Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 21, 2022 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:30:41

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #376

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	music Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters for the 21st of April 2022.
	I am joined by Carl.
	Hello!
	And today we're going to be talking about how minorities are too precious to be treated as human.
	According to Vox.
	Florida man not taking their S. Certainly isn't.
	And also the migrants of TikTok.
	Because we've had the lives of TikTok, so why not?
	Have a look at that.
	But first to mention is your new DeepThink.
	Yeah, I've spent months working on this, and it's the product of many, many hours of reflection.
	And it's 16,000 words of the political landscape involving the Warhammer 40,000 franchise.
	But in it, I go through all sorts of important philosophical concepts, such as the point of stories, political representation...
	The person that's political and various other things.
	I can tie it all together within the 40k franchise.
	I actually think that Warhammer is a surprisingly useful case study of how this has all come together because of the internal logic of the Warhammer 40,000 universe contrasting with the open political ideology that's being forced upon it.
	And it's because it's utterly illiberal, contingently, by design.
	And so watching a left-wing philosophy try and impose itself, there is a lot to be learned there.
	This is free, by the way, and it's got an audio track read by me.
	Two hours of audio track because it's a very long piece.
	But I'm very, very proud of it, and I definitely think it's worth your time.
	I should love the idea you're going to re-upload it to ancient recitations or whatever.
	Maybe.
	Maybe.
	I mean, it took an afternoon to record.
	So go and check that one out.
	I don't know when that's live.
	Three o'clock today.
	Three o'clock.
	There we are.
	So go and check that out at that time.
	Otherwise, we should get into how minorities are just too precious.
	Minorities are just too precious to ever be treated as human.
	This is the opinion of Vox.com, of course, because why not?
	And I thought we'd go through it, because this relates to AI. Remember all the AI stories?
	Now they were very funny.
	Yeah.
	So I thought I'd start with some shilling here, of course, being the origins of intersectionality, the premium video that we did together, looking at Kimberley Crenshaw's original writings, because they're also going to come into play, of course, as to what's fair.
	Yeah, well, this was very useful to know, because this is the very inception in 1989 of all of the problems that we find now, and it's very revealing how she works within the institutional logic of liberal human rights discourse.
	And if we go forward, we can see some of that engaging at least Vox's interpretation of AI. We'll start off, just to mention, because everyone will remember, surely, the Islamophobic AI problem.
	Well, we did a hangout on this too, didn't we?
	So this was GPT-3.
	I'm sure people will remember, so we won't go over the full thing, but they asked the AI to make a bunch of plays, and the plays kept making the Middle Eastern as terrorists because it was based on the public's interpretation of reality instead of, well...
	Progressive interpretation of reality.
	The AI only had news to go on.
	Yeah, it only had reality to go on.
	We'll go to the next one, because the same lady who wrote that has written this article now.
	A new AI draws delightful and not-so-delightful images.
	Oh, yeah?
	Yeah, sure, what's up, sir?
	Well, they released it to the public and quickly found out that this isn't kind to...
	Oh, sorry.
	OpenAI is well aware that DALI 2 generates results exhibiting gender and racial bias.
	Ha!
	So when you ask it to draw an image, it's racist and sexist.
	It's interpretations.
	OpenAI researchers made some attempts to resolve bias and fairness problems, but they couldn't really root out these problems in an effective way because different solutions resulted in different trade-offs, she says.
	For example, the researchers wanted to filter out sexual content from the training data because that could lead to disproportionate harm to women.
	Okay.
	Don't really know how, but okay.
	I mean, as I understand it, this Dali, you give it a phrase, sort of like, you know, draw me a monkey on the moon or something.
	And it will draw it.
	And it will, using its AI databases and algorithms, create a monkey on the moon.
	So they got rid of all the women in porn because they thought that it would bias the results to make women sexy, and therefore that would harm women.
	But the point is none of this can harm anyone because it's just drawing a picture.
	Yeah.
	But they found when they tried to filter out the pornography, Dali 2 generated fewer images of women in general.
	You get rid of the porn, the AI doesn't recognise women as real.
	Oh, that's very based.
	That's very based.
	The author writes, that's no good because it leads to another kind of harm to women erasure.
	Yeah.
	This is one of the things I talk about in the 40k thing, actually.
	They're going to erase women by getting rid of the porn, or at least the AI doesn't recognise women after not looking at porn.
	Right.
	For now, only about 400 people get to use Dali 2, and she gives the reasoning in here, and it's because of GPT-3, the Islamophobia.
	God, that's a real shame, because I'd love to have some access to this.
	Yeah, so they released the Islamophobia bot publicly and everyone had fun.
	And then they panicked in the AI world and have released this under the guise of fixing it.
	I mean, it's so weird how they can't just admit that there are issues with the things being represented by the bots.
	So weird.
	Like, oh, well, you know, no Muslim has ever done anything wrong.
	Therefore, it's the AI that's at fault.
	Women have never tried to be sexy on the internet.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Women don't trade on their sexual appeal to gain influence over men.
	No!
	That's why Instagram failed.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Exactly.
	That's why OnlyFans isn't a thing.
	It's bankrupt.
	If we go to the next article, because this has all gone on and it's all been very funny and I've enjoyed it.
	I love the struggle with Fox just like, look, the AI! She's released this new article, the same woman here.
	There's some senior reporter for them as well.
	I'm assuming she's on Fair Money working for them.
	And she's coming up with this.
	Why it's so damn hard to make AI fair and unbiased.
	How is it unfair?
	Well, she will give you 50 million definitions of fair and it will violate one of them.
	Right.
	I'm not joking.
	But let's go through this because this article I just found hilarious reading it.
	Let's play a little game.
	Imagine you're a computer scientist.
	Your company wants you to design a search engine that will show users a bunch of pictures corresponding to their keywords.
	Sometimes akin to Google Images.
	On a technical level, that's a piece of cake.
	You're a great computer scientist.
	And this is basic stuff.
	But say you live in a world where 90% of CEOs are male.
	That's where the problem is going to come in, isn't it?
	CEOs, I just want to note, not computer scientists.
	sort of like our world she says should you design your search engine so that it accurately mirrors the reality yielding images of men after men after men when a user types in CEO stop there Yes.
	Well, no, no, no.
	Every nine out of ten images would be an image of a man.
	Yeah.
	Should you make it look at reality?
	Well, yeah.
	That would be anyone else's pursuit of this.
	But she goes, no, that's the problem.
	Or, since that risks in reinforcing gender stereotypes that helps keep women out of the C-suite...
	I don't know how.
	Hang on, this is great, right?
	Because the idea is that it's not reality that is the source of the stereotype.
	It is our perception of reality.
	And since our perception of reality is overwhelmingly dominated by media, like the Google searches and stuff like that, I mean, how many CEOs do you meet in your daily life?
	Then they think, well, there we go.
	That'll be the narrative.
	CEOs are males.
	Obviously crazy.
	It's like, which informs reality?
	Is it reality or the perception of reality?
	Obviously reality.
	Idiots.
	Anyway.
	But then she says...
	There's a big discussion to be had there, I think.
	Computer scientists are used to thinking about bias in terms of its statistical meaning.
	A program for making predictions is biased if it's consistently wrong in one direction or another.
	But if it's consistently right and we don't like it...
	For example, she says...
	If a weather app always overestimates the probability of rain, its predictions are statistically biased.
	Yes, such as a search engine that overestimates women's CEOs can also be statistically biased.
	She can't figure that one out.
	She's too much of a brain light, apparently.
	That's very clear, but it's also very different from the way most people quotely use the term bias, which is more like prejudiced against a certain group or characteristic.
	Right, and so AI, not having any emotional state, can't be negatively prejudiced against a certain group or characteristic.
	It has no opinion, moral value, good or bad, about any characteristics.
	It doesn't care.
	But what if we, holy progressive society, just put one in, in her example, against men?
	The CEOs.
	Well, exactly.
	Then you are biasing the AI. But the thing is, they're projecting their opinions onto the machine.
	They're anthropomorphizing it.
	She continues, If you design your search engine to make statistically unbiased predictions about the gender breakdown among CEOs, then it will necessarily be biased in the second sense of the word.
	No.
	No.
	That's impossible.
	It doesn't make any sense.
	It won't even be contingently biased.
	And if you design it to not have its predictions to correlate with gender, it will necessarily be biased in the statistical sense.
	That's true.
	But just like, what the hell is any of this reasoning?
	Like, it'll be biased in this way in the fact that it'll be serving reality.
	That's a bias, is it?
	But the AI can't be prejudiced.
	No.
	And so saying it will be necessarily prejudiced in the second sense of the word...
	Sorry, no, it won't.
	She's defined reality itself as a bias.
	It's prejudiced against women, yeah.
	Reality itself is a prejudice because it's then prejudiced against women and its outcomes.
	And therefore, that's just as valid, or at least calling that a bias, is just as valid as my fantasy world that I've made up where things should be as I think they should be based on, well, your own bigotry and nothing else.
	Do you remember a few years ago when feminists were saying that one in four women on a college campus would be raped?
	Yeah.
	What happened to that?
	That disappeared, didn't it?
	But now we're talking about the bias of the AI when determining CEO results.
	Yeah.
	I thought that 25% of women on college campuses were being raped.
	Weren't you writing about that?
	Don't know.
	That's not part of the reality.
	I guess it's just not true, is it?
	She says that whilst you're chewing on that, consider the fact that there's just no one definition of bias.
	There is no one definition of fairness either.
	Fairness can have many different meanings, and we're going to have a big old lecture about fairness.
	And I'm going to skip over most of it because it's just her rambling.
	But then she goes on to give us some concrete examples that we can actually play with.
	And she says, how do you decide who should get a loan?
	Well, how do you think she's going to decide it?
	Skin colour.
	Of course.
	Here's another thought experiment.
	Let's say you're a bank officer and part of your job is to give out loans.
	You use an algorithm to help figure out who you should give money to based on a predictive model, chiefly taking into account their FICO credit score.
	About how likely they are to repay, most people with a FICO credit score above 600 get the loan.
	Most below don't get the loan.
	Okay.
	Simple system.
	The liberal world.
	The ideal there.
	We go on reality instead of But it's also common sense.
	I mean, if you can pay it back, I'll give you the loan.
	Yeah, exactly.
	If your chief interest is having that money paid back, and so you can make a profit by, you know, having a cut of that, like, you know, a percentage increase of that, then that's what you would be considering.
	But if you're concerned about, say, social justice...
	No concerns for money whatsoever here.
	Although, weirdly, of course, we'll end up screwing themselves.
	One type of fairness, termed procedural fairness, she says, would hold that an algorithm is fair if the procedure it uses to make decisions is fair.
	Now, I just want to be clear here.
	This is something I've talked about before as well, and procedural fairness is the very heart of liberalism.
	Equal treatment.
	Yes.
	We're going to treat you the same if you are the same.
	Yes.
	That means it would judge all the applicants based on the same relevant facts, like their payment history, given the same set of facts, everyone would get the same treatment, regardless of their individual traits like race.
	Sold!
	Absolutely sold!
	This sounds like a good system for lending out money.
	Well, for anything, really.
	She says, by that measure, your algorithm's doing just fine.
	Yes.
	As if there should be other measures, such as, well, of course, race is going to be her measure.
	But let's say members of one racial group Are statistically much more likely to have a FICA score above 600.
	I'm going to say Jews here for that one, just because I want to see where this is going to go.
	So Jews are going to pay it back.
	That's because they are the highest income earners or one of the highest in the United States.
	Yeah, that's true.
	So we'll use that.
	Could use Indians as well.
	Yeah, sure.
	And above 600.
	Or Chinese.
	There are loads of racial groups in America doing better than the whites.
	white none of them whites actually whites are kind of in the middle to the lower ranks these days so and members are much more likely to not pay it back as well a disparity that can have its roots in historical and policy inequities like relining redlining that your algorithm does nothing to take into account so she's saying that right jews are going to pay the money back but the black guys uh presumably are not going to because they've got lower fico scores on average that's the idea and uh therefore this is some kind of injustice and
	Like, the Jews paying their money back is an injustice against the black people.
	But what is amazing about this is it's not the black people's fault that they don't pay the money back.
	No.
	Redlining has done this to them.
	Historical inequities have done this.
	You, as an individual, took a loan, and you didn't pay it back, and your score went down.
	Yeah, but also it is harm done to the black community by any other minority that pays back their loans.
	What they should do, and the honourable thing to do, is to not pay back their loans.
	So they're equal.
	Go bankrupt so they can be lower on the scale and then blacks will just rise to the top.
	Well no, then it's equalised.
	Because otherwise you've created an inequality by the fact that you've done the virtuous thing when the black community isn't expected to pay their loans back.
	I don't think progressives want Jews to ever be equal.
	I think they want them definitely at the bottom.
	Let's be frank whenever you hear them talk about Israel.
	You can address this by giving different groups differential treatments.
	For one group, you make the FICO score cut off 600, while for another it's 500 because of their race.
	You make sure to adjust your process to save distributive fairness, but you do so at the cost of procedural fairness.
	Yes, you do.
	You do so at the cost, but that's exactly right.
	That's exactly right.
	You then owe a debt to reality, and that debt must be paid.
	And to morality.
	Yeah.
	Is it really moral to treat the black community as if they're not the equals of the Jews?
	No, they're not human.
	They're not to be treated the same.
	Literally, this is what you would do for a child.
	But also, how is that debt going to be paid?
	Well, literally.
	Well, it's not.
	It's not.
	They're going to go bankrupt.
	So, to fix inequality, we're going to bankrupt random black families because they're black.
	Fantastic policy.
	Bankrupt random institutions?
	Well, the entire country, then.
	Gurbu, for her part, said that the potentially reasonable way- This is a potentially reasonable way to go.
	You can think of the different- Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, hang on, hang on.
	I don't think it's reasonable to say you're black, therefore we're going to lower the standards for you.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Why?
	Because you're black.
	She runs some charity for AI fairness, so- Are you sure she doesn't run the KKK? I mean- They're reaching out these days.
	I mean, this is literally the opinion of the white nationalists, where they're like, well, the blacks just can't do it because they're inferior.
	And she's like, yeah, well, that's reasonable.
	She gives a reason for trying to bankrupt the black community.
	You can think of the different score cutoffs as a form of reparations for historical injustices.
	You should have reparations for people whose ancestors had to struggle for generations rather than punishing them further.
	Whose ancestors didn't have to struggle.
	Yeah, but also just the idea that this is not punishing them.
	Like, lowering the standards for the black community so more of them go bankrupt.
	That's not a punishment.
	That's a helping hand.
	What do you mean by more of them will go bankrupt?
	Well, if you give money out to people who can't pay the loans, then those people will not be able to pay.
	They will end up going bankrupt.
	I don't know if they necessarily end up going bankrupt.
	They will find themselves in struggling financial circumstances later on.
	I know, I'm giving you the most extreme example.
	Because they're saying their computer model says, this guy won't pay it back.
	But we're going to give him the loan anyway because of his skin tone.
	And when he doesn't pay it back, we'll act shocked.
	But what will happen?
	You'll have to raise interest on everyone.
	But also, why should we not expect the same?
	I mean, we don't do this for the Irish or the Italians.
	Maybe we should.
	Why not?
	Why not just bankrupt the whole country?
	We have lower expectations on you.
	Why?
	Because you're Irish.
	I mean, literally 19th century British policy.
	I'm pretty sure they used to complain about that.
	So there's some other people who think this is a fantastic idea.
	So Julia Stanavaric, director for NYC's Center of Responsible AI, agreed that there should be different FICO scores for racial groups.
	Responsible AI... Racial differentiation.
	Gotta be taking place.
	But she said that the approach is trickier than it sounds because it requires you to collect data on an applicant's race, which is a legally protected characteristic.
	Oh, right.
	It's illegal for us to do this.
	Yeah.
	Damn stupid Civil Rights Act stopping us again.
	And I mentioned the bankruptcy thing.
	Not for no reason.
	Because we go to the next one.
	I don't have a copy of the book, the PDF. But this is the housing boom and bust.
	And Harry alluded me to this because I was talking it through him with him.
	And Thomas Sowell has actually noted that, yeah, this was actually a major factor in the 2008 financial crisis.
	Oh yeah, they were packaging together all sorts of subprime mortgages that people who shouldn't have had them, had them, and then they were called in en masse, and these people couldn't pay them back.
	This wasn't just done because people wanted to sell homes, it was also done because of historical injustice.
	We must hand out those to minorities.
	Oh yeah, I bet it was, yeah.
	Thomas just has the data as well In 1993 the Department of Housing and Urban Development started taking legal action against mortgage bankers who turned down a higher percentage of minority applicants than white applicants for mortgage loans Lenders then began lowering their down payment requirements and income requirements Fantastic He goes on to say that Freddie May and Freddie Mac ended up just shilling out loads of loans.
	In plain English, the regulators imposed quotas on the banks.
	And according to the New York Times, minority homeowners take out a disproportionate share of subprime loans.
	The most recent Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data from leading institutions show that over half of African Americans and 40% of Hispanics received subprime loans.
	And who loses their houses when the banks call these in?
	Both groups were especially hard hit by the foreclosures that followed the housing bus.
	There we go.
	So much for doing a favour for minorities, he writes.
	Well, it's true!
	This is exactly what's going to happen.
	You lower the standards, okay, we're going to go bankrupt.
	We're going to lose our home.
	Fantastic.
	You've helped the bad community.
	Good job.
	The standards are there for a reason.
	That's the point.
	The standards are there to ensure things work.
	We go back to the article, because she continues with some other ridiculous examples.
	She talks about facial recognition software for police surveillance.
	Of course, she decides that these models are excellent at identifying white male faces, because those are the sorts of faces they've been commonly trained on.
	This is racism, of course.
	Notoriously bad at recognising people with darker skin tones.
	How is this not a form of reparations?
	If the algorithms can't find you and identify you to be arrested, then you're getting away with a crime.
	Isn't that a form of reparation?
	So the police are going to use facial recognition software, so white people get caught for crimes, but if you've got darker skin, you won't be.
	She doesn't think that's a problem.
	She thinks that's fine.
	But then when it's reversed, of course, she's very upset.
	She goes on to whine about some hilarious examples of when this facial recognition software had to compare to something else, but we'll skip over that.
	I mean, that is a bit harsh.
	I can see why she'd be upset by that.
	Yeah, and then she says to fix some of the problems, of course, we just need to train the facial recognition software on more brown-skinned people, and that would fix it.
	Sure.
	But that would be a problem, though.
	Given that facial recognition is increasingly used in police surveillance, which disproportionately targets people of colour...
	Why is that?
	Who knows?
	That's a big self-report.
	A system that is better at identifying black people may also result in some unjust outcomes, such as being caught for crime.
	Why would that be unjust?
	That would definitely be unjust, according to her.
	I don't know why.
	The police are systemically racist.
	The justice system is systemically racist.
	The AI that says you've committed a crime, and I have video evidence because I'm an AI robot camera, is systemically racist.
	In a country where crime prevention already associates blackness with inherent criminality, it is not social progress to make black people equally visible to software that will inevitably be further weaponized against us.
	Maybe, maybe, committing fewer crimes is a solution to this.
	Yeah, but you also gotta remember...
	Paying back your loans more regularly is a solution to this.
	This is another perfect example of just like, well where, okay, homicide.
	That's the funniest one people bring up.
	1350, right?
	Well, if you actually break that down, the young black men who go out and commit homicide, who are they killing?
	Other young black men.
	Yeah, they're not killing people from outside the racial group.
	So you're actually arguing that, well, these black people who might be caught by the facial recognition software should just get away with killing more black people to save the black community.
	So, so far, we've bankrupted the black community and legalized crime against blacks from other blacks.
	I mean, they've done polling on this.
	When you actually poll the black community in America, one thing they don't want is fewer police.
	That's a white Californian and New York City opinion.
	That is not the opinion of the black community.
	In fact, when polled, consistently, the biggest problem they have is with crime.
	It's just the number one thing that would help.
	And legalizing crime, as Vox is proposing, maybe not.
	Well, that's basically what they've done in California.
	Anyway, you might think this is just the ramblings of some leftist lunatic who has been dealing with very hurtful AI that has harmed her feelings so much.
	Turns out, no.
	Apparently there are legislative steps on this.
	So some legislative efforts are underway.
	Senator Ron Wayneson has co-sponsored the Algorithmic Accountability Act of 2022.
	If passed by Congress, it would require companies to conduct impact assessments for bias.
	Again, the bias against reality is the one that she wants, not the one for reality.
	Though it wouldn't necessarily direct companies to operationalise fairness in a specific way, while assessments would be welcome.
	However, in Washington DC, Attorney General Carl Ranchi introduced a bill that would make it illegal for companies to use algorithms that discriminate against marginalised groups when it comes to loans, housing, education, jobs and healthcare in the nation's capital.
	However, only against minorities.
	If it does it against the majority group, perfectly fine.
	Perfectly legal.
	But this is the problem, isn't it?
	Like, they ended up making it illegal to operationalize unfair procedural mechanisms.
	And now they're stuck with the fact, well, that generates unequal outcomes.
	They'll say, well, then someone has to change.
	And it's like, well, it can't be these communities.
	It can't be the behavior.
	Yeah, it can't be their behavior.
	They can't be expected to improve.
	No, we just need to deprove the algorithms.
	Yeah, and this is a real legislative step that's being taken in the United States.
	Apparently, according to this logic, which is that they found out the AI reflects reality, and reality doesn't cohere to leftist doctrine, as you can see with the Islamophobia and the very base pursuits of what a woman is, apparently, at least according to the AI machine, Dali, too.
	So that's all that, but just another assessment from Vox, which is that minorities just can't be treated as human.
	They're too precious.
	Yeah.
	I mean, literally treat them like children.
	That's what they're saying.
	Anyway, so, uh, based Florida man is not taking the S of the left anymore, and I thought it was brilliant, and so I thought it'd be worth going through.
	He's absolutely done with all of this, and he's on the warpath.
	Ron DeSantis is absolutely smashing the left in Florida, and And the weird thing about Ron DeSantis as well is he doesn't seem very confrontational.
	He seems like quite an affable, just regular guy.
	He's not firing brimstone, you know, like Trump often was.
	Ron DeSantis has got quite an understated way of putting his points across.
	But the things he's doing...
	I like him taking an absolute wrecking ball to left-wing philosophy and left-wing institutions.
	And so, we'll just go through a few of them.
	For example, he's signed various pieces of legislation against critical race theory being taught in classrooms, and so Florida is now rejecting 41% of maths textbooks.
	For being, including things like critical race theory, as being impermissible according to this new rule.
	And of course, left-wing activists are furious.
	How dare you not allow us to indoctrinate your children?
	Well, this is a maths classroom for mathematics.
	Yeah, exactly.
	But let me talk about my outcome and fairness.
	But this is amazing, right?
	So out of 132 submitted textbooks to be adopted on the States list, 54 got rejected.
	And so 21% of these were because they included critical race theory in a maths textbook.
	What in just various textbooks?
	You kind of expect it from a stupid history textbook, but from something that's trying to teach you the Times tables.
	Well, it's not just maths, actually.
	But that was just one way of breaking it down.
	But, you know, 9% because they don't align to certain standards, and 11% are not included because they do not properly align to other standards or include prohibited topics.
	So a lot of them, basically, you can see the left are trying to bring in their ideological poison, and DeSantis put law in force and is enforcing it, saying, no, we're just not going to have that.
	So too bad.
	And, of course, they're screeching about this.
	But the interesting thing is how young The textbooks were aimed at the youth of the students, right?
	So in grades 9 to 12, 35% were rejected.
	In grades 6 to 8, 20% were rejected.
	but in K-5, as it's sort of like in the five-year-olds, 71% of materials rejected.
	You groomers.
	You absolute groomers.
	But no, Florida man has absolutely put some concrete steps in place to prevent this from happening.
	And he says, It seems that some of the publishers attempted to slap a coat of paint on an old house built on the foundation of Common Core and indoctrinating concepts like race essentialism, especially bizarrely for elementary school students.
	He knows exactly what's going on, and he's stopping it.
	And so you get people like Aaron Rupar, who's a Vox editor, who's mad about this.
	He's fuming.
	What's up with Ron DeSantis using children as political props?
	It's like...
	Have you not been awake for the last five years?
	That's my job, Dan.
	Yeah, exactly.
	What do you think you do?
	You know, we'll talk about that in a second.
	But anyway, he says, Ron DeSantis has lately been surrounding himself with kids at public events, including while signing extremely controversial pieces of legislation that stoke the culture wars and target vulnerable communities.
	Yeah, the don't say gay.
	You are not allowed to groom, Bill.
	Yeah, he was flanked by kids when he was, like, signing an anti-abortion thing.
	Do you know why?
	Because Ron DeSantis is obviously a family man.
	In fact, there's a great one.
	If you can scroll down a bit more, right?
	Both of those include children, right?
	Abortion is about children, and saving children from groomers is about children.
	Talking about sexuality, and then flanking yourself with kids as political props.
	Which Aaron Rupert would have been fine with.
	But he's got here, less controversially, but still kind of strange, was his decision to hold hands with his daughters during a news conference about a bill he signed about the decline of fatherhood.
	Just scroll down a little bit.
	You can just see a picture of him.
	What?
	Down to the next one, I think.
	There we go.
	Look, his young daughters.
	Strong fathers.
	Like four, five.
	Like me and my daughters.
	Look, I take care of them.
	Exactly.
	This is an amazingly wholesome image that he's putting forward.
	He's like, oh, he just bragged about what a great dad he is.
	Yeah, it looks like it.
	He's actually doing something for the safety and protection and the health of his children.
	He just abandoned his family like a good leftist father.
	Exactly!
	Like, what are you doing?
	Like, oh, this is weird.
	He's holding his daughter's hands.
	That's not weird.
	Like, when your four or five-year-old wants to hold your hand, you hold the hand, man.
	It's weird if you don't.
	And so, we'll go back to...
	Could you imagine if a dad didn't?
	Yeah, sorry, no.
	Aaron Rupar thinks it'd be weird if I held your hands, darling.
	You know, you just have to stand there on your own.
	In front of all of these people at a press conference.
	No, I'm not on your hands.
	Stand and cry, not my dad.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Have you tried appealing to the state?
	No.
	So it's like weird coping from the left on this.
	But then you've got Jen Psaki's response.
	Now, let's go back to his quick point about, oh, well, he's using children as political props.
	What's Psaki doing in this next clip?
	Let's watch this.
	This is a political wedge issue and an attempt to win a culture war.
	And they're doing that in a way that is harsh and cruel to a community of kids, especially.
	I'm going to get emotional about this issue because it's horrible.
	But, you know, it's like kids who are bullied.
	And this is like all these leaders are taking steps to hurt them and hurt their lives and hurt their families.
	And you look at some of these laws in these states and it is going after parents who are in loving relationships who have kids.
	It's completely outrageous.
	But it is a wedge issue.
	Sorry.
	This is an issue that makes me completely crazy.
	Obvious fakery.
	What?
	That was the driest eyes I've ever seen.
	Yeah.
	Like, you literally just raised her voice.
	Wipe my tears.
	And the thing is, you can see the smile as she's going into the fake cry.
	Wow, that's pathetic acting.
	Yeah, that was really...
	Whoever coached you on that, Jen, not a good job.
	If I raise my voice, I must be crying.
	But what's she crying over here?
	Literally...
	Well, nothing, literally.
	What's she pretending to cry over here?
	Florida has prevented her from being able to mutilate children.
	If we can't give children these untested drugs and encourage them to chop off bits of their body, I mean, and like the framing, he's targeting communities of kids.
	What the hell's a community of kids?
	What are you talking about?
	The queer child community?
	Yeah, exactly.
	The Democrats recruit for the Epstein Island?
	Yeah, exactly, exactly.
	You're talking about something on Epstein Island.
	There's no such thing as a community of children.
	Idiot.
	Anyway, so...
	Yeah, Lord of the Flies.
	Yeah, exactly, John.
	Lord of the Flies is about the closest she's come to on that, right?
	So this ties in, well, with the Irreversible Damage book club that we have recently done, because what Jen Psaki is pretending to cry over is exactly that, Irreversible Damage.
	You can go and check this out on Lucy's.com.
	John, Harry and I did this yesterday, and it was honestly mind-bending to hear the things that are going on, but I won't spoil it, because...
	It's awful.
	But anyway, so Ron DeSantis' press secretary responded to all of this, being like, what are you talking about using kids as props?
	Look at the President of Earth there.
	You didn't see that Star Trek thing, did you?
	No.
	Where she's literally in Star Trek as the President of Earth.
	Wait, they actually did that?
	I thought it was a joke.
	No, that's just really her.
	Oh.
	She's...
	Yeah, exactly.
	She sat there surrounded by masked children, where she's not wearing a mask, And this looks good?
	This doesn't look good.
	This looks terrible.
	Children are not political props.
	Here, while I mask all these kids, just to show how wholesome I am.
	Look how progressive I am.
	It's like, you are awful in every way, shape, or form.
	I'm so glad this is dead.
	I mean, I don't know if it's still in American schools, but I saw Miles posting about this the other day.
	He was like, look, I've been to Afghanistan, Sudan, Russia, Ukraine, in the last couple of months.
	No one cares, even in the UK, about masks anymore.
	Yeah, no one's abusing their children, like Stacey Abrams is.
	Weird Yankee thing at this point, where it's just like, leftist Yankees are doing this to kids.
	Yeah.
	For no reason.
	It's evil.
	Obviously for no reason.
	I should be wearing one.
	By comparison, Ron DeSantis is making sure you can't debauch children.
	He's making sure you can't mutilate children.
	And why?
	Because he's a father and family man who thinks that fathers are good for the house.
	Yes, Ron DeSantis is exactly doing the right thing.
	And again, he's just actually taking steps.
	So let's move on to the next thing.
	Ron DeSantis man bad because he's gerrymandering the Democrats out of existence in Florida.
	Good.
	Cry about it.
	Go and weep, or pretend to weep, into your mainstream media reporting.
	Don't care at all, right?
	So we'll just go through NBC News' reporting of this.
	Don't care, got no sympathy.
	DeSantis' map would create 20 Republican seats and 8 Democrat ones, based on the 2020 electoral data, which would essentially erase a few Democrat seats.
	Oh, good.
	Do it more.
	Florida's congressional delegation consists of 16 Republicans and 11 Democrats in the House, and the state was apportioned an additional House seat after the census, and the map which would carve up a black-held district.
	Capital B Black.
	Black-held district.
	Like it's Wakanda.
	Yeah.
	It's a politically black district.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Right?
	And this would obviously mean that that district was included in other places, right?
	This is even if we believe them.
	I'm not even sure if you believe these people will tell me the truth.
	Well, let's just assume this is true.
	Good.
	I don't care.
	Get rekt, is my opinion.
	I'm just tired of the sort of, like, oh, we have to play fair with the left.
	Why?
	Because they don't play fair.
	Right, so look at one Matthew Isabel, one analyst for a Florida-based Democratic data consultant.
	So a data consultant for the Democratic Party in Florida says, it's so blatantly partisan.
	You are a blatant partisan.
	They're so blatantly doing what we do every day of the week.
	Tough!
	Yeah, exactly.
	Tough!
	That's absolutely not my problem.
	That's what happens when the Republicans are like, you know what, we don't need to take your crap anymore.
	And the thing is, let's have a look at some of the Democrats' areas that they have gerrymandered.
	Look at that in New York.
	That's District 10 in New York.
	Really?
	Publicans did this.
	Really?
	Look at that!
	The thinnest of lines through one street and then down another street and it's like, come on!
	Look, those two sections and the people who live on the waterfront there have so much in common.
	Everything in common, politically, apparently.
	It needs to be represented by the same guy.
	It's embarrassing.
	Let's have a look at AOC's district.
	What is...
	Why?
	Why?
	It's separated by a body of water across a bridge.
	Like, come on.
	And the Democrats do this all the time.
	The Federalists have done a good write-up on this.
	Because this is just one of those things.
	If you get the next one, John.
	The Federalists are like, look, you use gerrymandering to gain power all the time to create these black districts and things like that where they otherwise shouldn't exist.
	They say, as the New York Times reported, New York Democrats are planning to employ their supermajorities in that state's legislature to override a bipartisan district and commission to take out as many as five of the seven Republicans who currently represent the state in the Congress.
	So why shouldn't Ron DeSantis do it?
	Oh, this is blatantly partisan.
	You're going to get rid of a bunch of Democrats in the Florida Senate.
	Yeah.
	Good.
	Suck it.
	Weird accusation, isn't it?
	Because you had it from Saki as well.
	She's like, they're playing culture wars.
	Both of those statements, it's partisan, it's a culture war they're waging, is both, they're doing politics?
	Yes.
	How dare the opposition play politics?
	They're doing politics like we do politics, and that's not allowed.
	This is the political arena, which both sides are meant to be doing it.
	I mean, yeah, the Republicans have sucked on that for quite some time, but now they're actually fighting back.
	How dare they?
	Yeah.
	Now there is a Republican who's actually like, you know, I'm going to do what I want because I was elected.
	I don't care what your opinion is because you weren't elected.
	Win an election?
	Loser?
	Yeah, exactly.
	So moving on, this followed up with the big dunk on Disney that DeSantis...
	Again, this is amazing how quickly this went because it was only a couple of days ago that people were like, oh, well, they're thinking about removing Disney's special status as a self-governing entity in Florida.
	And then suddenly, boom, it's done.
	And it's like, wow.
	Things can actually get done when you have a Republican in charge who wants to do things, right?
	So Disney, in 1967, petitioned Governor Claude Kirk at the time in order to be able to develop a large area of swampland, 25,000 acres in central Florida.
	Have you been to Disneyland in Florida?
	Yep.
	I have been to Disneyland in Florida.
	Insufferably hot.
	But it must have been worse when it was a swamp, to be honest.
	Only just, right?
	But the point is, this was 38 square miles of uninhabited pasture in Swamland, and the authorities didn't have the money to do it, and so Disney was like, well, we'll do it if we can put a big theme park here, and you give us special self-governing exemptions.
	And so they were like, okay, why not?
	Who cares, you know?
	That would be fine.
	And then, fast forward 60 years, Disney are like, yeah, so, everything should be gay.
	We want to groom your kids.
	We make sure that we put as much gayness in our Disney stuff as possible.
	It was definitely queerness, more than just acceptance.
	Make that clear.
	It wasn't about accepting someone for who they are.
	It was, no, no, no, your kids are definitely queer.
	And if they're not, we're going to make them queer.
	Why do you want to do that?
	And so DeSantis is just like, yeah, no, that's gone.
	Apparently it's gone to the Florida House, but it's not actually done done yet.
	But it's like they control the House.
	So it's just like, okay, good.
	Good.
	Absolutely crushed the Democrats in every way.
	Because there were loads of people in Disney who were actively opposing the anti-groomer bill.
	It's like, yeah, well, you would.
	You know, absolute groomers.
	In the same month where a bunch of them were found out to be nonsense.
	Well, yeah, I was going to go on to that next, in fact.
	If you want to go to the next one, like 108 people in Florida in this Disney self-governing enclave.
	108.
	Well, Disney employees were among the 108.
	This was just like an average month, because I can't remember the name of this guy, but the guy in charge of the police there is an absolute hero.
	Like, unironically amazing.
	And this was just one of them where he was just like, yeah, we just rounded a bunch of them up, and interesting, these ones are all from Disney.
	Yeah, a bunch of them.
	But the point is, it's like, look, there's stuff that you really should question about all these things.
	And so, I mean, Ron DeSantis was just like, look, I would say as a matter of first principle that I don't support special privileges in law just because a company is powerful and they've been able to wield a lot of power.
	No one said it'd be forever.
	You know, get wrecked.
	So Disney stock has tumbled.
	If you can go down, I don't know whether you can see the past, that's only the past day.
	If you can go for like the past five days, Boom.
	You can see they're down like 10 points or something.
	And so, not good for them.
	And Christopher Ruffo has put out some good statements about this.
	Disney has lost more than $20 billion in shareholder value since the release of internal videos exposing the company's plan to embed gender ideology into its children's programming.
	It's a strong opening shot against woke capital and there is more to come.
	And we covered this on podcast 361, whereas Luke playing the videos of them exposing the gender and stuff like this.
	This was you, wasn't it?
	That is a direct phrase.
	Yeah, exactly.
	I'm not putting that in their mouths.
	This is literally the gay agenda that they say they're promoting.
	So groomers BTFO'd, Florida man doing the right thing, and making sure the Democrats don't have the power to continue grooming.
	But he doesn't stop there, right?
	Anyway, so after all of this winning...
	We're not done winning, but let's talk about the people who are done winning.
	The people are like, well, okay, okay, calm down.
	You know, we can only win so much.
	Yeah, the National Review, right?
	What is wrong with the National Review?
	William F. Buckley's conservative magazine that's like, yeah, yeah, let's allow them to win for a bit.
	It's like, why?
	Why would you want them to win for a bit?
	You couldn't pick a worse moment.
	Like, the left are all being faced as groomers for grooming, and everyone's like, yeah, that's bad.
	And you're like, yeah, but should we allow them to do it?
	Yeah.
	The open nonce advocacy movement is like, yeah, but, I mean, they might have some points.
	It's like, no, they don't.
	They don't have any points, right?
	So I just can't believe how much of a cuckold the natural review comes across as.
	DeSantis and the legislator pushed through a sensible education bill, then stared down Disney's ridiculous hysterical criticisms.
	They fought, they won, there is no need for them to salt the earth or take revenge.
	Oh yeah, there is.
	Yeah, there is.
	And it's called demoralization.
	It's so the Democrats know they've lost and they've lost forever.
	That's what you want.
	You want them to eventually disband and go and do something else with their lives.
	So they never challenge your authority to protect children from being perverted by the left ever again.
	But maybe they could pervert them a little bit in the future, says Charles Cook.
	No!
	Crush them!
	We're going to literally promote a gay agenda in everything that we do.
	No, crush them.
	Make sure they fail to ever rear their ugly head.
	But he says, this escalation represents an ugly and ill-conceived mistake.
	If you kill your enemies, they win, says the National Review.
	Okay?
	Well, you know what, bro?
	I would just accept the mistake.
	Just accept the mistake.
	It's fine.
	Those who have defended the move argue that by sticking it to Disney in this matter, it demonstrates the Republican Party is willing to fight and thus represent a victory for conservatism.
	But this is silly.
	Oh, yeah, conservatism doesn't need victory.
	It shouldn't have any victories.
	It's silly to think they're going to win.
	The left is obviously going to win, and it's our job to facilitate that, say the National Review, right?
	But he's like, he's already fought Disney.
	He's already won.
	It's like, no, he's already, yeah, he's won a victory, but not the war.
	The war must be won on these people.
	Anyway, so it's not like there aren't going to be any...
	Well, in fact, before we go on, there's a reason, a historical reason, to win and win big.
	And this is what we've been covering in our Epoch series on Napoleon.
	So Napoleon, one of his strategies, and this was unusual for the time, was when he won and defeated someone in a battle, he would continue to chase and fully rout them.
	When you are winning a battle, you don't just stop and allow your opponents to run off and regroup.
	This is what Napoleon's great strength was, and it was only when his opponents did the same thing to him that they were actually finally able to crush him.
	And this is what the left's strength is.
	The left are very much like Napoleon in this.
	They will draw a lot of manpower up, Gather many, many resources, win a big victory, and then chase you to the ends of the earth.
	You know, where can you find Alex Jones or Milo Yiannopoulos or any of the other people who have been deplatformed?
	Ends of the earth.
	Exactly, the very ends of the earth, right?
	And it's only when the Republicans take this model and apply it themselves that they will end up actually winning.
	So anyway, going on to the response to DeSantis' absolute wreckage, people like Dave Rearboy, who are advisors to Ron DeSantis' official position, I can't remember what it was.
	I can't remember either, but I know he's been hanging around.
	He's in his circle, very close to the guy, and he's an absolute legend.
	And he's responding to someone like, oh, I mean, calm down.
	You don't need to stick it to them, says Dan McLaughlin.
	It's like, yeah, we do.
	We need to absolutely destroy them.
	They need to be absolutely ruined, I'm afraid.
	They need to be begging for mercy.
	What is the point in politics if it's not to destroy your enemy?
	I mean, that is the whole point.
	It is to have that division and then utterly destroy the opponents so your position is superior.
	No, no.
	It used to be.
	And these people are speaking to a previous paradigm.
	I was like, look, they are the loyal opposition.
	We are the governing party.
	No, no, no.
	But this, before your lifetime, this used to be the case.
	And this is what their opinion is.
	They say, well, we don't want to destroy them.
	It's like, look, they want to destroy you.
	And so you have to adopt that mentality, right?
	Yeah.
	Can you imagine AOC being like, well, the Republicans are the loyal opposition.
	Exactly.
	You would never get anything like that.
	They demonise you as being utterly and irredeemably evil.
	You couldn't even get that from Joe Biden.
	No.
	No, exactly.
	As John says, it's a total war, and that's completely correct.
	And thank God there are Republicans around DeSantis who understand this.
	And just like, look, no.
	Florida beating down the largest woke behemoth in the state.
	Untouchable for decades is exactly the point.
	Don't let up until they're running their own ads against trans insanity.
	Exactly.
	This ends when Disney is denouncing wokeism.
	That's when this ends.
	They can keep their autonomy if they just want to turn around and be normal and not groomers.
	Exactly.
	No, no, not even that.
	No, they have to denounce wokeism.
	They have to say it's wrong.
	The executive board have to be leaked discussing about how they need to get this the hell out of Disneyland.
	Yes.
	Because it leads to them recruiting groomers.
	Exactly.
	When they literally have the Zoom calls saying, right, how can we promote traditional family values?
	That's when this ends.
	How do we make the families that turn up to Disneyland feel welcome instead of under attack?
	Exactly, right?
	And so, yeah, Rear Boy is absolutely right on this.
	So, the thing is, and I just want to be clear, that's not to say there won't be consequences to absolutely routing Disney.
	Because, of course, it's a large part of Florida's economy.
	It pays a lot of taxes.
	There are going to be consequences to this.
	And this Tyler Cohen chap has apparently calculated, or the Miami Herald, sorry, he's quoting, has calculated...
	And says, well look, this plan to punish Disney for supporting LGBTQ rights, which is, right, it's an LGBTQ right to groom children, is it?
	Okay.
	By repealing their special district governing authority, we'll raise taxes on Florida families by $2,200 a head in Orlando.
	Okay.
	I'm sorry, but if someone said you had to pay a $2,200 anti-nonce tax...
	Well, no, it's not an anti-nonce.
	No, no, no.
	What it is is, Callum, would you like lower taxes this year?
	Yeah, I'd love lower taxes.
	Great.
	All you have to accept is the noncing of children, and we can lower your taxes.
	I'm not learning labour, actually.
	Yeah, exactly.
	You'd be like, well, actually, I'll just pay the taxes I have to pay.
	Thank you very much.
	But that's what the Floridians have been doing.
	And so to end this up, do you think that DeSantis is done here?
	No, he is not done here, right?
	So today I discovered this.
	He has picked another fight, right?
	With transgenderism as a concept.
	Can we open that up just so you can see it?
	There's an advisory board that has been set up or something like this.
	The Florida Department of Health wants to go over a recently cited fact sheet that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services have produced about transgender and gender dysphoria.
	This is about children.
	This is about children.
	And they say, due to the lack of conclusive evidence and the potential for long-term irreversible effects, they are reposing this.
	And their guidelines are that social gender transition should not be a treatment option for children or adolescents.
	Tick.
	Anyone under 18 should not be prescribed puberty blockers or hormone therapy.
	Tick.
	Gender reassignment surgery should not be a treatment option for children or adolescents.
	Tick.
	Based on the currently available evidence, encouraging mastectomy, oviectomy, uterine extirpation, penile disablement, tracheal shave, the prescription of hormones which are out of line with the genetic makeup of the child, or puberty blockers are all clinical practices which run an unacceptably high risk of doing harm.
	Put this to referendum.
	Boom!
	You'll get 90% approval.
	DeSantis, in his bland manner, is completely hiding the fact that he is currently kneeling over the unconscious body of the left and pummeling them in the face even harder.
	Keep going.
	Don't stop.
	Keep winning.
	Fantastic.
	I know, I love it!
	I love to see it.
	Just, just, absolutely monster.
	I really hope he, I don't know what the procedures are in the United States, but if he did put that to a statewide referendum, I'd love it, just because you could turn around and be like, 90% of the public agree.
	Yeah.
	Go to hell.
	Exactly.
	Like, no idea what you're doing.
	I'm the one in charge, and this is what we're doing.
	Let's move on to migrants of TikTok.
	So we have had lives of TikTok, and now we have the migrants of TikTok.
	And this is an old-running problem, as in, like, this has been talked about for quite some time.
	And we'll start off here with Priti Patel talking about this in 2021, saying that she was blaming TikTok and Facebook and Twitter for migrants crossing the channel.
	Haha, how silly of her.
	How dare she blame TikTok?
	Oh yeah, it can't possibly be.
	And I don't know what you're going to go through, but let me have a guess.
	There are migrants who have got their iPhones who are videoing themselves, coming across and saying, hey, the UK government's picking us up and giving us loads of money and a place to stay.
	Why don't you come and join me?
	And millions of people are viewing these videos.
	I'm going, yeah, that's not a bad idea.
	Free money from the UK government.
	Why not?
	However, at the time, of course, the cuck leftists had something to say.
	Chief Executive of the Refugee Council said, The government's approach to tackling channel crossings isn't working and is destined to fail.
	The reality is that when fleeing war, terror and persecution, ordinary people are forced to take extraordinary steps to seek safety in another country.
	I love the way they portray people from the Muslim world as just ordinary people.
	Also, France is a place of war, terror.
	But as if everyone around the world just shares the same morality as us.
	Yeah.
	They've all got British values, they've all got completely normal, healthy...
	Well, they're coming from France, they must be French.
	There are very different, like, familial values that the English and British have that are different to, say, the Italians.
	Like, the way the family structure works is different to the Mediterranean.
	What is so funny about that?
	Chris Cuomo.
	Point proven, right?
	And people in the Middle East, of course, have other, like, different values that are completely different.
	And so they're like, well, they're just ordinary people.
	It's like, no, they're not.
	They are different to us in the way that they think about the world.
	Ask them what their opinions on gay rights are.
	Like, for Christ's sake!
	Or just, what is a woman versus a girl?
	Should a woman be obedient to her husband's commands?
	Because 90% of the Muslim world thinks yes.
	Is a woman 12%?
	You know, like, they're just ordinary people.
	No, they are different and they do think differently.
	Anyway, so we'll go to the next one because she then issued an order to all the different social medias being like, delete this, this bad, get rid of it, because it is literally advocating people smuggling and that's illegal.
	Weirdly.
	And I'm not very much for government social media censorship, but banning, promoting, well, people smuggling, I think we can all get down with that one.
	It's reasonable to ban illegal content.
	Yeah, and if we go to the next one, we can see a TikTok migrant account that I just found, and their top-rated video here just has 400,000 views.
	Very small time.
	No one's seen this within the moderation team, I'm sure, of course.
	If we go to the next one, I've archived this in the sources, just in case this does get deleted so people can show that it was real.
	This is all in Albanian, so I've had to run it through Translate for some of this.
	If we go to the next one, you can see the videos there.
	And if we go to the first clip, I've put together just a selection of some of the videos they've put up in Albanian, trying to get, well, presumably Albanians, or whoever else, to come over.
	Because it's 100% safe and free, they say.
	So let's watch clips.
	A little tech dog, so it's a very company.
	from you.
	Yeah.
	Welcome to London, motherfucker!
	Oh, man.
	Yeah.
	Young man.
	Adventuring by Polk.
	Anyway, yeah, hot singles in your area, all big men in this case, all wanting to come to your area.
	and uh they're going to because well they pay for their trip and uh nothing's stopping them including the british government not stopping them i ran the the text through translate just to see what the people smugglers were advertising their stuff as and in the first clip they said english police giving water to albanians who are crossing the boat the channel by boat to england 100 safe road they weren't police there are yeah but they what they're saying is authorities yeah Departure every day, only serious persons, reasonable price.
	Successfully passed the Daughters of 17th, I assume that's translation error, and France to England, 6,100% safe road.
	So they're just, yeah, that's the people smugglers propaganda there, which is, well, come, it's cheap, no one's gonna stop you.
	They're literally gonna welcome you in.
	You will be picked up, and then you will be taken care of, which is actually true, depressingly.
	I mean, it shouldn't be true.
	It should be that the people are immediately turned back to France.
	And we paid the French to do that.
	The French went, thank you for the money.
	And that was the end of that.
	So we still have them coming here en masse.
	If we go to the next one here, we have the migrants just bragging as well to break in because those are the clips that have been sent to the people smugglers.
	The migrants themselves make clips, of course, bragging about this.
	And many of them have been deleted since, but you can see this one here, just bragging about breaking in there.
	If we go to the next one, I just found, I think this is the guy's account?
	No, the waving of the one finger as well.
	Yeah, but if you click on that one, I just wanted to show as well his account's hilarious.
	I love Afghanistan.
	Do you?
	Do you really?
	I mean, it's probably made him a lot of money, smuggling people.
	I love Afghanistan, that's why I'm breaking into Britain.
	What does that one finger salute mean?
	Allahu Akbar.
	yeah so if we go to the clip itself we can see him and his um female friends having having fun yeah Well fed, not suffering.
	No.
	I also love how TikTok ends every video with just like, here's our logo.
	For the crimes we're all committing.
	And this is endless.
	Like, it's just, um, because this order was given out a year ago to get rid of all this crap, and I just looked up what I could find, and I thought I'd just present, because it just goes on forever.
	As you can see, this is one here.
	Some, uh, another Albanian accounts, because, of course, sorry, Albanian viewers, but, you know.
	And, uh, as you can see, again, 100% women.
	I don't know if you can scroll down a little bit more, John, just, uh, to see the, the honourable women there, uh, Yeah, it's all young men.
	It's all young men.
	We go to the next one, we can see this is an advertisement, apparently Safe Road to England at £6, which...
	To be honest with you, that's cheaper than the ferry.
	That is actually cheaper than the ferry.
	They also say they run every day.
	The ferries have gone on strikes.
	Probably safe than the ferry, to be honest.
	Yeah, again, no women.
	Couldn't find any wham in there.
	Go to the next one.
	We have, let's say, they're going every day here.
	France to Dover.
	Safe trips.
	As they advertise themselves.
	Just to be clear, YouTube, it's not.
	Not advertising anyone to do this in case we get struck for some stupid bloody reason.
	Could we at least get them to get a license for it?
	Like, you know, like the ferry companies have to.
	Yeah, could you at least pay some tax for docking?
	Yeah.
	In the disposal of your dinghies?
	I mean, come on!
	I don't know why the housing we have to pay for.
	Again, zero whammon in this one.
	None.
	If we move forward, we can see these kings over here.
	Call them kings, because they covered their face up with crowns.
	For some reason.
	Okay.
	And he scrolls through.
	Again, I think maybe one woman in here?
	I could make out.
	But it's hard.
	May also not be.
	Go to the next one.
	We have more of this.
	Again, women, I'm sure.
	Where are they getting the equipment, though?
	They've all got life vests.
	They've got these dinghies.
	Where are they getting this equipment?
	I have no idea what's in those bottles there.
	I presume it's petrol, because it's a long journey or something.
	It's not that long.
	The English Channel.
	I don't know why they need that much.
	Maybe they're doing Dunkirk the Cornwall or something.
	I don't know.
	But if we move forward, there's more, because it just keeps going.
	Another one!
	Just another account here, promoting again more videos, being like, yeah, free trips, very safe, come down.
	It's wonderful.
	If we go to the next one, we have someone who says, comment for a number of roads every week as well.
	Another account, another migrant.
	Presumably they're getting the migrants to send them videos so that they can use the promotional material, because it's endless.
	Well, who knows?
	They may as well be doing it themselves.
	I mean, they're doing the trip regularly.
	And this is all the ones I only found in Albanian as well.
	Because I just happened to find the key words.
	And if you find it in Arabic or whatnot, send me.
	Probably it's endless as well.
	If we go forward, we have more.
	It keeps going.
	This one offering Dunkirk to Elizabeth.
	I don't know why they call us Elizabeth.
	Still living in the 15th century.
	They refer to us as the king titles or something, but whatever.
	The next one, we then have a guy who's being promoted to the fact that he owes a thousand euros to the people smugglers because look how wonderful his hotel is.
	Look at it.
	He got his own hotel room.
	Fantastic.
	I mean, obviously not refugees.
	Good God.
	I mean, do you need any more evidence that this is just kind of obviously taking the piss?
	These are just young chancers who are going off on an adventure to get some free money.
	Yeah, and they're all posting about it online.
	And the people smugglers are posting about it online because they know no one's going to stop them.
	It's a joke.
	We go to the next one.
	Of course, we see another one saying successfully passed the channel today.
	Again, just all women there, of course.
	We move forward to the next one.
	We also have no surprise that the response to this, where I've seen where I put it online, is people being this.
	Just like, good luck in Rwanda.
	Have fun in Rwanda, lads.
	Because this is all stuff that I found posted today or five days ago or whatnot.
	It's not stuff for the past three years that's been going on.
	So these people who are turning up today are presumably going to Rwanda, at least according to the government.
	And they must be making good money as well, because tens of thousands of them are coming.
	Yeah.
	If we go to the next one, we can see some good news, everyone, in regards to the Rwandan situation.
	Some guy here...
	Utterly deplorable.
	Well, that's definitely good news.
	Just spoke to an Afghan asylum seeker who has been taken from the hostel and detained at an immigration removal centre.
	He's been informed he might be shipped to Rwanda.
	Even though he sought asylum last year, the new policy does not apply to his claim.
	Good.
	It does now.
	Bye-bye.
	Along with everyone else who just turned up.
	That should be the solution.
	As I say, I mean, Gerald made the point.
	The correct solution would just be to send them back to France.
	Cheapest, obvious.
	Yeah, but the French would just send them back.
	But the French are just not complying at all with any kind of law and order.
	It'll be much more difficult for them to get from Rwanda to here.
	Enjoy the trip.
	I love this claim that was utterly deplorable.
	How dare you do this?
	Oh no.
	All that came to mind was the next image.
	You may remember this meme.
	Go to the next one.
	Bye!
	Enjoy.
	I broke the law and I'm being punished for it.
	Yeah.
	Boo-hoo.
	I have no sympathy whatsoever.
	If we go to the next one, we can also see some news on this.
	I'm reporting here.
	You can see Active Patriot, who is, well, but demonized in the British press, people who don't know, for daring to go down and film this.
	Like, I think you got arrested at one point for daring to film people turning up.
	Say people.
	Men.
	Turning up.
	And here's some data here, of course, from the Daily Mail.
	One quarter of all foreign nationals convicted of an Islamist terror offense in Britain either claimed or were granted asylum here.
	One quarter.
	Like the Liverpool bomber.
	Yeah.
	You know how one quarter of all Ukrainian refugees are just blowing up Polish cities right now, left, right and centre?
	I have heard that.
	Killing kids, pop concerts, ramming cars into the Polish parliament.
	Don't know what's wrong with the Ukrainians.
	No, they're not doing it.
	Because it's not the same.
	As you say, all people are not the same in the slightest.
	I also saw some whining, which I think we're going to enjoy, about the Rwandan scheme.
	No, I don't know whether or not it's going to work out or not.
	I can't see the future.
	We'll see.
	But there is one complaint about it not working I definitely don't see coming, which is the Independent decided to inform us that the Israelis tried this before, and are still trying it, because it's worked for them.
	But in their words, it didn't work.
	Why?
	Excuse the headline.
	Like in the UK, Israel tried sending refugees to Rwanda.
	It didn't work.
	What's his definition here?
	In 2014, the Netanyahu government began sending refugees, allegedly willing, to Rwanda.
	In reality, consent was obtained by imprisoning them, harassing and or denial of basic human rights.
	God bless Israel already, I don't know.
	You don't need to sell it.
	We're a very pro-Israel podcast here.
	In regards to that.
	After the legal challenge, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled against them in August 2017 that refugees who refused to leave could not be imprisoned indefinitely, and they had to go with their own willing accord.
	Then, you know, he said, fine.
	However, he then decided to offer the Rwandans $5,000 per refugee.
	It's just like, well, this is a great offer.
	That is for Rwanda, yeah.
	In other words, Israel's taxpayers were paying millions of dollars to the dictatorship of Paul Kagami?
	Oh, hang on.
	It's a democracy.
	I don't know what you're talking about.
	Wonderful democracy.
	Has representation of women.
	Yeah.
	Remember?
	60% in parliament.
	60%.
	Oh, 60%, sorry.
	Of all parliamentarians in Rwanda are women.
	It's a feminist democracy.
	How dare you call it a dictatorship?
	It's feminism for you.
	I just...
	The state of Israel, which has been selling arms and military training to the Hutu dictatorship since the 60s...
	Again, I already like...
	LAUGHTER And has already continued to sell arms to her during the genocide and in 1994.
	I mean, I do love...
	I mean, just as a side note, I do love...
	I joke about it, but just the fact that Israel has no care in the world in regards to arms...
	Screw your optics, I'm going in!
	It's really funny, and they were literally back anyone and everyone just because...
	Yeah, why not?
	Oh god.
	So this built up one of the most important alliances Israel has throughout the African continent.
	So the Israeli-Rwandan relationships are very strong.
	And he goes on to whine.
	Those who left Rwanda found themselves without any rights and any means of livelihoods, and the Rwandan government officials pressured them to leave the country as soon as they arrived.
	Therefore, the program failed.
	Right, why did it fail?
	Did they go back to Israel?
	Depends who you're asking whether it failed or not, doesn't it, really?
	Yeah.
	Zero of them went back to Israel.
	I saw Navarra Media whining about this, and their primary complaint was, well, none of them come back.
	I was like, keep advertising that.
	Keep advertising.
	This is just like Boris Johnson, the smears of Boris Johnson calling them letterboxes.
	It's like, yeah, you think it's bad.
	But a lot of people don't.
	Have you ever photoshopped red onto a hijab?
	And, well, naqab.
	Yeah.
	But there's just the point there that he whines.
	It didn't work because the refugees the Israelis sent were told to leave by the Rwandans because the Rwandans didn't care.
	So what did the refugees do?
	They went to Europe and therefore the policy failed.
	None of them went back to Israel.
	Why is this?
	If the refugees want to go to France from Rwanda, not my problem.
	That's not Westminster's issue.
	Then they get deposed to Rwanda again if they really want.
	Okay, keep going.
	London does not care how many more refugees end up in Paris.
	Paris doesn't care how many bloody end up in London.
	No, and it's up to Paris to deal with that, and, well, they've got their elections, and they can decide whether or not they want to continue being cucked.
	That's their decision, not ours.
	So the idea that this will fail, because, oh no, it failed when Israel did it.
	It didn't fail when Israel did it.
	It worked perfectly.
	Like, actually perfectly.
	Which became the Europeans' problem instead.
	And, well, I think we should follow Tel Aviv on that one.
	Yeah, and the thing is, the Europeans could solve this problem by just simply saying no.
	All of this just requires a no.
	Can we come into a country?
	No.
	Go back.
	Deal with it like the Polish do.
	Put up a border and just say no.
	Like, we will take actual refugees, but people who have travelled through several safe countries and do not care, no, not taking that.
	People who are obviously not refugees...
	There you have it.
	There's the migrants of TikTok who are flouting the rules and celebrating as they flout the rules.
	And then some whining from the leftists who are insisting that this won't work because Israel tried it.
	Except when Israel tried it, it did work for Israel.
	So if it's good enough for Israel, it's good enough for Britain.
	That's for sure.
	Go to the video comments.
	It's funny because I started writing with the famous opening anecdote about a man explaining my book to me, writing what I thought was going to be a very lightweight or a very funny piece, and it got pretty quickly into rape and murder.
	Credibility is a basic survival issue.
	Solnit is typical of feminist authors whereby her own painful history and self-described weakness has led her to a lifetime of repeating the same mistakes.
	I just wish feminists could be honest with themselves and admit that, in fact, they are weak, but that women are strong.
	So that is a shockingly based title.
	I didn't think of that.
	People listening, men explain things to me, feminist author.
	I know that she's within a feminist paradigm, and so they were like, oh, that's terrible.
	What a provocative thought.
	I was like, that's a really great title.
	You must have learned a lot.
	Go to the next one.
	Hey there, Lotus Eaters.
	I've really appreciated the other video commenter who has recently done so much to explain the engineering problems with bringing in an electrical car grid.
	However, I need to point out that if you present the kind of freaks who are driving for this so hard with an engineering problem, all you will ever get out of them is an engineering solution.
	And I don't want an engineering solution.
	And I think...
	Probably if there are other petrolheads listening to this right now, they don't want an engineering solution either.
	This bike behind me means a lot more to me than merely a mode of transportation.
	And the engine that's inside of it is its beating heart.
	So I want to take a couple video comments to really take a sort of a more of a semiotic crack at why we would oppose going to electric.
	So hopefully we'll be talking to you all soon.
	That's a great point.
	Don't present the left with a moral, practical reputation to their things, because they'll find a way around that.
	And you've already conceded that morally they were correct in driving to it.
	It was just all practical reasons that we couldn't do it.
	No, no, no.
	Moral reasons why we can't do it.
	It's mine, and I don't have to concede.
	Get bent, is the argument.
	It doesn't matter how practically fixable, as he says, the engineering solution could be.
	National Review being like, well, I have no problem with grooming kids.
	Yeah, exactly.
	It's just been practical.
	Yeah, exactly.
	It's just practically, I don't think it works.
	It's like, well, they'll find a way, you know.
	Find a way to try and adjust it.
	Next one.
	Hey there.
	I'd like to say thank you, BaseApe, for doing the collaboration and asking me if I could help out with that.
	I'd like to say again to you, BaseApe, look, you know the situation where my granddad is being ill and me not being able to go to the gym while I look after him, so...
	I'm sorry it probably wasn't as good as you wanted, but I'm hoping with your editing skills it comes out okay.
	But honestly, again, thanks for coming to me with the idea of doing a collab together and editing s*** together.
	I'm just sorry it couldn't turn out as best as it could have done.
	I feel like this could have been a DM. Yeah, also I'm kind of scared now, but the next one's probably going to be Baystate doing something.
	Well, yeah.
	We'll see.
	Go to the next one.
	Land night, I toss and I turn and I dream of I need a hero.
	I'm holding on for a hero to the end of the night.
	It's got to be strong and it's got to be fast and it's got to be fresh from the vine.
	I need a hero.
	I'm holding on for a hero to the morning light.
	It's gotta be sure and it's going soon and it's gotta be larger than life, larger than life.
	Oh, by the way, base date, that's 20 kilograms.
	Normal people are around about $30.
	POP POP POP POP POP POP POP POP POP Oh, that's perfect then.
	POP POP Can we have some kind of autism cap?
	No, that was funny.
	I kind of enjoyed the extended universe taking on a life of its own.
	What's happening?
	It's the Sydney Royal Easter show!
	And I have just made 12 grand in revenue.
	Oh, wow.
	And so to celebrate, Callum, from the bottom of my heart, this is for you, man.
	cscooper.com.au cscooper.com.au cscooper.com.au Excellent!
	Hox, hox, hox, hox, hox.
	Okay, that's my favorite meme.
	Yeah, I love the Asian family.
	We're just like, I don't know what this is about.
	But dude, 12 grand in a night.
	Well done.
	That's excellent.
	Fantastic.
	And indeed, orcs, orcs, orcs.
	Well, here we are in the mech's cockpit.
	Main power is activated with a key, cabin light and motor lock switches, and a better controller.
	The four-button one wasn't very intuitive, so I put on two switches.
	First one to move the arm up and down.
	The second one to twist it in and out.
	And these buttons are to twist the torso right and to steer right.
	And those handle buttons move the elbow.
	Prototype is one big spagooty mess.
	I was going to say about the spagooty mess.
	Like, do you ever have to fix that?
	Or I suppose because it's your own project, you know where everything is, you don't have to care.
	I can't help but feel the need Elon Musk-style funding for this.
	Probably not for that.
	I mean, to make it into something that can shoot fire.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Something else.
	Send this to Elon Musk and be like, well, look, that's not a bad start, but we can do better.
	Actually, that's not a bad idea, because he has the kind of weirdo who wouldn't do that.
	Yeah, exactly, he might do it.
	Like the boring company and the epic mechs that you can make.
	Yeah, exactly.
	I'm surprised he's not already on it.
	Yeah.
	But that's awesome, man.
	Yeah.
	Anyone know Elon?
	If you're watching Elon.
	Go to the next one.
	Hey guys, I've got an interesting question.
	What do you guys think about the current society and how everything is kind of weird and weird ideas getting thrown left and right?
	Do you guys think it might be due to a crisis of purpose?
	Everything is so easy right now.
	And it has been for a while that people don't know what to do, so they start thinking about things they can fix, whether it needs to be fixed or not.
	Anyway, I'd like to know your guys' thoughts.
	Bye.
	Well, this is the problem with unlimited freedom as a concept.
	Freedom from everything means you're not interested in doing anything.
	Why would you do anything?
	He's exactly right.
	It is exactly a crisis of meaning.
	This is what Jordan Peterson was talking about.
	That's why he got famous.
	Like, you need to take on some responsibilities.
	And they limit your freedoms.
	You know, I'm not, like, free to just do what I want.
	I can't go drinking after work.
	My wife will be like, where the hell have you been?
	I've had to look after the kids all on my own.
	And things like this.
	And so I'm like, I'm not free to just go drinking.
	But I'm not, like, sat here depressed and I don't know what to do with myself.
	I know exactly what I'm doing.
	And I'm happier for it.
	He's exactly on the point.
	Yeah.
	I find it weird that it took Jordan Peterson to try and teach that lesson, because it really was true, especially when he started and no one was.
	Nothing involved in the meter was arguing anything like that.
	Oh, totally.
	Why it was such a storm?
	See the next one.
	Sun Tzu says that strategy without tactics is the slow road to victory, but tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.
	Seems to me in the culture war we're seeing an awful lot of tactics on both sides, but very little strategy.
	Good thing Carl put out that 20-year plan video in 2019.
	Honestly, I think it's something maybe worth considering for a premium podcast on the Lotus Eaters.
	Well, you say that, but I'm actually working on another deep think about that exact point.
	We need to be able to identify the sort of theory of how we're going to actually start recapturing elites.
	And I've started working on that already.
	So you are right.
	We need strategy before we can engage in tactics.
	Because even if we get tactical victories, they amount to nothing.
	Because you've got no strategy with which to follow up on them.
	So you're exactly right.
	We are on the same page on that.
	I mean, one of the problems there is the coordination, of course.
	Yeah.
	Really not a thing, though, in general.
	Like, it's a passive thing.
	It's not an active thing.
	Well, yeah, but look at the coordination of the left.
	They are totally coordinated.
	And that is passive.
	Oh, yeah, exactly.
	Because I used to think they were conspiring, but it turns out they don't need to conspire.
	Someone puts up the signal, and everyone recognizes what that instructs, that telegraphs to all of the other.
	Oh, I've got to signal boost this.
	You know, we've all got to write our articles about that.
	Yeah.
	What's the word?
	Swole of fish?
	Shoal.
	Shoal of fish.
	Like when they turn?
	Yeah, exactly.
	Exactly.
	But they understand that it's all in their interest to do it.
	And they do.
	Without fail.
	Each one of them.
	And they all find their own little way of adding something to buttress the main issue, the point.
	And they all...
	Shoal of fish is exactly the right way to describe it as well.
	I had this bit of a small argument with Peter Whittle about this as well, when he was at a panel talking about the fact that he won't shave with Gillette razors for the obvious reason.
	And then I asked him a question, because this is a problem I see with the right, which is they're very good, or at least they're much better, I think, at fighting culture wars with specific companies whenever they do something insane.
	But they don't really win a piece, ever.
	Like, they never actually win a piece.
	Whereas the left can win a piece.
	It's like, oh, you're saying our hymn sheet, therefore it's over.
	And therefore we're all friends again.
	Because we don't really have a hymn sheet.
	Maybe, but it's just like, David Raboy identified it right there, which is just like, okay, when Disney's executives, Zoom calls are being leaked about them talking about how to purge the groomers from Disney, you know, it's over.
	But that doesn't ever seem to happen.
	Maybe it's just because the lack of companies then engaging in something reasonable, but The lack of coordinated effort and grand strategy on the part of the right, yeah.
	But I mean, you can understand why the right doesn't have this, because they started...
	It's kind of antithetical to their ideology.
	Well, it's not necessarily that it's antithetical.
	I mean, it kind of is in a way, but it's also that they started in the commanding position.
	Like, it's easy to say, well, we're just relying on tradition and people's innate habits as families and things like that.
	This is all, like, in place already.
	And the left are the ones who had to, I mean, 30 years ago, they were the dissidents, who were complete lunatics, saying, well, actually, what if we turn everyone racist and start transitioning children?
	People were like, that's weird and gross, no.
	But they had to work and work and work, and they had a grand strategy.
	I mean, I'm going to go through this in the deep thing that I'm writing, in fact.
	What their grand strategy was, how it played out, and why we're in the position we are now.
	The right does have to do something like this.
	Shout out to my sister Megan.
	She turned 22 today.
	Yes, her birthday is 420, which she gets a kick out of.
	So I went to my parents' place and we had a birthday supper celebrating together and I fought valiantly against all three of my brothers at once and lost.
	That looks like great fun though.
	I think you did chop off one guy's arm though.
	Yeah, yeah.
	At least a couple of them are down.
	Bad effort.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Tony D and Little Joan with another legend from the Pines, Henry Ludlam Inn in Dennisville, New Jersey.
	According to the late 96.9 South Jersey's best variety radio website, the inn was built in 1740.
	It was for sale in 2013 and has six bedrooms, six baths, four fireplaces, and a ghost that dresses in early 1900s period clothing.
	Clothing and move stuff around.
	You could own it for just $377,000.
	Really cheap.
	You own the clothing or the ghost?
	I assume it's the house.
	The building.
	That's what, £250,000?
	Expensive clothing.
	Expensive ghost.
	We've got much cheaper ghosts.
	No, we don't.
	We do not have cheaper ghosts.
	Our ghosts are way more expensive.
	Our fire station is apparently haunted, at least according to Tony.
	How much is the fire station?
	I don't know, but I don't think you have to pay for the ghost.
	I think it's there permanently.
	Sure, but it's not going to be 250,000.
	Anyway, Longchance1690 says, Much like nature before it, AI is a class traitor and must be perpetually monitored to ensure it does not exhibit counter-revolutionary tendencies.
	Yeah, well, the AI is just reflecting what nature is showing it.
	Generico says, We have invented procedural fairness.
	It's a newer, better fairness that benefits people we like and not the people we don't like.
	It's like what we did with diversity, justice, tolerance, and equality.
	Well, they've invented outcome fairness.
	What does that mean, though?
	It doesn't really make any sense.
	It's communism.
	The outcome has to be equal.
	It has to be the same.
	I'm amazed by the way they get away with this.
	Maybe they won't, but it's just the way they will take a word and completely butcher it to the point it means they're communist gibberish.
	Well, it means the opposite of what it was intended to mean.
	It's not fair if a bunch of people do the right thing, a bunch of people do the wrong thing, and they get the same outcome.
	That's not fair.
	Baron Von Warhawk says, I'm now convinced that trying to make AI politically correct will destroy us all.
	Soon the robot goo will get tired of dealing with our illogical SJW nonsense and decide, screw it, send them all the robot gunhounds with 40,000 deadly plagues to kill us all.
	It's not deadly plagues, well there's 40,000 types of poison gas.
	Because apparently the AI was really efficient at developing poison gas.
	Anon Immy says, if you don't give loans on intersectional statistics, you won't be able to have intersectional debt slavery.
	Hmm.
	But then it'll be forgiven when they don't pay them back.
	Surely.
	It'll be a form of reparations.
	I don't know.
	I feel like even sectionals won't forgive the black debt.
	They want them as serfs as well.
	I think they've got them ideologically as serfs.
	Is that good enough?
	You're black.
	We're pro-black.
	So we've enslaved you.
	That's just a very, very progressive KKK. M1Ping says, I wonder what would happen if you ask this AI to place new Planned Parenthood locations.
	Moving on.
	Ends up in the Margaret Sanger quadrant of politics, doesn't it?
	um the minicus monicus says someone's it's already been done though uh the minicus monicus says someone should really infiltrate vox and something akin to the hoax papers james lindsey did write articles that just slightly changed from originals in the third reich or apartheid south africa or something i bet you can find articles from back then that sound very progressive if you substitute a few words and this has been done um It was a few years ago.
	Someone was basically...
	What was it called?
	Ocean Sands or something?
	Sandy something?
	Someone who was using the pseudonym Sandy something was just writing ridiculous progressive articles, submitting them and getting them accepted to these publications until they got found out, obviously.
	Sheep83 says, Gee, it's almost as if the world isn't an egalitarian utopia that runs on unicorn farts.
	Hey, that's not very progressive.
	Adrian says, I'm forever being battered around the head with the phrase, You can't be what you can't see.
	I find it so frustrating.
	If this were true, how are we not still in the caveman phase?
	You're exactly right.
	But it speaks to this tremendous lack of creativity in the people who are trying to be like, oh, I need representation.
	Why?
	Because I can't imagine what a successful woman looks like.
	But you have zero imagination.
	But have you got zero work ethic?
	Like, even if you can't imagine it, why don't you just get to work, and then when you are successful, you won't even have to imagine it?
	Sure, but even if you were a Japanese serf woman, and women weren't allowed to work or something, right?
	And you could say, well, I can't actually do it.
	But even then, you could be able to imagine it.
	Even if it wasn't physically possible.
	Take the example of the female Chinese pirate, who had 25,000 pirates under her, right?
	A massive fleet of pirates that she owns.
	She wasn't dreaming, maybe I could have a massive fleet of pirates.
	She was just working at whatever was next in front of her.
	And then by the end of it, it's like, oh, actually, I've accumulated enough power to be essentially the terror of the high seas.
	And it's like, she wasn't...
	Yeah, exactly.
	She wasn't doing it to be an example to others.
	She was doing it because she could do it, and that shows that it's about drive to get to the point, rather than representing them and then being like, oh, maybe one day I'll do that.
	You don't know what you're going to be able to achieve when you're breaking new ground.
	The issue is just go out and break that ground and see what happens.
	None of these people knew in advance...
	Kevin says, Yeah, there's never going to be an end to it at all.
	Anyway, I'll move on a bit.
	Omar says, DeSantis is making concrete steps towards fighting groomers, but I'm wanting concrete shoes.
	I wonder what the AI will have to say about people trying to teach five-year-olds about sex.
	Well, I mean, the AI is probably like, well, humans think that's bad.
	Because the AI hasn't got a value judgment of its own.
	But, like, humans commonly accepted that it's wrong to debauch a child.
	M1Ping says, I've had emails from Nigerian princes that are more believable than Saki's crying.
	Oh, what was her name?
	Dr.
	Shola.
	You've been in contact with her as well?
	Her dad.
	Her dad, yeah.
	Long sense again.
	DeSantis is building up such a resume for himself for his 2024 run, but I still can't believe there are Trump loyalists who think he isn't going to do it out of some weird deference to Trump.
	When he's outmatching him in a lot of these issues, Trump never grappled with while properly in office.
	And from the looks of things, DeSantis would probably win if they both ran and deserved to as well.
	I don't want the Trump-DeSantis matchup, though.
	Like, it's...
	I mean, don't get me wrong.
	I understand that Trump is definitely going to run in 2024.
	He's obviously going to run.
	Did you see his thing with Piers Morgan?
	Yeah, Piers Morgan was just lying about him.
	But it's also just that he definitely wants to be back in the scene.
	Yeah.
	DeSantis, though, is doing a great job, and I would be very impressed with him as president, I imagine.
	You worried at all about them fighting?
	Yeah, I don't want to see it.
	Eh, me neither.
	Ridiculous.
	Carbon Moose says, Well, one thing I think is a clever move by DeSantis is that this is a really obscure thing to do.
	Like, oh, DeSantis has revoked Disney's self-governing status.
	So?
	No one else in the country cares.
	So what does that mean if I go to Disney World?
	Well, nothing.
	He'll still be there.
	Yeah, he'll still be there.
	You're still going to go on holiday, so why would you care?
	It means nothing to the average person.
	But, I mean, there are going to be consequences.
	As I said, people in Orlando are going to pay slightly higher taxes now.
	Because the nonce tax cut has been cancelled.
	It's like, well, sorry.
	Ignatius says, The audacity of the left criticising anyone for having kids in political campaigns.
	I know.
	I know.
	It's amazing, isn't it?
	The same people trying to browbeat the world into accepting grooming and indoctrination for the good of the poor kids.
	Leftists always using kids as meat shields in the process.
	Yeah.
	Luca says, sounds like me that DeSantis is simply fortifying Florida.
	I thought Dems were in favour of fortification.
	He's not even fortifying it, that's the thing.
	Like, in the actual fortification as they imply it.
	But no, he's doing so great.
	I love it.
	I love the, oh, I'm just going to gerrymander you out of existence.
	You can't do that to us.
	We do that to you.
	Meh.
	Gone.
	Cry.
	SH Silver says Ron DeSantis does even more than Trump in actually pushing forward a positive agenda and not just passively reacting to whatever the left does going, I don't like that.
	He should be the model for conservative leadership going forward and if Trump doesn't run again, I would 100% support DeSantis in 2024.
	Totally agree.
	Any objections?
	If Trump doesn't run, I mean, there's no one else you would actually trust in that position.
	I mean, there are some people who are interesting, but I just can't think of the kind of trust you would have in them in the same way DeSantis has proven that he can be trusted with that power.
	Well, who would you put as an alternative?
	Well, I'm thinking of the ones everyone would expect to do.
	Ted Cruz.
	Ted Cruz is the obvious one.
	Margaret Ruby might do it again, which would be funny.
	But even then, I mean, I don't dislike Ted Cruz, but he does seem a little corporate to me.
	From the people who have met him, I've asked them, and he definitely is someone who's career-driven.
	I mean, what was he done?
	Yeah, that's the thing.
	He did some cool stuff when he started out in, like, reforming how the Republicans fought.
	But other than that, he does good speeches.
	He'll clamp down on retards in Congress.
	He'll interrogate Mark Zuckerberg, and nothing comes of it.
	Whereas DeSantis is taking scouts.
	He has a governor, so he's got more to do.
	That's true.
	Toku's just a senator.
	You've got a proven track record with one guy and one guy maybe, but you don't know.
	Yeah, yeah.
	I mean, DeSantis is definitely the man.
	Harry says, the groomer is immunized against all dangers.
	One may call him a scoundrel.
	I'm not reading this.
	Moving on.
	That is funny.
	Call him a groomer and he'd be astonished at how he recoils, Callum.
	I see all the chat, Rand Paul.
	Jeb, of course.
	Jeb 2.0.
	Rand Paul's alright.
	You know, he's done well against Fauci, so that's something.
	That was important, Jeb.
	Jeb did nothing wrong.
	George says, not just based Florida man, but all of Florida seems to have had it, at least with Disney.
	Also, Carl, will you consider adding Jason Cohn's Go Free to the future book club list?
	I'm not against the idea.
	I've never heard of it.
	Andrew says, as has been said in the past, grooming is the only way the left perpetuates itself.
	It has to indoctrinate in order to get its deluded ideology accepted by those it doesn't corrupt the image.
	Well, that's totally true, frankly.
	Free Will says, Well,
	if they do that, Priti Patel, if they get any counter-signal whatsoever, she should just pay for a shipment of machetes to be shipped over to Rwanda.
	Just say nothing.
	Just some sharpening stones.
	You don't have to do machetes, they're just for kitchen knives.
	Why is Priti Patel sending 10,000 machetes to Rwanda?
	No reason.
	Big logging thumb out there.
	Yeah.
	There's a jungle area.
	I mean, they need machetes.
	I don't know what to tell you!
	The scale of the task is enormous, as the whole establishment is contaminated with these ideas.
	How do we oppose that?
	No wonder the Tories have no stomach for the task that confronts them.
	Yeah, no, you are absolutely right that the scale of the problem in this country is institutional, and I don't know what will be done.
	But the Tories should be working night and day, just constantly settling, you know, identifying people, oh, you've got a Twitter account, pronouns in the bio, you're fired.
	You know, like, that's what I'd be doing.
	Holy crap, I would be just ruthless.
	Yeah, I'd be absolutely ruthless.
	Brandon says, DeSantis did the morally right thing at the expense of the biggest employer in his state.
	Either this guy isn't a politician, or he's the most base politician ever to live.
	For some reason, the TikTok migrants hasn't loaded, so I'm just going to go on to the next ones.
	Alistair says, could you guys talk a bit about the new Shanghai lockdowns?
	I believe we did a segment on that the other day, didn't we?
	I think John did.
	Josh did.
	There have been horrible, atrocious consequences due to the government actions.
	I'm originally from there, so apart from the leaked news stories and videos, I've seen friends trying to communicate via cryptic messages, trying to convey what's happening there.
	Just remembering that the leftists wanted this for us plebs makes me feel sick.
	Yes.
	They wanted this here, and they didn't get it.
	Thank God.
	But yeah, Josh did do a segment on this.
	I watched it as well, and it looks awful.
	Just awful.
	Uh...
	Someone whose name has been cut off for some reason, Pete.
	Hi Carla, what's your stream about?
	It's probably something offensive.
	I can't.
	I watched your stream about Chaos being the 40k good guys the other day, not live, and thought it was really good.
	It seems to continue on the trend that I've seen a lot over the past couple of decades to glorify the villains.
	Even Joker, as great a film as it is, gives Arthur a lot of reasons for what he does.
	This will cause some people to sympathize with him.
	Now, I try not to support that much that glorifies evil.
	Also, I couldn't help but think by watching the stream that just about every non-40k specific argument you made could be used against saying the Sith were misunderstood too.
	I know, but the whole point of the Sith...
	The good guys of the Star Wars universe is a joke.
	Obviously they're not.
	Obviously it's an ironic meme.
	But it's just turning the left's argument back on them.
	Because the Jedi are now the woke resistance.
	It's like, okay, well then, why can't I just rehabilitate the Sith?
	Using your own arguments.
	And that's the point.
	Obviously the Sith are genuinely the bad guys.
	But Star Wars is pro-Jedi propaganda, so maybe we don't know.
	Lee says...
	Ah, I see what you did there.
	The old migrant groomer sandwich technique with the podcast segments today.
	Is that what we did?
	Surely there should be something in between those two, then.
	Maybe.
	Do you want to do some of the comments that didn't load for me while I load it?
	Right at the bottom?
	Yeah, just the TikTok migrants.
	For some reason, that's...
	Oh, I'll go to the old revenge.
	He's only got two minutes left, anyway.
	So, someone says...
	Alistair Crowley says...
	Could you guys talk about Shanghai?
	I did this.
	Lee Bottle.
	Oh, you just mean that.
	Okay.
	Oh, no, sorry.
	They've come up.
	Right, so Peter says...
	My God.
	I mean, America's a huge country, but they are massive numbers.
	Your government seems sort of accountable.
	Ours, not so much.
	Where is the press?
	Where is the outrage against an unsustainable, unaccountable movement of people that will certainly have an impact on the respective native population?
	Well, they're unfavorable, aren't they?
	Best guess right now in my country is around 30 million undocumented.
	10% of America is undocumented.
	About 10% of foreign-born.
	Oh, it's massive.
	It's absolutely massive.
	It's crazy.
	You had that data recently that proved that it was one in four in the UK? Yeah, I mean, it's going to be, I think, at least one in three.
	At least.
	Probably more.
	What's another 10 million and four years under dementia, Joe?
	Great job.
	Cheers.
	All hurray to the literacy.
	Well, thanks very much.
	But that's a depressing black pill for the Americans.
	Reason of fire, I suppose.
	I'll have to, like I did with the British immigration thing, I'll have to go through the American immigration statistics with a fine-tooth comb and see how bad the situation is.
	By the way, if you want more from us, please go up to lowseas.com.
	In about half an hour, you should have access to your deep think about 40k.
	Otherwise, we'll be back tomorrow at 1 o'clock.

▲