Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 21, 2025 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:35:43

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1147

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello, everyone.
	Welcome to the podcast of the Loadseaters for the episode number 1147.
	I'm joined today by Bo and by Stephen, and we're going to discuss who controls global immigration policy, Pete Hegseth being in trouble again, and also the due process debate regarding the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia.
	Also, you may be wondering about us not talking about the Pope.
	We are not going to talk about the death of the Pope today.
	I'm sure something will follow in the next few days.
	So rest in peace to the Pope.
	We will talk about it.
	Right, so should we start with the first segment?
	Yeah, absolutely.
	And I will say a happy post-Easter to everybody.
	And I hope you're not too, like, stuffed on chocolate eggs.
	I know I was with my 12-year-old yesterday.
	So Easter egg hunts?
	No, it was just stuffed in the kitchen.
	It was Easter egg face stuffing.
	Are you trying to get some from the kitchen?
	Yeah, I've got to spend some time now trying to run it off, to be honest.
	But I thought this might be interesting for people.
	Last week we had a very interesting discussion.
	About, you know, the numbers coming into Europe and the UK, and how do we actually really physically try and change immigration policy?
	And what really could we do by law?
	What could we do by policy?
	And are there anything that we could do to prepare it?
	And I think I pointed out very clearly that in the US, under Stephen Miller, they'd worked pretty hard to do so, and we've got a potential strategy that we could do here.
	But then I thought, well, let's just try and extend this now to the overall bigger picture.
	If you've got people like ourselves thinking about how we're trying to stop it, slow it down, prevent it from just destroying our nations with huge mass immigration, who is actually on the other side?
	What's actually happening?
	Where is it originating?
	I think most of the audience will recognise that we have a UN Refugee Convention.
	Most of the people will recognise that we've got huge numbers coming in here, and I'll just quickly go through some.
	This is Biden's border bust.
	We know in the United States there was over 8 million migrant encounters nationwide.
	I think overlay, actually.
	This is an official House government document produced by the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability, and it was a couple of years ago.
	The actual numbers now have been suggested it's more like 10 to 12 million.
	240,000 to 350,000 a month.
	And now under President Trump, that's literally gone down to 6,000-odd, and all of them were captured, detained, and deported.
	So the border crisis, in essence, was over.
	But this was what was happening under Biden.
	In the UK, we've got mass numbers.
	This is one of the latest ONS figures talking about the census in the UK.
	And here, they're again talking about there is only around 7.5 million people who'd come in around 2012 to 21. But actually, since then, we know that we've had another million nine that have come in in 22 and 23. So in 10 years,
	we're looking around 10 million people.
	That have come into the UK.
	And that's a huge numbers.
	Out of an overall population of supposedly something in the ballpark of 70-odd million, isn't it?
	Yeah, they're saying 67 million.
	So, you know, percentage-wise, it's even bigger.
	I mean, I think, you know, in our research that we're doing in the centre migration, we'd probably say we are above 70 million, just like you're saying.
	But the vast numbers of people coming across here is just unsustainable levels of the percentage.
	We know that...
	Our audience knows that.
	The people in Britain know that.
	And even in Europe, when you're looking at these, this is the World Migration Report, which actually comes from European figures.
	I was looking over the weekend at some really big European figures, and I'm going to have to try and concentrate on that.
	But they're saying from 1990 to 2020, you are looking at around 18 million people that have come in.
	Sorry. It's going to be the bigger numbers down there.
	2.6 million Ukrainians, 5.7 million refugees in total from there.
	These are the sorts of numbers you're coming through in here.
	And 17 million people displaced in Europe.
	So in Europe, they're looking at even bigger numbers.
	17 million, 38 million.
	And the one thing I did notice about the European figures, when they talk about 19 million Europe's residing outside the continent, 75 million international migrants residing in the region.
	They don't seem to break them down between legal or illegal.
	They're just saying this is the vast number.
	So they try and hide the fact that overall they've got that huge number I see at the top line, 87 million international migrants living in Europe in 2020.
	So US, UK, Europe, mass numbers coming through.
	And I go, why?
	We know that we've got huge numbers of statistics all over Europe, the rise of political parties, from people saying, we don't want any more.
	We want a control on it.
	We want the numbers released.
	So we go, well, in that case, who's allowing this to happen?
	Governments, clearly.
	But is there a bigger picture?
	Is there really a larger group of individuals who are trying to ensure that this happens all over the West?
	And my answer to that is absolutely yes.
	And I begin with these people, the UNHCR, the Refugee Agency.
	This is one of the largest organizations in the UN.
	I'm going to show some graphs later about the numbers of organizations in it.
	The UN Refugee Convention was originally, in the 1950s, a pretty sensible document.
	If people are fleeing torture, and we just looked at what was happening in Germany and in Japan.
	They said, right, okay, we should protect these people if they're fleeing the Nazis.
	Let's look after them.
	And it was a genuine order of saying these were a big country.
	We're at war.
	We're going to try and stop him.
	And roughly around 11 million people were just transported all across Europe, which is, at a time, we had a massive war.
	So you can understand why they were created for it, and you can understand the regulations and rules, but the rules are very clear.
	You don't bring people in just because it's economic reasons.
	You don't bring people in because they feel like they want to escape.
	There were very defined elements, and within that was the element that if they are contrary to a nation-state's security, you didn't have to have them either.
	Compare that to where we are today.
	But the UN agency is huge, and what it does do, it involves itself across the globe.
	So here...
	It organises itself in London, very big offices itself, and all it does is try to create propaganda to be promoted out to its own kind of fiefdom, its client base, the guardians, the independent, those like Rory Stewart and Alastair Campbell,
	who are willing to say...
	That we need to bring in lots more refugees.
	And you see, this is one of their campaigns.
	It is a campaign that says the Great British Welcome.
	There's a scene in the Lake District or Scotland or something like that.
	Stories told.
	And they go, whether singing in Greenwich, bouldering in Liverpool, cooking in Cardiff, we bring a Great British welcome to communities and refugees and asylum seekers who come to thrive together.
	Look. Do any of us really want to offend people who come to this country?
	No. Do we want to acknowledge they're human beings with lives and families?
	Yes, as well.
	So, in essence, we're like, yeah, I agree with you.
	But the principal element of this is to say that every single one of them is just our gentle cook, you know, is our friendly neighborhood surgeon.
	We know that the facts don't point this out at all on that.
	Would something like the Runnymede Trust be part of this?
	Because they explicitly say their tagline almost is building a multi-ethnic Britain.
	Yes. Not multicultural, multi-ethnic.
	Yeah. So it's explicitly, well, anti-white, isn't it?
	I mean, it's a zero-sum game.
	At least in their minds it is.
	Well I think there are many organisations that have moved to this idea that there are so many people of different colours and creeds and religions in this country now that it's actually perfectly acceptable to be anti-white.
	And the Runnymede Trust is one of those organisations that receives a lot of funding outside and also from big organisations and from big wealthy people that promote this idea, like you see on these pictures, that we're going to promote mass multi-ethnicity.
	And that's the acceptable format for the future.
	And I want to come to a line later on where I see this, because I believe that the Running Me Trust, like many others, are part of this mass number of organizations across the globe that are actually trying to spread the message from the top down.
	And here what I'm trying to say is that the Running Me Trust...
	It's part of organisations in the UK.
	That's another show where I can show literally 300 major charities that are receiving funding across from our councils, governments, to spread this message at a local level.
	And no doubt, if I was talking to someone in France, they'd say the same.
	And someone in Germany, I'd say the same on a local level.
	So the message is coming down in different ways, strategically.
	And I would say that if you look at...
	The way that the UNHCR also interferes in national government's policies.
	So here you have the UNHCR attacked Britain when it was talking about these four things on the left.
	Border Security and Asylum Bill, Nationalities and Borders Act, the Legal Migration Act, and the Rwanda Asylum Partnership.
	All of these are policies introduced.
	By the former Conservative Party when they were in government.
	All of them are attacked in various distinct letters and policies by the UNHCR.
	So what you see is the UNHCR is there at the top.
	It's got its mandate of the Refugee Convention.
	It's got its people working for it.
	It spreads across the globe.
	And then it comes in and attacks policy because it doesn't satisfy their desire and their level of interest.
	It provides money and then it does a marketing campaign to try and persuade people.
	That's the UNHCR.
	The question would be whether this is a front and whether there are people behind the UN for all sorts of reasons.
	That's, for instance, to my mind, one of the reasons why one of the main pushes for mass migration is some economic arguments which are taken for granted.
	So one of the...
	Good things for an economy to show, for a state to show, in order to be able to borrow is that they can give back what they have borrowed.
	So if they think that increasing migration increases GDP, and that helps with a debt to GDP ratio, and they're considered to be more worthy of, more fiscally responsible.
	Now we have some extra data that may suggest that people from some places are a net drain on the GIG.
	I think that's a great possibility, and I've discussed at length how I'm a great believer that there is an economic group of individuals who are taken by Keynesian views on...
	Immigration relating to GDP.
	And they sit in the Fed, they sit in the World Bank, they sit in the Treasury here.
	We're great believers that GDP is the gold standard.
	We must keep increasing that.
	Amongst our competitors, Britain must be high rather than to Germany or France.
	And rather than dealing with productivity or improving our lives in other ways...
	The easiest way is to bring in lots and lots of people because that means lots and lots of people have to buy goods and spend things, irrespective of whether the vast majority of people's overall income is declining.
	And it also works for what I call the rentier class and the large corporates that we're seeing across the UK, particularly those who are buying up housing to rent.
	Private equity companies are buying up houses that are being sold off by people being forced out of the market by government's rules.
	And what they're doing?
	They're renting them.
	And the more people that are here and can't afford a house, the more they rent.
	So they've got a continual rent of income.
	So I agree with that.
	And again, that's an issue.
	What I'm looking here is this kind of global managerial administrative elite.
	And I will come down to some specific interesting groups at the end.
	What they certainly don't seem to care about, or even might say proactively are ignoring, is the damage to just the fabric of society.
	Your society turns from a high trust to a low trust one, that crime goes through the roof, etc, etc, etc.
	They don't seem to...
	I mean, my question is this, I don't know if he's going to come on to this, but if, again, if we had a government that had the political will, could we just leave this?
	I mean, retain our seat as a permanent member of the Security Council, but just leave that and make sure that their money...
	It doesn't infest our country anymore.
	Well, we can do, and it's nothing that stops us ever leaving any of these international organisations, just as we don't have to stay in the European Court of Human Rights.
	It is about political will, and we've seen suggestions of that in the United States.
	And I think this is probably me trying to look at the US here, on this point here, is...
	Perhaps not on that.
	Yeah, this is more about what they show across their images, how they're using their marketing.
	But I'll come to Amy Pope, who's the current head of the IOM later on.
	Now, I know why now.
	What we should have had coming into here is when you look at the next group of people here who are important, it's this lot.
	The IOM, the UN Migration, it's the International Organization for Migration.
	Now this is the biggest organization that deals with migration completely.
	And it is quite shocking when you look at that.
	The numbers of this, these were formed after the Second World War.
	I think I'm going to try and read out their statement there if I can, but I've got a wobbly screen below me.
	Chat thing here.
	I'm not being very smart.
	So I apologise.
	I think I've got it now.
	So the IOM here was the Intergovernmental Committee for the Movement of Migrants of Europe.
	It was called PICME, born in 1951, and it was born about the chaos of displacement of Western Europe, as we talked about before.
	It successfully changed its name three times, from the International Committee to Migration to the International Organization of Migration in 1989.
	But it did so because it says, in its own words on the website, reflects the organization's transition cover from half a century from a logistics agency to a migration agency.
	Instead of helping people when they're in trouble, we're now a migration agency.
	I'm fascinated by that word.
	What do they mean by that?
	From its roots of operational logistics, it's broadened its scope to become the leading international agency working for governments and civil society to advance the understanding of migration issues, encourage social and economic development through migration.
	This lot have gone from wanting to help people, as you see in the Gaza response picture on the right, To saying that we now need to change policy to prove to everybody that international migration works.
	And it helps the economy.
	And to that end, they have 22,500 people working for it and a budget of 3.8 billion.
	3.8 billion.
	So they're out there, and you can see just on this website here, you look at there, they produce data, our work and partners and impact.
	Fascinated by this.
	Look at this down here.
	The partners and governments and donors.
	So governments, obviously, you'll expect to be our partners.
	And they've got 171, I think, in terms of that.
	Look at the size of this.
	This is their meeting room, where they just talk about.
	Immigration. Imagine 171 in an organisation like that with 3.8 billion budget.
	Do you think they're only turning around and listening to the people say, please don't bring more in?
	No. This is ones that they're creating all sorts of issues for us.
	And it's 175 member states.
	I was wrong on that.
	That's most of the world, though.
	Aren't there only like 190-odd countries in the whole world?
	Yeah, but it's interesting.
	So we've got here Partners and Impact.
	You've got donors.
	And then I'll come down to the interesting one later on.
	So it works with other donors as well.
	Not just ourselves.
	So the European Union is a donor.
	Not only does it take money from European Union citizens, it then donates it to this organisation who then creates the policies for the European Union.
	Which the European follow?
	Funding overview.
	Just come and look at that.
	3.5 billion in 2023.
	Already earmarked 3.4 billion.
	And that was 23's numbers.
	You're quite right.
	It does feel like posting the odd re-migration gif on Twitter.
	Yeah. It does feel like pissing in the wind a bit.
	Yes. When you realise you're up against...
	Absolutely. Something, a behemoth of this magnitude.
	Just think of the size of this.
	What is 3.8 billion?
	That's quite a big organisation.
	It's quite a hefty chunk of money, to be honest.
	And there's a private sector element.
	They have goodwill.
	I want to get into governmental organisations if it comes up.
	You could build a Europa lander for that sort of money.
	We could go to another world for that kind of money, quite literally.
	I just find this quite...
	I've kind of veered off a little bit here.
	But I wanted to get in here, maybe a little, if it comes in.
	Because we're going to talk about who's behind this, if it comes in that list.
	There was a list.
	Here we are.
	This is the list.
	Now, I talked about early on, about the United Nations being big, and the UNHCR being big, and the IOM being even bigger.
	But on its own panel of organisations that are just...
	Not governments, but helping it.
	Just take a look as I scroll through this.
	UN Economic Commission for Africa, International Labour Organisations, International Monetary Fund, Joint United Nations Programme on AIDS, Office of the UN Nations Children's Fund.
	Literally, not only is it getting funding from its own organisation, all these organisations, which are all funded by governments globally, are all part of the process.
	So it's infested across all the UN.
	When we're talking about a global organisation, a big BMF with people that we never see, don't speak about, don't know, don't understand us, they're all running these organisations.
	Don't get a say in electing them.
	Nope. Going down further, I might be able to come down, I picked up some odd ones.
	And I might pick them out if I can on my graph.
	Look down there, the Universal Postal Union.
	And even further down, where's it gone there?
	World Bank.
	The World Bank, obviously.
	The Council of Europe, which the Council of Europe we know is looking after legal rules, the ECHO.
	So they're involved.
	And then even ones like the Manor River Union.
	But the one that caught my eye, it was right at the bottom, was the Sovereign Order of Malta.
	This is the Universal Postal Union.
	It's all about post.
	How come the Postal Union are involved in a big organisation that links in with immigration?
	What are they, trying to help them?
	They facilitate communication, presumably.
	Is that what they are?
	Maybe it's just helping them turn around and send them messages.
	Look, it's all right.
	It's okay.
	Come over.
	And then we get this.
	Oh, well, we might have to click into this then.
	The Sovereign Order of Malta.
	I want people to see this.
	This is the Order of Malta.
	It comes out of, like me being somebody who loves the Knights Templar and the stories of how our knights protected the Christian communities against this, against the Muslims and with the historical elements.
	The Order of Malta was also supposed to be one of them, does it?
	You can see it.
	Like that.
	Like that.
	Okay. And they're in it.
	These people.
	That's the current leader on the left-hand side.
	He's a Canadian lawyer.
	As you could say, all of these people behind them, the historical images of those, and this is the meeting, generally white, super wealthy individuals whose names we don't know about.
	And you're just trying to look at, why is someone like this involved?
	And I'm going to grandmaster there.
	I went through all the names there.
	It's called Fryer, but he's John Dunlap.
	And when I looked him up, John Dunlap was a lawyer from Canada who got involved in some of the biggest law firms in the world.
	And then if we...
	The order of the government's here...
	And it might just sound like a small sidestep that we're doing here, and I'm picking these people up here.
	I looked through all of these.
	Who's ever heard of John Dunlap?
	No. Why would we think the Order of Malta should be involved in international immigration rules with the IOM?
	Presumably, you would expect them to be involved for the exact opposite reason, because Malta is really close to Africa.
	It's one of the main stages in the central Mediterranean route, and you'd expect them to be against it.
	Yes. I tried to link in.
	I don't know whether this will do it now.
	Hopefully here, yes.
	I don't know luck to all these four people who are the top four people on this council.
	Emmanuel Rousseau is a French senior librarian for the French government, but he went through the Ecole system.
	Richard Patino, an Italian lawyer connected to...
	Lots of interesting organizations.
	When you open it up, you read it.
	Joseph Blotz, a German former defense advisor to the German government on defense.
	You take a look at all of the names, and then you've got this Fabios Colonia is an Italian, similar sort of thing, Italian government, Italian minister, all of these individuals.
	But it's the great and the good of the world.
	But some of them we don't know about.
	And that running, Organisations that are involved with the IOM and the UNHCR developing policy for us.
	And if I go back, this is where I come to where you were talking about with the Runnymede Trust.
	This is the migration network hub that's been organised by the IOM.
	Working better together, it says.
	The hub brings together UN network and migration, all its stakeholders.
	And when you look through this, it is a massive hub, all these organizations all over the globe, which they're generically sending down their policy statements, their policy ideas, what we should do, how to convince us it works.
	Look at the numbers, 913 major hub organizations across the globe, and which they feed in.
	Lots of them.
	I've opened most of these.
	They give their policy statements.
	But interestingly, it comes down to this here.
	This is some things that they look at.
	This one.
	Migrant domestic workers as agents of change.
	There is an international migrant domestic workers date coming up on 16th of June.
	Sure there is.
	Why not?
	Why not?
	And what you're going to get...
	You're going to get hit by lots of images like this of migrants working in domestic sectors all over the globe.
	And isn't it great?
	Isn't it wonderful?
	Isn't it brilliant?
	So what we're going to do is import a lot of people from all over the world to be our servants.
	But it's okay, because we're going to have a celebratory day for international migrants.
	Rather than call it Migrant Servant Day, it's Migrant Domestic Day.
	And we're going to celebrate them for doing that work.
	Isn't that modern-day colonialism?
	Isn't that a form of colonialism?
	And why are all these organisations and rich people involved in celebrating this?
	Deliberately reverse-colonialising ourselves.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	And if anyone wants to look at this particular site, they'll see a lot more than just Migrant Day.
	And then what happens is they're celebrating them.
	Then they're going to convince us all to change.
	Everybody's heard of the Global Compact for Migration, I should have thought.
	Anyone is interested in it anyway.
	But this is the top policy that's gone down to all the countries who've signed up for it, most of those on the AOM, which indicates that we've got to have policies on migration and integration to, and you look at their words,
	migration provides immense opportunity and benefits for migrants, host communities, and communities of origin.
	Oh, does it?
	Yeah. Does it though?
	Okay, let's not question that statement.
	That's right.
	However, when poorly regulated, it can create significant challenges.
	So the only way that we're suffering at higher house prices, massive asylum migration, is because we're just regulating ourselves poorly, according to the wealthy individuals who are not impacted, but they do get their domestic servants and we give them a nice day.
	And that is the kind of nonsense that we have.
	In Europe, That system created the Pact on Migration Asylum.
	It was behind the big idea that was signed up by many of the European nations.
	But now under Gert Wilders and the Hungarians, they're fighting back against this.
	So they look at policy.
	They look at people.
	In the United States, they have a massive resettlement team about how to promote resettlement of individuals in the United States.
	Again, it's all about how good they are.
	Nothing about what you're going to talk about later.
	The criminality.
	The drugs.
	Those people who are stealing for us, murdering, the rape issues that are going on all across Sweden, for example.
	Never see any of this negativity in it at all.
	And again, in the UK, if that was the US, this is the UK, the recommendations of government, which I mentioned before, they tell us what we're supposed to think and do.
	They have the celebratory day, the migrant domestic workers, and then they have...
	The Global Compact for Migration is a youth policy.
	So it's indoctrination across schools.
	These documents to go out across schools.
	And then you take a look at some of the organizations.
	I've done the individuals from Malta.
	But then this is classic of the individual who is running it.
	This is Amy Pope.
	She's American.
	She is the Director General of the IOM.
	She talks about here, with some chap called Steve Inskip as a host, about what we see about migration, what's her job, what's her role.
	And so she's going to take on migration growing across the world, becoming increasingly complex.
	That's what the organisation is facing.
	So is every community almost in the West now.
	It's becoming more complex.
	When Mexico sends its people they're not sending their best, she says...
	Democratic elected governments around the world have to reckon with the anxieties that migration brings.
	Anxieties. Well, how does it feel when that woman went on to Trump and talked about how her daughter was brutally raped and murdered?
	Is that an anxiety?
	Is that a real fact of the criminality that these people just ignore because it's all about having a nice domestic servants day?
	And her salary, which no doubt will be...
	Huge. Yeah.
	None of these people who work for the UN are working at the top for less than seven figures.
	That's one of the things I thought earlier when you were talking about the Knights of Malta, the Hospitallers.
	I was thinking, is it simply that they know there's this reservoir of money and all they've got to do is ignore that it's destroying the West and they get money?
	And they get a big salary and that's all they really care about and they get to look smug on their website and don't care about the anxiety stroke mass criminality stroke horrors.
	They get to Virtue Signal and they get money.
	Is it as simple as that?
	I think it is to a certain extent.
	I think it's genuinely some of them where we're going, we do want to help people.
	I mean, all of us want to help people when we see someone who's lying in the street.
	You know, who's drugged up and we think to ourselves, it's really not very nice that they're being homeless.
	I want to help them.
	But then you recognize, is that person a self-induced alcoholic?
	Is he a drug taker?
	Will I give him the money?
	Will he just continue doing that?
	Is that the best way of helping him?
	You know, if you see somebody who's poor or a friend in need, you want to help them.
	That's a natural instinct from ourselves.
	And I don't think any of us on the right are inhuman to those impacts.
	What it is, is about looking at these individuals, they're all very well healed.
	And obviously thinking, what do I do to determine self-worth in my life?
	I can get involved in these organizations, but it does a number of things for me.
	One, I'm going to get well-paid.
	I can look great at dinner tables.
	See, I can salve my conscience because perhaps I was born into a wealthy family and I've not done anything really useful in my life anyway.
	So it salveys that.
	But there's a whole lot of people that just know that they can become part of the immigration industry right down those levels, as we said, to the migration hub.
	That then leads to 300 organisations across the UK and hundreds more across each part of the world are all sucking on the teat of immigration cash.
	And they're not going to lose that if they can help it for themselves.
	And so we have that situation where you've pointed out the UN is funded by our own taxpayers' money or for organisations that we've donated to who feed it to pay out to people.
	Who salve their conscience whilst destroying the nations that they live in.
	And as Rome is burning around them, they're not really noticing because at least they get to Davos.
	Yeah, they've still got their villa in Central Plate or something.
	So my point is to show to people here today that when you dig deeper, I'm looking at my organisation, the Centre for Migration, I'd be lucky to get like 25 to 50 grand in a year in a donation.
	How am I supposed to be able to compete?
	Or the number of organizations like ourselves when the budget just for research from their IOM is $150 million and they've got equally the same amount of money on communications.
	Either something happens between our organizations across the globe that we try to come together to do exactly this, to compete against them, or we're going to consistently face ourselves up against the BMF that is filled with these people that you see from the Knights...
	To Amy Pope, who all sit in these organizations taking your taxpayers' funding.
	Yes, we might get Trump who turns around and says we want to pull out.
	Even he, I don't think he will go this far.
	It'd be nice to see that he does so and start reducing the money that goes into them.
	I doubt that they will.
	But I wanted the public to understand, and the people who are watching this, that there is a bigger group of people.
	When they say there's a conspiracy, it's actually there.
	They're not even hiding it.
	Physically follow the evidence at all time.
	And there you're going to get it.
	It's literally the definition of a cabal or a conspiracy.
	Absolutely. Under the auspices of being nice and the UN.
	Having normal people's good nature weaponised against them.
	And the net result, of course, is just industrial levels of rape and criminality and murders and endless horrors.
	And the nice people, the decent people that are generally trying to flee, torture, are getting caught up in this because it's no longer about looking after those individuals who generally fall within the right definitions.
	It's about economic migrancy and the use of people smugglers as a long arm for their own indebtedness and creating income for them in the future.
	Do we have comments?
	I don't have a screen, so someone else.
	I don't know.
	Sigilstone17 said, so there was a report, a fiery chasm opened beneath the Vatican and a demon dragged someone into it.
	Are they like an arch Lutheran?
	Are they talking about the pogrom?
	I guess so.
	I think so.
	That might be a new Netflix series.
	Shall we go to the second segment?
	Is it my segment?
	Can I have a mouse?
	Is this working?
	Yeah, it is, but I was just a bit wobbly on it.
	And that's not due to any gin and tonics over the weekend.
	It is really wobbly.
	Yeah, sure.
	Is that a bit better?
	I can go lower.
	Okay. Okay.
	Okay, so there's been more news on the Pete Hegseth leaking type stories.
	If you remember about a month ago or a few weeks ago, there was an issue where Pete Hegseth at the Pentagon had, or it wasn't him personally, but a group had been made on Signal and accidentally, it seems accidentally,
	Invited into that group was Geoffrey Goldberg, the editor of The Atlantic.
	We're normally friendly enough to the kind of MAGA movement.
	Aren't they The Atlantic?
	I thought they've got some good leanings.
	Are they completely opposite?
	It's both.
	It's both.
	Generally speaking, I think it's hostile.
	Oh, it's hostile.
	I would say so.
	That's pretty stupid then, isn't it?
	I think if they were...
	Pro-MAGA, they wouldn't have participated in publishing the leak.
	Well, Goldberg himself was obviously over the moon that he found out.
	Of course he would be if he hated them.
	Yeah, he'd been put in this group and then immediately just write a piece about it.
	More hostile.
	Yeah, I mean, I suppose the Atlantic is extremely pro-establishment, but not MAGA establishment.
	That's what I would say.
	So that happened and there was arguments about whether anything sensitive was leaked or not.
	We can get into that in a moment about whether it was or wasn't.
	And we'll talk a bit more about the original incident in a moment.
	But so in the news today, it sort of happened again.
	It seemed like it happened again.
	So the BBC talking about how, yeah, a second group, a second signal chat.
	This time, I think it was a slightly smaller group.
	It didn't involve many of the big, big hitters like Vance and Rubio.
	Nonetheless, it seems.
	We can get into that in a In inverted commas, again, whether it's deliberately or not, whether it's a type of leak or not, we'll talk about it in a moment.
	But for a second time, he was caught in a chat.
	He included his wife and his brother in it where he was talking about maybe sensitive information, maybe not.
	We can get into that in a moment as well.
	So it's just in a new cycle at the moment that a second incident we can see all over the place, CNN, The Guardian, The Independent.
	They're all sort of running with it.
	So there you go.
	Accidentally text war plans.
	Today we're going to war with Yemen.
	Can you just say we're moving 35 people across the border there?
	We're going to do tens of dollars of damage in Yemen.
	Let's have a quick recap of what happened originally.
	In the first one, there was quite a lot of really important people in this group.
	Somewhere there's a...
	Oh, yeah, there's a list.
	There you go.
	So Vance was involved, John Radcliffe, the director of CIA, if anyone does know, Michael Waltz.
	Now, apparently, one of the questions is, how did this happen?
	How could it possibly have happened?
	Well, it seems like it was either Waltz or a junior sort of staffer under him that accidentally, somehow, accidentally...
	Accidentally on purpose.
	Including Jeffrey Goldberg.
	So that's the first question.
	The first set of questions is, was it truly just an accident?
	Yes. Was it sort of a deliberate...
	I mean, in the piece that Goldberg wrote in The Atlantic, straight after, even he's saying, wait...
	Was it an accident or have they deliberately done it?
	Am I being played here?
	Is this like a newer version of leaking things to pretend we've accidentally included him in this group?
	Or what's going on here, really?
	Even he asks that question.
	And in fact, he says in the piece, he was really sceptical.
	He assumed it was some sort of practical joke or something like that.
	And it took him a while, like a few hours or a few days before he realised, no, this is real.
	It's really Vance and Rubio in here.
	Maybe it's a phone call to say, I may or may not have put you on there deliberately or not deliberately to ensure that you thought it might be insecure, but perhaps by checking I can now confirm that it was on the list.
	Right. Thanks.
	You do the job so we can get Heskef out.
	Yeah. So that's the next thing.
	Whether it's deliberate or not, that you've got to think, are there people with this staffer, whoever it was, who quote-unquote accidentally added him, it seems like there's some sort of power struggle.
	of shenanigans within the Pentagon to screw with Hegseth and just the Trump administration
	No surprise about that.
	Absolutely Ultimately convinced that's got to happen.
	They lost.
	They lost big time.
	He's moving really quickly across things.
	He's put people in place.
	Hegsgef was one of them.
	They really wanted out.
	They managed to get someone out recently on the tax side of things in the Treasury that they were fearful of.
	They stopped somebody that was going to work with JFK against the big farmers.
	They prevented him getting on.
	But they didn't stop certain people getting in.
	He's one of them.
	So the next stage is how do you start to remove them?
	Just think, if you look at the Brexit movement, the first stage was, when Theresa May was in charge, who kept her solid on Brexit?
	It was her chief of staff and head of communications who were both massive Brexiteers.
	They were the first to go.
	And they were replaced by Barwell, who was a massive Remainer.
	So what they do is, one by one, start to attack those people around the leader.
	To weaken his resolve in certain areas.
	So I'm no doubt, you know, call me conspiracy theorist, but I'm no doubt this is classic leaking.
	Yeah, I mean, it seems to me, well, I think it is just the case that you've got sort of, within the Pentagon, or even within the wider sort of defence establishment in America, you've got, again, a cabal of extremely powerful people, and they've got their own interests and their own favourites.
	They didn't like Hegseth.
	Well, they don't really like Trump, but they don't like Hegseth.
	They didn't want him.
	Yeah. It's often the way when you get a new leader or the new head of a department, sometimes the bureaucrats, the civil servants, the deep state, the blob, the establishment, whatever you want to call it, they like them or they don't like them.
	So for example, a classic example springs to mind, when Gordon Brown got into the treasury, he's quite literally clapped into the building.
	Yeah. Because he was their man.
	He's who they wanted.
	Couldn't have agreed more.
	But you then get the opposite.
	You then get someone, the department.
	Hate. And if they got a choice, would never pick in a million years.
	Yeah, Priti Patel, Swayla Braverman.
	They didn't get a big clap when they walked in.
	I think half of them were still on holiday, weren't they?
	I think the Pentagon, they don't like Hegseth.
	They don't want him.
	So if they can sort of manipulate things to, at very least, make him look stupid or incompetent, or if not, force him out entirely.
	Yeah. I'm not saying that's exactly what happened with this Signal app, but it's a question to ask.
	Is that what's going on?
	Well, on this, you've got a list there of people who are on that.
	Isn't the question of who's in charge of the list?
	Who is the one individual that is responsible for putting names on that list?
	I cannot for a minute imagine that Hesker was the individual that says, hey guys, can I just set up a little list and I'll just add you to it?
	No, he's going to give it to some junior.
	Looks like that's what it was.
	And they're the ones who are going to set it up, aren't they?
	So what is it that Junior did, really?
	Who are they, and why did they bugger up in that specific way?
	Absolutely. Who's behind them?
	We haven't got all the answers to that detail, because Michael Waltz just said, it wasn't necessarily me.
	But it was probably a junior staffer under me.
	But I take full responsibility.
	The buck stops with me.
	Let's move on.
	So that's kind of all we know at this point.
	If they're talking about something that is top secret, wouldn't people expect for a junior to not be involved in?
	Absolutely. I mean, isn't involving a junior to create such a list a fail on its own?
	Right, yeah.
	If they're talking about top secret information, because...
	From my mind, the way I see it, top-secret information isn't just given freely to whoever happens to be in the White House.
	Yeah. So that's the next question to ask, I think, is, okay, so how sensitive was the information, both in this one and the original incident and in this latest second version?
	Because, so, their detractors are saying, you shared sensitive, like, top-secret, sort of ultra...
	Yemen is close to Oman.
	You know, you violated national security.
	And sort of actual operational details.
	Tommy Houthi wears a red cap and he's going to be in Starbucks Houthi village at seven o'clock.
	Here are the coordinates.
	Fire. So the detractors of the Trump administration obviously would say...
	You know, extremely sensitive military secrets and intelligence secrets.
	Do we have any clips of what it was?
	Has he, this journalist, Goldblum or Goldsmith or whatever, did he actually release what was said?
	Small bits and pieces of it.
	Yeah, yeah.
	There are even screenshots from the actual app.
	And how sensitive are they?
	Well, in my opinion, not...
	Not really.
	So they say it's really sensitive, and the Trump administration side insists nothing sensitive was shared.
	So from what I have read, and from what I know, and from what I've looked up, they're more talking about policy, not sort of actual operational details.
	Policy's fine.
	Right. Isn't that what your group's about?
	It's easy to mention a few things to a few people on policy.
	It is still a...
	A bit embarrassing, I would say, because there's that old adage, you don't show people how sausages are made.
	You don't really show people how policy is formulated because it's kind of tawdry.
	There you go.
	Thanks, Sam.
	He's put up a few things there where we actually got the screenshots.
	If you think we should do it, let's go.
	I just hate bailing Europe out again.
	So what's sensitive about that?
	Right. I don't see that.
	It just seems like everything that he's already said.
	Is it the only one?
	No, no, a few other things.
	It's a bit embarrassing.
	I fully share your loathing of Europe, is that, at the bottom?
	Yeah. Yeah, well, so does an awful lot of people in Europe at the moment.
	So if nothing else, if nothing else, it is a bit embarrassing because I suppose a bit like the WikiLeaks leaks, it's just showing what's going on behind the scenes.
	And what it always boils down to is just normal people who...
	Blow their nose and put their trousers on one leg at a time, talking among themselves like normal people.
	Yeah. But they happen to be dealing with massive things.
	Yes. Massive, massive things.
	Because loads of people have been killed.
	I mean, even in the last few days, they did some strikes in Yemen and like 170 odd people were killed or wounded or whatever.
	So it's life and death stuff.
	It really is sort of life and death stuff and sort of global politics stuff.
	It is.
	So it's no joke.
	The only thing I would look down there is actually the last sentence, which is often what you say to people in conversations, but POTUS still retains 24 hours of decision space.
	That is potentially, you know, a kind of loose line to say that we've only got 24 hours to make this particular decision.
	That's market sensitive.
	It can impact, say, the stock markets.
	It can impact decision groups who are trying to get ideas through.
	I think something like that could be seen as...
	But the rest, like you say, it's just general conversation, isn't it?
	It seems to me, and I might be wrong, I could be wrong, because I wasn't in the group.
	No, no, no.
	Sure? Have you checked your what's out?
	My official line is I was not in the group.
	I'm sticking to that line.
	No comment.
	Are those black men in hoods coming past them?
	It seems to me that it was a little bit embarrassing, but not actually particularly...
	It's not secrets.
	It's not sort of state or military secrets, it seems to me.
	Okay, nonetheless, at the very least embarrassing.
	And maybe you could make the argument that it is bordering on truly, truly sensitive information.
	Either way...
	I'm sure if the Trump administration could have the time back again, they wouldn't let this leak.
	No, no.
	Okay. The next question that comes to mind, and I think the other side that the liberals throw at them, which I think is actually a fair comment, is that weren't we all outraged when Hillary Clinton was found to have her own private server?
	I mean, she was at the State Department, not the Pentagon, but still, she was found to have her own private server in her...
	Do you remember that?
	And she was sending out emails as the Secretary of State.
	And everyone said, well, that's not on.
	You're not allowed to do that.
	That's against the law.
	Like, what do you think you're doing?
	Yeah. And absolutely.
	Yeah, absolutely fair.
	So the next thing is, again, if we're going to assume that this isn't a deliberate ploy from Hexif to leak things in a new way, assuming that's not the case.
	Then it's sort of the same thing, whether they're talking about something particularly sensitive or not.
	It's like, why are you using Signal?
	Why are you using Signal?
	Like, isn't there a proper, secure way to communicate between the Secretary of State and the Vice President and the Pentagon?
	Why are you using Signal?
	Well, to me that smacks that perhaps they're a little bit concerned of actually being able to use their own intra-channels.
	Because the NSA, the CIA, the FBI, whatever, that's already completely corrupted by them.
	That's right.
	So to me it seems that we don't want those who are already part of the deep state to be able to identify what we're actually saying.
	The question then to me comes along, if this is leaked, which one of that group is still part of the deep state?
	Which one is really willing to wreck the scenario of a Trump triumph and the ability to make drastic change rapidly, which everybody knows needs to be done in a short period of time to have any sustainable opportunity for change?
	Who's willing to do that by leaking this?
	And so the question for Trump should be, in his chief of staff, is not that he should be mullering Pete Hexketh for this.
	He should be trying to find out who and why.
	Who and why included a journalist from the Atlantic, not known, as you told me quite clearly, to be one of our favourites?
	So that's what I would be pursuing quite heavily at this stage.
	And it's also a distraction from the overall picture.
	Now he's got to start thinking, how am I going to protect Hexgath against this?
	Or Hexgath.
	I mean, Hexgath, isn't it?
	For some reason I'm getting a bit tongue-tied over it.
	Wouldn't you say that they've got bigger issues than this, and this is an embarrassment, but it takes up intellectual time within the White House to deal with it?
	No, absolutely.
	Absolutely. I'd say at the very minimum it's embarrassing.
	No, no, I wanted to add to this, that a lot of people are not sufficiently demanding when it comes to the Trump administration.
	I think everyone should, because the more demanding people are, the more professional they're going to be, the less time is going to be lost in nonsense.
	Yes. Chief of Staff, I imagine, would be absolutely apoplectic about this, because she's been very strong in being able to get him there.
	And in order to ensure that this continues, she's going to have to get a grip on this.
	So she's one of the most powerful people.
	But you said that they've done it again.
	Yeah, apparently he made a new group.
	An entirely new group.
	On Signal, with his brother and his wife in it, where he was talking about, again, not necessarily sort of actual military secrets, sort of like the coordinates of the nuclear submarines or anything, but still just talking about Pentagon business with them.
	This sounds like reforming the band, with a bit lesser players in it.
	Because his brother and his wife aren't sort of cleared.
	No. Right?
	No. But leaking is obviously as old as time almost.
	I mean, the thing that springs to mind when it first happened and now today, when this is in the new cycle again, the thing that kept springing to my mind was during the Nixon era.
	Yeah. Where he had a massive problem in Vietnam, obviously.
	They had a massive problem with leaking the Pentagon Papers and all that sort of thing.
	And again, the State Department leaking like a sieve.
	Or even go back even further, even sort of the Red Scare stuff in the 40s and 50s and things.
	It's very, very difficult to have an entirely tight ship where there isn't a single leak ever.
	When you're dealing with a giant establishment with tens of thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands of people involved.
	And you sort of can't guarantee that there isn't a mole or some sort of fifth columnist in your organisation.
	Well, I think what you're going is, and you're pointing on that, leaks have been very, very prevalent.
	But during the period of John Major, the whole of his time was just covered by leak after leak.
	That's how Gordon Brown became so successful.
	He became the leak champion.
	Everyone in the press recognised him as the Man United of leaks at the time, and Jack Straw as Liverpool, because they used to have the whole of the civil service.
	And I'm recently reading a book about leaks on that era, one of the most famous.
	There was an ITV interview between John Major where he was talking about how he might lose a vote by the Brexiteers of that day.
	And he called them a whole bunch of bastards, to be honest.
	And he called Bastardgate.
	I mean, he had fertilised egg gate after that as well, you know, things like that.
	But that journalist was a BBC who overheard it and then leaked it.
	To somebody in the New Statesman who leaked it to someone on the Observer.
	And so that was journalists who'd overheard it, knowing the rules that they weren't supposed to leak, but they did anyway.
	And then he continues to explain how lots and lots of people in the civil service kept on then sending more and more information about Major and all the other ministers, because they thought it's better to get the Conservatives out and get Labour in.
	Are we in a scenario now where you've got this with Hegseth?
	Where they're going to say all those civil servants part of the deep state just don't want to get rid of Trump.
	So they're going to face years and years of leaking.
	Well, I suspect so.
	Yeah. I suspect so.
	You'll be on here with another story.
	Yeah. Yeah.
	It's that classic thing.
	We're just going to brief the media.
	You mean leak?
	Yes. That's what you mean.
	Absolutely. So I suppose there's quite a few angles we could keep going with this, but the time is running out a little bit.
	I suppose one of the last things, points of discussion might be, is it ever possible in this day and age to have sort of truly secure lines of communication?
	I mean, I know that they had things back in the Cold War, all sorts of...
	Cryptography to try and keep things safe and sort of one-use pads and all this stuff back from the 50s, back from the golden age of spying and all that sort of thing.
	But they had burn bags.
	Even when Obama got Bin Laden killed, there's images of them in the Situation Room, I think.
	They have these burn bags.
	You know the idea of that where there's super secret physical bits of paper or whatever it is with orders on.
	Yeah. Or information on.
	And the president or whoever reads it and then immediately burns it.
	And they have a little bag, literally a burn bag that you put in.
	But if you're just going to conduct government through Signal, what do you expect?
	I mean, like Signal's intelligence stuff, like the NSA.
	Yeah. I'm sure the NSA can get into any device.
	Yes. I'm sure.
	Well, we know they can.
	We know they can.
	We're pretty much certain they are.
	So whether you use some sort of special internal Pentagon messaging system or whether you use Signal or whatever it is, unless you go really, really old school with a tiny number of extremely trustworthy people that send around old-fashioned bits of paper and you immediately burn them,
	unless you do things like that...
	Someone somewhere is going to be able to, if it's GCHQ, if it's the Chinese intelligence services, the Israeli intelligence services, whatever it is, the American ones, internal ones, the FBI, how can anything ever really truly be safe?
	I'm not sure if it can anymore.
	No, I've got my neighbour, he still has homing pigeons behind him, so maybe we should be using them, but I was talking to him the other day and he says the biggest danger now is hawks.
	There seems to be more hawks taking out his homing pigeons.
	So maybe Hexteth could look at getting some homing pigeons that are drones so they don't get taken out by hawks.
	Get his own speckled gin.
	Yeah, with a tiny little message on there.
	It might actually not be as quick as Signal, but it might not get into the newspaper's hands in that way.
	And the NSA, yeah, get their own fleet of sparrowhawks to take them down.
	You know, the Chinese intelligence services get that.
	And the burn bag has the messages of how you're going to connect with them.
	We are drifting off.
	But it is, you know, a kind of sense of humour that we can have about this, but it's a very serious topic.
	It is.
	They have to be careful how they're going to communicate in a way that they get the messages across, but just have the right people in place who are not going to allow journalists on their lists.
	But do we have it by signal?
	I think everybody should be able to have a communication between colleagues if you're in government.
	If Vance wants to talk to Rubio, wants to talk to Hegskeff, they should be able to talk briefly on something like a WhatsApp or a Signal.
	The question they've got to learn from themselves then is how much of that is secret and how much is government and how much is just general chit-chat.
	Do you fancy coming down to the pub after work tonight?
	That would be fine.
	But can you come down to the pub tonight because I've just got the plans on me and the maps that show me where we're going to bomb the hooties.
	I don't think that would be right.
	It just seems to me that in the digital age, if you're going to communicate digitally...
	It's sort of never really going to be completely safe.
	I mean, I'm really interested in the intelligence game back in World War II and the Cold War and the things that were done at Bletchley Park and the breaking of all the sorts of codes, both the Germans and the Japanese, the American versions of Bletchley Park in the Pacific Theatre and all that sort of thing and the breaking of codes.
	Both sides broke each other's codes really early on.
	And we're reading each other's stuff.
	I mean, the Allies did it much better and quicker and more effectively than the Axis powers.
	But nonetheless, it's still basically...
	It's very, very difficult to keep anything completely secret among a vast number of people for very long.
	Yes. So I just hope...
	And all this is to say, unless Hegseth is doing this deliberately, that he's playing 4D chess or something, that he wants it to be...
	And I just don't think that's the case because it's a bit embarrassing.
	And it undermines his position with POTUS a little bit.
	It does.
	But you don't want to be, if you're the head of a big department, you don't want to be the story, right?
	Yeah, but maybe he's doing it so that people underestimate him.
	And that could be used as an advantage.
	Maybe. Maybe 4D chess.
	Or it's to winkle out the moles.
	You let something get leaked.
	Now we're getting into deep stories.
	So that you can find out, so you can try and find out who's leaking it, right?
	Or then you get into like the double, triple, quadruple games.
	Yeah. Five D chess.
	You know.
	AI chess.
	You know you're compromised.
	Yeah. And so.
	But you don't want them to know that you know you're compromised.
	And you don't want them to know that you know that they know that you know that I know that we know that they know they're compromised.
	And meanwhile, everyone knows everyone's compromised.
	It's like if you've got intelligence that you know a certain convoy is going to get bombed, you know it because you've got the intelligence.
	But you can't necessarily act on that because it would let the enemy know that you know.
	And then there's no point being able to decipher anything because...
	They'll just change their system.
	Anyway, it gets into all that sort of fun and games.
	But anyway, so Hegseth has apparently, accidentally, been talking about Pentagon stuff with his wife and brother who don't really have clearance.
	So, well, watch this space.
	It may happen again.
	It may not.
	I assume if I had to make a prediction, yeah, there's so many forces ranged against MAGA.
	Yeah. That this stuff is going to keep happening.
	Yeah, I'm pretty certain this is going to happen and it's how Trump deals with it and his team deal with it and recognize it and tell his team how to make it work.
	Right, so do we have some good comments there?
	Yeah, SlickyStone17 again said, Sir, a second signal chat has hit the Pentagon.
	Oh yeah, like a second...
	Tower has been hit.
	I think that's a reference to that.
	Yeah, Carl came up with that.
	DM Denton said, The Atlantic is a leftist rag that gaslights with an attempted air of intellectualism owned by a Steve Jobs widow who was close to Ghislaine Maxwell.
	Okay. I didn't know it was owned by his widow.
	No, I didn't know that either.
	But they're certainly anti-Trump.
	Yeah. Okay.
	Right, so we're going to talk about the due process debate that is surrounding the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was deported by ICE agents last month.
	And it has sparked a huge backlash against the Trump administration.
	And there is a debate about what is going on, whether this is the violation of due process, I want to start by showing you some of the things that have happened with respect to Garcia,
	but also make a prologue by showing the hyperbolic criticism of Trump's deportation.
	So for instance, here we have two clips I'll show from Project Liberal.
	They draw some equivalences between Trump's deportations and Project 1938, which I find completely hyperbolic and wrong.
	And also they have it here in Never Again Is Now.
	They draw an equivalence between MS-13 members who have been incarcerated by Bukele in El Salvador with prisoners of war in the Hau camp, which I think...
	So is there a burning furnace ready for these people just outside the Kekot camp?
	I think that this is...
	I've been lined up to do work.
	This is completely mistaken criticism and a false equivalence.
	Yeah, I was going to say false equivalence.
	Especially for people who want to criticize Trump, like the people involved in Project Liberal.
	This actually helps Trump.
	Have you got any Jewish sensitivities?
	When a criticism that is so preposterous is being put forward, it's not helping.
	Right, so...
	What happened was that on March 12, ICE agents arrested Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was an illegal immigrant from El Salvador.
	Now, I've read a lot of papers, a lot of newspapers and articles that describe him as an undocumented immigrant.
	They don't say illegal immigrant.
	Just putting it out for the record.
	So he was arrested in March.
	On March the 12th.
	And he was deported on March 15. By the Trump administration.
	Straightforwardly to Bukele's prison.
	I think it's called the Terrorism Confinement Center.
	Right, so...
	That was a nice quick turnaround, wasn't it?
	Wasn't it?
	I actually got something done.
	Quick and effective.
	But there are several questions regarding this.
	And I want to show you...
	Both sides of the equation on these issues.
	So, for instance, some people are talking about there being a Supreme Court ruling that orders Trump to bring him back.
	I think that this isn't the case, and a lot of people are saying it isn't the case.
	I'll show you the legal correspondent of CNN saying that this isn't actually what the Supreme Court has said.
	Yeah, I did watch a decision being made almost at midnight last night, which related to groups of people being sent, but not related to this individual.
	I think that was a federal court, wasn't it?
	I thought it was the exact opposite.
	I thought it got to the Supreme Court about this individual dude, and they ruled, no, Trump's absolutely legally allowed to deport him.
	We'll get to there because there are people who give all kinds of numbers.
	Some people say 9-0 in favor of Trump.
	Others say 7-2 in favor of Trump.
	Others say that the Supreme Court is completely against Trump.
	So there's lots of noise at the moment with respect to what happened.
	But I think we do have a good answer by the CNN correspondent who says that this is deliberately ambiguous.
	It isn't an order.
	They're saying that Trump needs to facilitate.
	The return, the renegotiation, let's say the revisiting of the case, but they don't use the word order for legal purposes.
	Right. And what happened was also that this person, Garcia, went to the US in 2019, and even some newspapers that are critical of the Trump administration...
	They're saying that when he was arrested in 2019, sorry, that was when he was forced to arrest, he appealed that decision and he said that if he was going to be deported, he was going to receive retaliation from MS-13 or from gangs.
	So his brother, who is a U.S. citizen, says that he came to the U.S. He tried to go to the U.S. to avoid gang violence.
	There are questions.
	Trying to avoid gang violence doesn't mean that you're necessarily innocent.
	No. Just saying that.
	Doesn't mean that necessarily that he is guilty, but it doesn't mean that he's necessarily innocent.
	But he's guilty of illegally entering the US, though.
	That's definitely the case.
	Also, if you one way or another get mixed up with MS-13, it doesn't then give you the right to enter the US illegally, does it?
	No. Yes, but there are several.
	Questions with respect to whether he is a member or not, and whether the Trump administration was correct in bypassing several of the stages as far as with his case, which gives a lot of ground to Democrats to start presenting him as being the enemy of the rule of law and the enemy of due process.
	I'm sure you'll get onto it, but I thought it was sort of undisputed that he was in MS-13.
	This isn't certain because Trump circulated a photo with tattoos on his hand saying MS-13, which is contested.
	Some people say it is a Photoshop.
	The question is, if it's so easy to dismiss and it isn't a Photoshop and all you need to do to that person is tell them, show me your hand.
	Why bypass this and give so much ground to others to criticize?
	I think the point is that he was arrested, and we know from what I understand the background, apparently he beat his wife, who said it's all right now.
	Yeah, I have stuff to show about this.
	I do have to show something.
	He didn't mean to hurt me.
	Yeah, that's right.
	He would have already been prosecuted in the UK under the domestic abuse regulations on the CPS, whether she said yes or no on that.
	Except if he was considered to be a member of an oppressed minority, in which case it could be frustrated by colonial sentiments.
	But there was more that followed.
	We have here Senator Chris Van Hollen, who flew to El Salvador, started talking with him, and there was a response from the White House, which is...
	Where's the link?
	Here. They had...
	An article from the New York Times that says Senator meets with wrongly deported Maryland man in El Salvador and the White House fixed it for you New York Times.
	Oh, and by the way, Chris Van Hollen is not coming back and they corrected here.
	They erased wrongly.
	They put MS-13 illegal alien and here they say who's never coming back.
	There was also a press conference.
	If people want to watch this, I have it here.
	You can click the link and watch the press conference for this case.
	Right, so this person had a violent history.
	And I have here a video that I want to show you for 20 seconds.
	You did take out a temporary order of protection against your husband in 2021.
	Were you in fear of your husband?
	Thank you.
	I have to ask it.
	You did take out a temporary order of protection against your husband in 2021.
	Were you in fear of your husband?
	Thank you.
	My husband is alive.
	That's all I can say.
	So, were you a victim of domestic abuse?
	So the answer to the question whether you were a victim of domestic abuse is my husband is alive, that's all I can say.
	Which raises some doubt.
	Or a non-response.
	It's like saying I don't recall.
	Is he my husband?
	Who is he?
	I don't know.
	Who am I?
	What's my name?
	If he's from El Salvador and he's a violent person, that's it for me.
	Slam dunk.
	Why would you have him in the United States?
	What's the argument in favor?
	The argument is that when it comes to...
	Okay, let me rephrase, sorry, because I don't want to get tongue twisted.
	The argument is that the conditional is true.
	If someone is a violent gang member from MS-13, then they should be deported.
	The question is whether Trump is correct in saying that he is a member of MS-13.
	So they could be saying that...
	And they're saying, what evidence did they produce?
	Exactly. So they would say, for instance, that unless a particular procedure is being followed in order to establish whether someone belongs to a terrorist organization, according to Trump, whether there should be due process with respect to that.
	Because if the process isn't followed, they could use that for many people.
	For all sorts of reasons.
	They could say, for instance, we don't like you.
	Well, you're pro-Hamas, and we name Hamas a resorganisation, so you're gone.
	There are several concerns of that.
	The issue about this is that when we've seen the individual saying that he was wearing a baseball cap, that indicated membership of a certain chapter.
	That he's got tattoos on there that talk about MS-13, that the T-shirt that he was wearing related to a particular chapter in Maryland.
	His lawyer had come to court and suggested that, no, this is all New York's China chapter, and he's never been up there, and he's not connected to that.
	This is just an innocent mistake.
	It's anyone just wearing a baseball cap that he liked.
	And when the police suggest this is all connected, and he's had an evidence of the history, like you've said, he came across the border, he's got his wife, none of that indicate that he is actually MS-13.
	But there's been a deep dive into how MS-13 operates across the East Coast, and that indicates that everything about him shows that he's actually part of that chapter, and that chapter is alive and well in Maryland,
	not just in New York.
	Okay, so Trump...
	And that's what I understand.
	Yes, so Trump circulated this photo here where he shows the hands, tattooed left hand of Garcia with also MS-13 on top.
	And a lot of people are contesting it.
	A lot of people are saying that Trump is straightforwardly correct.
	My point is, if it's just so easy to show, why not go through the process that there is so that...
	You know, you don't give the left an extra argument to present you as the enemy to the rule of law.
	What about the argument or the angle that, regardless of whether he's in MS-13 or not, he...
	He came into the country illegally and has a record of violence, whether it's MS-13 condoned violence or not.
	I think it falls under the Biden process, was that certain individuals like him were nominally granted the ability to stay if they signed certain forms, which is why they're calling him Maryland man or Maryland dad.
	And so that's all been repealed now by Trump as well.
	He would not be allowed to stay in current circumstances, but they're saying he has a right to be here, which all the lawyers are jumping up going, he has a right to be here, he's a Maryland dad.
	He can only be removed, as you say, if he is a criminal, but we don't believe he is.
	I'll get to what you're saying, and I do think that, and I will get to what you're saying, but I will say that he was also deported straight into a prison, so they're saying that the Trump administration just...
	Sad that he is guilty and it's not the same deporting someone and deporting them into a prison.
	So they could make this argument.
	But I will get there because there is a...
	To add to your point, because I do think that you have a very valid point.
	People who are in favor of the Constitution and people who are pro-Constitution should understand when activists are trying to use the Constitution against its purpose.
	So when people are trying to hide behind the ambiguity of legal texts in order to promote straightforwardly anti-national agendas, that's a big problem.
	And people can hide behind the Constitution in the abstract and constantly say the Constitution is...
	I interpret the Constitution in this case, but that's actually destroying the very culture that...
	That praises the Constitution.
	You can't have violent members just roaming free and have uncontrolled migration.
	I think that you have a great point there.
	So Trump and Bukele said that they are not going to return Kilmer Armando Garcia.
	The US, after they received criticism, Stephen Miller had a strong response.
	Yeah, who said basically that no rule of law has been violated because Trump has announced MS-13, a criminal or a terrorist organization.
	So because he is associated with MS-13, he doesn't have several of the provisions by the Constitution with respect to his rights.
	So deporting him is not unconstitutional.
	I think Tom Holman...
	Again, they're open to the same counter-argument with respect to whether this person is actually a member of MS-13 or not, and why did they have to just go straight forward?
	Why they didn't respect due process on that issue with respect to the court.
	But that seems to be the situation.
	And here we have CNN chief legal correspondent Paula Reid, who said that the Trump administration is not violating the Supreme Court.
	Ruling on Garcia.
	And she's accusing the Supreme Court of being very ambiguous so that they would help Trump hide behind that ambiguity.
	And that's the issue, that any kind of legal text, and I think you are the person to tell me if I'm right or wrong, and if I'm wrong, how.
	I think almost every legal text has a degree of ambiguity built into it.
	And the power with interpreting the law is incredibly strong.
	And I'll give you the pass because I just want to say and draw an equivalence between what we hear here in Europe.
	Article 8 of the ECHR says that everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
	And they have the second clause.
	That says there shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right.
	Expect such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety, or the economic well-being of the country for the prevention of disorder or crime,
	for the protection of health.
	And this is exactly the point I was raising last week, where I said that, you know, if we wanted to adopt similar policies to Trump, we could do so, based on those principles.
	And if you added that to where Trump is today, they're saying, everyone has respect, Mr Maryland man, Maryland dad, we can respect his life.
	However, if he is a threat to our national security, and we have deemed MS-13 to be a threat to our national security, Then I'm sorry, it doesn't apply.
	The principle that we will look at is, as the lawyers then will go, well, hang on a minute, we probably accept that, which is what she's saying.
	You don't have to be returned.
	You facilitate it, whatever that means.
	But if the guy is not MS-13, then you shouldn't be able to deport him under these provisions.
	So, why don't you prove to us he's MS-13?
	And that's why they're showing that he is.
	I mean, after all, I think also he was arrested with a group of MS-13 people, wasn't it, in the back of my mind.
	And maybe they were his mates.
	Maybe he was forced to have a drink of coffee or a beer with them.
	I don't know.
	Maybe they dragged him off the street and said, unless you have a drink with us as MS-13 and wear our cap, we're going to execute you.
	I don't know.
	I mean, but certainly there were other factors in there.
	And the question is, did they make a mistake?
	Is he just generally nice, decent Maryland, and therefore he has to go through the immigration rules, or is he nasty, evil Mr. MS-13 man, in which we can get rid of him pretty easily?
	Right, and I'll...
	Sorry, well, you have to...
	Just, again, I can't help but return to the point of, regardless of whether he's in MS-13, he's a citizen of El Salvador, right?
	Right. Who entered the US illegally.
	Yeah. So that's it.
	He gets deported.
	No? He does get deported.
	I know it's more of a slam dunk.
	It's easier to say, oh, he's also MS-13 and violent.
	So... We've got a different set of rules and laws to go through.
	Yeah. That's what he should do.
	Anyway. Right.
	And I wanted to end with two points because I'm conscious of time and I didn't have that much time to expand on it, but it's okay.
	I think a lot of the Democrats are forgetting how hypocritical they are and how hypocritical they sound when they are talking a lot about due process.
	Because I have here a post by Hakeem Jeffries on November the 10th of 2021 who says, lock up Kyle Rittenhouse and throw away the key.
	Which is again the same call for violation of due process.
	And I want to end with just saying that...
	I'm going to be a bit more general and a bit more abstract here without talking about the specific case.
	I do think that there are some people who are saying, well, the left didn't respect due process.
	We shouldn't respect due process as well.
	I don't think that this is a good argument.
	The same could be said for free speech, for instance.
	The left didn't respect free speech.
	What if, for instance, any kind of...
	What if Trump now pushes forward the hate speech law and...
	What are people going to say?
	That the left didn't allow free speech.
	So we're okay with that.
	I think due process is, personally, I think that it is a procedural value.
	It is good.
	It is not the only value, but it is a value.
	And that respecting due process is basically respecting the spirit that underpins the rule of law.
	I don't think anyone's really arguing on the right that we want to remove the aspects of the rule of law.
	I mean, part of us are actually being campaigning to ensure it's strengthened.
	We're saying that the rule of law has been weakened by those who have taken extenuant circumstances, expanded the language, moved away from the principles in order to protect issues such as woke ideology, which we've seen in the courts recently, to prevent mass immigration.
	They've allowed it because they've changed the rules and regulations, expanded the ECH.
	I don't think we're the ones who are saying we want to restrict it.
	We're more saying go back to the old principles and bring it back to what it was and what it was meant to be.
	I completely agree with you.
	I think that this is definitely my side.
	But there are two reactions.
	Some people are saying, well, no, we should respect the rule of law.
	And the other are saying that the rule of law is the problem.
	I side with what you said.
	Not to mention the sort of open society George Soros funded DAs that seem to proactively pervert the course of justice.
	Just real quick to say, this Dan O'Donnell, whoever that is, directly underneath that tweet.
	Nice! What a dunk!
	Anyway, just while I'm staring at it, I thought they got him good.
	Or maybe we become smarter and we just take over the BBC by putting all our people in as executives.
	We introduce a new Human Rights Act that actually says it's, you know...
	Instead of like having woke men, men can be women and women can be men.
	You just turn around and say, no, we institute our rules that you can't fire anyone who has these views, for example.
	And then we remove them from their jobs.
	We change the HR people to have our views.
	Do it subtly, because that's what I've done.
	That's what they've done.
	Maybe it's our turn to have our HR officers in place doing our videos on equality and fairness, you know, what that all means.
	And if you don't agree with it, then you can go.
	You know, perhaps if Putin had understood that and taken the BBC method, we wouldn't be where we were today because he did learn it more smartly.
	I don't know.
	The end of the day is we must protect our own principles, surely.
	Protect the fact that we're not going to go down their extreme routes.
	We must challenge them at every route that we've got, develop our own policies, create our principles and return to what we see as common sense kind of democracy with our own rule of law in there that works and not allow them to deflect from that or create images where you can turn around and say MS-13 is the same as people sitting in Auschwitz,
	which I find utterly, utterly appalling.
	Appalling is the word for that.
	Yes. Right, so should we go to the comments?
	Yeah, let's see.
	We have a video of Samson.
	Yeah, okay.
	Okay. John Matz says, I can't believe...
	Trump tricked the Democrats into being pro-MS-13.
	That's clever.
	Yeah. Like the simplest 4D, it wasn't even 4D chess, it was just normal chess.
	It just made a move.
	And the Democrats...
	You can just see them with their arms out in there.
	Free Mandela on that side, free MS-13 on the other.
	Yeah. Like hypocrisy.
	It's insane.
	That's nonsense.
	That was well played by Trump.
	Sliggestone17 again says, Democrats protested in front of a courthouse to intimidate the Derek Chauvin jury, but will move heaven and earth to bring a turbo murderer back to the US, the party of anarcho-tyranny.
	Absolutely. That's actually a quite important point.
	Perfectly put almost.
	Dragon Lady Chris says, And he was arrested while hanging out with MS-13 members of the same gang he claimed would kill him if he went back to El Salvador.
	Well, you made your bed, mate.
	How is that Trump's problem?
	The problem is that a lot of the...
	He's MS-13 and if he returned to Salvador, MS-13 would kill him rather than another gang.
	It's not much of a gang, is it?
	The problem is, at the end of the day though, that we feel constantly that several governments and several people are constantly making excuses for...
	Not necessarily the best of us, let's put it this way.
	I was going to say scum and eggs.
	Yeah, and when we're talking about law-abiding citizens, we're always the people who are going to take the hit, always those whose rights are going to be restricted in order for others to be treated well and fairly.
	Where's all the fairness with us?
	Nowhere. Right, so should we go to the video by Ramshack Lauder?
	Hello. If you have fruit trees, you'll probably notice these shoots coming up from the base.
	That's because the rootstock is trying to bypass the grafted tree on the top.
	The graft is the fruit that you want, and the rootstock is the vigorously growing rootstock in the ground that gives it all of its nutrition.
	The rootstock always wants to take over, and you have to keep cutting it back to make sure that doesn't happen.
	That's maybe why my cherry tree is not going to have so much, because I've allowed two of them to grow really big.
	I wonder whether this is an analogy for something, because I started treating it as an analogy.
	I won't say anything.
	I wish I had a garden with a tree.
	I live in a flat that hasn't even got a balcony.
	All right, well, okay.
	I'm very lucky I have a huge garden, but it just takes up so much of your time in summer.
	Trust me.
	Okay, do we have another video?
	Yeah, Jared King.
	Millions of foreign fighting-age males roam the streets with idle hands.
	African teens hold knife duels in the street.
	The Windsors have presided over the most shocking loss of prominence possibly in all of history.
	The Windsors have forfeited their mandate of heaven.
	My first act will be to dissolve parliament.
	Migrants arriving by boat will be turned away at gunpoint.
	Reinstitute the death penalty.
	Mass deportation.
	I do not claim the crown by right of blood, but by right of God.
	Dissolve Parliament and do away with the monarchy.
	So we're talking...
	Jared King or Jared Lord Protector?
	Let's say Lord Protector.
	Let's call it Lord Protector Territory.
	We're in here.
	Yeah, no, we did a tier list for monarchs and Carl and Ralph Heidel Mancou kind of insisted that Queen Elizabeth be in the top tier.
	I disagreed with that.
	As he said, I think she oversaw Elizabeth the Silent, Elizabeth the Absent.
	I don't want to pour scorn on her, but yeah, oversaw a period of giant decline, unbelievable decline.
	I don't think she really deserves to be in the top tier.
	Anyway. Right, let's go to the next one.
	The Dark Knight thing can already be done with 5G.
	Suddenly, AI has turned every Wi-Fi router into a camera that can work in the dark.
	Specially tuned for tracking living beings.
	The Wi-Fi router.
	And they just learned to predict, like, this is where the human beings are.
	Then they took away the camera.
	So all the AI had was the language of radio signals bouncing around a room.
	And this is what they're able to reconstruct.
	Real-time 3D pose estimation.
	Scary. That is exceedingly scary.
	Samson, do we have also five minutes for next comments?
	Yeah, okay, great.
	Just one thing I'll quickly say is I'm extremely suspicious and concerned about AI.
	Yeah, me too.
	The world was okay before we had AI.
	Yeah. Okay, so it can do things a bit quicker.
	So someone who's lazy can get GBT to write an essay for them.
	Yeah. Yeah, great.
	The price for destroying civilization.
	Yeah, right, yeah.
	It comes at the low, low price of all human liberty.
	Great. Brilliant.
	Did you get an A on your test?
	Yes, you did.
	Did you watch the whole of Europe burn?
	Oh, that was fine.
	I got an A. We have another by Sam Weston.
	So, I'm going to be doing a series of videos.
	Where I'll be talking about adolescence as a drama or a piece of art.
	So, in other words, purely the artistic side of it.
	And why, in reality, it's little more than pretentious, window-licking conceit and utterly ghastly tripe.
	I can see that as the headline for adolescence too.
	I watched it.
	Did you?
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	I'm refusing to.
	Was it?
	I mean, it was 50-50.
	It ended with some good bits because it wasn't just the media did this because towards the end, the couple is talking about the son and say, how the hell did he end up this way?
	We raised him the same way we raised the daughter.
	At some point, you can't control everything as a parent, which is good in terms of being against helicopter parenting, but perhaps with that boy, they needed to be a bit more helicopter-ish.
	Have you watched this, Stephen?
	Yeah, I've watched it, and I thought that the beginning parts about the law and the police was probably a bit accurate in the way that actually happens and the way the process goes through.
	My disagreements with it were very intense about the way that it just very much marginalized white males, white working class individuals.
	That was the marketing.
	That was the marketing.
	The moral things that you talked about at the end, the pain that the parents went through about the loss, the suffering that they would have got in the community, the way that they had to fight back, the fact that his van was daubed.
	With various language on it.
	All of that I understand would happen in a working class community.
	I'm not sure they would necessarily have done so because he wasn't exactly what they said.
	They put the word nonce on his van.
	He wasn't a nonce.
	He murdered a child.
	But what it missed out for me was the violence and the brutality towards him as the boy by others in his school.
	The girl was part of a gang that was actually bullying him.
	She was the one who was calling him an incel when he wasn't at all.
	He'd not even been involved in that.
	They ignored the fact that there was a young black girl who attacked a white boy in a school.
	Well, that kind of was smart.
	Am I in trouble?
	Yes, I think you might be.
	Well, actually, if it was the other way around, it would have already been in shackles in a prison, to be honest.
	So there was very much, you know, this kind of anti-boys stuff on it.
	So, you know, I appreciated the artist.
	Right. Not to mention the race swapping of the perpetrator.
	I haven't watched it.
	I've got no intention of watching it.
	But I have heard, I think, from Carl and a few others, exactly what you said, that like that Barbie movie, which I also haven't watched and also I've got no intention of watching it.
	You can have a counter narrative about it.
	Yeah, the inadvertent one.
	Yeah, that you can view it.
	I think so.
	The way I saw it, the worst thing was the marketing.
	I don't care.
	I'm not going to watch Barbie in any shape.
	To be honest, no way.
	I don't know how counter it could be.
	Because we don't have that much time, I think we should just focus on reading two comments from each section.
	Should we go?
	Yeah, sure.
	The first one.
	Sophie Liv.
	Another thing about this idea of taking refugees.
	When the conflict is resolved, they're supposed to go home.
	The idea is we keep them safe while the conflict is ongoing, and then when it is over, they can go home and work to rebuild their country.
	It was never meant to translate to them staying forever.
	Somehow, though, it happens.
	Let's look at Syria and Germany.
	And Omar Awad, the thing that infuriates me with the good immigrant argument is that if you push them even a tiny bit, They will readily admit they wouldn't accept the reasonable compromise of, can we at least get rid of confirmed criminal migrants?
	Their moral posturing is only a tool to bully you into doing what they want.
	Do you want to read two of yours?
	Sure. Economic Zone 17 says, Signal is properly end-to-end encrypted.
	A lot of security people use it.
	Yeah, fair enough.
	I suspect the NSA, that doesn't mean anything to the NSA bods or GCHQ bods, but anyway, fair enough, fair point.
	Ramshakel Otter says, by way, sorry, no way Signalgate was an accident.
	Signalgate was an accident in the same way Russia blew up its own pipe.
	Right. I can believe it.
	Sorry. Omar Awad says the biggest weapon in information warfare is confusion.
	Living just enough loose ends for people to speculate endlessly, but never with certainty.
	The only real measure for who's winning or losing is Trump's approval rating.
	And Arizona Desert Rat...
	All watching us.
	Or watching us.
	That's the only way.
	Watching us and subscribing.
	And Arizona Desert Rat, misusing the Constitution also waters down the power and efficacy of the Constitution.
	Absolutely. Right.
	It was a pleasure to have the...
	to do this today.
	We had a really good discussion.
	I hope you enjoyed it as well.
	And on that note...
	We have to bid you goodbye and see you tomorrow at 1pm.

▲