Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Jan. 9, 2025 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:29:38

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1075

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Load Seaters.
	Today is Thursday the 9th of January and this is episode 1075. I'm your host Elios and I'm joined by Josh.
	Hello!
	And we're going to discuss Zuckerberg announcing the end of censorship.
	Trump's obsession with Canada and Greenland and Andrew Tate running for president.
	A lot of people talk about the fires.
	We are going to talk about them tomorrow.
	The fires in Los Angeles, what I mean.
	And without further ado, should we begin?
	We may as well.
	Why not?
	A little foray into the news, shall we?
	So, Mark Zuckerberg recently made an announcement that his two companies, Facebook and Instagram, are going to be taking greater measures to protect...
	And I quote here, free expression.
	I'll believe it when I see it, personally.
	But the video is actually very interesting, and I think that there's a lot of information in this five-minute video that we can unpack that is quite rich, because, of course, there are lots of different factors here.
	One of the explicit reasons he actually says he's doing this is the recent election, and that is of course the election of Donald Trump.
	And it's interesting that he just openly says, well Trump's been elected so we're changing our policies, because that seems like something that you wouldn't necessarily choose to do if you wanted to save face, because it makes it sound like you've been made to do it.
	However, I'm going to break down why he might be saying that, and I'm going to...
	Play the video a little bit in sections, and we're going to talk about the implications of each thing you're saying, because there's a lot of important things there.
	And of course, it's worth mentioning as well, as of November of 2024, Facebook had just over 3 billion monthly active users, and Instagram had 2 billion as of April of 2024. And of course, assuming that he is being genuine about what they are going to do, and isn't misrepresenting...
	What is actually going to happen, which is possible, that is going to be a huge thing and a very large section of the internet that is going to go a very similar way to Elon Musk's ex, formerly Twitter.
	There's going to be more avenues of potential free speech platforms.
	Is it going to be to the same degree as Elon Musk owning Twitter?
	I don't know.
	I don't think there's the same appetite.
	And there's also the fact, of course, that Elon Musk did suspend some accounts that disagreed with him, which I don't agree with.
	But why is it happening now?
	And one of the things I've done here is included a tweet, merely because I would forget how I put it previously, not to be, you know, patting myself on the back, just like that was a good one, because it wasn't really.
	But it's, social media firms have a strong incentive to cozy up to Trump, facing large-scale regulations and hefty fines from Europe.
	Also...
	Zuckerberg explicitly mentions this, as well as countries like China outright banning them.
	We'll talk about this in a bit more detail.
	Trump might help them avoid these penalties, but my worry is how much influence they'll have on his administration in return.
	And that's something that I want to continue to identify, because the allegiance of the tech bros, as people call them, I think it's a bit of a lame name, don't give them that level of credibility.
	The tech nerds is probably better.
	They've all aligned with Trump now, and why has it come now rather than over the past eight years when Trump was potentially running for office, right?
	Well, I don't think they've suddenly all changed their mind about Donald Trump's character.
	I think it's just that he can offer them something that the Democrats couldn't, and we'll be getting onto that soon enough.
	So, here is the video of a newly human Mark Zuckerberg.
	You know, all of that working out.
	He's been doing martial arts.
	He did that really cool photo op where he was on a wakeboard being dragged around and he had the American flag or something like that.
	I haven't seen it.
	He was in a tuxedo holding the American flag with sunglasses on.
	He's just like, okay, that's kind of cool.
	I'll give you that.
	Probably been deliberately helping repair his image because people speculating...
	On the one hand, whether you're a robot, on the other, whether you're a reptile, isn't the best PR I've heard.
	No, it's not.
	But, I'm going to play the first 40 seconds here, and of course, tell me what you make of it in the comments as well, but we'll be breaking it down too.
	So, here we are.
	Hey everyone.
	I want to talk about something important today, because it's time to get back to our roots around free expression on Facebook and Instagram.
	I started building social media to give people a voice.
	I gave a speech at Georgetown five years ago about the importance of protecting free expression, and I still believe this today.
	But a lot has happened over the last several years.
	There's been widespread debate about potential harms from online content.
	Governments and legacy media have pushed to censor more and more.
	A lot of this is clearly political, but there's also a lot of legitimately bad stuff out there.
	Drugs, terrorism, child exploitation.
	These are things that we take very seriously, and I want to make sure that we handle responsibly.
	Okay, so there are a few things I picked out here, the first of which is, get back to our roots.
	And of course this is a tacit admission that they have strayed from the path of free expression, because he introduces that as being their roots.
	And so in so doing, he's sort of in a more polite way to himself, saying that, listen, we went a bit too far.
	Please forgive us, isn't he?
	And of course, it's worth mentioning as well, That, as a practical example of this, on January 6th, they removed the video of Donald Trump saying, go home and be peaceful, which, of course, allowed politicians later on down the line to say it was encouraged by him, even though what he did do was release statements on all of the platforms he had access to, telling them to be peaceful and to go home.
	Right, so I think there are several things to unpack here, and the whole video is very rich for interpretation.
	One thing is to say that what he says is an admission that free expression was curtailed.
	He admits it.
	But he also says, I wanted to give people a voice, without saying a voice about what, in order to give the impression that his principles were pro-free speech.
	I also interpreted that as to say that he's not necessarily the one...
	Calling the shots 100%, which I can definitely believe that, you know, I don't think it's Mark Zuckerberg looking at some small account saying, you know what, shut them down.
	Well, I think he's got a big team around him and, you know, they might be doing stuff that he doesn't want them to.
	And also, does he really have 100% control over his own company?
	I don't know to what extent he controls his company or not, but he is trying to give the idea, the impression that he was against it, but it happened against his will.
	Personally, I'm a bit suspicious when I hear people saying this.
	And also I think that one of the reasons why a lot of the people, you know, within quotation marks, who are called tech bros, are making statements of the sort is because they want to somehow give the impression that as a lobby they don't have the amount of power that they actually have.
	And also, of course, if they cosy themselves up to Trump...
	A lot of them rely on selling people's data to advertisers, particularly Facebook.
	That's how it makes its money.
	And so there are lots of privacy concerns around that kind of business model.
	And if they're like, well, we're for free speech, it sort of sanitizes this practice in a way.
	Yeah, exactly.
	And let me just add something about the tech industry.
	The tech industry requires a lot of raw minerals.
	A lot of them come from Ukraine and others come from...
	May come from Greenland, as we're going to talk about in the next segment.
	A bit of foreshadowing.
	But it is worth mentioning as well that he uses the term explicitly online harms.
	And in the UK, we have an online harms bill.
	And this is also the language of the European Union.
	And so by using that word, he's sort of implying that he is on board with what...
	Europe is trying to do.
	He's like, listen, I understand there's some bad stuff and we're trying our best to remove it.
	So what he's trying to do is basically play both sides.
	He's saying, I'm for free expression, but I recognise there are online harms.
	So he's trying to navigate this tightrope between placating America and placating Europe.
	And by that he means...
	The political establishments, not necessarily the people in the countries, right?
	Because I don't think people in Europe are clamouring for online censorship.
	It's mainly politicians, so it can give them an ability to exert control.
	And the same applied for politicians in the US before.
	Exactly.
	And, you know...
	It also gives them a lot of power, these European countries, because, and he states it's political, and he says, if you can threaten, no, I say, if you can threaten a company with large fines or a refusal to do business in that country, it basically allows you to have negotiation power over what they can show.
	And so if they can punish the company financially for platforming people that they disagree with, then they will do so.
	And that's what's going on here.
	I think it's exerting power over this company by trying to get them to do what they want politically is what's going on with Europe in particular.
	And if we quickly go to this before coming back...
	Here, Brussels, of course, which is where the EU is based, finds Facebook parent company 800 million euros, which is a lot of money.
	And I imagine that is a point of concern for Mark Zuckerberg.
	And he's obviously also right about the...
	There is some bad stuff out there that the vast majority of people don't want to see.
	And I think him talking about child exploitation and terrorism, and I imagine what he means by terrorism isn't necessarily, you know, we want to cover up that it happens, more so some of the videos you see sometimes, unfortunately, doing the rounds of the gruesome ways in which people have died.
	And I think that it's important for people who are journalists to be able to see that sort of thing.
	However...
	I don't think it should just pop up on people's feeds when they don't want to see it.
	I think that that's a reasonable balance between the two.
	Here we are not talking about just someone expressing a critical view of the establishment.
	We're talking about the real thing.
	Exactly.
	And so let's carry on with this.
	And this is a little bit of a shorter bit, but there's also a lot to...
	So we built a lot of complex systems to moderate content.
	But the problem with complex systems is they make mistakes.
	Even if they accidentally censor just 1% of posts, that's millions of people.
	And we've reached a point where it's just too many mistakes and too much censorship.
	The recent elections also feel like a cultural tipping point towards once again prioritizing speech.
	So we're going to get back to our roots and focus on reducing mistakes, simplifying our policies, and restoring free expression on our platforms.
	More specifically, here's what we're going to do.
	So one thing that is the most important to point out here is he describes censoring people's opinions as mistakes, but the people within Meta, within Facebook and Instagram, knew what they were doing and did it willingly.
	It wasn't a mistake.
	I think that this is very clever reframing, because he can say, well, that...
	In hindsight, they were mistakes.
	I didn't want to do this necessarily, but it happened.
	So Zuckerberg can save face whilst also suggesting that these things weren't deliberate choices.
	Of course, we know with the Twitter files that the FBI was requesting people censor very small accounts that were critical of certain aspects of the Biden administration.
	And that's very insidious.
	Of course, we don't know whether that's going on with Facebook because they've not said, but I'd be very surprised if it hadn't.
	And that they weren't censoring people on behalf of governments.
	Well, he's trying to just minimise it.
	Yeah.
	And he also says, we built a lot of complex systems, that specific phrase, which makes it sound very computational, but there is, of course, a human element to this.
	A lot of these choices were made by human beings, but it makes it sound like it's just our algorithm made a mistake.
	That's not how it works.
	Yeah.
	And, yeah.
	Skynet.
	He does at least admit they have made mistakes, and I think it's also...
	Interesting, again, that he mentions the US election.
	I know I said that at the start.
	But if you're trying to be really corporate and uncontroversial and try and please both sides to make money, you wouldn't necessarily say that.
	And so what...
	What it makes me think is that he's signalling to the Trump administration that they wish to have some sort of working relationship.
	Imagine that this onus comes from the fact that there's going to be a vacancy where the Biden administration was basically telling them what to do.
	And what Zuckerberg probably wants to do here by cozying up to Trump is saying, listen, if we do what you want in terms of keeping our platform relatively pro-free speech, then you can help us fight...
	China censoring Facebook and Instagram, and also Europe coming after us with big fines.
	And, you know, I think Trump is probably the guy to do that for him as well.
	Yeah, I mean, they're exchanging extra influence for them, for the tech bros, in exchange for the image of Trump as liberating the Society of America.
	Exactly.
	As creating that wave of liberation and maximizing civil liberties.
	Right.
	I've been doing lots of talking.
	I need to do more video.
	First, we're going to get rid of fact checkers and replace them with community notes similar to X starting in the US. After Trump first got elected in 2016, the legacy media wrote nonstop about how misinformation was a threat to democracy.
	We tried in good faith to address those concerns without becoming the arbiters of truth.
	But the fact checkers have just been too politically biased.
	And have destroyed more trust than they've created, especially in the US. So over the next couple of months, we're going to phase in a more comprehensive community notes system.
	So there are a few things here that I wanted to pick up on.
	His use of the term legacy media is interesting because this is sort of dog whistle to...
	Right-wing spheres, isn't it?
	As a way of denigrating the mainstream media.
	It's a way to appeal to Trump supporters, basically.
	And I find it interesting that he says, we tried in good faith to address concerns about misinformation, right?
	That about misinformation wasn't the direct quote, but that's what he's talking about.
	And of course, Twitter was censoring people on behalf of the intelligence agencies and the Biden administration, but he talks about the media wanting to censor people, which, you know...
	Insulting the media with their popularity as it is, is not something that's necessarily going to have much pushback in the same way as him saying actually we're told to censor it by the government.
	And so he's pointed to something that's more socially acceptable whilst avoiding something that would be more useful to society, which sort of suggests that he's going along with this for self-interested reasons rather than out of principle.
	It's not exactly like Facebook wasn't a mainstream platform.
	I know, yeah.
	At least the way it was operating.
	He also admits that fact-checkers are too politically biased and have destroyed more trust than they have created, which is true.
	And he also mentions the X style of community notes, which is actually quite a significant thing because it's a huge admission that they work.
	And that's good because I think the community notes aspect of Elon Musk's X is the best aspect of it.
	And I think the community notes easily, I don't know whether this is your experience, is the best improvement other than the sort of democratization of the platform more generally, removing the censorship.
	Yeah, I think they're helping, especially on X. Community notes are good.
	Occasionally, sometimes they're horribly bad.
	But it's better than nothing.
	Exactly.
	Second.
	We're going to simplify our content policies and get rid of a bunch of restrictions on topics like immigration and gender that are just out of touch with mainstream discourse.
	What started as a movement to be more inclusive has increasingly been used to shut down opinions and shut out people with different ideas and it's gone too far.
	So I want to make sure that people can share their beliefs and experiences on our platforms.
	I think that it's interesting here that he says the content policies on immigration and gender are out of touch with mainstream discourse.
	That's an admission that discourse has moved rightward, really, isn't it?
	Because those topics weren't forbidden on the right.
	In fact, they were our avenues of attack towards the left.
	So the fact that they're saying...
	That was a nice voice crack, wasn't it?
	We're no longer enforcing the hegemonic will of the left because we recognise we've got new masters, basically.
	And one thing I did find interesting is that he's sort of...
	Twisting the knife on woke a bit there by saying what started out as a movement to be more inclusive has increasingly been used to shut down discourse and shut out people and it has gone too far.
	And the it has gone too far is the most thoughtful thing that he says in the whole speech.
	And although it sounds a little bit manufactured, I think that it's interesting that he's placing a lot of emphasis on this.
	This might be courting the right again.
	I think it is, and it's important in a way.
	I'll believe the changes when I see them, just like you said in the beginning, but it's quite a thing when someone like Zuckerberg, who owns Facebook and administrates it, if I'm not mistaken, when he makes out an admission of the sort.
	Yeah, well, he's one of the most powerful people in the world, isn't he?
	It is a sort of paradigm shift.
	It is, yeah.
	And so, let's carry on.
	We're changing how we enforce our policies to reduce the mistakes that account for the vast majority of censorship on our platforms.
	We used to have filters that scanned for any policy violation.
	Now we're going to focus those filters on tackling illegal and high severity violations.
	And for lower severity violations, we're going to rely on someone reporting an issue before we take action.
	The problem is that the filters make mistakes, and they take down a lot of content that they shouldn't.
	So by dialing them back, We're going to dramatically reduce the amount of censorship on our platforms.
	We're also going to tune our content filters to require much higher confidence before taking down content.
	The reality is that this is a trade-off.
	It means we're going to catch less bad stuff, but we'll also reduce the number of innocent people's posts and accounts that we accidentally take down.
	So, I think that what he's doing here in this part is sort of going along that tightrope between America and Europe.
	He's doing two things by focusing on illegal and more severe violations.
	He reassures European regulators that more resources will be directed to enforcing the law on their platform, which is how they're framing the money grab and the grab for control over his companies, and without sounding like he'll censor things in a way that would annoy Trump supporters.
	And so it's quite clever really, I mean, although it's relatively obvious if you follow politics that this is the thing to do with your company to navigate that difficult path between either side of the Atlantic.
	He made two different statements there.
	On the one hand, he phrased it as bad and good stuff.
	But on the other, he said about less severe violations and less severe violations.
	When we focus on the violations bit, it means that the content policies won't change.
	They are going to be there.
	It's just that they are going to go after the severe violations.
	Is a reason for scepticism, as far as I'm concerned.
	Yeah, and it's also worth mentioning as well that he discusses the fact that reporting someone could still lead to the post-removal and to suspensions.
	It's just not automatic anymore.
	Someone has to report you, and then something happens.
	And therefore it could be the case that people will cotton on to the fact that, oh, if I report stuff I don't like, it might be removed automatically, which creates the same situation, more or less, that existed in the first place.
	And could reverse everything.
	So the sort of devil is in the detail here.
	Even though he does say the threshold will be higher for things being removed.
	Which, you know, if you make that claim publicly, you've got to back it up with something.
	If it's the same, then it's going to be embarrassing.
	But anyway.
	We're bringing back civic content.
	For a while, the community asked to see less politics because it was making people stressed.
	So we stopped recommending these posts.
	But it feels like we're in a new era now.
	And we're starting to get feedback that people want to see this content again.
	So we're going to start phasing this back into Facebook, Instagram, and threads while working to keep the communities friendly and positive.
	Fifth, we're going to move our trust and safety and content moderation teams out of California, and our US-based content review is going to be based in Texas.
	As we work to promote free expression...
	I think that it will help us build trust to do this work in places where there is less concern about the bias of our teams.
	So there are lots of interesting things here that I wanted to break down.
	I know I'm going a little bit over time, but I'm going to keep it quick.
	So the reintroduction of political content to his platforms could either be a good or bad thing depending on how they do it.
	And he hasn't really given much information about how it's going to go about.
	So you kind of need to...
	To see more information.
	You might have some opinions about just generally, do people want to see?
	Is it appealing to the right kinds of people to see this sort of content?
	But it's just difficult to say now because we don't know what's going to happen.
	And I think moving their team out of California to Texas is the funniest aspect of this.
	Because the intention is, without explicitly saying, that a Texas-based team will be less censorious than a California-based team, right?
	And note that he also states that they're moving there because people will be less concerned about the team base there, not because they'll be better.
	So that's a little bit of a slip-up on whoever wrote his speech for him, because if you've got the right set of ears, you can hear that he's saying, I'm more concerned about perception than I am actual results, which is important.
	And also, of course, Texas is more pro-business.
	And lots of Californians are fleeing there anyway.
	So if you wanted your Californians with Texas laws, you can do that.
	And so it doesn't necessarily mean that anything is going to change.
	So this is the final part now.
	So you're almost free from having to look at Mark Zuckerberg.
	I'm sorry.
	Finally.
	Sorry.
	Yeah, go ahead.
	I just wanted to add that this is, I would say, a blow to the image of Gavin Newsom as someone.
	Who is good, economically speaking, for California?
	Because in our circles, if you say anything positive about Gavin Newsom in California, everyone will say you're mad.
	And you are.
	And you are.
	But a lot of Democrats think that for some reason that he has been exceptionally good for California.
	Well, it's because California's got...
	You know, they've got a lot of business there.
	But it's not because Gavin Newsom has made it so.
	It's that he inherited a good situation.
	But this is a blow in the public image.
	And as you said, images of paramount importance.
	We're going to work with President Trump to push back on governments around the world that are going after American companies and pushing to censor more.
	The U.S. has the strongest constitutional protections for free expression in the world.
	Europe has an ever-increasing number of laws institutionalizing censorship and making it difficult to build anything innovative there.
	Latin American countries have secret courts that can order companies to quietly take things down.
	China has censored our apps from even working in the country.
	The only way that we can push back on this global trend is with the support of the US government.
	And that's why it's been so difficult over the past four years when even the US government has pushed for censorship.
	By going after us and other American companies, it has emboldened other governments to go even further.
	But now we have the opportunity to restore free expression, and I am excited to take it.
	It'll take time to get this right, and these are complex systems.
	They're never going to be perfect.
	There's also a lot of illegal stuff that we still need to work very hard to remove.
	But the bottom line is that after years of having our content moderation work focus primarily on removing content, It is time to focus on reducing mistakes, simplifying our systems, and getting back to our roots about giving people voice.
	I'm looking forward to this next chapter.
	Stay good out there, and more to come soon.
	Okay, so there's less to object to here, I think, but the questions are more about his intentions.
	Do I think that Mark Zuckerberg is doing all of this purely for the preservation of free expression for the American people?
	And the other users of his websites and apps?
	No.
	I think it's that these other countries are limiting their potential to make profit and that's what's driving it.
	Maybe I'm cynical.
	I mean, Zuckerberg has said some things publicly that were controversial.
	Like, he talked about how he personally didn't object to people denying the Holocaust on Facebook.
	Which is a very bold thing to say publicly.
	But it at least suggests some degree of understanding of the problem.
	Whether he was saying this to try and placate people in the past, I don't know.
	But maybe there is some belief there.
	I don't want to be unfair necessarily.
	But yes, it seems like the ragging on Europe for being censorious and Latin America for being corrupt and China for blocking them entirely, that's fair.
	I don't think I can object to that much.
	And I also think it's interesting that he did refer explicitly then to the Biden regime censoring, which at the very end is good, but a lot of the meat and potatoes is out of the way and is sort of like sweeping it under the rug a little bit by mentioning it right at the end.
	And two final things I wanted to mention before I finish up is that...
	Meta says fact checkers were the problem and then fact checkers rule it false and that fact checking groups have fact checked Mark Zuckerberg's claim about fact-checkers, and they found him false because they want to have a job and he disagrees.
	And then it's also worth mentioning as well, I don't know how true this is, the International Fact-Checking Network, which I didn't even know existed, has convened an emergency meeting of its members tomorrow following Meta's announcement that it will end third-party fact-checking partnerships in the US. And they were basically propping up the industry.
	And so this means that a lot of fact-checkers are going to go out of business, which is music to my ears, if this is true.
	Because I hate fact-checkers.
	It's basically saying my version of reality is true and yours is wrong, even though they're no more valid.
	And I hate that one.
	Yes, exactly.
	And so, if everything Zuckerberg says...
	As it seems, this is a very positive development.
	However, we're obviously both very cynical about his intentions and the legitimacy of the pursuit of these things.
	I think it might well be motivated by money.
	Doesn't mean it won't necessarily get better, but that's what seems to be happening.
	We have some rumble comments.
	My monitor is turned off.
	Sorry, that segment went on a bit longer than I intended.
	I thought it'd be quicker.
	I really liked it, so...
	Well, thank you.
	So DragonLadyChris says, I'm so sorry you cannot aspire to the fog life, Josh.
	I know you can handle it, but when we have your bark, just watch out, dude, you're going to be put on a list.
	Are these all references to my daily video where I talked about playing classical music to criminals?
	If so, that was well done, and I appreciate the puns there.
	Dad joke worthy there.
	Mum joke perhaps.
	Cranky Texan says, "There is a censorship industrial complex.
	Mike Benz has been fighting it for years.
	See his appearance on Joe Rogan for a great summary of his work.
	I've actually seen it." But thank you for the suggestion.
	That would be nice, wouldn't it?
	Unfortunately, we don't live in a world where justice exists.
	Johnny Logo says, It's good that Meta has partly changed its stance due to Trump's presidency.
	It's a small win for freedom for the individual and public discourse.
	Now it's just the issue we have at home and the EU. That's a very nice summary.
	Thank you.
	Right.
	To my European friends, wherever they are, MAGA is not going to save Europe.
	Europe requires MAGA. Right, we're going to talk about Trump's obsession with Canada and Greenland and whether we are going to talk about whether his rhetoric has gone too far.
	And also what lies behind some of his statements and his aspirations.
	He published a map here where Canada appears to be one of the states of the US. And other people also include Greenland here.
	They're saying that it's a manifest destiny 2.0.
	I say it's the Greater America Project.
	And there's a lot of discourse regarding this.
	And as you can understand, Twitter is full of discussion about this and a lot of people like it.
	And let us talk a bit about Canada first and then go to Greenland.
	So there were several people who were focusing on Justin Trudeau's answer.
	Justin Trudeau said that we are not going to...
	Talk about this merger.
	Elon Musk went there and says, girl, you're not the governor of Canada anymore, so it doesn't matter what you say.
	So he's repeating Trump calling him the governor of Canada.
	Yes.
	Then we had some people from Canada saying that, well, it's our weakness that makes Trump and Elon Musk and other people talk to us like that.
	And here we have a really good answer by Pierre Pauliever, who says Canada will never be the 51st state, period.
	We're a great and independent country.
	And he says essentially that our weak and pathetic liberal government has failed to make these points obvious.
	He says when he is prime minister, he is going to rebuild the military and take back control of the border to secure both Canada and the U.S. So he is talking in a different tone than Trudeau is.
	But he says that, you know, I'm not going to talk about it.
	Well, Trudeau's failure is his victory, really, and whether he will actually achieve those things in any satisfactory way to the Canadian patriots, I suppose, remains to be seen.
	I'm personally not convinced.
	I think that he's a little bit too centre-right to be able to do the things to an agreeable degree.
	So, basically, you think that maybe he is going to be a light Trudeau?
	On issues like immigration, is that...
	Perhaps, yeah.
	Let's see.
	We'll have to see.
	I think I prefer him to Trudeau, and I hear a lot of people...
	It's like, do you prefer a sandwich or a punch in the face?
	Right, let's see.
	But I do appreciate concerns with regard to his policy.
	Now we go to the issue of Trump's rhetoric, because I think that when it comes to X, it's fun.
	Sometimes.
	But I think that when you're a leader of a country, you have to be a bit more responsible.
	And then you have the response, well, this is the negotiation of power, this is the real estate manager speaking.
	But when you care about nations, and a lot of nationalists should care about nations, one of the main arguments is that nations aren't just businesses or economic zones.
	So when you're talking to nationals, and when you're talking with foreign nations, I think you need to respect them a bit more.
	That's my view.
	Well, yeah, it's like being a guest in someone else's country in a similar sort of way, isn't it?
	Where you sort of follow their rules and behave yourself a bit more because you're not on your home turf anymore.
	And I think Billboard Chris here is right to point out that this is how Trump negotiates.
	He asks for something big to get something smaller because that's how you negotiate well.
	I'm very hesitant to believe that whatever he's negotiating for is worth saying these sorts of things.
	But do carry on.
	No, I think that on a Twitter level, on X level, it's fun to...
	It's occasionally fun.
	But when we're talking about, you know, leadership level, I think we need to have a much more responsible leadership and demand for more responsible leadership.
	Because reality is not...
	X. What's going on in X. Now, let's go to Greenland.
	We had Donald Trump Jr. visiting Greenland, landing on Greenland with a Trump airplane.
	And he says, Greenland is beautiful.
	There were many videos regarding his visit.
	But that wasn't the issue.
	Trump refused to rule out.
	The possibility of using military or economic coercion against Greenland, the Panama Canal, and if I'm not mistaken, Canada.
	Now, I think that, again, this is hyperbolic.
	Very few people think that this is going to happen, but let's play the clip.
	Greenland and the Panama Canal, so what, can you assure the world that as you try to get control of these areas, you are not going to use military or economic coercion?
	No.
	So I think that that's just Trump, you know, keeping all of his cards close to his chest.
	You know, you don't rule out anything, particularly if you're trying to negotiate with someone and you say, oh yeah, by the way, we're not going to use military action, we're not going to invade you.
	Then all of a sudden the temperature comes down and it makes negotiation for...
	You know, what you want a little bit more difficult.
	And Trump's a savvy businessman.
	He, you know, out of the deal and all that.
	And so that makes sense to him.
	And I think that that's what's going on there.
	I don't actually think he's going to use the American military to invade Greenland or Canada because it would be political suicide for a start as well as the fact that I think he's more interested in doing business than this sort of thing.
	I will give you a response after we play this short clip as well, because I think they're connected.
	Well, we need Greenland for national security purposes.
	I've been told that for a long time, long before I even ran.
	I mean, people have been talking about it for a long time.
	You have approximately 45,000 people there.
	People really don't even know if Denmark has any legal right.
	But if they do, they should give it up because we need it for national security.
	That's for the free world.
	I'm talking about protecting the free world.
	You don't even need binoculars.
	You look outside, you have China ships all over the place.
	You have Russian ships all over the place.
	We're not letting that happen.
	We're not letting it happen.
	And if Denmark wants to get to a conclusion, but nobody knows if they even have any right title or interest, the people are going to probably vote for independence or to come into the United States.
	But if they did, if they did do that, then I would tariff Denmark at a very high level.
	So he's using tariffs here as a sort of punishment because obviously a high tariff is going to be really damaging to Denmark's trade and the US trades a lot with Europe.
	I think saying it's for national security purposes is a little bit of a red herring from Trump.
	I don't actually believe what he's saying there.
	Because, of course, the United States has military bases in lots of European countries.
	They have plenty in the UK. Plenty in Germany.
	I imagine they could come to some agreement with Denmark.
	It's not like these military bases have caused any problems really in a lot of the host nations, maybe one or two, but not to a degree to be concerned.
	And so if they're worried about national security, surely they could just come to some sort of security agreement because it's not like Denmark is aligned with China or Russia.
	And so if there are security concerns in those respects...
	For the United States, they're also concerns of Denmark.
	They're shared.
	And so I think what's probably going on here isn't that he needs the entirety of Greenland for national security.
	What he actually wants is perhaps more influence in the region to be able to make more bases or have a better deal in that respect.
	Because there is some use to it.
	However, he's being a bit hyperbolic for, again, negotiation.
	Now, I think you're correct, and it's important to remember he talked about Russian ships and Chinese ships.
	Now, we are going to talk about the new Arctic Silk Road in a bit, but I want to say that when he's simultaneously talking about the national security purposes, which is, it's a lie.
	Number one.
	And you can use the national security rhetoric for a lot of...
	I mean, Britain needs to invade France to secure its own borders.
	I mean, you can make a very good argument for that, but it doesn't mean that we should conquer all of France.
	I know, I know, there are a few people picking up the longbows, but, you know...
	Now is not the time, lads.
	But also, I want to say, when you're talking about being the leader of the free world and you want to liaise with the free world, it's better if you try to liaise on terms that respect your opponents rather than terms that generate resentment.
	Now, I know to a lot of people this sounds wet.
	I don't care.
	This is how I think people think should be.
	Well, I don't think it is in many ways.
	If you are the United States and...
	You alienate Europe by strong-arming territory out of them, then all of a sudden Europe starts to see America as a potential political enemy, because you only need to look at how strongly Europe has reacted.
	We've put a lot of money and resources, despite what Trump said, into the Ukraine effort, and I have my thoughts about that.
	I think we've spent way too much on that, and we have no allegiance to Ukraine.
	It's just that our establishment really hates Russia.
	And there's lots of financial interest for elites there.
	But I think that if you start taking territory, Europe will turn against you.
	Yes, and this is actually splitting the Western camp into...
	It's fragmenting the Western camp.
	You're not leading it.
	You're basically just saying, I want more for my own, and I'm just leaving the free world for...
	So it's not the idea of the leadership of the free world.
	I would make the argument that having control over Greenland isn't worth alienating Europe and Europe going its own way, so to speak.
	And I think part of the reason is that if there was a strong Europe that was economically successful, it could rival the United States in the same way that the United States is scared of China, was scared of Japan.
	Scared of competition, basically.
	And, you know, if you have a monopolistic power over countries...
	You do have advantages.
	If you have the world's reserve currency, you have advantages.
	And they don't want to lose these advantages.
	And so by keeping potential competitors, that's why the United States played such a role in the destruction of the British Empire.
	We were a competitor.
	We were in the way of the United States hegemony of the world.
	And so they stabbed us in the back.
	And it isn't the American people that did that.
	It was a select few people in the American government that did it.
	But for that reason, and I think it's this same reason...
	But please go ahead.
	Now, there were several European politicians who made statements, and Emmanuel Macron is one of them.
	I think also Olaf Scholz from Germany.
	A lot of them said that we are going to defend Greenland if there is any kind of military action.
	Now, personally, I don't think that there is going to be.
	Just saying, but still I think...
	So I'm not going to fight Americans for the sake of Greenland.
	I don't want to fight Americans for any reason, let alone a country I don't care about.
	Right, so it's important to talk...
	There's here a profile of Greenland that we have from the BBC. You can find also other ones.
	There seems to be a claim that Denmark has.
	It's not like Trump says that there isn't.
	And they say that...
	I've seen a lot of claims about the Inuit discovering Greenland in the BC. 3500 BC, I think, the figure is banded around.
	Yes.
	But also they're saying that Denmark is...
	In 1982, Greenland is discovered by the Norwegian Eric the Red.
	That's true, yeah.
	He calls his discovery Greenland to make it more attractive.
	In 1986, he returns with settlers.
	I mean, the names of Greenland and Iceland need to swap around, by the way.
	Whoever named them got them around the wrong way.
	Iceland's got lots of green moss everywhere.
	Obviously, it still gets icy and cold, but still.
	Well, it says that there was a little ice age there and temperatures fell significantly and the Norse settlements disappeared.
	And then in 1721, there was an expedition led by the Danish-Norwegian missionary Hans Egedess that created a new Danish colony.
	They established a new colony in the capital called Newark.
	In 1940, Denmark is occupied by Germany during World War II. 1941 to 1945, the U.S. occupies Greenland to defend it against a possible invasion by Germany.
	So the defense of Greenland has been a huge issue for Denmark, we need to say this.
	In 1950, Denmark agrees to allow the U.S. to regain the use of the Thule Air Base, which is greatly expanded between 1951 and 1953, as part of a NATO Cold War defense strategy.
	So there are bases there.
	It's not that there aren't.
	Yeah, and I don't see why Denmark and the US won't cooperate on a lot of these things.
	I think they both have something to gain by doing so, and I think that there must be something that Trump's not telling us to make this all come together, because he's not stupid, I don't think.
	I think that people might react more strongly than he might expect to this sort of thing, and he might miscalculate that.
	But he's obviously working towards something big here, isn't he, to do this?
	So in 1979 there was a referendum in Greenland and they voted for a kind of administrative independence.
	And then they left the European Economic Community because they disagreed with the regulations over fishing and seal skin products.
	And then the Greenlanders in 2008 vote in a referendum for more autonomy and greater control over energy resources.
	And as you see, it goes like that.
	So there are some Trump has offered to buy Greenland.
	And it's not the only time in history that the U.S. has bought lands.
	They bought, I think, the Louisiana from Napoleon, if I'm correct.
	Also Manhattan, but also Alaska.
	So it's not the first time that talks about this occur.
	Right, and in Greenland there have been some people who are saying maybe we should go to the US, others who want to remain affiliated with Denmark.
	I would say that they're quite a distinct country on their own, aren't they?
	So I can understand why they might want to be independent, but then to go from...
	You know, Denmark to the US seems unusual to my mind.
	But then you never know with these things.
	I've never been to Greenland.
	I don't know what they think.
	Right.
	So I have here a tweet by a friend of mine, Agelos Holganopoulos, who is talking a bit about Denmark.
	And he's saying that essentially the rare minerals that Greenland has a very rich supply...
	It always comes down to that, doesn't it?
	Whenever there's any international...
	Contention about land.
	It's always over resources.
	It's almost like all of politics is about resource acquisition or something.
	And for some reason they're very much involved into the tech industry.
	They're really needed into the tech industry.
	So we have here a map that was published in the Wall Street Journal that shows where allegedly there is a huge supply of iron, gold, uranium, zinc, copper and other minerals.
	I mentioned the gold and uranium.
	Would be of interest, and potentially zinc, but iron and copper, you know, are relatively...
	Gold is always...
	Always useful, yeah.
	I don't think anyone's going to turn down more gold mines.
	Small parenthesis, just talk about Ukraine.
	They're saying that the Ukraine has also a really high...
	That's what it's all about.
	And one of the reasons why...
	We should remember that one of the reasons why the tech industry was so much involved into the narrative pro-Ukraine was also this.
	Let us not forget Starlink's...
	Elon Musk's Starlink's involvement into the...
	Well, they were giving information to the Ukrainians, weren't they?
	Exactly.
	Yes.
	So it's not exactly that as some of...
	Our colleagues have said that the US was interested in gay rights for Ukraine.
	Well, yeah.
	Also, Elon Musk runs Starlink.
	He's part of the administration.
	And he was involved in protecting those Ukrainian resources that are going to be used by companies like Tesla.
	Yeah, so the thing is that we need to remember the reason why Trump is interested in this is primarily economical.
	And it's economical for the US because the tech industry is going to be the industry of the future.
	It already is.
	Right now, the vast majority of the resources for the minerals required for that industry are controlled by China and Russia.
	We're getting a little bit better on that front, at least.
	We're discovering lots of new...
	It's looking less likely as well that China's going to have hegemony over places like Central Africa because they're finding working with Africans quite difficult, which is amusing.
	And yeah, I think it's not as set in stone as politicians might want to make it out to be.
	We're not desperate for resources.
	As far as I'm aware, maybe I'm missing something.
	Yes, but still...
	There is a new trade route that is slowly but steadily opening up.
	That's called the $240 billion Silk Road that a lot of people think is going to be the international trade route of the future.
	Experts say the route could cut up to two weeks off the travel time for ships journeying from China to Europe.
	That's going to be going north over Europe, I imagine, and past Russia.
	Yes.
	The idea is that the ice in the Arctic Ocean is melting.
	Here we have a really strong Russian icebreaker opening routes that can be used as trade routes as well.
	I mean, it goes on across northern Canada as well, doesn't it?
	Exactly.
	So they're saying that this saves a lot of time for...
	For shipping companies.
	And they say, for instance, that it could save up to 50% of the time to transport goods from China to the UK. And that's a massive amount of economic efficiency.
	In economic terms, that is huge.
	Exactly.
	So they say the Arctic Silk Road is a £240 billion megaproject led by Russia and China, and it has been hailed as the future of international trade.
	And the US has to somehow respond to the opening of the trade routes, and they want increased presence in the region.
	It's sort of area denial, isn't it?
	If they're going to have this going over the north of Europe, then if the US controls Greenland, then...
	And, you know, the UK has the other routes as well, then they're basically a little bit stuck.
	They have to be on our good side.
	It gives us bargaining power over those countries because we have the potential to damage their trade to a significant degree.
	But also, if that trade route opens, and opens even more, and it's controlled by Russia and China...
	That will mean that to a large degree, the tech industry and the products in the tech industry that are rich in those minerals, that to whatever degree a lot of them are controlled by Russia and China, that's going to give them more negotiational power over the tech industry of the US. That's true, yeah.
	So that's one of the reasons why they're involved into this.
	And they say that the project also taps into the Arctic's immense natural resources, which include oil and gas reserves estimated to be worth 28 trillion pounds.
	Now, Now, one thing to say is that I've heard a cynical or not so cynical geopolitical analyst who was saying that the only reason why the U.S. establishment was interested in promoting green energy and the net zero one thing to say is that I've heard a cynical or not so cynical geopolitical analyst who was saying that the only reason
	So if the ice melts, that's going to give a tremendous amount of natural resources to Russia.
	Or at least it's going to make them much more accessible to Russia.
	I can believe it, actually.
	They want to deny them potential wealth by making the Western countries less dependent on so-called fossil fuels.
	Exactly.
	And here we...
	We have clips to show you.
	There's a Russian nuclear icebreaker fleet.
	Russia has around 55, and the US had two.
	These figures are from about a year ago.
	It's worth mentioning as well that the Crimean War between Britain and Russia, part of the reason...
	That went on was that we wanted to deny the Russians a winter port, because in the winter, obviously, Russia is cold, and a lot of the water freezes, and so it's difficult to get ships out.
	And of course, in the past, that was more important.
	Now they've got these ice-breaking ships, and so they can manage it.
	But it's still more useful to have a ship, a port where it doesn't freeze over, militarily largely.
	And so I think that that's certainly a part of it, isn't it?
	Yeah.
	And I'll end the segment with a tweet that infuriated me, a post that infuriated me by Guy Verhofstadt.
	He says Trump wants to...
	He responded to Elon Musk's decision to host Alice Weidel from AFD on an ex-space.
	And he says...
	She the lesbian leader?
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	And he says Trump wants to buy Greenland.
	Musk wants to decide who governs Germany and the UK. Putin invades European countries.
	Foreign billionaires looking at a map with dreams of carving up the world.
	Europeans recognize imperialism and reject it.
	Who will defend post-1945?
	This infuriates me.
	It absolutely infuriates me.
	Because the main reason why Europe is weak is European bad leadership.
	The reason why, for instance, the EU is behind in the tech industry is ridiculous socialist policies of the EU. I very much agree, yeah.
	There's no reason that we can't be successful.
	It's all because of mismanagement, isn't it?
	Yes, and also, all of that is self-imposed.
	The open-border craze, the benefit-spending craze that is primarily to foreign nationals who frequently don't show any will to integrate.
	And they have an establishment that tells them, don't integrate.
	Very much started with that.
	But let's just say also, who will defend post-1945 Europe?
	Well, if it's a European, if it's a continent that is structured upon a union that completely demonizes any kind of national sovereignty, well, yeah, people won't want to fight for it.
	So don't protest a lot against...
	People from non-Europeans acting aggressively and having aggressive rhetoric, focus on setting your house in order first.
	Right.
	So Trump isn't crazy to want Greenland and Canada.
	We told you why we think he wants them.
	Right.
	You have some comments.
	A few, actually.
	Hero Sonny Hiban.
	America should just deport all its future scientists and engineers to Canada and trade them for all its bigots and build a wall.
	I see what you've done there.
	Tefeno.
	Unfortunate when you add the territory to the nation, it's not an international issue.
	It's national if you add them to your nation.
	Mad G Hammond.
	The U.S. is offering Denmark money for Greenland, who currently spends $600 million a year on it.
	Britain chose their fate when they created the NHS and stopped funding their Hey, our government chose that.
	I don't want that.
	I never consented.
	Oh, yes.
	We've had a highbrow conversation now.
	Time to lower it a little bit.
	It's not quite Friday, but I'm not on on Friday, so I'm treating this like a Friday segment.
	Andrew Tate wants to be the Great British Prime Minister, which is not a sentence I thought I'd say.
	Whether you think he's serious or not, or whether you think he should be taken seriously...
	Some of the policies he suggested are clearly satire, but some are serious, I think.
	And with his reach, he was the most googled man in Britain, I think, for at least a couple of years, and the most googled in the world.
	Well, top ten at least.
	He's a pretty significant figure, and we've been critical of him in the past before on this podcast.
	But I wanted to look at his announcements because it's come at an interesting time.
	Because obviously we've had Elon Musk putting a lot of pressure on the British government.
	And now at the same time, we have Andrew Tate as well, criticizing how things are being run and putting forward potential solutions to things.
	And some of them are quite interesting.
	I think it's interesting as well, because he's very popular with people that are probably younger than us.
	I think we're a little bit too old to fall for all of his flamboyant nonsense.
	But, you know, particularly young men.
	He's trying way too hard.
	Oh yeah, of course.
	Maybe we just don't go to the gym enough, Stelios.
	That's what it is.
	If we went to the gym more, we'd be able to afford some Lambos.
	But I actually do think some of the things he's put forward are quite good, even if he's not being entirely serious.
	Do I think he can win?
	Obviously not.
	Do I think he should win?
	Also no.
	I also don't think he's going to be that serious, although I have seen public figures saying, yeah, you go get him, Mr. Tate.
	All sorts of people.
	Don't get me started or get me rambling, just like, you idiots, what are you doing?
	But anyway, it is worthwhile talking about what he's put forward because it is useful stuff to sort of shift things rightward because some of the things he suggested are quite radical and I think that that's interesting, particularly if it's something that's going to be...
	Disgust publicly is going to be things that he's going to put a lot of weight into because he feels a certain sense of belonging to Britain and clearly wants to make it better.
	I might question some of his decisions as to how he goes about fixing it, but it does seem to be genuine.
	He doesn't need to go out of his way to suggest how to fix it.
	And any rightward shift in public discourse, whoever it comes from, is welcome in my mind.
	Can you think of Andrew Tate speaking about a budget?
	Analyzing the budget?
	Not really.
	I couldn't see him doing anything other than coming out to the lectern of the Prime Minister and treating it like a UFC weigh-in.
	Yeah, replies.
	Yeah, we saw politicians who spoke about a budget.
	We don't need a budget.
	You challenge party leaders to fight him in the ring or something.
	I mean, there are worse ideas.
	How much worse can it get?
	But here someone says the United Kingdom needs someone who is a warrior.
	Politicians are not saving them at this rate.
	This is a Fed post, basically.
	They need someone as ready to go to war with the state as Trump.
	And then Andrew Tate says, I will do it.
	This is the thing that started it all off.
	And then he put out a poll.
	Ultra-serious post, which whenever people say that, I don't believe they're being serious.
	Should I enter politics and run for Prime Minister of the UK? 69%, nice, said yes, save Britain.
	30% said no.
	It's very reassuring that 31% of people who saw this said no.
	Even on X. I know, yeah.
	Because I think only he and maybe his brother would think that it would be a good idea.
	I doubt it.
	I imagine the numbers would be a bit more in the yes camp if it was someone like Jeremy Clarkson.
	But that did have over 200,000 responses.
	And he shared the poll and said, Vox Populi, Vox Dei.
	So it's basically saying, I'll give you what you want.
	Then he says, the most googled man in the world, who is British, becoming the PM after that person you don't like became a member of EU Parliament from his YouTube channel at the time of his great awakening and distrust in the political class.
	Stranger things have happened.
	I'm 100% serious.
	I am in the next election.
	Until you've registered.
	I don't think you are, but I don't know.
	Maybe you have done that.
	Who knows?
	He started sort of making jokes about this sort of thing, which made me think, hang on a minute, he's not as serious.
	Like, top G, the G stands for government.
	That's funny.
	It is funny.
	And he did have some good laughs with this stuff, and I didn't realise he had a sense of humour.
	I thought he took himself so seriously that he wasn't capable of humour.
	You know the people, right?
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Things like this.
	Boats will be leaving.
	None will be arriving.
	Prime Minister Tate.
	All in caps, of course.
	It would be hilarious if actual politicians started doing this, just writing stuff that laconic in caps.
	It could be better.
	So I'll be convened.
	And he says, once I'm Prime Minister, with a typo, Shmama Begum remains exiled from the United Kingdom.
	If you're not from the UK, that's a girl who joined ISIS. Why it's a matter of public debate.
	Whether she should come back.
	I mean, I would have personally preferred a debate about which kind of missile are we going to drop on our head, but alas, it wasn't up to me.
	And it says, however, anyone who legally attempted to return her to our great nation is instantly deported and permanently banned from entry.
	No traitors.
	I like this.
	It's also weird that he's digging up this because this is not in the news cycle.
	It's a random thing that must be sort of circulating in his mind.
	But I mean, if you had to pick a line.
	It's fun also because there were lots of English people who defended her.
	I know, yeah.
	Yeah.
	I think Peter Hitchens said that she should come back and face justice.
	And by that it means we'll pay for her to be imprisoned.
	So the taxpayer will pay money for it.
	Great, thanks.
	And then he said, I have not slept since announcing my political ambitions.
	Party announcement and manifesto release shortly.
	People of Great Britain, help is coming.
	Hold out for the cavalry.
	Don't give up.
	I will be the Prime Minister.
	I actually...
	The idea is beginning to mature.
	I may vote for him.
	Stelios, no.
	But no, he is trying to sell that he's being serious.
	You say no, are you containment?
	Are you trying to contain Tate?
	I'm going to announce I am now containment, yes.
	Andrew Tate, containment.
	I can't contain him, no one can.
	So here is his party.
	It starts off by saying, yes, bruv.
	The Britain Restoring Underlying Values Party, of course the acronym is BRUV, will restore the once great Britain.
	As leader, I'm held fully accountable.
	If the plan has not been actioned within 45 days of power, I will step down from leadership.
	No delays.
	Charter below.
	I mean, I like the no-nonsense aspect of it.
	If actual politicians were like this, this would be good.
	Usually that's a sign of someone who doesn't want to be a politician.
	If you're saying sensible things...
	Obviously there's a sense of humor.
	Restoring underlying values.
	Obviously they tried to get it to fit the BRUV acronym because they thought it'd be funny.
	Because also underlying isn't that good there.
	No.
	But they...
	They have a website here where they have a charter and their core values.
	You can't really see it because we're in dark mode at the minute.
	But it was eventually removed from Twitter, his new party.
	It got 16,500 followers, and then it got removed.
	However, Elon personally came in to see the success of the party, saying not sure why it's suspended, but it seems fixed now.
	And this was pretty quick.
	So it was only a little speed bump in the skyrocketing of the bruv party to become the only true party in the UK, clearly.
	And here is the Twitter now.
	It's going strong at 106.7 thousand followers, which is a bit embarrassing because I've been doing this for four years and my follow count is not even close.
	So yes, even Andrew Tate's joke party is doing better than me.
	F's in the comments for my career.
	I don't know why I'm saying this.
	But here he is again.
	I could have sworn there was a charter in the link, Samson.
	If you could pull that up, that would be good.
	But here he says, As unofficial Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, I wholeheartedly support Greenland's annexation into the American Empire.
	Bit of a reference to our previous segment there.
	I have sent a diplomatic cable to the Danish stating, Fighting America is insanity.
	You're cooked, brov.
	Give it up.
	Which is funny.
	There's no way that that's not funny.
	And him looking very serious in front of the podium as well is funny.
	I didn't realise he had this in him.
	Still, you know, I don't approve of the guy necessarily.
	Ah, the reason I went over the link for the charter is because it's below this, isn't it?
	Thanks, Samson.
	It was my fault.
	I forgot my own links.
	But I'll come back to it now.
	Okay, so...
	Here's a charter.
	He's talking about accountability.
	He's got a very serious picture of himself, looking like he's sat in the old Lotus Eater's studio chairs there as well.
	Let's have a look at things like this.
	Harsh migrant control.
	I like the AI slop pictures.
	He talks about the cost of illegal migration, and the solution is clear.
	Not one more boat lands on British soil.
	Boats will be leaving the UK filled with illegal migrants, and not a single one will be arriving on our shores.
	So he's basically saying mass deportations here.
	So well done, Andrew.
	This is a campaign guarantee.
	The Royal Navy will patrol our waters.
	Our message will be clear.
	If you come here illegally, you will not set foot on this land.
	That's what I want to see.
	This is good.
	I like that.
	Do I think Andrew Tate has the ability to deliver this politically?
	I don't think so.
	But best of luck if this is your...
	And then he's got a little thing here talking about British men dying for British soil.
	Foreigners aren't allowed to break in.
	It's inspirational stuff, really.
	And here we go.
	He's talking about knife crime.
	He's suggesting here, introducing BBC Punishment, a 24-7 live broadcast of knife crime offenders serving solitary confinement.
	No redemption arcs, no second chances, just the cold, hard reality of life wasted in a concrete cell.
	Now that's surprisingly clever, if not a bit dystopian, in that, you know, you get to watch a live stream of all of the knife criminals rot their life away in solitary confinement.
	Watch them do push-ups.
	So I can't read that because the camera's in the way, but can you read that final paragraph?
	Imagine a 50-year-old boy tempted to pick up a blade, turning on the TV and seeing a man grow old and die alone.
	That's not cruelty.
	It's deterrence and it will save lives.
	So I'm not going to lie, that's pretty good.
	I can't see the policy going down well, but I like the spirit of it.
	I also can see how the 15-year-old is just going to look at the whole life of someone in a prison in a matter of seconds and say, well, maybe I shouldn't.
	It's pre-recorded and sped up.
	It's like a time-lapse.
	He talks about the BBC being a place of child exploitation, and he's trying to return it to factual reporting, not propaganda, which I think, just privatise it, get rid of it.
	This one's interesting.
	Get rid of the LGBTQ plus materials in education, it's indoctrination.
	Ban it from schools, that's a genuinely good idea.
	And teach traditional family values of respect, responsibility, and the importance of strong family bonds.
	That's actually quite good.
	I agree with that.
	Andrew Tate, you are right on that.
	I liked this one as well.
	This one was probably the strongest one of them all.
	Appoint a minister for British culture to celebrate and preserve our history.
	I mean, we've got lots of preservation already, but, you know, preserving...
	Our history is a national pastime.
	We've already got things like the National Trust and, you know, national parks and things like that and lots of dedicated protection sites.
	So expanding that's a good idea, I think.
	I like this one.
	I think it should be, you know, a fewer percentage but cap on non-British residents at 10% of the population to maintain cultural balance.
	That would still mean mass deportations now because it's...
	You know, less than that.
	And also, to keep it at that 10%, you would gradually have to deport people as they had more children.
	So that would get a bit messy.
	I personally think there should be fewer than 10%, personally.
	Okay, question, Josh.
	Because, you know, I'm a foreigner, in case you don't know.
	You're honorarily British, okay?
	Okay.
	You're allowed.
	So, when I look at him, I don't think he...
	English culture isn't what comes to mind, let's say.
	In Andrew Tate?
	Yeah.
	Yeah, I know what you mean.
	Yeah, agree or disagree.
	You don't necessarily have to embody something to appreciate it, you know.
	I appreciate Japanese culture, but I don't necessarily embody it in my life, do I? So, you know, give him the benefit of the doubt here.
	But no, I know what you're saying.
	And yeah, I think Europeans, I'm fine with.
	Europeans can exist in a civilisation, and that's okay.
	It's mainly...
	Other parts of the world that cause us problems.
	He says, replace modern art in quotation marks with statues and monuments honouring British heroes.
	I'm all for that.
	I think we need more statues of key people.
	That's good.
	That makes you feel like you're part of something great.
	Every street in Britain feels British with English signage flags and traditional architecture.
	I imagine the Scots would object to that, but I think he's okay for Scotland being Scottish.
	We're not going to put an English flag up in Scottish streets.
	I wouldn't do that to them.
	But I think that that's important because he's suggesting that Britain doesn't feel British and there's something good about feeling British in Britain.
	And if this is going out to a Zoomer fan base of young and impressionable kids, telling them that Britain feeling British is a good thing, even if it's him joking around, that's not a bad thing.
	That's good for politics of our side, right?
	I don't think it's what people who are annoyed at him are annoyed with.
	Of course, yeah.
	And any illegal migrants which...
	Is identified by a police officer.
	Will be arrested and deported from the nation within seven days.
	No court case.
	Very based.
	No compromises.
	Illegals will leave.
	You have no right to British soil.
	That's the spirit.
	You know, there is some good stuff here.
	You know, we might have awoken a patriot here, even though the questions about his views on Islam and things like that.
	He's talking about outdated manufacturing.
	Forget about building stuff in your country.
	You need a nation of businessmen, so here's Hustlers University is going to be mandatory in schools now.
	Revolutionising education, because education is important.
	So he's just like, yes, we need loads of businessmen, pioneers, and tech stuff, which I disagree with.
	I actually think you need an industry in your country.
	But, you know...
	Encouraging people to start businesses.
	There could be worse things in the world.
	He's talking about abolishing foreign aid and spending it at home.
	No more foreign wars.
	These are two good things that I just unequivocally agree with.
	People who pay taxes get priority in the NHS. So he's not saying privatise it like I would.
	But I would take priority treatment.
	I'd pay a lot of money into the system and get nothing.
	In return.
	Zero.
	Like, I don't use any government services.
	I am just a cash cow for the state.
	Also, MPs, over 30% of MPs fail to meet basic attendance standards.
	Basically have expectations for MPs to do their job.
	You've got to turn up.
	He's suggesting weekly referendums, which is probably too much.
	Basically saying if you don't show up, you're out.
	Which is probably a good approach and not a bad thing.
	Where are people going to show up?
	It's going to be electronic.
	Probably.
	There's going to be lots of computer screens.
	Zero tolerance for crime.
	Lots of planes close offices in London.
	That's just dystopian.
	You just have police jumping out of nowhere.
	You've basically created a secret police force.
	Not a good idea.
	A more transparent tax system.
	That's actually a good idea.
	Basically stop punishing people for being ambitious.
	So just reduce taxes and stop making it heavily weighted.
	This was quite good as well.
	Encourage more masculine pursuits.
	I'm not surprised he's saying this.
	Boxing and wrestling in schools.
	I already did boxing in school, so you've already got your wish.
	And this one was weird.
	He's saying that...
	He wants to make it possible to license armed security in the street to help solve crime.
	So basically, I think what he's trying to say is if we have more armed security around, things will be safer.
	And so it's a temporary measure, maybe?
	I don't know.
	But it seems a bit scary just to have outside every shop someone with a gun.
	I mean, I'd feel a lot safer, I suppose, but still.
	Talking about a national Bitcoin reserve, that's actually clever.
	Nuclear power for energy independence.
	Again, another good idea.
	So it's not actually all bad.
	And there you go.
	Actually, that shows how ridiculous Western policy is right now.
	Yeah, Andrew Tate, whose background is in kickboxing and running an online pornography business.
	To make his money.
	If he can come up with better policies than a lot of the mainstream politicians...
	That's concerning.
	It is concerning, yeah.
	I mean, I did enjoy reading them.
	They were fun, some of them.
	But I don't think...
	He should necessarily be taken seriously.
	I don't think he's going to rescue British politics.
	But popularising some of these ideas is a good idea, because a lot of those I actually thought were quite good.
	I was pleasantly surprised.
	And he has been saying funny things as well, like...
	More on Greenland.
	He's saying Greenland will be conquered by the USA and used as a perma-refrigeration for Bitcoin mining operations.
	One of the problems with Bitcoin mining is it generates a lot of heat.
	And he's thinking, well, it's cold, so it's going to make it cheaper and therefore it's more efficient to have it in Greenland.
	Which is kind of funny in a sort of...
	Clever way.
	And the final thing I quite liked was this.
	He stated that his new political party, Bruv, will not cater to Zionists or Islamists, instead seeking to restore Christian Britain.
	He's basically saying, I want to restore it to this.
	You're meant to be Christian.
	Even though I think he identifies more with Islam, doesn't he, these days.
	He's saying, you know, Britain's not meant to be Muslim.
	Britain's meant to be Christian, so at least he didn't throw us under the bus on that respect, I suppose.
	I also thought it was funny that he threw in Zionist there as well.
	That's going to ruffle a few feathers, which is always funny.
	And yeah, what do you think, Stelios?
	Do you think he's in for the running?
	What do you make of the policies?
	I think he will run, yeah.
	I think he will run.
	Maybe he doesn't think he will right now.
	Maybe he thinks it's all a joke, but people will push him to.
	I wouldn't be surprised, actually.
	I think this is probably not the last we've heard of Andrew Tate in British politics this year.
	Okay, we've got some comments here.
	Okay, we have...
	We've read those.
	We've read these already.
	So, Andrew Tate would be the first gay and first Muslim Prime Minister.
	Brutal.
	Matt G Hammond says, Andrew Tate walks out of 10 Downing Street with his shirt off, standing on a scale for a weigh-in while talking with the press.
	Yeah, it's quite the image, isn't it?
	Yeah, I thought it'd be nice and light-hearted whilst also talking about something that is actually going to affect British politics in some small way.
	We cover the same stuff all the time.
	You've got to do something different every now and then.
	You poor people don't want to just hear the same stuff, do you?
	But anyway, video comments.
	Right, yeah.
	We are going to watch a video comment from someone who tries always to trick me with her comments.
	Let's watch Sophie live.
	What?
	Guys being so mean to Beau!
	I just watched a cool movie!
	For those who wanna watch the movie, remember to watch these as the companions.
	They are actually all for a really great movie.
	I'm Harry since I'm trying to draw at least one sketch a day anyway.
	Here you go.
	Remember though, I've only been doing this for a month, okay?
	I'm coming back in eight months and make a comparison.
	You're a much better drawer than I am.
	Harry's not got a beard anymore, though.
	You've got to rub that one out.
	He looks like a Victorian quartermaster.
	But no, that's great.
	Also, you did Bo dirty by mentioning Nosferatu there.
	Poor Bo.
	He's not very well at the minute.
	Next clip is by Russian Garbage Human.
	We agreed that it is, in some areas, largely rape is committed by Muslims because, no, I grew up in Bradford, alright?
	Like I've had friends who've been raped and the police have told them that because it's an Asian man that have done it, probably not going to catch them.
	Thank you.
	The police have just been called ratists to do anything.
	What planet these police are living on if they're actually saying to people, "Yeah, you know, I'm just going to put the phone down now because it's an Asian person so don't report it." That's what they did.
	That's what they did.
	I don't think they did it.
	He has to say that.
	Why is he dressed like a watermelon?
	laughs Yeah, that's true.
	Good observation.
	Yeah, no, it's the Palestine colours.
	Yeah.
	He's got the green and red.
	Where's the white?
	It's brown.
	Okay, maybe I made a mistake.
	He is virtue signaling, Josh.
	In some way.
	Okay, right.
	Is that all the video comments?
	Okay.
	Let's go to the comments.
	Right.
	Bigger Bigfoot.
	Josh and Vestelios are the best presented duo.
	It's great to see the Dream Team back.
	Thank you very much.
	And thank you also for honoring me with the title.
	Josh and...
	Alex Ogle.
	Josh and Stelios on one podcast without a moderator.
	Let the degeneracy commence.
	We were on good behavior today, weren't we?
	Yeah, but that's such a good comment.
	I appreciate it.
	Thank you, Alex.
	We are the pervaders of degeneracy.
	What can we say, you know?
	Russian garbage human.
	I see the Stelios theme continues.
	Smile.
	The Stelios can't be stopped.
	I saw some comments in the chat saying that it's like a title, that you have to earn it.
	True.
	Once you read enough philosophy, you get the prefix the before your name as a title of respect.
	Yes, yes.
	Right.
	Do you want me to read comments of yours?
	You can read mine if you want.
	Okay, right.
	So, Captain Charlie the Beagle.
	Funny how it's now Zuckerberg who wants to promote free speech and not when it was being attacked.
	I know, yeah.
	When the wind is blowing in their direction, funnily enough, it's all of a sudden a big priority.
	Yeah.
	Someone making a Freddy on Carl's desk.
	It doesn't have the Stelios in front of it, so you're not interested.
	What kind of a username is this?
	Stelios, why did you do that to Carl's desk?
	What is this?
	What is this?
	Don't radio Genoa me.
	I'll always Radio Genoa you, Josh.
	Maybe I have Cambodian origins.
	Right.
	Salios' origin story is coming out now.
	First, Jack Dorsey and now Mark Zuckerberg.
	It's interesting how these men who have held power over public discourse have had their own independent character arcs, from naivety to censorship to support of free speech.
	I know.
	I mean, one positive thing is that...
	Even if Zuckerberg goes back on everything he said, he said it now.
	And the ability to trust him again, not that you shouldn't by default anyway, will be severely diminished.
	If he has another redemption arc, people just won't believe him.
	And so, to a certain extent, he has to do some of what he says to save face and keep having influence.
	Supreme Duck.
	The video looks fake because of his face and movement.
	All videos of Mark Zuckerberg are fake.
	Arizona Desert Rat.
	Regarding the gender discussion, there were many people who regretted their transitions who were getting censored, blocked, or entirely removed from social media simply because they didn't toe the line.
	If these media platforms actually cared about people with body dysmorphia, they...
	They would allow all voices of concern.
	Yeah, the treatment of detransitioners has been just to deny their existence or to scream at them far right.
	Or to call them transphobic when in...
	In many ways, they've done more transitioning than the people who've just transitioned from one sex to another because they've gone to one sex and back.
	So they're twice as trans as the other people.
	Farking Al Zuckerberg.
	Facebook is competing with X and TikTok and would probably like to see TikTok removed from the US, which essentially would give him more eyes and more revenue.
	Did you pick up on the name?
	Farking Al.
	Don't say it too quickly.
	You might sound rather English, like you're swearing.
	Omar Awad, the real litmus test for if Facebook has changed for the better will be when libschits make performative mass exodus to a more equal bubble.
	And they announce it.
	I like the departure.
	Joe Schmoe.
	Facebook introducing community notes merely proves that community notes are a system which can be subverted and controlled by the parent platform.
	And Afrey bent us for every Haitian.
	Zak is putting the walk away.
	He even looks like a 90s skater bro now.
	I know.
	He actually looks like you could hang out with him and he wouldn't try and lick your eyeballs or something.
	But personally, I think they're not going anywhere.
	They're going to continue being around.
	Too big to fail, some might say.
	We're going to see them again.
	They'll be back.
	Right.
	Sophie Liv.
	Greenland.
	Something where I can lend you my insights.
	Yeah.
	Because it's Sophie, I'm going to be extra careful with what I read.
	Yeah, it would be the best thing for Denmark if America just took it.
	Greenland cannot sustain itself without constant support from Denmark.
	It costs us a lot of money with no real gain.
	Denmark cannot defend Greenland by ourselves.
	Since we're only, well, six million people.
	Only because of NATO is Greenland protected and America pretty much is NATO. We have nothing to gain by keeping it, but a lot to lose if Greenland is invaded by China or Russia and we will have to defend it, but just don't have the power to do so.
	I imagine Europe and North America would help Denmark if their sovereign territory is invaded because it would be unprecedented.
	And if you didn't do anything...
	It would be your territory next.
	There's a certain amount of self-interest there.
	But from what you've said there, it just sounds like Denmark should sell it to the United States.
	Yeah.
	Maybe hold a referendum.
	Do you want to be sold to the Americans?
	I promise they won't enslave you this time.
	Supreme Duck.
	As a Dane, I wish we could just give it.
	I want lower taxes and they're a net negative.
	I feel the same way about Scotland.
	What?
	I didn't say that.
	That was a joke.
	Sorry.
	Grant Gibson, the thing that drives me wild about the left in Canada right now is that they spent the last 10 years telling us we were genocidal, settler colonialists, white devils, and that we had no culture of our own.
	Now that Trump makes a joke about an ex in Canada, they're trying to rally some sort of patriotic sentiment.
	They see none of the irony.
	Yeah, and suddenly everyone discovered borders again.
	I know, yeah.
	Protection of borders, yeah.
	Wait a minute.
	There's someone here who's got the name Josh Firm farting hard enough to inflate a car tyre.
	And this is a reference to a tweet I shared on Twitter, so you've been looking at my Twitter, from Elon from 2023, where he says, I can fart hard enough to inflate a car tyre.
	And then I shared this just like, the richest person in the world, ladies and gentlemen, and everyone's just like, stop having a go.
	And I was just like, no, this is funny.
	This is great.
	And people are just like, you're an idiot.
	You don't even get that someone like Elon could have a sense of humour.
	I'm just like, no, I'm trying to say it's funny.
	And then it's amazing how people interpret what you say on the internet, isn't it?
	Samson, do we have two more minutes?
	Okay.
	Roman observer, pressure for Greenland might go in the direction of forcing Denmark and Europe to up their defence posture in the north, which is the real US interest.
	Well, if Europe apps its defence and its military, I think that's good.
	Hector X, oddly enough, Greenland is not a fan of Denmark and how they treat them.
	Sounds like an opportune moment to seize Greenland.
	Okay, do you want to read the...
	Yeah, yeah, of course.
	So...
	Jimbo G says, can Andrew Tate...
	Even Stepfoot in the UK, even if he was innocent of the crimes he's been accused of, they wouldn't allow him to run.
	Imagine he was the MP for Luton for the Brov Party.
	I know.
	First time a Muslim MP would actually do any good in Luton.
	Yeah, I think that actually once the Romanian courts are done with him, we're going to put him through the sort of...
	What's the word?
	The legal assault course, I suppose.
	Make him have to navigate that.
	And Arizona Desert Rat also says, is Tate even British?
	I think he had an English mother, an American father, and he's lived in both America and Britain, which is why he's got that accent where it doesn't quite sound like English, but it doesn't quite sound American either.
	And one more before we end.
	David Ward says, Tate just what we need, another Mohammedan with a Mohammedan attitude to women.
	I want a note to end on.
	There we go.
	Right.
	So, on that note, we've run out of time, and let's call it a day.
	If you want to watch us tomorrow.
	Sorry, that was the worst way to end it.
	Please don't end it.

▲