Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 28, 2024 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:31:18

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #881

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Oh, am I?
	Oh, hello, and welcome to the podcast, The Lotus Eaters, and today I'm joined by Father Kelvin, and another father, I suppose.
	I am a father.
	Yeah, there we are.
	It's Carl.
	Ordained.
	It's not official in that sense, but today we'll be talking about the Battle of Trump Tower, a never-show-mercy to the guilty, and why are men sucker-punching women?
	Just hate men, don't you?
	Just men.
	There are men out there.
	Random men just walking up to women and punching them.
	Hashtag not all men.
	No, no, it is.
	It's just men.
	But let's begin with the battle of Trump Tower.
	So you may be aware that there is a concerted effort among the Democrats and the institutions of the United States, controlled by the Democrats, to completely destroy Trump for the impertinency of becoming the president and making them all look bad.
	Just for being Trump.
	Yeah, they tolerated him when he was part of the club.
	But then he was like, actually, I don't hate America.
	The Democrats are like, OK, you're out and we're going to ruin you and everyone who knows you.
	And they've been doing this for many years now.
	And the latest example of this is what I'm going to dub the Battle of Trump Tower, because It's just been wild watching the open malevolence of the Democrats towards Trump.
	They've stepped outside of the bounds of, well, we're all fellow countrymen here, and they've arrived at the point where it's like, no, this is a cold civil war, and the only reason we're not shooting you is because we can do lawfare.
	Eventually, we'll get to that point, is the implication.
	So let's just begin in 2019 where Michael Cohen, Trump's ex-lawyer, decided to go and testify before the House Oversight Committee.
	I was like, yeah, so Trump's lying about his wealth.
	He's massively over-inflating what he's worth.
	It's like, yeah, we know it's Donald Trump.
	Yeah, this is what he does.
	He speaks in hyperbole.
	Yes.
	You know, he's serious but not literal.
	Yeah.
	And so this was something that obviously the Democrats realized, oh, well, by the letter of the law, by technicality, that means Donald Trump is in trouble.
	And so Donald Trump, that's in the wrong order.
	Donald Trump was served with a lawsuit by New York's Attorney General Letitia James, registered Democrat, incidentally, that sought to permanently disrupt the Republicans' ability to do business in the state.
	And she called it, quote, the art of the steal.
	Nice and impartial.
	So their blatant stuff is what makes it worse.
	It's so over the top.
	I don't think they realize how fascist and totalitarian they are.
	Yeah.
	It just looks... I mean, I'm actually, I'm getting like echoes of Roman prescriptions in this.
	This is like, you know, Sulla just marching back into Rome being like, okay, where are the Marian partisans here?
	Because I'm going to deal with them.
	You know, that's very much the energy that Letitia James gives off.
	Uh, although I would say she's the Marian side because they did start the prescriptions.
	Um, but anyway, the, uh, the lawsuit was filed in Manhattan and is the accumulation of a three year investigation into Trump and the Trump organization.
	Uh, his three oldest children, uh, Donald Jr, Ivanka and Eric, also named as defendants, along with two longtime company executives.
	So you can see they're just going for everything.
	They just know you are the evil thing.
	According to the lawsuit, for example, Trump claimed that his Trump Tower apartment was nearly three times its actual size and valued the property at $327 million, which, of course, is a lot and a lot more than any other new apartment has ever been sold for.
	So, yes, Trump is inflating the value of his apartment.
	That is true.
	Is this a crime?
	To what end, though?
	We'll get to that in a minute.
	Both of those, in fact.
	Sorry, I don't want to... Anyway.
	In the lawsuit, Letitia James asked the courts to ban Trump and his three eldest children from ever running a company again based in New York.
	Because he overinflated the price of his property?
	Yes.
	And it was asked that his... Well, it was on the table that his existing businesses would be liquidated, but thankfully it didn't go quite that far.
	But, um, so she was also seeking a payment of at least $250 million, quarter of a billion dollars, uh, which she said was the estimated worth of benefits derived from the alleged fraud.
	And she wants Trump, the Trump organization, uh, to be banned from entering into commercial real estate acquisitions, five years and other, other sanctions.
	So basically Barney, and this must have genuinely terrified all of the other real estate moguls in New York.
	Oh, hang on a second.
	Just, uh, you know, if we're, if we're talking about over-inflated properties a bit here, uh, we're all in trouble.
	And so in February, uh, Trump was found guilty.
	This is definitely out of order.
	There we go.
	Trump was found guilty by Judge Arthur N. Goron, a registered Democrat.
	Uh, He barred Trump from serving as an officer or director of any corporation or any other legal entity in the state for three years, while his sons Eric and Donald Trump Jr.
	were also banned for two years.
	Ivanka wasn't, incidentally, so she'll probably end up being the CEO of whatever businesses he has.
	Well, at least it's based on the state and it's not federal.
	Yes.
	Politicization of the judiciary is dangerous.
	Yeah, I mean, that's one advantage is that it's at least localized to New York.
	So you could probably go to Florida or Texas or something and sell businesses there, which I'm sure other Republicans are thinking, yeah, maybe I'll do the bloody same.
	They were also, he was also ordered to pay $354 million with interest.
	And so that, and you think, okay, how much interest?
	Well, it's almost a hundred, a hundred million dollars in interest.
	So it's $453.5 million, uh, which has been factored in half a billion.
	How do you afford that?
	No.
	No, incidentally.
	Because actually not many people have half a billion just sat around in liquid cash.
	Because, I mean, and this is something the left fails to understand, when we use the word wealth, we're not talking about Scrooge McDuck.
	Usually it's in property.
	And so N'Goron, again, he sounds like a villain.
	But they're not just trying to punish him here, they're trying to cripple him.
	Oh, they're trying to destroy him.
	They're trying to absolutely destroy him.
	The ideal goal is obviously to try and take Trump Tower away from him as a symbolic victory.
	In Goron, again, sounds like he works for Sauron, doesn't he?
	It just sounds like, to me, a good old-fashioned toppling of the king and conquering his castle.
	I just find it interesting how the people involved sound like they work for Mordor.
	There's a word for that, isn't there?
	A nominative directive or something?
	I don't know.
	But he ruled that Trump and the Trump Organization repeatedly violated state fraud law by systematically misrepresenting the value of some of his properties and his overall net worth.
	That enabled his business to obtain loan rates and other financial terms they otherwise wouldn't have received, according to Letitia James.
	More specifically, James' allegations include falsifying business records, including false financial statements and insurance fraud.
	Trump's office claimed that Trump's misrepresentations led to the company collecting $370 million in ill-gotten gains.
	From who?
	Who is the victim in this?
	And the answer is, there doesn't seem to be one.
	So, what had happened is that Trump had valuated his own properties, taken loans against those properties, paid the loans back in full, And then was charged by the Attorney General of New York, Letitia James.
	There is no complaint against him by a damaged party.
	So who's she suing him on behalf of?
	The State of New York.
	They can just do that?
	Apparently.
	Regardless of the bank being happy that they've been fully paid?
	Apparently, they are not the plaintiff in this.
	It's her.
	She's the one who brought the suit.
	I find that very confusing.
	It's because it's obviously politically motivated.
	Obviously, this is the case.
	Trump, of course... Right, so the state of New York doesn't actually accept that people have property rights.
	We're just going to sue you out of existence and we'll make up some BS to do it if we need to.
	I mean, she's gone on behalf of the banks who haven't levelled any complaints and said, Trump's done something wrong here, this is fraud.
	And the bank's like, yeah, but we got our money.
	Nobody's lost any money.
	Nobody's been defrauded.
	So, okay.
	But, you know, I'm sure there are, you know, fine legal lines that say, well, technically that is blah, blah, blah, blah.
	It's like, sure.
	But in the sort of the real world, no one is hurt from this.
	And Letitia James has obviously chosen this because she hates Trump.
	Trump took Truth Social.
	Sorry, can we?
	Yep.
	Even if you do no wrong, you're still not safe.
	Even if there's no victim.
	But if you're a businessman in a blue state, and you're a Republican, and you do no wrong, you don't hurt anyone, you're still not safe.
	I mean, that's a different... I think he probably has done something wrong, but there's no victim in what he's done.
	And what he's also... How can you have done something wrong if there's no victim?
	Well, because he... The letter of the law could be violated, even if all parties are happy with what happened.
	So, in my perspective, if he wanted to get a loan again, the banks would be like, no, because you fraudulent last time, or maybe we'll put...
	I'm so sorry, that's just the meme of like, the bank and him do business.
	Is there someone you forgot to ask for consent?
	And it's literally Letitia James with a cross face.
	Oh God.
	And like you say, the banks should be able to have that judgment.
	I mean, you know, okay, Trump paid back his loan in full.
	Why wouldn't we do it again?
	Right.
	Even if he personally, and the thing is about valuing property is it's not exactly an objective standard by which you can measure it because it's literally just what the market will accept.
	Also, I don't really feel bad about banks being defrauded, to be honest with you.
	Yeah, even if there was a fraud case, oh no, not the banks, say the Democrats.
	But anyway, Trump has a statement on truth social.
	I'm sure he did, you know, inflate the value of his property.
	He's a New York businessman.
	I suspect that many New York businessmen do this.
	I suspect all of them do.
	Well, we'll get to that in a second, in fact.
	But Trump put out a statement saying, well, this is un-American, which it probably is.
	A complete and total sham.
	There were no victims, no damages, no complaints.
	Only satisfied banks and insurance companies, which made a ton of money.
	Great financial statements.
	And it didn't even include the most valuable asset, the Trump brand.
	To be honest with you, as bombastic as that is, that seems to be true.
	Yeah, that's pretty accurate.
	That seems to actually be an accurate statement.
	And so the New York Times are like, well, are they really going to seize his properties?
	Because it turns out that Trump has been, Trump lost a lot of money becoming president of the United States.
	He actually slipped down in the billionaire rankings.
	You're the only president that's ever done that.
	Yeah, I think so.
	As far as, at least in modern times.
	Yes.
	Somehow Bill Clinton, like $250 million.
	Which makes me trust Trump even more.
	Yeah, exactly.
	That's the thing.
	Like, sorry, if I have to make a judgment, the guy who loses money becoming the president is probably not doing it for the money.
	Just saying.
	But the point is, he's been under a lot of lawfare for many years now, because the Democrats have never been able to get over the fact that they lost fair and square.
	And so the question is, well, could Trump's properties really be seized?
	Because he actually probably doesn't have half a billion just sat around in liquid cash.
	And so Donald Trump was apparently rejected by two dozen bond companies so that no one's going to loan him money, basically.
	So this is the real problem, in that we get closed out of the public market.
	And normally, before he'd run for president, I'm sure it wouldn't have been difficult for him to have gained these at all.
	He'd be like, I've got loads of buildings that are worth billions of dollars.
	I need, you know, however much, and I'll pay you back.
	Obviously, this is a political problem.
	Yeah, and it's highly political and people should be concerned about this because it doesn't stop with Trump.
	Our mutual friend Lawrence Fox has had the same situation.
	He can't get a house, can't buy a house.
	Nobody will give him a mortgage.
	Doesn't matter how much savings he's got, how much credit he's got.
	Politically, they won't give him a mortgage.
	Nigel Farage got his bank account closed down.
	They politicise the systems that we need to operate in society.
	Just to be clear as well, Nigel Farage managed to retain his bank account because he made a massive public storm about it and got the Conservatives, the government, to come out on his side on this.
	If that hadn't happened, he would have just lost it.
	So, turns out that the deadline was Monday, and just days before the deadline, Trump had taken, and I don't know whether this was to deal with this problem, but Trump had made Truth Social publicly traded, which is going to make him somewhere in the region of $3 billion.
	Absolutely.
	He's going to sell a lot of shares.
	So, of course, Trump's got millions of fans who would love to buy stock in his company, which will be, of course, more than enough to cover the penalty.
	But the thing is, there are terms and conditions and there's a time, the time period.
	The merger apparently restricts him from selling his shares for six months or using them as collateral against the loan.
	So getting the money, actually, it is definitely coming to him that he's going to get three billion dollars, probably more.
	But getting it in time is an issue.
	So unless those rules are waived to allow him to tap the infusion of cash, Trump faces the possibility that the State's Attorney General will move to freeze some of his bank accounts and seize properties in the city.
	And it's like, OK, so you can see that they're definitely on the way and they definitely want to take Trump Tower from him.
	They want this.
	Again, it's because it's going to be symbolic.
	This is a problem because apparently he only had $350 million in cash as of last year.
	Probably is going to be lower than that.
	So it doesn't look like they're actually going to seize Trump Tower because Trump got a last minute reprieve on the appeals court where they reduced the bond to $175 million only.
	Which Trump probably can afford.
	It's a massive cut, but it's still a ridiculous amount of money.
	Yeah, it is.
	And so Trump has 10 days to get that money.
	Trump said, I would greatly respect the decision.
	We will abide by the decision.
	You can post a bond or equivalent securities and cash or cash.
	What world do we live in where it's okay to have 10 days to find $175 million?
	I mean, I guess when you're Donald Trump, you can probably do it.
	And so, good for him.
	But like I said, this had some knock-on effects.
	This is a guy who hosts a show called Shark Tank.
	It's a real estate investment chap and he went on CNN and gave his opinion.
	I thought we'd just watch this.
	It's about a minute long because you can read between the lines.
	I mean, he just comes out and says at the end, but you can tell he's like, wow, this has got everyone scared.
	CNN's a wonderful streaming service.
	I can't understand why CNN plus failed.
	Rubbish network, rubbish streaming.
	Apparently so.
	I'm just going to refresh it.
	Come on.
	This worked when I was preparing the segment of my desk.
	Sod's Law.
	Okay, basically, he comes out and says, this is a bit terrifying because everyone does this.
	Literally everyone, to take a loan, trying to get the most you can get to maximize the returns on whatever you're doing, everyone inflates the amount that they are Requesting from the banks.
	The banks know this.
	Everyone does it.
	Literally everyone.
	And this is kind of terrifying because then it means that everyone is potentially on the chopping block for doing what Donald Trump has done, which is totally normal, has not innovated anything in any way.
	They want him so badly, they're going to punish him for normal behavior, but punish people for normal behavior and then everyone's at risk.
	But that obviously has knock-on effects.
	Everyone in the real estate market in New York is like, am I safe here?
	Should we be in New York?
	Yeah.
	This is what I was talking about.
	If you're a conservative guy in a blue state, maybe it's time to get out.
	What I was hinting at.
	I don't know if you're actually familiar with Kevin O'Leary, but he's been speaking about this for quite some time.
	And he went on CNN in front of a bunch of CNN panelists and just told them, Which, you know, they all got annoyed about.
	That New York is awful for doing business and I plead everyone to get out.
	And the reason he gave was, yeah, the taxes are pretty bad, but it's the regulatory framework.
	And he was just hinting at the fact that to get anything done, your political party have ruined this place.
	It is so difficult to get anything done that any businessman worth their salt should just leave.
	Because you don't need to be here.
	It's a big country.
	Get lost.
	No, no.
	And there are states that are Republican-friendly states who aren't going to persecute you for your political opinions.
	Just a quick side.
	I can't help but notice this here.
	That's quite nice.
	CNN enforcement.
	Donald Trump may be on the verge of a massive financial win.
	Just can't stop winning, which is great.
	And so that, I thought, was interesting enough.
	And something that the Democrats are doing, which again, it's not like New York is a thriving state anyway.
	Loads of people have left, lots of money, billions of dollars in money have left New York.
	It seems to be a sort of failing city-state at this point.
	So they're not concerned about the knock-on effect.
	But then you've got the rampant hypocrisy of Democrat partisans, which is just insufferable.
	You've got Jon Stewart being like, well, this isn't a victimless crime.
	It's like, okay, but where are the victims?
	Point out, name the victim, Mr. Stewart.
	Does he?
	No, of course not.
	His victims are hypothetical, right?
	He says, quote, how is he not mad about over-evaluations in the real world, Stewart demanded to know, because they are not victimless crimes.
	Stewart noted that money isn't infinite.
	Isn't it?
	Certainly printing it like it's bloody infinite.
	A loan that goes to the liar doesn't go to someone who's giving a more honest evaluation.
	So the system becomes incentivized for corruption.
	It's totally normal.
	Everyone does it.
	How business in New York works.
	And I know this because it's exactly what Jon Stewart did when he was selling his flat.
	What, 829% over value?
	What?
	Yeah, because 2014, Jon Stewart sold his 6,000 square foot flat for $17.5 million.
	But the thing is, the market value was only $1.8 million.
	So... What a hypocrite.
	Flat for $17.5 million.
	But the thing is, the market value is only $1.8 million.
	So what a hypocrite.
	Yeah, what a hypocrite indeed.
	What a hypocrite indeed.
	And the next person who sold it on from him sold it at 26% loss at $13 million in 2021.
	So I guess Jon Stewart's right.
	It's not a victimless crime, apart from when you're doing it to private investors, private buyers.
	The banks apparently don't care.
	But Jon Stewart came out and he was completely unrepentant, as you might imagine.
	Oh my God, I've been caught doing something not remotely similar to Trump.
	Isn't it?
	Well, he actually had a victim.
	Oh yeah, but look what he's saying.
	That's hilarious.
	Yes.
	That's a good point, Callum.
	He actually did have a victim there.
	Someone lost 7 million.
	4 million.
	Oh well, it's only chump change.
	Yeah, but actually, Stuart does have a point here, right?
	Because the difference is that Stuart didn't borrow against the hypothetical value of his property.
	So, Donald Trump borrowed against a fully paid back loan, so technically there is no victim.
	Like, literally, there is no victim.
	John Stewart didn't borrow against it.
	He just sold it to someone at an overvalued cost, who then sold it and lost $4 million.
	So John Stewart actually has created a victim.
	So in a way, he's right.
	He has been caught doing something not remotely similar to Trump.
	He's done something worse.
	Yeah, but he's just shifting the golf course and conflating issues of paying hush money, discriminating in housing, grabbing pussies.
	What is he on about?
	Yeah, well, he's just obfuscating that because, as Callum accurately points out, he has done something worse than Donald Trump.
	Donald Trump hasn't really hurt anyone at all.
	Jon Stewart actually has cost someone money, a lot of money.
	But the point being, though, is that Jon Stewart knows that he, as a Democrat, is not going to be persecuted by the Democrat establishment.
	He knows that that's never going to happen.
	He is on the right side of the power in this instance.
	And so it can be totally unashamed of his own hypocrisy.
	He knows that this is an entirely partisan witch hunt.
	What's that, that Jack Pozo paste?
	I love when people keep receipts.
	Oh, this, this is actually the estimated market value.
	So 1.8 million.
	And so, uh, as you can see, Jon Stewart has done exactly what Trump did, except Jon Stewart hurt someone doing it.
	But, um, but this is interesting because it's a part of just the general strategy.
	For example, you may remember when the same judge, uh, decided that actually Mar-a-Lago was only worth $18 million.
	So Trump was saying, well, look, this is worth 700 million or something like that.
	Real estate insiders are like, well, it's at least 300 million.
	Because if you actually look at it, Mar-a-Lago, going down on here, like similar, I mean, literally just neighboring properties, like five bedrooms, six bathrooms, five bedrooms, eight bathrooms, 63 million, 41 million, 73 million.
	Mar-a-Lago, 58 bedrooms and 33 bathrooms, 17 acres compared to the less than one acre of these ones.
	And it's like, oh no, it's 18 million.
	It's like, no, you're lying.
	You're lying.
	And it's the same goddamn judge.
	Well, it's worth what people will pay for it.
	True, but that's not the issue.
	It's the same judge, Engeron, Sauron, the mouth of Sauron, the same goddamn judge doing it.
	And so it's like, this is obviously just a partisan attempt to try and screw Trump continuously.
	And everyone can see that.
	Everyone with eyes can see that, although Democrats won't recognize it.
	Yeah, they won't recognize it, but they won't recognize it not because they can't see it.
	They won't recognize it because of political loyalties.
	And that, I think, is the main thing to take away from this.
	The Democrats, and I'm not saying the Republicans aren't the same or anything like that, but, okay, where are they doing this to a Democrat politician in a red state?
	You know, give me an example.
	I'll say, okay, yeah, they're just as bad.
	They're doing it as well.
	But that doesn't seem to be the case.
	And what the Democrats are doing, crossing a Rubicon here.
	They're going to a point of no return.
	They're saying, no, we are actually going to just ruin you because you're a political opponent.
	The laws won't really apply.
	We're going to lie.
	We're going to just come out and out and out lie.
	We're going to do the same thing as you and then call you a bad guy for doing it.
	Even though there's a person who actually lost money when we do it and there's no one who lost money when you do it.
	And it's totally normal practice when you do it.
	And it's somehow exceptional now.
	It's that there is a Rubicon that is being crossed in this.
	And I think that's not good, but I think basically Americans should be very aware of it.
	That's terrifying.
	As I say, I mean, if you're a business man, just get out of these states.
	So what's the point?
	Literally you're opening yourself up to risk that you don't need to.
	Yeah.
	This is why I said when I'm on Tim Pool's podcast, look, your country is over.
	Now it's warring factions fighting for control of territory.
	And that's precisely what we're seeing now.
	Righty-o.
	Well, um, this isn't going to be much more fun.
	I'll try.
	So, never showing mercy to the guilty I think is probably a good idea, and something happened recently that got this all in my head, and it's the Moscow terror attack, not the first of its kind, won't be the last of its kind, the people who missed it are some Islamists turned up, set fire to a mall and shot a bunch of innocent people because Questions yet to be solved, but ISIS claim responsibility, and that's the end of it.
	Most people online, in response to this, in the Anglosphere, in Russia, it's a different case, but in the Anglosphere, I saw people just arguing about who did it for some reason, and I was just like, I'm not interested in this, this is boring.
	Do you know who did it?
	Well, ISIS claim responsibility and have been operating in Russia for about 10 years now.
	Okay.
	And have done something similar before or so.
	What's ISIS's beef with Russia?
	The South, because there's Muslim republics that are controlled by the Russian Federation, not just Chechnya, Dagestan as well, Ingushetia, and those republics want independence, they're Muslim, and therefore, well, I'm not saying they want independence, the Islamists want them independent Islamic states there, and the Russian Federation doesn't agree.
	That's the fight.
	So that's that, but as I said, most people were arguing about, oh, who did it?
	Maybe it's, I don't know, the Jews or something.
	Oh my god, okay, yes, the internet.
	But that's not what I'm talking about today.
	I'm talking about something much more interesting, I think, because I saw in a response to this attack, this kept getting put, this statement here.
	So this is just some rando who did it.
	And they quote here Dostoevsky saying, a society should be judged not on how it treats its outstanding citizens, but how it treats its criminals.
	And it's a picture.
	Weirdly ties into what I've just covered and what I'm about to cover after this as well.
	So this picture here is a fellow who's had his ear cut because he was one of the terrorists and they caught him and got the knife and went, you're going to tell us all you know or we're going to knife you!
	And they knifed him.
	So there you are.
	That's what that happened.
	But that statement there, the idea that you should trust or judge a society on how it treats criminals, Bollocks.
	I'm sorry, I can't think of anything more insane than the logical conclusion of that statement.
	Hang on, hang on.
	No, no, no.
	I actually do think you should judge it by how it treats its outstanding citizens as well.
	But I do agree that you should judge it by how it treats its criminals.
	But I'm not saying you should go on the pro-liberal side of that argument.
	That's what I'm saying is bollocks.
	Yeah.
	The idea that you must treat criminals as, from this perspective, this person and others like them, as saying you should treat criminals like they're heroes.
	And then you would be an outstanding society.
	It's like, no, no, you should judge it on a different metric as you're getting to.
	But this quote, it's attributed to this book by Dostoevsky.
	What is it?
	The House of the Dead.
	In case you're wondering, it's not in there.
	It's not?
	It's just a lie.
	So I don't know what that's about.
	It just sounds like something Dostoevsky would say.
	So apparently there's plenty of other sources of that quote.
	So that's the big argument about it, but it's not in the book.
	I did a control F. I mean, if someone could prove me wrong, go for it, but there we are.
	But there is a much more interesting quote, which was on my mind when you mentioned it this morning.
	Ah, yes.
	Adam Smith.
	Yeah.
	This is a rant he once wrote.
	No, it's not.
	It's an insanely long and boring treatise on how we, I mean, literally moral sentiments, as he says.
	Yeah, it's sort of a rant though.
	It's really dull.
	The parts I was reading, that's the thing, it's like a rant for the 1790s.
	The quote from him that gets shared a lot is... It's not good, it's just really dull.
	Yeah, like many old writings.
	The quote from him is, mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent.
	Okay.
	And this is very famous.
	So I'm going to have found it in here, and it is in there.
	And I thought I'd just read the context, because most of these things are usually actually a bit more to it.
	I've cut some stuff out, because as you mentioned, it's a bit boring and long, but I've taken out the relevant parts.
	So he says, when the guilty is about to suffer that just retaliation, humbled by the terror of his approaching punishment, when he ceases to be an object of fear, he begins to be an object of pity.
	The thought of what he is about to suffer extinguishes their resentment for the sufferings of others which he has given occasion.
	They are disposed to pardon and forgive him.
	Here, therefore, they have occasion to call to their assistance the consideration of the general interest of society.
	They must reflect that mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent.
	He's talking of men in general.
	Men, if you're a proper man, you care about injustice.
	And so you might Upon looking at some suspect in a case who's just been found guilty and is definitely guilty and is about to be very cruelly punished, have some pity for him.
	But his advice being, he's actually talking about capital punishment here, no.
	You are being cruel to the people who have been wronged by this man.
	If you're like, well, won't you think about his feelings?
	The torture he must go through now?
	And this is the sentiment I got from some people online towards those guys doing the terrorist attacks in Moscow.
	And this isn't about Russian-Ukrainian relations or anything like that.
	Please argue somewhere else about this.
	This is about just how to deal with terrorism and the response.
	And I think as a state, if nothing else, there's a number of different cultural responses you can have to events like this.
	And we have one in this country, our state.
	They have a very particular response, which we all remember.
	I suppose I'll play a little bit, shall we?
	The state's PSYOP in response to the Manchester Arena bombing.
	Singing Don't Look Back in Anger.
	It's not very loud, but I'll have to take my word for it.
	That's what they're singing here.
	Point being, it's there.
	This evil person is just that.
	He is just a person.
	Foreigner murders a bunch of children.
	Don't look back in anger.
	Okay.
	And then in Nottingham, you may remember this speech, which was a mess.
	This evil person is just that.
	He is just a person.
	Please hold no hate that relates to any color, sex, or religion.
	That's the thing I'm thinking when someone blows up my children.
	Thank you.
	But why?
	Because there's a bit more to that.
	This event really crystallized something for me.
	That's really weird.
	Well, what she's doing there is saying, look, I know this has been bad, but we want to preserve the sanctity of liberal values.
	So don't be a racist, don't be religionist.
	That's what she's appealing to.
	But why?
	Because liberal values, what she's proposing there, that you can't dare be a racist if you think that maybe we shouldn't import Muslim terrorists, is the position of our state.
	That is the state position of the United Kingdom.
	It's cringe, but that's our problem, is that this is all backed up by tax money, effectively.
	Yeah.
	And the suspects in these instances were basically helped by the state to get into this country.
	I mean, in the Manchester Arena case, we paid for the bomb with our taxes.
	And the reason he was allowed to get into the arena was because the security guard didn't want to be a racist.
	And because of that culture produced by the state, there's this complete s show of a society and things like that happen so what's the response well okay if you're the state i mean you could adjust you could reform make sure this doesn't happen again but our state refuses to change and so the outrage over the injustice that's taken place there shifts to the community at large this is how i might fives here for example we've been over this
	this is why that this lady had to give this speech about retinth because the state apparatus is afraid that because we can't point to the criminals and in this case much of that is the state's doing and the state refuses to change and therefore have some kind of bent on the built-up distrust it moves over to the community at large here And the state knows that.
	I mean, that's why all their messaging is, you know, don't blame the BAME race, which No one was but okay.
	Yeah.
	So let's pop on back to Russia because of course Russia is another extreme.
	Here is a picture of them tying electrodes to this man's testicles because he was one of the people who took part in the massacre and once they caught him they wanted information and they weren't willing to wait so they just tied him up and did that and as you can see some people were a bit like Jesus Christ that's a thing.
	The guy who got stabbed the style of knife That was stabbed on his ear there.
	That instantly sold out on the Russian version of Amazon.
	Wow.
	Every possible version of the knife has just sold out.
	So the Russians are looking back in anger.
	But it's a cultural thing there.
	The Russian population decided to en masse buy those knives after seeing them being used by the FSB to torture a suspect in a terror case.
	That doesn't really happen here.
	That's interesting.
	That's a proper cultural difference, is what I'm getting at.
	Their response is to be prepared and to protect themselves.
	Our response is to turn our back and give them somewhere else to stab.
	Yes.
	But of the population, what kind of population buys a knife after seeing that happen?
	What's a population that isn't squeamish about these things?
	I remember that someone sent me an article.
	It's a brilliant article.
	I mean, there are many good things about Russia.
	There are many bad things.
	And so one of the bad things with us there is actually quite, I suppose, debatable.
	There were some Uzbeks who came to a town in Russia and there was an eternal flame.
	You'll find them in every city and town in Russia for World War II.
	And it's powered by gas and it costs nothing because it's Russia.
	Now these Uzbeks, for some reason, decided they would put it out with the snow, and it was captured on CCTV.
	And all of the comments are just average Russians, and the average Russian response to something like that is, kill them.
	Like just, you know, horrific things should be done to these people for the disrespect they have shown.
	That's a proper cultural difference.
	Yes.
	It's a kind of brutality that you occasionally get in this country in the comments, but not that sharp.
	You've never read Nietzsche, have you?
	I haven't, no.
	This is Nietzsche's society that refuses to accept its own parasites, and so it has a will to power of its own, and believes that the proper purpose of justice is society's revenge against the wrongdoer.
	Well, how does this manifest in the different places?
	Because that is essentially getting back to Adam Smith's point there, which is that you have to actually have some kind of vent for this.
	Yes.
	And in Russia, well, I mean, they took the suspects and put them all on trial.
	Cameras in the room immediately.
	Traditional Russian courtroom here, where they shove you in a little box.
	But you can see they've not been treated well.
	This chap still has a plastic bag around his neck.
	A lot of people speculating whether or not he was strangled with that, which the Russians are happy to not deny.
	No one cares!
	Literally, if you did that to him, no one in Russia cares.
	Well, they're not liberals, so they think that the people who did commit a terrible crime deserve the Nietzschean view of punishment.
	Society must have their revenge and show them suffering as they've made society suffer.
	I'm going to use this account here, Lord Bebo.
	He's a bit of a Russian shill, which is, you know, that's him.
	He's allowed to do that.
	That's his opinion.
	But I don't know if he's from Moscow or not, but he does actually give us an accurate representation here of how the Russians have been responding to this from what I've seen.
	So if you go to his tweets, I mean, they're celebrating that these people have suffered.
	I mean, the several images here, I mean, one of them was unconscious in the courtroom and still pled guilty, which Yep.
	And as you can see, they've been beaten up.
	But after murdering a bunch of innocent people in a mall... Yeah!
	So Adam Smith's point about when they're no longer dangerous, they seem pitiful.
	You can see it here, in real time.
	I just find this fascinating.
	I mean, I don't know if I'm making sense.
	I just hope I am.
	Yeah, yeah.
	It's somewhere in between.
	I mean, I'm not up for seeing people suffer, but I do think a swift punishment is just.
	And if people commit terrorist attacks, then sure, death penalty.
	But between the punishment and the judgment, I don't believe in making anyone suffer.
	There's two proper extremes here, is what I'm trying to lay out.
	In the specific Russian case, I mean, they're not really that They want to know more, so they just decided to beat the crap out of them to get more information.
	So that's that reasoning there, at least what I would imagine they would say, just to make that context.
	They also decided to just start rounding up family members, because you were probably involved.
	Yeah.
	I mean, come on, that is just usually true.
	Well, they're not liberals, they believe in collective punishment.
	No, in Russia, they do have individual justice in that they... But they deported that entire family of Uzbeks.
	We're part of the Sacred Flame.
	I didn't say this.
	ISIL.
	I remember that story.
	Oh, okay.
	They deported his entire family.
	Probably because they're actually... I'm not saying they're not, but the point is, some teenager did something stupid, you're all gone.
	They're probably on visas if they're Uzbeks.
	Just a lot to learn, that's all I'm saying.
	But this case, I mean, they will actually most likely try this guy and if he's found guilty of something, I'm not saying Russian justice is exactly like the cleanest or anything, but they will actually deal with people directly.
	And in this country, you may remember with the Manchester Arena bomber, I think we got like his brother, but the rest of the family were already in Libya.
	Fighting with ISIS, weirdly enough.
	Glad we had them over for tea.
	They also just rounded up taxi drivers who may have helped them, because why not?
	Okay, that's a thing.
	And then I'll just end this off with a statement from the former president.
	This is a guy called Medvedev.
	He's a bit of a meme in Russia, because he used to be the president and the prime minister, so he's not a nobody or anything.
	He's also keeping the seat warm for Putin.
	but he does this weird thing where he just kind of schizo posts and everyone in Russia kind of loves it because it's it's like Trump where he tries out you know the silly tweets but it's Russian so it's a bit different I mean this is his response to this for example which is stern if nothing else he says to the families of those killed in the terror attack sincere condolences and sincere strength for all the loved ones and victims terrorists only understand retaliatory terror Yeah.
	That's a hell of an opening line.
	That's a true statement.
	No trials or investigations will help if force is not countered by force, and deaths by total execution of terrorists and repressions against their families.
	World experience, he writes at the end there.
	He then goes on to talk about how he's blaming Kiev there.
	Sure, he's bounty.
	Russian politician, what do you expect?
	But then he ends it off with death for death.
	My point being, I mean, there's just, the cultural difference there is huge.
	I mean, these are definitely two extremes, and I think if that... That's what I'm trying to get at.
	It's not even that extreme.
	I mean, this... Go back a hundred years, and that would have been the British opinion.
	Exactly.
	Something has changed on our side.
	We didn't used to say, don't look back in anger.
	We became liberals.
	The mass murder.
	After World War II, we became a very liberal state.
	So, I mean, again, Russia has... I think we would have supported capital punishment, but would we have supported guilt by association?
	I think the average person would have done.
	I think it's very dependent on what we're dealing with in the modern world.
	I don't like the idea of guilt by association for something you haven't done, but I also like the idea of being able to swiftly deal with problems like this.
	Until 1964, we did have the death penalty for murder, and we did have guilt by association as well.
	For example, I've actually not long just finished reading a book about the death penalty in England.
	And the reason that criminals would, Peter Hitchens has made this point, they'd pat each other down before going on a sting or whatever.
	Because if one of them was carrying a gun and they shot someone and killed someone during the crime, all of the criminals involved would be hanged.
	Which I think is just a fantastic policy that we should bring back.
	But then they're all criminals, so that's fair.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	To be clear.
	They're family members, wouldn't they?
	Yeah, yeah, sure.
	I'm not saying we shouldn't.
	Goodbye Association isn't actually Russian criminal justice policy.
	It's just that they've arrested him.
	They haven't actually said you're going to prison forever.
	Right.
	But the sentiment death for death was The policy of the British state until 1964, when Labour repealed the death penalty against the majority will of the population, even to this day, incidentally.
	Still now, more than half the people in this country think we should have the death penalty for people who murder, and that's always what it was used for.
	So that was my point, which is that there needs to be, well, basically no mercy for the guilty.
	I mean, these guys were literally caught after the event happened.
	They're them.
	They're definitely them.
	Just a quick thing.
	Are the Russians not going to execute these people?
	Potentially.
	They'll have a fair trial first.
	Oh, will they?
	Yes.
	Oh, good.
	I'm so glad I'm getting a fair trial in Russia.
	Of course.
	I mean, it's not exactly... I can't believe that!
	In case you're wondering, I am.
	I am joking.
	So let's move on.
	Let's end this off on something though, because I saw a lot of people talking about this.
	This is someone online saying that Russia started mass deportations of migrants after the terrorist attack.
	They're taking the Pakistan approach.
	Well, that's what Pakistan does.
	I wrote to my friends in Russia and asking them, so what's the deal on this?
	And no, this isn't happening, according to them.
	So this is, I don't know what this footage is meant to represent.
	Maybe it's just foreign criminals.
	Maybe it's people being conscripted.
	We're weak liberals as well.
	Yeah, they decided in the middle of the war to start conscripting illegals, which there's their way of dealing with it, which... That's a policy.
	But my point to be, I mean, yeah, there's crime statistics and all that, and I'm not throwing those policies out, I'm just sidelining them for the moment, which is that dealing with criminals as they are, and dealing with them swiftly like that, I think that there's a proper tangible difference to the societal impact of the terrorism there.
	From a counter-terrorism perspective, what are you meant to do in response to terrorism?
	Well, you're meant to do a couple of things, which is deal with any future attacks, minimize those, and then deal with the effect that's going to have on society.
	The purpose of terrorism is political, it's not just for jolly good fun.
	It's actually a goal in mind.
	And the impact in Britain, the way we've dealt with it, is to suppress it.
	And in Russia, what they've done over this specific attack is to make a big song and dance about how we got the guys, we tortured them on camera, they will be dealt with.
	That's the message to the society at large.
	And that, okay, I mean, it's extreme, don't get me wrong.
	But it's quite Trump as well.
	Yeah, it's also very Russian, to be honest.
	And frankly, in a Russian context, this sort of fixes the issue.
	They died like dogs.
	Because being in Russia, it's kind of weird.
	I need to go to Chechnya proper, but every Muslim I met and every Christian in the South who's near the Muslim regions, they actually have very good relations.
	I mean, how I described our relations with the Muslim communities in our country is completely foreign to them.
	The level of distrust we have, they don't understand.
	The level of religious fundamentalism in this country doesn't exist in Russia.
	It's been dealt with.
	It's just- It's been dealt with?
	It has been dealt with!
	It's been dealt with in Russian ways, but my point being, there's not this level of problem.
	And I think a large reason we have this problem in this country, the huge amount of distrust in this country between the communities, is because there's no ability to actually deal with the injustice that's been caused.
	I mean, the injustice of the Manchester Arena bombing, as pointed out there, the blame goes on to the state because they were the one who brought that family in, gave them money, and then they bombed children.
	And then the family are not, oh god we can't believe what our son did.
	No, they're back in Libya fighting with ISIS, right?
	Yeah.
	Okay, so the blame goes to the state and the state refuses to reform, doesn't make a show of how we're going to deal with it, and instead says you should shut up.
	Right, what does that do?
	In my mind, that moves it on to the community at large.
	Massive distrust now between the English and the Muslims in the country.
	and behavior management.
	As a teacher, I saw this in schools.
	If you have a Muslim kid bullying a white kid, people treat them differently, don't want to be seen as racist.
	And so they don't actually quash the bullying.
	There's no punishment.
	So it festers under the surface and kids know that they can get away with bullying.
	And so the bullying increases in the school, but the school doesn't want to be seen as a school where kids are bullied.
	So they publicly talk about how bullying is wrong, but never actually address the issue.
	Whereas in schools where you say, no, you bullied, you're out.
	Doesn't matter what race, religion, you're gone.
	Then it quashes the problem.
	Like you have to address it and deal with it.
	You have to deal with a firm hand.
	Yes.
	What I think you're getting at here, Callum, is a lack of catharsis.
	that comes after a terror attack in Britain because normally this is understood that again I think that subconsciously there is this kind of pagan sort of Nietzschean reality to these events.
	There is an understanding that no the terror attack was because it's an anonymous thing It's not an attack on a military structure or a particular group of people for a particular reason.
	No, any, any mass shooting, any terror attacks, an attack on society at large, it could be anyone, anyone in there.
	So it's a representative of you when you're wandering around in society, just doing whatever you do.
	And so it is understandable, perfectly natural for the average person to want to see the state, which is supposed to be empowered for the protection of your rights, to take action, severe action, in the Russian case, against the person who attacks society itself.
	And again, it definitely comes down to the Nietzschean perspective of, well, the liberal state is prepared to just carry the parasites, whereas a normal healthy state would allow the flow of catharsis to go into the person by literally hanging them from a tree.
	And in Britain, what we used to do is put a little sign underneath.
	This is why these people have been hanged.
	These people have been hanged because they murdered their children or because of deterrence.
	Yeah, but not just the deterrent.
	Obviously, it's a reaction as well.
	Yeah, but it's a way of reassuring the society the world is ordered as it ought to be.
	These people will get their comeuppance, death for death.
	And that's the justice.
	There's also an underlying aspect there that feeds into the counterterrorism strategy, which is that these people were rare.
	These people were something that had to be dealt with.
	They don't represent the community.
	Oh, they need to be an example.
	Yeah.
	So in Russia, I mean, again, maybe I've got some biased experience, but from what I had in the South, they don't have the same problems we do.
	There's a lot going on there, don't get me wrong, but the underlying aspect of... It's not a land of milk and honey, it has problems.
	Yeah, I just saw some people's videos say otherwise.
	It's like a utopia.
	Leave Moscow.
	That's the underlying aspect there of their extreme, we will deal with them, and that doesn't represent the community.
	Whereas in our case, it now becomes something that you can't criticize the community, which is what led to the Manchester bombing.
	And a specific example of the security guard who didn't stop him because he didn't want to be seen as, quote, racist.
	In which case, you've now actually, because of the cultural impact of your response, increased the likelihood of terrorism and also caused massive distrust within British society.
	Oh, fantastic counter-terrorism strategy, boys!
	Another good day in- I'm sorry, but that is just stupid.
	This is the liberal counter-terrorism strategy.
	We're in a- We have a liberal order which abhors any kind of collective judgements.
	Because they're racist, or sexist, or whatever it is.
	And so, without the ability to narrow the judgement onto the individual by, say, hanging them, The judgment, as you say, resides within the community.
	And so the community has a moral debt that hasn't been paid, and people can see it.
	And yet the state is refusing to accept it because, no, no, we're liberals.
	We have no sort of understanding of group interactions.
	Everything is just the individual on their own.
	And so that's not the case.
	As you see, his family's out fighting for ISIS in Libya.
	That's not the case.
	We know it's not the case, but we can't channel the negative energy onto the person who deserves it.
	You know what, that's biblical.
	That's true.
	Original sin, right?
	Yeah.
	A man took on this moral debt that could not be repaid and Christ had to die for our sins so that price was paid.
	Now we need a sacrifice, we need a price to be paid.
	Yeah.
	Otherwise we can't move on.
	And normally the person who's committed the terror attack would have been that sacrifice.
	Right.
	Like we'd see them hanging and everyone would go, that's what we do.
	And even in the case of the suicide bombing in Manchester, it turned out his brother was helping him and then there's the family who were fighting for ISIS, which you could have just rounded up.
	Well, I don't like much about Pakistan, but I do like their policy of just deporting the migrants.
	Your community is not engaging with ours properly.
	Every Afghan has to go.
	Was it like four terror attacks from the Afghans in Pakistan and 1.7 million Afghans were deported?
	Yes.
	Mad.
	That's the Pakistani worldview.
	My point being, maybe I've made sense, maybe I haven't, but there's a proper problem here, and the Moscow terror attack and the response to it, it's a different world, but it really showed, to me at least, that the UK is just really, really broken on every level when it comes to this issue.
	You've been quite descriptive, like, what are your thoughts?
	Should we take this on board?
	My speech, I'm in big trouble!
	Yeah, well, let's talk about men sucker punching women in New York City.
	Again, it does actually follow on from your point about Punishment.
	And in your point, the indication that if one community is not punished sufficiently for committing certain crimes and incurring certain sins, then there is a level of distrust that gets built up because there's no catharsis.
	Because there's no demonstration that the people who commit a crime will get what they deserve.
	And that's literally the main problem that's riveting society apart in the West at the moment.
	And so this, I think is a good example of it because, and as you said, everyone's so damn politically correct that they're too afraid to say what everyone can see when the evidence comes in.
	So as you can see here from the New York Post, multiple TikTokers claim they were randomly punched in the face by strangers while walking through New York City.
	Strangers?
	Just strangers, just strangers.
	Um, we'll see if we can play any of this, but there's a, there's a particular demographic that's being attacked here.
	You guys, I was literally just walking and a man came up and punched me in the face.
	Oh my god, it hurts so bad.
	I can't even talk.
	Literally, I fell to the ground and now this giant goose egg is forming and I'm like, oh my god, I'm so frozen.
	Right, so woman, white woman in New York City, presumably Democrat voter, gets punched in the face by just quote, random man.
	Let's watch another one.
	So I just got punched in the face walking home.
	I was literally, like, leaving class.
	I turned the corner and I was looking down and I was looking at my phone and, like, texting and then out of nowhere this man just came up and hit me in the face.
	I'm, like, actually in shock right now.
	I'm just, like, walking home because what else do you do?
	But I... And the thing about this is that you can see the bruises on the face.
	You can see they're not making this up.
	And, uh, it's a very consistent pattern of behavior.
	They're looking down on their phone, and some quote-unquote man just comes up and lamps them, and runs off.
	I literally just got punched by some man on the sidewalk.
	He goes, sorry, and then punches me in the head.
	Holy fuck, what the hell just happened?
	Oh my god.
	I mean, I feel bad for them, but at the same time, I can't stand this.
	Like, oh my God, like, oh my God, I got punched.
	Oh my God.
	Yeah, I mean, I feel bad for them.
	Obviously, they shouldn't be punched.
	But what's interesting is that... Calvin's like, well, for that accent, maybe.
	But what's happening is they're learning that actually they're not living in a safe environment.
	There is a particular kind of danger that lurks in New York City that can strike at any time when you're just not paying attention.
	What is that danger?
	Well, that's a great question.
	The New York Police Department confirmed that several of these women had, of course, reported being assaulted, and this has happened many times.
	I mean, there are other examples, but I tell you what, I'm just afraid of men.
	Men could be here.
	Any commonalities between these people, other than their gender?
	None reported.
	Not in the police report.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Although... That's not going to solve the problem.
	We'll just round up all the men.
	The women are afraid, obviously.
	One woman said, I didn't see him coming at all.
	I screamed out of shock.
	He knocked my head back so hard.
	I just kind of gasped and screamed.
	I was frozen in fear.
	I was pretty paralyzed.
	I stood there trying to figure out what happened.
	Yeah.
	So let's have a look.
	A man walks around punching women.
	That's a great question.
	Let's have a look at one of the suspects.
	Interestingly, he's got a Trump flag behind him, which is not what I expected.
	I vote Trump, why?
	To beat women.
	He's not a Republican, though, actually.
	No, he runs for an independent party in New York.
	I don't know why he's got the Trump flag.
	But his name is Skiboki Stora.
	He's 40, he's from East New York, and he was charged with assault.
	Again, just up and punched her for some reason.
	Don't know why.
	And this is a woman who, again, just posted, I just got punched in the head in New York.
	Here's a picture of the guy doing it.
	Couldn't get a clear picture, but.
	That is a man.
	That is just a man.
	No further details, Your Honor.
	And this is something that's happened several times, just a man, no further details, goes up and just starts assaulting random white women in New York.
	What's going on with the African-American men?
	Whoa!
	Calvin.
	What?
	I don't see color.
	I am blind.
	Well, they clearly do.
	Well, this is just a man problem.
	It's just men.
	Ah, I see.
	Okay.
	Yes.
	Um, the... For the sake of diversity, a white man should go and punch a white girl.
	All right, we'll put that on YouTube.
	That's not an endorsement.
	For the sake of diversity, bleep.
	But the point is, there's clearly a pattern of behavior here from one community against another community.
	Now, speaking to what Callum's just said, imagine a hundred years ago.
	If random black men just went hunting random white women.
	Well in America, they'd literally be lynched.
	Yes.
	Yes.
	And that would be the vengeance of the community.
	And I'm not saying rightly or wrongly, that's what it would be against the individual and by extension as a representative of another community.
	It would demonstrate the communal power of one community against another.
	And again, I'm not saying it's just or anything like that.
	I'm saying that's what had happened.
	And now we're seeing kind of reverse of that.
	Because of course you're probably going to get called a racist for pointing out the commonalities in this, and that itself is a demonstration of one community's power against another.
	Well it's not racism, it's true, but of course it's an overcorrection because there was a time when it was racism.
	Yes, and I'm not in favour of either one, obviously.
	The point is though, these people should be dealt with incredibly harshly.
	Are these people dealt with incredibly harshly?
	Well no, because even Elon Musk is aware of this.
	Obviously these people get let out, often without bail, just I mean, New York City, give away that there is no law and justice.
	Yes.
	I don't know enough about New York, but I've seen enough clips to know there's something going on.
	I don't know if it's mental illness.
	I don't know if it's drugs, but something's going on in the Afro Caribbean, the African, African American community.
	Yeah.
	It was particularly in New York on the subways, out and about on the streets.
	It's not good.
	I don't.
	I mean, I've got I've got my thesis, which is it's a combination of toxic identity politics that the Democrats, of course, leverage in order to keep themselves securely in power, which has an effect on the mindset of the people in the community.
	If you're constantly stigmatizing white people as being the oppressors of black people.
	Well, we want to fight the oppressors.
	Exactly.
	You.
	Yes.
	Well, people keeping me down, the white women.
	Let's hear about that.
	It's because they can't fight back.
	Yeah.
	They're not doing it to white men who are a hedge, because they're beating the crap out of them.
	Yeah.
	And so they're taking the opportunity to, quote, punch up against the oppressors, right?
	And then when they go to the court system, the court system run by Democrats takes the approach that society happened to these people, not that they are responsible for the crimes they commit.
	And so that person is actually not really responsible for the experience of him growing up in a broken home or running with gangs or whatever it is, you know, whatever socioeconomic conditions cause them to go up and find a white woman on her phone and give her a black eye, They're not responsible for that decision.
	And so, of course, they get either, you know, very minimal jail time, very minimal sentencing and let out on very minimal bail or with no bail at all.
	And this happens all the time.
	I mean, that's the kind of front of the Trump flag.
	Obviously, this was not his first crime.
	He has a criminal record repeatedly let back out.
	Of course they're going to continue because they get away with it.
	Exactly.
	They know the system is not punishing them as it ought to do.
	Like randomly assaulting a woman on the street should be a really, really serious crime.
	He's probably not going to see jail.
	I mean, it's not funny, but on the one hand, they think the system is oppressing them.
	So they're fighting people or beating people up.
	And on the other hand, the system is literally letting them get away with murder.
	Exactly.
	It's just stupid.
	And I mean, there's been a spate of, um, African American men pushing people onto the subway tracks.
	I've seen that as well, yeah.
	But this is why you can't have multiple communities.
	This is why multiculturalism doesn't work.
	Well, it can work as long as any crimes are punished severely.
	As long as it's Singapore.
	Yeah, without favour, basically.
	As long as each community is given the catharsis of seeing the criminal punished.
	I think you'll always have othering.
	There will always be this.
	There will.
	But there is in Singapore.
	It's just kept down by the strict arm of the law.
	But this is Callum's point.
	When there is a high authority that will act with strength and purpose, the community finds ways to make bonds of friendship because it can't just predate on the other community knowing that actually the law is completely behind it and it will always be given the soft touch.
	But when that isn't the case, then you're just going to have people who are going to be like, well, I guess I'm just going to move out of New York.
	Why?
	I can't say because I'm a good liberal and I'm not a racist.
	Which is why I'm moving to Florida.
	Yeah, which is why I'm moving to the whitest area in Texas.
	You know, like they can't ever say that, but that's what's happening.
	And it's the building of resentment in the community against their own better instincts.
	But it shouldn't have been the case that this happened.
	It's inbuilt in the system, the fact that they call themselves African-Americans rather than just Americans and everyone being American.
	They're separating themselves from the offset.
	And I tell you what, what's interesting is I went to Texas fairly recently and I didn't get the sense there was mistrust between the black and white community in Texas.
	But all of the black people are just totally normal.
	All the white people are totally normal.
	And everyone just walked around normally.
	It's like, this was a slave state.
	How is that the case?
	New York wasn't a slave state.
	How are you the ones with these problems?
	You know, it's okay.
	But you know, I didn't see no one was getting punched in the street when I was walking around Texas.
	You know what I mean?
	So it's just, Or guns, that's why.
	Sorry?
	They're carrying.
	Oh, well, yeah, yeah, absolutely.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	You know, and I imagine that the law would be on the side of the victim rather than the perpetrator.
	I hope so, yeah.
	Unlike in a Democrat state.
	Anyway, I guess we'll leave that on there.
	Let's go to the video comments.
	We have heaps of them?
	We do have a lot.
	Cheers.
	Cheers.
	Oh, big farewell to the eastern town, you know.
	Oh, shit.
	Oh, yeah.
	Oh, yeah.
	Oh, wow.
	Oh, yeah.
	Tell me about it.
	Oh, yeah.
	Oh, yeah.
	Fire.
	Keep your stick out, guys.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Thank you from the Canadian Nostalgia Ministry for that sponsorship.
	I like a bit of authentic Canadian culture that isn't just a copy of American culture.
	Nice to see, you know, because like Canada feels, I mean, that felt a lot like just naff British TV.
	There were two Canadian girls in my hall in, I think, my third year of university.
	And one was, I think, near Toronto and the other one was somewhere else out in the Sticks.
	And the one near Toronto on the American border, close down there, had an American accent.
	And the one from the Sticks had a Canadian accent.
	I will be honest, there was something cuter about the one with the actual Canadian accent.
	Do you know what I mean?
	It's just like, ah, yeah, that's actually different.
	Whereas it's, you know, the other one with the American accent, but she's Canadian, just felt kind of...
	You're right.
	I love Canada, but it's fallen to Americanization massively, hasn't it?
	Especially the cities.
	Try and preserve it.
	Although, you go up to the northeast, you've got places that think they're European.
	Well, it's French Canada, isn't it?
	Yeah, but it's very strange.
	Alright, let's go to the next one.
	Schumpeter has little regard for Marx as an economist, but does respect his thoughts as a sociologist.
	The trouble is that Marx is such a dominant figure on the landscape of socialism that he must be dealt with immediately before any meaningful analysis can take place.
	Nevertheless, Marx is analysed to show how he is sympathetic to the human condition, but his works fail to understand how capital is used.
	Fundamentally, Marx doesn't appreciate the role of capital in business, even if he agrees with socialists that it must be socialised.
	I've never read any.
	I do find it funny because I think you mentioned in your philosophy degree as well, like the dealing with Marxism is kind of just an annoying chore at this point in the thinking world.
	Oh yeah.
	So we've got to bring him up because he's big for some people, but everyone is in agreement that this is a waste of time.
	Just have to deal with it and move on.
	No?
	Yes and no.
	Alright.
	I view Marx as not being self-conscious.
	He's a woman.
	No, no, no.
	Like Marx is extrapolating from a series of premises that have not been fulfilled.
	And he's just saying, well, look, you are materialist.
	You've got to continue down the road you're traveling.
	This is the way to do it.
	And the average liberal is like, but I really don't want to.
	And it's like, okay, but you know, why aren't you being systematic about your own philosophy?
	It's like, cause it was Englishmen who invented liberalism.
	That's why.
	I can smell bullshit down this road.
	Yeah, but it's not just that.
	But Marx is right.
	You set the terms, you told us where you want to go, and you're not going there.
	German engineer who's like, I've got some plans!
	No, no, that's literally what it is.
	So, you know, Marx is like, OK, well, look, if you're going to be materialist about this, you know, John Stuart Mill, you're utilitarians.
	What are you doing?
	You know, you've got to get to the point where you're trying to get to.
	And Mill's like, OK, I don't want to go there because I'm not mad.
	You know, I was just not really thinking through my ideas, which is basically English liberalism in a nutshell.
	This sounds nice, doesn't it?
	And then you've got the German who's like, yes, great.
	You know, it's like, no, no, stop.
	But that's not gonna happen.
	I like that.
	English is theory, European is practice.
	Same with the French Revolution.
	No, no, it's kind of the other way around.
	English are the practical, non-theoretical people, where we just kind of, we don't resolve contradictions.
	But there are loads of contradictions in Locke, where he's just like got a foot in both camps saying, well, there's some truth to that, and there's some truth to that, and I guess someone else will figure it out.
	It's like, okay, that's...
	I mean, that is the English way of doing things.
	We're happy to live on the point of contradiction and just be like, come on, let's get on with it.
	See what happens.
	But the Germans like, no, no, no, no.
	I can see what, anyway.
	It was in the absolute.
	Yeah, it really is.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Stelios.
	Christ does not mean King.
	It's from ancient Greek Christikos.
	Which is a semantic loanword from Hebrew, Messiah, which means the anointed one.
	And anoint just simply means to smear with oil.
	Yes, he's right.
	But why were people smeared with oil?
	Because they were anointed, and mostly it was kings that were anointed.
	So the act of smearing with oil isn't just, yeah, I'm going to smear my piece of chicken with oil, that's anointed.
	No, it's part of a ceremony.
	I'm going to anoint my chicken, though.
	Spicy, but yeah.
	Messiah means prophet, king, it means messenger, it means many things, yes.
	I thought that's also what we did to Queen Elizabeth and the King.
	Yeah.
	The bit where the cameras are turned off is the bit where they put the oil on them.
	Absolutely.
	Yeah.
	Alrighty.
	cscooper.com.au.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Hi everyone!
	This is going to be a short video comment.
	I just wanted to wish all of you a very happy Easter, those of you who are celebrating it, and also show you guys some nice scenery, since this is one of my favorite places to come walking.
	It's a bit dry right now, but it's green in the summer and it'll be pretty then.
	But I hope you guys all have a great Easter weekend!
	Take care!
	Bigfoot.
	Just saying.
	She's from Canada, right?
	Yeah, that was very nice.
	And, um, happy Easter.
	I hate to be a Debbie Downer, but I'm a bit pissed off recently with all the Eden Barrack stuff.
	I don't know if you've seen this.
	Every corporation on earth is trying to look for a reason not to celebrate Easter.
	Well, it's Easter Mubarak, isn't it?
	What?
	What?
	That's not real.
	No one's done that.
	Oh, God.
	I'll be talking about this at three o'clock.
	I really hate it, man.
	Like, seeing the Pakistan flag over Westminster Abbey.
	It's one thing after all, isn't it?
	It's the Pakistan flag.
	It's the Easter eggs becoming... Flag?
	It's literally the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
	I wanted my copy of it.
	Sorry.
	I really liked that.
	Is it a hard egg or a soft egg?
	I just hated it.
	Yeah.
	One thing I'm annoyed about as well is apparently Easter eggs aren't a thing universally.
	It's a very British thing.
	Chocolate Easter eggs in the shops.
	So then to see so many corporations be like, oh, it's a celebration egg.
	What?
	The French don't even get Easter eggs?
	No.
	God.
	Celebration of what?
	Terrible.
	Yeah, I just want to bash in the head of the marketing executive who came up with that.
	Capitalize on Easter if you want to.
	Say, yeah, this is an Easter egg.
	We want more of it.
	Don't say it's just to celebrate because otherwise no one's going to buy it.
	Well, this is like the Easter worshipers, isn't it?
	Sorry, who's that?
	Just Easter worshipers.
	Oh, worship Easter.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
	The pagan god Easter, or whatever it was.
	Right, yeah.
	Let's go to the next one.
	It's like the BCAD thing, or the CE.
	Some time later, someone had a dream of Virgin Mary telling them to dig inside the mountain.
	They did so, and they found the Holy Icon from the previous story.
	They built a church and monastery in the place they found it, and it's standing here for 1,200 years.
	Inside there, there's an old museum of ancient artifacts that Taking video is prohibited.
	Very good.
	A lot of religious content.
	Yeah, fair amount.
	Why not?
	I mean, do you want to save Christendom?
	Yeah, we do.
	The Holy Bible may preach peace, but when it is all of Christendom that is threatened.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Guys, I was filling up the tires of my car in like...
	And all of a sudden, you're a Nazi.
	You didn't ask for this.
	You didn't choose this.
	Yet there it is.
	I love extra credits.
	I love guilt by association.
	Radio, if you'll go to the written comments on the site.
	Max says, thanks for bringing the Common Sense Crusade on.
	I didn't think I was interested, but I'm absolutely loving it and I've gone back and watched every one.
	Really good stuff.
	Thanks, Max.
	Various other comments from people saying love Common Sense Crusade, which is nice.
	Baystapes says, the Democrats seem to be launching their own zero seats campaign by destroying all of their electability and doubling down on their, we can't lose an election if we forbid any political opposition strategy.
	Well, the Democrats are never going to end up in zero seats because they have client groups and they have particular infrastructures.
	I don't believe for a second that California is as deep blue as it's claimed that it is.
	I just think that inside the major cities, the Democrats have just got the system rigged, frankly.
	I think they've been cheating for years now.
	I don't think that it's the case that there's just no such thing as Republican opposition in California, but there's loads of it.
	I just think they've got the system rigged.
	Um, so I don't think they will end up cause I mean, like, and this is the thing people are always like, well, are you, are you saying that the cheat?
	I mean, yeah, I'm saying they're exactly the kind of people that cheat over and over because they're financially corrupt, like intellectually corrupt, morally corrupt.
	They see themselves on some sort of crusade and that attracts bad people who are prepared to Joe Biden their way to power.
	I'm sorry.
	I just don't trust them at all.
	And I've got no reason to.
	Sorry.
	I just don't.
	But it can never be exposed, because both sides rely on this corrupt political system.
	Well, yeah, but... With the stolen election.
	We all know what went on, but nobody can ever admit it, because the whole system would collapse.
	Well, I mean, you've got Donald Trump, who just says it.
	Yeah, but no one really listens when it's him.
	Lord Nerevar says, I, for one, welcome the establishment's contributions to Trump's campaign.
	Well, that's another thing as well.
	It's not like this is hurting Trump in the polls.
	At all.
	It's like, we're going to destroy Trump, we're going to take a waste out.
	Oh, yeah, go.
	In fact, Trump's probably like, okay, I mean, I'll use some sort of executive order to get it back when I'm president because you're guaranteeing that I'm going to be president.
	Make me a martyr.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Like the Joker, part of me wants to go in the back and just turn on the fryers to maximum and then put in the frozen chicken and just talk the whole place satellite.
	Persecuting a property seizure will do far more for his popularity than any donation ever could.
	It's totally true.
	It's totally true.
	Arizona Desert Rat says the Trump family were the first ones to be prosecuted under this law.
	Was this law actually written to apply to everyone in New York State?
	Was it written to target the Trumps?
	It was written to target the Trumps.
	The thing with the Democrats, right?
	You need to just take the most malevolent interpretation of anything, and that's the most accurate one.
	So it's a new law?
	Uh, apparently.
	I'm not actually aware that it's a new law.
	I assumed it wasn't.
	Um, but, uh, but anyway, interesting.
	Brownville Moorhawk says, the same people who passed a trillion dollar bill in the dead of night filled with more pork than a Carolina barbecue party are coming after the enemies for fraud of all things.
	Yeah, I saw a TikTok video of some woman just going through, like, the latest 1.5 or 1.2 trillion dollar spending bill.
	And it was just preposterous, where it's, you know, like, I don't know, 800 million for this, you know, 500 million for that.
	And it's just like, it's just, we're in the sort of looting the treasury phase of the American Republic, you know, where it's just like, we're just going to get as much money as we can, siphon them off to our clients, and then leave the American taxpayer holding the bill when the system just collapses.
	Well, again, it's a corrupt system, isn't it?
	It's like a basket of policies all together.
	It all has to be done by like 4am the next morning.
	It's like a stack like that.
	Which you couldn't possibly read.
	Exactly.
	And it's like, okay, you guys know you're getting screwed, right?
	You must know you're getting screwed.
	Have you seen the Nancy Pelosi stock tracker?
	No.
	Yeah, I've been investing on it.
	If you're an American, I can't get it to work for my phone, but if you're an American, it seems you can download this app and it will track Nancy Pelosi's stock options and match them, dollar for dollar, for whatever you put in.
	That's smart.
	Have you been using it?
	No, I haven't been using the app, but they've got a Twitter account where they just tweet out, she's made this purchase.
	So I've just been making purchases in line with it.
	That is hilarious.
	Yeah, she purchased Nvidia, so I put $200 into Nvidia and made like $250.
	I'm like, huh.
	But the thing is, the Palo Alto one, that's actually down at the moment.
	She's holding that till 2025.
	I know, I know.
	It's down by like 35%.
	So I'm like, hmm, maybe I should buy some more of it.
	Because yeah, it's in the beginning of 2025.
	She's expecting it.
	She's got the sale on it.
	So it's like, hmm, obviously something's going to happen.
	They're going to get a big government contract.
	Their stock's going to go up.
	She's going to make millions.
	It's unbelievable.
	But if you are American, not financial advice for legal reasons, but on private reasons, go for it.
	No, but you can go and check it out.
	And the account in question, because Nancy Pelosi's been doing very well, they keep tweeting, you know, if you've been following us for a year, you now are up 200 and something odd percent.
	And it's, well, that's the people who are going to make bank out of robbing the treasury.
	Yeah.
	So join them.
	Yeah.
	Otherwise, he'll be left holding the bag.
	Because, I mean, take advantage of it.
	You don't have to join them to buy the same stocks as them.
	But you can still profit from it, so screw them.
	But the thing is, the funny thing about that account is that the account's like, she's just the greatest.
	She's the best stock investor of all time, basically.
	It's because it's inside trading, because they're lying.
	They're corrupt.
	Yeah, exactly.
	You can also match Dan Crenshaw if you wish.
	He's another option on the stock market.
	So he's less successful than her.
	Alia says, how can you defraud the bank by overvaluing your property?
	It's up to the banks to make their own evaluation before giving a loan.
	If they agree with your evaluation, that's on them.
	You know, you could, I think there is an argument that you could defraud them.
	Uh, for example, like in the, in the case of Trump, actually, if you said like, you know, it's worth 300 million when it's actually worth 50 million, but then you don't pay the loan back and they seize the property and can only sell it for 50 million, then they're out 250 million, right?
	Fair enough.
	That makes sense.
	But that's not what happened.
	Why?
	What?
	Have you seen the big short?
	No.
	Oh yeah.
	So there's this section in there where they're going to sell shit.
	Just these dog shit CDOs.
	And they said, we can't do this because it's morally wrong.
	And the guy goes, we are selling to willing buyers at the fair market value.
	And then they sell it all and they save themselves millions and millions.
	If the bank wishes to be a willing buyer at the fair market rate, Sure.
	Banks did this in 08.
	They literally crashed the economy by doing exactly that.
	I'm aware, but there is a case that it could be fraud, but it isn't fraud if all the money is paid back.
	Sure.
	I'm just completely occupied by Wall Street mode.
	The death of the banks.
	Sure.
	I mean, I'm not, I'm not disagreeing with you, but the point is there's, there's no victims.
	Everything went fine.
	And suddenly the state's like, are you sure?
	And it's like, yeah.
	But that's another case of where there was no sacrifice and there was no retaliation.
	There was no punishment for the banks.
	They got away with it scot-free.
	One guy went to jail.
	Didn't they get bailed out?
	Yes.
	They did, and they're still doing the same stuff.
	But Donald Trump does the most perfect business deal ever The banks get all their money.
	No one's complaining.
	He's the one in trouble.
	Hallam says nominative determinism.
	That's it.
	Thank you.
	MC says Trump didn't actually have value as property.
	The problem is the court undervalued it.
	You're confusing two different The 18 million was for Mar-a-Lago, which is horrifically undervalued, but the Trump apartment property was overvalued.
	And it probably was overvalued, but like Jon Stewart says, you know, everyone does it.
	No, he didn't say that.
	Like Jon Stewart did.
	I got the movie wrong.
	It's Margin Call, not The Big Short.
	I always confuse those two.
	Hector Rex says, they also neglect to mention that the banks have their own kind of evaluators.
	He was the president of the effing United States.
	Kind of brings intangible value to the things he owns.
	And the fact that everyone does it.
	Everyone in New York does this.
	Every bank knows that the property is probably overinflated.
	JJHW says what the banks did in Nigel Farage's economic terrorism under English law.
	His response should have been a private criminal prosecution of the board of directors.
	I would and I would take down the bank just as a criminal enterprise.
	Well, I'm sure there's more complicated.
	There's probably a really a reason that he didn't.
	The Real Book Foot says you should judge a society by if its citizens really knows what the correct date is.
	Callum, what's the date?
	I've explained this at length that it was a whole point about focusing on what matters and nobody listened and I refuse to engage anymore.
	It's Maundy Thursday is what it is.
	I actually don't know what the date is.
	28th.
	See, I need this date Callum.
	How has that changed the rest of your day?
	Um, uh, well it changes, uh, my plans for future spending.
	Callum's had enough.
	It literally was just a point about focus on what matters, not what doesn't.
	Nobody got it and I'm frustrated.
	Keep on at it.
	People will get it eventually.
	No they don't.
	Screw tape lasers.
	I'm at the stage now where anyone brings it up, it's basically someone saying, well I did have breakfast this morning and I'm just, I can't.
	You're getting trolled.
	I don't think that is the case.
	JTAPE Laser says, why are the latest leaders believing Russian media narratives without questioning?
	If this happened in America, you'd be discussing false flags and forced escalation.
	Why are you so trusting now?
	Yeah, Callum, why are we so trusting?
	I don't think that is the case.
	Callum said that the video he showed people in Russia are saying that's not actually happening.
	Well, that was the deportations, not the terror attack.
	Yes, that's the deportations.
	As for... I did say at the start this segment was not about who did it.
	I just don't care for this topic.
	And if you want my private opinion on that, then it's for the reasons I laid out, sort of, which is that ISIS have been in Russia for a long time.
	This isn't new.
	They've done it before.
	They'll do it again.
	It's not unusual.
	And for the West, I think the reason there's such conspiracy about this is not only because of our distrust in our governments.
	It's because ISIS disappeared.
	I mean, a lot of people, even Andrew Tate was like, ISIS-K?
	What are you talking about?
	No, they're real.
	I mean, in Afghanistan, Miles ended up making good friends with the head of intelligence.
	That guy personally killed 2,000 ISIS members, is what he told Miles.
	I mean, they brought one of the ISIS... Why wouldn't you be?
	Yeah, I mean, they... Yeah, I can say this.
	So they have a fake cell of ISIS in Jalalabad, and it's a front.
	So then occasionally some stupid Afghan will think, I'm going to join ISIS.
	And they've actually just contacted the Taliban.
	So it's literally the FBI, the Feds.
	Yes.
	So then they brought the guy into Mars's safe house and they chained him up.
	And obviously the ISIS guy was like, what the... Why are they treating the white guy better than me?
	Because I'm a Muslim.
	And they were just like, no, you're pathetic.
	You joined ISIS.
	He didn't join ISIS.
	He joined the Taliban.
	Yeah, everyone hates ISIS.
	Even the Taliban despise them because of what they've done.
	And for Russia, for us, they disappeared after the Syrian Civil War.
	They got blown up.
	Good job, Trump.
	But for Russia, they didn't.
	They went to mainland Russia and they've been there ever since, and they still are.
	I mean, you can go and get the Wikipedia article about it.
	And yeah, no, it's just not a surprise if it is them.
	And they did claim responsibility within a couple of hours by making a statement to the Russian media about this, saying, we did it because they're Christians.
	They deserve to die.
	So that's my personal opinion, if you want it, but there we are.
	Sophie says, dude, if you committed that kind of violent crime, you forfeit your own life.
	Nobody made you do it.
	You chose it.
	Now face the consequences.
	End of story.
	Yeah, I'm appreciating the sort of Nietzschean response to this.
	Just no, genuinely, no, no, no.
	We need to purge the parasites.
	And that means murderers.
	People who murder should die.
	Justin says, once upon a time, we would send the SAS SEALS to deal with terrorists.
	Now we throw them a concert.
	Yeah, true.
	Michael says, most of these attacks are test cases for propaganda exercises.
	I'm not very conspiratorial about these things, so I don't know.
	I could believe that ISIS would conduct a terror attack.
	It's a lot like Holocaust deniers.
	What, the Nazis?
	Yeah, I think maybe.
	The only layers to this one that are potential, I mean they're not proven, but it's a good argument for, is support by the West of ISIS.
	Because they target all of our enemies as well as us.
	So, it's useful at times.
	With respect to Ukraine, because there's a lot of suspicion there, there is evidence that a bunch of guys who are Islamists went and joined the Ukrainian fight.
	They're public about this.
	And they use ISIS theme music for their propaganda videos, so it's like, hmm, okay, you really shouldn't be making friends with these people.
	Oh yeah, the guys playing the Horse Vessel song, they're like, you know, yeah we're friends with the guys with the ISIS music, don't worry about it.
	Yeah, I mean I would like to get, I don't know what the International Battalion of Ukraine looks like now, there's different sections obviously, but there's like, you know, all the way from normal people to the actual neo-Nazis in America who went to fight.
	I know one of them definitely did, like a friend of a friend is there because of the white race, that's his motivation.
	And then next to him you've got Mohammed Bin Salman from Chechnya who's like, Is this a 4chan gathering?
	That's weird.
	JJHW says, capital punishment is the legal penalty in Russia but is not used due to a moratorium and no death sentences or executions have been carried out since 1996.
	So even Russia's cucked.
	Did they die of natural causes?
	Yeah, yeah, of course they did.
	After a fair trial, I'm sure.
	They tell you about the Antifa cell in Russia.
	No.
	So when we were all dealing with them in 2016, there was a cell in Siberia.
	Oh yeah!
	They tried to overthrow the local government of this town, because they're anarchist communists, and the government sends them to 20 years hard labour.
	Yeah, in the modern day.
	20 years hard labour, goodbye.
	Forever.
	Works.
	But the point is, like, Russia should be proud.
	No, we're gonna hang them.
	Yeah, I'm pro-capital punishment, I think.
	But this is the problem, like, oh, we're going to kill them in secret.
	No, you should be like, no, this is the just recompense for your hideous crimes.
	Fucking Putin the liberal.
	Yeah, yes.
	I'm joking.
	That's another thing about the theories I don't quite understand.
	It's like, the Russians are going to use this to invade Ukraine.
	I find it strange.
	I just don't really get the point.
	It eludes me.
	There are a lot of conspiracies that have come true, but not everything is a conspiracy.
	This is the problem we find ourselves in.
	Conspiracies are great fun.
	Very little to it.
	But Anonymy makes my point, Callum.
	I do agree with you in some way that you can judge society by how the criminal is treated.
	Take, for instance, El Salvador.
	Yes, yes, exactly.
	Actually, you can make a judgment, a favorable judgment of that society that won't tolerate it.
	Baystape says, imagine breaking your society so badly you regard a giant black man beating the snot out of a tiny woman that's punching up.
	Because you can make the same argument for him punching a newborn to death.
	Yeah.
	And it's like, oh, he's white.
	He's fighting the white supremacy.
	And you might be joking, Callum, says someone online, but there have been articles about how white women's tears are violence against black men.
	That's totally true.
	They call the cops.
	Cops shoot the guy for attacking.
	Wasn't that in the Critical Race Theory textbook you had, like one of the essays?
	Yeah.
	It's about how dare white women call the police.
	Yeah, yeah, white women's tears.
	Yeah, it's one of the essays.
	Fundamental text about why we should be able to commit crime.
	And that's, I do think that this is downstream of all of that.
	And so now you've got random black guys punching, and it's not just white men, it's Asian women.
	It's interesting.
	So these crimes are basically the blame of people like Kehinde Andrews.
	Oh yeah.
	Oh yeah.
	Cause they, the, the entire presupposition is they're not responsible for the crimes they're committing.
	So it's like, okay.
	And, and all white people are collectively oppressing all black people at all times.
	So you can't remember racism is power plus privilege, right?
	So you can't ever commit a racist act against blah, blah, blah.
	In fact, the there's a Guardian article by Ruby Hamad that, uh, I guess, uh, Josh or John or whoever's, uh, Jack has Someone with a J, anyway.
	Yeah, someone with a J. How white women use strategic tiers to silence women of color and stuff like this.
	This isn't new.
	This is entirely within the critical race theory purview.
	No, no, no.
	The white women have it coming.
	Yeah, keep voting Democrat.
	Um, a naked Stelios, lavered head to toe in olive oil says, why are men punching women?
	Because they can, because the men, there's women, the men whose women are getting punched are too passive to do anything about it.
	And this really is the cardinal thing here.
	No, no, no, no.
	Do you think if you go back a hundred years, it's just any guy goes up to a woman in the street and punches her.
	The other guys are like, well, not my problem.
	Yeah.
	There's no way.
	Oh right, I thought he meant like, you know, your wife comes home, I've been punched by some stranger, am I meant to go out and hunt him?
	No, but it would be in the immediate vicinity.
	Okay.
	There would just be no way your grandfather would stand for it.
	This is the fault of feminism, isn't it?
	100%.
	You know, this is what they get.
	Feminism, anti-racism, leftism in general, not my problem anymore.
	What does it say in the social contract?
	I've got to defend you from a guy punching you in the street, doesn't it?
	Equal opportunities.
	Yep.
	Well, in New York City, we have a specific instance.
	That guy who shaved everyone by getting the mental guy in the head.
	Yeah.
	And he, yeah.
	Versing Geterix.
	His life is over.
	Yeah.
	I can't remember what his actual name is.
	Daniel... He's called Versing Geterix.
	Yeah.
	He looks just like a Roman statue of Versing Geterix.
	Huh.
	Okay.
	I'm not even joking.
	It's actually...
	Put that up!
	Vercingetorix, and what was his name?
	Vercingetorix.
	So yeah, there we go.
	Right, the first... Not on the screen yet.
	Yeah, that one there.
	And then Daniel Penny.
	He honestly looks just like him, and I can't get over it.
	So Jack's just loading this up for us.
	And it's failed.
	Thank you, website.
	They hate our ad block.
	There we are.
	There we go.
	And then load up Daniel Perry.
	Penny.
	Penny.
	Daniel Penny.
	Who's the fellow who got done for saving a carriage full of humans.
	Why do they call them humans?
	Kind of weird.
	Oh yeah.
	Really reminds me of him.
	Can we go between the two?
	I wonder.
	It just looks just like him to me.
	I do like his brow and those stress lines on his face.
	In another time of place to be leading the insurrection against Caesar.
	Just in the modern day, he's a criminal for saving people's lives.
	But anyway, George says, a certain demographic of urban gentlemen have a practice called the knockout game.
	But I'm not excluding the possibility that after this happened to one woman, some of the TikTokers faked it for attention.
	After all, they do pretend to have serious mental illnesses and make up to look overall.
	I'm not saying that couldn't have happened, but I mean, they looked a bit shocked in the videos and some of them did go to the police.
	I've not heard of the knockout game, but it sounds disgusting.
	Well, it's exactly as it sounds.
	Walk up to a random person on the street and punch them.
	It turns out the women on their phone are a really easy target.
	What do you win?
	The prestige of having knocked someone out.
	Social credit.
	I knocked out a woman.
	Really?
	That's a badge of honour?
	I beat women?
	First place prize in the beating women competition?
	Hey man, I'm not going to make judgements about other communities.
	Why?
	Because I don't want to get in trouble.
	Sounds very wet to me.
	I've been called a racist enough today.
	Arizona Deserat says, not excusing the men's behavior, but why do women walk around with their nose in their phone?
	I never do that.
	Always walk my head up and looking around while walking.
	Good point.
	Also, don't walk around in New York.
	Yeah.
	Hey, you know, in 2018, I went to New York.
	My officer said, can we go on the subway?
	I was like, no.
	But I've heard about this in movies and stuff.
	I know.
	That's why we're not going.
	I'd be a predator on it.
	I've heard about the New York subway.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, no, literally.
	Best avoided.
	Yeah.
	Um, but, uh, but no, I think, I think, uh, Arizona does a really great point.
	Like you are signaling that you are not aware of your surroundings.
	You know, I mean, I'm not saying that, you know, you deserve that, obviously, but maybe you could have avoided it if you were just aware that there's some guy coming at you and his fist up.
	You are unlucky enough to be in a place like New York.
	Don't look at your phone.
	Yeah.
	Make sure you see where everyone is and get the hell out of there.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Kevin says, for Calvin, what are your feelings with regards to the Church of England now that we've seen the Assad attacker who drowned was given a Muslim funeral?
	Well, I think he deserved it, a Muslim funeral.
	He was a Muslim after all.
	We know that these people are faking their conversion to get into the country.
	What I think the Church of England is complicit, but it's not their fault, is the Home Office.
	It's not for the Church of England to determine if someone is genuinely seeking asylum.
	That's the Home Office's job.
	The Church of England should determine whether they're genuinely a Christian or not before they baptize them.
	So everyone's at fault.
	But yeah.
	They're all terrible.
	Give him a Muslim funeral because he shouldn't be given a Christian funeral if he's not a Christian.
	Makes sense.
	Should have crucified the body and put it on the Westminster Cathedral.
	Just deport the body.
	Throw it out to sea.
	Yeah, Bin Laden method.
	Goodbye.
	I don't think we should actually have Muslim funerals in this country.
	I don't think we should have a lot of bloody things in this country we have.
	Honestly, those Eid Mubarak things are pissing me off as well, man.
	Like, it's all hanging all through London.
	Oh yeah, yeah, yeah.
	During Easter.
	Ramadan lights.
	Yeah, yeah, and it's just... You can tell they're so happy that it happens to be the same time period.
	But everyone keeps saying that it's privately funded.
	I don't understand, because Oxford Street's a public space.
	So was the slave trade.
	I don't care.
	Sure.
	No, that's a good point.
	I'm sick of this libertarianism.
	But we can do something about it, that's the point.
	Why don't we raise some funds for next year to have some explicitly Christian lights up?
	Well maybe we should!
	I'd donate to it.
	I'm sick of this like, oh well, it's private, whatever.
	I just don't care, I'm beyond that now.
	That's such a good counter-argument though.
	So is the slave trade their property?
	Does the state not believe in private property?
	Yeah.
	Have you seen pictures of New York on Easter in 1950?
	No.
	So, you know the big skyscrapers?
	They used to, as a show of solidarity, have the lights as a cross.
	I have seen that, sorry, yeah.
	They're not there anymore, are they?
	Yeah, they never do it anymore.
	Well, the towers aren't there anymore.
	I don't mean the Twin Towers, because they weren't there in the 50s, but all the skyscrapers they had at the time were doing this.
	You've arrived at the real problem with the destruction of the Twin Towers.
	No more cross.
	Public signs of the cross are not welcome anymore.
	But that's a very cheap thing to do.
	You own this building, here's 10 grand, just put a bloody cross on it.
	You are right, we could do some sort of fundraiser, and then get blocked by Sadiq Khan.
	Yeah, it'd be good to see what his excuse would be.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Religious symbols in public.
	These ones, they're just for fun.
	They're for the slave trade.
	Anyway, moving on.
	We're out of time, so if you'd like more, do come back in 30 minutes with the tea and biscuits, because there'll be a crusade you can join.
	Will be.
	That sounds like a great crusade.
	Tea, biscuits, and smiting heathens.
	That's an English crusade.
	I'm for it.
	Tea, biscuits, and your Bible.
	See you in half an hour.

▲