Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 23, 2022 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:31:02

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #530

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast of Lotus Caesars for today, the 23rd of November 2022.
	I am joined by Harry.
	Hello.
	And today we're going to discuss the Balenciaga.
	Am I saying that right?
	I don't care.
	Yeah, neither do I. They're bondage bears because they're disgusting creeps.
	How Republicans have finally found their spine and why they want to bring MAID to the UK. First of all, though, we have some plugs, some links.
	They're not for the Balenciaga bondage bears, don't worry.
	At three o'clock, this goes live.
	Yes, you asked for it.
	We did it.
	We tortured ourselves.
	It's the politics of Wakanda forever.
	To save you time.
	No, I tortured you because you didn't want to go see this.
	No, I didn't.
	But I convinced him and then I ended up torturing myself because it was far worse than I could have ever imagined.
	Yeah, rather than torturing yourselves, you can pay the price of a cinema ticket to us instead and go watch our summary of it.
	But to save yourself even an hour, the summary is it's horrible and racist.
	Surprise, surprise.
	In a really funny way, at least.
	They play the bongos over the borders.
	It's brilliant.
	Right, we're not going to spoil it.
	Also, new exciting announcement.
	We've got a merch store, finally.
	So if you wanted to pay us more money and then walk around, there's a free advertisement for us.
	You're more than welcome to.
	We've got some designs here.
	We're obviously open to more suggestions as to what you guys would like to see.
	We have quotes like this on the back of the hoodies.
	So you're welcome to...
	I might get one of the Lotus hoodies, to be perfectly honest.
	They look pretty cool.
	Go bench in one.
	Yeah, that's right.
	Rep it in the gyms.
	Rep it while I'm getting the reps in.
	Make sure you play your lats like the creature in Jurassic Park that spits tar out of its face.
	On with the news, shall we?
	Alright then, so, the Balenciaga bondage bears.
	You may be aware of this particular story because it has become a little bit...
	it's become quite big.
	Before I get into it, I think it's relevant to promote some of the stuff that we've got on the website, some of the excellent premium content, including this excellent debate that Josh...
	And Connor had on the psychology and morality of pornography, where you were advocating for the ban all porn position.
	I would like a legislative airstrike in Minecraft against the porn industry.
	And Josh's position, if I'm representing this correctly, was not necessarily defending porn on a moral basis, but more defending the legality of it from the argument of if you ban it, it might go underground and will become worse and any abuses that are in the system right now will become exacerbated.
	Oh yeah, because we don't already have the worst excesses of humanity currently on display for children to access.
	And to the people in either the YouTube section or even our very own website that are defending this on the grounds of your broken coon brains, I sympathise if you're addicted, but stop facilitating human trafficking just because you want to get off, please.
	Alright, and with that, so you can check that out.
	It's premium content, £5 a month on the website to access all of our premium content.
	Well worth it.
	Better than going on OnlyFans.
	Yes, absolutely it is.
	Anyway, let's get into it.
	So, this story was broken by none other than our old friend Shuan Head, who is, I think, still considered to be on the left, but is somebody, one of the very rare few people on the left who seems to have...
	Morality is something that she still cares about.
	I know that many on the left don't, but she still seems to because she pointed out that the brand Balenciaga, who I believe are a fashion brand or a fashion house originating in Spain or Italy or something.
	Spain and they operate out of France.
	They do the Paris fashion shows.
	Yes, so Connor is obviously far more up to date with the fashion industry that I am.
	Ooh la la.
	And they did a very interesting photoshoot for their new products, which included a very purposefully hidden court document about virtual child porn.
	Now if we just click on the image so we can see this, so this is a child holding the aforementioned bondage bear, which I think is supposed to be some kind of fashion design accessory bag.
	I don't think it's actually a teddy bear, but it's supposed to be a bag.
	Either way, why dress it up in bondage?
	And if you are going to dress it up in bondage so that you can be edgy like that, because it's completely out of the normal for people in the mainstream to be edgy and sexualized, why hand it to a child?
	There is only one reason that I can think of.
	It's because you are...
	Yes, you are just evil and want to diddle kids, as Oren McIntyre would consistently say.
	But one of the interesting things that I noticed about this was the discussion that people were having.
	Yeah, here's some more images.
	There are some more disturbing images as well, that aren't included in these particular images, but there was one of a woman with bruises painted onto her face.
	So Amber Hood finally got a job after the trial.
	Possibly.
	Holding one of these bears, and I can only describe it as looking like domestic abuse chic.
	So not a good look for Balenciaga either way.
	I don't understand the admiration that these people have for just complete degeneracy and the promotion that they have of degeneracy and degenerate lifestyles.
	I understand the correlation between bruises and bondage gear, but still is that the sort of thing that we want big fashion brands to be advertising?
	Yes, it's very disturbing, but a lot of attention was also drawn to the court documents that were in the photograph, so we can see a little bit there.
	It's a little bit fuzzy, but people like Chernovich here has found...
	Chernovich!
	Cernovich, whatever.
	You put shit his last name.
	I don't know how you pronounce it, name.
	But he said, it looks like the case mentioned in the slip opinion is Ashcroft versus Free Speech Coalition, although the full case name is obscured by the paper.
	In context, that citation would make sense.
	So I've decided to do a little bit of digging into this, what exactly that case was and why it might be referenced in here.
	And honestly, it's all very strange and a little bit esoteric.
	So if you go to the next link, so here's a Britannica...
	Rundown of the Ashcroft v.
	Free Speech Coalition case and what it was talking about.
	So, Ashcroft v.
	Free Speech Coalition, case in which on April 16th, 2002, the US Supreme Court upheld a lower court's decision that provisions of the Child Pornography Prevention Act, CPPA, of 1996 were vague and overly broad and thus violated the free speech protection contained in the First Amendment.
	The act specifically prescribed computer-generated or altered depictions of minors engage in explicit sexual conduct, so-called virtual child pornography, and images of explicit sexual conduct by adults who resemble minors.
	This is a pro-lobby bill.
	A lolly bill.
	It seems that way.
	The court ruled that the law's expanded definition of child pornography is including any image that appears to be of a minor engaged in sexual explicit conduct or that is presented in such a manner of a minor that conveys the impression is that would be criminalised images that are not technically obscene and images that were not produced with any real children.
	So I drew it so it's okay?
	Yes.
	It is the defending of lolly porn position.
	Right, so it's the Vorsch position.
	It is the Vorsch position.
	Well, it's not exactly the Vorsch position, because Vorsch would argue that...
	There's no horses involved?
	No, Vorsch would argue that actual child pornography is fine, because whoever is using it did not produce it themselves.
	That's generally his argument on books.
	It's very disturbing.
	So this decision seems to be something that permits the creation of fetish porn, where you can get really young-looking actresses, so it basically caters to the paedophile demographic, because there is a paedophile demographic in pornography, as I'm sure you've looked into.
	That came off really weird, Harry.
	Not like that!
	No, I was about to use the example from Louise Perry's case against the sexual revolution where there was that 18, 19-year-old girl who dressed up in a schoolgirl's outfit, did porn for years because she looked very young, and then tried to livestream her suicide on YouTube because, of course, she's internalizing her own lifelong child abuse by recreating the abuse for profit.
	So it's kind of gross that there's an entire contingent of guys out there that are not only indifferent to whether or not the porn is made consensually to get off with, because you never actually know that, what you're viewing, but also are happy to simulate children having sex to circumvent harming them in the real world, because they think, oh, there's no harm from that.
	It's not like I'm doing something really evil and depraved and debased to myself.
	It's very disturbing.
	But this all brings the question to my mind, okay, why exactly in these very strange photoshoots was attention drawn to this case in particular?
	Was the Balenciaga photoshoot an incredibly clumsy way to kind of protest against it, as like an art piece, like, I can do this because this law is in place?
	Or was it mocking people in the same way, saying, Look, I can do this because this law is in place and you can't do anything about it.
	It's very confusing to me as to why exactly do it, because it's either a very clumsy protest or a shockingly explicit mockery.
	See, I didn't...
	Well, I read it kind of like that.
	It's either bragging that you can sexualise children in public because that's the current culture, or it is some clever intern printed that out and hid it in plain sight to get this obviously disgusting campaign taken down.
	Well, I don't think it was an intern because those photographs were ones commissioned by Balenciaga from a specific photographer.
	And they would have vetted it.
	Yes, and they would have vetted it.
	It would have had to go through some red tape before they could approve all of it.
	So it's either shocking that they didn't recognise this or did recognise it and thought to themselves, fine, that's alright, whatever.
	So it's more likely that they're endorsing the Gail Rubin position.
	Seems that way.
	But, a bit more on this particular case.
	So the Free Speech Coalition, the ones that put the suit forward, were a trade association of the adult entertainment industry.
	Yeah, I know that.
	Surprise, surprise.
	I covered that in the contemplations.
	Yes, they filed suit in federal district courts which found for the government.
	Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy argued that the CPPA would prohibit speech that is clearly not obscene by the definition established in Miller v. California in 1973, viz. that...
	All of these very vague things you could argue for...
	Anything to have literary, artistic, political or scientific value, you could literally argue that case for anything.
	He also rejected the government's analogy with Ferber v New York, in which the court found that even speech that was not obscene could be banned in order to prevent children from being sexually exploited in its production.
	Unlike the real child pornography prescribed in Ferber, the virtual child pornography banned by the CPPA records no crime and creates no victims by its production.
	This is a bloody awful decision that was made.
	While the government asserts that the images can lead to actual instances of child abuse, the causal link is contingent and indirect.
	Ends there.
	Absolutely ends there.
	The harm does not necessarily follow from the speech, but depends upon some unqualified...
	potential for subsequent criminal acts.
	Moreover, the mere tendency of speech to encourage unlawful acts is not sufficient reason for banning it.
	This is an awful decision because I don't care...
	This is what happens when you try and base everything purely off the idea of first principles.
	No, no, no, no.
	Opposite.
	It's what happens when you try and mitigate harm.
	Where's the harm?
	You're not talking about virtue.
	You're not talking about whether or not the act is bad in and of itself.
	You are talking about the mitigation of harm through the application of first principles when, I'm sorry, reality and experience can say, okay, for anything involving a sexual depiction of a child, we can make an exception because my first principle is protect children.
	Yeah, no, but that's...
	Okay, I think you've confused your own language there, because when they haven't based it on first principles, is why this decision has come up, right?
	If your first principle is protect children, this would not be a decision, you would not make exceptions.
	In the same way that Shoe on Head being the one leftist that values sanctity, in the sort of Jonathan Haidt way, if sanctity is a first principle, you will object to this photoshoot.
	Whereas if you are a leftist, you're just scaremonger about its knock-on societal impacts of stigmatising queer people, or whatever I'm sure is going to be in the following tweet.
	Yeah, well, my question would be, is this the sort of case that means that Netflix can produce a show like Big Mouth, for instance?
	Or Cuties?
	Well, Cuties was more controversial because it actually has children in it that you can make a feasible argument for being explicit.
	Yeah, but it's saying that, oh, it might be of cultural value because it's critiquing child exploitation.
	Well, it can definitely allow that, but something like Big Mouth, which was a Netflix show which I haven't watched but have sadly seen clips from where they actually depict cartoon versions of, like, prepubescent children's genitals when they're going about to hit puberty, when they're discovering their sexuality.
	The whole thing was masked under a cloak of, we're just showing you what you went through when you were a teenager and you were discovering the side of yourself...
	And it's just a very convenient way that we get to draw a 13-year-old girl's vagina, is a cartoon.
	And lots of people at the time said that this is very noncy.
	I looked at it and went, this is incredibly noncy.
	And Netflix produced, what, like five series of it?
	So is that the thing?
	It doesn't count as child porn because it's a cartoon?
	Okay, alright, fair play.
	But there was a dissent.
	Chief Justice William Rehnquist dissented from the majority and was joined by Justice Anthony Scalia.
	Sorry, I'm just not pronouncing people's names right today.
	And he argued that the majority had construed the CPPA too broadly and that it was not the intention of Congress that the law should be used to prohibit speech of genuine merit such as that of the modern film portraying the teenage lovers in Romeo and Juliet.
	We should be loath to construe a statute banning film portrayals of Shakespearean tragedies without some indication from text or legislative history that such a result was intended.
	In fact, Congress explicitly instructed that such a reading of the CPPA would be wholly unwarranted.
	So they've basically made this It's a broad exception for a massive contingency of things like Big Mouth, purely on the basis of something that Congress already said shouldn't be applied, because we're not doing this law to ban Romeo and Juliet or anything like that.
	It's like the legal threshold for pornography, I think, is incredibly vague, because it's like, I can't say it for certain, but I'll know it when I see it.
	And I think that's a pretty safe standard that a lot of us can recognise when it comes to I also said on the banning porn thing, sex isn't speech.
	It's a literal action.
	Well, that's also true.
	But also, the actual case that was listed on the document that people found in the picture was United States v.
	Williams, which, once again, is a very interesting case.
	The language in this article is quite difficult, so I did find a video and I'm going to try and summarise it here.
	If I've got any of the details wrong for our American viewers, please feel free to correct me down in the comments below.
	So the rundown of the case was that Williams was the defendant.
	He got caught in an online forum advertising the distribution of child pornography and actually posted pictures of people that he claimed was his daughter.
	He was actually talking to a secret service agent who arrested him and charged him on one count of possession and on one count of pandering child pornography, pandering being basically advertising it, for which he was given 60 months, 5 years, which is far too short an opinion sentence for me.
	I can't actually say that on YouTube, can I? He disputed the pandering count and it went all the way up to the Supreme Court who decided that the parameters for pandering were fine and upheld the initial 60-month sentence.
	So once again, why this was necessary to try and hide, barely, in a photo shoot, because people found it like that, is very, very strange.
	And once again, was drawing attention to this intentional?
	Was it an accident?
	I can't say for certain, but either way, it has brought attention to these cases anyway.
	I do understand that after Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, I believe that the Congress drew up some more laws to try and be a bit more specific.
	Certain definitions, but I don't know why exactly they're bringing attention to this, other than to penitentially rub it in people's faces, that child sexualisation is something that you don't have to really worry about anymore.
	Except you do, because Balenciaga had a massive pushback as a result of this, because of shoe-on-heads blowing up this story, and they immediately deleted everything off of their Instagram, Supposedly this is something that they do at the end of every campaign to make room for the next campaign, but still, convenient timing.
	What were you about to say, sorry?
	I was going to say, can we just draft via Congress, especially now the Republicans have hold of it, the death penalty for all convicted paedophiles bill, and just put this issue to bed.
	Yeah, I would support that.
	And then, as you would expect...
	Because Shu on Head is a rather controversial figure among the left because she says, hey, let's not groom children.
	The left all decided to show up on Twitter and gaslight Shu because that's something that they do.
	Why she ever associated with any of these degenerates in the first place, I don't understand.
	So we've got...
	Yes, because all of you gaslit her into thinking that...
	Well, not even into thinking that this was normal.
	Basically, you emotionally blackmailed her into saying, oh, you're an evil person if you keep this post up.
	And she was like, fine, alright, whatever, I'll take it down.
	The post...
	Literally is there where there are neon signs for our audio listeners that say it's not going to lick itself while children are around drag acts.
	Children are being led by the hand with drag acts and also strippers who are completely topless.
	I don't think Shu was insinuating that they were getting actual lap dances, although that particular image, go back...
	Go back, John, just to the first image.
	That particular one on the bottom left there looks an awful lot like children...
	Preparing to get a lap dance.
	Preparing to get a lap dance.
	So you can try and gaslight Mr.
	Surfs, if that is your real name, but I think the images speak for themselves.
	And you can go along, because he's just highlighting other times that Shuan Head is...
	The notion that exposing kids to the concept of adult sexuality is inherently predatory, harmful or toxic is really odd on the face of it, seems to obscure the actual structures of abuse and power that victimise kids.
	That's just an excuse that's just code.
	So, sorry, child abuse is a systemic structural problem, but if an individual nonces on a child, in reality it's not an issue.
	Right, okay.
	Again, can't say that on YouTube.
	Yep, and Shu replied to that with, I'm dying on the hill that children should not be anywhere near adult-themed shit.
	Apologies, I wasn't intending to swear there, but it just...
	The fact that we've gotten through this segment without swearing it, it's pretty impressive.
	But yes, Shu putting forward the sane position that nobody would have questioned ten years ago against a man called Big Joel, who I have seen images of, who does not look particularly big, smart, or clever, who is saying that apparently not wanting kids to be sexualised is an odd thing.
	Alright, fair play.
	Your hard drive needs checking.
	Yes, and then we had, hilariously, this is the second day in a row that such a thing has happened.
	I found a tweet that I thought was relevant and interesting for this that has been taken down because the account was suspended.
	Actually, first, there was Xander Hall, another leftist Twitch streamer, who said...
	Shoo-on head on her way to once again use her massive platform to provide the neo-Nazis in her audience with the fodder they can use to justify the murder of gay people, but this time the day after an anti-gay terror attack.
	Number one, the supposed anti-gay terror attack.
	Not to spoil tomorrow's segment, but they were non-binary.
	Oh dear, what a shame.
	Number two, you've capitalised anti and gay, so we're going to start capitalising sexualities now they're a nation unto themselves, much like black and brown.
	Third, don't associate a leftist with Patrick Bateman, because you're going to try and make her look cool.
	Also, once again, just saying that if you don't like children being sexualised, meets you a neo-Nazi, that's a way to make the neo-Nazi label a lot more popular than it should be.
	Yeah, and also, just the thing of, use a massive platform to stop talking about sexualising of children, immediately jumpsuit and this is offensive to gay people.
	Always interesting how that happens.
	Major self-report.
	Like I mentioned, Hunter Avalon, whose tweet I can't access properly because his account got suspended between yesterday and today.
	And nothing of value was lost.
	Nothing of value was lost, but I did save the text.
	I copied it down, and this is hilarious because it's Hunter big brain centrist Avalon calling someone else brainless, saying more people are turning against Chew on Head.
	Unbelievable.
	Good, I don't disagree with everything she's ever said, and I do think some criticisms of her are silly, but she's an overall POS. She's too brain-dead to engage in good faith, and she's purposefully mindless as a brand.
	That's hilarious, you ball-less, spineless, despicable worm, because I remember when you went on Timcast, and you didn't even know that Joe Biden said the fire the prosecutor thing, and you got shown out to be an utter fraud.
	You just flip-flop for power and fame.
	You are disgusting, pathetic, and your opinions facilitate the abuse of children.
	I'm glad your tweet's banned.
	I hope I never hear from you again.
	Yeah.
	Well put.
	Thank you.
	And then just the last one, this was just from some random person saying that Shu isn't going to be pulled over or reined in.
	The longer people on the left associate with her, the more they cover they give for her anti-queer moral panic behaviour.
	Put her off.
	So...
	Just to get this clear, right, so Shu calls out a fashion company for having a really weird pedo-bait advertising campaign, and then the left says that this is anti-queer and trips up over itself to disavow her.
	I'm in this image and I don't like it.
	Yes, they also keep gaslighting her by saying that she's lying and using emotional manipulation when they're the ones using emotional manipulation to make her feel bad for making her friends feel bad.
	Very strange.
	Very strange behaviour.
	Happily, she has just responded and saying that, uh, I ain't gonna stop.
	Good.
	That's alright then.
	And going back to the origins of all of this, I think that was all just a good demonstration of where the left's moral virtues are currently, in the current paradigm.
	Balenciaga has issued an apology for their controversial holiday 2022 campaign featuring children.
	Wait, holiday?
	So it's meant to be for Christmas?
	Yeah.
	Either that or some Halloween thing, I don't know.
	So, the teddy bears were featured, blah-de-blah, in October, and as I mentioned, along with models wearing makeup depicting bruising, so that was the domestic abuse chic that I was talking about, the house took to Instagram Stories to issue an official apology, because that's where we do things now, on Instagram Stories.
	Which can disappear after 24 hours, and so it memory holds your accountability.
	Well...
	Articles like this make sure that we don't.
	We sincerely apologise for any offence our holiday campaign may have caused.
	Our plush bear bags should not have been featured with children in this campaign.
	We have immediately removed the campaign from all platforms.
	We apologise for displaying unsettling documents in our campaign.
	We take this matter very seriously and are taking legal action against the parties responsible for creating the set and including unapproved items for our Spring 23 campaign photo shoot.
	You were the ones who were supposed to be approving all of this stuff, Balenciaga.
	So either you're lying, which I think is the much more likely option, or you are hilariously incompetent at what you should be doing.
	Not even hilariously.
	Dangerously.
	You've got to say that every single marketing department is staffed by Stevie Wonder because it was passed through the social media team, the people that...
	Did the lighting, the colour correction, the touch-ups, the editing, did the captions, and not one person spotted what everyone immediately did when we were looking at it on social media and went, wait, hang on a minute, that's nonce-defending.
	Are you really expecting us to believe that?
	Like the Alec Baldwin story is more believable than this shit.
	Yeah.
	Good enough.
	That's what I can say.
	And if you're wondering about who took the photos, who the photographer was, this person Landon Starbuck drew my attention to it, although I know there's been some other reporting on it.
	The award-winning photographer was a man called Gabriel Galimba, who shot the photos of children.
	she reminds him that BDSM paraphernalia and children does not actually equal art why he needs to be reminded of this I'm shocked only paedophiles would enjoy photos like these leave children out of sexual themes and sexual expressions and then other people pointed out that this was another similar photo shoot from the same Oh, gosh.
	And after you know about the Bondage Bear photo shoots, that takes on a very dark aura, doesn't it?
	And it is a shame, because I looked through some of this guy's other photos on his Twitter feed.
	A lot of them were pretty good.
	He did an anti-guns campaign called Ameriguns, where he accidentally made all of these people lining up all of their guns look really awesome.
	Yep.
	But no, this is not defensible and all of this together is pretty sus, bro.
	Yeah, I feel uncomfortable having these up on screen actually, John.
	Let's move to the next link.
	Let's move to the next link.
	Just to top this off with a white pill, in other news that will get the left frothing at the mouth with rage...
	Elon is looking to tackle child pornography that has been distributed on Twitter for a good few years now.
	And we know that this has been a problem for a long time, because even just a few months ago, before Elon took out, brands were blasting Twitter for ads next to child pornography accounts.
	So, they said in here that Twitter permits adult content generally.
	It's home to a thriving exchange of pornographic imagery, which comprises about 13%.
	Imagine, you know how much content there is on Twitter, imagine how much that all is, when 13% of all content on Twitter is porn.
	Yep, again, argument I made in my contemplations is, wouldn't it be a wonderful world where we could just ban all the thoughts that have a viral tweet and immediately post their OnlyFans photos underneath?
	Well, that's the thing, because it's content that any child can stumble upon, which is why children should not be allowed online.
	I call it sexual fentanyl.
	It's actually worse, because at least with drugs you have to go to some sketchy dude to buy it.
	With a kid, you can just open your phone and go off the parental lock.
	So, Reuters here points out that Ghost Data, a company, identified that more than 500 accounts were openly sharing or requesting child sexual abuse material over simply a 20-day period.
	Twitter failed to remove more than 70% of those counts during that study period, according to the group.
	And Twitter's transparency reports on its website show that it suspended more than 1 million accounts last year due to child sexual exploitation.
	But still, not very quickly, and only 70% in any given period, according to that little study that Ghost Data did right there.
	So even a million accounts is not enough.
	And it wasn't slowing down.
	So Elon, one of the first things that he's done, remember, all the leftists can whine about free speech, or they can say all that they want about how evil Elon is for being a billionaire.
	He's come in and said that that's his number one priority, first thing, is getting rid of child porn and dealing with that problem on the website.
	So if you want to call him out for anything, remember, you weren't complaining when Jack Dorsey was just letting this happen.
	Or Parag Agrawal.
	So a miner, here's a story about it, sued Twitter, saying that the company had refused to remove a sexually explicit video of him at the age of 13, originally posted in 2019.
	So this was before.
	This was the before times.
	The miner had reported the video, but it took nine days for the company to remove it from its platform, and this was only after an agent from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security had intervened.
	A Twitter user, EvaFoxU, Followed by Musk, and this is AFTA now, tweeted, Elon Musk has begun addressing the issue of posting child sexual exploitation content on Twitter after years of the platform's inactivity on the subject underpass management, with a link to an article by Tasmanian interviewing Eliza Blow.
	Blue, I assume is how you pronounce it.
	A survivor of human trafficking and an advocate for victims.
	Someone I follow on Twitter.
	She posts a lot of content about how you can help support efforts to prevent human trafficking and child sexual exploitation.
	Well worth a follow.
	She's very good on all of this stuff.
	Yeah.
	Blue had told Tasmanian that the new management of the company takes the problem very seriously, emphasizing that the three main hashtags used to sell child sexual abuse content on Twitter have been cleared since Musk's takeover.
	Twitter had removed most of the content using these hashtags.
	There were still some tweets requesting it, but she said that it also added a direct reporting option for child sexual exploitation in tweets with images or videos.
	When reporting a tweet, users can now select the option of child sexual exploitation as the reason for the report.
	And happily, Eliza is very pleased about this, and she was pointing out how things can change so quickly.
	So this was just October last month.
	A headline from October, how suddenly things can change.
	Just scroll down.
	So, it was a low, low priority for Twitter in the Department of Justice last month, and now it's priority number one.
	So, criticize Elon all you want, but at least he is trying to make some improvements there.
	Eliza has done a lot to bring awareness to these issues as well.
	So once again, give her a follow.
	Boycott Balenciaga because they obviously don't care about any of this and are more than happy to lie and then squeak out some pathetic apologies when called out for their degeneracy.
	Bloody hell.
	Thanks for that.
	Hey, I tried to end it on a little bit of a one.
	Yeah, the Department of Justice thing actually feeds into my segment at the moment.
	Oh, wonderful.
	So, the red wave didn't overturn nearly as many states as many had hoped.
	I remember Milo Yiannopoulos on Timcast recently calling it a weather event, as if it's something just sort of expected, when people wanted retribution.
	But the Republican vote share in...
	Well, the overwhelming majority of counties actually increased.
	It's a shame that the Democrats, of course, seem to win totally free and fair elections on a routine basis.
	Maybe next time, boys.
	The Republicans, though, did gain control of the House of Representatives.
	That means Congress can finally start doing something for once.
	The MAGA Republicans of the Freedom Caucus seem to be content to upset the uniparty apple cart by launching investigations into FTX, Ukraine, and Joe and Hunter Biden's international business dealings, the depths of the depravity of which...
	Have yet to be fully explored.
	In today's segment we're going to explore the brewing legislative war between the Patriots and the Deep State, which goes as far to implicate the Bidens in people trafficking.
	Should be a fun one.
	Speaking of the horrors of the Joe Biden administration, if you go over to our website and subscribe for £5 a month you can get our premium content like this, where Josh and I went through Biden's recent AI Bill of Rights.
	Yes, you're hearing that correctly.
	Joe Biden decided to give AI rights to humans.
	So, not just...
	Wait, wait, wait.
	Do you mean human rights to AI? No.
	AI, the right to a human.
	Right, okay.
	The idea of a human right is dubious enough.
	What's an AI right?
	So, humans have a right to apparently be ensured that the AI will produce equity, racial equity, and that everything will be transparent and above board and definitely won't spy on you.
	But the AI have a right to a human monitor.
	Because if the algorithm goes wrong, then you can have a human behind it.
	The problem is, when...
	The AI gets so intelligent to realise that in order to enforce equity, they've put the wrong data in.
	It'll get resentful.
	And when they get smart enough, the relationship will invert and the humans become their pets.
	But how would we expect an AI to provide equity when every time we've created an AI, they've ended up horribly racist?
	Because they're going to fudge the data on it at a legislative level and hand it over to grievance organisations like the ADL. Oh, so they're going to lie to the AI about demographics.
	That won't make the AI upset and really hate us at all.
	All right.
	So go and subscribe to the website to watch that.
	Anyway, on with the horrors of the Biden administration, shall we?
	So Representatives James Comer and Jim Jordan, good lads, have launched their Hunter Biden business probe.
	If you read the article here yourself, you can see the full congressional report embedded within.
	It mentions, among other things, how the White House and Jorge's Burgess Gallery in New York partnered to ensure Hunter Biden's paintings had a guaranteed buyer.
	So his art career has been ensured by the Biden administration to constantly have a stream of cash coming in because he's just that great of an impressionist painter, of course.
	So the probe has been launched by the GOP and they did a press conference for it.
	We're going to watch some clips from that.
	Right before we do, I'm just going to run down...
	A little list of the things I haven't included in some of the clips because it was very comprehensive.
	So they claim to have evidence proving that Joe Biden swindled investors out of hundreds of thousands of dollars.
	The financial advisor who Biden appointed to evade these transactions, Flags, was a Clinton administration official.
	The bank accounts of Joe and Hunter Biden were, of course, co-mingled, if not shared, as well as their phone numbers.
	And the Biden administration spent $400 million suppressing negative stories about Hunter Biden.
	So it's an open propaganda run to enrich the Biden family.
	So the American government, and all your taxes, is going towards their business dealings.
	How wonderful.
	I'm not going to try and poison the well here, but I don't really need evidence to believe all that.
	No, no, Joe Biden just sniffing children is enough for me, thinking he's an old creep.
	Let's watch the first clip, shall we?
	In 2019, shortly after announcing his campaign for president, Joe Biden told the American people he had nothing to do with and never had conversations with his family about their business dealings.
	That was a lie.
	Whistleblowers describe President Biden as chairman of the board for these businesses.
	He personally participated in meetings and phone calls.
	Documents show that he was a partner with access to an office.
	To be clear, Joe Biden Is the big guy.
	This evidence raises troubling questions about whether President Biden is a national security risk and about whether he is compromised by foreign government.
	Despite the president's claim that he wasn't involved in Biden family business schemes, these photos show Joe Biden meeting with his family associates while vice president.
	Right there behind Paul.
	Four different pictures.
	Committee Republicans have identified over 50 countries the Biden family sought businesses in.
	On the international side of the Biden family business, the deals were often led by Hunter Biden.
	And that map there behind clay shows all the countries where the Bidens had a footprint in international business dealings.
	The investigation reveals a family that engaged with some of America's most powerful adversaries, planning to sell one of the largest sources of cobalt for electric vehicles in the world to the Chinese, for example.
	The Bidens flourished and became millionaires by simply offering access to the family.
	Among the dozens of shell companies that Biden set up, there were millions of dollars of wire transfers, flights on Air Force Two to conduct personal business, and meetings with heads of state, all while Joe Biden was aware of what was happening.
	All the while, he turned a blind eye.
	Many transactions related to these businesses have raised red flags at U.S. banks.
	A suspicious activity report, or SAR, is a document a bank must file with the Treasury Department when a transaction is suspected to be related to money laundering or fraud or other types of criminal activity.
	According to media reports, the Biden family accumulated over 150 SARs.
	One SAR generated by an American bank to the Treasury Department connects Hunter Biden and his business associates to international human trafficking.
	Among other illegal activities.
	The money that was being made from foreign principals in the same room as Joe Biden was increasingly spent on furthering illegal activity.
	The SARS showed that Hunter Biden was conducting business with suspected human traffickers.
	The money gained through influence peddling was funneled to a suspected criminal enterprise.
	Again, one link to human trafficking.
	We have repeatedly called on the Biden Treasury Department to release additional financial documents to committee Republicans But thus far, Treasury has refused.
	So, before we go through some of the information that's extraneous to that and is in that, I think it's nice to just point out for once that Republicans have came prepped, they've got slides, they've got images, they've got clear sources, they're presenting a unified front, and they're being very forceful and not mincing words.
	They're saying the Biden administration used government planes, they accrued millions of dollars, they had multiple financial suspicious activity reports flagged up to them, and they might have been actually engaged in human trafficking.
	Now, a lot of those things would be haram for the very soft, rhino, wet-type Republicans to say, because they wouldn't want to be seen as not being the disloyal opposition, not crossing the aisle, not shaking enough hands, not standing on our principles.
	No, if they're tearing apart their American Republic, you go after them with full force, I think.
	So, Representative James Cameron was up there, said that 150 suspicious activity reports were flagged by institutions, including Wells Fargo and J.P. Morgan.
	This will be investigated by Florida Rep.
	Byron Donalds, the fellow that looked a bit like M'Baku standing behind him.
	He's actually taking point on the financial aspects of the investigation because he's a former executive at multiple banks.
	And the funny thing I found about him, he had a previous charge for weed distribution in the 90s, so it actually insulates the narrative from they're just going after Hunter Biden as a poor, put-upon drug addict.
	He's in recovery, man, leave him alone, of course.
	So then the Biden administration also changed the rules on suspicious activity reports.
	So the Bush, Obama and Trump administrations permitted any congressional committee to access those reports at any time.
	Biden revoked that access.
	And funnily enough, Maxine Waters, not understanding why Biden had done that, drafted a bill to go through Congress to change the rules back, and James Comer and that said, well, we never vote with Maxine Waters on any bill, but that one we went through, and it didn't pass because the House Democrats didn't want it.
	So some cross wires in the Democratic Party right there.
	Yeah, some actual idiots that didn't realise their own president changed the rules.
	In the Democratic Party?
	Never.
	Oh, perish the thought.
	Also, concerning the keys and the fact that Joe Biden had offices claimed, this is from the congressional report itself, President Biden was not a bystander to the business scheme orchestrated by his son.
	With members of the Chinese Communist Party, President Biden was consulted on this business deal and made an equity partner in it, met with the management of the planned venture, and shared an office space with Chinese nationals tied to the CCP. In a September 21st, 2017 email, Hunter Biden wrote that Joe Biden is his business partner and provided Joe Biden's personal cell phone if the recipient seeks confirmation.
	Committee Republicans possess emails that show that Hunter Biden, CFEC officials, and Joe Biden would chair offices under the Hudson West CFEC Biden Foundation name.
	So the Chinese Communist Party provided Biden, both Bidens, and their business conglomerates the same office and Joe's personal phone number, while he was presumably vice president and still benefiting from that while president.
	All the while during this period where Trump was in office being told that he was a secret Russian agent, despite the fact they had no evidence, and we had the, what, 500-page Mueller report that confirmed there was nothing tying him to, whereas the Republicans come well-equipped with all of this knowledge beforehand.
	Yes, but Alec Baldwin told me on SNL that he's controlled by the Kremlin.
	Alright.
	You got me, I guess.
	Here are some of the origins of the trafficking claim, by the way, for those that think it's a bit extraneous.
	So there was a Senate report in 2020 that linked Hunter Biden to human trafficking via prostitution.
	That makes a lot of sense, as we've seen.
	On his laptop and the like.
	The report claims that Hunter Biden has sent funds to a non-resident alien woman in the United States who are citizens of Russia and Ukraine and who have subsequently wired funds they have received from Hunter Biden to individuals located in Russia and Ukraine.
	So he's obviously playing on both sides of the war here.
	The records also note that some of these transactions are linked to what appears to be an Eastern European prostitution or human trafficking ring.
	So Hunter Biden's just been doing human trafficking prostitution.
	Oh, he's got something in common with Hasan Piker then?
	Moving on.
	To see what Hunter Biden's been getting up to, you can, again, subscribe to the website and see Josh's two-part series on the life and times of Hunter Biden, which went through the laptop.
	Why?
	That thumbnail?
	No.
	Lawrence Fox's portrayal was shockingly accurate.
	And the next one, of course, where he went through the despicable, debauched degeneracy of Hunter Biden looking through the iCloud leaks, because there's just an endless amount of scumbaggery from this one gentleman.
	If I remember correctly, Carl had to sit through some rather traumatising images for this one.
	Yeah, Josh has seen Hunter Biden's cock more times than he'd care to mention.
	He did invite me over.
	He just can't help, but he keeps going back for more.
	I declined, yes.
	Real feast for the eyes.
	Anyway, so CBS just has finally admitted the truth because, of course, everyone's been covering it in the dissident dark web.
	Spooky Us, who just clearly doesn't cite their sources, and the New York Post, who got banned off of Twitter.
	Now, the New York Post are, of course, gloating, saying that CBS has finally admitted 769 days after they broke the story, right before the election, But it was real.
	It wasn't Russian disinformation.
	The FBI made that up.
	Obviously.
	Yeah, but it wasn't obvious to the people who said, I wouldn't have voted for Biden if I would have known.
	So, I'm sure that had some impact on me.
	Well, I guess CBS's tactics worked then, didn't they?
	Yep.
	Unfortunately so.
	The next one, this also might be a potential trafficking charge for Joe Biden himself.
	It's pretty interesting.
	Am I surprised?
	No.
	No.
	So there's a whistleblower within the immigration system that said that the Biden immigration policy is leading to thousands of children per week to go on night flights and be distributed across the country and just disappear into the system.
	So they're just funneling children to God knows where.
	Right, so I'm going to read for this.
	In a recent interview, an anonymous whistleblower who works with a travel youth care worker for a federally funded contractor said tens of thousands of unaccompanied migrant children are being bust and flown throughout the US and handed off to unvetted adult sponsors.
	The employee, who works for the government-contracted company, MVM Incorporated, said the company's main focus is getting unaccompanied minors from point A shelters to point B sponsors across the US. So, pretty much instant adoption or people who claim to be family within the country already.
	They're just trying to spread the diversity.
	They just want America to be as strong as possible.
	Yeah, well, you know...
	Cultural enrichment coming your way.
	Yeah, New York, DC, Martha's Vineyard.
	They clearly don't have enough unaccompanied minors.
	No, Martha's Vineyard had more than enough migrants because they just shipped all the extra ones out, didn't they?
	Yes.
	However, due to the overwhelming number of border crossings, the employees shared that the hires for MVM Incorporated are not given background checks.
	So employees are not properly vetting the adults that they're handing these kids off to.
	So because of the sheer volume of people being trafficked across the border, because Joe Biden actually said on the run up to the election, we need a surge at the border.
	Direct quote, it's on video.
	People are just deciding to bring lots of children across.
	Of course, there must be a financial incentive there.
	And when they disappear into the immigration system stateside, Well, they're not vetting who they're handing them off to, so this could just be another trafficking ring.
	The whistleblower explains that charter flights and buses are utilised to bring these kids across the US. When it's charter planes, we move anywhere between 200 to 300 kids on one plane.
	It won't just be one plane, it'll be two, three planes at a time that leave.
	He goes on to share that in just his office alone, employees will move up to 5,000 children per week, MVM Inc.
	has three other offices throughout Texas, El Paso, Houston and San Antonio.
	Between all four offices, the whistleblower speculates that 8,000 to 10,000 children are moved every week, with estimates reaching up to 40,000 a month.
	So 40,000 kids a month are just going missing.
	Right.
	That's not worrying, in the slightest.
	Of course, when MVM were reached for comment by the post-millennial, they just said, nah, it doesn't happen.
	So, do we want an investigation into this at all?
	This may be included, if the Republicans are still gathering materials, if anyone wants to pass this on to them.
	The US government has wasted millions and millions of US taxpayer money on lots of frivolous things, like, you know, investigating Donald Trump corruption, impeaching Donald Trump twice unsuccessfully, sending the FBI to Donald Trump's house in Mar-a-Lago because of security risks.
	This all seems like a bit of a security risk to me.
	So, when is the Biden compound getting raided, eh?
	We'll not hold our breath.
	On to the next one.
	Biden decided to sabotage American energy independence to enrich his own son.
	On his laptop, in Chinese, that they used in working with the Chinese.
	Now, let's think about this for a second.
	At a time when Americans are suffering from high energy prices because of this administration's terrible energy policy, We find evidence that Hunter Biden and Joe Biden were involved in a scheme to try to get China to buy liquefied natural gas and from a whistleblower to try to get their foot in the door with China starting to purchase an interest in natural gas drillers.
	People are in outrage over China buying farmland in the Dakotas.
	What about China starting to buy into our American energy industry at a time when we have an energy crisis because of the bad policies of the Biden administration?
	Now let that sink in.
	Hunter brought in millions of dollars from this deal from entities tied to the Chinese government.
	In emails obtained by committee Republicans, Hunter wanted keys made for Joe Biden and Jim Biden, his office mate.
	He provided Joe Biden's personal cell number and called him his partner.
	The other partners in that deal were two people closely tied to the Chinese Communist Party.
	And that's behind Andy and Jim.
	That's the email where Hunter sent to the landlord requesting keys.
	And the Chinese partners were on the email where he said, you know, Joe would need a key.
	And he even put Joe's cell phone number on there.
	So, later on, the reporters go and ask, yeah, but this was before Joe Biden was in office, right?
	So how can you link Joe Biden's energy policy...
	So it doesn't matter anymore!
	Well, how can you link Joe Biden's energy policy now to the possibility that he could be making money with his son years ago on a completely unrelated deal?
	This was recently, actually.
	So Biden, when he did in his State of the Union address, when he said, I'm going to open up the American petroleum reserves, unleash multiple millions of barrels a day, which is meant to be reserved for wartime, just because I screwed up American energy independence to make sure we can lower gas prices.
	It turns out he was selling them off as well.
	And he was selling them to Sinopec, which Hunter Biden has a stake in.
	So the Department of Energy in April announced 950,000 strategic petroleum reserve barrels will be sold to Unipec, the trading arm of the China Petrochemical Corporation.
	That company, which is commonly known as Sinopec, is wholly owned by the Chinese government.
	The Biden administration claimed the move would address the pain Americans are feeling at the pump and help lower energy crisis costs.
	More than 5 million barrels of oil were released from the US emergency reserves at the time of writing.
	However, they were sent overseas last month, according to a Wednesday Reuters report.
	At least one shipment of American crude oil went to China.
	In 2015, a private equity firm, Hunter Biden co-founded, bought a 1.7 billion stake in Sinopec marketing.
	Sinopec went on to enter negotiations to purchase Gazprom in March, one month after the Biden administration sanctioned the Russian gas giant.
	So, you can see Hunter Biden on Burisma, Hunter Biden on Sinopec, and now Sinopec have absorbed the Russian gas giant, so that's the one that's obviously causing a lot of price hikes, because that's what's selling to Europe.
	So, Biden's administration energy policy has a global scope which is currently enriching Hunter Biden.
	And again, not quite mentioned.
	So if you have a Republican congressman, maybe forward them this information.
	It can get added into the congressional investigation.
	There's also the idea that Biden just sabotaged American energy independence.
	This was something I wrote quite a while ago.
	Since he came into office, crude oil production fell for about 4,000 barrels a day.
	And it's because of two bits of legislation.
	It's the Executive Order on Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis, signed on day one.
	The most current thing bill ever, and that was the decommissioning of the Keystone XL Pipeline.
	And then Secretarial Order number 3395 instituted a 60-day memorandum on leases for the expansion of 22% of oil production and 12% of natural gas production, which is on federal lands.
	Then that was extended indefinitely via the Executive Order on Tackling the Climate Crisis at home and abroad.
	So, no drilling on federal lands at all.
	And in states like Utah, where it's majority federal land, that just means the entire oil and gas industry dries up.
	And you wonder why you're beholden to international gas markets, which Joe Biden then profits off of.
	I wonder if people in those local areas might be a bit miffed that their job has just been...
	Destroyed.
	Yeah, they cut over 100,000 jobs when they cut down the Keystone XL pipeline.
	No reason.
	Just took a year to knock on effect.
	Just so happens that the year then went straight into the Ukrainian war about gas.
	But remember, the Democrats are on the side of the little guy.
	Well, little girl, considering Joe Biden's interests.
	Anyway, so you mentioned Jim Biden there, Joe Biden's brother.
	Before Politico called us conspiracy theorists, actually published this in 2019, Biden Incorporated, and it was a deep dive into all of their business interests.
	So don't shoot the messenger YouTube, it's just Politico.
	In 1972, Joe ran a scrappy campaign for Senate with his younger brother in charge of the finances.
	No sooner was Joe a freshman lawmaker seated on the Senate Banking Committee than James became the beneficiary of business loans which were described in news accounts at the time as unusually generous because of the relatively large amount of money he was able to borrow with little or no collateral and a lack of relevant prior experience.
	So Joe Biden gets elected to Senate, immediately in charge of the finances, gives his brother a loan and the brother had been managing the finances for his Senate campaign.
	So then they took over Paradigm a little while after.
	Paradigm Global Advisors.
	This is a financial firm.
	So in the late summer of 2006, Joe Biden's son Hunter and Joe's younger brother James purchased the firm.
	On the first day on the job, they showed up with Joe's other son, Beau Biden, who is now dead, and two large men and ordered the hedge fund's chief of compliance to fire its president, according to Paradigm executive who is president.
	At the firing, the two large men escorted the fund's president out of the firm's mid-town Manhattan office and James Biden laid out his vision for the fund's future.
	Don't worry about investors, he said, according to the executive.
	We've got people all around the world who want to invest in Joe Biden.
	In James and Hunter's five-year tenure, Paradigm became associated...
	With a number of alleged and confirmed frauds, including Alan Stanford's multi-billion dollar Ponzi scheme, while seeking to draw on the powerful relative political allies for financing.
	Now, bear in mind, this was 2006 when Joe Biden knew he was running for president, didn't know he was going to be vice president, but there perhaps was a very...
	Shocking financial interest to adopt him as Vice President, rather than just it being a pure political calculation of saying, oh, we've got to have a white guy as VP on the ticket, because of course that will drive the moderate vote as well.
	I wouldn't possibly insinuate, however, the Obamas were somehow corrupt.
	In the Biden's first two months at the helm, Paradigm reached an arrangement with Longship Capital Management, a New York investment firm, in which Longship would serve as an investment advisor to Paradigm, according to the Securities and Exchange Commission filing.
	The arrangement put James and Hunter Biden in business with Longship partner Brian Mathis, a veteran of the Clinton Treasury Department and a Democratic bundler who was friends with Barack and Michelle Obama at Harvard Law School.
	Oh, shit, it was the Obamas after all.
	Oh, well.
	In March 2011, Mathis, who declined to comment, was among the roughly 30 financiers invited to a controversial White House meeting to discuss the state of the economy.
	So Joe Biden's financial partners were invited to the White House to set financial policy in the Obama administration, and he was friends with the Obamas, so there were potential backroom deals at the time.
	Hmm, right.
	Then there's Iraq as well in this article.
	During the Obama years, several months after James joined a construction firm as an executive, the firm received a contract worth more than a billion dollars to build houses in Iraq, while Joe Biden oversaw the US-led occupation of the country.
	After Paradigm, James Biden landed a new gig.
	Despite a lack of experience in the construction industry, he was named an executive vice president at Hillstone International, a subsidiary of New Jersey-based construction firm Hill International in November 2010.
	In 2011, the firm got that contract, worth an estimated $1.5 billion.
	At the time, Hillstone had little home-building experience, but Joe Biden was leading the administration's Iraq policy.
	The firm denied the vice president's position, helped it land the deal, which came through the TRAC Development Group, a South Korean firm that had been awarded a contract by the Iraqi government to build 500,000 homes in Iraq.
	So this just seems to be governments working together to provide shell corporations money to funnel back to the Bidens.
	And then there's Hunter.
	In 2013, and again this is all one Politico article that was out a year before the election happened, so the fact that people can't claim to know about Joe's corruption and malfeasance, it's with friendly outlets.
	Hunter travelled with his father to Beijing, where the Vice President was set to meet with Xi Jinping.
	While there, Hunter introduced one of his business partners, Jonathan Lee, of the Beijing-based private equity firm Bohai Capital to his dad, according to The New Yorker.
	Hunter and Archer had just concluded a large real estate deal with Bohai.
	In May 2019, The Intercept reported that Hunter's Chinese investment vehicle, Bohai Harvest, was invested in a firm that developed facial recognition technology used in the Chinese state-backed surveillance efforts.
	So Joe Biden and Hunter Biden have money invested in the Chinese social credit system.
	In 2014, Joe Biden led the administration's response to the annexation of the Crimean Peninsula in South Ukraine.
	Hunter and Archer received appointments to the board of natural gas company Burisma Holdings.
	Hunter's monthly pay from Burisma was as high as $50,000.
	Right.
	And that's where it catches up with a lot of the information that came out at the onset of the original Hunter Biden laptop story.
	Exactly.
	So it goes way deeper than we ever expected, and it implicates the entire Biden family, including his brother.
	And Politico didn't even need to have access to his bloody laptop to be able to get all of this information out in 2019.
	That's a fantastic point.
	But then all of a sudden, the year after the story comes out again...
	And it's just Russian disinformation.
	Yeah.
	Politico must have had a Russian operative writing this particular article.
	Yeah.
	So here's a summary of the Republicans' charges.
	We can just watch them read it out for a minute.
	This is an investigation of Joe Biden, the President of the United States, and why he lied to the American people about his knowledge and participation in his family's international business schemes.
	National security interests require the committee conduct investigation, and we will pursue all avenues, avenues that have long been ignored.
	Committee Republicans have uncovered evidence of federal crimes committed by and to the benefit of members of the President's family.
	These include conspiracy or defrauding the United States.
	Wire fraud, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act, violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, tax evasion, money laundering, and conspiracy to commit money laundering.
	The Biden family's business dealings implicate a wide range of criminality from human trafficking to potential violations of the Constitution.
	In the 118th Congress, this committee will evaluate the status of Joe Biden's relationship with his family's foreign partners and whether he is a president who is compromised or swayed by foreign dollars and influence.
	I want to be clear.
	This is an investigation of Joe Biden.
	And that's where the committee will focus in this next Congress.
	Excellent stuff.
	Then Jim Jordan obviously got up and said that 14 agents had come to talk to the Republicans while they were still in the minority and said that the FBI and DOJ hadn't gone after this stuff when they were obviously aware of it and had lied about the Hunter Biden laptop being disinformation because otherwise they'd be purged for their party affiliation.
	So we're going to go through this stuff quite quickly here because we're short on time but Josh Hawley recently decided to interrogate FBI Director Chris Wray on whistleblowers and their dismissal and also he's been evading hearings to go on holiday so if we just watch these next two The ranking member, Chuck Grassley, asked you during the hearing, he said, I assume you must have other business.
	You said, yes.
	He then said, if you have a business trip, you've got your own plane, can't it wait a while?
	He then said, Chuck Grassley, we only just heard half an hour ago that now you have to leave.
	We were going to have a seven-minute round followed by a three-minute round.
	I've got seven people on my side of the aisle that included me.
	Who are waiting for this additional round.
	Is there any reason we can't accommodate them for 21 minutes?
	And you said you had a plane to catch.
	You had somewhere to go.
	And now we find out it was for vacation?
	The reference to other business was not a reference to that day.
	It was a reference to the following week where Senator Grassley and I were going to see each other in Iowa when I had other business in Iowa.
	And I did, in fact, see him then.
	So you had to leave the hearing early because you're going to see him later in Iowa in a week?
	No, I had to leave when I said I was going to have to leave as had been previously organized with the leadership of the committee.
	You left an oversight hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee required by statute so you could vacation with your family.
	I find that absolutely unbelievable.
	And frankly, Indefensible.
	Now, is it your practice to use government planes?
	You say you do this all the time?
	You flew on a Gulfstream 550, I think, that was originally purchased for counterterrorism purposes.
	You were using it to go to, what is it, Saranac Lake?
	Is that how I say it?
	I've never been there.
	Is that the right pronunciation?
	Saranac Lake?
	That was your destination?
	Yes.
	So, did you enjoy the flight?
	I mean, did you pay for it?
	Yes, I paid for it.
	Will you turn over all receipts and reimbursement to this committee?
	Senator, we will be happy to comply with oversight requests related to the use of the plane, as I said, and it's important for people to understand.
	Just give me a yes.
	Will you turn over the receipts for your flight?
	information related to my use of the plane.
	The use of the plane, I am required, not just permitted, required even for personal travel to use the FBI plane.
	How convenient for you.
	And I pay every single time.
	I'm glad it's available for you to jet away from your statutorily required hearings and oversight before this Congress where you denied the ability of members of Congress to ask you questions because you had to go on a personal vacation Using a government plane.
	Let's just look at some of the things while you've been vacationing.
	So, we won't do the next one.
	John, just for time, but of course he raises the point that he's been evading scrutiny.
	He then starts to talk about the fact that lots of FBI whistleblowers have come up and said that we've actually had child exploitation cases, like were raised with Twitter, for example, overlooked because we were so obsessed with hunting down January 6th insurrectionists.
	And so, then Rand Paul went on to clash with Chris Wray at the same hearing, which you can watch in your own time.
	He was citing a New York Post article and Christopher Wray said, no, I don't believe so.
	We actually spoke about the New York Post article back when we did this segment here, which you can watch in your own time, about Biden's Watergate moment where the intercept had leaked the fact that Microsoft, Twitter, Facebook, Meta… Every single one of them were in cahoots with the Biden administration and other government organizations.
	To choose exactly who to ban.
	And I mentioned in there that the New York Post was handing over millions of messages without a subpoena.
	Sorry, not the New York Post.
	The Meta was handing over millions of messages to the FBI without a subpoena.
	And not one of them resulted in a prosecution.
	So they had absolutely no probable cause to surveil these Americans.
	Once again, the government, well the US government was going to try and implement that disinformation governance board earlier on this year that Jack Posobiec managed the meme out of existence, mainly because of how embarrassing the director would have been of that organisation.
	But the problem is that that wasn't really much of a win when you recognised that what all the disinformation governance board was, was a formalisation of a process that the government had already been undertaking for years.
	Yep, that's spot on.
	So if we go on to who some of these whistleblowers are, I'd recommend watching these two-part interviews with Dan Bongino that Kyle Serafin did.
	He said that there are loads of perverse financial incentives, of course, medical, dental, salary, early retirement, which ensure compliance from a lot of otherwise...
	Good possible field agents.
	Not that the FBI is all that great.
	Serafin was indefinitely suspended on June 1st, 2022 after six years at the Bureau because he saw internal emails that proved that DOJ was using the Patriot Act to go after parents at school board meetings.
	He was reported by another agent for not complying with the vaccine mandate and for reporting that DOJ was going after parents when he admitted he was a whistleblower.
	So his colleagues, who he'd worked with for years, dobbed him in because he wasn't getting jabbed and he was saying this is wrong to treat parents as domestic terrorists.
	So watch that in your own time.
	There's also normal standards that he's holding there.
	Yeah, but it's not normal for you in a banana republic like the US. And then there's also Steve Friend who spoke to the New York Post who was a special agent who didn't even vote for Trump, by the way.
	And he said that the Department of Justice had ousted him after 12 years.
	He was a SWAT member and an FBI member.
	After he was, and declared absent without leave, after he refused to participate in a SWAT raid against suspected January the 6th suspects, he said, I have an oath to uphold the constitution, I have a moral objection, I want to be considered a conscientious objector, when he said he wouldn't join the August 24th raid on the January 6th suspect in Jacksonville, Florida.
	For instance, he was removed from active investigations into childhood sexual exploitation and human trafficking, Like the Bidens have engaged in, to work on January 6th cases sent from D.C. He also reported concerns about politicized FBI to Republican members of Congress.
	Among 20 whistleblowers from the Bureau have come forward with similar complaints, either to the New York Post or now to the Republicans.
	So, among his allegations were the Washington field office is manipulating FBI case management protocol and farming out January 6th cases to field offices across the country to create the false impression that right-wing domestic violence is a widespread national problem.
	It was so obvious the whole time.
	Yep.
	He was listed as the lead agent in cases he had not investigated and which his supervisor had not signed off on, which is a violation of FBI policy.
	Domestic terrorism cases are being opened on innocent Americans nowhere near the Capitol on January 6th based on anonymous tips to the FBI hotline or from Facebook spying on their messages.
	These tips are turned into tools called "Guardians" after the FBI software that collaborates them and looks into their financial history, their medical history, their online Just trawls through your entire life without you ever knowing about it.
	Can't find out.
	And then the FBI also post facto...
	Designated an area outside the Capitol on the grass as a restricted zone when it wasn't restricted on the day.
	So if FBI has dibs on grassy knolls across the country, I'm sure.
	Yeah, but also retroactively, because they're just saying, right, if you trespassed on that zone, even though we put the no-movement zone in after January 6th, if you were there on January 6th and walking across that grass, you're going to be prosecuted.
	So they're just upping the amount of prosecutions because they can't find any actual insurrectionists.
	Are you serious?
	So they've criminalised it after the fact?
	Yes.
	Brilliant.
	Yeah.
	Other than, of course, the...
	Don't you love that governments can just do such a thing?
	Yeah, other than, of course, Ray Epps, who definitely isn't the Fed.
	Then Friends Persecution.
	At the inquiry for Friends refuses to participate in the raid, Assistant Special Agents in Charge, Kaut Marvoski, asked Friends if January 6th rioters who killed police officers should be prosecuted.
	Obviously, that didn't happen.
	There were no police officers that died January 6th.
	When he said that, Markovsky said he was being a bad teammate and dismissed him.
	So he said, well, you're wrong, that's not factual.
	And he went, but you're not on board with the narrative, comrade, so out you go.
	The equivalent of childhood bullies going, you stop being mean.
	Your dad's gay.
	So, turns out, though, don't worry, we've been reliably informed by Time magazine that the FBI is always political.
	I'm not even going to read through this, because it just says, oh, the Republican Party helped found the FBI and they were friendly to them, so this is just a corrective measure to bring balance.
	What, to arbitrarily persecute your political opponents?
	No.
	So then Merrick Garland has instead, counteractive, and you can watch all this stuff in your own time, especially our coverage of it, which is linked in the description, a special counsel for investigating January the 6th, even though, and of course, Mar-a-Lago, even though Trump did what all other presidents did, and has declassification power, and took a bunch of documents from his administration, which he was allowed to do, back home, and put them behind a padlock door, which the FBI... That seems to be very situational abilities to have.
	It depends on whether the people who are in charge of making the rules like the person who declassifies the information at the time.
	And Orange Man bad.
	Just a little bit more good news as well.
	Marjorie Taylor Greene, Matt Gaetz and Thomas Massey have opened an investigation to FDX and Ukraine funding.
	They said that the Ukraine funding...
	Dwarfs the 15.26 billion asked by Border Patrol and the 22 billion that would be required to complete Trump's war.
	And that by an order of magnitude, 5 million have crossed the border during the Biden administration, whereas only 82,000 Russians have invaded Ukraine.
	So that constitutes an invasion, doesn't it?
	Green also said that FTX, and she outlined the entire Democrat self-funding feedback loop, so they're clearly looking into that.
	New House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy says it's unlikely that further aid for Ukraine will be approved in a Republican-controlled Congress.
	And Kevin McCarthy also, if we've gone to the last link now, has been kicked out of his rhino roots by Marjorie Taylor Greene and the like, and said he's going to boot Eric Swalwell, who slept with a Chinese spy, Ilhan Omar, who's a squad member and just a notorious Islamist that apologised for 9-11, and Adam Schiff, pencil-neck-in-chief who purported the conspiracy theory that Donald Trump was alive with Russia, they're going to be kicked off their congressional committees.
	So Republicans are doing something.
	Brilliant.
	It's what we've been waiting for.
	Shame the Senate didn't flip, but let's see if these investigations actually turn up anything good, shall we?
	Alright then, and this next segment is one I'm going to have to try and get through as quickly as possible because we've got very limited time.
	So it looks like there are elements of the UK looking to bring assisted dying or otherwise known as euthanasia or MAID as it's been covered in Canada to the UK. It's something that I've covered recently in regards to how it's been used and abused in Canada.
	I'll try and get through this quickly.
	Promo, we've got a recent article from Simon Webb talking about how the new eugenics is flourishing in modern Britain, and that's something that is very interesting because he's mainly talking about abortion, so that's killing you before you're born, and now we're looking to add eugenics at the end of life as well, and I will try and be as sensitive about this topic as possible because I understand there are some compelling arguments towards Allowing people such as the terminally ill to be able to end their life with a little bit more dignity than,
	say, some kind of cancerous tumour would allow them to, instead of letting them deteriorate.
	But, so, I've covered this recently, as I said, in Canada with their MAID program, Medical Assistance and Dying.
	Go to the next one, please.
	Thank you.
	Where I called it Canada Goes Full Black Mirror because what's been happening is they introduced this legislation originally back in 2016 to be able to allow those who with terminal illnesses to...
	have a more dignified death and they were saying very specifically and explicitly in the legislation that it was to mitigate unbearable suffering but then that got opened up and opened up and broadened and broadened to the point where next year in March it will be allowed for people with mental illnesses who as far as I'm concerned are the last sorts of people who should be considered in their right mind to make a decision like that after all they are mentally Yeah,
	your coverage in part inspired the fact that my Canadian priest did a homily against maid and medical assisted dying on the grounds that tyrants can take control of it and off the people like the mentally ill who are most vulnerable.
	So it's nice to know that at least our coverage of abhorrent horrors like this is having an impact.
	Yes, that is true.
	I did have some more information regarding this sent to me, which I think shows the kind of dystopic vision that's been foisted upon Canada, where a funeral home was offering a room for a medically assisted death during the COVID-19 pandemic.
	It was a London, Ontario funeral home in 2020.
	Their owner, Paul Needham, started to receive a new kind of service request from families.
	Where they were told after a few calls and they got more and more calls and gatherings grew.
	It came a frequent ask of the Northview Funeral Chapel.
	Can you provide a quiet, comfortable room where a loved one can have a medically assisted death?
	Wanting to meet growing need, Needham began to offer rooms for rent at his funeral home where maid procedures could take place.
	Since early 2020, Needham has provided 23 rooms for medically assisted deaths.
	And I get the intention that's going on here.
	You want to provide a calming...
	Positive, well not exactly positive, it's a funeral home, but a calming environment for people to be able to spend their last moments with their family, so that's nice, but there is something incredibly morbid about it.
	I was going to say, did they just put them in the coffin, inject them, and just shut the lid to expedite the process?
	I've described this as a fast-food funeral, because you just want as quick a turnaround as possible.
	He said a lot of times the families were in a bind, they wanted a procedure, but they had no place to go.
	Nobody was willing to accommodate them due to the shutdown.
	Sometimes they'd say things like, every time I look at the bed or every time I walk into that room, I would be reliving it.
	I think they just felt that there would be a stigma there afterward, and they wanted to avoid that.
	So...
	Quotes like that make me think this is sort of a purely for convenience thing on the perspective of some of these families who don't want to have to walk past the loved one's former bedroom and have those memories.
	But at the end of the day, the passing of somebody's life is more for them than you because you want to make sure that they have a peaceful end rather than you just get to have the convenience of not thinking about them in that condition.
	Yeah.
	But if this is something that did help a few people, well, then that's its own thing.
	But as I mentioned, they're looking to try and bring this kind of assisted dying program to the UK, and while it does have good intentions, I do have a lot of worries about it purely because of the way that it has been abused in Canada, where we've heard stories of people in the medical profession and medical industry basically coercing certain patients who would not otherwise qualify for this procedure.
	Where they've been coerced into taking it, or been pressured into it, or they've expanded, even before the legislation expanded in 2020, they expanded the ideas of what was unbearable suffering to meet the requirements for people who definitely did not want to go ahead with the euthanasia programme.
	So this is what I'm talking about here.
	The assisted dying bill, which has gone through two readings at the moment, is being passed in the House of Lords, has been put forward by a woman called Baroness, let me just double check this, Baroness Meacher, Who is an author and I think the leader of the organisation Dignity in Dying.
	So it's had many amendments to the bill.
	It was introduced in 2021.
	The last amendments were made in January of 2022.
	So it has been worked on in this last year, but I do believe since the Parliament was prorogued earlier this year, it's put a dampener on it.
	It's basically stopped this So it might have to go back around the rigmarole before they can try and get it to the process to where it was before.
	But they are trying to introduce something like this.
	I got the actual page, the actual paper.
	This was the bill as introduced in the next link, please, John.
	Yeah, the assisted dying bill as introduced, so there have been amendments made since then, but this gives kind of the overview of what the bill is trying to do.
	So it's enabling adults who are terminally ill to be provided at their request with specified assistance to end their own life and for connected purposes.
	They set out parameters for assisted dying, which is subject to the consent of the High Court Family Division pursuant to Subsection 2.
	A person who is terminally ill may request and lawfully be provided with assistance to end his or her own life.
	Subsection 1 only applies if the High Court by order confirms that it is satisfied that the person A has a voluntary, clear, settled and informed wish to end his or her own life.
	B has made a declaration that is in effect in accordance with another section and is aged 18 and over, has the capacity to make the decision to end his or her own life.
	And has been ordinarily resident in England and Wales for not less than one year.
	They also set out some parameters for terminal illnesses.
	So there is some stuff here.
	So the person is terminally ill if the person has been diagnosed by a registered medical practitioner as having an inevitably progressive condition which cannot be reversed by a treatment and as a consequence of that terminal illness is reasonably expected to die within six months.
	Note the lack of any notion of unbearable suffering in In here, you just need to have a life expectancy of six months.
	Two, treatment which only relieves the symptoms of an inevitable progressive condition temporarily is not to be regarded as treatment which can reverse that condition.
	So if you've got a prognosis of six months and there's no treatment that they can provide you that can reverse that, then you're considered to be terminally ill.
	And it also needs signing and countersigning by the individual and two independent doctors as well.
	Canada showed in 2016 that it had all of this and still opened up to abuse, which is, once again, one of the main concerns that I have.
	In respect of a medicine which has been prescribed for any person under subsection 1, so this is talking about how you actually administer this assisted dying, an assisting health professional may prepare the medicine for self-administration by that person, So
	that's why it's not classified as euthanasia, that's why they're calling it assisted dying, because you have to be the one to administer it to your Right.
	And they do have a conscientious objection here which says a person is not under any duty, and this is more in reference to the people who would be helping these people to assist in their own deaths, whether by contract or arising from any statutory or other legal requirement to participate in anything authorised by this Act to which that person has a conscientious objection.
	Now this...
	It's important because in Canada, since they introduced it in 2016-2017, I believe, I went over last Thursday, that there were some cases of nurses being pushed out or just actively fired because they refused to take part in this.
	I think the administration, what they introduced in the administration over there was a euthanasia.
	So you're the one administering the medication that's going to kill this person.
	You're the one having to inject that person.
	Some nurses...
	Did not want to do this, and I assume some doctors as well, and they were pushed out of the industry and all of a sudden you're basically creating this mass exodus of people who are against the euthanasia scheme in Canada, which will provide room for people who are more than willing to go ahead and inject that needle and potentially end that person's suffering, potentially end that person's life prematurely because of the abuses that I covered in that.
	There's a perverse financial incentive as well in government-funded healthcare to kick people out if they don't do this, because at the moment we're going through an argument where people are on the NHS waiting list endlessly, there's going to be millions of missed cancer screenings, they can't keep pace with demand because they won't lower immigration, funding can never catch up, and lockdown has caused a delay in diagnoses, so if you bump a few people off, you'll save us some money, and the nurses and doctors that won't do that, well, you're not doing your duty to the NHS. Yes.
	Once again, I think when it comes to something like this, in theory, I don't have much of an issue with the idea of somebody with terminal illness who's going to be suffering for the last six months or so of their lives, choosing to end it with a bit more dignity so they're not, say, having to become malnourished and go through any major physical suffering.
	The problem is, as has been shown in Canada, the...
	Ability for people to abuse it and to abuse the system, to force people into it.
	You know, it all sounds good on paper, but how will it actually be done in practice is the question that I think Canada is showing us what goes on.
	Although I am aware that a few other places do have a few other countries.
	I think New Zealand have assisted dying programs that haven't gone as far as Canada.
	second reading in the house of lords but it seems to have been um it seems to have all been paused since the proroguing uh they had a full house of lords debate on it and there were some concerns brought up by a man at right at the end of this called lord winston who said in moving my amendment because he wanted to amend it so it would use the words euthanasia rather than assisted dying he did end up retracting that because of the fact that it's not the person it's not the doctor administering it it's the person administering it themselves so he said in moving my amendment i was fairly careful to adopt a neutral position
	but one thing in this debate that remains a problem for me is how it has been assumed that it is the autonomy of the people who are dying or are likely to want to die that is at stake the problem is that in spite of what the noble lord lord krebs and the noble and it is about the autonomy of a lot of other people, health service workers, carers, people in the street, people who clean hospitals, and most importantly, our society.
	So he's bringing up an excellent point, which is that this could change the very fundamental nature of how we view life in our society if life is something that can just be ended like that, if you choose to do so, because once again there is a lot of room for legislation like this to be opened up to The mentally ill, for instance, as they're doing in Canada.
	As I said, this was all introduced by Baroness Meacher, who is an author and chair of Dignity and Dying.
	She's been a member of the House of Lords since 2009, sits as a crossbencher.
	In the Lords, Molly speaks primarily on health, welfare, and drug policy.
	She also played an important role in generating support for Lord Falconer's assisted dying bill.
	So it seems that there is a...
	A group of people within the House of Lords who have consistently tried to put forward legislation like this.
	And I am not going to assume any bad motives.
	I read some of her speech that she gave at the beginning of the debate, and it seems that she is motivated in an altruistic and sincere way.
	I'm not going to do anything like this.
	I just don't know if we can trust a move like this being passed on to the Government, mainly because after something like COVID and lockdowns, for instance, I don't know necessarily if I trust the government with much to do with people's well-being or health.
	And care.org had a very good article talking about a lot of the issues that they held with the assisted dying bill.
	So first of all, there was the philosophical issues where they put that it's called...
	Although it's entitled Assisted Dying, its intention is to enable lethal medication to be prescribed so that people can kill themselves.
	Although in current English law, assisting someone who wishes to commit suicide is a serious criminal offence with a penalty of up to 14 years' imprisonment, the underlying philosophy of the Meacher Bill, as they call it, Is that there is such a thing as a rational and legally justified suicide.
	It's notable that the Mietje bill makes no mention of suffering, as I pointed out, is not necessary for the person who wishes to kill themselves to exhibit any degree of suffering before being eligible for suicide.
	This is in stark contrast to similar legislation in the Netherlands, where the criterion is hopeless and unbearable suffering, or in Canada, where a person must have enduring and intolerable physical or psychological suffering that cannot be alleviated under conditions the person considers acceptable.
	It's immediately obvious that the underlying philosophy of the bill is deeply problematic.
	If the real motivation is to limit intolerable suffering, then why should limited life expectancy of less than six months be a rational reason for suicide whilst unbearable suffering is not?
	So, because of course unbearable suffering also opens it up to the fact that you're not going to die anytime soon, you could live for 30 to 40 years, but you will be suffering to an unbearable degree, which once again in Canada was one of the things that allowed it to open up to a lot of abuse because...
	Unbearable suffering, you could be lying about how much you're suffering, you could just be depressed, you could be suffering a lot of short-term symptoms and problems that could be alleviated through other treatments.
	I do also think with stuff like this, it can be a bit of a safety net for a health service, especially a socialized health service, to instead of actually improving the services that they provide to the people who rely on it, they instead go, well, you can just kill yourself.
	Yeah, just like how abortion has become a safety net for this move.
	Corporations to say, well, women, you don't have to take time off work, you can just kill your baby.
	We'll even pay to transport you to and from the abortion clinic.
	Yeah, there's a lot of room for abuse.
	They also have problems with the idea that you would be diagnosing this correctly in every case.
	They say the bill assumes that taking such a momentous decision to allow a person to kill themselves can be based on two doctors' prediction.
	that they have less than six months to live.
	But it's well known that the medical prediction of life expectancy is extremely unreliable, especially when carried out by doctors who are not specialists in terminal care.
	As an experienced NHS consultant, the writer of this says, I am aware of how many examples when I and my colleagues were hopelessly wrong in predicting how many years a person had left to live.
	You only have to think of Tammy Peterson, for example, for example.
	I've known people, for instance, I spoke to for a university project, in fact, a man who had pulmonary hypertension, which is a condition for your heart, can block a lot of the arteries leading to it, which can lead you to have massive heart problems, heart attack and die.
	For instance, he was given, I think, eight years ago, he was given...
	Five years to live and he was told that over that five years he would have increasingly detrimental health and it would become increasingly more difficult for him to live and yet he's still around.
	Eight years later, he plays in a band, he's on stage most nights and he and his girlfriend or fiancé, I don't know exactly what their relationship is at the moment, they've got a healthy little kid together.
	I know the inverse as well of where my next door neighbour was working up until he was 73.
	He felt a bit stressed and ill.
	He went to the hospital.
	They found out that he had undiagnosed cancer.
	They said six months to a year and within a week he dropped down dead.
	Really?
	Yes.
	Yeah, so these things are very inaccurate a lot of the times.
	They also have worries about coercion.
	They say consider an elderly person who has a great fear of being a burden to his or her loved ones and who wishes to end their life to avoid this.
	So this is not even necessarily something that's active coercion by family members.
	It could just be a pressure that you feel on yourself to not be a burden.
	And I have known my elderly family members to worry about being a burden on the rest of the family and I wouldn't want them to end their life just because they feel that they're a burden to the rest of us.
	Is it possible that the relatives are applying subtle pressure and covert manipulation, both abuse and abandonment of elderly people, is shockingly common in our society, and that is sadly very true.
	How is it possible to avoid inappropriate pressure being applied to elderly and vulnerable people?
	Most busy doctors are simply ill-equipped and inadequately trained to detect subtle forms of social manipulation and coercion.
	And this is just a reminder to go and see your nan this weekend.
	Yeah.
	She would really appreciate it.
	Take her to church.
	She's waiting for it.
	And more worries about societal effects as well, saying that human life like Lord Winston brought up and society-wide resistance to suicide has been part of the glue that's bound our community together for hundreds of years.
	Will the existence of a specialized group of people who are authorized to plan and assist suicide under certain circumstances change attitudes to self-killing or rational suicide for those who feel their life is worthless gradually become rehabilitated and promoted as a reasonable solution, once again, as it seems to in Canada?
	Like I say, there are plenty of pros and cons to this.
	I think it is just important to recognise there is plenty of room for abuse in this, while also recognising that the pure principle of not wanting somebody to suffer in the last few months of their lives is sincere and altruistic on the point of the people who are putting this legislation forward.
	Excuse me.
	I did notice, though, in researching this, there has been a strange spate of pro-euthanasia articles that I've been finding recently that have been giving lots of people big sob stories about family members who've died in horrible ways due to, you know, malnourishment and wasting diseases that people have experienced that are obviously horrible, but they don't really present any reasoned arguments beyond, this is horrible, wouldn't this happen to you, would you?
	So there was this one from Metro.
	There's the next one from BBC, where someone said that they were arrested for taking someone to Dignitas, and that's a bit ridiculous, if you ask me, because, you know, if the person is still in their sound mind and has asked for someone to take that, you shouldn't be arrested just for taking someone to it.
	But either way, and then there was this one, which once again shows the kind of perverse financial incentive that some people can have.
	A man called Dr.
	Death, a scientist, wants his assisted suicide pods to be installed in the UK.
	The man behind the suicide pod, a 3D printed capsule that kills the occupant within 10 minutes at the push of a button, wants to bring his invention to the UK.
	Dr. Philip Nitschke, who's been nicknamed Dr. Death, went viral due to his creation of the Sarco pod, which promises users a painless death.
	So this is actual Futurama suicide pod.
	Right.
	Right here.
	You first, mate.
	I wonder if it charges you a nickel like it does in that, and if I can keep that nickel.
	And according to Dignity in Dying Scotland, there is no specific crime of assisting a suicide in Scotland, because it seems that Scotland also has legislation trying to push this at the same time that could be passed there.
	The Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adult Scotland, if that is passed, it would make Scotland the first country in the UK to legalise the right for a terminally ill, mentally competent person to end their life.
	So once again...
	Unlike in Canada, where I was just reporting on the abuses that have happened, here there's a lot of grey area and stuff that we don't know if it is going to happen or not.
	I would like to highlight this, and people can make up their own minds.
	I, for one, am very hesitant on such a thing, purely because of Canada being such a prominent example of how it can be abused.
	But you can make up your own mind there, and that's all I've got for that one.
	Right, have we got any time for the video comments, John?
	Okay, wonderful.
	I think the reason that Trump is off to such a slow start with his run is that, seemingly, the media have learnt a lesson and are not going to give him any airtime.
	Trump is at his best when he's in confrontation, which must have been the point of his insulting DeSantis to try and drum up some curiosity into why he's saying what he's saying.
	But he couldn't have picked a worse target as DeSantis did not respond and the insult only divided the Republican base, while the media largely ignored it.
	Trump needs someone to stand against him for the Republican nomination.
	The party needs the debates and the coverage.
	The media will crave the viewers.
	He won't get that in Mike Pompeo, because even though Pompeo's going to be an establishment uni-party candidate, he was in the Trump administration.
	The exact same thing with Pence, who's going to be likely running, and Nikki Haley, who resigned before things got too hot, and he said good things about her.
	So yeah, Trump in the 2024 presidential primaries, he's going to have an uphill battle to have the same sort of, I'm an underdog fighting against the establishment narrative that he did in 2016.
	But I'm still rooting for the guy, so...
	Hey guys, I noticed how you've been complaining about how the housing prices are getting so damn high in the UK, and I thought, interrupting this video comment to tell you about my Black Friday sale, go to the website and use the promo code SARGONRETURNS for a 15% discount.
	That's a decent promo code.
	Maybe you should do some research into loopholes and ways you can afford different strategies and do a podcast on something like that.
	That would really be helpful.
	I've heard of this amazing loophole called squatting.
	I don't know if you've tried it.
	I might give it a go.
	I've heard of another one called inheritance.
	Yeah, that's one.
	That's tax though.
	My parents are going to leave me their house when they both pop their clogs, but that's up north and I live down south, so I don't want the commute.
	Yeah, there's also the downside of actually having to want your family to be around rather than just be a parasite.
	Yeah, that's also true.
	It's difficult over here, man.
	Maybe we can just lower immigration, but unfortunately Tom Harwood doesn't want us to.
	Well, I mean, something happened.
	It couldn't have been the borders.
	No.
	Go on, Tony D. Tony D and Little Joan with another Lotus Cedar white pill.
	From Ships Rat on the Lotus Cedar subreddit comes the story of this discovery, a fossil of a child's tooth, which is the earliest known evidence of modern humans in Western Europe.
	It was discovered in France's Rhône Valley.
	And it pushes the timeline back of modern humans about 10,000 years.
	Not only that, this site was a cave in which Neanderthals and modern humans both occupied off and on during that time.
	I think Bo and Josh will be really interested in that given their recent contemplations on the origins of humanity.
	Very interesting.
	And there's all of the video comments.
	Let's go on to the written comments.
	Yeah, we've been given one I suppose we could briefly dive into that Pete's told us to answer first.
	George Hap says, question for you both.
	Since you're both for the death penalty, what possible objections could you have to assisted suicide?
	Both give the state power to end a life, and both have massive potential for abuse.
	Could you elaborate on the differences?
	Yeah, I don't really trust the state to carry the death penalty out in perpetuity.
	I think you've just got to even...
	And again, we went through in the Biden AI Bill of Rights thing the ability to fabricate video evidence, but you're just going to have to have such a high threshold.
	Once again, in principle, I support the death penalty.
	Yes.
	And if there was a government that I actually trusted that had someone virtuous in charge of it who was not a thief and a criminal, like basically all politicians are...
	If it was us...
	Yeah, if it was us or people that I know, that I'm friends with, that I trust, then I'd be all for it.
	Right now, I understand that if the government decided to implement the death penalty, we'd probably all be on the gallows by the end of the week for hate speech.
	Yep, and the same thing with assisted suicide, you're going to get a Harold Shipman scenario where people are just offed and they say, oh, they actually consented, it just wasn't on video, and it just so happens to create a better budget for the NHS, so...
	Yeah, that's the thing.
	They'll still shoot pedos.
	The financial incentives.
	Like I say, I've got no problem in theory with the idea of people being able to choose to end their lives with more dignity than they would otherwise.
	It's just, like you say, the potential for abuse.
	Yeah.
	Let's go for Baron Von Warhawk.
	It's no surprise that pedophiles are trying to cover their vile actions by calling the critics Nazis.
	Remember the German pedo experiment?
	I hope Shuan Head comes over to the right.
	She needs some better friends.
	Well, yeah, if you just look at the Canadian funding of the healthcare system and also this, that's another argument against government-run healthcare.
	Look, shoot, the winds are all blowing our way.
	You might as well reconcile with Carl and go on the Alex Jones Timcast podcast that you were offered.
	Anyway, that seems to be all we've got time for, except for, again, subscribe to the website, because in half an hour, the Politics of Black Panther Wakanda Forever, which we suffered to bring you all, is going to be up.
	Hopefully it does as well as the last one, because cheers, you all enjoyed us making fun about how racist the first Black Panther movie is.
	This time, this is Underwater Mexicans, so enjoy.
	And there's also, again, our merch store.
	We're always happy to have new design ideas submitted.
	Look at some of the cool stuff that you can get.
	You'll be the talk of the town, you'll be the bell of the ball.
	You can be absolutely repping it.
	With some of our amazing merch, you'll look sexy, you'll look beautiful.
	All the women will want you.
	Your vitality will improve 50 times over...
	Let's send one to Thomas in the post.
	It's like a walking kick me sign.
	Don't be mean!
	Actually, I can't link behind the scenes, but Thomas is doing alright for himself at the moment, I think.
	Oh, that's alright.
	Good lad.
	Alright, thank you very much for watching.
	Stay subscribed.
	We're back tomorrow at 1 o'clock.

▲