The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1259

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 24, 2025 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:32:50

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1259

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters episode 1001 as yeah episode 1259.
	I'm your host Harry and I'm joined by Bo and Dan.
	Yes, you've got an extra treat for three most based Lotus Eaters all in one go.
	Obviously they had to put me and Bo at either end of the table just to balance things out a bit.
	We kind of are based overload shorting the equipment.
	True, true.
	Anyway, today we're going to talk about the Epping Hotel protests were justified the whole time.
	I think I mentioned this a little bit in a segment last week, but it's good to reinforce that, yeah, there was a reason they were out, and it's never a good reason.
	I'm going to be going through Fraser Nelson and his lies, of which there are many.
	We only have a limited amount of time, so I might have to split this into multiple.
	I won't actually.
	And then we're going to be talking about Trump dropping a truth nuke on the UN, which I have no idea about, so I'm interested to find out.
	Anyway, buy Islander, buy a mug.
	Someone from the back room stole the one that I was using, so I'm back to my normal one.
	And buy things for us because you love us.
	Anyway, let's get on with it.
	So this is Haddish Kababtu, I think.
	I'm not very good with full names, but Hadish Kababtu from Ethiopia.
	You'll know him because he's the chap behind the Epping Bell Hotel protest that went on for quite a while, as you'll remember.
	Well, in fact, I've got a photo of it.
	Here they go.
	The Bell Hotel in Epping.
	This was the one that was right next to a school, correct?
	Yes.
	Yes.
	And the individual in question was a bit naughty, and we go through that why, which caused all of these people to come out who were immediately branded as far-right and thugs and all the rest of it.
	As you can see here, they're just an ordinary bunch of people, mostly concerned mothers.
	But no, that didn't stop them from being smeared relentlessly in the press all summer for being far-right racist thugs.
	So what's the story with, yes, old Haddish Kababtu here, or however you pronounce it?
	might be butchering that so on the who cares Yes, good point.
	Good point.
	On the 29th of June of this year, he arrived in a small boat.
	By the 7th of July, he was committing offences.
	So less than a fortnight.
	Yes.
	On the 7th of July, he made sexual assault on a 14-year-old girl in school uniform.
	And we will see a little bit later his comments on his version of events of what happened.
	It's comically bad.
	It was not comical, but it is his version of what went down there.
	The following day, he made the same advances on the same girl, spotting her coming out of school again.
	A sexual assault on a woman who tried to intervene.
	So yes, not a particularly glorious start to his time in our hospitality.
	Later that same day at five o'clock, he is arrested.
	I'll give you footage of the arrest there.
	A few days later, the protests begin outside the hotel because, quite understandably, local parents are not wildly happy about housing sexual predators in their mids next to a school, which immediately results in the national press branding them all as far-right thugs, as we have mentioned.
	Now, come later July, the local council, in a surprise act of actually giving a damn about their local citizens, which is not the sort of thing you expect, applied for an injunction to have this Bell Hotel closed down, or at least remove the asylum seekers from it.
	Well, you know, only under pressure.
	They didn't do it of their own free volition out of conviction.
	Yes, it was only because there was loads of pressure.
	Yes, fair point.
	To do it.
	Yes.
	But even so, it is still quite remarkable where even under pressure, any public authority in Britain gives a damn about the English people.
	Judge Stephen Err, something like that, granted an injunction against it and ordered the removal of the asylum seekers.
	At which point the Court of Appeal came in and they overturned the injunction, allowing the asylum seekers to remain at the Bell Hotel.
	And their reasoning, I think we must have covered this at the time.
	It wouldn't be surprised if one of you two were the ones that covered this.
	But their reasoning was that the national interest in asylum housing outweighs concerns of local sexual assaults.
	I believe the wording that was used by the judge was that it was better to maintain the status quo.
	Yes.
	The status quo being young girls being assaulted.
	Quite, yes.
	And he said that the courts must avoid giving weight to citizens because as it would incentivise further protests, because of course no one else is going to want a bunch of sexual predators and immigrants living in their area either.
	And if you let it in one place, then it's going to happen all over the place.
	I mean, that bit of logic I can't fault.
	It's just evil and wrong.
	Was that the judge that was a Fabian?
	Well, we perhaps don't have time to get into his early life section.
	There are certain characteristics that wouldn't surprise you, but still.
	Yes, and his political background.
	But yes, there's a bit of Fabian sninks thrown in there as well.
	Was that?
	That's the one.
	Yeah.
	That's the one.
	You can look into him in your own time.
	Yes.
	So effectively, the needs of the asylum seekers outweigh the needs of concerned local parents and schoolgirls trying to get to school.
	Why I'm mentioning this now is because, you know, this chap, Hadish Kababtu, has been sentenced.
	He's going to get 12 months custodial sentence.
	But of course, 12 months custodial sentence does not actually mean 12 months custodial sentence, not in this country, because that's going to be less any time that he's already served.
	And then the 40% rule will apply, which will mean he'd be out in about three months, so by Christmas.
	Right.
	Yes.
	And then not deported?
	Well, if he could self-deport.
	Right.
	And he has expressed to his solicitor that that is his current intention to self-deport afterwards.
	Because, of course, he hasn't seen much of the UK so far.
	He was only here for a few days before he was arrested.
	So if he had been, if he had spent more time at the hotel, of course, he would have received all those lovely pamphlets that they get saying these are all the benefits you're entitled to, and this is how you go about claiming a house.
	And, you know, this is how you make it impossible for yourself to deport.
	Operation Scatter will be putting you in somebody's neighbourhood soon enough, anyway.
	Yes.
	So he hasn't had a chance to see all of that material, but no doubt these organisations probably work inside prisons.
	Or if not, he'd be speaking to other people in prison and be like, yeah, you've got a good thing here.
	You don't want to go back.
	Didn't get much of a chance to see Lincoln Cathedral and Stonehenge.
	No, he wasn't inspired by the rich culture of the nation or anything.
	The thing that I get from this is that how quickly he started his sex crime was that it says to me that that's why he was here.
	It's one of the reasons why he was here is to do that.
	I think that's a sound observation.
	And the fact that he wants to go back now, I guess, to his country of origin, back to Ethiopia, you say?
	Yes.
	That, well, the pickings are easier there for him.
	So he didn't really, he thought he could get away with it here.
	That's what he probably heard on the grapevine.
	Yes.
	And the fact that he can't, well, may as well go home then.
	I mean, in terms of real consequences, he basically has gotten away with it.
	And if he chooses not to leave the country of his own volition, then let's think through the logic, judging by other cases that we've seen of similar things.
	Well, now he has been convicted of a sexual assault charge.
	He has gone to prison.
	So the likelihood would be that were he to return to his own country, that that might put a target on his back.
	Well, actually, there is a...
	Therefore, the human rights grounds for not deporting him will be, well, we have to keep him in this country now, because otherwise they might put him in prison or give him the death penalty.
	Yes, actually, GB News interviewed an immigration lawyer on the subject.
	And he said, well, now that he's a convicted sex criminal, Ethiopia will almost certainly refuse him.
	And then that's it.
	All right.
	So that's fine.
	You know, he just has to stay now.
	That's how it is.
	I'm also going to mention, I won't give it a lot of time, but it's worth pointing out this chap.
	I think he's the one on the right and his adorable wife here.
	This is the Muslim chap who attacks somebody with a knife outside a consulate in London because that man was criticising Islam and he came at a dim knife screaming, I'm going to kill you, hacking at him with a blade.
	He's escaped all sentence.
	So basically the precedent has been set that if somebody is insulting a Muslim's faith, attacking them with a knife leads to no consequences whatsoever.
	Wait, so this post here says spared jail.
	What you're saying is not even convicted of anything.
	He got a deferred sentence.
	He was convicted, but his sentence was suspended.
	That's the one.
	Suspended sentence, yeah.
	Yeah.
	What are they going to do?
	Put the protester in prison instead, probably.
	No, he did.
	Actually, yes.
	Yes.
	That's what they did.
	That is what they did.
	So one Muslim in London burning a Quran, another Muslim attacks him with a knife.
	The knife wielder doesn't go to prison, and the Quran burner does.
	Yes.
	Neither individual should really be here at all.
	So, I mean, that's a point.
	And I think you might cover the Trump speech later on.
	One of the bits you mentions in that is we're operating under Sharia law in this country.
	Well, no, in the sense that we haven't passed the Sharia law of 2025 bill through Parliament, but effectively we've got there through decisions like this.
	So that's worth pointing out.
	So it's just, it's just worth remembering.
	You know, Lucy Connolly tweet that Stalman didn't like 30 months in jail.
	Habdu had Hadash, Kebab 2, whatever, 12 months, which will actually be four months, maybe three.
	This guy suspended sentence.
	And Ricky Jones, the black labour counselor who was calling for people to have their throats slit, no, no, he got off as well.
	So that's where we are.
	Let's have a quick look at the BBZ coverage, are we?
	Because we've got this delightful little arrest video where we get to see that this chap, in his own words, explain what was going on.
	And bear in mind, this is the type of person that our government is supporting to the tune of 6 billion a year.
	And we have 4,000 immigration lawyers making sure that we get as many of these people as possible and none of them ever go back.
	Let's hear from him, shall we?
	It's now 1715.
	I'm arresting you on suspicion of sexual assault on a female under 16 years old.
	So you didn't have to say anything.
	We may harm your defense if you did not mention when questioned something which later on in court.
	Anything you do say, maybe give it evidence, okay?
	We're arresting you for a prompt and effective investigation by Benza Vincy and prevent harm to yourself or others.
	Okay, no problem.
	So give us two minutes.
	We'll just put him a few things out and then we'll start giving them people to try to get a lot of money.
	How much money?
	Yeah.
	Sorry?
	How much money?
	What do you mean, how much we need?
	How much mutiny's office?
	How many officers?
	You go to the police station now.
	Okay.
	So you're under arrest.
	Wow.
	Yeah, do you want to jump out?
	I'm going to cuff you.
	Jump out for me.
	Jump out for me.
	It's easier.
	Comics bag, yeah.
	Jump up.
	Stand up.
	Okay.
	Thank you.
	The excuse is coming.
	I'm just kind of step on, sir.
	Okay, she is right.
	The lady in blue.
	She's drinking and I passed.
	Please call me.
	You are black man.
	You are coming to my home.
	It's a child.
	So the allegation is that you've touched a child on the inside of the groin.
	Come over here, I need to search you.
	Don't cry.
	It's going to be okay.
	Come, step onto the pavement, so I've got a little bit more.
	You can leave your shoes on.
	It's okay.
	Step onto the pavement here.
	No, no.
	Stand up.
	Stand up.
	Stand.
	There we go.
	And then towards me.
	Watch.
	Follow.
	Showing him how to step onto the curb.
	Yes.
	So after sexually assaulting this 14-year-old girl, his excuse was that she came out of school, immediately got drunk, saw him and said, you black man, you come to my house.
	You're right.
	Yes.
	Sure.
	The jury found that that was not a credible defense.
	They didn't believe that.
	But, you know, I suppose he had to make an attempt to defend himself.
	Of course.
	I think the thing there was as well, just like he seemed like he was having fun at first.
	Yes.
	He was smiling and kind of joking along with them.
	He didn't care.
	He didn't care.
	And then he starts to think, oh, there might be consequences to this.
	And he just flips.
	To be fair, a lot of third worlders, when they've been caught out, they do give you that sort of shit-eating grin where they just smile through it and hope it's going to be okay.
	That is a thing.
	But then also, it's like a child.
	Yes.
	It's literally like the thought process and mind of a child.
	There may be a reason for that.
	I'm not sure we can go.
	Everything about it is alien.
	He can barely speak English at all.
	Attempting to cry and then just stop in and throwing his sandals off, kneeling down, not understanding how to step up a curb.
	It's just, this is an alien person who doesn't belong in this country.
	Yes.
	We must turn our mind, of course, to the victims of this crime.
	And the judge did exactly that.
	He turned his mind to the victims.
	And so what, because they do those victim impact statements?
	So let's have a look at what the judge's concerns was.
	The judge was concerned that the impact of his offences would have on the other asylum seekers at the Bell Hotel.
	So we are thinking about the real victims here, the other asylum seekers.
	That's nice.
	I'm glad that they did that.
	And just this is a point I'll get on in my segment as well.
	This man would be the exact same person if he had come through some safe asylum.
	yes as well just getting on the boat and using that method to get over here doesn't suddenly do there's no alchemical process of crossing the channel that turns you into a kiddie fiddler These people are the same no matter what process they use.
	Whether they're the 50,000 that come by boat, the 100,000 that comes on the back of the lorries or the one or at least a number of the one million that come in through perfectly legal routes that the Home Office allows.
	Of course our shitlibs have egg on their face for this.
	Kevin Maguire pointing out, you know, there's no paedophiles or rapists inside this hotel.
	Well, I mean, there is.
	I mean, that's been proven against.
	At least one.
	Yes.
	Very minimal one.
	I think there was another one, was there not?
	But anyway.
	Yeah, I think you might be right.
	I didn't look into that on this one.
	So let's talk about Hadush Kababtu.
	So apparently he was an Ethiopian sports teacher.
	Now he left Ethiopia and he travelled through the Sudan, through Libya, across the Mediterranean, through Italy and France before arriving in the UK.
	Now, the rules are you're supposed to stop at the first safe country you come to, and he's travelled through at least three.
	And I'd actually point out that Ethiopia is actually more stable and safe than Libya and Sudan.
	So he crossed through two countries that are more dangerous than the country he started in, then went through two safe countries before coming here.
	Ethiopia, I mean, well, put it this way, this is the number of flights going to Ethiopia.
	This is not an unsafe country.
	They have functional courts and government and all the rest of it.
	You know, these are just flights from London to Ethiopia today.
	Not an unsafe country, not somewhere that, I mean, if this was an unsafe country, there would not be dozens of flights going there every single day.
	The Foreign and Commonwealth Office aren't advising people not to travel to Ethiopia.
	No, they're not.
	Probably advising not to go to Sudan.
	Yes, which is a war zone.
	Well, that would be reasonable, wouldn't it?
	I didn't show you.
	So to go from a safe country to here for who knows what reason, he decided I'm going to pass through at least one war zone because I'm in such danger teaching children here.
	Yes.
	The 2022 Nationalities and Border Act, which was passed post-Brexit, gives the authorities the powers to treat claims as inadmissible if they're passing through a safe third country, of which, of course, Italy and France would qualify.
	So we can just treat his asylum claim as simply illegitimate, inadmissible, and immediately remove him.
	Except, of course, we can't because we don't have any return agreements with any countries.
	And in this case, as the immigration lawyer, which I didn't play, pointed out, Ethiopia will just say, well, no, he's a sex criminal now, so he's not coming back.
	Now, illegal entry into the UK is actually an illegal act under the 1971 Immigration Act.
	Under existing law, you can get four years in jail for that.
	However, that is never applied because they just ship them straight into the asylum sisters system such as hotels.
	There's no working return agreement with Ethiopia.
	And so basically, all of these people, they end up stuck in limbo, just being ferried around hotels, HMOs, until eventually it's decided that it's too much trouble and they're just going to give them indefinite leave to remain.
	And then they just disappear into the housing system somewhere.
	And then some of those will even get then turned into full citizens because they can say, well, look, I've had indefinite leave to remain for five, ten years.
	you know what's going ahead why that's how you become just as british as myself dan yes Orbo.
	Yes.
	And why are we in this situation?
	Prime contender is going to be the ECHR, the European Court of Human Rights.
	Article 5 of the European Convention of Human Rights guarantees liberty unless detention is linked to imminent deportation.
	And since apparently we can't do that, there's no detention involved.
	UK courts have consistently shown they will go against the government on the few token efforts that they have made to remove people.
	And the prison capacity, we've got 88,000 places in the UK and they're all full.
	And they need the tiny hand, and it is a tiny handful, it's like a few hundred spaces they have left at any given time, and they need those just in case anybody tweets something that Kirstan doesn't agree with.
	So, yes, that doesn't happen either.
	So, in order to solve this, you might be thinking, oh, well, this is unsolvable.
	No.
	This is a political choice, and we can overturn this at any time we want.
	All it requires is withdrawing from the ECHR and passing legislation that expressly allows detention and instructs UK courts to disregard Strasbourg.
	That's all it takes.
	We have parliamentary sovereignty in this country.
	Parliament, with enough of a majority, could write up any bill and pass it.
	Yes.
	And it would be law.
	And when there's one party that does enjoy a large majority of Boris Johnson with an A2C majority, you might think.
	Or Sir Queer Starmer.
	Oh, indeed, yes.
	He's got a massive majority.
	Yes.
	He could whip his party into passing such a bill.
	It won't be done tomorrow.
	It could be done tomorrow.
	So we know that it's legally possible.
	All it requires is those two steps that I've already talked about.
	It's also morally right.
	Well, there is that.
	Yes.
	I mean, I didn't go there on the basis that it's a long time since this country has done anything morally right, and therefore it didn't occur to me to make that line of argument.
	But you are correct.
	That is actually an important point.
	Also, we should look at international precedents on this.
	So Australia runs an offshore detention processing camps.
	They use a couple of islands for it.
	This is one of them, Nauru.
	I think I'm getting that right.
	Now, that is off the coast of Australia.
	And to give you some sense of how far, I might need to zoom out a bit.
	Bear with me.
	There we go.
	There it is.
	Now, anybody who tries to get into Australia gets shipped off there.
	You're welcome to try and swim back.
	none of them do now that is quite and apparently in australia that is a completely i mean it's just non-political point Even the lefties don't try and argue against this.
	That is thoroughly sensible.
	Before I tell you my solution, I thought...
	Although, just to quickly say, Australia is still flooded with legal migrants.
	Well, there is that, yes.
	But at least they got that element of it out the way.
	I also thought, before I give you my solution, I might just quickly tell you the process if you or I were to try and illegally enter Ethiopia.
	So we would be processed by the Refugees and Return Service of Ethiopia, the RSS.
	We'd be held under the Immigration Proclamation Number 354 2003, where making an illegal entry would result in fines and custodial sentences.
	And as British nationals, we could be forcibly returned to the UK.
	They would cuff us, put us on a flight, and the UK authorities would cooperate and take receivership of us at the other end.
	So it works that way round.
	Sounds very reasonable.
	Yes.
	How many cases are there of native Brits attacking the people?
	I don't think they legally enter Ethiopia.
	Oh, it must be a terrible problem.
	I suspect it's not a huge number, but the point remains, there are intact procedures to sort it out if it's the other way, which is worth bearing in mind.
	So my key point is on this is, look, this is a political choice.
	And I think they're doing it because if they can keep us on the 50,000 people that arrive by small boats, we're not looking at the 100,000 people who come on the back of a lorry, or the people who overstay their visas, or the million-plus people that come perfectly legally because the Home Office stamps a bit of paper for them.
	And then they just decide, oh, yeah, we're never going back again.
	And let's bring over our entire extended family as well.
	Yes, of course.
	Or are we going to take sick Palestinian children?
	And then after they've been here for like an hour, they can then say, oh, well, my family to join me.
	And then their family can join them and so on and so on.
	But how would the NHS function without all of them?
	Yes.
	Well, the proportion of immigrants as patients in the NHS is higher than the proportion of staff.
	That can't be right.
	Yes.
	Well, you would think so listening to the narrative, wouldn't you?
	So what's my solution on this?
	Well, I like this Nauru thing.
	I give you St. Helena's.
	Now, that is a lovely little island.
	It's got some historical significance, this one, hasn't it, Beau?
	Yeah.
	We kept a short Frenchman there once, didn't we?
	Yeah.
	Right.
	The Corsican monster.
	Yes.
	Napoleon Bonaparte.
	So there we go.
	But it's been used there.
	It has been used as a type of prison island before.
	So it's in the right neighborhood.
	Actually, I'll better zoom back into it so I can give you my solution.
	Now, this is a UK territory, so we can do what we want with it.
	No further international treaties need to be put together on this.
	And what do I have in mind?
	What I have in mind is kind of military spec tents, camp beds, barbed wire, maybe a few heating units if we're feeling generous.
	A couple of shipping containers put down to store bulk dried food goods.
	Maybe a couple of watchtowers as a perimeter.
	Maybe a couple of toilet blocks.
	You know, we've got to be nice.
	A couple of canteens, again, in shipping containers.
	Well, you could do, but I'm going to be able to make money for them.
	It's the best you get at Glastonbury.
	It's a giant cesspit.
	And people pay, what, like 800 quid to go to Glastonbury or whatever it is?
	I feel sorry for the normal law-abiding citizens of St Helena.
	Well, that's why...
	I guess we'd have to move them back...
	We have to move on to the next slide.
	No, that's why I stressed the point about barbed wire and watchtowers.
	Now, everything I've described there, I've done the numbers.
	The capex for what I'm talking about is something between 40 to 80k per person.
	There's still loads.
	it is um but when you put that into in let me give an example right Let's take just this bit in the middle.
	You see that bit in the road there?
	So let's just like that.
	Okay.
	So that bit there.
	No one's using it.
	Middle of the island.
	that's about 200 acres.
	You could get 80,000 immigrants in that at a density of...
	Because I went around the edges, measured the edges, worked out the volume.
	The army, when they're deploying people to theatres, they maintain about 10 square meters per person.
	So you could get 80,000 immigrants on that.
	And for the capex of 3 billion, you could set up a fully functional camp there.
	Now, you might think that's an awful lot.
	That's half what we're spending now.
	And you'd have a fully functional camp.
	And fewer white children sexually assaulted.
	Yes.
	Most importantly.
	Well, there is that.
	And our army engineers could easily pull that off in six months.
	Easily.
	No international treaties.
	Just pass those two laws that I've already talked about, which anyone with a majority could do tomorrow.
	And there you go.
	Serco would be happy with that contract?
	I would give it to the army myself rather than Circo because they're traitors.
	So there you go.
	80,000 people.
	Now, that is not going to house all of them.
	But what happens if you round up all of those illegal immigrants and everybody who arrives by boat and says, right, you're off to a military camp in St. Helena's?
	99% of them would self-deport immediately.
	You think?
	Yes.
	Maybe a few would be like, oh, I'll just take the free bunk accommodation in St. Helena's.
	But even then, this place has regular flights to South Africa.
	I think a lot of them would sort of disappear into the general population of Britain.
	Well, there was a whole...
	Anyway, there was a whole thing...
	I mean, imagine the sort of TV escapades you could have following around British ICE agents.
	Or you could deputise, you know, local base lads to go around rounding them up.
	There's lots of things you could do on that.
	You could get Baz force out in action.
	Yes.
	And the other thing I like about the St. Helena's option is, you know, I want to put, to be clear, I do want to put barbed wire around it so it doesn't inconvenience the 4,000 people that's living there.
	But the other thing I noticed is there are around 4,000 immigration lawyers, well, immigration advisors, to make it a little bit more broad, in the UK.
	Now, they're obviously going to need to go out there as well.
	And it would be interesting to see what happens to a society when the population is 50% immigration lawyers.
	What kind of society would that be?
	We don't want to break up the lawyer-client relationship.
	No, no, no.
	No, it's important.
	It's important that they stay close.
	And maybe some of the judges who like that.
	I have a feeling it would begin to resemble Haiti.
	Well, we don't know.
	We've never tried that experiment of a 50% immigration lawyer location.
	Which circle of hell do you most reckon it would resemble?
	Yes.
	It would do wonders for, you know, and look, this is St. Helena's property, so there you go.
	If you're an immigration lawyer listening to this and you're thinking you don't like this, you can get perfectly reasonable little bungalows there.
	Look, this is all fine.
	There you go.
	Let's click on one of these.
	That was the.
	It was a bit slow.
	But you've got these, you get these charming little properties in St. Helena's.
	They're dead cheap.
	Whatever this one, 170k.
	Peanuts.
	You sell your £2 million Islington flat.
	You're going to have one of these?
	Bit of money on the side?
	Should work out.
	Should work out perfectly.
	Money, build some extra houses.
	Immigration lawyers like going to swanky restaurants.
	So the St. Helena's economy will get a massive injection.
	The point I'm kind of making here is that when reform comes in, solving this problem can be done within a year tops.
	No reason why this cannot be knocked in the head within a year the moment you get a government that has the will to do so.
	And if they don't do it, they're a massive scam.
	If they do do it, you know, I think we need to take the hats off to them.
	I'll leave it there.
	They're not going to do it.
	Sorry to have to say that.
	Can I have a mouse, please?
	You can have a mouse.
	Thank you very much.
	Yes, I'll go through the super chats and rumble rants that we've got.
	Rumble Kasadwen says our justice system always looks ridiculous when applied to foreign barbarians who don't care about or understand it.
	What the hell do these people care about trials, appeals, and arrest rights?
	Yeah, there is something darkly comic and absurd about that video of a man who clearly doesn't understand or care what's going on being read his rights very quickly.
	I would say don't bother, but I know that there are processes.
	That's a random name.
	Stay strong, Harry.
	I shall Fed post in your stead.
	Thank you very much.
	Don't want to get taken off of YouTube.
	Habsification in Bo's Britain, every man is required to have a beard like Bo and long hair like Harry.
	Or both, like I suggested Bo should try.
	That picture that you put up on your Twitter was great of you back in the 90s with long hair.
	Yeah.
	That's quite a shock to me.
	It was cruel of you to say great back.
	I have a little island.
	Like Alan Shearer used to have a little island of hair.
	What grow that out and try and make it a co-op?
	Have you ever seen the old Brian Eno look from the 1970s?
	You could go for that.
	Yeah.
	You put an old photo of yourself up on X, did you?
	Yeah.
	It's a good picture, actually.
	While you're reading the comments, I'm looking that up.
	Yeah.
	YouTube super chats.
	How long do you think it'll be before the USA reports an influx of asylum applications from the UK on the basis of religious or political persecution?
	I don't really know what you could be referring to there.
	Sorry.
	Shin Subin says, keep fighting the good fight, lads.
	The entire Anglosphere is suffering the same issue.
	Respect from Australia.
	Please ask the king to sack our prime minister.
	The king will never do such a thing because the king agrees with everything that is going on in this country because he too is a traitor.
	Mark H. Harry, did you learn about the men of Alzut?
	Carl gave me a short synopsis of the story.
	I do not wish to look into it any further.
	Nakima Gluck says they attempt as soon as they arrive because they know from their pals here in the UK already they won't get prosecuted.
	They know they're protected, which encourages assault with impunity.
	It's part of the benefits package.
	I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of that's relatively accurate.
	And Mr. Scary the Terry, do you think the three-time Medal of Honor and five Purple Hearts recipient Brandon Herrera will win?
	Will this set a precedent?
	Will he lose all of his luscious sexy hair from stress and white claws?
	I don't have any idea about that.
	Sorry.
	Do you have any idea about that?
	No, but Scary Terry, you see the one that always said bitch.
	Scary Terry and oh God, Rory would know this.
	Rick and Morty.
	Yeah, Rick and Morty.
	Yeah, yeah.
	There was one more come through from Dave Chandler.
	I love the St. Helena idea.
	The question is political will.
	Even here in the US, with Trump and Holman running ice, we're only deporting illegals in the tens of thousands.
	We're still not serious.
	Yeah, tens of millions came in under Biden.
	Trump needs to ramp up those numbers.
	And also, he needs to do an announcement with H-1B that then isn't immediately rug-pulled a few days after.
	Did you see about that?
	Yeah, that was very disappointing because that was going to be the best thing that he'd done so far, frankly.
	Immediate disappointment.
	Anyway, so the big question that many people are asking is, is Britain going through a terrible crime wave?
	Is this country now worse than it used to be?
	On the lips of many people, judging by the evidence of their own eyes, their own experiences, anecdotes, and reports that they see in the media, most say, yes, there is a crime wave, crime has gone up, yes, this is a worse place to live than it once was.
	But against the tide of facts and common sense comes one warrior, that is Fraser Nelson, editor of the supposedly conservative magazine, The Spectator, who is always around to drop some of the worst takes you have ever seen in your entire life.
	And it raises the question, is Fraser Nelson simply dense or is he actively dishonest and lying to your face?
	I think a combination of both seems to be the answer, because not only is he lying to your face, he's also very stupid in the way that he does.
	What has inspired me to look into Fraser Nelson, who is one of this channel's least favorite people in the entire world?
	I would argue one of the worst people in the country, and that's against some pretty competition.
	Well, it's the fact that I keep seeing normies on social media posting around this video, which came out at the beginning of the month, nearer the beginning of the month, the 12th of September, as a summary of a larger column that he had produced for the Times newspaper.
	And it's Fraser Nelson telling you that crime is not experiencing a massive uptick since the influx of foreign invaders came into this country and in fact is reaching a 25-year low.
	How does he have the stats to try to back this information up?
	He's saying things like knife attacks took a drop to a 25-year low.
	NHS hospital admissions due to knife attacks are reaching a 25-year low.
	And he goes on to make a number of other absurd sounding claims, which many people that I have seen, people who don't look into this and don't want to trust their eyes when they walk into their towns and their town centers and see that they are completely desolate, worse than they've ever been, and they know people who've been victimized by crime.
	They don't want to believe that because like Fraser Nelson, they want to believe that the multicultural project of Britain has been a resounding success.
	And I want to look into a little bit of why Fraser Nelson might want to believe that as well.
	But let's look at a little bit of the larger article that this is summarized from.
	And I'm going to read some passages from this.
	And remember, these are not my words.
	These are the words of Fraser Nelson, famous conservative, whatever that means in this day and age.
	He says, it becomes impossible to believe what the facts do seem to suggest, that our society, for all its faults, is probably safer, richer, and better than any before it.
	Not just any time in Britain, any other civilization that ever came before modern Britain, the UK.
	Today, progress is the truth that dare not speak its name.
	Major environmental and social achievements are barely known and when mentioned, universally disbelieved.
	And he goes on to cite things like a 53% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions over the past 25 years, which makes it so much better for me and everybody else that I know that I guess the housing crisis doesn't matter anymore.
	Massive wage stagnation doesn't matter anymore.
	Huge raise in inflation doesn't matter anymore.
	The fact that the government stole years from people's lives under the COVID regime doesn't matter anymore.
	Dropping birth rates of native children.
	That doesn't matter.
	Thank the gods.
	Greenhouse gas emissions are down.
	Thank you very much, Fraser.
	School sizes, unemployment, just the general breakdown of a high trust society that you cannot deny.
	If you live in this country, you can't.
	I cannot deny it.
	My high street, which is completely dead, empty, filled with nothing but Turkish barbershops, phone shops, nail salons, doesn't matter.
	Also, there's the perfectly straightforward evidence of my eyes and ears.
	I can remember walking around this country 25 years ago.
	I can see it with my own eyes and ears what is going on.
	And the country is becoming less lawful.
	And if he believes his numbers, it's only because people can't be bothered to report it anymore.
	Well, that's where we'll get into some of the more detailed breakdown of why he believes all of this.
	So he goes on to say, most crimes have always gone unreported.
	That's why the Thatcher government set up the crime survey.
	That's the crime survey of England and Wales.
	Asking thousands of households, specifically 35,000 spread evenly geographically, that is 1,000 households per county, if they have suffered crime, and if so, what type?
	It shows that over the past 20 years, that since the start of strictly come dancing, I don't know why he makes that particular.
	Is there some correlation being suggested here?
	Is there some causation?
	Strictly come dancing came out and we're starting to see a reduction in crime rates, but that's the kind of faulty logic that I would expect from Fraser Nelson.
	Robbery is down 60%.
	Bike theft and car theft have both halved.
	Burglary is down by two-thirds.
	And all violent crime, according to the survey, it's halved since 2005.
	So these are the claims that are being made using the data that has been provided by the crime survey, which again is kind of an evenly weighted survey going out to 35,000 households across the country, evenly distributed from each county, just asking them.
	And there can be some benefit to asking these kinds of questions, especially in picking up unreported crime.
	But you also notice that this is one, a very specific way of trying to count crime that should be measured up against other metrics of counting crime, and two, very limited in its scope, as I'll go on.
	And furthermore, just ask yourself this: does that pass the sniff test?
	Right?
	When you go about your day-to-day life, when you read your local newspapers, when you interact with people on a day-to-day basis, do you feel as though things are safer than they have ever been?
	When you know that we have been importing millions of people from countries which are known to be war zones at the best of times, and demographics that when you see the crime rates of them in other countries like America, you see that they commit a disproportionate rate of violent crime.
	When you look at prison population statistics and see that people of the Muslim faith are overrepresented by about three or four times, black people are overrepresented in prisons by three or four times, if not more.
	Does this pass the sniff test, knowing all of that?
	Or does this come across like somebody is telling you bold-faced lies and trying to get away with it?
	Because that's what he's doing.
	And we'll get onto the information showing that in a moment.
	The evidence of my own eyes and here is just my anecdote, but living in the real world, living in reality, that's just not the case.
	And I wonder what the stats are, whether they're up or down since Strictly started on Islamic terrorist murders.
	Or sexual assault.
	What were they like pre-the year 2000 against now?
	Note that he's ignoring things like sexual assault.
	Oh, that's more interesting than this.
	Well, that gets skipped over.
	Yeah, right.
	But he's got a lot of nice graphs which are included in this article because he likes to cite polls saying that people, well, people feel like crime is up.
	But I don't really like.
	Well, Fraser Nelson disagrees with how you feel because he's got very selectively chosen surveys where a line goes down, which normally would break Fraser Nelson's heart because he only likes it when graphs go up.
	Yeah, but it's not how I feel.
	I mean, I literally walked out of the office a month ago and watched somebody get stabbed.
	Yeah, we've all witnessed crime firsthand.
	But the thing is, as well, and this is another part of it, the way that this survey is distributed across the county, we all know that there are some places which have basically no crime.
	There are still some havens.
	Of course, Operation Scatter is trying to change that by putting in violent criminals into your next door, into your next door neighbor's old house, by paying off landlords.
	But there are still parts of the country that serve as a haven where basically no crime is committed.
	But there are also parts of the country that are massive hotspots for crime, where a lot of crime spikes happen every single day.
	And so the way that this is distributed in this survey means that you will necessarily be under-reporting the criminal hotspots and underreporting the crime that may be going on there, because that's maybe only one or two households over a thousand.
	So that's one way.
	He carries on to say, I'd also argue not just that the streets are safer, but that in general, this is probably the best time to be alive, ever.
	The best time to be alive.
	This is better than the 1950s, for example.
	Yes, ask your elderly grandfather how things were back when he was young and his experiences then versus now and see if you come to agreement with that.
	That is to say, if you could choose to live in, choose any era to live in Britain, but not your place in society, you'd choose right now.
	Who does he think he's kidding exactly?
	Well, you got it past the editor of the Times.
	So presumably they thought that there was some kind of merit to this.
	NHS hospital admissions in England for all assaults, night assaults, bodily force or firearms.
	And again, I really dislike this use of going back only about 25 years as well.
	Because mass immigration did not start 25 years ago.
	Mass immigration really began sometime around the 50s and 60s.
	It was a lower number.
	There was lower floods coming in.
	But even by the time you get to the 1960s, you have enough reason for Enoch Powell to be coming out and making statements about the effects of migrant crime and for that to resonate enough with people on the ground that he becomes the most popular politician in the entire country.
	It is disingenuous.
	I wonder what the numbers were in, say, 1950.
	And the numbers are slightly down, but they're still really high.
	So what are you trying to prove?
	And he goes on to say, and I think this is one of the big things that motivates all of this, is that he is absolutely obsessed with demographic collapse.
	And you can see him always talking about it here.
	Demography is destiny.
	We could be in a worse place because working age population is growing.
	Because he's absolutely terrified of the population dipping at any point.
	Because he ends the article by saying the biggest problem facing any country is demographic collapse.
	And almost every country in Europe is bracing itself for a steep decline in its working age population, but not Britain.
	Alone in Europe, we're projected to grow at a normal rate if demographics is destiny.
	Ours is pretty strong.
	He neglects to mention how many of these working age people are actually coming into the country and working versus immediately claiming benefits.
	But that's neither.
	He must know this is really bad faith.
	He must know that.
	This is why I ask the question, is he just an idiot or is he dishonest?
	Because I don't think he's an idiot.
	I don't like the man.
	I don't agree with his wellview and his takes and what he's doing.
	But he's not an idiot, is he?
	Is it possible he's just simply never considered the possibility that we don't need to keep doing the big three, the NHS, the pensions and the welfare the way we do now?
	Because that's the only reason you need a growing population is because all three of those things are Ponzi schemes.
	Well, are we really surprised when there is a very famous clip from 2017 now where he basically comes out as a proponent, an advocate for lying to people?
	Really?
	Yes.
	Where he says, as long as you lie to people that you hear their concerns about immigration, you can do whatever you want.
	Really, he said that.
	I haven't seen this clip.
	Oh, play a bit.
	You say it's famous, but I don't know if I've seen it.
	Her experience so far of her short premiership is if you go if you persuade people that you're listening to what they have to say, that you don't reject their concerns as being bigoted or xenophobic, that if you talk in a language that is more in common with neglected voters than it is with the metropolitan fashionable elites, then that goes a long way.
	You don't have to come up with policies banning immigrants or anything like that.
	All you need to do is to basically say to people, I hear your concerns.
	I mean, let's look at David Cameron.
	He actually, I think, did quite a good job here as well.
	He was, nobody expected him to win a majority in 2015, but he did.
	And he had a policy of cutting immigration by two-thirds.
	Now, he completely failed in that target, but the fact that he had that target counted for a lot, because it meant people thought at least he wanted to control immigration.
	And there are a lot of parties in Europe right now, and governments in Europe, who wouldn't even say that they want to control it.
	They think that that is dark territory that we don't want to go down.
	Now, it's funny.
	But I was saying that this is only psychology, that as long as you say the right things, people will appreciate that.
	And that's the problem.
	I'm not saying results do not really matter.
	I'm not saying it's only psychology, but I think a large part of it is empathy rather than psychology.
	So that's about enough of that.
	Yeah, just lie.
	Just say you understand what people are saying and what they're concerned about.
	And then you can just do whatever you want.
	So I used to listen to the Coffeehouse Shots spectator podcast when he was doing it.
	And I found it both helpful and completely insufferable because all of them on The Spectator, they've never had a thought that didn't originate from the Liberal left.
	They think they're conservatives because they're slightly to the right of most of the Liberal Left, but all of their thinking is within the Liberal Left paradigm.
	But it was nevertheless helpful because they have a very close finger to the pulse of what people within that bubble think.
	So even though they're wrong about everything, it is useful for seeing what SW1 people actually think about stuff.
	Yes, and again, with the fact that this guy is an editor of The Spectator, he has a regular column in The Times.
	He makes these short, informative videos that then get spread out by normies.
	This man is influencing people's perception of reality, as is his purpose.
	He is a mouthpiece regime propagandist.
	You're out there seeing your town has gone to hell, crime is up, people that you know personally have been victimised, people aren't able to afford houses.
	This is the guy that they roll out to tell you everything is fine.
	And The Spectator, by the way, is the oldest conservative newspaper in the world.
	Yeah, skin-suited by these types.
	Well, it used to be all right until he got hold of it, and then it took a sharp turn to the liberal thought bubble.
	Which is no surprise.
	And on the actual article, I found this substack post by a group called Trafalgar Analytics.
	Now, I do not know who these people are, but I did read through the article and found it very interesting.
	They've got a number of other articles talking about subjects like the grooming gangs and a lot of other analytic analysis of data.
	And they go through his article and just tear it apart.
	First of all, by tearing apart the legitimacy of using the crime survey for England and Wales in the first place, saying that he presents the crime survey as definitive proof that crime is falling, yet the survey's limits must be recognised.
	It's based on a random household sampling, around 35 respondents across England and Wales, averaging only about 1,000 households for each county.
	The broadspread means areas with persistently high crime are heavily undersampled, reducing its ability to capture concentrated hotspots.
	Respondents are also asked to recall incidents retrospectively over the previous year, introducing recall bias and built-in time lag before trends become visible.
	In addition, certain major crime categories, including fraud, online crime, and homicide, are either excluded or insufficiently measured by the survey.
	So they just take out huge, huge amounts of crime, are immediately removed because they just don't ask about it.
	So I don't think Mr. Nelson used that particular data set because he's stupid.
	I think he used it on purpose.
	Right, yeah.
	It doesn't make sense that he accidentally used a faulty data set.
	I mean, it also goes on to say it doesn't cover multiple occupancy dwellings, including HMOs, which would also be presumably where a lot of crime might happen.
	It doesn't cover student accommodation, which is now where we're going to be housing some migrants, as I covered last week.
	And it doesn't cover care homes and a load of different types of dwellings.
	As the CESEW is victim reported, it's also impossible to be both alive and report experiencing a homicide.
	Equally, the survey excludes crimes without a specific victim, be it drug possession or crimes against the state.
	So it's just like there's so much, like 70% of crime isn't covered by this.
	Did you say in all of that that these raping migrants, they're going to be putting them in student accommodation?
	Yes, I covered it as part of the Operation Scatter site.
	To save them the walk to their next sexual assault.
	Assumedly so.
	Yeah.
	Right.
	Undergrads are probably a bit old for them.
	But it gets even worse, guys.
	Trafalgar Analytics is not the first to highlight all of these problems, they say.
	In July 2022, the Director General for Statistics Regulation at the ONS, Edward Humpherson, suspended official accreditation status for it as a national statistic.
	This was not restored for the year ending 2023, nor the year ending 2024.
	Following the election of the new Labour government, accreditation was restored to the crime survey on the 24th of October 2024.
	So for two years, almost two and a half years, until Labour comes in and they want to have statistics that they can point to to say that crime is going down, this was not even considered legitimate as a national statistic that the ONS could use to report crime because it is that faulty in its methodology for accurately showing you what crime is like in this country.
	But what they did instead is that they went through, well, the police reports of crime, you know, across the whole country, which is a lot more robust because it's what the police are actually picking up instead of what random people at random households that might be in areas that are veritable utopias compared to other parts of the country are just saying that they've experienced.
	And on that, they were able to determine that what, well, here's an interesting fact as well.
	At least 50% of all crimes occur within 225 meters of a previously reported criminal location.
	So that just shows how condensed high crime areas tend to be and why you end up getting places like some of the estates in Brixton, where it's just no-go zones.
	If you're not a black guy who's in a drill gang native to that postcode, then you don't go there because they will try to kill you or rob you.
	Because there are hot spots.
	So they go through here and they found out that the assessment of crime across England and Wales over the past decade differs from Fraser Nelson and the crime survey.
	Since 2015, individual categories of crime have shown different trajectories.
	So down is vehicle theft and burglary.
	Up over 50% is shoplifting and robbery.
	Up more than doubled is public order offences, possession of weapons, violence and sexual offences.
	And here's the graph that they made of that.
	Well, it doesn't look like a 25-year low to me.
	No.
	No, it certainly doesn't.
	Maybe if you expand it out back before 2015, maybe then you can see where it's a massive dip.
	No.
	So in Fraser Nelson's world, they were just asking tiny little homogenous zero crime villages if they'd experienced any crime.
	And the answer's no.
	But then when you ask the police, if you actually deal with crime, the answer's yes, it's up massively.
	I mean, if you were to survey the bit of the country that I live in, for example, yeah, crime is unheard of.
	Apart from people parking badly occasionally.
	It's not necessarily that they explicitly go out of their way to ask those people.
	It's that it's a random selection and the people asked from there, their opinions count just as much as the one guy who they've randomly selected from a high crime area.
	I wonder if Fraser Nelson or other people like him, whether they do have, in the small of the night, perhaps, and have a moment of reflection, whether they ever think, am I doing the wrong thing morally, the wrong thing?
	Are we the bad?
	by peddling a false narrative which ultimately puts people in danger or ruins the country, ruins the fabric of our society.
	I wonder if he ever stops and ruminates on that.
	I think that Westminster bubble is a titanium shell.
	I genuinely don't think he has any thoughts outside of it.
	And look at this.
	He posted this himself without anybody pushing him to.
	And this should sum it up his position.
	I've been a supporter of mass immigration, but it's lately been too much of a good thing.
	What?
	Too much of a good thing.
	And the reason for saying that is because mass migration was hiding in the statistics the welfare crisis that's been going on.
	Also, it is the Ponzi scheme that he's entirely focused on then.
	Yes.
	And of course, Wren just posted too much of a good thing.
	You know, we hate journalists for a reason, folks.
	Yes.
	Because even if it was the case, which it isn't, that all mass migration was some kind of incredible economic boon to this country.
	And if it was all just legal migrants coming into the country, it still wouldn't be worth it for this, for the rape gangs that exploded in this country of foreign nationals who were hidden and covered up by the local police forces.
	That's not even to mention everything else that comes with the problems of reducing birth rates in ethnically diverse areas, dilution of English identity and culture, and the fact that this is our homeland, and I don't want to be replaced or displaced in my own homeland either, because they're allowed to organise along their group interests and we're not because Prevent don't want us to be able to do so.
	And, you know, there's just so many different times where he has said things like this, where he said, well, you know, I want to stop the boats, but if we stopped the boats, what we should also do is then take in three legitimate asylum seekers for every one you deport.
	Why?
	Why are you saying that?
	Why?
	Well, because it would be discharging your moral duty as a strong country to the world's dispossessed.
	Something that nobody ever agreed to or asked for who wasn't already in the elite halls of power.
	Which Fraser Nelson, I assume, is.
	But we don't care.
	I don't care what you think our moral duty is to the world.
	It's not.
	You are completely out of touch.
	As we can see from this.
	This was another article back from July.
	The data leak...
	Is this real?
	Is that real?
	This is a real article.
	The data leak was bad.
	Letting in Afghans isn't.
	I'm just going to remind everybody of the good work that the Center for Migration Control have been doing in cataloguing all of the crimes committed by foreign immigrants into this country, including this now notorious graph, where we can see that Afghanistan, people from Afghanistan, commit sexual offences to such a ridiculous degree.
	Per capita.
	Per capita.
	So can I just quickly add that, I mean, after we found out about the Afghan leak, of course, the Afghan practice of Bakubazi, where they basically sodomise young boys, is a thing.
	And it's considered a regular thing in Afghanistan to the point where a new police officer will expect a boy to be given to him as a perk of the job, right?
	I had people get in touch with me to say, because we already knew that the military guys were told to overlook it.
	I had people get in touch with me and I couldn't get anyone to go on the record about it because they were serving military or border force or something like that.
	I had people get in touch with me and say, that is still happening.
	That is happening in the UK now in these asylum centers.
	They're still sodomizing your boys, and it is still the case that the UK authorities are saying, yeah, just turn a blind eye to it.
	It's their cultural thing.
	Just leave it be.
	And could we have predicted this?
	Yes.
	Yes.
	Yes, because it turns out that particular groups behave in particular ways that are specific to them.
	And just because you could say, not all, doesn't mean you can't make predictive, you can't make predictions.
	So almost certainly the case with Fraser Nelson is he knows one or two good immigrants, people who come here and started a business or something like that, and he has lunch with and dinner parties.
	And he thinks you can just scale that up to a million a year.
	Whereas, no, all the people who were going to come here and start businesses and actually add value and stuff, we've drained that pool a long time ago.
	Now we're just getting people who are just sitting under a tree in Eritrea or being sports teachers in bloody Ethiopia who come over here and add no value.
	But he thinks there's just a limitless supply of people that he goes to his bloody liberal dinner parties with.
	See, I would be inclined to agree with him.
	You're probably right to some degree.
	But also, though, he's not an idiot.
	He's not.
	So he must also know.
	He must also know.
	Yeah, but a lot of them are a danger.
	there's a level of smugness which can override any sort of clear thinking i mean this is this is this is i know i'd call him just an an enemy Oh, yeah.
	Like a fifth columnist.
	Oh, 100%.
	This is his go-to line.
	This is something he keeps hammering on recently, where he's saying, oh, we've never been a better time to live in this country, despite the fact that foreign nationals, these are people who are foreign in this country.
	Connor's great on Nelson, actually.
	Yeah, yeah, I forgot he's good on Nelson.
	Connor goes for internet.
	Remember, foreign nationals are people of foreign ancestry who just haven't been given a passport yet.
	So people who have the passport don't get included in these, even if they're foreign, because we don't typically take in the ethnicity data, or at least it's not published publicly.
	They commit a quarter of all sex crimes, right?
	That's despite being, what, 9.3% of the population.
	If it was representative as a proportion of the population, that should be 9.3% of the crimes.
	But no, instead, they more than double that.
	That's what, 150% increase over what it should be.
	Connor just says that's evil.
	What Fraser Nelson's doing is evil.
	I mean, he's right.
	He's right.
	Think about it.
	He's right.
	The economic benefits of over 1 million migrants in this country claiming benefits every year.
	1.15 million foreign-born individuals claiming some kind of benefit.
	So it's all worth it.
	Thank God we've got all of those working-age people coming in here and immediately taking our money.
	That makes it all worth it.
	So yes, I brand you, Fraser Nelson, a dishonest liar and an enemy of the British people.
	There you go.
	Let's go through some of the super chats and rumble rants.
	Explosion says, even if they survey people in high crime areas, there's a higher likelihood that they will survey people who will say nothing to protect criminals who are their family or friends.
	Yes, or maybe just themselves.
	That's a random name here in Canada.
	They simply don't report crime, so people think things are safer than they are.
	I do take night shifts, and so I sometimes get to see the cops cordoning off a body laying in the middle of a street.
	That's not very nice.
	Habsification: conservatives like Nelson can only understand the issue once they experience the issue.
	They can only understand pain to Nelson.
	It's just some problem out there in the ether, not his problem.
	I don't think he even believes that there is a problem.
	That's a random name.
	There is no such thing as demographic collapse.
	Populations fluctuate naturally.
	If they hadn't flooded our nations with barbarians, the population would already be naturally going back up.
	Probably.
	Bald Eagle.
	It's easy to say crime is down when the reported crimes are ignored by officials and the people being asked the questions: are the ones committing the crime?
	High likelihood of that.
	And super chats.
	Normal man says the UN feels like an outdated relic.
	It's like an exhibition on what the future would be like from the perspective of people from the 1960s that is ridiculously inaccurate to the present day.
	Yeah.
	And Sam, when are you making Harry read Nick Lowell's new book?
	Never.
	US military is the deep state saying US military is the culprit of open society.
	There's no secret about it.
	US military is stationed to force open society and democracy to the country.
	Probably.
	And that's all the super chats we've got so far.
	Let's go through your segment, both.
	Okay.
	So, yesterday, the Donald made a big speech at the UN.
	And so, seeing as, you know, he's the leader of the free world, I thought it's worth going through because he did say some.
	This isn't the speech he intended to give, is it?
	Because they turned off his teleprompter.
	Yeah, that was one of the things, actually.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Apparently, the escalator broke while he was going up there.
	The instant he stepped on it.
	Right.
	You're saying that someone deliberately did it just to see if it wasn't.
	Well, there have been reports of UN staff bragging about the fact they did it.
	Oh, okay.
	Yeah, and the teleprompter broke, but it came back on.
	But anyway, I thought it'd be interesting to cover it because it is important when the president makes a big speech like this, whether it's the State of the Union or whether it's before the General Assembly or whatever it is.
	And from our point of view, he said some good things.
	And, you know, despite all the anti-American sentiment, the United States still is the most powerful country in the world.
	You know, they are still up there.
	So, with my Trump hat on, he's always got it handy.
	I always get it.
	We'll try not to be just a pure pro-Trump propagandist machine because, you know, I've still got questions about the whole Epstein thing, and I'm not going to let that go.
	But this speech, but this speech was a good one.
	He said some pretty cool things.
	It mainly focused around immigration and green things.
	So should we just run through it?
	Yeah, yeah.
	Just run through it.
	Okay.
	So, first of all, he started off by just sort of a classic Trump bombast saying how good his presidency has been so far over the first seven or eight months or whatever.
	Yeah, so fair enough.
	And he said he talked about how the immigration at the southern border is now zero.
	And he called it, I've got lots of quotes here from him.
	He said, the ridiculous open border policy of Joe Biden just called it sort of openly ridiculous.
	That got a few murmurs in the audience that he would even say that.
	Just a few minutes.
	But it wasn't rebel, rebel, rebel.
	Sorry.
	Yeah, of course, yeah.
	No, absolutely an insane thing.
	Yeah.
	And he said to, because in front of him is like lots and lots of ambassadors and leaders of the other countries.
	And he says that sort of an open borders policy, it destroys your country and you have to do something about it.
	He's correct.
	Yeah, right.
	But again, it's great that he's saying this right to the faces of the sort of arch globalists.
	He's just saying it straight to them.
	I mean, the shocking thing about Trump is he just says completely obvious things that we all say to each other whilst being in the corridors of power.
	And that's kind of a shocking disconnect for most people.
	It's like, what, somebody who's actually in charge of something is sensible about this stuff.
	Yeah.
	He talks about how America is no longer a laughing stock that it was under Biden.
	I think mainly in terms of economy and migration policy.
	And that he got movement on NATO.
	He's got lots of trade deals going on with all sorts of countries.
	He did say he'd ended seven unendable wars.
	I mean.
	Do you know what the seven are?
	Yeah, yeah, I can listen for you.
	The Cambodia-Thailand thing.
	I'll just listen off.
	Cambodia, Thailand, Kosovo, Serbia, Congo versus Rwanda, Pakistan versus India, Israel versus Iran, Egypt versus Ethiopia, and Armenia versus Azerbaijan.
	Now, I just will say that nearly all of those, it will almost certainly prove to be a hiatus.
	I think he's going to end them.
	He's jumping ahead a bit by saying, oh, they're done now.
	These unendable wars are done.
	Israel, Iran, that won't escalate again.
	No chance.
	Broadly speaking, broadly speaking, I'm pro-Trump and pro-MAGA.
	But that's an exaggeration.
	That one of an exaggeration.
	It's like nothing will ever happen between India and Pakistan ever again.
	We've finally secured peace in the Congo and Rwanda.
	Forever, forever.
	Forever.
	Also, if he did stop a nuclear war between India and Pakistan.
	Should he.
	Are you going to go there?
	I mean, how much of a win is that?
	Just rank it on a scale of cut the stream, Samson.
	Cut it, cut it.
	Yeah, no, so, but nonetheless, having said that, having joked about that, it's still best for nothing.
	Even the ceasefire is better than nothing, nearly always.
	Okay.
	Right?
	It is better.
	It is better that Cambodian and Thailand troops aren't shooting at each other, surely.
	For example, for a while.
	I'm neither Cambodian nor Taiwanese, so I don't care.
	He did throw some direct shade at the UN itself.
	He said that throughout all those things that he's done in his few months in office, that the UN didn't help.
	He just said they didn't help.
	Not even a phone call.
	They weren't there for us.
	And any questions, what is the purpose of the UN then?
	He said that the UN engages a lot in empty words.
	I don't get it.
	And they only ever send a letter and they don't actually do anything.
	I mean, what is the point?
	So the UN was set up, as I understand it, to stop wars after 1945.
	And the world has been constantly at war since 1945.
	I mean, it's achieved nothing.
	Why fund it?
	Why fund any of it?
	NATO, the World Health Organization, just shut it all down.
	I mean, there's an argument to be made.
	You might say that the UN has helped stop the biggest countries from going to sort of an all-out world war.
	I mean, it's only an argument.
	I'm not even saying that's true.
	I'm just saying there is that argument.
	It probably isn't because they were concerned about getting a letter from the UN.
	Well, the UN is, you know, very much like the League of Nations, is effectively toothless if the biggest contributors to it, the United States.
	I mean, the United States never even signed up to the League of Nations.
	But anyway, the point is, yeah, if they haven't got a big enough force and a big enough political will to do things to intervene all over the world, then they won't or they can't.
	So, yeah, I mean, Trump's moaning about it, but I mean, the UN was always, like NATO, another instrument in the toolbox of United States foreign policy to an extent.
	So, I mean, if you want the UN to do more, I mean, I suppose you can give them more.
	I don't know.
	No, I don't think that would work.
	Shut it down.
	No, but right.
	But that wouldn't really work, would it?
	But that wouldn't really work.
	So there's always that realpolitic thing of the biggest boyers in the playground with the biggest weapons get to do as they please, essentially.
	And you could have a small little octogenarian teacher in the corner saying, don't fight, lads.
	But they're, you know, because they're bigger and more powerful than her, physically.
	You know, you get it.
	If he doesn't defund the UN because they dicked around with his escalator and his teleprompter, I at least want them to go after them for all those parking fines.
	Because you know everyone at the UN, they just parked wherever the hell they want in New York.
	And they get a ticket and they never pay it.
	Because they've got diplomatic communities.
	Yeah, so just pull all the diplomatic plates.
	You can do that.
	It's funny.
	He did tell a little anecdote.
	He said, back in the day.
	And then drone strikes or something.
	I mean, yes.
	Yes, when they're empty.
	Yes.
	He did tell a funny anecdote.
	He said, back in the day, I assume he was talking about in the 80s or the 90s or something, before he was president.
	Because he's a New York property developer person, isn't he?
	That's what he is, first and foremost.
	That he could have got the beard and should have got the contract to build the whole UN estate.
	And they passed him over.
	And the people they picked.
	He would have put his name on the phone.
	And the people that would really annoy them.
	And the people they did pick screwed it all up and still haven't even finished all these years later.
	He says, that's indicative of how the UN works.
	You pick the wrong thing and it's just a shambles from start to finish.
	Not, you know, where's the liar?
	Where's the liar in that?
	Okay, carrying on.
	He did talk about a number of things.
	If I just whip through a few because we are sort of beginning to run low on time.
	He talked about nuclear weapons and Iran, he called Iran, quote, the world's number one sponsor of terror.
	That's an old State Department line.
	But, you know, he went with that and he talked about Operation Midnight Hammer when the B2s, stealth bombers, dropped those massive bombs.
	Was it the one that was supposed to blow up the nuclear facility?
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	They dropped bunker busters, I think.
	Moabs, yeah.
	Mother of all bombs.
	Yeah, giant 30,000-pound bombs, 12 of them.
	I mean, we can take his word for it.
	Wasn't it confirmed that they didn't actually destroy the facilities?
	They just damaged them.
	Well, people still are, analysts are still arguing about that now.
	So Trump says it was completely annihilated.
	And other people, like the Iranian authorities, say no, it wasn't too badly.
	I think the consensus is that it did mess with their program big time.
	They didn't tend to do that.
	Yeah, but not probably didn't obliterate everything, which is what Trump says.
	Because they dropped those bombs and then Trump immediately went out and said these places have been obliterated.
	The Iranians should have come out and said, yep, they've been obliterated.
	No need to ever look at them again.
	Yeah, yeah.
	The fact is, Iran keeps those sites under very strict lock and key.
	So normal people like us that can only go by what's released don't know exactly at this point.
	But anyway, he talked about Gaza and obviously his line on it was more on the pro-Israeli side.
	I mean, he was saying that it's Hamas that is refusing to make peace.
	He did keep saying, I really want a ceasefire.
	We need a ceasefire.
	I did it.
	I said that a number of times, but it's Hamas that won't do it, that won't come to the table, and that they won't really, we need them to release the hostages.
	They've still got loads of hostages, including American ones, 20-odd actual US ones.
	And their line in Trump's line and Israel's line in the sand is we need those back.
	There can't really be a peace until those are back.
	And there was a ripple of applause.
	When he started saying, he didn't say explicitly, but he was obviously referring to some of the countries that in the last few days have recognized a Palestinian state.
	He was saying that that's bad.
	That's wrong-headed.
	Why are you sort of, before Hamas has released hostages, why are you doing that?
	And there was a ripple of applause in the auditorium, which I thought was interesting.
	I thought there'd be like gasps and like a complete silence.
	Obviously, the Israeli ambassadors nodding, but there was a ripple of applause for that, which I found interesting.
	One Ukraine, he said, he did say, admitted, he said, I thought it would be the easiest, the easiest thing to fix and end.
	Because he did say, didn't he?
	Within 24 hours of me back in the Oval Office, I will have ended this thing.
	But he did admit, I thought it would be the easiest.
	But that's probably because he assumed that Ukraine wanted the war to end.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Rather than it being a massive grift.
	Well, lots of his assumptions were obviously wrong on it.
	Yeah.
	But he's at least admitted that to some degree.
	He said, the world would never have started if I'd been president.
	It wouldn't have even started, he said.
	He said, quote, it shows you what bad leadership can do to a country.
	I think he was still referring to Biden there, really.
	And he threw some shade at China and India for still buying Russian oil and some European and NATO countries for still buying Russian oil or gas as well, Russian energy.
	And that some of these NATO and European countries were funding the war against themselves and that that was embarrassing.
	And he called for sort of all countries to pull together for even more powerful tariffs against Russia.
	Yeah, to just everyone needs to stop buying Russian energy.
	I don't know if even that would really stop Putin in his tracks.
	And even the leader of the free world can't tell Beijing what to do.
	No.
	They're going to do what they want to do.
	They're going to make an analysis of what's in their own best interest and they're going to do that.
	And the same goes for India, really.
	He talks about biological weapons.
	I watched the whole thing through.
	I don't think he actually said COVID once or Wuhan once, but he was obviously talking about it when he was talking about biological weapons and he's going to put together a big convention for more research into how to have stricter, much more stricter things throughout the whole world to stop any sort of accidental release of any sort of bioweapons.
	There was one bit in the speech, which I thought was sort of the key, the key sort of about five minutes.
	Can we watch about five minutes of it?
	We've got time for that for me, Samson.
	Just about.
	Okay, so let's just watch.
	Let's watch this bit.
	Not only is the UN not solving the problems it should too often, it's actually creating new problems for us to solve.
	The best example is the number one political issue of our time, the crisis of uncontrolled migration.
	It's uncontrolled.
	your countries are being ruined the united nations is funding an assault remember he's talking to all the world like the arch globalists of the world he's addressing here Hear a few murmurs as well when he said this.
	You're ruining your countries.
	On Western countries and their borders.
	In 2024, the UN budgeted $372 million in cash assistance to support an estimated 624,000 migrants journeying into the United States.
	Think of that.
	The UN is supporting people that are illegally coming into the United States, and then we have to get them out.
	The UN also provided food, shelter, transportation, and debit cards to illegal aliens.
	Can you believe that?
	On the way to infiltrate our southern border.
	Through debit cards.
	Millions of people came through that southern border with money or a year ago.
	Millions and millions of people were pouring in, 25 million altogether over the four years of the incompetent Biden administration.
	And now we have it stopped, totally stopped.
	In fact, they're not even coming anymore because they know they can't get through.
	But what took place is totally unacceptable.
	The UN is supposed to stop invasions, not create them and not finance them.
	In the United States, we reject the idea that mass numbers of people from foreign lands can be permitted to travel halfway around the world, trample our borders, violate our sovereignty, cause unmitigated crime, and deplete our social safety net.
	We have reasserted that America belongs to the American people, and I encourage all countries to take their own stand in defense of their citizens as well.
	You have to do that because I see it.
	I'm not mentioning names.
	I see it, and I can call every single one of them out.
	You're destroying your countries.
	They're being destroyed.
	Europe is in serious trouble.
	They've been invaded by a force of illegal aliens like nobody's ever seen before.
	Illegal aliens are pouring into Europe.
	Nobody is ever, and nobody's doing anything to change it, to get them out.
	It's not sustainable.
	And because they choose to be politically correct, they're doing just absolutely nothing about it.
	You can see why the Rory Stewarts of this world and the Krishnan Guru Murphys of this world, the Shami Chakrabartis and the Yasmin Anamani Browns, you can see why they despise him, right?
	Yes.
	And I have to say, I look at London where you have a terrible mayor, terrible, terrible mayor.
	And it's been so changed.
	So changed.
	Now they want to go to Sharia law.
	But you're in a different country.
	You can't do that.
	Both the immigration and their suicidal energy ideas will be the death of Western Europe if something is not done immediately.
	They cannot.
	This cannot be sustained.
	What makes the world so beautiful is that each country is unique.
	But to stay this way, every sovereign nation must have the right to control their own borders.
	You have the right to control your borders, as we do now, and to limit the sheer numbers of migrants entering their countries and paid for by the people of that nation that were there and that built that particular nation at the time.
	They put their blood, sweat, tears, money into that country, and now they're being ruined.
	Proud nations must be allowed to protect their communities and prevent their societies from being overwhelmed by people they have never seen before with different customs, religions, with different everything, where migrants have violated laws, large false asylum claims, or claimed refugee status for illegitimate reasons.
	They should, in many cases, be immediately sent home.
	And while we will always have a big heart for places and people that are struggling and truly compassionate, answers will be given.
	We have to solve the problem and we have to solve it in their countries, not create new problems in our countries.
	We are very helpful to a lot of anyway.
	It's very good stuff.
	This is exactly stuff we talk about.
	Yeah.
	Right, exactly the sort of stuff we talked about.
	We really nailed it there.
	And it goes on like that in that vein for quite a while.
	But really running short of time, so I'll quickly whip through.
	I want to play a couple more minutes of that, actually.
	It's so good.
	But anyway, whipped through a few more things he talked about.
	He talked about the economy.
	This is a quote.
	Joe Biden's policies empowered murderers, gangs, human smugglers, people traffickers, drug cartels, prisoners from all over the world.
	300,000 children were lost in the US and sold.
	And fake news doesn't write about it.
	He called it inherently evil.
	And he said this.
	He said, the globalist migration agenda, this is what the globalist migration agenda has done.
	And it's what it's all about, i.e.
	inherent evil.
	And he was going to track down the villains who had caused this problem.
	He quickly talked about drug trafficking into America specifically, largely from Venezuela.
	He called out Maduro by name.
	He said some of those Venezuelan drug gangs are the enemies of all humanity.
	He said, we will blow you out of existence.
	We have no choice.
	Okay.
	On energy, he's great because he hates renewable.
	He said that windmills are pathetic.
	He particularly hates windmills.
	And on green energy, he gave a shout out to Germany for sort of reversing itself.
	He said Germany was being led down a very sick path.
	He said, all green means is going bankrupt.
	That's all that means.
	Apparently, when he was in the UK recently at the Windsor and Sir Queer was there, apparently he talked to him loads about the North Sea oil reserves we've got.
	And it's insane to him that we don't use it.
	Yeah, again, where's the liar?
	Where's the liar?
	Yeah, he just caned climate change massively.
	He said it's the greatest con job ever perpetuated on the world.
	And again, there's a little ripple of laughter in the auditorium, which I find.
	And they just laugh at him saying something like that.
	He said that sort of the climate change narrative, quote, was made by stupid people that have cost their countries fortunes.
	Nailed that as well.
	Yeah.
	And it's just a scam.
	The whole thing's a scam.
	He said that climate and migration is a double-tailed monster that destroys everything in its wake.
	The carbon footprint is a hoax made up by people with evil intentions and they're heading down a path of total destruction.
	Talked about how China creates more CO2 than the rest of the world put together.
	Franz and Nelson must have been particularly upset by that one.
	You know, you can see why progressive globo homo types despise him.
	Yes.
	Because he's up there just ripping down their worldview, their narratives.
	They're liars.
	Another with truth.
	Two last quick quotes I thought was worth picking out.
	He said, the primary effect of these brutal green energy policies has not been to help the environment, but to redistribute manufacturing and industrial activity from developed countries that follow the insane rules that are put down and sends this industrial activity to polluting countries that break the rules and they make a fortune.
	He also mentioned in passing that Christianity is the most persecuted religion in the world.
	And he ended it by saying, in closing, I just want to repeat that immigration and the high cost of so-called green renewable energy is destroying a large part of the free world and a large part of our planet.
	Countries that cherish freedom are fading fast because of their policies on these two subjects.
	So pretty based.
	Yep.
	Thank you, Mr. Trump.
	Great.
	I hope your successor is in the same vein on that stuff.
	Well, that would be Vance.
	Now release the Epstein files.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Also do that.
	Also actually start deporting enough people to make a difference.
	Yes.
	There are a lot of things there.
	And I always say, you know, words, talk is cheap.
	And I don't want to be dismissive, but I value actions much more.
	Let's go through some of these video comments and then go because we've got a roundtable in about 30 minutes.
	Hey, Lou Cedars, I'm in Lancaster.
	I've got something very interesting.
	This is the Incess Tombstone.
	It's a Roman auxiliary soldier dating from around 75 to 120 AD.
	Shows him on horseback with the head of a native Briton and trampling the body.
	And the body is carrying a sword.
	Just as the auxiliary soldier is.
	And no stirrups.
	classic roman personally it's stuff like this that makes it like where i'm just like i don't really i don't idolize and venerate rome the same way that a lot of people do Obviously, it was a very impressive civilization, but I'm like, they did also repeatedly try and genocide my Germanic and British ancestors.
	So I'm not particularly interested in venerating them as anything other than a cool historical curiosity for myself.
	I just feel like when you hold a grudge that long, that is lame and gay.
	No, no, I'm like Eric Weinstein.
	Yeah, I was just going to say, I'm just going to say, I'm not holding a grudge.
	I'm not going to their monuments and flipping them off.
	I'm saying I just don't venerate them in the same way that other people do.
	Obviously, they're fascinating, very impressive, but I prefer to venerate them.
	I did like the HBO series, though.
	I wrote the wrong Twitter handle yesterday.
	Sorry, has the right one.
	And some illustrations for a book I have written.
	It is already written.
	And it is great.
	It is the most traditional fairy tale book with the most traditional, conservative, old values.
	And if you want to read it, you can shoot me a PM on X. And I have a PDF file.
	And if you like it, maybe you want to buy it when it's out with the illustrations.
	It's particularly, I think it's really good for small girls who's learning to read and stuff.
	So, yeah.
	I'd actually put, was it Keck the Frog in it?
	Pepe.
	Pepe.
	Pepe the Frog.
	Keck the Frog.
	The Lord of Kekistan.
	And I think Coop's involved in that as well.
	That's cool.
	It's good to see people doing things and trying to create.
	Right, I'll go through the last few super chats and rubble rants and then we are going to go.
	So Dawn Browning just sent in 10 Australian dollars with a little sticker saying thank you.
	So thank you very much for that.
	Ian Thomas, doctrinally, Dan's plan would suck up 16,000 soldiers.
	The entire infantry is guard force alone.
	Enablers on top makes this a massive undertaking.
	No, have one tenth that much under shoot to kill.
	And it is possible that the army recruitment would go up if you started doing things in the interest of the country.
	Maybe.
	Yeah, they always want to have army recruitment up to have white kids to die in their war.
	What if instead it was to protect your own borders and have a real country?
	And you get to live in St. Helena, which I'm sure is a lovely place, other than the migrant camp that we're going to put there.
	Busted Brian on Rumble of the 193 member nations, US pays 22% of the UN's funding via the US taxpayers.
	Trump has every right to criticize them for sitting there and doing nothing but talk about climate change.
	Even better, if they're the ones funding a lot of this stuff, threatened to pull out, that's almost a quarter of their entire budget.
	Could they afford to give food, shelter, and transport to all of these people if the US said, no, we won't pay for it anymore?
	I mean, that's always an option.
	That is always an option.
	Explosion, like the economy under a monopoly, the monopoly of a one-world government would likely have the same effect on quality of government.
	Jokes on you.
	All government is shit in current day and age.
	I can't think, well, maybe El Salvador, but all government is shit.
	Anyway, with that being said, join us in about half an hour if you're a member on the channel, on the website, so that you can watch a roundtable where we'll be joined by.
	Can I say?
	Can I say, is it a land?
	We're supposed to put up a thing, aren't we?
	I think it's on Twitter.
	Josh will be here.
	There you go.
	Josh will be here and we'll talk about whether political violence has increased or decreased.
	If you're not a member on the website, you won't be able to watch it.
	So consider subscribing.
	Consider getting a magazine, get a mug, and enjoy the rest of your day.
	We've been Lotus Eaters.
	Thank you very much.

▲