Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 12, 2024 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:30:10

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #869

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast with the Lotus Eaters.
	I'm joined by Dan and Stelios.
	Hello.
	And today we'll be talking about where is Kate Milton, Ireland saying no, and the zero street seats strategy.
	Such as that.
	There we are.
	So did they.
	Well.
	Are we going to tease Tomlinson Talks?
	Exciting new talk show coming up in 48 hours or so.
	Can't tell you what that's about, but it's called Tomlinson Talks, so watch out for that.
	Alrighty.
	Let's get into the news.
	Very well.
	Before we go to the Lotus Eaters Royal Correspondent, our lawyers have asked me to point out that I absolutely am not saying that Prince William killed anyone, okay?
	So let's just get that established at the beginning.
	I don't want any... So there's no body?
	There might be, but I'm not... Is there going to be an investigation of a crime without a body?
	Well, that's the interesting thing, actually, whether there'll be any investigation going on, because... I legally stay quiet on a lot of this.
	No, no, it's fine.
	Because I've said quite clearly, Prince William, I don't believe, killed anyone.
	But there is something a bit dodgy going on.
	So let's start with this article here.
	So this is from a while back.
	This is back in January.
	Princess Kate and Prince William cancel upcoming royal tours after hospital stay.
	And basically it's saying, look, As we know, the King, God save the King, has got cancer and is not feeling too sharp.
	And Kate also is not feeling too good, and she had to go into hospital and cancel a whole load of appointments and all that kind of stuff and, you know, whatever else that sort of went on.
	And after that, in the intervening two months, people have been sort of sleuthing on this and saying, isn't it weird how the Royals are just sort of disappearing?
	from public life they just sort of evaporated from it um and you can go and look at um you know the this is the um this is the sort of appointments of the royal family if i could oh no i'm gonna use that scrawly thing there we there we go so you you can sort of see the appointments of the royal family and it's lots of things like um well it's all a bit vague you know The King was represented by a Lieutenant General at some Thanksgiving thing.
	The Prince of Wales held a meeting behind closed doors at Windsor Castle.
	All that kind of stuff.
	It's just a bit odd.
	Mainstream media did briefly cover this.
	Now, I don't like normally giving mainstream media the oxygen of publicity because, you know, they're a weird bunch.
	But let's see.
	John, can we go into that video and just watch the first 50 seconds of this video when they were still discussing it?
	Yes, so this is unusual to have two announcements in one day, like we've said.
	you're doing the school run, et cetera.
	A message from two royal palaces yesterday when it comes to Kate and Charles.
	One in hospital already, one going into hospital. - Yes, so this is unusual to have two announcements in one day, like we've said.
	So this is Kate, Catherine, Princess of Wales.
	She's in hospital for two weeks following abdominal surgery.
	We don't know what surgery, but we've been told it's non-cancerous, and then we'll have to clear her diary potentially until Easter.
	Meanwhile, the King, due to go into hospital for treatment for benign prostate enlargement, which According to the NHS, fairly regular for men of his age.
	He's 75, he's over 51, and three men at some point will have some prostate-based issue.
	But it then means, doesn't it, Kay, that we've got two senior royals out of action for some period of time.
	Three, actually, because the Prince of Wales has said that he'll be by his wife's bedside for the foreseeable future.
	They've got three small children, they're going to be doing the school run, etc, etc.
	So, who is in charge?
	You get the idea, that.
	So, even mainstream media was talking about this for a while and then they just sort of strangely dropped it.
	But, you know, us internet folk, we were sort of looking at this and thinking, What's going on?
	Because we haven't seen Kate in a long time.
	You know, what's going on?
	And then to put our mind at ease, Kensington Palace released this photo of Kate there, smiling with her children.
	That's a lovely photo, isn't it?
	So, um, that's all good.
	And, um, that was fine, put everyone's mind at ease, until people started looking a bit more closely at it and started noticing things like, um, you know, the... Yeah, there we go.
	So, sleeves sort of just fade into nothingness.
	So, for people listening, we're looking at a photograph of one of the kids, and one of the children's arms has clearly... Someone who uses Photoshop, I assume that's content fill, has been applied there?
	For some reason?
	Yes.
	Unless the camera has some serious error, but I can't think of how you'd do that.
	Well, I mean, click through.
	I mean, there's a bunch of... It seems like a montage or something.
	Yes, there's some weird things going on with the hands and sleeves and stuff like that.
	The hand from the... What's weird about that one?
	I'm not sure.
	The hand from the Addams Family is going to appear any time soon.
	Is there anything weird about that one?
	That doesn't seem that weird.
	It does.
	It's sitting a bit unnaturally, isn't it?
	But for sure, like, I haven't seen anything in those.
	But for this one, I mean, yeah, there's an error there.
	Yes.
	Something has gone on.
	So anyway, we'll show you the next... So, basically, after people started noticing that, we then got another tweet from Kensington Palace.
	Um, which appeared to be from Kate, where she says, like many amateur photographers, I do occasionally experiment with editing.
	I wanted to express my apologies for any confusion.
	Uh, the family photo, uh, photograph we shared yesterday.
	Hope everyone is celebrating a happy Mother's Day.
	So it was, you know, Kate is, has, or has a bit of a hobby of photoshopping images.
	um for whatever reason so um you know this was all blowing up and i kind of ignored this story at first and then because my feed was just absolutely filled with it i thought all right fine i'll maybe i'll do a segment on it but i'll just dismiss it as look what these silly internet people are talking about but then i started to dig a bit deeper and something really really bloody weird is going on so for a start um it turns out that
	Kate's photo comes from a Vogue cover in 2016.
	Does it?
	Oh yes.
	Or is that just her face?
	Yeah.
	No, well, at first you might think, okay, well, it's the same woman, it's the same face.
	But it's down to the pixel level, it's the same.
	Is it?
	Yes.
	Yes, people have actually done the analysis.
	So, the other thing is the kids.
	Um, appear to be assembled from a selection of photos, um, from a food bank visit in the previous December.
	What?
	Yes.
	So the kids are from a food bank, um, visit, and- What are you talking about, Matt?
	And Kate is in 2016.
	So anyway, so look, let's scroll up on- how do I scroll up?
	Right, so, um, yeah, so this guy, he's got this, um, he's a photo editor, Um and and he sort of looked into it and and he's kind of worked out oh yeah no it is because he's he's run all his analysis on it and he's worked out no it is exactly the same down to the pixel level and you can sort of overlay on the left hand side and the right hand side there um and people are coming back and saying oh no look the the lighting is different you know the shadows are slightly different and
	And then he walks them through how to do it and he says you and it is it's all a bit geeky right but but apparently you need to use the um um the burn tool on was it the fudge and burn tool or oh some sort of bloody There's some tools anyway that you can use on the Photoshop, and if you follow them, you can get from one to the other perfectly.
	And then this thread is just full of other photo editors arguing with him, and then he replies to them and explains how it's done, and then they go away and do it, and they come back and say, oh yeah, bloody hell, yeah, it is, you're right, it's pixel perfect, it is the Vogue photo.
	Right?
	It's a bit odd.
	You're sceptical.
	Maybe you should go and do it afterwards.
	I could try.
	I've got the tools.
	Yeah.
	We've got a thing, haven't we?
	Other weird stuff.
	So there was another photo from Kate Middleton.
	After the first photo was found to be doctored, another photo came out of her in the car.
	When you zoom in on the photo, it looks remarkably suspicious to another photograph.
	Someone stole her earring.
	Yes, the earring is different.
	And also, there's other weird stuff about this photo from the car, um, that, um... Isn't this the same woman?
	It goes a bit deep.
	I'm not going to go into the... I can imagine your scepticism, but honestly, when you... Yeah, well, you said you were there this morning, so... Go in and look into it more.
	And also, this photo, you can't see it from this bit, but, like, the bricks are different outside the car window.
	Through the car window, and then they are all around the car.
	The bricks?
	Yeah, the bricks on the wall.
	Right, okay.
	Yes.
	So there's all sorts of sort of weird stuff going on with that.
	So, we are expected to believe that Kate, who is an amateur photoshopist, took the time to go and get a Vogue photo and blend it into her pictures.
	It's either that or Kensington Palace is- And her own children as well.
	Yes.
	And then messed up.
	Well, yeah, and the interesting thing is because you can look at the embedded data in the photo, and whoever edited it, did it really quickly.
	Because they were in and out quite fast.
	So they went in there, and they were a bit of a wizard at Photoshop, but then they just didn't have a lot of time to spend on it, so they didn't catch the thing that everybody noticed around the wrists.
	All right.
	So, so, but why is, why is Kensington Palace telling us, putting out a tweet in Kate's name, saying that she does a bit of amateur Photoshop, and she's, she's apparently really good at it, just, just rushed?
	Are you expecting me to say something?
	You're using the face, you're using the Callum face, so I thought you've... I, yeah, you might have lost it, I'm confused, what's going on?
	Well, Well, you didn't really prove it to me very well that it is Photoshop.
	Well, I bloody... I showed you... Yeah, you showed me that.
	I showed you a thing.
	Look!
	Look at it!
	It's the same photo.
	It's the same woman, right?
	Yes, but she's eight years older now.
	Okay.
	And she has a pixel-perfect face from a cover shoot eight years ago?
	It's quite similar.
	Oh, it's identical.
	Down to the pixel.
	My vision's not that good, but... Well, bloody do the... But then her kids...
	Well the kids probably look different from 8 years ago.
	You said the kids were from food bank pictures?
	Yes.
	I wasn't very convinced alright!
	I wasn't very convinced, alright?
	Alright, just go and look on.
	Let's say that it has happened.
	What follows from that?
	So you've got all of this speculation going on, and there's other weird stuff as well.
	It was So, so this surgery that she went in for, um, she was in hospital for, um, for ages, and Will only visited her once.
	Okay?
	And her family didn't, her family, her parents and her sisters didn't visit her at all.
	That's not normal.
	Yeah, that is a bit odd, isn't it?
	Another odd thing is... Were they on good terms?
	Yeah, the reason I looked at this in the first place is Twitter is just full of this Kate speculation.
	And I did notice one of those had like 6 million views.
	Yes, yes.
	It's all over the place with huge views and yet neither Kate nor Will are trending on Twitter.
	The media isn't covering it.
	About 1 in 20 of the Twitter posts mention Meghan, and Meghan is trending.
	It's been irrelevant for about, what, three years now?
	Yes.
	But nothing else.
	So anyway, people are starting to speculate on what the hell is going on.
	And this chap says, but let's suppose you're a member of the royal family and you're having an affair with a number of members of the royal royal family.
	Imagine you got caught, received a hell of a beating or worse, and the person you were having an affair topped himself.
	And what's he talking about here?
	Now, I want to be very clear.
	I do not think that Will killed anyone.
	I'm purely highlighting some of the things that people are talking about at the moment.
	So this guy, Thomas Kingston, a member of the extended royal family, a bit of a player by all accounts, and formerly Kate's sister, Pippa.
	Apparently she got with this guy.
	She got with this guy a while.
	Okay.
	Anyway, so he mysteriously died from a headshot wound with a shotgun on the 25th of February, about the same sort of time as the Royals basically went dark.
	Okay.
	And since Kate hasn't been seen.
	Now if you read the statements, the sort of palace statements from this stuff, it sort of heavily implies That it was a suicide, but everyone is refusing to actually say suicide.
	It just says that he was found dead near a shotgun.
	That kind of thing.
	So, you know, that is simply what people are talking about.
	I don't believe this stuff myself, but... The speculation, just to understand, this guy was screwing Kate and then William shot him in the head with a shotgun.
	That's not my speculation, no.
	I'm saying there is speculation out there.
	Oh, there is speculation.
	Right.
	But I'm not saying that.
	Okay.
	I also don't like President Trump.
	I just think it's interesting that shortly after that happened, you started getting royal-friendly publications coming out with articles like this.
	What would happen to Prince William if he was charged with a serious crime?
	So, I'll read a little bit from the article, shall I?
	There's little modern precedent for the members of the royal family being convicted of a crime and no precedent for custodial sentences.
	One concrete example we have is a minor offence.
	In 2020, Prince Anne was convicted under the Dangerous Dogs Act when her terrier, Dottie, bit two children in Windsor Park and pleaded guilty and was fined £750.
	So, there is that.
	Other royals have come close to being placed before a judge.
	In 2019, the then 97-year-old Prince Philip was involved in a car crash that left the driver and passenger of a Kia hospitalized.
	The Crown Prosecution investigated, but after Philip surrendered his driving licence, no charges were brought.
	And also, Prince Andrew could have plausibly been charged with sexual offences in conduction with his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, Um, but it basically paid her off, didn't he?
	So he stayed out of the witness stand.
	Yeah, he's disappeared, hasn't he?
	Well... Yeah, I don't think that is connected to this.
	No, I'm not saying it is, I'm just finding that weird.
	Like, I haven't heard about it in a long time.
	Yes.
	So that is odd.
	I mentioned this to...
	I mentioned this to Beau, however, and he assures me that there are precedents going back to 16-something or other that says the king can stand trial.
	Yeah, well that was the Civil War.
	Yes.
	The whole premise was can a monarch commit a crime or not?
	And if yes, well then...
	Well, the law applies to him.
	Well, they chopped his head off, so they obviously took it quite seriously in the end.
	But it was more philosophical, like King Charles... Well, not for him.
	Your head got chopped off.
	But it was for him!
	This was his whole point in the court, which was saying that the law ultimately derives from God, and then to me, and then down to you plebs.
	Yes.
	Whereas the Parliament were arguing, no, it derives from the people, which is this like vague concept that we represent, trust me bro, so we can cut your head off.
	Yes, I think it's mostly about the idea of absolute sovereignty against constitutional monarchy.
	And the parliamentarians were Republican, they weren't constitutionalists.
	They weren't constitutional monarchists.
	Keep that argument handy because we might be needing it soon.
	I feel like this is getting somewhere.
	It is, you see.
	Other people noted that just after this guy was about the same time that William unexpectedly at the last moment changed a trip to Greece.
	So he was about to get on a plane to go to Greece for the funeral of the King of Greece.
	You'll remember that, won't you Stelios?
	And at the last minute he didn't get on the plane.
	You mean the late King?
	We don't have a monarchy for half a century.
	They were arguing about this before we even went live.
	Well, he was going to Constantine's whatever.
	Yeah, here we go.
	King Constantine of Greece.
	Did he die in February?
	I think so.
	Yeah, but not this February.
	It was some years ago.
	You sure?
	Let me check.
	Yes.
	Yeah, because there was a whole debate about the state not funding his funeral.
	Okay, well, that could be a tiny hole.
	Advocates of monarchy and others.
	Can you Google that while I move on with that?
	But anyway, so he was about to get on a plane to go to Greece.
	And at the last minute, he changed it about the same time that, you know, Kate would have potentially been thinking, oh, Will's out the country and would have gone somewhere.
	And then he didn't go that place.
	And then he ended up turning up.
	So I'm not sure what went on.
	What we do know is a few days afterwards, Will was seen in public with fresh bruising around the neck.
	That's very suspicious.
	By the way, I found it.
	He died in the 10th of January of 2023.
	Ah, so it was, it was, it was last year then.
	Yeah.
	Right.
	This was last year.
	Yeah.
	Right.
	Okay.
	So I'm sure things are connected somehow though, because there are all sorts of threads of interconnecting events and, uh, you know, pathways that, uh, Okay, that one might line up.
	But like I say, this is just what people are talking about.
	So anyway, so Will gets these sort of bruises on his neck.
	So people are starting to speculate a bit on this one.
	Because it's something like people are thinking, was Will having an affair?
	Because this is the sort of thing that men in his line do.
	Because, you know, his dad married a stunner like he did, Diana, and he married Kate, you know, stunning women.
	But, um, there are increasing rumours that, um, he's having an affair with one of these sort of horsey-faced women, you know, the upper class.
	That's what his dad did.
	Yes, yes, exactly.
	Married a stunner, then had an affair with a horse.
	Yes.
	And then, uh, his stunner died in that car crash, so he married the horse.
	Yes, because common men like us look at the ones they marry and think, oh yes, charming lass.
	But apparently if you've got king's blood in you, you like a bit of the horsey face.
	Yeah, I don't know why, but then I've got any king's blood in me that I'm aware of, so that could be it.
	So people are speculating, did Kate find out that Will was having an affair with horsey face?
	Who's Horseyface?
	Is there a name for this?
	I don't know.
	We're just assuming whoever she is, if she even existed, it's a horse.
	We need to profile women and find the weird noses that constitute Horseface, according to you.
	So the pool of suspects is shortened.
	But you've noticed that as well, right?
	Looking at upper-class British women, especially near the Royal Family or High Parliament, there's a lot of horse here.
	It's not just us, right?
	You've seen that?
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	Bit long in the face.
	So people on the internet are speculating- Horse physiognomy!
	Yeah, seriously!
	People on the internet are speculating that Will was having an affair with Horseyface, and when Will was due to go out of the country, she popped round to this Thomas chap's place, Will got the tip off, headed there at the last minute, and then there was the shotgun confrontation.
	A lot of that seems to have been based on just this guy died by shotgun.
	Yes, but we haven't seen Kate since that time.
	So we're assuming he was having an affair.
	And the Royal sort of cancelled all their public engagements about that time as well.
	Okay.
	And they won't say suicide.
	Someone demanded satisfaction and there was a shotgun thing apparently.
	And Kate was apparently in hospital, but her family didn't bother to visit her.
	So, you know, I am not I am not saying this myself, mind.
	To be very clear, I'm very much of the view that this is all a sort of fuss about nothing, and it just got a bit too much for them.
	Dad's ill with his cancer, and the missus was ill, and it just all got a bit on top of you, and they're just taking time off, and he probably just turned around to some aide and said, Oh, the plebs are speculating that she's gone missing.
	Can you just bloody photoshop something and get it up there?
	And that's why somebody spent 20 minutes on it and sort of missing me.
	So I personally don't believe that he offed the two of them in a barn with a shotgun and then Royal Protection officers are covering it up.
	I am not advocating.
	I'm just saying that you can see why lots and lots of people on the internet are making the argument that that might have happened and why it's all getting a little bit out of control now.
	Just to come back to this article about, you know, can Prince William be charged with a serious crime.
	They go on to say, It is worth pointing out that once William is king, he can essentially get away with murder.
	All criminal trials in the United Kingdom are in the monarch's name.
	tried by a jury and sentenced to jail by a judge.
	It is worth pointing out that once William is king, he can essentially get away with murder.
	All criminal trials in the United Kingdom are in the monarch's name.
	So, yeah, it's always Rex versus the defendant.
	Yes.
	And everyone...
	The king's courts, but the king is tried by parliament.
	And everyone who is in jail is said to be serving his majesty's pleasure.
	Yeah.
	So on paper, at least, the monarch can do whatever he wants.
	And actually, this was backed up by a website I'll show you in a minute.
	It was on the Royal Family's official website, where they basically say, yeah, the monarch can do whatever the hell they want and they can't be charged with a crime.
	However, what they say is, although civil and criminal proceedings cannot be taken against the sovereign as a person under UK law, the monarch is careful to ensure all their activities in their personal capacity are carried out in strict accordance with the law.
	Would you like to have a look at that section of the Royal website?
	Yeah.
	They've recently taken that down.
	For... I don't know why.
	I don't know why.
	Anyway, so... That's pretty weird.
	Yes.
	So, um... It's not entirely true.
	Like, we do have precedent that, yes, they can be tried by Parliament.
	Yeah, it was kind of a shitshow, but we did do it.
	Well, look, to be clear, I'm not saying this happened, but let's say it did go down like that and he turned up where this Thomas Bloke and Kate were carrying it on in revenge for his affair with Horseyface and he got a bit worked up about it and something happened.
	If you're his Royal Protection Officer, what do you do?
	What do you do then?
	Because what you've basically just said is the only precedent we have for this is Parliament tries him and cuts his head off.
	That's if he's king, which he's not, he's a prince.
	Well yeah, but his dad's seriously ill with cancer.
	Ah, yeah.
	I'm just saying, I don't think that happened, but if it did, you can see the Royal Protection Officers being a spot of bother around that point.
	Anyway, like I say, none of this happened.
	Don't worry about it.
	I'm sure it's just speculation.
	But the interesting thing is, because the Royal Family comments so little on this stuff, and they've just been caught in an obvious lie over a Vogue photoshoot, people are starting to speculate wildly.
	And I'm sure this one story will just go away.
	So, you know, don't worry about it.
	Right.
	All right.
	Shall we go to the other segment?
	Right, Irland.
	We have some good news for Ireland.
	Last Friday, March the 8th, the Irish voted for two referendums.
	There were constitutional ones, one was about the family, and one was about care.
	They sound a bit anticlimactic, but if you see the result, it is far from it.
	Now let's have a look at some of the tweets before we We say a bit more now from Cillian says breaking the Irish government has conceded defeat in both referendums held today, which would have made the Irish Constitution more progressive and gender neutral.
	Both referendums were rejected in a landslide.
	The Irish people have had enough of woke ideology.
	Next one from UK Justice Forum.
	Irish PM Leo Varadkar and Irish government suffered to humiliating defeats in Irish referendums after the people overwhelmingly reject They are woke objectives in favor of traditional family values.
	Now, I will say a bit in a minute about what these referendums were, but what is really interesting is that it seems clear that the Irish government violated Scarface's law.
	Have you watched Scarface?
	I haven't.
	Yeah, Scarface.
	Yeah?
	Yeah, he's just super clear.
	Don't get high with your own supply.
	OK, and this is what a lot of people in favor of progressive politics are doing.
	And it's a really funny thing.
	If I remember the film, he does quite a lot.
	Yeah, but he told people not to.
	Oh, I see.
	So he violated his own law.
	Right.
	But apparently, you know, a lot of progressive politicians do.
	And I'll explain how this happens.
	So no one goes in a referendum to lose, let alone lose by a landslide.
	Why?
	Because you could say that referendums are a bit unique in what?
	In the following sense that when you have an election, a conventional election, people vote for the agenda they think is overall best without focusing on each specific element of it.
	When you have a referendum, you just have a clear discussion about one topic.
	So the very fact that they would go and lose on two referendums by a landslide shows that they are utterly out of touch with the people they claim to represent.
	Well yeah, because you don't call a referendum unless you're pretty certain you're going to win.
	So we've had a couple in this country.
	One was on the alternative vote system, and it got a thumping rejection, as they intended.
	And they intended the Brexit one to also be a thumping one, but it came out as a narrow win, like 52 to 48.
	Yes.
	But a landslide rejection of a referendum is a massive balls-up.
	Yes.
	And I think that it shows that the Irish government just doesn't care about what the people it claims to represent think.
	And it just thinks it knows better on everything.
	But speaking of rulers and people who didn't think that they always knew everything, you know who had no problem delegating duties to people he thought were capable?
	Marcus Aurelius.
	If you want to find out more about Marcus Aurelius, Some of you think he's the GOAT.
	Check out our website, The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius, Symposium 61.
	With £5 per month, you can gain access to all our premium content.
	And let me just say, this was a marathon discussion.
	It's close to three hours.
	Bo and I chat about the history and philosophy of Marcus Aurelius.
	So, by all means, subscribe on our website and watch it.
	Is that the guy from Gladiator?
	Yeah, I know all about him.
	He is the father of the really bad guy who came afterwards.
	Yeah, I know all about this guy.
	Right, let's go and focus on the referendum.
	On the two referendums.
	So it was, let's say, a constitutional referendum in both cases, which allows Irish citizens to decide whether or not to change the wording of the constitution.
	And they're talking about two referendums.
	One was the family referendum and the other was the care referendum.
	Let's see what both of them involved.
	So the family amendment.
	Amends, proposed to amend some articles in the Constitution that have to do with the family and the other that have to do with care.
	Let me just explain here exactly how the Constitution is and how they wanted to change it.
	Let's say the Article 41 has to do with the family, and the Article 42 has to do with the role of mothers in the house.
	So the Irish Constitution actually says at the moment that the state recognises the family is the fundamental group, and it actually recognises marriage is sacred and all that kind of stuff.
	Well, let's read the whole thing out because it's beautifully worded and the revolutionaries who did it, I think, deserve some hat tipping.
	Well, the state recognizes the family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of society and as the moral institution possessing inalienable and in... how do you even say that?
	Imprescriptible.
	Imprescriptible rights.
	Antecedent superior to all positive laws.
	That's the constitution as it is.
	But that's the thing, is like, you can read that, you can look at that, and you realize that that's written by some common sense people.
	And that's definitely a problem for progressives.
	They can't have that.
	Yeah.
	Because I looked at the results of this, and I assume you're going to go to the proposal now.
	Yeah, I will go.
	The thing I get is I read the original constitution, and that's written just normally, and then that can't stand.
	That seems to be the entire complaint.
	Well, the entire complaint has to do with what constitutes a family in the role of marriage and the family in the first case.
	Now, the second case you will see in a bit, because I was trying to understand what the fuss was about it.
	But you'll see if we examine both referendums together, we start having an idea of what the Irish government tried to do, and it will continue to do in the future.
	So it says also here the amendment proposes to introduce a particular clause and to change the article to saying the state recognizes the family, whether founded on marriage or other durable relationships, as the natural primary and fundamental group of society and as a moral institution, Possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights antecedent and prior to all positive law.
	So they are trying to... I don't know what that means.
	I knew what the other paragraph meant, but I don't know what a durable relationship is.
	No one does.
	And that's the whole purpose of it.
	That it's arbitrary.
	And they can use it arbitrarily.
	How would something you can't define have rights?
	Well, according to Helen McEntee, the far right is a great problem in Ireland, but she cannot define either.
	But the point is that this allows them to arbitrarily choose who is a member of a family, and therefore who they think deserves Greater legal status and economic support.
	And they're gonna be completely arbitrary in how they're gonna give that.
	And they would do that more easily if the referendums passed.
	Can we read that last line there, what they deleted?
	So the other part of the proposal is they delete this phrase.
	So it says, the state pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of marriage on which the family is founded.
	And they just deleted the word on which the family is founded.
	And then they say they will protect it against attack.
	Yes.
	Yeah, so they wanted to change completely the definition of the family in order to give increased legal protection to groups that they can arbitrarily define by saying that they are members of durable relations.
	Think about how cool that is!
	Part of your constitution literally said, the founding fathers there, when they're sitting down after the revolution, sit down and write that the purpose of the government is to protect the family and marriage against attack.
	I mean, it's just great, just great wording.
	The idea that you're going to come along from Pakistan and say, this needs changing.
	Yeah, no wonder you lost.
	You'll see, you'll see.
	So, Dan, are you aware of what a durable relationship is?
	No.
	I'm not either.
	Are you, Callum?
	Presumably somebody you've been in a business relationship for years would qualify you.
	You've been in this cell next to you for years would qualify me.
	We have a video here of a politician trying to explain what it is.
	Oh, OK.
	Can we have this?
	Worried as I'm single by choice, I could end up not being single inadvertently.
	Everyone can marry, can divorce, can live together formally.
	Now I cannot even have a boyfriend or I could end up with someone claiming part of my home.
	Oh, dear.
	I presume it's the durable relationship.
	It's a durable relationship question.
	It's an interesting question as part of the discourse around this.
	You can't end up in a durable relationship by accident.
	You must mean it.
	Whatever else durable relationship means, it must mean something where people intend to be committed to one another.
	Let's scenario this.
	So we've got two people who are house sharing and they're pals.
	And they share this house.
	One of the parties owns that house and the other is staying there, perhaps paying rent, but as pals, perhaps not.
	As pals, perhaps not.
	And suddenly decides, hang on a second, I know we're not having sex, we're not sleeping together, but this is definitely a durable relationship.
	It is, yeah, but it's not a family.
	They're friends.
	I think that actually is easy to answer.
	How do we know you're not having sex?
	I will now.
	You either say you are or you're not.
	Nobody knows from the outside.
	That's your private life.
	What if I lie?
	It could not be argued in the courts then.
	It could.
	But remember, the expression durable relationship is intended to be put here on the basis that it's a durable relationship defining a family unit in society.
	So you must present as a family unit.
	The owner of the flat has a child.
	Yes.
	And both people are not, you know, acting necessarily as parents, but certainly in that From the outside, it might look that way.
	If they look like they're in an intimate relationship or were in an intimate relationship, they might look like they're a family from the outside, but they must mean to be that.
	A durable relationship.
	I think this person is worried that the other person might mean to be that.
	And I think there is actually an answer to this.
	First of all, you can't end up living with a boyfriend or a girlfriend.
	So basically she's saying that somebody has to come.
	That's essentially what it comes down to.
	Well.
	If somebody isn't coming, it's not a durable relationship.
	I don't know.
	She was the chair of the Electoral Commission, Miss Justice Mary Baker, and she tried to make things clear.
	Now, I don't know what constitutes a durable relationship.
	Did you get a good idea?
	Yeah, now I get the idea.
	It's the same with all of these besties.
	Sexless marriages aren't durable relationships.
	Their entire philosophy comes down to coming.
	That's why you've got Pride flags up and down the bloody high street in London.
	It's just come everywhere with these people.
	That's all it comes down to.
	But they have to mean it!
	That's getting clipped.
	But you have to mean it!
	Can I mention something though?
	Because we've had this in the UK, in debates.
	It's not got to this point of law, right?
	So this Labour Party had this debate, and I clipped it for the Labour Conference, where they were arguing, and of course this only ever goes one way, which is that if a man, so if one of us gets a girlfriend, and you stay with her, she comes around to your place and stays for a couple of years, she's entitled to half your shit.
	You haven't married her, but she's now entitled to half your shit.
	Never agreed to this, but so you would then have to be extremely careful not to keep a woman around for more than two years.
	It increases the arbitrariness of people who are in power because they can constantly choose arbitrarily who deserves, who they think deserves increased legal protection and who doesn't.
	But let us just try to unpack it here because, you know, she's supposed to be an educated person who is going to illuminate us about it.
	And I got from this that to be in a durable relationship, you have to mean it.
	And when he asked her, you know, some people, how do you know where some people are not having sex?
	She said, well, I'll know.
	But then she said, it's a private, it's a private matter.
	So all of this is just a trust, trust me, bro word salad.
	Anyway, and at another place she says that a durable relationship doesn't always define a family, which is word salad.
	Anyway, now let's go to the other, the care... I want to remind people, before we go to the Care Amendment, to see that the Irish government has people who are a bit un...
	Unhinged.
	Unhinged and not comfortable, let's say, with the language they're using, and not knowledgeable of the language they're using.
	And here is Justice Minister Helen McEntee, who constantly talks about the far right, and she was asked to give a definition, and she said, I'm not sure there is one.
	So, these people who can't define words that they constantly use to demonize, they want to change the Irish constitution, And introduce vaguer terms to the one it already has.
	On that point, Chad's raised something interesting, which is, um, what kind of sex?
	Because, of course, she didn't define that either.
	So Chad's debating whether or not a blowjob counts as a durable relationship.
	Sincerely, I mean, she'd not only have to check who's coming, but how you're coming.
	Duration matters.
	I don't know.
	It has to do with how much it lasts or something.
	Does the positions count?
	If you use marital aids, is that not okay?
	I don't...
	I think the key legal definition, and they'll write this in at some point, has to be the coming.
	As long as somebody is coming, then they can take your money.
	So you have a durable relationship with yourself.
	Anyway.
	It wouldn't matter, because you wouldn't take your own money then, would you?
	I suppose not.
	It all comes down to wealth transfer.
	You would know, because that person would constantly play I Touch Myself, the song, You know the every time I think... What?
	Yeah, there's a song called I Touch Myself.
	Is this the Irish national anthem now?
	That is also getting to it.
	Here is a thread by David Thunder who I have interviewed and we have spoken also on a symposium episode on why he thought that the Irish citizens should vote no.
	You can definitely check it out.
	It's a very interesting thread here.
	He says a lot of the intricacies about it.
	Anyway, so let's go to look at the results and also look at the constituencies.
	So the family referendum was defeated.
	The government was defeated.
	32.31% voted in favor of them.
	67.69% voted against them.
	31% voted in favor of them.
	67.69% voted against them.
	And in the CAE referendum, which we will say in a bit, because you have to understand both of them.
	It's almost 75%.
	It's almost 75%, yeah.
	Beautiful.
	Even Putin doesn't get that high a vote share when he wins an election.
	He actually doesn't.
	Let's look at the constituencies because this shows something really interesting.
	Where would you expect to find more support for the progressive agenda?
	Oh, it's always in the cities.
	Really rich part of the city.
	So you see here, if you look at all constituencies voted against it.
	Even Dublin voted against it, but you'll see that in Dublin you find the highest yes votes.
	So here in North Dublin you have 40%, Dublin South Central you have 34%, but here you see you have increased support there.
	So 49% Dublin Bay South.
	But there's one green place, however you say that.
	50.29, just scraped over line, in the most regime bit of Dublin.
	And you'll see also in Wicklow that is right next to it, you also have close to 40%.
	So, I don't know, something goes on here in Dublin.
	It's beautiful to see that the entire country of Ireland is basically unified in the sense of bugger off.
	Yeah.
	And if you see here in the North, in Donegal, there was even less than 20% of a yes vote.
	80.21% was negative.
	We should have let them run this in Northern Ireland just to get more red on the map.
	And if you see here, all constituencies have voted against it.
	I mean, look at that!
	Except for the one I showed you.
	The thing is, the government must have known that it was facing an uphill battle on this one, but it just could not let the family stand in law.
	They had to destroy it, and so they just had to.
	But there's a reason why, I think, I said in the beginning that they fell high with their own supply, they got high with their own supply, because I think that when you were talking about, you know, the Wu Karate, those who You know, think this way.
	They have a very bad flow of information amongst their ranks because they constantly try to restrict free speech.
	And the Irish government has one of the worst bills against free speech.
	No one wants to give bad news to the leader.
	No one wants to upset The World Karate, let's say.
	That's how you get repeated failures in all sorts of fronts.
	For instance, with the Doritos we were talking about last week.
	Anyone who remembered what happened with Bud Light would say that that's a bad idea.
	They did it regardless.
	Now let's go to the CARE referendum.
	Now this one I found way more interesting.
	I don't know if you've got the wording for it.
	Yeah, I will.
	I do.
	So let's go back to the wording.
	The wording of the CARE one is very, very based, in which it's basically just arguing, should women have to work?
	And the position of the Irish revolutionaries was, no.
	Why would we want them working?
	You're stupid.
	It says here, the Constitution as is, says the state recognizes that by her life within the home, woman gives to the state a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.
	And the state shall therefore endeavor to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labor to the neglect of their duties in the home.
	Now, do you see?
	I mean, that's awesome!
	I didn't even know that was in there!
	That's brilliant!
	That is so based.
	Women should take care of the family and if they ever have to work so they can have to do that, no.
	No, the state should step in and make sure women have what they need to take care of the family.
	I just love the fact that we've got a country in Europe that has it written into their constitution, make me a sandwich.
	It doesn't say that they shouldn't work.
	Because the family is important, no woman should be, by economic necessity, led to that.
	She shouldn't have to go and work to take care of a family.
	Her primary role is taking care of the family and that is a greater duty than anything else that can be achieved.
	But if this stands, how do you get the birth rate down low enough to justify massive immigration?
	This has to go, clearly.
	Well, let's say that There's a word there that the Wokarati weren't happy with because they think it's not in line with the modern value.
	Which word is that?
	Woman.
	Mother.
	Oh.
	Okay, so the proposal is to reject these two articles and substitute, the state recognizes the provision of care by members of a family to one another by reason of the bonds that exist among them gives to society a support without which the common good cannot be achieved and shall strive to support such provision.
	It doesn't mean anything.
	That's what I thought!
	That's what I thought.
	I was looking at it.
	I couldn't understand.
	But the point is, I thought that the government was trying to put forward two referendums.
	And I said, how would that translate into action if the former referendum passed?
	So if they pass the former referendum, it would imply that they could arbitrarily define Which form of association constitutes a family and therefore requires increased legal protection and economic support.
	Because this bill is about the economic support that the state should give to Irish mothers.
	So you think this is a way of directing money towards the people who do the dress-up stuff?
	It's a way to direct money against anyone that the government thinks it's going to be politically expedient for them to support.
	So what I want to say is that if they pass the first referendum and they change the constitution and family was not defined in terms of marriage, but in terms of durable relationships, that was incredibly vague.
	Yes.
	And then that passed as well, that says that family members support each other and because they support each other, They need some economic support in the way mothers did before the amendment had that gone through.
	So then you could have infinity Africans and infinity welfare.
	Yeah.
	Right.
	But also we could scan the system so bloody easily.
	Yeah.
	We could just say, you, me, Stelios, we're a family now.
	Yeah.
	We have sex, trust us, Irish government.
	She'd know.
	Yeah, she'd know and therefore give us money.
	That weird woman would want to turn up and have a good sniff to make sure.
	Why not?
	I don't think she's actually got the sniff detector.
	That's what I'm saying.
	So, you understand what they would do if they passed both referendums?
	They would just destroy the country.
	Yeah, but they would have less of a legal problem with arbitrarily defined groups that require economic support in exchange for political support.
	Yes.
	So, we have here...
	We have here Sky News saying breaking the Irish government has been defeated between referendums on changing the country's constitution.
	Leo Varadkar said that he wanted to remove very old-fashioned language in the country's constitution.
	Sorry, you proposed destroying the country from the core.
	Yeah, but it's old-fashioned language, Callum.
	But it's old-fashioned!
	Yeah.
	Go to hell!
	I'm so proud of them, frankly.
	Yes.
	It's like saying, you know, death is preferable to being old-fashioned.
	Yeah.
	Death before dishonor.
	Understood in progressivist terms.
	The level of Pakistani scams you could run as well.
	Yeah.
	So here we have a very interesting article published in Gripped by Jason Osborne, who is talking about the Law Society, whose council decided to back the government, but whose members started talking against it.
	And they say, no, this doesn't express us.
	Towards the end, the President of the Law Society, that was prior to the referendums, the President of the Law Society, Barry McCarthy, said that the nation's foundational legal document should reflect the values of modern Irish society.
	Can you imagine the level of disconnect with the Irish people when they vote, when the result is this over here?
	This is brilliant, because they're saying the modern Irish society is foreigners or weirdos.
	And Ireland turned around and went, no, the modern Irish society is Irish.
	Go to hell.
	We exist.
	We remain.
	Because normally this isn't a problem because the politicians just do what they want.
	But in this case, it's actually written into law, some based stuff.
	And it's not just law, it's the constitution.
	So they have to change it.
	So they can't do their normal lying thing.
	It's very obvious what it is that they're doing.
	Yeah.
	And let's look at why Helen McEntee was going to vote for a yes.
	She says here.
	White woman.
	I will be voting that way.
	And when I do so, I believe I will be voting for a more modern, inclusive Ireland.
	Our constitution matters.
	It matters that its language and its contents reflect the Ireland we are and the Ireland we want to become.
	Who is we?
	Yeah.
	Sorry.
	Very small selection of weird white women.
	Yeah.
	You can see here.
	Who is we?
	We does not refer to the Irish people.
	We, we refers to the members of the Irish government, maybe to that section there.
	One rich neighborhood?
	Yeah, I don't know.
	Yeah, I don't know why it goes on.
	Please tell us in the comments, why would you think that this constituency here... I saw people online saying, literally, that's where the rich people live.
	That's it, it's that simple.
	Out of touch lunatics.
	Yeah, and one thing, because as you said Dan, obviously there can be all sorts of stretches of these proposed constitutional amendments, and a lot of them could be about immigration laws, and I think we should just end the segment
	by showing this clip with Senator McDowell talking to Helen McEntee about a case that she should be aware of because it was about her ministry and also end with a comment afterwards.
	Richmond sat where you sat at the moment, Helen, and he told Clare that there would be serious consequences.
	And I'm in a position now just to remind you that in 2022, a case was brought against you as minister by a Croat national.
	And he had married a Brazilian girl in Belfast and he had brought her back down here in your department, gave her a five year work permit.
	They split up after one year and he met a Colombian girl and she was a student in Ireland and she wanted to resist deportation.
	And she then decided that she would claim that she was part of a durable relationship.
	And your department said, this is ridiculous.
	You have one married person and one contemporaneous durable relationship claim being made for two women to remain in Ireland.
	And that case was referred in 2022 to the European Court of Justice.
	Now, it hasn't proceeded there for different reasons, but I mean, this shows the confusion that there will be in immigration law.
	And your department was on the receiving end of this, and you are named as the respondent in those proceedings.
	Amazing.
	Amazing.
	So when she was asked about this with immigration law, she doesn't agree with her own stance.
	Now, I want to end with a comment, because what we are looking at here, this stage, let's say, of the culture war and progressivist politics nowadays, that governments are supposed to represent the people, at least in representative democracies and republics.
	And the first Let's say center of power that they should listen to is the people.
	They should, let's say, listen to the people that they claim to represent.
	Otherwise, they're not representing anyone except their own interest.
	So the Irish government has done anything but that.
	And it has tried to penalize free speech, to restrict it.
	And this means that it tries to control what is in people's mind and how people act and it doesn't care about what they think.
	So I want to say that what we see here is a skin suiting of some political parties that in the name of representative democracy argue in an authoritarian and sometimes aspiring totalitarian way.
	Because what they try to do is they literally try to enter into the minds of us and try to make us internalize their own linguistic mechanism that they try to do in order to use thought control.
	And I think that this is something that everyone should be mindful of.
	This is a big victory for the Irish people.
	But unfortunately, everyone needs to remember that the woke don't stop and this doesn't stop because fundamentally, the left understands to a degree that it has lost the native population of all Western countries.
	And the only way they think that they can get away with it electorally and win power is by changing the electoral mix.
	So, good for you, Irish people, but be mindful and be vigilant.
	Bloody fantastic.
	You're absolutely right about that as well.
	That's going to happen.
	Rightio.
	Let's end off with some fun, shall we?
	All right.
	Meme review.
	Yeah, we're here.
	I'm doing a meme.
	Why not?
	Let's just do that.
	Good.
	Meme today.
	Zero seats.
	I didn't make this.
	A rat I saw on Twitter made this meme.
	Very good rat.
	We'll get back to him later.
	Let's get to what this is.
	Now, you may remember, or may recall, there's a Twitter account called Stats for Lefties, which is infected with idiocy, but that's a whole other problem.
	The stats bit is pretty cool.
	And as you can see here, the Conservatives were doing really, really, really bad and still are in the polling.
	And so they did some analysis of what the country would look like if it was ran off these various polls.
	So they did the YouGov one, for example, and they found that the Conservative Party would get 11 seats.
	If the election was held under those conditions of the most recent YouGov poll there.
	Still 11 too many, but I like where it's going.
	Yeah, that is... Minus 361!
	That is extermination on a political level.
	But then another poll was done and it's still 3 too high.
	They got 3 seats.
	In this poll, making them the fifth biggest party in electoral politics from being a complete giant dominating the parliaments.
	And that's just a nice representation of how much they've failed, right?
	I mean, you had something spectacular, you had this massive majority, and now you were looking potentially at three seats.
	We're going to lose everything.
	Have you got my tweet in this list?
	I don't know, actually.
	Alright, we'll have a look.
	But this isn't the case, unfortunately.
	Looking at the average polling, these are the worst, or I should say, best case scenarios.
	The average polling is around 27%, so they're looking at like 100 seats instead, but that doesn't mean we can't dream, boys.
	It doesn't mean we can't push them down there, because the problem with them is that obviously they're shit.
	That much is obvious.
	But we don't all agree on why.
	And this is also being discussed within that party, it seems.
	And they've come to the conclusion, what if we become worse?
	Then people will vote for us.
	And I'm not joking, because you might find an average lunatic like this guy, right?
	This guy decided to tweet this.
	The Conservative Party has become the British National Party.
	Not New Labour.
	If you doubt that, look at the Labour and BNP manifestos at Blair's Height in 2005 and tell us which one sounds like the Conservatives.
	Now, a lot of people obviously just mock this with Conservative Party become the BNP?
	Would you like a nod with that, sir?
	Yes, yes.
	They're indistinguishable from the National Party.
	Just stupid.
	Just stupid.
	That person is a lunatic.
	Not living in reality.
	But all the Tories ever do, which is a point I made on my tweet, is basically do whatever Blair was doing, only much, much more of it.
	Yeah.
	And we've seen the transformation.
	I mean, we've got two options in the mainstream there, if you want to look at it that way.
	Which is, you've got the Labour Party, and we've been through the history now.
	I feel really glad that we went through those manifestos.
	Yes.
	Because the Labour Party's history post-war is bragging about destroying the Empire and being a traitor to the British.
	Forever.
	That's one option.
	And then you've got the Conservatives, who, well basically since like the 90s decided they would become also traitors.
	And ever since have done everything they can to betray everyone who's ever voted for them.
	Okay.
	You both suck!
	I remember 2010 when Peter Hitchens was making this argument the last time round.
	Because he was really the originator of the zero seats meme.
	He didn't praise it like that.
	But he was saying you have to destroy the Conservative Party because otherwise they're just going to body block the emergence of a genuine right-wing party forever.
	And at the time, everyone argued against it by saying, yeah, but if we don't vote for the Tories, then Labour might put immigration up, for example, because immigration was really high back then.
	It was like 200,000 a year, net immigration.
	And people said, well, if you don't get rid of the Labour Party, you could end up with like 400,000 a year immigration.
	So all those are out the window.
	Yeah.
	Because none of that matters anymore.
	So we've all had this discussion.
	It's why I try not to do segments about British politics, because it's usually kind of foreign stuff, right?
	But those people in that party are also having this discussion.
	And my God, they've come to a conclusion and they agree.
	Zero seats.
	That's the only option.
	They want to lose, I think, at this point.
	Because of course the people who control that party are made up of the same kind of morons who work at Sky News.
	Now this is Sky News reporting on a press conference from the Reform Party, where Lee Anderson defected and joined them.
	Okay?
	Listen to this.
	...being pictures from the preparations for a press conference from the Reform Party of Great Britain there, the Union Jack being rather a giveaway as to what they think about things.
	What?
	What?
	Yeah, okay.
	I don't need to say anything.
	You know what that mindset is, and you know that mindset.
	Okay, so what's going on with that?
	Because you may, as I mentioned, know that one of the Conservative MPs is now defected to reform.
	Same thing happened under UKIP, so we're getting to that level.
	Last time this happened under UKIP, the Conservatives buckled and basically gave everyone the referendum on Brexit in response.
	So, it'll be interesting to see where that goes.
	But, that's where they are.
	So, the person who has that mindset at Sky News, I believe, is the same person who's running Served Party at this point.
	Yes.
	Because my god, they're trying so hard for zero seats.
	It's stuff like this.
	This is their newest release.
	10 Downing Street, Ramadan Mubarak everyone!
	Celebrating Ramadan.
	This was massively dunked on by people being like, the usual thing of England's a Christian country, stop.
	But then a lot of people pointed out, you guys keep posting this, even on your other accounts, but not once did you mention anything for Lent.
	You only take your time out of your day to do weird foreigner celebrations.
	That's not normal.
	That's dumb.
	That's the kind of thing some weird, you know, xenophile would do, who didn't like their own people.
	It would be a bit like Saudi Arabia forgetting to mention Ramadan, but making a big fuss about Easter.
	Yeah.
	But they, of course, would never do that, but our country would do that.
	So, I mean, that's pretty bad.
	I mean, the response was bad.
	It's just people being angry at you for doing what you're doing.
	I see also the Archbishop of Canterbury.
	Did he come out and say I love Islam or something?
	Close to it.
	He's now a Muslim.
	That wouldn't be a surprise.
	But it's not the only thing.
	As you can see here, there's their other tweets.
	You know, all their PR recently.
	The Twitter page is just a great way of summarising it, as you can see here.
	Conservatives are the party for women.
	Again, everyone kind of hating it.
	Just despise this.
	Because, like, what are you talking about?
	I mean, before we even get into whole men and women equality blah blah blah arguments, minority BS?
	Intersectional BS, don't care.
	Got real problems.
	Commie doesn't exist anymore.
	30% inflation since 2020.
	You know, you're laying in hundreds of thousands of illegals into the country.
	And then the million of illegals, sorry, legals that you brought in, that you said you wouldn't.
	The house prices are going through the roof and you sit here talking about vaginas.
	So Curtis Yarvin has got this theory, I think it was Curtis Yarvin or was it somebody else, who thinks that Rishi Sunak is in a pact with Starmer to talk about this woke shit all day long because they've got no idea how to solve the financial problems.
	Ride the wave.
	Yeah.
	So if they can get everybody arguing about woke stuff all day long, then nobody ever has to talk about the financial black hole they're in.
	But nobody's biting.
	I mean, you may remember we went over this.
	I mean, arguing that conservatives are the party of black Jewish Muslim women from Asia.
	Why?
	Just why?
	I mean, again, just everyone hating on them, as you can see by the ratios, how this works.
	Oh, there's you.
	We've noticed that you don't care in the slightest about representing the natives.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, they don't.
	Not on the cards.
	Not of interest.
	And it goes on and on.
	I mean, this just came out today.
	Or the other day.
	Who cares?
	It's the same news every week at this point.
	Anti-Muslim hatred has absolutely no place in our society, says Rishi Sunak.
	So I've announced to give the Muslims £117 million.
	I thought it was a million.
	117 million.
	In the budget it was a million, and that was only a week ago, and it's up to 117 million now, is it?
	What about anti-English hatred?
	And anti-Western hatred?
	Does he make anything?
	I'm trying to get that up.
	I'm trying to destroy the English, my friend.
	Don't say anything!
	I'm not trying to be rude, but sincerely...
	That's mad!
	Because for people who can't see as well, they're saying they're giving the Muslims £117 million for security measures in Muslim schools.
	From... Right.
	Who?
	Who is bombing the Muslim schools?
	Well, there was a case about 12 years ago of somebody who left a bacon sandwich outside a mosque, so they must be thinking of him.
	It wasn't a safe space.
	There aren't any!
	There isn't!
	There's none!
	That's the only thing I can think of.
	Unwanted bacon sandwiches turning up.
	Yeah.
	I'm sorry.
	There's zero.
	There's no English Liberation Army.
	There's no Jews bombing the mosques.
	It's not... I mean, there may be some Muslims bombing the mosques.
	Maybe that's it.
	I don't know.
	What?
	I'm sorry, but you're mad.
	Mad, mad, mad.
	Mad, mad, mad optics.
	What are you doing?
	What are you doing with your lives?
	You're giving £170 million to the Muslim community because of...
	And they never sort of spunk off 100 million for some native British group.
	Like, okay, the Morris dancers are going to get 117 million this week.
	It's never anything like that.
	You know, Sam Malay is going to get 57 million in order to raise awareness of white concerns or something.
	It just doesn't bloody happen.
	What would they do if they did do that?
	Here's £100,000,000 for Welsh schools to protect themselves from the English.
	Every kid gets a club.
	Form some phalanxes or something.
	Moving up.
	But that's £30 a Muslim.
	I did the math.
	Turns out they're also giving £70,000,000 to the Jews to keep them safe.
	This one might make a little more sense because, you know, there's actually People might kill them.
	What about all those girls in North Yorkshire who were getting raped for a decade and the government covered it up?
	Do they get any protection?
	Again, shh.
	That's the English.
	Let them die.
	They're not important.
	I ran the math on this.
	This is £278 per Jew.
	There we are.
	There's your tax return.
	It's £278 per Jew.
	How much do the... £30 a Muslim.
	Oh, okay.
	Is that about the right ratio?
	I mean, sounds about right, doesn't it?
	Well, there's literally zero risk on the Muslims, so that should be zero pounds.
	Yes, that's a fair point.
	The Jews, I mean, there is some risk, but then again... Yes.
	Why?
	Why is there risk against the Jews?
	Is it the English?
	Did we buy them clubs?
	Are they going Jew hunting?
	No.
	Again, I mean, this isn't a press release that is good news.
	This is, again, zero seats.
	I'd like to point attention to the fact that we've turned the country into an ethnic war.
	And bear in mind, at every opportunity, before this happened, somebody sat down and thought, yes, this is the policy we need.
	This is what will move us in the right direction.
	Battle Royale, Britain.
	Okie dokie!
	But that million you were mentioning, um, I think you may be misremembering.
	That million is for a statue of Muhammad to be put up.
	What, seriously?
	Not the original Muhammad, no.
	But some Muhammad.
	Oh, right.
	So this is a million pounds... Because they do get a bit touchy about depictions of the Muhammad, don't they?
	Yeah.
	So this is a million pounds for a memorial to honour British Muslims who fought... Oh, not even British Muslims, just Muslims who fought in the two world wars.
	Oh, so even the ones who fought against us?
	Yes.
	They get a statue as well, do they?
	Right, okay, fair enough.
	Because I was thinking about this earlier.
	Right.
	I like the two world wars.
	I'm interested in history.
	Okay, I'm going to discount any Muslims who had to fight for their side because they didn't have a choice.
	So, you know, Muslims in India or Jordan in the Second World War.
	I mean, they're a British colony.
	What are they going to do, right?
	First World War.
	So who's the independent Muslim states?
	Who are they fighting for?
	What was the Ottomans against us?
	Yes.
	Our enemy.
	Okay.
	Muslims in the Second World War.
	What did they do?
	Well, there's two that we invaded.
	Iraq and Iran.
	They fought against us.
	The rest of the Muslim states that were on our side were our puppets.
	So... So it is basically a statue for our... Enemy.
	For the people who fought against us.
	Yeah.
	The only other Muslims I can think of who were active in the Second World War, in an independent way, were the Muslims that went and fought for Hitler.
	Because of...
	Islamic reasons?
	Oh yeah, he was quite friendly with the Iranians, wasn't he?
	Called them the Rigilarians.
	Yeah, but there were also some guys in Palestine who were a bit pissed off that we were employing Jews, so they joined the Hitler guys.
	It's a bit like in Canada, where the only sort of war heroes that they applaud was that SS guy.
	Yeah.
	I mean, maybe he should get a statue as well, in full SS uniform, and just put that in London somewhere.
	We love minority issues, we're intersectional, also we're giving loads of money to people to fight, and now we're building a statue to the foreigners who fought against us.
	So the thing that I can't get my head around is, are they doing this thinking, yeah, as soon as people hear that we're building a million pound statue of Mohammed, that will just cause our vote share to rocket up, or do they genuinely want zero seats?
	I think they want zero seats.
	Because it's like, okay, so the highest immigration in basically ever, I mean, the only reason immigration isn't higher is because they can't physically stamp the forms fast enough.
	And in fact, they put out that weird story a couple of weeks ago that the high immigration was because of Putin.
	Did you see that?
	Yeah.
	So apparently Putin has been sending KGB agents into the Home Office overnight to stamp visas really quickly or something, like shuffle them into the post.
	So highest immigration, highest tax burden since the war, permanent culture war shit.
	Given a million pounds to build a Mohammed statue.
	Massive deficits.
	That phrase alone!
	A million pounds for a Mohammed statue.
	At what point do they do all of this stuff and think, yeah, what will happen now is all of the people who like mass immigration, high taxes, and statues of Mohammed, who don't already vote for Labour, will now vote for us?
	Because it's not about history.
	It's doing revision of the past in order to For what they conceive of as their political experience.
	Well, at this rate, they're going to get negative seats and they're going to revise them out of history.
	They will say, we want their support.
	We're going to support them and give them what they want.
	That's what their mentality is.
	But they must see the opinion polls.
	They must see that this is right.
	As long as I'm not getting this wrong.
	They actually see, okay, you've got the English.
	Yeah.
	I mean, the reason I went shit is because, literally, I think their position is, secretly, let's destroy them.
	They're just not interested in preserving that.
	In which case, you just give money to the other groups.
	And the other groups here are, well, these ones.
	I mean, the last group I have to mention is just this thing.
	This thing happened.
	This is a Tory MP getting all hot and bothered because a Scottish MP believes that women exist.
	You know those cringe SJW leftist compilations?
	That's a Tory MP!
	So for those who are listening at home, we've got a plus-size conservative woman who is ranting and raving because the people who do the dress-up stuff, I'm not allowed to mention their name, but the people who do the dress-up stuff have been disrespected.
	And that's a Tory MP arguing that.
	Yeah.
	I think the craziest thing would be to do a statue of the German painter.
	Because you know what they would say?
	They would say that whatever was on in his mind, that the effect of World War II was to diminish the power of the great European powers.
	And it inadvertently led to decolonization.
	I think they have a weird fascination for that.
	What if we're going to build a statue of everyone else who fought for him?
	The inadvertent decolonizer!
	Eventually we're going to run out of people to build statues to.
	It's like, okay, well we've got to do either Hans Gruber now or the big guy himself.
	But yeah, I think I've made the point about the meme, where the meme came from.
	Zero seats.
	Because people just, like, what do you deserve?
	What are you aiming for, frankly?
	And even if we go to someone who people fetishize a little bit because of his beautiful accent, Jacob Rees-Mogg.
	He's been on the zero seats bandwagon recently as well.
	As you can see, he decided to come out and say that there should be only one class of British citizen, and that includes Shamina Begum.
	Yes, indeed, the average British terrorist who fights for ISIS.
	And then he did this!
	Well, I think today, he decided to point out, or argue, that Lee Anderson, who looked at his own party and went, I don't want zero seats, I'm leaving.
	He says about him, taking the whip away from Lee Anderson, kicking him out the party, was a mistake, but backing reform is a bigger one for all those who want a Tory government.
	Who wants the Tory government?
	Not even you guys.
	That's why you're going for zero seats, aren't you?
	That was the point.
	I think they want to lose, yeah.
	I'm just repeating myself, but you can't explain it otherwise.
	Is it possible that the thing that you can't mention that people ended up with in their arms a couple of years ago, is it possible they know something really bad about that and they're like, we want to be out of here, we just want to be gone?
	Because a lot of politicians around the world are quitting early.
	Like the guy in Australia, that Dan something, he quit at the height of his power.
	The Jacinda woman, the horsey teeth woman, she went early.
	And there's loads of them all around the world who are just getting out before they need to.
	And it just looks like with the Tories, they're not just getting out, but they're taking the entire party with them.
	I'd say anything... I don't believe in any of that.
	The reason being that there's another meme.
	An older and more ancient meme about this party.
	Go on then.
	The 14 years meme.
	You know about the 14 years meme?
	No, Stelios does.
	No, no, no, I don't, but I want to find out.
	So whenever the Conservative Party says anything like, the country's gone loony, it's the loony left, or whatever.
	You just look at them and go, 14 years.
	You've been in power for 14 years.
	It's your responsibility.
	And Carl did this response, where it's just a summation, effectively, of their 14 years.
	To Jacob here, because Jacob's whining.
	Carl says, The problem is that there is no prospect of a right-wing government on the horizon.
	By almost every metric, the Conservative Party is the most left-wing government in British history.
	Tax burden is unjustifiably high.
	Immigration is at mind-boggling record levels.
	We have a punitive liberal speech codes which imprison people posting stickers.
	There is an almost exclusive focus on myopic minority issues at the expense of the majority issues.
	People don't feel represented by a party, so we'll not vote for you.
	The Conservatives have nobody to blame but yourselves.
	Yep.
	And as you can see, he's very proud.
	He was gloating this morning about how much he's ratioed Mr Malkia.
	Yeah.
	But the point being, again, 14 years, no seats.
	14 years, no seats.
	Like, you deserve nothing else.
	It was your wish.
	You've gone here.
	They have to go.
	They have to go.
	And I'm not saying Labour will be any better, but they have to go so that we can get a genuine right-wing party.
	So here's a joke about, you know, here's the rat, which I've stolen it all from, which is very good work.
	So we're going to check it out.
	And he's making the point here after Richardson and I gave that speech.
	It was like, yep, we're on track.
	Zero seats.
	We're getting there, boys.
	And then you have, um...
	Well, the rest of English society, which is more like this clip, which has blown up recently.
	This is a job center.
	Now, for our foreign viewers, the job center is where you go when you've been unemployed.
	And the purpose of the job center is to give you some money so you can live.
	But also with that, you have to apply for jobs.
	And we try and find you a job is the idea.
	This is the government organization doing this.
	And so the lady on the phone is one of those poor ladies who has to deal with this situation.
	She's trying to find people jobs.
	Let's have a listen, shall we?
	This is Anne Good from the Department of Work and Pensions at Barnley Job Centre.
	Could you please call me?
	It's an urgent call.
	I'll be leaving at five, but if you can ring me Monday, I'll be very much obliged.
	You do need to speak to me.
	OK, thank you.
	Bye-bye.
	None of them are English names.
	I don't care.
	Why are we running around for these people?
	Do you know why we're not even doing this work?
	If I had a person that said, I really want the job, I want to go on your caseload, yes, all the time, every day, every week, but not some scrounging b**** that's popping out tits like me.
	I'm getting very, very politically incorrect with that, you know?
	This is Anne Goodall.
	That is so based.
	That is just a perfectly normal opinion, but everybody knows that you can't express it out loud.
	It's just that she obviously got caught this time because she didn't put the phone down properly.
	Every corner of English society is like that.
	Every pub, every shop, every person meeting on the road who meets their friend and has a discussion.
	If it's about something like this, every conversation... Well, I know some good old-fashioned Labour guys and they're exact... well, they're worse than this.
	Way worse than this.
	So that's the country, and then you've got this party, which is doing anything it can to ignore the actual problems.
	And that's why I look at this, and I love this meme, because it encapsulates something very, very good, and a strategic goal, the reason for this election.
	Why should you give a crap?
	Because most of them obviously do what they do.
	This one, that's coming up, is a chance for exterminatus.
	It is a chance to actually exterminate the Conservative Party and have them banished.
	And the story of politics in the British Isles will be that once upon a time, a party for 14 years did all this, and in return was utterly politically exterminated.
	Oh, it goes back further than that.
	The Tories have betrayed their base for centuries.
	Of course.
	One of Margaret Thatcher's speech writers, Robin something, he wrote a book basically explaining that for centuries the Tories have, all they have ever done is betrayed their own voter base.
	But in which case, yeah, I'm thinking this meme is great, spread it as much as possible, mock them endlessly, because it's what they deserve and what they shall get.
	Speak to your boomer parents and tell them, no, it is worth it to get rid of them.
	Well, that's that.
	Let's go to the billion video comments we have today.
	Question for Dan.
	I watched the Mandibles video and was wondering about how AI and crypto could affect the story.
	I see AI Senators before I see another amendment to the Constitution, as it would have to be approved by two-thirds of the vote for both houses, then the states, and then be ratified by three-fourths of the states.
	I put a link of the PDF of that John Seymour book that was mentioned in my comments.
	Someone also linked even more under mine.
	You can always print up the PDF, since it's almost impossible to find copies.
	So that's a reference to my recent Brokenomics on the Mandibles, which is a fictitious book that looks at the collapse of the dollar, and then it's a story about what happens after that, but it's quite good.
	I don't know about the PDF you're referring to, so I'll go and take a look at that, but on the quick point about AI and other sort of technological advances, that is kind of the one thing that might stop the dollar from actually collapsing, as is described in the book or in the Brokenomics.
	Akira Toriyama has unfortunately just passed away.
	up to it would need to be 5-6% which is ridiculously high but if that is achievable then the dollar collapse can be avoided.
	The next one.
	Akira Toriyama has unfortunately just passed away.
	He was the creator of Dragon Ball and he left a magnificent positive mark on the world and inspired many artists after him and created many fans.
	This is very sad.
	I'm very sad.
	I didn't think I would be this sad, but he's important.
	And I'll leave some notes written by the creator of Naruto and the creator of One Piece.
	Alrighty, fair enough.
	Let's get the next one.
	So within the state of Texas, I've never ever seen a incentive to return a shopping cart.
	People just did it, as well as people who even in the very hood areas where there would be some shoppers that left out, people working there would just pick it up and return it alive.
	Now for European stuff to be evaded in here, I'll probably say I'm not a big fan of the roundabouts.
	I get the whole efficiency thing, but Ages leads to just a lot of confusion and a lot of trouble.
	We are used to just using four ways.
	I didn't really understand you very well, I'll be honest.
	No.
	I'm not sure if it was about the gun or not, but... I didn't catch the dialogue particularly clearly.
	No, but I made up the word roundabouts and what you were saying vaguely about them, but I believe they have roundabouts in the US, they're just not that common at all.
	Do they?
	Oh yes, Cole was complaining because Americans don't do roundabouts.
	They do have them though, it's just really weird.
	Right, to the next one.
	Dan, I have a prediction I'd like you to tell me I'm wrong about.
	As we all know, in 1973, the U.S.
	went off the gold standard.
	And because economic productivity and oil consumption are essentially directly correlated, that means they replaced the backing of gold with productivity itself.
	So what happens in 2035 when the electric car mandates go through as prescribed?
	Suddenly, economic productivity and oil consumption are no longer directly linked, removing the backing of the world trade currency.
	I think the stability of the petrodollar is the only thing keeping a lid on the U.S.' 's inflation and debt.
	And, of course, the U.S.
	and China's mutual debt are the only thing keeping a lid on each other's disasters as well.
	Well, leading to the worst economic disaster since the Seven Seas Company.
	Please God, tell me I'm wrong.
	Boy, that's a lot for 30 seconds.
	Yeah, that was quite quick for 30 seconds, but trying to decompress that zip file in my head as I talk now.
	Yeah, so basically the US came off the gold standard, it floundered until it found the petrodollar.
	That kind of gave it a backing.
	Really, the petrodollar is backed by U.S.
	military strength, but what we're now seeing is the oil-producing states, the bits of the world that actually have commodities, energy, and so on, are peeling away to the bricks, so the dollar is going to be left unhinged without something other than legacy behind it.
	So, yeah, something I explore in Brokeronomics all the time, but it's not obvious what's going to fill that void, certainly.
	Next one.
	That BBC segment on Friday really shows that progressives do not have much in way of critical thinking skills, nor that they wish to exchange ideas and learn.
	How are you doing today?
	Rather, they communicate only to propagate their ideas and dominate others.
	I am functioning as intended and ready to provide assistance whenever needed.
	Somebody get a rifle and shoot that, that needs killing.
	He's slightly alarming isn't he?
	Maybe he'll be a good robot, who knows?
	Thanks for playing, I've been playing too much Helldivers.
	Hi Lotus Eaters!
	So I just found out that Stelios is a fan of The Wheel of Time, and he hated the show.
	And you're right, it is terrible.
	So if you're looking for a not-terrible story, you should check out the Stormlight Archive.
	It has great worldbuilding, an amazing magic system, and since you guys were lamenting the lack of male role models in fiction, I can't think of a better story with traditionally masculine male characters than the Stormlight Archive.
	I think you're right, but I don't have the time right now for this.
	It's just massive.
	At some point I will.
	Thank you.
	Guys, regarding your Manosphere segment, you should really interview a YouTuber named Joker.
	Because he's actually talking much better points than Pearl Davis is.
	He's probably the one who should be speaking on this, not Pearl Davies, and certainly not any guys at the Daily Wire.
	Because they don't understand what's going on.
	Yeah, so a number of people have said that to me as well, actually, that we should get Joker on.
	Well, he's American, and I think he's a traveller or something.
	He's gone expat, whatever it is.
	Yeah, so I was thinking about getting him on for a second Brokenomics on the sort of the dating thing and I followed him on Twitter and I'm just waiting for him to follow me back and then I can DM him the Brokenomics of women.
	Yes.
	Okay, yeah, yeah, that sounds good to be honest.
	Go to the next one.
	What you are about to see is a real Kickstarter product designed to give you privacy and comfort while watching things on your tablet or iPhone.
	May I present Pop Theatre.
	What?
	Those are those bad Kickstarters.
	This guy has a million, apparently.
	So for people listening, we're looking at a guy who's got like a whole, I don't know, what do you even call that?
	Cylinder wrapped around with a blanket over his head.
	So he's got a little theatre strapped to his head.
	Terrible.
	Let's go to the next one.
	What's there to say about that?
	Attacks on businesses and individuals for not towing the current virtuous line remind me of the UK in the First World War after the line in Lusitania was sunk.
	Crowds of women came out to attack and loot any shop with German-sounding owners.
	The parallels with today's methods for appeasing rioters are startling.
	Faced with an outrage, people convinced themselves there was a great injustice and seek easy means to come down on the virtuous side.
	Media, agitators and vested interest groups stoke these passions but would do well to remember that...
	I think that's a very good point and we need to bear in mind that people are very emotional.
	That's why a lot of the times we're presented with dilemmas that are not exclusive.
	Alex always says stuff that's just really good and true and obviously true.
	So it's hard to have a response because it's just great.
	The next one.
	Hello chaps.
	I'm new here.
	I thought I'd introduce myself.
	My name is Paul.
	I have been a magician I have been a school teacher.
	I did my doctorate.
	It's somewhere between computer science and philosophy with ontology and logic.
	And Calvin would probably decry me as puritanical.
	But the introductions made me think about identity as such a key concept these days.
	So my question is, what's your identity?
	Who are you?
	Speak soon.
	All right.
	Well, hello, Paul.
	It's like anger management stuff.
	Jack Nicholson asking Adam Sandler, who are you?
	I'm a Briton with an O, I think.
	Not where you come from, but who are you?
	Yeah.
	That's how he was doing in the movie.
	I'm going to have to ponder that one then.
	Yeah.
	We're doing a lot of debating with Beau about the English versus the Britain.
	Right.
	Yes.
	It'll be a long fight if we have it now and we've got four minutes.
	Fair enough.
	Let's get through the last few videos.
	This is a continuation on from my last video comment about political parties.
	If you believe you're better equipped and more practical than the people in charge, then you build a political party.
	You build it brick by brick, you build your identity, people will flock to that identity, and then that momentum will bring you up higher and higher, and every year, you'll have a better chance.
	If you wait until the opponent is weak and you have an opportunity, and then you try and ride that wave up, well, it's not a very strong building, you know.
	You have to have a strong foundation and a strong infrastructure to compete.
	When you are strong enough to compete, you will overtake them.
	Yeah, yeah.
	No, but I've got an issue with that, because it's not like that we could just go out and start a new political party and then build it up bit by bit, because if you try and start a new political party, your bank account will get cancelled, or you'll be arrested, or, you know, the Uniparty has got this tapped down completely.
	that you can't go anywhere in this system when they when they say you know you can only express your view at the ballot box they mean for one of the establishment parties but no one else is getting in there so i mean yeah in theory that's all right but in practice they thought of that and they've locked that option down Someone who spent a considerable amount of time with UKIP and a small amount with the Conservatives and Reform.
	Hanging around with UKIP, I spent a lot of time with Gerard Batten, and he was founding member number three of UKIP, so he knew the whole process.
	Been there the whole time, right?
	And we discussed, or at least because it came up with people, it was like, well, why don't people just start a new one?
	Because UKIP's kind of a one party issue, blah, blah, blah.
	We need something more foundational than the Brexit party, right?
	And his wisdom was always the, look, that took so much time and 10 million quid.
	It really is hard to do these things.
	And the number of people you need and the rich people you need to make that happen is not to be underestimated.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	I mean, if you even get like 500 people in the room who will agree, that's great.
	It's just, it's really a lot more work than people give it credit for.
	I mean, it took UKIP small, it's like 10 years, 15 years before they were even discussed.
	There we are.
	Let's get the next one.
	Okay guys.
	So business idea.
	Here's what I'm thinking.
	Haitian themed barbecue restaurant.
	What do you think?
	I approve this message!
	Why not?
	Well, we've got two minutes left, so let's take a comment from each, I suppose.
	So let's start with the Royal Wedding.
	Yes, there was one that I liked.
	Oh yes, somebody whose name is a naked Stelios-lovered heather-to-tone olive oil says, if I had to guess, I would say Prince Andrew is behind this photo stuff.
	He's always been good at touching things up.
	That's a good joke.
	Good joke.
	Okay, Andy Onimus, that referendum cost 23 million euros.
	That could have been spent on housing, infrastructure, and other essentials.
	Instead, it was a 23 million euro middle finger.
	Yeah.
	And actually that was worth it.
	Yeah.
	For the last one, I'm going to take one from Sophie.
	She says, a memorial to the Muslims who fought in the Second World War.
	The Waffen 13 SS Division.
	I mean, they were the largest group of Muslims involved in the war.
	There we are.
	That's Sophie's comment.
	We're pretty much out of time.
	Yes.
	So if you'd like more, website.
	If not, don't.
	Bye.
	Yes.

▲