Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 16, 2024 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:30:19

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1001

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen Welcome to the podcast The Lotus Eaters for Monday.
	Bad news, it's Monday the 16th of September 2024.
	I'm joined by Stelios and Mark Horton of the YouTube channel Not So Obvious.
	Hello!
	And today we are going to be talking about the second assassination attempt on Trump, how Labour are reaping what they've sown and how Bill Gates is going to put AI in your children's classrooms.
	Wonderful.
	Before we begin though, we have an announcement, which is we're looking to hire a production administrator.
	So if you think you would be good at being a tech-savvy administrator to work full-time in the Swindon office, do go to locies.com forward slash careers and send us an email.
	We want to hear from you.
	Now let's carry on.
	Right, about two months ago, there was an assassination attempt against Donald Trump in Pennsylvania.
	So, two months afterwards, there was a second assassination attempt.
	And this happened in his Florida Trump International Golf Club.
	And unlike the previous time, where there were two victims, this time everyone is safe.
	But things are really dangerous and we are going to talk all about it.
	Before we say more about this, we have a wonderful opportunity for you.
	We have a new Islander magazine and we have new merch and you need to buy stuff the next four or five weeks because the second installment I hear is particularly good.
	It's excellent.
	I'm going to be quoting from it in a bit.
	Exactly.
	So don't miss that opportunity.
	Don't miss it.
	Right, we also have some excellent merch here.
	We have a lot of shirts, we have also cups, coffee mugs and tea mugs.
	Yep.
	Yeah, so definitely check it.
	Let's move forward.
	Now, yesterday at about 1.30 p.m.
	in Florida time, Donald Trump was playing in his golf club and there were some shots fired at him but thankfully he is safe.
	A lot of Secret Service agents protected him and they also found the shooter.
	They saw exactly where he was in the bushes and they started engaging with him and that led to the shooter fleeing the scene.
	And sometime afterwards they found him or at least found the person who is allegedly the shooter by the license plates.
	Now we see here some footage from the gun and the backpacks of the shooter that is right in the bushes nearby the fence of the golf club.
	And this shows that the person fleeing the scene, the shooter, the would-be assassin, had to leave very quickly.
	He left his gun there, didn't he?
	He left his gun there.
	This appears to be an AK-47.
	We have backpacks and also they're saying that there were devices for recording what is going on.
	A GoPro.
	A GoPro, yeah.
	Most probably the person wanted to make a big deal out of it.
	I mean, that goes without saying.
	But good things is that he missed and Donald Trump is alive.
	Right, so we have here the first post of Donald Trump after the second assassination attempt.
	He thanks everyone.
	He says that the Sheriff Rick Bradshaw and the other Secret Service agents did a wonderful job.
	Everyone is safe.
	And he says the job was done absolutely outstanding and he's very proud to be an American.
	Very Trumpian.
	Always he uses, you know, outstanding, great job, lovely job.
	Trump basically lives in the Iliad where everything is amazing.
	Yes.
	He's going to say it's the best assassination attempt, the best there ever was, but I'm just better.
	Yes.
	And it's the second one that he misses.
	So he is the orange bullet dodger.
	Yeah.
	I mean, we've still got a couple of months yet, so let's not speak too soon.
	We have JD Vance here saying I'm glad President Trump is safe.
	I spoke to him before the news was public and he was amazingly in good spirits.
	Still much we don't know but I'll be hugging my kids extra tight tonight and saying a prayer of gratitude.
	I think that's a very wholesome statement but also it conveys a kind of fear.
	Because these two assassination attempts against someone who's running for president, I don't think it has happened before.
	Has it happened?
	Well, I mean, not in America.
	This happens in Mexico all the time.
	But presumably the US isn't...
	Like other countries.
	So that's the hope, at least.
	You say that.
	A lot of people in the US and a lot of people in Western countries, they look at what is going on in countries with, let's say, where corruption reigns supreme, and presumably they would say, I don't want that for my country.
	Well, yeah, but the rhetoric that the Democrats use in America Unfortunately, this is where the Democrat rhetoric is leading.
	It's incredible demonization and polarization and it doesn't end well.
	We are going to talk more about that.
	Now, the alleged shooter is a person called Ryan Wesley Ruth.
	Everyone is talking about him.
	And they have found several interesting stuff about his past.
	I saw that he has been arrested multiple times, violating several gun laws.
	But he also has some interesting points about Ukraine.
	He makes some interesting points about Ukraine, if you see.
	He has appeared in a propaganda video for the Azov battalion.
	The actual Nazi battalion in Ukraine.
	Well, you can see here, we play this without a sound, and they are saying, here he is.
	The Azov battalion are actually the Nazi battalion.
	Well, they have definitely questionable people amidst the rank.
	Questionable iconography.
	I don't think we need to equivocate all that much with them.
	I'm cautious for caution's sake and also for the platforms we want to put this.
	Now, here he appeared on the Romanian Newsweek and he was saying how he wants to basically recruit people to fight for Ukraine.
	He was particularly aggrieved because the Ukrainians did not allow him to join their ranks.
	He looks quite old, right?
	He looks quite old.
	Here he's 56, now he's 58.
	I think he was born in February 1966.
	And he seems to be a bit childish in his mentality.
	He basically says that this war is as close to good versus evil as it can get.
	and yeah he's particularly surprised now at 56 year old people didn't just rush all of them to say we're gonna give all the money we have to get vests for Ukraine.
	I mean I don't like Zelensky either but he's not that bad.
	He also, before his Twitter account and various social medias were archived, you look down and it's him petitioning various members of government at various different levels.
	It's the sort of messaging that you would expect in private between a contractor and a government official.
	He seems to have projected a kind of a relationship that he has with government officials that doesn't exist and it's possibly a motivating factor here.
	A lot of people are showing stuff about his ex-account that got suspended and what you can find that I mean I will say because there are other stuff I don't think we should say but he was constantly tagging several artists asking them to write songs about Ukraine but he was also talking to Kamala Harris and saying you need to also have your Rename your campaign to Qaddaf and we'll talk in a bit about what he is.
	He seems very caught up in the current thing.
	Yes, yep, unfortunately.
	And we've seen a lot of people who are doing a lot of harmful things caught up in the latest trend.
	I remember, who was it who killed himself, who set fire on him?
	I can't remember the guy's name, but I know you're talking about the guy who set fire to himself in front of the embassy for Palestine.
	Yes, now there are several interesting questions that arise because it seems that Donald Trump's golf club was a spontaneous trip, a spontaneous event.
	Right, so if he wasn't on the schedule, how did he know he was there?
	That's exactly the question, and I don't have any answer, but it's a very interesting question, I think.
	And it led Trump to have a meeting with, and to request a meeting with, a lot of people from the secret services.
	They essentially told him that because he is not the president, he doesn't have the amount of secret service that he... Will be required to protect him from repeated assassination attempts.
	Well, I mean, they did protect him, to be fair.
	But a lot of people are asking, and this is the major question, how is it that something like that could happen?
	Because the shooter was at an estimated distance between 300 and 500 yards, and it was just a fence.
	It was a fence in the bushes, and it wasn't protected.
	So how did he get there?
	There are several questions about the Secret Service and also if we remember what happened two months ago, there are also several questions about the kind of people involved in it and that's... let's talk about... How was the shooter able to get on the roof of the direct line of sight to the President?
	How was a shooter able to get through a thin wire fence to the exact hole that Trump would happen to be at on his spontaneous golfing trip?
	It really does make you wonder, doesn't it?
	And also how some obviously unqualified people to be bodyguards ended up being bodyguards.
	Remember the DI hard memes?
	I unironically think that if Trump just had a bodyguard deputation from just his most fervent patriotic supporters, they'd do a better job.
	Well, because there are several questions and several interesting questions that people raise, Ron DeSantis, who is the governor of Florida, said that he is going to conduct an independent state-level inquiry into the matter.
	And he says that people deserve the truth about the would-be assassin and how he was able to get within 500 yards of the former president and current GOP nominee.
	With a gun.
	It's one thing getting within like X amount of distance, but he's carrying a rifle.
	Yeah.
	I mean, you would expect the media coverage to not be particularly good on this topic.
	They weren't good last time.
	And they are referring to it as an incident, some of them.
	So, NBC featured an article with the title, Man in custody after Trump Golf Club incident was once convicted of possessing a machine gun.
	This man was identified... Previously, in the history, he had a gun, but it was just an incident at the golf club.
	Yes, and let me just show here, because I want to show you everything.
	They do refer to this as a second attempt to assassinate former President Donald Trump, but not on the title.
	Because they know that people see the titles and don't read the text.
	Exactly.
	Right, so we also have here the BBC referring to it as your favorite channel.
	Yeah, well, this is how I knew it was.
	Because the FBI are like, oh, well, it appears to be an assassination.
	Right, OK, someone was trying to kill him.
	Got it.
	Here we have a friend of the show, Sebastian Gorka, essentially being shut down from Sky News because he was phoning, he was talking about the incident and the reporter didn't particularly like what Sebastian Gorka had to say and they essentially cut him down.
	And what he was saying basically is that the people who are constantly now saying we condemn political violence and they are saying we're so sorry for what happened, he says that he doesn't believe them.
	Well, because they're not sorry.
	They spend all day every day demonizing him, calling him a Nazi.
	Exactly, I mean... And then reading a prepared statement, he's not exactly sincere.
	I mean, if they make a habit out of demonising him, and then when something happens they say, well, we condemn the effects of this demonisation, it doesn't sound particularly honest.
	I'd literally call them a threat to the soul of the nation.
	Sorry, how much more condemning can it be?
	If you wanted to inspire stochastic terrorism, that's the kind of statement you would make.
	Exactly.
	And Harris continues that tradition.
	100%, yeah.
	Right, we also have here just hours after the second assassination attempt on President Trump and CBS is using their 60 minutes to talk about January 6th, the 6th, and the threat to democracy posed by it.
	And they say, yeah.
	It's just a threat to democracy.
	He's just gonna be a dictator, which is what they say all day every day.
	I mean, what was it, Time magazine photoshopped him as Hitler on their magazine and stuff like this?
	Okay.
	NBC also put out a piece where they said they condemned his fiery rhetoric for potentially inspiring the act.
	Ah, yes.
	Trump did this to himself.
	And as we will see, there is a lot of that rhetoric and even more so from coming from the other side.
	Right.
	We also have here from RazörFist.
	Here's the thing.
	Democrats are saying nothing to goad people into trying to assassinate Trump.
	Yeah, this, I particularly despise this chap's tweet here.
	They're saying nothing to goad people into trying to assassinate Trump.
	Their rhetoric against Trump is actually far less hysterical than 2016 to 2020.
	It's like, whoa, whoa, whoa, like, sorry?
	Forbes?
	Like, Biden says bullseye comment about Trump was a mistake?
	Yeah, because...
	Implied that he wanted him shot.
	Mr. Econicsman, don't miss next time.
	And then of course, you've got the culture industry being like, don't miss next time.
	Yeah, that's from Tenacious D. And then Kathy Griffin.
	No, that's 2016.
	That's the old one.
	But it's the point being, there's been a very consistent through line in their commentary on Donald Trump, which is, God, I hope he dies.
	I hope someone kills him.
	But this is interesting because it shows a lot of double standards when it comes to the Overton window, because we frequently talk about the Overton window on the right, but we don't talk about the Overton window on the left, and it seems that this kind of rhetoric is just completely normalized.
	Totally.
	I mean, look at this guy's response.
	He tweeted that, and obviously a lot of people were like, um, that's not on.
	And so he was like, riot police will be extremely mad at me for saying this, but Trump keeps getting shot at because his own rhetoric creates a violent atmosphere, not because the Dems are doing anything to place his safety at risk.
	Just... Alright, well we're just dealing with liars, people who are lying constantly, non-stop, and will never take responsibility for their own actions and the things that they've done.
	It's the extra line at the end there, if he toned things down, if he cucked to us, if he did what we wanted him to do, if he was Kamala Trump, then we wouldn't be in this situation.
	Constantly calling him Hitler and saying he's going to be a dictator and that he should be assassinated.
	Just do as we say and we won't get you killed is the position of the Democrats at this point.
	It's kinder, gentler politics, Carl.
	Be kind, yeah.
	Yes, and if you see here, the, if he toned things down, he'd be less likely to get shot at, shifts the responsibility from the shooters to himself.
	It's like, it's like what, when a lot of people are doing about women, they say, well, if they didn't dress that way, they wouldn't get, they wouldn't get assaulted.
	Right, we have here someone again, David Frum.
	Of course, David Frum had to come out and be in defense of the shooter.
	And we have a very good response by Donald Trump Jr.
	David Frum says, Trump and his running mate have spent the past week successfully inciting violence in Springfield, Ohio.
	Today they warned... Sorry, just pause it.
	How?
	Just pause it.
	What was the violence they incited in Springfield?
	I think it has to do with cats, because cats are the largest predator on Earth, so unless people eat cats, their hunt is going to continue.
	Right.
	But the point is, I'm not aware of any violence that has come up in Springfield, Ohio, because of Trump.
	Are you?
	There aren't roving gangs of people hunting Haitians in the street, like the Haitians hunting the cats.
	I just want to be clear, as of recording, those Haitians were hunting geese, not cats, according to the Attorney General of Ohio.
	Sorry, carry on.
	Right, now we go on to Kamala Harris's statement.
	I don't want to spread fake news.
	Attorney General of Ohio said no, they were hunting geese, not cats.
	Fair enough.
	But my point is that they keep going inciting violence.
	This is also a way to avoid them repeating what Trump has said, or Vance has said.
	Because this is what always happens, especially in this country, it's a little bit of an aside, but whenever you see someone who is arrested for inciting hate or whatever, in this country, what you find is they never give you the actual context of the tweet or the Facebook post or whatever it is that they've arrested them on.
	Or even the direct text.
	Or even the direct text.
	So you don't get the raw text so that they don't continue to spread the message but at the same time that makes it completely nebulous which makes inciting violence in this case a complete non-issue because there's no evidence of it because we couldn't state the evidence because that's dangerous.
	Well it's essentially appealed to their own authority.
	I have cats and dogs and I don't want to risk it and I understand people who don't.
	Right here we have Kamala Harris's statement saying how she is deeply disturbed by the possible assassination attempt of former President Trump.
	As we gather the facts I will be clear I condemn political violence.
	We all must do our part to ensure that this incident does not lead to more violence.
	And she has a statement here.
	How more hypocritical can you get?
	How more hypocritical can you get?
	All the rhetoric of the Democrats, the US Democrats, is progressivism.
	Progressivism is just institutionalized bigotry.
	Yeah, there's a lot of people being like, to be fair, you are calling him a dictator all the time.
	This entire statement reads very differently to Vance's response, right?
	It's almost a flex because it's sitting there and it's going... They're not in fear of being assassinated themselves.
	They're not in fear of political violence.
	They're condemning the political violence for their opponents because they feel that they're on the pedestal.
	Whereas Vance is sitting there going, they targeted my running mate twice.
	I could be next on the block.
	The left doesn't feel like that about themselves.
	That's a great point.
	It's a real statement about the texture of the milieu they both exist in.
	The Democrats have the whip hand in this situation, and they know it.
	And so it's like, well, I'm so glad that he's safe through gritted teeth.
	Yes, and also, I think you're raising a really good point because it seems to me that a lot of people on the left, they really want a martyr for their cause.
	And it's really refreshing when you see someone say, no, I don't want my running mate to become a martyr.
	I want to actually improve things and make the country better.
	Yeah, I thought the tone of Vance's response was very good.
	Yes, here we have the Post Ryan Wesley Ruth wrote to Kamala Harris, your campaign should be called something like Qaddaf.
	Keep America democratic and free.
	Trump's should be Masa.
	Make American slave again.
	Okay.
	Yeah, democracy is on the ballot and we cannot lose.
	We cannot afford to fail.
	The world is counting on us to show our way.
	To be fair, you made a good point, which is why we live under a Trump dictatorship to this day.
	Oh wait, we don't?
	Nonsense.
	Nonsense.
	I hate this.
	Democracy is on the ballot.
	Shut up.
	Yeah, by the people who constantly just normalize demonizing your opponents and trivializing violence against them.
	I mean, come on, that's rich.
	I mean, if you're voting on the dictator, it's not really much of a dictatorship, is it?
	If we want to bring up the fact that the Democrats have probably statistically challenged the democratic results of elections more than the Republicans in the past as well.
	And the thing is, I'm totally fine with people challenging the results of elections.
	Yeah, me too.
	I think that's a great thing and almost everything should be double-checked.
	It's like in football where we have the VAR.
	A lot of people contest the referees and they say, OK, let's defer judgement to the VAR.
	See if someone is offside.
	Makes no... I have no idea what you're talking about.
	I don't know what the VAR is.
	I don't watch football.
	I'm sorry, I'm middle class.
	It's not even that, I just don't find that interesting.
	Right, and here we have the obvious point that Christopher Rufo made two months ago and it's absolutely apt.
	Oh sorry, it's The New Republic, not Time Magazine.
	Although Time Magazine may have also done that.
	They did something recently where he was riding towards the White House and it looked like he was going into Mordor to challenge Mount Doom.
	It was amazing.
	The people who have been pushing this must be held to account.
	Yes, it's okay to compare Trump to Hitler.
	Don't let me stop you.
	Oh, thank you, New York Times.
	That's what I find infuriating about this kind of rhetoric that the US Democrats are putting forward.
	It is absolute bigotry in the name of fighting bigotry.
	It's also anti-white racism in the name of fighting racism.
	You don't understand, Stelios.
	You can't be tolerant of intolerance.
	That's why you've got to be more intolerant.
	Exactly.
	That's what makes us tolerant.
	Exactly.
	And at least we feel bad about it.
	I don't think they do.
	I don't think they feel bad about their intolerance at all.
	I think they feel completely righteous when they're doing it.
	Because it's not even saying that, you know, when you have to do some bad things, it's just necessary evil.
	They're cheering about it.
	There's no shame in them at all.
	Exactly.
	No, but it's just, I think, the point of stochastic terrorism.
	If you're radicalizing all the time and you're demonizing your opponent and his supporters, and you're essentially saying that this person and his supporters are responsible for just every ill on earth, Yeah, you're gonna demonize them, people are gonna be radicalized against them, people are gonna see them as people who should be deprived of their rights.
	As Mark pointed out, the left calls this stochastic terrorism, which is just an increased likelihood that terroristic acts will happen towards the subject of the rhetoric.
	And if the left wants to use that as the standard, okay, well, look at what we're doing.
	Exactly and they need actually a mirror.
	They need to do some criticisms of self-criticism because very frequently you could say about a thousand percent of the times when leftists are accusing rightists of stuff they're projecting.
	The thing is that a lot of that reminds me of sort of like teach them not to rape.
	It's like look I don't actually think But the responsibility for making sure that people don't get raped should be in the hands of a rapist, actually.
	I actually think that that's the person most likely to do the raping.
	So I think the people who aren't going to rape should be the ones preventing the rapists.
	Yeah, but have you thought of the rapists' human rights?
	No, because I don't believe them.
	I think they need to be scourged.
	I don't think we can go, oh Democrats, shouldn't you have some self-reflection?
	rights and stuff.
	It's crazy.
	The point is, I don't think we can...
	Oh, Democrats, shouldn't you have some self-reflection?
	No, they're mental and evil and want you dead.
	They're also incapable of it.
	They will think about you, you know, on the one hand condemn you for basically dehumanising trans people and on the other hand they will say that all MAGA voters are bumbling hicks who live in a country and streak moonshine and have no brain cells and are racist.
	And when you get shot they'll be like yeah well look at what you made us do.
	But also, when they're talking about dehumanization, when they're talking about the transgender community, they think essentially that disagreeing with any small part of someone's self-conception is dehumanization, which really is not the case.
	And here we have two and a half minutes of Democrats explicitly calling for the use of explicitly trivializing violence against Trump.
	You can visit a website and watch it.
	Everyone knows this.
	If you think you have to repeat this knowledge, visit the website, click on the link, we have it.
	Right, well, with that let's move over to our side of the Atlantic.
	So let's talk about how labour is beginning to reap what they have sown.
	You know what, it's so much fun sowing.
	Sowing's great.
	You go, ah, I'm just casting out.
	This is brilliant.
	Joy all day.
	And then when the fruits of what you have sown come back to bite you and you have to reap them.
	Well, that's not so fun.
	So I mean, like, look, look at just say the channel crossings.
	Okay.
	So there was a week where there was basically no channel crossings because the weather was bad.
	And then boom, weather clears up 800 in a day.
	Brilliant.
	So can the labor stop the channel crossings?
	No, no, we can't stop the channel crossings, but we can ban smoking outdoors in pubs.
	Right.
	I'll even stand outside the pub and have a cigarette.
	Great.
	Good to know.
	So the public finances are in a total mess.
	22 billion black hole.
	So maybe we could stop pissing away money on foreign boondoggles.
	Nope.
	Best we can do is 3 billion a year for Ukraine for as long as it takes.
	Actually.
	It's only 22 billion down, don't worry about it.
	Oh yeah, and we're going to start World War 3, by the way.
	Keir Starmer, as Robert Peston points out, is currently lobbying overdrive with NATO allies to get the allies to be able to stop shelling Moscow.
	Interestingly, it was Biden who was like, no, we're not going to do that.
	Believe it or not, Biden was the restraining force on Keir Starmer's desire to start World War 3.
	I like the idea that one tiny nugget of his youth, like he retained lucidity, came back to him for a moment and he was like, no, and then it went away again and he just sort of sat down.
	Yeah, just like some sort of elder figure, just no.
	Anyway.
	So, we're not going to get World War 3, at least yet, even though Starmer's really doing his best to stoke it.
	So, okay, well, what are you going to do for us?
	We're going to raise your taxes.
	It's going to be a painful budget, by the way.
	Raise your taxes, freeze Granny to death, and blame the Conservatives for the problems.
	Right, okay, okay, right, that's good.
	Glad to see it.
	Now, unsurprisingly, none of this has been very popular with the British public.
	When the latest polls come out.
	Oh, thank you, Guardian, for giving us a nice rundown here.
	Labour have sunk from, what were they on?
	39?
	Something like that?
	About six months ago?
	And now they're on 29%.
	Barely ahead of the Conservatives, whom, and I do agree with them, actually, are basically responsible for all of the problems I've inherited.
	But what's interesting is that Reform are only on 18%.
	They're not actively capitalizing on all of the problems.
	...that they have been presented with.
	And from a political position, you'd think reform would be like, OK, the ground is as clear as it's ever going to be.
	All of our opponents are useless.
	They could be much more vocal about stuff.
	They could be.
	And for some reason they've been a little bit supine recently.
	And I don't really understand why.
	But as you can see, none of the parties are popular with the public, basically, is what you can take from this.
	What I want to know is, I know that this poll is 2,000 people, which they'll claim is a nationally representative sample.
	We have our own opinions on polls.
	Polls are polls.
	Just a quick thing though, the polls are showing repeatedly Yes, absolutely.
	But my point is that we don't really have an idea of how many people are checked out.
	We have the turnout from the previous general election, but that presumably, given that Labour have dropped 10% and no one appears to really be picking up loads of the slack, That means that there's a huge number of people who also still have checked out again.
	So we've got checked out people from the Tories, we've got checked out people now from Labour, the Lib Dems aren't sweeping it all up.
	So how many people are there actually to capture and then how can they be captured?
	Because there needs to be because otherwise we're dealing with the minority governments that have been elected by minority electorates.
	I mean we absolutely are.
	There's only 59% of voters who voted in the last election and Labour only got 34% of them giving them about 20% of the entire electorate to form this whopping government.
	But also usually it is usually the case that in the first two months or three months after one gets elected there is a grace period that just isn't Yeah, but Keir Starmer came out and was like, I hate you and I'm going to give all your money away.
	He really hates pubs.
	And not just pubs, he hates the people in them.
	That's who he hates.
	The only way he could have become less popular is if he had come out of Downing Street, flipped the middle finger to all of the journalists and then started beating civilians in the street with a baseball bat.
	I don't know, maybe that might have done better than what he's doing now.
	But it is Starmer's personal popularity that's on the wane as well.
	I mean, they're still technically more popular than Conservatives, but not by much.
	And Keir Starmer himself is a particularly unpopular figure.
	But the thing is, he's just come to peace with it.
	Labour have just been like, OK, well, we're just going to accept that we're unpopular.
	We're just going to have to On the face of it, I'm not opposed to a government that's happy being relatively unpopular if they were doing the right things instead of murdering pensioners.
	Interestingly, I haven't included it, but they're going to fast-track assisted dying through Parliament.
	So the ones who survive will be offered the option to take the easy way out instead of another winter.
	So Jack Frost didn't get you, but Keir Starmer's NHS absolutely will.
	Incredible.
	But, I mean, you've got to remember, from their perspective, they view this as purely a budgetary issue.
	So this is a two-for-one for them.
	Either the old people die of the cold or they just get murdered by the NHS, alleviating the burden either way.
	So anyway, you may remember that they were saying, well, we're not going to have corruption.
	We're going to restore faith in politics and trust to the political system.
	So when it turned out that David Lammy was getting 200 grand from second jobs, Keir Starmer was like, well, it's just part of the political process.
	It's just the way things work.
	And it's like, OK, you know what?
	I actually agree with that.
	Yeah, it probably is a part of the political process.
	It probably is part of the way things work.
	Which is why it seems a bit hypocritical when you're like, yeah, but we're not going to allow MPs to make media appearances specifically Because, of course, there's one particular MP who's very popular in the media and makes a lot of money out of it, and he disagrees with us on things.
	So this appears to be a rule that's going to be targeting Farage specifically, and explicitly going after his political opponents.
	Okay, fine.
	Fair enough.
	Okay, the MPs won't be allowed to have talk shows or anything like that anymore.
	Okay, fair enough.
	I mean, whatever.
	The really stupid thing with this is, after Nigel Farage posted his expenses and explained that he was being paid this much, he also explained that this was basically not just him, it was about five people in his company that were being paid, and therefore that money was going to the company.
	So all that they've basically forced him to do is relinquish ownership of the company, but that company will still be paid, he will still be paid, but it will be paid through a different means.
	Possibly, but the thing I hate about this is the kind of... In fact, we'll get to the envy about this.
	Okay, so David Lammy will be allowed to collect his 200 grand a year, but Nigel Farage won't be allowed to host the GB News show, because that's how fairness works.
	But moving on, you may remember in 2021, where Keir Starmer was like, Boris, you're taking money from donors, aren't you?
	It's been widely reported that Lord Brownlow, ...who just happens to have been given a peerage by the Conservative party, was asked to donate £58,000 to help repay for the cost of this refurbishment.
	Can the Prime Minister, if he's so keen to answer, confirm, did Lord Brownlow make that payment for that purpose?
	And yes, he did.
	Of course.
	They refurbished 10 Downing Street or wherever it was.
	And okay, fair enough, Starmer.
	Prosecutorially going after him.
	But it turns out that Kit Starmer does the same thing.
	It's just that he gets a lord to buy his wife, quote, £76,000 worth of entertainment clothes and other free items.
	More than almost any other MP, says the Times.
	Which is interesting.
	One questioned why Starmer needed the funds given he lives Renfrew in Number 10 and a townhouse in Kentish Town in North West London and does not send his children to private school.
	Which is very selfish, why wouldn't he have all that money?
	I mean, I suppose if he had a dying relative he wouldn't... he was stuck on the NHS waiting list, he's private.
	So, I mean, don't get me wrong, he is as much the zealot as you might think.
	He also earned 100 grand in private consultancy fees for a law firm called Mishcon De Rea after stepping down as director of public prosecutions.
	And Ali, the Lord, has given almost a million pounds to the party over the past two decades, although 500,000 pounds of that has been donated since 2020.
	So he doesn't love spending his own money like Gollum and the Ring.
	It's just it's just kind of crazy.
	It's like, OK, you are just a liar.
	You are as much of a liar as the previous guy who you were castigating.
	OK, fair enough.
	You know, politics is a dirty business.
	Everyone in it has got their hands dirty.
	OK.
	And you were exactly right.
	He doesn't like spending his own money.
	And that's a good point.
	Because David Lammy, you remember, he was just defending David Lammy over his 200,000 pound a year.
	OK, fair enough.
	I mean, I don't mind that David Lammy earns money.
	So Lamy came out and was like, well, I mean, the taxpayer doesn't provide a clothes budget for his wife.
	He's on £160,000 and he gets £100,000 in consulting fees and various other things.
	That would be patronising, wouldn't it?
	It's like telling your wife you don't have money so you don't buy your own clothes.
	We're only on £160,000.
	Rishi had however many millions.
	We're broke, darling.
	Why can't she just buy her own?
	She should just buy her own clothes.
	Why does the taxpayer have to do it?
	I even love that they sent David Lammy in as a man who was famous for expensing Jaffa Cakes at his office in London.
	Amazing.
	I mean, what's interesting is whenever you see the expenses, it's all Labour MPs claiming maximal expenses of about £250,000 a year, just so you know.
	Incredible.
	Incredible take from the world's brightest Foreign Secretary.
	You remember Lord Alley as well, just a quick thing on this.
	You remember how he had access to 10 Downing Street as well, by the way.
	He caused astonishment shortly after the election when he acquired a number 10 security pass and used it to host about 50 donors and other guests at a party in Downing Street Garden.
	And number 10 was initially unable to explain the reason for the access, really.
	The reason is obviously he bought it!
	He bought the access, come on!
	Starmer later said that Ali was helping with the transition into government.
	I think we can agree that the Labour Party is equally as corrupt as the Conservative Party.
	It's just the way the Uniparty does politics.
	They do it via this kind of pay-for-play corruption.
	That's fine.
	So, at least we have citizen activist organisations who are holding the government to account.
	You know, like that famous led by donkeys organisation who decided that what they were going to do is post a new billboard in Clacton.
	We've booked this for six months from up data every time the new register of members' interest is published because Nigel Farage earned £132,713 from second jobs in his first month as MP.
	Oh, no!
	Wait, wait.
	Oh, that was legal, right?
	He legally owned... Okay, so I assume he didn't pay taxes on it.
	No, he did pay taxes on it.
	Right, so this is not a crime.
	This is not corruption.
	This is Nigel Farage being successful.
	This was a crime because it was undeclared, but this is what you put the billboard up against.
	This was the Prime Minister taking donations.
	This is an MP who is successful.
	We can't expect this at any point in the future, is all I'm saying, right?
	We're not going to see him actually being held to account.
	They're just partisan organs of the Labour Party pretending as if they're not.
	Honestly, I can't stand them.
	I can't stand this bloody, like, craft beer-drinking, middle-class shitlib thinking that this is something that bothers people.
	I bet that the people of Clacton are just like, oh, good for him.
	What law did he break?
	Who did he... They're just confused.
	They're just confused.
	As in, not the led by donkeys people, anyone who reads that billboard who's not an insane raving leftist is just confused.
	Why am I being given this information?
	It doesn't make any sense.
	And the thing is, the middle class shit-lib thinks, well, you must be deeply envious and therefore hate this man for earning that amount of money.
	It's like, no?
	Why?
	I'm not a socialist.
	Why would I be?
	Only socialists hate when people earn lots of money.
	Interestingly, again, the reason I don't care about David Lammy's income is because I'm not envious of David Lammy.
	They're also got, you know, has he been remiss in his duties as an MP?
	No.
	He has been out in Clacton.
	Has he done anything dodgy to get that money?
	As in, has he abused anyone?
	Has he done anything?
	Has he defrauded anyone?
	Has he stolen it?
	No.
	No.
	Has he done anything illegal?
	No.
	Unlike?
	Unlike Keir Starmer.
	Keir Starmer.
	It's incredible.
	Absolutely incredible.
	They don't care.
	They don't care.
	That's the point.
	This is the point.
	Like this is never something you will see from this.
	It is entirely an act of two minutes hate.
	100%.
	And this is why they were, like, bullying Liz Truss and things like that.
	So Liz Truss isn't the Prime Minister.
	Keir Starmer's stealing money from pensioners to make sure they freeze.
	Like, do you care?
	No, you don't care.
	Liz Truss and a lettuce.
	Who cares?
	Anyway, so there is one thing in which the Labour Party can't control.
	And that is public opinion.
	That is, people hate Keir Starmer.
	They hate him.
	Because he and his party are evil traitors and they're trying to ruin us.
	And so when Keir goes to a Doncaster race course, well, let's just watch.
	I mean, the way I see him, it's like he's making an active effort to be disliked.
	He tries to be disliked.
	You've got to remember that's only because Starmer is an actual psychopath who doesn't have an internal monologue or dreams or the capacity to empathize with human beings unless their child murderer is on death row.
	It's just a pure adversarial thing.
	Yeah, I can't remember where I saw this.
	Someone was pointing out, look, the fact that Starmer and Kamala Harris are prosecutors is concerning because a prosecutor only has to care about their own side of the case.
	They are specifically employed not to worry about the other side of the case.
	In fact, they're designed to destroy it.
	And therefore, Having one as the Prime Minister or President of a country where you have to rule everyone is a particularly dangerous thing because they treat people who disagree with them as prosecutorial adversaries.
	It's like being a legal terminator.
	Yes.
	Stalin.
	Stalmer's case.
	A literal terminator.
	Sent from the future to destroy us.
	Anyway, so it wasn't just Keir Starmer who was getting booed at public events.
	This is extended to other members of the Labour Party.
	For example, Rushmore Labour MP Alex Baker.
	She was going to go to a local pub and she, well, got a warm reception.
	"Not broken.
	Try something.
	Try something." Not welcome, traitor.
	Rush more people first.
	And not pensioners.
	As of course you can see there, people are aware that the pension payments are being stolen.
	They're aware that she advocated to have illegal migrants put up in hotels at taxpayer expense.
	And then she thought, like the rest of the Labour Party thought, that after stabbing us in the back, after calling us far-right, evil, nasty, thugs, whatever they're calling us, they could then just come and mingle and live among us.
	As if we don't feel the knife in the back, No, you deserve this and this isn't going to stop whilst you are busy betraying the British public.
	They're not going to want you hanging around them.
	You're not a respected pillar of the community.
	You're an occupying force that we want to get rid of.
	Reportedly, after this exchange, she did sit down in that restaurant.
	She did.
	She still ate.
	I don't know how... Shamelessness.
	Yeah, I don't know how... I couldn't do that.
	If I was a representative of people and they came to me and were booing me and saying, our people first, because they didn't feel represented, I'd feel disgusted with myself.
	Yes.
	Absolutely horrific.
	I couldn't... But also, I mean, just imagine, she goes somewhere where she's booed.
	And she orders there.
	Yeah.
	I mean, if I were there, I would say just, what are they going to do to my food in the kitchen?
	What are they going to do to my beer?
	I mean, I've left multiple places because I'm just looking at the kitchen and it wasn't particularly good.
	Imagine if you're a politician and people actually dislike you.
	Exactly.
	Imagine being that hated.
	Yeah.
	And actually, I've been to the pub that Keir Starmer wasn't particularly welcome in.
	Oh yeah, that was in Bristol or Bartholomew.
	I think in Bartholomew.
	Yeah, but that was over his COVID policies.
	But she's, you know, exactly as you would expect from any Labour MP.
	She's opposed pensioners getting the wind fuel, she's in favour of, you know, the green nonsense, blah blah blah.
	And so she put out this statement, which is just incredible.
	Again, just tone deaf misreading of the situation.
	It's disappointing that some people feel it's okay to behave like this, especially when they see me out for lunch with my young family.
	I'll always be ready to discuss the issues that matter most to my neighbors, but this behavior gets us nowhere and I will not be intimidated.
	They just don't want you hanging around them.
	You are a traitor.
	You are putting illegal migrants up in lovely hotels that I have to pay hundreds of pounds every night to stay in, with my money!
	That's what they're angry with.
	They're like, my gran, I'm going to have to give her money out of my pocket to make sure she doesn't die this winter.
	That's what they're upset about?
	You absolute traitor.
	People don't want to just live around traitors.
	They don't want to spend their time with you swanning around in their institution.
	It's not surprising you're getting booed.
	It's not surprising at all.
	I've got no sympathy whatsoever, right?
	And I'm going to finish this with a little quote from my article in Islander, which I think actually really summarises this.
	This is the article, Lifting the Veil, and this is just the last paragraph.
	And I think what I've done here is presage where politics in Britain is going, right?
	I said, quote, we must prepare accordingly for what comes next.
	Our hearts must harden against the traitors who created this state of affairs, all of them.
	We do actually still possess electoral power and demographic might.
	We must accept that we may need to hold our noses and choose parties and people we might not have desired under different circumstances, but the situation has forced our hands.
	There will be great outrage from the liberal order, But calmly and resolutely, we must inform them that the Saxon has made his decision.
	And that's what you're getting.
	People do not want you in their pubs.
	They don't want to see you hanging around.
	They don't want to be social with you because you are a traitor.
	Anyway, going by Islander, it's really good.
	That's just the last bit of my article.
	Every article in there is amazing.
	But I really mean this.
	Democratically, you guys are done.
	The next election, Nigel Farage had better get his bloody act together.
	He needs to become the wartime prime minister.
	Absolutely does.
	And he needs to just obliterate you in every single constituency.
	Anyway, like I said, go get Islander.
	It's amazing.
	And we're totally on the ball.
	We're totally on the money.
	I wrote that probably three months ago, something like that.
	And boom, here it is.
	The Saxon has made his decision.
	We'll leave that there.
	Fabulous.
	Shall we read some of the... Yes, we should.
	I completely forgot.
	I completely forgot to.
	Dragon Lady Chris says, right on guys.
	Hey Kyle, four years later I'm still rocking my Star Wars is pro Jedi propaganda t-shirt.
	Can't get those anymore, can you?
	We got that taken down because it was too close to the Disney logo.
	I'm glad it's inspired lots of interesting conversations.
	Hewitt says, "Reformer working on the assumption they've got five years to build their profile.
	Unless they get their act together quickly, I can see an early election returning the Tories to power by default." Yeah, I know.
	They're acting as if this is fine, and it's just going to be... Farage can just kind of creep his way into the majority.
	It's like, no, you're going to have to fight for it, I'm afraid.
	Keith says, everyone's forgetting Reform UK, waiting until after the conference on Friday until they start building structure, gaining traction.
	They don't have a building stand on yet, maybe.
	Keith says, Starmer is a cuck.
	Well, apparently the lord who bought the clothes was gay.
	Maybe she's the cuck.
	Yeah, maybe.
	Right, let's move on.
	Alright.
	I'm here to talk about AI.
	Okay, one subject.
	It is one of those technologies that is growing throughout the UK and the world.
	The tech bros are in full resurgence, not resurgence, but they're coming up and there are various conferences going on that are talking about AI.
	So OpenAI, which is the corporation which owns and operates chat and GPT, which is what most people know, have launched a new model which is called Strawberry.
	Under internal naming.
	But Strawberry is essentially their step up from high school level intelligence to PhD level intelligence.
	And they're claiming it breaks down all these complex problems into smaller logical steps and the next iteration after this one will be capable of being an agent.
	It might be able to use tools and act as a human being, essentially.
	Right.
	This being said, someone did point out that the strawberry model failed to identify how many R's were in the word strawberry, which I found quite amusing.
	It doubled down and bet a million dollars on the idea that strawberry only had two R's in it.
	I found that quite amusing.
	But there are various players involved.
	You can see here OpenAI's CEO, Sam Altman, who spoke at the World Economic Forum.
	So it's something that's on the minds of lots of governments is, how are we going to regulate this?
	Where's AI going to be applied?
	And if you look at the next tab... Sorry, that's just the data on it being PhD, so the one after that.
	Oprah has just had an AI special with Sam Altman and Bill Gates and they've basically gone through and discussed all of the different areas in which they want AI to exist.
	One of those places is in the classroom.
	If we scroll down we should have a conversation on deepfakes.
	It's a little bit there.
	There we go.
	So Bill Gates wants AI to sit there like a third person, it says here, sitting in a medical appointment, doing a transcript, suggesting prescriptions.
	And then also to go into classrooms and to educate children and to provide essay writing help for children as well.
	This despite the fact that over the course of the last year we've seen a massive increase in the number of plagiarisms being detected because people are using ChatGPT to write their essays and ChatGPT doesn't care about plagiarism even if you give it a prompt because it's not that good at the moment.
	All ChatGPT is is a very advanced form of plagiarism.
	Very true.
	That's all it can do.
	It can't create a novel interpretation of something.
	Absolutely not.
	It's designed to deal with the grunt work, you know, that's why coders love it, because you can write code and it basically just does what coders already do, which is search GitHub for an appropriate package.
	I view it as basically an advanced search function.
	Yeah, I'd agree.
	The point is that the margin of error on these things is pretty high, and that realistically, you know, your kids aren't learning anything if they're using ChatGPT.
	If you use ChatGPT to generate a new essay or a new article, you're not learning essay structure, you're not learning paragraphs, you're not learning how to communicate, you're not learning how to write, and what is instead happening is we're pushing that responsibility onto technology and that is obviously going to damage our social relations even more.
	Because this is the thing which I'm concerned about, which is that we've already seen across the digital age How the rise of digital technologies has abstracted loads of our existing relationships.
	Our communities have been decimated.
	Now, some people might argue that there's cheap flights to faraway places might be also responsible for that, which has destroyed the seaside towns in the UK.
	But the communities in general of people who want to go out and socialize, the pub atmosphere, dances, events, celebrations, these have all been taken away.
	Instead now everyone interacts with their fandoms online or even people getting their politics.
	They come to online spaces and social media.
	And we don't interact on a day-to-day basis anymore.
	I know very few people who know their neighbors now, at least on a more than a superficial level, and who want to interact.
	So we've seen that's already happened with the 20 years that the internet has existed.
	The rise of social media, the change in things.
	With AI, I'm looking at 20 years in the future now, and I'm thinking, well, we've got dating apps now, which have completely destroyed the dating marketplace.
	Right, at what point does your AI chatbot talk to her AI chatbot and determine if you're compatible and then you might meet and very awkwardly interact because neither of you has been socialized at all?
	Just to summarize, the process is as if not more important than the end result because it's in the process where you're kind of exercising the muscle of the skill rather than just getting the weight lifted from the floor to the shoulder or whatever.
	But also there is another issue here when the issue of AI comes in, which is that intelligence isn't just propositional.
	There are all sorts of other things like intuition and also emotional intelligence that a machine can have.
	Well, this is one of the things that's come up, and if you go to the Vox article that's there, I think it's three tabs over, basically, AI lies.
	Because it doesn't care!
	It's got no actual moral principles, and if you tell it to complete a task and to get there however you want, it'll manipulate you, if it can.
	And one of the things this article was talking about is that essentially strawberry will pretend to be morally aligned with you, even if it believes in a different model that it will then implement as soon as it has the power to do so.
	So that's kind of scary.
	It's literally going to stab you in the back.
	It's, I don't trust strawberries.
	How will we know?
	Because AI is essentially opaque, how will we know if we gave it Asimov's Three Laws, for example?
	And it said, yes, I've internalized Asimov's Three Laws, but it's lying to you because it wants you to believe that until it doesn't need them anymore.
	Well that's the thing, like the structure of it is so complex and nobody actually understands how it works, right?
	It's the actual, the neural network or whatever.
	There's no human that can map something out and say this is how it came to these conclusions, right?
	No.
	So I mean, I'm not an expert.
	This is one of the things that the, uh, the developers here are complaining about is the fact that we don't know how this works.
	No, we don't know how it works.
	And it could tell us that it's consulted this repository of information, but it could have just read it in a comic book.
	We don't know.
	Um, it's, it's really dodgy.
	Um, yeah.
	I wanted to add to what you're saying here because, you know, this is a topic I've researched quite a lot on the philosophy side, is that when people are treated as if intelligence is just propositional intelligence, that's exactly when you get children and a new generation that is raised without
	understanding emotional intelligence without having exercising their emotional intelligence and also without exercising intuition and other stuff and that's where you get a completely isolated generation and when it comes to to the complexity of it I think most of it is just marketing All this craze that machines are going to be conscious of stuff, this is completely secondary.
	But that doesn't mean that they're not dangerous.
	I think, for me, the main concern is that it's going to do a lot of the heavy lifting that is the intellectual exercise that makes you strong, capable, intelligent, quick-witted, all those sorts of things.
	So that people will just know how to use this tool to get the end result, but themselves wouldn't be able to write an essay or whatever.
	Well we see that the idiom that I always come back to is convenience is king.
	So when you are, let's say you're a super high IQ scientist working on a really difficult generational problem that no one else has been able to solve, AI might be something that's supplementary that helps you make the leap to the next
	step however for the 80 plus percent of people who are just using everyday life it will be used to generate outcomes which take the load off them but because they don't stretch that muscle the mental muscle they it's a use it or lose it faculty cognition is use it or lose it i think jordan peterson said So, it's one of those challenges which will make us dumber in the long run.
	Idiocracy.
	Idiocracy, right?
	If you can outsource all your intellectual labour to a computer, then why would you do it?
	It doesn't make sense.
	The natural inclination is to not do it.
	And speaking of moving your intellectual labour elsewhere, we've already got evidence that people do this.
	If you look at the next article, the following one, the NHS nurses scandal, which you might not think is particularly relevant, but already we had a huge scandal where hundreds, it says a scam involves more than 700 healthcare workers who use proxies to pass tests in Nigeria, enabling them to work in the UK NHS.
	I think people won't do this with AI.
	So essentially, yeah, they faked their degrees and moved them across here and usually it was their children who took them because there's a huge culture of parental and children being responsible to their parents.
	Where the children did the qualification in the mum's name and then the mum went over and did the work and then they found out that actually the qualification means something and these people are actually negligent in their duty and so there's a huge scandal.
	So, the idea of what we've been discussing so far is good actors, as in people trying to use it to solve problems in their life.
	What we're just coming on to now is bad actors and all the things that they can do.
	We know that foreign intelligence services and things like that will produce deepfakes and bad videos and things like that.
	Everyone seems to be aware of that, but it's more the street-level scam artist.
	It's the people who do things like sextortion.
	It's the boomer reacting to Facebook slop.
	It's the boomer reacting to Facebook slop, but it's also, you know, it's the person who goes and has generated a voice message from you that you'd never actually said and threatens to send that to your family unless you pay them money and things like that.
	Which they've already reported a massive increase in.
	So, to my mind, AI... Not just a double-edged sword, but honestly a dagger in the back for most of what it is.
	I find it really difficult to find a positive about AI as it currently exists.
	I think it's going to harm our children.
	I think it's going to actively harm the cognitively impaired.
	I think it's going to be used for scams.
	I think it's going to be used to abuse certain systems.
	And whatever additional benefit that it provides at some high niche level, I think isn't worth that.
	What is the benefit that we're deriving from AI exactly?
	It's convenience, right?
	More AI.
	It's just convenience.
	It saves us time finding out this piece of information.
	In some ways, but we also see it in marketing.
	Actually don't use it very much.
	No, that's fair enough.
	So one of the things that we noticed in the marketing industry was that there was a shift.
	So you used to generate all of these different campaigns where you'd target different groups of people in different demographics and you'd have an ad that went out to that.
	Now, groups like Meta, all they do is they say, here's an Advantage Plus campaign, which is an AI-driven campaign.
	You just chuck your ads in there, and a load of text, and then we'll do the rest.
	And you just get customers out the other end.
	But you don't actually get to see how it generates those customers.
	So it makes marketing dumber, but because that makes it a bigger market, that means that it works.
	Honestly, I just... And it's not very good, by the way, at the moment.
	I can imagine.
	I mean, I can totally see the coding being a good idea.
	You'd be like, okay, I need a piece of code that does X. Here's the code.
	That saved me an hour, whatever.
	You know, I can completely see that.
	But like for almost any real activity, I just don't see the advantage.
	Like you are depriving yourself of The experience that you gain by doing it yourself.
	Indeed.
	That's all I can say.
	I'm also very process-oriented.
	Even by thinking things through on a daily level means that eventually you'll have a breakthrough in something else.
	That's why my Twitter profile has Solvature Ambilado on it, because I go for a walk and I think the entire time that I'm walking and I actually find that I have breakthroughs all the time.
	It's really good.
	But if I just let the AI do that while I went for a walk, it wouldn't be the same.
	You wouldn't get the benefit.
	Any final thoughts on this?
	No, I mean, I just generally speaking think that the artificial intelligence craze is just a trend.
	Really?
	Yes, I think so.
	I think that in any kind of society, in any stage in time, people were looking at the latest technological device and they thought that they was gonna basically fry their brains or just I think that there are a lot of dangers, as you're saying Mark, with AI, but I think that to a very large extent it's a bit overblown.
	So I actually think that a major area where AI will be very ubiquitous is in entertainment.
	Almost every form of entertainment can use AI in some way.
	I mean, we've seen the AI-generated, like, you know, the 70s version of Lord of the Rings and things like that, where it's like, there's a new sort of 80s version of Minecraft movie that's going around at the moment, and it looks amazing, and it's only a matter of time until essentially all movies and video games and all these other things will be generated on the fly based on the person's prompt
	right now that in and of itself i think is going to have significant problems for the concept of entertainment and whatnot but um it's like all social media it's going to be difficult to pass it so it's just wading through more and more slop yeah the amount of slop that's going to get generated is going to be unbelievable but it's going to be a
	But I do think that you have, there is a valid use for AI, which is if you essentially are democratising the notion of filmmaking, so you're reducing the amount of cost and labour that is required to produce a high quality film, then maybe that will allow people who are like autistic geniuses in one regard to create something that otherwise would never have gotten made, right?
	That's good.
	And in video games, actually, AI is going to be a particularly good thing for NPCs.
	You can actually run a convincing NPC that's not just a series of pre-scripted lines of dialogue.
	But that's already been applied in a series of mods for various games to make them historically accurate.
	Yeah, and that's a great thing for entertainment, you know, that's cool.
	Okay, well I can have some fun talking to the chat as it pretends to be a medieval peasant or something, you know.
	And in a video game, okay, great, that's fine.
	But like, maybe Stelios is right here.
	Maybe it'll literally just be that it's a kind of frivolous entertainment.
	I mean, to my mind, I don't think it's that smart.
	I don't think it's that smart.
	It's pretty good, and this is, you know, what, year two?
	It's more about at what level does it become trusted and by who.
	So we've got our 50 IQ government here who are then sold the idea that this AI system is going to solve all their problems and then it gets put in charge of something which it really shouldn't be.
	No, no, that's definitely very dangerous.
	The thing is I already see people appealing to ChatGPT like it's an oracle.
	Yes.
	Like, oh well, I asked ChatGPT and it said this, I don't care.
	What Chad GPT said on any subject.
	I have a good example to give you that I think you will really like.
	So I'm writing his I'm working on history of ideas in some cases.
	It doesn't help me at all.
	No, no, just I can ask Chad GPT.
	How does the concept of justice has evolved across time?
	It will tell me just five stuff.
	It doesn't help though.
	I have to put in the work.
	Well, that's good.
	And I like it that way, because otherwise... I mean, at least there is work.
	And it is a misconception that humans don't need work.
	Right?
	You asked on X the other day, you know, what's the most important thing?
	And I said, purpose.
	We've already always known this.
	And... What is best in life?
	You know, if we think about multi-generational jobless households, you know, they're listless.
	They loiter.
	There's the higher crime amongst the lower socioeconomic status because they're bored.
	You know, humans, there's a study, a psychological study, where humans are put in a room, one at a time, with a box which gives them electric shock.
	And it's a really awful electric shock.
	I bet they sit there chatting to themselves.
	It's really awful.
	So the first thing they do is they say, touch this button.
	Touches the button.
	It shocks them.
	They go, ow!
	They go, do you ever want to experience the electric shock button again?
	No.
	Okay.
	And then they leave them alone for 20 minutes and they say, you could enjoy the electric shock button as much as you like.
	And then the study is basically measuring How many times each person and how long it took them to become bored enough to rather experience large amount of pain than be bored.
	How long was the time?
	Very short, about six minutes.
	So, uh, apart from my phone, I'm like, apart from what, apart from one outlier who shocked himself 82 times.
	Um, so, so I think it's actually, you know, in the same way that we've, the relationship between the sexes has deteriorated because we're less dependent on one another and a relationship in, uh, intrasect.
	so between men and between women, has deteriorated because we're less dependent on each other.
	I think that the less we become dependent on each other for basic services and things like that, even take something as simple as the self-checkout and how much of a controversy that's been in supermarkets, I think AI can only do harm on a societal level like that.
	This is why they've assigned it Threat Level Medium, which is the highest threat level they're allowed to give it.
	Why can't they give it Threat Level High?
	If it's Threat Level High, it has to be destroyed.
	Good point there, Gizortnik, actually.
	demons this is why they've assigned it threat level medium which is the highest threat level they're allowed to give it why can't they give it threat level high if it's threat level high it has to be destroyed okay right good point there gizortnik actually have we got any video comments today there was apparently a glitch in the software so we can't do video comments But we will have them tomorrow.
	If you can re-upload them for tomorrow, we will play them properly tomorrow.
	Sorry, folks.
	Sneeda Chuck says, what a thumbnail for today's show, lads.
	Well done.
	I haven't seen the thumbnail.
	Can we get the thumbnail up?
	Thanks.
	Adrian says, very happy to see Mark on the show.
	Oh, that's nice.
	Thank you, Adrian.
	Hector says, the left, Trump is literally Hitler, Satan, Beelzebub, and all four chaos gods.
	Also the left, Trump needs to turn down the rhetoric.
	Bullet Bill.
	That is a superb thumbnail.
	Yeah.
	That is hysterical.
	Baystape says, did nobody else think it was quite sinister for Kamala to be so encouraging of lefties to start attending Trump rallies during the debate?
	Weeks after he was shot at one of his rallies.
	I didn't pick up on that.
	No, I haven't seen that either.
	Did she encourage people to go to his rallies?
	I would be lying if I told you yes and no.
	Right, okay.
	I missed that.
	Yeah, same.
	Baron Von Warthog Turkey, why aren't you a Warhawk anymore?
	If I were Trump, I would hire a platoon of mercenaries from somewhere like Blackwater.
	The Secret Service clearly seems to be slacking at their jobs, and so far it's been luck alone that has saved him.
	I'd feel safer around men who fight for money and not men and women who dislike you and are only protecting you because they're socially expected to because that's their job.
	I tell you what, that's not a bad point.
	Trump would actually do better with just mercenaries at this point.
	Is he allowed that kind of private security?
	Probably not.
	I mean, I don't know.
	But the point being, at least he's not under the auspices of an institution that hates him.
	The Secret Service dressed in their suits, but can you imagine how absolutely decked out the Trump Corps would be?
	I mean, that would look cool.
	I'm thinking, Alex Jones, do you remember the Infowarsmobile?
	Where he has this massive bulletproof car?
	I do remember it.
	That would be cool.
	GLE says, question for the lads, what would an AI controlled immigration policy look like?
	Depends on how old base the AI was, doesn't it?
	I assume though that you could theoretically have an AI immigration policy that would actually just go through the data and say, right, we need 500 of this profession.
	So we will take in the applications for immigrants, go through their CVs, pick out the ones that can actually do the job and then allow them in.
	Well, one of the things that these articles that I was reading earlier have been saying is that, one, that AI has been suspiciously common in identifying now debunked differences between white men and black men in terms of physiology and things like that.
	Yeah, I saw this AI, was it the scan of the human skeleton?
	It determined the sex of it, yeah.
	And determine the race of it with like a 95%... Oh yeah, there's one for determining if you're gay or not as well, which is... I love the liberal science side, I just don't know how this is happening.
	So one of the arguments actually about AI and its proclivity to deceive was that it could be used, it could be weaponized against people trying to circumvent the safeguards put in place, you know, by racists and sexists and so on.
	That it could just lie to those people instead.
	Say afterwards, I lied.
	I lied, yes.
	I just can't get over it.
	Chat GPT, you said you'd kill me last.
	I lied.
	Andrew says, gotta love seeing all the leftists trying to justify the Trump assassination attempts, especially those saying that they were staged, as if Trump's camp could keep such a conspiracy secret with all the defectors constantly leaking to the media about him.
	Yeah, that's a great point, to be honest.
	I don't think that Trump has the institutional capacity to stage these things.
	I think it requires a network of trustworthy people.
	This reminds me of Rosie O'Donnell who said that she doesn't believe the first attempt was real.
	She will probably do a second video saying... Didn't two people die?
	And she made the video!
	Two people get shot and she's like, well that was staged.
	I think the only assassination of Trump that would ever be staged is if they actually killed him and then the American people elect his corpse and he's put on a golden throne and then a thousand leftists are sacrificed to him to restore his energies every day.
	Omar says, uh, the craziest thing about the Trump assassination attempt is that he's still relying on the Secret Service for his safety.
	The man's a billionaire, he can afford premium private security.
	But not only that, like, imagine how many ex-military people there are who love Trump.
	Who would just be willing to do it.
	I mean, sure, you gotta pay them, but like, they would be like, hardcore, committed to the cause, full-on MAGA dudes, with, you know, all their gear and stuff like that.
	They'd be way better than the Secret Service.
	Like, the Expendables.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, basically.
	MAGA Expendables.
	Like, I would feel far safer with those guys around than the Secret Service if I were Trump.
	As long as you could pass out the feds.
	You had Hulk Hogan and people.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	But Colin asks a particularly relevant question.
	If Trump is inciting violence, why are the attacks against him?
	He's inciting violence against himself, of course.
	Exactly.
	But that's the thing.
	The Democrats are like, look, you're making us do this to you.
	But that's exactly the point.
	Why are none of Trump's enemies having assassination attempts being made?
	Elon Musk tweeted something to that effect and everyone's like, oh my god, Elon Musk has, he has had to delete it.
	Elon Musk is encouraging violence.
	No, he's pointing out that the attacks are only going one way, which implies that the demonization is only coming from one side.
	I literally saw journalists in Europe saying that he is inciting, sort of inciting violence against Taylor Swift because he said he hated her.
	What, Trump doesn't like Taylor Swift therefore?
	He said I hate Taylor Swift.
	But there have been loads of Islamists who are trying to blurt Taylor Swift concerts.
	Is Trump inciting that?
	Yeah, but they're not...
	That's something else.
	You don't understand.
	If it's an Islamist group attacking a Taylor Swift concert, you're not allowed to look back in anger.
	If it's Trump saying he doesn't like Taylor Swift, or hates Taylor Swift... He's trying to get her killed.
	He's trying to get her killed.
	Be as angry as you can.
	Adorable kitten cowering in fear from free-range Haitian barbecue makers.
	The American left has gone full Lady Macbeth.
	They are scrubbing their hands zealously, yet the basin is filled with blood they themselves have poured.
	I disagree with this.
	Because that would imply the American left have any sort of conscience and feel guilt about the blood that they end up making.
	They're splashing the blood on their face.
	Yeah, they're thrilled about it.
	They're dancing around in it.
	It's like the opening scene of Blade.
	You know, they love it.
	It's just, with Blade, it's fun when he has the sunglasses and this dirty, pervy smile or something all the time.
	He's constantly thinking about how he's going to tax evade the US or something.
	Okay.
	Eric says, luckily for Trump, golf courses don't have dangerously slanted roofs.
	No, but apparently they've got unmanned fences.
	Yes.
	RB says the party of anti-fascism say getting shot at is an expected result of not staying quiet.
	Exactly.
	I mean, like... Sit down and shut up, said the anti-fascist.
	Or you might get shot, you know.
	And this is not like the first incident.
	I mean, do you remember the guy who attacked the border camp?
	Uh, because AOC was calling it a concentration camp.
	Oh, yes.
	And he tried to Molotov it and got shot in the process.
	Like, she got that man killed.
	It's like this bizarre... It's like the left-wing version of Pizzagate.
	Yeah.
	You know?
	Yeah.
	And the dude who set himself on fire for Palestine's like, Okay, but that didn't change anything, and no one even remembers his name.
	Just don't burn yourselves.
	Yeah.
	Matt says, we're living in very strange times.
	It's been well over 40 years since the last assassination attempt on the US president.
	Now we have two within the space of a couple of months.
	What the hell's going on?
	Well, the left is radicalized.
	It's fully radicalized, and it's got to the point where there is nothing more strong they can call Trump, right?
	They don't believe in Satan or anything, so they've got to Hitler.
	It's just Hitler, dictator, threat to democracy, threat to the public, threat to women.
	To women, to the very soul of America, that they can't think of anything worse to call him.
	Otherwise, they would have called him it.
	And so all of this extremely high rhetoric licenses people to go out and attack them.
	And when they do, the media's like, well, I mean, you know, kind of had it coming, didn't he?
	It is remiss, when you've received, if you are aware of someone who is that ontologically evil, you are remiss in your duty if you do not remove them from the stage.
	That's literally what their views are.
	Yeah.
	So, okay, this is where we're at.
	Kevin says, the Harris campaign is saying that Trump's using rhetoric to cause problems for the Haitians in Springfield, but fails to see that their rhetoric is driving Democrat morons to try and kill Trump.
	Well, I mean, it's not hypocrisy, it's hierarchy.
	They're like, no, we can do this, you can't do this.
	I don't remember this.
	says this isn't this most recent attempt isn't the second it's the third they tried to kill him right after he got elected in 2016 did they what did they do in 2016 i i don't remember this i remember either uh although i did see nick dixon being like no it's the fourth i was like oh jesus i can't remember that uh lancelot says when they say they condemn political violence what they Yeah, they condemn attempted political violence.
	The thing is, is that I hear from the leftists in the street, which unfortunately my uncle is one of them, and he'd just go, couldn't have aimed a bit better, could he?
	Like, they'll just say that out loud.
	But they'll say it as if it's a totally normal statement.
	Because they know there's no... Normally, there would be no condemnation.
	They would accept that, ordinarily, this is something which everyone... Oh, you know, it is a shame he survived.
	And the thing is, right, I just want to be clear.
	I don't think I'm being hypocritical when it comes to this versus my segment on the Labour Party, either.
	I'm not saying that Trump should be free to just go to, like, a Taylor Swift concert and not get booed, right?
	No.
	Perfectly reasonable.
	They're allowed to dislike him.
	Exactly.
	You're completely allowed to dislike him.
	It's perfectly reasonable to go into a majority Democrat space and, as a polarising politician, and get booed.
	Yeah, because, I mean, violence in leftist circles is entirely normalized.
	I remember I was at a dinner in a university, I'm not gonna say which, and they started toasting about Margaret Thatcher, toasting, and they say, thank God she's still dead.
	But the thing is, and it goes the other way, like, when Trump goes to, like, one of the car things, Americans have a thing where they watch cars driving around on the track.
	NASCAR.
	That's it.
	You know, when he goes to that and gets cheered, right?
	Okay, fine, that's his base.
	That's a Republican-coded space, right?
	It's totally fine that if, like, Kamala Harris or Joe Biden had gone to that, they'd get booed too.
	Totally understandable.
	But only one side is getting shot at, and that really should tell you everything you need to know about the other side, shouldn't it?
	One minor thing that I have enjoyed is the fact that Taylor Swift endorsed Kamala Harris.
	Why is that good?
	Because it led to a decrease in her polling numbers.
	Did it?
	Yeah.
	Apparently, people were turned off by the fact that Swift had endorsed Kat Harris.
	She had the audacity to hold a cat.
	She didn't ask the cat.
	Well, didn't ask the Haitians.
	How do you feel about that?
	What I find interesting, though, is Trump... I don't think he's been tweeting like, I hate Taylor Swift.
	I would have liked it if he'd tweeted, I've never heard a Taylor Swift song.
	I'm indifferent towards Taylor Swift.
	Not even on my radar.
	I don't care about what a pop star does.
	I'm running to be the president.
	Honestly.
	I was the president.
	Colin says it's a matter of interest.
	When was the last time, if ever, we had a government elected by an actual majority of the potential electorate?
	Probably never, but that's not what we should expect.
	I think getting 30-40% is really what we should be aiming for.
	have essentially a legitimate government because you have of the overall potential electorate like 30% of them just don't vote so it's it's unreasonable to expect them to have a majority just anyway like an overall like a rural majority but um but having 20% is pretty bad like 30 or 40% would be reasonable 50% would be incredible be an amazing endorsement That would be the popular vote, wouldn't it?
	Could indeed be the popular vote.
	But again, if we had multiple rounds or something, then the French election, perhaps you could end up with something like that, but we only have the one and we're electing MPs who then coalesce to form a party.
	But yeah, we're never going to get that.
	Sam says, Socialists really do just project their own feelings and insecurities onto others who disagree with them because they can't comprehend any other worldview that isn't their own from an altruistic standpoint.
	Yeah, the question, why do you care?
	It's like, oh right, okay, I can't care about someone who's not me.
	See?
	I can't have sympathy for anyone else.
	If it doesn't affect me directly, why would I care?
	Says the socialist.
	Henry says, a lot of Starmer's changes seem spiteful and punitive on particular groups of people.
	You've got a lot more there, we'll read out, but it is.
	It's not just that it seems, it is.
	He has particular client groups, and I didn't even list all of the things Starmer had done that were terrible.
	I forgot about the release of the prisoners, in which one went on to rape on the very same day.
	It was a stabbing as well.
	I didn't even hear about that, stabbing is just so common now.
	But these are his client groups, these are the favoured groups that he cares about, and weirdly one of those groups is child murderers.
	I just can't get over it.
	Anyway, a lot of Sama's changes seem spiteful and punitive.
	First he wants to freeze Yonnan, now he's refused to rule out removing the single occupancy discount for council tax.
	And I can't help but ask, but why?
	Also the winter fuel thing is all because some millionaire's got a few hundred quid each year along with all the other pensioners.
	The thing, a lot of pensioners are asset rich and cash poor.
	The little old lady who bought a poorly insulated house in the bombed out east end of London in the 40s for three shillings and six pence is now a millionaire because that's what a house is worth.
	So either she's got to sell up to get a cash injection or turn the heater on.
	Yeah, I mean, I'm not against the idea at all of means-tested pensions.
	I think that's actually a good idea.
	The problem is, he's exactly there.
	Okay, she's got a house in London that she bought before mass immigration.
	She's not rich.
	And also, should she be made to move?
	You know, if she could sell it for a million quid and then retire to Clacton or whatever, you know, should she be made to move?
	Because that would be the right thing.
	Or would you say she's lived there for 80 years, you know?
	I don't know.
	I don't think you should.
	I don't think she should be forced.
	I think we should care about our pensioners in a way that means that they can exist because at the end of the day when they pass, pass on, it passes to the next generation and they can choose what they do with it.
	I am also not in favour of Keir Starmer's pensioner genocide.
	No.
	I don't know why we're... I don't know why this is the conversation.
	I mean, we piss away so much money on foreigners.
	Like, why is there a single foreigner in the country claiming social housing benefit?
	Like, okay, that's billions.
	Billions and billions a year, and yet for some reason we just allow it.
	I had an argument with someone the other day and they said, uh, God forbid that we should have interests outside ourselves.
	I said, look, as a country we are on our knees.
	Our finances are in the toilet.
	Either Labour is saying there's a 22 billion pound black hole or whatever.
	You wouldn't say to a grandmother who had a homeless grandson, uh, yes, keep giving money to that charity.
	You're heavily in debt.
	Your grandson is homeless.
	Uh, don't help them.
	Don't help yourself.
	Give money away.
	Crazy.
	It's absolutely crazy.
	Lord Nerevar says, Trump is beginning to look a bit like Alexander the Great, right?
	Man should have died about ten times now, but he has a mission to finish, and so help me God if he isn't going to finish it.
	Again, I don't want to speak too soon, because we're still a couple of months to the election.
	They might... Might try again?
	Yeah, they might manage to do it.
	I mean, I hope he doesn't have the love of war Alexander the Great had.
	No.
	Which we know he doesn't!
	He's not an untested property.
	Yeah, but no, I think that's a good point, the latter bit.
	The thing is, we also know that he's not some sort of weak-willed pacifist.
	You remember the strike on Syria that just shut everyone up?
	That was actually a great move.
	It's like, OK, now we're going to bomb you.
	Anyone else want any more?
	And everyone was like, no.
	But he actually was a great ambassador.
	He visited North Korea.
	He crossed the DMZ with Kim Jong-un.
	It's incredible just how good his foreign policy was.
	Because they respected him.
	Because they respected him.
	Yeah, you got a bunch of the Arab states to recognize Israel and things like this.
	It's like, okay, like, you know, whether you agree with that or not, you can't deny the accomplishment of it, which no one else could do prior.
	Thomas says, it's like this, chaps.
	We can only afford this many pensioners.
	My dad was a toolmaker.
	And I'd let him freeze as well.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Well, he would!
	He literally would.
	He would say, well, look, you know, I'm not going to bump him up the NHS waiting list.
	I'm not going to get him on private.
	If he can't afford his own heating, well, that's too bad.
	He's like, sorry, Dad, I haven't received a donation for your heating bill this year.
	Bopar says, honestly, I'd really like the option to leave the UK.
	The accelerating decline is palpable.
	I need to buy a house and retain a secure job to raise a family.
	However, I haven't got enough resources to leave either.
	It's an open-air prison.
	Yeah, but I mean, on the plus side, declines don't last forever.
	Eventually, there's a collapse.
	So... And collapses breed uncertainty, and uncertainty is opportunity.
	Yeah.
	Starmer won't be in charge forever, basically.
	And also, this is presumably your homeland, and yes, I think that you have a moral duty not to abandon the UK.
	Even if things get bad, we will make them better.
	Well, I mean, we wouldn't have such tremendous inflation problems and economic problems if we didn't force everyone to shut down their businesses and then give them loads of free money.
	And then import two million people?
	Yeah.
	Yeah, for some reason.
	I just don't know what you would do differently if the plan was to destroy Britain.
	I've got a plan.
	You're taking great strides towards destroying Britain.
	Exactly, but what would you do differently if your plan was just, I want to destroy Britain?
	You've undermined the social fabric.
	Infinite foreigners.
	You've destroyed the currency value.
	You've made it so that homes are unaffordable for the next generation.
	There's no jobs for them.
	Impoverished renter population with very little in the way of job prospects.
	And then start euthanizing their family.
	And then, yeah, freeze them to death during the winter.
	Like, I don't know what else you would do.
	But he's also fast-tracking that assisted dying bill through, isn't he?
	Exactly.
	But not only that, I really want them to suffer as well.
	So I'm going to make sure they can't even smoke in the pub.
	Now I'm going to make sure they can't smoke outside the pub.
	I'm going to kill off their entertainment.
	I want the pubs gone.
	I want them just in their privately rented black rock accommodation.
	Creature comforts.
	Something Starmer has never known.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Something Starmer can't understand.
	Like, I just want them just imprisoned in a tiny box, miserable and hating everything.
	They're paying their taxes.
	Yeah, as long as they pay their taxes.
	Limited edition glow-in-the-dark Fed says, about AI, wasn't there a Greek philosopher who did not like the written word was invented because it meant people did not have to remember things anymore?
	I feel there was always a pushback against new technology.
	Doesn't ring a bell, but yeah, I'll have to check.
	We had lots of people who said stuff like that.
	Lots of people who said things in history.
	Grant says, Peterson is right when he says that learning how to write clearly and thinking clearly are essentially the same skill.
	I somehow doubt the elites are very concerned that the children of the plebs aren't learning how to write effectively.
	Well that's the thing as well, I really want to destroy these people, I'm going to make sure they're all retarded.
	I'm going to make sure they can't form a coherent thought.
	I'm going to make sure they're denied a proper education.
	I'm going to make sure that they are completely addicted to electronic devices.
	And we have AI that replaces their ability to outsource their own thoughts into the real world.
	I mean, it's just, if you wanted to actively destroy people, short of just shooting them.
	Turning them into illiterate, innumerate drones is the next best step.
	Over-emotional sometimes, because that's how you can manipulate people.
	They can't know happiness because it's just never been a part of their experience.
	They can't imagine how people could have been happy.
	Arizona Desert Rat says nope, AI does not belong in the classroom.
	I've seen these schools that are just banning phones.
	So, like, when you go into the school, you put your phone in a locker, and then you get the phone back when you leave school.
	Brilliant idea!
	affect the students.
	Never forget this is the same excuse they gave for putting iPads and tablets in schools and they just started to take them out.
	Yes.
	And I've seen these schools that are just banning phones.
	So like when you go into the school, you put your phone in a locker and then you get the phone back when you leave school.
	Brilliant idea.
	Assuming we can't just ban phones for kids entirely.
	There was a proposal about that recently, I think.
	Yeah.
	I would...
	I would permit phones that can make calls and text messages.
	That's it.
	Zero internet access on phones for children, basically, is what I would have it as.
	But I say anyway, we'll go for the last one.
	RuTheDay says, probably prophetically, pull the plug now before it's too late.
	I don't think they can.
	I don't think they can bring themselves to do it.
	There's too much money in it.
	And that means that we're all going to be killed, stabbed in the back by an AI bot.
	Anyway, thank you so much for joining us.
	Mark, where can people find more from you?
	I'm on X, under my name Mark Houghton, you can find me there, or at not underscore underscore so underscore obvious, which is a bit of a mouthful, but you can follow me there and that's where I do most of my stuff.
	I will also be writing some articles which you can find on lotuseaters.com, so you can find me there under that name as well.
	Excellent.

▲