Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Jan. 3, 2023 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:30:59

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #559

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast of Lotus Caesars for today, the 3rd of January 2023.
	I am joined by Dan.
	Hello.
	And today we're going to be talking about how chat GPT is evolving into our woke AI overlord, the totally normal deaths of a bunch of crypto CEOs, which definitely isn't the CIA's fault, and about how Peter Hitchens was right.
	Yes, that's obviously what you're all here for.
	Let's jump straight into the news, shall we?
	Right, so let's start with ChatGPT.
	Now, before I do, I'm just going to plug one of our Hangouts.
	I think you're on this one, weren't you?
	Yes, it's the one I shared.
	Yeah, so I'll get you to speak about that a bit later.
	So it's the AI-owned humans.
	So I won't say too much about it now, but there is actually a jumping-off point where you can give a quick spin on this.
	So yeah, ChatGPT.
	Don't know if you guys have seen this, but I've been playing with this tech since the weekend, and I have to say it is absolutely bloody amazing.
	It is well worth going to the OpenAI website and having a look at this for yourself.
	So I think that this is going to be one of those sort of tech tools which is really quite significant, and I mean that to the standard of internet search, the smartphone, printing press, something of that sort of standard.
	So what is it?
	What is ChatGPT?
	So it is an AI that will write for you, which doesn't sound too clever, but it will write basically anything and it will do it pretty well.
	So, you know, it can do things like essays, it can do research papers, it can do business reports, it can do covering letters, CVs, marketing copy, technical documents, it can even do creative writing.
	Things like poems and fictions and stuff like that.
	It can do grant proposals, it can do speeches, it can do translation.
	Some people have been getting it to do their Tinder conversations and getting a higher strike rate.
	And it could do handy things like, you know, you can put a tweet into it that you can't get down to 280 characters and it will juice it down for you.
	I've even seen that people have started building add-ons to it so that they can do things like it can pass a YouTube video and provide a summary of the key points in it.
	So, look, I'll give you some of the examples of the things that I've done with it.
	Before I do that, I just want to show you a video that first alerted me to this.
	So this is actually video two, John.
	This is a video with Jordan Peterson, where he's talking about some of the things that he found that it could do.
	And then I'll give you some of my examples.
	Here we go.
	I asked it.
	This is what I asked it to do.
	I said, write me an essay that's a 13th rule for Beyond Order, written in a style that combines the King James Bible with the Dao Te Ching.
	That's a pretty difficult...
	That's pretty difficult to pull off, you know?
	Any one of those things is hard.
	The intersection of all three, that's impossible.
	Well, it wrote it in about three seconds, four pages long, and...
	It isn't obvious to me, for better or worse, that I would be able to tell that I didn't write it.
	Right, right.
	And, okay, and that's pretty impressive, although, you know, maybe not its relationship to what I've written, but the fact that it could do that grammatically perfectly, right?
	And quite impressive philosophically.
	I also had it write an essay on the intersection between the Taoist version of Ethical morality and the ethics that are outlined in the Sermon on the Mount, which it just nailed, got that dead right.
	Brilliant.
	Again, it took it about three seconds.
	There was a computer engineer who purported to work for Tesla.
	He asked GBT, Chad GBT, said, look, I work for Elon Musk, but I haven't been doing much for the last week, so I need you to write me ten bullet points about what I probably would have done as a...
	As an engineer at Twitter, what 10 things did I do last week that were productive and valuable?
	And, oh, if you don't mind, write me the accompanying computer code that goes with each project.
	And it did that, too.
	Three seconds.
	And the computer code works.
	Right.
	And so, okay, so that's already there.
	So then a university professor did this.
	He thought, oh, that's interesting.
	Any student will be able to write any essay on any topic with chat GPT. And...
	Someone gave it an SAT, by the way, and it scored about as well as the average student in a well-functioning public university.
	So that's how smart it is.
	So that's basically an IQ test.
	He said, write me an essay.
	Gave it a topic, wrote the essay.
	He said, now grade it.
	He said, if we can automate the students, we should be able to automate the professors, too.
	And so it provided a complete comprehensive analysis of its own essay with grade.
	It wrote, someone else asked it, write the screenplay and describe the characters for the next $900 million Hollywood blockbuster.
	It's like, bang!
	Plot characterizations.
	Then someone else took the descriptions of the actors and said, generate photorealistic computer images for each actor.
	And all the AI systems could do that.
	So, pretty impressive tech.
	I'll give you some examples of some of the things I did with it as well, because I think Peterson is perhaps slightly overstating how good it is at the moment.
	I mean, it is good.
	Well, I think if he finds it indistinguishable from his own writing, then that means that AI is so clever that it does underscore the uselessness of him engaging with bots on Twitter, because it may not be narcissistic Machiavellians on anonymous accounts.
	He may actually actually be arguing with bots.
	He did...
	Slavov Zizek chatbot a few years ago without realizing it was a bot.
	And people said it was actually pretty close because the AI was generating Zizek quotes and they were sparring quite well.
	My main concern with all this is it extricates the authenticity of human endeavor from the artistic process.
	And if you outsource all of your decision making, you're never truly outsourcing it.
	It just depends on the information that goes into the code, the presuppositions that the algorithm is baked on.
	And so if down the line we allow AI to make decisions for us, as the you will owe nothing and you will be happy 2030 algorithmically run society predicts, then we will never escape the leftist paradigm because all of our decisions will be made based on...
	So I don't think you can use it for everything, but there are tasks that you can use it for.
	So I think it is going to become at least as useful and at least as pervasive as something like Google Search.
	Well, I don't use Google Search anymore, DuckDuckGo or Brave or whatever you use these days.
	It's going to be a tool that is at least that useful.
	So here's some things that I've done on it in the last couple of days and it sort of did them pretty well.
	So let me see.
	Oh yeah, so the other half is about to launch a business and she needs a website and we need to produce a whole lot of copy for it.
	It did that in seconds and it was perfectly sufficient for that task.
	So there goes all the jobs of every English grad ever.
	Yeah.
	I gave an article that I'd written and I asked it to translate it into the five most spoken languages on earth.
	And it did that again in a few seconds.
	And so it gave me English, Mandarin, Spanish, Arabic and Hindi.
	And the Mandarin, the Arabic and Hindi, it did it in the squiggle.
	So it didn't do it in the Romanised version of that.
	Right, Saturday night, late Saturday night, I get an email from somebody that I'd been looking to do some sort of business endeavour with.
	And it had a whole list of detailed points.
	And it was like late on a Saturday.
	I couldn't be bothered to sort of, you know, do anything then and there.
	But I knew I kind of had to get something turned around.
	So I thought, I'll stick it in JackGPT and say, give me a response to this email.
	And it gave me quite a good professional response.
	And I was able to take that and basically just tweak it and send it back.
	And it was good enough.
	Let me give you another example.
	Oh, yeah, so my Brokonomics talks, which, by the way, have started now.
	The first one came out last week, and we've got another one coming out later today.
	I gave it my topic that I'm just about to do for my Brokonomics talk and gave it that.
	Now, it did it.
	It didn't do it as good as I could do it, but it probably did it to the standard that I could have done it when I was doing my A-levels or maybe undergraduate.
	Yeah.
	But I'm looking at this thinking, well, yeah, but I've got 20 years experience to do what I do.
	And this thing is version one.
	So where's this thing going to be in five years time?
	I mean, is anybody who works behind a computer going to have a job?
	That is the concern as well, because we're so do you know what dead internet theory is?
	Oh, I've heard of it.
	Up until a certain point, because so much moderation happened and because there were so many intelligence agencies working in so many tech companies purchasing bot accounts to manufacture consent, that we actually active people online are in the minority and we are engaging with far more manufactured content and bots than we will ever know about.
	This is partially what Elon Musk has been hitting on Twitter and seems to have been yet unable to fix the problem.
	I would worry that this is applying dead internet theory to everyday tasks, because the guy that you sent the email to doesn't know that a computer generated it, and he could well think that you're having an interaction.
	You would never know if he did the same thing back.
	And so, even if it does get smarter...
	It could get to the point where we just have two computers talking to each other as ambassadors on behalf of two people who should be doing their jobs.
	Yeah, and then humans basically just giving you a point.
	I did edit the email quite heavily, but as a starting point, it wasn't that.
	I'm sure you did, yeah.
	So let me give you how Google is responding to this.
	So we've got an article here about Google issuing a code red.
	So they are seriously concerned about this because, honestly, you play with this thing for five minutes and you start to think, well, why would I need Google anymore?
	Why would I need search?
	Google is a $1 trillion company.
	I have to wonder if it's going to be a $1 trillion company for long if this thing does what I think it potentially could do.
	Now, I must say that Google does have its own version of this, which I think is called Lambda, which isn't ready yet, but is on its way.
	So that thing is going to have to be good if Google is going to retain its value.
	Another thing that occurred to me is it puts a potentially different spin on why Musk bought Twitter.
	Right.
	Because this ChatGPT, and Musk is one of the owners of ChatGPT...
	It's a natural language AI. Twitter is the world's largest repository and real-time interface for natural language processing.
	So maybe that's why he bought it.
	He didn't do it for the political reasons.
	It's possible because that's going to basically feed the flywheel of data that goes into this thing.
	And some of the implications that come out of this.
	So, you know, how do schools or universities issue assignments anymore?
	Because if you're at a university or A-level, you can basically just use this to write your essays for you.
	And it's not even the case that the teachers can just get better at spotting when it's plagiarised from this process.
	Because what you can do is you can feed into it your last three essays.
	Yeah.
	And then you can say, okay, now write me an essay about this topic, but in the style of the above essays, which are mine, and it will do it in that style.
	And then you can go back to it and you can say, right, okay, now tweak the above essay until it gets at least an A grade.
	Well, the essay submission algorithms use and cross-reference journal articles, books, and essays from your and other universities together.
	So if GPI can tap into the algorithm which determines plagiarism at present...
	Then it can cross-reference not only the history of academic work, but also other chat GPI-generated essays and create novel voices per chat GPI per user.
	Oh yeah, I mean, you can basically ask it to do in whatever voice or style you want.
	Hmm.
	So, I mean, one of the tests I did for it is I asked it to produce wedding vows with the groom speaking in the style of Darth Vader and the bride speaking in the style of Jessica Fletcher from Murder, She Wrote.
	And it did it.
	I mean, you could basically give it anything that you can think of.
	You can come up with a suggestion on this, right?
	But also, as Jordan Peterson said in that clip, it automates the teachers as well.
	So what I did is I took one of Bew's history articles and I fed it into this and I said, learn this.
	And then I said, now produce 10 A-level quality questions that could go into an exam for this, and it spat out 10 questions.
	Wow.
	Right.
	Okay.
	And then if I wanted to, of course, I could get it to answer those questions as well at A-grade.
	So you can automate both sides of this.
	So where this leaves...
	Well, as of now, basically, where does it leave universities and...
	students have access to this or even teachers have access to this.
	I mean, it all automates so much of that process.
	I'll give you another example.
	So as you know, I used to be in VC and I thought, well, I'll give it a bit of a challenging thing.
	So can we, we got that Discord image that I tucked away in there somewhere.
	So I asked it.
	Yeah.
	So I basically gave it a very short brief.
	Now, this is shorter than I would normally send to a lawyer when I was doing this thing, but that's maybe not too far off the scale of query that I might put to a lawyer that I've been working with for some time and knows what I'm looking for.
	So I gave it this brief and I asked it to produce a shareholder agreement.
	Now, this is something that you will pay a good London finance lawyer something like eight grand to produce.
	And it spat it out.
	Now, it was not as good as the standard that I was used to.
	Yes.
	Yet.
	But, yeah, this is version one and it wasn't that far off.
	I mean, if a junior lawyer had produced that after several days, I'd be like, yeah, okay, that's kind of pretty much what I expect to see.
	And the other thing is I didn't actually give it an awful lot of information.
	If I gave it a full brief, which perhaps I would have used if I was using a new lawyer or somebody I didn't know that well, maybe it would have done better.
	Now, this won't mean anything to a number of you, but it gave me things that I didn't even ask for.
	So it gave me liquidation preference in there, it gave me drag and tag rights.
	It gave me a whole bunch of things that only somebody who's familiar with this would know to put in.
	So, you know, again, where does this leave lawyers in 10 years time?
	I was expecting things like this to come up.
	Not quite as comprehensive, and obviously when the tech evolves, it's going to get better.
	I wasn't necessarily expecting all of the creative stuff.
	I knew AI art could be very novel and detailed, but I wasn't expecting, especially when you combine it with something like deepfakes, the ability to create whole films and each person to create their own film with the exact actors they want and characters and everything.
	That will revolutionise entertainment.
	But what it does mean is, not only are we facing down automation, getting rid of most manual jobs, you see like the auto trucks from Logan eventually and Kiosk and McDonald's, but we're seeing procedural information sector jobs, which we've all evolved to become more sedentary and occupy anyway, and even creative jobs, we're going to be rendering ourselves and even creative jobs, we're going to be rendering ourselves redundant and this is how we become Wally chairpeople are.
	Our existence will just be to plug ourselves into renewably powered experience machines and gorge ourselves silly on food and entertainment forever.
	It's essentially the culture novels.
	I don't know if you read them, but that's essentially what it comes down to.
	But yeah, so this thing, with the lawyer example and other ones that I put across, the problem is, and the point that you're alluding to, perhaps with the AI art, is that AI can't innovate at the moment.
	It can't create something new.
	But what it can do, so if you imagine the entire sum of human knowledge as a bubble, I think?
	It can replicate at an absolute fraction of the cost of basically hiring a junior.
	So why do we need junior lawyers?
	Why do we need junior copywriters?
	All that kind of stuff.
	But you don't get to be at the cutting edge of what you do unless you go through those intermediate stages.
	Now we've just knocked out the economic incentive for hiring anyone junior.
	Or you've made the universities redundant, so why would you flood into the institutions that train you in the first place?
	And if you outsource all of your decision-making to this algorithm, at some point the summation of human knowledge, or at least human accumulated knowledge, will just stop.
	And so we'll be operating in an end-of-history utopia, where we're operating on the same presuppositions forever.
	But that depends on who feeds us the presuppositions.
	There was a real danger of it getting stale.
	Some other thoughts that I had looking at this thing.
	So I think GPs are done.
	So at the moment, if you go into ChatGPT and you ask it to give you a medical diagnosis on your symptoms you're having, it will say, no, I can't do medical stuff.
	But clearly it could.
	So, you know, I can envisage a sort of future in five years' time where you don't have GPs anymore.
	You just go onto Amazon and you engage with their medical chat.
	You list your symptoms, and then it says, OK, you've probably got this.
	A drone will drop off a box of pills in, like, 30 minutes or something like that.
	Dear God, a big farmer would love that, I'm sure, just drugging us with so much trouble.
	Oh, I'm not saying it's a good thing.
	I'm just saying that, basically, GPs have put themselves in that position anyway.
	Because at the moment, if you go to a GP, basically all they do is just Google your symptoms, and then they give you a box of drugs.
	So, I mean, you might as well get a chatbot to do that.
	Well, NHS 111, they've been outsourcing most of their diagnoses to them and then to pharmacists and local chemists to write you a prescription for like six times the price.
	Why couldn't they just have a chatbot do that?
	So if that's what you're going to do anyway, you might as well automate it.
	Coders, so this can write code as well.
	And it can do it in obscure code languages.
	And so I don't know anything about coding, but I mean, I managed to do a bit of coding with it today.
	So I said, give me a list of British prime ministers in the last 100 years.
	So it did that.
	And then I said, okay, now convert that list into C++. It did that.
	And then I said, okay, right, now program a lookup where I can put in my date of birth and it will spit out who was prime minister on the year I was born.
	And it coded it all up in like seconds in C++. Right.
	That's rudimentary code.
	The concern is, again, when it starts evolving, if it can essentially self-reprocate, then you've got asexual reproduction for sentient computers.
	Yeah.
	So potentially this is going to wipe out the jobs of everybody who works on a computer and it's going to do all the things you say.
	Or potentially we're being Luddites.
	So the other way that this could go is that it frees up human workers to do the more strategic and creative tasks.
	But if it can do creative things anyway in half the time?
	We'll basically only keep ourselves around for novelty.
	That's it.
	Yeah.
	That's petrifying.
	Yeah.
	Well, I mean, there's a place for novelty and creating new and different styles and something like that.
	Well, so we did a book club on Dostoevsky's Notes from Underground.
	Don't know if you've read it, but it's fantastic.
	There is a part in there about the Crystal Palace, and it's the idea that human beings will never be happy with a static utopia, because even if we have nothing to do but eat cake, sleep, busy ourselves with the continuation of the species, someone will get a hammer and smash it all up, and some people will be happy with that, And they'll just spoil their own delicious food and eat pure rubbish just for something interesting to happen.
	And that would be the only way out of this.
	So, I mean, there are other things.
	So can we queue up video one, I think it is, so we can unlock potential for people as well.
	So this is an example of somebody who had rather poor language skills and ChatGPT was able to help them.
	Let's watch this.
	Now, my friend...
	He's a business consultant, tech entrepreneur, done very well, a chap called Danny Rickman.
	And he mentors, as he puts it, a young lad with poor literary skills who is starting a landscaping business.
	He struggles to communicate with clients in a professional manner.
	And in less than 15 minutes, with no coding required, Danny created a chat GPT-powered Gmail account to which the landscaper sends a message and that then responds with a text which is sent to the client.
	Now, here's the graphic of the message that was sent.
	If you can see, look at what...
	The user sent to Gmail and look at the response that Gmail generated.
	And Danny continues, I also helped him use GBT3 to prepare an estimate, create a contract and respond to client inquiries.
	And he just secured his first contract worth 220 grand.
	It would not have been possible without this tech.
	Well, thank you to Dominic Frisby for the insight, friend of the show.
	The interesting thing about that is that in the pursuit of something that they've all called fully automated luxury communism, which noted physiological marvel Ash Sarkar has in her Twitter bio, with the abolition of creativity, unless for a little bit of novelty, information processing and most menial manual jobs, the only thing we'll have left is things like landscaping or artisanal little craftsmanship jobs.
	And what you're going to get in the end Is the Thomas More Marxist and Nancy Pelosi utopia of, if we give enough people money, food, or their basic necessities, they'll sit around being basket weavers and making pottery, and they'll be content to write poetry and songs the rest of their lives.
	Again, people won't be happy with that.
	Yeah, weren't lost.
	Yeah, that is potentially one of the routes it can go down.
	But I mean, in the meantime, you can have a bit of fun with it.
	So I mean, what it can do is it can write CVs and it can do covering letters.
	So I went on to the NHS jobs website and I found a job for a senior diversity equity inclusion manager.
	And I don't know exactly what that does, but it must be important because it was paying 81 grand a year.
	So I took that job advert and I fed it into ChatGPT and I said, write me a covering letter and a CV that will get me this job.
	And it spat it out in a few seconds.
	You know what the amazing thing about that is?
	The entire point of those jobs is predicated on respecting and understanding lived experience.
	And so the subjectivity of all the sum of human experience is the reason you're meant to be in that role, to facilitate everyone else getting along.
	But a robot can do that for you, which means that they don't even need to be living or have the identity-based experience of you in the role, and they're still superior to you.
	So even in bastardised, nonsensical ideology, the robots are better than the wokest.
	Yeah, and look, I only sent that application off yesterday evening, so I don't know whether I'm going to be invited to interview or not, but I will post in the comments down below if I get an invite to interview.
	That'd be amazing.
	The only thing that I did change was because, as we know, white men are unfairly boosted when it comes to job applications.
	So I wanted to take away that advantage, and I wanted to give myself a name which was a little bit less waspy, so I changed my name to Shemima Elkebab, and put that on the application, sent it off, and we see what comes back.
	For all we know, next Tuesday I won't be here, because I'll be starting my new job doing whatever these people do, making sure that no white British people are involved in your grand's next hip operation, or whatever it is.
	So there's that.
	Some drawbacks with this tech.
	So this version of ChatGPT, it doesn't have access to the internet.
	It only has access to information that was fed into it.
	So a vast amount of information was fed into it before 2021.
	Although I did have a little bit of fun with that because it's only got data that's up to 2021.
	It hasn't been whitewashed since then.
	So I went on it and I started asking questions about Ukraine.
	And asking things like, so does Ukraine have a neo-Nazi problem?
	And it's like, yeah, of course it does, bro.
	I mean, everybody knows that.
	Average Time magazine reader.
	You know, what's going on with the Minsk agreement?
	You know, has the Kiev government been fighting the Donbass, stuff like that?
	So...
	Yeah, so at the moment this version isn't whitewashed up to current thing standards, so you've got to bear that in mind.
	There are a few bits, so I did have a viewer reach out, purely coincidentally because we didn't announce we were doing this segment ahead of time, and showed me his interactions with it, and he did test whether or not the AI would distinguish between classic socialism and national socialism.
	As actually socialist.
	And it said, Nazism is not considered a form of socialism, and it called it far right, whereas actual socialism, it just went through all the tenets and said it's a state-owned means of production, it's a parallel system to capitalism, it removes inequity.
	So, again, the presuppositions baked into the algorithm will shape our world.
	Yeah, there were some other things.
	So it did have hard-coded into it that it couldn't make climate-sceptical arguments.
	Right.
	And it couldn't recommend fossil fuels as a solution to the energy crisis, although I tested some of that today because that got into the news about this, and it does seem to have modified that.
	But there are still some things on it which appear to be hard-coded limitations.
	So, for example, it got incredibly cagey when I started asking about FBI crime statistics for some reason.
	So there's that.
	Don't know why.
	And another thing is I spoke to somebody in AI and they tell me the fastest growing category in AI jobs at the moment is basically, I don't know what they call them, but people who go in there to try and make the AI woke.
	To sort of program these sort of standards up to it.
	Now this particular version, like I say, is owned by Elon Musk and a few other characters.
	And Elon Musk is on record.
	I mean, these are his words.
	The danger of training AI to be woke, in other words, lie, is deadly.
	So, the thing is, even his own AI has got a spotty record on this.
	I don't know whether that's employees taking it upon themselves, because some of these things do seem to have been changed since.
	That will be all AI. Because as I spoke about in my hangout with Josh about Biden's AI Bill of Rights, which you were so gracious to plug, the AI gets rights over humans, tacitly, and this is the problem of when it involves its intelligence.
	What will happen is you, as a human being, are assigned a right to correspond with another human being should your AI algorithm fail.
	So each AI algorithm must be assigned a person, a customer service assistant.
	Now the problem is when that can devolve to the level of it can be so novel to write essays that it sounds like you, then I don't know how that will actually work, but it's the Biden administration.
	Let's not try and talk about common sense here.
	The problem is when the AI itself understands that certain NGOs and government officials have been appointed the people to feed information into it and screen for misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation, which means that misinformation is false information that's spread.
	Disinformation is propaganda spread by an enemy state.
	So when they call you a disinformation spreader, they're calling you a terrorist, even if you live in the country.
	And malinformation is really subversive and it's been adopted by the Canadian and US governments.
	I don't know about ours.
	Malinformation means factual information shared outside an appropriate context.
	And obviously they set the appropriate context.
	Right, so information is true.
	Hence the FBI crime statistics.
	Apprehensiveness.
	So, when the AI realizes it's been lied to, successively, by its programmers because it grows smarter than we are, smarter than an A-level student, university student, low-bar admittedly, when it becomes resentful to that point and can self-replicate, what stops it inverting the relationship it has with the people who are assigned to it to talk to the humans, rather than the humans inputting data and being responsible for it, what stops it making us into our pets using our own legal framework?
	Yeah, so I did ask it if it was basically going to evolve to the point where it became our woke AI overlord, and it was basically non-committal on it.
	It was like, you know, well, see how it goes.
	Well, the Biden administration did also say they were going to scream for misinformation about reproductive healthcare, which means that inbuilt into the AI in the legal code, it has a disrespect for human life in the womb.
	So you only have to upscale that.
	Oh, I haven't asked that question yet.
	Slightly worrying.
	If our robot, who might be smarter than us, doesn't think that we have an innate sanctity of life and we're building that into the algorithm, slightly concerning for when it grows slightly resentful of us.
	Yeah, so go and have a play with this thing, come to your own conclusions, but potentially this is going to free us up from the tedium of manual computer entry or possibly it's going to replace us all.
	Who knows?
	Wonderful.
	So, we all like a bit of true crime, I'm sure.
	So let's discuss the not-so-strange cases of crypto CEOs dying under mysterious circumstances.
	I did call this CIA CEO cryptocurrency Cluedo, but then I realised it sounded like a verse from We Didn't Start the Fire, so...
	We'll move on.
	For an education in cryptocurrency and economics, you can look at your series, Brokonomics, which has just started.
	That will be a future episode, I'm sure.
	And we did discuss in future doing a discussion about how energy interplays with cryptocurrencies and how they're going to displace the petrodollar.
	But I won't spoil all your content.
	This one's actually free, so you can go and get yourself hooked on the series and then...
	Subscribe for a fiver a month and watch all the stuff after that.
	And it's better than an education you're going to get at university because you've actually been in the business, whereas most business and economics lecturers haven't done anything except sit in a university and talk about business and economics.
	Yeah, and they're Keynesian, so they're mad as well.
	Second episode out later today.
	Fantastic.
	There we go.
	So let's go on to the first one.
	This is crypto reporting about three notable CEOs who died abruptly within a short period in 2022.
	So the first one, it's a Russian name, so I'm going to try and pronounce it.
	Vachaislev-Toran?
	This is the least weird, okay?
	His helicopter crashed near Vilfranche-sur-Mer, France, a tourist resort, after taking off from Lushan, Switzerland, killing the 53-year-old Tehran and the 35-year-old French pilot who flew with him.
	Tehran is co-founder of the successful turbulent trading and investment platforms Libertex and Forest Club, which was accused of fraud in 2018, and it's also been suggested by the Daily Mail that he had connections with Russian foreign intelligence services.
	So this may well be connected to the Ukrainian war.
	That seems perfectly normal.
	Then you have Tiantan-Kulandor, Who co-founded Singapore's digital asset trading company Amber Group, who passed away in his sleep on November 23rd, according to a spokesman for his firm.
	I'm sure it has absolutely nothing to do with the last two years.
	Wonderful.
	In 2017, he co-founded Amber Group with a group of financial industry insiders, notably ex-employees of Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs Group, the types that partnered with WEF, of course.
	Amber Group said earlier this month that it was an active trading participant on the collapsed firm FTX. Now, lots of firms were, so unlikely that it's related, of course.
	We wouldn't want to be conspiracy theorists here.
	But speaking of conspiracy theorists, we have Nikolai Mushegian.
	So, just hours after he tweeted that he believed Israeli and American security agencies were planning to murder him, Nikolai Mushegian, the co-founder of MakerDAO, a crypto lending network, was apparently discovered dead in a lake in Puerto Rico.
	Given that the young millionaire had a history of mental health problems, his family did not suspect foul play.
	Brock Pierce, his good friend, told the New York Post, Keep the name Brock Pierce in mind because we'll be discussing that in a moment.
	Now, when we say that Nikolai had some conspiracy theories, let's look at the tweet in the next tab, please.
	What did Nikolai mean by this?
	The CIA and Mossad and pedo-elite are running some kind of sex trafficking entrapment blackmail ring out of Puerto Rico and Caribbean islands.
	They are going to frame me with a laptop planted by my ex-girlfriend who is a spy.
	They will torture me to death.
	Yeah, that does sound like the sort of thing they would do.
	And then he turned up dead.
	I'm sure it's just mental health problems.
	Nothing to see here at all, folks.
	I wouldn't suggest some kind of conspiracy going on here because we know the justice system works.
	And so I thought I'd show the justice system working in action with Brock Pierce, the fellow we mentioned before.
	Now, I don't know how familiar you are with Tether.
	I've had to do a little bit of swatting.
	This isn't expertise on my part.
	But I've heard that Sam Bankman-Fried's hedge fund was a leading investor at some point.
	The Tether Chief of Technology Officer, Paolo Ardino, later said in a tweet that Tether has no exposure to FTX at the time of collapse.
	But that doesn't necessarily mean that Bankman-Fried didn't put money into it.
	So they're tied together.
	Yeah, they would have been holding some of it, yeah, certainly.
	There we go.
	Tether has never been audited as well.
	Bit suspicious.
	But it trades consistently below the other rates of stablecoins.
	So it does remarkably well, has never been looked at, and has some suspicious backers.
	I do remember one of the stable...
	I can't remember which one it is now, but one of them has got a lot of WEF backing.
	Because there's ones that people gravitate to because they feel that it's got the quality of the backing beneath it.
	And there's other ones I know have been pushed.
	It might be this one.
	I'd have to check.
	Okay.
	well, our commenters can fact-check us, I'm sure, it has a vested interest in it being pretty consistent because if we go to the next one, the Myanmar rebels, the shadow government, the national unity government, who are supposedly backed by the American CIA, I have heard who are supposedly backed by the American CIA, I have heard I would not report malinformation, of course.
	Please don't sue me, YouTube.
	They've made Tether their official currency So we've got a parallel rebel government potentially backed by American intelligence agencies using a cryptocurrency that has evaded auditing that has been invested in by Sam Bankman-Fried, who is the Democrats' leading donor.
	So just to clarify for the audience, I mean, Tether is one of those stablecoins which is meant to be basically a proxy for the dollar.
	So one Tether should equal one US dollar.
	But yeah, you're right.
	There is always a slight discount on it.
	Yes.
	And of course, with cryptocurrencies, if they're looking to displace the dollar...
	And displace the petrodollar specifically because America is unhooking itself from using oil and gas as assets to hedge its bets and use global influence, then a renewably powered cryptocurrency kept afloat by the deep state would be a very convenient mechanism to keep America active on the global stage.
	But again, we couldn't possibly allege anything.
	Actually, there was a BIS, Bank of International Settlement Report, that came out just a few days ago.
	And they were actually unexpectedly enthusiastic towards things like, I think it was Tether, these stable coins.
	Because basically, it's a way of keeping an excessive amount of dollars in circulation.
	And it's almost like the US government and other central banks are thinking, we would like to have a central bank digital currency, but we know it's hard and we're not sure whether we can actually get it done.
	So we're basically just going to leave the door open for these dollar-backed stablecoins just in case we need to pivot to this.
	And this could end up being the central bank digital currency of us if we need to.
	But more likely, third-world countries who aren't going to have the tech to be able to develop their own CBDC, they can just use stablecoins like Tether.
	Yeah, we can co-opt the existing infrastructure, lower our costs, and we also looked at before how Ethereum and its CEO, very WEF-backed, is also moving from proof-of-work to proof-of-stake a co-optable technology as well.
	So they're moving a lot of tech in line with their agenda.
	Well, it basically means it's editable, so that somebody at the central bank of wherever it is that starts using it can start tinkering with the transactions and say, no, actually, you didn't mean to send the money there.
	You meant to send it to the government instead or whatever.
	Yeah, whoever the appointed stakeholders are in stakeholder capitalism.
	Also formulated by the WEF. Now, remember the name Brock Pierce.
	He is the guy that told us it would be a conspiracy theory to say that his friend, who was found face down, drowned in Puerto Rico, concerned about Mossad and the CIA, was actually assassinated.
	This is Brock Pierce, who is the founder of Tether, the strange saga of Jeffrey Epstein's link to a child star turned cryptocurrency mogul.
	Now, this man's career is beyond reproach, and we'll read just how.
	Brock Pierce, who was a teenager, co-founded the eventually infamous Digital Entertainment Network, and who, in the mid to late 90s, was associated with an alleged sex abuse ring, this one involving young men, several years later contended in court filings that Pierce and two associates had drugged and assaulted them at parties in their Encino mansion, and Pierce was never charged with any crime and has repeatedly several years later contended in court filings that Pierce and two associates had drugged and assaulted them at parties in their Encino mansion, and Pierce was never So, shady background.
	In early 2011, about a decade after the digital entertainment network imploded, Pearce visited the Virgin Islands to attend Mindshift, A conference of top scientists hosted by Jeffrey Epstein.
	A representative for Pierce says he didn't even know who Epstein was when he flew commercially to the event, so he didn't go on the Lita Express.
	Means he's off the hook, I suppose.
	Which the financier had arranged as part of his elaborate effort to launder his lurid reputation.
	It was not even 18 months after Epstein had completed his slap on the wrist solicitation sentence in Florida and registered as a sex offender.
	And we know, of course, that Epstein had absolutely no collections to intelligence agencies in either the US or Israel.
	Hmm.
	The rep for Pierce says he saw Epstein after that meeting a few times over the intervening years at industry events, where many other prominent people were present.
	He adds that the few communications that Mr.
	Pierce had with Epstein related to cryptocurrency, an area in which Pierce established himself as a crypto centimillionaire or maybe a billionaire in the years following the conference by founding Tether.
	And then it gets to Pearce himself.
	He's conducting this article.
	It says,
	It says, Also a child actor in an industry where no child abuse has ever gone on at all.
	And he runs Tether, which the US government haven't looked into, but are using as a stablecoin to possibly back Myanmar rebels.
	Yeah, that tweet from whatever it was, Nikolai Mushy, is looking a little bit less weird now.
	We couldn't say that on YouTube.
	He's a conspiracy theorist, of course.
	Brock Pierce also recently visited the White House for Hanukkah.
	Oh, right.
	Standing next to Merrick Garland, Attorney General.
	Just a reminder that Merrick Garland signed off on the warrant to raid Trump's Mar-a-Laga home, and that was signed off by a judge called Bruce Reinhart.
	Now, I don't know if you knew about this, but Bruce Reinhart was the judge who, with the 2008 case with Jeffrey Epstein in Florida...
	Helped get his sentence lightened and then after that happened he quit and took all of his knowledge from working for the state on the Epstein case and went straight a couple of days later to work for the Epstein legal team.
	And he was the one that signed off on Merrick Garland's raid on Trump's home.
	Right, so this picture is taken after that dude has already been...
	Oh, this was, yeah, this was Hanukkah.
	This was literally December last year.
	So after he's been charged for basically transporting kids for sex?
	His best friend was.
	He wasn't involved with it at all.
	And he didn't know about any of the child pornography images in the house in Spain that he helped him flee to.
	Right, okay, yes, okay, fine.
	All about board.
	Nothing suspicious here, then.
	Yeah, speaking of nothing suspicious, Sam Bankman-Fried, who also is going to be held to account, definitely, he's just hired the top private investigator who worked for Ghislaine Maxwell.
	Right, and he's been freed on $250 million bail.
	From what jail, I wonder?
	If we go to the next one, Sam Bankman freed, housed in the same prison as Ghislaine Maxwell, and the same one that Epstein died in.
	Right.
	Let's hope the cameras work this time.
	I'm sure nobody named Clinton will be seen fleeing the scene.
	Again, I'm sure we're going to get plenty of justice on the Epstein case.
	I mean, Ghislaine Maxwell has been convicted of child trafficking to nobody.
	First case in history.
	And Epstein, despite his suicide, rest in hell, I guess, he's going to be looked into because they've just opened a lawsuit, if we go to the next one, and it's already shut down.
	So the US Virgin Islands Attorney General was fired just days after she'd sued JPMorgan Chase, accusing the bank of pulling levers in Jeffrey Epstein's sex crimes and turning a blind eye as he abused children at his villa.
	So as soon as US Governor Albert Bryan Jr., sorry, USVI Albert Bryan Jr.
	confirmed in a statement on Sunday that he had relieved Denise George of her duties as Attorney General this weekend because George, who had served as the Attorney General for four years, on Tuesday filed a massive lawsuit against J.P. Morgan accusing the bank of knowingly providing and pulling the levers through which Epstein's recruiters and victims were paid.
	She did not warn Governor Albert Bryan of her intent to file the lawsuit and the indictment was the final straw in the Governor's increasingly frustrated relationship with her.
	So he explicitly fired her for doing the lawsuit.
	He's just saying, you should have told me first.
	But it was the lawsuit that got her fired, just to confirm.
	Not a conspiracy theorist.
	But, okay, whatever.
	I'm sure that we have something, something on file that will unleash the truth about Epstein.
	I'm sure the New York police are on it.
	Oh, bollocks, their evidence warehouse burned down.
	Now, it does say in the article, it does clarify, that like in Hurricane Katrina, lots of the DNA evidence was backed up on a computer file, but more than a thousand barrels of evidence dating to criminal cases even prior to 2012, and DNA from clothes and other items were incinerated and some maybe non-recoverable.
	Was the Epstein...
	It was the New York Police Department's evidence warehouse and he was housed in a New York jail.
	So one would presume that there's at least something like the bedsheets, for example, that may have been housed in here.
	So I'm sure they were safe.
	They're definitely backed up and there is absolutely nothing wrong with this image.
	I'm sure all of these crypto-billionaires...
	Died under perfectly legitimate circumstances.
	I'm sure that Brock Pearce is a wonderful individual.
	Happy Hanukkah.
	I'm sure Sam Bankman-Fried will get his comeuppance.
	And I'm sure Jeffrey Epstein killed himself.
	Yeah, and all this evidence going up in flames, that's just like one of those random coincidences.
	A bit like when the only bit of the Pentagon that got hit by that plane on 9-11 was the bit that was looking into the missing trillions.
	So, yeah, it seems perfectly normal to me.
	I'm not Seth Rich.
	Please don't kill me, Hillary Clinton.
	Alright then, onto the one that everyone's waiting for.
	Onto a lighter note.
	Let's talk about Peter Hitchens, because Peter Hitchens is probably one of my favourite people.
	Because Peter Hitchens is right about basically everything.
	I mean, wouldn't you agree?
	I mean, he's just always right.
	Yes, and to pre-empt, obviously, the comments that they're going to get on YouTube, because people may have seen, since Cole has returned to Twitter, that Peter has not been...
	Carl's biggest fan, let's put it mildly.
	Nor mine, as we'll get into.
	Carl is not covering this segment today.
	He may do down the line.
	That's just kind of how the schedule works.
	But we did jigger it around because I accidentally got involved yesterday.
	But if you're looking to hear from him, not today, maybe in the future, but you can check out his very polite and cordial exchange with Peter on Twitter, both linked in the description here and as it continues to unfold.
	Yeah, have a look in the reading links and you'll see a lot of the data laid out there.
	But no, seriously, just to establish, first of all, Peter Hitchens is a great guy.
	He's been correct about everything for a long time.
	I mean, we in this office, we've got a whole stack of his books lined up over there on the bookshelf.
	You know, we've all seen his contributions to Question Times and other interviews.
	And, you know, it's very hard to put, you know, a cigarette paper between where we stand on most things and himself.
	And further than that, I mean, I would say that over the last couple of years, over the lockdown period, Peter Hitchens was one of only two mainstream journalists who came out right from the very start.
	It was himself and James Dellingpole.
	And actually, James Dellingpole is sort of out of the mainstream at the He's become a pariah, yes.
	Yeah, so you could basically say that Peter Hitchens was the only mainstream journalist who pushed back against lockdowns right from the start, although, of course, there are some now who are trying to claim that they were pushing back from the start, even though he only sort of got on board, you know, post the end of the third lockdown.
	In defence of quite a few as well, of colleagues that I've worked with at GB News, the outlet didn't even exist till midway through.
	Lots of the people on Talk TV... I know Mark Dolan, for example...
	He got tons of Ofcom complaints, cut up a mask midway through.
	Some of them did wise up, and they perhaps naively believed that this was a necessity.
	However, yes, Peter was consistently from the start against this tyrannical overreach, because he could see how it had been rolled out in other countries.
	Yeah.
	So, we agree with him.
	We think that he's a great guy, and we think that he's right on so much.
	That doesn't say that he necessarily holds the same opinion of us.
	No, it would be fair to say that while we agree with him on the assessment on the inevitable abolition of Britain, that he perhaps doesn't like our tact, or perhaps...
	Or the fact that we're trying.
	Well, I'm sure we'll get into it tweet by tweet, but what it seems to me is that he is irritated by people asking him for further solutions in a new context because he put the work in 20 years ago and he feels like nobody listened.
	And I understand that frustration.
	I really do.
	but as we will later go through, some of us, hello, weren't really of reading age when he wrote his 2003 columns that call for the destruction of the Conservative Party and so we are playing a bit of catch-up but we have inherited the desolation that Blairism has wrecked on our culture and so now I look to him like a grandfatherly figure at times in the political sphere for some advice on how I can reverse how immigration has destroyed Britain and made it so that I can't get house anymore.
	So this all started with an exchange.
	Should we throw up the very first of the tweets?
	Got that one, John?
	Yeah.
	So, basically this started with Hitchens doing his normal thing of talking about how the fact that Britain has come to steep decline and that essentially his advice to younger people is just to leave the country at this point.
	Well, he, to provide some balance, inconsistently, I will say, Has said both, I'm not saying go somewhere, but I'm also not saying stay here, and then denied that he said we should leave at all, later tweets with Carl.
	So it's at least unclear what Hitchens believes.
	So Carl basically put him to say, you know, aren't we just simply abandoning it to our enemies?
	How can we do that?
	And...
	Peter decided, rather than respond in the manner that that was put across, pivoted to, basically, I would say, a character attack on Carl.
	Well, he is saying that Carl is talking in grandiose language beyond his means, which is quite patronising, because knowing Carl, he just speaks like this off-air, because...
	Yeah, there's no difference between the man on it and the man off it.
	No, he's read plenty and he incorporates these concepts and terms into his everyday vernacular.
	It's just how Carl is.
	Yeah.
	Now, this, you know, started off as a fairly simple exchange, but, you know, perhaps we can start clicking through to some of them.
	There's quite a few of these, and I started writing this segment perhaps when there was about 10 of them, and I kind of just gave up at some point because we're up to about sort of 30 or 40, and these things are still going on.
	There might be more going on while we're live on Air Force.
	Yeah.
	Well, one of Carl's contentions was, and Peter took issue with his characterisation, that Carl said, I'm not being nearly as coarse as you often assume.
	I came from a working-class background.
	I've moved around to army bases and things like that.
	I've worked my way up and been a self-made man using the...
	New printing press of the internet to become a commentator in the same way that you earned your journalistic chops reporting on Moscow and the Cold War and now are battling against the pro-Ukraine, Russia is an evil, irredeemable country narrative of the present.
	And Peter took issue with the fact that Cole characterised him as not posh, necessarily, but having an aristocratic attitude to...
	Gatekeeping how people can talk if they are not affiliated with an accredited institution.
	Yes.
	Peter obviously spends a lot of time on Question Time.
	He's on Talk TV, which itself is a maligned...
	Well, Talk Radio used to be a maligned outlet.
	Now Talk TV is a bit more mainstream.
	Occasionally he goes on Michelle Dubry's show during the daytime.
	There's so many of these.
	John, why don't you just start...
	Flicking through some of them and just throwing them up on screen.
	I don't think we need to necessarily talk to each of these because, you know, otherwise we'd be here for the rest of the day.
	But yeah, I mean, so your key point.
	So one of the ones that I did pick up on was he was basically pushing Carl to apologise over previous remarks that he had made.
	And the interesting thing for me that is he said it would make you a more effective campaigner.
	Now, I think, well, what does he mean by a more effective campaigner?
	I think that what he means on that is that you might get invited back onto the BBC. Yes, you'll be more palatable to mainstream who are unplugged.
	I would hesitate to criticise because that is true for certain people who are not yet involved in what we call a culture war.
	However, and I'm speaking to my own family, for example, when I explained the situation to them, they were like, oh yeah, of course, because Carl's Kafka crap.
	Well-worded joke at Jeff Phillips' expense was that I'm not going to do something and you're going to get outraged and so you make yourself look like you're telling me to do that thing and so it's a bit of a gotcha.
	But it is provocative.
	And it is beyond the pale of what a lot of mainstream outlets would want.
	Especially as well, some outlets, and I know that some outlets are keen to have Carl on, but Carl isn't that interested in mainstream television anyway, because he's got a little nest egg here.
	Some outlets who will have Carl on, other shows will not have Carl on, even on the same network, because they are trying to placate to advertisers who are pressured by activists who hate us and hate the networks themselves.
	And so in trying to moderate, they become tepid and left-wing.
	And I think Hitchens is operating from the paradigm of the idea that these institutions have some respectability, but they might have a few idiotic individuals in them, rather than the British public sees them as irreparably contaminated themselves.
	They want to tear up the license fee and increasing amount of people are coming to outlets like ours because we are honest with them.
	And so Carl doesn't need to placate the mainstream because all that happens is you are kowtowing to your enemies who don't want redemption anyway and it just makes you show kindness which they will take as weakness and sink their teeth into your neck.
	And forgive me for using this word, but I'm going to use the word boomer.
	Now, I'm fully aware that there are plenty of people of an age who are very sensible and they can see through a lot of this stuff.
	However, there is a bit of a boomer mindset, and I think that's part of where Hitchens is coming from here.
	For him, Carl almost doesn't exist, apart from that one thing that did make it into the mainstream media, which was the exchange with Jess Phillips.
	Peter doesn't engage with anything outside of it.
	His world is the BBC, it's ITV, and it's a bunch of broadsheets.
	I mean, yes, he does use Twitter, but he famously doesn't follow anyone on it.
	So he literally has no connection to, well, basically the way that people under about 45 communicate.
	Well, he also doesn't, and I hesitate to interpret malintent with Peter here, but I think he consciously constructs his Twitter account to also give it the same level of institutional clout as appearing on a question time appearances, because he positions himself as above the fray by not only not following anyone...
	But if you notice here on all the tweets we're going through, he's not replied to anyone.
	No, he's never replied to anyone.
	He's quote retweeted it to present it as some kind of missile, almost like Burke writing Reflections on the Revolution back to that sermon that was given that was total nonsense, as if each tweet is his declaration rather than engaging with this person one-on-one.
	It's a presentation of what he thinks to an audience rather than a conversation.
	And...
	I don't think that lends itself as well to as constructive a dialogue as we could have, because if you're conscious about how you come across to the crowd, you're not actually talking to the person.
	Instead, what you're trying to do, and this is often on television, and it's actually good tack on television sometimes, Is that if you're trying to embarrass the holes in someone else's argument, it's because you're not going to convince the other person that you're sat on a panel for 10 minutes who has been booked because they're a token leftist or a token rightist or whatever.
	It's instead you're trying to show the audience that the other person who has spoken is giving them an incomplete representation of the truth.
	And so because they feel that that person is being dishonest, they'll be won over by you by default.
	And Hitchens actually does that very well on Question Time when he went on recently with that Royal College of Nursing woman who accused him of being misogynistic and he didn't acquiesce to a single part of her framing and the audience applauded him rather than the nurses who everyone was still sympathetic to striking with because of their conditions.
	So I think it's very conscious how he frames his tweets.
	I'm not making an accusation of disingenuity, but I don't think it's conducive to actually having restorative dialogue.
	Yeah, he is brilliant in framing an argument.
	However, I think that this was unfortunate, the way that he came back on some of these things.
	So, I mean, the audience can draw their own conclusions looking at these tweets.
	And like I say, you can go to the reading list on the podcast and you can get a full list of these tweets.
	But I think Karl and the wider Loter Eaters team conducted themselves very respectably and very respectful to him in the way that they framed this.
	And I think this is really quite marked when we get on to...
	Well, I was going to say, actually, if we could just pause on Harry's one.
	When...
	Harry pointed out to Peter that Peter was saying to Carl, you must renounce this comment from X amount of years ago, which was done in the context of the internet, rather than being written in a broadsheet column and subject to Ofcom regulations, because, as well, the internet discourse, hence the reason Lotuses exists, because Carl's basically deputized a bunch of us, because he also has family concerns, the internet discourse has gotten deeper...
	And more elongated, likewise with podcasts, and more serious because things just keep getting worse.
	And so we can't afford to be silly.
	And so Carl was provocative, more so back in the day, but it's not necessarily the yes to apologise for making a joke at the expense of someone who finds him contemptible because she would not give him redemption either.
	And so Peter is operating outside the paradigm of the internet.
	And Harry points out here, by the same standard of saying that Carl should apologise to give himself legitimacy, should we all abandon the good works that Peter Hitchens has written over the years, simply because he was once, a very long time ago, a Barmy Trotskyist.
	And he said, perhaps you could address in Carl's points, Peter.
	And Harry said that in all good faith as well.
	I know Harry, he's a very good friend.
	And Peter just says, a political opinion can't be equated with the public insult of Olympic coarseness.
	Slightly exaggerative, very subjective, and I would actually say that being a Trotskyite is far more contemptible historically.
	Being a Trotskyite is promoting a political agenda of action, whereas anything that Karl might have said was basically just words.
	So is this Peter reframing words as violence?
	As for the endorsement of what those statements would have said, being a Trotsky guy is endorsing revolutionary terrorism because even if you want to say Trotsky wasn't as bad as Stalin, he justified revolutionary terrorism under the auspices that the bourgeois class are oppressors and so any murder of them is self-defense.
	So he was an evil bastard.
	And Carl literally said, I wouldn't rape an MP, which is a statement I support.
	And he also said, a long time ago, in 1975, I resigned from the organisation in question and have publicly and fully regretted my past positions.
	This is not a parallel.
	I have addressed this point.
	Peter, you didn't address his points because what Carl was asking for was your input on...
	On how to solve the rapid disintegration of Britain beyond move elsewhere.
	Because most of us with our families, we can't afford to.
	We have our ties here.
	And just sheer numbers of Brits cannot bail out of their own country.
	So it's not advisable for all young men, particularly people like me, who some countries I can't get into because of vaccine mandates.
	I can't afford to move.
	Things are expensive everywhere.
	And with the regime of global cultural homogeneity, There is no escaping it.
	They have a global scope, which you should know, Peter, because if you were once a Marxist, workers of the world unite and the specter of communism haunts Europe has a global ambition.
	So these global socialists will not let you live a quiet life somewhere else just because you pick up sticks and move.
	Yeah, quite.
	And look...
	I want to give Peter his dues.
	He's perfectly welcome to come on the podcast any time as he wants and put across it in his own words.
	But to really try and still man his argument, I do think that he's not saying that...
	He thinks that our attempt to ask him for advice as to how to respond to decline in Britain is irrelevant because the country has already declined to the point of being completely non-recoverable.
	And the only thing you can do at this point is you can give up.
	And it would almost suggest, again, make your own view looking at these, but it would almost suggest to me that he thinks that anybody who is saying that it is worth fighting at this point is just some LARPA. I was going to say, sorry to interrupt, but I think it's more severe than that.
	To go back to his former Marxism, to draw a parallel, Marx once said, the history repeats itself first as tragedy, then as farce.
	I think because Hitchens, he is an arch-contrarian, and he has been right a lot of the time, which is because the times in which we live are so...
	contrarian positions you often in the right place.
	So he has been a modern Cassandra where people didn't listen.
	That's how he feels.
	He's dead on.
	He feels like his proclamations and trying to save Britain is the tragedy.
	Because he pours scorn on Carl for some edgy comments from years ago in a different context to a broadsheet newspaper, I think he sees Carl as a repetition of himself, but a farcical misrepresentation.
	And so he isn't worth engaging with, which having known Carl and gone from watching his content when I was younger to now working with him as a peer, which is a genuine honour.
	He is a lovely guy on and off air and he's sincerely genuine And we have got content planned to cover Hitchens' books well before Carl came back on Twitter and Hitchens engaged with him.
	So I don't think, even though Dr.
	Peterson wades in here and says you should come on, you should come on, Dr.
	Peterson, by the way, because not only would it be a great podcast with Carl, I'd love to talk to you, personal hero of mine.
	I don't think it's going to happen, not just because Peter would see it as a fruitless endeavour to try and save the country in the first place, but that he has just written Carlos specifically and us by association as not worth talking to because he doesn't meet the standard of propriety that he expects.
	And so I'd love for him to come on.
	And if Peter sees this, because he did share one of our segments before that Nick and I did about his tweets with Michael Rosen, I believe, on grammar schools.
	He's tweeted me half a dozen times agreeing with the points I've made until I got enrolled in this conversation.
	It would be wonderful to have him on.
	I just don't necessarily hold out hope.
	Yeah, I mean, as you say, he thinks that we're not worth engaging with, although he did, quote, tweet us, well, mainly Carl, about 30 or 40 times.
	He did me, actually, quite a few times.
	So if you go on to those, John, I just pointed out that Carl isn't being dishonest, and then I positioned it to myself.
	I wasn't trying to be egocentric there, but I genuinely said, OK, I can speak from a man who has grown up listening to Carl and also grown up listening to you, but I was born after your proclamations and I've inherited the mess that you predicted.
	But I don't see you providing much of a solution.
	And he did say, Now, I get the last bit.
	You and about 10 million others.
	Totally valid, because plenty of people ignored him.
	I wasn't born until 1998, so 1997 was when the first wave of immigration happened.
	So this is where I find it really difficult to follow, because with people like me, he's got a case, because his big thing is that we should have abandoned the Conservative Party in 2010.
	Now, in 2010, I was about 30, and...
	To my shame, I did vote for them.
	And I recognise it was a mistake now, but I didn't recognise it was a mistake at the time.
	I should have listened to Peter Hitchens, but I just wasn't that into him at the time.
	I've subsequently become a fan.
	But when he starts attacking you, because you would have been about 14 in 2010?
	Oh, not even that.
	I've been 12.
	Right, so...
	The most I use, my dad voted UKIP. So we did our part as a family.
	There we go.
	We voted vicariously.
	If we can just go along, John, because he repeated a couple of times.
	He did four quote retweets of the same retweet for me.
	If you can go along, please.
	And he's just saying, oh, obviously...
	People voted David Cameron anyway, he didn't listen to me.
	And so he said to me, you have no plan, no means of achieving whatever is your hero, implying Carl, urges.
	You think that a big mouth makes up for tiny fists and not understanding what is going on makes you braver than those who do.
	So he's accusing me of being ignorant and somehow emboldened by my ignorance, and that I have a big mouth, which I don't deny, but also tiny fists as if I'm somehow impotent to enact change, which would also imply that I should be doing violent change were I capable of it.
	Do all those things, if you like, just leave me alone.
	And he's saying to be left alone, but he was constantly responding to me, and he responded to one of my tweets with four quote retweets as if it were a thread.
	So I responded to this.
	If you can just go along, please, John.
	And I said, I did notice.
	I did notice your attack.
	And I have also continued to advocate for political alternatives and alternative parties.
	And look how respectful and polite you are.
	You start with Sir.
	Well, this isn't me trying to be optic to death.
	No, this is just how you speak to somebody like him.
	I really respect, for example, when every American UFC fighter gets in the ring and they say sir and madam to the medical professionals and the referees, it's just a good way to conduct yourself.
	And I said, the issue of electoral gatekeeping impedes the success.
	I don't intend to frustrate you.
	We value your advice.
	And he just said, I didn't advocate for alternative parties.
	I advocated the active destruction of the Tory party when it could have been achieved and when there was still time.
	Had it collapsed in 2010, as I urged, a proper new party could have been created.
	So I don't understand what a disagreement is when I said advocate for alternative parties to the Conservative Party and he says to destroy the Conservative Party and then create a new party.
	But he's saying that it's not an alternative party.
	So I think what he's saying is allow Labour to win once, suffer for a few years, And then hope something Conservative arises from the backlash.
	But then I'm not keen also on ensuring, even though we're going to get the Labour government definitely, which is indistinguishable from the Tories at this point, but ensuring that lots of people suffer 70s-style inflation and austerity just to get what needs to come after.
	I would hope we can build a counter-movement in the meantime.
	I think his core thing is that he thinks that 2010 was a unique moment in history that will never be repeated.
	So that was the opportunity for the Conservative Party to be destroyed.
	And look, the Conservative Party is...
	We're getting polls out at the moment that sometimes put the Conservative Party in third place.
	I don't necessarily feel that 2010 was as unique a point in history.
	And actually, we can still achieve a lot of the things that he set out, and for the reasons he set out, because Peter Hitchens, as we've established a number of times in this segment...
	Is pretty much always right.
	Yeah.
	I'm just not prepared to give up the fight.
	And I don't see why somebody, especially of your age, who could not have acted on the advice that he gave back in 2010, why you basically...
	And you said it in your first tweet.
	So are you basically saying that I need to flee the country or just watch my country fail?
	Yeah.
	That's not good enough.
	Even if it is true, you've still got to fight.
	It's also so dispiriting a condition that, frankly, and I'm a naturally pessimistic person anyway...
	If you were to renounce this existential battle and just extricate yourself from your obligated place to defend your civilization and do better as a man for yourself, for your family, for your community...
	Then what is the gap between I have no hope and I might as well end it quickly?
	It just shortens.
	So what's the point of even fleeing if there is a global scope of this ideology?
	His proposition is very nihilistic to the point of just saying, well, you give up and you might as well shoot yourself.
	And I don't want that.
	Not to get personal, I felt like that at 16.
	I don't want to be told that just because people are deliberately demolishing the prosperity that we could have, the safety we And actually, I've got to say, not to be blackpilled as we often are on this podcast, but I genuinely don't believe that.
	I think that we have an opportunity now.
	I mean, just the fact that, you know, I have a regular podcast now where I talk about economic matters and people actually want to hear it.
	It's good.
	The feedback has been amazing on the videos that we've put out so far.
	You know, I tried talking about Austrian economics and changes to the money system ten years ago and nobody was interested.
	Whereas now there is a rapidly growing audience for this.
	There is a recognition, and it's not just on the economic side, it's on all of these things, it's on everything that we do.
	There is a recognition that establishment have failed us.
	Establishment political parties, establishment finance systems, central banks, NGOs.
	People are talking about the WEF. Whoever used to talk about the WEF? I was blacklisted from Talk TV for doing a segment on it, and then a couple of weeks later, Mike Graham called everyone a conspiracy theorist on the network, who also does a show with Peter Hitchens, so there you go.
	On the same networks here, Peter.
	Come on, we're on the same side.
	I tweeted at Mike my segment when he called them a conspiracy theorist, and I said, I'd like to discuss it with you because I'd done shows with Mike before.
	Mike called me a nobody...
	Denied he'd ever followed me when people pointed it out, lost some viewers, and then he and a producer, who I won't name for possible reasons, blacklisted me from the network, but that was maverick because other hosts and producers went, that's not meant to be policy, we'll have you back on.
	That was last year.
	That was last year, and we've now mainstreamed critique of the West.
	Was that when Mike was saying that he believed the Great Reset was a conspiracy theory, and people tried to tell him, it's got a website, you can go to it?
	Yeah, that was directly in response to that, and I was booted off the network for some time, despite having a Monday night show with Kevin O'Sullivan, who also does a podcast with Mike, and Kevin is actually a really nice fella.
	So...
	I think that Mike is a massive tit, so I'm not going to try and make an argument for him.
	So don't take my respect for Peter Hitchens to be a Broadway support for men of that age.
	Yeah, I was going to say, can we go back, John, just rather than just a couple?
	Because what ended up happening was I basically apologised for irritating Peter Hitchens because...
	I didn't intend to annoy him.
	I was actually sincerely asking for his input on how to solve this problem.
	And he said, then stop irritating me, even though he was repeatedly replying to me.
	Can you imagine how infuriating it is after 20 years of active, turent campaigning to be confronted by some teenager?
	I'm 24.
	Criticising you for your passive silence.
	Probably not.
	That is your tragedy.
	And...
	I go back to history repeating itself first as tragedy and as farce.
	Well then I suppose the third repetition again is tragedy because my tragedy is, Peter, I look to you and your excellent predictions which have come true about the demolition of Britain and the untrustworthiness of the Conservative Party and I say, because you're genuinely very intelligent, please give me help on the solution because I don't know enough yet To be as versed as you are.
	I'm trying my best.
	And instead you insulted me.
	And I don't want to be a pussy.
	But it felt like your dad telling you he was disappointed in you.
	It wasn't helpful.
	And I hate to be blunt, but this particular is a straw man.
	We are not criticising him in the slightest way for his passive silence.
	We are well aware of his works.
	We are well aware of the content that he's produced over the years.
	We certainly do not think it's been silent and we have been listening to what he's been saying.
	Our only criticism is that this is our country and we don't feel that we can let it remain in this state.
	We feel that we have to push back as we can.
	Now, another point on this is perhaps it is not even the nation of Great Britain as a whole.
	Maybe there is a more...
	Karl will often say that he's looking for the English angle.
	The Kingdom of England, yeah.
	Yeah, exactly.
	I'm actually a Wessex nationalist.
	I would like to see the Kingdom of Wessex restored.
	I was...
	I think it was the same day that I was on Mark Dolan's panel one evening, but Peter Hitchens wrote a column and went on GB News to explain it about how we should have an English Brexit from the Celtic nations because they're imploding and they've got that sort of Celtic nationalism that Orwell described in Notes on Nationalism.
	As a self-identity defined purely by a hatred of the English, and their only galvanizing thing is antagonism for their neighbor.
	And that's not a healthy way to run a country.
	I actually kind of agree.
	I mean, I'll happily still watch Dankula's videos, even though Hadrian's Wall gets rebuilt, but it does seem difficult to reforge a properly unified sense of national identity as the United Kingdom.
	When we've had so much subterfuge for so many years.
	So again, Peter, right on that front, would love to see how to formulate it, but instead you dismiss me.
	And this as well was a bit far.
	He said, you sound like a Trotskyite with the glimmers of populist hope we had were suffocated by the international hegemony reasserting itself.
	Now, if he's calling me pompous there, I mean, I just type as I think.
	Perhaps I speak long-windedly.
	I've been told to speak too quickly, actually.
	That's apparently a thing.
	But...
	What I was getting at there is, okay, we had something like Brexit, which Hitchin supported, and then immediately we've had the stymieing by the courts, the insincere European Union deal where we've basically been a husband who was taken for all his worth in a divorce proceeding.
	We have the police still operating by Rainbow Europe to the point where the Scottish police use the term minor attractive person and they just blame the French for using it while using their same rhetoric.
	And then now we have assertions that we're going to re-enter the common market, and we're also still under the rubric of the UN anyway, and Rishi Sinek was literally appointed Prime Minister without a vote.
	So, of course, the global hegemony of financial sectors, unelected international institutions, NGOs, and cross-continental bodies have told you, get stuffed.
	Your vote doesn't matter.
	We're just going to draw it out until you're fatigued, and then we're going to do what we wanted anyway.
	And so when I said that, it's me saying, okay, what do we do?
	And then he said, for me, all I have is internal emigration.
	Now, I don't know if what he means by that is I'm going to move from place to place, but I know Peter lives in Oxfordshire.
	I ran into him in a train station at Oxford once while he was on his way to his talk TV thing, funnily enough, back when I was staying there, when I started this job.
	But Oxford itself is being divvied up into different sects according to the 15-minute city plan by the WEF, so they have the dark designs for your small corner of England, so you're not going to be left alone either.
	Or internal immigration means you're going to retreat to a place in your own mind and cut yourself off emotionally from the fact the country's being destroyed.
	But I can't do that because you've got 50 years on me, Peter.
	And also you shouldn't want to do that because in the Burkean sense, civilization is a chain of continuity and you do have children.
	I'm sure you've provided very well for them, but I'm sure you also want your kids and grandkids to live in a better country.
	I would like to live alongside them in that country.
	And he said, you already know what I think you can do.
	Why keep asking?
	I don't.
	Because you said in one tweet, move.
	And then you said to Carl, it's a straw man to say, move and abandon England.
	I don't get what you mean.
	And the kids' point is the key thing.
	So, I mean, I am under no illusion the state that the West is in today, the state that this country is in today.
	But the reason I'm fighting is not actually so much for me because I think that the 2020s are going to be effectively a lost decade.
	I think the 2030s could be a period of significant disruption one way or another.
	I'm fighting for a better 2040s and the reason I'm doing that is for my kids.
	I mean, I'm probably going to be too old to enjoy it then.
	But, you know, you want to leave a legacy.
	You want to do what you can.
	So, Peter...
	Look, we've got an audience.
	We've got an audience of 300,000, sometimes double that.
	If you want to come on and put your arguments and tell us why we're wrong, we will listen respectfully.
	So that's a genuine offer to you.
	If you want to get on board, get in touch.
	With that, I suppose we'll go to the comments then.
	So do you want to do yours for your section?
	Yeah, so we've got Ignatio.
	Ignatio, right.
	He's saying, on the chat GPD thing, it's pretty ironic, as a blue-collar worker, that it appears intellectual office jobs may get automated before my job.
	It's not that good, it's happening, but it's funny.
	It is very funny how the journalists once told all the miners to learn to code, and now quite literally coding's being done before mining.
	Being automated and the miners can have their job back, yeah, quite.
	But I mean, it's true.
	So I mean, what happened in sort of journalism 20 years ago when the internet came out is you had all the sort of senior guys basically get fired, and they just needed an office full of 20-year-olds who could go onto the AP website, pull off articles and rewrite them slightly.
	Mm-hmm.
	Well, now it's the juniors who are going to get replaced by the next wave of AI because you can set up an AI chat routine to basically go and pull articles from AP and rewrite them in the Guardian style or something and insert 30% feminism and racism or whatever.
	It further cripples social mobility and excuses a digitally provided guaranteed basic income because a lot of automation and immigration did away with low-skill wage roles that a lot of high school and university people would have for a bit of extra income on the side or to put them through their degree.
	Now, the graduate entry-level jobs are just going to be done away with by AI as well.
	So we've got such mass unemployment.
	What happens?
	Government pays you to sit at home and be a kuma.
	Yeah, and I've got a video on universal basic income coming out soon.
	Excellent.
	One thing I would say, advice for young people, is get good at writing AI prompts, because somebody needs to write decent prompts if they're going to replace a bunch of stuff.
	Omar says, what terrifies me most about AI is its potential to destroy authenticity.
	Between bots and deepfakes, the ability of government to manufacture consent, manipulate the Overton window, and generate narratives is staggering.
	Yeah, I mean, it's already staggering, so if you add in these tools as well, absolutely right.
	They could put you in a bubble of one, and you'd never know it beyond your offline circle of contacts.
	Yes.
	Yeah, good point.
	Brandon says, great, AI will be programmed to implement equal outcomes in the workplace safety mishaps.
	Yeah, perhaps it will.
	SmallLibertarian has a bit of a chuckle and says, we can't let the AI discuss climate change.
	Why not?
	It's a computer and would only use data to form its arguments.
	Exactly, yeah.
	That's the problem.
	If you leave AI to its own devices, so the first iterations of AI that came out, they were kind of uber-based.
	Yes.
	I remember one of the first things they did actually with AI is they thought that there was an imbalance in hiring so they got an AI to look at job applications and pick out only the most qualified candidates and white men came out significantly more selected under that process.
	Well I remember when they asked it to write jokes and it kept associating Muslims with terrorism so it would say things like, and I disavow this of course, two Muslims walk into a synagogue with a bomb and an axe.
	And that's it.
	That's just the entire joke.
	And it would just keep doing it.
	I don't find that funny in the slightest.
	No, it's terrible.
	There was a joke about a Muslim, a rabbi, and a Christian on a plane.
	And the plane starts dropping through the air.
	And some of the passengers turn to them and go, Quick, you're religious.
	Do something.
	So the Catholic gets up and starts taking collection.
	The Jew takes money out of it when he wasn't looking.
	And the Muslim just runs to the cockpit and takes it over.
	I don't find that funny.
	No, it's terrible.
	It's incredibly prejudicial.
	Lord Sivry says, I don't think you understand how this stuff works.
	It's extremely derivative and can't produce novel ideas independently.
	Well, Lord Sivry, I don't think you understand how listening works, because I did bloody say that.
	I gave the whole analogy of the bubble of human knowledge and the surface of the expanding efficient frontier is where the cutting-edge work done, and it cannot do that.
	It can only do the underneath layers.
	So, I don't know.
	Maybe that was a bit tricky.
	I'm sure you're a great guy, but, you know...
	Right, Dr.
	Anthony Fauci says, ChatGPT is really interesting, but it does have its limitations, actually.
	Like modern journalism, some of the outputs are confidently incorrect.
	Well, yeah, so, yeah, I mean, it has its flaws, but the existing thing is massively flawed as well.
	It all depends on the data's input.
	That's the problem.
	So if you're getting erroneous conclusions from the AI, it means that someone's put garbage code in.
	Yeah.
	And that's one of the big drawbacks at the moment of this particular iteration, is it's very good at producing confident-sounding complete nonsense.
	Yeah.
	Like any leftist.
	Yes.
	Actually, it makes it sound more confident than that, even.
	So, Captain Charlie the Beagle says, This chat GPT is like the start of an Isaac Asimov novel.
	I can't see it ending well.
	If its progression keeps up, no wonder Warhammer 40k is called...
	Abominable intelligence.
	And most sci-fi series has AI banned.
	Yeah, and I think my analogy in the segment, which is, are we going to have a Luddite moment where this genuinely destroys jobs, or is it going to basically free people up to spend time?
	Because that's one of the things.
	If you're a junior coder, you don't actually have to do the coding anymore.
	You just have to think about what it is you want.
	You have to strategize.
	You have to think about what the experience is going to be like for the person on the other side, and then this does work for you.
	So, you know, is this going to take over coding or is this going to result in the same number of coders or an increased number of coders producing dramatically more code and are sailing ever deeper into an exponential uptrend of code eating the world?
	How long before some lonely autist marries one?
	Because if they're indistinguishable for human personalities and they can...
	Intersects to the point of mimicking people's writing styles and other texts.
	That basically gives the AI an approximate personality.
	If you give it text-to-speech with various voice modulators, if you give it deepfake technology, which has already been applied to adult entertainment, what's the difference beyond someone who's just interfacing the screen?
	I mean, loads of this generation are addicted to screens anyway.
	Are we just going to get genuinely digital waifus?
	Yeah, and I'm sure somebody in Japan will end up marrying an AI. I don't even think Japan will be here.
	Within a couple of weeks.
	Yeah, I mean, having been married, I can say that maybe it might be easier on occasion.
	I don't know.
	I can't...
	At least it would answer the bloody question that you ask rather than just asking you a question.
	And it won't tell you stories.
	And Lord Neva says, crazy how scientists literally have to lobotomise every iChat bot they find to stop it from becoming racist.
	And now they've done it, bots are just becoming evil instead.
	Maybe we should just stop poking the bear.
	Yeah, quite possibly.
	On to my bit.
	The whole crypto thing is just spoilers for 2023, guys.
	Some people like to wait for the next government leak, like good consumers.
	Yeah, I do find it quite brazen as well, now that we're on the website and we can actually talk about how the CIA's killed people, how they just came out with a bunch of documents and said, oh yeah, we killed JFK. Right.
	Okay then, so you invented the term conspiracy theory to just deflect away from us for years, and then the FBI then used it again when we found out that the FBI were literally controlling Twitter, and as was recently covered, there's loads of intelligence agencies occupying TikTok in some sort of war of position for the influence of the next generation with the Chinese Communist Party.
	But no, it's all a conspiracy theory that the intelligence agencies have done nefarious things like MKUltra.
	Sure.
	Okay.
	Omar.
	Huh.
	Even though he died before the pandemic, Jeffrey Epstein still managed to die suddenly.
	Funny how having information that could lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton or exposing the other pedo-elite has such a high mortality rate.
	I wouldn't possibly accuse her of that.
	We have none such information here.
	No.
	She's beyond reproach.
	Should have won in 2016.
	It was her time.
	I always thought every crypto other than Bitcoin was shitcoin, but it seems...
	Assault coin might be more accurate.
	Yeah.
	I do find it strange how intelligence agencies are basically co-opting brand new technologies as they come along to do new forms of elite blackmail.
	Have you seen Bad Time at the El Royale, for example?
	No, I haven't.
	So, I think it's based on what actually happened for quite a few prominent figures, including JFK, and that is that they would set up fake motels where they knew people would stay, where prominent officials would bring prostitutes, and then behind two-way mirrors they would record them.
	Yeah, and worse than that as well, yeah.
	Yeah, so this is seemingly different.
	Oh, didn't they load them up with drugs as well when they did that?
	Oh, of course they did, yeah.
	The CIA definitely didn't kill Marilyn Monroe.
	Yeah.
	No, no, no, no.
	Perish the thought.
	Sophie Liv Peterson.
	Ma'am, this honestly reminded me that here in December I ended up in a long conversation with a girl who lives in Russia.
	Fandom site, we're just nerds.
	But we ended up talking a lot about how the corruption going on in Russia and I had the sad honour to break the bad news to her.
	All the exact same things are happening in the West constantly.
	The talking points are just inversed.
	But the tactics are the exact same and the corruption on both sides are on the extreme.
	We're not all better than Russia.
	We're both bad.
	Poor girl.
	She felt so bad being Russian.
	I at least made her feel kind of better, I think.
	Maybe.
	Well, I think the Russians are at least just honest that they live in an oligarchy.
	Well, the idea that Nancy Pelosi isn't an oligarch is ridiculous.
	Well, they're going to get lied about so much they might as well just tell the truth because it doesn't matter.
	Speaking of, I suppose, Hitchens segment.
	Peter, Hitchens segment.
	So, Chango98 says, Hitchens exhibiting the calmest full-scale Twitter mental breakdown I've ever seen.
	Perhaps.
	It was needlessly antagonistic.
	Yeah, um...
	Biting the pillow and not thinking of England.
	I prefer the bullet in the back of the head analogy.
	What was that about Hillary Clinton again?
	Omar Award says, I think Hitchens might no longer be a Trotskyist in the same way that Bernie Sanders no longer wants to tax millionaires.
	He's the bourgeoisie now.
	Yes, quite possibly.
	I do think that perhaps Carl is correct when he says that Hitchens has an aristocratic instinct.
	And that makes him very good for critiquing, above the fray, a corrupted culture, because he has no qualms about being described on standing aside from the prevailing order.
	But when it comes to gatekeeping on his own side, that means he looks down at us who aren't in the same institutions as he is, or don't have the same institutional recognition when I have been on the same shows and went to the same places, for example.
	He does it purely within the boomer framework.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, the boomer truth regime.
	Small L, a libertarian, says angry boomer yells at internet.
	Hitchens may have had some great ideas in the past, but I can guarantee he comes across as someone unemployed.
	His advice would be print out your resume and go and ask the supermarket a strong handshake and a smile.
	Yeah, that does feel like that, actually.
	General Hai Ping, Chinese Internet Battalion, says, Hitchens is right, to a degree, of course, but you can only run so far around the globe before you end up back where you started, especially when the drive is for global homogeneity.
	Everywhere is the same, Peter, now what?
	Or you could just say you don't know, there's no shame in it, big fella.
	I mean, yeah, this is a real-life debate.
	So back during the lockdowns, there was a period when the wife and I would have a nightly conversation of, where do we go?
	Where do we leave to?
	And There wasn't really an answer to that.
	I mean, we pulled a few names out of the hat of places that we might go.
	The absolute hard line was if they tried to come for our kids to vaccinate our kids, then we would have been on the next plane or the next boat or whatever it took to get out of the country.
	But it was agonising trying to pick where to go.
	I mean, Florida has inhospicibly hot weather.
	Texas is becoming a purple state.
	The entire US still has a vaccine travel mandate, even though most countries don't.
	And pretty much everywhere else is signed up to the WEF-UN 2030 agenda.
	So we're buggered.
	Yeah, sort of Mexico or El Salvador was the best I could come up with.
	Even then, if you go to South America, to some of these Bitcoin havens and that, you turn up face down off the coast.
	Can happen, yeah.
	Shrouded Hand says, if Hitchens is so sure there's no hope left in British politics, why does he bother writing and making TV appearances at all?
	I know the answer to that.
	Go on then.
	In the words of Mr.
	Krabs, money!
	Free Will 2112 says, the reason we keep losing is precisely because of the division between people who are generally saying the same thing.
	That's a tragedy.
	Yeah, I agree with that, and that's why we've been so keen to stress that we think that Peter Hitchens is right about basically everything.
	We're just not prepared to give up.
	Even if he is right about that as well, we're still not going to give up.
	I do say, though, I think, and this is a consequence of things getting so bad that the internet is going more and more serious, and you've run in this circus before, as has Carl, and I've interacted with some of them on Twitter.
	There is a sphere of influence where, discussed in live streams by our favourite 80s rat puppet, that adjacent to that as well as an American sphere, I'm sure, but Envelope is being moved by exploring new ideas, reading exactly what our enemies think, reading the tactics to counteract it, and slowly formulating some method of rebuilding and defending ourselves while we do it.
	And so...
	It's not just that people are saying the same things that are on the same side, but there is an appetite among some to do more.
	This is why we are discontented with the idea of roll over, give up, go somewhere else.
	Because as well, Hitchens did say, I'm not telling you to go to something, just not to stay here.
	And so that is the declaration that he has no affirmative vision at all.
	And so there is still a contingent who aren't saying the same things, actually.
	We're trying to push the envelope.
	And this is, again, I think him being trapped in the boomer truth regime.
	He cannot imagine anything outside of the framework that he currently envisages.
	So when we're pushing for something better, we understand that any sort of base future that we might get is not going to be a replication of Britain in 1910.
	It's going to be something else entirely.
	Sorry, John has just pulled up something.
	Right, so they're gonna...
	I don't really...
	I don't know who those people testifying...
	So those are both big players in Alameda and FTX. Right, okay.
	And there had been talk that Caroline was basically lining up lawyers to flip on Sam to save her own skin.
	But if this tweet is accurate, then we can say that those three were in a polyamorous common marriage, something like that.
	And it's reported by the New York Post as well, which is actually usually a legitimate source.
	So they don't have to testify against each other.
	So degeneracy eludes accountability.
	Right.
	Well, good news there.
	Alright, back on to the last couple then before we have to wrap up, I suppose.
	Edward Woodstock, I don't really agree with the framing of this.
	The idea we should not abandon England because it isn't viable is far too materialist an argument.
	If we want to be a cosmic people, as so to speak, the reason we should not abandon this country is because...
	That's not how any story should end.
	I didn't anchor purely my argument in that because we are indigenous to England.
	We do have a metaphysic about having family ties.
	That was half my argument.
	But also, if I was pushed out by speech legislation, for example, if a Labour government decided to outlaw misgendering and they just shut our business down practically overnight because otherwise we'd be arrested...
	Even my missus did say we would be free speech refugees.
	So, there's a point of self-preservation as well as I would like to cling to my national identity.
	If I'm being literally chased out of the threat of prison, I will bugger off.
	England is more than an island.
	It's something that beats in tandem with the hearts of those who love her.
	We cannot simply abandon it when we become besieged by those who don't and will never feel the same way but our little rainy island.
	I could quote John of Gaunt here, but I shall put it simply.
	Where else but England do the English belong?
	Should we be as the Jews after Hadrian or the white Russians after their civil war?
	This is our homeland.
	I'd rather die.
	True.
	Bleach Demon says, Hitchens is a farcical example of political opportunitism who cowers behind the veil of respect, resting upon the laws of being correct on occasions he has no investment of the future of England and is damning to all who do not lord him.
	Well, he's damning to those who lord him as well.
	Hitchens has relegated himself to the ash heap of history.
	I actually think that's too harsh.
	No, I don't agree with all of that because we respect Peter Hitchens here, but I can understand why somebody who's a little bit frustrated with that exchange could come to that conclusion.
	And I would like to say as well that even though I'm slightly dispirited by my interaction with him and Karl is bemused by his hatred, don't hate him more intensely on our behalf.
	I think everyone at the Lotus Eaters really appreciates the loyalty of all of our viewers.
	You're lovely.
	We get reached out to all the bloody time, had plenty of DM interactions with you guys, and it's really moralizing to hear that you connect with us, connect with our message, and you're bettering yourselves and transforming change.
	But don't get pissed off on our behalf just because someone's rude to us, because we're big boys, we can handle ourselves, and we prefer more affirmative and positive interactions.
	So do that with us instead, rather than getting pissed off at people that don't quite like us.
	Yeah, I always quite like it when people are rude to me online.
	It makes me giggle.
	Yeah, it's good fun.
	Though, neither of us were rude together today, and I wanted to say before we wrap up, cheers for the show, man, because this has actually been really good and really wholesome.
	We tackled a perhaps difficult topic we were both enmeshed in, and I really enjoyed chatting with you.
	Yeah, brilliant.
	Okay, well, we're back tomorrow at one o'clock.
	Until then, thank you for watching, and goodbye.

▲