Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 5, 2025 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:33:22

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1180

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello, everyone.
	Welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Seaters.
	Today is Thursday, the 5th of June, 2025.
	And I'm your host, Elios, and I'm joined by Harry and Stephen.
	And we're going to discuss a Danish politician explaining democracy to a confused journalist by the BBC.
	Muslims again.
	Right, so there's a BBC journalist called Simon Reeve who is uploading a series of episodes called "Scandinavia with Simon Reeve" and towards the end of episode 3 he is talking to a Muslim migrant as well as a Thomas Monberg, a politician who is from
	And he is representing two clashing perspectives over migration.
	But what is really interesting with this, first of all, I'm really amazed that they kept it.
	Because he's literally getting destroyed.
	There's just no way of putting about it more diplomatically.
	He's literally getting wrecked.
	So I'm surprised that they left it.
	But also the way that he frames things in several clips from this video and from this episode is simultaneously tragic, but sometimes it's very funny as well.
	So I want to show you some parts of it and discuss the ideas as well as the framing.
	Let's start with the first one.
	Yes, let's play it.
	So he's talking to some Danish people there, says it seems well, but there are problems.
	But it would be wrong to think there are no problems in Denmark.
	All this social cohesion means outsiders can sometimes feel unwelcome.
	If you don't conform here, it can feel uncomfortable.
	That's the first one.
	Simple as.
	All this social cohesion for the people who've been here for, you know, thousands of years.
	Someone who's just got off the boat might feel a bit uncomfortable.
	Alright, bugger off then.
	Go wherever you feel comfortable.
	If it's peaceful and they like to sing their own cultural songs and look, hey, there's happiness and smiles and joy.
	But I feel uncomfortable.
	There's a problem with social cohesion.
	There's a lack of chaos.
	Where's your chaotic sentiment?
	The BBC were horrified by the shocking lack of grenade attacks and grieving ganks they encountered while they were in Denmark.
	Also, if you don't conform here, it can feel uncomfortable.
	Don't conform there, then.
	I have heard that the Danish are one of the least demanding cultures as far as integration is concerned.
	Literally, not much is asked from you.
	Just don't bomb people and break the law.
	That's a pretty tough order for some.
	For many in a country that they're used to bombing each other, stabbing each other to death or running away from it, that is quite difficult.
	But hey, Look, a white person.
	Sorry.
	In a European country.
	Can you have that anymore?
	I say that as someone who's not necessarily completely white, but there we go.
	So what happens is that he's picking a Muslim activist to talk to, and my impression is that this activist isn't necessarily representative of the population.
	He seems to have been there from 1975.
	He has four children, lawyers, engineers, a psychologist.
	And also someone else who is a social worker and right now studying.
	I don't know if this is exactly representative, but perhaps the BBC is trying to make some cases.
	I just want to go back to it just for one moment because the whole presentation of the BBC, the perspective that was being put forward when he was saying about all the social cohesion, was this idea that Denmark shouldn't really be a country for Danish people.
	Right?
	Because non-Danes would feel uncomfortable.
	Yeah, it should be a country for anybody who wants to show up in Denmark and presumably take advantage of the social welfare system.
	No, I believe that Denmark should be a country for Danish people and broadly European people if they're happy to take them.
	Yep.
	It's a country you can go and shop and steal from if you want and have no consequences.
	So there is rise in crime and terrorism, as this person says, and in response to this, the government is taking some measures.
	Let us look at this in the next clip.
	I am, but still we are not accepted as equal in the country.
	Partly in response to the crime wave in Sweden and terrorism here, Denmark's taken a really tough line on integration.
	Not just encouraging it, but pushing it.
	Islamic full-face coverings are banned.
	The government even introduced what was called a ghetto law, aimed at preventing neighbourhoods being dominated by so-called non-Western immigrants, along with high crime and unemployment.
	Let's get out and have a look.
	One designated ghetto was the multicultural neighbourhood Mjolnaparkin, where Mohammed raised his family.
	What's particularly...
	Which looks notably more run down than some of the other places.
	But I don't understand because he says it's a multicultural ghetto and he laments...
	You can't have a multicultural ghetto, because ghettos are by definition monocultural.
	A multicultural ghetto?
	Oh, my word.
	Can you imagine the diversity?
	The diversity of ghettoism.
	I mean, it's just the ghetto for non-European people.
	Really, I think that's all it really means is that.
	And you know what, if the Danish government wants to prevent there being things like ethnic enclaves set up in their cities Yeah, like Paris, that push the natives out of their homes that they've lived in for who knows how long, and stops it from being completely unrecognisable in five years' time, good!
	Good, again, Denmark is a country that was established by and for Danish people, and they have every right to protect that.
	So now he's talking about what he says the greatest social experiment of the century, which I think it's a bit apobolic.
	Really?
	Greatest.
	People were forced out of their homes.
	The apartments, houses, homes they lived in were sold off.
	Many were refurbished.
	New families have moved in.
	It's been described as the social experiment of the century.
	It's also being described as social policy with a bulldozer.
	No one's ended up homeless, but Mohammed's family and thousands more from other ghetto areas have been or will be rehoused in predominantly white areas.
	With the stated aim, they'll become more integrated into Danish society, with access to better jobs and education.
	And people, including those from very different cultures, will absorb Danish liberal values.
	Reports identified early language skills as key to interpretation It's forced integration, by the sounds of it, which we've seen in America.
	It doesn't work.
	It just ruins the neighbourhoods that they go into, frankly.
	I don't think it works.
	And there's always the question of number.
	When it comes to policy and integration.
	But yes, I do think that this isn't perhaps the best way to go about it.
	Never be more than 3%, 4%, 5% maximum.
	I share your scepticism about it.
	But, you know, this is the policy.
	And then he's going to talk to Thomas Monberg, who is a politician who literally schooled him.
	In democracy and all sorts of bits.
	But let us look at one thing that some people haven't talked about because there have been clips of this that have gone viral on X. But try to look at how he's trying to frame family values when he's talking to Thomas Mondberg.
	And including parties called the Liberals and the Moderates.
	We've got football tops here.
	Yeah, it's football over there.
	Is this your, this is your party?
	Yes, it is.
	Look at this, it's very...
	Yes, it is.
	Family values.
	Family values, but the children have to be safe and nicely home from school.
	It's interesting you have this in your office because your party is unusual from our perspective.
	You're quite left-wing economically and on many issues, workers' rights, etc.
	Yes.
	But traditional cultural values, family values as well.
	Yeah.
	What do you mean like the Labour Party was when it founded itself?
	So Thomas, it's very unusual.
	Very unusual for the BBC.
	Listen, I know what he wanted to say, which was that clearly he wanted to say, oh, this is strange that you've got this picture up in here.
	I mean, it's happy families, but they're all white.
	This makes me think of Nazis.
	So you're very left-wing economically, but you seem to be quite right-wing socially.
	Do you not think that you're a Nazi?
	That's what he's trying to say.
	You want a family.
	You're quite unusual from our perspective.
	You're an anomaly.
	You're quite unusual because you've got a family.
	You believe in them.
	It comes to Britain where we just don't believe in families at all.
	Do you not think that white families having white children might have been what Adolf Hitler wanted?
	Have you considered not doing that?
	Perhaps he was breathing Should I mean this This reminds me In a white country.
	I'm sorry, this is a form of like, You're not allowed to do that in South Africa.
	Everywhere has to be as run down as Johannesburg.
	It's terrible that they come into these countries and these communities and say like, no, well, you're not.
	You're not multicultural enough.
	You need to change the system of governance that doesn't work anywhere.
	It doesn't work!
	Because social cohesion is a problem, Harry.
	Clearly.
	You don't have enough problems for the state to intervene and fix, justifying the Leviathan state background.
	Even though Denmark has quite a big state, as far as I can tell, they just do what the people want them to do.
	But also, if you pay close attention to the music that's behind it, and I think it would be a good idea if we increase the volume for our videos, if you pay close attention, this is the kind of music that people put in documentaries when they want to show something childish.
	So he's trying to show the one person who says, well, I disagree with his policies, and he's putting very emotional music behind it.
	And he's talking to this guy who says, yeah, I believe in traditional family.
	I believe in traditional family values.
	And the music behind it is just completely trying to frame this person as, you know, someone of childish thinking.
	You're very childish if you want the traditional family.
	Of course, because the grown-up adult thing to do would be to castrate your children as young as possible, correct?
	That's what this man from the BBC wants.
	So, we have here another part.
	I'll show you there are two And the whole thing is incredibly funny, because he's asking him several questions, and he just doesn't shy away from telling me, yes, yes, yes, yes, absolutely, yes, yes, yes.
	Some of them are really tough questions from a UK perspective.
	You wouldn't expect someone from here to give such answers.
	In fact, they would basically give the exact opposite answers.
	So let's watch this here.
	He is asking him to explain ghetto laws.
	Can you explain this ghetto law to me?
	We started to see some areas where there were a lot of foreign people living and the state of education was lower and more and more children didn't go to school and that was something we had to do something about.
	But why focus on this phrase non-Western?
	Why that?
	Because it sounds like it's targeted at Yes, but it's not.
	That's because of the culture we have in Denmark.
	And that's about equality.
	Are you saying that non-Western people, people outside that definition, have less awareness or understanding of those core values?
	We can't accept that a girl growing up in a society in Denmark doesn't have the same rights as every other girl.
	So you're saying this is an attempt to enforce and impose fundamental Danish values?
	Yes, because we want everybody that lives here to have a good life.
	But what you're talking about is painful for some people.
	You are literally requiring people to move out of their homes.
	You are creating a lot of trauma for some people.
	Don't think you always can say trauma because not many are getting evicted.
	I've met somebody who's crying at you because of what happened.
	Yes, I know, I know.
	If you have to have a society as ours, you have to be aware of what keeps us together than what's taking us apart.
	And the thing that could take us apart is if people were living parallel to each other in restricted areas where there only were people of non-Western.
	So basically the journalist has an issue with the term non-Western.
	And the politician, Thomas Monberg, tells him, essentially, we are Danish, we want to be Danish.
	if people come here they should integrate they should play by our rules that's simple If you want to come in and get a season ticket for Man United, and he wants to support Man United, and you want to come into the back of our club and shake hands with the Man United fans, don't wear a City fan club.
	Don't wear a City hat and don't start chanting Manchester City on your hands and knees in the middle of the club.
	I think the best part is that he's having to explain all of this to Mr. Journalist Man like he's a child.
	You can see the confusion on his face like, why isn't this getting through to you, mate?
	This is the simplest thing in the world.
	What do you mean non-western?
	You can see the gears turning where he's like...
	What are you on about?
	Is that difficult?
	He clearly isn't a professor in Oxford, where these main people from BBC, Oxford and Cambridge go, where they have a question about non-Western, is everybody in the world?
	Yes.
	That's it.
	We're all the same.
	Sometimes people from universities have a tendency to fall victim to ridiculous notions.
	But still, what he's really sincere about is that policy, It benefits some people and doesn't benefit some other people.
	He's absolutely honest about this, whereas the BBC journalist is trying to somehow create the illusion that there aren't people who are crying on the other side, people who are victims of these multiculturalist policies that sometimes manifest in ghettos being built, but also they can manifest in rising crime and terrorism.
	But he has a secret here, Harry.
	He has a secret.
	Really?
	And he's asked, you know, we have these statistics.
	Our government could never consider.
	They could never comprehend.
	You know, they need to be initiated into the internal circle of people.
	Is he going to announce the secret to us now?
	Yes.
	This is the drum roll now.
	He's going to tell us the basic thing of how this works and how people in Denmark don't lose their trust in Danish democracy.
	Okay.
	Could that be an idea?
	Could that be an issue of not turning their backs to the public?
	I don't know.
	I don't know.
	Just maybe.
	But he is citing some statistics, and I mean the journalist, according to which non-Danish people are overrepresented in violent crime across several categories, over six times.
	relative to native Danish people.
	Let's listen to what he says here and have a Unlike other European states, the government here publishes controversial and worrying crime statistics.
	They revealed men from some non-Western backgrounds are as much as six times more likely to commit violent crime than white Danes.
	The facts horrified voters.
	You release crime statistics showing the nation of origin of people convicted of violent offenses.
	Why have you been doing that?
	That's because a lot of people were feeling this.
	And if we want to solve ordinary people's problems, then we have to know which problems there are in society.
	My Lord, I mean oh my Lord!
	It reduces the trust or breaks the trust between people living in our country.
	And that's very, very important for us.
	The coalition here says by listening to the concerns of all voters on immigration, they maintain trust.
	Immigration has been reduced.
	Integration is required.
	this enormous pulsating brain right now.
	If you want people to trust you...
	First at Oxbridge, I got a PhD, I worked for the BBC and suddenly...
	Fraser Nelson told me that democracy was pretending to listen to them and doing the complete opposite afterwards.
	How can this be democracy?
	That's why I did my PhD on in Oxford.
	Don't listen to the people, just only listen to the BBC.
	Listen to the people, make some promises to address their concern.
	Honour your promise.
	And then magic, they're not going to turn their back on you.
	They're going to trust you.
	I don't know.
	I just couldn't figure that out.
	Oh, I don't know.
	I don't know.
	again, he's like a child having everything, like basic concepts explained to him.
	Where he's like, so you publish the statistics about...
	Why are you telling the truth to your citizens?
	Because people cared about it.
	And now he's talking about...
	He is contradicting himself because simultaneously he says, and I want you to focus on this especially when he's framing it, he says, we are a multicultural country, but the politicians ignore people's concern about migration.
	I think the way he frames it is just intention.
	Let's just look at this clip.
	They maintain trust.
	Immigration is being reduced.
	Integration is required.
	Asylum's now seen as temporary, rather than a route to permanent settlement.
	I think sometimes in the UK there's been this feeling that people want something difficult.
	They want less immigration into the country, for example.
	And a lot of our politicians haven't really liked that view, and often they've kind of ignored what people want.
	We've tended to believe as a country more in multiculturalism.
	I sense in Denmark you don't really follow that path.
	You believe more in a Danish way, in Danish values, in monoculturalism almost.
	It depends on how you look at it.
	Because if you look on it in a culture where you can practice your own beliefs, that's allowed in Denmark.
	But you have to agree, it's in here that the laws in Denmark are made.
	How difficult is that going to be?
	Listen to our culture, deal with it, but it is, yes, exactly.
	And there are several reports you can see about crimes.
	You see here, there is an article from the European Conservative.
	There are Statista websites.
	The Statista website has reports on...
	You can just go in and just track.
	But I'm going to give you some stats.
	A report citing the Ministry of Justice numbers as of October 2024 indicates that non-Western migrants who make up a smaller population percentage of the Danish population, around 8.4%, account for a significantly higher proportion of aggravated violence, 14%, and rapes, 24.3%, among convicted individuals.
	Second-generation non-Western migrants, while making up an even smaller part of the population, 2.2%.
	They are appointed to be responsible for 15.6% of violent crimes and 8.1% of the rapes, and combined perpetrators of a non-Western background.
	Immigrants and descendants are stated to commit 29.6% of violent crimes and 32.4% of rapes, despite representing only 10.6%.
	Yes.
	Of all of those crimes.
	And I'll end this segment by mentioning the part where Simon Reeve talked about Sweden, where he talked to a Somali second-generation migrant, and she essentially said that all of this is economic, she knows all about crime, but most people do it just for money.
	So, the message in a nutshell is we want more money.
	Now, I think that this is one of the things that people should bear in mind, because releasing crime statistics by ethnicity and by nationality and by race and by everything is not enough on its own, because there are all sorts of conflicting narratives that can be given of the data, some data, stress culture, as well as economic factors.
	Other paradigms, especially leftist ones, are...
	And essentially what they're saying, some groups are our political allies.
	If they're overrepresented in crime, that is an economic issue.
	So how are we going to address crime?
	We are going to address crime by increasing taxation overall and giving more benefits to our allies while being I really think that this was a breath of fresh air, and I think that literally the Danish politician, literally, he's just talking to a five-year-old.
	It was nice to hear him talk completely.
	And when you point out things like this, what this is, we're poor, so we have to commit crime and murder each other.
	That's blackmail.
	That's a threat.
	Give us more money, or we'll keep doing this.
	And then you give them more money.
	And they keep doing it anyway, so I guess you just didn't give them enough money.
	No, they'll keep doing it until you actually give them your nice house, wherever they are, and then they'll kill you anyway.
	I mean, that's the message of Clockwork Orange.
	There we are, a nice white liberal comes in, brings in a complete lunatic who rapes and kills his wife, and then it goes off years later, brings him out of prison, says, I can rehabilitate him, and then he ends up killing him anyway.
	So, you know, it's the same.
	You just keep giving...
	So the only answer to that is lock them up or deport them or not let them in in the first place.
	Enforce the law.
	Enforce the law.
	And it doesn't matter what country you're from, really.
	Indigenous people, people born in Britain when I was growing up, committed crime.
	They should go away in prison for a long time.
	I don't care whether you are committing any particular offence of a violent nature.
	But here, to turn around and say, it's just for money purposes, give me more.
	Otherwise, I'll continue doing it.
	It's unacceptable.
	Let's go to the comments.
	AlexAdamsen55 says, can we see the comments section of this video?
	I want to see what people think going off the like-dislike ratio.
	I have a good feeling about the comments.
	You can definitely go and check.
	We have the links.
	He only has a thousand views on this one, but they're all in favour of the Danish politician here.
	And that is a random name, says...
	You're creating a lot of trauma.
	Then why are they here?
	This journalist is such a weasel.
	He should be deported along with his beloved migrants.
	But also what I find particularly egregious is that they constantly focus.
	They have a very selective way of framing who is in pain.
	And you were right as well with this particular clip, the way he was being, as that's a random name, a bit of a weasel.
	In the middle of a sentence, he switches the framing, talking about England, about how, well, yes, the people are concerned about immigration and want less of it, but we in England, implying the people of England, are in favour of multiculturalism.
	Well, those two seem to be contradicting statements there.
	So either he doesn't understand in his own mind the contradiction, or he's doing it up there.
	In his own mind, social cohesion is bad.
	Well, true.
	That's pretty clear.
	All right, let's move on to the next segment.
	If you can get them up for me, please, Harry.
	Also, I added a link to the Trivium here.
	Can I admit, that's how I felt after the drive-in today with all the rain and the car accidents.
	In the document, Harry.
	In the document.
	Right at the top of the document.
	Right here.
	Right here.
	I'm highlighting it for you.
	It's like I'm talking to my mischievous other personality, isn't it?
	Harry, you can find it.
	You can bring it up.
	There we go.
	There we go.
	Harry versus Harry.
	What have you done, Harry?
	What have you done?
	I'll just do it and then move back.
	Oh, right, whatever, okay.
	I'll just close this once it's done.
	All right, then.
	So, Zoomers, my brethren, why can't you read?
	This is a very important question.
	Over centuries, I know this may sound like somewhat of a novel concept.
	Not sitting around on your phone, not doing whatever it is that you may do on your phone, and instead sitting down with a good book and reading.
	This seems to be very troublesome for some younger people, and I wanted to investigate it.
	But along with reading, you also can't write.
	I see you down there, typing away in your little comments.
	You can't do writing properly.
	you can't speak English properly.
	So buy the Trivium and then Maybe, maybe you'll be worthy of commenting on anything that I do.
	£375 for the Grammar, Logic and Rhetoric courses, or if you'd like to give us You can buy them all individually for £150 each.
	That's my preferred option because it is far more expensive.
	Thank you very much.
	Buy them now.
	Anyway, so this has been going around recently, and it caused a bit of a wave where people were asking how accurate this was.
	Was this person, Cairo Smith, never encountered them before, so this is my first exposure to this particular account, saying that he'd spoken to a literary agent who told him that teens Now this is unusual for me because whenever I've read fiction in the past, it's much more common to read books written from third person than from first person.
	A lot of the fiction that I've enjoyed as a teenager...
	But either way, it's a very familiar mode of reading to me.
	The only first person book that I can really think of is quite a unique one.
	That has really stuck in my mind was the book LA Confidential that was turned into the 1990s film.
	Never read the book.
	The book's excellent.
	It's written from first-person perspective in very clipped, short sentences that mirror 1950s slang to really get you into the mind of the characters.
	So that can be effective.
	But it just confused me to think that these, apparently, according to a literary agent, In the only book that I remember that was first person was American Psycho.
	Oh, yeah.
	But that's a very intentional one as well.
	You also get people like Stephen King who write in filmes.
	Stephen King writes in third person, but he interjects the character's thoughts in there.
	So you get a little bit of first person as well.
	But there's all sorts of different ways.
	So to be able to cut yourself Seems confusing to me.
	And he'd posted about this before, saying that young adults, of course teenagers, most of their literature they're going to be reading is probably going to be young adult fiction, YA fiction, whatever you want to call it.
	Young adult.
	Young adults, yeah, it's like, Apparently, in the more recent stuff, and you got this little excerpt from a 2024 rainbow book list, which was, of course, it was the gay book list, saying that it isn't even comparing books in the tagline anymore as inspirations, just movies.
	So in this one, Abida Jigirda rather than films?
	Well, I imagine it's because most of young people's cultural references these days come more from films than literature, because people, sadly, read less and less.
	But again, All of this was just the word of this one person.
	So I decided to do a little bit of looking into it, and then all of a sudden, afterwards, this hits the algorithm, and I come across this, which is somebody posting, saying that they find out that the book that they've been waiting to read for weeks is in third person, and they immediately abandon it.
	Very strange.
	So maybe there is something to this.
	And then I found this from last year.
	Now, of course, I can't see the post that it's replying to because the person it's replying to is a part of the castration committee and has their posts protected.
	But it seemed to be in response to BookTok being book-focused TikTok, complaining about third person, whereas this person responding is saying third person's the best POV to write in.
	I don't know.
	What BookTok is on about.
	So I found a thread to follow here, okay?
	which is it seems that a lot of this is coming from people posting on TikTok about how much they hate reading in third person.
	So I thought, is Is there something actually called BookTok?
	It's a hashtag on TikTok.
	It's a hashtag.
	I don't actually go on TikTok.
	I've just discovered a lot of this just today.
	I'm just thinking an app there.
	Objectivities pour into them.
	Yeah, where people just complain about thirst and third on an app.
	I wouldn't think there's a massive audience for that, but maybe I'm wrong.
	So I went on TikTok, and the search function on TikTok, by the way, is abysmal.
	I don't know how people find anything they're looking for on there.
	I'm scrolling down.
	Yeah, clearly.
	I did the hashtag book talk and then typed in third person and I'm starting to sound like Dan when he's doing his boomer segments where he's explaining how he figured out how to Google things for the first time ever.
	The first one I found was this where it was somebody who got, you know, 54,000 likes.
	All of them are like innuenders.
	Bragging about how they can read a book.
	In third person, as if it's some kind of achievement to be able to read a book that's not strictly from the character's perspective, that has a level of descriptiveness to it outside of their mind.
	Is that next to the one that's got 100,000 that said I could read my name?
	That might be.
	I'm actually called Phil.
	I think we need to react by talking about ourselves in the third person.
	So Harry, upon describing this to Stephen and Stelios, proceeded to show them this TikTok by clicking on the mouse.
	Stephen turned to Harry and laughed.
	So here you can see a selection of books that I've never heard of, that I can assume...
	No, no, let's not go on to any more.
	Thank you very much.
	No, no.
	And then I found the ones that people must be reacting to in the first place, which is this one.
	So here's one that's got almost 5,000 likes.
	When you excited at...
	You can't write.
	I'm just like, she can't even...
	When you exited.
	Can't even use the C in there.
	When you exited, yes, you're right, about starting a new book but realise it's in third person, at least they figured out what an apostrophe is.
	Yeah, but it's in the third person.
	Here we see her opening the book.
	Never read in my life, and she's gone to the backpack.
	And I assume she's mirrored the image for some reason, so she abandons it.
	Who would make a video like that, and why are people watching it, honestly?
	just can understand it.
	I am confused by this somewhat because I'm like is this I mean, it's frazzling your brain.
	I've got to the stage where I'm wondering, is there a way that I can connect a phone and just have electric shocks every time she tries to scroll down?
	So eventually it becomes a learned habit never to touch a phone on TikTok.
	Or is that cruel?
	I do get confused thinking, like, is this people being ironic?
	So I searched for a little bit more.
	This one, 423...
	thousand thousand likes on this one.
	Again, saying, excited she spelled it right to read my new book until...
	So she just abandons it.
	And again, the question is, can I...
	God, I hate this platform.
	The question was, is this ironic?
	So I went to the replies to see if there was anything...
	Either way, I looked through the replies, and there were dozens of heavily upvoted replies saying, yeah, I can't stand when a book's in third person, and it all seemed to be thoroughly sincere.
	These people can't read in third person.
	And there was another one.
	Again, almost 4,000 likes, and then she's just realised that, oh no, the latest book in this series is, for some reason, written in third person, so therefore I can't enjoy this anymore.
	And there was another one, and not only is this one in third person, it's got multiple POVs as well.
	Which is even more confusing.
	What, you mean there's more than one character?
	There's more than one character, I know.
	That's very difficult to follow because it doesn't appeal to the narcissism, I assume, of these readers.
	I, I, I, I, I. I mean, it must be really difficult when you open a page and it has another letter in it.
	You're making it sound very easy to write, though, so maybe that's one of the reasons they're so popular.
	And, of course, it wouldn't be TikTok without one of them complaining about how white all these books are.
	White.
	White.
	All of them are white.
	White.
	White.
	All of them are white.
	So that was just what you expect from there.
	And again, I wanted to double-check if this was...
	So I found people on Reddit saying, is this a joke?
	Is this a joke?
	And I scrolled through some of the replies and one person said that there is a subsection of TikTok book readers that vastly prefer first person.
	I only heard about it because an author I followed talked about joining a group with some of these people and they literally kicked her out of the group because she said that she preferred third person and shifting perspectives.
	So they're very protective over how retarded they are.
	I just don't believe it.
	very strange.
	I've got to admit, when I'm looking at this, and I try to keep up with things, you know, in technology and well-advancing in AI, I taught myself how to use Adobe Illustrator and graphics, and I keep going all these different...
	I actually like books.
	I'm not turning the page.
	I wanted to see what these people were reading and what some of the bestsellers were.
	So I googled, I think it was Young Adult Fiction Best Sellers 2024.
	One of them was Waterstones, which is probably the biggest book retailer in the UK.
	Their blog of the best books of 2021.
	So I scrolled through some of this and I just checked out.
	I just googled the name of this one and what perspective it was written in.
	This one, actually I believe, was written in third person, as was this one.
	The rest of them though, Also, you get ones where young adult fiction, YA fiction, is actually not as white as that girl wanted you to believe, because a lot of it is written by people like this Farida Abike.
	That's not a very European name that I'm familiar with.
	And a lot of it's also really gay, unsurprisingly.
	Like Loverbirds, where it's a lesbian relationship.
	And this Rani Choudry must die thing, where it looks pretty gay.
	This looks pretty multicultural and gay as well.
	So there is quite a bit of inclusivity and diversity.
	All of them are like innuendos.
	The titles are innuendos.
	You know when you wish you had unending amounts of money and you wish you were a billionaire, not just the fact that you might actually be able to buy a house?
	That would be a good thing in today's world.
	But actually, the idea of being able to have a billionaire is because there's one company, one of the many companies that I would love to buy and just destroy, and that is Waterstones.
	I mean, I would really love to be able to buy up all of Waterstones, destroy the brand, destroy the image, destroy those, fire everybody in there and actually get back to having some normal books.
	Well, that's the thing.
	Every time I go in there, can you ever find anything that's conservative or right-wing that's...
	If they're allowed.
	You can find some decent old classic philosophy from Nietzsche.
	Yeah, in the corner somewhere.
	Typically, sometimes they'll stalk people like Roger Scruton.
	I find his books sometimes.
	Beyond that, the most conservative that you're going to get are old history books written by conservative men.
	But this is an interesting one as well here.
	This is the most inclusive and diverse that I've seen so far.
	Lesbian romance between diverse woman and fat chick.
	We're reaching levels of inclusivity never before seen.
	I assume that one of them doesn't think they're a boy or a girl either.
	There was the other result that I got, which was the Goodreads website, Reader's Favourite Young Adult Fiction.
	The first one, this is one that I see promoted everywhere, which is Heartstopper, which is a graphic novel series, a gay graphic novel series, unsurprisingly.
	And you don't just see this...
	Exactly, I've seen this.
	When they had a gathering and an event for children, they had this book and books.
	Yes.
	And then you get some repeats of some of the other ones around there, like this one by that non-European sounding woman.
	And the funniest one, though, was that...
	You remember the segment I did with the Welsh literature and Gay Arturiana?
	That was one of it.
	Gwen and Art are not in love.
	By Lex Croucher.
	Lex Croucher.
	I want to double-check something about that person.
	Lex Croucher is a woman.
	That's the other thing.
	All of this stuff is written by women.
	Can we see the description?
	Oh, what, for this one?
	Yeah.
	Heartstopper meets a knight's tale in this queer medieval rom-com YA debut about love, friendship, and being brave enough to change the course of history.
	Written by an English woman.
	You see, you have King Arthur and Lancelot there.
	Just the joy I would also have in being able to put all these writers out of business.
	Yes, I would not stock their books.
	I wouldn't.
	Basically, if they want to do it, they can find some little corner shop next to a barber's.
	But the funniest one that I found was that when I did my Google search, these were only the second and third results that popped up.
	The first was this little bar that comes up of Amazon Books that it recommends you under the search terms.
	And the first one listed in that was this.
	The Girl with the Louding Voice by Abby Darry, or Dare, or whatever, where you can see the front cover, which just seems to be Loud Black Girl, the novel.
	Interesting.
	Very interesting.
	So no wonder people are reading less and less if this is the kind of selection that you have, especially given that so much of this is dedicated purely to indoctrination, identitarianism regarding immutable progressive characteristics.
	It's all incredibly self-obsessed.
	The vast majority of it will be written into a first-person narrative perspective so that it will draw you into it, and also because I would assume...
	There was another theory that I saw regarding the original post though as well, which is of course changing demographics, where the younger people are going to be people who are made up of a greater diversity of groups.
	This person said that half of under 25s being black or Latino, and I followed this up as well when I first saw this one by basically making the point of this skews all sorts of mass demographic or mass statistical analysis where you get headlines saying things like "English jaws are getting smaller", "English are getting shorter", "Getting more heart disease", "Getting fatter", "Becoming stupider", "Not reading as much", etc, etc, etc.
	When the fact of the matter is that they will be mass And you see this again, as I pointed out in my segment yesterday, where everybody notices this.
	Everybody points out that this is what's happening, but they don't take it into account when they're looking at the more mass statistical analysis of these things.
	And also, again, going back to the, oh, young adult literature is too white.
	actually, there is stuff that points out that young adult fiction is actually some of the most inclusive fiction as well.
	And this, I think, is only a small part of it, because...
	But the other thing about this is the way that I see it in schools.
	My daughter was talking about, you know, King Arthur.
	And I've got a collection of old English books on King Arthur, including the old poetry and Mort d 'Arthur, for example.
	And I said, you know, are you talking about that?
	And they went, no, it's a modern version.
	A subverted, compromised version.
	They weren't allowed to take the book out of school to bring it home?
	I wonder why.
	I would like to see it.
	I would like to see what you're seeing about the history of King Arthur.
	How about you take this book in, the 1722 that I own, about this, and go and show your teacher?
	You wouldn't be interested.
	There you go.
	You wouldn't be able to see the original.
	Written there about the stories, where it comes from.
	But these kinds of narcissistic, self-absorbed, overtly progressive novels do seem to be very popular.
	This article comes from 2023, but they pointed out that in the five years between 2018 and 2023, YA fiction print sales had increased by 50% now.
	I find it difficult to believe bestseller lists and print book sales in the first place, mainly because you don't really get straight statistics for them, because a lot of them will count, say, being placed in libraries as book sales as well, when you get these books into libraries.
	I didn't know that.
	And you also find like the New York Times bestseller list is very shadowy with how they cop They're not transparent at all with how they're determining how many sales books have made.
	So it can be quite difficult to determine this.
	But either way, if that is the case, that they are being more read than ever, that could also be part of this, the fact that the books that are being marketed to young people are entirely written from the first person and also kind of put you in a state of mind where...
	They're to draw you into these characters' progressive struggles anyway.
	In 2021, research by the Book Trust found that 11.7% of children's authors were people of colour, which had risen from 5.6% in 2017.
	Combine that with how inclusive the stories in general tend to be on sexual characteristics and other things as well.
	A great success for DEI and inclusivity.
	And also, research found that 78% of over 18 buyers are purchasing YA books with the intention of So you're getting people who are over the target audience age who are reading these books for pleasure in the first place.
	And this is more than just a worry about the ability of young people to read in a particular perspective, whether that be first person or third person in the first place.
	It also goes into the wider trend that we've been seeing for ages, that people just aren't reading books anywhere near as much as they used to, and some Now this is data talking about Columbia University, along with a number of other universities in America, where they're talking about, for instance, no comprehensive data exists on this trend, but the majority of the 33 professors that this journalist, Rose Horowitz,
	spoke with, relayed experiences where many discussed the change at faculty meetings and in conversations with fellow instructors.
	A Princeton historian said his students arrive on campus with a narrower vocabulary and less understanding of language than they used to have.
	There are always students who read insightfully and easily and write beautifully, he said, but now they are more exceptions than the rule.
	Jack Chen, a Chinese literature professor at the University of Virginia, finds his students shutting down when confronted with ideas they didn't understand.
	They're less able to persist through a challenging text.
	Daniel Shaw, the chair of Georgetown's English department told the journalist that his students have trouble staying focused on even a sonnet.
	Failing to complete a 14-line poem without succumbing to distraction suggests one familiar explanation, as suggested by this journalist, for the decline in reading aptitude, which would be smartphones, distracting people.
	I certainly think that that is going to be one factor.
	I think the other factor with it affecting universities so much would be DEI practices.
	Explicitly getting in students of a lower caliber purely to make up I think that's clearly one of the reasons that isn't addressed in this as well.
	I'm not being encouraged to read, but it does go to the kind of view that I've formed over the elite colleges that are pumping out the people going into the media, into politics, into business, I think.
	Well, yes, that's clearly a problem.
	And the people going into universities are...
	If you can't read a book and you're supposed to be Oxford and Cambridge and Columbia, Well, and to draw it all the way back to the young adult fiction as well, one of the- One of the final paragraphs of this Atlantic article is quite indicative, saying that over and over, the professors I spoke with painted a grim picture of young people's reading habits.
	The historian Adrian Johns was one dissenter, but allowed, my experience is a bit unusual because the University of Chicago is the last bastion of people who do read things.
	So there is apparently one university where people still go to to learn and do the thing that they signed up for.
	For years, Dames has asked his first students James being one of the people that was interviewed for this, about their favourite book.
	In the past, I cited books such as Wuthering Heights and Jane Eyre, two books that I read as part of my A-level English course.
	Now, he says, almost half of them cite young adult books.
	Rick Riordan's Percy Jackson series seems to be a particular favourite.
	So that is the kind of calibre of books that people are going to.
	They're not going to the classics.
	They're not going to more cultured literature.
	They're reading self-absorbed, narcissistic bog roll.
	Yeah, what I say is you stick them in the toilet so that you can read them whilst you're...
	If you sit there reading on the toilet in the newspaper, I'd give them these books.
	If you are taught to hate your culture, yes, standards are going to go down.
	Yeah.
	As simple as that.
	There you go.
	So I think I've presented a few reasons why, if it is entirely true, and I think there is some evidence that at least a subsection of younger people cannot read in the third-person omniscient perspective anymore, I think that I've presented some of the reasons why that is.
	Right.
	Ricky Ollie says, Oh, certainly.
	Yep.
	That's a random name, says these madbloods, that's from Harry Potter, are protective of how retarded they are.
	They can't even read in third-person Draco, said Harry Weasley.
	At least there's somebody who's read a book, is able to make an analysis, change it around, and uses intelligence.
	I like that as a response.
	Alex Adamson, 55, so many great books are third-person.
	Like the Sharp novels.
	Nudge, nudge, Harry.
	Nudge, nudge, where's my review of Sharp?
	Goddammit, I've almost finished the whole series.
	Listen, man, I've got other things that I'm working on at the same time.
	I will get around to reading them.
	Guys, why are the comments going up and down?
	That's because I was scrolling.
	And we got one more from Alex Adamson again saying, now that I've had a think about it, there are some good first-person perspective books, and those are the Warhammer 40k.
	Kyphos Kane books.
	That's a pretty damn good read.
	I still have not read any Warhammer books, but I'll take your word for it.
	Apologies.
	My allergies are terrible.
	Well, I don't really know where to go after this, because it's, you know, we've got onto this, the CNN status.
	No, no, we should be on CNN first, I think.
	That's not the CNN status one.
	I think the third one says CNN.
	There we are.
	Okay.
	Right, I'm going to turn my glasses off because it's easier to read the glasses on there, which are short-term, rather than looking at the videos.
	So what we've got is that last night Trump was at it again with another executive order.
	I love this man for the way that he just turns around and goes, I'm going to do some analysis.
	And he comes out and goes, right, here we go.
	I'm going to issue a ban on several countries across the globe.
	No one from that country is going to get a visa.
	No one is allowed to come into that country.
	And then he gives a second tier, where some of you might be allowed to come into this country, and some of you may get visas, if I feel like it tomorrow morning, if I've got a nice good breakfast, or you might just change your rules.
	But I just love the fact that what he's done again is having gone for all his first term, where he got hammered consistently, right, up to about 2017, about what was called the global Muslim ban, where he just said, all these countries, you Muslims, you can't come in.
	He's kind of learned from that and said, we're coming back in once more and we're going to start it all over again.
	And so what you've got here is, this is how he frames it last night.
	We don't want them.
	It's a brilliant line within it.
	So here he is, giving the executive order.
	I'll let the people listen to it.
	Some of them may already have listened to it, others not.
	But I just think he's pretty emphatic and he's quite dominant in this.
	And it's really interesting the way he just stares at the camera and says, we don't want them.
	This terror attack in Boulder, Colorado has underscored the extreme dangers posed to our country.
	By the entry of foreign nationals who are not properly vetted, as well as those who come here as temporary visitors and overstay their visas, we don't want them.
	In the 21st century, we've seen one terror attack after another carried out by foreign visa overstayers from dangerous places all over the world.
	Thanks to Biden's open door policies today, there are millions and millions of these illegals who should not be in our country.
	In my first term, my powerful travel restrictions were one of our most successful policies, and they were a key part of preventing major foreign terror attacks on American soil.
	We will not let what happened in Europe happen to America.
	That's why on my first day back in office, I directed the Secretary of State to perform.
	I mean, I just want to look at that.
	First, he's making reference back to 2017.
	Look, guys, we didn't have any terrorist attacks in the way that Europe has got it.
	We're not going to let what happened in Europe.
	And why is Europe doing that?
	Because you're just allowing millions and millions of terrorists come into your country.
	Now, not everybody who comes from a foreign country is a terrorist.
	We know that.
	It is a minority.
	but the point at issue is he's making it very clear we're not going to allow the kind of policies that we're And do we think that is sensible?
	Absolutely.
	Not allowing terrorist acts seems good enough.
	Was it a trap question?
	No, I was just trying to get the reaction and just turn around and say, Why do you think that there might be terrorist actions in your country from foreign countries?
	Because they are just doing that.
	And so I think it's really interesting that the way he looks at this, he references Europe, he references the past, but he also references the recent terror attack where they had someone who overstayed their visa.
	And then tried to petrol bomb a whole load of Jews who were having a demonstration, really a kind of reminiscence of what Hamas was doing into their country.
	And then we find out that his wife and his family were also overstayers on a tourist visa.
	I haven't got a clip of it, but some of your audience may pick it up, but ICE were at their doors last night.
	That's the organisation that removes people and deports them in America.
	They were at the door last night, and they were already putting them on a plane.
	Just off you go.
	Your husband was a terrorist, love.
	I'm sorry, you might have been overstaying your visa here to come on holiday or study, but all of you are going.
	So he's sending out a very powerful message about deportations.
	in removing people and that he's going to enhance his game even more strongly than it has been in the past.
	And then he goes on to hear...
	...form a security review of high-risk regions and make recommendations for where restrictions should be imposed.
	Among the national security threats, their analysis considered are the large-scale presence of terrorists, failure to cooperate on visa security...
	Very simply, we cannot have open migration from any country where we cannot safely and reliably vet and screen those who seek to enter the United States.
	That is why today I am signing a new executive order placing travel restrictions on countries including Yemen, Somalia, Haiti, Libya and New York.
	The strength of the restrictions we're applying depends on the severity of the threat posed.
	The list is subject to revision based on whether material improvements are made, and likewise new countries can be added as threats emerge around the world.
	But we will not allow people to enter our country who wish to do us harm, and nothing will stop us from keeping America safe.
	Thank you very much.
	So this is sending out a total message to the liberal left in his country and also into Europe.
	You've got not only a man in charge that's turned around and are going to defend the borders in the south, I'm not only going to increase deportation, I'm going to look at you as countries across the globe and say, you too are failing, and he lists completely what they're doing.
	You're sending people, you're not doing visa checks.
	We don't know what you're coming, you're not linking in with ourselves, so we don't know who you're sending.
	It also follows on from this, he also attacked the universities and said he's restricting the numbers of people from those countries also coming to universities in Harvard and Yale and Columbia and others.
	So he's making a very, very clear determination.
	It's not just our policies over here.
	We're now addressing your policies.
	You get your systems up to place.
	You prove that your systems work.
	And if you can, then we might look at allowing you to come into this country at all.
	But there's also a very clever part that we're considering on that.
	I have a question on this, because it sounded like, maybe I completely misunderstood, but maybe it sounded like you are describing it as Trump signing that executive order and issuing it in order to address the policies of these countries, whereas in fact it seems more like he's trying to exercise political pressure.
	He's doing both.
	I mean, quite frankly, he is actually exerting political pressure here in the UK, but also onto those countries, by saying to them, look, here is our country, here is our border.
	When we ask you to give us visa details about them, you're not giving it.
	And you're actually allowing people through that we think are terrorists or willing to overstay.
	And he's saying that's a very interesting point for people.
	Overstaying, I think, is the next question that this government and the United States is going to go for.
	And considering we have about a million people overstaying in the UK, I wish we could do exactly the same.
	So I think he's lining that up.
	So just to get on the same page, the implication of what you're saying is that he will escalate and say that unless, for instance, European countries, you control your borders, I'm going to probably introduce a travel ban because I don't want people who aren't allowed to fly directly into the US, fly indirectly via, let's say...
	And I think at the moment he's just saying this message out to those 12 countries and the others, and I think I've got them listed up there a little bit earlier.
	Maybe I've got these the right, wrong way.
	Yeah, so I'm just saying entry of immigrants and non-immigrants banned from 12 countries.
	So he's basically saying, look here to the left in this country, I'm now having effective deportation and restriction policies in place.
	The clever point that I think picking up...
	Remember, they're challenging him on the individuals being deported to Venezuela.
	On this occasion, he said, we've done a complete security check.
	I sent out for a review.
	I got the security teams and national security teams to list areas of where we're concerned.
	And that's why he put them in a category, one after another.
	Also, demanding that the courts, you said I've done this unilaterally.
	I haven't.
	I've addressed certain specific countries.
	And I've classed it as this, restricting the entry to protect the United States from foreign terrorists and other national security and public safety threats as well.
	And this is not me.
	This is an organisation that's independent of me, done this review.
	So he's setting up very cleverly in executive order a number of changes.
	One, the courts.
	Here are some reasons.
	Come on now.
	Challenge me, if you wish.
	To the left, challenge me over what I'm doing.
	It's a security issue.
	And to these countries, change your ways, and also, as you pointed out, I think some political pressure on it.
	So what I did is also, which I think is particularly clever, It's pulled out from you what the White House has also said on this.
	So I'm going to see if this works.
	Rather than read through all of it, I just want to pick up, this is actually the restriction sheet that's been provided by the White House, so everybody can go online and have a look and see exactly what he's doing.
	He's putting out the executive order.
	He's cleverly using the Supreme Court in Trump and Hawaii to say to the courts, here we go, we've got some legal precedent, because he knows.
	What do we know?
	Who's going to come next?
	It's the left, the liberals, the unions, the NCAL, who are all going to go to the courts and say, let's challenge him now for being wrong on this.
	It restricts the entry, so he's setting it out.
	Here's the national security issues at the bottom, securing our border and interests.
	He wants to get another great phrase in there, make America safe again.
	So I'm waiting for the Masa hat.
	I don't want to say too much about Masa, to be honest, because it might have repercussions back to the old cotton things.
	I'm sure someone's going to pick up on that.
	I think we should lean into it.
	Yeah, go straight in.
	So he's making it very clear, and here he's now also doing a special justification for each country as well.
	I think the problem with that is he's trying to protect himself from the courts.
	So in Afghanistan, he says the Taliban controls Afghanistan and lets people just get out of the country.
	And this is where I think it's a clever point from him.
	He could start using this against Europe by allowing people to say they're escaping Afghanistan to go into Europe and then they want to come and travel to the United States.
	I mean, there would be terrible repercussions on it, if not just economical one.
	Yeah.
	Why wouldn't they just localize it and speak about passports?
	Rather than just saying a flat-out travel ban from Europe to the US.
	No, I don't think he can do that at the moment.
	It would be ridiculous.
	I think that would be difficult.
	So he goes all through the different countries, and I want to say Somalia, Sudan.
	He's got Sierra Leone in there, which is really interesting, because I met the Sierra Leone.
	The president who's currently in there, Cleverley, is a really good friend of his family of Sierra Leone based.
	So he goes over there fairly regularly.
	So I'm intrigued to see why Sierra Leone is on that list when it's supposed to be an ally of kind of Western Europe in the bulk against Russia and China.
	But he's put them on the list.
	And I think that comes to your political pressure point.
	Listen, Sierra Leone, too many of you...
	For example, we had an American port that we wanted to have in the capital.
	You came in, straightaway cancelled that port and gave it over to the Chinese.
	Well, and the Chinese are now being able to build it.
	Well, to be fair, I read both the conditions.
	The Chinese were giving them a hell of a lot more roads, infrastructure through the country from where all the assets and goods.
	So the Chinese are actually giving them for a lot less, a lot more.
	So if you were a pure business person, I could understand why Sierra Leone went in.
	But they are now being seen as too close to China.
	So I think Sierra Leone is well on that.
	Togo, similar sort of thing.
	They're falling within the kind of remit of Russia.
	So I think they're also being targeted for that.
	Turkmenistan I found also slightly interesting because that's one of the places that Tony Blair has been cultivating.
	For quite a long time.
	And that's part of the long-term war against Russia.
	Turkmenistan is an important place for them.
	So I suspect this is about political pressure in there too.
	So what I've got here is...
	He's learned from that.
	Because I think some of the White House has this sort of fact sheet, but...
	He's not put Pakistan on the list.
	Yet they're the biggest exporter of terrorism, some would say that, between them and Saudi Arabia.
	Because a lot of people like those are involved in the big terrorist organisations.
	I think the danger of that is if he did so, then he'd be capturing a lot of the people in Syria.
	Who are all very nasty terrorists who are now being lauded as leaders of a free country in Syria as they go up murdering Christians.
	But didn't Trump also meet Julani, the leader of the Syrian interim government, and actually praise him?
	Yeah, that's my point.
	Yes.
	So Syria very clearly has...
	They're carrying out terrorist actions on Christians throughout the country.
	But Macron's had him over.
	The Americans have had him over.
	And that's because basically the CIA helped fund them along with Turkey in order to get rid of the Russian supporters who were in charge.
	And now they're one of us.
	It doesn't matter what sort of level of terrorism you've done.
	But if we did go through Pakistan and you did ban Saudi Arabians, these people would also be suddenly caught within that net.
	There could be other reasons why Pakistan is not there, and maybe others can bring out the particular views of why are we not banning Pakistanis who are involved in that, particularly in the northern connections to Afghanistan.
	So politically, I think there is another game that's being played on that.
	Once more, it might be down to the issue of more global politics and where they want to go.
	So, obviously, we get the reactions.
	What do we think the reactions might be?
	Warmth?
	Generosity?
	Kindness?
	Screeching?
	Ooh, and the first one is, happy to destroy the Middle East and rape its resources, but not so happy to take the refugees or those seeking a better life.
	Well, America is so fucked.
	Really?
	I'm not sure.
	I think the countries that they leave are pretty much that.
	But why should they have to accept people who are seeking a better life?
	That's the question.
	Do we have to?
	Do we have to take in refugees?
	Actually, you do because of the UN Refugee Convention.
	But the whole point about it is he's not turning around and taking refugees.
	He's making sure that these people are safe and secure first.
	So this is not a refugee issue.
	So the first one is, you've been bombing the Middle East and others.
	You should take them.
	Your obvious response is, if you're bombing, you should take the whole world in there because of all the wars that you've had.
	then America would be pretty full.
	If you're trying to exercise...
	And you will sometimes pressure them, but also sometimes try to make concessions to them.
	And migration flows maybe one such concession.
	Well, I think that's what we've obviously adopted, but as we're seeing now with economics, cultural changes, terrorism, people are now beginning to have a different view, as we saw in Denmark, you know, the lack of integration there, the rising criminality.
	So countries now need to be able to look at whether they're globalised links with those nations and having some sort of connectivity with them, making them an ally.
	Do we necessarily have to bring in so many from that country?
	From one route or another, whether it's determined from students, whether it goes all the way to asylum seekers.
	Policies now need to be made in the interests of the people that live in your country.
	And I think America's making it very clear.
	Clearly you've got another.
	My family's impacted.
	They can't come to the wedding.
	I mean, obviously, to be fair, this is...
	No, it's about security.
	It's about a change in policy of the United States, and there will be some negative impacts.
	Maybe people can't come to the wedding, but I'm sure Holiday and Tories, he's clearly saying, what country is Daniela from there?
	Is she Afghan?
	Is she from Yemen?
	I don't know.
	It doesn't traditionally seem to me like an Afghan name, Daniela, but maybe that's a pseudonym.
	I don't know.
	The third kind of category is, yeah, great idea, fascists.
	Clearly the fascist argument had to come out.
	I mean, you can't have anything from Trump without him being called a fascist.
	So I would be surprised not to see them.
	And, of course, we won't be surprised to see a Democrat come out and do the same.
	Credit Congressman Dan Goldman of New York, and it's great to have you here, sir.
	I do want to ask you about the Autopad and what is happening here at the White House.
	But before that, the other executive action that President Trump took tonight, banning travel.
	From these 12 nations, restricting it partially from seven others.
	What is your reaction to that move from the White House tonight?
	I mean, it's pretty consistent with what And that's what he's trying to do with these mass deportations of people who are going through the asylum process, which is a lawful pathway.
	That's now what he's trying to do in targeting these specific countries.
	And so it's a combination of this effort to push forward with this great replacement theory, as well as just to distract from what's really going on, which is a revolt against his terrible reconciliation bill that cuts taxes for...
	Sorry.
	No, it's just irrelevant stuff here and there.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	I mean, we come on, it's the Great Replacement Theory, that doesn't kind of exist.
	And he's obviously racist because it's only about stopping black people from coming into the country.
	So it feeds into the narrative.
	And I think it's quite interesting.
	This is a nice little phrase.
	It's all the same BS they spewed for the last 10 years.
	But if it's so great, why is the country so It should be lauding.
	It should be a wonderful nirvana if you've had so much immigration coming into that country.
	And then you've just touched on it there, just right at the end.
	Let's throw something else in.
	The reason he's done a travel ban is nothing to do about security.
	It's nothing to do about terrorism, and it's nothing to do about people throwing petrol bombs over Jews.
	No, it's about hiding the fact that...
	Well, I'm not even going to play this because it was just so banal when you listened to him.
	I think even the way just looking at the eyes and the face will tell you everything about this man and his ideology.
	That it's just, he's trying to hide the bill that we talked about yesterday.
	And I think the level of nonsense on that.
	But it's not all bad news for people.
	I mean, here in India, across the globe, India fairly That's the Indian Hindustan Herald, and I thought to myself, okay, that seems a pretty reasonable way of assessing that, because that's exactly what he's saying.
	I don't see an issue with it.
	Then we have DW News, Germans, though.
	The new travel ban targeting several Venezuelan interior ministers, though.
	He goes crying.
	I thought I had the clip here, unfortunately.
	It was really funny.
	It shows the video.
	Is that not the clip right?
	Oh, it is there.
	This is the man.
	I think it's quite amusing.
	Whining, crying.
	Yeah, here he is.
	For the United States?
	In fact, being in the United States is a big risk for any person, not only for the Venezuelans.
	He's right.
	If you're good for the EU, go to the US.
	The government is in the US, it's bad people.
	It's fascism.
	So, America, you've got to be stupid to go there.
	So why are so many Venezuelans escaping your country to go there?
	I'm sure it's all...
	What you should do, if you don't want them going to a fascist country, then don't let them go to the fascist country.
	That makes the most sense to me.
	There you go.
	If you're so worried about the well-being of the people going to America, best recommend they don't go there.
	But maybe their economy is so great, and it's fascist US that creates this false propaganda that Venezuela has a problem with its economy.
	Yeah, I mean, it is.
	I mean, everybody I know that recently, some friends had to be...
	A speech impediment.
	Yeah, and they had to land in Venezuela to have it repaired.
	Oh dear.
	And they had to spend a night in a hotel.
	And literally, they were guarded by police to the hotel and told not to leave the hotel in the morning.
	Because obviously, Venezuela is clearly a safe country.
	It only makes the most sense.
	Yeah.
	So otherwise, if it was such a place where there wasn't some form of fascism, which that is about, they would have been able to go around Venezuela in the evening.
	But I just like the people laughing.
	You're foolish, then go to the United States.
	And then we have this last one, which is, I just thought it was quite...
	This is Bannon, who always says he never fails to provide some sense of humour against Cuomo.
	I don't know whether you say, is it Cuomo?
	Cuomo.
	It is Cuomo.
	With like a Q-U.
	Cuomo.
	A little bit, yeah.
	Cuomo.
	Cuomo.
	Chris Cuomo.
	Almost could be like an advert.
	Chris Cuomo takes on Bannon.
	He's just a very Italian-American looking fellow, isn't he?
	All right, well, I'm going to have to listen because Stephen Bannon goes on on this.
	I'm glad you're a convert, but you're converting to one of MAIA's top parties.
	Oh, no, I'm no convert.
	I'm no convert.
	Stopping radical Islamic attacks.
	What you're seeing is a merger.
	Steve, hold on a second.
	Hold on a second because this matters to me too much.
	I lost too many of my friends and people on 9 /11 for you to call me a convert, okay?
	I went over there and covered it in Iraq and Afghanistan and in Pakistan.
	I'm no frickin' convert, okay?
	What I'm telling you is when I hear other domestic agenda issues being brought up as more pressing as a security threat than this, it bothers me.
	That's what I'm talking about.
	So I'm not a convert.
	I just want this to be converted to be a main concern, and it isn't right now.
	That's my point.
	Certainly a convert.
	Where were you at CNN when we did the travel ban to make sure there was better screening coming from countries so that we didn't have radical jihadists come here?
	And President Trump took all the levels.
	Somehow I missed CNN and particularly your show having our back.
	In fact, I think you were going after us every night.
	So, you know, here we have people like Cuomo suddenly saying, I'm from CNN.
	I'm not a convert to the idea that terrorism exists and we should be stopping terrorism.
	But now we've got guys coming out throwing petrol bombs at Jews, ourselves and my friends.
	I'm now actually quite happy to consider the idea of travel bans going all across these Muslim nations.
	And I think it's a very valid point that...
	First of all, are we actually genuinely getting Americans who are on the left and the CNN suddenly becoming converts to the idea that it's right to have travel bans?
	And is it only because now Jews are being attacked in their own homes or outside their own streets by people who have been failing to qualify on the rules of visas or overstaying?
	Is it because of that issue?
	Or is Bannon right in saying that you've never really cared too much about it until it's really closely affecting you at home?
	Which goes on to a lot of the agenda we've been talking to.
	As people start to feel it closer and closer to themselves, suddenly they're becoming converted to the idea about it.
	And that goes to show the extent of mass immigration and the breakdown in society.
	But also a kind of narcissism, because if you don't like...
	And the left has turned sympathy into its flag, essentially, throughout the last two decades.
	They are the, within quotation marks, good people.
	Everyone else is a fascist monster.
	That's what they're trying to say.
	But if they constantly look at the facts of particular policies and they say, it's okay if it doesn't affect me, personally.
	That's when their true colours are revealed.
	What do we think about these people, though, when they're just doing that?
	I mean, do we really think that it's fair and acceptable that we just bring it down to ourselves and say, as long as I've got a nice house and a great job and I've been to one of those wonderful universities and protected myself for the last few years, that it's morally acceptable?
	For me to ignore what's happening in the communities across the country.
	I don't see that as morally acceptable.
	It's not.
	And you can see just the reaction against Anna Kasparian when she said that she was assaulted by homeless people in, I think, California?
	Yes.
	I think, yes.
	LA specifically, I don't imagine.
	And she expressed dissatisfaction with the policies that...
	And everyone essentially turned their back on her from the left and they said, you're destroying the narrative.
	You're a racist.
	You're a bad fascist.
	Yes Anna Kasparian She was part of the The Young Turks left-wing network.
	So for years she was spewing all of the same progressive talking points until all of a sudden it began to affect her, at which point she began to separate herself from the left-wing narrative somewhat.
	But the interesting thing was, it was done in such a way that I think Stelios could probably agree with me here, was the way that she was describing it was basically...
	Because there's no way that she didn't know that this sort of stuff was affecting other people.
	It's also like now Jake Tapper went to a leftist podcast.
	Oh, yeah.
	And they were saying his son is a racist because he wants to become a cop.
	He's 15 years old, and he was outraged by it.
	Sorry, his son wants to become a what?
	He wants to become a police officer.
	Oh, a cop.
	I thought you said cub.
	I thought, wait, his son's a furry?
	Sorry, that was my fault there.
	I thought he was a particular baseball fan, but there we go.
	He's going to be one of the cubs.
	Obviously, if you want to enforce law and order in your neighbourhood, then you're a raving lunatic racist, right?
	Yeah, and I'm looking at this and I'm thinking, OK, we've got some of the usual reactions.
	We see that and, you know, four different particular points.
	But the one thing that we do know that's happening in the United States is driving a massive agenda.
	This well-planned, well-structured Stephen Miller plan that was connected with others that has effectively ended the border concerns in southern Mexico.
	Sorry, northern Mexico, southern United States.
	That crisis is over.
	He's now beginning to deal with the universities and the nasty left-wing ideology that's enabled them to be able to kill freedom of speech on there.
	He's dealing with the criminals and removing them.
	He's attacking the courts, and now he's got this particular order.
	And he's setting up a massive agenda, which I think is not only pushing the potential that you say to Western countries, if you really want to have your visas, you've got to have a control on these people too.
	but also enabling people to see physically what happens when you have a proper immigration policy with deterrence, when it has a proper immigration with deportations, when it has a proper police force and a monitoring of a system to ensure that people who fall foul of the rules or break them also then start falling into the deportation and removal system.
	And how suddenly you're getting people across the globe going, maybe...
	And that message is being sent out so that people in, like, Denmark are able to enforce their laws in a similar way, even though they're of a different political party.
	Right.
	So there we go.
	It's my little rant.
	So that's a random name, says, the other wizards only start to care when the mudbloods move into their neighbourhoods, said Harry Weasley.
	In Harry Potter and the Order of the Grand Wizard.
	Alex Adamson55 says, I hate the you bombed X country, so you have to take everything in from X country, as if we have committed Dresden levels of destruction each day we were there.
	We bombed evil baddies, simple as.
	Well, yeah, this line of argument has never applied anywhere until...
	Right, so do we have any videos, Harry?
	That one?
	Yep.
	Okay.
	Forgive my tardiness, but back in episode 1066, Harry, Beau and Lewis discussed the history of chemical weapons development.
	And during that, they wondered aloud, why not test them in the Mojave?
	Well, here in America, that's exactly what we did.
	On Dugway Proving Grounds, at the bottom of the Permian Basin, in Utah, also, as a terrifying aside, we still make weapons-grade poisons.
	Fentanyl has a lower lethal dose than VX nerve agent.
	But George Floyd, remember, had become so used to it that he could tolerate the legal dose.
	Was the legal argument made in court?
	Wow.
	Okay.
	Right, okay.
	Did you not know that?
	Let's go to some comments.
	Every day's a school day They basically tried to make the argument That he was micro-dosing fentanyl So he could survive lethal weapons grade doses Which is why Chauvin That's where they got it from.
	Yes, exactly.
	George Floyd's legal team was consulting.
	I don't know.
	Have you read it?
	I've read the count.
	Towards the end, there was a grandfather who was feeding his granddaughter poisons because he knew they were going to poison her.
	And that's how she survived.
	Okay.
	Floyd knew they were after him.
	Lord Inquisitor Hector Rex.
	Love me Danes.
	Love me children.
	Love me culture.
	You will obey the laws.
	You will abide by our values.
	You will know crime.
	Simple as.
	I like the obey hat.
	And no, it's just, we need to have more.
	It's just, at the moment, it's just...
	Thane Scotty of Swindon.
	If you don't fit in, you won't fit in.
	Not fitting is not a crime.
	Just don't destroy the country and its society.
	Oh, that's why you feel excluded.
	Yes.
	Harm to society is and should be legal.
	Illegal.
	Right, so Baron von Warhoek says, The facts horrify voters, no shit.
	Why would anybody want a large population of violent people who are seven times more likely to attack you?
	This isn't racism, it's common sense.
	These BBC journals have the self-preservation of the dodo bird.
	They wouldn't last five minutes outside of the liberal babble.
	And by Sophie Liv, Mjolnir Park, named after Thor's hammer, So maybe it's supposed to be for the Danes and not Mohammed.
	And also Sofia read your comment without being led into bloopers.
	Thank you.
	I do think there are still plenty of people who are of my generation and younger who read plenty.
	I mean, I read plenty.
	There are people that I know who read plenty of really, really great books.
	So there are going to be people doing that.
	They're just not going to be getting into the universities and they're not going to be TikToking about it.
	It was fun to do that segment.
	I do think the whole problem was slightly overstated, but there is definitely a contingent of young people who cannot properly read for pleasure.
	And on that, Henry Ashman says, Or whether they just can't get their rocks off unless it's written in the first person.
	Almost certainly has to do with that.
	Sophie Liv, be a chad like me.
	I grew up as a Danish person watching anime in Japanese with English subtitles.
	I had to learn how to read English to watch Dragon Ball.
	This is the nerd Danish experience.
	D&D books were never translated ever.
	No Nintendo games.
	you just had to learn English and learning English so you can understand Dragon Ball and the power of going beyond and how it's over 9000 is the most based reason to learn English and for the last segment would you like to read through some of your comments okay well we got got a Trump used the phrase properly vetted.
	Does that mean he's banning people from these countries or implementing the strict being prices for anyone who wants to come to the US?
	I think he is trying to be much more strict and giving a powerful message to those other countries.
	Personally, if I was Trump, I would have added Turkey, Lebanon, Pakistan and Syria, says Boren van Warhoek.
	These are questions that we were addressing, which ones we're doing.
	Thane Scott of Swindon, I'm stopping terrorists coming into the country.
	You're stopping black people and brown people coming into the USA because you don't want white people.
	What an odd thing to say, but not odd if you're part of that liberal elite.
	That's exactly what you want to do to challenge these.
	These particular views.
	And finally, Furious Dan says, you don't need a new country in order to seek a better life.
	You can do it at home.
	I'm beginning to think seeking a better life is code for seeking the works of white people.
	Maybe, but I just generally think there is a global World Economic Forum argument for just ensuring that we've got movement and labour at a cheap cost all over the globe.
	And we have two honourable mentions.
	Colin P says, Stephen might be interested in an old Great Courses Plus series, King Arthur in Myth and Legend, which tells how the Arthurian myths have changed over time.
	She even mentions a comic series from the 80s.
	Okay.
	And finally, Matt P says, Politician destroys BBC.
	Sounds a little bit like a video title I'd see on a different website.
	Let us have some fun.
	Come on, let us have some fun.
	Just let us have some fun.
	It's okay to have fun every now and then.
	I was wondering if you'd found some secret footage leaked from the Tory cabinet meetings.
	Right, and on this note, we have run out of time.
	Thank you very much for your segments.
	I really enjoy them.
	And see you tomorrow at 1pm.

▲