All Episodes
Previous Next
May 1, 2024 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters
01:31:17
The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #905
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters for the 1st of May, And I'm very pleased to have a guest here today.
And that is Aiden Paladin.
Hi, thanks for having me back.
Thank you very much for coming.
And of course, we have Harry.
Hello, it's been a while, I've brought my own guest with me, my manky mug.
So that's making it a long overdue reappearance on the podcast.
By the way, I offered to buy Harry a new mug because I object to how disgusting it is.
And he actually refused.
I offered him charity.
He's becoming a running thing and also, once again, somebody did say...
That they had sent me an HP Lovecraft mug from America, which has still not arrived.
So if you sent that and you're watching it right now, it's just not arrived yet.
Either you didn't send it and you lied to me, in which case you've completely breached my trust, or it's been picked up by customs because you wrote Lovecraft's cat's name on it.
Nice reference there.
I think you're just doing your bit to help, you know, the immune system of society here by having all of the germs located in your mug.
It's like that episode of The Simpsons with Mr Burns, you know, I'm so diseased at this point, if I stop drinking from this and cure one of them, I will die.
Anyway, we actually do have a podcast to record today.
What?
This is what people tune in for?
No.
So we're going to be discussing what is wrong with the left and also the next evolution of white flight.
We sure will have time for my segment, because good God, what's wrong with the left?
I know, yeah, we're going to make this about five hours long.
No, it's going to be a double segment.
So, I suppose I may as well explain why we're going to be talking about it.
So, obviously we talk about the left on this podcast quite a lot, and what they're up to, and what their purported aims are, and things like that.
How ugly they are.
That's true.
Undeniable.
We don't need to really point that one out.
It's just obvious.
That's mean.
However, I thought, as we've got two psychologists in the room, it'd be good to sort of have a deeper look at their actual motivations.
Because, of course, understanding their purported reasons for doing what they're doing, that's very, very different to why they actually might be doing it.
You know, people aren't always honest.
I don't think I need to tell that to people.
Souls, say, rhetoric versus reality.
And I actually think that there are lots of profound insights you can get from there, you know, from the studies looking at why they behave as they do, rather than, you know, trying to understand the minds of people that quite often are not the sanest, let's be honest.
So before I actually get into that, though, it is worth mentioning we are looking for, Aiden Paladin?
We found her!
There she is!
No, we are looking for a production manager and I have been given a sentence to read.
We are looking for people with skills in videography, audio and editing available to work in the London or Swindon area.
If you are interested in the full job spec it is available at lotuseaters.com slash careers or lotuseaters.com slash career production manager with hyphens between career production and manager which is Yeah, you can see it on screen.
You can read, can't you?
If you can read, look at this.
Smooth.
Despite looking like a used car salesman, your skills aren't quite up to snuff.
Well, I sell new cars these days.
Oh, alright.
Anyway, on to some of the studies.
So, this was recently picked up a couple of days ago.
This is a study that I think came out of Mormon University in Utah.
I can't... BYU.
BYU, that's the one.
I can never remember all the acronyms and things like that.
But apparently, liberals are three times more biased than conservatives when evaluating ideologically opposite individuals.
And this is obviously something that I think lots of people have identified without research.
But the research is interesting because, of course, being able to quantify it and understand the scale of the problem is very important.
Because quite often I see people saying, well, why do I need a study to indicate what I already know?
Well, actually, scaling is very important in understanding the nature of the issue.
You know, it could be ten times, it could be two times, it makes a big difference.
Sure, and it helps to just have any evidence for it in general, because otherwise, I mean, sure, some things are known just because you can observe them, but you need to be able to quantify them so that you can show other people, and particularly when the party of science, the left, says that they want evidence for everything.
That's the case until they don't like the actual evidence.
It seems, or at least that's been my experience, as they seem to be a little bit upset about this first one.
Yes, and we are going to be looking at some of the reactions, which just prove the actual study, which is funny.
And they even acknowledge, well, I know it kind of proves what they're saying, but still I'm angry, which is hilarious.
So this was actually published in the Journal of Social Psychology, which, you know, despite having some replicability problems, is still a relatively prestigious psychological journal.
I'm slurring my words.
I've not even had a drink today.
And I'm going to read a little bit from this and it says, the researchers conducted a study in which they explored how political memes published on social media affect a perceiver's impression of the person who shared them.
They also wanted to determine the degree to which the person viewing the memes would indirectly aggress against the person who posted them based on assumptions about the political views of that person.
And it says, the conservative and liberal memes and texts were crafted to be as similar as possible, reflecting the opposite political views.
For example, I'm just going to say I hate Trump with an angry face emoji, which is not a meme, to be honest.
I mean, that's just a statement.
I'm just going to say I love Trump with a happy face emoji.
This understanding of memes makes me cringe.
That feels like such a Facebook boomer meme.
Yeah, it is.
But it also kind of makes it a little bit believable in my mind that it's sort of a little bit out of touch and boomery.
Yeah.
You can kind of believe it.
When it comes to the meme talk, I think it's interesting to point out another aspect of the left-right's meme game, which is one that I've seen pointed out quite often, which is if you ever see a Stone Toss meme, for instance, oftentimes the people that he is making fun of in the memes are not necessarily the target of the meme.
It's the idea that they represent that is the target of the meme.
Whereas when you see leftist memes, say for instance, when Kathy Griffin did that photograph of her holding the severed Trump head, which still gets shared about every so often, it's more about pointing at your ideological opposites and saying you are evil, you are hideous, you are awful, and you deserve it's more about pointing at your ideological opposites and saying you are And I think that this difference exists because the right tends to understand the left better than the left understands the right.
And this is not something that I'm sort of saying baselessly.
It seems to be the case that that's backed up in the literature to quite a significant degree, actually.
And lots of people on the right I know of have read lots of leftist literature.
The same can't be said on the opposite side.
Oh, and that makes sense then why their memes are, this person's evil, they're terrible, because that's all they can come up with are essentially just insults.
Because they don't have any, they don't understand what anyone on the right believes, so they don't have anything to make a meme out of.
There's another interesting thing there, which is even those on the left that purport to have read right-wing literature often demonstrate in practice that they have a very, very thin and rubbish understanding of it.
There was a guy called Matt McManus, who's a professor who's done a number of debates with the Distributist, if you're aware.
Of what that was going on now, this guy professes himself to be an expert on right-wing literature, and then a few weeks ago he made a post on Twitter that was absolutely absurd for anybody who claims to understand the history of right-wing thought and the development of right-wing ideologies, is that he posted some excerpt from a book and he went, this is completely insane, I can't believe this, I'm only just learning this now, and it was an excerpt from a book explaining that fascism had arisen as a response to communism.
And that, for instance, Germans in the 1930s saw communists as their greatest enemies, not just Jews.
And I thought to myself, what have you missed?
You're supposed to be an expert on this stuff.
Whether you want to align fascism or National Socialism with the right or left, most on the left, to put it on the right, how did you not already know this?
You've got such a poor understanding of this.
If you're only just learning this incredibly basic fact, I mean, that's a record score for Godwin's Law as well, isn't it?
But no, I very much agree with what you're saying.
And so obviously they showed them these memes, and then according to the article talking about it, because the paper isn't necessarily publicly available yet, participants read a cover story presenting the study authors as industrial slash organizational psychologists developing a machine learning algorithm.
So they basically deceived them because they believed that if the participants knew why they were in the experiment, they would change their behavior, which is a very True thing and one of the main problems with the lab experiments in psychology is that people are aware when they're being observed and they can infer what you're meant to be doing.
They almost never guess the cover story though.
That's very typical to almost always have a cover story and a lot of times in order to make sure you'll actually ask them if they guess what it was afterwards so you can use it as a measure to throw out those data if someone does guess what you're actually trying to study.
Funny thing is that a lot of universities recruit psychology students as part of their scheme and I remember participating in them for credits for my own studies and being able to guess what the study was actually about quite a lot of the time and it led to a lot of disappointed researchers.
It's basically just a waste of time for everyone at that point, but my gripes about the way university works aside.
And so the sort of overall conclusion was that liberals and conservatives tended to evaluate ideologically opposite individuals more negatively.
Surprise, surprise.
However, this bias was three times stronger among liberals compared to conservatives.
So, I think we can all agree that, you know, observation and research seems to match up here quite clearly.
But what is to be done about this?
And, you know, you could take the annoying, sort of, centrist trigonometry line of, well, we've got to come together.
I reject that entirely and say, well... We have to come together with people who view us as an existential threat and want us dead.
Yeah, my perspective is that, well, conservatives are tending to be almost too even-handed to these people, that if they're willing to go to great lengths to discriminate against you, well, surely that should get the same in return.
And this was discrimination, is what they were looking at in the study specifically was, would you hire this person for a job?
So, or potentially that's part of it.
So yeah, that is active discrimination against someone three times stronger for people on the left than it is on the right.
And I don't know how you come to the table with someone who would want you to not have a job just because they disagree politically.
And I think it's part of the reason that a lot of institutions have shifted leftwards is that they're far more willing to gatekeep them.
And this seems to be the case, right?
That leftists are far more likely to push people out of institutions because they are three times more likely to discriminate against them.
And so, well, what that says to the right is, well, you shouldn't be as tolerant to the left because they're not showing you the same tolerance.
And that's how it should work, really.
And here's the actual study itself, to meme or not to meme, political social media posts and ideologically motivated aggression in job recommendations.
So if you wanted to look at it straight from the source, there it is.
But what I wanted to do, and I'm very sorry for subjecting you all to this, is look at a reaction from a liberal hub that is Reddit.
And I try to avoid this sort of thing, particularly the psychology thread, because here someone posted it, and as you can guess... I'm sorry, this header image gets me every time.
What do you think the directions were for the photographer for this model?
Sorry, carry on.
I know what you mean.
Imagine, you know, working for a stock photo company and this is how you're sort of represented in this article thumbnail.
Terrible.
Anyway, so the top comment is a perfect vindication of this.
I mean, I'm not going to trust the Mormons on this.
Their entire worldview is skewed.
And it's just right over his head.
And then they also said, edit for those peeing your pants with angry glee.
Y'all didn't even bother to open the damn journal until I triggered your feelings.
Mormons are not grounded in reality and their scientific articles should be taken with a grain of secret gold plates in a hole under a hat that only one person can see.
So that is a person absolutely seething, and then the person replying to them there, I just noticed that the study was done at BYU.
Now I'm trying to figure out if I'm literally proving their point by being a liberal who is having an instant knee-jerk reaction against my stereotype of Mormon institutions.
That person's a sort of evolution in consciousness from that initial poster there.
But there are people who... and my mouse is not working.
Uh-oh, never mind.
Oh wait, there you go.
It's not working, never mind.
I can adapt.
And there's a comment around here somewhere.
Where is it?
Basically someone just saying, yeah that checks out.
Fair enough.
I can't find it anymore.
There's another person criticizing the methods.
They're basically pointing out... It's funny how they get access to it.
Unless you have access to the journal right now, which it might be published.
I think it has published, but did they pay a lot of money for it?
I'm curious.
Did they actually read it?
Because of course that one person is like, oh, you didn't even read it yet.
Did you though?
Because I wouldn't have said that if I had read it.
I think it's easy to see what's going on here, which is, I'm in this picture and I don't like it.
Yes.
Yes.
And the comment I was trying to find basically said, when the study agrees with what they believe, it's, you know, good methodology, it's all fine.
When it disagrees with them, the methodology is bad.
And, you know, I've seen studies that agree with me and I've spotted that the methodology is bad.
That's part of being a good researcher.
And, you know, it's something you should pride yourself on, not necessarily just being Completely partisan.
You've got to sort of read between the lines and look for good evidence.
There are also histories of people being biased towards other people as well.
Here's a study being talked about at the University of Exeter who actually recently disciplined someone for saying they didn't agree with veganism in their own room.
So a lovely institution, but supposedly Twitter users are three times more likely to follow back the accounts of strangers if they share the same political views.
Interesting that it's three times as well, isn't it?
That number just keeps on coming up.
So it seems to be a phenomenon.
They're also more likely to block others because of politics.
Here we have consistently liberal significantly more likely than say mostly conservative or consistently conservative to block people.
They're more likely to drop people from being their friend.
Look at consistently liberal.
That's massive compared to other people.
And the reason that they're succeeding is because they are gatekeeping to a significant degree.
And the right isn't doing this nearly enough.
And that's why I think quite often things are going wrong.
I don't know whether you guys agree.
I've already done a video speaking about this in the past.
The left gatekeeps to the right, and the centre-right gatekeeps to the right as well.
The centre-right often acts as a mechanism by which it is trying to hold the left to its own principles, and then so therefore ends up embodying those principles in a more honest way, because the left are all rhetoric.
I was discussing this with a friend, Spoon, the other day, and we were discussing this and saying how the two sides often operate opposite to one another in terms of the rhetoric, where the left is all about equal rights and democracy in their rhetoric, where the way they actually operate is incredibly rigidly hierarchical and deferential to power and elitist.
The right operates the exact opposite way.
Their rhetoric is elitist, it's all about hierarchy, whereas in reality the principles they try to uphold themselves to are democratic and equal rights based, and so you end up with the right just oftentimes capitulating to the left, at least the center right as it's existed.
The William F. Buckley Jr.
right, you could say.
Good example, yeah.
And it's moral foundations theory that people who lean to the left only tend to have two values, which is avoiding harm and caring for others, or at least wanting to be seen as if they care for others, which I think we'll talk about later, and an issue with fairness.
But again, that's perceived fairness or perceived justice, not actual justice.
Whereas conservatives tend to value all of the morals.
So also purity and authority and loyalty.
And then liberty only applies to libertarians who are very strong liberty and nothing else in terms of moral values.
But yeah, when you only have two out of six values that you care about, it absolutely shows up like that.
It becomes evident that these are the things they care about more than anything being seen as caring about.
And this is of course having an effect on society and people are aware of this going on and it says staunch liberals stand out as only group who feels they can share their political opinions and that's because they've captured institutions because of this approach to politics.
That's amazing that they can answer in that way and still pretend like they're the ones out of power.
There we go.
You can see it a bit better there.
So strong conservative, only 23% disagree that they're being silenced, which is quite a lot compared to the inverse of that, right?
But anyway, it's also worth mentioning that they are completely insane.
Has a doctor or health care provider ever told you that you have a mental health condition?
Percentage saying yes.
And this is an utter condemnation of liberal women right there.
That is leagues above everyone else.
I mean, the liberal men are significantly higher as well, but conservative men and women seem to be far more healthy.
And I think that the key to this, I don't know... There's a confound here.
So the confound is that Leftists tend to have, and liberals tend to have, a more positive sort of perception of mental health.
So they tend to be more likely to seek out a therapist.
So are they really that crazy?
I would agree, yes.
But there is a confounding variable there, which is that they may be more likely to ask someone to diagnose them with depression or some other mental health condition.
Given that I would argue that liberals are those who have completely and totally swallowed the propaganda that we've been fed for a long time.
Part of that propaganda comes from the therapeutic state.
You constantly see therapizing, pathologizing, and one of the ways that people are pathologized is if you behave in a certain way then you're a fascist.
I think these people are absolutely desperate to prove they're not a fascist and so they will go to these therapists who are constantly being told You're much better, you'll have a much better life if you go to therapy constantly.
Even on YouTube adverts you get better help is one that I get constantly because you're always being pushed towards it.
I don't necessarily think that.
Fascism's too much to do with it, but I do think that the focus on family and, you know, focusing on your profession, the sort of more traditional lifestyle of the conservative tends to lead to a lifestyle which seems more in keeping with human psychology, if you know what I mean.
I do also think there is the dysgenic element, which is that these people are automatically going to be more attracted to these insane ideologies.
Right.
And they're also more likely to be dissatisfied with their mental health as well, so this is their own self-report on their own mental well-being, and liberal women again leading the pack with dissatisfaction by a reasonable amount, liberal men also beating Everyone there.
It's also worth noting as well, conservative women tend to do pretty well there, more so than everyone else.
So that's interesting, isn't it?
Because of course, the sort of common wisdom is that women tend to suffer more with mental health issues than men do.
And that's clearly not necessarily true, depending on what you believe.
Yeah, and it does, again, bring up the order chicken or the egg.
Are they crazier to begin with, and that's what draws them towards these politics, or does the politics drive them to be unhappy?
And I don't know which one's accurate.
Maybe a bit of both.
Well I think that your personality is dictated by your genes to a certain extent, a reasonable extent actually, and your personality dictates your politics to a large extent.
So it seems to be that there's this thread going through things here whereby certain neuroses may well be genetically inherited.
So here's another one.
They're just generally less happy with life.
This is completely satisfied with your life by sex and ideology.
This was a 2022 poll of American families done by the UK government for some reason.
I don't know why our tax money is finding this out but it's useful at least.
And yes, it's almost like two to one, certainly for liberal women compared to conservative women.
They're much happier and there's got to be something to it, right?
Either the conservatives are lying about their own happiness, you know, sort of faking it until they make it, or maybe there actually is a trend.
And I think that It's possible, but it would be odd for it to be that consistent.
Yes.
So, potentially, but unlikely.
I do agree with that.
I think that most of the time when people are talking about this sort of thing, they tend to be quite honest, because depressed people tend to be relatively happy when filling out these surveys, from my sort of knowledge of the research, in reporting how they actually feel.
It's sort of almost a form of catharsis, is the way they perceive the filling out the forms, so it makes sense.
And de-individuation effects, which is being anonymous.
People will tell you pretty much anything.
As long as you tell them that they're anonymous, they'll say, sure, and open up about some really heavy stuff in surveys.
Yeah, it's strange how people really police themselves with social repercussions, isn't it?
So, on to things to do with personality, and this was just asking in a survey a bunch of left-wing authoritarians, I presume, and I'm just going to read the part from the results here.
It says, the results of multiple regression analysis showed that a strong ideological view according to which a violent revolution against existing social structures is legitimate For example, anti-hierarchical aggression was associated with antagonistic narcissism demonstrated in the first study and psychopathy in the second study.
However, neither dispositional altruism nor social justice commitment was related to left-wing anti-hierarchical aggression.
So basically, narcissism and psychopathy dictate how much you want to be a left-wing revolutionary more than their actual care for other people or their commitment to so-called social justice, which is quite a condemnation.
So their purported reason for doing it isn't even as strong as their own self-interest, clearly.
Yeah, it's actually interesting that there... I'm glad to see that there's a new study with left-wing authoritarianism.
If you don't know, this instrument's very new.
For years, it goes back to Altmaier, like in the 60s, developing the right-wing authoritarianism instrument, and that's been used for forever.
It used to be called... We've covered this before.
It used to be called the F scale, standing for fascism scale.
That was the Frankfurt School that developed that in California in the 50s, yeah.
Yes, which it came from the Frankfurt School, and then Altmaier rejigged it into being the right-wing authoritarianism instrument, which they use all the time.
And it wasn't until about three years ago that they started, that they even developed this left-wing authoritarianism instrument, because the social scientists, for decades, kept repeating, there is no such thing as left-wing authoritarianism, so let's not bother to develop an instrument to measure it.
Joseph Stalin, right-winger.
The funny thing is if you look at the studies that were done on the authoritarian personality studies, now I've read a text that goes over a lot of the studies that the Frankfurt School, I think it was mainly Adorno, included in the authoritarian personality and the guy i read goes through a lot of the responses and finds that what he was what they were doing was
they were getting these people to answer questions about their personal lives and their relationships to their own parents how they felt about their parents how they felt about themselves and basically the more stable and normal you seemed they would label these people as being repressed and subject to authoritarianism and the more unstable people were the more dissatisfied they were in life the more they had familial issues with their parents or maybe they just had absentee parents
in the first place they would label these people as having some form of unrestrained liberty that was good for them so i kind of characterize it like this if you're going to go with the whole authoritarian um scale if you want to go left and right so right wing authoritarianism is is you as the individual want to learn piano you're Me?
So the right-wing authoritarian...
Well, just imagine for a moment there.
Open up your imagination.
So the right-wing authoritarianism say, okay, I'll let you play piano, but I'll hold you to strict rules and make sure that you apply yourself to your fullest so that you can learn to play piano.
Left-wing authoritarianism is you go, dad, dad, I want to play guitar.
And he goes, no, you're playing piano and every wrong note that you get, I'm going to break your finger.
I think that's a good way of characterizing it.
Yeah.
You wouldn't be able to play piano for particularly long after that, would you?
No.
Well, no, but that's the counter-productiveness of communism, isn't it?
Really, we're going to build a workers' society where if the workers don't do what we want, we'll send them to the gulags.
So this next study is one of my favourites, and I've mentioned it quite a lot over the years, and this is signalling virtuous victimhood as indicators of dark triad personality.
So they were looking at consequences and predictors of emitting the signal of victimhood and virtue and virtue signaling of course virtue signaling it's like saying oh I'm you know I can't get a job because I'm black in America and things like that that's you know I've done nothing wrong it's not my criminal record I swear The fact I was stealing his phone in the job interview, I had nothing to do with it.
So there's a series of six studies which they went through and sort of tested their conclusions of each study.
I really like studies like this.
Oh, and this one, yeah, this is huge.
And they're really creative studies too.
So if you do have time to read through it and care about stuff like this, this is a really fascinating piece.
I covered it extensively on a video I did about virtuous victimhood about a year ago.
So, yeah.
I absolutely love this one, so do humour me for going over it.
It basically operates under the theory that modern victim signalling is about non-reciprocal resource extraction from institutions or individuals more resource rich than themselves.
And I believe that this is the animating principle that Governs a lot of politics more generally.
I believe that particularly elites, as well as lots of other people as well, engage in politics to extract resources from other people as a strategy of acquiring resources themselves.
I think that a very large amount of politics basically comes down to this fundamental truth that politics is resource extraction.
I know this makes me sound sort of autistically libertarian, and I will talk about taxation eventually, but It basically amounts to material things like money, jobs and access to education as well as symbolic things such as respect, tolerance and compassion.
These are all words as well that have been co-opted by the left.
Almost saying them makes my skin crawl these days.
But basically they showed that individuals with dark triad traits more frequently signalled their virtuous victimhood in the Western world and that The Dark Triad, if you're not familiar, is narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy.
And these are characterized by narcissism, grandiosity, pride, egoism, lack of empathy.
Machiavellianism, which is doing Machiavelli dirty really, but still, is manipulation and exploitation of others, an absence of morality, unemotional callousness and a higher level of self-interest.
And psychopathy, I think everyone knows.
But yes, it's being selfish, impulsive and being remorseless and brutal.
It will say, some people will repeatedly emit this signal in an opportunistic manner to initiate non-reciprocal resource transfer.
It says, our first three studies demonstrated how a perceived victim signal can lead others to transfer resources to a victim, but that the motivation to do so is amplified when the victim signal is paired with a virtue signal.
And those with the dark triad traits signal more often.
In this third study of theirs of the six, they showed that these virtuous victim signallers were more willing to purchase counterfeit products and judge counterfeiters as less immoral compared to less frequent signallers.
And that was a pattern which was also observed when using participants' dark triad scores instead of how much they signalled.
just in case that signaling score wasn't as good a sort of proxy for that metric.
And also, they're also more likely to lie and cheat and steal for extra monetary rewards in a coin flip game.
So yes, these virtuous victims are not so virtuous after all.
And also, communal narcissism was a significant predictor of the frequency of it.
And that's basically narcissism, but for a sort of identified group.
So it can be a sort of a collectivist impulse, which is interesting.
And another thing, too, about the narcissism in general is that there are two types of narcissism.
I think in this one they did collapse it to just a generalized narcissism instrument, but there is grandiose narcissism and vulnerable narcissism.
And in some of the research that I've looked at, it seems because when you hear the word narcissism, you think usually someone who is ostentatious, outgoing, very full of themselves.
That's grandiose narcissism.
But vulnerable narcissism is oftentimes people have very low self-esteem or they They get depressed and they want other people to, or they act depressed because they want people to give them attention.
Grandiose narcissists already like themselves, so they provide their own attention.
Then the vulnerable narcissist doesn't get attention or doesn't get what they want, they become very upset.
And I think that, and from the research I've seen, the left tends to have a real big problem with vulnerable narcissism, not with grandiose narcissism.
So yeah, you think of Andrew Tate, there's a narcissist, but that's that vulnerable narcissism, the, I need attention, I need people to care for me, that's vulnerable narcissism.
That would explain the prevalence of the cry bully archetype on the left.
Yes, exactly.
Yep.
Yes, so what they basically conclude is that a lot of the people that are emitting these signals are sort of aware of what they're doing as well, which is interesting and it sort of makes it all the more insidious.
If it was sort of unconscious and they weren't really aware that they were doing it in this way, it would make it at least a little bit more excusable perhaps, but Sort of.
Part of this study, because I have this up here too, I don't remember from which one of the experiments in it was, is that they were more prone towards fantasy thinking and towards exaggeration of what had happened in the past.
So I think it's more that they gaslight themselves into thinking things are different from how they actually are because they invent fantasies and exaggerate until they believe their own lies.
I mean, at least that's from some of the research in this set.
I can certainly see that happening because a lot of the time when you argue with left-wingers, which I've unfortunately done a fair amount of, they strawman you constantly and you'd be like, hang on, this is what I believe.
At least argue against that.
And then they'll take the most uncharitable interpretation and be like, well, you're not interfacing with reality anymore, are you?
Because that's what they heard.
They engaged in fantasy thinking and exaggeration and just heard whatever they wanted to hear.
When I approach arguing with someone I try and look at, particularly when it's written, the words they've said and argue the point rather than the idea or putting like an idea in their mind or saying oh you really mean this.
Yeah but then you can't engage in solipsism so that's no fun.
And here's one that you actually drew my attention to.
Oh yeah.
And this one was kind of a bit harrowing as well.
It's titled Where is it?
It's got a different title there.
There's two from this research cohort that I talked about that are published in the same year.
But this one is titled each is to count for one and one for more than one.
Which is a very confusing title, actually.
Predictors of Support for Economic Redistribution, which is a very bland title for a very interesting study.
And I wanted to draw attention to this table here, because these are predi...
Predictors of support for coercive redistribution, and so coercive redistribution is taking people's resources via the state one would presume, but not necessarily, and then redistributing them among probably like-minded individuals.
And the effect size here is the most interesting thing to me, because the ones that are actually significant here, malicious envy, self-interest, to a certain extent communal fairness, although it has the lowest effect size, and instrumental harm, Obviously, malicious envy, we kind of know what that is.
They're envious of people with more resources than them.
Self-interest, again, is pretty self-evident.
The communal fairness, again, you can say, well, there is some sort of, they perceive it via the nexus of this fairness imbalance, even though there may be perfectly legitimate reasons why someone has more resources than them.
And the instrumental harm was the interesting one, because it's kind of a nebulous term, but what it actually means is it gives a moral agent permission to instrumentally use and severely harm or even kill innocent people to promote the greater good, which is, you know, very hot fuzz of them.
And that's the concerning one, and that one's the second most significant effect size of them all.
So to clarify that's people who essentially already want to hurt other people and are simply looking for a virtuous excuse to do so?
Yes, exactly.
I mean and the course of redistribution is it was up to including killing or torturing or seriously harming other people to redistribute.
I mean that in every experiment because there were a couple of this one too if I remember correctly but this one I haven't read as recently and I think the thing with fairness too is that it's The way that the instrument is loaded, it probably is perceived fairness, of wanting to be seen as fair.
So you would answer questions on that questionnaire being like, yes, I'm a very fair person because that's one of the two morals that really matters to leftists.
So it makes total sense to me as to why fairness is significant, as well as, yeah, if you don't do what I want, I'm going to torture you.
It actually does align with their psychological profile.
And of course we've seen this manifest.
I think that the Soviet Union was a legitimate manifestation of left-wing ideology.
I know there are some people that argue about that, but it's nonsense.
Of course it was.
You don't get collective farms unless you believe in collectivism, do you?
And yeah, well, we saw torture and murder on a mass scale in the name of fairness.
Really inventive and horrible, harrowing ways of torturing people as well.
If you only read the first few chapters of the Gulag Archipelago.
That's one of the only books in my life I couldn't actually finish because it was so harrowing.
Solzhenitsyn just discussing the really mundane ways that you could torture somebody into granting a confession.
Just sitting someone in a chair that's a little bit too high for your feet to be able to touch the floor so your feet go numb and having them sat there for hours and hours and hours on end without being allowed to get up or sleep.
The one that got to me was making a really old man stand in a corner for three days straight, and as soon as he fell over or sat down they would shoot him.
It's just pure evil.
There's no reason, ideological or otherwise, to do that to another human being, but I suppose that's why I'm not a leftist.
But on the topic of leftist ideology, one of them is the LGBT movement and certainly the ideological component of it anyway.
And of course this is skyrocketing at the minute because of course it's not biological, it's a sort of social contagion more than anything.
Yes, nearly four in ten young liberal women identify as LGBT and I find this interesting because there has been research into the sort of personality of people like this and I like this one just because of the title mainly.
The Dark Side of the Rainbow.
Homosexuals and bisexuals have darker and darker, higher dark triad traits than heterosexuals and It reads that bisexuals and homosexuals were more Machiavellian than heterosexuals and bisexuals were more psychopathic and narcissistic than heterosexuals.
The only significant finding in within-sex comparisons showed that self-identified bisexual women score higher on all dark triad traits than heterosexual women.
Which is interesting, isn't it?
Well, it's not part of that likely because of the identification part, because it's in vogue to do so.
So in particular, it makes sense then why, and I found a lot of women identify as bisexual because it's non-committal.
So you get to be in the LGBT umbrella, but you don't have to actually do anything.
It's the same thing as being, in that sense, as being, what do they call it, a non-binary, where you can just go about doing everything you were doing before, but now they have to call you by Zimzer or something.
Yeah, it's more of an ideological and social status signifier than an actual lifestyle that these people are adhering to.
One could say a virtue signal.
Yeah.
And hence the dark triad relationship there then.
Yeah, and I think that there are obviously people who probably are there for genuine reasons.
Sure.
I'm not necessarily dismissing that.
I don't think that, you know, All homosexuals are psychopaths, for example.
So if you're watching Hope Not Hate, please, I do want a bank account.
But if you feel like maliciously editing and clipping this, then, you know, we can't really stop you.
And just to add fuel to the fire, I wanted to end on something that is a little bit controversial, although it's not framed like this.
This is on nature.com, the premier journal in science, and I'm going to read a little bit about this.
Basically, it's facial recognition technology that can detect facial orientation, political orientation, from just regular pictures of people.
It looked at over a million individuals and it correctly guessed the political orientation in 72% of cases whether they were liberal or conservative and obviously the by chance one is 50% and the human accuracy is 55% so this is absolutely massive.
Even when you give someone a personality questionnaire, you can only guess their political orientation 66% of the time.
So the fact that technology can do this is interesting for multiple reasons.
One is the sort of Skynet one, where I'm absolutely terrified that the state is going to use CCTV to track people of my political persuasion to do us in.
And the second thing is that this is kind of a vindication of physiognomy, isn't it?
That you can kind of tell what someone's politics are just by looking at them, and it's not exactly politically correct, even amongst, you know, someone the purported right to say these sorts of things, but I think that if genetics determine personality which determines politics, then genetics also determine what you look like in a far more direct way.
Because your physical appearance is affected by genes which also affect personality, they're not necessarily independent of one another, that there is overlap there.
It's not necessarily a hundred percent, but there's a significant degree of overlap.
That's why when you domesticate animals, their physical appearance changes even though you're only selecting for tameness.
Yeah, exactly.
There have been a couple of studies that have to do with the facial structure and political beliefs.
So this wouldn't just come out of anywhere.
But it's interesting now that the AI is so accurate at it.
And that is the terrifying part is that, oh, yeah, I could see some governments loving to use this to track people just based on, yeah, You've got a dissident face.
You've got a dissident face.
I believe facial recognition technology is something that's either already been implemented in Scotland or is being implemented up there and is beginning to be implemented here as well.
So yeah, there is some worrying implications, but on the actual science of the matter, I find it absurd that anybody would even deny that the human brain, which is a pattern recognition machine, developed over hundreds of thousands, if not longer, years.
Um, wouldn't be able to recognize particular patterns about how people look and how people who look in a particular way behave.
And there's a reason there's a Baz meme about British people.
And, uh, Bazes are known to behave in a particular way.
And if you meet a Baz in public, yeah, he's probably gonna act like you would expect the Baz to behave.
Well there's also a certain thing that the behavior dictates the appearance in that the doughy face comes from years of sinking lager which I respect by the way that's not a slight.
And darts as well of course.
He's got the perfectly weighted arms with this great big counterweight hanging off.
Have you seen that where darts players lose weight and stop being good at the game all of a sudden and they put the weight back on and they're back to top four?
I like a sport where the unhealthier you are the better you get.
There needs to be something for people like me.
Maybe it is something to do with the balance of having a big wobbly belly.
Keeps you grounded.
It's like a counterweight, isn't it?
But my point being in all of this, that There are lots of things that you wouldn't necessarily intuitively discovered looking at politics and sort of even trying to be quite analytical about it from research like this and I think it's actually very valuable and I imagine that you feel much the same.
Oh yeah, I mean, academia is completely captured, obviously, but it doesn't mean that sometimes interesting information doesn't still get through it.
The people who are totally ideologically driven, they are going to do their best to try and suppress information like this, but it does happen because most scholars are not complete lunatics and just want to study their one weird thing that they're interested in.
When talking back a little bit about the gender issues with women having more, what was it, more likely to be bisexual, there was that rapid onset gender dysphoria study from 2012 that has been more or less completely retracted.
And the reason why was because they asked parents to identify or to say, hello, my child in the last six months has suddenly started identifying as transgender.
And in that study, it was, Three, or at least three, if not two, it was two to three or to one, males identify, or excuse me, females identified as males, rather than the vice versa.
And what they found was, if you had, if one of these girls in high school had one friend who came out as trans, all of them did.
That study was more or less, the problem was because they, was because they asked the parents to identify it, not, they didn't ask the students to identify themselves.
So the study was thrown out as bad methods.
But I still think that there's value in that study.
It just, The left was unhappy with it, and all of a sudden, they are not the party of the science.
They're not the group of science when it doesn't align with their pet beliefs.
However, most people just don't pay attention to this stuff, so it, you know, sneaks by.
I mean, I was a great big nerd and did a master's in research methodology, so I love going through this sort of thing.
Oh, yeah.
Like bread and butter.
Yep, me too.
Sorry, I've insulted you by association there.
Oh, no, no, no.
Absolute nerds!
And I mean that with all due respect.
Well, if I wasn't a nerd, I wouldn't be here.
Neither would I, to be honest.
Same.
Well, that's a weird way to end the segment, but there we go.
The left are weird, and that's why.
Anyway, on to your stuff.
Everybody type N in the comments, and that's for nerd.
Nerd, everybody.
N for nerd.
What have you done?
All right, Anakin.
What have I done?
As long as they're not killing you.
Oh, that's the left.
Yeah, well, they're castrating the younglings.
It's all right.
We're between segments.
We can say this now.
Yeah.
Now we're on.
I'll let you two finish your drinks.
Very courteous of you.
Is that a Chris Williamson New Tonic sports drink that you have there?
Wow!
It is!
To be fair, actually, I ran out of coffee ages ago.
I will have that.
Let's see what this tastes like.
And yes, Chris, if you like this clip, if it actually is really nice and I say so, you can use this for your advertising.
He's not paying us any money.
He's not.
He's not.
He's what?
What, John?
The laptop's blocking it.
Aha!
Here is mine.
Chris Williamson, I hope you like us.
We're not doing this for any reason.
Newtonic productivity drink with an eyeball on it.
Very 1984 Big Brother.
This is Chris's eyeball.
He's watching all the time.
You've closed your laptop.
That's why you're meant to read your notes.
I don't need notes.
Oh, good.
I'm guided by the power of Anglo-autism.
Let's see what this is like.
Let's see the latter, I think.
Big slurp.
Poor listeners.
I'm sorry.
That's actually... Thank you, Chris.
This is a good drink.
Horrible.
Come on, it's not that bad.
Stop being such a girl's blouse about it, Josh.
I don't like slurping.
Stop being such a big girl's plouse.
Plouse?
Blouse, you fanny.
Great big plow.
Go back to the fields, Josh.
I've been playing a lot of Manor Lords, alright, to be fair.
Alright, okay, back to the serious subjects of our podcast because we're a very serious podcast that's taken very seriously across the entire news media world.
We'll talk about the ultimate edition, the next evolution, as you put it, of white flight.
That evil thing where white people say, actually, I don't want to live in a crime-ridden hellhole.
Terrible, terrible, I know.
But before I get into that, I'd like to announce to everybody on YouTube that we are currently looking for people with skills in videography, audio, and editing who are available to work in the London or Swindon area.
If you're interested in full job specifications for our new career opportunity as production manager, you can find that at lotuseaters.com slash careers or lotuseaters.com slash career hyphen production hyphen Thank you very much.
Let's get on with this.
So, we know that there's a paradox.
Everything is paradoxical these days.
Everything is completely upside down.
The left have gone loony, as always.
Somebody's lost their marbles, and I'm sure that it's not me.
As we know, there are always contradicting ideas that we have to hold in our heads at all times, in all places.
But it all centers around one unifying theory, that being...
I hate whitey.
This is the unifying ideology of our days, and we know this because you see these two contradicting ideas held at the same time, which is gentrification is bad, white flight is bad, and both are signifiers of some kind of anti-black or anti-POC racism.
And to get an example of this, I just found this study that was done by Zawadi Rooks Ahidiana, uh called theorizing gentrification as a process of racial capitalism now this i say study this is um an essay where it basically just says if white people move into a low-class ethnic neighborhood and make it nicer this is racism
This is racism and it's capitalism we know that capitalism is evil in the first place and at the same time you have to hold that idea in your head while you also have to hold this idea that white flight is bad as well so white people move in bad white people move out also bad.
I love the argument implicit in the gentrification argument because it's basically like wherever white people go they make things nicer.
They bring civilization it's terrible.
It is amusing.
It's like wherever the beaver goes, he has to build a dam.
Wherever the white man goes, he has to build a functioning society.
This is the implicit... what's implicit in these, of course.
So, I mean, in this, this is actually quite an interesting article, even though the title is saying, White Flight Might Still Enforce Segregation.
Now, this is from 2021, and they point out here, this is a part of the APA, White Americans perceived a threat to their culture and way of life when presented with information about changing demographics in hypothetical white-majority neighborhoods and schools, compared with when no demographic change was projected.
Now that seems to me to be an obvious result from that question, because yes, if all of a sudden people with a foreign culture, different ways of life move in, obviously you're going to have more of a threat to the culture and way of life in that local area than if nobody was moving in at all.
And that's not even necessarily something that you can divide along racial lines, that you have to at least.
You can also say, well, Literally anybody moving in and out of a place will change to a certain extent the character, if only in minute or larger ways, depending on how different these people are.
And they pointed out here, even, and this is quite interesting and ties into something that we were speaking last time about how the left tends to speak out of both sides of its mouth at the same time, and be duplicitous and dishonest in how they communicate, even liberal white parents have resisted sending their children to integrated schools in New York City and other areas.
Because of course it's, um...
But basically, the left operates in a segregation-for-me, integration-for-the mindset.
This is why you end up with parts of, and correct me if I'm wrong here, but as far as I'm aware, the demographics of parts of America, like the New England in the Northeast, is still very majority white.
And that's where people tend to be most liberal, outside of the coastal parts of the West Coast.
You'll find that the segregation is astonishing in some left-leaning cities, although they're all left-leaning, but I grew up in Baltimore, and a friend of mine, very wealthy family, they live in essentially a gated community that is right in the center of Baltimore, but it's all pretty much white people.
These are multi-million dollar houses.
Three blocks away, there's shootings every day, and it's a complete, but there is no connection between those two people.
Yeah, they live next to each other, but they are completely segregated.
Yeah, it's interesting that these things tend to operate as a form of luxury beliefs, the ultra left-wing liberal ideas operate as a way that you can signal your own virtuous nature, you can have a function of social signaling, and also, again to tie into the previous segment, if you're really left-wing, it's a way of harming other people as well.
If you know that integration in particular communities, integration of particular communities, We'll end up in one way or another harming people that you don't like, then you're going to encourage that as long as the second-order effects don't end up at your doorstep.
So that's what we find in things like this, and I'll carry on here, saying that since 2000, the population growth of, because this is all about the demographic change of America, population growth of Latino Americans has accounted for more than half of the population growth in the United States.
According to the U.S.
Census projections, the United States will be a majority-minority nation by 2025.
when non-Hispanic whites will make up just under 50% of the population compared with approximately 25% for Hispanics, 13% for blacks.
I find it amazing that the percentage of blacks seems to just be constant in America.
Could have something to do with abortion, I don't know.
That's possibly something to do with it.
8% for Asians and 4% for multiracial people.
Non-Hispanic whites currently make up approximately 58% of the US population.
Again, this is APA just saying it out loud.
Yeah, demographic change is happening.
White replacement is happening.
We're bringing in all of the Mexicans.
And yes, if you live below the southern border of America, it doesn't matter which country you're from, you're Mexican.
Sorry to break it to you all there.
But remember, it's just a conspiracy theory.
Right, right.
Until it's not.
Until then, it's a good thing.
What's the old phrase?
It's not happening unless we want it to happen, and then it is happening, and it's good.
Yes, and of course, changing demographics will bring changing cultures, changing lives.
And with this, I'd like to bring us all to a nice city profile.
That I have prepared of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, the capital city of the US state of Louisiana, which is located on the eastern bank of the Mississippi River and had a population of 227,470 as of 2020.
So you were in my contemplations understanding America, weren't you?
And the state of Louisiana won out on some rather embarrassing titles.
Unflattering, yes.
The people were too law-abiding, far too healthy, not a bit of obesity there at all.
No, it was the very, very unflattering metrics that it won out on, sadly.
And I'll go through a little bit of information.
So, it's got a strong economy.
has helped the city to be ranked as one of the top 10 places for young adults in 2010 by Portfolio.com and one of the top 20 cities in North America for economic strength by the Brookings Institution in 2009.
It was ranked by CNN as the ninth best place in the country to start a new business.
Now, I noticed that these, about 15 years ago, these metrics that we're reading from here, so I don't know if it's still the same.
Wow.
So they have Amazon in 2021, the distribution center.
Chicago Bridge and Iron Company had an office in Baton Rouge, but it was sold in 2017, so not anymore.
Oh, exciting news, though.
In 2023, they got an Aldi.
Wow.
Moving up.
The highest of high cultures.
Are they moving to America now?
Are they taking over the world?
Have you noticed, actually, if you scroll back up again?
Oh yes.
Their state capital building is an actual castle.
I'm sorry, credit where credit's due.
Yeah, no, absolutely.
The thing is with these old cities in America that have been there for years, a lot of the older architecture is still quite nice because it was when the people who moved there were either trying to emulate the countries that they were from or just emulate styles that they really appreciated in the same way that the founding fathers I appreciated the old Roman Republic style, which is why you get all the lovely old column buildings in Washington DC.
Yeah, classical stuff, yeah.
Yeah, I really like some of the architecture in parts of America.
But if we go down to a very important bit here, we can see again the demographic change that has been happening in Baton Rouge.
show from 2000 to 2020, the white population went from 44 to 34%, and the black population went from 49 to 53%, and Mexicans, Hispanics, but Mexicans, are the ones Hispanics, but Mexicans, are the ones who are growing They went from 1.72 percent to almost 6 percent in those 20 years, because obviously it's all coming up through the southern border, so they're spreading out across the southern states first.
And you can see here that they have this handy map which shows, again as we were talking about, there is pretty much segregation.
In the city, so the green spots of this map here if I click on it...
Here we go.
Are the black populations, and the blue spots are the white populations.
So you can see there's just a definitive cut-off line right in the center here.
That's all well and good, but now let's see a crime map.
Well, actually... Actually, just give me a moment, first of all.
You're kind of jumping ahead here a bit, Josh.
Sorry, Harry.
No, I appreciate it.
What it means is that you can predict things using pattern recognition.
But I will read out some of the crime bits that they have on the Wikipedia page here, if I scroll down a bit.
So, since the 21st century, Baton Rouge has had one of the worst crime rates in the nation.
Baton Rouge has approximately 54 crimes per 1,000 residents, which is higher than the national average of 23.
I mean, that's almost double.
Well, that's over double.
And the Louisiana average of 34.
In 2021, Baton Rouge set a homicide record.
Congratulations.
Break out the party poppers, boys.
Get me a 40-ounce from the Shutt store.
We partying hard tonight with 149 homicides.
In 2022, Forbes ranked it the eighth most dangerous city in the U.S.
For the first time in Baton Rouge's history, the homicide count has reached at least 100 for four consecutive years, 2020 to 2023.
Historically, it's not known for much gang activity, but since the 2020s, it has been growing and becoming a major concern.
And it leads to websites like this, Deep Sentinel, asking, is it safe?
And this is for anybody who's going to be moving there, if you're thinking of maybe starting a business on the basis of a CNN article from 15 years ago.
And they talk about this, they give the same figures in here, but as part of this, they also break down the types of crime.
And you can see most of it is property crime, so you're very likely to be broken into.
And they give this little map here of the safest neighbourhoods of Baton Rouge.
Hang on a minute, they're all very sovereign.
Hang on a moment.
I don't recognise any pattern here, there's no correlation.
This is all...
This is all coincidental.
It is, yeah.
It's all coincidental.
All cultural factors.
And they also list a few of the most diverse neighborhoods.
Now if I go up here, back to the safest ones, there is no overlap.
There is no overlap whatsoever.
But what they also point out here is that they've taken polls of people who live there, how safe that they feel.
And it just says, Baton Rouge residents don't necessarily feel safe.
More than 80% of poll respondents on Area Vibes rated crime in the city as awful or poor, and a full 60% of respondents said they never walk alone at night.
As is often the case, the safer neighborhoods tend to be further from Baton Rouge's downtown area.
as you can see from that little map.
It's also been the site of a lot of trouble over the years since the Black Lives Matter protests started to go on.
So in 2016, they had a lot of these protests going on that captured this legendary photo.
And you can tell that it's legendary, lived on, iconic slay queen, because nobody past the week this photo was taken can remember this photo.
I've never seen it before.
No, I have.
Well, everybody wants to be the Rosa Parks photo.
Right, yes.
Everybody wants to recreate their 1960s civil rights fantasy.
They want to be putting flowers in.
The flower and the gun, yeah.
Yeah, they want to be doing that, which we're all staged photo shoots anyway, but they don't because the news cycle doesn't care about you.
I mean, look at some of this.
Look at, ah, look at her posture.
She's balanced, powerful, upright, well-grounded with both feet firmly planted.
Yeah, she's standing up straight.
It's nice that our State media is using Facebook post sources as well.
Facebook comments underneath a Sean King post.
Credible source if ever I've seen one.
But I'll read some of what happened back in 2016.
So there was a demonstration organized by Black Lives Matter took place days after the police killed Alton Sterling in Baton Rouge.
I looked into the case.
It was a black man who was trying to sell CDs out of a shop.
Waved a gun around at some guy, got the police called on him.
Then when the police arrived, they tried to restrain him.
And while he was on the ground, he tried to reach for a loaded .38 caliber in his pocket.
So they shot him before they could get a shot themselves.
And of course, Black Lives Matter decided this was a travesty.
He didn't do nothing.
He was a good boy.
He was turning his life around, etc, etc.
Ignore that he'd already been to prison on violent charges in the past.
Any such cases.
How the BBC presents it is a video show two white police officers holding him down and shooting him.
No context, they just saw a black man.
Just executed him.
They just held him down, said, you know what boys, I feel like killing some tonight.
They also said this was MAGA country.
They had a Trump flag behind.
Maybe they had a Confederate flag as well.
Probably.
I think one of them was a direct descendant of Robert E. Lee.
Police said they received a report an armed man was making threats.
I love just how much context they always leave out of these things.
In an atmosphere of heightened racial tension and amid growing debate over the seeming militarization of the American police, one photo stood out, and they go over this photo, taken by Jonathan Backman, and he said, I feel it's representative of the peaceful demonstrations that have taken place here.
People are very angry and have gone through a tremendous amount of pain, but they have not turned to violence.
Except, even in the BBC, they kind of have to admit, the protests weren't Exactly peaceful.
Louisiana's The Advocate newspaper said that 102 people were arrested with eight guns seized.
One police officer lost several teeth after being hit by a projectile.
So peaceful, fiery, you know, but mostly peaceful.
And homicidal.
But mostly peaceful as well because this is something that I actually read about in Andy Ngo's book when he was talking about anti-fascism and Antifa.
And this was a case that he highlighted in that.
But I thought I'd go over it here because once again this is in the immediate weeks following the Alton Sterling murders and this happened in Baton Rouge.
This is the Gavin Eugene Long shootings.
Now he didn't even live in Baton Rouge.
But he traveled about 700 miles after the BLM protests so that he could go and commit these shootings.
And it was on July 17th, 2016.
He shot six police officers in Baton Rouge in an ambush attack in the wake of the shooting of Alton Sterling.
Four died, including one who was critically wounded and died from complications in 2022.
So this is all on your doorstep.
You've got lots of property crimes going on.
You've got record homicides in your city.
You've got constant Um, civil, uh, uh, unrest and civil disorder going on.
People are protesting.
People are protesting the police.
People are going out and murdering the police.
You, you're not feeling all right to go out at night.
You're not safe even in the daytime.
What would you do in this bustling utopia?
Uh, there's one thing I can't say on the internet, but the other thing I might do is move.
Yep, leave.
Well, what if I told you you didn't actually have to move?
You instead just declare the south side of the city a new city that has nothing to do with the northern side of the city.
They're going to build a wall and make those people pay for it.
Well, I don't think they'll have much money to pay for it, but they are certainly going to declare themselves separate, and this will annoy people who think that peaceful, law-abiding, high-trust citizens should be forced to share public services high-trust citizens should be forced to share public services and fund through their own taxes going towards affirmative action and benefits and such, the criminal activity of those of the underclasses.
So, what's happened here is they point out in this, they title it, wealthy white Louisiana residents win the right to form their own city and split from poorer black neighborhoods in landmark court ruling after a 10-year battle.
Wealthy white Baton Rouge residents have won a decade-long court battle to split from poorer neighborhoods and form their own city with plans for better schools and less crime.
Louisiana Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the new city of St.
George...
I like that name.
Could move forward with incorporation splitting from the rest of Baton Rouge.
St. George will have 86,000 residents across a 60 square mile area in the southeast of East Baton Rouge Parish and have its own mayor and city council.
Will its flag be white with a red cross?
Perhaps.
We'll have to see, won't we?
It's going to be an English enclave.
Perhaps.
It's our patron saint, so... Supporters of the new city say that the existing city parish government is poorly run with high crime rates and bad schools.
I see no inaccuracy there.
Opponents say the move is racist!
And we'll create a white enclave as it separates a wealthy area of the city from the black majority city and school district.
So yeah, I mean, I'm sorry to say it in so bluntly.
Yeah, that's basically the point.
These are the people who are earning the wealth in the city.
These are the people who are creating a more high trust, low crime rate society in the south side of the city.
So if all of their taxes are going to fueling those people committing the crimes and fueling the public services, which are probably corrupt, This is what happened in South Africa, isn't it?
Yep.
Well, it's a town called Onania or something like that.
Yeah.
Irania?
Irania, something like that.
percent of the right to say we don't want to be part of this anymore we want to separate ourselves and form an actually functioning city this is what happened in south africa isn't it yep what's a town called onania or something like that yeah iranian irania something like that where the channel sent a disabled black guy to come and go why are you racist though right
and and and and complain on camera about how uncomfortable he felt that while you know just a load of white south african families were having barbecues and picnics not being worried about being murdered for their skin color he's He was like, Oh, I just feel so uncomfortable here.
I saw an article recently about, um, there was a transformer, obviously an electrical transformer, um, installed.
I think it was in South Africa and the, uh, the, the.
The colonised peoples of Africa decided to destroy it, disabling their electricity to use the liquid in it for cooking oil.
Excellent.
Amazing.
This is what these South Africans have to live with.
Listen, if you don't want every single country, every single city, every single town, every single neighbourhood to turn into Johannesburg or Haiti, then you're a racist and you're evil.
Well, it's only a problem if it's white people doing it, right?
That's the only time it's an issue.
If any other group decides that, no, we want to have our enclave, we need our space, that's fine.
But when white people do it, then it's racist.
Well, the UK government actually funded a black-only university.
It was kind of forgotten, and I'm not sure whether it ran into any roadblocks.
But I think we're supposedly completely fine with it, at least if I'm talking about the regime's perspective in the West.
It's common in the United States.
They have historically black colleges.
I mean, they do accept white people, but for the most part, it's majority-majority African-Americans who attend them.
The funny thing is, I mentioned Thomas Sowell earlier.
He complains that it was the busing programs that emerged after Brown v. Board of Education that destroyed the quality of a lot of those historically black colleges.
I think Dunbar School is the example that he always goes back to.
It was producing the most PhD graduate, black PhD graduates in the US.
It was the place where lots of doctors and lawyers went to school.
And then because of the busing programs and the forced integration after Brown, the school went to complete S and doesn't function properly anymore.
Now it's just another inner city ghetto school, which is tragic to hear.
And I'll finish off with the bit that this article finishes off on.
The tables that they looked at showed projected figures for St.
George would create a town with an average income $30,000 higher than present-day Baton Rouge, while the unemployment rate would be halved.
And according to the figures compiled by the Baton Rouge Area Chamber, the new town would have a majority white population, as opposed to Baton Rouge, which has a black majority, and the number of people receiving food stamps would also be more than halved.
That's quite the condemnation of Baton Rouge, isn't it?
Well, it's certainly a condemnation of one half of Baton Rouge, sadly.
But once again, if you want to have a functioning society, if you don't want to have to be holding, like Atlas, the entire world on your shoulders and just want to be able to live in a high-trust society, and this is what they have to do for that, they absolutely should have the right. and this is what they have to do for that, And I'm shocked but very pleased that the Louisiana Supreme Court permitted this.
Not that I think that they should have to permit it, but I think it's quite remarkable that they have done so when they were obviously going to face a lot of accusations of racism.
I don't know how local politics works in Louisiana, but I know that this certainly wouldn't happen in very, very liberal states of America.
So I think it's very impressive that this has happened in the first place.
And I wish the residents of St.
George best luck and I hope that Baton Rouge can turn itself around because just because I poke fun and I'm very critical of the culture that develops in these majority black neighborhoods and populations doesn't mean I don't think there aren't good people living there who deserve a high quality of life themselves.
Hopefully the rest of Baton Rouge can turn itself around because at the end of the day I wish nobody any ill will.
Do we have video comments or is it written comments, John?
Oh, here we are.
To all the young UK people looking to flee to my country of Australia, I thought I might give you some information about what you're in for.
We're a land of contradictions that can both leftist and conservative at the same time.
For instance, we have subscribed to the Western level consensus about importing foreign labour with a 30% foreign born population, the highest in the Western world.
However, we have so far avoided the worst of what London has experienced by being selective.
Most of our foreign board residents are from industrious nations, with England being the largest.
Our refugee intake?
About 20,000, or 0.24%.
That's really interesting.
You're getting lots of English refugees.
I actually saw something recently, I think it was actually Callum's segment from yesterday that I watched last night, where he was talking about how lots of English people are now fleeing England because it's such a shithole, really.
It's not going on YouTube anymore so I can say it.
Yeah, yeah, our country is terrible now and we're all leaving to go elsewhere because there are actual opportunities.
Like, living and working in Britain, there's basically no point.
I've given up most of my hope for a future and that's not very encouraging for the audience, I know, but it's okay.
There are greener pastures elsewhere, but it is kind of sad to see that You know, I think, Harry, you must feel sort of similarly to me.
I kind of want to go down with a ship, sort of like an old sea captain.
I think there's still hope in a lot of England.
And I think that there are parts of England, mainly the more rural countryside that still operates as England always has, where people can just live nice lives in little villages where they know everybody.
It's a nice little community.
I do think there are major hotspots where things are going downhill, and that's mainly in the cities.
But also, as I've covered and we might be doing a bigger project on soon, a lot of town centers across the country are going to complete shit.
aren't functioning properly and are being left derelict and abandoned.
And I think that's a problem and I think it's a sign of very, very poor governance which is really spreading like cancer across this country.
Well, to sort of counteract my depressing statement, if the Spanish can carry out a Reconquista against the Islamic world, so can we.
Which is probably not a particularly legal thing to say, but whatever.
A legal reconquista.
A little Fed post here and there.
That's a little spice.
Uh oh.
Who's it gonna be?
Oh, it's me!
Uh oh.
I look fat there.
Oh, it's because I mentioned how I look with a moustache.
Here we go.
I can't pull off a mustache.
I look like a sex offender.
and laughing That was brilliant, thank you for that.
Is that a Dragon Ball Z abridged joke there?
The moustache thing?
I don't remember.
I think I've heard that somewhere before.
Have you watched DBZ abridged?
It's been a long time, but yeah.
Yeah, I think there's one where Vegeta grows a moustache and they have the little clip at the end in the post credits.
Yeah.
Sorry, that's some esoteric knowledge for everybody.
You know, every cloud has a silver lining.
So when and if the economy collapses, at least all the migrants will go away because there won't be any more free stuff for them.
I wonder if in about 50 years or so, folks are gonna look at my mechs the same way Dan looks at the moon landings.
Something else look forward to, I suppose.
That and Robo-Waifu's goodbye message to Callum.
Yeah, Dan needs to see your mechs in person before he'll believe they exist.
You may have lots of videos of you putting them together, manning them, knocking over things with inflatable swords, but until he's piloting it himself, it's all fake, man.
I think your next project needs to be, you need to build a rocket and send Dan personally to the moon.
Does Dan not believe the moon's real?
I think he thinks there's a big ball of cheese in the sky.
I think that's what he told me secretly.
I mean it is.
That is true, actually.
Have you not seen Wallace and Gromit?
I was about to say, yeah, that was a documentary, right?
It was, yeah.
Good.
This one's for Carl and Company.
So what I'm showing here is fertility rates in the United States from 1800 to 2000.
And as you can see, it's more or less linear downward.
And the post-war boom is actually just a slight adjustment from the 1920s and 1940s where it dipped.
What I'm saying right here is that there is no golden era where things have been good.
Not in modernity, not in recent times.
And it's not obvious to me that the way that you get fertility rates back up to the way they used to be is going to be a clean and good solution.
And we need visions of the future, not just pining for the past and tradition.
We need to understand what's going on here because this has been going on for over 200 years.
That's really good to point out, because I find the birthrate thing really quite annoying, because actually it's just... I've covered things like the mouse utopia before, and when there is enough of a replacement birthrate to fulfill society's needs, you know, human beings are conscious, we're aware of what's going on, but also there is a sort of unconscious element to it.
I think that population density and infant mortality are taken into account, and the fact that infant mortality has dropped along with the birth rates kind of makes sense.
And I think that as long as it's as cheap as humanly possible to raise a family, There's not really much cause to worry and I think that what we should be worrying about is reducing the cost of having a traditional family rather than anything else.
Like trying to force people to create kids.
Unless you're going to get, you know, trad calves bouncing on the bed to get people going.
I don't know how it's going to happen.
Doing what to get people going?
Jumping up and down on the bed going, Procreate!
Procreate!
That's what, whenever I see like people on Twitter saying these sorts of things, that's what I imagine.
What you imagine?
Just like them hiding under the bed.
Well, like a Catholic patting the bed going, oh, you know you want to.
No, yeah, I think that, I mean, it seems to me the birth rate seems to be correlated quite heavily with level of technological development and scarcity versus abundancy.
If you have a society that's got a lot more abundance in it, then you don't have to have as many kids.
And what that actually means is each of those children that you do have, say you've got 12 kids, it's really, really difficult to put a high level of one-on-one personal time with those kids.
Whereas if you're in abundance and you don't have to worry that your kids are going to drop off like flies at the next disease outbreak, well then you have a lot more time if you have fewer children to put personal one-on-one tutoring and emotional development and build that connection with them.
Not saying that people in the past would have been any less close to their families, but that was one of the things with The development of the Western family structure as far as I see it, in comparison to other parts of the world, Northwest Europeans in particular, put a lot of high investment in their children.
I think also because we do have so much abundance, as you brought up, it creates a perception, and I think people in my generation, Zoomers and Millennials, I'm a Millennial, but you know, that kind of age range, that so much more is actually required, is necessary to start a family than really is.
The idea, really because the Boomers had so much themselves, that I think a lot of younger people, Millennials and Zoomers, look at that and think, well, I don't have a house because it's much more expensive than it was when the Boomer generation was buying houses.
I don't have all this free time to dedicate to raising children.
Both parents are working, which wasn't usually the case with the boomer generation.
And so even if they are able to have children, it seems like an insurmountable sort of task to even try and tackle.
That's very true.
I think sometimes I catch myself thinking in those terms as well.
Hello everyone.
This video comment is for Josh.
I recently watched your contemplations on veganism with David Rams, which I really liked.
I was very interested to hear that you don't consume pork because of how intelligent pigs are, and I really appreciate you drawing attention to that.
I also really appreciate you guys having on guests with different opinions on your show.
Overall, I thought it was a really great discussion, so thanks a lot, and take care!
I'm not particularly good at not consuming the pork.
I had bacon this morning.
Oh no!
Bad timing.
I saw you do it!
Josh and I had a very romantic breakfast together.
We did.
Harry, you shared his hashbrowns with me, which I'm very grateful for.
Thank you.
It's a sign of love and respect.
I also forgot my wallet and Harry paid for me as well.
You're not giving me that fiver.
That's true, yeah.
It's on camera now.
Shame me on the internet to repay Harry back.
No, I'll do it after.
Josh is just as much a swindler as he looks.
Yeah, I do have shady physiognomy, don't I?
I can recognize it, don't worry.
No, you've got Brittonic physiognomy.
Same thing.
Okay!
So the comments, oh, I can get back at you straight away.
Harry's hepatitis riddled mug.
Great to see him making another appearance.
Hey man, it's all for the immune system, right?
Catastrophic regression threshold says, well, this is a collaboration I never expected and I'm extremely pleased to see.
Well, that's nice.
You'll be even more pleased to learn that Aiden's been on once before in that case, so you'll be able to find her on a previous episode of the podcast.
George Hap says, glad to have Aiden back.
Her autistically researched videos are appreciated.
I mean, look at that cover image you've got there!
And for what is wrong with the left, Annie Moss says, I really enjoyed Aiden Paladin.
What a great guest.
She had a lot of interesting things to say and she was so polite too.
Thank you for introducing me to her.
I'll be looking into all her content now.
Arizona Desert Rat says, nerds of the world unite.
And I still find it funny that my first introduction to your work was nothing to do with sociological studies, it was nothing even to do with politics, it was you falling asleep on eFap.
On eFap, yeah, my eNap, yes.
I don't understand how they can go for so long on those streams, man.
Mauler must be... must be made of cash.
Yeah, and I was in the US, but Mauler, you know, was over here so it must have been like...
I fell asleep fairly early.
He must have been up all night.
That man must be bright green with all the monster he has to consume.
Maybe he's nocturnal.
Maybe.
Still 12 hours for a full stream.
I couldn't do that.
No, my throat would be sore.
I did like seven or eight hours and I was brain dead.
Seven or eight hours?
I recorded a lot here and then did a stream after.
Oh, alright, yeah.
Sophie Liv said, we need studies so we can reply when they say, where's your study bro?
Well, It's already going on, thankfully.
I mean, I did studies.
Lots of other people are doing studies.
I hear lots about people in academia, in psychology in particular, carrying out work that is purportedly on our side.
A lot of my lecturers I spoke to were pretty anti-woke, actually.
They were just like, oh, it'll go away.
I study this niche part of cognitive psychology.
They're not really going to come for me.
Yeah, well they just want to, again, they had their weird little niche nerdy interest that they're hyper focused on usually, it tends to be how academics are, and they just want to be able to do their work, most of them do, and not have this woke stuff come in and tell them they're not allowed to do it anymore because it doesn't meet some DEI criteria.
Yeah, and I do worry about the quality of research if they get more power, and it is affecting it to a certain extent, but there are lots of areas where it's simply just not touched, which, unless you're looking for it, you wouldn't really know.
Like, you had people back in, what, 2016, 2017, like Milo Yiannopoulos, who would just be like, all of psychology is basically rubbish, and yeah, that's not true.
But, you know, a lot of what he says is not true.
Lars Petter Simonsen, I hope I pronounced your name right.
Right-wing authoritarianism is overruling the individual on the basis of tradition, left-wing authoritarianism is overruling the individual on the basis of contemporary power.
What do you reckon Harry?
Based.
Well the fact is contemporary power, I mean I think that's kind of a A vague statement, because contemporary power is going to be whatever is in power at the time.
So if you have right-wing authoritarianism, that means that right-wingers will be the head of an authoritarian state, which will make them the contemporary power.
I think left-wing authoritarianism is overruling the individual on the basis of anti-traditional fantasy thinking that attempts to transcend the human.
It's a Galleon.
Yeah, egalitarian as well I think is a good word to describe it.
Kevin Fox says, the facial recognition system had an advantage when it came to spotting lefties.
The green eyebrows and blue hair are a dead giveaway.
That's very true.
Grant Gibson says, the funny thing about the Virtuous Victimhood one is that it came out of the most left-wing place in, I think that's meant to be Canada.
I didn't actually look at the institution that it came from.
I've read that.
It's the key one.
I've read a bunch of those.
But sometimes, again, they're oblivious to it, because they don't understand, I think, how actually damning their own evidence is to leftist ideology or leftist culture, belief systems, whatever it is.
We can always rely on human stupidity to, you know, give us a peer behind the veil every now and then.
And the final one from my section, to give you some time, is Mason Royce.
If height is anything to go on, leftist reaction is the overwhelming need to reduce harm over anything else, maternal instinct dialed up to 11, don't like it, it's harmful, must eliminate.
That's obviously true, yes, absolutely.
That's certainly part of it.
Sophie Liv from mine says, I feel like when you base your entire culture around doing the opposite of what made countries work, because trying to copy it makes you a race traitor, there will be issues.
I don't know.
Yeah, again, I've been referring to him quite a bit, but he's always really good on the subject.
But Thomas Souligan, and quite a few other people.
I forget what his name is now.
He does a podcast with Glenn Lowry, or he's appeared on Glenn Lowry.
John McWhorter.
He's spoken quite a bit about the problem in majority black schools is that if you do get the one kid who is bright, he's driven, he wants to do something, he wants to study and achieve, he will get accused of acting white.
So there is a cultural reinforcement mechanism that exists within these schools that tells people that you're a race traitor if you're trying to achieve something, which is anti-civilization.
There is a way of combating this.
You just make being academically successful a private thing.
A lot of the time in my schooling, I didn't tell people that I was getting good grades.
You just keep it to yourself.
Keep it quiet so you're not accused of being a nerd.
In a school, people are going to find out.
Are you smart?
I think that's one of the reasons that people like Seoul are very supportive of the... Charter schools?
The charter school initiatives because there's a self-selection mechanism there that means that the kids who want to achieve will be able to achieve and be surrounded by kids who won't drag them down.
Yep.
Dr. Roland G. Fryer, who's a professor of economics at Harvard, he's done actually work exactly on that, on that acting white thing, because for years they've said that's not real.
He got death threats for publishing that research.
He's a black guy himself.
And also, he also got death threats because he examined that blacks were not more likely to be killed by cops.
They were more likely to be roughed up, but not killed by cops.
And yeah, he had to have private security at Harvard.
Yeah.
That's the same university that hires Claudine Gay and maintains her on staff.
Yeah.
Yeah, Lord Nerevar says the Baton Rouge thing is frankly hilarious.
The meltdown in response to it is even more so.
That is, of course, until we start seeing fiery but mostly peaceful protests against it.
But hey, that's what the Second Amendment is for.
Yeah, I would say that St.
George being so closely connected to, I mean, it was part of the same city.
Baton Rouge, I know you said it as a meme, But I would suggest there to be some kind of essentially security force or perhaps wall built separating the two sections because in all likelihood there will be organized leftist protests against it trying to burn parts of it down.
We know that that's part of their game plan whenever they encounter anything like this, sadly.
But that's the reality of living in the incredibly polarized world that we live in right now.
And one last one.
I'll say... I don't think they would right now.
I don't think they would because even recently, wasn't it a 9-0 decision to strike down... what was it?
Was it part of affirmative action or was that...?
You're thinking of overturning the decision in Colorado to strike Trump at the ballot.
Yeah, that was it.
So it seems that the SCOTUS might be slanted more on the conservative side at the moment.
It is, yeah.
Clearly it is.
But I don't think the SCOTUS, even if it ended up being maybe a 5-4, Well, it's not a federal matter, it's a state matter, and so they would have no prerogative to be involved in that decision in the first place.
It would be a massive infringement on state rights.
The Trump one suggests to me that, I don't know, maybe the diversity hire has maybe been It was such a clear-cut decision that the Constitution just explicitly states that it is the federal government that decides who's involved in federal elections, not the states, and it's just there in writing.
So you can't really vote against that.
Some would have tried.
The Constitution has been overstepped by the Supreme Court before.
So I suppose we may as well end on pointing out that you have a Twitter account.
Aiden Paladin, funnily enough.
And of course you have a YouTube account as well.
There it is.
I've seen quite a few of your videos.
I very much recommend them.
And so yeah, obviously check her out if you've enjoyed this.
▲
Export Selection