The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1263

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 30, 2025 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:39:32

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1263

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to podcast of the Lotus Eaters episode 1263 on uh 30th of September 2025.
	I'm joined by Bo and special guest Josh.
	Hello.
	I'm not that special, really, anymore.
	Well, semi-special then at least.
	Yeah, in terms of needs, maybe.
	Right.
	Uh yes.
	Um so today we're going to be talking about um uh what are we gonna be talking about?
	Oh, digital ID.
	Yeah, that that's got to stop.
	So we we're gonna we're gonna explain how to stop that.
	Um shutdown of the US government.
	Sounds like a good idea to me.
	Forever.
	Forever.
	Yes, just stop it.
	Stop it.
	Um they should repeal this silly independence thing they've had going on for a little while.
	It was an experiment, it failed.
	Yes.
	Gave it the best shot, got a side time to end it.
	And um apparently it's not as bad as we think.
	Yeah, I'm trying to cheer people up a little bit because the last few segments I've done, I've been making people very depressed about the state of the world.
	And I don't like doing that, so I'm gonna try and correct it and try and be a little bit optimistic.
	Right.
	So, how do you stop digital IDs?
	Well, before we get to that, can we just remember the importance of having something physical that you can hold in your hand that actually matters?
	Uh nothing digital about this, it's the islander, and and we're running on fumes in the store.
	There's like a hundred left or something, so it's almost certainly going to sell out today.
	So you know, go to the Lotus Eater shop, buy an islander, and uh when the civil war starts, you won't be able to be a chapter master of one of the Lotus Eaters Brigades if you don't have this as your as your sigil to um to operate around.
	Um digital IDs.
	I don't think they're a good idea.
	Not a fan of them.
	They seem superfluous, they're not necessary, are they?
	Well, we've got plenty of documents already that already somewhat centralised by the state.
	You know, you've got a passport, a driver's license, um you've got your national insurance number, um, birth certificates.
	You know, you've got all of these official documents.
	You've your sport for choice, you've got one for every different scenario, and they're already associated with all of the different things.
	Like I've had to show my birth certificate before to prove that I am a UK citizen to get a job.
	Yes.
	This is you know, these are sort of standard practices and being employed cash in hand by a kebab shop.
	Exactly.
	Yes.
	No, I've never worked in a cab.
	They're disgusting.
	Yes, quite.
	I I think it's more about as I sort of allude to here, it's it's the ability to cancel people, is is really what they're is really what they're going for.
	Tie everything to this.
	Now if you go to my the Twitter, uh this is my account.
	I've pinned to my account, um the uh because when when it first came out, the the news over the over the on the Friday, I think it was, I quickly banged out a video 20 reasons why they're awful and must be stopped.
	Now I've given it a bit more thought, and in retrospect, I've decided that I absolutely nailed it first time round.
	But it was a short video, it was only about six minutes long.
	Um so I'm gonna give you the slightly longer version of that.
	But if you've got a low attention span, you can just go and watch that instead.
	Um but um no, what I'm gonna do is is why uh why these things absolutely need to be stopped.
	So uh reason number one, and also this will give you the series of arguments you need.
	If you have if you're arguing normies or you know, parents or uncles or co-workers or something, you give you the normie reasons as to why it's not so bad.
	We're gonna we're gonna dismantle all of that.
	So um number one, uh function creep.
	So apparently it's being introduced for immigration, which is obviously bullshit, obviously.
	Um, but it will inevitably expand into healthcare and banking and voting and internet use and travel.
	It will become over time a Chinese-style social credit system.
	Now, I'm I'm not reaching here.
	I know this because I've read um the UN sustainable development agenda.
	The what is commonly referred to as the 2030 plan.
	Now, it's entirely clear in this document that this is part of a broader agenda.
	They want every country signed up to digital IDs, and the reason they want them signed up for digital IDs is because it then gives you an ability to launch a central bank digital currency where every single transaction can be tracked and stopped if they wish to.
	So let me give you some some quotes from um from this document, which you can you can read the whole bloody thing if you want to, but uh, I'll give you the the relevant quotes here.
	Um US Sustainable Development Goals Agenda 2030 pushes universal identity and it's under SGC uh 169 if you want to look it up, provide legal identity to legal identity for all as a prerequisite for accessing services, finance and mobility.
	So, in order for you to be able to move around, buy stuff and have access to any services, the prerequisite is going to be the digital ID.
	So it is a complete and total blanket control system.
	Um idea that money makes the world go round, you can't really function without money.
	Yes, and they want to be able to see and stop anything that comes in and out of everyone's bank account.
	Yes.
	And and they explicitly say that.
	Um I'll give you another reference here.
	Uh digital public infrastructure um is tying together digital IDs, C B D Cs, and data sharing systems into one interoperable global stack.
	So I mean it's all it's all it is clearly laid out.
	This is a plan, it's all part of a um it's all part of a process.
	I mean I'll come to the I um was it the b the BIS in a minute uh for some of their quotes as well.
	But yeah, I mean it's absolutely what you said.
	And so this is gonna set up very nicely for the age of governance with AI as well, because obviously there's going to be a massive amount of data here, and you would need uh a monumental office to be able to look at it all if you were to effectively monitor it.
	Or an AI.
	And so it seems inevitable that that's the way things are going to go.
	But of course, AI is not perfect, and it's certainly not benevolent for humanity.
	And so, on the one hand, it could be a greater tyranny than human beings possibly can be, and and secondarily, it could also um make mistakes, and it could be that certain things might mistakenly be punished for no reason.
	Well, there was there was a famine in India because of that.
	They introduced digital ID.
	I mean that that's one of the things on the list, but yeah, mistakes were made.
	Oops, loads of people starved.
	Slightly unfortunate.
	Um, government overreach, so it it shifts the balance further to the citizens.
	So instead of the state having to prove to us their validity, we constantly have to prove our validity to the state.
	Uh number three, government overreach shifts the uh you know well actually no, I've uh uh uh that was actually number two, forgive me.
	They did it this out, don't worry.
	Uh no the the actual uh number three, uh loss of anonymity, everyday life becomes uh logged, uh tracked.
	So um and this has already happened with the COVID pass, if you remember.
	So is it's already been the case that and it didn't last very long, but it is a precedent, it is set, you couldn't go into a nightclub in this country without a COVID pass.
	You had to have the NHS test and trace app on your phone.
	So if you didn't have a phone, I think you could potentially have a paper copy, but it's not quite the same.
	But I don't think anyone actually did though.
	No.
	Yeah, I remember trying to try to go into a pub during COVID and they wanted to see my NHS pass, and it's like no fuck off, I'll just go somewhere else then.
	Yeah, in the end, I you know at first I installed it out of practicality, and then I was like out of principle, I'm uninstalling this and never using it again.
	And if somebody demands it, so be it.
	I'm not going to go in there.
	Yeah, so it's hardly a reach to say that it will become this when we've already had this in this country, even if it didn't last for very long.
	So in the end, it paints you into a corner where the only way to not get this thing is to completely live off-grid in a hut in the wilderness and forage for your own food.
	And you can't even do that because uh you're not allowed to.
	I looked into it and the government basically blocks it at every turn.
	Even if you own your own land, um you're not allowed to live in that way.
	Really?
	Yeah.
	So you'd have to go to somewhere like America or Canada where there's big enough wildernesses where you can just do it and no one will ever find you.
	If you're like in the Yukon in Canada, I don't think anyone's gonna stop you, but in most of the Western worlds, there's no option to do that really.
	Yeah.
	You can be off the grid, but you're still, you know, subject to the whims of government.
	And so if they demand something of you, if they say, Okay, you've got a property, we're gonna raise property tax to an absurd amount, then you're gonna have to get an income and and get into the economy again.
	England's just not big enough to do it.
	Like you go to the middle of Xmoor, they'll find you very quickly.
	Oh, yeah.
	You go to like the the new forest or something.
	Yeah, you're still within your dog walkers will come across you within one day.
	I went there recently, and this people are everywhere.
	Right.
	They are indeed.
	Um number four, it won't stop legal migration, obviously.
	I mean, obviously.
	we we did a segment, I think it was you on it.
	Um we did a segment just the other day on what would actually stop illegal migration.
	It's basically using the it's using the Navy, it's setting up an offshore territory, something like St. Helena's leaving the ECHR, that is the only way that you're gonna stop illegal migration.
	This is gonna have no bearing on it whatsoever.
	I mean, how what how how on earth does it stop a boat turning up and people getting off?
	How on earth does it take stop somebody arriving legally and just overstaying their visa or climbing onto the back of a lorry.
	It also presumes that an illegal employer is going to go to the government and say, Well, I've I've hired these people, ooh, whoops, I've I've they've not got any digital ID.
	Oh, I've accidentally dubbed them in.
	Yes, like while paying them.
	No one's that stupid.
	Yes.
	I was just gonna say, yeah, that they're gonna do everything cash in hand because you'll get one guy um who who has come in legally who will set up his digital ID and then here share his delivery account, like you were telling me earlier, there's one guy on delivery who's got like two hundred people being him on the app.
	So you you just have that all over the place.
	You just need one dodgy employer that's prepared to accept cash in hand with no digital ID.
	And that's it, they just continue on as they always were.
	So yeah, it's none it's a nonsense, isn't it?
	Uh number five, it makes us ever more dependent on our phone.
	Now bear in mind we live in a country where hundreds of thousands of phones are snatched every year in London alone.
	And soon it's going to be very difficult in fact it's just gonna be functionally impossible to operate without a phone, and also effectively you become illegal the moment your phone's been stolen.
	And this also hooks you into the economy as well, because phones are designed to basically break after a set number of years, and of course, all of the companies uh try and rape you into a contract which then hooks you back into the economy and gives you a a stake in uh the society that you it you live in by force, basically.
	Your digital ball and chain.
	Uh this sounds like a small point, but I really think it isn't.
	That some older people usually uh just simply aren't sort of smartphone savvy.
	One point seven million people in this country, most of them old people don't have phones.
	All right.
	Well, I know I know plenty of people that are in their fifties or sixties range who are not interested in getting a smartphone.
	They may or may not have any type of mobile phone.
	I know people.
	Well that would be considerably higher than one point seven, the people who just use the old Nokia's and stuff.
	Right, yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Yeah.
	I know three people that are sort of in their fifties that have just got a really, really old sort of Nokia style non-smartphone.
	And yeah, they're not like eighty years old.
	They're they're in their fifties.
	They just they're not interested.
	They grew up before that time.
	And they're not interested in in it.
	So that will be millions of people.
	They're gonna be illegal soon.
	Um this is the point that you brought up actually, um enforcement sham, employers will just hire legals off the books, pay them cash as they do now.
	So yeah.
	It's an obvious loophole, isn't it?
	Very obvious, yes.
	I in fact, there's an incentive to do that more anyway.
	Right, yeah, right.
	It saves the employer and the employee money by not going through the the system.
	I'll have a word with Carl about that.
	That's a good idea.
	Um seven, single point of failure.
	Hack this one database and you get everything at once.
	Or just um be somebody who works at the office of digital IDs and accidentally attached the database to an email that you're sending to some jihadists or something, you know, as they regularly do with with the Afghan thing not so while ago.
	Yeah, if all of your personal data is at the behest of the competency of the civil service, the entire British public is entirely screwed.
	And it could be like just some third party hackers, but it could be actual states' assets of like China or Russia or something.
	Both those parties, I'm sure, are completely capable of doing it.
	Yeah, you're creating a massive honeypot and saying, Yeah, hack this.
	And we're like, yeah, of course, yeah, absolutely.
	That that's gonna be the target, isn't it?
	But I think that they're not even necessarily going to be interested in like leaking everyone's personal data because a lot of it's gonna be pretty inane from that sort of perspective.
	It's gonna be more to hold the country ransom because by centralising it and having all your documents one place, obviously the country's dependent on that to function now.
	So by hacking it, they could hold the entire country to ransom because everything would grind to a halt.
	Yeah, that would happen as well.
	Um number eight is a crucial one, it makes the government a nexus.
	Now, one of the key arguments that you see by idiot lefties is well, we already have a relationship with like Facebook and Google, and they already have lots of data on it.
	So what does it matter?
	A lot of Labour MPs who are trying to understand how they can make an argument for this are going for this one.
	You've already got loads of digital accounts.
	The important thing to understand with all of those is all of them are one-to-one relationships.
	So you've got a relationship with Facebook, you've got relationship with your bank, you've got relationship with I don't know, your mortgage company, whatever it is, but you've got a whole series of one-to-one relationships all the way around.
	And you are the nexus point of that.
	What's going to happen is if they bring in digital IDs, is all of those services are not going to bother going to the expense of doing their own individual identity verification that they do with you at the moment.
	They're just going to all say they link to the digital ID.
	So that means you no longer have a well, you you literally have a one-to-one, you have one one-to-one relationship with you and your digital ID that the government owns, and then that is the nexus for absolutely everything else.
	Which means that if the government is the nexus of that, if they decide to limit you, instead of at the moment, they'd have to if they want to say, for example, shut down your bank account, they've got to have a court order for each individual bank account you have.
	If they want to take away your property, they need to sign a warrant for that.
	If they want to shut you down from a thing, they need to they need to lean on each digital service in order to get it done.
	Whereas for now they won't need to.
	They will just flag your digital ID and it's done in one click.
	I think it's also interesting that a lot of the tech sector, which is obviously American based, um, has sided with Trump because of the legislative favours he can afford them and help them uh you know, cutting back European legislation, and all of a sudden digital ID has been introduced.
	So now Facebook is you know playing ball with Trump and not censoring people as much.
	Obviously, there's still some going on.
	Um they're introducing this sort of thing to what basically take it away.
	And of course, there's also a cost incentive here for all of these individual platforms to do this because if it's centralised, it's out of their jurisdiction, therefore they don't have to pay for all of this verification.
	Lower liabilities for them in the lot, yeah.
	There's no way that they're not going to adopt it, and even if they don't, um, it's going to put them at a disadvantage relative to their competition because they're having to pay expenses that their competition don't.
	Yeah, I mean, everything, even standard things like your parking app.
	Why are they bothering going to do any anything other than just saying, okay, well, just link us to your digital ID and your app will come online?
	Everything will end up linked to this.
	And that then that means they can shut you down on it.
	Um, number nine, um, understand what so I've I've mentioned before that the UN have been pushing this agenda for years.
	I did a brokenomics maybe two years ago on the on the UN 2030 agenda and about how they've they've had these plans out there for years.
	The other thing to bear in mind is it's is very much a Tony Blair thing.
	So Tony Blair, the Tony Blair Institute, if you've ever looked into that, his whole modus operandi is he wants to go and work with every government around the world, and the back end of that is big tech companies who is selling stuff in.
	So a typical Tony Blair institute day will be going into I don't know, Bamalia or something, and saying, Oh, that's a bit of a rubbish country you got there, but why don't you just give us loads of money?
	And what we do is we're then channel some of it minus a fee, of course, to all these big tech companies, and and they're put a load of services in, and that will modernise you.
	It it is literally the Tony Blair Institute playbook, but now he's just doing it with a much bigger country rather than it's also worth mentioning as well that he tried to pass this in 2006 as Prime Minister and failed, and now he's succeeded outside of government, and this is important as well because his Tony Blair Institute now you know is funded enormously and has more employees than we have MPs in Parliament as far as some awesome.
	It's a huge institute, and also uh lots of the people involved in it are like former prime ministers and presidents of European countries and there are lots of important statesmen.
	He's got so many connections, and I think that that's why he's landed this.
	I mean, he's effectively usurping Davos at this point.
	He is, yeah.
	He's he's the he's sort of the leader of the techno globalist faction, I think.
	But well, this playbook is not entirely new.
	We did a brokenomics again probably a couple of years ago on a very very interesting important book called Confessions of an Economic Hitman.
	It's very similar to that, isn't it?
	Yeah, very similar.
	And anyone's out there watched that bit of content or read the book or listen to the audio book on YouTube, Confessions of an Economic Hitman, which is Largely talking about stuff that happened in the 60s and 70s.
	But it's a similar old school analog thing.
	You go to third world, you go to different governments in the third world, you say, we can make your country better.
	You have to buy loads of things off of us to make your country better.
	Oh, and if you don't, we'll send in CIA assassins.
	That money never leaves the US.
	It goes straight to the contractors in the US, and you've now just got a massive debt.
	And we'll build you airports and dams, which may or may not materialize in real life.
	Um either way, you're on the hook to us.
	Yes.
	And what Tony Blair's doing, what you described is just like a digital 21st century version.
	It's the same playbook that's been using since the editing of the second world.
	The net result is the we own you.
	Yes.
	He's basically a loan shark, isn't he?
	Right, but better plow on for for time's sake.
	Um future abuses are inevitable.
	Now this one I'm going to adapt slightly for a the left-wing argument here.
	Um so if you are a lefty for whatever reason watching this, uh bear in mind that this will be a massive gift to any future government that wants to do mass deportations.
	Because it's gonna link to your birth records, so it's got your ethnicity in there.
	That a future-based government could, if it wished, know instantly not only who all the people you can just set the criteria.
	You know, do you have a relative that was born, uh, do you have a direct ancestor who was born in this country pre-1948, yes or no?
	That that would be a click of a switch to identify all of those people, and then you know where all of them are.
	You know what?
	You've changed my mind.
	No I'm joking.
	Control F, just apply a filter, yes, and you've got everyone you need.
	Yes.
	Um now uh I I'm I'm so that that isn't enough to flip me because on the basis that actually everything else about it is so bad, and actually the problem with mass deportations is political will, not so much the tools.
	But just bear in mind that what whatever your political leanings, an alternative government can abuse this against you so powerfully.
	And if you are a lefty who thinks that it's a good idea, well you're basically just saying that any future based government will will be able to deport ten million people easily with this thing.
	So you know, bear that in mind.
	You're quite right.
	If you just quickly say, if you're uh a right-leaning person, you'll worry about the leftist communists using it to oppress you.
	Of course, the flip side is true.
	Yes.
	If you're a lefty and we get uh a fascist government, yes, or just a normal government, they'll come after you just as easily.
	Yeah.
	So yeah, yeah, but but better not.
	Uh number 11, massive expense.
	Um, so billions have been wasted on various IT projects.
	Uh uh the the NHS has sunk hundreds of billions at this point, trying to modernise its IT systems.
	This will be the same.
	So, in fact, number eleven is the thing that the probably thing that thing save us from this is that it's inefficiencies will just consume the budget before it actually comes online.
	Um twelve administrative drag, that's something you mentioned earlier on about businesses constantly having to verify customers.
	Um thirteen marginalized citizens, those unwilling or unable to comply, uh basically just shut out the system.
	A point you made early on as well.
	So um yeah, uh you know, I and and and the way I look at it is look, I have a I have a heritage in this country that goes back thousands of years.
	I don't need to ask permission from my government, a globalist, temporary globalist government, if I'm allowed to live or work here.
	But that flips it entirely.
	Uh 14, a point you made earlier.
	Um the UK have already rejected ID cards.
	Blair tried to push them as hard as he could when he was in office at the height of his power, and he couldn't do it.
	Public backlash was too strong, so you know, don't let us down now, chaps.
	Uh 15, uh, something I alluded to earlier.
	Um, other countries have already tried this and already failed.
	So um the Indian Adahar system, possibly, I might be pronouncing that wrong.
	Uh they had a um digital ID system.
	Um computer error was made, millions starved.
	Because okay, well, you're not getting a sack of rice this week because computer says no.
	And when when like starving people turned up at the normal place to say, well, you know, normally you give me a sack of rice this week.
	Uh and normally the way it worked is the guy knew the people who were coming, and it all kind of worked.
	Well, now he's got a little computer thing that says no, don't give it.
	So they didn't.
	So starvation.
	Um it will probably be different in the UK, but there will be failures, and it will be massively inconveniencing for whatever whatever failure type condition that it is.
	Um authoritarian temptation, so the Chinese model, um, this will become a social credit system.
	Now I'm gonna give you a couple of bits now from the BIS.
	So this guy.
	But this is actually the end boss of globalism.
	You might think it's Keir Starmer or something, but actually no.
	Yes.
	This is basically the top globalists, and the Bank of International Settlements is like the top institution.
	You never hear about it.
	The thing is again, like the like the UN sustainable goals, I I track what they're putting out.
	And because nobody follows these people, they just come out and say in these press releases, yeah, we're looking for total global domination.
	They just openly say it, and because nobody reads the press releases, nobody cares or nobody gets upset about it.
	But I found out about the Bank of International Settlements when I was like in my 30s, when I was already been working for investment banks and asset management companies for years.
	I was like, wait, so this goes back to their and ultimately where does it all go?
	Where does it all end up?
	You end up at like the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, Deutsche Bank, or the Bank of International Settlements.
	Yeah, that's the thing you and it's like, oh, okay, that exists.
	Quickly read the Wikipedia page.
	Alright, they're one of the most pivotal things in the whole world.
	Oh, right.
	And no one's ever heard of it.
	And you had to be working in the guts of finance to even hear about them.
	So let's hear what these guys just openly say that they're um they're up to.
	No.
	Hang on.
	Aren't our analysis on C B D C in particular for the use of general to the general use?
	We tend to establish the equivalence with cash.
	And there is a huge difference there.
	For example, in cash, uh we don't know, for example, who's using a 100 dollar bill today.
	We don't know who is using a 1,000 peso bill today.
	A key difference in with the C B D C is that central bank will have absolute control on the rules and regulations that will determine the use of that expression of central bank liability.
	And also we will have the technology to enforce that.
	Those are those two issues are extremely important, and that m makes a huge difference with respect to what to what cash is.
	Extremely important to you if you're trying to control the whole world.
	Yes.
	Otherwise, it's not extremely important.
	Yes.
	Absolutely.
	I mean, he just says it there, is it's about absolute control of every transaction.
	If they decide that you've had too much meat this week, or you've you've used too many carbon credits, they can just shut you off.
	They've decided you're trying to use your card too far from your home and that you need to be kept in your 15-minute city, or you're you meet the profile of somebody who might go to a protest in London, but actually you live in Wiltshire or something.
	Well, they're just going to disable your ability to spend more than 20 miles from your home.
	It could be anything.
	The government policy could be that we don't like Kulaks now, and you're not allowed to own a goat.
	Yes.
	You're not allowed to own a sheep to make your own milk.
	Yeah.
	So we say we see that you're trying to buy a goat and we'll just stop it.
	Whatever it is, whatever it is.
	So some quotes from the BIS.
	It's mad.
	From from the BIS annual economic report 2021, uh quote, identification is central to the design of central bank digital currencies.
	This calls for a central bank digital currency that is account-based and ultimately tied to identity.
	Another thing from the same paper, uh CBDC's built on identity verification could improve cross-border payments and limit the risks of currency substitution.
	So basically they don't want Bitcoin.
	They don't want to get into a situation where money is separate from the state.
	Like the way that it was all through history, where gold was its own thing and the state was its own thing, and it couldn't print gold.
	So the king had to go to whoever he had to go to, um, parliament or whatever it was.
	And and if if it was a good king like what is it, fifth Henry V or something, it'd be like, yeah, we you you're you're on top of this, we're gonna give you gold.
	But rest of the time, it's like no, we're not giving you the gold.
	Well, there's a time in the 20th century, it might have been FDR before the war, just said you basically can't have very much bullion.
	You can't have gold, really.
	You can have a little bit, like in jewelry, a few coins, but you can't just hold a big bar of gold under your bed.
	That's not allowed.
	Yeah, right.
	They try to take it.
	Yeah, the beginning of the end, that was, in my view.
	Well, they had to because gold was separate from the state.
	Yeah, right.
	So they had they had to try and do what they could to take control of it.
	And if Bitcoin comes in, money is a different thing from the state, and they can't have that.
	Um another thing from the same document.
	The BIS rejects token-based C B DC that would allow anonymity.
	So they need to see everything.
	Oh, by the way, um, they're also developing something called wholesale C B D Cs, which is what they will use and what the elites will use and what governments will use.
	And guess how that's different from a normal C B D C Anonymity.
	It can be anonymous.
	Yes.
	So if you're in Tony Blair's club or this dude's club, yeah, then you can be anonymous and hold billions and millions of millions.
	Yes, but normal folk.
	No, complete no anonymity.
	Of course.
	Um have I done this one?
	Oh, yeah.
	Uh BIS has set out a recommended approach stating a preference for an account-based system.
	So that basically means one that's tied to a digital ID.
	So, yes.
	Um, let me rattle through the last couple.
	Excuse is a smoke screen.
	Uh, so obviously it's got nothing to do with the legal migration because you know, we and we covered that in our conversation as we went on.
	18, it shifts the burden to citizens.
	So instead of the government having to justify its failures to us, we have to justify ourselves to the government continuously.
	Uh number 19, a ratchet effect.
	Once a system like this is in place, it never shrinks, it only ever expands.
	I mean, uh income tax, for example, supposed to be a temporary measure at the end of the what was it Napoleonic Wars.
	Yeah, and now it's tied into absolutely everything.
	Uh and and 20, this is obviously not for the stated reasons.
	And the broader point here is that as I think you're going to indicate later, Starmer has no credibility, has no popular support, and no attempt is even being made to manufacture consent for any of this.
	What they're doing is they're is they're trying to earn enough globalist brownie points so that when they're kicked out, they can go and get a job in one of these big globalist institutions, and they can say, Well, when I was in office, I did everything you wanted me to do.
	Where's my sinecure?
	That that that's basically what they're asking for.
	Um, I will give you or semi-finally, I will give you this.
	So now, having laid out all those arguments as to why everything's is is um you know that while that's all bullshit, um you you can listen to this and instantly dismantle this man's arguments.
	I support it.
	I I'm not sure whether I don't know whether you just lack imagination or whether you genuinely believe what you're telling me here, because it is a very small step between a digital ID and a social credit system with the British people uh beholden to a government that has powers beyond your wildest dreams of how you can control the population.
	And I ask you again if 100% of the people in this country don't support it, what happens then?
	Are you gonna put over two million people in prison if we don't have a digital ID?
	So I think we should be talking about some sort of dystopian sci-fi novel.
	Um the digital ID is is not mandatory, you're not gonna have to it literally is mandatory.
	Have to carry it around in your pocket, no police are gonna be in you do need to carry it around in your pocket because it will be linked to your phone.
	So it'll be on a central database, but it will be, you know, you you can show it on your phone to be in the room with you.
	Yeah.
	To make sure you have it.
	It's to make those transactions with the state slightly easier and slightly more secure.
	No, it's to make all transactions run through the state.
	So you might need it, or you you will need it when you're registering for a new job, when you're maybe doing some financial transactions.
	Trying to buy something.
	Um around a particularly large purchase or interacting with HMRC.
	These are these are sensible things that you need your ID to do um to access at the moment, anyway.
	So there's no real change apart from I mean it's a massive change.
	So you could just see, I mean, all of his arguments are completely dismantled by this by this little list.
	Um final thing I'm very going to quickly mention before I run out of time is I do acknowledge that in a digital age there was a legitimate need for digital IDs.
	However, the solution to that is something called zero knowledge proofs, which I won't have time to go into now, but I won't go into into some detail in my brokenomics.
	Zero knowledge proof is basically it's a way that you can hold a digital identity of yourself and prove Only what you need to prove.
	So you are the owner of that digital ID, but you can then use it to interact with anything you might need to.
	And the fundamental difference between a zero knowledge proof and a government digital ID is that you have total ownership of it.
	And yet it can still perfectly function as a digital ID.
	So there are solutions out there.
	They're just trying to rapidly push for a government mandated one where they control everything before people start getting these zero knowledge proofs in place, which will then do the same job.
	But just won't be controlled by them.
	Right.
	Do we need to do any of these comment things now?
	I believe so.
	Actually see them.
	Taylor Harris um says, thank you very much for your ten pounds, by the way.
	Um Dan, if you want to do a brokenomics episode or a segment about mortgages, I'd love to put something together illustrating how easy the banks have made it for non-natives to buy an advisor.
	Well, even better, Taylor, um, get in touch with Lotus Eaters at um no, hang on.
	Contact contact at LotusEaters.com and um market for my attention and uh we'll we have a chat.
	Uh Baz the Dark Horse says uh you cho won't let me comment how I want it's already here.
	Okay.
	Um and he also says I am sure we are on the list just for watching Lotus Eaters, yes, very probably.
	And um Shamille says, uh, has anyone done the master figure out how many people would actually have to opt out before they'd have to give up on the digital ID scheme?
	Um I don't know, all I can say is that Austria tried to push their COVID mandates, and three million people no six million people just point blank refused, and they walked it up to the day before they were gonna have to jail six million people, and then they back down.
	So that's weird.
	I thought it was just a populist delusion that it's never possible.
	The elites are going to do exactly what they want at all times, and what normal people isn't it?
	Never ever matters under any circumstances.
	I thought that was a delusion.
	Above all the time, don't you put from all the times when it did work.
	Okay.
	So let's talk about the looming US government shutdown.
	Hooray!
	It's going to happen.
	It was almost certainly going to happen at midnight tonight.
	The US government is going to disappear.
	It's not going to disappear.
	And it's going to be a wonderful time to be an American for a short amount of time.
	The United States is going to implode at exactly one second past midnight tonight.
	I do like the ice bit.
	Can we privately fund that with a GoFundMe or something?
	Just shut down the rest of it.
	Sponsor an Ice Age.
	Yes.
	Adopt an IC.
	You get a little photo you can put up in your loo.
	It'd be just be him in a mask.
	But it's okay because this sort of thing has happened for there is all sorts of precedent for it, so it's not quite as sort of um catastrophic as it might sound.
	Well, we'll see.
	But it looks like another one is in the offing.
	Uh before we go on, can we mention uh mention Ireland and magazine?
	Oh, yes.
	Oh, there we go.
	Uh today is almost certainly the last day you can get it before it it uh entirely sells out.
	I don't want to get hysterical about it, but buy it right now.
	Yes.
	Do it, you're doing it.
	You should see the aftermarket.
	Yeah, it goes up in price.
	It's very in demand.
	Second hand, they're they they go for a mint, don't they?
	Yes, haven't they?
	Um okay, so uh let's see the first let's see the first link.
	Let's see what Vox, which is you know, left leaning, isn't it, Vox?
	Very left leaning.
	So just about 40, 45, 50 seconds of this.
	When a trash can gets full and there's a government shutdown.
	People don't stop throwing stuff on top of it.
	But I did manage to pick up a couple of truckloads of trash before I was told don't do it anymore.
	People were not even able to volunteer during the government shutdown.
	The US is the only country in the world where the government can actually shut down.
	And the threat looms nearly every year.
	Seven days till shutdown?
	Four days, Tim Mani, six days and five days to government shutdown at midnight tonight.
	I just feel that guy like in my chest, like, oh, like not again.
	So why does the US even shut down?
	And what happens when it does?
	You travel three and a half thousand miles to America and find the place shut down.
	Yeah, so another one.
	I mean, that was the last time there was a shutdown, the the federal government actually did more work by going around putting up barriers around everything rather than just leaving it be.
	Classic.
	Classic.
	Yeah.
	There's also the fact that it's sort of the best time to be in America because the government's not meddling with you for a while.
	Like they're they're acting like it's the end of the world.
	Guess what?
	America, even with its government shutdowns, is still the most powerful country in the world by a significant margin.
	As well as the fact that, you know, it happens regularly, nothing bad happens.
	The sky's not going to fall down on you.
	And actually I think it's kind of a good thing, because you know, it doesn't state really do.
	And the thing is, yeah, a lot of it doesn't shut down, it just means federal employees aren't paid exactly on time.
	Most of them continue to keep going to work.
	I'll get into that in a moment, exactly what's happened in the past when this has happened.
	And it has it has happened a few quite a few times since the eighties.
	First time it ever happened was in the early eighties under Reagan.
	Uh but I'll get into all of that.
	But the the only reason this actually happens at a sort of systems level is that America has separation of powers, right?
	And so it wouldn't happen in Britain because the legislative and the executive are pretty much fused.
	Yeah.
	And it's because they have uh measures against tyranny that this happens in the first place.
	So they're acting as if it's a bad thing.
	But sorry, do you think there's another thing that it was in the 70s, I believe, 1974 and 1975, so under Nixon or Ford, maybe it was proposed under Nixon, but actually happened under Ford.
	Anyway, in the mid-70s, they passed a law saying that this was possible, even that Congress has got literal deadlines where something has to be agreed by certain literally certain time of day on a certain day.
	Otherwise everything grinds to a halt.
	Before then it wasn't a thing.
	That's why it's only ever started happening in the very early eighties.
	Um there's nothing written in the actual constitution in the late 18th century saying Congress has got these deadlines, and if they don't meet them, then the federal government grinds to a halt.
	That's not the case.
	But so anyway, that's just a side note, really.
	Um okay, it looks like another one is looming.
	Here's an article from the BBC that it's looming.
	And both sides, um, as usual, sort of blaming each other, because it's a game of brinkmanship in in various senses.
	That one side has to they've got a political wrangling with each other.
	They have to come to some sort of uh agreement.
	It's nearly always over the budget.
	Budget, appropriation bills and things.
	Um and both sides usually just blame each other for being the one that's causing the impasse and therefore uh uh a a shutdown.
	I mean, historically the Democrats have won those blame games because they controlled the media.
	Right.
	Often, usually that's often the way it goes, yeah.
	So the last big one was actually in Trump's first term.
	The longest one ever.
	It was like 34, 35 days long.
	It was over the wall, the who's gonna pay you for the wall.
	Um and yeah, you can imagine the Democrats fairly easily won the argument, arguably, in the court of public opinion, that it's Trump that's causing this.
	That it's tr Trump's trying to do something that nobody really wants or likes, and he's digging his heels in and refusing.
	Apart from the fact he won an election on it.
	Yeah.
	Well, there's that.
	Yeah.
	And uh we now know the war works very well, or at least parts part.
	Well, it's basically his campaign slogan in his first run, wasn't it?
	We're gonna build a wall.
	So in this instance, they're arguing over all sorts of things, very lots of different things actually.
	One of one I suppose one of the main things, again, broadly speaking, is uh different types of welfare that the Democrats want and that the Republicans and Trump don't want because Trump's trying to reduce the size of of the state, isn't he?
	Like doge and everything, is trying to cut back and sort of rightly because it's too swollen, isn't it?
	The Democrats sort of refusing to sort of allow that to happen, saying we'll let we'll let the whole thing shut down before we allow that to happen.
	Well, let's listen to Senator Schumer, old Chucky Boy.
	Let's hear what uh the the Prince of Darkness himself has got to say.
	We have very large differences on health care and on their ability to undo whatever budget we agree to through decisions and through uh impoundment, as well as pocket rescations.
	And we've I think for the first time the president heard our objections and heard why we needed a bipartisan bill.
	Their bill has not one iota of democratic input.
	That is never how we've done this before.
	We have disagreements about tax policy, but you don't shut the government down.
	We have disagreements about health care policy, but you don't shut the government down.
	You don't use your policy disagreements as leverage to not bear troops, to not have a social for services of government actually function.
	You don't say the fact that you disagree about a particular tax revision is an excuse for shutting down the people's government and all the essential services that come along with it.
	Okay, so if if you might sort of imagine both sides sort of blaming each other for the impasse.
	Um another quote, um, I think it was from JD Vance again says, You don't put a gun to the American people's head and say, unless you do exactly what uh the Senate and House Democrats want you to do, we're going to shut down your government.
	Um there you go, you can sort of make up your own mind.
	I guess it'll be one of those things that you bring your biases to it.
	If you're uh a Democrat partisan, you will see that it's Trump and Vance and the the Democrats, uh sorry, the Republicans that are being unreasonable, and if you look at it from the other side, you're like, well, it's Chuck Schumer's just not really playing his role.
	Well, I just I just think it's a good sh good thing to shut the government down.
	Yeah.
	I think optically Vance had the the better of it there because he was framing it in the sense of well, they're holding people doing important jobs to ransom for their policy proposals, whereas Schumer was basically saying we've got differences and that's why it's happened.
	Yeah.
	I I don't think that's an argument that necessarily is going to wash as well as look at these poor people who aren't being paid.
	And it's the political reality that the Republicans have got the White House, of course.
	They also control uh got a uh majority in Congress, and they've got a majority, though that not supermajority in the Senate.
	You don't need a supermajority for budget bill though, do you?
	Yeah, well, if you just want to force it through, apparently you do, you need 60.
	You would need 60 just to do exactly as you please.
	Right, okay.
	They haven't got 60, right?
	They've got more than fifty, but not more than sixty.
	So in other words, when you look at it in those terms, the Republicans hold nearly all the cards, but not all the cards.
	Right.
	The Democrats can still prevent what uh Trump doing whatever he wants, assuming the party goes in line with whatever Trump wants.
	Um they can in the Senate stop it.
	So, in other words, hold them to account.
	They can sort of force an impasse, which is exactly sort of what this is, isn't it?
	I always remember it when we had COVID and they sh they sent away non-essential workers, not just America, but everywhere.
	Non-essential work government workers were like put on was it furlough.
	Why why would you want any non-essential government workers?
	Well why would why do they ever come back?
	If they're not essential, there's no need for them, is there?
	Yes.
	Well, all three of us at this table are for small government, aren't we?
	I know you're Josh, you're you're happy to talk about your libertarian leanings.
	I've got a few libertarian leanings myself.
	I know you have said before, Dan, that you would like the government to be uh the crown.
	Uh the king and the king's butler.
	Yeah.
	Everything else could be done in the private sector.
	Well, if I am to defend myself um here, because people will criticize me because that that libertarian carries a d dirty reputation.
	Sorry, yeah, that wasn't meant as a smear at all.
	Um I I think that power should be used to clear everything away, and then eventually, when you you've unanimously won the debate, so to speak, then you can start trimming things down.
	But having state power is useful.
	Yeah, and just a quick reminder, by Irelander is gonna run, it's gonna sell out.
	Mm-hmm.
	Also that's that.
	Unless you're a US government employee who isn't being paid, in which case you need to get a loan first.
	Then you can't afford it, yeah.
	Sorry if I blew anyone's eardrums out there, people quite often get angry if you if you raise your voice.
	They need to be told.
	Um, so Trump has responded by posting by posting this.
	Oh, wait, Samson, put the audio on.
	Nobody likes Democrats anymore.
	There's no way to sugarcoat it.
	Nobody likes Democrats anymore.
	We have no voters left because of all of our woke trans.
	Not even black people want to vote for us anymore.
	Even Latinos hate us.
	So we need new voters.
	And if we give all these illegal aliens free health care, we might be able to get them on our side so they can vote for us.
	They can't even speak English.
	So they won't realize we're just a bunch of woke pieces of s you know, at least for a while until they they learn English and they realize they hate us too.
	That was entirely AI generated, I'm giving to understand.
	Um, so lucky that we've got a Trump presidency at the same time that AI hit because he knows how to take advantage of this stuff.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, he's got a s he's got a sense of humour, you've got to give that to Trump.
	Surely his worst attractors will admit that he's got a sense of humour, whether you agree with it or not.
	That's actually watching a video of someone travelling in the in the east, and even people in India were just like, We like Donald Trump because he's funny.
	That's what people outside of America see is that he's got a sense of humour more than anything, really.
	Yeah.
	Um a lot of the sort of lefty legacy mainstream corporate media going a bit crazy about that AI video he posted.
	I mean, both uh King Jeffries and uh Schumer himself, um they they've responded angrily, and Jeffrey's called it bigotry.
	Not to get to schoolyard here, but if you get really angry at someone teasing you, it sort of suggests it's hit a nerve, doesn't it?
	Yeah, sort of suggests that they've got a point and that you're a little worse.
	The only way to deal with like real criticism is either ignore it or roll with it.
	Don't get your panties in a twist, because then you just look weak.
	Pretty much.
	I had somebody on one of my videos the other day, he he insulted me, and it was so cutting, but it was also really funny, so I had to give him a thumbs up.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Most criticism I get is quite funny.
	And like, yeah, I'll roll with it.
	Very, very rarely where it's so cutting, so on the nose, so perfect that it actually wounds me.
	And I'm like, I'm just gonna have to ignore that.
	But that's quite rare.
	That's really quite rare.
	I don't know about you guys, but you have to have a thick skin to do what it's like.
	Yeah, but the people who can pull that off are also the people who are funny about it, so you you kind of admire it at the same time.
	Yeah.
	Because most people, if they're funny with it, they're actually probably kind of on your side to some degree.
	They're like popping anyway, anyway, that's an aside.
	Let's keep talking about Trump and the shutdown.
	Um while we're told that the Democrats uh want the entire practice to end of this sort of these in pass things, but they've they've also it's happened on their watch as well.
	It's happened on their watch as well.
	I mean, somewhere I've got a uh Clinton for quite a long time as well, or a couple of times.
	I think it's at the bottom of this one.
	And we've got a little thing showing when it's happened in the past.
	Here we go, here we go.
	So and that's this these numbers here are how many days it lasted for.
	So you can see even trying.
	So you can see in the in the 80s, it was uh we weren't exactly common, but you know, whenever it did happen, they would come to an agreement pretty quickly because as you can well imagine, it's just very, very unpopular with federal employees, of course.
	But the whole of America don't like it.
	It is a bit embarrassing in a way, isn't it?
	That your government's just ground to a halt.
	Yeah, but they all vote democrat anyway, apart from maybe the military.
	I feel bad for the military and the ice agents.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	I don't like that.
	Yeah, no, I feel bad.
	I feel bad for anyone that's got to put uh food on their table, really.
	It's not and when it's completely out of your hands, you just work for like um you you'll just work for an airport, a federal airport, say.
	As long as it's not TSA.
	Yeah, I don't like that.
	Yeah, they can they can give that in fact they can stand to lose a few meals, can't they?
	Right.
	Have you seen a photo of a TSA agent there?
	If they see that you are gonna have a very intimate uh examination when you pass for America next.
	Yeah.
	Um that 1995 one, that must have been Bill, wouldn't it?
	That would have been during Bill's time.
	And that 2018 one, that's the the Trump borderable one, again, sort of the most unprecedented.
	So that's the number to beat.
	Yeah, right.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Um in that instance, I think it was to do with aviation staff as well, where they were saying, Look, we haven't been paid for over a month, and we're gonna start walking out um if you don't start paying us again.
	And that would have meant that you know, millions or thousands of thousands of airplanes will be grounded, and then the country and the economy really starts screeching to a halt.
	So I think they get back pay.
	They get they they get yeah, I think if you get paid, yeah.
	Eventually, once the government is breathed back into life, that you get yeah, you get your back pay.
	Yeah, you don't just lose that money, as I understand it.
	Um maybe they need to change that then.
	The Democrats uh say, like, what's the point?
	That this is one the Democrats at angle, they're saying to the Republicans, like what's the point in negotiating spending levels, i.e., budgets, congressional budgets, if Trump's just going to ignore them anyway, because this is one of the things Trump has done.
	There's like a federal budget, congressionally agreed budget for all the different departments of state.
	But then Trump's trying to unders with Doge and stuff, he's trying to underspend anyway, regardless, because he's just trying to reduce the size of the of the state.
	So they're saying, what's the point in making these negotiations with us if you're just not even gonna spend right up to the limit anyway?
	Now that seems like a very shaky argument to me.
	Like you don't have to spend all the money.
	You don't have to do that.
	Well the elephant in the room here is that the Democrats want them to spend more, isn't it?
	And so they want to be seen as as pushing that, even though the the entire purpose that there has to be this negotiation is to limit spending.
	It's supposed to be baked into the system.
	Yeah.
	But sorry, you you're going to say something down.
	I can't know who I was going to say now.
	It would have been a good point.
	Um in the BBC article they say um the negotiating positions of both sides um is is about politics, not necessarily really about money, it's about like the party politic thing.
	That it's more that like in other words, they could come to an agreement.
	Both sides could could blink.
	Either or both sides could sort of blink and come to a negoti uh the negotiation table and make a deal, hammer out a deal, but both sides this is what the BBC are saying, take that for what it's worth, that they want the other side to look like they're the one shutting down the government.
	Well, like I say, historically, Democrats have done well out of that tactic because they control the media.
	But the problem is nobody's like watching CNN or MSNBC these days.
	Everybody's watching right wing controlled media now that's online.
	So I don't know.
	I I I kind of back the right team to uh to win this one in the PR campaign.
	We're told that Trump and the Republican congressional leaders are already claiming they are the reasonable ones.
	They're the ones they say who simply want to buy more time to negotiate without adverse consequences of a shutdown.
	Of course, Democrats don't see it that way.
	Complicating all this for Democrats is the reality that many Republicans, many Republicans seem at peace with an extended government closure.
	It's it's it's quite it's always nice in any sort of negotiation where the other party's hardest line thing, the worst thing they could do, the worst card they could ever pull, you don't even really care if they do that.
	That's always nice, right?
	When you are when maybe you're in a market and you're haggling for something and you just go to walk away, and you actually don't care if they let you walk away.
	You could do without the thing.
	You hold all the power, all the cards then, don't you really?
	Um they're saying that the that's how the Republicans are looking at this.
	Yeah, we'll we'll do a shutdown then.
	See how that works, see how you like that.
	That's a terrible punishment for uh a government that wants to reduce the size of the state.
	Right, exactly.
	Exactly.
	Um White House budget chief Russ uh Russ Vaught, I might be pronouncing his surname incorrectly there, uh recently calculated uh um uh circulated a memorandum explaining how the Trump administration would use a shutdown to make new long-term reductions in federal spending and employ in and employment roles.
	So again, it will just Yeah, do it, Chuck.
	It just gives us a bit of breathing space to s to really nail down and define exactly what we're gonna do going forward.
	Yeah, you you shut it down, we'll make the argument that you're the baddie in all of this, and it's good for us anyway.
	Maybe that's true.
	You never know, the public, not just the American public, all publics, uh can be very fickle, can't they?
	They can be very fickle.
	They might decide, oh actually, this is Trump and Vance screwing with my money now.
	I don't know.
	As you said, the optics of the little clip we just watched, it did look like the Republicans are being the dicks in this.
	Right?
	It does seem that way.
	Does seem more likely around than the other one?
	The Democrats, as in they were talking about party politics, and then Vance was talking about how, well, they're just holding public employees to ransom.
	So stop doing that.
	Which I think is the line that the public are more sympathetic towards.
	Chuck Schumer says it's quote, an attempt at intimidation.
	Donald Trump has been firing federal workers since day one, not to govern, but to scare.
	This is nothing new and has nothing to do with funding the government.
	There's also the very obvious argument that if they control the government, you know, they control Congress, the presidency, and have a majority in the judiciary, why would they shut down the government themselves if they run it?
	it?
	It makes no sense.
	Obviously, it's the Democrats doing it.
	And again, where I mentioned that the Republicans hold the White House Congress and the Senate.
	Um it's it's sort of it's their turn to govern.
	They're supposed to be the governing faction.
	Um you're kind of obliged to, or the way it always used to work, you as the junior partner in Congress and Senate, you're sort of obliged to go along with them to some degree.
	Well, and also as I understand it, the reason it's being shut down is because they're trying to spend less money.
	Yeah, basically, yeah.
	Yeah.
	Well, one of the things Schumer said is that it's just all the intimidation and that um Trump's uh budget is just not including all the things we want.
	Well, that's what you get when you get smashed at the ballot box.
	Yeah, that's what you get.
	Very anti-democratic, that is, isn't it?
	If if luck.
	If my wife was coming to me and saying, um, you know, I w I want to increase spending on a on the on the credit card, I'd be like, no, I'm shutting it down.
	But if she came to me and said, I'm gonna find a way to spend less money, I'd be like, you're right, go on then.
	Yeah.
	I'm not gonna have a problem with that.
	Yeah.
	But Democrats try to think like that.
	Because they see it, people like Chuck Schumer, I think, see it as a zero sum game.
	If they're or if you if you don't use it, you lose it.
	If we're not exercising power, if we might not putting loads of pressure on the White House, whoever is in the big seat in the Oval Office, if we're not sort of sticking our ore in, then uh then we're not we're not doing our job right, or we may as well not be there or something.
	So we've got to be a good thing.
	The big state is a good in its of itself.
	So yeah, yeah, something along those lines.
	Let's quickly watch a few seconds of this video just to give a tiny bit more concept.
	We wanted to take a deep dive into the history of government shutdowns, and we found out it's relatively modern.
	They became a possibility after Congress passed the Congressional Budget Act in 1974.
	It gave Congress deadlines to pass federal budgets.
	The first government shutdown happened back in 1981 under President Ronald Reagan's administration.
	Luckily that one only lasted a few days.
	In 1995, it shut down twice, once from November 13th through the 19th, and again a month later for a little more than three weeks.
	In 2018, that was the longest government shutdown in history.
	It lasted nearly a month from December 21st through January 25th, 2019.
	That's when lawmakers were arguing over President Trump's proposed plan to fund a border wall.
	The shutdown eventually ended with no funding for that wall.
	There's a typo in that timeline.
	So the 1995 one, did Monica Lewinsky have to go home for those two days?
	We know Bill, yeah.
	Yeah.
	No wonder Bill sorted it out in record time.
	It'd have to go home to Hillary and no one wants that.
	Oh, yeah, God.
	So one of the last and wider points to make on this is um it does feel like when that chart we looked at earlier, um, if you were to extrapolate that out into the future, uh, whether it will just happen more and more.
	Um it's towards the bottom of that one.
	Um you know, going forward centuries from now.
	Oh might have been the other BBC one.
	Well, anyway, you saw that they got longer over time.
	Yeah.
	And um where I've likened the US Republic to the late Rome ancient Roman Republic.
	Um the sort of the Marion and Sullen civil war.
	Obviously, the end, well not the end point because history never stops, but sort of the uh the really important point is when Sulla just entered Rome as a military commander and killed all his enemies.
	But there'd been a few generations of law fair before that, and a few generations of the government basically shutting down and all that sort of thing.
	I feel like the the US Republic is really now on a slippery slope towards that, whether it's in any whether it's imminent or not, that we actually end up with a a sullen style civil war or uh a Caesar Pompey style.
	Well, this is the argument that most republics only last about 250 years.
	Coincidentally, the US is on the verge of celebrating 250 years.
	Yeah.
	And the conditions are ripe for the birth of the US Imperium.
	Yeah.
	Is it going to be Baron Trump plays the role of Caesar and becomes the first emperor?
	Strikes me more as an Octavian.
	I don't know.
	Okay.
	Truly an emperor, not just a dictator for life, but a full blown imperator.
	Yes, citizen perhaps.
	So Trump uh Vance becomes the f the the dictator, first citizen, but after him, Baron becomes an emperor.
	I can't be right.
	Other people say Baron Trump's massively astro turfed and he's he's he's nothing just because he's tall.
	Yeah, people just like him because he's very tall.
	That's basically it is and the last thing to say in this segment is meanwhile meanwhile the economy just keeps and debt just keeps absolutely spiralling into numbers which make no sense, have got no real bearing on reality anymore.
	Meanwhile, because ultimately, ultimately, all this is kicking the can further down the road.
	Trump wants to spend a bit less.
	Yes, but it's still in meaning if you believe uh Elon Musk or this uh this webpage, you'll see that it needs to be massive, massive cut in in federal spending and otherwise makes the point.
	If you look at the um discretionary spending and then the deficit, the deficit is bigger.
	So even if you binned all of the discretionary spending, all of it, you're still gonna be going deeper into debt.
	So there's no way that you're fixing this without going after something like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, or uh a number of the other things that are mandated spending.
	They they have to come down, otherwise you just go bust.
	It's also worth pointing out that the total interest paid is actually larger than US federal tax revenue, which is never a good thing.
	That alone is completely unsustainable and suicidal, right?
	That alone, Dan?
	Yes.
	Right.
	Yes, very much so.
	They've got the doge clock in there.
	Yeah, that's not enough, that's not good enough.
	That's that number's nowhere near big enough.
	Yeah, you need an extra bomber in there.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	So okay, we'll leave it there.
	But um, if you're a federal employee, you might not have to go to work on Wednesday.
	Oh no, sorry, you probably will go to work, but you won't be getting paid necessarily until Chuck and the Donald sort it out and come to some sort of agreement.
	And we'll see how long that takes.
	Who blinks first.
	I'm sure the ice guys will carry on doing their thing and just yeah, just pay me whenever.
	I I'm just doing this for the the love of it.
	I think basically all federal employees still just turn up for work.
	Yeah, they just might not get a paycheck for like two months or six weeks or something, or hopefully the powers that be will sort it out long before the next paycheck is due, and no one will go empty-handed.
	We got some comments, I think.
	Right.
	Yes, so busted uh brains as amongst the Dem so-called bipartisan demands are stealth appeals to the big bills or Medicaid coverage abused by legals, equal according to the Republicans approximately 1.5 trillion in spending.
	Oh, that does make sense.
	Uh Skiddington says the military doesn't get paid.
	First time it happened during my lifetime, my husband was enlisted, we were poor and we did not get paid for a long time.
	It affects people.
	Yes, that does sound bad.
	Yeah, it does sound bad.
	Umly the bad federal employees we don't want to get paid.
	Right.
	Umck says, I wonder how many military vets and uh personnel will stand by their oaths as they swore to the British people and land from enemies both uh uh and land from enemies both domestic abroad and against the crown, unlike the police.
	That that may have been relating to the last segment, I'm not sure.
	Um we need to scroll down or something.
	Okay, I'm not sure what's going on now.
	I may have missed some comments because I don't know what I'm doing.
	It's alright, we can come back to them at the end and then uh we can bring order to the chaos.
	But I have some good news actually.
	So I wanted to cheer everyone up and say that actually things in Britain could be worse, and uh it's worth pointing out that there is a sort of right-wing revival in Britain, and uh I think also there might be a Labour government in charge.
	They they do still hold a lot of power, and that is rather unfortunate.
	However, um Keir Starmer is the most unpopular prime minister in the history of Ipsos polling, which is Quite something.
	He's minus sixty-six in net satisfaction there, and seventy-nine per cent of people disapprove or are dissatisfied, and only thirteen per cent of the population are satisfied.
	And it's quite impressive how quickly he pulled that off, because Thatcher had to be in power for like ten years before she was like hated at you know that sort of level.
	And even Boris Johnson, who did all of the crazy shit that he did, I mean the the lockdowns and the Boris wave, it still took him a good three or four years to become truly hated.
	Whereas like Starmer just walks in and just nails it within the first six months.
	I also think that that thirteen percent is probably people who work for the state who've explicitly had a pay rise under his watch.
	And so they're like, Well, you know, I like this guy, he's given me more money.
	So it's bet it's basically people that have been bought off.
	That's how the public employees work is that you get people to work for the state and then you give them pay rises at the expense of the private um sector, and you buy their votes.
	That's why they expand the government constantly.
	Probably why that exists.
	Also diodin-the-wall reds or pink hose.
	Well many of those are turning to the greens now as well, aren't they?
	Because he's not left wing enough.
	So he's got this impossible situation where if he goes to the right, the left hates him, and if he goes to the left, you know, the right and maybe even the centre hates him at this point.
	And so he's got this impossible situation to navigate.
	And uh what is he doing to help himself?
	Well, he's getting headlines like this.
	Um this was yesterday, worried about immigration, Starmer says you're racist.
	And of course, this is the issue, immigration, that is the hot button issue of our time.
	It is the thing that most of the electorate are concerned about the most.
	And by calling well, he didn't explicitly say that, he said reform's policies were racist.
	And immoral.
	But it's also a policy that's very popular.
	It's something that people do actually want to remove the indefinite leave to remain and reverse the Boris wave, because of course the Boris wave is the most egregious wave of all, because it's f from the third world mostly.
	Oh racist.
	Everyone say it with me, is you're racist.
	Nobody cares anymore.
	You can call us racist all you like, it doesn't matter.
	In fact, I laugh when people say it to me now.
	It's just like that word has no power over me.
	You can't do that anymore.
	I care too much about my country.
	You can call me racist all you like.
	It cheers me on if anything.
	So I'm hearing you face with a decision that I can either let my children grow up in a third world cesspit or I can get called racist.
	It's a pretty easy choice, actually, isn't it?
	I'm not going to abandon my ancestral homeland because of that word.
	It's not happening, it's not going to happen.
	And this is this is a victory for the right, really, because this was being used to shut down discourse.
	And it's obvious from the very beginning that that's how it was used, because someone brings up a valid policy point, they say that's racist, and they say, and then it's all about I'm not racist, and they're saying, But you said this thing.
	And it's all about them being a racist or not, rather than I have this policy proposal that could fix a problem.
	And that's not happening anymore, which is good.
	Hands are now unbound.
	The best thing is someone calls you racist that you just scoff and carry on with your arguments.
	Why thank you?
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	So another thing that's happened is the flag movement, and although this n hasn't necessarily had any tangible policy improvements, what it has done is give people a sense that they're not alone and that actually there are lots of people out there like-minded, and seeing them pop up in your local area as millions of Britons have been reassuring and makes people feel safer.
	With that is a particularly impr I mean, hats off to whoever did that little stretch.
	I know, I picked this one out because it was the most impressive.
	Yeah, yeah, you've got Northern Ireland, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, you've got in fact you've got all of them, haven't you?
	Right there.
	Every single one of them.
	I don't know why there's Republic of Ireland there, but you know, we're we're inmates now, it's fine.
	That's the odd one out.
	One of these things is not like the other.
	City of London.
	We still love you.
	Uh no City of London, no.
	Thank goodness for that.
	And uh this sort of thing had Lib Dems waving flags, and they were saying they're trying to uh be patriotic.
	Of course, these are the people who will wave EU flags over their own flags normally, but the discourse has moved so much that people who prefer the European Union over their own country will wave our flag if they think it will help them politically.
	We control the discourse now, basically, is what if we can get these people in ten years if we carry on forthright.
	Well, what happens is now the Labour Party are sort of dispelling the migrants and the the the boat people around the country, these little pleasant villagers that vote Lib Dem because they've not changed for hundreds of years are slowly gonna have Somali rapists creep in and it's gonna be their neighbourhoods and they're gonna have a little bit of a taste of their own medicine for what they voted on the rest of the country and I do wonder how that's going to affect them because so many people don't realise that in lots of parts of Britain people are isolated from the consequences of their voting.
	And that's slowly going to creep upon them and they're going to come to the realisation, okay, well maybe there was a point there.
	So what you're saying is what this picture says is that the Overton window is actually a concept that exists.
	Yes.
	And that um people can move the dialogue and the elites aren't completely immovable.
	Well, my opinion on this is that ultimately elites do call the shots, and what the masses think is um not of no consequence, but they can go against public.
	I'll take it, I'll take that.
	Yeah.
	I think that what it does is that by shifting the Overton window, the elites have to masquerade as representing public opinion, and I don't think they do, but they have to play by those rules, and so by shifting it so out of their paradigm towards our own, it makes their cost of operation higher, and makes making mistakes um more likely by the the elites, and it basically makes things more difficult for them.
	Well that's what that image shows, isn't it?
	As you said, those people wouldn't have been flying the union flag a year ago.
	They just wouldn't be.
	So uh what we're effectively doing in moving the discourse, obviously it doesn't affect policy and it's frustrating, and it does yet.
	However, what it is doing is making things much harder to to govern the state, and also winning over the populace isn't insignificant um if things get worse and worse.
	If law and order breaks down, having a large faction of the British people, native British people, against your government isn't a good thing.
	Um objectively speaking, you know, there is an objective reality, it's not all optics.
	There is brass tax to get down to eventually cost of governance you're referring to.
	Yes, exactly.
	And uh even this, um here's a stand-up to racism demo, and they're calling themselves a huge crowd of patriots standing up to racism and hate in Newcastle, they're calling themselves patriots.
	That's interesting.
	So they see the utility in the language, and even though patriot is sort of um more associated with America in my mind, you know, it I I do think it's a funny word, and I I call people patriots as like a sort of tongue-in-cheek thing.
	We we don't really use that that term, do we?
	You know, you're proud of your country.
	Well, we've got I can't say comrade, so I just say patriot instead.
	I just I just say Britons, true Britons, you know.
	But you know, I agree with the overall sentiment that you know people who actually are truly patriotic, not these stand-up to racism people, are great.
	But um It's interesting, isn't it?
	The socialist workers' party types until two seconds ago hated quote unquote patriots, and now they are patriots.
	Oh, okay.
	Oh, right, yeah, I believe that.
	Sure.
	Do you remember that thing where it was Angela Merkel on stage with a whole bunch of her senior ministers and like her her home secretary or something held up the German flag and she just like turned around laser eyes, snatched you and off in threw it across the room.
	Well, that's not gonna happen here anymore, is it?
	And uh one thing that I think is very promising, because of course um we can see that this is all plastic patriotism, right?
	It's not genuine, they're they're putting it on to try and win people over, and one thing that is very reassuring is this.
	So um as we touched on in Dan's segment previously, um Keir Starmer announced the introduction of digital ID, and he was saying that it's about um illegal migration, and what pretty much everyone on the right and the left said is no it's not.
	Yeah.
	Everyone understands, both you know, people to the left of the Labour Party, people to the right of it.
	We all got that you're you're talking nonsense.
	No one believes you.
	And so them adopting this plastic patriotism isn't going to have an effect because people know what they're up to.
	They know that politicians lie to try and win elections and try and win Popularity.
	And so by them adopting these things, all they're doing is legitimising them for us.
	And they're not going to have the desired political effects because as we saw, Keir Starmer's the most unpopular prime minister.
	But do you think he's trying to win an election?
	Maybe.
	But it looks to me like he's just completely given up.
	He's throwing it a little bit.
	He's just enacting everything he wants to, and because he can't be stopped until 29, he may well be able to do that.
	I I I think he thinks that I'm definitely definitely out at the next election.
	So I'm just going to do all the weird left wing shit that I don't I wouldn't otherwise.
	But he has also been flip-flopping a fair amount, and this is the thing that sort of complicates that because I would otherwise agree with you.
	But then he had this thing like, yeah, I understand why people want to mass deport people.
	And he had this this brief period of time where he was almost outflanking Farage in rhetoric.
	Obviously, don't believe him, but it he was trying to court this opinion.
	Now he's gone leftwards again.
	Maybe he'll go rightwards again.
	And of course, this this flip-flopping doesn't win him any favours and and just makes him look weak and cynical and he's electioneering, but um at the same time, I think no one believes him anyway, so it doesn't really matter.
	It's a good question, then because I posed that as well.
	It does feel like Starmer has abandoned any idea of getting re-elected.
	It almost feels like that.
	Who knows if that's really the case in his own mind.
	But it absolutely feels like he's not trying even to read the room, read the country.
	Um just forcing through the agenda.
	It's still a really good deal.
	I mean, you or I would jump at it if we were told, okay, you could be for you could be prime minister with an eighty seat majority for four years or whatever the majority is, you for four years, but then after that you can't be it anymore.
	It's like, yeah, we we could get loads done in those four years.
	Yeah.
	Even if we're not going to get elected again.
	Think of all the people I could deport.
	Oh millions.
	Um there's also this.
	Um this is somewhat confusing and and goes against this notion that Keir Starmer wants to appeal to the techno globalists and the left and doesn't care anymore, he's just going to enact what he wants.
	Um, because his own home secretary was saying we will deport immigrants unless they earn their right to be British, which is still not far enough in my opinion, but is at least trying to court some sympathy, isn't it?
	It's all just uh complete bullshit though, isn't it?
	It's like it's like when David Cameron came out years and years ago saying um multiculturalism has failed.
	Great, that's a nice uh sound bite, that's a nice bit of red meat, but you continue to just do the multicultural thing harder if anything.
	He comes out and he says, We'll get immigration down to ten thousand, didn't so that was just a complete liar.
	It went it's skyrocketed in fact.
	So they can come out and say something like this, that's all well and good.
	And the credulous among us could say, Oh, that's that's good, isn't it?
	That's that's a piece of red but it's just it's just a lie.
	It's just a lie.
	Exactly.
	What you're saying here is is my point is that no one is fooling for this anymore.
	It's been you know, politicians have been lying about immigration for so long that no one takes them at their word.
	But so you're saying that yes, it's all a lie, but they feel the need to say it.
	Exactly.
	Right.
	Exactly.
	Because we have not we, you know, us free necessarily, I'm sure we've helped a little bit, but the overton window in Britain has shifted, and now they've got to adopt our rhetoric, which means that it's going to be easier for us to supplant the the current ruling elite once there is a government in waiting assembled to supplant it.
	This doesn't exist yet, in my opinion.
	I don't think there's any clear successor, um, but and I think that reform um are much of the same, you know, they're the teal Tories, aren't they?
	That might be marginally better than them, however, it's not gonna go nearly far enough to actually address the problems.
	It's still going to continue just at a slower rate.
	Um for large, but still it would be a case of it's just a case of uh well uh Nate Mr. H. Reviews put it very well, calling it uh uh uh uh an exercise in filibustering that governments for years and years and years and years have just said, we're going to do something about it, we're gonna make immigrants do XYZ, jump through XYZ hoops, we're going to reduce it to whatever number, any small number, and then they just don't.
	So all of it is just an exercise in filibustering, just wasting time whilst we're continuously invaded.
	I would even put it as buying time, even to allow that to happen in the first place.
	But there is good news.
	Um the majority of people in all regions of Britain support mass deportations.
	that's good.
	It's almost like it's inevitable.
	It is.
	I agree.
	Yeah.
	I wonder who called that early on.
	It's our very embodied.
	Well done, Bo.
	I always believed in you.
	Um Scotland, sixty percent.
	Um look at the North East, they're seventy-two per cent.
	My very own South West, seventy per cent, East Midlands, seventy-one.
	Um I think if Essex were its own self-contained thing, it would be the highest, so well done, Bo.
	Um giving you all the credit for that.
	The pe the South East is full of wishy washy well, forty three.
	Do you know why that might be?
	It's because that's where the foreigners are, isn't it?
	Of course it is.
	Um I suppose they come in through there, don't they?
	Yeah.
	Um so uh even London, fifty-five point nine per cent.
	It's interesting, isn't it?
	That even in London, there's a majority somehow.
	It's the North East have got the highest, the Macams and Tackams.
	Yeah.
	Super based.
	So well done in the North East, East Midlands and the South West.
	I'm gonna give myself a pat on the back for that one.
	Uh that last one.
	Um I think Essex deserves an honorary mention because I think the way the borders have been drawn up there, um, it's been done out of its probably highest percentage, I think.
	Because that is the stronghold of deportations at the minute, isn't it?
	Interesting that it's the people displaced from London a lot of the time as well.
	Yeah, I mean Essex has got a long and glorious tradition of rebelling.
	Very, very long and very, very glorious.
	But it is um it is Kent and Essex which get the brunt of the small boat people.
	Mm-hmm.
	That's very true, yeah.
	And this is very surprising.
	I couldn't believe it when I saw it.
	So support for illegal migrant mass deportation by twenty twenty four vote.
	Even a majority of Liberal Democrats slowly nudging over fifty per cent want mass deportations of illegals now.
	Labour obviously under fifty per cent, still about forty-five.
	Other is mid forties as well, similar to Labour.
	Obviously, the Greens being the most left wing is just under 30%.
	But the fact that it's even approaching 30% and it's not zero for the Greens is interesting, isn't it?
	That also I thought it was interesting that conservative is higher than reform.
	That's what I was gonna say.
	Yeah, that is very interesting, yeah.
	Operation clear them out.
	We've got to clear them out.
	Well, because the only I mean there's not many people who vote Tory left these days.
	Did you see that poll that came out?
	There's only going to be forty-five of them after the I think I figured it out.
	It's it's all of the really old people that don't follow politics but just hate foreigners and vote conservative by default, thinking that is this the the box I ticked to deport them all.
	Well yeah, but I looked at um what the forty-five safest Tory seats were.
	So if they are reduced to forty-five, and it's a third Englishman, it's a third the other lot, you know, Welsh and Oh, I'm you're in a case.
	Bring it back, Samson.
	I want that all the time.
	It was a third the other lot, like Irish, Welsh, Northern Irish, that uh Scottish, all that kind of thing.
	And it was a third like Pakistani.
	That that and other they just want to go home, they want a free flight home.
	Yeah.
	So so the Conservative Party is going to be like a third Pakistani after the next election.
	It's very interesting that we people throw a lot of shade at boomers for being the problem, being Lib Tards and things.
	But the thing is, when you find or women, women shouldn't be allowed to vote or whatever.
	Or all immigrants are uh all of them are just purely tribal for their own interests.
	No, but when you do find a based boomer, a based woman, a basic immigrant, they're usually super based.
	Right.
	It's more Zealand a convert.
	That is that is often the way.
	Yes.
	Also, women shouldn't vote.
	Oh.
	Oh.
	There's no need for that, um.
	Some of our audience are women, they're lovely people.
	No, yeah, yeah, no, and and and that's exactly why.
	So we couldn't we could more accurately look after them.
	I'll stand by that.
	Okay.
	I mean, in Dan's defence, I don't think anyone should vote anyway, it's a waste of time.
	But yes, that's a good point.
	Let's have one Lord Protector who rules by the sword.
	Yes.
	Don't threaten me with a good time though.
	Um I'm joking, of course.
	Um I will not.
	There's there's also this.
	This was um I think back in April of this year.
	Um these are people calling for the mass deportation of illegal migrants.
	There are now twenty-one supporters in in Parliament for this.
	Of course, previously there were very few.
	Oh, Andrew Rosendale, Rumpford.
	Um there's a few here.
	There's um traditional unionists, conservatives, independents.
	Uh it's mostly conservatives, DUP there.
	Um it's not really surprising.
	None of the Pakistani Conservative MPs I see on this list.
	No.
	Uh funnily enough, they're not Turkeys voting for Christmas.
	Um see James McMurdock are not all the reform MPs on it.
	No, that's interesting, isn't it?
	I think it was because it was tabled by Rupert Lowe.
	Right.
	By this point, an independent, so reform were a bit sour on him, weren't they?
	Some of them.
	Except I think McMurdock, I think, is the most sympathetic of the reform lot too low.
	Uh from the literally started in tower the other week, so there's that.
	Bit of a legend, isn't he?
	Um and then we've got this um exclusive polling commission for restore Britain as part of our mass deportation campaign.
	Um here we go.
	The majority of British public supports deporting women and children who are in the UK illegally.
	So even when it's framed in that way, a majority support it.
	I'll deport the children, I'll deport the women.
	Obviously the fighting age men.
	We don't want to break up families.
	No, no.
	Don't want to break up families.
	Or extended family.
	Yeah, that those two.
	And it's also um 50% support, only 22.4% oppose, and there's a decent portion that just say don't know.
	I don't know how you can't not know what you think.
	Well, a lot of people just watch TV and don't think.
	The NPC vote is don't know, I guess.
	And uh there's also this.
	I found this hilarious.
	Um this was a left winger.
	I think she was volunteering in a homeless shelter or something.
	She says, I'm in a homeless shelter at the moment, and most here are right wing.
	They don't understand it's left wing values that give them this roof over their heads, and it's also, I will add, left wing values that probably put them there in the first place, because it's probably the homeless that understand that hey, all these people came in and supplanted us.
	And uh e if even the homeless people get it, then maybe there's something going on here.
	Left wing values, that's an oxymoron, isn't it?
	Yeah, I I not sure what she means by that.
	What values?
	Yeah, what values destroying your country.
	The pursuit of power, that value.
	They've got one value, that one.
	Flooding your country with murderers and rapists.
	Is that a value?
	I don't know.
	Um there's also this, and of course I I'm not a big believer in public protests, but what this did show is that there's an outpouring of support for patriotic movements.
	According to the BBC, that's 30,000 people.
	I I don't know about that.
	It's also very difficult to head count.
	I never know how people even have a hell of a lot more than 30,000.
	It looks a lot more than 30,000 in my opinion.
	I think that's probably closer to what, a hundred thousand, if not more, maybe.
	Uh people were claiming it was like three million people.
	I don't know.
	I I I don't know how you can tell.
	And that's not all of them, because that that carries on off the pitch.
	However, it was one of the biggest rallies um, I think there's been in a very long time, probably since the Iraq war protests, I think.
	Th that was probably the largest in British history.
	Um you get old Labour people here just saying it's it's normal.
	I'm I'll play this a little bit.
	Um this is Trevor Phillips, and he's always been a little bit more on the moderate end of Labour, but he's a Tony Blair man, and so this is basically the opposition having to begrudgingly admit that yeah, it's pretty normal.
	Most people have seen this, I'm gonna play it briefly, I'm not gonna play all of it.
	The most alarming aspect of the event was just how normal the vast majority of the marches were.
	I spent an hour or two amongst them, and my own impression was that they were mostly the sort of people you'd meet in a country pub, or in half time queue for the loo at football or other concert.
	There was sprinkling of black and brown faces, and the event was brought to a close by a gospel group singing Jerusalem.
	All that must worry the traditional mass parties, Labour and Conservatives.
	Now people So the point being that even a Labour man on Sky News is admitting that uh a bad man Tommy Robinson rally um was just normal, full of normal people.
	You know, although I don't think these rallies achieve much politically, at least the optics of having lots of people show that they're passionate, and nothing bad really happens, and people go on the news and say, Yeah, it's just normal people.
	That is a victory.
	Five years ago that would have not happened.
	It's worth it to put the fear of God into the cobbies if he served them.
	That too.
	And also, I mean Trevor Phillips has always been until fairly Recently, sort of a multiculturalist globo homo type leading the charge in that.
	I think he's only just calculating that it's best for his career now in media that he says something like that.
	I don't need Trevor Phillips' permission.
	To be allowed to it doesn't matter whether there's a gospel when there's a few black faces in the crowd.
	So what?
	Trevor.
	Oh Trevor says it's all right, is it?
	I say it's alright.
	Fuck off.
	I'm very much in agreement.
	But it does show how far things have gone that he feels the need to save his own skin.
	Yeah, saying these things.
	Um and then here we've got Nigel saying um welfare will will be for British citizens only.
	This may well have been a reform policy all along.
	Um but it's nice to see him stating it publicly.
	Um thing that I have liked seeing is end the Boris wave because reform was was talking a lot about well, let's reverse a legal migration.
	But a illegal migration is like, you know, an egg cup of water in a you know a sinking ship on the on the Titanic right, isn't is not really that big a deal compared to legal migration.
	So seeing the leading party in British politics talking about ending the Boris wave, which is the most egregious wave of legal migration.
	Obviously, I want you know lots and lots of people deported, not just the bo the Boris wave, but it is a start towards mainstreaming mass deporting people who have come here legally rather than illegally, because the discourse has been stuck on illegal immigration, and that's not in many ways it's sort of like the trans debate in that it's a very small minority and and it gets a disproportionate amount of attention when actually most of the people that cause problems in this country are here legally and they need to go.
	The illegal thing was a distraction.
	It was.
	I will just note though that everything that Nigel is saying now is the set of things that got you and me thrown out of reform as candidates.
	I had noticed that actually, yeah.
	I had noticed that.
	Your problem was that you're ahead of the curve.
	Happened, I think.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	Oh so what you're basically suggesting is in six months' time, Nigel be like women voting, no, that's out.
	I don't think it'll go quite that far.
	Alright.
	Well it does see uh with with them increasing in the polls that the discourse is changing, whether you should believe reform and Farage uh how whether they have the political will to do it, whether they um are actually going to do it when they get to government, if they get to government, is a different question.
	I am sceptical personally.
	Um however, it's still better than nothing to see this sort of thing manded around.
	And I don't want people to lose hope, because there's no need for that, and I think that there is hope.
	And um here, you know, Nigel again saying reform will deal with the Boris wave, the biggest betrayal of voters in modern times.
	This sounds like it would could have come out of the mouth from our very own bow date here in that article that got you kicked out, which was what actually what I was gonna get to after this.
	So the fact that he's saying things basically the same way as we would say them on this podcast is good.
	Um should you believe him?
	That's up to you.
	Um is it going to translate into electoral success?
	Who knows?
	But things are tipping in that direction, it seems, and people are not fooling for people wearing this rhetoric as a skin suit because people are aware that you actually have to have a track record and be genuine about it.
	This is all promising.
	The future is ours.
	It is a significant change from that interview you did with uh old Eddie.
	It's just impossible.
	Political politically impossible to mass deport illegals.
	Well, and and you know where this works, right?
	His advisers watch us.
	And then feed those lines to him.
	Like softly softly over a period of months, so then he's like, Oh yeah, that's actually a good idea.
	Whispering in his ear, it's inevitable.
	Say inevitable, Nigge.
	Say that it's inevitable.
	Next he'll be indistinguishable from Steve Laws.
	Give it give it a few months.
	Right, we've probably got a bunch of comments, haven't we, that we haven't read out yet.
	Yeah, can you if I do it, I'll get it wrong.
	So I'll just move my laptop right.
	That's not in the screen, is it, Samson?
	I can't see otherwise at this angle.
	Um okay.
	Okay, uh big driller 14, three out of four, most baseload seaters, bring Harriet on to complete the team.
	Oh well, thank you.
	Um also bring Steve Laws on the show.
	Well, it's not up to me.
	Um but uh Um Chris Steele says, rather than comply with the online safety act, Imager has chosen instead to block access from the UK.
	This affects other sites which use it to host images such as captures, thanks to Dean Dorries.
	That's interesting.
	To be fair, I hate captures anyway, even though I understand why they exist.
	Leanne uh MCK.
	I uh sorry if I've mispronounced that.
	Um I wonder how many military vets and personnel will stand by their oath as they swore to the British people and land from Eminem's both domestic and abroad, not the Crown and Government, unlike the police.
	Well, I don't know whether it'll actually come to that.
	Um, last one, that might be all of them, I think.
	Okay, uh Tom Rat says uh I keep telling you guys hindlineism will fix all of this, anti racist, but provides the moral basis for denial of votes to the unworthy.
	Uh by the way, happen to know um you have some friends in high places and some based MPs of the uh conservative bent.
	Highline is that's interesting, you sort of must be talking about starship troopers and service equals citizenship, mm-hmm, that sort of thing.
	It's not a bad notion, really.
	I think that serving your country if it's tied to that is you know, you'd at least get people who are morally invested in it rather than people who want to destroy it.
	Um Busted uh Brian says the rallies don't accomplish much politically, Josh.
	Friend, uh if the optics of the UTK rally hadn't been huge, Farage would have never fought the important issues popular enough to come round on.
	Well, you don't necessarily know that that was the the thing that made him change his mind.
	Um is a very difficult thing to know what's um in his head.
	Sorry.
	The opposite of that is she said if it hadn't been huge.
	Well, it was huge though, so it's a fair point he's making.
	But it was huge, so it did make and it did make a difference.
	So I did sort of acknowledge that.
	But I I do agree that generally speaking, unless you've got a very specific goal, um the government can and also the government is sympathetic, your rally's not going to achieve anything.
	And so like you know, doing something that is in protest to the Labor government tends not to give them an incentive to listen to you unless it's overwhelming to the point where they're like, oh, you know, we might be in danger if we ignore the crowds.
	So that's my opinion on these sorts of things that a lot of these protests tend not to do very much.
	I I want to achieve results and I want people to think in those terms.
	I'm not saying don't care about politics, I'm not saying don't do on the ground stuff.
	I'm just saying think about is it going to achieve anything?
	Um Quite right, Mr. White says, Josh, whilst it is nice to see uh small wins paying dividends, should we not be wary of our own hubris and powers of an establishment to nudge situations their way?
	For example, uh USA in 2020 in Europe with AFD.
	Of course we should, and I think we're very good at cautioning people against that.
	You know, n don't count your your chickens before they hatch, that sort of thing.
	I think we're we generally speaking do emphasise that.
	And I might not have done it there because I was trying to raise people's morale a little bit, but I think we're not close enough to achieving any victories to get carried away yet.
	I think that is very reasonable to have that concern in mind though.
	I do think the logic is flawed that sometimes uh populism or mass protests don't work.
	Or often they don't work, let's even say that.
	Most of the time they don't work.
	So never ever even try.
	It doesn't add up to me.
	Sometimes they have worked.
	So I think you should should try everything available to you to achieve success and evaluate your options after the fact and and and pursue what is the most successful.
	Whatever that strategy might be, obviously within the bounds of morality in the law.
	I mean look at the poll tax riot.
	Look at the peasants' revolt to 1381.
	They should have they should have stuck to their guns, but still.
	Yeah.
	Um do we have any video comments, Samson.
	I don't think so.
	We'll play them tomorrow.
	Apparently we're gonna get some video comments tomorrow.
	Uh there was a a bone sore chap in the in the scrolling chat thing who said he he ordered an island of four and hasn't got it.
	Well, um unless you just order it a few days ago.
	I mean our partner is normally pretty good, the the people that do the sending stuff, but if you still don't get it, contact um contact at Lotus Eaters.com.
	That's the one.
	That's the one or Culby at Lotusetors.com.
	We have a Colby, do we?
	Yeah.
	Oh yes, him.
	Yes.
	Okay, yes.
	No, he's he's he's in the little we we got like a little Gaza, a little side room.
	Is he is he in there or is he in the main room?
	No, he's in the main room.
	Is he?
	Yeah.
	Oh, I should say hello at some point.
	Right.
	Simpson's laughing.
	Okay.
	Oh dear.
	Right.
	Um Sophie Liv says, uh, yeah, we already have a digital ID in Denmark for years.
	I legitimately can't buy anything over the web without the use of my ID.
	Also foreign sites such as Itsey and Amazon.
	Also to log into my bank, see documents from the government such as tax returns and library fines, requests for medication and doctors and so forth.
	My digital ID is required.
	You actually can't live in this country if you don't have a smartphone.
	We were the test rabbits, now they want to expand it to the rest of Europe.
	Sorry.
	Well, I don't blame you, um Sophie.
	Uh it's just the rest of you infernal gender in their voting, which is the problem.
	But um no we don't blame you, but obviously that is an example of why it's bad.
	And what I'm hearing is don't move to Denmark.
	Got it.
	But Denmark's normally pretty good on lots of stuff.
	It looks lovely.
	Denmark looks lovely.
	They're also really good on immigration in that they've got some of the best data and they've got stricter laws than those places.
	I can't I can't live there or buy anything without their ID.
	I'll pass then.
	Sorry, Denmark.
	Yeah.
	Henry Ashman says the significant part of digital ID for me is the way the system incentivizes function and scope creep, so it will become ubiquitous.
	Then once it's ubiquitous, it can become a problem in so many different ways.
	It could be weaponised by an unscrupulous government.
	Um the thing that uh I say to normies is what if big nigg gets in and has access to the system.
	It could also become a treasure horde to hackers.
	Uh and then some other good stuff so well done.
	Um Russian garbage humans says um they will just share the idea.
	Oh, he's quoting me, they would just share the idea.
	Well, the leftist counter-argument is to have fingerprints or data tied into it.
	Um so the more power or data is given.
	They'll definitely want to scan your iris and have fingerprints as well at some point.
	That'll make they'll definitely want that.
	Yes.
	Basically, you know, very easy to solve at least.
	But at the same time, it's very dystopian, isn't it?
	I don't want my iris to be on a government day to base.
	My fingerprint.
	Next thing they'll have pre-cogs.
	And they'll think you're about to commit a crime and come round for you early.
	Good reference there.
	Um Dylan O'Sheen says if they really want to stop people hiring illegals, put a minimum fine of £50,000 per illegal worker, and that includes subcontractors to tackle the delivery um app like apps.
	Well the boycott's working because they had to get rid of loads, and I say carry on.
	Just cook your food at home, don't use these food delivery apps.
	They're they're expensive.
	You get it delivered to you by a potential rapist.
	There's no reason to do it.
	That's the other thing is the the the government, the parliament can pass a bill, but if the CPS declined to ever prosecute on that basis, then what?
	So you can make it a £50,000 fine, but again, the CPS just never ever fine anyone.
	That plays out as well, doesn't it?
	Finds of a natives.
	Um on the US shutdown, the Lord Inquisitor Hector Rex himself says, uh Bo, the executive branch has what's called the take care clause that allows the president to not spend money, Congress is allocated if he feels it's not in the national interest.
	Trump has done it uh to the tune of over ten billion so far, and he should keep doing it.
	Well, yes.
	Ten billion is not nearly enough.
	It needs to be in the trillions.
	I just said it's a drop in the ocean, but it's a good point nonetheless.
	In the right direction, yeah, there is a he makes a good point.
	But Bill Clinton had a budget surplus, didn't he?
	Yes.
	Uh Miss Rat says, uh I don't mind these short-term shutdowns, as they just show how uh the little people uh uh hang on, just how little most people need the federal government in their day-to-day lives.
	It's an excellent demonstration of that, and that's why I like it.
	Nothing much changes.
	Um do you want to do any from um your renewal stuff?
	Cumbrian Kulak says uh Carlisle is the highest polling for re migration, excluding Great Yarmouth.
	Which is of course uh Great Yarmouth being Rupert Lowe's constituency, isn't it?
	Yes.
	Yeah.
	And uh Omar Award says they're desperate to represent our position because they are terrified enough, people will realise there's an alternative to red labour versus blue labour.
	That's very true.
	Um I suppose we can end it there, can't we?
	We've already overrun about ten minutes.
	Yes, before I insult anyone else, it's probably probably best to end it there.
	So um oh yes.
	Um buy it if you want to buy it, because you won't be able to buy it after today because people who do want to buy it will abort it and then we would run out.
	I just realised I forgot to do that in mine.
	Oh well.
	Well, you but yours might go out to mine, so they're just gonna be able to do it.
	Yes.
	They they'd feel miserable uh with themselves.
	So um it's cheerio for me, it's cheerio for them.
	Cheerio.

▲