Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 24, 2025 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:30:13

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1127

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters for the 24th of March 2025.
	I am joined by Carl and Stelios.
	Hello everyone.
	And today we're talking about how there are barbarians inside the gates, which is something I've heard about but not actually seen, so I'm looking forward to being made very miserable.
	It's not good news.
	And then we've got some more bad news, where I'm talking about the online harms bill, which is terrifyingly dystopian.
	And then Stelios is going to lift us all back up again, talking about where are the Democrats, probably screeching in a padded room somewhere, I imagine.
	Yes, we're going to have good fun with the third one.
	But first, I need to announce to Paul, thank you very much for sending me these two things.
	He's given me the winter issue of Monkey World.
	Very good choice, by the way.
	I've enjoyed flicking through.
	I haven't had a chance to sit down and read it because I'm at work.
	But when I get home, I'm going to look forward to reading this.
	Thank you very much.
	Anything monkey-related, other than maybe feces, feel free to send it my way in the P.O. box.
	And also, he sent me Way of the Samurai.
	So, thank you very much.
	Clearly knows me well.
	Monkeys and Asian philosophy.
	There we go.
	Me in a nutshell.
	Was it written by Ubisoft?
	No, it wasn't.
	It was actually written by a Japanese person, unlike a new game.
	That's good.
	Anyway, Carl.
	Yeah, well, I mean...
	Okay, well, so the barbarians are inside the gates, and they're not going to listen to reason, and they're going to continue making our lives more miserable until we actually decide enough is enough.
	And the question is, when do we get to that point?
	Because at the moment, you'll notice that the political class of Britain...
	Is deeply obsessed with the idea that 13-year-old white English boys are the problem.
	As if they're causing all of the stresses and dangers that society currently faces.
	Because guardianistas like Martha Gill here live in a strange abstract world in which they think the Handmaid's Tale is coming.
	Whereas in fact, the real threat is actually on the ground.
	They're going to, you know, travelling in London on the Tube or something like that.
	Or walking home at night or something like this.
	It's actually not coming from 13-year-old English boys.
	And we're going to look into that now.
	So, Martha here is a Guardian Easter columnist, and she's, of course, talking about adolescence, has brought the attention of the manosphere.
	Radicalised teen boys.
	What are you talking about?
	What are you talking about?
	And she got a thread here.
	But this is just emblematic of the current discourse that our political system is having.
	The media, the politicians, the parliament, they're all talking about a fictional show.
	Whereas, in reality, the youth on the streets of the UK are currently engaging in machete fights.
	This is one recently from Birmingham.
	I think it was two days ago this first went viral.
	And you can see here two groups of radicalised 13-year-olds.
	They're just Andrew Tate-enjoyers, aren't they?
	Devotees of the Manosphere, men's rights activists, fighting on the streets of Britain.
	In England, with machetes.
	I'm not going to play it because it's pretty violent, but they're striking each other with machetes.
	It's like, right.
	Sorry, where is your head, Martha?
	Why do these people have no concept of what's going on?
	It's because this doesn't come near.
	There's one of two things going on here.
	Either they're afraid to admit the racial disparity in participation in these chicken shop stab events, or...
	The thing that I think is more likely is that they're aware of it, but what they're doing is they're appealing to children.
	And this is a sort of iron law of politics that if anyone ever brings up children, it's because they want to basically take more power for themselves.
	It's always used as a rhetorical device for someone to give up something.
	I think that that's what's going on here.
	I think it's a lot more cynical.
	I think there's a bit more than that, though.
	Oh, certainly, yeah.
	I think you are right on that.
	Of course.
	But I think that the issue that Martha has is that she's not part of this community.
	She doesn't feel that she has any moral authority over this community.
	She doesn't feel that their issues are in any way connected to her.
	And so she has got nothing to say about them.
	Essentially, it's a foreign country to her.
	She doesn't look like she goes out stabbing people with machetes, that's true.
	Yeah, but no one in her family is going to be involved in this kind of event.
	Right. That's almost certainly true, yeah.
	Yeah, and she's not going to see it around her, or so she thinks.
	However, things are changing because you may think, okay, well, the machete fights on the streets of Birmingham, again, it's a foreign country.
	It's a million miles away from me.
	It's never going to happen.
	Well, it will, actually.
	It will come to those areas of England that are still predominantly white English and concerned with television shows in the manosphere radicalising young boys, right?
	So this is...
	Elm Park in Essex.
	And as you can see, if we zoom out a little bit, the area is dark blue here because I'm looking for who self-identifies as English, Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish or British.
	And of course these people are going to be majority English.
	There is a small amount of diversity in this area here.
	As you can see, it's about half English in this area.
	And the other half is about quarter Asian and then 10% African.
	As you can see here, it's about 10% African, and so black.
	And so this is actually not a very diverse area, especially just in the areas around it.
	As you can see, the darker the blue is, the more English it is.
	This is actually one of those areas, and you can scroll outside of London, that have been much more diversified.
	We can see it's only 30% English and even less in some places, right?
	So this is the diversification of London going out and encroaching on the English areas and essentially kind of forcing people to flee.
	Well, it's like a cancerous tumour, isn't it, at the minute?
	Yeah, it is.
	London is sort of infecting the other parts of the body of the country.
	Yes, Birmingham and Manchester are much the same.
	But anyway, you can see this is an English refuge outside of London, this area of Essex.
	And so it was with some shock that the residents here found that apparently 200 young urban youths decided to get their machetes, get their knives, and go rampaging...
	Through their village, through their little area.
	This was quite a shock to these people.
	Here's Peter, who lives on the same road as Elm Park Primary School.
	And on Saturday, it was apparently a 16th birthday party that was ambushed by over 50 youths.
	And he says there were a good 300-400 kids running up and down the road being chased by police.
	This is going to come to those areas of the country that have not yet been diversified.
	This is the future.
	This is what is going to happen.
	So there's a great write-up of it here, because what happened is this primary school was hosting a party of some sort on Saturday evening, and it was crashed.
	I'm not going to play the video just because lots of machete wielding, but you can see it's 50 or so urban youths had broken into this primary school in Essex, and started terrorising the children.
	A primary school, if you're outside of the UK, means a school for children under 11. Yeah.
	So very young.
	So something like 5 to 11 is primary school age.
	And I'm just going to read through this article.
	Just feel free to jump in whenever you're sufficiently annoyed.
	I'm already annoyed.
	I know.
	Already annoyed.
	Yeah, because I'm just looking at this and I'm...
	If there was any last vestige of liberalism within me, this story is draining it out of me.
	I'm very vengeful of this.
	So the Daily Mail tells us three teenagers, so three out of 50, right, that broke in, and out of the 400 or so that were running up and down the road, only three of them have been arrested, right?
	After a gang of youths crashed a birthday party at a school and stabbed two teenagers.
	So two people stabbed.
	Two kids stabbed, right?
	It's been reported that more than 50 youths armed with knives and machetes ran into Elm Park Primary School Hall in Havering, Essex around 9pm.
	The fighting lasted until 11pm before three teenagers were arrested on suspicion of assaulting emergency workers, but they stabbed teenagers.
	So why...
	How many hours did this go on for?
	Two hours.
	For about two hours.
	Two hours.
	So for two hours there were just gangs with machetes that crushed this party?
	And stabbed two teenagers.
	Stabbed two teenagers and it just carried on?
	Yes. Yeah.
	I know, when you put it like that, it's like, right, so they had the birthday party at this kid's primary school was at the mercy of this gang of barbarians for two whole hours before anyone got arrested.
	Is there any word about why the police response was so slow?
	Not yet.
	Of course not.
	Maybe they were afraid of being called racist or something.
	Oh, I don't doubt that's the case.
	But this is all a bit breaking.
	So yes, two teenagers, 16 and 19, were taken to hospital with non-life-threatening knife injuries.
	So two people got stabbed.
	Thankfully, it looks like they're going to survive.
	Footage from the scene shows dozens of children fleeing the hall, screaming, as individuals in the back of the room can be seen raising weapons above their heads.
	This is literally the sort of thing you expect to see in the Congo.
	This is literally the sort of thing you expect to see in war zones.
	In Rwanda.
	In Rwanda.
	This is mad, and this is happening in an English area of England.
	This is not getting better.
	This is going to get worse.
	One local resident said it was total chaos.
	We saw between 40 and 50 youths running through the streets.
	We think they had knives.
	They were seen dropping weapons in people's driveways and running away.
	They were attacking the police.
	There were so many of them, the police had to just disperse them.
	We couldn't believe what we saw.
	They were all aged 16 and over and they were not from here.
	Our road is normally so quiet.
	Things like this don't happen here.
	This is why we're all so shocked that this happened.
	Any thoughts, gentlemen?
	Has this got to be a gangland thing?
	A territorial dispute, perhaps?
	I don't know.
	It's got that flavour to it.
	But it's not gang territory, is it?
	That's the thing.
	No. Well, it's very much outside of their remit.
	It's an English area that has essentially been invaded.
	By these groups.
	Now, the chances are they haven't had to travel very far, right?
	The chances are they've travelled from this sort of area.
	But this is not the normal people who live right now.
	I mean, this is just further proof of the trend that we've already spotted, that the diversity isn't going to stick to its enclaves.
	It's going to spread out.
	I mean, the best example of that was that small village in France of, what, 160 people?
	Where loads, I think it was Muslims, turned up.
	15, 16 Muslims armed with machetes and knives.
	And they murdered a 16-year-old boy.
	Yes. Pretty much for no reason.
	They just turned up and started trouble on purpose.
	And their purpose was to basically go out and hurt white people in response to that Muslim kid that got shot in, I think it was Paris, somewhere in France.
	He drove away from armed police and got shot.
	And so they were out to basically...
	Ethnic revenge.
	Yeah, exactly.
	And we're going to see a lot more of that.
	And it's not something that we should have to put up with, obviously.
	I mean, I think that the primary sin of the government is that they have communicated that they are not going to enforce the law when it comes to particular ethnic groups and when it comes to people of particular backgrounds.
	When they do this, they create a gap of law enforcement.
	A vacuum.
	And nature doesn't like vacuums.
	It is going to be filled.
	And it is going to be filled by mob behavior.
	Now, I don't know.
	Maybe it hasn't happened there before.
	And I...
	Completely except if the locals say that it hasn't happened here before.
	But it does seem to be happening a lot in several areas.
	And it seems that the number of such incidents arise.
	And also the gap of law enforcement is making it incredibly easy for gangs to recruit young children.
	There's also a very frustrating thing on top of that of people are aware that law and order has...
	More or less broken down and that you're sort of on your own, but you can't actually do anything to defend yourself.
	You can't, you know, it's not like the United States in some states where you can conceal carry a weapon and defend yourself, which of course, you know, the great equaliser, if you're a woman alone at night and you've got, you know, you're concealed carrying a gun.
	You're going to feel a lot safer.
	You're going to feel like you're more comfortable walking down that street.
	But we don't have that luxury here.
	We don't have the ability to defend ourselves.
	And even with the best combat experience in the world, if a gang of 50 people descends on you, it doesn't matter your experience.
	It doesn't matter how quick you can run, because inevitably you're going to be caught, and who knows what's going to happen to you.
	Yeah, I mean, it's a miracle that no one died from this, right?
	50 kids turn up with machetes.
	Yeah, thankfully that no one died.
	And it's just, okay, I want to know what the Guardian Easter thinks is going through their minds.
	I want to know what they think these kids are doing.
	I know they say kids, but they're all adults.
	And this is always done because of weakness on our part.
	I think most probably they're looking at this behaviour and they say these are going to be our future voters.
	Well, no doubt that that's what they think.
	But the issue being, this is only possible because of our profound weakness as a society.
	We've invited them in, and now they have access to our soft underbelly, which is our children's primary schools.
	And the question is, are they going to respect us?
	Are they going to respect our boundaries, our customs?
	Are they going to be...
	Decent and kind.
	No, they're not.
	They think of that as being weak and pathetic because they come from a gang culture where strength is the only thing that matters.
	The ability to inflict pain is the only thing they understand.
	You're not going to sit down and have a reasoned argument with any of these people.
	That's absolutely the case.
	And it doesn't mean that I think people who are civilized need to start comparing themselves against barbarian standards.
	But I will say that there is something that a lot of people don't pick out of, is that it's the civilized standards that are not being met by the people who are...
	Let's say, civilized.
	Because if one of the main aspects of an ethical barometer of a society is care about their children, if things like that don't motivate people and say, I don't want this for my children, that's a serious moral failing, not according to barbarian standards, but according to civilized standards.
	100%. I mean, the barbarian literally respects strength.
	That's why they're armed.
	You can't convince everyone.
	Well, no, exactly, but it's not even that you can't convince everyone.
	The barbarian culture is specifically defined as being uncivilized, as in unresponsive to...
	Not only reason, but also competing moral claims.
	The claims are settled with violence, which is why we're seeing the machete fights in Birmingham.
	It's collective honour.
	I mean, it was an honour killing, thankfully, but it looks like it's the behaviour that leads towards this mentality.
	Absolutely, but the point is, they're not asking for a redress of grievances here.
	What they're doing is saying, no, we're going to stab someone.
	I mean, they stabbed two people.
	What they're saying here is that violence is the way that we deal with our problems, and you're weak.
	Yeah, you're communicating we're going to get away with it.
	Yes, you're profoundly weak.
	You're not going to physically stop us.
	We're going to come here.
	We're going to do whatever we want.
	And then you're going to arrest only three of us.
	So if you're part of the 400-strong mob of barbarians that have descended on this little English area, well, the chances are you're going to get away with it.
	The chance that you're not going to be arrested.
	And how are you willing to bet that the three that are going to be arrested, they're going to be let out?
	It's just for the article.
	For the articles.
	They're going to say, yeah, but some were arrested.
	Yeah, we've arrested them.
	Oh, well then, that's okay.
	And then two weeks later, they skip, you know, suspended sentences or something.
	So anyway, we'll carry on.
	So the...
	The people of Elm Road say, our road was closed off for ages due to this, and we were told that a serious incident had happened.
	One mother claimed her daughter, 15, had also been taken to hospital after being attacked on a train by the same mob of youths who ran from the party.
	So they'd gotten on a train, come to this area, assaulted a girl on the way, and then gone and stormed through this party and stabbed two kids.
	This is mad.
	If this isn't enough to make us go, okay, someone needs to be...
	I'm severely punished for this, right?
	Because the only thing they understand is pain, right?
	You can't reason with them.
	You can't even say, look, you're going to go to jail for 30 years for this or something like that.
	They don't think in these sorts of terms.
	What they think is much more immediate, as in, will I win?
	Will I get a dopamine high off of this after defeating you?
	Or will I scream in pain because you've defeated me?
	That's all these people understand.
	Sorry, go on, Josh.
	I was going to say that...
	If they've got to around, what, the age of 16 plus, and they're behaving like this, I'm going to say something very controversial here.
	I don't think these people are redeemable if they're turning up to events like this.
	They behave like this?
	The only response is to either repatriate them or some sort of corporal punishment at the very least.
	I mean, I'm a lot more punitive than that, but I think it would be a start, right?
	I mean, realistically, it's got to be punitive punishment.
	It's got to be corporal punishment.
	This is why we used to flog people.
	We used to flog people for doing stuff like this.
	Yeah, because people who, you know, it wouldn't be your regular English...
	Teenagers up to no good on a weekend, is it?
	We never did this.
	Yeah, I mean, don't get me wrong, you know, we used to get up to no good, but nothing like this.
	No. And the thing is, if we did do something like this, it would be completely justified to have flogged us, right?
	Like, my dad would kick my arse if I'd done anything like this when I was a teenager.
	I'd be disowned, I'd be thrown out on the street, probably.
	I'd be beaten first, and rightly so.
	But the point being is, you know, prior to the sort of second half of the 20th century...
	We had no qualms about physically punishing this kind of behavior.
	Absolutely none.
	Carl, I want to go back a bit two minutes ago on what you said is that some people you can't argue with.
	That's why we need the law, basically.
	We don't automatically...
	Exactly. We don't live in Shire, let's say, from Lord of the Rings, where you don't need things like that.
	We used to, in some parts.
	We used to, but...
	Okay, I mean, let's say human history, but what you described before as what you do is what has always been done.
	Yes. Even before this, you know, tried this attempt to...
	Portray everyone in woke terms and say the oppressor and oppressed.
	People who act like that are acting like savages.
	And the myth of the noble savage is really what is in the minds of the state when they are allowing such weakness to get hold of society and they portray such weakness to be virtue.
	There's no nobility in savagery, though.
	Savagery is savage.
	Yeah, it's one of the most disgusting uses of the human condition.
	The point you made about the Shire, even in the Shire, if you go back a hundred years, we had the death penalty, we had corporal punishment, we had a strict understanding of when lines had been crossed.
	Like, the society itself, the strong society, punishes its criminals with a maximum force.
	It makes sure that, no, if you do anything, I mean, this sort of thing never happened, but, like, can you imagine, go back a hundred years and showing them this, and they'd be like, oh, well, then you're going to hang them.
	You're going to hang the three ringleaders you've arrested, and you'll have the rest of them flogged for being a part of that gang, being involved in it, for being in the proximity of it.
	You get a flogging.
	And the thing is, what's this going to teach them?
	This is going to teach them.
	We will not tolerate this.
	I think people forget that the sort of shyer utopia that we once had was a very deliberate invention.
	It was created by the will of man and, you know, endeavouring...
	Didn't pull out of the heavens.
	No, it was us endeavouring to enforce the law and enforce it fairly.
	And, I mean, I really like the statistic.
	I mean, saying I like it is a bit strange, but was it one in every 100 men in England at one point in history were hung?
	Until dead?
	You know, actually, they may have been convicted, but the juries would be the ones who end up deciding.
	So it would require a universal vote on the jury.
	And a lot of the time where the guy would be convicted and the punishment would be death if there was a mitigating circumstance, like a percentage of the jury would actually vote against just to make sure he got convicted, but he didn't get hanged because, you know, his mitigating circumstances was unfair or whatever.
	And so actually there were far fewer hangings than you think, but it's the threat of the hanging looming over everyone's head.
	So it's your fate basically put in other people's hands, isn't it?
	Exactly. And so it didn't happen as much as you think, but it was definitely something that was a strong deterrent.
	But these people have no deterrent.
	That's the issue, right?
	There is no goddamn deterrent here.
	You've got no father at home that will discipline them a lot of the time as well.
	I believe there is, but the point is that there could be.
	And when you have people who...
	Regularly disrespect society.
	You need to do what you must.
	But what I wanted to say is that law has always this element of habituation.
	So as you said before, there were hangings, there were severe punishments with respect to particular crimes because that functioned as a deterrent in people's mind.
	It habituated people into thinking that there will be consequences.
	And we come to events like these that are becoming more and more...
	Not popular, but more common.
	And I'm just asking myself, what does the state want to do with the way they approach them?
	How does the labour approach on this issue habituate them to think?
	Or the conservative approach.
	And the conservative approach, because they were governing for 14 years and they didn't do a good job.
	These people probably only remember a conservative government until right now.
	Yes. But also, how does this habituate the population that looks at this and doesn't feel safe in their own country?
	Yeah. It's very negative.
	Yeah, there's nothing good to say about it.
	It's like, again, I just think everyone involved should be rand up and flogged.
	I don't know how I really mean.
	I don't know what you think you were doing.
	What if that was you?
	What if that was your kids?
	They don't...
	We care about hypothetical conditionals.
	It needs the El Salvador-style approach, doesn't it?
	It needs a heavy, almost martial hand to clear up the mess that has been created in our civilization.
	And it's the only way you're going to stop these people from doing this kind of thing, because while you take any other approach, they're just going to say, oh, these people are weak and we can keep doing this.
	Are they going to let us out on remand or on suspended sentences?
	Oh, we can just keep doing this then.
	That means they're permissive of this or they're too weak to stop us.
	And if we're strong, which theoretically I guess they think they must be, then we can carry on.
	I mean, the daughter who got attacked on the train, she's in hospital at the moment because she got attacked, presumably with a knife.
	But a police spokesman...
	Right, so there we go.
	The teenagers all turn up.
	They're all causing trouble.
	The officers go down and talk to them.
	And the teenagers start becoming aggressive.
	Okay. Then arrest them.
	Beat them to the floor.
	Arrest them.
	Because, I mean, if this...
	When I was a kid...
	If I'd got aggressive with a bunch of cops, I would have been face down on the floor with my hands tied behind my back and probably a split lip or something.
	And rightfully so.
	We're supposed to be policing by consent in this country.
	Do you think you can police these people by consent?
	Well, the police have found out...
	No, you can't, actually.
	If you go down there and try and talk them out of terrorizing a small town, then they get aggressive.
	Anyway, so...
	The next thing is, after this, two individuals got knife injuries.
	And a couple of them were taken to East London Police Station.
	They were bailed to return for questioning later today.
	I'm sure they're going to return.
	We'll bail you, but you'll come back like good boys, won't you?
	No, the hell they will.
	There shouldn't be bail for violent crime.
	No, they shouldn't.
	It's literally that simple.
	It's so ridiculous that that even exists.
	You took a machete to a kid's school?
	Anyway, come back, yeah.
	Yeah, come back tomorrow.
	It's insane.
	And what must they think?
	They must think we're weak and we don't care.
	But the question, like, we're going to talk about the online harms bill in a minute.
	It's like, okay, well, that's going to be used as a method to censor social media.
	It's like, okay, how do we think this was organized?
	What this is, is on various WhatsApp groups, on social media, these kids got together and were like, oh, well, there's this person over there, there's no defenses to this school at all.
	If hundreds of us turn up with machetes and knives, they can't stop us, and nobody did.
	So this is not like some sort of random occurrence.
	This is something they coordinated.
	They all got together and said, yeah, this will be fun.
	This will be funny.
	There's no dangers for us doing this.
	There's no way they're going to stop us.
	Probably nothing's going to happen.
	We'll get let out and we'll be told to come back tomorrow, which we certainly do, officer.
	It's unbelievable.
	There's also the element of how much pressure the police officers have with respect to not harming them.
	Yeah, it's crazy.
	No, I mean, I just beat them.
	Hopefully the police is able to do the work and they haven't been hired by several questionable DEI schemes.
	Yeah. But even if they have, the fact that they were there for two hours says everything you need to know.
	Yeah. And so this just really annoys me.
	The barbarians are not going to be persuaded by reasoned arguments, nor by our soft touch.
	The only thing they recognize is hard boundaries, and so we have to provide them, or else this is just going to keep happening.
	GoofballSupremacist says, Good morning from the free state of New Hampshire.
	Just wanted to share that I'm more heavily armed doing electrical work here than your 5'2 police in London.
	The UK needs to bring back the Second Amendment to bring back politeness.
	Hear, hear.
	I agree with you.
	Ryan says, Growing up in London, Brixton Hill, I once witnessed a gang of 30 attack a pizza delivery driver for his moped.
	It was quite the sight and I'll never forget it.
	Yeah, just a random gang.
	Just a random gang.
	Youths, isn't it?
	Yeah. Trelly says, violence is the supreme authority from which all authority is derived, which is of course correct.
	The Engaged View says, I bet you guys wish you hadn't allowed your parliament to take away your rights to arm self-defence.
	We can get arms, but it happened a lot of the time.
	It happened in the early 90s.
	And there wasn't the same scale of problems.
	When England was 96% English, this didn't happen.
	Also, we don't have the legal right to use them for self-defence.
	They're kind of a little bit redundant if you get thrown in prison for your life anyway.
	Yeah, and thank you for that advice, Ryan.
	I'll pay attention to it.
	Right, let's carry on.
	Sure. So there is a war on the internet.
	And who is that war being conducted by?
	But the Labour Party, of course, yes.
	But also the Conservative.
	And also the Conservative Party.
	In fact, more by the Conservative Party than by the Labour Party because they were the ones that originally proposed the Online Safety Act, which became...
	Law on the 26th of October, 2023, but actually came into effect as of the 17th of March.
	So is this not the online harms bill, then?
	Basically the same thing.
	Basically the same thing.
	It's got a different name.
	Just a successor or something.
	They tried to get the online harms bill in, and there's a big back and forth, and now it's the Online Safety Act.
	It's all the same stuff.
	They've got it jam-packed full of nonsense.
	But yes, it was supported by all of the mainstream parties, which it should...
	Set off alarm bells for anyone with a functioning brain that if the Conservatives, Labour, the Lib Dems, they all come together and do something, it is not for the good of the common people.
	It is good for them.
	And despite what some online liars have said...
	Isn't this guy your best friend?
	Yeah. He seeks my approval, but he's not going to get it because he said this was not going to happen, and it did.
	Ridiculous. Thank you, inevitable Bangladesh.
	I know.
	I would also like to point out that if you want to support persecuted internet organisations like ourselves, we have a merch store.
	You know, Islanders pretty much sold out, but we do have the Islander merch, so if you want to get a t-shirt, a hat, we also, I believe, sell some mugs as well.
	These are the Islander ones.
	These are limited, so if you would like to get...
	One of these.
	That would help support us and you get something in return.
	We're not monetised on YouTube, so we rely on your support to be able to actually function.
	So please do consider it if you have the money to spare.
	So here is the legislation itself.
	It is very extensive.
	It goes on a long time.
	I haven't read this latest iteration, but I read the bill that they were trying to put into Parliament.
	It took me a very long time.
	And there's lots and lots.
	It's basically the same thing.
	They've changed a few bits and pieces here and there.
	Some of the turns of phrase are exactly the same as that previous bill.
	As you can see at the beginning, they just want to give Ofcom power to regulate the internet.
	Yeah, well, let's actually talk about what it does specifically.
	So, the language used to talk about this Online Safety Act suggests that it's only targeting things like social media companies, right?
	But the scope is obviously much, much wider than this because...
	There are lots of online websites.
	It requires these social media companies, as well as things like search engines, photo sharing sites, chat and instant messaging services, gaming services, and even dating services to adhere to these rules.
	And that is to monitor and remove harmful content, including illegal material, but also certain legal stuff that could be deemed harmful to children.
	But notice...
	What website isn't for children?
	Yeah. Notice that there's a dating website there.
	It'd be a bit weird if there were children on that, wouldn't it?
	But that's included.
	So they're saying that, hang on a minute, we're doing this to save the children.
	Think of the children.
	On your dating website.
	Yeah. A bit weird.
	All right, Jimmy Savile.
	But obviously it's all a smokescreen.
	They're not actually doing it to help children.
	Of course politicians don't care about children.
	They support policies that see lots of children dead.
	So why are we going to take their word for it?
	And we shouldn't.
	In fact, it monitors these 17 different categories.
	Terrorism, harassment, stalking, threats, and abuse.
	Lots of these are crimes.
	Some of these are not.
	If we can have a look at some of these, there's a camera in the way.
	One like foreign interference.
	And remember that there are lots of cases of people saying that Russian bots are doing things.
	One has to wonder, well, hang on a minute, if you're a media organisation that the state says is being funded by Russia, or something like that, or, you know, you're seen as aligned somehow with a foreign state, then that's apparently a good enough reason for these, you know, Ofcom to fine you, potentially shut down your organisation.
	It's a massive expansion of power.
	And obviously there's a legitimate thing to be concerned about here, Some of these categories are a bit malleable as well.
	Extreme pornography.
	What does that mean?
	Also, hate offences is interesting.
	That's so subjective.
	What could that mean?
	The whole purpose is that they don't mean something apt.
	They don't mean something specific.
	One of the lessons we can learn from...
	The Chinese, actually, is that when there's a law that's either selectively enforced or so subjective that it can be selectively enforced, what it is actually used for is to punish your enemies and reward your friends.
	So your friends are allowed to break the rules, and often happens, it happens in Britain already, whereas your political enemies are not allowed to get away with it.
	And by introducing a law that is so extensive...
	And you enforce standards that are so difficult to attain that you've basically got carte blanche to do whatever you want to any online company that you don't like.
	And that's what I think this is.
	This is the establishment basically cleaning up the internet of all of the dissidents as well as, you know, sort of putting it in a veneer of, well, we're making our children safer, when actually that's not what's happening at all.
	My children don't have access to extreme pornography.
	So... Anyway.
	Yeah, it's sort of trying to make the situation seem like it's more about preventing people from being exposed to horrible things when it's not.
	It's just license, isn't it?
	So supposedly there are going to be harsh punishments such as extensive fines.
	Apparently the penalty for non-compliance is either a fine of 18 million, which is 22 million US dollars, or 10% of the global revenue, whichever is greater.
	So 18 million is the minimum.
	Fine. Or a permanent ban if you're...
	80 million?
	I know.
	It's ridiculous.
	Minimum fine?
	Mm-hmm.
	Jesus. And you can be permanently banned if the government or Ofcom feels like you're not complying enough.
	Mm-hmm.
	So affected web services are expected to conduct a risk assessment and to put in place various mitigations, for example, things like content filtering, to deal with these identified risks.
	Whether they've done a good enough job or not, of course, is determined by Ofcom.
	And so it's up to them whether you are up to scratch.
	And so they basically have the ability to fine you like that if they want to, which is too much power, I think.
	And it's effectively giving the government handing Ofcom, which is supposedly not in the hands of the government.
	It's like an independent body.
	But completely financed by the government.
	It is, yeah.
	No, no, it's also partially financed by the fines they employ.
	That's true.
	So there's actually an incentive for them to be unreasonable.
	And yeah, they're basically able to dictate what speech is acceptable online now.
	Do we have more info on the unlawful immigration bit?
	I think it's more to do with human trafficking.
	So it's not talking about immigration.
	It's advertising.
	It's basically trying to target the people traffickers, the boat people, because they're advertising it on things like...
	What's the one that all the kids use these days?
	I'm sounding really old now.
	TikTok, that's the one.
	I'm almost 13, it shows apparently.
	So yeah, it's basically pressuring companies to do whatever the government wants because they don't want to fall into the ire of Ofcom, and it's going to result in a lot of legal speech being censored.
	And I think there's also an appetite within the people who've orchestrated this to target end-to-end encryption that the government suspects are being used to spread things like harmful content, whatever that means.
	And so you might not even have internet privacy.
	And what this is also going to result in is a lot of smaller websites that run either by small businesses or volunteers will close because the risk isn't worth the reward anymore.
	Well, they just can't do what they're being asked to do.
	No, of course not.
	And this is true of a lot of legislation that it's more punitive to a smaller company or, you know, a small business than it is a larger one because the larger ones have the legal department to deal with it.
	And so what it's going to do is take out lots of smaller websites and leave lots of large pre-established competitors with less competition than they had before, which is probably what they were donating to all those political parties for in the first place.
	And we may add that it habituates people into not criticising their government out of fear of being branded.
	Being fined heavily, apparently.
	If you start criticizing the government, you are literally putting a target on yourself, saying, hey, pay attention to me.
	Yeah, and they'll just make a narrative of foreign interference.
	You disagree with the latest decision of the EU summit, it's because you like Putin.
	But it's also, you've made yourself aware to the government.
	When you level criticism against someone, you want them to listen, ultimately, and change in accordance with your criticism.
	So you're literally drawing yourself to their attention, and therefore they can only act on things that they perceive.
	So you're literally putting yourself in the eye of Sauron.
	If you're concerned about this affecting you, you can go onto the Ofcom website, and there's...
	A form you can fill out to find out whether the regulations apply to your business, which, if you have to go through all of this, kind of suggests that the definition is not defined enough.
	You should be able to fairly easily work out whether this is you or not.
	So there have been a whole host of criticisms from things like it's not actually doing what it's setting out to do in the first place.
	Oh, no kidding.
	Yeah. Oh, my God.
	I can't imagine.
	There's also the free speech union's objections to it, which are similar to my own, that there's a risk of lawful speech being swept up in this algorithmic net.
	They're saying that there's no real guidance as to who's going to get fined, who just gets a slap on the wrist, what's actually going to happen here.
	It's all very...
	Subjective, I suppose.
	They do point out something that's interesting here.
	History shows that when governments threaten platforms with massive fines, lawful speech is systematically suppressed.
	This is what happened under Germany's NetzDG law, where platforms facing huge liability censored satire, political debate, and other lawful content.
	The UK will be no different.
	I very much agree with this perspective on it.
	It's also worth mentioning as well, lots of bloggers are now having to close down their blogs.
	And it's to the point where even a hamster forum has had to close down.
	Can we go back to that previous one?
	So this is interesting.
	Individuals who run their own website could be held liable for, weirdly enough, off-topic visitor-posted comments.
	So basically, your blog may well survive.
	I mean, this might apply to us, right?
	We might have to remove the comment sections on our web pages.
	So if that ends up disappearing, you know why.
	It's a ridiculous overreach, isn't it?
	But yeah, it's to the point where something as innocent as a forum for people who look after hamsters had to close because they couldn't deal with the legal obligations placed on them by this new legislation.
	I mean, it's literally every forum.
	Any forum on the internet is swept up in this.
	So it's also...
	Sort of fulfilling a meme.
	This is from Helldivers saying, attention, your animal companion request for hamster has been denied at this time.
	That's what the Labour Party is saying now.
	They're protecting managed democracy, and that's what this is.
	Very much managed democracy.
	It is indeed.
	But also, local residents' websites are being shut down as well because they just don't have the resources to deal with the obligations.
	People need these things.
	They do.
	They exist for a reason.
	And in fact, here's one.
	This is the London Fixed Gear and Single Speed Bicycle website.
	That's had to close down because everyone knows that harmful content was on this website.
	Just like the hamster forum.
	Should have thought of that before you ride bikes.
	Now, I read this and this was just really sad.
	This was a forum moderator who seemed to moderate lots and lots of different forums.
	He says, I run just over 300 forums for a monthly audience of around 275,000 active users, which is a huge reach there.
	Most of this is blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, boring stuff, and it's all being shut down.
	The UK Online Safety Act creates a massive liability, whilst at first glance the risk seems low.
	The reality is that moderating people usually provokes ire from those people.
	If we had to moderate them because they are a threat to the community, then they are usually the kind of people who get angry.
	That's true.
	My 28 years of running forums as a result of moderation, I've had people try to get their domain revoked, fake copyright notices, death threats, stalkers, in real life and online.
	As a forum moderator, you are known and you are a target, and the Online Safety Act creates a weapon that can be used against you.
	The risk is no longer hypothetical, so even if I got lawyers involved to be compliant, I'd still have the liability and risk.
	And over 28 years, I've run close to 504 in total, and they've changed so many lives.
	I created them to provide a way for those without families to build families to catch the strays and to try and hold back loneliness, depression and the risk of isolation and life ending.
	And it worked and it still works.
	But on the 17th of March, 2025, it will become too much.
	Now, this is just really sad.
	It's just destroying communities.
	And, of course, because they're not physical, they don't really register on the government's radar.
	And I think it's a terrible shame.
	It's a loss of culture, ultimately.
	And it's also worth mentioning as well that Creative Assembly, who make the Total War games, had to remove their in-game chat function because of this.
	So this is me personally affecting now.
	I can't gloat at the loser.
	Destroy the Call of Duty lobby.
	Well, there are still microphones there, so I can't quite regulate that yet.
	This is so overreaching.
	I know.
	So overreaching.
	$18 million is a fine as well.
	There's also a free-to-play browser game was taken offline after these laws.
	I don't think this looks particularly harmful to me.
	It looks like a boring game, but I don't think it's harmful.
	And also, of course, the concern isn't just limited to Britain because this affects all companies that operate in Britain, and so this means Americans as well.
	And this Cato Institute article talks about how...
	Obviously, it could undermine encryption services because they're targeting it.
	Many of the provisions are being applied globally, so they're going to try and extract these fines out of American companies.
	And also, US policymakers are already using this as a blueprint for their country.
	Obviously, the Democrats are looking at our regulations and think, that's going to give us a lot of power.
	That would be a good idea.
	And all of this has come at the same time as...
	This show, Adolescents, and they were invited to Parliament.
	They're the people that are trying to blame knife crime on people being radicalised online by manosphere types and incel forums and Andrew Tate and all of that rubbish.
	It's basically a smokescreen, not to say that that sort of thing doesn't go on necessarily, but it's not the people that are committing knife crime.
	This is the jump that they're making.
	The people committing knife crime are urban youths, as they're described in the media there.
	Not that sort of demographic, let's just say that.
	And I find it interesting that this is being basically banded around and there's a simultaneous push as this becomes law and it's sort of hammering it home to a certain extent.
	They're really pushing to regulate the internet.
	Of course, the case that this is based on is presented very differently because the show shows this young white kid and actually it was a grown-up black man.
	That did this crime that it's based on.
	Worth mentioning, it's also worth mentioning as well, that the writer of this show actually suggested something that I agree with, which is surprising.
	That he's saying that children shouldn't be given smartphones until at least 14, which is the easiest solution to all of this is, if children aren't safe to use the internet, don't give it to them.
	Yeah, I agree.
	There you go.
	Problem solved.
	Be a good parent.
	How about that?
	How about you either monitor what children are looking at, If they have to use the internet.
	I mean, when I was growing up, obviously the internet wasn't that widespread.
	We're talking late 90s, early 2000s.
	My parents would keep an eye on me when I was using the computer, and you quickly realise, okay, well, I've got to be sensible then.
	And that's it.
	That's all you need to do.
	Don't give them unfettered access in the dark of their bedrooms.
	And this was in the early days when...
	It wasn't common knowledge that there are bad things and people out to hurt children on the internet.
	So there's no excuse, really.
	I don't think parents saying, oh, I need the government to do my job are deserving of any sympathy.
	I think it's pathetic.
	You brought the child into the world.
	Why don't you raise them?
	And do it properly rather than surrendering all this power to the government to tyrannise you because you can't look after your own kid.
	I found it really quite frustrating, to be honest.
	But yes, this is the new dystopia that has befallen the United Kingdom.
	It has got much worse here in just a couple of months of the Labour government.
	And yes, it's only going to get worse because they're going to be shutting down lots of websites, it seems like.
	David says, I have a simple solution.
	Ban under-18s from the internet.
	They're children.
	They have no need or necessity to be online.
	Correct? Yes.
	Rage Quit Ninja says, what if the Online Safety Act was meant to cause all of these forums shutdowns?
	People flock to a centralized system.
	There's more easily government monitored and no doubt that's the case.
	But I'm personally looking forward to that extreme right-wing party that campaigns on the pledge of bringing back the hamster forums.
	It's funny, isn't it, how the establishment murder squirrels and shut down hamster forums.
	What have they got against small little mammals, eh?
	Yes, so I'm waiting for the slides to come.
	Samson is AFK.
	I'm so tired of the government at this point.
	I'm so tired of it.
	That's putting it lightly, yeah.
	Okay, so what happened to the Democrats?
	We are talking a lot about Trump.
	Everyone is talking about his new administration.
	But not many people are talking about the Democrats right now.
	And I really want to see how they're faring.
	Because last time I checked, they weren't faring so well.
	How was your time in the mental asylum, Stelios?
	Was it good?
	I wanted to leave as soon as possible.
	Right. You must have checked a lot of padded rooms.
	I did.
	I did that, precisely.
	So I'm going to start with Joe Biden.
	I don't know where he is.
	I sincerely hope he does.
	Before we move on, we have a new interview.
	I interviewed returning guest Dr. Benedict Beckel.
	Then we talked about multiculturalism and specifically the compatibility or incompatibility between Western cultures and Islam.
	We talked about...
	A lot about the problem of Westerners viewing other religions from basically a 15th and 16th century European perspective having to do with the Protestant Reformation, and it doesn't help us.
	Right, so let's move on.
	There was a CNN poll lately.
	Talking about the favourability of the Democratic Party, and it looks like they're in a very low position.
	I love that 1% of people have never even heard of him.
	I wish I was in that.
	I wish I was in that.
	It's like, the what?
	No, I don't know what you're talking about, mate.
	Kissed, I'm a never heard of him.
	That's what I'm going to answer if someone cold calls me.
	Right, so they have 29% favourable opinion.
	This is by CNN.
	And they have unfavourable opinion, 54%.
	And this is very low.
	And if you scroll down a bit, you see here down the ages, there haven't been...
	It's been pretty bad for a while, but it's the lowest point it's been at for a long time.
	Yeah. 2016, in fact.
	The favorable opinion is 29%.
	And if you scroll down, it looks like they haven't had...
	In 2008, 59%, 60%.
	Yeah, it's just...
	Atrocious. So the majority of CNN viewers have an unfavourable opinion of the Democrat party.
	No, no, no.
	It's going to be self-selected.
	About 29% is watching CNN.
	But this is interesting in contrast to Trump's favourability, which is something like 54% at the moment.
	We can see it here.
	Let's see.
	Scroll down a bit.
	It says the Republican Party.
	Right now it says 36% favorable, unfavorable 48%.
	And it's not that Trump never had a period like that.
	It looks like the end of September 2017 wasn't that favorable for his administration, but that changed afterwards.
	But what I want to focus on at this segment is that the Democrats, both politically and spiritually, Are facing their downfall.
	And it looks like there is a lot of questioning as to what's next for them.
	Right, so...
	I'm sure it's common sense.
	Yeah, I mean, who is going to represent their core values?
	Who do you think?
	Before I show you stuff, who do you think is going to lead the 2028 campaign?
	AOC. Yeah, I think so as well.
	I don't know.
	It's very difficult because there's no clear...
	Good person, is there?
	They're all terrible.
	It could be Kamala Harris again.
	I'm not even joking.
	It could.
	I hope it is.
	A mature Kamala.
	Yeah. Right, so let's see here among the possible candidates, the potential ones.
	So, you know that Gavin Newsom has a new podcast now?
	Yeah, where he talks to Republicans, right?
	Yeah, he talks to Republicans, and this has actually angered Democrats.
	Yeah, because they keep owning him.
	Yeah, but somehow he has new skills.
	It's like one of those movies where, you know, you see people, what happened afterwards and towards the end they said, you know, John had this, John got a villa by the sea and stuff.
	He seems to have developed several interesting mannerisms.
	Let's look at this.
	Conditions that determine our fate and future.
	And that fundamental notion of agency, I think, is important more broadly.
	And I think that goes to some of the issues around, you know, victimization.
	I see a lot of that, respectively.
	Even Michael J. Fox sits still more than he does.
	Try me.
	...
	often approaching things from that sort of mindset.
	I don't know.
	There's something there going on.
	The use of his hands there.
	Right, but...
	He was banging the base of his hands there.
	Is he sculpting imaginary clay?
	What's going on here?
	I don't know.
	I don't think we should give in any kind of vulgar interpretation into what went on, what he...
	No, no, it's just very...
	...
	signal with his mannerisms.
	Yeah, who would have...
	Think like that.
	So, Gavin Newsom was a businessman in California before he became a Democrat politician.
	And I looked into him a little while ago for a segment I did.
	And to be honest with you, he does come across very much like sort of American psycho.
	As in, he's just successful and wants to now be politically influential.
	And so I don't think that he is a Democrat in the way that someone like AOC is a Democrat.
	He's not a true believer in any of this stuff.
	For him, oh, I'm in California, therefore I'm going to have to be a Democrat.
	Therefore, here's all the Democrat stuff I need to say.
	But this is not sincerely held conviction.
	Well, the issue with Patrick Bateman was that it wasn't one of his concerns that he used the L word.
	The L word?
	The L word, yeah.
	Let's have a look.
	Uh-oh.
	Oh, I see what you're saying.
	Wait, not one person ever in my office has ever used the word Latinx.
	So can we finally put that to bed?
	No more Latinx, everybody.
	Well, I just didn't even know where it came from.
	I'm like, what are people talking about?
	But there was a person who used Latinx.
	It was actually a really important person.
	It was him.
	Yeah, that's right.
	And look, these aren't minor shifts.
	He wants to forget.
	These are progressive issues that Gavin Newsom used to champion until fairly recently, and now he's not just walking away from them.
	He's sort of acting like they were never legitimate with that clip talking about Latinx in the We did find somebody who used it repeatedly in his office.
	Let's take a listen to this.
	I hope we can really paint a picture in terms of our consciousness of how impactful this has been on the Latinx community.
	Latinx community, the Latinx and black communities.
	You've got politicians that are banning, not assault rifles, but the word Latinx.
	They're not even serious.
	So, this is exactly what I said.
	He's not someone who has convictions.
	He's just someone who wants to be politically influential.
	But what I love about his podcast is that the Republicans going on there basically are dominating the conversation.
	And he's like, yeah, no, you guys are right about everything and the Democrats are wrong about it.
	He's trying to switch sides eventually.
	I think I could see that happening.
	He's probably teeing up a presidential run.
	Maybe, yeah.
	I think he's got that ambition, whether he's going to get there or not.
	But it's really funny when you see someone who wants to go for that job and just getting into this kind of controversy you used or you didn't use this ridiculous term.
	It's just hilarious.
	But, you know, every time he has someone from the Republican side, he angers lots of Democrats.
	So how is he going to solve it?
	By also having the Democrat counterbalance.
	And he wanted to talk about masculinity.
	Oh, really?
	So he got, what, Tim Waltz on?
	So he got Tim Waltz.
	And we have this really good clip and post by Adam Coleman.
	I like how Tim Walz looks like someone who'd urinated in his morning coffee.
	He looks thrilled to be there.
	He was the Democrat candidate for, or the Democrat, let's say, solution to the problem of masculinity.
	And that's what he's addressing here.
	Let us just marvel at what has befallen the Democrats.
	You've got to respect people you disagree with.
	Definitely Democrat behavior.
	How do you fight it?
	I think I could kick most of their ass.
	But I don't know if we're going to fall into that place where we want to, okay, we challenge you to a WWE fight here type of thing.
	But it's a natural reaction.
	I think it's one of the reasons we're losing so many men.
	And again, it's multi-ethnic.
	It's not just white men.
	We're losing them.
	We're losing them to these guys online.
	We're losing people that I'm bringing on.
	So what is interesting is that this comes off as very cringe.
	Yeah, I don't think Tim Walsh could kick anyone's ass.
	But when someone says, I'm going to kick your ass, but also want tampons in boys' bathrooms, I mean, the mix is particularly weird.
	They're really good for, you know, the long ones.
	If you get a really bloody nose, if you get your nose broken when you get punched, you can use it to stop the bleeding.
	Tim Walsh is like, yeah, that's why we need tampons in men's room.
	Exactly, but I don't think he had the nose in mind, to be honest.
	No, I don't.
	Right. Let's move forward.
	He also has some new activities now.
	He tries to be a stand-up performer.
	Yeah, I saw this.
	Wasn't particularly happy, but I want to show that to the audience.
	Because I want you to see it, in case you haven't seen it already.
	And those who have seen it already should remember.
	It's hilarious.
	They make me feel second-hand embarrassment for Tim Maltz.
	They've got that little stock app.
	I added Tesla to it to give me a little boost during the day.
	225 and dropping.
	And if you own one, if you own one, we're not blaming you.
	You can take dental floss and pull the Tesla thing off, you know, and take out just telling you.
	You encourage them to buy them.
	Yeah. There are loads of Democrats who test this because you're like, this is going to save the planet, guys.
	Good idea.
	Oh, Elon's a Nazi and you're complicit.
	Oh, Jesus Christ.
	Turns out racism's more important than saving the planet.
	Yeah, it turns out.
	Now, let's go to another spiritual and political Democrat.
	Chuck Schumer.
	I've seen a lot of Democrats referring to him as the...
	Sort of leader of the Democrats due to his age.
	I think he's 74. Maybe there's something about the number, but he has an issue.
	I'm not going to play it because there are some songs behind it.
	He was on The View.
	Carl, I really don't appreciate what you did on that lads hour.
	I enjoyed the view.
	Yeah, but I didn't.
	That crossed my line.
	I couldn't do this.
	No one should be subjected to The View.
	Another View Lads hour for Stelios.
	That is workplace abuse, Carl, to make people watch The View.
	It was horrible.
	But this is horrible, and I'm not going to play it because I care for you.
	Look at that statement, though.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Schumer mocks greedy Americans who want to keep more of their own money.
	Quote, their attitude is, I made all my money by myself.
	How dare your government take my money from me?
	That's perfectly fine.
	Unbelievably reasonable.
	And he adds towards the end, they hate government.
	They will unite it.
	I mean, they have a reason to.
	You're stealing their money.
	I hate government.
	And it's perfectly reasonable.
	But this is the Thomas Sowell point.
	How is it we've arrived to the point where wanting to keep the money you earned is considered greedy, but trying to take other people's money is not greedy?
	I got a lot of flack for pointing that out recently.
	So selfish.
	Even by right-wingers.
	I want to keep my money.
	I don't want to give it to people for free.
	How dare you want to keep it, Jeff?
	If I want to be charitable, it's up to me.
	And I'm going to be charitable to people I know and I know deserve it.
	And I'd probably be more charitable, to be honest, to people I know than I would be to strangers.
	But why would you want to keep what you've earned?
	Well, where do I begin, Steph?
	Because it's my labour.
	You're literally enslaving me for a third of my life.
	Yeah, but why do you want to keep your labour?
	I'm being Chuck Schumer.
	I'm channeling the Schumerian spirit.
	If you pay like a third of your wages in tax, then for a third of the year you're just working for the government.
	I hate it.
	Yeah, but you're lying yourself with the common good.
	You're doing it for me.
	I'm one third a slave.
	Don't be bad people who want to keep what's yours.
	I want to contribute to the common bad.
	Start reading I'm Rand.
	Right, okay, so...
	Another spiritual democrat, Harry Sisson, maybe straight after all.
	He's also, I found out recently that he's not actually a US citizen and he voted.
	Is he?
	How come?
	Is he Canadian or something?
	I can't remember, but he's, yeah, supposedly he posted that he voted online even though he's from elsewhere.
	Is he Somalian or something?
	I don't think he's Somalian.
	I'm going to guess.
	I can't remember what his background is.
	So it seems that he lured some women into giving him naked pictures.
	Poor innocent women.
	I didn't know what I was doing.
	Yeah, shut up.
	And Harry and Josh did a really good segment about this.
	Definitely check it out.
	It's hilarious.
	I had a lot of fun with that one.
	And now we're going to go to the bottom of the pit as far as the downfall is concerned.
	I really want to say that.
	I feel bad for it.
	Yeah, I never would have thought that I would have felt bad for Alec Baldwin, but here we are.
	Yeah, but the point is, when it comes to your opponents, they have a sort of quality...
	In virtue of which they define you.
	They say choose your opponents carefully because they determine your worth.
	Why aren't our opponents heroic?
	Let's just lift them up a bit because there's no contest.
	He did kill a person, to be fair.
	He is known to shoot people.
	But unintentionally.
	Even scarier, really.
	You never know when it's going to hit you, do you?
	I know.
	He has an aerial effect.
	Like a passive skill.
	Let's watch this because this is really tough.
	Alec, I want you to shape up and man up.
	Let's see what's going on here.
	The Ilaria Show.
	No, no.
	I think we're going to see, you know.
	We're going to see how it feels to have it be out there.
	It's going to be Greg.
	You're a winner.
	Oh my god, when I'm talking, you're not talking.
	No, when I'm talking, you're not talking.
	This is why, yes, we'll have to just cut him out of the show.
	I mean, I think this is a really raw show and it's very real and we took a lot of chances.
	And, you know, I think that it's...
	He's going to disappear like that woman behind Scarlett Johansson.
	In the famous video.
	You can see why Sean Connery held the opinions on me.
	Jesus Christ!
	I actually felt bad for him.
	And don't look at the description.
	Please watch this.
	Alec, I'm not joking.
	Man up, shape up.
	This is not good for anyone.
	is not good for anyone.
	In his whole, as our British friends, he had his bits out.
	We went to go see Take Me Out, the musical that our dear friend Scott Ellis directed, and all these baseball players were in the locker room, and they were all turned around naked with their dongs hanging out.
	And he's there, her boyfriend, and I recognize him.
	I met him before.
	And when he turns around with his personality hanging, I'm like, oh!
	Oh! What kind of a statement is this?
	I think that this is too savage right now.
	I just think that he's utterly humiliated.
	Yeah, but look at his expression.
	Let's just look at him.
	Is he dying from the inside trying to convince everyone that it's okay?
	And there are also some other videos where he is apologizing for man-interrupting his wife.
	I mean, he just...
	This is not a woman who loves you, Alec.
	Men in Hollywood need a better quality of wife, apparently.
	Will Smith.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Great point.
	Will Smith.
	That is another thing.
	I just want to sit down and go, guys, you just have to break up with them.
	We have to break up with them.
	Will Smith is also the one who is sharing his wife.
	Everything's common among friends.
	Well, to be fair, to get to that point, you've also got to have messed up as a man as well, because you've not laid down the law.
	That sounds a lot more intimidating than it is.
	It just means you say, that's not okay, don't do that, don't undermine me, don't be rude.
	This crosses a line, I wouldn't wish that to my worst enemy.
	Maybe? Okay.
	Right, let's go now on the next day for Democrats.
	Right, it looks like Carla and I have it correct, and most people think, most Democrats think that...
	Barack Obama?
	AOC, 10% of people who were asked think that AOC represents the core democratic values better than anyone else.
	Oh, right, this isn't who they want to run for the next day.
	No, no, no, but, I mean...
	If they're Democrats, maybe they also...
	Chuck Schumer on 2%.
	Tim Walz on 1%.
	Gavin Newsom...
	Joe Biden...
	1%. He was president.
	Last Democratic president, 1%.
	Tim Walz, 1%.
	Hillary Clinton, 1%.
	John Fetterman, asterisk.
	Yeah, no one has heard of it.
	So this is interesting, right?
	Because Kamala Harris, when she was campaigning, campaigned as a radical leftist.
	All of her positions were to the left of Bernie Sanders.
	I mean, she was genuinely as far left as you could reasonably go.
	And so the fact that the top three selections are AOC, Kamala Harris, and Bernie Sanders dominating Barack Obama, who was their golden boy for a decade or more, like, that's crazy.
	So their solution is going to be, according to this at least, if you were to guess, go further to the left.
	I don't see that winning, personally.
	They already think that they're left wing.
	Radical left.
	To be honest, I think that they are going to go with AOC.
	I don't know if she's going to win or not, but they're going to go with AOC.
	And there is also the further question that a lot of people have where they're asking, Is wokeness something of the past or will they be woke?
	And she looks like a lot of people say that the Democrats are going to go Bernie-wise, towards Bernie.
	I think she's going to go for both.
	There's no reason not to combine both from a Democrat perspective.
	I think that this is going to be the sensible opinion from their own perspective.
	They're going to say...
	Because in their mind, Kamala Harris didn't win, didn't lose massively.
	It wasn't a...
	It was only the popular vote.
	It was only the states.
	Yeah, even with the...
	Yeah, so AOC is combining a lot of qualities that they want.
	She's fiery, but I don't know if she's mostly peaceful.
	Yeah. I need her.
	She's also...
	She is a far better orator than Kamala Harris.
	I don't think she needs...
	It's not very difficult, though, is it?
	Yes! She doesn't need a bottle of wine before going up on stage.
	But also she is criticizing other Democrats on the grounds that they are very much trying to appeal to Trump and try to negotiate with him, like she was criticizing Chuck Schumer for helping Trump in some cases, especially with federal expenses.
	So I think she is going to be the ticket for it, the anti-system ticket for it.
	And she is campaigning with...
	She is talking about confused messaging.
	And she is campaigning with Bernie Sanders.
	And there are several articles that say that they draw crowds of thousands.
	They have been...
	The numbers are a bit contested sometimes.
	But definitely looks like they have momentum.
	Contrary to the other Democrats who seem to have fallen out of favour.
	Right, so what they're doing is essentially fighting for the soul of the Democrat Party.
	Exactly. We're going to be the party of essentially Jeremy Corbyn, like with the Labour Party.
	And the thing is, we know how that plays out.
	In Britain, Jeremy Corbyn got crushed by Theresa May.
	Yes. It's exciting politics.
	It's not like they can say, well, we need to go back to our roots.
	So anyway, slavery.
	Back on the cards, guys.
	And at the end of the day, that's the issue.
	This is a kind of, to a degree, this is a kind of divine punishment and just punishment because they open the gates to wokeness and this silly thing, this silly policy and silly way of viewing the world.
	They face, for instance, the fate of Gavin Newsom constantly being pestered as to whether he used the term Latinx or not.
	So, this is the downfall of the Democrats.
	Being held against their own standards, I suppose.
	They are the political party of wokeism.
	Exactly. They'll remain.
	Yeah, exactly.
	It's just going to get worse because they don't have another moral framework to lean on.
	Because Gavin Newsom is basically a Republican and they know it.
	It's true!
	Like, Gavin Newsom would be just as happy under, like, you know, Arnold Schwarzenegger won Governor of California as a Republican.
	He would be just as happy in that paradigm, because it's basically the same.
	And they're like, no, we're really far to the left, and you're not.
	It's like, oh, God.
	You know, and this is why he gets on with Charlie Kirk.
	Like, he's not a radical leftist.
	These people are.
	I mean, he has done some radical leftist stuff when it comes to legislation.
	No, no, because he's in California.
	It's not because he himself is a true believer in radical leftism.
	And the second, like, it looks like there's an off-ramp, it's like, oh yeah, where did this Latinx thing come from?
	I've never wanted that.
	Ha ha, you're so right, Charlie Kirk.
	It's like, he doesn't want this.
	He just lives in California.
	Right. Okay.
	Daveyverse says, oh no, sorry.
	Carl for Prime Minister, Ace Rimmer for Deputy.
	Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast.
	Oh god, if any we had an Ace Rimmer, that'd be great.
	Someone competent in British politics would be amazing.
	We read the other ones?
	Yeah, yeah.
	Yes, we have, yeah.
	Okay, video comments, I suppose.
	You'd like to say what that very important paragraph is?
	Yes, so this is a letter from Muzbashdi the King.
	This is an invitation.
	Across the Atlantic, that's a colony that was once ours.
	It will be again.
	The Republic will be reorganized into the first galactic empire!
	We will remake the world.
	Create the future.
	laughs
	To be fair, the American Empire does need, you know, an imperial monarch.
	I mean, what is this thing about, like, Trump being like, yeah, we could join the Commonwealth?
	I've only recently been paying attention to that, because I didn't take it very seriously.
	But then, you know, I guess you're welcome.
	I'd like to have you.
	Better than India.
	Are you sure you want to?
	Sorry, Colin.
	Is this Carlos Santana at Woodstock?
	It looks like it.
	I used to be a somewhat proficient salsa dancer.
	I stopped because I developed a deep-seated hatred of Latin music, finding it repetitive, unimaginative, and noisome.
	However, I do reserve special status for Santana's guitar work, and particularly his song Evil Ways, in which he exhorts his wife or girlfriend to stop running around town creating gossip and come home.
	Chorus always made me laugh.
	When I come home, baby, my house is dark and my buds are cold.
	You can always rely on Google to present woke lyrics instead of the originals.
	Do you know that while he was playing there, he'd taken a very large amount of acid, and apparently the neck of his guitar turned into a snake, and yet he still plays better.
	Well done for continuing playing this.
	He can still play better there than I can ever play in my life.
	It's very annoying.
	It's not fair.
	Your friendly neighbourhood hope-not-hate operative says that he's got an archive of my old stuff and he wants to send it to me.
	I guess just send it to contact at lotuses.com and they can pass it along.
	Chase says, Hey parents, we're the Labour government and we're here to ensure your kids are safe when they consume hardcore transsexual midget amputee pornography.
	Can you fill your tax dollars at work?
	Well, it's tax pounds in Britain, but yes, that's true.
	They do want that.
	That's a fair point, actually, because on the pornography aspect, isn't the current establishment view that pornography is good, and as long as they're above the age, it's fine.
	But there have been attempts to normalise it to younger people.
	Are they actually going to go after that?
	I don't think so.
	ArizonaDesertRat says, how about your parents be parents and monitor their own children's online activity?
	Here. The Josh position.
	LancerInJoyers says, what is the argument against dealing with every single third-worlder in the same way that they would like to deal with us?
	Just tying our hands for no reason, liberal morality is dead, fix problems with fire and sword.
	To be honest with you, where it's going to have to end up being, because...
	Liberal morality is entirely discursive, right?
	It exists in the realm of we are going to have a reasonable discussion about the subject and come to an amicable conclusion.
	Well, that's predicated on the idea that your opponent or your interlocutor A wants to do that and B is even capable of doing that.
	And if you've got a bunch of uneducated barbarians who don't even understand what you're talking about and who will just call you a waste man or a road man and then stab you with a knife, When they go off and put it up on a TikTok or whatever, well then that goes away.
	All of our laws were made for reasonable times and reasonable people, and now we live in the opposite.
	But even then, like, the laws we're struggling with now, like, again, go back 50 years, the laws are a lot more hard, like, hardline, you know, they're a lot more like, no, you do this, you get punished physically, you know, stuff sucks for you for a long time.
	It's like, good.
	I'm all for bringing back workhouses, so I'm not exactly averse.
	I think that we had things right in the 19th century.
	That was when everything worked.
	I agree.
	The 19th century was the high watermark of British culture, in my opinion.
	100%. In fact, master of past, they would say, Carl, we need to bring back the birch.
	Yeah, no, I really mean it.
	Like, these people will only understand through corporal punishment.
	That's the only way they're going to understand.
	Where the boundaries are.
	Because they don't respect the idea of reason.
	What if it was the other way around?
	I don't know what I had breakfast this morning.
	They don't think.
	They're not smart people.
	And we assume that everyone's smart enough to be able to project themselves into the future.
	But a lot of people aren't.
	You know, they can form gangs.
	Baron von Warhawk says, if you were to ask one of these barbarians, how would you react if it was your sons or daughters being attacked by a group of foreigners?
	They'd respond with, oh, if someone did that to my children, I would kill them myself.
	I don't even know if they'd go that far, because I'm just thinking of a counterfactual.
	But why don't the English answer that way?
	Well, that's a silly question.
	Chase says, these low IQ fools mistake mercy for weakness.
	This is why remigration is inevitable.
	It's a matter of time.
	The thing is...
	In a way, it kind of is weakness, right?
	I would say it's weakness, yeah.
	If you fail to stand up for yourself, look at it at a sort of interpersonal level, because those always do extrapolate to society as well.
	If someone's getting punched and they're not standing up for themselves, it's because they're weak.
	It's as simple as that.
	And if we as a society do the same thing, it's weakness for exactly the same reason.
	And in this case, because the law has the power, the physical power to actually enforce security, it's a psychological weakness.
	It's weakness in decision-making, not physical weakness.
	Yeah, there's no lack of capacity.
	We have the power to stop this.
	It's just that we think that these people, oh, they can't help it.
	Society has done this to them.
	It's like, yeah, but society did this to them by being so permissive in the first place.
	We gave them unlimited freedom, and look what they've turned it into.
	There are several loopholes here in the leftist logic, but what is...
	Particularly egregious is that they're saying, well, they're victims and we don't want them to be victims.
	And so we're not going to be harsh with them.
	The problem is when they are not harsh with them, they allow that gap of law enforcement to become larger.
	And that means that more and more children, even a lot of them from the same background, are going to become members of these gangs.
	Because there are a couple of factors at play.
	The first one is people are disincentivized with punishments.
	If you do something, fewer and fewer people will do that thing because they'll be like, well, okay, I don't really want to be punished.
	I'm afraid of that, and therefore I won't do it.
	But on the other side, they're also attracted to strength.
	If someone seems to exhibit strength and confidence and power, that draws more people to it.
	And so if you've got a gang of, you know, if it was ten people doing it, well, a couple of others will join in because they're like, well, they're not being stopped, and they're doing something powerful.
	And so you can see why 400 people are now rampaging down the street.
	I think the crux of the problem is that British people were policed on a moral basis, whereas these people can't be policed on a moral basis because they don't have an internal sense of morality like the indigenous population did have.
	Yeah, and the whole point of policing by consent as well, we were raised with the understanding that you would cooperate with the police and you'd be treated fairly and justly, and anything the police did wrong to you, you would take them to court.
	You would be served by the law.
	These people don't know what law is.
	They don't care about law.
	The point is they have zero reconciliatory virtues.
	They don't want to cooperate.
	And this is a trajectory in all cultures that you find.
	You have cycles that go from combative virtues to more reconciliatory virtues and a combination of both.
	Civilization requires.
	But the point is that you cannot reason and coexist with people who are literally saying, I'm not going to reconcile with you on anything.
	I've literally brought a machete to your kids' school.
	Civilization requires the mitigation of social conflicts.
	And the mitigation of social conflicts requires some form of reconciliatory approaches.
	When these approaches are seen as weakness, you can't coexist with...
	With people who think this way.
	And the thing is, well, it's not like the British establishment has ever been afraid of using force either.
	I've seen footage of protests in the 1970s, right?
	And, my God, bring back the constabulary.
	Like, you've got loads of, you know, English youth, you know, rampaging around, causing loads of trouble, and just dozens of bobbies with truncheons just clubbing them into submission.
	It's like, yeah, okay, we need that for them.
	We need that for them.
	They've just got to be clubbed in submission.
	They have to feel the force.
	Colin says, Carl will probably recognise the Heinlein quote, pain is nature's way of telling you something is wrong.
	I'm actually not familiar with that, but that sounds a lot like something Heinlein would say.
	And it's true.
	Yeah, it's true.
	Which is why these people need to feel pain.
	And I'm just completely not sugarcoating this anymore.
	They need to suffer.
	We need to make sure that they, oh no, that hurts.
	It's the only way to get these people back in line.
	You can't reason with them.
	They've just got to be in pain.
	I think people also forget that human nature isn't that complicated, right?
	The best way you deal with something like this is inflict pain.
	It works even if you're looking at human beings in the sort of family of primates.
	That same level of disciplining still happens in non-human primate societies, whereby if someone misbehaves, they get beaten up.
	It's exactly the same thing.
	It's hard-coded into us.
	It'll never go away.
	It's what primates are.
	It's like any animal, in fact.
	Any animal.
	If it feels pain, it'll stop doing that thing.
	There we go.
	That's how you deal with it.
	What they need to read is Monkey World.
	Eagle Eye says, Jesus Christ, two hours of terror without an effective police response.
	You people really, really need a Second Amendment or just to arm yourselves anyway.
	The thing is, the state will come down on you if you arm yourself.
	They'll be like, oh, you?
	You're the problem.
	One citizen that was carrying a concealed weapon, as I do, could have brought this to a stop.
	Yeah, I agree.
	I'd have liked to have seen it.
	How much is enough when they start going off children as they now are?
	That's a great question.
	Great question.
	Just go on to the next section.
	It could have easily been a second Southport there.
	Oh yeah, yeah, yeah.
	It could have been easily so much worse than it actually was.
	Sorry, my thing hasn't refreshed.
	Do you happen to have more comments?
	Sure. Baron von Warhawk.
	No politician is going to save you.
	They'll actively help the barbarian rampaging in your borders.
	This isn't about protecting the concept of England anymore.
	It's about protecting your children.
	If you want your sons and daughters to be safe, then you must act.
	It's now victory or extinction for the English.
	Yeah. It's not wrong.
	Each demon's got a good point of out.
	He says, Yes.
	Muslims. Yeah.
	Lord Nerovar says, I'd like to remind everyone that even Elon's Twitter slash X is not safe from censorship.
	Having had an anti-white slur thrown at me by a diverse individual in the UK, responding with my own slur and response, got me my post censored.
	Yes.
	To be honest with you, I kind of don't mind Elon cleaning up the slurs, actually.
	It's just kind of gross to have slurs everywhere.
	It's low IQ.
	It foxifies the platform.
	I find social media just as insufferable as ever under Elon as it was before, because it is populated by people, and I'm very disappointed in them all.
	The disappointments that a lot of you...
	The issue...
	I don't mind...
	I actually think that social media, the good action is, now you've got to take down that post rather than we take down your account, right?
	So that's fine.
	You can communicate yourself without using vulgarity, and I think that trying not to use vulgarity is actually a better way.
	I think the ideal situation is that it's socially enforced with stigma rather than it actually has to be formally acknowledged because that's sort of like the formalisation of rules of thumb.
	Is how we have dealt with third worlders in Britain, and I think that our traditional way of doing it is you're not going to be arrested for obscenity or anything, or punished, but we're going to tell you off and say that's a bit uncouth, which is my sort of favoured way of doing it.
	You can, but on social media it's a bit different, isn't it?
	Because a lot of the time you don't get that.
	Lots of people are certainly vulgar, aren't they?
	Yeah, and I'm not against Elon saying, look, I want this to be a more classy place to have discussions.
	I don't want vulgarity on my platform, so just don't do it.
	We're just going to make you delete the posts that you post that are vulgar.
	I realise there are going to be people who are like, oh my god, that's such a...
	Yeah, it is.
	But it's also in the same way that if Facebook are like, we don't want pornography.
	I'm like, okay, yeah, fair enough.
	I understand.
	It's not about your right to free expression.
	You can go elsewhere and express pornography or be vulgar.
	You just don't want it on your platform.
	I understand.
	I think that's an acceptable sacrifice to make.
	says, doubling and tripling down with the side who has a 50% suicide rate is a bold move or a result in the suicide of the party if they do not course correct.
	Well, the thing is, it's only 1% of their constituents, so it's not going to make an impact.
	The issue is that the Democrats are basically gross and crazy.
	And why would you want those people around you?
	Or making policy?
	Yeah, it's one of those things where they...
	You just need to look at their lives, really.
	That's one of the things that...
	I think needs to be done more is, is this person living a healthy life?
	Have their beliefs actually materialized in reality?
	And that's a very, very easy test for someone who doesn't even follow politics to see, is this for me?
	And it's sort of often overlooked now.
	In fact, it's a curious thing, like a lot of the time, a lot of the...
	Sort of presidential elections of the past.
	They would sort of have their family up on stage saying like, see, I'm a family man.
	Here's my family.
	I'm just like you.
	I have a family.
	And that sort of disappeared now, almost.
	I wonder why that is.
	I suppose it's not resonating with people as much as it wants to.
	Joe Biden's family don't want to stand too close to him.
	That's true.
	He might sniff them.
	Worse. I read Ashley's diary.
	Too busy guarding their bags of cash, aren't they?
	Yeah, yeah.
	But no, I think that's a great point.
	And like the...
	A person, the true test of a person's philosophical and moral system is, in what kind of person are they?
	It's like, Joe Biden's son is a notorious crackhead and degenerate.
	It's like, okay, but are Trump's sons like that?
	No, they're not, actually.
	Trump's sons seem to be alright.
	Fairly upstanding.
	Pretty switched on.
	And there's nothing...
	If there were Joe Biden-style scandals with Trump's sons...
	You better believe we'd hear about them all day every day, and the fact there aren't kind of implies that Trump's done a half-decent job, and his kids seem to really love him as well.
	I can't think of a single one, actually, when you mention it.
	Yeah, exactly, right?
	And it's kind of weird, because he's got lots of children, so you'd think one of them would have been the Hunter Biden.
	One bad egg.
	Yeah, yeah, just because that's a lot of the time how these things work, but no, Trump seems to have done a good job with his kids, so well done.
	Kevin says, Harry Sisson is an American citizen, even though he was born in Singapore and lived in Ireland and the UAE, but he is an American citizen because his parents are both American, and he gets sick for a lot.
	Oh, okay.
	I cleared that up.
	Sophie says she needs to respect Alec Baldwin.
	He was the star of Boss Baby, damn it.
	But just, honestly, that...
	You've got to draw lines, and you've got to say, look, you do not cross that, and if you do, I'm just going to leave.
	That's all you have to do.
	We're splitting up.
	You're a crazy person and you don't respect me and I'm not having that.
	It's also worth mentioning as well that you shouldn't even have to get to the point where you lay down the law.
	In a healthy relationship, it should just be understood that you don't deliberately provoke a reaction in the first place by publicly being like, no, I'm talking, shut up.
	I think that's so humiliating.
	I can't even imagine my wife doing anything of the sort.
	You also shouldn't be in a position in the first place where you see your wife's ex naked.
	Yeah. It might make you feel better or worse, depending on...
	Well, if Raleigh Baldwin has made him feel worse, clearly.
	He can't compete, apparently.
	Yeah. But how does that situation even come about?
	That should never be something that happens.
	Russian says Carl's face.
	He starts yoga after this.
	Carl's face during the Alec Baldwin clip.
	I need to screen cap that.
	Thanks, Russian.
	I knew it.
	I knew what I was doing.
	Geordie Swordsman says the View Lads hours will continue until the Stelios morale improves.
	Yeah, well, I mean, you know, I could always do another one, Stelios.
	Just saying.
	Don't do that to us.
	No. Furious Dan says, what Tim once forgot to point out is that Tesla stocks, about Tesla stock, is that his state's pension fund is heavily invested in it.
	So in celebrating his fall, he's celebrating the fall of his constituents' retirements.
	That is a beautiful irony, isn't it?
	Yeah, it's not about that.
	It's about hating Elon.
	That's just what it's about.
	There's a wonderful analogy there, actually, that a politician will gloat about basically the hardship of their citizenry if it means they can score some cheap political points.
	And this seems to happen across the board.
	Furious Dan says, Gavin Newsom is the American Justin Trudeau.
	I can see that.
	Does Justin Trudeau believe in wokery?
	I think he probably does.
	I think he's more of a true believer, but I'm sort of of the mind that most people are a lot more cynical than we give them credit for.
	I think there's a lot of fakery to create.
	I agree.
	And I imagine that Justin Trudeau probably doesn't do a lot of woke stuff in his personal life.
	Don't think Dim Blackface is particularly woke, is it?
	I don't know.
	I'm not woke.
	But I imagine he's more of a believer than Newsom is.
	Well, he came out with that.
	We don't say that anymore.
	We say people kind.
	And no one was saying that.
	So he must have come up with that himself, truly believing it.
	Thomas says, make hamster discourse great again.
	Godspeed in America, Carl.
	Well, thank you.
	Lots of people, in fact, saying, come to the USA, we'll keep you safe.
	And I appreciate the offer, but I don't really want to flee.
	I think, yeah, it's sort of like a captain bailing out of the ship before it sinks.
	It's sort of unbecoming, isn't it?
	Yeah, it is.
	As much as I hate Britain and it's done nothing for me.
	I'm not leaving out of spite, mainly, but also because I want it to be better, and it's my home, and it's where everyone I know and love live.
	Yeah, I don't want to just flee.
	It's something I'm becoming to an Englishman to flee.
	I'd rather just have to sit out and wait out, you know, and hopefully make things better.
	And I guess the last one would be BattleBats, who says, We'd just like to announce the birth of our firstborn son who arrived at the weekend.
	His father and I are over the moon, and the chunky chap is napping through his first Low Seaters podcast.
	Well, congratulations.
	Glad to hear that it's put at least one person to sleep.
	And on that note, it's time to end the show.
	Thank you very much for watching, and of course, tune in same time tomorrow.

▲