Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 25, 2025 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:41:08

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1194

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters.
	Today is Wednesday, the 25th of June, and this is episode 1194.
	I'm pleased today to be joined by Brother Stephen and Brother Harry.
	Hello.
	Going back to the old brother thing, are we?
	I forgot to bring my hood with me.
	And we are going to discuss the ongoing developments of the Carmelo Anthony trial, the MAGA versus fake MAGA wars or FAGA wars, and how Democrats, judges, I thought we'd agree.
	Pronounced Fager.
	Faga.
	The Faga.
	Although I will, before we're on YouTube, I will say the FAGA Wars as much as possible.
	FAGA Wars is a great name for it.
	Well, yeah, yeah.
	I'm just wondering whether we're, hope, not, hate, will be at us again with FAGA Wars.
	It comes with an A. Yeah, but it could end up with an OT.
	All right.
	There's no hard R at the end of this, all right?
	It's an A at the end.
	It's an A. There's no O T at the end of it either.
	We are all inclusive in this station.
	Exactly.
	So Carmelo Anthony is obviously guilty.
	Harry, do you want to start with your segment?
	You are going to make us very angry.
	We're not going to talk about the faggers anymore.
	We are going to talk about them.
	Okay, all right.
	I need to build some anticipation for the faggots.
	Yeah, but what about Firas?
	We're on YouTube now, so I'll have to save it for when we're off of YouTube again.
	So yeah, Carmelo Anthony, obviously guilty.
	You all probably remember the case from earlier on this year, but I'm going to go over a little bit of it again and then give you an update.
	First, though, on the website, subscribe to the website to get access to so much great content, including now the very first episode of Real Politique with Fierus Modad.
	It's politique, right, when you say it like that, or is it politique?
	I don't know.
	It says.
	Real Politique.
	Real Politique.
	Who cares?
	Real Politique.
	Just watch it.
	It sounds like a Spanish football team.
	Yeah.
	Just watch it.
	If you want to be informed and know what's going on and know what opinions to give to your friends to make it seem like you're interesting and smart and know about things, then watch this.
	Watch this to become suddenly far more attractive to the opposite sex.
	There you go.
	Alright, so nice reminder for everybody.
	I'm not left-handed, so this is very awkward.
	Switching, switching, switching.
	I'm still using the Sadiq Khan mug for some reason.
	I went on autopilot this morning and just started filling it up.
	And now it looks like I am a super fan of Sadiq Khan.
	And now New Yorkers are going to have a similar cup.
	Yeah, they're going to have a similar feeling to what I feel right now.
	Yeah, but once you're in Sadiq's clan, he never lets you go.
	It's like a disease.
	Wondered where you were going with that sentence then.
	So let's remind everybody of what happened.
	So here's some footage from earlier on this year, back in April.
	This chappie right here, who's a bit blurry in this video.
	Oh, God, it'll do the audio, won't it, right?
	Play.
	There we go.
	There he is.
	This dead-eyed young man.
	Oh, God.
	Right here, that's Carmelo Anthony.
	He is a suspected, alleged murderer who is currently being investigated.
	He is going to be on trial soon enough.
	The reminder for everybody what happened earlier on this year in Texas, there was a sports event going on one day where two schools were participating in the event.
	I believe it was a running event or track event, something along those lines.
	Austin Metcalf and his brother were members of one school.
	Carmelo Anthony was a member of the other school.
	Carmelo Anthony came over to sit under the other school's tent.
	Austin Metcalf approached him and said, you shouldn't be here.
	Can you please leave?
	At which point, Carmelo Anthony began acting suspicious, backing up, reaching for his bag and saying, come at me and see what happens.
	This was all part of the affidavits and the police report, which you could find online available to the public when this incident first happened.
	Upon being provoked, Austin Metcalf did reach for him, at which point Carmelo Anthony pulled out a knife and stabbed Austin Metcalfe to death right then and there.
	Pretty horrifying incident.
	He was then arrested and a number of other things came out.
	The most famous thing that happened at the time was Austin Metcalfe's dad came out into the public and said that this was not anything to do with race.
	Don't make it about race.
	Pay no attention to the fact that this is just another case of unprovoked violence of black versus white, which only ever tends to go in one direction, whereas the media narratives would have you believe the other way.
	It came across very strange that that was immediately where he would go to in an interview when he wasn't prompted to, which got a lot of people thinking and looking into why that might be the case, because there is government involvement in these situations.
	And that's when we did a segment that Roareg Nationalist did on this called Government-Enforced Anti-White Racism, which has been expanded upon slightly with a recent video from the academic agent called Did a Secret Agency Really Control the Civil Rights Revolution?
	And what this is in regards to is a government agency for the United States.
	I think they're called the Civil Relations.
	I've forgotten what they're called all of a sudden.
	Apologies, folks.
	But there is a, under the Johnson administration, there was a department of the government opened that operates in relative secrecy that is dedicated to maintaining community relations and racial relations within the United States.
	And what this means is that whenever there is a racially aggravated crime committed that could look bad in the media, they are the ones who end up going out.
	We don't know if they declare which department that they are from, but they basically say, we're from the government, and they hand you a script or bullet points on what you have to say to ensure that nothing inflames community tensions.
	I'd recommend watching both of these videos.
	Why does no one ever say no to them after all the cases then?
	I would assume fear.
	Fear of the fact that...
	Why does no one ever mention it either?
	One, people's bias, which is to not want to rock the boat.
	So they worry that violence could beget more violence, and they're told by the government.
	Somebody comes to you from the government saying, if you inflame this further, we could see more violence.
	People don't want that on their conscience.
	And secondly, somebody comes to you saying, We're from the government, do this.
	There's a natural assumption that consequences will follow if you don't.
	So I think it's fear and people's natural predisposition to not want to rock the boat in a situation like this, especially when you're already going through a tragedy of having lost your son.
	Yeah, I suppose they must deal with people who, if it was like me, I wouldn't give two flying F's to play into the government's narrative on something like this either.
	But most people are normies and don't like to pay as much attention to this sort of stuff that we do.
	And it is very, very dark that the United States government feels that instead of actually dealing with these problems and preventing them, all it wants to do in the same way that our government does with Raikou and all of the other things that go on with the Home Office, they just want to manage the perception after the fact, after something has already happened.
	Either way, some of the other things that happened was that, oh yeah, his judge at the hearings initially put his bail at $1 million, and then that was reduced to $250,000 because there was a case made that, oh, we're a working family, we need the money, we can't raise the money, despite the fact you only need to pay about 10% of the bail anyway.
	Despite the fact that they are not just a working family, they put up a GoFundMe, which was immediately flooded with people who were giving donations for the sake of the killer's family.
	Whether or not you think he's guilty of first-degree murder, Carmelo Anthony has already admitted that he killed him.
	The case comes down to whether it is in self-defense or not.
	Either way, large swaths of American society see a black kid murder or kill a white kid and decide they're the real victims because they're victims of systemic racism, white oppression, all of these other buzzwords and say, we're going to financially support that.
	And loads of them left comments on this GoFundMe page that were pretty reprehensible saying, you're fighting the good, fight Carmelo.
	Show them what's what.
	We need to show these oppressors what's coming for them.
	Very South African, if I'm frank about it.
	Did they raise half a million dollars for him?
	Yes, and they continually changed the description of the fundraiser as well, because at first it heavily implied that this would be money going towards the bail funds.
	And then after they raised more money than they would need for the bail funds, it suddenly became about maintaining living standards for the family because the father, Mr. Anthony, was going to have to take time off of work to be there with his kids, etc., etc.
	This all despite the fact that they were already living in a $900,000 gated community home.
	Can I say something also real quick?
	If you could go please back to the previous link you were showing, the first line, that's the line of the account.
	Maybe that's not the exact way it was communicated, but it says this.
	That's not how it was communicated.
	I think we can all understand that that was the underlying reason.
	But if that's the underlying reason and lots of stats and considerations were given in favor of that verdict, that means that this judge appealed to rhetoric that other people aren't allowed to appeal to.
	Yes, and ironically enough as well, this judge Angela Tucker, if you look into her, I believe her political affiliation's a GOP.
	She's a Republican as well, which meant above party affiliation, there was a racial bias that went into this above principle.
	But if you take back to that organisation and it becomes a bit more interesting, if they're willing to ensure that the families shut up and that the families have to abide by the lines that they've created, what prevents them from having the similar discussions to judges or others to indicate that you would get preferment on your political and or judicial wrong of power if you just made sure that this
	was quietened down and calmed down in a different way?
	Just as there are those who argue that our judicial system has done so to Lucy Connolly, for example.
	No evidence for it.
	But when you have the dirty hand of secret government agencies behind it, anything's possible, is it not?
	No, and certainly I've been reading a book recently which is very, very interesting, which is what's called Generation 68. Now, the author is quite controversial, but the actual information within the book, I've been verifying all of it as I go along, and I will be using that information for projects in the future, goes into quite a lot of detail about how the youth movements of the 1960s that erupted into all of this civil rights fervor back then,
	which this department of the government goes into, were initially seeded in the late 1940s, post-war and the 1950s, primarily by the deep State Department and the CIA of America.
	And the reason for that seems to have been as a foreign policy outreach so that countries that were going to be separated from European imperial policy would be more likely to align themselves with the US rather than the Soviets when they gained their independence, which the US was actively hoping for as well.
	So they were ceding money to student associations, to radical feminists.
	Gloria Steinem, she was paid by the CIA, and she was one of the first wave.
	We've done that for a long time.
	MI6, so there's the question of the 1960s, all of the civil rights movements and everything.
	How much of any of it was ever organic and not just cultural and regime changed pushed by shadowy government organizations?
	So there's no doubt in my mind that they could easily influence judges as well.
	In this case, it might have been that.
	I don't see as much reason to believe that that might have been the case.
	I think that this was just a judge going easy on the kid.
	Yeah, I'm probably right on that.
	Harry, I've heard that the Civil Rights Act goes further than just arguing for equality of rights, I've heard that there are some other things that lots of people don't know which could be seen as the progenitor of wokeness.
	Am I wrong?
	Yes, there are arguments that can be made from that, from Christopher Caldwell's The Age of Entitlement book.
	But mainly a lot of that stuff, I think, God forbid that I infer his name, but Richard Hanania has a book on this called The Origins of Woke as well, which traces a lot of it back to legal practice that was started from the Civil Rights Act.
	Taken on its face, the actual text of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 doesn't have anything that's too disagreeable because it should apply equally to everybody.
	But interpretations from judges, extra departments and executive orders that were passed mainly by the late 60s and late 70s paved the way for modern wokeness as a legal structure rather than just ideology.
	We have this across the spectrum.
	Race Relations Act was pretty fine in the UK when that was initiated.
	One can understand it.
	It was the amendments that have made the additional elements.
	UN Refugee Convention, perfectly fine in its initial until it had the amendments, and then judicial activism and the extension.
	The extension are very much 70s to 80s kind of growth periods and all of them.
	So, you know, going on here, maybe that organisation has expanded and grown as well, as well.
	Yeah, I would love to go into more detail on this, but it's getting a bit off topic now.
	So carrying on, just to remind everybody as well, one of the people involved in this, a guy who decided to involve himself as the spokesperson for Carmelo Anthony was Dominique Alexander.
	He showed up with this.
	And to remind everybody who Dominique Alexander is, let me see if they've got a picture of him here.
	He's this gentleman on the left.
	Here's a picture of Austin Metcalf, the murdered boy.
	So Minister Dominique Alexander was a Dallas-based defund the police activist and social justice leader.
	He'd been involved.
	He was the head of an organization called Next Generation Action Network.
	And there are some allegations that you can find online that seem to be backed up pretty well, that that organization continually subtly changes its name and reorganizes itself every single time tax returns need to be filed.
	So there seems to be possibly an element of scam there.
	They were the ones involved in the defense and spokesperson.
	Alexander, it says here, his comments went viral across social media.
	People started to look back upon his criminal record because there was lots of documentation of local media reports of this guy's background.
	A Fox News digital review also exposed his longtime support for defunding the police and his ties to former squad House Democrat and Defund the Police activist Corey Bush, who he was a big part in supporting at the time.
	So they say that in 2019, and I went over this at the time, but just a reminder of some of his greatest hits, there was an arrest warrant affidavit for Alexander where his partner, Kaira Saunders, had reported to the police that he had shoved her and tried to strangle her.
	He had served two days in jail in 2021 after pleading guilty to a felony theft case.
	That was a case of a judge going incredibly easy on him for two days.
	In 2016, he was sentenced to two years in prison for repeatedly violating his probation.
	Of course, I don't believe he actually served much, if any, of that time.
	Another local report from 2009 details how he was arrested for allegedly causing serious head injuries to his then-girlfriend's two-year-old son while babysitting.
	He initially told police that the boy had fallen off of the couch while he was in the other room, but later admitted to shaking the child, and the judge charged him with a first-degree felony.
	Again, reports on how much time he may or may not have spent in prison for that.
	Sounds a perfectly decent guy you'd love to bring home to your family, wouldn't he?
	Certainly the guy you would want representing you in a case where you're trying to present yourself as being innocent.
	Of course, he has always stated that what's actually been happening is that the evil white oppressor has been trying to keep him down, even in situations where he's admitted to wrongdoing.
	And that's what he's trying to do with Carmelo Anthony as well.
	So the developments that have gone on since then are that the Collin County District Attorney Greg Willis has announced that the grand jury has indicted Carmelo Anthony for first degree murder in the Frisco track meet stabbing of Austin Metcalf.
	So the trial has not been scheduled yet, but that is what he will be tried against, first degree murder.
	Also, some of the interesting stuff that's gone on, I wasn't aware of this at the time, but some publications like the Daily Mail and others were given access to footage that had been captured of the incident.
	And in the Daily Mail write-up, this post has just highlighted the most important stuff from it.
	They make the case that there was no confrontation that should be beneficial to a self-defense plea for Carmelo Anthony.
	So they describe Anthony has admitted to the stabbing, but maintains he acted in self-defense, claiming the truth will come out.
	Initially, Frisco police said an altercation between the teens led to the violent encounter, and there were all sorts of rumors going around that they were going to the same school together, which was wrong.
	That they had known each other before, which was wrong.
	One of the big ones that was going around was that they were going to school together, knew each other, and that Austin Metcalf was a longtime bully of Carmelo Anthony.
	That was completely wrong.
	Complete strangers meeting for the very first time that day in this encounter, which ended up in murder.
	Were there no witnesses there?
	There were quite a few witnesses, which is where the affidavits and the police reports come from.
	And that's where you know that, I mean, his brother was there.
	Austin Metcalfe's brother held him in his arms as he was dying.
	It's pretty horrifying.
	And the police reports as well are where we get the reports of, well, what happened was Carmelo Anthony came over, sat under there.
	People suspect, and I think this is probably right, although it can't be proved.
	It's just suspicions that the reason that Carmelo Anthony had come under the tent in the first place was probably to steal from other people's backpacks while they weren't looking, which is probably why he became So defensive when he was confronted by Austin Metcalf.
	But that's where we get the reports of when Austin approached him and confronted him.
	Where we get Carmelo Anthony saying things like, Come at me and see what happens, provoking the incident to escalate.
	But carrying on, the footage reviewed by the Daily Mail at the Frisco Independent School District's headquarters shows no obvious physical confrontation between the two prior to the stabbing.
	Daily Mail did not detect anything that indicated chaos was about to ensue.
	Strict guidelines were enforced for viewing the footage.
	Reporters were only permitted to take handwritten notes and were barred from capturing or republishing stills or clips.
	The district allowed limited release because the students' identities are not easily discernible in the video.
	Captured by a high-angle camera positioned near the press box and typically used for football broadcasts, the footage shows the tent at the top left of the screen.
	Students are sitting idly beneath it, waiting for competition to start.
	Then seemingly out of nowhere, it becomes apparent that the moment has happened when an armed Anthony attacked Metcalf.
	The stabbing itself is not visible on camera, but the reaction is immediate.
	Students are seen fleeing from under the tent.
	While police later confirmed Anthony fled the scene, he cannot be clearly identified in the footage.
	So what they're saying there, the footage that you can see, as much as it doesn't show that much, it doesn't show any kind of major physical confrontation prior to the stabbing, which leads me to believe that this altercation was primarily, as would be suspected from the affidavits and the witness reports, verbal.
	Until all of a sudden you're stabbed to death.
	Just saying, hey, this isn't your tent.
	Go away, please.
	Bam, dead.
	It's as simple as that.
	And so Carmelo Anthony, now, he's been on house arrest since he was released on bond in April 14th.
	If convicted, he could face a possible sentence of 5 to 99 years or life in prison.
	In the Texas criminal system, 17-year-olds are considered adults, which is why he's being charged.
	Anthony's attorney, Mike Howard, released a video statement after the indictment, saying in part, Carmelo and his family are confident in the justice system and the people of Collin County to be fair and impartial.
	Of course, Carmelo looks forward to his day in court because it's only in a trial that the full story can be heard and that impartial justice can be done.
	We expect that when the full story is heard, the prosecution will not be able to rule out the reasonable doubt that Carmelo Anthony may have acted in self-defense.
	So we're using a lot of hedge words there.
	Reasonable doubt that he may.
	I understand that he is.
	Yeah, but I don't think you can really use a knife for self-defense.
	Well, certainly in a situation.
	Not unless someone else has got another knife or a gun being pointed at you.
	Yeah, all of the witness reports, even if it was going to turn into a physical confrontation, it does sound like A, he was provoking a physical confrontation, and B, he already had the knife with him in his backpack, which raises the question, why did he bring that to school in the first place?
	I understand in America, people are allowed to carry weapons, but I'm pretty certain, I've read people reporting that even in schools, you're not supposed to bring knives into school the same way you're not supposed to bring guns into school.
	We do that in London now, and probably have it in Manchester and Nottingham and other towns as well.
	I think the self-defense case is a stretch, but I understand that they've been hired to defend him, so that's what they've got to do.
	The next step in the process will be assigning a trial judge who will set a first appearance court date.
	That first appearance could be days, weeks, or months down the road, so we'll see what happens.
	They also, in this on CBS News, say that they looked at the surveillance footage, and they basically confirm what the Daily Mail said.
	About 9.55, a sudden movement is seen under the tent, followed by interaction between two figures.
	Frisco ISD officials said that this is the moment the stabbing occurred.
	Several people can be seen walking or running away while others approached the area.
	Once the arresting officer, who got Anthony, said, I have the alleged suspect in custody, Anthony reportedly told the officer, I'm not alleged, I did it.
	Anthony then said that Metcalfe put his hands on him after he asked him not to, according to his affidavit.
	But all of the other witness reports say that he was provoking and trying to get a rise, escalate the encounter.
	I have a legal question that maybe, Stephen, you are the person to answer it.
	But in a case like that, wouldn't the defense be almost entirely certain?
	Centered around the notion of self-defense and also mitigating factors that could be morally exculpatory, allegedly?
	Well, I think from the side of the defense.
	If you're looking at them from the side of the defense, the first thing they would do is try to ensure that it wasn't you that was seen to be the person who actually committed the crime.
	But in this case, there's too many witnesses, the self, you know, self-visiting.
	He's admitted it, and it's admitted it.
	So then they have very limited opportunities there to kind of mitigate what they've done other than say it's self-defense.
	So that would be the first thing that we do.
	And then what you would go on then is try and find out evidence to try and suggest that he was attacked.
	The big difficulties, and shifting now to the prosecutory side, is that, you know, the chap has a knife.
	Self-defense is permissible if you're being attacked.
	But the question is then, can you use a knife to stab someone?
	When we look at cases here, when we had the farmer who shot two burglars in the house, was it possible to shoot them when they were coming into the house?
	So the question of being able to use a physical weapon like a gun or a knife is not always a very clear-cut case of saying it's self-defense.
	There has to be something much stronger to suggest that you can use that.
	The other aspects they'll be looking at is whether it's negligence so that they can turn around and say, look, this is manslaughter.
	What we're trying to look at is manslaughter.
	There was no intention to kill.
	So murder is, in terms of the UK, malice aforethought, is about the intention that you're going to either recklessly or intentionally kill someone.
	I think what they'll go here is try and say that this is a fight that's occurred.
	It was self-defense.
	Unfortunately, he has a knife.
	Therefore, it's not murder one in American terms, but it'll go down to the equivalent of what is manslaughter in the UK.
	So he reacted badly.
	It was all, it was just, it wasn't with the intention to kill him.
	It was a reaction.
	And that's what I think the secondary element will be.
	And all the evidence around it will be to try and work that.
	The question for the prosecution is to how to show that maybe by having the knife, maybe by the way that he created the fight or the kind of interaction, that he intended to harm there and then.
	So it's up to you, Joe Jury, to decide whether he intended to kill that person then or whether it was negligence and therefore, or in this case, a self-defense that led to manslaughter.
	But the self-defense claim fails.
	I mean, personally, given the evidence that we currently have access to, obviously the prosecution has taken about two and a half months at this point to gather as much evidence as they can.
	But the evidence that we as the public have access to, it looks like it'll be a very, very difficult case for the defence to make from where I'm sitting, because all of the evidence, in my opinion, points to the idea that Carmelo Anthony, whatever his intentions were going under that tent,
	provoked a situation where he knew he had a weapon and then stabbed Austin Metcalf completely out of proportion with any threat that he may have felt, which again was brought on himself by the fact that he was provoking it.
	So as far as I'm concerned, morally speaking, Carmelo Anthony is clearly and obviously guilty and has unnecessarily murdered a promising young man.
	There you go.
	Do you want the mouse?
	Thank you very much, Brother Harry.
	Thank you, Brother Stelios.
	We've got two rumble rants here from $5 from Hiro Sanichiban, which is a fed post.
	So thank you for the $5.
	And $2 from the Engaged for You saying, God, I love this story arc of Harry as the bringer of justice reigning condine fury down on the miscreants.
	We need a big bronze statue of him swinging a flaming sword at the troublemakers.
	Thank you for that.
	I wish there was more that I could do other than screaming into the void.
	Right, so everyone is happy.
	Lots of things happened, but also nothing happened.
	And everyone gets constantly confirmed because most people are in information bubbles.
	And in a way, I'm going to talk about the narrative wars between MAGA and the fake MAGA and how lots of people are trying to spin the narrative and have engaged in very irresponsible commentary that I think in some cases we could call cope.
	But things are ongoing.
	So the first thing to do when it comes to geopolitical commentary is to not listen to responsible voices.
	That's why the best antidote is to have our own show about it.
	And we have Firas Modad, one of the new members of our team, who has his own show, Real Politique.
	It launched two days ago.
	Definitely give it a watch.
	He is going to be talking about geopolitics and he has very interesting things to say.
	And a lot of the conversations I've had with Firas off camera have been very illuminating.
	And he's definitely a voice that should be listened to.
	Right, so everyone's happy.
	Iranian expats in Toronto are celebrating.
	You can see here the flag they have with a lion.
	Also, we see here the Iranians with the flags of the Islamic Republic are also happy and they're celebrating a victory.
	We have here Sahar Emami saying the people of Iran are celebrating victory in war.
	Mashallah, Allah grant success to those Muslims who hold firmly to the rope of Allah.
	I'm happy that she's alive because I really want to watch the next season of her show.
	The last one ended with a bang.
	So definitely watch it.
	It definitely went that line in Adam.
	Definitely with a cliffhanger and just you can't beat this.
	You can't have a more explosive studio.
	So I'm glad that she's going to come back and continue this.
	Just beginning to worry about us now.
	JD Vance is very happy.
	He says, I wonder if other VPs had as much excitement as I do.
	He's laughing.
	Yeah.
	He must have access to lots of interesting stuff, I am willing to bet.
	I do like, if you go back, just quickly look at that, sorry, and just...
	Also, now I'm going to make lots of people unhappy.
	John Bolton is happy.
	Says, well, let me say this unequivocally.
	I think President Trump made the right decision for America.
	And I think we're on the verge of potentially seeing regime change in Iran as part of that.
	It was a decisive action.
	It was the right thing to do.
	Who else?
	Now, looks like the...
	And there are differing reasons for that, because a lot of the action taken over the past few days, which seems to have de-escalated the conflict.
	For now, I don't know if we're at the end of this.
	And I think anybody declaring that this is the end of all hostilities between Israel and Iran is looking on much shorter time scales than they should be.
	But the actions taken seem to have been an attempt by everybody to save face in a way, which is why America and Iran have been exchanging phone calls saying, listen, buddy, this is what we're going to do.
	Just make sure that nobody's around.
	Love you too.
	Bye-bye.
	Kiss, kiss.
	And Iran's gone, love you too, babes.
	We're also going to fire some missiles.
	Make sure that nothing arrives.
	We're going to throw missiles at us.
	I mean, we show mass go on.
	I mean, we don't really know for sure whether Fordo has been damaged in any major way.
	There seems to be reports that the enriched uranium that was being held there had been evacuated prior to that, as well as the centrifuges that were used in the enrichment process in the first place, also seem to have been evacuated.
	And a few days after we hit them with the bunker busters, or the US did, Israel was firing more missiles at the entrance to it, which suggests that at least on the Israeli intelligence side, that they believe that either it wasn't damaged enough or there wasn't damage at all.
	So there's a lot up in the air, and a lot of the media reporting seems to have been very biased towards whichever side you're on.
	Iran's media are saying, we did it, guys.
	We proved that Israel isn't impenetrable.
	We got through the iron dome.
	We did them damage.
	That's enough for us.
	And America is saying, We did it, guys.
	We de-escalated the situation.
	Now, jobs done, mission accomplished.
	And I think this is only the beginning of what could happen in the future, especially when I think of everybody there.
	John Bolton is probably the most correct because Iran is positioned to regime change now.
	I think that was the whole game.
	That was the whole game.
	I agree very much with two things he said.
	Number one, no one is certain.
	That's why this segment is a criticism of many people who were absolutely certain that there was going to be World War III.
	And the other bit that we are looking at the timeframes, which definitely true.
	So all we are saying is what we know with the evidence that we have or with the sources that we have up to now.
	Tomorrow things may change.
	We may be talking about a very different world.
	But the fight between Israel and Iran may go along, but it looks like that a U.S. invasion of Iran looks less likely by the day.
	Well, as I covered last week, the strategic goals of the U.S. and Israel themselves do not seem to have changed.
	Israel for a long time has wanted regime change in Iran.
	America has Washington think tanker papers, policy papers going back to 2009.
	And Netanyahu, who showed last week, talking about how to do regime change.
	And even in those policy papers, there was a discussion of internal regime change alongside an illusion of diplomacy going on to make it appear on the international stage as though America was doing everything that it could to prevent that.
	So I think in the long term, Israel, the US, their foreign policy establishment still want regime change in Israel.
	I think it's happening.
	That's my concern is that whatever they've done is this prerequisite of bombing, the way that they've allowed Israel to go through all the different countries in the Middle East as the forefront, and we've seen it in Syria.
	We didn't think, many of us didn't think, that the Syrians would fall.
	We thought they'd survive, particularly with the support of Russia and maybe an element tintingly of China.
	And we're in that position now, what do we think in Iran?
	I suspect that with the numbers of people they've killed, the numbers of people they've turned, I think that a lot of people may want regime change.
	The question is what they're going to do about it.
	So for instance, you could say that lots of people would say that I'm not going to talk about the problem of Islamization of Europe on Monday and then on Tuesday cry if Islamists have no nukes.
	So you could say the question is what you're doing about it.
	And what I want to say is that the people who were absolutely certain that the US was going to invade Iran seemed to be wrong so far.
	They were absolutely certain that Trump was a neocon and it turns out they are wrong so far.
	The MAGA crowd is very happy.
	It seems like we have a New York Post here.
	MAGA voters overwhelmingly support US strikes on Iranian military.
	You see also another thing from Washington Times.
	Trump tests the limits of MAGA faithful by bombing Iran.
	But also if you scroll down a bit, there's stuff here we have also bipolitical MAGA largely falls in line on Trump's Iran strike.
	So it looks like most of MAGA thought that this was a surgical hit, just like the hit Trump did on Soleimani when he was during his first presidency, when he ordered it during his first presidency.
	Just I wanted to mention something regarding the neocon comment that you made there.
	Whether or not Trump is a neocon, I think one of the worries that people have are regarding the factions that he surrounds himself with.
	Because of course it wasn't purely neocons or people part of the Israel lobby who helped him in 2016 and in 2024 to win the presidency.
	There were lots of different factions.
	But if you look over the past six months since the beginning of his administration, the techno-globalist types, the Elon Musk, the tech bros, they've been majorly alienated recently with Elon Musk having his big crash out.
	We'll see how that develops in the future if they manage to rebuild that bridge.
	But that seems closed off at the moment.
	There was also a part of the coalition where people like Tulsi Gabbard and many of the libertarians that he brought onto his side as well, the Thomas Masseys, who were voting for him on this kind of promise, whether it was actually reflected in most of his campaign or not.
	People like to pick and choose Trump's statements and determine and kind of go from a single statement what they think Trump is, right?
	But they were going off of this promise that Trump would have no new wars.
	They saw Tulsi Gabbard and other appointments as kind of a promise towards that.
	They've been put off by this recent action.
	So I think one of the worries is the only people who have been pleased by Trump's actions over the past few weeks, the only people he's kept happy, have been the neocons and that they are one of the remaining factions around.
	It looks like a lot of MAGA people are happy because they see this as a surgical hit.
	Maybe.
	Just like he did on Suleimani.
	Maybe.
	And lots of people were happy with that.
	Do you not think that the kind of embarrassing sentence that he put on Air Force One about Tulsi Gabbard, I don't really give a damn what she thinks, is I believe that the weapons, the nuclear bombs were capable of being done within weeks.
	I think that goes to the question of who is actually advising him.
	It goes to the question whose intelligence he regards as most important.
	And that's why when you look at, whenever you have a situation like this, whether it's in geopolitics, whether it's in local politics, who are the winners?
	Ask yourself who benefits from this.
	Clearly Israel benefits from this, but who benefits from being on Israel's side?
	And that's Rubio.
	Rubio now has gained a level of influence and power that pushes him towards potentially being the next president to take on Vance.
	Vance has been shifted into a direction that he would not necessarily want it to have, which is that.
	So you're all gearing up for what's going down the line.
	We have very strange actions like Mark Levin being appointed by Trump and Christy Noam to the Department of Homeland Security Council as well, as an advisor.
	And he seems to be very, very in favor of further action, like many of the neocon types are.
	But either way, that's just, I just wanted to add that I don't want to derail this anymore, Stellias.
	Apologies.
	Thank you.
	Right, so there are several narratives that are circulating right now.
	In one respect, you could say there are as many narratives as people.
	But I want to focus on two narratives.
	And I'll be very critical of the latter without being excessively critical of people that are in some ways associated with it.
	I think some of them are, in a way, are okay-ish, but others perhaps are a bit weird.
	Let me put it this way.
	So we have one narrative that tries to present what happened as a sort of clash between MAGA people and neocons.
	And Donald Trump Jr. is one of the persons who is following this agenda a lot.
	He's pursuing this narrative, and he says that he will work to keep Warhawks and neocons from infiltrating Donald Trump's cabinet.
	Right, and I want to talk about the other side, the side that was absolutely certain that any kind of hit or strike on Iranian nuclear sites was going to result in World War III.
	They were based this on, I would say lots of them based this on Tucker Carlsen's claim during the middle of March.
	Candace Owen says that she trusts Taka Carlsen a lot.
	Lots of people do.
	So Taka has somewhat watered it down, but let me just tell you what he wrote.
	He said on March 17, it's worth pointing out that a strike on the Iranian nuclear sites will almost certainly result in thousands of American deaths at bases throughout the Middle East and cost the United States tens of billions of dollars.
	The costs of future acts of terrorism on American soil may be even higher.
	Those errant guesses, those are the Pentagon's own estimates.
	A bombing campaign against Iran will set off a war and it will be America's war.
	Don't let the propagandists lie to you.
	Now, I want to say two things that strike me.
	First of all, Tucker does seem to me to be very clever to put the word almost before certainly.
	That said, when he says a bombing campaign will set off a war, he seems to be a bit more certain.
	Let's say he doesn't, he seems to forget that close.
	And also when he says those are the Pentagon's own estimates, I struggle to believe that people in the Pentagon, all of them have the same idea, that there is a consensus about it.
	But I may be wrong.
	Whatever.
	Yeah, I think what we saw more than anything was that Iran doesn't want a war, which is why they were doing the strikes to save face, but making sure that there was plenty of awareness in advance that the strikes were going to happen on American bases to make sure that nobody died.
	And here at some point on the 16th of June, Trump said, somebody please explain to Cookie, Taker Carlson, that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.
	Right.
	Here we have Marjorie Taylor Greene, adamant that the U.S. is entering a nuclear war, World War III.
	Let us play this a bit.
	Have you lost the mouse?
	It's down.
	Yeah, the mouse.
	Listen to it.
	Tell you what, six months in.
	Six months in, Steve.
	And here we are turning back on the campaign promises.
	And we bombed Iran on behalf of Israel.
	Yes, it was on behalf of Israel.
	We are entering a nuclear war, World War III, because the entire world is going to erupt.
	And you want to know the people that are cheering it on right now?
	Their tune is going to drastically change the minute we start seeing flag-draped coffins on the nightly news, on Fox News that brainwashes all the baby boomers, and on CNN that brainwashes all the Democrat baby boomers.
	And that is exactly how this is going to go down.
	And I think, as I said, on X, we should all put World War III survivors on our CVs.
	Maybe, but I mean, I don't think she's wrong in terms of the way that Fox and CNN put their kind of media show for everybody.
	They are convincing people in a very determined way, and that fits the agenda of the neocons and the warmongerers to have it in that way.
	Well, there could be overlapping interests in some cases.
	It's not the case that, for instance, I struggle to think that the neocons were against what the MAGA people were pro when it came to Soleimani.
	the surgical hit and in the spirit of in the spirit of go to the right let's go to What I take issue with is the absolute certainty that there was going to be a war and that Trump was an Eocon and Trump did go back to his promise and the panic that resulted afterwards.
	And I will say lots of people made several clicks and posts, impressions, and they got lots of Elon backs along the way.
	Right, so here let's go to Dave Smith, who rushed again to use this propaganda, according to which World War III is just inevitable.
	And that's what I want to caution people against when people take their opinions as facts.
	Let us hear what he said here.
	And so, so, yeah, Donald Trump looks and man, I supported him this last year.
	I apologize for doing so.
	It was a bad calculation.
	At the time, it seemed like the right one.
	But he should be impeached and removed for this one.
	And not on some ridiculous Nancy Pelosi.
	Of course, the Congress will never do it because they're all a bunch of corrupt hacks.
	This is the one thing they support.
	This is like the, yeah.
	Donald Trump should be impeached and removed for this.
	All of his supporters should turn on him.
	It's the absolute betrayal of everything that he ran and campaigned on and everything That he stood for.
	And I will say, despite the fact that Donald Trump supporters have been labeled like a cult following, and that certainly is true for a percentage of his supporters, he is going to lose his coalition over this.
	I know, I don't just speak for myself, but I say there are a lot of us who simply will not go along with this.
	So it's just a devastating mistake, by the way.
	I think he's making some interesting points in terms of that.
	First of all, he's wrong to say that Donald Trump should be impeached.
	He has the authority and power to be able to make those decisions and to even do a surgical bombing of a particular position in another country.
	It's nothing that other presidents have done.
	We've seen it from Clinton, Obama, all the rest of it.
	Whether we agree with it is different.
	Does he feel that this will concern a kind of friction of factional changes within the MAGA movement?
	I do think it's going to be that, because it goes beyond just the idea of saying we're actually having a war.
	The whole purpose of Donald Trump was that he will keep out of any conflict.
	And by doing so, he looks like he's acting on behalf of Israel in doing this.
	Let's not take the arguments of whether we agree or disagree with Iran.
	Do we think they actually were close to the bomb?
	That's a different argument altogether.
	There's plenty of evidence to say they didn't.
	There's plenty of evidence to say this has been planned for a long time.
	The key point, though, is whether he has breached that trust with the MA movement, who a lot of them believed that that was a man that would never go into any conflict at all and risk America.
	Again, I'll go back to the surgical hit thing.
	He ran on a no-forever wars campaign.
	That's correct.
	But he didn't run on a no-surgical hit campaign.
	And that is also correct.
	So lots of people focused on this narrative, according to which Trump is a neocon.
	Here we have a small account that says this, but I think this account puts it well, descriptively, as far as the narrative is concerned.
	Trump has genuinely transformed MAGA and America first into fully neocon movements.
	We have here by Robert Griffin III, Donald Trump just started World War III by bombing Iran.
	Pray for us all.
	We have here Dom Luca, who basically started saying, if you posted this photo, you might be cooked for a few days, talking about a meme according to which Trump is going to unleash his inner Bush W and Dick Cheney.
	But what is interesting is that also Dom Luca was saying, we are going to war, I'm done.
	He did the exact same thing.
	There's maybe a lot of people who want to say that.
	What is Dom Luca's account?
	I don't really understand it.
	Like, what?
	So break your narrative.
	Yeah, because he would be like, oh, you have been selected.
	And he would name some random person and then nothing.
	He would break the narratives.
	I don't understand what his account is for.
	Right.
	So something that was very funny.
	I found that hilarious.
	So it had to be with the Hodge twins.
	And what they wrote on X and what they wrote on Facebook.
	On X, they said, basically, it looks like the Panicans were right.
	The neocons got US bombs dropped on Iran for Israel like they wanted.
	There's nothing exciting about war.
	The only thing we can do is now pray for peace.
	And pray this doesn't escalate.
	We're proud that we spoke up against war.
	And on X, they said President Trump just unleashed American might, ordering a devastating attack on Iran's nuclear site of Ford, Natanz, and Asfahan, crushing their dangerous ambitions.
	For 14 years, Trump's been crystal clear.
	Iran cannot have nukes and he's followed through with a historic strike that's got the world in awe.
	You get the idea.
	You could see in the replies that they'd posted that they have somebody else running their social media accounts on all the other platforms rather than just Twitter.
	And you can tell just looking at that, okay, that's something that some PR social media manager put together with all the emojis and stuff.
	But yeah, maybe double check your messaging.
	Yeah.
	Maybe just actually.
	It's yours, so therefore you're in control of it.
	In charge of it.
	That's amazing.
	Yeah, I was sent this allegedly person, this person who allegedly represents MAGA, and this is the Scorpion Netanyahu behind Trump.
	It's an old story, isn't it?
	It's a good old story.
	Very good story.
	Let's see what's going to happen now.
	Trump seemed very unhappy with both Iran and Israel.
	Yeah, no, there's no doubt.
	I think the F-word, but also what went on before, he was pretty unhappy about it.
	And now I do like this.
	No, I'm not going to play, but the Hodghwins do now go on the other side.
	They take this from Casino, and they have where the Italian is talking to someone allegedly Robert De Niro's character.
	So they went to the other side.
	There are reports from presidents going back to Carter that like at one point during every presidency, Israel will just piss you off.
	However, apparently infuriating.
	And I'll wrap it up a bit because I'm cautious about time.
	I think this is the biggest cope I've seen.
	Jason Whitlock says, responds to Jillian Anderson, who said, everyone who decided to jump off the Trump bandwagon this week looks real dumb right now.
	Jason Whitlock responds, respectfully disagree.
	MTG, Alex Jones, Taka, et cetera, put enough pressure on President Trump and Israel to make a ceasefire for now the only option.
	So what I think this is, it's beyond dumb, but the point is that Jason Whitlock is not dumb.
	And I think that lots of people are hiding behind this because they are erecting a new cultist way of looking at things, according to which Trump is a neocon.
	And all that prevents Trump from unleashing his inner Dick Cheney is being on the content meal of people like that.
	So sorry, I think that this presupposes that Trump has betrayed MAGA and people who continue doing this rather than saying, right, it looks like we were a bit more, it looks like we were thinking a bit too fast, they seem to be forwarding a narrative which is presupposing That Trump has already betrayed MAGA and that they are the real MAGA and they try to co-opt it.
	I mean, for me, I think this is all part of American foreign policy, which stretches out far beyond Donald Trump.
	I don't think it's changed.
	You're right.
	I agree.
	Personally, I don't think Donald Trump was in that much of control.
	I'm glad that the situation has de-escalated.
	But Donald Trump's own statements on the subject changed from day to day.
	It was very, very confusing.
	If there was a plan to trust, I'm struggling to see what it was.
	But also some of these people, and that's why I'm particularly annoyed at this narrative, not only is it particularly dangerous, a lot of them rush to say everyone who disagrees with us is a neocon shill.
	And just one thing.
	I think there's a depth to this.
	I mean, the very clear argument that Trump really didn't want to have any sort of war in the Middle East.
	I think that's been part of his DNA on there.
	He surrounded himself with part of a coalition that he thought was going to work on this.
	But once he's in power, just as he was like last time, the strength of the warmongers, the neocons, the deep state, the military-industrial contracts, is so powerful that they've been able to manipulate from behind the scenes.
	The fact that Rubio is up there with such strength, and there are others within the cabinet, that all they've done is being able to just push this agenda.
	In addition to the fact that he received $100 million in terms of his campaign from some of his supporters who were very, very pro-Israel, that he's then been under pressure to be able to respond to that.
	And I suspect that the bombing of the kind of Fordo and the others was just an attempt for him to be able to now do a PR stunt to say, look, I'm not, this is my view.
	I've not left you, MAGA.
	I don't want to have a war, but I go along with yourself.
	This is a continuation of a long-term strategy by those neocons and the warmongers to ensure that we've got regime change all the way across, and that's what's going to happen in Iran.
	Coming or otherwise, that regime change will happen unless China steps up.
	I have no great love for the IRGC or the Mullers.
	My main fear, as with any kind of regime change in the Middle East, is that, like the past 30 years, it goes terribly wrong and results in floods.
	We suffer from it.
	You're correct.
	America.
	America doesn't suffer from it.
	Europe and Britain suffers from it.
	And I think Trump knows this, and I think he bets on the following contingency.
	The best way for there to be a regime change that is stable is from the inside, is from the Iranians themselves.
	That's why I think most probably he will honor his promise.
	And I'll just end with this, that people should be very careful with respect to who they are following and who they are listening to.
	I'm very tired of the mainstream media propaganda and the propaganda that they have been trying to sell to all of us.
	I'm not going to rush to any kind of anti-propaganda that says the exact opposite thing.
	I want to think clearly and I want everyone to take things with a pinch of salt.
	So thank you very much.
	All right.
	We've got quite a few rumble rants from that.
	If we want to go through a few quickly, Wesley 1924 says Trump is a wild card, but I think it's better than politicians who double down on bad ideas to avoid looking weak.
	Really true.
	AD after 25 years in the sandbox, most techer types have a reasonable fear of just one quick airstrike, bro.
	Trump doing Ganbo diplomacy without 10 years of nation building is new to them.
	Yeah, and I think with Tucker.
	That's a fair point.
	You've got to remember with Tucker that he has admitted in that Ted Cruz interview to having been a cheerleader for the Iraq war a few decades ago.
	So I think he's very wary of repeating his own mistakes.
	Which is why I didn't particularly focus on him.
	Yeah.
	Despite the fact that I'm generally sick.
	That's a random name.
	We can't read that one.
	Can I read this one, though?
	The Benegesserit informed the Emperor that the Fremen were weeks away from having atomics.
	The bombing of their situations brought great joy to the Imperial Court.
	The spice must flow.
	Spice is the most valuable substance in the universe.
	We've got a few from Sigilstone as well, if you'd want to read those.
	Yeah, I like that.
	Okay, so Sigilstone 17 says Trump's partisans are happy along with the neocons and Zionists.
	It says awful lot of overlap between all three, but why the MAGA is not happy?
	We didn't want this.
	Sigilstone 17 also says Trump's going to look like a massive fool for this strike.
	These people don't even just stop and sign an agreement.
	Bolton wouldn't be happy if a fuse didn't get lit.
	Trump done effed up.
	It remains to be seen.
	I do think a fuse has been lit, but I think most of the rest of the action is going to be in the Middle East and probably internally within Iran from this point onwards.
	The Engaged Fuse says, Trump understands that in realpolitik, nations don't have to fight actual wars as long as they're seen by their people as defending their nation's interests.
	And this other one from Sigilstone is related to my segment.
	Murder one requires pre-planning.
	Pretty impossible to mount a self-defense claim against Murder One because they have evidence of his intent.
	And I would imagine with Carmelo Anthony, that's why the prosecution has taken two and a half months to gather all of the evidence for what appears to be an open and short case because they want it to be very tight.
	Well, thanks, Dallas.
	What we've got here is we're looking like we're having a really big American Day.
	At a particular note, it's not July the 4th, so for some reason we're all concentrating on that.
	And that's because there's so many big, interesting stories, and like what we've just been discussing about the geopolitics of the world and Iran and Middle East, Israel, the United States, Europe, all of that, how it impacts us in the future and whether we do have a World War III.
	That is all being dealt with.
	If you look at the new freemium by Firas Modat on real politics, he really starts to give you the opportunity through his episodes to try and understand the backgrounds to where all these big ideas are coming from, who the big players are, what the big philosophical and future concepts are going to be, and really where the battles are in the future.
	So as we're discussing this, I think if you look at Real politic with Firas Madad, you'll start to understand a little bit more and in depth of some of these big discussions we have on our shows.
	And in one of those, we come down to a little bit more of rather than a global politics, really an internal politic that's been happening in the US.
	Trump got into power, as we know, with a big decision-making to change and rip the kind of consensus away from immigration, close the borders, which is done in the southern border and the one with Canada very quickly, and start to move to deportations.
	He has backed down to a certain extent on the deportations of those people in the retail sector in farming.
	He's allowing them because of the pressure of big corporates and certainly some of the largest food corporations, the big farmers.
	Don't forget, there's only four companies that effectively control about 80% of our food in the West.
	And three of them are in the United States with their big farms.
	And they've got a lot of power because they want cheap farm labor.
	He's backed down on that.
	But where he hasn't backed down so far is in terms of removing those he regards as criminals or those he regards as threats of the state and calls them internal terrorists acting on behalf of others.
	And in one of those particular cases, there was a deportation that was blocked by a Boston judge.
	As the migrants were, I like the way that Yahoo News puts it here, as migrants.
	But the illegal migrants, because they were all illegal, they hadn't actually got their passports or the ability to deport.
	I don't think a shipping container is the typical safe pathway.
	No, no, they were all on a plane.
	They were all being flown out to South Sudan in this particular instance, bypassed, as it goes here.
	They were on a deportation flight bound initially for South Sudan.
	And now they're being stuck in a naval base in Djibouti.
	And they're all in a converted shipping container.
	Three of the ICE individuals.
	And the reason why they did that is you'd think they've been arrested, ICE have got them, they've all had their ability to be challenged, although they say they haven't.
	And then a district judge by the name of Brian E. Murthy, based in Boston, who was overseeing a lawsuit challenging the immigration efforts to swiftly remove these migrants.
	Does that kind of seem like a standard thing that we face here in the UK?
	Just as we're getting onto a plane to Rwanda, as we're trying to deport someone, along come the lawyers into a court and at the last minute say these murderers and abusers can't leave.
	Well, that's exactly what happened here.
	This is pretty normal where a judge will just step in and say, no, you can't do that.
	And whether or not they have a legal leg to stand on doesn't matter as much as the fact that they can just indefinitely delay with bogus legal challenges again and again and again any of the sort of removal of these people.
	And that's what we have here.
	Absolutely.
	I agree.
	So we have a judge who's now going to become quite famous as Judge Brian E. Murphy for lots of different reasons.
	Because his order there that you had to delay, he gave two orders in fact, but one of them was that you must return these and swiftly bring the eight migrants back.
	And they come from Cuba, Vietnam, from the East African nation back to the US.
	So the Department of Justice appealed.
	And they appealed to the highest court of the land, the Supreme Court.
	And they won, basically.
	The Supreme Court said, no, we're going to lift the limits on the deportations to third-party countries.
	There were three liberal justices that dissented.
	And one of them is quite important to put down there if it's in there.
	And that is Judge Sotomeya.
	It'll come back to this.
	She regarded her colleagues as rewarding lawlessness.
	That's nice, isn't it?
	There you are.
	A team of Supreme Courts.
	I disagree with you, but you're rewarding lawlessness.
	And the lawlessness apparently appears to be that Trump is actually trying to get rid of violent criminals.
	And she says, apparently the court finds that the idea that thousands will suffer violence in far-flung locales more palatable than the remote possibility that a district court exceeded its remedial powers when ordered the government to provide notice and process to which the plaintiffs are constitutionally and statutorily entitled.
	The rise of the discretion is an incomprehensible as it is inexcusable, which is what is being used by the other judges.
	Is the Joker part of U.S. justice?
	It does look like that, but basically she is saying that we have remedial powers, that we have to have notice and process which plaintiffs are allowed to come to a court and say, please don't remove me, even though I've murdered several people and I don't have a right to be here.
	But I want you to argue that I can stay here.
	We've got that.
	Maybe the chicken nuggets in South Sudan are not acceptable, but if they're in this court, they'd be allowed to stay.
	So she's saying they should have their day in court, and then we do that on an individual basis.
	If you did that with the millions that need to be deported, they'd know fully well that it would take forever and a day to remove them.
	And what she's also arguing is that the judges have more power at a local level to be able to do this and that the government can't remove them.
	But the point was the Supreme Court said, I'm sorry to the judge in Massachusetts, you're wrong.
	And then what we get here is a lovely bit of comment from Stephen Miller, who is the architect, many times I say, of all this policy.
	He's got literally a minute to answer.
	It's quite interesting.
	The Supreme Court win.
	It allows President Trump, as the law has long said, but the courts have blocked.
	It allows President Trump to send illegal aliens convicted of rape, murder, homicide, assault, battery, crimes against children to any country around the world that is willing to accept them.
	So whether that be South Sudan or whether it be Somalia or whether it be Ethiopia, any country in the world that is willing to accept these monsters.
	We can get them out of our country and be free of them forever.
	The only thing I have to share tonight, Sean, in a little bit of breaking news is that the district court judge in Boston has said he's going to defy the Supreme Court's ruling.
	So expect fireworks tomorrow when we hold this judge accountable for refusing to obey the Supreme Court.
	And that's Murphy that he's talking about.
	Interestingly, just quickly, I looked up Murphy, and he was also the judge behind the March attempt to block in the courts the DHS deportations back then, and he was overruled by the Supreme Court again.
	Absolutely.
	So, this guy is a repeated nuisance.
	And he was, of course, a Biden-appointed judge.
	He is, and I'm going to kind of look onto this.
	Don't worry about it.
	So, we're coming on here.
	And what's really interesting, obviously, the Supreme Court hands down a judgment.
	Yes, you can carry on.
	To be fair on them, they still have to kind of decide the overall principle back at a different level, but you can carry on.
	But this judge then decides that he is going to ignore what the Supreme Court has said.
	And we have here, this is Judge Brian Murphy, as you said, quite rightly, a Biden appointee, knows there is zero chance that an immigration judge will allow five convicted murders here illegally to remain in the U.S. But he's insisting they be brought back, and he orders them all to be brought back from Djibouti and ignores the efforts of the courts itself.
	I don't know why it's come up suddenly in a different way.
	I think Get rid of that.
	He's just trying to waste everybody's time.
	It's delay.
	It's delay tactics.
	So then we have, who is he?
	Well, this is Judge Brian E. Murphy.
	He is educated at the Holy Cross and Columbia Law School, which is known to be quite left-wing.
	And this is his courthouse in Boston.
	It's an important courthouse.
	It's a federal district court.
	So we have an element of there of being appointed there.
	He was here.
	Elizabeth Warren introduced Judge Brian Murphy, praising his dedication to the Constitution.
	And Stephen Miller announced earlier that he would expect fireworks about this.
	I can't recall whether I'm just might be a play a little bit about this.
	Thank you, Chairman Durbin.
	I appreciate the opportunity to come before you to introduce Brian Murphy, a nominee to the District Court of Massachusetts.
	Senator Markey and I were proud to recommend Mr. Murphy to President Biden for his appointment to the federal bench.
	Mr. Murphy started out as a public defender and he wants to fight for the left and gain victory for the left and constantly create pressure.
	So far, what I can see from him is his wife is in a kind of school.
	He's a bit of a left-wing supporter in Massachusetts.
	He didn't have a particularly stellar legal career.
	He was a public defender.
	But it's interesting enough that he was only appointed in December.
	So look at the time statement.
	They got him just in the middle of the gap when you had this dead wait period of time between presidents.
	And they pushed him through.
	And this is a man that so far, not once, but twice, in a six-month journey of being a kind of relatively newcomer onto the bench, has decided to try and stop any decision.
	It was just a case of trying to get a blue team loyalist on side as quickly as possible when they still had chance.
	That's all it is.
	Red team, blue team.
	I suspect that if Biden had been carrying out this kind of stuff, which he was, there were deportations under Biden.
	This guy wouldn't have blocked it because it's his team doing it.
	This is all just about undermining Trump.
	I agree.
	And what's interesting about this is when you stand for a judge in a district, you have to make, like everybody else, you have to say a few words and you have to agree with the Constitution.
	One of the very things is there is I would faithfully apply all First Circuit and Supreme Court precedent.
	So where is that faithfully applying now?
	A precedent from the Supreme Court.
	He's clearly ignored it.
	And then I ask the question, okay, well, someone will say, what about district courts?
	Are they more powerful or less powerful than the Supreme Courts?
	No.
	They are an important court.
	They're, you know, the reasonable top of the food chain in the structure of district courts where he is.
	But it's only in their relationship with their state.
	It's not when it comes down to the Supreme Court here.
	It makes absolutely clear, and this is from the own databases, that the lower courts are much inferior to the judgments of the Supreme Court.
	So here we have a man appointed only six months ago with not a particularly stellar legal career, but obviously works well within the Democratic Party.
	On being signed up to a judge, he agrees that he will take and agree with all the Supreme Court's constitutional rights and precedents.
	And he recognizes that the Supreme Court is more significant, and yet he's decided that he will overturn it for his own particular reason.
	So here we go.
	I want to go on to this.
	Who are these individuals that this individual is saying that we should?
	And I'm going to go into it first of all.
	Look at the individuals.
	I love some of them.
	They look guilty.
	Well, they just look pretty, pretty evil there.
	Look at this.
	Convicted of first-degree murder, Thongay Nikolakout, from sentenced to life confinement, homicide, armed robbery, convicted of false impunity, kidnapping, robbery, cocaine possession, cocaine trafficking.
	Oh, what a lovely bunch of individuals.
	They are second-degree murder.
	On this channel here, we have robbery, possessions of firearms, burglary, lascivious acts with a child victim.
	This is somebody that you want to try and keep into this country.
	First degree sexual assault involving a victim mentally and physically incapable of resisting.
	And first-degree murder, obviously, all of these.
	Sorry, apologies for interrupting.
	I just cannot fathom how the left is trying to defend these people.
	I just can't understand it.
	Well, they're only defending these people purely because it's what Trump is doing.
	These people represent the opposite of Trump.
	These people represent, irrespective of whether it was their children being molested, their children being murdered, I'm sure that they will come into the Home after they've just had their 12-year-old daughter, who is physically disabled, murdered by one of them, and raped, they'll allow them to have dinner with them because obviously they're the sort of people that Judge Brian Murphy would like to have with his children.
	Although, I doubt Brian Murphy lives anywhere near where you'd find these people.
	Absolutely, and there we go again.
	A local judge in Massachusetts is trying to force the United States to bring back these uniquely barbaric monsters who present a clear and present threat to the safety of the American people and American victims.
	While we are fully compliant with the law and court orders, it is absolutely absurd for a district judge to try to dictate the foreign policy and national security of the United States of America.
	These are the monsters that the district judge is trying to protect.
	And there we go.
	I mean, I think she says it pretty clearly, doesn't she?
	Isn't that how we feel about it?
	It's pretty open and shut.
	Yeah, they are monsters.
	And he is trying to protect monsters from leaving the country purely because he and his Democrats oppose the way that Trump is trying to remove said monsters.
	Said monsters have all been convicted of particular crimes.
	Said monsters are all convicted of pretty vicious crimes.
	And said monsters are all currently inside and illegal immigrants anyway and should be deported.
	So what could you possibly say about said monster that you would allow them to stay, even if he was in the court?
	And I think that's the point.
	Once they brought them back, they would have their day in the immigration court to suggest that they should not be removed.
	But it's about delay, obscuration, and ensuring that Trump cannot do what their voters have done is what we, the lawyers and our side, are saying should be happening.
	And whilst we have the rule of law, the rule of law is the Supreme Court.
	And the Supreme Court has suggested that these continue.
	So you ask yourself, I saw this, I'm just going to put it up.
	Illegal alien arrested, child rape, child pornography.
	These are the sort of people that this judge is effectively trying to protect.
	And this is one of the memes that are going around and I picked it up and I just thought, it's also using their colours.
	It's using the democratic branding.
	And I quite like the idea of that.
	And maybe people should be using this when they're defending these individuals.
	So what's the reaction?
	What are we going to do about this?
	Well, the immediate impact is that these ICE officers are now stranded in Djibouti.
	I don't know if I've actually pronounced that rightly.
	Is it Djibouti?
	The thing is, Djibouti.
	Did Djibouti?
	Djibouti.
	Sheikh Djibouti.
	Shaked your boot down.
	I don't think we could do that.
	That's one of my favourite disco songs.
	It's one of my favourite Frank Saskarales.
	Yeah, it's got to be quite funny on that, to be honest.
	So apparently they're now stuck and marooned with the eight criminals.
	I don't think they've got the outrageous living conditions.
	I'm sure they've not.
	Because it is a military naval base, isn't it?
	That they're based at.
	But I'm sure it's not entirely pleasant for them, and they didn't expect to be gone there.
	Being away from home.
	Yeah.
	Being away from home, I don't know what this...
	is a risk of rocket strikes from Yemen, choked by toxic smog from nearby burn pits.
	Yeah, I mean, it's not...
	Oh, just my luck.
	That's it.
	So it has other consequences apart from the ICE officers.
	And I'm sure those we've seen in California and other parts of the United States would actually enjoy the fact that they're suffering a little bit.
	But you then have the reaction from the White House itself.
	Caroline Levitt was actually pretty clear.
	We warned you this would happen.
	Radical liberal district judge massively overreaching and endangering American law enforcement officers, as we saw in California, to protect illegal alien murderers, rapists, and paedophiles.
	This has to stop.
	I mean, I think it's a sensible thing.
	It has to stop.
	But will it stop?
	I mean, I'm not sure it will.
	I think they're just gaining a little bit more influence and power about this, just to try and recognize that, in their view, that Trump is an evil dictator.
	And all of this is packaging, I think, in terms of a narrative that the rule of law is being dismantled under a dictator, rather than they are acting in a way that's ensuring that people look at them and the judicial system as being in putting everything in danger.
	And that's my concern as a lawyer.
	Yeah, I want to say something about it because I constantly see it as coming up in several debates I'm engaged in.
	When we talk about rule of law, fundamentally we're talking about people and how they go on about their lives.
	It's people who follow rules.
	So it's not that there's a document somewhere or the structure of a particular system.
	These people can play by these rules and they cannot play by these rules.
	So the spirit of the rule of law is what is most important, which takes us back into the issue of culture.
	Yeah, I think the spirit of the rule of law is important.
	When I was, you know, first as a lawyer at law school university studying law and then at Bar School, it was really important that we have the concept of the rule of law.
	And the rule of law means that you have principles in place that we all abide with, that has been settled first by the constitution of our country, i.e.
	through legislation that's been placed down, and judges that interpret that.
	And that's important.
	All countries that democratically have to do that.
	But it is equally incumbent upon ourselves not to try and overly influence it on your personal political views.
	You have to stand aside.
	One of the great things of being a barrister is you don't have to actually like your client.
	You don't actually have to believe in their case.
	You have to just ensure that you do what is right on both prosecution and defense.
	You act within the principles set down to you either by the Bar Council or the Crown Prosecution Service.
	And you do it without your political views being involved in that.
	And that is one of the most important characteristics I always felt growing up as a lawyer in this country, that we do not get involved in politics when making those criminal decisions about the case.
	We remove our emotion.
	Why people used to say, as a barrister, do you not have any emotions towards these cases?
	Because emotion is not evidence.
	Emotion is not fact.
	Emotion allows you to distort evidence and distort fact.
	And the worst thing you want to be either a prosecutor or defender is to allowing your emotions to get involved in this.
	You have to be clear.
	And I think what we're losing and why the public is becoming less trustworthy about us is because they are actually now thinking we're putting emotions and politics before the general principles of being impartial.
	And we also have to learn as lawyers to actually not show that.
	And I think it's crucial.
	And that's why we're being attacked and why you'll end up having people like Levitt, sorry, in this case, is it Levitt, saying things like this.
	Now, a liberal activist district court judge in the city of Boston, Massachusetts is trying to force the President of the United States to bring these monsters back to our country.
	Now, the reason I say that is because the language now is getting so divisive about lawyers, a liberal activist judge.
	Now, I don't necessarily like that as a principle because we should all be looking at our judges and saying they are above reproach.
	But what we've got it both on this side of the pond and that side of the pond is we seem to be having judicial activism.
	And as now, it's in the political playing fields.
	We've seen it on immigration cases.
	And I mean, I asked both of you, where would you feel at the moment if you went into a court?
	What would you be feeling if you had to go into a court on a particular case?
	I'm anxious.
	And what's that anxiety being caused from?
	Well, lack of belief in the people administering the court.
	Lack of belief in the impartiality.
	If there was anything that I was being tried on that required a jury, my main concern was, please, would be, please, God, let there not be any activists on this jury.
	Because we've seen in America, going back to basically OJ, that juries can have an outsized amount of power on these things when they are filled with activists or people with a grievance that they think that they can exercise through the jury.
	I mean, that's what happened with the OJ trial.
	They were like, oh, this one's for Rodney King.
	Well, that's not impartial.
	That's not justice being done.
	That's your racial revenge fantasy being enacted right there.
	And sadly, it happened in the Derek Chauvin trial as well, where one of the guys on the jury was a BLM activist.
	So my worry will always be now, don't let the judge be an activist.
	Don't let jury members be activists.
	Because even one can turn it around.
	And don't we think now that that is actually a really appalling state of affairs where I think ordinary people in this country rely upon our criminal justice system, our civil justice system, those involved in it to be as impartial as possible?
	And is that because we've allowed a lot of our lawyers both in the United States and here in Europe to actually elevate themselves to political positions, to head up and think tanks, to be in the House of Lords?
	Is it because they are now seen as political animals rather than just being lawyers?
	Is that an issue?
	Or is it the fact that we're just not even allowing our courts to be seen as just being fair places because of that activism?
	I don't know, but I just know that when I look at this, you've got the massive case coming on where someone is only six months in and he's stopping a president and ignoring the Supreme Court within six months of him being there.
	So we've got now Rubio jumps in here, who is not normally one who attacks courts, ordering the blocking.
	This is bullshit.
	The Supreme Court needs to step in now and stop these rogue Democrat judges from overstepping their judicial power.
	To an extent, I kind of understand and agree with the Democrats who are saying, don't use language like this, because I think it's internally divisive to actually break down one of the key executive branches of our nation state.
	But equally, we should be not allowing six-month-in judges to be making such big decisions.
	And once the Supreme Court has stepped in, he should turn around and go, yes, this is what I signed up for.
	I won't get involved anymore.
	It's a bit rich when it comes from a leftist, though.
	Yeah, no, I get it.
	Policing language and constantly subjectivizing legislation.
	I get that.
	That's a disaster.
	So what's happening now in the States, and I fear this will actually start to increase here, is that it's Nato Gallagher, not a massive name over there, but it's just I saw when I was looking through how many people are looking at Judge Brian Murphy, fake judge.
	He's not.
	He's a real judge.
	He is there.
	You can't deny that, although it's slightly different to the UK and that many judges can actually be elected.
	But they're now saying these are the penalties.
	And they are penalties.
	I've looked them up.
	You can have impeachment.
	That keeps being referred to now.
	Let's impeach the judges.
	And then we have a particular situation, Eric Smith.
	And I think I'm almost going to very close to the end.
	Eric Smith now has been praised for this.
	What happened yesterday was a radical, liberal, progressive, leftist judge, Brian Murphy, who was confirmed in the lame duck session when Joe Biden, President Otto Pitt may not even have known he was appointing this person,
	approved by the Democrats in the Senate, is now refusing, refusing to obey by a Supreme Court order for the deportation of seven criminal aliens.
	And let's just do a little bit of tail of the tape.
	These people are a con, one of them is a convicted arsonist.
	Another one is a convicted robber.
	Another one is a murderer of an elderly woman.
	Two more are murderers.
	One is a child rapist and another is a rapist of a person with special needs.
	These are the people.
	These are the people that the Democrats spend their time defending.
	And now we have a judge through an act of dare I say insurrection.
	Which is a word that's thrown around here all the time.
	There we go.
	So now they've moved from being the attack that they are liberals and activists as judges to, in the words there, an act of dare I say insurrection.
	So the language is elevated now.
	I mean, I can see where the politics come on this.
	Well, insurrection was used for years and still is used for January 6th as well.
	So this is just part of the escalation of rhetoric that's been going on for God knows how long at this point.
	And it's a very dangerous escalation, and I can get it.
	But he's been incredibly praised by this.
	And I think it's very interesting the way that they're taking it.
	But the insurrection is also an opportunity for the Republican to turn around and say, you claim this about individuals outside January the 6th.
	Now we have our insurrection moment.
	And it's all your judges all across the country.
	And that's all going to lead to a greater division, without a doubt.
	And to an extent, they bring it on themselves because as the LibSub Tip Talk, because sometimes they do it really well, they say that 79 nationwide injunctions blocking Trump's agenda.
	And it isn't just the criminal cases about removing illegal.
	I mean, two days ago, it was about stopping the USAID claims.
	Another day it was about stopping Trump from being able to fire people.
	Another one, it was stopping Trump from being able to end the programs related to EVs subsidies in California.
	It's everything that he's come in to try and do.
	They're challenging in the courts about it.
	And it's almost as to say, what is the point of a president?
	If a president can't come in and through executive orders or use the Congress or the Senate or the agreement to stop these programs, why is he allowed to there?
	But if not, we're going to challenge it.
	And in the end, I got this from the finish on this.
	Radical judges have issued nationwide injunctions to block the Trump administration from advancing its agenda that 77 Americans voted for.
	They've got to address the problems of the judiciary.
	So it's going to elevate this a little bit more.
	And what you've got now is in the people's minds this idea that the judiciary lawyers are not on the sides of the voters.
	They're being used as an instrument to create further division in this country, in the United States.
	But equally the same applies here.
	Equally, we saw what happened with Marie Le Pen in Europe.
	Equally, we're seeing that being used with the AFD in Germany.
	This isn't good, in my view, for having a rule of law that is applicable where everybody can understand and we can all accept.
	Thank you.
	Samson, do we have a few extra minutes today?
	Yes.
	Okay, great.
	Oh, okay.
	Right, so Sigilstone 17 says, has Ellie covered or going to cover Musk's announcement that because Grok won't stop repeating actual history, they're going to rewrite history to their preference and train Grok on that?
	Haven't heard that, to be honest.
	No, I haven't.
	That's something.
	I've not heard this.
	Sorry, I've just decided to Google it.
	Elon Musk wants Grok AI to replace historical facts is a headline that I've just found.
	I have not seen it either.
	You carry on and I will.
	It's not such a bad idea.
	Okay.
	Who's programmed the robots and AI?
	I. I'm going to do it.
	You.
	You specifically.
	To be fair.
	I'm going to learn to code.
	You are principled enough that you'd probably just try and make everything fair.
	Exactly.
	There you go.
	That's a random name says, also, Brother Stilianos, I love you, but you keep reading the Ramble Rants in the wrong order, and it makes me long for the Gom Jabba.
	I love the Union references, which is why That's a Random Name says, Harry the Red Harkonnen's efforts to remove Fremen undesirables were frustrated by Spacing Guild-funded judge of the change.
	All made worse by his Bene Jessuit wife, only bearing him daughters.
	Oh, you're going to change the religion of the place.
	Henry VIII again.
	I'm just looking into this.
	So from what it looks like, is that Musk obviously has said he wants Grok to be anti-woke.
	He also did a proposal where he said he urged users on X to submit politically incorrect but factually true content to help train Grok.
	So it sounds like in reality what he wants to do is to just make it not biased towards woke narratives.
	And people are furious about that.
	Seduelstone 17 says, is this the same judge that issued an injunction against Trump brokering a ceasefire and ordered Israel and Iran to resume shelling each other?
	I don't think it is.
	It would have showed up on his wiki page.
	Habsification says another protracted war like the other wars and bombings for the last 24 years will signal the end and demise of Pax Americana.
	People have been predicting it for years, but we'll see if it happens.
	Pat Bucharen had his book, Suicide of a Superpower, Will America Last Until 2025.
	It's gone on this far.
	Not that I'm a fan of those actions that it's taken in the Middle East, but it does seem to be carrying on for now.
	Let's go first video.
	We have the strictest fitness standards here at Gen ZPD to keep the community safe.
	Our test is comparable to the Navy SEALs.
	The test is a half-mile walk in under 30 minutes, clearing a two-foot wall, and doing one half of a push-up.
	So if you think you had what it takes to pass the test, come join our team.
	AI is getting far too good these days.
	Sorry, look at this.
	You can't spell in the background, though.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Join our team.
	Thank you.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Richard Cavendish was a well-respected historian of religion and the occult.
	The son of a Church of England clergyman back when the Church of England was worthy.
	His interest and expertise shows through in his writing.
	Visions of Heaven and Hell is a light analysis of how the Abrahamic faiths view the subject of death and the afterlife, while also juxtaposing beliefs from ancient Greece and Rome, as well as Hindu, Buddhist, and even Shinto.
	My illustrated version features works from the National Gallery that really bring colour to the text.
	That's really interesting.
	I think I might have some Cavendish at home on the bookshelf somewhere.
	Probably do.
	Sorry, carry on.
	No, I think I've heard that perhaps the original view of hell came from an old Jewish custom, I think, because they were burning trash.
	Take that with a pinch of salt.
	I think they were burning trash and they were poking it with tridents to burn it.
	Maybe just, I think Gechana.
	I think I might have a big illustrated version of his King Arthur and the Holy Grails.
	Right, so let's go to the comment.
	Honorable mentions.
	Furious Dan says, I hope the Stalios receives the signatures for his Chudjack apology forms, or perhaps there is yet another thing that never happens.
	What time is it?
	Look at the clock.
	Lord Inquisitor Hector Rex has asked when my series on the Weimar Republic will be released.
	Well, first, the editing needs to be done on the Stonewall video that I recorded last September, October.
	I have been given a ETA of maybe two to two and a half months on that one.
	I'm really looking forward to that.
	That'll probably be about an hour and a half long.
	And the Weimar one, the script's all done.
	I'm waiting for this to finally go away, the mark that my daughter left me with after she smacked me on the head with an abacus.
	That's what that was.
	It flared up massively, turned into a cyst, and now has gone back down, but there is still a mark.
	Probably film it maybe next week.
	Like, stop talking about Weimar.
	And then it's going to be...
	No, no, no.
	Then it'll need to be edited.
	It'll probably be like three hours long, so maybe next year.
	I wish it was sooner.
	I wish it could be done quicker.
	But you need to understand our editors have a ridiculous workload put on them every single day.
	So there's not as much time for more highly edited projects to be done quickly.
	Do you want to read or do you want me to read?
	I'll read a few of mine.
	So, Rhys Sim, I fear that Carmelo Anthony case will go the way of OJ and Derek Chauvin, wherein activists will embed themselves within Anthony's jury to provide a wrongful, innocent verdict.
	All the evidence from what I have seen shows that Carmelo Anthony went with intent to stab someone that day.
	Therefore, he should be sentenced accordingly.
	All we can do is hope that justice will be blind, allowing justice to take its course.
	So to address that, I think from my understanding of what I know, the likelihood is that he went there with the intention to nick a bunch of stuff from people's backpacks, got caught doing so, and had the knife with him as a backup, and assumed that if he could provoke a situation, he would be able to plead himself self-defense out of the situation.
	So, yeah, I think that's indefensible.
	I think he did murder somebody, but that's my read of events that I can see so far.
	He thought, well, if they catch me, I'll just say, oh, self-defense, bro, and get a OJ treatment from it, because that's what some people in America have been conditioned to think they can get away with.
	You can go on to yours, Stelios.
	Okay, so the FAGO wars.
	Sophie Liv says, I feel like it's a little silly to just believe that the commander-in-chief of the military won't ever enter any conflict.
	I agree with you.
	I am pretty convinced that a lot of people just have no idea what the role of the president actually is.
	He's not there to make legislation or control taxes or anything like that.
	He's there to be the head of the military and defend the country.
	So if there's a threat to America, that is his job as a president.
	However, the big issue here seems to be that there isn't a threat to America, at least not from that location.
	There's a threat to Israel, so what the hell?
	Now, that isn't the job of the president to defend a foreign nation.
	Well, you could say the same thing about Soleimani.
	There are some people who say that he did it entirely for Israel.
	Other people are saying that there have been overlapping interests of several nations, also the U.S. and Israel.
	I think what she's referring to there is that the initial instigation of this was the idea that not only were Iran capable of building a bomb, but were going to build a bomb with which they were going to threaten Israel and as well the U.S. I saw Mark Levin and all sorts of people saying that if they drop it on Tel Aviv, Trump's own intelligence doesn't seem to back that up.
	Whether or not they had the capability to do so doesn't mean that they were actually doing so or intended to do so, especially given that what we've seen has been Iran has wanted to de-escalate since Israel opened to the offensives.
	And my other problem with this whole thing as well is that if they wanted to ensure that Iran weren't going to enrich uranium to the point where they could potentially feasibly manufacture an atomic bomb, I still don't understand the logic behind Trump's backing out of the JPCOA.
	I think that was the word for it, back in 2018.
	I don't think the logic really pans out there.
	I think he wanted to say basically, I'm not Obama.
	You're not going to take advantage of me.
	But whatever.
	Maybe I'm not shilling.
	No, no, I don't think you're a neocon shill by saying that.
	I just don't think that the arguments presented for pulling out of it were very strong at the time.
	And I think from all the reports that I've seen, they were sticking to their end of the bargain into the nuclear agreement.
	By the way, I didn't imply you said it.
	Oh, no, I'm not saying...
	Aaron von Warhock says, no, excuse me, George Hap, the backlash towards the Iran attack has actually given me hope.
	The MAGA movement is not a monolith and is not Trump cultists.
	We needed to outlive Trump and improve upon him.
	Principles should Trump party loyalty.
	I absolutely agree with it, and I agree with you that there should have been a sort of backlash.
	My view wasn't against people who were scared that there was going to be a war or a war was Going to erupt.
	I don't want a war.
	I don't want something like that to happen.
	My point was specifically against some people who pushed, who didn't want to let this crisis go to waste and cared more about their narrative than about what happened.
	And it's absolutely true that people shouldn't be Trump.
	Cultists, Trump.
	Every person has a duty to criticize every government, including Trump's administration.
	Baron von Warhock says, I find it hypocritical that Trump's actions cause some people to cry for his impeachment.
	However, in 2009, Obama bombed four American citizens in the Middle East and nothing happened.
	Michael Drabelby says, amazing how fast people are coming back to Trump.
	Yes.
	Ferrer said it best yesterday when he said that so many of us misjudged what Trump was doing.
	And Michael Drabbleby says again, Harry, Trump is unscripted.
	Remember, what he says out loud may not reflect what he's doing behind the scenes.
	Oh, I agree completely with that, which is why I think when I see people who tell me to trust the plan, I would ask them what exactly the plan seems to be.
	We're all in the dark on situations like that.
	And again, I do not think Trump is the one in the driver's seat when it comes to what appear to be much longer scale geopolitical strategic initiatives and goals by the security state.
	Lord Inquisitor Hector Rex says, Ola pictures the meme of the US and Iran shaking hands with the war-mongering neocons screeching in the background.
	Jay McGovern says, well, that was the worst world war ever.
	Like two teen noobs on Call of Duty swearing at each other online.
	I quite like that one.
	In terms of Michael Dre Belbis, sorry, I couldn't see there for a moment, Michael.
	The three liberal justice have an issue with the inability to understand the Constitution.
	Sottomeyo was famous as saying that, as a wise Latina, I might rule differently from a white man, basically admitting that she uses feelings over facts and law, my concern.
	So he continues by saying, keep the illegals that come to work, deport the ones that are here to commit additional crimes or to be benefit sponges.
	Michael, do you mean Latina or Latin ex?
	AZ Desert Rat said, what I think is saddest about these criminal migrants is that their victims are often other migrants or people who are completely destitute.
	And that's a very good point on that.
	We're not looking after those.
	Well, in Southport, one of the girls who was stabbed and died, sadly, was Portuguese.
	But in this case, it was one of them assaulting a mentally disabled person.
	Exactly.
	So we don't seem to be standing up for those individuals.
	Orange Juicer says lawyers are derided in the West because they reject Christian morality for secular causes, from BLM to feminism to atheism.
	And that is the point, is you're putting your views in terms of actual, the practicalities of law.
	And Sophie Liv says, America, judges defend illegal immigrants, pedoes.
	England, first time bro.
	Not quite sure what that is, but you know, maybe you have a better answer.
	It just means this is what we've been going through for a very long time.
	Oh, yeah, yeah, exactly.
	Sophie and her comments, always devious.
	Right, sorry.
	Skeptic.
	Today was really good.
	Thank you very much for being with us.
	I hope you enjoyed it.
	We have run out of time and see you tomorrow at 3 at 1 p.m.
	Sorry.
	And check Ferrars' Geopolitics, RealPolitik Geopolitics Show.
	Goodbye.

▲