Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 27, 2025 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:37:23

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1173

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello everyone.
	Welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Seaters.
	This is episode 1173.
	This is Tuesday the 27th of May and I'm joined today by Faraz and by the apparition of Josh.
	I'm not actually here in body, just in spirit.
	Are you real?
	No.
	Are you for real though?
	No.
	I'm completely fake.
	Okay, nice.
	I'm a ghost.
	I'm not here.
	And we are going to discuss Liverpool fans getting attacked by a driver, a man, and a car plowing into them.
	How we're also screwed and how the quality act replaces the market.
	But we have some announcements.
	You may know it already, but Josh has a channel.
	If you know it already, repetition is the matter of learning.
	Subscribe to Josh's channel and check out his brilliant videos.
	And I know he has ideas for more.
	They're good ones.
	Subscribe to Josh.
	Subscribe to Josh.
	Thank you.
	I don't like this channel.
	It's a bit rubbish.
	Right.
	And we are doing also courses.
	We are going to do academic level of quality presentation with respect to several topics.
	And here we have the first course that has been uploaded.
	This is Academic Agents, the Trivium.
	You can definitely check it out.
	And we also have other courses such as Foundations of Writing, Foundations of Rhetoric, and which is the other one?
	It's Foundations of Grammar.
	Logic.
	Yeah, Foundations of Logic.
	And also, sign up to the webinar.
	This is the 29th of May.
	I think it's 7 p.m.
	UK time.
	If you really want to find out a bit more, it's going to be Carl and Academic Agent there talking about what the Trivium is all about.
	I think it's a really good thing to explore and definitely check it out.
	Sign up for it.
	Right, so we are going to talk about the very horrific incident that happened in Liverpool yesterday.
	And first things first, we need to congratulate Liverpool Football Club.
	They recently scored two major wins.
	Major wins.
	And let me just say this for football fans.
	They won the 2024-2025 Premier League.
	And there was another win there, which, you know, if you like looking at it, it was a major win.
	They equaled Manchester United's score of 20 top-flight English titles.
	I'm not sure what this is.
	Premier League wasn't always called Premier League.
	It's called Premier League since 1992.
	From 1888 to 1992, we had the Football League First Division, so the top-flight English titles refer to winning.
	The top job, the top spot on that division from the period of 1888 to today.
	So this is a major win.
	The Premier League is the best football league in the world.
	Obviously I'm a little bit biased being a Brit, but it's common outside of Britain as well.
	I mean, it's the most watched league outside of the country, which sort of suggests that it's the best one.
	I think objectively it is.
	It is, and I'm not saying that with any particular bias because the team I support is not in the Premier League.
	It is Plymouth-Argar, which are terrible.
	But I support them nonetheless because it's my home team.
	Right, so Liverpool fans went out and celebrated.
	We see here really beautiful images.
	Let's see here.
	No control of the mouse.
	City came alive there, didn't it?
	This is amazing.
	Thousands of people in Liverpool cheering.
	It's a beautiful thing to see.
	Good to have a cause for celebration in this day and age, isn't it?
	We also have here another video.
	Still hearing them in the background there.
	You see the Liverpool fans are cheering their major wins.
	Sadly, there was another...
	We have Merseyside police making the first announcement, saying we're currently dealing with reports of an RTC.
	In Liverpool City Centre, we were contacted at just after 6pm today, Monday the 26th of May, following reports a car had been in collision with a number of pedestrians on Water Street.
	The car is stopped at the scene and a male has been detained.
	So we have several videos here showing what happened.
	It's best if you have kids, don't show these videos to them.
	And let's see what happened here.
	We have literally a car running over people, hitting them and then continuing.
	It's not that it was a sort of accident and then he stopped, the driver stopped, the driver continued.
	And then we have all sorts of fans going there, hitting the car.
	We also have security personnel there rushing into the car to take the person out.
	So a lot of people saw this and saw, well, obviously this was deliberate then, because if you've got a medical emergency, you don't try and steer into people and carry on driving.
	Just the body language of the car, you can sort of tell if you drive that that was intentional.
	I mean, yes, I think absolutely.
	If it was someone who had a heart attack, it seems that the course of the trajectory of...
	Yes, and it's also interesting to be driving a car through there when there's a big crowd.
	I know that the last place I would want to drive a car would be for a great big crowd of drunk football fans, personally.
	I wouldn't do that with a gun to my head.
	Well, this actually gives me a good pause because there have been several...
	I'm not going to tell you other stuff.
	And occasionally I'm going to throw an interpretation here or there, but letting you know that it is an interpretation.
	So according to videos from another angle, it looks like this driver was in the car and the fans started hitting the car.
	And possibly he panicked and then started hitting the accelerator.
	accelerating, yes, but...
	I think that this is probably the most likely, in my opinion, because from some of the other videos I've seen where you see the car before it actually starts hitting people, it sort of gets stuck in the crowd and then people come around it and you see them trying to open the doors and hitting the windows.
	And I think that Yeah, and I think that that's enough to make someone panic.
	And particularly if they start breaking things and, you know, from the perspective of the person in the car, you're surrounded, you've got no escape, and there are people all around you.
	There was an angle there where he seemed to be aiming for where the crowd is densest.
	The density of these kinds of crimes is not the same everywhere.
	He seemed to be aiming for more people to hit with the vehicle.
	That is true, and there are two different ways to interpret that, I think.
	On the one hand, you could say maybe there was spite involved, or maybe it was just they panicked and it was just misfortune that they went into the busiest thing.
	And we can only find that out once there's been a proper investigation into it, really.
	We have another angle here.
	You see them hitting the car.
	And that's when the car accelerates and then continues.
	And that's the bit where for us, I think, you mean where the driver went for the...
	So, yeah, this is another angle of the event which wasn't seen from the first video.
	I also think it's interesting that, you know, I'm not sure if it's just the noise in the actual videos themselves, but you don't hear them, like, sounding their horn as if to say, hey, back off, leave me alone.
	At some point he did honk.
	Okay, he did.
	At some point he did.
	Yeah.
	It was when I saw that when I thought, okay, this...
	Initially I'd assumed it was an attack, similar to some of the attacks that we've seen here, similar to the ones that we've seen in Europe.
	Eventually I saw one of the videos where he seemed to be honking.
	Yes.
	And of course, people at the minute, and it's a very unfortunate thing, really, they see this and they've been primed from all of the cases in Germany to just presume, and I've seen lots of people who I otherwise normally respect, Jumping to conclusions about things, which I think is, you know, I'm going to take this moment and returning to Lotus Eaters to scold people.
	It's irresponsible, yeah.
	Yeah, you're not only potentially blaming people for things that they might not have done, but also you're just making people look bad.
	You're making the right to look bad by saying, I know who it was, I don't need...
	Sometimes there are things that are outside of a neat categorisation ideologically.
	And we have here an example of an account that rushed to say that this is an attack by an Islamist extremist and turns out it most probably is not.
	So there were all sorts of people who tried to capitalise upon this.
	It's not so much capitalization because I'm sort of guilty of it myself.
	I assumed initially that it was an attack and I tweeted that it was an attack.
	The intent isn't to capitalize.
	It's just that so much of this has happened so many times and it has been attacks when it did happen.
	That was going to be my next point.
	The expectation generally is you see this.
	You see that it's clearly deliberate.
	You see the video of him sort of Plowing into more people rather than less.
	And then you assume, well, okay, this looks like a very deliberate attack.
	If you had to bet between...
	it turned out that he was, what, some drunk guy?
	According to the main narrative, seems to be this.
	Who panicked.
	If you had to bet, attack or panic drunkard, the odds would definitely be in favor of conscious attack.
	Almost certainly.
	And many people rush to think this, and they have done so in other cases.
	The point is that in some cases, maybe as commentators, it's good to wait.
	Fair enough.
	Because it doesn't have to be the case that you have to bet at the moment.
	Maybe some...
	Or at least framing things in ways that are a bit less, that are a bit more responsible.
	I've been guilty of this myself, to be fair.
	I have been in the past.
	And I did that yesterday.
	It's just that there is a certainty that there is going to be a next attack.
	And there's a certainty that the state will try to mislead.
	Absolutely.
	And there's, as a result of that, a sense of anger, and justified anger, because the state isn't doing what's required to make the public believe that the exclusive use of force is being used to protect them.
	But rather, the use of force by the state is often directed at their reaction.
	So I saw a lot of tweets calling for responsibility, and yes, respect to that, and my apologies for not having been responsible about it.
	But I also saw a lot of tweets saying, guys, be careful what you post, because you know that the police will be knocking on your door if you say such and such.
	So the atmosphere, this is new for a liberal democracy.
	That be careful what you say because the police will be showing up at your door.
	Okay.
	I'd much rather the police concern themselves with the incidents that came before this and unfortunately the near certain incidents that will come after this rather than what I or some other idiot say on X or Twitter or whatever it is.
	Sorry, Josh.
	I was just going to add ever so quickly that...
	If the government had done its job, there would be no need for any of this, even if you think it's not justified.
	I'm just saying no need for the government to actually go out and be tyrannical.
	I think it's very interesting where when something happens, regardless of what happens, there's a unanimous interpretation of something.
	That speaks of something that...
	The issue is that there is a pattern as far as the mainstream media is concerned when it comes to hits like these.
	And the human mind forms conjectures, and whether people speak about it or not, they do think so.
	So when you have...
	And in some cases it may not be the case, but the media is crying wolf.
	That's the issue.
	Because they are constantly saying the same things, isolated incident, not related to terrorism, always mental illness, lives, cars, whatever.
	They also dehumanize the perpetrator by speaking about the car as if it's sentient.
	And I'll just show you an incident where I covered with Beau the Vancouver car ramming incident about a month ago, which wasn't an Islamist.
	The issue is that the media is crying wolf so many times and people cannot help but think what they think.
	So let's go to the injured.
	Luckily, we've heard reports that no one has died yet.
	There are no reports that...
	But there have been people who are injured.
	There were 47 people who were injured.
	20 were injured in a minor, you know, had suffered minor injuries.
	27 were transported to hospital by ambulance.
	And we just have a child and an adult who are suffering from severe injuries.
	Replay the video I showed you before.
	There is a scene where someone is completely hit by the car and thrashed over.
	I really hope this person doesn't have trouble walking in the rest of his life or her life.
	It was a silly thing that need not happen.
	If I'm to apportion any responsibility, it's obviously with the person driving the car, they shouldn't have put themselves in that situation in the first place.
	You don't drive a car into a crowd of people, even if you're going very slowly and respectfully, because it's not going to be received well.
	And particularly drunk football fans, quite frankly, you should have known better than to be in that situation in the first place, let alone react in the way that they did.
	I mean, honestly, I think both sides, in a way, Have a share of responsibility, but it's okay.
	What you're saying makes sense.
	Certainly the people who went up to the car who hadn't done anything yet and started hitting it, they also have some degree of moral culpability.
	It's not in the same league as the person who was driving the car.
	The crowds are generally speaking...
	Exactly.
	This is something that drivers should know.
	Here we have another announcement by Merseyside Police saying we would ask people not to speculate on the circumstances surrounding tonight's incident on Water Street in Liverpool City Centre.
	We can confirm the man arrested is a 53-year-old white British man from the Liverpool area.
	Now, let me just say one thing here.
	There are several narratives about what is going on and why the police did what...
	The charitable one says that the police doesn't want to instantly release data about the identity because they want to triple check the identity of the suspect.
	Because what they want to prevent is releasing statements and then retracting them.
	And in a way, you could say that this is also what people in the commenting industry should ideally want.
	To not make mistakes of the sort.
	The first of which is I'm quite surprised that a car could get to that point in the crowd in the first place.
	I know that there were, you know, there's a double-decker bus being escorted by police going through the centre and things like that.
	But why should pedestrians be able to get in that position in the first place?
	It's a sort of sorry thing to say because it was never a problem before.
	But we also have to deal with the reality as it is rather than how we wish it to be.
	And I would have liked to have seen perhaps a bit more protection for a crowd.
	I mean, even though, you know, it is frustrating to have to say that because it's a, I understand this point, and I respect this, but it seems to me that on the one hand, for designing the event, there had to be room for cars.
	First of all, because they had the team celebrating, but also you have tens of thousands of people.
	Maybe someone needs to be transported to the hospital.
	You need room for ambulance.
	I know, but you could have a police cordon or something where it's just a bit of ribbon.
	I don't know what you call it, you know, the police tape.
	Do not cross.
	The second thing is, it was actually quite good that they released the identity immediately.
	Relatively fast, yeah.
	Yeah, and I think part of the reason is that they were detained on the scene, so they could be pretty sure, you know, they were pulled out of the car, so they're going to know it's the person that did it.
	But this should be the standard going forwards.
	If they want people to stop speculating, well, release the information then.
	Because it seems like when a thing is of national interest, you should have to release this sort of information as a sort of public service, because it is our right to know, I think.
	I was going to say that they've put themselves in a damned-if-they-do, damned-if-they-don't situation after Southport.
	Because after Southport, the story was he was Welsh and, you know, he was a choir boy, etc., etc.
	Now, some of the details about his life would have required more investigation, including his interest in violence in general and in genocide and in Islam and in all of these kinds of issues.
	So, fair enough, they didn't have to release that.
	They could not have released that information that quickly, A few hours of the incident, they would have probably known within three days to a week.
	But then they kept on gaslighting the public and saying that he's just Welsh and that there's no other identity involved.
	And now they've put themselves in a position where they've set a precedent where they release the racial identity and the nationality within an hour of the incident.
	Now it may not always be possible to ascertain nationality within an hour.
	Fair enough.
	But ethnic identity, you know, it's a visible marker for most people.
	I'm of the opinion that following on from Southport, it should be a statutory obligation to report the ethnicity of a perpetrator, because the elephant in the room at the minute is ethnic tension in British politics.
	That's the issue.
	And that's very important to address, and I think that people being informed is the most important thing.
	Someone that distributes information can really do.
	We have statements here from the Merseyside Police saying that this was an isolated incident, not a terrorist related, but they also said they referred to a 53-year-old white British person who is believed to be the driver.
	They always say that sort of language though, just to leave a bit of reasonable doubt.
	Right.
	Okay, so we had several people saying they announced a 53-year-old British person, and they said that it's going to be, let me just.
	You see, let's look at this video.
	You have the police entering a van, probably because they took the driver in, and then someone from the crowd is fighting the police, and several people rushed to say that this person was the driver.
	I think that this is completely improbable.
	If he were the driver, the crowd would rush to hit him.
	There's also the fact that in this video, the one that shows him, they just saw people fighting with the police.
	So I'm surprised that people are jumping to that conclusion, to be honest.
	And here we have another angle into the event saying that the driver is different from the person you see here.
	The door opens.
	And it looks like he was not the person who was on the ground believed initially.
	So, I don't know, he doesn't look particularly 53, but I could be wrong.
	Yeah, I mean, maybe they're a bit different in Liverpool, Stelios.
	Maybe, you know.
	Some people, you know, age, others mature.
	You don't know.
	Okay, whatever.
	So, I think that it's important that they release the identity really quickly.
	And we have here a statement by Leo Kearse, friend of our show, says, I don't think I've ever seen an ethnicity announced so quickly.
	That's true.
	It was notable.
	Now this sets a precedent, as you mentioned before, and every time there is an incident of this nature, hopefully there isn't going to be any other, but this is too optimistic.
	And the precedent is that they will have to release it fast.
	Because if they don't release it fast, people are going to basically say, well, it's not a white British man.
	They're living with the consequences of the experiment that they're conducting.
	They're trying to conduct this experiment in multi-ethnic, multi-racial, diverse, multicultural societies.
	Everywhere you have diversity, you have ethnic conflict.
	And they're trying to set an exception, which is fundamentally, unfortunately, against human nature.
	It's not how we operate as human beings.
	And they're trying, therefore, to paper over the differences.
	They really messed up with Southport.
	Now they're releasing the information quickly as a consequence of that.
	There wouldn't have been this kind of speculation and this kind of anger.
	If these incidents weren't being repeated, and now they're in a corner.
	If they release the identity quickly without releasing the motive, they're in trouble.
	If they don't release the identity, and ascertaining the motive obviously takes time, they're in trouble.
	The only time they can release the identity quickly is if it's a white man who is British and who doesn't have a religious or ideological motivation.
	Because that also takes time to ascertain.
	They've put themselves in a corner.
	And they've put themselves in a corner because of their own actions.
	Yes, I'm sorry for jumping to conclusions.
	We shouldn't jump to conclusions.
	But there's reason to do that.
	It's not an unreasonable conclusion to jump to, unfortunately.
	You can't run experiments that go against human nature indefinitely and not expect consequences for that.
	And this is the bind that they're in.
	They're trying to make something work which never works.
	Every time there's a criticism of colonialism, it's because, well, you put different ethnic groups in the Middle East or in Africa in the same country.
	Okay, did you learn anything from that?
	No?
	Okay.
	Right, let's go to the comments.
	Rick T.W.G.P.
	Fair enough about not jumping to conclusions, but what's most bloody annoying is that it's quite alright for the bloody police to reveal his identity because he's white.
	Yes.
	The hapsification says Tottenham had their parade after winning the Europa League and they had 200,000 to 300,000 people and had no incident.
	They also closed the road down for that parade.
	Fair point.
	And Marx Lives, weird name, says, This year we explored the failure of democracy, how our social scientists brought our world to the brink of chaos.
	We talked about the veterans, how they took control.
	There's allegedly a quote by Razza from Starship Troopers.
	I still need to read the original book.
	The film's very good, though.
	I hope you're not saying that social scientists are to blame, because I had no part in this, alright.
	But what I do have a part in is this horrible, misery-inducing segment.
	So, I haven't even got my notes up.
	I've got rusty in the past month, alright.
	Right, here we go.
	So, upon my return, I have decided to make you all miserable again.
	In case you've missed me, I want you to remember just how much I informed you about all the worst things going on in the world.
	And I'm going to give you a nice overview.
	Of the inescapable ways in which certain people are basically poisoning you and they will almost certainly get away with it.
	And it's pretty much inescapable.
	And this isn't some sort of conspiratorial thing.
	I'm going to go through public...
	And I'm not going to be speculating.
	I'm going to be reading it in its own words.
	And so I'm going to be very sensible because I know there's a cross-section of the commentariat that quite often likes to sensationalize these sorts of things and make outlandish claims.
	I'm not going to be doing that.
	However, what I have for you is very interesting.
	So I saw this on Twitter or X or whatever it's called these days, and it really sparked my interest.
	So it's an account I've never followed before.
	It says, For years I've been puzzled by the uniquely American obsession with disgustingly bitter IPA beer.
	And by the way, I really like IPA.
	However, There are a few nice ones, but they are right that they're really bitter.
	The British kind are sort of a bit like lager, but there's a sort of almost fruitiness and a tanginess to it that gives it a lot of flavour.
	It's like lager, but with a bit more taste, which is nice.
	It's particularly nice on a hot day.
	I'm probably encouraging people to drink now.
	Don't do that.
	Bitter taste receptors are affected by serotonin in the brain.
	The American IPA craze is literally caused by the proliferation of SSRI and antidepressants and what SSRI stands for.
	Is selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors.
	So your serotonin, obviously, most people know this affects your mood.
	It's a neurochemical.
	It's a messenger in your brain that serves an important purpose that tries to align your mind to have a correct response to a stimuli in a very roundabout way.
	And these SSRIs...
	But they reference this study here, which I've had a look at before.
	My mouse is not working.
	Hello, mouse.
	Oh, no, there it is.
	Nothing changes.
	Yes, making me nostalgic now, Stelios.
	Human taste thresholds are modulated by serotonin and noradrenaline.
	And noradrenaline is just produced in the stress response, which you could probably deduce.
	And what was found was that on this...
	really.
	And I find this very interesting.
	It suggests, although this is an emergent discovery, really, so we haven't got concrete research, but we'll be getting on to that.
	It suggests that people may have consequences for introducing foreign elements in the sense of things that aren't your body.
	You know, you're not eating foreigners, I hope.
	And it influences you in ways that you wouldn't necessarily expect.
	We would like to think that our taste in food and drink is something that's very personal to us.
	Some of us take great pride in having good taste.
	Some of us, it's completely absent.
	I wasn't calling people out.
	It's fine.
	And, yeah, I find that this is very surprising.
	You wouldn't think that your taste in beer would be changed by your taste for alcohol, or vice versa.
	What?
	I said that the wrong way around, didn't I?
	Yeah, antidepressants give you a taste for bitter alcohol.
	That's what I was going for.
	I'm happy because I like lager, which isn't particularly bitter.
	That's true.
	I mean, you can even get a pint of bitter.
	And next time someone orders that, we can say, are you okay?
	Feeling alright?
	You're not depressed, are you?
	But it's unavoidable, even if you're not taking antidepressants.
	There's been lots of testing in many different countries.
	And I think particularly in the United States, where antidepressants are more prevalent, it's So even if you're not taking it, you're probably still on antidepressants, which is unfortunate.
	And most water filters do not remove it either.
	So what?
	They're turning the frogs.
	We're going to mention the frogs.
	We're mentioning the frogs later, don't you worry.
	But most water filters don't remove it and so there's very little you can actually do other than collecting your own rainwater perhaps to avoid this potential And that's just a product of modernity now that we're ingesting these things that change our tastes and we have no control over it.
	And in fact, here's a research paper here.
	This is looking at fluoxetine, which if you're American, the marketing term for that, which is weird that you have those in the first place, is Prozac, which most people will be familiar with, which is an antidepressant.
	And this is looking at mosquito fish.
	Basically, their behaviour is when they see a predator, they freeze, and that makes them harder to spot.
	Very simple so far, right?
	It's like with Arnie and the predator.
	Yes, exactly like that.
	He covered himself with mud, so the predator wouldn't understand him.
	They don't quite go that far.
	Okay.
	They also don't speak like him, I've heard.
	So, in lab conditions, the researchers simulated a bird attack with a metal rod with a bit of rubber on the end, just to simulate a beak entering the water, right?
	Most animals will react instinctually to this sort of thing, and so it's quite a good test, really.
	You don't need an actual bird to hand, which will probably eat all of your test subjects.
	And supposedly, the fish that were exposed to the antidepressants were less likely to freeze in the presence of a predator, which suggests they felt less fear and anxiety in the face of a real threat.
	That's interesting.
	So not only are the antidepressants changing your tastes, but also your perception of fear.
	And anxiety to legitimate threats, by the way, these fish could die if they're captured by a bird, is reduced.
	And society needs a very good threat perception to be able to defend itself.
	It's one of the baseline things a civilization needs to do is to be able to enforce its borders.
	And this calls into question our ability to do that, doesn't it?
	And, yeah, it's very, very worrying.
	And then we move on to this.
	So this is the frog study that was referenced by Alex Jones, and it didn't turn them gay.
	That's not what actually happened.
	But it's looking at a pesticide, commonly used pesticide, called atrazine.
	And I'm going to read just directly from this, so I don't get accused of being a gay frogs advocate or something.
	Is a potent endocrine disruptor.
	Endocrine just means hormonal.
	So hormone disruptor, so things like testosterone and the likes.
	That both chemically castrates and feminizes male amphibians.
	It depletes androgens in adult frogs and reduces androgen-dependent growth on the larynx in developing male larvae.
	It also disrupts normal gonadal development and feminises the gonads of developing males, which...
	I mean, in layman's language.
	In layman's language, that means that it feminizes the male frogs.
	So it doesn't make them homosexual.
	It makes them very feminine.
	It makes them effeminate.
	Which is a bit different, Alex Jones.
	But the point being here that when it comes to things like these hormones, the difference between the animal world, you may say, "Okay, that's all well and good, it's frogs," but actually, People as well.
	Yeah.
	That's why we do animal studies, right?
	We test things on mice because their systems are close enough that we can infer something from it.
	There are biological continuities among the species.
	Wasn't it the same thing that Jordan Peterson was talking about with lobsters?
	That's exactly right.
	Who were given antidepressants and they were less likely to freeze and more likely to fight back.
	So I don't think that this is a bad thing.
	I think you mentioned it as a bad thing before.
	You described it as a bad thing.
	I think it's playing God with human behavior.
	I don't know.
	I mean, I don't know.
	I would take antidepressants if I were depressed.
	But wouldn't you say that it's not the issue, that's not the problem.
	The problem is potential over-prescription.
	Yeah, so there's multiple layers here.
	Not only do I think that antidepressants are over-prescribed, but there's a very different perception between the psychological world, which obviously I come from, and the lay person on the street.
	And a normal person on the street thinks that if I'm depressed I take antidepressants and it helps me get better, like a regular medicine.
	Like you have a rash, you put some cream on it and it gets better.
	But it doesn't work like that, really.
	The medical world views antidepressants as this is something to give you a leg up, if you will, and give you a basically, in a more vulgar way of putting it, give you a kick up the backside to sort your life out yourself if you're on the cusp of...
	That's a YouTube-friendly way of saying it.
	So they view it as a last resort, but actually, in the psychological world, we recognise that lifestyle choices are very important.
	And, you know, sleep, eating well, exercise, all of these things are going to be underlined as, sort this out, you know, feeling like you've got a direction in your life, having agency.
	These are the sorts of things that cure.
	Depression.
	Grab the bull by its horns.
	I wouldn't take up bullfighting if I were depressed personally.
	Didn't they find that the whole serotonin theory on depression wasn't actually...
	Yeah, so I've got a little bit to say about this.
	So neurochemicals...
	They're saying that you've got a natural imbalance to your neurochemistry that has to be corrected with drugs.
	And I do dispute this argument.
	Obviously, neurochemistry has an effect because it's your brain's way of communicating with itself.
	Anyone that's ever taken drugs in their life can account for the fact that if your serotonin is artificially increased, you feel better.
	And so that part can't be disputed, otherwise there wouldn't be any drug users.
	The part that's disputed is that, is this actually the root cause of mental health problems?
	But I would argue it's a symptom of it and not the cause necessarily, in that maybe people are depressed because their life is genuinely depressing.
	I'm more willing to take people at face value and say, Maybe there are things actually wrong with your life that need to be changed.
	And most people who are depressed have legitimate concerns.
	They're not just depressed with the best life in the world.
	They have real concerns that are legitimate and worthy of consideration.
	And I think that it minimises that and medicalises it so pharmaceutical companies can...
	But moving on to something else as well.
	Not only do antidepressants and pesticides have an effect, but lead.
	This is a bit old-timey to most people.
	Of course, there's a well-established link between lead exposure and aggression and crime.
	Most people associate it with being mad, and you say mad as a hatter.
	You know, they had lead in their hats and it drove them mad.
	I think that's a bit of a wives' tale, although there might be some truth to it.
	But, in Britain at least, 34% of homes have at least some lead pipes in their network.
	And so that's not exactly an insignificant amount.
	And they're also more likely to be situated in specific areas, right?
	And so they're likely to compound a pre-existing problem.
	For example, you're more likely to have really old piping in poorer areas, aren't you?
	that people who don't have the money to redo it and modernise it.
	And so it seems like people who might already be inclined to commit crime are all the more encouraged by...
	Exactly.
	I'm not saying it's the root cause, but I'm saying it could be a very small contributing factor at the very least.
	And, in fact, we've gone further than this, and here we go.
	This is an analysis of government data, I think, that 6.2% of the samples in our study, they did the analysis of government data, had potentially toxic levels of lead that were above the current UK limit of 10%.
	And of course this is going to be the case in lots of parts of the world as well, not just Britain, I just used it as a test case that I'm familiar with.
	And then we go back to pesticides again, and this is looking at the association between exposure to pesticides and Parkinson's disease in French farmers.
	And basically it found that there was a clear correlation between the two, that the more exposure you have to pesticides, the more likely you were to have Parkinson's disease and to a significant degree as well and of course this was looking at the farmers themselves and you might say well you know it makes more sense that the farmers are exposed to it and they're the most direct people influenced however Then, you know, they're producing food for people.
	And there are trace amounts present in things like agricultural runoff.
	And also, it can still be present on your food.
	That's why, you know, you're asked to wash your food if it's fruit or veg, is that you wash the pesticides off.
	But of course, you know, unless you're very, very thorough, you're probably not going to get all of it.
	So there's going to be a trace amount.
	And whether that's significant enough to have this effect But my point here is that we're messing with things that we don't quite understand.
	And we could be getting ourselves into a situation.
	What's that film where only one woman in the world can have a child?
	Really good film.
	Children of men.
	Children of men.
	We could be in a sort of situation like that where we've messed with chemistry so much that our hormones are so out of whack that it's simply...
	And I don't think we're quite to that point yet, so please don't panic.
	I'm not trying to scare you.
	But it's sort of the worst-case scenario.
	Obviously, getting Parkinson's disease and being aggressive and going in prison and having all of these other things isn't exactly ideal either.
	And, yes.
	Here's another one here.
	I'm going to read a little bit from this.
	Our analysis of 12 years of residue data published by the Expert Committee on Pesticide Residues in Food shows that there are unacceptable levels of pesticides present in the food provided through the Department of Health's School Fruit and Veg scheme.
	So this found that this is even present in the fruit and vegetables provided by the government to help children eat healthily.
	And apparently they found residue of a hundred and twenty three different pesticides, some of which were linked to serious health problems such as cancer and disruption of the hormone systems.
	So, yes, it's not just, you know, you and adult watching, but your children as well are having their hormones messed with, which will undoubtedly affect their development.
	Because, of course, children are all the more vulnerable to this sort of thing because their hormones are yet to reach a steady level until they become about And it's not just that as well.
	We have microplastics.
	This was one of my segments from, I think it was about a year ago now, how microplastics were found in male testicles.
	Because you've got to specify these days, of course.
	And this was found to reduce testosterone amongst a whole host of other things.
	And so not only do we have We also have the microplastics as well.
	We're turning into Barbie world or something.
	Everything goes plastic, but it's not fantastic.
	So you've moved off the grid.
	You're collecting your own water.
	you've got a very elaborate purification system, you think, okay, I can sit down, relax, maybe pour myself a cup of coffee and chill because I've proofed myself from the evils of modernity.
	Well, um...
	Actually, it's less likely to activate in higher consumers of caffeine, so you're less likely to perceive threats if you drink more coffee, which is interesting.
	I would presume it's because, and this is just my guess, I'm sure there's probably research out there, but...
	That would be my armchair psychologist guess, but I'm sure there's probably a study out there.
	I just wasn't able to find it.
	And then, of course, I'd be remiss not to mention the oral contraceptive change, which women on the pill prefer less masculine men, and they also are more likely to go for genetically dissimilar partners.
	A lot of modernity is starting to make sense now, isn't it?
	And it alters their mate selection, and if they come off the pill, it also suggests that their relationship satisfaction may change, probably likely reduced, because their hormones have changed, because they're no longer taking this artificial thing that's altering their hormones.
	And when you look at it like that, it's very concerning, because you could...
	which is very, very difficult to avoid.
	So it's a very unfortunate situation, to say the least.
	But it's not all bad, because you may have heard of Toxoplasma gondii.
	Is this the one with the cats?
	It is indeed, yes.
	The one that was feared to be what cats give to newborn babies?
	They give it to anyone, any human being really.
	So cats carry a protozoa, which is a parasitic organism.
	And cats carry it and they can pass it on in things like their saliva and the likes.
	So I've had pet cats my entire life.
	I've probably got this in me somewhere, these protozoa.
	And I'm going to read a little bit from the study.
	And they said, That's interesting.
	It basically affects people's risk tolerance.
	And it does the same thing in mice.
	That's why it's speculated cats carry this.
	It's like a bioweapon that if a mouse becomes introduced to it, it makes them less afraid of cats.
	And the incentive for a cat to have that is obvious, right?
	But, of course, And it's also interesting that toxoplasmosis-positive individuals were 1.8 times more likely to have started their own businesses compared to other attendees.
	So this actually seems quite positive.
	There you go.
	If you want to improve your life, if you're a bit depressed, get this parasite.
	It's also interesting as well that women can reliably identify from facial photographs men who are infected with toxoplasmosis because it raises testosterone.
	So, yeah.
	If you want to go out and get a parasite, this is the one.
	I wouldn't recommend many of the others.
	But as far as parasites go, if you're a man, at least, this is what you want.
	Makes you more man.
	Cats make you more man.
	It's true.
	People say cats aren't manly.
	Well, my cats basically help.
	It's basically like the equivalent of spotting me at the gym, you know.
	And yes, men with higher testosterone have lower levels of fluctuating symmetry in their facial features, which makes them appear more attractive and more masculine to women.
	And this is how this toxoplasmosis sort of mediates this interaction.
	If you're worried about having your testosterone reduced by plastic, get a cat.
	Is my final lesson, I guess.
	Obviously, it's a very concerning world we live in.
	I think that this is far understudied, and I think part of that is just that people don't have the research literacy to understand a lot of these studies, but they should, and I think that they're very accessible, actually, if you take the time to learn the jargon.
	And, of course, you can go on the reading list on the website and read them all yourself.
	I've got them all linked there.
	And I very much encourage people to look at this, because it should be of concern to everyone.
	this affects everyone on planet earth and it affects everyone to an extent that should be of concern and so i want people to take it a bit more seriously and of course to end i So if you miss me, you can always go to the website and sign up for my premium series where I did 171 episodes of it.
	You know, most of my knowledge is there.
	So if you want to learn things about pretty much every topic I've ever been interested in.
	You're more than welcome to check it out.
	This will scratch your itch for my depressing dulcet tones.
	And if you're not into that, you can always check out my YouTube, which is, of course, free.
	And it's going pretty well, actually.
	I'm happily and pleasantly surprised.
	So thank you for all the nice words for me leaving.
	And also thank you to everyone who supported me.
	And as always, make sure to sign up to the website.
	Right, let's go to the comments.
	Ryan Hinnigan says, Fish in the Great Lakes, I think like Michigan, have diminished survival instincts due to people peeing when they swim.
	We're an over-medicated people.
	Also, Vienna Lager is the best style of beer.
	I do like Viennese Lager, I'll give you that.
	I mean, personally, this is going to be a bit controversial.
	I like a good British ale, room temperature.
	And every American in the audience is going to be recoiling in pain at that statement, but there's something about a nice hearty ale.
	It's like a meal in a glass, really.
	Right.
	Alex Trusk.
	What has Josh got against gay frogs?
	Lots of those frogs are against mass migration.
	I'm frogophobic.
	Okay, so Josie Angels.
	Would childhood trauma survivors seek caffeine to balance the threat assessment level with their physiology?
	Coffee and self-help groups go hand in hand, eh?
	That's very astute.
	But yeah, that is true, that if you actually have a sort of unhealthy perception of threat around you, if you're really anxious, this sounds paradoxical because coffee can increase anxiety, but if you're anxious of fretting...
	So it's not cut and dry.
	Right.
	And we have two more.
	Josie Angel says again, thank you.
	Welcome back.
	As always, your segments are the best.
	Thank you very much.
	As a childhood trauma survivor now, I know why I love my coffee.
	To be fair, I do have a coffee every morning, but that's just because I'm not a morning person, more than anything.
	And just a quick one by Ewan Baker.
	Stelios, I hear that fish likes to freeze when stalking its prey.
	I'm amazed you haven't got tired of those quotes by now.
	I never get tired of it.
	Sorry for going on a bit long as well.
	Let's go to Ferasa's segment.
	Alright, thank you very much.
	So in this segment, we're going to be talking about the Equalities Act in action or the Equality Act actually in action and Some of its implications and how it's been working and affecting us in real life now the
	And if you're wondering what indirect discrimination means, in practice it means that where the outcomes differ by different protected groups, that is indirect indiscrimination.
	And the case law has been changing on this in a way that's been Quite dangerous, I think.
	Pushing towards the imposition of absolute equality, regardless of merit, qualifications, or anything as mundane as passing exams or doing harder work.
	So let's sort of go into this a little bit.
	The Act applies to pretty much every aspect of life in Britain.
	So it includes clubs and associations, it includes work, it includes the government.
	The government is given, the whole civil service is given a statutory responsibility to make sure that inequality in all forms is completely eliminated.
	And the standard against which this is measured is how are white British people performing?
	So if you say, for example, that Britain is not structurally racist because different kinds of Asian groups outperform white British, that's not considered acceptable.
	The metric, and you can see that from some of the consultations that the government is undergoing, the metric is how are white British people performing.
	So this effectively acts, if I could borrow a term from 2015 feminism, as a glass ceiling for white people, you know, native British people in our own country, effectively.
	If you were to put hydraulics on the ceiling and get it to press everybody downwards, then yes, that would be correct.
	Yeah, it's even worse than that.
	It's not a ceiling.
	It's more of a compression effect.
	It's like a sort of jungle temple trap style thing.
	So here you see explained in government documents that are on the Parliament's website trying to sort of show what this act is all about.
	Eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimization and any other conduct that is prohibited by the act.
	Victimization.
	Who knows what that means?
	And what it means for one individual will differ from what it means for another.
	Very subjective.
	Very subjective.
	What it means for one group will differ completely to another.
	Advanced equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who don't.
	The persons who don't, in case you're wondering, is white men.
	Everybody else is considered as having a protected characteristic.
	So being a woman is a protected characteristic.
	Being not straight is a protected characteristic.
	Being of a different ethnicity, protected.
	Having a disability, protected.
	So the way that this works is really highly selective and is not informed really by an objective and comprehensive look at the evidence.
	It's informed fundamentally by we've picked on a group, we want to raise everybody else's level to them or lower them to everybody else's level.
	Well, it's similar to sort of, I hate to bring it up because it's beating a dead horse, but it's very similar to how communism operates, isn't it?
	In that rather than raising everyone's standard of living to, you know, the standards of capitalism, it lowered them all so they were equally impoverished.
	A leveling down.
	Yes.
	Hold on.
	This one here is my favorite.
	One of the objectives is foster good relations between persons who share irrelevant protected characteristics and persons who don't.
	As in, I will kick you and you will smile.
	This violates freedom of assembly.
	It tells you you need to engage in relations that are good and we.
	We are the arbiters of what's a good relation.
	Exactly.
	So you and I might have what I think is a good relation.
	You think differently.
	You could sue me.
	But for us, isn't it the case that they want to be left alone?
	I'm an ethnic minority.
	I'm an ethnic minority.
	Say again?
	I thought that people wanted to be left alone.
	No, no, no.
	Absolutely not.
	They want to get in your face and you have to smile and you have to like it.
	This is obviously not the role.
	It's not about leaving anybody alone.
	It's absolutely not.
	It's not the role of government.
	Be telling people who they should and shouldn't be affiliating with.
	You know, it's like good relations.
	I'm sorry you're displaying bad relations, and therefore you could be sued under the Act.
	So, I've thought of a loophole.
	Go on.
	So, say you hypothetically get accused of racism, and in this line of work it's not so difficult to imagine.
	Then you could say, well, actually, I still have good relations with the person.
	I'm just good-heartedly accusing them of being moral degenerate.
	Yeah, but they won't accept this.
	You could say, I have lesbian friends, and they're fine with me, but the state doesn't want them to be fine with me.
	The state is very concerned about lesbians hating Stelios.
	Yeah, they say, well, probably it's more to do with the lesbians.
	So there's...
	And according to case law, according to the Court of Appeals, it is the intention of Parliament, these considerations are now to be placed at the center of formulation of policy by all public authorities, side by side with all other pressing circumstances.
	That's absurd that that's written in that way as well.
	That's so strong.
	Exactly.
	So, if your concern is flooding, fighting fire, policing, the safety of children, healthcare, equality is equal to those statutory duties.
	That's absolute nonsense.
	If not exceeds it, right?
	In practice, it exceeds it.
	In practice, because of the risk of litigation, But you can be sued, as we are going to discuss in a moment, over this stuff.
	And the lawsuits are simply absurd.
	Would I be able to say something ever so quick before we get going?
	this sort of legislation I've come to realise over the years that I've come to the opinion that this might be controversial, I don't know, that if a nation doesn't discriminate in favour of its dominant or native population, then it will slowly become eroded over time and then cease to be a nation.
	We've seen this throughout all of human history as far as I'm concerned, and although the sort of fair play liberal in me that still exists, sort of feels like that's a...
	At the same time, if it's for the survival of my peoples, then it's a necessary evil.
	Well, let me add on to that.
	The court in question, the court of appeal continues, the judge continues, advanced consideration has to be given to these issues.
	They have to be an integral part of the mechanisms of government.
	There is a need for a conscious approach and the duty must be exercised in substance with rigor and with an open mind.
	So there is...
	I know.
	A decision maker is likely to be in difficulties of his or her subsequent decision is challenged.
	And what answer is this?
	I know, I know, but this is...
	A court of appeal case.
	This isn't some junior tribunal judge who's sort of opining.
	This is coming from the highest legal authorities in the United Kingdom.
	And it's being imposed in this way.
	And it's an ideological test.
	It's not a test of merit, a test of what do you think?
	What did you do wrong?
	No, no.
	It's a complete ideological test.
	And it's also turning what used to be our values on their head as well.
	Because in the 19th century, we had the right idea of if you feel like you've been hard done by and things are unequal and you see people getting ahead, well, you know, pull yourself up by your bootstraps and do something about it.
	Yes.
	You know, stop whinging.
	Actually make your life better.
	Yep.
	Now, the minister in charge of race and ethnic relations and questions of race and ethnicity is this lady here, Seema Malhotra.
	During Brexit, her huge concern was to write to Theresa May and complain that Britain's delegation to negotiate Brexit had only 11% women, whereas the EU's delegation had 50% women.
	This was her take on Brexit, that the British delegation was bad because it didn't have enough women in it.
	I think basically all this woke stuff comes with the tyranny of the minority because we have all sorts of politicians or politician-adjacent people who are trying to make a calculation about the electorate and they say, well, I will appeal to this, to group X, Y, or Z. Yep.
	Yeah, and it's nonsense.
	And in terms of favoring your own people over strangers, This particular minister, who's also the migration minister, had said that she would never report an illegal migrant and that she wouldn't do anything about illegal migration.
	She's given the portfolio of migration, by the way.
	That's, as far as I'm concerned, treasonous.
	Yep.
	Also, it suggests that somehow being deported is the greatest crime of all, which it isn't.
	You've got to go back to where you grew up.
	Yeah, there's a certain absurdity to the whole discourse about this stuff, and nothing is more absurd than having somebody who is a foreigner in charge of another country's international relations and migration policy.
	I wanted to highlight a couple of cases that sort of emanate from this issue.
	We have here on this website a case where a woman takes her employer to court because after maternity leave she wanted to be able to work from home.
	Her employer said, no, come on, you can't work from home, you have to show up in the office.
	This was found to be a discrimination case, and she successfully sued, and she ended up receiving an award from the tribunal on the back of this.
	So I've actually heard stuff from the sort of non-political professional world that when people are...
	And normally a company will just say, okay, we can't be bothered with the suit, we'll pay you some money to shut up, basically.
	And people have cottoned on to this, and it's actually really widespread, but no one's really talking about it.
	It's racism, it's harassment, it's one thing or the other.
	People will see how the law works, and employers will calculate, often, that it's cheaper to pay now a small amount than to take the risk of going to court and pay a stupendous amount.
	It all boils down to...
	And I just wanted to follow up on that.
	You had the previous case that I mentioned where a woman sued because she was told to come back and work from the office, and she said, no, no, no, no.
	There was a different story.
	There was a policewoman who was pregnant.
	The police did what they're meant to do, which is to conduct some kind of risk assessment, and said, you can't be out pregnant on the street trying to tackle dangerous criminals.
	What we want you to do is to go to a desk-based job.
	Where you were in the crime management hub, whatever that is.
	I hope it's not them managing crime, but, you know, whatever that is.
	But it's essentially a desk job where she does research and supports police for the duration of her pregnancy.
	The courts then found that this is sex discrimination.
	It's the most reasonable thing in the world.
	So think about it this way.
	If she had been told to continue with her duties and, God forbid, she had lost her baby, She would have had grounds to sue on sex discrimination.
	If she was protected and told to get off the street for your own safety, you're pregnant, if some random criminal tries to tackle you or you have to fight somebody during an arrest, you'll be put at risk.
	That's also sex discrimination.
	But she's not lost her job.
	If you don't.
	No, no.
	She's just changed role.
	She apparently found a doctor who told her that she was fit to carry out her regular role.
	I don't know how she did that.
	Because honestly, like, there's a reason why society is geared towards the protection of pregnant women.
	And that's exactly how it should be.
	She found a doctor that said, ah, she didn't need that protection.
	And then she was able to use that to file a suit saying, no, she needed it.
	And you had a previous case where being told, come and work from the office, that's also discrimination.
	So essentially, it's a position where anything you do can be construed as discrimination.
	And just to add insult to injury or soul to the wounds, I don't know what it is, there was another case where a lady sued Starbucks because her job was to enter information into a computer.
	She was doing it incorrectly.
	They thought it was fraud.
	She said, no, I'm dyslexic.
	laughs
	what a weird explanation so they they force It's okay, it's okay.
	It's all nonsense.
	All of this creates a framework that is entirely arbitrary in a sense.
	I know we have sometimes...
	This is my iron law of politics, that most of it is just resource extraction and everything else is just window dressing.
	You're going to love this one.
	Oh, wonderful.
	A guy walks into a brewery.
	A guy walks into a bar.
	Setting up for a joke here.
	A brewery.
	They have a special offer.
	You can buy this bottle of pink IPA, speaking to your IPA issue, for one pound less if you're a woman.
	He says, I want to buy it for one pound less.
	They say, no, you're a man.
	Then he says, actually, I identify as a woman.
	And they were like, you know what?
	Fine.
	Here you go.
	You don't have to pay the full price.
	Pay just four quid.
	He then sues anyway.
	and gets a thousand pounds for sex discrimination because the judge believed that he must have felt humiliated by saying that he identifies as a woman.
	So the amount of I respect this one actually.
	Eddie?
	There's a certain amount of just...
	I mean, you should be punished if you're doing this sort of thing anyway.
	Like, oh, we're going to sell stuff to women for a different price.
	Like, really?
	Look, if you want to do a promotion, do a promotion.
	If a bar has a policy that women pay less of a cover charge or no cover charge, I don't care.
	it doesn't bother me but just the sort of random gratuitousness of it He said no.
	Then he said, well, I identify as a woman.
	Then that wasn't good enough, and he still sued them anyway.
	It's just damned if you do, damned if you don't.
	And you see this repeating across the board, and you see that it is having a very real impact on businesses.
	So here we have next a retail chain, which, anyway, it's a retail chain.
	They got sued.
	Because their retail staff, who stand in air-conditioned rooms and say, would you like to try this on, were getting paid less than their warehouse staff.
	Now, their retail staff are 70-something percent women.
	Their warehouse staff are 47 percent women.
	So almost half.
	The warehouse job is back-breaking, much more demanding.
	You're working with machinery, you're at much higher risk of injury.
	You're probably not working in air conditioning.
	There's also probably the fact that if you're in a warehouse, you probably need things like heavy machinery qualifications.
	To operate a forklift, for example, you need a qualification to do that.
	Whereas to work in Next, you don't need any qualifications.
	In fact, it's probably helpful.
	So, Next said we were just paying market rates.
	The tribunal said that their pay policy was driven by an effort to cut costs and boost profits and that there was no intent to discriminate and that there was no direct discrimination.
	There was no conscious or subconscious gender influence in the way next set pay rates.
	You would read that and you would assume That, oh, the tribunal ruled for them then.
	But, no.
	I like the idea that the board of directors at Next are just like, well, we could make more money, but we're going to pay men more because we just hate women so much that we're going to discriminate against them and take money out of our own pockets.
	Yep.
	So, the retailer failed to demonstrate that lower pay was not the result of discrimination.
	So proving intent in any court proceeding is extremely difficult.
	What do you think?
	How can I prove what you think?
	They found no evidence of intent for discrimination.
	However, they shifted the burden of proof from the claimant to the subject of the lawsuit.
	So you have to prove that you didn't intend to discriminate.
	That's illogical, and that's why I absolutely resent irrationality in politics in this case.
	And this is nothing but irrationality.
	Listen to the rest of the judgment.
	For market forces to be a trump card in this way, as in for you to operate purely based on your fiduciary responsibility to shareholders, as a good capitalist, For market forces to be a trump card in this way would defeat the objective of the legislation, being the Equality Act 2010.
	Lower pay in particular sectors due to indirectly discriminatory practices could then be lawfully sustained in perpetuity.
	As in, we will never arrive to the utopia where everybody is equal in every way.
	Nor is it desirable.
	Congratulations, we've reached the maturity of a four-year-old.
	Exactly.
	Exactly.
	They continue, there must be usually a more compelling business reason for such a rage.
	What's a more compelling business reason than profit maximization?
	Social responsibility.
	Social responsibility, but it's not a business reason.
	But it's not a business reason.
	BlackRock will invest a lot of money in you if you...
	It's absolute unapologetic lunacy.
	They're suing Tesco as well for the same exact reason.
	They're suing Asda, Morrison's Co-op.
	You should actually, if you want to sue someone, this is the company that's suing.
	Because my local Tesco is staffed entirely by Indians and I feel like I'm not represented.
	I want someone who is English in Tesco, please.
	And did they call you a woman with an extra £1,000?
	Not yet, but I'm sure they've thought about it.
	So this is the law firm that's responsible for the string of lawsuits against different companies.
	Their motto is fighting injustice and what have you.
	And then you see...
	It's a very select group of people.
	This is the first page of their partners.
	And to quote Hamza Yusuf, they're all white.
	Second page.
	I mean, you could have shown me these faces in a lineup and I could have told you their profession.
	I've been at this so long now, I can just tell.
	Third page.
	It goes on, it goes on, it goes on.
	I can tell you something out of experience from the university world.
	Most people are white, and the anti-whiteness narrative within the university and the woke narrative within the university is a game.
	Many whites are playing against other whites, especially when they can't compete against them on fairgrounds.
	So if I'm doing kick-ass research… They're going to become representatives of whatever and they're going to get ahead.
	Yep, they will basically...
	And you therefore signal your absolute loyalty to the regime.
	And by doing that, you signal that you're not a threat and that if HR asks you to do certain things with pay and to make sure that they're meeting their quotas, you will comply because you don't have a conscience.
	So this essentially rewards really the worst people in the world.
	And even with all of this, Now, again, I don't understand how racism is endemic when it is white British boys who are the least likely to go to university and when it is really the most equal society I've ever been to as a Middle Easterner.
	I think it's also worth pointing out that if this society were run for white men, why would we be the most likely to contribute to the state and the least likely to take out of it, the most likely to end our own lives, the most likely to be homeless?
	Yep.
	The list goes on.
	If things are run for us, why would we run it this way?
	We're exploiting ourselves, then, aren't we?
	Exactly.
	So the Guardian wanted to celebrate the five-year anniversary of the Black Lives Matter protest and caused by the fentanyl death of George Floyd.
	They are saying that there have been 12 reports into racial inequalities since 1981.
	There have been 600 recommendations and only 200 recommendations have been acted upon, fully acted upon.
	Meaning that the other 400 could be partially or not.
	Or they could just be so fanciful that even Keir Starmer and Cameron and others couldn't act on them.
	They could also be contradictory as well.
	So they're demanding more.
	They're looking at all of this and they're saying, actually, this isn't enough.
	We demand more.
	and we're beginning to see this more.
	Now, Royal Parks, which is responsible for cleaning the walls, They're facing a lawsuit because toilet cleaners that are contracted through a private company are getting less money than cleaners who are fully employed by Royal Parks.
	Welcome to the economy.
	Exactly.
	How it works.
	Exactly.
	Which means that, say, Deliveroo drivers could sue for being paid less than actual restaurant workers.
	You know?
	I mean, the reasoning behind these cases is that the court comes out and says, we view this work as having equal value.
	And, or similar value.
	Similar value and equal value are ridiculously subjective.
	Ridiculously open-ended.
	And the fact that they've submitted to those lawsuits are causing everybody else to start suing.
	And incidentally, this is the reason why Birmingham has gone bankrupt.
	It was over this kind of issue.
	It's become so insane.
	It has been so insane for so long.
	I mean, this is an article from six years ago, that 50 Why?
	Because they made them undertake a core skills assessment.
	And black candidates that took this test passed at 40% the rate of whites.
	It's a test.
	The test doesn't know your race.
	But the difference in outcome was enough for the Home Office to decide, you know what?
	For the civil service to decide, you know what?
	We don't care.
	We're just going to give you a million pounds, go away.
	It's so frustrating on multiple levels.
	On the one hand, it's frustrating that it's another case of black people not realising that the problem is with them and not the world.
	And the second thing is that more money is being extracted from the taxpayer for such ridiculous reasons.
	I'd be happy if it's just like every single person is white British, suck it up and get...
	A lot of right-wingers are saying the otherwise and are saying, no, no, it's not just communists.
	You're just typical anti-communist propaganda.
	All that's nonsense.
	What they're doing is they're pushing forward a radical egalitarianism and they're saying so long as this equality is being achieved.
	People aren't free.
	They're living in unjust circumstances.
	All of it is just I'm pushing a radical egalitarianism, which incidentally is helpful for me politically.
	That's in the mindset of the...
	And actually, inequality is desirable because it means that people are actually achieving something rather than living in complete squalor.
	Then everyone will be equal.
	Yep.
	So here you see this headline from The Guardian.
	Who else?
	Absolutely shameful.
	Ethnicity pay gap persists.
	Okay, how big is it, really?
	Among UK-born workers, black employees had the biggest pay gap, earning 5.6% less than white employees.
	All this over 5%.
	It's maddening that someone from Central Africa, they can't see that them coming from there to Britain, they're not going to be immediately on the same pay scale as them.
	Madness.
	I will say, though, I really think that, to a very large extent, this results from ecophobia.
	And it is people who are from within England.
	Who are frequently saying these are the leftists, basically.
	These are the arguments you need to give forward.
	These are the arguments I'm going to make for you and I'm going to represent you.
	So just keep a kick up of us.
	As we saw with the late day law firm who are, you know, they all look very European and they're the ones who are leading the charge on these lawsuits.
	And then the report continues, it's absolutely shameful that there is this pay gap, and then it says, actually the other ethnic group, which includes Arab and other ethnicities, earned 3.8% more than their white peers.
	So they see this, it in no way contradicts their narrative.
	They don't pause, they don't care.
	It's racism, racism, racism, it's shameful.
	Everybody must be made to receive equal pay to white men, unless, however, In which case, it's okay and we're very near the bottom of the article and we won't even try to address it.
	So, in effect, this legislation is just a way of crushing us?
	More or less.
	More or less.
	It's targeted against you, clearly.
	A government spokesperson said that they would continue to support employers in measuring pay gaps and identify examples of good practice.
	This is part of delivering our Inclusive Britain Action Plan.
	To tackle unjust disparities in employment, education, health and criminal justice.
	I don't know if some racial groups are getting paid more than white men that it's clearly not discrimination.
	But the narrative is that this is all discrimination and you must bend the knee.
	But also some people are so statist in their mindset and they absolutely hate the idea of impersonal distribution.
	Yep.
	And non-centrally planned economic actions.
	Absolutely.
	Well, it's sort of racism of the gaps, isn't it, in that when they don't understand how something works, they just presume the mechanism is racism and actually interrogate other factors such as maybe there's a difference in qualification, maybe it helps if you're fluent in English having grown up here.
	That sort of helps in most lines of work, doesn't it?
	It's absolutely insane.
	And then a Miss Bigham, who was responsible for this report, same last name as a nice lady called Shamima Bigham, said the ethnicity gap could not be closed without entrenched structural inequalities being tackled.
	And you see here that the government is proposing a bill, it's consulting on this bill.
	They want to add to the Equality Act with a race and disability element.
	I went through the time to actually look at the questionnaire and see what it's all about.
	It's all about whether or not they should make companies that have more than 250 people report a breakdown of their ethnicity and a breakdown of pay by ethnicity so that it becomes easier for them to sue.
	The idea is to impose the reporting requirement.
	It's all framed in comparison to white men.
	You can go through.
	It's really not hard to find.
	Equality, race and disability bill.
	Go check it out.
	Look at the consultation.
	Please fill it in and add in a few insults if you want.
	And you see that this is all targeted in a very particular way.
	It's intended to make it easier to sue more companies to make sure that the janitor is getting paid almost as much as the CEO.
	If this isn't communism, I don't know what is.
	Thank you.
	Let's go to the comments.
	Sure.
	Can we scroll down a bit, please?
	Right, so fig...
	The janitors at all next stores must be licking their lips.
	That was presaging what you just said there.
	O-P-H-U-K.
	No, the engaged few, sorry.
	The best way to cause the downfall of this nonsense is to use this DI...
	Come on, you can speak a bit of German.
	Volksgerechts against them.
	Oh, PHEK, didn't we import these people to do the jobs we didn't want to do for money we wouldn't do it for?
	If they now get to sue for highest pay, why shouldn't we deport them and do those jobs ourselves?
	Be fair, I'm serious about reducing inequality.
	I'm just going to do it with aeroplanes.
	And ships.
	And that's a random name, says, missed the first two segments.
	Glad to see Josh again.
	Hello.
	Speaking of which, he called me the...
	It's why I'm late.
	Where's my money?
	Pay up YT.
	That's a joke.
	I'll do it again.
	Right, and before we go to the other comments, we have some videos.
	Let's play them.
	Because you would think that it would be very easy to have some kind of jamming technology that would just interfere with the signal.
	Frustrated with people talking on their phones on a train, a former colleague constructed a jammer at home.
	It was cheap, effective, and utterly illegal.
	Jammers only work for wireless links, and EMPs are relatively easy to harden against.
	Is there any countermeasure against fiber optic drones?
	The keywords there are fiber optic.
	So-called tethered or wire-guided drones cannot be jammed wirelessly and use technology available since the Fritz bombs of the Second World War.
	That's very interesting as always, Alex.
	It's very annoying when people just shout on phones.
	You see, I've gone against my British programming and I say stuff to people now or very passive-aggressively complain about people being stupid in earshot.
	Like, I was going to London and there was a lady playing loud music out of her phone and I turned to my girlfriend and said, do you know what I find really annoying?
	I didn't say when women, that would be a bit targeted.
	When people play music out loud on their phone on public transport, don't you?
	And then she got up and moved away immediately.
	You've got to do it now.
	You've got to tell these people.
	That was a white British lady as well.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Going to bed South Africa style.
	When coming into your house, make sure the electric fence is on.
	Spikes are set.
	Front door is chained.
	Security motion light is activated.
	An interior padlock is set behind the metal doors.
	Then, coming into the house, you want to make sure that your baton The front door is locked and closed.
	And also, the alarm is set.
	Blimey.
	And all of Europe will be South Africa soon enough.
	Thanks, Xerxes King.
	Next one by Steve H. I
	very much enjoyed that.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Is that all of them, I think?
	I think we're on to the written comments.
	Right, so let's go to the comments.
	An honourable mention by Tiny, Release the Kraken.
	Also, liking the full Mediterranean line-up today, lads.
	Nice seeing you back, Josh.
	I'll take it.
	I've got a more Mediterranean complexion.
	Okay, let's go to Daniel Butch's.
	Less than 10 years ago, I would have bet on it just being a drunk driver.
	It's sad that it is no longer the assumption I jumped to.
	Saw the headline of someone covering it last night and I did jump to an attack till I listened to a few minutes of the stream and it sounded like it's not clear.
	Thing is, I bet the people there started attacking the car because they assumed it was an attack, so it was probably made worse because of how many attacks there are and how the authorities downplay it, etc.
	Alex Ogil says, the police and authorities have painted themselves into a corner where they must be racist.
	If the person involved is not white, they must cover it up to prevent outrage and demonstrations.
	If the person is white, then they must say it immediately to stop people assuming.
	Makes no difference.
	Henry Ashman says it's telling that even the BBC have commented on just how quickly the police released the ethnic background and nationality of the person.
	They've arrested.
	It's hard to know whether this is in response to the aftermath of Southpore, like the BBC say, or whether they would have been as quick with a different ethnicity, though.
	Russian Garbage Human Coulter's Law states that the longer it takes the news media to True.
	Arizona Desert Rat says: "Why was the car in the middle of a crowd in the first place?
	It's obvious that the street primarily is full of people and no moving vehicles." That's very true as well.
	Alex Ptolemy says, Right, should we go to comments of yours?
	Sure.
	Do you want to read them?
	Of course.
	Kurt says, Antidepressants are so heavily pushed here in Canada, you are likely to be offered them at the end of any visit to a clinic.
	You'd be lucky to get an appointment in Britain.
	I went in for a knee pain once and was handed four boxes of them along with a box of Viagra and the doctor was visibly upset when I refused them.
	Maybe he was propositioning you, you know.
	Four boxes of antidepressants and Viagra.
	Sounds like a good time.
	Don't do that, though.
	It's bad.
	I'm joking.
	Sophie Liv says, the thing about SSRIs, once you're on them, getting off them is brutal.
	That's true.
	It's the same with any drug that alters your neurochemistry.
	you'll have withdrawal symptoms and it will feel like someone is squeezing your brain.
	I had to spend years slowly reducing my dose and...
	There are many psychologists that actually argue that they should be avoided in most cases except for the most extreme because some of the consequences can be more severe and the thing is clinical psychology is well aware that actually for a lot of people it's not appropriate but the problem is that the prescription hasn't caught up with this understanding.
	But yeah, I tried and failed getting off it completely and is now on the lowest possible dose.
	But the fact that I try to get rid of it, I will always go through a period of depression and clinical anxiety due to withdrawal sucks.
	So yeah, Josh, don't do it.
	Thankfully, I've never been on any antidepressants or anything like that.
	But no, I...
	I hope you're doing alright, Sophie.
	It's not something that anyone should have to put up with and I wish that clinicians were a bit more responsible about it and actually read the literature.
	I'll read two more, two short ones.
	Yeah, of course.
	I know we're a bit over time.
	Theodore Pinnock says, I saw someone remark that the bitterness of American beers is actually more likely simply intentionally done because bitterness is very good for covering up other unpleasant flavours.
	I'm not going to say anything, but...
	However, their IPAs are not one of them.
	Henry Ashman.
	Well, I don't know what a traditional British preference for a pint of bitter pale ale says, given that it predates SSRIs by a couple of centuries.
	It's because ours is different, and it's not actually bitter.
	And it's very rare for us to make a bitter one, because we have pints of bitter already, so there's already a niche for it.
	But nothing about beer.
	All right, on the Equality Act, Tess Diggle says, my father, when he had his business, would not take on women below the age of 45 just to stop the chance of being hit by maternity and having to pay for the replacement staff during maternity.
	These laws actually promote discrimination as there was no way to prove that was why my dad wouldn't interview that demographic.
	Yeah, fair enough.
	Now they're looking at laws that make you report how many people you've interviewed from different racial categories.
	But the wonderful unintended consequence of all of the minorities and women suing is that it incentivizes companies to hire white men again because at least we won't sue.
	They're trying to make them report how they're doing their interviews to avoid that.
	So they're trying to control every aspect of it.
	That's how tyrannical it is.
	Roman observer, That's discrimination.
	Well, yes, and with reason.
	Absolutely.
	Absolutely.
	Would you want to fly your planes?
	Would you want to operate you on surgery?
	I want unqualified people.
	I want to give them a leg up.
	I want my plane to fly into the ocean to give a minority a chance.
	Russian garbage human.
	Firas, are you saying that the only safe bet to hire for work are straight white men?
	Yeah, it's becoming very obvious, really.
	And employers will start noticing.
	And that's why they're putting in reporting on who you're interviewing, to make it harder.
	Right.
	And thank you very much, gentlemen, for being here.
	And thanks, Josh, for coming again.
	That's all right.
	Just like old times.
	I really hope you come and visit us regularly.
	I intend to, if you'll have me.
	So check out his YouTube channel and subscribe if you haven't subscribed already.
	Check out Lotus Eaters and subscribe to them as well.
	Right.
	Okay, so see you everyone tomorrow at 1 p.m.
	Thank you very much.

▲