it calls for the creation of jails exclusively for Muslims who promote extremism or try to convert non-Islamic prisoners.
	And we were pilloried for this at the time, and we were literally taking the government's report and saying, this is the case, we should take their advice.
	That was extremist.
	It was extremist to take the Ministry of Justice's report seriously.
	Two years after publish.
	We were smeared for that.
	Love that.
	If we go to the next one, we can see in 2019, Vice decided to chime in to this whole debate by saying that it's all fake.
	No one asked them.
	What would it be that it's not happening at all?
	Yeah, not happening.
	A prison guard debunks Robinson's Muslim gang claims.
	It's not happening in prisons.
	I happened to mention, I messaged a friend yesterday who worked in the prison system, and she was in a B-class prison.
	In this country, you have A through D. A being the highest security, D being lowest, basically an open prison.
	no it's a real problem it's serious i mean one of the uh drug she mentioned a circumstance in which they had so the prayer room they insist on some level of privacy so only one guard is allowed to be in there but if you've got loads of prisoners basically privacy these are to deal drugs fantastic oh dear Anyway, but this is Vice saying, none of it's happening.
	Don't worry.
	None of it.
	It's all fake.
	No one asked them to deny this.
	They'll just do it off their own bags.
	The writer says, first of all, I'd like to point out that I'm a fair and unbiased person.
	Oh, really?
	And that irrespective of who Timmy Robinson is, as I'm going to call him, just try and bloat the bots, and what he stands for, if he was telling the truth, I'd say that he was telling the truth.
	But I never personally came across a single Islamic extremist in prison, let alone gangs of them.
	The situation is slightly different in high-security prisons, which are reserved for inmates who are either highly dangerous or classed as escapee risks.
	Gangs of Islamic extremists are far more powerful and prevalent in these facilities, but this type of jail only makes up around 5% of the prison system.
	It's unlikely that Robinson would find himself in a high-security setting, given the nature of his crime.
	100% false.
	According to the Ministry of Justice, according to my friend who had to deal with this, according to Robinson himself, and according to the people who end up leaving these prisons as well.
	So just vice had to come in, left this media to the rescue, knew Islam did nothing wrong, ever.
	And we have Action Seer here, who published in The Spectator an article in 2021, pointing out that this has just gotten worse.
	Like, I wrote my report five years ago and it's not getting better.
	It's not good.
	He says in here, the case for isolating prisoners in, well, terrorists is even stronger than ever.
	The focus on terrorist offenders at HMP Franklin gave us a unique glimpse inside separation units that I urged the government to create back in 2016.
	I've had virtually no formal contact with Her Majesty's Prison Service since.
	I sense this is in no small part due to the embarrassment I caused my former senior colleagues.
	Guess what kind of embarrassment?
	Having led a thorough independent review of the threat posed by Islamist extremists in the justice system for ministers, the evidence we gathered from countless field visits, secret intelligence and staff surveys was overwhelming.
	The unfettered association between charismatic, highly subversive ideologues in prison and other violent recruits was an unacceptable threat to national security on either side of the prison walls.
	Such prisoners, relatively few, but spectacularly dangerous, needed to be totally preventing influence over inmates and converting them to their cause.
	Yeah.
	Someone who is an expert in the field comes to the same conclusions as Robinson by looking at the evidence.
	My only concern would be that if you enacted this policy, would you not risk Bolshevising Islam in the sense that you actually almost allow...
	Them to conspire among themselves.
	So the separation units, you can't really talk to anyone else either.
	Oh, okay.
	So that individual is kind of off limits.
	They purposely break up the inmates.
	Yeah, but even if you're mixing Ajum Chowdhury with some guy who's stabbed some gay people because...
	Allahu Akbar.
	There's not really much more damage you can do.
	Like, they're already at the ISIS position.
	Yeah, that's true.
	And I don't know how much further you can go beyond ISIS. He says, Internally, over the merits of separation, it was in fact government policy already.
	So they were arguing, well, we've mothballed the separation units because we don't have enough candidates, because they're all sat around debating who to put in them.
	Get on with it.
	We know who they are.
	They're in prison for murdering people in the name of a lot.
	It's a pretty simple criteria, you would have thought.
	In January last year, at another high-security jail, an officer came within seconds of being taken hostage to be murdered by an Islamist terrorist and an accomplice he had freely been able to convert.
	A never event unfolded in plain sight.
	That's last year.
	That's last year.
	Still going on.
	Still not being solved.
	How much more do we have to lie to ourselves before we actually address it?
	Robinson was right.
	Definitely.
	If it goes to the next link here, we finally have some movement on this in 2022.
	It took all of eight years between Robinson warning about it.
	Better late than never.
	It becoming at least something that's happening.
	So this is another report saying prison guards are deferring to Islamists.
	Prison guards are so concerned about being accused of racism that Muslim terrorists have been able to seize control of wings and set up Sharia courts behind bars.
	I am so sick of the accusation of racism.
	Yes.
	Especially in regards to Islam.
	I mean, anyone in the prison system who's listening might have to counter this to the dunce of a boss.
	Islam is aracial.
	It does not care about race.
	It is a religion.
	You get Muslims of every race possible.
	It's not racist.
	By definition.
	If nothing else.
	They're going to call you a religious bigot.
	Go for it.
	Because it's a hell of a religion, isn't it?
	Kill people for leaving.
	They had gone unchallenged when insisting that prison staff were barred from attending Friday prayers because they were non-Muslim, or imposing conditions on entry, such as removing their shoes.
	So these guys were able to get away with just lying to the prison guards.
	They didn't know any better, presumably, because they're not Muslims.
	Oh no, you can't come in because you're not a Muslim, and then were able to conspire, do as they wish.
	Fantastic.
	Still going on.
	Extremists used Sharia cause to deliver punishments such as flogging and made insincere allegations of racism and Islamophobia.
	Who could have seen that coming?
	Yeah, tell me about it.
	Who would have known that Islamophobia would be used for insincere allegations to try and get away with terrorism?
	Who would have thought that?
	This has weakened the ability of staff to stop the expanding control of terrorists over prisons activities because they worry about making false assumptions based on the lack of cultural familiarity with Islam or Muslims.
	The government's overhaul of the Human Rights Act will prevent prisoners using Article 8's rights to private life to claim their rights to socialize are being breached by putting them in separation centers.
	So that's the change there.
	Thanks to Brexit.
	Funnily enough, apparently.
	Oh, really?
	Yeah, they're able to reform the law there, so then we can tell them, no, you're getting shoved into the separation unit.
	You're literally a terrorist.
	Go to hell.
	Good.
	No debate.
	Good.
	Some good news on that.
	They say only nine terrorists are held in the separation centres in England and Wales at present, despite there only being 28 cells across three prisons.
	Among them are Hashem Abedi, the Manchester Arena plot bomber.
	And Shudash Aman, 20, a convicted terrorist who boasted in prison of a desire to kill the Queen, become a suicide bomber, and join the Islamic State.
	What a lovely bloke.
	He then was released and stabbed two people and strafed himself London ten days after.
	I mean, you can't get over the failures here, can you?
	Like, he's in prison.
	I'm gonna kill the Queen, blow myself up and join ISIS. Well, on your way, then.
	Leaves, goes and stabbed two people to death.
	Who could have seen that coming?
	Who could have seen how he ended up radicalising?
	When you hear cases like this, it almost makes a moral case, or it does make a moral case, to decriminalise racism.
	No, seriously.
	As it's interpreted in the law today.
	Yes, that's precisely what I mean.
	I mean, the way it's interpreted in Britain, for people who don't know, saying you dislike goths is officially a racist statement because they're a subcultural group and therefore are to be protected as everyone else.
	Or have you completely forgotten what race is?
	Yes.
	That's a silly question, of course.
	The definition of race in England is...
	Anyway, so they say in here that, well, you know, he only wanted to join ISIS, so he let him out and he killed two people.
	We're shocked, as much as anyone.
	Three months earlier, Usman Khan, 28, killed two people at a prison rehabilitation event inside Fishmonger's Hall at London Bridge.
	You may remember that.
	One of the people he killed was a volunteer who was...
	Arguing that these people had been deradicalised and then the dad decided to stand on his son's corpse and say that I love diversity.
	Sick.
	Dominic Raab was met with repeated shouts of Allahu Akbar by prisoners circling the small exercise yards in H.P. Woodhill as he visited there.
	I love that.
	He turns up to give a speech and all he hears is Allahu Akbar!
	Endlessly.
	Fantastic.
	The shouts were soon drowned out by the barking of two Alsatians straining at the leashes with Rob waiting to be let in, the jail within the jail, that had been home to four of the most dangerous ideological terrorists in the country.
	He said he would use the overhaul of the Human Rights Act to end the nonsense of prisoners claiming their rights to socialize were breached by being in separation centers.
	And there you have it.
	There's the slight movement on that, which is that the UKIP were right in 2018.
	Robinson was right about the scale of the problem in 2014, of all places.
	Action was absolutely right in 2016 when he told everyone about it and everyone just ignored him by the looks of it.
	And then yesterday he went on LBC to just tell them, bloody well told you so, didn't I? And the final thing has been done, which is that we're setting up the separation areas and scrapping any laws stopping them being pushed into there to try and, well, clamp down on the fact that the prisons are just Islamist recruiting camps.
	I mean, what else are they at this point for global jihad?
	I mean, that's all they are.
	It's hard to think of what else, yeah.
	Anyway, I know that was a bit depressing, but I really wanted to go through it just to remind people of the scale of a problem we have here.
	That's very important.
	And something which we should remember, which is a man who warned about all this back in 2014.
	He's banned from all social media.
	That's a free country.
	That's a free system.
	But the whistleblower gets banned.
	But he's also banned from having a life like an ordinary person.
	Yeah, can't have a bank account.
	Can't go on my chicken.
	Can't go on holiday to Mexico.
	This is someone who's actually done a greater service to the country than almost every actual politician we have.
	Well, I regard him as a whistleblower for these sort of things.
	And, well, what do you do with whistleblowers?
	Should you punish them for whistleblowing?
	Well, no.
	You support them and say, thank you very much for the information.
	You can act on it.
	And instead, he has been treated like an absolute pariah.
	And I guess will continue to be treated because, yeah, this is a free country.
	Go to the video comments.
	This is musician and voice performer Mary Lambert.
	Her book Shame is an Ocean I Swim Across is a collection of poems describing her uncertainties and trauma.
	She is fat, has been molested by her father, has been raped, drinks too much, and cannot engage in healthy relationships.
	Now, it's not a pleasant read or audiobook listen despite the piano music, but it is informative that progressives' prurient introspection shows that they know they're broken and can describe just how.
	What they refuse to commit to is fixing themselves.
	Oh, and if they're critical theorists, they will certainly be well versed in that.
	You also do notice it.
	How many times do you have to look at leftist accounts before you notice that they keep putting their mental disorders in the bio as well?
	Although they identify and almost find solitude in their disorder.
	Being mentally ill?
	Yes.
	It's not even a negative for them.
	I'm not saying you should be embarrassed.
	It's a reality of who you are.
	But you know it's not a good thing to be mentally ill.
	But leftists talk about it as if it is.
	The second you posit it as an essential part of yourself, you also posit it as something that cannot be changed.
	And that's just a regressive way of looking at personal development, isn't it?
	It's a strange thing.
	None of us are perfect, but the second that you give something an essential quality, it has causal agency over you.
	This is precisely why critical race theory, queer theory, etc.
	are so toxic as philosophies.
	Because the second you actually present yourself as irreducibly particular in that way, you stop yourself from interacting with the world that could accommodate you in a positive way.
	Unless it is something that is genuinely, you can't change, of course.
	More my point was just the fact that, as he says, they know they're broken, and you can find it in that aspect, when people are like, yes, part of my identity is being mentally ill.
	Right, okay.
	This is a way to live, is it?
	You and all your friends are all mentally ill, come up with an idea.
	Okay.
	Sorry.
	No, that's okay.
	If it's, of course, a very, very serious disability, then that's not, of course, what I'm talking about at all.
	I'm talking about more...
	Just abstract identities or things that are more like autism, for example, which is best described as kind of an amalgamation of different symptoms rather than just an essential pathology within oneself.
	Yeah.
	I feel like I should be asking Josh because he's the best one.
	Yeah.
	We'll get to the next one.
	I love it.
	Oh, God.
	I love the editing skills as well.
	It's fantastic.
	I'm going to enjoy it.
	I will have to pass on the Scorpions, sadly.
	I don't think I can stomach that.
	You want to visit Thailand?
	I wouldn't mind.
	I don't really know what there is to visit, to be honest.
	I only know the memes.
	Lovely beaches.
	Good beaches?
	Good beaches.
	Apparently you get robbed a lot, at least according to a chap who's telling about Kevin there.
	You do in London as well, to be fair.
	Stabbed a lot as well.
	Quite.
	Last weekend, Easter weekend, I was at SoccerCon, which is an anime convention in Seattle.
	I'm glad to be back to going to conventions after two years of cancellations, but something I did notice this year in the park, which I believe is owned by the convention center, where people like to go and take pictures in their costumes, there were homelessness tents set up there, which I think we're getting in the background of a lot of people's pictures.
	Seattle's not new to homelessness being a big issue, but it has gotten a lot worse, and there were tents all around the city.
	You know what I find strange about homelessness is you would have thought at this point, because say for example on economic growth, the playbook for how you make an economy grow is pretty straightforward.
	It's pretty proven at this point, which is your free market, let people operate businesses as they want, keep taxes low, and the economy will just grow.
	And it does.
	Everywhere this is tried, this happens.
	You actually have a proper ability to engage in business compared to one where you shut everything down.
	Whereas, for homelessness, I would have thought, like, this is such an age-old human societal problem that there would be an easy playbook for it.
	I mean, I would have thought that would be the case, but...
	Well, you could make, I'm not a Keynesian, but you could make the Keynesian argument that if the state invests in creating, I don't know, infrastructure or something, and you create jobs, you kind of go for a demand economy, if you like, you could create opportunities for the homeless to bring themselves out of poverty, which might be a better alternative than what Biden's doing, which is in effect paying for their crack pipes.
	San Francisco, you're quite right, yes.
	Which has a similar problem, sadly, but it's not easily solved.
	It's quite...
	It's always got to ultimately be on the person for the sake of respect.
	they should get the recognition for bringing themselves out of this position.
	And you're not going to get that when the state kind of forces you to be free in the Rousonian way.
	If, I don't know, it's...
	Maybe I should get that chap back up.
	Sorry, I've forgotten your name if you're watching, but the chap I interviewed in the Brexit party, who got kicked from his charity, which was to deal with homelessness in Manchester, because he dared to say that Black Lives Matter were full of crap.
	He did get it back, so everything's good with him, but it seems strange to me that it's something we wouldn't have a largely simple solution for, at least an understandable solution, if not simple.
	Next one.
	Did you ever watch something from your childhood where...
	Now that you have modern eyes, you can see the subtext that was being woven in.
	No, but that's when it first went wrong.
	100 years ago, like you said.
	All the news channels, they just shut down overnight.
	There was nothing left in their place.
	No information.
	The whole planet just froze.
	The government, the economy, they collapsed.
	That was the start of it.
	100 years of hell.
	Hmm.
	Is that the first series of Doctor Who?
	Yeah.
	I love that episode as well.
	I never watched that as a kid.
	I love the idea.
	I'll know that the news media's turned off.
	Everything will collapse.
	Will it, though?
	Will it?
	I never realised how stupid that line was because I was a kid when I was watching, obviously, but God, that's dumb.
	If you get any more of those, mate, send them in.
	I've enjoyed that one.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Tony D and Littlejohn with another Legend of the Pines.
	From Toasters Adrift, the blog, comes the story of St.
	Stephen's Episcopal Church of Mullica Hill, New Jersey.
	The original church was built sometime before the Revolutionary War, and the current church was built on the same spot in 1853.
	There are many ghosts associated with the church, but the most popular ones are Uncle Charlie, who helps with the chores, and a little boy who was hit by a car back in the 1970s.
	I wish I could have Uncle Charlie.
	What?
	No, no, as in if he likes to clean to do chores.
	I'd happily welcome a ghost in my home.
	I also wondered where that would go.
	Oh yeah, there's also a little boy.
	And I was like, oh please don't be kidding me.
	Sorry Catholics, but memes are memes.
	Do we have any more video comments?
	Nope.
	So we should go to the written comments on the site instead.
	Cool.
	So, let's start off with the comments here.
	So, I have no idea you say this.
	Votavos?
	Sounds about right.
	I would really like to see you argue against the idea that the book, like Johnny the Walrus, causes suicide.
	It's based on the worldview that trans suicides are being caused by hostile environments.
	This is obviously not the case.
	Suicides haven't gone down in states like California.
	Obviously, trans people are committing suicide because they're insane.
	That's why progressives want to drive more people into transgenderism, so they'll chop off the genitals or otherwise lose their reproductive abilities and be driven to suicide.
	Progressives are anti-human.
	They do seem to be.
	There is some...
	I'm not sure I actually believe the suicide rate.
	I remember doing some research, because Carl was having a debate with Destiny about transgenderism, so I did all this background research.
	And the suicide rate has always struck me as something mad.
	Like, the idea where it's that high.
	And Bettsborough makes the point, like, Jews living under the Holocaust at the height...
	Like, the highest rate of suicide of Jews living under the Holocaust isn't anywhere near what's purported to be the transgender suicide rate.
	I'm like...
	I'm not sure I actually believe this number.
	I have to say, I've found it quite hard to find some reliable data on it, but from what I have heard, and this is from a secondary source, the race of suicides for transgender people after transition is around the same level as those who commit suicide and being denied transition.
	So there's actually not much of a moral case that goes in deregulating so as to make transitioning easier, a moral argument.
	I'm also wondering how solid this day can even be because, I mean, this is a lot of a new thing in the sense of the cultural shift around how transgenderism is dealt with in society.
	It's very new.
	I mean, I'll leave it for now because I know Harry is doing some research on this.
	We were thinking about trying to order Johnny the Walrus to do a live reading.
	I don't think we'd be able to do that, but yeah.
	The idea that people are just mean to transgender people and therefore about half of them are going to kill themselves.
	They're so simplistic and just so petty out I was like, no way that is true.
	This is clearly someone manipulating me.
	If you invest in such an abstract notion of identity so heavily that you'd kill yourself in virtue of the fact that you don't get recognised as that, that in itself is an expression of the fact that you're not quite compus mentis.
	Well, you're not accepting it either, which is misgendering yourself.
	Longshank1690 says, when the economy is declining, your foreign policy is a disaster, the borders are open wide, and the culture is tearing itself apart over the definition of a woman.
	The Democrats' big brain strategy for the midterms is to turn parents into a reliable voting bloc for Republicans when all education policy has been before now is much more money you'll be willing to throw at public schools.
	What could possibly go wrong?
	I don't get it.
	Is he trying to lose?
	Or is he trying to...
	It's even more of a joke.
	I don't know.
	Or is he just surrounded by people who are that clueless?
	Russian Garbage Human says a border shouldn't exist unless it's the Ukrainian border.
	Then it's okay to sell one billion dollar dues to defend it to Russia Man Bad.
	Yeah, I do find that funny.
	What about the Russian refugee tanks?
	Well, the American army is, or at least Visigrad is reporting that the American army is mobilizing themselves on the Romanian border, just to be sure.
	Presumably exercises.
	But it's just, I can never go over why the American military can't be deployed to the US southern border.
	I don't know why they shouldn't be, frankly.
	I mean, this is, if you're an American citizen, where is the United States being under attack most from right now?
	Well, for decades.
	It's been the southern border.
	Well, okay.
	Well, you pay all that damn money for the military.
	Might as well bloody well use them.
	Well, yes.
	You know, Chacoala says conventional wisdom states that you'll never get between a mother bear and her cubs.
	As such, teachers claiming ownership over the people's children would seem a very fine way of getting an army of mama and papa grizzlies lined up against them on their hind legs.
	Not a smart move.
	You know why they're targeting children, don't you?
	I mean, there aren't some who are genuine groomers and opportunists who want to do god-awful things.
	But grooming them for ideology is also the grooming.
	Yeah, yeah.
	I mean, in between, what is it, two and five, that's when I think children learn the most, or when people learn the most valuable skills that are unchangeable throughout life.
	If you can captivate children into thinking in a certain ideological way at that age consistently, it makes it far harder to reverse it.
	And that's why they're mobilising around this idea of indoctrinating them at the elementary level.
	That's the reason.
	Yeah.
	Long Talks on the Nietzsche says the Biden admin knows he won't have another term, so he's having to push all the changes they want, but would be terrible optics.
	The DNC will prop up a new candidate to win against Biden as he walks around confused before he goes to a nursing home.
	Maybe.
	Maybe that is what it is.
	They're just like, oh, remember that guy?
	We're not like him.
	Liars.
	Bleach Demon.
	Lovely name.
	Beautiful British name.
	Teacher says, the children are ours.
	Parent, no, these are my children.
	Biden, do you have a license like the teacher?
	Shakes hand with air.
	Yeah, pretty much.
	It was such a goddamn joke.
	The Onus Is On You says, the more I see of the education system, the more I'm sure my kids are going to be homeschooled.
	F these progressive idiots brainwashing vulnerable children to be unstable.
	I can't blame you.
	Kevin M, since Joe Biden is a serial plagiarizer, maybe he just plagiarized Obama's joke about being the vice president.
	I'm sure Obama will be suing.
	No, but also you have got me there.
	That probably is what happened.
	He probably went, oh, this would be funny.
	I'll do the same joke.
	Yeah.
	Yes.
	Joke.
	Aha.
	Okay, so the male did nothing wrong.
	The monarchist says it's comical to assume humans stop exhibiting normal human behaviour once they are in a work environment.
	If you put men and women in the same room, expect them to behave like men and women.
	We're not pod-dwelling, boog-eating, robotic automatons yet.
	But without question, parliaments would very much like a severe in that direction by the sounds of it.
	I mean, it's just an endless question that's not going to be solved.
	Yeah.
	I mean, I don't know how it's going to be.
	Presumably, to be honest, I think the old, you know, Thatcherite feminists with their big shoulders have probably got it right, which is that in a professional setting, everyone should just wear a suit, including women.
	Yeah.
	And women can wear kind of more feminine suits.
	So women ultimately have to accept that they're pursuing, by being a parliamentarian, a male gender role, if you like, in order to succeed at it.
	Well, kind of, because the suit is the uniform invented by men, but that was because it was a men space, right?
	The professional setting of the Victorian era.
	Whereas, okay, women are going to be part of that now.
	Well, if we haven't got a solution...
	This is a uniform we've used for ages.
	It fits women as well.
	There's no reason it wouldn't.
	You know, I make the chest a bit bigger, I guess.
	Yeah, you could say that Parliament should function as an authoritative place.
	and in order to do that it needs to have such an aesthetic that kind of reminds everyone in the room well who they are representing what they're ultimately doing as parliamentarians you you have that through the heritage of the houses of parliaments and the house of lords if if you lapse the standards too much it encroaches on that and if you if you feminize it to the point that it undermines dress standards entirely then you and then you have men who start thinking what if i don't want to wear a suit sure but i don't really see the suit as a masculine thing either i I know maybe it's perceived as such.
	I would argue that it is.
	It's a uniform.
	I mean, that is what it is.
	It is not to show off necessarily that you are sexy.
	It is to show off perhaps that you are powerful because, well, it's a position of power.
	Yes.
	That can be held by, well, anyone.
	And that you hold a formal position in office.
	Yeah, so I'm wondering if maybe it's just a solution to just go, well, if they actually ask for one, which is just, okay, we're doing the uniform, and this is the uniform we've always used.
	Yeah.
	Longshanks says the fact that the claims of misogyny are coming from a party which, five minutes ago, was steadfastly refusing to admit that a woman is anything more than a state of mind is infuriatingly baffling.
	Called it strolling as woman, but the nature of womanhood only exists for the left whenever it's convenient, not as an actual principle.
	Well, thankfully, it does look as if The intersectionists have lost this debate, doesn't it?
	And thank God.
	It's truly embarrassing that for several years now, arguably, we've had an opposition party that can't admit what a woman is.
	I just see in the chat, someone said also you should ban makeup.
	And I had this conversation with Carla in a car a while ago.
	He was just like, the lies would be gone.
	It would all be free.
	We could finally see reality.
	To be honest, he's not fully wrong because it's like you see the women on TikTok or Instagram and it's just like the makeup before and after ones they do.
	There's a lot.
	There's a lot of change.
	But it is extraordinary that those who cry misogyny the loudest are actually those, politically speaking, who are doing their utmost to let misogyny seep through the back door by completely passing over this question.
	Paul Neubauer says, women were never expected to wear a uniform.
	uniform, uniforms show a man's rank in the hierarchy for women to choose from.
	Women wear clothing that displays both their attractiveness and social position as not needing to work at all.
	Men and women can never be comparable in the workplace until everyone is forced to wear male suits.
	Female displays of sexuality are now an issue, and as usual, men are blamed.
	The solution for the socialists was the male suits.
	Yeah.
	Would that not be a solution you would endorse?
	Well, it's not the male part, but the uniformity.
	Well, if we're going to do that.
	I mean, the alternative is to accept reality that men and women aren't the same and then go from there.
	But we're not going from there.
	We're going with that they are the same and therefore they need to be treated the same on the same equal playing field in all regards.
	And that way...
	In which case we need a uniform.
	They will.
	They would have to be very, very similar suits though, right?
	Because otherwise the women will still uphold that female privilege that we've talked about.
	As in the ability, you could say, to...
	Yeah, I'm also wondering what the male version of that would be, even.
	Like, I'm imagining Boris turning up with, like, three buttons down.
	I don't know, gold chains, like a Persian or something?
	Yeah, it's just the libidinal dynamic is not the same from the man to a woman, because women have a plerfora of options to choose from.
	So they basically just sit on a throne and wait for an orderly suitors to come to the fore, whereas...
	Men have to do the work to find a single one who's interested.
	You've seen the Tinder studies, right?
	I'm imagining Jacob Rees-Mogg in my mind though, just getting absolutely stuck.
	Just coming in the next day, just shorts and grease all over his muscles.
	Yeah.
	And he's just like, what?
	Too distracting?
	Yeah.
	Angela Rowan is like, oh yeah.
	Well, no, she's complaining.
	He's distracting me.
	I can't give my speech.
	Oh, no.
	Have a dose of my misogyny.
	Just throws egg at her or something.
	Anyway, I'm being childish.
	Kevin Fox says, Good point.
	Free Will 2112 says, That's actually a very, very good point.
	How did they think this article was going to go, or at least for the Tories, at the time when a local election is coming up?
	Probably not very well, given where the cathedral is on all of these matters.
	The reality of how this has come about probably isn't someone campaigning and planning it, because the way that works is usually, like, MPs have to write to CCHQ and ask, can I do this interview?
	Can I do this article?
	If they're high enough.
	And usually CCHQ just says no.
	Even if it's promoting government policy, just no.
	But it surely must have crossed their mind, though, as they were in these conversations.
	As in, would this hurt our campaign?
	Maybe, but also these people all go drinking, so I can't imagine they're in the clearest state.
	Yeah, yeah, that's very true.
	32112 says, again, the Mail has done nothing wrong, but it does highlight the problem with the Conservatives, that they have very feeble lines of attack, and this is a pretty ineffective way of propping up Boris Johnson.
	who knows if angela reina is flashing or not but there are more important issues currently like the fossil fuel crisis the war in ukraine free speech and immigration that the government should be distracted by i guess yeah i agree with that in principle x y and z says one of the issues is that telling women that they should what they should wear i.e suits means men are trying to control women's sexuality and that men cannot control themselves or some bs like that yeah therefore we have the male suits like yeah You're absolutely right.
	That's where the logic ends up going, to the male suits.
	Yeah.
	Kevin Fox says all Tories on the front bench should cycle into work and sit there in their light recycle shorts with their legs spread.
	Bit dangerous, may not distract Rainer.
	However, the effects on Kit and Diane Abbott.
	Right, so we're just going to have bulge and camel toe everywhere.
	I can actually see Diane Abbott's face of contempt right now.
	Yeah.
	No, I don't want to look at a dying habit in Lycra.
	No, no, I mean, in response to the Tories.
	Yeah, yeah, but if we're making them all cycling, it's going to turn into a hell show.
	Yeah, yeah, you're not wrong.
	George Happ says the Angela Rayner situation is a prime example of why women are not fit for politics yet.
	They can play the sexism card at any point to avoid criticism and responsibility for their actions.
	As long as the current blind gynocentrism is a thing, female leadership is a danger to society.
	I don't disagree with it.
	This is a problem, as I've mentioned.
	It's an integration and therefore there are discussions to be had that haven't been done.
	But to say that therefore you can't have women in politics at all is just reductive to the extreme.
	Yeah, but that's not what George is saying.
	He's saying right now it's a bad idea.
	Yeah, but then how do you get to a place where you can without having these conversations?
	Where there aren't any double standards in how men and women deserve themselves.
	Yeah, but you're proposing that we sit around and plan that all out, rather than go through the messy concept of how we do it.
	If you could, for example, establish the fact that, look, if you're a woman and you're going to pull off the same sort of stunt that the lioness I showed does, and you could be called out for it, I think that would balance things out pretty well, because then they would not have a blank check to, well, in effect...
	To exploit the fact that heterosexual men are particularly vulnerable to their gaze upon the female body, if you get what I'm saying.
	Yeah, you don't do that by planning and theory, though.
	You do that by practice.
	Yes, quite.
	Every time you mention that lioness, I'm just imagining Diane Abbott as well.
	You've got to stop.
	Her rolling around on the floor and everyone's going to be like...
	Corbin getting excited in the corner.
	Yeah, once upon a time.
	Yeah, apparently he did.
	Yeah, I heard that.
	Those are my comments, Dan.
	Oh, right, sorry.
	We were just pondering.
	So, on Robertson was right, Lee B says, one thing that astounds me about the picture the media and Wikipedia like to paint about bad man, they say he's a far-right Islamophobic violent criminal to make him look like this guy who's going around organizing attacks on Muslims.
	Completely ignoring his violence was in a football sphere and completely unrelated to his activism.
	The war against Robinson is entirely classist.
	That is a true element of the media smearing.
	Also, that's not entirely true.
	He has engaged in violence on the political sphere.
	Do you know how?
	How?
	He punched a Nazi...
	Oh.
	I'm not even joking.
	It's funny how that wasn't really reported.
	Yeah, he went...
	The footage is in the Oxford Union thing, I think, as well, where he's walking down the street off some EDL rally, and some neo-nazis turned up to join them, and he was like, no, go to hell.
	What nothing to do with you.
	And then they get in a scuffle, and he just punches him.
	Yeah, funny how that's not reported.
	Punching a Nazi is bad.
	Now, again.
	I couldn't put it better myself.
	In the book club we did on...
	I can't say it.
	Anyway, the book club we did on the Looming Tower, me and Bo, that was one of the aspects throughout the book that I found fascinating as well, is that you look at the prisons in Egypt.
	You looked at the prisons in Saudi Arabia or whatever, right?
	And every single time, they're full of Islamists and they're all radicalizing each other and this is a problem in the 90s that eventually people realized was a huge deal.
	But that's going on in Britain and has been going on for about 10 odd years now, probably more.
	And you're absolutely right.
	That's the sort of thing you used to have in Muslim countries.
	Islamists en masse in prisons recruiting local Muslims.
	Because we didn't have a Muslim population.
	Nothing to speak of.
	Never to mind the Islamist issue as well.
	And now we do.
	And that's not going away any time soon.
	It's important to...
	To remember as well that there were a lot of Muslims who were very, very well read on a certain Oswald Spengler and believe that the West, generally speaking, may be in its decadent, self-hating phase and proactively Well,
	bad in the way that we currently are is precisely when a Spenglarian could look at that and think there's an opportunity to establish something new here and spread the word of Allah.
	Well I'm worried about that.
	There are Islamists who have Islamic solutions to everything.
	I'm worried about the numbers.
	The fact that, as he says, that's the sort of thing that you're not a Muslim country, but this, in reality, shows that you are.
	And in the prison system, we absolutely are.
	We have Muslim country problems in our prisons.
	And then we're going to have Muslim country problems in the streets, as we have in some areas.
	And then, well, how far does it have to go before, quite frankly, you are a Muslim country?
	Yeah, it's something we have to deal with right now, and I'm glad that Dominic Robb has made those steps.
	We'll see if it works.
	Alex Ugal says, Callum, you may find Muslims of all colours, but Islam is inherently racist.
	The Prophet Muhammad hated black people and said the devil was black.
	Modern Muslims certainly believe black Muslims are not as worthy of Middle Eastern ones.
	Yeah, they're also very bigoted on the text, which I find really funny.
	So when Pakistan split away from the Raj, and India did the same, the Pakistanis were like, hey, our script looks kind of Indian, and therefore no one likes us, because we look like foreigners, so we're going to try an Arabic...
	Try and make the script Arabic, and they've done it, and if you're Pakistani or Indian, you can understand the words, but not the writing, of course.
	But I just find it really funny that they obviously sensed a kind of bigotry there.
	They certainly are dismissive of any one of other races, the Middle Easterners, but then you are going to get that, especially when you say that we have an actual physical holy place, and it's in Arabia, and who lives there?
	The Arabs.
	Yes.
	Omar Awad says, radical Islamists converting other inmates is a form of conversion therapy.
	I could get behind banning.
	That's a great point, Omar.
	I never even thought of that.
	Consider it took 40 years before the grooming gangs were even acknowledged.
	I don't have any faith in this government pushing unacceptable behaviour up to and including literal terrorism.
	I'm interested in the idea of banning it, though, as conversion therapy.
	Another five years.
	Yeah, it's an interesting...
	That's definitely an angle you could pursue.
	Paul Newbar says Islamists should be dropped immediately rather than imprisoned.
	Sorry, deported.
	Yeah, ideally, but the world isn't perfect.
	North Antonia Knight says TR does accurate reporting.
	Leftist rail against reality.
	Another load of manure is dumped on the mound.
	Building up for the giant fan.
	It's almost certain to hit.
	Well, for the left and for the Blairites in particular, these are just consequences of building something better as they see it.
	Andrew Narok says, Yeah, I'm increasingly feeling like that, frankly.
	Because it's...
	I love this when we spoke to Starkey and Carl asked him what we were going to do about Islam.
	I don't think Starkey got what we were hinting at, but the fact that Europe hasn't had a significant Muslim population ever.
	And this is a brand new thing.
	And that's not going to...
	This isn't like Irish integrating into being English.
	This is not something you're going to get rid of in a few generations.
	Wasn't Spain an Islamic country at one point?
	It was owned by the Muslims, like conquered by them.
	I don't think it was a population-wise situation.
	But this is really a problem in Europe especially.
	I can't get over the insanity of being like, yeah, we'll just import loads of Muslims and everything will go fine, as if there won't be any changes.
	You have to be mad.
	It's because you have people in charge, like Blair and his entire establishment, who don't see them as Muslims.
	They see them as economic agents.
	Units.
	Units.
	When you actually sell the modern project to them and make them a part of it, they'll just see the lies and we'll all just coexist in some secular universe.
	That clearly has not happened.
	They still identify very, very strongly with their traditional roots.
	And in many ways, so do we.
	Hence our, well...
	Resistance.
	Our resistance to it, unless you allow a complete paradigm shift to occur, where we look at ourselves more historically and start taking note of our theological roots, where you will see the profound differences between the Judeo-Christian world and the Islamic one, you're never going to resolve the problem.
	The relationship with the dead.
	The fact that we're not just here and now.
	We actually have a relationship with everyone before us.
	Yes.
	I mean, it's like, could you imagine the Saudis arguing that we're going to import 100 million Russian Orthodox Christians?
	Never going to happen.
	Never happen.
	And the Orthodox Christians would never go there for good reason.
	If they took over all of Islam, sorry, all of Arabia, that would be funny.
	So on the other one mentions, Sweden says the makeup of the phrase Putin price hike is Trumpian in tone.
	If Trump said this, he would be called a Russophobic and a vitriolic.
	Interesting framing by Biden, though.
	It's also just embarrassing.
	It's so transparently silly, isn't it?
	Christian Anderson says, Callum, there's too many words with taboos, but I managed to figure out what the K-word was.
	Glad you and Carl could have a laugh about it.
	Well, Mr.
	Anderson, now that you know, tell her what.
	You ever heard the story of...
	Peter Hitchens, when he went to Russia, and he was taught Russian by some guy, and he said, now I'm going to teach you all the swear words.
	They went through them all.
	I said, now that I've told you, never say these again.
	Did he use them?
	He was told not to, because in Russian as well, the swear words are seemingly even worse than they are in any other language.
	Like, more of course, in the culture, which is just funny, because they seem to use them an awful lot.
	Anyway, we're out of time.
	If you'd like more from us, go over to LotusS.com.
	Please do subscribe to guys to support the premium content, and otherwise, we'll be back tomorrow at 1 o'clock.

▲