Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 20, 2025 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:32:35

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1105

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters episode 1105.
	I'm joined today by Beau and recurring special guest, Nate, Mr. H Reviews.
	How are you doing today, man?
	I'm good, yeah.
	I answered the call.
	There you go.
	It's a very last minute thing, so thank you for coming into the office, man.
	We really appreciate it.
	Where can people find you?
	Just Twitter and obviously YouTube at Mistage Reviews.
	Nice.
	And today we're going to be talking about...
	The truth being out there regarding declassified JFK secrets.
	Is that correct?
	To an extent.
	The beginnings of it, let's say.
	Should be interesting.
	Whether you will die for Ukraine or not.
	And I'm going to talk about the lack of leftist male role models because they're all a bunch of pansies.
	And it's inherently feminine to be a leftist.
	Let's be perfectly honest.
	You're taking on Nietzsche's slave morality.
	Samson says to please shill the merch at the start of all of the segments because the sales are still on, they're still there.
	You can buy them if you haven't bought them yet.
	You're uncool and I don't like you.
	And with that, anything else we should say before we get into the segments?
	No, is Calvin- is Common Sense Crusade on?
	Nope.
	Oh, okay.
	He's not being held by Mossad.
	Okay, good.
	Father Robinson having troubles with the US visa thing, so no common sense crusade today.
	Okay, alright.
	Well, in that case, let's get into the news.
	Alright, so as most people know who watch this podcast regularly and or follow me, you know that I'm fascinated by the JFK killing.
	I've done various bits of content about it in the past.
	I always have problems with these mouses.
	So there's a podcast not too long ago where it first came up that Trump's definitely going to release the files.
	If anyone...
	Did you ever see Trump on Joe Rogan shortly before the election?
	About a month, six weeks before the election?
	It's time.
	It's time.
	Interestingly, one of the most interesting exchanges on that, I thought, was when Joe Rogan said, didn't you say you would do it last time in 2016?
	And you didn't.
	And it was the only time where Trump sort of became a bit cagey.
	Right.
	Because Joe...
	Just straight up said, why didn't you do it the first time?
	And Trump's reply was something along the lines of, this isn't verbatim, but something along the lines of, a lot of powerful people just asked me nicely, can we just do it another time?
	Basically.
	And Trump said, okay.
	Now, anyway.
	But then went on to say, I'll definitely do it this time.
	Almost straight away.
	And as you said, it was like, it's a cleansing.
	It's time.
	But what it seems to be...
	Oh, other content I've done.
	There was a segment.
	That was that segment not too long ago, only a few weeks ago, really.
	I did a whole article about it.
	Edie Plaza's Telltale Heart.
	There.
	You've got me reading it, actually.
	And then a video was made of that.
	You can find that on my channel, History Bro.
	I also had a conversation with Dan Carlin once.
	And we talked all about JFK. Just painting the picture that I am sort of mildly obsessed with it.
	I did a very long-form bit of content, like two and a half hours there with a great smaller channel, The Outcast Creative, where we talk all about Oliver Stone's film and the real history.
	So, what's happened?
	Well, if you thought that...
	Trump can just click his fingers or just sign some piece of paper and suddenly all the secrets are out.
	Well, it doesn't really work like that.
	It looks like it doesn't really work like that.
	In fact, they have to put together a task force to sort of force the deep state, the swamp, the blob, whatever you want to call it, sort of force them to come clean.
	So you might have thought that the commander-in-chief, the head of the executive, can just order it done.
	And it seems like there's still resistance, institutional resistance.
	Seems to be very common in the States, unfortunately.
	It's still there, yeah.
	It's interesting to see that, I think, the first thing to note is that you would need such a thing, a sort of a formal task force.
	So it's not just going to all be...
	Over and done with, like a plaster.
	It's not like one day all the secrets are out and that's it, like a plaster.
	It's just not going to be like that.
	So, they're putting together what is called the House Oversight Task Force on the Declassification of Federal Secrets.
	Hopefully it will do exactly what it says on the tin.
	And it's being led by Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna, who is a Congresswoman for Florida.
	Famously pictured in several bikinis online.
	Well, that was the thing.
	She's also in the US Air Force and seems like quite a serious individual, but was also a sort of swimsuit model.
	I don't make the thumbnails, but I believe the thumbnail for this is going to have her...
	You have had some input in this thumbnail, in picture selection.
	I don't have anything to do with it whatsoever.
	But there's an image of her, I believe, in sort of Make America Great Again swimsuit.
	It's not a Photoshop.
	That's a real image of her.
	Anyway.
	And we know that people click when you put bikini women on the thumbnail.
	Beautiful women, just faces, arrows.
	For some reason, the psychology, if you put arrows on thumbnails, apparently, I don't know.
	Why are we pointing the big red arrow on this one, then?
	Well, hopefully we won't be too crude.
	Nonetheless, that isn't a Photoshop.
	No, she also seems, to be fair to her, sort of a reasonably badass individual.
	Seems like, from what little I've seen, she doesn't take any shit sort of a thing.
	Yeah, pretty hardline conservative in the States, yeah.
	It is, I think, funny to note that we're going to finally reveal all the deepest, darkest secrets in...
	Here's the next swimsuit model to do it.
	It's just like JFK would have wanted.
	Yeah, right.
	So, okay, this task force will come under the Committee on Oversight and Governmental Reform.
	Which is headed by Congressman James Comer, who's that guy behind her.
	A very, very powerful congressman.
	Just like MPs in Britain, some MPs have no real power.
	A backbencher in opposition has got no real power.
	And you've got someone else who's still essentially just an MP, but they're in government, in cabinet, extremely powerful.
	So just the same in Congress and Senators.
	Some are powerful, some aren't.
	Comer's the chairman.
	Of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee is among the most powerful congressmen.
	So she's got the backing of the right people.
	In fact, it does seem like, I mean, so one of the key things is about subpoena power.
	We don't have subpoenas in the UK. It's a very American thing.
	But what that is, is sort of a writ to sort of legally force you to stand witness.
	It's like being ordered to court.
	You can't say no.
	And when they had the congressional hearings into assassinations back in the 70s, those committees were not given subpoena power.
	And people have always, rightly in my opinion, moaned about that ever since.
	Said that, okay, you put this thing together to have a look into all the assassinations that went down in the 60s and 70s.
	And then you made it toothless, clawless.
	You didn't give them the actual legal power to actually...
	Get to the bottom of it.
	Right, that'd be on purpose as well.
	Make no mistake, obviously that's on purpose.
	I do wonder, how long is this, Comer, is that his name?
	How long has he been in power?
	Not all that long.
	I believe he's been a...
	Is he a relatively newbie?
	Relatively.
	I might be wrong about this.
	Don't shoot me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure he's been a congressman since, like, the 2014-16 sort of time.
	Well, then my question would be...
	I mean, he might be a very powerful person, but could this not all just be performative?
	It could be.
	Because how many people were around in the previous Trump administration, these powerful people that said, please don't do this.
	Right.
	Are they still not around?
	This is the problem, isn't it?
	Who were they?
	In fact, if I was Joe Rogan when Trump said that, I would have said, who are those people that said that to you?
	Can you give me some names?
	Anyway.
	It's me being cynical.
	Yeah.
	You need to have a cynical lens every now and then.
	We'll just have to wait and see whether this task force actually does what it says it's going to do or not.
	I've got a clip in a minute and we'll watch it.
	But someone says, one of the journalists say, have you got subpoena power?
	And she says, I haven't.
	The task force hasn't.
	But my boss, essentially, my boss, Comer, has.
	And he's completely on board with this project.
	And the other thing, we'll see a clip.
	I think of key importance is that it's okay that you've got this task force and a committee set up to look into it.
	But if you haven't got the backing of really important people like the head of the FBI, the head of the CIA, the head of the State Department, on and on and on, if they're going to stonewall you, then you'll still struggle.
	But it seems like, because the way this Trump 2.0 administration is set up, is that...
	Everything's falling in line.
	It seems like, hopefully, the stars are aligning where we might, we just might get to the bottom of it.
	We'll see.
	Only time will tell.
	I will keep doing segments on it, for sure, as things keep coming up.
	So, okay, I've got a bunch of clips from a press conference they did.
	It was about a week ago now.
	And so, Samson, have you got all these clips teed up for us?
	If you play the...
	All right, if you play the first bit that I put a timestamp on.
	The Americans have had reasonable questions of what their government, which they find every day, keeps hidden about certain which they find every day, keeps hidden about certain issues.
	And for far too long, the federal government has not answered these questions.
	This creates distrust in our institutions.
	That ends today.
	The voters of this nation delivered a historic mandate to President Trump on November 5th.
	The keystone of that mandate was demanding increased transparency of their government and elected leaders.
	And the mandate of this task force...
	Okay.
	Yeah, so at least they're saying the right words, saying the things that people want to hear is that, you know, transparency, confidence through transparency.
	That's one of the key phrases they sort of keep saying through this.
	So, yeah, if you play the next bit I asked for, turn it up a little bit as well for us.
	When our founding fathers stood against tyranny, they did not merely oppose taxes.
	They defended the sacred idea of individual sovereignty.
	They declared that no government, agency or title could infringe upon the freedoms of speech, religion, thought and the pursuit of truth.
	For too long, the American spirit has been dimmed by a veil of secrecy, by a government that has grown too comfortable in the shadows, denying us the transparency we deserve.
	But today, we stand at the dawn of a new era, where the light of truth begins to shine through.
	A few weeks ago, President Donald Trump made a historic announcement.
	I asked for.
	Yeah, so again, it sounds nice.
	We'll see if all this ages terribly or not, but it sounds nice, right?
	I hope that would be mental if this doesn't pan out.
	Yeah.
	That would be insane.
	Yeah.
	I mean, I just hope that, as I say, I hope it doesn't age terribly.
	And it's just one more chapter in the story of not getting the truth about JFK.
	And it's not just the JFK thing.
	We'll see in a moment that this task force is going to look at a whole bunch of things.
	We'll get to it in a moment.
	Just the first one on their docket is JFK.
	Okay, if we play the next little bit I ask for.
	It is with profound honor that I have been entrusted by Speaker Mike Johnson and Chairman James Comer to lead the House Oversight Task Force on Declassification of Federal Secrets.
	Together with the help of the White House, our intelligence allies, the Department of Defense, the Department of Justice, we'll be conducting investigations into the following: The assassinations of JFK, RFK, and Dr.
	and Dr. Martin Luther King, unidentified aerial phenomena, also known as UAPs, and I've identified submerged objects, also known as USOs, the Epstein client list, the origins of COVID-19, and the 9/11 files. - Boom, 9/11 as well.
	Just throw that on the pile.
	Why not?
	Right in there at the end.
	The cherry on top.
	The Epstein files and 9-11.
	Where's the Diddy list?
	We need the Diddy party list.
	Get JFK for a minute.
	Let's do the Diddy thing.
	Let's do that first.
	We need to know why that lube was there.
	You can guess.
	So, I mean, this is great.
	Again, if they do what they say they're going to do.
	And I'm not sort of...
	I'm not sort of going crazy yet because only time will tell.
	But that's quite a remarkable thing, isn't it?
	I think.
	If they can get it all done.
	If they do it.
	Maybe I'm missing something here, but weren't they supposed to start coming out within 14 days of him signing that order?
	What's happened to that?
	Because that's what everyone else was saying.
	Sign the executive order within 15 days, 14 days, 15 days.
	That's when they're going to start being released.
	But that's not the case now.
	You have to have a task force that goes looking for it.
	Why?
	I'm confused with where that dialogue came from that it's going to take 15 days.
	Where did that come from?
	No, yeah, I know.
	I haven't got a brilliant answer for you.
	I mean, that's sort of the point I made at the top of the segment is that it's telling, isn't it?
	That it wasn't just, you've got two weeks to get this done, get it done, rip the band-aid off, end of story.
	No.
	They've now had several weeks to hide stuff.
	As she said, or hinted at, inferred, that you need the acquiescence of the Department of Defence, Department of Justice, and also more things, the Department of State, all sorts of different things.
	Not to mention the White House itself, the FBI, the CIA. So, okay.
	Can you play the next one where the reporter asks about subpoenas?
	This will no longer be a task force that makes bold promises only to fade into irrelevance or send strongly worded letters.
	This will be a relentless pursuit of truth and transparency, and we will not stop until the American people have the answers they deserve.
	We will cut through the bureaucracy, challenge the stonewalling, and ensure that the American people finally get the truth that they have been denied for too long.
	If we are to endure and thrive as a nation, we must restore trust.
	Trust through transparency.
	The American people must be trusted to think for themselves, to form their own judgments from the truth that they are entitled to know.
	We've been treated like children for too long and kept in the dark by those we elected to serve us.
	There you go.
	So, again, fine words.
	It's true.
	And it's all completely true, right?
	A bit of action on the back end of it, though, right?
	Yeah.
	The whole idea of the Warren Commission being a whitewash and then never really properly reinvestigated.
	It's like, yeah, you're sort of flighty, hysterical children, the public.
	You're flighty, hysterical children.
	You're not capable of...
	Being allowed to know the truth.
	What nonsense.
	Your own citizens.
	Yeah, just infantilise everyone.
	That's fine.
	Here's a set of clear liars like the Warren Commission, like COVID, like UAPs, like Epstein or 9-11.
	Just pipe down and be quiet and stop talking or thinking about it.
	That's what we've been asked to do.
	Well, hopefully not.
	Again, if they...
	If they do what they say they're going to do.
	So, sorry, the next bit is the bit about subpoenas.
	If you play that.
	545 please, Samson.
	The task force does not have speed fire.
	I do.
	The task force is going to be subsidiary.
	Of the full oversight committee.
	So if we have to issue one, Congresswoman Luna, we'll discuss it and we'll.
	Take appropriate action.
	But in full transparency, we have a great working relationship, as I said earlier, with the White House, with the DOJ, with the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of State.
	The incoming FBI director, I think, will be very supportive.
	And we've also been told that the CIA director is very supportive.
	To put it in perspective, I think that this issue transcends not just one administration, but multiple administrations.
	And it hasn't been until now that we've been able to get people actually in positions of power that will push for transparency.
	Now, if I find that different entities in the various intelligence agencies are stonewalling us, I'm going to make that known to the American people.
	But as of right now, we are cautiously optimistic.
	Yeah, so again, as I mentioned earlier, sort of the stars are lining, hopefully.
	You've got everyone at the very top of these organizations that are actually willing to do it, are actually willing to collaborate with ripping that plaster off.
	I mean, you'll know if what they're telling is true, because you'll be like, it'll either be a revelation or it won't.
	It'll either be the most milquetoast piece of junk that they release, and everyone will just go, well, why did you keep this a secret then?
	And thus, everyone will know that that was just complete nonsense and lies, more lies.
	There has to be an element of a revelation here, because otherwise, why would you have kept it a secret for so long?
	Why would you have locked it?
	Why would you have stonewalled people?
	Why would you have put a bogus...
	You know, committees and things like that.
	Like, why?
	So, yeah, there has to be a form of revelation.
	We will know whether they're telling the truth eventually.
	Yeah.
	Why do they keep...
	Why have they kept peddling for 60-odd years or whatever it is?
	Just sort of false narratives over things.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, well...
	I suppose, well, again, we should only see.
	I mean, if anyone wants to know my personal takes, as there's a lot of the links I put up earlier, where I just completely lay the blame at the foot of Alan Dulles and the CIA, and to a lesser extent, the mob, who seem to have been involved in some level.
	But I could be proven completely wrong, and it's something else.
	Who knows?
	But it seems now...
	Well, she says, if you play the next clip, that there were two shooters, which right there and then is a slam dunk, that it's not a single shooter, that the Warren Commission and the single shooter theory is incorrect, or a liar, let's call it what it is, a liar.
	So if you play the next little clip...
	Our first investigation will be announced, but it's going to be covering on a thorough investigation into the John F. Kennedy assassination.
	And I can tell you, based on what I've been seeing so far, the initial hearing that was actually held here in Congress was actually faulty in the single-bolt theory.
	I believe that there were two shooters.
	And we should be finding more information as we are able to gain access into the SCIF, hopefully before the files are actually released to the public.
	So that's a remarkable statement because that's formal coming from Congress there, right?
	That's not just someone who's written a novel about their theories and they're addressing two dozen people in a water stone.
	That's Congress saying this.
	So I've looked at paperwork and it was faulty.
	It looks like there's two shooters.
	That's pretty big, isn't it?
	Because by definition, if there's more than one shooter, then there's a conspiracy.
	It's what most people have always really known or felt.
	Right.
	But we'll see.
	I think there was multiple shooters in Dealey Plaza that day in November 1963. I think there may have been at least three, possibly four snipers.
	But more than one is all you need for there to be a conspiracy of some description.
	And then finally, if we can play the one last clip.
	I'm going to say, based on what we're actually looking to do with the JFK investigation, I'm looking to actually bring in some of the attending physicians at the initial assassination, and then also people that had been on the various commissions looking into, like the Warren Commission looking into the initial assassinations.
	There's been conflicting evidence, and I think that even the FBI at the time reported some anomalies in the initial autopsy at Bethesda, Maryland.
	All of those, though, seem to have been...
	Rinse and repeat it in the media to push a certain narrative that we don't agree with.
	And so I think that in order to put to bed some of the theories that have been out there on John F. Kennedy, we have to know the full truth.
	And the full truth starts with transparency.
	And that's why these files are so important for the American people to read for themselves.
	Okay, there.
	She mentioned something which I think goes right to the heart of the whole matter.
	Because there's two things at play here.
	One, there's the original crime, the actual shooting event.
	In Dallas.
	And then there's the cover-up.
	It's the same with Watergate.
	There's the original break-in, and then there's a whole different side of it, is the cover-up.
	So with JFK, one of the things that, not just I, many, many people have pointed to is the autopsy.
	The body, John Kennedy's body, as it appeared in the hospital directly after the killing in Texas.
	The witness accounts differ from the autopsy that was done at Bethesda.
	The doctors in Parkland Hospital in Dallas said the back of Kennedy's head was missing.
	There was a massive baseball-sized hole in the back of his head because he was shot in the front and the back of his head blew out, as the Sabruda film seems to show.
	But the autopsy pictures show this, the back of his head intact.
	So that's one of the discrepancies where you can just say, look, things don't add up.
	Things don't line up.
	Things don't make sense.
	Something is amiss.
	And the fact that she mentioned it straight off the bat was like, okay, maybe they are going to actually really, really, genuinely, thoroughly investigate it.
	So, okay, I do actually have one last clip where someone asks questions about 9-11.
	They say, what are you going to do about 9-11?
	Like, what do you mean?
	What is there to disclose about 9-11?
	And she gives just a very brief word.
	Or maybe it's her.
	I think it's her, yeah.
	What specifically, though, are the questions you're looking to get answered in regards to September 11th?
	We just want the truth.
	How much did the CIA know in advance?
	But also remember...
	When you have only certain information that's shared with the American people, that's when conspiracy theories happen.
	And it's in my opinion that conspiracy theories can be detrimental.
	It doesn't mean that in the last couple of months we haven't been right on a few things.
	But what I will say is I think that we deserve to give this information to the American people.
	I don't agree with the stonewalling that's occurred.
	And also, how do we prevent things like it from happening in the future?
	And we have to know the full picture, and the American people deserve to know that as well.
	Okay, so they're just a hint.
	Stonewalling occurred in the 9-11 commission investigation.
	Apparently, there was some stonewalling happened after 9-11.
	Interesting.
	We're not supposed to really remember that, are we?
	But anyway.
	So just since then, as I say, this was like six, seven days ago that happened.
	A few things have come out in the mainstream media.
	Samson, if you just every few seconds click through some of these headlines, it's just to illustrate.
	The FBI suddenly discovered...
	Two and a half thousand, 2,400 new documents relating to the JFK assassination just sort of suddenly discovered them.
	Everyone, the Sky News, the Independent, the Guardian, CNN, the Telegraph, Reuters, even Al Jazeera got in on it saying, oh yeah, okay, they're starting to say things that they did know.
	Because just to say the Warren Commission, one of the most important people on the Warren Commission was Alan Dulles.
	The guy that a lot of people said should really be in the witness dock rather than sitting on it, sitting on the commission.
	But we shall see.
	There was a story that the JFK Library closed, but the next link shows that actually it was reopened quite quickly.
	So I think that was just a bit of a storm in a teacup story.
	But nonetheless, OK, I've taken up my time, but you can count on me to keep doing a sequence unless I'm suicided.
	By the CIA. I'm not suicidal.
	I'll keep doing segments as more stuff comes out.
	And not just on JFK, on RFK and on 9-11 and on COVID and Epstein.
	So watch this space.
	Alright then, we've not got any rumble rents through yet.
	Is it my time?
	Yeah, I think it's your go, bro.
	Let's go, let's go.
	Are you guys ready to die for Ukraine?
	No.
	Oh.
	For what?
	No.
	No.
	Are you not?
	No.
	No, I'm not.
	Wait a minute.
	Yeah, no.
	Oh, well, it would appear...
	Yeah, that's what Keir Starmer wants, basically.
	Let me show...
	Oh, it is working.
	Cool.
	So, yeah, basically, this is what...
	Yeah, use the mouse instead.
	Right, cool.
	Super professional.
	Effectively, Keir Starmer wants boots on the ground.
	He wants boots on the ground, despite, of course, years and years and years, decades now of intentional demoralization of the British people.
	Let alone the fact we've only got about 69,000 troops, of course.
	We want boots on the ground in Ukraine to protect peace, even though...
	We're almost at a peace deal, and that will almost certainly lead to escalation.
	Well, is this in relation to the projected peace deal that might be negotiated that Zelensky has specifically said that he will not acquiesce to unless Ukraine has a position on the table?
	Probably more because of the fact that they seem to want both sides are like, yeah, we'll get rid of Zelensky.
	This is going to be the first order of business.
	Get him out of his position and then put somebody else in.
	Well...
	They'll be happy.
	So he's probably just trying to save his own skin there.
	Well, so basically, Keir Starmer said he is ready and willing to put UK troops on the ground in Ukraine to help guarantee its security as part of a peace deal.
	Now, I purposely chose this to go through because it's the BBC. So, I mean, it's going to be the most flattering for the Labour government.
	But even this is awful.
	Like, I don't think any of this sounds good.
	A UK Prime Minister said securing a lasting peace in Ukraine was essential if we're to deter Putin from further aggression in the future.
	Right.
	Surely that should have been done at the start, then, if that was the case.
	I mean, this reasoning doesn't make any...
	Sense, obviously.
	It's convenient timing, isn't it?
	It does smack of when two guys are going to fight and one guy starts walking away.
	You then start to talk even big.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, keep on walking.
	It's quite...
	You know you're not actually...
	It's not going to come to fisticuffs, so you can start talking even more trash, if anything.
	Yeah.
	It feels like that to me a bit.
	It's an odd one.
	It really is.
	So he said to the Daily Telegraph, I do not say that lightly.
	I feel very deeply the responsibility that comes with potentially putting British servicemen and women in harm's way.
	And this comes off the back end.
	And he also said, but any role in helping to guarantee Ukraine's security is helping to guarantee the security of our continent.
	Bro, we don't have borders.
	What are you talking about?
	Our continent is not secure.
	This island is not secure remotely.
	It's always funny hearing these sorts of globalists talk about the security of the continent because what is the continent?
	What are the nations that make up the continent?
	They can't give you anything.
	Resembling a proper answer.
	They don't care about it, really.
	They just care about their own positions of power.
	Yeah, well, exactly.
	And this comes after...
	I don't know if it was actually in here.
	This comes after the fact he had said that Ukraine joining NATO is an unavoidable...
	They're on an unavoidable path to joining NATO now.
	Right.
	All this seems like further escalation at the point where we're on a precipice of peace.
	And obviously, you know, the question I ask is, and I have an answer, and I'd be curious to hear what you guys think, but why is it seemingly, if reports were true anyway, that British Prime Ministers want to scupper peace deals between Ukraine and Russia?
	Now, I know people debunk, have tried to debunk the Boris Johnson thing.
	Sure, maybe, but let's just play devil's advocate and say that he did do that and he's got blood on his hands.
	Why?
	Do British Prime Ministers seemingly want to destroy peace deals?
	What do you think?
	In Boris Johnson's case, I think it was pretty clearly that he wanted his Winston Churchill moment.
	Putin, for so long, ever since Crimea, has been in various ways decried as the new Hitler.
	He's Putler.
	And he needs to be taken down because otherwise he will bring a new fascism to the continent of Europe and he will fulfill Hitler's ideal of a united right-wing fascist Europe or something ridiculous like that.
	So Boris Johnson saw his opportunity to go, well, I can be Churchill now.
	Any sort of peace deal is entirely the fault of Neville Chamberlain's.
	And Neville Chamberlain's only ever ruin what could be a glorious war in which I pointlessly get millions upon millions of Europeans killed.
	And it's this story that we've been told since World War II.
	So I do think that the actual narrative that we've been fed plays into the mindset of people like that.
	And that's more of an idealistic reasoning for why Boris Johnson did it.
	And on that, the Foreign Affairs article that went over the peace talks that happened after the conflict initially started does pretty conclusively show that Boris Johnson, while not the determining factor, did have a heavy hand in trying to encourage Zelensky to step away from the table and carry on the conflict.
	And Bo, what's your take on that?
	Yeah, it is odd and it's a very, very pertinent question.
	And it is odd and it's difficult.
	The answer to it isn't clear.
	I've got a slam dunk, man.
	I've got a slam dunk.
	Okay.
	Well, I'd say Dr. Nima Parvini made a video about that very question just the other day, which I thought was a very good one, where even he said that it's a very difficult question and there isn't a clear-cut slam dunk of an answer to it.
	Got it.
	And he gave a few reasons what it might be to do with resources and money and all sorts of things.
	But one of the things he mentioned, which spoke most strongly to me, and it does sound like a bit of a weak argument, but bear with me.
	I think it might be something along the lines of sort of just an institutional, deep-baked into British foreign policy, deep-baked into sort of the British corridors of power since like the 19th century.
	Since the Great Game.
	Are we talking the balance of powers?
	Yeah.
	Other than the brief hiatus during World War II, where suddenly Uncle Joe was our ally.
	Other than that, ever since sort of the 19th century, all the way through to today, Russia and the UK have been sort of geostrategic enemies, rivals, let's say.
	I mean, all the way through the Cold War, the amount of stuff the Russians were doing in London, in Britain, all through the Cold War is sort of mad.
	How much it was.
	So, maybe the Foreign Office and the apparatchiks and the civil servants just cannot get out of the frame of mind that the Russians are the baddies.
	Again, that doesn't feel like that truly answers it, does it?
	I've got one for you.
	Okay, you go.
	Here's my grand conspiracy.
	Two words.
	Blackrock.
	Okay.
	Who is in bed with Keir Starmer right now?
	Who had huge meetings?
	Blackrock and Bill Gates.
	We know from...
	Larry Fink, is he?
	Larry Fink.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Blackrock, yeah.
	We know that that's strategic.
	That's something which they want to do.
	We know from...
	I know, I know.
	It's a wild conspiracy theory.
	But...
	I don't know.
	Not at all.
	I would put money on the fact that who will be rebuilding Ukraine will be Blackrock.
	They need as much of the territory as possible.
	So they need to...
	They can't have peace because there's strategic elements that they want and where they're going to build stuff.
	You had Bill Gates coming in.
	We know from Chris Lewis yesterday talking about he's put in various freedom of information requests for Bill Gates and what they were having with discussions with Keir Starmer and 10 Downing Street.
	No, we can't because it might affect policy.
	What?
	You what?
	So, yeah, I mean, I'm going to say it's probably that.
	That's probably a dimension of it.
	There is a Going to be big business interests who are going to be looking at what happens at Ukraine afterwards and saying, well, we can make a lot of money from this, especially depending on Ukraine, the breadbasket of Europe.
	A lot of farmland to be going around and a lot less Ukrainians than there were.
	Although, of course, that depends on how much territory they can...
	In peace deals, they might be able to get back from Russia or not.
	I think that they want to present a...
	If they are going to the peace talks, Europe's leaders still want to present themselves as having some kind of strong footing to have the peace talking, the peace negotiations on.
	You don't want to come across weak.
	They still want to say, well, we need that territory back.
	Because the US seems to just be going like, this is a complete waste of money now.
	We're going to get to US. All of this schmoozing that Keir Starmer has done, of course, with Olaf Scholz and trying to reset European ties hasn't really worked out.
	Germany's Scholz says it's inappropriate to discuss sending peacekeeping troops to Ukraine, which is a pretty major thing.
	I'm aware that even Poland, they're not.
	They're not massively concerned about all of this.
	I mean, they're right on the border.
	If they weren't massively concerned, I don't really think Britain needs to be massively concerned.
	Let's be honest.
	We're quite far.
	We've got nukes.
	I don't really think Russia's going to start wading their way through Europe.
	It's ultimate nuclear winter at that point, isn't it?
	Let's be honest.
	It's taken them three years to capture this much territory.
	They got...
	Dragged into the mud, so to speak, for a very, very long time.
	German troops have gone toe-to-toe with Russian troops in Kiev and the Donbass before, if I recall rightly, if memory serves.
	Didn't work out too well from that time.
	No, I mean, again, Germany are much like Britain in the sense that they haven't got a giant army.
	They haven't got sort of endless tank divisions.
	Yeah.
	Right?
	I mean, exactly like Britain.
	It's not their war.
	Again.
	Yeah.
	And now who is saying it's not their war is Donald Trump.
	So he's come in and said, think of it, a modestly successful comedian, Volodymyr Zelensky, talked the US of America into spending $350 billion.
	I don't know where that number's come from, the $350 billion.
	It's more than that, if anything.
	Yeah, I'm not overly sure.
	I would also challenge the framing that Zelensky...
	Was the ultimate linchpin behind this, and it wasn't just the US wanting to have a nice little proxy war with Russia again.
	But, you know, he's trying to save face and all this.
	More like the State Department put their puppet Zelensky up front to ask for that money, which they'd already wanted to give him.
	That's more realistic of how it really went, right?
	Well, yeah, I mean...
	Zelensky, as Trump says here, Zelensky admits half of the money we sent him is missing.
	He refuses to have elections, is very low in Ukrainian polls, and only thing he was good at was playing Biden like a fiddle, a dictator without elections.
	Zelensky better move fast or he is not going to have a country left.
	That's objectively true.
	Unless other countries step up, he won't have a country left.
	That is objectively true, regardless of where you sit on this argument of Russia and Ukraine.
	In the meantime, we're successfully negotiating an end to the war with Russia, something all admit only Trump and Trump administration can do.
	Biden never tried.
	He didn't.
	They literally never tried.
	Wouldn't have any dialogue with Putin at all.
	And, you know, the thing is, everyone...
	So there will be people, I'm sure, furiously typing down below, this is still Russian propaganda.
	Maybe.
	Maybe it is, right?
	Maybe I've been psyoped into believing all of this, and it is Russian propaganda.
	You can get close to this information from Western sources.
	Well, my point is that, however, there is clearly a narrative.
	You know, if there's one side propagandising the population, there is also another side propagandising the population.
	So it's all well and good saying that this may be Russian propaganda.
	But stop to think for one second, objectively, critically think, have you not also been propagandised?
	Into just blindly following this war.
	I don't support either side.
	I don't care.
	It's nothing to do with us.
	I literally don't care.
	I don't care about the most corrupt country going.
	I'm sorry, I'm not interested.
	I just don't want people to die.
	I don't want millions upon millions of innocent people to die.
	I don't want lineages, entire lineages, completely wiped out, gone.
	Never to be seen again.
	Generation after generation of people, gone.
	I think that's brutal.
	I think that's absolutely awful.
	And it seems as well, it doesn't matter anyway.
	Because who the hell is going to fight for us?
	Who is going to fight in Ukraine?
	Gen Z aren't proud to be British and they wouldn't go to war for our country.
	Half of Gen Z believing the country is racist.
	So yeah, I think this is also down to demographics.
	Within the country.
	But neither of them are going to be eager to go to war.
	The white kids aren't going to want to go to war because the country hates them.
	So why would I fight on behalf of a country that hates me for the sake of the freedom and liberty of a country I've never been to and don't care about?
	And the other half are going, well, I'm not European anyway, actually.
	So why would I fight for the safety of Europe?
	They have other places they can go back to.
	They don't care.
	One small nuance I would...
	Actually, it's not a small nuance.
	One point I would make is the difference between going and fighting in a foreign field for a cause which isn't necessarily just or even clear.
	You know, am I fighting on behalf of Larry Fink or something on the other side of the world?
	There's the difference between that and fighting for your own homeland.
	So say, just completely hypothetically, say the French tried to invade southern England.
	Regardless of Starmer being the PM, I probably would volunteer to try and defend the coast.
	But that's a completely different thing, isn't it?
	To going and fighting a long way away for something which isn't entirely clear.
	And no wonder most Gen Z, Gen Zers are saying, yeah, no way, of course not.
	And the thing is, this is obviously a developing story, right, guys?
	So there's even stuff that have dropped today.
	That I've noted, which I didn't have time to put in the segment.
	But there's even now multiple news outlets going, yep, conscription's going to be needed.
	Conscription's going to be needed.
	Conscription's going to be needed.
	And this all boils down to, I guess, my closing point is Keir Starmer is a worse PM than Boris Johnson, a staggering unpopularity laid bare in a new poll.
	The only person he's ahead of in polling of prime ministers is Liz Truss.
	Which goes to show, I guess, you know, there's two elements there.
	You know, Keir Starmer's in bed with BlackRock.
	We know that, right?
	He announced it happily on Twitter.
	I don't know why you would happily announce that on Twitter.
	That's very bizarre.
	Yes, we're in bed with BlackRock.
	They're going to help us.
	What are you talking about?
	But this seems to be a very, very common trend amongst a lot of leaders, powerful leaders, is that they will initiate wars to save their premiership.
	So is this not, again, these are my closing thoughts, I guess, is that is this also not a potential distraction technique?
	It's multifaceted, obviously, the Black Rock thing was a bit of a funk conspiracy.
	All right, calm down.
	All right, but there's probably some element to it.
	But it could be an element of his trying to save his premiership.
	You know, he is incredibly unpopular.
	So, so incredibly unpopular.
	And he's a raging authoritarian.
	This is an ideologue through and through.
	I mean, there's certainly an element.
	I feel like we're a long way off from our next general election.
	So I'm not sure how that would work or play out.
	How long is it going on for already?
	This is the thing, right?
	How long is it going to go on for consistently?
	If there's just boots on the ground as peacekeepers.
	Oh, right.
	Yeah.
	So a good point.
	Yeah.
	So that could be indefinite, not indefinite, but that could.
	Last for years and years and years.
	The thing is, the idea of going to war in order to gain popularity, yeah, that's a story as old as time, but it has to be just right.
	So, for example, a classic example, the first thing that sprung to mind was Maggie Thatcher in 82. She was quite unpopular.
	She'd been promised since 79. She was quite unpopular.
	The Falklands happens.
	She becomes the second most popular PM ever after Churchill.
	She gets another 10 years, nearly.
	Just under in number 10 because of that.
	So there's a classic example of when it worked.
	That gambit worked.
	But that's because the Falklands was a completely different kettle of fish to us sending some troops over as a peacekeeping force in the Donbass.
	Chalk and cheese situations.
	I'd agree with you on the caveat though that the entire media apparatus is this is a black and white fight.
	Russia is evil.
	They are.
	They are literally Satan incarnate.
	And Ukraine, poor little Ukraine, they need to be saved.
	And then you get Keir Starmer wading in.
	He's already made a point before he gained access to 10 Downing Street of going, hey, this is our 10-year plan.
	This is what we're going to be doing for the next 10 years.
	That's a bold claim to make, sir.
	10 years in power?
	I hope not.
	So he's already made that claim.
	So I don't know, it's...
	Yeah, I agree with you that, yeah, it's completely different framing.
	But the media has tried incredibly hard to demonise Russia non-stop.
	And all Russians as well, right?
	So I don't know.
	I wouldn't put it past them, put it that way.
	I think, I hope, a lot of people haven't bought it.
	Never bought it in the first place, but are increasingly seeing through it a bit.
	I've got nothing against the average Russian dude.
	They all seem pretty based, if anything.
	I'm sure Russians and Ukrainians are lovely people.
	Your governments are screwed, though.
	I'm not pro-Kremlin.
	I've said a number of times I think Putin is not a pootler, but he's not a good guy.
	Look at the Litvinenko murder and loads of other examples.
	I'm not pro-Kremlin, I'm not pro-Putin, but I've got nothing against the average Russian person.
	Come on.
	Yeah.
	Anyway, I hope that's clear enough.
	I don't know if you've got anything to add to that, Harry.
	There's nothing that I can add, really, that hasn't already been said here.
	All right.
	Slam dunk.
	Alright, we've got a rumble rant.
	Thank you very much to Buka505 for $5, saying, quote, Guys, you don't understand.
	It's not important at all to protect Europe or Britain from Muslim boat invasions.
	It is important to protect us all from Russia's evil cheap oil and gas, unquote.
	I mean, that's the narrative that you'd be sold.
	That we have been sold.
	And, yeah, it doesn't really hold up when you just put it plainly, does it?
	Yeah, we can't protect the channel from dinghies, but we can protect eastern Ukraine from endless Russian tank divisions.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, right, okay, okay, sure, sure.
	All of a sudden there is something worth defending about Europe for the sake of who knows what.
	Anyway, last segment for today, I will be talking about the tragic state of leftist men.
	And that is because there has been a recent Glaze piece on Slate talking about our favourite Twitch streamer, Hassan Piker.
	Do you remember this gentleman?
	Do you remember this guy?
	The big brown bull's nephew, isn't he?
	He's the man who still refuses to fight Sam Hyde.
	After all of this time.
	He's an incredibly rich socialist.
	I am aware of Piker, but I've not really watched any of his content.
	Every now and again, someone I follow will make a video about him.
	I'm not on TikTok.
	He laughed when the Queen died.
	Yeah, yeah.
	He said that America deserved 9-11.
	That was a fun one.
	Yeah, I remember that.
	Awful human being.
	Yeah, that is pretty scummy behaviour.
	His content is essentially him sat around watching stuff now.
	But the reason for this is that...
	Over the past 10 years especially, the left have really struggled to find male role models for young men because it is an inherently feminized movement.
	They've been trying to, the democratic apparatus, not that Hasan Piker is part of the Democrats, he's very critical of them, but there are other people like Dean Withers, who I'll speak about in a little bit, and people who are on the left like Hasan Piker, who the media is trying to push as, in this article, A left-wing Joe Rogan.
	Just a big, muscular bro who you can sit down and have bro talks with about things like trans rights and the oppression of minorities and all of those cool things that you and the bros like to talk about when you sat down chugging a beer.
	I always want to talk about feminist oppression when I'm at the pub.
	And that's what Hassan Piker offers.
	That and also live reactions to videos, which is mainly consisting of him going and getting food while the video plays.
	And people pay money.
	That's his content, yeah.
	People pay money for it.
	There's a very famous meme now.
	That was really low energy.
	It is.
	He needs to go get his chicken nuggies.
	So obviously he has to leave the chair there.
	The classic meme of live Hassan reaction, and it's just an empty chair.
	And as Nate mentioned as well, he is somebody who is very, very, very rich, is not afraid to show off how very, very, very rich he is, and yet at the same time still identifies as a socialist.
	He makes a lot of money, and we would also like to make money, and if you could help us make money, and I am not at all a hypocrite, because goddammit, I want your money.
	Spend your money.
	Unashamed capitalists here.
	Right here.
	No champagne socialism here.
	No, no champagne socialism.
	Buy the shirts.
	Buy the shirts.
	Why haven't you bought the shirt yet?
	Are you a pauper?
	Are you too poor to buy a shirt?
	Buy a shirt.
	Buy a poster.
	Hell, buy a mug.
	It's not that expensive, loser.
	Anyway, moving on.
	Yeah, see, there you go.
	You're checking out the price.
	You going to get something, Nate?
	You going to get something?
	I saw the car you rocked up in here.
	You can afford a shirt, Nate.
	Come on.
	Don't get stingy on me.
	What's that in your pocket, Nate?
	Is that some money in your pocket?
	It's my phone, Nate.
	Oh, okay.
	All right.
	It is money these days, isn't it?
	I suppose so.
	Don't car shame me.
	No, the opposite.
	I was doing the exact opposite there.
	I can't get that car.
	It does annoy me when you've got these people that claim to be socialists or communists or even just leftists when, in fact, their actions show that they are...
	Straight-up capitalists, essentially.
	They are part of the capitalist machine.
	That is just flatly hypocrisy, isn't it, really?
	Yeah, but he can always justify it with any kind of logical tautologies to just say, well, you know, socialism isn't being poor.
	Socialism is when you spread the wealth and yada yada.
	Actually, actually, historically, socialism is when you're incredibly poor and nobody has anything except for the people in the high tower, which is a fair thing.
	But that's a very old criticism of him at this point.
	I just wanted to go over some of this article and how it presents him and how it tries to present him as being some kind of very positive role model for young men.
	Because, I mean, we've all seen the polls showing the divergence in political ideology between young men and young women.
	Where women are skewing increasingly left, men are beginning to skew increasingly right.
	These gender divisions are becoming very clear.
	Because men understand that leftism is an ideology that inherently hates them.
	It promotes them to...
	Do things that are unmasculine, behave in ways that are incredibly feminized, and to hate themselves for being men and having masculine interests.
	So they see that and they go, I'll do the opposite of that, thanks.
	And they'll go to somebody like Joe Rogan, who just wants to, you know, smoke a joint and talk about lifting weights and chimpanzees, bro, on his podcast.
	Because it's just more appealing to them, right?
	The right or even the center, don't talk about toxic masculinity.
	Really?
	Yeah.
	Except to say that's a ridiculous idea.
	Yeah, other than to refute it.
	So what is it that somebody like Hasan Piker or some of these other leftist male influencers can present to these young men to say, you know what?
	I'm going to be a leftist.
	I'm going to be somebody who fights the righteous fight for the liberties of oppressed minorities and such.
	Well, most of this article is mainly just like a boring biography of the guy.
	Amazing.
	You would hope that it was a bit more...
	Well, I mean, it's in-depth in his background, but you would hope that...
	Tell me about it, because I don't know a great deal about him other than he was related to Cenk.
	That's literally...
	Basically, it sounds like he was related to Cenk.
	He went to university in Florida and became a guy who started to organise like...
	Like, nights out for a lot of people.
	What did he read at uni?
	I think he studied politics at university.
	And then he was able to get a job part-time.
	Well, no, sorry.
	Yeah, a job at the Young Turks.
	Sure.
	Doing sales calls and then decided on his own initiative, because he was bored of doing that, to start recording videos for them, which they ended up editing and putting it on.
	And since then, he grew his audience initially through them and then has moved on to doing his own streams on Twitch.
	He still associates with them somewhat, obviously, because Cenk is his uncle, and they interview Cenk a few times in this.
	But it's nothing that interesting.
	He's just some university bro guy who ended up being a massive leftist.
	And it doesn't really explain to you how he became a massive leftist, other than...
	I mean, I would argue that in America especially, people of non-white backgrounds seem to gravitate a bit more towards those ideologies.
	Not necessarily when it comes to the, like, cultural stuff, like gay rights, but Piker did.
	So why is it that he is an icon for these people?
	Well, let's find out.
	So, for many young male liberals, supposedly an endangered species, according to the article, yes, In that sense, Piker is in possession of one thing the Democrats desperately want now more than ever.
	Shortly after the presidential election, when it became clear the party was hemorrhaging young men on the right, the commentariat bemoaned the absence of a liberal Joe Rogan.
	Who could be the bulwark against people like Aidan Ross, Joe Roden, Dave Portnoy, and Theo Vaughn?
	And here we get a very suspect, as far as I'm concerned, paragraph from this author, Luke Winky, here.
	So, here you say, Well, here is Piker.
	He stands six foot four with a sharp jawline and ripples of coiled muscle.
	Sounds a bit homoerotic.
	It does, just a little bit.
	Twisted steel and sex appeal.
	While I was spending time interviewing him, he offered that I oil up his coiled, glistening muscles.
	No, that's not part of the article, but I wouldn't be surprised if it happened.
	He is conversant in bodybuilding, gaming, anime, professional wrestling, and every other interest that tends to make up the media diet of boys of a certain age.
	His bulge and Calvin's thirst traps have started libidinal riots online.
	According to an unofficial census conducted by his community in 2024, his viewership is about two-thirds men.
	I don't know, that sounds really gay.
	Everything that they've tried to use to describe why it is that he is popular with men, it sounds...
	The way that this author has put it, you see, you could phrase it in a way...
	That doesn't sound like you're drooling and typing with one hand as you're writing this.
	But the author made this sound really gay.
	It sounds like he's doing something else with one hand.
	George and Calvin's thirst traps.
	They're somewhere between super gay and hyper gay.
	Ultra gay, perhaps?
	Yeah.
	See, the thing is, I can kind of understand what they're saying.
	Like, oh, you lift weights.
	Yeah, young men are interested in that.
	You like video games.
	Young men are interested in that.
	You know, those are all interests that young men hold, which seems to me that this is suggesting that it's kind of like a bait-and-switch that he's offering.
	You join because he feels like he's a guy that you'd be able to get along with and go to the gym, do some lifting with, and then he turns the tables and says, so, trans rights.
	And it's kind of like bait-and-switch.
	I thought we were here to watch professional wrestling and anime, bro.
	Why are we going to the Pride Parade?
	This is so bizarre.
	Like, obviously this is a leftist outlet.
	Trying to promote a leftist person.
	But using entirely left, like, their entire outlook is obviously quite leftist.
	So, clearly they're gay.
	Well, obviously, look, you just don't write that.
	You wouldn't write that otherwise.
	You just would not write that.
	I would never write that about another man.
	You wouldn't.
	Ever.
	So, yeah, obviously this person's gay.
	So you're trying to promote...
	No, there's anything wrong with that, but you're trying to promote this guy as this thing to appeal to men through a homoerotic lens, a leftist homoerotic lens.
	This is not going to appeal to anyone.
	It's just going to be off-putting.
	And again, what is it that they're offering to young men in terms of a belief system?
	What on earth is that quote?
	Sorry?
	What is that?
	Oh, this is when he was younger and growing up in Istanbul.
	Oh, right.
	But they say that he is pro-Palestinian liberation, pro-immigrant, pro-trans, pro-choice, and unapologetically himself.
	Does that sound appealing?
	To most young men out there.
	Obviously lives in a mansion surrounded by security.
	I mean, I'm sure living in a mansion is aspirational, isn't it?
	Sounds like a leftoid NPC just ticking all the boxes.
	Yeah, and it goes on to describe his...
	Bachelor pad, all honouring his unique strain of bro-friendly progressivism.
	Bookcases pack Naruto manga next to revolutionary scholarship.
	An oil painting of Bernie Sanders, depicted as a leather-clad punk singer, gazes toward the mile-wide kitchen island.
	The refrigerator brims with protein shakes zin canisters in every flavour.
	Most revealing of all might be the sticker plastered on the oven.
	It reads, I love being mad on the internet.
	Now, parts of that, you know, protein shakes.
	Fine enough.
	Having books, that's fine.
	But again, the way it's described, this man is 33 years old and it sounds like a 15-year-old's idea of cool, right?
	Yeah.
	Why have you done oil painting?
	Yeah, why have you done that?
	That's sort of mad to me, to my mind, to my sense of taste.
	That's crazy.
	Why would you?
	It's like having a Che Guevara poster or something.
	It's cringe.
	That's cringe.
	I mean, look at this.
	This is a picture of his thing.
	You know, this might appeal to some people.
	To me, I mean, you know, if this is your thing, that's fine.
	It's a bit childish.
	To me, these kinds of, the way he decorates his house, and if it's what you're into, fine.
	But, you know, it doesn't seem that appealing to me if this guy is the...
	Left-wing Joe Rogan, the guy that you look and look at and go, that's awesome, I want to be that guy.
	And the rest of the article is just dedicated to going, oh, here's his life.
	Why's he got a trampoline?
	I don't know.
	Maybe that's a dog bed or something.
	But it also doesn't help that they try and make it sound like he's the left-wing bro.
	He's the guy you could go for beers with and do bro things and go and lift and do cool things.
	And then he advertises himself for...
	Oh, sorry.
	Like this.
	Yeah, he's not remotely broke.
	You don't drink beers.
	These people don't do this.
	These people don't drink beers.
	He went to Japan recently and all of this was posted on his own account and by other accounts reposting pictures that he'd put up on his Instagram, which is just a...
	Really?
	Yeah.
	There you go.
	Come on, dude.
	The disenfranchised young man of the West is going to be convinced by this.
	Oh, he's got big muscles, though, but he's dressed like a gay cat fairy or something.
	The maid outfit that's not that appealing.
	Just bros being bros.
	Don't you do this with your bros?
	I don't think any of them are drunk.
	They might be on drugs, but I don't know.
	So...
	What are they doing?
	It's so weird.
	It's just weird.
	It's just very strange.
	Isn't it remarkable?
	Here's some more footage.
	The crossover between...
	Finally, we've found...
	The Joe Rogan audience is going to look at this and go, what have we been missing out on?
	My God.
	Forget muscle cars and UFC. Give me a bit of that action, please.
	Yeah.
	It's really the crossover in the broadest sense between leftism or socialism and the economic theory of socialism and being a sexual degenerate.
	Do they ever not cross over?
	Are they just trying to say that...
	I don't get it.
	I've never really understood why there's the nexus there between leftism and being a freak.
	There are a few socially conservative...
	Leftists?
	Sure, they used to be.
	They're very rare these days.
	No, they used to be.
	If you look at sort of 1950s, 1930s, 1950s, the labour movement in Britain, they had sort of hard-bitten miners.
	Yeah.
	The deadly serious...
	Men's men.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Working men's clubs.
	Stuff like that.
	A million miles away from what this is, whatever this is.
	It's not even speculation.
	Let me qualify it with, then, in the modern era, the crossover between leftism...
	And perversity.
	Well, let's consider what socialism and leftism seems to mean these days.
	Well, you can call yourself a socialist, but be a rich capitalist in actuality, and that's fine.
	But if you backtrack on sexual degeneracy, trans rights, toxic masculinity, any of that sort of stuff, that's beyond the pale.
	So being a leftist socialist these days is actually just about the degeneracy.
	It's not about the economics.
	You're saying it's hard-baked into the deal.
	That's all it is now.
	That's all it is.
	You can be this as long as you say Garfield says trans rights.
	You don't have to read any Lenin pamphlets or be conversant with Maoist thought.
	You just need to dress up in a French maid's weird thing.
	Support Gaza as well.
	Support Gaza, of course.
	That's socialism.
	Even though they would literally throw him off a roof.
	A reminder for all of the manly men fans of Hassan Piker that he's still ducking him.
	Are you got anyone you want to call out in the heavyweight division?
	Oh, you know it, lad.
	You know that Hassan Piker!
	I'm coming to kill you in Los Angeles at your house!
	Or in the ring.
	No, in real life.
	I'm going to stalk him and become obsessed with him and wear his makeup and his dresses and use his skin as a coach like the ancient Irish did.
	Well...
	He's still not answered the call.
	He's still not answered the challenge.
	I mean, again, if you want to prove that you are like...
	A manly man who other men can look up to.
	I'm an inspiration.
	Big guy calls you out.
	You can make money for charity with it.
	Donate it to all of your favourite causes.
	There's a lot of good that can come of it.
	But you're a pussy.
	So it's not going to happen.
	I don't know how old Sam Hyde is, but I imagine...
	About the same...
	Similar age.
	Oh, really?
	I was about to say I would imagine Hyde is older.
	Maybe a little bit.
	It's obviously sort of, you know, not a complete slob or anything.
	I'm not saying he's in brilliant shape, but I would have thought if all things are equal, if Piker had any training, he might be able to beat.
	It's not like, I mean, Sam Hyde's a big bloke, but if Piker is in fact 6'4", why not accept it?
	Well, unless you're just a coward, yeah.
	And so that's the Sam Piker.
	So the left are not sending...
	They're strongest.
	But there is the new generation of concubines like Dean Withers.
	Do you remember that?
	In the lead up to the election when Dean Withers and Harry Sisson and all of the Democratic twinks were saying about that you need to go out and vote for Kamala.
	The Navy SEAL who took out Osama bin Laden said that he would make them his concubine.
	I see you remember that, yeah.
	I thought that was funny.
	My first take on that was like, that's really weird, and that in itself is weird and gay, but wait, it's actually just hilarious.
	It's actually just funny.
	I don't think at the time he thought that he was being funny.
	I thought he thought he was making a really great threat, but he's rolled with it since then.
	So, good man.
	So, you know, it starts off alright, okay?
	Saying that he's going to the gym.
	Good for your mental health.
	Exercise, great for you physically and mentally.
	So that's a good start.
	I can't disagree with that.
	Nobody can disagree.
	Can I just quickly ask who exactly, though, is Dean Withers?
	Is he just a social media guy?
	Astro-turfed social media influencer.
	Popped up out of nowhere alongside the Democratic, TikTok, Harry Sisson types.
	Davey Hogg type.
	Probably a recipient of USAID, I would imagine.
	And then every single one of his posts, despite the fact he's done nothing notable, seems...
	Oh wait, I think he used to be like a streamer.
	Where he would play video games and say the N-word on stream, which we'll mention in a moment.
	He's not like a young congressman or an up-and-coming star?
	No, he's just some kid.
	He's just some kid who's like, I'll vote Kamala, I hate Trump, etc.
	So outside of saying go to the gym...
	What is it positive that he can offer for young men who may feel disenfranchised by people and ideas that they see on the left?
	What is it they can do?
	Well, he can tone police people and morally browbeat you as you would expect a nagging wife to.
	The most masculine thing that you can do.
	He retweets these clips himself, so he's very proud of these little things that he does on his little show that I've seen popping up.
	And I just wanted to hear, like, if you're a young man...
	Is this an aspirational way to...
	Why do you call people racist when you yourself have said racist slurs?
	Y'all think it's okay to be racist as long as you apologize?
	You think I'm hypocritical because I went from being racist to non-racist because I fulfilled the three qualities of accountability, apology, and genuine change in my character, and yet you think I'm hypocritical because I call out other individuals that have not fulfilled those three qualities and have been unapologetically racist since the 70s, such as Donald J. Trump.
	That is not hypocrisy.
	That is fact, sir.
	You only want to call it hypocrisy to obfuscate away from the fact that this 20-year-old white boy on TikTok and YouTube can hold himself to a higher degree of accountability than the President of the United States of America.
	Wow, that was a slam dunk right there.
	My gut reaction to that is just pipe down, little boy.
	Just pipe down now.
	We don't need to hear from some smug little child, some know-nothing child.
	Don't need you in the public discourse particularly.
	So you've not...
	Of no value.
	You've not been won over.
	Yeah.
	Seems to be of no value.
	It seems like the quintessential just entitled bratty douche that has absolutely no...
	There's nothing about him.
	There's no substance.
	There's literally nothing going on upstairs because he's not lived.
	He's not had a life, right?
	There's no experience that he can pull from that is worthy of any discourse with anyone.
	Older than five.
	Also, it's just the same message that young men have been getting for ages, which is that if you have said something in jest as a joke years ago that didn't really mean anything back then, like he said the N-word a few times on stream when he used to play video games when he was like 15 or something, well, you're going to have to hold yourself accountable to that.
	And apologize for the rest of your life so that you can show that you're somebody who cares about the real issues.
	You need to hold yourself accountable 24 hours a day, every single day, every single week.
	And you just go, God, that just sounds miserable.
	You know what I'd rather do?
	That sounds really miserable.
	Stop the self-flagellation.
	Yeah.
	And just enjoy my life.
	Yeah.
	Sounds like I'm much better.
	Much better option, to be honest.
	I would say never apologise.
	Never explain and apologise.
	When someone insists or tries to extort an apology out of you, then no, that's not happening then now.
	I might have done, but no, not now.
	If the guy that he was replying to there said, actually, you know what, mate?
	I'm genuinely, I'm sorry, actually.
	You've convinced me.
	He'd go, no!
	No, it's not good enough!
	You don't care about their apologies.
	Also, you get the moral lecture, you get the browbeating, and then the person on the other side of the call just doesn't respond because you're like, I can't be arsed to respond to something like that.
	And then he sits there all smug like, haha, I've beat you.
	If I say something so stupid that you can't respond, that means I win.
	Because I got the last word.
	That's right.
	I did it.
	But the best response to this that I've seen, I just came across this clip the other day, it was fantastic, is him basically doing that whole spiel on a podcast where he's being interviewed, and you get to see the reaction of an honest-to-goodness woman do this, which is, you know, women, something that young men in particular are quite fond of, traditionally, historically, culturally.
	He doesn't look like him.
	Possibly toxic masculinity.
	So you can get a real-life...
	Example, a case study of if you're a young man, you adopt this ideology.
	How will women see you?
	Okay?
	When I was 14, I slurred.
	And the N-word was a part of my vocabulary.
	The R-slur was a part of my vocabulary.
	It's because that is caused by racist socialization and education that is absolutely f***ing deplorable.
	So my perspective is what I did was f***ing wrong.
	110%.
	It was gross.
	It was deplorable.
	I'm sad of the boy that I used to be.
	And I'm regrettable that I was ever like that.
	But where I stand now is after being exposed to information knowledge.
	knowledge and education that I use to better myself, that I use to finally make the recognition that I shouldn't be saying these words.
	I then decide to turn around and I try to share that with as many people as possible.
	And in all reality, that is my motivation for doing what I do today.
	Point blank period, said slurs for a very long time.
	In fact, I've openly talked about how I have used slurs in my past on my platform for like a year, because I think that is a very important point for education.
	The point is that we can change the socialization of the youth.
	The point is, is that if I can benefit and change my perspective and my worldview to be more beneficial to those around me because of this education, so can other people.
	Why are you laughing?
	Why is this funny?
	I think this is so funny.
	Just get laughed at in the face.
	Because, yeah, you can go on all that spiel, you can come across as...
	I'm so sincere right now, guys.
	I believe in it so much.
	I've changed.
	I've done it.
	And some people...
	We'll just see straight through you because it is bollocks and it is embarrassing.
	So, yeah, the left still not sending their best.
	When it comes to young men, I think that the gender divisions are going to continue.
	Yeah.
	Her reaction was quite funny.
	That was gold.
	He just goes through all of that and she just laughs straight in his face.
	Doesn't even try and cover it up.
	No, I find this so funny.
	Yeah.
	It's funny how even little children can quite often tell a liar.
	It's just insincerity.
	Most women hate weakness.
	If you find a woman that likes weakness, that likes to be the absolute dominant partner in a relationship, that's going to be a horrible relationship for you, bro.
	Most normal women, they don't like it.
	They don't want you to be like that.
	They don't want to be going out with a...
	Someone who can't protect them.
	Right.
	And somebody who won't challenge them as well.
	This is the point that's always made about the shit testing.
	I was just going to talk about shit testing.
	They want you to have the good to say no.
	You've got to be able to step up to that shit test quite often.
	In my experience.
	Almost every single day.
	Almost every single conversation has a little tiny shit test nestled in it somewhere.
	Not that I would...
	I'm in bliss.
	Anyway, let's watch some of these video comments.
	You've got a few...
	I'll go through them afterwards.
	The Greens are no longer the worst political group in Australia.
	This dubious distinction now belongs to the Teals, which are not a formal party, but rather a coalition of independent members aligned with the left faction of the Australian Liberal Party and the Greens.
	They exhibit authoritarian tendencies, having largely supported the introduction of hate speech legislation in Australia.
	Additionally, they advocated for mandates related to COVID-19 vaccinations, which have been linked to more fatalities than the virus itself, as well as mask mandates.
	Their agenda includes advocating for increased restrictions and higher taxes aimed at combating climate change.
	And they are also led by male-hating feminists and are the worst people to ever have power in the Australian government, despite holding only seven seats in the House of Representatives.
	that's very interesting I wasn't aware of these teals.
	Get in the bin.
	Yeah, get in the bin of history, please.
	ASAP. Do you remember, what did they call the gang in the American representatives?
	There was like AOC and...
	Oh, the clique.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Like a very similar thing.
	I think five different congresswomen that were sort of a very similar...
	Ilhan Omar as well, AOC. Yeah, yeah.
	It was the clique.
	Again, unless you're exactly one of them...
	No one's going to like you.
	No one likes it.
	No one wants it, really.
	Unless you are one of those women.
	It's very, very targeted politics.
	This is winter last year.
	Way too much snow.
	But this is winter this year.
	It is barren.
	And I can't wait.
	We're spraying.
	Global warming.
	There you go.
	It's the only explanation.
	Human-made CO2. Get that Bill Gates chemicals in those cows.
	We need to get them to stop farting right now.
	And now it's time for Shiba Inu remake theatre with Duke and Sakura starring as Obi-Wan Kenobi and of course Anakin Skywalker, in Star Wars Episode III, Revenge of the Sith.
	You may ask, why is Anakin being played by a small black dog, female dog?
	Because we all know Anakin was a little bitch.
	Very cute dogs.
	Yeah, they are very, very cute dogs.
	They look well behaved as well.
	It's a very famous clip where he talks about sun dimming.
	flying aircraft up into the air and dropping particular chemicals to block out the sun.
	Operation Darkstorm Initiate.
	May there be mercy on man and machine for their sins.
	I wonder what that clip was taken from.
	That looked quite cool.
	It looked like an anime.
	Yeah, yeah.
	I wonder which one.
	Let us know in the comments which one that was and we'll check later.
	Yeah, I think it would be a lot easier to not distrust Bill Gates and other people like that if all of their plans to stop climate change didn't resemble cartoon supervillains.
	Yeah.
	It's that simple, guys.
	Yeah, sure.
	Bow's mention of having to catch people red-handed in the days before CCTV and meaningful forensics made me think, and it's a bit of yes and no.
	Medieval coaching houses required patrons to pay before they stayed the night, and the gates were locked until morning so riders couldn't bolt because prevention is better than a cure.
	On the other hand, the highwayman Dick Turpin was identified by his old schoolmate James Smith through a letter that Turpin wrote from prison, and subsequently he was identified in person after Smith travelled from Essex to York for that purpose.
	Even today with CCTV, we oftentimes rely on eyewitness testimony and tips from people who know the perpetrator.
	Yeah, it's a very good point and I could talk all about this maybe one day, it's not high on my list, but maybe one day I'll do an epoch all about the history of crime because it is fascinating the way people were caught sometimes in the pre-modern era and the bar of what the nature of justice is in the pre-modern or ancient world.
	It is obviously, it goes without saying, very different to today.
	But yeah, it's why people were...
	Again, in the pre-modern era were a lot more suspicious because you had to be.
	The idea that it's just a complete given that you trust a stranger and, you know, like we do now, you're just supposed to trust strangers, right?
	Until they do something wrong.
	Well, that was not really the case.
	That was like, no, the default is that I don't trust you if you're a stranger.
	Not out of bigotry, not out of small-mindedness, out of necessity.
	We don't know you.
	You're foreign.
	I don't necessarily mean from a foreign country.
	You're just not from here.
	And so we're going to distrust you until such time as we're...
	That was the norm much more.
	I would like to live in a high-trust society again.
	For a brief period of my childhood, I did.
	But in most of this country, that's long gone now.
	I think when you have a population that can police itself, then being able to trust in strangers is something that is a good reward for it, because it just makes life easier for everybody, but the way it is now.
	Of course, I mean, you should always teach kids about strange danger, stuff like that.
	This is an update on the trans terror cult group.
	The leader of the group, Jack Z's Lesota, was apprehended alive in western Maryland.
	He was found with Michelle Zajko.
	The two of them were armed.
	And a third member named Daniel Blank was apprehended as well.
	There is an upcoming trial for two of their members in the Bay Area, California.
	And this is a trial that's in jeopardy because the victim in that case, Curtis Lint, was assassinated.
	Physionomy on them, eh?
	Bloody hell.
	Wow.
	Brutal.
	Not one of them seemed to have normal physiognomy.
	They don't.
	Leftism is mainly a biological disease.
	Fraser Nelson has investigated the benefit system for Channel 4 Doc and was recently interviewed by the guys at Trigonometry.
	The welfare system is yet another bottomless pit of tax-funded cash.
	But Nelson actually convinced me that, by way of assuaging its guilt, society offers long-term claimants a fortnightly check so it can forget about them with ease.
	Horrifying picture.
	I mean, I'm not a socialist or anything like that remotely, but I think there are certain elements which are good in the welfare system, for sure.
	You know, I think that there are unequivocally people that would need, you know, the welfare system.
	There are people that physically actually cannot work.
	And for those people, it's great.
	But you can't have a fucking welfare system and open borders, man.
	You can't have no checks and balances on the welfare system.
	You just can't.
	And I'm so sick of paying for people that could very easily just go out and work.
	I'm so sick of it.
	It's nonsense.
	It's absolute nonsense.
	Yeah, of course, there are some people that if the state didn't help, they would starve to death then.
	Yeah.
	Right.
	But yeah, have that with open borders or just general purpose abuse across the board.
	It's not sustainable, is it?
	It's just simply and obviously not sustainable.
	There should be no native indigenous Brits that are homeless whilst we're housing people.
	Yeah, right.
	Just come in on a dinghy.
	That is...
	That shouldn't be a controversial statement.
	Statement of fact, yeah.
	That should just be a given.
	That's absurd.
	That's when you know true evil is happening before our very eyes.
	I'll read through these rumble rants that we've got here.
	So Alex Trusk says, Get Trump to promote Hassan Piker and Sam Hyde's fight and call out Vorsch for being a horse tax folder enthusiast.
	I've never heard that euphemism before.
	The engaged few.
	Homoerotic?
	As a homosexual, Hasan Piker's toxic femininity is not even a little bit erotic.
	This is the age-old questions between gays and bundles of sticks.
	You can be gay without being a bundle of sticks, if you understand my meaning, and I think that that's what we're seeing there.
	Hasan is a bundle of sticks.
	Yes.
	Jim Mays, you know what I mean when I say that, don't you?
	I don't really.
	I'll let you figure it out.
	Jim Mason.
	What's a very disparaging term for a gay man?
	Oh!
	There you go.
	I thought that was like a single log rather than a bundle of sticks.
	Isn't that a fast scare as a bundle of sticks?
	I thought it was the other...
	I get you now.
	I understand.
	I now understand where you're going.
	Yeah.
	Jim Mason, it seems like something a 15-year-old would think is cool because it's targeting that age group, in my honest opinion.
	Any attempt to clone right-wing organic popularity with use?
	Perhaps, but also there is, I don't know, from the outside looking in, there's something very sad about a single 33-year-old man hanging around in his house that's decorated like a child's bedroom.
	Life-size Bernie Sanders in the background.
	Yeah.
	The engaged few again.
	She laughs uproariously, this woman, as her crotch becomes a desert.
	Yeah.
	Talk about giving a woman the ick.
	The binary surfer says Samson should really share the tweet I've just posted.
	I've just sent him on stream.
	Can you get this up for us, Samson?
	I'm curious now.
	Here we go.
	What I got from this segment is that Harry would like a framed picture of Hassan's head on a muscular mankini-wearing male portrait.
	Baby oil optional.
	I don't know how you managed to figure that one out, Binary.
	That's some logic, if ever I've seen it.
	The Engaged Few says, Leftism seems to deform these people like the dark side of the force deforms the Sith.
	I think that's a chicken and egg question.
	These people, are they deformed and therefore gravitate towards leftism because they're deformed in the brain as well?
	Or does, as you suggest, it deform them?
	Good question.
	Yeah, it's actually a fair point.
	Which comes first?
	Yes, and let's go on to some of the written comments on the website then.
	So some general ones.
	Annie Moss, always great to see Mr. H, great guest, and also not ill with L.E. Flu.
	Thank you.
	Not yet, at least.
	Yeah.
	But I will hope not.
	I'd be pissed if I get him and get sick.
	Jonesynevercared says, Great line-up today.
	Where do I find the collaboration videos between Nate and Bo?
	Thanks.
	Ah.
	Do you want me to do that?
	State of Politics, ladies and gents.
	The State of Politics is a joint venture channel between myself and Bo.
	Just very interesting conversations, effectively, covering political philosophy, theory, history.
	Some modern stuff.
	Some modern day analysis and stuff.
	And also I'm on your stream every Tuesday.
	Yes.
	Just talking about films and TV and culture things as well.
	If you want some spicy bow takes, come to my channel on Tuesday night at 9pm.
	That were a number of clips that I've seen you going around.
	I can't help myself.
	I sort of can't help it sometimes.
	Brimming with rage spills over.
	I just love it that you're in the second studio whenever you're doing it as well.
	So it's just you, typically at like midnight, sat in your own, in the office, just raging, raging in the chair.
	Just some like race swapping in Hollywood.
	I'm confronted with something or whatever it is.
	It's like, oh, really?
	He doesn't have the moderating force of the rest of us.
	I enjoy it though.
	I enjoy it.
	Oh yeah, good times.
	Obviously here it's nearly always fairly serious.
	So it's nice just to sort of shoot the breeze about TV and games and movies and general cultural things.
	Do you want to read through some of your comments or do you want to go through them for you?
	You go, you go.
	If you want mine.
	Arizona desert rat.
	The Kennedy assassinations were about 60 years ago.
	How many people involved with those are still alive?
	My guess, not many.
	And if they are alive, do they have their mantle faculties still intact?
	Do you think that could be one of the reasons that they're actually willing to start looking into this now is that we're well past the point of any applicable punishments?
	Well, there must be very few because even if you're in your 20s or 30s at the time, you'll now be very old.
	So there must be very few.
	But that was one of the things Trump said on Joe Rogan.
	He said there were some people still alive.
	Why would they need protecting, though, if they're guilty of something, if they're guilty of something egregious, like murdering a president or trying to subvert the republic or something, why they should be protected is beyond me.
	But nonetheless, Trump did say some people were still alive.
	Well, if there are, I obviously don't know if there are or not, but if there are, they would now be very, very old.
	And they must have been quite relatively young at the time.
	Like I say, 60-odd years ago now.
	What is it, 62 years ago this year?
	So, yeah, they're going to be in their 80s with the best win in the world.
	If he was a very, very young CIA officer, it could be.
	And again, that might just be something where, okay, we can loosen up a bit on this now because the time for action is...
	Basically gone, in terms of punishments.
	So, next one.
	Harry and Mr. H reviews have a fight.
	Who wins?
	That's the name of the commenter.
	I'm going to say probably Mr. H. He's in good shape.
	The comment is, my theory is that JFK was friends with Hillary Clinton.
	Maybe that was it, yeah.
	Binary surfer.
	A cynical man might say that if you only declassify things if effectively common knowledge already, this is what an attempt to regain legitimacy looks like.
	US elites are worried regarding open revolt.
	Alternatively, you can declassify things now only if there are things you want the public's focus to be moved to and away from other things that you still want classified.
	Perfectly reasonable comment, yeah.
	Mason Royce, honestly though, what would the committee need to present to convince you that, for instance, JFK was killed by Oswald?
	If you were convinced it was a conspiracy, would a government investigation proving the exception be unfalsifiable?
	I think he meant the opposite.
	I guess I know what they're saying.
	Well, yeah, who knows?
	I mean, lots of people were...
	It seems like some people, it's impossible to change their mind.
	When I've made bits of content about JFK, sort of pointing out that it was impossible for it to be Oswald alone.
	Details like Oswald couldn't have...
	He couldn't have influenced the route of the motorcade.
	He couldn't have influenced the Secret Service.
	He couldn't have influenced who got to sit on the Warren Commission, whether there would be a Warren Commission.
	Various things that Oswald could not have orchestrated.
	And there's still some people out there that still ignore all of that.
	They'll just ignore it.
	Or they'll just call you crazy and things.
	So even if whatever's released in the end shows beyond any reasonable doubt, or any doubt really, I think even if it turned around and said that it was Lee Harvey Oswald by himself,
	as we were always told in the first place, I think one of the reasons that people would doubt that is that just, yeah, you can have a government report that says something, but you need to line it up against what's practically...
	Practically possible within reality.
	You have to line it up with the facts that we've already established and say, well, is this a likely or even possible series of events?
	And determine from there.
	You can use your own intuition, your own faculties of logic, chain and effect, cause and effect, and you're able to come to some pretty good conclusions by that.
	You know?
	If they turn around and says that Lee Harvey Oswald actually leapt from the building, shot him mid-air, flew back around, and then got back into the building for no reason, and you go, well, it's the government document, that's what it says.
	They released the files.
	You could say, well, that's not possible, though, is it?
	That's ridiculous.
	That's a stupid thing to say.
	There are lots of people that just won't believe anything they're told, sort of.
	They don't believe...
	There are people that don't believe that...
	NASA is essentially that we've ever gone into low Earth orbit and things.
	There are people that don't believe that the geological record is real.
	There are people that don't believe the Earth is a sphere, right?
	So there are some people that whatever they're shown won't believe it.
	There are lots of people like that, and they probably always will be.
	And I think the last thing I'll end this on is that we've got one more Rumble rant and then we're out of time, and that's from...
	Okay, saying, can you please get Ryan Dawson on your podcast with your assassination?
	A lot of these fingerprints on it, too.
	That was a somewhat poorly worded one, but I'm aware of Ryan Dawson.
	I don't really follow him.
	Thanks for the $10 anyway, though.
	Yeah, thanks for the $10.
	Ryan Dawson, do I know him?
	It rings a bell.
	He does a substat called the Anti-Neocon Report.
	I think I'm aware of him.
	I'll talk to him.
	Might be worth getting in touch with him if he's up to date on a lot of the details of the assassination and the conspiracy and what information is out there.
	Anyway, that's all we've got time for today.
	So thank you very, very much for tuning in.
	We'll be back again tomorrow.
	And make sure to check out Nate's channel and the state of politics and everything else that Beau and Nate do together.
	It's great work.

▲