Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Jan. 24, 2024 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:31:19

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #835

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters.
	And today I am joined by Bo and Josh.
	Hello!
	So it's going to be a good time because today we have some interesting topics as well, which is we're going to talk about the fact that the piano, it must pay for its crimes against humanity.
	Yeah, I hate that instrument.
	Damn.
	I mean, you are right.
	No, piano is actually good.
	Anti-China.
	That's the problem.
	If you play the piano, you hate the Chinese people.
	I love China.
	Please fix my social credit.
	Anyway, so, um, Malay.
	What has he done?
	And also the final countdown.
	We'll be doing that.
	We're talking about Trump, obviously.
	So, I say obviously.
	Whatever.
	Well you know what we're talking about, funnily enough.
	So I also have an announcement to make, which is tomorrow, 3pm UK time, join us, in which we will be having Lads Hour, in which is that wonderful show, which is the male version of The View.
	Which we chat shit, and this time we'll be chatting shit about whether or not we should bury politicians in which style they should be buried.
	Not talking about killing them, nothing of the sort, just saying what would they deserve as a burial ritual once they finally fall off the earth from purely natural causes.
	And we will be joined by Voice of Wales for this.
	I do wonder who came up with this idea, because it's very abstract, isn't it?
	Yes.
	Just when they fall off from natural causes, what type of burial do we think these people would enjoy?
	Anyway!
	Dear me.
	As the boss is doing, in fact.
	That's Lads Hour for you.
	That's how Lads Hour rolls.
	Yeah.
	It's fun.
	We just chatted shit.
	It's relaxed.
	So, if you want to become a premium member, do it.
	And you can join.
	If you are, join.
	If you don't have the time, come back and watch it later.
	Otherwise, we're getting to the segment, shall we?
	Yes.
	Right.
	The news.
	The piano must pay.
	The piano in question is the public piano at one of the major railway stations in London.
	It has been very naughty.
	It has been a suspect in a devious crime of anti-CCP activity.
	And thankfully the British police are doing everything they can to stop that damn thing.
	You don't know what I'm talking about.
	This builds off what we left off on a different segment, which is this chap.
	Now this chap, Brendan over here, he plays the piano.
	He plays the public piano.
	I think this is, um, not Paddington, I forget which station it is.
	Is it Euston?
	I don't know this, but that looks like Euston.
	No, it's not Euston.
	I used to go through it when I went to Canterbury.
	St Pancras, there we are.
	Yeah, I've been through it a few times, yeah.
	Pictures on the Eurostar or down into Kent.
	Anyway, he goes there, plays piano, films playing piano.
	People like it.
	Alright, all good.
	It's not that complex.
	So, nice simple situation.
	And this is another day in his life where he goes down and does that.
	And for the crime of doing that, the piano must die.
	So, this story starts out with him meeting this chap here.
	And as he describes it, there's a Japanese film crew behind him filming something for Japanese TV.
	That's his belief.
	So we'll play this so we can get the full context of everything that went on, and then assess what kind of capital punishment the piano will receive.
	Absolutely amazing.
	Jim's here with a whole Japanese team.
	Hello, can you dance?
	Can you do a dance?
	I think she's...
	Nice...
	Hello, can you dance?
	Can you do a dance?
	I'm dancing.
	Let's get this girl to dance.
	Yeah, can you dance?
	Can I dance?
	No.
	No, can you dance, no?
	No, no, no dance.
	No, no, no, no dance.
	No, no, no dance.
	No, no, no dance.
	Okay, she can go dance, okay.
	Whatever.
	I think the British girls are more fun.
	I think we've got...
	Start playing, he's only in sort of twice.
	All sorts of Japanese people here today.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	you Completely uneventful.
	Yeah.
	Local man thinks there's some Jap behind him.
	He may have noticed they're carrying Chinese flags.
	I was gonna say, does he not see their flags?
	Yeah.
	Bit odd.
	I don't know why he presumes they're Japanese.
	I don't think he's a man of international politics.
	He's a man of piano playing.
	That's his career, and it's fine.
	He likes interacting with the public, and that might be a bit jaunty at times, but that's what a character is, and that's what he's doing.
	Now, the controversy begins, because as you can see there, the two ladies are having a word with this chap next to him, because they're very upset because he's committed a crime, which is that he filmed them.
	Evil bastard.
	So they decide to come over and complain about it to him.
	In St.
	Pancras Station?
	Yes.
	A public place?
	Yes.
	They're also making a video and they were stood there where the video was being filmed in quite a deliberate way as if they were watching it.
	Yeah.
	We'll get back to the fact that this is a weirdly more complicated than it seems but this is what everyone has seen because you see here I mean this has got six million views.
	Yeah even I've seen it.
	This had, I think, this morning when I copy-pasted the links, so we could see it, it had 5.8 million.
	It's got 200,000 in the last couple of hours.
	I don't know how long we've been here.
	And you can see there's a live chat as well, in which people were just shocked at what occurred, which is, she comes up and is mad.
	I'm missing because we're here for Chinese TV as well.
	Oh yeah?
	Yeah, did you film us, all of us, in your cameras?
	I don't know, are we allowed?
	We're not allowed.
	We're not allowed?
	It's not allowed because we're for Chinese TV.
	Oh, OK.
	Because it's non-discos.
	It's not disco?
	Yeah, non-discos.
	It's non-disco?
	It's non-discos.
	It's non-discos?
	Yeah.
	Oh, really?
	Yeah, yeah.
	I don't know.
	So, will we get in trouble with the Chinese government?
	Maybe not.
	I don't know.
	But who said you can't jump into the sea?
	They'll put you in prison, mate.
	So, just like that, according to the Chinese law, we're not allowed to film you.
	Is that right?
	So basically, we will much appreciate it when you are, whatever you're doing, that you don't put our face on TV.
	Just don't do it, please.
	I would really appreciate that.
	What will happen if you do this?
	Just don't do it, please.
	I really appreciate that.
	We were just very sensitive about this.
	I'm really, really sorry.
	But we love your music.
	We want to stay here for a lot longer.
	The only thing is, it's just like there's other people filming as well.
	That's absolutely fine.
	That's other people's business.
	They can make their own decisions.
	That's absolutely fine.
	It's just not us.
	It's just not us.
	No, but what I'm saying is there's other people filming you as well.
	Oh, no, no, no.
	Just make sure that we are very, very secure in the reason that we don't want our voice or picture being filmed.
	And then, yeah, that's just the relationship between you and me.
	You and us, basically.
	What relationship?
	Now, we are very... So I'm going to repeat that.
	All of us, we cannot share our images online.
	Why?
	Yeah, there's no reason.
	That's our choice.
	That's our right.
	Oh, so it's not a legal thing?
	It is a legal thing, because this is our right we're protecting, and we don't want our voice or images to be revealed online.
	I'm really appreciative.
	This is not your fault, obviously, and this is not our fault, obviously.
	We have our own agreement with other people that we cannot be shown online.
	At this stage?
	- Don't worry about this. - Who's allowed to record you then? - Just making sure you're not recording us, yeah?
	Because if you are recording us, when we are saying this, we're still recording, and then we will put a legal action into it.
	- Oh, okay.
	- Yeah, we will put a legal action into it.
	- We will. - At this stage, that guy is just within his rights to say, no, screw you.
	Of course.
	Yeah, no, who are you?
	And whatever he says, I don't care who you are, actually.
	It doesn't matter who you are.
	Just no, I'm not doing anything you're asking me to do.
	A trying situation.
	Just get out of my face.
	They're trying so hard not to say that we'll get in trouble by our government, because if they say that, then it makes it more likely.
	So if you listen to some of the words they say, the reason they give, but maybe I've preempted it, is that they say that they're going to issue legal action, you might have heard at the end there, and what they're saying is that he's violated their image rights.
	Now, image rights are the thing here.
	That's just nonsense, right?
	Well, I can't sell trading cards with Josh and Bo pictures on, that would be something.
	Because that would be using your likeness and whatnot to make me money.
	You're welcome to do it though, if you want.
	Yeah, you get all the stats on there.
	Let's see his top trumps, yeah.
	But if I'm filming you in my public place, you have no rights to any kind of privacy in public.
	That's because you're in public.
	Put your trousers on.
	So, that's how that works.
	So, of course, filming someone who has a profile It also doesn't matter.
	These people say they work for Chinese TV, so they have some kind of profile, therefore they have image rights, and in China apparently it is a legal issue if you decide to film them without their permission.
	It's a bit unclear, but then it's Chinese law, so when is it clear?
	And then they go on, and he says, the white chap here, he turns to the Chinese boys and says, we're not in communist China, in response to them saying about their legal threat.
	And the guy who's saying he's going to sue him says, that's a racism.
	Because of course.
	Oh dear.
	No, I suppose we don't have time to play the whole thing, but that's the, that's where this is going.
	And you'll notice a pattern here in the type of behavior.
	And in fact, after that immediate interaction of saying it's racist to call them communist or from communist China, or say that we are not in communist China, even though they're flying communist flags, he gets really fake aggressive for no reason.
	So we can see here.
	You've got a Chinese flag there.
	It doesn't matter.
	Do you need the Chinese flag?
	Why are you touching her?
	Stop touching her!
	Don't touch her, please.
	Do not touch her.
	Please!
	You are not the same age.
	Please do not touch her.
	Don't touch her.
	Please don't touch her.
	Yeah, don't touch her.
	You're not the same age.
	If you are the same age, it's fine.
	Please don't touch her.
	No, we love your art, we love your music, but we are trying to have... Because you're touching my friend!
	Are you allowing her to touch you?
	He didn't even touch her, did he?
	No, he touched my flag.
	I'd lose my rag if that did at that point.
	You don't just shout at someone like that.
	Yeah, in a public place as well.
	And expect to get away with it, expect to not be, sort of, serious now.
	Like yelling things like that, he knows what he's doing, it's like psychological warfare to get his own way, isn't it?
	That's what he's doing, he's realised that this guy's not going to budge, and so he's using different tactics to try and shame him into doing what he wants.
	It's like shouting fire in a crowded theatre as well, if you're saying, don't touch her, Really loudly in a major station where you're trying to signal for other people to join in and say, hang on a minute, what are you doing mate?
	Why are you touching up a Chinese lady?
	I'm glad I have your psychology expertise here because it's very much that.
	And I've thought on this and I think it's very true that there's an aspect of them coming from communist China because people who lived under communist systems or live in that environment Tell me if I'm wrong, but I think that that, in you, creates something where you have a perception that the group right fundamentally trumps the individual right.
	So in an interaction like this, there's a group of us, you need to agree with us, and then the fact that he's merely disagreeing, regardless of whether or not it's legal, it's obviously legal, That's him committing some kind of sin against them?
	Because of course they're thinking from this communist mindset of just like, no, we've told you what will be most good for stability, let's say, which is just comply.
	And you're not agreeing.
	So then he just gets angry and aggressive.
	Nonsensical arguments, whether or not it's nonsensical doesn't matter.
	It's all fair game because you're trying to make someone agree with your line.
	Yeah.
	There's that.
	So you can see they go on, they argue some more and more, he keeps calling him racist for it.
	The thing he's calling him racist for is saying Communist China.
	Or saying that these people are from Communist China, or that the UK is not Communist China.
	Well, they're waving communist flags.
	Is communism a race now?
	Yes!
	I didn't realise that Marxist-Leninism or whatever it is, Maoism, Proto-Neo-Maoism, I didn't realise that was an ethnicity.
	Well, now I'm explicitly anti-communist, does that mean by extension...
	For people who don't know the point here, because I imagine this chap probably doesn't, he knows the Chinese flag for sure, but of course the Chinese Civil War didn't really end.
	So you have here Taiwan, which is the Republican Chinese.
	Real Chinese.
	True Chinese, yeah.
	And then you have...
	Maoist group, which obviously took over China, are the communist Chinese.
	And that's the reason they still have the Taiwan dispute, which is that both parts of China, Taiwan and mainland China, they both agree that it's China, they just disagree on who should be in charge, communists or not communists.
	That's the disagreement.
	So it's not just he has the flag of his country, he does have the flag of one side of still an ongoing dispute in his country, which is the communist Chinese flag.
	So he's not even wrong to point out, no, that is the communist one.
	Never mind the obvious insanity of being like, that's a racism.
	But that guy has been in the UK for quite some time.
	And he's well-versed in our language at this point.
	And I don't mean English, I mean our political language.
	And the fact that to shut someone down, you just call them racist, it's very evident that's the reason he did this.
	He understands our political culture, which is weak and pathetic, in the sense that we will just go, oh, never mind, sorry.
	We can zoom that out also right to the macro level, that the Chinese government, the CCP themselves understand that.
	Yes.
	And use it against the West.
	They've released a public statement.
	I remember after George Floyd died, they released a statement about racism in America.
	It's long running.
	I mean, the Soviet Union, for example, if you go back and read their propaganda outputs, they've known for a long time, this is a very, very weak point of the Anglosphere, specifically the Americans, because they're the global enemy for the communist internationals.
	So that's why they're using it, and it's well understood by those who wish to shut down something, and that's the reason this chat did it.
	And what's interesting, because that's sort of...
	You know, arrogant foreigner who thinks they can dominate you and force laws that don't exist on you because they don't like you.
	That's that interaction, right?
	A fifth columnist.
	I keep using that word recently, but I feel like that's exactly what that guy is.
	Maybe.
	I mean, to be as charitable as possible.
	This also happens with just tourists.
	So you'll get arrogant tourists who turn up and then get mad that you don't do what they do.
	And then you just have to remind them.
	Sorry, you're a guest here.
	We don't do that, and that's not going to change.
	And you have it when you go abroad sometimes.
	You may occasionally think, God, what's wrong with everyone?
	And then you realize, oh no, this is their country, they're weird.
	God, I'm going to be home soon.
	It was so difficult visiting India, not using the toilet.
	Things like this, right?
	I've never been to India, that's a joke.
	I refuse to go.
	But the extreme interaction there of like, you know, filming me as some kind of crime with someone from a communist country.
	But what was the fact that blew this up even more was not just that interaction, it was the police.
	Now you can see here the police turn up and this guy who's complaining, the most vocal one, instantly goes to the male police officer to tell him what's wrong, which is that he's being filmed.
	Sexist.
	Let's listen.
	Yeah.
	So basically, they were filming and I wanted to say it was nice of you to come.
	- - - So I don't know if you could catch it there, but the police officer's response is just boredom on his face.
	He goes, you're in a public place.
	Right.
	And I'm not going to play it all, but basically he goes back and forth with this Chinese guy where he's just like, shut up.
	You're wasting my time.
	So the cop did take the correct line?
	The male one did.
	Now the female one will notice something.
	If we are, if we're having a police matter, we need to put that down.
	No you don't.
	No you don't, yeah.
	What's her name and number?
	Report her to the IPCC or whatever.
	Yeah, she is on her shoulder there, you might notice, with a camera recording, but a member of the public recording her needs to be shut down.
	Yeah, there's no reason why you should do that.
	This has been a long-running battle between photographers and police.
	If you go back, what was it?
	Crime Bodge, we used to talk about.
	Wonderful channel.
	He had a lot of instances where people would film police officers, British ones.
	And they would get so uppity, they'd arrest him for filming in public, because he was filming a police officer.
	And every single time this went to court, the person who was arrested got a boatload of money, because it's not a crime.
	What's wrong with you, police officer?
	But in the modern age, where even the police now carry body cams, it's been years since all this has been settled in court, endless times.
	I still can't really believe that that's real.
	Police officers still do come up and be like, put your phone down.
	How dare you record me?
	They should have learnt their lesson by now, really.
	It used to be, back in the late 90s or early 2000s, 2010s, that we used to have May Day quote-unquote riots nearly every year.
	And it came up loads in that, that the cops didn't like people filming them.
	And yeah, the person was actually winning when it came to court.
	To be fair, if I were walking around in public and someone started filming me, it would be annoying.
	Yeah, but what are you going to do?
	I'm not defending... You have no expectation of privacy, which is why you wear clothes.
	Hopefully.
	You had me doubting myself for a second, like, do I?
	It's like a bad dream you wake up, you're hosting.
	Oh no!
	But anyway, this escalated further and what made this blow up so much is that this police officer then goes on.
	I'll play a bit.
	Listen, listen, this is going on your YouTube channel.
	I need to speak to you without this being on your YouTube channel.
	Well, what about what?
	Is he proper in a public space?
	Listen, can I just have a conversation with you, please?
	Is he passive-aggressive?
	No, but because of the coming of life.
	Listen, I've got my camera on and we're just having a conversation.
	This is going on your YouTube channel and I don't want you to...
	Goes around in circles, because when you're dealing with a genuinely stupid person, you actually can't win the argument.
	This is actually the ultimate put-down of winning a debate, is if the person is too stupid to understand your point, you can't win.
	They will walk away believing they've won.
	And this individual is one of them.
	What's funnier, though, is she goes on, because then he says, I don't care if I'm recording, quote, the fucking Chinese.
	And she says, don't say that!
	It's a public order offence at that point.
	The swear word, yes.
	So he says, oh no, sorry I retracted, can't say swear word in front of police officers.
	She says, well don't call them Chinese.
	What do you refer to them as then?
	They've got communist Chinese flags.
	They're Chinese nationals.
	They're ethnically Chinese.
	Orientals?
	This is the thing I referred to last time I spoke about this issue.
	The police officers.
	We've seen the misconduct hearings.
	These people are trained to be stupid.
	They are trained to be woke weirdos.
	And if you aren't, you will get kicked out.
	Misconduct hearings.
	We read the full pages.
	But that's the story.
	That's what blew this all up.
	And Brendan's been doing this for ages, as you can see.
	He's done some interviews recently about the Chinese thing, but it goes on forever.
	This is all he does.
	Let's go, Brendan.
	Yeah.
	All the pianos, we have free pianos lying around because they're good fun and lighten up the place, but that particular one in St Pancras is a favourite of his.
	And that's not the whole truth, though.
	That's what everyone's seen, the 6 million viewed video.
	The truth is a little bit more complex, which in this video you'll see.
	Jimmy is the production manager for a Japanese TV crew who are actually here in St.
	Pancras recording, so just tell people what you're doing.
	I first met Brendan when we were doing exactly the same programme five years ago, and we played the blues together, but at the time I had to get permission from the director to play.
	I've got permission today as well.
	Now, we're making another programme about the public piano, but this time we're using... For Japan?
	For Japan, yeah.
	And we're using a presenter this time, a Japanese, a young Japanese, who's here.
	So... Oh, I like them.
	They're nice.
	Did you see?
	Look at these.
	Hello!
	Hi!
	Are you from Japan?
	No, I'm from China.
	Is she part of your crew?
	No, no, no.
	I thought she was part of your crew.
	We're working for Japanese celebrities and the young lady is Chinese.
	What's your name?
	My name is Adelina.
	- Wow.
	- What's your name? - My name is Adelina.
	- Oh, Brendan.
	- Oh, we're next to you.
	- Do you play?
	- Oh, you play?
	- Yeah. - So then they go on to play.
	So they actually did meet before this incident.
	Perfectly friendly.
	That's the reason he says Japanese, is because the chap there is working for Japanese TV.
	But seemingly that's actually not this group of people.
	And the reason I play all that is because this didn't end in the Anglo-sphere.
	This wasn't a conversation we were having.
	Most people talking about this incident are Chinese.
	This flew up in China.
	This is where the story gets big.
	As you can see, this is a person in China who's an influencer.
	There's a video here of a person talking about it.
	And this, in China, is a completely 180 version of the narrative.
	It's not, well, obviously, weird foreigner thinks they know better than us, trying to enforce their laws.
	It's instead that this evil YouTuber was trying to cause racist tension for clout, and he wouldn't respect, for example, their non-disclosure agreement that the Chinese people had signed with their TV company.
	You mean the one that the guy playing the piano had not signed or even knew about?
	Yes.
	Doesn't make any sense.
	And then they play that video there to show that, oh no, it was all fake.
	He knew about these people and then pretended that they were Japanese because he secretly hates Chinese people and was trying to get them out.
	No.
	Most normal people really don't give a toss about the differences between Japan or China, never mind understand the horrific history you two have.
	So, there we are.
	That's what the reality is.
	But as you can see... If they were Japanese, they would have been more polite.
	Yeah, as you can see, they list a whole bunch of stuff where they're just like, there's the evil YouTuber who's trying to start drama for profit because he's trying to provoke discrimination with his piano.
	He's an evil capitalist that sows division for money.
	Yeah, pretty much.
	Yeah, that is the narrative.
	And what a surprise that the Chinese decide to go with a cynical inversion of the truth.
	Of course.
	No way.
	That's surprising, isn't it?
	And it's obviously false, because if they just chose to ignore him, none of this would have happened.
	If they chose to not try and influence him and put the law on him, nothing would have happened.
	If they'd just been nice about it, nothing would have happened.
	If they didn't call the police, nothing would have happened.
	This is all their own doing.
	But who are these people?
	Well, people found them.
	I mean, this guy here, who's the angry one, he works in the... He's a Chinese national.
	Nguyen Long here.
	He is contracted with the Financial Times on localizing data foundation programs.
	Don't know what that's about, but there we are.
	He's also spent his life teaching Mandarin and French in England.
	So there we are.
	Now, his Facebook activity, he has now wiped, but it mostly includes stuff like this before he wiped it, which is him arguing that Chinese people of Chinese heritage should get time off for Chinese New Year.
	In Britain?
	Yes, special ethnic rights for ethnic minorities in Britain.
	We don't necessarily get time off for regular New Year, do we?
	No, it's not how it works, but this is the weakness again of our civilization, which is that we're willing to give up when someone comes to us and says, I have special needs.
	How is this not a fifth colonist?
	Well, that's the thinking.
	I feel like that is sort of the perfect description of Mr. Ling.
	Take the exact reverse, do it in China, you're going to prison.
	And he's not the only one.
	This is one of the other ladies here.
	This is the lady who was initially complaining.
	She spent her time running a recruitment agency.
	Now, the recruitment agency is entirely in Chinese and is entirely based on Chinese nationals who wish to further their careers in London and gain more power and money there.
	So there we are.
	That's that.
	And the final person of interest is the one that sparked most interest, which is the lady in her outfit.
	Because it turns out... Her name's Byron?
	She runs... Sorry, no, this is... The account's called Byron.
	Oh, okay.
	They've all got English names.
	Yeah, they always change their first names.
	Yeah, I doubt that guy, Mr. Leng's real first name is Newton.
	Yeah, it's not Newton.
	I doubt it.
	It's some Chinese thing.
	But she's the most interesting one because not only are all these people in that capacity working for Chinese state TV, you may have noticed the red scarves they were all wearing that were the same.
	Production.
	She also runs state events.
	That's not just any elite either, is it?
	He's known for having connections to the Chinese Communist Party, isn't he?
	He's known for having connections to the Chinese Communist Party, isn't he?
	This is Jeremy Hunt.
	I forget, is his wife or something is Chinese?
	His wife is Chinese, yes.
	Once referred to her as Japanese, which was funny.
	How do you not own your own wife's ethnicity?
	But...
	But her in her place.
	As you can see, they don't like it.
	But he, during the lockdown, was demanding that China actually was perfect, did nothing wrong, and that we should follow their model.
	He was the main proponent of lockdown at the time, and she is also mingling with various others.
	I mean, the former Prime Minister Theresa May, Andrea Leadsom, a minister, and then various other individuals.
	So yes, I mean, these people are actually not just doing it for fun.
	They are agents of the state in this regard, because if you have a communist system and you work for their TV station, you're right, though.
	They are fifth columnists by definition.
	I mean, they might not see it that way, but that's what they're doing.
	So she's not just a Chinese citizen.
	She is a party member, surely.
	I would have thought.
	Almost.
	I don't know, but you put money on that.
	A state asset for the Chinese.
	Because the whole population is, by de facto, because they all belong to the state.
	That's just communist theory.
	So there we are.
	That's an event.
	And okay, a bunch of, you know, two billion people in China are seething and coping because we have the right to film in public.
	Who cares?
	In fact, one of the few rights we have left, I think.
	Yeah.
	Everyone's concerned, obviously, about what kind of influence is going on.
	But as on that, fair enough.
	I get that point.
	But what was What's awful is that these people's attempts to bully us into their way of life actually did succeed fundamentally, because this is what happened to the piano.
	The British police and the, well, presumably the railway staff decided to then corner it off as if the piano itself is guilty of a crime and now must sit in a little cell.
	Must be subject to a struggle session.
	We must learn why playing certain songs is something that's never done again.
	You've been playing out of key, you see.
	But what the hell?
	With the Communist Party.
	What kind of response is this?
	The piano is guilty of a crime, quickly get rid of it.
	That's actually the British response, which again is such a revelation of our weakness.
	Pure weakness, yeah.
	And to what?
	Some arrogant foreigners who thought they could issue laws that don't exist to us who want to play the piano.
	Utterly frustrating to deal with.
	But there we are.
	If you have recommendations for the punishment for the piano, do let us know and we'll pass them along to the glorious CCP.
	On that, let's move on.
	Have some reverse Looney Tunes and have a giant anvil with the Chinese flag dropped on the piano.
	I'm up for that.
	That's actually a good end.
	It'd be a waste of a piano.
	I'd hate to see it.
	I'd love a piano like that.
	I'd starve the piano to death.
	Yeah, it's gonna go on hunger strike, isn't it?
	Let's go to Millet.
	Yes.
	So I thought it'd be worthwhile looking at what Javier Millet, the President of Argentina, has done so far, because obviously I was quite pleased to see a Libertarian get elected, being one myself, and he's done lots of good stuff, certainly.
	He's been in the news quite a lot, he's made lots of good impressions for people.
	I'm starting to get reservations and I'm going to talk about that as well.
	But first let's have a quick review of what he's done so far.
	I think the best sort of summary of it is from this tweet by Matt Wallace where he says he's eliminated 12 out of 21 cabinet posts.
	He fired 5,000 government employees.
	He says he ended 380,000 government regulations.
	That's not actually true.
	It's 300.
	There aren't 380,000 government regulations in Argentina.
	actually true.
	It's 300.
	There aren't 380,000 government regulations in Argentina.
	That's ridiculous.
	And I question the people that are repeating that, but that's been going around.
	Lots of people have been saying it's not true.
	But the other ones are, don't worry.
	He's banned woke language in the military.
	He's affirmed the right for people in Argentina to defend themselves.
	Legalized homeschooling, which seems weird that it's not legal.
	It's been legal in Britain for a very long time.
	That's nice.
	That one alone is way more based than it first seems.
	It is, yeah.
	Sorry, go on.
	Well, he's referred to state education as indoctrination, so we know how he feels.
	He's proposed to punish all riot organizers, which I'm surprised you need to even pass that through any legislature.
	He says that people who block roads are going to have their welfare cut, which I think is hilarious.
	I wish we could do that.
	That should be a stock standard.
	It should, yeah.
	Legalized paying contracts in Bitcoin, privatized state-run companies, and opened up the oil industry.
	And these are all good things, right?
	I think they're pretty unanimously good from our side of politics.
	Anything that you might take a sort of exception to?
	I don't know how you... Well, only one tiny thing, just if you're a libertarian, that, you know, using the power of the state to take away people's Well fair, I realise as I'm saying that, that's just a whole other... I don't believe in welfare.
	Right, yeah, I realise that as the words are coming out of my mouth.
	But nonetheless, yeah, the idea that the state can, if it's oppressing the right people, I don't know.
	The point I'm making is... Criminals and parasites are allowed to be oppressed.
	It's a weird form of oppression.
	I will no longer be given free money.
	And just to make clear, I'm not in favour of people blocking the roads, of course.
	Obviously not.
	Of course.
	Beau's actually secretly a member of Extinction Rebellion.
	It's been a really long con this whole time.
	All those things are pretty damn based, aren't they?
	Some of them are incredible.
	Just to reduce bureaucracy or unnecessary government Great.
	Love to see it.
	I'd like to see it, yeah.
	I'd like more of that here, really.
	I mean, if it stopped now, maybe he should do nothing for the rest of his term, if he was just like, peace out.
	Yeah, he's not even been in office that long and he's already done all of this.
	So it's quite promising, isn't it?
	And it's good to see it happening, and I'm interested to see the consequences of it.
	However, there are some sticking points here.
	For example, defying Millet's austerity, an Argentinian province plans to develop its own currency.
	Okay, good luck.
	La Rioja province is to issue a new Bocade currency to pay salaries.
	That's not going to last too well, I imagine, because he's been legitimately elected by... What's Bocade currency?
	I've never heard of that before.
	I'm not entirely sure.
	Google it.
	Yeah, you can be our sort of Google for the day.
	As a Libertarian, should they not be allowed to?
	Well, this is the thing that, you know, I support people coming up with their own currency, but I also think that they're doing it for the wrong reasons.
	It means fabric or just paper, I presume.
	Paper money.
	Yeah, physical currency.
	Yeah.
	But it's not going to work because it's not backed by anything.
	You're just a province of a country.
	No one believes in you, so no one's going to believe in your money.
	Exactly.
	And all that Millet did was just said, once it fails, the government won't come and help you.
	Yeah.
	And I'm just going to leave it to fail on its own, which is exactly the right thing to do, yeah.
	If the local council decides to spend all of the budget on printing good boy points, and then says that's the new currency at the Rioja box, yeah.
	If the Prime Minister just came and said, don't pay a council tax, you're clearly being run by idiots.
	The thing is, their province is named after a famous wine-producing province in Spain, so why they didn't choose to make their currency wine, I do not know.
	Actual Rioja?
	They're gonna pay you in Rioja?
	That would be genius, because it's actually got value.
	It's a fungible good, like actual money should be.
	I actually think it's gross, I hate Rioja.
	Yeah, Rioja's the worst kind of red, really.
	Too many tannins.
	Sorry.
	Hang on!
	There's also other things as well.
	People like his approach to being a politician more generally.
	People sharing this of him flying business class rather than in a private jet.
	Which I mean, to my mind, even flying business class is a bit upmarket.
	You know, it's still the kind of thing you would like to see, someone leading by example and he's cutting budgets and he's also saying, I'm not taking a private jet around the place.
	I'm going to fly in business class.
	Which, you know, is nice to see.
	It's kind of similar to seeing Jeremy Corbyn on the Tube, where if you don't do that, you're kind of a bit of a hypocrite, right?
	I think, I feel, you know, I feel like it is a bit performative.
	Nonetheless, I'll take it though.
	It is still better than jetting around on a private jet.
	So if we can move to the video, John, um, I can't remember how to do it.
	Oh, there we go.
	This is a video, um, which is in anticipation of him talking at the World Economic Forum.
	I do apologize.
	It is in Spanish.
	Um, however, there are subtitles and I'll explain roughly what he said once we've watched it.
	We're going to plant the ideas of freedom in a forum that is contaminated with the socialist agenda 2030 and that the only thing it's going to bring is misery to the world.
	And what will the Wednesday's exhibition be based on?
	What is the speech?
	That freedom is the key to prosperity.
	And what is the meaning of the meeting with Kristalina Georgieva, which will have the audience of the same day?
	To continue talking and making it very clear of the conviction that we have in this change of course that the new government has marked.
	Thank you very much, President.
	There we go.
	He was pretty clear that he's going to go to the World Economic Forum to stick it to them about being socialists and explain our ideas and why our ideas will work and theirs won't.
	That's basically what he said, right?
	I'm not mischaracterizing that.
	Can I just make one tiny point?
	Is it just me or are those sideburns ridiculous?
	Of course, yeah.
	But that's great.
	It's a look.
	It wouldn't be my choice of facial hair, let's just say that.
	Give me a full beard or a moustache.
	Don't get these sideburns unless you've got proper sort of mutton chops where you only shave here.
	I respect a man with those.
	Legendary figures in history have to have something weird looking about them.
	Otherwise they're just not proper.
	I don't know what you mean.
	I think there's actually a scene in The Rise of Evil in which Hitler has that conversation.
	Because he's like, no one really recognises you.
	And he's like, yeah, look at Lenin.
	He's bald.
	Nobody cared who I was until I put on the moustache.
	Literally, he goes home and shaves.
	And that's his look.
	And he uses that look because it's, you know, you actually stand out in the crowd of politicians.
	Just saying.
	I suppose it's true, yeah.
	It's literally only Hitler, Charlie Chaplin and the Zimbabwe dictator dudes that goes with that moustache.
	And then how many bald, like, dictators are there?
	I mean, you've got Lenin and then that's it.
	Mussolini.
	I hope he was bald in the end, yeah.
	Yeah.
	It's funny, isn't it?
	There's a chance yet, Bo.
	Anyway, you've wasted too much time on your sideburns already.
	So here's the video that the World Economic Forum put up on their YouTube channel.
	At the time of recording this, it's got 433,000 views, which is one of the highest and out of the live streams on the World Economic Forum's YouTube channel.
	It's up there.
	Hang on, I'll scroll.
	Yes.
	Most of these have got like 5,000 views.
	We sought by popular.
	Number three.
	Number three, he beat Donald Trump, which is quite something, isn't it?
	Because, of course, that was five years ago as well.
	So that's had time to accumulate views.
	So to say that this has had a bit of an impact is to make a bit of an understatement.
	But I'm going to read a little bit of what he said.
	I think some of it misses the mark a little bit, to be honest.
	I think that targeting them and saying they're socialists is There's an element of it, but it's not the full picture of what is wrong with the World Economic Forum, I think.
	I'll explain once I've read a little bit out.
	So there's a full transcript of what he said.
	Obviously I've listened to the actual speech as well, so I've made sure there's no tomfoolery with the transcript.
	So if you wanted to read the whole thing because, believe it or not, he said it in Spanish, you are more than welcome.
	There are also some compelling AI translations where they replace his voice with an English one, and he even reads it out in his accent.
	But he says, today I'm here to tell you that the Western world is in danger and it is in danger because those who are supposed to defend the values of the West are co-opted by a vision of the world that exorably leads to socialism and thereby to poverty.
	Unfortunately in recent decades the main leaders of the Western world have abandoned the model of freedom for different versions of what we call collectivism.
	Some have been motivated by well-meaning individuals who are willing to help others, and others have been motivated by the wish to belong to a private caste.
	I think he's directly targeting World Economic Forum types, because they certainly view themselves, we are the elite.
	These are rules we are coming up with for the common people.
	They discuss public policy in those sorts of terms, in other speeches and things like that.
	And it says, we're here to tell you that the collectivist experiments are never solutions to the problems that afflict citizens of the world, rather they are the root cause.
	Do you believe me?
	No one is better placed than us Argentines to testify to these two points.
	And then he goes on to explain the Argentinian history, but the sort of TLDR of it is Argentina was richer when it was capitalist and poorer when it was socialist.
	And I'm sure many of you are well acquainted with the economics of it, and I'm not going to bore you with all of the examples, but he goes through quite methodically how The Argentine economy has either risen or fell in the global standing based on its metrics of economic freedom, I suppose.
	And then he carries on, and I'm going to read this part here, and he says, now if free enterprise, capitalism and economic freedom have proven to be extraordinary instruments to end poverty in the world, we are now in the best time in the history of humanity.
	It is worth asking why I say that the West is in danger.
	I say this precisely because in countries that should defend the values of the free market, private property and other institutions of libertarianism, sectors of the political and economic establishment are undermining the foundations of libertarianism, opening up the doors to socialism and potentially condemning us to poverty, misery and stagnation.
	He's directing this at the World Economic Forum, and I know that people argue, oh they're communists, oh they're socialists, but I think that they've been quite clear that they want stakeholder capitalism.
	So they basically want Large investment companies, largely speaking, to determine their investment decisions in a capitalist way but based on, you know, these progressive principles, isn't it?
	But everyone now has a stake in your business because you're right next door to them.
	Yes.
	The smell of your bread wafted into my neighborhood so I know I'm part of your business.
	So it's fair to say it's a bit more collectivist than not.
	So he's not exactly wrong, but the nature of stakeholder capitalism and what Schwab and people have been tangibly pushing, I mean we've seen the fingerprints of this in actual political decisions whereby, you know, Schwab has a meeting and then a couple of months later a bunch of western leaders enact a similar stakeholder capitalist policy of some kind.
	And so we can see the fingerprints here, but a socialist isn't going to operate in that way.
	And by him referring to socialism constantly, it's kind of not naming the devil, so to speak.
	Sure, I don't like socialism.
	I hate it as much as anyone, really.
	But by calling them socialist, you're implying that there are lots of things that they believe that they might not necessarily believe.
	And I think that if you're pushing back against the World Economic Forum and their ideas, you've got to be accurate in how you're representing them.
	To be fair to him, this is probably just shorthand, probably especially in the Spanish-speaking Latin American world, and so I don't mind too much.
	I think it plays into this sort of libertarian ideologue, and I say that as one, where anything that isn't sort of libertarian is a form of socialism in some way.
	What do you mean, I can't sell my children?
	Well, one thing I would say is that What you said there, that take, assumes that the World Economic Forum and Klaus Schwab, that you take them at their word, that they're being honest.
	And I would suggest that might even be a bit naive.
	They might describe themselves for now as a stakeholder capitalist, but in fact their true I obviously don't take them at their word, and maybe I've not been clear enough why I think what I think, but as I said previously, it's not just their stated preference, it's also their revealed preference in that the way in which they're influencing world leaders indicates that what they're saying seems to be
	There's some truth to it in that that's what they actually believe.
	Like the classic thing, almost to a point of cliché now or something, is that they want you to, in the future you won't have any property and things.
	That's not stakeholder capitalism, is it?
	But it is capitalism for me and not for thee, isn't it?
	So not capitalism?
	Yes.
	Well, I wouldn't regard it as Catholicism.
	There's a synthesis here, which is, as the chat has correctly pointed out, we went over it in our Stakeholder Catholicism Premium Podcast, which is on the website, blah blah blah.
	This ultimately does end up as just fascism, because if you read the doctrine of fascism, and I'm not just saying it because of the word, The Doctrine of Fascism talks about the fact that socialism, as it was interpreted by Marx, etc., has failed, so instead we don't need some kind of revolution on workers' lines, we need one on the national line, and therefore you have to bring all the different aspects of society together into some kind of whole.
	And the stakeholder-Catholicism rhetoric is exactly the same, it's just in a democratic sphere.
	It's the fact that this is why you end up with no property, because everyone has to become part of the state effectively, for the good of the state.
	It's why you end up having to eat bugs.
	Because, well, it's for the good of the planet, which is for the good of the state.
	Okay, I'm feeling so democratic right now.
	So it comes down to the fundamental thing of property rights, right?
	Are you for or not the very concept of individual property rights?
	I would like to make it as clear as possible.
	I'm not defending them in any way, but I think that if we're to fight against it, you've got to be clear about what their aims are and I think by calling them socialists, it muddies the water basically.
	But to sort of carry on with it.
	He ends up with saying, do not surrender to the advance of the state.
	The state is not the solution.
	The state is the problem itself.
	You are the true protagonists of this story.
	I think he's talking to the business leaders at the World Economic Forum.
	And rest assured that from today, Argentina is your staunch and unconditional ally.
	Thank you very much and long live freedom.
	So that's the sort of Short form, I skipped lots of bits, but you get the gist of it.
	You can watch it, it's about 25 minutes long.
	And you know, I agree with that sentiment at the end, that business leaders need not feel guilty.
	Generating profit is a pro-social thing because they're providing services that are profitable and efficient, that make it cheaper, in theory at least.
	That's how we all become richer.
	Yes, exactly.
	And so that is a more direct refutation in my mind, saying that actually you don't need, I forgot what they're called, the indexes that like your Black Rocks are using.
	ESGs.
	ESGs.
	They're not using ESGs.
	What you're doing is good enough.
	Just generating profit is a pro-social enterprise.
	You don't need stakeholder capitalism.
	That's actually targeting what he's saying, banging on about socialism and collectivism to a lesser extent because it kind of applies.
	I feel like he's not targeting them as much and there's someone I'd like to compare them to in a second.
	He did a much better job at targeting the actual core assumptions of the World Economic Forum and more explicitly, you know, he banged on about socialism for 25 minutes or so.
	And that could just be dismissed, right?
	I know it is sort of catnip to the right, just like, yeah, he's gone there.
	He stuck it to them right in their faces.
	And there's an element of that.
	I felt that too, but I think it could have been done much better.
	And that kind of raised a red flag in my mind that, well, if these are the people he's up against, And he's not characterizing them.
	Of course, you could say that he's deliberately veiled it to kind of hide his true intentions, which could be the case.
	Maybe everyone's lying.
	Or just to appeal to his own base at home.
	Yeah, that could well be it.
	But I felt like it left a lot to be desired, actually.
	So the media did not think that, other than of course this one.
	This is from the World Socialist website.
	Oligarchs in Davos applaud fascist rant by Argentine President Mele.
	I just included this because socialists still don't understand.
	All you can do is laugh at this point.
	But it had to be included because I thought it was funny.
	Who are these?
	The International Committee of the Fourth International.
	It's in grey, it's poorly made because it's socialist.
	So here we have the Telegraph, Dan Hannan, House of Lords, free trader, Brexiteer saying, smug world elites have been exposed by a chainsaw wielding libertarian.
	He's sort of classical liberal, quite liberty leaning, so that's probably why.
	Look at his face, he's calling other people smug!
	He's not saying it in a pejorative sense is he?
	Here's another one from the Telegraph.
	Javier Millet has exposed Davos' left-wing rot.
	So the press is lapping this up, at least superficially.
	Here is a spectator.
	Javier Millet dismantles the Davos groupthink.
	I think these are somewhat over-egging it a bit.
	And here we have the Wall Street Journal over in the States.
	Argentina's Millet gives Davos crowd a spine transplant.
	My goodness.
	That's a bit strong for the Wall Street Journal, isn't it?
	But yes, I think a lot of people on the right loved it, and you know it was satisfying to see someone stick their middle finger up at Davos, but I think it was done better by this guy.
	I'd not heard of him before.
	Yeah, me neither.
	I retweeted this guy and I'd never heard of him before.
	Sorry.
	I'm not going to play the clip, it's about three minutes long, but I'm just going to summarise his main points.
	He brings up that it's absurd that Davos pretends to be protecting liberal democracy in the first place.
	He explicitly says so at the World Economic Forum.
	He says that the word dictator being banded around in reference to Trump is absurd and that there's no basis for it, which I think is true.
	He says the elites at Davos are part of the problem.
	Directly to their faces.
	He says there are lots of differences between the elites that are at Davos and in the messaging and reality and he says that open borders are not economically beneficial whereas you say that they are.
	Public safety is a problem in American cities, you say it's not.
	He proposes that solutions to climate change or you know Whatever that might mean, worse than the purported problem that more people will die from the solutions than the cause, which seems certainly to be the case.
	He also says you shouldn't be giving the Chinese Communist Party a platform if you purport to care about freedom, liberal democracy, which is fair enough.
	And he also says that the World Health Organization should not be pushing gender ideology on the global South.
	And these are all things that are counter to explicit WEF aims, explicit WEF lines.
	It's not just attacking esoteric socialism, this ever-present spectre.
	He's saying, you believe these things, these are wrong.
	I think that is the way you stick it to the World Economic Forum.
	And, you know, I don't have a horse in the race for this gentleman specifically.
	I just liked what he said.
	I mean, I didn't know who he was, but he's hitting all the right notes there.
	And I think that this takes the form of a better criticism of the World Economic Forum within the World Economic Forum than what Millet delivered.
	As much as I wanted it to be as excoriating as people were saying, So, part of my hesitation towards praising Millet too much is this as well.
	Can I just say one other thing before we move on?
	Of course, yeah.
	That Kevin bloke.
	I'll move back.
	It was just a great example of speaking truth to power.
	I loved it.
	I thought it was absolutely brilliant.
	One small thing, and it's no criticism of him, it's just interesting that the World Economic Forum would let someone, would invite someone on and let them do that.
	I know, yeah.
	Maybe I'm just being conspiratorial, but they've obviously, they've deliberately let that happen.
	I just wonder why.
	I mean, it's a release valve or something.
	As we've shown, I mean, they had Trump back in the day.
	It's just about getting powerful people around you and then trying to influence them.
	That Trump live stream was 2018 as well, so when he was president.
	Yeah, and they probably knew what Mila was gonna say or likely to say.
	Oh yeah, of course.
	Anyway, that's just a small point.
	But do you get my overall point here about the difference between sticking to the WEF?
	Yeah, I preferred what he said to what Millet said.
	So, I'm sure you'll definitely agree with this.
	Millet has brought up the fact that he's discussing with the UK about the ownership of the Falkland Islands.
	To my mind is a massive line in the sand.
	Do you feel anything to this?
	Yes.
	Really?
	Because this reminds me of the Russian Federation being like, give Alaska back.
	There's not even a jot of fear or anger, it's just, shut up.
	Well, for one, it may be this little-known thing as the Falklands War in 1982.
	It's within living memory.
	This kind of solved it, did it not?
	There was also, in 2013, a vote on the Falkland Islands with 92% turnout and 99.8% voted to remain a British territory.
	So only three people in the Falkland Islands voted against being part of Britain.
	I'll just say, I know a fair bit about the Falklands War.
	On my own channel, History Bro, check it out, like and subscribe.
	There is a video where I'm talking all about the Falklands War.
	It's one of the things I've been interested in for a long time and know a bit about it.
	Just to say, they were under a military junta at the time.
	A military dictatorship, literally.
	A general was their head of state at the time.
	And he just sort of unilaterally did it.
	So with the best will in the world, I don't think melee could Do sort of a sneak attack and sort of invade the Falkland Islands out of the clear blue sky, which is what they did.
	I don't think he's going to be pressuring to do that in the first place.
	He's trying to use diplomatic means.
	The thing is, you said there was another vote or plebiscite on the Falklands in 2013.
	They have it fairly regularly.
	Every few years they do it just so we can make it clear that the people that live there consider themselves British and want to remain a British protectorate or territory.
	That's the end of the story.
	Yes.
	That's the end of the story.
	There's no more discussion.
	Really, politically.
	Although I would love to go there and hunt down those three people and just ask them, like, why?
	I bet they did it just for a laugh.
	So someone, they thought they'd each have the one vote.
	Everyone knew they were already voting for Britain and so they did it just so it didn't look like 100% like we got a North Korean election.
	Yeah.
	And of course, the population on the Falklands is tiny.
	I've heard it said by a number of people that if the Argentinians really wanted those islands, the government could just pay for a whole bunch of families, a few dozen or a hundred families to go and live there.
	And then when they have another vote comes up, then the whole dynamic would be different.
	But they don't do that.
	So I think, again, it's just appealing to his base.
	Argentinian nationalists just love the idea that they could have those islands back.
	I very much agree with that, but my problem with this is that if he's purporting to be this principled libertarian that can't be bought and is actually going to follow through with his promises, what he's doing there is denying people property rights.
	This is, you know, the property of the people who live there, the British citizens living on the Falkland Islands.
	They've clearly voted to remain there.
	You can't just supplant them because the islands are close to you.
	It's like, oh, you can't steal from someone just like, oh, but your stuff's kind of close to me, I can just take it.
	That's not an argument for taking something.
	And so, to my mind, that is an indication that he's willing to renege on his principles if it means he's going to be more popular, he's going to get more tangible benefits.
	And of course, I'm a bit biased because I'm, you know, the notion of there being another Falklands war, which is not going to happen, but, you know, that makes me very, very angry that someone would insult us in that way.
	And there's no need for this either.
	Sure, it might be a vote winner, but it's not like there's any citizens there that they need to protect.
	There have been polls done on Twitter which are meaningless basically, but the Argentines, this is just to indicate how much they want it.
	As you can see, I was there arguing with people and I got a bunch of RGs in my replies.
	I was there at the poll!
	Not in the Falklands War, I wasn't born yet.
	You were at Goose Green in 82, leading the charge!
	I don't even want to joke about that.
	But no, the Argentines clearly care about it a lot because they basically brigaded this poll and made it in Argentina's favour, plus I think a lot of people who hate Britain probably voted.
	in it as well just despite us but it goes to show the sort of appetite amongst argentines that's 43 000 votes hardly a representative sample but you know it's something to go by and so yes i have my reservations he's done some very good stuff in government but you know i felt like his address to It was good.
	I liked what he said.
	It could have been more pointed.
	There could have been more to it.
	The Falkland stuff, I'm pretty annoyed about, actually.
	And that is my review of what he's been up to.
	Fair enough.
	Let's go to... Oh, the news on Trump.
	Apologies, that went on longer than I thought it would.
	Yeah, no worries.
	So I thought we could check in with the Trump train.
	Hooray!
	How that tunneled Trump is doing.
	Whoa, you said the funny name.
	What happened to all the late night hosts?
	Are they all dead now?
	Because they actually fooled off the face of the earth, didn't they?
	I don't even see them on Twitter.
	I think they've realised that making fun of Trump alienates you from half of the country, and it's not actually good for viewing figures.
	Because it's all so tired and done.
	Yeah.
	Well one of the angles, I was going to leave it to a bit later but I may as well say it now.
	One of the angles, I saw a couple of people say this, I think Russell Brand said it, that on some level the sort of corporate media and the never Trumpers and people in the corporate media suffering from Trump derangement syndrome, on some level probably do want him to get back in office because it sells papers, because it generates clicks for them.
	There is that angle.
	Well, if people are angry, they're buying newspapers, aren't they?
	That's generally the rule.
	Fear and anger are the best way to get people to engage with the news and politics.
	We do have data on that.
	So after Joe Biden got elected in the first year, I think CNN lost 50% of their audience, which for a media organization is death.
	Losing 50% is death.
	Well it gives someone like Joy Reid or Rachel Maddow, it gives them something to rail against, doesn't it?
	Everyone wants to be an activist in this day and age, don't they?
	Even our elected politicians.
	Well, as in, like, members of the cabinet are tweeting as if they don't have influence in the government.
	Oh, right, right, right.
	I thought you meant, like, even politicians want to do things these days.
	Sorry.
	Oh, God, no, the opposite.
	They want to do nothing.
	Sorry, I got confused.
	So, just to check in with the Donald, since last time we talked about it, There has been, in New Hampshire, the results are actually still coming in I believe, but it's clear he won it.
	It looks like something like he got 55% of the vote and Nikaida got something like 44% of the vote roughly.
	Even hours ago she effectively conceded that, not her whole campaign, but in New Hampshire.
	She should though.
	Well yeah, yeah, yeah.
	He's gonna get, I think at the moment it's confirmed, something like 12 delegates but he's expected to get 14 or 15 or something.
	She's got 9, might get 10 in the end.
	But anyway, he won it.
	He won it.
	And this is really important because that's where she pulled all of her money.
	Right, right, right.
	Into winning New Hampshire.
	I think we saw Tucker mention she's spending, well she was, a million a week just on Facebook adverts.
	Blimey, that's a lot of ads, yeah.
	And not just money, time and energy as well.
	Political capital, all that sort of thing.
	She really needed to beat him, if not beat him well, to remain a serious threat to him.
	And she hasn't.
	I don't know whether you're going to get to this, so sorry if I'm stealing your thunder here, but New Hampshire is a very important state for forecasting elections.
	It is a bellwether state, yes, that's the term, and prior to the 2020 election, the less said about that the better, New Hampshire had voted for the successful president in the past 13 I think, off the top of my head, that's right.
	I could be slightly different, but that's the sort of right ballpark, right?
	It's a good indicator that if someone does well there, they're going to do well in an election.
	And so it's very important, that's why you see lots of people paying lots of money to campaign in New Hampshire, because if they do well there and they're polling well there, it signals to the rest of the country, okay, this person has a really good chance of winning.
	Which is now Donald Trump.
	So it's very important, yeah.
	Yeah, it's the third time.
	He swept New Hampshire.
	The three-time champ of New Hampshire.
	I suppose to be clear, we are talking about primary, not the actual election.
	The bellwether thing.
	Well, it's true for actual elections as well.
	That's what I'm getting at.
	Yeah, there are two different things.
	This is a primary, but, you know, it's still... The people who are voting in the Republican primary are still going to be voting in the actual presidential election.
	Although, who are they?
	Should we jump to it?
	Who's voting in this primary?
	Yeah, let's talk about that.
	Sure, sure, sure.
	So I suppose if we jump to it, I think it's link four, then the other reason this was really funny and important was that New Hampshire doesn't require that you're a Republican to vote in a Republican primary.
	It's odd, isn't it?
	It's really odd.
	It's mad.
	I'd say it was Link 4.
	I can't remember if it was Link 4, but the point being, the fact that overwhelmingly a lot of Democrats kept turning up to the primary, saying they were voting for Nikki Haley, and this set off alarm bells for everyone, that she is very obviously the plant, the thing that was meant to destroy Donald Trump from within the Republican Party, and the fact that she's so obviously corrupt.
	I mean, otherwise, who cares about her?
	Not relevant, boring, doesn't have any opinions worth a damn.
	So why does she exist?
	Literally just to take down Trump from the inside.
	That was obviously the idea.
	And the fact she even failed here, in which not only has she spent all that money, but literally Democrat supporters turned up and voted for her, en masse.
	She is the sort of rhino candidate, isn't she?
	Dare I say, the donkey candidate of the sort of establishment.
	I mean, if you've literally got Democrats coming out en masse to vote for you, you're a donkey candidate.
	You're not even a rhino!
	It sounds so pejorative as well, doesn't it?
	She's sort of, to me, fairly obviously a shill, an establishment shill, a puppet, a plant.
	I mean, there's various words you could use for her.
	Someone called her sort of a Poundland Hillary or something like that.
	Far off the mark, yeah.
	I wonder how many weapons companies donated to her campaign.
	A fair few, I imagine.
	Yeah, whether she can expect a job at Raytheon or something after her political career is over.
	But yeah, apart from anything else, maybe it's just me, but she seems obnoxious as well.
	You know, just obnoxious.
	The thing about Trump is you may or may not like him, but he's authentic, right?
	He's authentically what he is.
	It's not an act.
	Right?
	You may despise the man, you might love him, but what you see is what you get.
	He's not doing a role, right?
	Someone like Nikki Haley, I feel like is.
	It's just like they're doing their political acts now.
	I'm on stage and I'm doing my political thing.
	I mean, Tucker made this point, which is like, if I gave her a billion dollars tomorrow, she would suddenly start saying, if I wanted to, that Israel actually isn't our greatest ally.
	Maybe they're our greatest enemy.
	Like she would just flip even that hard on a subject like that if you just give her enough money.
	Yeah, no conviction, no actual political compass or conviction or anything, it feels like.
	Maybe the British people should do a fundraiser and then she could be like, you know what?
	The British Empire wasn't so bad.
	I don't want to do that to you Americans, by the way.
	The other thing about Trump, Joe Rogan made the point, he's not the only one too, it's sort of obvious, is that he's actually quite funny.
	I think he is.
	He's got a sense of humour about him, yeah, of course.
	And the way he's sort of so honest, so on the nose, at least with his own opinions at least, that it's funny.
	John, can we play that clip?
	The first clip?
	Just before you play it.
	The reason why I picked this clip out of...
	I've got it.
	Sorry.
	I was just going to say, the reason why I play this clip out of any number of possible clips is I just think it's a good example of how Trump deals with the media, how he deals with questions.
	So yeah, if you want to go ahead and play it.
	There's rise in the polls there.
	Who's rise in the polls?
	Nikki Haley's.
	She hasn't risen to me.
	This is a typical CNN question.
	I had it the other day where Nikki went up a little bit beyond.
	She went up too.
	And she was at 11, but she beat the Sanctus.
	I was at 69, and I went up 7.
	And they said, Haley Surges.
	She was at 11, but she beats it.
	So the headline was Haley Surges.
	Because that's why it's fake news CNN.
	That's why nobody watches it.
	Not for any reason.
	I just, I have time here.
	I like the people here.
	They're great people.
	We love you!
	We do want to send a signal to November.
	It's really November.
	We're not even talking about anything else.
	We're not worried about New Hampshire.
	In South Carolina, we're beating Nikki by 40 or 50 points, and then she was governor there, so we'll explain that one.
	Plus, we have almost every major government official in South Carolina is endorsing us.
	Yeah.
	I mean, it's been amazing.
	And in Nevada, which you're forgetting about, but Nevada's actually third.
	It comes before South Carolina.
	And in Nevada, we're at, like, 90% or something.
	or something.
	The point is, someone asks him a question, he just immediately says, yeah, that's the CNN, fake news.
	Completely unabashed, just that's his go-to thing.
	That's funny, right?
	Most politicians just wouldn't have the gumption or something to be doing that.
	The stones?
	Yeah.
	They want to be loved by the media.
	And that's just a human problem as well.
	Generally, anyone who gets into a political position, when they're faced with the media, wants to be loved by them or at least have a cordial relationship or something.
	Which is a terrible idea.
	These people are your enemy if you're a right-winger.
	So if you are going to be a right-winger, yeah, just turn around and hate them back.
	Turn it into a sport of dunking on them as much as possible.
	Yeah, it's constant conflict.
	Conflict isn't fun for most human beings, but that's the game.
	There's a certain sport to it, isn't there, though?
	You see it with people who are a bit more politically savvy, where they'll be talking to a journalist and they'll almost lay a trap for them, knowing the line that they're going to trot out in expectation of it, and then it comes and they make a fool out of the journalist.
	One thing I wanted to say at this point, before I carry on with the story, is that I had a comment or two last time we talked about Trump, last week, saying, you know, I or we are really, really biased.
	And I just wanted to address that and say, sort of, basically, yeah.
	I mean, this is a podcast.
	I'm a partisan.
	Yeah, I'm more pro-Trump.
	I like, personally, Trump more than Joe Biden.
	Whoa, steady on!
	I'm not obliged to be completely even-handed and make sure we give equal amount of minutes to both sides and things like that.
	I think we're transparent about it.
	Right, we're a podcast.
	That word is incorrect, though.
	It's not partisan.
	Like, we're happy to criticize all of our guys when they do stuff that's wrong.
	Oh, right, yeah, I'm not blindly partisan.
	Right, yeah.
	We're just, we've got opinions.
	So, for the chap who joined us, I don't know who that would be because I think we've always been open about that.
	Yeah, I like the guy.
	The other guy?
	Don't like him.
	Woah, Callum, I never knew.
	The other point I was going to make along with that is that, you know, I've made it clear I'm sort of pro-reform.
	I'm not Labour, no, I'm not Lib Dem, I'm not Tory.
	It's okay, as long as I make it clear, I'm not trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes.
	It's okay to be reformed.
	And so the point is, is that that's the nature of party politics, because a lot of people are also of the mindset that all politics, all party politics, is the wrong way to go.
	Don't engage with it.
	You know, like these doomers and accelerationists, like, lol, vote harder, lol.
	You can't vote your way out of this.
	It's all over.
	OK.
	Fair enough.
	Well, you can respect that.
	Right.
	Well, this is what I was going to say.
	In politics, in party politics, certainly, it's like sports in the sense that you have to pick a team.
	You have to pick a horse.
	And they're never going to be perfect.
	The nature of politics, again, party politics, is that you're going to have to compromise.
	That's the nature of it.
	You immediately have to compromise if you pick a party, if you pick a candidate, if you pick a team.
	So unless you're the leader of the party and control it with an iron hand and all the policies are exactly what you want, unless that's the case, then you're going to have to pick a horse, let's say, pick a team that isn't perfect.
	Right.
	And so I don't, I don't love Donald Trump.
	I think he's not probably the best statesman the United States could possibly have produced.
	Right.
	But he's my horse in this race.
	So there you go.
	I'll just make no apologies for that.
	I don't think you should, but I just wanted to address that because it is also a legitimate criticism as well.
	No, I agree with everything you said.
	That's how it is.
	Politics is dirty.
	You can't not get dirty.
	You're like a mafia person handing someone a bribe, like everyone gets a little dirty.
	Well, in America, where it's a two-party, well, the libertarians might pull something out, but it's essentially a two-party thing.
	And if you're going to get involved in it, and if you're going to pick a horse, then you're going to end up appearing partisan or biased on some level, in some way, to some There you go.
	So I'm for Trump.
	Let's make the West great again, you know.
	Shall we talk about the other big update?
	Yeah.
	So the other big thing that's happened since last we spoke about is DeSantis dropped out.
	the sanctimonious dropped out.
	And, er, what?
	And, er, I mean, that was a big thing. - That was such a stupid insult.
	It is a bit actually.
	Such a stretch.
	That's part of the reason it's funny though.
	You are right on the money there.
	That's a classic Trump.
	Even when it's stupid and a stretch, it's still good.
	Because he was more serious, although the numbers never seem to actually get close, he was more serious of a threat than Nikki Haley was, right?
	But he obviously made the political decision that if he's to have any hope of probably being in cabinet or something or having any sort of post under Trump, assuming Trump wins in November, it was the right thing to do to pull out.
	So there you go.
	So just a quick few words then about About DeSantis, it seems that he said, he had always said, you know, really quite base things as governor of Florida, right?
	He did some good stuff, yeah.
	For him, it wasn't about the saying.
	So I think the big strength of DeSantis and his campaigners always spoke about this is what he did.
	And what he did was fantastic.
	I mean, he reforms Florida into being a swing state, to a solid red state, just by being good Just implementing right-wing policies on every front you can because you're governor and you have a bunch of power.
	And that's amazing.
	That's one of those sort of iron laws of politics.
	It's similar to, you know, the law in cinema of show and don't tell where it's so obviously A good thing.
	If you're in politics, funnily enough, if you do good stuff, people will notice because it affects their lives.
	He held the line against sort of the LGBTQ onslaught and stuff.
	He did and said some good stuff.
	Revoked Disney's taxes with the exemption.
	He went to the schools and was just like, critical race theory.
	Banned literally in every Florida school.
	You just know, if you do that, we will come around and fine the school.
	You know, when it came to the people doing the rioting, pretty much everyone in Florida's response was, go and do that in California.
	Go and rob from California.
	If you come to us, we will shoot you to death.
	So I don't want to just sort of out and out just jump on dissenters, right?
	What everyone said does seem to be true.
	It's the same thing with Nikki Haley about the sincerity angle, the likeability angle.
	This thing that you come across as Well, a charisma issue.
	He's got a charisma black hole, yeah.
	Yeah.
	Even sometimes small children can see it.
	When someone is being insincere, they're not being themselves.
	And, well, that was one of the big problems that the scientist seemed to have had.
	Well, he had those height-extending shoes, didn't he?
	He's awkward.
	Yeah.
	He's really awkward, right?
	Yeah, well, the shoes.
	All sorts of shoe issues came up.
	The shoe thing was the nail in the coffin, in my mind, of just wow.
	You've had a bad campaign and everything, but the shoes, you know, there's a line.
	Yeah, his campaign was described as lacklustre, it seems fair.
	And I've got a clip here, John, if we can play just a little bit, the first minute or so.
	And to Governor of Florida, awkward human being.
	What is that?
	Well, uh, I'm here, I don't know.
	Watch his face here, watch this.
	Okay, alright, alright, it's good, it's good.
	Alright, we'll say hi to everyone.
	Woah, stop it, stop it.
	Like that's sort of, that's psychopathic terrorism.
	You've got to click.
	While meeting with supporters in Iowa.
	You've lost a click.
	Oh right.
	Where you're pretending to be laughing and amused and then suddenly it drops and you go back to a sort of stony faced... I don't know, I've had conversations like that with people.
	I hope you're not doing that to me, are you, Callum?
	No, you've never had that in life, you know?
	Some relative or something, you're just like, yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Jesus Christ.
	I don't put on a laugh like that, though.
	But it's okay to do that, but then don't expect, if anyone saw you do it, don't expect them to believe that your first emotion was genuine.
	There's a way to deal with that, though, isn't there?
	In that you You say, oh yeah, okay.
	But don't we get caught up in some minor thing.
	It's a general trend, like you're correctly saying.
	I mean, he just doesn't have the charisma or the personality that Trump does.
	Yes.
	Again, I think it's probably fair to say everyone in this office, I mean, we've had people in who have worked with DeSantis and Trump.
	Like both of them, they've both done good jobs and they're both going to continue to do good.
	I mean, DeSantis is going back to being governor.
	He's not going to mess that up.
	I can't see how he could.
	So, you know, great.
	Like in the next coming years, there's probably going to be more BS that flies around the US and he will clean that up in Florida.
	Fantastic.
	But I'm not going to sit here and be like, yeah, dude is just as funny and entertaining as Trump.
	He's not.
	I mean, if he stops hurricanes hitting Florida, he's going to have an iron fist over Florida.
	That's the one thing stopping him from ruling there for hundreds of years.
	Gets Alex Jones and the CIA to make those weather weapons.
	And it might seem like a small thing, that there's like this slight air of insincerity around you, but that's totally enough to torpedo someone's campaign or political career even.
	Well, a lot of people read political vibes, don't they?
	Right.
	Yeah.
	Again, you don't need to be like a really savvy political commentator.
	Children can see that sometimes, even in someone.
	And so, yeah, I suppose it's a little bit unfortunate for him, but there you go.
	They used to say about Richard Nixon, They just didn't believe his smile.
	When he was trying to be jovial at the lectern and make a joke or just be bubbly, no one believed it.
	Well, it looks unfamiliar to him.
	You can tell when someone's behaving naturally, can't you?
	Because the way they carry themselves, you can see the relaxation in their body language and we're fine-tuned to spot that sort of thing.
	You know, it'd be the difference between life or death.
	You run into someone you don't know, you need to read their body language to know whether they mean you harm.
	Fundamentally, and that's hard-coded into your mind.
	I suppose we should try and wrap this up.
	Okay, yeah, well, just a couple of other quick things.
	I'll just say that sometimes in history, political history, one tiny little incident can tank someone's campaign.
	Famously, Neil Kinnock against John Major fell over on the beach.
	Walking along the beach, he tried to run away from the incoming surf.
	He fell over and people said, because it was a very, very tight race between Kinnock and Major in, what, 92?
	And they say that that might have, could have been all the difference, because people were just like, oh, I don't want to... And he'll abandon the sandwich.
	Ed Miliband and the Sandwich!
	Classic, perfect example.
	So quickly then, starting to wrap it up.
	They're going to Nevada.
	Looks like Trump is going to absolutely sweep Nevada.
	I think he said 90% there.
	He's expected to sweep it.
	And then South Carolina, which I believe was Nikki Haley's home place, right?
	So if she doesn't win that, even if it's marginally, if he beats her there, which I think the polls say he will, Sure, she should probably give in at that point.
	I mean, it's already over.
	I would bet my mortgage on it after Iowa that Trump's got it.
	But now, absolutely.
	But she should probably give in after she loses in South Carolina, I would have thought.
	In which case, we're looking at the actual race, which is going to be Biden versus Trump.
	Again.
	Who'd have thought?
	Yeah.
	And, well, the current polling says he'll sweep that as well.
	Easily.
	It's not even looking that close.
	I wanted to make, if we could just quickly flick through the last few links on just, yeah, a lot of different organizations just saying that, yeah, no one really likes Joe Biden.
	Nearly half of Democrats don't want Biden to run.
	Of Democrats!
	Do you remember when he first got the nomination?
	There was loads of Bernie bros that were crying beside themselves that old Job got the nomination.
	And obviously since he's been in office, just a whole slew of all sorts of things, you know, from January the 6th to pulling out of Afghanistan.
	Loads of things that have really, really annoyed a lot of Americans.
	The Ukrainian war, the instability in the Middle East, the migrant crisis.
	Everyone's merciless.
	Gas prices.
	The price of food.
	Putting that woman on the Supreme Court.
	Those things.
	Nothing's gone right.
	I almost feel bad for him in the sense that if that was your presidency you'd be like oh god.
	And then throw on top of that that he's obviously suffering from late stage dementia.
	I mean, Trump, assuming that various quote-unquote fortifications don't happen on the day, looks like Trump could, should, win it.
	Again, if he's not dead by November, he should probably be the 47th President of the United States.
	And one last thing I'll land on.
	Someone did say to me on Twitter that there's something like a 5% chance that someone of Trump's age and his weight and stuff, there's about a 5% chance he could die of natural causes.
	Like his heart could just pop or something.
	Completely naturally.
	So obviously, fingers crossed that doesn't happen.
	And if it did, no one would believe that it was a real thing.
	But 5% isn't enough.
	I mean, there's even more than 5% chance that Joe Biden could die of natural causes between now and then.
	American political leaders, everyone.
	That's what you get when you have people in their late 70s, early 80s.
	But that was the old joke about the Soviet Union.
	You remember, they kept going from Premier to Premier because they were all really old men.
	Yeah.
	That was once considered a problem.
	Oh well.
	Anyway, video comments!
	So I've been doing some research on AI intelligence and I've come to the conclusion that robots in the near future will be akin to that of the Blade Runner franchise than they will be of the Terminator franchise.
	They're saying that the robots will have human-like emotions and be more human than human.
	Of course these AIs that will look human will also be known as simps and we wouldn't be able to tell the difference between them.
	Leading to the complete and utter eradication of these AIs, and diving into weaponizing autism, making them into human computers.
	Well, in that case, I call for total synth death, but moving on.
	Thinking about how Hanukkah is actually a surprisingly based holiday, seeing as it comes from a siege that happened during the Jews' uprising against the Greeks during the Macedonian period.
	The problem was that the Greeks were trying to make them become more inclusive to the other religions and foreign groups and basically saying that you need to let them worship their religions in your temples and you should also start abandoning your culture and being more modernized like us.
	Naturally, the Jews rose up and basically killed them all and sent the Greeks packing into whatever hellhole they came from.
	A lot to be learned from this event.
	Sounds like a question for you.
	I didn't actually really follow everything he was saying there, to be quite honest.
	He's talking about the revolt against the Greeks that's celebrated on Hanukkah.
	Yeah, I'm not really sure what he's talking about.
	Alright, I don't know anything about history.
	Nothing at all?
	Yeah, that's not true.
	I just love modern history.
	I can't stand... That's not true.
	I like the ancient stuff, but it just I haven't read enough.
	Oh well, let's go back on.
	Great question Callum about what's the point of doing asteroid mining?
	Because why would you bring it back to Earth?
	And the correct answer is you wouldn't do asteroid mining to bring anything back to Earth.
	The only reason for doing asteroid mining is to use the materials in space.
	You wouldn't bring them back to Earth because it would be pointless.
	So, yeah, there you go.
	Asteroid mining is a space endeavor, an entirely space endeavor, which is why I'm very fascinated with the cislunar economy.
	Thank you so much.
	That's interesting.
	One quick thing to say, obviously that would be true of maybe iron ore, and you know, you smelt steel in orbit or something, okay, but they do talk about going to asteroids and things to get gold or diamond.
	You would want to return those to, or at least most of it, to the Earth, I imagine.
	But yeah, for the vast majority of it, like water and iron and things, yeah, it would never actually come to Earth, I suppose, yeah.
	It would be good for Mars, wouldn't it?
	Because old Elon wants to start a Mars base.
	I fully support that.
	Send me to Mars.
	I want to get off this planet already.
	You seen that Palestinian meme?
	It's like strap me to a rocket.
	I'm ready to go.
	Don't you think that's directed to Mars?
	Yeah, probably not.
	But we were talking about it because we had this conversation when I did spacecraft design.
	One of the things we ran into is that Maybe it's just modern situations, but if you went out and actually even got platinum, it's so expensive to even do it that the return you'd have to bring back is just mental.
	So, we'll get to that one day, I guess.
	Let's go to the written comments on the site.
	I like that first comment, Callum.
	Do you want me to read it?
	Alex Ogle says, Callum, it's Saint Pancreas, not Saint Pancreas.
	He's a saint, not a holy bodily organ.
	You know what's terrible?
	What's that?
	Even as you said that, I can't tell the difference.
	Saint Pancreas.
	Saint Pancreas.
	Pancreas is a bodily organ.
	Pancreas.
	Pancreas.
	I went through that train station every week for a few years Didn't know the difference.
	There we are.
	I've been going out of short intestine station this whole time.
	Alright.
	Facedape says the public piano in a railway station is the most British thing ever.
	Well, maybe.
	Ron Swansea says CCP spies are fwera.
	Arizona Desert Ratch says, well said sir, the camera doesn't lie, and if the lady is so concerned about her conversation being on a YouTube channel, she needs to back out of the conversation.
	Sophie says, once again, if you go to another country, I know you have to follow their rules.
	If I want to walk in a crop top, I can do that in Denmark or in the United States, but if I travel to Afghanistan, I have to wear the hijab.
	Their country, their rules.
	You have to wear more than that.
	Show me your face, you whore.
	Anyway, so JJHW says, the female police officer was engaging in intimidation and misconduct in public office, which are crimes that she can be charged.
	That's what I would say.
	If millions of people have watched it, someone's probably already done this, but find her name and number.
	You probably have to see her number on the shoulder thing.
	Is it called epaulette?
	Yeah, I think it might be.
	I've always pronounced it, when I've read it, in my head, like a portlet or something like that.
	A-P-U-T-L-E-T-T-E-S.
	I'm sure they can find that W-P-C.
	It's probably not pronounced that way.
	She should answer for her misconduct.
	Yes.
	Let's move on to the next questions, but I'm going to look that up now.
	Okay, is it questions for me?
	I think it is epilep, by the way.
	Epilep?
	Epilep.
	How do you spell it?
	It's one of those words that I've always read and never known how to pronounce, and you know... I-L-E-E-T-E-P-E-L-E-T-E-P-E-L-E-T-E-P-E-L-E-T-E-P-E-P-E-L-E-T-E-P-E-P-E-P-E-P-E-P-E-P-E-P-E-P-E-P-E-P-E-P-E-P-E-P-E-P-E-P-E-P-E-P-E-P-E-P-E-P-E-P-E-P-E-P-E-P-E-P-E-P-E-P-E-P-E- Anyway, let's go on to the Millet questions.
	Bleach Demon says, Millet, I would argue, couldn't speak directly about the evils of the WEF out of concern for his future plans in Argentina.
	Those vultures would look for any opportunity to destroy or subvert the situation, so any small victory is acceptable, just as long as we don't lose vision of the long game and dismantling this undue influence.
	No, that's a perfectly reasonable perspective and it's certainly something I've considered myself.
	Amar Awad says Millet is super-based because he's not actively undermining his own country.
	How far the West has fallen.
	That's very true, isn't it?
	That our standard is that he's actually doing things that help his country.
	Wow.
	Great.
	He's not a communist!
	Yeah, the idea that the highest elected officials actually act in the best interests of the nation they're supposed to be leading.
	Yeah, what a crazy situation we're in that that isn't just completely duergar, that that isn't par for the course.
	I wish it was.
	Yeah.
	JJHW brings up a very good point.
	Argentina did not exist as a country when the Falklands was first settled by the British.
	The Argees will squeal and whine about this, but it's an undeniable fact.
	I mean, yes, I think Argentina is, what, a 19th century country?
	We settled it before then, so yes.
	Long before as well.
	A couple of centuries before.
	I'll do one more comment.
	Beggar Hero, the main problem with the WEF Davos crowd is they are technocrats, whether they are capitalist, socialist, etc.
	They will find something that will push their agenda.
	Yes, I think that's right.
	Their interest is in squeezing people of their resources so they can have more, the elite.
	That's how you kind of want to look at it, rather than they're socialists, because I think that's too reductive.
	But anyway, would you like to read some of your comments, Beau?
	OK, do I need to scroll down here?
	OK.
	Mr Moss says, Decentis reminds me of Data from Star Trek.
	When he got his emotion chip.
	Yeah, like a child playing with the very idea of having emotions and getting it a bit wrong.
	Yeah, that's quite funny, actually.
	Faux Pas says, I'll be voting Beau at the next election.
	Thank you.
	I accept your endorsement.
	really really appreciate that so will I what's this sorry Grunt Gimson says Elrond had someone on his show the other day that made the point best Ron DeSantis is an exceptional executive, but he has the charisma of a dead hamster and can't campaign.
	The actual executive thing is the important part of being a leader, right?
	Getting the stuff done.
	Yeah, well you look at quite often it's style over substance isn't it?
	With politicians in so-called free societies.
	If you haven't got that charisma, for example Tony Blair is a great example and David Cameron actually.
	You can't deny they're charismatic, that they're not sort of immediately at a glance loathsome.
	Right.
	What a high bar, yeah.
	I don't immediately hate their guts just looking at them.
	But I know what you mean, yeah.
	Does that happen with anyone?
	You see a candidate and you're just like... Sometimes I just see someone, even if I'm just walking on the street and I just think, ugh.
	It's like the ultimate next level snobbery.
	You just see them and you're like, disgusting!
	Do you never have a gut level reaction to somebody of revulsion?
	I see ugly people, yeah.
	But I don't like to hang around and want to, you know, do them in with a pitchfork.
	That's not what I... I didn't say that.
	That's the sort of feeling I thought you were expressing.
	No.
	I don't just walk past people in the street and think, I want to do you in.
	Okay.
	Dear God.
	I'm a psychologist, not a psychopath.
	You're just that ugly.
	Yeah, you're a little bit ugly.
	Death.
	No, not that.
	I walk past and think, maybe burqas are a good idea.
	No, sorry, do carry on.
	I wonder why people kept dying into it.
	Well, I think we're right at the end of our time.
	I have something to say on the Ron stuff, which, I mean, we don't have any influence, but the best thing for the United States now, I think maybe we'll agree, is that Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis adopt a really good relationship with each other.
	Because on that substance thing, when we spoke to one of the guys we've had in who worked with DeSantis, he told us the way he makes decisions is comically funny, but also very effective.
	Which is they'll have dinner with all the boys who are in the inner circle, and then they'll be like, hey, what can we do to mess with the left?
	And they'll just come out, oh, ban the LGBT flag statewide.
	Yeah, let's do it.
	And then just go and do it.
	But the thing is, because you're doing stuff, it does piss them off, but it's also... Sorry, just to be clear, this is what dissenters does or what Trump does?
	Dissenters.
	But then going and getting it done, the actual going and getting it done part, it's all probably good to have some funny ideas.
	That's something he's good at and something Trump wasn't the best at.
	So them having a good relationship would actually be really useful.
	There's some sort of mutual benefit there, isn't there?
	I would think so.
	It would be best, at least for the Republican Party.
	I did see Trump, as soon as dissenters dropped out, Trump did say he's a good guy and stuff like that.
	So I don't think it's, I think it would be possible that they can heal their rift and things.
	Might end up the VP, who knows?
	Yeah, well one last thing to say on that is that in Trump's sort of winning speech in New Hampshire, he got Vivek up to say a few words.
	Yeah, which, you know, doesn't necessarily mean anything.
	But it does suggest, it hints at, that Vivek is deep, deep inside Trump's camp now.
	I don't think you want Ron as VP.
	You want him back in Florida running the place.
	Well, that's what Floridians want as well.
	We're out of time.
	If you'd like more, you know what to do.
	Go away.

▲