Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 15, 2022 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:31:19

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #524

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters for the 15th of November 2022.
	I am joined by Dan.
	Good to be here.
	And we're going to talk about Farageism, is our only hope.
	FTX, Dem's biggest donor, and also Kelvin's Sacrifice, which was not made in vain, for that at least.
	Otherwise, some things to mention first on the website.
	So the first thing here, just being that there will be a premium hangout this Wednesday, 3.30 UK time.
	This is Generation X versus Generation Z. So tune in, pay-per-view.
	The fight's going down.
	Finally going to prove who's the best.
	And then on Thursday, we also have a hangout at 3.30 UK time again.
	This is about Biden's AI Bill of Rights, which I'm sure will be...
	...sane.
	Otherwise, we shall begin with Faragism.
	So, Faragism is our only future, and there's a title I'm not writing because it's my innermost deep thoughts about how I desire the world to be or some such thing.
	This is purely just an analysis of me looking at the British electoral situation and what I can see happening, and they're my thoughts there.
	So we'll have a look, I suppose.
	We'll start off just by mentioning something, being the premium speech I gave, which is why feminist immigration policy will save the West.
	And thank you to Josh, who noticed that the Italians are doing exactly that.
	Salutes in the chat, I guess, for Talia.
	But we shall begin, which is that the UK is not going great.
	It's not going well.
	And one of the main reasons it's not going well is the migration.
	Unbearable.
	And this is something I'll whine about a lot.
	I know it's kind of annoying that I keep talking about it, but we're going to go again, because this is why I believe that Faragism is the only future that we have in the electoral scene.
	Let's start off just by mentioning, I don't know if you can scroll to where there's a graph, I think there's a graph in here.
	So since 1997, about 400,000 people leave every year, and about 600,000 just turn up.
	A constant changeover, I think is the phraseology I'm allowed to use.
	And then we'll just look at the percent of foreigners in the UK. We have a graph of that, which is the...
	Don't you go up as well, if you go to the next link, you can see.
	So there we have it going back to...
	I think this is 1850.
	The graph begins at a whole 2%.
	Turns out not everyone was foreign, once upon a time.
	Whereas now, I think it's about half of London boroughs, more than 50%.
	In Reading, it's one in three.
	I used to live in London.
	It was increasingly notable.
	It's unbearable.
	Personally, when I was there, I was like, okay, I feel like I'm in an airport.
	There were multiple reasons why I moved out, and it could have been a factor, yeah.
	Interesting point, just on a side note.
	If you want to look at where the English actually are, our diaspora, if you could say, across the globe, it's actually more people live outside of the UK who are English than inside the UK. It's just a weird side fact I thought I'd bring in.
	There's a graph of the publicly available data from the recent censuses that have gone on.
	Anyway.
	But we'll go to YouGov, because they've asked the British public, well, how do you feel about all this?
	And it's pretty damn consistent, as you can see it there.
	Do Brits think that immigration has been too high or too low in the last 10 years?
	Remember, this is YouGov's polling.
	YouGov tell us that 72% of their audience want to see lockdowns and masks.
	YouGov know exactly how to put their thumb on the scales to make sure they get the answers they want.
	So if they're getting this...
	They're not getting what they want.
	A lot.
	And it's most recent, 59% of the public say too damn high.
	The rent.
	Yeah, it's not going well.
	If we go to the government's position on this as well, just polling on how the government is doing, terribly, is the consistent opinion of the public, which is correct.
	Well, I sometimes ask myself a question.
	What's actually the difference in the policy between the two main parties, or even the three main parties at the point?
	The only policy difference that I can think of is the tone around immigration.
	And that's the one thing that the Tories have managed to cock up and actually do in a successful way, is get these immigration numbers up.
	Well, the policy used to be different, as in on paper it was, for the last ten years.
	The Tories kept saying in every single manifesto, we will have a cap that it must become that immigration goes to tens of thousands.
	And this was written by the Labour Party as a cap, as in we would stop letting people in, because it's the only way you can do that.
	And they just never did it.
	Ten years of power, and they were like, yeah, let's not pass that.
	Let's not even propose it.
	Yep, they can shut down the entire country, they can't manage a channel.
	No.
	No.
	But even just legal migration.
	Can't even do that.
	Can't even just do the thing written in the manifesto for 10 solid years.
	Sorry, 12.
	But there was some other polling in here, I'll just read it off real quick, which is the best thing about immigration was high-skilled worker shortages being fixed.
	I don't think that's being fixed.
	I think we're probably beyond the only high-skilled immigrants of the world.
	And also the worst thing being pressure on housing, which I'm not surprised by.
	That is absolutely true as well, because the run-on costs from housing being so damn expensive are magnitudes that are hard to fathom.
	A great guy...
	There's a video that keeps getting shared by the Neolibs talking about how the housing crisis is an everything crisis.
	And they're correct, because if you're spending all your money on rent, you can never even get to a house.
	When are you going to save money to start a business?
	Yeah.
	You don't have any.
	So, great.
	Like, just on every metric possible, you are screwed.
	If we go to the next one here, we can see just the migration news from the BBC here.
	We go, Migration, biggest part of England and Wales population rise.
	More foreigners than ever!
	And that's a good thing, because foreigners make Britain good.
	Only.
	That's the way it goes.
	The economy, morally, on the international stage, we've become better, I presume.
	Unfortunately, though, if you go to the next one here, the economy's shrinking.
	So, um...
	Well...
	Maybe turning it off for two years didn't help.
	Well, you know, you could argue it's lockdowns, high taxes, regulation.
	These could be things you could look into.
	Possibly all of the above.
	No, no, no.
	The real problem is the lack of immigrants.
	Ah.
	If we go to the next one here, you can see the news.
	This broker is just the next boss, who's a member of the House of Lords, who's like, well, clearly, highest immigration ever, economy shrinks.
	What was the problem?
	Not enough immigrants.
	Idiots.
	I wonder what the biggest cost in the next P&L is.
	Could it possibly be wages?
	Does he have an interest in maybe keeping wages down?
	Maybe.
	Who knows?
	Very possible.
	There's certainly no one who could do those jobs.
	No one at all.
	You know, migrants and foreigners are like angels.
	They're not human beings like you or me.
	They're actually perfect beings who can serve coffee and pray.
	And Big Rob just can't do that.
	It's incapable, I've heard.
	Well, probably because he can't get his fat half off the sofa because of his welfare.
	So, you know, maybe we could increase wages and decrease welfare.
	I mean, possibly that could work.
	If you go to the next link here, we can just see how many people are not working, and we have quite a few.
	Of course, there are those who literally can't work, and that's in the red there.
	And then you have those that can but aren't, and it's like, eh.
	And actually, that's not the whole figure.
	If you look at the number of people who simply aren't, you know, jumping through the hoops.
	Yeah, exactly.
	It's actually even higher than that.
	You could argue you don't have to work, obviously.
	It's a free country.
	But those who are collecting money from the state whilst not working...
	But there will be loads of people who've decided it's not worth their effort and who could go and get a job if the wages are more attractive.
	Getting back into the housing situation, because I didn't realise how bad this was until I saw this article on the graph imposed in here, which is it tracks housing prices as a relation to wages for the UK, going back to 1845.
	As you can see here, they don't actually include 2020, 2021, or 2022, where it got even worse.
	But even on that graph, you can see it's actually now as bad as, what is that, 1899?
	Well, the classic meme, isn't it?
	It's that Homer Simpson meme.
	It's, you know, at the time, in the 90s, we used to think he was a loser, but you look at him now, and he held down a job, and he had a detached house and a stay-at-home wife.
	Yeah, and for the UK, that's even more unobtainable.
	And for us, we're now in probably, if you actually include the most recent years, back to about the situation of the 1860s.
	That's how we're living.
	That's where you're offering the youth conservative party who have been in power for 12 years.
	The Labour Party who will do no change.
	In fact, it's promised to make it worse.
	So, cool.
	This is my point.
	This is why, looking at the electoral calculus, you have the Greens, the Libs, Conservatives, and Labour who are all promising more immigration as given their track record.
	And then the only guys outside is, irritatingly, because it is a pain, that the entire British right depends on Nigel Farage.
	And it's annoying, but it's the situation, which is that whenever he jumps back in the ring, he seems to be able to do well, and other groups are not as successful.
	It isn't a condemnation of those groups, it's just my assessment of what's happened.
	And if we go forward, we can see more of this.
	Just how silly it is.
	We have a Ukrainian couple who have fled the UK because of the terrible rental options.
	Wow.
	I'd rather go back to the war.
	At least they've got a roof over their head.
	Yeah, they'd be able to afford one.
	I was in Serbia recently.
	There was a guy there who was telling me his flat was worth 30 grand.
	It's like a three-bedroom flat.
	Yeah.
	In a good place.
	Okay.
	Yep.
	That'd be about 600 grand if it was in London.
	Yeah, it would.
	Meanwhile, in London, we can just have a look at London Think.
	How's that going?
	That's the life we're living.
	What's everyone in London, the Londonites, thinking about?
	I think it's important to say that no one is illegal.
	This is the debate they're having on Question Time.
	None of those problems.
	None of those major changes to the country.
	Instead, their complaint is, did you call him illegal?
	No, I call it a criminal.
	Break into a country illegally.
	You've committed a crime.
	Go through the legal port of entry.
	It's not that hard.
	Well, you try doing that in any other country and see how you get treated.
	It is not like you get treated in the West.
	Well, I've always wanted to try it.
	Just go to China with no passport and be like, well, no one's illegal.
	Let me in.
	Mr.
	Man with the Nice Gun.
	Anyway, we also just the situation of what are the youth looking at?
	And I've laid it out there for your future.
	It's as bad as the 1800s.
	Vote Conservative.
	Well, how did that go down with the Conservatives?
	At least their youth vote.
	And we go to Jess, who did a great job when she was at the conference, and we covered this.
	And they managed to bring Steve Baker to tears by just pointing out the terrible job they've done and the awful deal they are offering the youth members of his own party.
	And she uses the frame boomerocracy.
	Yeah, that's true.
	That's 100% true.
	If you think about it, if you own land or wealth since the 1990s, 1990 specifically, let's say, you've done well.
	Oh, yeah.
	I'm doing a video on this later today, actually.
	If you look at the last 30 years, you can see that split between wage earners and the people who were getting their income from capital.
	It is extremely marked.
	Wage earners have been getting a real decrease over the last 30 years.
	people are getting squeezed out.
	Whereas if you just own land or houses you have...
	Stocks, bonds, land.
	This isn't a condemnation of course of the people doing it it's just, well who's allowed that to happen specifically with houses which is something everyone goddamn needs.
	And we just go to the other problems which is just the others raise up London no longer being an English city as John Cleese said.
	You see here in 2019 how could he do such a thing?
	Well, it's almost even worse than he thought, because there's a guy who made a graph.
	I don't know if we go to the next one here, if it is that one.
	But yeah, there we go.
	There's my estimate from the data that we had, which is, as you can see there, less than 50% English in red, and then deep red being less than 25% English.
	So as somebody who was living in London throughout this period, I've got to say, that feels right.
	I mean, you don't notice it on a day-by-day level when you're living there, but...
	Just 20 years.
	Yeah.
	It's not even a long period of time.
	Oh, it was very noticeable.
	Very noticeable.
	Blink.
	You hear people who visited London in like 1999 or something, and you're like, it's not the same.
	It was fascinating speaking to my neighbours when I was living in London.
	My neighbours had been living in the same house for 60 years, and the changes they had seen over that period.
	Yeah.
	And the thing is, Migration Watch, say we underestimated immigration by about a million people, at least.
	That's the ones we know about, so that number is even worse, actually.
	The graph will be courageous when the ethnic data comes out.
	And then if we go to the London School of Economics, there actually is a graph of 2061, how the country will look.
	On that basis.
	Wow.
	It's not great.
	If you keep going, we'll go down to a graph here they've made.
	They also massively underestimated the levels of immigration we'd be facing.
	There's a graph of the country.
	There you are.
	There's Brexit versus no Brexit.
	And the difference isn't massive.
	And that's 2061.
	That's...
	What is that?
	40 years away?
	That's how the country will look?
	Good luck.
	Good luck, folks.
	In fact, it's even worse than that, because they underestimated the levels.
	And then we have the French, who are also noticing similar problems to what we're facing, such as this French professor, who noticed that 8% of French citizens are Muslims, but 60% of French prisoners are Muslims.
	The prison industrial complex and racial profiling in modern France, surrounded by Islamophobia, he writes.
	Well, they've just got to go out and arrest more French people.
	I don't know what else it could be, other than Islamophobia.
	14% of the French population are born outside of France.
	16% here.
	So, there's that to keep in mind.
	There's also some other Frenchmen who've been noticing a few changes.
	If we go to the next one here, we can see someone noticing that in Marseille, foreigners represent 11% of the population, but 55% of delinquents arrested.
	Unsurprisingly, foreigners represent a significant share, 35%, of perpetrators of Islamist attacks, but French people with an immigrant background represent 60%.
	And we note that actually most of these problems are centred around Paris, and yet Paris does not appear to be in the mind to vote their way out of this problem.
	They went overwhelmingly against Le Pen at the last election, so clearly they like it.
	It's a weird delusion that the places most affected by this seem to just love it.
	I mean, if you look at the numbers of what is it, people who are claiming asylum...
	If we look over the last 10 years of terrorism, they make up about, I think it's either half or 66% of all terrorist attacks that were successful in the UK. Amazing.
	Truly amazing.
	Anyway, crime delinquency and terrorism therefore explain the over-representation of foreigners in prisons.
	This person writes, 25% of the prison population versus 7% of the total population.
	Can't believe there would be such racism against the foreigner race.
	Because remember, all foreigners are the same race, which is why it's racism to be upset about this.
	You'd have to know nothing to think that.
	Like, the Germans and the Algerians are the same race, I am sure.
	And this is where we get to the point of Kosovo is Serbia, for me, going back to the UK, and the reason I've worn this shirt.
	Because if we take a look at this, this really pissed me off, and we're being mocked relentlessly in Serbia as a result, if you didn't know.
	We have the Albanians arriving in endless numbers, the BBC report.
	2020, a whole 50 Albanians arrived.
	By boats.
	50.
	50.
	I remember people saying it was a problem we need to fix or it would get bad.
	Yeah, I remember that.
	2021 it was 800.
	2022 it's 12,000 so far.
	Cool.
	Yeah.
	Well, I mean, this segment is about Farage.
	I seem to remember him making this exact point and him being absolutely pillared for it.
	That the Balkans was a different place and we should be quite worried about how to deal with it.
	Not to mention those not even in the EU, such as Albania.
	Maybe mass movements of people illegally or legally into our country.
	We might need to deal with it.
	The Albanian Prime Minister was asked about this.
	And his response was to all but laugh at us.
	He basically told us to F off, saying that the UK was racist for not wanting these refugees.
	If you go to the next link, we can see that thing that went viral.
	And, um, well, what do you do?
	What do you do if you're in charge?
	Okay, let's make you Prime Minister for a day.
	This is happening.
	Well, the Albanian Prime Minister.
	No, no, no, we'll make you the UK Prime Minister.
	Because if I was the Albanian Prime Minister, I'd be looking at this whole situation thinking, okay, the people who are most likely to want to flee the country, the people with a criminal record, people who we're already onto, they're the ones who are going first to the UK. What's my problem with this?
	Well, I'm not getting paid enough.
	Let's organise the smuggling.
	It would be my thinking as the Albanian PM. But if you're the UK PM or Home Secretary and you're like, well, we have this huge problem, we've contacted the Albanian government.
	And the Albanian government were very mature and said, we will help you.
	No, they told us to f*** off.
	Well, what's the next step?
	Oh, the UK government could stop this tomorrow if it wanted to.
	Yeah, that's the thing.
	Like, you either take further diplomatic steps, or you do nothing and cry.
	And so far, we're doing nothing and crying.
	The way I look at this is, for 400 years, we were able to keep the French off the coast with the Royal Navy.
	I think they can handle a few dinghies.
	It is political will, that's the whole thing.
	The reason these guys are coming here is because the government wants them here.
	If only the Germans had thought of dinghies.
	Hitler's brain not big enough.
	But we also just go to what they're like over in France, just hanging out, having open fights with the police, in which CS gas has to be deployed to stop people from trying to break into the UK. Because, of course, it is actually this country they're honestly trying to get into.
	Maybe it was another cricket dispute.
	Presumably.
	More cricket wars.
	If you go to the next one here, we can also see Nigel taking note of this.
	So this is the TikToks, and you have this guy here, and he says, Come to the UK illegally, get escorted by the French Navy, and then smoke cannabis in a hotel paid for by the British taxpayer.
	This is beyond a joke.
	I'm glad he's taking notice, and that's worthwhile, I suppose.
	But I mean, they're right.
	They're right to laugh at us.
	Yeah, it's comical.
	This is insane.
	If you go to the next one here, we can also see Albanian nationalists.
	Sorry, no, poor refugees from Albania who have been treated badly by the government and hate Albania for it, which is why they're singing nationalist songs waving national flags in London.
	But I mean, at least they're going to be grateful to us, and they're going to show respect to our monuments.
	Yeah, no, no, no, no.
	If you go to the next one here, we have them walking with dinghies through London.
	I mean, it's almost comical.
	It's just...
	Yeah, this is how we got in.
	It's that easy.
	And we're going to walk through with Albanian flags attached to dinghies to make a mockery of your country in the capital.
	Next one here, we have the Albanian flag on Churchill.
	That's been mentioned, of course, as well.
	Which I'm totally assured is because they respect Churchill for fighting the Italians and not because they're here to conquer the place.
	Not invading it.
	Just because they know that we are their bitch and there's not a damn thing that we can do about it.
	Yeah, and we can check with some of these people.
	Let's check in with the best possible scenario, which is someone who is not a people smuggler or a drug dealer.
	The thing is, when I gave that speech about feminist immigration, I said, here's some examples of bad immigration.
	You know, Albanian people smuggling, Albanian drug dealing, Albanian.
	You get the point.
	And then some Albanian lads came up after the speech to say, bro, you're totally right.
	You know, and the fact they're all men.
	Yeah, who could have guessed?
	But we'll check in with a woman.
	We found a whole woman.
	Fleeing Albania.
	You know what she's fleeing?
	Tell me.
	She did a bad trade on wallstreetbets.com.
	Oh.
	She's a stockbroker.
	Right.
	Well, I can sympathise with bad trade.
	Let's watch this clip.
	The British government has said too many Albanians are abusing the system.
	Denis and Eva say they can't face the future in Albania and their lives there are intolerable.
	You're a stockbroker who found yourself in the back of a lorry.
	That's quite an extraordinary situation, isn't it?
	Yes.
	Because, I mean, it doesn't make sense, but when you look at Albania and, like, the opportunities it gives to youth, to young people, It will make sense.
	If we have a proper salary that will cover all our expenses and everything...
	We wouldn't live from there.
	We wouldn't live from there.
	Some people would say you're an economic migrant, not an asylum seeker, that the asylum system is for people who are fleeing things like war and persecution.
	I just want to live in a happy environment, you know.
	I just want to live in a safe environment.
	I want to live in a society that is well structured, you know, and well organized.
	I don't want to live in chaos anymore.
	Literally just Gibbs.
	Still the joke's on her because people around here are not going to have much by way of good wages for much longer anyway.
	No.
	It's actually, you need to go along to Ireland next door.
	They're actually doing much better than us, so go and enjoy.
	Sorry, Irish bros in the chat, but have fun.
	And this is a meme a friend of mine sent me from Serbia.
	Apparently this is being shared in Serbian group chats to take the piss out of us, because this is what we look like now.
	This is London, Kosovo there, which, cool.
	Yeah.
	And there you have it, which is that these people have literally no reason to be here.
	There is no war in Albania.
	There's not even war in Kosovo.
	There's nothing.
	There's just Gibbs.
	I'm literally a stockbroker.
	My chicken tendies didn't come in.
	So I'm going to get in a lorry and go to England.
	But we've got open borders, so why wouldn't they?
	Yeah, literally, it's hard to even put any blame on such a person, because no one will stop them.
	And this is my point, that it's unbearable, and if you wanted to do something about that, specifically with Albania, well, then you start looking at diplomatic options.
	That's my thought on this.
	One of the diplomatic options on the table is start thinking and making threats.
	And, well, Eric Zemmour had some very good threats on the table of how to deal with it in France, and I think we should copy his example.
	Which is, firstly, diplomatic threats.
	With Albania, it's quite easy, because you could just be like, hmm, yeah, Kosovo, Serbia, I think, I don't know, I'm changing my mind on this.
	Maybe it does belong to Serbia instead of Albania, I don't know.
	Like, just start threatening them with stuff like this.
	And then, you could go as far as Erikson Moore suggested, which is to just cut off all remittance payments to the motherland via Western Union.
	Just make it illegal to send remittances via Western Union to Albania.
	They'd just do it through crypto, so I don't know if that would work.
	But it's the point of, like, every possible level just making it more and more impossible.
	There are options on the table that are not even being looked at.
	No, no.
	Why even think about it, if you're the Conservatives?
	Which is that they haven't.
	And someone did decide to start vandalising some of the hotels that are being taken over by the Home Office.
	That's how this works.
	Some graffiti artist went down to some hotel here and wrote Asylum Centre over the sign of the hotel.
	Now, lads, that's very bad.
	Number one, because it's crime, and I oppose all crime.
	Anyway, number two is because you should have written Conservative Party HQ. That would have been far more funny and true.
	So, there's that.
	Because if we go to the next link here, this is actually in Serbia.
	I don't know if you hear play.
	I don't know if I got the timestamp wrong.
	But there's an immigration centre there.
	You pause it there.
	We can see on the sign, it actually says Progressive Party HQ. That's the ruling party in Serbia.
	So, if you want better bants, then I'm saying, you know, go and do it properly.
	Anyway, I also wanted to ask the Albanians in the chat, in case any of you are watching...
	What's wrong with you?
	Where's your energy gone for starts?
	I don't know if you ever checked out Albanian nationalist music.
	It's good.
	Never tried it.
	It's very good.
	Really?
	Yeah, we're not going to play it because we're copyright strike, but just read the lyrics on here if you want.
	This is a song about Albanian nationalism, specifically with Kosovo.
	It's just like, I'm as ancient as Europe itself.
	I will not abandon my land as not even an inch.
	You all are.
	You're all coming here for free Gibbs.
	Okay.
	Well, and that's the thing.
	When you travel the world, you find that everybody else has national pride, apart from Western nations.
	It's the one place where it's not permitted.
	And the reason being, because we wouldn't part up with what's happening to us if we had it.
	The Serbians don't.
	The immigrants could stop there.
	It's better than Afghanistan.
	They don't.
	Because they know they'll get better money in Europe.
	It's that simple.
	If we go forward, we can just look at what's also being offered.
	Huge amount of money to Pakistan.
	Cool.
	In return for what?
	This is the game I'm thinking of.
	We need to be more serious about this sort of stuff.
	We agreed to give over £1.5 billion to Somalia and Pakistan.
	What did we get in return, Dan?
	Warm glow?
	Thanks and prayers.
	Yeah.
	Literally nothing.
	And the thing is, no other country in the world, except from Western countries, would operate like this.
	They would never hand over a billion pounds and get nothing in return.
	No one's that stupid.
	Whereas in the West, we unironically believe that it's expected that we should get nothing in return.
	I'm proud of my culture.
	I'd like to see it continue.
	But I have to wonder, is there something in too many of us that we just can't keep our finger off the self-destruct button?
	Maybe that's what it comes down to.
	It's madness.
	I mean, like, Westerners just accept being robbed is a good deal because the robber said he was poor.
	Okay.
	That's your mindset.
	You're a lunatic.
	You deserve to keep degrading in the global stage if that's how you're operating.
	And the thing is, again, of course, none of this money will actually end up with anyone poor.
	It's just going to end up with Pakistani elite, as it always does.
	A lot of Pakistani said that was the case last time we spoke about it.
	We also have them just attacking the police.
	Of course, if you go to the next link here, police injured tackling incident at an asylum hotel.
	Because, you know, they're glad to the British state for taking them in, giving them free food and free housing and free dental.
	Free English lessons at the one down there.
	Free football club as well.
	Seem to have free bikes outside, unless they've stolen them.
	Anyway, two police officers were left with injuries requiring hospital treatment after they were attacked while attending the incident.
	Cool.
	You go to the next one here, we then just have more hell.
	Hotel in Wales.
	It's a little village.
	A village of 400 people.
	So they sent 200 migrants to that village.
	Wow.
	That village is now one third.
	Not just foreigners, but people taking the piss.
	These people have broken in on dinghies.
	Quote, I'm shocked the migrants have been put here.
	They're all adult men.
	Who saw that coming?
	Well, at least they're all architects and surgeons.
	At least they've got that going for them.
	Indeed.
	They belong in a city, not a village in Wales, said a local mother, who I'm sure will be very happy to be walking around with 200 adult fighting-age men in her village.
	If you had a teenage daughter, you would be very concerned if you lived in that village.
	One of the guys I met in Afghanistan, he's getting to the point where they've got a teenage daughter, they're in Northern Ireland, and he kept complaining that England keeps coming to Northern Ireland.
	Yeah, London.
	Put it that way.
	He's like, I'm so glad she's getting out of her teenage years now.
	Anyway, we'll get to the Tory solution to all that, shall we?
	This is what we're being offered on the table.
	UK Strikes Revised Deal with France on the Channel Migrants.
	Guys, we're going to do something.
	What are we going to do?
	We're going to give an extra £55 million a year to the French, and they, in return, are going to put another 100 police officers to survey the beaches.
	That's £550,000 per officer to stand on the beach.
	And presumably help load the dinghies.
	What else is he going to do?
	This is my point.
	This is why I've talked about Farageism.
	You might have noticed I've not spoken about Farage much.
	And the reason being, because...
	Look, this is the lay of the land.
	This is what's being offered to you.
	Literally every single party in the mainstream is absolute cancer on this issue.
	They cannot do anything.
	Even the promised movement forward is, what if we give £550,000 to each French police officer to do nothing?
	As if that's a good deal, and is touted out as if it's some step forward.
	And frankly, why should we even be surprised when we have moderate Tories?
	Should we check out a moderate Tory?
	I don't know if the solution can come from the system.
	I think it's so broken that none of this is going to work.
	Well, that's the thing.
	Check out Sebastian over here.
	We'll check out the first image there.
	Sebastian says, young moderate conservatives like me no longer have a place in the party.
	Yeah, moderate Tory like Sebastian here, if you go to the next image there.
	Sebastian is in the Green Party now.
	He believes in intersectional values, seeking to marginalise gender minorities.
	Sorry, to un-marginalise them.
	And marginalising them will only weaken our movement and place us into the hands of the far-right patriarchy.
	This is a moderate Tory.
	These are the kind of serpents who operate within that body.
	Dear God.
	You know, I know that these things are real, but it's always worse than you think, as well, that these people just do not believe anything ideologically aligned with what they're saying at the front of the shop.
	And then we go to Labour, who also have their position, which is that rape of young boys happens when you demonise migrants.
	Thank you, Diane Abbott.
	Oh, so that's our fault as well.
	Yeah.
	This is my point.
	There's the lay of the land.
	I just want to really hammer it down that we're in a real bad spot.
	No one seems to think about it.
	No one in either two parties has any solutions.
	So when I see an article such as the following, which is Nigel Farage pointing out on his own account that, what was it, a poll shows 12% of the public would be very interested in backing a new party if he set it up, and 16% would be quite interested.
	38% of Conservatives said they'd be interested and would support him.
	43% of Bregg's tears.
	That's a huge swathe of the public.
	And if you take that out of the Conservative Party, what is left of their voter base is dead.
	Dead on arrival.
	I mean, actually, all of this stuff, I put it on Conservative voters.
	If you withdraw your consent from that party and let it collapse, because all they are doing is blocking the rise of a proper right-wing party.
	And my point being that...
	Okay, Nigel, we're all waiting.
	Here's the thing.
	Again, as I'm saying, it's not me dissing any other of the guys who are doing the Lord's work out there, but irritatingly, it is his face amongst the public that can make those polls move.
	But he can't do it by himself.
	There needs to be a groundswell for this.
	But I think at this point, if he makes the step, they will come.
	It's actually not that unreasonable to expect, and given the next election will be coming up in a couple of years, plenty of time to get started, and by the time you actually hit it, You could actually kill the Conservative Party forever, and I can't think of a, just to appeal to him personally, of a more poetic notion for him than to actually get kicked out of the Conservatives for wanting Brexit, making Brexit happen, and then killing the party.
	Because they never allowed it back as I can.
	And he should definitely do it, is my point.
	And if he does, well, I'm looking forward to it.
	Otherwise, that's my views.
	Let's go on to FTX. Yes.
	Well, we've got a really interesting story on this one.
	The FTXR, have you heard about that one?
	So, it's a huge story.
	It's basically the biggest criminal theft in all of history that just occurred.
	Tens of billions have been stolen by a guy called Sam Bankman-Fried.
	Who is he?
	Well, he's a crypto entrepreneur, and it just so happens that he is Biden's second largest donor.
	But before we get into that, I just want to show something.
	I want to talk about something that came out on our premium recently, which was the origins of humanity.
	So this is a series that Joshua's been doing.
	and I happened to catch a little bit of this live while they were filming it and it sounds absolutely fascinating.
	So it's about the emergence of the hominid species and the sort of branching out between the Neanderthals and the Devonians and all the rest of it.
	Absolutely fascinating.
	Like I say, I caught a little bit of it live when they were filming it and I'm really looking forward to coming back and picking this one up on premium and seeing the whole thing when it's put together.
	So go on a premium, get that.
	Premium is only £5 a month.
	Don't be tight.
	That's about the cost of a pint.
	So go on premium, sign up, and there's a whole load of content.
	There's more than that, just that.
	There's my channel as well, which I'm going to be putting up more content on soon.
	So yeah, check it out.
	Right, back to FTX. So, Sam Bankman Free.
	He's a young guy, born in 1992.
	He's about 30 years old at the moment.
	And he was born into a family of Stanford professors.
	Both of his parents are Stanford professors.
	And both of them have been extremely active in Democrat politics their whole life.
	One of them has been running a super PAC. The other one has been involved in lawfare.
	So that's the sort of world that he grew up in.
	Now Sam, he attended MIT. Turns out he was quite mathematically gifted.
	He ended up getting a double first in physics and mathematics, and he went on to become a trader.
	Now, he learned his skill set there, and then what he did is he emerged into the crypto world, and he made billions by trading Bitcoin in the early days, by spotting an arbitrage opportunity between the price of Bitcoin in the US and the price of Bitcoin in Japan, and made an enormous sum of the money out of that.
	And he went on and he set up something called Alameda Research, which is a crypto trading firm.
	Later, he set up the FTX platform, which is the thing that's in the news at the moment.
	Now, he appeared, for all pretents and purposes, to be enjoying tremendous success doing this.
	He was doing sponsorship deals.
	So, for example, the FTX Arena, which was the arena in Miami, where the Miami Dodgers, something like that, Miami Heat, where the Miami Heat play.
	He was sponsoring the Mercedes F1 team.
	So, you know, Lewis Hamilton and George Russell, whoever that is, would have been wearing its logos.
	The Super Bowl in the US and a whole bunch of other things, chess tournaments and stuff all over the place.
	Now, there were some red flags.
	He set his firm up in the Bahamas.
	Now, actually, in the crypto world, that's not too bad.
	The reason is because the US and UK regulators have been very slow on this.
	They haven't provided a framework for these guys to operate in.
	So because there's no framework for them to operate in, they might as well operate outside of this jurisdiction.
	And so there was a plausible reason as to why he was doing that.
	But the Bahamas, they're notoriously corrupt.
	We saw that with the Peter Nygaard revelations.
	That was the Canadian version of Jeffrey Epstein, who was child sex trafficking and getting Bahamas law changed to accommodate some of his weirder requests, which was basically based around his desire to never die and adult stem cells.
	Right, so where does this tie into the Democrats and how bad is this?
	Well, Sam Bankman-Free was actually the second largest donor to the Democrat Party, behind only George Soros.
	Actually, in these previous midterm elections, he was the biggest donor in the recent elections.
	And he even promised that he would stump up a cool one billion to stop Trump from running in 2024, if Trump did put himself forward.
	And, you know, we'll be coming back to that.
	He also had very significant ties with regulators and lawmakers, which he was able to get into.
	Now the guy was a little bit weird and you're going to be wondering why there weren't more red flags that's coming up.
	So let's have a look at this video that the World Economic Forum put together promoting him.
	You'll see what I mean.
	But Sam is not a traditional billionaire because he believes in the concept of earn to give.
	Which means his goal as a human is to make as much money as possible just to give it away.
	Earn to give.
	And that's exactly what he's doing.
	So let's say that you have $100.
	And you want to figure out what you can do with it to help the world.
	Earning to Give is thinking about which causes, which charities save the most lives per dollar.
	This hundred dollars can go as far as it possibly can to help the world.
	Last year, this 29-year-old guy donated $50 million.
	Next year, he's planning to donate $500 million a year.
	And next decade, he will probably give away more than $10 billion.
	The amount of good that you can do for the future of the world is really large and it's way more than you can do to actually make yourself happy with anything like that amount of money.
	And he is funding everything you can think of.
	Global warming.
	It's one of the biggest problems that we have to tackle together as a world.
	COVID-19 preparedness.
	We have to be ready for the next pandemic.
	Neglected tropical diseases.
	More than a billion people suffer from them.
	We have to eliminate these diseases.
	And of course, animal welfare.
	Animals deserve to live just like we do.
	It's also why I'm vegan.
	Sam doesn't need the money to buy a Lamborghini or to buy a Rolex or to impress his friends.
	In fact, his car is a Toyota Corolla.
	Hold on.
	Where's your car?
	It's that one there.
	That's like what, a Toyota?
	Yeah, it's a Corolla.
	Why don't you buy a Lamborghini, man?
	I didn't have any particular need for one.
	He wants to get rich in order to impact the world and change it.
	So that's the guy that the World Economic Forum think is their poster boy.
	But, you know, that's a summary of where we were two weeks ago.
	He was running a top-tier exchange.
	He was the golden boy of the space.
	He was talking to Democrats and regulators.
	And, you know, yeah, he was in the Bahamas, but there was a reason for that.
	And, yeah, he was a Democrat, but then, you know, half of Americans are.
	So, you know, in business you sometimes have to accept these things.
	Not to be too sceptical, but whenever someone tells me about giving them money because they're doing something about climate change, I just think scam.
	Like 100% scam.
	You're just trying to steal money.
	It turns out your instincts would have been right in this case.
	So look, before I get on to the specifics of what happened in this one, let's give a very quick overview of where we are in crypto.
	Crypto, Bitcoin, was actually invented in the first place to stop exactly this sort of thing that we're about to talk about, the thing that happened in 2008.
	And crypto used correctly, you know, it can do that.
	If you own Bitcoin and you store it on your own wallet and you send it P2P, you take it out of the financial system.
	But what happened is that people started to make a lot of money in this and people started to see it as a get-rich-quick scheme as opposed to an alternative form of money.
	And then what we had is we had loads of sort of copycat coins coming in.
	We had loads of centrally controlled projects such as this one.
	We had people leaving a whole bunch of their wealth tied up on the platforms rather than doing the little bit of extra work necessary to self-custody it.
	And the big one is that they started to leverage up.
	So with leverage, what you can do is if you own an asset of something, you can invest as if you've got 10 of those and reap the rewards of it by using leverage.
	The flip side is that if the price of that asset falls by 10%, then you lose your asset.
	Likewise, you could invest one asset, you can leverage it up 100 times and get the benefit of that.
	But if it falls 1%, you get wiped out.
	So we had a lot of greed in this system.
	We had a lot of people come in and try and centralize it.
	Then things started to really change in 2020.
	So what happened is central banks started to print a vast amount of money.
	That pumped money into the stock market and into crypto.
	And people started using all of these sort of bad behaviours.
	They started leveraging up.
	They started investing in absolute nonsense.
	And then the central banks started to pull it back because inflation got out of control.
	And that withdrawal of liquidity started to cause the people who were over-leveraged to blow up.
	We had Terra Luna blow up, which was one of the big projects.
	We had Three Hours Capital blow up, and we didn't know it at the time, but FTX blew up as well, and they've been hiding it for about the last six months.
	Now, throughout that period, it was looking like that Sam was the JP Morgan of the crypto space.
	So JP Morgan is a guy who, 100 years ago, when the American financial system was just finding its feet, It went through a lot of these same tumultuous periods, and he stepped in and he bought up a lot of the smaller players, and that's what Sam was doing as well.
	So everybody thought that he was one of the sort of kingpins of this space.
	And he was also throwing vast amounts of money into the Dems and their midterm campaign.
	Then he picked a fight that he shouldn't have picked.
	Let's see if we can call out the picture with Sam and CZ. So here's CZ. CZ is basically the Chinese version of Sam.
	He owns the largest exchange in the world, an exchange called Binance.
	And because he was an early investor into Sam, he owned a lot of the token that FTX operates on, the FTT token.
	Now, Sam grew from a small size to become the second largest crypto exchange.
	And what he did is, after having bought all of this influence with Washington politicians, is he then started trying to use that to squeeze out his competitors.
	So he started basically smack talking CZ. He was telling them that he was a Chinese national, he's probably a spy, you can't trust him, he's probably money laundering, he's doing all of those things, and he was trying to squeeze out his competition.
	And CZ decided that he wasn't going to stand for that, and that's where things got really interesting.
	Now, what happened was we saw a leak, a balance sheet leak, see if we can cool that up.
	So it started to emerge, rumours started to emerge that perhaps FTX was not as solvent as it should have been.
	Now, he then vigorously came out and denied these things.
	And we saw people swiftly come to the defence of Sam and FTX on Twitter.
	So we had plenty of Twitter-based foreign flag enthusiasts who were keen to white knight for this stuff.
	And you know, we saw the people from From Alameda, trying to defend their position.
	I think we've got a video of the CEO of Alameda, who's also similarly uninspiring.
	Take a look at this.
	I absolutely could pull it off without my math degree.
	I use very little math.
	I use a lot of elementary school math.
	Being comfortable with risk is very important.
	We tend not to have things like stop losses.
	I think those aren't necessarily a great risk management tool.
	Trying to think of a good example of a Trade where I've lost a ton of money.
	So I'm showing her for a reason.
	I'm going to come back to her when I start talking about regulators.
	So CZ, he decides that he's rich enough and that he's going to push back.
	So he owns all of these FTT tokens.
	Now what he should have done if he wanted to get rid of these is he should have started quietly selling them.
	He didn't do that.
	What he did is he went out on Twitter and he announced that he was going to be dumping his position.
	Now, of course, what that did is it caused everybody else to think, OK, well, if the largest holder is dumping his position, then we're going to sell out first.
	So everybody was rushing for the exits.
	The price of this thing absolutely collapsed.
	Now, we didn't know it at the time, but they were already bankrupt.
	And the only thing keeping them going was this token, which they were borrowing against.
	So now the final leg of the stall has been completely kicked out from under it.
	Things start to look really bad when users of this platform suddenly find that they can't withdraw from the platform.
	They can't get out of it anymore.
	So it's starting to become obvious that something is really wrong.
	And Sam starts looking for somebody to buy the platform off him.
	And he's now going to CZ. And I think we've got a tweet coming up where Sam is sucking up to CV, where he's basically agreeing to sell the platform to the guy that he was attacking for one dollar.
	Now, of course, CZ isn't really spending a dollar on the platform.
	He's actually going to be putting in the billions necessary to rescue it from its black hole.
	Okay, so that's the situation where we were last Tuesday.
	The platform had collapsed.
	It had clearly been misusing customer funds.
	If it stopped there, then that would be a big story in itself.
	It is a major Democrat donor.
	It is misusing client funds.
	So that is by itself more than big enough to make this a massive story, the biggest financial collapse since Bernie Madoff.
	But it didn't stop there.
	It got crazier.
	So the next stage of this is FTX site then goes dark.
	Employees start quitting en masse.
	And we start hearing the rumour mill firing up.
	And it's looking like the black hole is significantly larger than it was first thought.
	Sam files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
	And he's looking for a buyer because CZ has pulled out.
	And then employees coming out of the firm, they start realizing that the customer funds are being drained.
	So somebody has got a back door into this and they are liquidating the customers and draining their money straight out of the accounts.
	Now, this was a backdoor that was built into it, and they then come out and they've announced that they've been hacked.
	Now, hacked my arse.
	That simply isn't possible with something like this.
	The reason is because a lot of these funds are held on cold storage wallets, which is basically physically removed.
	You need to plug them in in order to get access to the funds.
	You can't do it unless you're an insider.
	So it looks like Sam or one of the other top guys is now this has stepped up from a mere financial mismanagement to an outright theft of billions from the biggest donor, right?
	And then it gets worse from there.
	Then details start emerging that all the ways that client money was being siphoned through to the Democrats.
	So we already knew that Sam personally was a big Democrat donor.
	But then we found out that he'd been cycling money in other ways.
	So that video that we showed a little early on when he's talking about pandemic prevention, one of the things that he was doing is he was setting up a super PAC. Scam.
	Yeah.
	Bye.
	Yeah, it was known as the Guardian Against Pandemic Super PAC.
	So money was being cycled into that.
	We then found out that, of course, because the company didn't have any money of its own, that actually all of this client money that was being drained, that was also going straight to the Democrats.
	Now, it's interesting because Democrats have now been funded by the proceeds of crime.
	Actually, under US law, it is entirely possible for that money to be clawed back.
	So do we think that the US Justice Department is going to begin proceedings to claw back 100 million from the Democrats?
	Probably not.
	OK. If it had stopped there, that would have been really bad.
	But then it goes another level.
	Then it gets even worse.
	So we start hearing more and more about how money is being recycled from Ukraine.
	Back into the Democrat Party.
	So there's two levels to this.
	One is that FTX were operating the donation scheme so that anybody who wanted to donate to the Ukraine effort from anywhere in the world could donate crypto.
	They could donate it through FTX and that would then go on to Ukraine.
	That money, given what we know now, that money was all certainly being recycled in large part back to the Democrats.
	200 million of that.
	Who called that?
	Who said that was going to happen?
	I can't remember.
	Must have been left-wing commentators, I think, at the time.
	Wasn't it?
	It's not Jack Posobiec saying this is exactly what's going to happen.
	Well, I mean, you set up the mechanism and it is there to go for.
	Right.
	And the next thing is that it's very possible...
	That the Ukrainian funds that were authorised by Congress are already going back.
	Again, I can't give you any hard evidence for that.
	These are rumours emerging at the time.
	But if you have this mechanism in place, it seems extremely likely that it's going to happen.
	It's a bit like if you put an 11-year-old girl in front of Biden.
	You know he's going to sniff the hair.
	Exactly the same as this.
	If you funnel vast billions over to Ukraine and you've got a dodgy money laundering partner like this, You know that some of it's going to get recycled back.
	So all of that is likely to be coming out in time as well.
	So this is the financial crime of the century.
	It's very likely this is going to exceed the size of the Bernie Madoff fraud.
	Bernie Madoff, just as a reminder, was a Hillary donor.
	Funny how that happens, how these big financial frauds often turn out to be big Democrat donors.
	And that's before I even start getting into the personalities involved.
	So, you know, one random user, this guy called Elon Musk on Twitter, started pointing out that some of these connections.
	So this is why I showed you the videos earlier today.
	So Sam, he went to MIT. One of his professors there was Gary Gensler.
	He is the chief regulator for the United States.
	Sam was donating vast amounts of money to the Democrats and getting regular meetings with Gary.
	Now, Gary's boss at MIT was this guy called Glenn Ellison.
	Glenn is a lifetime academic who, for some reason, is worth 225 million.
	Funny.
	How did that happen?
	His daughter is this Caroline Ellison, who was the CEO of Alameda, the woman we showed you earlier, and Sam's girlfriend.
	The sister company to FTX Alameda was one of the mechanisms through which a lot of this money laundering was done.
	So there's a very cosy, incestuous relationship here between academics, regulators and these now demonstrated criminal frauds.
	So this is not looking good.
	And that's before I even get on to some of the other connections, which I don't know if I can share yet because a lot of this is still in the rumour mill.
	For example, the general counsel of FTX was this guy.
	He was called Dan Friedberg.
	Now, funnily enough, he was the guy at one of those big poker exchanges a few years ago that had the scandal where they could see your cards so that they could never lose.
	That was a clear fraud, and yet this guy...
	It was General Counsel at FTX, who was leading the negotiations with regulators.
	So that's not too good.
	I'm even hearing of a Hunter Biden connection, because Hunter Biden, apparently he's not an oil executive anymore, he's now an artist, and he's been selling NFTs.
	I was going to ask, when's Hunter Biden going to turn up?
	Of course, he has to come into this at some point, doesn't he?
	So, look, there is so much here.
	We're in the early days of finding out just how deep this fraud goes.
	We know that tens of billions of customer money was stolen.
	We know that money was recycled from the US government back into the Democrat Party.
	We know that possibly the Ukrainian money was being recycled back into it.
	We don't have Harvard evidence of that.
	But, you know, you give them the mechanism, it would be extraordinary if you couldn't find a corrupt Ukrainian official and a corrupt receiver on the Democrat side.
	So you know that happened as well.
	Bear in mind that Trump got impeached for having a phone call to Ukraine and we've got all of this.
	Now, this is probably one of the biggest stories out there at the moment and I bet you're not going to hear anything about it on the mainstream media, especially not now that we've got this whole Democrat angle coming out.
	In fact, it might get so embarrassing for the Democrats before long, YouTube tellers that we can't even talk about it anymore.
	In fact, the only way we know for sure that that Ukraine angle is true is when Sam gets arrested and the cameras outside of his stealth stop working and he ends up breaking his own neck with his shoelaces or whatever it is.
	A couple of final points that I just want to end on to show the sheer ridiculousness of this.
	Here's a video of Sam impressing regulators and assuring them that everything is fine, and they were quite happy with this.
	There's complete transparency about the full open interest.
	There's complete transparency about the positions that are held.
	There's a robust, consistent risk framework applied, and we're excited to work with the CFTC on our U.S. Yeah.
	And until two weeks ago, the SEC was apparently on the verge of fast-tracking the regulatory approval for this guy.
	And this guy was also the one who was basically leading efforts for the US to regulate cryptocurrency.
	So that whole incestuous network between the academics and FTX and the regulators...
	That's a whole can of worms that we're going to need to look at too.
	And I also thought that this was fun while we're looking at it.
	FTX actually got a higher ESG score than ExxonMobil, specifically in the category of governance.
	Leadership.
	Yeah.
	Leader was better.
	That is just a tremendous example of what a corrupt gatekeeping system, the whole ESG thing is.
	Right, and final picture, just to really send the shivers down your spine, here we have...
	Bill Clinton, who is, of course, husband to Hillary Clinton, who was the chief beneficiary of the donations from the Bernie Madoff fraud.
	We have the Dark Lord himself and the weirdo, Sam Bankman-Fried.
	So, you know, this is a story that should be plastered all over mainstream media.
	It's incredibly damaging.
	It's an enormous fraud.
	And we're going to stay on top of this one because there's a lot going on here and it goes really deep.
	I suppose with that we'll move to Calvin's sacrifice.
	Yeah.
	Kevin Robinson has been suffering for our sins.
	I thought we'd enjoy some of it.
	So he went and did a debate at Cambridge University about whether reparations are owed.
	For what was never explained, to who was never explained, but they were going to have a debate anyway, somehow.
	Just to start off, just to mention something on the website, of course, being that, just going to plug here, Frank DeCotta's The Tragedy of Liberation book club that me and Carl did.
	You can go and check that out when we start talking about reparations.
	The British are not the ones you should be speaking to.
	There are a lot more people who are owed reparations, and it's from the CCP. So presumably this is reparations to the families of the British sailors who gave up their lives ending slavery?
	Is that right?
	No, no, no.
	They've had plenty.
	We can't point at any, but they've had it.
	If you go to the link, we can see the full debate for people who want to go and check it out.
	I'm going to do a pre-recorded going through of the best bits for the website tomorrow.
	We'll be filming that.
	But I thought I'd just go through some of the things that didn't make the cutting room floor.
	If for another reason, then I can't not show people this because it's mad.
	We'll start off with the first thing that really, really got me the wrong way, which is Yankees.
	And I'm not talking to Americans.
	I'm spiffly talking to Yankees here for sure, because we have some leftist American who clearly knows goddamn nothing, but still stands up and preaches his ideology at the hall like a pastor, with all the arrogance you would expect, and it's unbearable to listen with all the arrogance you would expect, and it's unbearable to So let's listen to it.
	What's the first one?
	I'm glad Britain brought Christianity to the world.
	I'm Jewish, so I don't know how to feel about that, but it's interesting.
	But we hear this too small, that there's good sides on it, so that kind of evens out.
	It makes it all good.
	The British Empire was evil.
	And it was evil not just because it was a collection of indignities, daily discrimination, daily indignities, but it was more than that.
	It was more than a collection of millions and millions of them, though it and slavery were that.
	It was a negation of people's personhood.
	It was a negation of people's rights to land, to self-determination, to their resources, to their dignity.
	And we need to pay for it, because in this society, as the many, many, many socialists in this room, even those of whom who went to private schools and grew up in country houses, as apparently all of you did, the many socialists remind me, But in this capitalist society, money is where it hurts, right?
	Money is how we connote value.
	Maybe we shouldn't, but that's what it is.
	It certainly hurt to pay my union dues at the beginning of this year.
	If you take pride in your country's strengths, you have to be ashamed of its sins.
	I'm proud of what my country and what this country did to fight Nazism.
	That's why I'm wearing this poppy.
	I'm very proud.
	I'm very proud of D-Day.
	But I only get to be proud of D-Day if I'm ashamed of the Emirates massacre.
	That's how it works.
	This year, the Church of England has proposed setting aside two billion pounds to pay in reparations for the Church's links to colonialism and slavery.
	Forgetting, of course, that parliamentarian William Wilberforce, his entire involvement In pushing, strongly pushing, the abolition movement was motivated by his desire to put Christian principles into action and to serve God in public life.
	And that the Christian abolitionists were the force that initiated and organized the abolition movement.
	He said that the church should not be complicit because one man was inspired by Christianity.
	So much to talk about there, but I have to play the full thing of his interactions because they're unbearable.
	Yeah, his comment on the poppies.
	A fucking idiot.
	I wear the poppy because I'm proud of D-Day, says the Yankee.
	I spoke to an American friend of mine recently.
	They didn't know why Veterans Day was on the 11th of November.
	And that's, you know, that's understandable.
	Bit of ignorance.
	Who doesn't have some ignorance?
	You know, like, I can explain it.
	They didn't really know why we wore poppies either.
	I explained that.
	Oh, that's cool.
	This dude, this dude doesn't know a goddamn thing, but has the balls to stand up there with the arrogance, because he's at Cambridge, don't you know?
	And scream at a British audience.
	You can tell he's been educated into something, just nothing useful.
	Educated.
	What a sick joke that is.
	But the Empire's evil, says the American.
	It's just like, yeah, shut up.
	We wouldn't have the English-based order if it wasn't for us.
	You've inherited it.
	Be grateful at least for that, if nothing else.
	Whines about self-determination.
	It's like, yeah, we'd like some of that in England, but we don't have it.
	But instead, this Yankee here screams at us about that.
	Then he says, we need to pay for it.
	What do you mean we?
	Go to hell.
	You can pay for it if you want.
	Give me 30 quid.
	Come on.
	Irish blood, give me the money for it then.
	Eh?
	Eh?
	Evil empire?
	No.
	I mean, Calvin should, you know, as a bit of criticism, he should have just stood up and gone, yeah, well, I'm black, you're white, give us 30 quid.
	I just paused for as long as it took until the guy gave him 30 quid.
	He's never going to do it.
	It's complete bollocks.
	We need to pay for it.
	The champagne socialist stuff, unbearable.
	Oh, they don't live by their own standards, certainly.
	No.
	And then describing William Wilberforce as one guy.
	You don't know a goddamn thing about the history of slavery and Britain's role in the slave trade if you don't know who William Wilberforce is and describe him as some guy.
	Just some dude.
	I think he was a cobbler.
	Something like that.
	I don't know what he did.
	He's an idiot.
	Sorry, but I've got a strain of anti-Americanism in me because of leftist Americans, and I'm trying to get rid of it, but they keep coming back.
	And we'll go to the next one here, which is some other stupid-ass Yankee who turns up and asks the panel, well, what are you going to do about the race-based income gap in the UK? Do you have any idea that there are other countries in the world than the United States?
	Anyway, let's play it.
	Let's play it.
	Listen to this crap.
	How do you account for things like the racialized wealth gap in Britain today and for the fact that England did pay reparations, but they paid it to slave owners to the tune of $21 billion, which is my current estimation.
	You can look at the speakers just like, what the hell is wrong with you?
	Number one, the race-based income gap in the UK. Okay, well, Indians, Chinese, Jews, and white other all outperform the white British in terms of that.
	I was going to say, yeah.
	So...
	The Europeans owe us money, the Chinese owe us money, the Jews owe us money, the Indians owe us money.
	Presumably we need a subsidy to the white British.
	Yeah, and I don't know what to do with any of that.
	Also, the point that clearly, I don't know, we paid too much to end the slave trade, I suppose, and destroyed Germany twice, and now the white British aren't earning as much as they should be because our economy's a crap hole.
	And, yeah, maybe we should take it back.
	Really?
	Are you serious?
	Are they complaining that we paid the slaveholders to free the slaves?
	How dare you free the slaves with money?
	Why don't you have half your population die on a war for no goddamn reason, instead of just paying them?
	I think it's solved that way.
	But again, just pure ignorance.
	Just pure ignorance from these people.
	These leftist Americans who probably come from California and New York only, come to England and then have the balls to try and lecture us on anything.
	That's the worst one for me.
	The rest of these foreigners, I think, are funny.
	There's one lady here who has the poshest of English accents, but stands up and tells everyone that the UK stole 45 trillion, with a T, US dollars, from India.
	Do you happen to know what the GDP of India in modern day is?
	It's not 45 trillion.
	It's not that.
	No, it's the British GDP 45 trillion US dollars.
	And all we did was stop them from burning their widows at the stake after their husbands died.
	We gave them roads, we gave them law, we gave them other systems.
	Democracy, a unified country that never existed before the British turn up.
	Apart from those minor things.
	But when we turned up, there was no India.
	When we left, there was an India.
	You're welcome!
	I just can't stand that nonsense, but we'll listen to her other nonsense of $45 trillion.
	Let's play.
	The economist at Sapatnaik has calculated the value of the drain from India across 200 years as being at around 45 trillion dollars, right?
	And that is through labor paid below an appropriate rate, that is through the forms of unequal exchange, paying cheap for the commodities that you have, the invention of taxes that you then have to pay, then you have to sell yourself into debt bondage in order to...
	So yes, slavery may have been abolished, but people were still indentured and effectively bound to work for a particular employer or master until they paid that debt.
	So did you think that India was a socialist commune before the British got there?
	Before we arrived, they had $48 trillion in India, and then we taxed 45 trillion dollars out of them somehow.
	And then we left.
	We don't know what we did with that money.
	Presumably it's at the bottom of the sea or something.
	Down the sofa, maybe.
	Because it's not in the UK's GDP. What gets me is they are so certain about their absolute nonsense.
	It's comical on the face of it.
	Must give a shout out.
	There was actually a guy who later on in her speech just goes, point of order.
	What are you talking about?
	That amount of money doesn't exist now?
	Never mind back then?
	And she just blabbers on about how, no, no, you have to count up all the wages that weren't given and the money that was taxed away, and it's like, that doesn't answer anything.
	No, it doesn't work like that.
	Lunatic.
	And we'll go through the full thing, as I say, a lot of years later on in a premium podcast.
	But you might wonder where the hell that number comes from.
	Exhibit A of the individual responsible for this.
	Let's get this image up in full so people can have a look.
	A Marxist economist...
	Open and shut case.
	No more reason to read any of that Wikipedia entry.
	That's enough.
	And in case you're wondering, yeah, it was enough, at least for one leftist, to come out and start defending this idiocy.
	And it's Aaron Bastani, of all people.
	Aaron, if you're watching...
	Why?
	You don't have to do this, man!
	Like, you don't have to do these kind of silly things!
	And he try and argues here, he says, Asia produced 65% of the global GDP in 1500.
	Okay, so India, 65%, and you know, most of the economy of the world in 1500.
	Alright, maybe, we'll take him on his word.
	I don't know, maybe.
	59% in 1820.
	I'm not so sure about that, but whatever.
	19% by 1950, his source being a person called Madison, global trends accompanying centuries tend to mean rather large sums.
	Yes, India under British is no different.
	So the idea is that as a percentage of the global economy, India's percentage shrunk over time.
	And therefore, we stole $45 trillion.
	Well, maybe that's because we had the Renaissance and the Industrial Revolution, and we deployed capital significantly more efficiently, rather than pulling ploughs by hand and burning widows.
	We're not even there yet.
	We're at the moment of, you have $2, I have $1, so you've got 66% of this table's economy, and then I get a few more dollars, and I've stolen those from you.
	I haven't.
	I've got them from working, but you've been robbed.
	This is such a fundamental misunderstanding of how economies work.
	So I've now got $5, you've got $2.
	I clearly robbed them off you, even though there are now more dollars than them.
	I don't know, Aaron.
	Please, please seek help.
	Because he goes on, and his own followers, if you've got a nice one here, start responding to him, just being like, WTF, bro?
	All of these...
	It's not my fault, you know, people.
	He's like, Britain did a lot of harm in India's economy, but Callum's right, about the 45 trillion figure.
	It's just made up, you fucking lunatic.
	Like, it's not true.
	And he defends it for some goddamn reason.
	And in case you're wondering, we can see in real time, he's actually right.
	Because we have pictured evidence of India in the 1500s.
	There we have it.
	When their economy was 48 trillion US dollars, whereas now it's only 3 trillion.
	And I can't believe, look at what India used to be.
	They used to be a real country.
	Whereas now, the British, I tell you.
	Don't know what happened in between the end of the war and now with India.
	I actually worked in Delhi for about three months, and I tell you, the amount of people who told me they wished the British were still running it, and I had to break it down to them.
	I'm sorry, but the people who you think of the British are long gone.
	I wish that we were still run by those British.
	That's also true.
	But don't worry, Aaron has come to prove it.
	He has come to prove that India did look like this once upon a time, in 1500, I'm sure.
	I thought Miss India had proved it, but never mind.
	Earlier on, the Marxist economist, which is a hell of a term.
	And he says, no, I've got a video where I strictly, analytically, examine the data and I prove that this is the case.
	Well, let's check it out.
	I feel a fool to never have known of the trillions upon trillions that India had once upon a time.
	This is his video.
	We'll play a clip.
	It's quite long, but he takes us through it, and I don't want to take him out of context, so I'll play the full thing, in which he tries to argue how this happened, how we stole the $45 trillion.
	I don't know where it is now, as mentioned.
	that's not been solved that part of the puzzle again this is going to be educational down the sofa presumably because the UK economy is like 3 trillion not 45 but let's check it out first let's talk about the economy When Clive triumphed at the Battle of Plassey, the Mughal Empire comprised around 23% of the world economy.
	By 1947, as the British withdrew, that figure had fallen to 4%.
	The reason why was that in the intervening 200 years, the industrialization of Britain had come to depend on the de-industrialization of South Asia.
	Take textile manufacture as one example.
	In the early 18th century, India enjoyed a 25% share of the global trade in textiles.
	But by 1834, Lord Bentnick declared that the bones of the cotton weavers were bleaching the plains of India.
	Meanwhile, exports of British textiles to India soared, with a billion yards entering the latter each year after 1870.
	Things were so bad that by 1896, India produced only 8% of the cloth consumed domestically, meaning it had gone from exporting powerhouse to serving a tiny portion of domestic demand.
	It wasn't an accident that Britain became a workshop for the world, starting with cotton manufactures, something which would have been impossible without force.
	Indeed, according to one economist, Britain took around $45 trillion out of India between 1765 and 1938.
	That's 14.5 times the size of the British economy today.
	This primarily happened through trade.
	Prior to the 18th century, Britain bought things from Indian producers and would pay for them with precious metals, generally silver.
	But this changed after 1765, when the East India Company established a monopoly over Indian trade.
	They then began collecting taxes in India using a portion of those revenues, typically a third, to fund the purchase of Indian goods for British use.
	In other words, instead of paying for Indian goods, British traders acquired them for free.
	Okay, number one, there was no statistical analysis, there was no analytical analysis.
	You literally just said, Miss India from earlier said so.
	That was where you got the number from.
	In your own video, you just said that 45 trillion was taken according to an economist.
	You didn't prove anything.
	You just said she claimed it, or she did.
	Even if it is generously inflation-adjusted, it's still nonsense.
	No, and we'll go through it point by point.
	Number one, so the Indians were no longer competitive in producing cloth, and that's evidence that the damn Brits have done this to them.
	It's not like the Brits were making it, you know, industrialised, whereas the Indians weren't, and therefore it was more efficient.
	Therefore, the British cloth could be produced at a lower cost to the consumer, and therefore was more...
	And could be shipped and sold back cheaper than the domestic.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, it's not economics.
	It's race hatred of Indians that proves this or something.
	I don't know.
	Number two, you even say yourself that the number you think has been stolen is 14.5 times the UK economy.
	Does that not tell you the number's bollocks?
	If we've stolen that much money and it's not here, where the f*** is it?
	And remember, this is just the money we stole from India.
	I don't know, maybe we spunk it down the bookies or something, I don't know.
	What do we steal from everywhere else?
	We got 45 trillion from the Indians, I mean, we take Malaysia, and then we'll add up all the African colonies we have, and then the Canadians, and then the Australians, and then, I don't know, whatever we stole from the Chinese and the Opium Wars.
	I mean, we're looking at maybe about 200 trillion dollars.
	If that was true, it would look like Wakanda around here.
	And instead it don't, because it's not true.
	It's obviously retarded, man.
	Like, this is the thing.
	I don't even have to get into the analytics of that claim.
	On the face of it, you know it's stupid because the money isn't here.
	As you say, if it went down the bookies, the bookies would have it.
	The bookies don't have it.
	It's a mad thing to say.
	But no, he says the way we stole it is through taxing the Indians.
	$45 trillion over 200 years.
	Sorry, 170.
	Does he not know that basically all of that tax money was collected through the local lords who were doing that taxing anyway?
	And went back to the Indians.
	But no, we don't even have to get into the obvious.
	We can go more obvious than the obvious to make obvious that this isn't true.
	Because we'd have to have taxed $225 billion US dollars every year starting in the 1700s.
	I don't think the tax revenues were that big in India.
	No.
	$17.50?
	$200 billion in taxes to the East India Company that year alone?
	Not nearly, no.
	Inflation adjusted?
	No.
	No, that's not true.
	It's obviously not true.
	King lunatic.
	Are you for real to think that that's the case?
	And that's the thing.
	I don't hold any bad will against you.
	I just think...
	Bro, stop.
	For the love of Christ, stop.
	Whatever you're doing.
	And I suppose we'll go to academic agent for someone who isn't mad.
	He just gives us the data instead.
	This is my favourite slide from his video he did about this a while back and I did enjoy.
	He points out here that just on the actual data, if you look through the British spending and income from the colonies, for every pound of the British spent, we got 50 pence back from the colonies.
	It wasn't economical to keep them.
	This was a long-standing criticism of Empire, and was a true one, and was part of the reason we got rid of them.
	Because they were costing so much goddamn money, and we were broke after the Second World War.
	If they were making us money, we would have kept them, because we needed it.
	But it's not true.
	But we'll go to Miss India earlier on, who tells us about her mind-blowing.
	I mean, literally mind-blowing.
	You'd have to not have a mind.
	Economics.
	Let's let AA take it away.
	Now the trouble with these claims is that they make no sense whatsoever because even if you adjust for inflation the UK was not making 45 trillion dollars during the empire years.
	If you look at this table you can see total GDP in 2015 pounds sterling.
	If you add up all the GDP numbers from 1840 to 1950 It still only comes to about £24.45 trillion all in.
	Professor Pat Naik claims that the East India Company and the Raj siphoned out, that's her term, £9.2 billion from India over this 2000 year period.
	She gets to this number by using a 5% compound interest accumulator.
	That looks something like this.
	Anyway, $1,000 in 1800 accumulates around $2 million of interest over 219 years.
	And so if you add it all up, the balance comes to something like $46.6 million from an initial $1,000 back in 1800.
	And this is the method that she uses to reach this number of £9.2 billion.
	And then she uses the historical exchange rate of, you know, back in 1800, of $4.8 to the pound to get to this number of $45 trillion.
	Now this, as far as I can tell, is total insanity based on a wild set of assumptions It's just a beautiful way of putting it.
	So if you weren't following, she takes the money that she believes was stolen...
	Even though it's taxes that have to be paid to keep the place running, and went back to the Indian elite in India, because, you know, princely states and all that.
	Whatever.
	But you take the money that you believe is stolen, and then you put it in a bank account that gets 5% interest return every year for 200 years.
	No recession's ever happened in India, ever.
	Or famines.
	And therefore, you take all that money, and then you rewind the clock 200 years for some goddamn reason, and you have an exchange rate of £1 equals $4.3, 200 years ago than the money you're dealing with in your fantasy.
	It's now basically one for one, but yeah, okay.
	Yeah, okay, but you rewind it 200 years because it makes it look better, and then you convert the money again, somehow, as if this could ever be done.
	So you get in your TARDIS, as she does, convert the money back into dollars, and then take your TARDIS back to the future, and then tell everyone that the British stole 45 trillion US dollars from India.
	It is pants on head retarded.
	And the clue was in the opening line of the Wikipedia article.
	I don't think much more investigation was needed, but we have done it.
	LAUGHTER Marxist economics, ladies and gentlemen.
	Well, the thing is, this stuff doesn't need to be good enough to stand up to scrutiny.
	All it needs to be good enough is to sound credible so that you can get some wide-eyed kids in academia to imbibe this stuff, and they're never going to challenge it.
	They're never going to listen to this video where we take it apart.
	What they're going to do is they're going to go along to the Oxford debate or whatever it is, and they're going to stand up and they're going to start ranting about empire because they've heard the numbers.
	It sounds good to them, so they're convinced.
	These absolute brainlets, that entire process is completely correct, and those absolute brainlets get up and they think that the end of the chain of events is them in the Cambridge Union saying that Britain owes them 45 trillion, and everyone claps, and that's the end of it.
	Thing is, you live-streamed it, and we can see it.
	And now we can all make the wonderful evening of taking the piss out of you for being an idiot.
	I see in the chat people saying retardess, and they are right.
	Which is just like, what on earth is wrong with you?
	And people like Aaron, I just...
	Like, dudes...
	On the face of it, you should have known this was wrong.
	AA did not have to make a video.
	No one had to present this.
	No one had to even think about this more than, where's the 45 trillion, bro?
	There's 3 trillion in India.
	There's 3 trillion in the UK in the modern day.
	So where's the rest of it?
	Sit in the sofa on the bottom of the sea.
	Go digging at the end of the rainbow, I suppose.
	They don't get that far.
	They get as far as UK is bad.
	Let's stand up and get angry.
	It's unbelievable.
	And we'll be doing the full thing, as I say, as a premium podcast on the website.
	We'll be filming it tomorrow.
	I'll go out whenever.
	But I just, I had to go through some of the stuff I couldn't feature because of time, and because, number one, it made me mad.
	Number two, please, for the love of Christ, someone make better left-wing movement, because this is almost painful to listen to, to even debate.
	It's just not fun.
	It's just not fun to have people tell you, you owe us $65 trillion, or $45 trillion.
	Let's make, well not, $100 bagillion dollars.
	Yeah, why not?
	Yeah, there we are.
	The reparations will be coming soon, I am sure.
	And Calvin, thank you for the sacrifice, man.
	That's kind of been fun.
	How we did it, I never know.
	So it seems that party systems don't really work, whether it's one or multiple.
	So what if we were to achieve no party systems?
	Like every candidate ran on what they could bring to the table instead of just their party affiliations?
	What are your thoughts on that?
	I thought about this a lot because we went through the complaints of the Founding Fathers about, oh, party's bad, no parties, please.
	They're not wrong, which party's bad, but you will end up with them either way.
	If you have a democratic system, especially one in which first-past-the-post, that is 100% going to happen.
	Even non-first-past-the-post, you will get parties.
	So when I started voting, you didn't even have the party affiliation on the ballot paper.
	You just had the candidate's name and you had to know who they were.
	And in the end, they just gave up doing it because people just used to go and ask the tellers all the time, you know, who's the Labour, who's the Tory?
	So it's very difficult in the sort of system that we have.
	What you really need is a system change.
	but even then I am unaware of any system on earth that actually produces what is being requested by the founding fathers there and the the only two I'm aware of that do mirror it but it's for the most hilarious reasons and you'll see why as I mentioned them are Cuba and Belarus and uh if you run as a candidate in Cuba you don't you're not aligned with the communist party you're a complete independent so is everyone else and you wind up dead a week later No, everyone votes for the specific independent.
	Oh, I see.
	And in Belarus, Lukashenko is an independent and has won every election.
	And it's a miracle that he's that popular.
	Good luck to him and his son when he takes over.
	Let's go to the next one.
	With so many brainlets trying to implicate Britain as the root of all evils on the planet, particularly when it comes to drawing boundaries on maps, it's useful to know the truly tragic events that precipitate when lines are drawn for genuinely malicious reasons.
	YouTube channel RealLifeLaw has a video entitled Why Russia Destroyed the World's Fourth Biggest Lake.
	We can skip past the fact that it should be largest lake, not biggest, and instead learn about how communism redirected rivers to redesign nature to grow cotton where it could not be grown previously.
	The lines of the local countries were intentionally drawn up by Stalin to ensure war if the locals revolted and the ongoing environmental catastrophe is going to lead to war.
	This could be the new Balkans.
	100% true, and it's a subject that's very rarely talked about, and it's really actually relevant to our reparations debate.
	You get occasionally people will bring up, oh, the lines in the sand, as that book is called, and the lines in Africa.
	Oh, look, they're straight.
	What idiots are the Europeans?
	How could they do this?
	Johnny Harris whining about it.
	And there's something to be said, of course.
	Yeah, you draw a line in the middle of nowhere that's straight.
	Why would you do that?
	Because you don't know what's there.
	And the interesting pushback on that is they don't like the straight lines because they cut across tribal boundaries.
	Wait, so you're telling me that ethnicity matters?
	Yes, there's also that conundrum.
	But number one, nobody knew what was there, so stop.
	If you were the man in the room at the same time, you would have drawn the same line.
	And then you ask people, okay, redraw the borders of Africa to make everyone happy.
	Here's a pencil.
	Nobody can do it.
	Best of luck.
	It just can't be done.
	It's stupid debate on the face of it.
	But the obvious thing from the Europeans, as in those from Western Europe who did those things, did it because either of ignorance or because they just needed something and that'll do.
	I don't know what's there.
	I've never been there.
	But when it comes to Stalin...
	There's real evil behind those lines.
	And they are very purposeful.
	There are an unbelievable number of enclaves and exclaves for no goddamn reason in some of these places.
	I don't know how many of them have been solved now.
	But specifically, he's correct, in the Istans region, everything about those lines was purposely done to make it as impossible to form an ethnic rebellion against...
	You know, all-humanity communism, because nationalism was illegal.
	A form of Hunger Games, essentially.
	Split them into discrets, keep them fighting.
	Yes, and they're still the results of that, and it was entirely done with malicious intent, whereas what the Europeans did was just, I don't bloody know.
	You tell me what's between Sudan and South Egypt.
	They're drawing a straight line.
	Go to hell!
	And so, yeah, it's really relevant and really true.
	Tony D and Little Joe with another Lotus Eater white pill.
	From allthingsinteresting.com comes the story of 24 perfectly preserved bronze statues discovered in an ancient Etruscan spa.
	This is located in San Cassiano da Bagni, Italy and the statues are 2300 years old.
	They look brand new, looks like they just were buried in the mud.
	Just when you think you can't discover new treasures in the world, they emerge.
	And it's glorious.
	That's awesome.
	Wow.
	Cool.
	I do wonder if you found one, what would you do with it?
	I'm selling it.
	I want the money.
	I'm not giving it to a museum, that's for sure.
	Probably would, but no, I'm interested to hear more about that one.
	What do you do?
	Do you put it on eBay?
	Probably.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Hey Lotus suitors.
	I'm just heading to an abandoned train station called Platform 26 and 27.
	I've just gotten permission to go off there.
	There it is.
	Okay, so here we are at Central Station, Sydney, in Platform 26.
	So one of the reasons why this platform was abandoned was because there was a sinkhole found in the 1920s, I believe, which forced construction to be moved to Platform 24 and 25 of the Irwa line.
	Rumors say this place is haunted.
	Tony, Dee, and Little Joan will come and investigate, I suppose.
	We'll find out.
	Otherwise, we shall go to the written comments on the site.
	Let's start off with Eleusius over here.
	He says, It's really cool that Dan is here to explain all the horrible ass that the elites are doing with our money.
	So many of the West's political problems have significant financial dimension to them, and understanding them is really important, not to mention revealing.
	Useful, Dan.
	Cheers.
	Thank you for that.
	I don't know if you follow WallStreetBets on Twitter.
	I do.
	I have noticed that they are really based, but not because they give crap about any of the political stuff that we might.
	They're not very political.
	It's just corruption they hate.
	It's...
	Yeah, there is so much of it in the financial system.
	It overlaps massively.
	Yeah, it's a really interesting subject to get into.
	But it's almost, you know, it's not entirely, obviously.
	There's problems everywhere.
	But the party political nature of the US, so often everything they're pointing out is Democrats, and you see them getting so upset with them because of it.
	It's funny to see, to say the least.
	Yeah, absolute chad to the Albanians stomping on our necks.
	Something our current politicians either don't understand or don't care about.
	Francis says, I don't think most people actually want their country invaded, but the media is the mouthpiece of the establishment and the establishment is either retarded or gets something out of allowing these invaders in.
	My guess is the latter.
	I agree.
	The issue with our elites, who care more about money than national pride and about their fellow countrymen, these are the people that believe money is what gives them value, a result of the materialism of the Age of Enlightenment.
	It's a quantifiable value which makes it easy to compare.
	They understand nothing of the thickness of all things.
	They don't realize they look absolutely ridiculous.
	I think that's true.
	And what's funnier is they unironically believe that more immigration equals more money.
	And no matter how high they keep opening the borders...
	The money don't go up.
	It don't actually work, either.
	It's a real tragedy.
	It's going to keep wage costs down for next, so that's as far as they think.
	That's it.
	But what if the entire economy collapses because there's so much crime?
	It balances out?
	In fact, it goes negative?
	Now what?
	They don't care.
	Colin says, Callum, are you suggesting something happened in the 1990s?
	I don't know.
	Check out Tom Harwood's Twitter to see if something happened in the 1990s.
	Oh, God, no.
	People you haven't seen, he was suggesting killing our children rather than lowering immigration.
	Cool.
	Well, he's not likely to have any, so easy for him to see.
	Yeah, our children.
	Supreme Duck says they should keep their dinghies for when they realise the house prices.
	Yeah, they don't have to pay for it.
	They get free dental, too.
	We don't.
	Really?
	For foreigners who might not know.
	The NHS doesn't give you free dental.
	Well, they do.
	Wow.
	Free dental, free healthcare, free housing, free food, free allowance to spend on things.
	They also seem to be working illegally, so they're not paying any tax on any of the illegal work they do, so they pay zero tax.
	Of course, why not?
	I think if there is a bigger welfare queen out there than Abdul and his mates I haven't found them Sheikersilver says As much as people like Farage he seems to be an ideas guy and doesn't seriously commit to running a whole office or take power he'd rather be a pundit on the sideline someone needs to take those ideas and seriously run with them I completely agree This is one of the problems.
	I don't know if I made it clear enough in that segment, which is I'm not thrilled about my assessment of the way Britain's rightists work, but I think it is accurate, and that hurts me, because Nigel has shown a...
	Failure to actually put his foot down when it counts.
	On two fronts there, you could argue about the stepping down during the Brexit election in 2019.
	Yeah.
	Whatever.
	Okay, there's a debate to be had there.
	He should have been in South Thanet and won that seat.
	He should have been in the Parliament for the last several years, giving them hell.
	And he didn't.
	He wanted to do something else.
	And I would not be too unsurprised if he abandons the entire right-wing movement in the UK and doesn't run or doesn't do this.
	And it would kill me.
	See, I really hope he does.
	To be fair, we can't put it all on him.
	I don't want to, but I think that's how it is.
	The British right has to step up at some point.
	People have to stop voting Conservative.
	They need to get behind an alternative.
	So, yeah, I mean, it's frustrating that, you know, he hasn't played it as well as he could.
	But, you know, at some point, the rest of us need to do a damn sight more as well.
	That's true.
	I don't discount any of that, but I'm just assessing the lay of the land.
	And if you ask the general public who they know about, they're no nobody on the writers' movement except Nigel Farage.
	It's the reason...
	Let's take Richard Tice, for example, doing his thing.
	He's just not known as Farage.
	That's a truth.
	You showed us something, John.
	Yeah.
	So, Caroline from earlier, I think it's the CEO here, posting on Tumblr, because of course she is.
	Who's shocked?
	Nothing against this post in particular, but it reminds me of, I find it amusing how boy positivity posts on Tumblr always end up taking this cute infantilizing tone that elides what is actually attractive about men.
	It was what I think about cute boy things.
	Controlling most major world governments.
	Badly.
	Being responsible for many important inventions and scientific discoveries, such as crime.
	Spartial reasoning abilities.
	Low risk aversion.
	Sufficient strength to physically overpower you.
	Okay, so this is what she's looking for in the cute boys.
	I don't think he managed to get to controlling the world.
	Fake charity nerd girl is her account.
	Anyway, we'll go to the FTX stuff.
	Yeah, so comments on F2X. Dean's thanking me for getting into the whole thing.
	You're very welcome, Dean.
	Baron Von Warhawk is saying, this FTX business is why I will never get involved in cryptocurrencies.
	Can't for the life of me figure out how cryptocurrency works.
	It looks like I dodged a bullet.
	Well, sadly, a lot of it is a scan, but there is something genuine there, and we are going to need an alternative to this paper money system.
	So if you'd like to know more...
	Join up for Premium.
	I think you're already on Premium because you're commenting.
	And follow the Brokernomics series, and I'll be getting into a lot more of this.
	But yeah, I do agree.
	An enormous amount of it is going to be a scam, but there is something genuine at the nub of it.
	So we've got...
	Sorry, I've butchered your name.
	Just call him Mr Spain, that's all I do.
	I just saw the FTX guy's face and already had red flags flaring.
	He has the face and the moment he opens his mouth you know he's a scam artist.
	In retrospect, I think the financial industry probably could have picked up on this one a little bit earlier.
	America's in Hospice Care says it's amazing how another scandal involving a significant Democrat donor comes out right after the election.
	Yes, that is a very good point.
	He pumped all the money in just before the election and it all blew up on just the other side.
	Yeah, you have to wonder if that's a coincidence as well.
	What else have we got?
	We've got Screwtop Laser saying the FTX debacle doesn't invalidate crypto technology principles.
	It only proves that centralisation was a mistake.
	Yes, so that's one of the things that this SAM guy was pushing.
	He was trying to push regulators towards exchanges like his while trying to shut out the decentralised alternative, basically the good version, the version that nobody can control.
	So, yeah, I agree with that one.
	And then various more comments about his veganism, which I certainly can't agree with.
	And we've got Callum Delighton saying, OK, so if somebody works hard, earning money, and then gives all of it away to somebody else, why would that other person work to give them anything back?
	Why should I work when somebody else is working and getting all of their earnings back?
	Sorry, not money, currency, since we don't have money anymore.
	Yeah, absolutely right.
	We do have currency.
	We don't have money.
	We used to have money when it was gold.
	We might have money again at some point in the future, but at the moment we've just got currency which governments can print, and in the case of this particular firm, tokens that they can print.
	So, you know, I'm not going to disagree with any of this stuff.
	It's a complete mess, but we do need an alternative to this paper money system.
	So...
	Amazing how the Orcs actually have more money than we do.
	They use their teeth.
	We'll just go for one on the last segment because we're out of time.
	Baron von Warhawk says, The British Empire was evil because it promoted slavery, destruction of culture, and robbed people of their native culture.
	All of England should be ashamed.
	So anyway, let me tell you about how great socialism in the Soviet Union was.
	Indeed.
	Indeed, Baron von Warhawk.
	Otherwise, we're out of time.
	We'll go to the...
	Well, we'll be here tomorrow at 1 o'clock.
	Thank you, and goodbye.

▲