Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 15, 2024 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:30:08

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #893

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Welcome to the podcast, The Lotus Eaters, and I'm joined by Connor.
	Hello.
	And Dan.
	Hello.
	Today, we're going to be talking about how the ECHR is ruining your life, Sandy Bumfights, and the Wife Jack.
	It'll be fun.
	Don't have any announcements, so let's do the news.
	So the Rwanda Bill's going back to the Commons today to be voted on, to then be passed on to the Lords, then have a bunch of amendments put in so it's useless, as planned again today, and go back to the Commons in the hopes that flights take off by spring.
	By spring they mean June.
	And the reason all this has happened is because the ECHR, the European Court of Human Rights, not related to the European Union, for those that think that we should have left it after Brexit, two separate entities, they keep thwarting any attempt to remove some of the rapey migrants from the UK.
	I thought I'd go through the exact statute as to why they keep remaining in the UK, and why both the government won't leave the ECHR, and then just how ludicrous this statute is, because there has been a recent case in the climate change wing of policy that shows just how ridiculous this particular statute is when applied to other issues.
	We'll be talking about your two favourite groups today, Dan, migrants and boomers, so try not to be frustrated.
	But anyway, on the immigration issue, here's just one particular case study to sort of set this home.
	So an Afghan sex offender, not Abdulaziz, you remember the last Afghan sex offender who was given a right to remain here after two failed asylum claims and then his false conversion to Christianity even though his friend called him a good Muslim right before he threw acid in the face of two toddlers and a mum.
	There's a whole bunch of them, isn't there?
	Yeah, well this is a different one.
	So he was avoided deportation after lawyers claimed his treatment of women would put him at risk of mob violence in his home country.
	What, because Afghanistan is a paragon of female empowerment?
	Well, as I'm sure Callum will be able to attest... In a way.
	I mean, they kill sex offenders.
	Yeah, because they consider it property damage, not a violation of women's rights.
	But at least they actually do something about their sex offenders here, because in here instead, we've now made extra accommodations to keep him here despite him committing a sex offence in the country.
	Right.
	That's great.
	Yeah, 31-year-old asylum seeker was jailed for 12 weeks for, quote, "...outraging public decency and exposure," and was placed on the Sex Offenders Registry for seven years.
	But the Afghan was rewarded with refugee status and avoided deportation after claiming it was a breach of his human rights, denying him asylum in the UK.
	There's also another one that Sam Ashworth Haynes reported on for The Telegraph, where another, I think it was an Afghan, stabbed a woman and then got under article 8 of the ECHR, which we'll be talking about, the right to remain, because he said that if he went back to his home country, he wouldn't be able to get his medication.
	So he's getting free medication from the NHS, he then stabs someone, and then, using taxpayer-funded human rights lawyers, gets to remain in the country to keep getting his medication from the British taxpayer, even though he's a known criminal.
	I always wonder if it goes through the mind of these lawyers and judges and so on, that what about the right of British women not to be stabbed and raped?
	No, because after the Second World War, the only reason a country exists is to uphold the principles of anti-racism, and deporting a brown person, even if the brown person is a criminal, would be racist.
	Yes, I take a different view on that.
	Yeah, so do I, because we're saying... Now, the Home Office seems to agree with that, though.
	The Home Office, responding to a Freedom of Information request, said it was unable to confirm figures of how many foreign criminal deportations orders it issued in 2023 due to a disruption to data systems.
	I'm going to assume the disruption is the fact that loads of people in the Home Office didn't want to release the data.
	I'm not going to assume it's buggy like a Bethesda game.
	Excuse me if I don't Presuppose the best intentions on behalf of the government body that keeps importing millions of foreigners every year.
	It said that the cost of acquiring the information would go above the 600 million limit set on requests amid an extensive overhaul of its information management systems.
	Even though I remember the last one that they asked them to release the data for, GB News said they would pay for it and they also said nay.
	So, yeah.
	Latest data on deportation orders issued is only available up to September 2022.
	Any information on deportations in 2023 is missing.
	The fresh revelations come as the government is considering an amendment by former immigration minister Robert Jenrick to the criminal justice bill that would require details of nationality, immigration and visa status to be recorded whenever there is a criminal conviction.
	The fact that this isn't the default is obviously appalling, but it's because the numbers are too bad for the narrative.
	And given you're a numbers man, Dan, wouldn't you quite like numbers on, oh, I don't know, how many foreigners are in the country, from where, how many have committed crimes, how many we've actually sent away?
	Nobody would be quite new.
	That would be quite handy, but I can understand why they don't want to give us that, especially since they want to maximise the amount of immigration.
	Yes, quite.
	Well, Neil O'Brien's an MP, and Neil, again, was the guy that drew up lists of so-called conspiracy theorists during Covid.
	Oh, I remember that guy.
	Yeah, he's not excellent, but he's been Quite good on this issue, because I suppose he got a bump on the head sometime between 2020 and now, and has woken up to the fact, ooh, government data departments don't exactly have the best interests of the native population in mind.
	So he wrote this piece in the Times after sending off a bunch of requests for data to the Home Office, Department for Work and Pensions, Ministry of Justice, and got absolutely nada back.
	So he said, the Home Office impact assessment for the EU settlement scheme estimated between 3.5 and 4.1 million EU nationals were in the UK.
	But a much larger number, 5.7 million, have received a grant of settlement, meaning the estimate of the number of EU citizens was about 50% out.
	So, by about, what, 1.6 million they underestimated it by, at least?
	So, Home Office numbers, not their strong suit, that's just the basics of how many people are here.
	Go a level deeper, and there's no data at all.
	How many people of different nationalities are in the country?
	Amazingly, we don't know.
	The ONS used to publish an annual breakdown of population by nationality, but that has since been discontinued.
	When O'Brien asked the ONS why the breakdown, when it might resume, it was unable to give a date.
	HM Revenue and Customs used to publish annual data on how much tax of people of different nationalities paid, but it recently confirmed, to Neil, that it has stopped publishing it.
	The Department for Work and Pensions used to publish data on welfare claims by nationality, and as we already know from his previous writing, They published figures every year for a decade and has since stopped.
	Why?
	It's inconvenient to the narrative, clearly.
	Home Office won't answer parliamentary questions on immigration status of prisoners, such as were they here legally?
	Government has the data, but has refused to publish it.
	Ministry of Justice does publish nationalities of current prisoners, but won't provide further data analysis, such as how many of them are repeat offenders.
	It claims the cost of providing this information would be too high.
	In reality, officials simply don't want the data in the public domain.
	And that's according to an MP.
	Well yes, as you say, they clearly do have this data.
	They've made a conscious decision not to publish it.
	Yes, quite.
	So we know there are lots of criminals in the UK that have been imported here.
	I mean, according to the International Organised Crime Index, the UK is number one in Western Europe and number two in all of Europe for crimes committed by people of foreign extraction.
	But the Home Office doesn't want to say where and how many offensives they've committed.
	And then they also don't want to say how much money these people are costing us, how many of them from which nationalities are claiming benefits, and the like.
	So we know that this is happening.
	We don't know how many.
	But why is it happening?
	Well, here's the exact statute which often keeps them here.
	It's Article 8 of the ECHR, the European Court of Human Rights.
	The right of private and family life Now, you would have thought someone who stabbed or raped someone as kind of deprived that of someone of the native population, or even a fellow asylum seeker who has, I don't know, dumped acid on a mum and her two kids, but that's why they keep remaining, despite their sex and stabbing.
	Sex offences, rather.
	So, Article 8, it reads, just as I scroll down here, Quote, everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
	There shall be no interference by public authority with the exercise of this right except such as in the accordance with the law and is necessary in democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
	So under this statute you'd think that they could probably deport the rapey stabby foreigners but they're actively choosing not to.
	I quite like the way the Russians do it which is they have quite a good legal system but if you commit an act of terrorism and a lot of this stuff could be said to be say you know an act of terrorism go around splashing acid in people's faces it moves you outside of the legal system and you then turn up in court with a plastic bag around your neck looking like you've just had your testicles electrocuted.
	Yeah.
	And I think a lot of the world probably saw that and thought, yeah, why can't we have that?
	Yeah.
	If you flip over the game board, don't expect to be protected by the rules.
	That would be a very sensible measure of reciprocity in the justice system.
	But for some reason, our governments and nations have decided to extend infinite consideration to the rapey, stabby foreigners and absolutely none to the native population who have nowhere else to go.
	And the data angle of it is clearly so that they can bring in more rapey, stabby foreigners without us getting too much pushback.
	Yes, because it's very profitable to do so, as we'll soon learn.
	So they say, who can claim the right to live in a member state on the basis of the establishment of a right to family and private life?
	Any person who has established his private and family life successfully in the UK and can provide evidence to that effect, that the claim to the right to remain in the UK on that basis alone, despite whether he qualifies under domestic law to remain in the UK.
	Such a person could be, and here's a list, An overstayer, an illegal entrant, an asylum seeker, a failed asylum seeker.
	Anyone having no claim under the immigration rules or EEA regulations to live and remain here in the UK.
	So literally anyone in the world can show up and say, I'm somewhat distantly relative to one person who might set foot in the UK once, please can I stay here forever?
	Oh yes, I also stabbed a child.
	Well, I mean, you could make an argument for overstayers.
	I mean, you want a Canadian who's a day past their visa to have some sort of legal protection, so I'm fine with that.
	A legal entrant, obviously not.
	An asylum seeker, OK, yeah, fair enough, at least that's legal.
	But a failed asylum seeker, well, you know, back to the second one there.
	I mean, a lot of this could just be chopped.
	Yeah, they could just be sent immediately away.
	And it would have widespread support from the population, and we are supposed to live in a democracy.
	Yes, instead we live in a narco-tyranny, where the rules are unilaterally applied to the people that have nowhere else to go.
	Now, why... Sorry.
	I just wanted to point on something here, because I remember when Count Dankula went to the EHRC of all places to argue his rights of freedom of expression during his case.
	No, that's the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
	Oh, my apologies, but the...
	The thing they gave him, the reason as to why not, is that you have human rights, according to us, but it was the same spiel at the end there, where they say, no, we don't have these rights in cases of national security, public safety, health or morals, well-being of the country economically, blah, blah, blah.
	It was exactly the same wording.
	But you would have thought a guy who's stabbing kids, he's a national security threat, he's a public safety threat, we would actually want to get rid of him to prevent crime, because he's the cause of crime.
	And we also, in the case of health or morals, I mean there's just so many points there where if you were interpreting the law in a rational way, you would say, even if he's an asylum seeker, Don't care?
	Like Article A.2 says we can get rid of him?
	Well, it comes back to the classic friend-enemy distinction.
	Obviously, Dankula was considered an enemy, and therefore he was outside the purview of the law, whereas the stabby rapey asylumists are considered friends, and therefore inside the remit of the law.
	For them, the law is not applied, but interpreted.
	That's pretty much all laws, frankly.
	Yes, it is.
	It's just constantly interpreted against the interests of the native population who wrote the laws and the data.
	Well, you have to conclude, therefore, that the British people are the enemy of the state.
	Yeah, you would think so.
	Harsh transition to climate change because recently the ECHR heard a case under Article 8 for the climate issue.
	And the reason I'm bringing this up is because just how plastic these laws are show just how absurd this entire body is.
	Now the ECHR was set up I think it was in 1952 by Winston Churchill following the Second World War with plenty of protection set up around the fact that some Jews fleeing Nazi Germany were sent back when they arrived in France and England.
	because they thought we don't have a legitimate claim to be here and then some of them were sent to their deaths they were like right okay let's not repeat that and ever since because of the long shadow cast by the second world war now the stabby rapey north africans are classed as indistinct from jews fleeing nazi germany in law and that long hangover has worked Reach well past its sell-by date with this new lawsuit because the European Court of Human Rights has declared global warming violates Article 8, your right to have a private and family life.
	So any change in the weather is now a breach of your human rights.
	I'm not joking.
	So this was brought forward to the Swiss court.
	The court in Switzerland ruled they had failed to comply with its duties under convention concerning climate change and that it violated the rights of respect for primates and family life.
	And this case was celebrated by Greta Thunberg, but it was brought by four Swedish women on the grounds of climate activism.
	She said, we really can't believe it.
	We keep asking our lawyers, is that right?
	And this is Rosemary Wilder-Wattie, one of the leaders of Swiss Women said.
	And they tell us it's the most you could have ever had, the biggest victory plausible.
	The ruling is binding, by the way, and it can trickle down to influence the law in 46 other countries, including the UK.
	So this could sign us up to, under Article 8, ridiculous interventionist climate action.
	And when this article says European Court, do they mean the EU Court or the ECHR?
	ECHR.
	Right.
	So this is Article 8 with the ECHR.
	So the same article that keeps Rapey stabby migrants in the UK is now also applied to climate change.
	Well, I know we left the EU caught, but there's actually no good reason why we couldn't just leave the ECHR as well.
	There's no good reason.
	Yeah, I know it predates the EU and it's a separate thing, but you could just repeal that as well.
	We could.
	We actually could.
	That's why people keep asking the current sitting Conservative and Labour only government, why are we still in it if it keeps doing stuff like this?
	They're facing a cabinet revolt over the fact that they've suggested to leave this after these two rulings.
	The consistent keeping of murderous migrants in the UK and now this insane ruling.
	We should probably go into this case a little bit because, again, the reasoning used to secure their victory will blow your bloody mind.
	But right, so member of the, and this is a very German word, Klima Senior Innen, this is the group that brought the lawsuit, Elizabeth Stern, age 76, told BBC News, we know statistically that in 10 years we will be gone, so whatever we do now we're not doing for ourselves, but for the sake of our children and our children's children.
	On behalf of your children's children, please keep it to your damn self.
	But here's the ruling, right?
	So, in the filing, it says, The applicants contended that they were all, the applicant association and applicants, victims within the autonomous meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, and a violation of Articles 2 and 8 of the Convention on account of the ongoing failure of the respondent state, they're referring to Switzerland, to afford them effective protection against the effects of global warming. to afford them effective protection against the effects of global Article 2, by the way, is that everyone's right to life should be protected by law.
	So they're saying that climate change violates their right to life and violates their right to a family and private life.
	The applicants argue that the serious threat to their health, wellbeing and quality of life posed by dangerous climate change suffice to trigger positive obligations under Article 8, which would also have been the case if their state of health had not deteriorated or had not been seriously endangered.
	So even if you could not measure the fact that their health had deteriorated due to global warming, still trigger Article 8 and mean that you had violated their right to a family life, meaning the government has to take drastic economic and social action against climate change.
	So my main problem with this is that it's just obviously bullshit.
	Yes.
	Because I remember listening to legal arguments in, you know, say the 90s or early 2000s, and a contentious issue would come up and there would be at least reasonably good arguments on both sides, and you could see where people were coming from, and there was a genuine moral dilemma on some of this stuff.
	Whereas we've kind of reached a stage now where it's just patently, and obviously, complete and utter bullshit.
	And they're not even making the pretense that there's a good argument on either side.
	It's just like, bullshit, bullshit, we're going to do what we wanted to do.
	Yes, the Sovereign has declared the exception here.
	It says it cuts in favour of the climate cult that they're all signed up to, but against the native populations who don't want to be stabbed and raped.
	Yes.
	It's the same article.
	Which we could just leave.
	At any time.
	But our politicians have chosen not to.
	And that quote you gave just a moment ago of, you know, we know we're not going to be around in 10 years' time, we do this for our children.
	Was that a native European saying that?
	Yes.
	Or was that, OK, not the court?
	It's a very rich, 70-year-old Swiss woman who has filed this particular motion.
	And won.
	Oh, right.
	Oh, so she's saying we know we're not going to be around.
	Does she mean the ECHR?
	No, she knows that she's not going to be around, but therefore in securing this ruling, she's inflicted her legacy on her grandchildren.
	Oh, I thought she was talking about ethnic Europeans in general.
	I mean, under this ruling, that's basically what's going to happen.
	I know where you're going with that, though.
	You'd like to make a case that if ethnic Europeans were going to go extinct, that they'd be violating our human rights and want to defend us.
	Well, since we sort of fulfill with what Western policy is in Western countries, we fill, I think, five of the eight markers of a legally recognized genocide or something.
	So, I mean, there is that.
	Also, all the criteria of an indigenous nation, if they were applying it properly, but they don't.
	Yes.
	Do you wanna know what their excuse was?
	by the point you said, which is correct, which is bullshit, bullshit, we're going to do what we want.
	Bullshit isn't really important.
	It's just an excuse.
	Yes.
	Do you want to know what their excuse was?
	They genuinely argue living in a hot climate is itself a human rights violation.
	Well, I kind of want to move to a hot climate, so...
	Yeah, but that's the excuse for all the hot climate people moving here.
	Oh, I see.
	Right, so you can move to a hot climate when you retire, but when you're of working age, something different.
	Well actually, so the argument that won them this case is that it's too hot for the boomers to go on their cruises, therefore, and I wish I was exaggerating.
	I'm not sure if you are.
	I mean, I wouldn't be surprised if they actually wrote that in the ruling.
	They did?
	Oh God.
	So the second applicant, Ms.
	Schwab, was born in 1931.
	She died in the course of the proceedings before the court.
	So we have an old, dead woman whining about climate change, who now has governed all of the law for all the East HR members.
	Fantastic.
	In a written declaration, she submitted that she had experienced difficulties enduring the heat waves and had more than once collapsed while exposed to the sun on a balcony in her flat.
	So she's sitting outside on the bloody balcony, and she's gone, oh, I've fainted because of the heat.
	Therefore, climate change is violating my human rights.
	Yeah, whenever that happens to me, I just come inside for a bit.
	Yeah, or just stick the fan on, you know.
	Yeah, or wear a hat.
	Yeah.
	She had to adapt her lifestyle to the heat waves, for instance, when going to the shops, and had to stay indoors almost the entire day.
	You know, like all of human history, where they sought shelter because it was hot.
	Well, I mean, in the end, last year I just got air conditioning fitted, which is wonderful.
	That's clearly a human rights violation and the court in Switzerland should be paying for that, Dan.
	Yes.
	Yes.
	She'd received assistance from a nurse who'd given her special clothing to keep cool.
	Right.
	So she took her socks off.
	She needed to get medical attention and had suffered extremely painful episodes of gout which intensified during the hot days.
	Now, I don't think you get gout from like a deficiency of rich food, do you?
	No, I think it's the opposite.
	Yeah, so this woman's got Henry VIII style disease and she's saying that she's suffering from, I don't know, human rights privations?
	Alright, okay.
	But I'm not just fascinated by the mindset of the sort of person who does this, because when I get too hot, like I said, I just go inside or wear a hat or wear a t-shirt, where she thinks I'm too hot, I'm going to take a case to the ECHR.
	Like, this is so rich woman stuff.
	Yes.
	And it's being inflicted on every single member country of the ECHR now.
	My point is, what percentage of the population would even the notion to do that occur to them?
	Very rich boomers.
	Yes.
	Very rich liberal boomers.
	So the third applicant, Ms. Volkov Peschen, was born in 1937.
	So these are very, very old women.
	In a written declaration, she said she had difficulties enduring heat waves, such that she needed to organise her life according to the weather forecast.
	So like everyone in Britain who doesn't really go out when it's pissing it down with rain, All human rights are no fucking idea.
	I'm just envisaging that somewhere in Switzerland or wherever the hell this is that these people are coming from, is there's going to be a couple of young millennial Swiss who are like, well, I can't buy a house, but when granny goes, I might get some money and I can then buy a house.
	Whereas granny is spending all of her money on expensive lawyers to sue the ECHR because she got too hot one day and had to shop in the afternoon.
	I wish this was an exaggeration.
	I am reading, just to remind everyone, from the court filing itself, everything I say here, just Alt-F it, it's linked in the description.
	Yeah, I tell you, I tell you, you can't beat boomers, even though it would be really nice to do so.
	When it was very hot, she had to stay home the entire day with the blinds down and the air conditioning turned on.
	This is the reason they won this filing!
	I had to put the aircon on, therefore my human rights are violated.
	Entire state of Florida, human rights violated, right?
	She was also required to refrain from recreational activities and was obliged to regularly measure her blood pressure and take her medication accordingly.
	So being a boomer, being old, is a human rights violation.
	Wow, I could get behind that to an extent.
	No, you just want to violate the human rights.
	Yeah, yeah.
	She also had to see a cardiologist.
	We're not on YouTube, so... Well, yes, because she's like 17.
	Probably vaccinated.
	Well, yeah.
	She would like to move and live somewhere at altitude, but her cardiovascular problems limited her in that respect.
	So literal geography and altitude is now a human rights violation.
	According to this filing.
	This woman is clearly mad.
	Which I don't mind in itself, but the court agreed with her all of this.
	Right, but the final line.
	She had never been hospitalised, but on several occasions she'd felt severely unwell.
	Zero evidentiary standard for this.
	It's just, I feel mildly ill.
	Right, bear in mind, more people die from cold exposure than heat exposure in Europe every year.
	So Bjorn Lomberg's done a bit of research on this.
	I'll just quote from his book from Cool It.
	That's a few years ago now.
	The UK sees cold deaths of 25,000 to 50,000 every year.
	Bear in mind, this now applies to the UK.
	In Europe as a whole, about 200,000 people die from excess heat every year.
	1.5 million Europeans die from excess cold every year.
	That is more than seven times the total number of heat deaths.
	To be fair, both of those numbers are rookie numbers compared to the jab deaths.
	Quite, quite.
	Isn't it great not being on YouTube?
	Yep.
	Look, this is the most absurd one, right?
	And when I said exaggerating, the boomers can't take holidays, therefore human rights violations, right?
	Fifth applicant, Mrs. Budry, was born in 1942 and lives in Geneva.
	In a written declaration, she complained that heatwaves had the effect of taking away all her energy.
	So does rooting this ruling.
	During the summer, she could not face leaving her home and going for a swim.
	At the same time, she could not afford to take longer holidays in a hotel with a swimming pool.
	She had never been hospitalised and had not seen a doctor in relation to the heatwaves.
	Zero requests for evidence.
	I can't go on my holiday at the expense of my grandkids' inheritance.
	Therefore, human rights violation.
	Yeah, but this is how the boomer mind works, and the boomers on the ECHR were like, yes, that's a good point, yes, you had to curtail your holiday.
	Yeah, and now because of all this, we now have to take collective climate action, right?
	So it says, in order for this to be genuinely feasible and to avoid a disproportionate burden on future generations, immediate action needs to be taken and adequate intermediate reduction goals must be set for the period leading to net neutrality.
	We must adopt adopt measures specifying a target timeline for achieving carbon neutrality and the overall remaining carbon budget for the same time frame and provide evidence unlike their need to provide medlica evidence for the ruling showing whether they have duly complied or in the process of complying with the relevant greenhouse gas emission targets so this now stipulates that every single country in the echr including the uk has to take insane climate action at the cost of the native population because some boomers got hot once and used article 8 to file an injunction
	i just kind of feel in 500 years time when they're talking about the fall of western civilization they're going to be saying don't they realize all that dumb shit they were doing was going to was going to lead to the end of their civilization And then some bright spark will bring up this podcast and say, oh yeah, some of them were aware, but this was completely mad.
	But this is clearly Just bollocks.
	This is just end-of-empire nonsense.
	So, infinite migrants.
	Yes.
	Impoverishment and energy insecurity.
	Yes.
	So that Granny in her last few remaining years of life doesn't get too hot on her Caribbean cruise.
	Yeah, and none of this will do anything about her getting too hot anyway because that's the sun.
	No.
	Yes.
	So, Conservative Party could leave this, right?
	We'll finish on this.
	Rishi Sunak has been suggested multiple times, hey, you're down in the polls, you're about to lose your job, everyone's about to become homeless, all of your MPs are match-hated, why don't you do something about this?
	Well, he so much as suggested we might look at the ECHR, and now the cabinet, half of them are quitting.
	Half of the cabinet are so insistent on Granny not being too hot on a holiday, and infinite migrants, they might leave their jobs.
	So these include Jeremy Hunt, Chancellor, James Cleverley, the Home Secretary, Elias Chalk, the Justice Secretary, Chris Heaton, Harris, Northern Ireland Secretary, Tom Tugendhat, the Security Minister, Gillian Keegan, Education Secretary, Victoria Atkins, Health Secretary, Victoria Prentiss, the Attorney General, and Simon Hart, the Chief Whip.
	So basically all the top brass of the Tory party have gone, no, actually we want to keep Article 8 for infinite migrants.
	But to be fair, every name you just listed is somebody that you would want to leave the cabinet.
	Sure, yes, but that's the reason Rishi Sunak isn't going to leave the ECHR.
	Right.
	Now, government source said, my gut feeling is they go with exactly what Rishi said, something along the lines of, if necessary we would quit the ECHR, and we'd use that ambiguity to not put that much structure around it.
	So a government source is deliberately saying, he's saying it, as to not do it.
	Now, why would he not do it?
	Well, the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford, you know, the far-right outlet, has published an analysis suggesting that between entering the UK on a temporary visa and becoming a British citizen, using Article 8 to apply for your asylum application, most migrants will pay cumulative fees of between £5,000 and £37,000 depending on the visa type.
	This equated to an annual £2 billion income stream for the Home Office.
	So, they and the holidaying boomers are actively profiting off of the fact that your civilization is going to the pan because it's too hot and there aren't enough stabby foreigners.
	That's why the ECHR is ruining our lives.
	Yeah, that doesn't look good.
	Alright.
	Let's talk about a sandy bum fight going on in Iran and Israel.
	So here is a map of the area, just to remind everybody.
	Now on Saturday night, air raid sirens started blaring in Israel because there were drone and missile attacks from Iran, Iraq, Syria and Yemen.
	So, as you can see, a whole bunch of them getting in on this one.
	Now, those were downed almost entirely by Israel.
	Some of the ones that flew over Jordan also got taken down by the Jordanians.
	And even the British got involved, sending up, I think, a typhoon fighter that shot down a couple of these things.
	So, anyway, before we talk about that, let's go back a couple of steps on this one to two Mondays earlier.
	Um where oh hang on no where's my it's all right here we go that should be fine no no there we go there we are so so so um this blew up so this is the um Iranian embassy uh that bit in the middle there um in Syria and just to the right of it is it's one of its consular buildings which um Israel blew up.
	Wasn't the consular building A military target, I can't remember the exact reason why, but it wasn't that they were attacking the embassy, even though the embassy is technically a military building, it's because they were doing something related to the Iranian embassy.
	Well, the argument was, is that at the embassy building, a bunch of Iranian bigwigs were meeting, so you've got, in fact I can show him actually, there we go, this chap here, so you've got Quds Force commander of the Revolutionary Guard, Brigadier General Mohammed Reza Zahidi, and seven other people and two civilians.
	So the argument was, and to be fair, if a bunch of senior military officials are meeting in a consulate, they probably weren't just there for the scones and tea, they probably were, you know, talking about something.
	But nevertheless, This is an embassy building, so it's kind of a big deal.
	And this is not the only strike I should mention.
	I mean, there was another, you know, an Iranian general was killed in December by Israel, a senior intelligence official was taken out in January, and there's a whole bunch of other ones if you go back.
	Yeah, Trump killed Soleimani, didn't he, as well?
	Yeah, I mean, I suppose there were circumstances around this one.
	But what I'm saying is there was a regular patter of Israelis sort of taking out Iranian sort of senior officials and generals and so on.
	But they did strike an embassy this time, which is kind of a big deal.
	Now in normal cases, Blowing up an embassy.
	So say, for example, France bombed the British Embassy in Italy.
	That should be a fairly straightforward declaration of war.
	I know it gets a little bit hazy out in the sandy bits of the world for various reasons, but legally speaking, an embassy is considered a civilian object under international law, and you can't strike them unless they're being used for explicitly military purposes, which holding a meeting probably doesn't qualify.
	Well, if I can push back a little bit.
	Go on then.
	They were striking the building next to the embassy.
	Well, it was part of the embassy grounds, so.
	Yeah.
	It is considered Iranian soil.
	Yeah.
	But that doesn't really matter in the war of basically sand religions over here, does it?
	Between these two.
	I'm not shocked it's happening.
	I'm not trying to excuse, I'm just saying this is their logic, right?
	And the Iranians are not, they're quite thick but they're not super thick so therefore they're going to pick probably the safest location which is right next to the embassy which would cause an international incident if you struck all of their military commanders in one place.
	So I wouldn't be shocked if they were at least banking on this being contingency.
	Yeah, I mean the international law is fairly clear on this one.
	There's the 1961 Vienna Convention, then there's the 1963 Convention on Consular Relations.
	So it should be well outside the bounds.
	But yes, there are various people making the argument that you've just made.
	There's a Yuval Shani at Hebrew University Who was saying that it was likely a legitimate target on the basis that it was an act of self-defense because it is a third territory involved in an ongoing legal debate.
	But I mean more broadly the point is, and you sort of raised this in your segment just now, is that international law, like all law, is a complete fiction.
	It's just like any other situation is what you can enforce That actually matters and where you choose to enforce it.
	So what really matters to that is how you react to it.
	How the international community reacts to something like that.
	So I'm going to pull up this section here.
	Apologies it's in Wikipedia but it has all the information in one place.
	So this is the sort of various international condemnation to it.
	Now let's just pick out a couple of significant ones.
	So you know China was a straight condemn Um, Egypt is a regional power there.
	Um, you know, they said, you know, it's not justifiable for under any justification.
	Um, let's pick out some of the notable ones.
	Um, Pakistan.
	Unacceptable violation of sovereignty.
	Russia, as you can imagine, didn't like it.
	So Saudi Arabia, which has a mixed relationship, to put it mildly, with Iran, they categorically reject it.
	And Turkey, the reason why I'm mentioning all of these names will become apparent later, but they were expressing serious concerns over the regional conflict.
	So there's various parties.
	Also interesting was the United States.
	Yeah, Biden said to Netanyahu, take the win, in terms of, well, we shot down 99%.
	Oh, no, that's, yeah, that's a bit, I'm still on the concert a bit, but the United States said that they had no involvement or prior knowledge of the strike.
	Which is about as harsh as the US will ever get with Israel, to say that that was nothing to do with us, boss.
	So, yes, with these sort of incidents, blowing up embassies and all that sort of thing, it does demand a response, because you can't have that sort of thing happen and go unanswered, because otherwise you're basically saying it's open seas and all your embassies and military bases and all that kind of stuff.
	However, the broader context, you've got to remember all of this, is that the global American empire, the US, Israel, UK and its European allies, are all declining forces in the world.
	Whereas you could make the argument quite reasonably that China, Russia, Iran and perhaps the BRICS nations, they are rising countries.
	So if there is going to be a conflict between these two groups, obviously the former group would rather that the conflict happened sooner as the other group would rather that the conflict happened later.
	So Iran basically found itself in the situation where it had to give a fairly muscular response, but nothing so serious as would then justify greater retaliations or wider conflict.
	Certainly not drawing the US in this point.
	So its conclusion to all of this was, why don't we do a missile strike but advertise it 72 hours in advance?
	Which basically gave everybody in the region opportunity to thwart it, which is what happened.
	So anyway, hundreds of drones were launched, scores of ballistic missiles were fired, and as you were sort of alluding to a moment ago, all but seven of the missiles were intercepted.
	All of the drones were taken out and all but seven of the missiles.
	So a big response was made, It was largely thwarted.
	It was portrayed, as you would expect, very differently on Iranian TV as opposed to Israeli TV.
	They were both sort of claiming the win on this one.
	So Israel got to say, we shot them all down, whereas Iran said, you know, we made a serious strike here and landed missiles in Israel and all that kind of stuff.
	So you could claim that everybody's got a bit of a victory that they can sort of hang their hat on here, which is kind of the point.
	But Just to provide a little bit of analysis on this one, thinking it through, is it really a failure for Iran?
	I would say maybe not, because it was seen to respond in a fairly muscular way, so it gets a big tick for that.
	The other thing, which I have not seen mentioned on any of the mainstream media sources, the corporate news sources, is that even if the missiles don't get through, It does tell you an awful lot about their defense capabilities.
	So it tells you a lot about the speed of the interception, where they came from, the tech involved.
	Also the willingness for the Jordanians to go to bat for the Israelis.
	Because so far the Jordanians haven't been willing to take in any of the Palestinians that have been moving out of the areas of Gaza that have been bombed.
	But also, the Jordanian princess keeps condemning Israel and saying that they're waging a genocide.
	So they've been speaking out both sides of their mouth.
	But if you fly something over Jordanian territory, are they going to shoot it down on behalf of the Israelis?
	Yes, so they flush that out, but not just, of course, the Jordanians.
	They sort of flush out where everybody stands on this, because everybody has to then comment on this and give their diplomatic position, as they did with the strike on the consular building in the first place.
	So you get an awful lot of information about defence capabilities and diplomatic relations by doing something like this.
	But in a way, with a 72-hour advantage, where you don't actually do enough damage that it forces some sort of response.
	So it was probably a fairly clever response in that.
	And the other thing it sort of highlighted for me is, and I've talked about this on a number of segments when talking about this sort of sandy bit of the world,
	It goes to show again the pure asymmetry of the cost of warfare in this region because you know I don't know what these drones and missiles cost but I'm going to assume it's in the in the tens of millions probably more the missiles rather than the drones but the cost of shooting them down I've seen estimated about 1.3 billion dollars so a pretty vast asymmetry in cost.
	Now they did shoot them all down But if you can launch hundreds of drones and scores of missiles in a major conflict, presumably you can launch tens of thousands of drones and many hundreds of missiles, maybe thousands of missiles.
	Can the US and its allies shoot them all down if they were all to come in one?
	I remember, Callum, you follow this quite interesting YouTube channel that sort of made that point where he runs military scenarios or something like that.
	I'm the only one where the US ever got beaten.
	was a mass drone attack or something like that.
	So it was a guy who's using, I think it's DSL or whatever, and tested, it's the Shahid drones, which are the Iranian ones.
	I have very limited knowledge on those people who know better.
	But I remember some people were confused about why it took like two hours for the drones to get there, and they're really slow.
	They're really cheap, I think at 12 million, but that's pretty good.
	But the scenario he ran is if you had 200 of those coming at a target, what does it take to shoot down all the drones?
	And it was a billion dollar warship in the right place, right time, fully stocked, looking at the enemy.
	Which, not great.
	Thankfully in real life they have prepared for this.
	Not just in Israel, but in like Syria for example.
	But it's an interesting point.
	I thought it would be a massive change to warfare, that you would get hundreds or thousands of drones being used in the first sections of an assault.
	And it would be just, you couldn't stop it, you'd be screwed.
	But there's two things that have put a bit of a dent in that for me, which is not only the British Dragon Breath thing, the laser defense system, that's really cool.
	But the Russian war in Ukraine showed that the Russians didn't seem to have this.
	Like, they did an early blast of missiles and drones, and since then they've kept using them and it's been effective on both sides there.
	But there's never that bit where it's blocking out the sky, which is what I was expecting.
	You've got to wonder if that's coming, though.
	Or the block-off-two-kill-streak thing of where you hit it and there's just a hundred of them just, like, they're really cheap and they're dive-bombing.
	Yes.
	Almost like a little paper aeroplane with a bit of C4 stuff.
	Well, a bit like that bit in 300, if you remember that, where... The arrows.
	The Spartans, yes, they're going to block out the sky with arrows, except it's little drones.
	You know, buzzing along towards them.
	You know, the Israelis will be, well, we're fighting the shade then, you know, that kind of thing.
	So, I would say it was probably a win for Iran.
	Was it a failure for Israel's allies?
	Well, possibly.
	I mean, they had some fun shooting some stuff down.
	The RAF doesn't actually get to see much action.
	these days.
	So flying around, shooting stuff down was a test of their capabilities.
	It was a bit expensive, but they probably had fun with that.
	They do, however, seem quite keen to stop this escalating.
	So the US put out a statement saying that Israel is not looking to escalate the showdown with Iran.
	I would have thought that would have been better coming from Israel rather than the US saying, no, you are not going to escalate it.
	That's kind of speaking on their behalf, but they're, they're, they're clearly looking to sort of hedge that one off.
	Well, that's interesting because I don't know, I don't know if you can bring it up, but Biden obviously reignited the Iran deal essentially last year, right before October 7th, because he traded, I think it was five US citizens who held prisoner in Iran for the promise of unsecuring the six billion dollars that was trapped in some sort of South Korean bank account for oil money or something.
	And then he froze it again in November after October 7th happened, but then obviously they'd already thought, right, we're going to get six billion quid, therefore we'll free up some funds so then go fund the Hooties and that.
	And then something that happened, I think it was last month, was that The Biden administration lifted sanctions on Iraq, which meant Iraq then gave 10 billion straight to Iran.
	Yeah, so the U.S.
	currently has a fairly confused position on Israel.
	And when I say the U.S., especially if you include Biden, who tends to talk and then an official comes out a little while afterwards with clarifying comments and a bit of loo paper because he's defecated.
	Yes, yes, all of that.
	And so I was going by the official statements, which I tend to regard as slightly more reliable than Biden's own utterances on this, because he was straight away up there with a sort of blank check and then that sort of reigned back a bit.
	Was this attack a failure for the corporate media?
	I'd say yes, because they left out all of the important context.
	I've seen a whole bunch of coverage on this and not one of them mentions the attack on the Iranian embassy, which is kind of key context for what's going on here.
	Let alone all the preceding ones.
	No mention of the point I made about the information you gather in the attack.
	That's actually quite valuable.
	You know, just a broader point that with the mainstream media, all you get is narrative.
	It's all noise, not signal.
	So, yes.
	And turning to the question whether it is a failure for Israel itself, I mean, I would say yes, for the simple reason that Israel is much more on a clock than Iran is in all of this.
	Like my broad point that Western powers are declining and whatever you want to call them, the new Axis is evil, as some people refer to them, they're clearly rising.
	So Israel, I think, I mean more broadly the point on Israel, is I think that Israel have decided to spend all of its post-war consensus goodwill on its current Gaza campaign Because it is not going to be able to rely on, but the Holocaust, therefore we can act differently for that much longer.
	And I think that's always going to happen because you currently have a crop of politicians who are very much in that mindset.
	You know, the David Camerons and everyone in the US and all of these people who think very much in these terms that Israel gets an exception.
	Due to the post-war consensus.
	Well, on Julie Hartley Brewer's show this morning when they were talking about this, the outgoing deputy mayor for Tel Aviv, I think it was, her direct quote was, Iran, they're the new Hitler, they're Germany in the 1930s, where are all the Churchills?
	We need you.
	So they are trading off of the sort of Extended metaphor of this is literally the Holocaust.
	Yeah, our current generation of leaders cannot think outside of the post-war consensus.
	The boomer-truth paradigm.
	The boomer-truth paradigm.
	Yeah, they can only think in those terms.
	You've got a point though, because that happens with every war in the West.
	Someone is Hitler.
	I mean, Putin is literally Stalin again.
	But what's true about this in a very material sense is that the human beings who made that post-war consensus, because of course most of them are dead, but a bunch of them are still in power because the US government is made of zombies.
	Some of them are on death's door though.
	And once they're all properly dead, like I do wonder how much of that relationship the United States has with Israel will start to disintegrate.
	Yes.
	Because there's also the aspects of the lady Ilhan Omar, where she made the point, we need more Somalis in America.
	And then what we can do is leverage the United States government to work for Somalis internationally.
	And this being a very basic point about ethnic groups trying to subvert governments for their own ethnic interests.
	And the more mass immigration the United States has, the less of a one-sided foreign policy it's going to have?
	Very much so.
	But also more broadly, just with Zoomers, because the boomers are not entirely But almost entirely, brought into the post-war consensus.
	Whereas, you know, that diminishes with each subsequent generation.
	And when you get down to the Zoomers, I mean, they don't even believe key tenants of the post-war consensus.
	That's what I was talking about on trigonometry.
	The fear of a strong man morphing straight into Adolf Hitler, despite our relative historical and political circumstances, being a nation that defeated him, has staved off Action within the national interest.
	Yes.
	For the entire boomer paradigm.
	And the Zoomers just going, well, nothing's brought up since 1997.
	So actually I don't really care about the post-war narrative, I just want a house.
	The Zoomers are much more like, oh, a strongman is coming.
	Good.
	Yeah.
	Good.
	Yeah.
	I'll try and remember in my mind who she was called.
	Dianne Feinstein.
	Yes.
	Yes.
	That's the one.
	Now a billion years old.
	She literally had a stroke and died.
	Was born in 1933, but is still there.
	Is she still there?
	Somehow.
	She died.
	Still a senator.
	Remarkable.
	Unless she's dead.
	Is she actually?
	I think she died, yeah.
	Oh Jesus, finally.
	Oh no, she did, yes.
	She had a stroke and was wheeled in.
	She still managed to vote in the Congress or the Senate on the day that she died.
	Ukraine funding, wasn't it?
	Presumably, I don't know whether a vote was cast before or after she died, but it was on the same day.
	Between friends.
	Yes, exactly.
	But I think more broadly what's happening is Israel recognises that these trends are moving against them.
	And therefore they have decided to play the 200-year game rather than the 30-year game.
	I think they've decided that, you know, they know that they're going to evaporate all of their sort of post-war consensus goodwill, and so they're going to have... The clock's ticking.
	Well, yeah, and they know that they're going to suffer for this over the next 20 to 30 years, but they want to be able to look back in 200 years and say, well, thank God that we did that, because now Gaza is just a UN refugee camp with about a million people living in it.
	Well, this is what you were saying in your excellent pro-economics with Bo on Israel, Palestine, and the like.
	It's that they've seen the existential nature of this war.
	They've seen the Schmittian friend-enemy distinction in the terms that it's meant to be, which is, you pose a threat to my way of life in totality, therefore they've gone, well, we just need to clear it out.
	And that's not to say that they're conducting a genocide, but it is to say that, okay, we see Hamas as an existential threat, therefore we'll stop at nothing, even if we piss off the international community.
	Yes, rather unfortunate the means of getting about that.
	And the other thing I'd point out is that I don't have exact numbers on this, but I wouldn't be surprised if Israel is using more ordnance on Gaza on a regular Monday than Iran used against Israel on Saturday night.
	I don't have those exact numbers, but it wouldn't surprise me.
	We kind of, you know, they want to draw the US into a conflict while the US is still powerful, because of course the US is in debt spiral, and quite possibly there soon be in a civil war if they steal yet another election.
	Do you think they want the US to put troops on the ground, though?
	Yes.
	So I know there are competing Israeli nationalist forces.
	Yes.
	There's written articles that have said actually if the US steps in that undermines our national sovereignty and it makes us look like we can't justify ourselves.
	I think some of them might say that but I think for the most part they just want the firepower.
	Right, okay, so they want subsidies but they don't want boots on the ground.
	Well, when it comes to Iran, they would need that.
	Israel isn't taking on Iran by themselves.
	And possibly, Iran is not aware of the sheer military prowess of the US.
	So, for example, is Iran fully aware of how many trans generals the US has at its disposal?
	Well, Iran probably, because Iran has quite a lot of transgender people of their own.
	Oh yes, possibly.
	And also, I thought, you know, let's have a look at crack U.S.
	troops training.
	So, yes, for those of you listening, these are U.S.
	troops.
	Oh, do we have to?
	Deep-throating a dildo.
	It's not a rainbow dildo, so it may not be regulation.
	I don't know whether this is officer training or what.
	To be fair, local Marines are homoerotic.
	Yes, they've always been homoerotic.
	Yeah, true, the rugby lads, yeah.
	So anyway, the US troops are hard at work deep-throating Rainbow Dildos, and I also found this was quite interesting.
	Those who are not signed up are starting to get a tiny bit nervous.
	So what we're looking at here is Google search queries.
	So, can I be drafted if already served is up 50%.
	Selective service is up 90%.
	And World War 3, and if World War 3 starts, will I be drafted, is so off the scale that they couldn't even put a percentage against it.
	So Zoomers are starting to get a tiny little bit concerned that this might be coming their way.
	Now it's an oldie but a goodie.
	This is from a few months back, but let's hear from one of the Zoomers themselves, shall we?
	Let's play that if we can.
	And you know why I know that?
	Because we're just gonna say no.
	Like, how are they gonna actually force us to get up and go to work?
	I understand it was like that in, like, the 1940s.
	What else is there to do in 1940 besides shoot people?
	We have things to do nowadays.
	We have twerk, be bisexual, eat a hot chip, buy.
	And we're also, like, really mentally ill.
	I have, like, six of these.
	What makes you think I'm qualified to have a gun, like, within 600 feet of anybody, including myself?
	And finally, like, guns are, like, so tacky.
	Like, can you imagine just, like, pulling up with a gun?
	Like, that is so fucking embarrassing.
	Like, what is this, the revolutionary fucking thing?
	No.
	Like, let's just chat.
	Let's just talk.
	There's no, there's no need for all the, like, like, no.
	No.
	It's not gonna happen.
	Don't worry.
	I sort of suspect that he would do quite well in the training that we saw in the previous video.
	So there's that.
	And now in answer to this, this young man's question, um, how can it be done?
	Well, I think Ukraine has sort of answered that question.
	They basically just take you off the streets, put you in the back of a wagon and take you off the front of the fight line.
	Um, listen to these delusional retards.
	It's like, well, they're going to make me do something.
	So you were wearing a mask a year ago.
	Yes.
	And you pay taxes.
	Yeah, you're going to do them.
	Yes.
	And it's, I mean, here's a point.
	He would be a completely useless soldier, apart from as a recreational vehicle for said homoerotic marines and so on.
	But I note that the Ukrainian army is having sort of severe problems with this, well not this mindset, but the mindset of the people who just don't want to be there.
	What they're having to do is they're having to take a bunch of people who don't want to be there, basically pen them all together in a centralized location, then guard them, stop them escaping.
	Which means they cluster a whole bunch of recruits together in one place.
	It just makes it a nice easy strike target, which is not how you're supposed to do it.
	If you've got a military where everybody's on board, you can disperse them and make much, you know, significantly harder targets.
	So, you know, that has been a significant tactical weakness for the Ukraine.
	The other thing I'd point out as well is, of course, There are people who are actively pushing for US boots on the ground, such as, you know, Senator Lady Graham of, where is it, Arkansas?
	North Carolina.
	Yes, North Carolina.
	John Bolton as well.
	Yes.
	Now, I know that Lindsey Graham has a niece and nephew, but you can sort of guarantee that all of the people who are going to be voting for this stuff, it's not their family members who are going to be sent to the front line, it's going to be, you know, everybody else's.
	Their voters' aces.
	Yes, yes.
	So look, more broadly, I think we've got a situation where Hamas, Israel, and the neocons in the global American empire, they all want this wider conflict.
	Not that there's any sort of popular support for that, that doesn't exist.
	And it's broadly the neocons' dream to smash its enemies as hard as it can before it loses the ability to do so.
	And Biden, you might think, actually has quite good reasons to want a major distraction ahead of November because he's not getting his way on the economy, on inflation.
	Inflation, as I'm sure you saw, is up again significantly for the third month in a row when it was supposed to be coming down.
	A lot of the reason for that is his energy prices have been going up.
	So he's been wanting to see the cost of oil come down.
	And he, like all sort of leftist autocrats, they think that they can just decree a thing and then it will happen.
	And the rest of the world they they they think they're the only ones with the mind in this process but it that you know saudi arabian and the and i don't pick up a class of basically said ok what if you're going to.
	I'm trying for slow prices we just got production.
	keep prices high.
	So it's effectively the rest of the world, the energy producing parts of the world have decided that they are going to torpedo Biden's chances of re-election by making sure that US inflation is relatively high.
	Well, also when Biden imposes all of these restrictions on US oil production, which Trump got to be self-sufficient and as a net export, he then increases energy prices and then makes them reliant on foreign exports and then said foreign exports get more So when foreign exporters like India start selling to Iran to then ensure that Iran has enough money to then go finance your enemies, then you snooker yourself.
	Well, exactly.
	And you kind of got the situation now where the U.S.
	is involved in multiple conflicts.
	I mean, it's effectively in a cold war with Russia, parts of the Middle East, Texas.
	Possibly China, you know, falls into that category as well.
	But it couldn't even handle a hot war against the Taliban, which are a bunch of kids in sandals.
	Good sandals.
	Yes, yes.
	But it's not quite what you think of as unrelenting force and military prowess, is it?
	But my point is that Iran is a whole other ballpark.
	So let's cool up a bit.
	We're going to do a bit of map analysis now to close this out.
	So the reason the neocons think that this would be in the bag is because a little while ago they managed to deal with Iraq, didn't they?
	Didn't make it worse?
	Well, the insurgency's still not even over.
	Well, when I say deal with, I mean they managed to blow shit up in Iraq.
	Yeah, they got rid of the old government.
	They did that good and proper.
	And then Biden's brother built some very profitable homes.
	Yes, I'm not suggesting they had a success, but they successfully got... I'll tell you what.
	Raytheon and Boeing had a very successful...
	Very success!
	Yes, yes.
	That's how we define successful.
	But what did they have at the time?
	So, the US had access to the Mediterranean, Turkey was on board when it came to Iran, Israel obviously, some support from Saudi Arabia, Jordan they had the Red Sea, they had the Persian Gulf, Iran sort of stayed out of the way of that one.
	Kuwait obviously, you know, they had that as a sort of base of operation.
	So they were able to hit Iraq from sort of all sides.
	So it's not that surprising that you could have US tanks rolling through Baghdad a reasonably short period of time after the war was declared.
	Now you look at the situation you've got today if they wanted to take on Iran.
	So I'm pretty sure that Turkey is not going to be on board with this.
	You know, they've indicated multiple times that they're not on board with it.
	So there you go, there's Turkey out of it.
	And this is why I brought up that list of countries to the way they responded to the Iranian consular bombings.
	So, and what about the North?
	You've got all the Stans there.
	Well, that's very much Russia's sphere of influence, right?
	So that's out.
	On the East, you've got Afghanistan.
	They used to have a major military presence there.
	That has gone, so the East isn't going to work.
	Pakistan, they're not going to be on board for this.
	The previous bit of information I showed, as well as many other statements and actions, could show that I don't think they're going to be on board.
	You could militarise all of the Dinos living in Dubai.
	In the UAE?
	They're just a sort of short boat ride across the bay?
	Well, that's about as good as you can get.
	I'll just finish off this side.
	Iraq, you know, they've got some capacity there.
	They've still got sort of military reserves that they could deploy there.
	Not anywhere as much as they used to, so that's out.
	Saudi Arabia probably wouldn't get on board.
	I know their relationships have been rocky with Iran, but whether they're going to be happy with their airspace being used.
	So basically, when it comes to, you know, anything to do with Iran, They're basically limited to the Persian Gulf.
	Now, if you go to war with Iran, and you're trying to get up the Persian Gulf, I mean, if I was Putin, and I heard that a U.S.
	Armada was traveling up the Persian Gulf, I'd start giggling like a little girl.
	Because, you know, he's got all these hypersonic ballistic missiles that he's itching to use at some point.
	Are you really going to ride a U.S.
	Armada up this Gulf, past several hundred miles of Iranian coastline?
	When they are most likely to be supplied with ballistic missiles, ship-killing missiles, from certainly Russia, because there's no reason why Russia would not want to supply that equipment, given that they've been fighting a war with Ukraine and the US have been pumping their equipment into that, so there's no reason why Russia would not want to support Iran with its military capabilities.
	And I dare say a few drones would appear as well, made by China, slapped on their styrofoam packaging that they come in.
	So you're not going to really want to run an Armada up there.
	And a part of me kind of wants them to do it, because I'm just kind of curious to see what would happen if they did.
	But I can imagine they wouldn't want to do that.
	So really, they're going to be limited to this bit down here, the Gulf of Oman.
	That's probably the best they're going to get.
	So they're going to have to make any incursion into Iran down here, and then they're going to need to make their way to Tehran across the entire length of this enormous country.
	And I'll just go to the satellite view here to see what they're up against.
	Basically, it's all bloody mountain.
	So do the neocons who are pushing for this war seriously think that they're going to land an incursion force in the Gulf of Oman and get that to Tehran through a vast mountainous country that is well prepared
	You know, for 30 years now, they've been preparing for this, past mountain positions, when they've got strong allies to the north in the form of Russia and China, who are going to be supporting them, and a commanding strategic position.
	So, I mean, the idea that the neocons have that they're going to take on Iran is just... I'm like, wow.
	There's a reason it hasn't happened.
	Yes.
	Plenty of want to make it happen, but never did, because you sit down and look at the plan and it's like, well, that's shit.
	I mean, if you had Turkey on board, if you still had a significant presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, and, you know, maybe Saudi Arabia was on board with this and the other Gulf states around there, if they were all on board with it, I mean, maybe.
	But it would still be difficult because of the mountainous region.
	But when you knock out all of those allies, which effectively is the position you've got, because as I've explained, You know where these countries stand because they're fucking with Biden on the oil stuff.
	They're deliberately messing with him so that he can't have his inflation victory, so that he can't cut interest rates.
	So we know where they stand.
	I mean, Pakistan is no bloody guess.
	And the difficulties they've had in Iraq and Afghanistan and Turkey have ruled themselves out.
	So, you know, this idea that they're going to steamroll through that, I think is, you know, for the birds.
	Anyway, that's my analysis.
	Let's see what happens on it.
	Alrighty.
	I will need the box and mouse.
	There's one.
	Two-wheeled.
	Radio.
	Let's have some fun, shall we?
	Because that was a bit serious.
	So, let's get rid of this and move on.
	Right.
	Lifejacks!
	This was dumb.
	This was a new meme that blew up over the weekend for no good reason.
	But I thought we'd continue our long-running series, as you can see here, of playing with dollies.
	Because, of course, that's what WoJacks kind of are, as a lot of people have pointed out.
	I mean, this meme has got quite famous because it's like, yes, look at me and the trad waifu.
	We're going to have babies and have a good life.
	It's a good meme.
	Yeah, I enjoy memes.
	It's good jokes, but the Gen Zers who are making this stuff, they've reached boomer tier in their memes, it seems.
	They have turned around and been like, the wife.
	The wife is annoying me.
	I quite like these memes.
	It's about cute and endearing stuff that she doesn't know is mildly silly, but you still love her for it anyway.
	We're going to get into it, but if we get to this.
	No, that's just the wrong thing, because all the buttons don't bloody work.
	There you go.
	So this is a lot of people talking about stuff that their girlfriend or wife does that is a bit strange.
	And as you can see here, movie ends, I don't get it.
	Yes.
	They should have said, why don't you have the subtitles on?
	Because for some reason, all women need to watch films with subtitles.
	Yeah, don't understand that either, but that's a thing.
	It goes on.
	This one here, you notice anything different?
	And she's like, the same.
	There's other stuff, people pointing out that girl dinner is just kind of annoying, to be honest.
	You should, on the previous one, people in the comments were pointing out you should always say, oh yeah, nice new hairstyle.
	Always say it.
	Just get yourself out of a particular bind.
	And then there's also the point that apparently the women don't get the meme.
	That now became a meme.
	So this is people showing it to their girlfriends and then it became a joke that the girlfriends would say they don't get it.
	But it turned out they really don't.
	So this guy here, this is Benjamin Boyce, sending it to his wife or girlfriend and she was like, yeah, I don't get it.
	I sent it to mine and I had to explain it.
	And then I sent the one that Lauren Chenner tweeted out saying, but I'm a woman and I don't say that because it's women versus general rules.
	It's like an everlasting battle.
	Yes.
	There are some other jokes.
	There's another one which is that women, well, make up a high percentage of those who engage in the propaganda, of course.
	So they're just like, man, it's called having decency and empathy for other human beings.
	But then you get with them and it's more like this.
	Babe, I don't like them either.
	Just, I don't like it when you use that word.
	This one blew up the most.
	The 15K there at one point.
	Yeah, I get that all the time.
	Very true, very true.
	Yeah, it's like the wife will be, you know, you have to be so careful because you don't know what they're going to say at school.
	It's like, well, yes, but they need to understand that they're different to us.
	Well, there was another one I saw on an Instagram meme that said, someone put out a viral tweet.
	She was like, I don't understand why all these OnlyFans girls think that sending nudes to men is going to get you to love them.
	Just say something mildly racist and they'll propose.
	But this one seemed to be incredibly true, because people started talking.
	If you check quote tweets, it's just good fun.
	Shows it to the wife.
	Hey, I do not like them.
	Then why do you giggle at single Tinder moms and their profiles that I show you?
	It's like, hmm.
	Yes, funny.
	But then people started showing the screenshots.
	So this person is saying this happened two weeks ago.
	And it's not that I disagree with your sentiments either, but it can't be said.
	Of course, I love our ancestral blue green eyes, said this guy's girlfriend to him.
	So no, it seems to be more true than people thought that people are doing this.
	And the last one here is this woman saying, I just had that exact conversation with my boyfriend.
	Hmm.
	All right.
	So, turns out that's not unusual.
	That's a pretty common feature of women.
	And a lot of boys, after noticing this, remembered what they were fighting for, which is, of course, the girlfriend.
	But a lot of people took this as some kind of attack on the women, that it was a stab at them or something, but it wasn't.
	That's the thing.
	It was just, boom it here, Fun.
	Like, you're different.
	You say these things.
	A lot of women say these things.
	Yeah, but noticing... A lot of men were bonding over that their wife also did it.
	Noticing difference is their bi, sexist, racist, etc.
	Because we all have to be plastic unisex people, otherwise we're violating some kind of modern shibboleth of discrimination.
	There does seem to be a little bit more diversity amongst men, doesn't there?
	I mean, in terms of how they approach topics and issues and how they think about things.
	But almost every wife or girlfriend is just an absolute fit-in for all of these memes.
	They just all do it.
	Part of the reason why, in tribal scenarios, social disapproval is an existential threat.
	Like, if you were shunned by the group that was distributing resources, therefore you and your dependent baby were probably going to starve to death.
	So, social conformity has an evolutionary advantage.
	Yes.
	But a lot of other women were making responses to this because, of course, men were also not just making ones that women were like, you know, that's not me, but certainly is.
	There's these other ones where they're actually just praising women, just being like, they're very useful.
	It's your dad's birthday next week.
	Yeah, they do that as well.
	That is actually quite handy, that.
	Yeah.
	And a lot of people were saying, good God, I do not know any of the birthdays in any part of my extended family.
	She knows all of them.
	I don't even know my children's birthday.
	I mean, I know it's in September, but I can't remember the year or the day.
	Are they old enough to watch this?
	No.
	Okay, good.
	I'll watch it in ten years and be like, he didn't even know my birthday.
	Well... So anyway, but there's more of this.
	I mean, there's the other point here of like, this is what men's lives would look like without her.
	Because it's just their bare basics.
	Because they're responding here to the fact that... So when I moved from London to Winchester, I had to go first by a couple of months.
	And so I rented a place, and my place looked exactly like that second bitcher.
	See, I'm a lot more clean-freaky in particular, but in the inverse, have you ever...
	We haven't been back to a girl's place and then just opened the door and it looks like the junkyard in Labyrinth.
	It's immaculate around the selfie mirror so that nothing's in the background, but the rest of it is just a total shit pit of clothes and things like that.
	So as much as women will mock men for being exceedingly functional, they will just pile up rubbish.
	Well this is the argument I keep having with my missus.
	It's like, you'd never help me tidy up.
	And I said, well yes, because we have too much stuff.
	So if you got rid of... So my idea of tidying up would be to hire a skip for a weekend and get rid of all of the stuff and then it would just be tidy.
	But no, you insist on having all of this stuff.
	It's like being a magpie, just bringing out shiny things constantly.
	Yeah.
	You only have the stuff you need, you actually have a tidy house all year round.
	Yeah, but just by default.
	But that doesn't happen, because as someone was pointing out, that this is a great way of illustrating that women are behind 80% of household purchases, which is a long-running statistic.
	And yeah, that's the reason houses become filled with things.
	And also why women usually have entire carrier bags full of clothes to send to the charity shop or go in the bin, whereas men don't.
	throw away carrier bags for their clothes.
	Usually once the thing is starting to show the fifth hole, you get rid of it.
	There we are.
	So that's something.
	There's a lot of other ones which were good fun.
	How are you so warm?
	These are getting into the realm of Instagram memes at this point where it's just celebrating that you have a BF.
	So do you think this is low-grade memeing?
	It's quaint.
	No, no.
	It's something that's interesting.
	I thought this was a fundamental technological advance in the meme culture.
	It's aging, for sure. - Aging in what sense?
	It's older.
	The Harry Potter series was cool because it got more adult as the people who started watching the first movie got more adult.
	So by the end of it, it's an 18 plus pretty much.
	But that's great because all the people watching are 18 plus.
	And it's just kind of cute to see the people who are enjoying WoJacks getting older and having relationships and then seeing their interactions because it's exactly the same thing that their parents do.
	Oh, OK.
	So are you sort of saying that in 25 years time there's going to be WoJacks about Saga Cruises and the sun's too hot and stuff like that?
	Yes.
	And I'm suing the European Court of Human Rights for daring.
	And there's another one here.
	You see the women joining in.
	Lauren Chen.
	Guess who got engaged?
	No, I said guess.
	It's the Patrice O'Neill skit.
	Have you heard about Patrice O'Neill saying his girlfriend telling a story?
	It's like, so, do you remember Diane?
	Don't say this.
	No, I don't remember Diane.
	Yeah, you know Diane.
	Do you remember that time I took you to a party you didn't want to go to and I made you talk to a bunch of people you didn't like?
	One of them was Diane.
	And then don't say this.
	Oh yeah, I remember.
	You don't remember.
	You're just telling me that so I tell the story faster.
	Yeah, that's the other dispute I have with the wife all the time.
	It's like she'll try and tell me something and she will add in so much extraneous detail that she then has told me the thing and I have to say, sorry, I just, I didn't absorb any of it.
	Can you just give me the necessary bits that I need to know without the extraneous detail?
	And then she gets upset about that every bloody time.
	Does your wife work?
	We're a beer a couple of days a week.
	Okay, I don't want to get too personal because you never actually really know but I get this feeling that working women and women who don't work are very different in this regard.
	Well that's why I've got her working a couple of days a week because I mean she should be you know there to do the household stuff and the children but I don't want her to become one of those women who just go out to lunch all the time and goes mad.
	You've got like a fascination with carpets or something.
	You're like, oh, cool.
	Yeah.
	Jesus Christ.
	It just gets boring because there's nothing going on.
	Yeah.
	Let's enjoy some of the other women enjoying this.
	So they say, I don't want fries.
	I'll just have some of yours.
	No, you won't.
	Yeah, you can try.
	But then there's some other utilities to this other than just people sharing their relationships, which is, you know, a thing.
	There's this one.
	The diverse women, of course.
	Have you watched The Chicken?
	Are those of you married to black women?
	I'm sure you can tell us if you've ever had that conversation.
	I mean there's a WoJack, so it must be true.
	Yeah.
	I do know a lady who wants to, um...
	I mentioned chicken washing after we did the segment.
	I was like, haha, have you heard about this?
	Like black women apparently wash their chicken.
	And she was like, you don't know.
	No, I'm wrong with you.
	If I, if I, if I might contend the reason why there aren't as many black wife, Wojak ones, I looked at the divorce statistics for last year in the U S and for white people, the marriage rate, something like 35% divorce rates about 15%.
	No.
	Yes.
	Yeah, yes.
	It's about half, right?
	And the complete inverse for black Americans.
	The divorce rate is double that of the marriage rate.
	I saw a graphic on this.
	I don't know if it's true.
	It's just something you see on the internet.
	But it said the marriages between a black man and a white woman had the highest rates, and marriages between a white man and a black woman had the lowest rates of divorce.
	That sounds like an old Chris Rock joke of where he says that if you see a black man and a white woman, it's a fetish.
	If you see a white man and a black woman, you know she's in bad credit and owes him money.
	Well, the divorce never happens that way.
	So anyway, it goes on.
	There's this one here, which is another utility in which it's really good to actually just have as a response image to when you read woman moment things.
	So this is someone here making the point, I just spent the last two hours piecing together that this man doesn't eat vegetables.
	And it's just like, yeah.
	Yeah, I hear this all the time.
	It's just like, why don't you eat vegetables?
	Why would I want to?
	Don't need to.
	Chocolate and... Well, that's why you eat steak, because the cow ate the vegetables.
	Yes.
	Done the hard bit for you.
	That's a fair argument.
	There's also a point here being raised by someone, which is, do men realize what they've done by making this a meme?
	Because now you've got to make loads of women overanalyze everything and be like, I do that, I don't do that, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
	Yeah, but they do that anyway, so... That's the purpose of the meme.
	Not much change.
	Although, the meme wasn't actually made by men.
	It was made by a woman.
	And it was a woman who wanted to see herself as a WoJack, because... Yeah, woman moment.
	Because I just can't make a meme without seeing myself in it.
	But then they responded with making Husband Jacks, which are a thing.
	It's Matt Walsh.
	I don't know who actually made these, though, so I don't know if women actually made them, but there's that woman there, being like, the men realize the psychological damage they've done, and it's Husband Jack just being like, calm down.
	Shut up.
	Stop overanalyzing.
	It's annoying.
	Yeah.
	But how do you tell the woman made the husband jack?
	Because she drew herself in the memes.
	So there's that one too, of course.
	So actually, that's Luna!
	Oh blimey!
	Oh really?
	Babe, I found the best stick and then there's this guy who's blown up responding.
	You know it was made by a woman.
	Was it Luna who made the memes?
	No, no, Luna didn't make the original.
	Luna is the chocolate lady.
	Yeah, Luna, friend of the show.
	That's hilarious.
	I like Luna, she sends us chocolates.
	So then there's a load of women who started using husband jacks to just...
	Talk about things.
	So you have this one here.
	Would you love me if you're a worm?
	But you're not a worm.
	Yeah.
	Women really don't get... There's a big disconnect between men and women on this dumbass question of would you love me if I was a bird?
	Shit, stop.
	Yeah, but they want to ensure that you still have unconditional love for them because it's very costly if you stray.
	So this is an unshakable thing of female psychology that you can't get mad at.
	Can't go to dinner with a worm.
	Can't have a house with a worm.
	Can't have sex with a worm.
	Yeah.
	Sure, but you're thinking of it like a man, which is why you're frustrated.
	There was some woman posting earlier today that men don't really love women.
	In fact, your husband doesn't really love you because, you know, there's plenty of people out there he would match with.
	They've got penises, so he doesn't date them.
	So he's just liking you for your whole.
	And obviously all the normal people were just- Well, I mean, that is definitely one of the best bits of the component.
	That is what being heterosexual is?
	Yes.
	That's why I've always had the problem with the worm thing.
	It's like, would you love me a worm?
	And I'm just like, I don't fuck worms.
	Sorry.
	Another thing the wife sometimes asks me is like, oh, do you think I would- were you more attractive to me in my 20s?
	And it was like, obviously.
	You were 20.
	I mean... Did she start crying?
	I don't know.
	I was probably back at my laptop by then.
	Conversation over.
	There's been no words.
	Moving on.
	There's some other ones here.
	Did you finish from your husband Jack there?
	And then the last one being the fact that everyone was just done with this meme after about 12 hours.
	Because, good bloody god, it blew up fast and burned fast.
	Whether it'll stick around, don't know.
	I suppose we should do...
	Meme review.
	What do you boys think?
	Out of 10, does this have staying power?
	Is this useful?
	Oh, I'm gonna give it a solid 8.5.
	I think this is now part of the arsenal.
	Yes, I agree.
	It'll have public staying power as a response image, and then private staying power for whenever time your girlfriend does something cute, endearing, mildly annoying, you can just send it back at her.
	Yeah.
	I wonder if they're all the same.
	I mean, is it like... Like women?
	Yeah, because...
	All of these memes I've seen, I mean, like, yeah, they all do that.
	I mean, presumably every man everywhere is thinking, yeah, they all do that.
	So is it like, you know, because I've got, I've got a dog recently and you can just like search for their behaviours online.
	And when they do this and they circle and they sniff, it's like all of their behaviors are genetically coded in.
	And they're just transposable on all of them.
	Well, this works specifically for women in relationships.
	This is why I think it doesn't have staying power for the other ones, which are sort of like, oh, single white women encouraging intersectionality.
	And then you post this.
	That's why those aren't as potent as she does a cute, funny thing that irritates me, but I still love her for it.
	I think that will stick around.
	So I think it's an interesting meme.
	It's an interesting development for the people who are using Wojax to get older.
	And as they progress, I'm sure they will be making Carnival Cruise Line memes.
	Yes.
	What I'm deeply worried about though is when the boomers on Facebook find out about memes, because they help already, they start using the really crappy old ones with, you know, like a minion and some text, or even rage faces they've discovered now.
	Once they get a hold of WoJacks for proper, and then start using these, I suppose that's the marketplace, that's the lifestyle of memes in which they will go down the drain eventually.
	But hey-ho, pretty cool.
	I think it'll stay around for a while.
	Let's go to the video comments.
	California News, and this is a Bakersfield City Council meeting.
	And Jesus probably would have killed you himself.
	That these holidays that other people in the Global South practice, I hope one day somebody brings the guillotine and kills all of you motherfuckers.
	We'll see you at your house.
	We'll murder you.
	To eight counts of threatening a public official and ten counts.
	of making terroristic threats.
	Oh no!
	What happened?
	Oh no, how terrible!
	That's just awful!
	How terrible!
	Oh no!
	Did you see Ryanair made an advert out of Dankilor with that clip?
	Yeah.
	Wait, there was an actual Ryanair advert?
	Ryanair cut him as a sort of, like, green screen the background out, and had him board the flight, flight takes off, lands in their Dino Resort for really cheap.
	And it's Dankular.
	I thought that was... I thought somebody just made that.
	It was on the official Ryanair TikTok account, and then they removed it because people pointed out it was Count Dankular.
	Oh, right.
	Okay.
	Hey, thanks for all you guys do.
	Connor, I really enjoyed your new series.
	Thanks.
	Well, thank you very much.
	That was awesome.
	Cheers, mate.
	See you in the next one.
	As you can see from my hobbies here, I delight in nothing more than the preservation and restoration of things.
	So you'll understand the gravity in my grim resignation when I say I've come to the conclusion this cannot be fixed.
	The only potential features I see are an indefinite malaise or a catastrophic failure.
	And while the latter at least affords the potential for a revolutionary rejuvenation, historically speaking, I think we all know the most likely outcome.
	I think the absolute latest cutoff for the good times ending was 1973.
	And even that wasn't the most charming of times.
	Fifty long years and things are only getting exponentially worse.
	Will any of us live to see the end of it?
	I think the unavoidable conclusion is no.
	Yeah, just hunker down, have a family, try and get a nice house as best you can, even though it's been confiscated by the boomers, and wait for a British McKaylee to come along.
	That's all you can do, really, mate.
	And I just find the video captivating.
	You know, men doing stuff.
	I like that.
	What's your go-to?
	So there's a really good YouTube video by a guy called Bush Radical, which I watch every Christmas because it's so settling, where basically he just pitches up in the woods and proceeds to build a log cabin over the course of about two weeks.
	That's cool.
	Oh, I watch Forge and Fire clips obsessively.
	Just blokes making knives out of, like, car springs and elevator cables and smashing things.
	Ooh, that sounds good.
	Send that to me.
	Yeah, yeah, we'll do, yeah.
	Yes.
	I was just reminded that in the English nightlife, girls are actually instructing each other that if you have unwanted attention that doesn't want to leave you alone, you'll go find the biggest white guy in the room and pretend that he's your boyfriend.
	You basically say, oh darling, there you are, I couldn't find you and nine out of ten times the white guy will figure it out and play along and the unwanted will leave you alone.
	So, English girls know.
	Most of them already know, but they don't want to say anything because they are terrified of being deemed politically incorrect.
	I got roped into that once.
	Me not thinking, also, because she wasn't very pretty.
	Some guy was trying to chat her up, and he just turned around.
	She was sitting next to me, because we were at a group table.
	He just went, is that your boyfriend?
	And she went, yeah.
	And I just went, no.
	You arse caller.
	You're supposed to be a white knight!
	Which wasn't fair.
	Alright, fair enough.
	Oh, is that all the media comments?
	Oh, there's one more.
	I rediscovered the comedies of Laurel and Hardy.
	They're around a hundred years old and yet still set a benchmark for slapstick and physical humour.
	To many of the younger, they may seem simplistic and even trite.
	However, I consider it woeful that so many of today's supposed comics and writers appear to dismiss these works.
	They seem to want sophistication, but descend into sophistry.
	Saw some of them growing up.
	Yep.
	Right, okay.
	I'll tackle the... Has anyone got them up already?
	Because I haven't got access to the screen at the moment.
	Donta says, Hi Calum, bit off topic, but the Fallout TV series came up on my birthday.
	What a nice gift.
	After some comments online, I've decided not to watch it, in case I ruin a special day.
	How did you enjoy the show?
	I think it depends on whether or not you like Fallout, and if you do, there's going to be a lot of problems.
	If not, there's already some writing problems.
	To be fair, the problems that you noticed, so you're probably a bit deeper in this than I am, but I mean I've played most of the Fallout games, and for me it was just fine.
	You finished it?
	No, I've done the first two episodes.
	Once you finish the TV series you'll notice loads of shit just didn't make any fucking sense.
	Like the funniest one, do you mind if I spoil it for you or not?
	Yes.
	But I won't.
	Go to my tweets, it's all there.
	And the last thing there being, uh, Sand Wings Raging for 20 bucks says, keep up the good work, Lotus Eaters.
	Thank you very much, Sand Wings!
	We have Count Dankula's video.
	Oh yes, here it is.
	So this is Ryan stealing Count Dankula's content.
	Oh no!
	What?
	What happened?
	What ha- Oh no, how terrible!
	That's just- That's just awful!
	How terrible!
	Oh no!
	Genuinely good, though.
	It's actually quite good.
	I quite like that one.
	Right, Omar Awad.
	Yes, because they know if they go over there and sit in the road they will be killed.
	Charles Francis Montgomery Galliard Oliver.
	That's quite a name.
	The ECHR went off reservation in 1972.
	It should have been shut then.
	It should be ordering us to deport foreign rapists to protect women.
	Oh, quite.
	Bradley M, after the stabbing at the mall, which we're assured has nothing to do with the religion of peace, Bishop Mare Imanu and four others were attacked during service.
	I saw the video of that, it's out there online.
	I'm wondering how much longer people are going to pretend to not notice what's happening.
	Well, hundreds of churches have been burned down in France and Canada.
	If you didn't think Notre Dame was too far, or the Manchester Arena bombing, or the Reading stabbing, or the London Bridge attack, or the Nottingham stabbing, or see all of the above, Nothing will do it for them at this point, mate.
	O Punk says, $5.
	The well-being of the people is the highest law.
	Cicero, 50 BC.
	Laws should be beneficial to the society that made them.
	Yeah, but the point is that the laws don't actually govern the society.
	The people that apply the laws govern society.
	And so if the people don't have consideration for the other people that the laws apply to, then the laws aren't worth the paper they're written on.
	Constitutions don't matter.
	It's the people upholding them.
	Kevin Fox.
	Straight from the UK government website regarding permanent residency in the UK, a person who has lived in the UK for a long period but has not been lawfully and continuously a resident may be eligible to apply under the long residence route.
	So it's not just the ECHR having us over, it's the own government doing it.
	Yeah, of course.
	Well, I know that.
	It's just they constantly seek the ECHR.
	So if we can break all of these legal shackles and then someone sensible wants to come over and rewrite the English law, then we're in a much better position to do so.
	One more from me.
	Dang Tub, aka Bank With A Brain.
	You alright there?
	Did you send this one?
	No.
	The ECHR is designed to... Wait, did somebody set their name to that?
	Yep.
	Someone set their username as Carl's Built Like A Fridge the other day, so I can't wait for my one.
	The ECHR is designed to enforce the rights of those who do not care for our own.
	It is the formal sacrificing of the people of this country for the rhetoric of our rulers.
	Quite.
	It's the Aztec priest style ripping out the heart of the future on the altar of the boomer truth paradigm.
	But anyway, Dan.
	Yes.
	Alex Ogle says, Yes.
	Iraq learnt the challenge of invading Iran during its conflict.
	Iran is hugely defensible.
	You can only take Tehran from the Caspian, and those states need to be brought on board.
	Dan is right.
	Yes, top comment, that.
	Alex says, I can't wait for Biden to send us into yet another war for a country that is not actually an ally.
	And that's interesting.
	So I don't know if he's talking about Israel there, but yeah, Israel technically actually isn't a US ally.
	There's no, there's never been a formal declaration of allegiance between those two.
	It's just, it's just a thing.
	Well, that's because the US global American empire helped set it up at the expense of... Well, there is that, yes.
	And offers no strategic value, so we can just bomb a country that isn't actually our enemy because Israel says so.
	I really hate how much power and influence Israel has over my government.
	Does it offer no strategic value?
	Because I would have thought that oil reserves and also a situation at the Russian, base of Russia, no?
	There's no oil.
	None at all?
	There's none in Israel.
	No, not Israel, Iran, I was saying.
	Oh, they're saying that Israel doesn't offer any strategic value.
	Right, okay, understood.
	You've got other allies, they've got bases, you don't have to deal with any international flak, there's no constant bullshit.
	It's just got a position at the bottom of the Mediterranean.
	I mean, it is hard to see what strategic value it does offer.
	It keeps the Arabs fighting something, but then that also makes the Arabs hate you, which isn't fun.
	Yes, quite a good point.
	This is what I was trying to get at with the insanity of US policy, where it's like we're tied to Israel because of Israeli and Jewish influence in the United States.
	But then we're also trying to make friends with the Arabs in the form of Saudis.
	And then we're also trying to forcefully now after the Cold War reorganize the Middle East to be on our side with Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria were the three big plays and Libya, I suppose.
	So you're trying to get the Arabs on side and the Israelis on your... This won't work.
	Yes, clearly.
	This is just mad.
	Well, and I don't think it's related to the Palestinian issue, but MBS in Saudi, I mean he just clearly despises Biden.
	Utterly despises him.
	There's no respect for him because he's incompetent.
	Yeah, and as I said on all the oil stuff, he's clearly working to sort of undermine his interests.
	Kevin Fox says Afghanistan would probably let the US bases from there to attack Iran on the understanding when the battles over the US did like they did before and left all the equipment behind.
	Yes, yes, quite a good comment that.
	Miss Rat says, well if you try saying no, they'll kick down your front door and drag you out your house and dump you in the back of a Humvee.
	You'll go for a detox, be put into boot camp, you wash out, you'll become a keyboard jockey.
	There's always plenty of paperwork to be filed in the military.
	Yes, probably.
	Sophie says, the Zoomers deserve to be drafted.
	I mean, it would be a great sorting mechanism, wouldn't it?
	I mean, it'd be unfortunate for the Zoomers, but presumably the ones that made it back wouldn't be... Oh, yeah, of course.
	...the best of them, I would have thought.
	I mean, with some exceptions.
	The Proletariat says, I'm glad I'm a wielder.
	Even if there was a draft, they'd like to keep me at home for building war material.
	Much of it is made of steel, I suppose it's that.
	Mr. Award says, as tensions in the Middle East ramp up, the US Army suddenly started putting out a bunch of white men in the ads.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, I mean, Ukraine's obviously got to the point now where they're calling people Down Syndrome.
	Oh, I saw that video, yeah.
	Yes, right.
	And Rue the Day says, I don't know, Dan, the bisexual Zoom is making a smidgen of sense, but then again, we've seen being mentally retarded does not excuse one from being thrown in the trench and being told to earn his gun.
	Yeah, I mean, Ukraine's obviously got to the point now where they're deploying people with Down syndrome, so...
	Oh, I saw that video, yeah.
	Yeah, I'm not sure what...
	what strategic value the battalion of potato waffen has, but...
	Oh!
	You know, that's where they've got to.
	Yeah, I suppose that's one advantage if we ever go to war with Pakistan.
	I don't mean to be mean.
	I'm very much on their side.
	I don't think them and anyone else should be drafted.
	And Charles Francis Montgomery says, hard at work lol see what you did there.
	I'm stealing that.
	So, yeah, it's one of my many witticisms.
	Alrighty, on the wife jacks.
	Screwtape Blazer says the wife jack is a trap boys, it's a trojan horse like the suffragette movement.
	In what way?
	He doesn't go on to explain, so we have no idea.
	I wonder if they're insisting that this is normalizing sort of irrational little female behaviors and therefore just putting up with it and making a joke out of it is stopping men from pushing against it but it's like that's just female nature mate.
	Get mad at it or be alone.
	He didn't explain.
	The Texas girl says my husband sent me like six of those memes after I went to bed last night so apparently it's literally me.
	Although I do feel like this is very Nothing really, it's just women do this, haha, men do this.
	I'm thinking of, if you've been on Instagram.
	Yes.
	I have an Instagram account, yes.
	Go on Instagram and just neutral account and what you will get is endless dating videos and then those cat things that are either dancing or angry at each other and it's meant to be me and my boyfriend.
	My missus sends me those all the time, yep.
	That's all this is but the Twitter version by the looks of it.
	I'm glad my wife doesn't use Instagram now.
	Geordie Swordsman says, if she asked, would you love me if I were a worm?
	She is not making a God Emperor of Dune reference.
	Do not make this mistake.
	Okay.
	Lord Nerevar says, I hate the fact that the Husband Jack looks exactly like me.
	Connor knows what I'm talking about.
	A little bit, yeah.
	It looks way more like Matt Walsh.
	Especially the checkered shirt.
	I wish they did Arthur instead.
	Chance Bell says, my wife reads fantasy books.
	Often she gets excited and wants to tell me about them.
	And every time I want to be supportive of her interests and feign interest.
	She tells me the entire convoluted dramatic plots and I just end up drooling 12 minutes later when she finishes.
	God bless her.
	I do the inverse with all of DC continuity.
	George Hap says, the wife Mina's pretty fun and wholesome.
	Glad the normies were able to get a new toy to play with.
	Yeah.
	Rue the Day says, women, is this some kind of personal attack?
	Me, also a woman.
	Dude, you gotta chill.
	No one thinks about you.
	Woo!
	Kevin Fox says, my wife had a wardrobe in the spare bedroom.
	In addition to the two-an-hour bedroom that was just full of clothes she had brought, got home, tried them on.
	She usually brought them from the market and found they didn't fit her and she didn't like them.
	Does anyone else have the phenomena of the wife having the predominance of the wardrobe space in the bedroom and then also having a dressing room as well?
	Yes.
	So my wife's got all of that.
	She's got the embedded wardrobe.
	I think she's got three wardrobes now, and then she's got another room with two wardrobes in.
	So I've been relegated entirely, so I now just... I mean, my office is quite big, so I just keep all my clothes in there.
	In the chest of drawers.
	Yes.
	One chest of drawers, one wardrobe.
	Yep.
	Yes.
	You ever look at rich people houses?
	Like proper rich bitch houses, like the multi-bedroom millionaires?
	Yeah.
	It's just way too many rooms for any man.
	You can tell no man would ever purchase that if he was single, that's the thing.
	Yeah, I did once know a very rich single man, and I'm going to mess up the context here, but basically he was getting a whole bunch of champagne delivered for some party he was going to have, and he was like, oh god, what am I going to do with this, because it needs to be stored like this.
	And anyway, I see him a couple of days later, and he says, oh yeah, I found a room I didn't know I had, so I just put it in there.
	On that note, we're out of time.

▲