Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 10, 2023 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:31:14

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #587

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Evers for the 10th of February 2023.
	I'm joined by Nick, and today we're going to be talking about very important work, such as wasting everyone's money at Brevent, the British Bobby is the best in the world, and Twitter squirming, which I think is nice.
	I know it's the old regime now, but it's good to see them actually get asked.
	So why did you do all these things that we now know you did?
	Before we get into that, we'll just promote something on Let's See Us First, being the book club, George Orwell's Animal Farm Part 2.
	So, if you enjoyed Part 1, come and check out Part 2, I guess.
	That'll be live today at 3.30.
	So, come along and join that out.
	Anyway, we shall begin, otherwise.
	So there is very important work to be done, Nick, on counter-terrorism.
	Always. There's very many important things, such as stopping terrorism.
	That's a pretty important thing. Could be done.
	But not today. Not yesterday or the last five years or whenever, apparently.
	This is at least according to a new report that's come out, an independent inquiry into the Prevent strategy, which for foreigners is the key counter-terrorism strategy for the UK. And it's really funny.
	Because the independent report is some guy who's not trying to gloss over the stuff.
	He just details, this was dumb.
	Don't know why you did this. Why did you give £10,000 to the Iranians?
	It's just going through example after example of mess-ups and also making a lot of Islamo-leftists very, very mad.
	Because he's like, you know that Islamic terrorism thing?
	Maybe that has something to do with Islam.
	I don't know. Hunch. Before we begin, we'll just mention some of the spy stuff that we've been through.
	So this is the book club Active Measures, which was very good fun.
	I was just telling Nick about the story of the fake magazines that the CIA and the KGB made for each other just to have a laugh, frankly.
	So do go and check that out.
	But otherwise, we shall begin with, let's say if we actually cared about counterterrorism, what would you do?
	First of all, you've got to identify the problem.
	Then you have to identify the players.
	Then you need to work out what motivates them to do what they need to do.
	Then I would split that up into different fields.
	So then I'd look at prevention.
	I'd look at propaganda.
	I'd look at early intervention.
	And I'd look at some enforcement.
	Off the top of my head, that's how I would...
	Incredibly reasonable place to start.
	Yeah. And the first and foremost being laying the land.
	What's going on? What is actually happening?
	So if you wanted to do that, I would recommend the Global Terrorism Index.
	They're released every single year. Most people don't seem to know about them at all.
	But they're a really funny outlet because they're full of facts which are not happy for certain people who want the world to be something that is not.
	For example, you endlessly hear about the rise of the far-right terrorism across the West and blah blah blah blah blah.
	Yeah, we'll see the data on that in a minute.
	We'll go to the first one, just because, for people who don't know, almost all terrorism in the world is Islamic.
	90% here. With the next biggest group being unknown.
	The next biggest group after that is communist, just in case you're wondering.
	But there you have it. I mean, there's a bar graph of just all the deadliest terror groups in the world.
	As you can see, you then get the unknown category and then the all other groups combined category is rather small by comparison.
	But that's the truth.
	You can be mad about it and you can maul, but who cares?
	Grow up. We'll go to the next one here, because if we check in on the West, because to be fair, who really cares about who's dying in Syria and Iraq to terrorism if you're a British counterterrorism operative?
	Not my jurisdiction.
	Not my sheriff's department.
	So we go to the incidents and deaths from terrorism in the West by ideology.
	This is 2007 to 2021.
	I featured this before, but we're going to keep posting it until people learn the message.
	So you can see here, just broken down by far right, far left, separatists, religious terrorism, unclear.
	So it's also a category. And yeah, you can see there is some uptick in far right from about 2016.
	Love it. It kind of just dies.
	In 2021, it's not even a thing anymore.
	Whereas far left, yeah, no, that's still around.
	That's common. That's not taken care of.
	Now, if you go forward to the next one, the only thing we could be happy about, you can see here...
	Incidents, so these aren't deaths.
	Instead, you can see far-left terrorism far outweighs far-right terrorism any given year in the West.
	It's just ridiculous. And if you go to the next one here, we can see the fact...
	Oh, there should be another graph there, but whatever.
	There's just the fact that the thing we can be thankful of is far-left terrorism is very crap at killing people.
	That's nice. They're just not successful at death.
	They're only successful at incidents.
	But going forward, because there is someone who decided to come out and say that, well, the report that's just come out stating some very naughty things, which we'll get to in a minute, is actually far-right propaganda by the government.
	Yeah, okay. This is Lizzie Dearden here, who has a very big hard-on for Romlin Tomlinson.
	Can't say his name because of Facebook.
	Yeah. I'm not kidding. She's written like a million articles about him.
	It's a bit weird. But she wrote here, this list from the report, amidst the 16th of March 2019 Stamwell attack, where a white supremacist inspired by the Christchurch mosque shootings the previous day before, went out and killed some Muslims.
	I was like... Okay.
	Well, if they are leaving this out, that would be wrong.
	If it was actually in the purview.
	Except she's just lying.
	If you scroll up on this, John, so we can actually see what she's referring to.
	She's taken this paragraph and just cropped it to say that, you know, this guy's saying, here's a list of attacks.
	All of those are Islamic. And she says, how dare he say that all the attacks in 2019 were Islamic?
	That's because he don't. Let's go to the report itself, because this is where the rumbling's going to start.
	He says here, But the facts clearly demonstrate that the most lethal threat in the last 20 years has come from Islamism, and this threat continues.
	Since this independent review of Prevent was commissioned in 2019, six terrorist attacks have blighted our nation.
	These took place at Fishmongers Hall, November 19, Whitemore Prison, January 2020, Stratham, February 2020, Reading, June 2020, Southend, October 2021, Liverpool, and in addition, shortly before this report was completed, a British citizen held Jewish civilians hostage in a synagogue in Texas.
	All of these were of an Islamist nature.
	Yeah, but he is ignoring that last one, except that doesn't make any sense, because when you actually go and look at when the report was asked to be produced for the next one, you can see it was in 16th of September 2019.
	So Lizzie Dearden doesn't know how to use a calendar.
	One mystery solved, in case you're wondering.
	I saw that going around hugely in left-wing forums.
	It's like, how can they do this?
	How can they ignore far-right terrorism?
	It didn't. It wasn't in the purview.
	It started in September.
	So funnily enough, it doesn't include terrorism from March.
	Why would it? It's just dumb, but I had to go over that.
	But if we get to the actual upset people, every MP who is upset at being told Islamic terrorism has something to do with Islam is mad.
	Because it's a really weird group of people.
	Because, I mean, no one denies that Christian terrorism has something to do with Christianity.
	Or that far-right terrorism has something to do with the far-right.
	Or maybe communist terrorism has something to do with communism.
	But, no, these folks are really annoyed about this.
	I'll find out why in a minute. This is a statement from the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims.
	A statement in here. Creating a hierarchy of extremism, fuelled by ideology and political viewpoints, simply makes the problem worse and makes us all less safe.
	They're referring to the hierarchy of threat.
	So, the British government's saying maybe the biggest threat in terms of terrorism is Islamic terrorism.
	That's making us all less safe.
	Because it's political ideology of you to do that.
	I mean, yes, in the sense of, I want to find what the actual threats are.
	Just true. But these are politicians.
	Yeah, yeah. But it's funny to see as well.
	They can't even argue in a sufficient way of even slightly convincing.
	It's just, how dare you mention it?
	If we go forward, there's another lady, my personal favourite, Islamist leftist, Zahra Sultana, who's just whining in here.
	She mentions in here that the guy in charge of the report once said, Islam and Europe are the most terrifying problems of our future.
	Obviously referring to integration, not an anti-Muslim statement, but whatever.
	Amnesty International is also whining about this, for people who like Amnesty International.
	If you didn't know, yeah, the full leftists who just endlessly take one side of the debate, which is that if it's right-wingers in trouble, we don't care.
	See Count Dankula for that one.
	Let's get to the actual report, because this is where the truth comes in, and the truth isn't fun, to say the least.
	So, they write in here, Prevent's first objective to tackle the causes of radicalization and respond to ideological challenges of terrorism is not being sufficiently met.
	I don't know if you noticed, but yeah, I mean, we have constant Islamic terrorism going on, successfully.
	Not to mention the unsuccessful attacks from various groups, then yeah, we're not doing well as a country.
	Prevent is not doing enough to counter non-violent Islamist extremism.
	Prevent has a double standard when dealing with extreme right-wing and Islamist terrorism.
	Prevent takes an expansive approach to right-wing terrorism.
	Very polite way of saying that they list things that aren't terrorism as terrorism.
	We... Josh actually did a report a while back in which the government released their statistics on who was being referred to prevent far-right terrorism or Islamist terrorism.
	Do you want to guess who was in the far-right camp?
	What kind of demographics made up the far-right in the UK? 11-year-old boys online.
	No, not quite, actually. It's the exact opposite.
	It was pensioners. Right.
	The British pensioners of the country, they're all about to go...
	Yeah, no. Terrorism comes from young men.
	Yeah. Overwhelmingly, but they're all the referrals from pensioners, which just tells you that they've not got it right.
	The... The investigation into the far right in this country really is to balance the investigation into Islamic fundamentalism, terrorism in the country.
	It's a straw man, the far right investigations.
	It's just to balance out the figures.
	It's entirely media inventive.
	We need to investigate this because the media says so, not because the data actually shows do we have a problem here.
	And this is the government's own words.
	I'm not even saying this at this point.
	I can actually just quote them.
	They say they take an expansive approach to the extreme right wing.
	Capturing a variety of influences that, at times, has been so broad it has included mildly controversial or provocative forms of mainstream right wing leading commentary that have no meaningful connection to terrorism or radicalisation.
	However, with Islamism, Prevent takes a much more narrow approach, centered around prescribed organizations, ignoring the contribution of non-violent Islamist narratives and networks to terrorism.
	So when it comes to the state in my country, policing the right, they decide that there's far-right terrorism.
	Okay, cool. That's an accurate place for you to be working.
	And then also, anyone who says anything mildly controversial, that's basically on the road to terrorism.
	Great. Great.
	Fantastic. Glad I live in this world.
	And they specifically only use that on the right, as mentioned.
	Never with any other group. He says, This is where we get to just dumb things, which is fun.
	I found there were inadequate mechanisms to evaluate individual projects.
	Funding too often goes towards generic projects dealing with community cohesion and hate crime.
	Which we're all used to at this point.
	We've got to give money to this organisation.
	Why? Are they fighting hate?
	What are they doing? Fighting hate.
	How are they doing it? I don't know.
	Stop asking questions. Just give me the cash.
	Of particular concern, I discovered that some CSOs have promoted extremist narratives.
	Great! Including statements that appear to be sympathetic to the Taliban.
	As a core principle, the government must cease to engage with those aligned with extremism, which is a real understatement.
	We're actually funding pro-Taliban speakers in the UK. As a way of countering...
	Okay.
	I was disturbed by the presence of anti-Semitism within the channel cases I observed.
	This is the fact that basically, yeah, all the cases getting are anti-Semites.
	Shock. Individuals discussed at channel panels tended to harbor violent and fanatical beliefs about Jews, often expressing intent to kill, assault, or blow up members of the Jewish community.
	Yeah, who could have seen that coming?
	We're looking into Islamic terrorism.
	What would we find? Not fond of Israel, so...
	It is clear that Prevent is out of kilter with the rest of the counterterrorism system and the UK's counterterrorism threat as a picture.
	Islamist terrorism represents the primary terrorist threat to this country, consistently accounting for the majority of terrorist attack plots, both carried out and thwarted by intelligence services.
	He says, at present, 80% of all counterterrorism police network's live investigations are Islamist.
	10% are extreme right wing.
	And yet, at the same time, 22% of all referrals are for Islamism.
	Only 22%?
	80% of all terrorism that actually has to be investigated, thwarted or successful, is Islamist.
	Only 22% of people actually being looked at in the prevention strategy are Islamists.
	The rest of them are not.
	Right, wow. It's a real weird situation.
	He goes into it. I'll quickly just summarize what he says for the sake of time.
	But essentially, the vast majority of people who get sent to prevent are just mentally ill.
	Like, they're not extreme white.
	They're not extreme left. They're not Islamists.
	They're listed as mixed, unclear, or unstable referrals.
	Meaning that they don't actually have any threat of terrorism.
	There's no political motive for anything.
	They're just mentally ill. But we don't have a mental health service anymore, so...
	Basically a terrorist. Good job.
	Great. In my assessment, Prevent is carrying the weight for mental health services.
	Vulnerable people who do not necessarily pose a terrorism risk are being referred to Prevent because there's no other support.
	It's like, great. Fantastic.
	So that's part of the reason our counterterrorism just doesn't work.
	We're not used as a counterterrorist saying.
	I'm not satisfied that sufficient precaution is being applied to rehabilitation work either.
	As the murderous fishmonger hall attack of 2019 showed, optimism bias can have tragic consequences.
	Do you remember that attack? Yeah. So, for people who don't know, local chap joins Al-Qaeda, as you do, I suppose, started planning how to blow up parliament, synagogues, and also stock exchange.
	Gone full joker, I guess.
	Was sent to prison for eight years, rehabilitated, and then came out and murdered people, including one of the people he took a picture with showing that he was rehabilitated.
	He'd just been to a probation event that morning.
	Yeah. Well, he'd been rehabilitated.
	Don't worry about it. Yeah, nah.
	There is a concerted campaign by some as well, including a number of Islamist groups to undermine and delegitimize the prevent strategy through the spread of disinformation, misinformation, half-truths.
	Yeah, this is where I come back to my favourite MP. Because, routinely, I mean, she tweets things like this.
	Prevent is being used to police legitimate speech, protests and dissent.
	It should be scrapped. Referring to the fact that Prevent went after disproportionately Muslims.
	I was like, okay.
	Well, if the terrorism is disproportionately Islamic, then yes, that is going to be the suspects.
	And then, if we go to the other link here, I just noted out some other funny things.
	There's just the fact here, it is worth reinstating that Islamist terrorism is currently the largest terror threat facing the United Kingdom.
	He just keeps posting it in this report, and I think that's the reason why there's so much pushback to this, is the guy writing it has just been like, stop being dumb.
	Like, we actually have a problem. And that's not allowed.
	It does write here, however. Prevent does not seek to engage and consult with extreme right-wing sympathisers, and it recognises extreme right-wing grievance narratives as being a key part of the problem.
	As previously mentioned and explored in detail later on in the report, the same cannot be said of Prevent's treatment of non-violent Islamist radicalising influences.
	So when it comes to the far right, if they've got a grievance that you could try and tackle, you don't take any attention to that.
	But if an Islamist has a grievance, you go, well, okay, maybe we can debate with him and do something for this group here.
	Great, cool. Moving forward, go to the next link.
	They're also spending their time just wasting time on nonsense.
	This is just a list of stupid things they were doing, which I found funny.
	So there's one analysis product on right-wing terrorism and extremist activity online with reference books from mainstream British conservative commentators as key cultural nationalist ideological texts, the same document listed key texts for white nationalists as historic works of Western philosophical and literary canon.
	They're like, yeah, if you read Aristotle, you're going to become a white nationalist.
	Yeah, nah. This is terrible work.
	Also, the mainstream conservative commentators, do you want to guess who?
	You? No.
	Douglas Murray. I'm not kidding.
	Yeah. You read Douglas Murray, you're on the road to terrorism, according to the British state.
	There's also another analysis product I mentioned here, which discussed a cohort of social media users it termed actively patriotic and proud, listed a prominent conservative politician and former member of the government as being among figures associated with far-right sympathetic audiences and Brexit.
	Remember, this is the counter-terrorism unit.
	It was like, yeah, you know those conservative MPs?
	That's too far-right.
	Conservative MPs are too far right.
	I mean, if you want to get an image of just how weird the UK has become, I mean, when you're assessing Conservative MPs as basically neo-Nazis, and you're running the counter-terrorism of the country, I mean, yeah, everyone here has lost their minds.
	I actually don't think they believe any of this.
	Think so? This is...
	This is all about equity.
	If we have bad Muslim guys, well, equity tells us there must be bad white Christian guys as well.
	And so we have to split preventing to them equally.
	And these people, it's all about equity.
	It really is.
	I don't think people who work there believe any of this at all.
	I think a significant section of them do, because you've got to think of who ends up there, and it's kind of individuals who go to university, get brainwashed full of nonsense, then end up working for counterterrorism.
	I think a lot of them do get guilt-tripped.
	Not to mention, we have seen, I think it's from MI5 and MI6, we went through it, they have diversity quotas now for interns.
	They have special internships where white people can't apply, for example.
	That's the norm. That's the office culture.
	I'm sure they believe what they're doing, I don't believe that they believe that the threat of violence is the same.
	Maybe. But the funniest one at the bottom here is someone wrote a product about far-right radicalization online and named a highly popular American podcast host They don't say which one.
	Take your guess in the comments, I guess.
	Claiming that this individual has been described as a gateway to the far right, it was suggested that he hosted a disproportionate number of influencers from the far right of the political spectrum, although no examples were provided.
	It's Joe Rogan. That's who I'd be guessing.
	I'm putting a bounty on it being Joe Rogan.
	And what's funny, and the reason I mention the culture is because that's a very common leftist meme of like, don't you know Joe Rogan's a gateway to the far right?
	He's had this guy and this guy on.
	No one cares. But that's what the counter-terrorism policing is like now.
	Actual left-wing memers. If you scroll down on this, there's a whole bunch of other examples in that thread that people might find funny.
	So like the first one being that counter-terrorism was running a female Muslim online magazine It contains nothing but stupid stuff like horoscopes.
	But they still ran it. Because, you know, that's counterterrorism.
	There's them funding the Taliban, which was the one just below that, if you scroll back up a little bit.
	Which, you know, money must have spent.
	How do you count to the Taliban?
	Fund them. What we need to do with all government projects, when you're dealing with taxpayers' money and you're funding these sort of projects...
	You probably already have what a successful project looks like.
	So these are our aims and objectives.
	So if we're successful, this is what we'll achieve.
	Civil servants also need to write another document to state what failure looks like.
	Yeah. Because I'm sure if they did, all these, by their own words, would be failures.
	And then we can hold people to account.
	Does that actually count to terrorism?
	No. I think it's a pretty good standard of, like, is this failing?
	The next one here is just them listing something, which is really an insight.
	You may remember Roland Tomlinson.
	Once got famous, he was put in charge of UKIP's advisory board, or whatever.
	He was an advisor to Gerald Batten, on prison reform, and everyone lost their mind.
	And Gerald Batten's response was, well, he's been to prison.
	Keep telling me there's a real extremism problem there, so I want to know what's going on.
	Turns out he was entirely right.
	This is the government's own wording, in which they just...
	I'm not even going to go through all the bullet points here.
	You can do it in your own time. Which is just them mentioning, yeah, the prisons are even worse than he's been saying.
	The level of radicalization there.
	But we've known this for decades.
	That's not new. We've known this.
	It's just out in the open now.
	I've done the report. Trust me, it's real.
	Please stop. If you go down there, there is one more I think that's rather funny.
	So this is where they just gave £10,000 to Iranian-backed extremists because of COVID. Why not?
	I've got nothing else to do today.
	So why don't I just give 10 grand to people you know to be Iranian extremists?
	Neat. Well, to be fair, the Iranian extremists who will be Shiite extremists hate the Sunni extremists.
	So if they could knock a couple of thousand of them off for 10 grand...
	It's a really funny way of looking at it, which is just like, what if we fund the Taliban and the Iranian government and then they fight?
	Kill each other, yes. Yeah, that's not going to come back the bitest in the ass.
	Do you know that's actually the strategy of the Pakistani intelligence services?
	I'm not joking. It was the official thing for the British Empire.
	It's called divide and conquer.
	Sure. That's how we run the world.
	For the Pakistanis, it's really funny, though, because they fund every Islamist group that's next door to them.
	Yeah. Well, who's next door to you when they take over?
	Oh, wait. Now you have an Islamic extremist as a neighbour.
	Yeah. You may have noticed after the Taliban took over, even the Prime Minister of Pakistan gave a speech.
	He said they'd thrown off the shackles of American imperialism.
	Yeah, guess who's bombing each other right now?
	The Taliban and the Pakistani government.
	It's just like, eh. Well, enjoy it.
	It's your world. And we'll just go forward here, if we go through a couple of links forward.
	We can also see that there was an imam who's being paid by the government to promote the Taliban, promote anti-Semitism, and also host terror suspects as guests at his events, which is a good job.
	Well, I'm all spent.
	And then we go to the last link here as well, which is the main thing that pissed me off and the reason I think that this is sincere in the EDC.
	Listed as to one of the reasons why the British government is so bad at actually countering far-right terrorism and instead spends its time chasing after people like Douglas Murray in their reports, is if you can clear on the first image there, it's because they're using Hope Not Hate as a source.
	People who don't know, Hope Not Hate is just a left-wing communist organisation.
	If you think I'm being hyperbolic by calling them communist, we go forwards.
	This is their head of research, Matthew Collins.
	There you go. This is Facebook posts.
	My position, the same as the party I belong to, the Communist Party.
	And in case you think that's some kind of fake screenshot or something, I'd take a lot of screenshots of his account just to make the point that this is real if you keep going.
	We can see those screenshots.
	The Communist Party of Great Britain supporters groups.
	And there he is posting stuff, working for Hope Not Hate.
	Pretty easily findable.
	I would have thought the counterterrorism could have found it.
	But if you go back in that first link, the thing they're whining about there is that Douglas Murray and Malene Phillips were saying that maybe bringing the entire world to England is not a great idea.
	Last link, first image, please.
	Then you can see that that's what Hope and I Hate are whining about.
	That's not the last link. So if you go to the last link, first image, you'll see that.
	There you are. Boom, which, yeah.
	If you wanted to rely on someone's worldview to teach you what far-right terrorism is, don't ask a communist.
	They can't be trusted. Don't know why I need to say that.
	But I went through that report, thought it was important.
	I think people should know. In case you're wondering why the intelligence services sometimes are really dumb, it's because they're doing really dumb things.
	They're just humans. And a lot of them apparently fall for communist propaganda like this, consistently.
	What I think would be a really good section that we could do another time, or you could do with someone else another time, would be have a look about how the British defeated the IRA for the three decades of Irish terrorism in Northern Ireland and on the mainland.
	And we didn't have complaints there that we weren't treating Irish terrorists the same as Scottish terrorists.
	Why aren't we investigating Welsh terrorists who were burning people's cottages down at the time?
	We've had these problems before and we've solved them before.
	All that's happened is we're trying to solve this problem now in the area of wokeness and equity and we're allowing People who may or may not be terrorists, who are definitely sympathizers of the terrorist cause we have at the moment, we're allowing them to dictate what needs to be done.
	To a certain extent, they're the last people we need to ask because they...
	Yeah, why would you ask them? Exactly.
	Like, to give a very specific example that's just mentioned in the report, not explicitly, but I know he's talking about, there are Islamist MPs and there are Islamist front groups in the UK that endlessly whine about how Islamists are being targeted by the counterterrorism strategy.
	Why would you ask their opinion on if they're being oppressed?
	Exactly. Yeah, the criminals are upset that we're investigating.
	Show me where Prevent or the police or MI5 have broken the law.
	Then we'll take that seriously.
	If they haven't broken a law, they should be able to investigate and do what needs to be done within the law.
	And we should stop listening to these people.
	Let's move on to the bobbies. So, bisection.
	Nearly all my time growing up as a child, people would say, oh, the British Bobby, best in the world.
	And in the 60s, we had something called Dixon of Doc Green, and that was like the traditional British Bobby with the big hat, walking around his neighbourhood, speaking to people, solving crime.
	And that's what we thought the British Bobby was.
	But things have changed over my lifetime and over several decades.
	Dixon of Dot Green has now turned into, if we can have the next, has turned into this.
	This is a Greater Manchester Police Constable at a Pride event, the Pride Bumblebee.
	It's not a local clown?
	It's not. It's a police officer.
	Luckily, the new chief and chief constable of Greater Manchester has stopped all this now.
	He seems to be doing really, really well.
	Stephen Watson, I believe his name is.
	So this wasn't happening anymore.
	I've trained police officers over a decade ago in community and youth engagement.
	I've been based in police stations when I worked for Manchester Council.
	You know, I've directed police officers with their patrol plans and looking at different crimes.
	I understand how the police work.
	And we've fallen, we've fallen so far, and it looks like we're continuing to fall as a nation.
	But it gets worse.
	I was on GB News yesterday talking about knife crime, some stats came out yesterday.
	The knife crime deaths in the UK are the worst they've ever been, well, the worst they've been in 76 years.
	More people are being killed every year now than in the last 76 years.
	What are your feelings on the British police at the moment?
	Have you ever heard the phrase, British Bobby, the best in the world?
	I've heard the old joke, which is that, you know, in heaven the police are British and in hell they're German.
	Right. I mean, that's always been true.
	Yeah. I mean, no, I mean, yeah, I think probably the Germans are still worse, but...
	I don't know, I wouldn't want the British, if I can help it.
	Well, let's not compare the British police to other police forces, because if we compare the British police to Chinese police, Ugandan police...
	Yeah, sure. We've still got, you know, a good police service compared to many other countries, but compared to how it used to be...
	There's a reason I picked the Germans, which is the biggest complaint with the modern policing forces.
	It's a political one. The Germans are the same thing in the modern age, which is they do arrest people for thought crimes.
	It's like, well... Yeah.
	That's not a police service. Hate crime.
	You go to jail for hate crime in Germany.
	Denying the Holocaust is...
	You go to jail in Germany for that.
	You can go for here as well. Did you know that?
	No. No. So this is not a law, but instead, because being grossly offensive is a crime, denying the Holocaust online is now illegal.
	Yeah. There was a lady who did it in a song, and she was charged and sentenced.
	Yeah. Even though it's not a crime.
	Yeah. Right?
	Yeah, that's the Miscommunication Act, which needs to go.
	If we have the next link...
	But things are a lot worse than we can possibly imagine.
	We've got used to police not solving crimes, but we have police officers now who are actually the criminals themselves.
	I don't mean shoplifting criminals, I mean proper criminals.
	This PC, all these stories we're talking about today, I found all were in court in January, were all press stories in January this year.
	I just locked in one month.
	PC admits to grooming and abducting and sexually assaulting a 13-year-old girl.
	Mr Siddiqui of West Midlands.
	The name shouldn't surprise anybody, but this isn't just about the fact that he's Asian heritage.
	If we look at the next...
	Well, no, no, no, no. We've also got a couple of other ones that we've heard of.
	A couple of days ago, we had David Carrick, police officer, has been sentenced to 30 years in jail for multiple rapes, multiple sexual assaults, imprisonment.
	He's worked for the police for over 30 years and he's had nine internal investigations into his behaviour and he was found not guilty in all nine of them.
	What are the police doing when women are reporting police officers over decades of being a wrong gun, and the police still can't find any evidence and are still letting that officer go on and on and on.
	And then we had the case a couple of years ago with Wayne Cousins, who kidnapped the girl on the street, raped her, murdered her, and he's got a life sentence.
	His nickname in his station was The Rapist.
	That's what other officers referred to him as.
	That was his nickname, The Rapist.
	Is that not a red flag?
	I don't know any of my friends who've got that as a nickname.
	And if you had that as a nickname, you'd either be saying to your friends, that's not appropriate, or you'd be saying to yourself, he's not the sort of person I want to be, my friend.
	Is there no one who joined the stage? She was like, so why is he called the rapist?
	Yes. Because he gave everybody the creeps.
	Because of things he would say.
	Because of his mannerisms. There was red flags all the time.
	Plus the nine complaints of women about what he'd done to them.
	And this is how far the police have fallen.
	We've got serious criminals working for the police.
	Now, to be fair, these are all outliers.
	Any organisation, you can find the one or two people who do something horrendous.
	You'll always find that.
	So I don't want to tell all police officers with these three incidents here.
	But it's worse than this if we have the next link.
	At the moment, the Met Police in London are investigating over 150 officers for sex offences and racism.
	It's like... We're not looking at one or two officers now, one or two bad apples in the barrel.
	We're now looking at a proportion of our police are not fit to be doing the job.
	Never should have been recruited.
	And what makes me more angry about this is these 150 officers have now been taken off face-to-face work with the public.
	So now they've been put behind a desk.
	There's 150 officers not on the streets in London.
	One of those people, I'm fairly certain.
	Do you remember the image of a Muslim woman who was battering lockdown protesters?
	It went viral because people were pro-lockdowns.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah. She was tiny with her bat on.
	Yeah, yeah. But the people were like, why are people singling out this Muslim woman?
	And she went viral for that. The moment she went viral, people also found out her views on Jews because they found her Twitter account.
	Basically, she'd be like, yeah, the Jews are behind 9-11 and deserve what they get.
	She wasn't fired.
	She was taken off frontline duties.
	So now you've got that person handling phone calls or data.
	Yep, and then she went one step further because then she posted a tweet coming home from work saying some other police officers have used my cup at work.
	So I'm going to have to throw that in the bin now because I can't have kufars using, and a kufar is a slur against non-Muslims.
	And then we also had another police officer in London, an Asian police officer, shouting free Palestine on a march.
	She's in uniform. Policing the match, which you should be doing, but also then joining in with the slogans.
	That's how far the police are falling all the time.
	If you have the next link, so you could say 150 officers behind their desks, you know, we're looking good and we might sack them, we might sack them, you know, because if they're bad ones, no.
	The Met Police now are writing to over 250 officers who have left the police already, who have got Records against them for all sorts of complaints, inviting them back to come back to work because we need officers.
	So the Met are now saying, we're so short-staffed, we'll take underperforming racist sexual offenders, people who break the law, people who break our policies, we'll have them back at being police officers because we need them.
	One of us. Yeah.
	The vibe I get. How have the police got to such an issue?
	How did we get here?
	We all know how we got here, and it's all about lowering the bar at recruitment.
	And why have we lowered the bar?
	We've lowered the bar so more people from different groups who we think are special can join the police.
	This started in the 60s and 70s, and it started with wanting more women to join the police force.
	Might be unpopular, and I'm not saying women shouldn't join the police, and I'm not saying women don't make good police officers, because I've trained some of them, and some female police officers are absolutely excellent police officers and should be police officers.
	Yeah, it's about proportionality.
	Proportionality, but you'll find, on average, in society, more men would want to be police officers than women.
	So that means more male police officers will take a job than female police officers.
	But there's nothing wrong in that.
	So let me give you a scenario.
	So your job at Lotus Eaters doesn't work out.
	You come a little bit too lefty.
	Carl sacks you.
	You then need money for your rent.
	So you become a burglar. So one Friday afternoon, you're in someone's house.
	Because obviously you need some money for crack.
	You've got a big bag. So you put a carriage clock in it.
	You go in through someone's knicker drawer.
	You're looking for jewellery. You put some jewellery in it.
	And then you hear police sirens outside.
	And you run through the front window and look.
	And you see a five-foot-one female police officer weighing about six stone in the garden.
	You think, right, the back.
	So you run to the back of the house.
	You go to the kitchen, look out the kitchen window at the back, and there's a six-foot-three, 17-stone male police officer there.
	You need to go through the front door or the back door.
	Which door do you run out of?
	That lady's getting Robbie tackled.
	There we go. So that's not to say...
	Women shouldn't join the police.
	That's about we need the best people for the job.
	Police officers tackle criminals.
	They're not there to have cups of tea with old lady in community centres, even though we think that's the job of the police now as well.
	The main job of the police is to tackle criminals.
	And the bigger and stronger you are, the more successful you're going to be when you have that confrontation.
	You're not wrong. I'm just imagining the purpose of the police is to crack down on lefty crack habits, which, you know, is also true.
	Well, the best thing you can do for the police is not to go too lefty, not get sacked, don't take crack, and then don't be a burglar.
	So if you can do that, you'll be helping the police.
	Ethnic erasure. So after we started lowering the bar, you know, the height, the physical, the strength of new recruits, we then said, oh, do you know what?
	We need more people from ethnic minorities now to join the police because you can't police a community if you don't look like that community.
	That can't happen.
	Well, the first thing I would say is every single immigrant who's coming to the country who's not white, Left a country where every single one of their police officers looked like them.
	It didn't deliver a good police force, did it?
	Or a nation because they didn't stay there.
	They came here because if we run services based on competence, not on tribal loyalties, you get a better service and a better nation.
	Let me give you a story of what a Chief Inspector told me a couple of years ago when I was running for Mayor of Greater Manchester.
	I was talking about the policing and the changes I'd make to the policing if I was elected.
	And he gave me a story about how the police are failing.
	He was sat at a recruitment panel and they interviewed 30-40 people to be new police officers.
	And one of them was an English man of Bangladeshi heritage.
	He was born here, spoke just like me.
	And they did the physical test, passed it, did a written test, he passed it, and then they did another written test, which was, give us an example of one of the best days of your life.
	That's all about, they can look at your English level, your description, you know, because you write a lot of reports in the police for court.
	So this gentleman wrote a story about, I went to a nightclub, I met this married woman, we went back to a hotel, we had sex all night, she was fantastic.
	I thought next morning I wanted to spend more time with her before she had to leave to go back to her husband.
	So I phoned my boss up and told him I was ill so I could spend more time with her.
	It was one of the best nights and best days of my life.
	That was the story he'd wrote for a job interview with the police.
	Immoral liar. Yes.
	So this chief inspector said, veto.
	No, no. He's immoral.
	Not about sleeping with a married woman, but the fact he thinks it's an appropriate story to say at a job interview means his logic's not correct.
	He phoned up his boss and lied why he didn't come into work.
	So that's not... So no.
	His bosses overruled him and said, no, we're going to give him the job because we need more people of Bangladeshi heritage in our police force.
	So we've got to give him the job. So you think that's not right, but it gets worse.
	So many years later, the chief inspector was then working at internal affairs, looking for corrupt police officers.
	And investigated this same officer several years later.
	Had to arrest him and sack him.
	Why? Because he was going to his friend's...
	His friend was working in a sports shop in the city centre and he would go in, out of uniform, buy a pair of expensive trainers for £100 and his friend would give him eight pairs.
	And they would sell them all online and split the profit.
	And he was going in every couple of weeks, buying one pair, getting eight.
	All caught on video, fraud, theft, got arrested, got sacked.
	And this chief inspector was saying to me, when we lower the bar to allow people of any Demographic, but especially of ethnic minority.
	Immoral liars, I think, is a bar that you can't lower.
	But when we lower it to get people of different ethnic minorities to join the police, who never should have joined the police, they then end up messing up.
	We end up sacking them, and then that makes the police look racist for sacking more ethnic minorities.
	It's not because ethnic minorities don't make good police officers.
	They do. I've trained them.
	Some are amazing. It's because we keep lowering the bar.
	And when we lower the bar, we take the scrapes of different communities who we end up firing or they end up being, you know, some of these people that get arrested.
	It's we're damaging ourselves and damaging the police.
	What do you think on that?
	You're obviously not wrong. I just think it's hilarious, frankly.
	It's just the idea that you could lower the bar to accept people who are obviously not fit for the job.
	And then you're surprised that they fail in the job, such as becoming a corrupt, immoral liar.
	Well, we knew that at the interview, but never mind.
	I'm going to impress you even more.
	If you think that's the bottom of the babble, let me dig a bit deeper.
	But before we hit the next two points, let me quickly say...
	It's because we've lowered the bar, we've unprofessionalised the police.
	So now, if you've got a minor criminal record, you can join the police.
	That's not enough to stop you now joining the police.
	They allow criminals to join.
	Police officers now, most of themselves, look like hoodlums themselves, full of tattoos, unshaven, uniforms never been ironed, don't even polish the shoes.
	There's no professionalism in the police themselves.
	And they will say, well, that's because we're policing the community and we want to look like the community.
	It's like, no, I want you to look professional.
	I want to look up to you.
	We're policing criminals, so we have to become the criminals.
	That's part of the logic.
	Have you seen the TV shows, the fly-on-the-wall TV shows, where cameras will follow police officers doing their duties?
	Yeah, they're always perfect. Yeah.
	Well, for me, I end up screaming at the TV. If I hear one more police officer call someone mate or call someone love...
	You call them sir and you call them madam.
	When British Gas come to my house to check my meter or do something, that representative of British Gas calls me sir because I'm paying for that service.
	I'm paying for his wages.
	I don't want people calling me love and not a mate.
	They're falling. They keep falling lower and lower and lower.
	And then they wonder why the public don't have any respect for them.
	And we need to respect the police because we don't have a police force.
	We turn into Mogadishu.
	So we need the police force.
	We can have the next link. When we're recruiting police officers now, the physical test and what we expect from police has almost disappeared.
	The police now are buying thousands and thousands of extra extra extra large trousers and jackets because our police officers are turning into blobbies.
	So if we've got blobbies on the beat, again, how are they going to stop crime?
	How are they going to fight criminals when they're unfit?
	The Met Police have over 3,000 police officers who they cannot fully deploy because of their health.
	But they're sat behind desks.
	And when you wonder why they're policing our tweets, it's because these police officers need to do something.
	They can't go on the streets and police because they're not healthy enough mentally or physically.
	So put them behind a desk and let them look at Twitter and Facebook.
	And we wonder why we see no police.
	It's because they're unfit and they're sat behind desks in the station.
	I mean, if you did see them, it would take up your whole view anyway.
	Yeah. The police at one point used to have annual fitness tests and had to be in shape to do the job because it's a physical job.
	If you want to be a data processor and you want to be obese, that's fine for you.
	Make that choice. You have to be mentally healthy because if you've got a sub-60 IQ, you're not going to be able to do the job.
	No. In the same way that if you want to be physical in the job, you kind of have to be physically fit.
	Let's take people on merit to be our police officers.
	The best example, to round this up, the best example I could find was this.
	So the Met Police are accepting people who can hardly write English, hardly read English, and can hardly speak English.
	Why? Not to represent the community.
	Because it represents the community and it increases their diversity.
	I don't know if you saw, I found a job on, I was looking up jobs and I found there's a job with Border Force going at the moment.
	I think it's still up actually. Speak English isn't a requirement to work for Border Force.
	This is a frontline officer position.
	Don't have to speak English.
	Again, equity.
	It's all about equity.
	It's all about diversity.
	So we'll accept functionally illiterate applicants to be police officers and give them a job and then we'll wonder why their performance is inadequate.
	We wonder why when he arrests somebody and he goes to court, he gets kicked out of court because their witness statement was unreadable or had so many errors in it.
	The prosecution could say, well, you wrote this, but that means four different things depending how you read it.
	So therefore, that's not a valid statement.
	So therefore, it gets kicked out of court.
	More criminals go free.
	This is what we're doing to the police.
	We're absolutely recruiting the worst people to be police officers.
	And then we sit back and we go, oh, they're incompetent.
	Crime's going up.
	Knife crime highest on record for 76 years.
	Rape convictions, lowest ever.
	And we wonder why.
	And it's because we're not recruiting the best people for the job.
	We're recruiting people to box tick.
	If you want incompetence, equity is the quickest way to fail any service, any organisation.
	You start recruiting on identity, not on incompetence.
	Well, you're not wrong. I did see someone in the chat was mentioning about apparently Minneapolis was doing the same thing with the Somali community there.
	Yeah, how do you think that went? How you'd imagine it went.
	If you want Somali police officers, you know where they've got loads of them.
	In Somalia. I don't think they do.
	I think that's actually wrong.
	But they're not state-sponsored police, but every area has a local warlord and has enforcers.
	They're the local police there.
	And everybody who lives there doesn't want to live there.
	You know what's funny is that police force probably is more effective as its given job as well.
	But that given job is obviously terrorism, frankly.
	Alright, moving on. So, Twitter is squirming.
	At least the old regime.
	You may remember that Elon Musk brought it.
	Old regime kicked out. Well, for some weird reason, they were called to give evidence in front of Congress, and all of the old suspects were there with their little name tags.
	And, of course, now the Twitter files are out.
	Everyone can see what they've been up to for the last few years and every piece of corruption they engaged in.
	So, of course, it was good fun, and I think we enjoy some fun of just them getting grilled.
	We'll start off with something just promoting on the website.
	So this is the Germany must perish speech I gave, which is not my opinion.
	It was the opinion of one man during the Second World War who was a bit mad.
	Is that you? Yeah, I don't know if you remember.
	You take a very nice photo.
	You look quite...
	I'm not taking the photo. No, no, no.
	You look like one of those models in the old Gus catalogs that, you know, advertising a waistcoat and a shirt.
	Well, thank you. I hope I've lost some weight.
	Now, if you go too lefty and get sacked, you don't have to be a burglar.
	You can be a model. Yes, that's the lesson for all of you.
	Anyway, but the historian here was basically some guy in America.
	I believe he was from Germany or something, and he was a Jewish chap.
	And because he was Jewish, he took what the Germans were saying about the Jews, not very personally, of course.
	This is before people knew the Holocaust was happening.
	It was just that they were being horribly discriminated against, moved into the ghettos.
	And so he wrote a book calling for the extermination of all Germans.
	I was just like, oh no!
	Because of course the Germans got it and were like, see?
	They're planned for us. It actually got so high, I believe the President of the United States at the time had a statement being like, funnily enough, ranting lunatic in New York is not my plan.
	I'm not doing that, but go and check it out.
	It's good fun for a stupid story.
	So moving on to the Twitter guys squirming.
	Well, Summit News has a story.
	Former Twitter executives squirm, as they're told, they could be arrested for election interference.
	I really hope so.
	I'm a bit sceptical because Republicans have done this endlessly.
	They're like, let's bring Jack Dorsey in and grill him and then forget about it for the next four years.
	I'd like to see someone arrested for something because the Twitter files have landed.
	You guys were interfering in democracy.
	And nothing seemed to happen. Yeah, because as we go through this, the real question is, so what do these guys do?
	Well, they suppress stories supporting one candidate on a massive scale to the point they may have flipped the election on that aspect alone.
	And in which case, what do we do about that?
	Because we don't live in the age of the printing press.
	Like, this is what if all of the newspapers in 1980, and I mean all of them, and decided that a story wasn't true, weren't going to print it, even though it obviously was.
	Yeah. And then one paper bucked the trend and the printing presses were burnt down overnight.
	And then the candidate of the story was about won the election.
	I mean, that's obvious corruption on a social scale that's akin to some kind of fascist era.
	And, well, what's the punishment for doing that?
	That's the real question societally we have to answer because this is the first case in which we can provably say this has happened.
	We've got the suspects and we've got them grilling here.
	Well... I think if the Republicans actually want to make any kind of statement about how a society should be run, yes, someone has to be arrested.
	Because a message has to be sent that if you are in charge of a mega tech company that controls information, you can't be allowed to run the country through the whim of your political bias to the point that you run it like a fascist hermit kingdom.
	It's messed up. Can they prove that anyone's lied to Congress in these hearings?
	Because I believe that's a real saviourish crime over there.
	At least one of them, we can definitely, well, two of them, actually.
	So the hearing was called to investigate the role the government played, specifically the FBI, in regards to censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop story by the New York Post.
	So there's another whole group of people who need to be arrested.
	I mean, I've seen some Republicans go as far as be like, let's just disband the FBI. And I'm not unsympathetic, given how they act.
	So, former Twitter Chief Legal Officer, VJJ over there, former Deputy Counsel James Baker, and former Global Head of Trust and Safety, Mr.
	Roth. Mr. Roth's going to be the main focus of the lying.
	They were all grilled by representatives, with Congressman Clay Higgins telling them they could be arrested for interfering in the 2020 presidential election.
	So I suppose we'll just enjoy that, shall we?
	Let's play the first clip.
	So the FBI used its relationship with Twitter...
	To suppress criminal evidence being revealed about Joe Biden one month before the 2020 elections.
	You, ladies and gentlemen, interfered with the United States of America 2020 presidential election knowingly and willingly.
	That's the bad news.
	It's going to get worse because this is the investigation part.
	Later comes the arrest part.
	Which I'm looking forward to, if they're actually going to do it.
	I'm a little bit sceptical because I think that a lot of the Republicans like to do this just to raise money for themselves.
	Of course. But they deserve it.
	And also, we've got them lying under oath, just in this setting anyway.
	But he's utterly right as well.
	It is really funny how the endless argument of like, don't you know the Republicans are working with the Russians to interfere with the election?
	And then it turns out, no, you guys literally were, we have the emails, you were working with the FBI to do it.
	Every time they accuse you of something, it's always them.
	I remember the most recent thing, like Donald Trump, he's got nuclear codes in his basement that he's not keeping safe.
	They're like a weak layer. Yeah, it turns out Joe Biden may have had some really secret documents in his house, so I don't want to talk about that.
	Every time, every goddamn time.
	But we'll go to the next link here.
	This is some representative who calls out former Twitter employees for LARPing as medical experts and silencing views that don't fit the narrative.
	Can't talk about that on YouTube, so great.
	Still living under the state censorship through the back door.
	Because the thing is, of course, if the FBI is working with Twitter to suppress speech, it's not just Twitter.
	The FBI and the CIA are working with Google.
	The FBI and CIA are working with YouTube.
	With all of them. All that happened there was no one ever foresaw that someone like Elon Musk would buy Twitter.
	Yeah. And the way it's been kept legal is that, well, the state's not censoring you.
	It's just a private company.
	Obviously unconstitutional.
	And the burden there does ultimately lie at the head of the FBI or whatever.
	But either way, the people at the companies as well need to face some comeuppance.
	We'll go to Jim Jordan, who says that you lot got played by the FBI in a very funny clip.
	It's a bit long, but I think we'll enjoy.
	So let's play that. No one knows?
	Okay. So the FBI didn't tell you that it was fake, didn't tell you that it was hacked.
	And Mr. Roth, did the story violate your policies?
	In my judgment at the time, no it did not.
	Yeah, that's what you said. You said it isn't clearly a violation of our hacked materials policy, nor is it clearly a violation of anything else.
	So I think what a lot of people are wondering is if it didn't violate your policies, And they didn't tell you it was fake, didn't tell you it was hacked.
	Why'd you take it down?
	The company made a decision that found that it did violate the policy.
	It wasn't my personal judgment at the time that it did.
	But the decision was communicated to me by my direct supervisor.
	And ultimately, I didn't disagree with it enough to object.
	You know what I think happened, Mr.
	Roth? I think you guys got played.
	I think you guys wanted to take it deep down.
	We saw what the chairman put up where you said, you know, everyone in the White House is a fascist.
	I think you guys wanted it to be taken down.
	I think you meet with these guys every week.
	We know that's been established in the Twitter files.
	You had weekly meetings with Mr.
	Chan in the run-up to the election.
	They send you all kinds of emails.
	They send you documents on the super secret James Bond teleporter.
	You get information on that.
	I think you guys wanted to take it down.
	I think you guys got played by the FBI. And that's the scary part.
	Because we had 50, I mean, this to me is the real takeaway.
	51 former intelligence officials five days after you guys take down the Hunter Biden story and block the New York Post account.
	Five days later, 51 former intel officials send a letter and they say the Hunter Biden story has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.
	The information operation was run on you guys.
	And then by extension, run on the American people.
	And that's the concern.
	And to Mr. Raskin's point, that you guys aren't bound by the First Amendment because you're a private company.
	Okay, maybe so.
	And your terms of service don't have to comply with the First Amendment.
	Would that be right, Mr. Roth? They don't have to.
	You've said that as much in your testimony.
	My understanding of the First Amendment is that it protects people and businesses from government.
	Understand. And your term of service.
	So here's what I want to know. Here's what I want to know.
	Is this a violation of the First Amendment when the government, Mr.
	Chan again, sending you an email saying, we think these accounts need to be looked at because they violate your terms of service.
	That's a different standard.
	So you got the government saying your terms of service, which don't have to comply with the First Amendment, but the government saying we don't think these accounts comply with your terms of service, please take them down.
	You see a problem there, Mr.
	Roth? Mr.
	Chairman, I'm seeing a flashing red light.
	I'm happy to answer the question. Do I think that that's a valuable use of the FBI's time?
	No, but I don't see in a request for review a problem under the First Amendment, no.
	I sure do. I thank the gentleman.
	You're back. If we can keep that on screen, if we can not move to the next video, but just keep that there.
	Because I really want to know, as you can see, the FBI agent writing to them has pronouns he, him, his at the bottom there.
	And I think that it's a bit annoying that Jim didn't bring it up more.
	Probably didn't have time. But that's obviously part of the play that he alludes to, which is you've got FBI agents who are clearly insane.
	I mean, we've gone over many stories of them suppressing Christians, going after Republicans throughout the previous years, but the most recent one being the Hunter Biden laptop story.
	Okay, you are clearly a leftist lunatic if you're using pronouns like that.
	I'm not even going to get into a debate about that for a minute because it's demonstrable.
	Works in San Francisco. Of course you do, bruv.
	And that individual writes to Twitter, as Jim Jordan is showing, and says, well, we can't censor this story as the government because that would obviously be illegal.
	So what we'd like for you to do is to take the story down because it could be a breach of your terms of service.
	And this is after everyone in the Twitter room has sat around and gone, is this a breach of the terms of service?
	Obviously not. It's not hacked.
	It's real. Okay, we all agree it's not a breach?
	Yeah, cool. Then the FBI sends them an email with the pronouns at the bottom saying, yeah, but we don't like it.
	And we recommend you take it down.
	It could be. It could be a violation of the TOS, couldn't it?
	Come on, please, please. Ideological supporters in the state writing to Twitter saying, okay, we can't use officially the state resources to censor the right, but what we can do is use you guys as the monopoly of information to censor the right as our conduit.
	And at that point, as Roth says, Twitter executives made the decision that violated the TOS, even though they'd all said it obviously doesn't by reading the TOS. It's just it's been decided.
	He even says, I don't agree with it.
	You can't agree with it because it doesn't make any goddamn sense.
	It is just because the FBI wrote to you and said, please take it down because we are ideological comrades in this fight.
	And that fight, well, against who?
	Well, the fascist in the White House.
	And we'll go to the subsequent links because, well, we'll get back to Roth's views on the White House.
	He literally calls them a bunch of fascists on the Trump administration.
	So yes, I mean, if these people, if we take their own words...
	That they believe Trump is Hitler, and everyone else around him is Hitler.
	Would they be beyond getting an email from the FBI saying censor it and we'll win, and then censoring it?
	We have the evidence they did it, so I don't even know what I'm asking.
	We'll go to the clip here.
	This is the FBI informant James Baker lying under oath.
	He says in this clip that he did not speak to the FBI about the Hunter Biden laptop story at any point.
	We have the emails, bro. So, if you go to the next one here, he then goes on to say that he did because, of course, the emails are public.
	So, I can't lie anymore and get away with it.
	Which means he lied to Congress, so that's cool.
	There you are. There's another guy just openly lying.
	And then, if you go to the next link here as well, he does say in that clip as well, he insists that he was never an agent of the state, though, even though he's now been revealed.
	Yes, I was working with the FBI to censor a speech.
	I don't work for the state. I was just carrying out the recommendations of the state.
	Technically. I wasn't ordered.
	I was recommended. What would have happened if you had not carried the recommendations of the FBI? What usually happens if the FBI says to you, I really recommend you do this.
	Do they leave you alone afterwards?
	Do they just drop it? No, they arrest you.
	So, the idea that it's just recommendations is BS. We'll go to Marjorie Taylor Greene, because she'd had a really good interaction here.
	We can't get through all of it.
	But she quotes Mr.
	Roth's dissertation. I see some people in the chat mentioning he's nuts.
	Yes. In his dissertation, he argues that children should be allowed on Grindr, a homosexual dating app.
	Not hookup app, really. Why would children need to be on a homosexual hookup app?
	I don't say if this is going on YouTube.
	Because I think I suspect him of wanting that.
	And the people who want that sort of thing, you know, sex with children, are nonces.
	So, yeah, I think the taking of his position as, I want to be able to nonce, thinking that he might be a nonce, I think that's a reasonable suspicion from his own dissertation.
	Again, that's not even like a weird tweet he made at three in the morning.
	That's his dissertation paper when he was at uni.
	It's also the power angle as well.
	That's what they're arguing for, that why do we have an age limit on the age of consent?
	Because we're taking away rights and responsibilities of those children.
	They should be able to decide themselves because this is a type of oppression that adults...
	Yes. And that'll be the argument of some people.
	Should we oppress kids? Yes.
	They're kids. They don't know what they're doing.
	That's why they're called children. But that's not the only thing.
	And to remind you, Mr. Roof is one of those central people who were running Twitter.
	He was running the Trust and Safety Council.
	This guy. He's probably the one who banned me.
	Almost certainly. So they mention, Marjorie Taylor Greene also mentions, that Elon Musk deleted 44,000 accounts once he took over that were known to be promoting child pornography.
	Hmm. You turn up, you just find 44,000 accounts promoting child pornography.
	They've just been left there, no one's deleted them yet.
	Why did the previous administration not delete that?
	Because it wasn't a priority.
	She then goes on to quote how Twitter refused to remove child porn.
	They were made aware of as well.
	In the Twitter leaks, there are instances in which people wrote to Twitter saying, this is my child.
	This is my lawyer. This is a video of him being abused.
	Take this down. This is obviously child porn.
	And Twitter went, no.
	They actually responded and said, no, we're not going to do that.
	Because we believe in free speech and free expression.
	Yeah, the trust and safety guy over here.
	There are a million reasons as to why he's suspected as a nonce.
	I think if his hard drive was raided, it would be the right thing to do, but I don't think the FBI are going to do it, because he's literally their asset.
	So, there you are.
	The kind of people they're working with. And then Marjorie Taylor Greene just mentions how she was banned for making policy proposals on Twitter.
	She proposed some policy ideas, you know, as a lawmaker.
	Kind of her job. And they banned her for that.
	Because guess what? It was about health.
	So, of course, we banned politicians for saying things should change.
	Who do they think they are?
	In charge? I think it's Lauren Bober, who just mentions that she got a shadow ban for making a joke, has the joke on a massive screen behind her.
	It is good fun to see her just shout at them and be like, what the hell?
	Like, obviously it's just a joke and it's ridiculous.
	And she's correct to point that out, but it's just her shouting, to be honest.
	But that's what the Republicans did, which is, why are you censoring people?
	Why were you promoting non-suri the whole time?
	Why are you working with the FBI and then saying you're not?
	Why are you lying to us? Okay, so that's, you know, I don't want to be biased.
	We'll move to the left wing of the House, the Democrats.
	What did they use this valuable time to do?
	Wine about legs of TikTok.
	They want legs of TikTok removed.
	Like, hang on, we've got four of the most corrupt individuals on the planet sat in front of you, have done the most damage with their corruption in terms of information control and censorship, and your concern is Libs of TikTok saying that a children's hospital is offering hysterectomies.
	Libs of TikTok phoned up the Boston Children's Hospital, the car did the call.
	Yeah. And they said they would!
	They would offer the hysterectomies.
	But AOC is not bothered by such things as audio-video evidence.
	Instead, she says in here that Little TikTok lied about the Boston Children's Hospital giving hysterectomies to children.
	AOC says that account is still on the platform, isn't it?
	And then Roth, the suspect nonce, says regrettably yes it is.
	Regrettably, well, not regrettably, you're no longer in charge of that, so what even business is it of yours?
	But Lives of TikTok did respond, and it is great to see.
	There is no one I would love more to hate me than Mr.
	Roth, of all people.
	So AOC, sorry, Lives of TikTok was also quite happy to see that, in which she's just like, go to hell, don't care.
	But we'll decide to play that interaction alongside the video Lives of TikTok put out of them offering hysterectomies, just to make the point.
	Are you aware that from August 11 to August 16, that account posted false information about Boston Children's Hospital claiming that they were providing hysterectomies to children?
	Yes, I am aware of that and other claims from the account.
	And are you aware that this lie was then circulated by other prominent far-right influencers?
	Yes. And are you aware that all these claims, which I have reiterated were false, culminated in a real-life harassment and ultimately a bomb threat to the Boston Children's Hospital?
	Yes, I am aware.
	And this account is still on that platform today, isn't it?
	Regrettably, yes it is.
	Gender-affirming hysterectomy is very similar to most hysterectomies that occur.
	A hysterectomy itself is the removal of the uterus, the cervix, which is the opening of the uterus, and the fallopian tubes, which are attached to the sides of the uterus.
	Some gender-affirming hysterectomies will also include the removal of the ovaries, but that's technically a separate procedure called a bilateral oophrectomy.
	And not every gender-affirming hysterectomy includes that, and people who are getting gender-affirming hysterectomies do not have to have their ovaries removed.
	So, narrative one.
	Lips of TikTok made up a lie which resulted in a bomb threat based on a lie that this children's hospital is removing children's ovaries and their uterus on the basis of transgenderism.
	Reality. Here's the video.
	What do you want? Like, don't know what to do.
	Why would they not offer this?
	It's AOC. That's what happens when you elect a barmaid to a position of power.
	Yeah, just someone who knows nothing except ideological fighting, and will just stand our ground even on the least defensible hills possible, apparently.
	We'll go to the next link here, in which we can see more of this.
	So, Libs and TechDot being very happy that Mr.
	Roth over here hates her. Mm-hmm.
	Also, don't care. This dude is specifically responsible for most people's bannings as well.
	If you weren't, I don't know, doing Bitcoin scams or something, you got banned for that.
	This is on the issue of, like, is this tweet too far?
	This is what the trusted safety team were, and this dude was in charge of it.
	So, yeah, if you were banned for hate speech, then this dude.
	This is the one banning your account.
	The dude who is discussing whether or not he should be able to meet children on his homosexual dating app and also is disgusted that fake news such as video evidence is published on his website.
	Yeah, okay. Suck it.
	I'm so glad Musk is in charge compared to these people.
	She also goes on to mention this tweet from him.
	Can high school students ever meaningfully consent to sex with their teachers?
	Here's an article. I mean...
	This account's gone. It's a discussion that people can have.
	It's not a discussion you'd want to advertise that you think people should have.
	That just sends the wrong message.
	There's a great stone-toss meme of Vosh sat there just being like, look, so people who are obsessed with fascists are probably fascists, am I right?
	Anyway, now back to the Age of Consent.
	Because he just endlessly brings it up for no reason.
	It's like... What do you want?
	And local man over here, other progressive, sitting around being like, let's talk about consent and children.
	You're a suspect. We'll move to the last section here, in which we can see Mr.
	Roth's own view, which is, firstly, he's not biased, he told the council.
	I have absolutely no bias whatsoever.
	If you go to the next link here, please, let me see that.
	In which he tells them, no, the idea here's any political bias whatsoever.
	However... Everybody's biased.
	Yeah, he then gets asked, so why did you say the White House was full of Nazis if you don't have any bias whatsoever, if you're Mr.
	Neutral over there? I mean, this chap here, I do kind of like that they have these massive things.
	I don't know what they are, they're massive posters to display a tweet, for example.
	Because he tweeted that, I believe it was that they were all fascists in the White House or Nazis in the White House.
	And so this dude just blew up the tweet.
	There you have it. And just points to it and goes, so what is your bias exactly?
	There you are. Actual Nazis in the White House, referring to Donald Trump and his team.
	Yeah, no bias here who banned all of us because he was in charge and could be trusted.
	Yeah, this is what these people were.
	There's also some other obvious...
	Look how rowdy he is. There's some other problems as well.
	Mentioned here, that AFBI paid Twitter 3.4 billion.
	Sorry, million, not billion.
	Just to have that sort of influence where they could censor such stories.
	So, great. There's a taxpayer's money being used as well.
	I mean, looking at this news, I am more and more on the defund the FBI train.
	I mean, this is what the agents are doing with their time.
	If it's a unit, then that unit has to go.
	If it's the whole thing, the whole thing's got to go to the trash.
	I don't want us getting rid of full departments and agencies and then trying to rebuild it from scratch again.
	We have to retake them.
	The FBI, obviously, if the Republicans win the next election, the top layer of the FBI needs to go.
	And that then sends the message to the rest of the organization that things will change.
	At the recruitment level, we have to start being like, pronouns in bio, not applicable.
	Make sure they speak English.
	Yes. Make sure they're not Islamic fundamentalists.
	Make sure all these checks...
	You can turn all these agencies around.
	You know, if we literally put a random man on the street in charge, the things he would recommend.
	It would work. Last thing here as well is just also the FBI just as bad as counterterrorism in the US for their research.
	This is just listing that their main sources of deciding what is too far right is the Southern Poverty Law Center, who was sued by Majid Nawaz for saying Majid Nawaz was an Islamic extremist.
	Majid Nawaz being a Muslim who has left...
	Sorry, no, he was an anti-Muslim extremist, is what they accused him of, even though he's a Muslim.
	And spends his time, well, preaching that you should be a normal Muslim, not a terrorist one.
	Who's also a former extremist himself.
	Yeah. He spent time...
	But he's an anti-Muslim extremist.
	According to the SPLC. Yeah, he was a Muslim extremist.
	He got jailed in Egypt, I believe.
	Yeah. And then he changed his thinking then.
	And then since then, he's been an anti-extremist.
	My point being is just the SPLC, you can't trust them in the slightest.
	Yeah, local Muslim man hates Muslims.
	There are other sources are The Atlantic.
	Great, so I've left this outlet.
	And then Salon.com, which is a...
	I mean, bordering on comedy outlet for the right, I don't know if you're familiar with Salon.
	It is the most, like, radical nonsense you've ever heard.
	Almost always on the feminist bandwagon of, like, the air conditioning shows why rape culture is still prevalent.
	Most people just use it just to laugh at, at this point, because it is Pants on heads insane.
	So there you have it.
	That's what the FBI is using to decide what is a radical traditionalist Catholic ideology.
	Let's check Salon.com. What do they think?
	They think every Catholic on Earth is a terrorist.
	Oh, good job. Okay, let's implement that.
	There is more incompetence than you ever think in the intelligence services, and this is us learning it in real time for some of the examples, and rightfully, I think, identified.
	There's that. Twitter squirming, which at least is good fun.
	And if Elon's watching, because I believe Elon does watch this podcast, especially when I'm on it, are you bringing me back?
	If so, when? When?
	One of these days. I don't think Roth had it right when he banned you.
	I think Roth might have been the suspect for bad things in the world.
	Let's go to the video comments. Don't you know that men and women are men and women in Japan?
	I was like... Where do you think all that stuff came from?
	I don't think it's all in the head. I'm just your ordinary, everyday, homo-erotic connoisseur.
	Just look at this outfit.
	They'll let me into the choir for sure.
	Yes, yes, I know that Japanese culture has a lot of weirdness in it in the anime scene, but we are talking about the mainstream culture there of mostly boomers, which are the ones in charge.
	It's actually quite a funny part of that article I couldn't really get into.
	Apparently Japan is basically a one-party state, just because all the boomers vote for one party, and of course there's no young people because no one's having babies.
	So, the boomers are us party.
	Just are eternally in charge forever.
	Which, I don't know, sounds like a bad idea to me.
	But there you are.
	Let's go to the next one.
	I've been to Japan and I want to go again for the reasons that Callum said.
	It's culturally distinct and rich.
	Japan does have its issues for sure.
	Young men began checking out of society long before Westerners did, and they give their boomers more social welfare than probably anyone.
	But Japan has its culture, And I have seen many great artisans keeping traditions alive with passion unseen by Westerners for anything, because to them it's not about money.
	It's about love.
	Yeah, I think that's why most people have a fetish for going to Japan.
	I've spent a week in Tokyo.
	It's surreal.
	It feels Western.
	And then you'll see something or do something and go, this is just not what you expect.
	I went to a tiny little cafe.
	And I went to the counter to order some food.
	No one spoke English.
	I'm just pointing at stuff.
	I'll eat anything. I'm hungry. And he kept going.
	And then pointing at a cigarette machine in the corner of this little cafe.
	Smoked. So I got up to look at this cigarette machine.
	And it was a cigarette machine. But where the pictures of the tobacco is, it was pictures of food.
	I thought, maybe you put my money in.
	That's what I wanted.
	Little vouchers came out.
	You pick them up where you get your cigarettes.
	You go to the guy, you give him the vouchers.
	He then makes the food.
	You just bought out the cigarette machine.
	And I think that took me like 40 minutes to figure all this out and no one spoke English and I'm starving.
	That's how surreal some of these places can be.
	But it was the most friendliest place I ever went.
	If you stopped on the street and pulled a map out, every time I did it, within a split second, somebody would stop and spoke English.
	Can I help you, sir? Where would you like to go?
	I'd like to give me directions or walk me there.
	Very polite. It was a lovely place.
	But that's the beautiful thing about traveling and being a traveler.
	What do you want to travel for?
	Well, you don't travel to see the same things you have at home.
	And this is the delusion of the modern world where we're just like, oh, what if we make all of Europe basically the same?
	It's like, none of it's useful.
	The reason you want to go to Germany, for example, is to see Germany.
	If you go there and you end up just seeing the same stuff you'd find in London because you've gone to a major city that's become part of the global nomads, well, then who cares?
	You've wasted your time. You've not actually visited anywhere.
	You've gone to London again, just in a different part of the earth.
	And that's the...
	Isn't having different countries with different cultures and different things to see, different ways of doing things, isn't that true diversity?
	Yes. It is actual diversity instead of everyone just being this grey sludge of like, yeah, what if we just have every part of the world, but in the same city and then no real unifying culture?
	Yeah. Okay.
	That's... We should really come up with an English word for that.
	You know how you have being German is German culture, right?
	You belong to the German tribe or whatever, right?
	I mean, the word global nomad doesn't really do it.
	We should have a single word that just describes that culture of living in this part of the world where nothing really unifies you other than there's money here and so the whole world works here and lives here.
	They're called mercenaries. Just mercenary land.
	Yeah. Yeah. So, I mean, this is one of the problems.
	I had this in Berlin, actually, where you go there and you're just like, can I find some German food, please?
	We ended up having to go to a, what was it, a Munich restaurant.
	We had to look it up and find it, because we just couldn't find German food.
	It was that annoying. Yeah.
	So, it's cancer.
	One of the nice things about Japan. I had a similar thing that was in Afghanistan, actually, because you turn around, you're just like, oh, yeah, this is actually properly weird.
	Yeah. It's foreign, for once.
	Yeah. Rather than the usual stuff. Hence why we use the term foreign, because it's foreign.
	It's something we don't understand.
	Which is what you're looking for. Go to the next one.
	One of the things that the left does very well in politics is punishing their enemies.
	So, I'm trying to think of what are good ways the Conservatives can punish the left when they're in power.
	I'm thinking rewilding the cities.
	I'm thinking, bring wolves back to the cities.
	They were living there first.
	In an age of inclusivity, it's only proper we bring them back.
	Also restrict rodent hunting and cockroach hunting.
	And I don't know, bring scorpions back to LA. They deserve to live there, unmolested as much as illegals.
	As much as having people's toddlers eaten by wolves while they're eating lunch does sound fun.
	I can't agree to that. But you're hitting on something that is true, and maybe you'll agree with me.
	There is something different between people, peoples as in like societies, that have to deal with the roughness of life, and those who don't, So, there's a real funnel example between, say, let's take British people, and then folks who live in rural South Africa.
	Like, they know what works and what doesn't.
	What's going to waste your time? Like, I'm not wasting my time on some ideological ding-dang.
	But, yeah, what if we reform everything?
	It'll totally work. They just look at you and say, no...
	It all depends on how much time you've got to waste in your day.
	If you have no time to waste in your day because you're too busy trying to provide for yourself, your family, or your community, then all these modern problems all just disappear because they're not real problems.
	And that's the difference between those two groups.
	So some of that roughness back in Western life was good and actually something we should try.
	But I don't know how you do it without the wolves in there.
	We've got it too easy.
	I mean, there's lots of old sayings about, you know, spare the rod and spoil the child.
	There's lots of things that we've used to know about what happens when life becomes too easy.
	You know, the seven deadly sins, sloth.
	Somewhere deep down inside, we already know this, that life needs to be slightly hard to keep us on track.
	Otherwise, what's the point? Yeah.
	So I was watching some Vice debate earlier.
	There's a bunch of people whining about colorism.
	Like different black people whining that different black people treat them differently because some are blacker than others.
	Yep. I'm just looking at them like, yeah, of course you all live in San Francisco.
	What are you doing with your lives?
	Nothing. You go online and you can buy cream that lightens your black skin and that's a billion pound industry.
	Amazing. But it's more the point of these people are wasting their lives whining about this.
	They're very sincere and very obviously hurt by the conversation they had, and it's just like, you need to get out more.
	Do something. We'll go to the written comments.
	So Dean Parker says, question to you both, what do you think the left protects Islam so much, despite Islamic culture being odds with ideology?
	I think it's because they're all actually that dumb that they think it's a race, and it's why they treat it as such, because these people are idiots.
	It's because they're always looking for groups to perceive as being persecuted or there's a differential in power.
	Hence why they all support Palestine and free Palestine.
	If you give most leftists a map of the world and said, point where Palestine is, they wouldn't be able to find it.
	No, that's also true. I remember the one that went viral.
	The guy who played Batman.
	I can't remember his name now. He was on Bill Ma's show.
	Oh yeah, he's about to J-Log.
	Yeah, that clip that went viral. Ben something.
	Yeah, and you're staring at him as he says that it's racist to say that Muslims believe something.
	It's disgusting. That was the word he used.
	It's disgusting. You people really don't know anything about ethnicity or race or culture.
	You don't know what those words even really mean.
	You think they're all the same thing, and just to mention that there are differences is racism.
	It doesn't make sense. I said it earlier.
	I don't think they think that deeply.
	I think it's, I just want to be a good person, and I want you to think I'm a good person.
	But it's like, they think that there are no differences between ethnicities.
	How could that be true?
	Then there wouldn't be different ethnicities.
	General Highping says, Nick, having recently sat through a level 2 diversity and equality course myself that's funded by the UK government, I can absolutely say there are people who worship this equity mindset.
	People like us are already aware of how this crap is applied versus how it's pitched to us but everything is perniciously phrased and veiled in the language they use and I think lots of people just eat it up because they see it as just being nice.
	We're tribal creatures and most people are sheep.
	Most people will do as they're told by any authority above them because that's how we've been designed over millennia.
	So when someone came up with these ideas and they infiltrated the top layer, most people will just follow it.
	So Herman the Tosser says, It's not about lowering racial tensions, because the politicians, all they care about is getting re-elected.
	So if they make a calculation that society might get worse, but more people will vote for me and I'll get re-elected, that's the path I'm going to go down.
	The problem's career politicians.
	Herman the Tosser also says he has a meeting later today called Gender Pay Gap Info Session.
	Thankfully it's not mandatory, but I might go and join for the cringe.
	You should. Trust me, it'll be fun.
	Well, we all know the gender pay gap doesn't exist.
	It's a gap between women with children and everybody else.
	It's the biggest factor, though.
	Yeah. I mean, I love Jordan Peterson's summation.
	It's just like, you've done a unipoly analysis.
	Yeah. You're an idiot. It's just all men versus all women.
	No other factors.
	It's not against that. XYZ says, as Milo pointed out years ago, social justice kills.
	The authorities would rather put their heads in the sand than face reality, especially if it's on a reality created by their own policies foisted upon us.
	Shaker Silver says, amazing that the government admitted they were treating mildly anti-establishment figures as crypto-terrorists.
	Unfortunately, I think they won't let up.
	They'll just be more equal and treat everyone else as potential terrorists.
	Maybe. Arizona Desert Rat says, is their definition of a far-right terrorist a boomer generation conservative?
	Something to think about. Yeah, I think we're on the uber-terrorist section then.
	If someone who's like, maybe the Labour Party are right only 90% of the time.
	Is a crypto-terrorist.
	I don't know what to do.
	Slavic something says, Yeah, I don't think that's going to happen.
	I don't think the pensioners are going to rise up.
	They're not, but the pension thing is just an extension of what's been going on for decades, where it's acceptable to say, yeah, my granny's a bit of a racist.
	Well, she's not.
	She's just speaking and using the same language she's always used.
	Now you're deeming her to be racist, but she wasn't racist 50 years ago for using that language.
	And that's what we're doing by looking at the terrorist thing now.
	Just because they've got views that were acceptable 50 years ago, that makes you suspect as a terrorist.
	Apparently so. Andrew Narek says, Those Lotus-Eated videos on Western classics are looking rather terrorist-y now, aren't they?
	Yeah. I don't think anyone who's ever read a book is a terrorist according to this definition.
	So on the British Bobby, Rue the Day says, Nick is such a delightful contributor, and I'll say that every time he's on.
	Thank you very much.
	Herman Tosser says, I feel like this woke police force we are seeing can be explained as the police trying desperately to get the left wing and the ACAB crowd to like them.
	So they debase and humiliate themselves in the hopes that one day they will like them, like a simp donating all of his life savings to an e-girl.
	That's a good point, actually.
	I've thought about this and I've talked about this.
	What the police don't understand is the ultimate objective is defund the police.
	So you may impress the woke, you may impress the far left, they may be on your side a little bit, but their ultimate aim is to get rid of the police altogether.
	More chaos, opportunities, revolution.
	Paddy Griff says my uncle quit the police in the late 90s, along with a great many of the older Bobbies.
	The plots were victims of targeted subversion after Blair came in, and anyone who registered or spoke out about it was shunned and pushed out.
	The core British value throughout history has always been justice, so to subvert Britain you have to first subvert justice.
	We don't have a police force today, just an army of retards hitting the quotas globalist and men they hit, and all those quotas are beneficial to us.
	I mean, well, you literally proved some of them are actually on the lower ends of functioning.
	Kevin Fox says, Their time for a 1km run was 1 minute and 30 seconds longer than the British Army standard for a 1.5 mile run.
	You had to be able to do 10 press-ups, 5 chin-ups and 10 sit-ups, all up to 20 minute rest in between each task.
	But that's what equity does.
	Equity doesn't raise everybody to a good standard.
	It drags everybody down to a poor standard.
	The worst one. Brown from Warhawk says it's no surprise the English place is full of criminals.
	The UK government has spent years demonising police, calling them racist, restricting their ability to chase actual crime, and then sending them on wild goose chases of white supremacy.
	Therefore the honest cops have gone, and the only opportunists remain.
	I do wonder, I find increasingly I meet people from the army who have left.
	I just sort of look at them and think, so are you going mercenary or what?
	Because they leave for the reason of, I'm just getting fed crap all day.
	I mean, there was one guy who sent us the details of his job at the RAF. They're just giving him letter after letter of, like, update of new pronouns.
	And you're just looking at her like, what the hell am I doing in my life?
	I'll have to show you it.
	Total inclusivity is not negotiable, so you have to learn these new pronouns.
	He, him, her, she, per, pers, ze, per, per, her, her, per.
	You sound like a toddler.
	What's that got to do with the RAF? It's dangerous because when we end up in a war with China, and we will end up with a war with China.
	We might misgender them. That's why it's dangerous.
	We may. We may. But we...
	Crimes against humanity. We're doing to our armed forces what I just explained we've done to the police.
	And we're doing it to the armed forces.
	NHS, civil service, everything.
	But we're doing it to the organisations that are there to protect us.
	So we've destroyed the police almost, and now we're doing it to the armed forces.
	And when the enemy's at the gate, and all we have is blue-haired, tattooed, woke left-hards, screaming, oh, be nice, be nice, they're not the enemy.
	They're just confused.
	If we can bring them into our gate, they'll be nice to us.
	It won't end well. You know, that's actually what the Chinese Communist Party's rule was with foreign observance for a long time.
	What? So, I mean, like the Emperor Pu Yi, for example, who was the last Chinese emperor, ended up being a puppet of the Japanese.
	They were going to put him in charge. Yeah.
	They'd lost the war. I saw the film.
	Yeah. So the Chinese government decided to try and turn him into a perfect communist.
	Yeah. The point being, even an emperor can be turned into the perfect communist.
	Yeah. And then there were some American spies who were flying in to pick up an agent in Manchuria, and they got arrested in the 50s.
	And there was these, I think it was three Americans.
	They did exactly the same thing with them.
	Endlessly, the rule was that we could just re-educate them into thinking like us.
	The way I think they see us.
	So, on the squirming...
	X, Y, and Z says Sol Elinsky would be proud to see his acolytes have mastered his lessons so well.
	Always blame your opponent of what you're doing.
	Seems to happen every time. Austin Calabat says, Excellent show today, boys.
	Fun question. What are the chances of AOC will become president in 15 years?
	We have a lot of woke children coming through the public school pipeline.
	We do, but I've got faith in young people.
	Young people always rebel against whatever is the authority at the time.
	So young people coming through now will start rebelling against wokeness because it'll be cool to rebel against wokeness.
	I can only hope. I'm hoping.
	That's the lesson we'll end on. Where would people find more from you?
	Because we're out of time. Check me out on YouTube, Substack, and then you'll find me on Getter as well.
	All Nick Buckley, MBE. If you liked us, more stuff coming up.
	There's the book club coming up at 3.30 as well today, so check that out.
	Otherwise, see you on Monday.

▲