Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 11, 2023 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:30:50

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #629

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the Podcast of Lotus here for the 11th of April I'm joined by Harry.
	Hello!
	And today we're going to be talking about the fact that Daniel Perry did nothing wrong, which you're going to be enlightening me about his case.
	Yep, it's pretty open and shut as far as I'm concerned.
	The spiffing Brit is too dangerous to be kept alive, and unemployment is an immigration Ponzi scheme.
	So, some great arguments in there.
	Otherwise, we shall begin with Mr. Perry.
	Yeah, so Daniel Perry did nothing wrong.
	If you're not aware of this story yet, it was all the way back in the Summer of Love, everybody's favourite summer that they ever lived through, 2020, the Summer of Floyd, where St George, he smiled down upon the burning flames and destroyed cities and mostly derelict black businesses.
	It was a pretty horrible time.
	It was pretty great, not gonna lie.
	No.
	No, it was obviously a horrible time.
	It wasn't anybody's favourite summer.
	In particular, Garrett Foster, who was a BLM protester who ended up getting himself shot whilst protesting on the streets of Austin, Texas by a man called Daniel Perry.
	Initially, it seems that this case was not really going to go any further because the police who investigated it recognized it as a case of clear self-defense but he was indicted by the texas district attorney and recently the trial went through and he has come out the other side as being convicted by a jury of his peers as guilty of murder not of aggravated assault but guilty of murder and could be facing up to a lifetime in prison.
	He has not reached the sentencing stage as of yet so we don't know what the actual sentence is going to be but it's not looking great for him.
	Apart from until Greg Abbott has stood in and seems to be on the verge of just outright pardoning him straight away.
	I'm not entirely sure how the pardoning system works in Texas because Greg Abbott I think has to go through some kind of council of people to make sure he gets pardoned but I think Abbott himself picks the people who end up on that committee.
	So they're probably just going to do what he asks them to.
	But I'll go through the details, and if you've not heard of this story, you can make up your mind yourself whether it was justified to convict him as guilty, or whether, as I believe, this was a clear-cut case of self-defense.
	Before I get into those details though, Rory and I did a very fun hangout on Friday afternoon last week that's for our premium subscribers, so £5 a month at the least, and you can access all of the excellent work that we do on the website.
	But Rory and I were addressing the Zoomer question, and Rory's not somebody who appears on the podcast or on the premium content very often.
	He does edit for us, and he does write some articles for us, but it's always nice when he makes a face appearance on here.
	And I think we had a really good chat.
	We did not answer the Zoomer question.
	We did not find any solutions to the Zoomer question as of yet.
	I don't think there was one, but... Yeah, that's coming from a zoomer like yourself though, so... Although to be fair, technically I'm a zoomer as well.
	But I think it was a really interesting question.
	Self-hating zoomers, dime a dozen.
	We were analysing why zoomers are the way that they are, and what the cultural and environmental...
	situation they grew up in is that caused them to be that way.
	So check that out, please, and let's move on to it.
	So I got this Guardian article just so we can go over some of the basics of it.
	So Daniel Perry himself is a U.S.
	Army sergeant, and he was a rideshare service driver at the time.
	I believe he was driving for Uber at the time, so, you know, he was just picking people up around Austin, Texas, doing Uber driver things, driving them to where they need to go.
	So he's a cop, and then on the side he does Uber?
	Well, no, he's an Army sergeant.
	Okay, sorry.
	I don't know what that is.
	But close enough.
	Does that mean he's in the army, or does that mean he's... Why is he an Uber driver, then?
	I think he was just doing it on the side.
	And I think there was question of whether he should have been doing it on the side, but, you know, if he needed to make a bit of extra money, then, you know, why not?
	But he'd been found guilty of murder of a protester during a Black Lives Matter rally in 2020 in Austin, Texas.
	It was an eight-day trial, two days of verdict deliberations.
	I think overall it was about 17 hours.
	So they took the time with it of a jury in Travis County, Texas.
	Now, Travis County will be important because Travis County is one of the most liberal, I think it is the most liberal area in all of Texas.
	When I looked into it, it's the only place in 2020 that had majority of people there voting for Biden at 71% compared to all the other candidates.
	So yeah, very, very liberal and that may have played a part in why it was that he was found guilty.
	Perry was driving for Uber in downtown Austin where Foster was participating in a Black Lives Matter rally on the night of the shooting on July 25th, 2020.
	According to the police, Perry stopped and honked at the protesters as they walked through the streets before Driving his car into the crowd, which was according to the Texas Tribune, Perry's attorneys argued that he was forced to shoot Foster five times in self-defense after Foster approached his car with an AK-47.
	So he was just casually wandering about this protest with an AK-47.
	Meanwhile, prosecutors contended that Perry had other options during the situation, including driving away before he fired his own gun at Foster, which, if you're in a situation as far as I'm concerned, where a man who is part of a crowd who, as we will find out, is attacking your car, approaches you with a rifle, you're not going to want to take the chance of just, oh, I'll just drive away.
	AK-47s, they're not known for having, you know, rounds that pierce cars or anything.
	Well, even then, he's just going to point it through your window.
	Potentially, yes.
	And during the trial, Austin Police Detective William Bursley testified about evidence found on Perry's cell phone.
	Part of the evidence included online searches for protests tonight, protesters in Seattle get shot, riot shootouts, and protests in Dallas live.
	And it's not, you know, Of course you would never, as an Uber driver, want to be looking into things like whether there have been protests tonight or protests in the state that you're in because, you know, that would never affect your job.
	So this is obviously a smoking gun of intent that he wanted to go out there and shoot somebody in fake self-defense.
	As we'll find out through some of the prosecutions... Yeah, I don't really know how that's relevant.
	Yeah, some of the prosec... Well, that's the thing that a lot of people, like self-defence attorneys, have been talking about after this verdict has come through, which is none of this should have been admitted as relevant to the case in the first place, because all that matters is the situation that he found himself in.
	So, just to give some character idea of who this Garrett Foster person was, the man who he shot, and I'm not saying that, you know, this guy deserved to be shot or anything, but I am saying he put himself in a situation where it was very likely that he would be shot.
	Here is some footage of him before the shooting, where he's going around telling people why it is that he's at the event and why it is that he's carrying a gun.
	Oh, it's AK-47.
	Why'd you got it out tonight?
	They don't let us march in the streets anymore, so I got to practice some of them, right?
	Do you feel like you'll need to use it?
	I think the, uh... I mean, if I use it against the cops, I'm dead.
	And... I think all the people that hate us and, you know, want to say shit to us are too big of a pussies to stop and actually do anything about it, so... Why'd you start carrying?
	Well, our roommate got arrested and they stopped letting us march anywhere, so... I started carrying.
	Thanks.
	And you can pause it there, Chuck.
	Yeah, so sorry about the text that was on the screen.
	If you're wondering, that music in the background was just playing in the background while he was being interviewed by whoever was doing the filming there.
	So what he was saying, if I use the gun against the cops, I'm dead, but anybody else is too big a pussy to do anything about it.
	So he's basically saying, I'm carrying this gun so I can just bully normal people.
	That's the vibe that I got from it.
	I could steel man his position saying he's exercising his rights, which is true.
	It's really weird always coming from left-wingers when they want to talk about gun rights because it's not coherent, but... Well, no, it is coherent for them because they want guns for them so that they can fight back against right-wingers.
	That's always the logic, that's the only logic it really matters.
	It's not to defend ourselves from the state, it's so we can be the state.
	Pretty much.
	I mean, he was also affiliated, just to say, I'm not entirely sure if you would describe him as a left-winger, even though he was, he was marching with BLM, but he was known in the Libertarian Party of Texas and he contributed with them, so when it did post up a picture of his old Instagram which had lots of anti-police rhetoric on it, you may have seen a Gadsden flag on there.
	Yeah, you'll get that from both sides.
	Yeah, you can get that from both sides.
	But what I got from that was that he's basically just carrying it so that he can look tough and intimidate normal people who might want to say, hey, can you please stop protesting on my street, please?
	But either way, that was Garrett.
	And here we have the shooting from two different angles.
	Now, it is going to be difficult to tell, but if you go on the full screen for me, please, John.
	For anybody who is watching this, if you're listening you'll just have to take my description of it.
	On the right here, on the right screen, oh sorry, on the left here, on the left screen, the car that Daniel Perry was driving will be approaching from the right-hand side of that screen, and on the right-hand side of the screen, in this right video, it'll be arriving from around the middle.
	So this intersection, this junction, they'll be going around, he'll be going across and then stopping Uh oh, in the middle of the road and then we'll hear the gunshots, so if you could play that for me?
	Have we not got any audio for this, John?
	I guess not.
	We'll just... Oh, here we go.
	So his car is just honking his horn.
	He's just gone around, you can see the red lights there.
	Everybody is starting to surround the car.
	And there's the shots.
	And then everybody runs.
	Alright.
	So, what it appeared to me, and what it appears to most people who watch that, is that he was just trying to get along.
	He did run a red light, but... And there's a protest going on, he needs to get somewhere, who knows why he ran the red light.
	I think there is some talk that he might have been on his phone, so he might not have been paying attention.
	But he...
	Goes across, he honks his horn, stops, everybody starts to surround him, starts beating on his car, this guy approaches and supposedly raises up his rifle at the guy, the barrel of his gun starts to rise a little bit, guy thinks, I'm about to get shot in the face, bang.
	Sure.
	I mean, I can't tell any of that from the footage.
	Yeah, it's very difficult.
	I do know that there are other video footage that was taken at the time, but I don't know that it's been released to the public.
	It was used in the trial, but having looked into this, the trial has not been fully televised.
	Or at least anywhere that I could find it.
	It's not been on YouTube, for instance.
	So, there's been reports from local television stations.
	But, as far as I'm concerned, from what I could tell there, and from the descriptions that I've seen, and the testimony that I have heard, it does seem that he was in a situation where I would certainly feel threatened.
	This gang of protesters just immediately started to swarm around his car, started beating on it.
	The prosecutors, I think, took... Sorry, some of the investigators took about 24 sets of fingerprints.
	from it and some of the people in the testimony admitted to having started to kick and beat his car and you get this guy walking up to you who's got a gun in his hand that seems to be about to race to you.
	Sure in first circumstance I can't tell it from that video.
	Well yeah of course the video itself is pretty difficult.
	I assume there are witness statements for what you just said being the case.
	That's the reporting that I've seen from it.
	At the time let's hear what the attorney that was representing him had to say on the matter.
	Somebody sees an assault rifle being raised at them, they're not going to wait until the assault rifle gets 90 degrees to see what the person's going to shoot.
	If they're in a position to defend themselves, they're going to do it.
	Perry was driving for a rideshare company that night.
	After dropping someone off, his lawyer says Perry turned onto Congress Avenue where he was met with Black Lives Matter demonstrators.
	Protesters say he sped toward the crowd.
	And Brodin says Foster raised his rifle toward Perry.
	After the shooting, Perry called 9-1-1.
	enforcement given that he was carrying an assault rifle and you know even though this is texas you don't really see you don't expect to see people in the middle of street with assault rifles after the shooting perry called 911 police questioned him and released him sergeant perry goes to work every day has gone to work for the last eight years to defend our constitution and part of that constitution is the first amendment which allows the right for peaceful protests perry is an active duty army sergeant stationed at fort hood called
	Court records show he has a misdemeanor assault charge from 2005 in Dallas County.
	Perry's Twitter account was deactivated after tweets surfaced showing Perry's opposition to other recent protests.
	Brodin says the case shouldn't be about social media.
	Friends say Foster was a constant fixture at Austin's protests, often seen pushing his fiancee Whitney in a wheelchair.
	Okay, don't know why any of that has to do with the case, but sure.
	Just the bit at the end there was like, oh, he was a nice guy.
	Well, you want to get the character witnesses in for the actual person who was killed so that you can get the jury to get all teary-eyed about it.
	I just always hate that.
	That's what they do.
	Don't you know he was a nice guy?
	I'm like, I don't care.
	Was he a criminal or not?
	He was a nice guy.
	He was turning his life around.
	That's whenever it's a black guy who gets shot.
	He was turning his life around.
	He was starting to contribute into the local community.
	Yeah, he may have robbed and murdered people 20 years ago, but he just got off meth, you know.
	Last week.
	Yeah, last week.
	He just relapsed this one time, okay.
	Yeah, that's always the story, but then there is some more footage that's been released from the jury, well, from the trial itself.
	The first one is an analysis of the shooting through videos and 3D rendering that was done here.
	So if we can play this.
	Through a laser scan of 4th and Congress, Jason Evans, a forensic engineer, was able to create a 3D rendering of 4th and Congress.
	And through a series of five photos and videos taking the night of July 25th, 2020, he created a recreation of the incident, starting with Perry turning into the crowd of protesters.
	Mr. Perry starts off initially at 11.9 miles per hour, starts to de-accelerate or slow down.
	to the apex of the turn to 9.8 miles per hour and then continues to slow down until he comes to a stop.
	Evans was also able to give a rendering of how close Foster might have been standing to Perry's driver's side door before Perry shot and killed him.
	We were able to show and accurately know that A tenth of a second before the first shot fired that Mr. Foster was 18 inches from the driver's door.
	And also how Perry might have seen Foster through his driver's side door.
	This part of the analysis based on one cell phone video from that night.
	We were also able to show that you were able to see Mr. Foster from the area of his mid-thigh all the way to the top of his head.
	The state argued this analysis, mentioning Foster looks like he's almost fully upright when at Perry's window, when previous testimony from the medical examiner who performed Foster's autopsy claimed otherwise based on his gunshot wounds.
	If I told you that there was testimony before this jury that the trajectory of Mr. Foster's wounds were all downward, going across his body in a downward Would that change your analysis at all?
	Again, we didn't do any trajectory analysis.
	The state also questioned Evans' analysis of how close Foster was standing and the video from that night shows he's moving when the first muzzle flash goes off.
	I know in our analysis we determined that frame from our 22nd clip showed both of his feet on the ground in that one frame.
	A response that resulted a back and forth.
	If you're going to ask me an opinion about the video, I need to understand what are the times.
	In the end, Evans stood by his analysis, claiming he was extremely confident in the accuracy of his testimony.
	Yes, there is some error associated with this, but there is not a basic quantified calculation to give you an exact measurement.
	So yeah, typical back and forth going on in the trial there, but I think it does show there what was going on is that you do have other footage at much better angles of what actually happened in the shooting We can see a small amount there.
	Yeah, that we just don't have access to in the public.
	Supposedly, the district attorney did prevent a lot of evidence being put in by the defense for the trial.
	The defense, say, would have been able to help his case, but we don't know exactly why, other than the fact that the district attorney is supposedly Soros-backed, which is why he got this indictment in the first place.
	Then the second one we've got here is just footage from the initial interview that the police did with Perry after he was arrested, where you can see his realisation that, you know, the guy that I shot, you know, he says, I was just trying to get him to go away, just wanted to incapacitate him, I didn't want to kill him, but you gotta do what you gotta do if you feel like you're in a situation where you're about to get shot in the face, and realises the guy is dead.
	So, let's play this.
	I know this is a really stressful time.
	Oh my God!
	Oh my God!
	He's dead!
	Oh God!
	Footage of Daniel Perry's police interview after he killed Garrett Foster was played in the courtroom during his murder trial.
	Former Austin Police Homicide Detective David Fugett was the one to conduct the interview with Perry.
	In it, Detective Fugett had Perry demonstrate how Foster carried his rifle.
	How high did that barrel come up?
	We know it's probably about right there.
	Okay.
	Was it aimed at you?
	I believe it was aimed at... I believe he was going to aim it at me.
	I didn't want to give him a chance to aim it at me, you know?
	And then what Perry did while he was sitting in the driver's seat.
	Like that?
	Like what?
	Yeah.
	Because it's like a thing in the restroom.
	I... I don't want to get shot, so... Perry said he shot five times.
	He believes the whole encounter was less than 15 seconds.
	Where did you shoot at?
	Sometime after the interview, Perry called Detective Fugate to find out more information for his lawyer, reiterating that he was scared but quote, felt bad.
	He was a person.
	I feel bad, you know.
	I just wish to tell it differently, you know.
	I honestly did not want him to die.
	All I wanted to do was to incapacitate him.
	Yeah, so you can get a good idea of how he was feeling and what we were talking about there, and presumably his mindset at the situation.
	Once again, if I was in a situation like that, I would be pretty frightened.
	Yeah, I mean, it's more the fundamental case of, let's say you're driving a car, you end up in a protest and a whole bunch of people surround you.
	I mean, do you have the right- Start beating on your car.
	Yeah, if someone involves you with something that can kill you and looks like they're going to kill you, should you have the right to shoot them?
	I think it's a more fundamental argument about the self-defence case there, isn't it?
	Well, in Texas, I'm aware that they do have pretty strong Stand Your Ground laws.
	Someone threatens you, you can- Someone threatens you, you feel like they're approaching you with intent to kill, or wounds you, then you can fight back.
	And I would feel that way in a situation.
	Last bit of footage was just after he was found guilty.
	I think this clip that I've got includes a little bit more information as to why exactly he was found guilty.
	Perry's mother instantly leaned over and began sobbing.
	Perry even losing it himself.
	Apparent shock on both sides.
	Some legal experts I spoke to ahead of the trial telling me they even thought Perry was likely to be found not guilty, saying the state would not be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Perry acted in self-defense.
	Now, it's hard to say what it...
	Could have been that led jurors to make this decision, but one of the strongest pieces of evidence from the state, private Facebook messages between Perry and his friend talking about an eerily similar situation in Seattle where a driver shot and killed a protester after driving into the crowd just six weeks before Perry shot and killed Foster.
	Here's what Foster's family had to say after the verdict.
	Very sorry for his family as well.
	There's no winners in this and just glad it's over.
	Alright, so the evidence that was mainly used to push that he was guilty of it and not just engaged in a self-defense scenario, they didn't even make the argument that really he just put himself in a stupid situation and reacted rashly and self-defense shouldn't count in that.
	They're saying that it was basically premeditated and intentional because of these private Facebook messages that he was sending to his friend that indicated that he might have wanted to go out and shoot these people.
	Because he'd done Facebook posts and other such things saying, oh, tell the protesters to come to Texas and we'll show them that you don't protest like this in Texas, yadda yadda.
	Basically just, oh, I'm a big tough guy on social media posts.
	S-posting.
	Yeah, doesn't mean that you actually want to go and murder anybody, because if that is the case... I would have thought the whole thing would have hinged on how much he raised his rifle, the guy who was shot, because... That didn't seem to play into it.
	I would have thought the whole case would have been, well, he didn't actually raise it, therefore you killed this guy.
	I mean, that's a sensible argument.
	In a sense of, okay, you may have been surrounded but no one actually was threatening your life and therefore you killed an innocent person.
	But if it's just, ah, didn't you S-talk on Twitter.com?
	So, what has that got to do with this?
	Exactly.
	So, from what I can tell, their logic is that he decided that he was going to intentionally kill some protesters.
	He went out that night and went, oh boy, here I go killing again.
	Yep.
	And so, therefore, he managed to contrive himself into a situation where he was surrounded by protesters, and just so happened to be that the one protester who was openly carrying a deadly firearm, an AK-47, approached him, and then he shot that guy.
	He got his one chance he was looking for.
	Yeah, and it just happened to be the perfect chance that could also fall into the case of self-defense, and then drives away, and he's the one who calls the police on himself to tell them, I just shot a guy.
	Well, they did.
	I have seen people on social media saying, this guy knew exactly what he was doing.
	Of course he called the police straight away, because he knew that they would take his side.
	Once again, when given all of this information, the initial lead investigator of the case just said, well, this is obvious self-defense.
	Given what the information that you've given this is self-defense we're not going to charge you with it but it was the judge the district attorney I should say that decided to indict him on this and if I carry on I did I did get a little bit more information on this uh on the circumstances and some information regarding the self-defense laws in Texas from this so you can check that video out they also mentioned once again Travis County Probably the most liberal county in all of Texas in the first place, so he was going to be having a jury that was stacked against him.
	I think the judge in that county as well is a big Democrat, so he sadly did have the deck stacked against him from a self-defense standpoint.
	A lot of the people in the jury were likely to have maybe even been out in that protest that night, potentially, or at least agreed with the sentiments of the jury.
	But if we go along, so I found some more information from this, this person, Greg Price, was tweeting about it, saying the lead detective in the case concluded it was a justifiable homicide.
	So did the Austin Police Department.
	But the Soros-funded Travis County District Attorney, Jose Garcia, indicted him anyway and was accused by the detective of withholding evidence from the grand jury and witness tampering.
	Meanwhile, if you scroll down, the guy Daniel Perry fatally shot had a history of threatening people with rifles at the BLM protests.
	There was reports from a number of other police officers saying they'd had trouble with him, saying that he had been accused with a lot of other protesters of just sort of waving his gun around trying to act like a big man.
	This is the Garrett Foster guy and as I mentioned earlier 24 sets of fingerprints were also found on Perry's car showing that the mob was being anything but friendly and if you actually watch some of the footage that came out from the trial one of the people involved in it even admitted that yeah I kicked the car and a lot of other people were doing similar things so If you're in a situation where you're going to feel threatened, that would certainly be a situation where I would feel threatened.
	And like I said, Greg Abbott seems to be on the case.
	He's come out and just said he's working as swiftly as Texas laws allow regarding the pardoning of Daniel Perry.
	Tweeting out this, saying, Texas has one of the strongest stand your ground laws of self-defense that cannot be nullified by a jury or progressive district attorney.
	Unlike the president or some other states, the Texas Constitution limits the government's pardon authority and can only act as a recommendation by the Board of Pardons and Paroles.
	Texas law does allow the governor to request the board of pardons and paroles to determine if a person should be granted a pardon.
	I have made that request and instructed the board to expedite its review.
	I look forward to approving the board's pardon recommendation as soon as it hits my desk.
	Additionally, I've already prioritized reining in rogue district attorneys and the Texas legislature is working on laws to achieve that goal.
	So we'll see what comes of that.
	I do think, personally, that Daniel Parry was in a situation where it can be justifiably considered as self-defense.
	Obviously, either way, it's a tragic situation.
	Garrett Foster is dead, his family's down a child, and his fiancée is... well, sorry, his wife is without her husband now.
	So it's altogether a tragic situation, but if I was put in that situation, I don't know if I could say that I would have acted any differently to him with his skill set.
	I'm not convinced that it's murder for sure.
	No, absolutely.
	I'm surprised that the level of argument wasn't... The whole point is you've got to prove that it's outside of a reasonable doubt.
	And I don't think there was really much of a case to prove that it was outside of a reasonable doubt, that it was self-defense.
	And the mainstream narrative has already begun to form around this.
	You've got the Daily Beast saying Greg Abbott's pardon of Daniel Perry would be wrong and dangerous, and you've got Statesman and other publications coming out saying that it was just influential conservatives in the next one.
	No, in the next one.
	Influential conservatives pushed Greg Abbott towards Daniel Perry's pardon plan in under 24 hours.
	That's right, it's just the evil social media conservative pushers getting Greg Abbott to look at this case and go, hold up, this seems like... this seems like rubbish.
	Even in the original... What a weird complaint.
	It's like, didn't you know right-wingers want right-wing politicians to do right-wing things?
	I know.
	Shocking.
	And even the Guardian article that I referenced at the start of this described Greg Abbott... described Greg Abbott as an extremist governor.
	He's an extremist.
	Ooh, he doesn't want people going away under hostile juries with all this nonsense going on.
	So personally, I hope that Greg Abbott pardons him and that self-defence laws are shored up a little bit because this nonsense shouldn't be allowed to keep happening.
	What weirded out by that DA?
	If he saw us by our ways, he'd just get rid of him.
	I don't know if the governors are allowed to get rid of them.
	I don't know if they are.
	I thought Ron DeSantis did, but I don't know the details.
	Ron DeSantis seems to be more than happy to just, like, do things.
	Yeah, there you go.
	So the spiffing Brit is just too dangerous to be kept alive.
	He is the General Grievous of YouTube.com at this point, is my conclusion.
	I love the spiffing Brit, but um, sorry buddy, you've gone too far this time.
	And in case you're wondering what I'm talking about, it's the exploits he's been finding on YouTube, which I thought we'd just enjoy.
	So we'll start off by mentioning something on LetItSizz.com, this being the Susan Wojcicki explaining why she ruined YouTube article I wrote, because she went on a podcast and just told everyone, which is, uh, yeah, ruined it, because, uh, mafifis.
	Specifically, she says in here that she decided that everyone had to start getting fed mainstream media sources because the Paris attacks happened, and she decided everyone should see it.
	And then when she was told the normies don't care about the news... She said, well, I'll make them care, damn it.
	No, she said show it to them anyway, even though they're not clicking on it.
	She said let them eat cake.
	It's really the starting point as to why she made a series of decisions which are just bad for YouTube in structure, but go and give that a read.
	And now we've got Neil Mohan pushing the exact same thing, if not even harder.
	But we'll get a spiffing break because he's far more fun.
	And well, YouTube is kind of a hellhole.
	Usually the stories are something like this.
	You know, Brittany Vennie over here has finally got her live streaming privileges back.
	If you don't know about this, she did a live stream.
	I remember she got taken off, but what was it for?
	She said noncing was bad.
	So they were like, we can't have that.
	Well, I can understand why, you know, leftist progressives would disagree with that.
	Yeah, they labelled it as her promoting it.
	It was like, no, no, literally calling it out and saying this guy's engaging in this, needs to be stopped.
	So she's got that back.
	And usually that's the stories around YouTube.
	Wait, did YouTube have the noncing is bad?
	That's just what a nonce would say argument.
	Yeah.
	But usually that's the story you get, and then you get the occasional piece of good news, which is Venti's got our stuff back.
	But this missing Brit, he does more fun things, mostly exploits.
	So you can see here, for example, this is Dawn of War, where he found out you could get infinite orcs if you just keep reloading the game after getting max population orcs.
	Which means you will actually get... It's not, you don't just chant, orcs, orcs, orcs, orcs, orcs, orcs, orcs, orcs, orcs, orcs, orcs, orcs, orcs, orcs, orcs, orcs, orcs, orcs, orcs, orcs, orcs, orcs, orcs, orcs, orcs, orcs, orcs, orcs, orcs, orcs, orcs, orcs, orcs, orcs, orcs, orcs, orcs, orcs, orcs, orcs, orcs, orcs, orcs, orcs, orcs, orcs, orcs, orcs, orcs, orcs, orcs, orcs, orcs, orcs, orcs, orcs, orcs, orcs, orcs, orcs, orcs, orcs, orcs, orcs, orcs, orcs, orcs, orcs, orcs, I'm not, I mean I'm going to be kind here and say that's not how they got the 3.5 million followers because I think the YouTube stuff was a bit more than the normal because we can see it.
	If you go to the next one here he does a lot of like exploits on YouTube as well to see what he can find.
	This one's one of the dumbest ones which you know it doesn't really work but it's a thing which is that if you play your video where you're speaking at double speed The audience have to, of course, put it at half speed to watch the video.
	Oh, so it means that you get twice the watch time.
	The watch time is double the video length, which makes no sense.
	So the YouTube algorithm would just go, hang on a minute, people seem to really love this video.
	And then start recommending it to everyone.
	Yeah.
	That's genius.
	So, I mean, it's stuff like this that really catches my eye in regards to the danger he represents to the public.
	So Mohan's ban hammer might be coming down on him soon.
	I don't know.
	I mean, this one's pretty dumb because you can't really use this.
	Because what are you going to do?
	Upload all your videos at double speed so people have to watch them at half speed?
	Yeah, why not?
	It's not really enjoyable.
	Plus, people don't really like having to go and do the half speed thing.
	Well, they might not have to, like, just shifting their cursor a little bit, clicking twice.
	No, because if you're a new user and you click on it, you just hear... From this channel, you just go, what is this?
	You think, man, this is interesting.
	These guys are impressive.
	Yeah, there were some people who put it to a quarter speed to, what was it, like four times?
	To really simmer in the content.
	Yeah, kind of dumb.
	Kind of dumb, right?
	It didn't really go anywhere.
	But an interesting experiment.
	Well, of course, there are far more experiments you can run to find the exploits in the real world.
	And he found one here.
	This is YouTube Edging.
	So what you do is you schedule... We're a family-friendly channel, Callum.
	You schedule your video to go live or to be premiered at a certain time.
	And of course, what YouTube does is, let's say you premiere it for 48 hours in the future.
	When you start, they'll send the video to a few people, you know, your diehard fans, to let them know, look, in like two days, this guy's publishing something.
	And then as it gets closer to the scheduled date, it starts recommending it to a lot more people, a lot more normie fans, who might just click on it in the last hour.
	So then in the last hour, basically that's when you get all your people coming over to wait for the livestream to start.
	Oh yeah.
	So then join it.
	And of course the more people you have waiting, the more the livestream will snowball.
	And get recommended to more people.
	So what happens if you just keep extending the premiere?
	Real late guys, sorry, just had a shower.
	30 minutes, my boys.
	Because the thing is YouTube- Oh boy, this food's taking a bit longer than I thought it would.
	Yeah, what he found is, as intended, what the YouTube algorithm will do is just go, oh, it's just not famous.
	I'll just recommend there's more people.
	And then before you know it, you've got 5,000 people waiting on a stream that's not started.
	And the YouTube algorithm sits there and goes, god, a lot of people like this video.
	And then you just don't do the live stream.
	You do end up doing it.
	He managed to get, I think it was 20,000 live viewers on the thing.
	Wait, did he actually test this?
	Yeah, yeah.
	Oh, nice.
	They ended up patching it.
	Because, like, this was a legit bug.
	Yeah, you could get infinite viewers on your live streams, which... Yeah, that's not as intended.
	And then the biggest thing I think he was known for was the polls glitch.
	I don't know if you remember this era in YouTube history.
	I remember polls.
	Yeah, everyone remembers the polls.
	Now they've left.
	But what he did is he... No, they haven't.
	They've settled shop.
	What you can do is obviously go to the community tab, Because YouTube are like, you know what, YouTube is now, it's not a video platform, it's social media.
	Which, eh, whatever.
	So you can post memes, or, you know, update your audience as to what you're doing.
	Which isn't a bad idea, that's okay.
	But they also added the idea that you could do polls.
	And your audience could vote in the polls, and like and comment about a poll.
	Does anyone like polls?
	They're not interesting.
	It's literally just as he puts there, you know, are you subscribed, and then just a load of stuff.
	Or just put coffee or tea, and people will put coffee or tea, and it's a complete waste of time.
	But of course, YouTube, because it was a new feature, decided, hey, everyone should get this pumped into their feeds, even people who aren't subscribed.
	And at which point, if you were the only person posting polls, because no one else was, because it's boring as hell, you found an infinite subscriber glitch, Because you would post a poll, and as you can see, there are 141,000 likes on that.
	Yeah, that's a good point.
	A million-odd votes.
	Well, if a million people are voting, yeah, you quite quickly rack up a lot of subscribers.
	So infinite subscriber glitch, pretty fun.
	Wait, so is it just because YouTube decided that everybody needs to see this poll?
	Because it was a new feature, and every time there's a new feature YouTube wants to push it, they gave you a slight boost.
	So, if you were using the polls, you got a slight boost.
	And because nobody was using them, because they're stupid, the only people who were using them were getting an incredible boost!
	Damn, we should have used more polls.
	Yeah, so he cheesed the hell out of that and then made a video saying like, uh, hang on, I found an infinite subscriber glitch, guys.
	There's a break in the matrix.
	And then immediately after dropping that video, everyone was doing polls, which corrected the system.
	Okay, this makes sense to me as to why I saw everybody doing polls a while back now.
	Yeah, it was because every YouTuber saw the Smiffing Brits video and went, I too like subscribers.
	Makes sense to me.
	And then because everyone was using it, the advantage was nullified, and then YouTube were like, hang on a minute, yeah, we should probably get rid of this.
	This is dumb.
	I don't know how much they've gotten rid of that, because it still seems to be some kind of... Maybe we should test it.
	People still engage in polls, I don't really know why.
	People like engaging in questions.
	Big social questions where they get to see their opinion compared with other people's opinions.
	They're not usually like that.
	It's more like, I don't know, fluff or not fluff, or some weird nonsense like that.
	Yeah, people want to know, where do I stand as opposed to the rest of the population?
	Sure.
	But, you know, there's that, which was pretty fun.
	But then he found out that YouTube was indeed very broken, not just like slightly broken.
	You can see there, there's the poll.
	227,000 votes on is YouTube broken?
	And then you get a bunch of subscribers from crap like that, so that was...
	See, this is part of the social experiment I'm talking about.
	Now you know that 20 people are morons.
	20% of people, I should say.
	Oh, I don't know.
	It was funny at the time, but moving on.
	Because, like I say, for any normal feature, they push the hell out of it.
	You may have seen shorts endlessly being pushed on.
	Oh, I know shorts.
	I think it was Tim Paul or something was mentioning he got a call with someone who worked at YouTube and he was being asked, oh what problems do you have with YouTube?
	We're trying to reach out to creators.
	And they call up Tim Paul, so what do you think he did?
	He's just like, you're cancer!
	Here's why!
	And explained in detail and then the guy was overwhelmed and didn't really get it.
	Started crying.
	Yeah, the one thing he did want to talk to Tim about was YouTube Shorts, and the whole thing from YouTube is, we've done this thing, we're gonna try and kill TikTok by doing the same thing, so call up all our creators and make them make this, and also we'll give them a boost so people can get more subscribers or whatever.
	But then you gotta make a decision, at least for fun, and a lot of people thought they weren't, so they didn't bother, but then you have that, so...
	It's not unexpected.
	Most shorts I've seen recommended to me are just people taking short, very minute-long clips of longer videos and just going, yeah, there you go.
	There doesn't seem to be an amazing way to glitch the hell out of that, so I haven't seen Spliffing Brett mention anything, but... Heartbroken.
	Maybe there's something there.
	Speaking of which, though, we're going to check in with the media real quick, because they're very mad about shorts.
	Which I found funny.
	Of course they are.
	Just have to mention this.
	So MSNBC's- Is it because the bad people can use shorts?
	Yeah, they can.
	So MSNBC's Sky News is very upset because, um, as you see, Andrew Tate's shorts are turning up in my feed!
	No!
	What will I do?
	Oh, I'm forced to click them!
	The hand of God guides my finger to them every time!
	Could just skip them.
	No?
	So what they did here, this is really like scummy Jono, I just had to mention it because it's really funny.
	So this lady here, she sets up a fake 13 year old's YouTube account.
	So she has like a fake AI face.
	So she pretends to be 13 years old on the internet.
	Yeah, 13 year old boy.
	Great start.
	So what she did is she started going on Shorts and just scrolling.
	And, um, when she found an Andrew Tate short, she would watch all of it, and then keep scrolling.
	And then, what do you know?
	The YouTube algorithm decided, huh, you seem to have liked that video, I'll give you more of them.
	And she was shocked to find out that the YouTube algorithm recommends videos that are similar to videos that you've previously watched all of.
	Amazing, isn't it?
	Yeah.
	So if you go to the next link we can see- This is some cutting-edge science.
	Yeah, you can see they've made a video about this as well, where they're whining.
	I don't know if you can scroll down, just look at the dislikes.
	I'm just- I'm gonna have a guess.
	Yeah, it was about right, what I was gonna guess.
	Yeah.
	No one- no one- no one pays attention to mainstream media crap anymore, but it's funny.
	But we'll end it off with just- they decided to make a graph showing this as well, being how shocked they were.
	It was like 12 minutes in, we found an Andrew Tate short, and then it started giving us more of them because we were watching them.
	Yeah, okay.
	Like, you're actual children, aren't you?
	But back to the spiffing brick, because he's got some... I think these people... I hope these people aren't as stupid as they seem to be.
	I'm hoping that they're actually just evil, and aren't just stupid.
	Or maybe they're both.
	Maybe they're stupid and evil, because obviously all they're doing is they're trying to get something that can make this scary-looking graph.
	Yeah, but these people are not as intelligent as Spiffing, because of course Spiffing is actually looking to find glitches, whereas these people are just looking to find works as intended and then write smear story.
	It tells me there's such a gap between the creativity in the world, between the journos and then the people like Spiffing who are not working in that industry ever.
	I mean, could you imagine if this was 1970 or something and you had some really interesting ideas about the Spoof something or glitch something like it end up in the media because it'd be cool and instead It's literally outside of the media frame and instead a youtuber frame I just I just love the world in that regard to these days But but getting back to him because he also found an infinite money glitch Which was pretty cool.
	Oh, I could use one of them.
	Oh Before we get there, we'll just mention this one here.
	I did see he was posting on his community tab.
	So this is a meme, which is a pretty good thing to post on your community tab, because of course, people like memes.
	I like meme.
	I do occasionally enjoy exhaling breath from my nostrils.
	Yeah, it's fantastic.
	As you can see, it gives me the stealth bomber images.
	So there is no stealth bomber, haha.
	But the thing is, you can notice that he actually links a YouTube video, which is four years old, on top of the meme.
	Oh, okay.
	I see what he's doing.
	No, I'm not trying to spoil what you're cooking, my brother.
	But, um, if you are cooking... I'm interested to see if this works, because I think what he might be doing is just posting, like, old videos alongside memes.
	See if it boosts their views.
	Yeah, and because their age is old as well, you can measure it well, because no one's watching those at four years old.
	Yeah.
	But we'll go to the infinite money glitch now, which was probably the funniest and the most messed up, which is that you could subscribe to yourself through YouTube membership, which would cost you $4.99.
	Okay.
	Alright.
	But then YouTube would recognize that you subscribed to yourself and refund you the money and give you the $4.99 back and be like, this is you, you can't give yourself money, you idiot.
	Okay.
	But then Google AdSense recognized that you just got a subscription and would give you $3.43 And so begins the loop.
	Yeah, so you literally just, like, he just stumbled across an infinite money glitch on YouTube and he was like, huh, that seems broken.
	We should do this.
	Yeah, the audio's muted on that so I wonder if we can just play this video real quick because this is actually the video he was edging as well to get maximum viewership on it because it wasn't just YouTube where the infinite money printer glitch was taking place.
	Turns out Twitch Twitch did the same thing!
	Oh god.
	There was also an infinite money glitch, but this time what you do is you buy Twitch currency through Turkey, because the inflation rate there is crazy.
	Oh, alright.
	So you buy $300 of currency for $200 because of the exchange rate, and then you pay it to yourself, and then you sell the currency for $300!
	Oh my god.
	$100 profit.
	So he mentions in here there were a whole bunch of accounts that were, for some reason, they had basically no one watching, but were making 30 grand a month.
	Who knows how they- I think they must just have some mysterious benefactors supporting them.
	Yeah, I mean though, the infinite money glitches are probably the most chaotic and mad things you could imagine, and it wasn't just Twitch as well.
	I think he goes on to mention, I think it was like Amazon or someone else also had an infinite money glitch, which has now been patched.
	Damn!
	Sorry boys.
	Why do I find out about all these things now after they've been patched?
	Yeah, there's also the Facebook infinite money glitch.
	That one was where you buy an Oculus and your friend...
	It just works.
	Yeah, and tech companies are the founding of some of the funniest.
	So what you do is you factory reset your Oculus, and then you become your friend's friend, which gets you another $30, and then you factory reset the other Oculus, and then blah, blah, blah, blah, before you know it, you've got enough credit to buy a new Oculus, and then you sell the Oculus online for money.
	So, you know, infinite money glitches.
	Quite rare.
	It just works.
	Yeah, and tech companies are the founding of some of the funniest.
	So we'll pause that there, because, you know, infinite money...
	Pretty bad.
	Well, depends who you are.
	Depends on what side of the equation you're on.
	He tried to find another infinite money glitch, which is even funnier.
	I mean, those ones are kind of, you know, actually taking advantage of the system.
	Spiffing came up with a new idea, which is, hang on a minute, you know how I'm a YouTuber?
	I get ad revenue if people watch my videos, but I can also pay for people to find my videos as an ad.
	So if I pay money for my video to be an ad on your YouTube timeline and then you click it, I get paid while you watch my video anyway, through ads that are being played on my video.
	So if I can get paid more from you watching my stuff than I pay you to click on it, I make a profit.
	Do you follow?
	Does that make sense?
	I mean, surely that's why you pay to promote it in the first place, right?
	So you can get more views, get more money?
	Well, you pay because you might get more subscribers and long-term growth, but what if you made money per advert Which doesn't make any sense, obviously.
	Because that's not how advertising works.
	But New World.
	So you pay for the views.
	Views equals ad revenue.
	And then pay for views with the ad revenue.
	Infinite cycle, plus profit.
	You are now getting paid to become more famous.
	Pretty good system.
	Do they call that the Kardashian method?
	Yeah, sadly this one failed.
	Because you would pay like 0.5 pence for a view and only get paid 0.2 pence from watching it.
	But the video he ran it on gave him an idea because it turns out he's now found the most deadly weapon known to YouTube Because he ran the ad campaign on this live stream and what happened is obviously during the period of the ad campaign he'd pay like 50 quid or something and he'd get a huge spike in views but the audience it was being sent to were not that interested because it was a three-hour live stream on RimWorld.
	Not a huge number of people.
	I wouldn't stick around.
	No.
	So what people would do is they'd watch and then go, what the hell is this?
	And leave.
	So the viewer retention completely died.
	The amount of likes to views completely died.
	Every metric completely died.
	Except that he had a lot of views because he was paying for them.
	And then after the ad campaign ended, what happened is the natural amount of new views he would get was basically zero.
	Because YouTube would look at his current metrics and go, hang on a minute, nobody's watching this when they click on it, blah blah blah, and it took that information from the ad campaign period.
	Which obviously isn't reflective of reality, because it's all artificial.
	So he realised he'd actually killed his own video from running an ad campaign.
	Which is pretty impressive.
	But this is where the big bad comes in, and this is why he's too dangerous to be kept alive.
	Oh no.
	He's become General Grievous.
	That's why Mohan's after him now.
	Yeah, turns out you can not only sponsor your own videos as a content creator, but as everyone seems to have just ignored, including YouTube, you can sponsor other people's videos.
	So if I want to pay for someone else's videos to be shown in an advert, I can do that.
	Which obviously is just a good thing, because they get more views.
	How could this go wrong?
	Well, what if I put in the wrong metrics on purpose, so that the people who see it instantly click off, all of them, and now that video is completely cursed in the algorithm, I can kill it overnight?
	Which is a pretty deadly weapon.
	That is pretty deadly.
	Because not only could I do that to all of their videos on their channel for 50 bucks apiece, And just kill their channel.
	I could also just, let's say there's a new event, um, Andrew Tate, I don't know, found guilty in prison.
	Let's say that's the new story in ten months or something, right?
	And then you want to make the one video about it, but there's all these other people making videos about it.
	So what you do is you sponsor all of their videos, with an ad campaign, on the wrong videos.
	To an audience that's not interested, and then your video would be the only one with good metrics and would be the only one shown.
	So you sponsor the Andrew Tate news to lots of makeup channels, for instance.
	Something like that.
	Which is, um, really devious.
	It's slightly evil, but I appreciate certain types of evil.
	If you go to the next one here we can see, that's the video in question there, where he's like, what if I get this Hogwarts Legacy video and sponsor it for ages 75 plus who are interested in foreign language dramas who don't own a PC and don't play video games?
	How would you like to know about Gameranx Hogwarts Legacy review?
	Yeah, so I mean, this is... I mean, I must admit, part of me did look at that and go, God, I could finally get rid of IGN overnight.
	Are you being tormented by IGN recommendations?
	I don't know if they've patched this yet.
	So there's that.
	But he released the data weeks ago, as you can see here from the video.
	He's like, yeah, and this works as well.
	It takes about a month for the analytics to go back to normal.
	So for about a month, you just nuke the video.
	Or if you sponsor all the channels' popular videos, you nuke their channel for a month.
	Which is, you know, a threat.
	It's just a nice thing to do.
	That's terrifying.
	I'd like to spend a Sunday.
	Someone who makes videos.
	So, if you go to YouTube though, they've got some great news though.
	They're really working.
	Latest YouTube premium privileges include queuing videos.
	Wow.
	Amazing.
	This is what I mean by like, you've got really interesting smart people in Spiffing who are just like, you know, finding infinite money glitches.
	And then you get other folks who are like... I can't wait until he finds that there's some way to get YouTube to automatically cue your video in everybody's cues or something.
	So you just get infinite views because it always comes up.
	But I love it.
	YouTube HQ.
	What are you guys?
	The big brains who get paid the big bucks.
	What are you working on?
	Oh, okay.
	Well, if you pay us $15.99 a month, you can queue your videos.
	You know, watch later playlist.
	Yeah, that's right.
	Hand over the money, sucker.
	Speaking of which though, I thought we just uh, so that's the news on Spiffing, which I just, I'm just mad and I had to tell us all about it because I think it's funny.
	But we'll just get back to YouTube real quick just because, well, they've released this update.
	This is the 2023 Priorities.
	And they say in here that they've got some great news, folks.
	Got some great channels you can check out, such as Belief in Fatherhood, which gives us a window into everyday family life through the eyes of a black father.
	We found the one who stuck around.
	Yeah, he struggles to get 10,000 views a video.
	For some reason, he's on the front page of YouTube for their updates.
	The leaflet they send to everyone.
	There's also Cafe Maddie, who has moved from becoming a dentist to a full-time food creator.
	She also struggles to get about 10,000 views a video.
	She's also on the front page of this update to all the creators.
	Alright.
	They both live in California.
	I think that might be... That might have something to do with it.
	Neil.
	I don't care.
	I really don't care about any of these people you're trying to push in my face.
	I just find it really weird how the people who work at YouTube seem to just... not having the same kind of creativity as Spiffing.
	That's for sure.
	They mention it here, they have some... Well, it turns out the kind of creativity that you can have on YouTube is, how can I make infinite money through YouTube?
	Yeah.
	God, I wish they'd bring it back.
	But they also mention it here.
	So do I. They've also announced that you can now get NFL Sunday tickets and watch it on YouTube.
	Cool.
	Oh, wow.
	So, YouTube is just saying, that's right, we're just a TV network now.
	Can I have the dislikes back?
	Can we do that?
	That'd be nice.
	We have a plugin, so we can still see them.
	I mean, everyone can do that.
	Can you roll back on some of the terms and conditions?
	Yeah.
	They have some politics stuff in here in which they mention that there's a debate in the United States about the 230 Communications Decency Act, which is going to be censoring harmful content.
	They say in here, it will actually give us the tools to remove harmful content.
	You already have all of those tools and you're more than happy to use them, Neil.
	Don't lie.
	Yeah, so that's just them bragging that things are going to get worse.
	We're also engaged in discussions about a proposal in Europe that may limit political speech and Bill C-11.
	Was it C-16 was the one that Jordan Peterson got in trouble about?
	Yeah, it's just how Canadian bills work.
	In Canada, that could force us to show content based on government requirements instead of user interests.
	Oh no.
	Oh no, we would never want to push government propaganda.
	No, don't make me.
	No.
	Yeah, like you already do it.
	So that's... I mean, Susan admitted that you already did that out of your own free will before the government even got to you.
	So, whatever.
	I just don't end off with that.
	It's just like, oh God, the people at YouTube are useless.
	There is actually one feature in there that I thought might be interesting, but again, it's so nothing compared to what I'd hoped they'd do.
	It's just the last thing here being that they've now made it so they have auto captions, which are going to translate into 16 languages automatically.
	Which is kind of cool, but that's literally it.
	That's all they're doing with all the money and all the brains.
	I don't care.
	Whereas Spiffing over here is like evil genius number one and is just finding more and more ways to... He's there stroking his furless cat.
	Yeah, to break the world.
	And I just had to tell someone about it because it's really funny in my opinion.
	He sat around and came up with, how do I nuke my opponents in the YouTube world?
	And he actually found a way to do it.
	I think you have just told on Spiffing Brit, though.
	Oh, he's already made the video.
	Still, Mohan's been obviously paying quite a bit of attention to our channel recently, given that we've been hit with quite a few things, so he's probably watching this video.
	He's probably on the website right now.
	I know you're watching, and he's probably just thinking like, hmm, I should get rid of this Spiffing guy.
	Nah, Spiffing will end up boosting him or something.
	Maybe.
	Who knows?
	But, government statistics!
	The most interesting subject that I know you're all thrilled to be hearing about, but they are very important because they do play a lot into what government policies get put through and what policies get recommended in the first place.
	Because ever since governments started to really collect statistics, For lots of, some would say inconsequential things, some would say very important things, especially when it all started to ramp up in the mid-20th century.
	It's been used to push all sorts of nonsense and now it's used to push immigration.
	Almost every statistic you can imagine will eventually somehow lead back to, needs more foreigners.
	That's the answer to everything.
	Sawtooth?
	Need more foreigners.
	NHS wait time?
	Well, you need more foreigners clogging up those emergency rooms.
	Unemployment among the foreign population?
	More foreigners.
	More foreigners.
	Too many sleepy foreigners?
	Well, perhaps more sleepy foreigners will solve the sleepy foreigner problem.
	Because they can all get in the big bed together and they can all, you know, the little one said, roll over, etc, etc.
	Yes, because unemployment statistics are very important.
	One of the main arguments that we constantly hear for why we need mooring immigration is there's so many job vacancies, job vacancies everywhere, left, right and centre, wherever you look, there's somebody struggling to get a job despite the fact that there's all these job vacancies.
	Okay, and I'll examine why that is a load of nonsense in just a moment.
	First, we do have a new premium podcast that Connor put out on the website where he's talking to Carl about whether Jesus is a socialist.
	As you can see, this went on for one and a half hours.
	Short answer is no.
	But if you'd like the longer and more comprehensive answer, you can go on the website, sign up for £5 a month, and get access to all the juicy goodness therein, and watch this one in particular.
	So, some of the more recent statistics we've got regarding the channel crossings, the illegal immigration that I've been harping on about recently, was the fact that only 250 migrants who arrived last year were deported.
	And that's of the about 40,000 who showed up, so... Couldn't find a job.
	Obviously not.
	Just 39,785 to go.
	No, no, that means we've got 37 billion more.
	How many you said?
	39,000.
	39,000 more workers.
	Economy go up.
	Line go up.
	Only good thing.
	I know that means we've got 37 billion more, how many you said?
	39,000.
	39,000 more workers.
	Economy go up.
	Line go up.
	Only good thing.
	Make very good thing.
	You know, I'm amazed that we are still not the world's biggest economy with that many entrepreneurs And we're packing them in like sardines, like every single one of these doctors and nurses.
	A hundred grand each, that's what they're bringing to our shores.
	Oh yeah, well supposedly, and we'll get into this in a moment, supposedly each migrant brings in about an extra two thousand pounds to the economy per head when compared with your average native British worker.
	I believe that statistic, yes.
	But, as I've been pointing out, the problem is not just illegal immigration.
	The main problem that we have, let's be honest, is legal immigration.
	Last year we had, not net, but we had about, incoming over 1 million immigrants come into the country.
	That was about, I think, 1.16 million immigrants.
	Net, that led to about 500,000 immigrants came into the country last year.
	So presumably the economy should be booming.
	I should be living in a house right now next to Rashid, my new neighbor, who's also built and bought a house in the same day.
	The retirement age for natives has been dropped to 32.
	I know, I can't wait just another few years for me.
	You've got a little bit longer to wait, but you know, we'll be able to live it up as soon as possible, really.
	No, it's been increased, actually.
	Oh yeah, 69 now, that's the case.
	Just keep on waiting.
	You know, France gets a lot of immigration as well, and they had some protests.
	What was it?
	Was it the immigration being too low?
	Retirement age?
	They started burning down Paris!
	There's not enough migration!
	Not enough foreigners!
	I know those bloody French.
	They'll protest over anything, won't they?
	God, could you imagine that ever happening anywhere on Earth?
	No.
	No, I couldn't.
	Shockingly enough.
	You go to the centre of the Lees Islands.
	We need more immigrants!
	Sorry.
	Miles will be there to show them the way.
	And I saw this amazing clip on GB News the other day from a man called Benjamin Butterworth, who is part of a new show, what is it, The Five or something, where it's four regulars and they get a guest on and they debate certain subjects, and this was the final straw for me.
	I just needed to vent about this, because this, this is absolute rubbish that he's about to spout here, and obviously they need to take, they get a subject, they each say their own perspective on it, and then they debate it between themselves, and this is the argument that I always hear whenever anybody goes, we need more foreigners, we need more migrants, so let's just hear this one then.
	Start the clock.
	Buckle up, Britain.
	This is why we need more migrants in the country.
	Britain has an ageing population, a declining fertility rate, and we have the highest taxes that anyone of working age has ever known.
	The truth is that we don't have enough workers in this country.
	There aren't even enough people to look after the health and social care of our elderly.
	But not one politician in this country will say the bleeding obvious.
	We need more workers and that means more immigrants.
	The birth rate in this country is expected to fall to just 1.45.
	It would have to be over 2 to maintain the current amount of population.
	And a third of people born today will see their 100th birthday.
	The truth is, immigrants contribute more than the average British-born person by £2,300 a year.
	If we're going to pay for pensions, if we're going to pay for public services, we need more workers to fill the 2.6 million vacancies that we're going to have in this economy by 2030.
	And that is why Britain should open the borders.
	But what do you think?
	I'm sure you all agree.
	So not just more immigration, open the borders!
	I love how it's actually the retard meme though.
	Let them in!
	It's like, highest immigration on record, and the economy's a mess.
	Solution?
	More immigrants!
	Yes, it actually is.
	Clearly not enough, idiot!
	Yeah, so, yeah, even before going into any statistics, I'm not going to even try to contend with that statistic that you threw out that apparently each immigrant brings in about 2,000 extra pounds.
	Well, we had 1.8 million, so the economy should be up.
	What would be 1.1 million times about 2,000?
	What would that be?
	A lot.
	That would be a lot of money.
	That would be a lot.
	That would be probably, what, like a billion?
	There's 50 quid at least.
	We're actually down 2.5 billion.
	I think that would be a bagillion pounds in the economy.
	One billion trillion million billion pounds in the economy.
	But as I say, we're actually down 2.5 billion just on asylum applications.
	So obviously we've just not had enough.
	Yeah, it's not enough.
	Immigration.
	Yeah, the obvious problem with all of that, as Callum pointed out, you don't even really need to go into the statistics or anything, is that we have had about 13 years of uninterrupted mass migration into the country, which has only got... 13?
	Yeah, well... 1997.
	1997, that's true, but... A quarter century of it, and yet the economy's worse than ever.
	Yes.
	So we've had about a quarter century of it, but I meant the 13 years under the Tories, where it's actually gone up from what it was under Labour.
	And if the economy was going to correct itself, it would have at some point.
	Because we've got more immigrants than in the history... I believe... I think the immigrant financial boom takes about a hundred years until you start feeling it.
	So by... It's just small rumbles right now.
	So by 2097...
	Ooh, and I'll be 101 years old!
	That'll be a good year!
	And then by 2123, we'll all be living in gold coffins.
	I forget what it is, but I believe between the periods of 1066, you know, the Norman invasion, and 1997, we had less overall immigration than we do now in a single year.
	And the best economic growth of anywhere on Earth.
	Wait, no, that's not right.
	Yeah, so it's not looking good.
	Benjamin Butterworth, I never knew who this person was.
	He's got a Guardian page, because of course he has.
	It's not written for them since October 2016, but it says that he was Chair of Young Labour across London.
	Oh, a leftist on Jimmy Neutron.
	Yes, I know.
	What a big surprise there.
	But let's address the actual argument that's being made about job openings and immigration.
	So let's look at some of the figures.
	Government collected through the 2021 census.
	So professional occupations such as doctors, nurses and teachers were the most common broad occupational group for most migrant groups, with around a third, 35.7 of those born in Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea and other Pacific island nations employed in this occupational group.
	Nearly half of specialist medical practitioners such as oncologists and cardiologists were born outside of the UK.
	So those are jobs They could be being worked by native workers.
	Yep.
	We could, uh, you know what?
	We could invest in educating them, and then they could do the job, and then it would be profitable.
	You're right, we could.
	Because they'd make more money than we invested, and therefore you'd grow the economy without the import of a foreigner.
	But!
	But, where will I get my jerk chicken?
	Who will serve me my pret?
	I, you know, there's the internet with all the recipes on, but...
	And unsurprisingly, this is an interesting little figure nestled in here.
	The occupation with the highest UK-born workforce was farmers at 97.5%.
	And it makes you really wonder for a moment there, reading that, why it is that they seem to want to flood the countryside with immigrants as well.
	Or destroy the farming industry of the UK.
	And that as well.
	Just import food, trust me.
	There's no wars in the world, ever.
	Yes, and I like this one as well.
	Nearly three in four EU-born migrants were in employment.
	On census day, 21st March 2021, there were 48.6 million usual residents aged 16 years and over in England and Wales, of whom 39.3 million were UK-born and 9.3 million were born outside of the UK.
	That's about 19.1%.
	EU-born adults have the highest percentage of people in employment according to this next graph that we've got here.
	And as you can see, obviously EU, we do have some characteristics, some cultural characteristics shared with the European people, given that we are technically European, Northern European ourselves.
	Big surprise there.
	People from Normandy, kind of easier to integrate than... Yes, but as you go down you start to see Ooh, Africa, only 61.9% in employment.
	The Americas and the Caribbean, 60.1%.
	You suddenly start to see a big drop-off as soon as you go outside of anywhere from the EU.
	Well, the EU8 as well.
	EU8.
	Because, let's not be, um...
	The EU's not all the same.
	This is true.
	This is very true.
	But generally, as soon as you get outside of the EU, you start to see a massive drop off in the amount of people employed.
	EU 14 over there.
	Yeah, if we go to the next one as well.
	So, unemployment.
	So, British Overseas Territories have 12.9% unemployment rate.
	To be fair, that's because they're all old or tax haven recipients.
	No, this is fair.
	But Africa and such have 8.7%.
	So, if I look at the graph above, the one we were just looking at, so we've got 61.9% Africans are employed, 8.7% Africans are unemployed, which means there's about 30% Africans, what, just taking up place in the system, presumably.
	Just claiming benefits, or... I don't know, I mean, you could be retired or something, I guess.
	Not in participation, but of course, I can't really promise.
	If you're retired, then you're probably still, you know, taking something from the system that you may or may not have put in there in the first place.
	I mean, either way, that unemployment rate is, um, kind of big.
	Kind of big!
	Yeah, kind of big.
	And, uh, if we go to the next link as well, when I mentioned the brain drain, when we talk about- Can we spend a- Oh yeah, yeah, if you want to keep looking at that graph for a moment- Because I don't want to just say, Africa, Non-EU countries double the British one.
	Yep.
	Other Europe non-EU countries double.
	The Americas and Caribbeans almost double.
	Middle East almost double than the British.
	Unemployment.
	I mean then all the EU ones.
	And then right at the bottom the only people who are...
	More employed than the British are those from Antarctica and Oceania over there.
	The most important immigrants, and that's presumably... So if you actually wanted to make the argument of like, oh, we're going to import the world and then they'll do the jobs, if you want to make sure it's the highest employment rate, Arctic people... If we get the Inuits... It's not even the Inuits, it's the other side, isn't it?
	So it's literally the penguins.
	If we get the penguins...
	And they're all employed at freak shows and zoos, presumably.
	How many times have you been told, oh, well, British are lazy, they don't do any work, they're all unemployed, and it's like, well... Well, it's obvious gaslighting.
	I mean, literally bottom of the list, except from the penguins, lads.
	And the penguins are hard workers.
	Yeah, I mean, you can't mock the penguins and the poles, it's... Brothers of another kind.
	Yeah, but, you know, they say, oh, we've got all of these people who are filling up places in the NHS.
	The NHS wouldn't function if we didn't have all of these immigrants filling up the emergency rooms, and also the jobs, presumably.
	The chat is like, bless our penguins.
	Good, good.
	Sorry, New Zealand, but nobody knows who you are.
	If we go to the next one, when I talk about how, you know, we've got all of these people filling positions in the NHS that could be filled by British people, the UK even acknowledges that yes, if we keep taking all of these foreign workers, then there will be no foreign workers to staff the health systems that they have over there.
	Yeah.
	So we have banned them from coming over and taking those jobs.
	Whoopsie.
	Whoops!
	Sorry about that, guys!
	I mean, this is the thing, like, if you invest in someone to, I don't know, be a doctor, and then you give them some money so they can go and train, and then they pay it off by being the doctor and giving you a portion of the salary, you know, it's financially viable, advances their life, creates money in the system.
	But if I just turn up and steal him, and then you don't get any payback on your investment... Yeah, I mean, you're kind of screwed over the world that you're stealing those people from.
	But somewhere in the world we can be content that a line has gone up.
	Great.
	So it all works out in the end.
	God bless the line.
	And if we go to the ONS job vacancies and such, and once again these are a lot of the statistics that are used to consistently justify bringing in immigration so that we can plug up these gaps in employment, all of these vacancies.
	So we've got 1,124,000 job vacancies in the most recent statistics, so that's December 2022 to February 2023, which was a decrease from the previous months before then.
	So that's a lot of job vacancies.
	You know, that 1.16 million that we took in last year should have plugged these up by now.
	And Pingu's turned up and took some of them.
	Yeah, yeah, I mean, they took some.
	But then I discovered this, which is something that I had never considered before.
	So Scrumps shared this on Twitter saying, you know, modern companies act like compulsively lying psychopaths and pointed out that in surveys, and I found the article for this, So let's go over to the article where we can talk about this.
	So, ghost jobs.
	Now this article is based in America, but it's not going to be saying anything that won't be happening in England at the same time.
	Have you ever encountered a ghost job?
	I don't know what you mean by ghost job.
	A ghost job is when you go online and you apply for a job that has been up for months, and you never hear back from it, despite the fact that it's been up for months, and you assume, well, surely they want to fill that job position, right?
	You've experienced this, surely.
	I've met many people who've experienced this, because you end up, when you're unemployed, you have to go on Indeed, or whatever website it is you're using, and you apply for every single job that is available.
	And there have been some that have been up for up to half a year.
	And you go, surely they want to fill that job, right?
	But nobody ever hears back from it, you never hear back from it, and the job stays up for even longer.
	Well, that's because it's a ghost job, because it's a job that's there purely for show, that isn't meant to be filled.
	And let's give you the information here.
	So this is America, but it absolutely will apply to the UK as well.
	So the job you applied to in this circumstance is a ghost job.
	The term has recently been coined to describe job openings left active online for months and seemingly never filled.
	In some cases, a job opening that might not even exist.
	exist.
	A survey from an online company, a loan company, Clarify Capital, asked over 1,000 managers involved in the hiring process questions regarding job openings at their companies.
	The survey found that 60% of job postings online are kept active for more than one month.
	The bulk of those openings were left online for two to three months.
	One in ten had the online job posting active for more than six months.
	Why are some of these job openings left online for so long?
	Interesting question.
	The most common explanation is that some of these companies do truly have standing openings and that they are always open to hiring the right applicant when they come along.
	However, a significant number of managers also shared that the openings are kept active because the jobs simply don't exist.
	Of those surveyed, 43% of managers said that they post job openings online in order to give the impression that the company is growing.
	Another 43%...
	Yes, this is true.
	I believe it so much, because it's unbelievably what you'd expect.
	It is so stupid that only a middle manager would think that this is a good idea.
	Another 43% said that they posted job openings to keep current employees motivated.
	That's right, your job could be going at any time, so you best work hard, bucko!
	And 34% took that one step further and said they kept .online job posts active in order to placate overworked employees.
	What?
	To placate overworked employees.
	So they're giving too much work to this guy, and they're like, oh, hiring someone soon, I swear.
	Yep.
	My missus went through this recently, actually.
	She was working at a place where they were constantly overworked.
	There was like three members of staff at a very busy corner shop.
	And they were constantly like, well, as soon as the new year hits, we're going to have lots of changes.
	We've got job openings.
	I'll start the job interviews very soon.
	Don't you worry.
	New year's comes along.
	Where are the new guys starting?
	Well, at the end of January- I don't want you to come in Saturday.
	Oh, I forgot, Sunday as well, if you could.
	Yeah, and if you could work a 12-hour shift as well, that'd be a big... But at the end of January... God, I love office space so much.
	I know.
	It is psychopathic.
	It is gaslighting your own employees.
	And they just conclude, so basically nearly half of the hiring managers surveyed said that their company posted jobs with the intent to bolster the company's images or provide false hope to their understaffed workforce that help was on the way.
	Which is just beautiful to know, because once again, when you have people posting jobs like this, these vacancies will be noted online by the government, and the government will go, guess we need more foreigners then.
	Look at all these jobs.
	Look at all these jobs.
	Someone's gotta fill them.
	God, I hate mental management so much.
	Yep, so this is all fantastic and just a nice way to end your day knowing that if you're working a minimum wage job and there are job openings for people who are going to help take some of the load off your back, it's probably not going to get any better, sorry.
	Anyway, that was fun.
	Let's move to the video comments.
	In the 1870s, Europeans controlled only approximately 10% of the African continent.
	The scramble for Africa started in 1885 with the Berlin Conference.
	It's not.
	It isn't.
	Socialism is.
	Simple as.
	in 1975 with creation the state of Angola.
	The colonisation of Spain by Arabs started in 711 and finally ended 780 years later in 1491.
	The following 200 years saw this former Muslim vassal state dominate the globe.
	So how is colonialism an excuse for failure?
	It's not.
	It isn't.
	Socialism is.
	Simple as.
	I just love...
	Well, it's not even just socialism because I do love...
	Because you've got those examples you've got Zimbabwe, Botswana right next door same ethnic group same demographics One failed, don't know why.
	Anyway, and then you've got the other version of events which AA went into.
	I don't know if you've seen his video on Liberia.
	Um, is that his economic policies that caused it to fail?
	I don't think I've watched that one.
	So, um, Liberia is the only true African country that can be said to have avoided European colonialism, because it was colonized by black Americans.
	Well it wasn't, I was going to say Liberia, I understand the story of Liberia.
	Liberia was established as a colony to send freed slaves so that they could have, they even modelled their constitution off of the American constitution, like word for word.
	And then the former black slaves made themselves the ruling class of Liberia, and the African Africans.
	And enslaved all of the local tribes.
	Basically, yeah.
	But the really funny thing is in that circumstance, is AA went into it and looked at every single economic growth Uh, event in Liberia's history, every interaction it had with outside forces, blah blah blah, and the only time Liberia ever grew was because some Belgians turned up and wanted to build a, uh, what was it, some rubber refining?
	Yeah, isn't this like- All of its history otherwise, no one there seems to have successfully been an entrepreneur worth their soul.
	Isn't this in like, I was about to say Zimbabwe, I should say Rhodesia, where Mugabe kicked out all of the white farmers and everything immediately collapsed after he'd, you know, ginned up a load of racial hatred towards them and then they come back and everybody's like, thank you.
	But he did all that on the basis of, like, ideology.
	You know, socialist, uh, race socialism as well.
	But with Liberia, like, there's no ideology.
	It's literally just no one there produced anything.
	Ever?
	That's a whole other way of being like, oh, colonialism did this.
	It's like, no, they didn't.
	We've got the piece of paper that says it's a constitution, so things will just work themselves out, right?
	Anyway, go watch AA's video on Liberia.
	Because the thing, you're watching it, and you're watching it.
	All right, so things are going to settle out, and then it ends.
	And you're like, oh, that's the modern day.
	Nothing's happened.
	Things are gonna get good one day!
	Yeah.
	Let's play.
	Utopia 2.0.
	Take back the vision of the world they've stolen by giving me your money.
	Utopia 2.0.
	Available now on Amazon.com.
	Part 2 goes into what makes a nation, as well as some small changes that would have a drastic change on society.
	Utopia 2.0.
	Innocence Lost.
	Already?
	Okay, so sponsored by Utopia 2.0.
	I guess you can well, I mean if people are giving him money and he's sponsoring us Then we can get this is spiffing great nonsense already.
	Yeah, we found the infinite money glitch I knew it.
	Let's play so in recent events and in life I've been seeing a lot of white people that get themselves in a lot of unnecessary trouble around the diversity and Wanted going to jail or getting killed or maimed and I think we really need to have a white version of the talk A lot of white people have met and don't understand that there are different rules for different groups in society and And unfortunately, if they step out of line, they can be arrested, they can be fired, and in some cases, they can be lynched.
	And it will be considered socially acceptable.
	Aversion of the talk could prevent a lot of unnecessary suffering.
	Gonna be honest, I completely agree with you.
	Well, I know when I've got kids, I've actually been considering, even before hearing your suggestion, I was thinking, okay, if this whole multicultural, multi-ethnic society is gonna be just a thing in England now, well, I'm definitely gonna have to sit my kids down and be like, listen, there are different rules for me and you than there are for other certain kinds of people.
	Billy, don't go to London and get involved in drugs.
	And Sally, don't go to Rotherham.
	Yep, exactly that.
	Avoid Brixton at all costs.
	Yeah, because what's funny about that is there was a story I told Dan that I can't mention on the internet, but going abroad, you know, foreign cultures, people will go there and expect things exactly the same as back home and you... Oh no.
	You can't let your kid be that stupid.
	No, you absolutely cannot.
	Oh boy, it's gonna end badly, so yeah.
	If my daughter says, I'm gonna backpack around South Asia so that I can prove how diverse and peaceful the places are, I'm just gonna no.
	Yeah, do you remember there was this article published about how white women should backpack in Northern Pakistan at least once in their life?
	And all the comments were just people saying, was this article written by Kidnappers Incorporated or something?
	Was this article written by a rapist?
	People Smugglers Inc.
	have written this article for some reason.
	Yeah, um, the talk is a good idea.
	It's not a bad idea.
	We're on the, uh, written comments, I suppose.
	Alright then, so, Shaker Silva says, Circumstances between Daniel Perry's case and Rittenhouse are very similar.
	I did think to bring up Rittenhouse, but I thought, uh, let this case stand on its own.
	Because, you know, it is similar, but different.
	But the biggest difference is that Kenosha is a rural and mixed politically, while Austin is just another urban neoliberal enclave.
	Like New York, London, Toronto, et cetera, they are all disconnected from the local culture, and are filled with drones for the current thing.
	Yeah, that's why I don't think it's expected that he would get a fair trial in Travis County or anywhere around the Austin area.
	Base state, we're not even allowed to have guns and even we know the number one rule of gun ownership is to never point at anything you don't want dead.
	This chuckle fluff running around pointing his gun at random people and surprising someone feared for their life lists this one as an unfortunate case of self-deletion by Darwinism.
	Pretty based.
	Yeah, that's how I like to judge things.
	for actually using his pardon powers when appropriate, unlike a certain orange president.
	Plus, if the Daily Beast is all upset, all the better.
	Yeah, that's how I like to judge things.
	If the Daily Beast is upset about it, it's something good.
	Arizona Desert Rat.
	Oh no!
	He should have waited to meet with a lawyer first before doing an interview with the police.
	Americans always speak with an attorney in situations like this.
	You're not obligated to answer any questions and you have the right to remain silent.
	I do think that is, you know, you've got a point there in most circumstances, but it seems that this time it would have worked out if it weren't for the district attorney deciding to indict him anyway, because the police didn't feel like charging him.
	They already said that it was a justified homicide, clear case of self-defense from the information that they were given about it, so...
	I don't know, I think he... I think it's always good legal advice to get involved.
	Yeah, in most situations, in every situation, you should be doing that, but in this situation, it would have worked out were it not for this district attorney.
	Bleach Demon says, the Sergeant Perry incident is sadly one of the clearest examples of the nature of American law.
	If one has the correct politics, you are a protected class, whereas if there is even a whiff of going against the narrative, you must be crushed by the weight of the system.
	Yeah, and that is really what crushed him in this case, is the fact that he had posted anti-protest content online.
	Not even content, I should say.
	He just posted anti-protest sentiment saying, you know, I don't like these protesters.
	They're burning down cities.
	If they come try and burn down my city, I will show them why they can't do that around here.
	Pretty simple.
	I don't know how that could be held against you.
	Alexander Dake.
	Unfortunately, the Texas Libertarian Party is one of the Libertarian Party affiliates that wasn't taken over by the Mises caucus takeover, so they've still been pushing the more lefty Libertarian cringe.
	Yeah, it was one of the unfortunate things where I saw them all saying, oh, it's such a tragedy, it's such a tragedy.
	It's like, this guy was waving a gun around.
	This guy was waving a gun around at other protesters, he was waving a gun at this guy.
	You can make the argument that, yeah, maybe the guy was a bit quick to just fire back at him, but once again, if you're in that situation... Well, I violated the NAP, he approached my car.
	Exactly.
	It was my proper time.
	You know, if I wanted to be an autistical libertarian, I feel like you could make very good arguments for why he should be shot.
	Yeah, but once again, he was surrounded by a bunch of protesters.
	They were all banging on his car.
	A guy with an AK-47 is approaching.
	I'm not taking any chances in that situation.
	Kevin Fox, especially by July 25th in 2020, had the situation already happened in Portland where a guy had just been, you know, snuck up on from behind by an Antifa member and just shot in the head?
	I don't know the date off by heart, but yeah.
	Yeah, because there was that Trump supporter who was just wandering around in a MAGA hat in Portland who just got shot in the back of the head by an Antifa guy.
	So I wouldn't take chances around these people.
	Do you remember what happened to him?
	No, I don't, actually.
	So the guy who shot the MAGA guy in the back of the head, he then did an interview with Vice, as you do, and then went on the run, and then the police tracked him down to a... Wait, he did the interview with Vice first and then went on the run.
	He's like, well, I've got to get my public image right.
	Yeah, and he was like, well, not... Anyway, see ya, folks.
	So then he went to some house and got his rifle and the police turned up and told him to come out with his hands up.
	So he started to shoot out with the police.
	The police shot him to death.
	Genius.
	And Vice were like, yes, we made the right choice interviewing this stable individual.
	Because when he shot the MAGA guy in the back of the head in the Vice interview, he was like, well, it's self-defense.
	And then the CCTV footage showed him hiding around a pillar, waiting for the MAGA guy.
	Yeah, he was hiding, wasn't he?
	Yeah, I've seen that footage.
	But then also, you start a show with the police where you get shot to death, and you're like, oh, it's self-defense shooting at the police.
	He's just shouting out the window the whole time, self-defense!
	N.O.P.!
	Like...
	No.
	Kevin Fox, the coroner saying the bullet wounds were angled downwards fits with Perry stating that he wanted to scare the guy off and just incapacitate him.
	Perry had raised his gun to aim down toward the legs.
	If he wanted to kill the guy, he could have braced with the pistol with his thigh and aimed up at the attacker's head and shoulders.
	Well, in the footage we've got from the police interview, he said he was aiming for just the center of mass because easiest place to hit, that's the best place to incapacitate someone.
	Either way, I think it was justified.
	Screwtape lasers: Foster was clearly carrying at the low-ready position and threatening Perry.
	We don't have a rule of law in America anymore.
	Sadly, it seems so, particularly in blue areas.
	Brian Tomlinson: If you continually intimidate people by waving a rifle about while being part of a law's mob, you are 100% guaranteed to eventually get shot.
	This is true.
	I was thinking every Second Amendment protest I've seen where people do walk around open carrying, it's always usually in the middle of the day and quite organised.
	Yes.
	Because nobody wants to die.
	And they're also all very clear about their gun safety.
	No fingers on the triggers.
	No finger on the trigger, everyone has the barrel pointed down, if you've got a pistol you have it holstered, just simple.
	Blah blah blah.
	On the Spiffing Brit.
	So an American isolationist comes out and says, just to let you lads know, the Spiffing Brit has been killed on YouTube.
	I am not shocked.
	It's sad to hear, but I am not shocked at all.
	No, no, he hasn't been.
	They say he's been removed by the algorithm and have to manually search for him on his videos.
	His sacrifice will be forgotten.
	Shall never be forgotten.
	And points out how stupid YouTube and Google are, why they've been destroying big business.
	I don't think this is true.
	I'm not 100% sure about that, man.
	Like, I'm pretty sure you can... Let's check his latest numbers on his latest videos, eh?
	Yeah, you do the searchin', and I'll do the readin'.
	Omar Awad says YouTube Shorts are like game publishers jumping on the popular trend four years ago too late to a saturated market because nobody wants discount TikTok when they already have TikTok his latest videos got almost 500k views from three days ago so doesn't seem to be that dead that's absolutely right though Omar I love watching those videos from I don't know what year but when all the games started jumping on oh we can do a battle royale mode
	"Oh, we can be Call of Duty." And you know like-- - No, no, no.
	They wanted to be, what was it, what was the one where PewDiePie said the gamer word on the bridge?
	Uh, PUBG.
	Yeah, they wanted to be PUBG, and then PUBG became Fortnite eventually, and then Call of Duty went, we want to be Fortnite.
	But it's old in that as well.
	Like, the Resident Evil 4... thing... Oh, over-the-shoulder shooters.
	Well, it wasn't that.
	I was looking at some of the internals and... and... the move from Resident Evil 4 to 6, and the fact that 6 was such a piece of sh... And the reason why is... Hey, hey, 6 is an under-appreciated action gem.
	Oh, it's actual crap.
	I don't know how people play it.
	But I was watching some of the internals, there were some discussions, they brought in like a western team to help with the animation stuff, and the behind-the-scenes footage that they ended up showing is them all talking about Call of Duty and how they need to get that audience, and it's just like, no!
	You're Resident Evil, like why would you jump?
	But it's just because some higher-up was like, I want the Call of Duty audience, give money, and it's like, stop.
	Like, why would they want to play something that's not Call of Duty if they've got Call of Duty?
	It would be kind of like if Dark Souls or if Elden Ring had implemented the easy mode finally.
	We've got all of these journalist articles saying they want easy mode.
	We must put easy mode in.
	A journalist audience?
	Half the planet.
	Henry Ashman says, in true internet fashion, the prats at the perfectly balanced YouTube are outsmarted by a British S-poster powered by Yorkshire Tea Gold.
	Yeah, although Yorkshire Tea can go to hell.
	This is how we took over the world.
	Screw tape lasers, spiffings, infinite money glitches or well-known fraud patents for well-known solutions.
	Companies like Twitch let them go because it pads their revenue numbers.
	Watch this stuff go away when the profits suddenly matters again in the upcoming recession.
	So you're saying that I can scam Twitch and Twitch will let me?
	Yeah, I mean it's an interesting point.
	So the way a lot of like new companies run is they'll run a huge deficit but they promise to investors this huge growth and so you know in five years we'll be making profit but then in five more years we're making so much profit it balances out everything we lost.
	Well is this the way that like when Elon Musk came in he said that Twitter had not been making money for who knows how long?
	Yeah so I mean that's the pitch to make to investors because that's the real thing that matters for these people and in which case like yeah if there's a whole lot of furniture going on you just kind of ignore it because it helps your numbers look good for the investors and the investors are just boomers with money so.
	I suppose so yeah.
	No one reads the spreadsheets.
	Kevin Charlie the Beagle says spiffing Brit is one example of lateral thinking that makes people and systems interesting.
	Someone online says YouTube was broken by the sheer power of Yorkshire Tea.
	I'm not giving anything to Yorkshire Tea.
	I know it's his meme, but I just... Never forgiving them.
	Lord Nerevar says, it's a wonderful... It's a wonder YouTube can even function as a business anymore.
	From printing cash to burning it under the direction of Google, treating content creators like dog ass every step of the way, riddled with bugs and problems, some of which can seriously impact people's ability to feed their families and their priorities are still on political silencing when people have done nothing wrong like lotus eaters.
	It's a good thing that they are useful to the regime or they'd have been shut down long ago.
	Yeah, I think they still piss money.
	I don't think YouTube makes anything.
	Yeah, I don't think YouTubers ever once been profitable.
	It's just because they're attached to Google that they're able to keep surviving.
	But it's not even like that pitch where it's like, we're losing money in five years, we'll make money and then... It's not even that.
	It's just because Google wants them as an offshoot.
	It's like a little pet project.
	Well, it's not that.
	It's we control information.
	Well, obviously that's the case.
	Like a third of the planet uses YouTube every day?
	Something like that.
	That's pretty good to own.
	It does kind of remind me, have you ever watched It's Always Sunny?
	I've seen clips.
	It's always sunny in Philadelphia.
	Yeah, I never got into it.
	People kept saying I was like Charlie or something.
	You are a little bit like Charlie.
	Well, no, actually, you're not.
	You're not retarded, so you're not like Charlie.
	You're just autistic.
	Alright.
	So yeah, there's that.
	You can take pride in that.
	There's an episode where they try and make a, like, do this get-rich-quick scheme where they recognize that all loads of other, loads of other shops and places, you know, you can go in and you can get vouchers and tokens and you can trade that in for products and such.
	So they decide that what they're gonna do is they're gonna have their own money.
	In the bar, paddy books that's only exchangeable in the bar, and the way to get everybody in the first night to get into it is they're just gonna give the stuff away for free.
	So they just invite a load of people into the bar, just give them a load of paddy books which can only be exchanged for beer in the bar, and they start to circulate it around, and then they realize by the end of the night they're like, oh my god, we made so many paddy books and we're all out of beer, we sold out, I can't believe it!
	How much money did we make?
	Nothing, because all we've got is paddy books.
	And they're like, where do we make money with this though?
	Well, you get the money, you get the paddy books in the flow of the circulation of the bar, and it circulates around, and where does the money come in?
	Oh god.
	Like with the Federal Reserve.
	I didn't think this through.
	If the Federal Reserve ended up with all the US dollars in the world...
	It wouldn't be very good.
	What do we do with these when everyone else has got gold?
	Yeah, but let's move on to the unemployment comments.
	Yes, Lord Nerevar says, on the final segment, ghost jobs are a real problem in the heritage sector where I work.
	It's policy for the National Trust in English Heritage Centre.
	to advertise on their job sites for every single position that becomes available, even if it's already been earmarked for someone and they have no intention of interviewing at all.
	I struggled for months to find a job over the winter because they're often very difficult to spot, but it's useful to know that some companies actually have an active policy to create ghost jobs.
	It only gets worse with immigration." Yeah, obviously that sucks for everybody who's actually searching for a job, If you are unemployed or between jobs and you're just looking for a job, it sucks in the first place.
	But then knowing that the vacancies that are created by these ghost jobs that are never meant to be filled in the first place will go towards government statistics that encourage more immigration, that's where it just becomes clear that this whole thing is a Ponzi scheme scam.
	Where did that come from?
	Well, generally I think as a country becomes more successful, you tend to get that decrease in birth rates that just comes naturally with it.
	"Even African countries have less births than expected." Well, generally I think as a country becomes more successful, you tend to get that decrease in birth rates that just comes naturally with it.
	So if African companies are getting more successful, I don't know if they are, then that's pretty much to be expected.
	At some point there won't be enough births abroad to continue providing migrants and the entire scheme will collapse.
	So yeah, when the rest of the world hits below replacement rate birth rates, then we can at least be glad that then immigration will stop.
	Woo!
	The replacement rate in the UK is only 0.2, whereas the replacement rate in Africa is 0.1.
	So we need to import loads of alcohol!
	Yep.
	Base tape.
	That's a GBN argument for why we need immigrants due to the declining fertility rate is dumb.
	There's a hole in the bottom of my bucket.
	The solution is not to pour more water on top.
	Fix the leak, you idiot!
	Fix the leak!
	Have more children!
	At the very least, it will pee off Bill Gates.
	Yeah, I'm always happy with anything that annoys Bill Gates.
	Rue the day, not sure about you guys, but I for one am absolutely pro-solving highest taxes ever by importing even more tax drains who will leave as soon as the dole dries up.
	After all, I'd be a bigot otherwise.
	Well, that's very, very inclusive of you.
	Matt P.
	To immigration, the cause of and solution to all life's problems.
	Omar Awad, if all the invaders are doctors and engineers and £2,000 on average is actually a really low number, especially with Chinese and Russian immigrants skewing the data, since the average income per immigrant is lower than doctor's salary, then we are only displacing the native working class and paying them less than their worth.
	Yes, that's always what it ends up being.
	Kevin Fox.
	Each immigrant does bring in an extra £2,300.
	Only problem is they forgot to bring it on the boat because they leave it with the traffickers for safekeeping.
	Damn, we were so close!
	We were almost there!
	Andrew Doomhand.
	Without migrants, who will syrup my pancakes?
	Benjamin Butterworth, probably.
	I think that's all we've got time for.
	Yeah, he's got a crap name and a crap face.
	Anyway, we're out of time, so if you'd like more from us, come back.
	Tomorrow?
	Yeah.
	It's Tuesday.
	My dudes.
	No!
	That's not right!

▲