Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 7, 2023 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:30:33

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #670

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Loadseaters for Wednesday my dudes.
	I'm joined by Stelios.
	Hello.
	And today we're going to be talking about where he can't keep getting away with it.
	Twitter versus EU's Digital Services Act and the Rainbow Alliance is over boys.
	It's gone.
	No, that was kind of meant to be a joke.
	No, no, I won't make that one.
	It's a meme-y.
	Yeah, I thought something that I'm not allowed to say, so I won't do that.
	Anyway, a couple of announcements first, well, three of them.
	First, GoldTears, remember you used to send video comments via the old system and then you had to email them?
	Well, don't worry, the old system works again, so go back to doing that all is well in the kingdom.
	Second thing to mention is that the Julius Evola revolt against the modern world, part two, this livestream will be up.
	I believe this is today, is that correct?
	Yeah, half past three.
	Hour and a half after this podcast ends, if you go and check that out on our website.
	Isn't it?
	Is it?
	No, an hour and a half after the podcast ends.
	No, it's one hour.
	It ends half past two, then starts half past three.
	Oh, yeah, okay.
	Sorry.
	Dyslexic with everything, including logic.
	And the last thing to mention here being that artists are needed, apparently.
	So if you're an artist and you can make stuff, when you want some money for good stuff, apparently if you write your deets to submissions at lotuseaters.com, they'll get back to you.
	So, otherwise, we shall begin with the news.
	So he can't keep getting away with it.
	Tucker Carlson, the mad lad.
	He keeps releasing a 10 minute video that gets billions and billions of views because he is not lying.
	Impressive numbers.
	I mean, regardless of what you think of Todd Carlson's worldview, the thing that's, I say, not lying about Todd Carlson, especially, is the fact that he's such a sincere, honest guy in his beliefs, and will lay out, look, here's what I believe that happened, and it's utterly engrossing because his perspective is so underserved by the American mainstream of either propaganda wing.
	And I think it is because he's so outspoken and clear about why he believes that he gets these views.
	Yeah, but we'll get to some horrors of the things he's talking about in a minute, which we'll start off just by mentioning something on nosies.com that's quite related.
	Robert Conquest's reflections on a ravaged century.
	Because, you know, Nazis and Soviets kind of ruined all of Eastern Europe, frankly.
	Never going to get over, apparently.
	Is Robert Conquest the author who has written books about Stalin, Lenin and Trotsky?
	I think so.
	Probably.
	Yeah, he's a really good historian.
	Highly recommend this one though.
	Very good.
	So that's the book club if you want to go and listen to it instead of having to read all the pages, which is understandable.
	But we'll go to Tuck Carlson.
	So he has released his first episode of his Twitter show.
	You may remember he had a Fox show Fox, for some reason, out of the blue, said, ah, you know, you're getting too many views for us.
	Too much attention on this news channel, buddy.
	You're gone.
	You're underperforming by being too popular.
	It didn't make any sense.
	You make us look bad.
	Yeah, he was making everyone else look bad, and that was the reason, which, I don't know, I feel like they like money, I presume.
	Or he was saying opinions that they didn't like, so they decided to get rid of him for bad opinions.
	But the thing was, None of his opinions were particularly controversial in the American right, but they were controversial for Fox News.
	Yeah.
	Which was a big, weird moment.
	So, he left, set up his Twitter show, where he said he'd be announcing all of his shows on Twitter.
	He's uploaded the first episode, as you can see here, and at the time of looking at it, as we're going live, 51 million views there.
	Those should really be, I think, impressions, people seeing it in their feeds.
	But the video itself, I don't know if you can, because I don't think it's caught there, but if you click on the video, it may play ever so slightly, but we'll try and ignore that.
	Like, if you make it bigger, I think it does come up with a number.
	Nope, can't say it there, but I do on my phone.
	Maybe that 50 million is just the amount of views he's got now, not even impressions, because it was a ridiculous amount.
	Point is, when we're arguing about how many tens of millions of views Tucker Carlson got on a 10-minute clip he put on Twitter.com, Kind of pointless, really.
	The dude has made an unbelievable impact, and deservedly so, as I mentioned, because he manages to bring a perspective, not only in such a professional manner, but one that is completely underserved.
	And he has close to 150,000 retweets, 17,000 quotes, More than half a million likes.
	Yeah, amazing, amazing numbers.
	So I'll just go quickly because it's 10 minutes, we don't have time to play the whole thing, over what he argues in here.
	So he talks about the dam in Ukraine that's been destroyed and the effects of the dam being destroyed.
	He argues are strategically far worse for Russia than they are for Ukraine.
	So he argues, well, why would Russia blow up a dam that would then massively negatively impact them and not their enemy in the war?
	And he says this is just like Nord Stream, where everyone's trying to be convinced that the Russians blew up their own pipeline.
	He then goes on to say that Zelensky isn't some kind of Churchill, but another kind of newer member of the rich elite.
	Calls him rat-like at one point, because he doesn't like him.
	Yeah, especially when he was talking about his discussion with Lindsey Graham.
	Yeah, and he also goes on to talk about Lindsey Graham and laughing at the fact that loads of people are dying.
	Disagreeable that one, but whatever.
	He also says that stories that matter or details that don't fit the simple narratives are just not allowed in the West.
	Mentions, for example, this guy from, I think it was the Pentagon, who's left, and just leaks that apparently there are UFOs and dead aliens that we've been studying.
	I don't know how credible that is, obviously, but he comes out and says, that was news that broke from someone who seemingly isn't completely insane, and for some reason the Washington Post had the story and decided not to run it.
	It's like, even if it's completely false, why not run it and then try and find out?
	You would have thought?
	But instead, it's our taboos that make people not look into something, even if there's only a small chance it could be true.
	So, instead, we don't get anything useful, we get, don't ask about why the rich are getting so much richer, fight about racism instead.
	That's the modern life of being an American.
	And then he tells this story of tourists who went to the USSR in the 1970s and found Russians had complete delusions about life in America, that the Americans were all living in poverty and that they would spend all their time in race wars and were endlessly jealous of the peace in the Soviet Union.
	If people have one source of information and there is a sort of ministry of truth, no doubt people are going to believe weird things.
	Yeah, it's unsurprising when you're told about the madness people lived in the USSR.
	And it's very good if we have social media platforms like Twitter that allow for free speech because we have a more decentralized means of communication and means of receiving information instead of having all information emanating from one, let's say, centralized power.
	And that was the beauty of the West, at least how it's advertised.
	And then in the modern era, well, how come all of these major outlets, we still have the minor ones, thank God, but obviously all the major ones that have unbelievable amounts of money to, you know, burn, all of them seem to agree on whatever the given thing is all the time.
	And the net effect is that we have the minor outlets, obviously, but then the major ones are essentially like TASS, the old Soviet news conglomerate.
	It's weird.
	I mean he says today Americans are as misled as the Russians in that time.
	Quick point just about his video in general.
	Excellent communication skills, excellent narrative storytelling, and also, as I mentioned, a genuine opinion that is underserved in the American propaganda machines that are the major networks.
	So, just a side note, very jealous.
	Anyone who makes content, I think, who looks at how Tucker Carlson makes his content, must be incredibly jealous of how talented and, well, good he is at his job.
	It's really straightforward.
	So we'll play a short clip of just why I thought was one of the best bits, just so you can get a tenure of it.
	Let's play that.
	By this point, it's possible that American citizens are the least informed people in the world.
	Your average yak herder in Tajikistan knows who blew up the Nord Stream pipeline.
	It's obvious.
	Does he think some skinny dude in a dress is actually a girl?
	Come on.
	That idea would never occur to him.
	You've got to be lied to at full volume over a period of years in order to reach conclusions like that.
	And of course, we have been.
	I have to say something about this, if I may.
	Okay, I think that this is an exaggeration, because many people in other areas in the world, they may have good information about what's going on outside their countries, but not necessarily within their countries.
	I'm just saying that I thought that that was an exaggeration.
	The North Koreans probably do know less about the world, to be fair.
	I mean, that is true.
	But I think more the fundamental point of this entire video and the things I laid out is that his point is, as the previous one that he made, is just the American media are terrible, making our country worse, and you can map it in the level of education people have about certain issues and how they act specifically.
	They will just ignore things, for example, that they've all decided to ignore, and then anyone who says anything about it is considered taboo for saying so.
	And frequently phrase things in ways that appeal to emotion, as if things are completely settled.
	It's like, how do you feel for these attacks on your humanity?
	As if they are.
	We'll come back to that in a minute.
	Just very quickly, I'm going to just show some of the response, which was funny.
	Elon Musk, obviously congratulating him.
	Basically, thank you for coming to the platform.
	If anyone else wants to join, it's open.
	They're not going to, because they're all cowards.
	No one can do as well.
	I'm talking about the left here, who are screaming about, how come he's allowed all these views?
	Because people like him and he's good at his job.
	That's why.
	And you're not, so you don't get those views.
	If we move forward, we can see Taylor Lawrence, who had the most retarded take, though.
	She said, it's wild to see what a fish out of water he is on the internet.
	No jump cuts, no background music, no catchy thumbnail or video title.
	Not sure you're going to stack up against even the average streamer or YouTuber?
	Are we looking at the same numbers?
	You know, bro uploads a video 11 hours ago, gets 50 million views.
	Bro, he can't stand up to the streamers, bro.
	They've got a thousand viewers right now.
	I mean, this shows that many people who criticize this, she just lives in her own head.
	She didn't even wait for some time just to see how many views it was going to get.
	She felt dead certain about it.
	Insane elderly woman being insane.
	Well, Primetime is also failing miserably by comparison to those numbers.
	Just to make that point, you can see Nwokeness here with the deets about who's getting views.
	I mean, Fox, CNN and MSNBC can't break 2 million on Primetime.
	Tucker Carlson's sitting there with 50 mil.
	So, I don't know, who's winning?
	There was a, let's say, rightist response, at least some of it, that was critical.
	Most people obviously love Tugger, so it's not a surprise.
	But this guy here, so Adam Kinziger, decided to come out, called him still evil, because he had called him utter evil before as well.
	Now this chap, I've seen quite a bit of him, not American, so not massively clued into American random politicians all the time, if I can help it.
	But this guy just endlessly, whenever I see him saying anything, it's always about glory to Ukraine.
	Which is fine.
	You know, people allow those opinions.
	But he's kind of mad in that regard.
	Like someone who's almost irrationally obsessed with it, where it's like, bro, there are other things going on as well.
	Like, I don't mind that you like Ukraine.
	That's fine.
	It's understandable for those who are principally involved who have high sentimentality, but, you know, just...
	Well, for example, he was told that we weren't going to give a blank check to Ukraine.
	And his immediate response was that the U.S. was aiding...
	Sorry, giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
	We're not giving a completely blank cheque to the Ukrainians, which... No, like, bro, there are arguments about how much to give people instead, but no, just, okay.
	Tucker Carlson has a really good response to him, though, because this guy is also just kind of mad.
	Like, he responded to popular Twitter account Cat Turd.
	Adam Kinzinger fought back.
	Literal evil, he wrote in a late night response to Cat Turd.
	If I met you in person, it would not end well for you, sicko.
	Whoa!
	Hear that, Cat Turd?
	It will not end well for you.
	That's not a pillow fight Adam Kinzinger is talking about.
	That's a full-on slap fight with hair pulling.
	This is real.
	You'd better apologize.
	Our heart goes out to Cat Turd tonight, who's probably cowering in a litter box somewhere, waiting for Adam Kinzinger to show up with sharpened nails.
	Mock the Ukrainian flag?
	Get scratched!
	Those are the rules, Cat Turd.
	It's a tough town.
	Meow!
	I'm sorry, but Tucker is also incredibly entertaining, just personally.
	And the face of the other dude was priceless there, the caption.
	But the next one here is just the fact that the most focus I saw was on the question, because Tucker argued that the Russians wouldn't blow up a dam, that the effects would then mostly harm them, and there's arguments about this.
	The thing is, I don't know, you don't know, nobody knows.
	I mean, as far as I can see, that seems to be the evidence of what's going on here.
	Because both sides are claiming the other one did it.
	Both sides have got reasons as to why the other one did it.
	But nobody's pointed to any evidence.
	The closest I've seen is pro-Russian accounts tweeting what seems to be explosions going off near it and claiming that they're still under artillery fire and therefore the Ukrainians did it.
	I mean, I've seen people even pointing out maybe it's just because it's been on the front line for quite a while.
	There's been no maintenance because Do you really want to go down and fix the dam where the other side is pointing their guns?
	Probably not.
	Maybe there's just been no maintenance and the thing's collapsed due to structural failures over time.
	Who knows?
	Nobody knows.
	But that's not the point.
	The point is that, as you can see online, people jumped to their conclusions immediately.
	For example, you know, Visegrad group.
	I quite like them.
	I really like the Visigoth group, of course, but I have noticed their account just endlessly, and they said this themselves, are just tweeting endlessly pro-propaganda stuff for Ukraine, which, you know, that's their prerogative.
	I don't know of them.
	They're a group that decided to just endlessly be like, look what the Russians did, blah blah blah blah blah, and no one really knows yet what the evidence is, because, you know, it just happened, for example.
	But, if we go forward, Wind Horse Enthusiast is my personal favourite response to all of this.
	And the real thing about Tucker's video that I think it exposes, like the previous one, which is that the media just prove his point immediately, every time, Manny Hassan over here.
	I kid you not, but Tucker Carlson's first episode of his new Twitter show, basically him doing a monologue and scrolling through his own teleprompter, said we should be asking more questions about what happened on 9-11 and insisted we have proof that UFOs are real.
	I kid you not.
	Poor Alex Jones has some tough new online competition watch out.
	Whoosh.
	I mean, it just went straight over your head, didn't it?
	You didn't get it at all.
	Which is that his point was, you don't ask questions.
	You don't engage to try and find the truth.
	You're not even trying to have fun, frankly.
	You people just sit there and work with the machinery to produce what you know are lies or stand by something that is the new narrative without evidence.
	And it's painful.
	You never go and look for something that might be controversial and might help the world.
	Nothing.
	It's... It's... Ugh.
	And he went on MSNBC, and MSNBC decided to be the most self-obsessed response they possibly could.
	They say here, well Mehdi says, the problem is not Tucker Carlson.
	The problem is Fox.
	The problem is the Murdochs.
	For too long we've focused our ire on Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, or Judge Genie, or whatever it is.
	The problem is the institution.
	Amazing.
	I mean, I'm sorry, but the point of a left-wing propaganda TV news channel, in his view, is not to challenge, not to change the most minds possible.
	It's not even to, you know, collaborate your own side politically to do something.
	It's just to dominate the TV sphere.
	His focus isn't even on Tucker Carlson sitting over there with 50 million views in 11 hours.
	They live in their own head.
	Tucker's out of the game now.
	What I'm interested in is battling Fox because we need more TV dominance.
	It's like you, you are so self-obsessed.
	You're not realising the world is changing around you, are you?
	I mean, we're not going to pretend for a minute that it's a news outlet trying to inform the public, or people just looking for the truth, and every time you see, it is a left-wing propaganda outlet.
	That's fine, it's their money, it's what they want to do.
	But their worldview as to what their goals are, at least through Medi's eyes, is just to dominate TV.
	They don't even understand their own goals there, in terms of trying to change minds, or collaborate on their own side.
	Nothing.
	Amazing.
	Now, this brings me to the thing about Tucker's segment and that response that, uh, may be a little bit controversial but if people listen to what I'm saying I think they'll get what I'm getting at.
	You may have seen this story pop up in the New York Times.
	Nazi symbols on Ukraine's front lines highlight thorny issues of history.
	Now, the thorny issue, I would have thought, might be siding with Nazis in a war is not a... is not a good move?
	And it's not really about optics.
	Operationally, I don't think it's a good move.
	In the same way that funding Islamist militias, I don't know who did that in the recent years, might come back to bite you in the ass once or twice to say the least.
	I don't know.
	I think when it comes to war, as there's a saying that says that when the first casualty of war is truth.
	I really don't know what the hell is going on there.
	I've heard some, I've heard, you know, all sorts of perspectives about the, as a regiment.
	I've heard, you know, people that they're saying it's an issue of numbers.
	I really don't know that, you know, but I think there is a point that you have when you say that you should be really careful with who you pick as an ally.
	My problem's not just, oh, it might look bad.
	It's, this might come back to hurt you.
	Yeah, maybe, you know, if you find something to be politically expedient in the short term, it may not be so in the long term.
	I mean, as a side note, we're about to go into this, but just as a side note, I did see, in fact, the Visigoth groups again.
	Sorry to pick on them, I do like them.
	I don't think they think sometimes in regards to this.
	There were some Islamist groups who were attacking the Russians in the Caucasus, and they were celebrating this, because obviously they're doing everything they can against Russia.
	The Islamist groups, you may remember, the one that's been fighting the Russians for the last, like, four years or whatever it is, was ISIS.
	I'm not going to celebrate them.
	Ever.
	So, I mean, it's just, it's a bad idea, not just optically, but why would you think that would ever turn out to be a positive in the end?
	But before we go further, just to settle this down, they say in this article, in a statement, the Ukrainian defense ministry said that as a country, they suffered greatly under German occupation.
	Quote, we emphasize the Ukrainian state categorically condemns any manifestations of Nazism.
	And that's because the Ukrainian state position is not racial socialism.
	It's not the majority position, from what I can see.
	But, quote, troops use of patches bearing Nazi emblems risks fueling Russian propaganda and spreading imagery that the West has spent half century trying to eliminate.
	That's the New York Times' complaint.
	Now, Western rightists for years have been called Nazis by the centre and the left, frankly, in the past.
	For all sorts of reasons.
	Most of them are bad.
	And it's been comical, of course.
	Bad reasons, I mean.
	They're not.
	But one of the interesting positives out of all of that pain to deal with over the last few decades has been that the Anglo right, at least, has become incredibly good at actually sniffing out Nazis who try and join their movement because, as Tommy Robinson will be able to tell you, if the left keeps saying that's a Nazi organisation, some Nazis will see that and try and join you.
	And the American right and the British right have done an incredible good job of actually kicking those people out and understanding where they stand on Nazism, which is obviously bad because this, this, this, not because they have flags, for example.
	And it's an, if I may add, that it's a deliberate propaganda by the left, because if they throw a term and they say everything that disagrees with them as being, you know, a Nazi movement, people can't coordinate and understand what the hell is going on.
	But I'm just making the point that it's actually been a weirdly positive thing for the Anglo right, which has been able to understand ideologically why they kick these people out, whereas the left keep finding themselves with such people inside them for some reason.
	But they say, so far the imagery has not eroded international support for the war.
	The Nazi imagery for Ukrainian soldiers there.
	It has, however, left diplomats at Western journalists and advocacy groups in a difficult position, calling attention to the iconography, risk playing into Russian propaganda, saying nothing allows that to spread.
	That's their problem.
	This is the problem with the media that Tucker is getting to with his point there.
	Your problem is an optics problem.
	That it might end up harming aid for Ukraine in the end at some point.
	You have no problem with normalizing Nazism.
	You do not care about such things.
	You will say that you do endlessly when whining about American writers, New York Times for Christ's sake, who will label anyone with a MAGA hat as someone who, you know, Zeke Hiles every morning.
	But all they care about is themselves here.
	Mo-optics is the endless thing.
	And they do mention that the problem is real, obviously.
	That's what this article is about.
	Several years on after they tried to say it wasn't existing at all.
	Even then, they might contest it's only in very small numbers.
	Well, they mention, for example, if we go to the next tweet, we can see NATO did tweet this, as we all remember.
	This was a NATO tweet celebrating women and girls must be free and equal with a lady with a black son, a Nazi patch, which was a bit awkward.
	They deleted it.
	The Ukrainian government did also tweet the following, which is a tweet here.
	Defense of Ukraine.
	It's okay to take a break.
	Scroll down a little bit.
	Do you notice the patch on the chap there with the Ukrainian flag and then another symbol?
	Yeah.
	It's the token comp.
	It's the Nazi symbol.
	That's, you know, one or two.
	The next one here, we have some Russian volunteers who decided to go and join the Ukrainians and invaded Russian territory recently.
	There was a big hub-hub about that.
	Here's a picture of them.
	I don't know if you can see that symbol there.
	The lion.
	Yeah, that's an SS symbol.
	Okay.
	Just happens again.
	I... Okay, we'll go to the next one as well, because some Polish volunteers apparently went with the Russians on this excursion into Russia, and they pixelated their tank for some reason.
	Sorry, BTR.
	Do you want to guess why?
	Should we go to the next image?
	Just to have it again?
	Yeah, because for some reason, I don't know if they thought it was... I don't know if it was a funny meme, probably not a funny meme, but they decided to do that.
	And this happens a lot, and of course has been a feature and a meme of the conflict.
	Internationally, people have been making jokes about this.
	But whenever you bring it up in the media, they didn't want to talk about it, as the New York Times mentions themselves that they feel guilty about.
	And it's in no short supply, as mentioned.
	You can find quite a lot of it, even if it's a small number of individual people.
	Reuters here, doing an interview with another brave serviceman from Spartan Storm, SS, there.
	His name is Adolf.
	Typical Ukrainian name.
	At no point did Reuters decide to bring attention to that, or ask the chap about it, or maybe worry.
	In fact, they got community noted in the end on Twitter about that.
	It was just like, maybe Adolf over here isn't your average Ukrainian.
	Why won't you point that out?
	It's because of fear of taboos, because saying this is happening became a taboo, as Tucker was pointing out there.
	If you go to the next one, we've got the new tank battalion.
	Just some European media.
	I think this was Euronews.
	Do you notice it?
	Yeah.
	Big eagle there.
	Big eagle with a black sun on it.
	SS symbol.
	Yeah, that happened.
	If you get the next one, there's some more SS symbols.
	I mean, this is a guy here who's NAFO.
	He's very pro-Ukrainian.
	Man, I support the Ukrainian soldiers, but please, for the god damn, do not wear SS unit patches on your clothes.
	Just pleading there.
	We have some more brave Ukrainian women as well.
	More black sons.
	That happened.
	And then, you go to the next one.
	There's a big-ass poster that was put up.
	Which is a poster celebrating victory over Nazism.
	So, victory day.
	Ah, there's the other symbol there.
	Yeah, the text is like, you know, we have victory over Nazism.
	We protected them now, we protect them again, and they've got Azov logos on the thing, which has got Nazi symbols on it.
	In fact, this got so bad, of course, Azov came out and said, we're going to get rid of the Nazi symbols because we should probably do that.
	If you go to the next link here, we can see the times.
	I mean, this just kind of annoyed me.
	I mean, a very small number of people will be there on the, let's say, mainstream media.
	We saw it in the BBC.
	We were like, oh no, it means national idea.
	Do you know what is the percentage of the Azov battalion?
	Let's say we have the army of Ukraine.
	How many soldiers are wearing Nazi armbands?
	How many belong to the Azov battalion as a percentage of the whole army?
	It's a small number.
	It's a tiny number.
	And that's what always got me.
	It was like, why not just have these people removed?
	And then, you know, the whole conversation would end.
	You could do that.
	But, I mean, just to end this off real quick, this aspect.
	We haven't even mentioned, of course, this is all since the Russian-Ukrainian war became the official title.
	The previous era, of the war in Donbass, Yeah, there was a lot more there as well.
	I mean, no one has probably been able to ignore.
	There are plenty of pro-Russian accounts endlessly tweeting, for example, these fellow images from it, and there's no shortage of them.
	We don't have time to show them all.
	This one here with Azov and the, you know, Hitler Youth swastika there, because Yeah, we got the next one as well.
	This was at the front lines, cool.
	That is in 2022, they're lying there, that person.
	But that flag is from the Donbass war where they just have a SWAT sticker at the front.
	The next one as well, just some chaps with the Ukrainian flag and a SWAT sticker out fighting in Donbass.
	And then the next one, I see, I mean, it just, it goes on quite a bit is my point.
	And it always did. - Have the misanthropic division behind it, yeah. - Yeah.
	And if you have the last one here, I've been to Russia, as I'm sure people know.
	I went to the Victory Museum.
	I've seen firsthand, if you want, the Russian propaganda arm.
	And yes, they use the footage of people who are using Nazi stuff to make the point that we're fighting Nazis.
	And I would have thought it would have been best to remove it then.
	I mean, especially if it makes up only about 1% of manpower, or less than 1% of the manpower, of the people doing these things, because it's a fringe minority, then you would have thought the correct response would be issue an order that everyone needs to remove these, and I don't want to see them up again, and if they do, you're going to be court-martialed or imprisoned.
	I really don't know what to make of this case.
	and it would have helped the Ukrainian cause.
	Because what?
	Maybe a few hundred people wouldn't comply out of an army of 500,000 men.
	I really don't know what to make of this case.
	I think at some point I should organize a video talking about the whole war, but that would take a long time.
	But if they had done that, what would have happened is you'd have much more international support for Ukraine, which would have helped the Ukrainian cause, They could still do it, and it would help the Ukrainian cause too.
	But instead, there is a taboo about talking about this, even though it's a minority, as I pointed out.
	I'm sure the counter argument would be that, you know, when you're attacked, you need to use as much manpower you have.
	You don't need 100 guys.
	You can spare it in exchange for a bunch of new weapon systems.
	Not to mention, I don't know how many people of ISIS you want fighting for you.
	Just gonna argue.
	But my last point here being that the reason I've shown you all that is not just to be like, hoo hoo, look, swastikas.
	Instead, it's that the media simply made it a taboo.
	especially on the escalation of the conflict back when the uh let's say special operation began and instead what happened is that you're not allowed to point out that there are nazi symbols they would argue endlessly oh it's a tiny minority so just don't even talk about it which is why the new york times have come out two years later being like damn we really should have talked about this yeah because it's really ended up getting quite um thorny of an issue as they say themselves they start with disinformation accusations
	Their web of lies was more important to them than helping the Ukrainian cause of actually dealing with that and then getting more international support.
	Because that's what the media are.
	Utterly self-obsessed, as Mehdi Hassan exposed himself with his response to Tucker Carlson's video.
	And as Tucker says, that's how most of us live in the United States.
	Manipulated by lies, silenced by taboos.
	This specific example, I think, comes under the taboo.
	My point being about all of this, it's not even necessarily about Ukraine this segment, it's just the introductory segment that he had in his speech.
	The point is the media could not prove Tucker Carlson more correct on every video he produces instantly if they tried.
	It's comical how well Tucker does and the reason he does so well is because he's able to expose them at such an excellent level of communication.
	When he was in Fox, was he doing something like 20 million views per episode?
	Something like that.
	I think it was a million.
	Something like that.
	Two million.
	So he's massively increased his viewership as well.
	Okay, okay.
	That's even more impressive than it was before.
	Okay.
	So, free speech is under attack also in the US and in the EU.
	Now, throughout the Western world, we see a worrying trend of big governments becoming even bigger and more paternalistic.
	And the problem is that These paternalistic governments are fighting communities, because communities can function as politically strong pressure groups, and one of the reasons why I think identity politics is so prevalent is because it is a form of playing divide and conquer with the people.
	Now, the thing is that a number of ideological subversions are taking place in these landscapes, and especially when it comes to freedom of speech and freedom of expressions, Statists want us to believe that all the freedom of expression we need is the freedom to agree with their agenda and not to disagree with it.
	Now, speaking of the subversion of the term liberty, you can visit our website, lotuseaters.com, where for five pounds a month you can watch all our premium content, including Symposium 18, where Karl and I are debating classical liberalism.
	Now, what I'm saying is that in this debate, I argue that we should basically resist the subversion of the term liberty, and that the other side is going after the symbolic notion, after the symbolic power, the motivating power of the term, and we shouldn't just give it to them.
	And just as it is important to not identify ourselves with the terms that our political opponents want us to identify with, We should not allow our political opponents to identify in words that they have no business appealing to.
	And the people who, what I'm making, I'm making the case for the claim that the people who now call themselves liberals have nothing to do with any of the traditional meanings of the terms, of the term liberty.
	And we should not, frankly, we should not allow them to do it.
	And you could see also another debate I had with Karl called the universal acid, why liberalism is a universal acid, where our discussion continues.
	And we're talking about the difference between political liberalism and comprehensive liberalism.
	Now, the thing is that this warring tendency of centralization is seen in the EU's Digital Services Act.
	And now, as you will see, Twitter is being pulled off what is called a voluntary code of fight against misinformation.
	Now, I want us to start with this video and I want you, before we play it, I want to ask you, as we watch it, what do you think of their body language?
	Let's play this.
	So we are in Austin together with Elon Musk.
	Thank you very much Elon for welcoming me.
	Thank you, most welcome.
	And of course, we discussed many issues and I was happy to be able to explain to you the DSA, a new regulation in Europe.
	I very much agree.
	It's been a great discussion.
	I agree with everything you said.
	- So you think we should do a platform? - No, I think it's exactly aligned with my thinking.
	I think I very much agree with, it's been a great discussion.
	And I really think, I agree with everything you said, really.
	I think we're all very much of the same mind.
	And, you know, I think just anything that DMY companies can do, That would be beneficial to Europe.
	We want to do that.
	I just want to say.
	Thank you very much.
	That's again a good example.
	When we see that it could be some differences, especially when we are speaking things so important for our fellow citizens, as in life and the digital space, the best is to come and discuss what we did.
	And I'm happy to see that real life.
	Sounds good.
	Thank you very much.
	Now, what a non-awkward social occasion.
	Just love the initial body language of Musk.
	The gorilla man.
	Yeah, and he's changing all the time.
	What do I do with my hands?
	Yeah, and what a merry company we are here.
	Now, the thing is, that was ten months ago.
	Something happened.
	This fantastic friendship is going through a rough patch.
	Let us see why.
	Now, on the 27th of May, there was an article published in the German Die Welt, and it has the title, EU, Twitter leaves voluntary pact on fighting disinformation.
	The social media giant owned by Elon Musk has been warned that obligations remain over the removal of fake news.
	Twitter and other large platforms will face heavier regulations when new EU rules take effect in August.
	Now, if we can scroll down a bit...
	It says here, Twitter has yet to confirm its withdrawal from the code, but the decisions appear to be the latest move by billionaire Elon Musk to loosen the reins after he bought a social media firm last year.
	Musk cut thousands of jobs to save money, slashing entire departments.
	I remember some of those departments basically had no reason to exist.
	That wouldn't be a surprise.
	Including those responsible for content moderation.
	Pursuing a goal of turning Twitter into a digital town square where freedom of speech is prioritized, Musk has rolled back previous anti-misinformation rules and has thrown its verification system into chaos.
	This is what is being written here.
	Now, on the 5th of June, let us move to the next link by Euronews.
	Twitter has chosen confrontation with Brussels over disinformation code of conduct.
	Okay.
	And if we scroll down a bit, you can read the article if you want.
	It says, but even if the code of conduct is voluntary, because it's supposed to be a voluntary code, fighting disinformation will become a legal obligation under the EU's Digital Services Act, DSA, which comes into force on August 25th this year.
	If Twitter and there's a Jourova from the EU says, if Twitter wants to operate and make money in the European market, it will have to comply with the Digital Services Act.
	Twitter's departure will come as no surprise to Brussels, given that Elon Musk has eased moderation of problematic content since completing his takeover of the social media company last November.
	So that doesn't seem to be good news.
	I don't know, but I don't like when people start posing in a, you know, in a very, in a virtue signaling manner and they say, no, no, we want to safeguard the people.
	We want to help the people with their information.
	We want to basically prosecute everyone who does misinformation and problematic content.
	They speak as if there is no issue with how we define problematic content.
	It's good censorship.
	That's all.
	It's a ministry of truth in the making.
	Yeah.
	So from the European side, and this is what is a bit, this is very disconcerting.
	This is portrayed as EU's fight against big tech and against social media platforms.
	Now, the thing is that if you think of it, actually, it's anything but that, because I'm here.
	I'm a political realist.
	Okay, I think basically social stability is always social stability as a balance of powers.
	Okay.
	Now, the thing is, when we see this increasing trend of centralization in Western governments, and we see constantly officials from these governments saying that, well, outsource all your decision making and all your thinking to us, and let us say what content is problematic outsource all your decision making and all your thinking to us, and let us say what content is problematic and what you're not allowed to say, what
	This seems to me to actually disrupt the people's power because the people are one of the major centers of power.
	And if the people are not concerned citizens enough, we have gaps of public attention and huge incentives for government officials to take advantage of the lack of public awareness.
	And it is not a coincidence that almost every authoritarian and totalitarian regime starts by trying to control the media and information.
	Now, let's go to this tweet by Thierry Breton, who was the fellow we saw talking to Elon Musk, and both of them had this very, let's say, funny and comfortable body language.
	He says, Twitter lives EU voluntary code of practice against disinformation, but obligations remain.
	You can run, but you can't hide.
	This sounds like ominous a bit.
	It reminds me of Darth Sidious, I think.
	Yeah, he's very specific and clear about it.
	Beyond voluntary commitments, fighting disinformation will be legal obligation under DSA as of August 25.
	Our teams will be ready for enforcement.
	Best response there.
	What about the guy below there?
	This is an American website, go away!
	It's an American world, you just live in it.
	By Aristophanes.
	Yeah.
	So, the thing is though, that remember what we said in the beginning, that freedom of expression means freedom to agree with your agenda, but not to disagree with it.
	So they portray a code of conduct as being voluntary, but when people start disagreeing with it, and for instance, when Elon Musk does not want to, does not think that these rules are good, they're saying, we're going to make it legally obligatory for you to adopt these rules, otherwise you're going to be penalised.
	To be honest, I do prefer this to the old regime, which is like, oh, we'll cooperate with blah blah blah.
	No, this is just naked power.
	Which is far more preferential.
	It's more honest.
	Because, like, when the Iranian government banned Twitter, no one's under any illusion as to what's happening there.
	The Iranian government are a bunch of tyrants.
	Good.
	Yeah, the EU wants to do the same thing.
	Go for it.
	I know, but the thing is that it's supposed to be the case.
	It is supposed to be the case that people in the EU have different, more European or more Western values.
	So I think that we have plenty of ground to hold them more accountable.
	What's the problem?
	We'll get there in a minute.
	Let's move to the next clip, please, to see what is the Bid the Digital Services Act.
	Now, the thing is, I will show you the document for everyone who is interested.
	It's incredibly legalistic, but, you know, don't be deterred.
	Let us watch this video.
	So I'm watching a slideshow, essentially.
	No fun.
	The act that's being passed is good for good things.
	And for those who can't listen, it says, protecting fundamental rights and freedom of expression.
	Fair conditions for all businesses on online platforms.
	A single set of rules for the whole EU.
	for a safer and open digital space with European values at the center.
	Got it.
	You see...
	Does European values really mean anything?
	Sincerely, what does that mean?
	Well, that's the problem with the whole fight against disinformation, that when you have people who have increasingly more power, they feel that they have the ability to define what are European values.
	But also it doesn't make, like, you've got all these constituent countries with their own sincerely long-held histories and values, and then we've just declared European values a new thing that they all have.
	It's like, No, they can't all have them, or they'd be the same place.
	Well, ironically, and somehow miraculously, they're always the values that justify those people who are in power maintaining their power.
	Just, no, just a coincidence.
	It's just a hundred percent correlation.
	The Finnish and the Portuguese.
	Basically the same people with the same values.
	Yeah.
	No!
	Now, the thing is that the whole thing, it's a bit dystopian, because they portrayed, you know, this uplifting music, people being happy.
	It has a Stepford Wives air into it.
	Do you know Stepford Wives?
	No, I don't know.
	So it was basically a small town where the men decided that they need to have the women, to have some robot women, and robot women would be more loving.
	And there's a scene in the adaptation where, you know, someone asks, There's a wife asking her husband, can robots say that I love you?
	And the response is, yeah, in 57 languages.
	Okay, so the thing is, it is supposed to protect The fundamental rights and freedom of expression of people in the EU.
	But again, we mentioned about the problems with freedom of expression.
	They understand it as freedom to agree with the agenda, not the freedom to disagree.
	And speaking of fundamental rights, what about the freedom of association?
	What about the freedom to choose your sources of information?
	Other things being equal, you know, we are limited beings.
	It is very unlikely that one side is 100% and the other side is 100% wrong.
	That is why we need to have a more diversified source of information.
	That's not the use of the word diversity that we are usually criticizing.
	So, we need more sources of information and it's good to be able to appeal to them.
	And frankly, it is very worrying when governments who think that their, let's say, rule is going to be challenged by people finding out about their practices and disagreeing with what they're doing when they're trying to regulate that.
	That's disconcerting.
	Let's move to the next link.
	You will see that this is here, the document.
	Anyone of you who is interested, you can have a look.
	Let's go to the next link.
	get to read all of that yeah okay so um the thing let's go to the next um link and here we have a supporter of this um policy hendrik klassenz who if we show his uh account if yeah he has he has a sort of a following
	he has 71.5 thousand followers and he's founder of the pan-european fbpe movement resistor dreamer translator poet astronomy global topics of the Okay, and what he says is really Weird.
	And it illustrates a ton of problems with it.
	Now, if we can see here, can we?
	Yeah.
	Because I support the new EU social media regulation, I have been getting tons of hate from bots, trolls, extremists and magathons.
	There is no better proof that these people have every interest in not fighting hate and lies.
	Let us therefore wholeheartedly suppose the EU hashtag DSA.
	Now, you would wait.
	You would think that on Twitter, when this person wants Twitter to be regulated and presents Twitter as being basically a town square of hatred, you would expect to see some of that hatred on Twitter.
	If we browse slowly on the replies, we will see basically, there's just a question, Then the other person agrees.
	Then another person called Alex Hale says block and report very effective on climate deniers.
	We are with you.
	Victory Europe.
	I support you, Hendrik.
	Victory Europe yet again.
	A badge of honour.
	We must face down the populist.
	I don't see any hate.
	There are no even disagreeing opinions.
	Yeah, and the question is that how is hate to be interpreted?
	And it's really interesting because if we go on the next link, we will see what this person says here.
	I mean the Digital Service Act package that creates a safer digital space where the fundamental rights of users are protected.
	This includes fighting disinformation, lies, hatred and threats on social media.
	So the thing is, That this person is really making many logical leaps.
	Now, if we go back on the original tweet, he says, his rationale is, assuming that he got hate, which I don't see, but okay, whatever.
	He says, people hate me for supporting a policy.
	Therefore, they are not interested in fighting lies.
	I don't see the connection.
	Sorry sir, with respect, your emotions are neither identical with truth nor infallible indicators of it.
	If we are to go forward with the thing, the problem here is that whenever we... I'm a big believer in talking to people and I think that there is value in talking to people and it is not a coincidence.
	I repeat, when you have governments that are authoritarian and totalitarian in nature, when they try to control information, they do this for a reason.
	They do this to disrupt the people's ability to To communicate, coordinate and present a united front, which functions as a source of power.
	I'm not saying that people get things always right, but it's function for, let's say, a stable republic and a stable society to have many centers of power and have a sort of balance of power.
	So the point is that we have, when we have calls for massive centralization, we have people who want to pose as authorities over what information you should have.
	One of the most disturbing aspects of the Digital Services Act is that it authorizes the European Commission to declare a crisis.
	And in the event of declaring such a crisis, then they can require companies like Twitter To take action against information that is deemed to pose a threat to public health or security.
	We've been down this path already.
	We've just lived through two years of public crises and emergencies where governments and social media companies have gone after individuals, have shut down their accounts in the name of protecting the public against harmful or misleading information.
	Much of that information that was censored, we now know was absolutely on the money, concerning the lack of efficacy of population-wide masking, concerning the lab origins of the coronavirus, concerning the efficacy of vaccines, their failure to stop transmission, and many other issues.
	What can we do about this?
	The first step is to wake up.
	The first step is just to realize what's happening and to spread the word.
	Share this video.
	Tweet about this.
	Talk to your friends about this.
	Because people's ability to speak freely on social media may very well be curtailed in the future under the Digital Services Act.
	Please do consider taking out a paid subscription to my Freedom Blog if you'd like to support my work in defence of a free society.
	Both my YouTube and Substack channels are on the homepage of my Twitter account.
	Now, I'm very pleased to announce that I have already interviewed David Thunder, and our interview will be released very soon.
	We are talking about things such as the new Irish anti-free speech bill, we're talking about citizenship, we're talking about communities.
	Be sure to tune in, okay?
	So, one thing is that, there's a notion here with, let's say, the emergency.
	Governments that want to have a monopoly on information, they want to have a monopoly on declaring a state of emergency.
	And the thing is that we sort of constantly live under emergencies.
	When emergency becomes the new norm, it seems to no longer be an emergency.
	It's kind of like terrorism threat level.
	Yeah.
	It goes up.
	I mean, just, okay.
	Nothing I can do about it.
	This is the norm.
	Yeah.
	And there's a question of not destroying from the inside what you're trying to protect from the outside, which is the famous quote by Eisenhower.
	Now, speaking of emergencies, let's look at the next tweet we have.
	Who again declares emergency and for what purpose?
	Anti-LGBTQ plus laws.
	Know before you go.
	Emergency.
	For the first time, we have human rights campaign.
	Accounts says for the first time ever we are declaring a national state of emergency as LGBTQ plus Americans face extremist attempt to roll back our rights.
	It's more important than ever we have the necessary resources to stay safe no matter where we are.
	Now, is it still legal to be gay in America?
	How can they declare a state of national emergency if they're not?
	That's my point.
	Are they about to make it illegal again?
	Is it going to be gone?
	I don't know.
	No?
	Nothing's going to happen.
	Next tweet.
	Again, America's largest LGBTQ plus civil rights organization has declared a national state of emergency citing multiplying threats facing millions.
	Now, again, How can they declare a national state of emergency?
	Who listens?
	Who allows them to say and speak as if they represent the state?
	That's a really interesting question.
	We go on the next link, we have a video here, which gives some context, because the thing is that when we look at identity politics, we see many minority groups.
	And the question is, how come do small minority groups have so much power?
	The question is whether some people give them the power to disrupt society, and whether they actually use them in order to play divide and conquer.
	Let's look at this.
	You now make a point of, that's an investment criteria for you.
	Well, behaviors are going to have to change, and this is one thing we're asking companies.
	You have to force behaviors, and at BlackRock we are forcing behaviors.
	Fifty-four percent of the incoming class are women.
	We added four more points in terms of diverse employment this year.
	You know, what we're doing internally is, if you don't achieve these levels of impact, your compensation could be impacted, okay?
	We're doing the same thing.
	And so, it's just, you have to force behaviors.
	And if you don't force behaviors, whether it's gender or race or just any way you want to say the composition of your team, You're going to be impacted, and that's just not recruiting, it is development, as Ken said.
	And ultimately, it's still going to take time, but I am just as much shocked as Ken is that we have not seen more opportunities, and we're going to have to force change.
	Much capitalism.
	God, I love the free market.
	Everyone in charge of the top's a socialist, and we'll force it on you.
	This is from 2017 and I don't know but I think that basically a society is not a business.
	There is more to society than being a business.
	And I don't know how he run, how he functioned as a CEO, but it's important to maintain a free society and fight for our liberties that are being curtailed.
	And this idea of forcing behaviors, we sort of see it a lot in the new governments and they forcefully push forward the ESG agenda on all sorts of issues.
	One thing to say, because it's important, and there's a difference between two distinct arguments, because you may ask that, well, you didn't say a lot about the Digital Services Act, the specifics of the legislature.
	The thing is that There is a difference.
	The point is not that there can be a bad interpretation of the notion of hate, the notion of disinformation, the notion of misinformation, a bad diagnosis of intention.
	Of course there can be.
	But every institution can be, let's say, misused.
	But that's not the argument.
	The argument is a bit different.
	The thing is, the argument goes like this, that given the current state of society that we live in, and Let's say the increased centralization and the forceful.
	Pushing forward of an agenda that the people don't necessarily want, but some of them tolerate, it is overwhelmingly likely that hate will be over-diagnosed.
	I mean, even if you accept that hateful speech should be prosecuted, that I personally don't, but even if you did that, the question is that we risk an over-diagnosis of You know, hate, disinformation and all these bits.
	There's nothing in the way that current governments in the Western world operates that suggests that they are not going to abuse and exaggerate in diagnosing whatever they present to be the ills.
	And just last last quick to end on a funny note, if we scroll down a bit, we will see that this is a quote tweet.
	Now, there wasn't Nina Turner who said, if someone says they're a woman, they're a woman, not at half concept.
	No one said anything about disinformation against that.
	And the quote to it is really funny.
	Rudy says, if someone says they did not have sexual relations with a woman, they did not have sexual relations with that woman.
	Not a tough concept.
	All right.
	Well, with that, we'll move to the Rainbow Alliance dying, which, you know, I didn't think I'd see this in my lifetime.
	What happened?
	So, Rainbow Alliance over.
	Libel Lore is my new best friend.
	Which is a weird crossover, but that's where we're at.
	Because we reported previously how Pride is now not an alphabet offence.
	It is now a festival of nationalism, which has been going pretty well.
	But I did also notice that they decided to take another cup of ales.
	So I thought we'd just talk about those real quick.
	But first, we shall begin with just mentioning something on Locius.com, being the Spanish Civil War, another place where I don't really know why I put this.
	I don't know what the segue is.
	There's conflicts.
	Whatever.
	I love the Spanish Civil War.
	Go check that out.
	It's a good episode about it.
	But we'll start off with my new favorite meme because I just saw this this morning.
	Study finds that hearing an opposing viewpoint causes no real harm.
	I'm shook, I'm sure you are, because we have heard for maybe 10-15 years now from the alphabet agenda that words are violence and shall kill you if you hear them enough.
	Yeah, do you need a study for this?
	You do need a study.
	How much money was taken by taxpayer to fund this study?
	It was a difficult one.
	The doctor pictured there has been working hard.
	But we'll just check it out.
	This is something that happened in my own life.
	So we'll go to the next one.
	This is as Callum tells you about a day in my life.
	I was out on Sunday, just getting some water and food and walked down to the centre square.
	As you can see here, something was taking place.
	What had happened is that chap with the microphone there and his friends, who are Christians, had come to preach the word of God.
	That's a lovely Swindon square.
	Yeah, well they turned up.
	They said some really normie Christian stuff such as Christianity is good and you should convert.
	Which is, oh god, how could they say that?
	One of the most mentioned, that homosexuality was a sin.
	You know?
	Love the sin, I hate the sin.
	Really tepid, normie stuff.
	And this caused a crowd.
	A bunch of really low IQ individuals started screeching at him, that he was awful, and how could you do this?
	And he just stood there like, because it's the bible?
	What?
	How are you shocked by this?
	Yeah.
	And also, how does hearing an opposing viewpoint really make you act like this?
	I'll be honest, looking at this, I was kind of disappointed just how crap some of the British public is in regards to having a brain or just being able to deal with someone who disagrees with them.
	But particular, one guy who turned up and then began pointing and screaming at the guy who was a Christian.
	What he screamed was really funny though.
	He just screamed, hate, hate, hate on a loop.
	Yeah.
	If you go to the next image here, the guy in the top there who's pointing, that's all he did.
	And then he would just go up to him, you know, very, very close, and just scream in his ear, hate, hate, hate.
	I mean, almost, where was that scene from 1984?
	Did he say it three times?
	Constantly, it's not ad nauseum, just hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, but shouting it slowly each time, like he was shouting rape, like there's been a rape, police, come and help, but instead shouting the word hate, like it's a crime or something.
	You're supposed to go boo now.
	Spooky!
	Spooky!
	But of course the police turned up.
	Hate!
	Specifically the following police if we go to the next one.
	A community sport offer specifically here.
	You can see the rainbow lanyard and the rainbow lapels because British policing.
	There's nothing better than that.
	That's a rainbow division.
	Yeah, they literally have the rainbow Sturmtiger.
	Thing is, thankfully no one got arrested for having a different opinion that day.
	Shook, I knew.
	Things went so well in Britain that no one was arrested for having a different point of view.
	But I spoke to the guys who were doing the Christian speaking and they said that this had happened previously to them.
	They'd been arrested for having a different point of view.
	Which is great, thanks.
	Good.
	A chap in the US in the last 24 hours wasn't so lucky.
	As you can see here in Pennsylvania, a Christian man was arrested for protesting a pride event.
	On a public street in Reading, a cheer from the crowd as the cops handcuffed Atkins here, the chap who's being arrested.
	You can see behind, of course, pride as they're not just homosexuals, it is transgenderism.
	The racial pride flag there, which specifically excludes homosexuals, which I'm never going to stop pointing out because it is just eternally funny to me.
	That's what ended up becoming of it.
	But there we are.
	That chap didn't do too well.
	There's also another group in the US, though, that were fine.
	Didn't get arrested.
	See here?
	Yeah.
	Don't know what the difference was.
	Just visually, no idea.
	What is it?
	I don't know exactly... Why would you think there is any difference?
	What's different about these two images?
	Now for folks listening, previous chap might have been a white male.
	These not-chaps might not be white males.
	They might be names such as Fatima or Ayesha.
	I love how he's, you know, keeping the energy up.
	Make some noise.
	Muslims in Montgomery County protesting against LGBT books in school.
	The other side, where's who turned up?
	They were all mostly white women.
	So there we are.
	The Muslim ladies here are all chanting religious freedom now.
	I mean, it's a dark day when you have to chant that in America, but whatever.
	We'll get to the next one, because it wasn't just the Muslims of America that are doing that.
	Also, the Armenians turned up.
	This is in California, so of course there's violence, because street violence is my new best friend, I guess, of the LGBT movement.
	Cool.
	So, the footage here shows the Alphabet individual punching first the Armenian, but starts an awkward place, can't tell what really caused it, so we'll get into that.
	Bunch of Armenians fighting with the local LGBT lobby.
	I didn't think I'd see that either.
	I'm not really sure Americans know who Armenians are, to be frank.
	I'm gonna go out on a limb here, to be a bit rude, and probably guess they think they're probably Muslims.
	Because they're just...
	Yeah, whatever, you know what I'm getting at.
	We'll get to the next one because Andy Ngo, as well, was reporting on this.
	Armenian-American men fighting Antifa and far-left protesters outside Glendale California School board meeting.
	Immigrant families have been furious at the elementary school, are doing pride events.
	Because, you know, it's an elementary school.
	The hell's wrong with you?
	There are no sexually active children.
	Especially at the age of five, you fucking suspected nonsense.
	All right, but we'll go to the chap here who makes an interesting point.
	This guy.
	I think Andy retweeted it.
	It's so strange to me that you have people willing to battle in the streets in order to ensure that children are taught pseudo-scientific nonsense about gender identity and that parents are denied any say in this matter.
	That's a really good point.
	I hadn't thought about this.
	Yeah, that's a great point.
	Wesley Young.
	Do you remember this happening over creationism?
	Do you remember how parents of America would beat the crap out of each other to prove or disprove Croatianism should be taught in the classroom?
	Yeah, now we want to teach IMJazz.
	Let's start hating each other.
	Yeah, I mean, really, you're willing to go to prison for this?
	This is your hill?
	Mad.
	Mad.
	We got a bit mad people involved, actually, at the school board meeting, before this all turned into a brawl.
	So we'll check out the speech from the pro-LGBT side, because we always, always listen to our opponents, and that's the way you learn, because it turns out opposing opinion doesn't hurt me.
	Well, I mean, it gives me a headache, but... Quite.
	This is the lady arguing here for the LGBT side.
	She says, I deal with a lot of trauma of LGBT youth.
	No such thing.
	She says that trauma is related to heteronormative Judeo-Christian patriarchal imperialist capitalist system that oppresses them.
	Just stop it.
	I mean it's... Get some help.
	Americans talk about, sorry Armenians she says, talk about genocide but have they considered they deserved it?
	No she doesn't say that.
	She says, but they received SSI, but they don't want to talk about indigenous genocide in 1850 and the lack of reparations for indigenous black people in this country.
	You know, when she says that I deal with a lot of trauma of the LGBT youth related to the heteronormative, judo-christian, patriarchal, imperialist, capitalist system that oppresses them, I like how they throw everything in.
	It reminds me of... You could just do one, could you?
	of Renton in the beginning of Trainspotting where he starts talking about all the aspects of modern life and he ends with choose life you know it's just repetition he doesn't understand what he's saying but he just throws stuff I mean the last bit's the worst part because I mean that was all kind of gibberish but she came out with 95% of kids will know they're trans when they're three four or five they don't know what they're having for breakfast Don't trust you.
	Don't trust your own kids.
	That's when you have the parental rights, people.
	The anti-parental rights.
	Pride is about acceptance and tolerance of homosexuals.
	How much further could we be from that statement at this point?
	When you're like, yeah, three-year-olds, they're trans.
	Alright, give me your kids.
	They're mine now.
	Freak, just what's wrong with you?
	Just stop it.
	But that's not the most insane Pride moment.
	I really wish that was the most insane Pride moment of the last 24 hours.
	Was there a more insane one?
	Yeah, but I mean in the last 24 hours we found one that's even more insane.
	Oxfam.
	You know, that book charity store.
	That is supposed to do charity?
	Yep.
	And not other things.
	Charity is the main goal.
	Yeah, well, anyway, they released this video, which is now unlisted on their YouTube channel, as you can see there, because they realized, oh, crap, we're gonna get sued.
	This is where the libel law part comes in, because they put out this.
	Hashtag protect the pride, OxfamPride2023.
	It's a really boring video where they argue that we're for love, whereas the opposing side is for hate.
	We're the good people for good things.
	The opposing side, they hate us for the hate.
	It really is just childlike IQ stuff.
	The really weird part is that it's done by a Bangladeshi team, the animation and the voice.
	I mean, I suppose we've got to get used to it living in England, being lectured to in Indian accents of the old Raj, so... Great.
	Whole side conversation.
	But, they put one thing in, which is why they deleted it, which has got them in the biggest trouble.
	See you in the next link here.
	This slide is taken out of one frame, in which they're saying that these people in this image, don't know who they are, preyed on LGBT people because they're all hate groups, online and offline.
	Lady in the middle.
	Supposed to be J.K.
	Rowling.
	How could you know?
	How could you?
	It's a random woman!
	It says TERF.
	Who else could it be?
	It could be.
	There are lots of TERFs.
	It could be Posey Barker.
	It's almost like you think they traced this from another image.
	Yeah, they did.
	This person obviously pointing out that this probably breaks the law.
	On the charity commission, never mind the whole label part of this, where you're like, yeah, you're basically demons.
	I mean, for people listening, the TERFs here, men and women, have all got demon red eyes, frowny faces with their teeth out like they're about to kill someone.
	And then they're all pointing their hands at some multi-rainbows, I don't know, chess pieces?
	Yeah.
	In the middle there?
	They're full of rage.
	They're about to eat something that looks like chess pawns.
	Gollum hates chads!
	It really is!
	Are you the Daily Stormer, Oxfam?
	Looking at the table and getting really pissed off with the table.
	I do love the idea that Oxfam will just turn around tomorrow and be like, Daily Stormer?
	Daily Stormer, get your copy.
	Get your copy at Oxfam.
	Newly minted editions that we've printed.
	We'll go to the next... If we click on...
	The third image there, because I put this up just to make the point of, yeah, they did trace it.
	They traced it directly from an old image of JK Rowling.
	The hair is the same, the colour is the same, the outline of the body is the same.
	They've even covered up, as you can see there, her poppy with just a turf badge because, well, it's a bunch of Bangladeshi animators who have got Photoshop and a drawing pad.
	So yeah, they just, well, stole it.
	So there you are.
	And is Oxfam now not selling her books?
	Well, we'll go to the next one because there's a statement from Oxfam where, well firstly they put out on their website because they took it down off everywhere but the website was still up so that doesn't really work.
	We'll go to the next one because they have a statement.
	The statement read, there's Nick Dixon's books here, we have removed the post because it concerns raised with us.
	Such as being sued for all worth.
	That was pretty worrying, I imagine.
	If you go to the other one they released another official statement which they said Oxfam believes that all people should be able to make decisions which affirm their lives.
	Honk honk I am an attack helicopter.
	Enjoy their rights and live life free of discrimination and violence.
	Are you a chopper?
	I have a right to fly over foreign lands and drop hellfire missiles on disgusting foreigners.
	It is my right as an Apache!
	I'm a bit confused by Nina Turner before.
	If you say you're a chopper, you're a chopper?
	Not a tough concept?
	I have an Apache helicopter.
	Get to the chopper!
	You must respect my right to kill needlessly and from above.
	If you do not agree, you have vehicle privilege.
	Sorry.
	But they go on in here.
	They say, you know, no violence, including people from LGBTQ plus communities.
	In an effort to make an important point, Ah yes, so important.
	No one's made it before.
	About the real harm of transphobia.
	We made a mistake.
	Really, did you?
	Weird.
	We have therefore decided to edit the video to remove the term TERF and we are sorry for the offence caused.
	There was no intention by Oxfam or the filmmakers for this slide to have portrayed any particular person.
	Don't sue us please, JK.
	I like having three houses, says the CEO of Oxfam.
	Presumably.
	Yeah, well, thought we'd just check out Oxfam as well, because as you mentioned there was a story about them not selling JK Rowling's books back in the day.
	After they did this, after they decided that they would create, well, dehumanising cartoons about how their enemies are demons who need to be destroyed because we're the party of love, a lady who lost her job at Oxfam came out of hiding and worked with UnHerd to publish this, which is a real insight into how these people think of us.
	Well, not just TERFs, obviously.
	They think of all people who believe that men and women exist and are biological.
	This is how they think of us.
	So here's the article.
	It's hard to imagine a more agreeable place to work than a charity bookshop staffed by civic-minded volunteers.
	Yeah, it's the kind of thing old people do.
	For Maria, the chance to work for one of Oxfam's global outreach teams, helping to end violence against women in the workplace, was a dream come true.
	And for a few years, it was.
	Right up until the moment a fellow co-worker asked an internal message board if Oxfam shops should ban the sale of JK Rowling's books.
	Oh no.
	Whatever could have happened.
	During a discussion on Oxfam's intranet, Maria had come to the defence of Britain's most popular thinking author, asking for evidence of Rowling's...
	That was your first mistake.
	It was a decision that prompted a gruelling internal investigation, one in which Maria struggled to clear her name, leaving to her having a nervous breakdown and leaving both her job and the country.
	It was that bad, what the Oxfam internal staff did to her.
	Oxfam eventually offered a grovelling apology for the procedural mistakes, not ideological ones, that made Maria upset.
	So basically it was, sorry, you're sad.
	Yep.
	Have another nervous breakdown you transphobe.
	But she's still troubling to make sense of it all.
	Speaking for the first time about the episode, she reveals, my life has been torn apart.
	It drove me to a breakdown.
	I lost my confidence and worst of all, I began to doubt myself.
	And she reveals how internally they view anyone with a different opinion.
	So, I mean, I just, sorry for a minute, but at a charity bookshop, A place in which political allegiance should never be a reason for us to fight each other, but instead our society's been organised that no, we're gonna have internal fights with each other over this.
	Three years after joining the charity, she was promoted to coordinating role within the women's rights team, whose remit was to ensure that female equality was reflected at Oxfam's work.
	That was your second mistake.
	She realized almost immediately how this was impossible.
	Yeah, feminism.
	But she says it was impossible given the growing dominance of pro-trans mindsets at Oxfam.
	So, you know, typical story, another feminist coming to terms with reality, but that's not where it ended.
	On the advice of Stonewall, Oxfam advised its employees to state their pronouns in meetings and on correspondence.
	It was regularly using Stonewall's materials to advise staff on LGBT plus inclusion in the workplace with heavy emphasis on transgender ideology above all else.
	Maria says that she initially towed the party line on that matter.
	Your third mistake.
	Staying silent when trans issues were discussed.
	Quote.
	But then I began to see how women's rights were being attacked.
	Particularly, because it was obvious, in single-sex spaces such as a rape crisis centre, we were being labelled as anti-trans.
	Oxfam staff were invited to join a company-wide online group related to their interests.
	I shouldn't have joined.
	Maria joined the group.
	Fifth mistake.
	Why would you join an LGBT plus group?
	Except I don't know, have a laugh.
	In September 2020, a charity shop manager asked the group, what's your opinion on selling JK Rowling's books in the charity shop?
	Now, this person who asked it, this manager, the person was trans and was hoping that everyone would just agree.
	Yeah.
	And if they didn't, real harm would beset her because, oh no, a different opinion.
	Maria asked the question, quote, can you explain why she's transphobic or why the book is transphobic?
	That was it.
	It went unanswered.
	Maria went on to express concerns about banning books.
	What an offensive and, you know, it's a soul-crushing question.
	I'm sorry, but it really is the most tepid defence ever of JK Rowling, and that was enough to destroy someone's life within the company.
	I've done this in a train.
	Someone was saying, you know, please stop, stop asking the other person to give you your seat.
	Because I had, you know, there were people in it.
	And out of nowhere, someone starts asking, starts telling me, stop it, stop it, you're harassing my emotions.
	I ask him, how?
	No response.
	Just blank stares.
	Yeah.
	So she went on.
	She asked, one of the most important women writers in the UK, J.K.
	Rowling, before adding, quote, Actually, we are selling books from paedophiles and rapists.
	This is it.
	FYI.
	We are selling religious books.
	Stopping selling someone we don't like is called censorship, and that's the opposite of freedom of speech.
	End quote.
	Well, the manager, who asked the initial question, was not happy, presumably, because they left the conversation after that, and Maria thought that was the end of the matter.
	Quote, she had said she was uncomfortable with the conversation, and did not want to discuss it any further.
	Oh, come on.
	But following the exchange, Maria discovered that she'd been labelled in private chats as a transphobic bigot, and other members of the LGBT group were upset with her.
	I love that.
	So, real equality, according to these people, is selling paedophile books, but not transphobes.
	Not people who think women exist.
	Another manager sent her private messages.
	I mean, that's not creepy at all.
	Suggesting that Maria could lose her job after posting her comments.
	They felt threatening to me, said Maria.
	She said my views were incredible and said that she would be reporting me.
	Sorry, this is completely narcissistic, because the goal of Oxford, if you work somewhere, allegedly, if you work on a charity shop, you don't care about yourself, you do this for the other people.
	So if your goal is to raise money, In order to give them to people, you don't just say, oh, no, no, no, we're just going to not sell the books that basically have sold a billion of copies, because I don't feel good.
	It's not about you.
	Sorry.
	It's not about you.
	The point of charity is to destroy people who have different opinions from you.
	Yeah.
	That's the tagline now.
	In the next days, members of the group engaged colleagues in complaints and discussions about the thing, stating that transphobia will not be tolerated here.
	They did not name me, she says, but it was obvious who they were referring to.
	Just like, Maria, in general.
	Next, a petition was signed by 70 members of staff and it was put on the intranet.
	Great, so that's the front page.
	Calling for Oxfam's leadership to take a stand and commit to a zero tolerance approach to transphobia.
	This is bullying in the workplace, frankly.
	Workers' rights are being violated at this point.
	Senior management replied to the petition, authors saying no one in the organisation should be subjected to hate speech, so defend your employee.
	No, they didn't.
	Instead, they said that They have great concern for the members of the LGBT community blablabla I'm not going to read that crap because who gives an F. The point is, completely everyone starts trying to bully this lady.
	Hostile AF workplace right here.
	Three days later, Maria was invited to a meeting with her line manager and a member of the human resource team.
	She was told she was under investigation for the transphobic comments.
	Maria says, they should have told me what the actual topic of the meeting was so I could have brought a union representative.
	No, you don't have any rights.
	There are no workers' rights in the future.
	I apologize for upsetting anyone and try to outline the rationale for my views, such as, we sell pedo books, why did we stop selling JK Rowling?
	She's not any worse than that.
	That wasn't taken on.
	She eventually had to sign off with sickness and anxiety and depression.
	She worried about losing her job.
	Six weeks later, two days before Christmas, she was found guilty of misconduct and given a final warning.
	Oxfam told Maria that her comments breached the requirement of the Code of Conduct to treat all persons with dignity and respect.
	I think that's a brilliant article and by all means just send it to people around because it shows how the identity politics is a way of basically dominating workers in their environment.
	There are no workers' rights in these people's future.
	In fact, she then took them to an employment tribunal and won.
	Because, of course, she got a settlement out of them.
	But they had to give a grovelling apology, as previously mentioned.
	Because, yeah, you can't bully your employees into sickness because you had a political disagreement.
	The hell's the matter with you?
	We have rights still.
	Some of them.
	Not many, but some of them.
	They, uh, said here, quote, Now I'd like to remind you what they put out yesterday.
	Can we get it up?
	to their own religious or philosophical beliefs in the groveling apology.
	Now I'd like to remind you what they put out yesterday.
	Can we get it up?
	That lick?
	These people got sued for bullying a woman in their workplace, one of their own employees, to the point of sickness, depression, and having to be signed off.
	Then gave her a final warning and lost in the suit.
	They had to do a settlement with her.
	And they've learned nothing.
	Words on a paper.
	They're never going to learn a damn thing.
	But just a reminder to all the alphabet activists of the world, in case something might get through to your skulls, if we have the meme back up, cause us no real harm.
	You're just butthurt.
	But anyway, the Alphabet Alliance is just awfully crumbling.
	The Muslim-Armenian Alliance, apparently that's stronger than the Alphabet Alliance at this point.
	And anyone who knows anything about those two groups, holy effing crap, I would not expect those two people to be on the same side about anything ever.
	But there we are.
	Let's go to the video comments.
	Has anyone else noticed that all the books that are being pushed by the left these days are contemporarily published?
	None of them are like from 70 years ago or 100 years ago.
	It's clearly just them trying to artificially raise the sales of their left-wing allies in the book publishing industry.
	The same could be said of drag queens and other such professions who are clearly just degenerate, talentless left-wingers who are being given well-paying jobs by their state allies as a form of patronage, which you should always point out when these subjects are brought up.
	They never do seem to have any specialities, those people.
	Like, they're not going to go into engineering or woodworking after, you know, people stop paying for their services.
	At that point.
	We're going to have to write a comment to them, I suppose.
	There's a word from our sponsor there.
	Pretty weird to have one.
	I mean, I'd love that if that was how cable TV works.
	If you know a word from our sponsors and it's literally just all a bunch of people who like their show, you'd just be like, here's my thoughts.
	Anyway, Omar Awad says, word of the day.
	Ultra... I can't read that.
	Ultra crepedarian.
	A critic giving opinion on matters beyond their knowledge.
	Also see Taylor Lawrence trying to lecture Tucker on being a journalist.
	I'll have to reach an audience.
	Way out of her league.
	Kevin Fox says, Odd how a Ukrainian soldier wearing the dark sun.
	Bad is heinous.
	But if we can fill London with crescents and stars, and that's call and inclusive.
	In the past 70 years, which badge has been responsible for more killing?
	Rue the day.
	Do you guys consider when the 90s and early noughts, America was a dreamland for all European countries based on their culture?
	And the worst thing that ever came out of there was frosted tips and bleached spotted hairdo I don't know what he's talking about, I'll be honest.
	Does the bleach spotted here?
	No, I was thinking of bleached chicken.
	Bleached chicken is the glory of America.
	Lord Nervar says, I didn't think America had a king, but it seems tuck at the first house of Carlson.
	Seriously, what a mad lad to get mega cancelled by your own employer and then come back with tens of millions of views.
	That's totally true.
	I mean, it is one hell of a power.
	Speaking of which, Derek Power says, Tucker doesn't need to have, shall we say, a certain shape to attract millions of views.
	Let's hope for the rest of us.
	Ah, I think Tucker's pretty.
	You know, he's not a bad looking guy.
	Someone online says, if a network dominates TV, then they think they can change minds, or at least silence skeptics, by being the only news presenter.
	Yeah, that's how they think, but I mean, it's so archaic to think that, oh yeah, we own the TV so we can run how people think these days.
	Yeah.
	Bro, the watch time is dying every year.
	Alex Ogle says, nice of Tucker's detractors to link to his video directly.
	There's no such thing as bad publicity.
	That's pretty nice of them.
	ShakeSilver says, amazing, even without Tucker, Mehdi and his ilk still want to destroy Fox.
	Nice appeasement, Murdoch.
	And Kevin Fox says, and as of battalion defending Ukraine, it doesn't scare me half as much as an entire jihadi army the British government has happily allowed into the UK.
	You are right about that.
	Totally true.
	Matt P, the fact that Tucker, uh, you can make us all look bad and you can't be the sheriff of Fox News.
	We're sending you to be... Sanford Gloucestershire is now what Twitter is, huh?
	Yeah, that's what I said in the beginning where they said that you make us look bad.
	Go to Sanford.
	It's one thing you haven't counted on.
	The team!
	Sean Hannity and everyone there is just like, we're glad you're leaving.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Okay, so Miles Mitchell.
	Europe, the birthplace of communism, socialism, fascism and totalitarianism.
	I'm guessing these are the values they're espousing.
	Yes, I want to say, isn't this a bit Eurocentric though?
	There were some other civil... Let's just not take all the blame, okay?
	To be fair, I mean, all of the big world ideologies... Yeah.
	I mean, it is... It's basically France.
	Yeah, but the practice... They're all basically France, aren't they?
	Okay, yeah, I understand about the ideologies, but also the practice, I mean, the despotism, there is everywhere else.
	Sure, but it's never really new, is it?
	Yeah.
	So even when you go to, I guess I said about this, I probably, I need to show you the book somewhere, I don't know where it is.
	There's a picture of when the Soviets took North Korea, and then they organized the first communist grenade.
	And you've got all these North Korean places with massive things of Engels, Marx, and Stalin.
	Yeah.
	And looking at it, I do get a bit of, like, almost white guilt feeling.
	Mao got jealous.
	It wasn't that, it was more, clearly none of you people have any idea who these white guys are.
	You have no idea what they believe and you have no idea why you're being told to hold their pictures up.
	But they were supposed to go hooray.
	Yeah.
	Matt P. Which part of the U.S.
	Constitution says charities can declare a state of national emergency again?
	Excellent point.
	Lord Nerevar, every time I see or hear that the EU has done anything, I feel vindicated over Brexit.
	They literally cannot help themselves but be evil at every possible turn.
	They are hardly even hiding it anymore.
	I'll miss my European friends from Twitter, but Mosques should withdraw from Europe if they are serious about this.
	Kevin Fox.
	So I guess, thanks to the Twitter EU issue, we'll be revisiting their definition of voluntary to read.
	You don't have to, but if you don't, you're a bad person and we will punish you.
	Exactly.
	It's freedom to agree with them, not to disagree with them.
	Kevin Fox, Elon went from an arms folded defensive pose to an alpha male, just effing tried dipshit pose.
	He was changing all sorts of, you know, manner.
	He was doing all sorts of mannerisms and assuming various posts and the other guy was like that, you know.
	I kind of like the monkey pose.
	Yeah.
	Sitting there with the Mama Merkel thing, it's cringe.
	Yeah.
	There with your arms out, just kind of looking like you might smash something, it's better.
	So, Ewan Baker, these governments, bureaucrats, that they think they can rule the internet need to end.
	Andrew Narog, I suppose you brought up the Spanish Civil War segment as it seems we are seeing the left radicalize more and more all in similar ways.
	History repeats itself.
	AZ Desert Rat, last time I checked, you still get to be gay, bi, lesbian, trans, etc.
	up.
	It's because the alliance among the leftists all collapsed as well.
	Leftist infighting is the world's best sport.
	Arizona Desert Rat.
	Last time I checked, you still get to be gay, bi, lesbian, trans, etc.
	Just don't try to trans the kids.
	S.H.
	Silver, totalitarian controls always start as voluntary, within quotation marks, until you disagree with the ethical agenda of the state.
	The only reason other corporations appear to be doing this voluntarily is because they all agree with the government's goal.
	Yes, and unfortunately, they try to communicate the message that freedom is obedience to the state.
	Arizona Desert Rat, looks like Twitter will likely become a black market app.
	And how is the EU going to control what is posted on Twitter?
	They're going to have to ban it outright and monitor every single phone in Europe.
	Then people will just use alternative media apps.
	Should we go to your Rainbow Alliance server?
	So, Alexander Drake says Christians protesting the gay agenda get prosecuted despite Christianity being a massively important influence on our country's history.
	Muslims protest the gay agenda and nothing happens to them despite Islam historically being, often violently, in conflict with Christianity.
	And then someone scribbled out what you've written in between so I don't know if you, I don't know.
	This is because, again, you have two groups that allegedly have protected characteristics, and they don't know what to do when they clash.
	It's not a clash that follows from the, you know, the rosy agenda of the identitarian politics.
	They're supposed to say, no, all our minority groups are compatible with each other, but they're not.
	Bleachdemon says, Callum, stop with the helonormative language.
	What?
	Helionormative.
	I don't know what that means.
	I think it's, you know, it makes sense.
	It's from the hetero, from the helio, yeah.
	Good joke, but I didn't get it.
	XYNZ says, if we think that just because they are removing the sacred signs from their logos we've won, then we're the biggest chumps in history.
	They're playing us for the tactical retreat, No, this war is far from over.
	We need to recapture the institution.
	Starting with HR, join your organization's DEI chapter.
	Subvert with from in.
	We've met many guys at events I've mentioned before.
	Do join your diversity chapters at your companies because you can just control them.
	So there were some guys at a bank who took control of their diversity department.
	So when anyone gets reported for, this person did a racism, this person did a transphobia, it goes to them.
	So these base guys are in charge of the disciplinary procedures and just go, nah, we're not disciplining them.
	Yeah.
	So nothing happens.
	So it's a good strategy.
	Or discipline the other, the accuser.
	I don't think they have that power.
	I'm not saying that it's, you know, Victory Royale, go home, drink some mead.
	I'm saying that it's that moment after Stalingrad where it's over for the Germans.
	It's just a matter of time.
	Angel Brain says, I often wonder if the alphabet spaghetti speeches shows that they've accidentally picked up propaganda techniques by insisting that 95% of trans kids know they're trans.
	It seems they're also prepping you or trying to sneak in the 95% of kids are trans.
	I don't know.
	I think they're probably just not even thinking.
	LordNervous says, if I only believed the Rainbow Alliance could really crumble, I'd file the blackpill for that.
	Nah bro, it's going well.
	All the companies aren't even using it anymore.
	We're making progress.
	It's getting there.
	Shit up.
	The Real Bigfoot says, I'm worried for the future discussions in this country.
	God, what will we do without... Sorry, I'm not going to end that sentence, we already know.
	governments all western corporations anyone with a shred of power vomits rainbow bile into the current political discourse I'm worried for the future discussions in this country god what will we do without Ross Degall says Selyos Oxfam is there to rape Haitian girls yeah I can't read the rest of that but yeah they did Did you know about that?
	No.
	What happened?
	A bunch of their staff went to Haiti after the earthquake to help out and all these people had lost everything so they just turned them into prostitutes Disgusting.
	Yeah, charity workers.
	Some of the best people, and worst on Earth, because it attracts both of those.
	Joan of Arc says it's almost like the immigrants from some countries are more sensitive to government imposition of a religion than other forms of indoctrination.
	Funny that.
	Yeah.
	It's about it.
	We're out of time.
	If you'd like more, go to the website, come back for Julius Ebola, get some cereal or something.
	Bye!

▲