The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast - 411. You Are Already Living in 1984 | Laurence Fox

Episode Date: January 4, 2024

Dr. Jordan B. Peterson speaks with English actor, musician, broadcaster, and party leader Laurence Fox. They discuss his current canceling, arrest, and litigation, the globalist scheming of London's current mayor, Sadiq Khan, the ironic expansion of surveillance cameras across England, and the state of Western Democracy when removed from humor, art, and nuance. Laurence Fox graduated from the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art in 2001. He debuted as a screen actor in 2001’s The Hole, directed by Nick Hamm. He is likely best known in the entertainment world for his 10 year stint as James Hathaway in the TV show Lewis. In 2020, Fox criticized both the George Floyd riots, and the COVID vaccine mandates, coming from the Conservative point of view. He then founded the Reclaim Party, from which he unsuccessfully ran for mayor. Since this, he has been ever-present in the media, denouncing political correctness. This episode was recorded on December 11th, 2023 Dr. Jordan B. Peterson speaks with English actor, musician, broadcaster, and party leader Laurence Fox. They discuss his current canceling, arrest, and litigation, the globalist scheming of London's current mayor, Sadiq Khan, the ironic expansion of surveillance cameras across England, and the state of Western Democracy when removed from humor, art, and nuance. Laurence Fox graduated from the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art in 2001. He debuted as a screen actor in 2001’s The Hole, directed by Nick Hamm. He is likely best known in the entertainment world for his 10 year stint as James Hathaway in the TV show Lewis. In 2020, Fox criticized both the George Floyd riots, and the COVID vaccine mandates, coming from the Conservative point of view. He then founded the Reclaim Party, from which he unsuccessfully ran for mayor. Since this, he has been ever-present in the media, denouncing political correctness. This episode was recorded on December 11th, 2023  - Links - For Laurence Fox: Reclaim Media https://www.youtube.com/c/ReclaimTheMedia_ On X https://twitter.com/LozzaFox?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor On Instagram https://www.instagram.com/lozzafox1/?hl=en 

Hello everybody! I have the privilege of speaking today with actor Lawrence Fox. We start by talking about his recent legal trouble in the UK. Lawrence was arrested recently because of his stated support for the activists in the UK who are interfering with the imposition of the closed circuit television cameras designed to monitor everyone's movement under the purported guise of anti-pollution and saving the planet. There's a lot of CCTV cameras in England monitoring people to a much greater degree than I think is justifiable in a free society and Lawrence took a stance against that and has paid a legal price for doing so.

He's also suffered substantial disruption of his acting career as a consequence of his political stance, which has been pilloried by people on the left as fascist, as anything that's liberal or even moderately, let's see, moderately conservative or even liberal tends to be these days. And so we talk about, well, we talk about his legal trouble, we talk about his ability to act out dark characters and what that means psychologically

and practically. Talk about the relationship between freedom of speech and the propagation of truth through through psyche and society, pointing in no small part to the fact that there's a real valuable freedom that comes along with just saying what you think, you know, carefully and clearly the cost of that, especially in ideologically, adult times can be the savaging of reputation and the price you might pay in terms of career development, but the advantage is the freedom of conscience and And the ability to live in truth that comes along with actually saying what you believe to be true

So we're gonna wander through all that territory welcome aboard So Lawrence, I thought we'd start right at the heart of the matter or one of the many black hearts of the matter, you might say, I've been following your recent persecution, I would say, by the legal establishment in the UK. I came across this, what was happening to you, of course, because of Twitter. Primarily, I've been following you for a long time on Twitter, and I've also been watching with mounting apprehension, the operation of the progressives in London. It looks to me like Cediquan and his London administration are at the forefront of the C40 consortium implementation of the C40 consortium plans. And I've reviewed them. They put them out in stark black and white and they include propositions

like the elimination of 95% of all forms of private transportation over the next 10 years, something like that. So there won't be any cars, which is why we're all being enjoined, let's say, to buy the electric cars for which we have an insufficient supply of electricity. Let's say that we're going to be required to buy something like three articles of clothing a year to have one short haul flight per person every three years, which of course would devastate the entire tourism industry that basically keeps much of Europe afloat, to stop eating meat, et cetera, et cetera. And one of the

steps in that direction seems to be the establishment of these ultra low emission zones, which are there as far as I'm concerned, not in the least, to help the goddamn planet, but to stop people from what would you say? To stop, to discourage people in the patterns of consumption that the progressives regard is planet demolishing. And now, I know there's been a big protest emerge in London in particular with regards to the cameras that the power-mongering globalist utopians have decided to employ every which way to keep an eye on every bloody thing that everyone does and that these blade runner types, so-called blade runner types, have been demolishing these cameras. And you have tweeted out your support for

that. And I've retweeted that and indicated my support as well in a relatively tongue-in-cheek manner, but still directly. You got arrested. I went to the UK a month ago. They left me alone, which, you know, I suppose doesn't surprise me in some ways, but also indicates the arbitrary, what would you call the arbitrary enforcement of these absolutely preposterous laws? So do you want to fill people in to the degree that you can given your bail conditions about exactly what's been going on with you and what your view of this is? Sure. So these, I'm not allowed to say the word that you just said, but I can say that Blade Runner is my favorite film, but I'm not allowed to say the plural of that word and I'm not allowed to say the name of these devices that are used to surveil Londoners. You can admit to the existence of the plural, I presume.

I can admit to the existence of the plural, but who knows? The doors not too far away, they might be barging at any time. This is a scheme dreamed up, as you said, by the progressive planet haters who want to drag us all back into the stain age. And the thing that bothered me most about it, and probably when the only reasons I got involved in politics in the first place, was because it was a scheme designed to damage the poorest in society the most. So I don't know if you have this expression in Canada, but the expression London is the white van man. He's the guy that gets out in his white van every day

and he drives into London, he does whatever he does, plumbing, electrician, anything like that. He is driving a diesel van and Cd. Khan and his gang of globalist scumbags have decided that any diesel vehicle made after 2015 or 2016, I can't remember the exact year,

is now liable for a 12 pound 50 a day surcharge. Now, and this is in direct conflict with the fact that if you buy an electric vehicle with your corporation tax in the United Kingdom as well off person, you can claim back 100% of the cost of that electric vehicle in the first year of your tax year. So essentially what he's doing is he's deliberately making the poorest people poorer and those with the least voice quietest. And I took great exception to this. No one voted for this. He suppressed his own report saying that this would have a negligible

effect on the pollution in London. He had that report suppressed. To me, it was criminal behaviour and its extortion. It's all the things that you associate with criminals, as far as I'm concerned. I supported in the spirit of American Westerns, the idea of people taking their town back, and for doing so, for treating my support of it relentlessly, and then for saying that I'd like to join them, because I also can't admit whether I know them or not. But Sidik sent six of his finest coppers to come and arrest me two and a half months ago. And the thing that was so profoundly moving about that experience was on the car journey, on the way back with the six coppers, there was a report of suicide and a stabbing.

And both of the times, the officers in the car said, we're busy dealing with other matters. So I just, you know, London has been completely hijacked by this, um, this, um, mankind hating, regressive, nihilist. So let me, I'm going to play devil's advocate here a fair bit. These are questions I tortured myself with. So, I'm going to make a case for Cedete Cans, Cans, his actions. So, the first case would be, well, London is overcrowded,

and there is expense associated with the traffic congestion, right? The time that people spend because traffic is congested and you could imagine a scheme whereby there was a fee implemented to dissuade unnecessary, now this is where it gets tricky because who decides what's unnecessary? But to dissuade, let's say, delayable transportation into London, right?

Because it would keep the roads in principle. It might keep the Lord's more free. And that would actually, if people could move around more quickly, there would be some economic advantage to that. So what do you think, do you think there's any, that any credit whatsoever should be given to an argument like that? So it has kind of been said, well, we're just trying to control traffic and it is too congested.

Now, I know he's made these cases that London air is still polluted. And I find that pretty appalling because if you look at the historical record of particulates and dangerous gases in London air, the improvement in air quality, especially over the last five decades, has been absolutely precipitous. It's actually a miracle of modern technology that London air is as clean as it is. You can say that for most cities, even places like LA, which like London were famous for their pollution. That strikes me as preposterous, but can you see any justification

whatsoever for attempting to implement control over congestion in London? Well, we already previously had control over congestion in London, which was called the congestion charge, which everybody has to pay anyway, if you drive a vehicle in or out of London, albeit not an electric vehicle. So, and you're right to say that pollution has come down

drastically in London. All meter readings, pollution meter reading, particularly meetings, carbon readings are very, very either low or moderate in London. So there's no justification to add this extra tax other than to fill up his empty and coffers. Now, there is a broader argument to be heard about how much we want the planet to be a cleaner and better place. So I think you'd find it hard, push to find someone who go, no, I just want the planet to be much more dirty. But we've seen, we've seen with,

also sorry, just interactlocked about the congestion thing, the 50% of London social housing is occupied by illegal immigrants. So there is a or immigrant seeking asylum asylum. So with London is already bursting to overflowing. So these these traffic calming measures, if they calmed traffic, great, but they don't calm traffic. It's an ideological mission to... Because he cannot force you out of your car because there would be uproar.

What he's going to do is he's going to tax you out of your car. So because people will not listen to this idea that they want to be free to drive to the beach, you know, England is small. You can get to the beach in 45 minutes from London if you want to. He wants you out of your car and into these electric cars, which in their own way are digital prisons on their own. Because if you speak to a electric car owner, you know some of the Uber drivers

or some of the other car companies in London, they say that they cannot, the minute they get out of London, their battery is gone. So they are, they're hemmed in by this digital prison of their own car, whereas you can buy a Tesla and go quite a long way, but you buy a sort of mid-market care and you're not going anywhere.

So, I fully support Cidicarn trying to clean up London, but I wish he would do it with evidence instead of made up figures. He's making up these figures of 4,000 people are gonna die from asthma and it's just a lie. And I struggle with people that lie openly. So he lies about, he's just been reported the other day for knife crime.

He said knife crime is down and my tenure it's not, it's up 40% but he feels that he can tell London that knife crime is not a problem and it's like it really is. And in the same way pollution is the same issue. London is a much cleaner and more wonderful city than it ever was. Yeah, well I grew up. Cars were still synonymous with freedom. I think in North America, especially where I grew up, because I grew up in this little town way the hell out on the edge of the prairie. The nearest real city was 400 miles away. So I lived in my damn car from the time I was really 16 onward, especially in my late teens and early

20s. I mean, car was synonymous with freedom. And you know, I've thought for a long time that one of the most effective acts of subversion, the free west ever managed in relationship to the communist countries was to invent the automobile because the automobile is the is really the material embodiment of the ethos of individual freedom. You can jump in your car. Nobody knows where the hell you are. They can't keep track of you, although that's starting to change and you can go wherever you want without asking. That's a big deal. And then when I so when I started to see you know hypothetical utopians go after automobiles, I thought, man, if you hate cars, I'm probably your enemy. Cars in comedians, right? If you hate cars and you don't like comedians,

there's something seriously wrong with you. And this I started to see the war on cars in Toronto about 15 years ago, like it just got more and more difficult to travel by car. More bloody bike lanes, which is insane in a city like Toronto, where it's frigid bloody cold for six months a year. You know, the only people who bike from November to March are deluded 24-year- old men who think they're saving the planet with their goddamn bicycles. And the notion that, you know, that's going to be a reasonable mode of transportation for like a 70 year old woman with her groceries is just utterly preposterous. It just got more and more difficult.

And I used to annoy my family looking around saying, you know, I think there's a war on cars going on here. I can't figure it out. And, you know, it wasn't till recent years that I came across the bloody C40 documents, which read like the worst right wing conspiracists nightmare, like you can't even believe that it's true. What in the world, what in the world do you think

is going on at a deeper level here? Obviously, you're deeply enough concerned about this to have put your, well, you put your whole career on the line, which is something else that I want to talk about. Okay, so you went out and you evinced explicit support for the actions of people who were taking down the ultra low emission zone cameras, and that got you arrested. And so what are you charged with exactly? And why did you feel that this was an issue that was of sufficient import to put you and your family at real economic and legal risk. So, um, yeah, to, to, to answer your first question, I am, they're considering to charge

me for conspiracy to commit criminal damage and, um, support of criminal damage of some kind. Um, I think in the process becomes the punishment thing, we'll, we'll, we'll see where they end up. I think this scant evidence. For that, the reason why I did it is the reason why I do everything, which is progresses hate mankind, the hate mankind with a visceral hatred. And I don't. And therefore, I feel that it's important to stand up and say, you know, you express it very well when you were talking about the car. It's that I want to be able to take my kids and my dogs to the river.

And I want to throw a ball for my dog in the river. And what are my kids are jumping the river? And I want risk and danger. And I want all of these things to happen in our lives. And I don't want my life to be like a battery hen in a house asking permission for people to do something which is my god-given right to do. And it's the Silicon, I mean, hate is really, I've been really struggling with this as a concept. Hate is a really difficult, we mustn't hate people. But if I was to hate Cedete Carnin what he stands for is something so close to what that feeling must be.

He's just, it's just dreadful to try and control and out of your own weakness and nihilism and hatred of life and meaning, hatred of it all, to go the only way I can get any meaning out of my life is to control yours. And I just go, well, I will put every tool down in that war. And I will fight your face to face over that. Let me play devil's advocate on that front too, because the, see, I've been struck in recent years But I've been struck in recent years by the fact that the progressives had two broad domains of metaphysical concern. One was allying themselves with the hypothetically oppressed, including the economically oppressed, and the other was saving the planet.

And so I was very curious about what would happen when those two concerns went head to head, right? And so what I've seen happen clearly is that the progressive types, despite the fact that the grounding of their progressivism is essentially, in principle, the support of the oppressed in the poor, is that they will sacrifice the poor to the hypothetical concerns of the planet happily and in a heartbeat. Because every time I've seen the greens, for example, make a move on the energy front, this is particularly evident in Germany and in the UK, where energy prices just keep skyrocketing out of control, and the sources of power are more and more unreliable and more more dependent on dictatorial sources for that, that if it comes to screwing the poor with higher energy costs, which is about the most effective way you can screw them, and foregoing saving the planet momentarily, they'll screw

over the poor in a deadly fashion in no time flat. And it really is deadly. You know, Bjorn Lomburg has shown statistics, for example, that show that these measures that purport to reduce energy consumption by decreasing thermostat maximum, which is law, for example, you have to do that at the Bloody European Commission in Brussels, by the way, you know, that even a three degree decrease in thermostat setting in the winter will cause several hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths of elderly people, because they're so susceptible to temperature fluctuation, right?

And so, but the progressives are going to say to you something like, well, look, Lawrence, you might want to have your fun in games right now and take your flights and have all your clothes and all your privilege and your so-called freedom, which is actually just a marker of your willingness and ability to exploit other people. But I'm much more concerned with the situation 50 years down the road. And you trumpet your, what would you say? Your concerns for the poor, no pressed at the moment.

But I'm trying to stave off global disaster. And if we have to break a few eggs to make that omelet, it's well worth the sacrifice. And so that's the perennial argument, right? Is that the future well-being of the hype of it. So because the argument you see is, well, when the title waves of climate change come visiting, it'll be that particularly the poor who suffer most intensely. And so we have to make sacrifices now. We have to make sacrifices now to forest all that. What do you, I mean, you can understand that that's an impreasible, incredible argument.

If you buy the climate change narrative, what do you think of that argument? How have you dealt with it personally? Well, I would say that the reason why they don't, why the climate argument on the socio-economic argument, climate one was because socio-economically we're very fluid. Capitalism with all its weaknesses is quite a fluid system. My brother-in-law went from a council house in Ipswich to being a really, really wealthy film director. So, you know, this stuff happens in Britain and it happens all across the West, so they sort of left that alone. And then in response to the second

question, I would say, give me a single climate prediction that these people have ever come out with, which wasn't debunked within five years. And again, I don't... We've got to assume the good faith in people. And we want a healthy planet, we want a cleaner future for our children, we already have one. And it would seem to me that the best way of making the world a cleaner place is to make people richer. You know, because I've sat on boats in the South China Sea driving between islands and watch people finish their polystyrene things that used to get them McDonald's in the 80s and just throw them overboard. And that's how they dealt with it. And I think it was because they were too busy doing something else.

But if these people were wealthier, they're A, they'd be, you know, you've spoken about this before, using better fuel. And B, you know, wealth is the greatest thing you can give someone to give them an opportunity to be responsible for the planet that they're going to pass on to their children. Right. Okay. So your argument, and I believe this to be the credible argument, is that if you were genuinely concerned with the poor and the planet, rather than merely hating

the military industrial capitalist complex and humanity in general, you would take a stark look at the facts. You would understand that transitioning our economies from wood and dung through coal, fossil fuel to nuclear is an appropriate transition in one that's time tested it would live the bottom billion or two billion people out of the stops on the nuclear front because nuclear energy is unbelievably dense, we're much better at producing the reactors if we could get rid of the red tape than we were 50 years ago. And so the other thing that makes me so skeptical of the we love the poor and the planet utopian narrative is that the greens almost inevitably object to nuclear energy. And that's just a bloody miracle, isn't it? Because if it's carbon, that is the catastrophe.

And that catastrophe is so impending that it justifies the suspension of everyone's civil rights and the imposition of a lower standard of living on, on the poor, which is gonna knock a lot of them into object poverty, then how the hell can you not make a case for nuclear? Like if it's an emergency, even if nuclear is is a risk and I don't really think it is

At least compared to other risks then Obviously in an environment where all measures whatsoever are justified an emergency transition to nuclear rather than to unreliable Unreliable so-called renewables which aren't renewable at all that, that would be in the cards. And so, you know, the fact that that isn't happening, it's one of those places where you see the internal contradictions of the ideology make itself manifest. It's like, well, you know, I worked for the UN years ago on the first really sustainable development document. And I'm morally pulled as a consequence of that. I would say in my defense that the document that you and would have produced had the team I was involved with

wasn't my team, it was Jim Balsley's team, he used to run rim. If we hadn't rewritten that document, it would be a hell of a lot more socialist and humanity hating that it ended up being. So I don't know if you serve a lesser evil if you serve to transform an evil into a lesser evil. Does that mean that what you did was good? You know, you could argue about that, but but what I really came to understand when I worked on that panel was that all the evidence suggested exactly

what you said, which is that if you got people above about $5,000 a year in average GDP, they immediately started to take a long-term view of the environment. And so it seems like the fastest way to a green planet is through wealth, but we have this anti-human narrative that's been thrust upon us as an alternative, which is that, well, really the carrying capacity of the planet is only about 500 million people. And those people would have to live at a pre-industrial, you know, standard of living. I don't know if they're supposed to all be bloody hippies out on some, you know, island utopia Farming their god damn goats and their chickens, you know, which is a dreadful way to live and I've watched hippies try to do that with you know catastrophic consequences because hand to mouth is no damn fun And it also begs the question what are you gonna do with the extra seven and a half billion people?

And that's where I see like the real danger of this sort of utopian the question, what are you going to do with the extra seven and a half billion people? And that's where I see like the real danger of this sort of utopian scheme. I can't understand how you can make the claim that the planet has too many people on it without simultaneously selling your soul to Satan. You know, and I mean that, you know, I mean that almost literally. It's like that's such an awful claim. There's too many people. Okay, buddy, which people? Exactly. I call it German beach towel syndrome.

So when you're in a hotel and you check into a hotel and you're trying to get down to the pool and someone has woken up usually a German in England, we mock the Germans for doing this. And they've taken all of the beach chairs. And it's like we need them for us. And then they don't even turn up during the day. I think it's an uninterrupted view between your paradise and the sea

and any plebs, any people who get in the way of your uninterrupted view which you deserve because you think correctly, you see that there's a problem and you're willing to do something about it is seen in some way as noble. And in my view, that is anti-human. And also I grew up in Christian family, I've been imbued with a lot of things from Christianity, which I just can't get out of my head. And one of them is that we're all made equal in the eyes of God. Therefore, I feel that's a really good place to start any conversation. It helps with any conversation to do with poverty, with race, with any other issue to go to, we're equal, but we have different opportunities.

And this idea that, you know, the hypocrites who fly their jets around the world, telling us that we must not meet anymore, or Cedet Khan who gets a, his 300,000 pound armor-plated rain drover to drive him three miles to walk his dog with his wife with his security Detail, but we can't get in a car and take our kids to the beach and have a fire in cook some sausages Is you have to pick a side at that point? You just have to go I picked my side Yeah, well you pick a side one way or another man and everybody's going to find that out in the next five to ten years? Okay, so let me push you on something else too. So when I was retweeting your tweets supporting the or

indicating admiration, let's say for the actions of people who were cutting down the But say for the actions of people who were cutting down the spy cameras, say, I was shocked when I went to London 15 years ago about how many of those bloody CTTV cameras there were everywhere. And I thought, this is not good because the UK is the home of democratic freedom fundamentally as far as I'm concerned, like it's the empty center. And the fact that you guys put those bloody cameras everywhere, it's just, you know, it's just out in the name of safety, safety, except, except that you're being watched by, like,

authoritarian cameras all the time, which doesn't strike me as safe. And then that's just multiplied, multiplied, you know, in China now, there's 700 million cameras. They just watch everyone all the time. They do gate recognition. So even if your face is covered, they can recognize you're tracked 100% at the time. And that's certainly a potential future that we could have that those that idea was extended to into this insistence that your car is so dangerous that we have to track you wherever you go in case you're like

Outputing some milder of carbon or particulate so but There's a contradiction here if you're conservative in your or even libertarian Conservative particularly in your political inclinations. It's like I do have some on ease in expressing my support for Direct civil unrest, right? I mean, cutting down cameras is not nothing. It's, it is technically a criminal act. How do you reconcile the fact that you're calling for, that you're supporting the actions that vigilante types are taking to push back against Khan with the conservative insistence that by and large it's a citizen's

responsibility to uphold the law. How do you draw the line there? Well, I think I apply a very simple rule, which is the rule of flight tipping, which is you're not allowed to flight it. If you go and offload a van full of waste and washing machines and free-treesers on the side of the motorway, you're prosecuted for it. That's what you do. So no one voted.

So we have these low traffic neighbourhoods as well, where they stick a big plant pot in the middle of the road, and you can't drive through, people can't get into host stalls, people can't do anything. So I see this as digital flight tipping. It wasn't there yesterday, the world was the same world. It is there today, the world is now a less free world, and no one has benefited as a result of it. So I see it, less is looking at the law. I see it as removing unwanted digital waste from your community. And we're always encouraged to look out for each other and protect your neighbour and all

of this sort of stuff. So I see it as that. And I think a large proportion of Londoners also do see it as that. As we see with the, I mean, I can't encourage their work anymore because my free speech has been controlled by the Metropolitan Police. But, you know, I see it as a civic duty when moral wrong is committed. It is your civic duty to do anything and everything in your power to do it, to undo it. Okay, okay. So, so let's imagine for a moment that I'm one of these just stop oil characters and I believe that the planet is in existential trouble because of climate change that's going to run away and because of that I also take to myself the right to

break laws to to break laws, to impede traffic flow, to glue myself to a spectacular painting. I mean, how do you, I wouldn't say, convince yourself. You see what I mean is that there's this danger in people taking matters into their own hands, right? It's the danger of social unrest versus the danger of hyper-obedience, right? But the just-stop-oil protestor types, the people who are going too far on the globalist utopian side, seem to be using similar communitarian arguments. Now, you know, I don't, I think that the fact that the just-stop protesters interfere with traffic low is inexcusable, fundamentally. And I don't buy their argument, but it's complicated for me to think through precisely.

I mean, you have to go all the way down to first principles to some degree. You mentioned in your previous remarks your proposition that each person is made at the image of God. And that's getting pretty close down to first principles. I mean, I don't know. Well, you, sorry, I'm, I'm wondering around in this question, but you get the point is that, yeah, what is being done by the people who are cutting down the cameras is analogous with a different set of mesophysical propositions to what is being done by the just stop oil protesters. And so it isn't exactly obvious to me how to draw the proper moral distinction.

Well I think it is possible to draw a moral distinction over stopping traffic flow because obstructing the King's highway has been illegal since forever. So stopping people going to and from work and preventing ambulance is getting to and from hospital. That is clearly an egregiously wrong thing to do. Taking an angle, oh can I say this? Taking an angle grinder to a lamp post that was not previously there. I see what you're saying, which is like at what point does a system, system retake the law into their own hands. It's really difficult.

It is really difficult. I would, for example, I think the more the just up oil people throw orange paint on masterpieces, the better because the more people will just go, the yacht and they don't have any public support for doing so. And I think that the public support, have any public support for doing so. And I think the public support, the overwhelming public support for it, even we've had Ian Duncan Smith, who's a former leader of the Conservative Party, has expressed his, if not support, but his understanding as to why these people are doing what they're doing.

Okay, so one of the things you're referring to is the fact that that's an argument that's essentially grounded in appreciation of the sovereignty of the people is that if you, you know, I think I read at one point, this might be wrong, but it's a good illustration of the principle. I think it was the Netherlands that had a custom or legislation that if 75% of Netherlands citizens broke a given law, he had to get rid of the law. There is going to be some idea that the law, although it has to shape people and inhibit them to some degree, it should sit on a basis of mutual consent. And that brings us to another issue too. I've been thinking this through

especially with regard to what happened during the COVID lockdown. You know, and if there's an emergency, you can understand that you can understand the argument that some civil liberties might have to be lifted to deal with the emergency. You can understand that argument in principle. But my sense is that if someone is calling for an emergency, claiming an emergency and simultaneously pointing to the fact that civil liberties are to be suspended in consequence, the first conclusion you should draw from that is that they're probably wolves in sheep's clothing, they're probably tyrants, and that the argument is actually the reverse. They want to impose control, and so they're generating an emergency.

And we should demand, what do they say, radical claims require overwhelming evidence. It's something like that. And so our general sense of citizens should be, if your bloody emergency, if you're calling for an emergency that grants you additional power, you would have to prove every which way that you're not just a pirate who's lying. That should be the default thumb, you know, the rule of thumb. And so the same thing seems to me to apply with these, with these CCTVs and this widespread surveillance. It's like you claim to be acting as a consequence

of being motivated by the highest possible virtue. You know, if it's not God, it's your version of compassion, which is the modern God. But the fact that you're accruing all the power as a consequence seems like a coincidence, a little bit too, that's cutting a bit too close to the bone to ignore. And this seems to be happening, yep? I think that first and foremost, there's got to be a free speech element to this. So you've got to be able to criticize something, be it lockdowns, be it the city comes,

ridiculous climate scam schemes, or anything, so we have to put free speech to the primacy of the center of any single argument. The second thing that one's got to look at is if we are banned from discussing an issue at all, it needs discussing. So for example, the so-called climate emergency, if we're told there is a climate emergency, it's not up for discussion, there is a deadly virus, it's not up for discussion, this is the only treatment. If you're banned from doing that, you need to talk about it. And the third thing is, if you're trying to make the world a better place,

and a cleaner and happier and more, you know, fuel efficient place, and you want to build 15-minute cities where I can walk to my barber, I can walk to my supermarket, then build me the infrastructure before you build me the controlling mechanisms to where the way you're going to shut down my life. Yeah, well, that's a really good point. You know, like when this 15-minute city thing came up, it was so interesting to watch it more because I looked at the plans of the new urban planners, let's say 15 years ago. And in North America in particular, our cities are blighted by the spread of these McMansion suburbs or even just middle-class suburbs,

that really have no community center, right? There's no shopping malls, there's no bars, there's no churches, there's no downtown, there's just an endless sprawl of identical houses. And there's something soul-debbing about them. They're not constructed in a manner that makes for human flourishing because there's no social element to the community

They're just boxes with individuals in them, right? And inside the box there are other boxes where everyone's With their camera or with their phone in their own Atomized environment and so when the new urbanists started to talk about you know building urbanists started to talk about building localized centers where things were within walkable distance, and there were the sorts of things that you might want to walk to, like a community center and a church and a pub and a theater. I thought, well, that makes perfect sense. You shouldn't have to hop in your car every time you want to grab a loaf of bread. But then it was so interesting to watch that the seed of a good idea, be immediately,

what would you say, gripped onto by the moralizing utopias who immediately conjured up a way to make the 15-minute cities into something like digital prisons. It was quite a miracle to watch that transformational curve. And you pointed to something of cardinal importance. It's like, look, and I think this is where the free marketers have it over the centralizes as well. It's like, if you want to build people a 15-minute city that's unbelievably inviting, so that people flock there and voluntarily leave their automobiles at home because they can walk

wherever they want, and that's easier,obiles at home because they can walk wherever they want, and that's easier than have atter, and if you make a fortune doing it, you know, two thumbs up for you. But if you start with the force and the compulsion and the deprivation of civil liberties, we should suspect immediately that you're not just gonna start there, that's gonna be the whole bloody thing,

and that whatever you're not just going to start there, that's going to be the whole bloody thing. And that whatever you're offering is just, well, it's just, it's a false reward for accepting these, these, this imposition of force. Same thing. And so maybe this is a good rule of thumb for people to abide by, which is that we're trying to do this with this arc enterprise that, that just had its conference in London, the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship. We have a rule of thumb. All policy based on force is at least suboptible, if not outright wrong. If I can't do something in a manner that invites you voluntarily, then I'm wrong. I want to tell you a little story about that. You tell me what you think about this. We're talking about the Christianity of your youth. I just did a seminar on Exodus with a group of scholars and we released that on the daily wire platform and on YouTube and that was quite successful

There's a real cool part of that story so It has to do with Moses. So Moses is the archetypal figure who fights tyranny and redeems the slave. And so you could imagine that in so far as you're a fully functioning social being who's moral, that's what you do. You oppose tyranny and you grant responsibility and dignity and direction to the slaves. Okay, so that's what Moses does. And he does this for like four decades, right? 40 direction to the slaves. Okay, so that's what Moses does and he does this for like four decades

Right 40 years in the desert. He puts his life on the line He sacrifices his whole life to this enterprise standing up against the Pharaoh Which was a deadly thing to do and then leading his people through their confusion in the desert So they dropped their tyranny and then they're confused for 40 years now Just as he reaches the promised land and so the archetypal structure here is, everybody's journeying to the place they want to go to, right? No matter what you're doing, you're always trying to journey to the place you want to go to.

That's the Promised Land. So Moses has done this acidiously for four decades. Now, he's right on the threshold of the promised land, and the Israelites are all bitching and winding and squawking away because they're out of water again. And so Moses goes to God and he says, well, you know, we need some water. And God says, well, you're going to find some rocks. And he tells him where he says, go speak to the rocks. And they'll issue forth water. And Moses goes, but instead of speaking to the rocks and they'll issue fourth water. And Moses goes, but instead of speaking to the rocks, he hits them with his staff. And his staff is a symbol of

authority and tradition, right? So he strikes the rock and then he strikes it again. And the water does come forth from the rock. But God tells them that because he used force instead of words that he will die before he enters the promised land. And such a striking, yeah, right. It's such a striking story because you have this person who's as close to a savior as anyone in the Old Testament, right? I mean, Moses, I think he's the central figure of the Old Testament. You know, you could argue about that, but he certainly a central figure. And so he does things about as well as you could hope anyone could do. And yet

the punishment for him for using force, even in that relatively trivial manner, is that he can't he can't make the utopia make itself manifest, right? That's how dangerous force is. And so maybe we could use as a rule of thumb, the idea that anybody who's trying to push you to do anything, if they're actually trying to push you, they're not to be trusted. If they can't formulate their doctrine as an invitation, a voluntary invitation, at minimum, they're incompetent, and probably their psychopathic and tyrannical. at minimum they're incompetent and probably their psychopathic and tyrannical. Yeah, I mean, I think you touched on possibly the most important question of this fluctuating time that we live in, which is what comes next? does, do the so-called or the self-appointed right-thinking men bash their staves on the head of the radical woke ideologues, the racists, the people who

wish to tear this society apart? Do we bash our staff and say no? Or do we have faith in God to ask? And I think, look, I'm in no way a Theologian and I'm in no way someone who is able to speak on biblical matters in any way at all. But I think there's something in that story, which is fascinating because I have a very, very strong desire. And I know it's a person in a human and a fatable desire to go,

you know what, these people need counseling. We need to cancel these people. They, they, they bought terror and horror on the, I mean, they've destroyed a large part of my life, but, you know, they gave me a new one, so that was okay. But they, they bring misery everywhere. And you think, you know, what, what does one do back? And I you think, you know, what does one do back? And I suppose the closest I can come to it now is if God is saying you just offer the word and the water will come, then maybe it is literally that simple, it is we encourage comics,

we encourage those people to speak and not compel. We encourage people to be courageous in their words. Not in their desire to play the same game as those that they don't agree with play. And I struggle with this all the time because I get more and more and more and more frustrated because we have the same thing with Sidney Khan. He has a block vote. We have obviously the US and the UK have the same problem with unfettered and uncontrolled immigration, which

only affects the poorest people in society, including immigrants. And you just think this has got to stop. We have to compel you to do this. But actually, I think there is something wonderful in the human, in the mystery of the human, which is that, you know, speak gently and carry a big stick. I mean, well, something better about that. Well, one of the things I've really noticed on social media, and I think this is most stark on Twitter. So since I made a comment that was somewhat impulsive on Twitter about the Israel Hamas conflict.

I've re-structured the way I'm interacting on Twitter. And so instead of redistributing anti-woke material, which has that forceful element to it, we need to put a stop to this. And like, like, I've had, so I've been persecuted by my college of psychologists in Ontario, and it's, it's very annoying. And I have a temper, and I'm not that afraid to use it. And I've had some pretty bloody brutal fantasies about just exactly what I'd like to do to the office of the college of psychologists, you know, and there's a part of me that not only thinks that's justified and necessary, but would also kind of glory in it, you know. But one of the things I've noticed, Lawrence, is that, and this is especially true on Twitter, is that we've turned my Twitter feed into something that's basically putting out positive messages that are pulled from my writings, right?

You can think about them as invitational messages. And I've also seen this on YouTube. You know, when I do a more political interview that's oriented more towards fighting back against the Utopian radicals. The Twitter comment or the comment feed gets pretty vitriolic and quite polarized and often quite unpleasant. Whereas if the message is invitational, you know, laying out an alternative vision that's positive and talking to someone about how that might come about, which is what we did at the art conference, then all of a sudden

the comments sections are extremely positive. And I would also say that those messages, especially now, attract more attention than the more political messages. And so, you know, so maybe it is that it's incumbent. And this seems to be associated, you tell me what you think about this, it seems to be associated with the doctrines of, you know, turn the other cheek and resist not evil, you know. And part of the reason I really wanted to talk to you today is because both of us have paid a rather complex personal price for taking the stands that we've taken. Now, it's certainly not for me.

It's certainly not being something that was without its opportunities, quite the contrary. In some ways, it's the best thing that ever happened to me, although some of it was pretty rough. I lost my research career. I lost my university career, and my clinical practice had to shut down. I spent decades investing into those enterprises and I was good at them and I enjoyed them. And so sacrificing them was not nothing, even though the consequences of that have been remarkable. But I am trying to work

through the notion that maybe all of us, all that those of us who are opposing the centralizing power, mad, woke, humanity hating, woke, mob should be doing is putting forth an alternative vision that's invitational. You know, now that, that gets us back to the initial question, which is, well, does that mean that it's reasonable to tweet out support for people who are, you know, practically opposing the proliferation of CCTV cameras. You know, that's a place where the rubber hits the road. And I'm still conflicted about that because I hate those goddamn cameras. I think they're unbelievably dangerous.

And I feel that you're morally obligated to dispense with them. That's what you do in the celebration of freedom. All arguments about security. Last thing we need is a security state. There's no security in a security state. You give up all security in a security state. And I don't know how to reconcile that necessity for active opposition to the more blatant forms of tyrannical surveillance with the notion that an invitational vision that a jurors use of force is clearly both more attractive and perhaps more practically what would you say? And perhaps more practical.

So what do you think of that? You're a temperamental guy, so you know, you've got an inclination to have the scrap. I think there's a humour to it. And I think the thing about the guys that I'm not allowed to say the name of is that there's a humour to it. There's something about it which is we know we're never going to beat the big system, but we're not going to go down without a fight. And no one is getting harmed in the process. So this isn't like the equivalent of taking a man who suddenly wants to put on a wig and putting him in a woman's prison. This is removing something that they don't want and no one got her doing it

other than the you know taxpayer essentially or the mayor in his silly scheme. So I think if you apply a level of of humour, humanity to it then I think it has some value but I do agree with you. Look we're going to as we enter this most difficult phase of the conflict, if that's, if I'm talking about it correctly, we are there all of the weapons that we have, that we have tried to defend ourselves with are going to be used as cudgels to destroy us with. Certainly over stuff like free speech. Why shouldn't I sing from the River to the Sea? Why shouldn't I call you? You saw the debacle in the Senate hearing where they were saying, well, maybe it's bad calling it hot. They're going to, and her first thing in her apology,

now, was to say, well, I was just uphold holding the first amendment, the right free speech. Oh, yeah. Oh, man. That, yeah, right. At Harvard. Oh, yes. That was ranked 248 out of 248 universities for free speech. That was just beyond, absolutely bloody, beyond comprehension. But then her standing for free speech. How do we, how do we use human beings who I think one of the differentiating factors between us is that I do not hate woke people and I said this at the beginning. It's really hard not to hate to eat calm because he's a really horrible guy but I don't hate him. I hate what he does. I hate what he does but I don't hate him. So I think the one of the things that is the differentiating factor is, and that's not to prick yourself in a morally superior position, but it's to turn around and say, I don't hate you as a person. I just hate what you're doing.

It is reasonable to say that you, that it's okay to hate what, what people in that situation are possessed by. Yeah, I can say. Because, well, that, that, that seems to me to be the right level of analysis is that you can see sort of like the idea of a, of a principality. You know, I can see these systems of ideas that are out war, right? There are systems of ideas at war and the system of idea ideas that's on the woke side is the metamorphism of the postmodernists, right? Everything's a victim victimizer narrative. It's a it's an old devouring ideology that

grants moral propriety to its upholders. It's an unbelievably dangerous enterprise, but it is impersonal in some ways in that if you have 100 radicals, they all have the same idea. And so it's not them. It's the same. And you know, and that means that the proper level for the battle is philosophical or theological or spiritual or ideational or psychological rather than physical. Maybe it's only when you lose the battle that you have to resort to physical means. You also talked about the utility of humor. But I just quickly let me just lob something in there. I've been in court the last 10 days over a

libel trial. And I watched everybody who was against me who tried to destroy my life. That's what they've done. And I thought I'd really like to go out for a beer with you guys, because aside from this one little kind of crazy woke thing where you're completely right about everything, and I'm a your total moral supremacist and I'm wrong and I need to educate myself. Aside from that one pervasive and albeit deadly character flaw, I'd really like to go out for a beer with you, and I have a strong feeling that none of them would like to go out for a beer with me. No, I think that's a really good observation, you know, because when I was surrounded by

screeching, harpy students and often female and then their idiot male enablers who were generally psychopaths, what I kept remembering was, well, you know, your 19, if I was at a dinner party at your parents' house, I would probably think that you are pretty decent young person with some crazy ideas, rather than that you're just out,

absolute bloody serpentine mess of crazy ideas with a tiny bit of good person associated. It's not like that at all. And I've thought about this too, sort of technically speaking, you know, is that Jean-Pierre J. the developmental psychologist, he noted that you get a bunch of kids together and they could play a game coherently according to a coherent set of rules. But if they were young enough, if you separated them and asked them what the rules were,

you got wildly disparate accounts. So, together, they could play the game because each of them had fragmentary knowledge of the game, but as a unit, all the knowledge was there. And sort of like a group of 100 university protesters is that because there's a hundred of them, the whole bloody pathological principality is there. But in each person, they're like 10% possessed. Right? And so maybe what you do when you don't hate the person is that you have the possibility of separating the wheat from the chaff, what you would hope for for your would-be ideological ideological enemy is that free expression of idea in genuine dialogue would free them

from the grip of their possession. And then you'd have another useful person around, which seems to be a lot better than, well, the potentially negative consequences of full-on combat. You mentioned, I had a journalist friend of mine say something similar to me this week, by the way. He said, very wise man, with much experience. He said, he believes that we're entering the most difficult phase of this conflict. And you alluded to something similar. Why did that idea make itself present to you? And why do you regard

that as an accurate summation of what's happening? I think it's difficult. As an actor, your trained, a tiny part of your brain is trained. It's such a small part of your brain, it's to be present and to remember at the same time. So it's a tiny part of your brain in conflict. And that creates a sense of, I can see something's happening. And actually, it came to me by realizing sitting in court when you put this ideology to reason, to cold scrutiny,

to proper and rigorous inquiry, it has nowhere to go, it has nowhere to run, it can't survive a conversation, none of it can survive a conversation. And you notice that as you know these little sparks that appear in society like anti-Semitism and people feeling that they can identify totally as their own little crowd group in Britain, you think that people are beginning to run out of patience. And they're just signs. And I think Peter Bigotian put it really, really well. He said, this is coming to an end. And everyone is going to say that they never they never they never they've got. And I have I suppose instead of roundabout and roll the stupid way. I'm trying to say it

I can tell it's coming to an end. I can just see it coming to an end. And I know it's coming to an end because it doesn't make any sense. And nature abores a vacuum. And we've had a vacuum now for a very, very long time. Okay, so I'll play devil's advocate there again. So I was talking to, I talked frequently with both Jonathan Pazzo, who's been a cardinal player in this arc enterprise, and he's a very wise person. And with Michael Mellis, they're quite different people

because Pazzo is a icon, Carver, and a deep Christian trained as well in the postmodern ethos. So he understands both sides of the argument. And Michael Mellis is kind of a libertarian anarchist. But both of them have, they're both of them believe that we're not going to get through this bout of ideological conflict without some really serious trouble. And my sense is more agnostic, I believe that the future isn't written in blood and that if we conducted ourselves wisely, we could have a virtual apocalypse, let's say, instead of the real thing, that we could work this

out in the realm of ideas, we could tilt ourselves back on the upward path without the kind of mayhem that was, that sometimes the companies, the transformation of ideology. Now, there's some precedent for this. Obviously, when the Soviet Union collapsed, that was much less bloody than we had any right to hope or expect. So, but then I, you know, I'm really torn about this because I look at the universities and I think, oh my God, you guys are so far gone that nothing but your total collapse is going to bring about a transformation. And when I start thinking that that's a rather pessimistic view, something like what happened

in Washington happens and you get the president of MIT in Harvard, and you, pan, all three, woefully underqualified for the job, come out and say, in unison, something so utterly blood-curdling and preposterous that it's surreal, you think, well, it's a long ways yet to the bottom. And so, you think it's going to come, you think you, you, you intimated that you believe that this is going to come to an end. Do you, do I just can't, I don't have any vision of how things are going to lay themselves out over the next few years. I can't predict it.

And so, but you, you said you have a sense. I can see, look, I put up five YouTube videos last year that were all critical of the climate narrative. And basically, nothing happened to me as a consequence. YouTube put up a few warnings, you know, that, like they always do about how climate changes this ultimate catastrophe, but they left them alone. And almost all the comments were positive, and certainly the climate catastrophe narrative has taken a vicious hit in the last year.

And people are pretty tired of the trans-stupidity. So, but then you see the depth of corruption in places like the universities, and you think, oh my god, you know, how much trouble is they're going to have to be before sanity does prevail? I suppose what gives you a sense that things are going to change. I was quite affected by something that you said quite early on. And weirdly, my dad, who broke the car, like he slammed the brakes on in the car when I was about eight years old, and he went post-modernism is evil. And I was like, I can just remember stuck, like I could just remember it.

And he was obviously listening to the BBC or something. And you said this thing quite early on and he was a dad actually introduced all of us to you, to varying degrees of love. Let's put it that way. And one of the things that I thought was this idea that you raised, which was when this thing is overthrown, what comes, a sort of Hitlerian figure comes, doesn't it, out of the

Vimar, which is, you know, Victor Davis Hansen talks about how we're in this sort of leisureed, affluent Vimar period, and from that comes a Hitlerian figure. And one of the greatest things that I think about Britain and John Anderson said this to me as well, when he speaks, when things get really, really bad, people are gonna look at Britain. They're gonna look to Britain and they're gonna look at your legal system

and we're gonna look at the way that you've been going around, you've reformed, you've unreformed, you've reversed revolutions, you've done all this stuff. And I think that there is, within the English patience, the fundamental English patience, there's a real stoic solidness to it. And I think that that's what will ultimately end this period,

that we cannot have, and people are now openly laughing at the way universities are talked about in the UK. Anyone who is vaguely awake is turning around and saying, you know, don't send your kids to universities. We do what we do, rather bad law project, to challenge the government over certain stuff that they're teaching in schools. And I think a sort of bloodless coup is possible, but part of me is like, this is going to end violently, but it might end violently, it might end violently in a sort of in a good way for one to the better word, which is that they go, they get so upset and so angry and so annoyed that no one is listening to them

and that British people still want to protect their culture and not have it diluted and stuff like that. That there's a big riot, we've already seen what's going on in London over the last three weeks and Britain just galvanizes itself. We're very tough like that. And that gives me some hope.

Admittedly, it's fleeting often, but it does give me some... It gives me hope that it can be... How quickly was McCarthyism? They just said go, didn't they? It was just like, goodbye, out. And I think that that's something similar might happen. Well, it might depend on how effectively... It will depend, I think, on how effectively people conduct themselves. And I think that for people like you and I, whatever we can do to strive to keep enmity out of our hearts is going to all be to the good.

I am very unimpressed with the leader of Canada. I would have a very difficult time shaking his hand. I really detest him. And you know, possibly the right attitude would be to wish the better part of him well and to hope that he could escape from his narcissistic entrapment, you know? But he wouldn't. But he wouldn't. That's probably... Well, you know, stranger things have happened. It is possible for people to undergo quite dramatic transformations of character.

I mean, that happens to Paul, to Saul on the way to Damascus, right? I mean, you can have a, you could have a transformative moment. And I suppose if you had any sense, that's what you'd wish for for everyone that they could see the light properly. I think that if people on the alternative vision side, while we're seeing this with ARC, you know, like that we put a bunch of videos up on YouTube that came from the ARC conference and the more political they are, the less popular they are, the more visionary, the more metaphysical and the more humorous they are, the better they're performing, right?

And then the comments are also extremely positive on the A-political visionary talks and very negative on the political talks. And so I think that is a reflection, too, of the fact that, you know, if we're going to, those of us who are interested in standing against the use of arbitrary force, should be very careful about not even secretly being pleased when unnecessary force is used. Well, again, and that's another thing that makes the camera issue so bloody complicated. I mean, I still think your arguments about opposing

their distribution is, I think your arguments are correct. And I think that that form of civil disobedience is not only appropriate, but morally called for. You also mentioned that one of your hallmarks for distinguishing between useful and dangerous civil disobedience is the humor that goes along with it. And I think that's a really good marker too. The best, the most popular speech that emerged out of the art conference was Constantine Kizn's speech. And Constantine is damn good at interleaving the serious with the light-hearted and self-deprecating and absurd. So there is something about that

allowance for the absurd that does seem to be a touchstone for honest communication. You see that too? So many of the great YouTubers or comedians or ex-comedians, right? And that's not fluke. They're good at listening to the audience and they don't take themselves too seriously, you know, and those are profound markers of the sort of character that you might be able to trust. Let me ask you, go ahead, go ahead. Well, I was just saying perhaps we're witnessing

one of the other things that we're witnessing, which is either new or not new, my knowledge of history is not obviously the greatest. It's the idea of the political influencer via social media. The absence of a political leader, you know, we've got the Labour Party and the Conservative Party in the UK. The Conservative Party took in 30 million Indonesians in last quarter of 2022 or whenever it was. Labour took in 3 million. The insurgent party reform, which is currently polling, they say at 10% took in 20,000 pounds. So it seems to me that there is zero appetite

for a change politically, but there is a huge appetite for a change culturally, or a realignment culturally. So that people always say to me, you know, you get it, times a million, but when I'm stopped on the street, people say to me, thank you for trying to protect our culture. Thank you. And that comes from a weird, not weirdly, just normally, but it's overwhelmingly people who had new arrivals this country, who came to this country to succeed,

who want to play on a fair playing field. They wanted to leave the oppressions and the oppression hierarchies of the places that they lived in before behind, and they wanted to fight on a perfect fair playing field. And so I wonder whether we're also going to see the rise in the political influence. You know, the rock might run for it or tuck a carolson might become, you know, Trump's VP are doubtable, but it is. But whether the entire social media landscape and all of the new media has, you know, you've got it with the Daily Wire, you know, Ben Shapiro decided to run for office. Who knows what would happen. It's a sort of strange development.

Anyway, that was my sort of aside to your point. Let me ask you something more personal here for a bit. What exactly is happening with you as a consequence of the legal entanglements that have enveloped you? Like, what are you in danger of? I mean, I know the process is the punishment and everyone, the police who came to round you up are part and parcel of that. What were the police like? What are the police like?

Like the thing that's so striking to me about the police in the UK and in North America is that isn't obvious to me that their natural allies are the woke utopians. And so how did the police who came tell us the story about the police coming to your house? How did they treat you? And what's your family? What are you and your family going through at the moment? Okay, so the police, I have to confess

to being a pathetic actor and actors always want to please their audience. So when the police turned up, I tried to make to being a pathetic actor and actors always want to please their audience. So when the police turned up, I tried to make friends with them. And I could make friends with everyone except for one for the arresting officer who'd got his big day. And that was hard. But even by the end of the day, I think I won him and look, I took, I said to him, can I take a book with me? Because I'm going to be in the cells. And they were nice enough to let me take a book so I finished

off the good like I'll go. Oh yeah. Quite a useful time in the cells and you're thinking well I don't have a lot of that. In terms of in terms of the police I think they you know I think that, again, I want to apply this, and I must apply this, because otherwise, I would go insane, that what people are doing is not necessarily who they are. So, I think that, you know, there was a sort of, they were quite charged up when they came in and they really wanted to get involved, but by the end of the day, I think I won

them over. And they were actually sympathetic, even though they did nothing about it. When I said, please, can I have my children's phones and iPads back? Because what have they got to do with this? And there was a really touchy moment. And it was horrible actually, because I'm still in a police station.

Next to a kid, 19 year old kid, or younger, with forensic sleeves on his arms. So those white forensic sleeves, he covered in blood. This kid and I'm stood next to him and he's obviously just killed somebody and I'm thinking, wow, we're being treated with the same level of seriousness by the law. So that gave me pause for thought. In terms of my family, I have a, my dad is, as I think, I've sort of alluded to in this conversation with you, he was on this stuff in the, like, 1985, I think I was on that car journey when he was going. So he's sympathetic. He doesn't necessarily approve of my tactics. My one brother up is a, is a beautiful and wonderful

Stern brother, but he's really there for you when you, when you need him, but he again is like not necessarily a premium of my tactics. My sister and I, we disagree about everything. Our politics are completely different and we get on like a house on fire. So it's like, you know, about these things. And then the people that I really feel sorry for are my children, because, you know, really well-known actor went up to my son at school because my little son goes to this, I mean the most dreadful school

that Britain has to offer by miles. It's just dreadful. Full of celebrity rich, celebrities, very weak celebrities, they teach, it's all transgenderism, the whole thing is transgenderism. And this actor took it upon himself to go to my son and tell him that his dab was a fascist. And that's that's's, that's, that's, that's pleasant. How old's your son? It was 11. Oh, yeah, lovely, lovely. Yeah, yeah, that's great.

Well, I guess that guy picked on someone his own size, eh? Yeah, so I, so that is difficult, but my kids, you know, the whole point of doing anything you ever do is for you and for your kids, you know, and you know, part of the, I think part of the process of meaning, full stop, is to remedy some of the things that, you know, it's trying to refine the mechanism of the family and all those sorts of things as you learn from your father and your mother, the mistakes they made and you go, well, I'll try not to make that mistake. So your life is constantly driven by meaning. You're always trying to find meaning in it. So

therefore with with my kids, they understand me and they get me and then and they know I am and I'm flattered and honored to be their parent. That's that's how it is. I mean, is it difficult? Yes, it's difficult, but is it difficult to be sat in a situation in life where you had no choice, no say, and your life was ended like that. So I like these old truisms, I like these old, the things that someone's got it worse than you.

I like those things. I like sticks and stones when I break my bones. I like that. I like all of these things because it reminds you that you were entrenched in a reality of your own making, which isn't as bad as it could be. So be tough and be strong and love as much as you can. And how about your wife? How is she managed to manage with all the disruptions in your career and you putting yourself and your family well in one way on the line. I mean, it's tricky, right? Because you're always

putting your family on the line in one way or another. Like, there's no escape from that in life, you know. And so we really, what you do is you decide how you're going to lay things on the line. But often what people will do is take illusory short-term security in preference to actually addressing the issue at hand. And I mean, you've suffered a dreadful amount of disruption, especially on the career front as a consequence of your political stances. And what's that done to your marriage? Well, my marriage ended in 2016. And she is a very interesting character. Who is using the, we really need to have a look at family courts.

In the UK, we're need to have a look at family courts in the UK. We're still arguing in family court. Weirdly, whichever political case I have seems to work its way into a family court case at the, at the same time, which is different, but my partner, what my partner is, is, uh, is still water, you know, she just, what, what, when I, um, when I go, I can't, this is mad, it's too much. She just goes, it's okay, it's okay. You'll be right, do you want to talk about it? She's still watering on fire, and that works for me.

Oh yeah. Because as you said, you've got a temper, I've got a real temper. Yesterday when I was with my kids and I was saying, we've got to go and see Grandpa and everyone, and the car's going to come in four minutes and I'm ready. And it's like, then the car arrives and no one's ready. And you're just like, kids, come on, go!

So my partner is, she's the ice and the cooling to the fire that I can be sometimes. Right. Well, that's that's that's handy. That's handy to have someone who can let you take a sober second thought. Yeah. So what are your plans? What are your plans? What are you doing now? And what are your plans for the future? So now you're keeping body and soul together, even? It's really annoying. I had a neck operation. I used to keep my body and soul together by exercising, but I had a neck operation. That stopped me from being able to exercise.

I need to work out a system of doing that. What I'm doing is I'm taking the government court for a non-contact child abuse of children in school via their transgender policies in the UK. Schooling in schools because it's disgusting while they're teaching our children and we've got a we've put together a big case and we're going to take the Department of Education to court. I'm fighting the um who's we who's we the doing so I started I started not once I realized that politics is fine but it's not what people care about people are going to vote red they're going to vote blue they're going to vote red they're going to vote blue they're going to swap one time or another I we thought, what are the other things that we can

do to change stuff? So we started up someone called the Bad Law Project, which is my team, which is a small team, it's about six, eight people, and I have two, I have a barrister and a slister within that team, and we are going to take the Department of Education to call to stop them teaching our kids this stuff. Once we stop them teaching the kids this stuff, then what comes out of university is not going to be such a problem. We're fighting, we have an MP in Andrew Bridgin in North West Estonia, who was kicked out of the Conservative Party for criticizing their COVID vaccine roll out and saying that it did cause some problems. And then we do bits and media stuff as well, you know, just to sort of, you know,

offer up some thoughts about life. So we try and look at it as a stool whereby we have legal, political and media. And I'll do that until I can't take it anymore. But at the moment, I'm sat totally desperate because I walked out of my libel case two weeks ago and I'll get a judgment before Christmas. And it will be very, very important judgment for the UK because the judges being asked to define the meaning

of the word racist, which is what I always wanted. I wanted someone to define this word, certainly in law, because we've got two versions of it. Even in the UK law, we have the Equal Treatment Benchbook, which defines the racist as pretty much everybody who has a bad thought about anybody. It's a, and this is judges guidance. And then you've got the Oxford English Dictionary before it's turned into Merriam Webster Dictionary, which says racism is prejudiced against someone based on the color of their skin or their ethnicity.

So I really want to work out, I've been called a racist. So I took some under court, they took me to court, I took them to court, I'm waiting to hear it on a judgment on that. And I think that will, I think that will be very, I think that will really matter to the people of Britain. So can you provide some more details about the nature of the case and what it is that you're hoping to accomplish and what you have at stake?

Yeah, so in 2020, the big supermarket in the UK called Sainsbury's tweeted that they were going to provide, in the light of George Floyd's death, they were going to provide safe spaces for their black employees in their supermarket to which I responded, that's protosecgregationism. Are they not safe? Are they not safe? Are they not safe in your supermarket? So then I was branded racist by three people. One of them was in show business,

was one of my colleagues in show business, and she said anyone who hides Lawrence Fox does certain analogies unequivocally, I'm unapologetically and publicly racist. So I mean, that was a pretty, that was a death knell to my acting career. So I just swapped the word, I swapped the tweet round

and I said, anyone who I as Nicola Thorpe, which is her name, does say the knowledge is unequivocally, unapologetically and publicly a pedophile. And she then tweeted, she then sued me for defamation. And I can't suit her for racism, which is what I wanted to do. So we just finished the court case in the last, we finished it a week ago on last Thursday,

and we're expecting a judgment in the next short period. And it's going to be interesting, because it'll mean, for the person that, like you say, they always come for the smaller person. They don't come for the guy with a big profile. He's not going to arrest you at Heathrow for criticising his climate scant cameras, is he? He's going to arrest somebody else who's done it. So I'm trying to fight for the fact that you're not going to lose your job for criticizing diversity actually and inclusion, and you're not going to criticize, you're not going to lose your job for criticizing so-called anti-racism, and you're not going to lose your job

for complaining about the dilution of your culture, none of which is racist. It's just like a family. It's protecting your thing. So we'll see. I think it'll be quite a quite a And is it done? Is it done except for the Eight days in high court. How do you how do you feel about how do you feel about your case? Are you optimistic pessimistic? Can you say I

I all I can say is that I It's very very hard to lie in court and is that I, it's very, very hard to lie in court. And when I, I didn't have to lie when I was in court, I didn't have to tell a single lie. That's some of the examples where I'm telling. Well, that's one of the advantages of telling the truth is that when push comes to shove, it makes your life a hell of a lot simpler.

Well, you're right. Well, you know, it's your mantra, which is a really good, it's a really good, you know, I say it to my kids. I think people do, and I think you've offered this to people, which is like, you know, honestly, honestly, it's the best policy. It's another one of these truisms that people just forgot and replaced with no Martin Luther King and so yesterday. It's like, no, these things really matter to people. So I sat and had my character dismantled by an activist, barista, and I gave it as good as I got. And I did not like it.

So you're feeling so you're feeling more confident in your stance and when do you find out? Well, I think the judgment may come down this Friday and it comes down this Friday. Wow. Good news for for for British people who, you know, don't want to be called racist just because they disagree with somebody about any issue at all. Now you can be called a racist for disagreeing about climate change. But you know, we, the other thing about England and we were talking about it earlier,

is this sort of stoic sense of patience that the Brits have. In the UK, if you call someone a racist, that's your job finished forever. That's it's gone. It means so much. And yet to the people that throw their alleg. That's it's gone. It means so much. And yet to the people that throw the allegation around, it means nothing. So, you know, we have a problem there.

And my enmity was, when I said that I would like to go for a beer with those guys, one of the people I didn't wanna go for a beer with, because they were so possessed with, why are you asking me questions? You're a white supremacist. It's like, hang on a minute, a middle class woman in a dock is accusing a middle class man of being a racist. There's no black people or brown people anywhere near this court case.

It's just white people walking around calling each other racist. So my job, my goal, other races. So my job, my goal, if it's world, is to preserve the one thing that a man owns. And my father taught me and my children will learn from me, which is, you have your good name, and that's it. That's it. You got nothing else. Yeah, well, a huge part of this culture war is the battle between true and false rights to a good name. An immense part of what's driving the ally ship on the part of the radicals is the desire to enhance the reputation without having to do any of the productive work necessary to have a reputation and to substitute any and all other qualifications for genuine qualification. The president of Harvard has 11 publications to her name.

Okay, so she was a tenured professor in the Ivy Leagues, first at Stanford, if I remember correctly, then a dean at Harvard and then the president of Harvard. She isn't qualified enough to get a junior position at a mid-level state university in Canada or the US. Right, so in order for her to justify even the fact of her academic existence, she has to invent an entirely different structure of value to position herself as a contender for the occupations that were granted to her. It's an absolute bloody travesty. So how do we put up with that? This is an over-huge issue with this as well because the man who taught me English, so my first interaction with English language was from a man called Jeremy

Lemmon and he took, he taught my father English, he was that old, he had been teaching at school and he taught me how to understand English language and he taught it to me at a time when I was able to receive it, 13, really like able to and it gave me millions of pounds for my career. It earned me millions because I understood the language and how it works and what it was. And now I look at these, I look at some of the stuff my kids come home with and I look at some of the stuff and I just go, you're not learning anything. Like you're not learning anything. You're being told a lot of stuff, but you're not learning anything. Yeah. Well, you know, our while my plan for that is my daughter and I are launching a new university enterprise, probably in February, we've got excellent professors

delivering what I think will be the best quality lectures available, both technically and conceptually. I think, you know, this is, this is an optimistic way of looking at it, you know, as the utopian, globalist types, the ideologues abandon everything of value, beauty, truth, justice, genuine merit. They leave it all on the table. And what that should mean is that other people can just come along and scoop it up and make use of it. And I mean, again, that seems to be a more appropriate response than railing against the establishment. It's like, well, if they're doing such a bad job, maybe we can do a better job and invite people along.

We had a really quite a spectacular success with this art conference. So here's something cool. So we released the videos from the art conference. And within three weeks, we had four times as many views of our material as the WEF had of what they released on YouTube over the last year. So I think that in on this, this speaks back to the conversation, partial conversation we had earlier about whether or not we could risk being optimistic is that as those who oppose our culture abandon

what's useful about it that does free up the opportunity for other people to make use of it and maybe there's infinite opportunity there. I mean certainly that's looking what's happened on on the social media side I mean, certainly that's looking what's happened on the social media side. I mean, as the legacy corporate media enterprises have become almost universally corrupt, there's been a massive opportunity for people like Joe Rogan who really do nothing but sit down and have an honest conversation. And so, you know, that's a pretty good deal. So, all right, well, look, I want to wish you good luck in your lawsuits and your pursuits, especially against the people in the education departments. I mean,

I can't see any enterprise in the West that's become more corrupt than the education enterprise per se, right? K through 12 university, the whole bloody thing looks like it's done as far as I can tell, and maybe something spectacularly better will emerge as an alternative. It certainly could be the case. Be there. I'll be watching the progress of your court cases with real interest. And maybe I don't know exactly when this will release. It'll probably be after your The results of your libel case are are made public and so will update everybody on that Thank you very much for agreeing to talk to me today. I'm just gonna let everybody know too I'm going to spend an extra half now, whereas I always do talking to Lawrence on the DW plus platform after this

And I'm gonna walk through the details of his life talking to Lawrence on the DW plus platform after this. And I'm going to walk through the details of his life, which we didn't get to on this side of the conversation. So of all of you who are watching and listening, want to join us over there, you're more than welcome to. And other than that, is there anything else you'd like to bring to the attention of people who are watching and listening before we close off this segment? who are watching and listening before we close off this segment? Just to speak. If you don't speak, no one's going to hear you just speak. Yeah. If you have something to say, and it's, it's grinding away at you, probably time to say it, even if you don't do it perfectly. Right, right? Yeah. All right, Mr. Fox, pleasure talking to you and getting to know you a little bit better.

Thank you to everybody watching and listening to the Daily Wear Plus people for making this possible for coming up here to Vancouver Island, which is where I am now, bit of a family emergency up here. And so thank you to all those people for making this podcast possible. And to everyone watching and listening, thanks for your time and attention. And we'll see you again in the relatively near future. Chavis Fox off to the Daily Wire Plus side. you