All Episodes
Previous Next
April 28, 2023 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters
01:30:34
The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #642
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
*Music* Hello and welcome to the podcast of The Lotus Eaters, episode number 642.
Today is the 28th of April, thank you all for joining us.
I'm your host Harry, joined today by our special guest Nick Buckley.
Thank you very much.
Who has just today got his Twitter account back, congratulations.
I'm back on Twitter!
He's back in that, so could you want to just tell us what your Twitter account is?
Sure.
It's like all my social media, it's Nick Buckley MBE.
Yes, so if you want to follow him if you don't already, then you can do so again now.
He'll be able to post regularly.
And just before we go any further, we do have the Gold Call, the Gold Tier Zoom Call that will be happening at 3.30 today.
And that'll be, I think, Colin Callum will be speaking to you.
So if you do have a Gold Tier membership, then please feel free to join that right now if you want.
And if you don't have a Gold Tier membership and feel like talking to us, hey!
Maybe upgrade your membership.
And without any further ado, we are going to be talking about how voter ID will destroy democracy, who are the real misogynists, and Sudan at our borders.
Let's get into it, shall we?
Yeah.
All right, so voter ID will supposedly destroy democracy.
This is the statement that always comes up whenever voter ID is brought into question, and now it's being brought up in England as well.
England is basically falling into the same conversational trap that America fell into when they started suggesting voter ID in particular states, where the argument against it always turns into, but this will destroy democracy.
This will somehow, in some way, affect people's ability to vote, and you could make the argument that it might affect some people's ability to vote, but I will raise the counterpoint that you would have to be exceptionally lazy or exceptionally stupid to fall into the category of somebody who will be negatively affected by this, as I will cover as we go a little bit further.
What's your thoughts on voter ID to start off with?
It's complicated.
So, of course we want a democracy where the vast majority of people participate in voting for our leaders and that's an issue we have at the moment because most people don't vote.
But we also need to make sure elections are open and fair because what we don't want to happen is someone's elected into office and the losers then don't give consent to the winner because they think fraud's happened.
So there is a line we need to tread there between open and fair elections but also encouraging as many people as possible to vote.
Alright, because I think that there are legitimate reasons, given the state of migration within the country, why there is a need for voter ID and a need to prevent fraud that may not have existed before when we lived in a more homogenous and high trust society.
But it does seem that some of these measures are being put into places that historically in the UK haven't been as much of a problem for fraud.
There are issues with fraud historically in the UK elections, But the voter ID isn't targeting those areas so I'll get into that as we go on.
So first we do have a recent symposium that I was part of that's now up on the website where Stelios and I were talking about the politics of Aristotle and please feel free to sign up to the website and give this one a watch because this was a really interesting discussion.
This is the first time that I've read Aristotle's politics.
I've still not finished it but I got through most of the book that was required for these conversations.
Stelios did guide me through quite a bit because this is the fourth time, I think he said, reading this book.
It's dense.
It's a dense text with a lot in it, and Aristotle as well, because of the nature of the texts that we're examining, they're thousands of years old.
They were discovered.
We don't know exactly the purpose of them, whether they were written treaties that he was doing, whether they were lecture notes, whether they were something else, and as such, it's a bit contradictory in places, and we don't know the order the book should properly be, and there's debate on all of it.
So it makes it an exceptionally difficult piece to discuss, but I still found it to be a very rewarding discussion.
I read it many years ago in ancient Greek.
Oh, really?
I get a better feeling for it if you read it in the Greek.
I bet you do.
I bet you do.
I barely speak English, no man reading Greek.
But if you're interested in that, please feel free to watch it and sign up to the website.
So, this is an article from The Telegraph just explaining the types of ID that are required to vote in the 2023 local elections in May, and this is something that is new to the UK as it points out in the article.
This is the first time that we've ever had to do anything like this.
Before this, it was basically you go in, you give your name and your address, and then you're able to vote, which is Something that's pretty standard for England and places across the UK because traditionally we live in small communities everybody knows each other and you can just walk in you recognize you know the person who's uh who's taking the count of the registry you just give them your name and address and it sorts out but this has been something that's been
put forward after a report by Sir Eric Pickles in 2016, who was the former Communities Secretary, which warned that there was a risk of significant abuse of the electoral system if people could vote on the false pretenses with little risk of detection.
And some people thought that this would be that you could just give somebody else's name and address and just go in and vote on behalf of them, or some of the issues that have been brought up back in 2014 that I'll go on to later on as we go through this segment,
is that some people have said that you could potentially just go from place to place excuse me from voting station to voting station giving the same name and address or giving different people's names and addresses and voting multiple times therefore committing fraud on their behalf or just on your own behalf but i'll go through the rest of this so photographic id will be needed from this date forwards so that's the may 4th and the elections are taking place on may 5th
And to take part in the UK parliamentary by-elections and recall petitions as well as police and crime commissioner votes in England and Wales.
The mandate will then apply to UK general elections from October 2023.
There will be no requirements to produce photographic ID to vote in local or devolved parliamentary elections in either Scotland or Wales.
So this is something that's only going to be applying to England.
And like I said before, electors needed to only verbally confirm the name and address in order to cast a ballot.
So they do, if you go through this article John, if you scroll down a bit for us please, they've just got a big old list of all the different types of voter ID or just general ID that you can use to prove who you are.
There's also something else that they've introduced which is going to be a voter authority certificate Which is free to apply for, you can just go online or call up your local council and just get that sent out to you, which is completely free.
But the other thing they mention in here is whether these new rules apply to postal votes, which is where some of the actual fraud issues in the past have come from, and they say no, you don't need to have any form of photographic ID to vote by post so there are concerns that have been brought up by people that where fraud has actually happened in the past this isn't addressing this issue this might just make it a bit more difficult for some people to go out and vote in person but one of the things that they bring up in here is that a lot of people who are being
Critical of this aren't bringing up that, oh, this isn't actually addressing fraud in the places that it should be.
It's actually just going to make it more difficult for certain people to have their say, including disabled, transgender, non-binary voters, black and ethnic minority groups as well.
And once again, If all of those people are unable to fill out a form to be able to get voter ID for free from the government, I believe the time for being able to do that right now has passed, but for all new elections from that point onwards, you can just apply, get your voter ID the one time, and then you can just go and do that.
But if you're unable to do that as part of those, I think you're insulting the intelligence of those groups, to be perfectly honest.
Of course, the Guardian's first article discussing this was, With that gigantic list of different forms of voter ID.
But it's strict new voter ID laws damage democracy.
Once again, this is just the talking point that we see trotted out every single time when this has been brought up in America.
This will impact disparate communities' ability to vote.
They say in here, young and marginalized people, who are the least likely to back the Tories, will be the most likely to struggle with these new rules.
Which is, once again, a bit of an insult to these people's intelligence.
Who hasn't got ID in 21st century UK?
I would argue you couldn't live here without ID.
You know, if you're younger, how do you buy alcohol?
Go to a pub, you need a passport to get in those places or to buy alcohol, you know, to claim benefits, to do almost anything.
You need ID to open a bank account.
It's not the issue they're saying it is.
And there's probably two reasons why they're arguing against it.
The first reason is everything's racist.
So, so let's not look into it, but everything's racist.
And the other point is, there's a section of the population who will just moan and attack anything.
So this new, obviously this new law comes out, we're going to attack it regardless of what it does, what it says, if it has any benefits.
We're attacking it anyway.
I think there is a reason that the left wing would want to criticise this, and it does relate to migratory populations that have come to the UK recently.
But I do agree with you that in the UK these days, how are you able to do anything if you're at the age of being able to vote in the first place?
How are you able to do anything without already having an ID?
At least get a provisional license.
Provisional licenses are easy to apply for, you might want to learn to drive, or just anything.
You can just get any form of ID and you're able to go out and buy alcohol or something like that.
Especially if you're going to be turning just 18, you'll probably need ID to buy alcohol, which is one of the first things that lots of 18 year olds do in the first place.
So it is very strange that they trot this out but I don't think it's that unusual when you start to dig into some of the details of why the left-wing might want to criticize this.
But there is some other opposition which is coming from this man David Davis who speaks in parliament about this and brings up the point where he says he thinks it's bad for our democracy.
He doesn't really explain Why other than just the typical, oh it's just bad for democracy, why?
Because it is that line of argument.
But he does point out that this isn't actually, as I've mentioned, targeting the problem with postal vote fraud, which has happened in the past in the UK, which is a decent enough point.
But John responded to this with this decent point, which is, the capacity to apply for a free voter ID is a litmus test for your aptitude in evaluating the democratic future of the nation.
Basically, nice point there, John, which is just, if you're unable to apply for an ID in the first place, maybe you don't have the capacity to be determining who should be running the country.
But once again, there's an insult to people's intelligence if you think that they can't do that.
I went to the, last year I went to the Tories levelling up conference in Doncaster I believe it was and you had to take your passport to get in.
Well there you go.
I mean, this is just a pretty normal thing.
I've had to show ID to be able to get into clubs.
I've had to show ID to be able to buy all sorts of things.
I've had to show ID once so that I could buy a monster energy drink for my missus.
And that's just how it is.
That's just how it goes.
So if you're not able to buy a monster energy drink, you're not able to vote.
That's the new rules now.
I mean there is a point we do need to be careful that we're not putting barriers in front of people to stop them voting or to make it difficult for them to be voting.
So any laws like this do need to be examined and looked at to make sure and it needs evaluating after these local elections to see what the outcome was.
So I'm all for looking at this but I don't foresee a problem.
Yeah, that's the thing.
I don't see how this could negatively affect people's ability to vote.
Anybody who, once again, wouldn't already have an ID.
In the first place.
So how are they surviving in the country in the first place?
But I think the main reason why people are concerned about how this will affect people's impact of vote is going to be the fact that there are quite a number of people in this country who shouldn't be here in the first place, who if they're able to just go into any sort of register voter office and just vote right then and there by giving somebody's name and address, doesn't have to be their own, then this will impact their ability to
commit fraud in the local elections and therefore potentially impact Labour's ability to get votes, even though a lot of the polls that have been taken are tending recently to go towards Labour in the first place.
So if they're claiming that voter fraud isn't... if they're claiming that this is going to deny people the ability to vote and then Labour end up winning in the next election anyway, Fingers crossed they don't, but if they do, are they still going to be throwing up the fraud argument?
Are they still going to be throwing up the destroy democracy argument?
No, of course they won't.
But this is from 2007, this article, and I do have to point out I got this article and the next one from watching a recent Scrump and Evelyn stream, so thank you to those two people, because that was a very interesting one and I found this information very interesting.
But if you read this, this is all the way from 2007, so we can assume that things have gotten worse since It's worse since then.
And this is talking about the amount of people who are in the country who are just not registered.
You can take the census, but the census will only get you so far.
The census will only be able to get you so much information.
So the most recent census they were working off here was 2001, which I think showed that we had about 59 million people in the country.
And even at this part, even at this point, we had information showing that it might have been closer to about 77 million people.
In the country, which was even more than the 2011 census, which said about 63-64 million people.
And the information that we got that off was, it was based on what we eat, where one big supermarket chain reckoned that there were around 80 million people living in the UK, based on the demand for food.
And we got that information because they were privately lobbying the competition commission to let it grow its market share.
The argument, reasonably enough they say here, was that the market was far bigger than the regulator realized, because The regulator just goes off the census information.
So expanding their network was fair.
And the article, because it's The Independent, of course, says that, but if they were to reveal this true information, little Englanders and xenophobes would come out in force about the evils of migration.
All because of the fact that there's over 20 million extra people in this country than there should be.
That just means the problem is little Englanders and xenophobes.
You also need to take the supermarket data and it's also questionable because they're gaining out of that.
Well they would be gaining out of that potentially, but there's other information we can cross-check, cross-reference it with as well, in this next article from The Guardian from 2010, once again before the 2011 census, where they were talking about the ability of people to vote.
So this is impacting people's ability to vote, where they're talking about sewage data from Thames Water, which was showing that the amount of sewage that we see being, sewage outflow, ...shows a greater idea of who's actually living in a particular area.
And they said that in places like Slough, there was about 30,000 more people than were officially registered to vote.
And they say Bagley feared consensus takers would have little time to check the estimated 3,500 houses in multiple occupation or the estimated 2,500 living in unregistered sheds in gardens illegally let out, unlikely to return forms in the 56 languages that they speak.
So the main point that they're pointing out here is the Guardian is saying, yes, we've got, if we cross-reference it with the Independent article, we can say that there's different areas, different data points, which is suggesting that there are far more people in this country than there should be.
Yeah.
Certainly based on what the census gives, we've got far less in the census than what all of the rest of the information that we can collect tells us.
And they're saying that the main problem with that is not that there are illegal people living in the country, who shouldn't be, and taking up resources, burdening infrastructure or anything like that.
This Guardian article is going, but they won't be able to partake in elections.
Which is just an absurd point to take from this, as far as I'm concerned.
And then there's other information, which Callum sent me this.
If you scroll up, we've got this woman here, Kim Johnson, MP, who's an MP for Liverpool, a borough of Liverpool, who puts out a check that you have the right voter ID to vote, you can apply for your voter authority certificate, but then also writes it down in Arabic as well.
And Callum points out how strange this is, that she decided that it was relevant to be able to point it out in arabic to write it out in arabic given that he looked checked into this information and said that only three percent of your constituency is arab even fewer will only be able to read arab and even fewer will be citizens so why are you writing this in arabic and i'm not going to imply Negative intentions on her part.
It is just very interesting that the official information that we've got seems to point to that there would be no necessity to do this in the first place.
She obviously thinks.
Those other people in her area, she wants them to vote for.
Even though there's only 3%, she must foresee them being important in her race.
I suppose if she wants to be accommodating to them and show that she's somebody who's worth voting for, like you say, that would certainly be a way to do it.
But again, we should never be doing public messages in other languages.
No, I certainly don't think so because we're England and we should be doing it in English because we're English people.
But let's look at examples of actual UK voter fraud which have occurred in the past and none of them, for the most part, seem to actually point towards in-person voter fraud at the places that you can go to vote.
They all seem to point towards, like I mentioned, this postal voter fraud.
I'm sure there is voter fraud at polling stations.
But it's so difficult to ramp up those numbers to make a real difference I would imagine.
It's postal voting where the mass fraud looks like it's happening.
It's postal vote.
I can understand there definitely can be fraud that happens in person I think in the most recent elections that happened.
Before this one it was mentioned that there were 33 cases that were brought to court.
That's still quite slim but those are the ones that are brought to court so you never know if there's more than that going on.
But certainly the postal fraud seems to be where the actual difference is made.
This is back from 2005 where a former Labour councillor was jailed for election fraud.
So it says, former Labour Party councillor was jailed for three years and seven months yesterday for rigging postal votes in a local council election.
Mohammed Hussain, 61 years old, arranged for the collection of blank ballot papers posted to homes in the ward where he was standing in Blackburn in Lancashire.
Campaigners went house-to-house asking voters to hand over blank ballots, telling them, don't worry, we'll take care of them.
And police contacted a number of postal voters and discovered that Hussein's supporters had collected these blank ballots and the Declaration of Identity form, and then filled in the forms, selecting the Labour candidate and signing it as a witness.
All in all, the officers found 233 fraudulent votes cast for Hussein, and that was enough to put him over.
And they found out this because there was an irregularly high return of postal votes from Hussein's ward, which was about nine percent higher than in the other wards.
So they were like, what's going on here then?
And it turned out to be fraud.
And if we go to the next one, this is a Wikipedia article about Erlan V Rahman, where something very similar happened.
There was a lot of information going on where there was voter fraud in the postal votes.
The next one, this is quite an interesting, it's quite a funny one actually, the court red-handed, court literally In the act where Warehouse was an electoral fraud factory, where three Labour candidates from the Aston Ward in Birmingham, 2005 again, were caught red-handed carrying out postal voting fraud by altering ballot papers or filling in blank papers they had collected from householders.
Krupp Postman had handed over the sacks of postal ballots to Labour candidates Little boys had been paid to steal postal ballots from letterboxes, and bags full of postal votes had arrived late at the count to be included without question in the poll.
And supposedly this was going on in broad daylight, in public, where people could see there were just people walking around with wheelbarrows full of postal votes, just walking down the street, just going to wherever this was, and the police ended up finding them just in the act of filling in their own ballots.
Voting themselves into office, essentially.
So it's interesting that we're going for the avenue of attack where we're making it slightly more difficult to vote in person, just by having the ID that just shows your name and address, which is simple enough, but you can say that that's making it slightly more difficult.
Whereas the actual issues with voter fraud in the past seem to have come entirely from the postal area.
And there is word from 2014, like I mentioned earlier, where this person John Hemming said, an MP for Birmingham, said that there is probably still voter fraud going on and he pointed out that you can go from polling station to polling station, an individual could vote 20 times like this and he said he was checking the details at the time of 10 people who never voted but were down as having voted.
So it's important to keep this sort of To look these things up, because voter fraud is a thing that can happen.
It's a very important thing that can happen because it impacts the outcome of elections.
And especially when you do have, potentially, a much larger population in England than we do have down on record, it's very important to be able to keep track of what's going on.
Like you say, I think it's important to keep these things fair.
keep it open so that you're not putting unnecessary barriers but at the same time when we're living in the situation that we do at the moment I think it's important to be able to keep a good a good hand on what's going on with the elections and like you say we'll see how much this impacts after these local elections we'll see how much it impacts after the next general elections as well yeah I mean for our system to work like I said before you have to have the consent of the loser
And if you lose your election and you think there's been fraud, you're not going to give your consent.
Our whole system will collapse.
It has to be open and fair.
And postal votes, I mean, yeah.
There's way too much room for issues with those.
And maybe they've started with the ballot centres first, and maybe if this works, maybe they'll put that out to the postal votes because you'll imagine the complaint about postal vote ID would be you're picking on disabled people.
That would be the call to them.
Only disabled people you're picking on.
There'll always be some marginalized groups that they'll point to so this impacts them too much.
If they do it to the ballot stations first it affects everybody and then they can say all we're doing now is living the playing field.
We're now going to put it on Postal votes.
There's far too many postal votes.
Postal votes used to be you're bedridden and you can't physically get to a polling station.
You can have a postal vote.
Now it's, I'm too lazy to walk to the postal, the ballot place.
I want a postal vote.
Anyone can apply for one now.
It's abused.
Certainly seems to be from those previous examples, so perhaps it does need to be more the postal votes that need to be clamped down on.
Perhaps you're right that they're doing this as maybe a trial for the postal votes in the future, but we'll see what happens.
And then we need to look at the cultural element of this.
We call it fraud, we call it criminality, but the countries where these individuals have come from You know, mainly Pakistan, Bangladesh.
It's not for the criminality there.
This is called what we do to win an election.
So they're doing what they do to win the election in the game of politics.
And this is what they've done in their own countries.
And they just imported that practice here.
Well certainly given the names of some of the people who were caught previously running for Labour, what was it, Mohammed Hussein, it seems to be interesting that it's those sorts of people who were caught doing it in the past.
But once again, we'll see what happens with this.
If you haven't managed to get your voter ID ready, if you don't already have an ID for these local elections, I suppose you're a bit late, but if you're watching this I imagine you have some form of ID so you'll be able to vote anyway.
So let us know how you get down on, how you go down at the polls.
My section.
Yes.
Javi, are you a misogynist?
I'd like to think so.
But seriously, would you class yourself as a misogynist?
I think the word, like so many others, has lost a lot of its meaning.
Exactly, exactly.
I dislike the word misogyny because, as you said, it's basically meaningless now.
Misogyny today means Anything a woman doesn't like, now, tomorrow, yesterday, in any country, in any time frame, that's misogyny.
Where, if you look at the root word, the root of the word misogyny, from the Greek, it means hatred of women.
I've never met a man yet who hates women.
I've met men who hate individual women, and I know women who hate individual men, but I've never met a man who hates all women.
I'm trying to think if I've met anybody who hates all women and I can't think of one.
No, because those people don't exist.
There is no hatred of women from men.
So misogyny started changing from the early 2000s.
The Oxford Dictionary changed the definition of misogyny to hatred or dislike or prejudice against women.
So misogyny now is just another word for sexism.
And the reason why we don't use the word sex, well the reason why some women don't use the word sexism anymore is because men started using it against women.
That's a bit sexist, saying I can't do this, I can't do that.
That's sexist.
You're being sexist against a man.
And some feminists went, We don't like our weapon being used against us.
We need a new weapon and the new weapon was misogyny because it's hatred of women.
Men can't start using that word against us.
We can use misandrist but even less people understand what that word means.
You say that nobody really cares.
Men don't care and that is the real issue.
Men just take it on the chin and go on with life.
So I'm glad I'm talking about this today because obviously I'm back on Twitter from this morning and last year when I was thinking about misogyny I thought what do people think about that?
So I tweeted out last year and I tweeted misogyny does not exist.
Just those words and thought right let's see what response I get.
I got a lot of response.
And all the response from women was, yes it does exist.
Even from very sensible women who I follow, who I agree with the vast majority of the time.
And you were purposefully poking the hornet's nest with that one.
Yes, and hence why I probably got kicked off in the first place.
And I wanted to see why people thought misogyny exists, because they would understand the definition of the word.
And so I asked them, I put another tweet following that saying, can you give me some evidence of misogyny?
around the world, just give me some evidence of misogyny because I don't see it anywhere.
And then I was bombarded again.
So we got some replies such as, the Taliban, burning witches in medieval England, sexual assaults, and even serial killers.
And I thought, this is a bit extreme, so I replied to them all.
So the Taliban, let me make this perfectly clear for someone who does not support the Taliban.
The Taliban do not hate women.
The Taliban are trying to protect women in a medieval...
Crazy type of way.
That's why they make them wear burkas.
They're doing it because they think this is protecting them from male gaze, from sexual assault.
Well yeah, that's the argument I've always heard.
That if, from their perspective, in their countries, if the women don't cover up the way that they do, then they will just be sexually assaulted and raped in the street.
Exactly.
It's very strange.
It's backwards.
Indicative of an incredibly different culture to ours, certainly.
But I can see the warped logic in where they're coming from.
Me too.
And even though I disagree with it, and it is a backwards culture, even I can see they don't hate their women.
They're trying to protect them.
Witch burning trials of medieval Europe.
What nobody knows is 25% of all the witches burnt to death were men.
This wasn't 100% women, 25% who were burnt to death were men who were accused of being witches.
In some countries in Europe, accusations of being a witch were something like 80-90% of the accusations were against men.
So if this was misogyny, men weren't doing a very good job about this because we were burning ourselves to death and being accused.
I don't know too much about it and I don't want to comment too hard on it because most of what I learnt about the witch burning trials was what I learnt in secondary school and to be honest, now looking back I can't trust much of what I learnt in secondary school.
But I do know that it was mainly just, it wasn't just
accusing women and people for the sake of accusing them for being women a lot of it was down to interpersonal conflicts that were going on and a lot of it also was down to people pointing to people who were trying to sow discord within a community so obviously you can't justify the fact that people got burned off the back of it but it wasn't because they just hated women they didn't just go we want to burn some women today it was maybe somebody's done something in the community that's trying to tear us all apart she must be doing it because she's a witch
It's nothing to do with, it's just a woman.
It was also, I want your land.
I'm going to accuse you of being a witch.
You're going to get burnt and I'll buy your land at auction really cheap.
There was also, I mean, humans are complicated and we can be nasty creatures.
There was lots of things in play during the medieval witch burning.
The point was, it wasn't misogyny, it wasn't just picking on women.
Sexual assault.
Sexual assault isn't driven by a hatred of women, it's driven by animalistic lust.
It's wrong, and I would have most people who commit sexual assault hung.
So again, I'm not sticking up for men at all on sexual assault.
We need to deal with those men harshly.
But we lie to ourselves and lie to the community when we're saying men attack women because they hate them.
Well, I think from whenever I've seen people talking about this, they try to use the argument of rape is a tool used by men to assert power over women because it allows them to make the argument, the classic one that I don't hear as much anymore, but I remember it being big maybe in 2014, 2015, around the game of eight years, that we live in a rape culture.
That we live in a rape culture because we live in the patriarchy and because we live in a A world where men exert all power over women, so therefore anything bad that a man does to a woman isn't because of a situational, in-the-moment decision that is made, because like you say, it's made out of animalistic sexual lust, which is obviously terrible if done in that way.
But it's because of the fact that he's just pre-planned it, because he knows deep down that he's able to get away with it, because we live in the patriarchy.
It was just another avenue for feminists to be able to undermine men, really.
Exactly.
You know, if you didn't like spaghetti, would you go out and buy spaghetti at a restaurant and then sit there going, I don't like spaghetti?
We don't crave, we don't purchase, we don't desire what we hate.
We only desire and want and will pay for things we actually want.
Now, obviously, sexual assault is completely wrong, but men don't hate women.
It's an animalistic urge that some weak men allow them to overtake their common sense.
Now the next image, people also... John if you could go to the next image please.
Thank you.
Thank you.
People also said that serial killers, that's misogyny, serial killers are always killing women.
So I did a bit of research on the FBI.
The FBI state 70% of all victims of serial killers are women.
That leaves 30% who are not, and 15% of all serial killers are actually women, according to the FBI.
Now, this crime obviously looks like it affects women more than it affects men, and that's true.
But if this was just purely misogyny, those figures would be 100% women who are being killed.
I think pointing to serial killers, yeah, they're probably going to be pointing to somebody like Ted Bundy, or somebody who did that, who mainly targeted women, like you say, Jack the Ripper, who murdered prostitutes.
But the fact of the matter is, nobody is defending this.
No man, if we lived in a misogyny culture that just hated women for no particular reason, We would be defending this, but we're not.
I've never met a single person who's defended Ted Bundy and what he did.
But at the same time, you could make the argument that John Wayne Gacy, he killed little boys, and there's no misogyny in that.
Just serial killers aren't a monolith, and serial killers are individuals who are all damaged, awful people who do what they do for individual, different reasons.
So you can't just say it's all misogyny.
Exactly.
Bad things happen to both sexes.
Men are twice as more likely to be murdered.
Men are the vast victims of assault and knife crime.
And perpetrators as well.
Yeah.
So, bad things happen to both sexes, not evenly depending on the crime we're looking at.
So, no, bad things happen and we need to address those bad things.
But just saying this is all about men hating women.
Stops us looking at the root causes of why these crimes are happening.
So a simple low-resolution answer.
Men hate women and they don't.
If we could have the next image, please.
Another accusation is women, social media is a cesspit for women.
You know, being online.
And that's true, it is a cesspit for women.
Cesspit for everyone!
Cesspit for everybody!
Absolutely everybody, it's a cesspit.
Now, in 2016, Demos did some research on UK posts aimed at women and found that 50% of the hatred came from other women.
That's quite a nice equitable split.
50% men, 50% women were attacking women, being misogynistic.
And then in 2014, two years before, Demos again analysed 2 million tweets and found that male public figures got several times more abuse than female public figures.
So both figures are getting it, and certain people will get more, like Diane Abbott, who I'm not a fan of, gets some horrendous abuse online, which she shouldn't get.
But that, again, doesn't transfer to all women get all the abuse online, because everybody gets abuse online.
And there shouldn't be any abuse online, but it happens.
It's not misogyny.
I think if somebody tried to turn it around and say, there shouldn't... I understand your meaning when you say there shouldn't be any abuse online, but that seems to me... I know that you don't believe that it could happen.
That's my definition of abuse, yeah.
Yeah, yeah.
It's an ideal, but it's not possible, because people wouldn't be like that.
People are always going to find any opportunity to be nasty to one another, especially online, where you're so disconnected from the person that you're throwing an insult at.
Because if you were to insult somebody in person, there's a chance they could just clock you up.
Yeah.
So humans, on the whole, nasty creatures.
So there'll always be abuse, but it'd be nice if there wasn't.
But that's never going to happen because of who we are.
So, what do social scientists say about misogyny?
Can you guess?
Have you read any social science papers recently on misogyny?
Not recently.
Not recently, right.
Let me refresh you then, in case you read these ones.
Alright, thank you.
According to the work of Dunbar, Barron and Bananji in 2016, they found that boys and men have no negative associations with female whatsoever.
They could not find any negative thoughts by men towards women in general.
Males reported stronger positive attitude towards females compared to their own sex.
The results in females were robustly pro-female, strongly positive towards females and strongly negative towards males.
Which means men prefer females, women prefer females and actively dislike men more.
I mean, social sciences, I'm glad that the people have done the research into it.
This seems like something that would be obvious to me because men compete with each other for the attention of women.
It's what we're designed to do.
So obviously we're going to see other men as competition and we're going to see women as something to strive for.
The prize.
Yeah, the prize.
Now, if someone's saying, oh Nick, you've just picked one report there, of course you can pick a report that would say what you want it to say.
So, let's look at another three or four.
Early research by Eagley and Maldinick in 1989, and then another report they did in 2091 with a guy called Otto, showed that adult males and females both have positive attitude towards females.
Then towards males.
Another report in 2014, Rudman and Goodwin, concluded that women alone possess a cognitive mechanism that promotes on-group preference.
Data from Adu and Brewer, 2005, showed that unlike women, a man sees both sexes as the same in terms of being a member of the group, such as a workplace or university.
Now that's really interesting, that one.
A man will see a woman as part of his tribe, part of his team, part of his army.
Because a man has to see that because we're there to protect and you want everybody on your side where women don't necessarily see the same thing.
And the final report, Vogel in 2007.
You're married or a long-term partnership so you might find... Engaged.
Engaged.
So let me tell you if you think this one's true.
I think it's true.
Vogel found that a woman partner in a relationship has complete charge of it and that wives behaviourally exhibit more domineering attempts and were more dominant than husbands during discussions.
This work was confirmed by Coleman and Strauss in 1986 who found that women are the controlling partner in 90% of couples Well, certainly women have a special way of exerting influence over their men.
I wouldn't say that it's so cut and dry as completely domineering, in a sense, but I did say to my missus the other day that when you're living with a woman, the woman is like an invasive species.
Because any room that the woman has complete and total access to will become the woman's room and you will just be able to exist in a corner of it.
So I had to fight, I moved recently, I had to fight to be able to have my man cave.
Because I said I love you, you're amazing, I just need some space.
Please.
But all of the relationships I've had, and I've not had that many actually, When it comes to relationships, the women do take the lead on that, because they were designed for that.
We used to have the man's world and the woman's world.
The man's world was outside, hunting, gathering, protecting.
The woman's world was inside, taking care of the house, looking after children, and the social aspects of the family.
So the house is the woman's aspect of the relationship.
Well, they have the nesting instinct, don't they?
Yeah, so that's for them.
And men are a lot more amenable.
So we'll just go, If you want to.
If it stops you going on, if it stops you what we call moaning, what you call is a discussion, if it stops the moaning discussion, I'll do that.
I'll go there with you.
Just for all our female viewers, this is coming from a place of love.
Of course, it's just we're all different.
Men will take on board what women want a lot more than I feel women will take on board what men want in certain aspects because we're different.
Yep, so no social scientist has found any credible evidence at all that men hate women.
There is no evidence out there at all.
In fact, what they have found is men prefer women more than they prefer other men, which is common sense if you're a man.
You know, how many friends have you dumped just to get close to that woman?
How many friends have you slandered so that girl won't like him because you like the girl?
I've not really engaged in that kind of behaviour personally.
I once, don't ever tell anyone this, I was at a party when I was at college and I went upstairs and the school I fancied was upstairs, no sorry, the school I fancied was downstairs and I went upstairs and her boyfriend was upstairs kissing another woman.
So I came downstairs and said to her, Janet, I think he wants you upstairs.
Oh no.
And I went upstairs and they split up.
Were you a shoulder to cry on?
No, she cried with friends and went home, so that didn't work.
Oh no, damn.
All that effort wasted.
I was 17 years old, I wouldn't do that now.
That's despicable behaviour.
Interfering in someone else's relationship.
I wouldn't do it now.
I was 16, 17 and horny.
That's why I did it.
It's just truth.
I respect the truth.
Why else would I do it?
I mean, obviously.
Yeah, obviously.
So, this image now is Germaine Grey, who I don't really like.
I don't dislike her that much, but I don't really like.
She quoted in her book, The Female Eunuch, which is famous for, published in 1970, she said in there, women have very little idea of how much men hate them.
That sounds a lot like projection to me.
That sounds like she's just reflecting her own hatred of men back.
Yeah, she's obviously a feminist, a famous feminist.
Men do not hate women.
But let's have a look at who.
Let me ask you a series of questions and then you can give me the answer.
So let's find out who really hate women.
So, who looks upon motherhood with disdain?
Who looks upon motherhood with disdain.
I think I know where you're going with this.
Would you say feminists?
I would say feminists, yes.
Who tricks women into prioritising their careers and working like a dog?
Other women?
Yep.
Feminists.
I would also argue large corporations as well, which don't necessarily have to be run by women, but a lot of them are doing it so that they can just maintain the certain culture that we exist in right now and also prioritise bottom line.
Prioritise worker trades.
And would they claim that we're a feminist corporation because we're promoting women?
They probably would.
Exactly.
Who lied to women that they can have it all and be everything and still be desired?
Generally speaking, women who are past their prime don't have anything and still want to make other women feel like, oh, I made all the right life choices.
Yeah, but now I'm 50 on my own with my cats.
Some would say that that's desirable.
I would not.
Who lied to women that they can be obese, healthy and attractive?
Lizzo.
Not recently, but before that.
The fat positive movement started in the 60s, 70s.
Again, feminists again, giving women poor advice.
Who lied to women that they could sleep around like men and with no negative consequences?
Started in the 60s, feminists again, lying to women.
With that, I would also say some men who wanted women to be easier to sleep around with, but then again, Chris Williamson always points this out, this has kind of got the Pareto distribution where it mainly impacts the top 20% of men get to sleep with all the women, the bottom 80% of men have more and more difficulty finding a consistent partner that they can stay with than ever before.
Yeah, but women sleeping around mentally destroys them.
They're not the same as men.
We can detach sex from emotion.
Men can have sex with women they hate.
Not misogyny, because I don't hate all women, but you can dislike a woman and really dislike her, but you have a couple of pints I'll sleep with you.
You're very rare you'll find a woman who hates a man and would sleep with him.
No, this is all true.
Yeah, it is true.
I'm not saying I've done any of that, by the way.
Wink wink.
Nudge nudge.
Who's behind the trans movement?
Feminist all comes out of gender theory which started in women's studies and gender studies at universities.
It's feminists again pushing this.
There is also an argument to be made here as well that a lot of the things that feminists are complaining about now with the men who are dressed as women, men in dresses encroaching in women's spaces, the legal framework to allow that sort of thing was built up by feminists basically making it illegal for men to have single-sex spaces.
Whereas before you used to be able to have boys clubs, you used to be able to have something like the Boy Scouts.
Feminists come along and go, oh it's inequitable, it's evil, it's misogyny, that women aren't allowed to get in on these men's spaces.
Whereas, like you say, in the past it was probably just blokes just like, I just need three hours away from the wife.
Yeah.
I mean, who was the first sex who started dressing like the opposite sex?
It was women.
Women have been dressing like men now for 50, 60 years.
Did men complain about it?
No, we didn't.
If you want to dress like a man, dress like a man.
When women started invading male-only spaces with cries of equality and feminism, and we lost the vaults in the pubs where men only, we lost men's clubs, we lost the Boy Scouts, we lost all these places where men went to be away from women so we could bond with other men.
That was where young men would go to these places and find out what it's like to be a man.
And if you misbehave, other men would hold you to account.
But where men are around women, we're different creatures.
Our conversation's mellow, we're not as robust, we're not as challenging.
We lost all those spaces to women.
We're more feminised, really, aren't we?
Yeah.
And now this is happening to women, which it shouldn't be, but some women are complaining, but no one's complained in the last 60 years of what's happening to men.
Oh yeah, of course they didn't.
And finally, who supports the killing of babies in the womb?
I certainly don't.
Over a quarter of a million UK babies are killed in the womb every year, supported by the vast majority of feminists.
The biggest killers of females in the UK are called pregnant mothers because they kill 120,000 females a year.
This is awful.
Absolutely awful.
So let me conclude this by saying feminism want women to be more like men because they hate being women.
That's the real misogyny.
Feminists feel that women are an inferior version of men.
And they're not an inferior version.
Women are perfect, almost.
Women are semi-divine.
They bring life into the world.
That's why men have protected women for millennia.
When there's an emergency, who shouts women and children first?
It's not the women.
The men shout that and men will punish other men who do not obey that.
Men do not hate women.
We're there to protect and provide for them because we love them and we know they're more valuable than us.
Women are more valuable to society than men are because they can give birth and all we do is impregnate women.
We've got a lesser role in it.
Women are more valuable.
And the biggest insult anybody throws at men is that we hate them and we don't hate women.
And we need to stop putting that out there, especially to young boys and men and young men, that misogyny exists.
It doesn't exist.
And I'd like to think I've given a fairly good, comprehensive example there of why it doesn't exist.
So if you're a feminist, we don't hate you.
We love you.
Not you as a feminist per se, but the woman sat next to you, we do.
That was a nice and wholesome message at the end there, showing our credentials that we don't hate women.
We love you all, really.
Onto the next segment.
So, we've got Sudan at our borders.
I hope everybody in England is ready to take in a new influx of immigrants because that is guaranteed what is about to happen.
Because if there's a conflict that happens, Anywhere else in the world that isn't England, and there are dozens of safe countries between here and there, you can be guaranteed that the Tory party are going to be the first to try and fling open the floodgates and let who knows how many foreign people in, and for who knows how long.
Because traditionally the idea of the refugee is the conflict goes on, they go to somewhere else where they can stay safe while the conflict is occurring, and then when the conflict ends, they can go back home.
I do not know that this happens all that much in the UK.
We do have quite a large amount of outward migration.
I think about 600,000 was last year, but we did take in about 1.1 million people in total, so that still left us with over 500,000.
Over half a million people coming into the country last year that stayed here, and that's just illegal migration, and that's not including the boats as well.
And then there's just the fact that we get all this refugee, illegal boat migration,
where these people are supposedly coming in and claiming asylum from places like Albania which don't have any wars or conflicts going on in the first place they're just coming over for economic benefits but Sudan to be fair right now does have issues it does have conflict that's just broken out in the past few weeks the problem is there are plenty of safe places between here and there plenty of safe places that have much closer cultural ties to it where they would probably fit in a lot better but there is one problem between those places
and where we are here and why they would prefer to go here, which is we have more money to give them.
Yeah.
Which is basically the only reason why this ever happens and why they only ever tend to come to England, because they just want to get even more money than they would.
Although I did point out in a segment the other week that Scotland is going to be doing its minimum income guarantee, which is going to be a form of UBI in the next few years, which is going to make it very, very, very easy for people to come in and get a minimum income guarantee of about £25,500, which could make Scotland much more attractive to immigrants than England.
So if that happens, perhaps they won't come over here to go live in England, which has had its demographics vastly changed over the past 30 or so years, and might instead go to Scotland, which is still about 96% Scottish.
So even though the problem might just go to Scotland, and Scotland gets worse, I live in England, dammit!
I love England!
Sorry, Scotland, but if your own leaders are going to sell you down the river, The only good news is Scotland can't afford it.
Oh yeah, that's a good point as well.
So it won't happen.
We'll end up paying for it if it does.
Just like the Welsh are saying they want to give £1500 to every immigrant.
All these things are great ideas, it's not going to happen, they can't afford it.
The country relies on the South West of England to fund the rest of the UK.
It's not going to happen.
But when we're looking at Sudan, we need It's all complicated, of course it's complicated, but we need to start looking at these areas and we need to say to ourselves, are we making these areas better or worse by accepting immigration from those areas, as in refugees, asylum seekers or economic migrants?
And the answer is we're making these areas worse.
We're turning more into basket cases because what happens is, let's look at Sudan.
So anybody with any intelligence or any money in Sudan has already left the country, left years ago.
So all we leave behind are the poor and the stupid.
Then we have wars that come along because you've got the tribes fighting it and these countries are all very tribal.
Now the countries were made up by Western Europe going that's called Sudan and they split tribes in half so they're always fighting each other.
When we start saying we're going to take some political refugees or asylum seekers, we then suck out the people from those countries who should be fixing their own countries.
The young men of Sudan should be staying and fighting for a better country.
But what we say to them is, Abandon your country and come to the West.
You'll have a worse life probably, but we'll give you some money.
And then Sudan and these countries just get worse and worse and worse and worse.
And it'll get to a stage where these countries have to be re-colonised by Western countries.
Because the basket case is now, and if all those people in those countries want to live in the West, well why doesn't the West just go to Sudan and say, this is Sudan 2.0, we're running the Sudan now.
I mean, I don't think that it'll be possible for Western countries to re-colonise those places.
Not after we've been destroyed as we have by Third World immigration.
Maybe England of the 1980s would have been able to do something like that.
Tongue in cheek, it's never going to happen.
Obviously not going to happen.
And we never should do it, because part of the problem in the Third World is the West Keeps messing in it.
We should say to Sudan, sort yourselves out.
If you have to have a civil war, then people die.
Do you know what?
People die.
We had a civil war in the UK.
That's how we got the democracy we've got.
America, France, we've all had civil wars.
What we say to these countries is, stop fighting between yourselves and don't resolve any of your problems.
But sometimes it should be, get on with it.
Sort yourselves out.
And then maybe you can join the Decent League of Nations.
Or instead of doing anything like that, we just go, OK, we'll just take in a load of refugees, which doesn't actually solve anything or make anything better over there.
It just makes things worse over here, which is always the problem.
And it's always just for that short-term satisfaction of being able to say, oh, well, we saved people.
OK.
But we've ruined this country in doing so and I think the leaders of this country have much more of a duty to keep this country operating and keep this country somewhere where you, if you're English, you can live a good life than we do for people from foreign countries to be able to come over here and take benefits.
The right thing benefits both countries, the right thing benefits us but it also benefits the Sudan by us not sucking out all their young men, sucking out their rich people and leaving them worse, in a worse situation.
We have to treat the people of Sudan as adults and say you need to sort this out and there will be wars and people unfortunately will be killed but it happens in every country as it develops.
And we just keep putting a lid on these problems, damp it down, damp it down, damp it down.
But the problems are still there.
The tribal conflicts are still there.
It has to come out at some point.
And only they can sort themselves out.
And on the subject of things that go wrong when we allow lots of third-worlders to come into this country, we do have a recent video that Carl did that he put a lot of work into, which has proven to be quite popular on the website, where he did just a definitive timeline of the grooming gang controversies that went on in England that have been going on for decades at this point.
So this is something that's available for premium users only.
I know that some people have said that they would like it if it was made free, But the fact of the matter is that this is the kind of premium work that we do, that we put on the website for our subscribers.
So if you are really interested in watching this, you'll need to sign up for the website.
And that is not too difficult because it is only £5 per month for the Bronze tier subscription, which gives you access to everything we do on here.
So if you want to watch this and more work like it, you can go on there, sign up for a membership, and you'll have access to it and everything else.
So for some context on what's been going on in Sudan.
So this happened only a few days ago.
It broke out on about the 15th.
So it's broken out in the Sudanese capital of Khartoum.
Clashes between the regular army and a paramilitary force were called the Rapid Support Forces, the RSF.
Sudan is a prominently Muslim, because it is North Africa, so what do you expect?
It's predominantly Muslim.
The country's official languages are Arabic and English.
Since the 2021 coup, Sudan has been run by a council of generals, led by the two military men at the center of this dispute, which is General Abdel... I'm going to get these names wrong, so bear with me... Abdel Fattah al-Burhan.
And, uh, who is the, uh, head of the armed forces, effectively the president, and his deputy and the leader of the RSF, General Mohamed Hamdan de Gallo, better known as Hemet... I told you I'd get these names wrong, I'm rubbish at this, uh, Hemetti.
So what happened is shooting began.
They had disagreements on how the country should be run.
Apparently there were plans to include a 100,000 strong RSF in the army who would lead the new force.
I assume the general, the president of the country, decided this would make it so that his power was weakened in the country and give more power to his deputy.
So they ended up At war with one another, shooting Bergan on 15th April following days of tension as members of the RSF were redeployed around the country in a move that the army saw as a threat.
It's disputed who fired the first shot but honestly when you're in the confusion of war it doesn't really matter at this point who fired the first shot.
All that matters on the ground is that this is what is happening.
People are being caught up in it and it's obviously terrible for the people of Sudan who are being caught up.
So in the initial firing it seems that more than 400 civilians have died And that's according to the World Health Organization.
Much of this conflict is also happening in urban areas, and civilians have become unwitting victims, according to this article.
The Sudanese air forces have also mounted airstrikes in the capital, a city of more than 6 million people, which is likely to have led to civilian casualties.
Ceasefires had been announced earlier on, so that people could escape the conflict, but they weren't observed.
I think they are being observed now, or at least at the moment, possibly still as we're talking right now.
We've got a 72-hour ceasefire going on at the moment.
But obviously for the people involved in this conflict, for the people who are just caught in between these two rival military factions, like you said, it's very tribal.
You get two people after a coup who are both at the top of the totem pole, so to speak.
They're vying to be able to get the majority of power so that one of them can be the top dog rather than having to share the power.
And then it just ends up like this.
They just end up fighting.
It's a terrible thing that happens, but sadly when you're talking about countries in Africa, North Africa, anywhere around that continent, you do often get problems like this.
This has been going on for millennia.
The fights in Africa, you know, you look at the Zulu Empire, and these tribes have been fighting each other for as long as they can remember.
And some of these grievances go back a long way.
And there's nothing we can do in a Sudan.
The most we can do is send some relief to somewhere like Egypt, who They'll probably cross the border into Egypt or some other countries near there.
We can send some relief and money to them.
That should be the extent of our involvement in this.
That's all we should have done in the Ukraine.
So this isn't, oh, I don't want black people coming to the UK.
I didn't want Ukrainians coming to the UK.
And last time I looked, they're white.
The UK is full.
No more economic immigrants, no more asylum seekers, no more refugees.
I already pointed out in the first segment that even back in 2007-2010 estimates given from different data points of the amount of food that's being bought and the amount of sewage that we've got on the outflow suggest that even at that point We already had, what, 77 to 80 million people in the country, which is even more than the most recent census took down.
I think the most recent census was, what, 67 million people?
Something like that.
So at this point, when we've had even more immigration and even more migrants coming over on the illegal boats and such, we probably have close to 100 million people in this country.
Most of whom shouldn't be here at this point, which is causing immense and clear strain to all of the infrastructure, all of the services that we provide.
Do you think the NHS was built to be able to sustain a population of 100 million people?
No, it was not.
It was meant to sustain the population of England, which at the time was so much less than it is right now.
But what we need to do, according to Suella Braverman, of course, is open up the floodgates to even more.
She suggested that Sudan refugees, we need to accept thousands of them into the country as part of asylum.
They're allowed to seek asylum as mass evacuations are carried out in the war-stricken country.
Now, there are British citizens in Sudan, and I think that we can, you know, accept that if there are British citizens in Sudan, then yes, we should be saving them.
I would argue they should be going nowhere.
when it comes to other refugees, there are dozens and dozens and dozens of other countries between here and there and elsewhere in the world that they could go to which are going to be more culturally stable for them to be able to go to one place where they're not going to come over to England and disrupt our culture as well as their own culture.
I would argue they should be going nowhere.
They should be staying in Sudan and sorting their own country out.
Well, this is the case for civilians and I think you could make the argument...
So...
Women and children, for instance.
No, no, I'm not a misogynist, so I believe that women should be fighting for their own country.
Women should be fighting to stop the murdering and the killing of their children and their parents.
So, this isn't just only the men.
Women should be fighting as well.
You can't have equality and then opt out when it doesn't fit you.
I don't think these countries are going to have it.
No, not that they haven't, but we should stop encouraging people running away from their problems.
I think it's different when it is women and children.
Like you said in the previous segment, the men are the ones always saying women and children first.
I think if it's women and children who are in danger, they should be able to escape to nearby countries.
Neighbouring countries, preferably.
If there's no conflict there, Neighbouring countries should be able to take those people in who are vulnerable and most at risk, whereas if it's going to be coming all the way across a continent, going from one continent in North Africa up into the Middle East and then through Europe all the way over here, no.
That shouldn't be happening.
We don't need these people coming over here.
Them coming over here isn't going to be helping us other than potentially giving the leaders who decide on these things, without any democratic mandate, without getting the permission of anybody, they come over here so it makes them feel good and they can get good write-ups from the government.
And then what happens next year when Nigeria implodes and there's a civil war in Nigeria and then it happens in Chad and have you seen the state of South Africa?
Not a civil war in South Africa, they're just killing each other anyway.
Well exactly.
How many of these people do we take?
So we have to say no at some point.
Yeah, we don't have a duty to take any of these people in.
We should be saying no now.
And somebody pointed out when this was posted on Twitter and just said they just have nowhere else to go.
And this is a comparative map.
Obviously, it's roughly done up.
But I saw a few people posting things like this.
OK, this is the size of the UK, the size of the entirety of the UK, including and I know it's not part of the UK, but including the Republic of Ireland is smaller than the entire landmass of Sudan.
And they only have about 50 million people.
Yeah.
Whereas we, potentially, estimate, could have up to 100 million people on our landmass, and that's just in England.
That's not including the population of Scotland, that's not including the population of Wales.
So it's absolutely ridiculous that we, just because of the fact that we are successful, and because some would say, oh we deserve it, We deserve it because of the crimes of colonialism, the crimes of going over and civilising uncivilised people.
We deserve it because we stole from them.
I mean, we also left a hell of a lot of infrastructure, we also improved literacy rates, we improved life expectancies over in places like India, but no, apparently this means that we have to take in...
Potentially hundreds of thousands of people from Sudan.
It's just ridiculous and just on a practical level, impractical, you cannot expect us to be able to take all of these people in.
And we have already been taking people over, we sent over a warship and air and sea evacuation the other day, and this seems to have been mainly for the British citizens that have been trapped in the country.
So this is fine.
As far as I'm concerned, if they're the British citizens, then okay, I can make the exception there.
But if it's just the refugees, then...
They've got plenty of other places that they can go.
But, of course, we had protests in London.
Already.
Because, of course, we did.
Because whenever anything goes on, you can be assured that there is an army of NGOs ready to print up flyers like this, organize people, and make it look like there's a ground swelling of popular support for this kind of action, when really, there isn't.
Because, Suella, isn't there somebody that you forgot to ask?
That's right, the English people.
There was this poll put up on Twitter.
Yesterday, from political polls, which, for a time being, they asked the question, should Britain set up a safe and legal route for asylum seekers in Sudan to seek refuge in the UK?
For a time, this was going very much in the way that I'm sure the people who put these pollsters, who put it up, expected it to, which was the vast majority were saying yes.
Everyone's going, of course we can.
You had all of the bleeding heart Ukraine, European Union flags in the comments go, of course we can.
We had one person in the next one that I saw saying, well I'm not a fascist, of course I support refugees.
And then people on our side of the aisle got wind of this.
And everyone descended and took it very, very quickly from just a vast majority, like 80% saying yes, to all of a sudden, this one beat it out by a slim margin, by almost Brexit margins, 52% saying no.
And then in the next one, we have this one saying, should Britain be welcoming or refusing people crossing the English Channel by small boats?
This was a big no.
Yeah, refusing.
Refusing.
And if we scroll down, let me see if I can see the tweets.
No, no, no, keep going.
Where is it?
No, maybe it's on the other one, actually.
Oh wait no, there it is, there it is, go back, go back.
John Grisdale, I'm not a fascist, I welcome refugees.
Big brain tape, big brain tape.
And Count Dankula happily showed up in the bottom underneath this saying, fascism is when you stop the complete collapse of the money pot system, I am very smart.
Good response there Count, because honestly it's so ridiculous to be able to just say fascism is when you don't accept in refugees.
Everything is fascist.
Yeah, anything that isn't just leftist progressivism is complete fascism.
All the time, every time, in every place, the word has no meaning whatsoever now.
And amusingly, while this is all going on, outlets like the Guardian are still screeching about not allowing burglars into this country on boats.
So the UK is now set to potentially ignore European Court of Human Rights rulings on small boats after Sunic Caves in to the Tory right!
So the news here was that it came after the Home Office.
Figures on Tuesday revealed that 5,049 people have arrived in the UK after crossing the Channel so far just this year.
And that's just over the Channel crossings.
About 113 people were detected in three boats on Monday, suggesting an average of about 38 people per boat.
I do not believe that it is that low a figure because I have seen images and videos of boats where it is possibly 100 people per boat.
Possibly even more than that.
And you know that the people Organizing the crossings, I'm making an absolute killing over it, and no matter how much the Guardian and other outlets would want me to feel bad because they post images of sad-looking people in refugee war-torn countries, no, they shouldn't be entering the country that way.
They have broken the law.
They have broken the law, they have broken our borders by doing so.
Backbench rebels have been pushing the Prime Minister to harden the illegal migration bill so that ministers can ignore interim rulings.
One of the Strasbourg court's Rule 39 injections blocked the government's first attempt to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda last year.
These so-called interim measures are typically used to suspend an expulsion or extradition, often used by asylum seekers who fear persecution if they are returned to their home country.
So it's basically just a way of a foreign court showing up and going, no, you can't do that.
No, you can't have sovereignty in your own country, despite the fact that that's what you're supposed to be able to do, despite the fact that that's what Brexit was supposed to be about, as far as I'm aware.
The Tories could do this today if they wanted to.
All they do is talk tough on this and achieve absolutely nothing.
This is just another PR stunt that will never come to pass.
That is absolutely correct, which made it all the more entertaining, and I had to end on this because I thought, it's Friday, we might as well end on a little bit of a laugh.
I found this article from the Guardian coming up just today, why Rishi Sunak might be the most socially conservative Prime Minister of his generation.
Okay, alright.
Bit of a stretch.
I mean, if he was, to be fair, it wouldn't be that difficult because all that would mean is you have to be just slightly to the left of Chairman Mao to be the most socially conservative Prime Minister of your generation, but let's see the argument they bring here.
I think you can probably guess where the argument is going to go.
Do you want to give idea for three reasons why he's the most socially conservative and therefore fascist, therefore evil Prime Minister of his generation?
I'm not sure.
The fact he's rich?
No, actually, no.
They do bring it up, but that's just a general lefty complaint about people.
That he's socially conservative?
He's married?
No, no, no.
I've got no idea.
This has really thrown me this.
Really?
Okay, alright, okay.
So, they bring up first that both of his predecessors, that's Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, were happy to play to the Tory gallery on Culture Wars, but Johnson as London Mayor was a liberal on immigration and gay rights, which is not what people voted him in for, but that's what he was anyway.
And Truss was a stalwart at the LGBTQ+, LGBTQ+, conservative events, and as a student, campaigned on drug legislation.
So, obvious liberal... liberal saints.
I'm sure the Guardian had nothing but good things to say about them at the time as it was going on, and weren't also painting them as the newest Hitler or Mussolini to appear in Parliament.
Sunak is said to be personally driven.
In particular on the Equality Act and trans rights.
Here we go.
He has taken a direct interest in Kemi Badenoch's drive to change the Equality Act to allow organisations to bar trans women from single-sex spaces and events, including hospital wards and sports.
This is beginning to sound quite racist to me.
Are they having a lot of because he's brown?
I don't know.
That's what it sounds like to me.
Why does a man in a dress need to stay in a woman's hospital ward?
That sounds like a recipe for disaster, if you ask me.
It would redefine sex in the 2010 Equality Act.
Oh no, our sacred Equality Act.
It might as well be the Magna Carta to the Guardian, to specifically refer to legal protections for biological sex.
It's not just trans rights though, that's not the only reason, that's not the only thing.
Hold your horses, which become the unfortunate main battleground of the culture wars where Sunak is demonstrating his deep social conservatism.
He might as well, at this point, be Thomas Carlyle at this level.
Let's start off with, you know, we're bringing back the Victorian prisons, we're bringing back whippings under Sunak.
He has made stopping the boats one of his top five priorities and is set to make it virtually impossible for refugees to seek asylum in the UK, apart from through an extremely narrow set of country-specific routes.
So, legal migration.
He's in favour of legal but not illegal migration.
Okay, nice one.
And Sunak has been at the forefront of Braverman's drive on grooming gangs, and although seemingly unwilling to echo her language, he has never disavowed it.
It is another one of the few pledges from his leadership campaign to his survival.
So, if I can understand this article and what they're saying here, they're saying that he's the most socially conservative, the second coming of who knows who, the second coming of Thomas Carlyle, the second coming of the Victorian era, because he doesn't believe that men can be women, Okay.
He doesn't want the country flooded through illegal immigration, only through legal immigration, and he also doesn't want grooming gangs raping natives.
If we ever got a proper Conservative Prime Minister, these guys at Guardian would lose their minds.
They absolutely would.
I would love to see it.
They might just, if it happened, they might throw themselves in the Thames.
Bring him back hanging?
Oh my goodness.
Well, I've pointed out- Call for punishment?
I've pointed out a few times before, there isn't a Guardian article talking about the last people who were hanged in the UK.
And they're trying to make you feel terrible for them.
Oh, can you believe these two working class, impoverished, socially unequal men who just happened to murder a child are being hanged.
These were the last men to ever be hanged in their life.
They murdered a child!
What are you talking about?
Good!
Good!
Dig them back up!
Do it again!
Yeah, but don't forget, depending on the age of the child, it could be classed under post-abortion.
So I think up to five years old in some places, you can murder your child, it's just an abortion.
Yes, but that's that then.
I think, yeah, get ready for a new influx of immigration because we do have the most socially conservative Prime Minister in the world now.
So let's move on to the video comments.
So while there's no official registry in the U.S., there's unofficial registry in the U.S.
How it works is that if you purchase a gun from any gun shop, there's a ledger that has your identity and the serial number tied to it.
It used to be that these gun shops used to be able to throw these records out for convenience sake every 15 years or so.
ATF has decided to remove that.
And this is federally, doesn't matter whether blue states.
And so if you were to sell this thing privately, if anything happens, it's coming back to you.
So that's how that works.
I was hearing that Carl wants to do another D&D game, and I was wondering, has he heard of the Runequest game?
It's a lot like D&D, but instead of in the medieval era, it's like in the Bronze Age era of technology.
There was a game made back in the 90s where you play as like the Orlanthi which are basically sort of like fantasy Germanic tribesmen and you know kind of like the Suevi that the Romans fought.
The game requires you to be primitive in mentality because in that world the gods and your ancestors exist and if you don't follow tradition they will smite you.
Primitive in mentality sounds right up Karl's street, to be honest.
Caveman Karl to the rescue.
And dinosaurs as well.
Dinosaurs?
Does Karl believe in dinosaurs?
I don't know.
He probably does.
He probably does.
Karl might actually remember them.
So do you remember the primordial ooze then?
Alright, let's go to the next one.
The word peasant is not a joke.
It's a precise term for a member of a family that works on a collectively owned farm that is partable inheritance.
Each male child is guaranteed a part on the death of the patriarch.
Alan Macfarlane delves into English records to show that, dating back as far as they go, England has never adopted this mode of law.
In English common law, inheritance can be impartable.
The whole inheritance usually went to the first born, with no legal requirement that that be a male.
Also, women could and did own land and could sue and were sued in courts.
The full legal system was available to them, unlike in peasant societies.
That's really interesting.
I'm actually planning on getting that book, Alex, so thank you very much for giving me some details there, because it sounds like it would be very useful for me, because I do have Macfarlane's other book called The Culture of Capitalism, which I will eventually get around to reading.
Do you also have a massive bookcase full of books that you've not read?
Yes.
Do you also look at them longingly, wishing you had the time to read them?
I've stopped buying them now because I must have 50, 60, 70 books that I've not read.
Those rookie numbers right there.
I can't stop buying books.
I'm terrible for it.
We moved into our new place recently and when we got in we just managed to put everything, we hadn't even started unpacking yet, put everything down.
I start to open up some of the boxes so we can start unpacking, get a knock at the door, Amazon delivery driver hands my missus a book and she turns to me and gives me the worst I've had in a long time and she goes you ordered another book and I just took it off her and I was like yes you can't do anything about it.
So here's a fun one, and you might be saying, what, it's just an oak tree?
But you'd be wrong because this is poison oak.
And you can tell it's poison oak because of that glistening leaves.
That's the poisonous oils on it.
And the way you know is that has these, um, you know, these, uh, leaves of three, as they say.
And, uh, if you look at the young leaves, the young leaves are always this, uh, red color.
So that's also a dead giveaway.
And the fact that they have, uh, flowers on them also gives them away too.
So don't touch.
That's useful advice, actually.
Thank you.
So, we got any more?
All right, let's go on to the video comments.
And just a reminder as well, you can find Nick on Twitter, now that he's back, on @NickBookleyMBE.
And he's following John, as we can see there.
I'm sure he follows all of us for our excellent insights and takes.
And for people who don't know, I've started writing articles now for Lotus Eaters, so check them out as well.
Yes, do you want to get that up for us on screen, John, just so that everybody can see?
What was the most recent article that you wrote for us?
On autogynephilia.
Oh, oh yeah, autogynephilia.
Where is he?
Go on, John.
There he is!
So, let's see.
Scroll down.
Scroll down.
There we go, that's the first one, isn't it?
Yeah, orthogynophilia.
Something important to understand about transgenderism, which is just that a lot of them are, and I put this in the nicest terms possible, sexual perverts.
Yes.
Yes.
And that's autogynephilia.
So read that for Nick's thoughts on it.
And let's go into the written comments.
So Le French Misogynist, after our segment on misogyny as well, says, Nick is the dad women didn't have in their life, yet sorely needed.
That's true.
Sometimes, well, a lot of people think it's only boys who miss having a father at home.
Girls also miss having a father.
What a father does, living in a house with a girl, he helps his daughters understand what a good man looks like, how a good man acts and behaves.
They have something then when they go into the world to look for a partner themselves.
They've got something to base that on.
Otherwise they're basing it on the Kardashians and social media.
Hence why so many women make so many mistakes picking the wrong man.
I think it's strange, because I hear people of my generation talk about how strange it is that, oh yeah, these people, they go for people who are just like their parents, they go for, this guy goes for a woman who reminds him of his mum, this woman goes for a man who reminds her of her dad, and there can be, you know, weird stuff that goes on with that, but for the vast majority of it, I had this conversation with my missus the other day, and I just said, well, if you have good parents,
They give you a good example, especially if you're planning on having children.
This is what a good mother looks like.
This is what a good woman looks like.
This is what a good father looks like, etc.
So of course you're going to recognize those attributes in other people.
And if you see enough of them, that might actually be enough for you to go, okay, if I want to have kids with this person, she's going to be a good mother.
That's just a, or a good father, if you're talking from the woman's perspective.
Common sense.
Yeah, it's obviously common sense.
So onto the voter ID segment comments.
So we've got Shaker Silva.
Saying that lowering the standards for voting only makes elections insecure and untrustworthy.
It is not unreasonable to have to show identification to vote and lowering that standard has no sound argument.
That's why they have to lean on the bigotry of low expectations to squeeze into the debate with claims that security equates to racism.
I think they just want more power over the elections and they think that this giving this over to the Tories to let them put the voter ID in.
might just be giving them a bit more power that they want for themselves and once again if they also are potentially relying on some level of fraud in some of these elections if it does make any step to make it more difficult for fraud like you say if it does eventually come over to the postal voting as well which we have documented evidence of them committing fraud in then they're not going to like that are they?
Yeah I think part of them not liking it is they see old conservatives Or people on the right as evil.
So if evil people have come up with this new idea, well, that must be evil as well.
Yeah, it can only be for evil.
HR Slave says, these people wanted us to provide vaccination ID to go to the pub last year.
This is an excellent point.
I should have brought it up.
But scream and cry about requiring ID to vote.
I hate it here.
There are no standards.
There are no principles or consistent rules that these people base it on.
It is only ever in their own self-interest.
x y and z says dead people dead people will be denied their right to vote duh sherry yeah true omar awad says if you are so incompetent as to be unable to acquire government id for free you don't have the mental faculties to be allowed to vote bigotry of low expectations on full display when labor argue this is directly targeting minorities they always do it it's the it's the go-to argument
But we need to be careful of having a standard that you can't vote above that, because that standard then can be raised by other governments.
You can only vote if your IQ hits this.
You only can vote if you're that.
That's a slippery slope.
So the fact someone hasn't got the intelligence to be able to apply for an ID isn't a good enough reason for that person not to vote.
I might disagree with that, mainly because I, you know... Who draws that line?
No, I understand who draws that line, but I do... I suppose I dislike the idea that... Society helps those people get their ID.
What do you mean?
The community helps those individuals who can't get their ID by themselves because of their intelligence or whatever.
We help them get the ID.
We don't say to them, you can't work that out, therefore you don't vote.
I suppose with those sorts of people, I just see that it would be very, very, very easy for propaganda and marketing to be able to manipulate them into voting for something that's going to screw a lot of people over.
Again, that then could be used against you later on by another government.
You don't understand our messages because you've been walked by propaganda online.
Now you don't vote either.
We need to be really careful.
Slippery slope there.
All right.
Anyway, moving on to the next one.
Screwtape Laser says, Nick brings up a very good point about the Asian norms around vote stealing.
Importing hordes of people from very high corruption societies is having profound impacts on all institutions, whether that's voting, academia, or the C-suite.
This is all true.
An American isolationist says, take my words of warning, do not make it easier to vote.
Vermont has already passed laws allowing non-US citizens to vote in local elections.
This is going to expand to voting in state elections and the voting in national elections.
The Supreme Court can't stop this from happening since states handle their own federal elections processes, yet voter ID laws and laws banning ballot harvesting are seen as racist, since apparently minority communities are seen as idiots by the left.
I think mainly it's because of the fact that they know that minority communities are going to... it's not necessarily they see them as idiots, it's they know that if they're the ones offering the minority communities more benefits, for instance, that they are basically guaranteeing their own votes.
So if there's anything that they see is remotely impacting their ability to vote...
Then they're just going to try and prevent it.
We'll go on to the comments for your segment now.
So Kevin Fox says that men can't win.
If you hold open a door for a woman, you're a misogynist.
If you don't, you're a chauvinist.
Easier just to find another door to use.
Men can win and you win by not playing their game.
So if you want to open the door you open the door because you're polite and if they don't show gratitude for that or accuse you something then you just walk on by.
Don't play their game.
That's how you win.
Yeah that's fair.
Brian Tomlinson says misogyny is answering back when a woman is screaming at you.
Yeah.
Yeah, I've had that before.
Lord Nerevar says, who are the real misogynists?
Well of course I know him, he's me!
Oh tick.
On a more serious note, I can't think of anything more misogynistic than a man dressing up as a woman and being a stereotype forevermore.
It's not acceptable to do it for any other races, why is it acceptable to do it for the opposite sex?
I have seen leftists online try and argue their way around this but they don't really have that much of an argument, by their own standards.
I don't think that's misogyny.
I don't think a man dressing as a woman is misogyny.
It's... Again, they're trying to copy something they admire, they love.
It's not a hatred of women.
You may find it distasteful, what they're doing, but what they're doing isn't hating women.
They're trying to become a woman in their... They've got a mental health issue, obviously, but again, it's not misogyny.
Omar Awad says, uh, what is misogyny?
The hate of women.
What are women?
Women are, uh, oh no.
That's a good point as well.
Uh, we should start creating male-only women spaces.
No, I think we should just stop humouring these people, to be honest.
Brian Tomlinson, to TheEngagedHarry, Nick is correct, women become dominant in the home.
Look, I suppose I recognise this, and I know that I let my missus have dominant run of the house.
I think just looking at it from a view of who has dominance is maybe not the framing that I would like to take for it, because I like to see it as a partnership.
I recognise that I go out, I'm primarily the breadwinner in our relationship.
She's got her own job, but I'm the one who brings back more money.
And when it comes to arranging social events and going out and choosing where to go, I tend to be the one that decides what we're doing.
But in the home, then she does have the forerunner of that.
But I don't see that as domineering, I see that as just a partnership.
It's more of responsibility, because you both can't be responsible for everything, so you split what needs to be done in a couple in a marriage between both partners so she's in charge of some things you're in charge of other things and that that dominance is the wrong word i think i think it's well i think dominance was a social science yeah that's the term i know it wasn't the term that you were using for it now i agree that it is completely right that it's a partnership and there should be some give and take on both sides because that's just how it works really
Joan of Arc says, I actually have encountered misogyny from gay men and any other remaining sexism I've only gotten from other women.
Sorry to hear that you've had people being unpleasant to you in the first place, to be honest.
Sophie Liv can confirm by far the most abuse I get on Facebook are from other women.
The rest are dweeby soy boys.
No masculine stoic men would ever do what other women do to me.
I think that's a good point as well.
It's just a masculine man is more likely to be able to Put up with problems that he may experience from women, and also just recognize the differences between men and women, and being able to account for it.
I think this is something Jordan Peterson has spoken about a lot, that there are differences between men and women.
Acknowledging those differences isn't sexism.
In fact, it actually makes it so that you're better able to communicate and interact with people of the opposite sex.
And that's been my experience as well.
And Matthew Hartshorn says, have to disagree about the misogyny.
There are definitely individuals or other types of men that do resent women.
I think a section of incels hate women.
I think, to be fair, I don't... They don't?
I don't really interact with women.
I think they feel a certain resentment towards women, from what I've seen, but I've not really interacted with... I'm sure they resent women, but it's not the same as hatred.
Potentially.
And they're upset with women because women aren't picking them to be partners.
So that's why they're resentful.
But if one of those women turned around and said, oh, let's go out now.
Well, the resentment goes and there's no hatred there and they go on a date with him.
Again, we keep mixing up these words.
That's resentful.
It's not hatred of women.
I think I'd be interested in seeing that put into practice, but once again, I don't interact with any incels, and I don't know any incels, so if somebody did behave in such a way, if somebody who was in that community got that opportunity, I'd be interested to see the reaction, because then I suppose we'd have a test case for it.
But he carries on saying, I think individuals like Don Lemon or Leah Thomas hate women, and certainly perennial domestic abusers and stalkers resent women, just like there are definitely feminists who resent men.
Um, once again with Leah Thomas, like you've said before, it's probably, uh, he just wants to be a woman.
Possibly.
Or maybe he just wants to be successful in sports.
He's just a sporting cheat.
Yes.
So, trans people, trans women in female sports, let's be honest, it's just an acceptable way of cheating the cheats.
Yeah, I don't think Don Lemon hates women either.
The clip that Callum and I had a laugh at a few months ago where Don Lemon let slip that women are in their prime younger than men are in their prime and he got chewed out by the women that he was on a panel with, that wasn't him being misogynistic or hateful towards women.
That was recognizing reality in a situation where you're not allowed to recognize reality.
That's all that was.
Don Lemon was actually being kind of real there.
Not gonna lie.
But anyway, that's all the time we've got for today.
Thank you very much for tuning in and being here with us while we've been going through all this.
So, thank you very much.
We'll be back on Monday, 1 o'clock.
Until then, take care.
▲
Export Selection