Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Jan. 22, 2024 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:29:15

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #833

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello, welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eater.
	I'm joined by Stelios.
	Hello.
	And today we'll be talking about the fact that it's not funny.
	Who needs the English in London?
	And cancel culture doesn't matter anymore.
	It'll be jolly good fun.
	If it was a bit of a weird intro, things happen.
	It's a Monday, so it has to be fun.
	Yeah.
	Well, I don't have any announcements, so we'll get into the news, I suppose.
	So I'm here to tell everyone that it's not funny.
	There's nothing funny about making people laugh, damn you.
	So I shouldn't laugh?
	No.
	Never.
	Literally, you should instead report your friends to the police for daring to send you memes.
	And this has been a long-running joke about British society at this point, not just the police.
	But the British police are the enforcers of that, obviously.
	We'll get this on screen first, which is a story we're all familiar with.
	Police arrest army veteran for Facebook LGBT meme.
	And if you forgot what this was, it was this.
	Lawrence Fox tweeted this out, which is an intersexual pride flag, four times, which just so happens to make a swastika.
	And because he posted it, nothing happened to him.
	But because that dude reposted it to his Facebook page, he got arrested.
	Lawrence turned up and was like, I did it, why are you not arresting me?
	And it's obvious because one has a profile, one doesn't, and they thought they could get away with an easy arrest off that guy.
	But this is obviously not a small thing.
	This is a real tangible way of measuring the difference in the level of freedom between the United States and the United Kingdom.
	I was just thinking how long a prison sentence I'm going to get when they eventually ask to see all the spicy memes saved on my phone in advance.
	Because that's the thing, the Americans have that meme where it's like, I'll meet the boys when the cops get on a WhatsApp chat.
	That's real here.
	I'm just adding up the years.
	I'm just saying, disclaimer, I have zero memes.
	Yeah, please don't come check.
	I lost all my memes in a boating accident.
	But you can see here, I mean, this is my point about that tangible difference in freedom.
	So this is a guy in Tennessee who posted a meme of people pissing on the grave of a police officer that's just been killed, and the police department decided to arrest him for harassment of the police department.
	But obviously, I just went to court and they ended up paying the guy who posted the meme 125 grand.
	Because what the hell is wrong with you?
	You're not allowed to do that.
	That's obvious.
	You're American.
	You should know this.
	You're not a British police officer.
	Calm down.
	But in Britain, obviously very different situation.
	And it's not just the police will come and lock average citizens up because of your spicy memes that you totally don't have.
	They lock themselves up because of this.
	And this is another story we've spoken before.
	Police officer jailed over racist WhatsApp messages mocking George Floyd's death.
	I can't show you this meme, because I can't find it, but if you want to know what it is, it's that there's a very famous image of this massive fat black guy who's been photoshopped to have a massive penis laying out, and it's him on top of George Floyd, and then his penis is the thing joking him.
	It's an obvious joke.
	I mean, it's not sincere.
	There's no message behind it other than that it's funny.
	There's no depths we won't sink to.
	I was going to joke of, I'm going to finally delete all those memes saying like Ryan Gosling will be George Floyd, will be Martin Luther King in the biopics, but Yeah, didn't expect that level of lowbrow.
	It's literally just a penis and they arrested their own police officer for it and sentenced him to 20 weeks in prison for having a cock meme.
	It's like, okay.
	I mean, that was mental, but they go on.
	I mean, the police here were caught sharing memes and I decided to look up the police, not complaints.
	Okay.
	Misconduct hearings.
	So I've got a little thread I made here this morning just because I wanted a nice easy way to go through it, and I think we're going to enjoy.
	So this is a series of misconduct hearings which are very recent and have gone through, and now we have the full outcome so we can see what was discussed.
	And there's two versions, there's one for the police in general, one for the Metropolitan, so we'll start off with this one here.
	So Frank Kattus over here, PC Frank, he was taken to task Well, the standards he breached were equality and diversity, and then the circumstances of the breach they list.
	PC Catus exchanged messages via Facebook and WhatsApp with police staff colleagues, Mrs. A and Mrs. B.
	It is alleged that these included inappropriate and unwanted comments about their physical appearance.
	It is further alleged that PC Catus sent a number of messages to the same police staff colleagues, which contained offensive and inappropriate meme-type images.
	They have a snitch in that group.
	Yes.
	Apparently.
	That's not necessary.
	What was the explanation?
	looking at okay so there's a guy who's a police officer and he works with a couple of police staff so they're not officers and presumably this is a whatsapp or facebook group with with them and presumably other people presumably it's like you know the police gang is the name of the chat or something and he made comments about how they look so yeah he called them mid and then posted some offensive memes so they decided to have a misconduct hearing about him what was the the explanation sorry i'm a solid 10.
	hello lotus is out of context so they they don't list in the uh the wheelchair police section here uh all the details but they do list the circumstances and that's what we can read so that's what i'll present uh for these ones and And they don't get any more normal as it goes on, because if you just look up the word meme, you'll just end up with a whole bunch of these.
	So this is Sergeant John Walshaw.
	He was done for equality and diversity misconduct.
	He sent racist, homophobic, and inappropriate memes.
	He had also racist and offensive content on his work phone.
	He had memes.
	Memes.
	This is very much the feminization of the workplace.
	It is.
	If you upset anyone, you must be hauled in front of an equality and HR tribunal and prostrate yourself before all of progressive shibboleths and serve time if you violated any of them.
	But I love what we're talking about as well, because there's the DEI cancer that has taken over all of Western society.
	I mean, it is awful.
	And you could make an argument, I suppose, what people are thinking of, if you're steel manning this sort of case, is that he had on there, I don't know, um, I love the Klan graphics?
	Or something like this?
	I somehow doubt that from a British police officer, but... But my point being, he'd have something genuinely racist on there that is racist and that's his sincere held opinion and blah blah blah.
	But that doesn't work if we're talking about memes.
	Because the point of memes is to be funny.
	They're jokes.
	They're not really serious.
	They're a laugh.
	So the fact that you are admitting that yeah, yeah, we take these police officers and we grill them and tell them they're evil and give them misconduct hearings because they shared jokes in private or on their work phone.
	I think memes have power.
	Yeah, I mean, they're proud of it.
	That's the best part, is they publish this.
	Like, you're meant to read this and go, another one off the streets.
	Finally it's getting cleaned up, boys.
	It is just obvious that the authorities do not want the power of the memes being unleashed.
	I mean, release the meme.
	But also, even if you're steelmanning, do I trust their definition of what does and doesn't constitute racist, given the amount of times we've heard leaks from Whitehall, the civil service and the police about their diversity, equity and inclusion training, saying that being on time is white supremacy, and also they're actively discriminating against white people, saying that- Absolutely not.
	In their Spotify ads, they say, make sure that you look like the communities you're policing.
	So, right, so we're only stationing- Officers in certain areas, if they correspond with the colour swatch chart now.
	That's not racist.
	Great.
	Good to clarify.
	Like the actual racism that we would perceive as actual racism, discrimination on the basis of race, in a way that is actually, well, let's say harmful.
	I don't know what else you would use.
	That's police policy.
	As you say, the hiring policy.
	If nothing else.
	But when it comes to the internals, I mean, what do the internal police look like?
	It looks like this.
	And here's another one.
	So this officer doesn't even have a name.
	He got a prison number, presumably.
	He also broke the equality and diversity standards.
	While Officer A here had racist, homophobic, and inappropriate memes and content on his personal mobile phone.
	Yeah, that's a crime.
	You get kicked out of the police force.
	Why?
	You had memes on your phone that we don't like.
	Okay!
	He also had inappropriate, racist, and offensive content on his works issued mobile phone.
	So he had it on his work phone as well.
	I'm waiting for him to batter down the Lotus Cities office door for our Discord channel.
	They're gonna get you boys!
	Officer A engaged in conversations via social media messaging with another officer.
	These conversations contained a number of comments, including racism and homophobia.
	I don't know about you boys, but I find that whenever they start listing more than one bigotry, it just becomes the white noise that it usually is.
	Racist, sexist, homophobic.
	I think it's not just more from two and more.
	Sometimes if they just throw inappropriate, it just means nothing.
	It just means we didn't like these dudes, we want to cause a problem for them.
	They go on to say that Officer A failed to challenge another officer in relation to the racist, homophobic and derogatory messages that were sent to Officer A on his personal phone.
	They then write, Officer A had material on their phone, which indicates far-right tendencies.
	Right, so he's watching a Douglas Murray clip, probably.
	The other- Their definition of FARA is gonna be that.
	Yeah, it's in prevent training, so it was Orwell.
	The other thing is as well, failed to challenge another colleague.
	Right, so you- That's the real crime.
	Yeah, you have to act as the constant thought police.
	That's why Dan Wotton got sacked from GB News.
	It's because Lawrence Fox made an edgy comment, and Dan Wotton insufficiently failed to call him out and whine at him on air, therefore he's lost his show.
	I'm just trying to think of it from another perspective.
	How would it be in a movie?
	Have you watched these movies where, you know, you have the police officer going in the evidence room and they take some coke or something?
	Yeah, imagine.
	The A4 printouts.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	I'm going to steal the meme.
	I hope no one's going to watch.
	Nobody needs these crime statistics.
	Definitely not the police.
	I'm going to return the meme tomorrow.
	I hope no one's going to find out.
	Oh boy.
	You're right.
	And that's the biggest issue here.
	They're not actually complaining that he had the memes on his phone.
	The specific complaint here that's actually the problem is that you had the memes on your phone because you were sent those memes.
	Also, WhatsApp auto-downloads media if you don't turn that setting off.
	normal human being and not a robot would do and say, officer a, that's very, that's very inappropriate of you.
	Actually, crime statistics don't represent reality.
	I'm so sorry.
	I can't be friends with you anymore.
	Report it.
	Also WhatsApp auto downloads media if you don't turn that setting off.
	So if you get sent it in a group chat, it auto downloads your phone.
	So it looks like it's in your camera roll.
	And this goes on.
	There's another one here, another guy who got a crime number.
	It is alleged between March 2020 and May 2021, the officer sent, via a mobile phone, derogatory messages and memes to a colleague.
	Ah, the crime.
	The crime of the century.
	He's not the only one.
	We found a gang.
	There are criminal gangs of meme policemen.
	So for people listening, we have Sergeant Luke Thompson, former Sergeant Luke Allen, former Constable Kelsey Buchman, former Constable Carlo Francisco.
	Typical white supremacist.
	Former Constable Lee South, former Constable Darren Jenner, and Constable Glynn Reese, and then an officer who got another prison number as a name.
	They were a gang.
	They were working together to harass Each other!
	This is the one Jobsworth and the department they didn't include in the group chat, getting sour about it.
	Yeah, find the group chat, find the names, the one missing.
	Hmm, I wonder who could be the rat?
	They say here that they breach diversity and inclusion and equality.
	How?
	Sorry, how?
	Can you please explain it to me?
	They were having fun.
	Yeah.
	The allegations concern the officer's membership Oh, yes, yes.
	I got my membership card of a WhatsApp group between 2016 and 2018.
	You know, they say they were having fun, but they say, imagine if someone was actually eavesdropping you, OK?
	It was eavesdropping.
	Yeah.
	You could hurt their feelings with your memes.
	Have you considered the feelings of the people who may be spying on you?
	Have you considered the people who haven't even seen what you posted?
	You make an FBI agent so upset.
	Sorry, but 2016 is eight years ago now.
	We're looking at eight years ago, these guys were members of a WhatsApp group.
	It was alleged that the WhatsApp message group was used by the officers to post discriminatory content attacking the protected characteristics of our noble Minorities!
	I hate that phraseology so much.
	It says the protected characteristics of race, religion, belief and disability, sexual orientation and sex.
	My God, these boys were busy.
	Hang on, protected characteristics of belief?
	Yes.
	So their racism should be a protected characteristic?
	Yes.
	They did this in the form of messages, memes and videos.
	So for a few years, they posted some jokes in the chat.
	That's that.
	But you remember that joke video from The Onion a while back about our precious gaze?
	During the Bush years.
	And the joke was that they were debating should we let gays in the military?
	And this army officer comes onto the TV to be like, oh, of course, we can't have gays in the military.
	They're too precious for combat.
	We can't sacrifice them for nothing.
	That's how I always read the protected characteristics of race.
	It's like our precious blacks, our precious Muslims, our precious transgenders.
	I mean, that is what it is.
	There's an aristocratic.
	Calum, aren't you aware that there are some people who are really allergic to memes?
	It's a condition.
	Now everything becomes, you know, there's psychologizing constantly.
	Everyone invents conditions.
	The severe meme reaction, negative meme reaction.
	It's like some very sensitive people that, you know, you're on a plane, you open a peanut and 30 lines in front of someone is having a choke.
	They say, you bad person.
	It's like that.
	Should we start with GoFundMe for them?
	For only £5 a month, you can save the police force the hurt feelings of memes they never saw.
	This is Josh's just workaround to lobotomise everyone he disagrees with.
	But they're not the only ones.
	The next one I think is probably the funniest I found.
	Paul Hereford, PC Gia and former officer Richard Hammond We're all found guilty of the disgusting professional misconduct of violating equality and diversity.
	As I'm saying, don't give fake names.
	You can't just give fake names when you get caught, boys.
	It's not going to work.
	They say here that Officer Hammond... Someone commented, and I can't get it out of my head, it's just clerks in the background going, Anyway, so Officer Hammond, Herford and Mr. Jeer, literally means to make fun of someone jeering, so there we are.
	But they were all part of a WhatsApp messaging group, like it's a terrorist cell, and they were using it to exchange messages.
	Oh, really?
	Not wheelbarrows, but okay.
	They're exchanging messages, memes, and other content which was inappropriate, highly offensive, and discriminatory.
	The content was discriminatory on the grounds of race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, and disability.
	That's all of them.
	Just the list.
	I mean, there's an aspect of the Soviet Union that I always found great.
	You got found guilty of a non-crime, right?
	The crimes against the party.
	You have been found guilty of crimes against Stalin, the party, the motherland.
	Can we skip all this?
	Yeah.
	I've got so long to live.
	Well, definitely if you've just been caught for crimes like this.
	The lack of an oxycomore as well, as the conflation is usually very amusing, puts sexual orientation and disability on the same plane.
	They are.
	According to the police.
	So there we go.
	That's why grammar's important.
	Or not.
	It is further alleged that the officers failed to challenge and or report the other members of said WhatsApp group.
	So presumably, actually, Clarkson did dob them in, and Hammond's just going down for it.
	So they received the memes, messages, and other content that was inappropriate, highly offensive, and discriminatory, and they didn't sit there and go, Mate!
	Mate!
	You can't post that!
	Bro!
	That's funny!
	Nothing's funny about making people laugh, I tell you again!
	Yeah, okay.
	But this is Wiltshire Police, or the whole force survey, where you can find this online.
	The best part is the Met Police, because God bless them, they are so delusional, they think they're right in doing this.
	They actually think this isn't embarrassing, this is good police work.
	Valuable time.
	So they, on their website, they give us literally everything.
	There's a huge document for every case, where they tell you what meme was posted, what was written on the meme.
	What style it took, and then what they did wrong.
	So as you can see here, Constable A, again, he's a criminal, he was found guilty of engaging in WhatsApp conversations with others in which he shared memes, and then they list what he did exactly.
	And here we go.
	So complaint number A here is that he wrote, someone wrote to him, he didn't write this, someone wrote to him, quote, I ordered a blow-up doll for myself.
	They sent me a Muslim woman wearing a bomb vest.
	Okay.
	Someone sent him that.
	He didn't write that.
	Okay.
	Obvious joke.
	And he responded, they write, with the words, fuck's sake, followed by two laughing emojis, thereby indicating approval of the encouragement for the sending of the message.
	It's like university all over again.
	It's basically what happened in our university group chat.
	He is actually just genuinely like mad people.
	Yeah.
	Just like, not a good look.
	Private chats.
	If this doesn't change, can you imagine what kind of crime movies And police movies our grandchildren are going to watch.
	Tango and Cash sent to prison for memes.
	Yeah, because you had these movies, these wonderful movies where you have, you know, two cops who are friends and, you know, they're chilling and they're riding along, they're doing patrol and, you know, they're just super relaxed and cool.
	You're going to have a movie where, you know, bro, they were so offensive.
	Don't tell me this.
	I'm going to report you.
	Next season of True Detective is going to be so bad.
	You gotta ask, like, what kind of friggin' wet blanket read this in text form?
	Because literally this guy, this poor motherf***er here, frankly, has been sent a joke, he responded to the joke by laughing, and then has been told that his laughing constitutes some kind of crime or professional misconduct because he failed to challenge the message.
	I mean, the next one's even more extreme, where they say he was sent a message from someone called GM, an image of a black sportsman who had been edited such to depict him with a large penis extending just below the knee.
	I'm seeing a running theme here, Callum.
	The image was derogatory towards black people.
	We haven't discovered how!
	Saying black men have big penises is a bad thing, but I'm sure the black men in the audience will want to know.
	They say here, because it depicted a racist stereotype, You responded at 10.43 PM with the words, fuck sake, followed by three, sorry, four laughing emojis, you devil.
	Thereby indicating approval and or encouragement of the sending of the message.
	Four times approval.
	Yes.
	He's got four years in prison now.
	Depends on the emoji.
	Depends on the number of the emojis.
	You also failed to challenge the sharing of the message.
	Okay, so that's what happens.
	Okay, you're a police officer.
	Mate of yours, as a joke, sends you a picture of a black sportsman with a big cock.
	And in the real world, of course, you laugh.
	In the make-believe world that the Met Police want you to live in, you get that message at a quarter to midnight, sorry, quarter to eleven at night, and you're meant to write back, disgusting, can't believe you would send this, report it, and then leave the chat.
	That's how you're meant to actually be friends with your friends.
	And how you build relationships between colleagues and how you build trust.
	You'll be fired on the spot for the amount of degenerate things you send me every day.
	All comedy, all social interaction, all banter must be banned.
	That is the price for being a modern policeman.
	Or it is what they want from a modern policeman.
	Because it goes on.
	I mean, this is later down in that exact same one in which he received a photo of what appeared to be a female member of the public wearing a hat.
	You ought to have known or suspected that the photograph had been taken without the woman's consent.
	What?
	It's a photo of a woman in public.
	What the fuck are you talking about?
	The message made a reference to the sender wanting to bang her.
	You responded with four laughing face emojis, thereby indicating approval or encouragement for sending of the image.
	What?
	Your mate sends you a picture of a woman he thinks is hot.
	It says, I'd like the banger.
	And you laugh.
	Language, Callum.
	What?
	Yes, women don't like being fucked.
	That's nonsense.
	That doesn't exist.
	In general, they say you are degrading of women.
	sent you two photos of women dressed in lingerie with the message, Would you fuck it?
	You failed to challenge the above conduct, which was derogatory towards and degreeding of women.
	What?
	Yes, women don't like being fucked.
	That's nonsense.
	That doesn't exist.
	In general, they say you are degrading of women, and also specifically of the woman in the image.
	Of course, because women who wear lingerie and go for photo shoots, they are all forced at gunpoint to do such a thing.
	They didn't go on to say that you were invading the privacy of the woman who was subject of the photograph.
	It was like, hmm, women in public.
	None of this makes any goddamn sense.
	The person who wrote this is an actually insane person or an unbelievable puritan.
	And it's just unbearable to even read.
	And the person who had to deal with that, I mean, just good luck for the rest of your life.
	The only stipulation that you could make for the second half is that basically one of the officers might have been Sheridan's Mrs. Nudes without her knowledge.
	Yeah.
	And we don't have a confirmation that was a photo shoot there.
	They would have added that, I believe, because the details are quite explicit with all the examples.
	Privacy of the woman who is the subject of the photograph received on the 18th of January.
	Yes, that's the one I read about.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	So she's not in lingerie.
	She's a woman in public wearing a hat.
	Oh, right.
	Okay, right, right.
	I understand.
	There's some other ones in there that are really funny.
	Well, not funny.
	They're more just, again, like, what kind of lunatic is writing this?
	So one of them is he was sent a video.
	It's quite a famous, like, gore video of a woman who decided to put an octopus inside of herself and then pull it out.
	Do we need to be so vulgar in this one, mate?
	Really?
	It's a bit much.
	What are you talking about?
	I'm describing the situation.
	Yeah, gross.
	Okay, so she did that, the video was sent to him, and then for having that video they also say that he was degrading women?
	He's like, what?
	What are you talking about?
	I got sent the video.
	What am I meant to do?
	Like, how is that me degrading women?
	So, it's just actually mental on all possible aspects.
	And, um, if you want to find any more, here's the list.
	Here's the Metropolitan Police website.
	Happy hunting is all I have to say on that one.
	And, um, it's also very common.
	I mean, like, this was a while back, another criminal gang of memers were arrested for their memes.
	And the situation we have to deal with is, of course, not new.
	Going all the way back to Dankula, this has now become the culture of the police.
	And moving forwards, I just want to keep in mind, this is not for no reason.
	There's that meme we've all been talking about, which is that the purpose of a system is the outcome, not the intentions.
	And the outcome of all of this is that, of course, lesbian Nana, as we all remember, this is actually the ideal police officer.
	This is not an accident.
	This is not the system failing.
	This is the system doing what it was supposed to do.
	Revealed by the internals that if you even have memes on your phone, your private phone, that's considered some kind of massive crime to your profession.
	So there we are.
	And I'll end this off with the fact that this isn't a surprise.
	This video went viral recently in which a chap who literally just plays pianos in public, he got harassed by some CCP people who were very mad at him for filming them in public.
	And he's like, well, that's obviously not a crime.
	Go away.
	And the police officers say, I mean, this guy here totally gets it.
	And it's like, well, there's no crime.
	Bugger off.
	But then there's this lady who gets all offended about being filmed, even though she's filming everything.
	and then insists that he should shut his mouth because he dares to call them Chinese.
	And he's like, they're waving Chinese flags and are Chinese.
	That's not a bug.
	The problem with the police is a feature.
	Well, on that note, let's move on.
	Go to the progressives.
	Right.
	Okay.
	Thank you very much.
	That's the wrong one.
	We just go to the other one.
	There we go.
	Right.
	OK, so London is not what it used to be.
	And it may not have started with Sadiq Khan, but I'm sure that Sadiq Khan is representing a globalist agenda, progressivist agenda that is basically changing London, the UK and frankly, the whole Western world.
	Now, let's see what he's up to lately.
	He says, just announced I've stepped in again to freeze all transport for London fares as the cost of living crisis continues to hit Londoners hard.
	While people across the country face another hike in the rail fares, I'm not prepared to stand by and see Londoners face a similar hike.
	Conor, you're someone who uses transportation in London.
	Unfortunately.
	Yeah, what do you think of this?
	The journeys are always late.
	The trains, lots of them don't run beyond midnight.
	London basically stops at 11 o'clock.
	These days, despite it being our capital city, they are incredibly overpriced.
	The rail fares are going up by National Rail 5% in March, despite the services facing consistent delays and already being exorbitantly expensive.
	Transport for London is generally dirty, unreliable, the bus tracking app doesn't work, and I think Sadiq Khan has made it measurably worse.
	So I think he is definitely representing a free lunch mentality in a sense, because, you know, where have you been all our lives?
	Just by telling us that you're going to give a product for free doesn't say much because someone is going to have to pay it.
	So taxpayers are going to have to pay it.
	So why would he do this this year?
	Is there any coincidence?
	Is there any reason why you want to do it?
	Because it seems to me that mayoral elections are going to be held on the 2nd of May 2024.
	It might be something to do with his collapsing popularity and also the fact that his general voting blocs that occupy London, because of course the majority of minority voters will vote for Sadiq Khan because of ethnic interest, some of them won't be able to vote this time around because of voter ID laws being passed.
	So he might be worrying about how competitive Susan Hall's looking in the polls?
	I can't speak about London politics.
	I just have nothing.
	Okay.
	But there are some stuff to add here because it seems to me that Sadiq Khan is representing, you know, in a sense, progressivism.
	He definitely wants to virtue signal and say that he is on that camp.
	So I want to say basically that progressivists constantly talk about progress, but personally, I think there's nothing new with what they're saying.
	If you dig deep down, I think you will just find statists who just want to create the artificial need for them.
	So essentially, they come along and they say, listen, there's a problem.
	Most probably they have created it because for instance, cost of living crisis.
	I do think that you could say that a lot of economic mismanagement has resulted from the government and they pose themselves as the necessary solution to a problem that they have created on the first place.
	And essentially they go to people, they are saying, listen, you need us.
	We are going to give you something for free.
	And they are essentially giving you for free something in your capacity as a passenger, which they're taking it from you in your capacity as a taxpayer.
	It's a little bit chicken and egg because you can say that they create the problem to manufacture consent for the expansion of the state to then give themselves jobs and more money and a permanent position.
	But then also, I think there is a sincere commitment to wokeness, progressivism, whatever we would like to call it, out of some members of the political class.
	Because even when they're running aground on the rocks of reality, running out of money, facing public opposition, they're still trying to do it in circuitous ways, even when it doesn't make any sense.
	So they're symbiotic, I think.
	Yes, and I think this generally leads into a collapse of standards, generally speaking.
	This kind of idea that, you know, I have some people who are going to represent me, I want their political support, so I'm going to hand them some stuff that I'm going to take from others that most probably are not going to support me.
	It boils everything down to the lowest common denominator, and I think this happens with standards, and you'll see Quite a lot in what we have here.
	So we have here Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan.
	He says, "Today was at Bond Street Station to announce that I'm freezing transport for London fares this year.
	While fares rise nationally, this decision will put money back into Londoners' pockets during the cost of living crisis." Do Londoners pay taxes?
	Yes.
	So who's going to pay for this economic gap?
	Well, some Londoners pay taxes.
	Yeah, that's it.
	Native Londoners pay taxes.
	The net economic detriments occupying social housing do not pay taxes.
	Incidentally, are they going to vote for him?
	Yes, shockingly so.
	I wonder if he's making a clientele class out of state dependents.
	Hmm.
	So it seems to me that this is essentially a very left-wing policy.
	You essentially divide the people in two, those who support you and those who don't support you.
	And essentially the question becomes, how am I going to sack those who don't support me in order to give to those who support me?
	But incidentally, it's not just because you do that.
	The leftists do that because they care about those who support what they want.
	It is because they want to expand their power.
	That is why they constantly regurgitate narratives that lead into the idea that the expansion of state power is more justified.
	Not to give the complaint of a mid-century Italian, but particularly because I was late to work today because the Elizabeth line was shut.
	I would be a lot more sympathetic to the idea of keeping fares low, not through tax redistribution, but I'd be willing to applaud you.
	If the bloody trains even ran, they don't.
	Some days, they just don't work.
	I assume what you're getting at here is sort of the end state, which is South Africa.
	I mean, I saw this graph come out recently, about 7 million South Africans pay tax, 20 million dependents.
	And guess what you can do if you have 20 million dependents and they all depend on the ruling party?
	Buy their vote.
	Democracy is dead.
	It's over.
	You literally don't have enough people, even if they're unionised all into one space, to outclass in terms of one man, one vote.
	Yeah.
	This is one of the goals of tyrants.
	They want basically the majority of the population to link their survival with their retaining power and expanding it.
	So it seemed that, as you said very well, I think that these are not good policies and they may seem sensitive and good policies to some, obviously not to us and to our audience.
	But at the end of the day, the goal is more power.
	But look at also the other bit.
	He talks about the cost of living crisis.
	Now, again, I want to say how this state is manifest, because they are trying to say constantly that we have this crisis, which we have nothing to do with respect to creating it.
	We haven't created it.
	It emerged from the nether realm, like Cthulhu, yeah.
	Yeah, it emerged from nowhere.
	And we have the means, only we have the means to solve it.
	So we're the necessary middle man or middle woman.
	I don't want to be arrested or something.
	Or middle they them.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	So he says, everyone has a right to be treated fairly and equally at work.
	Know what you're entitled to and find information and support that our free employment rights have.
	I can see, Conor, you're fuming.
	Why?
	I've seen this on GWR announcements as well, that we insist on treating all passengers fairly and equally.
	You can't then.
	Because equally means that you're going to treat them with the same standards no matter who they are.
	Fairly means you treat them with the standards corresponding to how they're acting and who they are.
	Yeah.
	They're antonyms.
	You've got to pick one.
	I pick fairly because equally reduces everything down to the lowest common denominator.
	But I think that in their minds, they collapse.
	In the mind of Sadiq Khan, for instance, equal treatment is fair treatment.
	Because what is really interesting, and I'd like to hear your thoughts on this, it seems to me that When we talk about notions like that, we don't say much.
	If I tell you just be good, be fair, be, you know, treat people equally, that doesn't say much.
	You need to flesh out what this means.
	Okay?
	So when people say, for instance, that we need equality of opportunity or equality of results or equality, whatever, and fairness is equality of opportunity, what happens in the woke camp is the following identification of the criterion for Equality of opportunity with equality of results.
	That is why whenever we see unequal results, we constantly have the woke camp saying there was unfair opportunity.
	That is why in the mentality of the woke and the mentality of the left, there is no such thing as an opportunity that people don't take advantage of.
	There's two reasons for that.
	One, as you said, it's a raw power grab.
	So by inferring oppression happened somewhere vaguely along the way because we didn't reach an equal outcome that allows them to expand their state plan, get more funding and grease the wheels of the NGO bureaucracy.
	But then also there is the sincere position which is deluded.
	That it starts from an a priori assumption that we are all universally the same.
	This is the Jean-Jacques Rousseau position of man was born free and now because civilization has happened and because we have inequalities.
	Yeah, now everyone everywhere is in chains.
	Yeah, so all you've got to do is break the chains and then naturally everyone will have equal outcomes.
	So if they don't have equal outcomes now, there's clearly a chain somewhere.
	But I just want to say that the chains apply only to the supporters of the left camp, only to those with protected characteristics.
	Those are the people who, whenever they do something bad, it's always the system.
	But when it is the other people who don't support leftists, everything that they do that is bad is just their rotten core.
	Their rotten soul.
	Okay?
	That's as far as the leftist is concerned.
	Right, let's look at this puzzling tweet by Sadiq Khan, because we want to show you how this idea impacts the idea of standards, and how London isn't what it used to be.
	And it's important to have standards, because also when you talk about fairness and equality, there's always the question of what is the standard you're going to use to talk about them.
	Now, I'm going to read from Sadiq Khan.
	Quo tweeted something he wrote, so I'm going to read first what he wrote.
	So, new.
	Transport for London is pausing enforcement against private hired drivers in London who have not yet met the SERU, this is Safety and Equality in Regulatory Understanding requirement, or the English language requirement.
	A trial is being undertaken to do assessments in a different way.
	To not do them at all.
	Yeah.
	So who needs English in London, basically?
	No one.
	Yeah.
	Sincerely, you actually kind of don't.
	We do live in the rubble of the Tower of Babel.
	But sincerely, I mean, in the modern day, you don't need that.
	You need a robot.
	A robot would be a better service.
	Like, genuinely, the auto that we're all hoping for, the self-driving cars.
	It would actually be better than dealing with a tax driver who can't speak English to you.
	So, yeah.
	Could advance.
	Sorry to interrupt, but I know you didn't happen to have something, and I happen to know something on this.
	Someone sent me this clip.
	I wondered, John, if we could play it from the start, because you'll notice there that Steve Kahn's getting rid of English language requirements for drivers.
	And, well, it didn't always feel that way.
	I don't know if we can play this better.
	So, for example, just think about what, you know, you've got to go through as a black cab driver before you can drive a black cab, you know.
	The vehicles are so expensive, they're all disabled friendly, the criminal checks, the knowledge you've got to do.
	Rather than levelling down your high standards, let's level up the private high vehicle standards.
	So, for example, Basic knowledge.
	Speak in English.
	Do the security checks.
	How does that work?
	Do they have English tests or something?
	Yeah, we'll need to.
	We'll need to bring up their standards.
	But English tests for cab drivers?
	Basic English should be a requirement if you're a public servant.
	And if they don't get that, they wouldn't be able to operate as a cab driver?
	In my view, if you're in any public-facing job, you should be able to speak basic English.
	So for example, just think about what... You wouldn't need the administrative state had you not imported infinity immigrants who don't learn English.
	Of course, but it's just good to know the man lies as much as possible.
	And again, that's his stated intentions, which is, oh yeah, I'll bring up the private hires.
	And then the revealed one, what's reality?
	There was an election here though.
	Now is election year, so January needs to start in a dynamic way.
	So he writes, Private Hyatt drivers are a crucial part of London's economy and do vital work helping Londoners get around every day.
	I'm pleased TFL is now posing enforcement of the SCRU requirements.
	This is something I've expressed concerns about repeatedly.
	Now, he doesn't highlight the language requirement of the quote tweet.
	He does mention it on the first one, but it seems to me that you'll see that there is a There's a progressive tendency to lower standards, and I think there were really high standards to become a cab driver in London, because I think there was this test called the knowledge test, if I'm not mistaken, where you have to memorize the streets of London.
	I made this mistake, so we're clear.
	That's black cabs, where they'd have the knowledge tests, the standards he laid out there.
	And then the disparity he was speaking to was, as he writes here, private hires.
	Uber.
	That's a different situation.
	You don't need to be compliant with disabled people.
	You don't need those tests.
	And so, you did need at least to speak English.
	Even that.
	Even that was too much.
	Could it be the case that he's going to spill that over and he's going to campaign more and do that for the cab drivers?
	I doubt that.
	They're majority English.
	Okay.
	So, yeah.
	Yeah, but isn't that discriminatory as far as his mentality is concerned?
	Sure, but he just hates white people.
	That's it.
	Genuinely.
	He just hates white people.
	And also, and this is why it's a really important point about the standards.
	It's not just that the cab drivers had to pass a particular test.
	It's that they've done neuroimaging on British cab drivers and they found that certain part of your brain to do with mapping and directions is particularly enlarged because back before you had maps on your phone and the like, they just memorized the A to Z. If you ever wanted directions, just pull over a cabbie.
	And they don't have that with Uber.
	Great.
	But at the end of the day, you have people walking into a vehicle and being transported somewhere.
	Yes.
	Whether it's a black cab or a yellow cab or an Uber vehicle, it's people who enter your vehicle and you get them somewhere if you're a driver.
	Okay?
	So it's very worrying that he would push for lowering standards.
	Now, not every standard is a good standard, but I think English, being able to speak English is important.
	Anyway, so he says here, if you want to become a cab driver, it says here you'll need customer service skills, excellent verbal communication skills, active listening skills.
	All of those, but in Urdu.
	The ability to work well with others.
	Imagine you can't speak the language and someone says, pull off, say no, or something, or in another language, or I want you to take the other route and the driver doesn't understand or something.
	Anyway.
	Now, apply for a taxi driver license.
	This is why you must learn and pass the world famous knowledge.
	And here he says, basically, they say our online process makes applying and renewing tax and private hire license quicker and easier as part of the ongoing modernization of our tax and private hire license.
	So you can create an, whatever.
	Okay.
	Sorry.
	This is, we didn't have to talk about it.
	Yeah.
	But it seems to me that at the end of the day, it's really weird that standards are being relaxed on almost everything.
	And now they're saying this, but imagine what they're going to say in four years.
	I would just take the engine out.
	Yeah.
	And one fun thing, because we're talking about, you know, private hire vehicles and cab drivers and stuff.
	It's fun that he's talking on the one hand about the ULAs and the ultra low emission zone and the need to decrease pollution.
	But on the other hand, relax the requirements for Being a driver who transports people across.
	I suspect that the easier it is to get something like that, the more vehicles you're going to have running around.
	Taking people, transporting them and polluting.
	Yeah, that's just because it's about the money.
	It's never about actually... I mean, of course, he wants London to be a globally homogenous, culturally liquidated, carbon neutral cosmopolis.
	But the interesting thing with you, Les, talking about manufacturing consent for state power, when he keeps going around saying that it kills 4,000 Londoners every year from air pollution, number one, the Pollution on the tube, I mean LBC of all places did a test on this, they're an order of magnitude of a hundred times higher with all the particulate pollution per molecule or whatever it is, than just standing out in the open air.
	Um, and two, when you look at the study that he always cites with the 4,000 Londoners, it was 4,000 Londoners' life years.
	So that's the equivalent of like losing a possible day on average of your life if you live in central London and commute in and out of central London every single day.
	So he's just making stuff up and misrepresenting facts to then Let's have a look at the safety, quality and regulatory understanding requirement that is being relaxed for private hire vehicles.
	Here on the website it says, it is essential that London private hire vehicle drivers have an appropriate understanding of safety, quality and regulatory requirements that apply to them.
	Quality no longer matters.
	Brilliant.
	Can't wait.
	Okay.
	But if you go on the assessment, because also the assessment is going to be easier, it says here, it has a private hire vehicle driver's handbook.
	You can click and just read it.
	And it says underneath.
	How are you going to read it?
	What?
	Well, if you don't speak English, I presume you can't read it.
	Exactly.
	That's what I wanted to show you.
	It says underneath, applicants should read and familiarize themselves with a handbook before undertaking the assessment.
	Translate, I guess?
	Yeah, if you just click on it, you say here, you know... You don't need English to read English, basically, according to Sadiq Khan, okay?
	And it's a 52-page document that you need to familiarize yourself with.
	It's not in Braille.
	This is discriminatory toward the aspiring blind people who want to be London cab drivers.
	Yeah.
	So basically you don't need the English language, but in order to get it, you need to read English.
	But this is something that Sadiq Khan is happy to argue against.
	And if we look back on his post here, you'll see that he said there, I'm pleased TfL is now pausing enforcement of the SCRU requirements, the requirements I just showed you.
	So you don't need to familiarize yourself with it.
	You don't need to read English.
	You don't need to just know how to drive.
	I don't know how you're going to talk with your passengers, but I mean, people have found a way, sign language perhaps.
	What if you get pulled over?
	What if you get pulled over and the police ask for your driver's license and you don't speak English?
	So do you even have to know how to drive?
	Don't give them ideas, because they could say, brilliant Connor, we found this.
	The problem is we need also English transport police members who can talk to the language of those who don't speak English.
	So don't give them ideas.
	Okay, so that's it and let's go to the next segment.
	All right, okay.
	I hate living in London.
	I do wonder how the hell we're going to get around in the future because all the, I was about to say plane drivers, all the pilots are diversity hires, all the construction diversity hires, the cabs are gone.
	I mean, are the trains safe?
	No.
	Okay, so there's no transport system anymore that is safe.
	De facto lockdown.
	Yippee!
	With that, so the New York Times have done an expose over the weekend on the various activists, right-wing NGOs and state legislatures that are looking to ban diversity, equity and inclusion policies, and queer theory and critical race theory in K-12 education.
	Now, we've been over that topic a bunch of times, so that's not what I necessarily want to talk about.
	I want to look at this through the frame of cancelled culture no longer mattering, Because I don't think this giant expose is going to do anything.
	Because most of the charges in here, what they did is they got a bunch of emails from the activists, the NGOs, and the state reps from Freedom of Information requests.
	And so, by the way, if you're looking to do optics, maybe don't say spicy things over emails to actual government officials.
	They can be.
	Go on.
	But, other than that, it's just, we're upset that non-progressives are doing non-progressive things.
	And so, I just want to find it interesting that the camps have ossified to such an extent at this point.
	We've got the parallel institutions, and they're both just vying to convince whichever state seem most likely to cotton on to their ideas, to enact their policies.
	And so, this sort of screeching Just doesn't land.
	Which is actually quite a good development, I think.
	But anyway, I'm going to read a little bit from it.
	So this mainly focuses on the Claremont and Manhattan Institutes, with figures like Chris Rufo.
	And they say, long before Claudine Gay resigned as Harvard's president this month, under increased criticism of her academic record and congressional testimony about campus anti-Semitism, conservative academics and politicians began making the case that the decades-long drive to increase racial diversity in American universities had corrupted higher education, gathering strength from a backlash against BLM and fueled by criticism gathering strength from a backlash against BLM and fueled by criticism that doctrines such as critical race theory had made colleges engines of progressive Which is true.
	The eradication of DEI programs has become both a cause and a message, suffusing the American right.
	In 2023, more than 20 states had considered or approved new laws taking aim at DEI.
	And they say, even though DEI remains popular.
	Yes, among your mad race-communism-obsessed political class, but there you go.
	So, they quote in here from the Claremont Institute in 2021, our project will give legislators the knowledge and tools they need to stop funding the suicide of their own country and civilization.
	God forbid they do something like that.
	Sorry, someone just scrolled up in my document.
	Where am I?
	I didn't do it.
	Yeah, it wasn't me.
	Ultimately, according to one document, the Claremont organizers hoped state lawmakers across the country would pass sweeping prohibitions on teaching social justice programming.
	In one exchange, some of those involved discussed how to marshal political power to replace left-wing orthodoxies with more patriotic, traditionalist curriculums.
	Quote, in support of ridding schools of CRT, the right argues we want non-political education, Mr. Klingenstein, who's the chairman of Claremont, wrote in August 2021.
	No, we don't.
	We want our politics.
	All education is political.
	Dr. Yenor appeared to agree, responding with some ideas for reshaping K-12.
	An alternative vision of education must replace the current vision of education.
	Now, we've spoken about this a fair amount.
	It's that the sort of default liberals who occupy institutions keep preaching for institutional neutrality.
	We want politics out of entertainment, out of schools, out of public life.
	Everything becomes political.
	Exactly.
	Well, frankly, the observation here, and I think it's quite accurate, is that everything is in fact political when your political opposition no longer value neutrality as an axiom.
	They no longer value tolerance, for example.
	They actually recognize that you are an existential threat to their worldview.
	The thing is about their worldview is their worldview is gay race communism.
	And I don't like gay race communism, so I'm not in favor of it.
	So actually, yes, I am happy for institutions to be political against gay race communism.
	And it's nice that the right-wing politicians and think tanks have finally caught up to this, rather than just saying, whoa, we can't have a position on this, guys, we've got to stay neutral.
	I mean, I get your point.
	There is a degree in which I agree with you, because neutrality with respect to values is just a pipe dream.
	The kind of neutrality I have been talking about is neutrality with respect to comprehensive moral doctrines and wokeness is one of it.
	So you can't, it is something that is basically brainwashing people and it's completely intolerant.
	It's one vision of how you should be, you know, possibly having blue hair and they want to force it upon all people.
	And to the extent that they're saying that you are not going to conform with it, You are an enemy, an existential threat, and all of that in the name of diversity.
	They want blind conformism.
	So when you are in situations where you are against these people, you have to react.
	And reacting does mean that you try to educate people into being a bit more patriotic, a bit more traditional.
	I'm all for this.
	But it seems to me that it is important to not essentially be the opposite side of the same coin.
	But in what sense, though?
	Because I hear this a lot, but what do people actually mean by that?
	Because if we're just telling the truth and they don't believe there's any truth for power, then... I mean, you have to guard yourself against people who say this.
	But the point is, speaking of education, if you want to say that I don't want those who educate children and the younger generation to become, in a sense, blind conformists, The cure is not to say that they are going to become blind conformists with respect to something else.
	So for instance, as far as I'm concerned, what is really appalling with wokeness is the kind of malicious Effort to enter into the soul of young children, especially they do this to everyone, but especially in children when it comes to education.
	Because they're defenseless.
	Yes, because they're defenseless.
	And also they don't have the means to critically understand what is going on.
	And also they don't reproduce.
	They have to recruit.
	Yeah.
	So for me, guidance is important.
	Every society has up until now has tried to educate their young generations to be a bit patriotic and have traditional values.
	I don't think though that, Giving focus on some critical education is bad, but that is the issue with wokeness.
	It's not critical education.
	Awokeness is essentially, if you don't embrace the agenda that we are teaching you, who are the authorities, you're an existential threat to us and you're leading us into a situation where we have high risk of suicide.
	That's essentially blackmailing students and everyone else.
	And it's only instrumentally critical insofar as it says, these wholesome traditions, we're going to tear them down because we want gay race communism.
	So it's just critique of the existing order because they want to overthrow it.
	Right.
	Now, some of this in there, as I said, was a little bit spicy.
	But because I don't care about the approvals of people who fundamentally hate me, and it's just true things said in a blunt way, I'm just going to read it out and we're going to have a bit of fun with it, actually.
	So, this is from Heather MacDonald who wrote the book When Race Trumps Merit.
	She, I believe, writes for City Journal.
	She's worked with Claremont before.
	And so, she said, in an email exchange last May about a court case in India about same-sex marriage, Heather MacDonald said it would be fun to see what liberals would say about Indians if the court conferred gay marriage rights, but Indians refused to go along.
	Quote, how will Western elites explain the benightedness of yet another group of people of colour?
	In response, Dr. Yenor noted not tons of Asian countries have same-sex marriage but quote, more wholesome policies like prison for gay people.
	Okay.
	That's true.
	Even if you're But even if you're liberal, right, shouldn't that just be a point of consistency?
	But they don't care about that.
	They just care about the progressive stack, of course.
	Last spring, McDonald emailed some of the same people about news reports that a boyfriend of Peter Thiel had committed suicide after a confrontation with Mr. Thiel's husband.
	Calling the episode a scandal, she opined that gay men are, quote, much more prone to extramarital affairs on the empirical basis of testosterone unchecked by female modesty.
	Yes.
	Famously non-promiscuous group of people.
	Gay men.
	Again, just factually observable.
	And you guys celebrate this at pride parades, so this is clearly just you trying to hope to appeal to the woolly liberal standards of what you think the anti-woke coalition still has, and try and get their side to hoist them on your behalf.
	Point is, if they don't recognize you as a moral arbiter, that's not going to work anymore.
	And, in another email to Dr. Younour, McDonald reflected on a further curse of feminism, the proliferation of quote, nannies of color in her Manhattan neighborhood, and the bizarreness of women entrusting their children to caregivers from quote, the low IQ third world while devoting themselves to making partner at a law firm.
	Yes, because actually, mothers are the best communicator of values, best custodians of their civilization, and best caregivers for their own children, rather than just paying someone who, as we saw in the last segment, may not necessarily speak English and might not have the best interests at heart.
	How terrible, but alright.
	The other stuff that you're complaining about is just boilerplate anti-progressivism.
	So they say, quote, lagging achievement for African-Americans and other racial minorities, some argued privately should not be a matter of public concern.
	Quote, my big worry is that we do not make the good of minorities the standard by which we judge public policy or the effects of public policy, wrote Yanor.
	He said, whites will be overrepresented in some spheres, blacks in others, Asians in others.
	We cannot see this as some moral failing on our part.
	Yes, they're not committed to equality of outcome because they don't believe that in total blank slate theory that everyone is fundamentally a fungible economic actor.
	Shock.
	It's just non-progressivism.
	Why are we surprised?
	But again, they turn around and say, as you said previously, how could we not exalt the success of our precious constituency class as the standard by which everything is legitimate?
	In a statement for this article, Claremont said that it was proud to be a leader in the fight against DEI, since the ideology from which it flows conflicts with America's founding principles, constitutional government, and equality under the law.
	Those are the things we believe in.
	Without them, there is no America.
	You cannot have those things with DEI.
	Repeatedly and in public, we make these arguments to preserve justice, competence, and the progress of science.
	Which, apart from that last part, I don't think- What's objectionable about that?
	Exactly.
	It's only objectionable if you are a gay race communist.
	Which they're not.
	And so, they're not going along with this smear tactic.
	Which is useful.
	And they know that these people just fundamentally aren't honest, because this was an article that was released.
	Sorry.
	Oh, okay.
	Yeah.
	I was going to ask you about this article.
	What, what is it?
	Oh, don't know what's happened here.
	Tech problems.
	You got to click.
	There we go.
	Got it.
	Right.
	Understood.
	Yeah.
	This came out around the same time.
	This was today.
	Sorry.
	Can I say something just about the title before, before I cut you?
	Please.
	So, um, critics of DI forget that it works.
	That doesn't mean much because I mean it works and it works badly and we don't want it because it has bad effects and it's very effective in these bad effects.
	Yeah.
	I got pissed off with the title.
	Well it works if you're a gay race communist but we're not so we're critics of it because we don't want that.
	Simple.
	So it says, support for corporate and DEI efforts appear to be shrinking, even though most people want the same thing.
	Competitive organizations where everyone who shows up to work has a fair shot at success.
	Ah, you want vaguely worded, obviously good thing?
	Well, so do I want vaguely worded, obviously good thing.
	And if you don't do what I want to get vaguely worded, obviously good thing, you're a racist.
	You're going to do it, right?
	It's like, we don't want the same thing.
	Yeah.
	We don't want remotely the same thing.
	That is why I was saying before that they understand equality of opportunity in terms of equality of results.
	Wherever they see unequal results, they say that there's an equal opportunity.
	And you see it, for instance, in Ibram Kendi.
	Wasn't he saying that any racial discrimination, any racial disparity is to be traced to a racial discrimination?
	That's the axiom.
	Yes.
	Essentially.
	You can't find it.
	Yes.
	Trust me, it's there.
	Trust me, bro.
	Yeah.
	The ghost of white supremacy has its hands on the strings yet again.
	In our experience, many organisations working on DEI goals are getting stuck at the diversity stage, recruiting difference without managing it effectively.
	That's a bit I want to hang up on.
	And generating frustration and cynicism about their efforts along the way.
	They're now at risk of stopping in the middle of a complex change journey, declaring failure prematurely.
	Yes, they're genuinely saying real diversity hasn't been tried.
	Because it turns out that just selecting people based on their skin colour, and assuming they're all going to slot in with equal aptitude, and that you're going to get great results, doesn't work.
	So this, as you said in your prior segment, manufactures consent for scaling up the micromanagement bureaucracy.
	has to arbitrate every single little conflict in the workplace, and it makes the workplace a hostile and soulless place.
	Not fun.
	At a time when some organizations, feeling the politicized ripple effects of affirmative actions repeal, are at risk of abandoning the objectives of DEI, our experience is suggested to do so is bad for individuals, organizations, and American society writ large.
	That's been going so well.
	Persuasive scholarship, this editorializing, has identified the ways in which we become more effective leaders when we collaborate skillfully with people who don't already think like us.
	People with different perspectives, assumptions, and experiences.
	Sorry, they should try it at some point.
	I know!
	They should try it.
	Instead of just saying that anyone who disagrees with us is basically killing us.
	Yeah, you should try.
	You should practice what you preach.
	But we've both encountered Mott & Bailey tactics before, right?
	Of course.
	They work for the uninitiated.
	Yeah.
	Upfront, they say, well, we're focusing on diversity of thought because having multiple perspectives in your workplace is really good for team building on identifying weaknesses.
	And that's what they retreat to when they're really advancing the position of, we just want more browns because we hate white people.
	So they're trying to sell this to you, but in effect, it's just you lose your job.
	Now, again, this would be a total conspiracy theory if we didn't have the numbers.
	So in 2021, 2020 to 2021, after BLM, 94% of the 300,000 jobs that corporate America made went to minorities.
	after BLM, 94% of the 300,000 jobs that corporate America made went to minorities.
	94% in a, at present, majority-wide country.
	Definitely think all of those are meritorious.
	Absolutely no selection criteria purely on the basis of skin colour there, I'm sure.
	The overall job growth included 20,524 white workers and 302,570 jobs to people of colour.
	That's just beige block of the client class.
	302,570 jobs to people of colour.
	That just beige block of the client class.
	Further proof that, of course, merit doesn't matter to these people, and this is why Chris Rufo calls it America's Cultural Revolution.
	Because to this scale, a fundamental transformation just out in the open of America's institutions, with the appointment of all of these people on the promise that you have bought into this ideology, of course it's going to change the landscape of your civilization and make people really resentful.
	Now, if you wanted more proof they didn't care about merit, remember Claudine Gay?
	Yeah.
	Harvard's president's resignation highlights new conservative weapon against colleges.
	Plagiarism.
	Right, so not stealing other people's work.
	Is now a bad thing?
	It's an instance of whiteness.
	Not wanting people to plagiarize others is apparently too much to ask.
	Have you thought of the feelings of those who want to plagiarize?
	Who want to be plagiarized?
	Yes!
	I mean, that reference to Chris Rufo's point is so unbelievably true.
	I mean, we've gone through so many stories for the last few years.
	I mean, I don't know when you pinpoint the beginning, but It is now, I think, demonstrable.
	And there should be a name for it, frankly, as a historical event.
	The Cultural Revolution of the United States.
	It's whatever the hell has gone on.
	Because it is now an historical event.
	Which is still the end point.
	It's probably going to be over soon enough so that it collapses.
	But for the last few years, I mean, this isn't new.
	I mean, at least since 2012 or something has been going on.
	People have dubbed it since 2014, the Great Awakening, because that's when you see all those charts, when places like the New York Times and Washington Post exponentially begin reporting on intersectional issues where they never did before.
	And I've heard that, you know, that's the, a lot of people are complaining about this being essentially the main legacy of Obama's last four years.
	And they say that a lot of that starts from there.
	Obviously, there are things like that before, but the whole focus on it by mass media on it.
	One of the big things we are going to have to contend with within the right, though, and this has been a conversation that comes up as of recently every couple of years, is the civil rights legacy still hanging over.
	Because, of course, we're a broad camp here.
	We have conservatives, reactionaries, liberals.
	And some of the liberals still cling to the idea that Martin Luther King- Classical.
	We've got some disaffected liberals still in our camp that purport to be anti-woke but still just want to return to fresh prints, right?
	They still exalt Martin Luther King as a civil rights hero because they've basically only read the I Have a Dream speech.
	They don't realise that he was a friend of communists, went to a communist training school.
	Speaking of plagiarism, he plagiarized his doctoral dissertation, despite calling himself a reverend, denied the incarnation of Christ and said Mary was making it all up and wanted massive redistribution and did actually justify riots as the physical enactment of black rage against capital W white supremacy and said, actually, the Detroit riots.
	Well, yeah, they stole a lot of property, but it was way less damage than what you've done to the black man.
	And so people need to contend with the fact that these DEI policies are actually an outgrowth of the legacy of civil rights, giving positive rights and therefore the bedrock of affirmative action to minority constituencies.
	And so we're going to have to be comfortable jettisoning America's parallel constitutions.
	But some people haven't grappled with that yet, and I foresee that to be a big problem in the years to come.
	And the reason I mention that, and the reason I mention it under the rubric of Cancel Culture No Longer Matters, is because of this figure here.
	Are you familiar with a gentleman by the name of Richard Hananya?
	I've heard someone talking about him, but not.
	Okay, so Harry has his book at the moment in the office, which might have been where it's... That's where I heard it from.
	His book is The Origins of Woke, and Hananya is a... he calls himself conservative, but he also calls himself a Nietzschean liberal utilitarian.
	I have problems with him, OK?
	Sorry, I don't know the man and if you want to say good things about him and there's ground for grimming or something, this screams to me.
	I want people to notice me and give me attention.
	Maybe a little bit.
	Nietzsche was no utilitarian.
	It's not the dumbest thing he's said, because it's been said in here, but the reason that he's become in Chris Ruffo's orbit is because in Origins of Woke he actually goes through the legal history of how the civil rights laws set up DEI, and so he makes a compelling argument about that.
	Shortly before his book came out, and this was last year in August, the Huffington Post decided to do a big hit piece on him, saying that they found his old pseudonym on a bunch of blogs, Richard Host.
	They found memes on his phone?
	Um, yeah.
	Okay.
	So in the 2010s, there were some choice quotes here, and again, I have my objections with Hananya, but I'm not trying to dogpile on this attempt to to destroy his reputation.
	I'm merely pointing out the tactics they're using.
	He said, quote, Fat people not only are disgusting to look at, their obesity reflects some ugly personality traits.
	Fact check, true.
	If the races are equal, why do whites always end up near the top and blacks at the bottom everywhere and always?
	Of course, this is violating the progressive shibboleth that it is systemic racism to blame because he's suggesting somewhere otherwise.
	But okay.
	Women's liberation equals the end of human civilization.
	looking at the sexual revolution yes There doesn't seem to be a way to deal with low IQ breeding that doesn't include coercion.
	That I disavow, because I'm not for the eugenic state, but there you go.
	I suppose I'm just far right.
	And the ultimate goal should be to get all the post-1965 non-white immigrants from Latin America to leave.
	Again, very spicy stuff.
	Sort of radioactive, probably about ten years ago.
	The interesting part here isn't that New York Magazine and the like were complaining that he, in his subsequent substack post where he said, it's been revealed that over a decade ago I held beliefs that, as my current writing makes clear, I now find repulsive.
	It isn't that they say that the word apology never appeared in his substack post.
	That's not what's interesting about this.
	It's that he's kept his job.
	He's still gone on Trigonometry to be interviewed about his book, that his book's done relatively well, that he's still working with Chris Rufo, that essentially his past edgy posts have not caused him to be cancelled by his own in-crowd.
	That his contributions to the dismantling of civil rights law, instrumental to undoing the cultural revolution wrought by DEI, is more useful than, our enemies are whining about and are upset, nooo!
	And even in their own camp, This was in Compact Mag.
	This was by Michael Lind, who sees himself as a centrist, but he often writes for conservative leaning outlets.
	He says, it will be impossible for the Republican Party to win over more working class white and non-white voters by adopting pro-worker policies as long as substantial shares of GOP donors, journalists, think tankers, and activists structure their politics around hereditarian theories that claim the patterns of class and race in America and the world are the result of DNA.
	Why call them the eugenic conservatives?
	Okay.
	Number one, the heuristic for saying, well, in mass democracy, people might disapprove of this.
	So we should shut up about possible truths or even like radioactive topics that maybe are wrong, like eugenics, which I disagree with.
	That's just a weak way of sort of trying to bully you into line.
	That's how you get nudged towards the center ground and lose.
	But the point I'm making is throughout all of this, New York Times expose of DEI, If you recognise, as you were saying, that wokeness posits an existential threat, a delusional comprehensive doctrine that will destroy your way of life, why would you try to appease them?
	Why would you throw your own people under the bus if you're useful to your movement, for the sake of trying to be liked by a side that would sooner shoot you in the street than make peace with you?
	I think essentially what we lack is good historical knowledge.
	And when I say we, I mean culturally speaking in the West, a lot of people that don't know history.
	You mentioned the word appeasement.
	Now it seems to me that the most standard readings of 20th century history say that a lot of bad decisions were made by people who tried to appease some other leaders, let's say.
	So the reason why wokeness is working is because in several kinds of institutions, it works incrementally and step by step.
	And I could say that in a way that there is a conservative tendency in people to resist fast changes, but being okay with slow changes.
	And a lot of people don't protest when they see slow incremental changes.
	Because they only react when they see really fast ones so step by step this is how you know institutions like academia gets averted.
	And you get, you know, people who are completely transforming it.
	Why?
	Because there is this tendency to appease.
	And this is one thing that, because you mentioned, you know, the conversation that needs to be had in the broader, you know, right-wing sphere is that sometimes I think that it is that conservative element that makes people more prone to accept in their jobs, in their positions within those institutions.
	All these incremental changes of the DEI, rather than just go instantly ballistic and say, what the hell is this?
	How are we suddenly supposed to say that 1 plus 1 equals 3?
	How are we demanded to do this?
	And I think that this is one interesting point that we will definitely raise in the future.
	Yeah, it's an abdication of responsibility out of a temperamental conservatism, aka cowardice.
	Of course, I want to say conservatism is far more than that.
	But I think that if it is understood as an attitude that has to do with resistance to fast changes, it has some merits, but also it has its problems.
	And that is why I think a lot of institutions that were saved in really bad and turbulent times in the 20th century, that frequently involved warfare, Have been subverted in peace during peacetime.
	Yeah, well, this is the William F. Buckley quote of conservatism is standing against history before history and shouting stop.
	That just becomes progressivism driving the speed limit.
	Because if you don't have any positive vision, then you're just going to succumb to the forces of ideological entropy and technological change over time.
	Yes.
	Really brilliant stuff that I'm sure we're going to talk about in the near future.
	Yes, definitely.
	We'll look forward to that.
	And cancel culture doesn't work if you don't let it.
	So just a bit of advice for all those people trying to undo DEI.
	Godspeed.
	Just a quick one guys, because of Beau's interest in space.
	Now, the Elon Musk SpaceX Starship program, the aim is to get the launch cost down to a million dollars per launch.
	Now, doing that would bring the cost to get a tonne of materials into space to about ten thousand US dollars.
	Now, bear in mind that the cost of getting a tonne to space was two million dollars, so that's pretty cheap.
	And then that means that eventually commercial space asteroid mining will be viable.
	So that means that you're actually bringing home metals that are worth more than the original spaceflight as well.
	We looked at this a lot in spacecraft design and we never really figured out how that's actually ever going to be done.
	Right.
	There's the Mars base idea and the Moon base idea.
	Like, that's worthwhile.
	There's not much you can do on the moon, obviously, but if you want something where you can have a port outside of us, atmosphere and whatnot, like, it's great.
	Mars, you want a new homeland?
	Like, great idea.
	It's cool, though.
	Yeah, I'm sure someone will let me know.
	I just, I remember doing this in university and we never actually figured out what would be the point in asteroid mining, because the reality of how far you actually have to go and the logistics of it, we just couldn't really see why.
	I mean, maybe if you're doing, what's that one, platinum, then you can bring back a whole bunch, but it doesn't seem easy.
	Either way, it's great for space exploration.
	I'm sure we'll end up there someday.
	Just treat the moon like a weigh station.
	Yeah, that's the idea of the moon base.
	And Chad was mentioning earlier, like a moon elevator, so a space elevator on the moon.
	Bo was talking about this, yeah, on Lanzow recently.
	Alright, let's go to the next one.
	Hello.
	On Friday, Callum asked the question, how can a person rationalize modern-day slavery?
	I believe the thought process and decision-making processes of leftists in general is primarily driven by empathy.
	And when you combine empathy with a moral compass that either doesn't point north, doesn't exist at all, or is selectively applied based on political expedience, a lot of horrible shit can be rationalized when the first thing they ask themselves is, how would I feel and what would I do if I was in their situation?
	Fair enough.
	Let's go to the written comments on the site.
	All right, so, starting off with the fact that it's not funny to make people laugh.
	Gee, I wonder why no one wants to be a police officer anymore.
	It's a mystery, that is.
	Yeah.
	I mean, I had a few messages from, um, what did I say here?
	So, a chat messaged me, and he happens to know of a case that's currently going on, and the way it's written is, of course, like Count Dankula, when it was written down in a court case.
	It's like, you said gas the Jews.
	How do you plead?
	He's like, no.
	A joke and a dog and a video, everything else builds off.
	But in black and white, it looked horrible.
	So the case is this, which is a police officer made comments about how he used to have a relationship with another police officer, sexual relationship, and how he's been frustrated because he hasn't had sex recently, and he spoke about a dream and this was harassment towards her.
	But then the guy who's familiar with the case just messaged me and was like, yeah, no, he drew some stick figures and made a joke.
	That's an actual case right now going on.
	I was like, oh.
	Yeah, I don't know what you can do that's light-hearted and fun as a police officer.
	I think you actually have to be, what was it, Sergeant Angel from Hot Fuzz.
	Otherwise... Yeah, but then they got rid of him because he was too good.
	Yeah.
	That's the whole plot of Hot Fuzz.
	That's what's happening now.
	So I know of someone who works with particularly the Met Police quite frequently.
	Has inside access and that, and just speaks to the police officers.
	And they said, yeah, we just lowered the fitness requirements again to increase recruitment because we want more women and minorities, basically.
	We don't want capable white guys.
	And so what you get there is a bunch of kids that were bullied at school, that want a little bit of power, the sort of spiteful mutants effect, where people that kind of deep down are insecure, knowing that they're weak and pathetic.
	And so they're most likely to be pepper spray members of the public, like the lesbian Nana, or police their own and get offended about really trivial things.
	So it's Sergeant Angel, but he's also, like, kind of retarded.
	He's just an unbearable leftist.
	Well, it's like all of his higher-ups that then ship him off to absolutely nowhere because his good example just makes them feel and look bad.
	I did just think, I wonder if someone could do this, if someone's got some spare time, if they go back and watch Hot Fuzz, and of the Sanford Police Department, because of course they're all making jokes constantly, if you could whip up just a small list of their infractions, that would actually be wonderful to read.
	Anyway, Richard says, Strange how the police have reverted to fascism over memes.
	How emetic.
	You can't make it up.
	The misconduct hearings bear witness of farce and the usual corruption.
	Anti-white supremacy.
	Why are there non-English officers?
	This is what you get.
	Why are the police spying on each other and obsessed with policing people's thoughts instead of crime?
	Wankers.
	Fair enough.
	Omar Awad says the supply isn't meeting demand, it just goes to show how little offense there is to go around when they have to delve into private spaces they can get their grubby little hands on to find any trace of wrong thing.
	I'm reminded of the search for one of the Jews in Scotland to be offended by Dankula's dog video, but everyone they asked either didn't care or found it funny.
	Yeah, I remember that.
	They had to go to the Scottish Council of Jews and then get a Jewish guy who hadn't seen the video to be offended by it.
	Didn't they... Which was just like, are you serious?
	Didn't they get a random Jewish comedian who refused to meet Mark to comment on it for the BBC documentary?
	I don't know about the BBC one.
	Have you not seen his... They ended up pulling one of them.
	I don't know if they... They published one with... You mean the one with the bald guy?
	No, that was the argument they had in the pub, wasn't it?
	And that guy went on Golden Balls and actually just nicked money off some woman.
	So, yeah, really virtuous fella there.
	Glad you're blimmin' morally berating, Dankula.
	Karambit says, Judge, Sir, you stand accused of memeing, joking and having fun, and the sentence for the prosecution is seeking the death penalty by stoning.
	How do you plead?
	The accused responds, Guilty, Your Honour, but who amongst us has not laughed as a joke?
	Let us, who has never laughed, cast the first stone.
	I mean, sincerely, there is actually... How do I put this?
	Nothing more sort of empowering than someone being tyrannical to a clown.
	It's like someone's making a joke and you're locking him up like that.
	Well, in Kandankula's case, it's perfect.
	He's being a comedian.
	He's being a clown.
	He's being a funny boy.
	And they're like, yeah, we got to shut you down.
	I mean, I did notice at the time there was a lot of cowardice from people who didn't want to take it on.
	Edgy, isn't it?
	But for everyone who did, obviously nothing came of it because it was so stupid.
	You'd get in a debate with someone about Kandankula's situation and everyone you'd meet who, for some reason, had deluded themselves that they were on the right side by saying you should go to jail.
	We're just comical?
	Like, as the conversation went on, it just became more and more stupid as you're interacting with this person who's like, ah, jokes should be banned!
	So, okay.
	What is there to deal with that, at that point?
	Like, they're not really sincere people.
	Lewis says, meme on them until they cry and make them, and then make memes of them crying.
	Yeah, I think we are.
	JJHW says, the police are upset for being called out as the new Gestapo.
	Yep.
	And Robert says, so, All we have to do to get rid of the shitty cops is check notes, send them naughty memes via random WhatsApp accounts.
	Yeah, seemingly so.
	But I don't know if they're actually offended by it, obviously.
	No, no, no.
	They'll just use that as a pretext to lock you up.
	So I actually wouldn't advise it.
	But if you did, um... Like, I'm thinking of a Russian bot account.
	Because you know you get these random... Well, I get them, at least on Telegram.
	Which is, like, random accounts, like, like, like, like, like, like, like, like, like, like, like, like, like, like, like, like, like, like, like, like, like, like, like, like, like, like, like, like, like, like, like, like, like, like, like, like, like, like, like, like, like, like, like, like, like, like, like, like, like, like, like, like, like, like, like, like, like, like, like, like, like, like, like, like, If there's any computer wizard out there, I mean, let me know if that's possible.
	But anyway, let's move on.
	Okay.
	So, Lord Nerevar, in fairness, it seems that Sadiq Khan is reacting to the absolute state of his city.
	Why would English be required in a city where the English are a minority?
	In a place that more closely resembles Pakistan than England.
	Birmingham is much the same, and Swindon.
	Of course, if you ask why this happened, you get cuffed for a wrong thing, so don't ask.
	Well, I mean, it's not in fairness to him, because... Anyway.
	But he did say we need more immigrants for London.
	Yeah.
	And then also he did say London is for everyone, except if you only speak English.
	Yeah.
	So basically he's actively trying to make it less English.
	Trying to destroy the place.
	Yeah.
	Arizona, there's a rat.
	When will society understand that nothing is free?
	Everything has a cost.
	Whether it's money, materials, time, or labor, there's a cost.
	I think that's correct.
	But the question is, who is going to pay the cost?
	And I think a lot of states are trying to cultivate the idea that the people whose support they seek are not going to pay the costs.
	Yeah, the capitalizing on resentment.
	Yes.
	But if you really think about it, they don't.
	And everyone gets sort of robbed of something in order for the state to expand its power.
	And now it has become huge.
	And, you know, you get people who constantly say that we are needed in order to intervene more in your lives and solve all your problems because you can't do it without us.
	So it's essentially the mentality of a middleman.
	Well, the native population is just taxed.
	A and B need C to arbitrate between them because A and B cannot coexist otherwise.
	Don't need English to do a PhD, so possibly.
	private hired drivers that immigrant PhDs keep hearing about.
	Don't need English to do a PhD, so possibly.
	Yeah, all those doctors, lawyers and engineers now driving Ubers.
	Yeah, probably.
	The Crusader.
	This brings everything down to the level of the lowest common denominator, indeed.
	And then you get San Francisco and L.A.
	where you need an app to tell you how to avoid the poop in the streets.
	Okay.
	Next step, get a read of IELTS exam, English language requirements for international students in the UK.
	Great idea, right?
	By the way, in Poland, the leftist government is revoking the obligation for students to do homework.
	Well, that's base.
	They really care for us.
	That's really base.
	I say, like, all of this stuff, critiquing the education system entirely against institutional schooling.
	So if they want to accidentally give students more free time, good.
	I mean, this doesn't apply in Poland, but if you have woke school, you really want there to be less homework?
	Well, it would.
	I think it's going to increasingly apply in Poland if I'm right about the... Yeah, right ten times.
	Diaper situation over there.
	Kevin Fox, F freezing the fares.
	Reduce the damn things.
	The TFL fares are the highest in Europe, if not the Anglosphere.
	Again by Kevin.
	How do they get a driving license, never mind a private hard license, if they don't know English?
	That's a great question.
	Here in Thailand, even though I have a valid UK driving license and an international driver permit, but I still have to do a theory part of the Thai driving test, which is 100 questions in Thai.
	And I must score 90 or above.
	Having seen Thai drivers, I'm guessing they only need to hit a particular number or above.
	I don't see one.
	To do the test, I need to bring my own interpreter in most driving testing centers.
	So why do they have the test in foreign languages?
	So for Liv, that's not equal treatment, though.
	That's preferential treatment.
	People just never talk about how equality also involves equal responsibility.
	And as long as you don't include the responsibility part, it's just not equality.
	I mean, it is equality if, again, you presume everyone has a universal humanity or universal access to rational faculties, or that somehow geography or culture doesn't matter, and therefore you get an equal outcome to prove we're all universal.
	And I have another one from Robert Longshaw.
	An operator of heavy machinery should need to speak the language in order to communicate with emergency services in case of emergency.
	Imagine you have the sign saying, you know, there's fire, some go out.
	Yeah, that's why you have the ring.
	This is exactly what happened with that care home, wasn't it?
	Where some woman slipped and fell down the stairs, and what was it, a Bangladeshi and a...
	Yeah, especially.
	or whatever other carer it was.
	And they didn't speak English properly, so they didn't know the difference between breathing and bleeding.
	So she just died.
	So yeah, you do actually need to speak English in emergency situations.
	I can't believe we're even relitigating this.
	Yeah, especially.
	And we are talking about situations that could possibly be dangerous because entering in a vehicle is more dangerous than entering on a plane.
	Have you?
	There's statistics.
	Yeah, a mile you will die.
	Yeah.
	More if you drive a distance.
	I don't know.
	I've seen diversity schemes for pilots, So I think those statistics might start to equal out.
	I was debating this, because I was on an American plane not too long ago, and I did think to myself, because I heard the person flying its voice, I just thought to myself, oh God.
	And then I realised, like, where is the safest place to fly then?
	This is a point of interest, because if it's not the United States, Well, just Denmark to Sweden, that route.
	Yeah.
	You'll be fine.
	Yeah, I mean, they seem to be cleaning themselves up sufficiently of anything left us, so.
	Quite in terms of DEI, obviously.
	Yeah.
	Hmm.
	Shall we go to your segment?
	Yep, sure.
	Someone online, the only thing they talked about when they made us practically worship Obama in school was the fact that he was a black president.
	That does feel like the explosion point of woke.
	I suppose it's peak salience.
	It's in the same way where they said Trump killed the American Republic, and it's no, he was the coroner who pronounced it dead rather than the person that killed her.
	I think Obama might have been one of the most symbolic moments, but then it has obviously been building since the civil rights era.
	I was young, but I still remember those years, and I'm sure you guys- Do you have a dream?
	No, you must remember when everyone was just like, a black guy?
	It's just like, yeah, but at least in our age, no one cared, obviously.
	There were still kids.
	It was like, yeah, he's black.
	But even then, he wasn't the first African-American president because he's not African-American.
	His black side's Kenyan or whatever.
	So you have nothing in common with the blacks of America.
	So it doesn't even work as a civil rights moment of like, finally, African-American president.
	You haven't actually made it.
	And he also grew up in Hawaii.
	Typical inner city.
	Basically from Baltimore.
	Furious Dan, patriotism is the belief that your country's foundational myths and traditions are morally valid.
	Opposing it in its entirety is fundamentally the same as the belief your country should not exist.
	That's actually a very succinct way of putting it.
	Let me just say one thing, because I was having a debate with a Greek who was saying that we shouldn't educate people in Greece to be Greek citizens, we should educate them to be citizens of the world.
	And he told me, you know, how many people know that, you know, 13-year-olds know that Vietnam was a French colony.
	Because of the universalist liberalist mandate that says that everyone must be equal.
	It's just mind rot.
	That's it.
	Kevin, Stelios is right.
	Okay, I'm not reading the rest.
	Thanks, Kevin.
	Love you, dude.
	About the slow progress of change.
	It's the frog in the pot system.
	Drop it in boiling water and it jumps out.
	Put it in cold water and heat and it slowly dies.
	Not true, by the way, but useful analogy.
	A better analogy, because it is actually true, is the aversion to learned helplessness that they did with rats.
	So if you put rats in a pot and just let them swim, they'll stop swimming after 40 minutes and drown.
	So it's the rat in the pot system.
	Yeah.
	But if you put, if you put a rat in water and let it swim for half an hour and then you pick it up, dry it off and then try it a few days later, it'll keep swimming for hours thinking the hand's going to come and rescue it again.
	So that fosters dependency in people.
	Arizona desert rat.
	No one should be plagiarizing.
	I don't care what race, sex, ethnicity, et cetera, you are.
	Well.
	Yeah, that's why you're far right.
	Kevin Fox, DEI is a pain in the backside, not only because of what it's trying to do, but because of how people are using it.
	Case in point, Nikki Haley, not happy with playing the female victim card.
	She's now using the race card to complain that she grew up.
	She was teased for being brown.
	Yeah, I saw this.
	She's a very light shade of brown, especially as well.
	She changed her name because her original name is very Indian sounding.
	Claims she was barred from beauty pageant because they didn't know whether she'd be in the black or white category.
	Ten years after segregation, these pageants had ended.
	What?
	1970 and the average American doesn't know what an Indian is.
	And we really believe in that.
	Thank you.
	They've never met one.
	No idea.
	Probably just mid.
	Robert Longshaw.
	Blackness includes plagiarism apparently.
	True.
	Bleach Demon.
	It's interesting that 1965 has brought up not only the Civil Rights Act but also a slew of other social engineering programs under President Johnson under the guise of the Great Society and that started a lot of these social evils that are spreading across the West.
	After all, LBJ is quoted as saying, I'll have these N-words.
	Voting Democrat for 100 years.
	That's in Doris Kearns autobiography of him as well.
	So that's the reference for you.
	Has he been wrong?
	Unfortunately so.
	I mean, marriage rates were far higher under black families well before the Great Society was enacted.
	Poverty rates were better.
	So yeah, it turns out the way in which they ended segregation was not particularly good for America or for black people.
	Bleach Demon.
	2014 makes a lot of sense for the increase of racialized commentary in the US, as that's when the Ferguson riots occurred, which was a culmination of years of Obama bringing race into a lot of conversations, from the police acted stupidly, to talks of nationalizing the police structures, and of course, if I had a son he would look like Trayvon Martin.
	Ah yes, he would be beating the head of a neighborhood watch person into the concrete after being kicked out of school.
	The theft and truancy.
	Good job there, Obama.
	Well done.
	But, that's all the written comments, I suppose.
	Alright, well, basically out of time, perfectly.
	So, if you'd like more, the website.

▲