Lewis Brackpool dissects Canada’s Green Party’s "gender-confused" land acknowledgments, mocking their selective historical apologies while criticizing leftist hypocrisy—pushing progressive policies like wage gaps yet demanding accountability for past actions. He targets Disney/ESPN walkouts over Florida’s "Don’t Say Gay" bill, calling it misrepresented censorship, and Biden’s Supreme Court nominee, who struggled to define "woman" under Senate scrutiny, exposing legal ambiguity. COVID-19’s lasting harm on children—obesity, mental health crises, missed screenings—goes unaddressed, while Home Depot’s "white privilege" shaming policy is labeled racist. Calgary’s mayor seeks injunctions against protests like the "Freedom Walk," framing it as government overreach, and Lewis satirizes transgender debates with absurd analogies ("vegan cat," "skeletal transitioning"), warning of future platform crackdowns. [Automatically generated summary]
Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening if you're in England with Lewis Brackpool, who put on a collared shirt for me.
Thank you, Lewis.
How are you doing today, young man?
I'm very well.
It's good to see you again.
It's great to see you all.
Sorry, my hair's a little wild here.
I was looking down at my phone.
I appreciate you not telling me that I was looking wild.
Of course, we'd like to start off the way we start off every live stream we do together across the pond.
That's with a land acknowledgement, you guys.
I'd like to thank our landlord who owns the building.
I'd like to thank Ezra, who runs the building.
I'd like to thank our operations manager, chief operations manager for keeping everything going.
I'd like to thank Mike in the back for ordering lunch.
So I just want to acknowledge the land that we're on where we pay rent to a building because that's the fashionable thing to do, Lewis.
And Canada's Green Party leader is talking about how the country is still committing genocide.
I'm not sure how that's possible.
But one of the Green Party members, I think it was, who seemed somewhat gender confused, to quote our Keto Guido producer.
Can we play this clip that we're talking about?
This is what inspired me to do a land acknowledgement today.
Let's take a look.
Hello, everyone.
We're here to talk about the agreement between the liberals and the NDP today.
I will start by acknowledging that we are on the unceded territory of the Algonquin and Anishinaabeg peoples and that this country is still currently committing genocide.
Hello everyone.
There we go.
So first of all, the claim, the Ashinabi people is like four different tribes, if I'm not mistaken.
It's multiple tribes and they're saying it was an unceded land.
Of course it's unceded.
They lost a war.
Are you sitting on the unceded like Viking land that you're going to acknowledge?
I'd like to thank Eric the Red.
And if I was in Quebec with my relatives, let's make a land acknowledgement for Eric the Red, who came here from Viking land in the year 600.
And they didn't uncede the land.
We sort of fought for it.
I'd like to, you know, every, I like to call it the viewpoint, almost called you Eric, viewpoint, Lewis, of overturn all wars that I disagree with.
That's basically the viewpoint there.
Overturn all wars I disagree with and give them back to any given tribe or country that may have existed before it.
I'd like to see Ukraine, Ukrainians do a land acknowledgement as former Russian land.
That would go over well, I think, Lewis.
How do you feel about like this whole let's go back and overchange history?
Kind of a beaten topic, I think, maybe since 2016.
What do you think?
Yeah, no, I seem to agree.
It just reminds me of last week when we were talking about Nicola Sturgeon, who, of course, was, of course, apologizing for witches that were, of course, arrested with, of course, no evidence and obviously burnt at the stake on International Women's Day.
Nicola Sturgeon, the Minister of Scotland, came out and said, I'd like to say sorry for all the wrongdoings that happened with witches.
There it is there.
Apologizes to people accused of witchcraft.
Obviously, we spoke about this last week, but there seems to be this very strange trend with liberals at the minute, liking to apologize for things that they don't need to apologize for.
We do not live in these times.
We have not lived in these times.
There is nothing personally, I think, to apologize for.
Well, the tribe she's speaking, or he, um, Elliot Page is speaking about, is, you know, they fought with the French.
They eventually lost to the French, but they fought with other people.
Like, so this is not like we were innocent people and we were invaded and all we wanted was peace.
Like, no, like, that's not how it happens.
Like, there's so many different tribes that were in North America.
Some were cannibals.
Some tortured people.
Some had slaves.
Some were good.
Others expanded.
Others worked with the settlers.
So it's crazy to think, Lewis, that we're still here and that there's a party in Canada that not only shills with the other parties on projects and viewpoints that aren't Green Party viewpoints or have historically not been, they're still going to be like we are the party of like 17-year-old girls who just think you know everything's a seeing everything through rose-colored lenses and the world have no worldly knowledge at all.
Which reminds me that there's also an NDP leader, which is our new Democrat Party, Lewis, for those watching in the UK, further to the left of the Liberals, who has been caught going into the vaccine passport registry or program in Alberta under the Premier's name.
So taking somebody's identity to go into the vaccine passport system, logging in there and pulling out information and won't apologize for it, won't say if he's going to do it again or not.
Says basically the ends justify the means.
And these are two of the further left parties, the Green Party and the NDP.
And this is the type of ideology they have.
Rachel Levine on Twitter Bans00:14:59
It's okay to steal identities and break the law if it benefits us.
And at the same time, we must be super apologetic for everything that happened before our time.
So it's a very weird concentric circle where it's like illegalities, but also love and respect everyone that I had nothing to do with.
And in the middle, it's also like, you know, gender wage gap and all this nonsense.
So it's fun to me to try to pick apart the justification that these people have, which generally and most often comes with a complete lack of knowledge for the thing that they're basing their opinion off of, Lewis.
I want to tell everybody that we're on Rumble, Super You, YouTube, Odyssey, Getter.
Am I missing any?
Rumble, did I say?
I think I've got them all, says the producer.
We're probably on, you know, ICQ, MSN Messenger Live.
I imagine if those were still a thing.
So if you want to get us your super chats, your paid chats, your Rumble rants, your Super You shouts, and your Odyssey hyper chats, I can't believe I remember them all, Lewis.
Send them on there.
We'll read them.
We'll get your comments, your questions, your hate mail, your beard comments, since this is the beard cast.
I want to move on, Lewis.
So many Twitter suspensions and Patreon suspensions coming down the pipe.
One of them I wanted to talk about is Charlie Kirk because his crime, which we all are guilty of, repeatedly misgendering, which I know you're a big fan of.
This was for Rachel Levine, who is a government official.
Can we pull up a story about that, please?
Just so everybody knows who we're talking about.
It's just loading, I'm being told.
You might say when it comes up, no, I'll save that for when it comes up.
But this is a person in the U.S. military who was, I believe, we reviewed as the they worded as the highest-ranking transgender, if you recall that, Lewis.
So we'll go with she for Twitter purposes.
Go ahead, we have this.
Twitter suspends Charlie Kirk for repeatedly misgendering Rachel Levine, says the Daily Beast, which is a you know, a bit of an out there publication.
They get things wrong, they get things right.
No shade there.
The cheat sheet, the top 10 right now.
Take a time out, says Justin something.
Charlie Kirk was suspended by Twitter on Tuesday for an attack on U.S. Assistant Secretary.
That's the title for health.
Rachel Levine.
I don't know why that's not capitalized.
Great job, Daily Beast.
In which he repeatedly misgendered and demanded her, deadnamed her, excuse me.
Deadnaming also, if you didn't know, it's calling a transgender person by their real birth name because often they don't legally change their name.
And that's a violation of Twitter's terms of service.
You can't call somebody by their former name if they're transgender.
I'm not sure if that's a rule against non-transgender people who just like if you called Prince back in the day Prince when he changed his name to a symbol, who knows if that was a violation.
Can we go back to that, please?
Well, Lewis gets hydrated.
A trans woman who transitioned in 2011 spent 54 years as a man.
Unbelievable that Charlie Kirk would say that.
Well, dead naming her.
He transitioned to be a woman in 2011.
Joe Biden appointed Levine to be a four-star admiral, and now USA Today has named Rachel Levine as woman of the year.
The right-wing blowhard sneered.
As you can see, this is very unbiased reporting, and everything's biased, but this is like, he's a blowhard.
Where are the feminists?
A Twitter spokesperson confirmed to the Daily Beast that the platform took enforcement action on the account for violating its hateful conduct rules.
Now, Lewis, if you reached out to Twitter, do you think they'd give you an answer on why somebody was banned?
Targeted misgendering or dead naming of transgender individuals.
We have a picture of Rachel Levine on this article somewhere.
Scrolling, scrolling.
No.
Can you bring up a.
We're going to bring up a picture of Rachel Levine so you know who we're talking about.
You can see all his/slash/her awards.
Lewis.
Do you think there's a re obviously this is against Twitter's terms of service?
I think Charlie Kirk knows that.
We're in the era where getting canceled kind of helps you.
What's your opinion on this?
Is this targeted stuff coming up to an election?
Is this just people seeing an opportunity to be banned on Twitter and don't think it's going to affect their bottom line unless it's positively?
What's your take on this?
Well, there are lots of people, like we said originally, that are being banned.
For example, Babylon Bee had a similar suspension when they said Man of the Year awards in their satire post.
Yep, there we go.
Twitter suspends Babylon Bee for naming Rachel Vee Man of the Year.
And obviously Babylon Bee are a satirical.
Why are you laughing?
Because I'm wondering if our viewers are confused and I want to tell them that it's not the scientist from the Independence Day movie.
So I want to clear that up.
Rachel Levine is not the scientist from Independence Day.
Carry on, Lewis.
Nor is it the dreadlock people from Matrix 2.
That's also not who that is.
Did I get you off track, Lewis?
Yeah, you did.
Briefly.
My apologies.
That's all right, mate.
No worries.
I forgive you.
We're seeing a current trend.
When the news, of course, is to do with this particular subject.
People obviously like to talk about it.
Of course, it needs to be spoken about, in my opinion, especially with Leah Thomas, the swimmer recently, who, of course, won in the women's championship and received the medal for it.
It's striking because Twitter now has its own playground rules and we must follow it.
And if we don't follow it, then of course you're accused of wrongthink and you're sent to their version of a gulag, which is of course suspension.
And you're now starting to see this, and this has been going on for a long, long time.
And you're now starting to see that it is a clear, it is a clear violation of whether it be free speech, free expression.
But on top of that, there's a clear bias against specific politically leaning individuals.
Any excuse you can get to ban someone that they don't like, they'll do.
For example, someone that we know, of course, Steve Laws that I've interviewed before for Rebel, he was, of course, banned this morning.
No warning, no given reason to why his suspension occurred.
And he, of course, has been covering the illegal immigration crisis happening in Britain, where illegal immigrants are coming over from Calais using the English Channel and then settling in Dover before being transferred to the nearest hotel or bussed around, coached around to all the hotels within England.
So him documenting this, of course, Twitter doesn't like.
So any excuse to ban someone now that they accuse of wrongthink is becoming the clear pattern and has been for years.
So it's no surprise to me that there is some sort of window now of opportunity for Twitter to go on some sort of purge or rampage against anyone who they believe is using wrongthink.
Yeah, and this comes at a time where I think they've noticed that the pushback against transgenderism in terms of naming people as a woman who were formerly a man or still have male genitalia, frankly, and men in women's sports, this is the peak of the pushback on it.
So they've suspended him.
Patreon got rid of Sidney Watson last night.
Twitter banned Savannah Hernandez after she had all this viral coverage from the Leah Thomas events.
Now they use different means to ban them.
Obviously, Charlie Kirk is dead naming.
Savannah Hernandez is circumventing a previous ban.
But this stuff wasn't a problem until they started saying this stuff.
I'm sure so many people do things that are violating Twitter's terms of service all the time and people who have big names, but they just wait for the opportunity to do it when it benefits them most.
And this is the time I think that they've identified the powers that be, let's say, that they're getting the highest amount of pushback ever on this sort of topic.
Nobody cares, and we'll get to Disney next.
Nobody cares that Disney's boycotting things.
Nobody cares that ESPN staging a walkout during a 44-4 women's basketball game.
Nobody cares that, what am I saying here?
Nobody cares that Leah Thomas is saying that he's a woman, so much so that he threw the last two races, in my opinion, came in last and fifth, still fifth fastest in the country, if you can believe it.
Before that, the only person he's lost to was another transgender person.
So the backlash on these topics is at an all-time high, and I think people are starting to recognize that.
And whether that's not, whether that's Twitter, you know, directors saying, let's clamp down on this, or people that work at Twitter and Disney saying, people are dying, which of course isn't true for these reasons.
We're getting erased from history.
Let's fight back harder than ever.
And because we control the buttons on Twitter and Facebook, they're going to start pressing the buttons harder and looking for these people.
I think that's what's going on here.
Now, the apologizing side, that's going to happen from people.
And I'm glad it's not happening from people like Charlie Kirk or Savannah Hernandez.
But there will be politicians like our very own people in Canada.
Aaron O'Toole, former conservative leader who said, let's stop biphobia last year, and current sitting member of parliament, Michelle Rempel-Garner, who talked about the gender pay gap and all this white male fragility in her party.
These people will always apologize.
And even though they're supposed to be sitting in conservative territories and supposed to be standing their ground, they're still going to go and apologize to the people that hate them, the people that want to put them in jail, the people that want to ban them from Twitter, et cetera, et cetera.
And it's this pandering that will never work.
And I think they're seeing somewhat of a pushback here and a blowback from people not backing down.
Ron DeSantis, Charlie Kirk, all these people, they're not backing down.
They're saying, go ahead and ban me, see what happens.
And they don't like that.
They don't like that there's a bit of a power struggle here because they've had the power, Lewis, probably for about four or five years now, where everybody's just like, oh, I'm so sorry.
Oh, we need to apologize.
And I could have said things better.
Candace Owens is another person who refuses to apologize for saying things about Ukraine, about transgenders.
I'm sure she's going to be banned from something soon.
But when the star power is big, in the case of Charlie Kirk or even the governor of Florida, there's not much they can do if you just say no.
I mean, imagine if Dennis Rodman apologized for things in the 90s, kicked a guy in the groin, a cameraman in the groin, went to an NBA Finals game, hungover from Las Vegas.
Imagine if he apologized.
I mean, he could have, but he didn't, but he's winning NBA championships with Michael Jordan.
So when you have the star power and the influence, Kid Rock is another person that I just watched an interview with Tucker Carlson.
When you have this power, Lewis, which you undoubtedly have, you don't have to apologize, and you can keep going and stand your ground on things.
And I wish more politicians could because you're not going to get kicked out of office.
You're not going to get impeached somehow for misgendering somebody.
And I don't think they can, I think they've set the standard now where you can't kick a politician off social media just because you don't like their opinions.
But when they're out of office, you're going to ban them immediately.
I think to add as well, Andrew, I mean, you talk about, you talk about private companies can do what they like, you know, but it's difficult to justify that with a platform like Twitter, which is basically owned, of course, and coincides with platforms such as Google, who own Apple Pay and Apple Store and everything like that.
So they're all in cahoots.
They have their own agenda.
They have their own way of thinking or what they believe to be wrong thing.
So if you want to, of course, because people say, oh, it's a private business, it's a private enterprise.
They can do what they like.
They have their own rules.
It's their own playground.
If you thrive on the free market, then why don't you set up your own business?
And it's like, yeah, sure, good point.
But if you were to set up your own business, for example, a social media account, you are constrained to Google's or Apple's or rules.
They're playground rules still.
And they're all in cahoots.
So that argument, I think, is so redundant now, where it's to the point where these oligarchs cannot, they have so much massive influence on social media and other platforms that it's basically not impossible,
of course, but to keep up with competitors such as Facebook, Instagram, or Meta, Twitter, it makes it increasingly difficult to keep up in the competition when all the competitions are in cahoots.
So I don't know what you think, but I think that that argument, it's a private business, sure, it's correct, but it's kind of redundant in a way.
I think moving forward, I think two things are going to happen.
One, if anybody's watching who is wealthy or has the ability to make their own company, I recommend you start getting into some sort of business that's going to be an alternate banking system, an alternate, you know, electronic funds transfer system, and an alternate system for, I want to say, basically payment methods is what I'm getting at.
Because let's take Charlie Kirk as an example.
They say he's giving hate speech and, you know, and dead naming everything.
I'm sure it's not far behind that Apple Pay is going to say, we don't want you as a customer.
Sidney Watson, you're banned from Patreon for the stupid reasons like perpetuating hate.
And basically, because she did the same thing.
She talked about the woman of the year, the man of the year, not on Patreon's platform.
And they said like they've done to people like Sargon of Akkad, we don't want you on here just based on what you said on other platforms, which of course makes no sense business-wise.
Big Creators Jump Ship00:03:04
It's just a virtue signal.
There it is.
And if you scroll down, we welcome impassioned viewpoints and it says, creators to propagate negative stereotypes or segregational content towards a protected community.
Because you are funding that type of content on your Patreon campaign, your page has been removed.
So that's the new stance is you're getting money that's funding your content that's hateful.
So Chase Bank in America has already taken people off of their membership, taking their bank account away from them because they don't like their opinions.
We're seeing that happen for different banks where they have this new scoring system, which is basically a social scoring system.
They don't want to deal with anybody who's controversial.
So people are going to need alternate ways to bank and to transfer money and for payment methods.
Because I'm sure it's not far behind.
If Apple Pay and Google Pay say, we don't like you, you can't use us.
Then what's the interact or the debit company?
How far behind are they?
How far are internet service providers like Rot here Rogers or Bell Media?
How far away are they from saying, you can't have internet because we don't like you?
So that's the first thing.
The second thing, regarding your question of whether or not it's free speech, I think that's what's going to happen there is they're going to take it too far.
Charlie Kirk, Sidney Watson, Donald Trump, and all these celebrities, Kid Rock, and them taking down a Nelk podcast, for example, they're going to take it too far.
And when it's going to get too far, then something's going to happen where really big creators are going to start jumping ship.
Really big platforms are going to start jumping ship to Rumble or to Super U and Odyssey where we are on.
And it's going to take such a huge indent, such a huge bite out of it.
And maybe it'll be Spotify too.
Maybe Joe Rogan will have to leave there.
But once giant names start leaving places and they have such a significant pop culture impact like the Joe Rogan's and the Nelk Boys have, that they're going to have to say, wait a minute, we're going to have to bring in somebody new in these corporations that's going to say, let's dial it back.
We can't be kicking everybody off our platform.
We're losing too much money to the competition.
And we're going to have to start letting people on again.
So that would be the reasonable and logical thing to do if they take it too far.
Or they're so far down the hole.
They're so far in bed with the governments and the giant corporations that they just keep digging this hole deeper and deeper.
And they're going to say, you know, right now, let's say they own a 90% market share.
They're willing to go down to 70 or 75% for a while just to keep this charade going, just to keep the transgender stuff going, just to keep the hate speech stuff going.
Because, Lewis, I think the captains of that ship are happy to let the, you know, the passengers and the crew go down the ship and they're going to secretly jump off.
If YouTube goes down or Twitter goes down, the owners are going to say, well, we stand with the trans community and we stand with the people who are against anti-hate.
And then they're going to sell off their stuff and they're going to sneak away while that platform crumbles and they're going to start their new thing.
Boris's Red Box00:03:49
And we have a story here, if we want to pull it up, about Boris Johnson and WhatsApp.
He's sending sensitive government material again on WhatsApp.
And you informed me and reminded me.
I don't know what he's carrying there.
What's he carrying?
A lunch pail?
That is, no, that is the red box.
So you're going to have to tell us about what that is.
So the red box is what ministers use in the British government and the British monarch.
It's basically carry around government documents.
So it's a pretty big deal.
It's a big tradition.
Oh, my God.
That makes you such a target.
Yeah, I know, right?
It's like, I forgot what they call G4S or whatever when they go into like a Western union.
They're wearing like wrong.
And they go in and they get out all the money and stuff like that and put it in the back of a van.
That's fun.
Yeah.
But this is quite interesting.
So Boris Johnson gets summaries of sensitive government material via WhatsApp.
Now, it's quite funny because we saw, I think, some WhatsApp messages were leaked, I believe, from last year about some kerfuffle within his cabinet.
And he's made group chats, of course.
I don't know if it's him that's made it perfect, you know, someone, but he's got group chats of everyone from his cabinet office.
And they all speak in there and talk about sensitive subjects like this.
And of course, this is to do with, of course, the very private and sensitive governmental documents.
I don't know if we can pull that article back up and I can read a little bit from it.
But I've got here.
So it says, Boris Johnson gets details of vital government business sent to him via WhatsApp.
Court papers have revealed.
The material from the prime minister's ministerial red box is sent to his far for administrative ease, officials say.
Let's not break the rules, apparently.
But campaigners are challenging government by WhatsApp in the high court and says it's a security risk, which is security risk, it's a high security risk.
They claim the use of the in-secure apps and message deletion by ministers and officials is rampant.
So that's a bit mad.
I was hoping that the red box would be a 1993 cell phone in a box and they just never got rid of it.
The presidential phone or the prime ministerial phone.
Hello, this is Boris.
There it is, the accent.
Love it, mate.
Well, WhatsApp is not completely secure.
And when they change their terms of service, whereas basically we can read and take all your stuff, a lot of people jump ship to Telegram and Signal.
And that's kind of my point with the other things.
If Twitter takes it too far and loses its central message of it, essentially what it's about is that you can speak to each other and get information, then people are going to leave to getter or true social or everything else.
So just like WhatsApp, which was the secure, like, you know, private platform where you can send and receive messages, just like that lost its primary focus and made people jump ship.
I think that's what's going to happen for other people.
If YouTube is no longer the place where you can, you know, start a channel and possibly get rich and popular off of it and do what you want for the rest of your life, then people are going to leave.
It also happened with the search engine DuckDuckGo.
They lost their primary focus of being a free search engine that doesn't censor.
And now they're like, oh, we're going to censor that Russian misinformation.
And it happened with Firefox, which was, we're all about security and about people being able to do what they want on their platform.
Start Teaching Gay00:05:36
Oh, actually, we're going to be fact-checking your sources and downranking them.
And it always happens that way.
And just like I said with Twitter, how somebody's going to jump ship and leave, the WhatsApp guy went and helped create Signal and Elon Musk promoted it.
The Firefox person left there and created Brave Browser.
So it happens with basically everything.
Patreon became too political.
Dave Rubin created locals and now it's huge.
So that's what's going to happen.
And you just have to keep it so that these things do not get built up the same way.
Because when they get built up the same way, just like Facebook and Twitter, they all eventually fall.
And it starts with the advertising, Lewis.
It always starts with the ads.
Never forget that.
Once Coca-Cola gets on there and we'll get to them, things start to go downhill.
I do want to say that we should show what we were talking about with Disney.
The employees in California headquarters staged a walkout.
So ESPN's owned by Disney.
That's why I was mentioning that they were staging a walkout and they were saying, we stand with such and such.
And we read off this piece of paper that we don't understand.
So do we have a video of this from the classic account of libs of TikTok?
Go ahead.
So how many people do we need to keep God here?
200.
So of course we're in California, so we're all going to be masked and nobody really knows what they're talking about.
But we have, let's say, 500 people, we'll give an estimate here.
I don't know how many it is, but they're saying say gay, say gay.
Well, then you would ask them, well, what do you mean?
What do you mean by that?
Well, then they would say, well, there's a bill in Florida, Lewis, that's called the Don't Say Gay Bill, and they don't want people to talk about being gay.
Completely false.
So ESPN people, Sally at the front there, girl in her crazy stupid outfit, guy who wore two tones of blue, they all have no idea.
They're saying say gay.
They're marching against this bill.
Why are they marching against a bill, Lewis?
Because they don't want people and children from kindergarten and grade three to be taught sex ed and particularly sex ed that includes gender transitioning and transgenderism and gender identity.
Why are you fighting for that?
Why do you need to talk about that?
I don't understand, Lewis.
You need this to be taught because a fraction of the population is into it?
Because where does that end?
And here's my reasoning on this.
We're going to talk about something that's less than 1%.
Don't laugh, Lewis.
Less than 1% of people.
What else do we need to talk about then?
Okay, let's start teaching the kids about furries.
Why not?
Let's start teaching them about the people who like to choke themselves, David Carradine.
What else do we not teach them about?
If we have to teach them about something that's such a fraction of the population and that it's mandatory for five-year-olds to eight-year-olds to learn about, what else are we not teaching about?
Like, what stops it?
What's the criteria for teaching children about a sexual orientation or sexual identity?
What's the criteria that has to be filled here?
That like 100,000 people adhere to it.
Now we got to start teaching about like cartoon, like anime stuff.
We got to start teaching them, and I mean like the pornography stuff.
We got to start teaching them about everything.
Why?
Why would an adult fight for that?
Why would an adult want to teach a child that?
It has to be because you want to promote that and you want that to be, you know, a thing that becomes, you know, the norm.
You could have maybe a teacher somewhere that's just like, well, I have transgender friends and I just want to teach them about it so the kids that are, the kids are aware, so they're not weirded out by it.
The kids are going to be weirded out by it.
I'm sorry, because it's an irregular thing.
So, no matter what it is, if it's a person dressing up as my little pony, or a barony, if you will, Lewis, or a person dressing up as a cartoon character, the child's going to be weirded out by it because this is an irregular sexual or gender orientation.
I'm not saying adults can't do it, and I'm not saying it should be illegal.
What I'm saying is 99% of people aren't going to be doing it.
So, that's the argument for a lot of this stuff.
And most of the people protesting just don't understand that.
They hear don't say gay, and I talked about this on my show yesterday, which is coming out tomorrow night with Melissa Tate.
They hear that and they just run with it, just like LeBron James ran with election suppression and voter suppression in Atlanta, which caused the Major League Baseball All-Star Game to be pulled out and businesses to try to pull out.
And Coca-Cola didn't pull out because they're from Atlanta, but you know what I'm saying?
Like, you get these ideas of things in your head, and as long as it sounds good or bad, that's all I need to hear.
And all of a sudden, you have the energy to protest against it vehemently, but you won't actually read it, Lewis.
Yeah, well, the best analogy I've heard is: imagine your neighbor came up to you and said, I've got a vegan cat.
Clearly, the cat isn't vegan.
You just know someone's pulling the strings and making them and forcing them to act a certain way.
And that's all it is.
It's a type of indoctrination.
Let kids just be children.
Let kids be kids.
You know, it's just unbelievable.
Why?
Why is it even necessary?
Kids, bless them.
They're pure, young wow, stealing content from Blair White from a oppressed transgender woman, let's say.
Yeah.
Well, this is perfect.
I think this is probably where I got it from.
Indoctrination and Definitions00:15:59
There you go.
Blair White.
But yeah, well, exactly.
And, you know, kids are pure.
They don't need to learn about any of this stuff at all when they're children crying out loud.
I mean, I can't believe this is even controversial to say this.
It's unbelievable.
Just let kids be kids.
It's basically turning every teacher into Mr. Garrison from South Park who brings in his sex slave to the grade four class and they're forced to learn about it and they think it's incredibly weird.
We don't need to bring up a picture of that, I don't think.
But we could.
Lewis, on this beat, we've got a new Supreme Court justice who was nominated by Joe Biden and, you know, had to be a black woman.
Qualifications didn't matter, or maybe they are secondary, but his first qualification was a black woman.
And it's fine if a black woman is a Supreme Court justice because I know, you know, Canada Land or something is going to clip this and be like, oh my God.
But it's fine if that's who it is, if their qualifications are good.
But to make it a race-based thing from the get-go is very strange.
I'm going to say at least three-quarters of people are going to find it strange that you're trying to qualify somebody based on their race first.
But she's having a very hard time answering some of the tough questions, and they're not actually that tough.
So we've got two questions that have been asked by Senator Rick Scott and I think Senator Marshall Blackburn.
Senator Hawley as well asked a question, but let's go to the first one here.
Blackburn is asking the potential justice here: can you provide a definition of the word woman?
So let's see how she answers that.
Can you provide a definition for the word woman?
Can I provide a definition?
Yeah.
I can't.
You can't?
Not in this context.
Not in biology.
Can you provide a definition?
What is a woman?
I guess that's one step above the person on Dr. Phil who is just like, well, I can't answer that.
Everybody's definition of a woman is different.
Oh, God.
But do you see where that do you see where this is going?
It's the reason why I think the senator is asking this, it's because this person is going to be making monumental decisions on these hot, very hot cultural issues and topics.
Because this is going to eventually come to know, you know, somebody's going to have to decide on this, whether transgender people are allowed in women's sports, whether they're allowed in bathrooms or something like that.
Whether, you know, what we're deciding legally is a man or a woman, which of course is the regular definition as it stands.
But this person's going to be in position to decide this for the entire country moving forward, and then it'll have to be overturned at some point in history in order for it to go back.
So if she can't give you a definition of what a woman is, and she says, I'm not a biologist, that kind of tells you that she doesn't want to have to give a definition of a woman.
You could say, well, you know, and it wouldn't have to be some sort of dictionary definition for people to say, okay, that's fine.
But what you're going to have here is millions, possibly hundreds of millions of Americans be like, well, why can't she just answer the question?
Something like, you know, a person with a vagina, a person who can give birth to a child, at least, a person with ovaries, a person with, you know, more estrogen than testosterone.
She could have given just a very basic answer and framed it in a way where she says, well, you know, I'm not a biologist, but this is what I believe a woman to be, a biological woman, blah, blah, blah.
But she doesn't want to do that because even now, the highest court in the land is so political that you have to ask these questions, I think, Louis.
I think you have to know whether or not this person is actually going to enact the law as it's based on the Constitution, or are you going to blow with the wind like a kite flyer and just be like, well, I don't think it's a birth-giving person and they're chest feeding and all these different things.
Do you understand where I'm coming?
Do you think I'm right about where this person is probably coming from, this senator?
Yeah, I mean, it's pretty insulting, really.
And I don't think someone who works in the Supreme Court that can't even define a woman, I don't know, doesn't seem pretty competent to be working for the Supreme Court if they can't even define one.
That's just my opinion, though.
She could have just said adult human female.
She could have just said that and then moved on.
That sounds pretty good.
Yeah, that's literally it.
That's the baseline definition.
But no, clearly not.
Clearly, it's a struggle for these people who obviously sit on the liberal side.
And it's unbelievable to watch, really.
I mean, can you imagine being told, being a man, Andrew, is just measured now by a feeling.
Nothing more.
It's got nothing to do with your bone structure.
It has nothing to do with muscle mass.
It has nothing to do with your hormones.
It has nothing to do with your DNA.
Once, let's say if we go to a site, an archaeological site, and dig up bones in a thousand years, and we can determine whether it's male or female, right?
That goes out the window completely.
So, yeah, I think it's pretty insulting, to be fair.
Well, people are going to have to get, I guess, like bone tattoos.
You're going to have to engrave in your bones your pronouns.
This hurts, but it's worth it so that in 2,000 years, people are going to know what gender identified as.
Adult human female, though, I think that's a good podcast name.
I'm going to have to tell a producer, Olivia, she needs to start that podcast called that adult human female.
Second clip for Judge Jackson, Senator Rick Scott asking, he's commenting on sexual predators.
Can you find the question that she was asked about one of the cases?
I believe it was from Senator Hawley.
You can probably type into Twitter videos.
Yeah, that one.
Okay, let's play that one where basically they're bringing up a case that she judged on where an 18-year-old, I guess, and this is, I'm not completely sure.
We'll let the clip play for itself instead, actually.
Let's go ahead and say that.
As you said, the guideline was based originally on a statutory scheme and on directives, specific directives by Congress at a time in which more serious child pornography offenders were identified based on the volume, based on the number of photographs that they received in the mail.
And that made totally, total sense before when we didn't have the internet, when we didn't have distribution.
But the way that the guideline is now structured based on that set of circumstances is leading to extreme disparities in the system because it's so easy for people to get volumes of this kind of material now by computers.
So it's not doing the work of differentiating who is a more serious offender in the way that it used to.
So the commission has taken that into account.
And perhaps even more importantly, courts are adjusting their sentences in order to account for the changed circumstances.
I disagree with that from a logic standpoint that, yes, I think people who have done more egregious crimes regarding child pornography or child trafficking should get harsher sentences.
But to say, and I think it's referring to a different case, and that was in the video I was speaking of, Olivia, there's one where the Senator Hawley is asking her about a specific case where it's an 18-year-old and a like a six-year-old or something.
To say that we need to charge people who only have a bit of child porn less harshly, I mean, how minimal is that sentence going to be?
I mean, what, like, I don't understand, Lewis.
I see where she's coming from, I think, where there needs to be a bit of a sliding scale.
But when it comes to that's somebody else's kid, you need to throw the book at them, whether it's 10 years or something.
But the one that they were referring to is that it wasn't, it was a much more lenient sentence and the person got a light sentence.
And I hope we can find that video because it was an 18-year-old and like a 10-year-old or something like that.
And her judgment was that they weren't that far apart in age, therefore it wasn't as much egregious of a crime.
See, that's where I think that the problem can arise when we're saying, oh, if it's only one or two things that they got in the mail, whether it was the 90s or whether it's one or two files now, you can make that argument if you're basing it off of that logic she's saying, which I would disagree with.
I think it's probably best to do it on a case-by-case basis where you can see if it was an accident for somebody.
And I don't even want to say this stuff because this is going to be used against me in some way.
I'm against all of it.
I think that there should be harsh sentencing for anybody who's engaged in something like this because it's gross.
And you have to think about the child and the person's parents, not will this person's life going to be affected.
It's a very tough topic.
And I'm not sure we should even get into it that far.
I think we should probably let the video speak for itself.
I don't know if you want to, how much you want to say on that.
Well, the book just needs to be thrown really full force, is what I say.
I don't personally see nuance with that with in that sort of subject.
I don't think there's much more to really touch upon, really, from my side.
What's the story?
We'll go ahead and go through it then.
She needs to start answering questions, basically.
She's justifying stuff there, and it's a very difficult question, obviously.
So I give her a little bit of leeway on that.
But as far as the actual topic goes, Jared Subway, the person, if they're engaged in this.
So if you get that reference, Jared the Subway guy.
The Telegraph has an article about Sir Chris Witty.
And you're going to have to explain everybody how easy or hard it is to be surred.
That's a knighting, right?
Sird.
That is a knighting.
And you can be knighted for almost anything, right?
Basically, yeah.
Well, Tony Blair's knighted.
So, you know, he's a lizard person.
Yeah, apparently so.
School closure is likely to have caused substantial long-term damage to children.
Now, I think we're still on YouTube, so we have to be careful about the censorship.
But basically, Lewis, and you want to explain this because you're more familiar with the British stories.
Explain to people how they're basically admitting what most people said all along, I feel like.
Sure.
Well, as you can tell by this, by the article saying school closures likely to have caused substantial long-term damage to children, it is referring to the lockdowns.
And of course, now it's all starting to come out.
No apologies, though.
Nowhere to be seen.
It's okay, fair enough.
Yeah, we've got new data to suggest that, of course, it's really affecting children from lots of things, such as I think mostly what the article speaks about is cancer screenings and things like that for children, which was caused, of course, by lockdowns.
And it says, Professor Sir Chris Witty told a conference that many aspects of public health had gone backwards over the last two years, including a significant worsening in childhood obesity.
He said that the evidence suggested there had already been an impact on mental health of children with a rise in eating disorders that said much longer term consequences may yet to be seen.
Sir Chris also said that elderly people had suffered as the result of long periods of isolation as loved ones kept away for fear of infecting them.
Basically admitting what the conspiracy theorists have been saying all along, saying that obviously lockdowns, I don't know how spicy we can get, so I really had to help hold back.
But you know what I was going to say.
But now, of course, the government, the chief medical officer of England, is now coming out and saying, yeah, yeah, yeah, basically, yeah, it's harming children and it's going to substantially harm them in the long run.
And yeah, sure.
He's not saying that you are right.
He's saying I was right.
They'll use lighting and say that, of course, oh, we always thought that.
So, you know, we won't be doing it again.
But there's no sorry.
There's no compensation.
There's no, of course, grievances to families who have, of course, lost loved ones or, of course, have children that are going to be worse off in the long run.
So it's absolutely sickening, really.
Excuse me.
Wow, it sounds like you're coming down with the COVID.
I've hope for two weeks, mate.
It's been lovely.
But of course, it's, of course, been affecting children that much that, of course, the government now will not admit that they are wrong.
Which I think they owe the public, I believe.
They owe the public this apology.
Owe the public some, of course, some transparency, which all that's all people have been asking for for the two years is transparency.
But of course, it waits until the narrative changes to something else maybe a war and now, of course, all this information is starting to come out and people aren't interested anymore.
People aren't, of course.
They sort of look at this article a lot of the time and just go yeah well, you know, I probably always tried yeah yeah, we tried.
But it's the same thing over and over again, of course when, when the narrative shifts to something else, people suddenly become uninterested.
So it's unbelievable how this will just be swept under the rug once again.
But i'm sure, of course um, that more and more people will start to speak out about it at the same time.
So let's hope for some pushback and let's hope for some science, some court, excuse me, some kind of accountability and even maybe even a little apology somewhere.
But um, I doubt that.
Well, it's fascinating to me especially with the mask mandates having just been lifted here that people were so quick to deny all the conspiracy theorists and say we must trust the government and the scientists and the scientist governments and the government scientists, but now, when they're saying the opposite.
It's just like them.
They don't want to admit that they were wrong, just like the government.
Now that the government's saying you don't need the masks, and now that they're saying oh, we were wrong about these lockdowns and everything that doesn't seem to matter to the people, they're so locked into this narrative that they're gonna say oh, even the person that told me the information that i'm following is now wrong for telling me new information, because that would mean that I believed something that was wrong when other people were telling me it was wrong.
It's much easier to continue with this charade and uh, and keep going with masking and keep going with these restrictions for the common citizen, even if the government has actually moved on because the backlash from others is so harsh.
It's easier for them to continue with this so that they don't have to tell, you know this.
Masked Realities00:10:01
They don't have to face this friend that they've disavowed or say that this politician was terrible and that they were killing people.
It's easier to just keep going with like I don't know what you want to.
People use the word psychosis.
Um, if you want to keep going forward with this charade, we'll say, or charade in English, Speak um, it's easier to keep going with that than to say no, I was wrong.
It's the classic principle Skinner meme of, am I so out of touch?
No, it's the children who are wrong.
Because you don't want to admit to yourself that you were duped for a couple years and now they're admitting it to you and you and you still don't want to have to do anything about it.
It's either just go like, eh, nobody's gonna hold a my feet to the fire on this, so let's just continue.
Let's uh, stare at Andrew in Walmart without a mask on.
This is what happened to me Louis, fun little story.
So the mask mandate got lifted on monday tuesday, I was in Walmart 90 of people wearing masks, still probably over that same, with our colleagues here at the office who went to different stores that within the couple days of the mandate being lifted, still 90 of people wearing masks, and I don't think that That a lot of the people even knew the mask mandate was lifted because they didn't announce it.
They announced it a couple weeks ago, but there was no big announcement from the government.
They didn't do a press conference.
They did one text post that didn't even refer to the mask mandate being lifted.
They said, Now that we're rolling back mandates, now is not the time to blah, blah, blah.
You know, don't take your foot off the gas.
We still have a long way to go.
This is because of how great you guys are.
So I don't think a lot of people knew.
But I was walking on opposite aisles of this old lady, and it's probably like five feet apart.
And she's just staring at me, staring at me in shock that I'm not wearing a mask.
Staring at me so hard, Lewis, that she walks her shopping cart right into a display and crashes into the display.
I'm not exaggerating at all.
Crashed so hard that she had to be shocked back because she crashed her cart walking at normal speed into one of the displays.
And I was like, probably shouldn't have been staring, lady.
It was sad.
And then she made sure to avoid avoid us the rest of the time there.
She was in the same aisle.
It's too dangerous.
Some people, you can see, they still have the fear in their eyes.
Some people haven't heard of the mandate being lifted, so they're going to keep wearing it.
Another person asked an Uber driver or whatever Uber Eats or whatever it was why they're still wearing a mask when it's lifted.
And they said, oh, it's just second nature for me.
To that, I say you have been broken by the government, by the state has broken you.
Because I've said all along, Lewis, if you're comfortable wearing a mask, there's no comfortable mask out there.
You've been conditioned to accept it.
You know, like when the times when you were a kid, you were wearing like almost like a ball of clava or something over your mouth, and then it gets so like spitty and dried, and your lips are overly chapped.
You hate it.
And it only takes a certain amount of time for that to happen.
So when you're wearing a mask and you're telling me, oh, it doesn't bother me, or I don't even notice it, it's because you've now been broken almost like an animal, I'm sad to say.
You've been broken and conditioned to not even notice.
Like, if you are going to wear crutches or like a knee brace and be like, I don't even notice it anymore.
Well, a person who doesn't wear one puts on a knee brace, they're going to notice it or starts walking with a cane.
They're going to notice it.
You can't just be like, this is fine.
This is normal.
That's part of the justification of I was wrong about these things.
So I hope that people are going to take it off.
Even the people that are still afraid, maybe they'll get, you know, reintroduced back into society like a dinosaur in Jurassic Park or something, where they need to reintroduce them to the herd.
But it's still very confusing, Lewis.
And I know you've told me recently that nobody's wearing them.
Did you see a transition of time where people had to, you know, get used to seeing people's faces?
I asked a person at a gas station working there because I saw two guys come in and out before I went in wearing masks.
And I was like, let's see what's going on here.
Are they trying to enforce it in there?
Cashier wasn't wearing a mask.
I said, are you happy to be maskless?
And they're like, oh, yes.
Of course they are.
But why are these two dudes, adult men, going into this gas station with a mask alone?
There's nobody else in there.
You're afraid to go in.
Like, help me understand, Lewis.
Was there a transition time for the Brits?
I was going to actually mention that, actually.
But yeah, so, but basically, similar thing happened.
The mask mandate, of course, was dropped.
Obviously, it was a massive announcement over here, unlike what's happening in Canada, clearly.
And yeah, you get on a train, 90%, 99% still wearing masks.
It's almost like they're all grounded children and then their parents, there you go.
You can now go and play outside, and they're kind of, you know, going out.
Well, we still have masks required for public transit here.
And I think that's pretty discriminatory.
You can't afford your own car.
You can't afford your own method of transportation.
So you are punished by the government basically into being like basically into being like a lesser citizen.
Oh, you don't have your own way to transport for transportation.
You've got to cover your face.
Because what these people can do in a city like downtown Toronto, where it's hella packed everywhere, you can get off a train or a bus, which sure might be packed with people, but you can get off there and walk right into the big mall called the Eaton Center, which is going to have thousands of people in it.
And you're going to be standing in line in a store six inches away from somebody and you don't have to wear a mask.
So I think it is a way to punish people by the government.
And they don't want to let go of this little bit of control on people because who are the people that are obeying this?
It's the people who are working class people who probably don't want to own a car in Toronto because it's pointless when you can take something that takes three minutes instead of an hour.
So they're punishing the working class people who have already submitted and they want to keep their control on them because they probably want to bring the stuff back or they just want to see how long they can get away with it from these people and be like, oh, well, you did this thing.
Well, we're going to do it to you next time again, Lewis.
You must remember as well.
I mean, it was two years of just pure, I don't know if I can say this word, conditioning from governments, not just, of course, in Canada and the UK, but in the US as well.
Lots of places in the West, around the world as well.
And of course, you're going to see people, if they're so used to doing something now, you're going to see people almost refuse to believe when things change.
You know, it's this strange type of mental conditioning we're seeing with people where it's almost like they don't want to believe it.
They don't want to believe that things can move on.
We can learn to live with it.
We can learn to just carry on our normal lives like we did.
I think they were so comfortable in the idea that, of course, it was either comfortable or scared.
It's one of the two.
Obviously, you have the middle class people during lockdown where they were just having barbecues and drinks around theirs.
And it was just like a game to that.
It was a nice weeks off of work is how a lot of people saw it on the upper classes.
Whereas you get working class and the lower classes who live in maybe like block towers or council estates where they were locked out, locked down for weeks on end, and they were afraid to even go to the shops.
And they needed masks in order to go to places and even be wearing it outside and with fresh air.
I wouldn't say London's air is fresh still.
So you have this mixture of the upper class being comfortable with how they had it.
And then you've got a combination of that and fear that was perpetuated by governments and ministers and unions or teachers or lots of people in authority to tell you you must do this, otherwise it could cause risk to others.
And this has been hammered into people for over two years, two and a half years.
And yeah, sure, of course, you're going to see people that are very reluctant to go back to this old way of living.
I don't even like saying that.
But you're going to see this because they've been basically lied to.
And that's the way it's going to go.
So yeah, there is reluctancy.
And the transition does take a few months.
And still, people now, when I go outside and I go to the shop, it's mostly the elderly.
I mean, they've scared the elderly into not wanting fresh air anymore and to think that a cloth is going to save you.
And it's dreadful.
It's horrible to see it.
So yeah, the transition period is going to take a while.
And I think it's going to take years, as a matter of fact, for people to start not living in fear.
But they'll find something else to, of course, make you feel fearful about something because fear is the greatest emotion for control.
Lewis, I'm referring to the big book or the big board of British terms on the wall.
I'm not seeing council estates there, so you're going to have to explain that one.
So council estates is that think of it like state-owned flats.
Okay, so like government housing.
Yeah, we don't call things flats here either, by the way.
White Privilege Debate00:10:56
Sure.
I'm triggering him.
It'll trigger him more to tell everybody that he didn't know what Gatorade was yesterday, you guys.
Power aid's fine.
He knew what that was.
But in his defense, we went on the UK Gatorade site and it was like where to buy and it was two stores.
So like if you did that here, just be like, what are you talking about?
You can buy it everywhere.
So I don't know.
You didn't know what's.
I think there was something else that you didn't know.
Why is that?
How do I sound Lewis?
What was that?
No.
We're not doing this.
Why, Lewis?
You get embarrassed when we talk about from Britain to England to Canada?
You know?
It's all right.
I just need to brush up on the accent, man.
I want to finish with this last story from the Western Standard.
So there's a Home Depot.
Woke Home Depot is shaming staff for their white privilege.
We got to get to this before we go, everybody.
So Home Depot, Lewis, and UK viewers is basically just a hardware store.
It's very Canadian.
They've had commercials for a long time.
They've been around for a long time.
Individual owners, I think, for each one, just like any other chain.
Woke Home Depot shaming staff for their white privilege.
Western Standards using the same thing, the same WordPress that Daily Beast is using.
I'm pretty sure it looks exactly the same.
Let's zoom in on this picture or get the text from somewhere in that article, please.
Unpacking privilege for your leading practices.
Privilege.
Can you read that, Lewis?
I can't read that on the image.
scroll down to the actual text there please olivia scroll down to the text in the body of the there we go In pictures from a Calgary Home Depot staff.
So our conservative province of our country circulating Twitter, the leading practices unpacking privilege policy strives to shame staffers for their white privilege, which Home Depot defines as societal privileges that benefit white people beyond what is commonly experienced by people of color under the same social, political, and economic circumstances.
I hate the term people of color.
They've basically inverted colored people, which was a phrase that you weren't supposed to say because it's insulting and because you're grouping literally everybody but white people into the same category.
So a Japanese person who makes $300,000 a year and comes here to expand their business to make some trading is apparently suffers from the same discrimination as, you know, a poor native person who can't get a glass of drinking water under Justin Trudeau.
Let's bring that back up, please.
They reached out to the offices and have not heard back.
The policy encourages staff members to talk with each other about their white privilege and explains the word white creates discomfort, especially when individuals are not used to being defined or described by their way.
So, on one hand, you have to talk about how much privilege you have when you're being white, but also calling them white they recognize weirds them out and makes them uncomfortable for not being referred to by their race.
So, on one hand, you're racist, but we recognize that it's weird to call you white and say that you have these views just because of your race.
And you can see Jordan Peterson shared that stuff.
This is insane.
Welcome to the Commissarat at Home Depot.
How can our capitalist corporations be so blind to their own interests?
Good work, Jordan Peterson.
Home Depot, I say to you, what is wrong with you, Home Depot?
You're recognizing white privilege, but you're also telling you how weird it is.
Of course, it's weird.
Nobody wants to talk about their race at work.
Hey, Johnny, have you noticed how white you are today?
Thank you.
I didn't realize that.
That's going to help me sell hammers and shovels.
Yeah, basically.
White privilege is a racist term.
I'm just going to put that out there.
Unbelievable.
I know.
I'm such a bigot.
Yeah, I saw something as well recently, something very similar, where children in education are being taught that I think they wanted to bring in this sort of white privilege-styled punishment for children or young adults in the educational system.
I think it was in America.
It sounds like something that would happen there.
And to be fair, here in the UK, because we're trying to outwoke the Americans and you guys as well.
So, yeah, where they're punishing white kids more than they describe as people of color.
So, this awful trend of just because of your skin color, that immediately because I'm white, that means I'm awful.
I'm a horrible person.
I should recognize how my history is the worst in the world, and that I'm just a bad person just because of my white skin.
It's just so terrible.
This is considered progressive.
It seems to me like backwards.
So, you know, I don't really understand the mentality of it.
But every time I say that white privilege is a racist term, I get, you know, the same sort of slander you'd expect from, of course, the same liberals that seem to say that I'm dangerously right-wing, I was called once, just because I said that it was a racist term.
Unbelievable.
I don't understand the mentality.
Simply unbelievable, bluis.
I almost called you, because Lewis Brackpool together is bluis.
You're big.
You're basically getting as much hate as a mill wall supporter.
That's a British reference.
I think we have a couple chats to get to.
Producer Olivia tells me she gives me a thumbs up, which is different from her usual middle finger.
She gives me no skill.
Let's go ahead and put those on screen.
I have to indict everybody that works with me.
You know, everybody gets roped into the show.
King7734.
The land acknowledgement was hilarious, Andrew.
Thank you.
I'm French.
Nice, nice.
Thank you.
I'm glad my French people are starting to get in on the jokes.
Andrew, I told we have a translator named Max.
I won't give his full name.
I'm not sure if he wants it out there.
But I told him yesterday that something roughly translated to Poutine and Pepsi.
He thought that was funny.
Lewis might not get the jokes as he's not around any French people.
He's mortal enemies with the French, I believe.
The English are.
I like the French.
That's the spirit.
Bring everybody in.
And Mark, I think the YYC mayor will get a court injunction against, again, against the freedom walk to stop at City Hall.
What you guys think.
Here's the thing about the injunction, Lewis.
Basically, people are saying they ban protesting.
I read it.
What they're banning is stuff that's already not allowed.
So noise violations.
And it's all stupid because it all depends on who they enforce it against.
And of course, they don't enforce it evenly.
I'm not going to say that.
But what they're calling for, it seemed to me, was stuff that's already not allowed.
Blocking the street without a permit, being too loud in a public place.
Like you can't have noise pollution, which is a thing.
It seemed to me like they were just trying to enforce, you know, petty little things that are already on the books to try to discourage people from protesting that the way they want to protest.
But of course, having said that, the other side of the story is how much further are they going to go?
We know they did this in Toronto where they arrest people that they don't like.
They targeted people with signs and megaphones.
And, you know, it's only a matter of time before Calgary, which has leftist people running at the city council, is atrocious.
They wrote a letter of how emotionally affected they are by people marching every Saturday.
So you're not going to win with them there.
But I think they will gradually try to make things harder and harder for people that they just disagree with.
Yeah, absolutely.
You can't ask Lewis about the nuances of a city order in Canada.
That's not fair.
Or else he's going to start asking me about the violations of vacationers in Blackpool, which is their Coney Island, etc.
Yes.
Any more, producer?
Kushi1124.
Lewis, you read in your wonderful accent.
Sure.
Good afternoon, Rebel team.
Great coverage today.
Thanks for sharing the analogy of the vegan cat.
You're welcome.
Most welcome.
I've done both vet tech and child education, and you are spot on.
Thank you very much.
I really appreciate that.
Really do appreciate that.
And I think it's important to.
I think I love analogies.
I think they're great.
I think they help even the dumbest people like me understand things.
So, no, honestly, thank you very much.
I really appreciate that.
And I hope whatever you're doing in terms of veterinary or child education is going well.
Lewis, do you have any pets?
No, I really want a dog, though, because I love dogs.
I think dogs are amazing.
I think they're the most amazing creatures ever.
We don't even deserve them as humans, in my personal opinion.
You took that a little far.
A Spanish water dog.
I would like to promote Spanish water dogs are great-looking dogs.
Anything else, producer?
Oh, she's going to keep going here.
Same person, you go ahead again, Lewis.
Sure.
So, Cushy1124.
Maybe I'm oversimplifying things, but why are all these people struggling to define womanhood?
Double X chromosomes, folks.
That's it.
That's all.
Yeah, I think there's nothing more to add.
Obviously, we spoke about, of course, it goes down to your DNA, goes down to even your literal bones.
So, yeah, absolutely.
Yeah, I don't know why.
I think it's pandering.
I think it's a form of way of pandering to an ideology, I believe, or a cult or whatever, because it has unfortunately turned into that now.
We'll get there, Lewis.
We'll have skeletal transitioning.
You believe it.
We're going to have bone shaving.
I'm determined now to be the first human to have tattoos on the bones now.
It's going to be pretty painful.
Yeah, you can do it in your eyeballs.
So, you know, why not do it on your bones?
Why not?
I'll have a ZM tattooed on my bones.
See what happened to confuse some religious one day.
By God, he was transitioning right down to his bones.
Listening to the Streets00:02:21
He was.
Every person in history is British, if you didn't know.
Any archaeologist has to be British.
Obviously, that's a heavily influenced by British profession.
Any more producer?
There we go.
Frasier says, last one.
I'm 74 years old and I've never worn a mask.
I will never wear one.
They can all go to H.L.L. in a handbasket.
Great show, guys.
Thank you, Frasier.
Thank you, producer Olivia.
Thank you, producer Efron, who goes in and out between Hollywood calls that he's taking on his earpiece.
Never pays attention to me.
It hurts me deeply.
Thank you, Lewis.
Across the pond is what we call it here.
Thank you to everybody watched on YouTube, Rumble, Super You, Odyssey, Getter, and you know, Game Boy Color Advanced.
Every platform you've watched on, every person who super chatted, thank you very much.
RebelNewsPlus.com, you'll find my show, and it's got a new episode tomorrow night.
If you go to the journalist page at the top of the page, you can go and click on Lewis's page or the UK news, which will feature many and many of his wonderful articles where he crosses the street and all of a sudden he's in Scotland.
Everybody, final words to you, Lewis.
Do you want to play another street song to bring us all together?
Do you want to play a different British song?
Yeah, let's do you know what?
Let's go with the streets.
Has it come to this?
There you go.
Producer Olivia has it come to this by the streets.
Me and Lewis have a tough but fair relationship.
We send each other letters, pigeon carrier notes, and a lot of calligraphy every night.