Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 31, 2025 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:29:38

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1132

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters for the 31st of March 2025.
	I am joined by Stelios.
	Hello everyone.
	And joined once again by our guest Stephen Wolfe.
	Hey, hi everyone.
	You've made your return.
	I have, fantastic.
	You're also presenting your own segment today.
	I have, that's very kind of you, thank you.
	You're more than welcome.
	And today we are talking about, well Stelios is going to be talking about Britain's 2 to Justice smokescreen.
	Yep. And then Stephen's going to be talking about how, I'm putting words in your mouth here a little bit, but how democracy has basically ended in France to a certain extent.
	Yeah, I think to an extent that people are going to look at today's sentencing of Marie Le Pen and say exactly that.
	I'm very worried about it actually.
	And I'm going to be talking about how South Africa is pushing back not only the ANC government, but also the Afrikaner minority as well.
	And there's a very interesting dynamic going on there.
	But I believe Stelios has an announcement here.
	Yes, it's about Tim, a friend and also friend of the show.
	I want to do this shout out.
	His wife Amy is battling cancer.
	And I want to wish you good luck and a speedy recovery.
	And I want to wish you all the best.
	Very much so, and all the best.
	Right, so let's wait for a second.
	Samson's doing his magic.
	The joy of editing things into segments.
	This will never be seen on YouTube.
	Right, so basically I think we are looking upon an admission that two-tier justice exists from the government.
	It's very safe to say because they've They've been all a bit explicit about it, haven't they?
	They have been explicit about it, but also they always said that people who use these words are far-right extremists.
	The government's now a far-right extremist?
	Shabima Mahmood is far-right, but now she's an extremist.
	Far right, rather than just being an extremist in some people's minds.
	So basically the Sentencing Council for England and Wales has issued some guidelines with respect to sentencing that take ethnicity into account to an extent that was presumably much greater than the extent it was taken before.
	It's also worth mentioning that it was already quite bad.
	You could just eyeball sentences, reading the news, being, you know, a casual reader of a newspaper and you could see the differences in sentencing pretty explicitly.
	You know, the reason everyone noticed this two-tier thing was largely through what they'd seen through headlines and now the fact that the Sentencing Council is just explicitly admitting it is very significant.
	Yes, and I may infuriate you because I don't think that they have particular credibility, but the Labour government says that these guidelines are unacceptable because they support a two-tier system.
	Wait, what?
	This is a Labour government saying it doesn't support a two-tier system when almost across every aspect of policy and government it is creating a two-tier system.
	Not on their watch.
	Not on their watch.
	This is definitely some red meat to poach from the right, isn't it?
	Yes, and also Keir Starmer has started talking about illegal migration and him being particularly unhappy with it.
	He's not talking about a regular.
	Migration is talking about illegal.
	I think he's had a meeting with Tony Blair because he's been saying I hear your concerns and I'm taking them seriously which is like a signature Tony line.
	Right, so for me this shows that there is a significant trend within the world of jurisprudence of judging according to these principles and right now they felt that this is the opportune moment to come and provide additional institutional backing and support for these principles when they're saying that with these guidelines we want you judges to adjudicate according to these principles and essentially this is going to say it's going to mention the oppression
	calculus and they're going to give some reports to the judges especially when it comes to people of ethnic background and they're going to try to say that there are because there are several oppressed minorities and ethnicities all This implicit bias should be taken into account when you're yielding a verdict about the sentence, and perhaps you should be a bit more lenient with so-called oppressed backgrounds.
	It's also worth mentioning as well that the research on implicit bias in psychology seems to suggest that you can't get rid of it, but if you do take measures to try to, it makes your racial bias worse, yes.
	In that, for example, they exposed people to stereotypes and terminology to avoid, and what it did was it made people more easily recall these terms that they're not supposed to use, which probably means they're more likely to use them.
	And the more biased people are, the more necessary the anti-bias section is.
	Seems to be at least two people who think that bias is wrong, right?
	So we have an article from The Guardian here that says ministers criticized two-tier Sentencing changes in England and Wales and they're saying is the guidance aimed at tackling bias and reducing reoffending How exactly?
	Puts more emphasis on the need for pre-sentence reports, which give details of the offender's backgrounds, motives and personal life before sentencing.
	So my question is, what does this do that the ordinary defense doesn't do?
	Well, the ordinary defense comes out and gives you, as a barrister myself, someone who's had to go through the criminal process both as a prosecutor ... and as a defender, is the ability for the defence to raise the issues that support why you shouldn't be sentenced so determinately.
	If you talk about what happened in your family background, you talk about break-ups, you talk about the lack of education you have, you might talk about why you were threatened.
	All of those are elements that you would normally and naturally use.
	The whole process of the pre-sentence report, when it was created, was to try and ensure that those defendants who were incapable of doing it properly, or to give an opportunity for the court to understand more about an individual, that was created.
	And to an extent, someone often argued, why?
	Why was this?
	Now I can understand it.
	In many cases a pre-sentence report was actually helpful to be able to understand what was going on and I think for many, many lawyers that would say a PSO is a useful vehicle.
	The first question is, kind of philosophically, why was it introduced?
	When you could do this anyway and why did the courts not listen to what the defendants?
	And I think really it was because the courts were being encouraged not to imprison people or give certain sentences to certain groups of people and they couldn't just rely on the defense.
	They wanted to have a third party.
	It was like the idea of bringing in quangos.
	If we can rely on a third party, it's not your fault you didn't do it properly.
	And it's not ours.
	We're just listening to the pre-sentence report, and that's why this is taking on such an important part of the debate.
	It's because judges and magistrates are almost washing their hands, to a certain extent, by saying, I'm relying on what's said in the pre-sentence report.
	I think the way a lot of ordinary people think about justice is that it doesn't necessarily matter about these sort of extenuating circumstances.
	A certain action should have a certain sentence regardless of your reasoning for it.
	I think that that's how I certainly think about that sort of thing and it seems like a way of basically making excuses for yourself.
	Maybe I'm being a bit unsympathetic here but It does seem like a way of saying, oh, well, you know, I came here on a small boat.
	It was terrible.
	It was awful.
	I've had such a hard time now.
	You know, I'm really sorry about stabbing that innocent person.
	Yes. So my question, I think, I'll phrase it again.
	What does this mean?
	Put forward all the ideological bits.
	All the world progressivism within legislation is going to get an extra institutional backing.
	And let me continue what they say, under the change which would come into force on April the 1st, tomorrow, that is.
	that's it.
	Magistrates and judges would be asked to consult a pre-sentence report before determining whether to imprison someone of an ethnic or religious minority, as well as young adults, abuse survivors and pregnant women.
	At present state, at present state Black and minority ethnic communities are overrepresented at almost all stages of the criminal justice process in England and Wales and are more likely to be imprisoned and receive longer sentences than white people.
	Well, the question why isn't being asked here, but also what is going to happen is that these guidelines are saying We are going to have the woke oppression calculus.
	We're going to separate the population into groups.
	We're going to rank them according to who is more or less oppressed.
	And those who are considered to be among the privileged groups are going to get tougher sentences.
	That's precisely what this is.
	It's an explicit rejection of the rule of law, isn't it?
	Yeah. Right.
	So Kiyostama took issue with it and he took issue with several other things.
	He talked today about Illegal migration as being a risk for security and him being very angry about it.
	He's also very angry about the two-tier system Right, so let's look at what Keir Starmer has to say here Well, I'm disappointed in this response and the Lord Chancellor is obviously continuing to engage on this and we're considering our response and you know all options are on the table but I am disappointed at this outcome and now we'll have to consider what we do as a result.
	So he's gravely disappointed?
	But he's come out just before we came on air where he actually said now we're going to push an initial legislation to attach to current amendments.
	Sorry, he's putting an amendment to current legislation in order to try and tackle this issue.
	How he does that.
	So he's saying he cares, but I think this is a lot of pressure.
	As you saw when we were discussing the letter about it, the letter makes it very clear that it's all about what the pressure has come from Robert Jenrick.
	No one else.
	Just Jenrick seems to have caused this.
	And I think he's running a bit scared.
	Speaking of Robert Jenrick, we have a post of him here saying, under two-tier care, that's exactly what's happening.
	It's completely outrageous.
	This would enshrine an anti-white and anti-Christian bias in our criminal justice system.
	Sounds about right to me, to be honest.
	Yes. And he is reacting against Shabana Mahmood, who said, There will never be a two-tier sentencing approach under this Labour government.
	It's too late for that now, isn't it?
	Yeah, I don't know.
	Do you believe them?
	Just tell us in the comments, tell us in the live chat.
	Do you believe them?
	Right, so she is proposing here a way to tackle this.
	The government will introduce legislation to Parliament this week to override independent It's going to be a fascinating element because as I say for many lawyers a PSO or pre-sentence report is useful but in so many ways the idea
	that it's now here's a judge or a magistrate We are considering incarcerating somebody, but because they come from one of these three groups, or four if you've added a couple more on there as well, we can't sentence them to prison today because we've got to get a PSO.
	And why, I can't understand why the judiciary or those who are looking at this see this as odd, because what do I go back to my, and we're trying to make jokes about it, but the reality is my grandparents worked in factories.
	Pretty abused in factories in the 1890s and 1900s.
	And their ancestors were all abused.
	They were pretty much slaves, working for virtually nothing.
	The miners' families were the same.
	All over Britain we could turn around and say, we've had abuse from elitist masters who've taken our labour and used it to build their empires and big houses.
	Why are they excluded?
	Haven't they got some sort of cultural or historical pain that we remember?
	We remember what it's like to be in poverty.
	You know in the 70s and the 80s, well maybe not for you guys to be honest, you know you're far too young and healthy compared to myself, but we do know what it was like when the lights were out in the 80s.
	And so why is that excluded as a characteristic that should be considered when I'm doing the crime?
	And I think that's the real point that's going to impact people in this country about fairness.
	We're a nation of fairness and we want to see it being fair to everyone all the time.
	Speaking of fairness, it's one thing to talk about fairness in the abstract, the abstract concept, because everyone will go out and say we are fair.
	No, I'm not having a go at you.
	No, it's true.
	You're absolutely right.
	I want to improve, to add to what you're saying.
	The question is how fairness is being understood.
	So the Aristotelian, for instance, understanding of fairness is completely different to the woke understanding of fairness.
	The woke understanding of fairness wants to institute Differential treatment.
	Why? Because they say, well, until we are in the position to treat people equally, we are in a state of emergency and we need to mitigate historical inequalities and we need to help those who have been historically oppressed.
	Sorry, go ahead.
	No, just to finish, but the way that they are understanding who is oppressed or not, as you mentioned, is entirely arbitrary, which I think a rather oft overlooked point here is that there's a massive amount of hubris here in the notion that they've got a complete understanding
	of basically human suffering.
	They're basically trying to mitigate for the fact that some people have not had the best shot at life.
	And to make these formal judgments saying, okay, these ethnicities, they've had a particularly bad time, but other people, perhaps not.
	White people, you know what, they've had an easy ride of it.
	And as you've alluded to, that's not true.
	And the arrogance at play here to say that, oh, you know what, these people who have come over and claimed welfare and not worked, they're more persecuted than someone who's worked their entire life for, effectively, the state.
	I see such a mismatch here, but that's not going to be acknowledged, is it?
	Because they think that they understand the nature of human suffering, which they don't.
	And I think that's an incredibly important point to ignore.
	What's happened culturally to people in this country is they've tried to make their lives better.
	You've suddenly reminded me of a kind of story that I had as a junior barrister.
	My first year I'd prosecuted and defended and not lost a single criminal case in the first year.
	So as a consequence of that I was taken to a bar around the corner from the criminal justice main courts and I was, Benjamin's still in police I think it was called, I'm not sure it's still there anymore, and I was introduced to one of the greatest barristers of his time,
	George Carman, by my by my pupil master as we called him and he goes to George and he's very posh voice, George I'd like to introduce you to another Mancunian like yourself who's done incredibly well, he's Right at the bar in crime and George Carman turns around to look at me and he's surrounded by a whole group of people all fawning all over this great barrister and he says what's your name again equally in a posh and I said and I still had my Mancax and I said it's Stephen Wolfe from Manchester although I'm probably
	sounding scouse now I'm gonna get killed by my family for doing that and he turns around to me and his only words to me were if you want to go far at the bar lose that accent boy lose that accent And that kind of privilege and the voice is doing you down because of where you came from.
	That's the sort of level of suffering that we've had from those who've had to work in the pits to those who've tried to climb out.
	Does that count?
	Is that going to be ignored?
	And I think that you're right, it will be ignored because it's not relevant to their agenda.
	Exactly. I think it has to do a lot with the left turning its back to the traditional working class.
	I think Lenin himself said that unless there's a vanguard party that is going to tell the workers what their true interests are, they're going to develop at most a syndicalist consciousness and they're going to choose capitalism, not communism.
	And after the...
	I think when the more communism got discredited, And your point is incredibly proven with the statistics that came out over the weekend that showed that when you look at this particular party's
	support Labour is now being supported by the wealthiest individuals in this country.
	At the higher end, the middle-aged groups and those who've gone to university.
	So they're saying that Labour supports the rich and the clever.
	I mean, to be honest, I wouldn't necessarily say that everybody who went to university is clever, but there we go.
	From my experience, it's the opposite.
	From my experience, it's certainly the case.
	But they love that.
	And that feeds into this arrogance of a snobbish kind of view, looking down upon those below me who don't understand the issues.
	And I find that patronizing.
	And it's exactly what your point is raised on.
	Thanks. So I think there are two interpretations of what is going on here.
	The first, which I find completely unlikely, is that Labour actually has an issue with the two-tier justice system, which I don't think is particularly credible as a hypothesis.
	And the second one is that basically they are in bed with them and they are trying to...
	And the question there becomes, why are they doing so?
	Well, part of it is because they want to approach elements of the Other voters, groups of voters, they think they have alienated.
	That's why we see Keir Starmer starting banging the drum of anger against illegal migration right now.
	So what they could be doing is working together, having people within the judiciary proposing, basically discrediting their judiciary within, in the eye of the public mind.
	That's in public consciousness.
	Pardon me.
	And that makes people being much more prone towards government control, extra government control, because they say, well, look at the judiciary.
	All of them are crazy and they are harming society.
	So the only way to solve this is by erasing the checks and balances that the judiciary poses to the government and opt for a much stronger executive.
	In which case, the question is, what are we going to make of...
	Wait, where is the link?
	I don't have...
	Well, I don't have the link there.
	It's not there, but it doesn't matter.
	Keir Starmer has kneeled for the BLM cause.
	He has expressed sympathy for all the woke causes.
	We've talked extensively about two-tier policing, reporting and sentencing here.
	The examples are too many.
	You can just click on any video of this link to where we're talking about the two-tier.
	I mean, we did a lot, didn't we?
	Yeah, but what I will say is that apart from individual examples, the whole issue is any person who supports woke progressivism is supporting a two-tier society.
	Because woke progressivism is all about mitigating so-called historical inequalities by means of differential treatment.
	Differential treatment means two-tier treatment, so if one is promoting wokeness, one is promoting differential treatment and two-tier society.
	I think Stahmer's doing two things simultaneously.
	He's, as you say, empowering the government over the judiciary, but he's also stealing Nigel Farage's two best talking points.
	He's basically taking immigration and the two-tier justice system, both of which I think ordinary people can see with their own eyes are massive problems, and he's sort of containing them.
	He's taking the steam out of the sails to try and Tank reform in the polls because at the minute they're a real threat to Labour, aren't they?
	I think it's interesting he's doing this just before the local elections where those are the elections that have been permitted to go ahead which feeds into another story of where we're all going about controlling people's views.
	When I look at this two-tier system that they're creating, the two-tier politics, that is straight out of the book of communism.
	It's straight out of Stalinism.
	It's all about removing the elites who empower them, the kings, the knights, the barons, whoever they may be, wherever they are in the world, and replacing them with our lot.
	Now, our lot gets the house.
	Our lot gets the car.
	Our lot gets the nice, sinecure job and pension for the right.
	And you lot, who we said we were helping, you're still in the same place as you were before.
	And that's what the public's understanding.
	They realize it doesn't matter who's flipping over at the moment.
	We're still where we are, and we're not getting any better.
	And at the end of the day, I think it's institutions matter, but people are in charge of institutions.
	Yes. So whether people now focus on institutions and the judiciary and the executive or any kind of branch, at the end of the day, who is going to be entrusted with guarding those institutions?
	And I think, for instance, people not constantly talk about the ECHR to say why people shouldn't be deported.
	The ECHR doesn't say people shouldn't be deported unconditionally.
	No, he doesn't say that.
	It gives you the opportunity to remove it.
	It gives you the chance to do so.
	So it's people...
	Poland, for example, they did pretty well, didn't they?
	Without any of that sort of stuff.
	And they're within the EU.
	And in many ways, they're doing much better than a lot of other European countries for it.
	So, ladies and gentlemen, tell us whether you think that Labour actually has an issue with two-tier society or not.
	Thank you very much.
	We have a quick comment here from Rage Quit Ninja, says, does this not effectively break current UK equality laws and thus illegal?
	No, because the Equalities Act, was it 2010?
	Yes. I think that allows for exceptions for discrimination against In favour of ethnic minorities and the like.
	Protected groups, I think is the phrase that it likes to use.
	And I think, can we remember what Stelius said in the sentencing line?
	Was it cohorts?
	Yes. So we've got protected groups, we've got cohorts.
	Even though that sort of language that is used, to me, is actually frightening usage.
	Because it's actually disassociating what they're really trying to do.
	And tried to blend it into a nice friendly cohort, but mind you cohort was not a nice word when it was created.
	No. Okay, well.
	Over to myself.
	You have to have your head in the sands if you're not hearing the news across from Europe at the moment.
	Really quite concerning for me.
	A decision by a court that Marie Le Pen is barred from seeking public office for embezzlement, as we see here in the world news coming from AP, which I understood was the only group that was allowed to be in the court to actually do the press, which is why so many of the articles that are coming out are exactly the same.
	And this is about Marine Le Pen, who along with 24 others, I think there was 8 MEPs, but also the staff members, who when they were in the European Parliament, roughly around the time that I was there, were all accused of embezzling European Union funds to support their political activities.
	Well, not only am I finding that incredibly surprising, because literally that's what Every single MEP and political party did with European Union funds.
	Is this a sort of similar thing to what the Chinese do in that they have laws that cover pretty much the entire citizenry or at least everyone of concern and then they selectively enforce it?
	Absolutely because not only have they done that with I think Daniel Hannan when he was an MEP was pursued I think again egregiously over conference money that he used from the European Parliament through a legitimate organisation that he organised conferences across the globe which people like myself MEPs would fly out and give conferences about and talk about the European Union because it didn't fit their definition of what European Union was or supporting.
	They went after him.
	I remember in my own particular party, not myself, that many MEPs at the time who were part of UKIP were actually also forced to return funding on a similar principle.
	And I watched it across many different political parties, except those who were green.
	Socialists, Christian Democrats for example, the Liberal Democrats, ALDI as they're called.
	All the coalition partners were allowed to take the same levels of money and employ people and have conferences across.
	So what we have now I think in terms of the next kind of clip that we've got on the link is we're seeing that they've not only made her guilty, go down, but they've sentenced her to four years, four years now, and that's cataclysmic.
	She got four years, a hundred thousand euro fine, which will be nothing to her because people were paid off, but it's a five-year term ineligibility to run from office immediately.
	This is a political hit.
	This is absolutely intended Not to really ensure that justice is to be seen.
	It's to make sure that her rising power is not capable of rising any further.
	It's to cause discord in the National Rally political parties.
	To make sure that they're incapable of having their leader stand on television, the most effective performer.
	When it comes down to the presidential election where you have Macron who's failing and everybody else around them are failing.
	So we get to a position Where, as you go into the next link, this is exactly what Marie Le Pen is saying.
	It would have the effect of depriving me of being a presidential candidate and quite rightly disenfranchising her 11 million supporters and potentially millions more.
	Because of course in the last election they effectively won the popular vote and it was only by some canny politicking from Macron and the left that they sort of outmanoeuvred her by I don't necessarily know how to put it, but they work within the political system to do something that seems very undemocratic.
	Yes, Macron teamed up with...
	He was a communist, a Mélenchon guy.
	That's right, yeah.
	That's like Hitler joining up with Stalin to ensure that the defeaters in the Second World War and then make sure that they stay in power.
	And that's the way that I see it.
	It's those two wings of politics come together to stop somebody who has clearly got the votes of the people.
	And I think we're seeing that all across Europe.
	Look at the AFD.
	Not only are they ensuring that AFD is coming second and not going to have a chance to have any real link in power, they're actually organised before the new parliament a change in the law relating to the budget, so that they can spend the money before the next parliament comes in.
	And this is what's happening.
	They're really, really frightened of those people who stand outside of the group.
	Outside of the team.
	They really don't like them.
	If you're not giving them a hug and a back slapper and you're having a good lunch with them.
	If you're sat over in the table in the corner, we go, I'm not sure about that.
	We don't like them.
	But they're winning.
	What can we do to get rid of them?
	And they're using lawfare in order to do it.
	Now, of course, as you'll see in the next link, the lawyers, the judges, the politicians are saying, well, it's nothing to do with lawfare against her as a politician.
	It's all about here, as he says, that no one's on trial for doing politics.
	That's not the issue.
	The issue is whether the contracts had been executed properly.
	They recognized there was no personal enrichment for Marie Le Pen, the 400,000 there that she was charged with.
	There was enrichment of the party.
	So the party was able to employ people.
	The party was able to have conferences.
	The party was able to have its own security.
	That's enrichment of the party, and therefore she's guilty of embezzlement to be able to do that.
	That's their argument.
	As I say, in the European Parliament we saw lots of political parties doing this all the time, but they're not being charged or investigated in the same way.
	But do any of us really believe that this is just about the contracts being executed?
	Of course not.
	And I think that the prior actions of other French political parties indicate that they're willing to do anything to keep them out of power, aren't they?
	Because they know that once they are in power, it's sort of over for them politically.
	It's a last desperate attempt.
	We saw similar things in the United States, didn't we, where the Democrats were doing very poorly and so they relied on lawfare and the fact that Kamala Harris didn't even bother releasing any policies seemed to suggest that, well, you know, our best bet is attack, not actually putting forward any positive vision.
	To add to this, I don't think that necessarily they are afraid that if Marine Le Pen gets elected they'll never see power again.
	I don't think that's so much the issue as much as them thinking that right now they're unpopular and they're promoting unpopular measures and policies and the only way to compete with others is to basically trash the popular opposition.
	I don't think it's so much that they think that if Le Pen wins, it's going to be the end.
	It's not so much the long term, you're seeing it as the short term.
	I think they're way more short term.
	I can believe that.
	I think the short term element is about...
	The agenda globally is changing and they're not happy with that and they think if they can hit everybody with the short term and make sure they don't get in power there's no momentum to support Donald Trump's or the MAGA movement or whatever they believe is the kind of devil that's sitting across the other side of the Atlantic.
	So let's make sure it doesn't embed itself strongly in Europe as well because if Europe and America were doing so then all the woke agenda you talked about early on will actually start to dissipate and we'd have somebody be able to come back against them.
	But we've seen it here, not just here.
	In France did they not close a newspaper down?
	Recently that was right-wing, very popular and being incredibly successful.
	No doubt if Lotus Eaters were out there they'd try and close this down as well for being incredibly successful.
	In fact, some of my posts on X or Twitter or whatever it's called these days are limited in France for some reason.
	I didn't know that.
	It's very interesting.
	Yes, and just let me add to this.
	Every time I go back to Greece, the feed is completely different.
	A lot more mainstream media accounts are appearing on X. Okay, that's interesting because then what I've done here now is go through why I think it's not just about Marie Le Pen.
	This is a concerted plan by the European powers that be elitist or authoritarian.
	So if you take the next four and try to go through them, we've just seen George Esco from Romania, clearly a massive winner.
	But his issue?
	Oh, he's supposedly a shrill of Russia.
	That's why they had a constitutional court that ruled in just two hours.
	Just two hours that this man is obviously not capable of winning the seats and that the TikTok accounts backing him were all those of Russia, by the way.
	Marie Le Pen is also accused of being a Russian shriller in the pockets of Putin.
	So I don't know whether that's got a link to it as well.
	NDA, he and everyone who is a target.
	Anyone else.
	Anybody else who opposes the elite is always in the back.
	Russians are very busy.
	Yeah, I've got my helicopter just outside.
	I'm going to go fly down to my little Naples base, obviously.
	It's nonsense most of the time.
	So we have Georgescu.
	Then before that we have the AFD, and we see them.
	AFD, a constitutional court sought to ban the party before the elections.
	So another example of them being frightened of a party that's rising with an agenda that stops there.
	But it wasn't just recently, it's before that too.
	So we go back to what somebody I thought was a really, really crucial and rising star of the right, Kurtz, in Austria, and he resigns amid a corruption inquiry.
	Now either he was politically naive and dragged into that or it was a plant, but this man had the links of being very calm, met him many times, very thoughtful, actually really intellectual idea of how to challenge the status quo and was winning significant power not just here but actually gaining ground in the United States.
	So they cut him out and he resigned and he's just faded away.
	Why? And then, of course, we had Goethe-Wilders before that, you know, found guilty of inciting discrimination against Moroccans who were here illegally.
	No doubt any of us that criticize the boat people would face exactly the same.
	So this, in my view, is a concerted attack.
	Where did it come from?
	Was this just out of the blue, or are all these politicians across Europe really, really just enacting criminal activity, fraud, all the rest of it?
	Or is it something deeper?
	And I believe this is concerted.
	I think if you look at the next link, we see why Europe should harden its soft power to lawfare.
	Now this is by CEPS, who are a very large and important and influential think tank in Europe.
	I've constantly had lots of reports from them whilst I was over there.
	And I know when you're bringing down their article and you look at what they're saying is that The Brussels effect is that EU law should be used globally, its neighbours, on corporations to promote their ideology of warfare.
	And it's very clear we should adopt the Chinese concept of legal warfare, Fallouzan.
	Oh wow, I didn't realise I'd be quite as prophetic at the start here.
	Yeah, so this is 2020.
	Okay, it's only five years ago, but I believe actually that people were looking at this before.
	They talk about using the law as coined in the US in 2001, has effectively deployed financial insurance and energy law to boost its power on its adversaries.
	We've then seen how it's used to boost its power against politicians in the US.
	And also beyond that, I know of a personal friend of mine who's one of the big group of people that raised money for Donald Trump in his campaign.
	He and the top three fundraisers were all attacked in different states.
	He was charged with something like 99 offences over a $2,000 donation to one of his packs.
	99 offences.
	With a something like 500 year potential imprisonment and millions of dollars of fines.
	In the end, they settled for Five months, one offence, and two million, of which he's still disputed, because all of it was nonsense.
	They know it's nonsense.
	The reason they put 99 offences is so that you get ground down with the cost of having to defend each of those offences.
	So you go, okay, what's the least I can get?
	But all of them are now seeking to have them overturned through appeals, but it goes on for years.
	So they attack not just the politicians, everybody else behind them.
	But what is interesting there is that this is a recipe for disaster and it's self-defeating because what they're doing is that they rest upon people's praise of justice.
	They rest upon legitimacy of the institutions of justice.
	And because they do so, they want to say let's brand as illegal.
	Those who are our political enemies.
	But the more they do this, the more they discredit and delegitimize those institutions.
	Absolutely. I couldn't agree more.
	It's going to backfire.
	It feeds into what you're saying about the Sentencing Council, it feeds into about the College of Policing, it feeds into all of those involved in that side of it, it feeds into our kind of discontent with Parliament.
	And I think it goes not just with ourselves, I think in my final bit that I've got over there in the last one, it's not just us, it's the left.
	Here's the left in the European Parliament, who again, I watched whilst I was there, they were abused, They were not permitted to have representatives on certain bodies.
	They were not allowed to have their legitimate amounts of money granted to them.
	They too, different necessary political viewpoint to me, happy to have discussions and debates with them, as we should do in a free democratic world, they too were facing the same sort of lawfare being used against them.
	Now, I don't necessarily agree with all the people that they've got in their list in that particular article, but I understand it.
	They feel it too.
	So if the left and the right are feeling it, there's only that group in the middle that are like frightened little puppies and, you know, dogs in a corner are saying they want to attack everybody else.
	There's a question on that, that if you say that the left and the right are doing it, who is being prosecuted actually?
	Because it seems like most people from the right.
	The left is an expert on self-victimization, so they say they're feeling it, but it seems to me that Only people from the right wing are being...
	Well, only people on the right wing that we've seen.
	One would argue that...
	They would say Sanchez was attacked in Spain, but I don't see that.
	He wasn't actually taken to court over anything.
	The only ones who are going to court are those on the right.
	So I think the self-victimisation, when I looked through the Guardian article that listed a lot of people there, not one of them actually was a criminal case.
	It was all about, I feel pretty upset you're attacking me for my views.
	That's not lawfare.
	Lawfare is when you actually get the lawyers involved, either prosecutor or through civil action, and you take us on.
	Their argument is that maybe we've got to stop oil, and we're attacking them in that particular way.
	Whatever it is, whether it's left or right, the idea that this central group of people can use the law and destabilise our institutions and our common law and our sense of justice is incredibly short-sighted, it's deliberate, and I don't believe in the long term it's healthy for all of us.
	To be able to turn around and criticise all our judges, criticise all of us lawyers as being liars or deceitful or dishonest.
	And by building that, they actually help remove the foundations of a legitimate, carefully built, carefully constructed Judeo-Christian constructs in our nationhood and across our culture that has had a fairness.
	Remove that and we end up in the slippery road of being done like a communist China.
	That's my view on it.
	I very much agree.
	I don't know what your guys who are listening in have to say about it at all.
	I'm sure they will agree.
	I mean we talk about all of this sort of thing and I think our common line on it is that the sort of centrist globalist faction will do anything to keep their bureaucratic control unchallenged.
	I think there's plenty of evidence to suggest that that is the case.
	But, uh, South Africa now.
	We're going to be very grateful we live in Europe after hearing about this, believe me.
	Yeah. Deeply concerning.
	So, South Africa is fighting back.
	Not just the ANC government, the party of Nelson Mandela, but also the Afrikaans minority as well.
	And there's two different stories layered over one another.
	And to understand this, you've sort of got to follow the back and forth between South African government and the US government because this has been the accelerant to kick all of this off.
	So the thing that started it all really is Simo Ramaphosa signed an expropriation bill into law and what this did was it allowed the government to expropriate land or take people's land and not pay them for it.
	Compensation part of it was optional so in theory you could be a farmer and the government can say I want your land And they don't give you anything for it, even though you owned it.
	And of course, this is obviously an erosion of private property rights.
	They don't really exist in South Africa because the government can just take things from you.
	Well, we've got that under the Labour government who want to take farms away at not even market price.
	So this is a halfway house to that.
	It is indeed.
	And this was obviously to target the white minority in South Africa because of course the ANC has made it its business to whip up anger at this minority and blame their failings to keep the infrastructure they had functional and so they're distracting people from their inability to govern by saying well look at all of these white farmers they own all the land therefore they're greedy they're taking things from you
	when in reality they're incompetent and quite often very corrupt.
	Everyone knows that Corruption in South Africa is rife and a lot of the time these things are not being done because there's someone being paid and also that it's worth mentioning these land expropriations.
	Quite often when they're actually there marking up the farms to take them there are politicians on the ground saying oh well I'll have this bit and so they're directly benefiting from it.
	They know that they're the ones that get to choose which farms get taken and they can take some for themselves and They said, don't be alarmed the court may award you nil compensation but it's not required to so it's okay.
	And of course this is not reassuring whatsoever because you're still at the mercy of the courts as to whether your livelihood is ruined.
	And then eventually America caught wind of this.
	Trump cut US financial aid to South Africa citing his disapproval of the laws and also their foreign policy aims in that South Africa brought the genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice and it was a sort of punitive measure on top of that for that as well.
	Obviously a close American ally and then you see Elon Musk of course being South African saying the legacy media never mentions the white genocide in South Africa because it doesn't fit their narrative that whites can be victims and I think that that's very true.
	And in fact what is happening in South Africa is awful for the white minority.
	We complain a lot about what's going on in Britain and Europe and North America, but we can't really hold a candle to the suffering that's going on in South Africa because some of the most appalling things I've ever heard of are going on there.
	And many of the white South Africans gathered and supported what Trump said because it's very significant, you know, the leader of the free world, as they say, coming out and pointing out your persecution.
	And they were very positive about that.
	And you only need to look at the number of race laws in South Africa, and you can see that big dip towards the end of apartheid, and then you can see that it actually rises above the sort of apartheid level under the ANC governance.
	And of course, all of these laws, they're not discriminating against the native black population, they're discriminating against the white population.
	That's why those laws exist.
	They have similar sorts of laws now that just literally state it's white who will, like we're about to see in a potential sentencing council.
	If you're white or you're historically white, not only will you lose your land, you can't get a job.
	Oh, it's very egregious.
	I'm going to go through some of the examples soon.
	It is very explicit.
	The South African president says the persecution of whites is a false narrative and Elon Musk doubled down on this.
	The ANC line has basically been they're making it up, they're far-right, they're racist.
	It sounds very familiar doesn't it?
	And a court ruled that the claims of white genocide are not real.
	This was a South African court.
	And so it's basically like we've ruled ourselves innocent.
	Yeah, judging our own judgments.
	Exactly. And then they were in sort of a bit of diplomatic warfare here.
	They hinted at a nuclear deal with Iran and Russia.
	And what's common about those two nations?
	Oh, wait, they're both enemies of the United States.
	And so the United...
	You're going to say something, Stelios?
	No, no, it's just you're talking about Cyril Ramaphosa.
	And I think it's good to tell to the audience that this is not The politicians who go out and chant death to the boys.
	That's right.
	That's Julius Merlema.
	Although he hasn't disavowed that chant, by the way.
	He's never said anything against it.
	And in response, the US supported a French company investing in gas in Mozambique.
	And so if the South Africans do get this project underway, a neighbouring country is going to have cheaper energy than them anyway.
	And so it's undermined that effort and there's a bit of a battle going on here.
	Basically Trump freed up 4.7 billion US dollars to a French company that was frozen since 2021.
	But that's not the focus necessarily, it's just interesting that it happened.
	And then the US expelled the South African envoy after I think he called Trump a white supremacist and they said he was race baiting and basically sent him packing, which is fair enough I think because that was what he was doing really.
	And then let's look at some examples of clear discrimination here.
	So a cricket team, very English export here, but they were kicked out of a competition for failing to select at least three black players for the competition.
	I've heard of a story of in a rugby match in the last minute someone was injured and then they brought on a substitute for the last minute of the game and because the substitute wasn't a black player and the player was black all of a sudden they fell underneath their quota and they were disqualified from the tournament even though you know the majority of the game had already been won.
	And of course You might think, OK, well this is sport, it's not the end of the world.
	Well, as has been, I mean, it's still important, it's still part of our culture.
	In many ways it is a really important part of the world because it's our escape, it's our way of looking away from what's happening around us, the job implications that we have, the bosses that are talking to us, what's going on at home.
	Such as to be free and to enjoy just the sport.
	And we don't want to be interfered with by government, government dictate rules like that.
	And I find it oppressive that when we get an opportunity just to relax, they're even imposing their ideology on us then.
	I wholeheartedly agree.
	Because sports is basically the paradigm for most people for what fair competition looks like.
	Yes, absolutely.
	And you can see here, this is A declaration by employee and you can see employees should use terms to ascertain which employees are from designated groups in terms of the Employment Equality Act of 1998.
	And then you go down here, designated groups mean black people, women and people with disabilities.
	So we see lots of DEI policies in Western countries, but it's very, very explicit.
	What's that, sorry?
	You've got the rules of the Sentencing Council up there, I'm sure.
	You do indeed, yeah.
	In a manner of speech.
	Sorry. It's also worth mentioning here that the box is African, coloured, Indian and white.
	The term coloured is a sort of colonial holdover, it just means mixed race basically, but they're afforded similar privileges to those of African descent and it's actually quite often the Indian and white residents that are discriminated against by these laws and the riots in 2021.
	Lots of Indians were actually targeted because they believed that the Indians were unfairly extracting wealth from their country and they burnt down lots of distribution centers which massively damaged their economy and achieved very little politically.
	But we can, oh, I think we, yes, page four.
	So this has some good stats on it.
	It says This is the data on farming.
	So apparently 72% of the total farms and agriculture holdings by individual landowners are owned by whites.
	And so that is the majority of farms.
	And the government's own data suggests that 90% of farms that have been redistributed failed.
	This is their own internal data.
	So this is interesting because, of course, You look at somewhere like Zimbabwe, or formerly Rhodesia, as I like to call it, they took all of the white farmer's land and then a million people starved to death.
	And obviously a massive human tragedy, not in anyone's interest to have that outcome.
	And what happened is that people didn't, it was sort of like this cargo cult behavior.
	They didn't realize that the reason that the white farmers were producing so much of their food, say, is because they're using different agricultural techniques.
	There are lots of things that you need to do, particularly in somewhere like South Africa that's perhaps a more difficult climate to farm in than, say, Britain.
	There are lots of things you need to do.
	There's lots of complicated machinery.
	There's a lot more to it than you might think.
	It's not just putting seeds in the ground and waiting.
	And I think that people tend to have a very naive view of what goes into farming.
	And if anyone's watched Clarkson's Farm, they need not imagine that It's actually a very difficult job and I think that what's playing out in South Africa is that they see a farm as just an easy way of getting wealth.
	It's your key to becoming wealthy, when actually there's a lot of hard work that goes into it and it is a way of life that has to be passed down.
	Because if you don't have that knowledge passed on to you, you're really going to struggle.
	And that's true of anyone regardless.
	Or they want to get hold of it and then just sell it on to the major large corporates.
	That's also another possibility.
	Run it for you and they just can do a flip.
	Which is what I see here is one of the main things when we're trying to impoverish our farmers.
	bankrupt them through inheritance tax, give them the opportunity for the councils to be able to do compulsory purchase orders at less than market rate, so that they can flip it to companies that are going to put wind farms on solar panel or be a large intermediate for the American companies that will come in and buy the land and then rent it out to the same farmers.
	It wouldn't surprise me if the same thing's going on here.
	So the land grabbers are already operating and as you can see here you just get crowds of people that just turn up and try and get their parcel.
	Usually with a politician in tow adjudicating it and also carving out a nice piece for themselves.
	It's worth pointing as well that if you are a white farmer, one of the farm tools that might not be familiar to you as a European or North American farmer, well maybe not North American, but as a European farmer is that you have to have an assault rifle by you at all times because you're in constant danger of the farmland attacks.
	And of course this was investigated by Lauren Southern when she looked at the farmland murders where white farmers had their farms invaded and there's a really high Horrible case.
	I'm here I'm gonna summarize what he's saying because the video is six and a half minutes long, but he he's a former police officer He's talking about his first farm murder and let me just tell you about what happened here Five men waited for the family to return from church before attacking them father and grandfather were bludgeoned to death with hammers the wife was sexually assaulted at gunpoint by four different people and 13 year old daughter was sexually assaulted three times and stabbed in the back of the head,
	but thankfully survived.
	And then they had written political slogans in blood on the walls.
	And apparently the interior of the house was so thick with blood that when the police officers actually stepped on it, it was seeping out of the carpets beneath them.
	This is the kind of thing that the white South Africans have to face.
	This is not something that any human being should have to face.
	Especially not people who are disproportionately productive for their country.
	They're taxed far more than others, they're discriminated against by the law, and they're also providing a disproportionate amount of the food for the country.
	It strikes me as very ungrateful that they're basically doing all the hard work to prop up what is essentially becoming a failed state here, and their reward is Some of the worst political persecution in the world.
	What does the left about it in this country say?
	Nothing, just as they say nothing about our farmers.
	Just as they say nothing against the farmers in Holland or the same in Canada.
	Well, they don't vote for the left-wing parties, do they?
	Exactly. So what you're seeing here is not a prison.
	This is a South African household's bedroom.
	This is it gated off from the rest of the house for security because this is Not some paranoid weirdo.
	This is a necessary measure.
	And to Europe and North America, this is completely unthinkable.
	I get worried when I see the bars in certain continental European countries on their windows and things like that.
	I think that's a bit excessive, isn't it?
	But to have them in your own homes...
	Like the bars you see in certain parts of the United States when you drive through.
	It's actually really, really scary and abysmal.
	It's inhuman.
	So let's get on to the EFF, or the Economic Freedom Fighters, which is a very ironic name.
	So they're communists and black nationalists, as you might expect, and they're headed by Julius Malema.
	He's refused to testify that he would not call for the murder of whites in the future, but he did testify that he might call for the slaughter of whites in the future when asked by a journalist.
	Interesting. And there are still people in South Africa that are saying that The problems of apartheid still exist.
	Here she's saying, My book, No White Lies, White Power and Black Politics in South Africa reveals the ugly truth that white South Africans have failed to repent for and make reparations for apartheid sins.
	Interesting that they're using religious language there, isn't it?
	We remain privileged, entitled and arrogant in democratic South Africa.
	It is shameful that we have no moral compass and have never offered reparations for all the harm we have caused.
	So let's point out the fact that She has actually contributed for the EFF, so she is a communist.
	That's worth pointing out.
	Enough with pointing out that the party that she's supporting would actually kill her.
	I know, yeah.
	A bit of a quizling, isn't she?
	Yeah, I just find that really odd.
	By the way, here's the target.
	I'll just help you out and then just kill me after you've won.
	I just don't understand these people.
	Do any of us really understand what's going on between their ears?
	Can we understand how they've got this self-implosion of wanting to kill themselves, wipe themselves out, just for the sake of the communist manifesto?
	I might do a bit of armchair psychologising and say that they hate themselves and therefore they're inflicting their own self-hatred on the world.
	That would be my best guess.
	Then you had this.
	This was in 2023.
	This is the EFF rally where they're singing the song about killing the boar.
	And imagine you lived in South Africa And this was a stadium full of people that are happy to sing about killing you.
	Yes. Would you be happy to, you know, appear in public life?
	No wonder you have places like Irania where they're white-only towns, because at least they can feel safe knowing that they have people that aren't going to murder them for their property.
	And then Elon, oh sorry, go ahead.
	Sorry, just wanted to say that this is why culture is important, because if someone did this here, Most probably they'd go in jail.
	It's incitement to violence.
	We haven't quite got to this point yet but it is certainly on the right track to becoming a reality here as well.
	Well I think sometimes we hear it on the streets when we're talking about the way that we look at Israel and Jewish people.
	It's a similar sort of conceptual idea that they're chanting when they're supporting Hamas in such numbers that How far is that link?
	Isn't that that fine line that we've been talking about?
	This thin thread between democratic values and murder caused by this level of hatred.
	Are we not on that line?
	Which is why we're all debating this so strongly and stridently.
	It is also here to a certain extent because I can use the example of in France where There was the case of that teenage boy who got shot by the French police for refusing to stop his car.
	And then a group of 15 to 20 Muslims went to a small French town of about 140 people, went to an event and stabbed a 16 year old to death because he was a French boy.
	And it was purely racial.
	It's purely motivated about ethnic revenge.
	It's already here.
	It doesn't necessarily need to be the government doing it, but we already live amongst people that are more than happy to do this sort of thing.
	Now, Elon Musk has got a bit of a vendetta against the EFF as one can imagine.
	He says, very few people know that there is a major political party in South Africa that is actively promoting white genocide, which I think is a fair characterisation.
	They explicitly sing songs about killing them.
	They make gun sounds.
	They talk about shooting the farmers.
	It's about as explicit as it could possibly be.
	And the defence of the South African government is it's just political terminology.
	It's just hyperbole.
	If only we had such lax standards in Britain for that sort of thing.
	Maybe not to favour the minorities but anyway.
	A month ago the South African government passed a law legalising taking property from white people at the will with no payment.
	Where is the outrage?
	Why is there no coverage by the legacy media?
	Starlink can't get a license to operate in South Africa simply because I'm not black.
	How is that right?
	And in fact South Africa is the only country in Southern Africa that has refused them and it seems to be out of spite because of course they could do with the infrastructure, they're not in a position to choose.
	And then Malema responded to Elon Musk saying we must not be intimidated by him and our friends will never be the United Kingdom, France or the USA.
	They were never there for us during difficult times.
	Palestine was there for us.
	Okay, interesting.
	I don't remember all those Palestinians helping in The Apartheid era.
	Was there a secret cohort of ANC Palestine?
	I do know that the ANC was funded by lots of enemies of the United States though, so that's interesting.
	And yes, here's them chanting it on Human Rights Day in South Africa, which is a wonderful irony.
	It's also worth mentioning as well that he's not just some obscure figure, he's got quite a bit of reach there.
	4.4 million followers, I imagine Decent portion of them are following in horror more than anything, but still worth mentioning.
	He has a sizable platform He's not just nobody and then here Here is Marco Rubio.
	I don't know why he's here because that link is not meant to be that high up Okay, the link seemed to be a bit messed up Let's just skip that stuff because you get the gist by this point.
	They're not very nice people, but There was a documentary released by a group called AfriForum which is an Afrikaans group in South Africa that is trying to advocate for the minority there that are being persecuted and there are a couple of groups that are actually pushing against this sort of thing and I want to draw people's attention to them because I think they're doing great work.
	This documentary was excellent, they were pointing out the laws that discriminate against them, they were looking at the data, it was very factual, very data-based, very worth watching and they're doing some great work.
	It was presented by this gentleman here, and he's got a quote here from this documentary.
	Under ANC rule, the South African sections of the media have long and unfortunate history of targeting citizens who speak out against race-based politics or violent crime, with some commentators seeing their role in such situations more as regime attack dogs rather than watchdogs against the abuse of power, which is...
	Very much true, I think.
	And they've lamented the fact that the media in South Africa has basically been trying to say that they're white supremacist or they're bigoted and extremist and should be ignored.
	And they're using things like screenshots of a headline, opinion pieces, political cartoons, their opinion.
	and the word of A&C officials and just calling it...
	Dude, trust me.
	I thought that was a racist term for a black guy.
	I thought dude was supposed to be a white man's term.
	Is it?
	I've never heard that before.
	Yeah, brother is, you know, the black man, dude is the white man.
	Okay, fair enough.
	Aren't they being racist?
	Should that not be banned?
	Might be a bit too controversial there.
	But the point being...
	A&C mobs will be after me next.
	I wouldn't be surprised.
	Add to the list.
	Yeah, these are the sorts of things that are being used to rebut the arguments.
	There aren't really any real rebuttals because there is clear evidence in the law that there is this discrimination and they tried to challenge this in a court and the court said that actually it's a legitimate political expression and that it should stay and they tried to appeal this and I'm not sure if it actually stuck and they've been pointing out that the Constitution which Supposedly vowed not to have racial discrimination.
	No longer protects everyone in the country because of course the chant such as kill the boar which is calling for the murder of Afrikaners, that's obvious, that's explicitly what it's saying.
	The Constitutional Court has shown total disrespect as he says for those people basically and they're trying to fight it which is a very commendable action and it's amazing that they can stay so calm and collected and reasoned in such a difficult situation.
	And of course Ramaphosa was silent about this because he secretly approves but doesn't want the negative PR of saying so.
	And then there was an article here, Samson if you could pull that up, where it's talking about how South Africa and the Cape more generally is an invisible choke point and this was done by Robert Dugan I think,
	who's involved in some of these groups and basically this is a shorter version of what's being handed out to lots of Western politicians and it points out that there's actually a strategic advantage of having control of this passageway because the passage around the Cape is actually a lot narrower than you think because of the difficult waters and so shipping has to come very close to South Africa and what I think is a very good The political reason for pushing this argument is that the US or Britain might have a stake in South Africa if
	they see, okay, well this benefits trade and shipping and therefore we want to be more invested.
	Okay, I don't know why that's not coming up.
	Never mind.
	But yes, the article's called The Invisible Chokepoint if you want to look for it.
	But yes, I think that...
	Ah, there we go.
	That's weird.
	I had the wrong thing.
	That was my fault, Samson.
	So yes, it seems like a good way of getting people invested in South African politics, saying, listen, you'll have an advantage here because there's an excellent image here of shipping.
	Here we go.
	You can see a heat map and most ships come within the coast and within the sort of waters of South Africa and if you want to preserve the shipping and say prevent the Chinese or the Russians who the ANC are sympathetic towards from accessing this valuable shipping lane maybe you want a stake in this area which is clever politics in my opinion and is is a good way of saying actually there is a good reason to be involved in South Africa come and help us and you'll get something in return which is
	a good way of looking at it but Yes, this is another movement.
	This basically started off as a trade union and now they run as a sort of parallel government.
	They build schools, universities and have private security.
	They rely on community donations to keep these Afrikaans communities safe and not under the ire of the ANC and their supporters and the EFF.
	And there's also one final one that I want to draw attention to.
	Which is the SAAI, which is a network that supports farmers both in South Africa and Zimbabwe.
	And so I think they were operators.
	I really don't think there was any white farmers left in Zimbabwe.
	I thought the pogrom was so strong that if you've got to be incredibly strong and brave to want to stay there in that nation.
	I think there must be.
	I've not looked into it in great detail, but I know of the fact that there is at least a small portion of people that are still there.
	After all of that.
	After all of that.
	Which is amazing.
	Serious lunacy going on in that country.
	But my point being that whilst the government of South Africa pushes back against Trump, there's also people, the Afrikaners, pushing back against the ANC and making these documentaries highlighting the points that Trump is making and I think that they have a very, very valid claim here to be persecuted.
	You can see it in the law, you can see it in how they're treated in society.
	You can see it in the fact that their livelihoods can be destroyed for no reason at all other than a government official wants it to be so.
	And I think it's one of those things that is a rather overlooked tragedy and something that is entirely preventable.
	It's entirely created by the South African government and it need not be this way because if they do what they intend to do and take the land from these white farmers what they're going to do is create another Zimbabwe situation where lots of people starve, they struggle to even have electricity or running water now.
	The infrastructure has gone downhill since the end of apartheid basically.
	They had more electricity hours and clean water then than they do now because people loot the infrastructure.
	Of course the massive impact of this would be that if South Africa goes as a into a failed state scenario.
	It provides a lot of jobs and economic activity for surrounding countries, Namibia going up across.
	If that collapses, then once again, we'll see a migration crisis.
	And we already know that one of the central cause of the migration crisis is coming up through Central Africa, which are starting to bring more and more people up through the Western Mediterranean route up through Libya.
	who are all subject to seriously nastier arms of the people smuggling ganks.
	These people are really capturing them and using them as slaves first before allowing them to get onto the boats to come over to ourselves.
	Well, the Libyans have open slave markets.
	They're not very shy about it and it's just set to create a wave of human tragedy in which no one benefits from.
	Okay, we've got a few comments here.
	Oh, blimey, we've got What a few, actually.
	Before we go to the video comments...
	Where's my mouse?
	I can't see it.
	Do you want to take this one?
	If you can just...
	I got it now.
	You're the hands of power.
	Apparently not.
	Hands of incompetence.
	That's a random name.
	It says, all of these anti-white male initiatives laws remind me of the Omni-Man quote, look what they need to mimic A fraction of our power.
	That's a very positive way of looking at it, yes.
	They hate us because they ain't us, as some might say.
	That's a random name.
	Slight correction Josh, that Algerian teen in France was shot because he didn't stop his car and then tried to run over the police officer.
	Okay, fair enough.
	I imagined it was something like that.
	I was just trying to be...
	Brief, because I was aware my segment was going on for a long time.
	Goofball Supremacist says, good morning from foggy coastal Maine, US.
	Wait, if the Stelios is here, who will bully Harry during the show?
	Maybe Harry's sleeping now.
	Bit of an inside joke there.
	I can't see you, Stelios, as being a bully in any way at all.
	You've got this mild manner.
	For some reason, A segment of the audience thinks that there's a huge rivalry between Harry and myself.
	Ah, I see.
	It's like wrestling, you see.
	If we make the audience believe that we all hate each other, then it's more investing.
	It's actually quite good funny, you know.
	You get your ouzo, you get your plates.
	Who can be the best plate smasher?
	There you go.
	You win the ouzo for dinner.
	Yeah, that's good.
	We got any video comments, Samson?
	None for today.
	None for today?
	Okay, well, written comments it is then.
	So, are you right to read some of yours?
	Yes, yes, of course.
	Give me a minute.
	Okay, right, so comments.
	Roman Observer, judges in the West have largely become a force of tyranny.
	Yeah, I can't disagree with this.
	I agree with this.
	It's not often that you hear from the judiciary that they've done anything that sounds sensible.
	I think the only exception could be Perhaps the Supreme Court in the United States.
	I like seeing Clarence Thomas just dismissing proposals in one word.
	It's like, ridiculous or no.
	Can you imagine that ever happening in a Western European country, turning around ridiculous?
	I want it to happen.
	It would be good fun, to be honest.
	It's actually a bit more entertaining.
	You might then have someone turning around and, you know, get them on the island, get them into the jungle.
	Maybe if the Supreme Court in Britain were like that I'd be a bit more entertaining of it but of course it's a Blairite creation isn't it?
	Metal Dave says listening to Keir Starmer speak has the same effect on me as the Dementors in Harry Potter.
	Just sucks the joy right out of me.
	It sounds like an unimpressive office manager trying to justify his position.
	No personality, no charisma, no love for this country or anyone else's for that matter.
	I have had much more inspiring bosses than this.
	It's shameful, here's one man to...
	And then it cuts off for some reason.
	Yeah, basically, okay.
	Complete dimension levels.
	I think if you did make an audition for The Office, there's no way they'd even pass.
	They'd turn around and say you're too boring.
	Can't play the acoustic guitar either, he would never fit the role of David Brent, would he?
	He doesn't listen to music, he doesn't have a...
	Well, he does have a favourite TV show now, it's Adolescence, but...
	Before then, I don't think he's ever watched in the last 10 years.
	Apart from reruns of Blair the Movie.
	Look at him on number 10. I'd be surprised if he could even see colour, to be honest.
	Notafed says, this is what people mean when they say there's no voting our way out of this.
	An incredible threat to the status quo will simply be taken out before they can get anywhere.
	Meaning democracy is essentially an impotent political tool.
	I mean, I'm not that pessimistic.
	Because in the US it worked.
	It did.
	For instance.
	That's one of the reasons.
	It did.
	Yeah, I'm not that pessimistic, but I think that civil society needs to wake up and reclaim its culture.
	I think people are just too comfortable to realize that their life can forever be changed by the political system and that, you know, going to your job and going home and watching Netflix every night, although it might be comforting, isn't necessarily a socially responsible thing to do.
	Well, as they see more and more of their family and friends not being able to get jobs, not being forced out of work, having the contrary arguments about discrimination that you saw against others now being applied to themselves, they become more and more waking up to this.
	And this is what I'm seeing in Middle England.
	Middle England ignored immigration.
	For the last 20 years.
	Let's be frank about it.
	Here in the UK or across Europe, I'm all right.
	I'm coming to my lovely Winchester town.
	I'm going off to Salisbury.
	It's all white.
	It's all lovely.
	I've got my nice big house.
	It's comfortable.
	And now they're beginning to see that impacting onto those towns as well.
	And they're suddenly going, hang on.
	Add that to the economic damage that they're getting.
	And what do they have?
	They start saying, well, where's the problem coming from?
	But it's too late for many communities up and down the country.
	And I have a fear, and echoing the comments of the writer there who sent in that note, about our political ability to change it in Europe.
	The US has a totally different and open constitution to be able to vote.
	It is one side or the other, and you've got states like many countries.
	But first past the post is incredibly difficult for us to achieve it, any substantive change, unless you get a uniting of the right here, and then we could.
	And if we did so, I think that's a bulwark against Europe.
	But as we saw there with Marie Le Pen, the AFD, Goethe-Wilders, Italy with Maloney, and what's happening in Romania, the establishment have actually got a creation of political armoury to prevent other parties from getting in.
	And that, I think, is an ultimate danger.
	Is that what causes a revolution over there?
	Will there be a revolution in Europe to make this finally work?
	Maybe. It's interesting you mention First Past the Post because I've studied all of the different electoral systems and I have my preferences, but First Past the Post is unique in that it boosts the main two parties, doesn't it?
	And so it creates this revolving door syndrome of Labour, Tory, Labour, Tory, Labour, Tory that we've seen for, you know, the vast majority of our lives.
	I know there was a Lib Dem coalition briefly, but they didn't really have any proper power.
	And it was just a brief blip in a trend of...
	100 odd years of exactly the same sort of, you know, cultural, political ideology.
	And whereas first-past-the-post, if you're successful and winning, it's incredibly useful to be able to implement change, allegedly.
	We now know, in this country, that the powers of quangos and the powers of the civil service even nullify that.
	So it's not surprising that younger people are saying, there's nothing left for me.
	And older people are saying, I'll retire and get out of the system.
	Hopefully I'll just be able to enjoy my last 20 years without anybody hurting me.
	In any particular way.
	I just feel that this is, in some ways, what they really want.
	They don't want us engaging in the politics.
	They want us to understand that we have no power and just get away with it.
	That's why I think a culture of civic engagement is important and people will need to stop watching Netflix, as you said before, and start showing that, start applying pressure to the governments.
	I think also the government needs to realise that creating entire generations of disaffected people isn't the best thing for their own long-term self-interest.
	Even if you're a greedy corrupt politician, if there are lots of desperate people in your society, you'll get a lot more people like that Luigi Mangione guy who killed the United Healthcare CEO.
	He was willing to ruin his life because he felt it, and the life of the man he killed, Because he felt like he no longer had a stake in society and you're going to get more and more of that and I don't see how that benefits politicians or the people involved.
	Being desperate, having nothing to look forward to, having no hope, feeling that there is no one in this country that cares for you and there is no opportunity for change is a recipe for ultimate disaster on a personal level and a national level and we should be fighting this and that's why shows like this are incredibly important.
	To be able to let people know that there are those who actually understand them and they're trying in this particular format to engage them, get them excited and energized.
	Jordi Swordsman.
	Of course, child Hama Stama is angry.
	The fools weren't supposed to say it out loud.
	Thomas Howell.
	All I see with this sentencing racism is that Wojak wearing a sad mask but grinning from ear to ear underneath.
	That's really, really good.
	Garlic Goblin says the blindfold has been torn from Lady Justice's eyes.
	It's as simple as that.
	Hard to discern.
	And Lord Nereva says I'm becoming more sympathetic to young people who want to live Britain.
	Of course we will win and England will be saved, but there are other considerations.
	What if you have a young family and you get sent away for two years over a tweet?
	Nobody should have to live like this.
	Okay, we've got some comments for your segment here.
	I'll be happy to read them for you.
	John H says, I wonder what the French army officers will do.
	Democracy is dead or dying.
	Yes, that's a good point.
	The French are Known for their dissatisfaction when the government isn't doing their thing.
	I certainly know about the French Revolution.
	Is it the 78th French Republic in the last 200 years?
	I've lost track.
	I think they've lost track as well.
	It'll be interesting to see where the military go on this if the people start to rise up again.
	But is there going to be enough of a rising up?
	It was interesting to see how the farmers came out over the last couple of years and so many of them started to support Marine Le Pen and that the socialists then had to try and jump on it to say look we're with you as well.
	I mean in ancient times all you really needed was the military and the farms and you've got yourself all the base of power you need.
	That sounds like I'm trying to suggest something.
	I'm not.
	It's just an observation, okay?
	But that political document you said of how to plan a revolution in France, that's not real then?
	I forgot what I was going to say now.
	Sorry, I can't answer.
	Really, really unfair of me.
	I'm trying not to incriminate myself.
	And just for the sake, MI5 and MI6, that is a made-up document, just in case you're watching us.
	It's not real.
	We're pretending it's a joke.
	It's humour.
	But also the yellow vests are gonna cause some chaos I'm sure.
	But Eloise says, England slash the UK is on the same trajectory and the same conversations, the same issues, the same claims, the same plays in politics.
	I've seen it all happen before as a child, along with the crime spikes, more ethnic unrest and blaming others, fracturing cohesion, so less ability to group build, work together and keep employment high and a functional society.
	And Eloise is South African, I believe.
	And so what she's saying is basically that she's seeing all the parallels and in fact, In fact, many of the South African commentators that I've spoke to as well have been saying the same thing, that they're worried about us because we're people that they're hoping will be able to help them and we're making the same mistakes that the ANC are doing, but we're imposing it upon ourselves.
	Absolutely spot on there.
	Jamie Wright says, something to keep in mind is that even though white South Africans own most of the farms in the country, We don't own most of the arable land.
	If the black population wanted to they could start setting up farms of their own.
	That is also true and also a lot of the land in South Africa as I understand it, it might not be fit for crops necessarily but you can still have grazing animals things like that sort of thing that's common throughout Africa.
	And so it is possible to have successful farms but I think that there's so much ethnic resentment in South Africa that they're not necessarily wanting to learn the ways of the European farmer and let's not forget that a lot of Africa isn't that many generations removed from a more traditional lifestyle and so European ways of farming that we've created over thousands and thousands of years are pretty foreign to them and they don't necessarily understand
	them and because of this ethnic resentment They're not really going out of their way to learn from them.
	It's one of those things that, was it Empire of Dust when the Chinese were in the Congo?
	Yeah. And there's an interesting scene of a Chinese man dressing down a Congolese man saying, listen, the white man was here and he built you all of these wonderful things.
	Trains, you know, you had all of these things even before we had them in China and you've let them go to ruin.
	You're not grateful for them.
	You've not understood them.
	You've just taken them for granted.
	And you can see he's genuinely annoyed, probably because he's got the job of having to get them to work, but it's still highlighting the same point that I think I was getting at, that they took a lot of this for granted and they presumed that they could get away with persecuting the European man,
	when actually a lot of the things that were brought to South Africa, these aspects of civilization, if you will, You know, access to running water, electricity, having a functioning political system that isn't corrupt.
	These are all things that we had to introduce to Africa and by marginalising, for want of a better word because it's a bit tainted these days, the white minority, they're also rejecting all of these things because knowledge doesn't exist in a vacuum.
	You've got to have the people that understand it.
	Obviously. It almost seems silly to point it out but it's something that I think is getting missed.
	Patrick Reid says, I'm really sorry to hear about what's happening to Tim's family.
	He strikes me as the kind of man who doesn't like to ask for help.
	His friend should organise something now so that they know there are people around the world who will be there for them in their hour of need.
	Just knowing that we are Here will be helpful.
	And that's a really nice sentiment.
	So thank you for saying so and it's it's true and I'm glad you Mentioned that at the start of the podcast alias best of luck again to absolutely to Tim and his wife Johan Sjet RE South Africa.
	The anti-Indian riots were due to the Gupta family involvement with Jacob Zuma and the ANC.
	State capture was a popular phrase in those days.
	I actually wrote an article back in 2021 explaining that whole debacle because we were all seeing videos of people getting shot and warehouses being burnt to the ground and no one really knew what was going on and it was basically a clash between Ramaphosa and Jacob Zuma who was a former ANC president and then the current ANC president.
	It was a political thing and then Zuma was imprisoned on corruption charges because he had massive stacks of cash in his house which in my mind tends to indicate that you might be corrupt.
	So it's probably true but in a lot of South African politics everyone is corrupt so it's One of those things where it's selectively enforced.
	And he went on to set up his own party MKWC's way.
	I'm probably massively butchering that, but they stole loads of votes from the ANC.
	The ANC then had less than a majority of votes in the last election and now they introduced this bill.
	So by this fallout between those two presidents it's unintentionally drawn the ire of Trump and potentially the collapse of their entire government if things carry on the way they are.
	So the final comment we'll read is from Baron Von Warhawk and a while ago I got into an argument with my friend about a subject matter that deeply disturbed me.
	The topic arose about Elon Musk criticizing South Africa and I brought up the attacks on the Boers there.
	They outright dismissed it and when I showed them the evidence of children being burned alive and women being raped one of them said that the white South Africans should have expected some revenge action when I pointed out that the black I
	think the Bantu expansion was in about 500 BC to Central and South Africa because they came out of sort of Nigeria and Ghana and places like that So then they're not necessarily the natives of the land and there are still natives you know, you look at the Congo the natives in the land a lot of them are pygmies and a lot of the Congos there are Bantu's that came there in the Bantu expansion.
	So if you understand your history, you know that People's claims quite often don't hold as much water as you might imagine but I think that the best avenue of attack here is that by attacking the white minority in South Africa, they're harming themselves.
	They need food, they need infrastructure, they need these things just as much as anyone else, and by attacking the people that disproportionately contribute to that, they aren't really helping anyone.
	They're not helping the white farmers, they're not helping themselves, and they're not helping themselves on the international stage because it looks awful if you genocide people.
	Which shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.
	And on that lovely positive note, it's time to end the show.
	Thank you very much for coming on again.
	My pleasure.
	Thank you very much everyone for watching.
	Hope you have a nice day despite the bad news.
	Make sure to tune in same time tomorrow and goodbye.

▲