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

01:39:31

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 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.
	Yes.
	So today we're going to be talking about what are we going to be talking about?
	Oh, digital ID.
	Yeah, that's got to stop.
	So we're going to explain how to stop that.
	Shutdown of the US government.
	Sounds like a good idea to me.
	Forever.
	Forever, ever.
	Yes, just stop it.
	Stop it.
	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 us.
	Time to end it.
	And 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 going to 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?
	Nothing digital about this.
	It's the Islander.
	And we're running on fumes in the store.
	There's like 100 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 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 sigil to operate around.
	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?
	They're simply not necessary.
	Well, we've got plenty of documents already that are already somewhat centralized by the state.
	You know, you've got a passport, a driver's license, you've got your national insurance number, birth certificates.
	You know, you've got all of these official documents.
	You're 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.
	Well, because you weren't being employed cash in hand by a kebab shop.
	Exactly.
	Yes.
	Presumably.
	No, I've never worked in a kebab shop.
	They're disgusting.
	Yes, quite.
	I think it's more about, as I sort of allude to here, it's the ability to cancel people is really what they're going for.
	Tie everything to this.
	Now, if you go to my Twitter, this is my account.
	I've pinned to my account because when it first came out, the news 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.
	So I'm going to 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.
	But no, what I'm going to do is why these things absolutely need to be stopped.
	So reason number one, and also this will give you the series of arguments you need.
	If you're arguing normies or parents or uncles or co-workers or something, you give you the normie reasons as to why it's not so bad.
	We're going to dismantle all of that.
	So number one, function creep.
	So apparently it's being introduced for immigration, which is obviously bullshit, obviously.
	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 not reaching here.
	I know this because I've read the UN sustainable development agenda, what is commonly referred to as the 2030 plan.
	Now, it's entirely clear in this document, but 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 quotes from this document, which you can read the whole bloody thing if you want to, but I'll give you the relevant quotes here.
	US Sustainable Development Goals, Agenda 2030 pushes universal identity, and it's under SGC 16.9 if you want to look it up.
	Provide 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.
	The 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 they explicitly say that.
	I'll give you another reference from here.
	Digital public infrastructure is tying together digital IDs, CBDCs, and data sharing systems into one interoperable global stack.
	So I mean, it is clearly laid out.
	This is a plan.
	It's all part of a process.
	I mean, I'll come to the BIS in a minute for some of their quotes as well.
	But it's absolutely what you said.
	So this is going to 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 a monumental office to be able to look at it all if you were to effectively monitor it.
	Or an AI.
	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 secondarily, it could also make mistakes.
	And it could be that certain things might mistakenly be punished for no reason.
	Well, there was a famine in India because of that.
	They introduced digital ID.
	I mean, that's one of the things on the list.
	But yeah, mistakes were made.
	Oops, loads of people starved.
	Slightly unfortunate.
	Number two, government overreach.
	So it shifts the balance further to the citizen.
	So instead of the state having to prove to us their validity, we constantly have to prove our validity to the state.
	Number three, government overreach shifts the, you know, oh, and as you know, that was actually number two.
	Forgive me.
	They're editing this out, don't worry.
	The actual number three, loss of anonymity.
	Everyday life becomes logged, tracked.
	So, and this has already happened with the COVID pass, if you remember.
	So 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 go into a pub during COVID and they wanted to see my NHS pass.
	I was like, no, fuck off.
	I'll just go somewhere else.
	Yeah, in the end, 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 someone demands it, so be it.
	I'm not going to go in there.
	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 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, you're not allowed to live in that way.
	Really?
	Yeah.
	But you'd have to go to somewhere like America or Canada where there's big enough wildernesses and 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 going to stop you.
	But in most of the Western worlds, there's no option to do that, really.
	You can be off the grid, but you're still 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 going to raise property tax to an absurd amount, then you're going to have to get an income and get into the economy again.
	England's just not big enough to do it.
	Like you go to the middle of Exmo, they'll find you very quickly.
	Oh, yeah.
	You go to like the New Forest or something.
	Yeah, you're still within, dog walkers will come across you within one day.
	I went there recently and people are everywhere.
	They are indeed, yes.
	Number four, it won't stop legal migration, obviously.
	I mean, obviously.
	We did a segment, I think it was you on it.
	We did a segment just the other day on what would actually stop illegal migration.
	It's basically 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 going to stop legal migration.
	This is going to have no bearing on it whatsoever.
	I mean, how on earth does it stop a boat turning up and people getting off?
	How on earth does it take to 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 hired these people.
	Oh, whoops.
	They've not got any digital ID.
	Oh, I've accidentally dogged them in.
	Yes.
	Like, while paying them.
	No one's that stupid.
	Yes.
	I was just going to say, yeah, they're going to do everything cash in hand because they'll get one guy who has come in illegally who will set up his digital ID and then he'll share his delivery account.
	Like you were telling me earlier, there's one guy on Delivery who's got like 200 people being him on the app.
	So 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 a nonsense, isn't it?
	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 going to 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 try and rope you into a contract, which then hooks you back into the economy and gives you a stake in the society that you live in by force, basically.
	Your digital ball and chain.
	This sounds like a small point, but I really think it isn't.
	That some older people usually just simply aren't sort of smartphone savvy.
	1.7 million people in this country, most of them old people, don't have phones.
	All right.
	Well, I know.
	It's mostly bliss.
	I know plenty of people that are in their 50s or 60s 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 1.7, the people who just use the old Nokias and stuff.
	Right, yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Yeah.
	I know three people that are sort of in their 50s that have just got a really, really old, sort of Nokia-style non-smartphone.
	And yeah, they're not like 80 years old.
	They're in their 50s.
	They're not interested.
	They grew up before that time.
	As a thing, yeah.
	And they're not interested in it.
	So that will be millions of people.
	They're going to be illegal soon.
	Yeah, six.
	I mean, this is the point that you brought up actually.
	Enforcement sham.
	Employers will just hire illegals off the books, pay them cash as they do now.
	So, yep.
	It's an obvious loophole, isn't it?
	Very obvious.
	Yes.
	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 system.
	I'll have a word with Carl about that.
	That's a good idea.
	Seven, single point of failure.
	Hack this one database and you get everything at once.
	Or just be somebody who works at the Office of Digital IDs and accidentally attach the database to an email that you're sending to some jihadists or something, you know, as they regularly do 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's going to be the target, isn't it?
	But I think they're not even necessarily going to be interested in leaking everyone's personal data because a lot of it's going to be pretty inane from that sort of perspective.
	It's going to be more to hold the country ransom because by centralizing it and having all your documents in 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, yes, grind to a halt.
	Yeah, that would happen as well.
	Number eight is a crucial one.
	It makes the government a nexus.
	Now, one of the key arguments 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 labor 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 a relationship with your bank, you've got a 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 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.
	They want to shut you down from a thing, they need to lean on each digital service in order to get it done.
	Whereas 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, has sided with Trump because of the legislative favors he can afford them and help them cutting back European legislation.
	And all of a sudden, digital ID has been introduced.
	So now Facebook is playing ball with Trump and not censoring people as much.
	Obviously, there's still some going on.
	Now they're introducing this sort of thing to 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 centralized, it's out of their jurisdiction.
	Therefore, they don't have to pay for all of this verification.
	Lower liabilities for them a lot.
	Yeah.
	There's no way that they're not going to adopt it.
	And even if they don't, 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 bother going to do 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 then that means they can shut you down.
	Number nine, understand what...
	So I've mentioned before that the UN have been pushing this agenda for years.
	I did a brokenomics maybe two years ago on the UN 2030 agenda and about how they've had these plans out there for years.
	The other thing to bear in mind is it 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, Bermalia 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'll do is we'll then channel some of it, minus a fee, of course, to all these big tech companies and they'll put a load of services in and that will modernize you.
	It's literally the Tony Blair Institute playbook, but now he's just doing it with a much bigger country rather than Bermani.
	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 is you know is funded enormously and has more employees than we have MPs in Parliament as far as I'm aware.
	It's a huge institute and also 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 he's sort of the leader of the techno-globalist faction I think.
	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?
	Very similar and anyone's out there watch 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.
	It's a similar old school analogue thing.
	You go to third world, you go to different governments in the third world and 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.
	You have to take out a massive loan from the marines.
	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.
	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 has been using since the end of the second world.
	The net result is that we own you.
	Yes.
	He's basically a loan shark, isn't he?
	Right, but better plow on for time's sake.
	Future abuses are inevitable.
	Now, this one I'm going to adapt slightly for the left-wing argument here.
	So if you are a lefty for whatever reason watching this, bear in mind that this will be a massive gift to any future government that wants to do mass deportations because it's going to 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.
	Do you have a relative that was born, do you have a direct ancestor who was born in this country pre-1948?
	Yes or no?
	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.
	Now, so 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 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 base government will be able to deport 10 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 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 a fascist government or just a normal government, they'll come after you just as easily.
	Yeah.
	So yeah, better than massive expense.
	So billions have been wasted on various IT projects.
	The NHS has sunk hundreds of billions at this point, trying to modernize its IT systems.
	This will be the same.
	So in fact, number 11 is the thing that the probably thing that will save us from this is that its inefficiencies will just consume the budget before it actually comes online.
	12 administrative drag.
	That's something you mentioned early on about businesses constantly having to verify customers.
	13 marginalized citizens, those unwilling or unable to comply, are basically just shut out the system, a point you made early on as well.
	So yeah, you know, and the way I look at it is, look, 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.
	14, a point you made earlier.
	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.
	15, something I alluded to earlier.
	Other countries have already tried this and already failed.
	So the Indian Adaha system, possibly, I might be pronouncing that wrong.
	They had a digital ID system.
	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 like starving people turned up at the normal place to say, well, you know, normally you give me a sack of rice this week.
	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.
	It will probably be different in the UK, but there will be failures and it will be massively inconveniencing for whatever failure type condition that it is.
	Authoritarian temptation.
	So the Chinese model, this will become a social credit system.
	Now, I'm going to give you a couple of bits now from the BIS.
	So this guy, it looks like, was it Baron Silas from Danger Mouse?
	But this is actually the end boss of globalism.
	You might think it's Keir Starmer or something, but actually, no.
	This is very much like I imagined, actually.
	Yes.
	This is basically the top globalist.
	And the Bank of International Settlements is like the top institution.
	You never hear about it.
	But the thing is, again, like the UN Sustainable Goals, 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'd already been working for investment banks and asset management companies for years, I was like, wait, so this goes back to there, 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.
	And it's like, oh, okay, that exists.
	Quickly read the Wikipedia page.
	All right, they're one of the most pivotal things in the whole world.
	All right.
	And no one's ever heard of them.
	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 up to.
	A bit more.
	Alex.
	They'll realize that.
	Nope.
	Hang on.
	Our analysis on CBDC in particular for the use of general use.
	We tend to establish the equivalence with cash.
	And there is a huge difference there.
	For example, in cash, we don't know, for example, who's using a $100 bill today.
	We don't know who is using a 1,000 peso bill today.
	A key difference with the CBDC is that central bank will have absolute control on the rules and regulations that will determine the use of that expression of central bank reliability.
	And also, we will have the technology to enforce that.
	Those two issues are extremely important.
	And that makes a huge difference with respect 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.
	I mean, he just says it there.
	It's about absolute control of every transaction.
	If they decide that you've had too much meat this week or you've used too many carbon credits, they can just shut you off.
	If they 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 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.
	So we see that you're trying to buy a goat and we'll just stop it.
	Whatever it is, whatever it is.
	Some quotes from the BIS from the BIS annual economic report 2021, 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, CBDCs built on identity verification could improve cross-border payments and limit the risks of currency substitution.
	So basically they don't want Bitcoin.
	Because 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, Parliament or whatever it was.
	And if he was a good king, like, what is it, Henry V or something, it'd be like, yeah, you're on top of this.
	We're going to 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 tried to take it out, yeah.
	At the beginning of the end, that was, in my opinion.
	Well, they had to, because gold was separate from the state.
	Yeah.
	So 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.
	Another thing from the same document, the BIS rejects token-based CBDC that would allow anonymity.
	So they need to see everything.
	Oh, by the way, they're also developing something called wholesale CBDCs, 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 CBDC?
	Anonymity.
	It can be anonymous.
	Yes.
	So if you're in Tony Blair's club or this dude's club, then you can be anonymous and hold billions, millions, billions.
	Normal folk?
	No, complete no anonymity.
	Of course.
	And have I done this one?
	Oh, yeah.
	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.
	Let me rattle through the last couple.
	Excuses are smokescreen.
	So obviously it's got nothing to do with illegal migration because, you know, 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.
	Number 19, a ratchet effect.
	Once a system like this is in place, it never shrinks.
	It only ever expands.
	I mean, income tax, for example, was supposed to be a temporary measure at the end of the, was it the Napoleonic Wars?
	Yeah, and now it's tied into absolutely everything.
	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 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's basically what they're asking for.
	Finally, I will give you, well, semi-finally, I will give you this.
	So now, having laid out all those arguments as to why everything is, you know, well, that's all bullshit.
	You can listen to this and instantly dismantle this man's arguments.
	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 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 going to put over 2 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.
	The digital ID is not mandatory.
	You're not going to have it.
	It literally is mandatory.
	You have to carry it around in your pocket.
	No police are going to 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 can show it on your phone.
	It's building 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 will need it when you're registering for a new job, when you're maybe doing some financial transactions.
	Trying to buy something.
	Around a particularly large purchase or interacting with HMRC.
	These are sensible things that you need your ID to do to access at the moment anyway.
	So there's no real change apart from that.
	I mean, it's a massive change.
	So you can just see, I mean, all of his arguments are completely dismantled by this little list.
	One 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 will go into some detail in my brokenomics.
	Zero-knowledge proof is basically 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 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.
	All right.
	Do we need to do any of these comment things now?
	I believe so.
	Let's have a look.
	Actually, see them.
	Taylor Harris says, thank you very much for your £10, by the way.
	Dan, if you want to do a brokeronomics 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, get in touch with Lotus Eaters at contact at lotuseaters.com and mark it for my attention and we'll have a chat.
	Baz the Dark Horse says, YouTube won't let me comment how I want.
	It's already here.
	Okay.
	And he also says, I am sure we are on the list just for watching Lotus Eaters.
	Yes, very probably.
	And Shamille says, 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?
	I don't know.
	All I can say is that Austria tried to push their COVID mandates and 3 million people, no, 6 million people just point blank refused.
	And they walked it up to the day before they were going to have to jail 6 million people and then they backed down.
	Well, 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 never ever ever matters under any circumstances.
	I thought that was a delusion.
	Yes.
	Apart from all the times, apart 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 ice age.
	You get a little photo you can put up in your loo.
	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 catastrophic as it might sound.
	Well, we'll see.
	But it looks like another one is in the offing.
	Before we go on, can we mention Irelander magazine?
	There we go.
	Today is almost certainly the last day you can get it before it 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.
	Oh, yeah.
	It goes up in price.
	It's very in demand.
	Secondhand, they go for a mint, don't they?
	Yes.
	Haven't they?
	Okay, so let's see the first link.
	Let's see what Vox, which is, you know, left-leaning, isn't it, Vox?
	I mean, 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 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.
	T-minus, six days.
	Five days.
	Government shutdown at midnight tonight.
	I just feel that gut in my chest.
	Like, oh, like, not again.
	So, why does the U.S. even shut down?
	And what happens when it does?
	You travel 3,500 miles to America and find they shut down.
	Yeah, so another.
	I mean, that was the last time there was a shutdown, 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 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, the state really does.
	It's only like a third of it that shuts down.
	The rest of it just carries on going.
	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 happened quite a few times since the 80s.
	First time it ever happened was in the early 80s under Reagan.
	But I'll get into all of that.
	But 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.
	And it's because they have measures against tyranny that this happens in the first place.
	So they're acting as if it's a bad thing.
	But sorry, David.
	Well, there's another thing that it was in the 70s, I believe 1974 or 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 a 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 80s.
	So 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.
	So anyway, that's just a side note, really.
	So, okay, it looks like another one is looming.
	Here's an article from the BBC that it's looming.
	And both sides, as usual, sort of blaming each other because it's a game of brinkmanship 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 agreement.
	It's nearly always over the budget, budgets, appropriation bills and things.
	And both sides usually just blame each other for being the one that's causing the impasse and therefore a shutdown.
	I mean, historically, the Democrats have won those blame games because they control 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.
	Who's going to pay for the wall?
	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.
	Trump's trying to do something that nobody really wants or likes.
	And he's digging his heels in and refusing.
	He's actually won a new election on it.
	Well, there's that.
	Yeah.
	And we now know the wall works very well, or at least parts work.
	So it's basically his campaign slogan in his first run, wasn't it?
	We're going to build a wall.
	So in this instance, they're arguing over all sorts of things, lots of different things, actually.
	I suppose one of the main things, again, broadly speaking, is 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 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?
	And the Democrats sort of refusing to sort of allow that to happen, saying we'll let the whole thing shut down before we'll allow that to happen.
	Well, let's listen to Senator Schumer, old Chucky Boyer.
	Let's hear what 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 rescissions and through impoundment as well as pocket rescues.
	And 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 pay our troops, to not have essential 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 as you might sort of imagine both sides sort of blaming each other for the impasse.
	But another quote, I think it was from J.D. Vance again, says, you don't put a gun to the American people's head and say, unless you do exactly what the Senate and House Democrats want you to do, we're going to shut down your government.
	So there you go.
	You can sort of make up your own mind.
	I guess it will be one of those things that you bring your biases to it.
	If you're a Democrat partisan, you will see that it's Trump and Vance and the Democrats, 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 think it's a good thing to shut the government down.
	I think optically, Vance had 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 what's happened.
	Yeah.
	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, got a majority in Congress, and they've got a majority, though, not a super majority in the Senate.
	You don't need a super majority for a budget bill there, 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 50, but not more than 60.
	So in other words, when you look at it in those terms, the Republicans hold nearly all the cards, but not all the cards.
	The Democrats can still prevent Trump doing whatever he wants, assuming the party goes in line with whatever Trump wants.
	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 when we had COVID and they sent away non-essential workers, not just in America, but everywhere.
	Non-essential work government workers were like, put on, was it furlough?
	Why would you want any non-essential government workers?
	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 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 the crown.
	The king and the king's butler.
	Yeah.
	Everything else could be done in the private sector.
	If I am to defend myself here, because people will criticise me, because that libertarian carries a dirty reputation.
	Sorry, yeah, that wasn't meant as a smear at all.
	I think that power should be used to clear everything away, and then eventually, when 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, Buy Islander, it's going to run it, it's going to sell out.
	Also that.
	Unless you're a U.S. government employee who hasn't been paid, in which case you need to get a loan first.
	You can't afford it, yeah.
	Sorry if I blew anyone's eardrums out there, people quite often get angry if you raise your voice.
	They need to be told.
	Okay, 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, you know, at least for a while until they learn English and they realize they hate us too.
	That was entirely AI generated, I'm giving to understand.
	We're so lucky that we 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 sense of humor.
	You've got to give that to Trump.
	Surely his worst detractors will admit that he's got a sense of humor, whether you agree with it or not.
	I was actually watching a video of someone traveling 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 humor more than anything really.
	Yeah.
	A lot of the sort of lefty legacy mainstream corporate media are going a bit crazy about that AI video he posted.
	I mean both Kim Jeffries and Schumer himself they've responded angrily and Jeffries called it bigotry.
	Not to get too 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.
	It 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 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 going to have to ignore that.
	But that's quite rare.
	It's really quite rare.
	I don't know about you guys, but you have to have a thick skin to deal with it.
	Yeah, but the people who can pull that off are also the people who are funny about it.
	So 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 copying.
	Anyway, anyway, that's an aside.
	Let's keep talking about Trump and the shutdown.
	Okay, we're told that the Democrats want the entire practice to end of these impasse things, but it's happened on their watch as well.
	It's happened on their watch as well.
	I mean, somewhere I've got a.
	Yeah, it happened to Clinton for quite a long time as well, or a couple of times.
	I think it's at the bottom of this one.
	We've got a little thing showing when it's happened in the past.
	Here we go.
	Here we go.
	So, and that's these numbers here are how many days it lasted for.
	They're still even trying.
	So you can see in the 80s, it wasn't exactly common, but 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.
	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.
	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 know that.
	Yeah, no, I feel bad.
	feel bad for anyone that's got to put food on their table really it's not and when it's completely out of your hands you just work for like um you just work for an airport a federal airport say As long as it's not TSA.
	Yeah, I don't know.
	Yeah, they can.
	In fact, they can stand to lose a few meals, can't they?
	If you've seen a photo of a TSA agent there, if they see this.
	You are going to have a very intimate examination when America next.
	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 Trump Boulder War one.
	Again, sort of the most unprecedented.
	So that's the number to beat.
	Yeah, right.
	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 going to start walking out 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.
	Because I think they get back pay.
	They get back pay.
	They don't get paid.
	Eventually, once the government is breathed back into life, you get your backpay.
	Yeah, you don't just lose that money, as I understand it.
	Well, maybe they need to change that then.
	The Democrats say, like, what's the point?
	This is one of 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 under with Doge and stuff.
	He's trying to underspend anyway, regardless, because he's just trying to reduce the size of the state.
	So they're saying, what's the point in making these negotiations with us if you're just not even going to spend right up to the limit anyway?
	Now, that seems like a very shaky argument to me.
	Well, because they 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 pushing that, even though the entire purpose that there has to be this negotiation is to limit spending.
	It's supposed to be baked into the system.
	Yeah.
	Sorry, you're going to say something, Dan.
	I can't know who I was going to say now.
	It would have been a good point.
	In the BBC article, they say the negotiating positions of both sides is about politics, not necessarily really about money.
	It's about the party politic thing.
	That it's more that.
	In other words, they could come to an agreement.
	Both sides could blink.
	Either or both sides could sort of blink and come to the negotiating 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 kind of back the right team 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 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?
	They're saying that that's how the Republicans are looking at this.
	Yeah, we'll do a shutdown then.
	See how that works.
	See how you like that.
	That's a terrible punishment for a government that wants to reduce the size of the state.
	Right, exactly.
	Exactly.
	White House budget chief Russ Vault, I might be pronouncing his surname incorrectly there, recently calculated, circulated a memorandum explaining how the Trump administration would use a shutdown to make new long-term reductions in federal spending and employment roles.
	So again, it will just, yeah, do it, Chuck.
	It just gives us a bit of breathing space to really nail down and define exactly what we're going to do going forward.
	Yeah, 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, 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.
	It does seem more likely around the world.
	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 makes no sense.
	Obviously, it's the Democrats doing it.
	It does seem that way.
	And again, where I mentioned that the Republicans hold the White House, Congress, and the Senate, it's their turn to govern.
	They're supposed to be the governing faction.
	You're kind of obliged to, 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.
	Or one of the things Schumer said is that it's just all intimidation and that Trump's 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.
	It's very anti-democratic, that is, isn't it?
	If my wife was coming to me and saying, you know, I want to increase spending on the credit card, I'd be like, no, I'm shutting it down.
	If she came to me and said, I'm going to find a way to spend less money, I'd be like, you're right, go on then.
	Yeah.
	I'm not going to have a problem with that.
	Democrats don't think like that.
	As they see it, people like Chuck Schumer, I think, see it as a zero-sum game.
	If you don't use it, you lose it.
	If we're not exercising power, if we're 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 we're not doing our job right, or we may as well not be there or something.
	The big state is a good in of itself.
	So, yeah, something along those lines.
	Let's quickly watch a few seconds of this video just to give a tiny bit more context.
	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.
	The 1995 one, did Monica Lewinsky have to go home for those two days?
	No bill.
	Yeah, no wonder Bill sorted it out in record time.
	It has 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 it does feel like when that charter we looked at earlier, if you were to extrapolate that out into the future, whether it will just happen more and more.
	It's towards the bottom of that one.
	It's towards the bottom of this one, isn't it?
	Well, you know, going forward centuries from now might have been the other BBC one.
	Well, anyway, you saw that they got longer over time.
	And where I've likened the US Republic to the late Rome, ancient Roman Republic, the sort of the Marian and Sullen civil war.
	Obviously the end, not the end point, because history never stops, but sort of 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 lawfare before that and a few generations of the government basically shutting down and all that sort of thing.
	I feel like the US Republic is really now on a slippery slope towards that.
	Whether it's imminent or not, that we actually end up with a Sullen-style civil war or a Caesar-Pompey style civil war.
	Well, this is the argument that most republics only last about 250 years.
	Coincidentally, the US is on the verge of celebrating 250 years.
	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.
	An emperor.
	So Trump, Vance becomes the dictator, first citizen, but after him, Baron becomes an emperor.
	I can't.
	That'd be right.
	Other people have said Baron Trump's massively astroturfed and he's nothing just because he's tall.
	Yeah, people just like him because he's very tall.
	And the last thing to say in this segment is, meanwhile, meanwhile, the economy just keeps and debt just keeps absolutely spiraling 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, if you believe Elon Musk or this webpage, you'll see that it needs to be massive, massive cut in federal spending.
	Well, that's otherwise.
	Makes the point.
	If you look at the discretionary spending and then the deficit, the deficit is bigger.
	So even if you bin all of the discretionary spending, all of it, you're still going to 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 a number of the other things that are mandated spending.
	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 number's nowhere near big enough.
	Yeah, you need an extra bomber in there.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	So.
	Okay, we'll leave it there.
	But 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'm just doing this for the love of it.
	Of the game, yeah.
	I think basically all federal employees still just turn up for work.
	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've got some comments, I think.
	So, Busted Brains, amongst the Dems'so-called bipartisan demands are stealth repeals to the big bills for Medicaid coverage abused by legals, equal, according to the Republicans, approximately £1.5 trillion in spending.
	Oh, that just makes sense.
	Skittenhun 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.
	Only the bad federal employees we don't want to get paid.
	Right.
	Layman Muck says, I wonder how many military vets and personnel will stand by their oaths as they swore to the British people and land from enemies and land from any both domestic abroad and against the Crown, unlike the police.
	That may have been relating to the last segment.
	I'm not sure.
	Do 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 all right, we can come back to them at the end and then 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 it's worth pointing out that there is a sort of right-wing revival in Britain.
	And I think also there might be a Labour government in charge.
	They do still hold a lot of power.
	And that is rather unfortunate.
	However, Keir Starmer is the most unpopular prime minister in the history of Ipsos polling, which is quite something.
	He's minus 66 in net satisfaction there.
	And 79% of people disapprove or are dissatisfied.
	And only 13% of the population are satisfied.
	And it's quite impressive how quickly he pulled that up because Thatcher had to be in power for like 10 years before she was like hated at that sort of level.
	And even Boris Johnson, who did all of the crazy shit that he did, I mean, the lockdowns and the Boris wave, it still took him a good three or four years to become truly hated.
	Whereas Starmer just walks in and just nails it within the first six months.
	I also think that that 13% is probably people who worked for the state who've explicitly had a pay rise under his watch.
	So they're like, well, you know, I like this guy.
	He's giving me more money.
	So 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 sector and you buy their votes.
	That's why they expand the government constantly.
	That's probably why that exists.
	Also, diet-in-the-wall reds or pinkos.
	Or many of the people that turn into 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 what is he doing to help himself?
	Well, he's getting headlines like this.
	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 reforms 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 from the third world mostly.
	Racist.
	Everyone say it with me.
	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 the 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 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?
	Just noticing.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	So another thing that's happened is the flag movement.
	And although this 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, has been reassuring and makes people feel safer.
	That is a particularly 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.
	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 mates 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.
	No City of London.
	No.
	Thank goodness for that.
	And this sort of thing had Lib Dems waving flags.
	And they were saying they're trying to 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 I'm saying.
	Imagine we can get these people in 10 years if we carry on forthright.
	Well, what happens is now the Labour Party are sort of dispelling the migrants and the boat people around the country.
	These little pleasant villages that vote Lib Dem because they've not changed for hundreds of years are slowly going to have Somali rapists creep in and it's going to be their neighbourhoods and they're going to 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, people don't realize 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 realization, 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 people can move the dialogue and that elites aren't completely immovable.
	Well, my opinion on this is that ultimately elites do call the shots and what the masses think is not of no consequence, but they can go against Pepper.
	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.
	It makes making mistakes more likely by 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, 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 govern the state.
	And also, winning over the populace isn't insignificant 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.
	Objectively speaking, you know, there is an objective reality.
	It's not all optics.
	There is brass tax to get down to.
	It's the cost of governance you're referring to.
	Yes, exactly.
	And even this, 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 more associated with America in my mind, you know, I do think it's a funny word.
	And I call people patriots as like a sort of tongue-in-cheek thing.
	We don't really use that term, do we?
	You know, you're proud of your country.
	It's my standing for, well, I can't say comrade, so I just say patriot instead.
	I'll 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.
	It's interesting, is 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.
	Do you remember that thing where it was Angela Merkel on stage with a whole bunch of her senior ministers and like her home secretary or something held up the German flag and she just like turned around, laser eyes, snatched him off here and threw it across the room?
	Well, that's not going to happen here anymore, is it?
	And one thing that I think is very promising, because of course, we can see that this is all plastic patriotism, right?
	It's not genuine.
	They're putting it on to try and win people over.
	And one thing that is very reassuring is this.
	So as we touched on in Dan's segment previously, Keir Starmer announced the introduction of digital ID.
	And he was saying that it's about illegal migration.
	And what pretty much everyone on the right and the left said is, no, it's not.
	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 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 legitimizing 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.
	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 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 do.
	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 brief period of time where he's almost outflanking Farage in rhetoric.
	Obviously, don't believe him, but he was trying to court this opinion.
	Now he's gone leftwards again.
	Maybe he'll go rightwards again.
	And of course, this flip-flopping doesn't win him any favours and just makes him look weak and cynical and he's electioneering.
	But at the same time, I think no one believes him anyway.
	So it doesn't really matter.
	It's a good question, Adam, 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, 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 prime minister with an 80-seat majority for four years or whatever the majority is, for four years, but then after that, you can't be anymore.
	It's like, yeah, we could get loads done in those four years.
	Even if we're not going to get elected again.
	Think of all the people I could deport.
	Millions.
	There's also this.
	This is somewhat confusing and goes against this notion that Kier 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 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 complete bullshit, though, isn't it?
	Of course.
	It's like when David Cameron came out years and years ago saying multiculturalism has failed.
	Great, that's a nice soundbite.
	That's a nice bit of red meat.
	But you continue to just do the multicultural thing, harder, if anything.
	Where he comes out and he says, we'll get immigration down to 10,000, didn't.
	So that was just a complete liar.
	It went skyrocketed, in fact.
	So they can come out and say something like this.
	That's all well and good.
	And the credulous among us can say, oh, that's good, isn't it?
	That's a piece of red.
	But it's just a lie.
	It's just a lie.
	Exactly.
	What you're saying here is my point, is that no one is falling for this anymore.
	Politicians have been lying about immigration for so long that no one takes them at their word.
	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 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.
	And I think that reform are much of the same.
	You know, they're the teal Tories, aren't they?
	Might be marginally better than them.
	However, it's not going to go nearly far enough to actually address the problems.
	It's still going to continue just at a slower rate.
	I mean, all for large, but still.
	It will be a case of, it's just a case of, well, Nate, Mr. H Reviews, put it very well, calling it an exercise in filibustering.
	The governments for years and years and years and years have just said, we're going to do something about it.
	We're going to 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.
	The majority of people in all regions of Britain support mass deportations.
	I've not seen this.
	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 own Bo Dade.
	Well done, Beau.
	I always believed in you.
	Even Scotland, 60%.
	Look at the North East, there's 72%.
	My very own South West, 70%.
	East Midlands, 71%.
	I think if Essex were its own self-contained thing, it would be the highest.
	So well done, Beau.
	Giving you all the credit.
	The South East is full of wishy-washy, well, 43%.
	Do you know why that might be?
	It's because that's where the foreigners are, isn't it?
	Of course it is.
	I suppose they come in through there, don't they?
	Yeah.
	So even London, 55.9%.
	It's interesting, isn't it?
	That even in London, there's a majority somehow.
	It's the Northeast who've got the highest, the Macams and Tackams.
	Yeah.
	See people based.
	So well done in the North East.
	East Midlands and the South West.
	I'm going to give myself a pat on the back for that one.
	That last one.
	I think Essex deserves an honorary mention because I think the way the borders have been drawn up there, 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 Kent and Essex which get the brunt of the small boat people.
	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 2024 vote.
	Even a majority of Liberal Democrats slowly nudging over 50% want mass deportations of illegals now.
	Labour, obviously, under 50%, still about 45.
	Other is mid-40s 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 is not zero for the Greens is interesting, isn't it?
	Also, I thought it was interesting that Conservative is higher than reform.
	That's what I was going to say.
	That is very interesting, yeah.
	Operation, clear them out.
	We've got to clear them out.
	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 45 of them after the next level.
	I think I've figured it out.
	It's all of the really old people that don't follow politics but just hate foreigners and vote conservative by default.
	We're thinking that is this the box I tick to deport them all.
	Yeah, but I looked at what the 45 safest Tory seats were, so if they are reduced to 45, and it's a third Englishman, it's a third the other lot, you know, Welsh and...
	Oh, you're in a cave.
	I'm speaking like a god briefly.
	Bring it back, Samson.
	I want that all the time.
	It was a third, the other lot, like Irish, Welsh, Northern Irish, Scottish, all that kind of thing.
	And it was a third, like, Pakistani.
	That and other.
	They just want to go home.
	They want a free flight home.
	So the Conservative Party is going to be like a third Pakistani after the next election.
	It's very interesting that people throw a lot of shade at boomers for being the problem, being libtards and things.
	But the thing is, when you find, or women, women shouldn't be allowed to vote, or whatever.
	Or all immigrants are, all of them are just purely tribal for their own interests.
	But when you do find a based boomer, a based woman, a basic immigrant, they're usually super-based.
	Right?
	Small Zealand a convert right.
	That is often the way.
	Yes.
	Also, women shouldn't vote.
	Oh.
	Uh-oh.
	There's no need for that.
	Some of our audience are women.
	They're lovely people.
	No, yeah, and that's exactly why.
	So we could more accurately look after them.
	I'll stand by that.
	I mean, in Dan's defense, I don't think anyone should vote anyway.
	It's a waste of time.
	Yes, that's a good point.
	Let's have one Lord Protector who rules by the sword.
	Yes.
	They're threatening me with a good time, though.
	I'm joking, of course.
	There's also this.
	This was, I think, back in April of this year.
	These are people calling for the mass deportation of illegal migrants.
	There are now 21 supporters in Parliament for this.
	Of course, previously, there were very few.
	Oh, Andrew Rosendale, Rumford.
	There's a few here.
	There's traditional unionists, Conservatives, Independents.
	It's mostly Conservatives.
	DUP there.
	It's not really surprising.
	None of the Pakistani Conservative MPs I see on this list.
	No.
	Funnily enough, they're not Turkeys voting for Christmas.
	See, James McMurdo, 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 McMurdo, I think, is the most sympathetic of the reform lot to Lowe.
	I literally started in Tower the other week, so there's that.
	Bit of a legend, isn't he?
	And then we've got this exclusive polling commission for Restore Britain as part of our mass deportation campaign.
	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, those two.
	And it's also 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.
	A lot of people just watch TV and don't think.
	The NPC vote is don't know, I guess.
	And there's also this.
	I found this hilarious.
	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 its 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 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'm not sure what she means by that.
	What values?
	Yeah, what values?
	Destroying your country.
	The pursuit of power, that value.
	I've got one value, that one.
	Flooding your country with murderers and rapists.
	Is that a value?
	I don't know.
	There's also this.
	And of course, 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 don't know about that.
	It's also very difficult to headcount.
	I never know how people even have...
	It's 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, 100,000, if not more, maybe?
	People were claiming it was like 3 million people.
	I don't know.
	I don't know how you can.
	And that's not all of them, because that carries on off the picture.
	However, it was one of the biggest rallies I think there's been in a very long time, probably since the Iraq war protests, I think.
	That was probably the largest in British history.
	And you get old Labour people here just saying it's normal.
	I'll play this a little bit.
	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 going to play it briefly.
	I'm not going to 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 at a concert.
	There was a 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 get less than so the point being that even a Labour man on Sky News is admitting that a bad man Tommy Robinson rally 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 you 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.
	It doesn't matter whether there's a gospel and there's a few black faces in the crowd.
	So what?
	Trevor?
	No, I very much.
	Oh, Trevor says it's all right, is it?
	I say it's all right.
	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 saying these things.
	Fair point.
	That's a fair point.
	And then here we've got Nigel saying welfare will be for British citizens only.
	This may well have been a reform policy all along, but it's nice to see him stating it publicly.
	One thing that I have liked seeing is end the Boris wave because reform was talking a lot about, well, let's reverse illegal migration.
	But illegal migration is like, you know, an egg cup of water in a you know a sinking ship on the Titanic, right?
	It's 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 lots and lots of people deported, not just 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 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.
	I had noticed that.
	Your problem was that you were ahead of the curve.
	Yeah.
	Happened, I think.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	So what you're basically suggesting is in six months' time, Nigel will be like, women voting, no, that's out.
	I don't think it'll go quite that far.
	Well, it does with them increasing in the polls, that the discourse is changing.
	Whether you should believe reform and Farage, whether they have the political will to do it, whether they are actually going to do it when they get to government, if they get to government, is a different question.
	I am sceptical personally.
	However, it's still better than nothing to see this sort of thing banded 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 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 could have come out of the mouth from our very own Bodade here in that article that got you kicked out, which was actually what I was going to 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.
	Should you believe him?
	That's up to you.
	Is it going to translate into electoral success?
	Who knows?
	But things are tipping in that direction, it seems.
	And people are not falling 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 old Edgar.
	Steven Edgy.
	It's just impossible.
	Politically impossible to mass deport illegals.
	And you know where this works, right?
	His advisors watch us and then feed those lines to him.
	Like softly, softly over a period of months.
	And he's like, oh, yeah, that's actually a good idea.
	Whispering in his ear, it's inevitable.
	Say inevitable, Nij.
	Say that it's inevitable.
	Next, he'll be indistinguishable from Steve Laws.
	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.
	Okay.
	Okay, big driller, 14.
	Three out of four, most baseload seaters.
	Bring Harry on to complete the team.
	Oh, well, thank you.
	Also, bring Steve Laws on the show.
	Well, it's not up to me.
	But I do.
	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 MCK.
	Sorry if I've mispronounced that.
	I wonder how many military vets and personnel will stand by the oath as they swore to the British people and land from MNEs both domestic and abroad, not the Crown and Government, unlike the police.
	Well, I don't know whether it'll actually come to that.
	I would direct those last ones.
	That might be all of them, I think.
	Okay, Tom Ratt says, I keep telling you guys Heinleinism fixes all of this, anti-racist, but provides the moral basis for denial of votes to the unworthy.
	By the way, happen to know you have some friends in high places and some based MPs of the Conservative bent.
	Heinleinism, that's interesting.
	We must be talking about starship troopers and service equals citizenship.
	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.
	Busted Brian says the rallies don't accomplish much politically, Josh.
	Friend, 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 thing that made him change his mind.
	It's a very difficult thing to know what's in his head.
	The opposite of that is possible.
	Sorry.
	The opposite of that issue 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 a difference.
	And I did sort of acknowledge that.
	But I do agree that generally speaking, unless you've got a very specific goal, the government 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 Labour 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 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?
	Quite right, Mr. White says, Josh, whilst it is nice to see 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, 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, don't count your chickens before they hatch, that sort of thing.
	I think 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 it's very reasonable to have that concern in mind, though.
	I do think the logic is flawed that sometimes 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.
	I think you should try everything available to you to achieve success and evaluate your options after the fact and pursue what is the most successful, whatever that strategy might be, obviously within the bounds of morality and the law.
	I mean, look at the poll tax riots.
	Look at the peasants' revolt of 1381.
	They should have stuck to their guns, but still.
	Do we have any video comments, Samson?
	We're apparently going to get some video comments tomorrow.
	There was a bone saw chap in the scrolling chat thing who said he ordered an Island of Four and hasn't got it.
	Well, unless you just ordered it a few days ago, I mean, our partner is normally pretty good, the people that do the sending stuff.
	But if you still don't get it, contact at lotuseaters.com.
	That's the one.
	That's the one.
	Well, Coltby at lotuseaters.com.
	We have a Colby, do we?
	Yeah.
	Oh, yes, him.
	Yes.
	Okay, yes.
	No, he's in the little, we've got like a little Garza, a little side room, is he?
	Is he in there?
	Is he in the main room?
	No, he's in the main room.
	Is he?
	Yeah.
	Oh, I should say hello at some point.
	Samson's laughing.
	Okay.
	Oh, dear.
	Yeah.
	Right.
	Sophie Liv says, 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 Itsy and Amazon.
	Also, to log into my bank, see documents from the government such as tax returns and library fines, requests for medication from a doctor 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, Sophie.
	It's just the rest of you infernal gender and they're voting, which is the problem.
	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 live there or buy anything without their ID.
	I'll pass then.
	Sorry, Denmark.
	Henry Ashman says, the significant part of digital ID for me is the way the system incentivizes function and scope creeps so it will become ubiquitous.
	Then, once it's ubiquitous, it could become a problem in so many different ways.
	It could be weaponised by an unscrupulous government.
	The thing that I say to Normies is, what if Big Nige gets in and has access to the system?
	It could also become a treasure hoard to hackers.
	And there's some other good stuff.
	So we're on.
	Russian Garbage Human says they will just share the idea.
	Oh, he's quoting me.
	They will just share the idea.
	Well, the leftist counter-argument is to have fingerprints or data tied into it.
	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 crime.
	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 database.
	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.
	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 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 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 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?
	Fines of the Natives.
	On the US shutdown, the Lord Inquisitor Hector Rex himself says, Bo, the executive branch has what's called the take care clause that allows the president to not spend money Congress has allocated if he feels it's not in the national interest Trump has done it to the tune of over 10 billion so far and he should keep doing it well yes 10 billion is not nearly enough it needs to be in the trillions I just say it's a drop in the ocean but it's a good point nonetheless in the right direction he makes a good point but Bill Clinton had a budget surplus didn't he yes miss
	ratt says I don't mind these short-term shutdowns as they just show how the little people 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 do you want to do any from um Yule and Yule.
	Cumbrian Kulak says Carlisle is the highest polling for remigration, excluding Great Yarmouth, which is of course Great Yarmouth being Rupert Lowe's constituency, isn't it?
	Yes.
	And 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.
	I suppose we can end it there, can't we?
	We've already overrun about 10 minutes.
	Yes, before I insult anyone else, it's probably best to end it there.
	So, oh, yes.
	Buy it if you want to buy it, because you won't get 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, yours might go out to mine, so they'd just be bad.
	I'd just be taunting them here.
	Yes.
	They'd feel miserable with themselves.
	So it's Cheerio for me.
	It's Cheerio for them.

▲