All Episodes
Previous Next
June 17, 2025 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters
01:29:40
The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1188
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello, everyone.
Welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters.
Today is Tuesday, the 17th of June, 2025.
And I'm your host, Elios, and I'm joined today by Dan, the man, and Firas.
Hello.
Right, and we are going to discuss whether invading Iran is part of America First, the assisted suicide bill moving through Parliament, and we ponder whether anything ever happens.
And whether actually nothing ever happens or not.
So basically, that's it.
Let's enjoy.
Dan, shall we go to invading Iran?
Well, I don't think we should, but yes.
So in this video, I wanted to ask a simple question.
That is, what is America first?
And is America allowing itself to get dragged into a war with Iran part of that agenda?
Good questions.
Yes, good question, I think.
There are some people who think they know.
National Review.
When Trump first emerged onto the political scene, you had a whole bunch of neocons come out as against Trump, never Trumpers, who've been bashing him for his agenda, very much his foreign policy, his unwillingness to get involved in forever wars.
That has probably been the issue which they have hated the most.
Funnily enough, these guys this week suddenly find themselves in raucous agreement with Trump now that he's making noises about maybe we should do something like invade Iran.
Suddenly the people who have had the daggers in his back this entire time are suddenly coming on board and the base seems to be going the other way.
War is good.
Peace is for monks.
To be honest, I don't, I'm not entirely certain that the base is going the other way.
But I want to see what, where you...
Because, you know, there is a certain amount of bass that will, you know, remain consistent to the MAGA themes.
And then there were those who would just go with whatever's on Fox News at the time.
So, I mean, there is that.
National Review is not a publication I recommend.
However, there are some good writing out there, and our colleague Luca has started his new series on the Lotus Eaters Chronicles, where he takes a famous text, the sort of thing that you really should have read, but you haven't, and he breaks it down for you so that you can pretend to be slightly more intelligent than you actually are by making it look like you actually know this stuff.
So go and check out this new series.
Back to the point about America first, though.
I'm not an American.
But I have been a vocal supporter of Trump's since he came down the escalator.
And that's because I agree with what MAGA is trying to do.
Even recently, when there was a lot of people on the right basically having a pop at Trump for his work on tariffs, I continue to support him throughout all of that because it aligns with the MAGA agenda.
Just to be clear, what is the MAGA agenda?
Well, it's American first...
Build the Wall of Port, of course.
You know, I support all of that kind of thing.
So American first national sovereignty is one.
Second one is economic nationalism.
Yes.
You know, that's things like, you know, protect domestic industry, working class Americans from globalization and outsourcing and bad trade deals, the tariff stuff, it's energy independence, it's, you know, drill baby drill, tax cuts, deregulation, all that kind of stuff.
It's an explicit rejection of the...
The globalisation consensus.
And the third aspect, of course, of MAGA is end the forever wars.
You know, costly, unwinnable foreign interventions that benefit very much the military-industrial complex, but basically drags you into wars that, OK, you might be able to win kinetically the initial phase of it, but then you'll get bogged down in an insurgency for decades.
Yes.
After that.
And the view was for MAGA that these endless war interventions serve the elites but not the people.
Yes.
Which I think is very fair.
And the neocons hate every aspect of MAGA.
Every aspect of it.
They want open borders.
They want cheap labour.
You know, they want to be part of globalist institutions.
They like running a big government and the debt.
It serves their interests very well, and they especially, especially out of all of those things, they want to always be at war with someone.
Very important part of the agenda.
And the people who have been strongly opposed to MAGA and Trump throughout, they're the ones who are clamouring at the moment for the US to be deeply involved in a conflict with Iran.
And the argument is always, when we try and get into some of this, it's always a rehashing of the Second World War.
It's always, you know, The bad guy is always Hitler.
Anyone who says, oh, hold on a minute, he's always Chamberlain.
And the line that they're going with is, you know, the mullahs are bad and hate America.
Okay, that is true.
That is definitely true.
But the thing is, there's no shortage of bad people in the world who hate America.
Not just that, if you go around bombing Iran and dismantling its industrial capabilities and so on, Firstly, they're going to hate you more.
Secondly, they're going to end up walking into Europe.
And neither of those outcomes are sort of a good foreign policy objective.
No.
They're not, but I think that the MAGA response to the danger of migration flows to Europe is stable and is sensible.
They're your own borders.
Guard them.
Yes, which is also true.
So that's, I think, the MAGA position with respect to European migration flows to Europe.
And Dan, I want to say two things about what you're saying, because the MAGA, all these things you said, they're a bit abstract.
They cannot not be, in a sense, because everyone comes forward and says, well, economic nationalism is what I make of it.
That's what nationalism in economics entails.
And I think that the basic issue is that it doesn't have to be either neocon or the MAGA you are presenting as the ideal one, because, for instance, when MAGA was being against globalism, I don't think it was against global trade.
It was against a global trade that left American industry significantly backwards.
So it's not necessarily against trade.
And also when it comes to geopolitics, I don't think it's the America first.
It is, yes, we don't want to be dragged into forever wars, but it's not let's isolate entirely the geopolitical context and think that the entire world is the U.S. and focus just on this.
And it could be the case, first of all, there's a big question as to what exactly Trump is doing now, whether he is about to invade or he is increasing the pressure to the mullahs to surrender.
That's a big question.
And there is the thing that, you know, And Trump was never a pacifist.
Well, neither the US nor Iran started this current conflict.
Yes.
And they're never going to make Iran surrender.
The only way you can get regime change is boots on the ground.
Yes, you can bomb them.
They're just going to get bombed.
You know, that would just be what happens.
If you want regime change, you either need an internal insurgency.
Now, maybe, I will admit, maybe there's a clever play going on here, but there is an active, well-armed, well-supported Iranian counter-revolutionary force that is, you know, ready to pounce.
Maybe that's a play.
I've never heard anything like that.
I don't know if that is the case.
And if that turns out to be what's going on, then I'll say fair play.
got it right but it's probably going Yes.
You're just not going to get around that.
Trump used to get this, and this was a tweet from him in 2019.
The United States has spent $8 trillion fighting and policing in the Middle East.
Thousands of our great soldiers have died or been badly wounded.
Millions have died on the other side.
Going into the Middle East is the worst decision we ever made.
So the question for me is not, and people who are pushing for this, they're very much framing it as, yes, the mullahs are bad and they want bad things for us and so on.
I get that.
But that applies to lots of people in the world.
Are you really going to spend when, you know, you spent, I think it's actually nine trillion now because there's a long tail cost of disabilities and all the rest of the stuff that comes with this stuff.
Are you really going to spend at least another eight trillion?
Even if it's five trillion, are you going to spend that on invading Iraq?
Even if it's a trillion.
Even if it's a trillion, yeah.
When you're already 37 trillion in debt.
And, you know, what I would say is if you're looking for a credible threat, if you're saying, if you're motivated by, I'm being told, again, that they've got weapons of mass destruction, if they're rolling out that same argument again.
And, by the way, if they had a better argument to make, you would have already heard it.
So you're getting weapons of mass destruction instead.
If you are persuaded by we have to defend America, fine.
Let me give you two...
One is the sleeper cells.
So the southern border was open for four years.
Maybe 20 million people crossed that southern border.
You've got to then ask yourself, okay, what is the foreign agent infiltration rate?
Is it one in 1,000?
Is it one in 10,000?
One in 1,000 feels maybe too much, and one in 10,000 feels too low.
So let's just pick the middle point.
Let's just say, okay, one in 5,000 people that came across that southern border, Was a foreign actor.
And what are sleeper cells?
Well, they're three to five people.
So taking the middle line maths, there are probably 2,500 sleeper cells active in the US right now.
If you want to defend America, which you should, do you achieve that by sending young boys off to die in Iran, or do you do it by rooting out the infestation that is already in your midst?
Not just that.
As of a couple of months ago, the American intelligence community was briefing that Iran was not seeking a nuclear weapon.
This was the official line from American intelligence.
And Iran was complying with the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
So this is a war of choice.
By the Israelis.
Not by the Americans.
Not by the Americans.
It's very clear that this time, even if they wanted to do it, they did not choose the timing of this.
No.
Okay, I have some issues that are a bit unclear with how I hear what you're saying.
first of all, you're showing Trump's statement from 2019.
I remember him in 2019 and before saying Obama's treatment of Iran's nuclear program has been atrocious and needs to change.
And he also went out and...
Yes, obviously.
And he also went out and said, so long as I'm president of the US, Iran will have no nuclear weapons.
This hasn't changed now in Trump 47. Okay.
It could be the case, and I'm willing to, yes, I think that's plausible to say that a lot of people, a lot of sides don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons, but Israel may have extra reasons to not want Iran to have nuclear weapons.
Only, what was it, 30 days ago, US intelligence put out reports saying no, they don't have a nuclear.
They would still be deterrible.
North Korea supposedly has one.
Pakistan has one.
The point with Trump, though, is that you frequently get conflicting statements because he wants negotiation power.
So, a few months ago, he was in Saudi Arabia.
Was it Saudi Arabia?
Yeah, a couple of months ago, he was in Saudi Arabia, in Qatar, in the UAE.
He collected a couple of trillion dollars in promised investments.
Exactly.
He appeared to be pro-Julani in Syria.
Which was something that not everyone was terribly psyched about.
So in that case, he made several statements that could be seen as being him trying to be less pro-Israel.
And a lot of people who are very much anti-Israel on X, they were just cheering and saying, yes, this is true.
So I think the main thrust of your debate here still is that...
This does not look like this is a Trump-driven strategy.
I think he's responding to actions that certain allies have taken, which have forced his hand.
And I think that the neocon establishment, which just dominates Washington, Yes.
So I don't think, number one, that people are ordering Trump to act.
I think he is acting on his own.
That said, other actors are also acting on their own.
So it could be the case that he says, Israel is my ally in the region.
And in geopolitics, you need allies.
And in America first doesn't mean you have no allies.
And in some respects, there could be a sort of qui pro quo mentality.
That's going to sound very cynical that I'm saying it now.
I'm just describing what I think happens because I have been a critical Trump supporter.
I've never been someone who is mindlessly pro-Trump no matter what.
But what it seems to be happening right now is that no one wants Iran to have a nuclear weapon and Israel is saying, well, I'm going to do the dirty job if you'd like, but you help to increase the pressure on them.
So there's regime change.
Is this you not accepting the narrative that this is all about a nuke?
I think it's about the ballistic missiles.
I think it's about opportunity for the Israelis.
And I think when you think about American presidents, what I kept in mind until a couple of months ago, and then I made a mistake, was that Bush ran on wanting a conservative, limited foreign policy and was critical of Clinton for having gotten dragged into the Balkans.
Then Obama, and then we ended up with Iraq and Afghanistan, which was not exactly a conservative foreign policy.
Obama ran on a similar platform saying, don't do stupid stuff and avoid stupid wars and things of that nature.
He went to Syria.
And he went to Syria and Libya and helped destabilize Sudan and supported the Saudis in the war in Yemen.
and now we end up with Trump.
And the narrative that seems to be sort of...
And that he isn't the final decision maker.
Actually, the Pentagon gets to run things on its own.
I know this for a fact.
There is no way that the Israelis can do this campaign without full support from the Pentagon.
Without the American military establishment being supportive at every level, from satellite imagery to target identification to weapon selection, the Americans are hugely involved.
And probably supplying weapons and fuel as well.
Obviously.
I don't deny this.
My question is, why would people think that Trump should be taken off?
I don't accept this as Trump's agenda.
I think this has been fostered upon Trump.
I don't think that if you had asked Trump a month ago, where are you going to be in a month's time, he would have said, oh, I'll be ratcheting it up with Iran at this time.
I think this was fostered upon him by the neocons and a certain ally who forced his hand on this.
And I'd add a couple of points here.
The American refueling tankers are moving towards Europe in a way that strongly suggests That American jets are going to start getting involved in the bombing.
Now, maybe they'll reveal that it was American jets.
Maybe they won't.
Fair enough.
And a second American aircraft carrier is heading towards the region from Asia.
And Britain has its own aircraft carrier in position in the region.
I'm sure that'll be a game changer.
And it's helping defend Israel against missiles.
I will have to respect...
No, what I was saying is that even the Germans are involved in refueling Israeli aircraft.
Yeah.
The French are involved in intercepting Iranian missiles.
Now, you could say intercepting Iranian missiles is good, but there is also the element that says that there are preparations for an active, full participation in war, which is exactly what this guy called President Donald Trump said is the worst decision ever made.
But what I'm taking issue with is why people are surprised.
Because in order to get elected as President of the United States, you need to have some people helping you and having your back.
Yes.
And these people have an agenda and they wouldn't pick you if you weren't representative of that agenda.
Are you saying the price of entry is fighting Israel's wars?
Excuse me, no, let me, I'm saying that for anyone to get elected into the presidency of the United States, they need to have some supporters in key positions.
And these supporters have an agenda.
So then why have elections?
They wouldn't have picked Trump to be the champion of that agenda if they didn't think that it was Trump's agenda.
So what I'm saying is that what happens now seems to me to be entirely in line with what Trump says.
And first of all, a war hasn't happened already.
It could be that he's doing the madman.
Which is why a lot of people are speaking out now and saying this is not part of the American First agenda.
It seems to me he's doing the madman theory.
Possibly.
Which is part of his negotiation.
If it is a negotiation strategy, fine.
But I still think this has been fostered upon him.
It was not his choice.
And even if Iran does get a nuke, I still don't accept that that's a threat to the US.
We can see Iran's missile capability.
They're nowhere near intercontinental ballistic missiles.
Absolutely nowhere near that.
The real threat are the, whatever it is, the 2,500 sleeper cells.
in the United States because the border was left open.
That's where the focus needs to be.
And if you really want Well, it's hard to have focus on too many different things, and a war with Iran will absorb everything.
That will absorb all the bandwidth.
And the second thing, if you really want a foreign adventure, Mexican cartels.
You know, 70,000 US deaths per year.
Yes.
I mean, even if Iran managed to get one of their dinky little missiles carried on a boat over to Cuba and then launched to the US, it's still not going to come up to 70,000 casualties like the Mexican cartel.
Their missile capabilities are serious.
Their missile capabilities are quite impressive.
And they launch things into space, which is the same as launching an ICBM.
Okay.
So they have that missile capability.
But deterrence has worked with pretty much every other adversary.
Not to defend Islam, but from a theocratic Muslim regime, ending yourself by striking America or Israel with a nuclear weapon, is not actually part of Islamic theology.
Like, no sane Muslim would say that.
And you have to say something about the Iranians, which is that they play the madmen, but they are not lunatics.
They understand balance of power, they understand politics.
They can be cautious.
Well, I'm certainly not going to defend the Mullers and Iran, but I don't think it is necessarily irrational that they're concerned for their security when the United States has invaded countries on both sides of it.
Yes.
And we know that it was the plan to invade Iran.
So four-star General Wesley Clark has publicly stated in interviews and other places that he saw the plan that was put forward by the Pentagon that we're going to invade seven countries and ultimately, And we have to remember, each of those countries was destroyed.
So Libya and Syria weren't invaded, but they were absolutely destroyed.
I think Sudan was on the list and it ended up being partitioned and then pushed into some war.
Somalia, it's a basket case anyway.
Lebanon has, you know, Hezbollah has been destroyed, which is not a bad thing.
In some ways.
And now the sort of final objective is Iran.
And that plan, which has been there for 20 years and which has been adapted, is now coming to its final conclusion.
And that plan was hatched by the people that Trump was explicitly running against.
Yes.
In the 2016 campaign and in the 2024 campaign.
So that he would sort of do this roundabout thing so that 10 years down the line, he would be the one to smash Iran doesn't seem like it was his original.
Actually, Stelz, before you jump in, can I just quickly show my next thing?
Yeah, and that's the sort of point I'm making.
That plan of invading those seven countries and ultimately arriving at Iran, I mean, that makes sense because, actually, when you look at the region...
So if you're going to invade Iran, you actually want Afghanistan and Iraq first, because yes, you have access to the seaways down here, the Persian Gulf.
Tehran there is at the top.
So if you don't have Iraq and you don't have Afghanistan, and you're certainly not going to come in through this top region.
I mean, Turkey might give you support, but you can't come in through this top region because this is all Russian area of control.
So you'd probably come in here.
Well, I don't know what you think about this for us, but you'd probably come in through the Gulf of Iran down here.
You'd see something like this port down here.
This is a big oil region.
And that could be your beachhead.
That would feasibly be your beachhead.
And another reason we might come in there, apparently there's a big Arab population which are then opposed to the But then, I mean, the practicality of trying to invade Iran is you then need to push 1,000 miles north to get to Tehran, and that is all through, and I'll zoom in on any bit of this, this is all through narrow roads with mountains on either side.
Absolutely suicidal.
Iran is not invadable by a ground force.
The only thing that they can do is try to sponsor proxies within the various ethnic minorities in Iran.
Aha, diversity is a strength.
And use these minorities to destabilize or topple the regime.
That's the only way that it can be.
I would have a lot less, if it was that, I'd have a lot less criticism.
Right.
Well, it still leads to absolute chaos, multiple civil wars in Iran.
A much stronger Turkey and a much stronger Pakistan.
And these are hostile countries to the West, as is Iran.
This should be stated.
Having some kind of balance between them is probably better than removing the country in the middle that sort of keeps them apart.
And this ends up becoming a major destabilizing force throughout the region.
And actually destabilizing it and whatever else.
I mean, it's all baked in on the assumption that You know, you can just spread Western-style democracy into these countries.
I mean, democracy no longer works in Britain, because we've imported so many people, you know, from regions of the world like this.
You can't go to a region like this and install a democracy.
If you destabilise the Mullers, yes, you might succeed in getting rid of them, but what would you get in their place?
And I don't think you can just assume a Western-style democracy will emerge.
You have the king.
And I want to say two things.
Number one is that I still have to say that Trump has never been a pacifist.
Yeah, fair enough.
So his non-pacifism and his America first has never been, I'm going to destroy the military and I'm going to denuclearize it.
No, I'm not making that claim.
If you go on the map a bit to the west, you'll see the Suez Canal.
There's a lot of the time...
clash with pirates and the US Navy, but also the Russian Navy.
I think you mean further south, the...
So I'm saying that you never hear people being anti-war when the US Navy is involved there in local clashes with pirates.
So what I'm saying is that the MAGA base isn't necessarily anti-war.
No, no, they're very pro, strong military.
Also, when It's just getting dragged into another It could be the case, but I haven't heard anyone speaking about spreading democracy in Iran.
Right now.
Maybe I haven't heard people, but every person I've seen who is in the pro-Israel side, they're saying basically it's Operation Rising Lion and they want to help the Pahlavi, the king, be restored.
The former crown prince.
Who doesn't have a real base right now.
who has sort of discredited himself by supporting the bombing of Iran, and who, if he were to rule somehow, would be in an incredibly vulnerable position to all kinds of people, which might suit all kinds of companies that want to come in and sort of benefit from Iranian resources, and that would have a positive economic effect on Iran conceivably, but it would still be a pretty...
There are a thousand ways it could go south.
That's not the point.
The point is that there is practically no way that it could go well.
That's the point.
So I think we can safely conclude, look, innovation just...
So the only thing they can do is basically air sortie raids, firing missiles, that kind of stuff.
It doesn't actually get you anywhere apart from further destabilization.
It has an effect.
Destroying somebody's industry has an effect, but we've seen the Ukrainians getting hit by the Russians constantly.
Now, mind you, the Americans will be able to hit much harder.
But that doesn't automatically imply that the regime collapses.
And then you end up with this regime that's even more desperate to acquire nuclear weapons.
And given the vastness of Iranian territory, I mean, look at where Mashhad is in the Far East.
Like, that's a very difficult position to attack.
So you could see them relocating a lot of their nuclear activities and trying again.
The issue with Iran throughout history is that because it's so hilly, It's very difficult to invade.
Yes.
But for centuries, you had people who won key battles and they could just suddenly...
Maybe.
So I better wrap this up with the interest of time, but I don't see how it serves the American First agenda to get dragged into something that was not of their choosing.
As we talked about, invading is off the table, so you can't even follow through with this ultimately.
You're just going to spend an awful lot of money.
You're going to be dragged into Middle Eastern politics again.
You're not doing it for the American cause.
You're not doing it to serve American interests.
So I don't think there's anything to be gained from doing this.
And you can bet that NATO will be roped in to do some kind of work, especially the United Kingdom.
Certainly.
So I think be very careful about getting dragged into this.
Yes.
Okay, so the engaged few says, it's one thing to justify suicide attacks as martyrdom.
I think it would be a tenuous interpretation to extend that to choose martyrdom for entire nations in a nuclear war.
Busted Bryan says, globalists are trying to force Trump's hand.
We have the good fortune he knows.
His promise of no foreign wars is void with direct conflict, so his ego demands he looks every alternative to war.
Maybe.
Chain Tucker says, "Just wanted to say..." I think that's for me.
Shit for brains that honestly hope his fat ass goes to war so he can lose some weight.
Obese piggy.
Thanks, buddy.
I don't know.
All right.
Engaged few.
Don't sell the UK shorts, Stephen.
Your carrier might not be Ford class in size, but it has teeth.
That's referring to the Prince of Wales carrier that's deployed in the region.
Fair enough.
All right.
Now, shall we firstly remind you that you should definitely be checking out Luca's Chronicles series.
It seems very, very impressive.
I'm definitely going to be watching it.
It's getting released, I believe, today.
So have a look and But let me now for a moment talk about the absolute murderous state of the British Parliament.
So today Parliament is supposed to be debating legalizing abortion up until birth.
At 20 weeks, a baby can be viable.
And a baby can feel pain and can feel suffering.
When you try to abort after the 12th week, that usually involves ripping that baby limb from limb and then crushing its skull in order to kill it.
So it's a very extreme procedure.
And now Parliament is debating making it legal up until birth.
We had somebody say that, yes, if it was at 38 weeks, 37 weeks, which is a perfectly normal premature birth, Then abortion should still be legal.
Regardless of how you feel in particular about abortion, and just for the sort of fedora types out there, fetus means baby.
Regardless of how you feel about that, this is a very extreme position.
And it's a very violent thing to do to an innocent child that's capable of feeling pain.
But this isn't enough for the Parliament.
They also want to make killing the vulnerable, the elderly, etc.
much, much easier.
And their reasoning for that is absolutely fascinating.
Here's the reasoning from Keir Starmer's mouth: So
the way that this works is that this is a private member's bill by Kim Ledbetter, Joe Cox's sister.
And there's normally a lottery at the start of Parliament to decide which MPs get to propose their bills.
Magically, she won the first place.
And what she wants to do is permit laws that would allow the NHS to pretty much kill Anybody with a diagnosis of a terminal illness.
Now, before we go into the details of it, let's just talk a little bit about nice Ms. Esther Rantzen.
She's been complaining that she has cancer and that she might have to go to Dignitis to die.
She's 85. I hope her cancer heals and I don't wish her ill.
But this is who she is.
There were rumours.
There were rumours in television.
So the rumours he's talking about is of Jimmy Savile being a nasty pedophile and rapist.
In the music industry where he was a DJ, there were rumours in Fleet Street.
I'm told there were even rumours in the NHS.
But the trouble with the rumour is that it's not something you know.
In order to know something as a fact, it must either have happened to you or you must have seen it happen.
Nothing else stands up in court and nothing else would permit a newspaper to publish or a programme to broadcast.
I was working in a very different part of the BBC.
The person who told me the rumour was a junior researcher who had heard it in Fleet Street and really there was no substance to it at all.
No allegation about a specific child, no disclosure from a child that I know of in all the 26 years of child I'm...
But there's something else there.
But now, now, adults are ringing Childline and saying, well, we were abused.
Who see things going on and dare not go to their bosses can at least report it another way.
And that way bad things maybe won't happen.
So this is the moral character of the person to whom Keira Starmer made this commitment.
She should have at least started an investigation.
Because on the one hand, yes, okay, rumors are rumors.
Yes.
When you hear lots of people saying the same thing, you need to guard yourself.
Exactly.
So the bill as it currently stands requires somebody to have a diagnosis of they're going to be dying in six months.
And this story here about this gentleman, Stephanus Breitenbach, who's Australian, he was diagnosed with three months to live.
And now he's on three years and he's extremely happy.
And the way that he does it is that he aims for a couple of days of more life at a time.
And at the time this was written in June this year, he's aiming to make it until September to celebrate his son's birthday.
So think about how many birthdays he would have missed if he had sort of followed that advice and then decided to sort of kill himself.
But there are enormous problems in the way that this bill was being Debated even, not just in the way that it was presented, which is magically Kim Ledbetter winning the right to sort of go first.
She engineered it so that the witnesses that were allowed to speak were pretty much 80% either neutral or supportive of assisted suicide, with only a tiny minority allowed to speak who are opposed to it.
And you see that here in this list that's provided by Dan Hitchens.
Dan has been covering this extremely well.
Him and someone else I'll mention, Nikki DaCosta, they've been doing an incredible job covering all of the holes in this bill.
And instead of sort of debating the issue honestly, what Ms. Ledbetter has been doing is claiming that everybody is being misinformed.
And so he asks her here, okay, who are the people who are misinformed?
And then he goes through a list of the people who oppose making the NHS into a murder machine, which is what this bill does.
Well, for one, the Royal College of Psychiatrists.
That seems quite important.
If you are extremely unwell and you're at the risk of dying or killing yourself, it's typical to have a psychiatric intervention that helps you cope with your suffering better.
That helps you manage your life a little bit better.
These are the people responsible for it, and they're saying, absolutely not, this is a horrible bill.
The Association for Palliative Medicine.
If your case is terminal, there's still a way for you to die a natural death in dignity through pain management, through the provision of comfort, through the provision of care.
Basically, life can be made valuable and have moments of joy.
Even in the midst of great suffering, and God help us, who isn't suffering?
Everybody is.
So these are the people who manage your life at the end of it, and they're saying this is a terrible idea.
Why are they objecting?
For a whole range of reasons, including the fact that this bill threatens to cut off funding from any facility that provides palliative care and refuses to offer assisted dying.
Now think about it this way.
You've decided you're going to die a natural death and you go to this clinic that can give you a bit of pain management medication, that can help you stay comfortable, that can help you handle yourself in your final days and now they're obligated to suggest whether or not you want to die.
Yes.
What does that do to you psychologically?
I mean we've seen Canada go down this route.
It starts off as It's an option that people in severe pain can take.
And a lot of people will hear that and think, OK, well, that sounds reasonable.
But then it becomes, you know, you go to your GP and I'm feeling a little bit depressed this week.
Well, have you considered killing yourself?
And I know what the NHS is like.
So there was a case a few years back of a young boy.
Maybe nine or ten years old.
And he was kind of suffering under the NHS and the parents wanted to take him to, I think, Poland or something.
He had a therapy.
He could deal with it.
And the NHS did everything in their power to stop.
They wanted him to stay and die.
And the parents managed to get him out, get him for this treatment, and he recovered.
Made a full recovery.
And that happens all the time.
There is, among medical professionals who are honest...
They know that you can't actually tell if someone is going to die in six months.
So it's a suggestion.
It's not that they're telling you, consider killing yourself.
But how would you feel if your cancer treatment guy is telling you, well, you know, chemo is expensive and this is going to be a bit painful for you.
you could also kill yourself.
Yeah, I mean.
And this bill, So here, the geriatric society, the professionals who care for the elderly, elderly medicine, geriatric medicine, they're saying, absolutely not, this is terrible.
And they were initially refused the right to give oral evidence.
And you can tell how thoroughly MPs do their research and do their readings by the sheer quality of them speaking in public.
They clearly haven't done the work.
So they're refusing to listen to the right people.
Coalition of Frontline Care, they're against it.
The Royal College of Physicians, these guys are saying we're neutral on whether or not to allow this.
But they are saying that this bill, in particular, is absolutely horrific because of the million and one safeguards failings that it has.
Everybody in disability rights, they're against it.
The civil liberties organizations, they're against it.
Experts in anorexia, so they tried to create an exclusion for anorexia, which is a very treatable condition at the end of the day.
It's a sad condition, it's a tragic condition, but it's a treatable one.
No, this bill allows those who are suffering from anorexia to get killed.
And importantly, you mentioned somebody's family stepping in.
In this bill, they tried to insert an amendment that says, well, you must at least notify the family.
And Ms. Ledbetter refused.
Right, so this bill is, it stands.
You could have an 18-year-old suffering from anorexia.
They refuse to ban it for under-18s, so it's still permissible.
You could be 17. Okay, so you could have a 17-year-old suffering from anorexia, and without even telling the family, they go straight to euthanasia.
Think about it this way.
If you were a very nasty person running a care home of some sort, and we are seeing some of that, What we now have a wonderful opportunity to do is to convince the people under your care that they're too much of a burden.
This will be pushed.
This will be pushed and that they should write you into their will because your family needs the money and that you should go off and kill yourself.
And the approval process, the bar for it is extremely low.
49% chance that you're being coerced, but a 51% chance that you're not, or that you're being manipulated.
And there is nothing in the legislation that says that doctors will be trained to spot this.
And indeed, spotting and identifying psychological manipulation is extremely hard.
And so you could run a scam where you're in the care sector and you have a cousin who is a doctor and you just bounce people to each other in order to get them killed and change their wills before they get killed.
And because there is no requirement for investigation, this is permissible.
And the coroner wouldn't examine you afterwards.
So there wouldn't be somebody examining you after your assisted suicide to say, well, this guy is covered in bruises.
Should we have allowed this to happen?
Yes.
A doctor who set out to kill as many people as possible.
The new Harold Shipman would be able to do this and make YouTube videos about it and openly do it.
He would just be able to go around with the full benefit of the law behind him, persuading people to let him kill them.
This should not be called the assisted dying bill.
This should be called the Harold Shipman bill.
That's what it is.
Because that's exactly what it's enabling.
It will go after everyone who's vulnerable, even temporarily, and it won't be offered, it will be pushed.
Yes, yes.
Do you think that's a political decision?
Yes, it's been debated.
So people like Danny Kruger, who are on the committee, who has been standing up against this bill quite forcefully.
Diane Abbott stood up against this bill quite forcefully and quite impressively.
They've all said there are these problems here with this legislation, and this legislation is disastrous.
And medical professionals who are saying, look, we're neutral on the idea, but this bill is terrible.
These guys are being ignored completely.
So this is a political choice, and this is essentially the state deciding to manage pensions in the worst imaginable way.
And this is happening at the same time that they're making it easier to kill babies.
So you're murdering the past and you're murdering the future.
And also your votes, if you're doing it for political purposes.
Exactly.
Well, if you're the Labour Party, you think that the retirees tend to vote right.
So you're fine with it.
In Little Red Riding Hood, the wolf kills their grandmother and kills the child.
And that's one of the many reasons why he's evil.
He leads to temptation.
He does all kinds of things.
But one of the reasons that he's evil is that he destroys the past and he destroys the future.
That's what this murderous parliament is doing.
That's exactly what this parliament is doing.
This is evil.
So when you said it was ruled out for, you know, I started talking about an 18-year-old and you said, no, it's not ruled out for under-18s.
Yes.
Is there any age limit on it?
I don't know.
So it could go down to, you know, whatever the first age is when you can get a GP's appointment by yourself.
14 or something?
13, maybe?
Yeah, perhaps.
In the Netherlands, it has happened.
Okay.
Where they've killed underage kids, including, I think, in one case, because of depression.
I believe that there was one case that involved depression being the primary cause.
Well, because it's easier to kill them than it is to help them.
It's not that hard to help them.
No, but it's still easier to kill them.
Well, you know, if that's your objective, fair enough.
This gentleman, let me just check his name again, Sir David Haslam, who is a former head of the British Medical Association, so he knows what he's talking about.
And he makes the case that, look, when it comes to my own relatives, I definitely want to be able to spend as much money as I can to save them.
And I understand that there are choices to be made and considerations.
However, the same applies to assisted dying.
From an individual perspective, assisted dying might appear a logical development.
But from the perspective of society, it is likely to have a profoundly different impact with a legion of unintended consequences.
Because this bill, as it currently stands, pretty much allows anybody to get killed.
They promised initially that it was going to go to a judge, and it was going to go to the high court for each case.
Then they sort of decided, no, no, no, we don't need to do that.
And they lowered it to a panel.
And this panel doesn't need to interview anybody.
And doesn't have any judicial authority, and you don't have to appear in front of the panel.
So if the panel thinks, well, there's a 40% chance that Stelius is coercing Dan into killing himself, we can't make Stelius appear before that committee and testify.
Nobody can do it.
But also Dan could do it to me.
Yes, yes.
I'm sort of, you know, of course.
And there are some questions here which Nikki DaCosta, she's also done an incredible job covering this topic.
Please follow her.
Please support her work.
Any doctor can initiate the discussion.
So your GP, if he gets sort of annoyed with you because, I don't know, you've tried antidepressants and they didn't work, or he was having a bad day, or she was having a bad day, they can initiate that conversation.
They can...
And if they can do it, they will do it.
And if, not just that, if they start here, they will expand it over time.
The trajectory for countries like Belgium and the Netherlands and Canada has been that the slippery slope is not a logical fallacy.
It's an iron rule.
Once you concede the principle, that's it.
And the principle of the holiness of life and the sanctity of life and respect for life, because it is given by God, that principle should never be violated.
You can only kill people in a just war or for the service of justice as part of the criminal justice system, but you just can't do it willy-nilly because somebody feels like a burden.
Here's the worst part.
Here's the worst part.
This can be made profitable.
So the NHS can outsource the provision of death services to private companies who can make as much money as they want over it.
So imagine the advertising here.
Because you know you're going to start seeing advertisements for it.
Feeling like too much of a burden?
Feeling tired all the time?
Your cancer isn't really that?
Your chemo isn't being nice to you?
There is one upside.
At least it will bring some jobs back for white actors in commercials.
Well, you can bet on that.
You can bet on that.
A minister can lift the advertising ban.
It can become advertised.
And it's just down to a single minister.
And you know that that minister is going to get paid.
I'm just thinking about the economic arguments of this.
You've got to bear in mind that the way the NHS works is each person coming through the door is not a customer.
And a person coming through the door is not a good thing for the NHS.
It is all costs.
And what do you try and do to costs?
You try and minimise costs.
So the economic incentive for the NHS would be to maximise this as far as possible.
That's what they're trying to do.
That's what they're trying to do.
There doesn't need to be an assessment as to whether or not you have the mental capacity to agree to this.
There doesn't need to be an assessment as to whether or not you're being coerced.
Everything about this sort of, you know, fundamentally changes what the NHS is all about from a national health service to a national death service.
And they could force care homes and hospices to provide that service as the law is written.
And they will.
And you can see that, you know, speaking as a Catholic, Catholic care homes are not going to agree to offer assisted death.
And so they'll be closed down.
So they'll either be defunded or closed down.
Which is, incidentally, you remember with the contraception debate in the United States, Obama tried to force the Little Sisters of the Poor to provide contraception.
And it became an incredible court case and they almost succeeded.
And so they're trying the same thing again and again.
There's no duty of care to ensure that the drugs work properly.
So there's no safeguard against a drug that's supposed to give you a quick and painless death actually causing a horrendous death.
There's no safeguard in this bill.
And there's no subsequent investigation.
So it's a making money scheme.
They know this bill is bad.
How do you know this bill is bad?
They don't want the data to be collected on various failures and on various problems that emerge from it.
They don't even want to mandate data collection so that we could say, okay, we're going to try it your way for five years and then we're going to reassess in the next parliament.
This is how you know that it's malice.
This is how you know that it's malice.
I mean, this bill does sound like it's been written by Malik.
Yes.
Yes, pretty much.
And healthcare professionals are up in arms.
They're writing about it.
They're saying, no, don't you dare do it.
But they're completely being ignored.
And so they've made a choice.
They could fund adult social care or they could just kill the elderly.
At heart, this is a spiritual crisis.
At heart, this goes back to the issue that because Britain has lost its spirituality, family is breaking down, and therefore there are not enough children, and there are not enough young people caring for their elderly parents, which was always the historic norm.
I mean, no matter how individualistic a society is, when your father or mother are ill, there is somebody in that society who is going to take care of them, even if they don't live with them, whatever the other points.
But at heart, this is a spiritual question.
And you can tell that this is a spiritual malady that's afflicting this parliament by the fact that in the same week they're debating killing the youngest and the eldest and most vulnerable at the same time.
If it was intended as a service to Moloch, this is exactly what you would expect.
So this is what parliament is trying to debate.
And it will be the same old bait and switch.
The forward-facing angle of this will be, look, here's this person who's got advanced cancer and they're in great pain.
If this person wants to do it, why shouldn't they?
That will be the front-facing thing.
It always starts with claims of sympathy.
And the back end will be this bill, which is, you know, your teenager could make a wrong number, end up with a GP.
With transgenderism, they lied and they said that not letting them slice off body parts is going to lead them to becoming suicidal.
With homosexuality, they lied and they said the objective is just standard normalcy.
We don't want anything else.
And then one thing after the other was pushed until we ended up with total degeneracy.
With this, it's the sort of same playbook.
It's all about sympathy.
Oh, let me tug at the strings of your heart.
And in the end, it's going to be a way of managing the excess demand for the NHS.
It starts with sympathy and it ends with pronouns and communism.
Essentially.
So please contact your MP.
If you are British, if you are in Britain, please contact your MP.
You can go to the government's website.
You can just look up how do I contact my MP.
It immediately gives you the right response.
You can find your MP on this website here, members.parliament.uk forward slash members forward slash commons.
Just put in your postcode.
You will be able to find who your MP is if you don't already know.
And you will be able to find their email address and write to them.
And please do write to them and tell them not to vote for murder.
Because it is going to end in the worst imaginable way.
We know this.
We've tried this.
We've seen how the slippery slope actually is an iron rule.
Please try to stop this.
Right.
The hapsification says they're going to run out of excuses once the medical technology and biotech starts curing diseases.
These people and ideologies can survive once the tech solves their problems.
Maybe.
I think that there is a question when it comes to psychology, though.
There's a limit to how much it can be addressed just as a brain issue.
There are all sorts of stuff like socialization that comes to...
It's fine.
We're all going to die, but there's a...
Right, so that's a random name.
It says: "Don't listen to Chain Talker for us.
You're not fat, just well-invalued." Oh, thank you.
Also, why was there no realpolitik yesterday?
Did you get hit by a Mossad pager or did the show get aborted after its birth?
I don't know.
I'll find out today.
Let's scroll down.
Sure.
No, let's scroll up.
I think that's from the previous section.
Engage Few says, 30 years ago, Rush Limbaugh predicted that the right to die would become the duty to die.
He was a prophet.
That's exactly what this bill does.
You make the elderly or the vulnerable feel like a burden, and then you tell them, why won't you just take this magic pill and die?
So please write to your MP and try to help stop this.
Right.
So there are several noises that I hear in the studio.
I don't know what's going on.
Right, anyway.
So, ladies and gentlemen, there are lots of things happening.
Or are they not?
One thing that definitely happens is that we have a new show.
We have The Chronicles by Luca Johnson.
We have the first episode that came out.
It's on Beowulf and...
It approaches 2K in just three days.
Yeah, so that's excellent.
Definitely check out Lucas Chronicles and don't forget to subscribe to our website and gain access to our premium content and help us do the magnificent job we are doing.
So this thing happened, but there's a question as to whether anything ever happens.
Because there are some people who are saying that nothing ever happens.
But this is the meme, isn't it?
Yeah, that's the meme.
Every time something happens, somebody puts up a meme that says nothing ever happens.
Yeah, but I'm beginning to warming up to the idea.
That nothing ever happens or that something doesn't?
No, that nothing ever happens.
Okay.
What did you think initially?
I don't know, man.
The past few years I've had a lot of happenings in my line of work.
I think this is an insane meme.
Right, okay.
So Dan, I will...
Okay.
Right, but let's talk about the meme.
Okay, so we have this meme here that's really funny.
We have this angry little weird person here with huge lips.
A very stern expression, he's pointing at the board, saying "nothing ever happens" in several other languages.
Right, and there are lots of people who are saying now there is gonna be a war between Israel and Iran and also the US may get involved, but the "nothing ever happens" crowd, the "nothing ever happens" bros, think otherwise.
maybe nothing will happen.
So we have here...
Erase nothing.
And the response is, an attack on our soil is a violation of our sovereignty, Mr. Iran.
All in on nothing.
Dan, what do you think?
This is not my favourite genre of memes.
No.
No, it's not.
Right, okay.
So, lots of people are saying, well, But I don't know, Dan, who's going to have the last laugh.
Things happen every day.
Are you sure?
Yes, quite certain.
Right, so a lot of people are saying nothing ever happens bros, I'm not feeling so well.
I think he should say I'm not feeling so well or not.
Yeah.
But there's the answer there.
It's not two minutes to midnight.
It is 90 seconds to nothing.
When nothing ever happens, clock has moved one second closer to midnight.
I wonder if this all stems from people imagining a whole series of events that might happen and when they didn't happen they got frustrated so they invented a meme saying nothing ever happens.
Plainly stuff happens, just not the stuff they imagined.
Does it have to be this guy telling us nothing ever happens?
Yeah, it has to be this guy.
It has to be Chad Jack.
Chad Jack?
Yes.
He doesn't look like Chad to me.
Allow me to break the ice.
I'll tell you all about Chad Jack towards the end of the segment.
But he constantly reminds people that they shouldn't be overexcited.
And especially when it comes to the siren.
Sign that says it's happening, it's happening, it's happening.
World War III, Civil War, Civil War, Civil War.
It says, no, basically, that's total BS.
Well, as I said, there's people imagining something happening, and then when that doesn't happen, saying that nothing happens.
But it's not that nothing happens, it's just the thing that you were imagining, which was overblown, didn't happen.
There are two schools in that nothing ever happens.
There are the soft ones, who are talking about major geopolitical events.
How could nothing ever happen to have debates?
And they are the...
And they are the hardcore ones, those who are saying that it's impossible for anything to happen.
I'll try to convince you about the latter.
Okay.
So here we have the minutes to midnight clock is set on one minute to nothing.
So Trump says, I'm nuking Iran, Chad Jack, nothing burger.
I literally just pressed the button.
Nothing ever happens, schizo.
That's the response.
So far it's Chad Jack who has the last laugh.
What is Trump going to do?
It's the button that does nothing.
I really like how amused you are with this meme, Dan.
If you just redefine what something is continually up to whatever the most drastic thing is that you could conceivably envisage happening the following day, such as...
I don't think...
I don't think that's going to happen.
So you can't then force say, because that thing didn't happen, nothing happened.
There's plenty of things happened, just not that one thing.
I see you're taking the logic course.
I'm very skeptical.
So you are going to bet that something will happen?
At this very moment, things are happening.
Eras, are you betting that something's going to happen?
Yes.
Yeah, but ChatJack has the response to you.
Okay.
So, yeah, just don't bet against him, Dan.
Your powers of persuasion are warming up.
So we have here people talking about World War III, and I really love this meme.
It says nothing ever happens, it won't.
And there's a new clear explosion in the background.
And he's looking back.
It's a nothing burger, this kid.
Well, by that definition, then yes, nothing happened.
Fair enough.
I absolutely love this.
Okay.
We have people who just concede defeat and they accept that the nothing ever happens bros constantly wins.
Okay.
And we have this lass here being very much annoyed.
At losing and thinking that something was going to happen.
She fell prey to the sirens of, you know, slop merchants.
She thought that every breaking event is constantly happening.
People constantly put the sirens for the impression saying that everything, you know, civil war.
Is your mathematical proof on the way?
Is that?
Yes, yes, it is.
Okay, okay.
All right.
So what time is it?
What time is it, Dan?
It's not time to end the segment because I'm not, I'm not, I'm in the middle of the segment, but it's just, Would you look at the time here?
I love this.
It's always nothing time.
Who's this particular guy supposed to be?
Chad Jack.
I mean, he always wins.
You can always bet on Chad Jack.
James Bond of happenings?
Right, so let me show you here some other really funny memes because I think that this is a really fun thing that has spread in the culture.
Here we have, again, him, a rendition of him.
Pointing at the board.
Again, him.
Showed you people doing the meme.
Keep calm and nothing ever happens.
So here it says, the historic opportunity for a revolution has passed.
It will not come back anymore.
However hard I try, whatever I do.
I'll show you my personal favorite.
It says here, that's not my favorite.
Heaven is a place.
Where nothing ever happens.
Chuda, who is like Buddha, says, "But Chuda, what if?" says, "It won't." Okay.
And here, I would have loved for something to happen.
Beep.
He's dying.
Okay.
And I absolutely love this.
It says, there are decades where nothing happens and there are weeks where nothing happens.
Well, that one I like.
That one is a bit, yes.
Yeah, because, you know, I had the Lenin quote where it says there are decades where nothing happens and there are weeks where everything happens.
So it's still not convinced?
You're not convinced.
So I'm going to give you, before I teach you the meme, then I'm going to tell you one thing.
It's the mathematical proof.
Yes.
But change is impossible.
I'm so here for that.
Right, so change requires some sort of motion.
So you have to go from here to there.
Yes.
Which I will do after walking out of the studio.
You think you will.
You think you will do it.
But in order to do this, you need to cross a distance.
Let's say, is it five meters?
The door's just over there.
Yeah, but in order to do it, you need to cross also the half of it.
Yes?
There will come a point when I'm halfway there, yes.
Yes, but in order to do this, then you'll have the latter half, and then you'll have to cross the other half of it.
Okay, but then I'll do that, and then I'll get all the way there.
No, but you'll still have some points.
If you divide the distance in half, and you take all of them, and you add them, it will never be one.
It will be less than one.
No, that doesn't follow.
If you go in a percentage, it does.
He's talking about integration.
God, you took me back to university.
It's mathematically impossible for motion to exist.
It's an illusion.
I see.
I don't think that's true.
I don't think he thinks it's true.
That's the worst part.
Right, so let's hear our Know Your Memes says nothing ever happens is a catchphrase and mantra commonly said on 4chan's board poll to signify that no major global events of significant magnitude have perceivably happened in past decades nor will they happen in the future.
The mantra is the direct opposite of the it's happening memes and has often been used in response to anticipated global changes not happening.
That's not a proper object.
Is it because the sort of people on 4chan have just come out of school where they've spent the last five years being taught about the Second World War, and therefore every time there isn't a Third World War...
Yeah, that's how it originated, from 4chan.
Since at least as early as July 2014.
And basically, it's people saying nothing ever happens.
It was spread lately and says that every single happening has been cancelled, listing major events such as the Jeffrey Epstein's death, the COVID-19 pandemic, the 2020 George Floyd protests.
But also, think of the Epstein binders.
It was huge hype that they would be released, but they weren't.
Correct.
So did it happen?
Not in that particular case.
That doesn't stop the fact that, you know...
And it actually has its origins from the meme known Le Paul Face or Le Paulac.
The parent meme which originated in 4chan is meant to depict the cliché appearance of the average 4chan, insoles, far-right public shooters, and other similar characters.
It was modeled to resemble Patrick Crucius, the shooter from the 2019 El Paso shooting.
But obviously the meme has a life of its own and people who are using it doesn't mean that they are condoning the actions of Let's not be paranoid.
And basically that's the origin of it.
Where it comes for, yes.
But, okay, so I think there's something really good in it, okay?
Obviously, they don't say that nothing ever happens, literally.
Just open any history book.
You have all sorts of happenings.
Yes.
It's more an issue of, you know...
Yes, they're wrong if taken literally.
But I think that as a matter of approach to things, it's a good antidote to crappy sensationalism.
Because there are lots of people who want to basically make a name out of communicating not the truth, but something that is total BS.
And they gain fame.
Because they say something that is a bit outrageous, and people link them with that outrageous rhetoric, and they make a name out of the sand, but they're contaminating Discord.
I mean, you could just say, no, you're exaggerating a bit, instead of nothing ever happens.
Yes.
Yeah, but it's more an issue of, no, no, no, I want your attention on this.
There are a lot of people who are just crappy and just constantly say things just because they want to link their name.
At least they're more right than the people who say nothing ever happens because they're just clearly entirely wrong.
Yeah, but the point is that if, obviously it's not meant to be taken literally.
It's more an issue of just keep calm and try to think, try to filter things and abstract from all the stupid things.
I, for one, I'm generally extremely ignorant when it comes to memes and all kinds of things.
So I feel that my deficiencies are being corrected with an education about this.
Okay.
I'll end with this one.
With this and some others.
Please consult the graph.
Zero happenings.
Okay.
Fair enough.
Then percentages of happening.
World War III, economic collapse, Civil War, nothing.
Consult the pie chart.
We're in economic collapse at the moment.
Yeah, but it won't happen.
We're not starving.
And here we'll end with a...
Say, billions must smile.
And you have here the soy jacks here are dancing and they have the hearts.
Say, billions must smile.
You matter.
That's it.
Okay.
That was a bit more cheerful, I guess.
I think we should end with a good note because he constantly asks us to do good segments and white pills and sometimes you don't watch them.
Let's do that.
These people are clearly Democrats and they've gone outside.
They wouldn't do that.
That wouldn't happen.
That's how nothing ever happens.
And Hedonism says, nothing happens.
U.S. boots will never touch Iranian soil.
Only U.S. bombs from Israelis.
No loss.
Except the world's largest founder of terrorism.
Terryism.
It says here.
78% of Iranians oppose the Mullahs.
See 1970s Iran.
That's a random name, says nothing ever happens.
Well, I suppose that's true if you're a 40-week fetus whose leftoid mother has second thoughts about living with the consequences of her decisions.
Busted Brian says the nothing ever happens concept is incumbent upon absurd and atypical geopolitical shifts as perceived by Polak's nuclear war, total collapse of a major Western power, apocalyptic disease, etc.
So that's exactly what it is.
Right, so it's all about taking things with a pinch of salt.
Fair enough, fair enough.
Let's go to the videos.
And now again, here we are in Albany, New York, and we're outside the Old English Pub and Pantry.
And right across the way from our Old English Pub and Pantry, we find ourselves at the...
Must get interesting on St. Patrick's Day.
Nice.
Let's go to the next one.
It follows and charges of trans-military grade.
That had dreadnought.
Yeah.
Nice.
That's a good parade.
Warhammer parade.
It's a proper parade.
I mean, the parade was a bit of an embarrassment, wasn't it?
I haven't watched it.
Let's go to the next one.
You say the best way to know a thing is to take it apart.
Put that together.
This is exactly what's wrong with the modern world.
People think they can deconstruct what's around them and then make a half-assed attempt at putting it back together, which they always get wrong.
In fact, it was Italian philosopher Giambattista Vico, using Christian doctrine, who described the truth of the matter.
To understand something, one must have created it.
That has so many other implications.
What's going on there?
Because I did hear that in the comics, Iron Man had been replaced With a black teenage girl.
They're not actually doing that in a film, are they?
I haven't heard this.
Well, that's stupid.
Nobody's going to watch that.
But they don't learn.
Right.
They go woke.
You know the line.
Let's go to the next one.
Zesty King.
From Lincoln Cathedral.
It's really beautiful.
Incredible.
That's beautiful architecture.
Thank you.
I think Luca has showed me some photos from Lincoln Cathedral as well.
Right.
Right.
I mean, doing that is remarkable, but doing it in the 14th century or whenever they did that one, Yes.
I'm entirely convinced.
There's a line by Victor Hugo, I think, that says that the press killed architecture.
I don't remember where it is, but he was saying that before we had the press, humanity made statements in buildings.
Right.
That's why you see ancient temples, for instance.
There are sculptures.
There are all sorts of stories if you focus on the architecture.
I'd gladly sacrifice a bunch of journalists.
In exchange for building more cathedrals.
I think he was talking about the book.
Right.
Fair enough.
Okay, let's go to the comments now.
Is this America First?
Yes.
A number of people in the comments are asking when RealPolitik is starting.
Good question.
It was supposed to come out yesterday.
I'm not sure what happened to the first episode.
Oh, OK.
Well, we'll track that down, then.
We'll track that down to find out what's happening with that.
Alex Ogle says, Iran doesn't need intercontinental ballistic missiles.
They only need ballistic missiles.
All they need is something that is near impossible to intercept that can rain down on Israel and threaten any other nation in the area.
Recall, Iran is Shia majority and the rest of the area is Sunni majority, and that's worse than Catholics versus Protestants.
I mean, OK, yes, fine.
So I get why that might be a concern for Israel.
But back to my question, how is this an American first policy?
I can understand how it's an Israel first question, but I don't get how it's an American first question.
Honestly, I think it's an issue of geopolitics, because the America first isn't just suddenly we stop being a major geopolitical force.
Israel is critical for American dominance of the Middle East but this is still a war of choice because at It's just able to retaliate.
We'll see how long they can sustain that ability.
But the Israelis decided to sort of get this out of the way.
I think they're going to end up empowering Turkey.
I think they're going to end up empowering Turkey.
And everybody's going to regret having a much more powerful Turkey.
Well, they've become significantly more Islamic over the last 20 years.
The leadership has, yes.
The public has to some extent, yes.
The whole secular experiment died in Turkey.
Lord Inquisitor Hector says, "At this point if Trump went to Israel and said you either knock this off or toss you so far under the bus and abandon you to the point you'd be pulling a drive shaft out of your ass, I'd be okay with that." Mathurin says, "Dan, it's not that the mullahs hate America, it's they hate America while having nukes." Yeah, I mean, so does North Korea and Pakistan.
Yeah.
Someone online says Obama was the first Nobel Peace winner to bomb another Nobel Peace Prize winner.
Who did he bomb that had a Nobel Peace Prize?
I don't know.
Was it?
I'm trying to think that.
Palestinian guy?
No, he didn't bomb Arafat.
Arafat was long dead.
I might look that up.
I might look that up.
Right.
For the murderous parliament, they will fight tooth and nail for the right to euthanize anyone from babies to troubled adults through to terminal patients.
But God forbid we euthanize a single rapist or murderer.
That's such an important point.
They are not willing to kill for justice, but they are willing to kill the vulnerable.
That's an excellent point.
Thank you.
It's only considered in alleviating the pain of the state for having to deal with you and not the victims who might want a glimmer of justice.
Yes.
That's Omar Awad.
Thank you, Omar.
That's an excellent comment.
Federal agent.
I know a grandmother who was given the wrong medication by the NHS, which gave her a heart attack.
At 7 a.m. the next morning, when the family weren't there, two doctors came to ask her to sign a do not resuscitate order.
The banality of evil.
Yeah, that's happened to a friend of mine's relatives as well.
They tried to sneak in these DNRs and it's gotten so bad that you have to be connected to somebody at the leadership of the hospital, like actually have Middle Eastern style connections, and then they'll get you off the DNR if you have these connections.
But they are prioritizing.
Killing, not healing.
The NHS is a disaster.
Paul Neubauer, why not make abortion legal up until age 18?
Yeah, it's the same principle.
Federal agent, the NHS is their god and it demands sacrifice.
Unfortunately true.
Lord Inquisitor Hector Rex, Canada's assisted suicide, now accounts for...
No, it's 4.7% and it's the third largest cause of death, I believe.
But there's an issue, I think, in how they count.
And it's only increasing.
Yeah, the pace of increase has slowed down, but it's increasing.
And overwhelmingly, it's white elderly people who are being euthanized in Canada.
Someone online says, you do not need the government in order to kill yourself, lady.
Stop trying to make murder an institution.
Exactly.
Dirty Belter, the baby doesn't have a soul.
The baby is just raw material to be disposed of so you can continue to sleep around believing there is no consequence.
I hate liberalism.
This is what results when you take the clockwork, soulless view of the world.
Exactly.
If there is life after death, then these people are in for a reckoning.
Yep.
Yep, and there is.
Chance Bell, the left is literally a death cult, focused against the innocent and the good and the vulnerable.
That's the worst part about it.
Paul Neubauer, why not make abortion?
Yep, read that.
AZ Desert Rat, here's what I don't get.
The NHS doesn't want to pay for lifelong care for people who are considered terminal.
However, they are perfectly happy to create a lifelong patient through gender-affirming care.
The math ain't mathing.
That's because it's spiritual malaise.
It's not just the economics of it.
If it was just the economics of it, you'd sort of mix together elderly care and child care, and you'd find a solution that way.
But it's a spiritual malaise.
Ewan Baker, so now won't sound schizo when I say the government wants to kill me just for being autistic and having fibromiagla.
No, no.
I did find out who Obama bombed.
So basically, it wasn't an individual, but Medicine Sans Frontier, so Doctors Without Border, they collectively won a Nobel Peace Prize.
And they had a hospital in Afghanistan and Obama bombed it.
And apparently Obama did quip when he got his Nobel Peace Prize that he got it because he bombed all the other contestants.
Literally turned out to be true.
Right, so someone online says, I think a big part of nothing ever happens, how Gen Z has been constantly fear-mongered since we were kindergartners.
We were told the world was about to end because of terrorism.
We were told the world was about to end from global warming.
We were told the world was about to end from overpopulation.
The world is still here.
Nothing ever happens.
That makes more sense.
That makes a lot more sense, yes.
Yes.
It's more, you know, being against sensationalism and panic.
I would accept that definition, yeah.
Furious Dan.
Perhaps the only thing that ever happens is the friends we made along the way.
I very much enjoyed Stelius' meme review and look forward to more.
Are you going to do more meme reviews?
Yeah, I want to do some more fun stuff.
Yeah.
Lord Inquisitor Hector Rex, thank you so much for this segment, Stelius, but I question if it actually happened.
Probably do.
Right, and Chance Bell, nothing ever happens, guys, are mostly of the opinion that things happen, but nothing substantial changes.
Despite a populist leader winning, the US still goes to war with Middle Eastern Freddie Holes and sends all your tax dollars to Israel.
This is what they are lamenting, in my opinion.
Naomi Roberts, when it comes to nothing ever happens, I consider it an extra layer of protection for my brain.
Why soon worry when what must amount to 75% of the news stories do not come to pass?
Fear porn for clicks in the attention economy.
Absolutely.
And I think that goes even before Gen Z. It was constantly the case that everyone was saying the world is about to end.
Didn't American school children have to run under their desks to practice what they would do in the event of a nuclear strike or something like that?
Definitely.
Also, we had the New Left in the 60s and 70s talking about all the destruction of the Earth.
Then that went to global warming.
Then there was global dimming.
So in order to not get sucked into the nothing ever happened meme, all you need to do is consistently ignore left-wingers so that you don't get...
That's just what I go by.
You don't have to take it literally.
Like, oh, okay, I just saw something happening.
So therefore you're false.
It's more an issue of how you think of what you are exposed to when it comes to communication.
I'm going to help you upgrade the nothing ever happens meme.
On my X, there is a post about a Lebanese saxophonist who is playing his best melodies while Iranian missiles are falling into Israel.
Oh yes, I saw that, yes.
So I think that's the ultimate expression of nothing ever happens.
The music must go on or something.
Yeah, we could show the bomb, but it's okay.
I think that was a fun way to end the podcast today because it was a bit bleak.
It was a little bit bleak, yes.
Sorry.
Okay, so thank you very much for being here with us.
I really enjoyed it and hope to see you tomorrow at 1 p.m.
We have something afterwards.
Do we?
I don't know.
Do we?
No.
Okay.
No, nothing ever happens to Leo.
How do you do that on purpose?
Realpolitik is on Monday next week.
See you tomorrow.
Have a good one.
Tomorrow, 1pm.
▲
Export Selection