Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 24, 2023 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:30:54

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #597

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
	Welcome to the podcast, The Load Seaters, for Friday the 24th of February 2023.
	I'm joined by Stelios, and today we're going to be talking about the national marriage, not the national divorce, the curious case of Princess Shola, which I'm looking forward to, and how a Canadian student was arrested for questioning transgender toilets.
	Was that right? Brilliant.
	Jordan Peterson was right.
	Anyway, before we begin, we have a gold-tier Zoom call this afternoon, so if you'd like to come and talk to me and Callum as our monthly gold-tier reward, we'll see you at 3.30 UK time, and that'll be some fun.
	So let's get into the national marriage.
	Okay, I must say that I'm really tired of all the woke stuff.
	It's very tiring.
	Yes, it is. And I would really like to live in a world where there would be no woke stuff at all.
	And Marjorie Taylor Greene agrees with us.
	Yes. And she started talking about the issue of national divorce again.
	And I want to offer my sympathetic criticism that this is not the best way to go about it.
	Correct. Okay, so before we talk more about this, why not visit our website?
	For only £5 a month, you can have access to all our premium content, such as the latest installment of the Symposium series that I did with Beau on patriotism.
	We're discussing about loving our countries and as this being something that is good and how it is Inconsistent with particular views of what morality is supposed to be about.
	Left-wing views of what morality is supposed to be about.
	They try to view it as completely impartial.
	But there are some issues with it.
	So you might as well check it if you want.
	It's probably a good baseline to this discussion as well, right?
	Because this is probably going to be involving the concept of patriotism and what it is to love one's country.
	Okay, so back to our segment.
	Some days ago, Marjorie Taylor Greene uploaded this tweet, and she writes on the thread, why the left and right should consider a national divorce, not a civil war, but a legal agreement to separate our ideological and political disagreements by states while maintaining our legal union.
	Definition of irreconcilable differences.
	Inability to agree on most things or on important things.
	Tragically, I think we, the left and right, have reached irreconcilable differences.
	I'll speak for the right and say we're absolutely disgusted and fed up with the left cramming and forcing their ways on us and our children with no respect for our religion, faith, traditional values and economic and government policy beliefs.
	So I must say that I do share the sentiment of disgust.
	And I do share the sentiment of being tired and fed up.
	But I really think that national divorce is not the way.
	Let us examine more of her position.
	She appeared on Sean Hannity and before we play the video she said something like the following that a national divorce can prevent a new civil war and the national divorce would reduce the federal government and the federal debt I guess it would.
	Increase the state control of public education.
	And she's proposing for banning people who move from blue states to red states from voting for at least five years because, as she says, we don't want them to bring bad politics with them.
	Now, the thing is that I want to understand the position a bit more because reducing the federal government is one thing.
	Calling for a national divorce is quite another.
	And I don't understand yet what is precisely distinctive about this proposition because Republicans have always, almost always, at least that I can remember, at least since the Reagan years, called for a reduction of the federal state.
	So I think it's particularly problematic to phrase it in terms of a national divorce while the legal union is maintained.
	But I don't know exactly how...
	How would it work? I don't know exactly how would it work, but my criticism won't be on these lines because I will give it to Marjorie Taylor Greene.
	She never said that what she proposed is supposed to be easy.
	Okay, so Sean Hannity asked her, how do you reconcile, on the one hand, defund the police with law and order, on the other hand, secure borders and wide open borders, and how do you reconcile, for instance, energy independence and policies such as New Green Dealism?
	And it seems that there is no middle ground, and this is how it sets the debate for her point to come forth, because she is arguing for irreconcilable differences.
	Before we go on, though, I have to say, I... Can't help but notice that the irreconcilable nature of the differences seems to come primarily from the left, in which they tend to not give any ground or compromise at all.
	I agree with you. I think to a very great extent this is the case.
	Yeah, I think so. But there's a question as to whether this is something that a society can do without.
	Let us play her video and we'll go to that point.
	In my life, in my world, all of my friends are regular Americans.
	Everyone I talk to is sick and tired and fed up of being bullied by the left, abused by the left, and disrespected by the left.
	And our ideas, our policies, our ways of life have become so far apart that it's just coming to that point.
	And the last thing I ever want to see in America is a civil war.
	No one wants that, at least everyone I know would never want that.
	But it's going that direction and we have to do something about it.
	We're also a nation, a crumbling nation.
	We're a nation in distress.
	Our government is in complete failure, over $34 trillion.
	We're on the verge of default and we have to do something about that.
	But that was the right and the left that did that to the American people.
	On their own. But the Democrats never stop pushing their policies, their ideas, and their culture on Republicans and the right.
	And we are so sick and tired of it.
	We are tired of our children being taught ideas and ideologies in school.
	That we do not want our children taught like gender lies.
	We do not want our children having their gender changed or transitioned.
	We can't even have women's sports and privacy in our bathrooms and women in prison can't even have spaces.
	ESG, environmental social governance, has completely taken over corporations and this is a huge policy.
	Pressed on private businesses through the government from Democrats.
	If you're a white male today in the financial industry, you can forget it.
	You're a dinosaur.
	You're going extinct.
	No one should ever be hired by their skin color or their gender or how they identify.
	It should only be about your character and your ability to do the job.
	Okay, so there is much that I agree with her, but I want to say that there are also some issues with her point, at least to my mind.
	So the argument seems to be like this, that if a national civil war is to be avoided, we should either engage in dialogue or we should go separate ways.
	We have irreconcilable differences, so we cannot engage in dialogue.
	That is why we should go our separate ways.
	There are technical difficulties with this proposal, such as the geographical difficulties.
	Matt Walsh did a good job to my mind two days ago when he was talking about the geographical issue, but I'm willing to assume that that could somehow be...
	Technology might make it possible to overcome.
	Yes. So I'm going to assume that we can separate the US in the Republican half and the Democrat half.
	I want to say that there are still major problems with this.
	With this claim.
	So one thing, the first point I want to raise, which may be a bit thorny, but I think that it's actual, that it seems to me to be a political mistake that she made this statement at this moment.
	Really? Why? Okay, because it seems to me that it inadvertently conveys pessimism about the 2024 election.
	Let me explain myself. I totally agree with Marjorie Taylor Greene that the woke ideology and the woke agenda is really something that is appalling.
	So the question in that the federal state has grown to an extent that compromises the autonomy of each of the states.
	But the thing is, it seems to me that if she were optimistic about the 2024 election, she would say, let us win.
	We can win and we will win.
	And we will use the power of the federal state to offset the advance of woke agenda in blue states.
	Yeah. Do what Ron DeSantis has been doing.
	Yes. So it seems to me that it is a political mistake that she made this statement at this moment.
	But I may be wrong.
	Now, there are some other issues with this that I don't know how effective that would be because it seems to me that if the problem is that there are irreconcilable differences about how a society should be run, I don't think that there is any society, any large society in history at any time or place that did not have such a difference of opinions.
	I think that things have got much worse.
	And I think it's down to the fact that there is actually very little dialogue that really takes place.
	One thing that I find remarkable is how infrequently commentators from the left and the right in America in particular...
	Actually have to talk to one another?
	Normally it's just, honestly, normally it's the Republicans asking Democrats to come on their shows and the Democrats refuse them.
	We see the same thing with the left in Britain with GB News.
	How dare you go on GB News?
	Why wouldn't you? You need to have a dialogue with the opposition about the subject at hand.
	That's how a democracy is supposed to work.
	I agree and I do agree that especially those who are in favor of woke ideology, they do not engage in argument and they do not care to engage in argument because they are literally brainwashing people that disagreement constitutes an assault upon their humanity.
	But there is the crucial area of the gray area of the undecided voters.
	So it seems to me that it would be good for Republicans not to answer with division to the inherently divisive nature of the left, but to actually open a dialogue with the undecided voters and show them the left is all about division.
	We have something else to offer.
	We're not about division.
	Yeah, keeping what is essentially like an open door to the left.
	Yes. Just like every day on Fox News.
	Well, we'd invite these two people to come into our studio and have a discussion about it.
	You know, we'll sit down, record it for an hour.
	It'd be great TV if we can get AOC and Ben Shapiro or whoever, Marjorie Taylor Greene, whoever, sit and come and talk.
	And then you could have the program where it turns into an interview between the host and Marjorie Taylor Greene because, of course, AOC wouldn't turn up and, you know, whatever, the Democrat wouldn't turn up.
	You say, well, look, that's the share we've got for the Democrat politician to come in and have the discussion, but they keep refusing the discussion.
	What can we do? And so essentially keep this sort of pressure building where it's like, look, you are refusing to have the conversations, and, well, that means that we're just not going to have them with you, and so we're going to have them without you, so we only get one person's view.
	I think that this policy would also be ineffective because the major reason for the idea that for there being irreconcilable differences, at least in views of how society is to run, has to do with the hierarchy that every large society involves.
	And it's very frequent that people on top of that hierarchy and those in the middle and those at the bottom, they have very different views about what is in the common interest.
	I think the main problem is that the left views their political constituency to be comprised entirely of minorities and excludes the majority.
	And so that makes the issue of bifurcation in the political realm really emphasised.
	Because it was in previous eras, like if you go back to Bill Clinton, that the majority was still a part of the moral constituency they considered when they were formulating proposals.
	So you have Bill Clinton sounding a lot like Donald Trump, if you go back and listen to his campaign speeches.
	He's like, yeah, no, we're going to have a wall to prevent illegal immigrants coming across the border.
	But of course, the left now have said, no, no, no, actually, the only people we care about are the illegal immigrants or the trans minority or the ethnic minorities.
	And so the majority gets sliced out of policymaking concerns as if everything is fine and nothing needs to be done for these people.
	And so, I mean, what can you do?
	I think we should question the idea that the woke people are the majority.
	Well, I know they're not the majority, obviously.
	But what I mean is, if they can never be persuaded to share the concerns of the majority, what can be done?
	That's a really great question.
	Also, another thing is that I know, but I don't think that going separate ways is possible because every society has a hierarchy and many people feel resentment for that hierarchy and the woke character is based on resentment for a particular hierarchy.
	So just by cutting the country in half, The woke, let's say, evil spirit is not going to go away.
	The curse is not going to be lifted.
	Yeah, I think one thing that the pro-national divorce types need to remember is that, okay, let's assume that you do cut America evenly in half One side's going to start succeeding and the other side's going to start failing because of the social norms and institutions that these things build.
	And so when the woke side starts collapsing because you don't have people who are qualified to do the jobs that are required to uphold the institutions, and it ends up looking like San Francisco or New York...
	Or Portland. They're not going to blame themselves for these problems.
	They're going to say, oh look, the evil red states have sabotaged us.
	Look how they're prospering.
	Look how we're failing.
	They must somehow be conspiring against us.
	And essentially, I think it'll turn into a war, whether you like it or not.
	Exactly. And I think this gives me a, if we go down this road, but I think your point gives me a good pass for the third problem that I think this proposal underestimates the expansionism of the woke character.
	Because the thing is, What does Marjorie Taylor Greene want?
	She wants something that I want as well.
	She wants isolationism.
	She wants the idea of negative liberty, freedom from government interference.
	And with that, I'm totally with her.
	Yes. But it seems to me that there is a problem with wanting to part away with politics.
	And there is a saying that if you don't want to deal with politics, politics will find a way to deal with you.
	Yes, Pericles. It's that older statement.
	It's so ancient and understanding.
	You might not be interested in politics, but politics is very interested in you.
	Yes. And the question is that if you have a bully that goes and bullies you and you give them half the country, they're not going to stop.
	They're just going to be habituated into bullying you because you're giving them the message that bullying gets you somewhere.
	It was a profitable thing. They got half a country.
	They keep bullying, they might get another quarter of the country.
	And the quarter, if the reaction is, leave me alone, I don't want to deal with you, which is, I understand it.
	I share the sentiments that lead there to say this.
	But I still think that there is an issue with this.
	That's why my criticism is a sympathetic one.
	You can't pay off the Vikings.
	The quarter is going to become an eighth and the eighth is going to become a sixteenth and eventually the entire country is going to be back under woke influence.
	So I think that it communicates a message of weakness because the idea of being second hard with woke culture, I get it, but we constantly have to defend our country.
	It sounds like you're about to give up.
	It's encouraging to the enemy, isn't it?
	Yes. I don't think we can give up.
	And unfortunately, it may be a sad feature of the human condition that we live in societies who have people who want their disintegration and they really care for this.
	So I don't think giving them geographical regions is getting us anywhere.
	I totally agree with this. I've been having this argument with Americans for a long time.
	It's like, look, the idea of the national force is not new.
	She hasn't just invented this.
	I've had this conversation with Americans loads of times.
	And they're like, yeah, well, if we can just, you know, give up New York and California, we should be fine.
	It's like, yeah, but why would you want to?
	California was Republican 30 years ago, and you've lost it.
	You know, New York had...
	Rudy Giuliani, 20 years ago, was the mayor of New York.
	He was a Republican. You've lost that too.
	It's like, look, you can't continue to cede ground.
	You've got to start taking things from them at some point.
	So you've got to formulate the argument that shows people actually know, look, we have what is desirable, but How much could you be prepared to give up until you personally are like, hang on a second, right, we've lost too much.
	One inch of America is too much to give up to these bloody communists, in my opinion.
	It's conceding ground to the bullies.
	And if you concede ground to the bullies, they are not going to stop.
	No, but it's not even about them.
	It's about you. How ignoble is it that the Americans have lost half their country already, and they're thinking, okay, well, let's just hold on to the last half.
	And I say this from a position of love, my American friends.
	Come on, we expect better.
	The thing is that the psychology of the wokery is all about misery.
	Misery loves company.
	It won't leave you. It won't leave you.
	While you still have something good, they will always look over at you with envious eyes and think, I can ruin that.
	Yes. They will always do this.
	You have to defeat them.
	Because the woker is inherently parasitical.
	Yeah. And another point is that I think that from a politician's perspective, there should be, and also a citizen's perspective, there should be no red and blue children or children of red and blue states.
	Yeah. So I think it is too much of a concession to say, let us divide the country in half and let the children who are born into the other half suffer under, let's say, the yoke of woke ideology.
	Marjorie Taylor Greene has a response that does touch on what you said about California and New York.
	She says, there is a failure for many to realize Americans are giving up because they are sick of the talking heads that just complain about all the problems and politicians that never fix anything, while the right just keeps talking, taking the beatings and abuse from the left.
	Yes, the Red California that gave us Reagan is gone.
	And that was another time long ago.
	California is now like a weird communist country.
	Just as a pause on this, I am totally sympathetic to this opening paragraph, the right just keeps taking beatings and abuse from the left.
	I'm totally sympathetic to it.
	This is why I was kind of annoyed at the reaction people had to Matt Walsh when he was like, look, you're not a woman, I'm a transphobe, I don't care about your opinion on this.
	And people were like, oh, that's not very polite.
	And it's like, yeah, but being polite is what the Republicans have been doing for the last...
	Absolutely.
	And it's not...
	It's not been to the Republicans' advantage.
	So you've got to stop doing it.
	And I'm not saying go around being mean all the time.
	But if there's a left-winger who's like, oh, I just want you to be sympathetic and kind to me.
	It's like, well, look, I'm happy to be what I consider kind to you.
	But I don't think lying to you is kind.
	I'm just not going to do it.
	I'm actually very sympathetic to Matt Walsh's position here.
	So I'll read the three last paragraphs of her tweet.
	She says, reducing the power and size of the federal government and giving more to the states in order to protect ourselves and our kids from the abusive left is actually the bold action that needs to be taken in order for the left to be able to realize how insane and abusive they have become.
	Just like the prodigal son, once the left gets to truly live in their own filth, I must say...
	I like the framing. I also like the framing, but I think that it...
	Everyone misunderstands the woke mentality because the woke mentality, they won't realize anything.
	No, they will never accept.
	I tweeted something like this out the other day.
	I said, look, every failure will be considered a failure of the other and not the doctrine.
	Yes. There's no way of getting them to realize they're an error.
	They are not because they are denying objectivity and they are denying the idea that the world and facts can be different from their feelings and from their impressions.
	And when we don't think that there is something external to us, there is no room for self-improvement.
	If they will, I don't doubt that if that were the case, blue states would be destroyed by their economic policies.
	I don't doubt that. It's already happening.
	But it wouldn't lead to any realization.
	It would just lead to extra fanaticism, extra self-victimization, extra...
	While the red states exist, it will always be their fault.
	Yes. And you can't change that framework from them.
	By expecting them to experience reality.
	It just won't work. Yeah. So I think...
	Sorry, before we go on, I just want to say, I like Matt Gaetz's tweet here.
	America doesn't need national divorce.
	Maybe we wouldn't be talking about it if our leaders weren't cheating on us with Ukraine.
	That's a great frame.
	Because that's exactly how it feels when, I mean, I see British politicians all the time praising the Ukrainian flag.
	In fact, it was Emily Thornberry I saw today on TV, who was famously in like 2013, posted a picture of a bunch of England flags in England and was like, oh God, this is disgusting.
	And yet is crying about the Ukrainian flag being painted on the ground outside of the London Russian Embassy.
	And it's just like, right, I mean, it does feel like they are cheating on us.
	That's a good way of framing it.
	And I won't say that Marjorie Taylor Greene will be tonight at 8pm on Tucker Carlson talking about this.
	Hopefully Tucker's not in favor of the divorce.
	Okay. Yes.
	Okay. So I think she's going to talk about Ukraine.
	Right. Okay. Yeah. Okay. So I want to make a suggestion that I think that the Republicans should not answer with division.
	To the inherent, divisive nature of the left.
	And I want us to look at another clip, and I want to make a point after we watch this.
	Yes! Yes!
	My name is Galbraith Street!
	I'm a 17-year-old!
	- I don't know how to do it to trans people.
	If I go not to meet these days, I'm trans.
	Do you need to shut the f*** up?
	I need to f* up when you're dead. - F* out! F*** out! - So I want to make a point with this video.
	Okay, what's the point?
	The point is, not everyone is like that.
	These people are not the majority.
	In a way, this is obvious, but there is something extra to be said here, is that the Republicans should not try to address these people who act like that.
	But I think it is important to appeal to the undecided voters.
	And if, back to the original phrasing of the argument, Going their separate ways, I don't think it's the solution.
	It has all these problems that we talked about.
	So there is room for dialogue and engaging in dialogue with the undecided voters.
	So I think it would be the Ron DeSantis way that you mentioned before.
	I think that's a good way forward.
	I mean, this just seems to me to be a very confused child.
	Yes. I wouldn't take this person seriously.
	When we show this video to, let's say, undecided voters, I think that it...
	Yeah, it's actually quite powerful.
	It's quite powerful to show that these people are the minority.
	They're not the majority.
	They want to present themselves as if being the minority.
	And we should ask ourselves some questions such as, to whose interest is it to think that most people are bad and ill-willed against us?
	This is what woke ideologies are trying to do.
	They're trying to create the impression that the default position is that every other person is bad.
	To whose interest is it to think that the wokery is the majority?
	And to whose interest is it to think that dialogue is impossible?
	It is in the interest of those who thrive on division And want to claim that they are on the right side of history.
	Why? Because they are not strong enough and they want to appear as if they are strong enough to scare other people.
	So I think Republicans should not be scared and should not answer with division to the inherently divisive nature of the left.
	Yeah, there's something about this clip that I think is actually an instructive lesson.
	The man in it, I'm guessing, is a Republican, and there's a kind of implacable sort of centeredness in him.
	Yes. He's like, look, no, this person clearly has, this child has clearly been given a brain parasite by the left, and they're so obviously, they've been perverted by some of us.
	I mean, look at the rage. This person is someone who has had something done to them, and the guy standing in his seat going, no, I want you to look.
	That's what we're looking at.
	I'm just not in favour of it.
	Anyway. So I thought we'd have a conversation about the curious case of Dr.
	Shola, or should I say Princess Shola, which actually isn't even a joke.
	Because she has recently received death threats, apparently, from a prescribed political group called National Front, I think, or National Action.
	They were prescribed a Nazi group in 2016.
	But somehow they're still operating and I thought it was worth talking about.
	Now before we go on, obviously don't send Dr.
	Scholar terrorist threats.
	Bad thing. Don't know why I have to say that.
	Because obviously it's illegal and it's wrong.
	There is also an aspect to it that is politically more germane though, which is she thrives on being your hate target.
	That's how she makes her money.
	That's how she makes her living. That's why she's relevant.
	That's why we're talking about her at all today now.
	So just don't.
	Don't give her attention. Come and watch someone you like, like us, talking about this in a much more relaxed environment where we can not only unpick the ideological tangle that Dr.
	Shola finds herself in, but also we can have a bit of fun along the way.
	But before we start, go to lowseeds.com, sign up and watch our book review of Constantine Kissins, An Immigrant's Love Letter to the West, in which he does his very best to defend the West against the most strident critics that we have, like Dr.
	Schola. And in it, he gives us a bit of a revelation about a TV clip that we're about to watch, in which he was having a conversation with Adel Ray on Good Morning Britain.
	And apparently, afterwards, the framing of this was that John Cleese had said, well, London's no longer an English city, because, and as the 2021 census revealed, London is about 37% English, as in people in London who identify as English, about 37%.
	John Cleese had made the point, well, not really an English city anymore, to which Dr.
	Scholler and Adel Ray have this debate with Constantine Kissin.
	But the interesting thing and the reason you might want to watch The Immigrant's Love Letters to the West is because in his book, Constantine tells us that after this discussion, Adel Ray turned to him and said, wasn't it good that we didn't have any English people on this discussion?
	It's like, Why would that be good?
	But moreover, why would Adil think that he can turn to Constantine and go, wow, isn't it great?
	There are no English people here. Constantine isn't like a lunatic who hates England.
	Maybe she assumed that if he's not English, that he would not care about England.
	Exactly. That's precisely it.
	But the great thing about this clip, I realize I'm setting up, but it's important.
	The thing to look for in this clip is the confused nature of Adil Ray When presented with Constantine's very straightforward view of the world.
	Let's watch. Referring to UK cities or London as non-English is a key point here.
	Britishness is not determined by the colour of our skin.
	I am British. I'm not less British than John Cleese because I'm black.
	The Britishness that we experience is the...
	It's not segregation.
	It's all about integration.
	It's not exclusion.
	It's about inclusion.
	And what is it about Britishness that is not represented in any of our UK cities?
	Is it our government institutions?
	Is it our values? Is it our love of football?
	Is it the food of the royal family?
	All of that is celebrated.
	So how are we not English?
	Sorry, I got the wrong clip.
	We'll see Constantine's in a minute.
	She wants to know how she's not English, how London is not English.
	Now, obviously, John Cleese is speaking culturally.
	He's talking specifically about the way that different cultures manifest, different habits, behaviours, aesthetics.
	The experience of being English.
	Now, if 40% of London is directly of immigrant descent, and only 37% are actually English, then it's pretty hard to see how London would have an English cultural atmosphere, isn't it?
	Yes, and I find this a problem in major cities, that tradition is being left out of the picture almost entirely.
	So, Sherlock says, well, in what way am I not English?
	And I would suggest it's the way that, well, ethnic heritage is hereditary.
	You inherit from your parents your ethnicity.
	And so if Dr.
	Shola is in fact a Nigerian woman, because her parents were Nigerian, then in that way, she's not English.
	Doesn't mean she's not a British citizen.
	I think it's sad that we have to even discuss this.
	Yeah, this is not a controversial take.
	This is just how ethnicity works.
	You inherit your ethnicity from your parents.
	That's how it's done.
	So it's like saying, well, in what way is that poodle not an Alsatian?
	It's like because its parents were poodles, not Alsatians.
	It's not a value judgment.
	You know what I find very funny is that she's talking about a culture as being, you know, open to everything.
	On the other hand, they use the term multiculturalism, which implies a plurality of cultures.
	Yeah, so barriers between different cultures that distinguish one from another.
	That's a contradiction. Yeah.
	So, and she knows that she's Nigerian because, I mean, she retweeted this.
	Someone had tweeted at her, our Doc Shola just made me proud of her looks today.
	Beautiful, majestic woman who's proud of her roots with lots of Nigerian flags.
	So, I mean, she retweeted this.
	She knows that she's Nigerian and she's proud of being Nigerian.
	Nigerians aren't English.
	That's the way in which you're not English.
	It's not a judgement. It's not bad to be Nigerian.
	It's not good to be English.
	This is just the fact of the matter.
	And because for Shola, she would have to essentially admit that Rudyard Kipling was an Indian.
	We can go to the next one. You see that Rudyard Kipling was born in India, but on his Wikipedia bio he's described as English.
	How could that be? He was born in India.
	He's as Indian as the next, and upon decolonization, when all the British were kicked out of India, Dr.
	Shola would have been there going, no, that's wrong.
	He's as Indian as anyone else, because my Indian-ness is an inclusive, multinational, you know, borderless Indian-ness, and that's what she's trying to do with Britishness.
	Sorry, has he written the poem If?
	Yes. Yeah, it's magnificent.
	And all the just-so stories and loads of other things.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah. Loads of other things. I find that magnificent.
	Sorry for the interruption. If is definitely probably the best poem in the English language, in my opinion.
	But the point is, he's not Indian, and everyone knows he's not Indian, because his parents were English, and that's how an ethnicity works.
	It's just how it is.
	I mean, Shola would have to say, well, Roger Kipling is there for a colonizer, right?
	Because he comes from a people that are located elsewhere.
	They colonized India.
	Even though he was born in India, he grew up there.
	And then upon decolonization, he was forced to leave.
	Right. I mean, she described the Queen as a colonizer in basically the same way, right?
	So she complains that the Queen, the late Queen was, she says it was a historical fact that she was a colonizer.
	You boast of British Empire and realms all in the name of its monarchy, but deny she's a colonizer.
	Colonization was another form of slavery.
	Fact. She decolonized, they cry.
	Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
	Well, in the case of the Queen, it's not even a particularly deep philosophical question.
	The British Empire came first.
	She was born in the 20th century.
	And then we decolonized the Empire.
	It's not even a question.
	But Shola carries on with this.
	She says, look, the royal family isn't from here.
	We can get to the next tweet, John.
	See someone saying, well, how dare people think you're not from here, Ms.
	Shola Moz Shog Bamimu.
	Typical English name. Which, in fact, is what Dave's point was.
	And she goes, well, the royal family isn't from here, then.
	Hey, Dave, Saxkotha-Gothberg is very common in England.
	Well, now, we do understand how this works, don't we, Shola?
	So it's not that you're born in a place, because, of course, the Saxkotha-Gothbergs Born here, but not from here, as she agrees.
	That's true. Because, in fact, the reason that these are considered to be legitimate British monarchs is the principle of dissent, as in heredity.
	You can go to the next one, John. You can see that this is the direct royal line from William the Conqueror to Elizabeth II. If you just scroll down, you can see it goes through quite a few different monarchs until Elizabeth II. But if you get to the next one, you can see that she's also descended from Harold Godwinson.
	So Elizabeth II, though her family may have come from parts of Germany, because of the way that European feudal marriages operate all across the continent, she is a directly neo-descendant of both generals of the Battle of Hastings.
	So she's definitely got some connection here.
	And so this, I think, is understood by Dr.
	Sholin not just because she calls herself a proud Nigerian, but also because she is, in fact, the descendant of royalty herself.
	I didn't know that. No, she tends to keep this quite hidden, apart from on her website.
	If you scroll down, it says, That's how you're not English.
	You are literally a Nigerian princess in exile.
	That's not very English.
	And it's okay. I mean, you've got a great and noble and prestigious lineage, Your Highness, much in the same way as the late Queen Elizabeth.
	But in what way are you actually You know, this is...
	Okay, so...
	Anyway, we'll move on from that.
	So here she is praising her royal father as well.
	So this isn't just some, you know, random website.
	That was her own website, drshola.com.
	Or something along those lines.
	But this is her praising her princely father...
	So, she understands the principle of dissent and heredity of ethnicity.
	So why does she use both?
	Because it seems to me that the card she's playing is that she understands the distinction between the ethnic identity and cultural identity, and it's almost like It's almost like she's lying.
	Almost like she's talking out of both sides of her mouth, isn't it?
	It's like always make sure that you have a card to play.
	Yes, that's very much what it is.
	And she pretended to be confused on that Good Morning Britain interview.
	In fact, let's play Constantine just clearly summarising it for Adil Ray, who also doesn't understand the principle of heredity.
	Obviously, if you have half of a city, essentially, people who are first-generation immigrants, that is going to make it less of the local culture.
	It's just a fact of life, isn't it?
	No, the fact of that is, and you're absolutely right, but the fact of that is that the city has changed.
	That's fine. It's changed.
	But to say it's become less English is ridiculous.
	It's a stupid comment, or it's a racist comment.
	First of all, it's nothing to do with race, but look at it like this.
	If 50% of the people who lived in London were Scottish, would we be okay to say that it's less English than it was when it was 10%?
	We would say it is British!
	Would it be okay or not?
	If 50% of the people who lived in London were Scottish, would it be okay to say that London has become less English than it was when 10% of the people who lived in London were Scottish?
	Well, if they were Scottish...
	Right, so what's the difference? There's no difference.
	He's talking about immigrants.
	So it's nothing to do with race.
	That is why it has a racist connotation.
	Do you not consider yourself as English?
	No. Why is that? Because I'm British.
	I'm a British Russian person.
	So when you go to Scotland, if you go to Scotland, so where have you come from, what do you say?
	I'd say I live in London.
	I'm originally from Russia. Why can't you say I'm from England?
	Because I'm not from England. But you are!
	No, I'm not. I wasn't born here.
	I didn't grow up here. I came here when I... When you're in Scotland and you're on the road and there's an arrow pointed towards England, do you not go that direction?
	Because that's where you're from. England.
	So why can't you just... I'm not from England.
	I wasn't born here. I didn't grow up here.
	But you just said you're from London. Are you from London?
	No. Adil just cannot wrap his head around this.
	It's not wrong that Constantine's an immigrant.
	He's not saying that he's an Englishman.
	He's Russian. It's fine.
	It's totally fine.
	But Adil can't square this because if he allows that to stand, then he is saying that actually there is a native and a non-native aspect.
	And that's what he's trying to erase.
	I think the common theme in this is a kind of attempt to make the general population and the indigenous population of a country feel that they have to somehow ask for forgiveness about something or feel that they are guilty and they have to seek for atonement.
	And I see this everywhere in the Western world.
	We see it constantly said that there is no indigenous population of England and Europe, for example.
	And that seems to be what Adel is trying to maintain.
	But as Constantine just points out, well, no, that's not the case.
	I am an immigrant. It's fine for him to be an immigrant, especially as Constantine is a sympathetic immigrant.
	He's someone who's come to this place because he likes it.
	He doesn't want to see it just to be liquidated into whatever the, quote, inclusive Britishness that they have.
	But the thing is as well, right, so going back, you can see Shola was there and she was just trying to, you know, the point about, you know, if it was 50% Scottish.
	Error 404. Yeah, exactly.
	Yeah, yeah. It's 50% Scottish.
	She felt she had to say something.
	We would say it's British. It's like, oh, would we say it's British?
	Would we? But anyway, so Shola seems to really genuinely quite hate Britain.
	She's constantly tweeting. I mean, this is literally, in the last 24 hours, I went through her Twitter feed to see what anti-British stuff she posted.
	And this is, every BAFTA winner is white.
	It's not shocking. It's intentional to exclude and discriminate.
	So very British.
	Okay, well, what was the Britishness that you were talking about?
	If it's so very British to exclude and discriminate, it's not very British to be inclusive and to not discriminate.
	So what are you talking about?
	Again, you're talking about both sides of your mouth.
	You know, we can see there is a duplicity here that you feel free to clear up for us.
	But she really has a low opinion of Britain.
	If you can play the next clip, please.
	It's very telling that a lot of the conversation tonight seems to be around the hotel.
	But let's not beat around the bush, okay?
	Everybody, I think, can agree with me that the biggest concern is everybody's welfare and safety.
	Now, don't take us for fools when you say that these people are refugees.
	We know they are illegal migrants.
	If these people were refugees, what are they fleeing from?
	It's very telling that we're never told what they are fleeing from.
	What wars are they fleeing from?
	What countries are they coming from?
	What are they fleeing?
	What persecution? We don't know.
	So we know that they're, by definition, illegal immigrants, which technically makes them criminals.
	Right, so that was a clip from a recent sort of town hall where we're dealing with the illegal migrants who have come to this country illegally and now are being put up in five-star hotels.
	And in response to what I thought was quite a sensible, centrist statement that a normal person would agree with, Shola retweeted this saying, in Britain, hate is not extreme or the exception, it's the norm.
	People vote for it.
	See how evil is well articulated and clap for in Britain.
	Shameful. I think this can be read in another way.
	If she thinks this is true, why did she want to identify as British?
	Well, that's a great point.
	In fact, let's play the next clip.
	White supremacy, the ideology of whiteness, is the norm, not the exception.
	So people, please wake the heck up and let's eradicate the problem.
	That's her referring to Britain.
	White supremacist country.
	The ideology of whiteness is the norm that needs to be eradicated.
	So why does she want to be here at all?
	What would be the point? Because it's what we said before, that woke mentality is inherently expansionist.
	This is CRT, critical race theory.
	100%. If we can get to the next link.
	If you can zoom in on this, please, John.
	The Smithsonian did us a nice graphic that described whiteness.
	Because most people, when they say white supremacy, you're thinking of men in white hoods.
	Who are burning crosses.
	That's not what they're talking about.
	When they say white supremacy, they are talking.
	If you look at this, they're just describing English culture, actually.
	Just aesthetics based on European culture, steak and potatoes, food, justice, time, Christianity, history based on Northern European immigrants experience this heavy focus on the British Empire.
	Basically, you're guilty.
	The default position is you're guilty and you have to atone for For your guilt.
	Sure, but this is meant to be what they consider to be a value-free description, right?
	Individualism. If you can scroll down to the bottom, John, and I think the most revealing one here is communication.
	The King's English. Right.
	So that's the communication of whiteness, is it?
	The king's English. Why would that be white supremacist?
	No, no, that's the thing.
	This isn't about supremacy.
	They say this is the white culture, right?
	And so when they say white culture, what they're saying is English culture.
	They say be polite. Yes.
	Such a bad thing to be polite.
	Yes, but the thing is people read this in wrong ways because people, because of the way that they frame this, they call this white.
	But this, of course, is not universal to white people.
	People in France are white, but they don't have the King's English in France or in Germany or in, you know, Poland or where in the Netherlands.
	You know, this is obviously talking about the particular Anglo culture of the United States.
	And of course, that's what Scholler is appealing to in England, obviously.
	Again, be polite.
	Is that really a Spanish axiom?
	You know, is it really, you know, don't show emotion, say the Italians, you know?
	And so the problem that the Americans have is they call Englishness whiteness.
	and because it's got a universal property white they ascribe the habits of the english to people with white skin and so it makes it sound like only white people are polite or only white people are competitive or care about justice i mean justice based on english common law so we know that they're not talking about the french or the germans or anyone else you know English common law is surprisingly something particular to England.
	And so the fact that it's called white is the sleight of hand that they use.
	What they mean is English culture.
	So when Shola is saying, well, this is a white supremacist country, what they're saying is an English country that has English common law, communicates in English, cares about all of the sort of particulars that English culture approves of.
	And notice, as soon as we say that, when she says, let's eradicate the problem of whiteness, this is what she means.
	She doesn't mean racists in KKK hoods beating and lynching black people.
	That's not what she's talking about.
	Eradicate the culture. Exactly.
	Destroy the culture of being polite, speaking English, having justice based on English common law.
	That's white supremacy to her.
	And so, this is quite a tiring job, as you can imagine, as she says in this interview.
	It's not the job of black people and ethnic minorities to educate white people on racism perpetuated by white people.
	White folks need to educate themselves on racism.
	Really. Because racism, of course, is preferring the English culture of England over the non-English cultures of foreign parts.
	That's all that is.
	That's what she's saying.
	And this is the form of discrimination.
	And so I think the reason that Shola, in particular, I mean, what she said here is she's saying that it's the English person's job to eradicate Englishness in England.
	That's the summary of what she said here.
	And how is that not colonization?
	Because they try to get English people to do it.
	Right. But she's also not English from abroad and she's here promoting this.
	So it would be like if the British Empire had gone to India and started trying to eradicate the native Indian cultures.
	No, it's spreading division.
	Yes. Yeah. The effect is the same.
	Exactly. The effect is the same.
	And interestingly, her criticism of Queen Elizabeth being a colonizer There's another royal colonizer around, isn't there?
	But anyway, the reason that people hate Dr.
	Shola is that she is strident and divisive and impolite and seems to hate everything about this country and the people within it.
	And so someone had apparently sent her a threat.
	Now, I'm just going to take it as read that someone did this to her and that she didn't do this to herself.
	I've got no evidence that she has written this and posted it through her own door and is using this as a way of creating a great deal of sympathetic media interest.
	I've got no evidence at all that's the case.
	And so we're just going to believe that this prescribed terrorist group has done this to her.
	And I'm sure the British authorities will be investigating this, they'll check all the CCTV cameras, they'll find the culprit, and they will give them the punishment they justly deserve.
	Because of course you should never threaten anyone, at all, and there's no excuse for it, frankly.
	This is a few extracts, a lot of it we can't read on YouTube, but there are a few extracts here that I think are worth pointing out.
	This is the National Action London Cell.
	Hard to believe they'd have a London cell.
	We are watching you. Shola, you are a constant troublemaker and liar who appears on television frequently.
	You make a shabby living from criticising and race grifting against ethnic white Europeans and our culture.
	We have placed you on our kill list and intend to kill you, your children and your husband.
	You have gone too far and now it's time for you to pay the price.
	This is a serious notice from National Action London.
	We are notifying you of our intention to kill you and your family.
	Is that normally how threats sound?
	I mean, I'm not an expert, but whatever.
	I don't... I have trouble believing that anyone writes that way.
	It's like, you know, anticipate trouble.
	I mean, the thing is, it's kind of written like someone who wrote this wasn't their first language.
	English wasn't their first language.
	I really find it hard to believe that someone who was raised in an English school without the formal rules and structure of English being taught to them would write in this way.
	I just find it really hard.
	But this is, of course, typical Nazis.
	Who have posted this. But of course then, Shola does another round of media interviews.
	Oh, look, look, I am a terrible victim here.
	And this is what she said.
	I'm going to speak right now.
	Dr. Shola is a political activist and regular commentator on Good Morning Britain.
	The letter she received on Monday is littered with racial slurs and direct references to Dr.
	Shola's campaigning. It's because people like me are speaking the truth in fighting white supremacy.
	Dr. Shola believes the tone of British politics around institutional racism and immigration have re-energized far-right beliefs.
	Using words like invasion, To asylum seekers and refugees, especially those who come from ethnic minority backgrounds.
	It speaks directly to how British ethnic minorities are also treated because black British people, Asian British people are treated like that in this country.
	It almost seems to me like we're meant to be grateful Why should you be grateful to be in Britain?
	The evil, racist, Nazi, white supremacist country that you need to completely change.
	But you can see just from that news footage, the bit of her on Good Morning Britain being unbelievably strident.
	She's winning very few friends outside of the circle of people who are very sympathetic to this.
	But she says, if you go to the next week, oh, I'm not going to be silenced.
	They want silenced voices like mine.
	It's not going to happen. And when she says people like me, I always find that really interesting.
	How many princesses in exile can there possibly be in Britain at the moment?
	There can't be many. The constituency she represents must be vanishingly small.
	Almost one or two people.
	I don't know about death threats, but I think what is particularly problematic is that she is trying to portray, at least the way I see it, the majority of the people as those who would write this letter.
	Yes. And the majority of English people would write the letter and the majority of immigrants receive letters like that.
	Do you ever receive letters like that?
	No. You're an immigrant from Greece?
	You don't get letters like that?
	No. I don't know what to tell you.
	Anyway, she did another interview, of course.
	She keeps doing these interviews.
	You can see that she's deeply emotional by this.
	I'm not leaving society...
	Sorry, no. Right, so there's an exact quote from this.
	I'm not leaving this society to people like this.
	Not our society, or my society, this society.
	As if she, she frames it as if she is external to the society and she is examining it as an onlooker.
	That's how she frames everything.
	Okay, fair enough. But she tells us that she actually loves Britain, you know.
	Big fan of Britain is Dr.
	Scholler. You wouldn't have guessed by everything we've seen so far, but let's play the next clip.
	I am not the problem here.
	You are. This country, the United Kingdom, we love so much.
	And the greatness you believe this country has was created, added to, expanded on by people like me and the ancestors of people like me.
	We belong here.
	The real family of Nigeria belongs in Britain, you see.
	What do you think of that?
	I don't know. I just, I don't like people who are trying to demonize the population of most countries.
	And I don't particularly like...
	She's insufferable, isn't she?
	Yeah. But then it's okay to say because she is insufferable and she knows it.
	But what I find interesting is when she says in that clip, you know, this country we love, it's like...
	Again, not our country or my country.
	You know, she speaks like from an external perspective.
	And her face is kind of cold.
	But as soon as she starts talking about the immigrants, the foreigners, her face warms, goes down, all the things that we...
	And it's just very interesting.
	I don't understand why she wants to identify as British if she thinks that British culture is all the bad things she described it to be.
	Great question. As if being British is something that has no content for her mind.
	And she says being British is something that I'm going to say what it is.
	It has nothing to do with the way the concept arose historically and basically it means nothing.
	So it's just throwing the term like that.
	And the indigenous British people have got no claim to it.
	Actually an exiled Nigerian princess has claimed to it.
	And there's a question as to if you hate a culture why are you still there?
	I mean, I would suggest that it's because everything she's saying is a lie, and actually, we've got this kind of external fetishism of foreigners and foreign cultures, and we actually kind of oikophobically hate our own culture.
	That's what I would suggest.
	But anyway, the main point that she's getting to here is that actually, if you can believe it, this is all an attempt to control your speech.
	You know what you're not allowed to call her?
	A race grifter. Let's play.
	Them saying that racism doesn't exist.
	It's all in your mind.
	Them being allowed to use words like race baiter, race grifter against voices like mine.
	I'm not the only one that receives threats like this online or offline.
	There we go. You're not allowed to call her a race baiter or a race grifter.
	Her entire career is built on race baiting and race grifting.
	Yeah. But I mean, if you call it, This ties well, I think, with what we were talking about in the previous segment.
	She wants to portray the majority of the population as such.
	Yes. She thinks that the national action represents the regular British person.
	But then I suppose that, like, if your attack on Britain and Englishness is so broad as to say, Britain is bad, Britain is a white nationalist country, Britain is evil, Britain is the KKK, I mean, maybe a lot of people would say, well, piss off then, you know. Yeah. But anyway, the point, though, is that a lot of people tend to put together the dots.
	Here's just someone who replied to a comment on Twitter.
	Shola says that white people have white privilege regardless of class means education.
	White privilege is white supremacy personified.
	White supremacy needs to be white from the face of the earth.
	Conclusion, she would have white people eradicated.
	Well... I mean, how's that?
	And she would have Britain eradicated.
	Yes. And then call herself British.
	Yeah. And then she would call herself British.
	Yeah. I mean, that's what people take away from Dr.
	Scholar's activism, whether rightly or wrongly.
	It's how she communicates to them.
	And I'm just not very sympathetic, frankly.
	But of course, what career could she have in, say, Nigeria doing what she does here?
	The Nigerians aren't going to want to hear about how evil the British are all day every day, but a bunch of left-wing Westminster commentariat, oh, they love it, don't they?
	But anyway, we'll leave that there. Sorry if I offended you, Your Highness.
	I'm just trying to figure out what it is you actually want from us.
	Okay, now I want to say that it is impressive to see how things have changed in the last decade, because normally when us conservatives would hear about student protests, we would assume that they come from the left.
	But I think that this has been falsified.
	Oh, really? Yes.
	And it is very important to see how this has been falsified.
	And it is sort of bitter because we see how things have changed in schools and universities with the advance of woke ideology.
	But I think that when we understand this phenomenon, we will come up with good solutions and we will climb the Mount Everest of Putting things back in order.
	Speaking of Mount Everest, why not visit our website?
	Again, for £5 a month you can have access to our premium content and you can have access to videos such as Conquering Everest, the latest installment of the Epoch series.
	This was really good.
	Excuse me. Bo is very interested and knows a lot about these kind of adventure stories.
	It's like some amateur British person who's like, I'm going to try and cross the Antarctic.
	I'm going to try and climb Mount Everest.
	And they know nothing really about doing these things and end up getting themselves killed halfway.
	This is like Steve Irwin who's saying, there's a tiger, there's a crocodile, I'm going to hug it.
	Well, that was exactly it. And when I asked why, I think it was Mallory who was just like, well, because it's there.
	It's like, okay, great. I appreciate the entrepreneurial spirit.
	But like, I mean, a lot of people die trying these things.
	But it was a fascinating conversation because Beau knows all about this.
	And like one of those sort of unbelievable tests of human endurance is, so it's really, it was good stuff.
	I didn't know it. So it was really entertaining for me to watch as well.
	I think we will also have to show endurance in dealing with woke ideologues.
	That's the theme of this podcast, isn't it?
	Yes. You just have to endure.
	Okay, so on the 7th of February, this article was published.
	Catholic high school student arrested after suspension for opposing transgender ideology.
	Okay. I read from the text.
	A Catholic high school student in Canada was reportedly arrested Monday after being suspended for protesting against transgender people's use of bathrooms and saying there are only two genders.
	And now he's appealing to Ontario's Human Rights Tribunal.
	Good luck with that. Good luck.
	Yeah, Canadian human rights law is rigged so that you will fail this.
	Josh Alexander, 16, said the leadership of St.
	Joseph's Catholic High School in Renfrew, Ontario, told him that his continued attendance would be detrimental to the physical and mental well-being of transgender students, according to the Epoch Times.
	Wow, that's quite remarkable.
	There's a problem that woke ideologues want to raise children thinking that disagreement about important issues constitutes a detrimental assault to their physical and mental well-being.
	These children will grow up and they will try to manipulate people into agreeing with them.
	It's like people who are going to say, if you don't agree with me, you are causing immense pain on me and you are evil.
	Back to the article. The high school junior tweeted that Ontario police arrested and charged him after he attempted to attend class in violation of an exclusion order following his suspension earlier this school year.
	Offense is obviously defined by the offended, Alexander told the Epoch Times.
	Obviously, yeah. I express my religious beliefs in class and it's spiraled out of control.
	Not everybody's going to like that.
	That doesn't make me into a bully.
	It doesn't mean I'm harassing anybody.
	They express their beliefs and I express mine.
	Mine obviously don't fit the narrative.
	I want to say that bullies are those who do not engage in dialogue typically.
	Generally that's how bullying works.
	Yeah, you don't have a bullying saying, give me an argument why I shouldn't bully you.
	Yeah, so unfortunately, woke education teaches children to become bullies.
	Alexander, who described himself as a born-again Christian and led student action in support of last year's Tracker Convoy, reportedly has not been to school since he was first suspended in November.
	He was hit with a suspension for allegedly organizing protests at a school against biological males in girls' bathrooms and arguing in class that God created two unchangeable genders.
	Multiple students, including trans students, were kind of shouting me down, the student told the Epoch Times of the classroom exchange.
	So if there's a gang of transgender students screaming at him, can't he say, well, their presence here is making my physical and mental well-being, putting that into question?
	I think reason says this, but reason.
	When we're talking about irrational spaces...
	What we're talking about is power here, really.
	Look at how the blade cuts.
	Yes, it's a double standard.
	And we're used to many of them.
	Alexander said he was told by his principal that he was allowed to return to school only if he stopped using the dead name or given name of transgender students and excluded himself from classes with two transgender students who objected to his religious views about gender.
	Why should it not be the other way around?
	Sorry, I want those two transgender students excluded from classes because they are putting me in an awkward position by making me try to say things that are harmful to me.
	Why should it be that way?
	Accepting one's preferred pronouns now is a prerequisite for being allowed to enter a school.
	Yeah, it's unbelievable.
	Even though it was lifted in January, Alexander's suspension has effectively continued after the Renfrew County Catholic District School Board excluded him for the rest of the school year.
	According to his legal counsel at Liberty Coalition Canada, Alexander remains unsure whether the technically non-disciplinary action will continue into next year.
	Alexander's lawyer, James Kitchen, said the school has accused his client of bullying transgender students.
	Believe our nonsense or you're bullying us.
	Obviously, he doesn't actually bully them, as the term would be defined by reasonable people, Kitchen told the Epoch Times.
	He's not going to seek them out and call them names and make fun of them.
	But he does express his views about what these people say and about what they believe and about what they are doing.
	Well, they argue something and he says, well, my beliefs contradict that.
	They say, well, you're a bully. And this is how democratic they are and how they can handle dialogue.
	And he expresses them online and he expresses them in the class.
	Later this month, Alexander plans to appeal his original suspension to the provincial human rights tribunal, which would bring his case before a school board panel.
	The appeal has reportedly hit a technical snag regarding whether Alexander is independent of his parents.
	The principal of St. Joseph's Catholic High School told Fox News Digital he was prohibited under Canadian law from commenting on the ongoing case.
	Now, let us watch the next video.
	You can see here he gets arrested.
	What's he being arrested for?
	Because he went back to school and he was not supposed to.
	And we're playing it on Newt because there are some songs that are heard, but the irony here, and this is trolling, that there are many people who maniacally shout, yeah, and they play We Are Family by Sister Sledge.
	And I think that's next level trolling because, you know, there are people who really think that the institution of the nuclear family is oppressive, and they have, yeah, I thought I should mention it.
	Next video we'll hear Josh Alexander's version of the event.
	Very quickly I was informed by female students that male students were using the female washrooms.
	This is an issue that came up in the class debate and I used that platform to share my opinions as every other student had the opportunity to do and I quoted some scripture.
	I said that there's only two genders and Apparently, because there was transgender students in those classes, that was considered bullying.
	And I even went beyond the classroom and I took it to the office and I said, okay, this is an issue.
	There's female students that are uncomfortable.
	Something needs to be done. And I was ignored.
	A female student made the same complaint I did, and they ignored her as well.
	So at that point, I decided to organize a protest outside my school.
	And two days before the protest, they suspended me indefinitely.
	And then they permanently banned me from two of my classes.
	And when I attended those classes, they suspended me again and then excluded me twice.
	And at the end of the semester, on the first day of the new semester, I decided to return to school and try to recover my credits and actually get an education.
	And yeah, they arrested me.
	It's weird to look at the difference and it's instructive to look at the difference between the coverage of this event.
	He's talking about something that could be a bottom-up movement.
	Many students being really dissatisfied with woke ideology and it's not about himself alone.
	It's not just a person expressing his views.
	He's also talking about his classmates and girls who told him that we feel particularly unhappy with this.
	I think that this is really weird because this shows that we have the majority of the population that does not like woke ideology, but we have woke ideologues intentionally trying to portray this as being an isolated event that does not reflect the majority of the population.
	And why shouldn't the majority have their views considered?
	Why does it have to be?
	And this goes back to the irreconcilable differences in the first part of the national divorce.
	Okay, in democracy, I thought it was a majoritarian society that got to dictate, because otherwise it takes on this aristocratic view, where you've got the two transgender people, and now the entire society, or the entire class, has to be silent.
	That's not very democratic, you know, and any dissenters get...
	Expelled and arrested.
	It is not at all. And people who can't handle dialogues, they literally cannot talk about themselves as Democrats.
	Now, I'm not saying that there are no problems with this form of governance, especially the direct democracy we had in classical Athens.
	I think that's a very weird thing.
	It's definitely got its problems.
	I'm much more in favor of a liberal constitutional democracy, although I do know that it has its problems and it receives lots of criticisms and it needs to be supplanted by other stuff.
	Let us go to the next video.
	I know the guy who wrote Darkness at Noon off Kessler.
	Sorry, we're missing the next video.
	Do you want to just give me a quick description of what the next video is?
	Yeah, I'll say that there was a clip that appeared on Liz Willis' Twitter feed, and she had a teacher saying, we have advanced degrees, what do parents have?
	I saw this, yeah, I did see this.
	Oh, here we go. Ah, yeah.
	Yes, so basically...
	I have a master's degree because when I got certified, I was told I had to have a master's degree to be an Arizona certified teacher.
	We all have advanced degrees.
	What do the parents have?
	Are we vetting the backgrounds of our parents?
	Are we allowing the parents to choose the curriculum and the books that our children are going to read?
	I think that it's a mistake, and I'm just speaking from the heart.
	The one line that I love is, we must remember that the purpose of public education is not to teach only what parents want their children to be taught.
	It is to teach them what society needs them to be taught.
	I really had a sense you would like this video.
	Stop that, please. But yeah, that's absolutely fascinating.
	The arrogance of this.
	What do parents have? Well, they have direct knowledge of what children are like, actually.
	They live with them all day, every day.
	And they actually care about the children, not about society as an abstract concept.
	They know much better what is in the interest of children than parents.
	I want to say two things about that video.
	In a way, yes, this person may have an expertise on a particular subject, but we're not talking about parents going to a mathematician and trying to tell him or her how to teach mathematics.
	We are talking about some more basic stuff like...
	We're talking about things that might not even be able to be communicated through technical language, right?
	This is Oakeshott's practical and technical distinction playing out.
	What do they have? Well, they have the practical knowledge.
	Yes, and it's particularly irritating to me to hear when this teacher says we must remember that the purpose of public education is not to teach only what parents want their children to be taught, it is to teach them what society needs them to be taught.
	In a way, yes, exactly.
	Society needs people who care about law and order, not people who look at the law as being inherently oppressive and want society to be destroyed.
	There's so much in this.
	It's like, okay, well, you know, where in society does it decree that we have to abolish gender?
	Why does society need that?
	And does that have any downside?
	So, in fact, society maybe doesn't need the abolition of gender.
	And society needs also goodwill.
	And this is what woke ideology tries to destroy because it tries to create the sentiment in us that the majority of the population is bad and we should look at each other as enemies.
	Yeah. And the most marginalized person is the most privileged in this viewpoint.
	They get all of the considerations.
	I don't see why they should.
	And we could say that in order to somehow try to find, let's say, try to negotiate our differences, society does require a kind of dialogue and you have to raise people who can handle dialogue and do not look at disagreement as being an assault on their humanity.
	You're not helping them.
	You're not helping society this way.
	And I want to say that there is Unfortunately, this is not just an issue at schools.
	It is also an issue at universities.
	And I was looking at a later video on trigonometry, someone called Dr.
	Paul Taylor, who appeared.
	And I think he has, there is a minute that I think we should show that I think he hits the right nail on the head.
	Okay. You know the guy who wrote Darkness at Noon, Arthur Kessler?
	It's a brilliant book about being imprisoned and a totalitarian.
	It's a novel. But he did this very funny little short article where he called it the Commissars and the Yogi.
	He said people are divided into two types.
	The Yogi is the spiritualist dreamer.
	And the Commissar, you'll know Constantine.
	But if you've ever had any engagement with any bureaucracy, you know what a Commissar is.
	He's the person with the clipboard and the power.
	And the universities have created these institutions within the university where you don't have to be that good.
	You can climb the greasy pole by being a commissar, by enforcing language codes.
	And guess what?
	You set up a language code unit.
	I think Leeds has now got some harassment units, so good job I left.
	And guess what?
	When you have a unit devoted to finding harassment, you'll know this from the Soviet example, guess what?
	An awful lot of harassment is found because they have to justify their own existence.
	So we have institutions within institutions.
	We have the rise of a bureaucracy that is actually charged with...
	It literally tries to...
	It is formed by people who are not good enough to stand out in academia by their own work.
	And they actually throw mud at others who are better than them because they want to say, okay, if we have 30 people and one person can get the job and we have 15 people who think that I'm not good enough, they are going to say, ah, but those other 15 who are better than us, they are all the bad things in the world.
	So naked power grab.
	Yes. And we have people who try to perpetuate their positions and they try to basically justify their salary.
	And it's an easy way to constantly try and find a problem.
	If your job is to detect problems, you're going to make problems in order to show how you're worth your salary.
	This is very much Peterson's distinction between Hierarchies of competence and hierarchies of dominance, right?
	Because the woke left are just demonstrating that they operate a hierarchy of dominance rather than the hierarchy of competence.
	Yes. And I think that this is particularly problematic, but one way to combat this phenomenon is to combat this precise bureaucracy.
	And I think that this is a political problem.
	It's a problem that requires a state solution.
	There are going to be people who don't like that.
	I know, but I don't know if there is another solution.
	I really want to hear about it and I'm really ready to be convinced because I would also require, I would also like there to not be something like that.
	No, I agree. I don't think Ron DeSantis is doing anything wrong, frankly.
	Legislate them out of the institutions.
	Anyway, let's go to the video comments.
	Hello! Missing the gold call this week, so I'm going to phone this one in.
	Any chance somebody can check whether a person or a firm can sue Ofcom for, say, suppression of the public discourse with the new legislation going to go through the government?
	Might be something somebody could do.
	I wonder where he's on holiday at the moment.
	On a beach somewhere.
	Speculating about what can be done.
	Drinking mercury. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Lucky for them. But yeah, maybe, maybe, who knows?
	I'll have to look into it. Let's go to the next one.
	So cool. Where? This particular church was in a small town called Niebu in the north of Jutland.
	It's where my dad's side of the family is from, so I have spent many summers in that town.
	In truth, though, we have hundreds of churches with chalk drawings just like this, going all the way back to the 1200, spread across the entire countryside of Denmark and Scandinavia, so it's not completely uncommon to just run across them when visiting a village or a town.
	That's really nice. It feels like there's absolutely an opportunity for us to stand in her values and support the world that she wants.
	Hours after her tragic death was announced, friends and family of Jen Angel released a plea that if the people responsible for her death were caught, they are not to be locked up but to be offered restorative justice.
	She was dragged 50 feet by a getaway car after she tried to chase down the thieves.
	This one disturbs me.
	Her friends are monsters. I could say so much and I wish I had the time.
	I haven't even heard of this case, but I can already imagine what the profile of the people involved is.
	And what does restorative justice look like?
	What's that supposed to look like?
	Killed someone. Okay. Restoratively suffer.
	I don't know. Let's go to the next one.
	G'day guys. Long time no see.
	Check this out.
	And I've got the originals.
	Come on, guys. Say it once for me.
	You know you wanna. Well, that'd be, uh...
	Oh, God, I can't remember his website.
	It's Callum that always remembers the website.
	CsCooper.com.au.
	Thanks, John. But yeah, I've actually ordered all of the Roald Dahl originals as well, because I didn't even think about it.
	But now, I hadn't gotten them for my kids.
	I'm like, oh right, actually, you know, a great thing to have for my kids, because I didn't even think about it.
	And I've got the ones that haven't been molested.
	So yeah, happy with that.
	Right, let's go. What am I looking at?
	Thank you very much.
	What? Let's see there's robotics division checking in.
	Hey, Lotus Eaters. I moved out to the country from the suburbs about two years ago, and I wonder if there's a purpose for having cities or even suburbs in the distant future.
	They started out as grain exchanges, livestock exchanges, and then eventually waterways exchanges, and then railway hubs, factory locations, all that.
	But now everything is becoming distributed.
	And I just don't see a point in having cities anymore.
	What's the future of this?
	Is the 15-minute cities away to just prolong this sort of dying vestige of civilization?
	Well, this is interesting, because actually, I agree with you, right?
	As technology would improve, a sort of un-centrally planned society, a sort of holistic society, probably would end up going away from just the concept of the big city, right?
	Maybe you would have, you know, a few, but it would be more and more sort of Dispersed.
	But, of course, that's if there wasn't some sort of tyrannical green agenda that was reigning above us.
	And so instead, they're looking at, well, environmentalism and saying, well, no, if we have people living out in the countryside, that's exhaust fumes where they're driving around and stuff like that.
	So they want everyone concentrated in the cities in order to easily control them.
	That's the root of the agenda.
	And they're quite explicit about it.
	I mean, the 15-minute city is exactly that kind of just open control over the way people live their normal lives.
	Yeah. And so eventually, they want to have everyone concentrated into cities in order to preserve the natural beauty of the countryside.
	But for who? The people who can't go there.
	It's going to be like Mega City 1 in Judge Dredd.
	Yes. Just dreadful.
	Yes. It's going to be awful.
	Anyway, Rude the Day says, As soon as I'm through John Wheatley's and Josh's backlog, I can't wait to start watching symposiums.
	Well, they're very good, so you should.
	Sir Olney says, Carl, the reason one side is unwilling to concede in the ground is to honestly believe themselves to be possessed of the whole unvarnished truth.
	Yeah, I know, I know.
	You've got quite a long comment, but I know what the left are like, man.
	I know. I'm not saying that they are reasonable.
	And I'm not saying they can be fairly convinced.
	But as Stelius pointed out, really, that's only about 8% of the population that is like this diehard, insane activist.
	And we know because the polling is in.
	It's about 8% of the population, but about 30% of the population are generally sympathetic to them, and so the trick is to show that this 8% aren't worth being sympathetic to, and that means having an open discourse, saying, look, come and talk to us.
	Baystate says, America is the first state in the West in which two religions are vying for control of the state, Christianity and the unnamed religion we call wokeism.
	Well, that's not true. I mean, that's what the wars of religion were all about in the sort of 17th century, 16th, 17th century.
	But you are right. I do think it's essentially a kind of liberal heresy that's trying to take over the United States and is doing surprisingly well, let's be fair.
	Don't try to break up the country to deal with these issues.
	Simply encourage them to leave and find their own state.
	On a completely separate note, we need to ban migration from America to Europe for a short period.
	Well, I agree with that. Free will makes a good point here.
	If the US splits up, it ceases to be a superpower, leaving other countries to fill that vacuum.
	China, Russia, Iran are another entity.
	What will happen to NATO? Will that breakup potentially leave Europe vulnerable to Russia?
	This is real politic, not the wishful thinking of pundits.
	Yeah, and that's ultimately why it can't really happen.
	America's influence. I mean, which one would get to call themselves the United States of America?
	It would be the divided state of America in that sense.
	Yes, it would. Yeah. And that wouldn't be good.
	Alpha of the Beta says national divorce is the only way there will almost certainly be blood.
	While Stelius fails to recognize that it doesn't matter who wins in 2024.
	Excuse me. Most Republicans believe 2020 is stolen.
	Well, that's because it obviously was.
	And as soon as the fix is in, when the counting stops to game the votes, the curtains are pulled shut, the cameras are off, then all bets are off.
	2024 will be the last election in the United States in its current configuration before it kicks off.
	If by some miracle Trump gets back in power, it might be delayed, but then I don't see it.
	I don't think they'll let Trump win, frankly.
	I don't know, but I don't think that fatalism helps.
	Maybe I fail to recognize what you say.
	You know, I'm not posing as an expert, but I think it may be important to be a bit optimistic, however crazy that may sound.
	And I think it's important to show some goodwill towards the majority of the population, because I think you can't have societies without goodwill.
	But I accept that there are many things that I may fail to recognize.
	But also, the left have essentially ceded the ground of political positivity, like being open and decent to someone else.
	So, you know, I'm not against it, even though I did say earlier that You know, I'm sympathetic to Matt Walsh's I'm-not-playing-games-anymore attitude.
	So, I don't know.
	I'm not convinced either way, frankly.
	LeFrenchovsky says, I'm with Tim Paul on this one.
	I do not believe civil war can be avoided.
	The left wants their worldview applied to the entire US and to some extent the world.
	Not to some extent, it's definitely the entire world.
	And they will not stop until this happens.
	That's true. They are completely expansionist.
	They have to be comprehensively defeated, frankly.
	Kevin says, A big problem with the woke stuff is that it's a cult.
	And unfortunately, for one this prolific and viral, there is no deprogramming them without making them suffer the consequences of their delusions.
	Only we could send them all off to their own land, where they set up the socialist utopia of their dreams without having us to suffer them.
	Yeah, no, there's no live and let live with these people, I'm afraid.
	It's exclusively not.
	Anyway, the letter M says, I swear in each clip of Dr.
	Shola you showed, she has a different accent.
	I think her accent's fairly consistently Nigerian, actually, I thought.
	Brian says, the High Priestess Dr.
	Shola most... I can't pronounce that.
	Her letter to herself is another Nigerian scam.
	I didn't even make that connection of the joke.
	But a letter from a Nigerian princess.
	Very good. Well, she's not an important government worker.
	She's just an activist. But yeah, it's hard to imagine that the British government and Prevent and MI6 and all these aren't on the case.
	And they're going to find the Nazi that sent Dr.
	Schola that very mean letter.
	They're absolutely going to do it.
	We're going to see them paraded across the television screens any minute now.
	David says, I'm an Englishman who migrated to Canada.
	I've been here for nearly 24 years.
	When I swam from, I say England.
	Even if I got myself a Canadian passport, I'm still an Englishman living in Canada.
	Yes.
	It's just because that's how these things work.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Not complicated. Not at all.
	It's very strange that we can't have that as a normal thing to say.
	Christine says, if I spend a summer in, say, Greece and then come back to Sweden and someone asks me where I'm from, should I answer Greece according to this dunce?
	I guess so. I guess so.
	Yeah. I've holidayed in Greece many times.
	I really like Greece as a place to visit and that makes me a Greek.
	Hello fellow Greek person.
	Hello. Omar says, an immigrant isn't English in the same way a white Frenchman isn't.
	Simple as. Yes.
	It's literally that simple.
	But we'll have to leave it there because I'm afraid we're out of time.
	So thank you everyone for joining us.
	I hope you have a wonderful weekend.
	We'll see you on Monday. Bye.
	Oh, Zoom call. Yeah, also Zoom call.

▲