All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 16, 2023 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters
01:32:06
The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #786
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Lothseaters, episode 786 for today, the 16th of November 2023.
I am your host Conor, joined by Cole!
Hello!
And Nick Tensoni from Turning Point UK.
Tenconi.
Tenconi.
I thought it was a soft C because it was Italian.
It's a very good, great cover and it was a great effort as well.
Well, this is why I failed Latin.
Not a joke, by the way.
Anyway, so thanks very much for joining me, mate.
We brave Conservative Party conference together, so it's always nice to have an ally in a captured institution.
Amen.
Absolutely, yeah.
Right, so we'll be discussing how the politicians know, the Met Police know, they just don't care about their flagrant hypocrisy.
Candace Owens fighting Ben Shapiro.
We'll cover that tactfully, I'm certain.
And what's wrong with the Zoomers?
Because Carl denigrates them constantly and they're actually alright.
I don't know.
I don't know if it's denigration, if it's just an accurate characterization.
It's not an accurate characterization.
We're going to do some rehabilitation here today.
Before we kick off, obviously.
Yeah, Harry tried that the other day.
It's a Thursday.
Yeah, but it's me.
It's a Thursday, so that means lads, our three o'clock will be joined by Nick and also currently on his way into the studio, Sebastian Gorka, surprise guest, which is excellent, ahead of his Oxford Union address tonight.
So look out for that when it comes out as well.
We'll be discussing whether or not 2024 is our year, boys.
A bit of election predictions.
Of course, Seb knows exactly what he's talking about on those issues.
So if you haven't already subscribed to be a premium member, go subscribe.
You'll be able to watch that live and add some comments and questions for Seb and Nick.
But without further ado, let's jump straight into today's stories.
Right, so they know, they know that we can see video evidence of them sabotaging the country, treating pro-Hamas protesters with more favorability than your average working-class patriot, and they just don't care!
Yes, there is no law.
Oh, that's a good take.
pretty redundant at this point because as Oran McIntyre often says, it's not about hypocrisy.
It's about hierarchy.
I'm referring, of course, to last night's cenotaph protests.
Again, they've been traipsing all over war memorials and the Met Police has decided to go with a bold new strategy of, rather than pretending that they're enforcing the law, just gaslighting the public into saying, well, we can't do anything.
Yes, there is no law.
Oh, that's a good take.
How did you shut down all of the right-wing protests?
Yes.
Oh, Under what pretense?
I'd much prefer the Judge Dredd strategy of, no, I am the law, in fact.
Yeah, yeah.
It's difficult to intervene when it's peaceful marching, you know?
Peaceful marching over the war memorials?
Yeah, when it's so peaceful.
Mostly peaceful party rocking on the grave of the war dead.
Your hands are tied when it's mainly peaceful by the grievance brigade.
Yeah, especially when you just turn up right as it's already happening.
Oh no, wait, they were already there!
Anyway, we'll get into video evidence of that.
If you want to see the impetus of why society is being liquidated, you can go over to our website and watch Josh's Contemplation Series, where this is the second part of our liberalism debate, with the appropriately fire and fury thumbnails.
Third part is coming out this Saturday, where Carl utterly destroys!
Destroy is the liberal dream.
I had a lot of people asking me, is the third part out this weekend?
Is the third part out this weekend?
I was like, I don't know, I'm not in charge of the schedule.
It's out this weekend.
So, okay, there we go, good news.
It is.
The last 20 minutes have probably been my favourite bit of content we've done so far.
It's pretty good.
It's golden, so well worth subscribing for that.
And the reason I say liberalism is at fault, because I say in the third part, Multiculturalism isn't a melting pot, it's a kind of blender, because liberalism thinks of itself as the parameters in which all conflicts can be resolved, and so it puts all these cultures in one container, it presses blend, and unfortunately what it doesn't realise is the most dominant ingredient will often leave a bitter aftertaste.
And that dominant ingredient here, as the consequence of mass migration, seems to be mental Islamism.
I don't think that's an exaggeration when, as soon as there is a parliamentary vote on the ceasefire in Gaza, it brings out a few hundred people into the streets to shut down all of Oxford Street.
So just before we begin, what was the point of a parliamentary vote on a ceasefire in Gaza?
So the reason it was introduced was because the SMP wanted to add an amendment to the King's speech that's just gone.
Of course, the SMP is led by Hamza Yusuf, who has family in Palestine and is a practicing Muslim, therefore it's a show of religious and ethnic solidarity.
He doesn't like white people, does he?
No, he's not a big fan of how white Scotland is.
He doesn't like white people.
No.
We were talking about the same guy, yeah?
Yeah, yeah, absolutely.
I don't think these... Openly racist.
Yeah, I don't think these people are a big fan of the indigenous Brits whose lives they constantly disrupt either.
I think that's more to do with it than the Muslims being killed in Gaza and Palestine because they're not, as Douglas Murray has pointed out, they're not protesting for the Yemenis or anyone that Bashar al-Assad... I pointed that out.
They don't care.
They don't care at all when it's Muslim on Muslim.
But as soon as it's someone else on them, suddenly they're out in the street.
Well, even Al-Assad.
Al-Assad's allied with Christians in Syria.
China, Myanmar, Yemen, doesn't matter.
Doesn't matter.
They didn't stand up for Majid Nawaz when he lost his job at LBC, not long after being the spearhead of the Uyghur Muslim protests, doing a hunger strike.
So, it is just a flex.
Iranian dissidents holding up signs, placards saying Hamas is a terrorist organisation, anti-Hamas, and then getting attacked by fellow Muslims.
You absolutely can't say that.
But Muslim infighting is totally normal to these people, I think, is what the issue is.
They don't consider it to be anything.
Out of the ordinary, should we say?
I try not to go too hard on that, but like, it just seems to be a settled issue.
Yes.
But then the reason this movement has galvanized so many is because the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
And it turns out the enemy of all Muslims is just Jews and the native English.
It's a perennial enemy in Israel.
Well I'll tell you where I came in.
So critical thinking lends on.
So go back to 7th of October and then I think last night is their 7th.
They've done every Saturday and then the 7th.
So reporting on the front line, talking to people, understanding.
Socialist Worker Party placards everywhere.
Yes.
Everywhere.
The main proponent of radical gender theory.
The main proponent of puberty blockers, pronouns, and just pushing the slippery slope as hard as possible in the guise of diversity, inclusion, equality.
Usual commie stuff.
And we see here, among hundreds of clips now, the Socialist Work Party black arts absolutely everywhere.
And so, is that okay if you are vehemently, as this particular demographic would be, let's say that 80% are Islamic, for example, I don't know, vehemently against, as social conservatives also.
Well if we just do a quick screenshot of what we can actually see on the streets, it's more like 99% Islamic.
So a lot of people on the left, as you know, they've said, oh, it's largely white in the marches.
Of the 100,000, it's largely white.
People can say stuff without impunity or consequence as a result of free speech.
So we'll park that.
That's fine.
But is that OK?
That was my first question originally.
Is that OK?
So you're holding a banner and a placard which has enormous significance and importance when you're protesting because you're telling people what you're all about.
And it's there branded with far left, Is that fair?
Is that okay?
that is 100% behind radical gender theory and the inclusion of homosexuals within society, et cetera, et cetera, and homosexual rights, et cetera.
So what's that about?
Is that fair?
Is that okay?
Or is that disingenuous?
It's instrumental.
So this is why Marx even remarks that the Muslims are a useful weapon against the Christians because the Christians are the biggest thing in the standing in the way of communists.
So they, one, with post-colonial theory where their brains have been liquidated, they just say, they're brown, they're not Christian, equals good.
And so they're a vanguard class for us.
And also they see this as an instrument of subversion of the existing order.
So they think, okay, these guys want to tip the table.
I also want to tip the table.
As soon as the table's tipped, we think that because our ideology is actually the end of history, we'll just win So what he said, so first item is that's what I saw, and of course the second item is who's using who, which lends itself to your point.
So I want to understand what's really going on here, because what I've seen isn't peaceful, what I've seen is aggressive.
I'm not going to say anything else.
It is aggressive, what I've seen, 100%.
So very confrontational, very combative.
It doesn't seem peaceful.
But of course, if you're calling for a ceasefire, or if you're losing relatives in that part of the world, then you can have empathy.
You can have understanding for that.
So week after week, come on to the statues and the memorials as a separate item.
But I want to get to the sort of MO.
of the people who were involved in this, bearing in mind Myanmar, bearing in mind Yemen, bearing in mind China, bearing in mind all sorts of grievances and victimhood complaints throughout the globe in the context of the last four or five years with this oppressor oppressed narrative and this victimhood grievance brigade.
I want to understand why there is marches, this sort of mobilization, hundreds of thousands of people, enormous amounts of funding, any Anyone who can throw money at it, doesn't matter what the placard says, who I'm representing, as long as we're out there doing this, this means the absolute world to us.
Well, I think actually it can be summarized really succinctly.
The issue is never the issue.
The issue is always revolution, right?
That's why the socialist workers are looking at people who will literally hang gays and go, yeah, okay, there are guys because they are, as Conor was saying, a weapon instrumentally against the current regime, the West itself.
Well, do you also know the disingenuity of the calls for ceasefire and peace?
Because, what was this prompted by?
It wasn't in response to the Israeli retaliation, because they were already out on the streets conducting prayers in front of Downing Street, after the October 7th massacre by Hamas.
And, as you already pointed out, they attack Israelis, sorry, Iranians, for saying Hamas is a terrorist organisation.
So they're not protesting saying, free Palestine from Hamas, and free the Gaza Strip from the Palestinian Authority, because they've instigated this war and they're getting Palestinians killed.
They're saying, I think statues and memorials, one thing, two-tier policing, one thing, the chanting, the call for Islamic armies to rise, the jihadi stuff, Intifada, so that's all countered.
There's always a counter from the left, if we can call them that.
But I want to know, if I had five or six Muslim brothers and sisters here with us now and said, that sign you're holding, that represents far left extremism, communism, whatever you want to call it.
And they are also proponents of radical gender theory.
And look it up that sign.
What do you think?
I want to know what those people would have to say.
Would they say it doesn't matter?
We've got some examples.
I've seen it, yeah, when Chris went down on the street corner and some Antifa kid came up and he said that he's against the LGBTQ community and young Muslim girls started mocking his sexuality because he was wearing nail polish.
So that day, so we were defending the Cenotaph and Chris was there, so I made my intros because obviously anyone on the front line, good guy.
We've got an interview with him coming out very soon.
Fantastic.
Solid.
So that video was great.
And we haven't seen that yet, have we?
I presume that they were Muslims.
You had three or four girls and you had the Canadian or American masked up, you know, wannabe Disney Channel Antifa.
going for Chris.
And then the Muslim girls, obviously, again, there's a little bit of mob mentality there, which I don't like.
And I'm seeing that awful lot with this demographic, which I don't like, but they put him straight, whoever he was, or he, them, or he, their, them, she.
And in he walks away.
So to my point, right.
So I'd like to know these hundreds of thousands of people, the placard suggests funding.
That's an awful lot of money to put all that together.
You've seen the aerial screenshots.
of the hundreds of thousands, literally of batons and of the and of the placard attached to the posts and the placards, what do they have to say about that?
Is it, well, this is really useful right now, and we'll eat you up later, actually?
So that's quite disingenuous.
I'm not okay with that.
Or is it, no, actually, we really do stand with you and your radical gender theory and your far-left extremism?
They don't.
This is just the immediate thing that's the kind of, the wellspring of energy.
Right.
And so Israel, Palestine, therefore Muslims are out in the streets, therefore they're just going to glom onto it and do whatever they can, because the issue is not the issue.
Recruitment stands, banners, outposts, you name it.
They're not attacked, they're not attacked at all.
If I was there in terms of the organisation, our representation, no doubt we'd be attacked, tables flipped, we'd be called fascist.
They're there, not just with the plaque on placards moving on but but the recruitment posts the leafleting the uh the uh the the the observation that they are everywhere and these people like yeah well you'll do for now well this is useful this is the important thing it's an alliance of convenience and so it's worthwhile as we have just done disentangling the intersectional fault line that is here but ultimately the people that are benefiting from this and profiting from it whether it's the ngos whether it's the socialist workers party
whether it's the mps who have just stepped down from kirsten armer's front bench i think it's about 10 including jess phillips because she knows exactly who her voting constituency are and the various labor mps that voted for said ceasefire They don't care about this fault line.
They just overlook it and tell anyone that's pointing it out to disbelieve their lying eyes.
And we know that this has affected the Met because this, they put a dispersal order out about 10 to 8 last night.
Still in action until 2am this morning.
But they knew this was happening.
They didn't clear the protests away.
The protest blocked Oxford Street, and then it moved to the Cenotaph.
And they thought, oh no.
Here we go.
Optically bad again.
So they sent their best soldiers down.
I'm just going to rewind to that bit.
I'm going to hope it stays muted.
Did you hear the chat?
The main guy, he wasn't wearing one of the coloured caps, but did you hear the chat when he was rallying them saying, you do that and you do this?
It was completely, they were completely unprepared.
Well, speaking of unprepared, just look at the shape of these officers.
I mean, the high-vis vests, it's not the most inspiring uniform, they look like they're just going to go manage a building site, but also they're all fat, they're all short, some of them are women, some I assume are good people.
They're slowly surrounding the cenotaph, anticipating the marchers to come past it.
The issue you have is that they don't defend other monuments.
This is the protesters climbing over the Royal Artillery Memorial near Hyde Park Corner.
Yep.
But I think we should also mention, why did they scramble like that?
Going back to the Cenotaph, they knew who was on the streets, they knew what they were there for, the van that drives around London with the missing Israeli children is blocked, there's huge fascist far-left presence, again, overlooking all of this, they know they're en route to the Cenotaph, why are they scrambling?
Why?
To spare the protesters from optics, not to spare the Cenotaph from desecration.
So we've got the banners, not the banners, the barriers that went up a few weeks ago, largely due to Turning Point's presence and influencing the police to actually do their job.
You know, heaven forbid that they actually do their job.
And they've got the barriers.
And then of course, the other day, ahead of Armistice Day, they had a lot of ring of police, that iron ring of police.
So they knew where they were, they knew what was going on.
Let's address the fact that it was even necessary to have that, that we've got to have the metal barriers.
We've got to have vests everywhere, we've got to have that unbreakable chain of police, we've got to, never mind anything else, we've got to have that there, because you never know, they might vandalise, desecrate, they might hurt, they might... Well, that's the point, isn't it?
Because, I mean, if this was, say, Hindus, or Sikhs, or Nepalese, or whatever, marching through the streets, I'm actually not worried about the cenotaph under those circumstances.
They seem to be.
The police and law enforcement and the government seem to be, and I think that needs to be discussed.
And I think the reason is it goes back to what I was saying when we were talking about the Liberalism Podcast.
They are so insistent on mediating all multicultural tensions that they seem to have denied would ever arise when they inducted mass migration, that now they compel the peaceful, patriotic, native populations and their british diaspora immigrant allies to suppress their culture in case it provokes the volatile new people who will disrespect it and so they think that if they just appease them enough and increase material conditions enough
all the cultural tensions will dissipate and it's painfully naive as we can see because they're traipsing over the graves of our war dead do you mean appeasement doesn't work i don't think of a time when it has it does it In this context, you mean appeasement doesn't work?
Maybe tell it to David Cameron, who's just been appointed after he lobbied on behalf of the Chinese to look at BRICS.
But actually, speaking of the government, so the new Home Secretary, James Cleverley, who we all totally believe wants to stop the boats and stop this problem, right?
He actually served in the Royal Artillery.
And so he told LBC Radio, we're absolutely determined to look at this.
Oh, good.
I mean, I'm looking at it now.
Yeah, you should all follow Ink Monocle so you can see first hand because he goes down and films his stuff.
Great guy.
Yeah.
So you can look at this yourselves.
I'm really keen for him to look at.
I'm really keen for the police to actually do their job.
You know, when they're looking at it and they're seeing it and they go, actually, you know what?
We probably better do our job.
Well, you know what?
They actually did see this and they said, it's deeply disrespectful to climb on a war memorial, but there's no law making it illegal.
Are you serious?
No law.
Absolute lie.
There's no law.
The Public Order Act!
Yeah, this isn't a public order offence.
No, there's no law guys, come on.
You just signed the Police Crime and Sentencing Bill which criminalises noisy and disruptive protests.
What's that?
You guys are just being discriminatory now, there's no law.
Trad, yes, thank you for noticing.
But look, what one absolute gaslighting from the Met Police.
Look at that ratio as well, 5.1 thousand comments versus 792.
Which brainlets liked that as well, I want to know.
And they say, in the absence of a law, officers cannot automatically arrest, but they can intervene and make it clear their behaviour isn't acceptable.
We can ask them nicely to climb down.
That's what they're saying here.
Just not in the absence of a law.
I just got the.
I think it's really important.
I was super excited when I knew the topics, guys.
We've got to talk about this stuff, but it needs to be unpacked.
All seriousness, it needs to be unpacked.
This is about British values and the possible, dare I say it, let's discuss the possible, is it possible there is an anti-British, anti-Western sentiment that's fueling this campaign, right?
Can we say that?
I think we're way past saying that.
Is that fair?
Is that fair, you know?
Preaching to the choir here.
Yeah, that's a horse we've beaten quite a lot these days.
From the indoctrination that we've exposed in our universities, from the front line against radical gender theory and Drag Story Hour.
Even just on the Tube, you personally were the account that popularised that video of the Tube driver shouting over the tannoy, Free Palestine, and got him suspended because he was violating his job as a Tube driver.
If daily life is permeated by those threats of violence, because that tube was full of pro-Hamas protesters, and the one or two apolitical people were standing there going, I feel very uncomfortable.
If that is the level of public intimidation, yeah, of course it's anti-British.
I think this is very important.
I think two-tier policing, we need to discuss it.
These are two very important topics, is anti-Britishness and far-left extremism, maybe two separate ones, and two-tier policing.
That's what I want to get to the bottom of.
I want to understand that.
So you mentioned about the Tube.
There was a chap yesterday who was going to a gig and he yelled out terrorist sympathisers, not welcome here.
We've got that here in a moment, actually.
Not welcome here.
He was collared.
He was questioned.
I don't know what's happened.
I actually know the guy.
I actually, um, uh, I don't, I don't actually know what's happened, but, but this, this, this response from the Met, we are, whenever, whenever it seems like the British public says, do the right thing, the Met says, we can't.
Yeah.
Right.
Well, that means then that you are engaged with a mob and that you are scared.
You are cucked.
You are, you, you're, you're not on the, you're not on the front foot.
You're frightened.
I think it's, I think it's also a bit worse than that though, because, um, you'll notice that the Met constantly are putting out English officers to patrol the English side of the British side of the protesting.
And there was a clip that went around the other day, um, where a Met police officer was saying some English protesters.
Well you see, there's just too many of them, we can't do anything.
There's more of them than there are of us, when they were veterans flying the Union Jack.
But the important part is in the we and the us, because what they're saying is we are yours, we belong to your group, we police you because we're your police, but they don't consider themselves to have the moral authority to police the pro-Palestine protesters in the same way, because they're a foreign constituency.
White guilt.
Well, it's not even white guilt.
I mean, that is definitely going to be a part of it.
But it's more about where they feel they belong and who they feel they belong to.
And they obviously don't feel they belong to the community that is protesting in favor of Palestine.
And so they're like, well, I don't want to be accused of racism.
It's just too awkward.
It's just too awkward.
Yeah.
There are so many, like, just layers of factors.
All of these, all the things you're saying, they're all layers of factors.
But it's basically that's an outgroup that we don't belong to.
So we're not really responsible for them.
That's why you have the emergence of a parallel policing system, and I think you can actually see that because Monocle was there ahead of the protesters, the vandals arriving, and he says, well, actually, your officers were already there, so they let them climb on the monument.
They didn't discourage them or prevent them from doing it.
They didn't defend this monument like they did the Cenotaph, because the Cenotaph has become totemic as to how bad the optics are.
And so they're just letting them run rampant and vandalize it.
But when they say there's no law, it's like, okay, but no law for them because they're not following our laws.
Yes.
But Tommy's guys have to follow our laws because they're part of us and therefore they are patrolled under the Public Order Act.
I can see how easy it's going to be to jump between two-tier policing and far-left extremism because, as you say, it's so overlapped.
In the context of this Met response, if there is mistrust within law enforcement, that ends badly.
The Met have a moral duty to ensure impartiality.
For very obvious reasons, and I think we need every single person in this country needs to be having the very serious conversation that the police state dynamic is very much on the cards, and the two-tier policing within that.
As you say, because of diversity, inclusion, equality, fear, and frankly very weak leadership.
Well I'll go one step further.
That needs to be called out.
I don't think the police can be impartial, because neutrality is not a neutral value.
Actually, you have to value neutrality in the rule of law in order to enforce it.
And so I think you have two parallel value systems here, or at least two and a half, of where you have the unholy alliance of radical Islamism, enabled by the multiculturalism, diversity, equity and inclusion doctrine of the left, And then you have classical British values where, yeah, we'll tolerate some eccentrics, but actually you assimilate to the predominant culture.
You're orderly, you're polite, you don't desecrate the graves of our ancestors on a big ask.
And so they're incompatible.
It's unreasonable, Connor, it's unreasonable.
On an average far-right position, it's unreasonable.
It's basically the BNP.
I'm like an extremist.
So the Met don't need to be impartial, they actually need to be wholly for British values, unapologetically so, and punish otherwise.
The issue is, they come out and continue to try and gaslight the public after we have the evidence of our own eyes provided by Ink Monocle, and they say, for our audio listeners, most people would agree that to climb on or otherwise disrespect a war memorial is unacceptable.
That is why our officers have made every effort to prevent it happening in recent days.
Why?
This evening a breakaway group of pro-Palestinian protesters were dispersed at Hyde Park Corner and a number of them climbed on the Royal Artillery Memorial.
While officers were on scene quickly, they were there beforehand, we regret that they were not there quickly enough to prevent the protesters accessing the memorial.
We know some online have asked why the protesters were not arrested.
There is no law explicitly making it illegal to climb on a memorial, so officers cannot automatically arrest, but they can intervene to make sure the behavior isn't acceptable.
The video is shared online showing them do that.
Right, okay, great.
There's no law specifically.
Why was I nearly arrested, then?
That's a great question, isn't it?
Why was I nearly arrested?
Because you're a bad boy.
No, it's because you're English.
Buy me a drink first.
It's because you're English, and therefore the law applies to you.
Well, he thought I was transgressing against one of their preferred identity groups, which I wasn't.
He just overheard the word insidious in the post.
It must have had too many syllables for Penfold there.
But I was threatened with the Public Order Act for some very spurious terms.
Why were they not threatened with public disorder when they were climbing on a war memorial on the face of public property?
I know, because they're part of your preferred identity constituency and you want to appease them.
Typical.
It's not that.
They just don't think they have the moral authority to impose British law on the minority communities.
That's literally what it is.
In any other circumstance, hundreds of people would have been arrested.
Hundreds.
If this was like, you know, the football lads all climbing on top of anything, anywhere in London, all of these people would have been clubbed to the ground and arrested.
They would have been run through the system.
They'd have criminal records forever.
And quite rightly so.
Yeah.
And rightly so.
But the police do not feel they have the moral authority to do that to this community.
And they fear the reaction of the community because the community does not accept the police's moral authority.
Yes.
And so the whole thing is an untenable So, what Connor said filled me with dread, because it's a pretty stark, harsh reality.
I love what you're saying, Kyle, about the moral authority.
So we've got Buffer Zone's Bournemouth case, and we've got the veteran, sorry, forgive me, I forget his name.
That is about once Bruce, who's now been arrested three times for this?
You've got, obviously, Caroline Farrow, you've got the veteran for praying silently within the Buffer Zone.
When I'm When we haven't, we've parked Radical Gender Theory because we turn our heads to other things, but when I'm delivering and emceeing on the front line against Drag Story Hour UK, the police are just waiting for me to say the wrong thing.
They're just waiting, right?
So the other day we're at the Cenotaph, one of our demonstrations of defending the Cenotaph, At one point, someone had the mic and called the opposing side that they were the Nazis.
And that's common sentiment, right or wrong, true or false.
I was going to say, I've seen plenty of swastikas.
You've seen the placards, so it's kind of fair game.
And the gold commander came straight over to the chat with the mic and said, you call them Nazis again, you're getting arrested.
Right.
Public order or you've hurt someone's feelings or whatever, Mickey Mouse stuff.
So we know that this needs to be looked at very, very carefully.
This, what do you call it, moral?
The lack of moral authority.
The police don't have the moral authority to police the Muslim community.
That's basically what it is.
So following on, you've got hundreds of thousands coming out and 1,000 police deployed each time.
So if you've got hundreds of thousands coming out, and a thousand police, that's game over.
That doesn't work.
Particularly when they're not wearing riot gear, and they're only wearing riot gear for the Football Lads Alliance, who just wanted to peacefully observe for two minutes.
And then we see the pictures, as you guys have seen, of the police with the Palestinian flags, and they're wearing their masks, and they're clearly onside.
Interestingly, no rainbow They take the rainbow badges off when they're dealing with that demographic and it's kind of like, please love me.
Please love me.
They want to, but the thing is they've got to kind of accept that they have to be considered essentially an occupying force to that community if that community is going to be following our laws.
That community isn't from Britain.
They don't respect Britain's values.
They've got their own legal system.
They've got their own traditions.
They've got their own moral system.
And if we want them to be here, they have to understand, well, the British law comes first, and therefore the police will assert themselves if they have to, and you are not allowed to attack the police in that case.
Now that means, unfortunately, there's going to be a lot of unrest, shall we say, and so the British police are afraid of that.
What they want is peace at all costs, basically, and that means just capitulating to every demand made by this group.
And if you capitulate to, I'm not sure what the percentages are, is it fair to say that 85% is a majority and 15% is a minority?
For the context of this conversation, is that acceptable?
So if you capitulate to the 15%, the 85% is going to get very upset with that because culture is everything.
Culture first, economy second.
So, I don't see a way out of this, going back to your moral argument, I don't see a way out of this.
I see it getting worse and worse and worse in an already God-forsaken time.
And that's why what you said filled me with dread, and when you backed it up, I really like that moral stuff.
It might be unsalvageable as well, because it should have been on the first attempt, there was a short, sharp, no, absolutely not, none of this.
And then the second attempt, even harder, and then that would have smoothed it, and at least those people who got Bracade, they're not going to tolerate this.
But this has been tolerated for years now, and so if there was to be a pushback from the police, they'd be uproar.
And there's precedent for it, because as Soheila Bradman linked in her initial tweet concerning the protests ahead of the Senate half, in 2011 they banned EDL marches.
So it's not about their ability.
They've even passed more punitive laws since.
It's more about political will.
And so what you're going to get with these parallel moral systems, I'll wrap up on this, is A form of vigilantism.
Now, this is benevolent, because Ink Monocle just went round after they left and cleaned the place up.
Good lad.
Yeah, yeah.
But you are going to get the community starting to police themselves, and in lieu of that, you're going to get instability at the top as well.
And this is something that's been observed by the Met Police.
So there was a Met Police insider that spoke to the Daily Mail.
I believe Josh might cover this later on in the week, so we won't go through the article.
But even he was saying, look, Swela Brabham is right.
Internally, the College of Policing and all of the high brass are telling us to selectively police these protests because we don't want to kick something off.
But we know that the English believe in police by consent so that we know they will acquiesce to our policing.
Well, to be honest with you, everyone believes in policing by consent.
It's just we have a particular definition of what consent means, right?
So you tolerate the police operating in your community.
I mean, like, you know, in Islamic countries, they have police.
Yeah, but they respond to... They have a different system by which consent is granted.
Right.
So there's not just constant riots against Saudi police in Saudi Arabia.
No, but that's because they have a disproportionate application of force, whereas the British police won't be as forceful.
Yeah, no, absolutely, because we have different principles upon which the consent is founded.
We have actually a conscious, kind of liberal view of consent, actually.
But other countries might enforce consent by oppression, you know.
But the point is, there's not constant riots and fighting against authorities.
So there's always a form of consent that underpins policing, even if it's not done in ways... What I would like to see is our Muslim brothers and sisters Understanding Marxism.
Understanding the SWP.
Understanding two-tier policing.
I'd like to see those people, God bless them, and the Imams saying, you do not go on statues.
You do not desecrate.
You do not behave like this.
You do not have flags there.
You do not say XYZ, which I'm sure we're about to go through.
Actually, this is about prayer.
This is about ceasefire.
That's your right to freedom of speech here, and anti-British sentiment.
I'd like to see that, and I'm not seeing it.
I would really like to see it on TikTok, because I know the propaganda, because I follow it.
I know what's being pumped out to that demographic, and I would like to see those British Muslims stand up and say, Yes, we have our views, family members, etc.
So cease fire, pray for peace, and maybe there's some upset and some anger there.
I completely understand that.
But that is not the same thing as endorsing and standing with terrorist sympathizers, Nazi sympathizers, Hitler sympathizers, calling for armies of Islam, calling for jihad, going on our statues, in any way.
And I'm not seeing that, and I want to see that from patriotic Muslims in this country who love this country, saying whether they're right or left or centre, actually, we're part of that, we're not part of that, and I'm not seeing it being called out, not by anyone.
Well, unfortunately, not to be pessimistic, and I think we'll finish on this, don't think you will any time soon.
And don't think without the Met stepping in and being more forceful in the application of the law as to respecting British monuments and British culture.
That you'll get that.
And God bless those people who are doing what I've just suggested, and I have seen it in isolation and from individuals, but en masse I'm not seeing it.
You're asking them to be good neighbours, and they're not being.
With that... Speaking of good neighbours...
Let's talk about the recent beef between Candace Owens and Ben Shapiro.
And this really focuses around Israel and Palestine.
I think it also focuses around the fault line that's present within America and that is that black Americans and Jews don't always get along.
I'm not sure that's necessarily it.
I mean, that is a fault line, don't get me wrong.
But I think part of it is which narrative has more moral weight.
I don't know if this is necessarily Candace's motivation, but the people that are piling into this with various ethnic lenses looking at it are thinking, has slavery got the more legitimate claim to be the founding myth of the current order?
Or has the Holocaust got more legitimacy?
That is a discussion that is happening.
But I don't actually think that's really what is the main confrontation between Candace Owens and Ben Shapiro.
Because Candace Owens hasn't leant on that at all, actually.
Because she's famously sort of, she wants a victim mentality rather than a victim mentality, which actually I totally endorse.
I think that's exactly the right way to think about these things.
Actually, I think Candace Owens is approaching this more from the position of a mother, right?
Because of what Israel is doing to Gaza in response to the October 7th Hamas massacre.
And Ben Shapiro has taken a very one-sided and a hardline stance on this, assuming that this would be an uncomplex moral issue, but actually it turns out it's not an uncomplex moral issue.
And Candace Owens is kind of getting in the neck from Ben because she's pointing that out.
And that's heavily pregnant at the moment.
She is, but she's handling herself really well.
So, you know, I don't want to say like, oh, hormones, because no, I'm not saying any of it's bad.
She's actually doing a great job.
But before we begin, go and check out our merch store.
Go and help us out.
Support us by buying some merch.
And I designed all this merch myself and the Dirty Dirty Smear Merchants shirt is back.
But my favorite one, I think, is the Marcus Aurelius one, which is if it's not right, don't do it.
If it's not true, don't say it.
Simple as.
It's just that simple, right?
And this actually is something you could say to Israel.
If it's not right, don't do it.
And so you won't have to continually have to try and fight a propaganda war in justification of what has already happened or what you plan to do in the future.
Because frankly, I think that Israel is losing.
And there's a good reason for that.
It seems that a lot of what Israel is actually doing is not really very defensible.
Now, I'm not anti-Israel.
I'm not pro-Palestine.
I'm not on either side of this argument, because as far as I'm concerned, these are two different peoples, thousands of miles away, whom I just have no relationship to.
This is an ancient blood libel that England shouldn't have to deal with.
Exactly.
I'm an Englishman.
Oh, but we will deal with the fallout though.
It will, absolutely.
Not really reconcilable at this point.
That's the problem, and that's why Ben Shapiro and Candace Owens are going at each other.
So let's just begin with Ben Shapiro's position on things, shall we?
It's very nuanced.
Yeah.
So Ben Shapiro hadn't tweeted anything after October the 7th until this on October the 9th, which is just Hamas in the very near future is going to get a good solid understanding of this important chart.
So, okay.
Now that's true.
Now, Hamas.
Yeah.
Yes.
The issue is when Hamas embed themselves in hospitals, there will be sufficient casualties.
And there are lots of people who are saying, well, look, Hamas aren't, they're using human shields.
They're not prepared to come out and fight like men.
It's like, well, Obviously, but I don't, I'm not in any way in favor of them, but what would you expect?
They are essentially, I mean, they are a terrorist group who haven't got an army.
You know, they're going to fight a guerrilla war and guerrilla wars are fought in civilian populations because that's the only shield that a guerrilla army has.
I think it's fair to say the opposition is.
We would be happier if Hamas was eradicated tomorrow, but the means of doing so is not so simplistic because there will be children caught in the crossfire.
You have to, we can get into this later, but basically You can't just bomb a guerrilla occupation of a civilian area.
Without causing indescribable levels of collateral damage, which fuels the left and the social media propaganda brigade further.
But it doesn't have to just fuel the left.
Normal people will watch you bombing civilian areas and say, well, hang on a second, you know, that's not on, is it?
Do you have the image of the guy on the sofa with the LGBT flag among the rubble?
I do not have that image.
The Israeli government put it out on their Twitter account.
Oh yes, I did see it.
That kind of thing doesn't look good.
A gay pride Israel flag flying in Gaza.
Atop the rubble.
Yeah, atop the rubble.
It's like, okay, that's not really what this is about and lots of children have died.
So actually, you know, posting stuff like this, I mean, Ben Shapiro knew what the sort of result would be because this was before Israel's invasion of Gaza.
Unrepentant or unsympathetic is definitely one way to put it.
So he then posted hashtag never again with a picture of Auschwitz.
So I, at ARC, Ben was talking about the ethnic dimension of this conflict.
A Jewish man had asked him, why are there so many Jews protesting in favor of Palestine in New York and London?
He said, they're not Jews.
They might be Jews ethnically, but they're not Jews in practice.
And so I think Ben is seeing this Yeah, and I'm not saying he's wrong to be emotional over this.
These are my people.
I know these people.
I go to synagogue with these people.
These are my family.
These are my friends out there.
And so this is an existential war for the people that I care about.
And so that's why he's making this comparison.
And that's why he is very emotional.
Yeah.
And I'm not saying he's wrong to be emotional over this.
I'm not in any way saying Ben is not entitled to have very strong feelings on this.
Yes.
Of course he will.
He's a Jewish man.
He's, of course, very, very concerned about the existence of Israel.
And understandably and rightfully so.
But that isn't.
Thank you.
Just a free, a blank check for anything to happen.
Yep.
That's really what the case is.
But I'll just carry on.
Just as you can see, just Ben being insanely hard line about these things, uh, just constantly why I'm showing you Hamas atrocities, how Hamas will fool the world.
Hamas is here.
The Hamas caucus, uh, F the United Nations.
Okay.
Well, I agree with that.
Yeah, I do.
But for different reasons, the evils of queers for Palestine, stuff like this.
So Ben has been just insanely hard line.
On the pro-Israel side, which is not a surprise and not news, right?
So what did Candace Owens do?
Well, Candace Owens on the 3rd of November, so about a week or two afterwards, no, about a month afterwards, sorry, tweeted, and this is after the Israel invasion of Gaza, no government anywhere has a right to commit genocide ever.
There is no justification for a genocide.
I can't believe this even needs to be said or be considered the least bit controversial state.
And this angered a lot.
I can understand why, because there is a difference in the position that we've just laid out in saying that you need to be careful of collateral civilian damage in rooting out a proscribed terrorist group, a dictatorial terrorist group, and saying Israel trying to genocide the Palestinians as an ethnic group.
Yes.
But the point being, you can't just start bombing to kill, I mean, for the example of a refugee camp that was bombed to kill one Hamas operative, you can do that, but you can't retain the moral high ground when you do that.
That's the issue.
It's not that it's physically impossible for Israel to say level a third of Gaza in a month, but when you do that, you're not the good guy in the minds of the average person who is just seeing civilian casualties and collateral damage.
This is not a morally uncomplex issue that Ben has reduced it to.
I mean, as far as we can tell, it seems that, as they say in here, 11,000 people, I think they quote?
Yeah, 11,000 people according to the Hamas-run Gaza Health Board.
Okay, so then obviously the stats are very suspect.
Yes, the stats are very suspect, but it's entirely possible that thousands and thousands of people have died.
I don't disbelieve that, given if you go up, there's a photo of the state of one of the streets.
Yeah, exactly.
You think that's not hundreds dead?
Of course that's hundreds dead.
There are various maps you can get up.
And so Candace Owens is taking, she's not anti-Israel obviously, but what she's pointing out is that there are proportionate responses.
So of course what Hamas did was a terrorist atrocity and therefore the response should be against Hamas.
Not just a blanket attack on the city of Gaza itself.
Now I realize that I'm saying this in a very comfortable studio where I'm not in any danger and I don't have to go and run the risk of urban fighting which is the worst kind of fighting in the modern era.
I don't think proportionality is the framing we should take as well.
I've seen Douglas say that, and I think he's been very good on the messaging.
And it's saying, if you use the word proportionality, what you're implying is that essentially the Israelis should go in and use equivalent tactics to those that Hamas used on the massacre.
I don't think that's what it implies.
in the case.
I think you don't have to use the same tactics or do the same things at all, but you can't allow yourself to be seen and perceived to be belligerent and disproportionate in the number and scope of what you're doing because that's what's happening.
the public in general, I think, is genuinely perceiving Israel to be committing a genocide, actually.
The issue of proportionality-wise, in the face of pure evil, there is no proportionality.
I understand the concept, but I think the guerrilla warfare thing is unwinnable.
In guerrilla warfare like this, unless you level the site, you're not going to win it.
Possibly.
With an endorsement it's just an observation.
That's not said with...
With an endorsement, it's just an observation.
It's not an endorsement.
Again, I'm not a military strategist, but let's face facts.
Understanding guerrilla warfare, as we know it from history, if you want to win it, you have to level it.
That's why they tried napalming Vietnam.
You can't win in the jungle.
You can't win in tunnels in the desert.
Here, if you level it, you eventually, 6,000 in the Hamas resistance, as they would call it, you have to level it.
So that's the first thing.
So I don't think the proportionality applies here.
To them?
It definitely does apply.
Even if that is true from a purely Machiavellian military calculus, there is still the human dimension that, well, half of Gaza is under 18, right?
So half of those casualties will be children, and people don't really want indiscriminate bombing of children to get a one Hamas guerrilla.
No matter how bad the Hamas guerrillas are, you can't put the moral onus on the children that you're killing.
But we can all agree on that.
Of course.
And so just bombing the cities out will never be considered justified.
What are the options?
I'm not saying I have options.
I'm not saying, I mean, it seems to me it would have to be down to a literal ground invasion where it's hand to hand.
Going back to this, going back to what, I'm very, very versed in what Candice has said and also what you're saying, and for me the situation, you know, conflict in the Middle East, you know, since the 80s and I started to learn about this, I'm just there going, this is just awful.
I have nothing to say.
My father had nothing to say.
He said, Northern and Southern Ireland, Middle East, stay out of it.
I have no, I, I, I, I, I, there are no words.
It is just awful.
That's the thing.
I'm not, I'm not trying to endorse or condemn either side.
I'm trying to point out what the public perception of this is.
Do they, do they have to care about public perception though as well?
Because this is, I think that's where I'm, that's kind of the angle I'm coming from here with regards to the propaganda war in the age of social media and I know that it's the end of every arm and it's there and it's outrage culture and I've seen the amount of women that are on the front line who are activists now.
I think it's, what's the incentive structure for Israel itself to care about public perception when both sides of the US House for example are still going to fund them anyway no matter how many cities they bomb?
Yeah, well I don't think the view of proportionality matters to them.
Not in the short term, no.
But in the long term, yes.
Because there was a neat, I should have got this actually, neat audio from Jonathan Greenblatt of the ADL.
Right.
That I don't think was AI generated, because it actually sounded very persuasive.
Of him saying, look, we've lost, it's not the left or right war we've lost, because obviously he hasn't.
It's the generational war.
The Zoos just don't care.
That's right.
And so in 20 years time, Zoomers are not going to be voting for money and weapons to Israel.
They're not going to be voting for it.
They don't care.
In fact, a lot of them don't like Israel, actually.
But then neither party is not going to not fund Israel.
Now, in the immediate, yes, that's correct.
In a generation, I don't know if that holds true.
I don't think that's... I think what you're saying is that this is all tactically dangerous.
It's not just about being tactically dangerous because There is a moral burden, debt, being incurred by Israel through their actions right now.
And that's what people generally are perceiving, whether the rightness or wrongness of their actions in the immediate political sense is right or wrong.
This is what people noticing, right?
There are lots of, and you know, there are lots of people who are just normal.
I was in a taxi the other day with this English tax driver.
I'm like, how's it going, man?
And he literally just was like, yeah, I hate this.
You know, this is pretty rough in Gaza, isn't it?
I'm like, he doesn't know about anything.
You know, he doesn't know about anything really.
He's just a tax driver.
But like he seen the news, he's like, Oh, bombing kids.
That's bad.
Cause it is bad.
Right.
And.
The, the, the, the people with the strong hand in this regard are clearly the Israelis and the people with the weak hand in this regard are clearly the Palestinians.
And a lot of people actually don't see Hamas as a thing that's being attacked.
They see Palestine as a thing that's being attacked.
And I think that the incredibly strident rhetoric from people like Netanyahu, uh, and the various members of his cabinet have really not helped this because it does sound I agree.
There's the complexity again.
Totally abhorrent.
No horse in the race.
Wish it would stop.
you're going to have to not kill them.
Maybe that does, that's an option somewhat.
And so you, you see what I mean?
And so this, therein lies the complex.
I agree that, that there's the complexity again.
No, no, not totally abhorrent.
No horse in the race.
Wish it would stop.
It's never going to stop.
I'm in favor of sea spy.
Wish it would stop.
Never going to stop.
So that side say, well, you're dealing with evil.
So there is no, and also in war, there is no impartiality, unless of course, you're actually there.
And the consequences of that, we all lose.
We all suffer, you know, unavoidably and to our grave detriment.
So But the point is, both sides see each other as an intransigent evil.
They both see each other as an existential threat.
There is no resolution to this.
And so, yeah.
None.
Anyway, so Ben Shapiro was not happy about Candace Owens' comments, and I guess we'll just listen to this, it's quite short.
Yes, the question is backhand to someone.
Does that come for behavior during this industry? - No. - Without attack. - - I can't, what was that? - I was responsible for that.
- Yeah, I'm just the worst in my company.
I mean, I think she's been absolutely disgraceful.
I think that her faux sophistication on these particular issues has been ridiculous.
It's not faux sophistication, it's ridiculous.
Everybody can see the moves that she's making, the things that she's saying, and I find them distracting.
So you can get more harsh condemnation, calling Candace Owens' concern for the loss of the lives of children faux sophistication, because Ben Shapiro has reduced the moral complexity of this to us good, them bad.
This is in the context of him owning Daily Wire.
She technically works for him under his contract.
And I will just say, we disagree plenty of times on Lotus Eaters.
We've made debate segments behind the paywall.
I've never stepped away from it, castigating my colleagues in moral terms.
Yeah, I would really hate it.
It shows my contempt for them.
I'd really hate it if we ended up in that position as well.
And so a lot of people are like, well, Ben's kind of losing his mind over this.
And in a way, I think he is.
But anyway, so Candace Owens tweeted out this.
Two days ago.
Which is not, I don't think this is a terrible take.
Blessed are the peacemakers for they should be called the children of God.
Blessed are they who are persecuted for righteousness sake for theirs is the kingdom.
Okay.
Maybe this is a little bit bad actually.
For those of the Kingdom of Heaven, blessed are ye when men shall revile you and persecute you and say all manner of evil against you.
Falsely, for my sake, no one can serve two masters.
Either you will hate one and love the other, or you will be devoted to one and despise the other.
You cannot serve both God and money.
Christ is King.
Okay, so it's encoded.
It is, yes.
Look, when I read it, it's totally coded.
It is.
See, I read it last night and I was like, oh, that's just the Bible.
Yeah.
But then, you know, then now you point out, yeah, actually, now you think about it, it's a little bit worse than... There are a couple of things in here between the Christians.
Yeah.
One of them, I find it ironic, blessed are, yay.
That's just funny.
Well, I don't know which translation she's using, but it's just funny.
It's ironic.
No one can serve two masters is insinuating dual loyalty, which is something that's going to get Shapiro's hackles up.
And then the final line, and this is maybe a product of translation, I'm not accusing Candice of anything, but you cannot serve God and money.
In some translations, it's mammon, as in an actual entity that describes greed.
But then to put the money translation there, I'm going to say unintentionally, implies the ideas of the Jewish lobby funding it, which is...
Possibly.
Yes.
So that's a very touchy subject.
Yeah.
Provocative, no doubt.
She's made her move.
And I'm sure you guys have observed over the last four or five weeks, the Christian right in America.
I won't mention names, but they're pro-Palestinian.
I mean, these are ridiculous terms because we just want it to stop, but they're pro-Palestine.
Well, some are.
Like, the evangelicals are very pro-Israel, obviously.
Yeah, there's some who have thrown their lot in with the Christian nationalists, who I would say are not actually Christian nationalists, they're just more ethno-nationalists, like Hinkle, who's come out of nowhere and is just hammering on the Palestine stuff, not because he's honest, but just because he doesn't like Jews.
That's it.
So it's, there's a, there's, there are, it's complex, entangled interests here, and some are using it as a smoke screen, and I think that this particular post makes Candace vulnerable to criticism, even though it is a very good verse.
It gives her quite a solid defense though, because what she's saying is, blessed are the peacemakers, being the primary sort of thrust of this, as in, I would like to see peace between Israel and Gaza.
So she's endorsing, we've got to cease fire with this.
There aren't blades in there that cut, as you point out, which there are.
But overall, it's not a terrible sentiment to put across.
I'm not trying to infer malintent.
Of course, right.
Candice has put a foot in it once or twice before.
And so I can see that, you know, to be charitable, she may have been like, I'm going to tweet out the peacemakers verse.
Because who could object to not thinking, hang on a second.
You know, maybe after this, but she didn't back down on any of this.
Anyway, Ben Shapiro applies to this.
Yeah.
That's pathetic.
Yeah.
He could have texted her.
Well, a, he could have kept this off social media, obviously, but he hasn't.
So let's, let's carry on with it as it is.
He could have engaged with this in.
A mature way in which he suggests that possibly Candice didn't really understand the implications of what she was saying.
And he could have taken a much more high-minded view, or he could say that if you feel that taking money from the Daily Wire somehow comes between you and God, by all means quit, which is him saying the Daily Wire endorses Israel and everything that Israel is going to do, and you being paid to also be at the Daily Wire, if that conflicts with your moral compass, then get out, which is Quite a silly thing to say, I would say.
Again, if you text that to her on WhatsApp or something, fine.
Doing it publicly?
Not smart.
The whole thing just seems unnecessary to me, to be honest with you.
Again, it's all a bit bizarre.
It's all in the Twitter sphere.
It's obviously really fueled by emotion.
Hugely so.
And, you know, No one comes out a winner of this.
This is what the Republicans need right now.
Yeah.
Yeah, exactly.
Their biggest media outlet tearing itself apart because... In a public space.
It can't be disbalanced on Israel.
Yes.
That's the problem.
Right.
And so Candace replies to this directly saying, you've been acting unprofessional, emotionally unhinged for weeks now, and we have all had to sit back and allow it and have tried to exercise exceeding understanding for your raw emotion.
But you cross a certain line when you come for scripture and read yourself into it.
I will not tolerate it.
We have all also implies whispers around the Daily Wire, which is never a good for a business.
You don't want infighting among the employees.
Most of the Daily Wire employees, the hosts, are Christians.
Yes.
Ben Shapiro is not a Christian.
And Candace is leaning on that very heavily, and I don't know why that's unavailable, because that was a direct response to this, which you can see there.
But as you can see, she's ratioing him.
Locked each other, are they?
Not to my knowledge.
Well, maybe, I don't know actually.
That actually can happen.
Right.
Okay.
I have no idea if Ben Shapiro has blocked her, but as you can see, she's ratioing quite heavily and Ben Shapiro is not coming out the winner of this, which I'm sure is doing nothing for his emotional state.
And then she retweeted it saying, you're utterly out of line, suggesting I cannot quote biblical scripture.
The Bible is not about you.
Christ is King.
And so this, Is quite serious, actually, because as Senevich, a lawyer, points out, Ben Shapiro has actually walked into murky legal territory.
I think Ben Shapiro is also a lawyer?
He is.
So you would think he would know better.
He also, the reason him and Crowder became friends is because he negotiated Crowder's prior contract, which is a little bit ironic.
But as Senator says very publicly, telling an employee to quit in order to avoid paying out a contract is almost certainly a constructive termination.
If Candace's conditions at work change, this will be an easy win for her.
Either fire her formally or recognize people disagree like an adult.
Yes, and Ben was obviously at a Jewish lunch or dinner or something like that with fellow Jewish people who are in his circle.
- It was a university.
- Was it a university?
- Yeah. - But he's obviously talking to a very friendly audience.
- Yes.
- And, hmm.
So not great, actually.
Charlie Kirk from Turning Point USA.
Very reasonable mediation.
I'm genuinely confused as to why asking questions and quoting Bible verses about peace warrants are called to resign from the Daily Wire.
There should be more room in the Conservative movement for disagreement.
We can do better than this, which is a very, like, Even-handed way of trying to... Blessed be the peacemaker.
Exactly, right?
Well, very reasonable from TPUSA.
It's just a shame about TPUK, isn't it?
I mean, you're all nuts.
Well, yeah, no, absolutely we are.
We're unhinged.
It's, um, yeah, no, it's, it's just, it's, it's messy and it's, it's a distraction and it's unnecessary and it's kind of a bit Jew versus Christian-y.
It is.
And it's like, oh, we're going to do that as well, are we?
As well as Arab-Israeli.
We're tapped out on it.
Oh, everybody wants peace.
Come on.
No one wants carpet bombing.
Everyone wants peace.
Well, actually, you know, Ben Shapiro is not so much on that side and that's actually problematic.
Part of the problem is not problematic.
Sorry, Ben.
Actually, you can't just level all of Gaza like that.
Israel is not actually allowed to just do that, you know?
And so Candace actually has some firm moral ground to stand on here.
Even if Ben Shapiro and that wing of politics don't like it, whether you agree or not, the public perception, and I think probably correct, is that actually Candace's original post that Israel doesn't have the unilateral right to just eradicate the people of Gaza is true.
I agree.
And all I'm hearing and seeing is that this just further splinters the right.
That's all it does.
It's more division.
And it's more division in a time when we literally don't need it, but it means that the pro-Israel side of the argument I have to admit that Israel can do something wrong.
That's basically what the argument is.
And Candace went on Tucker Carlson's show, yesterday in fact, although it's been pre-recorded, and made just a series of very moderate and sensible points on this.
It's very reasonable, I'll let you watch it in your own time, but she points out the pro-Israel lobby is turning into a kind of Black Lives Matter style lobby, where It's polarised in one direction, unable to accept truths in another, and that's part of the issue.
But I'll leave that there, because it's a very sensitive thing, and I look forward to reading the comments.
Yeah, I'm sure there's going to be absolutely nothing controversial said there at all.
Well, I think we were handling it with a bit of... We will, YouTube won't.
Yeah, maybe.
What a shame.
Oh well.
So Carl, you don't have high opinions of the Zoomers.
Very high.
Right.
It's not my opinions of the zoomers.
It's not their fault that they are like they are.
Right.
What are they?
Um, shots fired.
They're kind of isolated, disconnected, and it makes, it turns them into a kind of people that haven't really existed before, I think.
Right.
Um, and so, and it's hard to say what the consequences of that's going to be, but Understanding themselves as part of a greater whole is definitely a problem for the Zoomers.
And understanding why not having things is also a difficult thing.
Okay.
I'm going to run some defense of the Zoomers here, or at least half of them, because I think we're bifurcating into a salvageable camp and the children of the algorithm that are going to devour civilization.
You're a millennial, aren't you?
Late millennial.
Okay.
So we've got all of the generations.
If it helps, I hate the millennials more than the Zoomers.
The Zoomers, I feel... Oh, we were getting along just fine!
The Millennials are the problem.
Well, the Gen X has raised both of us, so... Well, kind of, but the Gen X is a very unimpactful generation.
We didn't set any rules.
That's the problem.
Yeah, I know, that is the problem.
And so the Millennials set a bunch of rules that turned the Zoomers into what they are now.
I'm going to lay out my stool, right?
Zeds, X, XYZ, Millennials, XYZ, we can chat about it.
The Xs, they're to blame for everything.
No, it's the boomers.
It's the boomers.
It's honestly the boomers.
The problem with the X's is that they accepted boomer framing on almost everything, but knew that there were problems with it.
That's why I say that.
And so essentially checked out.
Yeah.
So my generation is guilty of shirking duty, but at least they didn't impose a terrible order like the millennials did.
But I mean, you know, it's consequences of having shirked the duty to be rule givers.
It's like passing down generational curses and those that break them.
That's why I go with XBL.
That boom is completely understood.
You know, the boomers are kind of a consequence of the generation before them, shirking their duty of making sure they understood they were of this place and time.
Well, they did have a few wars to fight and they were slightly thinner.
I'm not saying that there was no reason for it.
Well, if you want more on a effeminate left-wing exterior with a secret reactionary underbelly, you can subscribe to our website for as little as £5 a month and watch what might shock everyone that is my magnum opus, which is actually the politics of Life is Strange, my favourite game of all time.
Remember to use promo code BIRTHDAY, because this is our birthday week, to get 33% off for three months.
Yes.
So, if you want to watch two hours of how the left-wing characters in it are walking red flags, and the Baptist gun-toting veteran who's accused of being paranoid is right about everything, go and see me and Harry play dress-up.
And Carl can spell my name right this time.
Everyone was really impressed with this, though.
It's done really well in the last 24 hours, and the thing is, we don't often do content that is heartwarming here, just because the decay is palpable all around us.
This was a proper labor of love by me.
So, you know, you can call me Cope if you like, but go indulge in my teenage girl taste.
Anyway, there's been a recent survey out from the American Survey Center, and it has some interesting information as to the attitudes of Gen Z is white compared to 71% of boomers.
other generations there's some general demographic stats that so this is america remember but we are an american vassal state so similarly applies half of generation z is white compared to 71 percent of boomers so large cultural and ethnic shifts more than one in three gen z adults identifies as religiously unaffiliated roughly twice as many as baby boomers so they are deracinated from metaphysics gen z adults are more than five times likely than baby boomers to identify as lgbtq
that's 23 percent compared to 17 percent of millennials and only five percent of boomers policy exchange and stonewall numbers put them about one in four having left school they have a non-heterosexual or non-typical gender identity I think it might be worth adding though that a lot of them will consider themselves, like half of them will say, I'm bisexual and then end up with the member of the opposite sex anyway.
Yeah, the weighting here is very telling because it's 31% of Gen Z women and only 16% of Gen Z men.
So that means that there's lots of women identifying as bisexual and then having male partners.
Really interesting stat.
crowd, then you can crack on...
The weight in here is very telling because it's 31% of Gen Z men and only 16% sorry, 31% of Gen Z women and only 16% of Gen Z men.
So that means that there's lots of women identifying as bisexual and then having male...
Yes.
Really interesting stat.
Less than half of Gen Z adults believe that being gay or lesbian is an innate quality.
So there is a social component to that that cannot be questioned from both left and right.
Hang on a second.
Say that again.
Less than half believe it's an innate reality.
Quality.
Quality.
So it's a choice.
The born this way argument is not holding for Gen Z. Right.
We're talking about a generation where logic and reason no longer applies.
It's not even that.
Well, this is about the sort of postmodern influence on our identity construction, isn't it?
Because the argument for gay rights was always, well, we're born this way, we can't help it.
And that's obviously the one I grew up with.
But if the postmoderns have been undermining that and saying, no, it's all about the freedom of the will and free choice.
And acceptance and tolerance.
But if that's the case, well then I can say no, I don't tolerate homosexuality and you should just choose not to be gay, which you've told me you can do.
So you're choosing to be oppressed, so I don't actually have to be very sympathetic to that.
Which is why support, and there's a bar graph in here later, support for gay marriage has gone down only among Zoomers in the last three years.
Yeah, they can just choose not to be gay.
According to the Zoomers.
Hal Verboten.
Also, the interesting thing is 31% of Zoomers report they've spent at least some of their teen years talking to a therapist.
What are we doing to kids?
Which is terrible in itself.
I mean, like, you know.
30%, you say.
31.
Yeah.
I'm genuinely skeptical about the concept of therapy.
Having been through it, yes.
They are less than useless.
Not just because of the stresses on the system, but because of the approach they often take for certain things.
It's very affirmative when it shouldn't be.
And for other things, it is...
How do I say it?
It doesn't get to the root of the issue, particularly for men who, rather than talking about their problems, need practical applications to work through their issues.
But it's also just reinforcing the managerial left-wing paradigm.
Yes.
It's like, okay, everything is rationalistic at its bottom and so at the very base of it.
And so if you're having a problem with what modernity has done to you, go and talk to the therapist and they will reinforce modernity and try and make you okay with it.
Your well-being is conditional on an institution that has been set up in response.
A managerial institution.
Yes.
One asterisk here.
So I heard this, I was on campus the other day and I heard this exact same thing.
My ears pricked up.
I heard it just recently and then I've heard it now.
So a couple of asterisks.
One, it's about the type of therapy relevant to the patient.
If you get that wrong, the recipient will come away and discredit that therapy.
You have condition of X, you need that.
correct therapy and that in itself is a process um and the other thing of course is the quality so if you're referring to i presume what you what you refer to is the amount of cbt that and talk class that's available on the nhs that is not the same as being in front of a private top drawer brass top brass uh therapist in whichever realm that specifically relates so if you've got psychodynamic requirements and you're in cbt you're nowhere near behavioral yet and
And if you're that if you're a learner, so if you're somebody learns in a different capacity, you should be nowhere near psychodynamic and you should very much be in behavioral.
But again, talk plus CBT NHS, it is a it's over the phone most of the time post pandemic.
So there's a little bit to unpack there, but because I do hear this quite often because because of the The climate and the culture with regards to the 31% and the depression, the anxiety lends itself to all sorts of big conversations.
But therapy is now being massively undermined and denigrated.
And I think there's a few nuances there.
Well, I'm sure that a session with Jordan Peterson is much better than anyone at the NHS.
So it isn't that type of discipline.
Yeah, that'll do.
But I think if you just have these people in the woods chopping logs, then that would be better than any kind of therapy.
Oh, that goes without saying.
So base camp level, of course.
Absolutely.
And crutches and excuses and absent fathers and video games and social media.
Of course, same page.
But yeah.
Yeah.
So it's not an entire write-off, but there's a deluge of mental health conditions affecting Gen Z. And it's no surprise this is affecting their relationships.
So 41% of Gen Z adults never had a boyfriend or a girlfriend as a teenager.
69% of millennials, 76% of Gen X and 78% of boomers did.
76% of Gen X and 78% of boomers did.
So that's 40 odd percent of Gen Z who have not had a relationship while in high school.
So indicates maladaptive attachment style somewhere along the civilizational chain.
Gen Z men more than twice as likely as baby boomer men to report they didn't have a significant other as a teenager, 44% versus 20%.
78% of Gen Z adults report they spent at least some of their teen years regularly hanging out with friends, 84% of millennials, 89% of Gen Xers and 88% of boomers did.
So that's 22% of Gen Z who had no friends growing up.
It's going to have seismic consequences.
24% of Gen Z said that over the past 12 months they've often or always felt lonely.
That's compared to 18% of Millennials, 12% of Gen Xers and 7% of boomers.
And so the introduction of social media here paradoxically seems to make people less connected.
The boomers had to go out and do things.
Well so did my generation, as you can see there.
The root cause of all this is screen time and socials.
And mum and dad aren't disciplining their children in that regard.
So smartphones from age 8, unacceptable.
And schools allowing them in, there still isn't a ban yet, that ban still hasn't happened.
Unacceptable.
So you're talking about if your phone, that's going to become your best friend.
Not to mention the addiction and endorphins when somebody reaches out to you and the accessibility of XYZ and it's absolutely screwed.
It's a question of proximity as well.
Because even if you have friends on the phone, they're nowhere near you in real life.
No, it's nothing.
You know, because I mean, when I was a kid, you have to go out and knock people on people's doors.
Hi, is Timmy coming out today?
Yeah.
You know, and that's actually a really wholesome thing.
And if you agreed to meet up at a certain time and someone didn't show, then that's it.
70% of communication is non-verbal.
It's the tip of the spear.
If you do everything remotely, it's the same when we all take pictures like this, even that isn't the same.
You're focused there rather than actually looking at things.
This has massive consequences as we're seeing and we know that even without the numbers in societal behaviour.
Yeah, life of vicarious experiences makes you quite detached.
Also, speaking of vicarious experiences, in terms of work and life experiences, 4 in 10 Gen Z adults didn't have a job as a teenager.
I mean, by protecting them from that, you're robbing them of their performance.
I worked cheap jobs, basically.
I did loads of retail stuff.
I stacked shelves.
Yeah, I did a lot of manual labour, which I actually really enjoyed.
Yeah, that was probably fine.
I said this at the Exeter University thing, and all the Zoomers in the room are just like, what?
Every man should have a manual labour job.
If you don't have calloused hands, you shouldn't be speaking in the public arena.
But Zoomers are insulated from that.
70% of Gen Z adults say they occasionally worry about finding a job or career that's meaningful, compared to 60% of Millennials, 43% of Gen Xers, and 17% of Boomers.
So they feel disconnected from the kind of economy they're participating in.
This is why I was defending that crying Zoomer girl.
She's absolutely right about the 9 to 5.
Oh yeah!
More than half of Gen X adults, so 60%, and Millennials, 56, and Gen Xers, 52, say they worry at least sometimes about having enough money to pay their bills.
But of course, 61% of boomers say, I'm alright.
Of course they do.
It's almost like there might be some kind of connection there as to why everyone except the boomers feels that they're broke.
Almost like the boomers own the entire property market and are making us all rent serfs.
But I'm not resentful in the slightest.
It is really weird that the boomers don't care about their own grandchildren.
Yeah, they sort of push them off out into the world, they don't help them buy a house, instead they spend all of their pension and their overhanging money from rent on a cruise.
You are the ones that disconnected the family chain.
It's frustrating.
I knew I was right.
32% of Gen Z adults report occasionally drinking alcohol or smoking.
But 43% of Millennials, 52% of Gen X and 54% of Boomers did.
So the decline in recreational vice consumption is actually... They're not having fun.
Yeah.
This is something I was going to tie to your Dan and AA segment that Dan decided to say about how to get laid.
He just went, we'll go to the pub and chat up a girl.
Right.
And everyone at the pub is table service ordering.
There are fewer people at the pub and everyone has their phones on them at all times so they can immediately stare down at it.
There's just like less eye contact being had.
There's less social lubricant happening.
How many people have not started a relationship on the tube because they've not looked up from their phone?
But the amount of marriages and things like that have just been cost because people are plugged in all the time.
Throw in the I hate men campaign.
Hashtag me too.
You don't look at a woman just in case you end up on a charge.
They're better safe than sorry.
And the irony of that is if you don't abide by that, you're probably more likely to be successful because there's a ton of zoomers that are talking themselves out of ever approaching women because of that fear and again like i've dated abject nutcases those girls do actually exist out there
but there is a dead hand hanging on the zoomer's ability to pluck up the courage to start a relationship because they're petrified that if they approach a woman in a social context never mind stranger in the street that they're going to be hauled up in front of court or something all this all this stuff is utterly heartbreaking
but one thing when i knew about this topic on thing i was thinking about to crystallize my thoughts are if you've got um whatever age range we're referring to say 16 to 25 for example or 18 to 30 if you've if If you've got a massive void of masculine men, be they alpha or type A personalities, if you've got a massive void of masculine men, that's going to very much upset and enrage the female populace, their counterparts.
So they will turn their heads to other things like left-wing activism and being very, very angry at the world.
Particularly if you're on birth control.
And hating men as well.
And I like to go to Source, we all do.
That being somewhat older, reflecting back how it was in the 90s and the noughties, it's beyond heartbreaking.
If you have that void of masculinity, of get up and go, and you mentioned several social constraints there that prohibit men from doing that, etc.
And also social paranoias and tyrannical laws and other such things that are just absolute nonsense.
But that void is still going to be created within their female counterpart and it is going to make them very, very angry and they will use that very powerful energy in another direction.
Hence the screaming and shouting that we see and everyone's now an activist and it's majorly female orientated.
I'd like to discuss that link.
The stats do reflect that actually.
So 43% of Gen Z women identify as liberal compared to 35% of Gen Z men.
We've already seen before that there's a massive split among 18 year old men and women identifying as conservative.
They're going completely opposite directions.
So that means quite a few of the sexes either won't talk to each other or Well, the women will just have to follow men's politics eventually if they want to.
They're moving further to the left.
Women are moving further to the left and men are moving further to the left.
And that presents all sorts of issues because that left-wing and right-wing typically doesn't produce harmonious outcomes and left-wing women probably don't want left-wing men, they want right-wing men.
Yes.
Which is the elephant in the room which I'd love to talk about.
So that means exciting hookups, broken homes.
That's what's going to happen.
Yeah, just one of many.
I keep looking at this, drank alcohol and felt lonely or isolated.
There's an interesting inversion here where it's basically the exact opposite.
And I'm just thinking about it because, I mean, when I was a teenager, on like the weekends, I lived in Germany, so when you're 16, you can buy beer.
So it's actually possible to legally get hold of alcohol.
Of course, you try and get, if, you know, before you're there, you try and get someone who's a bit older to buy you some booze so you can go sit in the local park, drink beer and be a prat with your friends.
In Minecraft, of course, you never did anything illegal.
And this was just totally normal.
This is what you do on the weekends with your mates, right?
And then you try and sneak back in.
Hopefully your parents will be in bed so you wouldn't crash around the house.
They wouldn't be able to smell the boots.
And obviously we didn't feel lonely or isolated.
And I'm just fascinated by the inversion here.
You know, 61% of Zoomers feel lonely and isolated and only 32% of them Drank alcohol or smoked pot or cigarettes occasionally.
I'm a bit worried about the pot thing because you can smoke pot on your own and it's not really a big deal.
You can't really drink on your own.
It's not very fun actually, especially when you're a teenager.
So to include these in the same category I think is a bit strange because they're not the same actually and the boomers didn't really smoke pot either.
And also it's only accessible on large scale in certain American states whereas certain countries it's Yeah, but the boomers, like, I know that some of the, oh, what about Woodstock and the hippies?
It's like, they were a pretty narrow band, actually, of boomers.
Most, the average boomer will have gone to a pub when they're about 16, 17 years old.
And they would have smoked cigarettes, but not pot.
And in fact, in the boomer mindset, there's quite a prohibition against pot, even to this day.
They just reflexively don't like it.
I think the 61, the felt lonely or isolated often.
For the Z. So at that time, at that age, when I felt lonely, I went for a run.
When I felt isolated, I started boxing.
When I felt lonely, I lifted weights.
When I felt isolated, I did push-ups.
Now I'm not saying that that's relevant.
I'm not saying that people should be like me or that they should be my mindset.
But adapt and overcome.
So if you're feeling those things, you go out and you create.
You put the fists up.
And I don't think that's happening.
I think that it's depression, therapy, medication, and It's coping mechanisms rather than overcoming mechanisms.
Because, I mean, really, if I felt lonely or isolated when I was a teenager, I'd just go over the street and knock for my mates and see what they were doing.
And I'd go around and knock for a bunch of people, see what they were doing, and then a couple of them would come out or whatever, and then you're not lonely and isolated.
But obviously the Zoomers just don't seem to do that.
They don't have those options.
Well, one factor is 70% of Gen Z adults use social media daily.
57% of Millennials, 59% of Gen Xers and 51% of Boomers.
And 75% of Gen Z women are using it daily.
The stuff you're talking about, obviously, I grew up exactly the same.
They don't want to knock on the door and do the interaction and play in the street.
They don't want that.
They want the endorphin hit of the little red circle with the little white number.
Nothing else will do.
Oh, I'm totally in favour of literally banning mobile phones for under-16s.
Phone-free childhood.
I mean, maybe like Nokia- So you can have the flip, you know, like we all had.
You can have the Nokia flip.
So you can send a text message, meet me at- I'm safe, I'm here.
But even playing Snake is too far.
Yeah, yeah, no, I agree, actually.
You know, like, maybe Snake.
Not really that interesting.
No, hardline car.
I'm happy to go for the hardline.
That is hardline.
But the point is, yeah, a communications device so you can be like, yeah, I'm safer, I'm getting the taxi or whatever it is.
15, 16 years old.
But an iPhone, smartphones, absolutely not.
Under 16.
Yeah, under 16s, no smartphones.
I would be definitely on board with that.
That's the only way we can sort this out.
I think so.
And that's where the bifurcation will emerge further as well, because you will have kids that are raised in healthy, happy, socially stable environments versus children of the algorithm.
And you're seeing this bifurcation emerge, and this is the last stat I'll read from this before I'll just briefly move on.
61% of Gen Z women are feminists, compared to 43% of Gen Z men.
That's an 18% gap.
So we're seeing the bifurcation start to emerge.
Well, sure, but it's like the consequences are manifest in their classrooms, in their media, and the men being slightly more disagreeable and having less social capital to earn with flexible identities mean that they're moving away from that.
And this results politically in this fascinating study that Onward did late last year.
And this is between 2010 and 2018.
And so they looked at social attitudes, both how they feel about themselves and how they feel about politics.
So they said, the share of 16 to 24 year olds, this is pre-lockdown, recording symptoms of depression or anxiety rose by 40% from 18 to 25%.
This rise was among young women specifically, whose rates of depression or anxiety rose from 21.7% in 2010 to 31.3% in 2018, a 44% increase over the period.
Obviously to do with social media, right?
It's incontestable.
3% in 2018, a 44% increase over the period, obviously to do with social media.
Incontestable.
The fascinating one is from pages 20 to 21 in the report about their political attitudes.
Okay.
There are two strains of political thought among Generation Z. This is the chart for net support for different forms of governance by age, and the boomers are very in favor of democracy because they believe in... Yeah, yeah, the boomers.
Look at the 18-24 range.
50% of them want to put the experts in charge.
So that's what my friend Mary has said, the post-democracy swarm of net-zero stewards.
The technocrats.
Trust the science.
Exactly.
But then, close on their heels, strongmen who can ignore parliament and the army.
Since 1999, military rule among 18- to 24-year-olds has risen five-fold, from 7% to 44%.
Support for a strongman leader has more than doubled, from 25% to 60%.
So there is a contingent of basically Franco was right.
Why would we want the woke army in charge?
General Milley?
They're not saying the woke army.
But that's what they're going to get!
We're still a woke army!
Partly RAF, yeah.
But what they're hoping for is not that.
Yeah, I guess so.
They're thinking the platonic British Army.
It's not just the RAF, it's everywhere.
It's everywhere.
But they're thinking... They're thinking Michael Caine in Zulu.
This stat is... I'm still trying to process that stat.
This is... yeah.
Like, net support for the 30s for putting a strongman who can import... for a dictator.
Yes, yeah.
47% army rule, 62% strongman leaders, who can ignore parliament.
That was specifically in the question.
So, Gen Z overwhelmingly voting in favour of absolute monarchy.
Yeah.
If only it weren't Charles.
What a shame.
And so, I just wanted to round that off with, yes, you might disparage the Zoomers for some of their culture.
Turns out there's a large contingent that probably watch us, that keep coming up to us at events, who can be fixed.
I'm not sure putting a dictator in charge is fixing it, actually.
Only in the Hoppian sense.
I'm just saying it's an experiment that England's run before and it wasn't great.
Yeah, but he was Protestant.
He was definitely something.
All I'm saying is, the Zoomers are sympathetic.
The reality is that this is all a test.
It's a test for all of the four generations in existence right now.
It's a test, right?
So when we're on campus, when we're talking to men and women, this is all a test.
Anyone at any point who has agency and free will can say no.
This is, we have a crisis of identity in the West.
We have it in the UK.
This isn't about principles.
It's about groups.
It's about mob mentality and mob behavior.
It's the grievance brigade.
It's the victimhood brigade.
And it is the oppressor oppressed narrative, which has been along the lines of critical race theory, white supremacy, and all this other absolute nonsense.
At any point, any one of those individuals, parents included, can say, no more.
And that individual might consider themselves inherently conservative, for example.
No more, I'm not putting it, and lose friends is part of life.
I've deliberately let go of lots of people over the years because they became toxic, or because they added no value whatsoever, and also it can be very mind-numbing, because actually, it's just legacy stuff, it's just routine, it's just habit.
So I will say this, There's, to your point, there's lots of good people out there, Zoomers, and it's their job to stand up and do the right thing.
And that means sacrifice.
That means getting rid of X, Y, Z, whoever, et cetera, and doing the right thing.
And it's also a massive test as well.
And everyone's watching that because you can't just say, well, that generation because of smartphones, they're out.
That's unacceptable.
They have to fight back.
They have to.
Duty first, happiness second.
The man's duty's got nothing to do with happiness.
Do what your heart tells you.
It's all absolute rubbish.
So let's pray and let's hope for the Zoomers to actually be more like guys like Connor and other guys.
The government could certainly help by simply just legislating against smartphones for children.
Like we do with alcohol and cigarettes.
We've got a massive bravery deficit in the UK, we've got a massive testosterone and masculinity deficit in the UK, but that can all be turned around if men say, I see what's happening here, I'm not having anything to do with it, and I'm going to make moves with... There's all sorts of organisations and all sorts of ways they can get involved to fight back.
Whether you call it woke, communism, Marxism, far-left extremism, call it what you want.
So, you're being watched.
Nick for King.
Right, I'm ready to go.
Do you want to read a few comments?
We're not going to have that much time for comments, I'm afraid, folks, but I'll try and get a cramp for you.
Bleach Demon says, the Cenotaph incident is the clearest example of the absolute indifference the government has of the English.
If the police don't step up and use the same amount of force lesbian nana uses, things will only get worse.
And that's exactly the point.
There'll never lesbian nana the Muslim community.
Hello Lotusy, is that a context?
Hey, well, am I wrong?
It's the walk though, the lesbian Nana walk.
Yeah, I know.
That hunched over walk.
Matt says, the Met Police are under Sadiq Khan's control.
I can't for the life of me think of an attribute Sadiq Khan might possess that could possibly predispose him to treat pro-Palestine Muslim protesters preferentially.
Yeah, what could that be?
Let's go on to Unbreakable Litany says, as a thought exercise, if we campaign for the banning of halal under an expansion of animal rights law, will these people leave or willingly condemn their souls to eternity?
That's also a myriad strategy for banning the pill is that it is actually turning the frogs gay.
So ban on environmental grounds.
Yeah, but nobody cares.
We can try.
Mason says, hard disagree with your position on Israel here.
It's not really my position on Israel.
I'm trying to be descriptive, not normative.
But they've done far more than any other force to reduce civilian casualties.
That's true.
A massive difference between trying to attack a terrorist, hiding behind a civilian, and raping a mother while baking that mother's baby alive.
You couldn't kill the Nazis without killing each other.
I'm not saying that's not the case.
I'm saying there's a proportional difference between Hamas and the Nazis.
And whether you like it or not, the public perception is that Israel has gone too far.
That's the discourse around Boeing Japan, for example.
It's that, yes, the Japanese army were evil, should the civilians have suffered.
That's why you have these kinds of debates.
I'm not looking to open up can of worms, but that's what we were trying to say.
The capacity of either thing is different as well.
Hamas are a terrorist group who occupy a very small strip of land with very minimal resources.
Japan is an empire.
As Desert Rat says, personally, I think they both need to sit down like grown-ups and hash it out.
I don't think that's going to happen.
Okay, what else are you writing for Father Christmas for?
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Best of luck with that one.
Kobe says, when the media calls me a Nazi, they are dirty, dirty, smelly merchants.
When the media calls Israel genocidal, that puts a moral onus on Israel.
Alexander says Shapiro attacking Owens for tweet-quoting the New Testament should be a full-on mask-off moment to his Christian fanbase.
Shapiro a scum.
I don't think he's scum.
No, that's not the word to use.
I think he's incorrect both theologically and politically.
I think he's very wrapped up in the Tribal nature of the conflict.
Yes.
That's the problem.
And he's become very emotional because the moral certainty he's taking in that tribal nature is coming under question.
Again, whether you agree with me or not, I'm just describing what I'm seeing in front of me.
And it's not just a morally pure issue that Israel is always in the right and Palestinians or Hamas are always in the wrong because there are people on both sides.
And you can see that a lot of people are actually Hamas is always in the Hamas.
Yeah.
Yeah.
The territory occupied by Hamas, there are people in there who have moral claims as well, not the terrorists, and they are something that has to be considered.
I'm not saying that Israel is not Has not shown restraint in the past as well.
It has.
It's shown a lot more restraint than other places.
But at the end of the day, I'm trying to tell, like, the whole thing is based on public perception of what's happening.
And Israel is losing the propaganda war.
I really think that.
I see this all the time.
So, you know, with Heath, you can make an argument either way, but the facts are the facts as far as I can see them.
Grant says, women without children will find another way to be mothers whether or not they have children.
Well, that's the thing.
Candace has children and she's pregnant at the moment, so it's not... Oh no, that's the Zoomer thing.
I'm sorry.
But that does connect to the Palestinian thing, actually.
It does, yeah.
Absolutely, it does.
Like, you see a lot of young left-wing women complaining and when they decide to be mothers to all of society, you get a feminized society and the absolute rot we're seeing today, yeah.
Longhouse.
I was just saying, when you combine that with the sort of digital surveillance we always live under, you end up with the worst kind of longhouse.
I want to do a thing on McLuhan at some point, which is the global village, which is the internet and the longhouse at the center of the global village.
Yeah.
Alex says, I was explained to my boomer parents, grandparents, how as Zoomers are the first generation to become more authoritarian and less liberal and more extreme and how bifurcated we are.
Centrism is anathema to the Zoomer sensibilities.
I think, no, no, I think, I think it's not just that.
The problem with freedom is it's actually not an absolute value.
And the only thing we've had after defeating the Nazis is freedom.
And so more, more, more, more freedom is always good.
But actually the Zoomers are suffering from an excess of freedom.
And the problem is they need order and structure.
And that's why they look at dictators who provide order and structure, if nothing else, and say, Oh, I could have done with some of that when I was young.
We decided to walk through Sussex University aka Marks Estate with the CCP communist flag.
This was two years ago, almost to the day.
And we were applauded.
We were applauded.
That's if you've been on campus at Sussex.
It's quite a long walk through.
I mean, it's a little circle, little bubble.
It's quite a long walk through.
Applauded.
Happy days.
We would say things like a hundred million dead and they'd all laugh and cheer and you know whatever.
We walked through with a GB flag and police were called within five minutes.
Now that video is on Turning Point UK's YouTube and it's it's not it's not it's not too far you'll be able to find it.
Well I was gonna say actually yeah as we're wrapping up where can people find your stuff mate?
Yeah sure, well obviously across social media so on Instagram and Twitter it's T Point, obviously at T Point and on YouTube it's Turning Point UK, obviously websites Turning Point UK.
And obviously you know people need to get behind us and they need to support us even if it's just a small contribution and or get in touch with us because they've got a specific skill set but I can't tell you how invaluable that is when people do do that.
Brilliant.
Well, cheers for coming back in, Nick, and you will be back with us in 25 minutes with Sebastian Gorka, who's waiting very patiently.
He's dressed very dapperly outside the room.
Again, if you haven't subscribed yet, be sure to subscribe because then you can watch it live and also put comments in.
That's in 25 minutes.
But until next time, tomorrow, one o'clock.
Thanks, gents.
▲
Export Selection