Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Dec. 13, 2023 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:31:28

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #805

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast The Low Seaters.
	I'm joined by Stelios.
	Hello.
	And Harry.
	Sup.
	Sorry, we're laughing, or at least I'm laughing because I realise- Talons are debating the conundrums of gay pornography and gay prostitution.
	Yes, I have an announcement to make, which is tomorrow.
	I will be coming out as gay.
	For a small fee, you can enjoy an evening with Callum this Christmas.
	No, we're having a lads hour, which of course is premonitioned on the idea that we'd just sit around and chat shit.
	We've got Dankular in, so I thought we'd just do something where we just talk about whether or not he's gay.
	So, we're doing that.
	I mean, hasn't he explicitly admitted that he's sucked tranny cock?
	I don't know, we can ask him tomorrow live.
	Because if that's true, then yes, he is gay.
	At 3pm UK time, come and find out if Dankur is a gay man.
	You may be married to a woman Dank, but you're still gay.
	We have a series of gay tests we're going to run, so.
	Callum's going to whip it out, see what happens.
	No, I'll do come and find out tomorrow at three.
	Otherwise, I have some things to say about today, which is what we'll be discussing, which is the first segment will be on why haven't the locals integrated?
	Why haven't we all become New Europeans?
	The Red Scare was real and the destiny of polyamory, which I feel is going to be a lot of smugness, and I told you so.
	Should I?
	You shouldn't.
	Could be.
	Could be.
	We'll see.
	It's quite a clever title.
	We'll see how it goes.
	So I feel obliged to go... Oh, because of the... yeah.
	I think we can be reserved in being right.
	Yes, yes.
	I mean, when you're right, you're right.
	You don't have to just shout it.
	You don't have to do a segment about it.
	But you are.
	I would like to.
	No, because I want to say something positive.
	I want to say something positive.
	You'll see where I'll take it.
	You can turn your nose up and effect a very snoozy approach when covering this.
	No, no.
	My segment is not going to be about how both of us were completely 100% right.
	It's going to be about the next day.
	It's going to be about the next day.
	Well, I suppose with that, we'll get into the news, if you can call it that.
	Which is, why haven't you integrated yet?
	And I'm not talking to foreigners, of course.
	You're talking to me?
	I'm talking to you.
	Oh, God.
	The locals.
	The British, or the French who live in France, or the Germans who live in Germany.
	Really, the problem is you.
	You have not integrated into the new European way of life.
	And you might think that's a bit of an insane thing to demand, that you just become whoever's turned up.
	And, um, well, no!
	It turns out LBC, the biggest radio station in London, leading Britain's conversation, has come up to tell us, no, no, no, you are the problem.
	And this is Sanjita over here, who is my, I don't know, maybe third favourite leftist at this point?
	She's gone up in the list.
	She's a truly hateful woman.
	She's hilarious because she's either British or Indian, depending on what day of the week it is.
	And in most of her segments, it's her talking to people and saying that they're in the wrong for wanting immigration to be slightly lower.
	So, she takes issue with people who care about social cohesion in the UK, but apparently not with people who care about social cohesion in communities that are not UK.
	Yeah.
	And this is a weird interaction, because I suppose we'll play and enjoy it, but the underlying question is obviously, why haven't you integrated?
	Which is funny, because, well, you'll see.
	So, the first point is destabilisation.
	The second point is Brexit.
	Sorry, did you say destabilisation?
	Yeah, destabilisation.
	What's been destabilised?
	Places in the Middle East and North Africa.
	But specifically Brexit because we've had to swap EU immigration from non-EU immigration and that's where the community cohesion fails and that's where the friction comes from as we saw in Leicester in September 2022.
	And you have to blame David Cameron for that.
	No you don't.
	Why hasn't there been another clash since?
	The Palestine protest as well.
	Why hasn't there been another clash since?
	In Leicester?
	I think it's a matter of time.
	Why hasn't there been?
	I can tell you why there hasn't been actually, Jonathan, because we covered it on the show.
	Because community leaders, and that is community leaders from both Hindus, Muslims, Christians, including the police force and local authorities, came together and they made direct appeals to those communities.
	And ever since those clashes, there's been active bridge building within those communities.
	That's why.
	If that isn't success, I really don't know what is.
	How many of your friends are from diverse backgrounds?
	A very simple question.
	One.
	Right.
	What background?
	Mixed, Caribbean, English.
	Why do you only have one friend from a diverse background?
	Well that's what I was asking Chester at the time.
	Hang on a minute, you must have been 5 years ago did you say?
	Yep.
	So you're what, how old are you?
	23?
	23.
	And what have you done in the intervening 5 years?
	University.
	And which university was that?
	In London.
	Which one?
	Queen Mary.
	When were you born?
	What have you done?
	I think that's patronising to say that people... It's not patronising, I'm asking you a question.
	Not to me, but I could have done more... It's not patronising, I'm asking you a question, just answer it.
	Have you ever asked the questions?
	That's just what unfolded at university in my life.
	And there is, my friend, the whole problem with social cohesion in this country, in the pockets of the country where it is not working, where integration is not working as well as it should be.
	It is people like you, it's people like you and people from ethnic minority groups with the same attitude as you.
	You just sit back, you're complacent, you're given every opportunity on a plate and you still do absolutely nothing.
	You do not play your part in making sure that this country has social cohesion that is meaningful, that means we are knitted together as human beings and not just as identities.
	So the first Your fault.
	Your fault that there's ethnic tensions.
	Local man.
	So because somebody has been airdropped into my living room and I don't immediately offer to go to the pub with him, that's my fault?
	Yes.
	Okay, alright.
	Also, that whole big smug thing where she's like, well actually, the warring communities on the streets of Leicester from last year, they've done a lot to progress and make forward.
	Why did it happen in the first place?
	The India-Pakistan divide I hear has been fixed.
	Trust me bro, because community leaders came together and this real bridge building... Okay, why does that happen to... Why does that have to happen in the streets of Leicester?
	Why does it have to happen in the first place?
	What is weird though is that she talks about meaningful social cohesion, not identity.
	But obviously this is nonsense.
	She wants some groups to maintain their identity and some others to lose it.
	That's what she says, that's what she implies.
	Everyone knows it.
	What is weird though, is that she talks about meaningful social cohesion, not identity.
	But obviously this is nonsense.
	She wants some groups to maintain their identity and some others to lose it.
	That's what she says.
	Can I just point out- That's what she implies.
	It's very clear.
	No, Harry, I will do the questions now.
	I will ask you the questions.
	Where did you go to university?
	Who are your friends?
	What is the background of your own family?
	May I please have some DNA results from your ancestry tests?
	What percentage can you say the N word with?
	This is weird.
	Can you imagine if you went, well, you know, I'm 70% English.
	I'm 13% Scottish.
	Oh, okay.
	So there was some cohesion there, wasn't there?
	You come together like the Brits of the Scottish.
	I'm sorry.
	But the ultimate point being, what have you done, loser?
	And I just love, of course, Drodka.
	I can't do a segment about immigration without him at this point.
	But here's my love.
	As you can see here, he's just like, what have you done to, well, socially integrate the infinity migrants that have arrived?
	Why haven't you gone to McDonald's?
	Or gone wine tasting with Kareem here?
	Why would I?
	Why haven't you joined the Drill Rap Gang yet, Callum?
	That's the flip side, that's how I took it, which is like, why haven't you become like the new Europeans?
	It's like, I don't want to shit in the street.
	I mean, genuinely, that's an actual problem that we're now getting in the UK, because the same problem exists in India.
	I don't really feel like knifing anyone today.
	It's difficult, I know.
	And Harry, sorry, what did you say?
	You need to work a bit.
	I need to work on that.
	Yeah, you're right.
	I'm sorry.
	If I'm not violently assaulting people on a different postcode as myself, can I really say that I've tried to integrate?
	But talking specifically to Leicester and then the Indian thing there, the reason I bring up defecation, and it's not because nobody knows, it's just it's worse than anyone thinks.
	Josh sent me this just before we started, which I'll only briefly mention here, which is there's been a new study into the fact of open defecation in India is now being blamed for the fact that Indians are short.
	By this study here, and investigating whether or not that's what accounts for the difference in child height.
	Have we tried integrating?
	Yes, so the funniest part of this, though we'll have to save the rest of this for another time because it is utter gold, is the author writes, if they, the Indians, were counterfactually exposed to sub-Saharan African levels of sanitation using a non-parametric rewriting method, India's projected increase in mean height is at least as large as the gap The author is sincerely writing that if Indians lived with the same level of sanitation as sub-Saharan Africans, they would be taller.
	That's the effect, or at least the claimed effect, of how bad open defecation is in India.
	And I'm sorry, of all the things you can integrate with the foreign world, this is probably one of the worst things.
	And it's just when I hear someone say, well, what have you done to integrate with the new Europeans?
	It's just like, maybe I don't want to.
	Maybe I just don't.
	I mean, this is the most extreme difference, I'd say.
	And then there's, I don't know, like the French, who eat frogs.
	Again, what if I just don't want to?
	I mean, it wasn't asked at any point.
	I was once, in year six, I went to a chateau in France with primary school and all they were serving was French food, which was literally snails and frogs or jacket potato.
	So I survived purely off jacket potatoes for an entire week because I refused to eat snails and frogs.
	Snails are actually quite good.
	No, you're lying.
	But the point being you shouldn't have to eat the snails or etc because of course you were never asked.
	This was just something that happened to Britain by force of the leading class and now you're the problem.
	It's really annoying that in a sense people who want to be natives and remain native they are being shunned and shamed because what she's doing basically she's shaming I don't care, this laptop's crap.
	you need to you need to clear that'll be fine that's that's fine the water doesn't infiltrate your keyboard and destroy your machinery anyway you have 24 seconds anyway so no what what is annoying is that she's shaming and that that's what her questions are all about is How many friends do you have?
	How many right-wingers does she befriend?
	And I saw that from the chat.
	What's annoying is that she's a self-righteous ideologue who's only promoting these positions for her own self-interest.
	She knows that she is not of a British background, so obviously what's going to be beneficial to her is to push narratives where all of the British need to be more nice to her.
	That's why she has a job.
	Because, I mean, for people who don't know, LBC did used to have right-wing people on, such as me.
	They had Farage.
	Katie Hopkins.
	And they just purged them all.
	Literally, she's employed to be a mouthpiece.
	Sanjita herself is not an interesting person.
	Never would be.
	Because there's a vacancy for someone to shout into a microphone in London about how great immigration is.
	That's why she has a job.
	It's crystal clear.
	It's cut and dry, in her case, because she has no other real achievements.
	But this question of Leicester comes up a lot in the dialogue in the UK.
	And you can see here BBC Politics, around about the same time, decided to have this person on, which is the Labour MP, to tell everyone that we've been working extremely hard to bring together those two communities, as Sanjita said.
	And trust me bro, India, Pakistan are now the best of friends.
	We've solved it.
	How?
	By coming together and talking.
	Yes, we had one of those, what is it, interfaith meetings?
	They went on a play date to the local park together.
	Yeah, everyone had a photo op once a month and a tick, done.
	Trust me, bro.
	If we do it in public in front of the cameras, that means that as soon as the cameras have gone, everyone's still getting along with each other, right?
	Yeah.
	It's just so transparent that obviously it doesn't work, and you can see it in the data still.
	No one lives next to each other in Leicester.
	As you can see here, you've got, well, I suppose I'll make it bigger, the integration question from Juice, which is the white British, where do they live?
	Well, they live in the West, and then the Indian population, well, they live in the East.
	And pure coincidence, but one in, I think it was six people in Leicester East is a modern-day slave.
	So there we are.
	What have you done to integrate with slavery?
	You evil person.
	If we have community leaders come together, we can solve this problem overnight.
	We just need to be building bridges with the modern slavers.
	Yeah, I'm not sure the bridges need to go in both directions.
	Or is the Madagascar solution more effective?
	That's the other aspect of this because then the conversation became, as you can see from BBC Politics, they had a Conservative on and his complaint was, well, if we import a million people a year, the real problem with that is that we can't integrate a million people a year.
	It's so damaging for the immigrant community.
	It's terrible, terrible.
	Every other issue apparently is not as important as whether or not these people can integrate.
	There we are.
	I mean, it's a mad statement on the face of it.
	Damn, we can't integrate a million people a year.
	Yeah, no, you never would be able to with a population as small as UK.
	There's nowhere to put these people so that everyone has some kind of access to English culture and therefore can integrate.
	It's not statistically possible.
	And integration has lots of questions behind it.
	Like, what are the cultural continuities and discontinuities between members of the group that seeks to be integrated and the host group?
	That's a big question that very few people are asking.
	But also just where are they going to live?
	Because, I mean, like these guys, if you move into Leicester East, how are you going to become English?
	I mean, good luck!
	There are many places where I'm sure the English language isn't used.
	Many neighborhoods.
	And that's a big... There are parts of Swindon where you can walk down the street and not hear a single word of English.
	I remember, I think there was a study, just the worst example I can think of, it was in Tower Hamlets, where they found I think it was about 50% of Bangladeshi women just don't speak any English whatsoever.
	Because they didn't need to.
	The husband's going to earn the money and they just raise kids.
	And as we found out through that recent case in the nursing home, that works out so well when you get jobs.
	You end up dead.
	Anyway, so, I mean, here's something else I had to mention, because again, Drodka, my queen, decided to come out and put out this thread, or I suppose video, where it's just conservatives telling dirty little lies.
	We're bringing down the numbers to sustainable levels.
	Net migration needs to come down radically, from hundreds of thousands a year to just tens of thousands.
	Immigration benefits Britain, but it needs to be controlled.
	It needs to be fair.
	Britain does not need net migration in the hundreds of thousands every year.
	So work with us, not against us, and we'll better control immigration.
	Brexit must mean control of the number of people who come to Britain from Europe.
	What people want and what they will get is control of our own immigration system.
	But I am clear that our immigration system must change.
	Because our asylum system is fundamentally broken.
	And we have a responsibility to act.
	Our immigration system is broken and we will fix it.
	Uncontrolled immigration creates unmanageable demands on our NHS and on our welfare state.
	We were too slow to recognise the scale of the problem.
	Yeah, just a little bit.
	But no, the problem is you, dear viewer.
	You are the issue.
	Why have you not?
	What have you not done?
	Why didn't you go wine tasting with every one of these, well, several million people over those years, in which the Conservatives said that was too many at any point to actually be sustainable?
	But no, you're the one that's wrong.
	I thought I'd just end this off with something, because you may remember, I think it was the Danish government came up with that lovely graph, where it's like, hey, not all immigrants are equal.
	Here's a graph of net contributors from Denmark, when they pay taxes, what do we get out of it?
	Just intact benefits.
	And here's European migrants, they pay into the system.
	And of course, you've got Luxembourgers at the top, and then I think it was Albanians at the bottom or something.
	I count them as European.
	And then there was the non-European graph, which just never gave you any money.
	Well, I'm proud to tell you boys that the Dutch, they didn't just decide to release that data on crime.
	Someone has done a piece of research on money.
	So this is the Amsterdam School of Economics here, decided to release this paper, and they were looking into the consequences of immigration on public finances.
	And I suppose if we go to page... I don't know if you can do it, John, but page 114, there's probably the best graph demonstrating what I'd like to speak about.
	Oh, I hate this thing.
	Oh, that said 114.
	Yes, ah damn, I maybe have written the wrong number then.
	But there's a graph in here in which they're showing just the net contributions over time and what you would end up finding as the result of having so many people.
	And what the Dutch discovered is that they've lost 400 billion euros in the last 20 years.
	They've lost 400 billion euros?
	Yes.
	Is it the one on page 116, perhaps?
	There we go.
	Total net contributions cumulative over time, so to the current year from 1995, minus 400 billion euros.
	Jesus Christ.
	Let's just say, okay, maybe the people we're taking weren't Luxembourgish bankers.
	Maybe that was a bit of a mistake if you wanted money.
	But I didn't realize how bad that was until I also saw Dredka decided to just tweet out a funny meme, which is a conclusion from this study.
	Given the report's findings, it can be argued that the entire national revenue of the Netherlands from fracking and natural grass extraction has spent for approximately 60 years of that extraction.
	It entirely went to feeding, housing, educating, and providing medical treatment for migrants and their children over the last 20.
	Their entire gas industry.
	Worthless.
	Fantastic.
	And that's fantastic for anybody who trots out the old argument of, well, we need them.
	We need them for economic growth.
	We need them for economic stability.
	And that's a lie.
	We already knew that that was a lie, but this just goes to show what scale that lie was on.
	I mean, the money that's actually stolen from us I really feel is actually hard to comprehend, so it is good to see when someone has sat down and done the numbers.
	400 billion euros over 10, 20 years.
	That's a lot of money.
	Think about what we should have done with that money.
	Think of all the swimming pools you could have built with that money.
	I mean, maybe not the Dutch, but, you know, someone else who likes the sea.
	I mean, ice pools.
	Yeah, yeah.
	But you can see also, there were some good memes that came out of this, because the Danish, after doing the same stuff, have come up with the net zero immigration target, which is pretty cool.
	I did love Drodka's interpretation of this, you know, local Danish girl being like, what do you mean you don't have net zero in your country?
	What are you, barbaric?
	Are you poor?
	Yes!
	Yes, Britain is!
	Indeed we are.
	Because there's this meme, and I forget which side of politics, but there's this meme of getting to Denmark, which is this joke amongst, what do you call them, social something, social democrats, where it's like, yeah, Denmark is the goal for social well-being and etc.
	because of all the policy points, and it's like, yes!
	And there's something you have to do to keep that level of social welfare sustainable, and it's, um, what little, um, I don't know.
	What's a Danish girl's name?
	Sophie, there we are.
	Freya?
	Yeah, Freya over there is telling us, which, um, yeah, she would be embarrassed if you don't have net zero immigration, so don't disappoint her.
	Anyway, I just wanted to end off on the fact that this isn't hard either, because you may have seen the news.
	That Malay guy?
	Yep.
	Well, he kept his word.
	Here's a graph.
	It's in Taco, but they've written here which departments he did afuera and which he did not.
	And of course, well, he got rid of most of them.
	Education, the women department, that's gone.
	Thank God.
	What are women going to do?
	Sorry, they have an ambience department.
	You see that?
	Ambiente, but maybe that's recycling.
	No, it's the ambience department.
	The restaurants.
	You know when you go into the woods and you hear birds chirping?
	Those aren't real birds.
	Yeah.
	We set them up.
	The cultural department, yeah, get lost.
	Technology department, afuera.
	I mean, it's great to see, but it's so irritating that, as you can see Sal riding here in less than 24 hours, this dude just did it.
	I think it's been signed in so that over the next 21 days they need to start dismantling these offices.
	So I'll be interested to see if there are legal challenges brought up against it and if you have mass demonstrations from the presumably ex-employees of these departments or if Argentina has a deep state that will try and protect its own.
	I hope that this all works.
	Spontaneous riots in the streets from people who totally have jobs and aren't just paid leftists.
	That totally won't happen, which, yeah, you're right, that may happen.
	I'm hoping it doesn't, and I'm hoping that all of these departments do get the chop as they are going, but I'm glad that he's actually signed into it at least.
	Yeah, and he's not the only one either.
	I'll just skip ahead real quick to Russia, who also has similar circumstances in which they're just like, bye bye to anyone they don't like.
	So these are some migrant children.
	I think they're from Uzbekistan and they went up to an eternal flame, which is one of the various flames in basically every Russian town and city that is for those who died during the Second World War.
	And as you can see, they're like throwing ice and snow on the flame to put it out.
	So deport.
	And they did because Why wouldn't you?
	Like, for instance, if we had foreigners come into our country telling us we need to tear down statues of people who did great public works in the 19th century.
	Or, I don't know, trying to destroy the Churchill statue, or the Zenitaph, or setting fire to the flag on the Zenitaph.
	You remember that kid from the BLM riots?
	See, double standards.
	Some people have to integrate, the others don't.
	No, they certainly don't.
	No, we have to integrate.
	There we are.
	What have you done to integrate?
	Don't care, really.
	My homeland, my rules.
	I suppose on that we'll move on and enjoy a red scare.
	Yes.
	I thought this one would be fun because I'm a big fan of the Twitter account Mystery Grove Publishing, who has tweeted many a banger over the years, and every so often I think he's a publishing house, and earlier on this year they decided they were going to call it quits because a few people, I don't know who exactly runs the account,
	But, earlier on this year they were like, right, we're done, we're done for good, goodbye everybody, I'm going to work my job now, the publishing house, you didn't buy, um, for many with honour or whatever the name of the book was, therefore, therefore we have to die now.
	But then every so often he pops back up again and reminds everyone, I do have a sub stack though.
	I do have a sub stack, sir, though, and posts threatening images of cats holding guns saying you best subscribe, you best subscribe right now.
	And it's very fun.
	It's quite funny.
	But there is actually really useful and, um... Is this your favourite mentally ill man, or?
	Oh, one of many.
	Okay.
	But he's up there.
	And it's very entertaining, but there's a lot of genuinely interesting and detailed information that he posts on there, and that he also posts on his Twitter account whenever he does return.
	So it's always good to keep an eye out for him.
	It's also a good idea to keep an eye out for the website.
	Which always has great videos like this Brokenomics where Callum and I appeared with Stelios and we talked about the economy.
	And I told him GDP isn't real, it can't hurt you.
	And Callum said, but is the economy actually even real though?
	Which was genuinely quite an interesting argument to take.
	So if you'd like to get more of that, subscribe to the website.
	It's a nice thumbnail.
	It is a nice thumbnail.
	Look at us all having a good laugh with that burger.
	And Dan hovers over us.
	And Dan hovering over us.
	We've got McDonald's at home.
	Hey, this McDonald's at home is actually pretty good.
	Thanks, Dan.
	So subscribe to the website for that.
	So yeah, I thought I'd highlight some of this because in the immediate post-war period, in the interwar period between the First and Second World Wars, we have the Red Scare, which a lot of people have been taught by the Um, historians and their teachers at school who definitely have your best interests in mind.
	But the Red Scare was just some kooky right-wing conspiracy theory when they just want you to believe that a load of Italian communists started coming over to America and trying to bomb and kill people.
	Isn't that silly?
	Communists would never commit terrorist acts.
	When has that ever happened?
	But it's actually true.
	It's very true.
	It's a lot of Italian, Eastern European communists getting kicked out of their countries, coming over to America, and then trying to murder people.
	Well, most people I imagine think of just, oh, that MacArthur guy that went a bit mental and thought everyone was a commie.
	Even though you can get hundreds of pages of documents of people who were working in the state departments and the American government who were communists.
	But I kind of find the phrase funny, because the Red Scare is really just a reaction to Red Terror in Russia, which starts immediately at the start of the Russian Civil War.
	Everyone around the world was like, oh god!
	But for decades, there were many, many who wanted to deny it.
	And you had, you know, a lot of French intellectuals, people like Sartre and people like that who were saying that, you know, all this is Western propaganda.
	It doesn't work.
	Ignore the bombing happening on the street outside of your home right now or on Wall Street or anywhere else.
	It's your fault.
	What did you do for that bomb not to go off?
	That's Western propaganda.
	Sanjita needs to ask me, why haven't you tried to integrate with the insane communists who want to kill you?
	That's a good question.
	Thank you for asking.
	But he's been posting some of this really interesting information, and a lot of the sources for it, where he's been talking about, did you know that in 1919, radical leftists fired into a Veterans Day parade in Washington, killing four people and wounding four others.
	They were convicted of murder, but then let out of prison a few years later, after they made bogus self-defense claims, because they claimed
	And he goes into detail on the Substack article that he's linked to here, which is paid, but I've got a few excerpts from it that will go through talking about some of the context and what was going on at that time, where they claimed that, well, the Veterans Day, they might come and cause a riot at our headquarters, because it was the IWW, which I think was the International Workers of the World Organization, obvious commie, internationalist, globalist organization, saying, oh, they might come and beat us up.
	So we need to go out and murder all of them.
	So we're going to commit a terrorist attack when they have a big parade.
	So, and that apparently is enough to get you out of prison in the early 20th century in America, because a lot of the subversion of the court systems in America has actually been going on for a very long time.
	And he points out as well, the American Legion put up a bronze memorial to the victims, most of whom were veterans shortly after the event occurred.
	In 1997, after the city council was taken over by leftists, they painted up a giant mural across the street honoring one of the murderers.
	Yeah, this is the history that I would like to know about because it's very important and it's the stuff that you don't get taught in school.
	So let's take a look at some of this article.
	As I mentioned, if you scroll all the way down, it is a paid article so I wasn't able to get access to all of it but the stuff that I am able to access is really interesting and I'm thinking about subscribing because Really useful stuff.
	So he says, uh, 1919 has often been described as a year of national hysteria.
	Government officials and ignorant Americans began to falsely claim that the country was on the verge of a communist revolution, took out their unjustified fears of communists on immigrants, peaceful political dissidents, minority groups, and labor organizers.
	But a closer examination of the time reveals that these fears were very rational.
	The period was marked by huge labor unrest, some of it sponsored by the communist controlled union, the International Workers of the of the world, IWW, more than 4 million workers, about 20% of the nation's workforce, would go on to strike at some point during the year.
	Although the 1918 Seattle general strike was put down without bloodshed, massive incidents of public violence followed the 1919 Boston police strike.
	That crisis was only ended with military intervention, thousands of uniformed soldiers pouring into Boston, other large strikes paralyzed major cities.
	Because I think one of the worst things about the revisionist history that we're taught of the 20th century, and when I say revisionist history, I mean the mainstream history, because most of the mainstream history of that period is completely lies, told you, was that one thing that's missed out is just how much of an effect the Bolshevik revolution had in was that one thing that's missed out is just how
	In Russia and across Europe, because the second that happened, all of Europe, especially across the East in places like Italy, all of them started to have communist revolutionaries pop up, starting to commit crimes, war crimes, terrorist acts, start to domestic terrorism in the streets.
	And people just pretend like this never happened and that all of the right wing went crazy and started to have some kind of mass hysteria for a period of years.
	We deployed tanks, yes, on the streets of Britain back then, and tanks were obviously brand new.
	Because we were afraid of the violence getting out of hand.
	I mean, that small period of 1919 I think just gets completely lost.
	It really does.
	And people act as well like Italian fascism was something that just popped up because Benito Mussolini was an insane man who wanted to take over the government.
	No, there's the, I think it's called the Benio Rosso, something like that, which translates to the Red Years, where there was lots of communist revolutionaries trying to take over Italy, and Mussolini appealed to the king, basically to say, I can put these guys down.
	And he did.
	You don't have to justify the rest of the regime or what they ended up doing later in the 30s, going along with Hitler and such, but that's why that popped up.
	It was an explicitly anti-communist front that they tried to put up there.
	So it's one of the big bits of history that gets left out and you don't have any context.
	You're left completely tetherless.
	You're left afloat in the ocean with no understanding of what's around you when you have these things not taught to you in your schools and in the mainstream and depicted in the media.
	But just one thing to say, he didn't just attack communists.
	He attacked us, okay, and he paid for it.
	That's spaghetti eater.
	Yeah but it's one of those things that's completely left out of history and that people need to be aware of because it obviously has serious repercussions even into the present period and he carries on in here saying bloody racial conflicts broke out across the country that being the US there were more than 36 large-scale race riots the death toll was supposedly in the hundreds There was an extended terrorist bombing campaign, primarily led by Italian anarchists.
	Dozens of bombs were detonated in major cities and quiet suburban neighborhoods.
	These attacks would culminate in the 1920 Wall Street bombing, which killed 40 people outright and seriously injured more than 100 more.
	Perpetrators were never formally identified.
	And like today, I imagine they probably could have identified them if they wanted to, but there's always political pressure from radical leftists infiltrating the institutions that say, no, actually, we can't look into this because of constitutional reasons.
	You know why this seems really ridiculous?
	Because if you read history, you don't have to read much, but if you read about some of the revolutions, the major ones, they were talked throughout the world centuries before that.
	For instance, the French Revolution was a matter of debate instantly, even before it happened.
	There was debate as to whether it was going to happen.
	So, they could talk about it in the 1780s, but no, in the 1910s and 1920s it's... Everyone was too busy.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Things don't happen.
	The entire Russian Empire has collapsed into infighting between these rabid lunatics who are burning every church.
	These genocidal maniacs who explicitly state that their goal is to take over the world and do this to your country as well.
	I guess we all just went crazy.
	Yeah.
	Ignore that.
	Doesn't have any effect on anybody.
	Why do you care?
	How does it affect you personally?
	A huge... what is it?
	Oh yeah, go on.
	One of the Russian songs that was still used in the late Soviet Union was the Red Army is the greatest army in the world.
	And one of the verses is literally, we will burn every church on earth.
	It's just like, okay, why do you care, bro?
	How does it affect you?
	What, you some kind of Christian?
	You a fascist?
	But this also shows how truth has nothing to do with propaganda.
	And a lot of propagandists, they are just spitting out articles and they want to make claims throughout the centuries that have nothing to do with truth.
	And I say this because a lot of people have said that, oh, you know, we live in the post-truth era.
	This is absolute nonsense.
	It has always been the case that people have used words, you know, as actions as opposed to just representation of reality in order to create a completely false idea to people.
	I would say we've been living in a post-truth era for longer than any of us three have been alive and that the lies that have been fed to us have been for a long time.
	But carrying on.
	We need to wake up.
	A huge crime wave accompanied this political and racial violence.
	The automobile enabled fast getaways and a wave of armed robberies.
	Further exacerbating problems was a huge tide of immigrants, more than 15 million between 1900 and 1915.
	These immigrants were often in desperate conditions.
	Many turned to crime.
	Building criminal cases against members of close-knit immigrant communities proved extremely difficult for law enforcement.
	Suspects could easily disappear and did all the time.
	Do you, does this sound familiar to anybody?
	Does this sound like anything that might have happened recently?
	Does this sound like our circumstances?
	No.
	No, no, no.
	And like I say, the rest of the article goes into a lot more detail about the particular circumstances of those 1919 bombings that I, uh, the, the, uh, Veteran Day Parade Massacre that I referenced at the beginning of here.
	Uh, but remember that a lot of people say that, um, well, in 1924, America had a very restrictionist immigration act in the past, which made it so that it was mainly Um, immigration coming from Northwest Europe.
	Britain, the Nordic countries, France, places like that.
	And people act as though that's just terrible.
	It's so racist of them to do so.
	But the fact of the matter was that this was partially the reason why, because we weren't getting communists from those parts of the world.
	They were mainly coming from Eastern Europe and Italy and places like that.
	So we don't want to be importing 15 million communist revolutionaries into the country.
	Thank you very much.
	It kind of reminds me of the Trump Muslim Bland.
	And it's like, this is the Muslim band, guys.
	Who's on the list?
	Venezuela and North Korea as well.
	It's like, yeah, the great Muslim nation of North Korea.
	Could there be another thing that we're overlooking here that we're trying to get rid of?
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	That's carrying on.
	He mentioned in there the 1920 Wall Street bombing, just in case you don't believe that that actually happened.
	Well, here's a picture.
	And he mentions that the leftist terror attacks were very common.
	40 people died.
	There were 100 more wounded.
	Historians talk about how paranoid and deranged American officials were during that time.
	In 1919, anarchists detonated a bomb inside the Attorney General's house while his family were inside.
	If the AG wasn't safe, how do you think normal people felt?
	We always hear about the Klan and other forms of right-wing extremism, terrorism.
	What's the one that they always go on about?
	Was it the Tulpa?
	The Tulpa riots that went on in the 1910s.
	Tulsa?
	Tulsa, that was it, yeah.
	The Tulsa riots that went on that we see propagandized in all sorts of television shows like Watchmen, despite the fact that the actual events of that riot Seems to be very murky because it's all eyewitness testimony from different sides of the fascist.
	We know that there was a riot that we went on, we know that it was conducted along racial lines.
	Whereas Watchmen shows that it was just Klan members out in the street murdering black people for no reason, and there was planes going overhead where they were dropping bombs on innocent black families.
	This is the level of propaganda that we're given whenever it's along leftist lines where they can say, look, America was such an oppressive, terrible society.
	The Klan were airstriking us in 1919.
	Yes.
	That's what watchmen wanted people to think.
	And remember, most people get their information, get the knowledge of history from TV and movies.
	So a lot of people will probably be sat there watching that going, oh my God, can you believe this happened?
	The Klan were really well fitted, weren't they?
	No, I can't believe it.
	It's not true.
	Yeah, it's obvious nonsense, but you know that somebody will have believed that having watched it.
	But this just gets completely brushed over.
	You know of spontaneous combustion?
	What, where you just explode?
	Where just people randomly explode.
	Could happen to things, Harry.
	Could happen to me.
	It could happen to you too.
	And then we can go on to the LA Times.
	Someone in the chat just wrote Clan Airlines.
	It's actually not real!
	What that comes from is that there were rumours spread at the time that there might have been a plane flying overhead while the riots were going on.
	Yeah, someone made up that it was now dropping bombs.
	And then Watchmen went... The creators of the Watchmen TV show... No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no There was the LA Times bombing which killed 21, 100 injured, which was purely because of the fact that it was a conservative newspaper.
	And Clarence Darrow, the civil rights hero, who was one of the founding leaders, I think, of the ACLU, represented the bombers and claimed it was a gas leak and then bribed jurors to get them off.
	Thanks!
	And somebody in the comments here posted about this one as well.
	There's dozens of these.
	You can go back to this particular time period and find dozens of reports of bombings, murders, terrorist attacks, constantly all aimed at the institutions which maintain peace and order in America.
	All conducted by communist revolutionaries and anarchist agitators.
	All terrorists, like this one.
	Milwaukee Police Department bombing November 1917.
	Bomb attack that killed nine members of local law enforcement in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
	The perpetrators were never caught but are suspected to be an anarchist terrorist cell operating in the United States in the early 20th century.
	Dozens!
	Dozens!
	Was that a way of expression of letting some steam off?
	Blowing some steam off, how do you say?
	Summer of love, man.
	Yeah.
	Well, that's how they would have, I imagine, spun it at the time as well.
	Well, they still are.
	Yeah.
	I don't know if people would have believed it as much back then.
	There were probably still very sensible people operating in the government who said, that's obvious rubbish, don't tell us lies.
	Their response was, commies gotta go.
	Yes.
	Which is not the response a few years ago.
	And this is just a reminder as well, the left have always conducted terrorist attacks and been absolutely insane.
	We know, going back to, as you mentioned, the French Revolution.
	I mean, there's a doctrine of revolutionary violence.
	The permanent revolution as well.
	We constantly need to be overthrowing society again and again and again, because if anything gets in power, it inevitably becomes conservative.
	So we need to constantly be just murdering people, overthrowing people constantly.
	That's what the French Revolution descended into.
	Yeah, and a lot of people have said that authoritarian regimes have a common source and that they treat violence as a sort of purification.
	And I think leftists have always had this issue with the glorification of revolutionary violence.
	They still have it to this day, by the way.
	Of course they do.
	That's what we saw in 2020.
	That's what we see with Antifa, who people say aren't a continuation of this exact same thing, but then you read into the literature around them and they explicitly say, oh yeah, we're following on from all of these and trying to take in the same sort of boots on the ground terrorizing tactics.
	They don't label themselves as terrorists, but that's the actions that they do.
	But because of the fact that they are supposedly decentralized, That means that they're not terrorists.
	I mean, it's an absolute joke.
	And this carried on into the 1970s.
	I own this book, haven't read it, but here's some details of it from a review in the New York Times, a book called Days of Rage by Brian Burra, which talks about the domestic terrorism that was going on in America from the 1960s through to the 1970s done by leftist terrorists.
	No, I wanted to say that it's incredible how in universities they're trying to talk about this in a way.
	And I remember listening to the idea that, well, it's a really bad idea to talk about terrorists like being mad, sad or bad.
	And I was thinking, who cares?
	They're dangerous.
	They want to kill you.
	Yeah.
	Why censor that?
	Why obfuscate that from people?
	Oh yeah, so that they take sympathy with the terrorists, so they relate to the terrorists, so they think they're the good guys.
	Why does there have to be a debate on this?
	Well, because a lot of people want us dead and hate our civilization.
	That's literally why.
	That's a good answer.
	Yeah, there it is.
	In 1965, Carl Oglesby was elected President of Students for Democratic Society, the principal campus-based organization of the 1960s New Left.
	SDS then had some 10,000 members over the next few years thanks to a swelling opposition to the Vietnam War among young Americans that expanded tenfold, so about 100,000.
	Oglesby, a thoughtful opponent of the war, made an important contribution to SDS's success, but by 1969 found himself on the sidelines.
	A more radically inclined leadership cadre, collectively known as the Weathermen, which would later split off into the Weather Underground, was in the process of dismantling SDS as a mass organization, determined to convert it in the rhetoric of the time into a revolutionary youth movement.
	Days of Rage is a comprehensive overview, providing a look at the violence perpetrated by these would-be revolutionary vanguards from the end of the 60s through to the 1980s, including the Weather Underground, Black Liberation Army, Symbionese Liberation Army, Fueras Amadas de Liberación Nacional por Tecurina. Fueras Amadas de Liberación Nacional por Tecurina.
	I think I got that right.
	Harry, you're integrating.
	Oh, no.
	I need to be more Anglo.
	As well as a host of freelance desperados they left behind a trail of bodies including both the victims and sometimes themselves they also left behind shattered movements ideals and hopes.
	In 1972 alone, there were over 1,900 domestic bombings in the United States.
	Most of them committed by these leftist terrorists.
	That's a lot.
	Now, yeah, I know it's a lot.
	Yeah, and being the New York Times, most of the rest of the article is trying to obfuscate who did it and saying, well, there were also right-wing extremist groups at the time, but no.
	Those Klan airlines were busy that year.
	Literally, they referenced the Klan.
	The Klan was still in operation, so it must have been them conducting all of these domestic terrorist bombings in favor of leftist communist No, no, that's not it, is it?
	No.
	And we can get some examples of this.
	So The Weather Underground, a completely insane organization run by insane people, is covered a bit more in a review of this book, where it mentions some interesting excerpts from this book, Outlaws of America.
	As weather saw it nationalist struggles were challenging imperialism and it was the primary job of white radicals to break with their white skin privilege and eventually to take up armed struggle against the US government.
	Anything less would be an acceptance of privilege which was just as bad as being a full-blown racist.
	Now this was the 60s and 70s and things just haven't changed since then.
	He also mentions in the book the Flint War Council, where weather leader Bernardine Dawn praised the Charles Manson Group's L.A.
	murders, that's of Sharon Tate, the pregnant Sharon Tate, where Charles Manson murdered a pregnant woman and her houseguests, while others talked about whether killing white children should help stop the spread of white supremacy.
	The more things change, the more they stay the same.
	There's reports on the FBI website, on their history website, talking about the Weather Underground bombings, where an explosion in 1975, January, rocked the headquarters of the U.S.
	State Department in Washington, D.C.
	No one was hurt, but the damage was extensive, impacting 20 officers on three separate floors.
	Hours later, another bomb was found at a military induction center in Oakland, California, and safely detonated.
	Domestic terrorist group called the Weather Underground claimed responsibility for both bombs.
	Our intention is to disrupt the empire, to incapacitate it, to put pressure on the cracks, claimed the group's 1974 manifesto.
	And the next year, they claimed credit for 25 bombings, including ones against the U.S.
	Capitol, the Pentagon, the California Attorney General's office, and a New York City police station.
	So they directly attacked the Capitol.
	And the Pentagon.
	And they took credit for it.
	So, do you reckon this is going to be named alongside January 6th as the worst thing that's ever been to happen to American democracy?
	A direct threat on American democracy?
	This is as bad as Pearl Harbor, not this.
	This is not something that sleeps into any of the Democrats' minds.
	Yeah.
	Even though it's the same place.
	And it's a lot more damage.
	Yes.
	Remarkable, isn't it?
	And then from the weather underground sprang up another offshoot called the May 19th Communist Organization, which holds the title as being the first and only women-created and women-led terrorist group in American history.
	Diversity.
	Truly amazing.
	Representation.
	Girlboss terrorists.
	Oh my god, eat your heart out.
	At least I can say that this argument, you know, at least these terrorist groups, they have more representation of groups, you know, the members of.
	It's beautiful.
	We can all hold hands.
	Diversity is the strength or something.
	It was for these guys.
	After their formation in 1978, M19's tactics escalated from picketing and poster making to robbing armored trucks and abetting prison breaks.
	Just to make it clear.
	It's a bit of a jump.
	They did have men helping them with all of this.
	Oh yeah.
	Which makes sense.
	In 1979 they helped spring explosives builder William Morales of the Puerto Rican nationalist group FALN, the one that I pronounced earlier, and Black Liberation Army organizer Assata Shakur from their respective prisons.
	Both of them remain on the FBI's wanted lists to this day for terrorism and are thought to be living in Cuba in hiding.
	Eventually, M19 turned to building explosives themselves just before 11 p.m.
	on November 7th, 1983.
	They called the U.S.
	Capitol switchboard and warned them to evacuate the buildings.
	Ten minutes later, a bomb detonated in the building's north wing, harming no one but blasting a 15-foot gash in a wall and causing $1 million worth of damage.
	Over the course of a 20-month span in 1983 and 1984, M19 also bombed An FBI office, the Israel Aircraft Industries Building, and the South African Consulate in New York, DC's Fort McNair, and the Navy Yard, which they hit twice.
	None of these mentioned alongside January 16th, or anything of the matter, all consigned to the dustbin of history.
	Because you're not supposed to remember this, despite the fact that one of the founding members, a woman called Susan Rosenberg, who I've mentioned before on this show, Uh, was let out by executive order on the last day of President Clinton's time in office, and then went on to be part of an organization called Thousand Currents, which helped BLM organize and helped to funnel millions of dollars to BLM.
	So actual domestic terrorists were involved in what definitely isn't a domestic terrorist group.
	It's just we're run by the McGill money problem.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Interesting.
	So the Red Scare was real and it's still going on.
	To sum up, Good points.
	I suppose on that we'll move to, well, I love to say I told you so.
	How could this happen to me?
	Take it away, Stelios.
	Well, I must say that polygamous relationships are problematic relationships, and who would have guessed?
	Perhaps, I guess that's the question.
	Anyway, let's look at the first tweet.
	It says here, by Unlimited L's, Melina, the wife of American live streamer and political commentator known as Destiny, who both share an open relationship, has reportedly run away with a man in Sweden.
	A twink in Sweden, by the looks of it as well.
	Yes.
	That's a twink, not the twink she ran away with.
	Anyway, we have this...
	It looks like a discord.
	Yeah.
	Destiny was saying basically that he is a bit pissed off with Melina.
	He says, I'll have a small conversation when I'm back about things.
	I'm not going to nuke Melina or anything.
	But the last two months have been a massive mind F for me watching her become obsessed with a toxic, abusive guy.
	Anyway, he is a guy who basically threatened her that if She doesn't divorce Destiny, he's going to kill himself.
	And for some reason, allegedly, she went with this guy.
	Let us watch this clip.
	Why does this girl take my place?
	Who's this girl?
	Who is she?
	There's intense interrogation about the likes of her.
	Oh, no, don't steal that from me.
	Don't steal that from me.
	Move to your lap.
	What am I looking at?
	Sorry.
	I don't know.
	She's got very unique taste in men.
	I don't know, but honestly, what the hell?
	Let's look at this also, the next clip.
	Yeah.
	Hi, what's your name?
	Melina.
	Can you get me laid?
	Yeah.
	When?
	Today.
	With?
	Your mom.
	I don't want that.
	Wait, who's, ooh, who's my mom?
	Me.
	You know, I don't believe it.
	I don't believe it.
	That was a horrible, cringey exchange.
	What's XQC doing in the corner as well?
	I don't know, he was... Why is he there?
	That's any video you play at this point.
	Yeah.
	XQC was just like, react.
	Yeah.
	Reaction time.
	Let's move to the next one.
	Anyway, we'll get there in a bit, because... Let me see also the...
	There was another clip.
	Yeah, says bombshell.
	Destiny has revealed that him and Melina are done.
	He claims she's head over heels for a jobless dude who is allegedly abusive.
	He claims that she was the last toxic holdover from his past self and that she always gravitated towards guys who shat on him.
	Basically.
	I don't know.
	What do you make of this?
	Just look at the video.
	There's something I don't buy here.
	Wait, so who claims that she was last toxic takeover from his past self?
	Was it Destiny?
	People are not going to know what the hell is going on.
	So Destiny had this lady.
	He had an open relationship with her in which she would go off and meet guys and he was meant to go off and meet girls.
	People say that it's real, I just don't believe it.
	I don't know, I just look at Melina and that guy, they just don't fit together.
	if you don't break up with destiny, I'm gonna kill myself.
	So is it the truth or is it just a rumor that now she has broken up with him and now she's going to go live with this lunatic? - People say that it's real.
	I just don't believe it.
	I don't know, I just look at Melina and that guy.
	They just don't fit together.
	Something's not right here.
	- I mean, I don't think any of this is right. - Yeah.
	The whole concept, I found, that's my view.
	So, the issue, and why we're doing this, because you know Callum, our first collaboration was on the 23rd of December last year.
	Is it almost our anniversary?
	Ten more days.
	Oh, beautiful.
	Yeah.
	I'm glad you two have stayed exclusive.
	You can look at this.
	I mean, there are other co-hosts.
	We've presented together.
	This is news to me!
	You're not supposed to know, Cal!
	Anyway, so basically, we did this.
	That was a segment.
	John told me that this segment aged like fine wine.
	I don't know, maybe that was good.
	It's a bit... So I remember, but this was her.
	She went on what was a freshman fit with him or whatever.
	And they were talking about how everything's fine and trust me, the relationship's fine and we're totally secure.
	Nothing could go wrong.
	Otherwise, we wouldn't be doing it.
	And now it's gone wrong.
	That's the news, basically.
	I think the funny thing as well is that they actively went out there to broadcast their relationship.
	If you're in some kind of weird relationship in your private life, that's one thing, but then it's going out and talking about it very publicly, making everybody know that that's what you're doing, letting them know as well that by doing it, you're actively better than them because it means that I'm more stable, I'm more secure in myself and my masculinity, because I don't mind if my missus is going out and banging other dudes
	That's very strange and then bragging about it and then everybody turns around and says this is going to blow up in your face and then getting into debates on it.
	The whole thing is a PR disaster and for years now since this has been going on people have been trying to debate him on this and he just completely ignores it and dismisses all of the concerns that people have.
	But the fact of the matter is if you're broadcasting a relationship that leads everybody to question it and you spend half of your time justifying your relationship.
	That's a very strange position to find yourself.
	Anyway, so what happened in that segment was that I was reading an article from Health Day last year, December 19, 2022, where it said several things.
	Key takeaways.
	Many folks who are in relationships that aren't monogamous face stigma for their choices, scientists report.
	Even though one in five Americans has tried such a relationship, that may be a bit, that sounds a bit... That sounds too high.
	Too high.
	20%?
	Well... Americans are strange.
	40% say they have been judged negatively or threatened, and that can lead to low self-esteem and discrimination, say experts who have studied the issue for years.
	So basically, the main argument I was making on that segment was that this seems to me like a projection.
	Why?
	Because there are all sorts of things that can be bad in open relationships and that are psychologically harmful for people who partake in them.
	And the main bulk of why they may feel low self-esteem and discrimination or things like that has to do with them being in an open relationship, not with people reacting and justifiably feeling weird about it.
	Because let's say if someone comes and tells you, well, hello, I'm interested in open relationships.
	The first thing you're going to think is, well, this guy may want to sleep with my wife.
	Yeah.
	And it's understandable to be on the defensive about that because most normal people don't want... I love my wife!
	I don't want my wife having sex with other men, thank you!
	That's a great point though, because if you're interacting with just normal couples, you don't think they're thinking, no, they're happy, we're happy.
	Yes, and I mean, it's even more subtle than that.
	It doesn't have to be overt.
	And someone says, hey, I'm interested in, you know, potentially sleeping with your wife.
	It's more subtle because... My name's Keith!
	Good to meet you.
	Now go away.
	What have you done to feel good about it?
	You should feel good about it.
	You shouldn't feel jealous.
	That's the whole idea.
	And that's the argument that I think that is constantly being hammered from that side, that allegedly, and it ties to what you said before, that the worst thing that you can feel is jealousy, because if you're jealous, you're insecure.
	If you're insecure, you're not a man.
	Therefore, just let your wife sleep with other people.
	That's nonsense.
	There are things that it's perfectly normal to be jealous of.
	Real men have no boundaries.
	It's just not true.
	Real men set boundaries.
	That's one of the things that we do.
	And that's an interesting thing because boundaries have to do with limits you set on relationships.
	You say that there are some things you do, some things you don't do.
	So if you have an open relationship and there is no sense of commitment there, or at least a substantial degree of commitment, Then you don't have a relationship.
	You may occasionally fornicate or something, but that's not a relationship.
	Okay?
	There has to be a commitment element, commitment dimension into a relationship, especially when it is supposed to be a meaningful one.
	Because a lot of the people on the polygamy side, they say that they are in favor of I have met people in the past who have been in polyamorous relationships.
	And every single time it has blown up in their face and they've been telling me the whole time, no, it works great.
	We're engaged, even we're going to get married, but we're going to keep it open once it's married.
	And I've asked them, what's the point of getting married then if you're not completely exclusive to one another?
	Well, it was a woman.
	And she said, oh, you just don't understand.
	It's perfectly fine the way it works.
	And then they end up breaking up with one another because one feels that the other is cheating because they have to set these really explicit rules down to the very minute details to make sure that you don't get jealous.
	Because if you have organized your relationship in such a way that the main target of every interaction is you have to set ground rules on how not to be jealous of the other person sleeping with somebody else, that's a recipe for disaster.
	And somebody always messes up one of the rules.
	And then they go, you cheated on me.
	No, I didn't cheat on you.
	This is the whole point.
	We get to sleep with other people.
	Yeah, but you have to do it this particular way.
	And it blows up and everybody's unhappy.
	The other ways I've seen it go down is that one, oftentimes it's a guy who is with a girl Not saying that this has anything to do with this situation, but is with a girl who is obviously out of his league.
	He's hitting above his weight.
	But the only way that she is going to stay committed to him is if he lets her sleep with other guys.
	Which means that you are not somebody that she respects.
	You are not somebody that she truly cares about.
	You are a guy who she goes back to for consistent resources, essentially.
	So the other thing I said in the segment there was that, for instance, sorry, let me see here.
	What's going on here?
	Yeah.
	The other bit was that I showed some clips of Melina where she was saying basically that she has only done open relationships.
	And that Destiny is her main partner because it's convenient and that usually it's too tiresome and energy consuming to have multiple partners.
	That's why they stick together for most of the time.
	So men don't hear that and say, wow, I'm going to put a ring on that.
	No, of course not.
	That shouldn't be the case, Harry.
	We agree.
	But let me just say that, you know, some people would disagree for some reason, and I don't know why, but let us try to talk.
	What I said was that it's a bit disrespectful to your partner to be in an interview and talk to people.
	It doesn't have to be public.
	You could talk to other people in front of it and say that, well, we're mostly together because it's convenient.
	It's too energy consuming to be with other people.
	So I mostly stay with you.
	So what I thought it was that this is a kind of concealed way of her blackmailing him.
	It sounds like an insult.
	It was an insult.
	I think it was an insult.
	Anyway, so he took issue with our segment and he had several responses.
	Let us look.
	And he put me in double speed.
	There's a reason why I speak slowly.
	I can speak fast.
	There's a reason I speak slowly.
	And I found Destiny and Melina.
	And I want us to look at how Melina talks about their relationship.
	And I want to see your reaction.
	Let us... One interesting aspect of your relationship is you're in an open relationship.
	What's that like?
	From a game theoretic simulation perspective, what went into that calculation?
	And like, how does that... Like how it started, or?
	Yeah, how did that start, sure.
	The only relationships I've ever done has been open relationships, since I was in high school.
	Because I didn't really understand, like, why wouldn't you be able to, like, do other things with other people, but then just, like, have your main partner, basically.
	So what is an open relationship, generally speaking?
	That means you have one main partner?
	Like a non-monogamous relationship.
	Like, you're somehow allowed, like, in different ways, you can see other people sexually.
	Well, yeah, but the obvious answer is she doesn't have those same feelings.
	but like i think it's probably easier we probably don't really have time or the energy for like more than like one person's like really like emotional really complicated like complicated stuff going on under the hood there yeah that's the understatement of the year i just don't know how her answer was i don't understand why but she just moves on so why don't you investigate why why is it you know it is generally the norm that people like to have monogamous relationships sexually and not have you walk off and f other guys so it's almost like there's feelings and stuff that that's that's wrong and a betrayal but okay she just does an investigation well yeah but the obvious answer is she doesn't have those same feelings
	the when it comes to like this is another one of those scenarios where i have to be better than all of these people and it's really really really hard right Because the equivalent to these guys projecting their stuff to me would be me coming around and saying, like, oh, why do you do monogamous relationships?
	Because you're an insecure fk who's, like, you're threatened that your dk is smaller than every other guy's and every girl sees another.
	Like, that would be the equivalent.
	But I don't say that, obviously.
	Like, I think most people probably work well in monogamous relationships.
	Like, 98%, 99% of people.
	That's fine.
	I have no problem with that.
	But, like, why do you turn around and then try to, like, make all these weird, like, psychological evaluations into my sh**?
	Like, it's not like monogamous relationships are doing too hot in the United States.
	What's the divorce rate?
	Like, 60%?
	Like, bro!
	Like, chill.
	Jesus.
	So basically Callum, we're insecure Fs who are worried about our manlyhood.
	I love the way he did the, you know, I'm not going to say that you're an insecure small dick twat.
	Yeah.
	I wouldn't say that.
	I would never call you that.
	That's why I'm better than you, because I would never say that you're an insecure bellend.
	But you know, I mean, your wife cheats on you.
	Yeah, what's more to discuss?
	But if there are no rules, it's not cheating, Callum.
	That's how you solve the issue.
	To engage in some childish dialogue, because he began, I suppose, it is comical to be like, oh, your problem is your small penis because you can't keep a girl.
	It's like she literally leaves you every night for the penis.
	And now she's left you for good, supposedly.
	But there's another issue about the psychologizing argument is that, okay, normally I hate psychologizing because it has to do with focusing on who says something and alleged causes as to why they say it as opposed to focusing on the argument.
	But when you're talking about how people feel and how they are in relationships and whether they develop sentiments of jealousy or not, you are talking about feelings.
	So you kind of have to focus on feelings.
	Also, it's not psychologizing to point out something that is incredibly obvious to everybody around you, which is why you're constantly having to defend your relationship.
	Yeah, and you know, he constantly says that, you know, I was misrepresenting him and maybe that you were misrepresenting him as a lot.
	And there may have been a point like that, but because honestly, I will say this.
	When I was presenting this segment, I didn't know much about the conversation, but the obvious question is, what do you need to know in order to understand that this is wrong?
	And it may backfire.
	It doesn't need any substantial wisdom.
	You don't need to have a PhD to talk about it.
	I have seen a funny meme, which I think was a YouTube comment that somebody left regarding this saying, So Destiny, what do you think caused your relationship to fail?
	Destiny's response.
	I don't know.
	There's not been a peer-reviewed study on it yet.
	That's kind of his response to a lot of things.
	Sorry, you've said something that's incredibly obvious to anybody with any life experience.
	I won't accept that unless there's a peer-reviewed study confirming it.
	Yeah, so for instance, some people were criticizing me for not discerning between polygamy and polyamory.
	Okay, okay, at the end of the day, you don't let your partner sleep with other people, okay?
	Just full stop.
	Have you ever watched Arrested Development?
	Yeah.
	You know Tobias in that case?
	He's the therapist who, when he's going through a rough patch with his own wife, they recommend he gets in an open relationship.
	And he goes, you know, I've recommended this to people before.
	It's kind of a Hail Mary.
	It never works.
	And somehow these people convince themselves that it will work.
	And it never does.
	But maybe it'll work for us.
	You don't need a PhD to say that, you know, if you allow this to happen, that means that there were no feelings or there were no strong feelings.
	And the chances that at some point your partner will develop feelings for someone else will increase.
	So it doesn't, you don't need to have done any research or study about it.
	Apparently jobless twinks.
	Anyway, there's something fishy about it, I will say.
	I will say there's something very fishy about it.
	Anyway, let's move to the next point he made.
	So let's see how Destiny evolves his line of thinking when it comes to his opinions on Manosphere.
	Let us watch.
	Alright, cool.
	So, uh, what are some ideas that they represent and what do you think about them?
	I think they do a good job at speaking to disaffected young men who feel like the rest of the world has kind of left them behind or isn't willing to speak to them.
	And they do identify some true and real problems.
	It feels like on the left we have a really hard time doing, like, self-improvement or telling people how to better themselves.
	We focus too much on, like, structural and systemic issues rather than what can an individual do to uplift or empower themselves.
	And it also feels like they do a good job at speaking to some of the positive aspects of masculinity.
	That it's okay to be, like, strong and brave and a soldier and a warrior and provide for your family and blah blah blah.
	Um, it starts to lead to, like, positive messages like self-improvement and everything that come from the red pill community.
	What's the negative?
	I think the analysis on how men and women interact is way too transactional.
	All of, like, the romanticism and love and chemistry is totally sucked out of it.
	Everything is very, like, sex-based.
	Like, how do you basically have sex with the most amount of women possible and that's gonna make you happy?
	So we have an advocate of polyamory accusing the manosphere of telling young men to go and find many partners.
	Yeah, that's pretty weird.
	I was about to say, like, I don't- That's- That's not what I just said!
	There's nothing wrong with having a lot of sexual partners, but if the whole goal of your relationship advice is just geared towards being a f*ing boy, playing people and f*ing people, Why do- Oh, I hate this arc.
	I actually hate this arc.
	Are these guys virgins or are they at least married?
	Now I'm really curious.
	I don't like talking about the relationship shit because I don't know what the background is.
	It's like having chess debates online, and you've got grandmasters, and then you've got a bunch of people that are 800 Elo telling you, oh, black should win 75% of the time.
	He's like, what the fuck are you even talking about?
	It's so annoying listening to everybody give their takes on this shit when it's like, I need to know where you come from.
	I need a relationship status, body count, social stat.
	I need this shit listed above your head so I know where you're coming from when you say this shit.
	Guy who sacrifices his queen first move every game.
	You don't know how to play chess.
	How does he not understand our point though, which is that we don't really believe that you can have an open relationship and have the level of intimacy and feelings that you would in a monogamous one, which is why it always ends in failure and isn't the social norm.
	I feel like that was pretty obvious.
	It's obvious.
	Why do you need a background check?
	A DBS check?
	I want your early life before I respond to you!
	It's because it's pride to admit that you've made a mistake.
	Everybody internalizes these parts of their own identities and you don't want to admit that you've made a mistake because you look foolish.
	Especially when he's gone out of his way to broadcast and debate all of this multiple times.
	But what was this analogy about?
	About, you know, Grand Chess Master?
	He's saying that because he's slept with a lot of men and women that makes him a grand chess master and because he's headcanoned that you two are both virgins that means that you're complete amateurs and have no idea what you're talking about.
	Okay so I will say that you know I hate this because you know you don't have you don't need to say that you say you're above things but It's none of anyone's business, you know, what our body count is and if we're virgins or not.
	Like if you're going on Fresh and Fit, which is obviously part of the show, but to the question of whether or not polyamory is going to work for most people?
	I don't think you need anyone's early life.
	I think you can probably find out.
	You don't need it.
	No, you don't need it.
	And also I think that basically this conversation of saying, you know, my body kind is higher than yours and stuff.
	I think that's ridiculous because again, it's about quantity.
	It's not about quality.
	And this is what we have tried to say from the beginning.
	Did you mean the other way around?
	It's about quality, not quantity.
	It's about quality.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	There you go.
	We are, we are talking about.
	You know, the kind of feelings you develop in a relationship and there is something you could say almost magic about a good relationship.
	You sort of feel it.
	You don't need to do a PhD about it.
	Anyway, so what I wanted to say is that I think that the accusations he made were a bit of a cope, but it's important to not try and be very negative.
	And try to see the good in this because I really think that this could be good for him.
	And I say this and I mean this in the best possible way.
	It obviously being ditched is not good.
	Okay.
	On its own.
	But if you're being ditched by a bad person.
	Most probably that's for good, okay?
	And maybe, you know, these are circumstances in life where, you know, we are in a sense confronted with things we find painful, but maybe this is an incentive for thinking and I want an incentive for self-mastery and growth.
	And I really hope Destiny has a better partner afterwards and have a meaningful life and a happy one.
	And one suggestion, that one first step, because it usually starts with first steps.
	You know, what do they say?
	A journey of a thousand... A thousand miles begins with the first step.
	...begins with the first step.
	So the first step is basically a Lotus Eater subscription.
	You can visit their website.
	Symposium 48, and watch the discussion I had with Josh on Miyamoto Musashi's Book of Five Rings, The Samurai Way of the Sword, an excellent way of achieving self-mastery.
	There's a comment section, you can get into arguments with all sorts of people down there.
	Yeah, you can.
	So basically, and just also with £5 a month, you can gain access to all our lovely premium content.
	So that's the first step.
	And the second step is...
	Just listen to common sense.
	And let me just end with this because in our segment, I also mentioned Will Smith, Chris Rock, and what Jada Pinkett Smith calls the holy slap.
	Now, I'm not defending the slap.
	Personally, I think it was a big mistake.
	It wasn't good, especially if we think that Chris Rock was a comedian and Will Smith had Comedic background, I think, in the Fresh Prince of Bel-Air.
	But what I wanted to say is that what it says here is that she said that the Slaps sort of saved their marriage.
	And I want to build on that idea and say one thing.
	It says here that this revealed that they were secretly separated for seven years.
	And they lived completely separate lives.
	You can look at it here.
	And they were a bit exhausted with trying.
	And what she said, that they weren't even living together.
	And where is it?
	Made a promise that there will never be a reason for us to get a divorce.
	So what she says that when she saw the slap take place, she sort of felt that they were about to do the bond, to bond again.
	And I want to say this because I don't think it's a coincidence that she thinks that a display of a kind of acquisitiveness, I mean, obviously you use the word acquisitiveness for possessions, maybe it's the wrong word, but in a relationship where you're committed, you're saying you're my partner, okay?
	There is a kind of... It's assertive.
	It's assertive.
	Maybe that's the word.
	So I don't think it's a coincidence that you have a very famous couple who was, in a sense, practicing an open relationship.
	I think that's the most famous couple who did this.
	And after years of, let's say, living separately, she thought that an action that, according to this polygamy perspective, is insecurity, is what actually saved their marriage.
	And at least make her more interested in trying again.
	Interesting how that works, isn't it?
	Yeah.
	So I want to end again with a positive thing, and I hope to destiny that you find a really good partner and live a meaningful life and a happy one.
	A happy message to end off with.
	Yeah.
	Congratulations, boys.
	You have defeated feminism.
	However, your actions do not come without consequences.
	The carnage caused during the battle has sent the invading hordes fleeing towards the north.
	Ah, that's fine.
	The men of the North know how to take care of little piss-takers like them.
	Maybe I haven't made myself clear.
	The invaders ventured north, north.
	Wait, you don't mean- Yes.
	The invading hordes have crossed into the realm of the barbarians, the forbidden lands of the Huw White people.
	Oh, no, no, no.
	Well, that's not good.
	I don't get it.
	What's the problem?
	Him.
	Come back next time to find the daring adventures of the... I like Harry the Pirate.
	I like Harry the Pirate as well.
	He's my new favourite version of myself.
	I prefer him to the real me.
	God, I wish I was him.
	Go to the next one.
	Whether a symptom or a cause, progressives seem to lack basic reading comprehension.
	Reading complex literature fosters critical thinking, which again explains progressives.
	Just as a small child would not be able to read War of the Worlds, Progressives cannot understand why their views are contradictory.
	I'm also glad that you enjoy me showing off my mech projects, but I'm not just making these entirely for the lols.
	I do have an end goal in mind.
	He's now put his end goal on screen for people listening, which is, the end goal is walking fully motorized power armor.
	Which yes, okay, I can wholeheartedly agree that's a good goal and I've fantasized about it a lot myself.
	How do you profit from this?
	What is Mardukism?
	I shouldn't put a question.
	Profit.
	Marduk is a Mesopotamian deity.
	I can't.
	Interesting name.
	It's a microphone, I can't.
	Let's go to the next one.
	That was it?
	That was it.
	The next one was just unfortunate.
	That was just going to make us all sad again.
	Yeah.
	Well, go to the comments.
	So, Lewis McDonagh says... Someone who has a really close name.
	Lewis McDonagh.
	Oh, that's a fake name.
	It's a real name.
	What do you want about it?
	It's like my last name.
	It's not real.
	Yeah, anyway, Calum and Dank are only fans of Hype Train, so yeah, get on board.
	Karambit says, hello, hello, Reloaded Seasons crew.
	Normally I am lazy, so I don't catch these live, as I'm American, and who likes getting up at 8?
	Fair enough.
	But I am here today.
	I hope you're all doing well.
	Well, yes.
	Go back to bed.
	Anyway, Sophie Levs says...
	Couraging good habits and behaviours from our audience, I see.
	Sophie says, Callum has been visiting the Turkish barber I see, no haircut?
	No.
	Deaf dude?
	No.
	I mean, I'm a boycott Turkish barbers.
	I went to the Portuguese because they're not a bunch of people smuggling, drug peddling, ISIS lovers.
	Did you not go to the hairdresser's I told you about?
	What was that one?
	The one around... The one in Swindon that actually employs English people.
	I've probably forgotten about it.
	Well, I like the Brazilian guys.
	They're like, um, what's his name as well?
	Bolsonaro.
	Oh, okay.
	Fair play.
	International nationalist.
	Grant Gibson says, I purpose... I propose...
	My parrot is... I propose a trade... No, I'm correcting you.
	What's that thing called?
	Grammarly.
	That's what I was meant to say.
	I'm your anti-dyslexic parrot.
	Yeah.
	I propose a trade to the leftists.
	We will implement sustainable energy.
	You allow us to do net zero migration.
	That's a win-win for us, to be honest.
	I really quite like sustainable energy goals, it's just the ones they pick are retarded.
	Like solar farms.
	Which council was it?
	I think it was Essex Council went bankrupt because they invested in a solar farm here in Wiltshire.
	And the guy who sold it to them was like, yeah, it makes double this electricity that it says, trust me bro.
	Obviously it didn't.
	So the value of their investment halved when the truth came out, which bankrupted them?
	Do you reckon there's, like, a ceiling for local councils for how smart you're allowed to be?
	You have to take an IQ test.
	If you score too high, you're disbarred.
	Yeah, probably.
	But I mean, sorry, like, you were investing in a solar farm in Wiltshire.
	Are you stupid?
	But of course that wasn't going to make backyards of money.
	Whatever.
	Anyway, so Omar Awad says, imagine spending you... Imagine pretending you integrate... I swear it gets worse with every cough.
	Imagine pretending to you integrate your immigrants And not holding them to the same standards.
	And then someone has scribbled out everything else from that, so I can't read it.
	I'm sorry.
	I'm sorry, Omar.
	You'll have to write less terrorism next time.
	Connor Lewis says, in regards to not being asked, it's even worse than not have been asked.
	We have been asked with every general election and the referendum on the EU, and we were just disregarded.
	That is true.
	That is totally true.
	Yeah, that hurts.
	Francis Taylor says, why would you shame the native people?
	That's just dumb.
	Yeah.
	Because you hate them.
	Well, that's the thing.
	I mean, that's why I don't really... I can't really get angry at the TV or the radio when I'm listening to proactive stuff.
	Because you know that person isn't really real.
	There was a slot that's open for propaganda, and they just pick anyone.
	Yeah.
	Replace Sanjita with David Langley.
	Ooh, foreign name!
	Ooh, that's what we'll put there.
	Well, think about it.
	I mean, James O'Brien, Sajita, David Lammy, I'm thinking of who's on LBC, right?
	They're all replaceable.
	Utterly replaceable.
	Because what matters is just the message.
	They're not real human beings, but an interesting personality.
	I mean, who wants to hang out with James O'Brien?
	Do you want to be berated about how stupid you are?
	If I ever see David Lammy in public now, I'm going to point at him and shout, you're not real!
	I know you're not real!
	You can't fool me!
	I'm getting off this plane!
	But sincerely, like James O'Brien, all he does is tell everyone else that they're stupid because they don't agree with him.
	That's what LBC presenters are there for.
	Yeah, it's not... Sentences are the exact same thing.
	They're not humans, they're just robots, when they're actually performing.
	Derek Power says... So, we natives can't see other people as homogenous blocks, yet we are all collectively vilified and even dehumanized.
	Telly sting.
	Yes.
	Hector Rex says... It takes a massive dump in the street, knifes a baby.
	Police officer, what are you doing?
	Integrating, what else?
	As you were, sir.
	I was listening to LBC, you see.
	It's a failure of the community that there isn't enough free toilet roll everywhere.
	Yeah, you don't need toilet roll.
	That's what the left hand's for.
	Maybe I haven't integrated yet.
	Stelios, that's very racist.
	What did I say?
	You assumed they wanted to use toilet roll.
	Think about that.
	How do you actually wipe with your hand and then not kill yourself?
	Your hand's covered in shit.
	I mean, they are all very short, Callum.
	There's got to be a reason.
	No, but sincerely, I imagine if you actually sat down and used your hand.
	I don't want to think about that.
	No, but that's my point.
	I mean, sincerely, how does the global South live with themselves?
	My disgust mechanism alone prevents me from even thinking about that in any great way.
	Even conceptualizing it as often.
	I can't, like... That's what I mean.
	I just, I don't know.
	You'd have to go and wash your hands.
	You can't...
	I'm sad now.
	But if you're in the street, there's no... Oh, God.
	I'm disgusted, outraged, horrified.
	Cringe.
	Very cringe.
	Matthew Duffel says, I hate it when LBC radio hosts make condescending remarks to the callers, then mute them to make what they seem like a monologue that makes it look like they just own the caller.
	Yeah.
	I was about to read that.
	I just wanted to... I'm just going to hand off reading privileges to you.
	I wanted to hurry things up.
	Yeah, I was thinking, because I remember I called up LBC once.
	That's why I was pausing.
	Did you actually?
	Yeah, I spoke to Jacob Rees-Mogg, who had a show for some bloody reason.
	And I hijacked it, really, because he was asking about, does anyone here support the Cuck Party?
	No one did.
	So I just called and went, yeah, whatever, I'll say I support them.
	And then I just snuck in a question about Dankula.
	But you'll hear it when you notice it.
	There's actually a button, and you do hear it on the radio show.
	Like a click.
	And that's them muting the caller, saying, OK, I'm just going to monologue now, and I've owned you.
	And so, yeah, you're right.
	That is a real thing, which is cringe.
	But anyway, on that note, let's move to the Red Scare.
	Yeah, so JJHW says, we will know our disinformation... Now you've infected me with it!
	We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.
	William J. Casey, CIA director.
	No surprise there.
	Matt.
	Leftists get their understanding of fascism from spiteful commies who hate their own societies and view any continuity with the past as fascism.
	Yeah, that's true.
	They don't read primary sources because they're so suggestible that they're terrified of becoming card-carrying fascists themselves.
	Yeah.
	Like with James O'Brien and all these people, they are just NPCs.
	They're just waiting for the new programming, so they don't want to integrate, like, read any of this stuff because they're worried that, oh my god, if I read it, they might make reasonable arguments that I might agree with.
	No, I can't have that.
	Well, you do see those sometimes.
	I'm trying to remember the specific example, but I think it was either the BBC or the police service who were being interviewed after investigating far-right terrorism.
	And they were hanging out with, I can't remember the exact organization, but they're just like, yeah, we don't want more immigrants in Britain.
	They're hanging out with these guys, and then they end up charging one of them for sending a text message.
	And the guy being interviewed, who was the mole, was just like, yeah, they were really convincing.
	That's their trick.
	That's the worst part, is all their arguments are correct.
	Sincerely?
	That was his complaint.
	He was like, these far-right guys, man, they're really good at recruiting and tricking people into believing them because they're really convincing.
	They have all of these graphs, and when you look at the sources, it's actually from government figures.
	Can you believe it?
	Disgusting.
	It's comical how often that happens.
	Bleach Demon.
	The waves of red terror have been glossed over in a horrendous manner.
	The other more insidious aspect is that the Reds have been entrenching themselves into systems and taking them over like cancer.
	Yes, and for a much longer time than you would expect.
	Matt P. The Red Scare wasn't a scare, it was just an unsuccessful attempt to root out communist infiltrators in the US government.
	Yeah, sadly unsuccessful.
	Paul Newbar.
	I'm amazed that you can correctly identify the Red Scare as justified and yet be so accepting of the present invasion of Europe by the Russian Empire.
	When have I ever said anything of the sort?
	Bleach Demon!
	I didn't quite understand that one.
	I think he's accusing us of being pro-Russia in the Ukraine-Russia thing.
	Sorry, I'm not following.
	I don't know either.
	I don't believe I've ever said anything like that.
	I don't know about any of you guys, but...
	Bleach Demon.
	I know that Kyle's argued with Sitch and Adam about it, but beyond that, I don't remember making any comments.
	Feel free to correct me and remind me if I have.
	Bleach Demon.
	Good to see that more are talking about the truth of the Red Scare, the package bombings by the Gallanists, and the Wobblies that lead up to the 1919 attacks.
	Someone online, when arguing with these ignorant people, most people were taught in school that the Red Scare was a witch hunt that did nothing but attack random oppressed groups for no reason.
	Yeah, and that's one of the reasons I remember being taught in my English class, I think it was, The Crucible.
	The Arthur... he was married to Marilyn Monroe for a little bit.
	Arthur something or other, I forget his name, play, where it's all about the witch hunts in the Salem in the 1600s in New England.
	And how this was directly analogous to the McCarthyist witch hunts of the 1950s.
	And Razorfist, when he's spoken about this, has a really good line on it, which is that, yeah, well, thing is, witches aren't real.
	Communists are.
	And they were in the government.
	So this is a complete non sequitur to go like, oh, you're trying to root me out because I might be a communist?
	Well, you're just like the witch hunters of the night of the 1600s.
	No, this doesn't follow whatsoever.
	Sophie Liv, a violent communist?
	That's ridiculous, Harry.
	It's called fiery but mostly peaceful.
	I forgot to make my affirmation, sorry.
	Charles Burgess, not to mention the coal war in 1920s Appalachia.
	Granted, the coal companies were violent themselves, but pushes for violence against the miners was driven by socialists and the union movement, which resulted in a full-pitched battle involving aircraft and machine guns.
	The National Guard and Army Air Corps also had to be called in to put it down.
	That's very interesting.
	I'm going to go back to the criticism, because I quite like criticism.
	Oh yeah, go on.
	So I think I've fully understood it now.
	So Paul said, how can you correctly identify the Red Scare and not understand the threat posed by the Russian Federation in the modern world being similar?
	I sincerely just don't think it is, because the Red Scare is, well, the communists are going to overrun the Russian Federation.
	The Russian Empire, essentially.
	And then they explicitly said, and have the means, to then expand that revolution to Europe, Asia, and then America.
	Whereas the Russian Federation, I just find it's... The fear of them I find kind of silly, because at the same time as we're being told that they're going to invade all of Europe, they can't take out the Ukrainian army.
	So the idea that they're going to harm NATO, even militarily, is just kind of not something I'm scared of.
	So that's why.
	Also, if there were more parallels between the two of them, then you would have to believe the Russian interference in the election conspiracy theory, because Russia and the Soviets did have units, well, did have insiders in lots of different Western governments subverting it.
	For instance, Harry Dexter White, who was one of the people who helped in the FDR administration, later on turned out to be a Soviet spy who'd been funneling information.
	We had, was it the Cambridge Five?
	We did that.
	On active measures.
	On the Soviets, you're absolutely right.
	We're very effective at getting either agents or active measures into the Western world, whereas the Russian Federation has been like comically bad at that.
	The examples given in the book, for example, where you mentioned the Russian election interference story.
	And when the guy, Thomas Redd, who did the investigation on that for the book, laid it out, there were a bunch of guys who worked in an office in St.
	Petersburg called the Internet Research Agency, and they just posted crap memes.
	And the viewership of these crap memes were pathetically low, even though they were paid for by the Russian guys doing it.
	Until the New York Times found it and then made all the memes on the front page story just like, look at this!
	Look at them interfering!
	It's like, nobody saw these.
	This had no influence.
	They spent loads of money to get nothing.
	And then the New York Times is just like, look, this is how Trump won.
	I don't think they're the same threat.
	The two don't overlap as far as I'm concerned either.
	I appreciate the comment.
	Last one for mine, Theodore Brewer from America.
	John Brown murder of a slave-owning family, children included.
	Revolutionary violence has been common for revolutionary agitators.
	That's true, and John Brown was also not just murdering a slave-owning family.
	As you mentioned, it's the children included, and I don't know if you want to be able to say that the children, because they were related to slave owners, deserved it too.
	But John Brown didn't care.
	Glad that man died.
	Okay.
	Matt P. Stelios has a polyamorous relationship with other hosts.
	Did Callum agree to this arrangement?
	No, I've been betrayed.
	Don't feel jealous, Callum.
	Duh.
	What are you, insecure, Callum?
	Omar Awad, polyamory somewhat similar to the random pleb who wins millions on the lottery, blows everything in two years and ends up back at square one, but with less friendships and family bonds than they started with.
	I think that's a really insightful comment.
	And it reminds me of some relationships of some friends of mine had in the past where, you know, the guy was hanging out with a really a lass that I didn't think was good enough for him.
	And at some point she asked him if he would be interested in having a third person in, a female person.
	And I said, that's bad.
	It's a matter of time.
	If you say yes, it's a matter of time.
	She's going to ask for a third man to join the thing.
	And, you know, I was right.
	Someone online.
	It's almost as if cheating destroys relationships.
	Have you got a study?
	Have you got a study proving that?
	Has it been peer-reviewed?
	By who?
	What's the methodology?
	Captain Charlie the Beagle.
	Regarding Destiny's marriage, I think there needs to be a list of marriages that were publicly open but have since broken up.
	Just so we can show the proof it never worked.
	George Happ, no woman is worth trampling your dignity and watching her sleep around.
	The moment she suggests that is the moment you leave her.
	Open relationships basically mean that the woman can cheat without judgment.
	A cynical implementation of Alpha F's Beta Bucks.
	Yeah.
	I think that's, that's close to what I sort of said about the friend I had in the past.
	Yeah.
	All right.
	Well, on that note, we're out of time.
	So if you'd like more.
	Go and check it out.
	If you don't, don't.

▲