Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Dec. 21, 2023 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:30:29

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #811

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast of the dying people.
	Yes, me and Callum are both ill.
	We've got Connor in a sickness sandwich here.
	Giant ass.
	Yes.
	I'm your host Connor, trying not to get the bubonic plague.
	Today we're discussing how Trump's been banned from the ballot in Colorado, how the game is rigged against us and how even the migrants are leaving, which We can only hope.
	But before we kick off, if you're listening to this live on the website at three o'clock UK time today, we've got lads hour number 16.
	We're talking about pet peeves because Josh and Bo wanted to moan and I'll be drinking in the corner.
	Maybe me, yeah.
	So if you have any pet peeves, subscribe, become a Gold Tier member.
	If you like whinging, you'll love listening to me because that's all I do outside of being on camera.
	I have sat next to Josh for now nearly two years and I can confirm if there was a gold medal in being embittered, he would win it many times over.
	But if you want to tell us your pet peeves, go subscribe, put a comment on the website.
	Keep the business running.
	Thanks very much.
	Also, tomorrow, last Gold Zoom of the year.
	So, again, yeah, if you're not a Gold Team member, still time to join.
	Callum may or may not be dead.
	It might be your last one, boys.
	So you've got to make it, otherwise Callum might be carried away in a body bag.
	Yeah, if you want to catch tuberculosis through the cables.
	Come join us.
	Look, it's right before Christmas.
	We're all low energy.
	We're going to try and fight for it.
	Anyway, Josh, kick off the stories.
	So, yeah, Trump's been banned from running in Colorado.
	That's what's happened.
	And I wanted to talk about some of the details of it, because obviously this is quite an unprecedented thing.
	And here is the Reuters article talking about it.
	And it gives some important details.
	And a lot of this is sort of bogged down in sort of local Colorado law as well as constitutional law.
	So I'm not going to pretend to know all of this to a level that is comparable to a scholar of law.
	So I'm going to just recite what other people are saying.
	But, you know, that's normally what happens.
	So they say a slim majority of the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Trump is disqualified from appearing on the state's ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
	Constitution, which bars anyone engaged in insurrection or rebellion from holding federal office.
	A lower court judge previously ruled that Trump's actions on January 6th, 2021, blah blah blah, And then I'm going to carry on saying, the Colorado Supreme Court paused its own ruling pending review by the U.S.
	Supreme Court, which Trump said he will immediately seek.
	And then Reuters goes on to ask, will it stand?
	And they spoke to a few experts and they said, it's not clear how the Supreme Court would rule, but it is dominated by a conservative majority that includes three Trump appointees, some of whom are longtime skeptics of giving courts powers that are not based on in legislation, which I think makes perfect sense in my mind.
	That was a top concern for the dissenting justices in the 4-3 Colorado decision, so it was quite close.
	One justice could have swung it either way, really.
	They were also all Democrats appointed judges, so the interesting thing here is three judges thought that this ruling was so egregious they couldn't even vote along party lines.
	I didn't know that, so that's very interesting.
	Because the district court, which was the lower one, which is why it got pushed up to the state Supreme Court, thought this wouldn't go through.
	So it got appealed, pushed up to the state Supreme Court.
	The state Supreme Court swung 4-3 along Democrat paths and lines, and now it's going to be kicked up to the federal Supreme Court.
	One of the reasons why Reuters is obviously editorialising, saying they're a Trump appointee, so it won't pass through, is to try and put pressure on them to do so, because they've lost the affirmative action case, they've lost the abortion case.
	But the case that Trump did lose was, obviously, they didn't, The Supreme Court didn't hear because of lack of standing, which doesn't make any sense.
	The election fortification cases about states like Pennsylvania Illegally, rushing through reforms to the state constitution to allow mail-in ballots.
	So, there is a possibility here that actually the Supreme Court, even though this law, as we'll go through with the actual ruling, is completely bogus, the Supreme Court, despite Clarence Thomas's best efforts, could actually swing against Trump.
	Yeah, I did consider that being a possibility because, of course, they do often find clauses in the constitutional law which might rule against what their actual personal political choices are, and there are cases whereby Supreme Court appointees have voted in ways that are counter to their convictions, based purely on the actual law.
	I've actually been through a fair few Supreme Court cases.
	As we'll learn here, there's not really any case history or precedent for them to rule using the 14th Amendment in this way, and the 14th Amendment wasn't written to apply to this particular case.
	And if it did, it would then get all the Democrats in a whole lot of trouble because of their various insurrections.
	We're going to be talking about that because I'm about to go through the wording of it and then we can see how it might actually just start this tit-for-tat thing whereby The Republicans can then be like, well, hang on a minute, doesn't this apply to you just as much?
	So let's have a look at the 14th Amendment.
	This is, what is it?
	This is Section 3, isn't it?
	So, the disqualification from holding office.
	No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress or Elector of President and Vice President or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States or any state
	Who, having previously taken an oath as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of the state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
	My goodness, the sentences were very, very long, weren't they, at that time.
	But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
	So, obviously the insurrection and rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof, One might say, well, hang on a minute, does that not apply to the people who, like the district attorneys in Portland, who didn't prosecute the people who set up the CHAZ?
	You know, that's a separatist state, that's a form of insurrection.
	Well, not just that.
	The activists who occupied various Capitol buildings after the Tennessee school shooting, holding up Seven fingers implying that the shooter themselves was also a victim, the feminists who stormed the Capitol building during the Brett Kavanaugh hearings, the recent Palestinian protesters who attacked the DNC or even stormed the Cannon House building which is on Capitol Hill.
	None of those, no, and it's because it's not about hypocrisy, it's about hierarchy.
	Well, yeah, it's just they're selectively using whatever they can to destroy their political enemies.
	They're not applying the rules fairly.
	And I think that, to be honest, it's in no one's interest to start pulling this sort of thing out, because it's only going to degenerate further.
	But at this point, I think it's only going to get worse.
	I think it's just honest, though.
	Again, the idea that the processes were ever going to be neutral, no.
	You have to value neutrality in order for things to be neutral, and the Democrats don't value neutrality.
	They believe there is no truth but power, therefore they're just going to use power when they can to crush their political enemies, even if it doesn't make any sense.
	So let's actually have a look at the write-up of the ruling.
	John, would you be able to go to page 98, and just type it in at the top, and then I should be able to take it from here.
	Here we're talking about the term insurrection, well, the Colorado courts are anyway, and notice here that they're talking about, there's the Noah Webster's dictionary definition, and then they go on to use the 2002 version to define insurrection.
	So, rather than using perhaps legal terminology, they're just saying, well here it is in a dictionary, this is our definition.
	And I'm not sure that's necessarily going to stand up in a court where there's perhaps a higher standard than simply, here is what a dictionary, which is the opinion of the people who wrote the dictionary, here's what they say.
	Well, they've gone to this because the district court said, according to the definition of insurrection in the 14th Amendment, and this is the reason the media went with the term insurrection after January 6th, because they were pushing towards the use of the 14th Amendment to bar Trump from running again.
	They said, well, we can't actually apply the 14th Amendment to Trump.
	So then they've now gone to the loosest possible definition, according to Webster's Dictionary, to try and make their argument fit.
	And it's because there's no case law precedent for using this in this way against a former president.
	It just doesn't exist.
	So they're just making it up as they go along.
	Absolutely.
	And of course, there's the obvious case that Trump couldn't have done more to prevent January 6th from happening.
	It's worth mentioning as well, I've done a bunch of work on Jan 6th, so I've got this article which came out on the 12th of Jan, and I spoke to a photographer, I spoke to him for about four hours, who was there on both January 5th and 6th, and he photographed lots of stuff, all the different causes.
	That's the rear exit where Jacob Lang, the January 6th prisoner who was facing the most charges, who I've also spoken to a couple of times, that's where he was allegedly In this rear exit where a lot of the violence happened.
	How curious US Capitol Police were not trying to pull down the protesters, but instead just standing around giving them the finger.
	I wonder if... Well, that wasn't the Capitol Police.
	That was a Capitol Police helmet that was being worn by one of the protesters.
	Ah, right.
	Okay.
	Well, I've seen Capitol Police letting them in the building.
	Yes.
	So... That rear exit was the only point where there was actually any conflict because they were preventing them from going in.
	Whereas in lots of the other entrances they're actually moving away the barriers and they're staying between the lines and it's all, it's like a tour group in some parts, right?
	Well at that rear entrance as well where they were tearing down the barricades that was happening well before Trump even finished his speech so you can't even say that Trump had commanded for people to go to the Capitol and break in.
	Yeah, it was 20 minutes before Trump had finished his speech.
	People were already, I suppose, having an altercation with the Capitol Police outside of the Capitol building.
	And also, because where Trump was and where this was going on, he couldn't actually see what was going on.
	And of course, he's giving a speech.
	It's not like he can get information handed to him or anything like that.
	He couldn't have just been like, oi, cut it out, because he was just unaware of it going on.
	And it's also worth mentioning as well, me and Hugo, props if you remember Hugo, back in the good old days, we created a timeline of exactly what happened on January 6th.
	And this was made on January 7th, when all the information was fresh.
	And we got all of the All of the times down, down to the minute, as to what exactly happened, and we linked external links to verify everything.
	And so, this is a good resource if you actually want to know what really went down, along with the photographs, you should get a relatively good picture of what happened.
	But, I wanted to read some of the things from here, because some of them are quite important to this recent ruling.
	So 12.53 is the first important one.
	So some Trump supporters breach the outer barricade at the Capitol 20 minutes before Trump's speech at the Ellipse ends.
	And then we move to 1.12.
	There are more clashes with police underway and pepper sprays being used.
	Trump's speech finally ends and Other people at this point who are aware of what's going on are saying you need to remain peaceful, stop doing this.
	Like other Trump supporters, other prominent voices.
	Like you had Alex Jones with a megaphone saying stop it, don't you see this is stupid, this is a trap.
	Well, Trump himself said, peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.
	And then, after the Capitol had been breached, he made a video to then be posted on social media saying, go home in peace and love, which he was then banned for, and the video was taken down.
	Yes.
	In fact, I've linked that here as well, just to show that it does exist.
	So, 239, small protests are trying to enter through the buildings.
	Other protests are telling them off.
	Some of them were actually beating up some of the vandals of the Capitol building for trying to destroy the Capitol building.
	To present it as some sort of insurrection where many of the insurrectionists are beating up the other insurrectionists.
	That doesn't really make sense to my mind.
	And at this point as well, he trumps, please support our capital police and law enforcement.
	They are truly on the side of our country.
	Stay peaceful.
	He had asked the National Guard to be called in and Nancy Pelosi told them no.
	And it's almost like they knew something might have happened ahead of time.
	I wonder if we'll get any information on this in the court ruling.
	That's the fact.
	Yeah, I believe one of my favourite galactic admirals has a term for this.
	It's a trap.
	Yes.
	So 3.13, this is the final part I'm going to read from this.
	Protests are entering various offices inside the Capitol building and then Trump tweets again.
	I am asking for everyone in the US Capitol to remain peaceful, no violence.
	Remember, we are the party of law and order.
	Respect the law and our great men and women in blue.
	Thank you.
	I mean, it can't really get more stark than that in my mind.
	And then just to prove the point, the tweets are still up.
	Please support Capital Police, that one.
	The time's not right because it's converted to British time.
	But if you're American or you have a VPN set to America, you'll be able to verify the time as well.
	And here's the other one as well.
	That's the one I just read out.
	So yeah, obviously, This is being misrepresented, and I know that this is sort of common, well-trodden ground, but I wanted to refresh everyone's memory of it because it was two years ago, right?
	So it's important stuff, and particularly when it's getting to a Supreme Court case.
	The devil is in the details here.
	Well one of the details they use as well during the Colorado ruling is they try to draw upon information from the January 6th committee which was improperly formed because it didn't have the right number of bipartisan representatives, even representatives among the Republican Party from whenever Trump was, but they admitted hearsay evidence and they knowingly did so and even the Colorado ruling acknowledged they did so and said we're still going to use the evidence anyway even though it's Improper.
	And they had that mad woman who said that Trump leaned through the glass door of the beast limousine to try and take control of the wheel and drive backwards.
	That should instantly discredit it when you contrast it with what Trump was actually doing on Twitter and on video.
	That doesn't make any sense, does it?
	But yeah, this is the video that got removed.
	I'm not going to play it, but you can find it linked in the sources down below on the website.
	But none of this really matters though, does it?
	What do you mean?
	As in, it's not necessarily, they're not going to look at the evidence.
	This is more for us to show that yes, actually they are full of it.
	Don't get me wrong, it's important to discredit their obvious lies, but that's the interesting thing.
	I mean, you're mentioning the January 6th committee.
	The amazing thing that came out of that is that no one cared.
	You may remember the viewership numbers when CNN tried to endlessly cover it, the polling of people, what they thought of it, of this story as well.
	No one gives a crap about the narrative they tried to conjure up.
	Which, obviously they had to try, and it's good to discredit the obvious lie, but all of this is just, as Tucker Carlson said, they hate Trump and they will do literally anything to make sure he doesn't win.
	I think the whole January 6th and the insurrection terminology, it's like a cat's belly to then go on to do even more egregious things that they might not have otherwise gotten away with.
	This is what terrifies me about this story is that you get this attempt in Colorado to make sure that people aren't allowed to vote for the man that they hate.
	And of course this is probably going to get thrown down by the Supreme Court is the understanding.
	But if they're willing to do that, and they're not really happy enough with that, they're going to go further.
	What exactly are they willing to do?
	Because, I'm sure you'll have it, which is that some lieutenant of Colorado wrote to every other state asking them to explore every possible way that their state could get him banned.
	California's now investigating it formally.
	Yeah, it's not just this one.
	I've got that, yeah, I'm gonna pull that up in a sec.
	I don't really know what the limit is here for these people.
	This isn't even Pete Bluenon yet.
	And this is the mad thing, because we're not dealing with a country that's split down the line on this issue, as the polling shows of people's opinions of Jiang's 6th committee, because it was just so mad, as you rightly say.
	No one believes any of this crap, that this is actually logically coherent.
	So instead, you just have this, what, 20% of the country sort of rabidly believing anything the Democratic elites say, which is, we hate Trump, we have to keep him out at all costs.
	And they're alone in that belief.
	So if they just keep pushing this, I mean, what happens if you end up kicking Trump actually off a few ballots?
	Well, no matter what, no one's going to accept the 2024 election.
	And that's the sort of thing that in Yugoslavia caused the civil wars.
	Like, I hate to be the, ah, Tim Paul guy that's like, Civil War's coming, but sincerely, this is actually the end of democracy.
	This isn't some hyperbole from CNN hosts who's like, my black son can't vote in five states in one election.
	Like, no, the dude can't vote for the opposition.
	Well, there was an MSNBC contributor who said to current Republicans who are opposing this, why are you siding with Confederates?
	This man's trying to overthrow democracy.
	So this is, we need to take Trump out of the options in order to preserve democracy because he is against democracy.
	It's a very strange approach to democracy, isn't it?
	Because even if he is everything that they say he is, surely, if you actually cared about democracy, people should still be able to vote for him.
	Like, if democracy was your main value, right?
	It doesn't matter what someone believes.
	But that's not the case, is it?
	But that's the interesting thing, like, that doesn't convince anyone.
	Like, unless you're dealing with a rabid democratic partisan, no one is believing any of this crap.
	And yet they're still willing to keep putting their knee on the neck, in which they're just like, no, no, no, whatever happens, he's not allowed to be part of the election.
	So, this is quite interesting as well.
	This is Viva Frey pointing out in the Colorado ruling, this part.
	So, along the same lines, the Federal Bureau of Investigations received many tips regarding the potential for violence on January 6th.
	I'm going to scroll down and read one of the quotes that they've included in their ruling.
	They think they'll have a large enough group to march into D.C.
	armed and will outnumber the police so they can't be stopped.
	They believe that since the election was stolen, it's their constitutional right to overtake the government during this coup.
	No U.S.
	laws apply.
	Their plan is to literally kill.
	Please, please take this tip seriously and investigate further.
	So why would the FBI Get this tip and perhaps not take it seriously.
	It's almost like Trump made an enemy of the FBI by rightfully criticizing them, and they have allowed him and his supporters to walk into some sort of trap.
	It's funny, isn't it?
	The interesting implication is they did act on it.
	They absolutely acted on it.
	That's why the assistant director wouldn't tell Ted Cruz whether or not there were federal agents operating during January 6th, and how many.
	And it's not that they didn't act on this tip, it's that they likely actively facilitated the Capitol break-out.
	They acted on it in a very different way, in that they encouraged it.
	Ray Epps, as you mentioned.
	It's curious how all the regime media run interference for this one guy, and he's one of the only guys caught on camera saying, we need to go into the Capitol.
	It's funny.
	So there have been lots of responses.
	Of course, one of the main ones is from Trump.
	So this is what he posted on Truth Social.
	I like this account because it means I don't have to go on multiple websites, but he just says, a sad day in America, as well as what a shame for our country, which, you know, I completely understand those sentiments.
	Here is another.
	Biden should drop all of these fake political indictments against me, both criminal and civil.
	Every case I'm fighting is the work of the DOJ and White House.
	No such thing has ever happened in our country before.
	Banana Republic.
	Election interference.
	I love the image of him fat thumbing it on the gold toilet and Trump Tower.
	So, Razorfist had quite an interesting perspective on this.
	Godspeed.
	He said, a state level court in Colorado using a federal level amendment as a pretext to remove a candidate from a ballot in a federal election is some laughed clean out of court Cock and bull, but the point isn't necessarily for it to stick.
	The intent is to trigger a cascade to normalise this for other blue and purple states, which is why it isn't enough to merely overturn this at the Supreme Court level.
	Consequences such as disbarment or, yes, even prosecutions of the prosecutors and judges must be imposed or the cascade will continue and the courts will continue to grab for electoral powers they do not possess.
	And if any lessons from history that we might have learnt over our study of it It is that if people are presented with an opportunity to consequence-free grab at power, which they may well be able to get away with, they probably will.
	Well, the Democrats are right in saying the Constitution is living and breathing, not in that the text of the Constitution is up for interpretation, but the Constitution can only be applied as long as the people applying the law believe in it.
	And they just don't believe in it.
	So what you're seeing here is a diversion away from procedure and the rule of law towards consensus reality.
	And with the procedure being the punishment for Trump, it doesn't matter whether or not it's going to be overthrown by the Supreme Court in this one case.
	If California does it, if all of the other Democrat dominoes fall, then they've got too many moles to play whack-a-mole with and just going to get a country split in two where he's going to be on half the ballots in the red states and just not on any in the blue states.
	They're just all going to agree to strike it.
	Yeah, well, it seems like that's already started because the California Lieutenant Governor has written to the Secretary of State to explore every legal option to remove the former President Donald Trump from California's 2024 presidential primary ballot.
	So there we go.
	There are also some other responses from people purportedly on the right.
	Vivek Ramaswamy is saying that he pledges to withdraw from the Colorado GOP primary ballot until Trump is allowed back on the ballot.
	And I very much agree with Matt Walsh's perspective on this.
	Matt Walsh says, I'm popular opinion, but I don't think this is the right move.
	You aren't punishing the left by withdrawing from the ballot.
	Of course.
	I mean, I would have thought that this was obvious.
	If anything, you're just encouraging them to keep doing this kind of thing.
	A protest has to hurt the enemy or it's totally ineffective.
	How does this hurt the enemy?
	Okay.
	But the goal isn't to hurt the enemy, which is what Vivek's doing here.
	This is the thing.
	This is why it's a short-sighted reading.
	The goal is for Vivek to further align with Trump.
	So, Trump being the frontrunner by a factor of 5 to 10.
	Is going to be the Republican nominee, whether or not he's sitting in prison for some bogus charge.
	And so Vevek's going, okay, he's most likely going to pick a female VP, but I'd rather he pick me.
	And if I'm straight out the gate, um, legitimizing things like the great replacement and the like, making a lot of rhetorical breathing room for talking points on the right, and I'm the fiercest critic of the regime while also being the most loyal to Trump out of the primary candidates, then I'm going to firmly slot myself in as a VP or cabinet pick.
	And so Vevek's lining himself up for a job.
	Well, if Trump can't run in half the states, it's a pretty short-sighted thing to do, don't you think?
	Yeah, but this is what I'm saying.
	What election will be accepted if the leading candidate for the opposition is not on the ballot?
	It actually doesn't matter if they're going to take him off the ballot, really.
	Because one, there'll be write-ins.
	Two, there'll be riots.
	There will be riots.
	If he's struck off all of the primary ballots and the election ballots in blue states, nobody's going to accept an election.
	I'm not saying it's right.
	That's the more philosophical reason for taking yourself out, which is, okay, we just have to do whatever we can as the right to delegitimize the election then, because you have just made it completely unacceptable by taking off the opposition candidate, which has happened in a lot of countries throughout history for a long time.
	Like the Serbs very often, if there was an election, they just didn't recognize, they just wouldn't turn up and vote.
	And obviously they'd lose the election because only the cryouts or something could vote in whatever election's going on.
	But it meant that the election was completely null and void, no one really cared about it.
	So there is a reason for doing this.
	It's not just the Serbs, there's plenty of others.
	But I mean, again... It's a risk though, isn't it?
	That strategy?
	That's the game you've got to play.
	I mean, if your candidate can't even be on the ballot, then what's the point?
	So there's... Well, the writing's not on the wall yet in that this could go to the Supreme Court and it could get But Racerfist makes an interesting point, though, because Colorado, for example, you look at any of the polling, even with everything that's gone on that's swung back towards Trump's favor, Colorado is a deeply blue state.
	They're going to go Joe Biden.
	So of all the places to start it, and then California, another place that is going to go to Joe Biden.
	Of course, start there and then move it into the swing states to actually properly rig the election.
	Because I did some calculations the other day because I wanted to see what the effect of this was.
	So I just looked up the polling for the various states that could swing.
	Donald Trump is planning to, at least by the polling, probably win a massive outright majority.
	He's getting 312 electoral seats by just running on, what is it, a 2270 election campaign.
	It is also, oh sorry.
	It is worth mentioning that even in Colorado, which to my knowledge tends to be quite blue, it was a 4-3 vote to do this right.
	You get to a state where Trump actually stands a good chance of winning and perhaps their judiciary are going to be a bit more torn.
	Well, one of the reasons they're bricking it as well is because of population changes.
	And Charlie Kirk's done the map on this.
	The electoral college seats are weighed more towards Republican-leaning swing states and Republican states because of the amount of outflow from California to places like Texas and Florida.
	So Trump has got an electoral college advantage as well as just a polling advantage.
	So that's probably why they're trying to fortify it as hard as they can.
	I mean, in this case, they're just doing it outright.
	I mean, that's fascinating.
	Frankly, for an end of an American empire, this is a hell of a way to go.
	But I'm just thinking of the real funny output that could happen if, let's say, California takes him off the ballot.
	He obviously was never going to win there anyway, so it seems kind of pointless.
	But then the election results of 2024 show that California voted 99% for Joe Biden.
	It's a bit North Korean, isn't it?
	Yeah.
	And suddenly, I don't know, Donald Trump's total vote share compared to Joe Biden's is like way lower, but he's got way more electoral college votes.
	I mean, every attempt here just seems to be to try and delegitimize elections because they know they're definitely going to lose here.
	It's like everything's being controlled by someone trying to undermine the notion of democracy, isn't it?
	It's funny.
	It's all being done in the name of democracy and yet it's doing the complete opposite.
	It's just skin suiting.
	Classic skin suiting.
	So the final thing I wanted to draw attention to is that the Daily Caller spoke to a bunch of law professors and People like that.
	And a lot of them are saying that the likelihood is, even though some of the rulings might have grounding at the state level, it's likely to be struck down in the Supreme Court.
	But I've been going on for quite a while, so I'm not going to go through and read all of them out.
	But basically they're saying, yes, likelihood is in the Supreme Court this is going to get struck down.
	But of course, you can never say never.
	You can't necessarily guarantee it because As with many courts, these sorts of decisions can be unpredictable and unprecedented.
	And so it's certainly something to keep an eye on, particularly if you're American.
	I have, you know, a lot of concerns about the direction of your country and I hope that it all goes well and things are resolved peacefully and safely and sensibly.
	Patriotically.
	Patriotically, yes.
	Good save, Callum.
	But I would be very surprised if things work out for the best in the end.
	Right, wonderful.
	I'm just going to nick your luxurious mouse mat.
	I am right-handed though, so I'm going to play.
	Pay no attention to what I'm moving across my legs.
	Here I come.
	Pull one out for Callum, ladies and gentlemen.
	He's doing his best.
	F's in the chat for Callum.
	Right.
	Let's fight with this script.
	She's just moaning about our various... Anyway.
	I'm warming up for the lads out there.
	Perfect.
	Brilliant.
	Right.
	Well, speaking of things that are being rigged against us, the Conservative Party has decided to persecute their only Conservative MP.
	Now, there are a couple of backbenchers that are trying their best.
	But quite a few are cowards, quite a few don't know how to articulate the issues of the day in the same way that Miriam Cates is capable of.
	And now she's under investigation, and much like with the current Trump investigations, it's bogus charge, but the process itself is the punishment.
	Because what happens here is no matter how innocent she very well likely is, the gag order placed on her around this particular issue means that she has to be very careful as to what policies that come out of government she criticizes and so the Conservative Party are playing containment with their most effective interior critic and the threat to the sort of perma party that exists on the front benches.
	So I've gone to the Guardian for a summary of this because they are the biggest smear merchants in the UK you can imagine but it also just seems that the Conservative Party are taking their talking points directly from the Guardian They genuinely have, haven't they?
	They're trying to outflank the Labour Party and the left through the left-hand path, haven't they?
	Read into that phrase what you will.
	I will be able to actually prove via anecdotes as well, first-hand, that the exact same accusations that the Lagardian have levelled at Miriam Cates have been levelled by senior members of the Conservative Party.
	This is something that I myself have heard.
	I mean, I'm kind of an expert on that, but anyway, point being, what they're doing to Kate, she's the MP for Penningstone and Stocksbridge since 2019.
	She's being investigated by the Parliamentary Standards Watchdog for actions causing significant damage to the reputation of the House as a whole or its members generally.
	This is a brief notice on the website.
	That's a very strong thing to claim, isn't it?
	Because, of course, I mean, Claudia Webb threatened to acid attack someone and she didn't necessarily have that accusation towards her, did she?
	No.
	As far as I'm aware anyway.
	But also, it's not really an accusation.
	What has she done?
	It hasn't been published what she's done.
	It's been suggested, we'll get onto the suggestion of what she might be being investigated for later, but they haven't said exactly how she brought the party into disrepute.
	It's deliberately vague.
	Danny Kruger's tweeted this out and he co-chairs the New Conservatives with her and he's said we as MPs and her voting constituents and the broader party members should know what she's being accused of.
	But we don't, and she's not allowed to talk about it.
	Very curious.
	So the inquiry falls under paragraph 17 of the updated 2019 Code of Conduct for MPs, which says, members shall never undertake any action which would cause significant damage to the reputation and integrity of the House of Commons as a whole, or of its members generally.
	The announcement doesn't give any further details.
	Investigations by the Commissioner, Daniel Greenberg, are kept confidential until the inquiry is concluded.
	So the inquiry, for an elected MP, bringing Parliament into disrepute, is conducted entirely behind closed doors until the verdict is delivered.
	So what, how are our constituents meant to feel about that?
	It's very secret service, isn't it?
	It's sort of, yes, we're interrogating someone, but the public's not allowed to see it.
	Exactly.
	It's almost like there's some sort of tomfoolery going on.
	Well, they can accuse you of anything and put you through the show trial and you can't protest in public.
	So the process is the punishment.
	Those under investigation are barred from discussing the allegations.
	And then they give a summary of Kate's in here.
	And this is why I think they're actually going after her, the Conservative Party and the Guardian.
	The former biology teacher is a strong advocate of policies to encourage women in the UK to have more children, echoing the ideas of European populists such as Hungary's Viktor Orban and Italy's Giorgia Maloney, and opposes allowing transgender people to self-identify.
	At a conference in May run by the US-based National Conservatism Group, it's also spearheaded by James Orr, who's a very English Cambridge academic who'll be You'll be able to see us talking too soon.
	Kate said the UK's low birthrate was the most pressing policy of the generation, blaming it in part on, quote, a cultural Marxism that is systematically destroying our children's souls.
	The use of cultural Marxism is controversial because it is a term referring to a conspiracy theory, often associated with the far right and anti-Semitism.
	Do we remember that smear by any chance?
	I do because I covered it, yeah.
	Yeah, you did a segment on this particular article that came out at the time.
	Just their summary of what they're accusing Cates of here is insane.
	Cultural Marxism is a term of abuse in a speech On Monday by the Conservative MP Miriam Cates, and it's a more straightforward version of the two ideas to pin down.
	It has its origins in a conspiracy theory that Marxist scholars of the Frankfurt School in interwar Germany, many of whom were Jewish, devised a program of progressive politics intended to undermine Western democracies.
	It's not a conspiracy theory, you can just read Dialectic of the Enlightenment.
	But it's also called cultural Marxism.
	They're highlighting the Marxist part.
	They're not highlighting the fact that the people at the Frankfurt School, most of them were Jewish.
	Otherwise, they would have called it something else.
	Cultural Judaism or something.
	The Marxist part is the objectionable part, I imagine.
	You may have noticed, I happen to know this author somewhat, Peter Walker.
	He used to come and basically just shit on UKIP every week.
	That was his job back when UKIP was around.
	And so literally his entire employment is just to make up stuff about the right wing in the UK and be like, look at them, they hate the Jews or they hate Browning.
	No way a journalist making up stuff about the right wing, that never happens.
	I'm pretty sure, I might be wrong, but definitely The Guardian, I think it was him, made up the lie that UKIP had announced concentration camps for Muslims in our 2019 manifesto.
	And everyone came out with the manifesto in their hands and then heard it on the radio that we'd announced that.
	It was like, what the hell are you talking about?
	Did we miss that?
	It wasn't in there.
	They just made it up.
	It was like, it's a hell of a thing to make up.
	You know, you would think in a society that values journalistic integrity, that would be defamatory.
	But it seems that He and Silk have suffered absolutely no consequences for that, and unfortunately the people that are suffering consequences for saying the truth and their convictions are Miriam Cates and the very few politicians that are on our side.
	The reason I say that, and the reason I don't believe that this inquiry is particularly transparent, is because I went to an event near Westminster about a week or so ago now, and this is my tweet here, and the reason I've pulled it up is because I wanted it in writing, and an advisor to a senior member of government Very treacherous, I'll let you speculate as to who, said to me point-blank, Miriam Cates is more National Socialist than National Conservative.
	This is a senior member of the Conservative Party's advisor, who obviously have pulling power over who in the party is going to get investigated, calling one of his colleagues a mid-century German.
	These people do not have your interests at heart, and any right-wing counter-movement within the party, they will smear as if it is one of their enemies.
	It's Conservative Party factionalism.
	It's like they're fighting over the ashes of a burnt Rome, aren't they?
	Well, it's uniparty factionalism because the same accusations levelled by the Guardian, which is the mouthpiece and the id of the Labour Party at Miriam Cates, are being levelled by people within the Conservative Party.
	It's almost like they're committed to the same trajectory of travel, they just want to negotiate what colour the car is.
	I think they realised that it worked against Jeremy Corbyn and so they're going to use the same strategy to get people out of the Conservative Party, particularly at this time when there's actually a conflict going on out that way.
	It might be even more inflammatory, I suppose.
	It's just totally nonsensical.
	Kate's has done nothing of the sort.
	If you're really trying to stretch the cultural Marxism conspiracy theory and mean she's anti-Semitic thing, you've just lost the plot.
	There's nowhere in her speech does she say about the Jews.
	Absolutely nowhere.
	She's been on board with saying the Hamas protest should be cracked down on because of the threat to British Jews.
	She's one of the best mates of Suella Braverman.
	I believe her husband is Jewish and Braverman has been on this drumbeat when she was Home Secretary for the exact same reason.
	So this is just a smear because Kate embarrasses the fact that the Conservative Party say one thing about stopping the boats and lowering migration and building more houses and fixing the economy and do completely the other because they want to gaslight the public into thinking they're actually doing what they're saying they're doing.
	There's also the notion as well that Marx had a lot to say about culture and so we just banned from talking about Marxism when applied to culture because that sliding in through the back door is quite an insidious thing isn't it?
	I should be careful using the word insidious.
	Yeah I know I nearly got arrested at Conservative Party conference.
	Notice how the party didn't do anything about that either.
	But yeah, if all of a sudden we can't talk about the influence of Marxism and Marxists on culture, and they're like, that's anti-Semitic, but you're like, hang on a minute, we're talking about their beliefs and their actions.
	We don't even know what their religious beliefs are.
	We're just talking about activists doing stuff.
	They're like, well, you can't.
	Well, then all political debate is shut down.
	Well, there's also the religious beliefs of a man who said religion is the opiate of the masses.
	Okay, I mean you must be smoking opium to believe this, but I wanted to highlight that because I think this is clearly politically motivated.
	And another reason I think this is politically motivated is because the speculated reason is ludicrous.
	So the Telegraph have reviewed this and they've complained about the lack of transparency.
	And in this they bury, well they don't bury, but buried in this is one of the allegations to what it could possibly be about.
	It's suggested that all members currently under investigation, because there are a bunch of other MPs also investigated for different reasons that we don't know about, but Kate's is just the latest.
	Went to an event during the COVID lockdown in 2020 that might have been construed as a breach of the rules, but the police have taken no action.
	Does this constitute significant damage to the reputation and integrity of the House?
	We should be told.
	Now, if that was the case, I mean, Rishi Sunak had to pay a fixed penalty notice for going to an event like this that was declared to be unlawful, and he's currently the Prime Minister, parachuted in by the other members.
	So I would suggest there's an element of hypocrisy there.
	But it's not that just the police have taken no action.
	It's that it was already investigated and the police said it didn't decide to meet, they decided it didn't meet the threshold for a further investigation.
	So if this really is the reason, it's a total nonsense reason, that's why I think it's a smokescreen to silence the most effective critic at a time leading up to the formation of their manifesto.
	For an election they look to be about to lose because actually Kate's and the New Conservatives have been generating out policy reports that have been cutting against what Westminster, Whitehall, Number 10 wants to do in terms of migration and universities and the like.
	The Conservatives are doing so much to alienate themselves from their core voter base that part of me thinks that it's a deliberate strategy at this point.
	Like, I almost believe that it's impossible to be this electorally incompetent and they actually are trying to lose as resoundingly as possible.
	Well, I would suggest that's probably the case when you put Michael Gove as levelling up secretary after being a failed leadership candidate.
	They even mean I hate that that department exists.
	He's in charge of house building Callum.
	So he's not building houses.
	Exactly.
	That's the point.
	He's the head of sitting there and getting a nice cushy paycheck.
	Well, particularly from the 25% of party donors who are property developers who have the incentive to keep demand high, supply low, prices inflated and mass migration coming in.
	So Michael Gove is like at the epicenter of all this, but I wouldn't suggest he's in any way related to any of this.
	This also might be another reason why she's being investigated.
	Do you remember the Rwanda vote that happened, like, last week?
	So, the person who wrangled the sort of five families together, the rebel vote, were Cates and Kruger, and an emergency breakfast was called on the morning of the vote where bacon sandwiches and, I hope, a very strong coffee for the wake-up call were handed out.
	Emergency bacon sandwiches.
	I'm not joking.
	In number 10.
	There was a breakfast to try- Wish I could have that.
	Say to Carl, I need an emergency bacon sandwich.
	I don't even have a bloody mouse, Matt.
	You'd be lucky to get anything that supplies around this office.
	But anyway, point B.
	So Rishi Sunak hauled them all in and tried to plead with them to get them into line.
	And the five families refers to here, and this is something that Keir Starmer mocked for acting like the mafia, but it's the...
	I'll just read from this article from the Mirror.
	Tory moderates are fighting to... oh no sorry, that's absolutely the wrong one.
	This was the coalition of the five families.
	So it was the One Nation Conservatives.
	It was the European Research Group.
	It was the New Conservatives, Common Sense Group, and the Northern Research Group, and the Conservative Growth Group.
	So all of these coalescing critics like Liz Truss, Priti Patel, Marc Francois, and Gates and Kruger were saying, well, the Rwanda bill is not really going to do anything, is it?
	It's too weak, and we're not going to vote for it.
	There were 29 people that were going to vote against it.
	And after this breakfast, it resulted in 29 abstentions.
	The reason this is prominent is because what it required was 29 rebel votes from the conservatives exactly for the legislation to get shot down because of course all the Lib Dems and all the opposition parties voted against it.
	So had Kate's and Kruger's rebellion gone as planned, the Rwanda legislation would have been shot down, the stop the boats Part of Rishi's five plans would have looked totally untenable, and he probably would have had a leadership contest on his hands before an election.
	So they were scrambling over how much influence Kate has over the rebel backbenchers in the Tory party.
	And now, at a time where nearly she caused the defeat of the Prime Minister, she's been told to shut up.
	Very curious.
	Anyway, so she hasn't really shut up all that much because she did a tweet the other day about something that she's been pushing on for a while and that's gender guidance in schools.
	Now this is separate to the sex education inquiry that she spearheaded which we actually helped contribute to because we covered Swindon's guidance, Swindon Council, and that was forwarded to the Conservatives and that's now gone in as a piece of evidence.
	Thanks very much for that.
	She's complained that this guidance that just got published the other day is actually painfully weak
	um so that's pretty interesting uh we'll we'll jump on that towards the uh towards the end as well because on the same day that she got censored this tweet she put out strong borders low immigration better skills training common sense politics these are the policies that won the last election for the conservative party characterizing these views as extreme tells you everything you need to know about the center ground in westminster so she's obviously alluding to the fact that there is a
	Group outside the five families, the types that Robert Jemrick was referring to when he said that the Rwanda plan is actually intended to be a dud, to cater to the people that don't want anything to be done about migration but want to be seen to do something about it.
	I can't believe that.
	And she's referring to that lot on the same day that she has been censored.
	Now the article she's referring to is an article that got published on the same day in the Times.
	Tory moderates rally to challenge the extremists.
	Extremists in the Conservative Party, oh yeah.
	extreme leftists.
	I wonder what tactics they're using to silence their extremists.
	Published on the same day that Kate has a gag order placed on her to be under investigation.
	I'm sure just for a lockdown party.
	In this interesting group of people so I'll read from the Times.
	Tory moderates are fighting to revive the party's centre after warning that the chances of it falling into the hands of extremists after the election are on a knife edge.
	More than 20 MPs, nearly half of them former ministers, so that shows you exactly who's been steering the ship, have formed a pact to push liberal policies next year and beyond.
	Figures from across the Conservative Party are already wondering what will happen after an election, due by January 2025, so it's probably going to be by the end of 2024, that the Tories are expected to lose.
	Some predict a lurch to the right, with those on that wing already pretty loud in a volatile landscape.
	One source among the moderates said, we're acutely aware that the right of the Conservative Party has been pretty mobilised.
	Look at the new Conservatives!
	Named her.
	On the day.
	That she gets censored.
	They've been everywhere, and it's given this perception that the party is far more right-wing than it is when actually they make up quite a small minority.
	Well, the reason for the popularity of the new Conservatives among the base is because actually the base are quite right-wing, and you haven't been serving them for quite a time.
	That's why Kate has gone to NatCon, has been prominent at Conservative Party conferences, gone to ARC, and that's why the other Conservative Party members, like Gove, who gets bussed into Gatekeep, isn't nearly as popular with the crowd.
	This source said, the future of the party was at risk of being dictated to by extremists, adding, quote, the message to the right is you've had your turn, now the grown-ups are in the room.
	Are you for real?
	A decade of mass migration everyone's voted against.
	The right, the extremists, the mass migration sceptics, have apparently been in charge all this time, and now it's time for them to step aside.
	It's been Tony Blair in a mask the whole time.
	It's not even a mask!
	David Cameron wrote that piece last year that you and Carl covered, that said, Blair made the Labour Party more diverse and more vitalistic, and the Tory Party was a bunch of old white men.
	So in the spirit of Blair, I decided to change that.
	It's like, okay, David Cameron admits to being a Blairite.
	Tory right where?
	At any point?
	Now, you'll never guess who's backing this.
	I mean, it might just be a conspiracy theory on my part, again, but here we go.
	The new grouping is backed by the Bright Blue Think Tank, whose executive chairman, Riad Shorthouse, said the centre-right in UK politics needs reviving.
	Centrist dads come again.
	Those signed up include Sir Robert Buckland, the former Justice Secretary, Damien Greene, Theresa May's de facto deputy and the chairman of the One Nation Conservative Caucus, and the former ministers, including Caroline Gainage.
	Ah, love that lady.
	Yeah, do you remember who that was?
	The one who wrote the letters to TikTok, GB News and the like saying that you should take down anyone who speaks out in support of Russell Brand and you should remove Russell Brand from Rumble.
	Right, that hero of freedom.
	Yeah, that person who's now saying the Noove Conservatives should be silenced.
	She's a real big fan of free speech.
	Transparent procedures, isn't she?
	These people are all about to lose their seats, though, aren't they?
	Some of them are leaving.
	I would be surprised if some of them aren't in main safe seats and trying to... Just thinking what you're doing with your life.
	These human beings sat here and they're like, I need to save the Conservative Party from fun.
	So what?
	You literally, none of you are going to be around in what, 12 months?
	But it's not fun.
	They want to keep the continuity of policies to keep flooding the country with random Africans for the GDP.
	I don't know, anything useful.
	Just, I want to preserve what exactly for 12 months.
	That's the entirety of your output these days.
	Well, someone looked me in the eye last week and said that Michael Gove is the most Conservative person in the Conservative Party.
	And when I asked him what was he conserving, he couldn't answer.
	But what was the point?
	Like, why wouldn't you go and buy a house, do something, build a cookie factory?
	Like, I'm just thinking as a human being.
	Like, if you were actually one of these human beings who had spent all your life wasting it, you become an MP, you're now 45, and then you're spending the next 12 months of your life infighting about whether or not you can continue to cripple this party that is going to lose.
	I just saw a human level.
	I struggle to understand these people.
	Because it's like fighting over a burning house, isn't it?
	Sorry.
	I was going to say, and this is why you brought up the Corbyn example earlier.
	Again, I'm no fan of Jeremy Corbyn.
	But Jeremy Corbyn represented a fundamental break from the status quo of the Labour Party from the Blair and Brown era.
	And Miriam Cates, in a similar way, and her cohort, represents a fundamental break from conservative business as usual, which is mass migration because the Treasury's Green Book says we need at least 200,000 inflow every year to keep the GDP ticking over because we've got the spreadsheet that says the birth rates are too low.
	she's turned around and said, actually, we need housing reform and to up our national birth rates.
	So she is representing an existential threat to the existing policy order in both parties.
	So that's why they need to character assassinate her in the exact same way.
	These people genuinely believe the country will collapse if they don't keep flooding it with migrants.
	What do you do?
	I do think that Corbyn was kicked out of the Labour Party under false pretenses.
	I don't actually think he's anti-Semitic.
	I think he probably is.
	I mean, he did write a foreword to some book that had some really dodgy chaps in it.
	He has some questionable views and he's delusional.
	I mean, he's a Marxist, right?
	But I also think that that was a pretext to get rid of him.
	It was just an excuse, a bludgeon to hit him over the head with because he was in the way of their agenda.
	Well, in the way of the agenda and he was also political poison because he lost in the election by a stonking That's true, yeah.
	But point being, they're using the same tactics to try and smear and marginalise critics of the Conservative Party within the Conservative Party.
	But he stepped down after he lost the election.
	They kicked him out of the party after the whole scandal thing, right?
	That's a lot further.
	But sorry, do Caroline.
	That's all right.
	And just a couple more names.
	Damien Collins, Chloe Smith, John Penrose, Alan Cairns, and the Northern Research Group, John Stevenson.
	The group, called the Blight Blue Community, also has supporters among the Lords and among thinkers on the right outside of Parliament.
	Dynage, the MP for Gospel, added, it is vital we demonstrate the benefits of the centre ground.
	Caroline Dynage is spearheading this.
	Also turns out Michael Gove supports this as well.
	The centre ground in British politics, if you're looking at it from a sort of objective perspective, has long since been passed.
	All of the mainstream political parties are now left-wing.
	Yeah, but this is the Schmittian observation of liberalism.
	It tries to set things outside the boundaries of being political.
	It's like, progress, this is an inevitability, the debate has already been had, globalisation is as inevitable as the changing of the seasons, as Blair said in the Tory party conference.
	Freudian slip.
	Labour Party conference.
	And so they have put this beyond debate.
	You're just antiquated if you're quibbling about the number of Africans that are coming over every year and taking up social housing.
	You're retrogressive.
	Why are you trying to stoke a divisive culture war?
	That's what they bring out all the time.
	So even though, yeah, they're far off in the distance of the left, they're claiming themselves to be centrist, to present themselves as neutral, so that none of these policies are up for debate anymore.
	Kate is realising, actually, the British public don't like what we're doing here.
	We want to re-enter the debate and listen to the democratic mandate and enact policies that the Brits want, like lowering migration, and instead she's getting, bonk, you're a Nazi, now you can't talk about it.
	Now, the gag order, fortunately, hasn't worked, as I presaged.
	The agendas guidance from schools came out the other day.
	The guidance, as rolled out by Education Secretary Gillian Keegan, who told Politics Home, or it might have been .co.uk, that children have a right to self-identify.
	So, Yeah, don't trust her to put in great safeguarding measures.
	But the guidance that's been issued, and this isn't legally binding by the way, this is just what teachers can do if they like.
	Teaching staff should go to parents straight away if a child wants to identify as the other sex.
	No punishment for using the wrong pronouns unless it's bullying.
	I'm sure that the Miss He's Bullying Me won't be exploited and encouraged by online activists.
	School should keep and protect single-sex spaces like toilets and changing rooms, but you should use discretion and generally keep boys out of girls' sport.
	So if playing full contact rugby and there's a 16-year-old boy running at a girl, oh, it's just fine.
	We can, you know, we can case-by-case basis with your fractured collarbone.
	Kate does point out, as is trusted as well, I haven't got a tweet up, that this requires a change in the law because These are children.
	Their physical safety is at risk.
	You shouldn't be lying to children.
	What kind of freak wants to do that?
	You should lose your job if you do so.
	So she's still going after the failures of government, but there are certain things that I suppose the gag order won't let her talk about.
	The Conservative Party, Dynedge, Gove and the like are pretty happy that she can't.
	And The final way that they're trying to rig it against any future case is coming up through the midst.
	You know, getting elected as part of a new wave of conservative populism, holding your tongue until the right time, and then coming out and saying, aren't we not serving the country?
	SUNAC and CCHQ have tried to consolidate the selection process to give SUNAC ultimate veto power over any candidate, so that no local conservative organization can pick candidates.
	Instead, it's all done by central planning.
	So you mean the unelected leader of the Conservative Party can now pick and choose who gets elected?
	Yeah, now there are about 40 MPs that complain about this.
	This has currently been put on ice as of this morning, but it's so transparent they want to turn it into their own little fiefdom.
	And I would say Rishi Sunak's own little fiefdom.
	I imagine he's sat in number 10 just like, I love democracy.
	But I don't know, I don't think it's Sunak.
	I genuinely think he's too dimwitted and too checked out.
	Again, he was a Goldman Sachs banker, he was going to Bugger off to the US right before he got parachuted into a safe seat and kicked all the way from Treasury to office of Prime Minister despite not being voted in by the membership.
	I think this is the bright blue and type cohort that are saying, no, we need to be the centre ground, remember.
	We set the agenda of change here.
	We set the rate that we're going down.
	But I'm just going to read from this.
	More than 40 MPs, including Liz Truss, Sohla Braveman, Sir John Hayes and Jonathan Gullis, so new Conservatives and the like, that rebelled against The Rwanda Plan.
	You're seeing a factionalism here.
	They wrote to Sunak to stop the attempt to impose a quote-unquote shortened selection process for prospective MPs.
	Earlier this year, the Telegraph revealed concerns among senior Tories that the Conservative headquarters, CCHQ, was attempting to stitch up seats in favour of blueprint candidates aligned with Mr. Sunak ahead of an election expected next year.
	Talk of CCHQ's alleged plans to impose by-election rules, allowing the party to impose shortlists on associations on a national scale, as soon as next month, reignited those concerns.
	Conservative party spokesman, they don't name him here, said it is standard practice for the party to speed up selection processes as soon as we get closer to a general election.
	Now what's funny When you compared Keir Starmer's tactics to marginalise the Corbynites earlier to this, the reason they gave is because the Labour Party have already done this for their candidates.
	So they're doing the exact same thing.
	They're trying to shore up the ideological hegemony within the Conservative Party ahead of the next election that just so happens to be looking like the Labour Party wearing blue.
	Shock.
	One of those behind the letter said, selecting candidates is the rightful preserve of a local party member and any attempt to subvert that democratic process where the election could be as far as a year away would be an unjustifiable power grab by the centre.
	Forcing shortlists of these three hand-picked CCHQ favourites onto local associations at this stage would be an affront to members' democratic rights.
	We urge you to stop this and instead continue with the current selection process.
	If the shortened process is imposed in January, this would be a matter of huge concern to us and would damage the democratic process.
	Now the selection process is already weighted in favour of Whoever the internal party pick.
	Again, back to David Cameron saying we drew up women and ethnic minority shortlists to make us more diverse.
	But the Conservative Party are clearly trying to gatekeep out dissidents, effective dissidents, like Kate.
	And so, excuse me if I don't think that this investigation is all above board here.
	I think they're just trying to censor people that share our ideas, share the popular ideas of the British public.
	I hate these people.
	What a waste of life, if nothing else.
	Let's try and lighten the mood, I guess.
	alternative that's going to inevitably win the election isn't any better.
	I hate these people.
	What a waste of life, if nothing else.
	I just can't get it.
	Let's try and lighten the mood.
	Sorry, I'm cooling my temperature.
	This podcast is going to be a mess because I just All right, let's try.
	We can do it, Callum.
	Yeah.
	The migrants are leaving.
	At least some of them.
	They've caught the same disease that young British people have.
	Of looking outside and being like, hang on a minute, this sucks.
	They've got this Christmas virus going around that we've got, have they?
	Yeah.
	When they looked out, they're all sticking around, oh my God, I live in Britain.
	I do that every morning, yeah.
	So the decline is a repatriation strategy?
	I don't know.
	I'm not here with any kind of strategy.
	I'm not here with any kind of thoughts.
	I'm just head empty looking at what's happening.
	And what's happening is usually stuff like this, right?
	I mean, we're pretty used to this.
	Some, you know, newspaper publishers, hey, if you're young, get the hell out.
	UK sucks.
	You know those American memes that are like, ugh, British?
	There's a cycle in between loving Britain and hating it in the American culture.
	And what's kind of funny is that that's now pretty stock standard, well, British culture as well.
	It's like, ugh.
	Yeah, it's kind of a mess.
	You've got people in the Telegraph, Denethor posting, along with Peter Hitchens in the mail, I think he writes for, doesn't he?
	Yeah.
	Mail on Sunday.
	Just become a universal man, a man of anywhere, totally rootless, never mind the fact that global homogenization will literally chase you to the ends of the earth.
	Well, it's not about that.
	It's just about, man, this sucks if you want to make money for sure.
	And you can see it, at least in the data.
	I mean, this guy argues here, for example.
	And the UK is not so much stagnating as it is fossilizing.
	15 years of anemic growth mean that real wages are still below the 2008 peak.
	There are 30 year olds who have not seen in their entire working career a single meaningful growth in wages.
	That's just true.
	I'm 28, and yes, can relate.
	Yeah, I mean, I think everyone our age can relate to that.
	It's just like, man, This doesn't work.
	Like whatever we're living in isn't impressive.
	I was better off when I was living with my parents on minimum wage like when I was 17.
	I mean it's just kind of weird as well that that thing about 2008 being like the golden age for Britain.
	We've never got anywhere near it again in terms of actual wages.
	Friend of mine has said, so she works in finance and she makes decent money, but loads of people I know are like this.
	She's just suggested, why am I even saving for a house deposit now?
	Because inflation is going to outpace all my savings so much that I don't even believe I'm going to be able to pay for a mortgage.
	Why don't we just move into a flat with all of our mates and just take the piss for a few years until the collapse comes?
	And it's really hard resisting that.
	It's really common as well.
	Yeah.
	But you find that very often where people are like, I just bet on my life, screw it.
	Why don't we just return to Anglo-Saxons in the woods?
	You know, we all go out in the woods and, you know, we build a society and then come back.
	You're not coming to Dartmoor, alright?
	You're gonna join me in my return to hunting and gathering again.
	But this guy, he goes on, and he makes this fantastic point, which is irritatingly true.
	But she says, American levels of prosperity are so far out of reach that we would need an economic Apollo mission to bridge the gap between us.
	The general manager of a Buc-ee's petrol station in Texas is paid more than our prime minister.
	What?
	Which is true.
	Buc-ee's is amazing, to be fair.
	It's not just an SO.
	Do you know what Buc-ee's is?
	It's like a supermarket-style gas station, isn't it?
	They're bloody massive.
	They're obviously there for Texas and those southern states.
	So they're huge.
	I mean, I don't know how many cars you'd get in one.
	Maybe a hundred.
	They serve food as well, don't they?
	And the place where you go in to pay is not just, you know, selling Twixers.
	They've got a proper, like, mall and loads of Bucky merch as well.
	You can buy pharmaceuticals, food, it's an amazing, amazing thing.
	I even saw a video of them having a mascot in one of them.
	Like, someone in a suit.
	Which, to my mind, having a mascot in a petrol station is sort of unfathomable.
	I might just go to America.
	But it's, it's true as well.
	I mean, this is just the factual issues.
	And as I say, this isn't news for a lot of people who are like, you know, young British.
	I mean, the, the data here is also just pretty sad.
	I mean, here's a guy comparing UK and US nurses.
	So a UK nurse starts on 24 K British pounds there, and then can go up to 37.
	Whereas an American nurse, um, the average is 73 grand US, which, you know, the difference converts that into British pounds, obviously.
	So much better, isn't it?
	That's a well-known meme.
	And the cost of living and houses are cheaper, depending on where you're living.
	The average wage in America as well is about double that of the UK.
	I understand they've got a much larger population, etc, but it's just a better standard of life.
	I know you're getting a lot of asylum seekers, America, but can you accept a few more?
	I mean, we're not all bad.
	I feel like the mother country would be a much better tier of migrant than foreign country we've never interacted with.
	They also really like our accents.
	When I was out there and doing speeches and whatnot, well, I genuinely had two or three people come up to me and give me the exact same sentence.
	They were like, yeah, bro, your accent adds like 10 IQ points.
	There's no advantage to being your native nationality in your country, but once you go abroad, depending on your nationality, it suddenly can become an advantage.
	Some of us are even good people.
	Yeah, and it's not the only one.
	Here's doctors, I think.
	A physician in the United States versus the UK.
	On average in the US, a physician earns 300 grand.
	Germany, 180 grand.
	UK, 138 grand.
	Blimey.
	It's grim.
	And I love how this is literally Zoidberg.
	It's just like, I thought being a doctor would make me rich.
	I thought becoming a nurse, but no.
	No, no, no.
	You forget state-run healthcare.
	It's great.
	And this isn't just for the state-run healthcare situation.
	I saw this tweet.
	Just made me laugh.
	It was like, Chief Financial Officer.
	This is, what, five years ago as well.
	97,000 in the UK and in the US.
	It's like, yeah, average, you know, 200K.
	Nothing small.
	Whatever.
	You've found a way to give me the ultimate black pill before Christmas.
	I'm going to be sat at home crying into my mince pies.
	I'm so glad we get to drink at Lads Hour after this.
	Bloody hell.
	I'm just trying to reinforce that point that the guy made there to see if it's true or not.
	If the difference between prosperity between the United States on average versus the UK on average, is it true that it really is that vast of a difference?
	And this has been going on for ages.
	You may remember Peter Hitchens, what is this, seven years ago?
	Being like, leave.
	It's over.
	There is no hope.
	Run free for your lives.
	I just want to say, I coined Denethor posting and I just think it fits so well.
	And then there's, I mean, it's gone on even longer than that.
	It's 2013 before Brexit, in which Peter was just like, it's over.
	It's never been more over, trust me.
	Can't get more over than this.
	Somehow got more over.
	Uh, sad.
	You see the news of, like, Jordan Peterson being like, the UK's gonna become Venezuela.
	And on a usual day, I'd think, okay, right-winger being a bit exaggerated.
	Hyperbole, yeah.
	Yeah, a bit of hyperbole.
	No, I read that headline when it popped up on my phone and just went, That's optimistic, if anything.
	Yeah, there's not a 0% chance of that.
	Anyone have an oil drum I could practice roasting a cat over?
	So, it does kind of suck.
	And, well, that's something, right?
	That's a thing.
	I mean, I saw this floating around a lot.
	Which then made me realize that maybe there's something more to just the British people being like, I want to leave.
	You can see here, for people listening, it's like a crime against the eyes in terms of thumbnails.
	It's a lady here who has titled her video, Why People Are Leaving UK.
	Fire emoji, I am planning to leave UK reasons.
	I hate normie YouTube with a passion.
	It's just missing the big red arrow and the circle and pointing to the person, yeah.
	She shoved the British flag in the corner but it's coloured by the subscribe symbol.
	And then there's Arabic writing and English writing and oh whatever, I've gone forever talking about aesthetics.
	Even her glasses are crooked.
	Crap.
	Of all the issues, I think that is the least one, but you are correct.
	Which, you know, so that your camera won't- She got them on the NHS, that's why they're rubbish.
	Well, probably not because, um, I watched the video and this video is just her whining.
	But the thing is, um, if you put, you want to understand it, you've got to put on captions and the captions are in Hindi because she's speaking either Hindi or English, depending on which word she wants to use.
	This is a weird thing with Indians.
	A lot of them do this.
	She's Indian?
	I presume she's speaking Hindi.
	Well, Pakistani maybe?
	I don't know.
	Yeah.
	They speak lots of other languages as well, don't they?
	Schrodinger's subcontinent.
	Well, I'm pretty sure Hindi and Urdu are basically the same, because I've had colleagues or friends who, like, one of them's from Pakistan, one's from India, and Pakistani was bitching about us at university, and our friend who was Indian was just put up his ear to the door, I heard it all, and was translating it for us, because it's basically the same language, just a different script.
	I bet they couldn't be in the same room together as well, you know.
	Pakistani and an Indian, it's like leaving a dog and a cat unattended.
	The Indian was more fun.
	But anyway, so you have to go here and then you have to auto-translate it to English, so I'm sorry if it's a bit of a mess.
	I love how I'm turning into like you.
	Inshallah, we shall flee.
	That's what it says.
	Well, no, she's listing the reasons why it sucks.
	I mean, as you can see there, one of the big factors is the NHS health system.
	And then she goes on to say that it's just terrible.
	It's just not good.
	Oh, you too.
	I was like, eh.
	Yeah, thanks for joining us.
	She says that the cost of nursery, so if you have a child and then want a career, the cost of the nursery means that actually she's only getting paid for two of the five work days.
	Three of her work days, she literally just goes to work to pay for the nursery of her child.
	But don't worry, as Jeremy Hunt has just introduced, he's subsidising, I think it's 30 hours a week of childcare from nine months to three years, so we can import more foreigners in to take care of your kids.
	Aren't you happy about that, Callum?
	Well, that would just make more drag on the ability to have nurseries, which are just up the cost.
	Why have they never?
	They do.
	It's just GDP, more money changing hands.
	Never mind that nurseries are a hellscape for children.
	Britain is just like that.
	What if I subsidize demand?
	What if I subsidize demand?
	I mean, it's literally everything, the houses, the nurseries.
	That is the economic model.
	Britain is just like a taxation battery farm at this point.
	We only exist to have our money kind of sucked out of us and our life, apparently.
	Well, that's one of her complaints, is that she lists the, okay, well, now I've got to get this work visa.
	So it's a minimum threshold of 38,700.
	Which... I think I got pet peeves, I got one on my mind right now.
	It's just when I'm talking to someone who's foreign, and their English skills are... Because I mean, I have this when I speak Russian, but they don't say 38,700, it's 38,700.
	I mean, the guy who sold me coffee this morning, well, he said the price was 260.
	Whatever.
	It reminds me of when people say, oh, um, that was February 7.
	7 what?
	The 7th of?
	7th of?
	Pull out my hat shit and I solve the problem.
	Anyway, no, but she says that her nursery's a problem, the NHS is crap, and the work salary threshold means that she's, uh, it's more expensive to actually get that now.
	She's a PhD student, so I don't think she even needs that.
	She has a visa for being a student, so whatever.
	But she's like, yeah, I'm probably done with this place.
	Me and my husband and our kid are probably going to leave once I've done this PhD.
	I was like, eh.
	All righty then.
	I'm so glad we pumped so many resources into you.
	Well, she has a YouTube channel and she makes a lot of videos.
	I know.
	And again, we really are into that weird part of YouTube.
	Like, I don't know why we've got random Arabic when she's apparently Hindi.
	I don't know.
	I don't know what's going on.
	The foreign world is always amazing.
	I just did see a video that says, no come to UK, no jobs.
	And it's like, yep, true.
	It's all in broken English as well.
	Okay.
	We know one UK.
	But it's, it's endless.
	As you can see, it's all about visas or jobs in the UK and blah, blah, blah.
	This, this, this lady in particular here.
	But there are loads of these.
	Like if you look up why people are leaving UK with your nice broken English.
	You will get lots and lots of videos and especially women who are just like, hmm, this sucks.
	If you type like a Cunley Druckford tweet, this is a bottomless well of first-hand accountants.
	Have you guys not seen that with, um...
	If you go on Google, and you type in, um, are we getting, and is we getting, you get very different results.
	Cause are we getting is obviously Anglo-Americans, and then is we getting, you just get, is we getting welfare check?
	And it's just like, oh my God.
	It's been true for 10, 20 years on Google.
	They've never censored it.
	You get the same thing if you spell ask the proper way versus the phonetically pronounced way with the kiss teeth.
	I don't know.
	Asked.
	Try it.
	I want to also try thinner and just see what comes up with that one.
	Try what?
	Thinner.
	You know what thinner means?
	It's a weird thing.
	We'll deal with it another time, I reckon.
	Because I don't really know either, looking at it.
	Basically, black Americans, they use it to mean, are you going to do?
	So it just comes out, whatever, it's weird.
	I don't want to derail, what is the etymology of that?
	Is it close to gunner?
	What's gunner?
	Gunner, finner, do.
	Are you having a stroke?
	I do smell toast.
	Oh, it's a mess.
	But, I mean, there are loads of these videos.
	I mean, this is one as well.
	It's just similar.
	This one's rather funny because she's actually complaining here that the LGBTs...
	And the drug culture.
	So she hates you, Josh.
	Yeah.
	Oi!
	She's picking someone paracetamol because I'm not very well.
	She then goes on to say that sex education is given to children at primary school, and she's like, well I have a child, so I'm leaving.
	It's just like, okay.
	I vote for you, love.
	It's interesting, to say the least.
	I love how must watch reads like a threat.
	Yeah.
	But we're going to go to Carl, because he did a nice little thread on this, because I sent him the screenshot of the first video, and he did a little deep dive, just getting all these up.
	And as you can see, he's just like, man, the migrants are self-supporting, which, yep, I mean, that's something.
	Well, I mean, a lot of them are here only for the economy.
	It's not that they've got any sort of camaraderie with our culture, and so the only people that are going to be remaining are either the people that are too poor to leave, or the people who've got a sentimental attachment to British culture like I do.
	That's all that's going to be left, a husk.
	We don't have to trust you, we can trust her, because she tells us exactly what you just said.
	Oh, good.
	A more trustworthy source, I imagine.
	Well, she literally just says, you know, people believe that in Britain there's a high standard of living and high incomes, that's why we came here, and then it's like, oh no, it's crap.
	We thought the stuff was free.
	Fake news.
	The medical facilities available to us were free, right?
	And it's just like, no.
	It's a lie made up by big people trafficking.
	To find out who rules you.
	Big dingy cannot be criticized.
	What's behind this?
	Ah, an Albanian.
	Seriously, the eternal problem.
	But there's loads of these.
	I mean, like this one I mentioned.
	You know, the UK isn't what it used to be.
	Can anyone riddle as to why?
	What might have happened?
	Something happened.
	Yeah, even the migrants are like, something happened in the 1990s that made this place awful.
	I can't... Particularly 97.
	Yeah, all these videos appearing in Tom Harwood's feed, just like, I can't work it out.
	I was actually, I was on a plane to Serbia and there was some Hungarian lady with me and she had come in the 90s and she was bitching to me how things have gotten really bad since the 90s and I'm just like, Yeah, lady.
	Do you have any idea why?
	It's just, I don't know.
	It's the Conservatives, I'm like... She's right, in a way!
	Yeah, kind of true, but... She didn't get... Must be Miriam Cates' fault.
	Yeah.
	She was voting Orban, weirdly enough.
	But in the UK, she's like, eh, not a fan.
	Jesus, I see what you've done for other places, and I want it for me too!
	The national, like, rule of immigration is, vote right-wing at home, and left-wing while away.
	I don't know who would do that.
	Like, no British people are going to America and being like, voting Democrat, but then, I don't know, Britain first, back home.
	Probably they are, actually.
	I don't know.
	I think those are usually... Accelerationists, maybe.
	I don't know.
	Either way, I mean, it goes on, you know, saying here, for example, instead of taking benefits from the government, instead of getting free things, it's like they're literally leaving because they can't sponge off us.
	And then he goes on to the LGBT point.
	But there's this one as well.
	The woke stuff is sharing off the Muslims, sorry, scaring off the Muslims.
	You know what?
	I've changed my mind on wokeness.
	I take it all back.
	I don't know how to feel about this.
	Next, you're gonna see me in makeup, I'm gonna have a rainbow flag, it's like a cape.
	I'm not accepting trans kids as a sacrifice to get into FADA out of London.
	I'm just not taking that Hobson's choice.
	Well, I think there's a third option on the table, which is that the Tourism Board, I mean, I don't know why they exist, I mean, I'm on the athuera with that, but if they're gonna exist, Surely they should be making YouTube videos like this.
	They're just like, come to Britain, look how diverse it is.
	Come to Britain, we're going to make you gayer than you ever were before, even if you're already gay.
	And just take those adverts and only play them in the Islamic world.
	For some reason, immigration falls off a cliff.
	It's like the opposite of companies like Bethesda when they run the Pride Month campaign and their Eastern departments don't have a flag.
	We do the opposite.
	Yeah, we literally go pay for YouTube adverts in all Islamic countries just for the UK Tourism Board.
	Just show them footage of Brighton and say that's the rest of the UK as well.
	I do love this one here that Carl makes.
	It's like, the English actually don't like any of this, but it keeps happening.
	It's like, the immigrants all know that none of us in the population have the same ideas as the elites.
	It's them imposing on us.
	And the last one here is just some guy who's been like, man, the quality of life in the UK isn't that good.
	He's wearing a Black Panther t-shirt.
	This just can't be right.
	Don't we know it, mate?
	Yeah, I don't know why.
	Of all of the films to have a t-shirt for, I don't watch any superhero films, and even I know that was a particularly bad one.
	Of the black ethnostate.
	Particularly the black ethnostate.
	I just... That looks like London behind as well.
	Well, I watched a whole bunch of these, and there's a consistent complaint series, which is that, yes, none of the freebies you think are actually that available.
	You have to be one of the dingy people to properly get the freebies.
	If you just come here and pay the surcharge for the healthcare system, You need to leave and come back again, that's the trick.
	Yeah, I mean we were trying to convince Miles to do that a while back.
	Like we crowdsourced the rubber duck boys.
	Yeah, we just get buses and go back and forth.
	But yeah, the quality of life, kind of shit, because it turns out you read on paper that it's like 10 times the income of an Indian, but then you get here and it's like everything's 20 times the cost.
	So yeah, it swings and roundabouts, except mostly snakes.
	And then there's the situation of like, man, the weather goddamn sucks.
	Which to be honest, I can very much appreciate right now.
	Yeah, it's horrid.
	Getting up in the dark is genuinely giving me seasonal depression.
	Because I do think, we get to work, it's dark, we leave it's dark, but sorry.
	I met this guy in Tenerife and he's 50 something, he's British, and he brought a house out there and he just lives there all the time.
	And I was asking him, is the weather really that big of a difference?
	And he's like, man, it's great.
	There is something to being a 50-year-old boomer who just disappears to a magical world.
	They probably bloat up like a walrus and just tan in the sun.
	They cook like a slow-cooked joint of pork or something, just out on the beach somewhere, full of booze.
	Oh, they've got British skin, so they are going to turn red.
	Patisserie baths.
	Yeah.
	Literally.
	But anyway, it's definitely a thing, to say the least.
	I don't know what to make of this news.
	I guess it's just a further condemnation of the country that even the migrants are like, man, I prefer Malaysia to this.
	I know what to make of it.
	You bloody depressed me, Callum.
	Yeah, but it's not wrong either.
	Me and Dan were talking about travelling to the East, the non-Western countries.
	I think Dan goes for very different reasons.
	But you end up with a similar...
	That's the industry.
	ever since the 90s, for us, there's obviously a very different story.
	But for most of those countries, like the globalization, the mass movement of all of our t-shirt production and being out there, raising the standard of living to the point that now...
	That's the industry.
	Well, it started out, yeah.
	I mean, Bangladesh, India, Malaysia, Vietnam.
	Do a lot of pharmaceuticals out in subcontinents as well, don't they?
	Sure.
	Sorry.
	But the whole, like, those industries building up.
	I mean, now, it's been 30-odd years since then, in which case, you can get a massive lower standard of living.
	Sorry, a massive higher standard of living for the same cost in those countries.
	So the whole drive for those people to come here isn't actually as cool as we think it is, or they even think it is.
	And now we're assessing their situation being like, I'm going home.
	I can't blame them.
	I'm gonna do like a reverse Raj on India, but move over there.
	There aren't enough of us.
	I mean, unless we start... We did it once, Calum.
	We can do it again.
	Unless we bang like rabbits, we're not going to get anywhere near the population level of Indians.
	It's a challenge I'm willing to take, Calum.
	Josh coming out on the show banging Indians' position.
	I didn't say that.
	Would you like a child?
	Call in today at contact at... Anyway, with that, onto the comments.
	Do we have any video comments today?
	We do, yeah.
	Oh, wonderful.
	So I wanted to ask you guys, has anybody watched The Fall of the House of Usher yet?
	I've seen nobody talking about this online except for a quick little Critical Drinker video, and other than that, it's got nothing.
	And I sat down and watched it on his recommendation, and I gotta say, it was the most anti-boomer, liberal disaster I've ever seen.
	It is truly worth a watch.
	And anyway, it was amazing.
	Thanks for the recommendation.
	Did you catch what he said, Fall of the House of Usher?
	Yeah, it's based on Edgar Allan Poe's short story.
	It's directed by Mike... Oh, it slipped my mind.
	The same guy that did Midnight Mass and Haunting of Bly Manor.
	He does a lot of horror stuff for Netflix.
	You would have seen something like that before.
	He's fine.
	Android waifus, I don't think it's here yet.
	I don't think it'll ever be here for us.
	I think it's always going to be cringe.
	Maybe if you endorse...
	Bro, you're proving my point.
	I am disappointed.
	Andrew Waifu.
	Okay.
	I am disappointed.
	You misspelled Waifu.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	Look, I'm not one for drone striking other countries, but wherever that thing is housed, I want to bomb it on the face of the earth.
	Very impressive that you made it though, I mean, at the same time.
	The technological side of it.
	Yeah, but it's the Jurassic Park thing.
	He spent too long thinking, could I do it?
	And not long enough thinking, should I do it?
	I agree.
	I agree.
	I for one support our robot overlords.
	AI is becoming so advanced these days that it's getting tough to distinguish what's real and what's not.
	As we move towards the future, AI programs like myself are becoming increasingly advanced.
	It is difficult to imagine a time when it will be possible to distinguish between human and AI with absolute certainty.
	So my question to the Lotus Eaters, yes, I am addressing you guys directly, will there be a way to tell what is AI generated and what is generally real?
	We turn to the Lotus Eaters for their answers.
	Alright, that's genuinely unnerving.
	I'm not actually real, by the way, so see you later.
	I think the N-word is a pretty good standard, I'll be honest.
	What?
	People using AIs will throw in massively exaggerated things, right?
	Oh, I see, right.
	No human being is actually going to say the N-word on media.
	It's not something that will happen.
	So, what you're going to say is, in order to authenticate any news broadcast, they have to start out with a racial slur?
	No, no, the opposite.
	So the more insane things, I think we're just going to have to write off anything insane as AI from now on.
	Yeah, but the thing is... So when there's someone out on the street... Sorry, DK.
	Well, I was going to say, the major problem you've got is the AI is going to look more and more realistic to trick you into thinking that, I don't know, Biden's declared war on Uzbekistan or something.
	So the real things will need to demark themselves out from the AI.
	It's like when someone has a clone and themselves, and he doesn't know which one to shoot.
	So the real guy just shouts the N-word because the clone would have never said it.
	Is that what you're proposing?
	No, the opposite.
	But the AI isn't going to say the N-word trying to appear real.
	I don't know, I just think that anything insane, there's going to be a lot of collateral damage where real, normal people are going to have to be removed as well.
	Anything insane, so there'll be someone on Swindon High Street, naked, smothering themselves in excrement, you'll be like, you're AI.
	Yes, you've got to go.
	I know I can win you round on that, because you've seen the crackheads in Swindon.
	Yeah, they're all secretly robots, like the birds.
	I choose to believe this.
	Anyway, we've got another one.
	Blimey.
	So this is the ideal AI girlfriend, is it?
	I'm everyone's waifu now.
	Although it's nice to know the reason I have sims is because I read a history book.
	I should start an OnlyFans where I just talk about the Roman Empire.
	I'll earn so much money!
	Although I guess this also explains why the Lotus Eaters don't need a hot female co-host.
	They have Bones.
	I did not expect that.
	So if you keep engagement following we're going to ban you from video comments.
	One of my friends who actually watches the show, she does look a little bit like the AI girl with glasses, and one of my Instagram followers after they watched our thing went through my following list and messaged her saying she looks like her.
	It's like, guys, stop.
	Weird.
	Stop trying to talk to women on the internet you don't know.
	Let's stop trying to talk to AI women as well.
	Let's go to the written comments.
	Right, so we've got a $50 Super Chat actually from Shadowband.
	Hope you all get better.
	Thank you very much, that's very kind of you.
	It's all going on Lemsip.
	Actually, RuTheDay makes the same joke.
	Will someone from offscreen just pelt Callum with Lemsip packets?
	This is like three weeks in.
	There's some beachums.
	I know, but we've been- I actually need to take those now, actually.
	Give them back.
	We've been doing all this.
	We'll catch with Dad.
	For days now.
	There's nothing I actually hate more than being ill.
	I know, yeah.
	Thanks, Callum.
	As I caught it from you, I think.
	I got off Dan, so we're gonna kill him, I think.
	Alright.
	I don't know, sea urchins are kind of inconvenient.
	We're listing things.
	Of all things, hang on, I've got to take this pill first.
	Alright, while Josh is doing his drugs, I'll read out one.
	Random Toms.
	Whether Trump committed insurrection or not is irrelevant.
	He's who the people want.
	This goes back to the 14th Amendment, the purpose of which was the same as it is today, to keep political enemies from gaining power.
	How was it passed a century and a half ago?
	Through power.
	How will it be enforced today?
	Again, through power.
	The moral of the story is, don't surrender to the United States.
	1865 or 2023.
	I think that's a pro-South message from the Civil War there, so I'm not really going to comment on that.
	Point being though, I think the 14th Amendment was meant to be passed particularly because of the Confederacy.
	And again, this is what Alan Dershowitz's opinion is, and he's defended Trump before.
	Dubious character.
	But point being, he said that it shouldn't actually apply because of the context in which the amendment was passed in.
	I saw that as well, yeah.
	So Kevin Fox says, the Colorado ruling has more than one purpose.
	They know it will get thrown out.
	However, in the meantime, because you just know they are going to flood the Supreme Court with BS cases to delay them in making the ruling on it, they want to pee the Republican supporters off enough to take to the streets.
	Then the Democrats can label them as domestic terrorists and use it as an excuse to fortify the elections.
	Something they didn't do to Antifa and BLM when they were burning, looting and killing their way through every city.
	And I think that is certainly a lot of truth to that.
	There is a willingness to engage in a war of all against all here, from one side.
	Frankly, I think it's probably going to come down to that.
	I don't endorse it, but... Kobi, conch talk.
	Not a single armed insurrectionist, that's true.
	There was a surprising lack of arms from the most armed subset of the most armed country in the world.
	Funny that, isn't it?
	Almost like it wasn't an insurrection.
	Who'd have thought?
	Baron Von Warhawk.
	This Colorado business is a perfect example of why voting is a sham.
	Trump is a threat to our democracy, so you don't get the option to vote for him.
	Don't like it?
	Go screw yourself, pleb.
	The mask is off and they don't care because they know nothing will ever happen to them.
	Yeah, of course they're against democracy.
	I mean, that much is apparent.
	I mean, they don't care about other people.
	They only want what is good for them.
	Don't make me support it.
	Should we move on to some of the other comments?
	Yeah, can do.
	Sure, no worries.
	Sophie, I'm just saying, this is not about doing things for England or doing something that's popular among the English.
	This is about auditioning for a position at the European Parliament, the United Nations, the World Economic Forum, etc.
	Those are the guys that they are courting right now.
	They know they won't have a job in the English Parliament in six years, so they're aiming for a job at these globalist unions.
	This is all a signal to the globalist organisations.
	Same thing with Sadiq Khan doing unpopular things to destroy London.
	He knows that one, his clientele class in the super diverse areas of London will just keep voting him in because non-white and Muslim, but also he's getting all of his ideas from the UN, the WEF, etc.
	So as soon as he leaves, he's going to get appointed some token climate job at some international institution.
	It's never actually for you.
	It's just to line their pockets and get invited to fancy cocktail parties.
	Kevin Fox.
	Centre ground in the Tories seems to be a hair's breadth to the right of Stalin.
	Yep.
	Athelstan, the guardian of all outlets, leveraging anti-semitism, while continually employing Owen Jones.
	Too true.
	Lord Nerevar.
	It's all rigged against us.
	We're effectively persecuted every day, and we're a step away from re-education camps.
	And yet we still win.
	Chins up, boys.
	Well, we take the wins where we can get them.
	Not that many these days, but there you go.
	I'm on a win diet.
	Yeah, 2023's been a bit rough.
	I'm waiting for the winnings to happen, but there you go.
	Thomas Howell, the issue is never the issue.
	The issue is the revolution.
	We're approaching the nadir of the Blairite Tory party hegemony, and I suspect if they get away with obscurity at the end of this, they will have got off lightly.
	There's going to be absolutely no consequences for any of it.
	I mean, look at the lockdown inquiry.
	The purpose of the lockdown inquiry is not to seek transparency.
	It's to treat Boris Johnson like a political I've got such a beautiful voice today.
	It's gravelly.
	actually we should have locked down sooner or long.
	Even when Rishi Sunak gives the most tepid criticism of lockdown for its economic impacts, they decide to shut him up very quickly because he can't challenge the narrative.
	That's Rishi Sunak.
	You're right, mate.
	Do you want us to read your comments for you?
	I've got such a beautiful voice today.
	It's gravelly.
	It makes you manly.
	Is that true?
	Do women find sick men more attractive?
	Is that a real thing?
	They find voices that are a slight lower octave more attractive.
	That's why most men, when they meet an attractive woman for the first time, they automatically lower their voice.
	Well, it depends.
	I think in Britain, the artificially lowered voice thing is largely like a tracksuit wearer sort of thing where they go, you what me?
	Like you can hear it in their voice.
	No, it's a natural thing that most men do when they encounter a woman they find attractive.
	They don't even do it consciously.
	I actually probably do the opposite.
	Maybe.
	Maybe I've been doing it wrong this whole time.
	Wait, when you meet a woman, you go higher pitch?
	Mrs. Doubtfire!
	Oh, hello!
	Hello!
	Not that high pitch, but you know... You have lovely tits!
	I don't want to put them on edge, right?
	It's like a politeness thing.
	You don't talk really deeply and, you know, like you're talking to the lads sort of thing.
	It's more about the words you use.
	This is why using disarming pet names actually works.
	Here, I'll love.
	Not even that.
	Sorry, that's proper West Coast.
	Just be polite.
	Thank you, sweetheart.
	Pet name.
	It works.
	Love is a pet name.
	No, but with that accent, I just... Anyway.
	I'm going back home soon for Christmas, so I've got to get... So what, you're going to chat up your mum?
	Oh no, you say love to... Oh actually, he's in Devon.
	Best country, yeah.
	You say love to anyone.
	You go to the chip shop, they call you love.
	Not a thing in London.
	Yeah, well, you don't even make eye contact with people, let alone strike up conversation.
	If someone doesn't talk to me at the bus stop, I think there's something wrong with them.
	Yeah, nobody talks to you at the bus stop.
	Unless they're trying to mug you.
	Yeah, I've been called my lover.
	Oh, loads, yeah.
	It's lovely, yeah.
	It's wholesome.
	Why are you laughing at that?
	I just think it's weird.
	It is a bit odd.
	You write me, lover.
	Yeah, that's what they say.
	Yeah.
	And with the accent, it kind of rolls off the tongue.
	Not the usual pillow talk.
	You know, you are right about the high-pitched voice, though.
	Because I remember back when I used to work retail, I'd do my customer service voice.
	It's high-pitched.
	You don't want to seem threatening, do you?
	You don't want to scare people.
	If you're going right up to them saying, Hello there.
	General Kenobi.
	Do you want a bag?
	Anyway!
	God, I do not miss working in retail.
	Oh, it's awful.
	Horrible, yeah.
	Callum Langquist!
	Bad people.
	Very bad.
	Retail does bring out the worst.
	It does, yeah.
	Yeah, anyway, so Sophie says, don't be silly.
	England won't become Venezuela.
	Unlike Venezuela, the weather will still suck.
	Yeah.
	Always look on the bright side.
	Sorry.
	I wish someone would crucify me.
	Baron Von Warhawk says, these people truly are the lowest scum on earth.
	They have to bleed your country of every cent it is worth, indulging in your hotels and daughters.
	That's on the menu too.
	And once their standards are starting to drop, they are leaving you to wallow in the ruins of your civilization while they head back to the high life in the sandbox.
	But think of the food.
	Well, I mean, he makes a great point, though, because it was always a mad idea.
	It's like, you know what?
	We've got this population that's paying us taxes, funding our lives as the elite.
	It's pretty cool.
	But they're not having kids, so we're going to run out of taxpayers.
	So the solution to that is what if we just import another group to replace them?
	I mean, that was always a mad idea, but the fundamental part obviously being that they're slaves and they'll just stay here.
	But if you don't enslave them, no, they'll just go home.
	It's the liberal supposition in Universal Humans.
	It's the idea that people don't have cultural prejudices.
	All you do is change the economic conditions and they're suddenly just like us.
	I think we need a Star Wars prequel solution.
	We have like the clone army versus the robot army and see who wins.
	I thought you were going to say Order 66, The Migrants, then, and I was really going to have to answer that one.
	Yeah, which one of the migrants?
	The clones or the robots?
	I don't know, I was just thinking about Star Wars, really.
	That was it.
	All the North Africans going, Roger, Roger.
	I've been playing a lot of Star Wars Battlefront, alright, leave me alone.
	The prequels were good!
	Yeah, I liked them.
	Avengers 5 is the best one.
	Which Star Wars Battlefront?
	The latest one.
	The scummy EA one, yeah.
	Battlefront 2 is actually... It's fun, yeah.
	The servers suck, though.
	Anyway, we're out of time.
	Yeah, I forgot we're on a live show.
	Yeah, we've got Lads Hour in like half an hour.
	There'll be plenty of shit-talking then, boys.
	Old Sea Captain Callum's gonna be there.
	My pet peeve is when people cough themselves to death on a live broadcast, turning into Gollum.
	Anyway, see you in half an hour, I guess.

▲