Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 21, 2023 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:34:11

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #637

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Music playing.
	Hello and welcome to the podcast.
	Hello as it is episode 636 for today, Friday the 21st of April 2023.
	I'm your host Connor, rejoined by Dominic Prisby.
	Hello sir.
	Good to see you again.
	And today we're going to be doing a giant-sized segment on the Pandemic Who Treaty debate that was had in Parliament recently, and Dominic's going to be talking about the Pound's 40th birthday.
	Before we kick things off, at three o'clock today we do have a piece of content that's going to be going live on the website, and that is a mini Well, mini-documentary, video essay, it's about 45 minutes from me, which is how real communism has already been tried.
	It's a deep dive into Marxist texts and socialist history, and it's a solo presentation, so we're sort of mixing things up a bit.
	I know Josh is going to be doing one for Contemplation soon, so if you like more of it, Let us know if you haven't subscribed yet and you're still a freeloading viewer.
	Pay us £5 to keep the lights on and you'll be able to watch that.
	But without further ado, we'll jump straight into the stories.
	So the UK has become one of the World Health Organization's co-signatories on its new Pandemic Prevention Preparedness and Response Treaty.
	Try saying that three times when you're drunk.
	This agreement, I don't know if you're familiar with it, but it's an international agreement that aims at an equitable response to pandemics, which means that all of the member states which sign onto it have to abide by whatever the WHO says, otherwise they would be subject to sanctions if they don't act accordingly in times of crisis.
	like withdrawing certain health information or certain resources that have been subsidized.
	So the WHO can turn around and say, as they did during the pandemic, that you need to lock down as quickly and rapidly as possible.
	And throughout all our prior guidance, as said about subjective shielding, and the UK has to fall in lockstep right behind China, who are bankrolling the WHO, and we have absolutely no say about it.
	We currently don't get a vote in this.
	Our politicians, Boris Johnson namely, have already pretty much signed on to it.
	And so people weren't too happy about that.
	So if you go to the details that the Commons Library have said in their report, if you go to the next one, please, John, they say, the main goal of this treaty would be to foster an all of government and all of society approach.
	Immediate alarm bells ringing there about totalitarianism.
	Strengthening national, regional and global capacities and resilience to future pandemics.
	It would also create a conference of parties for the treaty, so a COP, like you have COP26, COP27 for climate change.
	You're going to have a health COP, which just means more international elites paying billions to have multi-car cavalcades and private jets flying around the world for a brief holiday to tell you how you have to stay within your 15-minute city because you're emitting too many carbon emissions.
	And in Parliament's own research brief it says, the intergovernmental negotiating body agreed by consensus at its second meeting in July 2022 that the new international instrument on pandemic preparedness should be legally binding.
	The reason I read that out is because we're going to go through some clips momentarily of this parliamentary debate.
	And in it, someone does say that it will not be legally binding.
	That is untrue according to Parliament's own research brief.
	So lots of the MPs, as per usual, are talking about issues they only half know about and that we're going to be subjected to while they're not.
	So, as a Libertarian, I understand that you know all too well about the government doing things unilaterally and us being subjected to tyranny, but just hammering it home for the audience.
	So if we go to the British Medical Journal's coverage, you can see the exact kind of ideological contamination that's going to be at work within this pandemic treaty.
	This has been written by Alexandra Phelan, who has consulted for the World Health Organization.
	It's declared in this.
	And the opening line is just delusional post-colonial woke propaganda.
	So, great, we're subject to intersectionality in the name of public health.
	The COVID-19 pandemic showed that gross inequities in population morbidity, mortality, and access to medicines persist between nations, reflecting the colonial histories and current political status of international governance.
	These patterns of iniquity emerge directly from colonialism's racism, violence, resource extraction and exploitation.
	Whether the pandemic treaty perpetuates this framing, creating an unjust world more vulnerable to pandemics, or begins to diverge from the coloniality that underpins international infectious disease law will depend on negotiations of the draft text and certain critical provisions.
	Now, call me ignorant, but I don't think the British Empire is responsible for Africa's lack of pandemic preparedness.
	Nor do I trust the WHO to talk about the abolition of colonialism when they seem to fall in lockstep behind China at any given opportunity.
	And yet China is conducting the Belt and Road Scheme on 140 countries, immiserating them to their debt and capturing all of their mineral resources and procurement and manufacture.
	Excuse me if I think you're a bit hypocritical when you're talking about colonialism, and it's just a stick to beat the West, but maybe I'm just being too cynical.
	Hey ho!
	Naturally, of course, patriotic Brits decided to object to this, and there's been a parliamentary petition that amassed over 156,000 signatures.
	And for those who don't know, in the UK, as soon as a petition gets 100,000 signatures, parliament are compelled to debate it as an issue of public prominence that people really care about.
	So, well done to everyone who co-signed this.
	I did, for getting it over the line.
	So the demands were, we want the government to commit to not signing any international treaty on pandemic prevention and preparedness established by the World Health Organization unless this is approved through a public referendum.
	Brexit style.
	The WHO is currently preparing an international agreement on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.
	We believe the public must be furnished with the full ramifications of what and how any pandemic treaty could affect them, and be given a public vote on whether the UK should sign up before the UK government signs up to this.
	So, informed consent.
	Not something that was all that big during the last pandemic, so do I trust them to stick to it?
	No.
	Particularly because the government responded.
	This was the Commonwealth Office on the 27th of May 2022, well before the debate occurred recently.
	I believe it was the 13th of April, so that would have been Monday, 2023.
	To protect lives, the economy, and future generations from future pandemics, the UK government supports a new legally binding instrument to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response.
	Ah yes, to protect the economy.
	We must crash the economy, comrade.
	COVID-19 has demonstrated that no one is safe until we are all safe and that effective global cooperation is needed to better protect the UK and other countries around the world from the detrimental health, social and economic impacts of pandemics and other health threats.
	The UK supports a new international legal binding instrument as part of a cooperative and comprehensive approach to pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.
	Now, you get that line in here, we're not safe until everyone's safe?
	Well, that's kind of a high bar that wasn't even met during the pandemic response, because as we know, and I don't know if I have to censor this for YouTube, because YouTube guidelines are still very unclear years on from COVID, but the vaccines didn't prevent transmission, or hospitalisation, or death.
	Because when the ONS were still releasing weekly COVID statistics before they abolished the free testing, you could see that more people were dying of COVID while in hospital when they were double or triple vaccinated.
	So there is never going to be an everyone is safe approach because you're never going to wipe out a respiratory disease that affects old people, particularly with experimental vaccine technology.
	And none of that was on YouTube, I guarantee, so you can go over to our website or our Rumble channel to listen to that because of course we're censored for everything.
	Were more people dying in hospital because the type of person that has the vaccine and the type of person that doesn't have the vaccine, the type of person that doesn't have the vaccine is perhaps more likely to believe in his own natural immunity and therefore is the type of person that's going to be in better shape and so on.
	Is that the reason or was it actually the vaccine?
	It's more likely that it's the first one, yes, because if you're more health-conscious, you've probably already contracted COVID and have weathered the storm.
	If you've taken the vaccine, again, none of this is going on YouTube, it may condition your body to have a certain immune response to the earlier strains, and as soon as Delta and Omicron came along, it was like your body showed up to a gunfight armed with a knife.
	And so, because these people had multiple comorbidities already, because they were elderly or overweight, they were hospitalized, and the vaccine wasn't sufficiently protecting them from hospitalization and death.
	And if they hadn't promised that it would, then nobody would have cared.
	If they hadn't tried to mandate it and make you get it to go to a bar or a club or a concert, nobody would be annoyed, other than they would have just sold a false bill of goods.
	But when you prescribe it, I think this is, in general, why I'm so opposed to government intervention of any kind.
	as an evil granny-killing COVID denier, then people get their backs up about it and go, well, why did I take this?
	Some of my relatives still died, even though they had four boosters and looked like a pin cushion.
	Not very fair.
	And these are the people that are going to be leading the pandemic response, of course.
	I think this is, in general, why I'm so opposed to government intervention of any kind.
	Because, like, I think it's fair to say, the WHO made quite a few balls-ups during the pandemic.
	I don't think it's unreasonable to say, and they can turn around and say, well, we've learned from our mistakes.
	We won't do it again and blah, blah, blah.
	But if this was, if they didn't have government subsidies or government protection, whatever, and it happens, it's not just the who it happens across government.
	Like in a free market, if you muck up.
	You might lose your job or you certainly don't get rewarded.
	There's accountability.
	There's accountability in the way that there isn't in government bodies and so the answer to the fact that the Who copped up last time seems to be give the Who more power.
	Yeah, exactly.
	When, as raised in the debate by some of the politicians that we'll be listening to shortly, particularly Danny Kruger, hats off to him, he did say, well, if we had this totalising all-society, all-government, equitable approach, then one mistake is everyone's mistake, whereas we wouldn't have had the brave vanguards like Sweden and Florida leading the way and showing the subjective shielding and herd immunity via natural immunity was actually the way to go with this.
	We would have actually had far more deaths and probably stayed under lockdown for longer.
	Of course, that's presuming that they ever wanted to actually solve the problem rather than just lock us down forever, but hey-ho, Danny's probably a little bit more charitable than we are.
	Now, the reason I repeated this 100% safety is the standard line is because some of the people that were in this debate Kept reaffirming it, including the SNP member that was in the debate, who was not the healthiest person in the world.
	She also repeatedly refused to give way to interjections and she just decided to monologue.
	And she says, the instrument aims to improve how the world prevents, better prepares for and responds to future disease outbreaks of pandemic potential at national, regional and global levels.
	It would complement the existing regulations, instruments, which the UK has already agreed, such as the international health regulations.
	It would promote greater collective action and accountability.
	That's it.
	Collective action and accountability, but as we just said, zero ability to hold China, for example, accountable for unleashing COVID and also saying that there was no human-to-human transmission, which the World Health Organization took and ran with when we knew there were and we could have acted earlier and more competently.
	and saved a few old people's lives.
	This treaty won't be signed until the World Health Assembly in May 2024.
	Once adopted, the instrument would only become binding on if the UK, and when the UK accepts, ratifies it in accordance with its constitutional processes.
	In the UK, this requires the treaty to be laid before Parliament for a period of 21 sitting days before the government can ratify it on behalf of the UK.
	Now that's just a formal process because we know as soon as Parliament gets it, they're just going to pass it through slowly anyway because they already want to do it.
	Yeah, and they're not going to read it.
	No.
	Like I'm friendly with Steve Baker, the MP, and he just says when, when, well, okay.
	He's not my fan.
	Okay.
	But Steve just says when you get these huge documents that MPs are supposed to read, they just don't read them.
	They can't.
	He says he's one of the few.
	No, it's not the most gripping thing in the world.
	I mean, the publication was only just put out recently, but we'd already preliminarily signed onto it before we saw anything, so it just shows it's something that's a foreordained conclusion anyway.
	If you'd like to hear more about foreordained conclusions and how Parliament doesn't really do anything, you can subscribe to the website for £5 a month and get content like this, where myself and Harry went through clips from Parliament's vaccine injury debate.
	I don't know if we can say any more about that.
	This entire bit might have to be blurred out for YouTube again, but it went exactly as you'd expect.
	Let's put it that way.
	Anyway, on to the actual debate that we're talking about.
	We've got some clips here.
	So Nick Fletcher, I'll just go from the start.
	This is the full transcript if you want to read it.
	Nick Fletcher opened the debate and he said that the government does not believe that a debate on the issue is needed.
	Great start, very encouraging, because they've already decided it's a good thing, of course.
	And then he says, The Who does some wonderful work.
	One of The Who's many success stories is the eradication of smallpox.
	There.
	It has worked in many areas across the globe in sexual and mental health.
	It has worked towards the eradication of polio.
	It helps across developing countries with the provision of clean water, and helps against the effects of climate change and earthquakes, and the list goes on and on.
	Is he a Tory, Nick Fletcher?
	Yes.
	Yeah, in name only, of course.
	So, I don't think anyone objects to the Who eradicating smallpox.
	We object to all the balls up they made about three years ago, which we know about.
	Did the Who really eradicate smallpox, or was that...?
	I would assume they had a role in it.
	But I mean, okay, I don't know the story, but surely there's a vaccine against smallpox, isn't there?
	Yes, and it was developed in the 1800s, so... Yeah, before the WHO existed.
	Yeah, so the WHO didn't create the vaccine.
	Perhaps he's crediting them for the widespread rollout.
	Okay.
	I don't know the details of that.
	If it's true, then that's a good thing, I suppose.
	What wasn't a good thing is everything to do with COVID, which you now want to repeat with this treaty.
	Alright then.
	So then Labour MP John Speller ends up cutting in and he says, "...is the fact of the matter not that it has been a worldwide vaccination programme that has enabled us to achieve that?
	Does that not demonstrate the falseness of the anti-vax campaigns?" Immediately homogenising all prior vaccines with the brand new technology that was unleashed during Covid and saying that anyone who has any criticisms of either the technology or the way in which it was compulsorily rolled out, specifically to health and social care workers, as vaccine deniers.
	You can't have a principled objection to these people, they're just going to try and smear you as a conspiracy theorist.
	I have become really interested in conflation as a tool.
	A classic conflation would be conflating the EU and Europe, or there are a million, but that conflating anti-vax and anti-specific vax.
	That is a classic conflation, and it's done deliberately to confuse.
	It's a really dishonest technique of arguing.
	But once you start to look at the world through the prism of conflation, you just see conflation everywhere.
	And just listening to you read through this document, I've seen about four classic conflators.
	Oh yeah, it's deliberately well-poisoning.
	Yeah, it is well-poisoning.
	And it's a tool with which to smear your enemies.
	But I urge viewers to look out for conflation.
	And once you see this, where you deliberately confuse one thing with another, where there's often crossover in the Venn diagram, but once you see it, you can't unsee it.
	And once you look at the world through the prism of conflation, the world becomes a lot clearer.
	He immediately, in his part of the speech, which we won't play a clip of, He goes to talk about the MMR autism claims, which were a result of actual made-up scientific studies, and have been recently discredited.
	And he says that this is part of the right-wing conspiracy theorist ecosystem of the United States.
	Oh, so if you know someone, like a BBC journalist, who died from a blood clot from the AstraZeneca vaccine, and you bring that up even though it's on the death certificate, you're just an American right-wing conspiracy theorist.
	Right.
	Um, I would like to point out that Speller is vice-chair of the Labour Friends of Israel, and obviously the Israeli government did partner with Pfizer, so perhaps he doesn't want to make his friends look bad.
	That might also be a thing, but far be it of me to suggest that he isn't very honest, and is a well-poisoner, and is conflating everything.
	Anyway, I wanted to go firstly onto Danny Kruger, because Danny Kruger's done a lot of good work on this, and I happen to know that he is definitely one of the MPs who is on our side.
	Danny, for anyone who doesn't know, one, go and watch that hangout I plugged earlier, but two, Danny originally had voted for the health and social care mandate, and then realised what he'd done, the great grievous overstep he'd done for bodily autonomy, and flipped his vote and decided to vote against vaccine passports, and has since been very much on the side of Sir Christopher Chope in getting compensation for those who were vaccine damaged and bereaved.
	So he's had a proper road to Damascus turn around, and we're very happy that he's doing that and speaking up.
	And Danny came out as a shining star in this debate and I wanted to play a few clips here.
	So yeah, let's start with the first.
	Thank you.
	So, Danny goes on to make a more substantive argument of exactly why, but the reason I played that clip is to contrast Danny's position as defending each subject of the British state but the reason I played that clip is to contrast Danny's position as defending each subject of the British state as having an inviolable sense of individual freedom, versus Steve Bryan, who was the man who interjected, shows you where the thought leading is going with the government steering the ship there.
	He's saying, well, we might as well sign off on it, because if we object to some of the claims, we can argue from within the tent rather than without.
	And Danny makes the perfectly salient point that, okay, even if we sign up just to argue so that we're oppressed just a little less, if our objections aren't incorporated, and then two-thirds of the other member states vote for these objections, then we'll be subject to terms that we didn't want to be subjected to, with the people and the politicians having absolutely no say.
	So we have already ceded too much independent and national sovereignty being a part of this body as is, and so why would we want to sign up to a treaty that we can't change the terms of?
	Well 100% and you know it's the supranational, you see power to supranational bodies.
	What interested me, the comment he said, he made a comment about referenda and then he said I think we've had enough of those.
	Yes.
	And I'm like no.
	I'm a real direct democracy guy.
	I think Votes should be opened up on because currently you know it doesn't matter if you're left right center everyone feels alienated by the political process they feel unrepresented and you know a way to engage voters is to allow them to vote on stuff and I'm a big direct democracy guy you know and the role of the politician should be to administer the will of the people not to make decisions on their behalf
	And this is another conflation, elections and democracy.
	They are not one and the same, whereas referenda are much closer to the democratic process.
	But the contempt that so many in the establishment have to the people was really clear in the way he laughingly dismissed the idea of having, you know, that we've had too many referenda already.
	We've had one.
	Yeah, and that one, which is the song which you made about it that rocketed you to stardom, was very much the feeling that the people that voted for Brexit were giving a middle finger to the establishment who had told them that your concerns don't matter, history is moving inexorably towards this point of progress that we've already decided on, and if you try and get in the way, you're just a speed bump on the road to that process.
	And so that is the attitude that he was dripping with when he had contempt for the idea of enough referendum.
	Because he was saying, oh, the Blairite, neoliberal Tory paradigm has already decided where we're going.
	Why would you kick up a fuss about that?
	You're just slowing things down.
	And we're saying, no, we don't agree with the fundamental direction you're going in.
	We don't want to cede our individual and national sovereignty to these supranational institutions.
	And folks like Danny and other politicians that took part in this are doing the Lord's work, trying to stick up for it.
	So, well done to the politicians that actually do things we want.
	Nice to give them some commendation for a change.
	Let's listen to Danny's more substantive arguments of why we shouldn't belong to the Who.
	Thank you.
	So I thought we made a fair few good points there.
	Yeah, very understated delivery as well.
	Yes, yeah.
	One confident and very well informed, and it helps to be very reasonable.
	I think we'll get the more fiery clips coming from Andrew Bridgen very shortly, but just to make and unpack Danny's argument before we move on to Andrew's stuff.
	First of all, he makes the point that an institution with a proven track record of Either being ignorant to the realities on the ground, or deliberately lying because they have perverse financial interests invested in placating their donors or other countries which helped get their officials into power, like China.
	It's not worth trusting those people as the sole repository of truth.
	And that phrase actually pricked up my ears a bit, because that was the way that the Soviet party characterised Lenin, right as he was waging the Bolshevik Revolution, because of course all Marxist interpretation flowed from the top.
	So I don't want to appoint the WHO as our Marxist overlords for future pandemics.
	And also, he raised the point that Parliament have not given the MPs any Assurance that they'll bring this to the Commons floor to debate that, even among them.
	So we would have no ability as constituents to even tell our MPs what they should be telling the Cabinet and the Prime Minister signing off on this, what the issues are.
	So this will just be signed in a back room and we will all be subject to it.
	And we know the terms and conditions of this type of thing, because Indonesia in the B20 last year, in the first panel, sat down and said they want an international vaccine passport so that the pilots and the ship's crews can move around while the pandemic goes on, but the rest of us have to sit at home and wait it out.
	I'm not keen on any of that.
	So I'm glad that politicians like Danny Kruger are bringing this up in this debate, and hopefully that moves the needle a little bit.
	I found what he said about the nation state very interesting.
	I think about that a lot and as you probably know I wrote a book about taxation and one of the arguments I make in the book is that the nation state that we know today, Europe, sorry, not a nation state, you know, but Britain, France, Germany, Italy and so on, most of those nations are only about 200 years old.
	Certainly Germany and Italy for example is not even 200 years old.
	You know Italy used to be lots of city-states and it was only with unification in the late 1800s that it became, in fact Mussolini only sort of really completed the formation of Italy.
	And nation-states are designed around tax structures and the tax structures that we have in place emerged as a result of the Industrial Revolution and basically Tax is power.
	You have the power.
	It doesn't matter if you're a king or a government or an emperor.
	As long as you've got your tax revenue, you've got your power.
	If you lose your tax revenue, you lose your power.
	And 50% tax revenue derives from income tax.
	But the way that the nature of work is changing and the nature of organizations with, you know, these supernatural international corporations that, you know, they have their IP in one country and their profits in another and so on and so forth.
	And so, you know, is Google an American company or is it an international and so on?
	And so the future of the nation state as we know it, It's it they're only 200 years old and I think the future of the nation state we are going towards global government but the the the key will be who collects the taxes you know but it wouldn't surprise me if at some stage in the future we see some kind of International organisation in charge of tax collection.
	Yeah.
	And it will probably start with VAT and sales tax.
	The EU is already trying to homogenise VAT and centralise VAT collection in Brussels.
	One VAT rate for Europe.
	One VAT to rule them all.
	Yes, exactly.
	And we've already seen plans proposed by the WHO's partner, the World Economic Forum, that said you need a corporate citizen's identity and in the same app you'll be able to have your medical information and your purchases and your ability to pay taxes and vote all linked to the same international state ID.
	So it homogenizes it across the board and the taxes of course will flow upwards to international institutions like The WHO, the World Economic Forum, or the UN who recently, and I'm covering this on Sunday so I won't go into it too much now, put out a UN aid set of legal principles for all member states that says that children should be able to have sex.
	So, excuse me if I don't think that these institutions are on our best side, and well done to Danny Kruger.
	for excoriating them as such.
	It used to be the church that would provide education and health care and welfare and so on.
	And that role of the church has been replaced by the state.
	And I guess the next stage in that evolution is the supra state.
	And so they won't only provide welfare and care and health care and so on.
	They'll also be in charge of morality.
	Let's go on to Andrew Bridgen then, shall we?
	So Andrew Bridgen, who is a friend of the show, and is- I just got a notification telling me I'm doing the Lotus Eaters podcast.
	Fantastic, well welcome.
	Andrew Bridgen, who is a friend of the show, decided to participate in the parliamentary debate on the WHO treaty.
	And Bridgen is not known for holding back.
	He didn't hold back when he was nearly kicked out of the party, and if you want to learn about that you can pay us £5 a month to get All sorts of our premium content, and this one was a hangout, The Price of Apostasy, where Carl and I went on a memory lane trail of how Andrew Bridgen was excommunicated from the Conservative Party for questioning the efficacy and the damages caused by the Covid vaccine.
	Again, some of that may be blurred for YouTube, but to learn about that, go and pay us five quid a month and give that a watch.
	That's good context.
	So if we go on to the next one, Andrew gave a speech and he had a few interruptions.
	No, he didn't actually have any interruptions.
	Sorry, that was the amazing thing.
	Nobody chimed in, but he did interrupt other peoples and we'll watch both his interjections and some clips from his speech.
	And whereas Danny Kruger was quite reserved and made some broader points about national sovereignty and how power lies with Parliament and the people who elect the MPs to get there, Andrew went straight for the throat with the WHO's corruption.
	So, again, some of this may be redacted for YouTube, so go to our website or Rumble channel if you want more.
	But let's play the first clip where he talks about the incompetence and unaccountability of the WHO.
	Thank you, Joe.
	Thank you.
	So very interesting.
	interesting point that he made there that I didn't know about that specific individual from India.
	He He later goes on to point out the corruption of Dr Tedros, who's at the head, which we know was part of the communist Tigray People's Liberation Front, and who China helped appoint him.
	He He talks about his conduct here and makes an interesting accusation.
	He says, look at the conduct of the WHO during the recent Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where 83 individuals who were working for the WHO sexually abused local women, including the sexual assault of a 13-year-old girl.
	It was all covered up.
	There was a leaked document from the WHO which would have been in front of Mr Tedros's committee.
	A confidential UN report submitted to the WHO last month concluded that the manager's handling of a case did not violate the WHO sexual exploitation policies because the woman concerned was not a beneficiary of WHO aid and she didn't receive any humanitarian support.
	So you could rape women and children, but as long as you didn't give them aid, it doesn't matter.
	It's not within the WHO purview.
	That's extraordinary.
	That is hellish.
	And again, in the Sunday weekend segment that'll be coming out soon, I went over how the UN has committed 60,000 rapes and employed 3,300 paedophiles in the last few years.
	And that was from a UN internal investigation.
	That's even more than the BBC.
	Yeah, exactly.
	These governmental organisations have decided to let Child molesters get away with the worst crimes imaginable, and so do you really trust them not to cover up their own failings in other instances as well?
	I wouldn't want them governing over me, thank you very much!
	There's also a question of who funds the World Health Organization, and in the course of the debate, the chair of the Health and Social Care Select Committee, the gentleman who was interrupted earlier, Steve Bryan MP, he tried arguing that it's imperative for the UK to stay a signatory of the treaty so we can keep debating the terms.
	As a former health minister with a responsibility for the WHO, I worked with the organisation.
	It's supernatural, but it's 100% driven by its members.
	And we, as the second largest donor and one of its founding members, are one of the most respected members around the table.
	So we're designing the process.
	We should be proud of that." Bridgen took slight umbrage with that particular characterisation.
	If we play this clip, please.
	Thank you.
	hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm
	hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm
	hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm
	Thank you.
	I see no difference between the donors and literally bribing your way into a position of influence that makes you indispensable to the operation of the institution.
	And so the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, who also have money, as you said, not just in AI, but in the pharmaceutical companies, are setting the agenda.
	And so it's no wonder that the WHO decides to lock us all down until we can all get vaccinated and say that until we are all safe, no one is safe.
	It's because it makes the most money for their lobbyists.
	Why should we be ruled over by these clowns?
	But I suppose we just say that we're a conspiracy theorist, right?
	Because Labour MP Justin Madders, he gave a speech during this as well, and I'll just read some of this out.
	While doing research for this debate, I found a broad range of concerns, some of which are entirely reasonable, and others that are completely absurd.
	Watch for the well-poisoning conflation here.
	On the absurd side, a narrative has been created that the World Health Organization is a body intent on world domination, I say no more.
	Borrowing tropes from conspiracy theories, I found one website referring to the WHO as globalists that drain our resources, serve our enemies, and continue working to establish a global dictatorship over everyone and everything.
	Where's the lie?
	The sentiment is clearly ludicrous, and is a reference to the WHO being owned by Bill Gates of the Chinese government.
	The treaty has nothing to do with Bill Gates, and it is not the first step in creating a world-dominating authoritarian state.
	The far bigger risk to our continued existence on this planet is not the so-called Great Reset, but descent into paranoia and distrust, such that we avoid using our brightest and best, they end up working in silos, and they do not share their knowledge and efforts effectively.
	Did you see what he did there?
	He decided to say that if you have any questions about how much Bill Gates is funding the WHO, then you're a conspiracy theorist who thinks that we are going to be subject to a great reset despite them saying literally that's what they're going to do.
	But okay.
	He says, if those claims are any basis in fact, we'd all be rightly concerned, but they do not stand up to scrutiny.
	Fact checkers have consistently stated that the WHO would have no capacity to force members to comply with public health measures.
	But we already saw from the parliamentary briefing that it says it's legally binding.
	So this MP is either uninformed or lying.
	We live in a liberal democracy and I know that members from across the house are determined to keep it that way.
	It is those nations that want to undermine western liberal democracies and create disarray that are pushing the narrative that there is an unaccountable, unelected global group of people seeking to take control of our lives.
	So Dominic, turns out, just because we don't want Dr. Treadross, the UN and the WHO ruling over us, we're Putin apologists apparently.
	Because I get all of my news from Russia Today.
	I used to be on Russia Today.
	I don't have a problem appearing on a network if you're going to debate something.
	I see no difference between Russia Today and the BBC at this point.
	I'd happily appear on the BBC, but they probably won't let me because they can't keep me under control.
	Now, it turns out that we're all conspiracy theorists, right?
	And so is Politico, because back in 2017 they did this article called The World's Most Powerful Doctor, Bill Gates, and it reads that the Gates Foundation was responsible at the time for funding 13% of the WHO's total annual budget.
	Right.
	So, not a lie then.
	Major donor is setting the agenda and has been declared the world's most powerful doctor, not a doctor by the way, just builds computers, by Politico.
	Notable far-right fringe outlet controlled by the Russians, Politico.
	But alright.
	And in March, Bill Gates released this op-ed in the New York Times.
	I worry we're making the same mistakes again.
	And he says, Bit too close for comfort there to look, um, on the up-and-up, eh, Billy Boy?
	And he wants it so that, in these war games, this will set the agenda for governments, healthcare providers, and emergency workers.
	Who the hell is Bill Gates to set the agenda for all of these people, when he hasn't been elected, unless he's pulling the purse strings, and so the puppet strings?
	But, in his own words, apparently, Bill Gates is one of those conspiracy theorists that thinks Bill Gates runs everything.
	Translation of that.
	We know we ballsed up the pandemic.
	We know Anthony Fauci has repeatedly made mistakes that have left people dead.
	But that's okay, because we're going to overlook that and still appoint him head of it anyway.
	We know we ballsed up the pandemic.
	We know Anthony Fauci has repeatedly made mistakes that have left people dead.
	But that's okay, because we're going to overlook that and still appoint him the head of it anyway.
	Because Bill Gates says so.
	Another conspiracy theory, I suppose.
	We can't afford to get flat-footed again.
	The world must take action now to make sure COVID-19 becomes the last pandemic.
	Keep dreaming.
	And one of the biggest moves we can make is to support the world's principal health experts, the WHO, and invest in the Global Health Emergency Corps so it can live up to its full potential.
	This will require two things.
	First, public health leaders from all countries need to participate.
	Remember the WHO's all-society, all-governments approach?
	And secondly, We need wealthier countries to step up and provide funding to make this a reality.
	AKA, line Bill Gates and his mates' pockets.
	So you go to work, you get taxed, so all his friends get a payday.
	Right.
	But just a conspiracy theory, I guess.
	Chris Chope also mentions that Dr Tedros was formerly a member of the Gates Boards, the Garvey and the Global Fund, so he himself is very much in bed with Gates, with the donors.
	How can he be trusted to be independent when he owes his continuing position to these donors and also the support of the Chinese Republic?
	And he says, I have a quote here from Richard Houghton, the editor-in-chief of The Lancet.
	So, someone pretty high up.
	Even The Lancet was captured by Peter Daszak and the EcoHealth Alliance and lied about the origins of COVID, but neither here nor there.
	The allegation that the WHO shared responsibility for the pandemic by adopting a policy of appeasement towards China has proven impossible to refute.
	There we had it.
	The editor-in-chief, no less than The Lancet, says we need to be extremely suspicious of what is going on and what may happen.
	I mean, it's just irrefutable that the Chinese and Bill Gates are in charge of The Who at this point.
	If not explicitly, but at least behind the scenes setting the agenda.
	So I don't fancy living under the domain of those two clowns.
	Thank you very much.
	So, let's see what Andrew Bridgen has to say about The Who and how they should be held accountable.
	Let's play this clip. Let's play this
	clip. Let's
	play this clip.
	Let's play this
	clip. Let's play this clip.
	Unfortunately, we don't have politicians that want to hold it to account on the incumbent government, because let's be fair, Labour are probably going to win, because most people treat politics as a halo match.
	As soon as blue team loses, they switch to red team.
	And this is John Spellar.
	Now, John Spellar didn't particularly have the knowledge or testicular fortitude to pipe up when Andrew Bridgen was giving his speech, because Andrew Bridgen received no interruptions or calls to give way.
	But Spellar did start smearing Andrew Bridgen as a conspiracy theorist, and Bridgen decided to take umbrage with that.
	So if we play this clip, please.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	He hasn't read it.
	No, he hasn't read it.
	Complete Dodge. Complete Dodge. Complete Dodge. Complete Dodge. Complete Dodge. Complete Dodge. Complete
	Dodge. Complete
	Dodge. Complete Dodge. Complete Dodge.
	Complete Dodge.
	Now, again, this is not an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory to say that as the head of the Labour Friends of Israel, considering the Israeli government partnered with Pfizer, there might be a financial interest there to defend the reputation of the company.
	It's interesting that the one guy who has read the document is the conspiracy theorist, the guy who's done his homework, and the guy who hasn't is the one who's not indulging in conspiracies.
	What is the opposite of a conspiracy theorist?
	Somebody who believes the prevailing narrative without actually questioning it or going into detail.
	That must be a word for it.
	A nodding dog for the current thing.
	Yes.
	Must be a German word for it.
	Yes.
	He also ended up praising Farmer and Bill Gates later in his speech and he says, "...we've also had reference to major pharmaceutical companies.
	There are criticisms of them in other areas..." Name them, perhaps?
	"...but the mobilization of their intellectual power and production capacity..." Sounds very German, you're right.
	"...in producing a vaccine in record time to stem the tide of COVID was absolutely magnificent.
	So too was support from one of the great villains of conspiracy theories, Bill Gates." Whose foundation has done a huge amount of work in trying to eliminate tropical diseases, which is so often little noticed, and has a huge impact on tens of millions of people, especially children in Africa and other areas.
	Now Bridgen later points out, He did say.
	I don't think you read it, mate.
	He says, I'm worried that colleagues have not actually read the treaty because clearly when we take out the words not binding through an agreement, it becomes binding.
	These are binding treaties.
	If we do nothing, they are binding, legally binding across all nations.
	They bring in an idea called One Health, which extends the ability of the Director General of the WHO to call a public health emergency of international concern, which incidentally is abbreviated to FAKE, It says that he can even bring in these powers on suspicion or risk of an international incident.
	It does not even have to be a pathogen affecting humans.
	It can infect animals.
	It could also be because of the environment or an increase in the levels of carbon dioxide.
	Remember when people were saying they're going to do climate lockdown soon?
	I spoke to a head of Extinction Rebellion actually during a debate who said we should repurpose COVID measures to decelerate the growth of global capitalism to decrease climate emissions.
	So lockdown for climate emissions.
	The WHO has already declared that climate change is the leading public health emergency around the world.
	It's already got a statement on that.
	So this just allows countries to Sign up to the WHO, and any time the WHO says emissions are too high, respiratory diseases are going to go up, lockdown, you have to do it.
	So Bridgen has read it and understands the implications of this.
	The other guy is just smearing him as a conspiracy theorist and obfuscates it.
	Bridgen also points out, the WHO have the power to force companies in the country, or any other country, to manufacture certain medical treatments and export them to other countries.
	It would have the power to shut down any business in the country, regardless of what local people think, or even what his parliament thinks.
	So they can terraform the entire economy to make certain products for certain companies in certain countries and redistribute them as they see fit.
	That's ultimately totalitarian.
	It's hellish.
	Now he told this to Brian with an early interjection, if we can do this.
	Thank you.
	But, coming back to your point of conflation and well-poisoning, he's saying, just because the losers didn't accept the result of the Scottish independence and Brexit referendums, and the politicians and high courts held those up for ages because they wanted to go in a particular direction that people didn't, we can't have further referendums because that's going to get in the way of doing what we already wanted to do.
	And if you disagree with that, you're a conspiracy theorist.
	Typical.
	Turns out that you're just a conspiracy theorist if you're well-informed and want independent sovereignty.
	So, um, yeah.
	Bridgen then finished with, "The pandemic response of the WHO and national governments should be a cautionary tale about the impact on citizens of handing power to the state.
	It should certainly not be a template for going further and faster in signalling away rights and liberties.
	The pandemic response brutally illustrated that the profit-optimized version of the greater good pursued by the WHO often clashes with children's health." I can't think of a better way to put it.
	Now, Bridgen wasn't the last person to speak, unfortunately.
	It concluded with Anne-Marie Trevane's speech, and she responded to Esther McVeigh's question, and Esther McVeigh actually got up and refuted this idea, which I think Esther has a fair way to go for winning back a bit of public trust, considering she backed Jeremy Hunt in the leadership competition, and Jeremy Hunt wanted lockdowns so severe that they were modelled on China, And he cited his sister-in-law being basically welded into her home straight from the Beijing airport as to what we should do, so I'm glad Esther's starting her road to redemption.
	But Esther said, Can the minister reassure my constituents who are concerned that the government will concede sovereignty and hand power to the WHO?
	Can she give reassurances that this will not happen?
	And Anne-Marie says, I absolutely can.
	The speculation that somehow the instrument will undermine UK sovereignty and give WHO powers over national public health measures is not the case.
	I absolutely reassure you that both my Right Honourable Friend and my Right Honourable Friend for the Member for Hastings and Rye, which is Sally-Ann Hart, who raised a similar issue earlier on behalf of their constituents, that is not the case.
	The UK remains in control of any future domestic decisions about public health matters, such as domestic vaccination, that might be needed in any future pandemic that we may have to manage.
	Well, excuse me if I'm not filled with faith, because you guys barely even read it, didn't cite anything, and Andrew Bridgen actually brought receipts.
	So I don't trust you to enter the negotiations and actually come away with anything of sovereignty at all, either.
	I don't think the UK should be a part of this.
	I don't think we should be funding the WHO or the UN or anyone for this matter.
	I think it not should only be put up for referendum.
	I encourage everyone vote against it and tell your politicians that you don't want the damn thing.
	And until then, I'm not going to be very happy.
	But I wanted to do this segment as well, particularly because I wanted to commend the politicians that actually listen to us.
	There are some of them.
	I know that Miriam Cate, Stanley Kruger, and Andrew Bridgen, who's been on the show, all actually care about their constituents.
	They listen to what dissidents like us have to say, the people that are outside the club, and so thank you very much for standing up and trying to make some headway on this, and I suppose we'll keep you updated with any more that unfolds.
	Very good.
	If you go back to... John, are you able to go back to two or three Andrew Bridgen clips ago?
	Is that easily done?
	There's just one shot that I want to see because there's somebody sitting in the audience over Andrew Bridgen's shoulder.
	I presume this was a public hearing that they were debating.
	Yes, it was.
	Go back two or three clips of Bridgen if you can, John.
	One of the early clips of him.
	okay so and if you just run the spool through until we go to the shot over is there just so stop there so if you go into the very back row yeah uh sitting in front of the white door yes i i do think that is who that is i think that's corbin i wouldn't say he's great i did think that when i saw it but i didn't want to say it just in case i was incorrect but um yeah it does look like piers corbin is there which uh
	I suppose defending tyranny makes for strange bedfellows.
	Well, I, uh, I saw him on the tube the other day.
	It's funny.
	It makes me laugh.
	That family.
	I hope, I hope Jezza wins the, uh, the, uh, cause I've heard a rumor that Jezza is going to stand for mayor, which, uh, I think I'm going to vote for him if only for the lols.
	I still live in London, Dominic.
	So do I. You're going to subject me to more commie tyranny, are you?
	Well, you're better than Sadiq.
	And also it'll split the left vote, which is a good thing.
	After that being thoroughly depressing, anything to cheer me up with?
	Well, I'm afraid not, and I've got three things I wanted to talk about, but I'm not quite sure how much time I've got, or how much time we've got left in the show.
	Yeah, about 20 odd minutes.
	Okay, well we'll talk about the first one and then see if we've got time to talk about one of the others.
	So, I discovered this morning, I learnt this morning, that it is the 40th birthday of the pound coin.
	Right.
	And so there was an article, quite an interesting article in the Telegraph that compared what you could buy with a pound coin today and what you could buy with a pound coin 40 years ago.
	And if we're talking about the loss of civilian power, There is no greater loss of power than the loss in the purchasing power of our money.
	And I've gone on the record many times, I think even on this show I've said that if there was one thing that was sort of equivalent to the ring of power that we could throw into Mount Doom and fix society with it, it would be to change our system of money and to have a money whose purchasing power lasts.
	So for example in the 19th century which saw the fastest wage growth in the history of Britain and the more people coming out of poverty and more people becoming literate and healthier and living longer and so on.
	The purchasing power of money increased over that century.
	A pound bought you more by the end of the century than it did at the beginning and it's really important that money does that because, and it should because we got better at producing stuff so we get more efficient at making it so its costs should come down.
	Yeah, inflation is, sorry, innovation is naturally deflationary.
	Exactly.
	And so it compares, the first thing it says, it makes the comparison is that in 40 years ago you could buy 6 16p first class stamps.
	Now a large first class stamp now is I think £1.45?
	Is it for a large first class stamp?
	Or 65p for a second class stamp?
	That's because I'm too cheap for first class.
	Well you probably don't even use the post, you probably use email.
	But anyway, £1 bought you a pack of cigarettes?
	Right.
	How much is a pack of fags now?
	12 quid?
	No idea.
	Rory, how much is a pack of cigarettes?
	It's something like 12 quid and a lot of that is tax.
	Yeah.
	Because I think tobacco growth technology is generally we're better at growing tobacco now than we were 40 years ago.
	But the most, and food generally has got much, much cheaper than it was say a hundred years ago because farming practices have increased, have improved and so on.
	But the one real humdinger, so the conclusion of the article, it says, its worth has been eroded by the passage of time.
	No.
	Its worth has been eroded by the action of technocratic governments who print money and debase it in order to fund things like the WHO.
	But the overall conclusion is that a pound 40 years ago is worth just 30p today.
	So that's a 70p, a 70% loss of purchasing power, uh, over the last, um, 40 years.
	But then in the same article, it mentions our favorite subject houses.
	Right.
	And so, um, and the average house in, let me just find this number here, if I can.
	Uh, is what today the average house is roughly, here we go, the average house today is about 290 grand, 300 grand call it.
	The average house then was 27 grand.
	Yeah, the average house way, I think about before 1997 you could get it for three times your annual income, now it's 11 times.
	Yeah, a 90% loss in purchasing power.
	And the reason that house prices have gone up so much, I'm forever having this argument, it's not to do with lack of building.
	It is to do with the money system and the invention of the mortgage and when a mortgage is issued, debt is created, more money comes into the market that wasn't previously there and that just inflates the market generally.
	That and mass immigration.
	It's not that big a factor.
	It absolutely is when you're importing a city the size of Liverpool to the UK every year of grown adults who all need separate houses.
	It is, but mass immigration is a thing that's kind of over the last 15 or 20 years.
	If you look at the 90s, it was nothing like on the scale that it is today.
	Yes, since 1997.
	That's when we've had the house shortage.
	But house prices tripled over the, well from 94 to 2004, house prices tripled.
	Oh yeah, it's a combination of factors.
	So you've got excess money supply and too much demand.
	And lack of building.
	And again, it's mass immigration at all different levels.
	So if you look at who owns houses in Belgravia, for example, it's mostly foreign owned.
	So it's not just, you know, at the sort of bottom end, council flat end of the market.
	Trust me when I say that money is the biggest factor.
	Now it says that the pound coin is only 40 years old but actually the the gold sovereign used to be the pound coin and today this was the the pound coin of the 19th century and today a gold sovereign will cost you 400 450 quid something like that.
	So if you measure the loss of purchasing power of the pound Uh, since 1914, which is when we came off the gold standard to print money to pay for World War I. And by the way, if we'd stayed on the gold standard in Germany and France, had stayed on the gold standard, we would not, the war could not have gone on for as long as it did because there wasn't the gold to pay for it.
	It was coming off the gold standard that literally enabled that war.
	And it's fiat money that literally enables all the terrible things that governments do.
	Because from the WHO to everything else, if you want to understand why government keeps on growing, why the state keeps on growing, look no further than fiat money.
	But in any case, so we're talking about a pound today Uh, is, is worth a pound.
	I mean, a pound used to be a pound of sterling silver.
	That's where that's where the name comes from.
	But 400 years, a hundred years ago, a pound was about 450 quid.
	So you are looking at a loss of purchasing power of something like 99 and a quarter percent.
	I mean, that's an extraordinary, if you think over the previous hundred years, the purchasing power increased, but a 99 and a quarter percent loss in purchasing power.
	I think that's the most extraordinary statistic.
	So there we go.
	Story number one, the 40th, the 40th birthday of the pound.
	And it's a sad story.
	Yeah, it's, uh, it's Alzheimer's level in tropic as it enters its old age.
	And bizarrely, the pound is the longest surviving currency in the world.
	Not his purchasing power.
	So somebody suggested on Twitter that we should just add a zero, a bit like the Italians used to do with the lira.
	Sorry, take off a zero, so that a pound becomes 10p, but then you just repeat the whole process again.
	So that's story number one.
	And we'll come now to story number two, which was that Dominic Raab, the Deputy Prime Minister, resigned this morning after these bullying allegations.
	And he wrote what I consider to be an absolutely brilliant letter.
	And I guess, shall I just read out his letter?
	Can I do that?
	So, Dear Prime Minister, I'm writing to resign from your government.
	Good opener.
	Following receipt of the report arising from the inquiry conducted by Adam Tolley QC.
	I called for the inquiry.
	I undertook to resign if it made for any finding of bullying whatsoever and I believe it is important to keep my word.
	So he's keeping his word and he's resigning.
	You wonder if he was pushed if he had a conversation with Rishi overnight?
	And Rishi maybe promised him resign now and I'll give you another gig in six months or a year or something like that, maybe?
	I'd be surprised if Rishi gave him another gig.
	Also, I do happen to know that his parliamentary staffers are sort of very Tory-wet, so they are party-line loyalists, so even if he were to try and kick up a fight, all the people around him would be sort of, for the good of the party, you should probably go.
	Yeah, so he was pressured.
	But there is the suggestion, you know, the indication here that there is a man of principle.
	Okay, so let's be fair.
	All he did was tell the civil servants to actually do their damn jobs.
	And the main thing that came out last night that got him in trouble with the press was Gina Miller, anti-Brexit activist going on Piers Morgan and saying, um, he called me a silly bitch, which means broken clock right twice a day.
	I don't think he should have.
	I don't even like Rob.
	I think he's been a crushing disappointment since he's been in because before he was in office, he was a shredded rower and he was calling feminists bigots.
	And then since he's been in, he's just been a nodding dog for whoever the prime minister has been.
	But if he would have showed some balls here, I would have gained some respect for him.
	I think Did you watch Raab when he got into the debate with Dawn Butler about a year ago over Belarus?
	Oh no, it was Claudia Webb.
	Sorry, Claudia Webb, I beg your pardon.
	The other idiot Labour politician, yeah.
	He absolutely destroyed it.
	Yeah, exactly.
	And he was pretty eviscerating.
	Yeah.
	And, you know, he's a, he's a, you know, he's a hunky man.
	And he's got this sort of eviscerating tongue when he wants to be.
	So you can see that he will have rubbed people up the wrong way.
	Yep.
	And they clearly hate him in the civil service.
	Yeah.
	And all the things they tried to get him for.
	And the same laws, by the way, didn't apply to him that would apply in normal business practice.
	Like, I think you're normally given three months to file a complaint.
	Right.
	And they were citing stuff from four or five years ago.
	Yeah.
	But, um, he's, he's rubbed people up the wrong way, but he was found, I think there was one or two of the things that he might've been That he was accused of that he might have actually been guilty of, but he wasn't, uh, he wasn't, he didn't swear at anyone.
	He didn't shout at anything.
	He didn't throw anything or physically intimidate anyone.
	Right.
	But he is a physically intimidating guy.
	So people will feel like, you know, my ex brother-in-law was a world heavyweight champion boxer.
	And you know, you felt physically intimidated if you got into a row with him as I did, but he didn't actually physically intimidate me if that makes sense.
	So, um, But the point is, this is in the perception of the people that went for him.
	It's like a manifestation of this victim culture thing that we have, where you can just be offended and lose somebody their job.
	And actually the problem is you, not the person who's doing the job?
	I think it's a downstream of the total feminisation of government.
	And there's no incident that largely women do flock to state paid jobs.
	And the reason is, as you said, Dominic Raab's quite an intimidating guy, so is your brother.
	What happens is, when men have a disagreement, there is always, and Jordan Peters has spoken about this, Um, any disagreement between men is always mediated by the underlying threat of a physical altercation.
	So, you don't say anything too out of line, otherwise you can get smack in the mouth for it.
	That has been completely taken away by the social contract society that says we have to outsource all of our ability to mediate conflicts to the state, so it has to step in.
	And then when the state becomes flooded with largely female middle managers whose weapons of war are not fists but words, then reputation destruction and rumour spreading and offence taking becomes the new means by which you can take out your political opponents.
	And that's all that's happened here.
	A guy who's a bit disagreeable, and yeah, wasn't a great politician because he capitulated to the party line, but had a bit of potential.
	Just because he's kind of big and a bit blunt, he's been ousted because someone got upset because they weren't doing their job.
	Really?
	Here's the thing.
	I want a foreign secretary or a deputy prime minister who's throwing bit books and losing his temper because he wants stuff done.
	That's what the great kings of old would have done.
	The great kings, you know, were physically intimidating.
	They were the guys who led us out into battle and so on.
	This is the paragraph that really stood out for me.
	In setting the threshold for bullying so low, this inquiry has set a dangerous precedent.
	It will encourage spurious complaints against ministers and have a chilling effect on those driving change on behalf of your government and ultimately the British people.
	And that was very telling to me because Like, as people we get frustrated with our ministers because nothing ever seems to change, but if they're having their wings cropped by the civil service who are supposed to be officiating whatever their desires are, it's self-censoring.
	They're not going to get stuff done.
	And I sort of felt through his letter that I gained a little bit of insight into the way the civil service works, the power of officialdom, if they don't like a minister, how they can undermine him from within.
	And, you know, Dominic Cummings used to talk about the blob.
	Yeah.
	And we've obviously got Sir Humphrey from Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister.
	But that is where the power in Britain is.
	And it is not with MP.
	We get angry with our politicians and we shout at them because they're weak and they are not representative and so on.
	And, you know, with Rishi, you could say there are signs that Rishi is actually getting a few things done.
	And I think relative to his predecessors, I think, I hear your cynicism but he is sort of vaguely getting things done, at least nominally.
	But I think it's because he's a technocrat and he knows how technocrats work and he can sort of get stuff through the technocratic system.
	But a friend of mine is quite an influential person.
	Within government, and I won't say who he is, but if you go to the person at the head of one of our institutions, say to the head of the NHS or the head of the BBC or a minister, and you say, we have this problem and the solution to this problem is to do X, Y and Z, nothing will happen.
	But if you create a media frenzy, you leak a story to the paper.
	Oh my God, have you seen this?
	And then you go to the person in charge and you go, have you seen this story?
	You've got to do something about this.
	This is a scandal.
	So the only way of getting anyone in power to do anything is by changing the career risk.
	From previously, the career risk is in taking action, but now the career risk becomes not taking action.
	It's reputation destruction rather than having a direct negotiation between two parties.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	But, you know, that's the way it works.
	I'm very interested in the way things work, the way money works and so on.
	But that is the way government works.
	And I'm sorry to say, the technocrats have the power.
	At the moment, it's going to be difficult to turf them out, isn't it?
	Yeah, they just have it.
	The only solution I can see is changing the money system.
	Anyway, so that's the Ra letter.
	Have we got time for one more or are we running tight?
	Okay, so the third story that caught my eye this week was that Penguin, P.G.
	Woodhouse's publishers, P.G.
	Woodhouse, the great English comic novelist, they've decided they're going to censor Uh, some of his work.
	Right, so this is more sensitivity readers that have been doing the same with Roald Dahl and Ian Fleming.
	Exactly.
	Now, they backed off with Roald Dahl, and you would have thought with all the scandals that came with Roald Dahl, they backed down the changes, but they're not... I would have thought after the Roald Dahl story a month ago that they would back... I couldn't believe that they were now going to do it to Woodhouse.
	Now, have you read any Woodhouse?
	No, I haven't.
	Okay, because you are one of the most well-read young men that I've ever met, and I've praised you for this before.
	In fact, everyone who works for Lotus Eaters, I come here, you probably don't, you won't know this, but you come and everyone's got, you know, tomes of books piled up on their desks.
	And this is a very well-informed media organization and very well-read and very learned.
	And I think that's why you focus so much on history and the origins and As a well-read man, you must read Woodhouse.
	He is the greatest wordsmith that ever lived.
	Just an extraordinarily good writer.
	And to like Simon Evans compared going in and re-editing his stuff to going and changing notes in Bach.
	You just don't do it.
	And he was a great novelist.
	He wasn't such a good, uh, he wrote musical and so on and none of his, and he wrote the books for musicals.
	None of his dramatic stuff has endured like his novels have, but he wrote something like a hundred different, a hundred novels over the course of his life.
	Um, I think he started writing when he was five and he said before that I just loafed.
	And he's just so many, so many great lines.
	Now, the word that they've gone back to edit out, the offending word, is the N word.
	Right.
	Which he's used.
	Now, there's no word in the entire English language that generates as much emotion as the n-word.
	It's just because of all its connotations.
	And you know there's a whole thing of people getting beaten up when they said niggardly.
	Right.
	This is a thing on, uh, there's a whole entry on it on, uh, on Wikipedia.
	So they were misheard.
	They were saying another word that has a totally different etymology.
	And they said the word niggardly, and then they got their heads kicked in for it.
	And then, so we're already at another conflation here, the conflation of speech and violence, because saying something is not the same as kicking the heck out of somebody.
	But so they've gone back and they've removed this word, but For me, like I have two mixed race kids, uh, who grew up in, in, in, um, Southeast London and you sort of got this weird hierarchy of, of, of children in Southeast London where the black kids can use the word, the mixed race kids are like, and then the white kids can't use it.
	And if the white kids dare use the word, they get the shit kicked out of them.
	And that's an awful situation where one group has the right to use a word no matter what the connotations of the word are and the history of the word and we're almost giving this word too much power and actions like this where they feel the need to rewrite.
	Now the thing about Woodhouse is he created this sort of magical world Which is the most harmless world ever.
	The most dangerous thing in the Woodhousian world is an aunt with a scathing tongue.
	And nobody gets hurt.
	It's just a magical, beautiful, harmless world.
	And he was a gentle man who meant no harm to anyone.
	And Xander, Xander Armstrong, who's the head of the Woodhouse Society, he's gone and said, look, Woodhouse and the Woodhouse Foundation have agreed to these changes and Xander himself has said look if Woodhouse were alive he would probably agree to them because the meaning of that word has changed and he meant no ill will by it and so on and so forth.
	But I stand by that thing is you cannot change history.
	You should leave it alone on the grounds of beauty alone.
	You should just not tamper with his stuff.
	You know, nobody's going back and rewriting Bede or Shakespeare or Chaucer or something.
	They might be reinterpreting it and so on, but they're not rewriting it.
	And Shakespeare, actually Shakespeare is slightly different because what we have of Shakespeare is just actors remembering their lines and somebody writing them down.
	And if you put Shakespeare on stage now, you would cut it anyway, because dramatically what worked then doesn't work now.
	And a lot of the comedy in Shakespeare, It's just meaningless to a modern audience and it should probably cut and you know, so there's, it's slightly different with dramatic stuff.
	Um, if you're putting on a play to, to, to a prose, a book, which is, you know, the book is published and it's there, you know, Adam, it's, it would be good to like, I've never read the wealth of nations by Adam Smith.
	I've given, made a whole film about Adam Smith, but I've read summaries of the wealth of nations by Adam Smith because the wealth of nations is like one of the longest books ever written.
	And there was like one sentence.
	There's one sentence that goes on for about four pages.
	So, you know, but that's for reasons of clarity and so on.
	But this is purely for reasons of offense.
	And Woodhouse himself, you can say, OK, so if Woodhouse would have changed it, then fine.
	But I think we are giving this word too much power.
	And this is just another thing of giving this word too much power.
	And the damage that is caused You know, it's just a word.
	And, you know, I'm 53 years old.
	I might have heard somebody using that word for nasty, wounding intent a few times when I was young or as a teenager or something, but I just don't hear people using it.
	You know, even when they're not being heard, except when they are trying to push boundaries in some way, like push the boundaries of taste or push the boundaries of comedy or something.
	So, yeah, I think that word is causing a lot of unnecessary division in our society, and we are, by doing things like this, we are giving that word too much power.
	I hope that makes some sense.
	I see you nodding at me and letting me speak without interjecting, and I'm wondering if you're watching me dig my own grave.
	No, no, no, no, I didn't want to interrupt the soliloquy speaking of Shakespeare.
	No, I think to tie all those stories together, what we can see there is the manipulation of the money system, the manipulation of reputation, and the manipulation of language to create not reciprocity between people, but a hierarchy of power that the most depraved Machiavellian can exploit to empower themselves at the expense of principled people who just want a quiet life and to mediate conflict via words with their neighbours.
	And so pointing out all these little things gives us an avenue of attack to try and get some peace and property for once, I suppose.
	Let me give you a book list.
	John, you're ready with your book titles.
	So here are three.
	If you're not familiar with Woodhouse, he's written nearly a hundred books.
	I think I've read all of them.
	I became obsessed with Woodhouse in my twenties.
	I got quite depressed in my twenties and he was the only thing that made me happy was reading Woodhouse.
	And he's just created this magical comedic world.
	And, um, I urge everyone to enter it.
	And so this was the first Woodhouse book I wrote.
	His peak years, Woodhouse, were probably from about late 1920s, 1930 through to about 65.
	So read anything in that 30 to 65 era.
	But as I say, I've read almost all of his hundred books, but Jeeves and the Feudal Spirit was the first that I read.
	And it's just an absolute beauty.
	Next up we have Right Ho Jeeves and this is one of the books that's actually suffered the censorship.
	This has the classic scene at the end where Gussie Fink-Nottle has to give the prize-giving speech and gets absolutely ludicrously drunk in order to get over his fears of giving the village prize-giving speech and in doing so makes an absolute ass of itself and it's one of the most brilliant comic scenes and that's in Right Ho Jeeves.
	But actually Right Ho Jeeves is one of the Books that's had the scissors taken to it.
	But again, when Woodhouse used that word, it was in reference to a certain type of musical comedy.
	It wasn't, it wasn't, you know, he wasn't advocating the persecution of a race on the grounds of color or a particular person on the grounds.
	It wasn't... It wasn't morally loaded, it was just descriptive in a certain context.
	Yeah, and you know, that's what racism is, is advocating the persecution of a person on the grounds of their race.
	It's not just Using a word, and there are people who come back to me and argue with me for saying that, but anyway, that's what I think.
	And then finally, he was famous for his Jeeves and Worcester novels and for his Lord of Emsworth novels.
	Those were his two recurring characters.
	But he also wrote lots of books that were set in this same sort of pre-World War One idyllic Edwardian world.
	And this was a famous romantic comedy, and I think Woodhouse said this was his best book, Quick Service.
	And I remember in my nineties, I was so desperate to understand how Woodhouse worked and how, uh, his techniques and his methodology and so on.
	I actually rewrote this entire book sentence for sentence, but in a modern and reset it in a modern thing, but kept exactly to the sentence structure and the paragraph structure in order to try and, um, gain some insight into the workings of the man.
	But that's, that's the third book on your list.
	Quick service.
	Wonderful.
	And I understand you have the sub-stack that you wanted to mention?
	Sure, if people like what I'm saying, you should visit my sub-stack, which is the Flying Frisbee.
	I write lots on there and a lot about money and a lot of investment stuff, but a lot of general political and philosophical stuff as well.
	Flyingfrisbee.com.
	Excellent.
	Let's go to the video comments.
	Let's go to the video.
	wholesome botany showcase, I suppose.
	Kind of cleans your palate after talking about the complete fall of the West.
	Until the next one.
	Okay.
	Next. Next.
	Next. Next. Next. Next.
	Next.
	Thank you.
	Well, if he makes any headway for that, I suppose, uh, send us a, an email at tips of lotus eaters.com with a new story.
	Well, at least if you decide to transition, you're probably passed.
	What's the next one?
	Everyone's favourite interview.
	Yeah, well, I'm not surprised that the BBC were not exactly the most credible, Not only are they incredibly left-wing, but in terms of Covid stuff, they were part of the trusted news initiative that was bankrolled by the Gates Foundation, so they have an interest in shoring up their pro-vaccine narrative, don't they?
	onto the cyberpunk dystopia image, I suppose.
	I mean,
	when China claims to have zero problems I don't really trust them They're not very known for their surefire statistics.
	And we do know, for example, that there are repeated people smugglings from the North Korean border, because Yeonmi Park told her story about how she was sold into Chinese sex slavery just to escape North Korea.
	So I don't think the Chinese government are necessarily dealing with their migrant problem perfectly, but they're sadly probably dealing with it slightly better than us.
	Though they probably make lots of them disappear, which isn't very humane either.
	I suppose.
	Anyway, on to the written comments.
	Sophie Liv, let's not forget that when all the COVID deaths happened, magically there were no flu deaths, even though that used to be the greatest killer among the elderly here in the North when it's winter.
	Yeah, it is ridiculous how few people understood that the PCR and lateral flow tests couldn't distinguish between any kind of respiratory SARS virus and different strains of COVID.
	I was on GB News at one point when they were trying to get rid of the COVID testing, And they said, no, we still need it because we've got the Omicron variant ripping about and I just went, you do know that the lateral flow doesn't distinguish between variants, right?
	So if Omicron's really mild and you don't even know if you've got it because it's a mild head cold, why would you need to test for it in case you've got the lethal one or the non-lethal one?
	You're not going to find out.
	No answer.
	Absolutely no answer.
	Omicron was literally the best thing that could have happened.
	Yes, yeah.
	You know, in terms of getting herd immunity, because everyone got it, it was highly infectious and it wasn't that bad.
	And my favourite transformer as well.
	SH Silva.
	Ah yes, I love when our oligarchy of elites descends from on high to give us plebs the new normal to adhere to.
	Where would we be without these busybodies micromanaging our lives?
	Arizona Desert Rat.
	If it's the truth, is it really a conspiracy theory?
	Germ theory was once full of paranoia, but it was always the truth.
	Yeah, I do.
	Well, I don't like the story, but it is a useful one to point to.
	Most people point to Galileo and the planets, but the fella who worked on the maternity ward and found out that the people that was doing the same, cutting up the cadavers and then going and delivering babies, were getting women killed because they were infecting people.
	He said, oh, if you could just wash your hands, that'd be great.
	They ended up packing him up in the same asylum where he died, and he ended up being Entirely true.
	So, because lots of the medical establishment didn't want their reputation to look too bad, lots of mothers giving birth died needlessly, and the doctor that blew the whistle on it was memory hold.
	And we can only commemorate him now, I suppose.
	So, don't always listen to the establishment.
	Some people are outside of it.
	John Wade.
	It's okay for the WHO to molest children as long as they don't give them sweets.
	Got it.
	Yeah, that is quite literally the standard.
	I don't know if you've seen that UN document that came out the other day.
	So they released it on International Women's Day.
	They said it's the 21 principles for reforming, basically, all of law.
	And they're going to turn the entire world into San Francisco.
	So they want to decriminalise public defecation, decriminalise prostitution, decriminalise all drug use.
	They said that children under the age of consent may be capable of consenting to sex based on the maturity and best interests Yeah.
	Oh, and they legalised the knowing transmission of HIV.
	So you don't have to disclose it.
	And if you do give HIV to someone, then you don't get prosecuted for it.
	Oh, and they said it's also the right of mothers to drink and take drugs while they're pregnant.
	These institutions are not on our side.
	Decidedly not.
	No.
	An American isolationist, one aspect of the corrupt government that people overlooked are civil servants.
	The one constant that has caused stable and long-lasting governments to collapse are the corrupt lifetime civil servants.
	Civil servants are the underlying cause of government failure.
	They filter and censor information they feel is correct and dangerous.
	Our civil servants prevent career civil servants from happening.
	All they do is entrench and enforce a technocrat tyrannical regime.
	Seems simple enough.
	And the last one.
	That's interesting.
	I wonder if it was pre-typed and someone just took his signature from another document and slapped it on there.
	Yeah, you can do that with PDFs.
	You absolutely can.
	So I wonder if Dominic Raab didn't sign it at all, because he was like, this is just a farce.
	If he did, I do now respect him for that.
	Well done.
	It does lend credence to the theories pushed out.
	Yeah, because I was looking at the PDF and it was too neat.
	It wasn't scanned in.
	Right.
	Interesting.
	I remember looking at it going, how have they got that so neat on the scanner?
	They must have a really good scanner.
	He hasn't actually signed it.
	No, no, no.
	He just went basically up yours.
	He's throwing me out anyway, so... Alright, fair enough, mate.
	I now feel bad for the bloke.
	Anyway, thank you very much, Dominic.
	My pleasure.
	Pleasure.
	Go and look at his sub-stack.
	Of course, go and subscribe to us on LotusEaters.com.
	£5 a month.
	Help keep the lights on and keep us doing episodes like this to keep you entertained over the weekend.
	Plenty of content coming out.
	Speaking of the weekend, we'll be back on Monday at 1 o'clock.
	Until then, take care and goodbye.
	Solid.
	Well, does it have to end exactly at 1.30?

▲