Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 17, 2021 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:30:00

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #265

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
	Welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters for Wednesday the 17th of November 2021.
	I'm joined by John, and today we're going to be talking about how the left is holding America hostage under a threat of violence, who America's greatest capitalist is, and it's not who you think it is, and the continual curiosities that are emerging from the case of the Liverpool bomber that we covered on Monday.
	Welcome to my show!
	Very, very nourishing content.
	I'm very pleased with it.
	Another good thing that we've got on the website is Hugo's latest article about the conservatives on the wrong side of Whig history.
	And Whig history is a particular understanding of history that is progressive, and the conservatives are brought into this framework.
	And essentially, it means, and Hugo does a really good job of demonstrating how the conservatives are doomed to end up in the place where the progressives want to be.
	Really, really good article.
	Obviously, it's got the audio track for Silver and Gold Team members.
	We also have an interview with Philip Tanzer, who's back in the studio this afternoon because of great demand, actually.
	This was a really fantastic conversation because he's an ex-gay porn actor who's turned conservative activist.
	And he was a really, really interesting person to talk to.
	And it was all the comments on the article shows.
	So he lives in Scotland.
	But before he goes back up to Scotland, we got him in for another one this afternoon.
	Because we only got to do about half of what we wanted to talk about in the previous one.
	So we'll finish that interview then.
	And also go follow us on Getter, getter.com.
	We, of course, support alternative media.
	And we're building up the presences there because they're probably going to last longer than the other ones.
	At the end of the day.
	And come and see us at the Getter counter conference on December the 8th as well.
	I'll be speaking on a panel there.
	It'll be very interesting.
	Lots of very interesting alternative voices talking about what exactly is going wrong.
	So come and see us there.
	Right.
	Let's get into it.
	The left is holding America hostage under a threat of violence over the Carl Rittenhouse trial.
	This has been totally manifested in the past couple of days, and I just think it's really worth going through to see exactly how this is happening, how they operate.
	Because this is not a new pattern either.
	We've got lots and lots of examples of this, as we talked about the other day, in fact.
	But this is just...
	And so it begins with an insane narrative.
	It begins with an insane set of statements that doesn't represent reality.
	Here's a good example from Howard at Law.
	He says, That's not true.
	But anyway, he was defending nothing and no one.
	That's not true.
	But anyway, his victims were exactly that, victims.
	That's not true.
	Anyway, not arsonists or looters, victims.
	Not true.
	Victims of a racist, anti-Semitic, inhuman mass murderer.
	How is that not a description of Adolf Hitler?
	That is a very good point.
	That is a description of Adolf Hitler.
	And Kyle Rittenhouse is not Adolf Hitler.
	But you'll notice what's been done here.
	And again, you can see this, you know, thousand-odd retweets, 4,000 likes nearly.
	You can see this has traveled quite far.
	And so there's a large constituency of the left who want to believe a narrative that paints Kyle Rittenhouse very much in Alinsky-ist fashion as 100% evil.
	And of course, the good, therefore, is 100% on the side of the convicted paedophiles.
	And that's the framing under which this kind of mentality can be created.
	Because when your opponents are 100% evil and your side is 100% good, well, why would you give them the time of day?
	Why wouldn't you just declare war on them like they were Nazi Germany?
	Of course you would.
	A responsible person would be encouraged to do so.
	And so you get the online grifters who start amplifying this in, I mean, what they, like Hassan actually calls it a daycare for adult man babies, I guess, who don't want to actually, I mean, this is his position.
	We don't have to think about it.
	We just get told and programmed what to think.
	And so he just spends his time sucking in money on Twitch, spreading these kind of extreme narratives.
	Demonstrable falsehoods that come from people in positions of authority, like Ayanna Pressley.
	We've got the next one, John.
	As you can see here, the Libertarian Party on Twitter posted, they had posted, Kyle Rittenhouse did nothing wrong, and they got their account locked.
	Ayanna Pressley tweeted, a 17-year-old white supremacist domestic terrorist drove across state lines.
	I love how they're obsessed with that.
	Now the borders matter.
	Armed with an AR-15, he shot and killed two people who had assembled to affirm the value, dignity, and worth of black lives.
	Am I incorrect in thinking that one of these people was screaming the N-word at this?
	That's correct.
	Joseph Rosenbaum, the 5'3 convicted paedophile who was shot for attacking a minor, was indeed shouting the N-word.
	So he wasn't exactly assembled to affirm the value, dignity and worth of black lives then?
	Well, I mean, I don't know how many N-word passes are required to do that by Mr.
	Rosenbaum, but you are correct.
	That's an excellent point.
	It's not like Joseph Rosenbaum seemed to particularly care about the sensitivity of black people in America.
	He seemed to be there just to riot.
	But for some reason, she's saying this, and this is the kind of thing that Hasan Piker amplifies to his audience of morons, and you end up right the way down the end of the rabbit hole at the, honestly, some of the most racist statements I could imagine.
	And I mean, I've been dealing with the left quite some time, but if we go to the next one, this chap here, a verified checkmark on Twitter, how is it that they're all verified?
	They just give the worst takes.
	Employers, consider giving your own black employees a day or two off after the Rittenhouse verdict.
	Regardless of the outcome, it's going to be hard for black people to work, and it isn't fair to expect them to.
	So let me just capitulate this.
	We have one white person shoots two white people.
	And a third.
	And a third.
	And black people need a day off.
	Yes, they do, according to Gregory McKelvey.
	I see.
	And if you can scroll down a little bit, you can see Zuby's response to this, which is just fantastic.
	Like, 41,000 likes on that one, but like 4,000 likes on the previous one.
	This tweet went a long way, because it's such a ridiculous statement.
	Black people aren't some inferiors who can't deal with the result of this trial.
	I don't know why I have to say that.
	But the point is, who is this guy?
	Andy Ngo knows who this guy is.
	We're going to go to the next one.
	He's Gregory McKelvey, a Portland racial activist who thinks the employees should give time off.
	He was a rising star in Portland until it was revealed he was arrested on suspicion of kidnapping and strangling an underage girl.
	So he's a child murderer.
	Allegedly, on suspicion of.
	Weird how he's a verified checkmark on Twitter and people listen to him.
	Why?
	Why is he anything?
	But this is what the problem is, isn't it?
	You've got a group of people who are radical, violent criminals who are using their radical politics as a cover to do criminal activities.
	This is another one, and it's an excuse to pretend they're not the vile human beings that they clearly are.
	But anyway, this isn't the first time, of course, and it's worth thinking about, okay, what was the context?
	Why was Kyle under attack in Kenosha in 2020?
	Well, it was because of a false narrative by the media on Jacob Blake.
	You may remember that they said that he was unarmed when he was shot by the police, which wasn't true.
	He was being served a warrant for allegedly raping a woman, and instead of going peacefully and cooperating with the police in the legal process, he instead went to his car to get a knife.
	And the policeman shot him in the back.
	And now he's disabled.
	He survived.
	He's just disabled.
	But the media narrative was, oh, he was unarmed.
	A black man has been unfairly shot.
	An unarmed black man has been unfairly shot by the police because they're racist.
	And therefore, that was what justified all of the rioting, burning and looting that went on in Kenosha in 2020.
	They did this.
	They ginned this up through false reporting.
	And the thing is, Jacob Blake even admitted that he was armed?
	He admitted that he was armed earlier this year.
	He did a television interview after being shot, obviously in his wheelchair, and he said that not only he had a knife in his possession, but at the time of shooting, he also dropped it before picking it up again.
	And he said, I shouldn't have picked it up, only considering what was going on at the time.
	I wasn't thinking clearly.
	No, you were thinking that you were going to stab the cops.
	Clearly.
	I don't know why you would do this.
	It's mad.
	But the point is the police shot him justifiably in self-defence because he was armed and wasn't cooperating with a lawful warrant that he was being served for rape.
	Oh, new hero of the left.
	Again, just add them to the pile of criminal scum that the left is continually defending compared to, honestly, the kind of Boy Scouts in Carl Rittenhouse that the right ends up defending.
	Isn't that interesting, the difference in character between the two?
	And so that's a reminder of why we're all here.
	And Andy Ngo did a great job just going through, look, this is a flashback of what was happening in Kenosha at the time when Carl Rittenhouse was out.
	If you can just scroll down through this, you can just see the amount of violence that was going on.
	Like groups of people committing arson, threatening to attack people, threatening to set things on fire after already having done so.
	Surrounding cops threatening them, saying, we'll burn your shop down too.
	Burning more things.
	And there was one where an elderly man with a fire extinguisher, I wonder what he was trying to do with that fire extinguisher in the face of all this arson, was trying to ward off BLM rioters and looters and they beat him unconscious and he begins bleeding from the head.
	All of this chaos, all of this damage, all of these people hurt based on lies told by the media.
	So anyway, Nicholas Sandman thinks that Carl Rittenhouse should sue when all of this is done, and I agree with him.
	Nicholas Sandman, you may recall, was the Covington Catholic kid that we covered the other day, as a refresher, who ended up getting massively smeared by all of the mainstream media, left-wing-leaning mainstream media in America.
	And ended up getting around $250 million from multiple lawsuits that were settled by the media.
	Because that's just them admitting, yes, we lied.
	It's not that we're wrong, they lied.
	And this keeps happening because they keep lying.
	And this creates a class of radical activists who, based on the principles that they're operating by, which are racial collectivism, decide that basically what this means, this is why the Kyle Rittenhouse trial is...
	Controversial to them, because really, why should they care?
	A kid was attacked by a group of thugs in Kenosha.
	It's not actually about Jacob Blake.
	It's actually about the direct attack that was on Carl Rittenhouse.
	Why would you have a problem with it?
	But the thing is, George Floyd's nephew, who appears to be part of this radical cult, has thoughts on it.
	Let's hear what he has to say.
	I ain't even gonna name the people that I know that's up in the Kenosha, I mean, in the Kenosha trial.
	But there's cameras in there.
	There's definitely cameras up in there and there's definitely people taking pictures of the juries and everything like that.
	We know what's going on.
	So we need the same results, man.
	We need the same results.
	Justice for Dante Wright.
	Justice for all stuff.
	So, justice for a bunch of people who I'm sure the media has not lied about at all.
	But they're filming the jurors, trying to dox the jurors, get their identities, but we'll talk about that in a minute.
	But the thing that I found fascinating there is that we need the same results.
	Who's we?
	And why do you need any particular result out of this?
	Like, who is we?
	I'm sure that he means black people, the black community.
	He doesn't stress it, he's specified, but that's bound to be the implication there, I think.
	But, um, why?
	You know, why?
	As Diamond and Silk rightfully pointed out on Twitter, this isn't about black people.
	Kyle Grittenhouse didn't kill any black people.
	Why are black people, politically black people, standing outside of the court saying black lives matter when no black people died in this altercation or even wounded in this altercation?
	But who knows?
	Who knows?
	Because really, it is about black people.
	It's about the way the media has been managing this constituency of radical activists based on racial or other political principles and have been weaponizing them against mainstream society, against law and order, against the court system, against regular American society.
	And so, anyway, these people have fallen for it, and so you get a mix of both pro and anti-Kyle Rittenhouse people outside of the courts, some of them with spicy merchandise that, of course, I disavow.
	You only shoot into self-defense.
	Um...
	And yeah, so this has been a huge nexus of political tension in the United States, again, because of media lies.
	When we go to the next one, you can see that there are protesters standing out there.
	In fact, we've got a clip of the protest, so we may as well watch this clip of the protest.
	So why are you guys out here talking about Black Lives Matter?
	Black Lives Matter has nothing to do with Black Lives Matter.
	Nothing at all.
	It's not about that.
	So if you're going to be here and talk about self-defense, talk about that.
	But don't come out here talking about BLM and our people.
	Convert has killed two white men and we are seeing that white supremacy is upholding that.
	It's accepting that.
	That has nothing to do with BLM.
	You all have made this trial political with your own personal beliefs.
	He was acting in self-defense.
	He came here to protect the community. - Yeah, actually John.
	So, I love that take so much.
	Yeah.
	Why are you out here talking about BLM? Why are you there, Miss BLM Defender?
	If Black Lives Matter has nothing to do with any of this, why are you there?
	Why would you care, right?
	But obviously this is connected to Black Lives Matter, because Black Lives Matter are the foot soldiers, the on-the-ground arm of this kind of media campaign.
	It is absolutely about these same things, and you know it, which is why you're there complaining that they're complaining about Black Lives Matter.
	And we know what's going to happen if Kyle Rittenhouse gets acquitted as well.
	Everyone knows there's going to be violence.
	There's going to be violence from left-wing activists.
	Well, again, I say left-wing activists.
	The violent criminals who are being given cover by a false narrative by the media.
	Which is why 500 National Guard have been called into Wisconsin, say, well, look, we're going to need some military force to protect the city from being burned down.
	This does remind me of what they used to say about the old firm football matches in Glasgow.
	If they win, we know there's violence, and if they lose, we also know there's violence.
	So the violence seems to be an inevitability at this point.
	Well, no, technically it's not inevitable.
	I think if this goes the same way as the Derek Chauvin trial, which I don't think was fair either, but never mind, if Kyle Rittenhouse gets convicted for...
	Defending himself against a mob of radical communists, then I don't think there will be violence because the great sacrifice will have been made and the bloodlust will have been slaked at least for one day.
	But no justice will have been given.
	It's notable that Joe Biden hasn't called for calm.
	This is something that people on Twitter have been pointing out.
	Why is he not doing what he can to diffuse the tension?
	Joe Biden is an avid supporter of Black Lives Matter.
	He's a Democrat president, supported by a media that gives him almost unvarnished praise and veneration, and people who vote for him.
	They're all part of the same structure, from the activists on the ground, to the media, to the presidency and the people surrounding him.
	They're all part of the same organism that you can see operating in tandem through American politics.
	It's clear as day from someone like me who's not in the United States.
	I can see this puppeteering your country.
	And the narrative surrounding it.
	And those people who are outside of it are the victims of it.
	They're the ones who are being dealt damage by this.
	But instead, if you go to Joe Biden's Twitter account, you can see if you scroll down a bit, John, you can see him tweeting about his bipartisan infrastructure bill, which is him pissing away your money because he doesn't care about your opinions at all.
	But he had previously called Carl Rittenhouse a white supremacist.
	Under what evidence?
	This is quite a weighty allegation, I would say.
	And when Peter Doocy, the Fox News correspondent who sits in these, who's been terrorising Jen Psaki with reasonable questions, says, well, why did you say that?
	She just sighs because she thinks he's a white supremacist as well and doesn't want to have to talk about it.
	You know, she doesn't have a good answer.
	He's not like Carl Rittenhouse has ever posted anything about white supremacy on the internet.
	So there's literally not a scrap of evidence for that incendiary accusation from the President of the United States?
	No, but is it incendiary anymore?
	Because they literally use it every goddamn day of their lives.
	And they have called literally everything racist.
	I mean, they think the entire United States is racist.
	They think it's a white supremacist project.
	They think that the idea of freedom is a white supremacist project.
	So it's like, okay, well, I mean, it's just another day ending in Y to these people.
	But yeah, Biden had included a clip of Rittenhouse carrying the AR-15 in a video that he posted on social media in which it was insinuated that Rittenhouse was a white supremacist, but no evidence of that whatsoever.
	Anyway, moving on.
	It seems that the jurors are scared.
	Now, back at the beginning of November, the Federalists posted this article with some comments from some of the jurors that have been kept anonymous.
	But they say, one of them said, no matter the verdict, half the country will be up in arms about it.
	I think the same half will be up in arms, no matter the verdict.
	Well, yeah, exactly.
	And again, half the country isn't accurate, actually.
	It's a much smaller number.
	It's just they're very easy to direct through these media reports.
	And so it will appear that half the country is up in arms about it, but I believe that it's going to be something like two-thirds to three-quarters of the country who really oppose these kind of Black Lives Matter looting and burning sprees.
	Another said, I'm more afraid of our community and the outsiders of our community that are coming in.
	It just brings us back to August 2020.
	So, again, thinking that outsiders are going to come.
	Now, Joseph, was it?
	No.
	Gage gross crowds had travelled something like twice the distance to get to Kenosha that Rittenhouse had, but he didn't cross a stable.
	Ah, of course.
	You know, he didn't violate a border.
	Borders are so sacred these days.
	At least we can all agree on that.
	But anyway, so you can see that the jurors are just like, look, we know what's going to happen.
	We know what the media are going to do.
	They're going to misframe this.
	They're going to cause riots.
	And a third said that it was scary to be on a case like this one, specifically citing riots and wondering aloud, am I going to get home safe?
	You can't really have a fair justice system if the jurors are in terror of their lives because of constant media attention, unfairly misframing what's going on.
	And as we saw earlier with George Floyd's nephew, there have been attempts to dox the jury themselves.
	Why would you want to do that?
	Why would you want to put the legal process in jeopardy?
	I would say it's the people who know they don't have a good case and yet want to bully the people involved into doing their will anyway.
	Again, we need this result.
	Who's we and why?
	Why does that matter?
	Well, it's a novel legal strategy, making your case via the mob.
	What, terror?
	Yep.
	I think we may have seen it before.
	Are we talking about the Gracchi or the early Roman Republic?
	Or the French Revolution?
	Or the Russian Revolution?
	I mean, this is actually not new.
	It's been done many times, and it's pure evil, and the people doing it should be desperately ashamed of themselves, but of course they're not.
	But anyway, there have of course been threats against the jurors, and so what's the Biden administration doing about it?
	Well, not much.
	As Senevich pointed out rightly on Twitter, has Garland sent the FBI to investigate the threats against the Rittenhouse jurors?
	Nope.
	But he did call a bunch of parents who didn't want critical race theory white supremacists, and he did put them on a terror watch list.
	So, you know, at least you're getting the right people.
	And so, why wasn't the result released yesterday when it was being deliberated?
	Because it's a pretty open and shut case.
	Anyone who watched the footage can see that.
	All the evidence is that Carl Rittenhouse did nothing wrong because he was attacked by a bunch of violent thugs and convicted career criminals.
	And it seems that two jurors are holding the decision up, outright citing the backlash, calling to insider information that Japsobiec was able to get.
	They're worried about media leaking their names, what will happen to their families, jobs, etc., including doxing threats from anarchist groups.
	Yeah, no surprise.
	It seems that there's a good chance that that's the case.
	It seems that the jurors are not unaware that this is a deeply politicized case and is not going to go very well either way.
	So, interestingly, there was an event that I wasn't aware of where...
	A part of the process is that the judge pulls numbers from a raffle drum, and for some reason the judge let Carl Rittenhouse pull the numbers instead.
	This is quite unusual.
	And I do wonder why he would do that.
	Because, frankly, I'm worried that he's putting the legal process in jeopardy.
	This is unusual procedure, and therefore complaining on the procedure rather than the merits of the thing.
	Don't know why that's the case, but anyway, moving on.
	We arrived at no verdict yesterday, and so we're hoping the jury is resuming their deliberations at 3pm GMT, which I can't remember what time that is in America, but the point is it will be hopefully later today that we get a result, but who knows?
	We don't know.
	Might not.
	But the deliberations will continue on today.
	Sorry, 9am Central Time, it is.
	The jury of seven women and five men sent two notes to the judge on Tuesday, neither giving any indication of the substance of the discussions.
	And they, after eight hours of deliberations, called it a day and are continuing today.
	So we know what the problem is, and we know who's holding America hostage.
	We know why the jurors are delaying.
	And Godspeed, Kyle.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	That seems like a very open and shut case as far as I'm setting.
	Indemonstrable in my opinion.
	Moving on to open and shut cases, we thought we'd bring something perhaps a little more positive.
	We talk about the power of capitalism.
	Because at the moment, we do have a capitalist in our midst who I think is worthy of all of our appreciation, especially those of us who have tried to dabble in the stock market before.
	Because investing is hard.
	Sometimes you win, and sometimes you lose.
	Smart and successful investors can generally expect averaged annual returns of around, say, 4%.
	Big and powerful investors like Goldman Sachs pride themselves on annual returns of up to 10%.
	Massive entrepreneurs like George Soros or Warren Buffett, they can get a size 20%.
	Your bank, by the way, is probably giving you 0.3% max, if you're lucky.
	So just as a scale to judge that on.
	It's a big club and you ain't in it.
	Yeah.
	But what if I told you there was someone out there who put the whole field to shame?
	Someone who made all the experts at Goldman Sachs and their seven-figure salaries look like chumps playing for change?
	Someone with the investing savvy, the wit, the know-how, the sheer scintillating genius to make a whopping 69% annual return on their portfolio investments?
	Wow.
	That person exists.
	Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to introduce America's greatest capitalist, Nancy Pelosi.
	I wouldn't have guessed that in advance, I have to say.
	I must admit I was surprised as well.
	69% return on her investment.
	How does she do it?
	Now, there are some accountings of this number.
	It may not be exactly 69%.
	A large amount of the wealth may be hidden or not readily obvious, and also depending on where you account the gains from, you can manipulate that figure up to 988%.
	Oh, wow!
	Or down to significantly less.
	But in America, there is this culture, I believe, of respecting wealth.
	And I've certainly, in putting this article together, found lots of websites which simply list rich people in America, their bios, and why we should all admire them.
	So I thought I'd give Nancy Pelosi the same treatment.
	Let's go through her bio.
	I've gone to Wikipedia because it's basically her campaign poster.
	She's an American politician.
	Born 1940, 81 years old, married at 23, five kids, nine grandkids.
	Classic case of the American nuclear family.
	So like most Democrats, Nancy appears to be talking the 60s, but walking the 50s.
	You can have your polyamorous childless relationship, but Nancy Pelosi has already got her dynasty sorted out.
	And dynasty is a great way of describing it.
	She's literally surrounded by the grandkids.
	That's good for her.
	Exactly.
	And now, how did she get into politics?
	Well, she was picked as the designated successor to Philip and Sala Burton in 1988.
	And since then, she's held one of the safest democratic districts in the country.
	California's 12th congressional district.
	Re-elected 16 times with no significant opposition, winning over 80% of the vote.
	The sort of thing that Korean dictators are envious of.
	Pretty much, yeah.
	I'd say so.
	So technically she was elected on an all-woman shortlist.
	The shortlist was one person and it was her.
	Very democratic.
	Indeed.
	And she's been there for decades now.
	But she rises to prominence a bit more from 2006, 2007, where she becomes Speaker of the House.
	And she has that position until 2011.
	From 2019 onwards, she is re-elected as Speaker of the House.
	And now she holds the various hats of the presiding officer, the administrative head of Congress, the leader of the majority party, and of course, this representative of California.
	So let's have a look at her rap sheet.
	For those who aren't familiar at all with Nancy Pelosi, some highlights that I've picked out.
	She led the impeachment of Trump in Congress twice, first in December 2019 and then in January 2021.
	Both failures as I understand it.
	Well, I believe they were passed in Congress, but they failed in the Senate?
	Yes.
	So he was acquitted, is the takeaway.
	So the full impeachment is after the acquittal.
	So he's the most acquitted president of all time.
	Indeed, which would sound like an accolade, if you spun it that way.
	She also telephoned General Mark Milley in January of this year to wrest control of America's nuclear arsenal away from the sitting president.
	I recall that.
	That's very responsible.
	Quoting from this article...
	This morning I spoke to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mark Milley, to discuss available precautions for preventing an unstable president from initiating military hostilities or accessing the launch codes and ordering a nuclear strike, Pelosi said in the letter.
	Well, that's a total constitutional subversion, isn't it?
	Yes, it is.
	Americans, what do you think about that?
	I'm sure you must be thrilled.
	Yeah.
	The situation of this unhinged president could not be more dangerous.
	And we must do everything that we can to protect the American people from his unbalanced assault on our country and our democracy, she said.
	I love that so much because the implications are Donald Trump's going to nuke California.
	Anyway.
	Anyway, another thing which she was noted for was that she banned the use of gender-specific words like he, she, father or mother in the document laying down her new rules for Congress.
	But I bet she doesn't ban them in her own household, like grandmother.
	Her grandkids probably don't call her...
	No, no, no, that's not gender neutral.
	Yeah, exactly.
	No, no, no, they call her nan, don't they?
	And another thing she did more recently was she set up the commission to investigate the January the 6th Capitol riots, citing that January the 6th was one of the darkest days in our nation's history.
	I mean, I can think of a few darker ones.
	Yes, I think so.
	I think so.
	Moving on.
	So let's just have a look at Nancy's net worth over time.
	So I compiled a number of notes from a number of different sources.
	So in 2009, she had a minimum estimated net worth of $21.7 million.
	As a career politician?
	As a career politician on a $200,000 a year salary.
	Now, if you were to do the maths, that is, what, 10, 100 years worth of salary?
	Is that right?
	I mean, she does look like she's been in Congress for 100 years.
	That is true.
	I did choose the most flattering picture I could for this bit, by the way, because there were some very unflattering ones.
	And then she's 80 years old.
	Indeed.
	But what I love about this is that in 2009, she's got $21 million worth of money and assets, and she's like, that's not enough.
	Yeah.
	So is that not enough?
	Well, let's see.
	So by 2010, she had already moved that up to $35.2 million.
	So she's nearly doubled it in a year.
	Yeah, that's a massive rise.
	Then moving up to 2015, we have an estimate of $100 million.
	So she tripled it in five years.
	Well, she really is America's greatest capitalist.
	This is amazing.
	2019, 100 million, 120 million, sorry.
	So she's gone up another 20 million.
	Modest 20% increase.
	Modest, yeah.
	And in 2021, she's up to 140 million.
	That's incredible.
	And it doesn't stop there.
	Because as far as I can ascertain, that is her own net wealth and doesn't include the net wealth of her husband.
	And who knows what his is?
	Well, at the moment, from what I can gather, he appears to have about $120 million as well, so combined they have about $289 million.
	Nice work if you can get it.
	Indeed.
	Blimey.
	Now, some of you may be fans of the Pink Floyd song, Money.
	Well, one of the things you have to do if you have a lot of money is buy yourself a football team, and that's exactly what Paul Pelosi did.
	Yeah.
	He literally bought a football team in 2009.
	He spent $10 million to purchase the Oakland Invaders United Football League team.
	Why doesn't he buy a dozen teams at that price?
	God!
	That's a very good point.
	Probably because he sucked at managing it and they folded two years later.
	Oh!
	They were relocated and renamed, but they went bust in 2012 and he lost $5 million.
	He wouldn't pay the coach, though, who was still waiting for his money in 2014.
	Yes, so his business deals have also come under scrutiny.
	In July 2021, he made a $5.3 million profit on Alphabet shares.
	This windfall came a week before the House Judiciary Committee voted to push forward with the ending Platform Monopolies Act.
	Really?
	That's interesting.
	So the house is going to push for something, Nancy Pelosi's in control of that, and her husband makes a staggering amount of money just the week before.
	Yeah, funny that.
	He has an excuse for this, though.
	Oh, I bet he does.
	Which I find quite amusing.
	Back in the day when Nancy first went into government and I was in real estate, I never did anything with Resolution Trust.
	There were tremendous opportunities there to go buy things and make a lot of dough.
	I never did because I thought if I did and I made dough that there would be something they would obviously criticize her for.
	So I've religiously steered away from anything that would look controversial to all position.
	Pfft!
	Bollocks.
	Now, the thing I love about this excuse is that it's basically the voice of someone with their hand so deep in the trough that they can make a fortune literally whenever they want with no legal repercussions.
	And the only reason they don't is to avoid making their spouse look bad.
	Unbelievable.
	So let's just have a look at...
	Now you might think from this that everyone is on the make in America, but as we know from previous segments, that is not the case.
	Let's have a look at the broader economy.
	The US inflation rate is at 6.2%, if we can scroll down a bit.
	It's highest since the 1990s.
	That's not good.
	That's your money, by the way, devaluing.
	Yeah, just bleeding away value because Biden keeps pushing through bills of trillions of dollars.
	In December last year, 22% of all US dollars printed had been printed in 2020.
	That number may be as high as 40% for 2021, as the money printer has not stopped going brrr.
	Now, the US government says this inflation is transitory, but you may notice from this new graph of the money supply that it is exactly the same shape as the inflation curve we showed on the previous slide.
	No, no, no, no.
	You've got to understand right.
	When they say transitory, they don't mean it will go down.
	They just mean it will keep going up.
	So, you know, it won't stay like this.
	It will get way worse than this.
	Perhaps that's right.
	We can also see that the real cost of living is up significantly in all US cities, according to the Consumer Price Index.
	And again, that seems to be the same shape as the money supply.
	I like the fact that this comes from a Twitter account called Nancy Pelosi Portfolio Tracker.
	Well, we're going to get into that a bit later because it is a great account and you should totally follow it.
	So, how does Nancy make these massive gains?
	And this is where we get into a bit more of a broad discussion about how all the politicians are so rich when their salaries are so small.
	So, bringing up this next article, Nancy Pelosi is facing scrutiny for her husband's timely trading of tech stocks.
	And this is the same news that we had before.
	It came a week before the antitrust bill that regulated big tech.
	Yeah.
	So, investors make money off the stock market in a number of ways, but the main one is to buy stock at a low price, wait for the price to rise, and then sell the stock.
	So, this is a really sort of basic investment guide.
	If this is insultingly simple to you, I apologize.
	I'm trying to include everyone in the discussion to work out why this is so bad.
	Yeah, like me, I don't know anything about it.
	So, the price of the stock responds to changes in market conditions.
	If there is good news about a company, lots of people want to buy the stock, so the price goes up.
	If there is bad news, people want to sell the stock, so the price goes down.
	Changes in regulation have a huge impact on the value of relevant stocks, and dramatic changes in regulation lead to dramatic impacts on value.
	An investor with prior knowledge about what regulations are coming is able to buy stocks with this foreknowledge and make a massive amount of money when the news goes public and attracts all the other investors.
	For example, the UK's recent announcement that it wants to ban the sale of all petrol and diesel cars by 2030 is likely to destroy the stock value of automotive companies that aren't well diversified into green technology, just as a punt, while raising the stock of companies that make electric cars.
	That's one example.
	Government officials have a wealth of prior knowledge that they can potentially use in order to make huge profits.
	This is what they would term insider trading?
	Well, yes.
	So that moves on to my next segment.
	So if we move to the next one, this is the definition of investor...
	If we scroll down a little, it should be there.
	Yes, so this is the definition of insider trading.
	It's using foreknowledge about informational material to stock prices in order...
	Sorry, I'll start again.
	Insider trading is essentially using foreknowledge about information that is material to stock prices in order to manipulate the market for personal profit, and it is illegal if you can prove it.
	However, until very recently, US politicians were allowed to insider trade with impunity, making immense personal profits from the insider knowledge they had as lawmakers.
	Believe it or not, when the Republic was first coming together, people just thought that, of course, congressmen would have all of this information, and you couldn't stop them trading on the stock market.
	That would be against their rights and their freedoms as American citizens.
	So they've just been allowed to invest using their insider knowledge all the time, and it's been fine.
	But it was changed not too long ago, 10 years ago now.
	The Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act of 2012, or the STOCK Act, proving that American lawmakers are good at one thing, which is acronyms, mandated that congresspersons must declare their business deals within 45 days of having made them.
	So there's a start, but it does not solve the problem, as we will see.
	The practical reality is that stock fines are minuscule, about $200.
	Really?
	If you get caught.
	Seems to be the average.
	Okay, amazing.
	It's shocking that it'd even bother trying to hide it with a fine of 200 bucks.
	I think, what was it, 5.3 million in alphabet trades is probably worth it on balance.
	But I love the way that they'd say, well, I don't want to pay that $200.
	And it's still very difficult to prove.
	Yes.
	So who loses out?
	Well, obviously, stock trading is a zero-sum game.
	When one investor makes money, someone else is losing money.
	When politicians make money off the stock market, they're making money off all the other investors, which includes you.
	And if we go to the next slide.
	While the GameStop craze of January this year saw millions of dollars wiped off several hedge funds, the usual trend is the reverse.
	Institutional investors like banks and hedge funds have been accused of running Wall Street like their private casino by Elizabeth Warren and AOC of all people.
	And they see consistent successes across the board year on year.
	It's very interesting because AOC and Pelosi, she's basically Pelosi's creature at this point.
	It's obvious that there was, in fact, an incident the other day where Pelosi just walked over the floor and berated her and she basically backed down.
	So the corrupt capitalist has got a nice hold over the young socialist there.
	Well, maybe AOC is going to start taking stock tips from Nancy Pelosi.
	Well, yeah.
	But it gets slightly more amusing because now private investors are copying insider trades using the power of modern technology.
	If we go to the next slide.
	So, young investors have a new strategy.
	Watching financial disclosures of sitting members of Congress for stock tips.
	LAUGHTER Why not?
	Among a certain community of individual investors on TikTok, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's stock trading disclosures are a treasure trove.
	Shouts out to Nancy Pelosi, the stock market's biggest whale, said user CEO Watchlist.
	Another said, I've come to the conclusion that Nancy Pelosi is a psychic, while adding that she is the queen of investing.
	Obviously.
	I mean, if she's dumping a bunch of stock, you may as well dump that as well because she obviously knows something's going on.
	Yeah.
	Now, this is not financial advice, by the way, but it is hilarious.
	One way you can take advantage of this is setting up push notifications so that whenever a notoriously successful investor invests in something, you copy them.
	If we go to the next slide.
	So if we scroll down a bit, this is an ex-investor.
	Invest in stocks like the great Nancy Pelosi.
	I love that in this community she's got this legendary reputation as a psychic.
	So this is the guy who runs the Nancy Pelosi portfolio.
	This is his newsletter.
	And he explains how it works.
	Whenever an executive of a company buys or sells stock, it has to be reported within the SEC through a Form 4.
	Form 4s are public filings and astute investors can see almost in real time when an insider is buying or selling stock.
	Tracking these insider trades is one of my favorite ways to make money in the public markets.
	It's like getting free deep insider knowledge.
	Amazing.
	Yeah.
	And he then went on to, so if we go to his account, which is the next one, go follow this if you're into the US stock market.
	Nearly 200,000 followers.
	Yeah, it got a cease and desist order in October.
	Really?
	It's still going.
	Why should it cease and desist publishing public information?
	Yeah.
	That's definitely not about insider trading.
	Maybe the exposing government corruption one tweet at a time tagline rubbed a bit raw.
	Who knows?
	Surely Pelosi can just afford to buy him off?
	Yeah, you would think so.
	I mean, he's a capitalist, right?
	Yeah, exactly.
	Okay, here's 50 million.
	Shut up and piss off.
	Yep.
	And then, so if we go to the last one, he also created, I believe he created, but he certainly references, a one-click investment fund on Finmix, which automatically tracks Pelosi's Form 4 filings for you, so that you can invest in her trade.
	It's a wonderful idea and I don't see why people don't take advantage.
	But just to summarise that segment, so we have a sitting member of Congress dramatically inflating their wealth from $21 million to $140 million on a $200,000 annual salary.
	And I think we've given some insight into how they get away with it.
	Fascinating.
	Absolutely fascinating.
	I love the...
	Oh, I don't have insider information.
	I just sleep with Nancy Pelosi.
	Anyway, let's talk about the curious case of the Liverpool bomber, because some very strange details about this have come out.
	And it's becoming a very difficult thing for the mainstream to try and pass, because it doesn't follow the usual events of an Islamic terror attack.
	Even though it does end up with a similar result.
	So you may remember, of course, that on Remembrance Sunday, there was a chap who was a refugee asylum seeker from the Middle East who attempted to bomb an Anglican church.
	Wasn't able to, and so attempted to bomb a hospital instead.
	Didn't manage that either, and didn't even kill the taxi driver who took him to the hospital.
	Ended up blowing himself up.
	So it seems a bit, in retrospect, like a Four Lions skit.
	But it's quite serious, because it's not like it's the first, and it certainly won't be the last terror attack.
	It's just fortunate that this one only killed the terrorist.
	Four other people were arrested, but they were interrogated and released, because apparently they had nothing to do with it.
	And so the tax driver survived.
	All good.
	For some reason, the co-chair of the Conservative Party came out and gave his deepest sympathies to the terrorist.
	Not sure why.
	Deepest sympathy for the person that's lost their life.
	It's very progressive of you, Oliver.
	That was a mistake, so he retracted that.
	The Daily Mirror, a very left-wing paper, decided to post rest in peace to the bomber.
	Hmm...
	What I love about this is that they had to go and edit it as well and take that down.
	But it's always going to be there because the edit history is there.
	But what I love about this, and this really is a symptom of the problem of the internet, Something's happened.
	I'm not fully informed on it, but I'm going to make a public statement about it anyway.
	And so now you have Conservatives and Labour both praising and giving sympathies for the bomber.
	Insincerely, obviously, I don't think these people intentionally were like, oh, an Islamic terrorist.
	Quick, let's praise that guy.
	They're just stupid, and they're just involved too much in internet politics.
	Absolutely.
	Jeremy Corbyn, on the other hand.
	Now, I'm 50% sure that this is a shop.
	The only thing that makes me suspicious about it is that the...
	I don't think Corbyn would have tried to put the wreath on a burning car, because, of course, if he's going to give a wreath to a terrorist, he wants the wreath to remain intact.
	It would be out of kindness and consideration, a gentler kind of politics.
	Yeah.
	But this picture, as amusing as it is for me to tweet out, was apparently less amusing when a Conservative councillor tweeted it out.
	And he got told off for this.
	But the thing is, Jeremy Corbyn is actually a well-known terrorist sympathiser, so him using the opportunity of a terrorist attack to mock Corbyn, well, who's surprised?
	If you scroll down on this one, you can see this is a hundred times that Corbyn has sided with terrorists.
	He has laid wreaths at the graves of terrorists before.
	A hundred times.
	Yeah, I mean, after...
	That kind of cricket score or something, when you pass 100.
	I mean, it's like football caps or something, isn't it?
	But there are many times, like when the IRA tried to blow up Margaret Thatcher, he invited them to Parliament and things like this.
	He's got a long history of siding with the enemies of Britain, so I'm not surprised.
	But, you know, I was thinking, OK, great, a base Conservative councillor, this is good.
	But no, he backpedalled after this came out.
	I'm going to go to the next one.
	He apologised for tweeting and said, oh, it wasn't me, I was hacked.
	Ugh.
	It's weak.
	Yeah.
	It's a weak source.
	We know you weren't hacked.
	We know that the fact that Jeremy Corbyn is the hero sympathizing, you're making that point.
	Stand on it.
	It's fine.
	They'd do it to you if it was the other way around, just so you know.
	Hashtag social justice.
	Hashtag families.
	All views are mine.
	Interesting bio there.
	Yeah.
	That sounds like a very conservative buyer, doesn't it?
	Hashtag social justice.
	But at least he was going after Corbyn, I suppose.
	That's true.
	But anyway, so apparently the taxi driver is apparently doing very well, which is good to know.
	His wife posted something on Facebook saying that he's extremely sore but doing okay.
	He doesn't think of himself as a hero.
	He didn't actually lock the doors.
	The bomber was just incompetent, it seems.
	But he did get out, and frankly, I think he just did what we'd all do in the circumstances to try and get away from it, which is totally fair.
	Yeah.
	But good for him.
	And, you know, glad that he's doing okay.
	Yeah.
	So, who was the bomber?
	Well, he was a chap who was either a Syrian or Iraqi immigrant, but he also had a Jordanian passport.
	So it's hard to tell who this chap is.
	But his name was Imad Jamil al-Sweelman.
	Typically British.
	And he was believed to have spent a large part of his life in Iraq.
	So that's not the Yorkshire Sweelmans?
	Not the Yorkshire Sweelmans, no.
	I believe these are from Devon, actually.
	Yeah, no.
	So he's a Muslim immigrant.
	He was arrested for possession of a large knife after the rejection of his asylum claim in 2014, and this resulted in him being sectioned under the Mental Health Act and hospitalised for several months.
	He was apparently a motor racing fan, a massive motor racing fan, and so he changed his name.
	To Enzo Alamini.
	Do you know who that's after?
	Is it not Enzo Ferrari?
	That's correct.
	He changed his name by depot in honour of Italian supercar creator Enzo Ferrari in a bid to Samuel Weston.
	What, Italians?
	Does he not know about Brexit?
	Jokes aside, I suppose it does sound Western to someone from Iraq, but it doesn't sound very British for someone from Britain.
	Anyway...
	Police said that he's been living at a hostel for asylum seekers run by private contracting giant Serco in Sutler Street in Liverpool for some time before renting the bomb factory two miles away and creating the bomb.
	And so the question is, okay, why did you do this?
	What was all of this about?
	Well, UK Security Minister Damon Hines was like, well, you know, he may have been radicalised during the pandemic.
	That's a good point.
	He may have been.
	So this was the fault of lockdowns?
	That's the implication, yes.
	Interesting.
	Interesting admission there.
	Well, yeah, exactly.
	And I agree.
	Lockdowns were terrible.
	The security services apparently disrupted more than 30 late-stage plots in the last few years.
	He said there's a shift towards attacks becoming more self-directed.
	Excuse me.
	He says, we use the term lone wolf a lot.
	Sometimes it's a bit misleading because it gives a certain picture of an individual.
	But certainly it's true.
	We've seen a move over time, a shift from what we call directed attacks as part of a bigger organisation to people who are basically self-radicalising in small groups or rarely totally alone.
	And obviously this means you're locked at home all day.
	You're not allowed to go anywhere during lockdowns.
	You end up reading radical material online like The Guardian and suddenly you're there bombing an Anglican church.
	I mean, don't get me wrong...
	Who of us can say that we haven't had that thought?
	I think I can say I haven't had that thought.
	Flying the ointment.
	The spanner in the works to all of this was, ah, but!
	You were calling him an Islamic terrorist, but he was a Christian convert.
	Oh, well.
	So we've got our first Christian suicide bomber, do we?
	Very convincing.
	I'm convinced.
	It emerged that Al Sweelman had converted from Islam to Christianity at Liverpool's Anglican Cathedral in 2017.
	The cathedral that he tried to bomb.
	Are there any other records of Christians bombing cathedrals?
	I don't think it's part of the scripture.
	No, not generally what Jesus was saying.
	But it's interesting how he was trying to bomb the cathedral in which he had apparently converted, but of course he was thwarted by the bad traffic in Liverpool.
	But he was sectioned seven years ago after trying to take his own life by jumping off an overpass while waving the knife.
	So he does seem to have been someone with mental health problems.
	But this is interesting, isn't it?
	Because in 2016, it became apparent that asylum seekers were getting baptized specifically to stay in Britain.
	Now, I find this kind of adorable.
	This sort of like, well, Britain's a Christian country, isn't it?
	Well, if we convert to Christianity, they'll give us preferential treatment.
	Wrong!
	How totally wrong you are.
	Britain does everything but give Christians preferential treatment.
	But anyway, back in 2016, the Times reported that hundreds of Muslim asylum seekers have had their claims accepted by the Home Office after converting to Christianity.
	The converts who are mainly from Iran argue that their new faith would expose them to persecution.
	Which doesn't make Islam sound very tolerant.
	True.
	If they return to their home country.
	Senior Church of England clerics admitted last week that some asylum seekers might be getting baptised in part to exploit a loophole in the system.
	To be honest, at this point the system appears to be nothing but loopholes.
	I am amazed that they can't just move here like everyone else.
	I mean, why claim to be an asylum seeker when we allow 700,000 people to live here every year?
	They're not asylum seekers.
	Don't know why you get the special treatment.
	But anyway, the Reverend Pete Wilcox, Dean of Liverpool, whose cathedral has baptised about 200 asylum seekers in the past four years, said that there was no rush to convert to Christianity from Islam by Muslims who already had British citizenship.
	I'm getting a bit cynical.
	It's just weird how it's only the asylum seekers who are converting and not those Muslims who come here legally and have British citizenship already.
	I can't think of a single example, he said.
	In fact, there was advice from ISIS to Muslims, to Muslim radicals, to pose as Christians while plotting your attacks and getting access to our civilisations.
	They released a document titled Safety and Security Guidelines, which I find hilarious, for the lone wolf Mujahideen.
	But no, it's Safety and Security Guidelines, which is left-wing corporate speak for the Lone Wolf Majedin.
	It's fascinating.
	That title is incredible.
	So, Health and Safety for Suicide Bombers.
	Yes.
	It's clown world, absolute clown world.
	It's amazing, isn't it?
	Anyway, these documents could explain how militants could avoid having a plot thwarted by Western security officials and suggested potential targets.
	They say, quote, And having a booklet of prayers and devotional acts with you, it's better.
	It is permissible for you to wear a necklace showing the Christian cross.
	And, of course, there were concerns at the time about Muslims pretending to convert.
	And the man, so a man called Malcolm Hitchcock, Cot, sorry.
	I'm going to go to the next one, John.
	Because he was doing his Christian duty.
	These refugees have arrived here, they've converted to Christianity, and I, of course, as a good Christian man, am going to take them into my house.
	But this chap had previously been aware of the fact that Asylum seekers are falsely converting to Christianity for their visa applications.
	In a document relating to an appeal in Manchester in 2015, when he was a lay minister at Liverpool Cathedral, he said he was forthright in explaining how he understands that some Iranians might pretend to have found Jesus in order to support the claim for asylum.
	This is something like he and the other clergy and staff at the cathedral are very aware of.
	Hmm.
	This is being described by the Times as trying to game the system.
	In fact, it was Priti Patel, I think, who said this.
	The Liverpool bomber was a failed asylum seeker who tried to game the system, according to the Home Office, which means Priti Patel because the rest of the Home Office hates her.
	Well, she did.
	Sorry, he did, because we're still here.
	But yes.
	Yes.
	Well, that's what we'll talk about in a second, in fact.
	Again, she talks a good game, but it seems, as we were discussing the other day, all of the institutions have made an informal agreement not to pay attention to anything she says and not do what they're told to do.
	And so she's in charge of the Home Office purely nominally.
	In name only does she get to direct what they do.
	Otherwise, they seem to be following their own internal logic.
	It was set by Tony Blair.
	Thanks very much.
	Anyway, she said that he exploited the merry-go-round of Britain's broken asylum system by making repeated claims to stay in the country.
	Applicants who show their committed Christians can argue their new faith would put them at risk.
	And the bombing was declared a terrorist incident, but detectives are not founding any evidence of an ideological motive, and he was not being monitored by MI5. But the question is, why was he still here?
	After seven years of being a failed asylum seeker, why isn't he removed after his first failed application?
	It's like, sorry, you aren't going to get asylum here.
	Deport, right?
	So he was appealed every time the Home Office turned down his application.
	But again, these appeals were rejected because authorities believed he was lying about being Syrian.
	Because he doesn't seem to come from Syria.
	He had a Jordanian passport, apparently growing up in Iraq.
	And claims he only converts from Christianity to Islam to improve his case.
	So, at least they are aware of this.
	Latest government figures show that there are currently 125,000 outstanding asylum cases being considered by the British authorities.
	125,000.
	Staggering.
	Of these, 5,900 people, including their user's name, Almini, the new name, were awaiting the outcome of an appeal, and approximately 39,500 people are waiting to be deported.
	Maybe 40,000 people are just sat around waiting to be deported.
	What's the delay?
	Like, go put them on an airplane.
	Send them to wherever they need to go.
	Let's get it over with.
	In 2013, the number of failed asylum seekers and criminals being deported peaked at 47,000, but this last year has dropped to now only 8,000, these failed asylum seekers who are being deported.
	So for some reason, the Home Office and the various institutions connected to it are just simply not deporting these people and just letting them live at large in a country where they're not paying taxes, they're not...
	Like, you know, under any sort of understanding of who they are, what they're doing here.
	We don't know what the criminal records are.
	They're not supposed to be here.
	They're here illegally.
	They should leave, and we should make them leave.
	And am I correct in thinking that the majority of these 125,000 outstanding asylum cases are young Muslim men?
	Well, I don't know the age of them, but they are going to...
	And unfortunately, the Daily Mail doesn't give us this information, this report.
	And it may not be present in public statistics, but...
	But it is going to be that case, yes.
	I would put money on the fact that the overwhelming majority of them are Muslim men, say 18 to 40, something like that.
	Yeah.
	Without a doubt.
	If we're to compare it to the demographic statistics coming in from migrants in Europe, which seems like a fair thing to do, then that would be the case.
	Yeah, the illegal immigrants who are invading Britain by crossing the Channel illegally, yes, then that would exactly be the correct profile of those people.
	Now, do you happen to know what the rough size of the British Army is these days?
	It's about 80,000 people.
	80,000.
	So one and a half times the British Army's worth of outstanding asylum cases.
	And more coming.
	Yes.
	Even more.
	A thousand a day crossing the channel.
	So in a couple of months, it'll be twice the size.
	Jolly good.
	Good news.
	Nothing to worry about, folks.
	And what I love about this, just to finish this off, is the left-wing reporting on this.
	The Independent.
	I guess we'll just never know why he did it.
	I guess we won't.
	I guess we won't know why the Muslim man who claims to have converted to Christianity decided to kill himself in a suicide bomb attack.
	Who could know?
	Let's go to the video comments.
	Hi guys.
	Just been watching your destructive internationalist mindset.
	And much as I hate to say this, I think what the UK needs to do is take a leaf out of Thailand's book.
	You can live here for 20 years coming from another country, but you are still a tourist.
	You have to report every 90 days.
	You have to renew your visa every year.
	Bring that in in the UK. See how many people want to still come here.
	Thanks.
	Good show.
	Thank you.
	What do you think?
	I think it's a good idea, but the problem ultimately is that the institutions won't implement it.
	They'll get together like they already do and say, oh, well, we just don't have the resources or the time or we don't want to.
	Yeah, and that's what it will come to, because all of this could be done.
	There's actually no shortage of manpower or resources to be able to actually deport some of these people who shouldn't be here.
	Places like Hungary and Poland do not have an overabundance of material wealth or manpower.
	Yet they are able to solve this problem because they say they are serious countries.
	We should be too.
	I agree.
	And everything we're suggesting is exactly in line with international law, domestic law, and moral propriety as well.
	But for some reason, the institutions we have, as the chap was pointing out, are filled with destructive internationalists.
	And they just seem to not care.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Well, I just finished watching the Nika Riots episode of the Epochs.
	Once again, Bo, Carl, you did a very good job.
	Who knew that Glasgow and Constantinople had so much in common when it came to sports enthusiasm and factionalism?
	I know you were at one point discussing various differences over Christology and whether or not Jesus was a man or God.
	Yes, it's important.
	No, I won't explain why, because, well, you're not interested and I don't have the time.
	But, yeah, no, those differences are there, and yes, they do matter.
	Oh yeah, they matter to Christians because they're the source of many various heresies.
	But I'm not bothered by them.
	I don't care whether Jesus was a man or a god in Christian theology.
	So I'm not going to side with either one.
	Alright, so the prosecution of Carl Rittenhouse is using Photoshop deftones.
	I don't even know...
	The correct verbiage required to explain how much of a miscarriage of justice it would be at this point if he was actually convicted for murder.
	I really hope he gets out, obviously.
	Yeah, I felt the same way about Derek Chauvin, to be honest.
	I'm not persuaded that Chauvin was a racist who was trying to murder George Floyd.
	Well, I always start from a position of the most intellectual charity I can give, so I'm in the same position on that.
	I mean, I can understand why it looked like that from the initial footage.
	And I don't begrudge anyone from being like, oh, Christ, this is terrible.
	But the fact that he complains about having breathing problems when he's sat in the car, after he's taken all of these pills, and obviously he's clearly off his face, and he's got like three times the lethal dose of fentanyl in his blood.
	It's like, okay, look, you know, it's bad.
	The fentanyl was what changed it for me.
	And when all the evidence around that came out, I was like, well, okay, yeah.
	The toxicology report implies this is a dying man.
	And the fact that he couldn't breathe when he was sat in the car, he's not being knelt on, he's like, I can't breathe, I can't breathe.
	And then the fact that it turned out he had previous, and this may be his modus operandi for getting out of drug stops and so on and so forth, all of this evidence coming out, it just...
	It did not seem at all like what it was presented to us as.
	No.
	And Derek Chauvin, he's a racist, but he's married to a Filipino woman or something like that.
	Like every white supremacist.
	Yeah, every Nazi is married to a non-white woman.
	But again, I'm just not persuaded by the narratives, and I agree with you.
	I hope he gets out, because I'm not...
	I mean, this is even more clear-cut, in my opinion, who was in the wrong, so...
	Well, I hope that a lot of the January 6th people get out because, if I'm correct, a lot of them haven't even been properly charged yet.
	That's correct.
	They're still being held on misdemeanor charges.
	Deep violation of habeas corpus.
	Carl, what you have to understand about science fiction as a genre is that it was never meant to have overarching continuity in narratives for most of its history.
	It's very much an innovation of the 70s, which matured in the 80s and 90s with the sci-fi we have today.
	Star Trek under Gene Roddenberry was very much an exemplar of this older sci-fi juxtaposing various aspects of human nature with the setting and aliens that embody them.
	Yeah, that sounds pretty accurate.
	I don't disagree.
	It is a question I need to ask with regard to freedom of the press is how far should that be allowed to go?
	How do we curb it without restricting freedom generally?
	If the media can say as much as it does about Kyle Rittenhouse, we saw what happened to the Catholic kid.
	He managed to sue them.
	Why isn't that happening more often?
	What am I missing here to limit how far this goes?
	Well, I understand that this is a Canadian chap.
	I believe it's the laxity of America's libel laws that is the case.
	And Trump has actually said, well, I'd like these tightened up a bit because I think that people should be able to sue the media for saying things about them that are just not true.
	With the Sandman case, it was so demonstrably...
	Obviously smears and lies.
	The media just settled.
	We're not even going to try and take this through the courts because we're going to lose.
	With American libel laws, I understand them.
	If you're in a position where you're obviously going to lose so you may as well settle, you must have been lying really badly because America's free speech is as absolute as it gets anywhere on earth.
	If you're so bad that you even fall foul of American libel laws, well, man, you are...
	You are bad.
	But yeah, so I agree with you.
	Something has got to be done about the fact that the press are currently puppeteering the United States with a violent mob.
	That can't be allowed.
	That can't be considered to be the freedom of the press.
	I don't know what can be done, though.
	I haven't got a solution in hand.
	Because, I mean, who thought this would be the problem?
	Yeah, the freedom of the press is not the same as the impunity of the press, is it?
	Yes, that's a great way of framing it, in fact.
	And, I mean, even if...
	The problem is, yeah, okay, I'm for a free press, but when we say free press, we're implying, we think of an individual establishment and say, right, we don't want the government persecuting them for saying things that will offend the government.
	It's like, sure, but what if you have a government agent, like the president, his party, and then a media that is openly in favor of that party, and often come out with open endorsements of that party, Who are then weaponizing mobs of ill-informed and violent radicals in order to terrorize other segments of the population.
	Now we're not talking about the freedom of the press.
	Now we're talking about an organized campaign of intimidation.
	Exactly.
	And so it's not about the freedom of the press, but they can hide behind this argument of, well, if you do anything to our megaphones, then you are attacking the press as a class, which isn't the problem or the point in question.
	Like I said, I don't have an answer to it, but at least we can see the shape of the problem.
	And I think it's worth pointing out, as far as I'm aware, foreign propaganda channels, such as Russian or Iranian or Chinese propaganda, is generally not extended the same freedoms of the American press as the American press.
	I would have to look into it, to be honest.
	I don't know.
	I mean, I'm not saying they should be, but I'm saying that if there's a universal principle here that we have to keep, then that would be an interesting one to look at.
	Yeah, but like I said, I don't have an answer, but it's such an obvious problem, and it's being done deliberately by the people involved.
	Since Leo is so insistent on spreading misinformation, I would just like to say again that use and possession of punt guns is legal in the United States, and I would like to politely request that one of y'all call him out the next time he says otherwise.
	I will call out Leo personally.
	I'll send him a message.
	Leo, it is legal.
	You've been owned.
	Thanks, though.
	Looks like I got a little bit too technical in my explanation yesterday.
	So this is the breaker panel.
	It holds all of your circuit breakers.
	If you trip a plug or something like that, then you go here to reset the breaker.
	The big wires I'm tying in feed power into the house from BC Hydro.
	When I actually tie in all of the circuits in this panel, I'll time-lapse that too.
	It'll take me probably six to eight hours to tie in all of the circuits when it's all said and done.
	I still can't get over the fact that Americans just built their houses out of wood.
	Yeah, but I mean, they do in Japan as well.
	And in Japan, a lot of it is because they've had natural disasters, earthquakes, floods, tsunamis, fires for so long that they just get used to building them back up again.
	If you live in England, right, we don't have earthquakes.
	We don't have volcanoes.
	We don't have natural disasters, really.
	So if you build your house, the worst thing that can happen to it probably naturally is it gets flooded.
	So we build to last.
	Yeah, I mean, Britain hasn't changed very much in about 10,000 years, so stuff's been here for a long time.
	But I swear to God, a couple of years ago I went to California and I saw them putting up a house or a building.
	It wasn't even a house, it was a bigger building.
	But it was made out of wood.
	And it was the most British thing that I'd ever thought.
	The first thing that just popped into my mind was, that's not going to last 200 years.
	And I don't know why I thought it, but it was just the first thing that was most obviously screaming.
	It was like, why would you even bother?
	But anyway, Americans, eh?
	Let's go for the next one.
	Hey everybody, Tony D and Little Joan with another Legend of the Pines, the Lambertville High Ghost.
	The ghost of a young boy who was killed during a Thanksgiving Day Turkey Bowl.
	That's a football game for you Brits.
	You know, real football.
	And in 1935, his ghost apparently haunted the school.
	The school was closed down in the 50s, but teenagers still kept going back until the school was torn down in 2012.
	But it is said the boy still haunts the area.
	I love these ghost stories.
	Yeah.
	Let's go to the next one.
	So a while ago, Carl recommended networking to find people that like to build businesses like me, so I'm going to do that now.
	My name's Fox.
	You guys already know I'm a dadist in Oklahoma.
	I'm an IT professional with a mind for business.
	My wife and I have already founded a couple non-profits.
	Perhaps we could make a company that sells something like Android phones that are private and Google-free.
	The market really needs something like that.
	You can find me on Gab or Minds at Foxglove Actual.
	My other interests include being a dad, vintage video game systems, digital media, home improvement, cooking, and drink mixing.
	I hope to see some of you guys soon.
	Awesome.
	All right.
	Great stuff.
	Is that?
	Great.
	All right.
	So Christopher says, quote, no black people were harmed during the making of this trial.
	That's true.
	Henry says, if Carl does get found guilty, it's the perfect example of why collectivism is the worst thing in the world.
	I don't think that's fair, right?
	I think there are leftists who care about people close to them as well.
	Have you met one?
	Yeah.
	Oh, okay.
	The universities are full of them.
	I think if you stay in that belief system for long enough, you stop caring about anything, in fact, especially yourself.
	I think it's an inevitability of the...
	Because of the scope of their beliefs as well.
	When you've pathologized the entire world as being, you know, your entire country, everyone in it, all of the institutions, its entire history as being a form of racism, I mean, it's not surprising you get kind of beaten down by the weight of that belief.
	Sure, sure.
	No, I can agree with that.
	It's, you know, you're just one individual.
	How are you going to overthrow the white supremacy and stuff like that?
	But yeah, no, it is terrible.
	And again, this collective justice, I agree with Hayek on this.
	Justice is an individual attribute.
	It is based on personal agency, so what someone has done and what they deserve.
	So there's no such thing as collective justice.
	Unless you've got an explanation of what it is the blacks deserve, what it is the Jews deserve.
	And it all starts getting a bit gross, doesn't it?
	I don't think we're going to be doing a premium podcast on that on Yes, indeed.
	Omar says, Yes, that's another thing.
	The media have been exceptionally guilty of this crime.
	Calling Rittenhouse's victims, victims without actually accepting or acknowledging that the point is to find out if they are victims or if they are aggressors.
	I know it's mostly a passing talking point of both sides, probably because the video available after the incident is so clear, but it feels like a significant portion of the left don't actually realise he's not a murderer until after he receives the guilty sentence.
	To them, justice isn't a protest, it's the result, and the media have already made their verdict clear.
	Correct.
	Alpha of the Beta says, if you chase someone and grab hold of the AR-15, you may be many things, but you are not unarmed.
	That is dual possession.
	And, well, exactly.
	You know, if you're taking someone's weapon off of them, you're not unarmed.
	You're trying to take their weapon.
	You're trying not to be unarmed.
	Anyway, so the Minicus Monicus said, how can these lunatics honestly describe a chubby 17-year-old kid who obviously tried to do something heroic, putting up fires and administering medical aid in a reckless way as kids do, as like he is some reincarnation of Hitler?
	I would think that even absolute ideologues should experience some amount of cognitive dissonance there.
	Are they just that good at suppressing it, or have they completely left reality behind?
	No, I think it goes back to rules for radicals in the end of the day.
	It's been personalised and polarised to such an extent that mentioning anything against the narrative, even the fact that he's a child, it goes against the anti-Semite, murderer, white supremacist narrative.
	So you can't even mention that, even though it's the most obvious fact on display.
	Absolutely.
	And you are right.
	It's Solominski's radicalization tactic.
	Freewell says, I guess when the hard left talk, when the hard left they talk about getting justice, they mean the justice of the Seattle autonomous zone.
	Yes, they do.
	Also, they don't understand what justice is.
	For them, justice is basically revenge.
	So when they're talking about racial justice, they really mean racial revenge.
	They're talking about historical wrongs and some framework by which they should be able to get the gratification of writing them in the modern day.
	Yep.
	Pirate Skeleton says, remember that when the left accuses you of holding a certain motivation, it is projection.
	It is always projection, because their sense of empathy is malformed.
	Chris says, justice is a process, not a result.
	And this is exactly my opinion on the concept of justice as well, by the way.
	And in fact, this is the great difference between the systemic thought of critical race theory and the sort of procedural thought of liberalism, classical liberalism.
	Humans cannot deliver justice because justice should be restorative.
	We strive for justice as we strive for grace.
	Heads held high in every failed attempt.
	That's a very noble statement.
	That's very beautifully written, too.
	Justin says, "There will still be violence if Kylan's convicted.
	It will be proof that white supremacy is rife because in their mind he is one.
	The same way that him being let off will prove that white supremacy is rife because the system is protecting someone that they think is one." Oh no, but the insufferable thing about that is that even if he gets convicted, well no, if he does get convicted, every leftist and their dog will be using him as an example that we are a white supremacist, that America is white supremacist.
	Yes.
	Patently not true.
	Yes.
	It's...
	Insufferable, isn't it?
	And there's no...
	It just gets added to the narrative, just another brick, even though it's another rotten, mouldy, completely false brick.
	And it's also unfalsifiable as well.
	There's no time in which this assertion's wrong.
	It's just wrong.
	It's always correct.
	It's either correct and on display or correct and being hidden.
	I guess what we could call false consciousness.
	And I just despise these terms.
	Free Will again says, That's true.
	Long Talks on the Nietzsche says, Well,
	yeah, that's, honestly, that's my big fear from this Rittenhouse case, is at least, I mean, the right are at least very aware and are marching shoulder to shoulder on this point that Rittenhouse clearly did nothing wrong.
	You know, he defended himself from an attacker.
	And the problem, though, is that if Rittenhouse is convicted, this is a very clear signal to the right that the left is trying to send them, that you have no right to self-defense.
	And that's a real problem, because I think that the people on the right think they do, and this is an inviolable right.
	And so if that is not one of your inviolable rights, then you're living under a tyranny.
	And American revolutionaries have thoughts about tyranny.
	And I'm not confident as to where things go.
	I don't like it.
	But anyway, Callum says, regarding Nancy Pelosi, love to see Nancy's face when all her property gets seized.
	Her assets taken as well.
	Socialism for all, but not for they, Nancy.
	That's the thing.
	Nancy's above the socialist revolution.
	That's how they're not revolting in her neighbourhood.
	No, but in 20 years, when her brood is in the headlines, it'll be interesting to see what happens to her assets under socialism.
	It will.
	It will.
	But no, Nancy's part of the inner party.
	This is what I love.
	Oh, it's been collective ownership of everything.
	Yeah, by the very people at the top who will effectively own the entire society.
	And Nancy Pelosi will be one of those people.
	The Minicus Monica says, The world controller Nancy...
	Good, good.
	World controller.
	That's from Brave New World, by the way, if you haven't read it.
	It's one of the world controllers.
	Is happy to have everyone else to be decanted from a tube, but her own dynasty will covertly live as a family in a nice home with no need to have Soma not to go crazy.
	Exactly your point earlier.
	I love the way you framed it as well.
	She's preaching the 60s but living the 50s.
	I must admit that's not original to me and I cannot remember the name of the guy.
	But it's still very true and very on point because it is amazing how traditionalist Pelosi's family structure is.
	And leftists do this all of the time in America.
	Once you reach a certain social class, especially at universities, that's it.
	They'll say, oh, I like this, I like that.
	And they'll have a boyfriend.
	They'll be planning to settle down.
	And honestly, it's all because they've got to preserve wealth.
	Family structures are the most secure way of preserving wealth.
	And they know it.
	But if they don't want competition, it'd be useful for them if you didn't have any wealth.
	It's not their problem.
	In fact, you become a useful constituency for them to manipulate them.
	Anyway, Paul says, Biden is a student of the Robert Mugabe School of Economics.
	Looking forward to that trillion dollar bill.
	Didn't one of the advisors actually say we could mint a trillion dollar coin?
	Please not.
	Please no.
	Surely not.
	Can you Google that quickly, John?
	I'm pretty sure one of Biden's advisors said something like a trillion dollar coin.
	Because I'm sure that that came up.
	See, in the search, it's there.
	Oh no.
	Surely not.
	Scroll down a bit.
	There was a trillion, yeah, no, no.
	The Newsmax one there.
	So one of his advisors had said something about minting a trillion dollar coin.
	Go down a bit.
	I recall it.
	So my understanding was that this sort of thing was only done, so for example, when Scotland joined the union to basically settle the debts between the two countries, they did something like that.
	But...
	Yeah.
	So, I mean, literally, the Mugabe School of Economics.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	Not even...
	Oh, it was Janet Yellen, Treasury Secretary.
	As Callum Dayton puts it, bloody Nora, no one knows basic economics.
	Next comment.
	No!
	No, they don't!
	Like, this is...
	It's wild, isn't it?
	It's like, oh, we'll just...
	Burr money.
	Yes.
	Henry says, what Nancy, quote, lockdown haircut Pelosi is doing whatever she wants, whenever she wants, imagine my shock.
	Better be careful, lads, she might have disappeared faster than a Chinese tennis player.
	Yeah, that was another thing, wasn't it, during all the lockdowns?
	Well, she didn't pay attention to that because it's rules for thee.
	Edward says, just reminded myself that unlike many presidents, Donald Trump's wealth went down when he was in office.
	That's a great point.
	That's true.
	Yes, Donald Trump went down on the rich list because he was enriching himself.
	Yes, and the leftists somehow seem to think this is a gotcha moment because he was hiding the failure of his businesses.
	Well, he was busy being the president of the United States.
	I'm actually encouraged by the fact...
	I think that's a good excuse.
	Yeah.
	I mean, I'm encouraged by the fact that he didn't enrich himself of the public good.
	I mean, they must have just been like, well, I just don't understand this man at all.
	This reminds me of the Roman Republic, where it's traditional to pay back one's supporters by absolutely fleecing the province you got to govern after your year in office.
	Yeah, if anywhere is being fleeced, it's California, isn't it?
	No wonder businesses are fleeing.
	The difference is that in this case, it isn't the hapless subjects of the empire, it is the citizens of your own nation who got it in the neck.
	Yeah, but you're going to run out of constituencies eventually, if you carry on like that.
	I mean, businesses, like major businesses, are literally fleeing California.
	Didn't Elon Musk set some open taxes recently?
	I believe so, yes.
	Yeah, so I mean, you get what you deserve.
	Long Talks on the Leech again says, The only reason Pelosi isn't considered an insider trader is because the legal definition of it doesn't include the people who set the legal definition of insider trading.
	Is that correct?
	Oh, yes.
	Well, it's amazing.
	Yes, I believe that is substantively correct.
	When you set the system up, you don't set yourself up as the loser, do you?
	And if you do, you give yourself a $200 fine.
	I think so.
	I think that's fair.
	That is just mad, isn't it?
	We're exempt from these rules, but even if we weren't, it's only $200.
	Anyway, Carbohydrate Crusader has thoughts on the Liverpool bomber.
	All right, lads, resident scouser of the Lotuses here.
	Thank you very much, sir.
	I hate the city.
	I've been to Liverpool a bunch of times in my life.
	And every time I've gone, everyone's been nice.
	It's always been nice.
	Everyone's been lovely.
	I've had a scouse girlfriend, stuff like this.
	I've not got any problem with the individuals that I've met from Liverpool.
	But there's a general atmosphere of leftism that hangs over the city like a pall.
	And I just...
	I hate it.
	But anyway, the cope around his identity is baffling and saddening to see.
	Everyone is making excuses for someone who wished to bomb children.
	Oh, well, on the plus side, he wanted to bomb the Remembrance Sunday services and accidentally tried to bomb children.
	As soon as I heard they were investigating Kensington and Tox Earth addresses, I had a pretty good idea of what ethnicity the person would be and religion they hold.
	The Catholicism line is BS. It was Protestantism, actually.
	And everyone knows it.
	People are using it as a desperate cope.
	I'll cringe.
	Also, excited to be bullied into my mandatory vaccine.
	Should I not get exploded by Catholics of peace?
	All the best.
	Again, there's not Protestants of peace this time.
	All the best, lads.
	Keep up the good work.
	Been able to watch for a few weeks, but I'll watch this episode after.
	Well, thank you very much.
	Thank you.
	Good to hear from you.
	Robert says, they do indeed convert so as not to be sent back to the Middle East where the religionist peace would stone them to death.
	Yeah, Christians aren't exactly being well-treated in the Middle East.
	Trump actually had the right idea as, well, why don't we take the Christians?
	Yeah, seems like a good idea, doesn't it?
	Why wouldn't the Christian West take the Christian refugees?
	Well, we're a post-religion society called it.
	Well, yeah, that's a good point.
	Apart from the Muslims.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Incidentally, apart from those religions.
	But it's a great question, isn't it?
	You know, if there are lots of refugees in Muslim countries, they can take the Muslim ones, we'll take the Christian ones.
	You know, splitting the difference, as it were.
	Chris says, the terrorist was trying to check himself into the hospital, but the toxic masculinity...
	Oh, sorry.
	Her, herself, into the hotel, into the hospital even, but the toxic masculinity of her religion exploded before she could express herself as a woman.
	Just another example of people dancing on the grave of a trans woman.
	Well, you don't know that they weren't trans.
	If this comment weren't posted on our website, I wouldn't know whether it was serious or not.
	Yes.
	Harry says, these idiots, I won't swear, but I will call it down.
	You lose nothing from just waiting for more information to come out, or you lose the ability to post BS propaganda to misinform slaves.
	Yeah, but again, like, why?
	And I do this all the time.
	I've long had this policy where it's just, look, when there's the breaking news of an event coming out and all this misinformation, just don't.
	Just don't comment on it.
	Just collect links, put them in a document, wait until you've got the evidence and the facts of the matter have been established.
	Then make a comment on it from an informed position, mock those people who jumped on it because they thought there'd be ambulance chasing all over the internet, and actually do the job right.
	Is that so hard?
	but you are and like the Conservative Party No one's like, hey, you know, what's your thoughts on a bombing?
	You've got to say something right here and now.
	We know what the thoughts are.
	We're against bombings.
	Well, unless it's Jeremy Corbyn.
	He's probably joining the party soon.
	Of course, yeah.
	But, you know, you don't have to jump on it and say, you can just say, well, I'm afraid I don't know the facts of the situation.
	Yeah.
	Baron Von Warhawk says, honestly, Corbyn has supported terrorists for so long, I'm surprised he doesn't strap on a suicide vest and butt problem himself.
	But then again, remaining in government and simping for his terrorist buddies, he can continue to grind England powder.
	He's done more damage than the IRA, the jihadis and Guy Fawkes combined.
	I think also Corbyn has too much wealth to blow himself up, doesn't he?
	Yeah, yeah.
	I mean, he did grow up in a mansion.
	He did.
	Very nice if you can get that.
	M1Ping says, have the Tories considered that the bomber may have been radicalised by being anonymous online?
	I'm amazed if they haven't.
	I'm surprised, actually, they haven't connected this somehow to online anonymity.
	Spadroon says, doesn't Islam sanction false conversions in the name of Jihad?
	Yeah, it's something called Takiyah.
	Yes.
	Hmm.
	And ISIS were like, yeah, you could do that.
	Also, wear the cross.
	It's okay to wear the cross.
	And aftershave.
	Yes.
	Which is presumably banned by the Code of ISIS and other circumstances.
	Because they're so tolerant.
	Yeah.
	Kevin says, I'm sorry, but as bad as lockdowns are and the psychological effects they have on people, I'm pretty sure you'd have to have had many of those thoughts in place before lockdown for the isolation to radicalise you enough to blow up innocent women and kids at a church.
	Yes, I would...
	Yes, I think so.
	I mean, it's not something you mysteriously pick up during the lockdown.
	Absolutely.
	And even if this were overwhelmingly a mental health incident, the character of the actions that he took, I think, was defined by his beliefs leading up to that point, which is, I think, what Kevin is saying.
	Yes.
	I think the fact that it is radical Muslims, jihadists, who blow themselves up on the understanding that by taking out infidels they'll be given a free pass into heaven regardless of their sins seems to be the belief that informs the action.
	I mean, Christians don't believe that.
	So there's no...
	They did briefly.
	It was called the Crusades.
	No, no, no.
	So that's interesting.
	No, no, no.
	There's a difference here, right?
	So the Crusade is an officially sanctioned campaign, basically, by the Pope.
	And so you have to go on the Crusade in order to have your sins absolved if you die on the Crusade.
	Oh yes, so you can't just randomly crusade because you feel like...
	Exactly, yes, exactly.
	So there's actually a kind of structure to it, whereas in Islamic belief, as I understand it, there's not.
	So if the Pope calls a crusade, then the Christians will be like, well, I'm getting my sins absolved here, straight to heaven for me.
	Well, I'm still waiting.
	Yeah, just, you know, your holiness.
	I may be an atheist, but I'm waiting.
	Dale's fault.
	Omar says, oh, some nice words from Omar here.
	If this podcast goes like the last or first one John was on, it's going to be pretty damn good.
	Flawless presentation, really pleasant to listen to, and it seems to have really good chemistry with Carl.
	That's very kind.
	Can't wait to enjoy future content and start seeing how he meshes with the other presenters.
	Excellent.
	Hire more of this, please.
	Starting off year two of The Lotus Eater strong.
	Well, thank you very much.
	We are.
	Thank you, Omar.
	I think tomorrow you'll be on Harry, I think.
	Possibly.
	I don't know.
	We haven't got it said.
	We don't have a proper...
	Oh, okay.
	Apparently we've got guests, so don't worry about that.
	I'm talking out my rear.
	Because, again, we don't have a schedule.
	But, anyway.
	Oh, John's telling me that we do have a schedule.
	I just didn't look at it.
	Okay, well, that's true.
	Henry says, of course Biden knows a white supremacist and he sees one.
	He's met almost as many KKK members as Corbyn's met terrorists.
	Yeah, that's a really interesting thing, isn't it?
	Like, the Democrat activists will always say, oh, the Republicans support the KKK, or these, you know, they frame them as if they're KKK members.
	But all the Democrats really do have deep ties to the KKK. Like, who is the grand dragon that Hillary Clinton has famously pictured kissing, like, ten years ago?
	Not even very long ago.
	But, like, there's a picture of her, like, you know, like Bird or something.
	Some guy said it was Bird.
	But, you know, he was very high up in the KKK, and, like, I think she went to his wedding or something like that.
	Those, you know, like familial connections.
	Robert Byrd.
	There we go.
	And it's just like, it's mad.
	Like what Republicans have got, you know, links to that at all in any way?
	It's mad.
	Anyway, Alpha of the Beta says, I'm not saying that America has been ideologically subverted by communism from the presidency on down, but how would it look different if it was?
	Yeah.
	That's a great question, isn't it?
	Because, I mean, and I've said this before, it's just one of those things where it's like...
	Okay, I can't prove that there's an organised plot to make things go in the direction of, you know, French Revolution, Communist uprising, whatever you want to call it, you know, this kind of, the sort of thing we've seen in Europe many times now.
	But it would look exactly the same, you know, if Biden was deliberately trying to liquidate the United States in order to allow China to rise up.
	Well, why wouldn't you do this?
	Oh, I'm just going to print a trillion dollar coin.
	Here's more money, more money.
	Your money's worthless.
	Now, who's the hegemon?
	You know, I just don't see what the difference would be.
	And it's a great criticism, I think.
	So, anyway.
	Henry says, Yeah, and I mean, at this point, I can't imagine how someone could in good conscience support what the Democrats are doing.
	Like, how could they be looking at that and be like, yeah, I'm still team blue?
	Because, I mean, I'm not, again, invested in either one.
	I'm not a Republican.
	I'm not a Democrat because I'm not an American.
	But, I mean, it seems that Republicans are the only sensible option at this point.
	Yeah.
	Again, they're not perfect.
	There's plenty of corruption in the Republican Party.
	They've made plenty of mistakes.
	But, I mean, what are your alternatives?
	Well, it's the same here.
	We rag on the Conservatives because they are worse than a wet paper basket, but they are...
	They're not Labour.
	They're not Labour.
	So, who else do you vote for?
	Yeah.
	And on that, I'm afraid we're out of time.
	If you want more from us, you can go to lotuses.com, check out all the premium content.
	We've got really good stuff on there already and going up in the near future, so that'll be very good.
	Feel free to come and leave us comments and stuff, because remember, only subscribers can leave comments, because we gatekeep.
	We gatekeep out the unwashed hordes of leftists who would otherwise love to be in our comment sections calling us all Nazis.
	But no, they can't.
	They've got to go do that somewhere else.
	Because screw you, it's our platform.
	So many times you can hear the word re before it gets boring.
	Exactly, yeah.
	And yeah, so go sign up and we'll see you tomorrow, folks.

▲