Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 8, 2023 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:30:42

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #671

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Good afternoon, folks.
	Welcome to the podcast of Lotus Caesars for the 8th of June, 2023.
	I'm joined by Connor.
	Hello.
	And today we're going to be talking about how the UK government was indeed spying on lockdown critics, how leftists are seething over Tucker's triumphant return, and how Childline are pushing gender surgeries.
	Childline.
	Anyway, let's crack on.
	So, if you at any point criticised lockdown in the UK and your tweet went semi-viral—not you, Carl, because, of course, you were still kicked out of Twitter.
	I wasn't on Twitter at that time.
	I was a strong lockdown critic, though.
	Yes, well, cast into the wilderness with much gnashing of teeth, but for the rest of us, we might have ended up on a watchlist.
	Turns out that wasn't a conspiracy theory.
	Everyone thought the government might be spying on critics because they seemed to know at all times and all places where the lockdown protests were going to happen, and they got very heavy-handed with the grannies, but not with BLM.
	And now we have exclusive Telegraph reporting that they had entire behavioural monitoring units operating out the Cabinet Office.
	So this is the first exclusive that we have from the Telegraph, how secretive COVID units tackling COVID disinformation Straight towards censorship.
	And so I'm just going to go through some of the information today and see who exactly was targeted, which far-right extremists warranted them being on a watch list.
	Just before we go on, Conservative government?
	Yeah.
	Like, if this was under the Labour Party, I'd be like, well, that's what I'd expect from those bloody Soviet apparatchiks.
	But this is the Conservatives?
	Well, they've also passed the Abortion Buffer Zone Censorship, the Online Harms Bill, they haven't done anything about Section 127.
	It should surprise nobody.
	And there are one or two dissenting backbenchers who speak up against this in here.
	Not good enough.
	Sure, sure.
	They've been marginalised, and so the government themselves are... Go and join Andrew Bridgen.
	Yes.
	That's my opinion.
	I'm sorry, I'm not having it anymore.
	I don't disagree!
	So in January 2021, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport Sport, very relative to censorship.
	Assembled 21 men and women with the purpose, the chairman explained, of addressing the threat posed by COVID-19 myths and disinformation.
	The CDU, which is the Counter Disinformation Unit, began in 2019 to tackle disinformation related to the European and general elections.
	Those present at the meeting included senior executives working for Google, Facebook and Twitter, as well as the BBC and Ofcom, the broadcasting regulator in the UK that says what people can and can't say and will soon control the internet thanks to the online harms bill.
	This is...
	are equivalent to that Intercept piece that I covered quite a while ago with Harry, in a segment called Biden's Watergate Moment, round early November, where it was confirmed through a series of emails that Silicon Valley had a direct line to the Biden administration and the intelligence agencies as to which accounts and posts to censor or ban.
	And this seems to be pretty much the same thing, just operating in the UK.
	A BBC spokesperson said the broadcaster attended the Counter Disinformation Policy Forum in an observer-only capacity.
	Yeah, well I somehow don't believe that.
	One, because as you covered recently, again with Harry, they've got their new disinformation unit, which is going to be using Google Maps to counter the far right.
	And also, if we remember the trusted news initiative that was going on at the time of the pandemic to counter vaccine misinformation, it was spearheaded by the BBC, also involving Reuters, who had a former chairman of Pfizer on the Reuters board at the time.
	And both the BBC and Reuters were taking funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, who were also funding Chris Whitty, who is the chief scientific advisor in the UK's School of Tropical Medicine.
	So you see how all the people that have money wrapped up here also have money influencing the narratives.
	Just don't trust you guys, but fine.
	There are also half a dozen academics and representatives of fact-checking organisations and lobby groups such as Full Fact and the Centre for Countering Digital Hate.
	Together they formed the Counter Disinformation Policy Forum.
	We know they included Loughborough University's Andrew Chadwick and Will Moy, then Chief Executive of Full Fact, but only because of statements they've made elsewhere.
	So we don't know, even within these documents provided to The Telegraph, exactly who was part of this.
	We should have some accountability as to who is censoring us online, but we don't even know the full names.
	So what was discussed?
	There should be an emphasis on the importance of freedom of expression, the document states, and on transparency.
	Somewhat ironically, about a third of the six-page disclosure is so heavily redacted it compromises pages of black.
	When shown the heavily redacted version by the Telegraph, Will Moy was aghast.
	On behalf of Full Fact, he said, we do not believe that it was necessary or helpful to black out the notes of the meetings in this way.
	Then why not tell us the content of the meetings, if you're so committed to transparency?
	Just release it then.
	Yeah.
	Or don't create a body dedicated to censoring the British public.
	Also would be a great idea.
	So they conducted all of this by outsourcing it to private sector contracts and AI.
	So the DCMS spent £114,000 with a firm called Disinformation Index at the start of the pandemic, and a contract with more than £1.2 million with Logically, a firm headquartered in Yorkshire, which claims to use AI to uncover and address misinformation and disinformation online.
	Sorry, this really annoys me.
	I hate the terms misinformation and disinformation because they presume a kind of level of infallible knowledge about the subject upon which we are talking, which we know they don't have.
	Now, I'm not making any kind of commentary on COVID vaccines or anything like that.
	I'm just saying the epistemological standard of knowledge gathering that they are using is not very high because the information is still coming out.
	Also, definitionally, they should not be used interchangeably, because misinformation means that it is incorrect information erroneously shared.
	Disinformation is deliberate propaganda generated by foreign adversaries.
	So if they're using them interchangeably, they're saying you're Nan on Facebook sharing a message about microchips, for example.
	Is a Russian agent.
	Yeah.
	So they are conflating you with being a foreign terrorist.
	And have you ever heard of malinformation, by the way?
	No, I haven't actually.
	So that's a new one that's been baked into Joe Biden's AI Bill of Rights, and that is, correct information misrepresented to achieve undesirable outcomes.
	So FBI crime statistics, for example, would be malinformation.
	So if you tell the truth and it goes against the narrative... FBI crime statistics are malinformation!
	That's why they've stopped collecting them.
	Did you know that?
	Yeah, so if you share the truth, but it upsets them, you'll be banned.
	Thanks.
	Cheers for that mask-off moment.
	Brilliant.
	Publicly available contact information suggests the CDU's monitoring program continued until at least April 2023, and that included helping to build a comprehensive picture of potentially harmful misinformation and disinformation.
	They also collaborated with Silicon Valley.
	So, Caroline Dinneage, the former digital minister, told a committee of MPs in 2020, where, "...potentially harmful content is identified, the CDU will flag that content to the platform to ensure it can be swiftly reviewed and acted on." She added that the government does not mandate the removal of any content, but of course it's then arguable that if the government is telling you, a Silicon Valley body, to remove this piece of content while they're also legislating you with the online harms bill, you're more likely to comply to get favourable treatment by the legislators.
	I mean, the Mafia isn't mandating that you give them money.
	It's just really advisable.
	Yeah, it'd be a shame if something happened to your platform, wouldn't it?
	Exactly.
	But they were also in contact with them, because it says also in this Telegraph article, a Twitter executive told Matt Hancock's special adviser in March 2020, Leaked WhatsApp messages show that over the months that followed, the Health Secretary, Matt Hancock, discussed the problem of anti-vaccine misinformation with Nick Clegg, the former Deputy Prime Minister, who was then Vice President of Global Affairs at Meta, Facebook.
	In November 2020, Hancock wrote to Clegg, midway through a roundtable meeting that the government was holding with UK executives from Facebook and other tech companies, I'm on a Zoom about tackling anti-vax with Oliver Dowden, the then culture secretary.
	His name will come up later.
	Obviously vital.
	Your team has been working really well with the department and advertising ban is great.
	But we have to have a time frame of removal of anti-vax material and how to do that and demonetise it.
	Nick promised, I'll look into this.
	A month later, he sent Hancock another direct message.
	Matt, we're announcing further changes today.
	Basically, we'll now remove false claims debunked by public health experts about authorized licenses and vaccines.
	A spokesperson for Mr. Hancock said the information was in the public domain and directed readers to buy a copy of his book.
	So, if you're mad about us working with Silicon Valley to censor you because of questions you had about unspecified medical treatment, you can go and buy a book from the man that locked you in the house to find out about why he locked you in the house.
	I hate these people.
	They're awful.
	So, we knew they were doing this a little while ago, actually.
	The terms of service prevent me from commenting on this situation.
	Yes.
	Yes.
	So, a little while ago, this came out from the Daily Mail, and they were working with Big Brother Watch to release this information.
	So, the Ministry of Defence's 77th Brigade had spied on critics like Peter Hitchens, Julia Hartley Brewer, Toby Young, Adam Brooks, and sitting MP David Davis.
	So, all of those far-right figures, of course.
	Papers show the outfits were tasked with countering disinformation and harmful narratives from purported experts.
	Callum and Josh covered this in further detail before.
	If we go to this next one, you can go and check that segment out on our website for further information, a bit more of a breakdown.
	Ministers push social media platforms to remove posts and promote government-approved lines.
	Callum and Josh covered this in further detail before.
	If we go to this next one, you can go and check that segment out on our website for further information, a bit more of a breakdown.
	But if we go to the report that they mentioned in this, if we go to their...
	This is Big Brother Watch's Ministry of Truth report.
	And according to Big Brother Watch, they had four different units.
	This was the Rapid Response Unit, which was part of the Cabinet Office — we'll be mentioning that later — tasked with tackling a range of harmful narratives online.
	The Counter Disinformation Unit, which we've already mentioned.
	Also, in response to the war in Ukraine, the Foreign Office established the Government Information Cell, focused on identifying and countering Russian disinformation in the UK and abroad, and the Home Office's Research, Intelligence and Communications Unit, operating to push official lines that support counter-extremism.
	Now, I'm sure you remember, but when we reviewed the government's prevent training, they included figures like Douglas Murray, George Orwell, and you.
	So, if I don't trust them to define far-right and what constitutes an extremist, Sue me, I suppose?
	I don't think these people have our best interests at heart.
	At least I'm in good company.
	Yes!
	Yeah, yeah.
	Could be worse, to be associated with Orwell and Douglas Murray.
	There was also this leaked WhatsApp from the Telegraph, because they've been reporting consistently on this.
	This was one of the lockdown files, which we'll be going through at more depth later on.
	Matt Hancock had told people, if we could scroll down to his Whatsapps please, John, there's a screenshot in this file.
	He'd said, I think we're going to have to get heavy with police in enforcing lockdown measures, and then also suggested that because Nigel Farage had visited a pub, that he asked if he could arrest him.
	So, just going out and arresting your political opposition.
	These were the kinds of people that were doing this.
	Who else was targeted?
	Let's go to this telegraph piece again.
	Next one, please.
	So, people monitored included Big Brother Watch's Silky Carlo, who did the exposé in the first place, Professor of Evidence-Based Medicine at Oxford University, Carl Hennigan, obvious person who needs to be monitored by the government.
	Fringe far-right figures, again.
	Dr Alexandra De Figuerero, a research fellow at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and anti-school closure activist, head of campaign group Us For Them, Molly Kingsley.
	And we'll talk more about Molly momentarily.
	Don't they realise that all the scientists agree?
	Don't they realise?
	Yes.
	Sorry.
	No, no, no, don't apologise.
	It's just absurd.
	I just hate.
	Well, again, we know about Dr Fauci censoring the Great Barrington Declaration from people from fringe places such as Harvard, Stanford and Oxford.
	Yes.
	Yeah, of course.
	Documents revealed that material flagged to the CDU included articles published by The Telegraph.
	One of these was a piece by Miss Kingsley, published in February 2022, arguing it was indefensible that children's lives were still not back to normal while the rest of society was.
	One of Kingsley's tweets from December 2020, in which she said it would be unforgivable to close schools, was also passed on to the CDU.
	The RRU also logged articles by Professor Hennigan published in the Telegraph and Spectator.
	In some cases, individuals whose social media posts were recorded by the units have subsequently faced sanctions by Twitter and Facebook.
	Oh, but the government isn't pressuring them to ban the accounts.
	They're just passing these posts along, and then if action gets taken afterwards, it's definitely not their fault.
	I mean, Matt Hancock was texting Nick Clegg about it.
	So, whatever.
	Hmm.
	Ministers denied asking for posts by Professor Hennigan, Dr. Figueredo or Miss Kingsley to be removed.
	Really interesting.
	A government spokesman said none of the people named in this report were ever referred to social media platforms by the government and any claim otherwise is objectively false.
	But then-vaccine minister, it's quoted in this article, Nizam Zahawi, said he believed the government included Figueredo's tweet about children receiving the COVID-19 vaccine because of a cock-up rather than a conspiracy.
	I mean, that's possible.
	But hang on.
	But then vaccine minister says, we included it in there.
	And then another government spokesperson saying, none of these were ever passed on by the government to take action.
	So, one of you's lying, and I'm more inclined to believe the former vaccine minister, who is also head of YouGov, possibly manipulating public opinion.
	And about the only good Conservative weighs in in this article, it's Miriam Cate, as per usual.
	Any attempt by governments to shut down legitimate debate is hugely concerning, but to discover that the DCMS actively sought to censor the views of those who were speaking up for children's welfare is truly chilling.
	It's becoming increasingly clear that many of the foundations of democracy, such as free speech and parliamentary scrutiny, were completely disregarded during the pandemic.
	I mean, pretty fair and observable statement.
	Demonstrably true.
	Please do something.
	That's all I'm going to ask.
	This is your party?
	Yeah.
	This is your party doing this?
	When you're inevitably defeated, please lead the insurrection.
	So if we go on to some of Kingsley's stuff, she's actually documented, if we see here the images, some of the terrible tweets that have got her in trouble, right?
	And as you can see there, it's just things like you shouldn't close the schools 'cause it's gonna harm children's learning.
	- Demonstrably true.
	- Yes.
	I would like to say-- - Predictable in advance.
	- I would like to say most English schools are not up to snuff.
	- They're not very good anyway. - But she's speaking out on behalf of the children who use school and the pastoral care centers in there, which are actually good, and I've met people that do coordinate them, as a kind of refuge from their otherwise abusive homes.
	And we know for a fact, under lockdown, some children that were returned and locked in abusive homes with their abusers were abused until the point of death in some really tragic cases, and the lockdown was a cover for those abusive parents to say, we can't have social services visit because we're quarantined because of Covid.
	So it's observable that the school closures, when the children were not at risk of dying of Covid proportionally, harmed many more children than anyone they would have saved.
	But also it's demonstrable that there have been loads of studies that have shown that children have been uh retarded in their education obviously because of this their their ability to read faces because of masks their ability to just do academic work school work has been held back because of this every this is not secret knowledge yeah and also if you spend generations outsourcing the ability to educate your children to state apparatus and then foist it into the hands of otherwise well meaning parents who don't know what they're doing they're not
	they're not equipped enough so some children even if their parents were well-meaning yeah had them sat at home and weren't capable of educating them so they've just lost out on years of education it's it's a moral crime as far as i'm concerned i bet in 10 years time we find that the average person has like a much lower reading age because of this yes it's just They've already found that of the kids that went from primary school to secondary school straight after lockdown.
	They're reading a couple of years earlier than what they should have.
	It's awful.
	So Molly did an interview with The Telegraph and she just said something, again, pretty tepid.
	This isn't an insult to her, it's just saying the scale of surveillance isn't warranted.
	Never warranted in the first place, personally, but warranted for the people they were looking at.
	She said, She's right, yeah?
	And the title on this, if you scroll back up, John.
	I was cast as an extremist, but I've since been proved right.
	Well, hasn't that happened to a lot of us?
	Yeah, we're not far right, we're just right so far.
	Yeah.
	That's literally what, like, everyone I know is in that position at this point.
	But that was the moderate position.
	It was like, oh, putting everyone under house arrest, might that have some consequences?
	Yeah.
	Oh, rolling out a unspecified treatment very quickly.
	Would that have any consequences whatsoever?
	No, no, no.
	Silence.
	Silence.
	We must... No, whatsoever.
	We're not allowed to debate this issue.
	It's been settled.
	Trust the science.
	Oh, the science was slightly wrong, but we're not going to give you any money for... Trust the science, but not those scientists.
	Yes, exactly.
	Speaking of those scientists, if you subscribe to the website and pay us as little as £5 a month, you'll get this content, which will be blurred for YouTube because we're not allowed to show this content on YouTube, but if you're on Rumble or our website, you'll be able to see this hangout where we discussed unspecified medical treatment.
	And the reason I bring this up is because in this video we discuss some of Us4Them's work.
	Us4Them have done some really good stuff, and at the time they submitted a complaint to the UK's Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority, the PM's piece as CPA, Which is the regulator responsible for policing promotions of medicines on broadcast media, because we're nothing like the Americans.
	You can't just have everything sponsored by Pfizer in the UK, which seems to be a bit more sensible actually.
	And they complained about Pfizer CEO Albert Baller's statements on BBC News on the 2nd of December 2021 about the eligibility of children to receive unspecified medical treatments and the PMCPA ruled in favor of us for them saying Pfizer had misled the public on the safety and efficacy of insert medical treatment here.
	So again they've done some legislative work to move the needle and all they're saying is please tell the truth about relative cost-benefit ratio and that landed them on a government equivalent to terrorist watch list.
	It's just wild.
	Yeah, we live in the Soviet state.
	Of course, Elon Musk was mortified by this.
	He just says, terrible, in response to Michael Schellenberger sharing the original Telegraph article.
	So at least we know, until the WEF CEO steps in, that we won't be getting this on Twitter again.
	Again, I would question some of your appointments, Elon, but we'll see if that changes.
	Very questionable.
	Yeah, didn't she used to work for MSNBC?
	Possibly.
	For me, it's the fact that she's the chair of one of the WEF high offices.
	Yeah.
	What is this?
	I think the intention was, because she also worked as a consultant for the Trump administration, that he's thinking she's a neutral appointment.
	But I don't think there's any neutrality when you're involved in the World Economic Forum.
	No, I don't think so.
	I just don't trust it as far as I would throw her.
	I'm sure she's brilliant with the advertisers, though.
	Yeah, because they're all bought into ESGs, exactly.
	Shame.
	If we just go to the next one, it turns out that lockdowns are actually worse than doing nothing at all.
	So we now have two landmark studies releasing around the same time, and this is from John Hopkins University Academics and Lund University Academics.
	This was first published in the Telegraph.
	They conducted a meta-analysis of 19,646 studies on measures taken to protect populations against Covid, and this is worldwide.
	They found the difference in mortality amounted to just 3.2%, or 1,700 deaths in England and Wales.
	And we have countries that didn't do lockdowns, such as Sweden, to use as test cases against this.
	They use that in here.
	They actually say that their findings suggest lockdowns in response to the first wave of the pandemic, when compared with less strict policies adopted by the likes of Sweden, prevented as few as 1,700 deaths.
	So we have way more of those dying from missed cancer screenings, unconducted surgeries that were necessary but delayed because of Covid, of suicides, if you add the The abused and murdered children in there that we spoke about before.
	This was not proportionate.
	This was horrendous and inflicted upon the most vulnerable people who needed freedom and protection, and yet we weren't allowed to debate it.
	And if you tried to, you were put on a watch list or cancelled by Ofcom, as was regularly the case on many, many outlets.
	So, they found that when even a broader definition of lockdown was used, estimates suggested that it only reduced Covid deaths by 10.7%, 6,000 deaths at maximum, 23,000 deaths in Europe, and 16,000 deaths in the US during the first wave.
	That was obviously the most deadly.
	Over the period, in total, there were 74,000 Covid deaths in England and Wales.
	So what's that?
	About maybe 10% it shaved off?
	The thing is, we were never asked.
	These would be predominantly people 70 and over, and if you'd asked them, right, okay, so we're going to damage your grandchildren's prospects to make sure that there's a lower chance of you dying of Covid, they wouldn't have consented to it.
	No, both sets of my grandparents have said exactly the same thing.
	Yeah, they would never have consented to it.
	They said they've destroyed the country and future prospects of people my generation and younger for an ineffective policy, I think we can say.
	But even given it as most charitable, it's like, look, you'll live a few more years.
	They'd still say no.
	Yeah.
	And the lives saved, even the people that have authored this report, said it's less than those of a typical flu season, which claims between 18,500 and 24,800 deaths.
	They say explicitly, the benefits of the policy were a drop in the bucket compared to the staggering costs, and conclude with, the science of lockdowns is clear, the data are in, the deaths saved were a drop in the bucket.
	Yeah.
	Unreasonable.
	You can read the full report, as it's just been released yesterday, if we go onto the IEA's website.
	That's there for you to consult in your own time, but I think the summary serves as a damning indictment in and of itself.
	And we also have findings from the US, which I found were quite interesting.
	They're released around the same time in The Lancet, if we go to this link.
	So, they looked at all of the measures across all the states.
	Just to say, The Lancet was being leveraged as a tool to encourage lockdowns.
	Well, can we scroll down slightly, John, to the funding section, just beneath the background?
	It's under Methods.
	Keep going.
	Funding.
	There we go.
	Bill and Linda Gates Foundation.
	Bloomberg Philanthropies, alright.
	But I remember very clearly, during the pandemic, The Lancet was literally putting up fake news.
	Bankroll by Peter Daszak of the EcoHealth Alliance.
	So this paper is quite interesting though, because They allow some truth to slip through the wording.
	Right.
	So I'll just read.
	Quote, the political affiliation of the state governor was not associated with lower COVID-19 infections or COVID-19 death rates, but worse COVID-19 outcomes were associated with the proportion of a state's voters who voted for the 2020 Republican presidential candidate.
	So the SMEAR job is already in full works.
	Doesn't talk about breakdowns by population density or age of population, for example, because Florida had way more retirees, but that's fine.
	State government's use of protective mandates were associated with lower infection rates, as were mask use, lower mobility, and higher vaccination rate, while vaccination rates were associated with lower death rates.
	Did you catch that wording?
	Were associated with?
	Yeah, but it says here, again.
	Mask mandates and stay-at-home orders were associated with lower infection rates, but only the vaccine was associated with lower death rates.
	So, the infection number, which didn't really matter, because if you're infected and survived, it's fine, that was associated, having been lowered, by having everyone stay at home.
	But lowered deaths were only associated with the vaccine rollout, which, of course, Bill Gates has absolutely no financial interests invested in.
	So they even have to let slip in here that, well, the lockdowns and mask mandates, they didn't really save any lives.
	Cunningly worded, though, isn't it?
	Very.
	Yeah.
	Cunningly worded.
	It later says that mandate propensity, a summary measure that captures a state's use of physical distancing and mask mandates, were associated with a statistically significant and meaningfully large reduction in the cumulative infection rate, but not the cumulative death rate, All three behavioural responses to COVID-19 were statistically associated with lower cumulative infection rates, whereas only vaccine coverage was statistically associated with lower cumulative death rates.
	So, trying to say there was a higher death toll associated with voting for a Republican candidate is trying to make you think that because Republicans didn't put strict COVID measures in place, that caused a death rate.
	But that's not the case.
	It wasn't because of Ron DeSantis' abstinence from lockdowns after the first couple of weeks that more people died.
	It was possibly because of an individual choice of lower vaccine uptake.
	But they're still trying to smear people with the association that you didn't lockdown hard enough, even though lockdowns didn't save lives.
	Again, the framing is from the interested parties like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Bloomberg, but the evidence speaks for itself.
	It didn't help.
	And so, I thought I'd finish on what would the consequences be for all of this.
	Well, in the UK, Oliver Dowden, remember?
	Head of Digital Media, Culture and Sport?
	Head of this monitoring system?
	Yeah, he's now Deputy PM.
	Failing upwards.
	Telegraph understands that Michelle- It's amazing how many people do, isn't it?
	Yeah, yeah.
	Matt Hancock, for example.
	Completely evaded accountability and actually got Andrew Bridgen thrown out of the party for defamatory charges.
	Rishi Sunak himself?
	Wasn't exactly a Sterling Chancellor of the Exchequer, was he?
	No, no, destroyed the entire economy.
	Or Jeremy Hunt, who endorsed having Chinese-style lockdowns because his wife works for the Chinese Communist Party.
	The Telegraph understands that Michelle Donilon, former university's minister and also very brief education secretary, who was Mr. Dowden's eventual successor, tried to have the CDU shut down after she took the Department of Culture role in September last year.
	She was uncomfortable that the unit was flagging social media posts by citizens that were neither disinformation nor misinformation.
	Ms.
	Donnellan, who is currently on maternity leave and isn't in Parliament, raised concerns of officials at the meeting after she took the post.
	A source said she thought the unit should be replaced or stripped back, so that it focused solely on foreign material and disinformation.
	That seems sensible.
	It's not that I trust them to properly handle what is foreign disinformation.
	No, but at least it's a reasonable mandate.
	It's a reasonable idea to protect your country from propaganda from abroad, definitely.
	Unfortunately, it's staffed with a bunch of the Westminster blob types who hate the country, but in a better time, with better people, it would be a more sensible thing to do.
	But she didn't manage to do this because, again, we know that it was operating until April last year and it was still monitoring British citizens.
	And then the Dean Dorries, who oversaw the unit directly after Mr Dowden and before Ms Donnellan, told the Telegraph she was aware of the CDU and had been briefed on it, but she never saw the people who were a part of it.
	So, you're either lying, or so incompetent you weren't doing your job properly because you didn't show up to the meetings, right?
	Bear in mind, she's now got a Friday night show on TalkTV.
	These people fail upwards.
	And I'd just like to finish on Isabel Oakeshott's interview, we're not going to watch a clip from this, you can watch it in your own time, with Judy Hartley Brewer about all this, because she discussed how she found those WhatsApps from Matt Hancock, they were passed on to her when she was writing this book.
	She's the one who released them, yeah.
	Yeah, she's a very good journalist.
	I've met her once, she was sat on defending young men on the Piers Morgan show.
	She's a nice woman.
	And she said at the end that, so Baroness Hallett is doing the Covid inquiry at the moment, and Baroness Hallett wants to see all of the WhatsApps from every minister, not just the ones she's leaked, but from everyone's phone.
	Parliament have appointed a judge which has interceded to try and block the admission of any private communications.
	Very interesting.
	What are they afraid of?
	That's my question.
	And so, Isabel is saying there's a current battle over transparency here, and she is concerned that the judge will reign supreme over Baroness Hallett's intention to have a transparent inquiry.
	And so, I don't wish to piddle anyone's parade, but it does look like, because there are so many vested interests, so many guilty parties here, pretty much every politician voted for lockdown, loads of them voted for vaccine passports, loads of them doubled down on the Covid narrative, that getting accountability from anyone, even some of the Conservatives who ...might be more on our side, such as Sir Desmond Swain.
	It's kind of difficult, because... ...reputations are on the line.
	They're gonna get away with it.
	Yeah.
	So... ...sorry to give you a bit of a miserable segment, but... ...just thought you should know the government might be spying on you.
	Well, let's go to something slightly more entertaining, because you may be aware, if you watched yesterday's podcast and Callum covered the return of Tucker Carlson to Twitter, the very successful return of Tucker Carlson to Twitter, and I thought I would, now it's been a day, to let Tucker's 10-minute segment mature online and Let the left react to it in the way that they react to it.
	To just explore through that and just have a laugh at their expense, to be honest, because Tucker is smashing it, and they're not.
	Anywhere.
	At all.
	So I thought that would be well worth going through.
	And it'll be nice and relaxing, a bit of fun to try and cleanse the palate.
	But before we do that, if you want to support us, go to the website, sign up for £5 a month, and go and watch part two of my book club on revolt against the modern world.
	And this is very relevant, because If there's one person who's revolting against the modern world, man, it's Tucker Carlson.
	And look how popular it's making him.
	Would you say he is embodying the Solar Principle?
	In a very understated way, yes.
	He is embodying the Solar Principle.
	He's winning a lot of victories, and he's definitely creating a kind of order.
	He's the only sort of genuine conservative voice, traditional voice, that you'll hear from this What we'll just call the legacy media, right?
	He's the only genuinely conservative one out of all of them.
	I'd stick up for Jesse Kelly on the first as well, but of course that's a more marginal American cable network.
	It is.
	I've never actually watched Jesse Kelly's IG, but of the ones I'm familiar with then.
	And it's more the way that he speaks about things, because you'll notice that the sort of Sean Hannity's and Jesse Wasser's types, they speak from the position of a Republican, which is a liberal ideological position.
	And it's completely fine for the American Republicans to speak from a liberal ideological position.
	But Tucker doesn't do that.
	He speaks in terms of countrymen.
	He speaks in terms of sentiment.
	He speaks in terms of ancient human bonds that existed long prior to the American Republic.
	So the sort of cultural substructure that was then abstracted and taken for granted with the Constitution?
	It precisely.
	And so Tucker is a genuine conservative and speaks in genuine conservative language.
	And that's why you should go and watch this to help understand the way that the position that Tucker is coming from.
	But anyway, so let's, let's talk about, uh, very quickly his, let's have an update on his, again, 10 minute segment where he just talks about what's going on.
	Uh, he just titles it episode one.
	Uh, we won't play any clips from it because of course Callum covered it, but look at those numbers, a hundred million impressions.
	Yeah, so it says views there, I think we should delineate quite well that a view on Twitter means that it has to be in half of your window, either on your phone or your timeline, and it has to be there for at least two seconds.
	Yes.
	So what this is is an impression of this tweet.
	But even then, 100 million impressions is incredible.
	It's going to be one of the most viewed tweets of all time.
	And also, it's nearly a 1% like ratio for 100 million impressions.
	That's pretty impressive.
	Yes.
	And so, 223, uh, 230,000 retweets, uh, well, 250,000 including the quote tweets, 800,000 likes.
	Again, this has been up a day.
	One day!
	That's really impressive.
	But if you go to the next one, you can actually see the number of actual views that it's had.
	As you can see there, I took this when it was 99.5 million.
	But if you go onto the mobile app and then fullscreen the video, it shows you how many video plays it's had.
	Right.
	And that's a hell of a good conversion rate.
	Yeah.
	We got nearly a quarter.
	Yeah, about a fifth to a quarter.
	Yeah, nearly a fifth to a quarter of actual views.
	Considering he was getting three million on his primetime slot on Fox, getting 22 million on a Twitter video, that's pretty impressive.
	With less production overhead, absolutely no censorship as well.
	Well, this is one of the critiques that people have of him.
	Look at the lack of massive industrial media capability that he has behind him.
	So yeah, doesn't that concern you?
	I once had a conversation with, when I was getting into media, someone who was trying to give me advice on my first TV appearance.
	And one of the things they said was, quote, you aren't using your facial expressions tactically enough.
	And I thought, one, that's why I got books for successive appearances, because I hope there was a degree of authenticity there, even if I decided to look a bit peeved.
	But it's also, right, in the legacy mindset, everything is an artifice.
	Everything is curated, or it's all for show.
	Whereas if you Bleed through any kind of genuine annoyance about what your co-panelist has said, then that means you can't network after.
	And I was like, I don't want to do that.
	And that's the chief complaint of the mainstream types that are saying to Tucker, well, you're not doing the two panel setup.
	You're not doing the 10 snappy minute segments.
	And he's going, well, I don't want to do that.
	He's actually engaging with the audience, addressing their concerns, and he's got a much more authentic following because of it.
	Yeah, and you can tell that Tucker clearly authentically believes what he's saying as well, which is honestly, I think, why he's so popular.
	But anyway, so let's move on to the immediate response.
	So the New York Times had an article out literally only a couple of hours afterwards, and it's very basic.
	As you can see, it is just merely a description, and there's almost nothing in this article of any note.
	A day later, though, The narrative starts coming out.
	If you watch, go to the next one.
	The paranoid style in Tucker Carlson's home office.
	What do they think, it's Ted Kaczynski's shack or something?
	Kind of.
	The lo-fi Tucker on Twitter finds the former primetime host at the intersection of Fox News and Fox Mulder.
	Who's Fox Mulder?
	Oh my God.
	What is wrong with Zoomers?
	I was born in 98.
	I can tell.
	Not something you want to announce, Connor.
	Fox Mulder is one of the main characters in the X-Files.
	Oh, okay, right.
	Fox Mulder, when I was your age, Fox Mulder was the most popular character on TV.
	Daisy laughing in the background there.
	But the point is, for anyone who knows who Fox Mulder is, this is in no way a method of dissuading you.
	It's the intersection of Fox News and Fox Mulder.
	Well, that sounds brilliant, actually.
	Sign me up for that.
	Because one of the things about Fox Mulder's character is he was a bit of a firebrand, he was quite edgy, and he was resistant to institutional conformity.
	How often was he right?
	Well, a lot, because it was the X-Files.
	Point proven.
	Yeah, exactly.
	And so this, I mean, this just looks like an advert to me.
	You know?
	Oh, it's crazy conspiracy.
	It's like X-Files.
	Like, oh really?
	I loved X-Files.
	Anyway, going for the Washington Post, this came up very soon after the clip was dropped as well.
	Think of the next one, John.
	Tucker Carlson drops first episode of Bare Bones Twitter show.
	Is that a criticism?
	As in, it's not got all the bells and whistles, the constant scary music and the constant cutaways to adverts or anything like that?
	No, no, no, it's just Tucker giving you the content that you are there for.
	That's good?
	That's an upgrade?
	And again, the 10-minute monologue included criticism of Ukrainian President Zelensky and talk of UFOs.
	That's a great selling point.
	That sounds fascinating.
	What was he saying about it?
	I'd rather watch a 10-minute version than an hour viewed through tracing paper.
	Exactly.
	Carlson alluded briefly to a surprise dismissal from Fox, claiming that a small group of people control the nation's flow of information and forbid discussion on what really matters.
	Yeah.
	That's so obviously true.
	I'm so glad someone from within this ecosphere is saying it.
	And the Washington Post were like, and I took that personally.
	Yeah, exactly.
	And he's like, yeah, well, yeah, exactly.
	He meant us.
	If you keep it up, they'll make you be quiet.
	Trust us.
	Well, obviously true, right?
	CNN, though, seething.
	You could feel the seething from CNN.
	Tucker Carlson launches first episode of low budget Twitter show after Fox News firing.
	Imagine if CNN Plus had got the kind of numbers that Tucker was getting.
	Yeah, so I've heard recently that they're averaging 80,000 viewers a show.
	Wow.
	Which is very low considering their budget.
	That's lower than our average on YouTube.
	Yeah, true.
	And we're not even monetised on YouTube.
	Please pass £5 a month.
	And also they've just ousted one of their CEOs, again.
	Yes.
	So things aren't going great over there.
	C then N. Yeah, C then N. Complaining that his Twitch show is low budget.
	It's like, yeah, but look what he can do on low budget.
	And an authentic perspective.
	The New York Times' Katie Robertson and Jeremy Pierce summarise the first episode like this.
	He expressed sympathy for Vladimir Putin.
	He mocked President Zelensky.
	He accused the mainstream media of lying.
	He wrapped up by declaring UFOs and extraterrestrial life are actually real.
	And then he sold you vitamin supplements.
	No, he didn't.
	But that sounds fascinating.
	That sounds like a really good watch.
	Also, again, I don't think he expressed sympathy for Putin.
	No, he didn't.
	Of course he didn't.
	I think he's just saying that if you were a cold, rational Russian president, what would you do in his position?
	Yeah, of course.
	The question is, did Putin blow up his own dam?
	No, he didn't blow up his own pipeline either.
	Why would he do that?
	He's not an idiot.
	And that's sympathy for Vladimir Putin.
	The Telegraph had a great take, though.
	Again, I include these in leftist media.
	Watch Tucker Carlson spout conspiracy theories about 9-11, Ukraine and UFOs in a new show.
	I am watching.
	I am so surprised that The Telegraph took this angle.
	Right?
	Because Telegraph are usually quite good on gender and schools and all sorts, so... Well, it's the same angle literally that... I mean, I was going to include The Guardian in this particular slot, but I decided not to because The Telegraph had done this.
	This is so odd.
	I mean, it was almost exactly the same headline.
	Right.
	But the author does have a very middle-class female name, so I'll choose to believe that's the reason.
	But, uh, watch Tucker carpet-bomb all of the mainstream narratives.
	It's like, yes please!
	I certainly will!
	The Independent was really offended because he called Zielinski sweaty and rat-like.
	I don't wish to upset Callum by being his doppelganger, so I will refrain from commenting.
	All I'm saying is, right, When you're on one side of a partisan argument, you say, look at the evil thing this person has done.
	There are people on the other side of the partisan argument who are like, look at this amazing thing this person has done.
	And so when you present your side of the partisan argument, those people who don't like Zelensky are like, yeah, he is sweaty and rat-like.
	Good point!
	Great advertisement!
	Don't forget that you're all in a bubble.
	We're all in bubbles.
	Pro-Kremlin rant.
	By virtue of criticising one, you're not on the side of the other.
	Again, Tucker's an American patriot.
	He doesn't want to live in Russia or Ukraine or pay for them.
	Neither do I, thanks.
	I'm an Englishman.
	Tucker Carlson described Ukraine's Jewish leader as rat-like.
	Oh, right.
	What an odd thing to say.
	Yeah, that's weird that you brought that up.
	Tucker didn't bring that up.
	Independent, obsessed with early life, Wikipedia, clearly.
	Questioned the official story about 9-11 and claimed definitively that aliens are visiting Earth as he launches his new TV show.
	Again, that just makes him sound cool, but that's also what, like, you know, the US government's position has been.
	Like, do you not remember the Department of Defense releasing all these UFOs?
	And then another insider has come out and been like, yeah, so we've got an alien spacecraft.
	And Tucker's like, well, why isn't this the national news?
	And that's a great question.
	And I think, honestly, part of the reason he's highlighting that is because it's obviously fake.
	Yeah.
	Well, it's another distraction, because I don't know if you know, but at the same time, there is another FBI whistleblower coming out against the Bidens, and the FBI came to Republican Congress people, said, this person, if they go public, is fearing for their life.
	So that just happened to coincide with the UFO announcement a couple of hours afterwards.
	Anyway, the Raps started coping.
	Oh, he's just got far lower engagement.
	Well, far lower engagement than people watching on cable news.
	Let's check the Raps statistics, shall we?
	But this just doesn't make any sense, right?
	According to Twitter views count on the tweet, at the time of writing, the tweet had been viewed 29 million times, which is indeed a far larger number of people than roughly 3 million who tuned in when he was watching Fox, when he was broadcasting Fox.
	But not so fast.
	Twitter's measurements of actual engagement, retweets, quote tweets, likes, replies and bookmarks tell a far less impressive story, because at the time it had only been retweeted like 100,000 times or something.
	But okay, there's zero engagement on cable news.
	So the metric that they are using for cable news is literally zero engagement and he's gone to 100,000 retweets and half a million likes or whatever it was and they're like well these these low numbers aren't they're not exactly low numbers and they are going to go up overnight but uh there's a huge gulf of engagement between and between there's a huge gulf between engagement and view numbers and Yeah, so?
	There's also no metric of tracking, as you said, engagement on cable news.
	We don't know if people were actually sitting there in front of the TV really engrossed in what Tucker's saying, which I'm sure a lot of people were, versus having it on the background while they're doomscrolling through their phone and eating dinner.
	If anything, Twitter is a more reliable way of understanding exactly how large his audience is and who's committed enough to share and be his marketing team on his behalf.
	But as someone who has been using social media to make my living for a number of years now, I can tell you that this is totally normal in every single way.
	Because I mean, like, for example, YouTube is a great metric, is a great model for this.
	Because if you get 100,000 views on a video, you'll get something like, you know, a few thousand likes, and you'll get maybe a thousand comments.
	And it's like, okay, there we go.
	So 90% of the people who are watching the video aren't ...interested in engaging physically with the content, but that doesn't mean they're not enjoying it, that doesn't mean they're not watching it, and that, you know, that you get repeated viewers.
	So it doesn't mean anything, really, that the view count is way higher than the engagement count, because that's literally all of social media, and always has been.
	This is a non-criticism, and you're just very salty about the numbers.
	So let's just call him a loser in a man cave, shall we?
	Tucker Carlson takes the Man Cave rants to Twitter Show to smaller results.
	Smaller results?
	Can you not count?
	What is wrong with you?
	And A, okay, yeah, he's in a man cave, but, uh, cool?
	You know, who doesn't like spending time in their man cave?
	That's totally understandable.
	He's got fishing rods in the background.
	I'm sure there's just an army of Eldar waiting to be painted just out of the room.
	Um, last night he began the Twitter phase of his lucrative career.
	So, he's kicking ass, making millions of dollars, and getting tens of millions, hundreds of millions of views, and, uh, you're complaining?
	He was broadcasting from an undisclosed man cave of a studio.
	Sounds good.
	Complete with unfinished wood and fishing rods that clashed with his preppy tie and blue blazer attire.
	Did it clash, though?
	Can we go up to the picture?
	Does that clash?
	No.
	It seems like quite a neutral and innocuous and pleasant background.
	It's a very man-ish hobby.
	We've already seen how pleasant he is when people ask about his fly fishing.
	And it's something that he's obviously authentically into.
	But there's nothing garish.
	It doesn't clash.
	It looks quite warm and homely, actually.
	It makes it look like he's a regular person who's speaking his mind on things he genuinely cares about.
	It made him look like a country club money man wandering into a meeting of the secret society of maladjusted lunkheads who all loom right off camera.
	Well, that sounds like it.
	I don't want to go down to that.
	He's never been to Davos.
	But, like, this is the most desperate, desperate thing in the world.
	No one thinks this.
	No one thinks this.
	Everyone thinks, well, Tucker looks like he's in his man cave doing something he enjoys.
	In his element.
	So let's go on to individual journalists, shall we?
	Ooh, bit of a stretch.
	Yeah, quote-unquote.
	Follow me on LinkedIn.
	That is the most luxury belief signaling device I have ever seen.
	LinkedIn is a place for professional masturbation.
	Taylor Lorenz says 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 how he's going to stack up against even the average streamer or YouTuber.
	Okay, well, let's begin, Taylor, right, by saying none of those are good things, right?
	Jump cuts especially speak to a lack of professionalism.
	Background music, catchy thumbnail and video title are all things designed to catch the eye because otherwise the content would have been something you would just have scrolled past.
	They're the jingling keys to distracting you from the lack of depth.
	But she was brought onto Washington Post to examine TikTok, so that does make sense.
	Exactly.
	The fact that Tucker has commanded, let's say it's only 22 million views, actual authentic views of his video, with literally just the word EP1, and a picture of his face on it, really speaks volumes about what actually matters, doesn't it?
	Not sure how he's going to stack up against even an average streamer or YouTuber.
	He's dominating them!
	What are the numbers, Mason?
	I mean, really?
	It's just, it is Tucker and then everyone else combined, basically.
	You know, like, sorry, this is just crazy.
	Absolute crazy cope.
	She says, further in this thread, it's interesting to see people frame 16 million views as success.
	That's interesting, isn't it?
	Yes.
	And that was like two hours after it was released as well, right?
	I mean, you know, I'm very happy with our numbers and they're nowhere near that.
	She's also going there onto, this looks like TikTok.
	TikTok auto plays on the algorithm and they're what, 10 to 30 seconds?
	30 seconds long, yeah.
	And so she's like, well, 16 million views on Twitter is nothing.
	That's not true.
	And speaking of someone who, like every, every couple of weeks, I'll get a tweet that'll just go viral and get like 5 million views.
	And then, you know, so many people are in your mentions just talking about it.
	It's like, okay, that's great.
	You know, and that's only like 5 million views.
	16 million views is massive.
	Also, proportionate to user base, TikTok has half of America on it.
	That's not an over-exaggeration, and I can only imagine how many, a couple of billion people around the world, likely.
	Twitter is dominated by a minority of each country it operates in, and it's the hyper-political, interested people.
	So, as a proportion of the user base, Tucker has probably got more views of the amount of people on Twitter, versus Terry Crews gets of people on TikTok.
	Random teenagers watching TikTok in their bedroom, or the entire political class of the Western world.
	Yes.
	Right?
	There's a difference in the quality of the audience.
	And also, Tucker's numbers are very comparable to those things.
	So she's like, well, 60 million views is not very much when you talk about social content.
	Disagree, actually.
	I think it's very significant.
	Media matters.
	Professional snow merchants?
	Hell yeah.
	They were enjoying this.
	That Tucker video is bleak.
	It's jarring how his shtick just does not work without the fox bells and whistles.
	Maybe he was the most powerful man in right-wing media, now he's just another streamer with half-baked opinions peddling conspiracy theories.
	He's Alex Jones in a jacket and tie.
	That's incredible, because all I wanted was Alex Jones in a jacket and tie.
	Do you know what this sounds like?
	To me.
	After he posted all of those possibly deepfaked, possibly leaked videos of Tucker that just made him look even better, it sounds like a bitter ex-girlfriend who's tried to make you so radioactive for your reputation destruction and failed, and then sees you with your new girlfriend and goes, oh, I'm really sad for him.
	He's got such a downgrade.
	I hope he's happy, but he clearly hasn't moved on very well.
	You're just bitter.
	That's all you are.
	And, I mean, he carries on, as you can see, just moulding underneath, going, well, I mean, he was saying things I disagree with.
	Well, who cares?
	But the point is, like, again, you think Alex Jones and the suit and tie is bad.
	Millions of people think brilliant content.
	Exactly what I signed up for, right?
	Again, you just don't understand that sometimes people just want the opposite of what you are suggesting.
	Anyway, let's move on to Brian Stelter.
	Oh, do we have to?
	Another person who has let go from the mainstream media and is probably looking at Tucker's success with a bit of jealousy.
	Because, I mean, why can't Brian Stelter do this?
	Well, his entire show was about covering Tucker Carlson.
	Pretty much, yeah.
	I love this, though.
	Tucker on Twitter is how Tucker Carlson's video is branded.
	Notice his right hand in the wide shot.
	He's using a teleprompter control to run the prompter himself.
	So... That's an intelligent way to do things, rather than relying on... This is what all the GB News presenters... This is what Calvin does for his show.
	And it means that if... It's what they all do!
	But clearly not on CNN, because they just get fed the scripts, like Ron Burgundy style, of where if they say the wrong thing... On CNN they'll have an intern who scrolls it.
	Yeah.
	Why wouldn't you want a little scroller, in case it goes too quickly and then you need to adjust it?
	Exactly.
	But the allegation is somehow that using a teleprompter is bad, or the fact that he doesn't have a minion to do it is bad.
	But you all do it.
	But you all do it!
	Who cares?
	This is a nowhere critique.
	At all.
	It's so weak.
	Anyway, so the final thing is just that today, earlier today, Fox News accused him of breaching his contract with them, because apparently he wasn't allowed to post something.
	Oh, no, sorry, this... Oh yeah, sorry, I forgot this one.
	Adam Kinzinger was just like, Tucker is evil.
	Wasn't he recently on stage at the World Economic Forum with Brian Stelter and a foreign official from the EU who said that you're going to have hate speech laws in America soon?
	I don't know, but it wouldn't be surprising.
	I think it was Kinzinger, because he is former Congressman Reinhardt McChief.
	But this is all I want them to do, though.
	Just literally come out.
	Everything you've said up until this point could be just put through a translator and the translator would spit out, Tucker is evil, Tucker is evil, Tucker is evil, Tucker is evil.
	That's all the point is.
	A tribal flag on him.
	Exactly.
	It's not about whether Tucker's right or wrong.
	They don't care about that.
	It's whether he's good or bad.
	And to them, he's bad, because they are globalists and want to destroy this country.
	Tucker doesn't want his country destroyed, and therefore he is the enemy.
	That's all this boils down to.
	Anyway, and that's probably why he was removed from Fox, to be honest.
	There's plenty of reasons behind that, but yeah, that seems to be the case.
	The underlying principle of the thing is that Tucker Carlson wasn't in favour of the dissolution of the United States.
	Anyway, Fox News is accusing him of a breach of contract, which came out early this morning.
	They say that it was literally that episode.
	In a letter obtained by Axios, the network said it reserves all rights and remedies which are available to it at Law Equity to resolve the alleged breach, but Carlson's lawyers have said, no, we don't agree with your claims.
	They want to take Tucker's right to speak freely away from him because he took to social media to share his thoughts on current events.
	Which is what he actually did.
	Well, he's probably not signed an exclusivity contract.
	He's just probably got a verbal agreement with Musk saying, can I use your platform and will adverts run on my videos?
	Well, this is exactly what Elon Musk said.
	There has been no agreement, no contract signed with Twitter.
	And Musk has said repeatedly, anyone can just come and make a show on Twitter because it's a free platform now.
	And it's not like Tucker Carlson is using the branding or the name of the show or anything like that.
	He hasn't signed any deals as far as we're aware.
	And, so, it seems that he's totally free to do this.
	And, uh, I guess everyone's gonna have to cope and seethe.
	Good job, Tucker.
	Now I'm gonna... I'm gonna give the other slice of bread to this misery sandwich.
	Ah!
	Well, at least we had a good filling.
	Yeah, we did, we did.
	Something uplifting.
	I'm gonna let that joke hang in the air.
	Anyway, after the Nashville shooting, of course, where three children's lives were taken and three staff members... And we still don't have the manifesto.
	No, because it would look too damning to trans ideology, I would assume.
	The rhetoric about the conspiracy theory that there is a transgenocide being waged against the transgender community, whatever that constituency is, Has continued to escalate, and there have been calls for trans people to form armed militias.
	And as we can see, I think this was about a week and a half ago now, where Posy, Kelly J Keane, did another one of her Let Women Speak events in Hyde Park.
	And some mad bloke, if you scroll down please John, there's an image of the banner in here that we need to show.
	Just keep going please.
	There we go.
	A banner saying, armed trans kids with a Fisher-Price car and house, kitted out with artillery guns and a Gatling gun and dynamite.
	That's just mental.
	Yeah, and Nebula from Guardians of the Galaxy holding up the sign, apparently.
	Right.
	Trans rights demonstrators promptly displayed the sign, saying, trans joy will outlive you all.
	One banner held by protesters, who obscured their faces with umbrellas.
	They're arguing here that the kids will shoot their own parents.
	So, unfortunately, maybe some UK charities, as we'll get on to later.
	Right.
	One other sign said, "'Turfs on our turf' defending trans lives." So they're implying that the existence of trans-exclusionary feminists warrants an armed counter-revolution.
	Well, they have been saying essentially these things for a long time now.
	Yeah, so when I went over the reason on the day after the tragic shooting, the reason that trans and other leftist terrorism will continue, I went through the logic of the likes of Rosa Luxemburg from the 20th century, early 20th century, where they were Marxist terrorists and they said that, no, no, our version of Marxism is non-violent.
	However, because we live in a bourgeois superstructure, which is always infringing upon the equitable wealth of the proletariat.
	We have to defend ourselves of violent revolution.
	We don't want to, but you've given us no choice because, of course, through labour, you've robbed us of our wealth.
	And so the bloody revolution is just self-defence.
	And that's the same logic here.
	It's the fact that you're not giving us hormones, surgery, at all ages.
	You're not affirming trans kids.
	Constant affirmation is what they mean.
	Yeah, so by virtue of you not doing that, you're actually assaulting us, and therefore we are justified in shooting you.
	That is their logic.
	It's horrible logic.
	They should be incarcerated for it.
	But it's just one fringe, lunatic group pushing this, right?
	No.
	There's a whole activist network embedded in Britain's charity sector, and that includes Childline.
	So we're going to go through some of that today.
	And what first brought my attention to this story was I stumbled across on Twitter this thread, and this is not one isolated thread, on the Childline forum.
	So Childline runs a series of forums which allows other users, which are not age verified by the way, this is not just children, they're meant to be moderated, but as we'll get onto later, many of these threads have had no moderators stepping in, This allows children to discuss contentious issues, and there's a whole gender identity thread.
	And one of these posts, this is what drew my attention to it, was, I'm worried about a transgender genocide.
	And so, the post here, please scroll down to the actual post, John, says, Hello all, I want to talk to you today about my worries of a complete genocide of transgender people in the UK and USA.
	Europe excluded, apparently.
	Many of you will probably know about the Conservative leadership election currently going on.
	Well, a couple of weeks ago, newspaper outlet New Statesman published an article saying how the candidates were right to discuss the trans question.
	This reminds me of the Jewish question, which the Nazis tried to answer by killing around 6 million European Jews.
	I think they're skipping over a little bit of history in the timeline of events there, but okay.
	Indictment of our education system, I suppose.
	This language should scare trans people and allies.
	Why would you need allies if you weren't fighting a war?
	Meanwhile, in America, some are calling for the killing of doctors who treat trans kids.
	Some.
	Just some are calling.
	Well, I mean, who?
	One, vague.
	Two, that is a... oversimplification of the argument from some Republicans who would say that if you mutilate a child, or molest them, you should get the death penalty.
	As Ron DeSantis recently gave the death penalty to child sex offenders, and they said, the LGBTQ community are most affected.
	As you said, what an odd thing to say.
	I am not comparing the views of some odd folks to the Nazis, but the parallels are definitely there.
	So you are.
	You are!
	Athletes are being banned and ostracised from sporting events just because of their identity.
	I am worried you should be too.
	No, no, that's absolutely true.
	People are ostracised from sporting events because of their identity.
	Men are ostracised from women's sports because they're men.
	That's an identity.
	That is true.
	Totally true.
	And justified.
	But they're comparing Fallon Fox, who has fractured the orbital socket of a woman, to Jesse Owens.
	Who was the black runner that beat the Nazis at the Berlin Olympics.
	Stunning and brave.
	Now, again, why is this allowed up without any moderation on a children's forum?
	Because this is...
	Crackpot conspiratorial nonsense.
	And I would understand if a child posted this because they've been manipulated by the media and someone stepped in to allay their concerns.
	Because of course there are loads of kids, whether it's in school or online or left to their own devices, that have been manipulated into this cult-like ideology.
	But nobody steps in to correct this.
	Instead, there are about 10 comments underneath it which continually affirm it.
	You can just take a scroll down, John, so people that are looking at the video content can have a look for themselves.
	Again, No moderation here.
	Go back up to the first one, under it.
	No, no, sorry, the next one down.
	Oh God, what the hell is wrong with people?
	So I'm going to die because I want top surgery and I'm demi-fluid?
	No.
	No.
	No one's going to murder you.
	The state is not going to put you in a concentration camp and put you in a gas chamber.
	But they're all going to mutilate you.
	Yeah, they'll probably give you the mutilation you're asking for.
	That's the sad thing.
	They're not going to kill you, they're just going to irreversibly nab you.
	That's queer kid envy.
	But this is also the thing as well.
	If you notice here, there are no profile photos, which is a good thing on a children's forum.
	There is no verification system upon sign-up, so what's stopping any of these people, including the original poster, to be an adult to try and find vulnerable children?
	There's nothing.
	There's no safeguarding here whatsoever from Childline.
	And so I went down a bit of a rabbit hole looking at someone else's work on this.
	And we'll get onto him in a moment, because he's a friend of the show, actually.
	But Childline's run by the NSPCC, and so I thought we'd look at their guidelines on gender identity.
	And they said in 2022-2023, Childline delivered almost 3,400 sessions about sexuality and gender identity.
	Those are counselling sessions.
	We'll see what they might have told the kids to do as we go on.
	Common themes for children contacting Childline with questions about their gender identity are anxiety about their feelings, fear of not being accepted, lack of available support, and the time it takes for them to access support services.
	By support services, they mean gender-affirming care.
	Yeah.
	As in... Tavistock.
	Yes.
	In their section on gender identity, it actually ranks these identities to try and explain them to children.
	It puts cisgender at the bottom, so despite the proportion of the population being trans or non-binary or identifying that way, rather, it's being very small.
	99.7 or something percent are cisgender.
	Yes, so it gives it as the lowest priority option.
	So it, again, not only normalizes it, it prioritizes it as possibly the reason why you might be feeling alienated from your body at time of puberty, or if you have any other life or mental comorbidities going on which may compound your personal distress.
	In their advice for parents section, You may be worried about a child you know who's being bullied because of their sexuality or gender identity, or who's experiencing abuse at home.
	We also know that LGBTQ plus young people are more at risk of grooming and child sexual exploitation.
	What an odd thing to say.
	Who might that be by?
	No idea.
	Would it be by anyone on the Childline forums?
	I would hope not, but you haven't got any protections in place.
	And so, let's go onto Childline's specific gender identity guidance page.
	They say, there's no right or wrong way to express your gender identity.
	Disagree.
	And it's okay to change how you express your gender over time.
	The permanent fluctuating identity of a whole class of insecure children that look to an authority figure for guidance.
	These are very easily manipulated and aggrieved people, and they can be easily exploited by someone in a position of relative power over them, whether that's a teacher, whether it's a politician, whether it's a social media influencer, or whether it's an adult with untoward intentions.
	Again, most at risk of grooming.
	Very worrying.
	There are lots of ways to express your gender with your appearance.
	If you're not sure where you should start, you should try by changing or cutting your hair, or wearing more gender-neutral clothes.
	Some people want to use binders, gaffs, or packers to hide feminine or masculine parts of themselves.
	It's important to remember these can sometimes be uncomfortable or dangerous, and you should speak to a doctor before using them.
	Promoting chest binders, which have broken the ribs of girls and caused such tissue scarring, it's developed into breast cancer.
	But it completely accepts the premise that there's something wrong with the child's body.
	Yes.
	That's the problem with the binder?
	Like, so obviously, you know, an accident or whatever, someone using it wrong, people will be like, well, that's not the intention.
	Okay, fine.
	I agree.
	But in every case of recommending binders, you've accepted the premise that the child who is going through puberty, their body is actually wrong, as they believe it mistakenly to be, and what child doesn't?
	You know, when they're in their early teens and they're going through puberty, what child doesn't have really weird concerns about their body, you know?
	Like, oh god, I feel really... And it's like, no, no, no, you are right.
	There is something wrong with you.
	Put this chest binder on.
	It's totally wrong.
	So when I was about 16, I wrongly thought I was overweight.
	I was in no way overweight.
	And I starved myself down to about six stone.
	Like, if I was offered liposuction for that, I would never forgive someone who would turn me into a skeleton.
	And so you shouldn't allow girls to irreversibly mutilate their body on the premise that if you augment your external impendages you'll feel better inside.
	No, the interior experience is what's causing the distress.
	Overlooking those factors is doing a disservice to these children and putting them in the crosshairs of adults with untoward intentions.
	So, if we go to the next one, Childline also have decided to put out videos talking about asexuality, demisexuality, so they're talking to trans influencers and it's in a very conversational, laid-back setting where they're just sitting in armchairs having a chat.
	Do you know what demisexual is, by any chance?
	Yeah, someone who feels sexual some of the time and not other parts of the time.
	No, so demi-sexual.
	Oh, that's something else.
	Yeah, you've got totally wrong flag.
	It's very offensive.
	How could I know?
	Demi-sexual is someone who only wants to have sex with people they have an emotional connection to.
	Being normal.
	So, women.
	Yeah, but also most men feel that way, really.
	Yeah.
	You know, like most men would, you know, given the choice, I mean, okay, fair enough, they probably would have... Yeah, we've had a couple of mistakes in our lives, I'm sure, but however, most people would... that's a healthy relationship, I would suggest.
	But that's just essentially being a normal woman, you are right.
	So we finally answered the question, what is a woman?
	Demisexual.
	Great, thanks Childline.
	And I brought this up because, so we're going to go on to James Esse's work very shortly.
	One of the things that was also drawn my attention to was Childline's guidance on what to do if your parents aren't trans-affirming.
	And this is the current article that's up, and I say current because they went back and changed it.
	So, what to do if your loved ones don't accept your gender identity?
	Point 5 says set boundaries with people who refuse to accept your gender identity.
	As painful as it may be, it's important to emotionally distance yourself from people who refuse to acknowledge who you are.
	Remember that their behavior is not your fault and it's not your responsibility to change so that they can feel more comfortable.
	If you want to, explain why you need space.
	Perhaps someday they will realize their mistake and you will reinstate the relationship you once had with them.
	When they talk about grooming, one of the first steps is to distance yourself from your parents.
	Obviously atrocious.
	Yes.
	Can we go back to that previous one just quickly?
	You see where it's asexual, graysexual, demisexual.
	The definition I gave was graysexual.
	Right.
	So I looked at the Wikipedia page.
	A graysexual person is someone who experiences sexual attraction on occasion.
	So, that's totally normal.
	You're not sexually attracted to everything around you.
	You only occasionally are sexually attracted to individual people, uh, sometimes.
	Really?
	It's totally normal.
	Why else do you think I work here, Carl?
	Exactly.
	But that's the point, though, isn't it?
	Like, they need a crazy term for what is the normal human... Like, there are zero people who are not greysexual.
	They need to pathologise you into atomised constituencies because you're easier to control that way, because you're a child.
	If you don't have, like, a named identity for this, then it doesn't exist.
	No, it's just the normal state of being.
	Yeah.
	It's alright, if we can go back to that Childline one.
	So just to pick out the headline, again.
	Number five, set boundaries with people who refuse to accept your gender identity.
	Now that means emotionally distance and cut them out of your life.
	This reminds me of the drag pedagogy paper I've been over time and time again that says you can embrace a new glitter family who are more affirming, and disrupt the reproductive futurity of the nuclear family.
	Most pernicious stuff ever.
	Anything that tries to break up a nuclear family is evil.
	Well, they tried even harder in the archive version, because they went back and changed it when people noticed.
	If we can go to this next one.
	Number 5.
	Originally said, create distance from people who refuse to accept your gender identity.
	They're deliberately crowbarring children away from their parents.
	This is Childline, who is meant to be acting in their interest.
	Okay, so I spoke about James Esses, and he's been doing a deep dive because he actually used to work for Childline.
	He volunteered for about five years, thousands of hours of counselling.
	I believe he was a former barrister who went on to try to become a psychotherapist, was kicked off his course.
	You can go to his Spectator article, please, John.
	He's examined lots more of these threads than just I did.
	Houston spoke to Andrew Doyle about this on Sunday, this past Sunday, June 4th, on GB News, so go and watch his interview.
	We're not going to play any clips here, but it was very good.
	And he looked at a random sample of messages in the gender identity section of ChildLive's message board, which has over 15,000 posts.
	In a thread entitled, Passing in Gender Expression, a young girl talks about wanting to pass as a boy by wearing different clothing.
	A response from another user tells the young girl that without cross-sex hormones, it will be nearly impossible to pass.
	So, immediately suggesting irreversible medical treatments as the only solution.
	In a thread entitled, My Period is Giving Me Major Gender Dysphoria, a clearly vulnerable 14-year-old girl describes a desire to start cross-sex hormones.
	Her parents are against the idea and presumably concerned about the potentially irreversible and detrimental impact of medication.
	Straight away, a trans guy advises the young girl to source and start cross-sex hormones without her parents' knowledge.
	More grooming!
	In a thread entitled Binder Finder, a young girl asks for advice about sourcing breast binders.
	She immediately receives multiple recommendations of the cheapest places to find them.
	Now, if you remember, this is why mermaids were investigated, because they were sending them through the post.
	So... I mean, at least they're not sending them the hormones themselves.
	No, but they're also not regulating on their own platform, their own website, which they take responsibility for moderating and have said they moderate all of these interactions which are leading children to circumvent their parents' wishes and guidance and access chest binders and hormones.
	And I point all this out because James says at no point in any of the posts he consulted were these moderated.
	These could all be adults preying on children.
	But the thing is, it's clear that Childline is being run by SJW Tumblrites.
	Yeah, intersectional ideologues.
	Yeah, they believe all of this stuff.
	And so for them, saying, well, this wasn't moderated, and they're like, well, why would it be?
	This is the purpose of what we're doing.
	Well, their advice and counselling service is called Ask Sam.
	And in this spectator piece, James talks about having previously written about Ask Sam, where a childline worker would respond to young people directly, not just crowdsourcing it.
	In one letter, a 14-year-old girl writes to say she hates her breasts.
	The response from Sam, who is a trained child line worker, brings up the use of binders and doesn't warn her about medical ramifications.
	In another letter, a young girl struggling with gender dysphoria raises concerns about getting pregnant later in life if she were to medically transition.
	Sam's response mentions surgery and hormones as a potential choice and then says you could have a surrogate mother carry the baby for you instead.
	Oh, good solution.
	Just to be clear, right?
	When a teenager who is confused about the changes in their body, and I say this as a father, comes to you and says, I'm worried about X feature of my body, your obligation as an adult is to say don't worry, it is totally normal, you'll understand, Well, this is the watch-and-wait practice that, before this madness, was the means of addressing gender dysphoria in adolescence, and between 70 and 94% desisted across cultures.
	But also, fundamentally though, it's also going to be ultimately true.
	Your body probably is normal.
	It's probably widely understood, you know, like a common, whatever the child comes to you with a complaint is, it's probably just normal, completely normal.
	Just don't make them hate themselves, try and reassure them.
	Don't deliberately sterilize them and say you could circumvent your own sterilization later by commodifying another person.
	So we actually do have an interview with James on our website, which is free.
	If you pay us £5 a month you can get all of our premium content and also ensure that we still have the budget to bring in excellent people like James who's doing fantastic work.
	I spoke to him at the LGB Alliance conference where I met Richie Herron and also did an interview with him, and Josh had a great conversation with him coming from the same psychological background, and he's doing great stuff.
	But I just want to say that reporting on this makes me really sad, actually, because I know someone relatively close to me had a very harrowing upbringing, probably would have benefited from social services taking more care, but they let them down.
	If they consulted Childline's services, not only would they probably have not provided adequate enough care to save them from that situation, but this person also had gender dysphoria, and so they would have made that worse for them, and they probably wouldn't be the well-adjusted, lovely person they are today.
	How many other kids are getting failed by this?
	Like, we should be able to trust our institutions that are meant to be representing the interests of vulnerable children.
	The fact that we can't just shows such a level of moral decay.
	Yeah.
	It's just harrowing.
	And so, I thought I'd bookend this as well with some updates on the Oxfam story that Callum covered yesterday.
	Oh yeah.
	So, Callum didn't play the clip because it was archived on YouTube, but TalkTV actually reposted the original video.
	I don't know if you've actually seen this yet beyond the screenshot.
	I've seen the screenshot, but I haven't seen the video.
	Okay, let's play the video, please.
	Oh look, there's JK Rowling.
	Yes.
	How are you marking Pride Month this year?
	While LGBTQIA plus people around the world are deprived of basic safety, not protected by laws, preyed on by hate groups online and offline, discriminated against at work, deprived of opportunities and pushed to the margins.
	But pride can be found etched deeply in the hand of a friend, the hug of a chosen family member, or the safe spaces of a kind community.
	This Pride Month, we take pride in those who protect and champion safety for LGBTQIA plus people.
	We all must stand together with queer folks online, at work, in schools, in sport, through laws, everywhere.
	We call to protect the pride.
	Are you with us?
	So, again, protect the pride as if they are under existential threat.
	Chosen family.
	Yeah.
	Your glitter family, not your nuclear family that you've been pried away from.
	Family isn't something you choose.
	At the end of the day, you were born into it and you don't have a choice about that.
	Yeah.
	And it shouldn't shock us, of course, but they've got hairy-armed androgynous women, they've got the mastectomy scars, they've got the communist fist.
	Yeah, it's everything.
	But the reason this generated more traction was, as covered yesterday by Callum, if we move to this next one, we've got the screenshot here of the comparison between J.K.
	Rowling and the demonic TERF figure with the TERF badge.
	Now, the update is Oxfam took the video down.
	Go on to the next one, please.
	They've issued a statement saying we've removed the post because concerns raised with us.
	We'll repost shortly.
	And they did repost the video.
	They've got a statement here that says that we're actually against all sorts of transphobia and things like that, but please don't sue us for defamation, JK.
	Well, I just want to be clear, I don't think that JK has a case there, right?
	I mean, I think that they're totally within their rights to caricature her as an evil demonic TERF.
	That should be totally within the bounds of political conversation.
	Yes, I think it should be.
	I don't know if it is within British law.
	Yeah, well, yeah, exactly.
	Because, of course, the Maya Forstater case sets TERF as a predicted characteristic.
	I'm giving my opinion on how free speech should work.
	Whether that is the case or not is, of course, the answer in my hands.
	But I wouldn't have said she had a case there.
	I would have said, yeah, you can represent it with glowing eyes if you want, it's just not very nice.
	And honestly, J.K.
	Rowling's obviously not wrong about the question of what is a woman's... No.
	Being one, she might know.
	She might have some experience.
	Yeah, if we go on to the next one as well, this isn't a point of principle because they just reposted the same video just without that frame.
	And so it shows that they're still committed to the mutilation of children.
	But that's not to be understated here.
	This isn't necessarily a win.
	Because also, the win is in the rubric of Feminist of 2015 conquers over weird feminist that is also a man of 2023.
	It feels like that meme of the guys on the boat watching the two monkeys knife fight for me.
	There's no winners coming out of this.
	I bet J.K.
	Rowling doesn't disagree with anything that's in this thing, apart from the concept of trans.
	That's the thing.
	Yeah.
	And we shouldn't be shocked at this, because it turns out, if we go on to the next one, Oxfam's head of influencing, as James has pulled up, used to work at Stonewall.
	Oh, there we go.
	And he also used to work on a government board, while working at Stonewall.
	This is deeply entrenched ideological cultism that is ruining the lives of children.
	Now, this is all downstream of the UN AIDS agenda, which I've covered with Josh in this following segment, and I bring this up... Just go down, please, John.
	John, go down.
	Scroll down the page, please, to the thumbnail.
	There we go.
	Fantastic, thank you.
	This covered the 21 UN AIDS principles, which were put out on International Women's Day, which featured things like... Do you remember at the live event when you discussed the critical race theory?
	essay that said it is institutional racism to not allow women to take crack while pregnant.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, that's a right in there.
	Oh, is it?
	Yeah, that's actually...
	The right to take crack while pregnant.
	What's the segment?
	Your eyebrows will be shot off your head.
	One of the other rights in there is unfettered access to gender-affirming care and also the ability for children to consent to sex.
	This is the UN.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, this might have flown under your radar, right?
	Yeah, I didn't see this.
	You should have a look at this.
	And the reason I bring this up is because I mentioned in here that the UN staff were responsible for 60,000 rapes within one decade, right?
	And I'd like to draw a comparison, because Oxfam worked for the UN, and Oxfam, if you remember in 2018, there was a giant scandal about all of the...
	Child prostitutes?
	The oxymoron that is, because children cannot consent to sex?
	In Haiti, because they decided to go in with the Clinton Foundation and do some clean-up.
	And just a brief timeline of what happened.
	In February of 2018, Oxfam was accused of covering up an investigation into hiring sex workers for orgies Sex workers, Guardian, really?
	Child prostitutes, many of them, by staff working in Haiti after the 2020 earthquake.
	Oxfam was then hit with allegations that employees had used them in Chad in 2006 as well.
	I was going to say, I knew that this had happened in Africa, I hadn't heard about a Haiti one.
	Yes.
	The Charity Commission then launched a statutory inquiry into Oxfam, amid concerns that it might not have fully and frankly disclosed all details about Haiti allegations.
	The charity's chief deputy executive, Penny Lawrence, resigned, saying she's desperately sorry.
	Later in February, Mark Goldring, the chief executive of Oxfam, claimed attacks are out of proportion to the level of culpability and accused critics of an anti-aid agenda.
	I mean, I do have an anti-aid agenda, but like... I don't think it's out of proportion.
	It was just some child rapes on our watch, guys.
	It wasn't that many.
	I mean, one is too many.
	Disgusting.
	Yeah.
	And then, contradicting him, head of Oxfam International, Winnie Biamia, warned that what happened in Haiti is a stain on Oxfam that will shame us for years.
	Yeah.
	And then Golding, two months later, stood down as cheeky executive because he said... I mean, it literally should never happen.
	Yeah.
	He said... Like, the first... Sorry, but this is just... It drives me mad.
	So, well, this is going to be a stain on our reputation.
	It's like, yeah, you're going to be the child prostitute organisation forever.
	And now you're the child mutilation organisation.
	Yeah.
	And we're still giving you money.
	I mean, the UN, do you know what their response was to all the rapes happening on their watch?
	No.
	Their first deflection was, well, they didn't use UN aid money to pay for the prostitutes, so it's not our problem.
	Brilliant.
	Right.
	You sent them out there to the country.
	They were on your orders.
	And they raped children!
	You chose these people.
	And the thing is, you get the conspiracy side of these discussions going, like, yeah, well, the paedophiles target these institutions to get into, so they'll be exposed in these irresponsible ways.
	And it's like, okay, well, what do you do about that?
	Well, Childline doesn't seem to have any safeguard against that.
	Exactly.
	What does Oxfam have?
	Nothing, apparently.
	They've got, apparently, sort of, don't worry about it, bro.
	Yeah, so Haiti have now blocked Oxfam operating in their country.
	Justifiable.
	I mean, yeah, totally justifiably, but, like, why hasn't Oxfam been dissolved?
	Well, if we go to this final update, turns out the Charity Commission might decide to maybe look into it.
	Great.
	Finally.
	But only because of J.K.
	Rowling's image in the video.
	Not because they are promoting the mutilation and sterilization of children.
	Not because they decided to do all this stuff in Haiti and Chad.
	They're not looking into...
	Childline yet for their unmoderated forums convincing women to use breast binders or chemical castration drugs.
	This whole charity sector is rotten to the core.
	We can't trust any of these institutions.
	And so, God bless those like James Esses doing the Lord's work, muckraking this stuff.
	If people like him were in charge, then I'd really put a lot more faith in these places.
	But the fact is, they deserve to be treated as the CIA once was described by JFK, to be scattered into a thousand pieces and dissolved.
	Thrown to the wind.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Because there can't be another Chloe Cole or Richie Heron.
	It's just too awful.
	Let's go to the video comments.
	Alright, now, supposedly the government admitted they are withholding alien technologies from Congress and reverts engineering them.
	Let's be honest, I wonder how long until they run out of conspiracy theories to confirm.
	Yeah, I just can't believe it.
	Well, either way, at least I'm prepared.
	Xenos!
	Fear me!
	So... I don't believe it.
	You've seen Labyrinth, right?
	About years ago, yeah.
	Do you remember when they fight the giant robot that emerges out of the gate?
	Not offhand.
	People that'll get the reference... I'll tell Bo after, because Bo's a fellow Labyrinth enjoyer.
	There's this giant axe-swinging robot that emerges from the gates of the Goblin City, and they tear off the helmet, and there's this little goblin in there that's thrown out, and says, that's not very nice.
	That's what that mech suit reminds me of.
	As soon as you see his head... Right.
	Good afternoon Lotus Eaters.
	My wife and I are heading to Copenhagen for a few days away.
	We're going to this gig.
	And we're looking for some stuff to do in the daytimes while we've got some tourism hours.
	Anyone got any suggestions for stuff to do in Copenhagen city centre, restaurants, places that we should visit?
	It'd be good to hear from you.
	Drop me a tweet or DM me there.
	Cheers!
	Same for suggestions of Massachusetts and DC because I'll be going there at an unspecified time in the year.
	Tony D and Wee Scurvy Joan here with another tale of pirates in South Jersey.
	Blackbeard the Pirate came to Petty Island and made his hideout in 1717.
	It is said he buried his treasure in Burlington, New Jersey, but also in Philadelphia on Wood Street underneath a black walnut tree.
	A suicidal Spaniard volunteered to guard the gold in death and shot himself, and they shot his dog for good measure.
	Aye, John.
	Missed Tony.
	It's good to see you back.
	I know we've been giving a lot of grief to liberals and libertarians, but I think Stelios and Josh are doing God's work.
	They are preserving the memory of the good life.
	The sad fact is that we will need an illiberal devil to make way for God's liberal paradise.
	The morally and ethnically harmonious England was made by stocks and gibbets.
	Good manners forged in towers.
	Barbarism broken at the wheel.
	The yin and yang of civilization and the brutality needed to forge the lasting civilized peace.
	A libertarian or liberal paradise is definitely where I want to live, but I'm going to have to break her every rule to forge her again.
	Just my two cents.
	I don't like the framing of devil, obviously.
	I know you're going to smirk.
	But within the Christian paradigm I'm speaking within, because obviously Satan being the prince of lies, you don't win anything by lies.
	Instead, I think you should see it as a sort of Christ-like project to tell the truth in a loving yet blunt way, and demolish the current order of lies which cannot stand.
	That would be a better framing than saying we need a devil.
	I say just punish wrongdoers with a death penalty.
	So did Christ.
	Yeah.
	Based.
	Anyway, Robert says, just catching up, what the hell, Connor?
	Who is Fox Mulder?
	Man, that is... you're never gonna forget this.
	Look, I'm irrevocably a Zoomer.
	I'm kind of a boomer trapped in a Zoomer's body, so I'm the worst of both worlds.
	California Refugee says: "In California we have health department employees literally spy on people.
	One church had all its members tracked via cell phone data and telemetry.
	This is where our taxes go, meanwhile the governor did whatever he wanted.
	California is pretty much just a progressive caliphate." Enjoy a presidential candidate Newsom eventually, I suppose.
	Yeah, and it's totally true though.
	Progressive caliphate is a good way of framing it.
	Yeah, that's exactly right.
	The whole Western world is moving to a more Chinese model of social control.
	Democracy, dissent, and free thought are inconvenient when you have a world structure in mind that you wish to create.
	Yeah, that's exactly right.
	The managerial – the ultimate sort of world-spanning managerial state is where all of this is heading, whether we like it or not.
	Yeah, you're right.
	Speed bumps on their road to utopia.
	Yeah.
	SH Silver says, I'm actually glad for the extreme measures of our states regarding lockdowns and COVID.
	It shows our neoliberal caretakers tipping their hands show us how illiberal our societies are.
	Whether there is no free market of ideas, there is no free association, everything must be contained within the ethical agenda of the global statist.
	I mean, there is that, to be fair.
	The fact that this could happen.
	I mean, I don't doubt that many people were kind of woken up from thinking they lived in a safe and predictable society when they were told, look, you're literally not allowed to go and visit your nan.
	It's just a shame it took, again, all of those unwarranted excess deaths to do so.
	We're going to be suffering the consequences for a very long time.
	Yeah.
	The Wigan Survivor says, the way things are going, are they going to get so censorious I'll have to look for Christian and conservative opinions on the dark web.
	You mean you aren't already?
	Ethelstan says, while it's incredibly important to discuss and constantly used to challenge the establishment for their actions during COVID, it's incredibly blackpilling because there is no chance of anyone ever being punished nor is there any hope for any future scenarios that would be dealt with differently.
	The problem is with how this was dealt with and the continuing migration and housing crisis can only really be dealt with if politics was inextricably changed against the interest of politicians to only be funded by individuals and not lobbyist corporations and foundations.
	We don't have any transparency on whether or not our MPs have stocks in certain companies.
	Yeah.
	Joan of Arc says, I'm an American.
	I presume the government's been spying on me for decades.
	Well, that's why Edward Snowden is in Russia and why Julian Assange is in jail.
	Andrew says, it's almost like the quality writing matters more than the fancy special effects when talking about Tucker Carlson.
	Applies not only to news media, but media in general.
	Yeah.
	The content is king.
	That's what Tucker is proving.
	All of the fancy bells and whistles actually mean nothing if what you're saying resonates with people.
	That's actually a question I'd almost sort of pose to the audience that got very engaged on the website.
	What proportion of reason do you watch us for content versus the fact that we're friends?
	Because I think the fact that pretty much all the hosts get on and are friends off-air and on-air hopefully bleeds through.
	And so that is not something you get from the networks that are mainstream stale in the States, or even, and I'll say this from experience, going on GB News.
	I'm friends with some of the hosts, but not very many of my co-panellists.
	So this is the same strength of Tim Koss.
	I think this is why we cultivate an organic and engaged audience versus the apathy of mainstream media.
	Let's hope so.
	Le French Tucker says, it is nice of the smear merchants to give Tucker free publicity.
	Yeah, I know.
	That's why I keep bringing that up.
	When Boris was like, well, we're going to get rid of the bumboys and letterboxes.
	And they're like, I can't believe you said that.
	And I was like, I can't believe you said that.
	You've got to understand, guys.
	A very close gay friend of mine voted Boris.
	And he said, yeah, we are a bunch of tank top bumboys.
	Exactly.
	Bumboys for Boris.
	You're describing the entire Tory party at this point.
	I know.
	Alpha of the Beta says the mainstream media, despairing the lack of corporate glitz and fluffery on Tucker's tweet, shows how out of touch they've become.
	How many people read a newspaper to bask in the glow of a perfectly crafted font?
	They've forgotten their purpose.
	The public is starving, desperate for a meal, and they're complaining that the plate has no garnish.
	Yeah, that's a great way of framing it.
	I mean, it's literally like... For me, it was Taylor Lorenz.
	You know, there are no jump cuts.
	That's good.
	That's a good thing.
	Yeah, the jump cut was the problem.
	Kevin says, uh, Tucker is the MSM's worst nightmare made real.
	He is the beta release of Freddy Krueger to the leftists.
	Yeah, he's doing great.
	And the fact that none of them... Oh, it's conspiracy theory.
	Yeah, but a lot of them have proven true, so that's not a criticism.
	I'd say Jason, just because every time you put Jason down, he comes back, whereas at the end of the first Nightmare on Elm Street, he just goes, you're nothing, and he dissipates into vapour.
	Great point, yeah, great point.
	Omar says, I misheard Connor when he said co-panellist, but I think you guys are excellent cope-analysts.
	Let the ultra-crepedarians see though of your authenticity since all the textbook media influence and can't reach a fraction of your popularity.
	Thank you.
	Putting that on my new Twitter bio.
	Yeah!
	Copeanalyst.
	Lodeseaters.com.
	That is good, actually.
	Copeanalyst, yeah.
	Stuart says, Connor, the Telegraph has come out with a lot of woke toss recently, which is why I featured them, actually.
	Coincidentally, the Telegraph are up for sale.
	Thinking of seriously cancelling my subscription to them and upgrading my Lodeseaters account.
	Do that anyway, please.
	But, no, no, he is right.
	Like, the Telegraph is... When the leftists are like, it's the Torygraph, they're not wrong, say that.
	And it does follow the whims of the Tory party.
	A little bit.
	So I... I don't know what I can say.
	I have friends who have written for Slash Have Columns with them, and they do allow them to push the needle, though there are a couple of editors in there that stymie what gets filtered out, not because of personal politics, but because a lot of the time when you're dealing with editors in mainstream publications, it's because they weren't good enough to be writers, and so they just retroactively write everything you do and neuter it anyway.
	But the problem is that The Telegraph will post things like that one we saw today.
	So it's like, well, look, you can say, well, we're posting a base thing here, but if you're posting a dozen woke things over the other side, what audience are you serving?
	It's the inverse thing of, I think it was Michael Crichton came out with this nonsensical name principle of where you open a newspaper and you read the first headline, you go, oh my God, that's shocking.
	You turn the page and it's a story you're familiar with and you go, wait, that's not right at all.
	You turn the page again and you go, oh my God, that's shocking.
	Even though you know one of their stories is wrong, you believe them on all the other stories.
	Exactly, because you don't know enough about the subject.
	Andrew says, with regards to the Childline story, Degenerate pseudo-Marxists are always radically militant.
	After all, they are fueled only by a vehement hatred of normal society that has rejected their perverted ideology.
	All of these revolutionary movements ought to be banned, much as they were back in the 19th century.
	Yeah.
	Be like, we're a revolutionary group.
	Right, well, then you're a threat to the state.
	Why would you be allowed to operate?
	I take the hopper position on these matters.
	Yeah.
	I will not elaborate further.
	Think Positive says, sounds like they really, really want a trans Floyd to happen.
	Doesn't it?
	Doesn't it just?
	Um, and there, there you, I mean, you could see that in the Nashville shooting where they were saying there were seven victims.
	It's like, no, no, there are six victims and one psychotic murderer.
	Uh, someone online says they're the ones sterilizing and offing themselves.
	If there's a genocide, it's them doing it to themselves.
	I wouldn't just say themselves.
	I mean, that's true for the adults who should not be able to access this kind of surgery or hormones anyway, in my opinion, but there you go.
	But also, it is being inflicted on the children.
	So there is a form of genocidal sterilisation of autistic young girls.
	I think that's definitely true.
	Richard says, what's Oxfam have to do with Pride?
	I thought it was a Christian aid organisation, dealing with famine.
	It used to be, didn't it?
	That's a good point actually, I didn't even think of that.
	Utter BS and it shows just how perverted society has become when charities join in with this guff.
	Yeah, I mean, he's absolutely right.
	It used to be a Christian aid charity, and it used to send food to Africa.
	Did you see that the Holy See building in the US has a progress pride flag?
	I did not see this.
	But I'm not in any way surprised.
	Another schism, please.
	Sketchy Wombat says, the longer this goes on, the longer I believe this is all the revenge of the incels against the feminists.
	I don't think it is, but I can see why you'd get that position.
	Jonah Mark, oh sorry, Sophie says, Connor, do you have any research papers about the damage of binders?
	My sister sells them to 14-year-olds.
	Oh!
	Okay, I would recommend consulting Abigail Schreier's chapter on it, on irreversible damage.
	If you tweet at me or something, I can provide something on it later.
	Okay.
	Well, that answers that then.
	And that is unfortunately where we have run out of time.
	So thank you so much for joining us, folks.
	If you want to support us, go sign up at the website and we will be back tomorrow.

▲