All Episodes
Previous Next
April 24, 2023 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters
01:30:35
The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #638
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello and welcome to the podcast Lotus Eater's episode 638 on today the 24th of April 2023.
I'm I'm your host Harry, joined today by Carl.
Hello!
And we're going to be talking about Keir Starmer's Reign of Terror, the bogus Second Amendment.
That's a provocative title but don't worry, I support the Second Amendment with all my heart and soul.
And we're also going to be finishing off with Sadiq Khan's St George's skin suit.
And without any further ado, let's get straight into it.
Were you expecting Diane Abbott to get kicked out of the Labour Party for being a racist?
Um, I was hoping.
But who saw it coming?
Any punishment of Diane Abbott is a pro as far as I'm concerned.
So, okay, just to start, I don't hate or dislike Diane Abbott.
I see her as a kind of weird relic of a past era.
I want her in the public eye just because it's funnier that way.
Yeah, I mean, none of the other MPs are going to wear two left shoes.
None of the other MPs are going to fail to count.
They can't count.
When I tell all my friends about these incidents that she's had over the years, they don't believe me until I bring up the pictures.
There's a genuine cavalcade of hilarity, actually, with Diane Abbott, and so I assume that she'd be like a... because she's getting on a bit, and she's been doing Labour politics for literally longer than I've been alive.
And so I assumed that she was going to be in the Labour Party forever.
So on St George's Day yesterday, she was kicked out of the Labour Party for being a racist by a white man.
Happy St George's Day, fellas!
Yeah, but by a white man, because she insulted other whites.
And it's just like, What?
Is Labour trying to win back the red meat vote?
That's precisely what they're trying to do.
Seems to be.
And I think Keir Starmer is going full Stalin in this.
He's like, you know what, I've had enough of this radical left-wing nonsense that's obviously going to lose us votes.
He's going full Mao.
He's going, I'm a rightist now.
It's all of these leftists in the party that ruined everything.
Yeah, that's actually it.
And I think it's something the advice of Tony Blair as well.
Almost certainly.
Yeah, but it's just...
I mean, I just, who saw it coming?
Diane Abergain kicked out the Labour Party for racism, right?
So this is how it began.
In fact, before we go on, right, so go and support us, sign up, watch Critical Race Theory Explained, and help us keep the lights on, because obviously we've been demonetized, because I've done a lot of work on Critical Race Theory, and this is rather upending the apple cart, actually, when it comes to Critical Race Theory, because of course what we've got here now
is that Diane Abbott, a black woman, has essentially racially oppressed Jews and gypsies, and therefore she has been disciplined by and kicked out of the Labour Party, because that's too racist for the Labour Party.
So now you can be racist to white people, at least certain strains of white people.
We already knew that.
Yeah, but not in the critical race theory framework.
That's an impossibility.
I mean, you've heard over and over, you can't be racist to white people, you can't be racist to white people.
Oh wait, so you can be racist to white people?
Yeah.
Oh, okay.
Yeah.
And so, like, the fact that this has now had dramatic career-changing consequences for Diane Abbott is interesting, at the very least, right?
So, The Guardian published this article, because a report came out of St Andrews, Manchester, and King's College, London, the universities, that was published in a book called Racism and Ethnic Inequality in a Time of Crisis.
It's always a crisis.
Every day is a crisis.
But this then was featured in an article by Tomiwa Owolade.
Owolade?
I can't pronounce it.
But he says, you know, racism in Britain is not a black and white issue, it's far more complicated.
A report on ethnic inequality reveals that Irish, Jewish and Traveller people are the most abused, the most racist The people who have the most racist abuse thrown at them are not people of colour.
Well, once again, this is getting down into, if you're going to talk about intersectional, instead of racial lines, let's break it down even further into ethnic lines, and that's where this is going.
That is exactly where this is going.
And somehow, this bear trap closed on Diane Abbott, which, again, I don't dislike Diane Abbott.
I actually think she might well be a nice person as well, to talk to, just some sort of grandmotherly figure.
Maybe, I don't know.
I don't think she's a bad person or anything, I just think she's not terribly bright.
And she's swimming in waters that are full of sharks and she's not a shark.
No, she's never given me that impression.
No, exactly, right?
And some people do give me that impression.
Diane Abbott never gave me that impression.
I always saw her as a bit of a They amuse me when I'm reading about politics.
But anyway, so Nisa Finney is a Professor of Human Geography at St Andrews and led the report.
She argues that UK is immeasurably far from being a racially just society.
Oh, God.
I mean, that's all...
Actually, that's made my day better.
The kinds of inequality we see in our study would not be there if we had a really just society.
Okay, fine, we don't, from a progressive point of view, have a just society, and I'm okay with that.
The two groups most likely to say they have experienced racist abuse, according to the survey, are gypsies and Jewish people.
60% of Gypsies and Traveller people report they've experienced some form of racial assault.
More than 55% of Jewish people said the same.
Overall, in other groups, it was only 30%.
So, of course, they were like, well, what are you saying?
Two-thirds of the non-English people in England aren't being racially abused.
I mean, we've covered this sort of stuff before, when the Jimmy Carr Gypsy and Traveller joke came out last year.
The problem with any sympathy I might have for Gypsy and Travellers is that I have had to interact with them in the past.
Yeah, but everyone feels that way.
Any European person will tell you that you go past the Gypsy Caravan Park and it's maybe a 50-50 that they'll throw something at you, or steal something off of you.
Whereas with the Jewish people, well, my question there is, who is it that's throwing the abuse at them?
Well that's a great question, they don't answer that.
Of course they don't, of course they don't.
But he does say, this means that white Irish people are more likely to say they've experienced prejudice in Britain than black African people and all Asian ethnic groups.
Now the significance of this I don't think can be overstated because of course this totally upends the very narrative of racial inequality and harmony in the United Kingdom, right?
If actually it's the bloody Irish that are getting it the worst, the gypsies and the Jews, then Well, where exactly does Diane Abbott fit into this?
Because actually, black people, especially Africans, actually registered a surprisingly low amount of racial abuse in the UK.
So, like, what's Diane Abbott's entire career been about?
If the real victims are actually mostly white.
Well, it's probably about Gibbs.
Sure.
That's what most of these grifters are.
Well, again, I don't think Diane Abbott's a grifter.
That would imply a level of self-awareness I don't think Dan Abbott possesses.
I don't think you need that much self-awareness to be able to say I want more things given to me by the government.
Yeah, but that's not necessarily grifting.
Anyway, so Dan Abbott wrote a letter in response to this to the Guardian, and this is fascinating.
Tamiwa Owoledi claims that Irish, Jewish and Traveller people all suffer from, quote, racism.
Racism in Britain is not in the quotes of the article.
They undoubtedly experience prejudice.
This is similar to racism.
The two words are often used as if they're interchangeable.
It is true that many types of white people with points of difference, such as redheads, can experience this prejudice.
Are we going on about ginger oppression now?
Yes, yes, that's actually where we've arrived at.
Diane Abbott.
You know, the Gypsies, the Jews and the Gingers.
Basically the same.
But they are not, their lives are subject to racism.
In pre-Civil Rights America, okay, hang on a sec, we're talking about Britain, and suddenly you've gone 200 years in the past and 10,000 miles away.
All of English history has to be reframed from the American perspective.
Yeah, you know, but in pre-Civil Rights America, Irish people, Jewish people and travellers were not required to sit at the back of the bus, because the Irish were just treating you brilliantly.
200 years ago, 10,000 miles away.
But it gets worse.
I mean, look, 10,000 miles isn't quite far enough.
Let's go about 20,000 miles to apartheid South Africa.
Another place that Diane Abbott didn't go to.
But these groups were allowed to vote.
And at the height of slavery, there were no white-seeming people manacled on the slave ships.
Does she not know about the Irish?
Indentured servitude.
Does she not know about the global slave trade?
No.
No, I don't think she does.
The Arab slave trade?
She's probably never encountered anything to do with that.
She's never heard of these things.
Because like I said, Diana is not the intellectual cutting edge.
Does she need to be protected?
Is this what we're saying?
Yeah.
But what's she doing here?
What she's saying is, hang on a second, look, look, look.
You may all be victims, but racism is a special particular thing that happens to black people.
Blacks are the arch victims of racism.
Oh go slavery, oh go things that haven't happened in other places and other times, therefore we the blacks are the most oppressed.
Well that's how they managed to redefine racism, that's why it's prejudice not racism because racism is power plus prejudice or something and they have to frame society that white people are always in power at all times.
And up until 10 minutes ago that was a completely doctrinaire orthodox critical race theory point Diane Abbott, from their perspective, has just laid out the facts.
She has just laid out, look, the blacks are the most oppressed, any lighter-skinned peoples are not as oppressed as black people.
So she's jostling on the progressive hierarchy.
But she didn't realise down this rosy, summer's path that she was walking down, someone had laid a bear trap for her.
Yes.
And also, she didn't seem to realise that things are different in Britain.
Like, even if all of these things held true in South Africa or America, it doesn't matter because we don't live there.
I think lots of people don't realise that things are different in Britain.
Yeah.
And I just want to make it very clear, I despise all racial politics.
I hate this racist sort of hierarchical victimhood narrative and hierarchy that they come out with.
I just think this is all gross.
But this is what she is doing within her internal logic of the left.
And Diane Abbott was instantly suspended.
How dare you?
How dare you say the plight of the ginger is equal to the plight of Jews?
I don't think there's any equivalents here at all, obviously.
And it seems to be yet another comical thing that Diane Abbott has done, which is like, on balance, I think Mao did more good than harm.
It's like, really?
Labour stands by that statement.
Who's she sat next to?
It was like Michael Heseltine or someone.
Some old school Conservative politician.
She's like, what?
Are you mad?
Because obviously he knows what happened under Mao.
She has no idea what happened under Mao.
But anyway, she got instantly suspended, right?
The whip was suspended pending an investigation into the letter she wrote suggesting that Jewish people are not subjected to the same racism as other minorities.
Well, From the Critical Race Theory point of view, right?
To say it's not the same racism is kind of true.
Actually, they will argue that there are different kinds of racism.
I mean, if you want to get down into the nitty-gritty details of it, then yes, different peoples being different peoples will be treated differently by other different peoples, and that will probably go on a group-to-group basis.
But also, what she's... I think the most charitable interpretation of her argument is, what she's saying is, the character of the racism against Jewish people is not the same as the character of the racism against black people, or against ginger people, right?
Against Scottish people, yes.
Against Scottish people, yes.
But the Labour Party...
Instantly.
Instantly.
Closed ranks and ejected Diane Abbott.
Wow, this is amazing.
A Labour spokesman said, The Labour Party completely condemns these comments, which are deeply offensive and wrong.
The Chief Whip has suspended the Labour Whip from Diane Abbott pending an investigation.
Among those expressing their outrage was a Tory Cabinet Minister, Grant Shapps, who I understand is Jewish, and he says, Once again, Jewish people have to wake up and see a Labour MP casually spouting hateful anti-Semitism.
She didn't exactly go on a tirade, did she?
This is basically just pointing out these days, anything to do with Jews that isn't completely deferential to them is anti-Semitism.
I mean, Diane Abbott definitely put her left foot in her mouth.
I can understand why Labour would be particularly sensitive to it after all of the controversy they had with it under the Jeremy Corbyn years, especially with Diane Abbott being so closely connected to Jeremy Corbyn.
But it's when the Tories and Labour close ranks together.
Yeah.
It just feels very gross.
That puts me in the position of wanting to defend Diane Abbott because, like I said, I don't think she was actually being hateful here.
I think what she was trying to do is defend the dignity of black people as victims of the white supremacist society.
And like I said, she put her foot in her mouth, but she wasn't saying hateful things about Jews, right?
And so it's kind of weird that everyone so transparently jumps on this.
The Board of Deputies of British Jews said Diane Abbott's letter was disgraceful and her apology entirely unconvincing, which we'll get to in a minute.
The Jewish Labour movement said it regretfully supports the decision to suspend the whip.
Fellow left-winger John Landsman, founder of Momentum, also condemned the remarks.
A disgraceful comment by Diane Abbott, for which she has rightly been suspended from the Labour Party.
Racism is not a competition.
But if you say something about it that's wrong, you will be punished.
As far as I'm concerned, this whole thing is just incredibly performative.
Yeah.
The whole thing is like... Do you remember the South Park episode where Britney Spears goes crazy, shaves her head?
Was that South Park?
I thought it was real life.
Yeah, well, that's real life.
In South Park, she blows her head off and is still alive.
And they all just, you know, swarm around her and take photos until she, like, ends up killing herself even more.
And it's basically part of some kind of sacrifice that the generations take part in once every few decades so that it can maintain peace and order.
This is what I see this as.
This is just, let's throw the sacrificial lamb to the slaughter so that all of the party members can make it seem as though it can all come together.
Maybe.
In Westminster.
The campaign against antisemitism said her suspension must be the first step towards her expulsion from the party.
Correct her if you think she's wrong.
I can't believe I'm defending Diane Hammond.
She is blasphemed, Kyle.
Well, exactly.
They're acting as if she's literally, like, done something deeply, deeply... They're acting as if she's urinated on a Holocaust memorial.
Yeah, exactly, right?
And she's completely, absolutely thrown under the bus, right?
For something that, until yesterday, was not really a very ideologically complex or offensive thing to say.
But it's become decided that that is the case.
And so Diane Abbott posted this unreserved apology on Twitter.
We can get the next one up.
And just... She's not, in any way, really trying to defend herself here.
She says, I'm writing regarding my letter that was recently published in The Observer.
I wish to wholly and unreservedly withdraw my remarks and disassociate myself from them.
The errors arose from an initial draft being sent, but there is no excuse.
I wish to apologize for any anguish caused.
Racism takes many forms, and it is completely undeniable that Jewish people have suffered its monstrous effects, as have Irish people, travelers, and many others.
Once again, I would like to apologize publicly for the remarks and any distress caused as a result.
Kiss the ring.
That's what this is.
Kiss the ring.
Just literally.
It's humiliating.
That she has to do this is an abject humiliation and it just doesn't sit right with me that this needs to be done.
Because this seems to be like a coalition of people whose identities at some point hinge upon The fact that they have been victimized historically.
And I'm not saying that these people haven't been victimized historically, they absolutely have.
But for Diane Abbott to say, well look, a uniquely awful thing happened to black people, they can all say, well yeah, a uniquely awful thing happened to all of us.
This game is just awful.
Well, a lot of these organizations, like these ones that you've just listed off in the previous article, the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism, the Jewish organizations, these Jewish labor movements, these ones, they absolutely do hold all of their social capital off of the basis of Jewish victimization.
Not normal Jewish people don't necessarily do this, but these organizations... The activists!
It's like Black Lives Matter.
Same as the ADL in the US.
These places, they make their capital off of Jewish victimization and they get all of that power through throwing people to the wolves like this every so often.
But it's the same as Black Lives Matter and any other... Oh yeah, of course.
Stonewall, these victim identity groups, these particular activists.
And I just feel bad for Diane Abbott because she was just playing the game as she had always played it.
And suddenly, she tripped on the wrong wire, and the whole thing's blown up.
She mentioned the wrong target?
Yeah, I guess, you know.
I guess.
Yeah, ginger people.
Scotland's coming for you, Diane.
That's what you're back.
The Irish?
It's like, what, the Irish?
The Irish earn more per capita than the average Brit.
Do they?
Like, way more.
Yeah.
And I'm just like, okay, so Irish Victimhood Complex is over?
Because you're all swimming in money and we're not?
Maybe?
I don't know.
So this, I think, is a trend where they're trying to essentially disavow and excise their most extreme elements.
Because, of course, you remember in 2020, Keir Starmer just booted out Jeremy Corbyn.
Now, there are lots of complaints about this, but Keir Starmer, because of his controversial remarks, Because, of course, Jeremy Corbyn was framed as an anti-Semite.
Now, I don't actually think Jeremy Corbyn is an anti-Semite after looking into it, but I think he probably was soft on anti-Semitism.
Well, he was probably... You mentioned he's made comments about Israel.
So he's an anti-Zionist.
Yeah, I think he is an anti-Zionist.
And some people correlate the two together, even though there are plenty of anti-Zionist Jews, especially in America, especially in blue state America, for instance.
Especially religious ones as well.
Yes.
But anyway, so yeah, Starmer of course said you're out of the parliamentary Labour Party and you will not be welcoming back, and recently Starmer moved to block him from running as a Labour MP in the next general election.
A senior Labour source said the party had become unrecognisable since its loss in 2019.
Here Starmer has made it clear that Jeremy Corbyn won't be a Labour candidate in the next general election.
Absolutely.
And the interesting thing about this and the reason it looks like it's actually Keir Starmer targeting Diane Abbott is because Jeremy Corbyn and Diane Abbott have been two peas in a pod.
They had an affair like 60s or something.
I think it was the 80s.
Was it the 80s, right?
Possibly.
And Diane Abbott was, of course, on Jeremy Corbyn's front bench.
And so it looks like Keir Starmer is literally just targeting this collection of socialist radicals and being like, no, you are gone.
Any excuse.
Because, like I said, this reaction to Diane Abbott seems really over the top.
Well, they're not Blairites.
Well, they're not Blairites.
They're not Blairites, that's why they've got to go.
They won't toe the line.
Or at least not the same line that everybody else toes.
Not just that, they're gonna sort of muddy the waters and pollute the discourse when the Labour Party want a staggering win.
So, Keir Starmer is acting, I think, in a way that Tony Blair would act, and he's just like, and in fact, like Putin, who's been accused of, but more like, more like Stalin, I would say, but just got, you're gone, right?
But it's interesting how this is Momentum founder again, John Landsman, who recently said that Keir Starmer was behaving like a Putin of the Labour Party for stopping the former leader from standing as the Labour candidate.
So you can see where his sympathies lie.
Obviously, the Corbynista is, of course, a radical leftist, but Keir Starmer is just not having any of this.
He's governing like an absolute barbarian.
And it's quite interesting that Corbyn will end up probably standing against the Labour Party itself in his constituency.
So the question will be, has Corbyn's three and a half decades of service to Islington North garnered him the capitals to actually overthrow the power of just wearing a red rosette?
I'm going to say no.
I think he might do it, actually.
I think most people vote according to teams.
Sure, but I think that there's also an element of sort of political loyalty there.
Perhaps if he's got to know... I think Dan Abbott might be able to win hers.
If he's got to know his constituents personally... He probably has.
Then I would imagine he has a better chance, but I do believe that a lot of people vote purely on team basis.
Sure, but I think that in these sort of old constituencies, They've been there for decades.
I think a lot of it will be personal loyalty.
Perhaps we'll see.
There's probably a large amount of patronage there.
So we'll see, I guess.
But Jeremy Corbyn is in the same position here.
And so if you go to radical left-wingers, they view this sort of thing as a crackdown.
And I think it's understandable.
I think that is what's happening.
And I think Keir Starmer, despite having the visage of an insanely boring 1990s Conservative politician, is actually a ruthless villain behind the scenes, at least as far as they're concerned.
Yeah, as far as they're concerned, because as far as I'm concerned, I'm not a Blairite, I don't support the Blairites, you don't either, as you just said, but if you want a Blairite party, then you can't have dissent within the ranks.
So this is actually very clever and very standard politicking, as far as Keir Starmer is concerned.
It's not standard, it's quite ruthless, actually.
Well, before everybody went soft, everybody was a bit more ruthless and would do this sort of thing.
I don't know.
I think that prior to now, the Labour Party was pitched as a broader tent for socialists and communists, right?
Which is why the Communist Party ended up endorsing the Labour Party.
But Stalmer is just not having any of this.
And I think this is directly under advice from Tony Blair, where he's just like, no, just get rid of them.
Just cut them out.
I mean, he purged a bunch of the administration in the Labour Party as well, because they were obviously filled with communists and they'd been operating under Corbyn's auspices.
I mean, if I got in charge of Labour, that's the first thing that I would do.
Yeah, me too.
And so it's interesting how they frame this here, right?
So the Labour leader believes his party can only regain public confidence by ditching ideological opposition for constructive engagement with the government, as in becoming Her Majesty's or His Majesty's loyal opposition.
Because that's the point that was made previously, that Corbyn had turned the Labour Party into like a left-wing protest movement, and it's like, nobody wants that to govern.
So Keir Starmer is actually doing the politically sensible thing here.
He's doing it quite ruthlessly.
But anyway, let's move into the hierarchy of racism.
Because of course, when the radical left-wingers are getting absolutely slammed, Ash Sarkar has to pop up out of the water and be like, well, hang on a second, me, me, me, me, my hierarchy of racism.
And that's actually what she's talking about here.
She says, Diane Abbott's letter was wrong, no doubt about it.
It's like, well, actually, there is definitely a left-wing argument made that actually diane abbott's letter isn't necessarily wrong or if diane abbott's letter is wrong what you essentially have to admit from the lettering framework is that irish gingers and jews are not white so if you can be racist in case them so what we're doing here is literally accepting that the entire framework of critical race theory is nonsense and we're creating kind of british version of critical race theory terrible um
But she says journalists and indeed the Labour Party, however, are proving that there is such a thing as a hierarchy of racism by erasing what she said about the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community.
Well, she did say that you couldn't be racist to them.
Well, I believe that... I can't tell exactly what she means by this, but I think she means that... Doesn't Ash Tharcott actually believe that there is a hierarchy of racism anyway?
Oh yeah, this is what she's arguing.
She's proving there is such a thing as a hierarchy of racism.
It's like, yes, and what she was trying to do, by saying that only black people could be the victims of racism and everyone else was a victim of prejudice, was actually situate herself at the top of that hierarchy.
So Diane Abbott was trying to use the hierarchy of racism And she got absolutely smashed.
Where's that?
Ash dives in and goes, no, I'm at the top, no.
No, no, no, no.
Well, she wants, well, she would probably like that.
She probably would.
But she is right that Diane Abbott is observing that and was smashed by the hierarchy of racism.
So even in the ultimate egalitarian movement, they're still plagued by hierarchy.
But she says, the reason the stuff about the GRT, the traveler community, being erased is because hatred against them is considered socially acceptable, even common sense.
We're watching the hierarchy of racism in real time.
It's like, hmm, sounds like you want to expand racism equality for all of these groups, right?
Everyone should be checking.
It's the way she's framed it.
But she says in the next one, racism impacts groups in different ways, which again, I don't think she's wrong about here, especially from an orthodox left-wing position, right?
Black and Asian people are targeted more than white people in stop-and-searches, but then hotels, pubs, and cafes refuse to serve people like Gypsy, Roma, and Traveller community, that's certainly racism.
Sometimes I like to play a game called, who would I swap places with in this society?
My life is impacted by racism, sure, but I'd probably have a worse time of it because of profiling if I was a young black guy in London.
I'd have a harder time of it in many ways if I was GRT.
Sometimes anti-racist discourse feels like a competition for visibility.
And this marginalised, and the exercise of imagining your life, how your life would be different if you were from a different marginalised community can be a useful corrective to the oppression Olympics.
So what she's saying, she wants everyone to have equal amounts of racism applied to them.
The main thing that I'm missing from all of this analysis, which is absolutely no surprise whatsoever, are trends of behaviour that exist within each of these groups, which influences the way that people treat them and the way that they're treated under the law by police and other such things.
Because the fact of the matter is, it can be sad that, yes, a law-abiding young black man in London probably will get stopped and searched by the police more often than a law-abiding young white man in London.
The problem is that there are Drill gangs in Brixton and other areas of London.
Or literally stabbing themselves in the street.
Stabbing each other in the street, which causes the police to have to take these measures.
And she's just ignoring all of that, which is, to me, the left-wing position.
But what I love about this is that the Labour Party has been like, no, no, no, you absolutely can be racist to Jews and Gypsies and Irish and Gingers.
We're extending the remit of racism to all of these groups.
It's like, really?
Do they really want to have racism extended to them?
Like, nobody asked them, right?
Don't worry, guys.
We've got some slurs coming your way.
So this is what she's done.
Yeah, no, no.
It's obvious that Jewish, Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people experience racism.
Right, okay.
So the fact that the latter is tolerated and encouraged amongst both major parties.
So what, does she want to encourage tolerance of racism?
...further?
I mean, what are we... I thought we... Like, if we were retreating racism, surely that'd be a good... I'm joking, I'm joking.
But the... Go to the next one.
She says, "...unfortunately, this is what some people use the very serious and very real problem of anti-Semitism for, to silence people of colour who are talking about racism." And now we're back on the game, we're back on the stack.
And, in their own logic, right, Ash is actually not wrong here, but then I actually think that Dianabola's kind of been mistreated here.
But she was, what she was doing is essentially an anti-racist power play, saying no, the blacks are the real victims of racism and therefore I'm at the top and the rest of you don't get racism.
It was just remarkable to watch this sort of scale of events in real time.
This is left-wing politics for you.
Well, this is just politicking done in public, instead of behind closed doors.
Well, this is left-wing politicking.
I mean, like, I'm not a left-winger.
I don't support any of this ideology, and so none of these questions or concerns or, like, hierarchical jostlings would come up in my world view.
Well, once again, from what I can see, this is politicking done in public, but because it's left-wing, they have to use the racial arguments to justify the whole thing.
Yeah, yeah.
But I just thought it was fascinating.
So you could see it exposes the internal logic of anti-racist politics.
The way that there's just literally, look, we're going to make it so everyone is a victim of racism at the end of it.
This is all we have to talk about.
Apparently so.
Alright, moving on, let's talk about the bogus Second Amendment.
And no, I am not coming out as an anti-Second Amender.
I love the Second Amendment.
If I was living in America, you know I'd be the first one going to the gun range, getting all sorts of goodies and gear and other things that I can have a lot of fun with.
But, there are some people who really hate the Second Amendment.
We know this.
Everybody on the left wing in the Democrats in America has been going on for ages about how the Second Amendment causes lots of violence.
The Second Amendment causes violence because before the Second Amendment there was no violence.
Exactly.
It was like the Garden of Eden.
I'm glad you know your history, Karl.
I do.
The Second Amendment forces people to go out- Crusaders going around with shotguns!
What you do is you buy the gun and the gun whispers in your ear, you should shoot that man.
You should shoot that man.
And there's another lie.
There's a new lie going around about the Second Amendment that isn't actually new, I've found out in researching for this.
It's just an old lie that has resurfaced and is becoming popular again because they all are.
Time is a flat circle, nothing is new under the sun.
But before I get into it, we've got recent contemplations from Josh where he's talking to Stelios about whether cities are the problem.
Yes.
Yes.
That's a good subject.
That's my answer, at least.
They seem to come to certain conclusions about the fact that in the city you've got anonymity, there's a greater separation between individuals, and that greater separation and anonymity means you don't have to be nice to each other.
Just at the end of the day, you just don't have to be nice to each other in the city.
I've been to London, which is a city, and... Dystopian city.
Well, it's kind of its own nation at this point.
Its own disturbing nation.
City-state of London.
And you just go, you just walk down the street and people will just shout each other.
Shout at each other.
For no particular reason, just because they've slighted one another.
Whereas if you were in a smaller community, you know, you would probably know this person and you would not feel as comfortable just yelling at them in the street.
I don't know, if I knew someone... Oi, Frank!
Give back my ruler that you stole 15 years ago.
Yeah, but then old Meredith would be walking past and she would give you the stin- Usually, Frank alone!
Yeah, she would give you the side-eye, and then you'd feel bad about it for the next week.
Whereas in the city, you don't get these things.
So, please check that out.
It's £5.
Get stabbed.
£5 a month for a bronze membership, and you can go higher than that, but if you just want access to the content, £5 a month, and you'll be able to get access to all of Josh's contemplations, all of my work that I've done, all of Carl's work that he's done.
So it's really a very small investment that would pay off.
We do actually have a massive library.
We have a ridiculous library at this point.
Even just Josh, he's 121 episodes into Contemplations.
That's amazing.
Yeah, that's pretty great.
And that's over 100 hours of just Josh talking about interesting subjects.
He recently won a poll of like most people.
Did he win the poll?
I think Brokenomics came out of nowhere and just overtook him.
It was quite the shocker.
Yeah, but he's very popular series.
Yes.
Anyway, let's move on to it.
So this clip is one that I saw spreading around where people were just talking about how this person, this person, Brant Robinson, was lying.
Apparently!
I left this on the internet and just lied.
I know.
If you could just hover over his name for a second so we can see his bio.
He's not got pronouns, but he's Carol's partner.
So he defines himself as being his... Secondary to someone else.
Secondary to his woman.
He's a Florida history teacher.
And Rock Climber, Defender of Public Education, Probable Cuckold.
That's the vibe that I'm getting from this.
And his statement here- Probable Cuckold.
His statement here- I've got a good radar for these things.
His statement here is, did you know the Second Amendment was added to our Bill of Rights to appease slave owners who needed to quickly arm militias to put down slave uprisings and insurrections?
Why is this history not taught?
Well that's not true.
Well, it might not be true, but listen to the conviction with which he says it.
So let's play the clip so we can get the full context for this.
Good afternoon.
Thank you, as always, for your kindness and for your insights.
Do you know the relationship between slavery and the Second Amendment?
Did you know that when the Second Amendment was added in 1791 as part of our Bill of Rights, the reason it was added to our Constitution was to satisfy slave states so they could quickly arm militias in case of the threat of slave uprisings and slave revolts?
That's why the Second Amendment begins a well-regulated militia.
But let's remember, The British established 13 colonies in North America, and all 13 of those colonies practiced slavery.
And slavery, with cash crops like tobacco, rice, indigo, and of course sugar down in the Caribbean, was essential to the growing British Empire.
That's why it was mandated that every colonial legislature made sure they paid for and maintained a colonial militia.
And of course, that was only intensified by slave uprisings like the 1739 Stony Rebellion in South Carolina and then another uprising in New York in 1741.
But of course, after America became a country in our Revolutionary War, at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, there were compromises reached over slavery.
The Three-Fifths Compromise, expanding the slave trade for 20 more years, and a Fugitive Slave Law that was added to the Constitution.
That's why the Second Amendment was added, because when the Constitution was created, and everybody nod with me, The federal government now had precedence and power over state militias.
But Southerners objected.
They especially objected to the fact that they needed to quickly arm their militias to put down slave revolts.
And that was only intensified the fact that in 1791, there was a major slave uprising in the French colony of Saint-Domingue.
And that slave uprising would eventually lead to the creation of the second republic in the Western Hemisphere, a black nation called Haiti.
And when that uprising began, it sent shockwaves through the American South.
So that's why the Second Amendment was added to our Constitution, so that Southern slave states could quickly arm militias and put down slave revolts and insurrections.
My friends, our history matters.
You guys be well and have a great start to your Friday.
That is totally ahistorical.
History.
History teacher.
This man is teaching children history.
That's not true.
No.
I mean, it's such a liberal perspective that every man should be armed.
I love the timeline as well going on here.
They came up with the second amendment before the Haitian uprising, but the Haitian uprising specifically influenced it.
There's a few contradictions.
Yeah.
It's an expressly liberal thing, because Locke is unbelievably clear about this.
He's like, look, if you're wandering around and some guy says, right, give me your wallet, you don't know what his intentions are because he's already abandoned the rule of law.
So you're completely- You could just take your wallet and kill you anyway.
Exactly.
So you're completely within your right to do anything you can to keep yourself out of his power, including to the point of killing him.
And that was a deeply held liberal belief.
And this is one of the reasons that- That obviously influenced the founding fathers.
This is one of the reasons that red states have, like, castle doctrine, isn't it?
Because if someone has invaded your home, well that's your home, that's your property, who knows what else he's going to do once he's in there?
You have the right to take him out if you need to.
And that's why there's standard ground laws, there's so much... I mean, this is an old English feeling about how self-defence should operate.
Yes, it exists long before America, but no, according to liberal Floridian teachers, Ron, you need to get on this.
But also in the context of, say, the American Revolution, it's clear that the well-regulated militia is to resist Frankly, the British coming back with the regulars, and... I mean, we did come back and burn down the White House at one point, so it's not like they weren't founded with their concerns.
Exactly, it's not like it was an unfounded concern, but there were also, and what I love about that is that he talks as if, like, America existed, pops into existence in a vacuum, as if there weren't the French, the Spanish, the Portuguese, the Dutch, you know, other colonial empires who you may have to have a militia against.
I mean, it's not like the Americans and the Spanish hadn't fought wars or anything, Like, and the Mexicans as well, like, you need the ability to defend your country.
That was what the Americans, that's what the Second Amendment's about.
He does also try and reframe it.
And prevent from government tyranny!
Like, sorry, there are so many other reasons for slave patrols!
There are so many problems with this.
Notwithstanding, you know, just the words that the founders said.
Oh yeah, there are the express words.
Which, if we just scroll down so we can get a better image of this, somebody underneath that just shared this at him.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
George Washington.
A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.
Yes.
No mention of slaves.
This is just such an English ethos.
It just makes sense to me, and this is why England is such a shadow, one of the reasons England is a shadow of its former self.
Because you can get arrested now for defending yourself if somebody's broken into your house.
Like there was an old man who, uh, somebody broke into his flat.
He stabbed the person.
With a screwdriver.
Yeah, and got arrested for it.
Yeah.
After enough public outrage, he was let go.
Only after the public outrage, though.
Exactly, only after the public outrage.
And the thing is though, the more I've been reading and researching about this, the more I've come to the conclusion that essentially an Englishman isn't an Englishman unless he's armed.
And it's actually kind of harrowing that none of us are allowed to be armed.
I've got an article talking about it that you can also find on the website about how England lost its rights to self-defense.
Just one step at a time.
One step at a time.
It's just, you know, somebody comes out and says, well, we could be a bit safer if we just regulate this kind of ammunition.
Then it regulate this kind of barrel.
And then all of a sudden, by the 90s, they're just coming out right for pistols and anything else that the public can own.
We also have the words of Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, which were pretty explicit, where he just says, if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens.
I don't notice any mention of slavery there, but this man who shared this initial video has an excellent rebuttal to our arguments, which is... Did he block you?
No, I don't interact with these people on Twitter, thankfully.
But he just said, well, that's not what the Second Amendment says, though.
He just goes, those aren't- your circled section is not part of the Second Amendment.
Yeah, but neither is the part about slavery, though.
Yeah, but that's- like, this is famous, and honestly, there's a part of it that's kind of beautiful in its simplicity, because I love the phrase, a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
That's very clear.
It might as well end with simple as.
Yeah, exactly!
Shall not be infringed is a great phrase, because it's literally almost immune to being perverted.
Anything that infringes my ability to own a gun is unconstitutional.
I mean, they try and nitpick it all the time, but at the end of the day, it's very simple what it means, but... But also, just another quick thing here.
Being necessary to the security of a free state, right?
Now, go back 300 years, And you'll remember, for Mr. Brant Robinson here, that in fact, large numbers of people were invading each other all the time.
It was quite possible that 100,000 men would march from, say, France into Germany, at the head of some Corsican, and start knocking out cities and knocking out governments.
Like, you actually needed to be able to raise a large number of armed men in order to save your country from invasion.
It's happened a lot in the pre-modern era.
This is even just small-scale stuff, because, for instance, in England, you know, the northernmost parts of England, right south of Hadrian's Wall, there were the Reavers and such, and you would just go across the border, you'd try and take out some of their village and steal some of their stuff from women, they would try and do the same to you.
So you'd need to just have weapons.
And all of this is not to mention the fact that a lot of America is very rural, and there are things like bears, that you can't just get into a fistfight with a bear.
Even then, that's not mentioned in the Second Amendment.
No, it's explicitly to protect the integrity of a free state from not only outside invasion, but also the government.
Not because of slave uprisings.
And if that's what they'd wanted, they would have just said it.
They would have said it!
But the history teacher did read it in NPR though.
He did read it in NPR, which is the state-affiliated media, if I remember correctly.
But that's the rubber stamp of approval for all good historians as they get all of their information from NPR.
Somebody was responding to him, he responded with this.
So I just decided to track down the article.
What is it that it says in here?
And it's obviously a very impartial article because the first line it opens with is, Do black people have full second amendment rights?
And it opens with this lovely image of soldiers pointing guns at protesters who are all black.
They fail to include very similar images that I've seen of these sorts of National Guards doing the same thing to white people, as well, after the end of segregation of schools and such, to force them to desegregate, etc, etc.
So that's interesting, and they say the question of whether black people have Second Amendment rights was the question asked by historian Carol Anderson, and she set out to answer it after Minnesota police killed Philando Castile, a black man with license to carry a gun during a 2016 traffic stop.
I've heard the name before.
Is it as they're describing?
I'll go with her description and I'll take it at face value because it says here was a black man who was pulled over by the police and the police officer asked to see his identification.
Philando Castile using NRA guidelines alerts the officer that he has a licensed weapon with him and the police officer began shooting.
Now if that is the true context of that situation and when it comes to lefty historians I find it very difficult to trust anything they say but if that is the context there's obviously no excuse for such a thing.
It does not necessarily mean that the Second Amendment is automatically evil, or was come up with by slave owners, and should be repealed immediately.
And I'm sorry, even if it was come up with purely so that slave owners would be able to own guns, and I don't see why they wouldn't have been able to own guns anyway and just hire a private force or something, but even so, even if it was, it still has nothing to do with modern applications of it as a way for people to arm themselves for self-defense.
So it still doesn't have any relevance to problems that go on in cities and across America In the modern day.
But anyway... And another thing as well.
If you look at, like, say, the murder hotspots in Chicago or LA... Oh, we'll get onto that.
Lots of licensed guns there, I'm sure.
Yes, absolutely.
So it carries on and says, in her new book, The Second, Race and Guns in a Fatally Unequal America, a very, once again, impartial historian we're referring to here, Anderson traces racial distinctions in America's treatment of gun ownership back to the founding of the country and the second amendment.
Because that's where it all started.
I'm sure if she were to trace it back a bit further it would get banged on to 1619.
Because anything that happened, according to these people, according to leftist historians, anything that happened before MLK and civil rights in America was directly the result of either racism or pre-civil war slavery.
These are the two things it always just comes back to.
Like you say, there's no context.
All of these things just happened in a vacuum where people were just racist for no reason.
They all just decided they hated each other.
Just racists in a vacuum obsessing over black people.
Yeah, because that makes sense, doesn't it?
The language of the amendment, Anderson says, was crafted to ensure that slave owners could quickly crush any rebellion or resistance from those... But the thing is, we've just looked at the language of the amendment!
It doesn't mention anything!
The response to concerns coming out of the Virginia Ratification Convention, she just goes through the same bogus nonsense that that he went through.
So you can read the article for yourself.
I wouldn't recommend it.
It's just obvious propaganda and lies.
Other people then started spreading this lie again using different sources.
Now this one...
Oh yeah, Joy Reid.
Yeah, Joy Reid.
Another impartial interlocked leader.
Joy the honest Reid.
She's just an objective observer looking at things as she sees them from the sidelines.
So this was Reverend Mark Thompson on MSNBC saying, these were white children killed because of an obsolete amendment.
The second amendment was meant to prevent slave insurrection and slave rebellions.
That is why people... there was no individual right.
That's just not true.
That's not true.
But also, instead of going for Carol Anderson, he...
I still can't believe this.
He quotes a different historian on this, he sources a different one.
The book, Hidden History of the Second Amendment, by a Professor Karl T Bogus.
A Professor Bogus wrote a book that said the Second Amendment was meracism, and this man went, seems good to me.
I mean, life is but a meme.
Yeah, that's very amusing.
That's great, and I found this article refuting Mr Bogus, talking about... Like, anyone with any passing familiarity with the Federalist Papers?
Yes, but there's even more, because it goes into the logic given in his articles.
He's also got a new book out recently called Madison's Militia, The Hidden History of the Second Amendment.
So it's all hidden history of the Second Amendment.
His original one came out in 1998.
This is the new one that's come out this year.
So it's partially promoting a book, which is why part of this discourse has started again.
But they say in this article from the Independent Institute, it adds nothing new on his original points.
He states up front that he will not address how legal scholars or the courts have interpreted the amendment, except to assert without any support that James Madison and his colleagues would have been astonished at the Supreme Court's holding that the amendment grants individuals a right to have guns.
I don't think they would.
I don't think they would.
But Bogus calls his tome a mystery book.
The mystery, I presume, is finding the actual history in it.
James Madison would be astonished to find out that Americans should be able to have guns.
Supposedly so.
According to Mr Bogus.
That's just ridiculous.
I mean, every man Madison would have known would have owned a gun.
Possibly more than one.
They probably would have shown them off to their friends.
Yeah.
Because it was fun.
They had to be part of a militia that was going to fight off the British.
Every single one of them would have had a rifle.
No, they were fighting off Haitians.
That's obviously what they were doing.
It's just preposterous.
15 years before the matter, Haitians were coming over in boats and assaulting the White House.
This is the only explanation.
But he says it's a mystery book about why James Madison decided to write the Second Amendment.
Once again, we have the Federalist Papers!
He writes it down!
Because there is no direct evidence about what the founders intended!
I can't read that with a straight face!
Can you believe someone would say this when we have detailed, not just the Federalist Papers, but detailed journals from each of these people?
I want Beau to speak to this man.
Look at this next line.
His agenda is clear.
Instead of the Minutemen at Lexington with the musket in his hands, the more accurate image of the Second Amendment is that of the musket in the hands of the militiamen on a slave patrol in the South.
It's just not.
That's just not true.
The mystery supposedly reveals itself in the Virginia Ratification Convention of 1788.
Without spelling it out in so many words, Bogus writes, Patrick Henry objected to an exclusive federal power over the militia because it would subvert the slave system indirectly.
Once again, not in explicit words, just you have to infer this in body language and winks and eye twitches, I assume.
If he doesn't actually say that, what's he quoting?
I don't know.
George Mason's warning that the disarming of the militia could lead to tyranny was actually a ruse.
Such were encoded discussions about slave control, Bogus speculates, that could not be made directly because public discussion of it was often frowned upon.
I doubt it.
I don't think it was.
So this is all just nonsense.
They've just invented the N-word.
What happened was all of these people were obviously telepathically communicating and decided never to write it down.
This is about slaves, right?
Nudge nudge, wink wink, eh?
How's your father, who's your missus?
And then we got to more stupid, but slightly more honest arguments about this, about what it's all really about, which is just people going, I hate the Second Amendment because it's smelly poopy pants.
Yeah, okay, fair enough.
That's what this all comes down to, really.
Yeah, but I respect this a lot more, right?
Being like, look, I just don't value the right of Englishmen or their descendants to own self-defense.
Or even other people, because the Second Amendment doesn't just apply to the English Jewish descendants.
Sure, but like, you know, this is the sort of, like, the English ethos that America was founded on.
It's like, look, I don't like that because I hate it.
Says Kirk Swearingen.
Swearingen?
Swearingen, presumably a Scandinavian...
Okay, fine.
At least make the argument.
At least you're going to be like, I don't agree with this, for progressive reasons.
Okay, fine.
I mean, this one's still pretty bad faith, because it just accuses anyone who likes guns in the first line of being gun fetishists.
I mean, fair play, you know?
Okay.
Then we get an even sillier argument in the next one, which is the classic.
The classic.
Gun violence is actually worse in red states.
And do not impose this particular map over other maps of the United States because it might give you results that you're not particularly happy with.
Well, I bet it's a lot more concentrated around Democrat-run cities.
Why?
You've predicted my next point!
Which is, yes, if it's red states, it isn't necessarily red cities though, is it?
Like if we go to the next one, Connor sent me this wirepoint survey, I think he covered it over the weekend, but sadly we couldn't include that particular weekend segment for some reason.
But, in this one, it just says Chicago, New Orleans, all of the blue states were all the murder capitals of the United States in 2022.
I mean, listen to this figure right here.
Just 90 minutes, 90 minutes into the new year, came Chicago's first criminal homicide of 2023.
I mean, I'm not particularly surprised.
It was probably in the south side.
They had about 40 shootings a weekend, and about somewhere between like 10 and 20 deaths.
Like every weekend.
It just happens in Chicago.
All, I'm sure, with registered firearms, which is why we see all of the articles going on about how it's registered firearms that commit all of these crimes.
Which is precisely why people in rural Alabama aren't allowed to own guns to protect themselves from bears.
Makes perfect sense to me.
I don't know if they have bears in Alabama.
No, I have no idea.
But they've got probably like mountain lions and stuff.
Sorry, it's down to wrestling them now.
I mean, you'll be more manly if you manage to win, but you're probably not gonna win.
And then Connor sent me this other article, which is the other side of the gun debate, because everybody always talks about gun violence, gun crimes, etc, etc.
But a lot of people don't really talk about the thing that they're all there for, which is, okay, how many defensive gun uses?
Are there, every year.
And this is an interesting article from 2018 in Forbes, talking about the CDC basically hiding this information from the US.
So, there was a study they did in 2013, ordered by the CDC, conducted by the National Academy's Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, and reported that defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence.
Almost all the national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.
How many times were firearms used in 2008 to put down slave uprisings?
I don't think very many.
Right, okay, so it seems that even if the Second Amendment was designed to hold down the slaves, it still has a practical use in the modern day.
Certainly it seems that way, but that's not the part that they hid.
So the person conducting all of this research and looking into these CDC surveys found that in the 1990s they had previously unpublished results from CDCs where they were talking about things like the number of defensive gun uses, Had probably increased since the 1990s because it's just gone up with the population and such but it does mean that guns have even more practical utility especially as hostile populations are managing to get over the border and such.
Got an MS-13 running around, I'd probably want a gun.
Yes, absolutely.
And they say, number three, when they're going through all this information, they say, we don't know why the CDC chose not to publish the data from the 1990s.
Kleck offers some ideas in his original paper.
One possible explanation was that something or other, but another factor might also have played a role in the decision of the CDC personnel to not report these defensive gun use findings.
For the CDC's own surveys to generate high estimates of defensive gun use prevalence was clearly not helpful to efforts to enact stricter controls over firearms, since it implies that some such measures might disarm people who otherwise would have been able to use a gun for self-protection, such as a Kyle Rittenhouse.
For instance, they don't want a Kyle Rittenhouse, they don't want you to be able to defend yourself when the BLM hordes come knocking at your door.
Was Gage Grosskraut's gun registered?
I'd be very surprised if it had been.
But, of course, he wasn't the one on trial.
No, that's true.
No, he wasn't the one on trial, despite the fact- He was just trying to kill him.
Yeah, he was- and he admitted as much, basically.
Yeah, he was literally just holding the gun.
And they even say here, this is very interesting, one CDC official in the 1990s openly told the Washington Post that his goal was to create a public perception of gun ownership as something dirty, deadly, and banned.
Given that history, I can't dismiss Kleck's critique, and that was the- Well done on the American gun owners for resisting that.
Yes, absolutely.
So, there it is, they're just saying it out loud, they want to take your guns and there are people within all of these institutions that have been completely subverted and want to present a facsimile of reality that means that you think guns are far more dangerous, only ever used for violent crimes and crimes against normal people, only ever used to murder people, when in fact most of their use tends to be against criminals who are aggressing on somebody else, which is the explicit intended use
of the second amendment as stated by the initial people who wrote it not in fact for preventing slave uprisings which nobody can provide any real proof that that's what the original intention was and even then it's not really something we have to worry about in the modern day no shockingly enough but remember keep your guns close folks all right okay so you may have noticed that it was st george's day yesterday
And yeah, that was nice, and of course we've renamed St George's Day to the day on which progressives tell us that St George was Turkish.
Was he?
I don't think he was.
No, of course he wasn't Turkish.
He was a Greek Cappadocian man.
Served in the Roman army about a thousand years before the Turks arrived in Anatolia.
So Greeks and Turkish are being made into the same thing over here.
I think Stelios is going to be furious about this news.
Average Turkish man, yeah.
He's going to come through with a shimitar in a moment.
But if you want to support us, go to loses.com and check out the book club I did on Roger Scruton's book, Where We Are, which was one of his last books as an analysis of the very nature of what Britain is and the problems that it faces.
And the reason I've chosen to promote this in this particular segment is because I think it's actually appropriate because Scruton has a great point about the concept of the term What is the shared constituency of we?
I mean, if you think back to the American Declaration of Independence, we the people.
OK, well, who's this we we're talking about?
There's already a constituency there who have sentimental bonds with one another.
So essentially that undoes the liberal claim that society has just come together in the state of nature.
And so this is a particularly important way of looking at things because it's not ideological.
It's a lot more conservative.
And so this is the the prism that I'm going to be looking at this particular segment because Sadiq Khan posted about St George's Day.
We'll get to it in a minute.
It just really rubbed me up the wrong way.
There's a lot of claim to a we and an our and a shared culture and I don't really feel like I share much with not only just the progressive left but the sort of You know, people who are also immigrants, who are also very left-wing.
And I think there's a clear distinction to be made.
People who immigrate who like the place and try to integrate and try to improve the place.
People who immigrate who then try and change the place.
Steakhan would be the first to cry grievance at any English person, so he's got no... he's got no right to say we when it comes to the English or even the British people.
Yeah.
And so, I mean, if you want to see the average Englishman's celebration of St George's Day, Nadja Farage is a great example.
Having a pint at the George and the Dragon pub.
I mean, that's pretty bloody English.
Yes.
I enjoyed that.
Lee Anderson, Conservative Deputy Chair, had a good one.
Just proud to be an Englishman, which is not something we normally hear from politicians, so I thought I'd share that.
And I think this is another good one that I found on Twitter from Mandip Bogal, a Sikh man.
This is a great example of just how to be a patriotic immigrant into Britain, right?
Notice how he says it.
This is my flag, this is your flag, this is our flag.
God bless England and the Cross of St George, which unites us all to proudly call this green and pleasant land home.
Be proud of this England of ours, the most warm-hearted place, this force for good.
Happy St George's Day.
There's nothing in any way that is subversive or controversial.
He's not attempting to muddle identities.
He's not attempting to insert like a foreign identity into being English.
This is just a bold, strong, impassioned endorsement of our country.
It's just nice.
It's just nice.
Right?
It's just nice.
And everyone looks at that and goes, that's great.
Right?
The Conservatives could have said something like that, but no.
Just happy St.
George's Day to everyone across England.
And they've even covered up most of the flag as well.
If the German army was squatting in Coventry or something, they'd be like, well, they're across England, happy St George's Day to the German army, right?
What about English people?
Tories?
Exactly.
Right, see, Amandeep, his endorsement, his statement, was so much better, but I mean, like, okay, moving on, the Labour Party, happy St George's Day from all of us at the Labour Party, That's actually better than the Conservative one.
I was going to say, I prefer the aesthetic of this one.
Yeah, I know, right?
Because it's not covering up most of the flag.
I know.
And it was just like, OK, this is weird because, I mean, the Labour Party... Once again, Keir Starmer is taking a very different tack with this new one.
As the election's coming up closer, he wants the Red Wall to re-establish itself.
He does.
I mean, don't trust the Labour Party.
They're going to betray you the very second they have a sniff of power, right?
But also the Conservative Party are awful, as you can see me there.
We brought millions of foreigners to rub our nose in diversity, but I forget.
There he is.
Carl Benjamin, Labour Party's top reply guy.
I am, yeah.
But I'm also the top reply guy of the Conservative Party, and you're also terrible.
Yeah.
But yeah, even then, this is not terrible, right?
So there was nothing from King Charles III about St George's Day.
People noticed.
I mean, there was an Eid speech that he'd made on Eid.
Happy Eid.
Not happy St George's Day though.
Really interesting.
Thanks Charles.
And the reason that... I should have had these the other way actually.
But you may remember that the Labour Party is a congenitally anti...
As in 2014, Emily Thornberry had to resign because she saw some English flags and recoiled like a vampire in front of a cross.
Did she have a stroke or something?
Yeah, no, she actually did.
She was just like, ugh!
And so she had to resign.
But one Labour MP from Rochdale, Simon Daszak, said that the Labour Party has been hijacked by the North London Liberal elite.
Even in 2014, but also still now, people can see that there's a distinct anti-native sentiment in the Labour Party, an anti-English sentiment.
That's why it was so important that the Labour Party had just posted this massive, unreserved, you know, Happy St. George's Day from the Labour Party.
It's not normal, right?
It's actually not normal.
That's a celebration of England.
They need to win industrial Lancashire back.
That's what they're trying to do.
Yeah, that's what they're trying to do, yeah.
I mean, I personally really liked the one from the Reclaim Party, because this, I think, is probably my favourite Churchill quote that sums up my feelings on it.
And then you had other people who were posting just what they felt about those things.
And then you had a chap called Thomas Skinner who posted this.
I just find it mental that I've already received a DM saying you should take down the post about St. George.
Oh, is this a Bosch Tom Skinner?
Yes, it is.
Oh, I love this guy.
Yeah, yeah, and he's like, when did it become bad to be proud of where you're from?
I'm proud I'm English.
I love our culture, cups of tea, pie and mash, pubs, Stonehenge, Royal Family, Tower of London, Lake District, Oasis and the Beatles, football on the weekend, blah blah blah, he carries on, right?
Like millions of other wonderful people from all over the world are proud of where they are from, I am too.
I'm not afraid to say it, happy St George's Day, let's hope worst time you get three points and you roast dinner's bosh.
But there's nothing wrong with that at all.
That's a great picture he's used as well.
Yeah, it's a shame it's of Parliament.
Parliament's a gorgeous building.
It just needs to be repurposed for something useful.
Yeah, like a prison.
For the MPs.
For the MPs, yeah.
Well, surely we just convene Parliament and then just lock the doors.
That's a good idea.
And then they just sort it out from there.
Yeah.
Tom Skinner, for a little white pill, I think he's also recently announced he's having twins with his missus, so that's really lovely for him.
He's a nice guy.
Yeah, and so yeah, these were the sort of generally okay takes, actually.
Patriotic.
Yeah, generally patriotic.
Nothing unusual.
And then you got, like...
The EU flag displayers, the FP Pro, uh, follow back pro Europe types.
People who don't care about England.
No, this is St.
George.
His dad was from Turkey.
No, he wasn't.
His mum was from Syria.
Okay.
They were still Greek.
He was a Roman.
No, he was Greek.
He died in Palestine.
He never visited England.
He didn't kill a dragon.
He's a Christian saint.
He's a Muslim and Jewish prophet.
Happy St.
George's Day.
Do you have to do this?
It's now the time.
Like, what was it about St.
George that made you think that he had to, like, it wasn't a claim of ethnic purity.
St.
George, the first Englishman, I mean, he lived before England existed as a state.
Like, so obviously he's not English, but of course the reason that the English like St.
George is because he represents heroic virtues, heroic Christian virtues that the English saw within themselves.
These people aren't able to... leftists generally aren't able to understand any kind of virtues or any kind of representation that doesn't directly represent them and what they identify as in that moment is the problem.
But it's also they hold a caricature position of patriotism.
They say well I mean if it's not from England you're not allowed to like it.
Why?
Like, why do you go to the most pure blood and soil nationalist position when it comes to patriotism?
And the thing is, it kind of implies, okay, but if there was a stone found tomorrow, engraved in it, here lies St.
George, the first Englishman, they'd have to recant and go, okay, no, you're right, absolutely, blood and soil nationalism.
Because they've set the standard, and if it can be validated, then they have to accept it, right?
And that's not a standard I actually want to adopt.
I'm not saying that!
They won't hold themselves to any consistent standards or anything.
They will always just find what's the anti-English position.
Exactly.
And they will go with that.
And now, they don't do this to, say, St David, who wasn't Welsh.
Or St Patrick, who wasn't Irish.
Or St Andrew, who wasn't Scottish.
But they're not English icons, are they?
Exactly!
They only do it to the English, right?
We go to Kevin Maguire's lovely tweet.
Happy St. George's Day when we wind up English racists venerating a migrant worker born in what is now Turkey, who in 2023 they'd bar from Britain.
Why would English racists venerate a migrant worker?
I mean, George wasn't a migrant worker.
He was a member of the Roman army.
But okay, whatever.
Doesn't matter, Kevin.
You just have to sit there and go, I hate England.
Also born in what is now Turkey.
So not Turkey at the time.
Therefore not Turkish.
Yeah.
Anyway, there are lots of amusing parodies.
I mean, which St.
George are we talking about?
Obviously not that St George.
St George Floyd's Day?
That's every day.
In my heart.
That's every day.
No, no.
I like this particular one, though.
St George was English, isn't it?
He was English, born in England.
Anglo-Saxon ethnicity.
Supported the monarchy.
Favourite drink was car liqueur.
Killed a literal dragon that was in Britain illegally.
It was an Asian dragon, part of a grooming gang.
Supported Brexit.
He sounds like a good lad.
Yeah, just like Jesus.
Abosh!
Just like Jesus.
But the point of bringing this up is not only is it hilarious, But you can see that there is a particular sort of strain that goes through this, which, especially in the supporting Brexit part, that is there are characteristic English opinions that are distinctly English.
One of them is the national sovereignty.
England always has been.
And Paul Mason, actually, of all people to quote on this, radical communist Paul Mason, did an interview on Navarra Media a while ago that I was watching.
And he was like, look, look, English radicalism has always been about sovereignty.
It's always been.
And it has always been about sovereignty.
Think of Henry VIII and his break with Rome and things like this.
And this has been a consistent theme since the Norman Conquest, incidentally.
Well, actually, no, since the Viking invasions and Alfred the Great, right?
So it's always been the ethos that in England we should have a sovereign country, that we rule ourselves.
And so this brings us to Sadiq's video.
Oh, must we?
Yeah, we must.
Of course enjoying the memes.
And again, like, I don't actually hate Sadiq Khan.
I actually, the more I do this, the more I view him as basically a confused man who doesn't really know who he himself is, or he's completely lying.
Right?
I know which, I know where I'm going with it.
I'm going to be charitable and suggest that he's just confused, because I'm a lovely guy like that.
He was so confused when he commissioned the BLM fist in the fireworks for New Year's that other year.
I mean, I would say you'd have to be confused.
Okay, alright, I'll run with it, I'll run with it!
He was just like, oh look, it's St George!
I've heard about St George, the English love St George, I'll get that fist up!
That's just him punching a dragon, obviously.
As mayor of our nation's capital and as a proud Englishman, I'd like to wish everyone a very happy St George's Day.
St George's Day is a moment for English people from all communities and all generations to come together and draw inspiration from our shared culture, history and democratic values.
As a nation, we have so much to be thankful for and proud of.
From our incredible NHS and key workers, the compassion of families who open their doors to strangers fleeing conflict.
Not to mention Shakespeare.
No.
No, of course he was!
lionesses, fish and chips and plenty of cups of tea.
Today we'll remind you why we love our home, why we'll always be proud to be English, and why we look forward to the future with hope and optimism.
Happy St George's Day.
Was King Arthur fighting for democratic values?
No.
No, of course he was.
Was he fighting to open the floodgates?
No, I mean, I wouldn't even say Oliver Cromwell's fighting for democratic values.
No, of course they would!
Democratic values is considered in the modern era something that's been basically imported over from America.
So this just rubbed me the wrong way, right?
And going back to scrutiny... You're not English, Sadiq!
Well, no he's not, and that's the thing.
Outside of this video, he'd be the first one to tell you that as well.
Well, actually we've got a tweet from him that is very interesting.
He tweeted last year, I'm proud to be English, I'm proud to be British, proud to be European, and proud of my Pakistani heritage.
We can beat all of these things at once.
Our multiple identities don't conflict with each other.
They complement with each other, one another.
They make us stronger, not weaker, St George's Day.
This was last year's St George's Day.
Okay, is this... What are you talking about?
Is this why, like, Pakistanis and Indians over in that country, when they hear that England's got an Indian Prime Minister, are like, oh yeah, I guess we're winning then!
Ash Sarkar, we're winning, lads!
That's what I mean, like, he's a confused man, right?
Because notice when, in the previous video, where he's like, yeah, it's like, we, English, it's like, I don't see myself as part of a shared group with you.
You know, I feel like you're a bit of an imposition, actually.
I mean, you preside over a city that is 40% immigrant and 37% English.
You don't say anything.
I know you don't like racial politics, I don't even think this is racial politics to point out that England, English people, is an ethnicity.
Yeah, that's exactly right.
That's obviously true and it feels really sickening to me.
That England has basically been gaslit by American-style reframing of history into thinking that we're some kind of propositional nation.
America, well yeah, you have the argument that nowadays anyone can be an American as long as you've got the right... No, English is a distinct people that has descended from over a thousand years since before the Norman conquests.
You gain Englishness by being descended from English people, right?
That's just how ethnicity works.
I mean, the British Empire expanded what it meant to be British, so that you didn't just have to be from this island.
Exactly, and you can't argue that Sadiq Khan is not British.
I mean, if you go to his Wikipedia page, he was born in St George's Hospital in Sooting, right?
Because his parents fled the partition of India, presumably because they were tied up with the British administration.
And they came over here and... I'm happy to call him a British Pakistani.
He's not English!
Which of course he is!
You know, which is in no way derogatory or othering.
He is of course a British Pakistani, that is just a factually true statement.
And so when he's like, so we fellow Englishmen, I'm like, okay Steve, that's weird and creepy, actually.
I'm gonna go to Pakistan, hello my fellow Pakistanis!
Exactly!
Well, exactly.
When the British were being kicked out of India, all of the British had to leave.
They were like, hey, fellow Indians.
Because the Indians were like, no, get out English.
Does this make George Orwell Indian?
Well, exactly.
Is Rudyard Kipling an Indian now?
And so this tension is something that Sadiq Khan seems to think we can just sit on, where he's like, we can be all these things at once.
It's like, not really.
You are a Pakistani man of British origin who lives in Britain as the mayor of London.
You don't have to.
And like, the Sikh guy who was like, no, I love England.
Okay, he's not saying, look, aha, now all the Sikhs are English as well.
He's not saying that, right?
And we're not saying that you can't be here either.
And actually, it's nice when people who aren't English support England.
It's a flattering thing.
Yeah, we're a great country.
Yeah, but it's a flattering thing.
And so it's a very desirable thing.
And so on one hand, I'm not against Sadiq Khan trying to say positive things about England.
Although in his video, this comes across so disingenuous.
Yeah, exactly.
I was going to say, it's totally disingenuous because not only is he like, I'm also an Englishman.
You're not.
You're a proud European.
You're pro-Remain.
You're pro, like, communism.
You're a globalist.
Yeah, you're a globalist.
And you're pro-mass immigration.
So, like, the things that the English people generally want, which is, like, you know, sovereignty and reduced immigration, those two major ones, Zika's totally against.
And he's describing himself as a proud European, which the only people I've heard saying that are EU-Remainer types, who I'm happy to deport to the continent.
But the rest of it was full of just progressive talking points.
Oh, NHS.
Oh, refugees.
But you did say fish and chips at the end.
Yeah, exactly.
And lazy stereotype.
Yeah, there you go.
All of English history can be condensed down into fish-and-chip nationalism.
Exactly.
Whereas in the previous segment, if it said something about an Englishman's right to be armed and self-defence, I'd be like, okay, fair enough, Sadiq, I'm listening.
You know, I'm actually, no, no, no, it's about refugees and bloody... Nothing about English courage, valiance, nothing like that.
Going off.
Not fair-mindedness, not constitutionalism, not the rule of law.
Beating the savage hordes in the Crusades.
No, and so it's just like, it's progressive talking points that he's trying to smuggle in under the guise of being an English patriot.
I'm not having it.
I'm not having it.
There is no we between us, Sadiq, as far as I'm concerned.
I just find it really offensive.
I just find it really offensive that you'll sit there and say, oh, the heart of Englishness is the NHS.
It's not.
It's the heart of socialism, right?
And like I said, it's not like Sadiq Khan hasn't got a questionable history.
I mean, is this the history of the average Englishman, is it?
Sadiq Khan and his terrorist or jihadi or Islamist-related family members.
Well, who isn't related to a terrorist or two?
Exactly!
Like Ash Sarkar being like, yeah, I support my Bengali ethno-nationalist terrorist aunt driving the British out of India.
Well, I mean, from the perspective of those people, I mean, that's a fair position to take, but you're not English.
Exactly!
Okay, fair enough!
That's not an English position to take!
Exactly!
Anti-English is not the English position.
This came from a smear campaign when he was being re-elected as Mayor of London, so, you know, it's not kind to him, but I mean... I mean, is it true?
Yeah, he spoke nine times alongside Suleiman Ghani, average English name, A hardline imam based in Tooting, who on the night of the Paris massacres joined a campaign for the Islamic State.
And Sadiq's like, hello fellow Englishman.
He's like, no, no, I don't really see you that way.
Fancy some fish and chips, pal?
Exactly!
And I don't really want to be in a particular sentimental bond with a person like that, actually.
But anyway, I'll leave it there because it goes on.
But if we just go to the last one.
So this is Sadiq posting about the Silver Jubilee and the Platinum Jubilee, where he was present at both, right?
And so this is what I mean, like, I don't think that he's not proud to be British.
I don't think he is actually, but I think he has a particular view of what being British is.
And now he's trying to encapsulate this into being English.
And that is just a series of progressive talking points.
I don't think he actually hates this country.
I just think that he's a bit confused in and of himself.
I think he does hate this country.
Certainly he hates what this country used to be before all of a sudden every establishment institution decided that it wanted to disparate progressive talking points.
Entirely possible.
If you were to go back 500 years, Sadiq Khan would not be in support of what this country was.
Possibly not, but I'm going to be charitable and suggest that Sadiq Khan is just a confused man who doesn't understand that he is trying to advocate to be contradictory things all at the same time, and expect everyone to go along with it.
I just find it kind of repulsive, actually.
I don't think there's a we here, Sadiq.
All right, let's get into the video comments, then.
Hello from our lovely little rock.
Another newly woke firm has just appeared on the lines with their Dylan Mulvaney.
KitchenAid.
A few videos pop up on my timeline already with people saying they're refusing to purchase all their stuff now.
And also, there's a storage firm have already turned around and said that they're refusing to take any new orders from them.
Good.
That's very interesting.
I do think that there is a major level of cynicism from all of these companies deciding, because I saw earlier John sent a load of links of, here's another company, Dylan Mulvaney, here's another company, Dylan Mulvaney, every single one of them.
This is a new...
Outrage marketing tactic.
You put Dylan Mulvaney at the front of something, you know that everyone will react negatively, you get the backlash, and then you turn it around later and go, we're sorry, put out some patriotic thing or some anti-progressive thing, or even just some very neutral thing, and then you hope that there's going to be enough of a resurgence of popularity that people Come back around to the product.
You hope that it gets you back in the headlines, that headline gets you more notoriety, and then you say sorry, or you don't even say sorry, like I say, you come back with something neutral, and then hopefully there's enough holdover customers from that that you get an increase in sales at the end anyway.
That's what I see.
This is some weird form of outrage guerrilla marketing.
I mean, corporations certainly don't have souls, so... And also, they're shielded by large organizations like BlackRock in the first place, and governments bailing them out if it goes wrong.
And the specific drugs most cited were the SSRI drug, Cytelopram.
Yeah.
Yeah.
It is so hard to get off this again once you're on it.
I tried before you're fine for a couple of months and then out of nowhere mental breakdown and you have to get back on it.
I'm actually in the process of trying again now to get off it.
I've been on the lowest dose possible since March and what I did different this time is that I've been on keto Since January, and I've been working out at least every second day, but it really requires discipline.
But I didn't have any breakdowns, so far.
But if I do, I need to get back on this.
So yeah, that feels like a shame from Big Pharma, doesn't it?
Absolutely.
I wish you good luck in staying off the SSRIs from the research that I've looked into them.
Past a certain point they basically become no better than a placebo from the research that I've done looking into it and the research that I've seen and it basically just makes you completely physically dependent on them after a while.
Yeah, I can believe it.
So, good luck with that.
After watching the two premium videos on UFOs, I wanted to share the best incident that I know of.
In 1997, in Phoenix, Arizona, everyone saw a triangle-shaped UFO.
Finally, with common cameras in people's hands, we had footage.
It blocked out the stars, but the body was unclear.
You can see the lights, and the craft was seen to move, rotate, and head on.
Hours later, the military launched flares and gaslit the public, saying it was just flares, bro.
I think it was probably spiders.
Yeah, the Phoenix Lights are pretty famous.
What do you say to that then, Carl?
Yeah, to be fair, when it comes to UFOs, I don't necessarily think the explanation, even if the explanation is suspicious, I don't think it has to be aliens, it could just, foreign governments, even national government just conducting weird research and gaslighting the population, could be anything really.
I find it fascinating that trans activists are so keen to portray scepticism towards the effects of their mental illness as a genocide.
Genocide, of course, is the systematic removal of an entire genotype.
Trans activists can only justify themselves by saying gender is a social construct, so what is the genotype that is being sought to be eliminated?
What they should be saying is that their phenotype is being threatened and that they face a transphenocide.
However, such correct use of language acknowledges the games they're playing.
Yes.
I made this point the other day, you actually can't genocide trans people even if you did kill them all.
It wouldn't be a genocide.
No, I understand what you're saying.
I forget who it was that said this, it might have been Oron McIntyre, it might have been Pete Kinyona, someone.
It gave a really excellent explanation as to why they are trying to use the term genocide for all of this.
Because it sounds terrible.
Well no, it sounds terrible, but not just it sounds terrible.
Since post-World War II, we've been conditioned to associate the term genocide with Holocaust.
Holocaust obviously associated with Nazis and Hitler, and we've been trained by media and everything else to think that if somebody or something is Nazi-related, then it's okay to commit violence against it.
So therefore, if you say transgenocide, anybody going against trans and therefore is associated with transgenocide, you're justified to commit violence against them.
Or even kill them, if necessary.
Sounds likely.
Yeah.
Do you want to read these or should I?
I'll go through.
Kevin says, Dan Abbott said it was an initial draft that was not meant to be sent.
However, she wrote what's in her mind.
So that's a plus.
We've thought for years there was nothing but a vacuum in her head.
What I find really amusing is just, this is a great defense.
I know that racism was just an initial draft.
I meant to take it out.
Why was that in the initial draft?
Honestly, I wouldn't put it past Diane Abbott to accidentally send the wrong draft.
Henry says, I'm not sure if Diane Abbott was thrown out of the party just for being racist.
Well, this is the point I made.
I suspect had the Tories been unassailable, this wouldn't have been dealt with at all.
Starmer's clearing out the likely election campaign disasters, any chance he can get to reclaim the Red Wall.
Exactly.
Starmer's being unbelievably ruthless with the Corbynistas, the far left.
He's not having it, right?
And he did this to Rebecca Long-Bailey as well.
I'd say it's pragmatic.
If you're trying to win in electoral politics, this is what you should do.
Yeah, it's totally pragmatic.
A lot of times it's happened, really.
Honestly, don't trust the Labour Party.
And American Isolation says, how awkward would it be for Tory voters if fascist overlord Keir Starmer made Labour into the party that makes the UK great again?
They'd put down all the Europhiles and restore the nationalist sentiment that the Tories have let die.
I mean, it would actually be hilarious, to be honest.
Blair uses Keir Starmer as a cipher to fix the problems that he made.
Imagine if, like, you know, Keir Starmer essentially has a MAGA hat on, make England great again.
He's like, yeah, no, screw the EU.
Brexit forever.
Ending immigration.
For some reason, the Tories have let it carry on to a million a year.
And the Tories are just like, you're a racist, you're a racist.
I mean, that would be pathetic.
But it's probably also the arc that British politics is going to follow.
It would be entertaining.
It's just insufferable.
Omar says, so they finally turn the progressive stack into a progressive horseshoe.
So oppressed that they've become the oppressor.
Laughs in circular firing squad.
Yeah, that's exactly it.
Like, now the whites can be oppressed by the blacks.
As long as they're certain types of whites.
Exactly.
But Diane Abbott just learned that.
Even though five minutes ago, she was on rock solid ground.
That sucks for her, man.
I think if you're in this sort of position that she is, never mention anything about the Jews that isn't completely just sucking up to them on their knees, deferential, that's just a bad idea.
I guess so.
Euan says, when my dad was younger and still living in London, he was denied a job on the Hackney Council because he was the wrong colour.
I bet he was.
Jan Zorvik says, an Englishman isn't an Englishman without a longbow.
Well, I mean, you know, we did also get guns.
Gotta protect against the Welsh somehow.
Yeah, but we got guns as well.
I mean, like, you know, these things were only outlawed, like, a hundred years ago.
Yeah, but longbows are still really fun to play with.
They are.
Casey says, ignoring the British, Spanish, and French threats, it's not like the colonists had to worry about Indians in battle.
Oh yeah, great, I forgot about the Indians.
With battle experience, determined to exterminate the colonists.
Now, more likely, they were concerned about the unarmed slaves who were completely untrained in combat.
And probably malnourished after the trip.
True, true.
The slaves had a great diet, actually.
Oh yeah, you've looked into it.
The chateau, once they'd been freed, it was the testimonies they gave, wasn't it?
Very interesting.
They had loads of food, and it was higher quality than the average Englishman.
I'm joking.
Because America is a giant... Clap me on some chains.
America is a giant, prosperous continent, right?
Full of resources.
And so, they did a lot better than people living in London.
Anyway, Lord Nerevan says, One more law, one more law will fix it, guys.
All the other failed, but this one won't.
Yeah, I know, I know.
S.H. Silver says, Regular reminder that Pew and the CDC notes that 55% of gun deaths in the U.S. are suicide.
Also, what ahistorical nonsense from this loon using modern language to argue.
Well-regulated at the time meant well-functioning, and the militia was comprised of all of fighting-age men.
It was meant to allow anyone able to defend the state to be armed.
The only anti-black gun legislation was implemented through the Cruikshank decision by Democrats in the late 19th century.
That's very true.
I also find it funny, once again, you can just read what Alexander Hamilton said, because they always say, well regulated, well regulated, as if it's the modern thing, and then you can read Alexander Hamilton basically saying, yeah, just make sure you know how to use these things.
Yeah.
Point them in the right direction, and there you go, you're sorted.
Don't shoot yourself with your own gun.
America's in Hospice Care says, that lying history teacher needs to be publicly whipped for I'm pretty sure the most northern states probably didn't have slaves.
Yeah, so I thought that, and I thought, I mean, I'm sure it wasn't.
I'm sure that, like, there were, like, New Hampshire or something didn't have slaves.
I'm pretty sure the most northerly states probably didn't have slaves, because most of the northern states were known as the free states.
Yes, and so, yeah, exactly.
So where, you know, if they were all slave states, where did the dichotomy... Because the other thing as well is, Thomas Sowell is very good with this, because he always points out that when you get immigration, you don't just get this big blob of amorphous population moving to a big blob of land.
You get very particular populations moving to very particular bits of land.
So New England is New England because it was full of English people who moved over there to settle the colonies, and they didn't bring slaves with them.
Whereas the southern states, they tended to be settled by Scottish people, they tended to be settled by French people, other people who did bring slaves along with them.
It's interesting, the Scots were the prolific slave traders in the British Empire as well.
Yeah, that's not surprising.
No, it's not.
Hammurabi says, more gun crimes occur in areas with large amounts of guns.
In unrelated news, more automobile deaths occur in areas with large amounts of automobiles.
Ban all cars, electric or otherwise.
Cyclist master race.
Gianni says... Dan's gonna be furious at that statement.
Leftist grift.
The Second Amendment arms slave owners.
Meanwhile, in actual history, early gun control efforts in the U.S.
were specifically targeting minorities and working-class unions.
Armed minorities are harder to oppress, and they step on snake.
Yeah, again, like, this is a weird narrative that they're trying for, because especially like, oh, but what about the slave revolt in Haiti?
What happened after the Second Amendment?
Yeah.
And if it did affect the way Americans were viewing things, it was probably because all of the Haitians rose up and then murdered all the women and children as well as just the slave-owning men themselves.
Yeah, it was really awful.
So you probably would go, alright lads, time to free the slaves.
Oh, they did what?
Maybe put that off a little bit.
I'm not saying that that justifies it, but it would affect your thinking on it, wouldn't it?
Well, it would definitely make me want a gun.
Yeah, that's for sure.
Anyway, Tom Webster says, love me St.
George, love me dragonslaying, love me Christ.
All English, by the way.
Eight fifth columnists, eight anti-patriots, eight me race politics.
God bless England, simple as.
Yeah, that's exactly how I feel.
Kevin says, 20 odd years ago, a local council in southwestern England, they put a ban on flying St.
George's flags on St.
George's Day because it might be offensive to some people, namely leftist councillors.
First thing in the morning on St.
George's Day, the local plod got the call that someone was ignoring the ban.
They arrived at a house that had a St.
George's flag covering the whole front of the house.
They pulled it down and then attempted to arrest the occupant.
Then it hit a problem.
It was an Indian Hindu family who were the only non-white people in the village.
Yeah, I've heard multiple stories about this actually.
That's excellent.
Yeah, I've heard this sort of thing.
There was a guy in London as well who runs a pub, a seat guy who runs a pub in London, and the local council came around telling him to take down the St George's flag bunting.
He was like, no.
Why should I?
Exactly, why should I?
It's ridiculous.
In town, the only place you'll see St George's bunting outside of St George's Day, even though I didn't see any is the blues cafe that's run by an Iranian immigrant.
He's the only guy who has the English Bunting on.
I didn't know AA ran a cafe around here.
There's more than one Iranian!
No, I don't think so.
Not that I've heard.
Natalie says, I love England.
I love my English husband.
I'm not English myself, but when we have children, I'll raise them proud Englishmen.
Happy St.
George's Day.
Derek says, the irony is that gun control laws in the U.S.
were founded for racist reasons.
Yeah, that is ironic, isn't it?
It's actually the restriction of it that's racist.
That's the point.
Thus, they are an infringement on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Omar says, if Sadiq is an Englishman, what staples of English culture and tradition wouldn't he replace?
None of the things he listed mean anything to him.
That's exactly right.
That's a great way of framing it.
Because that was the thing.
It was just woke talking points.
These are the good bits about being English.
It's just like, not really, Sadiq.
This is just you and your modern agenda being inserted in something I don't want it inserted in.
Anyway, yeah, that's all we've got time for today, so thank you very much for watching.
▲
Export Selection