All Episodes
Previous Next
March 16, 2022 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters
01:30:56
The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #350
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters.
I am joined by Thomas and I'm Josh and this is the podcast for the 16th of March 2022.
So we'll be discussing homes for Ukraine, a shootout on the Texas border that no one seems to be talking about and the great cancelling of Chelsea FC. Before we get into that, we've got some content to look at here.
We've got a video from John titled, The Russian Subversion of Ukraine.
John has been following the Ukrainian situation very, very closely.
I believe he's also running a small part of our website that's ongoing.
He's offering daily updates.
He'll certainly have some interesting points to point out to.
And then there's an article from me talking about the D-Trans phenomenon, as it was recently D-Trans Awareness Day, and normally these kind of astroturfed, annoying awareness days are insufferable.
However, there were lots of interesting stories to kind of showcase here about people who got out of the current trend of transitioning and realised that it wasn't for them.
Claw everyone to check it out if they would like to.
And also, something that hasn't gone on yet is a premium hangout, number six, which is going to be with Carl and, I believe, Callum as well, which is What is Britishness?
And, of course, this isn't, you know, your stiff upper lip, God save the Queen, Britishness, but your...
Imported Britishness.
Yes.
Like that guy in the mosque in Texas who was attacking people.
It wasn't a mosque, sorry.
It was a synagogue, wasn't it?
Yes.
But yes, he was Islamic.
Yeah, just a standard thing that a Yorkshireman in a flat cap does, of course.
But...
Before going on too much about that, let's talk about the Ukrainian housing scheme.
Yes, your homes for Ukraine.
Well, because there was, of course, a bit of a war going on, there's also a humanitarian crisis emerging out of it.
There's been a mass exodus of civilians who have either fled to save their lives in fear or had their homes completely obliterated.
They have no choice, nowhere to go.
And need help.
Most of these refugees are women, children and men over 60 who are not of fighting age because, of course, they issued the conscript, didn't they, quite early.
You can certainly say that a lot of the footage of the Ukrainian refugees is very stark from the so-called refugees that you find in Calais or the US border.
It's rather suspicious.
Rather suspicious.
And I don't want to get into the business too much of beating people while they're down, you could say.
But it is, when you actually look at some of the people claiming to be refugees in Ukraine, when we, of course, have knowledge of the demographics of Ukraine as a country, you have to question, you know, who's actually coming in.
And how easy is it for people who perhaps aren't Ukrainians to actually penetrate the border?
Well, it was only this morning that The Telegraph published an article of the so-called Ukrainian family that looked distinctly Middle Eastern.
I don't know.
Yeah, but there has been continuous pressure on Boris Johnson pretty much from the start, from within and outside Parliament, to offer Ukrainian refugees, whether they're actually Ukrainian or not, temporary residence.
And this has been pretty much ongoing since the beginning of the war.
But finally, an official policy has been announced.
It has been called, as you can guess from the title, the Homes for Ukraine scheme, and it was unveiled on Monday by Michael Gove.
The details are quite interesting.
Homes for Ukraine will be open to all Ukrainian nationals.
There will be no cap on numbers and all taken in will be able to live and work in the United Kingdom for up to three years.
All refugees will have full and unrestricted access to benefits, healthcare, employment and other support.
And those who decide to take them in will have to provide accommodation for at least six months.
But there is a financial incentive involved, as the BBC have illustrated here.
Sponsors who participate in the Homes for Ukraine programme will receive £350 per month for their trouble, which will be tax-free and will not affect benefits, entitlements or their council tax status.
And if you scroll down ever so slightly...
Local authorities are also going to be offered £10,500 in extra funding per refugee for support services, with more for children of school age.
This is what the Department for Leveling Up Housing and Communities has said.
Under the new scheme, sponsors in the UK will not be required to know the refugees in advance and there will be no limit on numbers.
Ukrainians on the scheme will be given leave to remain for three years, with the right to work and access public services.
Mr Gove told the BBC that he anticipated tens of thousands of Ukrainians might be taken in by UK families to the first arrivals within a week.
Applications have been made online with both sponsors being vetted and refugees having to go through security checks.
The sponsor will get a thank you payment of £350 a month.
Yeah.
Three years.
So at least there's potential for them to actually go back home once this conflict has ended.
If it has ended in three years' time, who knows?
But also, they're going to effectively be citizens for that potential three years, and there's an unlimited cap.
So, sure, I mean, at least they are legitimate refugees for once.
Yeah, they are legitimate refugees, the overwhelming majority, of course.
And I fully understand the moral case.
But this sounds extremely expensive, doesn't it?
Well, yeah.
I don't really understand how the people who are actually going out of their way to house them are getting £350, which, sure, financial incentive, whatever, if the government wants to do that.
Not happy that they're reallocating taxpayers' money.
But the £10,000 for local councils, that seems wildly disproportionate to what people are being compensated for housing them in the first place.
Yeah.
You know what might have been more effective?
If they just abolish council tax for those who actually take them in, that might actually end up...
Making this a bit more rewarding for those who are actually...
Well, I would have taken loads of refugees, if that were the case.
Yeah.
But it's estimated that 2 million people have fled Ukraine so far.
Michael Gove anticipates that there are going to be tens of thousands coming, but how many of that 2 million do you think may actually end up in the UK? Whatever the number, offering that same number unrestricted access to benefits and public services is going to be hugely expensive.
And as I said, can we actually afford it?
Well, it's on top of inflation rates being close to double digits at this point for this year.
And after we've sabotaged our economy because of all the lockdowns and things of that nature, it's not exactly the best time for us to be footing the bill for lots of other people.
Although I certainly understand why people would want to flee a war zone, an actual proper reason to be a refugee.
Yeah, but this is what refugees ultimately...
This is what the normal definition of a refugee has always been before we started bending over backwards to accommodate for anyone who just wants to come to the UK. Oh yeah, we had...
Economic migrants, basically.
Like, all the people in Calais, like Iranian and North African, where there are no wars going on, obviously.
Yeah.
But interestingly, despite the fact that, well, the...
The attractiveness to this scheme is arguably questionable depending on which way you look at it.
It's actually been very successful so far because by the evening that Michael Gove had actually made this announcement, 44,000 people had signed up to it.
That's insane.
44,000.
So that's going to be ridiculously expensive then.
Yes.
Because is that £10,000 per local council per person?
Yeah.
So out of this 44,000, they could also sign up to house more than one person as well.
Bear in mind, this was on Monday.
It's gone up since then.
If we move on to the next tweet, it's now 100,000 UK houses which have signed up to host a Ukrainian refugee.
As if we haven't done enough to bankrupt our country.
Great.
Yeah.
I mean, it's admirable, but you do, as a taxpayer, have to wonder whether this is going to come back to bite us, especially given that we haven't seen the full extent of the economic sanctions we've imposed on Russia yet, and of course the sanctions they are going to impose on us.
Yeah, our economy is going to be basically in tatters and we're going to have a large influx in people, apparently.
More so than even normal.
I mean, the growth rate is already ridiculous from abroad.
It is.
So these are all perfectly, I suppose, rational, maybe slightly cynical responses to those who have a very, very open heart, as they should do.
It's something that any mobile person would want to do, of course, to help those in need.
It's kind of nice to see that a lot of the people who would otherwise be virtue signalling on Twitter actually doing something tangible.
Yes, precisely.
As in acting on virtue rather than just saying they're going to do it but not actually acting.
Some, however, haven't been as rational and have actually rather taken issue with the generosity of the British people.
Why do you think this is just out of interest?
Is it racist?
Is it because it's a bunch of white people?
It's because it's racist.
And you can probably guess where this is going.
The one person who's taken issue with this policy, again, I've never, can't say I've ever heard of him, is Dr.
Ayo Sogunro, a corporate finance lawyer turned human rights activist.
It's always a good match for reasonable takes on politics.
Indeed, but he has said this.
Can't get it out of my head that Europe cried about a migrants crisis in 2015 against 1.4 million refugees fleeing war in Syria and yet quickly absorbed some 2 million Ukrainians within days, complete with flags and piano music.
Europe never had a migrant crisis.
It has a racism crisis.
Well, there is, of course, the obvious point that Ukraine is a lot closer to Britain than Syria is.
Yes, yes.
And perhaps culturally closer as well.
So there's not going to be the looming fear of, I don't know, cultural disparities that could lead to, I don't know, social tension, perhaps.
Terrorist attacks.
Terrorist attacks.
And then there is, of course, the fact that Islamic State themselves said in 2015 they were going to exploit the Schengen policy.
To actually spread potential or coordinate terrorist attacks across Europe.
So there is that, of course.
I mean, there were people who were so-called refugees, weren't there, that actually did go on to carry out terrorist attacks.
So it wasn't just like they just, you know...
Banded it around.
They actually followed through with what they said.
Yes.
But sadly, Dr.
Ayo Sogunro is not the only person who has taken issue with this.
Another is Dr.
Shola Mos Shogbamamu, who has said a government paying Brits £350 a month to house Ukrainian refugees was never on offer for refugees.
Fleeing wars, persecution, danger in Africa, Asia and Middle East.
Instead, boats are turned, people deported.
Disparity in refugee treatment is because Ukrainians are white and European.
One of them.
Well, if we had this policy for Africa, then we would be taking in the entire continent of Africa at some point.
Yeah.
So the point here is, why not just give £350 for anyone to take any refugee anywhere around the world?
Can you imagine any problems at all with making this policy...
Oh, that's so...
Actually legislating for this.
Such dumb whataboutism, isn't it?
Yeah, it is.
Well, for a start, again, as we've already said, it would cost the country an absolute fortune.
Most ordinary people wouldn't be able to foot that bill, even if they are given £350.
Some businesses could use the policy as a clever way of getting cheap labour, perhaps, as has happened.
Wait, how could they do that?
How could they do that?
Well, didn't this happen with...
Was it boohoo.com?
Oh yeah, I remember hearing about that.
Yes.
It happened there.
I'm not entirely sure on the exact details, but they were asylum seekers basically working for what was ultimately below minimum wage.
So they could, in theory, offer residence, depending on, I suppose, the red tape or the lack thereof, to actually offer them residence, perhaps, coincidentally, the area that they'd be working in.
And then say, I'll tell you, why don't you go on this sewing machine for eight hours a day, just to keep yourself occupied?
Yeah, and I'll give this 350 points to you as a thank you payment.
There's going to be some kind of incentive for basically pseudo-slave labour.
Again, maybe I am being slightly cynical, but you could offer a financial incentive for people to accommodate those.
Again, this is probably the most obvious one in the case of taking refugees from the Middle East.
You could be accommodating those who are potential terrorists.
Yes.
If what Islamic State said is ultimately true.
But to my knowledge, neither of the two aforementioned race baiters are taking refugees either.
If they are, then please let me know.
But unsurprisingly, they're not the only ones not to do so.
Boris Johnson's not going to be taking any in either.
He's ruled himself out for security reasons, and to be fair, it probably isn't the best idea to be hosting refugees if you live at number 10.
I mean, could you imagine seeing them walk in after, like, a noisy night out?
Like, it could be quite awkward.
I mean, they are, after all, fellow members of the First World.
To be fair, if it's number 10 Downing Street, Boris is really going to be sore about not being invited to the party.
You are absolutely right.
It would be perfectly in keeping with the culture at number 10.
Perhaps it would almost turn into a scene from the thick of it.
But another person who's ruled himself out, funny enough, I don't have a link for this, but it's Sadiq Khan.
Yes.
Apparently he didn't think it was appropriate for him to incorporate refugees into his family home, like many families across Britain.
Transport Secretary Grant Shapps has apparently forged an application, which is interesting, and Michael Gove is also allegedly thinking about it.
However...
He's announced that he's thinking about it.
He's announced that he's thinking about it, but one...
Great, what a useful announcement.
Exactly.
One man has decided to be decisive.
A former health secretary, can you guess who...
Is it, by any chance, Matt Hancock?
It is Matt Hancock.
If I can see his gormless face on the screen there.
It is Matt Hancock who has agreed to house as many as five.
Well, he probably wants to...
Trade in his Italian squeeze for five lovely Ukrainian ladies because he's heard that, you know, it's all women that are going to be these refugees.
We know his attitude towards being faithful to women.
Yes, it's somewhat lacking, isn't it?
Is he single at the moment?
I don't know.
I don't keep track of what Hancock's dating life is like.
No, neither do I. This tends to be in the back pages of the Daily Star, doesn't it?
But I would assume this would be kind of right up his street if he is that way inclined, as you say.
But anyway, the West Southwark MP posted on Twitter saying that he had signed up to the government scheme and urged his constituents to do the same.
He said that he'd be hosting refugees because he must stand with Ukraine.
Speaking to ITV's Good Morning Russo on Tuesday, he revealed that he had already been in contact with one of his British-Ukrainian constituents before the scheme was launched and is hoping to host a family of five.
That also is...
Yes.
A family, at least.
It is a family.
It is a family, at least.
So I suppose kudos to Matt Hancock.
So it's not going to be like a sitcom scenario where Matt Hancock with five beautiful young Ukrainian women?
No.
Is it wrong that a part of me is disappointed?
Because that would be quite...
No, I think heaping young women away from Matt Hancock is probably a good public service.
Yes, that part of it, but I guess I'm just thinking about the entertaining side of the spectacle, but...
Again, perhaps I should retire my cynicism.
Anyway, I want to move on from Matt Hancock to make a more general point, because on the face of it, it of course seems being spirited to put people down for being willing to come to the aid of those who are genuinely fleeing from such circumstances.
But there's another side to this which isn't being discussed, which could be called hypocrisy.
There have been some people in need, many people in need, in the United Kingdom before this crisis emerged.
I'm not talking about other refugees.
I'm talking about our own citizens.
Citizens in this country who have, for example, served in the military but have ended up on the streets nonetheless, fighting for our freedom in, I don't know, Iraq, Afghanistan, only to find completely devoid of any help from anyone.
Where were the financial incentives to help them?
Yeah, well, it seems like we have a different standard for helping people from beyond our borders than helping people on our own borders.
And I think that this is something that has consumed the Anglosphere, this kind of weird self-loathing that we seem to have in abundance, seems to make us hate our own people and wish them ill, whilst glorifying those from outside, even though...
Many times, they're the ones that are out to harm us.
The serious question is, do they deserve it more or less than the Ukrainian refugees?
I mean, my God, that is a terrible thing to have to ask.
But really, you have to ask the question.
Why haven't the politicians been calling for this?
I know that some have been for a very, very long time.
Where has the urgency been to help them when they're arguably suffering from the same levels of psychological trauma?
Yeah, I don't doubt it, especially if they were fighting on, say, the front lines, and they've probably seen more combat than the actual refugees.
However, I understand that it's only a temporary thing, and it's certainly not their fault to want to flee a war zone.
If I weren't fighting, I would want to do the same.
But in short, this is the point that Jim Davidson made on GB News as a response to celebrities claiming that they'd be willing to house refugees.
It was aimed particularly at Benedict Cumberbatch.
I'm not sure if you recall, but the BAFTA Awards happened very, very recently.
He was there speaking on the red carpet.
As they do.
And he announced that he hoped to be a part of the effort to provide homes to the victims.
This is what he said in particular.
We need to donate.
We need to pressure our politicians to create some kind of refuge, safety and a haven here for people who are suffering.
Everyone needs to do this as much as they can.
And I think already today the news has broken that there's been a record number of people volunteering to take people into their homes and indeed there has as we've seen.
I hope to be a part of that myself.
Those were his words.
It's all well and good for people with lots of money to be able to call for this kind of stuff, but there are people who are actually struggling to get by.
An influx of people and increases in public spending, that's not going to necessarily help them, especially with the cost of living going the way it's going.
Shall we hear what Jim Davidson said himself?
Sure.
Let's do it.
What do you make of it when they take over these ceremonies to politically pontificate?
Well, it's what people do.
It's their chance to get on the soapbox.
Ask him if he'll take in a veteran that's homeless that's fought in many wars for our country.
No, that's not lefty enough.
I mean, I don't mind all these guys.
They're all lefties.
They all get together and sit around and do the Guardian crossword, but they're not in the real world.
And this girl, is she funny?
Then I'm in the wrong job.
Jonathan Chalet will probably tell me that anyway.
He's talking about Rebel Wilson there, who I only heard about last night.
He's writing that she's not funny.
I'll give him that.
No, she's not funny in the slightest.
But he is right in saying that the very reason that There is this huge weight or desire to jump on the bandwagon of this cause because it's more lefty than it would be to take in someone who's suffering from the same thing at home.
But that's not fundamentally wrong, is it?
Well, it's seen as sort of jingoistic and nationalistic, isn't it, to help people in your own country now for some reason, whereas helping others from abroad, you almost have no vested interest to do that, or at least that's the way they present it, and therefore it's seen as more virtuous when...
In reality, I imagine, sure, there's some virtue in helping anyone, really.
Yeah, well, the actual lack of virtue is exposing the fact that the second that there's a cause that is being more socially recognised, they jump to that and jump to the aid of those people who, again, deserve help.
But there is an element of performativity there.
They're thinking about how the rest of the world sees them.
And it's a dreadful shame that they don't act from true virtuous volition and apply that policy, given how much money they actually have, to those who are I'm going to conclude here.
I respect any ordinary person for taking someone in at this point, but it is a flawed government policy, and I don't really know if I like the guilt-tripping all that much.
It's not only unfair to those who have served the country, it's a bit of an insult to them.
It's going to be a very expensive one for the taxpayer in general.
Many people are almost certainly not in a position to make these commitments, but that does nonetheless effectively sum up the government's economic position at the moment, really.
Spend now and think about it later.
Yes, I mean it's a very unfortunate situation all around really, isn't it?
It is.
So, I'm going to talk about something that may have been overlooked with all of this Ukraine stuff going on.
And this is what's going on at the southern border.
And I want to highlight here the fact that many people in the United States, many of their elected representatives, are frothing at the mouth for intervention in Ukraine.
They're really going at it.
World War III. World War III in the case of some, yeah.
And...
Then, just south of the border, you've got all of this chaos.
So rather than me explaining it to you, let's just have a look at what's going on.
Mostly peaceful so far.
No.
Yeah, well, I'll explain what's behind this in a second.
Basically, there's lots and lots of burnt-out vehicles, and it's not just that.
Like, this is only one of several incidents that happened this night.
It's carnage.
It's also worth mentioning the streets are completely empty, if you're listening.
And there's lots of burnt-out trucks everywhere.
Obviously, deliberately vandalised.
This isn't an accident.
But yes, you get the idea that something's going on here.
So what happened was Mexican drug cartels blocked roads with spike strips and then set fire to a bunch of trucks with trailers on.
To cause a commotion.
And apparently there was one collateral casualty as well.
And this is the kind of thing that people are shown and gets them up in arms about Ukraine.
However, when it happens in Mexico, nobody cares.
And it's worth mentioning as well that this was in a border town from Texas as well.
So this is right on the US border.
This is stone's throw from the United States.
However, the United States' eyes are directed towards Eastern Europe on another continent away when right there next to them is all of this going on.
So...
Let's look at things that US representatives have been saying.
So, Lindsey Graham says he would back a no-fly zone in Ukraine if Russia uses chemical weapons, of course.
A no-fly zone is quite a provocative move.
Hasn't he been backing a no-fly zone for ages anyway?
Yes, but that's not as unreasonable.
That's kind of symptomatic of something else.
But one other thing, which I'm sure we've mentioned already, is that he urged Russians to assassinate Putin, which is just...
Such a strategic blunder for the United States' part there.
Just a little bit.
Because it makes them look like basically extremists, like calling people to assassinate their political opponents.
It's just insane.
It's lunacy.
But it's not just that.
It's unprecedented as well.
It incites violence potentially against, I don't know, Members of the Biden administration.
And of course, as incompetent as they are, I don't want any of them to die.
Of course.
However, not to blackpill you too much, there are US representatives that are actually drawing attention to this.
So we've got Representative Andy Briggs, who's a representative for Arizona, says, commenting on the footage that I showed previously, this isn't Ukraine, this is a stone's throw away from the US southern border.
narcos are taking over mexico our borders need uh securing i assume he meant yes but yeah this is exactly my point that when i saw this i was just like wow this i thought it was footage from ukraine but no this is this is mexico this is right on your doorstep but you're being distracted from all of this stuff that can potentially bleed over to the border i mean it it already is yeah i don't know say could but it could escalate even further it's terrible
So it's not even, this isn't even the half of it, of course, because you look at this BBC article here, when Zelensky addressed US Congress, they pledged an additional $800 million of taxpayers' money in military aid to Ukraine.
Apparently the money is going to go towards anti-armour and anti-aircraft weapons such as stingers and javelins, which, fair enough, that will be useful to the Ukrainians.
And in the past year, the Biden administration has also given £1.2 billion in weapons to Ukraine.
They could have finished the cartel by now, had they invested that in what's happening in their backyard, effectively.
And obviously, plying Mexico with money isn't a good idea because of the corruption, but there are other things which they can do, which I'll get onto in a second.
But I thought it would be interesting to note that, is Joe protecting his son's business interests in Ukraine?
Of course, Hunter Biden, board of Burisma, no oil experience whatsoever.
In fact, he was a crack addict and somehow found himself in a lucrative position.
But there we go.
I can't make any accusations because I don't want to be sued by a sitting president, ideally.
Of course not.
But yeah, where's this kind of spending and rhetoric when it comes to the southern border?
It's nowhere to be Imagine what you could do with this kind of money invested in US military equipment to fight the cartels in Mexico.
I mean it's not like the Mexican government would be against you doing joint operations against the cartels and I'm sure it would benefit both the American and Mexican people.
I mean it's a far better way of spending the American taxpayers money than giving it to Ukraine if they're looking for a return that actually benefits them.
They can be safe, not be murdered on the border, for example.
It's far more of the national interest.
Exactly, yes.
So, let's look at what the US has been doing, just for a sense of scale.
So, the US has tripled a bounty of $15 million for elusive Sinaloa cartel boss El Mayo Zambada.
So, $15 million compared to $1.2 billion It's a pittance, isn't it?
Yes, of course this is just one cartel boss, and they're like whack-a-moles, aren't they?
You get rid of one and another springs up in their place.
However, just for a sense of scale, this is what's being done on your doorstep, and in Ukraine, which is not on your doorstep, sure, you would want to support your allies, fair enough, I don't...
Don't suggest that they shouldn't do that, necessarily.
However, just the sheer extent to which there's a discrepancy between the two makes you question the incentives of your elected representatives, right?
Because if you want to benefit the American people, well, you do things closer to home.
That's just common sense, isn't it?
It would suggest that Biden doesn't think about what he's actually spending.
So, as I understand it, at least, there are two ways in which America could sort out its cartel problem on its southern border.
It could send in its military, as I alluded to earlier, in partnership with the Mexican government.
I mean, this is something that has worked in the past, and it would be useful to also get military experience for your troops, now they're not in Afghanistan, and they're kind of sitting around scuffing their boots with nothing to do.
A bit of practice against the cartel warlords.
Get some good returns for your military spending in making your lives of your citizens better.
Or even better, this might be something that you might not agree with, you could change your drug policies that created the situation in the first place.
If you stem the tide and the flow of money south of the border with all of these drug policies that you've created where you create massive incentives for people making a killing with all of the drugs being pushed across your border, then You're going to just sever all of their big money that allows them to be...
Black market forces are very, very powerful, aren't they?
Exactly.
And obviously, I'm not excusing the people that...
Are using drugs and funding this?
Because I think, for example, people who use cocaine in the United States just for fun and have it rest easy on their conscience, you are a terrible person because, of course, these drugs and the money that you pay is shipped through a river of blood to get to you.
I mean, the blood of...
Mexican people.
I mean, you've got cartels going into towns and massacring children because they're not complying.
This is what is funding your lifestyle.
So yes, I'm not...
Although I think the policy has failed and it should be changed, I'm not going easy on the people who would necessarily benefit from this, either.
I think it's a terrible situation by many people involved.
Well, the video that we saw was an extremely, I suppose, mild portrayal of what the cartel actually gets up to.
Well, yes.
And they actually attacked basically representatives from the United States on that same night.
Apparently, the U.S. consulate and also Mexican military buildings were attacked after they arrested a cartel leader wanted in the United States for drug trafficking and money laundering.
And they targeted the United States because he's being deported to the United States and tried there.
Therefore, they're not necessarily targeting purely Mexican officials who captured him.
But because he's being deported to the States, they're attacking, you know, the consul or the consulate, sorry, of the United States on the border.
So this boss is Juan Gerardo Trevino, I think, I'm probably mentioning that, who was taken into custody on the Mexican border city of Nuevo Laredo.
I'm trying my best, I don't speak Spanish.
This was on Sunday, and therefore all of his gang members basically carried out A retaliation against those who they saw as wronging him.
So the United States, they attacked your consulate, your representative of the United States in that border town.
And this is, of course, the North East cartel, who, even if they do survive and have a new leader, I mean, they're going to be weakened by the fact they've taken them away.
But there is also the point that If they are weakened and say they even collapse entirely, then another cartel is just going to move in place.
These arrests, sure, it's good that they're doing them.
However, it's not really going to solve the problem because it just provides an opportunity for another cartel to move in, really, doesn't it?
So yeah, reading from this article, his arrest sparked multiple shootings, including that attack on the consulate building and the vehicles we saw that were set on fire as well.
So this is all going on on your southern border, if you're American, and you're not really hearing very much about it, are you?
No, absolutely nothing, in fact.
Yeah, because everyone's distracted about Ukraine, even though this seems to me, for Americans at least, to be a priority.
Just imagine the reaction if Russia attacked the US consulate building office.
I know.
Imagine it.
Seriously.
I know.
It'd be chaos.
It'd be the end of us.
And of course, now this US consulate has closed following the gangfire and the employees were advised to stay indoors, which is pretty good advice, I would say.
And US citizens are instructed to leave the area.
And also, apparently, an official again confirmed that there was a collateral fatality as well.
So just to hammer home in case this this alarming attack on US representatives going on right on your border isn't enough let's look at the situation in Mexico and this is just a roundup of things that I found that happened in the last 48 hours so so far this year eight journalists have been killed in Mexico and let's compare that to Ukraine Which is an actual war zone, and of course this did start in February, so you know.
Bit of a caveat, however, three journalists so far, and obviously they're very brave for going out into a war zone and recording it.
I'm not trying to demean what they're doing.
They're doing a lot more than I am, and I respect that they're trying to...
Inform us of what's going on.
However, it seems a bit strange to me that, you know, we've got these eight journalists killed in Mexico, didn't really hear too much about it, whereas the three journalists killed in Ukraine are saying, oh, Putin's deliberately targeting them, that sort of thing.
He doesn't want the truth to get out.
And I mean, maybe.
Perhaps.
But...
I mean, it seems strange to me to be focusing so heavily on wanting when, you know, there's something going on right there on your border.
So, another case here.
This happened, I believe...
A few days ago now, was a British man.
He was actually from, I think he was from Truro in Cornwall, which is a place I know quite well.
He was murdered in Mexico.
He was shot dead in front of his 14-year-old daughter in a deliberate cartel hit.
He worked as an estate agent and a property manager and the police still don't understand the motivation for doing so.
However, it seems to me that he's fallen afoul of the cartel because he didn't want to Have any association with them, I imagine.
Which, who can blame him, to be honest?
But no, I don't really think that this is the kind of thing you want going on in a country next to you, is it?
People being indiscriminately murdered because they don't go along with armed gangs.
Just to hammer home the extent to which this is an evil, malicious culture that has been created at the southern border.
Another article here showcases the fact that they put up A banner on a Mexican beach resort warning this British estate agent that he would end up in a body bag a year before he was shot dead.
And they literally targeted him a year after deliberately to send a message that people must obey them.
So yes, this is what happens.
It's horrible.
Yeah.
So it's amazing to me that more isn't being done about this.
It's just being looked over.
And yeah, to hammer it home even more, yesterday...
In Mexico, they were digging up some patios and they found 17 bodies buried underneath in a low-income housing development.
Apparently, These were skeletal remains, no doubt, fallen afoul of the cartels.
And of course, understandably, lots of Mexicans don't want to live in this, which means that there are lots of migrants and refugees.
So if we look at another Daily Mail article here, undocumented immigrants' encounters spiked 63% in February over last year to 164,973 And the Biden administration uses Trump-era Title 42 to expel 55% of those who entered illegally.
So first and foremost, 2021 set a record for the number of migrants at the US border.
It was ridiculous.
It was like a 50% increase from the Trump era.
And this was obviously because Biden had said, yes, yes, you can come in.
We're not Trump anymore.
And then Eventually Kamala Harris had to wheel it back because they realised, actually, yes.
This is a terrible idea.
Yeah, and I think it was lots of Haitians had turned up.
It was like 10,000 a day or something ridiculous like that.
And it's got to the point now where, in a month, 164,000 people are turning up at your southern border.
And it's absurd.
That's an invasion-level quantity, isn't it?
Yes, this is a 63% increase on what was already a doubled figure the previous year.
This is obviously a response to the change in presidency and the change in messaging that you're going to get citizenship if you come up to the US border.
And it's just ridiculous.
It's just irresponsible.
I know that this is probably empowering the cartels as well.
Because all of the flow of people, they are certainly more vulnerable than your average grounded civilian.
Because they're moving, they have all their possessions on them, they no doubt have their valuables.
They also have to pay money for transportation, for security, for navigation.
And you're just empowering the criminal underclasses by encouraging these people.
Not only that, but you're also putting ridiculous pressure on the southern border, potentially getting hundreds of thousands of illegals coming across the border, which isn't in the US's interest whatsoever.
And these will potentially have cartel members who, as we know, are not averse to murdering people basically in cold blood.
Yeah, doing far, far worse than that as well.
Yeah, how is this not more prevalent?
I do not know.
So, another article here from Reuters suggests that they are at least trying to do something about it.
Mexico and the US discuss need to stem unprecedented flow of migration.
And reading from the article here, it says, Mexico agreed with the US delegation led by Homeland Security Secretary Alessandro Mayocas to work on border infrastructure to create a 21st century border between the United States and Mexico.
That enhances security and facilitates trade.
So yes, we're basically building the wall again.
Building the wall, yeah.
After all that Trump was hounded for, saying how racist it was, how evil it was, Biden is again restoring the wall, even to a greater degree perhaps than Trump would have because of...
Basically the consequences of his own stupidity in trying to encourage migrants to come across.
And I'm sure he probably didn't actually care about these migrants.
No.
It's more signalling for...
He's appeasing to his democratic base.
And one interesting tidbit as well here is that a Ukrainian family has been turned away at the Mexico border and have finally been allowed into the U.S., So this is interesting that your southern border is so porous that, mysteriously, Ukrainians are turning up at your southern border.
I don't remember the land bridge between the continent of Europe and...
I can't get my head around this.
Right, so you're in Ukraine, you get caught up in the middle of a war zone, and then you think, I know, I know where to fly to safety.
Mexico.
Yes, I think this might be a bit controversial, but I think they might have been safer in Ukraine than they would be in Mexico, to be honest.
No, there's a legitimate argument that could be made there, yeah.
So yeah, if we move on to this final tweet here, this is the...
Mm-hmm.
Some of these families spent up to three nights in frigid temperatures on the sidewalk.
Let us not forget that Latin American asylum seekers spend months on end.
So, yes, this is just a pro-migration thing.
But frigid temperatures in Mexico.
Okay.
Um...
That doesn't quite...
These don't tend to go together well.
Sure, they're wrapped up in blankets there.
Maybe it's particularly cold, but I think if they're Ukrainians, they're used to a little bit of cold, aren't they?
I was going to say, yeah.
They're not indifferent to tundra-like conditions, are they?
Mm-hmm.
Yeah, but this is just the unusual situation on the US border, and I thought it would be worthwhile while very few other people are covering this sort of thing to bring some attention to it, and I imagine that people are getting a little fed up of hearing about Ukraine, so I thought it would bring something a little bit different.
But yeah, it's pretty obvious to me that you need to sort out your southern border.
Not only have a hard border for a start, that's entirely obvious, you need to build a wall, Maybe make Mexico pay for it.
Or at least send some damn troops in to sort out the cartels.
Yes.
That's a good start.
Maybe change your policies that created this mess and funding these cartel members in the first place.
I mean, you've got to admit some responsibility for this because the main market is the United States for a lot of these drugs.
Yeah.
There's some moral culpability there.
And the policies that help propagate this prop up the black market, don't they?
They do.
But...
On that note, let's move on to Chelsea and the wars.
Chelsea and the wars, yes.
Well, as we know, because we discussed it last week, Chelsea FC has been put up for sale as a result of the government targeting Russian oligarchs, predominantly living in London, one of whom is Roman Abramovich, the present Chelsea owner.
Abramovich had his assets frozen last week, which is what everyone expected to happen eventually.
However, few, including myself, actually realised what the consequences of seizing his assets would be, because he is, of course, he owns 100% of Chelsea Football Club.
What this means is that at present, the club cannot process any transactions whatsoever, but as long as it continues to be listed as an asset of Abramovich...
This means they cannot sell tickets to supporters, they cannot sell merchandise, they cannot pay their staff and players, they cannot make offers for other players or offer new contracts to their present players.
This isn't good because in Chelsea's case several players are out of contract in the summer.
I think we're good to go.
It usually takes, apparently, around five to six weeks to process a club takeover.
For obvious reasons, the UK government is directly involved in who should be allowed to take the reins from Abramovich.
I've been doing some research into what's going on with that.
Let's move on to the next one.
The UK government has reportedly have their preferred party to buy Chelsea Football Club as a deadline for offers to come in approaches.
The deadline is supposed to be this coming Friday.
That's two days from now.
The offer under consideration is apparently from the consortium led by American Todd Bowley.
Anyone heard of him?
Have you heard of him?
Who is joined by Swiss billionaire Hans-Jörg Wyss.
I haven't heard of him either.
But apparently the pair messed up last week with their offer having already gone in.
This is according to the Swiss reporter who broke the news about their injuries, Nicola Enfield, and we can get his tweet up here.
After some talks over the weekend in Los Angeles with Todd Bowley, Swiss billionaire Hans-Jorg Wiss is right now on his way back to Boston.
It's unclear what the two of them discussed.
The bid to acquire Chelsea is already in, but no deal will happen this week.
Well, if no deal happens this week...
That's not good news, obviously, because of how urgent this is.
Apparently there was a bid from a Saudi consortium as well, if we actually get the next clip up here.
A Saudi consortium was interested in making a bid of around £2.6 billion, with the asking price being £3 billion.
This is kind of ridiculous, because not only have the UK government set a precedent of seizing assets of people...
Basically not convicted of any crimes at all.
They've just been like, you are Russian, therefore now your stuff belongs to us, which is pretty awful.
They're now just like, yes, Saudis, these are the people who you really want.
These are our new best friends.
Because they're our greatest and most...
Oh, that's so stupid.
Why have they done this in the first place?
But the UK government apparently wasn't interested in this proposal.
This bid from the American consortium that I've already mentioned is far from a done deal.
Apparently a British property developer called Nick Candy is still interested in making a bid, and if he does, In my view, he'd almost certainly be a better fit, given that he is, well for a start, actually British, and a lifelong Chelsea supporter, most importantly.
But Sky Report says, A candy, a Chelsea fan has been working to put together a consortium to buy the club, and has held talks with former Liverpool and British Airways chairman Sir Martin Broughton, another lifelong Blues fan, about such a deal.
He has promised to give Chelsea fans a seat on its board, which is promising, if his bid to buy Stamford Bridge is successful.
This is, of course, the one I hold out the most hope for.
But let's move on to what's been going on the ground level at the club, as in on the pitch.
Chelsea played their Premier League match against Newcastle at the weekend at Stamford Bridge and scraped a 1-0 victory.
However, there is apparently doubt over whether their next match, a Champions League fixture against Lille, due to be played tonight, I'm led to believe, is going to go ahead.
And as you can see, things are so bad, apparently, that one of our forwards, Kai Havert, has offered to pay for the travel costs to France.
Yeah.
When I first saw this video at the top, it did actually say Havert's willing to pay, but anyway.
Chelsea won the first leg 2-0 so there's of course a strong motive to play to at least play the second leg but of course we have no way of covering the travel costs in France but of course Kai Havert seems to be willing to foot the bill according to this There is, of course, prize money to be won at every stage in the Champions League, which is, of course, another reason why Chelsea urgently want to participate, because they are leading the tie-off.
If we scroll down a little bit, you'll be able to see the table for the payout for the teams whenever they get through to the next round.
As you can see, €10.6 million is available for Chelsea should they qualify for the quarterfinal tonight.
Of course, they won't be able to access this money because they can't process any transactions whatsoever, but I'm presuming that UEFA will hold onto it for them.
So Chelsea, put simply, as I've said in the title, are very much a club in the wars at the moment.
This isn't just a financial issue.
If we move on to the next tweet, as I said last week, John Terry, ex-Chelsea captain, tweeted this and came under considerable fire for it, as you can see from the comments below.
But other than the comments below, just to give some context, he was absolutely castigated by Chris Bryant for apparently, I don't know, he in effect all but actually accused him of...
Yeah, you see that?
I mean, how cynical is that?
Do you seriously think that this is what John Terry is doing?
I mean, he's played for Chelsea for, what, 16 years?
Where every year except, what was it, ever since he was captain...
Whereas under the directorship of Roman Abramovich, he's got some very, very positive sentiments attached to that era.
Why wouldn't you want to celebrate your departing owner?
There's also several layers of absurdity to this.
As far as I understand it, Abramovich was a pretty good owner.
Oh, he was!
One of the best, in fact!
He gave over lots of money.
He actually invested in the club.
Yeah, that's what you want from an owner.
It doesn't matter what his ethnicity is, whether he's Russian or not.
It wasn't like it was Abramovich, the mastermind, the invasion.
Isn't he based in the UK in the first place?
He is, and I do believe he has since returned to Russia.
Well, I'm not surprised when the UK government's seizing all of his assets.
Which said that, look, we're going to be investing the proceeds into relief for victims in the invasion in Ukraine.
But that wasn't good enough for many of the football pundits who clamped down to say that he basically hasn't said Putin's scum.
And as a result, Chelsea's a scum club.
And this unfortunately has almost become the zeitgeist of sports broadcasting at the moment, as we're going to see in a minute.
I mean, look, Abramovich was a good owner for Chelsea as far as I'm concerned.
He deserves respect for that at the very least.
And I think we can keep politics out of this for good reason.
But Chelsea, having got through to the next stage of the FA Cup, sent a request to their opponent Middlesbrough, this is of course at the point where they can't actually sell tickets, asking if they can play the match behind closed doors.
And to say the least, this did not go down very well at all.
And the Telegraph reads, Chelsea have been forced into an embarrassing climbdown over a request to play their FA Cup quarterfinal behind closed doors after coming under attack from the government, but also in a section of their own fans.
The club made the request in an attempt to put pressure on the government to amend the operating licence imposed on them as part of the sanctions placed on Abramovich, who has now also been sanctioned by the EU, with UEFA trying to clarify what impact that may have on Wednesday's Champions League game with Lille after the deadline is to sell tickets for the Middlesbrough game was with UEFA trying to clarify what impact that may have on
But it proved to be a spectacular PR own goal as Chelsea's statement, in which they confirmed they had asked the Football Association for the title to be played without fans present to protect sporting integrity, was met with widespread anger across the game and in Whitehall, which eventually forced the club to withdraw the request.
Among the furious responses were a senior government source labelling Abramovich as linked to a warmonger and claiming Chelsea's action shows they do not seem to understand the seriousness of the situation they are in.
But it was about Chairman Steve Okay, it may be embarrassing, but the situation for Chelsea at the moment is pretty blimmin' desperate.
They're facing insolvency in the next three weeks.
You can't really blame them for trying everything possible.
To try to do what's right for them.
To get them out of a very difficult situation.
The comments from Steve Gibson are just flat out virtue signaling.
How can you say that this is enough for Chelsea to qualify as a scum club in and of itself?
One decision.
I don't really understand this.
This is just jumping on the bandwagon, isn't it?
No, that's exactly what it is.
Virtue signalling it is.
Yeah, but unfortunately, Chelsea fans have been on the receiving end of the hostility as well.
Before I explain more, let's listen to the following clip.
this is a clip of Chelsea on an away day to Burnley last week a match which they won 4-0 oh You're in the stronghold.
Always believe it!
Roman Abramovich Roman Abramovich Roman Abramovich Roman Abramovich Yeah.
So the fans clearly like it.
So the fans clearly like Roman Abramovich and of course made their voices heard on that.
But, unfortunately, Boris Johnson took issue with their passion for their objectively very, very successful owner.
And he basically said it was completely inappropriate for them to chant Abramovich's name.
Right.
Yeah, despite him being the club owner for what was it?
Nearly 20, short of 20 years.
Having delivered them, I don't know, five Premier League titles, two Champions Leagues, one of which was last year, basically provided them with the greatest era in the club's history.
The era that arguably makes their history in many ways.
Of course, they stretch back far, far further, but this is without question the most prosperous, memorable era in the club's legacy.
Why wouldn't the fans celebrate him?
And why does their celebration of him have to immediately be interpreted as a political message that somehow encroaches on the solidarity with Ukraine?
We quite clearly heard the support from the fans for that message of solidarity of what's going on for the Ukrainians.
Why does there have to be this hypostatisation between Abramovich support and not hating Abramovich and solidarity for Ukraine?
It's really strange that people can't see the difference between being from a country and disagreeing with their government and supporting it wildly.
I mean, he lives in the UK.
He went out of his way to make clear that, yeah, OK, don't agree with this.
And he's still being punished.
But why is Boris Johnson guessing involved?
I don't know.
Does he even like football?
I don't know.
But it seems to me to clearly be the fact that they're trying to appear as being as hard on Russia without actually doing anything.
So they seize the assets of people who are completely uninvolved, but they're also not willing to risk any intervention.
Which, you know, fair enough.
However...
Don't try and posture yourself as being this hardline, yes we're doing everything in our power, when you're basically persecuting people who have nothing to do with it.
Thankfully, the Chelsea manager, Thomas Tuchel, despite the fact that he fought...
Just to offer some context, some Chelsea fans were found booing when the one-minute expression of solidarity with Ukraine was going on.
That wasn't heard in the clip that we saw, but it was going on.
I heard it in other clips.
He actually said that he thought that was inappropriate.
It was a bad time to express partisanship, if you like.
But he backed up The supporters by saying that Boris Johnson, by pointing the finger at the celebration of Abramovich has got his priorities wrong.
And yeah, so the standard Rhys Tuchel has himself been critical of the club's supporters when chanting for Obamovich during a minute's applause for victims of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, as I've said, ahead of the game at Burnley earlier this month.
But he suggested Johnson's focus should be elsewhere after the PM's spokesperson made a point of telling fans to stop vocalising their support for the oligarch owner.
He suggested that Johnson's focus should be elsewhere after the...
I heard about it some minutes ago on Tuesday.
I don't know if in these times this is the most important subject to be discussed in Parliament.
Yes, whether Chelsea fans should actually be saying goodbye to their owner.
Where is he wrong?
Well, yeah.
I mean, under ordinary circumstances, isn't the sale of a club like a long and drawn-out process as well?
By forcing it to be so sudden, they're potentially going to destroy the very thing that they are seeking to preserve, supposedly, anyway.
Yeah, I do often wonder whether those who have it in for Abramovich, particularly the Labour side, are actually just closet Arsenal supporters that want to see Chelsea die.
It's entirely possible.
I mean, most of the Labour Party is based in London, right?
Yeah, they are.
They're the local rivals.
I imagine Jeremy Corbyn, Arsenal supporters, are all for this, I imagine.
I mean, he hasn't actually vocalised that, nonetheless.
But Chris Bryant, I have to ask what team he supports.
I don't know what's got his be in his bonnet about Obamovich.
Of course, again, I get the fact that we need to clamp down on Russian oligarchs.
What is this obsession around Obamovich?
Well, it's one of those things where even the terminology used, like many people in the West have got their money through ill-gotten gains and are ridiculously wealthy, and we don't refer to them as oligarchs, but anyone who's wealthy in Russia, it's called...
Gets called an oligarch.
Maybe, you know, it's fair.
I've not really looked into the finances of any of them.
It's just the change in language.
Just anyone who's wealthy and Russian immediately...
There is the implicit assumption that if you're Russian and you happen to be rich, you must have got that money badly or through bad means.
I mean, to be fair, when the Soviet Union collapsed and they did the bonds for the state industries in privatising them, they did get hoovered up by...
Just one person in many industries.
So a case can be made that...
Yeah, that's a very fair point, actually.
But to conclude, and then of course we'll move on to the video comments.
Please stop beating Chelsea while they're down.
I know they're a club that everyone loves to hate, but they are potentially facing, probably not, but potentially facing an existential crisis, at least if they don't find a bitter soon.
Cut us some slack, please.
And with that, shall we go to the video comments?
You have a neighbour who frequently and publicly criticises your traits, from your hairstyle and your height to your fashion sense and your taste in entertainment, and the list of complaints gradually gets longer to encompass everything about you.
When you confront them about being rude, They say that they don't hate you or even dislike you, but that they have a problem with these particular traits.
When you ask why they interact with you at all if there's apparently so much wrong with you, they say that there's nothing wrong with wanting to improve you.
Would it not be just and wise to dismiss this person and discredit them to your friends as it seems to be a toxic and hateful relationship?
Absolutely.
And, to be honest, when people say, oh yes, we don't actually hate you, I mean, really?
Like, if you hate all aspects of a person, but you're like, you know what, I don't actually hate you, then you're lying, aren't you?
Yeah.
And many of the people who do criticise traits that are British often aren't exactly the most pro-British people, are they?
No, they're not.
They normally speak ill of our culture and our country, the place which provides them with the standard of living they enjoy, and they're more than happy to bite the hand that feeds them, as far as they're concerned.
I know that correlation is not necessarily causation, but when there are so many small traits, Kind of abstracted, and then constantly used as a pejorative against a person, such as the phrase, like, cishet white man, which is almost used by intersectionists in such a pejorative way.
You can't help but think...
But maybe it's just men they hate.
I don't know.
But yes, I agree on the fundamental point.
Things like British values or American values or even French values, wherever the country is that's under attack by...
Leftism, basically.
It comes from a place of self-loathing, in a way.
Not necessarily just of them as an individual, but their culture and the country and everyone around them.
It's an inherently self-destructive thing, in a way.
Oh, it is, absolutely.
I fully agree.
Why, hello, Lotus Eaters!
I would like to give you a little bit of a tour of the race car.
It has no motor.
The motor that I was working on is going to be the one that goes into this, but this is pretty much it.
It's a front-wheel drive passenger car.
Oh, fantastic.
You can see this logo on the back there.
And the inside of the car, that's the battery right there.
But, you know, it doesn't...
Oh, f***!
That's awesome.
I'd love to know.
What are you going to be competing in, would be my question.
Yeah, you're quite a racing fan yourself, aren't you?
I am a racing fan.
Sadly, I haven't got my art license, so I can't race actual cars yet.
It's something I'd like to do in the future, but I do race karts.
And I have actually got a Lotus Eater sticker on my helmets now.
So I am doing it for the cause.
So you're racing for the same team?
We're racing for the same team.
You know what?
If I ever have the privilege of going to the States and actually being qualified to race in the States, let's actually enter an event.
It would be amazing.
Lotus Racing.
There we go.
It's written in the stars.
I think they've already got their own team, Lotus.
Yeah.
They're not very good, are they?
Details.
Yeah, all right.
St.
Irish Day approaching, and everyone in North America claiming, hey, I'm part Irish, to which I quip, and you haven't even lost your accent.
I wonder how many other lotus eaters have had Guinness with that little cloverleaf in the top.
Some years ago I asked a barmaid at the local British pub to draw one, but don't make it look too much like a schoolboy's cock drawing.
She didn't.
Instead, she drew the shaft and testes in much more graphic fashion.
She'd even draw a harp with a cock through it one Valentine's Day.
Recently I visited a steakhouse for a celebration and she was working there.
The Guinness was not on draft, so she improvised.
That is brilliant.
I don't mind a pint of Guinness, but I prefer...
I wouldn't have that one.
I prefer an IPA or a dark ale than a stout.
Good old brew dog.
They are a bit woke, aren't they?
But their beer is good.
Well, woke in image, not in reality.
As it turns out, they treat their staff absolutely appallingly.
They have a bullying culture in there.
A bullying culture?
No.
It tends to come with being woke, doesn't it?
Yeah, it's funny.
Institutionalised bullying.
Who else comes to mind?
Well...
John Bercow.
Oh yeah, fair point.
Didn't think of him actually.
Technique 1200s, RAN72 mixer, DaVinci for video editing, and Pro Tools for audio editing.
What kind of software and gear do you guys use?
Hey everybody, check out Bandit Hank's first release Telekinetics, March 25th on Audius.
We've been having jams on the weekend, haven't we?
Yeah, we have.
It's been some good stuff, actually.
Yeah, we have.
But no, you're quite often playing the rhythm guitar and playing lead.
We've got John on piano and Pete on bass.
Yeah, and me and John kind of alternate the lead vocals, depending on, I suppose, the song and which song suits you.
Whose vocal range.
But it's been very, very liberating to get back into playing music.
I haven't done it in ages.
I mean, I think we've had many conversations about it being one of the highest of the arts.
I would defend that till I die, to be honest.
I think...
Music as an art form, it's got the closest connection to emotions because you don't even have to consciously understand it.
You just feel something.
You have like a...
A physiological reaction to music in a way that, you say, you look at a painting, you've got to really use your conscious mind rather than your unconscious mind to understand it.
You've got to be like, oh, I like these parts about it.
There's an immediate relation that you have to music that you don't get with any other form of art.
You know the best song that you've ever heard?
You can never actually capture the first time that you heard it ever again.
It's not the same phenomenological experience.
Shut up!
But no, I'll never forget the first time I heard Awaitances all around the world.
I wish I could go back to that, but anyway.
I'm rambling.
No, music's great.
I love producing as well.
I'll have to check out the software at some times.
I'm not much of a hardware man.
I'm more a Logic Pro X. I'm more of an effects pedal man.
I don't like...
If it's got a computer screen or there's any digital, more analogue, I'll have my effects pedals there in front of me and I press it and it makes a noise.
I'm not going to be all intelligent about it.
There's room for both approaches.
I've got the philosophy of a drummer towards guitar, I think.
I hit the thing and it makes noise.
But anyway...
Well, it works.
It does, yes.
Alright, so s*** happened in the Sultans of Shadlay, and effectively the whole server died, and became nothing but just a political podcast, and the Shadlay community, where we all hang out and talk, just stopped happening.
But they still did it on my server, and my server has effectively become a refugee server.
Why'd I ring this up?
Well, Oil came up with- not Oil, sorry.
Shadow came up with the idea that why don't we start a rival podcast?
Well, I've set up the YouTube channel, and there's no links to it yet, but this is a thing that's gonna happen, so, uh, just thought I'd advertise it.
Best of luck, especially with the refugee crisis.
Yeah, it's nice, isn't it?
Sophie?
So Emma Watson stands with the witches, does she?
I can see that!
I'm not saying she's a witch, I'm just taking her word for it.
Also lovely that just by having this, though I had it since I was 11 and it was my gateway to reading a lot of other books, but now, now I too can be a garbage human being.
Just like my hero Cole.
I've got to say, that picture of Emma Watson doesn't flatter her at all.
But there are better pictures of her at the event.
It wasn't the best angle, was it?
Not the best angle at all.
But she hasn't quite hit the ball yet, I would say.
I don't know why I weighed in to make that point.
I do like the fact that simply owning a copy of Harry Potter now makes you some kind of undesirable as well.
It's like...
Crap, I'd better buy them back then because I sold all of mine ages ago.
I didn't realise when I was a kid I was just growing up to become a political dissident through reading Harry Potter.
That was clearly where I became radicalised.
Yeah.
The first submarine used in combat was the Bushnell Turtle by the Americans against the British in 1776.
It was entirely powered by the pilot, and its goal was to attach a bomb underneath a ship in the middle of a British armada.
The submarine part worked great.
However, the current was too strong, so they just dropped the bomb in the middle of the armada.
Still scared the heck out of the Brits when it went off.
With how integrated the pilot's body is into the machine, I think this might qualify as the world's first mech.
We Americans will always find ways to blow shit up.
I didn't know that.
That's really cool, actually.
I'd love to have a go in one of those.
A bit scary.
I wouldn't really want to blow up our own navy, personally.
No.
No, I would not.
This here is the Ziphos.
It is, as Carl pointed out, kind of a leaf-shaped blade, which is primarily for stabbing, but can also be used to slash.
This particular one is about 14 inches long in the blade.
They could be up to twice as long as that, but...
Usually when you're fighting from further away, you'd just use your spear.
You wouldn't draw your sword until you're in the tight press of combat, and when you're in that close of quarters, having a longer blade would actually be unwieldy, and you'd much prefer a shorter, quicker sword.
That's really awesome.
It kind of has that weird sort of Bronze Age top heaviness about it, doesn't it?
It does.
Almost a bit like the weighting of a sabre where it's heavier at one end and I always think of bronze age, bronze swords that you find in ancient Greece, that sort of thing, when I see weapons like that.
That's very nice.
I wish I knew more about swords in the comments, but no.
Cool.
I've never been able to understand why cats love boxes so much.
I've grown up with cats my entire life and no matter what, no matter how grumpy the cat is, they will jump in a box and they will go a bit crazy whenever possible.
Yeah, I get the crazy side of it.
I've never seen any live interactions between a cat and a box.
But I'm going to have to think again after seeing that.
Thank you for sharing that.
Hey guys, hope you are doing well.
This is going to be a quick little video, but I have a little announcement to make.
I am now official member of the Democrats, Liberal Democrats as it's formally known, as of March of this month.
We are a small party that wish to end all restrictions and mandates involving COVID and government overreach, wanting to maintain small government rule in Australia.
For more information, just go to www.ldp.of.au.
Oh, good for you.
I'm glad to see that it's nothing like our Liberal Democrats.
Good luck with that.
And Michael sped up your voice at the end there to make it quite high pitch.
I don't think you sound like that normally.
But yeah, honestly, best of luck.
Liberating Australia from its tyranny is probably one of the best causes going.
If anyone deserves a change of government, it is you.
And I hope that you get it.
Best of luck.
With another Legend of the Pines comes the story of the Winterwood Gift Shop in Rio Grande, New Jersey.
This house was actually built in 1772.
Back then it was known as the Hildreth House, built by Joshua Hildreth, but he's not the ghost that haunts it.
The ghost's name is Hester and she passed away in 1949.
But her spirit is believed to haunt the place and there is even a plaque telling customers to be mindful of the ghost.
I like that Joan of Arc is there making a contribution as well.
I love the ghost stories as always.
They're always really interesting actually.
I'm not entirely convinced that I believe in them.
I really like the stories though.
You always get something out of it even if you don't necessarily believe it.
Yeah, that's true.
Well, we've got plenty of time to spend reading the comments today, so shall we proceed?
Of course.
Do you want to read your Ukraine ones?
Yes.
Chet Chrisome says, My local federal MP, Sean Fraser, is the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, and has stated that we, Canada, will take in an unlimited number of Ukrainian refugees.
That's the sort of policy I'd expect from Trudeau.
Whereas I am all for taking in legitimate refugees, as I say we are.
This statement comes at the time where we have a housing vacancy rate of 1-2% and the average price for a house here in Canada is $800,000.
That's a lot.
That is an awful, that's nearly just short of half a million.
Yeah, in Great British Pounds.
Canadians can't find or afford places to live now, so I have no idea where we are going to put any of these people.
It is also worth pointing out that the dishonourable Sean Fraser is a member of the Liberal Party and is a member of the World Economic Forum and is one of the many bastards that's voted to enact the Emergencies Act.
Sounds like a lovely individual.
I'm sure he's really doing your country proud.
Again, it's another case whereby someone's ambition is outweighing the means of achieving that ambition.
I think that's quite a charitable interpretation.
Justin Trudeau has always been a man of signaling before he delivers on anything that could deliver good for the Canadian people.
He took that to another level entirely with...
The trucker's incident, which I could never have anticipated that from Trudeau, and I feel like an idiot for not seeing it sooner.
But no, it's a bizarre policy.
I can't see how it's going to work, even.
I feel dreadfully sorry to Canadians.
It must seem like an insult in many ways, like the...
Homes of refugees, what the scheme is for us in many ways.
George Happ says, the British people will soon learn that Eastern European women are as dangerous as any jihadi.
£350 a month will not be enough to keep them in the style they are accustomed to.
I don't know.
They have a reputation for being a little bit high maintenance in the fact that they're very traditional in their expectations, in that you've got to provide them with A very good lifestyle for them to remain happy.
However, in return, you probably get better treatment as well.
So they're trad wives then?
It seems like that.
Because that's the sort of thing that a trad wife would expect.
However, I think in Eastern Europe they also have a cosmetic surgery culture a little bit as well, which is not so trad as well.
No.
If they do away with that part of it, then, well, I'm game for the rest, I suppose.
You're happy with high maintenance then, okay?
Well...
I'll leave that to you.
Define high maintenance.
Oh, no.
No man should have to answer this question.
But, like, the expectation that you give them loads and loads of money, basically, for nothing.
I think that's what he's referring to here.
And also, being very demanding...
Do I need to explain it?
That's okay.
I've always had a slightly different concept.
But if that's what you mean, I do agree with you.
But anyone with traditionalist leanings is more welcome than those that don't, as a general principle.
Avatar says, free healthcare for the refugees?
Won't that overwhelm the NHS? Yes, I imagine it probably would.
Matthew Hammond says, why are Western nations not sending money to help the Poles, Czechs, Romanians and other bordering countries taking in Ukrainians?
It would be significantly cheaper to do this, potentially more effective as well.
That's a very good point.
Student of History says, I have several questions and comments.
Any temporary government idea will be permanent.
Aren't you guys having a housing crisis?
Yes.
Is £350 a lot?
Because it doesn't sound like too much money.
It's not really.
Given that what energy prices for most people is what has risen to £150 a month.
If not more, yeah.
If not more.
We're not exactly getting council tax relief for this either.
It doesn't amount to being very much at all, especially given the added energy that they'd be using.
It might be just about enough to cover the cost of them living there in the first place, I think.
Yeah.
But why are they giving money to local governments and not more to the volunteers?
And finally, rest in peace, NHS. It'll be dead and buried by the end of all of this.
Rest in pieces.
Rest in peace is more like indeed.
And on, he says, I would like to see the generosity these people have.
Even Gibbs aren't involved.
Saying that, would the same people be as generous if they weren't being given handouts?
Interesting question.
I'd probably say, well, probably not, but of course there is an awful lot of...
I think as many people would sign up to it, perhaps even more, but I do think there's...
I think that the generosity on the part of the British people probably is there, but they are being taken a little bit gullible, slightly.
Maria Manzi says, regarding migration for all into the UK, the political and media class are trying to prove that you can fit a court into a pint pot.
Clearly the UK political and media class are probably morons.
Is there anything to contest about that?
I mean, I agree.
Sure.
Kevin Fox says, amazed by an item today that the trans lobby were claiming as a win, while strategically ignoring the flashing neon L about a trans man, a woman who believes she's a man who got out of Ukraine by wearing her mother's shirt and painting her nails.
Amazing.
Trans men are men.
Until men are required to pick up a gun and defend their country, then trans men are women again.
I was actually going to make a side point about this, because there was actually someone who managed to fast track an application to actually have conversion surgery done.
Wasn't there?
I think so, yeah.
Yes, in transitional surgery, or whatever it is.
Just that he could get out of being conscripted.
I don't know.
Well, I came across it anyway, but it has to be one of the most...
Tragic things that I've ever seen, really.
To have to go to that length to defend your country against an invader.
Well, it's not an easy thing, but at the same time, I think that when it comes to a war zone, you don't necessarily want someone who can't even figure out whether they're a man or a woman watching your back as well.
That's a dimension I never even considered, but...
It's cowardly, isn't it?
Oh, of course.
Yeah.
I would certainly much rather be sent to war than have to go through a surgical process like that, anyway.
Alex Ogle says, Yeah, that's absolutely right.
The majority of them, if I were to speculate, are economic migrants who, of course, want a bit of the UK's generosity.
And when the UK has, of course, been so pathetic in trying to resist this process happening, which is, of course, a huge insult to the taxpayer, it's only going to get worse.
I would say so.
Yeah.
So it is an insult.
And he should have known better, to be perfectly honest.
But I don't think he's actually interested in being morally right.
He's interested in just moralising about and race-baiting as critical race theorists do or people of that persuasion do.
But Alex Bradbury says, this is going to absolutely destroy our economy.
I think it will as well.
I feel for the people of Ukraine, but I have to have the Eric Zemore view of we are not the Santas of the world.
And that's actually a really good way of putting it.
Shooting of History says, seriously, it just reinstates the empire at this point.
The left wants to help the world so much.
F its empire.
Enforce basic law and tell them to civilly get along.
Harry G-Man says, we, the UK, can be the endless life raft of the world.
Can't be the endless life raft of the world, I should say.
We already have enough problems with infrastructure, housing, jobs, labour saturation, cultural alienation, that's a big one, deracialisation, and the inner exiling of the native British people, who arguably need that £350 as much as anyone else's, or at least the generosity.
send money to the neighboring countries to help any refugees in the nearest safe country f off we're full simple as toxic empathy will doom us all that's harry g-man Very true.
I agree.
Curlane Sloan says governments never care about veterans.
What happens to them is the ultimate aim of government, to extract as much value as possible from its citizens whilst also getting their consent for it.
A veteran is the ultimate example, a citizen who has given up life, limb and sanity for the glory and expansion of the state apparatus.
Meanwhile, providing for a non-citizen lets them extract social and political value from someone who is not a citizen.
Poor profit for the politicos.
That is one hell of a black pill, but it is absolutely true, sadly.
Shall we move on to some of the comments from my segments?
So, unfortunately, offering a bounty for a cartel head in Mexico is rather pointless, as if the federales, the Mexican federal police, catch you trying to collect, they will imprison you, either until you are dead by assassination, or you offer them a large enough bribe because bounty hunting is illegal in Mexico.
Yeah, that's an interesting point, yeah.
The bounties are pretty pointless, aren't they?
And they don't seem to be achieving very much.
Lee Buttle, give Josh a damp sponge and a cattle prod, and he can make all the cartel leaders...
Make extra risky decisions so they get caught.
I like that idea.
They haven't weaponised enough psychology yet.
Give me a wet sponge and some electrodes and I'll sort out this problem by the end of the week.
Don't you worry.
Matthew Hammond, were you aware that one of the largest money makers for the cartels is Avocado since several states have legalised marijuana?
Avocado Toast is supporting the cartels.
Further proof that leftism is evil.
Yes.
Support the right.
Reject the avocado.
Avocados couldn't be more evil than they already are, irrespective of that point.
Soak up all the bloody water.
Is that true?
Are they really greedy for water or something?
They cause droughts, yeah.
I didn't know that.
Then again, I suppose, to a microscopic level, every plant causes a drought because all plants need water, but avocado are particularly needy on the waterfront.
All I know is that if you go to somewhere like Bristol, which is a hive for leftism, you can't move avocado everywhere, so it's just a signal.
It's like a red flag, if you will, for a leftist.
There's a taste for avocado.
There we go.
Enough about politicising, I suppose, is it a fruit?
I think it is.
I don't know.
I think it is.
Yeah, it must be.
It sounds more right to call it a fruit than a vegetable.
Never mind.
Never mind.
A funded war just lies there because a dimwit who thinks the incoming Hispanics will vote for his party in the next election refuses to finish the job that was started simply because it was a Trump plan.
Yes, that is exactly what I was trying to say in the first place.
Well said, Kevin.
Yeah, glad you agree.
Free Will 212, also a good name.
Appreciate the Rush fandom there.
The problem with these cartels is when they do end and where they...
Do the Mexican authorities begin?
And how much involvement do the US politicians have with these cartels, given the reluctance in some quarters to deal with them?
Well, I don't know about the involvement with US politicians.
But yes, I know that the Mexican authorities and the cartels can sometimes be interchangeable with one another in that they're either getting bribed or are explicitly working for the cartels in the first place.
And this is part of the reason of why they're so difficult to get rid of in the first place, right?
Monkey Poop.
Interesting name.
Lotus Eaters.
Don't you just hate all the whataboutism?
Also Lotus Eaters.
Ukraine.
Ukrainian.
What about the Mexican cartels?
Yes, fair enough.
You got me.
You got me.
Dudes, we get it.
You don't want to go to war.
Give it a rest.
If you want to do a section talking about the cartels, do it.
Just don't use it as an excuse to justify your anti-war daily dose.
Well, to be fair, this is the first time I've been on the podcast to even mention...
And to be fair, we're not spewing anti-war propaganda.
I mean, he's talking...
I get the sense that you...
I don't want to throw someone who's taking the time to comment on us under a bus, but we're not trying to peddle or perpetuate, propagate, I should say, a strictly anti-war message.
We're just...
My line has always been strictly consequentialist.
At what cost do we go to do what's ultimately the right thing?
I'm very, very aware of what this could turn into if we go about this haphazardly.
And I'm a little bit unnerved by how some...
Just so oblivious to that.
And I don't think that message can be spread enough, because the media is very much, or at least the most reputable individuals within it, are peddling one particular line, which unnerves me.
And if it's unnerving, then surely we should serve as a counterweight to that to some degree.
It's not necessarily an anti-war message, but anyway.
I was more talking about the fact that it seems to me that the US government is more intent on spending money abroad, far away from the American people, than spending it on problems which are closer to home that actually are more likely to affect the daily lives of The people at hand, and I was using that just as the most recent example.
That was my thinking.
However, of course, I did talk about stuff, and I think you do have a reasonable point there, actually.
So, final one for my segment is Anthony S. It gets very cold in the desert at night.
I'm sure Ukrainians are just as surprised.
Well, me too.
I haven't spent much time in the desert, or...
Well, I live in Britain, so I haven't even really seen the sun in years.
Have you not noticed?
So, yeah.
It comes as news to me.
I did see in the live chat, actually, that they're saying that it was about 13 degrees in Tijuana.
So that's pretty cold, actually.
So yeah, fair enough.
Yeah, it's pretty nippy.
I'll give you that one.
Right, so the more on Chelsea comments.
Chango98 says, Chelsea are getting what they deserve.
They welcomed Abramovich with open arms despite the origin of his wealth, which we don't entirely know, and used that money to deal irreversible damage to the English game.
Primarily by fragrantly breaking rules around things like tapping up because they could afford to write off the fines and paving the way for other ethically questionable parties like the UAE and Saudis to buy City and Newcastle respectively.
Some of this is right, some of this is fundamentally wrong.
Roman Abramovich did not inaugurate this era of foreign ownership.
That was started by the establishment of the Premier League, in effect.
That was when we went down this direction, in short.
And look, I fully take the point about tapping up.
There was a tapping up culture at Chelsea, which was illegal.
This happened in the lead up to us signing Ashley Cole, where Peter Kenyon and someone else I can't remember had meetings with Ashley Cole's agent about a transfer to Chelsea when Arsenal hadn't actually given permission.
And that was wrong.
And it's not wrong to say that Abramovich may have done this because he was willing to pay the fines for doing so and it worked as a calculable risk because we got the player.
But to say that Chelsea are getting what they deserve now, I don't think is entirely morally just because, again, they did not make the Premier League what it is.
But Taffy Duck says, Imagine Chelsea owner is a multi-billionaire.
He had all his stuff stolen because of where he is from.
Imagine if he had any real conservative values or a love for real British culture or people.
I wonder what the government would do then.
Probably treat him much worse, perhaps.
Like Canadian truckers, rich Russians are a warm-up act for what our demonic pedo-elites of true World Economic Forums have in store for the rest of us.
I think that was meant to say the World Economic Forum have in store for the rest of us.
Yeah, well, I suppose, given the World Economic Forum's position, they're going to come for everyone who has a taste for the concept of property, which doesn't leave very many of us, unfortunately.
Chris Wolff says, Could some of the Belgian clubs step in and help Chelsea?
They have a great relationship.
It would be silly to lose the bridge that helped other players like Hazard, Lukaku and De Bruyne.
Yeah, perhaps.
But again, I don't know if that would even be allowed.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Or why it would be an interest to the Belgian clubs to do that.
Interesting idea though, Chris.
David Shipton says, Yes, it absolutely does.
It's a perfectly feasible comparison.
Student of History says, Abramovich returned to Russia.
No S. The entire Western media and some government seem to be hell-bent on implementing the airport's mission for modern warfare too.
No Russian.
We know what that means.
It's madness, isn't it, really?
When we could have been making friends with people, we're pushing them towards Russia.
In the first place, when it seems strategically, maybe I'm missing something, to be a terrible mistake.
Could it be argued that we've actually been doing that ever since we just continued on the pursuit, the ongoing pursuit of the eastern expansion of NATO, and made it perfectly clear to the Russian Federation at that point that we never want you to be a part of it, thus confirming them as the encircled enemy that NATO was based on?
There's a certain element of Governments always need a good external enemy, and when you've got one available, why not make the most of it and make them out as big and as scary as possible and make it look like you're doing as much as possible?
Whether you're actually carrying out any justice is irrelevant.
Whether you're benefiting yourself is the main thing.
And I think there's a certain amount of that in that I imagine these government actions are probably supported by many of the people who are horrified about what's going on in Ukraine, which I can understand.
However, the actions of the government in requisitioning people's property, I don't agree with that.
I believe in property rights.
I mean, that means no exception.
I think the case of Chelsea Football Club has illustrated that this has gone a little bit too far.
Not just a little bit.
It's far overshot.
I'm trying to think of a phrase to wrap up the point, but there isn't one, so I'll just leave it.
Thank you very much for watching.
I hope you found it interesting.
▲
Export Selection