All Episodes
Previous Next
May 19, 2025 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters
01:30:57
The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1167
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello, everyone.
Welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters.
Today, it's Monday, the 19th of May, 2025.
This is podcast number 1167.
I'm your host, Stelios, and today I'm joined by Firas and Stephen.
Hey, hi.
So, we are going to discuss the presidential elections in Romania, the pride cult, and the manufacturing of consent for World War III.
So, buckle up.
This is going to be a really good podcast.
There were several elections in Europe.
There were elections in Poland, elections in Romania, elections in Portugal.
We're going to talk about them, but for this segment we're going to talk about the presidential elections in Romania.
Right, so before we talk about them, we are doing courses.
We have the Trivium that you may be interested in.
It's about classical education, grammar, logic and rhetoric, things that the current educational system doesn't educate.
Students with sufficiently.
So definitely check out.
We have the individual courses, Foundations of Writing, Foundations of Logic, and Foundations of Rhetoric.
But also we have the bundle in a great offer.
Definitely check it out.
And we have also the webinar.
If you want to find out more information about it, you can sign up for this meeting and see if it is for you.
This is 7 p.m.
UK time.
For Thursday, the 22nd of May.
So by all means, this is free.
Check it out, sign up for it, and see if the courses are for you.
I think you're going to like them.
Right, so we are talking about now presidential elections in Romania.
And I think this is the first segment we are doing about Romania and its presidential elections.
But we have been following what happens there pretty closely.
And we are definitely going to talk about the wider context and especially the presidential candidacy of Kalin Georgescu that was annulled back in December after his performance at the first presidential elections at the end of November 2024.
But the main contestants of these presidential elections, of the second round, were Nikosho Ordan, And George Simeon.
So we're going to talk a bit about them, what they represent, what happened in those elections, and then we're going to talk to you about the wider context and whether the EU went out of its way to be very authoritarian in ways that arguably it didn't have to.
Definitely, we are going to talk about what happened there.
So this is Nikosho Ordan.
He is the mayor of Bucharest.
Elected twice as a mayor of the capital of Romania, who yesterday won the elections.
That was the second round.
What happens is that for a person to be elected president in Romania, they need more than 50% of the vote.
In the first round, he secured around 21%, whereas George Simeon, who lost yesterday, got 41%.
A large share that disproportionately went for Nico Chardin on the second round.
So let's see what's going on.
So are they saying with 100% of the votes counted, the centrist candidate won nearly 54% of the ballots cast?
A clear win of a hard-right candidate, George Simeon, who is a fan of Donald Trump.
Simeon opposes providing military aid to Ukraine and is critical of the EU.
Looked on track to win the election after he swept the first round on May 4. As I said, he got around 41%.
However, Dan gained ground after trouncing Simeon in a televised debate.
So they engaged in a debate that seemed to be going in favor of Nick O'Shordan.
Let me say some things about it.
So yesterday Nick O'Shordan got around 54% and George Simeon got around 46%.
So who is Nick O'Shordan?
So he's a maths prodigy.
In 2015 he founded the Save Bucharest Union.
Next year it turned into the United States.
USR, which is called the Save Romania Union.
And about a year afterwards, in 2017, he left, and he has been independent ever since.
He left, allegedly, due to the internal factions of conservatives and progressives within the USR.
Now, let's note that within the EU Parliament, the USR is adjacent to what we'd call the Liberal Centre, to the Macron.
To the Macron side of things.
Absolutely.
There's nothing independent about him.
So in 2020, he won the mayorship of Bucharest.
He was re-elected in 2024.
And he basically stands for, I'd say, a pro-EU agenda.
A liberal centrist agenda, if you would like.
He is in favor of the EU.
He's against Eurosceptic narratives.
He is pro-NATO.
He says that there has to be a partnership with the US and NATO within the context of an EU membership.
And he's also in favor of boosting the military spending of Romania and arguably capitalizing upon its internal, its domestic defense industry.
So all in all, so far, he's a perfect Davos man.
Perfect Davos man, yes.
Super.
Good summary.
Yeah, perfect Davos man looking for a good career and a retirement somewhere after he's done what he's told.
So I will reserve judgment for this, but it looks like he's definitely advancing the narrative of the EU at the moment, especially when it comes to Ukraine.
Now, I will say in...
The reason why I am a bit reluctant to say either way is because I don't know that much about Romanian politics.
I'd like to know much more to give you an informed opinion.
So I have to be honest on this.
But also, I think there is a tendency of Americanizing non-American politics.
And I think that at the moment there is...
Especially on X, the reign and the domination of the MAGA infospace.
And there is a tendency of trying to apply MAGA categories on the non-US area of things, which should be taken with a pinch of salt.
If you look at both the previous tweets, this one and the previous tweet, so George Simeon is not only pro-Trump, he's pro-Putin, but anti-Von der Leyen.
Yes.
So, you know, at the end of the day, this is all about just painting them in the pictures of what the elites are now doing across the whole of the global, in particular Western politics.
It's that you're either pro-EU, pro-dying in Ukraine and not supporting Trump.
And if you do support Trump, then you're bound to be supporting Putin as well.
It's like there's no non sequitur on that.
You're either one or the other.
I'd say that this is the more, you'd say, US perspective.
And these elections definitely represented a clash of perspectives.
One is the pro-US that tries to talk about the EU as being a uniquely globalist organization, which, unfortunately, it very largely is.
But on the other hand, I think that there are definitely globalist elements within the US.
And they still remain.
Including within the MAGA movement itself, including within the Trump camp.
And got rid of everyone, unfortunately.
So, let's talk about George Simeon.
George Simeon was the pro-sovereignty of Romania candidate, the pro-MAGA candidate, and he did have a...
Large support by the MAGA camp.
Here we have Mike Benz saying, George Simeon, the pro-Trump candidate in Romania, won the first round election 41-21 against the NATO-EU blob candidate two weeks ago and somehow lost or ran off today.
It's the same thing that happened with Marine Le Pen, basically, where she would do extremely well in the first round and in the second round...
The entire political spectrum would unite to try to defeat her.
In Hungary, to try to defeat Viktor Orban, they managed to get literal Nazis and literal communists into the same, I think it was a nine-party bloc, trying to oppose Orban.
So you see the same story being repeated, but yes.
And the same strategy.
If you look at what happens in Turkey, the capital...
Is more left-wing, more EU-supportive, and they're more students, and all of them vote for this kind of wet weekling of a man who is the opposite to the president.
You've got the same in Hungary, where they try and get the capital.
Here you've got the same, the same in Paris, the same in London.
That's their first strategy.
Let's get somebody in there.
That's one of us.
And then we can utilize him to promote their name, their face, their character and the funding to take on anyone that might come from the sticks, the suburbs, where the proles live.
Yes.
And then we can control the proles from our own elitist centers.
Right.
So here we also have people linking Simeon to the pro-tramp camp.
Here we hear Romania is at a crossroads and so is the US influence in Eastern Europe.
George Simeon stands for sovereignty for a strategic alliance with Trump's America, North Biden, Macron and Brussels.
A vote for Nico Jordan is a vote for the globalist elite.
Now, I don't know to what extent it's particularly good for non-US campaigns to attach their name to Trump.
Not necessarily because Trump is mistaken or about...
Lots of things.
Lots of things he gets right.
But I think that to a very large extent, it works to a segment of the population, but to the greater segment of the population, the general public, I think it definitely seems a bit servile to US interests at the expense of others.
It's alienating.
And you could arguably say that in Canada this didn't work.
And it hurt Pierre Polievre, who was seen as, in a way, the closer to Trump candidate.
And Australia.
The same, yeah.
So Marine Le Pen here also endorsed George Simeon.
She definitely feels, I'd say, targeted by the EU establishment.
Well, she is.
She has every right, every justification.
Here George Simeon appeared on Stephen Bannon, here with Jack Posobiec.
So definitely he seemed to be the pro-MAGA favourite.
And from an EU perspective, because we hear the MAGA perspective, from an EU perspective, there is definitely lots of worry about candidates who make their pro-MAGA, let's say, nature as their flagship.
It's because they are saying, well, what if suddenly the MAGA establishment thinks that it has to make concessions to Russia Let's say, give lots of parts of Europe to Russia in order to secure a sort of aid of Russia against China.
This is one of the things that the European establishment is thinking when it comes to...
Think about it this way.
For the Europeans, the worst possible outcome is a Russian-American agreement.
Because given the extent of European military weakness and economic weakness, between them they can dominate the continent with no challengers.
And so the EU establishment needs to rally and ensure that these challengers fail in order to keep up their own space of autonomy.
The argument that builds on that is that if you're going to allow these two big powers either side of you to actually have influence, the worst thing you do then is allow your nation-states within your group to also have patriotic, conservative-based nationalist parties who believe in their country over a set of individuals that are running it from the centre in the European Commission.
And so that EU elite which has been built up over...
40, 50 years, which includes the large corporations that are benefiting from the commissions, from the NGOs and charities that are benefiting from their largesse, all of them will see weakness because they too might say, OK, we're not actually going to get our funding anymore and our lives and our luxuries will go.
Here we have George Simeon talking about mass migration.
We will oppose illegal migration.
We will stop the anti-American change.
"In Europe." New York popełni: Bojeret Boxbox criptomo Streetquality Donald Trump Donald deliver Donald Trump Donald Trump Donald Trump is not just a person.
He's a symbol of freedom that will cover all the free world.
How does this sound from the perspective of someone from, let's say, in Romania?
How does this look?
Well, it's interesting.
I was in a small coffee shop just outside of Winchester by chance with my daughter yesterday.
We're having an ice cream, and we ended up with a conversation with a chap who was from Romania.
Bogdan, if you're listening, now that I've told you to watch, very interesting man, all about freedom.
He felt that his nation, after Ceausescu, had become more dominated by a new form of communism.
And that new form of communism, in his view, was the European Union.
So there are those who see alternatives to the European Union, whether it's coming from Trump, whether it's coming from Simeon, to actually say that we want a different way of thinking in our country, not the way of the elites.
Because, of course, straight after Ceausescu, in we came with the European Union, in we came with the MI6 and the US, and we started to decide who were our people.
We positioned ourselves.
So you've kept an elite, you've built on an elite and some of those that decided to get rid of Ceaușescu, ardent communists realised where the wind was blowing and they kept their jobs, they kept their influence, they were suddenly promoted into big companies, NGOs and moved to the EU.
So they kept their good lives.
That's what we're up against, the same people.
And they're families and friends who continued after that.
Right.
Let me say something.
I think that this rhetoric was designed to address the Romanian diaspora, but I don't think it worked well within Romania.
No.
Because if you see the issue with immigration to Romania, they have a very small migration population.
It's 3.6, and most of it is of European origin.
And this rhetoric targeted Romanians from the diaspora, but it worked only to Romanians that were outside of Romania, who were in more Western nations, and not to the extent that they particularly expected.
Whereas in other cases, the Roman diaspora chose to help.
So there's another issue.
So let me just give you a really fun thing, which was, I think, very unfair to George Simeone.
I won't say at some point he announced, I'm the new president of Romania, and he used the flag of Chad, which I thought that it was a bit weird, but I checked out and I saw that the flags are really close and it's just the shade of blue that is...
A bit different.
So he just made a mistake.
But then people made fun of him and they said, no, make Chad great again.
That was a fun moment, but I think it was a bit unfair to him.
Right.
So he made this.
Initially, he said that he won the election.
Then he said that he is that the votes have been counted and that Nick Jordan won and that he isn't going to challenge the results.
And let us go to Georgescu now, because what happened was that there were presidential elections in Romania at the end of November 2024, and Kalin Georgescu won the first round.
He didn't become president, he won the first round with around 23%.
And then, what happened was that the EU annulled the results.
And they basically said that there is a campaign of misinformation surrounded by Georgescu.
There have been more than 800 TikTok accounts that are boosting his image and his message, cultivating support for Georgescu.
800 accounts, that massive number.
Wow.
And also they accused him of being pro-fascist, being essentially someone who is supporting...
Anti-constitutional and anti-democratic forces within Romania and forces that are pro-corruption as opposed to anti-corruption, which is the big flagship of Nicolas Jourdan.
Didn't it turn out that the campaign was actually organized by the opposition to him and that they themselves had sponsored...
Some kind of campaign.
Then the Romanian courts annulled it, annulled the election on that basis, and it turned out that the Russians were not involved in any way.
So they sort of manufactured a story themselves very similar to the Russia collusion story in the United States and then used that to annul the elections with full EU endorsement and support.
And you had also the founder of Telegram saying that I saw that.
The French intelligence had told him to make sure that right-wing voices in Romania were suppressed, except that he only spoke about it after the election.
Now, I'm not in his position, and I don't understand the pressures he's under, and he's been arrested for owning Telegram, essentially, in the past.
But there is a concerted effort to play around with elections and to make sure that the right person wins.
I think that I take everything with a pinch of salt.
We're in the digital age and I think that basically we cannot have election campaigns without digital foreign interference.
There will be propaganda campaigns in every election.
The flip side of it is that you then end up in the position where for any electoral result you can allege some foreign intervention online.
It will be partially true, and it can be used as an excuse to annul any election.
These are the dangers, and that's what points to the potentially unnecessary exercise of authoritarian might by the EU, because I think that the way they acted on Georgescu's case essentially was completely unnecessary, because Georgescu...
Fought a campaign that was based upon a very specific agenda that on the second round was almost bound to lose.
The way that they reacted, that the EU reacted, and especially here we have Thierry Breton, I'm definitely certain, Stephen, that this isn't your favorite person from the EU.
No, no.
He'd have us all arrested and put behind some sort of fencing walls and only allowed out when we'd been re-educated to accept the European Union, as many like Thierry is, unfortunately.
And the point is that he is the smug face of the EU.
He was out on a panel and he was so happy.
That they did this and they were saying, well, we can cancel elections.
We did it in Romania.
We can do it in Germany if necessary.
Of course.
And they're also using their own state agents to manipulate the social media framework.
If it was Russia or China, the Americans are doing it.
We're doing it.
The European Union countries are doing it.
And then they turn around and say, oh, it's misinformation.
Well, we're doing misinformation too.
So everybody is now smart enough to understand.
The lines are being drawn because people are understanding the misinformation that's coming from both sides.
They're just making sides.
They don't like people like Thierry Breton.
And that's what's happening.
People like Thierry Breton, who are making money, living nice lives, want to keep it that way and keep the poor out in their own walls.
The rest, which is a bigger number of people, are saying we're fed up.
It's just the middle ground.
Who have yet to understand that they're the people who are going to be wiped out as well.
They're beginning to understand it slowly in different countries.
They're going, oh, we better stick with what we know first, the safety hands.
And as it gets closer and closer, then they're going to move over to the other parties.
And they're aware of it and they know it.
Right.
And I think basically that this face of the EU is what is boosting the anti-EU sentiment.
And justifiably so.
Right, so I think, ultimately speaking, that this has been a very telling case, case study, and it represents...
An election near you.
It represents a clash of perspectives that we're going to see more of in the near future.
Absolutely.
Right, so let's go to the comment.
That's a random name.
He says...
I usually do other stuff while listening to the podcast.
My first name is Simeon.
So every time any of you say Simeon, I get startled.
Sorry.
All right.
Moving on to the next segment.
Again, wanting to remind you of the importance of the Trivium course and wanting to encourage you to go to the webinar and then see if this course is right for you.
And you will see that it does help you And you will see that somebody like Barack Obama could have used a course like that in his own arguments.
But before we get there, the point I want to make in this segment is that the state is inherently and always going to be dogmatic, and it's always going to try to teach some kind of values.
The idea of separation of values and politics is completely delusional.
You see the example that I want to use here is with results to the International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia, and Biophobia.
Now, the UN is all on board.
They have a UN free and equal agency.
Apparently, they have enough money to splurge on that.
You see UN women insisting that there is no difference between men and women.
I frankly don't understand the logic here, but here you are.
You see Dr. Tedros, I think he's the former Ethiopian Prime Minister or Minister of Health, and he's now with the WHO.
The World Health Organization tells you that there's no difference between men and women.
And you see this, obviously, in NATO.
Previous years, NATO would have a big celebration for this kind of thing.
Now, with Trump in office, they seem to have toned it down.
But they would always be insisting on the extent of their support for pride, for transgenderism, etc.
UK and Mozambique, because Mozambique doesn't have bigger problems, I'm sure, and therefore the most important thing is the commitment to equality and inclusion.
Across different states, the Canadians know to homophobia, transphobia, and biphobia.
And somehow this has got to do with hockey.
So you can't really enjoy your time with a sport.
You must always think about this kind of thing.
EU in South Africa, the International Organization of Migration.
I mean, do you think that if people are genuinely fleeing from war, they would have bigger problems than this?
But apparently not.
And, of course, the European Central Bank, because it's not like European banks are close to bankruptcy.
It's not that the EU needs a bailout from the American Federal Reserve every time there's a crisis.
They have enough time on their hands to show their support for the LGBT+.
And a new one there.
Across the world.
Compared to everybody else.
Intersex phobia.
Oh, intersex, yes.
They added that one as well.
Yes.
Well, I'm sure they will adjust it for next year.
Normal sex phobia?
Plain sex phobia?
It really, really never ends.
We need to put forward, we need to push phobophobia, and all these phobias should be banned.
And then you have Miss Ursula von der Leyen, be proud, proud of whom you love, proud of who you are, proud of who you are becoming.
Because your journey is your power.
It's special.
So if somebody were to say to Miss von der Leyen that someone should be proud of being German or British or English or Romanian, I think she would have a little bit of a panic attack.
And she would absolutely refuse.
To acknowledge that it's legitimate to be proud of your nation.
However, of what I would argue your sexual deviance, that you should be absolutely proud of.
What's happened here is clearly that every institution globally is parroting the same narrative.
I could go and show you various corporations.
You could go and see what the World Economic Forum is saying.
they're all repeating the same message.
And the reason that I bring this up and the reason that I think this is important is because we've gone from tolerance to intolerance.
And I want to show you an example of what I mean by that here.
This is the evolution of Barack Obama on the question of homosexual marriage.
So let's sort of go through it for a second here.
Samson, can we have audio for this, please?
you I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.
But I also detest the sort of bashing and vilifying of gays and lesbians because I think it's unduly divisive.
It's unnecessary.
Most gays and lesbians are simply seeking basic recognition of their rights.
So let me just pause here for a split second.
This is being presented as an argument for...
Equality and against discrimination.
Now let's see how that's evolved over time.
We've got to make sure that everybody is equal under the law and the civil unions that I proposed would be equivalent in terms of making sure that all the rights that are conferred by the state are equal for same-sex couples as well as for heterosexual couples.
Now, with respect to marriage...
It's my belief that it's up to the individual denominations to make a decision as to whether they want to recognize marriage or not.
That's his first change.
So now you can decide how you want to recognize it, and you are left with a degree of freedom as to whether or not you accept it.
So it's equality, but your own personal freedom...
No longer just between men and women.
It's now a decision of a church.
Fair enough.
With respect to gay marriage, I do not support gay marriage, but I support a very strong version of civil unions where I think the state has to recognize the same rights and responsibilities for gay people, same-sex couples, as they do for anybody else.
Because the state is not a religious institution.
I think this is the most important point.
To deny that there is religion in the state is belied by the fact that every organ of the state is now parroting the same message.
They're all adamant that you must celebrate homosexuality, you must celebrate transgenderism, you must celebrate etc., etc., etc., or the various identities that they've developed over the years.
This was happening at a time when the whole trans debate wasn't even happening.
And what followed from the recognition of the so-called right of homosexuals to marry was the imposition of this new dogma on everybody else.
And I'm not going to show you the whole clip here, but then Obama goes on to say that he's going to use executive power to make sure that all hospitals throughout the United States, a huge chunk of which are Catholic hospitals, Treat homosexuals and normal people, I'm going to say, equally because anything else wouldn't be acceptable.
And he's threatened to deny federal funding to any hospital that receives Medicare or Medicaid.
Isn't an argument here now?
He's talking about religion.
Isn't the state become a religion?
Isn't it saying that I am now the head of the church of the state and therefore I'm going to deny the state what our morals are?
I'm going to jump in here because one of the comments is brilliant.
We're not allowed to discuss what religion the state has adopted.
But we must.
Because the state is an arbiter of moral values.
All questions of politics, all questions of law, have a moral foundation.
And to deny that and to pretend, as Obama did here, that the state is always secular...
No, no.
The hierarchy of the secular state is different from the hierarchy of the church.
I think, basically, there cannot be any kind of valueless and value-free governance.
Exactly.
This is just, people don't know, people who say this don't know what they're talking about.
But one thing that is, from a realistic perspective, really important, has to do with the tyranny of minority.
Because in many cases, in many countries, I'd say the majority of countries where we have democracy.
We have parties that make a sort of forecasting, sort of calculation of how many votes they expect from particular groups of population.
And if we have a group that can have, let's say, 3-4% of the population, maybe a bit less, it can be a very important player in tilting elections.
That is why we have...
Centre-left and centre-right parties and centrist parties being pro-LGBTQ plus agenda because they want to count on their votes at the end of the day.
Yes.
And because we're voting for agendas of parties, not specific policies, they're putting in this from the back end.
Well, all political parties are trying to find different groups of people, but if you look at the LGBT community, one of the things that they also have is higher levels of income, higher levels of influence in media and TV and music.
And so those modern day powers, which have much more control over the US, And can run this information campaign.
We're going to talk about disinformation in a second because this is relevant to the discussion here.
I mean, Obama went from saying that he's neutral on this to saying that legalizing homosexual marriage is a huge victory for America because everybody must be equal.
But as Thomas Jefferson understood, there is...
And he was basing this on Aristotle, I understand.
There is nothing more unequal than the equal treatment of unequal people.
Yeah, that's in Nicomachean Ethics' book 5 on justice, where he's talking about fairness.
He says, treating equal claims equally is fairness, plus treating unequal claims unequally.
Yes.
If you treat everyone equally, you're unfair for Aristotle, and he's correct.
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
Because the issue that can't be avoided here is that this has become a new state dogma.
And that the state, using its power, is trying to impose this dogma on anybody who dares to disagree.
Imagine working for a big corporation and saying that you disagree with homosexual marriage publicly.
Oh, you'd be fired.
Well, that's exactly what...
You just won't be able to do it.
I was lucky because I was only made redundant as opposed to being directly sacked.
Yeah.
But it's what this is about.
And I think we need to understand their perspective more.
So part of Christian charity is to try to understand the perspective of the enemy as best as you can.
Not the enemy, just anybody you oppose.
And as this is the court philosopher of the World Economic Forum, I think we need to take a minute to listen to what he has to say about Darwin.
Darwin is the kind of prophet of sexual liberation.
If I think about the liberation of gay people, of LGBTQ people, then if you dig underneath, you eventually find Darwin.
For centuries upon centuries, gay people were persecuted and oppressed because of this mythological idea about sex that sex was created by God for the purpose of procreation.
And if you use sex for anything else, you're sinning against the purpose of the thing, so you must be punished.
And then Darwin came.
And Darwin said, in biology, there are no purposes.
Nothing has any purpose in biology.
In biology, there are only causes.
She's nodding as if she knows what she's talking about.
Yes.
Like a nodding dog.
Yes.
She would understand philosophy if someone wrote it down in front of her in a word.
And see how he summarizes his own point of view.
Nothing in nature has a purpose.
And nothing that exists is unnatural.
Does this apply, say, to cannibalism, which exists in nature?
Yes.
Does this apply to incest?
Does this apply to anything?
The idea that there is no purpose to our lives and to our nature, or that nature has no purpose, is revolutionary in the worst way possible.
In that it is purely destructive and deprives us of having any kind of ordered thinking.
Now, you would assume that someone like Harari would therefore conclude that there are no values to be worried about.
But in reality, the man is a big political player in Israel.
He's opposing Benjamin Netanyahu over the judicial reforms that Netanyahu is trying to impose that would limit the ability of the Israeli judiciary to intervene in democratic decisions.
So Harari is of the view that a certain expert class must use its superior knowledge and intelligence to govern and that the hoi polloi...
Us people who vote on things shouldn't have a say.
And he views any challenge to that as an attack on democratic norms.
So it's not that the man concludes that his own values should be treated in the same way as having no purpose and no relevance and what have you.
He is fully dogmatic, but about his own dogma.
And doesn't realize that he's dogmatic, which brings us to a point that Chesterton made, and I know you're familiar with it, that there are only two kinds of people in the world, those who are dogmatic and know it, and those who are dogmatic and do not know it.
And the continuation is that the latter, the ones who are dogmatic but do not know it, are far more dogmatic than the former.
Because if you know your dogma, you know where it's bounded, and you know that it's dogma.
Whereas these guys have no idea that they're being dogmatic and that they're trying to impose things that haven't been...
Or they have and they conceal it.
You know, if they are that nefarious, we have a problem.
We have an even bigger problem.
I just think Yuval Noah Harari knows exactly what he's talking about and he's just being utterly dishonest about it.
Nothing in nature has a purpose.
Possibly so.
How do you have a purpose of a plant?
Or an animal that tries to eat you and wants to devour everything else.
How about a virus?
That's in nature.
That has a purpose to devour you and to destroy you.
This is nonsense.
If we can go back to the previous link.
Let me allow Samson to do it.
Yeah, because I could, literally, I could talk about it for 10 hours plus.
Yeah.
And if you take the statement, nothing is unnatural.
Nothing in nature has a purpose, and nothing that exists is a natural.
There are several implications there.
One implication is that there is basically no morality.
Why?
Because this is reductive naturalism.
Everything that exists in nature, nothing in nature has a purpose, therefore nothing that exists has a purpose.
Well, this is a very subversive way of viewing things, and this is...
Very ideological.
Because what happens?
You can distinguish between an ideologue and a theorist by how much they're asking you to part with.
Yes.
And the idea that we should part with common sense is the mark of the ideologue.
And when they begin saying things like, well, there's nothing that has a purpose.
Action has a purpose.
Thought has a purpose, which is to portray the truth.
Well, he's missed out one thing.
He says nothing in nature has a purpose, nothing else is unnatural, even the very writing of what he's done.
That's the purpose.
And it might not be natural.
So, you know, what you're thinking about is totally unnatural.
This man tries to be a brain, and the only thing that's, for me, that makes him look like a brain is he's trying to show more of it because he hasn't got anything on his head, to be honest.
Well, there's another implication.
There's another implication.
If nothing that exists is unnatural, therefore all the things he criticizes are natural.
Yes.
That's another...
It's a circular stupidity.
It is.
Completely.
He just says most people are so completely false about it.
We need essentially a strong state.
Nothing about Darwin.
Darwin wouldn't have even been considering homophobia, biphobia, transphobia, any of these issues when he was looking at the way that the world considered, unless he was looking at animals not being able to have sex between the male and female version.
But other than that, he had no concept of what this Yuval has tried to create.
He's just tried to be smart for being smart's sake.
Yes.
Yes.
And I think with all of these things, we should always look at the consequences.
If you believe this, then here are some of the consequences.
One of the consequences is that now you can just buy a baby.
You can design and manufacture a baby and go and buy one.
And we no longer have to pretend that, okay, we're a happy couple and a gay couple is equal to a straight couple.
No, no.
Single men can just go and purchase babies.
And take them from their mothers.
I know, it just makes me feel ill.
I find it disgusting.
A single man can go out and buy a baby, and then he can raise him and do whatever he likes inside, and we just do not know what sort of perversions these people are doing.
And it's impossible not to assume the worst.
Of course it's not.
It's really impossible not to assume the worst about these men.
Why would you do it?
A 60-something guy buys a baby in South America.
I mean, you find an impoverished woman, you get her to carry a baby for you, and then you take the boy and you are behind closed doors with him, having zero instincts for how to raise him.
Yeah, look at him.
Can't breastfeed him.
He's going to be dead whilst the child is growing up.
It's not his own.
He doesn't have any understanding of the pain that you would go through if something hurts, like a blood parent would do.
I'm not saying that people don't because they don't adopt people, but look at his age.
Look at the way that...
This is just...
The buying of children.
I mean, this is just unacceptable.
It makes children into a commodity.
They're no more than an iPhone.
A child is an iPhone.
According to the philosophy of Harari, all we are is just matter, emotion.
We're just weight.
So let's just have this weight flowing around.
It doesn't matter.
There is no basis to say that this is wrong from the standpoint of Yuval Harari.
He is undermining...
He's self-undermining.
Or Obama, for that case.
Or from what Obama is saying.
His extension is that anyone can do it.
Exactly.
Exactly.
So we need to look at these philosophies and go beyond the sentimentalism of, oh, but equality, oh, but poor so-and-so, oh, but whatever.
There is real evil that's being perpetuated against innocent children.
And if everything is natural...
And nothing is unnatural.
There's no reason to object.
If all there is is matter, what do I care?
But also it shows the ridiculous extent they are prepared to go in order to whitewash their political allies.
Yes, absolutely.
It's one thing to say, guys...
There is such a thing as morality, and maybe you're a bit harsher on Group A, B, and C, but they straightforwardly go for the nuclear option, which implies there is no morality.
No, they didn't go straightforwardly for the nuclear option.
You have to remember, Obama was arguing that it should be about equality and justice and fairness, and including everybody.
The Economist was writing articles about how legalizing gay marriage was a good thing, because then they'd just be normal.
Suburban, middle-class parents and nothing would change.
So the argument, the revolutionary argument came after they won.
They revealed their agenda after they captured the state, after they became in a position to use the state's dogma and the state's ability to impose dogma on others.
You hear endless stories about teachers being sacked for saying, okay, I don't believe that this child could be trans.
I don't believe that homosexuality is a good thing, etc.
If you as a teacher say this, you immediately get sacked for it.
You'd get sacked in any job nowadays.
Now you get pretty much sacked in any job.
A lot of things, to be honest.
And the argument for it also came from nature.
They found, okay, there's no...
They were arguing.
For a very long time, Obama personally was arguing that homosexuality was innate, and that because it was innate, it came from nature, and if it came from nature, as Harari was saying, then there's nothing wrong with it.
But even that materialist argument fails, because in reality there isn't anything genetic that determines homosexuality.
There are various genes that interplay with homosexuality, but there is no way to predict someone being homosexual based on their genes.
It's impossible to do it.
So, even starting from nature, this argument falls pretty much flat on its face.
And yet they keep on insisting.
And yet they keep on pushing.
And we've ended up in a situation where just you can randomly purchase children from any poor country because a young woman I don't know.
First of all, I reject biological determinism.
So the idea that everything boils down to genes is completely foreign to me.
And I just think it's mistaken.
I don't think that everything boils down to genes.
But even if it did, I think there is such a thing as saying that if there were absolutely no disposition whatsoever in any human being, it would never have arisen in the first place.
Well, society wouldn't try to enforce it in the first place or wouldn't involve it if there wasn't such a thing as biology, because society occurs within biological grounds, let's say.
Yes, my argument would be slightly different.
My argument would be that we are naturally prone to doing some evil because of original sin and that sexual perversions, including cheating on your partner, including doing things that you shouldn't do, form part of our...
Okay, but wouldn't that imply that human nature has a disposition towards homosexuality?
It would imply that human nature is naturally flawed.
Okay.
It would imply that human nature is flawed.
If we were all capable of being saints, we wouldn't be a fallen species.
But we are.
We're capable of being saints, but we must struggle with evil to be saints.
It would imply that the correct way to view humanity is through the mix...
Of original sin and divine grace that we are all born with and that we are all called upon to struggle to let the grace shine and to bury the sin.
That's what it would imply.
And then, you know, they tried to teach this stuff in schools as it was normal, but then when you look at the promiscuity rates...
In the homosexual community, you find that they're extremely high and that older homosexual people are much more likely to be promiscuous than older people in general.
And I'll leave your imagination to sort of think through what that means.
You end up with dogs infected with monkeypox, which is something that I really don't want to discuss more than just point out that it exists.
How could this happen?
Let's not discuss that.
If you don't mind, let's not discuss that.
And you end up in a situation where this dogma is being forced on children as though it was neutral.
However, I want to read another Chesterton quote here.
Dogma is actually the only thing that cannot be separated from education.
It is education.
A teacher who is not dogmatic is simply a teacher who is not teaching.
There are no uneducated people.
Only most people are educated wrong.
The true task of culture today is not a task of expansion, but of selection and rejection.
The educationist must find a creed and teach it.
To be honest, this is the nature of teaching.
This is the nature of education.
It's about values.
It's about right and wrong.
The Catholic Church and the schools that I went to are so different to the way that I was educated in a Catholic school today.
And they are following the dogma of the state.
In many cases, they are.
Yeah, and they're actively doing it.
We have an archbishop who went over to Rome to vote, the Archbishop of Canterbury, who kind of met his team about immigration, and they're all openly, happily bringing as many people in as possible.
So they're in that kind of group of individuals that just simply no longer care about the education, not willing to challenge the state.
They have enough schools here, enough teachers.
You could protect those teachers who want to follow true rules, but they won't.
They fail to do so in schools across the UK all the time.
Being nominally Catholic, or even being a good Catholic, or trying to be a good Catholic, doesn't protect you about being wrong all the time, or against falling behind the currents.
And yes, there are certainly elements...
In the Catholic establishment that are chasing this current, that are following this fad.
But the bedrock is fundamentally opposed to it.
I think basically, I have taught at university for six years.
And I'm really into it, let's say.
So I like looking at where terms come from.
And the term dogmatic...
It was initially the opposition to the term skeptic.
But both of those terms have changed.
So being dogmatic originally meant you think you possess knowledge.
Being a skeptic meant originally you suspended judgment.
You'd say the dominant intellectual orthodoxy in Western countries is reductive naturalism.
It tries to say that being a skeptic essentially means being very dogmatic about things that bring human nature down to the level of matter.
It's not at all suspending judgment because they make constant judgments all the time.
Like Harari was saying.
It's performative skepticism.
It's performative skepticism, yes.
So one thing, I think that it's...
A good thing to try to instill both a kind of dogmatic element in education, but also a kind of critical element.
Because without the critical element, you make students essentially into people who are going to fall for propaganda.
You should be very dogmatic about dogma.
But you shouldn't confuse what is dogma and what isn't dogma.
Well, it depends, again, because we will have discussions about whether something is true or false.
But I think that it's important to cultivate to students both a dogmatic position, but also a sceptical one.
I was just going to say, but putting a bit of levity in, I do like dogmatics.
He's the dog in asterisk to go.
Yes.
It's a tweet of a cartoon by Carl Benjamin.
A corporation needs 50% male board members and 50% female board members and everybody celebrates.
A child needs a mother and a father and everybody gets angry.
And this is the result of this complete loss of reality that we live in.
And the last thing that I want to conclude with...
Mr. Keyes, on the Channel 7 debate last Thursday night, you said, and I'm quoting you, where procreation is in principle impossible, marriage is irrelevant.
You went on to say it was irrelevant and not needed.
What about marriage between people who are well beyond their childbearing age?
Irrelevant, not needed?
No, it's simply a misunderstanding.
The word in principle means...
Relating to the definition of, not relating to particular circumstances.
So if an apple has a worm in it, the worm is not part of the definition of the apple.
It doesn't change what the apple is in principle.
It retains its apple.
To act as if concepts are laughable means that you want to be irrational.
Human beings reason by means of concepts and definitions.
We also make laws by means of definitions.
And if you don't know how to operate with respect for those definitions, you can't make the law.
An individual who is impotent or another who is infertile does not change the definition of marriage in principle.
Because between a man and a woman, in principle, procreation is always possible.
And it is that possibility which gave rise to the institution of marriage in the first place.
As a matter of law and government.
But when it is impossible, as between two males or two females, you're talking about something that's not just incidentally impossible, it's impossible in principle.
And that means that if you say that that's a marriage, you are saying marriage can be understood in principle apart from procreation.
You have changed its definition in such a way as, in fact, to destroy the necessity for the institution.
That's the summary of it.
And if you want to learn to argue like this, please go for the Trivium course, because that is the right way to think.
There is such a thing as natural and unnatural.
There is such a thing as right and wrong.
When you pretend that the state doesn't have a dogma or that you can have a state without morality, what you end up with is men buying children and much much worse.
We've ran this experiment.
We've seen the fruits of it.
It's turned out that there is no possibility of a true truly secular, amoral state, the state always has a morality.
And therefore the question is, which one is the right morality?
The one that allows the buying and selling of children or the one that forbids it?
And that's what I want to end this segment with.
Okay.
Right.
So we have several comments.
We read this.
That's a random name.
I wonder if Barak's stance on rainbow marriage changed once he finally consummated his marriage to Big Mike.
Sigilstone 17. Nothing is unnatural, he said, into that camera that grew on a tree.
Exactly.
The habsification.
These people always end up giving back their credence and justification to BDF files.
You understand what this means?
To do what they want.
I'd want all PDF files to be given.
He says the capital punishment.
Right.
Let's go to...
Let's go to this.
The third segment.
You want the...
Yeah, let's give it a go on here.
So I think everybody needs to understand following that and looking at that last video how important it is.
A classical education can give you, particularly one of grammar and logic, and in this case, rhetoric.
And although I'm not suggesting that we're committing rhetoric, I think we're doing the logic part of this course.
But you can see very well the importance of it, and that's why this course is going to be invaluable to people, and I recommend that you go onto it and try.
I don't know if you can do Sanson, the next part, which is the introductory part.
I think just...
Just for yourself, for those who are not understanding the old classical ideas of Aristotle and all of those points that will be raised by improving your logic today, that's the segment by Karl and Nima.
You just get a chance to get a flavour of what it actually is.
So I'm going to move on today and I'm going to get rid of this and move on to my part, which is this.
the ex-army chief issues a World War III warning and brands the new access of power as more dangerous than NATO.
This is all part for me in the context of what I see now is a very growing and concerningly growing rhetoric across the West.
We're beginning to manufacture consent for World War III.
And what I'm going to show in this kind of segment is the way that they're preparing the public in six different segments.
Now, I think what you'll see as we go through this, ladies, and part of the reasons why we were late today is because I had a whole load of links, and it's my apologies to the team, that this didn't work.
So after the show, I will actually recreate all those links that you can see in the whole links after the show, but there'll be lots more than what we're going to talk about here because I think it's important to see How all the categories I talk about are being used in the US,
in the EU, in the UK, in order to try and persuade the public, not just this year, but over the next coming decades, to prepare ourselves for what I think will be a war of all wars, to be honest, particularly where we are.
So I begin here in the UK as part of preparing the public for defining the enemy.
And you have a number of things, actually.
I don't think I can see.
Here we have General Sir Patrick Sanders who talks about, he's a former military chief, Sandhurst, and he talked about the need that Russia, China and Iran were the new Axis power and a third world war could break out within the next five years.
Think about the timescale of that by the time of 2030 and that these people, these countries, are a greater threat than the Nazis were in 1935 because they're more independent and more aligned than the original Axis powers.
I don't want to look at that language.
The date of this was in May, I believe, of 2021, July.
In April of 21, the House Speaker of the United States, there's one of the links I will put up, was Mike Johnson, and he said almost the exactly same language, the new access powers of Russia, China, and Iran.
Following that, about a month after this, came an article from NATO's think tanks talking about the new access powers of Russia, China, and Iran.
Our military and intelligence services had created the framework, and that was how they were going to begin this, by defining who the enemy is and letting the public know who that enemy is.
This was published across many, many websites, not just here, many, many mainstream newspapers.
And so what we already start to see now is that argument is now being consistently used in our current media.
The next thing that we see here is what I call in Politico, and I'm looking, trying to find in terms of that, without European rearmament, NATO is setting itself up for failure here.
I think this actually is more of a little bit later on when we're talking about the money.
But I think this is an important point here in Politico, which has always been a very...
Kind of pro-EU, pro-the-establishment arguments.
They've used a very clear mainstream argument of military intervention, that of the Atlantic Council.
And with the war in the Ukraine advancing, the West is finally awake from its strategic slumber, facing up to the threat Russia poses in Europe.
Now, we've heard this since before the war in Ukraine.
And now it's emphasised and we need to put more aid packages, more military weapons towards Ukraine because what we're doing is we're creating the military knowledge, technological knowledge, the groundwork knowledge of how to deal with a war with Russia.
Not now, but later on.
One where we have 175 million people in Russia and we have 975 million people in the EU.
Bigger numbers.
Our GDPs dwarf that of Russia.
The amount that we spend in military aid in NATO dwarfs that of Russia.
But nonetheless, this is where we're going.
We're warning the public that this is necessary.
And so I think if we go here into the next stage, we look at this, which is...
The next stage of this is part two.
We now need to look at our neighbours.
Who are our allies?
The US, UK and Australia say Japan could join part of the AUKUS pact.
I don't know whether you say AUKUS or AUKUS pact.
But here we're now looking over to neighbours across the globe and saying, come.
This is coming.
At the moment, you've got UK.
We and Europe, we're going to take on Russia.
US.
And Australia are going to take on China.
Japan, come and join us as part of our team.
You must be the part of the team that's essential.
And as they say here, a statement from the security minister, mounting focus on Chinese threats in Asia.
Japan, you could be taken over by China.
You will be controlled by them.
The usual fear threat.
So join us in this battle.
So you've got NATO talking about a China problem.
And you're saying, here mates, we're the team together, come and join our side now.
Stage two.
I'm going to go down then into, you've got to increase defence budgets.
This is the third section.
And so here we have, oh sorry, this carries on here.
NATO are planning to open a Japan office to deepen Asia-Pacific ties.
I thought NATO was about the North Atlantic Treaty, about defence.
Now they're saying we need to go across the Asia-Pacific.
So you're drawing a new line with that of China.
We're drawing a Cold War.
But that Cold War is very open.
It's not cold.
This is mega war.
We're actually feeling this.
So, neighbours, defining the enemy.
Then, of course, we need to spend.
And we need to spend like mad.
So, I don't know what this part is coming in.
Where we have here, we've got this section here now.
Very clearly is the third section is we now need to boost our spending on the military.
Stage three of all part of this control package.
And we've got the Pentagon talking about here reinvesting 50 billion into the Trump defence priorities.
But more importantly, you've got to look down, down into this article from Reuters, which talks about...
How Peter Hesketh is using money.
And much further down here, you can see an even bigger number of 895 billion in defence spending for the fiscal year September 30. Just look at that number.
Nearly a trillion dollars in one year is going to be spent on defence spending in the US.
That dwarfs anything that Russia has.
It's mega.
But we've also just heard that a deal is being done with Saudi Arabia, with the US, for £192 billion in defence spending.
And why is Saudi Arabia now spending that much money to the US?
Who are they going up against a war with?
The UAE?
Certainly not Israel.
They're not going to try and take over Lebanon or Syria now that they've allowed the terrorists to come in from the light and take control.
The whole part of Saudi Arabia is that their weaponry now is the part of the third tier, which is to take on Iran.
So we now know that we're going to be spending militarily huge numbers in Europe for Russia, huge amounts of money in the Middle East against Iran, led by Saudi Arabia, and the US and Australia.
Bringing in Japan, no doubt the Philippines, no doubt Taiwan, up against China.
So the organisations are being created in military spending.
Then we've got to carry on with training in terms of defining the war zones.
Now, in this part, I just want to say we've defined those war zones, in my view, against the kind of axis of evil.
But here we've got the US are going to train to enable Arctic dominance.
And this comes from the army military, the US army themselves.
There's lots of military bases that you've got.
They're talking about how they're training in the cold, how they're training to take on the Russians at the north.
So this multidisciplinary way of defining the globe and training for it.
So they're preparing for this.
Very, very carefully, I think.
And I've set up different zones.
You've got NATO talking about its China problem and their plans for the Indo-Pacific putting out bases.
The United States are now doing many, many campaigns of training.
We've just had the US.
UK are sending our own ships down for a major training programme in September, which is going to bring Australia, European countries together, all to see into the Straits with China, even threatening to go through the Straits of Taiwan, which China has threatened them not to do so far.
We haven't done it last time, but we're going right up to the edges.
So this is about now defining the war zones.
And the participants in that.
And then I think here is the next thing that I find completely concerning.
I call it increasing the numbers to die.
They're going to actually let you know that you're going to die.
But we need to have you to die.
So because you're aware that you're going to die...
And you're aware that maybe your nation-states in Europe no longer represent the values that you want, or you want to protect them.
Why would you go away and fight for your country that you know, A, might get militarily charged in a defence back in the UK?
You're preparing it for a country that you don't really like.
So what are they going to say?
Conscription.
Well, we know what conscription has done in Ukraine.
Yes.
Thousands of...
You've murdered a generation.
Yeah.
You've murdered a generation.
Those who are wealthy enough or part of the elites or go to university, who are all the big backers of the war.
We're back at the EU.
We're all at university.
I'm studying philosophy, PPE, all the rest of it.
We've avoided war, but the working class, you can go off and die.
The working class in this country don't want to die.
The working class in Europe don't want to die.
So what are they going to do?
Conscript us.
Because you are the fodder first.
Not the ones that will stand.
And not fight for the country.
Not the ones that we believe should be running our moral values of the state.
No, we won't put them in.
So we're going to conscript you.
And we're going to make sure that you're aware of it now that this is going to happen.
So we're leading on the message five.
And then I think I'm going to go through quickly here.
The next section is what I call the technological...
Warfare, sanctions, tech bans, financial isolation.
We're pretty aware of what happened with Russia.
We've removed billions from them, took them out of the financial system.
But the EU has also adopted the 12-pack sanctions here as it continues what it says the illegal war against Ukraine.
But we have tech isolation against Chinese companies.
TikTok is the classic example.
You're not allowed to be a successful Chinese tech company in the US, so you have to sell your assets or not be able to be there.
Huawei, which is one of the best phones I've ever had, wasn't capable of being able to be used.
They were taken out of major contracts on telecommunications in the UK.
You see lots of packages going through the Senate at the moment and Congress in the US to ban various Chinese companies from being able to bid for contracts at all.
Same is now beginning to happen in Europe too.
So these are six levels of the preparation process.
I mean, I would say there's a seventh, which is...
How we're now using movies and films to define Russians as gangsters, China as gangsters.
Let me just sort of try to come in here with a couple of quick comments.
The most striking thing about the Russia-Iran-China alliance is how unnatural it is.
Russia at some point gave the Iranians, I think, faulty centrifuges for their nuclear program as a way of sabotaging them because the Russians don't want...
They don't need that.
China and Russia are natural competitors over the Far East, over Central Asia, etc.
So forcing them into an alliance is mainly the result of the same establishment that has been pushing endless escalation everywhere.
The same people who went to Iraq, the same people who went to Libya, the same people who backed their jihadis in Syria.
Have pushed Russia, China and Iran into an unholy alliance that would probably break down if Trump were able to make a deal with Iran and make a deal with Russia over areas that concern them.
With China, there's a real challenge and there's a real problem.
And you certainly don't want the Chinese controlling your telecommunications networks for the same reason you wouldn't want any foreign entity controlling them.
Yeah, but we have Microsoft, we have Google, we have Apple.
They're all controlling our networks.
But the Americans are...
Actually, this is a general point.
Would you rather the CIA being able to monitor what you're actually saying or whether you like the Chinese?
Because personally speaking, I don't care if the Chinese are monitoring my phone.
Because whether I'm going shopping in Sainsbury's or doing something on X, they're not going to have two hoots about it.
But the US will ban me.
They'll lead you to losing your job.
I think that with the American establishment being captured, the priority should be to uncapture it, not for the Chinese.
Yeah, I mean, I'd rather have us just being able to be free from whoever.
I don't want anyone controlling me.
I don't want any security services controlling me.
But given that you're stuck in the West, and that in the West there is an empire, and the leaders of this empire is the United States, you're sort of stuck with reality.
in the hope that they actually make things better for us.
I have several questions here.
Pardon me for interjecting.
But one thing is, in a way, I think most alliances are a bit unnatural.
For instance, the alliance between the US and the Middle East right now could be seen as unnatural in some cases.
But apart from this, I don't know to what extent it's, this is just the rhetoric that accompanies an arms race, which just tries to Panic the other side in order to destroy them economically.
Because you could say that Trump has come in, he's going to try to do what Reagan did with the Soviet Union, vastly outspend the Soviet Union, militarily speaking.
So all this is just a cultivation of rhetoric, of preparation.
And I don't know to what extent...
We rush into portraying necessarily this as an assault on the other side, whether it could be a defensive war.
We don't know yet whether it's a defense or an attack.
In some cases, there is such a thing as the rhetoric that if you want peace, prepare for war, and sometimes a very aggressive rhetoric could help.
But are we robbing...
Others of agency, we're saying that this is 100% what the establishment is doing.
My view on it is, I agree with what you're saying in terms of Trump.
It's trying to solve the issue with Russia because I don't think it's a natural alliance.
It actually feels as though it's more European.
It wanted to join NATO straight after Gorbachev.
It felt that it should be part of us working towards it.
And I would much rather to see that sort of link.
And my hope...
Trump recognises that, the team recognises that we can end this war and we can move to a much more European base, not based on a group of elites that have come out from the Democrats or the deep state that see this as a financial benefit for them by having this war.
I think also then, you've got the economic point with China, which is growing, and that's a challenge for anybody.
And you've got the kind of free market element of us saying, let's do trade.
I'm quite happy with that, as long as there's no espionage.
And I think, therefore, my hope is that Trump's team can work a way that we can get to the trade and actually send a message we don't want the espionage as well.
I think China will always be a rival because it's a different civilisation, different set of values, with a different identity, with a different ethnicity, and I think that these things matter.
I think we, unfortunately, naturally divide along ethnic and religious lines everywhere.
Can we have a spheres of influence arrangement with China that says you stay in your lane and we stay in ours?
That's one possibility.
Much better one than going to war.
Much better one than going to war.
Or do we end up stuck in a competition where through the...
Perfidy and recklessness of the existing elite, the Chinese get two wonderful natural resource suppliers, Iran and Russia, feeding their military machine.
I think these are the realistic options that we face.
And this is where the problem comes in.
And I think to Stelius' point, it's not just that the Western elite wants the confrontation.
There is an element in China that believes that it must prepare for a full confrontation with the West and that this is the only way to guarantee China's place in the world and its own security.
Exactly.
So it's not...
I would cast it as definitely the elites on both sides.
I would say that Western elites have been giving the advantage to China by insisting on a simultaneous conflict.
With China and Russia and Iran.
Yes.
And this is why I take the view that the axis of evil element is the preparation.
I would argue that these are all characteristics of that preparation.
Do I believe it's necessary?
No.
Though I believe there are alternative routes that we should be looking for, I do not want to see the regime of Iran being able to solidify itself by having an amalgamation with Russia and China in which you've got resources and weaponry that I'll come on to.
I'd much rather have our kind of patriotic parties taking control of our nations, removing the woke element that's in there, turning back.
Parts of what their destructive economic arguments and then leading to saying to those people who are the next generation of Russia that you can come and join us, as we promised in before, but let's have some trade and you've got to recognise some values that you've got to respond to.
And that way that we can then deal with China on its own, rather than preparing a war against all three countries.
But I'm just going to quickly go through this.
You know, I look at this because this is what China has just...
Published in terms of its first aerial mothership.
I'm sure we've got the same.
This is 7,000 kilometers and it has over 100 small drones, 1,000 kilograms of missiles.
They are preparing for this exactly as you've just talked about, Chris.
Their elites are going to say, we do not want to stand here and be walked over by you.
So we do need to have some sort of level of preparation.
But then you've got these Chinese soldiers here who are hulking back to when they lost millions to Japan.
They have a pride in their military, but we don't.
We'd rather have wokeism and the flags.
You have pride in your military.
You do have pride in your military.
They've got the kind of mentality to say, we're going to produce it, we've got pride in our military.
This kind of automatic production line of weapons that they've got.
So they're preparing for this.
Just a point about this.
This is the missile that brought down the Rafal jets in the India-Pakistan confrontation.
And I'll turn around and say here, this is the plane.
That they do.
This is the plane that they're really happy about.
And the J-10 is the older model.
Yes.
They are building things that are much more capable and much more advanced that can perhaps out-compete the F-35.
That's correct.
And this is it.
Yeah.
So I get it on the one side.
The military guys are going, we need to put 895 billion in to compete where China is already ahead of us in so many ways or caught up in so many ways.
That is understandable.
My view is that everybody's doing this and it will lead to the war.
The preparation of it will lead to war unless we get smart people, which I believe we're starting to look at that with saying let's do a deal with Iran, let's do a deal with Russia.
Perhaps these are the people that will end this and then we could have some sort of stay-in-your-lanes argument with China if that would work.
Not sure that would actually work with the Chinese elite.
Many of them still feel they need to be on a greater par with the United States or greater than the United States.
That's much more difficult, but I'd rather that we deal with this than actually prepare for war, which I think these are the stages that we've got.
And that's my piece today.
Thank you.
Right, so Sigilstone17 says Trivium Course.
Does it teach how to take the heart from your hate?
Harry would like that joke.
Trivium is a rock band.
Right.
I don't know that one.
Right.
So, let me just read.
That's very kind of you, Scotty Gunn.
Not just.
Strang says, think a discussion on men choosing surrogacy versus their country women that don't marry and have kids would be interesting.
Surrogacy isn't good, but so is not marrying timely.
Absolutely.
Thank you very much for the $50 donation.
Well done.
So Josie Angel says, What is the purpose of government?
That's the most basic friction that creates these alliances and war.
Yeah, that's a good point.
Good point.
Sigilstone17 says, it's easy to say I don't care if China monitors my communications until they open one of their clandestine international police stations in your city and have questions about what you said.
That's true.
I'm not saying I would want to live in China or want to be part of China.
I just don't want to have a war with them and see my daughter obliterated by all the weapons that we have.
Let's find a solution out of this.
That's a random name says, speaking of clandestine Chinese police stations, one of them is a couple of streets away from where I live.
I'm sure it has nothing to do with my yellow fever.
Freddie65 My father was sent to Korea because the Chinese will be here, within quotation marks, if we don't defeat them.
We lost and yeah, they didn't come.
It was a draw, it wasn't a loss, but okay.
And Lotha Truther says the EU can try to rearm.
None of their conscripts will use their weapons.
Once they realize this, the only security guarantee But think of, if it's a problem to have Europeans in the army, what about pride in the army?
Right, okay.
Let's go to the video comments.
But funeral speech is not just being free to utter speech.
But to also hear.
I was born in the former Soviet Union, and I lived there until I was almost nine.
I think that part of the reason former residents of socialist blocs value living under the English model of state is the promise of Parliament, that place we gather to discuss.
I will invoke John Milton for why.
When Satan was cast out of heaven, he ordered constructed a vast hall in hell where the ruinous powers could meet, named not Parliament, but Pandemonium.
That's fun, but I want to say that a lot of Eastern Europeans have met.
They're really anti-communist because of their experiences.
Of course, yeah.
Okay, let's go to the next video.
On Harry's segment on the music industry, I got family in the business, and it's always been a cartel.
That ain't what changed.
Back in the day, there used to be an extensive hierarchy of talent scouts, always on the prowl for the next big thing.
And these guys were very musically literate, and they knew what sold.
And they'd take their big catch and pitch them personally to the executives.
Now, this system worked very well right up until the early 80s, when the executives started dragging in the marketing guys to advise them during the pitch meeting.
Then by the late 80s, the talent scouts were expected to pitch to the bean counters, who would then relay it to the executives.
And by the late 90s, the talent scouts were basically extinct.
Yet another case of the managerial aristocracy ruining everything.
Interesting.
Yeah.
They're really lovely cars.
Oh, gosh, yeah.
Let's go with that.
Yeah, next one.
So I know we don't like Luigi Mangione for obvious reasons, but I think there's a 5D chess move that we could be making here.
So he's got hordes of liberal white women groupies that want to pay him conjugal visits.
I want to remind you of the seven...
The chess move Connor wanted with Taylor Swift and Sidney Sweeney causing a baby boom hasn't worked.
I hope Sidney Sweeney helps with a baby boom, but she hasn't.
Let's go to the next one.
With it finally being springtime for me, I have been rather busy outside, taking advantage of the good weather to work on the mech.
Getting in the zone on a project is a transcendent experience that I would highly recommend for anyone.
If you want to keep up with my efforts to make the fun parts of the Cyberpunk dystopia real, check out my YouTube channel at Nye Mechworks.
That's pretty cool.
Does it work, though?
Does it lift and torque and move?
I want to know.
I want to know.
I might have to go just to see.
Right, so let's go to the comments.
We will take more time today because it's a Monday and also we started late.
Apologies for that.
Let me see.
Where are the comments here?
Residential elections in Romania.
Metal Dave.
Yeah, let me see.
issues with the document.
Right, Metal Dave says, As it happens, I'm going to Romania in August for Rockstad Metal Festival.
Sad to see their elections were compromised by the same globalist liberals banding together to obstruct the will of the patriots who they deem as far-right thugs who are no welcome in their democracy.
Arizona Desert Rat says, So the EU is meddling in elections.
Very unusual.
Roman observer.
Foreign intervention in elections was invented on the same day of the first election.
That's true.
Arizona desert rat, if he's a math prodigy, does that mean he's hypological?
Do you want to read some of them for yours?
Lord Nerevar, the place I worked at in Birmingham is right at the end of the annual Pride Parade, which is happening this weekend.
Every year I get that weekend off work to avoid it, because not only does it make the city a nightmare to navigate, but it's a particularly disgusting and degenerate affair, and even most of the gay people I work with despise it.
So you can find me on holiday instead.
Yeah, fair enough.
Roman observer.
The slippery slope of leftist language.
Difference becomes discrimination and then persecution.
Absolutely.
Matters between a man and a woman is different and must be treated differently than civil union.
Having children is possible only for the former, making it hugely more important for the community, something that the state cannot ignore or put on equal plane of a civil union.
I absolutely agree with you.
I'd go further on the civil unions, and I would say that the basic institution of any society is the family, and that we ignore that at our peril.
But also, is it false that lots of people just want to be left alone?
On the woke side.
I don't believe that.
I think it's false.
I think it's not human nature.
Human nature is to try to push what you think is right, even if you're wrong about it.
Captain Charlie the Beagle.
Hello.
Regarding the pride cult, you might be interested to hear that the Eurovision of all places banned all contestants from waving pride flags or other political flags.
They were only allowed to fly their national flag.
I did not know that.
I did not know that either.
That's improvement.
They did that yesterday.
They had guys with strings.
Well, yes.
It's not that it's become wholesome all of a sudden, right?
Michael Brooks, biphobia is a binary you are or you are not.
These people seem incapable of logic.
I know, brother.
Not a fad.
Of course Obama supports gay marriage.
Let's leave it there.
Yes, I'll let you take care of it.
All right, so we're going to move on to manufacturing consent.
Roman Observer, great name, thanks very much.
Military PPP is much less forgiving for Euro countries than the US compared to Russia or China.
Also, cost of energy and materials is so high in Europe right now that all costs are basically tripled.
That is very, very true.
All the debt we spend for rearming will only deliver a fraction of what we need.
CV parchem parabelum is still valid, in my opinion.
I think that's a very good point, very much.
So, General Haiping Chinese Internet Battalion.
Fantastic.
Sturmer sign us back to the nearest equivalent of a freedom movement pact within the EU again.
Get ready for another wave of EU's economic burdens to get pushed onto our shores.
Rebel, rise.
Okay, well, you're trying, hopefully, to do that.
And Omar Awad, thank you for your message.
To my allies, rare anecdote to my enemy's natural law.
A very sneaky Mott and Bailey where they lose standards for evidence only last as long as their argument.
Brilliant.
Right, so thank you very much for your comments and for watching.
We have finished.
We have ran out of time.
See you tomorrow at 1pm.
Take care.
▲
Export Selection