Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 31, 2024 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:31:17

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #927

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters for today, Friday the 31st of May,
	I'm your host Connor, joined by Carl and Harrison, and we will be discussing how the New York Southern District Court has crossed the Rubicon with charging Trump with all felony counts, how I slash we appear to have caused a bit of controversy by talking to Liz Truss and Keir Starmer's Stalinist-style purge of the Labour Party, causing us to fall afoul of minoritarian thinking.
	Before we start, we're just going to plug the fact that Islander Magazine is still available to pre-order.
	Prints will be fulfilled, I think it's the middle of next month.
	Fantastic, excellent.
	Brilliant.
	So much hard work has been put in by the contributors and Rory doing all the illustrations and the like, so please support this venture.
	And for those of you who already have, thank you so much.
	And for those of you who do already support us for £30 a month, again, brilliant, cheers, we do have our monthly Gold Tier Zoom call.
	Believe this will be with Josh and Stelios today and Bo as well.
	Oh, wonderful.
	So all the Bo Simpson chat can go and say exactly what you think of Bo.
	That will be running from three o'clock until five o'clock.
	So do be sure to sign up if you want to get in the Zoom queue if you haven't got Gold 2 already.
	So without further ado...
	Yeah, it seems that the Democrat Party, just as a whole, has decided that the Rubicon should be crossed, and now it seems that the die has been cast, and everything is now an appeal to heaven.
	Who knows where the issues are going to land.
	This has not been a terribly wise decision, in my opinion, I mean, you can just see.
	Trump's verdict sheet in the hush money case is just non-stop.
	Yes, 34 counts of falsifying business records in 2016 to pay Stormy Daniels hush money to Silencer.
	Not really a lot to say.
	Have we got all the details in this case to hand?
	Because some of the things that are in this are just utterly absurd.
	There are lots of details.
	If there's anything you want to pull out immediately, go ahead.
	Okay, so about a year ago when the indictment was actually filed, I covered all of this with Stelios, and this should have been, if it were the statute of limitations still applied, but it was well beyond that, a campaign finance violation if they could prove that Donald Trump had paid it from his campaign finances and had knowledge of this.
	Trump only signed off on this as a regular reimbursement for Legal fees.
	Michael Avanart, not Michael Avanart, sorry, Michael Cohen, that's the other lawyer that nicked all the money, Michael Cohen has already testified to the fact that he not only misled Congress but he paid Stormy Daniels out of his own personal funds here and then wired the money from Trump without Trump having any knowledge.
	Stormy Daniels already signed an affidavit, public statement, saying that the affair never happened, went on Colbert's show to say that it didn't happen, then went on another show to say that it did happen, Yep.
	that the thing was coerced, so neither of them are credible witnesses.
	Cohen's already been to prison and then was sent back to prison for violating parole.
	So none of this should make any sense, but he's still been indicted on 34 charges with the judge, not reading the rules to the jury properly and saying you don't have to even agree on the crime.
	As I recall as well there were also quite a few sort of real estate tycoons in New York who are aware that you know precedent is a thing in the law and it does matter and if you're convicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records apparently this is what real estate moguls do all of the time not necessarily completely falsifying records but I think the main the particulars of this case are that Trump Inflated the value of certain assets.
	No, this is the other case.
	This is not the same case.
	This is a different case.
	But you are right on that case, that all of the real estate moguls in New York are like, well hang on a second, Trump's business practices are completely normal, which means that we do them as well, and if Trump's in trouble for it, then we're all going to be in trouble for it.
	And we're going to be in the dock as well.
	But this is something different, because of course they have been going after him non-stop.
	What's interesting are the judges in this.
	So the judge, as you can see, is very progressive.
	has a history of donating to progressive projects, shall we say, the subsidiary Stop Trump Organization.
	So the idea that you might get an impartial or neutral or fair hearing is pretty ridiculous.
	Same with prosecutor Alvin Bragg.
	Yeah.
	He campaigned on prosecuting Trump.
	He admitted he went beyond the statute of limitations.
	His campaign was funded by the Open Society Foundation for a PAC and George Soros' personal family members, two of them, and his own daughter worked for the Kamala Harris campaign.
	Same with the Attorney General for New York.
	Who was just open about the fact that she was just trying to get Trump.
	She's very open about this.
	So you can see that there is an entire infrastructure, a legal infrastructure, that has been targeting Trump because he is Trump.
	And somehow, they keep getting to do this.
	So the cases are meant to be randomly assigned, right?
	But weirdly enough, Justice Juan Manuel Merkin presided over the 2022 tax fraud trial that led to the conviction of Trump Organization's Chief Financial Officer, Alan Weisselberg, and he's also the judge for the fraud and money laundering case against Steve Bannon.
	So this is interesting.
	Interesting.
	I'm sure it's all coincidence.
	I'm sure the dice were just rolled and it just keeps coming up sixes for him every time.
	And then you get a series of strange events and it's just weird.
	So this was an ex-judge who went on MSNBC, if we can see the judge there.
	And I mean, we may as well listen to it from there.
	Yeah, a couple of things did stand out to me.
	One was that there were a couple of places in the jury instructions where the judge actually pointed the jury to specific pieces of evidence and said, these are pieces of evidence you can consider.
	For example, in trying to determine whether there were falsified business records, you can look at these bank records, you can look at these invoices.
	That was a surprise to me because generally jury instructions don't include References to specific pieces of evidence that the judge seems to be pointing the jury to.
	Those who practice New York law may have some other take on this, but that was a little bit of a surprise.
	I guess the other thing, you know, I actually have served on a criminal jury even though I was a former prosecutor and actually even though I was a former judge.
	And one thing that I came away from that experience thinking was that juries, they really do try to follow the law.
	I think they try to do what they're supposed I'm beginning to think that the portrait artist in this is sympathetic to Trump.
	He looks quite cool in all of these, doesn't he?
	This is one of the interesting things that's come out about this.
	But, I mean, that itself should be enough to say, well, the judge is obviously trying to prejudice the jury.
	He's literally saying, look, you need to consider this, you need to consider that.
	And, of course, there were other irregularities.
	For example, the judge just deciding that they could convict on some parts of it, and if they had unanimous decisions on some parts, then it would count towards the whole.
	Which is very unusual.
	But again, I'm not a legal scholar or anything like that, so I'll let other people dictate the irregularities.
	But again, if an ex-judge can go on MSNBC and say, well hang on a second, this is a bit odd, then obviously there's some sort of shenanigans going on.
	But that's not really what we need to focus on that.
	I mean, Ben Shapiro's coverage, I always find Ben Shapiro actually a really reliable commentator on Trump.
	Because, and I've said this before, you can tell that Ben, a fairly small, diminutive, academic man, doesn't like the big brashness of Trump on a personal level, but he's also someone who hates the Democrats.
	And he is trained in law.
	And he's trained in law.
	So Ben Shapiro is personally adverse to Trump, but He also hates the other side more so he gives a really good and fair balanced account of when Trump has done something right and when Trump has done something wrong.
	You can see from his take that this is unbelievable and should never have happened.
	Trump himself of course is not happy.
	You know, nice Trump statement.
	Not only did this highly conflicted biased judge, seems to be totally true, prevent me from presenting the fact I did not take a tax deduction on legal expense, which was marked correctly as a legal expense, the judge also did not allow my lawyers to get tax records from the former attorney, whose name I'm not allowed to mention due to an unconstitutional gag order imposed on me.
	And then In Trumpian fashion.
	When the closing arguments were being given, he also truthed out BORING with a capital exclamation mark.
	Of course he did.
	Of course he did.
	Which I'm sure really helped his case.
	But I thought that the most clear-minded comment on this really came from Ron DeSantis.
	He says, today's verdict represents the culmination of a legal process that has been bent to the political will of the actors involved.
	A leftist prosecutor, a partisan judge, and a jury reflective of one of the most liberal enclaves in America, all in an effort to get Donald Trump.
	Obviously correct.
	That is a totally salient analysis of what has happened here.
	He says that this case involving alleged misdemeanor business record violations From nearly a decade ago, was even brought as a testament, was even brought, is a testament to the political debasement of the justice system in places like New York City.
	And as you pointed out from the property issue that you had with the Attorney General in New York, this is evidently the case.
	Highly politicised, Donald Trump is just being treated as a villain.
	The other case in New York, the Eugene Carroll case as well, which was bankrolled by the former LinkedIn executive something Hoffman, Reid Hoffman, where And I wouldn't allege that she's making it up whatsoever because she's very litigious, but even she has admitted her case bears a remarking similarity to a Law & Order episode plot, and has zero corroborative eyewitnesses, zero CCTV testimony, and zero DNA testing.
	When they asked to do the DNA testing, both parties agreed to it, and the judge said, ah, we don't need to worry.
	As I recall as well, and I may even be wrong, because at the beginning of this I thought, I'm going to actually, once all these indictments were coming out, I was like, I'm actually going to Be open-minded and I'm going to weigh each of these as they come.
	It's become like drinking from a fire hose, frankly, because they're throwing so much at the wall in an effort to find out what sticks and I think actually that's one of the reasons why it's counting against them politically.
	They should have been more strategic and more intelligent.
	If they are going to be, you know, vultures in this way, put out two or three cases.
	That's more likely to become entrenched in the public mind.
	Oh maybe this is plausible if it's just three cases, or just put all your eggs in the basket of the Florida case, which actually is reasonably strong on the technicalities at least.
	But in the Eugene Carroll case as well, I also seem to remember that not only did it closely resemble a Law & Order episode or whatever it's called, but didn't some kind of New York legislature Realized that the statute of limitations had expired and therefore kicked them down the road for another year just so that this civil case could take effect.
	Former Mayor of New York Bill de Blasio said we're going to abolish the statute of limitations on sexual battery cases so that you can file it.
	She was asked about this on the news and she said oh I've heard about this I'm gonna consult my lawyers and see if I might do so and then after the election when she realized she stood to get a lot of money in damages for it she filed for that and then the jury found him not guilty of sexual battery But then having committed- Guilty of sexual assault.
	No!
	No!
	They found him guilty of defamation for saying he didn't do it, even though they found him not guilty of doing it.
	What was the one where they were trying to find him guilty of rape but found him just guilty of sexual assault instead?
	I don't think that's ever been done.
	Oh no, there was one recently.
	Anyway, I haven't got it to hand so I won't go on.
	But DeSantis finishes by saying, look, it is often said that no one is above law, but it is also true that no one is below the law.
	If the defendant were not Donald Trump, this case would never have been brought.
	The judge would have never issued similar rulings, and the jury would never have returned a guilty verdict.
	In America, the rule of law should be applied in a dispassionate, even-handed manner, not become captive to the political agenda of some kangaroo court.
	And that's the point.
	This is a totally trivial case that has been brought against Donald Trump.
	Absolutely trivial.
	I mean, this is one of the things that just a lot of people were noticing.
	Hang on a second.
	The first felony for a former US president wasn't for Iraq or Afghanistan.
	CIA coups, drug trafficking weddings, spying on Americans.
	No, it was this.
	The misclassification of a payment.
	For a porn star's NDA.
	That is one thing I will pick up on DeSantis.
	I actually really appreciate that statement.
	Before, when he was in the race and things were a bit more contentious to gain from character assassination, when he was asked about this and said, would you support him if this went through?
	He said, well, I don't know anything about paying hush money to a porn star and then moved on.
	And I thought that wasn't very becoming of him.
	I respect the current statement.
	I also think as well it's really crucial that people understand this.
	It's one thing to valorize the rule of law as an ideal, and that's what DeSantis is doing at the end.
	The rule of law means that the law has to be blind, it has to be implied dispassionately, political concerns need to be shoved into the corner, and they cannot dictate the way in which you apply law.
	The fact is, and there's a wonderful quote from, Hobbes recommends it strongly, I don't know if it was actually originally written by Hobbes, but he talks about it in Leviathan where he says, Authority, not truth, makes law.
	There needs to be an understanding that the rule of law is not just some magical thing which exists in a free-floating fashion.
	There are all sorts of preconditions built into its existence.
	So when Hobbes is saying that, he's not saying that the rule of law can't prevail.
	He's saying you need certain things to exist.
	And if we're acknowledging that the rule of law is, to some extent, a human construct, it's a social convention, if only one side is If one side is trying to tear it up and the other side is sentimentally abiding by the principle because in theory it's such a wonderful thing, you're not going to have the rule of law in practice, you're going to have a one-sided system in which
	One side is treating law as the continuation of politics by other means, and another one is just taking refuge in, you know, oh, isn't America's legal tradition wonderful?
	And you are going to lose if that is your operating system.
	Not just that, they're projecting a false assumption of neutrality in the institutions that are supposed to uphold the ideal itself.
	Which obviously doesn't obtain.
	That's obviously not what is happening.
	And so it leaves the Republican side at a massive political and legal disadvantage.
	Yes.
	While their enemies run around orchestrating what are essentially cabals in the background to continually hammer these political points.
	And so you are just deliberately disarming yourself if you reflexively fall back to, well, the institutions will save us.
	Yes.
	No, they won't.
	Yes.
	They're being used again.
	And strangely as well, and this is another thing that Republicans need to understand, the founding fathers themselves understood this.
	This is why in Federalist 51 James Madison makes a point of saying ambition will check ambition and it's precisely that kind of clashing of different interests which will in practice lead to the rule of law actually being operative because there'll be a sort of half a gentleman's agreement but also a certain amount of mutually assured destruction.
	If you rip up these conventions, maybe I'll rip them up too and weaponize them against you.
	Speak softly, carry a big stick.
	Exactly.
	And so Republicans need to understand that people like Madison, who they will venerate, rightly, many of his observations in the Federalist Papers are wonderful.
	Ambition will check ambition.
	Well if only one side is being ambitious, you need to come in and be ambitious as well.
	That's as simple as that.
	Just to return to this though, I do think it's fascinating that it's nothing to do with Epstein, it's nothing to do with what was found on Hunter Biden's laptop, the corruption of Joe Biden taking money from foreign businesses, Ashley Biden's diary, nothing to do with Whatever they're doing in Ukraine, nothing to do with the Clintons, nothing to do with Obama spying on Trump's campaign, nothing to do with just like Nancy Pelosi stocks, nothing to do with any of that.
	It's this.
	I mean, pathetic and trivial and obviously political, right?
	There's just no question of it.
	And so I guess the question really is, well, what happens next?
	Well, the Washington Post tells us that he can indeed go to jail.
	The charges against him are non-violent class E felonies, which are the lowest level.
	They want to put him in Rikers.
	He could be punishable by 16 months to four years in a state prison.
	But legal experts say that it's unlikely that Trump will be incarcerated, given that he has not previously been convicted of a crime.
	They want to put him in Rikers.
	They've already said that.
	Yeah, this is the thing.
	They obviously want to put him in jail.
	They want to be the people to take the scalp.
	They want the headline to go from Donald Trump convicted felon to Donald Trump banged up.
	Yeah, that's what they want.
	Trump does, indeed, though, remain eligible to campaign for the presidency and serve if elected.
	He can pardon himself if he wins.
	He can, yeah, but he might not need to.
	We'll get on to it in a sec.
	Because really it's the fact that this is so preposterously one-sided, so obviously loaded, and the judge has had so many strange interventions into the case that he is obviously going to appeal.
	And there are various lawyers who are like, well, these aren't just grey areas.
	This is a former attorney, Brett Tolman, going on Fox and saying, well, look, You know, he's a lawyer.
	He knows there are plenty of grounds to appeal to reverse this case.
	Not grey areas.
	These are black and white violations by a judge.
	I think this probably will end up getting overturned on appeal.
	I'm not an expert, but this is what the experts are saying, because it looks like there is more than enough here to show that this was a show trial.
	So, let's talk about the outpouring of support for Donald Trump.
	Now, Trump has had lots of run-ins with lots of other Republican politicians.
	I've not seen any of them turning on him, apart from one.
	Who's the guy?
	Mitt Romney?
	No, it wasn't Mitt Romney.
	Is he a Republican politician?
	Yes, still.
	No, no, a Republican politician.
	Oh, yes.
	Um, no, um... No, the guy... Was it Bolton?
	John Bolton.
	I think it was John Bolton.
	Yeah, because John Bolton was running against him for President.
	Yeah, yeah.
	He was like, this is the chance that we have to get Donald Trump out of the Republican Party.
	Okay, evil warrior.
	Let's get decency back into the overlap.
	Yeah, yes.
	And drone strike Iran.
	Precisely.
	All of the Republicans who are of any note or of any character or any substance are on Donald Trump's side.
	Which is hilarious because he did actually joke that Ted Cruz's dad killed JFK.
	Yes.
	And that he might be the Zodiac.
	Yes!
	What's nice, and as funny as all of that is, this has clearly gone beyond the realm of where things are a joke anymore.
	And people like Ted Cruz, Ted Cruz has been particularly hard on this, which is superb to see.
	But honestly, you can just go on Twitter and it's just every single Republican of any notes, you know, like activist, talking head, politician, there's just one like, no, just no.
	Ted Cruz as well might be said has a similar measure of objectivity to Ben Shapiro as well for precisely the same reason.
	He's got those obvious personal past gripes with Donald Trump but he's also trained in law at the same law school in fact.
	Alan Dershowitz has said that Ted Cruz was one of his best students when he was teaching at Harvard.
	There we go.
	And so there was a huge amount of outpouring for Donald Trump.
	To the point where his donation site crashed, so you can see that this is something that has definitely had some amount of backfire to it, although it's of course far too soon at the moment to know if this is going to have any polling effect.
	Really, the question is, will independents find this to be sympathetic?
	Well, it's entirely possible that they will, actually.
	I don't know, I haven't got any evidence yet because none of it could have come out so far.
	But I think the brazenness speaks in favour of that assumption.
	I think so, yeah.
	Because, this is what I was saying earlier, if it had been just one or two independents who are not necessarily massively attentive to the news cycle, would have just seen They would have heard the tape of Trump saying yeah to some journalists, which I think he did in Florida Oh, yeah, I didn't declassify these but I I'm going to show them to you anyway sort of thing and they were thought gosh That's very dodgy behavior, but the sheer brazenness of throwing this many indictments his way I think will I think it will give him a slight bump with independence.
	I really do well after the mugshot he did get a polling bump and one of the things that Signals to me that the regime itself believes Trump will win.
	It's not just bellyaching within the Biden camp about Biden-Harris being a weak electoral ticket, but the intelligence community essentially setting up for making deals with Trump after he's promised to go after them with formally Schedule F, now Agenda 2025.
	I mean, Mike Johnson, Speaker of the House, who showed up at the final day of the trial the other day, helped collaborate with Trump on the Ukraine funding plan.
	Now, I know around this table, we think giving unqualified billions to the Ukraine is not the best of ideas.
	However, it does show that Mike Johnson, after meeting with the FBI, then meeting with Trump, and then passing that bill through the House, Trump is prepared to make deals.
	And it's also why Marco Rubio is probably going to be the VP, because he sits on the House Intelligence Committee, and he has a lot of connections to intelligence services.
	So they're probably thinking, well, if we can make peace with Trump, because it seems like he's going to win, it might be the smart bet.
	It is looking that way.
	But the main problem I have is, I'm a reader of history, as is Beau, and he's currently in the middle of a Fall of the Roman Republic series on e-books, which you can go sign up and support us and watch.
	But this is where republics go to die.
	When the previous regime is persecuted by the current regime.
	All it does is legitimise the persecution of the next regime over the current regime.
	And this is the downward spiral that ends up leading into autocratic tyranny.
	Not great, basically.
	And what's interesting is that Trump doesn't seem to be backing down on any of this.
	He posted this video on Truth Social, which I think we should watch.
	This is the final battle.
	With you at my side, we will demolish the deep state.
	We will expel the warmongers from our government.
	We will drive out the globalists.
	We will cast out the communists, Marxists, and fascists.
	We will throw off the sick political class that hates our country.
	We will rout the fake news media.
	And we will liberate America from these villains once and for all.
	He's got my vote.
	He's just like Boomer Incarner.
	But what was wrong about that vote?
	There's no vote like him.
	That was so good.
	I'm totally on board.
	Whatever it is, I support it.
	Absolutely superb.
	And just as a final thing that is actually very funny, the British political class loathed Donald Trump.
	They can't stand him, they don't know how to deal with him, and there is no pro-Trump media in Britain.
	There is pro-Trump media in America.
	We've got Fox News, Newsmax.
	There are, you know, the Republican side of things is, you know, roughly sort of 50-50 split, but in Britain you just don't get that.
	There are some people on GB News, but even then you have to have off-camera balance.
	Very, very tepid.
	It's in the alternative media sphere, like here, where we love Trump and we think he's great and we think he's going to save America.
	And when people like us manage to actually call into a radio show to talk to these people, you are going to enjoy this.
	So just sit back.
	Fire away.
	It's a joke, it's a joke, it's a joke.
	It's very entertaining.
	He's going to get away with it, and he's going to win.
	Watch November, yeah?
	This is just a play.
	He's not going to go to prison.
	I know that's what you want, but it's not going to happen.
	Trump's going to win.
	You see all my black people, my Hispanic, what he did in the Bronx?
	That was amazing.
	That was a success.
	And I know that's very cringy for you.
	He's going to win.
	Trump is a terminator.
	He's a cyborg.
	You can't stop him.
	You can do whatever you want.
	But Joe Biden stopped him last time around, didn't he?
	You're 10 men walking, mate!
	No!
	This one is the new Trump.
	This is a new one.
	Watch.
	Just watch.
	- Man, stop it. - This is a new Trump, this is a new one. - A new what? - Just watch November. - What am I watching? - You're gonna cry.
	Listen, you can't stop this man.
	He's invincible.
	He's invincible.
	He's still there.
	the last election he ran.
	He's so invincible he lost to Joe Biden.
	He's still there.
	Joe Biden's going to go to a nursing home.
	He's nibbling.
	He's nibbling far too much, isn't he?
	It's so good.
	It's so good.
	It must be the old big man Tyrone.
	Exactly.
	I don't know if it wasn't him.
	If that caller is watching this, somehow, you're brilliant.
	You're hilarious.
	You made my day.
	Anyway, so Godspeed to the Americans.
	Godspeed to Trump.
	Let's hope you win.
	Right then, on with this next one.
	Well, gentlemen, it's been quite a quiet week round here, hasn't it?
	It's not like any of us have caused some controversy by talking to a former Prime Minister or anything.
	If you have missed it...
	I mean, you're not among the 10,000 people that have been visiting the website in the last 48 hours.
	I had a very polite chat with Liz Truss.
	Now, we have covered Liz Truss's rise and undignified and unjust fall, I would say, over the last couple of years, and I've always maintained the position that I think she was too naive for her own good about how power actually works.
	I've always disagreed with her on foreign policy matters, for example, the unqualified funding of Ukraine and I'm sort of apathetic to Israel because I've never been there and I don't have any big attachment to it, but lots of the political class do.
	But I have always said that she had some decent instincts on things like the trans matter or just allowing us to keep more money in our paychecks at the end of the month.
	And so I decided to have a quick chat with her, just because she's doing the media rounds, talking about her new book, and it was very pleasant.
	What ended up happening was, because we previewed it on Twitter to get all you guys excited, the lying communists over at Hope Not Hate decided to take notice.
	Before we go on, though, I just want to be clear.
	I thought this was a really good interview.
	Oh, thanks.
	Not because of you, because of Josh.
	Oh, cheers.
	No, I agree.
	You did a great job.
	You did a great job.
	But it's not that you didn't do a good job, but it's what trust reveals in it.
	Because we on the outside of Westminster and on the outside of Whitehall feel that the system has been completely captured by sort of shadowy interests, and so the position of power is Essentially isolated from any real decision-making ability.
	And that's precisely what Liz Truss described.
	She described how the Bank of England, Tony Blair, made it separate and distinct from the government and not beholden to the government.
	And so it's at the point now where she described it as, quote, a Blairite prison that we are in that we have to break.
	And so she was exactly on our wavelength.
	All of this Blair legislation has to be repealed.
	All of these things have to be changed.
	Sovereignty must return to our own parliament for the British people to have control of their own country.
	And I'm surprised they're not making – I mean, I know why they're not making a big deal about the things she said in the interview.
	Because if they were and they were saying, oh, Liz Truss said that actually this is – well, she would know.
	She was in there.
	She was removed by these people.
	She was removed by the Bank of England.
	And that was the real meat of the interview.
	It was just superb.
	We've been putting the clips out on Twitter.
	People should definitely go and watch them.
	Yeah, well, some of the interesting revelations that she kindly felt comfortable enough to give included that the OBR engaged in active blackmailing through reputation destruction by saying, if you want to lower migration, Prime Minister, we will put out damaging economic forecasts that will damage your reputation with, for example, the IMF.
	So if you ever wanted to borrow in future to give headroom for tax cuts, bye bye, you're going to be deranked.
	Or, for example, when I said Yeah, was it true that Tony Blair was advising your predecessors and even tried to advise you at the Foreign Office?
	And why were they at Conservative Party Conference?
	He said, you must remember he has a £100 million budget and basically buys his way in when my colleagues call Blair the master.
	And I'm going to be frank, I was shocked.
	I didn't expect that level of candidness.
	And it was really appreciated.
	And all of the comments, I do have to scroll down, many among our audience have been glowingly lovely, basically just saying, I was really surprised at how honest and transparent she was.
	And it's a shame, essentially, that she didn't get to enact any of this through her time in various Cabinet positions, slash her short-lived reign as Prime Minister.
	Another really interesting point, sorry to... But again, she just came out with such gold in this interview.
	Was the cult-like atmosphere in the Bank and in Whitehall Where they still adhere to the idea that, oh no, immigration means GDP growth.
	And it's like, but that's such a transparently false thing to believe.
	That's an obviously disprovably false thing, and yet that's where they are.
	And it seems to be this sort of occult mentality that you can't question this orthodoxy.
	Again, just another amazing revelation from Liz in this one.
	It's great, but the way as well, and so if Liz Truss is learning things about, as O'Connor put it, how power truly operates, then that can't be a bad thing.
	So I don't want to be too sceptical here or too wise after the fact.
	But it does seem to me that, and it seems to me that this is a weakness both in economic liberalism and in political liberalism.
	There's this incredibly naive idea that to politicize anything at all is itself A horrifying thing to do.
	But the problem is that when, you know, to protect, the way in which Liz Truss will talk about the Treasury's being politicized, the Migration Advisory Committee is being politicized, you know, the Bank of England has been politicized, you know, and Blair did undertake a massive revolution which completely took power out of the hands of Parliament, vested it in quangocracies and all these sorts of institutions and that has happened.
	But to protest the existence of politics in Westminster is as foolish.
	To protest the existence of politics in Westminster is as foolish as protesting the existence of the profit motive on Wall Street.
	It just is the way that Westminster works.
	And so rather than taking refuge, and this is where liberalism comes in, rather than taking refuge in amoral, in amoral, not immoral, but amoral mechanisms like the market, or taking refuge in amoral mechanisms like free discourse and conversation, This is part of the liberal naivety in thinking that we can flee politics rather than participate in it.
	If something's been politicised, you can regret it, you can lament it, but you can't say that it hasn't happened and you need to contest it on the terms set because the political knows no bounds.
	And what's worse is that People will say, well, I want this thing to be non-politicized.
	It's like, okay, that is lovely.
	But all it takes to politicize something is for one faction to make it political.
	And you can't stop them from doing that if they're hell-bent or their hearts are set on doing it.
	And so you have no choice but to engage them on that level, if you want to retain your position and your stake in it.
	And if you don't, then you'll lose it.
	And this politicization can be done at any time, for any reason, just like that.
	The neutrality of political institutions towards any given concept of the good is itself not a neutral position.
	It is a value judgment position.
	And I will say, to step in, she has actually acknowledged that in two terms.
	In chapter 11 of her book, she emphatically states that any civil servant who has a pretense of neutrality is lying because they had political ambitions before going into this.
	They probably wanted to be an MP, Prime Minister or Cabinet Minister themselves, so to expect them to shed that like a snakeskin Is absurd, and in our interview she said, quote-unquote, we need a bigger bazooka to disrupt Whitehall, the activist organizations, and the One Nation Conservatives, of which I'm not a member, which was quite a little funny jab, because she emphatically just called them evil.
	I have not heard that strength of language from a single cabinet minister in the last 14 years.
	As I said, I thought this was an amazing interview, for the sort of conservative side of things.
	I'm not actually that surprised that the mainstream didn't take that much from it, because They're not really listening for those things.
	But for us, on the sort of more dissident right-wing side, this was a fantastic look into... This was as if we'd got one of our people to just go and have a look, see what's in there, and then come back and tell to us exactly what we need to know.
	And that's exactly what you did.
	Yeah, well hopefully it's not the last one.
	Stay tuned.
	But, Hope Not Hate objected to this, because of course they did, because again, they're lying communists, and they just decided to advertise the interview on our behalf.
	However, although we appreciate the attempt for publicity, you did fail a basic reading comprehension test, because in the thumbnail it says Tomlinson Talks, and the entire news cycle was dominated By you, Carl, for no reason at all.
	I got up one Wednesday morning, came to work, I was doing my work, and suddenly... You discovered you'd spoken to Liz Truss, apparently.
	Yeah, I'm in the news, and I'd done nothing, actually.
	Yeah, just to reiterate the point, Carl has never met nor spoken to Liz Truss.
	I don't think she even knew of his existence when she sat down with me.
	She sat down with me because I'm a Conservative Party member and I just sort of swim in these waters before I even joined here.
	I was just having a chat with her about her book and her time in office.
	So nothing untoward, frankly, but of course Hope Not Hate has to trot out the smears because I think this is a moment that shows that they fear the ability for transparent, non-Ofcom strangle-held media to hold politicians to account.
	I think it's more than that though.
	I think they're worried about the opening of the Overton window.
	The problem with Liz Truss talking to us is that it shows that A, we can have a sensible and informative conversation with her that is on her wavelength that is not part of the captured prison of Blairism.
	If that becomes normal for Conservative politicians, well, They may well find themselves with less leverage over them in the future.
	And so that's where I think the real fear comes in.
	Yes.
	I don't know if we're going to get to it.
	Do we have the Lewis Goodall clip?
	Yes.
	Oh, we do.
	Okay.
	Well, I'll hold on.
	This is your response, a very lengthy response, to a letter that came the following morning because Jess Phillips clearly got a briefing from Hope Not Hate because your name was mentioned into this, so they must have sent some emails off to some very lazy journalists who did some very poor reporting on this, we'll get round to, but Jess Phillips decided to share what looks like a dimly lit screenshot of the PDF.
	Yeah, it's really weird that this is so low quality.
	It's, well, coming from Jess Phillips.
	Oh, you mean just visually.
	Just visually, yeah, yeah.
	But it is very low-quality argumentation because, again, Karl had nothing to do with this interview.
	But also, I mean, just for anyone who wants, it's pinned on my Twitter feed at the moment.
	And she just makes a series of accusations about conspiracy theories and World Economic Forum and things like that that I don't believe in, so I just rebut all of this quite comprehensively in that statement.
	Honestly, no one's picked up on any of the negative things she's trying to ascribe to us because I so thoroughly demolished her position on this.
	She's just lying.
	Not for the reasons she then lists straight afterwards, but I wish it were true when she said the impact men like Benjamin have on politics cannot be understated.
	No, I think she's true on that.
	I think she's correct on that.
	Well, on day-to-day politics in Westminster?
	Yeah, I think so.
	I mean, evidently that's true.
	The impact that we collectively have on politics is... just don't understate it.
	That's all she's saying.
	And I think we can take her word for it.
	Okay, very good.
	She's first-hand, she's in Parliament, she must know.
	Well, I certainly hope so.
	And so the entire media cycle for the morning became Jess Phillips doing the rounds on various outlets, including LBC and Times Radio, calling for Liz Truss's deselection.
	They asked Liz Truss's camp for a comment, and Liz herself has not spoken to me since, but she also hasn't spoken to any media outlets, hasn't walked this back, and I think very commendable that she's sticking by everything she said, and she should, she has absolutely nothing to apologise for.
	But I also found it very interesting that Well, a couple of outlets asked for comment from us, and we referred them to your lengthy Twitter statement.
	As far as I know, LBC asked you to go on, that didn't materialise, did it?
	Yeah, and Andrew Marr's show sent me an email very shortly after this came out, asking if I'd like to go on the show and give my side of events.
	Andrew Marr did?
	Yeah.
	To the New Statesman Show?
	At the LBC show.
	Oh.
	And so we sent an email back saying, yes, we'd love to.
	And then he sent an email back, or his team sent an email back saying, OK, don't worry, actually, we're going to talk about something else.
	But then they talked about it on the show.
	And had Jess Phillips on.
	And had Jess Phillips on.
	So that's interesting that I wasn't given a right of reply.
	And I have not been asked by a single outlet, and I don't want to say that I want to be in the limelight for this, but considering I do a lot of external TV... And it was your show Liz Truss appeared on.
	Yes.
	You would have expected people to at least reach out for comment when my DMs are open.
	So curious that, isn't it?
	Weird bit of coverage by them.
	I think that probably would have saved them covering it in an erroneous manner had they done that.
	But there you go.
	Anyway, so I did do my own response to this whole affair that I'll get to in a moment.
	But hope not hate.
	If you're watching, you probably are actually, because it turns out you had to pay for a Lotus Eater subscription to watch this interview.
	So cheers for helping us keep the lights on, lads.
	They just did a written breakdown of everything in the interview.
	And I say everything, actually, because they didn't really talk about much.
	The main thing they complained about, that was funny enough, was me raising concerns about possible hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees being admitted to the country, when the overwhelming number of them, according to polling stations in Palestine, support Hamas.
	Bit concerning, because That's a prescribed terror group and I don't want them as my neighbours, thank you very much.
	And Liz Truss said, yeah, the Labour Party seem to be in hock to very left-wing activists who are pro-Hamas.
	They're pro-terrorists, they're anti-Semitic, they're anti-Israel.
	Okay.
	Seems utterly true.
	And then their main complaint was that people in the chat box, which, by the way, is public.
	It's public.
	You can make an account.
	There's no ID requirement for it.
	Actually, you don't even need to make an account.
	Oh, really?
	Yeah, because the chat box is actually separate to your account, just because we have to use software to do it.
	And so it's completely public.
	So anyone can just bring up the chat and type what they want.
	Yes, because I was going to say, none of those people, as far as I know, were paying members of ours, because that's completely separate to our comment section.
	And considering Hope Not Hate themselves publicised it at the time, how do we know that that wasn't one of your goons?
	Not just one, I mean, it could have been many.
	And, you know, I mean, no one's ever accused us of being anti-Semitic.
	No.
	Except for Hope Not Hate.
	I do actively support the Palestinian protest.
	Exactly.
	We don't vote Labour.
	We're not part of the conversation about Israel and Palestine.
	We've routinely said, we don't care.
	It's miles away.
	We don't think we should be funding either side.
	We don't think these protests should be going on our capital city.
	We should have nothing to do with it.
	And they said, and that's why you're anti-Semitic.
	And the funny thing is, they're complaining that people that were posting some Let's say contentious things about Jewish people in the chat, who we don't know who they are.
	A Lotus Eaters admin had to close the chat function partway through the show, claiming it had been infiltrated.
	Oh, there we go.
	Right, so you're complaining that we stopped it.
	Yeah.
	But notice that that's the worst thing they have to say about it.
	Yes.
	Well, some people posted things in the chat, so what?
	The interview was pre-recorded and running live.
	Yeah.
	It's not like it influenced the interview whatsoever, either.
	Yeah.
	It's so idiotic.
	But that is a very low bar.
	Okay, well, let's talk about the Labour Party now, shall we?
	It just completely reeks of impotence as well, or sort of gradually setting in impotence.
	And I think this is one of the real opportunities that we have, broadly speaking, as a movement.
	And it makes me feel even more infuriated than I otherwise would when people like Richard Tice cave to these people.
	Because the fact is that their linguistic instruments, far-right, racist, anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, these are just growing Blunt, day by day, with overuse.
	And the fact that the left has engaged for 20 to 30 years at this point in just the most gross, unscrupulous language inflation means that we can take advantage of that.
	Not to advance actually evil things.
	I'm not conniving like some evil Machiavellian.
	I have never called for genocide in my life.
	Exactly.
	But to defend legitimate interests in ways which 30 years ago would have been much tougher to do.
	I think it's an opportunity that this just rings so hollow now.
	And I think it does in the minds and hearts of most people up and down this country.
	I'm sick of hearing it.
	For job security, I understand that not everyone can be a hero.
	You know, if you're working in the private sector, I'm not saying that everyone has to be, you know, martyrs to the cause, self-immolating, but this just, this doesn't have the same, this does not have the same power.
	I mean, you can see by, like, again, they had a hit piece on Nick Dixon, friend of the show, you know, occasional guest presenter.
	Good lad.
	Very good chap.
	And, oh, look, he's gone to a secret far-right meeting.
	Well, actually, that's not, it wasn't a secret.
	So you're actually doing some good work publicising it.
	But it's also not illegal and he didn't lose his job or anything like that.
	He probably gained Twitter followers.
	Neither did Leo.
	Leo was just on holiday when they published a hit piece against him and he was like, I was just sitting on the beach having a nice time.
	I'm going to go back on GB News.
	Exactly.
	So, you know, the whole thing is losing its oomph, which is wonderful to see because it was a lie from the start.
	Don't worry about them.
	To pick up on two things there, it is depressingly true that as of today, and we will look at a statement from Rishi Sunak himself who's been asked about this now, so we're on the PM's radar it turns out, Richard Tice has caved more to Hope Not Hate than Rishi Sunak.
	What happened now?
	Richard Tice has deselected multiple candidates, including Beau, on behalf of Hope Not Hate.
	Should I join reform?
	I'm a Conservative Party member, I remain a Conservative Party member, I haven't been deselected.
	So does Liz Truss.
	Yeah, Liz Truss is running as an MP again, she hasn't been deselected as a potential MP.
	Unfortunately they're not parachuting you into one of those vacancies, they're parachuting Ian Dale in.
	No, no, no, it's been taken down this morning because on LBC, again LBC, the sort of graveyard of careers, Came out that he said there was Tunbridge Wells.
	He would have rather lived anywhere else on a video from years ago.
	12 hours.
	It took 12 hours.
	Bye-bye One Nation.
	So Les Frost comes on us, doesn't get deselected.
	He goes, 12 hours left.
	Things are happening.
	Things are happening.
	It is a vibe shift and I appreciate that.
	Yeah, vibe shifts do matter.
	And the reason that they're so afraid is not because of anything that we've said.
	Again, they couldn't even pull out anything substantive from the interview itself because I thought I was personally reasonable and quite honest.
	Just a quick thing on that as well.
	Everything they pulled out from my statement just looked good in the articles.
	That's the thing.
	Anything they would have pulled out about Liz Truss would have just been an advertisement to the general public.
	By the way, Liz Truss says that we're in hock to a Blairite prison and we need to break out.
	I think the average person would go, well, I like that Liz Truss woman.
	She seems to know what she's talking about.
	Yeah, so the thing they're truly afraid of is, Truss in the interview said, In response to a question from me that mentioned left-wing activism and hope not hate, Truss called for a more aggressive approach, adding, Correct.
	That is why they're afraid.
	In response to a question from me that mentioned left-wing activism and hope not hate, Trust called for a more aggressive approach, adding, "Our enemies will try and smear us and label us.
	We have to take them on.
	These people are not well-meaning.
	They want to destroy our society." Correct.
	That is why they're afraid.
	A former prime minister has squarely looked down the camera for a direct question of hope not hate and called them evil.
	Note how they don't take issue with the fact that with that description either.
	This is not true!
	No, no, don't say that!
	Obviously, we can't bear the idea that that would ever be even come across online in the slightest way possible.
	Yeah, well, of course they want to destroy our society, because as I said in here, again, they're lying communists.
	I'm going to keep referring to them in this.
	Why?
	Because it's true.
	Matthew Collins, one of their heads of research, a self-professed member of the Communist Party.
	He's done this on a Facebook post from years ago.
	Oh, he's a member of the Communist Party of Britain?
	Yes.
	Interesting.
	Yes, in 2013, this is due to the work of Charlie Peters and Stevie Edgerton, two brilliant lads over at GB News, they've got video footage of him draped in a Soviet flag, praising the Red Army.
	Oh, really?
	Yeah.
	He said, at an event for the group in 2013, comrades, brothers and sisters, hope not hate, you are our Red Army.
	Bear in mind, the Red Army, being the frontline troops of Josef Stalin, genocidal murderer, raped lots and lots of civilians.
	Yeah, founded by Trotsky.
	genocidal march through Germany towards the end of World War II.
	It's a rape loads of women.
	And after the Katyn Massacre, which I can see is mentioned there by Janis...
	I'm not going to try and pronounce his name.
	Kowalski.
	After the Katyn Massacre, which is probably the worst thing the Red Army did...
	Worst individual act.
	Yeah, orchestrated.
	The most unscrupulous thing of all, I've always thought, is the way in which they deliberately stopped trying to engage the Wehrmacht when the Wehrmacht got into Warsaw, precisely so that the Wehrmacht could violently put down the Warsaw Uprising there.
	The fact that Polish nationalists wanted to be liberated from both these great big evil empires, frankly.
	and um also he notes as well in there during stalin's anti-semitic purges oh yeah all of the yeah there was that too all of all the pogroms yeah that's not great so if you're gonna label me far right i've never once expressed support for the mid-century germans because i'm a catholic and i believe mid-century russians no quite yeah i'm just not keen on genocide generally but i suppose that makes one of us doesn't it anyway um people came to our aid which is very appreciated you Beacons of Gondor were lit and that.
	And these are usually people who are on the other side of the aisle, but who we have met and had as guests and who are perfectly nice chaps.
	For example, Graham Linehan, whose life was practically destroyed by trans activists, who has had the grace and humility to apologise to Mark Meakin, meet him in person, shown a lot of depth of character.
	Came on our show.
	Yeah, exactly.
	And he himself said, I'm afraid, I'm ashamed that I once fell for the chicanery.
	Think of someone who you know has a bad smell about them and ask, what exactly did this person do wrong?
	Often you find the answer is, Ethel.
	Or they should be commended, in fact, for arising first on the scene of a scandal like Rotherham.
	That's a reference specifically.
	Yeah, he did, yeah.
	But that's a reference specifically to Tommy Robinson, because the question is always, okay, what has Tommy actually said that is racist?
	What is the quote?
	There is no quote.
	And that's exactly the point he's making.
	The media is just out to monster people and turn them into figures of hate.
	And it's so good to see everyone who's like, hang on a second, this behaviour is not acceptable.
	They shouldn't be able to use their power to demonise people like this.
	Same with Constancin Kissin, again, friend of the show, he hosted Montreal Econometry, he had a good chat.
	Also spoke to Liz Truss.
	Any controversy around that?
	And Liz, yes.
	Any controversy around Constancin?
	Ooh, no.
	No, that didn't seem to happen.
	Was there any hope not hate hit pieces on Stephen Edgington when he challenged Liz Truss?
	No, just us.
	Ah, okay.
	You're afraid.
	I get it.
	And, of all people, and credit to her, Narendra, because she was very polite, she enjoyed her time here, and even though you had a very contentious discussion... Sure, but it was not personal.
	No.
	You know, inappropriate or anything.
	You looked after her safety, and she really appreciated it.
	Of course.
	Well, this is the point, because Jess Phillips was trying to imply that I made women feel afraid, and I meet lots of women, obviously, and I know there are lots of women who do not feel afraid by me.
	But you play games with your mum on Twitch.
	Yeah, of course.
	That is it.
	That is it.
	Yeah.
	But the point is, noted misogynist.
	Noted a hundred men.
	Massive white flag.
	Yeah, but you say, well, that says mum, isn't it?
	But the point is that there's no allegations against me.
	There never have been.
	I don't think there ever will be because I'm just a fairly decent chap towards women.
	And I think lots of women are aware of that who know me.
	Yeah.
	And so just trying to imply that there's something, you know, untowards it, that's just nonsense.
	And it's nice that Narendra didn't have to come out, and Speaking my defense, she did quite early as well.
	I wasn't aware she'd done that.
	And she got a lot of backlash and she was just replying to people going, no, no, it's just not true.
	I spent the entire day with him.
	Lovely guy, absolutely nothing to worry about.
	And it was a very kind thing.
	She didn't have to do it.
	Yeah, I think, frankly, Liz came away from the same impression.
	We just had a very polite chat and it meant that we're not the demons that we're made out to be.
	We're quite eminently sensible.
	So there you go.
	So to move quickly before we finish on to the, um, The smears that we're going to expect retractions and apologies for.
	Speaking of smear merchants, because of this whole affair, we have resurrected the Dirty Dirty Smear Merchants t-shirt.
	Now, if you buy a t-shirt, it can be this t-shirt or any other on the current merch store, and a magazine, pre-order a copy of Islander Magazine, you do get free shipping, so that's brilliant, on your whole order.
	This will be this weekend only, you don't need a code for it, it'll be applied automatically.
	So, if you're watching this on the day it goes out on YouTube, Go to our website.
	Go.
	And this is the best way to support us as well, because obviously we're demonetised on YouTube and everywhere else.
	So either sign up or just go and buy the shirt.
	And then we'll see you at the protests, basically.
	Yeah, we really appreciate it.
	So, let's look at all the people that got things wrong.
	As you said, Lewis Goodall.
	I'll let this one play, because this is just demented.
	I mean, this is crazy stuff.
	I mean, this is a former prime minister of this country and we're in the middle of our general election campaign.
	I mean, for her own party's sake, you know, you might think that she might just want to shut up and let her current leader get on with it, but she's not doing that.
	But, you know, the Americans will be in a presidential election campaign in not too long.
	The government of the day and the future government in five weeks time have got to negotiate and deal with the current administration, which is the Biden administration.
	And you have a former prime minister going along endorsing the main opponent.
	If I might pause there, in the last election cycle, Sajid Javid, former Chancellor, sitting Health Minister, endorsed Joe Biden in the Times, I think, so... do one.
	No former Prime Minister would do this.
	None.
	They just wouldn't behave this way, because they recognise that once you have been Prime Minister, you have a sort of imprimatur of the state itself, a legitimacy of the state itself.
	Can I pause just there for one second?
	I don't know if he actually uses it in the course of this very unlettered rant but I mean that's a pretty fascistic remark to make.
	Former Prime Ministers embody in their very person the legitimacy of the state.
	I don't know where he got that idea from.
	Well also if you've just been unfairly cooed out you might have a bit of a grudge against it and you might want to voice that and if none of the mainstream platforms are taking you seriously and instead mocking you as a rotting lettuce you might be more inclined to go and speak to people with sympathetic ears and I've got two very large ones.
	And that's the thing as well.
	The main critique here is that the Conservative Prime Minister wanted to speak to Conservative media.
	How dare she?
	So why wouldn't she?
	Every leftist member of Parliament at the moment goes and talks to Navarra media and no one says anything because of course they would.
	Why wouldn't they?
	Why should a Conservative not want to speak to other Conservatives?
	Rory Stewart goes on Novara Media.
	And in the immediate aftermath of the 7th of October, and okay yeah she apologised, but was it Rivka Brown who said that this will forever live on in Palestinian mythology as a day of legend and song and I've never felt so proud and that was the day after.
	She had to walk that back because that's a disgusting statement in favour of terrorism.
	Exactly, everyone knew what had happened that day, it wasn't even a mysterious, everyone knew that it was We don't tweet things like that.
	Exactly.
	No.
	Exactly.
	Because I don't want innocent people massacred, frankly.
	Anyway, I'll move on from this moron, but I did decide to just say, oh, I'd be more than happy to speak to you about this, because what about me is eccentric or untoward or extreme?
	I think, yeah.
	What's extreme about our views?
	Yeah, it's a nice ratio, this fella.
	Also, Sky News ran round-the-clock coverage of this.
	You noted that for some reason they cut out part of your statement, such as calling attention to the grooming gang scandal.
	I wonder why Sky News, who are actively engaged in podcasts ahead of the election with sitting, well, now no longer MPs, but People running for Labour, including Jess Phillips if I remember correctly, giving softballs interviews to Angela Rainier and the like, would be interested in not talking about the grooming gang scandal.
	I mean I've been talking about it since 2014 when the, what's her name?
	Louise Casey report?
	Alexa Jay report came out because this was just shocking and it seems that the Labour Party has engaged in a pattern of behaviour that you could describe as a cover-up and they seem to be responsible for the grooming gangs, they covered them up, and they don't care because the victims are predominantly white English girls.
	So to say that I don't take the safety of women and girls seriously is just nonsense.
	I've been talking about this for a long time because I'm married and I have two daughters.
	This matters.
	Yes, quite.
	So, on to the people that do outright lies.
	This is interesting.
	Byline Time, so I decided to quote tweet them in here because something interesting happened.
	Byline Time's appearing on, trust Liz, appearing on the Sargon of a Cad Show.
	She didn't, I'm afraid.
	Your briefing from Hope Not Hate wasn't correct there.
	Byline Times, by the way, the ones who defamed Dan Wooten and had to have a significant payout because they didn't retract.
	I think they broke the law, actually, didn't they?
	Well, I actually challenged them on this and they said, oh, such pedantry won't get away.
	It's your show.
	No, it wasn't my show.
	I don't have editorial control over Conor's show.
	I mean, I could instantiate it if I wanted, but I don't.
	Conor's never told me what to say since I started working here.
	Dangerous amount of trust in me, if anything.
	I do.
	And mostly it's because I'm really lazy.
	Why do I hire people if I can't trust them to regulate their own opinions?
	Well, quite.
	Yeah.
	So that's a false statement.
	And for some reason, even though you've corrected them, they haven't taken that back.
	And they doubled down on it.
	That has been noted.
	We'll seek a correction in due course.
	Also, Rachel Parris, so this is someone who works on the Mash Report with Nish Kumar.
	Oh, good, yeah.
	And she said, Liz Truss is doing an interview with Carl Benjamin, the guy who said about Jess Phillips, I wouldn't rape her.
	Right.
	Good.
	Nobody should rape Jess Phillips.
	Nobody should rape anyone, actually.
	I made a joke.
	Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to make the joke twice, but that's not true.
	Yes.
	Yeah, Carl is not interviewed.
	So...
	Please retract or you'll be hearing from us.
	LBC as well, they deleted this post.
	Someone had some decency.
	Yeah, well... Oh, we've lied.
	Oh, we better delete that.
	Yeah, well, they didn't have some decency because this is actually the LBC producer for Andrew Marr saying that he will raise the issue of Liz Truss appearing on Carl Benjamin's podcast.
	Again, didn't speak to Carl, spoke to me.
	Weird that I wasn't allowed to write a reply on any of this, though.
	Yes.
	Really weird.
	But it's funny that, so she says this again, hasn't retracted, LBC deleted this post because in this, this makes multiple false claims, it says Tory party chairman Richard Holden tells LBC he has no idea why Liz Truss appeared on a podcast with hosts who said he wouldn't even rape Labour MP Jess Phillips.
	Carl didn't say that.
	Carl didn't interview Liz Truss.
	You didn't issue a retraction after this post and it has been screenshotted and noted.
	So I suggest an apology and a retraction.
	Unless you land yourself in a bit of trouble.
	Speaking of LBC, I decided to tweet Richard Holden because he hasn't commented much on this beyond that.
	on air on lbc he was uh asked by andrew maher why he appeared on this and he said as you've described it to me these comments just unbelievably vile and as everyone says it's totally appalling i'm sure liz trust the former prime minister uh that these comments are indeed appalling and unacceptable why on earth she's appeared on this show i don't know i can't really comment and he said he'd raise the podcast appearance with trust now we're not privy to behind the scenes conversations I assume he's raised it with Liz already.
	Given Liz hasn't come out and denounced it, clearly there's an issue here because, again, I'm a Conservative Party member just asking a former Prime Minister and potential MP some questions.
	Nothing to worry about.
	I like the fact that this controversy revolves around misogynist Carl Benjamin platforming a woman.
	Not like that!
	And letting her speak and talking admirably of what she says afterwards.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Speaking highly of her, yeah.
	Yeah, quite the horror.
	The last two are just the Swindon advertiser who got community noted.
	Liz Truss faces calls for sack after Carl Benjamin interview.
	Community note.
	Carl Benjamin did not interview Liz Truss.
	Conor Tomlinson interviewed Liz Truss.
	I mean, they could have just checked any other media outlet, or just, you know, the link.
	It wasn't reached for comment, by the way.
	No.
	You know, we're literally just down the road from the Swindon Advertiser.
	Yeah, we did put in the description that this wasn't the case, and they still haven't retracted.
	So again, retraction and apology would be nice, otherwise you'd be hearing from us.
	The worst one... Oh, no, actually, one quick thing on this.
	In the article itself in the Swindon Advertiser, they quote Rishi Sunak.
	Oh, yeah.
	Rishi Sunak was asked about this, and he said, Mr Sunak told reporters... Sorry, just, how did they get...
	A quote from Rishi Sunak when no one else did.
	Because he was in Devon.
	Oh!
	I reckon that explains it, right, okay.
	Maybe it was in that town that you apparently radicalised.
	Totnes, yeah, yeah.
	That you didn't go to.
	Yeah, thanks Mariana Springfield.
	Yeah, another lie that we didn't get Ofcom action on, but there you go.
	Mr Sunak told reporters he's never heard of Lotus Eaters.
	Well, you have now, Prime Minister.
	When asked about his predecessor's appearance on the platform, speaking on a visit to Supercat, the fence company in Devon, he said, I literally have never heard of this platform or indeed what has happened today because I've actually spent most of my day doing what you've seen me doing, which are talking to people across Cornwall and Devon about what they're focused on.
	Again, actually stronger statement than Richard Tice.
	But also that's not a denunciation.
	That's not a distancing.
	That's, I'm busy getting to work.
	Why aren't you working?
	LizTrust hasn't been deselected.
	Nothing bad seems to have happened to us.
	VibeShift does seem to be in process, doesn't it?
	Interesting.
	Definitely.
	Again, I don't like Rishi Sunak's policies or messaging, but I actually appreciate the not-today communists.
	It's quite nice.
	And the last one was that Jeremy Hunt was also asked about this on Sky News.
	Now, Beth Rigby, I'm not going to play the clip, you can go and watch it in your own time, but she rattled off a series of your past jokes as if they were deadly serious statements.
	Jeremy Hunt said, these sound appalling, but also Liz Truss is her own person.
	She'll make her own decisions.
	I'm getting on with this.
	And he also took a dig at Liz Truss saying, I undid all of her reckless spending commitments.
	So of course you did.
	But Liz, again, did call out Jeremy Hunt in our interview.
	So there's bad blood between them.
	The interesting thing is that Kay Burley's tweet, which was made on her account, presumably run by her, after she did the interview with Jeremy Hunt.
	So she knows this isn't true because she said something different.
	She wrote, former PM Liz Truss appeared on a podcast where Carl Benjamin said, nobody has enough beer to make him rape Labour's Jess Phillips.
	But we're host cover, so I said that on a podcast with Liz Truss that I was hosting.
	That is multiple.
	That's the worst.
	That's the worst one.
	Those are all lies.
	That's the worst one.
	These have been pointed out in the comments by you.
	Yeah, by me.
	In a quote treated weight ratio that I did.
	Yeah.
	It's been a day.
	Kay Burley is not retracted.
	So, again, we will take a retraction or apology, or I promise you, you will be hearing from us.
	Everyone who has lied about us, and known that they have lied about us, you will be hearing from us in due course.
	We will accept an apology, we will accept a public retraction, and if not, we will pursue the necessary measures that ensure we secure one.
	But until then, you're welcome to go and watch the Liz Truss interview, listen to what the former Prime Minister has to say, and I think that Given she hasn't thrown us under the bus and stood by all of her words, we might be able to make a one-seat exemption to zero seats.
	Do you want the tech, Moran?
	It would be nice if Liz Truss is the last Conservative politician.
	I have word that she probably won't be the only one, but some of the other ones that may remain may actually be sympathetic to us.
	Not being the most technically savvy person in the world, do forgive if I'm... There we go.
	Do you want me to just sort of stab the button?
	Yeah, if you wouldn't mind.
	Okay, so the present outlet accepts it, of course.
	Lotus Eaters always shows an immense amount of political analysis.
	It's been beautifully on display just there, the way in which you've been calling out all of these lies.
	But as a general matter, I don't know about you two, but nothing infuriates me more.
	Not so much the left doing... expect the left to do crazy things.
	They're always going to do crazy things.
	A rabid dog bites.
	The rabid dog bites.
	When the right does not take advantage in the most opportune, most sort of power-seeking way possible, that's what annoys me most.
	And so I'm going to draw attention to one particular story, which in itself I don't regard as particularly interesting.
	You know, the left, they're in love with my new shy, you know, Stalin wanted to persecute Kamenev and Zinoviev and all these people, Trotsky.
	The left does infighting almost better than it does sort of persecution of fascists and all that sort of thing.
	So I don't know about you but I'd actually forgotten about the existence of Diane Abbott.
	She hasn't been in the news for quite a while but she's back there, back in the political spotlight at the moment.
	How did you forget the two left shoes moment?
	Can I just say I actually don't dislike it that This is a difference between us.
	She's the perfect intersection of dumb and evil.
	I agree.
	But there's something kind of bumbling and boomer about her that I actually don't find distasteful and she's been a source of some tremendous political comedy.
	Just her mathematics, her dress sense.
	She said some remarkable things.
	And so I've come to the point where I kind of view her as almost a part of the furniture.
	It's like, you know, she's just the Diane Abbott of politics.
	And so I don't hate her and I don't find myself even disliking her, really.
	I quite look forward to what she's done now every time something's happened.
	So I just want to make it clear that I'm not a hater of Diane Abbott at all.
	One thing I will say is that she does boast the distinct virtue, and there are Democrat left-wing politicians in the US who do the exact same thing, of saying how the broader democratic beast, or in our country the Labour beast, is really thinking.
	People like Nancy Pelosi, people like David Axelrod, who is sort of More strategic minded in politics don't come out with the sort of remarks that someone like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will or Rashida Tlaib will and likewise Tony Blair won't let the cat out of the bag when speaking at some globalist conference.
	But Diane Abbott will just say what they think.
	She's the impulsive id of the Labour Party.
	Precisely that.
	So I'm going to read from a BBC report because there's currently, as people may know, Let's currently talk about whether Diane Abbott is going to be deselected and Starmer seems to be embarked on some kind of relentless purge of people who are more politically adjacent to Corbyn than they are to Blair.
	Let's put it that way.
	Those are probably the most useful ways of thinking about it.
	So as the BBC reports, Sir Keir has been accused of carrying out a purge of left-wing candidates and parachuting his own supporters into winnable seats.
	Veteran left-winger Diane Abbott says she has been banned from standing as a Labour candidate, something Sir Keir denies, insisting no decision has been yet taken On her future and so I don't think again I don't think this is particularly interesting in itself we'll see what happens in the coming days whether Diane Abbott runs in whatever her seat is Hackney North and Stoke Newington could not possibly be of less interest to me but you know as we might expect the far left is He's very agitated about all this and they're trying to draw more general conclusions from it and saying that this is indicative of Starmer's fundamentally unscrupulous character.
	Well, I actually agree with him.
	I do too.
	If the way Starmer governs the Labour Party is any indication on how he's going to govern the country, there's no reason that we think it shouldn't be.
	We're in trouble, lads.
	Starmer seems to be, honestly, Arriving at the sort of position of a desk murderer, where he's just willing to sign off terrible things.
	And I mean, the idea that Jeremy Corbyn isn't deserving of being in the Labour Party is kind of bizarre.
	You know, five years ago, he was the leader of the Labour Party.
	So, and Diane Abbott, and these people have been in the Labour Party the last 40 years.
	So the idea that these people, again, they're not part of the furniture of the Labour Party, and Starmer can just ruthlessly Again, you know, lifetime of service, whether you agree with that service or not, and just say, no, you're gone to the gulag with you.
	And it's not just Diane Abbott and Jeremy Corbyn as well.
	I mean, like in Islington North, when Jeremy Corbyn got kicked out of the party, finally, some of the councillors objected because obviously they're close to Jeremy Corbyn, and so started to kick them too.
	Well, Lloyd Russell-Moyle, who's the target of this Owen Jones story, he's in support of.
	But Russell-Moyle was only on Julia Hartley Brewer's show about a week ago, defending Keir Starmer to the death, saying that we need more migration because of lower birth rates and being, again, another id.
	He has in the past said, we will fight our enemies in the streets at campaign rallies, so he has a massive liability for him, but He's a devouted far-leftist and Keir Starmer's gone almost at the 11th hour because the election's been called so close to the quick.
	He's cut him out for, as Owen Jones details here, Owen Jones' former flatmate and one of Keir Starmer's closest advisors.
	So he's replacing them with loyalists.
	This thing is very Stalin-esque in its tactics.
	It's actually quite shocking.
	There was a report the other day where Keir Starmer, in the Times, was like, oh, I find it easy to be ruthless.
	It's like, yeah, but that's the sign of a lack of empathy.
	So he's being self-professed socialist?
	Yeah, and sociopath.
	It's strange that maybe at the level of method if not ideology you've got Sir Keir Starmer being probably a little bit closer to Stalin in this scenario than Jeremy Corbyn was when he was himself leader.
	Admittedly Jeremy Corbyn was probably not in a very strong position in terms of just sheer arithmetic to do a purge of the Parliamentary Labour Party given the fact that the Parliamentary Labour Party was already pretty hostile to him and he clearly had to climb down from a lot of former commitments but nevertheless...
	So, the reason I don't actually hate Diane Abbott or Jeremy Corbyn is because they don't seem to have this streak of cruelty in them, right?
	They're stupid.
	They believe crazy things.
	And dangerous if they were given power.
	Wildly dangerous, that they have a very idealistic view of.
	They would undoubtedly be ruinous and catastrophic for the country.
	We undoubtedly would suffer.
	But they don't seem like cruel people.
	They don't seem like people who are just heartless and will Just makes really shocking decisions.
	I don't think Diane Abbott, if I was knelt in front of her, would pull the trigger, but Keir Starmer would.
	Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying.
	I don't think that Jeremy Corbyn would pull the trigger, but I think that Keir Starmer would.
	And I think he will.
	Oh, well, we've just received some breaking news and it turns out that all of this is redundant.
	No, fortunately not, because it's not the main focus of my thing, but it turns out that Diane Abbott actually is not being re-selected.
	So whether that's Keir Starmer jumping at the last minute... Well, Angela Rayner was going around on the media circuit defending her, so I wonder if it's cabinet rebellion, because Starmer knows, not being funny, he's going to be in a precarious position when he gets in, and Wes Streeting and Angela Rayner are both very ambitious politicians, so they could mount a leadership challenge against him.
	I'll just read the news on the BBC.
	So Abbott will be Labour's candidate and Hackney Party source says, in the last few minutes, literally a couple of minutes ago, we've heard Labour leader Keir Starmer say Diane Abbott is, quote, free to go forward as a Labour candidate.
	A senior Labour source has clarified that this means Abbott will be Labour's candidate in the constituency of Hackney North.
	and Stoke Newington.
	They also confirm the National Executive Committee, NEC, Labour's governing body, will not block her.
	The committee will meet next week to endorse all Labour's candidates before nominations legally close on the 7th of June, a week from now.
	The full list of candidates running the Hack North and Stoke Newington constituency will be on our website after nominations close.
	But that was a knife edge, wasn't it?
	Oh gosh yeah.
	That was absolutely, like this obviously was very very close to not being this decision.
	This decision would have been made very very recently indeed but nevertheless there's a broader gripe that the far left of the Labour Party, although I think Owen Jones has actually now left the Labour Party, so but nevertheless the far left, no he left, he did a whole video on why he left on principle and people like Aaron Bastani as well, the kind of Navarro bros, the sort of Owen Jones bros.
	Without this he endorses a Green Party candidate.
	Yes indeed so and so clearly the far left at any rate is going through a kind of crisis at the moment and so we'll just read some of what Owen Jones is saying about the mentality, exactly what Karl and Conor are talking about, the rather calculated cruelty which distinguishes Starmer.
	From perhaps more naive, wet-behind-the-ears radicals, who is still nevertheless very dangerous.
	Okay everyone, gather round, Owen Jones says.
	Here's a lovely little story for you all.
	Chris Ward, Keir Starmer's former Chief of Staff, was a long-time close friend of Owen Jones's.
	He stayed at my parents' flat in Edinburgh.
	We got drunk together, made repetitive Alan Partridge-based gags.
	We argued about politics a lot.
	Understandable, given his love of Tony Blair and unrepentant support for the Iraq War.
	Jesus Christ!
	There would have been some interesting conversations perhaps.
	He was obsessed with becoming an MP in his hometown Brighton, that's also my hometown for my sins.
	You forget.
	I know, I know.
	I'm a long-suffering Brightonian.
	He was obsessed with becoming an MP in his hometown of Brighton.
	His greatest ire wasn't reserved for the Tories, the Tories, the Tories, but for the Green Party, not least Caroline Lucas who was something of a demonic figure for him.
	Interesting.
	We discussed his frustrations at his flatlining career.
	Slide dig there from Jones.
	Sass rich coming from her, Jones.
	Jilted Let's Lover vibes.
	Condemned to a years-long exile of being a parliamentary bag carrier until some new MP called Keir Starmer scooped him up.
	During the 2020 Labour leadership campaign, Chris Ward regaled me with fascinating tidbits, like Keir Starmer really wants John McDonnell to stay on as shadow chancellor.
	He would ring me up to promise me that pledges like increased tax on the top 5% were ironclad.
	In other words, okay, yes, there's going to be a change of personnel, but Keir Starmer is going, is faithfully going to continue, at least in significant part, the Corbynite legacy, but basically trying to reassure people like Jones that this wasn't, this was a personnel change more than it was an ideological shift.
	And this is what Starmer lied about the whole way through Jeremy Corbyn's tenure, is that he was a strong supporter of Jeremy Corbyn right up until he gained power, and then Jeremy Corbyn got gulagged as well.
	Yes, indeed.
	Ruthless.
	Absolutely ruthless.
	And he was on an incredibly slippery and suspicious character as well.
	He was on Beth Rigby's Sky News show the other day, and just, you know, sort of, what's the word, Michael Howard levels of just dodging the question.
	I mean, Beth Rigby didn't ask him it 25 times, like, do you regret supporting Jeremy Corbyn now that you're clearly at the helm of a purge of everyone who was ever sympathetic to corbyn now that you kicked him out of the party well indeed come on um during the 2020 oh no i've read that but he would bring me up blah blah blah needless to say i wasn't convinced by this i wasn't convinced that the corbynite legacy would would be faithfully continued by starmer and didn't vote for his candidate but there's an insight into just how pathologically dishonest that campaign was
	This is what we're talking about, broken clocks two times a day and all that, in the case of Owen Jones.
	He then went on to work for Hanbury Strategy, a corporate lobbying firm set up by two Tories, one of them the former PR lead for Vote Leave.
	What I would say is this, and this is where it gets... Why would they hire a guy like that?
	Because it's Uniparty, of course.
	This is where it gets a little bit tiresome from Jones.
	Lloyd Russell Moyle is a gay man, like all the politicians purged by Starmer so far, from a minority, more on the obsession with minoritarianism, and admittedly is the main point of this segment.
	And the first of his family to go to university, he has been purged from his seat with the help of a nicely timed, vexatious complaint.
	I think that was about, um, sexually untoward behaviour, was it not?
	In the case of Lord Russell Moore.
	Yes, I believe that was the case.
	So, again, lots of accusations of Tory sleaze.
	Warranted for many MPs.
	Yes.
	He doesn't have a name like Pincher, though, does he?
	No.
	Which is what tends to give it away.
	No, but he does have Russell.
	That's true.
	As Stalmer's allies carve up parliamentary seats like colonial administrators divvying up their spoils, Ward, like a vulture, is set to steal this seat with not a single local member voting for him.
	Those local members should feel furious.
	They had a principled, independent-minded MP.
	They now have a professional political operator turned corporate lobbyist who will be a stooge for whatever his old boss tells him to say or do.
	And they have no say over the matter.
	Well, I think Brighton deserves better.
	Vote Elaine for Kemptown for the Green Party.
	Well, now he knows how Conservative members feel with Liz Truss being kicked out and installed Rishi Sunak instead.
	Quite so.
	And there's a picture from sort of more halcyon days I suppose before the separation.
	In any case, so let's get on to the main point of this segment.
	Far less interesting to me than left-wing infighting that's as old as time itself is the completely hopeless
	Angle so many people on broadly speaking on the right on the anti-woke side of the culture war are taking on this issue because as people will likely remember I think it was in April of last year there we go 23rd of April 2023 that Diane Abbott landed herself in some very serious trouble and obviously it sounds like she's now going to be keeping her seat but there was an internal investigation in the Labour Party the lengthy investigation she was cleared she did apologize for it but it goes to show What are the real tripwires in British politics and what are not the tripwires in British politics?
	And I think that anyone who isn't intent on taking politics seriously should make sure that any tripwires which do exist are laid in their favour and are not And are not disadvantageous to your own side because then all you're doing is operating and playing under the rules of your professed political enemies.
	And so this is what Diane Abbott actually said.
	She said, so from the Observer, 23rd of April, 2023, I think Tomima Awolade, I'm not very good at this.
	Well, I think he writes for the New Statesman and for the Times occasionally, but he's an intelligent young commentator who wrote a piece saying, racism in Britain is not a black and white issue, it's far more complicated.
	And so Diane Abbott then wrote a letter into, looks like the Observer, to take issue with what Tomiwa had been saying.
	Tomiwa Owolade claims that Irish, Jewish and Traveller people all suffer from racism.
	They undoubtedly experience prejudice, she says.
	This is similar to racism and the two words are often used as if they are interchangeable.
	Now I'm going to have to have an intersectional debate with Diane Abbott on the definition of racism.
	Indeed so.
	And it's getting more and more minutiae.
	They do like it.
	It is true that many types of white people with points of difference, such as redheads, can experience this prejudice, but they are not at all, sorry, they're not all their lives subject to racism.
	In pre-civil rights America, Irish people, Jewish people and travellers were not required to sit at the back of the bus.
	Irish people in fact were.
	The n-word was used for Irish people in America.
	White ends, they used to call it.
	Yeah, that was true, yes.
	So that, again, Diane Abbott said something stupid, grass is green.
	It has been known to happen, Connor.
	In apartheid South Africa these groups were allowed to vote and at the height of slavery there were no white seeming people manacled on the slave ships.
	The only example of slavery in all of history.
	That's, again, 1.25 million English people were kidnapped by the Barbary Pirates and sold into slavery.
	Indeed.
	In North Africa.
	And no one troubling them for reparations.
	No one troubling them whatsoever for reparations.
	And, of course, in Africa as well, in West Africa, it's one thing to engage in slavery and to express in-group preferences to the point that are so grotesque that you're willing to enslave people who are in part of your out-group.
	It's another thing altogether to sell your own people into slavery.
	That was what happened on the coast of West Africa at that time in the 17th and 18th centuries.
	White people didn't feel particularly confident going too deep into Africa because there were all sorts of diseases which they would not have immunity to and there was an understanding that this was not a wise thing to do.
	That's why they relied on tribal warfare going on in West African states at the time and slave shippers deliberately strategized based on where the tribal warfare was because that's where you would be most likely to have copious slaves coming to the shore and taking them across the Atlantic.
	But yes, as I say, the framing has been all wrong on this.
	So obviously, I think the main point that I would want to make here is that this is, Karl's just said it, this is textbook intersectionality from Diane Abbott.
	There's a sort of hierarchy of victimhood going on here.
	And there's always been an awkward point of tension in left-wing discourse about Jewish people in particular, because a lot of people, a lot of race-baiting communists, a lot of lying race-baiting communists, like the people at Hope Not Hate, they effectively think of Jews as essentially white.
	Yes.
	If anything, they think of them as super whites.
	Because an incredibly successful minority, which in itself is, I mean, if the whole society is structured around the concerns of the white majority and yet you have this massively over-performing minority living in those societies successfully, as Jews have done for two centuries in Anglo countries, not everywhere, but in Anglo countries in particular, very phallosemitic, they've had elite over-represented status, that causes a real problem for people who are intent on demonizing The white majority like Van Abbott would want to do.
	And so there's always been among race communists, there has always been a slight ambiguity about where do we classify the Jews.
	And they also don't like the fact that the Jews have managed to perch at the top of the intersectional victim hierarchy since the Holocaust.
	Well I mean it seems to be the most obviously heinous act that any of these groups can appeal to.
	Indeed so.
	And the gays, you know, this is definitely the worst thing.
	Indeed so.
	And I think they'd rather resent The power which they perceive that to have as a way of shutting down other people's concerns because it is fundamentally a game of competitive hierarchy.
	So this is partly what drives, this is in large part the fact that they regard Jews as essentially white.
	I would say is what partly, in large part drives their contempt for Israel because you have this idea that it is fundamentally a European settler colonial state.
	Which is militating against the interests of brown people or it could be black people but it you know fill in the blank here.
	So the thing that I find most concerning about of all gents about this is the fact that many people on the anti-woke side of politics are treating Diane Abbott's views as some kind of shock revelation as though she wasn't already inducted to all of this language game in the first place.
	This is new for Diane Abbott.
	Yes gosh all of a sudden there's just a random unwise moment of candor After a sterling political career and I don't want to pick on anyone in particular but for illustrative purposes I will do so.
	It was Brendan O'Neill who wrote what I regarded as a very weak piece indeed in The Spectator.
	I like Brendan as well.
	This is an interesting thing so everyone I know about Brendan people have said that he's one of the nicest people you'll ever meet and I'm sure that's true so none of this is personal that should be said in advance but he wrote a piece in The Spectator titled The Tragedy of Diane Abbott as though an otherwise sterling, laudable, he even uses the word trailblazing political career had been tragically brought low at the last minute by an ill-advised remark and that's just not how it seems to me.
	We'll go to Diane Abbott's history of racist comments in a minute but I'd like to read a bit of Brendan's piece if I may to give people an idea and perhaps you gents will have some.
	We'll have some comments.
	Here's the tragedy of Diane Abbott.
	Brendan O'Neill writes, she entered British politics as a trailblazer for black Britons and now she leaves public life on the sour note of insulting Jewish Britons.
	She started out as a warrior against racism.
	But ended up seeming to minimise racism.
	She devoted her political career to standing up for beleaguered minorities and then made the grave moral error of playing down the beleaguering of Britain's Jewish minority.
	What if the roles were reversed?
	Basically.
	Wow.
	Yeah.
	Anything about our contempt for white people for the last seven years?
	Not in the whole article.
	The only thing that we care about is racism.
	That's it.
	As directed against minorities then?
	Well yeah, as directed against minorities, good point.
	Good caveat, yeah.
	But note that Diane Abbott's single-minded obsession with minority interest, which has consistently manifested itself, note how it's precisely the same moral language that Brendan O'Neill in that article is paying recourse to.
	She's just using it the wrong way.
	You've got your intersectional jumble mixed up.
	I'm sure Brent O'Neill wouldn't like to hear me put it like that, but that's effectively what is going on.
	So, why don't we play the clips?
	This is Diane Abbott's history of genuinely racist comments.
	The foray into suspicious comments about the Jews is a rather more recent affair for Diane Abbott.
	Look at her more long-standing prejudices.
	Divide and rule.
	We shouldn't play their game.
	I could never imagine Michael saying that, changing that to saying black people love playing divide and rule.
	And what would happen if he said it?
	That was quite a racist remark, was it not?
	No, I don't think it's racist.
	What, to say that white people, not some or a few or even many, but white people as a group, love playing divide and rule?
	In justifying your decision, which you talked about before, don't know how to dwell on that, to send your son to a private school, you said, quote, "West Indian mums will go to the wall for their children." So black mothers love their kids.
	Sorry, just in the interest of time, I'm going to pause.
	This is actually not very controversial in Britain, for anyone who doesn't know.
	Diane Abbott, I mean you can see how many years ago this video was obviously, this question type of appearance or whatever was taken, but we're just in the interest of time.
	Okay, sure, sure.
	Yeah, well no, my general take on this is that there is no tragedy of Diane Abbott.
	No, this is what Diane Abbott has been like for a long time.
	I'm going to, at the risk of being accused of pomposity, which is a risk that I am occasionally willing to take, you know, Greek tragedians have words for what actually, what are the hallmarks of tragedy, and none of them in this case are operative.
	Well, one of them is.
	So there's this idea that in tragic theatre There is a reversal of fortune that goes on and in fact actually it sounds as though Diane Abbott's going to be keeping her seat.
	She doesn't even have that claim to be a tragic figure but there's no tragic fall.
	There's no hamartia which is what the Greeks would call it and there's certainly no sober recognition of wrongdoing which is the anagnoresis part of Greek tragedy.
	The problem with O'Neill's analysis is that he counters it purely in terms of minoritarian interests and he completely neglects the fact that Abbott has long been a race baiting anti-white communist and this does not suddenly magically become wrong and vindictive once it's once once that sort of Malicious rhetoric is directed at a rival minority group.
	It's just as evil and addictive.
	It was wrong all along.
	It was wrong all along, as well as when it's directed at majorities.
	And so one of the things that I am very eager to press here is that we on the right, broadly speaking, and Brendan O'Neill would want to say, no, I'm still a leftist, whatever.
	Us on the anti-woke side of politics, we need to stop indulging in the left's own moral language games.
	Because when you win, quote unquote, On the left terms, in a larger sense, you are losing monumentally.
	And that's what's most important of all.
	Correct.
	Excellent.
	on with the video comments then it's a nice t-shirt - Yeah.
	Hey, congratulations!
	But also congratulations.
	That's very wholesome.
	We appreciate you buying our merch.
	Helps us keep the lights on.
	Well, it sounds like the problem with microplastics is that they can get everywhere.
	So that means it would be easy to contaminate a sample.
	Your sample couldn't contain no microplastics.
	Then when you open it up, all the microplastics fall off you, into your sample, and... Oh, look!
	My sample is full of microplastics!
	Even though it probably wasn't until you actually went and opened it.
	That's the thing about science.
	You gotta be careful and examine the procedure, otherwise you can come up with skewed results.
	I presume that was referencing Josh's segment yesterday.
	So, apologies, I haven't seen it yet, so I can't comment on it.
	I am aware, though, that my balls are swimming in microplastics.
	I don't know, you've had four kids, so... Yeah, I'm not saying I can't have children, I'm just saying that we're all infected with microplastics.
	Yeah, true.
	Probably is true.
	Don't wear polyester underwear, ladies and gentlemen, that'd be bad for you.
	Anyway, next one.
	for a doctor was convicted of raping a patient okay all right
	i think i think I think we should probably stop that.
	Dammit, Russian.
	Artificial intelligence has gone too far.
	Yeah, I'm slightly... Even if the point is made.
	I'm slightly uncomfortable with that one, but okay.
	Alright, next one please.
	Next on Yahoo! You can't hide!
	We talk to you with genocide!
	Next on Yahoo! You can't hide!
	We talk to you with genocide!
	From the whistle to the sea!
	Palestine will be free!
	From the whistle to the sea!
	Palestine will be free!
	Mr. Netanyahu, we've lost North Swindon.
	laughter Very good.
	Go away, honestly!
	On with the next one.
	Girls, what's just happened?
	So, there's an ice cream van there selling just two ice creams with two chewing gums in it.
	Yeah.
	For bloody £9 for two of them.
	£9 for two?
	Yeah, £9.
	That is going to get nowhere.
	One that comes with my ice cream is either £1 a piece or £2.
	That is going to get nowhere with that.
	Annoying, isn't it?
	Annoying, annoying.
	That's well bad, isn't it?
	Yeah, I shouldn't know.
	And he only does bloody cards.
	Stood there with my cash.
	- Bloody hell.
	- That's well bad, isn't it?
	- Bloody well bad.
	- Yeah.
	- Yeah, bet he can hear me.
	- Remember when I said we needed more Karening?
	- Yeah, but we also need race standards.
	Yeah, maybe don't teach children to be quite so vulgar.
	Anyway, does someone mind scrolling down?
	I'll do these.
	Okay.
	The Shadow Band sends a $300 Super Channel Rumble.
	Blimey!
	Thank you very much.
	Amazing, man.
	Thank you.
	Good luck with the shitstorm, and I hope you guys can survive another few months.
	Remember, there are people on your side.
	Well, hopefully you'll survive more than a few months.
	We've done nothing wrong, and so the last two days have been complete vindication of our character at the expense of the lying communists at Hope Not Hate.
	Yeah, we've literally done nothing wrong.
	Bald Eagle says, for $2, Republicans are Democrats' light, they say a good game and yet never do anything.
	Why?
	Because they get paid to do nothing if they're responding to everything.
	bunch of cucks deserve to lose and he says another super chat saying they want to lock up trump and have him uh suffer an accident and the secret service will be in on it considering they had agents outright stating they wouldn't protect him get rid of them asap to be honest with you i don't know i don't think they're brazen enough to do that at this point maybe though maybe i mean they are mad They are genuinely mad.
	They feel like Wile E. Coyote, who's run off the cliff, and they're just running as far as they can get.
	But at some point, gravity has to take hold.
	Dailyverse sends us $10 soup chat and says, $10 to add to the legal fund if you want to go after the smear merchants.
	Well, thank you very much.
	We'll keep you posted.
	And Bald Eagle says, for a $2 soup chat, the Soviet Army didn't intentionally stop to let the Germans suppress the Warsaw Uprising.
	They had to wait for supplies to catch up, and there was a large river to cross before getting there.
	Nick Knowles is watching.
	Maybe, I don't know.
	I don't know the... I think that's true, but if that is not true, then I stand corrected.
	And it's always good to stand corrected, because then you're right.
	Alright, we'll go for just some other comments.
	Scroll to the right place.
	Lord Nerevar says Trump will take this election in a landslide.
	He's potentially the most openly persecuted president the USA has ever seen, and that will be reflected in the ballot box in November.
	Mark my words at the ballot box, but not necessarily after the trucks arrive at 4am.
	Well, that's the thing, isn't it?
	The question of fortification looms large.
	But I'm personally of the opinion that it took a lot of effort for them to fortify 2020.
	The way that they might do it is mass voter registration with people that have just flooded over the southern border getting social security IDs for temporary work visas.
	That already seems to have happened in swing states like Texas and Missouri, so that is concerning.
	Don't know what impact it will have yet.
	Bleach Demon says, the sad vitriolic cheering from the Dems over convicting Trump is going to have a long-term negative repercussion for them.
	If anything, this is less about Trump and more about the powers that be clawing to retain power.
	Yeah, I agree.
	I agree.
	Sorry, there's an amazing username.
	Arizona Desert Rat says, hmm, I think this may end up being declared a mistrial and they will likely end up going to higher courts.
	Entirely possible, but I just think Trump will just appeal and the appeals judge will have to be like, well, this was nonsense, we're really sorry.
	And you'd expect that they'd expedite it to the Supreme Court as well?
	Yes.
	Sooner rather than later?
	The Trump Pact Supreme Court.
	Oh, quite.
	Which is, yeah, exactly.
	When did they choose to hear his other case?
	I don't know, actually.
	I'd have to check.
	But the point is, this can't go on.
	ThatTexasGal says, I'm sure the Republicans are penning a very strongly worded letter as we speak.
	Yes, well, hopefully this does just get overturned and it's nonsense.
	Chase says, great job on the interview with Liz Truss, Carl.
	Thanks, Chase.
	Why do I even bother?
	No, you did do a very good job.
	Thanks, appreciate it.
	Christine said, didn't Jess Phillips say that she didn't feel threatened at all by the joke?
	Yeah, she did, but that doesn't matter.
	It's not the issue.
	The issue is that she thinks she can use her political position to sort of cut Liz Truss off from the rest of the Conservative Party.
	Because Liz Truss is one of the few Conservatives that the membership seem to actually feel fondly to.
	We voted for her.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Overwhelmingly.
	She got two thirds of the vote over Rishi Sunak, you know.
	Something important there.
	Apparently, Byline Times in the article got my name wrong as well.
	So they didn't only not realise that I hosted it, they called me Colin Tomlinson.
	Well, never mind.
	Cumbrian Kulak says, have a good chuckle reading Hope Not Hate articles.
	Northance Knight says, hope not hate have their allies in the MSN political bubble but the number of their targets have piled up.
	So much so, and so vile hate not hope are, and I'll have to paraphrase Churchill, never in the field of propaganda has so many been smeared by so few.
	Well, that's the thing, isn't it?
	What I think is really interesting is that there seems to be a kind of consensus growing on the British right that, you know, okay, they're just going to call us far-right, we still need to get on with what we need to get on with.
	And so the more people who are sort of coming together in the same, under the same umbrella, okay, smear matches, you know, all of these far-right, far-right, far-right.
	Okay, but now there's like two dozen people that you're calling far-right on a daily basis.
	How much bigger is that going to grow before you realize that's not really an effective weapon anymore.
	Like you're saying, the tools have grown blunt and nobody cares.
	It's just, okay, they're far right, fair enough.
	What are they saying?
	On page one of their State of Hate report, when they have a photo of Miriam Cates, Danny Kruger, Priti Patel and Jacob Rees-Mogg, your reach has excreted your grasp, I'm afraid.
	Exactly.
	And there was also, we didn't end up getting to it at the end, but in the Lewis Goodall one, all he was peddling in his condemnation of Lotus Eaters, he didn't actually make any arguments about anything you guys had said, it was just pure high-minded sass and attitude and some nasty words.
	It reeks of impotence, it really does.
	And the last one from North FC Zuma, I'll have serious respect for Truss if she stands up to these retards and doesn't back down.
	Well, she hasn't backed down.
	It'd be very easy for her to tweet out a response saying, oh, I didn't know, I'm so sorry.
	Yeah, exactly.
	But she hasn't done anything like that.
	She hasn't given an inch to Hope Not Hate about the interview where she called them evil and should be destroyed.
	She didn't need to do any of this, by the way.
	As I reiterated, we didn't pay her.
	She barely knows me from Adam.
	And instead, she's nailed her colours to the mast and hasn't thrown us under the bus.
	So nothing but respect.
	Absolutely.
	Right, well, with that, we're back in half an hour.
	Josh Steliosbo to answer your questions on the Gold Tier Zoom call.
	You still have time to sign up.
	Otherwise, we'll be back on Monday at 1 o'clock.
	Have a good weekend, everyone.
	Thank you, gents, for co-hosting.

▲