Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 27, 2024 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:31:06

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #987

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to Podcast of the Lotus Eaters.
	This is episode 987 on the 27th of August, Tuesday apparently, and I'm joined by Beau, Boston and Carl.
	Hello.
	So, yes, welcome chaps.
	Now, oh yes, so this show is going to be about how the police are demoralised, which is obviously a dreadful shame, how Bidenomics always has been and always will be a scam, and I can prove that, and re-migration is going to happen.
	So there we go, quite a cheerful episode this one.
	Also, we've got the 1000th podcast coming up, so I don't know whether that's going to be like the millennium bug or something where we go up to 1000 and then we hard reset down to just you and calendar.
	It's on Friday the 13th, so who knows?
	Right, okay.
	Well, that one, I mean, apparently I'm in that one.
	So, in fact, we're all in it.
	So that should be a big one.
	Yeah, presumably.
	Yeah, we'll do the podcast normally.
	We'll have an extended podcast where we just, you know, answer questions, send in your video comments and questions so we can talk about them and things like that.
	That should be good.
	So make sure you're there for the historic moment of the 1000th Lotus Eaters episode.
	Also, in other news, there will be no Broconomics today.
	Boo!
	But there will be a roundtable at three o'clock on how the state kills dissidents.
	You've had an idea, Karl.
	What's the idea?
	Well, it's not necessarily an idea.
	It's just an observable reality that the state and the media and the entire apparatus are Well, they kind of want you to die, and they have a plan in place for how that can be achieved.
	That's certainly the feedback I'm getting from you.
	I'm not even overstating this, at all.
	No, not at all.
	We have examples of this, so we'll talk about it.
	Well, I have thoughts on that, and we're all on it, so we should have a good chat.
	So, that brings us to our first topic, which is apparently the police are a bit demoralised.
	Yeah, the police in this country are completely demoralised and, well, I mean, I'd have a lot more sympathy if they weren't constantly persecuting us.
	To be fair, right, the low-level ones, they're not so bad.
	Well, some of them are now.
	Well, that's the thing, isn't it?
	I think, and we'll get into this, but there's been a kind of changing of the guard in the police, and so the old-style constabulary types, who were respectable and were doing the right thing, seem to be being phased out in favour of the high-vis foot soldiers of the regime.
	We could call them stormtroopers.
	I mean, certainly the higher ranks at this point, they're just all nutters.
	Completely.
	But it's filtering through the institution, as you can imagine.
	So, I mean, you'll remember that a couple of weeks ago now, in fact, well, almost a month ago now, there were, of course, far-right protests in the wake of the stabbing of eight children and the deaths of three of them.
	And this caused riots all over the country and 90 arrests on the day but obviously hundreds of arrests subsequently or social media posts or other things that were considered to be naughty.
	I mean I know I'm being pedantic but they were called far-right protests they weren't actually far-right protests.
	Sure.
	To be honest with you I don't even know I mean it depends how we're defining far-right since it's never defined.
	Yeah well anyone who isn't a communist Yeah, well, if the far right is the normal, native, patriotic British types who are like, I actually don't want children to be stabbed.
	Okay, if that's far right.
	I mean, if you were calling them Nazis or fascists, you'd just say Nazis or fascists.
	So the fact that you're not calling them Nazis or fascists, but you're calling them far right implies there's a distinction between the two.
	And I actually think that there's some truth to this.
	Because these people are not ideological, I don't think.
	I don't think they have like a, you know, A well-thought-out manifesto or anything.
	I think they're just people naturally responding in a very human way, and they responded by getting arrested.
	90 of them, anyway.
	And so, on Sunday was the beginning of the Notting Hill Carnival that we covered yesterday, and yesterday was a celebration of London's diversity after these racist attacks.
	Wasn't that lucky?
	So, we're told, and this is very informative, that in 1959, a Trinidadian activist, Claudia Jones, organised a Caribbean carnival at St Pancras Town Hall in response to race riots planting the seed for the Notting Hill Carnival.
	How nice.
	She was a communist immigrant.
	She'd gone from Trinidad and Tobago to the United States.
	She had become the black feminist leader in the Communist Party.
	And then she came here to Well, gift us this celebration of diversity.
	Well, that wasn't the reason she had come, but she came here to continue spreading race communism and the Notting Hill... I'm probably asking a bit much.
	Does it mention how many stabbings there were in year one?
	It doesn't.
	Right.
	But she had returned to... Part of her legacy was to grace us with the Notting Hill Carnival.
	So it's the product of a race communist.
	I've been to the Notting Hill Carnival three times, certainly twice.
	It's well crap.
	Like, regardless of stabbings or anything, it's really crap.
	You stand there and a load of trash goes by, a load of nonsense goes by, and then you're like, okay, it's not fun or good in any way.
	I mean, it just, it's not the sort of thing I'd want to go to.
	Yeah, I've been a couple of times and it's just like, why the hell would I come back?
	But anyway, as they tell us, Ravellers on Monday, the second day of the year's carnival, said that Jones's message of unity had never been more important.
	Right, so these people embrace the teachings of a communist, right?
	After racist riots in late July were sparked by false information online about the suspected killer of three young girls in the Southport event.
	True, that was a second-generation Rwandan immigrant who died.
	Also information spread by a Pakistani national from Pakistan.
	Yeah, who got arrested for that, weirdly.
	And then the charges dropped.
	And then the charges dropped, yeah.
	Great.
	Great how that works, isn't it?
	No information as to why he did that, he just made up a name that was fake, but anyway.
	Matthew Phillip, the Notting Hill Carnival's Chief Executive, told Reuters, the event was Britain's biggest celebration of inclusion.
	One of the things we have in common, rather than focusing on our differences.
	The Notting Hill Carnival was born in response to racist riots, race equality think tank Runnymede Trust said.
	Oh, Runnymede Trust.
	I'm not gonna get you started, right?
	It's just where the Magna Carta was signed, but now we're for foreigners, you see.
	These events, and divisive rhetoric which fueled them, feel painfully relevant today.
	And other carnival goers said, it's all about celebrating each other, and about respecting each other.
	It's all about love.
	Sure.
	So there are a lot of stabbings.
	There are a lot of stabbings.
	I mean, one mother is currently fighting for her life after being stabbed.
	32 year old woman remains in critical condition in the hospital after she was attacked at the event.
	In front of her kids, I understand.
	In front of her kids.
	And this was on the Sunday.
	So it was broken into two days.
	The Sunday was the sort of pre-carnival, a family event, it was called.
	The family day and the Monday bank holiday is the main carnival.
	Does anyone know what the difference is apart from you're slightly less likely to get stabbed on the family day?
	Well I mean they just call it quote a family and children's day which includes a children's parade and carnival while the bank holiday Monday's billed as the adults day.
	So it's kind of a tacit message if you could possibly leave your stabbings until tomorrow that'd be much appreciated.
	Yeah well I mean the Met Police were like well...
	So as you can see, there were three stabbings on the Sunday.
	Lots of other different various crimes.
	Wait, all of that is just the family day?
	That's the family day.
	90 arrests, 10 assaults on emergency.
	So basically what I'm looking at here is that all of this is an order of magnitude above the far right.
	Oh yeah, but we haven't even got to the Monday yet.
	Yeah, I know.
	So let's get to the Monday as well.
	So there were three stabbings.
	I mean, I don't mean to laugh, but it's just ridiculous to say.
	So on the family day, there were three stabbings.
	On the main carnival day, there were another five.
	Right.
	And as you can see, there's lots of other arrests and assaults.
	So in total, there were eight stabbings between both days.
	50 officers were assaulted, 320 arrests, 12 sexual assaults, 67 offensive weapons seized, so knives and machetes, and one gun.
	Well thank god they weren't white, because otherwise it would have been, you know, Starmer would be like having laser eyes all over the place.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Starmer would say, well hang on a second, surely this lawless criminality is not acceptable.
	We don't institute 24-hour courts, which we happen to have running right now, to deal with these criminals.
	Surely these are all going to end up in jail, we're going to release a bunch of other criminals to get these criminals in jail.
	Probably not, because of the ethnic makeup of the people at the carnival.
	He actually hasn't mentioned this, but we'll get into it in a minute.
	So, we've got the previous year's Notting Hill Carnival data, which is just remarkable.
	So, as you can see, in 2017, 2018, and 2019, there were 12, 7, and 18 stabbings.
	None of them fatal, though, so that's nice.
	They didn't actually die, they survived.
	Gentle shiving in the flank, not a full-blown... Medical technology has advanced sufficiently that these people won't die.
	There wasn't a carnival in 2020 and 2021 for, of course, Covid reasons.
	In 2022 there were seven stabbings, including one fatal.
	And 2023, ten stabbings, no fatal.
	So on average, the Notting Hill Carnival for the last, like, six years has had 10.8 stabbings per carnival.
	And this one only had eight.
	So it's actually below average.
	So, in a way, we should kind of congratulate them for the restraint.
	It's funny, you go to an air show in Germany or something.
	Yeah.
	It's almost entirely white.
	Yeah.
	No stabbings.
	Or Glastonbury Festival.
	Yeah.
	A billion people there, almost entirely white and no stabbings.
	I bet whatever the Japanese do for festivals doesn't involve stabbings either.
	Yeah.
	Some sort of common denominator in this stabbing business.
	Yeah, but as you can see, that cost nearly £12 million for this festival, for the police to police it.
	God only knows how much worse it'd be if they weren't there.
	So they spend millions of pounds on it, they coordinate it for a year because they've got a CEO and presumably they've got a whole bunch of other staff.
	All of that coordination, all of that police support, all of that money You still get 10 stabbings and that whole other laundry list of stuff, whereas when the white working class came out on the streets... Yeah, we'll get to it.
	So, this was a classic image from 2023, where carnival goers were expressing their diverse culture.
	I feel enriched.
	And the London Assembly has made a note of this and said, well, hang on a second.
	There appears to be a slight disproportionate... I mean, as you can see, the diversity of that crowd, right?
	There's a sort of disproportionate number of machete attacks and stabbings that are coming out of the black community.
	I mean, as the London Assembly tells us, quote, despite making up only 13% of London's total population, black Londoners account for 45% of knife murder victims, 61% of knife murder perpetrators and 53% of knife crime perpetrators.
	And they're concerned about these figures and how they're affecting the black community and therefore demand a commission to look into it.
	Now, Sadiq Khan has left them on read, as far as I'm aware.
	Being the Mayor, he, well, theoretically answers to the Assembly.
	But nothing has happened out of it, as far as I'm aware.
	That was only two years ago.
	He doesn't, he just stonewalls them anyway, doesn't he?
	Yeah, yeah.
	Have you ever seen clips from the thing?
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	He's a total prick to them.
	He'll just lie to their face, he'll just not answer their question.
	He really does think he's above it.
	And so, nothing has happened out of that.
	Now, like you were saying, well, okay.
	We had a giant Patriot rally.
	Yeah, 27th of July.
	Somewhere between 50,000 and 100,000 people attended it.
	I spoke at it, and it was a wonderful and peaceful day.
	Zero stabbings, actually.
	There were a couple of things, though.
	I mean, there was five people arrested.
	Two men were arrested on suspicion of GBH-level assault because a stand-up-to-racism counter-demonstration.
	Someone from that got assaulted, so two men were arrested.
	A member of public was arrested on suspicion of assaulting a steward at Trans Pride.
	Which I didn't even realize was going on at the same time.
	So, there's quite a difference in the tone of the crimes committed there.
	racially aggravated public order offence after allegedly snapping a Palestinian flag and making a racially abusive remark.
	So, there's quite a difference in the tone of the crimes committed there.
	Zero stabbings, zero firearms, zero drug offences, it seems.
	Political complaints mostly because of the racially, quote, racially aggravated order offences.
	And two men and punched someone from stand-up to racism.
	Oh no.
	Yeah.
	So, massive and marked difference.
	Now, Stammer gave a speech today, which we'll probably talk about another time, just because the speech itself was just horrific.
	But in this speech, Stammer absolutely does not mention, in any way, the Chaos of the Notting Hill Carnival.
	He does, of course, go on about the far-right riots from earlier this month, non-stop, saying how this is unacceptable, he's not listening to people's concerns, etc, etc.
	He's not interested in the fact that those riots weren't actually lethal or potentially lethal, because of course no one got stabbed, and of course eight people got stabbed at this year's Notting Hill Carnival.
	It doesn't matter.
	That is not how that matters.
	I mean, you've got to admire the way that he's just... I mean, I know he's pushing back against the two-tier stuff, but he just doesn't make any argument against it whatsoever.
	I mean, he's just fully committed to white guys are bad.
	Yeah, 100% at this point.
	It's a total invisibility cloak that any minority ethnic communities have.
	It doesn't matter what they do.
	I mean, if there was even half of the stabbings or troublemaking at any of the sort of patriot rallies that we've been holding, they'd be banned instantly.
	If the Tommy protests had 10% of what went on, Yeah, just one stabbing, it would be over.
	Like, this is never happening again.
	And so, you can see from the top down, there's an entire area of British society that is essentially lawless.
	As in, the law does not apply to them in the same way that it applies to the rest of society.
	Outlaws, outside the law.
	Well, the thing is, yes, but above the law, I think is a better way of putting it.
	Because outlaws are people who can essentially be attacked on sight and their attackers won't be prosecuted.
	Yeah, that's fair.
	The people who are above the law are the ones doing the attacking, in a way.
	So, this just puts us in a position where you've got Crimes that are committed predominantly by minority ethnic communities are not policed in the same way.
	Now, this of course to the average member of the British public is a horrific thing to have to deal with, but it must actually be even worse for the police because our exposure to this level of criminality is Moderately rare.
	But the police are going to be exposed to this all the time, and often told by their seniors, essentially, just let it go.
	Now this is a report the Times has done on how police officers have almost, quote, entirely ceased punishing shoplifters.
	Despite the number of offences soaring to record levels, an analysis of the official figures reveals.
	Insiders fear the almost total lack of law enforcement is encouraging further criminal behaviour, with thieves feeling as though they will never be held responsible for their offences.
	Now this is what Keir Starmer said in his speech about the white working class rioters.
	He said no, they were relying on the system being broken.
	I mean, I don't think they were.
	So he said that about the working class?
	Yeah, he said that about the Southport riots, right?
	Now I don't think that was the case.
	I don't think these people have any deep knowledge of how broken the internal system of the police or the legal system is.
	I don't think they have much engagement with that at all.
	I think they were just acting out of a genuine sort of Rage at what's being allowed to happen to them.
	However, in this case, the thieves are exactly doing that.
	They feel they will never be held responsible for offences.
	So you can see the two-tier nature of two-tier care here.
	And they give examples of just how, in March, this year to March this year, 431 shoplifters were handed fixed penalty notices.
	This is a 98% drop from a decade ago when 19,419 were issued.
	And the majority of police forces didn't issue a single penalty for shoplifting over the last year.
	Now, this is probably quite a demoralising thing for the police.
	It's like, right, so we're not even doing our jobs.
	This is just, this should be the bread and butter of the police.
	Low level criminality.
	I know a couple of guys serving in the police and when you ask them what their job is and they just tell you I'm a social worker.
	Not what they signed up for, I imagine.
	No.
	I imagine they signed up to try and make the world a better place.
	And so you've got just this continual decline.
	I mean, they say that other more serious forms of punishment are also sharply done.
	Cautions, blah blah blah.
	There's just a genuine decline in punishment for criminality.
	And it's got to the point now where apparently the violent offenders are basically getting let off if they just say sorry to the police.
	Because it's violent offenders now, not shoplifters.
	Yep, yep.
	So can you do that if you tweeted something that Starmer doesn't like?
	Can you then just say sorry, or do you still go to jail for 20 months?
	Weirdly, you still go to jail for almost two years.
	Right.
	As the Telegraph are reporting here, police are increasingly letting knife and sex offenders escape prosecution if they say sorry, the Telegraph can reveal.
	147,000 people accused of offences, including sex crimes, violence, and weapons possessions, were handed community resolutions in the year up until March instead of being prosecuted.
	Such resolutions do not result in a criminal record.
	So you can be a sex offender, the police catch you in the act, and you say, look, I am dreadfully sorry about this.
	In my culture, this is just normal.
	The police go, well, he doesn't need a record then.
	Let him go.
	So we don't have two-tier policing, and yet the expectations are that with white working class, you need to jail them for, you know, something close to two years.
	Yeah.
	In all circumstances and you need to let people who've been involved in murders out of jail in order to make the space to put them in.
	Yeah.
	But if you're not white, then basically simply getting them to acknowledge that what they did wasn't correct is considered punishment enough.
	Just to be clear, this isn't broken down by ethnicity.
	Well it is though isn't it?
	In a way yes but officially this isn't broken down by ethnicity so this is just criminals are basically being let off just criminals in the same way that just a man has been arrested for stabbing.
	When you say it's not broken down by race but the sentencing guidelines for judges That is.
	And if you come from a disadvantaged background and then go on to spell out what a disadvantaged background is and it's basically not being white, then you basically get less jail time or whatever.
	So just to give you the stats for this, more than 147,000 people were accused of
	Offences including sex crimes, violence and weapons possession which were handed down the community resolutions and the police guidelines say that community resolutions should be restricted to low-level crimes with offenders required to apologize to the victim and accept responsibility for their crime and offer some form of recompense but the resolutions which issued at the discretion of individual officers have increased by 40% since 2019 when a hundred thousand were recorded and are now nearly twice as likely as criminal charge
	According to an analysis of Ministry of Justice data.
	So it's just, well, are you sorry that you stabbed that person?
	Whether you raped that person?
	Whatever it is.
	And you say, at the discretion of the officer?
	Yeah.
	Let's say you were an officer who decided that you were just gonna, your discretion was that you were just gonna charge them every time.
	How long do you think you'd remain an officer?
	You would definitely have, that would probably definitely raise up flags, right?
	And the thing is, again, if you're a police officer, you're working in the force, you're looking at the institutions behind you and being like, it's just not worth me going through the hassle, the paperwork, putting him through the institution.
	I've got to fill out letter forms for nothing to happen on the back end.
	Because of course, we did have them saying, look, stop sending convicted criminals to prison.
	Actually, that's another thing one of my mates in the force has said, that he goes to court for burglaries a lot.
	It's very rare for him to get out the court faster than the person who did the burglary, even if they're convicted.
	They will be let out and then he'll have to do a load of paperwork and they'll be out on the streets several hours before him.
	So it's not worth their time, the prisons are overcrowded, everything about the institutions is either politically correct or overburdened, and they're just saying, look, just don't bother about crime.
	What I find odd is that it's at the discretion of individual officers.
	Usually it used to be that the police investigate things and it was up to the Crown Prosecution Service to decide if there should be an actual trial and things.
	But now they just let the police officers decide that.
	Yeah, the politically correct police officers of vice and virtue.
	Actually, can I give a... I'll be quick on this.
	Yeah, go ahead.
	I knew an old boy who was a young lieutenant during the Second World War and for whatever reason, he was quite young so he wasn't sent out, but his job was, he was given a couple of men and he was told to patrol the London docks and he was given total discretion on how to police the London docks during the war, as you can kind of imagine he would.
	Basically, the way it broke down is he found this guy stealing a wheel of cheese.
	So he said to him, if you do that again, I'm going to shoot you.
	Right, off you go.
	Put the cheese back.
	Anyway, the next day he comes back and the guy's stealing another wheel of cheese.
	So he puts him up against a wall and he has him shot.
	Jesus.
	Yeah.
	Right, that is proper discretion on policing, right?
	But it works, because apparently nobody stole anything from that dock while he was patrolling it again.
	Can't say he wasn't given fair work.
	That is policing discretion that works.
	It is.
	But anyway, getting back to the prisons.
	We are well aware that they're overcrowded, but the condition of the prisons itself is terrible.
	And that's kind of all part of the plan.
	In fact, that's one of the things we're going to be talking about in the roundtable discussion this afternoon.
	So if you're watching this on YouTube, come over to LowCities.com.
	It will be up by the time you get this clip.
	For the rest of you watching live, come watch us in half an hour.
	You can't build new prisons.
	You can build a quarter of a million houses a year, but you can't build new prisons.
	That's not true, they have built new prisons.
	I know, I'm being sarcastic.
	There's not nearly enough new prisons, because remember, 1.2, 1.4 million new people in a year, and the prisons are disproportionately ethnic minority.
	So there's a natural problem with that, and so just like the housing crisis, they can build them, they just can't build them fast enough.
	So, this was the statement that the police put out after the further violence at the Notting Hill Carnival.
	And, again, you know when Mark Rowley was asked about two-tier policing, he just grabbed the mic and slammed it to the floor?
	Well, you could tell that that was an expression of a deep tension that's clearly within the force itself with the events that are happening.
	Well, this is another one of those.
	They say, Met appeals for the public's help to tackle further violence at Carnival.
	Now, we are already aware that this community isn't particularly favourable towards the police.
	They don't like cooperating with them.
	They've got to kind of snitches get, well, literal stitches in this.
	And what was the name of that communist activist woman?
	Sasha Johnson.
	That's it, Sasha Johnson, who currently sits in a wheelchair because she was accidentally shot.
	I'm not sure she's even in a wheelchair.
	I think she's still in a hospital bed.
	Is she still with us at all?
	I saw a picture of her in a wheelchair.
	No, I think that one was faked.
	I think she hasn't regained consciousness.
	Oh, really?
	Okay.
	Well, she was a communist black activist who was just a race communist who was concerned about white supremacy and how it was damaging her community and then she went to a house party at three in the morning on a Sunday and there was a shooting and got shot in the head by accident.
	And nobody saw anything.
	And none of her community will help find the perpetrator.
	And so I suspect that the stabbings in this regard that they're asking for, help with, will be treated the same.
	As they say, quote, this was supposed to be a family day, a celebration suitable for all ages.
	One of those in hospital, a 32 year old woman, remains in condition, remains critical, was there with her young child.
	Quote, we are tired of saying the same words every year.
	We're tired of telling families that their loved ones are seriously injured or worse.
	We're tired of seeing crime scenes at Carnival.
	Carnival is a community event and the vast majority of people come to celebrate, to dance, to enjoy music and have a fantastic experience.
	It is the responsibility of all who value this event, who want to see it as a celebration that it should be, to speak out and speak up about the violence that continues to overshadow it.
	Isn't that an interesting statement?
	The police have just got to the point, look, we're just exhausted.
	We are exhausted every single time.
	This community does something terrible and no one cooperates with us.
	We can't resolve the problem.
	We can't resolve any other bloody crimes either.
	And even if we did, the courts would be like, we're not sending prisons.
	Prisons are full.
	It's like that film Perch.
	They just need to make it like that.
	They should just say whatever happens on this day happens.
	We're just staying out.
	We just fence it off.
	Anyone who comes out alive and fine.
	Like 1984, anything that happens among the proles is not the business of the party or the Ministry of Love or anything.
	It's just let them do whatever they're going to do.
	I mean, they want to solve the problems.
	They just don't have any method of doing it because the politically correct police have got No way of identifying and tracking these things.
	But anyway, so this is leading to massive numbers of resignations of police officers across England and Wales.
	Massive numbers.
	So as you can see, the numbers in 2022-2023 were nearly five times higher than those leading in 2012.
	Are the anarcho-tyranny plans working?
	It 100% is.
	I mean, they are just shedding police officers at that kind of rate.
	Maybe during their next mandatory diversity, equity, inclusion course that they go on, they could ask them why they're all thinking of quitting.
	You know what is interesting?
	They do do that.
	They absolutely do do that.
	And so when asked, we'll scroll down, they've got various tables of the data of how people are leaving.
	And they do ask them the main reasons for leaving.
	You can see lack of flexibility.
	Wow, one of those numbers is a lot bigger than the other.
	Lack of recognition, lack of career development and progression, the working hours and the shifts, the pay and the benefits, discrimination, harassment or bullying, the working conditions, health and well-being, blah blah blah blah blah.
	But then disillusionment with policing or the Met is nearly a quarter of those reasons.
	Which doesn't actually get to the crux of it, does it?
	Disillusionment.
	Why are you disillusioned?
	Why though?
	Well, they can't put it on a form like this, but I think we know what they're striving at, don't we?
	Probably, yeah.
	They'd probably find themselves going to jail for citing... And then other people can say that the police are institutionally racist.
	Yeah.
	Again.
	And so, the police themselves, and like you said, these are going to be the good people in the police.
	Who don't think the police and the police system or the Met should be operating in this way.
	We're going to be losing the half-decent people.
	To replace them... So I reckon all the good police are A. Not in a senior rank or retired and B. They're either waiting for their retirement or C. They're leaving.
	Yeah, I agree.
	So you're going to be left with the, well, the stormtroopers.
	Yeah.
	Genuinely the sort of police of diversity and inclusion.
	Yeah, the people who actually believe that shit.
	Yeah, the true believers who think this is how things should be.
	Which is not good news going into the future, but I think what it shows is that the institution itself is in trouble when it's being run like this.
	And I think that we're seeing sort of, you know, excesses coming through the cracks at this point.
	I don't think it's a good state for them to be in.
	But anyway, I'll leave that there.
	I suppose I'll say this while we're in between segments.
	That's how militias start, eventually.
	If you look at the Balkans, In the Balkans, you know, the police just simply wouldn't protect Serbs.
	Yeah.
	And the other way round, in different enclaves, in different places.
	And so people were like, well, I'm not just going to watch my family get butchered at some point, so I'm going to do something about it.
	Duh-duh-duh-duh-duh, militias.
	Duh-duh-duh-duh-duh, civil war.
	Yeah.
	I'm just saying, it's not good stuff.
	There was a Rumble rant from Caleb Knight who says, I feel bad for any pure-hearted policeman, but man, the normal eyes, the normies I think, can be ignorant to the deeper causes, huh?
	As a white pill, my younger brother just got out of the military.
	My younger brother just out of the military.
	My younger, just-out-of-military friend is based just ignorant.
	Well, that's good, I guess.
	But yeah, you are right.
	The average normie must just be like, Jesus, what is happening around me?
	Anyway.
	So let's talk about Bidenomics, because it turns out it was all fake.
	So, I don't know if you saw this, but there was this article, and I've picked a... Spoiler alert!
	I've picked a nice lefty publication with this, CNBC.
	Non-farm payroll growth will rise down by 800,000, Labour Department says.
	Let's talk about why that's actually Pretty significant.
	So this goes back to, basically, you get these numbers that come out that are key economic indicators of how things are going.
	Now when these jobs numbers come out, billions get shifted around in the financial markets.
	I mean, there are traders who wait for this and then the moment it comes out, I mean, it triggers all sorts.
	So absolutely, this is probably the fundamental number that the US government produces on how many jobs are being produced.
	And you always expect it to be a little bit off because what they do is they say okay well our estimate based on the early evidence is that it was this number and then a few months later they get better numbers and then they update it.
	So in a normal presidential period like say under Trump you get the estimate and then the revision would come for a little bit later on and it would be a bit different maybe a bit up bit down something like that.
	And I did a whole series of tweets on these.
	I've since deleted them because I just decided since we live in a country where you can be arrested for something you said on Twitter, fuck it, I'm just going to go and delete all my old tweets from before when I was a public person because I was probably a little bit less careful then.
	But I had a great series of tweets on this early in the Biden presidency where I was like, so how come all of the later revisions are always down?
	Right, because if it was just a sampling error, you just made a slight incorrect assumption or something like that, or you leaned a little bit, whatever it was, and you got the better numbers, you would expect it to be a coin flip.
	Sometimes they're up, sometimes they're down.
	Sure, and also, I'm no expert, but 800,000 seems like a lot.
	Well, that is.
	I mean, that is the monster of it.
	So, I mean, it was always getting revised down by, like, 50,000, 100,000, something like that.
	But the thing is, it happened every single time.
	Like, you could, in theory, go to the casino and put your money on red on the roulette and win 100 times in a row.
	It's not very likely, but it could happen, right?
	But this, like, every single number that came out of, you know, the Department of Jobs or whatever, you know, basically all of them, Department of Labour.
	They always sounded better to begin with and then got revised down, right?
	And this culminated in this one towards the end because I don't know if you remember but about, I don't know, beginning of this year, something like that, Biden, well not Biden, El Lesbos, whatever her name is, the Jean-Pierre, whatever, you know the woman who does the tweeting for him.
	She was, under Biden's name, you were doing all these tweets about, we've created three million jobs, Weren't they just counting people that were going back to work after COVID as well?
	Yes, that.
	Counting them as new jobs.
	Yes.
	Not new jobs though.
	Yeah.
	And so it turns out when actually it wasn't 3 million, it was 2.9.
	And it turns out it wasn't 2.9, it was actually 2.1, which is a monster revision.
	That is a massive, massive revision.
	So normally these revisions are like 50,000, 20,000 at a time.
	And then this one came out.
	Yeah.
	And they had obviously massively, I mean, Okay, it's technically possible it's a mistake.
	Well, I was going to ask.
	It says there the Bureau of Labour Statistics, isn't it?
	Yeah.
	That's actually a federal bond?
	Yeah, it's a federal bond.
	Does that come under the Treasury Department?
	Yeah, it doesn't need to be.
	I mean, in this day and age, you could easily get some tech start-up, you could get a whole bunch of them, and say we're going to run a trial period for two years, we're going to have all these start-ups, and we're all going to estimate the job numbers, and then we'll see which of them come in after all the data's actually available, and we'll see who's got a good track record, and we'll just use that instead.
	But no, we have a whole bloody Labour Department who do stuff like this.
	And conveniently always get it wrong when there's a Democrat in the... That's what I was going to ask.
	So under the Trump years it wasn't so much then?
	Under Trump it went both ways but it was more likely that the headline number was going to be lower.
	Whereas a Biden every single time...
	It's higher.
	Got the keys to the kingdom, mate.
	That's why.
	Well, yes, exactly.
	Um, so, um, yeah, so, anyway, but, oh, hang on, what I will quickly tell you about now is apparently we have a donate button.
	There we go, up there.
	So if you're listening, trust us on this, but if you're watching, look at the little L thing and then move to, there's a donate button.
	So if you have money that you don't need, we do, so go to that donate button and press it, and then we will have it, which will be a good thing, because we can do more of this.
	Tell you about stuff.
	Right, moving on.
	Yeah, so my point... Oh, here we go.
	So this is... Let me scroll down a little bit.
	So this is the... Why can't I?
	That's alright.
	Somebody who knows how to scroll down, scroll down.
	So basically, you know, what we're pointing out here is you get that persistent... Oh, there were a couple that went the other way.
	There we go.
	So there were two.
	But everything else, there's this persistent trend of over-reporting This is just colossal.
	Yeah.
	I mean, somebody's going to try and tell me that's a mistake.
	So just as he was going into his election period, when there was all that pressure for him to stand down, all of a sudden it looked like he had... that Bidenomics was a thing.
	We've got all those articles about how Bidenomics is working, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
	All those tweets.
	Turns out it was complete nonsense.
	The whole bloody thing.
	And I think it's more than that, right?
	Look at that.
	Wildly overestimated.
	Almost 1.2 million.
	Yeah, yeah, because the 800,000 was just the last one.
	If you add up all the other ones, actually the overestimate was 1.2 million jobs that never existed.
	It's just lying, isn't it?
	Another way to describe what this is, is lying and cheating.
	It's tractor stats.
	It's cheating.
	That is certainly a fair way of going about it.
	Yeah but it's a classic Soviet Union tractor stat stuff and it's like okay well this is an important number and it's used to base the health of the US economy and if it's just fake why do you bother doing it because people know people are going to know that if you have a democrat in office that this number doesn't mean anything yeah so we're just going to employ hundreds of thousands of civil servants to put it together I saw a guy arguing about inflation rates on Twitter the other day.
	He was just saying, no, look, the whatever US department deals with it is saying that inflation is only 20% so the price of your groceries has only gone up by 20%.
	And everyone's like, no, look, I can see I'm paying, here's a receipt, you know, I'm paying twice as much for my weekly groceries now.
	And 20% is giant anyway!
	Yeah, 20% is massive.
	But it's double, it's not just 20%.
	You have just nailed the key takeaway from this.
	Because if the job numbers are wrong, the GDP numbers are wrong.
	If the GDP numbers are wrong, the inflation numbers are wrong.
	So exactly what you just said, if all of this is just made up, then all the follow-on figures that come from it... So yeah, of course the inflation numbers are rubbish, because the GDP numbers are rubbish, because the jobs numbers are rubbish.
	This guy was just defaulting back to, no, the government said that this was the number, therefore this is the number.
	It's like, look, that sort of hyper-reality isn't real.
	This is meant to be a reflection or a description of a real reality that it doesn't match.
	I have a grocery receipt, you know, look.
	Interesting you mention the Soviet Union, it got even more out of hand in Maoist China.
	Sort of in the Great Leap Forward period, the the cadres at the bottom would fake their results a bit and then the middle tiers of people would fake it a bit more to please the people above them.
	Then the people, it would go on and on and on until Mao hears that we've got a giant surplus of grain when in fact everyone's starving to death.
	Yeah, I was going to say that it's a lot worse for them because it's not just like jobs.
	Okay, jobs, fair enough.
	But it's actually grain production that is required for people to subsist and live in mass China.
	Well, I mean, downstream there is a bit of that.
	I mean, I'll come to that.
	But, you know, where does this get us?
	Well, I mean, part of the reason why we might have ended up here...
	I'll tell you what, you do the scrolling there.
	So this is basically the Fed rate, the interest rate the US is paying.
	So what this means is if the jobs numbers are lower, basically it takes away the final excuse that the Fed have not to cut it.
	Samson, there's a little scrolly bit at the bottom on the blue bar.
	Why don't you, no, no, the other side, pull that over to about 2000 or something.
	So we've got, yeah, that's about, yeah, about there.
	That's fine so so basically this is this is the picture we've got so if you're listening um so basically the the the interest rate that people have been paying on borrowing including the government i should add that's the important element it's basically been on the floor for a long time and then because of the um sort of lockdown era inflation that had to get pushed back up again but the problem is you see that long long period where it's basically nothing the government got used to well let's spend as much money as we can
	And that includes borrowing money and spending that and it's affordable because the rate we're paying is basically zero.
	Well when it goes up to there the government cannot afford it.
	They cannot afford to pay five percent on their debt.
	Now what the lowering of the job stuff does is it kind of serves two purposes.
	One with Biden is it made him look good when he needed to look good because of all these calls for him to resign and he's a bit demented and that kind of stuff.
	He's like no no look Bidenomics is a thing and it's working.
	And the second thing is now that he's out and Camel Laugh, whatever her name is, she doesn't have to just, she doesn't, well she's going to try and pretend that she doesn't need to stand for his record.
	They can just dump this bad news.
	That gives them an excuse to lower interest rates which helps the government out but also it should give her a bump maybe just in time for the election.
	I mean just the time on the way this gets raised is very interesting isn't it?
	Yeah.
	Just up until the very end of 2015, it's virtually nothing, Trump comes in and suddenly they bump up.
	And it keeps going up under Trump until Biden gets in when it craters back to the floor.
	Yep.
	Yeah, it's funny that, isn't it?
	That really makes you think.
	So she's going to want low interest rates to give her that sort of bump for the election.
	Is it the Department of the Treasury that does this?
	Janet Yellen who sets the interest rates?
	No it's the Fed who sets the Fed rate.
	Who's the head of the Fed at the moment?
	Jerome Powell.
	But there's the Atlantic Fed and there's various board members on it and they have criteria and if you look at it you have to drill into the minutes of what each of them says.
	and basically the holdouts they've got a whole list of criteria for lowering interest rates and the holdouts have been well the employment numbers are really good therefore we can't lower rates yet well this just this whole thing just conveniently discovering that actually the jobs are shocking Knocks that excuse away, so it's kind of strong-arming the Fed to lower rates in time for her election in November.
	You know, if one was cynical one might think that.
	So this is a betting market, a poly market, which is quite good for this sort of stuff.
	So basically now everybody's thinking the next thing is going to be a 25% basis cut.
	Some people are saying it's going to be a bit more than that, but basically if you add up all of them, I'm not showing all of them here, but if you add up all of them, basically they reckon by the election the interest rate is going to be a percentage point lower and it's just a question of how they get there.
	So basically the free money thing is going to be turned on to give everybody a boost.
	It's good for people paying mortgages, at least.
	Assuming their bank, or their borrower, or lender, rather, actually goes along with it.
	It will be good for them, and thus why they're more likely to vote Camel Laugh, because, yeah, my mortgage bill has come down.
	Or at least I can buy a house, because they tend to do that on mortgages.
	Bookies are good for trying to actually understand reality in loads of things.
	Or it costs them money if they don't.
	Right.
	Look up what the bookies say about something.
	Of course, they're not always right.
	But quite often, because they have to be, it's their actual job.
	They're not interested in spin.
	They're actually interested in what's real.
	Well, this one is basically just a weight of money that goes in, and it's not always right.
	So, for example, what's that?
	It's not Ben Shapiro's, the other one.
	Tim Shapiro, who was going to be the VP pick.
	Yeah, so on the betting markets, he was 90% to win.
	So it's not always right.
	It tends to overemphasize a marginal outcome.
	But yeah, I take your point.
	And even bookies can make the wrong calculation of something, of course, yeah.
	So anyway, rates will be coming down just in time for Kamala.
	Right, now, let's also talk about Kamala's version of Biodynamics.
	Is that page 83?
	Well, it is a bit difficult to read there, but I did pull out the interesting bits because We're starting to understand now what Camelot is planning to do when she becomes president.
	She says she will, I don't know what she knows.
	But there's a number of interesting proposals that she's got coming down the track, so go with a nice low one.
	She wants corporation tax up from 21% to at least 28%, but she doesn't rule out 35%.
	Jesus Christ!
	28%, but she doesn't rule out 35%.
	Jesus Christ.
	Yeah.
	Just saying as a business owner, corporation tax is the worst thing that humanity has ever done.
	So it was 35%, Trump took it down to 21%, and Trump now wants to take it to 15%.
	Good.
	She wants to take it back to something close to the 35%.
	Take it to zero.
	Yeah.
	Well, if you think that's bad, wait till we get on to the next bad thing, which is not even the worst thing, but this is the next bad thing.
	Capital gains tax.
	She wants 45%.
	So explain to me, as a moron when it comes to economics, what capital gains tax is.
	So let's say you buy a stock, Bitcoin, a building, a business, and then you buy it for a million and you sell it for two million.
	The capital gain was a million, so how much the gain was... The government wants some of my profit.
	They want basically half of it.
	Jesus Christ.
	Half of it.
	Now, normally the way it works for capital gains is- State sponsored theft.
	It's as simple as that.
	This is just theft at this point.
	Normally the way it works is if you make the gain quickly you pay a high rate and if you hold it for a longer term it goes down.
	So you can't just flip- we can flip things but you have to pay a high rate of tax.
	But she wants the long end to be 45%.
	Why?
	Yeah, so if you spend- if you spend 20 years building a business- Yeah.
	Well, she wants half of it.
	Because she's a communist and hates kuleks.
	That is true.
	I admit.
	But that is not the worst bit.
	The worst bit is so bad it's just kind of funny how bad it is.
	She wants 25% capital gains of unrealised gains.
	So again, talk to me like I'm an economic idiot.
	Okay, so let's say you buy a stock at $100, and then it goes up to $200, and you haven't sold it yet.
	She wants 25% of that.
	I haven't sold it yet.
	Yes, and if... How did she get 25% of something I haven't sold?
	Well, you just presented the demand.
	What?
	Yes.
	So, they... Right, so essentially this is kind of like the doomsday book.
	With William like, no, I've tallied up, you've got 15 pigs and a cottage, And so I want some money from you, I want some resources from you, but I haven't changed anything.
	Yeah, there is a very good reason why you pay capital gains tax at the point of sale, because you actually have the money and you actually know how much you got from it.
	Does this apply to houses?
	Yes.
	So if I bought a house, and it costs say half a million pounds, and the government's like, that's nice, good for you, that's a very nice house, it's very expensive, we're going to bring in 15 million new foreigners, and so now your house is 2 million pounds, because the housing market has gone up because of all this massive demand, which is say, I'm just talking about say a London property here, right, from the sort of late 90s to now, Uh, if they were like, right, so we're gonna charge you for unrealized gains, and I was like, no, this is where I live.
	Yes.
	I'm not selling my house, I live here.
	So now I have to pay tax on £1.5 million.
	Yes.
	Whether you have the money or not.
	It's just theft.
	It's just a shakedown.
	That is absolutely like a Mafia watch.
	It's a gangster, yeah.
	F you, pay me.
	But it's not quite fair because I haven't sold it.
	F you, pay me.
	It's a nice business you'd hate for something to happen to.
	Like government appropriation.
	So it's literally like a Mafia shakedown.
	Well the thing is, you guys get it straight away.
	But obviously lots of leftists on Twitter are pretending that they don't understand.
	That's because I don't like paying tax and I want to keep the things I own.
	So I'll read the relevant bit of the proposal.
	The proposal is... Jesus!
	Would impose a minimum tax of 25% on total income, generally including unrealized capital gains.
	25%?!
	So, yeah, literally, through no fault of your own, your own home could double or triple in value, and they want 25%?
	I mean, what if it goes up by four?
	Then suddenly you have to pay them the value of your own home when you bought it.
	So we get... So, not wanting to stamp on your flow, but it gets so much worse than that.
	Right.
	Jesus!
	So at the moment this is this proposal is it applies to people with assets worth more than a hundred million.
	Right okay well that's not my problem.
	Now bear in mind when the IRS came in it was targeted at a lot less than 1% of the American population and now it's basically all of them unless you're on welfare or in jail.
	So the IRS now applies to everybody.
	So the level one with leftists, as you need to make them understand, yes it's saying that it's for people with a hundred million but like even now... You think it's going to stop there?
	Yeah, so even now Elizabeth Warren is saying you need to get that down to 50 million.
	So we've gone from 100 million to 50 million before it's even launched.
	Again, still not my problem, but the thing is, if I'm like a hot dog vendor in a neighbourhood and the restaurant next door to me is literally getting a Mafia shakedown and fat Tony Turner says, you didn't see anything, I don't want to hear anything from you.
	It's like, yeah, but I don't really want to be in a neighbourhood where the Mafia are shaking down every other business.
	I think they might get to me eventually, to be honest.
	Yeah, it's certainly not ideal.
	It's £100m now, but it will be £50m later on, and then it'll be £25m.
	Especially when this doesn't give them the revenue they're expecting.
	Ah, yes.
	So that's the thing.
	I'll come back to that.
	Where these things always go because they make a calculation at the beginning of how much money they're gonna get then people change their behavior and then they say okay we didn't raise as much as we want but we've already spent the money so instead of a hundred million we're gonna break and it will come down to 1 million maybe it'll come down maybe it'll be a hundred thousand but eventually it will be 1 million which is basically a lot of the working class at this point especially the way inflation has gone up.
	If you're a half decent house you're in trouble.
	Yeah the way if you look at history the way it always goes whether it's the Soviet Union or China or Venezuela or Cuba or Cambodia or Vietnam on and on and on and on wherever it is eventually it comes down to the actual kulaks so the richest peasants basically just completely normal people Yeah.
	It worked hard and just accumulated some goods.
	I will give a slight nod.
	So there is a potential issue here that has some validity and that is is that at the top end a lot of the very rich they don't actually ever sell anything they just borrow against their assets and live off that.
	There is a there is a potential issue here that you could go after.
	Now Bill Ackman, who is an investor, basically says, well, you solve it by basically just making the amount that you borrow against your stock taxable, which is the right way of doing this.
	So basically, if you're selling, if you're using debt instead of a capital gain, then just tax that same amount.
	It's so much simpler.
	It would just, I mean, it would just do what they're trying to do.
	It also means I'm not living in a mafia state.
	Yeah.
	It would achieve the same thing, but it's just so much more simple and elegant.
	But they're doing it the way that they're doing it.
	So you gave the example of the house, right?
	What if it's a stock, and the stock goes up, and you have a big unrealized gain, and then the stock goes down again?
	Which it inevitably will.
	So I think I've got an example here that somebody worked through.
	So let's say you bought 100 shares of Zoom in January 2020, just before the pandemic, and you bought them at $75 a share.
	By the end of the year, they go up to $350.
	So you've got an unrealized capital gain of basically 28 grand.
	You have to pay 28 grand, right?
	And this is an actual example of what happened.
	Well, this is what you've gained, and then the taxes are, as he says, seven grand almost.
	Yeah, yeah.
	So that was your gain, and the tax is seven grand.
	But, and this is a real-life example.
	Yeah.
	Zoom, when we realized that lockdowns weren't going to continue forever, they then crashed back down to $60 a share.
	Yeah.
	So you lost money on your investment.
	And you got taxed.
	And you have to pay the tax.
	Jesus.
	Yeah.
	You shouldn't have been dabbling in investment - I'm a filthy capitalist.
	In the first place.
	I'm sure that's what they think.
	Speculation is the devil's business.
	Profit is theft.
	Tim Waltz, for example, doesn't have any stocks and shares investments at all.
	So he doesn't understand this world.
	Neither of them, Tim Waltz or Kamala Harris.
	Maybe we should speak to Nancy Pelosi.
	Can't be in favour of this!
	Pelosi is not going to like this at all.
	One of the greatest investors of all time, Nancy Pelosi.
	She's not that great.
	She's only about the fourth greatest.
	I had a friend of mine call me up on this.
	I'm like, okay, she's only the fourth greatest investor.
	Yeah.
	But, um, I mean, I mean, it happened a bit before I got into finance, but just before I got into the finance, we had the whole dot com thing.
	Yeah.
	And one of the things we did, um, you know, my guys, the venture capitalists did is we, we did something called a liquidity preference.
	So this was basically where a tech founder has this really massive expectation.
	Well, I think my company is going to be worth a hundred billion.
	And it's like, really?
	And he's like, yeah, it's definitely going to be worth a hundred billion.
	He's like, okay, fine.
	We value it at a hundred billion, but we get the first 20 billion.
	You get nothing from the first 20 billion.
	And if you really think it's worth a hundred billion, that's fine because you get the other 80 billion.
	And then we put the money in.
	And what happened with a lot of them, because of course it was a dot-com bubble, is that a lot of those companies then got sold for like 11 billion or something, and it went all to the venture capitalist, and the founder didn't get anything.
	And I've met some of those guys, and they are sore about it, like, no kidding.
	Later, yeah.
	At least get greedy, though.
	Yeah, but at least they walked away with nothing.
	If we had this system, let's say their company was temporarily valued at $100 billion, they would then get a 25% tax on that.
	It's all ideology, isn't it?
	It's all ideology.
	And I doubt Kamala Harris has got the first idea.
	Oh, she doesn't have a clue.
	So it'll just be her economics team around her that apparently seem to be communists, actual Marxist-Leninists or something or other.
	God knows what exactly.
	But it's just like, we don't want rich people.
	We don't want people having money of their own.
	We want them to be dependent on the state.
	I can only assume that's what they're thinking.
	But can you imagine working 16 hour days for years and then you're left with nothing but a 25 billion tax bill and nothing else?
	Like, come take it.
	You know, come get it.
	I haven't got anything.
	I wonder what their policy will be on inheritance tax.
	That's another thing Reds love.
	They hate wealth being passed down through the generations.
	Apart from theirs.
	Well yeah, apart from any way they can... I bet Kamala Harris or her team, if they say anything about inheritance tax, it'll be like... 100%?
	Yeah, 80%, 100%.
	I'm sure didn't Starmer say something?
	Didn't Labour say something about inheritance tax?
	Well, they've got a budget coming up in October and they're hinting that it's going to upset a lot of people.
	So they are going to do some... I mean, I'll come back to that nearer the time.
	I just want to say very quickly on inheritance tax, even though we're running out of time, I hate it because it's all money that has already been taxed.
	The trickle that I'm finally allowed to keep my money and keep it at the bank, pass it on to my kids and the government's just like...
	But at least on that, you've actually received the money.
	You're just losing a lot of this.
	This, the Democrats are basically wanting to tax a concept.
	They're wanting to tax money that doesn't actually, that you've never received, that you've never got.
	Absolutely madness.
	Just to say, if I was law protector, I would do away with inheritance tax entirely.
	Like, not one penny.
	Yeah, there are loads of unjust taxes.
	But, I mean, it gets worse than this, right?
	So the examples of a home or a business, I mean, you think that's bad.
	But what if you own a farm?
	Right.
	And you are literally a kulak.
	Right.
	If you own a farm, and you basically need to give up 25% of it, now think, let's think, let's work through that logic.
	First of all, farms tend to operate at, they are the size they are, because that's the scale to run the farm at.
	They don't work at subscale.
	You can't just hive off 25% of a farm and expect the 75% to be a at-scale farm that functions, right?
	And after watching Clarkson's Farm, it's because of the cost of the farm equipment.
	Yeah, yeah.
	So you've got to spread that capital over enough land, not too much, that you can't work it.
	So if you suddenly start hiving 25% off a farm, where the hell does that leave you?
	Think about the other thing.
	Who do you sell that 25% to?
	So because if your 75 isn't particularly scalable, do you think some other guy is going to come along and start farming a farm that is 25% of your original farm?
	Clearly that doesn't work, right?
	So the best case scenario for your farmer is that your land is next to somebody else's and they can use it and they've got enough money and they can buy it off you.
	That's the best case scenario.
	But in that situation, what's the other farm going to bid?
	He's going to say, oh, I'll give you $0.13 on the dollar.
	What's that worth?
	And you'll basically just have to take it because you've got no choice because you need to raise the money on this.
	But that probably won't happen either.
	I'll tell you how this will actually work in practice, if you own something like a farm, is that all these farmers are going to have to give up 25% and then know that they can't... I mean, in some cases, there'll be literally nobody to sell it to, or they'll get rinsed on the ditch.
	So the state will pay?
	No.
	BlackRock will come up with a scheme.
	So BlackRock will come along and say, okay, we will buy 25% of your farm so you can pay this tax, we will set the price, and then you will rent from us the 25% back again.
	So basically this is a state-sanctioned theft combined with a massive wealth transfer to somewhere like BlackRock.
	And that's for a farm.
	You can do it for many businesses.
	You can do it for land.
	You can do it for property.
	There's a whole bunch of stuff.
	And in theory, they reckon this is going to raise them $400 billion.
	Which is a fifth of the gap they've got to fill between tax revenues and their spending.
	I was going to say, 400 billion still isn't that, it's not enough.
	And, it won't raise that of course.
	They assume that nobody's going to change their behaviour.
	What will actually happen, so they tried to do this in France a few years back.
	They all left, yeah.
	Yeah, they said, oh it turns out we're Russian now.
	A whole bunch of wealthy French basically went to Russia.
	So this is my concluding thought on all of this.
	We've seen a microcosm of this happening in America already, where basically Californians say, well it turns out I'm a Texan or a Florida now.
	New York as well.
	Yeah.
	Why can't that just happen on a country level?
	Well it can, it's happening in Britain right now.
	Yeah.
	Didn't we have like a thousand millionaires fleeing the country last year?
	And this is my question.
	Is the next big thing not going to be California to Texas or Florida.
	It's going to be the US to Russia or Europe to Russia or some other place.
	Somewhere that's not going to just... South America.
	Yeah.
	That's why I never really blame rich people for holding their money in Jersey or Guernsey or the Cayman Islands or Luxembourg.
	Oh you want to keep it nimble.
	Or make yourself a resident of Monte Carlo or something.
	Because it's just a no-brainer, why wouldn't you?
	The government's actually trying to steal from you.
	Okay, I'll just hold it in funds in Luxembourg then.
	You can't blame them, it's just normal.
	I'll give a final thought.
	If you look up in the top left-hand corner, there's the gap.
	It's basically 1.8 trillion.
	That's the gap that they've got to fund.
	Jesus!
	And the only way that they're able to do that, because the US is basically producing less and less as years go by.
	They're producing less and less as years go by.
	The only reason they're able to make this work is because they're so financialized they can sell enough debt.
	If you destroy the capital markets, which this will do, That 1.8 gap is unserviceable.
	So how do you make it up?
	Well, you look at the row below that, you can either bin Medicare-Medicaid, or you can bin Social Security and half of Defence.
	Close the gap.
	They're not going to want to do any of those things.
	That's just the gap, that'll still leave you with a debt of £35 trillion.
	Yeah, that's just so it doesn't get any worse year-on-year, but you're still left with the £35 trillion.
	But the US has been basically in this long cycle at this point of making less, financialising more, and now they're going to destroy the financialisation part of it, so you won't be left with any tax revenues.
	So, you know, they've got this model where basically they're using financialisation to subsidise pouring corn syrup down the throats of £300 inner-city women, so they can waddle around fed, fat and voting Democrat, and this system Does not work when you blow up the financialization aspect, which is the only thing plugging that gap.
	So, I mean, I've often said that Joe Biden is clearly the worst president in my lifetime.
	You know, you could make an argument... Milo Harris might win.
	Oh, easily.
	So you could make an argument that, you know, somebody like Woodrow Wilson or LBJ was a worse president overall, or, you know, one of those early ones perhaps, right?
	Biden has been a bloody disaster.
	If Kamala gets, Kamalaf, whatever, I never say her name, but Kamal, if Kamalaf gets in, she is just, she is going to be so much worse than Biden.
	Going to be ridiculous.
	Mason says, you were spot on Dan, the US Reserve Bank has reinterpreted economic data to say that unemployment is up and the rates need to drop.
	Right on schedule for the COVID debt to roll over.
	Not Just A String says, with interest rates down, money printing is inbound.
	Unrealized gains tax is peak.
	You will own nothing and be happy.
	Not financial advice, but Bitcoin is looking good.
	You can take it with you.
	Fleetlord Atvar says, hope Farage can manage to mega, making them great again.
	Yeah, but you want to do it in a way that they don't get taxed on it.
	How do I do that?
	Watch the latest Brokonomics with Charlie Rogers.
	Well, I'll probably just give my kids any of my assets when I'm really old.
	Yeah, but you want to do it in a way that they don't get taxed on it.
	How do I do that?
	I'll have a word off it.
	Go and watch Brokonomics to find out.
	I'll watch it.
	Okay, that mouse doesn't seem to work.
	Can you scroll down on this so I can see my notes for me?
	Okay.
	Okay, I thought we could talk a little bit about deporting the hundreds of thousands if not millions of fifth colonists we've got in this country.
	Sold, let's do it.
	I mean it's become part of the public dialogue hasn't it?
	Mass re-migration because it was a UN or one of the many UN organs that said migration is inevitable.
	They just said that didn't they?
	Migration is inevitable.
	Don't worry about it.
	Stop thinking.
	You're just a far right fantasist.
	If you have any notion that your country won't be flooded by infinity foreign people.
	Well, I wrote an article saying that actually re-migration is inevitable.
	How about that?
	And anyway, I wasn't the first person to say it, of course.
	Finally, Isabel Oakeshott wrote an article addressing it.
	Mrs. Tice has weighed in.
	Yeah.
	So, yes, this is probably going to happen.
	Mrs. Tice.
	Now, in this article, it's nice, I'll take it.
	It's moving the Overton window.
	But she really only was talking about illegals.
	She didn't quite have the balls to talk about illegal immigration, which is the bigger issue.
	Yeah, but there are millions of illegals here.
	Yeah.
	That's a good start.
	Yeah, I mean... Potentially up to about 10, 15 million of them.
	I'll take it.
	Hopefully... Unknown numbers.
	Hopefully it's just shifting the Overton window, so eventually they will talk about the real problem.
	Yeah, so in this, she first of all pointed the finger at Vietnamese people particularly, because apparently in the last year or so there's been one of the bigger, if not the biggest demographic of people coming over illegally on boats, but anyway...
	What?
	I'm not sure I would start there.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	It's a bit of a funny take, but there you go.
	She said, such is the scale of the illegal immigration crisis that nothing less than a program of mass deportation is now required.
	I'm listening.
	Yeah.
	Go get them girl!
	Liberals will wince at such words.
	Oh well.
	Yeah, don't care.
	And the ugly spectre of rounding up hundreds of thousands of downtrodden individuals to be sent home is not a nice thought.
	Again, I've got a tiny violence on me somewhere.
	The thing is, right, so because we have like ethnic enclaves that form like mini colonies in this country, they're not really like poor downtrodden, like you know, they're not doing the Bataan death march or something.
	What they are is living with their cousin, Ahmed, who is just giving them a place to stay even though they shouldn't be here.
	They come over with a tourist visa or whatever.
	Oh yeah, they come over apparently for a wedding or something.
	And then they just stay and work in his corner shop or whatever it is.
	And these communities are going to have millions of people in them who legally have no right to be here.
	But they're not the poor downtrodden, you know, I'm starving.
	No, they're just living with their family.
	Because they could get here and no-one's going to check and no-one's going to make them leave.
	They're not shoeless refugees from Poland fleeing the Red Army in 1945.
	I'd be a lot more sympathetic if that were the case.
	That's not the case.
	She says, in a democracy such as ours, proud of treating those less fortunate than ourselves with compassion and committed to upholding human rights, it would certainly be a jolt.
	Making it happen would be expensive and challenging with multiple hard cases to tug at the heart strings.
	The many vested interests that benefit from the status quo could be guaranteed to do everything in their power to derail any such scheme.
	Yeah, that's what we've got to go to war with, yeah.
	The elements within the Home Office and the media or whatever.
	Not just that, it's going to be like Serco, the NGO Industrial Complex.
	All Lib Dem voters.
	Every Labour voter, every Lib Dem voter, every Conservative voter.
	But she says, quote, only a stunningly ambitious returns programme will turn the tide.
	Yes!
	It's in the Telegraph, isn't it?
	Is it in the Telegraph?
	Yes!
	Well done, the Telegraph.
	Well done, Isabel.
	I'd like you to go a hundred times further, but it's a good start.
	I'll take it.
	Got to where you were two years ago.
	Right, so yeah, I wrote an article over two years ago where I go further than that even.
	I actually address the question of not just elite, not just the boat people.
	Because we've been invaded legally.
	It's an invasion.
	The thing is, there are people who are reasonably going to say, well look, if you legally let these people in, then it wasn't an invasion.
	No, no, that is fair.
	No, they were let in by traitors though.
	I'm not saying they weren't let in by traitors, but these people will not view themselves as complicit in an invasion, right?
	I know, I know, but we have to be fair-minded about things.
	But there are millions of people who are here who just shouldn't really be here.
	I mean, like, for example, every single foreign person who has committed a crime, legal or illegal, I mean, all of the illegals, of course, commit a crime, so they should be... Foreign criminals should be forced to leave Britain forever.
	Foreign benefits claimants should be forced to leave Britain forever.
	Why?
	72% of Somalis are on social housing.
	No, you can have social housing in Somalia.
	You know, good luck with that.
	Why aren't any of them able to claim benefits here?
	Those people who are just persistently on benefits, you can go home.
	We don't need you here.
	I don't want or need unemployed stroke unemployable Somalis flooding my town centres.
	Loitering.
	Well just from anywhere.
	Thank you.
	Well from anywhere it's not just Somalis.
	Just to be clear.
	Let's scroll down a little bit on the document again.
	Just to quote Oakeshott again briefly.
	She said critics will say mass deportation is not only undesirable but impossible.
	Wrong.
	Yep of course it's not impossible.
	It's not even that.
	It's like in the 20th century after World War II there was huge amounts of population transfers.
	It's happened throughout history many many many many many times.
	Yeah.
	I mean the example you use often is India.
	They just, they kicked out all the British.
	I mean they managed it.
	Yeah.
	Oh yeah.
	Whites have been mass deported from countries all over the world.
	Algeria and the French.
	Yep.
	Oakshot goes on.
	Witness what has been achieved in Pakistan.
	She's talking recently.
	No longer able to cope with more than 1.7 million undocumented Afghans, Islamabad managed 541,000 expulsions within a few weeks last year.
	If it's good enough for Pakistan, it's good enough for me.
	They managed 500,000 in a few weeks.
	Russia booted out thousands the other day, didn't they?
	A few weeks or months back.
	So basically, within a couple of months, we could have sorted the whole thing.
	And Pakistan plan to remove a further 800,000 individuals in a second phase.
	I think he's right.
	There are literally thousands of flights every single day.
	Put them on the flights.
	Yeah.
	You fly home.
	Just to finish up with Oakshot, she says, Our generosity is being exploited on an industrial scale.
	Yes, finally someone's saying it.
	Yes, we know.
	We know.
	Again, I'll take it.
	It's not a shot, an oak shot, but finally it's being said in the Telegraph.
	Being exploited on an industrial scale by those who see our country primarily through the prism of our lavish and indiscriminate benefits system.
	Yeah, if you just cut off their benefits, a lot of them will go home.
	And that's the thing, if you just simply stem the inflow and stop the benefits to these people, they'll just leave if they're in accord.
	Because that's the only reason they're here.
	I've got to mention this because it's Isabel Oakeshott, but her partner Tice chucked me out of the party for saying a mild form of this.
	Yeah, and me too, yeah.
	You get to exactly how she's saying exactly what I said and was deselected for by Trice.
	She's being quite hardline on this as well.
	Like, this is pretty uncompromising.
	I mean, this sounds like something you could have written two years ago.
	And get kicked out of a football.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	I mean, she is only talking about illegals when called up on it by some bleeding heart traitor commies about it on Twitter.
	She said, I'm only talking about illegals.
	I'm only talking about illegal immigration.
	That's what I said.
	I mean, I'm not as moderate as I was back then, but my tweet was from about four years ago and it was about illegals and they booted me out for that.
	And she's, she's now saying the same thing.
	He did finish that article by saying, Starmer and Cooper must respond with shock and awe.
	Which would be nice, but of course they're not going to.
	Of course that is pie in the sky, we'd love them to, but they're not going to do it.
	And even where Cooper, Ms Balls, was saying, oh I'm going to deport 14,000.
	One, you're not going to do it.
	You're just saying you're going to do it.
	And even if you did do it, it's a drop in the ocean anyway.
	Two, that's a thousand times fewer than needs to go.
	Yeah, right.
	But, still, Thank you, Ms.
	Oakshot, for moving the Overton window even a little bit, even a millimetre, because that's what we need.
	We shouldn't be so... We're in the business of moving that Overton window.
	We are, and we shouldn't be so cavalier about it.
	I mean, this is quite a difficult thing.
	Think of the...
	Circles she's operating it.
	This is quite an extreme thing for them to hear, even though it's completely normal practice in other countries that aren't categorized by globalists.
	And actually it is important because if she said it here, then when some working class guy does a Facebook post saying basically the same thing, he then can't go to jail because if he's got a half-competent, even quarter-pointed lawyer, he should be able to say, well look, This was in the Telegraph.
	Normal, elite discussion.
	You won't get selected for reform though.
	But I think we are moving, hopefully we're moving, I see more and more people talking openly about deportations or mass re-migration, however you want to put it.
	There's the great Steve Edgington, friend of the show, he's got a tweet there.
	It's inevitable.
	It has to happen.
	Why wouldn't it?
	Like, why would we want millions of illegals, millions of criminals, and millions of benefit dependents?
	Putting pressure on all of our infrastructure.
	Everything.
	Well, because they're the clients of the right party.
	And that's not even to mention violent crime.
	Yeah, it's not talking about any of the social issues or the crime issues or anything like that.
	It's just, from a purely utilitarian perspective, the tax base, the infrastructure, housing markets, all of this sort of stuff, they just can't bear this.
	It's cultural and demographic suicide. - But that's, again, that's a more important issue.
	But like, even if you don't care about that, from a purely, you know, Starmer's machine man utilitarian mind has got to be like, okay, well, you know, like this sewer system of London is regularly getting clogged up apparently. - Even before you get to the enrichment. - Just, yeah, yeah, even before you get to any of the sort of like human concerns. yeah, yeah, even before you get to any of the Like, for legal reasons, you have to be light on the details, but not very far from this office, there was an enrichment event where a diversity enriched... Was it four women?
	One of them dead?
	Or something?
	Was there?
	Yeah, it was in the local paper here.
	I didn't even see that.
	There's all sorts of violent crime and sex crime that goes on in Swindon from first generation boat people.
	Loads.
	Anyway, Charlie Downs, another friend of the show, just saying deportations shouldn't be a dirty word.
	Oh look, I replied, saying amen.
	Yeah, no, absolutely.
	It needs to happen.
	If anyone tries to browbeat you out there for talking about this stuff, just don't accept it.
	Just do not accept it.
	There's a line in the sand now.
	People have to start being a bit more courageous.
	Be within their own friend or family groups.
	They do.
	So a leftist will come back and say, yeah, but what about this hard-working, tax-paying, law-abiding immigrant?
	Do you want to deport him?
	Now, I realise a lot of people on the right will say yes.
	But I think it is fair to say, OK, well, let's have a moderate compromise on this.
	We get rid of the criminals.
	Fine, I'll take that compromise.
	OK.
	We get rid of the illegals and we get rid of the lawbreakers.
	Anyone who has paid tax in three out of the last five years, they can stay.
	How many does that leave?
	Oh, OK, that's 10 million people going back.
	OK, fine, compromise, shake hands, let's get it done.
	It's not about money.
	I was going to finish with a tweet from Morgoth.
	I'll say it right now, the very last one by Morgoth.
	No, I'd rather be poor.
	No, no, it's not about money.
	Yeah, but it's not about our money.
	What they'll say is, well, this person acted in good faith, they got a job, they paid their taxes, they bought a house or whatever, and they just set up a life for themselves as we invited them to do.
	It's not fair to send that person back.
	And that's quite a strong argument, whether you agree with it or not.
	It's not about persuading me.
	Yeah, I know, I know.
	You talk about fairness.
	Social fairness for them or the fairness for the rest of us?
	Well, there are lots of claims on fairness, right?
	And so, what you're saying is your claim to fairness overrides their claim to fairness.
	So I'm not saying that it doesn't, but I'm saying that other people are going to hear that and not think that it automatically does.
	And so it's about being realistic with what can be achieved.
	Right?
	So I think that there's a reasonable compromise here, which is okay, fine.
	If some guy has been a net taxpayer, if he has, you know, contributed, doesn't have a criminal record, speaks English, speaks English, That's totally fine.
	I would say the ideal plan would be to stop immigration just entirely.
	So the net outflow of 600-800,000 a year is just going to make the country feel like we can breathe a bit more.
	Gross zero rather than net zero.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Gross zero.
	Just absolute zero.
	That in and of itself, within a few years, you're going to see a couple of million people will have left just on their own merits, right?
	But then, stop the benefits to people born outside of this country.
	If you were born in a foreign country, you don't get benefits.
	Millions more will leave, and then, of course, every foreign criminal committed a crime in this country, you serve your sentence, kick them.
	I would make it you need a minimum of one native-born English grandparent otherwise you don't get any benefits and that at a stroke will disqualify for example yeah yeah yeah we should do stuff like that like I mean I would probably have like if you spent like you know 25 years in the army or something maybe you qualified That's going to be such a marginal number of actual people, it's not really worth worrying about.
	By the way, Reform actually said that in their manifesto to stop Halal slaughter.
	Really?
	Oh right.
	Yeah, it was actually in there.
	Good.
	That's another thing that would have got you booted off their candidates list if you'd said it yourself.
	Oh yeah, if I'd said that.
	It's their policy now.
	The third thing, of course, anyone who's not here legally just gets sent back to them.
	Yeah, any foreign national that commits any crime, however tiny, But the point would be like if we went to any other country in the world.
	The point I'm making here is what I'm saying would achieve is millions of foreigners going back to their home countries and zero injustices perpetrated.
	Because someone would say, well look, you're taking that guy's property away and he's lawfully done all this stuff.
	It would be considered an injustice, and probably rightly so, that you were using state power to just arbitrarily take that and send him out.
	That would be considered unjust, whereas what I'm proposing wouldn't involve any kind of injustices, and it would do essentially everything we're asking for.
	Yeah, I mean, I would just argue that it was an injustice on the people that they ever came here at all.
	Yeah, but they would then argue, okay, but that's happened, and it's too late to worry about that.
	You're going to perpetrate injustice about other people.
	So there's all well and good being hard-line about it, but like, from a sort of like practical realpolitik perspective, you've got to consider these.
	If you just split the difference today, it's still millions of people.
	Just to get it back on track about moving the Overton window.
	There's also lots of other people to talk about it.
	Steve Laws bangs the drum all the time, as do I do.
	I even saw the lovely Leilani Dowling talk about it.
	Matt Goodwin.
	Yep.
	Serena Brown.
	Loads and loads of people do talk about this now.
	More and more people talk about the need for deportations and mass re-migration.
	It's not a completely fringe, insane thing to be talking about anymore.
	Hopefully the window will keep moving that window.
	And the idea of citizenship, when I talk briefly about citizenship, very briefly.
	Do you want to watch this video?
	Er, go on then.
	Why the cut the throat thing?
	What's that about?
	- You got it!
	You got it! - You got it! - Back! - Would you be more obnoxious about it?
	So no, what it would require is to leave any foreign treaties in place, perhaps completely get rid of Tony Blair's Supreme Court, gut the Home Office and any traitors in there that will prevent it, and revoke all their citizenships and send them back.
	Well the people in the Home Office as well.
	Well, if some of us.
	If needs be.
	But these types of people that are obviously at best fifth columnists.
	That's the nicest way to describe it.
	I think you're giving them way too much credit.
	These are benefits to people.
	That's what they are.
	They're coming here for benefits.
	Invaders?
	I'd call them invaders.
	Again, it's giving them too much credit.
	These people are not like... An invader is someone who has a conscious idea of something they're going to achieve.
	These are not those sorts of people.
	These are people like, I'm going to get money and it's going to be your money.
	Right?
	That's just it.
	They're not like, you know... And laugh in your face and do a fruit symbol in your face as well whilst doing it.
	You are giving these people too much credit.
	If you could scroll down a bit more on this document here because I just quote a little bit from my own article if I may and end it there more or less.
	There's quite a bit to read but I won't read it all.
	I just said that we need to talk about how not only should there be re-migration or mass deportations but talk about it in terms of that it's inevitable.
	That's what Tony Blair likes to do a lot.
	It's a classic political ploy.
	Just talk about it.
	It's a fait accompli actually.
	Actually it's got to happen.
	So it's happening.
	Talk in those terms.
	Move the Overton window.
	Drag the Overton window that way.
	Not only is it necessary, it is going to happen.
	It already happens.
	Millions of them already go home.
	If you look at the inflow compared to the outflow.
	Okay, so the outflow is about half of the inflow.
	So that means every two years a million foreigners more than leave.
	And so, okay, well then, consider that to say... Get the trend pointing in the right direction, then it's just time.
	Yeah, it's just the inflow is too high.
	Then we stop the inflow.
	Well, Dade wrote in the summer of 2022, the policy of uncapped and endless mass immigration into Britain cannot continue indefinitely.
	It just cannot.
	It's inevitable that this policy must come to an end.
	The entire third world cannot be crammed into the slums of Bradford and Sheffield and Birmingham and London.
	Well, apparently.
	If you took all of the population of the world, you could cram them into Texas.
	That's standing shoulder to shoulder.
	Yeah, if we just take the entire population of, say, Asia, I think we can cram them into Britain.
	I don't know, I think he's just not being ambitious.
	I've heard you could take the whole population of the world and cram them onto the Isle of Wight.
	Oh really?
	If they're shoulder to shoulder.
	If you mush them up enough into a human paste.
	A giant silo.
	It'd be like the Notting Hill Carnival all the time.
	So while the traitor mainstream media and all the traitor leftist activists and politicians insist that any criticism of uncapped migration is evil and racist, We should just behave as though the Overton window has already moved firmly into the realm of calling for mass re-migration.
	Nothing less will do.
	That's another thing Oakshot was saying.
	Nothing less will do.
	I say that all foreign nationals who did not have a legal right to remain should be sent back to their country of origin without delay.
	Any foreigner who commits any crime, violent or otherwise, should be removed forthwith.
	All chain migration should end immediately.
	All pending citizenship cases should be terminated.
	All special visas for foreign students should be revoked.
	And that whole obscenity brought to a close.
	I mean it is crazy that like students can bring their families over.
	Yeah that is mental.
	Chain migration is legal so you can't do anything about it and it's already happened.
	It's literally like 300,000 a year.
	So what are we doing?
	I can at least see the case for if you marry a foreigner and they've already got kids that are underage.
	I can see the case for that.
	But a student bringing their parents in.
	What the hell is going on?
	Why would that be anything that would happen ever?
	So, take for example, a Nigerian student comes over and gets a place at Birmingham University or something, and then brings over eight, ten members of his family, his grandparents and stuff.
	It's madness.
	It was just because they always wanted to maximise immigration.
	Anyway, I'll have to bring it to a close there, but I did like to address this, and if anyone out there can share it with any normies, or ostriches that have got their head in the sand, and actually start talking about it.
	Start moving the Overton window.
	And one last thing to finish on, again, is Morgoth's tweet.
	Well he makes the point, because I didn't actually read it out loud for anyone that's only listening, he said this is a leftist speaking, if we need immigration to boost the economy, and then Morgoth replying, I'd rather we lived on pig fat and turnips than carry on like this.
	The irony is that immigration doesn't boost the economy.
	Of course it doesn't.
	We are going to live on pig fat and turnips if we're lucky.
	To be fair though, pig fat and turnips sounds quite good to me.
	That's half of my Sunday roast.
	Yeah, turnips roasted in pig fat.
	Delicious.
	Yeah, what's to complain?
	Actually, that would be good, yeah.
	So anyway.
	We've got some comments then, have we?
	Right.
	Video comments?
	Oh yes, video.
	Play the video comments.
	Video comments?
	At the risk of being called a pykmy, here's a man appreciation post.
	A couple of weeks ago, I volunteered at a camp, and out of ten volunteers, we had two fellas.
	Two grown men, who were carrying the entire operation on their shoulders, and without going into too much detail, without them, we would have done nothing that you are seeing right now.
	There was a classic show where they had two islands or two people on two sides of the island one extremely exclusively female one exclusively male dumped on a desert island and see how they survive and the men got on with it and the women just argued amongst themselves and got nothing done Well, it's also the women had some strokes of remarkable luck.
	Oh, a pig has turned up!
	Finally, the producers just gave them a pig.
	The men had to hunt a domestic pig.
	Yeah, yeah.
	And the women basically just got this piglet.
	And they didn't even kill it and eat it.
	Yeah, they just rendered it.
	A bottle of Lucozade has washed up on the shore!
	We're off the bit of the podcast that goes out on the YouTube.
	So very quickly, I just noticed that that looked like quite a fun place to be.
	But when she said a few years ago, I volunteered to work at a camp, I wonder if that's going to mean something a bit different in a few years time.
	We will have to find out in the future.
	Silver lining that I can take from that, in the end it didn't work.
	Well, at risk of quibbling, my point was actually that Stalin's system of satellite state suppression was actually a very effective one.
	With the exception of Ceausescu, none of them ever deviated from the authority of Moscow.
	And while that did collapse, it was for unrelated reasons.
	And it was that moment that centralized power vanished, that Yugoslavia ripped itself apart, Czechoslovakia, the Kurdish conflicts, and even now, the imported Russian population in the Donbass region is the justification for the Ukraine war.
	I think the Faustian finks in charge here are attempting to recreate the success, but have wildly overplayed their hand.
	Yeah.
	- One, that's a cool, what is that, a V8 or something? - That's the problem with this guy's comments, is I always get captivated by what's going on. - And he's right and wrong, I mean, it only worked whilst you had the sort of Stalinist era, sort of mass extreme repression, and when that couldn't last forever, so when that stopped, it did fall apart.
	So Harry's right.
	They're both right.
	But no, he is right that it can work.
	It just has to be followed by a police state.
	A Gentleman's Observations of Swindon, Chapter 24.
	Much of Swindon was mostly hamlets and rural land until even recently, and so plenty of the districts and locations are named after the land's original use, such as Tooth Hill Farm, now Tooth Hill in West Swindon.
	Many railways connected Swindon's modern urban sprawl, which is why this old railway is now a footpath, and this dilapidated brick construction was once a railway platform.
	In 1874, the largest stegosaurus so far found, the Death Centaurus, was discovered in a clay pit in Swindon, and worked on by the very man who coined the term a dinosaur.
	I know it's hard to see, but here's a complete map of Swindon's development over the millennium.
	That's awesome, I love it.
	I kind of want the documentary version of that comment.
	Yeah, we should put all of these together.
	So due to certain events about a year ago, I started toying with the idea of making my own tabletop RPG.
	About six months ago I started in earnest, and it's really come a long way.
	Now, being a longtime Sargon enjoyer and a fan of the podcast as a whole, I plan on becoming a subscriber and sending in videos when I became more financially stable.
	So imagine my shock when last week a commenter said that we should start our own tabletop RPG game.
	It's as if the gods themselves are sending me a message, and who am I to ignore them?
	So my question for now would be, what is the appropriate amount of time to subscribe before I start shilling my game?
	So now?
	We haven't got a particular time.
	Go for it.
	I'll just stick it in a video comment and let's see what's going on.
	Put like an email address or something so if people want to join you they can email you and get on with it.
	Do we have further video comments or are we?
	Right, written comments.
	We're a bit short on time and we have got something after but we've got to give people their due so let's do a couple of comments from each bit, shall we?
	Yeah, well that's the problem, isn't it?
	rare to have a stabbing at the local village fate it's weird isn't it mr says at the bare minimum i have no sympathy for any officer who will kneel for a rainbow or foreign flag but not a british one whistling yeah well that's the problem isn't it because the kneeling flag bearing uh gay police will remain but the half decent police who find this repugnant will be the ones who leave so think about i was only following orders well that's okay It's only really at Nuremberg that wasn't allowed.
	For all the rest of human history that was an okay excuse.
	But there comes a point where, you know, where you're being taken the mickey out of so much that you should leave that thing then.
	If you're being ordered to follow orders that you despise and hate, okay, it'll give you some sort of leeway in time.
	Eventually, leave then.
	That is what they're doing, isn't it?
	JJHW says, more people survive stabbings in London as doctors have had so much practice.
	I mean, that might be true.
	Yeah.
	Like, you know, a doctor in Gloucester or something.
	Or in Bath.
	Probably he's never seen a stabbing.
	Or one, maybe.
	By the time you got him to the nearest hospital as well.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Yeah.
	Kevin says it's not just officers being demoralised by their bosses telling them not to prosecute.
	It's also the fact that when they do charge someone, there's a 99% chance the judge will let them off anyway.
	Well, the prisons are overcrowded, Kevin.
	You've got to understand.
	So many people are posting things on Facebook.
	Angel Brain says, I think with employment figures we have to realize they generalize across all employment.
	There's a 300% drop in both drama teachers and oil rig workers.
	Which one would you be more concerned about?
	Also, where do these people go?
	They seem to go and surf them via service industries or chattel via state benefits.
	Chattel is a good term for benefit payments.
	We should start putting it to work.
	Shall I do this one from Bionomics?
	Omar Ward says, Job statistics represent unemployment like GDP represents living standards.
	How many people are taking on multiple jobs to make ends meet?
	What's the quality of each job, full-time, part-time?
	Are these jobs maximising the skill set of the employees?
	Are all polymaths taking work at McDonald's?
	Yeah, that is the thing.
	And actually, if you look at somewhere like Britain, all of the job growth has been amongst the immigrant population.
	In fact, it's the same in America.
	All of the job growth, jobs that used to be done by teenagers, they're now going into debt and all of the job growth is done by imports.
	Serving our coffee in Pratt.
	I think we've only got time for like one more.
	But California refugee says, if I were in charge, my policy would be to repatriate the invaders and then start billing the countries of origin for the cost.
	We're going to send them home and make Mexico pay for it.

▲