Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 8, 2025 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:39:24

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1138

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters for the 8th of April 2025.
	For some reason I've got in our document it's 2024, I clearly forgot what year it was, but I've remembered now.
	And I'm joined by Beau, and we're going to be talking about how Labour is Britain's most right-wing party, and then...
	Beau, what are you going to be telling us about today?
	I'm just going to talk about Trump's ongoing attempts to deal with the illegal aliens in the United States.
	I know it's tariff mania at the moment.
	It's wall-to-wall tariff stuff in the mainstream media.
	It's a respite from the tariffs, really.
	Yeah, right.
	Because we're going to deal with that at some point.
	I'll probably talk about it later in the week.
	The office is somewhat divided on the tariffs.
	Yeah. The tub man himself is a big fan of the tariffs, but Stelios and I have been pretty critical of them.
	Well, it swings and roundabouts.
	I'm not completely against them, but there are downsides.
	Anyway. I'm not completely against them either.
	I just want to say, I was considering doing a segment about it.
	Today. But I thought, no, because the markets are in such turmoil.
	Monday was terrible across the board.
	But so far on Tuesday, this has been recorded on Tuesday, if anyone's watching this on YouTube at a later date.
	They won't be watching this bit, though.
	No, they won't be watching this bit.
	Okay. But the markets seem to be recovering a bit already.
	So, in any way, it's just so tumultuous that I think it's worth waiting a bit to see and when the markets settle a bit before I start talking about the tariffs anyway.
	Well, my bugbear wasn't even about the tariffs per se, it's about the discussion about trade deficits.
	Slightly different.
	Yeah, that was the sort of justification for it, but we're getting sidetracked here.
	Yeah, I'm going to be talking about immigration and aliens.
	I'm going to be talking about, on the topic of aliens, India.
	Not that they've landed in India, but just that...
	Crime statistics seem to obfuscate some sort of characters of specific crimes that you wouldn't necessarily get from the raw numbers alone and this is sort of one of those observations that as a research psychologist seemed very intuitive to me and then I actually started speaking to people and they didn't really get it and so I'm going to walk through and basically highlight how yes the crime statistics may say one thing but Okay.
	deeper look at something to be able to understand it and I'm just using India as a case study really anyway enough of all that that was about three whole minutes of introduction let's actually get on to the meat and potatoes that is labor so this isn't a segment where we praise the labor party I've not received a blow to the head recently don't worry I'm in perfect well reasonably well mental health and um
	The point of this is more going to be that the Conservatives are obsessing over things like diversity and Nigel Farage has been going around telling everyone that he's not racist and he loves Islam.
	Doesn't care what religion you are or what skin colour you have or anything about you.
	Doesn't care about anything.
	He's completely indifferent.
	He doesn't care about you is what Nigel wants to really get across.
	But the Labour Party has quietly been in Parliament, the one party in Parliament really, quietly pushing Some right-wing things.
	And partly to shame the supposedly real right-wing parties, but also for the sake of a bit of humour, we're going to pretend that the Labour Party is actually good today and they're doing good things.
	Well, it's funny, isn't it, that the more radical ends of the bell curve in whatever given movement you're in will sort of always be disappointed with any moderates.
	Right. It's quite often, even thinking about it just now, even quite often assassinations are quite often done by people, more radical people on your side of the aisle.
	Right? I've never really thought about it like that, but I suppose so.
	Quite often, yeah.
	Like arch-arch nationalists killed Gandhi, for example.
	Mm-hmm.
	Mm-hmm.
	I can't imagine, I know they do.
	Hard, hardcore lefties accusing Starmer of being right wing.
	Obviously, he's not actually right-wing.
	But what they've been trying to do is, because there's an upcoming local election and they're a little bit worried that it's going to be a forecast for the next election, which is all the way in 2029, is that they're trying to posture themselves as sort of...
	suppose they're trying to lay claim to some of the right-wing ground in British politics, and they're trying to target the Tories and reform at their own game.
	And it's interesting to see it play out, because in many ways, Labour have been more effective at doing this sort of thing than the Conservatives have when they were in government.
	And that's not me being hyperbolic or silly.
	There's genuinely some things here that the Labour Party have done more easily than the Conservatives, and I think that that's by design because the civil service and the entire apparatus of government is sort of set up to be activated when Labour gets in, right?
	Because of the constitutional reforms of new Labour and everything has sort of been set up to work when they're in power, and when other people are not in power, less so.
	Of course, because they...
	You know, there's a selection pressure to be sympathetic towards expanding the state if you work for the state as well.
	You know, people who believe in big government tend to work for the government.
	Just what it is.
	But I've seen lots of this recently.
	Keir Starmer leads most right-wing government in a generation, says ex-Labour MP.
	And I think that's actually kind of true.
	It probably is.
	Certainly more right-wing than the previous Conservative government.
	There was this from about three months ago, the end of last year.
	Keir Starmer amongst least left-wing Labour MPs study fines.
	Which is more of a condemnation of the other Labour MPs than of Keir Starmer.
	That is from The Guardian.
	I mean, that's exactly what I was saying earlier.
	It is, isn't it?
	Like full-blown Corbynistas, tankies, like actual commies, kind of hate Starmer for not being hardline enough.
	Well, let's remember that he carried out...
	A massive purge of the Labour Party's left wing, didn't they?
	All of the Jeremy Corbyn anti-Semitism stuff, I mean, I don't actually believe he's anti-Semitic, to be honest.
	He's just an Islamophile.
	Yeah, and I think that all of that sort of thing was just to get rid of them, really, wasn't it?
	The whole Labour anti-Semitism scandal was just a way of carrying out a socially acceptable purge.
	He did remove the whip from a number of...
	He wasn't that many though, was he?
	Wasn't it only like four or five or ten MPs?
	Straight away on day one?
	There were a handful, weren't there?
	For various reasons, it wasn't for one specific one, but they're basically just people that might cause him problems.
	So let's actually look at what they've done rather than what people are saying about them.
	Well, you may remember back in January of this year, the Home Office was claiming that...
	Claims that the police are two-tier or justice was two-tier is an extreme right-wing narrative.
	Now, this would be interesting, particularly so, if they adopted that narrative.
	And we actually covered this, didn't we?
	The reversal of the Sentencing Council's new guidelines, which had special rules for ethnic minorities and women.
	So it basically explicitly discriminated against.
	White men when it comes to the justice system.
	And, yeah, the Justice Secretary of the Labour government said, this is a direct quote, it amounts to differential treatment and the government will fight it and remove all of those specific aspects of it.
	And it's basically an admission of two-tier justice, isn't it?
	because she's saying that there's different treatment depending on who you are, which is the entire crux of that two-tier narrative, as they called it.
	And yeah, they're basically pushing back against this, which is interesting.
	I wouldn't say that they're true believers.
	I'm saying that they're doing it for cynical electoral reasons.
	So don't necessarily buy into it, but it is interesting.
	It's something a bit deeper there as well.
	Notice that the government, with a big majority, The government have got to fight their own...
	The sentencing council is independent of the government.
	There's any sort of fight there that the government can't just immediately do as they please.
	It's just odd.
	We've got lots of independent institutions that are basically just a check on the power of a government that might get delusions of grandeur from the perspective of the globalist faction.
	Those things, the whole rotten edifice needs to be torn down.
	The government should be able, for better or worse, shouldn't have to answer to or have to go to battle with a body like that.
	It should be with the cabinet.
	It's like in America where the state will create an investigating body in order to investigate itself.
	It happens all the time.
	The whole purpose of setting up an independent inquiry is that it puts an issue to bed without having to deal with it.
	They talk about that in, what's it called?
	Yesminster, don't they?
	Or the thick of it.
	Both of them acknowledge that same thing.
	But anyway, you need not worry, Bo, because Keir Starmer has declared an end of globalisation and globalism recently, which I thought was interesting.
	And I'm going to read a little bit from this, because You must mean only in an economic sense.
	Yeah, I think so.
	So, Sir Keir Starmer will declare the end of globalisation and admit it has failed the public amid the growing fallout of Donald Trump imposing global trade tariffs, including 10% on the UK.
	The Prime Minister will argue in a speech on Monday that the shock from the US President's trade war means Britain must move further and faster, cutting red tape to boost economic growth.
	Cut red tape?
	That sounds familiar, doesn't it?
	That's the kind of thing that I would say.
	Yeah, we've got to make it easier to do business in our country.
	It's interesting, isn't it?
	Sentiment is not leftist, even libertarian.
	It is, yeah.
	But I doubt whether he really means a word of it.
	They'll replace the red tape with other red tape.
	And it's just economically, right?
	It's not like the end of globalism as in the free movement of peoples.
	Yeah, I don't think he's necessarily saying that.
	He just means in the trade sense.
	And apparently, in an article on Sunday, he said, The world as we knew it has gone.
	We must rise to meet the moment.
	There you go.
	So, another thing he's done is he kept the Conservatives' two-child benefit cap.
	Previously, before the Conservatives introduced this, you could have three, four, five, six, who knows how many children, and you would receive money proportionate to the number of kids you had, and then they capped it at two children, so basically like replacement birth rate, any above that, and you're paying for them yourself, which I don't believe in that sort of welfare anyway.
	Obviously, the government's ruined the economy anyway, so people have to rely on handouts, but in an ideal world, the government wouldn't be involved in this, and people's stolen tax money wouldn't be given to other people to have kids they can't afford.
	And yeah, I can't afford to raise three children currently, so I shouldn't have to pay tax so someone else can.
	I think that's an innate sense of fairness.
	Of course, traditionally, the left...
	Is very much in favour of just, let's just throw as much money to single mothers as humanly possible.
	That's not going to end in tragedy whatsoever, is it?
	But yes, this is a more sort of bread and butter right-wing issue that they've stuck with.
	And they've received a fair amount of criticism for this.
	Apparently a charity has said that Labour has already sent 30,000 children into poverty.
	It's worth mentioning that if you're in poverty...
	in this day and age then you've probably done something wrong and in fact the definition of poverty is normally calculated based on the median so there will always be a certain percentage of people in poverty normally a charity sets it about the bottom 20% as based on the median income are in poverty And so, you could have an infinite number of resources, and as long as there are a bottom 20%, they'll be in poverty, according to that definition.
	So it's basically a way of a charity forever having a reason to exist, because they can say, oh, these people are in poverty, they're thinking, like, don't have running water or food, but actually, being in poverty in modern Britain means you can have a car, a house, flat-screen TV, you might not necessarily be living a lavish lifestyle.
	But, at the same time, you're not, like, destitute, rattling pennies around in a tin can outside of shops on your high street.
	You're not, you know, a beggar, as people might imagine.
	Or just dying of starvation in the gutter.
	Right, yeah.
	Yeah, that's not really what it means anymore.
	So, yes, I just found that interesting, and...
	I was quite surprised at this one when it happened.
	Sick and disabled face being stripped of 1,200 a year each in welfare benefits as Reeves tries to balance the budget.
	So this was interesting to me because I didn't expect the Labour Party to go after the sick and disabled.
	But here we are.
	Even I have a bit of sympathy towards those people because they haven't brought it upon themselves, obviously.
	And so actually, I think there is a valid claim that they deserve some help, but the Labour Party doesn't think so.
	They think that they deserve less money a year.
	Well, it's just the obvious thing to say here, isn't it?
	It's making the distinction between people that are genuinely disabled and those that aren't, because I just think that, well, we know really that there are lots of people gaming the system one way or another.
	That was because the government created incentives to lie about it, really, isn't it?
	And the way, and the definitions of what it means.
	So you end up with that maybe did injure their foot or their leg or something at work and then they got better but they just claim they haven't, they claim they're still in pain.
	They keep claiming they're still in pain for 30 years and actually there's nothing wrong with them.
	That and then they're in the same category as someone who's genuinely born with I don't think anyone really begrudges...
	No one really begrudges those people.
	No, of course not.
	Some sort of state welfare.
	I mean, there's some hard-line people out there, hard-right people, that said there should be no state benefits.
	Well, I agree with that, but I think that charity would actually probably benefit them more.
	If people knew that the money was actually going to genuinely disabled people, I think people would be more charitable than if they were paying it via their contributions with tax, because also they get a very small slice of the pie tax.
	In terms of taxation.
	And I think people would be more willing to be generous if they actually voluntarily did it.
	Either way, in modern Britain it seems the case that there are lots and lots of people taking the mickey out of the system.
	Perfect example is there was the Motability scheme that was meant to help people with disabilities get a car and one of the qualifying things was that you're autistic.
	So you could get a nice new Mercedes if you're autistic.
	And also, you know, you could...
	Crazy. You could easily fake that if you wanted to.
	I would get an autism diagnosis for a Mercedes.
	I'm not autistic, but I know how to fake it.
	I'm joking, by the way.
	The worst thing about all of that is that it actually screws over the genuinely disabled in all sorts of ways.
	That's the worst thing about it.
	It's a very immoral thing.
	Not only are you taking advantage of people's, basically, generosity, but you're depriving people who need it more than you.
	So it's a very immoral thing to do.
	Keir Starmer wrote an article in the Mail angry about illegal migration.
	Pretending to be angry.
	Of course, I'm not taking him at his word.
	Just for the one person in the comments who's like, why are you supporting Labour?
	Why are you falling for it?
	We're not, okay.
	Just a bit of fun.
	But yeah, he's gone through this arc.
	Eventually he'll be writing for The Spectator as well, maybe The Telegraph.
	Talking about scroungers or I don't know what.
	Any sort of thing.
	But yeah, he wrote a long article talking about what he's going to do to tackle illegal migration, how he thinks it's unfair and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
	But the fact he's having to say this just suggests that he's reading the room and he knows that people are actually genuinely annoyed about this and something has to be done about it, no matter your politics.
	Which I think he's more pragmatic than people give him credit for.
	Something needs to be said about it.
	Because, of course, you could just use the Navy.
	Yeah, of course.
	There's loads of things.
	You could do it.
	You could also just deport them all without processing their claims.
	It's pretty easy.
	But anyway, there's lots of solutions.
	We talked about it.
	Ad nauseum.
	But one thing we haven't talked about is the fact that per capita, Starmer is deporting more people than Donald Trump.
	So... These are the official figures, so we're just going off of those.
	The people that both the US and the UK is aware of.
	Britain has approaching quarter of a million.
	The US has 11 million, so obviously there's a difference in scale.
	But Starmer has deported 24,000 in 8 months, which is about 3,000 per month, or 14 per 1,000 a month.
	Trump has deported 37,000 in 3 months, so obviously much more in a shorter time, but also there's much more to begin with, which is 12,333, that's probably recurring, or 1.1 per 1,000 a month.
	I think...
	I would question it's 215,000.
	I mean, that might be...
	That's the official figure, yeah.
	Obviously, the US also has unregistered illegals as well.
	That's not the point, though, is it?
	I suppose, alright, fair enough.
	Fair enough.
	I'll take it on face value.
	But it's interesting now that all of a sudden there's a left-winger in charge and they're actually able to...
	Do this sort of thing.
	And no one's saying, oh, the human rights.
	Oh, those poor people.
	People just sort of accept that it's going on.
	And yeah, it's 14 times the rate of Trump.
	Of course, I'm being a bit silly.
	Obviously, the problems are slightly different to one another.
	And also with America, you've got sort of like...
	The MS-13 cartels and all sorts of other complications.
	Also, the Labour Party has kept the ban on puberty blockers for under-18s despite lots and lots of campaigning and lots of people angry about this sort of thing.
	And they've just ignored it all and kept away the worst excesses from children.
	So yeah, no children will be given this sort of...
	Credit to them for this one.
	I think all the other examples you've said, one way or another, have got caveats, or it's actually bullshit, or it's a spin from their political enemies on the left of them, or whatever.
	All the other things so far, I've been like, it's not really though, is it?
	They're not actually right-wing things in any real sense.
	Even conservative things, let alone right-wing things.
	Not that this is, but still, credit here.
	Credit to them here.
	I'm loath to give Labour and Starmer any credit whatsoever, but...
	Fair enough.
	That is good.
	And I wouldn't have expected them to do it.
	You know, if you'd asked me the day before the last general election, will Labour do this?
	I would say, no way.
	No way.
	Same here.
	I never saw this coming, but here we are.
	So, once again, loathe to do it, but credit where it's due, that's a good thing, isn't it?
	Undeniably. Another thing that surprised me was this, that Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, Set up an Elon Musk style dodge unit to root out inefficiency within the home office.
	I didn't realise she would be modelling herself off of Elon Musk, but here we are.
	They've already started banning away days which cost more and they're also I think they banned an expensive venue so it says expensive away days that involve hiring external venues are also likely to be banned Insiders said.
	The move comes after the department hired an opulent central London ballroom to hold an event for civil servants last month and apparently there are facilities that they can do that without having to pay for it and apparently now they're scrutinising and Overseeing every penny.
	Whether you can believe that or not.
	I don't believe Labour will ever be fiscally responsible because the entire raise on debt for their political party is to spend more money, basically.
	The spend more money party.
	Which I don't agree with, obviously.
	Let's say, coincidentally, British, the American version is saving hundreds of millions straight away and reworking flows of capital throughout the world.
	Our one is, let's not have a party in a ballroom.
	Let's have it in a slightly less grand venue than a ballroom.
	It's just...
	I just thought that was funny.
	Our version of everything is always on such a smaller, usually more lamer scale.
	But no, it's good.
	I mean, if they're doing that, even if it...
	Even if it's for appearances, it's still better than nothing, isn't it?
	Right, that's what I was going to say.
	So... I thought this was political party overhauls the civil service they're basically setting it up so it works better for them than their opponents which has already happened and why the Labour government's able to do things where others couldn't but I think it's interesting that they're taking a harsh public line with them basically saying you know lump it or leave it you're working for
	us now so come back to the office because that was a big dispute is we want you back in the office actually doing work rather than sitting at home doing nothing like they had cases where Hmm.
	work hours which is a bit frustrating for someone paid by taxpayer money but yes I think this is one of those things that is probably a bit more bipartisan but obviously the right in British politics is very harsh on the civil service and it appears as if it's a bit more right-wing even if it's probably done just for the sake of we've got lots of left-wing things we want to do and we need you here to do it.
	So I think there's a more practical reason and it's not necessarily ideological.
	But one thing I did enjoy was recently there was some research that came out that said over 60 Reform UK candidates in local elections are Tory defectors and Labour picked up on this and started running with ads that sound like they were made by us.
	Reform candidates are just Tories in disguise.
	Don't let a Tory sneak through.
	And Nigel Farage's head and inside it's Cammy Bannock.
	Which, to be fair, is a legitimate criticism of them.
	They are too close.
	Yeah, but it's just not...
	It's just the classic spin, isn't it?
	Yeah, that's right.
	They're too close.
	Reform are Tory 2.0.
	But it's not that Kim is secretly pulling Nigel strings.
	No, of course not.
	It's not that, though, is it?
	And it's also not that Labour isn't any, you know, it's not like Labour's distinct from those either.
	They're all the same problem, really, aren't they?
	And then there was more of this, and I think I saw Nigel Farage complaining that the Labour Party had released 40 pieces of, you know, propaganda, basically, insulting reform.
	And you can see that they've basically taken their line on illegal migration...
	Because Starmer's saying he's going to do things to stop the boats.
	They started addressing the two-tier justice, so now Reform doesn't actually have any unique talking points of their own, where they're the only party that's addressing the issues, because those are the two that they had.
	And now they're gone, they're off the table, because Starmer and eventually the Tories will have those as well, and it'll become just a run-of-the-mill political issue.
	And that's how it gets contained, that's how it doesn't get solved, and of course Reform have their part to play in that as well.
	But... My point being here is that by merit of their electoral ambitions the Labour Party has seemingly turned to become the most right-wing party in Britain but don't be fooled by it because obviously we all know that they're not actually right-wing they don't actually believe these things they're doing it for pragmatic reasons they're doing it for their image they're doing it to win elections But I thought it'd be a good way to shame a lot of the people
	that are involved in the Conservative and Reform parties because if Labour can outflank you to the right, then you're doing something wrong.
	Remember the Tories...
	Sorry, the Labour and the Fabian Society, that connection there.
	You know, the Fabian Society.
	Of course, yeah.
	And being wolves in sheep's clothing.
	Yeah, just the...
	Yeah, completely shameless.
	Just lie about anything.
	They'd do anything to maintain power, wouldn't they?
	I'm going to read these two comments very quickly.
	Ryan Hennigan says, As an American, I love that our tariffs matter more than everyone else's.
	I love living in the most important country.
	It's so cool.
	This is probably how it felt to be English four generations back.
	I'm happy for you, I suppose.
	I'm glad you're enjoying it.
	Yeah, well done.
	The Habsification says the last 125 years of legislation here in the UK has been a mistake.
	A Great Repeal Act for the last 125 years would do some good.
	Yes, let's return to the 19th century, please.
	Not even the late 19th century.
	That got too modern for my taste.
	Yeah, Great Repeal Act would be nice.
	It's on the cards.
	It's being discussed and we know the legislation we want to get rid of.
	I think we'll be alright.
	Is this mouse on?
	It is indeed.
	Okay. It's bow time.
	Sorry. It's the bow show.
	I threw you off right at the start.
	So, as I mentioned at the top of the show, I considered doing a segment on Tariff Day, because in the mainstream media, it's wall-to-wall Trump tariff mania.
	It's like, that is the news cycle today.
	If you love tariffs, it is your day today.
	On Tuesday the 4th of April.
	In the year of our Lord 2025, that is the story.
	But I've decided not to talk about that because we've talked about it before and we're going to talk about it again.
	I want to talk about it again.
	And everyone else is talking about it and it's not that interesting to be another voice in a sea of voices, is it?
	Well, I just want the market to settle down a bit so we can see.
	because monday was a crazily uh tumultuous day so far on tuesday that is looking not too bad like it's begun to stabilize already even in the asian markets um so i want to leave it a good few days if not a week
	or more depends how it all plays out um you know before i start talking about it because we can't see the wood for the trees at the moment too soon we'll see how it goes instantly before i move on to the actual piece today um i think nearly all countries in the world are going to capitulate to trump quite quickly or very quickly uh with the exception maybe of china because actually can and they seem to have the political will to do so and everyone else literally everyone else
	Well, yeah, we'll see.
	We'll see how it goes.
	Okay, so something else I thought was interesting we could talk about is the ongoing battle between the Trump administration and their efforts at mass deportation.
	Because, like we mentioned in the last segment, it's interesting how quite often a government will have to go to battle with elements of itself.
	Like the...
	The executive have to go to war with the judiciary, in this example, quite often.
	You know, we now live in the world, we're in the United States and Great Britain anyway.
	I'm not talking about all countries in the world, but in Great Britain and the United States.
	And it's sort of designed that way.
	The government will have to answer to their own cults.
	And there's nothing necessarily intrinsically wrong with that.
	Well, I mean, in the United States, they were explicitly set up to be a check on the power of both the presidency and the legislature.
	The only problem is, well, it goes both ways.
	The problem would be if the executive or the legislature get out of hand or are controlled by truly evil tyrants, let's say, or if the judiciary become out of hand, if they become completely unreasonable, partisan activists one way or another.
	Then you're in trouble.
	And it seems to be, or certainly here at the Lotus Eaters, our perspective, our worldview, would say, I do argue, that both in the United States and Great Britain, the judiciary is flooded by lefties.
	Well, it's a lot of judicial activism, isn't there?
	Right. I think...
	There is more of a culture of pride in your independence in Britain than in America.
	I think there's a lot more judicial activism there, but it is coming along here in leaps and bounds as well.
	We've both got that disease pretty bad, I would say.
	So in other words, what I'm saying here is a government might, it's not happening in Britain, but in America at least, government might try and do something based, might try and do something that's a tiny bit radical but is in the nation's interest, or might try and do something that is a little bit outside the Overton window of sort of wishy-washy liberal leftism, and the judiciary just block it straight away.
	Just block them from doing it.
	I mean, I saw, who was it?
	It might have been David Starkey said recently that if, say, Nigerian Reform became the government, and on day one they just tried to send the Navy or the SBS into the channel to just physically, forcefully if needs be, turn the small boats back, he said, I think it was Starkey, he said, well, good luck, the police will come round.
	Literally, the police will knock on number 10 and arrest you for doing that because it's against the law.
	I didn't know the police would come and arrest you.
	Totally possible, yeah.
	I mean, do you remember Tony Blair was...
	I think Tony Blair was cautioned and stuff.
	Potentially lying to Parliament.
	Or the Chilcot stuff.
	I do remember that one, yeah.
	Boris got in trouble, didn't he?
	For having a party during COVID.
	Lockdown parties, yeah.
	He spoke to the police.
	At least in theory, the police and the Home Secretary aren't above the law.
	Just in practice.
	They are, yeah.
	Nearly always are.
	No, it's like...
	In America, if you were impeached, eventually the police are going to come round.
	Right? It never got that far with Nixon, but it could have, eventually.
	Well, he stepped down before the...
	He was impeached.
	Yeah, exactly.
	But I'm saying if it had gone that far...
	And he stayed in.
	If he'd stayed in and he'd been impeached, the next thing is he'd be prosecuted.
	Blimey, yeah.
	It'd be the same thing with Bill Clinton, but Bill Clinton avoided it.
	Oh, no, he didn't.
	No, Bill Clinton was charged and convicted, and he was removed of...
	When you pass the bar, you become a full lawyer.
	Debarred. Yeah, that's right.
	Thank you.
	He was debarred.
	He was not allowed to practice law in Arkansas.
	So, yeah, he...
	I don't think that's harmed his career much, though.
	Senior politicians can certainly be arrested if they...
	If they do something wrong.
	So anyway.
	So then you would need to, as we talked about before, or last week was it, I think, was talking about how if you're going to really do mass deportations, you have to take on the civil service and the judiciary first.
	I mean, in Britain, I'd like to see, because we've got a Supreme Court now.
	That Tony Blair brought in.
	2009, wasn't it?
	I just abolished it.
	I passed legislation.
	Well, it's a constitutional aberration anyway.
	It doesn't make sense in our political system to have a Supreme Court because we've got an uncodified constitution, so we don't need a constitutional court.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	It's crazy.
	Again, Starkey's very good on that, saying what an abomination it is.
	Yeah, just clear it out.
	Don't need it.
	Get rid of everything possible that you could that would stand in the way of...
	Some activist judge somewhere.
	So anyway, going back to the United States and Trump.
	I was surprised, a little bit surprised.
	We did a live stream, didn't we, on Inauguration Day, the inauguration speech.
	I was a little bit surprised that he mentioned the Alien and Sedition Act in his inaugural speech.
	And having read up on it for this segment this morning, apparently he did mention it earlier on in the race.
	Apparently one speech he did, he actually did mention it before he won, so it wasn't the very first mention of it by him.
	But nonetheless, when he mentioned it in the inauguration speech, I immediately, I think the record will show, within seconds, said, oh, that's a John Adams thing, like very late 18th century thing, that.
	That's a surprise.
	It's harking back to the beginning of the Republic very nearly.
	But he is actually using or trying to use It's a weird argument from the Democrats, because they're saying, oh, that's a really old law, and things like that.
	It's just like, well, the Constitution is older, and you're not going to come out and say, oh, well, that's really old, so we've got to ignore it.
	So you'd think that you'd have a stronger argument against it than that.
	It's like, well, it's just as much law as a law passed yesterday.
	If not, it's got more validity, because at least it's been tried and tested for at least over 100 years or so.
	So, if anything, it's more legitimate to use an older law than it is a more recent one.
	If you think about it in those terms, anyway.
	I can't think of many arguments the other way around.
	Yeah. Well, so what happened was Trump wanted to use those laws to deport people.
	And a judge, not even the Supreme Court, but just a more lowly judge, stopped it.
	Put an embargo on that, said you couldn't do it.
	So it went to, so the government, i.e.
	Trump, takes it to the Supreme Court, where there's no higher body to appeal to.
	And they decided it was okay to use that.
	I think it was like, was it five to four, or six to three, anyway.
	That'd be the partisan split, more or less, wouldn't it?
	Yeah, I think there was one, well, there was one conservative that...
	dissented from it but anyway the Supreme Court decided that Trump is okay to use it so a little bit about it I mean it was it was John Adams like the very very late 18th century last few last couple of years of the 18th century and the United States was going through the the quasi war which was sort of an undeclared war with France where they were screwing with each other shipping And just because of geopolitics and the triangle of power between Great Britain,
	France and the United States was such, at that period of time, it ebbed and flowed, but at that period of time, it looked like the United States might go to war with France, or the other way round, really.
	France might actually declare war on...
	It would have been an interesting turn of history, wouldn't it?
	Yeah, yeah.
	Well, there was sort of a battle for the heart and soul of the United States, were they going to be more British than they are French, or the other way round.
	So anyway.
	So yeah, you could have been speaking French in the United States.
	Could you imagine?
	God, there's so many.
	I could talk for an hour about that easily.
	The thing is, I really want to pick your brains about it because I don't know much about it but I'm going to have to restrain myself.
	There were just different factions like Hamilton and Jefferson.
	Jefferson was much more pro-France than he was pro-British and Hamilton the other way around.
	For example.
	Yeah, different factions at that time in the early Republic.
	So what was the actual reason that they brought this fact in?
	Okay, so there was just massive...
	Just to say this, there were massive tensions with France.
	And in some of the newspapers, they were just writing really, really pro-French things.
	Sort of seditious...
	I mean, seditious is a bit strong, but they were sort of saying really subversive and seditious things.
	And really going for the throat of the president, John Adams, who was somewhere in between.
	John Adams made it his mission to be completely impartial, refused to pick a side between France and Britain.
	What sort of things were they saying?
	Like, frogs' legs are actually tasty, you know, we hate roast beef.
	They were saying things like, it's our duty to go to war with Great Britain.
	Just France and Great Britain, obviously.
	I suppose.
	They're saying it's our duty as Americans to help the French.
	Look how the French helped us in the Revolutionary War, the War of Independence.
	It's now our duty to pay them back.
	It was John Adams' policy not to have a war with anyone.
	Pretty good policy as far as that goes.
	So from his point of view, newspapers that are writing that sort of thing are seditious.
	And he didn't want loads of pro-French people or French people coming into the United States.
	Fair enough.
	Because that wouldn't help him either.
	Under any conditions, yeah.
	Yeah. Because they're just more likely to vote Democrat.
	They didn't have Democrat and Republicans.
	They had Democrat and Federalists.
	And the Democrat Party then aren't the same as the Democrat Party now, so it's a bit confusing.
	But anyway, John Adams tried to, or did, for a couple of years, crack down...
	On sort of seditious things being written and illegal aliens coming into the country.
	Okay. So when Jefferson gets in in 1800, he just repeals it straight away.
	It was one of the reasons why they won the election in 1800 on the promise that they would do that.
	They're saying it's un-American, it's against the First Amendment, da-da-da-da, quite strong arguments.
	I mean, history remembers John Adams as being a bit thin-skinned.
	I think if you actually lived through it, you wouldn't necessarily view it that way.
	But anyway, that's how the sort of reasonably low resolution view of it often goes, is that Adams was wrong and Jefferson was right.
	The American thing to do was have completely free speech.
	Sounds about right.
	It sounds about right.
	It sounds about right.
	Okay. But then since then, he repealed them.
	There was four different laws.
	He repealed them straight away in 1800.
	But they've been brought back periodically.
	So in the age of the War of 1812...
	When the Brits burnt down the White House in 1814.
	There'll be one commenter saying, actually, it was a Canadian regiment, but...
	I don't think it was.
	I don't know.
	I see that said sometimes.
	I don't know whether it's true or not.
	More than one regiment.
	I don't think it was.
	Am I wrong?
	I did a long bit of long form content with Benjamin Boyce about that.
	It's on our website.
	Go to lotusseaters.com and go to Epoch, history tab, Epochs, or just type in the search bar 1812, and you'll get a couple of hours of me talking to the great Benjamin Boyce all about the War of 1812.
	If Trump is watching, it was the Canadians that did it.
	Please don't give us a bigger tariff.
	It was all the Canadians.
	They talked us into it.
	Well, during the War of 1812, America did try to invade Canada.
	I suppose it's a stronger case for sedition if you're actively at war against the people.
	Right. Yeah, yeah.
	It's like it's sort of an emergency, isn't it, war?
	You could say it's sort of a state of emergency.
	So that's also me sort of supporting the use of that law against me, hypothetically.
	Obviously I wasn't alive then.
	Or was I?
	And then in World War I, Woodrow Wilson used it again against Germans and the other allies of the other side during World War I. During World War II, FDR uses it against Germans and Japanese and other Yeah, But I mean, it's a bit complicated.
	So they interred thousands of Japanese people, but they didn't inter lots of Italian-Americans.
	a lot of Italian-Americans joined the war effort, didn't they?
	Yeah, of course, yeah.
	Loads, yeah.
	Yeah, everyone knows that the Italians, you know...
	To liberate their own country.
	Anyone who understands any ancient Roman history knows that civil war is the favourite pastime of that peninsula.
	Well, it's the Americans and the British that liberated Sicily and Italy, you know.
	The Anzio and Monte Cassino and all that sort of thing.
	Yeah, and a lot of Italian-Americans.
	I've got a long-form bit of content about Lucky Luciano again on Inkbox.
	Where the Americans, literally the state, goes to Lucky Luciano, the biggest gangster in the States, and says, look, you're going to be on our side, right, essentially here.
	You're not going to use your influence among the Sicilian and Italian-American communities to sort of sabotage our docks and stuff, are you?
	Please. And he was like, yeah, no, no, yeah, it's fine.
	We can work together, yeah.
	Yeah, and ever since...
	The mob and the US government have been the best of friends.
	Yeah, because it's not...
	Mussolini wasn't necessarily pro...
	our thing.
	You know what I mean?
	That's a way of putting it, yeah.
	Our thing, yeah.
	And so, all right, so...
	And now Trump, and since World War II, it hasn't been invoked again since World War II, but you can just see over a couple of hundred years plus...
	It's sort of periodically come out.
	And some people said, you know, Trump's not at war with these immigrants.
	Well, isn't he?
	Haven't they invaded?
	Really? It's obviously not an actual declared war.
	Of course not.
	There are armed gangs.
	Right, well, that's the thing.
	So he's using it on full-blown, proper, badass gang members, sort of paramilitary-level gang members.
	Well, that's the allegations anyway.
	So it's not just some random Puerto Rican who hasn't done anything wrong other than entering the country illegally.
	No, they're using it on proper badass gang nutters.
	Yeah, because they made a big fuss about the fact they were deporting 17 gang members to El Salvador, to one of the super prisons, right?
	And those people are genuinely dangerous.
	And they are like a sort of paramilitary force in effect.
	I mean, they're not explicitly set out to overthrow the US government.
	They're there to basically make money.
	However, they can be just as destructive as a paramilitary force if they so want to.
	And you don't want, you know, basically foreign people coming in and causing mayhem in your country, obviously.
	So it seems like a perfectly valid use of this actually The mayhem is to such a degree that it's bordering on seditious.
	Well, they've taken over entire areas, haven't they?
	Like they took over, was it in Colorado?
	I can't remember exactly where it was.
	But a gang took over an entire apartment complex.
	A Venezuelan one.
	I think it was, yeah.
	It was, yeah.
	So some of these people, it's actually a very small number of people in the scheme of things that they're using these laws against.
	Somewhere I read 130, somewhere else I read 140, somewhere else I read 200.
	So whatever it is, it's in that ballpark.
	A lot of them were Venezuelan, the ones that were taken to El Salvador and put in the El Salvadorian super prisons.
	They were all badass Venezuelan gang member types.
	They're not going to do well in an El Salvador prison as well, rival gangs in there.
	Hopefully not, yeah.
	Yeah, they're going to have a rough time of it.
	It's also worth mentioning as well, right, that...
	Your sort of garden variety deportation, like some Mexican woman that's being deported, she's not being deported using this.
	This is specific to the gang members.
	So there's already laws in place.
	Believe it or not, the reason it's illegal is because there are already laws forbidding it.
	That's why it's illegal immigration, believe it or not.
	There is one story or one angle that maybe at least one of these people has been wrongly accused of being the super badass Venezuelan paramilitary style...
	You're making them sound cool now.
	He just happened to have a tattoo and it was wrongly identified him as one of them and that it's really unfair that he's...
	I'm okay to persecute people with bad tattoos.
	If that's what it's come to.
	That's a joke, by the way.
	I'm not being serious.
	So I don't know the validity of that.
	I don't know the ins and outs of the guy's case or the ins and outs of the guy being identified as one of the really bad Venezuelan types or not.
	So I don't know on that.
	Not including that.
	Yeah, I've got no sympathy for some terrible gangbangers that have invaded the United States, done insane things, been put in prison, and now, and are now being deported to El Salvador.
	Yeah, no sympathy.
	It's also crazy to me that these are the people that the justice system is trying to protect here.
	That their rights are worthy of consideration.
	As they mention there explicitly, Trendo Aragua.
	That gang, you know, they've got...
	They're properly decked out like a special forces unit sometimes.
	It says there, Trump has alleged that the migrants were members of the Trender Aragua gang.
	I may well be butchering that pronunciation.
	And they were, quote, conducting irregular warfare against the US and could therefore be removed under the act.
	So, if the authorities, even if it's sort of exaggerated...
	If they can even remotely claim something like you're conducting irregular warfare, yeah, get them out.
	Get them out.
	Get them off the streets and get them out of the country.
	Yeah, throw them in some dungeon, some oubliette somewhere.
	They should be making cheap furniture in El Salvador.
	I don't know whether they actually employ the prisoners in the mega prisons or not.
	They probably should, though.
	Yeah. So the Supreme Court, it finally came to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court said that the notice, i.e.
	the notice to be deported, whether it's to El Salvador or not, the notice must be afforded within reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them, the criminal person, to actually seek habeas relief, i.e.
	a fair hearing, in the proper venue before such removal occurs.
	Okay. And another quote from the Supreme Court.
	The only question is which court will resolve the challenge.
	So, it's funny, it's interesting really, that both sides, both the Trump side and the anti-Trumpers, sort of claimed victory because, so Trump called it a great day for justice in America, but the ACLU, American Civil Liberties Union, you know, obviously arch defenders of anyone, Doesn't matter how despicable they are.
	They were claiming it as a bit of a win because there were, I think, three of the Supreme Court justices dissented.
	Yeah, the ACLU called it a huge victory because it means at least that bit about habeas and about having a fair hearing in due time and all that sort of thing.
	They're saying, they figure, I suppose, that that's a loophole for them.
	They'll be able to...
	Get a lot of insanely violent people kept in the United States.
	Well, it slows the whole process down.
	Yeah, right, it slows it down.
	Yeah. So they're happy enough with that.
	Yeah, they can have their violent criminals in the United States rather than in a prison where they belong.
	Oh, wonderful.
	Yeah. So Trump said, the Supreme Court has upheld the rule of law in our nation by allowing a president, whoever that may be, to be able to secure our borders and protect our families and our country itself.
	Whereas the ACLU said, we are disappointed that we will need to start the court process over again in a different venue.
	But the critical point is that the Supreme Court said individuals must be given due process to challenge their removal under the Alien Enemies Act.
	So there you have it.
	I just find it interesting that even a strong government, you know, so like Trump has got the White House, he's got Congress, he's got the Senate, he's got the Supreme Court.
	And he's got the political will, presumably.
	And the political will.
	He's actually doing it.
	And still, there's lots of pushback and it takes months to get something rubber-stamped and green-lit and all that sort of thing.
	You know, I said it before.
	I think I did a tweet.
	Or maybe I said it on here before.
	I can't remember.
	But the idea, for example, with the JFK files is that the state has to put together a body to investigate itself.
	Because itself is stopping itself from being honest.
	It reminds me of, you know, in like a school bully gets your arm and goes, stop hitting yourself, stop hitting yourself.
	It's sort of like that.
	It's just like, well, never mind.
	It's a simple enough analogy.
	I suppose the way, I suppose it's better that way than just having an autocracy.
	Because true autocracies...
	Well, unless you happen to get someone who's extremely wise and level-headed and benevolent, someone like Marcus Aurelius, a philosopher king, or Antoninus Pius.
	Unless you're lucky enough to get that, then you're going to have a bad time with the true autocracy.
	So maybe all this is just the way it's got to be, really.
	Yeah, the appearance of...
	Accountability is still better than having none at all, isn't it?
	Because at least then that defines the bounds in which a political actor can operate to a certain degree.
	And once they step over it, it's like, okay, well, you're clearly going above your station here.
	I suppose another way of saying it is that checks and balances in this instance are annoying and frustrating, to me at least, as well as Trump and a lot of other Americans and patriots.
	It's annoying, but it's better to have them than not have them.
	Isn't it?
	I mean, let's be fair, let's be honest.
	Because, of course, at some point, you'll get a fairly hard left-wing Democrat in again, and they could do it even more, even worse.
	So, I mean, thank God for the Supreme Court, really.
	One of my favourite historians and journalists, Alistair Cook, he's passed away now, he's very, very old.
	I've quoted him, I think, twice already on this podcast, where he talks about the Supreme Court.
	Thank God for it.
	And it's not always perfectly right.
	I mean, back in the 19th century, they said you could have child labour, or you could have slaves, or whatever.
	But they reversed themselves eventually, and the Americans, you've got the Supreme Court to thank for keeping the Republic in as good a shape as it is, to be perfectly honest.
	It could be worse, you think?
	Oh yeah, yeah, a lot worse, yeah.
	Thank God that it's got a majority of conservative justices on it.
	I think that's part of the reason it's doing good work at the minute.
	Yeah. So anyway, they've given Trump the green light for now to basically just get rid of the very, very worst.
	So there's that.
	Hopefully, if and when we get a government in our country with the political will to start doing things along these lines, we can look at...
	The example of the United States.
	Hopefully we can just abolish, we'll have a great repeal act of some type, and just abolish our Supreme Court entirely, and then there'll have to be some sort of sweep out of their judiciary, or some sort of new courts created with judges that are vetted to not be actual globalist communist partisans or whatever.
	These things can be done if there's enough political will.
	There's nothing that can't be done within reason.
	Okay, we've got a couple of comments.
	I'll read them for you.
	Logan17pine, I'm happy to say, lads, I've lost £110 in one year.
	That's great going, yeah.
	Well done.
	Keep it up.
	Be very proud of yourself.
	Bold Eagle 1787 says the judiciary in the US has zero powers to check the other branches.
	The Founding Fathers gave them zero powers in the Constitution due to the PTSD from the Admiralty courts that were tyrannical.
	Well, I think they've got more than zero, but I can understand if you might argue that they're one of the three branches of government that has the least power, perhaps.
	That is a valid argument, and I've seen it put forward many times.
	I wouldn't necessarily say it was zero, but I can see where you're coming from at the same time.
	There's law by precedent, though, isn't there?
	So... Okay, they've got zero power in the sense of a legislative body.
	Yeah, but there's law by precedent.
	And I think it is in the Constitution about the Supreme Court, specifically about the Supreme Court.
	So... It depends what he means by powers.
	I suppose so.
	It depends how you define power.
	I've seen that sort of argument about and I understand it at the very least.
	Anyway. Excuse me.
	So anyway.
	I love a good crime stat but they don't always tell you everything.
	And you may have seen me, if you follow me on Twitter, posting all of my different crime stats for all of the different ethnicities under the sun, because they're really useful in understanding the nature of the world.
	Here we have, this is just an example, but it's Britain breaking down the arrest rate for every 1,000 people by ethnicity.
	You can notice...
	Here's white at 9.4.
	And you can see the usual suspects.
	Black, obviously, twice as represented.
	Black others, five times over-represented.
	Gypsies, obviously, over-represented.
	But most crimes are done by white men.
	Yes, statistically that is true, but there is such a wonderful thing, this wonderful white invention known as per capita.
	No, I don't understand that.
	I don't know those words.
	I refuse to understand that concept.
	It's just white men do most of the crime.
	That's the end of the story.
	Don't look into it any further than that.
	Very convincing.
	Per capita, yeah.
	What a mad thing.
	And that's reality, right?
	I'm not saying necessarily that you should blame every single person in that group for the actions of these people.
	But just have eyes in the back of your head because they're much more likely to do something criminal and violent.
	Potentially, yes.
	But also, you need to have an informed view to be able to solve the problem, right?
	If you want to get rid of crime, it's useful to know who's committing the crimes.
	So, one thing I wanted to draw attention to is India and Pakistan.
	Pakistanis in Britain are more likely than the native white majority to commit crime.
	But the Indians are actually half as likely.
	And I think this plays out with...
	Anecdotal experience, because I've lived alongside lots of Indians now, living in Swindon for almost five years, and they're not really violent people, they don't really cause lots of social problems.
	Worst, perhaps, they might be a little bit ignorant of doorway etiquette and British manners, and around a lot of the Indian food shops, there is a lot of litter and waste on the floor.
	So, they're a bit messy and sometimes they can be a bit rude, but in the grand scheme of things that are ailing Britain, they're not really the ones causing problems.
	They sometimes can, but usually, from what I've seen in Swindon at least, they're just families that are living a relatively normal life and they're suffering the same sorts of things that actually the natives are.
	I've not gone soft all of a sudden and said, you know what, they...
	They're all welcome here.
	I'm not necessarily saying that, but I'm just acknowledging the nature of the problem.
	But that statistic doesn't tell you everything, of course.
	I'll say real quick, just to build on what you said there.
	I live in a building which is mostly Indians.
	Yeah, and they must be Indians because they all celebrate Diwali and not Eid.
	And they're just Indians, not Pakistanis or Bangladeshis.
	And yeah, there's no sense of threat in the air whatsoever.
	Never, ever been intimidated.
	Never had any sort of altercation.
	Nothing. They keep themselves to themselves.
	And the only real problem, you might say, is that they're a bit impolite.
	A little bit impolite.
	Not even that badly impolite.
	By British standards, which most of the world fails on, let's be honest.
	Never hold a door open for you, ever.
	And if you do it for them, they just walk through without saying thank you.
	Little things like that.
	Whereas I have lived in and around more Muslim populations and it's not the same.
	It's really not the same.
	So, I'm going to go over some of the actual crime statistics for India itself, because we can get to, because of course, much below average, appreciate that, obviously, it's not the same as black over there doing a very significant portion of these crimes.
	So, violent crimes like murder and assault are reported less frequently per capita than in places like the US or Brazil.
	Of course, with these sorts of things, it could also be how they're measured and reported, because, for example, Japan tends to have far fewer crimes reported, but also the threshold to have something registered as a reported crime is much higher than elsewhere.
	Sorry, are you talking about in India now?
	Yes. Okay, just to be clear for everyone in there.
	You're now talking about crime in India?
	Yes. So it's free per 100,000 people, and for South Africa, it's 36. For the USA, it's 7. And for the UK it's 1.1.
	But we still to this day, even with mass migration, have one of the lowest crime rates in the world.
	It's because the native British, we just don't do crime really.
	Or very rarely.
	Sometimes you get a Realm out or a Hungerford or a Doctor Shipman or...
	I think our worst excesses is like binge drinking and getting into a scrap outside of a pub but then people shake hands and get over it if the police don't turn up.
	Yeah. And everything's fine.
	It's very rare that things sort of go in excess of that.
	We get the odd sort of Fred West.
	Right. Yes, we do have the odd cereal.
	But, yeah, just like big chunks of our population just killing each other on the streets for over nothing.
	You know, we don't do that.
	We haven't done that for a long...
	You know, it's where individual murders are still shocking.
	Yeah, they still very much are.
	It's not something that people have got used to even yet, even after all of this diversifying.
	But to get back to the Indian crime stats, property crimes like burglary or theft are also relatively lower per capita in India.
	However, sexual violence is a significant issue.
	And it's likely under-reported as well, just by the nature of Indian society.
	And also it's worth mentioning, although I'm not going into focus on this aspect, fraud, bribery and scams, need I say the latter one, I think we all know about that, are also a significant issue.
	And apparently the Transparency International Corruption Perception Index, so that's just measuring people's perception of their own country, as far as I'm aware at least, India is ranked 93rd out of 190.
	So it's just edging into the lower half of the world for fraud, bribery and scams.
	Because, of course, the Indian scammer is sort of idiosyncratic now.
	I mean, if you were to ask Zoomers today in Britain, what's the currency of India?
	Half of them might say gift cards rather than rupees.
	But... It's also worth noting, for the sake of being fair, India is huge.
	It's got 1.4 billion people.
	There's a large amount of variation between those peoples.
	It's an entire subcontinent.
	One of the main divisions is urban versus rural.
	Lots more crime in the urban areas.
	And all of the issues we're going to discuss have very vocal critics in India.
	So it's not like they're just accepting of this.
	There are loads and loads of groups that are campaigning against all of the fraud and bribery and stuff and the scams, as well as the sexual violence, which I think in particular, when there's a case of that going on, is a massive political issue.
	And so it's not that the people themselves are blind to these things.
	But with such a large population, you're going to have some bad apples.
	It's true of any population, right?
	As even Reuters can acknowledge, India struggles with Sexual assault cases.
	Low conviction rates.
	So basically they're just struggling to actually deal with the problem in India.
	And there was a video that went quite viral of a woman in a club in London and for some reason it's not loading but if you were able to see it, which I think is probably a mercy you can't, he's basically touching her up and trying to grab her when she's clearly not into it.
	Very obvious.
	And a British man might immediately pick up on the fact she's not interested, but clearly he had no idea.
	And it is suggesting that there's a cultural difference here.
	And this is the Indian diaspora here.
	If you could zoom out a little bit, Samson.
	Or anyone.
	Thank you.
	So this is a bit of an unfortunate colour scheme because the more brown...
	It is.
	The higher density of Indians outside of India.
	Obviously India, there's lots of Indians in India, so you don't really need that part of it.
	But you can see that Pakistan and Bangladesh and the surrounding areas is that Saudi Arabia, Britain, Canada, America, South Africa.
	These are all countries that we actually know of.
	Like in 2021 there was an anti-Indian riot in South Africa, in part at least.
	They're angry at the Gupta brothers for basically a bribery scandal and then targeted loads of Indians.
	The India-South Africa connection is long and storied.
	Well, that's our sort of empire responsible for that, isn't it?
	Right, I mean, yes.
	They're very widespread around the world and I think there are lots of questions about, well, out of this 1.4 billion population, are there being...
	Is there enough vetting against this problem because if you look at some of the cases that have gone on in India it's horrifying and just to let everyone know The 2021 census in Britain suggested that 1.86 million people from India are here legally, which is 3.1% of the total population.
	In America, it's estimated that it's 5.4 million.
	In Canada, it's 1.8 million, or 5.1% of the population.
	So that's sizable enough that...
	It's possible that some of the worst excesses of the problems they're facing in India may be brought to the West and I'm going to look at some of these cases and by the way if you've got children in the room it's probably a good idea to turn this off now and if you're eating your dinner perhaps a good idea to come back to this later because this is not for someone with a strong stomach but I think it's important to look at the horrors of the world in the face and...
	Address them accordingly.
	Because this next story is really quite horrible.
	Oh yes, of course.
	India is the country with the most diaspora as well.
	I forgot to mention that.
	Mexico's next, Russia's next, then China, Syria.
	You can sort of expect these, can't you?
	And obviously Mexico's just in the United States.
	So I think the problem's only going to get worse if there is a problem at all.
	So here we are.
	I'm going to read this.
	And this is...
	Very horrifying.
	teenager was brutally gang sexually assaulted I've got to change the word for YouTube By 23 men during a hellish week ordeal During which her attackers drugged her with tainted noodles Police in India have revealed the 19 year old alleged alleged that she was kidnapped by a man while returning from a friend's house on the 29th of march in varanasi northern india she said she was taken to her attacker's cafe in lanka a
	nearby town three miles southeast of varanasi and sexually assaulted the teen was then taken by another man and his friend to a highway where she was sexually assaulted before she was dropped off in nadisar another town there the vulnerable victim was taken to a second cafe this time in another place by five men who allegedly drugged her and then Gang sexually assaulted her.
	She was then later taken to a hotel and forced to massage a stranger before she was sexually assaulted again.
	And then she tried leaving the hotel and then she was kidnapped by another man and taken to a hotel where he sexually assaulted her and abandoned her.
	She was then taken to a warehouse nearly two hours outside of her home city where she was sexually assaulted by another three men.
	And then she managed to escape to a nearby shopping mall near her home and then she was offered noodles by two strangers but the men had drugged the food and then she was taken away to be attacked before being left in a place near the Ganges River.
	She was then taken to another hotel where she was sexually assaulted by five men before finally managing to make it home to her family on the 4th of April who filed a police report and then six people have been arrested and charged They've continued to raid locations trying to find all of these people.
	But what we've seen here is that there were a series of men who saw a vulnerable young girl who was in distress and did all of that.
	So you've either got to be the most unlucky person in the world to stumble across all of these people or there's a massive underlying problem here.
	And I think it's that latter one, isn't it?
	Yeah, of course it is.
	It's that it seems to be the default thing in parts of India that if they see a young girl who's unattended that they sexually assault her as a matter of course and get their friends in on it.
	And this is something that No one's taking seriously.
	You know, even in the United States, members of the Trump administration are saying we need more people from India.
	You know, Vivek Ramaswamy mysteriously talks about the virtues of how hardworking Indians are whilst Americans are lazy.
	Hmm. Can't think of why he said that.
	And, of course, Trump doing the U-turn on the H-1B visas, which is mainly for the tech sector and mainly for people from India.
	You couldn't otherwise go through the legal means.
	And you've got to be asking the question, well, if this is what happens in India, who knows who you're getting?
	There's not being nearly enough checks to find these sorts of people.
	And how do you even check for it?
	Like, you can't just, you know, at the border say, are you into sexual assault?
	Oh, sorry, I'm not actually.
	That's not going to work, is it?
	You can't necessarily know, and I'm of the opinion that you can't really give people the benefit of the doubt when the safety of your own citizenry is at risk.
	And you wouldn't necessarily even get this impression from looking at the crime stats, of course, because if you look at Britons, for example, they're half as likely to commit crime, but the nature of the crime when it is committed, as you can see here, is far, far more severe than you might otherwise guess from the crime statistics.
	And so the statistics are useful insofar as they can give you an approximation, but the detail's really important I was just going to say, I think there's, is there not an example of something similar, not as bad as that, but something similar happening in Britain?
	Was it somewhere in Wolverhampton or something where a woman was raped, kidnapped, raped, and then when she got away or they let her go?
	She was just immediately picked up by a completely different set of rapists.
	I think it sounds about right.
	Also, you can't drop an R-bomb on YouTube, otherwise it gets funny.
	We'll be fine.
	I think they allow at least two.
	So we're up to our R-bomb limit.
	Guys can bleep it out.
	It'll be fine.
	It'll be fine.
	So yeah, is there also...
	I don't know if you might go into it, but isn't there the...
	The thing about that on trains, that trains are very, very, very unsafe in India, for women.
	And for the people riding on the top as well.
	Sexually assaulted on a train because you sort of can't get away apart from anything else.
	And don't they want to segregate trains to try and...
	They're talking about that in Japan as well.
	And here.
	Yeah. I think here.
	It's a silly idea because what you're doing is creating a buffet cart for a potential assaulter, right?
	And just refusing to deal with the actual issue.
	Yeah, well, it's...
	British people are not doing crimes like this, are they?
	Here's another one here where a man was arrested after a German woman was basically on holiday and apparently the guy offered to give her a lift and was in his car with a bunch of minors and then he basically just dropped them off and drove her to a remote location to try and assault her.
	I think presumably she managed to get away but it's still a sort of worrying thing of you could expect to be getting a lift from like a taxi or something and then they'll just drive you off and do whatever and they did actually I think find the guy or at least the vehicle.
	There's a clip on Twitter you might have seen it because I think it had millions and millions of views where some woman in America I've seen that,
	yeah. Really?
	And he's like, yeah, yeah, yeah.
	And she's like, oh, okay.
	It suddenly takes a really dark turn.
	But he just openly admits, just completely says it.
	Shameless. Yeah, completely shameless.
	I know that's only an anecdotal piece of evidence.
	These two examples, by the way, are just news that's come out in the past few days.
	Here's another one from April as well.
	This was a sexual assault and murder of a young girl.
	Apparently she was on the way to her relative's place in the same neighbourhood and she got picked up and found that same evening having been murdered.
	This is just another example of something that's happened on a similar day.
	This is from the 15th of February.
	Because India doesn't have laws against marital sexual assault, a man did that to his wife who then died a few hours later and he was released.
	Mate. I know.
	Horrible, isn't it?
	And you can see the sort of campaigns that are going on in India against this because that's barbaric.
	There's only word for it amongst a host of other stronger ones perhaps.
	Then going back to March.
	An Israeli tourist and an American tourist got targeted by a group of men.
	They were out stargazing and apparently the men were pushed into a river and one of the Indian men, because there were some natives, one...
	There's an Israeli woman and an Indian woman and an American man and two Indian men as a group, and they were stargazing, minding their own business.
	And a group of men basically comes out of the darkness, pushes the men into the river, one of them drowns, two of them swim to safety, and then sexually assaulted the women.
	And this actually, this happened at a popular tourist destination in southern India.
	And hundreds of the tourists just upped and left.
	It was a UNESCO heritage site.
	You can see it there.
	Loads of tourists just left because they realised, okay, this place isn't safe for us anymore.
	Which, to be honest, if you're a woman, I wouldn't go to India.
	You're in safety.
	It's not safe there.
	And then there's this one.
	This was from March again.
	So this is only less than a month ago still.
	There are lots of instances.
	She went to meet an Indian man she met online for dinner.
	He turned up with his friend, and then after they finished dinner, they went to a hotel and sexually assaulted her.
	Which is a bit strange.
	She was meant to be meeting just the person she'd been speaking to and he just turns up with his mate for some reason.
	Seems like they're very close with their friends, a lot of these people, aren't they?
	They've always got a mate in tow.
	I don't understand that.
	There's the case of this guy who styled himself as a Christian preacher who has apparently had millions of followers and all that sort of stuff.
	He sexually assaulted a woman, filmed it, and tried to use it to blackmail her, which actually seems to happen a lot more in India than you think.
	I've read a few instances of that.
	Where it's not just a little bit embarrassing, or very embarrassing, it's not just embarrassing, it actually can affect all your family and your status in society.
	It's much more serious, right?
	Yeah, of course.
	In their world.
	And... This is just horrifying, right?
	Indian teenager alleges sexual assault over five years by nearly 60 schoolmates, neighbours and relatives and strangers.
	If this doesn't go to highlight the nature of the problem, I don't know what does.
	So I'm going to read this.
	I'm sorry, it's really grim.
	Five years ago, a 13-year-old girl, the daughter of a poor wage labourer from one of India's most marginalised communities, was allegedly sexually abused by one of her neighbours in the village where she lived.
	Her alleged abuser filmed it and the police are investigating whether he used the images to black I wonder
	where they fled to.
	Just throwing that one out there.
	Among the accused are her schoolmates, her relatives, her neighbours, men from all corners of her life, ranging from minors to men in their mid-40s, according to the case documents reviewed by CNN and interviews with local police.
	Charges have not yet been filed and the 58 men remaining detained.
	So... Obviously we don't know for absolute certain whether this story is true but it sounds very familiar to that previous one that we talked about of right at the start of the 23 different men targeting that girl where just every man in her life basically targeted her and
	sexually assaulted her.
	And if that is what happens in parts of India, it'd be important to have a proper understanding of it if this is the main ethnic group that we're getting our immigrants from.
	In Britain, at least.
	Indians are the main minority.
	And the same goes for Canada, I imagine.
	And it's increasing in the United States.
	And this is important.
	You wouldn't get it from the crime data, but...
	All of these anecdotal examples paint a very horrific picture, don't they?
	It's like some of the worst cases of this sort of thing I've ever read, and it was a difficult thing to put all this together.
	I've got one more link here.
	A police volunteer even got a life sentence, and he then went on to murder a junior doctor after doing so as well.
	So you can't even necessarily trust the police.
	So... It speaks of a society that is entirely corrupted by this sort of thing, that every man a young girl comes into contact with will take advantage, which in Britain is unthinkable.
	I can think of instances in my own life where there have been young kids lost in a supermarket and the default thing to do is you take them over to a figure of authority who speaks on the tannoy and you wait with them until their parents turn up.
	That's the default.
	No one would deviate from that.
	I've both had that happen to me when I was a kid, and then been the adult in that situation.
	Same here, yeah.
	Yeah, exactly.
	I've literally been walking around a really massive Tesco's and there's some little toddler, apparently unescorted, and you just go get someone.
	That's the proper thing to do.
	Because obviously, you don't just leave, yeah.
	Ah, God.
	And, of course, that cultural practice that we have entrenched in us, by merit of being Englishmen, is not entrenched in people from India, obviously.
	We weren't there for long enough to enculturate that into them.
	And by bringing them here, we're bringing these sorts of same problems.
	And it's to the point where, in fact, the monkeys in India actually have a greater moral compass than many of the men.
	And this is a story, of course, if you're listening.
	Monkey saved six-year-old girl from sexual assault attempt in Uttar Pradesh.
	The monkey started attacking the man.
	If that's not a condemnation of a certain section of your population, I don't know what is.
	I feel very sorry for Indian women now, to be honest, after reading all that.
	Yes, that's something that you wouldn't have been able to get from the data, but it is very important and very worth knowing about.
	Sorry, that went on and that was very dark.
	Habsification, the most deranged news story that comes out of India, I read, was four men gang raped a monitor lizard, killed it and then ate it from an animal reserve.
	Yeah, I heard about that as well.
	A monitor lizard?
	I know.
	Okay. Well, in India, there's a massive disproportionate number of men to women.
	And I think that it drives them a bit mental.
	It makes the problems worse.
	There's the joke that every app is a dating app if you're Indian enough.
	A monitor lizard, though, come on.
	It's not a donkey, not a dog.
	A monitor lizard.
	The way you're saying monitor lizard makes it sound like...
	If you're going to pick a reptile, at least pick something better than that.
	Yeah, at least pick the good-looking reptile.
	If you do a Komodo dragon, I mean, I've got to respect the balls on you.
	Things our podcast makes us say.
	Don't look at me like that, Samson.
	JM Denton says, India is a disgusting country and people are dangerously unaware of the threat of immigration from there.
	Well, not anymore, but thank you for the $10.
	Okay, well, let's go to the video comments, shall we?
	Palette cleanser, hopefully.
	In 1258, Baghdad was sieged and destroyed by the Mongol Empire, because the Caliph looked upon the Mongols as upstarts who couldn't back up what they were saying.
	It is said that the rivers ran black with ink, as many scholars had copied scrolls from the Library of Alexandria.
	Infrastructure centuries old was wiped out within a fortnight, leaving only the faraway and rural folk to continue the culture.
	Much of the Middle East is essentially post-apocalyptic.
	Really explains the stuff we're dealing with nowadays.
	It's a remarkable coincidence.
	I tweeted about Hoolagoos Khan's conquest of Baghdad in 1258 just yesterday.
	Well, there we go.
	I mentioned it just yesterday.
	Khanate lives on.
	And there was also the Fall of Civilization podcast, one of my favourite, if not my favourite podcast.
	Dan Carlin, isn't it?
	No, no, no, that's Hardcore History.
	Oh yeah, of course.
	Sorry. But Fall of Civilizations, it is long-form stuff.
	And their most recent episode, which I think came out a couple of weeks ago now, is The Mongols.
	I think it's like, I haven't even watched it yet, but I mean to, probably this weekend.
	It's like six hours worth.
	Six hours of Mongols.
	Yeah, looking forward to it.
	But yeah, that famous, the Caliph of Baghdad goading Hulagu, if anything.
	Goading him.
	You can't take us down.
	Don't even try it.
	It's a joke.
	Give it a whirl if you think you've got it in you.
	And Heligu stomped them flat easily.
	Raised Baghdad to the ground.
	It annoys me how overpowered sort of horse archers are and sort of the step nomads.
	I feel like there needs to be some sort of nerf in the universe.
	They don't deserve to be that powerful.
	They had that and they also had Chinese level artillery.
	Which the Middle East and Europe hadn't really experienced.
	So they were OP on a couple of different levels.
	The devs should have known about that.
	This stream is on my birthday and I'd like to use it to thank those backroom boys.
	I'm just a backroom boy.
	Despite the dull tone and plodding pace, my comments are always shown tremendous forbearance by your editing team.
	Yes, this is unseemingly ingratiating, but for the few years that I've been submitting comments, very few have been rejected, and I don't envy the task of picking through what is submitted and rendering the acceptable ones suitable for transmission.
	Yeah, you're welcome.
	Thank you.
	Also, happy birthday.
	Yeah, happy birthday.
	It's a shame you put House of Cards up there because I was going to do a Big Brain, I believe that's the original House of Cards show there.
	Which everyone should watch.
	It's good.
	I can pretend I didn't see that if you want.
	Make me feel a bit better.
	The original book by the Lord Dobbs is an excellent book.
	They did an American version, didn't they, with Kevin Spacey?
	Out of the book, the old 70s English TV thing and the American one, the American one's the least good.
	And it's still pretty good.
	I didn't watch House of Cards until Kevin Spacey sort of stopped it because he got all those convictions or allegations.
	I don't know.
	Don't sue me, Kevin Spacey.
	Plus the American one with Spacey, they took it further.
	They went beyond what the...
	It was only ever loosely based on the original...
	Lord Dobbs thing.
	And then they took it further and carried it on.
	But the original 70s TV thing is very good.
	I advise anyone to see it.
	Okay. Gifting me Boris's autobiography, my parents were intrigued what I would say.
	Well, after finishing it, I can say that one mocks and belittles Boris at one's peril.
	We may not like his legacy, but we must not forget that he was hugely popular, motivated, affable, humorous, and well-read.
	One would expect self-aggrandizement, but there is humility.
	Johnson recognises that he was a much better Mayor of London than Prime Minister of the UK.
	Where Johnson fits a pattern in leadership is the essay we must all have for those in charge.
	Does the person believe that power should be used to make things better?
	Does the person think that public money should be spent to assist the market?
	If yes, then you have a problem.
	That's a good little turn of phrase, that.
	No, sorry, it's completely irredeemable.
	He should be in prison.
	He's a scumbag.
	So some people bought into his schtick.
	So what?
	I think what he was getting at is that quite often his political enemies end up facing consequences.
	That he's a bit more of a canny operator politically than you might let on.
	Well, give him that.
	No, I agree with you on that front.
	The redeeming features that he was charismatic and popular.
	So? So he's a criminal.
	I view him as a criminal.
	The Covid lockdowns and the Ukraine stuff alone and the immigration wave.
	Those three things.
	disgusting crimes.
	Next video coming.
	Good morning, Lotus Eaters.
	For my birthday, I took a drive through my favorite little logging town of Darington.
	Happy birthday.
	The weather was amazing.
	Everyone's birthday.
	I wanted to go snowshoeing just south of town.
	Like an idiot, I forgot to grab the SD card for my camera, so I did the best I could with my phone.
	At about 3,500 feet in elevation, the trail was hidden by increasingly deep snow.
	If there were ever a place and time to see Bigfoot or get mauled by a cougar, this was it.
	I'll send part two from this trip tomorrow.
	Looks beautiful.
	Yeah, I'd love to do that.
	Incredibly jealous.
	Yeah, me too.
	I'd love to do that.
	Nature on America's doorstep.
	That's the one thing that they've got, untamed wilderness, that I am more jealous than anything else.
	We just haven't got anything.
	What's the closest thing?
	What, like, the Peak District or the Cairngorms or something?
	The valleys of North and Wales?
	Highlands. Yeah, the Highlands, sure, but it's not quite...
	It's not true wilderness in the same sense, is it?
	No. I miss it.
	Pulling yourself up by your bootstraps is impossible.
	You're just a worker with false class consciousness.
	If you're a capitalist, where's your capital?
	Right here.
	I'm proud to announce that Wordsmith Productions is up and running, with a sample portfolio of four stories of varied genres and tones that are, and will remain, free for all to read.
	There's more on the way, so if you like what you see, please consider supporting us by subscribing on Patreon.
	It's only £3 a month, making it cheaper than the cheapest Lotus Eater subscription tier.
	Wordsmith Productions.
	Because if not us, then who?
	Best of luck with us.
	Wordsmith Productions.
	Why we're shitting?
	I never shill my stuff.
	I never shill history, bro.
	On the state of politics.
	I've got nothing to shill, so watch Bo's stuff.
	Watch History Bro, it's good.
	And the state of politics.
	With Nate, MrHReviews.
	And watch Lotus Eaters.
	And LotusEaters.com.
	You're already watching that, so you don't need instruction.
	So in my last video, Carmen, I showed how far I've gotten since I started to draw last October.
	And now I jumped into digital, making this into this.
	And I started a Twitter to just sort of post my art as I'm making it.
	So if you want to follow me telling me what a good job I'm doing or encourage me or anything, come follow me on Twitter and we're just having a wholesome night time trying to learn how to do art.
	Good stuff.
	You're really a much better drawer than I am.
	I'm terrible at drawing.
	I mean, it really looks good enough that I'd presume...
	It was done by a professional artist, so you're on the right track.
	I've said that before one time.
	Ages ago I said I'm terrible at drawing.
	I wish I was much better.
	And I got a fair few comments saying, it's just practice, dude.
	Just spend loads of time, if you really care about it, spend loads and loads of time on it and you will get better.
	And all I'd say was that I've actually done that a bit.
	Obviously not enough.
	But I've done it a bit and I'm still crap.
	You know, it's like there's some things you've got aptitude for and some things you pick up quicker than others, right?
	So I've given drawing a bit of a go.
	In my time.
	It just doesn't come naturally.
	I think there are some things that it's okay to consign yourself to not being good at.
	My art form is playing music.
	Drawing and painting, I'm just not going to be good at it.
	I'll let other people be good at that.
	That's fine.
	You don't have to be good at everything.
	It's okay.
	I'm not very good at music either.
	I've played guitar ever since I was 15. Never got particularly good at it.
	Still, to this day, can't sing and play at the same time.
	That is hard, though.
	It's a lot harder than it looks.
	I've played, must be hundreds of hours of guitar, just sitting there with an acoustic guitar, playing, practising really easy, shitty Three Called Oasis songs.
	But it will be dozens, if not hundreds of hours, and I still can't sing and play at the same time.
	So I just, it doesn't come naturally to me, put it that way.
	Some people, like, when the first times they pick it up, they'll be able to do that, right?
	I just can't.
	Anyway, anyway.
	Got any more video comments?
	I hope you know we do.
	Now that is a cool train.
	Oh, so it's that one.
	Did you say Swindon?
	I think so, yeah.
	Swindon Maid locomotive.
	Oh, right, I'll say Swindon Maid.
	I remember getting on a train with carriages that looked like that.
	Yeah, so do I, yeah.
	Ah, drugs and cake.
	Nice. That's great.
	Hope you had a nice time.
	I've been in train carriages that are even more antiquated than that, where it's literally like a corridor down one side of the train, the other side they're individual rooms.
	I remember being a kid.
	That's proper early 20th century sort of thing.
	When I was a little kid.
	One month when I was a little kid.
	Must be somewhere rural branch line.
	But anyway, yeah.
	Great days.
	This segment on the ninja menace in the UK has been bothering me for days.
	The purpose of a tanto or a reverse tanto end of a blade is to make it better for piercing or stabbing.
	This could also be a ninja sword.
	Does it seem to you like those who know very little about weapons and even less about mothering try to make up for that lack of mothering by making up silly, unenforceable rules as though if you just took enough toys away, you could stop the naughty boys from becoming ninjas?
	Hmm. I've heard that you've got to either be born into or convert into becoming a ninja.
	To really start the ninja ways.
	That's what I've heard.
	But yeah, it's a very silly thing and it's a very arbitrary ban.
	And obviously it's just so the government can say they're doing something about it without doing anything really meaningful.
	as is always the way yeah haha haha I also like the sort of corporate music in the background.
	It's funny, I saw just earlier today, I saw a clip on Twitter of Shane Guinness just calling Elon retarded.
	Just openly calling him retarded.
	Fair enough, really.
	I'll read a couple of comments.
	I know we're a bit over time, but I'll give you them for free because I'm a nice guy.
	Irrecogible Frog says, Based Lotus Eaters, let's go.
	Harry. On Suicide Watch.
	Both Harry and Dan claim that crown.
	It's like he who declares himself king is not a king.
	He who declares himself based is not based.
	Biggie Bigfoot says, the Dream Team are on and there's no dire wolf segment.
	How disappointing.
	Well, all they did was give regular grey wolves white fur and made them bigger.
	I think, didn't they?
	Or something like that?
	So they've created a hybrid.
	I was considering doing a segment on that.
	I thought about it.
	It was the first thing I read this morning.
	Maybe we will tomorrow or the next day.
	Maybe. I am on tomorrow.
	Maybe I'll talk about it.
	I'm on Thursday, I think.
	Or Friday, certainly.
	Maybe I'll do that.
	Because it is interesting.
	Maybe I'll get there before you both.
	Okay, sorry.
	I don't know.
	You can have dibs on it.
	That's fine.
	Okay, cheers.
	It's interesting nonetheless, even though it's a bit much to say the dire wolf has come back from extinction.
	It's not quite what's happened, but interesting nonetheless.
	So a comment from the first segment, from Bo isn't actually bald, he's been wearing a bald cap this entire time.
	I wish you'd told me.
	I've got a blonde fro under this bald cap.
	Hiding it.
	It's so you can be anonymous outside, isn't it?
	The UK's right-wing party should be ashamed of themselves for allowing this to happen.
	This should be a reflection point for them, as well as a tacit admission by the majority party that being right-wing is both needed and popular.
	Oop, I had a hiccup.
	Right, for your segment, Beau, Lord Inquisitor Hector Rex says, Supreme Court ruled last night that Trend or Aragua gang members can be exported and the activist federal judges cannot stop it.
	Finally, some sanity.
	That's what you were talking about, more or less, wasn't it?
	And then Chase Bull says, being a Canadian in 2025 has made me racist against Indians.
	To be fair, you've had the most what's the word?
	You've had the most accelerated injection of Indian culture into Canada.
	Probably possible, because it went from zero to lots very, very quickly.
	And so it was very, very quick and difficult to get used to.
	Do I have time for one more?
	No. Maybe I'll do one more, just for the sake of it.
	Furious Dan says, after that story of the assaults, I'm confident now that there are people we should not redeem.
	Yes, do not redeem the gift card, everyone.
	Or do redeem it, as it annoys the Indian scammers.
	And on that note...
	Thank you very much for watching.
	Make sure to tune in.
	Same time tomorrow.
	Thank you very much for watching.
	Again. Twice.
	I'm very grateful today for some reason.

▲