Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 5, 2023 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:32:23

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #625

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Music Hello and welcome to the podcast of Lotus Caesars Episode 625 on today, Wednesday the 5th of April 2023.
	I'm your host Connor, joined again by Stelios.
	Hello, hello.
	Today we're discussing why we need to make indictments great again.
	Yes, of course, we're going to discuss the Trump story.
	It's the top thing around the world at the moment.
	Why the woke invent their enemies, and gender lysenkoism, particularly in British schools.
	I'm going to arm you with all the stats.
	So, without further ado, let's jump into today's stories.
	So Donald Trump has been indicted by a New York Grand Jury over, pardon the pun, trumped up charges related to hush money potentially paid to Stormy Daniels, aka Horseface.
	Now I'm not going to conceal my biases here, I really enjoyed President Trump's 2020 presidential run, both for comedy value and because I thought he did a fair bit of good in the lead up to the pandemic.
	The pandemic policies were certainly not great, although spending and the 15 days to slow the spread that turned into three years of lockdowns and the appointment of Dr. Birch and Anthony Fauci.
	So Trump is in a bit of a equilibrium place for me on policy, but he's definitely better than any of the Democrats.
	And I think most of the Democrats are very scared of him because he came out of the RNC convention as the clear front runner in the field.
	And he seems to express the anti-globalist sentiment that many people have in the Western world.
	Yeah.
	And also he knows how to speak to Americans because he went down to the East Palestine train wreck when Biden was in Ukraine and bought everyone McDonald's and people genuinely felt connected to the guy.
	So as much as he is a New York billionaire, he seems to really connect with his voter base because he's personable.
	And so, this is one of the last and most egregious methods that they're trying to assassinate Trump from the presidential race.
	So today we'll go through the indictment, the charges, and the players that are involved in this scenario so you can get a sense of how credible the attempt to take down President Trump actually is.
	We've got a brief timeline of the events from Reuters here that I'll just skate over for the uninitiated.
	So in January 2018, the Wall Street Journal reported that Trump had paid $130,000 to porn star Stormy Daniels in October to prevent her from discussing a sexual encounter she said she had with Trump in 2006.
	She has inconsistently recanted on whether or not this encounter actually happened, so that could damage her testimony.
	In February, Michael Cohen, who was Trump's former lawyer, said he used his own money and wasn't directed by Trump's company or his campaign to make the repayment, and that Trump had never directly reimbursed him for the payment.
	Then in August 2018, Cohen had pled guilty to criminal charges in a Manhattan federal court, Also including campaign finance violations over the supposed hush money payment.
	And he testified that Trump had directed him to make the payments, quote, for the principal purpose of influencing the election.
	So we're getting some inconsistent accounts here from Cohen.
	In January 2023, skip ahead because we'll fill in the gaps as we go based on the personal conduct of each person involved, The District Attorney, er, Deputy District Attorney, Bragg, began presenting evidence about Trump's alleged role in the 2016 money payments.
	In March, Manhattan prosecutors invited Trump to testify before the grand jury.
	And then, on March 18th, Trump said on Truth Social that he expects to be arrested on Tuesday and called his supporters to protest.
	And then we find out that yesterday, different Tuesday, or was it the 4th of April, Trump has finally gone to the court and been properly indicted and formally done so.
	So let's have a look at some of the charges, because he's facing 34 charges.
	Some of them are levelled at Michael Cohen, and Bragg said most of them are for the Trump organisation.
	So yes, they implicate Trump, but they still implicate his organisation rather than him directly.
	Is Michael Cohen his lawyer?
	Former lawyer.
	We'll find out why they fell out, don't you worry.
	So Trump is charged with 34 felony counts of falsifying business reports under Article 175 of the New York Penal Law.
	Each count represents a separate incident of alleged misconduct, but not a different type of crime.
	For each count, Trump could face up to four years in prison.
	You know, he's 76 now.
	If somehow they got all 34 counts through, he'd die in prison.
	Very unlikely, as we'll go on to see.
	Falsifying business records is a felony in New York where there is an intent to defraud that includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid and conceal a crime.
	In this case, prosecutors will have to prove that Trump is guilty of maintaining false business records with the intent to hide a $130,000 payment in the days before the 2016 election to adult film actress Stormy Daniels to cover up an alleged 2006 affair.
	So contained in there, Trump has to have been proven to have lied about not reimbursing his lawyer for the hush money payment, And the hush money payment is not a problem in and of itself, because it's just a standard NDA.
	But they have to prove that the money came from the campaign finance part, and not just Trump's personal funds, which is also going to be difficult to do.
	I think the hush money affair is, you could say, a moral affair.
	Absolutely.
	They're just going after his character.
	And they are using that in a way to say that he tried to obfuscate what he did afterwards in order to conceal the payment.
	Yeah?
	Okay.
	Yeah, well, I would find it rather discredible to think that any Democrat could go after a politician for cheating on his then-pregnant wife because Kamala Harris was sleeping with Willie Brown and got the job for sleeping with Mayor Brown, who was married.
	And let's not talk about Bill Clinton, shall we?
	Because He has quite a few skeletons in his closet.
	Or on Epstein Island, perhaps.
	Anyway, let's move along.
	So, we also have the fact that the Trump attorney decided to explain to Don Lemon that the charges were leaked ahead of Alvin Bragg reading them out yesterday at the indictment.
	And only Bragg's office had access to the charges.
	So it's possible that Bragg leaked it to the press or one of his staffers ahead of time to get out in front of the story.
	So that just seems very deceptive because she said, my team didn't have access to it, so it wasn't us.
	So there's some political foul play and some optics going on.
	There's also the New York Statute of Limitations, which draws a lot of these Legitimacy of these charges into question, because Class A felonies, including rape, have no statute, so you can pursue those claims at any time.
	Other felonies have about five years.
	Misdemeanors have two years.
	So if this wasn't a campaign finance violation, or if it was a campaign- I think it's- a campaign finance violation would probably be a misdemeanor.
	Correct me on this, by the way.
	But the conspiracy to defraud would be a felony.
	Yeah.
	It's gone beyond the five years anyway because it supposedly happened in 2016.
	So they've stretched out the statute of limitations on basically non-existent and very spurious grounds.
	So this is bucking all legal norms just because it's President Trump.
	I think so, and it's just a way to make a statement.
	I think it's more of a statement that the procedure takes place rather than its content being legitimate.
	I think it's twofold.
	I think it's both personal and political.
	So they obviously want to assassinate the frontrunner because they're afraid of Trump in a general election because I will say for YouTube that Trump could win a legitimate election, because elections in America are obviously very legitimate.
	Anyway, so the other thing is as well, I think it's personal, because in 2016, and I'm going to credit Charlie Kirk for this of all people who went on Timcast the other night, He said, the 2016 election, they thought they were turning up to Hillary's victory party, and it was a wedding for the new Obama continuation establishment, and it turned into a funeral.
	And so they feel very slighted personally by Trump as an aberration to the deep state.
	And so they've just got to get rid of him.
	I understand, but I really don't understand what they think that they are going to achieve with this, because it seems that it already backfires, and it will backfire even more.
	But they're watching two parallel realities, so there's no narrative concordance between us.
	Scott Adams has said we're watching the same thing on two different TV screens.
	And so they genuinely are placating to their tribe, their base, they're whipping them up, and there are people that are thinking, okay, this might stretch the boundaries of any sort of norms, but I'm okay with that.
	For example, with the 2020 election, which was very safe and secure, the Democrats said, We 100% think this is safe and secure and have absolutely no questions about it, wink wink.
	40% of them said that, but they still said they were glad that those things happened because Biden won anyway.
	So, it doesn't matter about procedure, it matters about victory.
	It's not about principles, it's about the utilitarian conquest of the American Republic.
	Yes, but I always think that this is a sort of perceived victory in their minds.
	They won't actually win anything.
	They're losing.
	They're making him actually even more popular to the Republicans.
	I agree.
	They're deepening divisions.
	They just think they'll be able to win the conflict.
	And also the same thing with the trans issue or the systemic racism issue.
	They operate off of consensus reality.
	So if the tribe, the mob, can believe it, it must be true.
	They don't care about principle, again.
	And also I think that they are completely disconnected with a lot of the people who are expressed by Trump and they just say no, no one could support him.
	Yeah, well we'll get on to how they've possibly mis-evaluated that later on.
	There's also another lawsuit going on at the moment because the The actual New York Attorney General, the senior one, Letitia James, who ran on prosecuting Trump directly.
	So this is another grudge.
	She has a $250 million fraud lawsuit against his company and this could be put on hold while this criminal case plays out because arguments from Trump's team, this is what legal experts are expecting, say that the conflicting suit that includes any testimony he gives in the civil suit could incriminate him in the criminal case, which would violate his Fifth Amendment rights.
	Basically, as soon as he gets out of the frying pan, he could be jumping straight back into the fire with this case.
	So, again, it's another political show trial.
	There's some obvious theatre going on here.
	First of all, I just thought I'd show you this great image that came out of when he went to the courthouse.
	I mean, that's gonna go down in the history books as something iconic.
	I must say in the beginning I thought it was a bit AI generated because I thought there's an ear behind Trump's ear.
	Oh, it could?
	Well, okay.
	You know what?
	Let's put it this way.
	There is another suit behind him.
	At this point, the fact that we can't tell is mad.
	I think it's legitimate.
	I'm happy to be corrected in the comments.
	But if it isn't, then we are in some scary territory.
	I know there was a deepfake of Alvin Bragg going around shortly before the indictment saying he dropped all the charges that some people fell for as well.
	So we're going to be in very difficult territory when anyone can just invent AI video or photos and it can become the news cycle.
	So maybe I've fallen afoul of it, who knows?
	Also, speaking of falling afoul of fakes, this was quite funny that producer John put me onto.
	John, if you just let it play without any audio in the background, please.
	I'll describe it for our audio listeners.
	There was a Donald Trump impersonator who hired a limousine and drove past the crowds gathering outside the courthouse in a MAGA hat and fake tan, waving to everyone, and people genuinely thought it was Trump turning up to the trial.
	And it's quite convincing, it's quite funny.
	So, again, a bit more theatre so we can at least have fun with the burning of the American Republic.
	Also, Trump decided to, after the indictment went through, go back to Mar-a-Lago and give his address, and he spent lots of the address talking about how safe and secure the 2020 election was.
	Definitely.
	And also listed the litany of persecutions.
	And it does put it in perspective how egregious this has been for the last few years for the President and his family.
	The Russian collusion hoax, and obviously the Steele dossier, funded by the Clinton campaign.
	The Ukraine phone call impeachment scandal, where they accused him of doing something Joe Biden had already admitted to doing in 2016.
	on camera, and face no consequences for.
	The second impeachment following the election in January 6th, where they tried to say that Trump inspired a violent insurrection when he said, peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard, and made a video after people got into the Capitol, aided by federal agents saying, go home in peace and love.
	The FBI, DOJ, and Big Tech, obviously covering up the Hunter Biden laptop scandal.
	The recent Mar-a-Lago raid late last year, where the FBI broke into the classified documents vault that they had already signed off on Trump having, and they told him to put a padlock on the door so they knew it was secure.
	So he's faced all of these things by the deep state trying to take him down.
	This is just another in the long line of it.
	He also said that Alvin Bragg's daughter used to work for Kamala Harris, so there might be a conflict of interest there.
	Speaking of conflicts of interest with Alvin Bragg, what about the claim that um well actually you know what we'll go on to that in a minute.
	Alvin Bragg did also run on a Trump indictment so throughout his campaign Alvin Bragg boasted about his work overseeing the lawsuit against Trump against the Donald Trump Foundation while serving as the New York State Chief Deputy Attorney General from 2017 to 2018.
	As a result of that case a judge ordered Mr Trump to pay two million in damages and force the shutdown of the foundation over allegations of misused funds.
	So Seems like Bragg has a special interest in taking down Trump one step at a time.
	Bear in mind as well that Donald Trump, while he was president, gave his presidential salary to charity in its entirety and lost out on lots of money in business deals.
	So he actually suffered for being president.
	He didn't benefit while in office.
	Also, Bragg admits to bringing this well beyond the statute of limitations, because in a November 2020 interview with CBS News, Alvin Bragg, who was then the candidate for Manhattan District Attorney, said that among the staggering number of cases swirling around then-President Donald Trump, a matter involving Trump's fixer, Michael Cohen, stood out.
	You know, we haven't talked about Michael Cohen yet and the campaign finance part, Bragg said during the interview, in which he stressed he could not prejudge any case until he saw the evidence.
	So he's had this going for multiple years, well before he assumed office.
	And now he's knowingly dragging it out beyond the statute of limitations because he gave this interview a year before it ran out and didn't act on it.
	So, shows professional misconduct.
	Speaking of professional misconduct, what about the rumour that Alvin Bragg's campaign was funded by the Soros family?
	It's just a conspiracy theory, right?
	It's just antisemitism.
	Well, not so much.
	Turns out that George Soros told Semaphore, an outlet, on Friday, recent Friday, he did not contribute to Briggs' campaign, and he doesn't know him, and that also some Republicans would rather focus on far-fetched conspiracy theories—woo—than on the serious charges against the former president.
	His comments came as GOP lawmakers, including Governor Ron DeSantis, continued to highlight the fact that Soros donated a million dollars in May 2021 to Color of Change, a racial justice PAC which turned around and used the funds to boost Alvin Bragg in his successful district attorney bid.
	On May 8th, 2021, Color of Change endorsed Bragg and pledged to shell out a million dollars to boost him through voter turnout initiatives, campaigning, and direct mailers.
	Six days later, on May 14th, 2021, Soros gave that exact number, a million dollars, to Color of Change PAC.
	Color of Change ended up pulling out $500,000 from its Bragg pledge due to an anonymous woman's allegation against Alvin Bragg, the Daily Mail reported.
	The allegation hasn't been publicized, and the outlet didn't learn of its content.
	While Soros indirectly supported Bragg's candidacy, his family did directly.
	Jonathan Soros, George Soros' son, contributed $10,000 in April 2021 to Bragg, and Bragg also pocketed $10,000 in campaign money from Jennifer Allen Soros, Jonathan's wife, in April 2021.
	And I remember George Soros doesn't have the best of relations with Donald Trump.
	No, he's not a big fan with his Open Society Foundation trying to flood the southern border with millions of illegal immigrants.
	Not great.
	Also, he doesn't agree with Trump's tougher-on-crime stance, other than the First Step Act, of course, but the idea that he's going to crack down on the cartels, or Trump's recent announcement that he wants to execute drug dealers, because George Soros has been funding Plenty of district attorneys in races around America.
	He did one in Florida that Ron DeSantis sacked because the district attorney refused to enact Ron DeSantis' law preventing minors from transitioning.
	And here's a Heritage Foundation article that explains Alvin Bragg's role in Soros' plan to liberalise criminal justice across the US.
	And this is what Alvin Bragg's doing.
	While he's indicting Trump on the most spurious of charge, Beyond the statute of limitations, for something that he probably can't even prove, these are the violent crimes and antisocial behaviors that he's letting people off the hook for.
	So, following in the footsteps of Los Angeles road prosecutor George Gascon, Bragg sent a memo shortly after taking office to his entire staff detailing key principles and policies.
	They took effect that same day.
	They are copycat policies that other George Soros-supported or inspired prosecutors have enacted.
	Look at the policies Gascon implemented in Los Angeles, Kim Foxx imposed in Chicago, and Larry Krasner put in place in Philadelphia.
	The Color of Change PAC financially supported several prosecutors, each of whom we highlighted on our Rogue Prosecutor blog series.
	Kim Gardner, St.
	Louis, Foxx, Chicago, Gascon, Los Angeles, and Krasner, Philadelphia, all of whom were successfully selected.
	So, Soros has been bankrolling these people.
	So what did Bragg do in Manhattan?
	So, the following crimes will not be prosecuted.
	Possession of marijuana, Fair.
	Refusing to pay the fare for public transportation.
	So hopping the turnstile.
	So you know all those degenerates that you see insulting people on the New York subway?
	Yeah, they get on there because they don't pay their fare, and then they go and insult white toddlers.
	Great, thanks for that brag.
	Trespassing.
	Failing to pay fines for unlicensed operation of motor vehicles.
	Committing any traffic infraction.
	Resisting arrest.
	That's an important one, so New York policing basically breaks down entirely.
	Obstructing governmental administration.
	Engaging in prostitution.
	So Stormy Daniels is off the hook.
	And most other misdemeanor offenses.
	One thing, how do they think that if they change this and they think that you can commit these with impunity, how on earth do they think that this contributes to a better society?
	And I'm really pissed off when they think that people who are protesting against it are basically bad.
	Well, it's a two-pronged strategy.
	So first of all, they think it's going to create a better society because there's more equitable outcomes, because less black people are getting prosecuted for bad behaviours.
	Because overwhelmingly, if you have fatherless homes and impoverished neighbourhoods and high-crime neighbourhoods, which Thomas Sowell has pointed out that the average high-crime neighbourhood in somewhere like Chicago has a higher likelihood of death for the men living in it than if you were conscripted into World War II.
	So that's how bad American cities have got.
	Because they commit crime at a disproportionate rate, if you let them off the hook, rather than try to stop them committing crime or add deterrence, you're going to get less black people incarcerated, so the balance sheet looks more racially equitable.
	So law and order is bad from now on?
	Yeah, because it's racist.
	That's genuinely the opinion.
	Also, it fosters anarcho-tyranny, and what ends up happening is you create dependency for the law-abiding middle classes, who are worried about any prison time, but then you have the criminal underclass who don't care about prison time, and get handouts, who you can create as a dependent voter block, and also wield as an ideological mob, a la the Black Lives Matter riots of 2020, and also wield as an ideological mob, a la the Black Lives Matter riots of 2020, whenever you want a specific policy pushed, or whenever you want to chase small businesses out of the neighbourhood, so your corporate partners can come in and gentrify the areas, and make Also, some of the other crimes that you got rid of.
	First-degree robbery was now charged as petty larceny.
	This was required even in cases where threat of force is used and the criminal displays a dangerous weapon.
	So, you can do armed robbery and get off with a light sentence.
	Yeah, because if you do armed robbery, the person you rob will owe nothing.
	And they'll be absolutely happy, I'm sure.
	A criminal who commits second-degree burglary, knowingly entering a building with intent to commit a crime therein, is now only charged with third-degree burglary, which decreases the 15-year sentence to three years, and obviously you get out with parole and good behaviour and lighter sentencing.
	He downgraded drug-dealing charges to a misdemeanour, so not just simple possession if you ...are possessing it, but if you're selling fentanyl to children, you could essentially be let off as a user, rather than a dealer.
	And he removed pre-trial detention and cash bail, because he called it racist, for the following, but not limited to, crimes.
	Robbery, burglary, breaking and entering, carjacking, possession with intent to distribute any drug, witness tampering, domestic violence, arson, bribery, kidnapping, larceny, use of a child in a sexual performance, Criminal possession of a firearm, child endangerment, elder abuse, and unlawful surveillance.
	Sorry, this seems like a joke.
	A bad one.
	Yeah, it's not.
	So that's why New York is looking like the Warriors.
	Because if you commit any of those crimes, and you're being prosecuted for it, you can be out on the streets the next day to commit more crimes before you show up to court.
	And the idea, I guess, is that if you don't have strict law enforcement, people are just going to be so happy that they are treated with impunity, that they're not going to engage in crime anymore.
	Yes, the Rousseauian presupposition that civilization is what makes men bad, because we're all innately good and equal, and there's no bad people, and we can all hold hands and sing John Lennon's Imagine.
	Well, some of those people are rapists, John, so we're not all going to get along, I'm afraid.
	But it's obvious that this, as well as fostering an arc of tyranny, is just enacting the friend-enemy distinction.
	It's not about legal principle, it's about who's in our in-group, who's in our out-group, who can we make as a public example to shame, to quash the opposition to the policies that we already think are part of the inexorable arc leading towards social justice.
	And if you want to learn more about that, you can pay £5 a month and subscribe and get excellent premium content like Stelios' series Symposium, wherein this, he goes over former Nazi, Carl Schmitt, sorry, German names, annoying, and about his legal philosophy and his distinction of the friend-enemy distinction.
	There's lots to learn there, and Seleos has some great content on that.
	I want to say that it was Harry's idea, and he did an excellent job in suggesting this.
	And we had a really interesting discussion, and Schmitt is one of those thinkers that are a bit, you know, it's a bit of a challenge to read him because he was involved into some nasty business himself.
	Yeah, but know thy enemy.
	That's a great strategy.
	I really like the classical liberal tradition with some conservative underpinnings.
	I think we need to contend with some of the challenges that he brings forward.
	Definitely, you've certainly made the case.
	Speaking of enemies, let's go on to Michael Cohen briefly.
	Michael Cohen actually pled guilty in a Manhattan federal court to eight counts including criminal tax evasion and campaign finance violations.
	He concealed more than four million dollars in personal income from the IRS.
	Meh, don't really care about that.
	made false statements to a federally insured financial institution in connection with a $500,000 home equity loan, and in 2016 caused $280,000 of payments to be made to silence two women, Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, which was another case that's unrelated to the New York one at the moment, who otherwise planned to speak publicly about alleged affairs with President Trump, thereby influencing the 2016 election.
	So, he probably paid Daniels of his own accord, and we'll get on to exactly why later.
	If we go on to the next one, we find out that he was sentenced to three years in prison.
	He reported to the FCI Ottsville Correctional Institute on May 6th, 2019.
	He was released early from prison on furlough on May 21st, and then went back because he decided to try and do a tell-all book deal and was also caught dining in a Manhattan restaurant during lockdown.
	And he was released from Ottsville prison where he was re-incarcerated on the 24th of July, 2020.
	So, if we go to the next one, this was a 2018 letter that came out this past week.
	No, sorry, it would have been nearly two weeks ago now.
	Exclusive to the New York Post from Michael Cohen.
	In 2018, he wrote to the Federal Election Commission and said, Without Trump's knowledge.
	And the only reimbursement I received was in the blanket fees that he paid me to do his regular business.
	So I didn't go into detail with him about what I was doing.
	It's just that something came across my desk.
	I said, this story is going to be inconvenient.
	Trump said, take care of it for me.
	I don't want to know.
	Michael Cohen did it.
	And at the end of the month, he billed Trump collectively for whatever he did.
	And Trump was none the wiser.
	So Trump didn't directly give him campaign funds, and he was just paying him as he would a client to any lawyer.
	And John brought up off air, of course, if you're a good lawyer, which I don't think Michael Cohen is, but Low bar, I suppose.
	You wouldn't tell your client all of the goings-on of the legal process, because if the client is then implicated in anything, and he has to speak about it, you don't want him to perjure himself or say something incriminating, so you would keep it from your client.
	It makes perfect sense that Cohen did it without Trump's knowledge, and Trump just went, I've got other things to do, I'm running a presidential campaign, I'm running businesses, I've got my kids around me being investigated, you go do this and take care of it for me.
	The letter was obtained by the Post on Wednesday, and it says, the Federal Election Commission Cohen said he used his own personal funds to facilitate a payment of $130,000 to Ms.
	Stephanie Clifford, aka Story Daniels.
	Neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was party to a transaction with Ms.
	Clifford and neither reimbursed Mr. Cohen for the payment directly or indirectly, Cohen's lawyer Stephen Ryan wrote on February 8, 2018.
	So, that should just be thrown out as Cohen is a discredited witness and you can't rely on him for anything.
	What about Stormy Daniels?
	Is she particularly credible?
	Wouldn't say in her personal life.
	Well, Stormy Daniels lost the other day, um, no, yesterday actually, sorry, in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, just as Trump was being indicted, and she lost to Harmeet Dhillon, who ran recently for the RNC chair and was beaten by Rhino establishment candidate Ronna McDaniel, which is disappointing, but Harmeet Dhillon has been doing Trump's bidding as part of his legal team.
	And Stormy Daniels has been told that she must pay the fees accrued to the Dillon Law Group for 183.35 hours of work.
	The total amount that's been added onto the existing amount of $500,000 is $121,972.56.
	So, Stormy Daniels has to pay Trump and his legal team $600,000 for the waste-of-time lawsuit she brought against Trump over this affair a couple of years ago.
	So, doesn't look very good for her.
	She also already denied the affair.
	Multiple times.
	We've gone to the next one from CNBC a couple of years ago.
	She went on the Jimmy Kimmel show and she had ducked questions about whether or not it happened and Kimmel began by displaying a copy of the NDA and comparing it to her signature on other examples.
	They didn't match and she said, I don't know, did I?
	That doesn't look like my signature, does it?
	And then later, if we go to the Newsweek article, when she was being interviewed by Anderson Cooper on CNN.
	She said that the statement from January is untruthful and the claim that the affair never happened was a lie.
	So, look, it's fairly likely that he probably did cheat on Melania with this whoreface whore, but I think at least you can say that Stormy Daniels' inconsistencies don't make her much of a credible witness either.
	I have a feeling she likes publicity.
	Yeah, just a tad.
	I think if you get all your kit off for a career on the internet, you might want people's attention.
	Yeah, maybe.
	I think we could make that assumption.
	Well, she said she was doing this lawsuit for her daughter, and it's like, right, I'm sure her daughter's really proud of you when you post things.
	We'll see in a moment.
	Is her daughter a very committed Democrat, and she wants to do it for her daughter?
	I have no idea.
	As a present.
	I hope her daughter isn't following in her mother's footsteps.
	Also, if the idea was that Stormy Daniels was going to damage Trump's credibility anyway with this bombshell story in 2016 and sink the campaign, It's kind of undermined by the fact that in 2011, if you bring up this article, E!
	Online was already talking about this.
	So five years before Trump was running for president, this was already a rumor that Trump had cheated on Melania with Stormy Daniels.
	So it wasn't exactly a brand new bombshell revelation, it just wasn't that prominent in the headlines, but it already predated it, so again, difficult ground to argue on.
	And Stormy Daniels hasn't got the most upstanding of character, not just because she tweets out things like this.
	You'll keep saying, That word that you can read for yourself in our sources.
	Like it's a bad thing, it's definitely more fun being under my sexy man instead of under arrest.
	Just wait, I suppose.
	Oh, well, on to the next one.
	Also, the people she associates with, like Michael Avenatti, who ended up stealing lots of her money from her.
	Now, this was the lawyer who was originally prosecuting the Trump case on behalf of Stormy Daniels.
	Bear in mind, he's now serving 14 years in prison, so he was dodging taxes and defrauding his clients.
	A U.S.
	District Judge, James V. Salina at Santa Ana in California, concluded the last three federal prosecutions of the attorney And Avinati apparently had accomplished good things in life but also done great evil, the judge had said when he's handed down the sentence.
	He ordered Avinati to pay 7.6 million in restitution to victims and 3.2 million to the government.
	Avinati, at the time that he was given this, was already serving five years in prison for extortion and fraud convictions at two trials in New York.
	Including for Stormy Daniels.
	The amount of Avenatti's embezzlement is in dispute.
	Avenatti said four clients he admitted defrauding cost lost $3.4 million, but prosecutors argued it was more close to $12 million.
	One of the clients he robbed, Jeffrey Ernest Johnson, is a mentally ill paraplegic on disability who's in a wheelchair.
	If you scroll up slightly, John, our video viewers will be able to see that.
	So, yeah.
	Yeah, that's the man he stole money from.
	Really nice.
	In March 2019, FBI agents arrested Avenatti in Manhattan for trying to extort as much as $25 million from Nike by threatening the company with negative publicity.
	Following his conviction at trial, he was sentenced last year to 30 months in prison.
	Federal prosecutors in New York also charged Avenatti with stealing nearly $300,000 from Stormy Daniels' own advance on a book contract.
	And also, just if you didn't forget...
	One, he tried to extort Pepsi in the 1990s to get a kid a Harrier jet, so he's not above reputation destruction and bad PR to try and get money out of people.
	Has this been included into the list of crimes that are considered misdemeanors from now on?
	You can commit them with impunity.
	Yeah, well, um, he wasn't charged for this, but at least he's built the hammer down brought on him for, uh, for nicking money from his clients.
	And also on to the next one, something that he never suffered consequences for.
	Reminder, he represented one of the liars in the Kavanaugh trial, Judy Swetnick, who is completely incredulous, who said that Brett Kavanaugh and another man were engaging in train gang rape in high school and college, and She had zero substantiation for her claims, but Michael Avenatti still went to represent her and tried to destroy Brett Kavanaugh's life.
	So these are the kind of people that are in the orbit of Trump, trying to discredit him.
	And what's the result?
	Well, because this looks like such a farce, Trump has already raised $8 million in donations since yesterday for his campaign.
	And if we go to the next one as well, the campaign are raising even more money because they're selling humorous t-shirts with Trump's fake mugshot.
	Put on them.
	So look, worst case scenario, Trump could be indicted and have to serve under some sort of house arrest, I reckon, in New York from where he could campaign, but that would still even make it look even better because obviously he's being persecuted.
	Trump's going to capitalise on this.
	It's all very suspicious and I think, frankly, it will swing quite a few swing voters over to be more sympathetic to the man who's looking to be the de facto Republican frontrunner.
	I think I want to add two things here.
	First, it seems to me that his political rivals at the moment are too disconnected with reality.
	In what sense?
	In the sense that they thought that it was a good time to do it now and that it would work.
	It seems to me that on both fronts they're wrong.
	And the second bit, which is a bit more general, the thing is that I really am a fan of the Republican tradition and the constitutionalist tradition, especially in politics, and I'm a big believer in the value of the separation of powers.
	But it's a problem that now we're at a stage In the culture war, where everything is seen in terms of an either-or.
	It's the friend-enemy, as you said before.
	Many people try to say that it's Trump's fault.
	I don't think it is.
	It started, I think, from before.
	Because when we play this card, the woke card, Institutions become delegitimized.
	And when you delegitimize institutions, and when you have things like CRT saying that basically every fabric of Western civilization is wrong and inherently oppressive, you cannot have the separation of powers.
	People stop believing it anymore, and people never think that, you know, there can be such a thing.
	So, right now, the Democrats are bringing it to themselves, and they're blaming other people for it.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	They're engaging in the Hobbesian war against all, and it doesn't look like they'll win, hopefully, so we'll keep the updates coming.
	So let us talk about why the woke invent enemies.
	I think that one of the major issues that drives, one of the driving motives of the woke movement is the invention of enemies.
	It seems to me that the woke movement plays identity politics.
	That's uncontroversial.
	And they divide, they do not think in terms of the people They think of society as a number of special interest groups put together.
	Aggrieved constituencies.
	Exactly.
	And they try to play divide and conquer.
	And there is an issue with this because they divide the population into oppressor and oppressed groups.
	And every once in a while, there is a blatant inconsistency in the views that members of each group have about what constitutes respectful coexistence.
	Yeah, like black people and Jews in America or the LGBT lobby and Muslims in the UK.
	Yes.
	And in a cynical, I would say, attempt to get re-elected, we have woke politicians who try to obfuscate the issue and they try to divert attention from these incompatibilities.
	And the only way to do this well is to invent a common enemy.
	There's nothing like a common fearful enemy to unite groups that are battling each other.
	That's exactly what the Soviet Union did when the infrastructure started collapsing and collectivization wasn't going well.
	They said, we are besieged by the forces of international capitalism and Leon Trotsky is just beyond the borders, conspiring against us.
	So we have to hunker down comrades and win this final victory for communism.
	Exactly.
	And they had it prepared in advance because everything that they did, they put an ante in front of it.
	So Mao was doing anti-imperialism.
	It was anti-violence.
	It was anti- Fascism.
	Whatever.
	Okay.
	So basically, unless we're in a utopia, we can't act well because capitalist forces are encroaching upon us and stuff like that.
	Okay.
	So the thing is that this creates a cultural bomb that at some point is going to explode.
	And this is something that I don't think that some people may not be in denial about this, but I don't think that those who play consciously the divide and conquer tactic are unaware of this.
	They just hope that the bomb is going to explode in someone else's hands.
	Yes.
	And it seems to me that incompatibility is evident now where we see the controversy between those who are in favor of women's rights and trans rights a lot.
	Speaking of womanhood, Good transition, Stelios, love it!
	Visit our website and you could have a look at Conor's new article, Feminism and the Trad Why of Anachronism.
	Yes, I spoke to Mary Harrington, we're going to have that interview coming out soon.
	This was a brief review of her book and talking about the kind of economic conditions needed for us to have proper families again and why we should emulate the Victorian example of separate spheres of sentiment and commerce, the Adam Smith conception.
	I want to say that lately it seems to me that you're very energized on this and you're working really hard to talk about these issues.
	That's a joy.
	I'd rather put something positive forward that we can do on the local level rather than just bemoan all of the awful things that are happening politically that we can't directly influence.
	Okay.
	Now, it seems to me though that there is someone who disagrees with you and Mary Harrington about what womanhood is.
	Go on then.
	Let us watch this video.
	It's Stelios' Trans Torture Hour.
	Fantastic.
	Being a woman isn't all getting dressed up and doing your makeup.
	You're right, it's a lot of things.
	It's the grooves in between your fingers from walking home at night clutching your keys.
	It's knowing you can always ask someone for a hair tie and they'll have one on their wrist waiting for you.
	It's the pure joy of realizing your dress has pockets, even though this one doesn't.
	It's always going to the bathroom in a pack.
	It's playing as the female character in video games and still kicking ass.
	Pulling someone's hair out of the way to zip their dress or clasp their bra.
	It's never being afraid to use emojis, especially the pink one.
	It's knowing how to tie a tie so you can always make sure your date looks handsome.
	It's all the little razor bumps on your legs and your arms and your face and on the bottom of your stomach.
	It's taking off your shoes halfway through the night, creating literal works of art on our nails and our eyelids.
	It's dropping everything to help each other if we see someone else crying in public.
	I understand womanhood because I am a woman, and while I didn't have my first period in middle school, you don't have to fold your genitals up and put them inside yourself every day.
	We all have different experiences of what womanhood is, and it doesn't make any of us any less valid.
	Sorry, hang on.
	Fold and put.
	So it's an Ouroboros?
	I don't want that image.
	But my thing is as well, if you're going to convince me you're a woman, obvious woman, don't say you shave your face!
	No!
	No woman does!
	So, the thing is, and I wonder what you would say about this.
	So, this person said that being a woman is all about going to the bathroom in a pack.
	Okay, that's absolutely true, though.
	That is.
	No, no, no, girls go to the bathroom.
	But it's not to go to the toilet, it's to gossip and take photos in the full-length mirror.
	It's all about knowing how to tie a tie so you make sure that your date looks handsome.
	I have never met a woman who knows how to tie a tie for me because I'm not an infant.
	And also, this seems to me to be referring to gay men.
	Now, third, it's never being afraid to use emojis.
	To be fair, I do think emojis are a bit gay.
	Can I say that?
	Who cares?
	Okay.
	And my personal favorite, it's about getting female characters in games and still winning.
	Now, honestly, I don't see this.
	I was playing Don of the Ancients some years ago and I was getting Phantom Assassin.
	I used to play Moira in Overwatch.
	A good late gamer, you know, you manage to late game now, you get critical hit, strike, whatever.
	It's good.
	It doesn't make you a woman.
	It's just a series of performative stereotypes.
	That's all it is.
	So one thing is that, the thing is that there is a tremendous problem with human willful blindness.
	And at this moment, I think that there are many people still who are in denial about the problem with woke culture.
	And they, for instance, we meet them in offices.
	Not this one.
	Good thing.
	But I know many people in their office, they really try to say that there is no problem with it.
	They try to fool themselves that this is not going to backfire.
	This is not going to somehow affect them.
	This isn't too much of an issue.
	They constantly say I'm blowing things out of proportion.
	They're wrong.
	Okay.
	And the thing is that I'm having trouble trying to get the message across and I think I found a solution to show videos to these people of politicians who are in deep trouble when it comes to talking about what is a woman and about biological facts.
	Let us watch New Zealand's new Prime Minister.
	I just wanted to ask you, given comments by Keir Starmer of Britain, how do you and how does this government define a woman?
	To be honest, Sean, that question's come slightly out of left field for me.
	Biology, sex, gender... You're doing slam poetry?
	People define themselves.
	People define their own genders.
	Keir Starmer has said that he believes 99.9% of women do not have penises.
	And I know it's a strange thing for him to say, but given recent events in New Zealand, I'd ask again, how do you define what a woman is?
	Well, I think as I've just indicated, I wasn't expecting that question, so it's not something that I've pre-formulated an answer on.
	But in terms of gender identity, I think people define their gender identity for themselves.
	I love how the NPC has found a bug in his dialogue tree.
	Also, the 99% statistic, it just immediately conjured the idea of, okay, you put 100 women in a lineup and one of them has meat and two veg in her trousers.
	It's like finding a shiny Charizard in your pack of Pokemon cards.
	When in doubt, embrace gender ideology.
	That's the mantra of politicians now.
	And it seems to me that he reminds me of
	a student who hasn't done homework yeah and is asked you know tell us yeah show us the homework and no i didn't do it i wasn't really prepared you know whatever okay now also keir starmer has an issue with uh with the same question we know about it carl talked about it this monday um but i want to show also that there is a part within the labor party and not only just the momentum momentum that they're trying to say that starmer's
	Starmer isn't, you know, somehow, he tries to, he's too much concessionary to the conservative side.
	And they say that when Starmer published an article at the Times where he says trans rights can't override women's rights, they have, you know, he faces trouble within the Labour Party, where they're saying also, there is no conflict between trans rights and women's rights, and it is wrong for any progressive, let alone the Labour leader, to suggest as much.
	So it seems to me that they're really, really, really trying to obfuscate the issue that there is obviously a problem and they try to invent an enemy.
	Again, it's the people who do not embrace globalism.
	It's invariably in all Western countries.
	It's like when feminism came into contradiction with men's desire to just be left alone and not be nagged.
	and they said oh well actually the patriarchy oppresses men too because it puts you into all of these harmful stereotypical boxes like telling you to get a job and telling you to get strong and telling you to have a wife and kids and telling you to not die alone aren't you oppressed and it's like no no we're really not oh quick look over there racism And it's weird because, I mean, I want to see what does it mean, say, 99.9% of women do not have a penis.
	It's like, you know, obviously the implication is that one in a thousand does, but what is funny is the number he picked because he wants to say, okay, we shouldn't be too much dogmatic.
	We should have an open mind.
	No, he has this politician mentality.
	Let's try to appeal to both.
	But not everyone was happy.
	Actually, no one was happy.
	And let's go to the next link, please.
	So we have a pink news article.
	It says the British Labour leader Keir Starmer slammed for throwing trans people under the bus in hypocritical interview.
	I have a joke that I can't say on YouTube.
	Then don't.
	Okay, so I want to say that the first two paragraphs are hilarious, if we see.
	Okay.
	The British Labour Party leader Sir Keir Starmer has been criticised by the LGBTQ plus community and allies after giving an interview littered with worrying anti-trans comments.
	Speaking to the Sunday Times on Saturday, the 1st of April, Starmer indulged a reductive questioning over whether women can have a penis and the debate about trans rights versus women's rights as though the two are mutually exclusive.
	What?
	They say it's reductive?
	You agree with it?
	They'll never be happy.
	They'll never be happy.
	Well, yeah, because they're fundamentally unhappy people, because they're living in untruth.
	And because they own things.
	All right, Klaus.
	At least one of them owns a penis.
	My personal favourite paragraph of this article.
	He also made a chilling pronouncement that seemingly amounts to support for schools within quotation marks outing trans youth to their parents saying that he would want to know if his child identified as trans or non-binary.
	Starmer said, look, of course I'd want to know.
	I'd say that as a parent, I would want to know and I think the vast majority of parents would want to know.
	Honestly, just what is so chilling about that statement?
	Because they don't want the parents around so they can indoctrinate your children because they don't have their own children, they will have yours and they will use them either for ideological or other more criminal reasons.
	So they really don't like the fact that parents should have a say on how their children are raised.
	And the thing is, since when did caring about your child become chilling?
	The word chilling here is really interesting.
	This is a really old idea though, isn't it?
	It's the communal... It takes a village idea that Hillary Clinton parasitised and it's been as old as Plato or Marx and Engels that everyone should be raised communally, otherwise the parents might give the kids the wrong values and we can't have the perfect offence-free utopia.
	So let the state raise them instead!
	Now that's why we have to have national guidance on it and they should try to make it cross party because it's not helpful to parents or schools to have this as just a toxic divide when that's needed is practical common sense advice.
	That was Starmer's quote that was supposed to be really controversial.
	Right.
	And okay now the thing is though that when he says for 99.9% of women it's completely biological and of course they haven't got a penis.
	It seems to me that this is like saying someone is 70% pregnant.
	Okay.
	Basically, there's no issue here.
	He says, on the other hand, vowing that there would be no rolling back on women's rights.
	The Labour leader went on to say, I think there is a fear that somehow there could be the rolling back of some of the things that have been won.
	There are still many battles that need to go ahead for women, and I don't think we should roll anything back.
	I think we should go on to win the next battles for women, and that is a very important sort of starting point for this debate.
	Do you have the impression that Keir Starmer wants to have his cake and eat it too?
	Well obviously, but he's got absolutely no principles.
	He's just pandering to a base that think they're constantly entitled to new things.
	And if they think that they're on the path of inexorable progress, that annexes to them all sorts of moral power the forces of history give to them, without them needing to be good people.
	And so of course he needs to tell every single group that he thinks are likely to vote for him, because they're constantly under the paranoid delusion that the patriarchy is going to commit genocide against them.
	But don't worry, you're still my special little snowflakes and you don't need to fight each other, you need to fight the big bad enemy that I'm going to fight on your behalf if you just get me into power.
	Okay, next link please.
	This is from the other side now.
	We have an article posted on UnHerd by John Smith two days ago.
	Kier Sarmer is still confused about biological sex.
	And I'll just read the first Paragraph.
	Prime Minister should have a firm grasp on reality.
	So what are we to make of the fact that the man who aspires to leave this country apparently believes the one in every thousand women has a penis?
	Not just that, but Sir Keir Starmer thinks that saying so will reassure women who don't trust him to protect their rights.
	I must say that he seems to me to be trying to eat his cake and to have his cake and eat it too, but they give him no cake to eat in this case.
	But also saying that prime ministers should exercise common sense excludes pretty much everyone that's ever run for office.
	So low bar, but oh well.
	Now, but there is a more serious issue here to be said that we have two different groups here.
	Supporters of women's rights and supporters of trans rights.
	Now, I don't think that supporters of women's rights are a homogenous group, but just for the sake of... I was going to say, what is a trans right?
	Can anyone explain that to me?
	Because I've got a theory, but nobody else has articulated it.
	I mean, I think that when they say trans rights, they mean because they believed in the conspiracy theory that they're always on the precipice of being genocided by the evil transphobic superstructure, that by saying we need trans rights, they genuinely believe they're pleading for you for their right to live, and that's why they're justified in all this violence they've been committing.
	It's just self-defense, apparently.
	I think the later part of the segment sort of anticipates that.
	OK, there we go.
	Then I'll hit on something.
	OK, so the thing is that we have two, let's say, distinct voter groups.
	And they're incompatible.
	They have incompatible views about what constitutes respect to coexistence.
	One side says, you know, I want X, Y and Z. The other side says X, Y and Z is against progress, how I define it.
	It's oppressive.
	Yes.
	So the thing is that, though, This is why the woke movement, I think, will constantly invent enemies and will constantly involve the demonization of people because they are so divisive and they divide society to so many distinct interest groups.
	that each group is going to define its own interest in opposition to the interest of another group.
	So they cannot do this, basically.
	It will explode.
	This is a cultural bomb.
	Yeah, but in order to synthesize and re-homogenize they have to invent an enemy which supersedes the marginal infighting interest between two groups as some kind of existential threat.
	Yes.
	And it seems to me that confusion is really deliberate and its spread is really deliberate.
	Let's watch this video.
	Now, we can let it play with you.
	Thank God for that.
	The video for our audio listeners are a bunch of very unattractive teenagers that all seem to go to the same Specsavers, I suppose, walking down some street in New York with trans flags, chanting banal slogans.
	Okay, so it seems that they're going after the state in their rhetoric, but they're really not.
	They have zero problem with using the state to impose You know, particular policies that they consider to be in their own advantage.
	There's states on their side.
	Rachel Levine is head of transgender health and Dylan Mulvaney was invited to the White House.
	But it's also a way of asking for progressively more demands.
	Yes.
	And say that, no, you're not treating as well.
	You're not cutting off as many breasts fast enough.
	Yeah, so they'll say to Keir Starmer, if he gets elected, that, no, no, you're not.
	Whatever he does, they will tell him, no, you're not actually helping us.
	It's a way of, you know, constantly try to ask for more.
	Create guilt to the other person you are talking to, so they feel bad and they start doing what you want them to do.
	Yeah, they're like the plant in Little Shop of Horrors.
	You feed them one person and he gets a taste for it, so it will never be happy until it eats you.
	Yeah.
	So the thing is that whenever we see such double standards and such lack of commitment into a particular rhetoric inside, we cannot make sense of particular claims.
	So if we watch next link by Keir Starmer, he says, anti-social behavior ruins lives, yet the Tories are letting it run rife.
	There is a choice this May.
	Labor will put 13,000 neighborhood police and PCSOs back on our street.
	Labor is the party of law and order.
	Now, the thing is, the public is constantly being fed, you know, appeal to ideals like law and order.
	But you illustrated brilliantly in your previous segment that, you know, there are very different understandings of law and order.
	Selective application.
	Yes.
	So the thing is, just by telling us that he's going to add neighborhood police officers, we are not told about what their purpose is.
	Although it may sound weird, what I'm saying, it's unfortunate that it is not weird anymore to be asking this question.
	We have various alternatives of what it could mean.
	Let's watch the next We had a previous Twitter link.
	That's all right.
	Yeah, this is one... Yeah, that doesn't surprise me.
	The reason that Labour are now pivoting back to law and order and hiring police officers after previously kneeling for BLM and abolished the police is because the institutions have been so thoroughly captured they now know that they're on their side, so it's not a point of principle, it's about exercising power.
	And now we watched the other video.
	It's another version of what the police could be like.
	And let's go to the next one, because there's an issue here that happened.
	If we could, can we just pause for a second, please?
	Why do you think they're getting that kind of representation?
	billboard crease was recently attacked and if you see the re we can watch the video and then talk about the response by a police officer in ontario i what do you think that they're getting that kind of representation i mean it's i clearly was uh...
	aggressive violence You suck!
	F**k you!
	F**k you!
	You're not wanted!
	F**k you!
	You're a f**king idiot!
	F**k you!
	F**k you!
	You're a f**king idiot!
	F**k you!
	I'm afraid if they do anything to keep law and order, they'll be at the end of this abuse.
	So it's cowardice for everybody all around.
	You! You! You! You! How do you keep your ***** posher? You! What?
	How do you keep your ***** posher?
	You! You! You! There's nothing.
	You! You! You! You! You! You! You! You! You!
	Hey!
	Get the ***** ass off! Get the *** ass off! Get the ***** ass off!
	You're so *******!
	You're so *******!
	Oh my God.
	So Vancouver, not Ontario.
	So, obvious assault.
	I think that they were making really good points up until that point.
	And for those who were on YouTube and missed those last two videos, you can watch that on our website or Rumble, because YouTube policies won't allow us to show that!
	Yay!
	Okay, and so, at least some police officers went there to dissolve the fight.
	Yeah.
	But there was one particularly woke officer in there who basically made the news.
	And what I want to say is that it's particularly problematic to think this is for everyone who wants to to read about it by Rebel News, unhinged trans activists, mob, peaceful protester against child mutilation at Trans Day of Visibility event in Vancouver.
	Anyone who wants you can read this.
	And the thing is that she It's a problem to think that there are many police officers who think like that.
	And let us see what she says when Bill Wuerthreis is confronting her afterwards.
	Listen, I love the police.
	My brother's a police officer.
	I respect law and order.
	I respect our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
	But she doesn't.
	And I'm not trying to be a jerk to you earlier today.
	I don't think a lot of you understand what I'm actually representing.
	And the seriousness of this situation?
	But it is what it is, I guess.
	I just, this is Canada and people shouldn't be allowed to assault people without consequence, you know?
	I agree, but the thing is, right, when we get into people's faces and they get into our faces, it doesn't really matter who does the first push.
	It's considered a consensual fight.
	I didn't- no, no, you- that's- I didn't get into people's faces.
	I was here for- You weren't- You weren't here.
	You weren't even here.
	I came and walked- I came over to your car.
	After.
	The second time what?
	Are you kidding me?
	- But the second time-- - The second time what?
	- When you were pushed on the ground.
	- Are you kidding me? - I think we can close the video.
	- Total mid is a total midwit shock.
	- Yeah, the thing is, she talked about, it doesn't matter who starts it, When you're shouting to people's faces, we saw that he was not shouting.
	Yeah, he was having a cordial conversation.
	It's a consensual fight.
	So what does that mean?
	That's pure sophistry.
	He didn't swing back.
	Also, how could you have a consensual fight with a woman?
	Because if you really believe that trans women are women, he would be committing intersexual violence, right?
	Unless it was a consensual fight between two men.
	And there's a problem here.
	There are many problems, but especially when she's talking about a consensual fight, because Can kids consent to a fight with an adult?
	This is one of the future questions that I hope we do not ask in the future.
	Yeah, I don't want toddler boxing.
	Thank you very much.
	And she also told about him that he had the right not to be there, which is, I mean, it's preposterous.
	Genuine Orwellian doublespeak.
	Yes.
	And that's the point.
	I think that we are at a stage in the culture wars where we cannot understand what each side is saying.
	And that is what I think is particularly problematic, especially with those parties that embrace the woke agenda, because they definitely play divide and conquer.
	In playing divide and conquer, they are separating society and they try to foster the several identities of different groups, and each of these groups are defining themselves and their interests in opposition to other groups, and especially because they are incompatible, they're by definition incompatible, the world politicians are trying to Let's say, divert attention from this.
	Yeah, dissipate the tensions between the groups.
	Exactly, and they want to create a common enemy so that these groups are not going to fight each other until the next election.
	And they hope that this is not going to be a problem for them.
	And also they hope those groups team up to fight the common enemy, which are straight white Christian men at this point, and even school children apparently.
	Because they've captured the law enforcement institutions and the law only flows in one direction.
	When those assaults happen, unprovoked, on the common enemy, then the common enemy will be at disadvantage, whereas the marginalized people will become protected groups under the law.
	Exactly.
	And two points to end.
	One is that unless politicians are able to give an answer unlike the new Prime Minister of New Zealand, This trend is going to continue.
	It's only going to become worse.
	And the last thing is we can end with this article, the title from our not-so-favorite Owen Jones.
	He says, politicians are right about the decline of the West, but so wrong about the causes.
	The problem is not moral decay.
	It's the withering away of our living standards, security and well-being.
	So, this person refuses to learn, this person does not think that moral decay and moral disintegration has something to do with the withering away of living standards, security and well-being.
	It's zero agency.
	Owen Jones looks like he's withering away, so I'm not shocked that he doesn't understand that.
	Okay.
	Alright, speaking of insane gender madness then, I wonder if you've heard of the term Lysenkoism?
	Now, we'll go to this Atlantic article to explain it.
	It's a Soviet-era scientific theory, and Lysenko, who is the scientist in charge of it, promoted the idea that And it was a Marxist idea that the environment alone can shape plants, animals and even human behaviour.
	And so put plants in their proper locations and give them the right conditions, and suddenly they will grow even better than they would under conventional agriculture.
	So Lysenko began to educate Soviet crops to sprout at different times of year, by soaking them in freezing water, among other practices, to try and get them to grow in the snow.
	He thought that crops and animals had hereditary memory, and in this article it says, obviously, that's absurd, because that's like cutting the tail off a cat and expecting her to have tailless kittens.
	It doesn't work with one generation.
	That's mental.
	He thought the crops had class consciousness.
	So what ended up happening was, because the Soviet party were running on pure ideology, and they implemented this, everyone was commanded, and this happened in China as well, to put the plants, the seeds, in shallow plots, very close together, because all the seeds were comradely, because they were the same type, and they would speak Marxist literature to the seeds in the fields, thinking they could raise the seeds' class consciousness.
	He also forced them to stop using fertilizers and pesticides, because they thought they were bourgeois.
	And then what happened was, famine.
	Famine.
	Yeah, 37 million people died in the Soviet and Chinese famines that were caused by Lysenkoism.
	And then what happened was, when that leaked out, because obviously the Western critics went, well, the famine's not a great idea, even the New York Times tried to run cover for it, Lysenko tried to eliminate all dissent within the Soviet Union itself, because they could still police the borders.
	The scientists who refused to renounce genetics found themselves at the mercy of the secret police.
	The lucky ones simply got dismissed from their posts and were left destitute.
	Hundreds if not thousands of others were rounded up and dumped into prisons or psychiatric hospitals.
	You're insane if you disagree with the state's ideological science.
	Were they crop-phobic?
	I'm going to let that one hang in the air, Stelios.
	I'm not letting you get away with it.
	Several got sentenced to death as enemies of the state, or fittingly, starved in their jail cells most notably the botanist Nikolai Valil... I'm going to butcher his name, I'm sorry.
	Vavilov.
	There we go.
	Before the 1930s, the Soviet Union had arguably the best genetics in the community in the world.
	Lysenko gutted it, and by some accounts, set Russian biology back half a century.
	So, biological denialism, endorsement of said denialism by the state, implementing it in state policy, and the mutilation and death of people as a consequence.
	Sounds an awful lot like the approach taken to trans-affirming care in the present.
	Now of course, this kind of ideological nonsense, as you went over in your previous segment, leads you to Utter dead ends when trying to answer things that should be obvious realities.
	And so, for the sake of humour, because this is going to be quite a dark segment, I thought I'd play a recent clip where Riley Gaines, who was one of the swimmers who was beaten by obvious woman Leah Thomas, lost out in the swim meet.
	And Riley's been going around speaking about the importance of safeguarding women's sports from men.
	And Riley, in the Q&A, asked a question of an anthropologist teaching at the university she was talking at, on behalf of Turning Point USA.
	And I'm just gonna play this clip because this is the kind of place that ideology gets you to when you believe you're an expert, but you speak obvious untruths.
	Please play.
	I kind of forget, but I actually have a question for you.
	You being an anthropologist, which anthropology is the study of human civilization.
	So if you were to dig up a human, two humans, in a hundred years from now, both man and woman, could you tell the difference?
	Strictly off of bones.
	No.
	Because it's a vibrate.
	I'm sorry to say that.
	I'm not sure why I'm being loud if I'm the expert in the room.
	How many of you have been to archaeological sites?
	Has any of you studied biological anthropology?
	I'm just saying... I've got over 150 years of data.
	I'm just curious as to why I'm being laughed at.
	I actually... Believe it or not, I have put a lot of research into this.
	I have ADHD.
	We can stop that there, John.
	Yeah, I'm not sure why people are laughing at me.
	I'm the expert in the room with 150 years of commie agitprop filling my bald brain.
	I don't know why people are making fun of me when you guys have eyes and you can obviously see that men and women exist.
	And you wonder why you're being heckled and laughed at?
	Now, we can laugh at this sort of thing.
	Unfortunately, it results in some pretty poor policies, including, well, what Richie Herron referred to when I spoke to him in our interview for the website, which is free, by the way, so please go and watch this.
	This is one of the most important.
	Videos I think we have up there.
	Not to toot my own horn but Richie tells his story in harrowing ways but he refers to the gender surgery which he had which removed and inverted his genitals and left him utterly incontinent and nearly bleeding to death as a genital lobotomy and I think things are going to be looked back on in much the same way.
	We are denying obvious truths for ideological reasons and people are going to be harmed as a consequence.
	The comparison to Lysenkoism in the gender context I think is fair.
	And I think we can see the widespread scale of the problem with a recent report released by Policy Exchange this week.
	Now this comes at the same time as we'll be talking about later as a parliamentary inquiry to sex, relationship and education lessons in UK schools.
	But this is particularly about the gender and safeguarding policies in schools.
	So if a child comes to a teacher and says, I'm A girl, but I'm presenting as a boy or non-binary.
	Does the teacher have a duty to inform the parents and change their name and make sure that the parents know that their child is suffering some sort of gender distress?
	Well, recent polling by Policy Exchange found that as many as one in four young people, 18 to 20, are leaving school identifying as LGBT, which suggests that many school leavers are exploring this identity while in school.
	So it seems that the schools are hotbeds for this kind of thing.
	So Policy Exchange sent Freedom of Information requests to a random selection of over 300 secondary schools and academies in England.
	A substantial percentage of schools are disregarding basic safeguarding protocols regarding gender distressed children and their peers.
	So as high as 69% of the schools have gender affirming policies.
	This includes 28% of schools are informing parents if their child changes their name or gender identity in school.
	So that's 72% of schools aren't telling parents if their child is transgender.
	33% of schools said they would inform their designated safeguarding lead or medical practitioner if a child discloses gender distress.
	So again, 67% are just not doing that.
	4 in 10 secondary schools operate policies of gender self-ID that includes going into mixed-sex toilets and going onto girls' sports teams.
	28% of secondary schools are not maintaining single-sex toilets.
	19% are not maintaining single-sex changing rooms.
	60% of schools are letting children participate in sports with the opposite sex.
	And then there's also schools that are teaching sex and relationships lessons that are inappropriate.
	72% of schools are teaching people that they have a gender identity that couldn't be different from their biological sex.
	25% are saying some people might be born in the wrong body, the God-got-it-wrong doctrine.
	And 30% are teaching pupils that a person who identifies as a man or a woman should be treated as a man or a woman in all circumstances.
	So, ideological propaganda to children that is lying to them about their biology, And this can lead to harmful consequences, and it goes for the harmful consequences in here.
	And brace yourself, I think this is going to be a very useful resource for in future for referring to the scale of the problem and whether or not these surgeries and these procedures and the prescribed medical treatments are doing well for people.
	I don't know if I have to censor any of this for YouTube, but if we do, go over to the website and rumble to get the full statistics and also our reading list so you can come armed to arguments like this for yourself.
	So let's look at the scale of the problem here.
	The number of children referred to the Gender Identity Development Service has risen by over 61,600% since 2010, and referral rates among girls specifically are 3,176% higher since 2010.
	According to data published in 2018, 35% of children referred to the service present with moderate to severe autistic traits, so they've gone down, they've been given this ideology as a catch-all excuse for why they feel alienated from their body physically and why they might feel more predisposed to negative emotions.
	And they've gone down the causal cascade of consequential thought and thought, I'm sad.
	This might be the reason why I'm sad.
	It's definitely reason why I'm sad.
	I need to transition to the opposite sex no matter the inevitable consequences.
	And it's just preying on vulnerable young people.
	It's hellish.
	Looked after and adopted children represent significantly higher referrals than the national average, 4.9% compared to 3.8% respectively despite making up only 0.58% of the population.
	And we know from the CDC-Kaiser study that early adverse childhood experiences are major predictors for adverse mental health, addiction, incarceration, sexual promiscuity, and physical and mental health defects, so comorbidities.
	So if you have early childhood stress, that can increase your likelihood of cancer, for example.
	So compound that with this, and numbers aren't looking great.
	Does this have to do also with the rise of progressive parenting and helicopter parenting?
	I wouldn't be surprised, particularly because you see on TikTok lots of trans kids accounts that feature the parents in the videos, like the Jolie family, and they actually get around TikTok's laws that say a child cannot be on the camera by themselves by appearing in the videos and saying, I'm going to furl my trans kid.
	For example, the Jolie parents, the dad's come out as non-binary since his son has transitioned to a young girl after seeing other trans content creators on TikTok at about the age of three.
	That's just hellish.
	So the parents are aiding and abetting this.
	There's no way the kids are going to Drag Queen Story Hour on their own in public libraries.
	The crazy devouring mothers are taking them there.
	Also, the number of referrals on average are going up by 6% every year.
	There's a graph on page 34 that shows this for our audio listeners.
	It starts at 2011 at near zero, and reaches nearly 4,000 referrals by 2022.
	So it's just an exponential increase year on year.
	So it's some form of social contagion.
	I'm sure it's all just organic self-identification.
	Though it doesn't explain why, if you don't affirm trans kids, they're going to commit suicide, why there isn't an unbroken chain of child suicides all throughout history until 2010.
	Have you watched this documentary, the Affirmation Generation, that came out?
	I haven't, no.
	It's on my to-watch list, but they're talking about, I think, the social contagion theory of why this happens.
	Yes.
	And how the social media are involved in this.
	And I think it adds up.
	Jonathan Hyatt has done quite a lot of research on this, and also Harry and Carl did a review of Abigail Schreier's book Irreversible Damage on our website that you can get if you pay £5 a month to access our premium content, so really recommend that if you're interested in this sort of issue.
	They also talk about puberty blockers in here, back to the regular report.
	So, the Gender Identity Service claims blockers are physically reversible interventions because once a child ceases to take them, their body should continue to develop as it would have done.
	However, in the interim CAS report, which highlighted the fact that social transition may have significant effects on the child or young person in terms of their psychological functioning, the idea behind such an early medical intervention is based on the Dutch protocol conducted in 1998, which studied how puberty blockers would go on to stop Gender dysphoric kids from having puberty.
	But it didn't judge whether or not this would ameliorate the suicidal ideation and depression associated with gender dysphoria.
	It only measured whether or not the puberty-blocking drugs would stop the puberty, not if they would increase the mental well-being of the trans patients.
	And one participant died as a result of taking the drugs in the study, and the study took them out of the record.
	And this is the main study that puberty blocker protocols are based on.
	And we know that one participant died.
	Are you starting to get the picture here?
	Not great.
	Despite claiming that blockers are reversible, the Gender Identity Service acknowledges the physical and psychological long-term effects of blockers in this clinical context are still unknown.
	This is demonstrated in an evidence review conducted by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in 2021.
	Several academic studies suggest the effects of puberty blockers are, in fact, irreversible and significantly affect the development of the adolescent brain.
	While the Gender Identity Service refers to cross-sex hormones as Stage 3 of the medical pathway they offer, most children who take puberty blockers will go on to take cross-sex hormones.
	So it's a step from social affirmation, to puberty blockers, to cross-sex hormones, to surgery, and we'll see the statistics on regret later on.
	In a study from 2021, of 44 children who took puberty blockers, 43 went on to take cross-sex hormones.
	That's 98%.
	A Freedom of Information request response from Leeds General Infirmary found that in 2019, 78 of 87, 90% of children took the same route.
	So what about the long-term effects of cross-sex hormones?
	Well, they're considerable.
	Temporary or sometimes permanent infertility, higher risk of cancer and blood clots are commonly reported.
	A recent study suggests that those who take cross-sex hormones are nearly seven times more likely to suffer a stroke and six times more likely to suffer a heart attack.
	The General Identity Clinic will prescribe cross-sex hormones at age 16 once a child has been taking puberty blockers for a year.
	If blockers are found to prevent psychological maturing of the brain, It follows a child may not be in a competent state of maturity to make the decision to carry on to cross-sex hormones, despite the fact that blockers is the necessary criteria to be prescribed for them.
	So we know that puberty blockers stop your cognitive development, so that actually impairs the age at which you should be able to give informed consent, but you have to take the puberty blockers in order to give informed consent to the cross-sex hormones.
	So you are actively limiting a child's rational faculties before they take this.
	So you're just creating more sunk cost fallacies.
	That's a tragedy and I think Lysenkoism is the perfect word to describe it because all that these ideologues are telling to these children is that anyone who is going to disagree with you whatsoever in your understanding of the feeling that leads you to say that you are a different gender, they're actually harming them because they try to Impair and sever the ties between other people or the community that cares and them because I
	When you are, let's say, when you are prepared to do things like that, one of the ways in which you can be helped is by other people telling you, listen, maybe this is too much of a risk.
	It's too much of a risk to do this and just on the basis of so weird reasons.
	And that is why they're trying to force feed the message that anyone that is going to disagree with you in your assessment of Whatever your emotions are is basically a transphobe.
	This is pure ideological drivel.
	Yeah, and when the ideology produces measurable, documented, harmful results and deaths, they continue to double down to save face, because the actual transition they have in here.
	There are serious risks involved with sex reassignment surgery.
	In a study of 100 participants, it was found that long-term, 1 in 10 died, and 1 in 3 experienced somatic morbidity, which is something like PTSD from having the surgery.
	So you are getting mental, lifelong scarring, or death, from these physical augmentations.
	And you've gone through all the steps to get there, and pushing you down that road to getting there is enabled, not just by ideological affirmation and validation of the vulnerable, but also, okay, it induces more harm at each stage, and because these harms crop up, it makes you feel even more alienated from yourself, so they just say, okay, maybe you've just got to take the next step to stop feeling so distant and you're in the wrong body, until it is literally so irreversible that you could either die, or never be recognisable, or never have children again.
	That's harrowing.
	So what about the detransitioners?
	There's some stats in here that are really useful.
	There is a growing body of evidence that suggests the majority of children desist and do not transition in adulthood.
	The largest study of natal boys to date, 87% had desisted when followed up 13 years later.
	Watchful waiting has been a very successful way of resolving gender distress, so not actually intervening and just allowing the child to suffer expediently with their own discord so that they grow up into a healthy functioning adult in the future.
	In an analysis of 10 studies, so a meta-analysis, that focused on the persistence of gender dysphoria, 85% of children and up found their dysphoria resolved without any form of medical intervention, including social transition.
	Nearly 30% of transgender patients in a study of 1,000 were found to have desisted when followed up after 4 years.
	So, just leave them alone, and unless you're an ideologue insistent on trans identity, if you actually want to help the kids, don't affirm trans identity.
	And they have a way of dealing with facts, as ideologues have, that they're saying that, you know, these facts are fabricated and that they are false and they are basically given towards you, presented to you by people who actually want to harm you.
	Yeah, exactly.
	It's the exact Lysenkoism of the idea, telling them, you know, crops are unconscious, you know.
	Don't put them, Mao speeches, to listen to.
	They won't grow.
	Yeah, and there's also the idea of intergroup solidarity class consciousness with Lysenkoism between the seeds, and somehow the seeds won't compete.
	Will we have a competing seed even within the LGBT community?
	Because lots of people like Andrew Doyle and some of the LGB Alliance folks have said, isn't trans at the Tavistock Clinic just a form of gay and lesbian genocide and erasure?
	Because, and it has some stats in here, a 2021 study of boys with GID Gender Identity Disorder, presenting at the average age of 7, demonstrated that 47.2% were gay when followed up with 13 years later, regardless of whether or not they had transitioned.
	So lots of them are just struggling with same-sex attraction, which I imagine is a difficult thing to struggle with anyway as you're growing up, because it's not as typical and because the norm for human beings is to be heterosexual, otherwise we wouldn't have kids.
	So I've got sympathy for those, but it's just proving the fact that there is no such thing as collective class consciousness that the ideology is pushing, because again, as you said in your last segment, these two groups are coming into conflict, and the only people that suffer because of it are these people who go down the route of surgical intervention, and are immediately paranoid that all of society is on the precipice of genociding.
	I've heard the story by Jordan Peterson.
	He was talking about a psychologist, Ken Zucker.
	Are you familiar with it?
	No, I haven't.
	He was saying that Ken Zucker had a clinic where he was treating children that had, they said that they had gender dysphoria.
	And what he found out was that in a period of years, They would just, if they had no contact or very minimal contact with technology and social media specifically, 80% or more, they just accepted that they were homosexual.
	And he was, I think his clinic was attacked and assaulted, you know, and he wasn't allowed to carry on.
	It's an interesting story to check.
	I think it was Abigail Schreier who did the Brown University study years ago about social contagion, but I remember that when the paper originally came out, and it was a pretty credible academic paper, it was taken down by the university and blocked because they said they didn't want to offend the trans community, not that the findings were untrue.
	So, again, if you publish Legitimate Science and say, maybe gender lysenkoism isn't the best idea, the state will crush you and throw you in the proverbial gulag.
	Not good.
	Now there's something very annoying about this report though, so I will criticise the people at Policy Exchange that compiled it, because they soft serve it.
	I don't think we should have just a little bit of gender lysenkoism, I don't think we should have just a couple of mastectomies a year, but they say, for a very small number of children, affirmation may be the appropriate course of action after considerable clinical expertise is deemed so, And then they say, no school should facilitate a child's social transition, the medical intervention in which a child adopts the social and cultural attributes associated with the opposite sex, unless medical advice clearly endorses this as the best and most appropriate action, and unless parents have been fully involved.
	No.
	And the reason is, medical institutions have already been captured, we've already seen how the police have been captured and suddenly the Labour Party are pro-police again because they know it's their enforcement arm.
	All we need is for ideology, like Lysenkoism, to fully capture the institution and then pretty much every kid is vulnerable to being transed.
	Because they're impressionable.
	And if the parents are devouring, oedipal, ideologically possessed, then they can harm their own children.
	We don't allow parents to give children drugs.
	We don't allow parents, at least if they're not a gay couple exposed in town hall that are prominent activists, to abuse children routinely.
	Hopefully.
	More penalties should come to those that do, obviously, but For some reason, we allow parents to physically augment, I think I'll have to say for YouTube, their children with surgeries to approximate the opposite sex if they so decree.
	I don't think this is an issue of parental rights.
	I think this is an issue of the bodily autonomy of the child.
	I think it's an issue of truth as well, because we can't just have a little bit of untruth.
	It won't help them.
	And speaking of just a little bit of untruth, we've got some good news here.
	Miriam Cates MP is leading the charge with the mandate of Rishi Sunak, and because Rishi Sunak has signed off on this it's just because it optically looks good, not Rishi Sunak really cares about it because he's a technocrat, to look at all of these types of materials and guidance in schools.
	Now, they're already processing through more safeguarding guidance independent of the sex education and lesson plan guidance review.
	So that came early last year.
	So these two pieces of legislation are being combined to try and change how schools operate.
	But we've got to have constant vigilance because the private schools have sometimes some of their own guidance and they will go rogue.
	I know that one private school, for example, had international students come in at 14, they changed their gender identity while they were there, and never informed the parents.
	It's utterly reprehensible.
	Parents should always be the primary stakeholders in their child's education, unlike what the Biden administration have said.
	And the reason I say it's good news is because if we go to this next video, I recently covered in a weekend segment a few weeks back, and you can watch it on Rumble, the fact that Swindon Council put out some guidance a couple of years ago about how to trans your kids.
	They cited Stonewall and the Tavistock Clinic in their guidance, they put up the gender gingerbread man, try saying that five times when you're drunk, and had an entire glossary of LGBT gender galaxy terms.
	So this is what they were- they're also telling children to recreate sexual organs using vegetables and hand lotion for prostate fluid, right?
	So good news is, not only have Swindon Council taken the document down from their website, but this week I spoke to a parliamentary staffer, who does not work for Miriam Cates MP, but for another MP, but who forwarded me the WhatsApp message from Miriam Cates herself that said she'd watch this video, appreciated it, and that this will be included as one of the materials going into the inquiry.
	So, the lower seaters have done something, ladies and gentlemen, that's all good.
	Constant vigilance is still required, because it's still probably in schools and still being practiced.
	But there's also another bit of good news, which is rare, so we'll take where wins we can get them.
	Kemi Badenoch is talking to the Equalities and Human Rights Commission in the UK, and she's planning to ameliorate, not repeal, unfortunately, but again, we'll take our wins where we can get them, from the 2010 Equality Act, to make sure that sex spaces are protected with the word biological introduced.
	So you are allowed to explicitly discriminate against trans-identifying men who want to go into women's changing rooms, sports teams, and bathrooms.
	And so that seems to be a good incremental step for protecting women against the types that would want to perv on them.
	I'm surprised no one thought of this earlier, before, because, I mean, when you go to the bathroom, whatever you're doing there, you're doing it as an organism.
	As a biological organism.
	Well, yes.
	So, I mean, what's the fuss about?
	But, like Jordan Peterson told Kathy Newman in 2018, with a take that has aged like wine, The same ideology that drove the utterances of the Maoists drive the trans activists.
	And the Maoists fully believe in lysenkoism, and so this lot believe in gender lysenkoism and complete biological denial.
	You're not an organism, you're just a class consciousness with interchangeable bits.
	So I think we just need to go further.
	That's what I'm going to end this with, because I don't think we can have a little bit of untruth when children are suffering.
	I think instead we need Tennessee-style bans on public drag performances, Tennessee-style bans on gender transitions for minors, and I think we need blanket bans and retributive punishments for those doling out puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries to children and vulnerable adults like Richie Heron.
	And I wish Richie all the best with his hopefully successful lawsuit ensuing the NHS, and we'll give you more updates to this story as it unfolds.
	On to the video comments.
	Good to see Carl taking an interest in the Alamo and Texas history.
	You should watch the movie from the early 2000s.
	It's a good, non-paused depiction of events that treats the Mexicans with actually a great deal of respect, although Santa Ana's pretty scummy, but, you know, that's kind of what it was like in real life.
	Always have a soft spot for these period pieces.
	Also, it basically matches your Epochs video, beat for beat, up until the final battle where the Mexicans get massacred.
	Pretty somberly portrayed, actually.
	Alright, on to the next one then.
	Hi guys!
	So there have been people who've made video comments when they're leaving and when they're rejoining the Low Seaters.
	I'm back!
	As soon as I got home from America visiting my girlfriend, Grandad instantly hostileised and dies.
	I've had to pack everything because I'm moving all the way to Brighton as a result.
	Upside is, I guess, I've got a job set up over there.
	I guess.
	Uh, did you miss me?
	Well, we obviously appreciate everyone that's pitching in money because of YouTube demonetization, because YouTube are screwing us, and I think you'll be very happy to have signed on given what we've got coming for you in the next month, and I'm sorry to hear about your grandad.
	There we go.
	I don't know how to love them.
	They're dim.
	They're just that dim.
	And I had so many, them before, in very many ways.
	They're just one more.
	Well, thank you for the serenade, Sophie.
	It's nice for me not to serenade you for once.
	What a nice voice.
	Yeah, I know, she sounded like Bane.
	What a lovely voice!
	Also, I appreciate the Hal Jordan calendar behind you, because Blackest Night was solid.
	Alright, on to the written comments then, we've got a few minutes still.
	Anonymy, comment section now, Connor, what's the joke?
	Oh yeah, you know that article from Pink News that said Keir Starmer was throwing trans people under the bus?
	Yes.
	I was gonna say about 42% of them are doing it themselves.
	Anyway, Baron Von Warhawk.
	The FBI refuses to lift a finger over who visited Epstein's Island, the Chinese donations to the Biden family, the drug cartels crossing the border, or the inner-city gangs burning down major cities.
	Also add Eric Swalwell, banging a Chinese spy, onto that list, please.
	But they can't act fast enough when they have a chance to arrest Trump.
	At this point, the FBI is just like the Praetorian Guard, more concerned with cash than the stability of the empire.
	Couldn't put it better myself.
	Lord Nerevar, is it just me or does this whole Trump case seem really weak?
	Unless I've missed something crucial, it's basically just a rehash of the Stormy Daniels thing.
	Sorry.
	You can wait for that, John.
	One second.
	Uh, completely lost my place.
	With a few extra details tacked on, if he's actually convicted, I think we can make a few safe assumptions about the judicial system of New York.
	Yeah, I was trying to, um, do the maths on that in my head as well, John, but obviously your agency are faster than me.
	Uh, Keir Starmer saying 99.9% of women have no penises means that 67,000 women have penises.
	Wait, so there's 60 million... yeah, that's 0.1%, so yeah, 67,000 cock women.
	It doesn't add up, because, I mean, it's the women population, where's the male population?
	Oh yeah, that'd be half, wouldn't it?
	So it'd be 30... It's a lot.
	So it'd be 30...
	It's a lot.
	33.5, something like that.
	So Leo's got a lot of dates lined up.
	Henry Ashman, paying hush money at all is so old-fashioned.
	The Democrats completely bypass that step and just get the FBI to convince the media it's all fake news, like the Hunter Biden laptop story, which sadly means they can't fall afoul of the same tactics they're now using should the Republicans stoop to their level.
	Yeah, but one, the Republicans, well, it wouldn't be stooping to the level to actually use the legal system properly to prosecute them, which they should and they're slowly doing via the Freedom Caucus, but also, ha ha ha, you think the Republicans will do anything?
	April Fools was five days ago, my friend.
	Stefan, in regards to Trump's indictment, the Dems are playing against the ref, the rules, and the clock, not the game or their opponent.
	Maricopa County is another example of this.
	Yeah, please go watch our video on the rigging of Maricopa County for more.
	Do you want to do some of yours?
	Okay, Sir Marhouse, no matter what, for these people, being woman is always a female stereotype.
	Yes, and they try to say the performativity of it.
	Yeah, the Judith Butler idea.
	It's always about effeminate traits.
	Anon Imi, I don't know if you can recall, during lockdown American kids were less gender dysphoric when they were away from school.
	Mike Eamons, in Canada, you consent to a fight if you threaten to assault or if you invite assault.
	Dude was doing neither of those things.
	I know that part of the Canada Criminal Code because I have used that part of the CCC.
	Yes, and unfortunately, you know, the police, they have the power.
	They're going to just say that, you know, it just doesn't apply in their case.
	America's in hospice care.
	Stelios, the clip you showed of leftists chanting F the parents, demonstrates how far gone leftists have gone, how far dedicated they are to Marxism, that even in America, to get rid of these people and ideology, the only option left is to have a national divorce.
	America is collapsing as is, and when America goes down, it will drag the rest of the Anglo world, which will also collapse and suffer.
	Okay, but the problem is, if you agree that they're committed to Marxism, what was the final line of the Communist Manifesto?
	Workers of the world, unite.
	They will never leave you alone.
	I don't disagree with the states seceding from the centralised power if you can get some kind of state protection, and getting smaller communities, and arming yourselves, and defending yourselves.
	Don't aggress on yourselves, don't Fed Post, ladies and gentlemen.
	But they will never let you live in peace if you live next to them.
	Rose Gonilla.
	Once again, I must reiterate what my dad once told me.
	If you see two sides in opposition, and one side is screaming and acting obnoxious while the other side is quiet and trying to have reasonable discourse, it's a pretty fair indicator of which side is in the wrong.
	I totally agree with dad here.
	Yeah, because dad has always been arguing with mom, probably.
	Lord Nerevar, it seems as if Labour is sort of choking on all of its contradictions, and the MPs are starting to notice.
	It's interesting how it's been a string of Labour officials slowly saying slightly more base things, like remembering what a woman is, or admitting that immigration is too high.
	They're finally having to accept reality.
	It's base to say women are biological females.
	Keir Starmer's choking on the 0.01% apparently.
	Grant Gibson.
	I listened to that definition.
	I think I might be a woman.
	Just like Matt Walsh.
	Although I don't like sex in this city.
	Just finish on Robert Longshaw.
	When I left infant school, I was into pogs and Pokemon cards.
	I wasn't wanting my nuts chopped off.
	Yep, that's how far we've gone.
	Anyway, thank you very much for today, Stelios.
	It's a pleasure as always.
	We will be back tomorrow at 1 o'clock.
	Until then, take care and goodbye.

▲