Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 2, 2024 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:29:07

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #884

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast The Loudest Cedars.
	We're doing stupid accents and they won't go away, so there we go.
	I think that was cringing up that killed it and we won't do it anymore.
	Alright, I've dropped my bow on Stelios.
	We've been trying to kill that for like months now because of Thomas and his trip to Australia.
	That's like doing an Aussie accent, isn't it?
	Yeah, but then we picked it up and it was funny and now it's gone for too long.
	But there we are.
	So today we have some news we're talking about.
	Turns out this is a podcast.
	We're talking about breaking your own law in defense of Richard Dawkins and Trump's court case.
	What day is it?
	Who cares?
	Anyway, getting into it.
	So, I want to talk about the fact that there are a few people on this island who have decided to break their own laws.
	They made up their own laws that they've already broken.
	And now they're going to imprison all of us for breaking them because, to hell with us, screw you guys.
	If you don't know who I'm talking about, it's the Scots.
	They're at it again.
	As you can see, local Scot, Mr. Dankula, is pretty pissed because on April 1st, the new Anti-Human Rights Bill, as he calls it, went into effect from Hansa Yusuf, this being the Well, new hate speech legislation they've introduced, which, um, not fun.
	Uh, Dankula has decided to publicly come out and say sorry on the Scottish Feminist Network of all places.
	He's apologizing for the fact that he may have caused this, he thinks.
	So there we are.
	His little pug ended up causing all this, perhaps.
	Perhaps not.
	There is another person who's very, very angry, which is J.K.
	Rowling, who has, um, decided to just break the law Because she doesn't care!
	Because what are you going to do about it?
	So she's going to tweet here about transgenderism.
	So as you can see, she wrote, Scotland's Hate Crime Act comes into effect today, April 1st.
	Which, yeah, that's funny.
	And she then goes on to list a whole bunch of transgender people who are, well, committing crimes, which you can no longer criticize because, well, Um, they're protected by the law.
	I mean, this one here being a lovely lady who has decided to, uh, end up getting sent to a female prison.
	And then I'm pretty sure ended up getting, what was it?
	Sexually assaulting people in there or something?
	I can't remember.
	But the whole thing is just lists of various people.
	The point being that this isn't like a one-off.
	And even if it is a one-off, it doesn't matter.
	The truth is more important than my feelings.
	I mean, this one here being Munro Burndorf.
	You remember her?
	The anti-white racist.
	Did he do a crime?
	Munro Burndorf?
	I can't actually remember.
	But she says, uh, was appointed a campaigner for a safeguard children's charity.
	UN Women's first ever UK champion.
	Uh, yes.
	Woman.
	For the UN.
	We picked Mungro.
	She's a dude though, right?
	Burned off.
	Biologically speaking, yes.
	And thank God we're in England, because we can still say this.
	As I say, as long as JK Rowling isn't actually on the hallowed soil of the Scotch, then she shouldn't face prosecution, right?
	As far as I'm aware, yes.
	But I believe she is.
	So she's just like, um, go for it.
	Literally try it.
	I don't care.
	And this even made the BBC, as you can see here, front page.
	Am I really allowed to throw any more shade at the Scottish after my recent... Yeah, whatever.
	I feel like you've made your quota for the year.
	Yeah, yeah.
	They're inhuman.
	They deserve death.
	Jokes.
	Jokes.
	Jesus.
	But you can see here that this, uh, blew up.
	Even the BBC are reporting on this.
	JK Rowling in arrest me challenge over the new hate crime law.
	She literally just tweeted all that and was like, do it.
	Go on.
	I'm a billionaire.
	I'll ruin your entire country.
	Which... Alright, yeah, fair.
	That's pretty impressive to be honest.
	Going up my estimation.
	Yeah, yeah, good luck to her.
	So the details are that they say here, the Hate Crime and Public Order Scotland Act 2021 creates a new crime of stirring up hatred relating to age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity, or being intersex.
	Does not mention sex.
	But I take it the definition of all those things are left up to a magistrate who may or may not be a political activist?
	Sure.
	Right, got it.
	But the big thing for JK Rowling obviously and a lot of the TERFs is that what was not mentioned in there was sex.
	So intersex is now a protected characteristic.
	Transgenderism is a protected characteristic.
	Sexual orientation, but not if you're a woman.
	So they're left out.
	So everyone else is getting these protections but the women as a group are not.
	So weird.
	That's a weird slight spite I saw out of all of this.
	They mentioned that they're passing a separate misogyny law later in the year and that will protect women because women are now a different group to more important folks.
	Anytime people want to pass up too many laws it means that the ones they have don't do the work.
	Or you could just say the exact opposite, that the purpose is to stir up chaos and increase arbitrariness.
	Because exactly as you said, Bo, it ends up being on a magistrate to decide what counts as stirring hatred or not.
	I'll take JK Rowling's previous tweet thread there, where she just lists a bunch of transgender people who are just either bad people or liars or criminals and was like, there you are.
	Here's all these people I don't like for these reasons.
	Is that now a crime?
	Yeah, arguably.
	Definitely.
	I mean, if you're the Scottish Government, I mean, this is exactly what they want to take people to prison for.
	Because when we say protected, these laws are to protect them, protected status, all this sort of thing, the word protection, safety, what it's really talking about is curtailing freedom of speech, freedom of expression, really.
	Yeah.
	There aren't, like, paramilitary gangs going out there committing assaults or murders against trans people or anything.
	It's just about freedom of speech, really, isn't it?
	It only ever goes one way, and that's how you know that.
	So in England we have the same laws already, it's just now being applied more effectively to Scotland here, except a bit further, that's why it's doubly insane.
	But we have it on the basis of sex, for example, religion and race, the seven characteristics we have in this country.
	And so they only ever go one way.
	It's only a hate crime when you do it against someone with a brown skin tone, but if you do it against someone with a white skin tone and go to the police and complain that you were a victim of a hate crime, nine times out of ten you'll be told no.
	Even though you were, reaches all the ingredients for the law there.
	Doesn't really matter.
	I mean, take the grooming gangs.
	I mean, that is an anti-white hate crime as well.
	They were targeted because they were white and therefore they could do what they wished.
	That's a religious hate crime and also a racial one.
	So don't look back in anger.
	If you look back in anger, that's hateful.
	But the point being, I mean... Don't let the politics of hate win, Callum!
	Yeah, no, this is all a cover.
	It's all just political repression through the law.
	In this case, equality law.
	So...
	There is also another thing that when you put out hate speech laws in order to protect a society's cohesion or its political institutions, it literally means representatives of these institutions aren't doing their work properly.
	Yeah.
	They want to prevent people from talking about it and pointing it out.
	So that's the reaction, I should say, from probably the normal people.
	I mean, Count Dankula and J.K.
	Rowling being fairly normal, where they're just like, that's stupid.
	Come and get me.
	Let's go to the other people.
	The diverse elite of this country.
	Oh God, I hate this woman.
	Yeah, I know.
	Oh my God, I can't stand to see or hear her.
	This is Yasmine Alibi-Brown.
	She is a perfect representation of the diverse elite in this clip here, in which she's spluttering because she's upset.
	In this case, she says that there was an understanding back then, talking about when they were discussing the law, that it was all about hate speech, whereas now it's being used for culture war stuff, and it's like, locking up your political opponents because of their speech?
	Was the purpose of the bill?
	That is a cultural war.
	It is a war on the culture that you want to lock up in prison.
	Up to seven years if you're wondering.
	That's the maximum jail sentence under the legislation.
	So there we are.
	If you say something once, if you say something twice, does it get raised to 14?
	It would depend of course on the circumstance.
	Because you remember Count Dankula was facing a year in prison and then because of the backlash it went down to 800 quid.
	But then you take Chelsea Russell in Manchester who quoted rap lyrics.
	She ended up with an ankle tag in case she quoted rap lyrics.
	Outside of a built-up area.
	I think, was it the case that he was going to refuse to pay them to see what happened and they just, the state just took the money out of his account?
	Yeah, which was illegal.
	Yeah.
	So there's that.
	That's like a type of tyranny.
	This woman is truly unbearable.
	She's one of those people that if you criticize her in any way at all, You are a full-blown racist.
	You're calling her a coolie or something.
	Whatever mental argument she needs to make.
	For people who don't know, I mean, Yasmin has just been a sort of... Well... If you're American, you might not have ever heard of her.
	If you want someone... I mean, yeah, like Don Lemon, for example.
	You want someone to be mental and upset about...
	It's not really a thing, obviously it doesn't exist, but it exists in the media sphere, which is the brown problems.
	Like, just want to complain in this case that people shouldn't be able to make stirring up hatred against people of a certain race.
	It doesn't actually matter what the situation was, because of course in reality this doesn't get applied to some guy screaming about black people, it gets applied to people making jokes or whatever.
	that she's this person you rent to come on to complain and defend the situation and it's it's embarrassing but not not that interesting because again i mean these people get replaced by the newest guy you need on tv every week so that's why i'm not bothering playing it because you're watching your own time it's just boring but she's not the only one of the uh diverse elite who is uh well there for this reason uh Humza Yousaf himself of course has been reminded of a beautiful speech he once held Because of course he is literally the diverse elite in this case.
	He's the, what was it, first minister?
	The speech on whiteness.
	Whiteness?
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	It's getting pronunciation.
	Jared Taylor.
	Well, whites.
	The white race started in 1866.
	Let's give this a listen.
	White.
	The Lord Justice Clerk, white.
	Every High Court judge, white.
	The Lord Advocate, white.
	The Solicitor General, white.
	The Chief Constable, white.
	Every Deputy Chief Constable, white.
	Every Assistant Chief Constable, white.
	The Head of the Law Society, white.
	The Head of the Faculty of Advocates, white.
	Every Prison Governor, white.
	And not just justice.
	The chief medical officer, white.
	The chief nursing officer, white.
	The chief veterinary officer, white.
	The chief social work advisor, white.
	Almost every trade union in this country headed by people who are white.
	In the Scottish Government, every director general is white.
	Every chair of every public body— In a population that's 97% white.
	He just hates white people.
	Yeah, obviously.
	It's transparent.
	What's funny is, of course, on paper, that's now a crime to do that speech, because obviously he's just stirring up anti-white hatred.
	So, as you can see here, Unity News Network, these fellas, are telling everyone to phone 101, if you live in Scotland, and, well, complain that a crime was committed, and that the man should be held responsible.
	Which is good fun, if nothing else.
	Breaking your own law that you're passing there.
	It's not the only one.
	I mean, I saw Count Dankula having a laugh at this, being like, no, you're not meant to break the laws, they'll report me.
	So, that's his reaction.
	There was this, uh, other people have joined in.
	The Indian Council of Scotland has joined in to also report Humza Yousaf for that speech.
	So you can see here they're saying that they have a police reference number for the crime they say has been committed.
	The Indian Council of Scotland slash UK are surprised to read the Scottish Government's Police Scotland hate crime guidance highlighting white men aged 18 to 30 years.
	So this is the police in Scotland specifically targeting white men.
	We'll get to them in a minute.
	So the Indian Council has made a complaint to the police saying well you actually just broke the hate crime legislation that's just been passed.
	So everyone seems to be basically unifying regardless of your background or whatever they're just like Ah, we need to abuse this.
	We need to abuse this to the end of the day.
	The thing about Scotland, I joke about Scotland and stuff, but they've got a great sense of humour.
	Most Scotsmen, most Scottish people have got, like Dank, have got a highly developed sense of humour actually.
	That's why you have the banter.
	They love taking the piss, alright?
	And so this is just, this is classic.
	Yeah, so that's why you have Bantha, Wisconsin.
	That's why we make jokes at each other that are offensive, because we're actually both funny as an ethnic group.
	Like, we enjoy the bants, so there's that.
	So as you can see, the Indian Council joining in, being very cool there.
	But they're not the only ones who, well, the Homs is not the only one who's getting a call from the police.
	You may remember this chap, the other diverse elite, stood up after that speech against white people and gave his own speech.
	which is jolly good fun.
	...today, because it's actions that are going to make a difference, not just words.
	And let me share some examples.
	Every chief executive of every council and every government department, white.
	Every director of a department in Scotland, white.
	Every principal of a college or university in Scotland, white.
	Every headteacher in Scotland, white.
	Every chair of a public sector body in Scotland, white.
	Every high court judge in Scotland, white.
	Every prison governor in Scotland, white.
	Every- You just stop!
	He prepared the speech, then Hamza Yusuf said it, and then he said, no, I'm not going to say it as well.
	Say it anyway.
	Yeah, it's the same.
	Same.
	Such a diversity hire move.
	I'm just going to steal the last guy's speech.
	Because I don't have any talent of my own.
	I honestly think that stuff like that, I hope, I sincerely hope, that in generations to come historians will look back at stuff like that and it will be, you know like, you know sometimes we look back at maybe a crazy Nazi newsreel where it is really over the top.
	The Jews are in the electricity, yes.
	They pass coins to each other, that's the electrons, yes.
	People will look back at that and be like, yeah, the world sort of lost its mind a bit, a little bit, for a time there.
	They let some weird Pakistanis turn up in Scotland, put them in charge, and all they did is whine about white people.
	Yeah.
	So that's the leader of the Labour Party, just to be clear as well.
	So you've got the SNP and Labour, the two biggest forces.
	Well, take countries like Scotland or Ireland, the Republic of Ireland or something.
	You know, even better examples than the United States or Britain or France or something.
	And we'll transplant a tiny elite that's got racial animus to the vast, vast, vast majority.
	I mean, Scotland, I think is 96, 97% white, right?
	I think that's the number.
	So it's madness.
	It's a madness.
	Well, I hate to do this, but it is true, which is that it's so America-brain as well.
	I mean, the Irish are the perfect example where there's just no involvement in the British Empire, quite frankly, trying to survive it was their experience.
	Well, undermine it, largely.
	Yeah.
	And as the end result of that, their elite ended up taking on, and we saw in the last couple of years, a position that the Irish had white privilege and needed to make up for the past sins of their people.
	And profited from colonialism or something.
	Yeah, but very obviously that has nothing to do with them, and it's the same rhetoric said in the United States by the Democratic Party.
	So it was just that the elite of Ireland took on this nonsense from the global hegemon and then transplanted it to their own politics, and it's the same sort of situation here.
	Like, oh man, we're evil and white, so let's put some Pakistanis in charge.
	What are they doing?
	They're telling us we're evil and white.
	Well, he doesn't talk about any other characteristic.
	He talks about colour.
	Yeah.
	But anyway, my point being that a couple of them have obviously, well, broken their own law, and so the police are rather busy.
	So as you can see here, Wingsover Scotland put out a message.
	A police source this morning tells Wings that just by 8am, day one of the bill being passed, they had more than a dozen hate crime complaints about Humza Yousaf's white speech.
	Already 12 by AM, so by the end of the day, I don't know, presumably hundreds.
	So, that's that.
	So, uh, well, this kept going.
	I mean, you can see here a bunch of Scots on Twitter were proudly showing their online reporting forms for reporting Humza Yousaf for doing this.
	Lovely.
	Which, good.
	Good.
	Uh, continued.
	You can see here, this is the sad news, which is that by the end of the day, so by almost 12 o'clock, the police have made a decision, and as they wrote to this one person who also complained, here's your incident number, with reference to your report that has been previously investigated by Police Scotland, no criminality was found.
	Really?
	Because they go on to say in here that, of course, well, the Act was passed in 2024, so we can't actually apply this retroactively to speech.
	That doesn't make sense.
	We just need a new white speech, and then we can... then he's back to rights.
	Yeah, well, that's a good legal argument, which is you can't apply current law to previous things.
	Yeah, that's correct, yeah.
	Makes sense.
	What doesn't make sense is they say that there's no criminality in that one.
	So even if it was the case that this was... we could retroactively apply it, that that speech wouldn't be illegal.
	That's how this works.
	Again, the law is not applied to the rulers.
	It is interpreted for them, applied to us.
	And in the West, the rulers are on one side of those protected characteristics.
	I mean, go through them.
	Race.
	Is it there to protect white people?
	No.
	Sex.
	Is it there to protect men?
	No.
	Transgenderism.
	Is it there to protect non-transgenders?
	No.
	It only ever goes one way.
	That's the purpose of all of this.
	So, that's that.
	But that's, uh, annoying, but good fun.
	Good scots.
	Good laugh.
	Very impressive, I'll be honest.
	And moving on, we have some more to talk about, which is that Humza had to come out and defend his position.
	Because obviously, everyone was like, well that's... shit.
	The bill is shit.
	What you're doing is shit.
	We hate you.
	Please leave.
	I mean, the overwhelming response, even on a Sky News clip, is just massive ratio.
	Everyone calling him evil.
	So that's that.
	And he's just blubbering here about how, no, no, no, no.
	We need this bill, I swear.
	For reasons.
	I was like, OK.
	Right.
	You know what I'm calling them?
	Bums are useless.
	I think plenty of people actually.
	Bums are useless.
	Yeah.
	But the funny thing was, is that all of a sudden, in the midst of passing a hate crime bill and having everyone hate you for it because everyone disliked that, all of a sudden Hums Are Useless has been a victim of racism.
	No.
	On cue!
	No.
	It's amazing.
	And this is a crime.
	Yeah.
	What happened?
	What happened?
	The next day, as you can see here, he was targeted with racist graffiti.
	I don't know if you can see that.
	It doesn't... I can't even read it.
	What actually is it?
	What are we... Nothing.
	What happened?
	There's sort of maybe the word Islam written on a house near him.
	Okay.
	Which... It's the word Islam.
	Maybe there's an F there, so it's F Islam?
	Okay.
	Do I believe this?
	Do I care?
	No?
	Just on number one, I'm very cynical about these people these days.
	Why wouldn't you be?
	So the idea that him all of a sudden is like, oh man, I thought everyone hates me because of my hate crime bill.
	I'm a victim of racism.
	This just happened, guys.
	Look, this is why we need the bill.
	Bit convenient.
	I'm very cynical about that.
	But also everyone else just responded with, go to hell.
	I don't care.
	Like, even if this happens, someone said F Islam or something.
	As you can see, everyone's like, Islamophobia isn't real.
	If people want to criticize you for your religion, that's actually freedom.
	He's trying to appeal to the those who victimize themselves or those who want to appeal as victims.
	That's incredibly.
	Incredibly appalling when you're a politician because your first and foremost responsibility is to your country's people.
	Yeah, he's not a politician in any meaningful sense.
	He's not doing that.
	He hasn't got the best interests of Scots at heart.
	Another good thing about the Scots, trying desperately to win over Scots... You're running for Parliament in Scotland now!
	Another great thing though, honestly, about Scottish people, most of them, is how down to earth they are and how much they don't give a f***.
	Quite a lot.
	Just like Dank.
	Dank is a classic Scotsman, right?
	He's got a great sense of humour and doesn't care quite a lot.
	About your tears.
	Right, yeah.
	There's something really weird, isn't it?
	A Western leader, their way of trying to get the public on site is to be like, look at me, I'm a victim.
	I know I'm only the first minister, I'm the guy in charge, but look, I'm so weak and being under attack.
	I just can't imagine most other world leaders taking that as a strategy to win over public support.
	It's pathetic, isn't it?
	It's not leadership.
	Yeah.
	Just when you were talking, though, I was just thinking in my head, you're so right.
	In the sense that someone there should be a leader and strong and showing off that they're moving forwards to the future or something.
	And instead, he sits here and being like, oh, I'm under attack.
	Oh, I feel sorry for me, and then say nothing.
	Bums are useless just like Rishi Sunak and the now head of Wales.
	None of them went to the electorate for their mandate.
	I hope and pray that at the next general election Scottish people reject Bums are useless and the SNP.
	Purely, well for nothing else because of crap like this.
	You're just going to keep getting this.
	They literally hate you for your skin tone.
	And Scottish people usually don't take much crap really.
	But in real terms they will actually just say, oh no, no, no, no, no, I'm not having it.
	Yeah, I'm not going to be friends with you.
	But they have in recent elections overwhelmingly voted for SNP.
	So whether particularly the Scottish boomers can sort of bring themselves to vote for something else, I don't know.
	It's a bit ironic though that you have a Scottish Nationalist Party leader who's blaming whiteness.
	Doesn't make any sense.
	And they want to rejoin the EU, but they're nationalists.
	It doesn't make any sense.
	But either way, the unelected diversity of this country are just comical, and then they apply laws to us to be repressed, which will never be applied to them.
	Funny how that works.
	But you can, if you doubt me, if you think maybe I'm I've got that wrong somehow?
	I have some evidence to back me up which is um oh sorry real quick nobody cared obviously for his like racism plea like I have been attacked by racism it's like yeah well here's your members standing next to signs saying decapitate TERFs so bugger off but my evidence it's uh well this as referenced earlier well there was that report that came out about why you were doing this the explanation and uh as Police Scotland writes
	We know that young men between 18 and 30 are most likely to commit hate crimes, particularly those from socio-excluded communities who are heavily influenced by their peers.
	Presumably Pakistanis.
	They may have deep-rooted feelings of being socially and economically disadvantaged, combined with ideas about a white male entitlement.
	Just before we started, you were saying about when you give someone pure creative freedom to write their stuff, you get a deep insight to their soul, what they're really thinking on a day-to-day basis.
	This is the kind of crap we used to get out of the universities.
	Remember, oh, it'll only stay on college campuses, bro.
	It's a dream.
	No, of course it has spread everywhere else, to the point that the national policing body is saying that white male entitlement is the reason we have to repress you.
	What psychopath wrote this?
	It's like white males that are socially and economically disadvantaged.
	All Scotsmen there!
	That's nearly everyone.
	But anyway, I have a prediction to make, I suppose, because that's how we live now.
	I can't change this law, of course.
	I don't have First Minister rights like that poor oppressed man who would lead Scotland unelected.
	So here's the future.
	Well, the future will look like this.
	For people who don't know, of course, we have Section 127 in the United Kingdom, I believe for the whole place, in which if you say something that is grossly offensive, You end up with a criminal record and up to a year in prison and a massive fine.
	Dankula being on this list as one of the people who was hit by this.
	And as you can see, the law just got massively expanded to everyone else.
	I mean, the weirdest one being this one here, Holocaust denial songs.
	We were very proud of our history in the UK, being like, we're not like the Europeans.
	You can deny facts.
	That's how we have this level of freedom.
	That's the idea of why you don't pass Holocaust denial laws.
	We never did, even if the option came up.
	And then the police just went, no, we'll just implement them anyway.
	In this case.
	No parliamentary debate, instead just unelected police officers applying through the court system that, uh, this is illegal, that's illegal.
	Why?
	Because it's grossly offensive.
	What does that mean?
	Whatever you want!
	I mean, this fella here, Paul Chambers, made a tweet joke about blowing up an airport because his flight was delayed.
	It was obviously a joke.
	Still went to court.
	There's this fella here, Azza Ahmed, goes across in this case.
	He made a joke about the Iraq War and the Afghan War.
	It's got investigated for it.
	So there we are.
	That'll be the future of Scotland.
	There'll be a spate of cases that are stupid.
	Comically stupid.
	I mean, J.K.
	Rowling may end up even being one of the people getting investigated for this.
	In the same way, I think Lawrence Fox was almost investigated in the UK for this law.
	And so yeah, that'll be the future.
	We'll just get crap like that.
	And for the rest of the time, we'll be mocked by Americans.
	Rightly so.
	Because this island is silly, if nothing else.
	Right, that's that.
	I've done the accent again, fuck it.
	Let's move on to Richard Dawkins and the memes.
	Right.
	So, uh, love him or hate him, agreeing with him or disagreeing with him.
	I think that, uh, Richard Dawkins deserves some respect.
	First of all, he coined the phrase meme that must count for something.
	He's in the Valhalla of the internet.
	Yes.
	So he made some, uh, statements lately and the way that, uh, a lot of people have reacted is just bizarre.
	It's really weird.
	If you look at it and it's quite funny, actually, I think it's I found it incredibly amusing.
	And I want to say that people should remember that, especially people who are worried about Islam and they're talking about the West, they should, and are criticizing him, they should think And they should remember that when Dawkins was criticizing Islam, a lot of people were just not talking about it, and a lot of the commentators were actually commenting on him negatively, now they were just on diapers.
	So, let's talk about what happened.
	There are lots of conversions lately to Catholicism.
	Lots of people have been converted.
	Tell us who you want to see converted also.
	So here, some of the prominent conversions to Catholicism are Shia LaBeouf, Hollywood actor, Tammy Peterson, podcaster and wife of Jordan Peterson, Eva Vlarig, I don't want to pronounce it wrongly.
	Vlaardingerbroek, Dutch political commentator.
	That was impressive.
	Kristen Turner, pro-life activist.
	Robert Schneider, American actor and comedian.
	Candice Owens.
	And people are voting here for the list of the people they want to see converted.
	It has here Jordan Peterson, Elon Musk.
	Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens.
	It's fun that they have here, you know, the people who want to see converted Catholicism as Candace Owens.
	And on top there, they say the Candace Owens.
	Ah, okay.
	It's almost there.
	Yeah.
	Is Robert Schneider the actor, Rob Schneider?
	I think so.
	It's the comedian.
	All right.
	Who recently started making lots of interventions.
	Yeah.
	He was Jewish, was he not?
	And Shia LaBeouf was Jewish, that won't go down well with their family.
	I don't know, but maybe the Transformers movies had that transforming effect on him.
	It's funny, specifically Catholicism though, not just Christianity, not just general purpose Christianity, but Catholicism.
	Yeah, specifically.
	Or maybe, I don't know, the movie Nymphomaniac that he played in had a bad effect on him and he sort of had a spiritual reawakening or something.
	And where you see here Jordan Peterson talking about his wife's conversion to Catholicism and how this has affected them as a couple positively.
	Did he start crying?
	I don't know.
	I haven't seen it.
	And here I want us to have a look at what Dawkins actually said and I want you please to be Very patient because he was sort of trolling the camera.
	He was moving and the camera was going in and out of focus.
	That was a bit disorientating.
	Disorienting.
	But I felt kind of good because sometimes it has happened to us.
	You know, we're not the only ones who have some technical issues every now and then.
	I was slightly horrified to hear that Ramadan is being promoted instead.
	I do think that we are culturally a Christian country.
	I call myself a cultural Christian.
	I'm not a believer.
	But there's a distinction between being a believing Christian and being a cultural Christian.
	And so, you know, I love hymns and Christmas carols and I sort of feel at home in the Christian ethos.
	I feel that we are a Christian country in that sense.
	It's true that statistically the number of people who actually believe in Christianity is going down, and I'm happy with that.
	But I would not be happy if, for example, we lost all our cathedrals and our beautiful parish churches.
	So I count myself a cultural Christian.
	I think it would matter.
	If we, certainly if we substituted any alternative religion, that would be truly dreadful.
	Which brings me to my supplementary point, which is that, as we know, church attendance is plummeting, but the building, the erection of mosques across Europe, I think 6,000 are under construction and there are many more, I mean, are being planned.
	So do you think, do you regard that as a problem?
	Do you think that matters?
	Yes, I do really.
	I mean, if I had to choose between Christianity and Islam, I'd choose Christianity every single time.
	I mean, it seems to me to be a fundamentally decent religion.
	So, what was interesting is that a lot of people thought that somehow Dawkins changed his mind about something.
	Now this a minute and a half, do you listen to anything that Dawkins may have said that does not resemble the Dawkins of the last decade?
	He said exactly that sort of thing many times.
	Yeah, for a decade.
	Well, let's see the response that people had in the online community from all sorts of areas.
	So, Sasha just said, breaking news, all white man turns out to be a racist.
	What?
	For me, if I'm on Twitter, I'll say it.
	I'm like, oh, OK, cool, blup.
	Not interesting news for people like that.
	I think somewhere there, you know, we have Karl here.
	Against which race?
	Let's give him a like.
	Yeah.
	Ah, you see?
	It was $4,299.
	We made it $4,300.
	299, we made it 4,300.
	And so that's just, you know, everyone had to just throw the racist bomb there.
	Another one says, from the moment new atheism started, my position was that it wasn't a serious philosophical critique of theism, which already exists, but a branding exercise to pretend Islamophobia had intellectual heft.
	Grateful to Richard Dawkins for confirming this.
	Nope.
	Not even slightly.
	He literally was saying he hates all religions.
	I mean, he was happy that church attendance for Christianity was going down.
	You didn't listen.
	People just aren't bloody listening.
	You see, it gets much better.
	And Islamophobia isn't a thing.
	Yeah.
	You know, there's the phrase by Hitchens that it's... I don't remember exactly, I don't want to butcher it.
	It was... A word used by idiots.
	Yeah.
	I think it's a word used by cowards to convince A word used by fascists to... There's so many people in the comments being like, here's the quote, you morons.
	Fascists, cowards and idiots, I think.
	So, we have here Mehdi Hassan, who's someone who did talk to Dawkins in the past, says, for years I had to put up with inane Dawkins cultish fans insisting to me that Dawkins wasn't an Islamophobe because he hated all religions equally.
	Nope, he's an Islamophobe.
	I was right.
	No, Mehdi's just a joke.
	Yeah, I hate Mehdi, he's just an idiot.
	No, but his interactions with Dawkins, are you familiar or not?
	Yes.
	He's ridiculous.
	I'll show you.
	Oh, you're getting to it.
	Yeah, yeah.
	My apologies.
	So, Damo did an interesting quote.
	He says, and again, Mehdi Hassan apparently wants to make it absolutely clear that he is not using the term Islamophobia to refer to bigotry against Muslims as people, but to silence criticism of his religion.
	The audacious doubling down is quite remarkable.
	Okay, now, Dili Hussein says, Christianity in the West creates atheists, a.k.a.
	cultural Christians.
	It's true that statistically the number of people who believe in Christianity is going down, and I'm happy with that.
	He quotes Richard Dawking, and he says, and that's the truth.
	Cultural Christians are not remotely committed to their faith in any meaningful way.
	Yeah, so this is just like saying people who don't have faith are not committed to their faith.
	That was an incredibly enlightening statement.
	But he does hit on the ridiculous point that Dawkins is saying there, which is like, oh, I want the churches and cathedrals, but I don't want people going into them and paying for their upkeep.
	Well, there are legitimate criticisms and we'll get to them in due time, but I want to start with the very bizarre ones.
	Okay, so Ian Miles Chong, Richard Dawkins' renowned atheist, now embraces being a cultural Christian and he says the West must be preserved.
	No, it's always been his position.
	You see, that's funny because there are a lot of accounts and some of them, they make good content and it's just funny to see how everyone just sort of reacted.
	They felt the need to just instantly, you know, ride the wave of publicity and say something about it.
	Has Ian Walsh Chong ever had a decent take on anything ever?
	I don't know.
	Or an original take on anything ever?
	I don't know.
	I've got bad news for you, Ian Walsh Chong.
	Okay.
	Here Zuby says, many Westerners want the benefits of Christianity without the Christianity part.
	It doesn't work long term.
	There is no vacuum.
	Even the world's smartest atheists seem to be working that out.
	I mean, he didn't work anything out.
	He hasn't changed his position.
	But he also didn't square that circle.
	I mean, he literally explained, I don't want people going to church, but I want the churches.
	Well, that's an interesting point because there is a question there when we are talking about religion and the power it has on society.
	Because I definitely see the argument that some people make that, you know, not everyone requires religion to be moral.
	Which is what a lot of the people from the Christian side are putting forward.
	I think that, to an extent, that's true.
	I don't know whether that extent is sufficient enough to maintain the society we have right now or not.
	That's a legitimate claim, meriting a legitimate and extended discussion.
	Well, there's just a data point she brings up, which is, okay, well, the Muslims are going up in church attendance, well, mosque attendance, and they're building 6,000 mosques, whereas church attendance is plummeting and the churches are disappearing.
	But you want the churches but don't want people going there?
	Mr Dawkins, that doesn't make sense.
	Well, the response would be it's an issue of degree.
	He wouldn't like to see the whole culture eradicate itself.
	He may want, you know... But then you need the Christians who actually believe.
	And if you don't, then you don't get the...
	Yes.
	Yeah.
	But still, it's an issue of degree.
	It's an issue of, you know, how many people believe what he does and how many people are Christians and whether the amount of Christians is sufficient to maintain what he calls as a culturally Christian civilization, which to a large extent, even in his book, The God Delusion, he said, and I paraphrase, of course, I don't remember exactly where he said it in the book.
	He says that the effect that Christianity has had on the West, cannot ever be destroyed or changed.
	So it's not exactly that he's saying, let us erase all traces of Christianity from the West.
	I don't know if his position is all that crazy.
	I mean, so for example, I don't worship Athena or Zeus, but I wouldn't want to see the Parthenon pulled down, right?
	I'm not a practicing Christian, but I wouldn't want to see Westminster Cathedral pulled down or desecrated in any way.
	I mean the Parthenon ruins, like we're talking about the living, grieving churches.
	Westminster Abbey then.
	Or like in their own countries, you know, say giant mosques in Saudi Arabia or something.
	That's fine, of course.
	Good luck to them.
	But if a guy came along and destroyed Islam with facts and logic, and now nobody believed the fundamentals of Islam, it was all nonsense, but he still wants everyone to live in an Islamic way because he likes it, Is that really what Dawkins was saying?
	It depends on what you are talking about.
	I get your point.
	I understand your point.
	But he wants people not to believe in God or Christianity as being true, but then he wants them to act like Christians.
	It's like the fundamental reason for his job.
	The issue is that the creed, whether you're talking about Catholicism or the denomination for instance, that each denomination has a lot of moral teachings inside that are far more than the statement just that God exists.
	Sure, but that's the fundamental.
	Without that, you don't get to why you should be good.
	Yes, but you could definitely keep a very substantial amount of it and just have a different grounding.
	For instance, just speaking of ethics, you could say that a lot of people are Sure, in favor of the divine command theory of ethics, and they say that a Christian morality is really good and the West requires it.
	And you could just say, well, I don't have a view like the divine command theory.
	And in fact, many Christians themselves don't have it.
	I get that.
	But with doing that experiment, it's like, what if we didn't believe in God, but still had the Christian culture?
	And we did.
	But the incompatible part of the modern world, which again, we don't have to do, it's an option, is the mass importation of Muslims.
	Well then yeah, you just get replaced culturally.
	You can definitely not say that Dawkins was advocating for switching the religions.
	He was someone who attacked all religions on epistemic grounds, but he never said, for instance, I hate Christianity, therefore I want to substitute it with another monotheistic religion.
	That seems like wishful thinking to me, that's all I'm getting at, that's all.
	It may be, it may be.
	Now, another from Aaron Bastani.
	Bizarre from Dawkins, who wrote a book called The God Delusion, claiming religion was a deeply malevolent dividing force in the world.
	Now he's calling himself a cultural Christian.
	Find it odd to use religion to extend your secular political point.
	Again, it's not now.
	Bastani is a gotcha.
	Bastani just owns Dawkins there.
	What a win.
	Dawkins, no comeback from Dawkins.
	Bastani won, Dawkins nil.
	Boom.
	Slam dunk.
	Anyway, so there are other accounts who have good content that just capitulated into that rhetoric and they said that Dawkins somehow now accepted that he is a cultural Christian.
	We have here the same by Roeg Nationalist and also Jack Posobiec.
	Says Richard Dawkins now defines himself as a cultural Christian.
	Yes, that Richard Dawkins.
	So again, it's a... And Oren McIntyre also says, nothing more detestable than these clowns lamenting the loss of the culture they destroyed while still pretending they're morally superior to the people who warned them every step of the way.
	Now, calm down.
	I want to say two things here.
	First of all, Dawkins always has always said this.
	You can see this.
	Look at the resolution on that one.
	14 years ago!
	14 years ago.
	It says that in December 2007 he said this.
	So that's one point.
	He didn't just now say he's a cultural Christian.
	He has said this at least back to 2007.
	And And the other point I want to say is that it seems to me that when we're talking about threats to Western civilization, we should be very mindful of what we call Western civilization.
	So that's an interesting discussion.
	What is the West?
	What do people mean by Western civilization?
	Unless we're able to say what it is, we don't know how to conserve it or not.
	And instead of right now, Just engaging in blame game and trying to score points against each other.
	I think, you know, Christians and atheists should be forming an alliance in talking against some of the forces that are, let's say, exerting a very negative effect on our societies.
	So rather than just Rather than just saying, okay, gotcha Dawkins or gotcha whoever, now's the time to engage and form alliances together and just acknowledge and say that right now there are grave threats to the Western world and, you know, this needs to be addressed.
	And I want to say one thing because I see that, you know, in the online sphere, there are many anti-Enlightenment tendencies.
	I must say, I'm not part of them.
	I don't understand them.
	I think that most of them are horribly misguided.
	I want to say some things, because it's important to remember when we're talking about massive notions, like the Enlightenment, or the West, or morality, virtue.
	A lot of the time, things are way more complex.
	The fact that they are more complex doesn't mean that people can't figure it out.
	For instance, when we're talking about the Enlightenment, there isn't a very unnecessarily huge distinction or gap between science and religion.
	There are strands within the Enlightenment that are religious.
	There are strands within the Enlightenment that aren't.
	You could definitely say that the main focus of the Enlightenment is to use reason to subject customs into criticism and improvement on this earth.
	It has nothing to do with what happens on the next world or in the next world.
	So, there's compatibility.
	Some people are saying that they aren't, but there is a substantial argument that they are.
	Another stuff that, you know, people who just rush to reject enlightenment, the symbol of the light in the enlightenment Has also been the symbol of reason, but also it's the symbol of God in many traditions.
	So they say, think of God.
	Some people picture God, let's say, as a man with a white beard or, let's say, a very bright light.
	That's one thing.
	Also, the idea that we should use reason to subject customs to criticism isn't necessarily anti-religious.
	St.
	Thomas Aquinas, for instance, was one of the major proponents of the doctrine that revelation cannot contradict reason.
	He wasn't an atheist.
	And, you know, all people who are rushing right now to say the use of reason is just bad or anti-Christian or something, what do you make of St.
	Thomas Aquinas?
	And also, you know, one of the main themes... Or Dacre, or Hume.
	Yeah.
	You could say that Hume, for instance, was an atheist, and St.
	Thomas Aquinas wasn't.
	But still, another major figure is Kant.
	Kant's major concern.
	What's your language?
	No, that's the name.
	Foul!
	Kiss your mother with that mouth!
	Sorry, carry on.
	The main theme is the limits of reason.
	All I want to say is that, you know, it's way more complex and it shouldn't be treated as a sort of scoring point.
	And you know, just to give another angle into it, Herder, who is supposed to be simultaneously a romantic and an enlightenment figure, who was, for instance, the father of modern nationalism.
	Many people call him the father of... Goethe, the German.
	No, Herder.
	Okay.
	Johann Herder, yeah.
	So, all I'm just saying is that a lot of people are using language without knowing what it means, and that's not necessarily good.
	And I want to say here there's a good criticism by Tom Holland.
	So he says, not really, because secularism and Dawkins's own brand of evangelical atheism are both expressions of a specifically Christian culture.
	As Dawkins himself sitting on the branch he's been sawing through and gazing nervously at the ground far below seems to have begun to realize.
	Well, One interesting point here is to what extent is the worldview that Richard Dawkins has defended undermining a lot of key aspects.
	And there is an argument you could make.
	I think he's in favor of the doctrine of scientism that says that natural science can account for everything.
	The only valid methodology to give Answers to things are the methodologies involved in natural science.
	I don't believe in that doctrine, for instance.
	I think that it's just really mistaken and really wrong to just use moments like that to say either that something has changed or that, you know, this is an occasion for extra blame game, where in fact Christians and atheists should form alliances for countering major threats to Western civilization.
	I think that's a good point, yeah.
	And I want to say one thing, and also just to end with this, if you want to check the latest symposium on the necessity of individualism, because individualism is yet another word that is being treated as a dirty one now, and it has its pros and it has its cons.
	This was also a discussion with Christian Watson, that it was a very good one.
	And ready to go to the next point.
	Alright, let's move on.
	I'll tell you something about Kant before we go forwards.
	Sorry?
	Just because this isn't going on YouTube so I can say it.
	Kant.
	It's the name.
	Yeah, no, but Kant's buried in Kaliningrad.
	That's his tomb.
	So there, I went and visited it.
	And what's funny is the island that that cathedral and his tomb are on is called Kant Island.
	So it's the island of Kants.
	Can Jack or someone move the mouse so I can see the things I've written?
	Right now it's just a big picture.
	There you go, that's it.
	That's what I needed.
	Okay.
	All right, so I thought I'd talk a little bit about Trump again.
	A few more little things in there.
	Now Bo is talking about Trump.
	Yeah, only now.
	The first time I've ever talked about Trump.
	No, I thought I'd talk about it a bit because even though we covered it earlier in the week, I believe, or last week, some of his legal problems, I thought I'd talk about it in a bit of a broader sense.
	So we saw, I think in the last day or two, he did actually post his bond of $175 million.
	What an absurd number that is.
	Originally he was ordered to pay $464 million.
	dollars.
	The best part of half a billion dollars for what again?
	What was it?
	It sounds like Dr. Evil.
	Yeah, half a billion dollars for inflating the price of his own properties with sort of estate agent people.
	Trying to make money.
	Which I think Josh did a bit or maybe it was Dan.
	Somebody on those seats recently did a bit about it.
	How everyone does it.
	Sort of everyone does it.
	It's sort of de rigueur.
	It's par for the course.
	Even like Jon Stewart has done it and stuff.
	Everyone does it.
	It's the way the world goes round almost.
	Even if it is a bit It is a little bit dodgy, you know, you're not being perfectly honest, but nonetheless.
	But they put him up on charges and the Attorney General in New York, Letitia James, who's obviously a partisan, you know, a political partisan.
	Now it doesn't sound like much really, does it, having an Attorney General that's a political partisan?
	Haven't a lot of them been partisan over the years?
	I mean, yes, of course, but The point I wanted to make is that it's getting bad now.
	It's getting to the point where, and I'm not the first one to notice this or say this, where it's actually damaging the republic.
	I mean, it's wounding, killing the republic itself, in my opinion.
	Sometimes you hear, usually communists or Marxists, talk about that we're in late-stage capitalism.
	I don't think that's true.
	I see capitalism going from strength to strength, if anything.
	I think we might be in late-stage democracy, though.
	If things aren't turned around or reformed or things are addressed, it's a slippery slope.
	History shows us time and time again, especially with republics, particularly with republics.
	We've talked all about various types of ancient republics, haven't we?
	This is sort of how it starts.
	Republics only really function well, it seems to me, when most of the actors are fairly good faith actors, or you're not actively trying to damage the very fabric, the very foundations of what is built upon.
	Whereas doing this to Trump, not just this, I'll go on to all the other stuff they're trying to get him on, it's a slippery slope and again bruises that won't heal.
	Once you do that then your enemies will probably do it against you when it's their turn in power and there's a one-upmanship problem goes on and it's the thin end of the wedge and before long the very The very rule of law breaks down.
	This is the beginning.
	These are cracks in the very rule of law.
	It's not that the law has not been used already to sort of damage political opponents or try and get at political opponents, but it just seems with Trump, they're obviously really going for him.
	So he had to, I won't go into many of the details because I think it was done before, just about how he had to float.
	Was it truth?
	What's his company?
	Truth Social.
	Truth Social, is that what it's called?
	I think so.
	In order to raise tons of money so he could pay off this £175 million.
	Because he only had a week or two to do it.
	So anyway, he's done it.
	So now the authorities can't sort of just requisition his properties.
	So I think he's worth over £5 billion.
	You know, it's not just Trump Tower.
	He's got loads of properties.
	That Mar-a-Lago golf course, a big thing in Miami.
	Loads and loads of things he's got.
	If he wanted to liquidate everything, he would have billions of dollars.
	Yeah.
	Right?
	So, yeah, just going after him.
	I mean, a quick list of the things that he's... The Stormy Daniels thing is still ongoing.
	So as I understand it, He claims they never had any sort of relationship, but he did pay her, or one of his lawyers did pay her, like 100 grand or 130 grand or something.
	Yeah, I've heard the 100 grand.
	And then Trump gave the lawyer 130 grand back to reimburse him.
	And I think it's the case that nothing about that is illegal.
	Okay.
	But it's just slightly dodgy in any way.
	They're still under investigation.
	I think the prosecutors, the DAs, even though it's not really, certainly not a felony, it's barely a crime or it might not even be a crime.
	And if it is, it's some sort of misdemeanor.
	But they're trying to charge him with felonies.
	So if and when he is convicted of anything, it's like years and years in prison, years and years.
	So the Stormy Daniels thing is still ongoing in sort of a roundabout way.
	There's the 6th of January thing.
	But I want to get him on defrauding the US, like that's a crime to defraud the US or conspiracy against the rights of citizens.
	It's all very serious, isn't it?
	So they just made these up?
	I don't think so.
	They're just like really old, antiquated things, like from the Revolutionary War or from the Civil War times.
	They do sound made up, I'll be honest.
	You defrauded the people, it's like...
	I think they might be from the Civil War time.
	You're right.
	This is how people spoke in the 1700s, I suppose.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Conspiracy against the rights of the citizens.
	Or did he attack a fort?
	Did he try and raise Fort Sumter or something?
	Or obstructing an official on the January 16th is another thing.
	And they tried, apparently the prosecutors tried to get him on insurrection or aiding insurrection.
	Again that is that is sort of Civil War era stuff.
	Like you've tried to take over the government.
	We all know that nothing of the sort happened on January 6th.
	Right.
	But yet still, who knows, if you get a partisan judge, partisan prosecutors, with a partisan judge, he could potentially, I don't think it will happen, but it could happen, you know, get 10 years here, 20 years there, could bang him up forever.
	He's 77.
	The best way in the world, he's got like 10-15 years left, right?
	Another thing he's on is, specifically in Georgia, at the last election, when it looked like there was some sort of... What word did they use?
	Counting... Fortification.
	Fortifications were going on in Georgia, and apparently he may have He had a phone call with somebody saying let's just try and do the same that they're doing or something.
	Find me certain votes I think might have been the quote.
	Something like that.
	But for that they're trying to get him on racketeering charges, RICO charges.
	RICO stands for Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organisations Act.
	So again, that's how you get gangsters, organized criminals.
	You get them on that.
	So it's basically character assassination.
	It's as serious as it gets.
	Rico charges, sorry.
	So they're engaging in character assassination.
	They're trying to spill his reputation.
	Yeah, like he's a full-blown organized criminal, like on the level of Al Capone or something.
	Yeah, of course trying to smear his name and his reputation and therefore his electoral chances, but also just ruin him.
	Put him in prison.
	Yeah.
	It's pretty bad.
	And the last one is under the Espionage Act for mishandling classified documents and maybe even also obstructing the FBI.
	That was when they said he took documents home, which I think presidents can or Biden did even more and stuff and all presidents do it and all sorts of stuff but they just remember that they sent the FBI around to sort of raid one of his properties.
	Well a week after they did to him they found even more from Biden's time as vice president.
	Right.
	So he's not even president and it's just like okay yeah this is clown show then no one actually really cares what the law is we're just gonna destroy this guy because we don't like him.
	And charging him under the espionage act so again it's like 10 years here 20 years there for stuff if he's found guilty of it.
	So this is what I mean when I talk about the very fabric of the Republic starting to fray or crumble because it's only a few steps from there where cults are sort of completely openly partisan and not trying in any way to cover up the fact that they're just the puppets for their political overlords.
	What is interesting here, speaking of republics that you raise, is that there's a general theme that in the republic people are supposed to be, as you say, put virtue first and identify with the republic more than they identify with a particular person.
	But a lot of the breakdowns come when people start having loyalty over the person as opposed to the republic in general.
	And that's how they try to portray Donald Trump, how the U.S.
	Democrats are trying to portray Donald Trump as a Caesar-like figure, whose supporters don't believe in the U.S., but believe in him.
	That's how they're trying to do.
	But what is interesting, though, is that it's an absolutely tragic rhetoric, because at the end of the day, you're going to ask them, you know, are you going to criticize yourself?
	Some criticism?
	Is any self-criticism due?
	For instance, They don't understand, of the US Democrats who employ this rhetoric, because first of all, how can you're talking about someone as being against the Republic when you don't control the Republic's borders?
	That's question number one.
	And also question number two, which is a very big one, and they purposefully neglect or don't understand the anti-federalist sentiment that a lot of the people in the US have, especially when there is a sort of economic crisis that is driven by government.
	And they don't sort of do the math that the more they attack him, the stronger his profile gets.
	It's just a double tragedy.
	It's really stupid.
	The first article I ever wrote for Lotus Eaters, like three years ago now or more, I can't remember exactly, was an article called Remember the Gracchire.
	Yeah.
	And since then, I've written two or three or four, even more articles just about the bruises that won't heal and all sorts of angles talking about how the republic is is being wounded and damaged yes and it's very very difficult to come back from that history seems to show us that it's very very difficult to heal it and go back to the way it used to be yeah um you know when you're set on a certain trajectory after a certain point it's very very difficult to yeah
	and that that's very horrifying because for instance i remember machiavelli was saying that after uh after rome became an empire there were many hits against tyrants but none against tyranny.
	That's a good quote that people should remember now.
	Well, we've talked, if anyone wants to look it up on LotusTheatres.com, we talked about Machiavelli's notions about the Republic, we talked about Cicero's notions of the Republic.
	I've got all sorts of content just about the Roman... Seneca, Marx, Aurelius, we've talked about.
	Yeah.
	And so I just want to say a couple of things, I guess, then, about Rome and the Roman Republic.
	Um, examples like the Gracchi Brothers, Tiberius Gracchus and Gaius Gracchus, where the Republic was functioning fairly well, but they used the law, tried to use the law, um, to, you know, working within the system to subvert certain things, um, and then their enemies would have them murdered, but then their enemies would use the similar, or exactly the same tactics.
	to pervert the Republic their way and a back and forth until it, until like the nature of justice, the nature of the rule of law, the fabric of society crumbles and falls apart in a nutshell, in a super quick nutshell.
	And then, and then you're at violence quite quickly.
	You come to a point where, okay, the cults and even the police, not that the ancient Romans really had police, but the cults and law aren't functioning.
	So, so then people take it into their own hands.
	You get mobs.
	I mean, we saw a couple of summers ago now, during the BLM stuff, that the actual rule of law, the fabric of society seems to be falling apart.
	And it amazed me how people saw what happened and they said, right, the appropriate reaction now is to defund the police.
	That's going to make the population safer.
	Yeah, madness.
	Pure madness.
	Like that defund the police whilst society is falling apart.
	Or claiming Trump is trying to destroy the Republic whilst they're destroying the Republic.
	It's the classic gaslighting thing, just accusing your enemy of doing the thing you're doing.
	Classic 101 sort of commie perversion, right?
	Well, so the next thing then, after sort of the rule of law has really broke down, people start taking it into their own hands.
	There's only so far that can go.
	When capital buildings start getting genuinely invaded or burnt down, whether it be in Rome or Washington DC, all sorts of things getting burnt down, all sorts of crimes and misery and murder and assaults and thefts and da-da-da-da, eventually you have to bring the army in.
	If the police can't do it, and the mobs are entirely out of control, your last resort of the state is military force.
	Well then, you're really one step away from not needing a president anymore, not needing a congress or a senate anymore.
	The power, all decision making, the cockpit of power is with the military.
	That's what happened in Rome, that's what's happened in lots and lots and lots of republics.
	The United States, if anything, has had quite a good innings to have 200 plus years as a republic.
	That's not a bad innings!
	Most republics don't last that long.
	None of them have lasted endlessly.
	They're all doomed to fail so far.
	I think every system.
	Okay, yeah, not just republics.
	Sure, sure, sure.
	But some monarchies have lasted hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years or a thousand years or more.
	But anyway, it is just a worry to me that it seems Yeah, the American Republic, not capitalism, because there's still people who want to make money, but the democracy seems to be on a very slippery slope, a very worrying, slippery slope.
	And there's people like Letitia James, backed up by The Democrats, ultimately Biden, the buck should stop with Biden, who doesn't know where he is or can't really form a sentence properly.
	It's concerning.
	Yeah.
	It's concerning.
	That's all I'd say.
	So yeah, the Trump case, hopefully he'll make it to November without being banged out.
	Most of those cases, I think three out of four of those cases will probably be either near November or even after it.
	But nonetheless, they're trying all they can.
	Who knows, they'll bring more cases against him, or just find some other thing, some other trumped-up charge.
	Pardon the pun.
	Or failing all else, just JFK him.
	I mean, I wouldn't be crazily surprised if something like that happens before November.
	I always thought that was going way too far when people say that, but you never know.
	If they think of him as such an existential threat, The intelligence services and things, the establishment, whatever that is, whoever that is really, find him too much of a threat.
	I mean, fingers crossed that that doesn't happen to the Donald.
	Well, we'll see how it goes.
	All right.
	All right.
	It's going to leave video comments, I guess.
	So Dinlag is trying to extend the draft to include women now. - Oh.
	Hoping that they'll add a whole 300 extra soldiers on the ground.
	Putin is never going to know what hit him.
	Just 300 blonde girls showing up and yelling about equal rights.
	This is what it's like living in a tiny country with a Napoleon complex.
	We can solve climate change all day with 6 million Is that Denmark, did you say?
	Yeah, Denmark's going to free Ukraine.
	Imagine if Sophie becomes a marshal.
	Marshal Sophie.
	In the army, yeah.
	Or, who knows, 300 Danish women, what if they did storm Moscow?
	Unstoppable.
	People in Moscow would not be unhappy with that.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Monopolistic companies tightly control their capital and rigorously stifle competition.
	If one sets aside innovation, which Schumpeter, as with all socialist advocates, was only too willing to do, then one reduces business to achieving the greatest efficiency.
	Socialism should, according to the theory, then be able to slip comfortably into management and impose the most efficient use of capital both in that company and through controlled competition.
	Unfortunately, this requires consumers behave perfectly and completely consume what is produced regardless of taste or function.
	Yeah, I haven't read this book, but it's on my to-do list.
	Everyone says it's a masterpiece.
	Okay, yeah, no, I haven't read it either.
	Is that one of the ones that IA critiques?
	I don't know.
	I think it's the one where Schumpeter says that capitalism can't last when people don't act like innovators.
	And he's talking about creative destruction.
	And I think he was very prophetic in predicting the rise of the bureaucratic state.
	So I haven't read it, but I think it has a really good reputation.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Last full day at my village.
	Thankfully, it's sunny.
	I'm gonna miss the nature, the clear air and the water.
	But I have to get back to the grind.
	Unfortunately, that's life.
	Yeah, it's a nice village.
	I didn't really catch much.
	I can never understand you, I'll be honest.
	Frequently, Antonius has some issues with the microphone and it's difficult for people to listen, but I got here.
	Is that in Greece?
	Is that Greece?
	Yes, it's a village.
	What was he saying?
	I think, if I heard correctly, that's in this village for some vacation and he'll have to go back.
	It looks nice.
	I mean, it looks poor, but it does look nice.
	We don't have mountains like that in England.
	You don't need a Nero or a Starbucks there.
	No, no, I'm not saying that.
	I'm not saying that.
	But no, it looks nice.
	We don't really have mountains in England, really, do we?
	It's a shame because I love being in and among the mountains.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Something that annoys me about these fake Christian preachers that bloviate about how we have to accept millions of illegal immigrants or else we're not a proper Christian country is they always have to wonder, like, they never seem to care about divorce or abortion or usury or gay marriage.
	It's only things that seem to hurt the Christian population that they seem to get autistically scriptural about.
	And you should always ask them why that is whenever they start bloviating about illegal immigration.
	Eh, just spelt on them.
	I don't know, I just find those people bloody annoying.
	It's right, they're just like, oh, did you know Jesus was a brown immigrant?
	It's like, but you hate Jesus and Christianity.
	No way.
	I just, I'm bored of you.
	But you're not even interesting, you're annoying.
	Yeah.
	Did you know that diversity built Britain and the British Empire?
	No, it didn't.
	And you hate that anyway.
	Yeah.
	And you think that's all racist anyway.
	So all the structural racism was built by diversity.
	Make it make sense.
	You know, make it make sense.
	Just painful people.
	Well, let's go to the written comments, I suppose.
	Are there no more video ones?
	No.
	I feel like I'm bringing it down today.
	I'm just, I'm on the mood.
	Someone online says, Humza unironically thinks that the problem with Scotland is there are too many damn Scots.
	Yep.
	Robert Longshaw says, is that white male entitlement statement now a hate crime?
	Well, people reported it to the police, and I'm sure the police will investigate themselves.
	It would be funny to see Hemsley useless, sorry, Bumsley useless, say, uh, to say that line.
	That the problem with Scots is there are too many Scots.
	It's full of white Scots.
	Yes.
	We need more Pakistani Scots.
	Because they're Scots.
	I don't want to get a big rant about ethnicity, but I'm so sick of that.
	It's just like, I'm just as Scottish as you.
	That's why I have the word Pakistani before the word Scottish.
	It's just like... But then you... Oh, whatever.
	It's just okay.
	George Happ says, uh, JK Rowling may complain about it, but the police are smart enough to not go after her.
	She will never face a day in prison.
	The law is for common people and comedians going against the state narrative.
	Hamza and his Ilka, obviously excluded too.
	Yeah, I mean that's the ultra-corrupt thing about this.
	It's bad enough that this is just transparent political repression, but that they know they will only ever apply it to people they can get away with it.
	They will just poison and destroy anyone who they think they can.
	But if they think they might get some backlash, or it will actually end up losing in the courts, just leave you alone.
	So the law physically does not apply to people like J.K.
	Rowling, and everyone knows it.
	What an evil society this is.
	I wonder if she literally crossed the border at Berwick-upon-Tweed, the moment she steps across the bridge.
	Scottish cops jump out of the shrubbery and arrest her the moment she's on Scottish soil.
	Do you have a business or pleasure?
	We're just scanning your passport.
	Apparently the sign says, Fix Islam.
	So, there we are.
	It said what?
	Fix Islam?
	Fix Islam.
	Oh, Fix Islam.
	Okay.
	Pretty sure it's doing what it intended to do, but either way...
	Yeah, okay, that you're a victim of racism because someone said fix Islam.
	I mean, it's just so transparent that that man is nothing.
	I mean, he's just nothing.
	There's nothing about him that's authentic or interesting or will build anything of time.
	Instead, he'll just be some footnote of a prick for all of history.
	That's him.
	It's a cuckoo in the nest, isn't it?
	It's like an alien entity there.
	Yeah.
	Well, let's move on to the next segment.
	Right.
	Rue the day.
	Hate that Dawkins thinks he can separate the holy architecture from the faith that built it.
	Also can't wait to hear his ukulele apology to all the believers for being a nasty person about them.
	Does he, would he apologize?
	Think he's going to apologize?
	I don't think he did.
	He doesn't usually.
	He's one of those people that sort of won't usually apologize.
	I don't think he might have done once or twice.
	It's really sad though to see how this whole conversation has eventuated and how, you know, A lot of the times, you know, people from the new atheist side were very, let's say, aggressive and dismissing, and also there is a response that is equivalent.
	I mean, personally, I see that a lot of the times when I see people who are talking about this a lot with such certainty, I'm a bit put off.
	Lord Nereva, Richard Dawkins is an interesting figure to me.
	I remember his edgy, fedora-tipping days well, namely because I was a seal clapping him on the whole time.
	However, despite not having had much to do with him since, I've realized that Christianity is an integral part of the English civilization, and without it and its values, we would not have created the fairest, most resilient civilization on this planet.
	So to see Dawking saying much the same today is a ringing endorsement of the theory, regardless of if he gets the theological side of it or not.
	It's interesting here, because Lord Nero frequently makes good points, and that's a good pass, because there's a distinction between the pragmatic aspect of faith and the verific, whether it's true or not, the one in the latter case, and whether it's helpful or not for society in the former.
	That's an interesting conversation.
	Baron von Warhoek, Christianity was one of the founding bedrock of Western civilization since the medieval times, along with the Greek and Roman philosophy.
	In a modern world, we have done away with Christianity and have been trying to find something that can fill its hole.
	We have tried socialism, woke ideology, radical right-wing thought, environmentalism, and Islam.
	It's good to see some Westerners returning to their roots.
	It's a nice point, because You know, there's a question in me I have, because it has to do with how many people are reacting against wokeness, and they say that Christianity is something that it's a bulwark against wokeness.
	It may be, but for instance, you can look at the policies that the Pope is advocating.
	They're not exactly anti-woke.
	That's one thing to bear in mind.
	And even some people who identify as staunch Catholics have said that they would disagree with the Pope and the Pope isn't the representative of God's word when the Pope is defending wokeness.
	Yeah, I've seen, you know, like Calvin Robinson will talk about his problems with, say, the Church of England or something.
	I've seen various Catholics say they've got an issue with the current Pope and what the current Pope says and thinks and stuff.
	Is Calvin a Catholic?
	No.
	I think one time he called himself Catholic with a small c. And I immediately said, you're not a papist though.
	And he said, oh no, I'm not a papist.
	So he's not an orthodox Catholic, no.
	Okay, I vote for Callum, by Theodore Brewer.
	Callum is right.
	There is a need for a large part of the population to be a Christian, if you want the culture to be Christian in nature.
	There is a God-shaped hole in the human heart.
	May the Lord show you the way.
	Alexander Dake, sorry Dawkins, if you want to maintain a Christian culture, you are going to need people who actually believe in it.
	He was a big force in tearing down Christianity in the West, so I have zero sympathy for him, until he at the very least apologizes for his role in pushing the Church out of being relevant to the culture.
	Well, I mean, I see the point, but again, there is the other bit of, you have to acknowledge how vocal he was in criticizing other threats to Christianity.
	You cannot just bypass this.
	And he was doing this when a lot of people were incredibly silent about it.
	So, you cannot not give him credit for that.
	Alex P. Dawkins is in the awkward position of having helped stamp out Christianity as a mind virus, when it was actually a competing organism which founded a safe civilization for him to say and do as he pleases.
	Now malevolent organism is taking over that we have been left defenseless against, which will cut his head off for things he has to say.
	Yet he shows no humility and refused to speak on Islam at all recently, obviously in fear.
	Thank you, Richard.
	Thank you so much.
	I don't think that the latter bit is necessarily correct, that he hasn't spoken.
	I think he is very vocal about it, but I may be wrong.
	Ethelstan95, I agree with Callum.
	Dawkins has spent his career tagging the foundations and now he's complaining that the walls of the house he likes are collapsing.
	Again, I have to say that he was critical of all religions, not just Christianity.
	Matt, I have to defend Dawkins.
	The real sin of the new atheists was not their irreverence or impiety, it was their taste for egalitarian liberal universalism, with which all of their Christian interlocutors agreed.
	When did William Lane Craig or Ken Ham ever defend the divine right of kings?
	When did they argue Europe belonged to the Europeans?
	The apoplectic arguments always charged atheism with being too cold and unempathetic, too rational.
	The ideology of eugenics, hurricane domination, Conversely, the new atheists fire back, religion is used to control people.
	Both completely misunderstanding the need for hierarchy and station.
	The issue is demographics more so than it is the decline in Christianity.
	Just like we became post-pagan, Europe was always going to become post-Christian.
	Islam isn't taking hold among Europeans, it increases purely the product of importing large amounts of Muslims.
	And Colin P., racist, if Islam is a race and one can convert to or change one's religion, does that mean one can also change one's race?
	Well, Islam isn't a race, is it?
	Yeah, it's a religion.
	It could be from Libya or Malaysia.
	Yeah.
	And one other thing...
	George Happ.
	People blaming Dawkins for the fall of Christianity are missing the core issue of those who failed to defend it against some basic scrutiny, like the priests who just declared Life of Brian blasphemous and wanted it censored.
	They made the same mistake as conservatives.
	Rather than create and adapt culture, Christians just prevented you from accessing it, which led to the current atheist society.
	We go to...
	I'll read your comments.
	Someone else will have to scroll down or do something for me.
	I've got a little glare on my screen.
	Okay, Bay State says there is no way they will kill JFK Trump.
	They know they would be creating a martyr, setting off an event that would make January 7th look like a picnic.
	Yeah, maybe.
	They didn't seem to stop them in the JFK incident, which was at the height of the Cold War.
	Didn't stop them then, did it?
	I don't know.
	There's this thing that, oh, if this happens, then all the people will suddenly rise up.
	Well, it hasn't happened yet.
	They didn't rise up after 9-11.
	We didn't rise up after 7-7, or after Manchester, or after the grooming gangs, or... They didn't rise up after their election was clearly fortified last time.
	Nor did Jack.
	I mean... A lot of these conjectures are just presuming perfect rationality, perfect instrumental rationality, on behalf of the planner or actor.
	And just, it's never the case.
	I mean, AA would argue that populism is a delusion entirely, doesn't he?
	I don't know.
	But anyway, not that I necessarily completely agree with that.
	Baron Von Warhawk says, Remember Biden was caught red-handed on camera doing what they were charging Trump with?
	Plus taking bribes from China in the shower with his daughter and nothing happened.
	Yeah.
	The court said he was too old and senile to be held accountable and still fit to be president.
	The Republic is a shame.
	Maybe he meant sham there, but yeah, yeah, yeah.
	I mean, yeah, like we say, it's just clearly a two-tier thing.
	The law is for you, not for us.
	For us, it is interpreted.
	For you, it is applied.
	Yeah, yeah, right.
	Perfectly succinct.
	It's the exact arbitrary authority that republics are supposed to be designed to counter.
	What was the thing with Biden in the shower with his daughter?
	I only vaguely remember anything.
	His daughter's diary got leaked and in there she talks about how she used to have to deal with him trying to shower with her all the time and she would try and make sure that she would shower at times where he couldn't join her.
	And this is when she's going through puberty as well, not when she's like six.
	I was about to say, what age?
	It's not really okay at any age, but... But, yeah, during puberty.
	Really, really pedophilic.
	Yeah, super.
	I mean, the man already has some weird pedo stuff, like him talking about how he loves kids jumping up and down on his lap, playing with his hairy legs and stuff, where it's just like this.
	I assume he was trying to go for dad vibes, but it just came off as pedo vibes.
	Does he have a direct connection to Epstein as well?
	I know Bill Clinton's a pedo, but... I don't know.
	I don't know.
	Well, because they've got their own ring, haven't they?
	Like the Podesta thing.
	That's Pizzagate, isn't it?
	Yeah, yeah.
	I don't know.
	So like the Obama-Clinton-Augusta area.
	I don't know if it's connected to Epstein or they've just got their own thing going on.
	I would imagine if Biden's involved in stuff it'd be more that than... Would you be surprised to find out Joe Biden is a pedophile and part of the pedo elite?
	Not at all.
	No.
	Not at all.
	Yeah.
	I wouldn't give anyone long odds on it.
	Yeah.
	The issue with trying Trump on all these charges, even if they don't go straight to court after his election, is that the uninformed will still believe that he did all these things and see him as an illegitimate ruler if he wins and pardons himself.
	Yeah, I mean, maybe.
	But what you're going to do is, yeah, maybe.
	But there's always some people out there, aren't there, even if there's a lot of people, even if they're in the majority, that they're going to believe whatever they're going to believe.
	Whatever the mainstream media tells them.
	Whatever BBC News or Channel 4 or Radio 4 or in America what would it be, MSNBC or CNN, whatever they tell you, even if you know it's nonsense, they will just believe it and trot it out endlessly.
	There's quite a lot of people that fall into that camp right.
	I think someone has made a donation for OPH UK.
	Read it out, I can't see it on my screen.
	Thank you.
	The guy is called Oh Fuck.
	I was trying to... But he's Thai, so it's okay.
	And sends a message to you and says Trump is more of a Salon figure than a Grakan figure.
	Well, not yet he's not.
	What are you talking about?
	So anyone who might not know, Sula was the general who then marched an army on Rome.
	The first one, the first one to march an army on Rome to get rid of all his political enemies.
	There was a back and forth, but in the end, like the second, was it the third?
	I think the second time Sula marched on Rome, he just murdered everyone that was against him and their families.
	You know, I want them dead.
	I want their families dead.
	Today.
	That sort of thing.
	I want their dogs dead.
	Yeah.
	Dead.
	Dead.
	That's what Sula ended up doing.
	So Trump isn't that though, is he?
	Oh fuck.
	Was that his name?
	I mean, Trump might become that.
	Let's hope not.
	I don't think that Donald is that kind of a person.
	I've got more faith in 45.
	I want Obama dead!
	I want his dad dead!
	I want his man wife dead!
	Today!
	Today!
	Let's hope Trump doesn't turn into a suller.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	JJHW said, you know a man by his enemies.
	Short but sweet, a bit of sentiment there, but yeah, it's true, right?
	It's kind of true, not always true, but largely often it's true, isn't it?
	The thing that you're over the target, right?
	You know that line, which is you can tell who's in charge of society by who you can't criticise.
	Everyone's like, yeah, babies with cancer are keeping us down.
	I was going to say, it's not always true that, is it?
	You know, a man by his enemies.
	Yeah, the babies with cancer.
	Yeah.
	They won't have a word said against them.
	They shut you down.
	Control all the media, the banks.
	The babies with cancer, no.
	Shut it down.
	Shut it down.
	Yeah.
	They're the ones hogging all the cancer treatment!
	Okay, I've got so much clear on the screen I can't even see it.
	I'll read one lower down.
	Passing says, to be honest the comparison between Caesar and Trump is fair but if you then compare Pompey and the Senate to Biden and the deep state, Trump has to win the election and get into office for he's potentially ruined and the other Biden goal is to the exclusion of all other considerations to deny Trump his lifeline.
	Yeah, so you remember when Caesar had to get declared consul, or he would be investigated for his crimes?
	Oh, I see, yeah.
	So Donald Trump is having to do this, but... I see.
	The crimes are all made up.
	Who is Caesar Rubin?
	Sorry?
	Who is Caesar Rubin?
	Oh, what, in the modern days?
	I don't know.
	Has America... Definitely not Biden.
	Has America got a great orator who's got, like, he's for the Republican... Joe Biden.
	Jill Biden?
	No, Joe Biden.
	Thomas Sowell?
	Thomas Sowell.
	No?
	I don't know.
	I kind of always hate this though, we always do this, like so many people do this.
	They're saying just like, how is this just like Rome?
	Yeah.
	And it's not, ever.
	Yeah.
	It's always forced.
	I was listening to a thing the other day, just literally last night, I was listening to Dan Carlin talking to the guy that did Connections, James God, I can't remember his surname.
	Anyway, they were saying that, he asked him that.
	He said, all these parallels between the Grecoi brothers and the Kennedy brothers, and there's all these... And he said, no, there's a couple of examples you can pick out, and in every other way, they're not the same at all.
	Yeah.
	Some people get obsessed with doing that, or they're just like, constantly, this is just like that small period in history, in the Roman Republic, when it fell.
	I just remember with Putin's invasion of Ukraine and everyone was like, what can I compare this to?
	And it's just like, you don't need to.
	You could just describe it how it is.
	You don't have to.
	Yeah.
	Oh, James Burke.
	That was it.
	The guy that did Connection, James Burke.
	Yeah.
	He said, yeah, you can find a few parallels, but mostly it's completely new.
	Like history doesn't really, history doesn't repeat itself ever.
	And it kind of barely rhymes.
	All right, which is actually a fair point if you can be completely honest.
	Yeah.
	So there, yeah, there you go.
	Beverham Warhawk again says, it's not the targeting of Trump that shows we're in a late stage democracy, but also because we keep voting for things that are promised but never received, and then from people raiding the treasury.
	Combine this with Epstein's Island and illegal criminals, Being treated better than citizens, and you can see why so many people are turning their back on democracy.
	I've been on campus for a long time, and I have never met a single young person who believes in the system.
	I found another parallel.
	Epstein's Island is the old Capri.
	Oh yeah, Tiberias is Capri.
	Yeah.
	That is quite a good parallel, yeah.
	Yeah.
	I don't know, maybe Callum, there is a way of This is just like ancient Rome.
	But still, out of the whole fabric of everyone and everything that's going on, you get like a pinpoint.
	You get a pinpoint.
	Yeah, they're the same.
	They're the same.
	Everything else isn't.
	Oh man, I forgot my lunch.
	This is just like when Caesar didn't bring the supply wagons.
	Someone online said they're just fine with damaging the republic.
	Go on.
	I can't speak today.
	They don't want people to have power over their own lives, and they don't want to tolerate a non-cathedral member in power.
	Used to go, talked about the cathedral.
	Malburg.
	Malburg, yeah.
	So I guess that's what they're talking about there.
	Yeah, of course, yeah.
	Power wants to... It's one of the... That is a thing that is true throughout all of history and there are many parallels all the time, again and again and again.
	The nature of power that people... The only thing you really want, once you've got power, and money as well.
	They overlap.
	It's more money and more power.
	It's to keep your money and power.
	That's all you want.
	They're sort of truisms, aren't they?
	Do stupid stuff like buying helicopters.
	Stuff like that.
	It's funny, if someone said, you know, the old question, if you could have, sort of, all the power, you could be a complete autocrat, an absolute autocrat or something, but not really any money, or not be fabulously rich.
	Or you could be, sort of, an Elon, multi-multi-multi-billionaire, but not really have any institutional power.
	I mean, which would you have?
	I mean, you can sort of gain the other, if you've got enough of one, you can sort of gain the other, or don't need the other one, right?
	Hell yeah.
	You would rather be a billionaire.
	Take the money, invest it, in five years, double your money or whatever, and then use half of it to gain institutional power.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Or if you've got Elon money, do you really want institutional power even?
	It'd just be a headache, wouldn't it?
	It'd just be annoying.
	It'd just be like a monkey on your back, right?
	It'd just be... I suppose.
	If I was Elon Rich, I probably wouldn't try and seek power.
	Yeah, I'll just enjoy myself.
	Anyway, is that it?
	Yeah, that's basically all the time.

▲