The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1278

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 21, 2025 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:36:42

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1278

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast of the loadseaters, episode one thousand two hundred and seventy-eight for Tuesday, the twenty-first of October, twenty twenty five.
	I'm your host Luca, joined today by Josh, the Ferminator.
	I. He said he'd be back, and he is.
	And uh also uh good friend of the show, Lewis Brackpool.
	How are you, sir?
	I'm very well, yourself?
	Yeah, very well.
	Thank you.
	Thank you for coming in.
	Thank you.
	The pin here, I just realised I don't know flag pin.
	Shame.
	Much shame.
	It's my divided loyalties.
	I'm I'm gonna have a half Scottish, half English one now.
	Oh, I thought you were gonna go cornish.
	Well, according to Ancestry, I'm only like three percent cornish.
	Oh, well done.
	Well done.
	Anyway, today we're going to be talking all about the vote against the president elect of Oxford.
	We're then going to be talking about what the home office is trying to hide from us, and then we're going to be um defending the Lord of the Rings against the latest series of baseless attacks, and I can't.
	Or chords, yeah.
	Yes.
	And I can assure you, ladies and gentlemen, ahead of time, rest assured that we will have only correct based and definitive takes during that segment.
	So with that all said, before we do begin, actually, I just also want to point you towards my own show of Chronicles because uh it was a bit of a tech issue on the website this weekend, so not everyone was able to see it go up.
	And I've started the first of a two-part series looking at Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet.
	Uh it was a lot of fun to record.
	Um if you uh listen to it as well, I do attempt many of the lines, read a few monologues myself.
	Um it's quite funny actually, because um the camera wasn't on, so I was just able to stand and perform them.
	It was uh it was very fun.
	Anyway, so if you're interested, go and check out one of what I have to say about one of Shakespeare's classics.
	You're reading all of the sort of romantic lines, so it's gonna be like if you listen to it, you're slowly seducing the audience.
	Yes, I I am Romeo and Juliet in the piece in a real bipolar sort of uh romantic a very bipolar romance.
	Uh yeah, anyway.
	So let's talk about uh the president elect of Oxford, shall we?
	So obviously I needn't remind you, he's become somewhat infamous over the past few years.
	Uh sorry, past month, um obviously, because he made some statements uh after the horrible murder of Charlie Kirk.
	Uh absolutely disgusting, where he basically uh commented a lol when he heard that it had happened and just lets effing go, right?
	Which is an abhorrent thing for anyone to to say.
	It's an ine and it but it's an even more abhorrent thing given that he'd personally met Charlie and be at the debate with him, looked him in the eye, presumably shook his hand, as Charlie would have would have wanted to do, of course, and but everything since then, so obviously that put him under the microscope.
	And then what's more, every other thing about him just revealed him to be a man totally lacking in virtue or honour or any sense of ethics.
	Um which reminds me, of course, the fact that here at the Lot Seaters we hold such things as virtue and morality in very very high regard, which is why one of our great men Stelios has put together a course looking at ancient Greek virtue ethics, going back to antiquity and all of the lost wisdom in there into how to be a good person, how to live a good life, um, that is constructive for yourself and for your loved ones around you.
	You can either buy it as a one uh total sum uh for 325 pounds, or you can actually get it in three monthly instalments because uh it is coming up to Christmas and I'm sure people's wallets are starting to get pinched.
	So if that's something that you're interested in, then please do go check it out.
	I apologize as well for being a bit hoarse today and gentlemen, I'm a bit under the weather.
	So as you can see here, the picture says a thousand words, not only with the quotes, but just the absolute lack of conduct, right?
	There are there are thousands and thousands of young British students who will Oxford would be the university of their dreams, right?
	And you would want to go there because it is the oldest university in the in these aisles, and it's one of the greatest prestige.
	And we learnt that it was basically this position.
	Not only was he allowed to go to Oxford whilst not having the grades for it, right?
	Which can only really be attributed to the fact that he was obviously a diversity higher.
	Obviously.
	Look at him.
	Well, yes, exactly.
	But what's more, of course, the fact that he was already elevated into a university that he wasn't worthy of.
	And then from there was even more rewarded.
	Uh with basically a vote to become the president of the Oxford Union.
	Now I just look at the absolute state of him though.
	This is you know, if if I were at the border, I'd be like, you know, you're not even coming in, let alone go into Oxford, and let alone becoming the Oxford Union president, isn't it?
	Right.
	Like, how on earth can this absurd it looks like he's wearing slippers, track city bottoms, and a horrible T shirt.
	I what has happened to our culture where we allow someone like this, even near to it, let alone hold a prominent position.
	Seems more reflective of you know, purposely doing that to dishonour the other the other person who they're debating, because you know, when you go to a debate and you know you have your notes and you prep, you want to make sure you look presentable as well in any format, and it kind of it honours your opponent too,
	because it says, Look, I've made I've made the effort to come here to present my ideas, but also the prestigious union, the prestigious institution of the Oxford Union has long since been the home of debate and you know dialogue,
	and you if you go back throughout history, it's all to do you you see men dressed in such like perfect condition um for the time, and I think to be honest, I see it as just a way that he done that to um to just dishonour his opponent more than himself.
	It's a humiliation ritual to yeah, you're right, to to the institution, to his opponents, not to himself, oddly enough, he doesn't feel humiliated by his state there whatsoever.
	He's just a human form of civilizational entropy, really, isn't he?
	Just devalues everything he comes into proximity to by being like that.
	Yes, absolutely, very well said.
	Uh I would like to um for sake of nuance point out what Adrian says here, which is that the Oxford Union is a separate legal entity and quite distinct from the university itself, has its own building, its own trustees, its own constitution, and its own policies and procedures,
	and in addition, membership is not limited to Oxford University students or alumni, but open to those studying at certain other institutions, so please don't tarnish the university with the incompetence of the union officers or project onto the university the disrepute into which they bring the union.
	No, don't worry, the university has its own reasons to uh be in disrepute.
	They are separate, you're quite right, but um we could make an entirely separate segment talking about the problems with the actual university.
	No.
	Um but the thing is as well, other than of course the uh personal effect that this is having on the fact that well, obviously, because of his comments about Charlie, uh a vote of no confidence was of course put in him, rightly bloody so um, and it shouldn't have taken this long, frankly.
	Um but what's more as well, as you find in this GB News article, the union is facing a financial crisis after its president-elect appeared to celebrate the killing of Charlie Kirk last month.
	Donations to believe uh believed to be worth hundreds of thousands of pounds have been put on hold, and speakers have pulled out of debates uh in backlash to remarks made by um George Aberogna.
	And so you have this thing where it's bringing um financial costs right now as well.
	It's not just his reputation, but as you say, he is a form of civilizational entropy, Josh.
	I mean, look at that picture on the right hand side of the article.
	He looks like some sort of pirate.
	At least he's wearing a you know a proper uh you know, black tie jacket, but still he's he's wearing the weird Drag looking thing.
	It it's cringe, it's really really cringe.
	Um and let's not let's not forget as well the the most important thing that he actually had to say in all of this, and this was during a debate.
	To effectively create change in the world we desire.
	And side prop will argue that at times there is simply nothing else that can be required other than violent retaliation.
	And this is a view I wholeheartedly agree with.
	This view the view that some institutions are too broken, too aggressive, too oppressive to be reformed.
	Like cancers of our society.
	They must and they should be taken down by any means necessary.
	By any means necessary.
	What institutions is he actually talking about?
	Well, the ones that obviously are ideological enemies, or not even enemies, just not allies, obviously, to I don't understand though.
	The ruling class are in favour of progressivism.
	Yes, which is why he's there in the first place.
	Yeah, so I don't understand w what institutions was he actually talking about.
	I've never I don't understand.
	Well, it's just pure typical student activism, isn't it?
	It's about thinking you're the rebellion, while it's just kicking in a whole hall of open doors.
	Right.
	I think if you're the president elect of the Oxford Union, maybe you shouldn't be talking about destroying institutions because I hate to break it to you, but you're part of one.
	Well we'll get to that in just a minute.
	So we have here as it says, vote on Oxford Union president in chaos over intimidation of officials.
	So this was uh this was a really bizarre thing that made this, you know, really worth exploring.
	The fact that it wasn't as simple as just having a vote.
	Then all of a sudden these allegations came about about rigging and sabotage and right, just all sorts of it says uh the proceedings this comes from uh this statement here, and it goes on to say the proceedings for the poll of no confidence brought in against George uh Abergna were informally suspended in the early morning of October the twentieth.
	This was not a formal decision taken based on procedural necessity, but rather due to the development of an impossible working atmosphere.
	The extraordinary returning officer was subjected to obstruction, intimidation, and unwarranted hostility by a number of representatives, and on account of this had no choice but to informally suspend the process uh process as cooperation and progress was rendered untenable.
	Returning as a result, uh returning a result is of utmost importance.
	The membership have voted in large numbers, and the Oxford Union Society is fundamentally a democratic institution.
	The voices of the membership must be heard, therefore proceedings will resume, and the validity of proxy nominations where unfinished will continue without representatives.
	And so all of a sudden, it really feels like General Melchit has been entirely vindicated when he said that Oxford's a complete dump.
	Right?
	We're in a position where how has this happened?
	How have we got to the point where um Oxford democracy looks exactly like something from Tower Hamlets?
	Right?
	With um sleas and sabotage.
	It's almost like institutions can only be preserved if certain people occupy the the spaces, isn't it?
	It's almost like the people are the important part of the institution and not the structure.
	Yeah.
	In a um well, this is um if I get from the um article which I don't think I've got here, it says uh in a meeting of the standing committee, which Aberongia was permitted to attend as president elect, he and his supporters moved a revenge motion of no confidence in the current president.
	So obviously there's a president who's because he's only president-elect, so the one who he's obviously going to be taking over from, uh a moussa haraj, uh for allowing alumni to vote on Saturday, and they came prep uh prepared very with the requisite 150 signatures.
	So that vote will take place on Thursday.
	So there is now a vote against the president elect and the president, a revenge vote of no confidence.
	And what's more, some of Aberunga's allies have been framing the attempt to remove him as would you guess, racist.
	Ah, of course.
	Uh according to the Oxford branch with stand up to racism.
	Um if this race's campaign to depose George is successful, it will further embolden fascists and the far right.
	Oh my god.
	You know, yeah, just The um as for racism, it's worth noting uh in passing that another screenshot from Abergna's WhatsApp exchange shows him boasting I don't frequent white establishments.
	Um now this is obviously immediate deport.
	Well, immediate deport, but also I don't frequent white establishments.
	You're at Oxford.
	Yeah, it's sort of pretty white.
	Right.
	I mean, there's also it's quite Asian, East Asian in particular.
	I mean, don't get me wrong, I actually uh respect the honesty, you know, about the fact that you actually want nothing to do with those whatsoever.
	I just mutual, yeah.
	I just suggest you go do it from another country then.
	Because what's more you can't have that both ways.
	You can't set up a parallel society and also have your entire career made up by that white society, by British society, that you're an active rebellion against.
	It reminds me a little bit of Lenny Henry that a sus you know, the society that they hate gave them so much and it's done nothing to curb their um insatiable appetite to destroy their host nation.
	Indeed.
	And so we have a little but arbitrary victory, friends, a victory nonetheless, which is that he seems to have lost the vote of no confidence.
	A verdict came in of uh 1,746 ballots, and it seems that uh uh we won by 1,022 to 501.
	Which let's just also say as well, the fact that there were five hundred and one people connected to Oxford that thought, yeah, this guy can stay.
	I like the cut of this guy's jib, he seems to be the direction that this union needs to be going in.
	Well, the union um has gone in a quite a left wing direction.
	I know if you look at uh a talk from maybe ten or fifteen years ago, perhaps, um it seemed a lot more reasonable, a lot more academic, and a lot more in keeping with what you would associate with Oxford.
	In recent years, you know, you get a a right wing guest in, and many of the annoying students in there are jeering and just the overall conduct has gone down.
	And I I do wonder whether this is uh shaped why people like this might have so much popularity is that the the political makeup of the people who attend and are members or whatever um has changed.
	There was just another part actually, forgive me, that was worth reading out as well, which is that um uh Adrian goes on to say in this piece that the problem was not only his celebratory outburst at Kirk's death, but the fact that other messengers have emerged suggesting that he holds the Oxford Union itself in contempt.
	When one friend wrote to him before his election in June, if you hate it, then you should run for the presidency.
	Aberongia replied, real lol, that's what I did.
	Right.
	So just yeah, as you say, just being a total enemy, destroying it from the inside.
	And so really the question here should not be whether or not this man should be the president elect of the Oxford Union.
	The first question should be, should he even be at Oxford at all?
	And I think we'll find the answer to that is also no, judging by his grades.
	And then the question from there should be, should he even be in the country?
	Of course.
	And yes, I I agree with your your head waving there, Josh.
	I agree entirely.
	And so, but of course, what we have, as we always have with gay race communists, is that they never want to go down without a fight.
	They never believe themselves accountable for the things they say, and they always seem to have a bit of a defence around them.
	And so you can see there was a statement here put out on his Instagram where he says uh this poll was compromised from the moment that um uh Musa Haraj and his majority of the standing committee brought compromised and untested poll regulations, and so he's just not long story short, he's not accepting the result.
	So I wonder if Facebook, Instagram, uh Twitter and YouTube are gonna deplatform him now for not accepting this.
	I I wonder if that's gonna happen.
	I'm sure Oxford were merely fortifying it.
	They weren't actually altering uh the outcome anyway.
	So as you can see here from this bottom line, George Aberongia is and remains the president elect per the Oxford Union rules.
	Ah yes, like an African warlord, it's not over until he gives up power, which is something that he will never do without intervention.
	And so obviously the the closing just things to say about this as well, of course, is just the fact that although it's very sensible, of course, that um the membership of Oxford Union seemed to have decided to eject him.
	It also can't be ignored that, of course, he was put there by the union in the first place, right?
	And they can't get off scot-free for that.
	Right.
	You cause this.
	The entire institution just allowed this to happen.
	Supporting a man for a whole profusion of reasons, any one of them would have rendered him totally unworthy of this position.
	The fact that all of them have collided together and he still was able to get it is absolutely ridiculous.
	And it makes a mockery of the whole institution, doesn't it?
	It does, and as we can see from the uh uh funding problems and what's more, uh the whole union is paying for it, right?
	They're all suffering.
	And rightly so for his foul opinions.
	And what's more as well, uh to to echo something that um Stelios was saying in the segment back when we had this.
	This isn't a matter of cancel culture.
	This isn't a matter of uh trying to remove this man because he has an opinion that I don't like.
	The point is that this man has an opinion that he wants you dead, right?
	He's totally indifferent to your murder, even for people he's actually met in polite society.
	And so that sort of an opinion is basically an advocacy for violence and can't be tolerated in the institutions.
	As uh the left said, freedom of speech doesn't necessarily mean freedom from consequences.
	They did say that, didn't they?
	Did you?
	I tell you what, if we can't get Jimmy Kimmel, this guy's having some consequences.
	Alright.
	So uh from the Rumble rants, we've got uh Sigil Stone says they voted out uh Captain Yes uh Sparrow, but now there's uh someone worse in the background whispering, I love democracy.
	Sorry, that you're quite right, Sigil Stone.
	That actually comes to another point as well, which is just that even though they're going to get rid of this guy, it seems, you know, however much he holds up and is able to defend himself here, which I don't think he will, because there's just there's too many incentives for the union to get rid of him at this point, uh whether through the orthodox means or not, whether they just have to arbitrarily gone.
	Non-orthodox means what they're gonna whack him like a Well, I just mean not by democratic vote, of course.
	Um I'm not I'm not doing a good fellas uh with this.
	But the fact of the matter is that um the makeup of the institution that allowed a verdict like this to happen in the first place and allowed him to be put in charge, is still there.
	And so why are we not just going to end up with a second George Aberogna when this guy gets cleared out, right?
	Yeah, sort of spoiled for choice.
	Exactly.
	And those are always the candidates who want to put themselves forward.
	So we will see what happens.
	And that's a random name says, Ironically enough, this clown is a hundred percent right when he says some institutions are beyond saving.
	Uh we must create our separate system and keep people like him out.
	Afuela, well, I mean, a very good point, random name, but of course, even it's a point, isn't it?
	Even though he says, Oh, you know, some institutions need to be torn down, he also owes his entire fake career to those institutions.
	Uh they're so corrupt that they gave him a position in the first place.
	Um, and there's no YouTube comments, so we'll head over to you, good sir.
	Thank you very much.
	Thank you.
	Right.
	Um before we begin, I just want to say a quick thank you to uh the Lotus Seaters for having me in uh to discuss this very very important story.
	Uh I can't I say I can't believe I can sort of believe that for the first time I'm under some sort of scandal is what you could probably call it.
	So uh I'm sorry if you are part of the audience that have already heard this story a hundred times, even though this happened only late last week.
	But I wanted to go through this because um well not only was I invited in to do this segment and to present it to you guys, um the wonderful audience, uh, but also it is incredibly important and it will affect everyone else.
	Uh so this is mere potentially the stepping stone to something far more sinister.
	Um but first, before we properly begin, I will hand this over to you guys to pitch.
	Oh, sure.
	Uh so Stelios, um uh great Greek professor himself, has uh come down from Olympus and created this course uh for us.
	It's uh a really really excellent course.
	He's been doing some webinars over the past few weeks, hundreds of people have been uh attending them, and basically if you have this course, you can buy it either in one instalment or three.
	Um you're able to uh get access to 15 hours of high quality lectures all about ancient Greek virtue ethics, how to live life in a moral way, and that doesn't mean through the arbitrary standards of just following the rules versus you know doing what the law tells you you can do.
	It means no, being your own moral agent being aware of what the moral order should be as the ancients understood it, and basically helping to prosper in your life.
	So if that sounds like something of interest to you, it's right there on the load seaters um dot courses, and you can definitely go check it out and you'll profit from it.
	Cool.
	Okay, so what is the home office hiding from us exactly?
	So as what aren't they hiding is the bigger question, right?
	Um for the past year or so I'd been investigating the asylum accommodation contracts and uh stakeholder uh policy around uh where who is it steering the agenda of the illegal migrant uh accommodation policy.
	So obviously, as we know, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of illegal uh migrants have entered or broken into Britain and are being housed in hotels across uh our nation.
	And so I want to know who's benefiting from this financially and who are conducting meetings uh behind the scenes with the home office and steering the uh the the asylum accommodation policy.
	I think it's a fair question.
	And to utilize this, I use the Freedom of Information Act, which was introduced by Tony Blair um during his reign uh in early 2000s, and fun fact, he called it his biggest regret after he um after he finished his uh long term in British politics, but still is involved very much so as we all know.
	He was asked by a reporter, what is your biggest regret?
	Now he could have said the Iraq war.
	He could have said many things, but he chose to say the Freedom of Information Act.
	So I think that's a big omission for not only all of us, but for your audience too, uh, to understand how important the Freedom of Information Act is and to try and acquire data from government departments.
	There's also something very satisfying about using Blair's own laws against the institutions he helped rig against the populace.
	Exactly.
	Well there have to be one in there that accidentally helped us somewhere.
	Exactly.
	And so I recommend everyone to utilize this wonderful law.
	So thank you.
	I'd like to say a special thanks to Tony Blair for introducing it.
	And the Tony Blair Institute, uh, if you're looking for uh members.
	You won't find me Tony.
	But um, so I asked uh the important question about who is steering it in in more specifically the stakeholders and the home office, as we've done a segment before on um the load seaters, and you were present, um, Lucas when we were going through it, sorry, Luca.
	Um forgive me.
	I get it a lot.
	Uh they actually gave me 14 NGOs uh that have had consultation meetings between 2020 and 2024, and it's NGOs and charity engagement with the home office um that have had uh meetings uh uh about the National Asylum Stakeholder Forum,
	the NASF, and it's strategic engagement groups, so SEGs, for matters In relation to uh asylum accommodation policy and the engagement was primarily sharing of information with some organizations, also acting as delivery partners.
	So extremely important.
	And I published this on my YouTube channel and then came onto Load Seat as while when we had our um our segment, and it's reached uh over a hundred thousand uh views alone on this, and I think it's important who is having these meetings.
	So I decided in the video to name the directors of each company, and they uh many of them sounded uh I seem to remember quite um non-British.
	They had quite foreign names, almost as if they didn't really consider themselves stewards of England or protecting anything about um its demographic integrity or its institutions or uh the indigenous people's way of life.
	Indeed.
	And so I decided to uh obviously name the directors because it's in the public interest, but also it's lawful you can do that because it's of course if you go onto these websites, it is displayed quite clearly the director of this company.
	Yeah, it is public knowledge, uh of course, well, kind of public knowledge.
	And so after posting this and doing the segment on load seaters, I received uh a message from a friend saying, Did you know that the Guardian is talking about you?
	And I thought, oh, brilliant.
	Well, let's have a look at what they've said.
	And so the Guardian put out this over a month ago, where it says refugee charities install safe rooms and relocate amit amid rise in far right threats.
	Now, I was reading this, and they even says one NGO placed on an online hit list, had to temporarily close its office owing to harassing phone calls.
	I'm staying on your good side, Lewis, all of us.
	I'm pretty sure we um obviously didn't endorse harassment.
	Absolutely not absolutely not.
	So my I want to state my primary my prime sorry, my primary role as a journalist is to find information lawfully through the Freedom of Information Act, and that is one of my tools to use, and to disclose the information lawfully, um, and I am a role player as much as you know a lot of people uh don't want me to be.
	I uh I do play by the rules, um, but I'm using the FOI Act like we discussed earlier to embarrass the government um and to shine a light on information and draw out data uh to give to the public because it's in the public interest, and I am like an MP, or what an MP suppos is supposed to do is to serve my audience and dis and to serve what it is that people are concerned about.
	It's why uh I'm now uh at a privileged uh position at restore Britain, being a director of the investigations unit to help steer and to help with concerns from the public and people within institutions that come to me with concerns.
	That is my role.
	Um obviously I do not endorse anything uh illegal, of course I don't.
	Um I can't help but feel though, whilst reading this particular article, there isn't any evidence to show what is being said, and I'm just gonna throw that out there.
	I I'm so they mention you so this is what I wanted to talk about.
	Let me just bring up my notes because I want to find exactly here we go.
	The charity commission, a particular charity commission, uh, has taken the highly unusual step of removing the names of trustees from several charities listed on its website, which so like I said, you go on their website and it shows who the directors are.
	It did so after the home office gave a far right influencer um the names of some organizations um with which it had meetings about asylum accommodation following a freedom of information request.
	So they're clearly talking about me here, yeah.
	Clearly, but they don't mention me by name.
	Didn't ask for a comment from you?
	Didn't ask for a comment, nothing.
	Um but they got around that by just not mentioning my name.
	But it's quite clear that they are talking about me.
	I don't know anyone else who's managed to get that information.
	You're a public figure, it's on your website.
	Indeed.
	But not be named now.
	I cannot be named like Voldemort and Harry Potter.
	Very strange.
	Um, after this, uh, I decided to follow up with more freedom of information requests to try and get some more information on within these particular meetings, what is being discussed, what are they talking about?
	You know, who benefits from this?
	What is the agenda?
	And so, after doing so and asking a simple question, I posted this with screenshots and I wanted to go through them and get your opinions.
	So I put this is the most absurd FOI response I've had to date.
	The home office has refused to release records about which NGOs and charities are influencing asylum accommodation policy.
	Because my social media activity, and we'll go through this, supposedly poses a safety risk and could trigger public backlash.
	But public backlash is omitted from them, not from me disclosing it.
	Yeah, I mean it's like saying if you if you tell people the awful things we've done, there's going to be public backlash, therefore we can't allow you to know about it.
	Yeah.
	Like like the Tories uh did with the legacy with um all the Afghans.
	Yes, these super injunction.
	Like trying to keep it hush because they know that the public will be against it from the beginning.
	So let's go through what they said.
	So here is my response uh from well, here is the response from them to me, and I've highlighted some key parts.
	It says, We have considered your request carefully and can confirm that some information falling uh falls within the scope um of this request.
	Um but the exemption applies where disclosure would or be likely to inhibit the free and frank provision of advice and the free and frank exchange of views for the purpose of deliberation.
	It says the withheld information includes internal materials prepared for the NASF and SEG meetings, so these particular meetings, with the strategic engagement group um and the uh National Asylum Stakeholder Forum.
	It says and stakeholder engagement, disclosure of this information would likely to pre it would likely would sorry, would be likely to prejudice the home office's ability to engage in open, honest and constructive dialogue with NGOs and key stakeholders in these uh matters.
	Now I don't buy that personally.
	No.
	But they go on to say they ran a public interview.
	Sorry, can I just say as well?
	It'll just what they're saying is it'll compromise our ability to be open with um stakeholders.
	NGOs and stakeholders.
	Yeah.
	It's like and we've more we value them much more than we do about being open with the people.
	Right, just with ordinary it's just a frank admission that no, we care far more about the opinions of the NGOs and stakeholders than we do about you, plebs.
	And so they continued by saying, however, we consider that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the interest in disclosure.
	Of course.
	Uh releasing this information would likely inhibit the home office and its stakeholders from engaging in free and frank discussions, but they also said the exemption applies where disclosure would endanger the physical or mental health of any individual or endanger the safety of any individual.
	They say the withheld information includes named individuals and organizations, taking into account the effect of information previously released under a previous request, there is real significant and specific risk and disclosure of the information in scope would cause endangerment, upset and distress to the individual individuals and families included.
	There are also safety concerns for the home office staff, service providers, and NGO representatives.
	Now, I don't buy that personally, because when you go through um the process, I know that they can redact names, they can give a what is called a partial disclosure, and they redact any personal details that they would deem uh compromising or anything.
	However, the reason why they won't um well, I believe the reason why that they won't do this uh or release names is because the names are public um figures.
	They're they are in the public record.
	So they don't have an argument To not release it.
	So they can only use that and the article, I believe, as a way of saying this is the reason for why we can't use this.
	I think the sort of best argument on their behalf to play devil's advocate here would be that well, if we tell you which institutions are doing these things because these institutions are public facing, you can then find out who these people are.
	So it doesn't necessarily matter if they redact it because you'll be able to find it out anyway.
	And so my counter argument to that would be then why didn't you redact the fourteen NGOs that you gave to me in the first place?
	What's more as well as a matter of public record.
	Even to to simply take them at the word, right, and take their reason as their reason when they say there is a real and significant and specific risk that disclosure of the information uh could endanger cause endangerment, upset and distress to the individuals and families.
	So that's exactly what these charities are doing to ordinary British people every day.
	Because they support this system that allows illegal migrants to stay in these hotels that have put countless people, victims, girls, you know, in harm's way, right?
	That's causing endangerment.
	That's calling distress, that's causing genuine harm.
	But they don't care about that.
	Well, they basically admit that if if we disclosed everything, people would be so angry that they wouldn't be safe.
	And I don't think that that's necessarily untrue because there is a lot of anger in this country about this.
	But the solution is not to then double down and try and say, well, we're not going to disclose information that it that should be a matter of public record, deserves to be a bit a matter of public record, and shouldn't be done in the first place, in my opinion.
	You know, none of this stuff um should be going on in an ordinary and insane society, and by covering up for it, all it's doing is allowing these bad practices to carry on.
	And here's here's the part where it invokes more of the of a cover-up and more of a scandal is what you could call it.
	It says Um, there are also safety concerns, as they said, uh, for the home office staff, service providers and NGO representatives.
	Recent social media activity by the requester included sharing personal details and misleading narratives, which has already caused safety concerns amongst the stakeholders.
	Additionally, recent protests at asylum uh hotels have highlighted the volit volidity, sorry, volatility.
	Oh my gosh, excuse me, um volatility, um of I've not even said that right again.
	Volatility, volatility.
	You got it, there we go.
	Forgive me.
	Um public sentiment around asylum policy.
	Disclosure of sensitive meeting content could further inflame tensions, increase the risk of targeted protests, and place additional strain on public order resources.
	So the part there, recent social media activity by the requester, so me, um, included sharing personal details and misleading narratives.
	So one, when you submit an FOI request, part of the FOI Act under law is that it's applicant blind.
	It doesn't matter if I post it, it doesn't matter if Owen Jones po like asked for requested information, it doesn't matter if you like requested it, doesn't matter if Carl Benjamin requested it, it doesn't matter who is asking for the information, it is applicant blind.
	And to then respond to me by saying the recent social media activity by the requester included sharing personal details, I didn't, and misleading narratives, I didn't.
	I just think the remembering your segment, you were very, very careful to merely to merely just go through the names on the website and and what those charities do in their own words.
	Right except the commentary to me and Bo, you know, but like you were very of course, yeah.
	Exactly the same with this segment.
	I'm repeating exactly what they have given me.
	Right.
	Which is my right.
	And what they have given you is a misleading narrative about themselves, presumably then.
	Says maintaining the exemption preserves a safe space for operational planning and policy discussion, allowing officials and stakeholders to to deliberate freely Without fear of external interference or misrepresentation.
	It enables participants to speak openly and honestly and completely, including exploring difficult or sensitive options.
	Disclosure could inhibit this openness and reduce the quality of decision making.
	And it says conclusion, the potential harm to the effective conduct of public affairs, which doesn't make a sense at like any any sense.
	Stakeholder engagement and individual safety outweighs the benefits of disclosure in this case.
	So essentially they are stopping releasing this information.
	Um one of the well, one of the main reasons being my recent social media activity.
	And so that is unbelievable.
	I've never heard of a case like this before, personally.
	Um there might be other cases out there.
	I've not personally come across this before.
	But after this, because people are saying, Well, what are you going to do next about this?
	Obviously, you have to go through the process of submitting an internal review uh which gets passed to another person within the home office to check to see whether they've added the correct um uh exemptions, and I'm trying to fight for a at least a partial disclosure at the very least.
	But this, in my opinion, use of social media activity by the requester is not part of the FOI Act.
	That's just been crowbarred in there.
	Um, which isn't right.
	But also I I think that just looking at it outside of the the legal aspect and more towards a moral perspective.
	These people in in the charities that presumably this was specific to um asylum hotel accommodation, which is a policy that is obviously very, very controversial, very much in the public interest.
	Very much lots of people that are very interested in uh, you know, finding a solution to this.
	And the majority of the population just want them all departed or the illegals deported.
	And these people are working to basically facilitate this migrant hotel policy that's incredibly unpopular, and they want shielding with government protection from the public, which they might not even be a member of, um, from being angry at them and protesting maybe uh their organizations or knowing their names and and tarnishing their professional reputation.
	I'm afraid you can't have your cake and eat it here if you try and interfere in our country's politics, particularly in something as um unpopular as this, you know, people have died because of these asylum seekers, you know, needless to say, obviously things like sexual assault and the like rife um from these people, costing the taxpayer lots of money.
	I think people have a right here to be angry at the people helping facilitate this.
	And it doesn't mean that, you know, I I support them being harassed or anything unlawful, but people deserve to know who these people are.
	People deserve to know which organizations they represent and who they work with, and I think they deserve some pushback because what they're doing is morally repugnant, and I think that these people do deserve, you know, reputation tarnishment.
	They do deserve to be criticised publicly because what they're doing is awful.
	And so the seriousness of this response, um, because of this, uh, I'm very grateful to have the support from particularly as well, not just from obviously loadseaters, but uh and other people that have made videos on on this particular story,
	but also Rupert Lowe, who had written a letter to the home secretary about this and has said, I am writing to express my deep concern over a recent FOI Act response issued by your department to journalist Louis Brackpall.
	In that response, the home office refused to release information concerning stakeholder meetings influencing asylum accommodation policy.
	The justification included an extraordinary and improper statement that disclosure was being withheld in part because of quote recent social media activity by the requester, end quote, which it claimed had already caused safety concerns among stakeholders.
	If accurate, this represents a clear breach of the FOI Act 2000, and its central principle that requests must be treated applicant blind.
	The identity or perceived opinions of a Requester are entirely irrelevant and to whether information should be disclosed under law.
	It would appear that a government department has used a citizen's political or journalistic activity as grounds to deny transparency, an unaccepta uh an unacceptable precedent which risks politicising the FOI process itself.
	I therefore asked you to provide one a full explan a full explanation of why the requester's personal identity or social media presence was referenced in the decision to refuse disclosure.
	Number two, confirmation of whether senior officials approved or were sorry, confirmation of whether senior officials approved or were aware of this reasoning.
	Number three, details of any internal guidance or policy that authorizes staff to assess a requester's personal activity or profile.
	And number four, assurance that the home office will review this case and issue a correct a corrective disclosure where appropriate.
	So it's going to be a long process.
	Um I've done this thing as well called a subject access request, and it felt horrible if I'm totally honest.
	you have to do i have to basically ask a department do you hold information on me and you have to give over details of yourselves So like, you know, part of the process is giving over your uh, you know, you have to show like an identity, show a particular identity to prove who you are, and proof of address and all of this sort of stuff, like a utility bill, stuff like that.
	And there's something really gross about oh, I know that they've been talking about me.
	Here's my details.
	Uh can you check to see whether they've spoken about me, and can you show me what they've spoken about?
	It's a horrible, horrible process.
	Uh it's really, really awful.
	Um but this is what it's risking, because I actually predict um that we are going to see a crackdown of the FOI.
	Um because it's being it's it's a pretty effective tool, which I've come to realise over the past few years and using it and submitting lots and lots each week.
	Um because over in Australia, the globalist left Labour Party over there claims it's tightening FOI laws due to AI bots and foreign actors.
	Uh swamping the system.
	However, it's come to its come to everyone's attention that they don't have any evidence and there is a lack of proof for this, but they are still trying to put forward a clampdown on it.
	So it's only a matter of time now before this starts to happen somewhere in the UK because we tend to follow each other.
	I would submit a freedom of information request about whether where these allegations about AI bots and foreign actors.
	Well, there you go, exactly.
	Um and yes, this was yeah, something to do with Tony Blair being criticized by Freedom of Information.
	Yeah indeed.
	Uh yes.
	Um he repeated his view that he regrets introducing the FOI in 2000 because it has hugely constrained ministers' confidence in having frank discussions with advisers, and that was back in 2012.
	So all I'm gonna say is we're obviously going to keep fighting this and trying to get disclosure.
	Uh, I'm very grateful for uh the support from not only um you know the the company that I work for, Restore Britain, Rupert, but of course yourselves and other people that are talking about this particular story, um, because this is going to affect if if they get away with this, it is going to affect everyone.
	It doesn't matter whether you're Owen Jones, Louis Brackpole, Josh, uh, or anyone else, um, because that means that the FOI Act is not applicant blind and can be weaponised.
	So it's incredibly important.
	Um unfortunately it's going to get pretty annoying, so I do apologize, banging on about this until we get this resolved, and it never happens again.
	Um, because it's unacceptable.
	Um, but I'd like to thank uh for the support as well.
	It really I really appreciate.
	And great work, man.
	Oh, thanks.
	I really appreciate it.
	Alright, I'll uh go through some of the uh rumble rants.
	We've got uh Shadow Band says uh really enjoyed Lucas episode on Romeo and Juliet Chronicles quickly becoming one of my favourite weekly shows.
	Well, thank you very much, Shadow Band.
	Uh, got that that's random name, so subversive.
	If we tell you all the evil S with uh we've done, you would boogaloo me read out.
	That's my secret, Captain.
	I was always going to boogaloo.
	Um and then Sigil Stone says it's not in the public interest to know what the aristocrats have done now.
	And I see Luca's vampire costume is coming along nicely.
	Not sure why he's wearing it before Halloween though.
	I'm not sure if this is a comment on like my pasty and sick complexion, given or whether it's the fact that I look like I'm dressed out of a hammer horror like Peter Cushing.
	But um either way, thanks, Sigil Stone.
	Um I hope you're well as well.
	Got some YouTube comments as well.
	Oh sure.
	Do you want me to read those?
	You're not very well, are you, so I'll I'll save you.
	Thanks, gosh.
	Go on then.
	Took me by surprise.
	I thought I'd misheard for a second there.
	Uh Turi um says the Fabians do their best to destroy the West.
	Correct.
	Very succinctly put, thank you.
	Um Brian uh Fevrier, um George is half white and talks about not wanting to go to white places is so performative.
	This screams hatred of the self for being um for being fully black.
	What is that?
	Um I d I don't know.
	But I get the gist of what you're saying, that he identifies with one part of himself and not the other.
	And it's exactly the same as uh ob villain guy.
	Exactly the same.
	And Arcadia says, uh, why are you surprised?
	The home office is captured by the Islamic leftist group think and is corrupt.
	The whole department needs to be broken up.
	I'm not surprised.
	This is the point.
	Um but I'm surprised that they've made it so easy for me to for basically to trip themselves up.
	I'm surprised that they've they've messed up this badly.
	I know former lotus Connor Tomlinson did some work on exposing that network of Muslims in the home office.
	And uh of course, if they can get their relatives on a small boat over.
	But they they have more um affinity for people of their own religion than they do the host population is the actual serious point there.
	And so that they're going to be pushing for that sort of thing.
	May I have one of those magical podcasting boxes?
	The magic box.
	And uh I I'm not gonna I was gonna say, and what's in my magic box today?
	It sounds like a children's TV.
	I'll introduce it properly.
	So Nick Fuentes went after the Lord of the Rings, and I took that personally.
	In this household, the Lord of the Rings is sacred.
	You don't criticize it.
	You know, this organization, Lotus Theatres.
	Normally I don't speak for all of Lotus Heaters, but I can on this issue, because all of us love the Lord of the Rings, and we are gonna bat for it.
	We're gonna put this down, Nick, you know, and and his uh groeper army are fools for insulting the Lord of the Rings.
	Although it is fair to say that many of his own followers did push back against him for it.
	I'm glad to hear it.
	Um so there is uh some degree of sense there.
	Um so let's hear what he has to say.
	Um I do apologize um for what he's like.
	So 20 dollars.
	You can't be an idiot for asking a regular ass question your solutions are just a variation of Long Go to College or something.
	But at least in my game of Thrones, enjoy your fact.
	Referring to slap over LDR is a crazy self-report.
	Yeah, self-report that I'm awesome.
	That's a filter.
	That's a filter.
	If you like Lord of the Rings more than Game of Thrones, that that is a self-report that you're a LARPer.
	You like gay little hobbits.
	Gay little hobbits and the magic of friendship.
	I like people getting their heads chopped off.
	For no reason.
	Because that's life.
	And that's life.
	A sword swinging around, shopping everybody's heads off at random.
	And you like the power of friendship and magic rings and little elves and the power of their friendship and big gay wizards.
	Big gay wizards.
	They made him gay, didn't they?
	Or am I thinking about Harry Potter?
	Didn't they make it is worth mentioning the actor that plays Gandalf and McKellen, I think is is gay.
	Maybe that's what he's confusing with.
	But uh make the wizard gay or bisexual or something.
	That's what I know it's not in the original Tolkien or whatever, but and that's what you like.
	So yeah, I do...
	Do you know that Lord of the Rings is Catholic?
	It's written by Tolkien.
	It's incredibly Catholic.
	There are so many allegories to Christianity within the storyline, but it's done in such a way that it can be recognised by people who aren't even Christian as being a sort of transcendental piece of art.
	Right.
	It it evokes the the virtues within people without necessarily having to be an adherent.
	And I think uh as Lucas talked about before, Tolkien wrote this to be a mythology for the English, right?
	Yes.
	For England.
	Because um we'd lost so much of it during the time of the uh Viking invasions, and even of course, um a text like Beowulf, though still wonderful and obviously penned probably by an Anglo-Saxon monk, of course, in its origins, it is uh continental, it's Germanic, you know, it comes from the tale of the Danes and the Gayats, and you know, so it's of another people.
	And so Tolkien wanted to find something to replace what we'd had personally lost.
	And so in that way, you know, when you have a a corporation like Amazon, right, trying to make it inclusive, trying to it's like, well, if we can just stick enough foreign faces in it, it becomes for everyone.
	It's like, yeah, but this is what you don't understand, right?
	Not all stories have to be made for everyone.
	Some stories, the most powerful stories, respond to a particular people, and that's why the Lord of the Rings is continually, you know, topped as the favourite book of the British public, because we understand it, because we see ourselves represented in its story.
	When I read Chinese literature, I don't want some random white guy inserted in it.
	No.
	It's silly, it's a silly argument.
	But he does carry on.
	I'm only gonna play a little bit more, but it it does lead to a wider discussion about these sorts of things, and uh there was basically almost you know, civil war, not in the Tim Paul sense, but in the rights were w were very angry with one another, and it created a new fault line.
	Like Game of Thrones, you're right.
	I do like Game of Thrones better than Lord of the Rings, and that is a self-report, but not like you think.
	No, the opposite is true.
	And Game of Thrones is awesome.
	So it's not finished though, is it?
	That's true.
	We'll leave it there because I I don't want to listen to this blasphemy anymore.
	But um he did you know triple down, you know, he initially said it, then he doubled down there and he tripled down here, um, and he says it's not even rage bait.
	I fell asleep watching every single Lord of the Rings movie because they're boring, there's too much crying and talking about friendship, and I I think hate the hobbits.
	I thought the Ranger was cringe, um, the CGI is terrible, Game of Thrones was awesome.
	And and and to s I would like to point out that you don't have to pick a side here.
	I like Game of Friends as well.
	Yeah, I do.
	And you know, particularly um I haven't read the books of of Game of Friends, I've read The Lord of the Rings books, um, so I can't judge those.
	But the you know, other than the last two series of Game of Thrones, I really really enjoyed it, and I I I enjoyed every episode um barring one or two, and I thought it was relatively well done, but I don't think it's comparable to the Lord of the Rings as a as a piece of art.
	And uh some other people were were coming out and uh saying things like, saying you like Lord of the Rings over Game of Thrones or any other morally grey universe is basically a self-report that you see the world in simple black and white terms rather than trying to grasp its complexity, it's more about intellect than it is about taste.
	And uh is it really Uber Soy?
	Yes, and uh I had quite a rebuttal.
	Um done, Josh.
	Well done.
	You're welcome.
	I I wasn't feeling particularly intellectual when you come for Lord of the Rings.
	I am going for the jugular, I'm afraid.
	But we are going to talk about this in particular, this line, because I don't think the Lord of the Rings is boring.
	I think most people will um agree that it's a very captivating series that draws you in immediately.
	So I'm not gonna try and dispute that because I think that's for you guys to underst um sort of understand and appreciate.
	but what I am going to do is talk about can I just say on that point as well because I've met people in my life who you know thought the Lord of the Rings was boring And they're not in my life anymore, but you know, more than that.
	More than that.
	They're still missing to this day.
	But more than that, more than that, right.
	My point is actually that you can actually be bored on a personal level by a film and still appreciate it, right?
	You can still look at it in an objective way and you say, I get why it's brilliant, I get why people adore it.
	It's just not my thing.
	That's something totally different.
	But to just like say, oh it's boring is like and therefore no one should be in is just it it's very low.
	It's very low.
	So I wanted to talk about um an example of someone who isn't necessarily black and white in in great detail and talk about Theodon and his sort of hero's journey.
	So um speaking of hero's journey, Stellios obviously hero of of Greece um will teach you the ways of virtue and ethics.
	So you can recreate the Lord of the Rings in your own life by being a virtuous hero and you can pay in free instalments um if you don't want to pay in one sum.
	He spent an inordinate amount of time working on this.
	He was working on it for a few months before I I left full time and so you left.
	I know yeah.
	I'm a contributor and back with a vengeance like a rash at worse.
	But anyway, let's talk about Faerdon shall we?
	So he starts off as a frual of Saruman.
	He doesn't really have any agency whatsoever.
	He's having uh things whispered in his ear to the point where he is unfazed by the death of his own son and he casts out AMA, his nephew isn't he from his kingdom even though he's been nothing but loyal to him and is right about uh everything and uh then of course Gandalf comes out, breaks the spell and um great scene.
	It it's a fantastic scene.
	I watched it last night I stayed up really late watching as much of the Lord of the Rings as I could for research purposes obviously not just because I'm watching it for the millionth time.
	But so he starts at a very low place he you know obviously he's being controlled by another person.
	Um and I think the beauty of Tolkien is that he's not talking about the interpersonal conflict or the conflict between kingdoms like in Game of Thrones.
	He's talking about the conflict within ourselves.
	I think that's far more interesting in a piece of art because most of us aren't in the position to govern the the conflicts of kingdoms.
	We're not key players in that sort of thing.
	We're ordinary people and ordinary people are more interested in how to be a good person in their own life in their own little kingdom rather than on a on a national level necessarily so it's more pertinent, more relevant to most people and I think there's more beauty in it because it's so easy to understand you know the intricacies of governance aren't necessarily beautiful are they?
	It's a weird thing to say.
	Whereas the intricacies of you know a human soul there is beauty there.
	And I think that this is far richer substrate for beautiful art to grow.
	I was gonna say like can you get that with Game of Thrones?
	Can you literally reel off something as you know meaningful and as poetic for Game of Thrones?
	Or is it just about chopping people's heads off like Nick It's it's sort of the more basal aspects of humanity and the the part of the reason I quite enjoyed Game of Thrones is that it it does show a more accurate depiction of the real world because it's inspired by a lot of true historic events.
	But um the problem is that a lot of the higher ideals that it it tries to explore it doesn't really understand and I think that that's because rather than by Tolkien it's written by a great big fat American man rather than a professor of Anglo Saxon American man.
	Yeah.
	Is he a religious is he an atheist?
	I think he might be an atheist but you know this is the m uh I you know no disrespect to George R.R. Martin's writing um I have read little bits I've not even read the first bike books they are wonderful.
	But I'm saying that the qualities the man has aren't as rich as that of Tolkien.
	You fought in the Somme.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Divine inspiration, I would say.
	There's another aspect as well to Grima's character and the words that he spins into Theoden's ear, which is also just the point that to listen to the voice that tells you not to trust your own strength in action is the way forward, not to do anything, not to be virtuous, not to rise above, not to defend, not to preserve.
	many lessons and we're gonna end on one uh in the Lord of the Rings for the current time and it's part of its timelessness that makes it a beautiful work of art.
	And so um when he comes to after he escapes uh the thrall of Saruman, there's a really touching scene um which uh always pretty much brings me as close to tears as uh you know a man uh where he he talks about the flower that grows on the graves of his ancestors, uh symbol Muna, I think he calls it, um and I'm gonna read the quote here ever has it grown on the tombs of my forebears, now it shall cover the grave of my son.
	Alas that these evil days should be mine, the young perish and the old linger, that I should live to see that last days of my house, and then he stops and says, No parents should have to bury their child, and collapses to his knees in in tears.
	You see this stoic man return to form only to be broken down again at his lowest point, losing his son, and and rather than a king, you see a man uh and a very human relationship, and this makes you feel for the man, you see that he's a good man.
	The whole character is masterfully portrayed by Bernard Hill, who obviously passed away last year, but what a loss because he was incredible.
	So um he goes to Helm's Deep, um, and this is presented in the in the films in particular as a sort of mistake that he was trapping himself.
	But what he's not necessarily doing a bad thing, but he's scared for the fate of his people.
	He wants to protect them, and it's not necessarily ignoable, but uh a strategic mistake, as they rightly point out, um, in in the film, in the Two Towers particularly, and this fear of of you know not being able to live up to that of his ancestors and not being a strong enough man is is reasonable given his position, I think, as well.
	And uh as as the siege goes on, um May I just say one thing as well about his relationship with Aragorn as well, which is that of course Aragon is older than him, right?
	But Aragon being of Ladunadine still has lots and lots of time.
	Thaodon is a is against the clock, he's already an old man.
	And so though Aragon has this vitality and is wise beyond his appearance because he actually has a number of years on Thaedon, it contributes to Theodon's insecurities around Aragorn.
	This is me just purely talking about the films.
	No, that's that's very true, um, and an important point.
	But through Aragorn, you've segued perfectly.
	Through Aragorn, basically encouraging him to face one last stand, he's and he uh he charges out of the the keep of his castle, out across the bridge when all hope is lost, um, presumably to his death, um,
	but he has the bravery to charge forwards anyway, and I think that he realizes it's within himself to confront evil and that he has the bravery to do it, but he does acknowledge in in the films that it was Aragorn that helped him encourage him and uh and find this bravery, and that the victory wasn't truly his, which is actually quite fair, really.
	Yeah, it is he does do that.
	Well, it's to be to be it's not it's to be a wise leader, it's to to be aware of your own shortcomings, it's to know to recognise greatness in others as well.
	This is part of what makes a great king, and obviously for Tolkien, um the virtues of a good king were the highest ideals that mankind could really exhibit.
	I very much agree with Tolkien on that one.
	And of course, his uh nephew who was previously estranged, is he is reunited with him and he they help save the day.
	Um and then I think his virtues are truly uh realised in the charge of the Rohirim.
	Um this is his moment of bravery, no one else can be attributed to it.
	He gives uh a rousing speech and he charges down the enemy shouting death because they believe they're going to their death and that the battle cannot be won, but they charge anyway because they know it is the right thing to do, which I think is the ultimate um test of bravery.
	I think uh there's also lots of allegories here to Tolkien in the first world war charging over the top to their their Death and it being inevitable.
	It's very difficult not to draw this uh parallel.
	As well as the historical um parallel with um the uh Polish Hazars at the Siege of Vienna against the Ottomans as well, which I I think is part of the inspiration for us.
	But I think that Tolkien has first hand experience of this sort of thing, right?
	And so he's able to depict it in such a uh you know an emotionally resonant way, I suppose is the way to say it.
	And the fact that it is Faedin that is right at the front.
	I know in the book he's uh said to be speeding at the enemy um with you know the weight of his forebears behind him faster than he possibly could, basically saying that he is about as uh resolved to meet the enemy as it is possible to be.
	And can I just say one other thing about the the charge at the Pellinor Fields as well to come back to Nick's point about um those gay little hobbits is the fact that of course Mary is is in that charge, right, as well.
	And you know, obviously the hobbit is just your archetypical Englishman, it's just your everyday Englishman from the Shires.
	Well, I think they represent just normal people, people who might have been conscripted in in the army in Tolkien's day.
	Who can find more courage and bravery than they perhaps realize they were capable of just living their quiet happy existence, but actually an Englishman can go out into the world, he can do great deeds, he can perform great feats of bravery.
	I mean, you if you look at it very simply, they're just they're little people that are able to achieve great things, aren't they?
	Yeah.
	It's not that hard to extrapolate an analogy from.
	And uh his uh charge is so heroic that Thaedin can only be s stopped by the embodiment of death itself, more or less.
	I mean, this is sort of the platonic ideal of death, the the witch king of Angmar, I believe.
	Such good armour.
	Yeah, it's so cool.
	That's my commentary for the wage king.
	But um, even then, um he was able to inspire his adopted daughter, Eowyn, um, to defend him in to his last and defeat uh what is previously believed to be an undefeatable enemy.
	She is motivated not only by her desire to protect her uh kingdom and her family, but her love for him and because he is a good man, and so she did the heroic act um out of this love for him, basically.
	And the point is with all of these things, all these uh things that inspire virtue, you know, bravery, honour, love, these are things that beyond the understanding of Sauron.
	The point is that the Dark Lord has no utility for the Fuentes has no utility for things like honour and bravery.
	He just gets bored by it apparently.
	Um so he he spends his last moments um uh in in a fitting way, I think.
	He with his adopted daughter who he inspired and who he loves, and uh who he's very proud of, and uh I think the line that stuck with me here is my body is broken, I go to my father's, and even in their mighty company I shall not now be ashamed.
	And of course, now is the important word that he recognises that he is worthy of um their company, that he has lived up to these expectations and how this could be black and white I do not know.
	Like this is so obviously a very nuanced look at a person who has lost hope, who doesn't have self-confidence, finding their courage with the right guidance and the right circumstances, and making something greater of themselves that is worthy of remembrance.
	Uh and um Tolkien just uh plays it so masterfully in the his writing as well, because of course um uh there is another character, prominent ruler who dies at the same time as as Thaodon, and that's of course Denethor, right?
	And so do you want to go out like Thaodin, or do you want to go out like Denethor?
	There's a clear contrast between the two, sort of like the fellowship in the nine, isn't it?
	Yeah.
	So um there are also other examples, of course.
	Oh, yeah, there's this one.
	Um I forgot I quoted myself here, bit embarrassing.
	Um this is uh the morally black and white media here, um, this is of course from Tree Beard.
	I am not altogether on anybody's side, because nobody is altogether on my side, if you understand me.
	Nobody cares for the woods as I care for them, not even elves nowadays, which could have come out of my mouth minus the elves part, you know.
	Big defender of trees, me.
	Um, not elves.
	There aren't any.
	Um obviously a nuanced faction, I suppose if you could call them that because they recognise that there's no one on their side and no one's coming to help them.
	And of course, this is a comment on industrialisation, isn't it?
	That no one cares for trees.
	And you should.
	I and I agree with Tolkien's perspective here, sort of an anti-industrial uh vein to it.
	And of course, there are other examples here, Boromir.
	Um he is not a uh morally black and white character, is he?
	One does not simply forget about Boromir.
	No.
	Fantastic character though, and you know, in the end he does redeem himself, but he's constantly you know, susceptible to the corruption of the ring and the draw of the power sin.
	I mean, I uh you know, I I'd just be humble about it and say I think it's the greatest on screen death in all the cinema.
	I genuinely do.
	Like namely a better one, it's unbelievable.
	He does have the hero's death in the end after you know trying to take the ring from Frodo, the one thing he swore not to do.
	Um of course there's Aragorn as well.
	Um I'd like to read uh an extract from the books um about Aragorn, because of course this um speaks of many things to do with his character.
	All that is gold does not glitter, not all those who wander are lost.
	The old that is strong does not wither, deep roots not reached by the frost.
	From the ashes of fire shall be woken, a light from the shadows shall spring, renewed shall the blade that was broken, the crownless again shall be king.
	Of course, this is talking about his future and hit how he how his old lineage um can be revitalized and it can be born anew.
	And how is this not an excellent parallel for the modern day when the things are corrupted, when things need to be born anew, how things are rootless.
	People are rootless.
	That's a direct link to obviously Christ as well in the biblical story, which is clearly you know, drawing parallels of that.
	You have all of these um not quite the white room, but just i items or you know, things throughout the history of Middle Earth that kind of echo down the ages, and even though they have to be transformed, like um uh say, for example, the white tree of Gondor,
	you know, that's obviously withered by the time you get to the events of the Return of the King, but like that tree itself was to taken as a sapling from the Garden of Numenor, which in itself was a gift from the and so things there's always an attempt by evil to destroy these things.
	Or like that the light that Frodo has in Shelob's lair, the light of Arendel, that light comes from the original light of the two trees of the Valar.
	And even though Morgoth destroyed them, and then they went to what stole the Silmarils that the light was taken, and on and on it goes until eventually all you've got left is this tiny little vial of light, but the light is still there, right?
	And Frodo carries that light.
	And so Tolkien's using this incredible legendarium of you know, fifty thousand years, and just showing how to preserve these things.
	They might never be the true splendour that they were in the very beginning, but that doesn't mean you know casting them away or destroying them.
	Absolutely.
	And uh lots of people are talking about this sort of thing.
	Uh here's howling mutants saying, I know a right um as a right winger, when it comes to consuming media, what I'm really looking for is a strong sense of moral relativism, which is some excellent sarcasm there.
	That's good.
	And uh I quite like this as well.
	Uh in my story, I do not deal in absolute evil.
	I do not think there is such a thing since that is zero.
	I do not think that at any rate, um and any rational being is wholly evil.
	This is of course Tolkien himself saying this.
	So it you know, he didn't even believe in it in himself.
	Um here's another one here.
	Who the heck can read Tolkien to think it's black and white?
	Is Denophor all bad?
	Is Boromer is Frodo all good?
	One of the central most important characters in the whole book is Gollum, and he's ambiguous as hell.
	Anyway, Game of Thrones isn't morally grey, it's grey and black without any white.
	Um just as dull and predictable as what they falsely think Lord of the Rings is.
	And I don't agree with that last part.
	I think that you've got to be a bit more charitable to Game of Thrones.
	I still enjoy it and I still think it's good media, it's just not on the same level as the Lord of the Rings.
	Lots of incest.
	Yeah.
	It's it's just it's the basal human instincts represented rather than the most transcendental ones.
	Um here's another one that they're talking about battles.
	Um the Battle of the Bastards in Game of Thrones is the the best battle.
	I'm sorry, but you know Helms Deep, uh the Battle of Pelomor Fields, the last stand outside the Black Gate, all fantastic.
	Yeah, with the male Cesar on.
	I mean, e even the fight in Baron's tomb with the fellowship is pretty much fantastically filmed.
	Here I am.
	Yeah, there we go.
	And lots of people agreed with me that obviously the charge of the sensible people.
	Yes.
	And people pointing out that this this shot here is just inspired by the one of Aragorn.
	Yeah, it is, yeah, clearly.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, clearly.
	Yeah.
	They are very similar.
	Um and in fact, this one's much better.
	Way superior.
	Um I really liked this as well.
	Um I don't know who this person is, W. H. Orden, but it was a review of Lord of the Rings, and I think they they they get it.
	Evil that is, has every advantage but one.
	It is inferior in imagination.
	Good can imagine the possibility of becoming evil, hence the refusal of Gandalf and Aragorn to use the ring.
	But evil, defiantly chosen, can no longer imagine anything but itself.
	Sauron cannot imagine any motives except lust for domination and fear, so that when he has learnt that his enemies have the ring, he thought they might try to destroy it, never enters his head.
	And his eyes kept towards Gondor and away from Mordor and the Mount of Doom, which, you know, is true.
	And a very succinct way of of understanding the distinction here between the different moral virtues and the nature of good and evil.
	And um there's a very long post here, and I've been going on for a while.
	Um but there were other people that were putting up good defences and talking about Tolkien's life and how um things like that.
	Um this one I think is probably my favourite from Kevin McLean here.
	Um they really get it um to give them credit, so well done.
	Is it true?
	Because Tolkien, after he wrote for years and years, I believe you know the the exact years that he was writing Lord of the Rings, but um I'm certain that he not regretted it, but he was disappointed uh in writing it during his time after he he had written it.
	You thought it was a waste of time, is that correct?
	No, I I don't think that he did want the Lord of the Rings to be published as a joint as a deal, so basically it would come out with the Silmarillion.
	You didn't see one as the greatest story or the other, he just saw them as two companion pieces.
	Um but the the publishers just really wanted a sequel to the Hobbit.
	Right.
	And so they cared more about getting the Lord of the Rings story down, and obviously the Silmarillion never ended up being published in Tolkien's own life.
	Where have I gotten that from then?
	Is that just complete like Cod's wallet then that um that Tolkien actually not regretted it, but um felt like it was a waste of time in his own merit.
	I I don't know.
	I I don't want to sit out of hand.
	Um I mean he is true.
	He was remarkably humble when you actually listen to the way he talks about his own inventions and this entire world that he's created.
	It could just be him being modest.
	Yeah, it could be.
	I mean the entire shrugging.
	I wasn't sure whether that's true or not.
	Um but yeah, I'd seen it somewhere.
	And a final thing I wanted to point out is that uh our own government sees it as a uh far-right extremist text, the Lord of the Rings.
	And so if our enemies want it banned, it must probably be good.
	The thing is with this as well, right?
	Because the the progressives always try to co-opt the Lord of the Rings, and they say, Oh, actually, you know, the the fellowship represents the the true spirit of diversity is our strength and everything, right?
	They they always play it down that line.
	One, if it is true that um the Lord of the Rings is innately left wing, then why is it on a prevent list?
	Right.
	Second of all, um, of course it ignores everything that Tolkien actually believed in.
	And this is of course why they hate it, this is why they have to bastardise it.
	Um because ultimately, like um I hate to do him down because his portrayal was so great, but you know, with someone like an actor like Vigo Mortenson, who played Aragon, like the actor himself is um quite quite left wing.
	And there was one part where the uh the Spanish political party, Vox, used Aragon in some of their campaigning material, and obviously they're very anti-immigration and everything.
	And um Vigo was just saying this is a total misuse of Aragorn, it totally must misunderstands his character.
	So Vigo, which side did Tolkien support in the Spanish civil war.
	Was it was it the nationalist side, or was it the oh right, it was a nationalist side, you know, it's just so obvious.
	Where's Tolkien draws inspiration from?
	I wanted to end on this.
	So this is actually a speech added to the films, it's not in the original books.
	Um this was written by Peter Jackson, who was obviously the director of the films and one of his writers.
	And I think that this epitomizes above all else, um, not only some of the messaging in the film, but also the fact that the film can inspire things.
	This doesn't feel out of place in the work of Tolkien whatsoever, and I think it's a very beautiful sentiment.
	The point being that Tolkien's work was able to inspire this, and and it doesn't seem out of place.
	It sounds like it came out of his uh pen, I suppose.
	And uh I'm going to read it.
	So this is of course when uh they're in the two towers, uh that in captured by Faramir and in Ogsgile, it's under siege, yeah.
	And Frodo says, I can't do this, Sam, and then Sam says, I know it's all wrong by rights, we shouldn't even be here, but we are.
	It's like in the great stories, Mr. Frodo, the ones that really mattered, full of darkness and danger they were, and sometimes you didn't want to know the end, because how could the end be happy?
	How could the world go back to the way it was when so much bad happened?
	But in the end, it's only a passing thing, this shadow.
	Even darkness must pass.
	A new day will come when the sun shines, it will shine out the clearer.
	Those were the stories that stayed with you that meant something.
	Even if they were too small, um, even if you were too small to understand why.
	But I think Mr. Frodo, I do understand, I know now, folk in those stories had lots of chances of turning back, only they didn't, because they were holding on to something, and Frodo says, What are they holding on to, Sam?
	That there's some good in this world, Mr. Frodo, and it's worth fighting for.
	And if you can't take that message away as being the most pertinent thing for our times, um there's something wrong with you.
	This is um you know, when I read it, uh it reminded me of my political journey, you know.
	I came from a literal Shire.
	There was a place round the corner from where I grew up that looked just like the Shire.
	I've come to Mordor, Swindon, it even has a great big tower in the middle.
	Um it's filled with Paladsier.
	Um the the things I I've said and done, I'm not sure I can ever go back to being the person I I I used to be, because of all all of the awful things I've experienced and seen.
	We've all felt that.
	Yeah.
	And and these sorts of things, if you go through them, truly resonate with you, and and they do mean something.
	There is good in this world to fight for, and and I certainly find it very hard to see sometimes.
	But you do have to remind yourself that it is out there and it's worth fighting for, even if it does sometimes seem like you know, the darkness is winning.
	You shouldn't lose hope, and you should watch the Lord of the Rings.
	I agree.
	Excellent.
	Uh that was fun.
	Yeah.
	Do you want to go through your rumbles?
	I went on a little bit there, but I can't.
	That was the best fly.
	Actually, I'm thinking of carrying on till four.
	Yeah, yeah.
	That was a great fly on the wall for me, actually.
	I really enjoyed that.
	Ricky Ollie says, Oh, are my um oh no, he's got a first comment first.
	Uh Sandy Piesent is based um he's from when Tabletop RPGs went all woke idiots, also Kulukatilu is my favourite RPG, it's vastly superior to modern DD.
	Well, that's good to know.
	Um, my other favourite RPG, Traveller, is made in Swinden by Mongoose Publishing.
	Oh blamey, there's some actual industry going on in Swindon.
	Um why don't you understand that if Aragorn would be sophisticated and better if he randomly beheaded some hobbits and did incest?
	I I get that facetiousness.
	From George, Winds of Winter is coming, guys promise Martin to Nick Fuentes, it's clear we need a world war to make men, if only to prevent God awful media Game of Thrones format existing ever again.
	Um love that while the Normans, Gondor, hide behind the tool walls, the Anglo Saxons bravely ride to death and ruin.
	They ride They go down the hill.
	Uh that's random name says uh the way George R. R. Martin structures his story means that it has to have a happy ending with Jon Snow taking his rightful place on the Iron Throne, but George R. Martin won't ever do that because he's an obese left oid with TDS.
	I think also um he's gonna set it up that someone else, you know, it's gonna go similar line to the the show, isn't it?
	But it part of the reason it's not satisfying is not only because it was rushed and poorly done by the directors because they wanted to do a Star Wars film.
	Which they never got to do.
	Brilliant.
	Um I also think that it it goes against the theme of the show to have that sort of ending.
	I mean, it would make sense if you know some of the main characters died.
	Not everyone lived happily ever after.
	JM Denton, uh, you can judge a man by how many times he watch it watches the r um Ride of the Row here in per year.
	Well I've watched it five times this week so far.
	Nice.
	Um Englishmen love Lord of the Rings, what?
	Um joke, uh cheers from the geographical centre of the United States.
	Well, thank you.
	And um, of course you can enjoy it as well.
	Um I'm not gonna read that.
	But it is funny.
	I'll give you that.
	Um Sigil Stones says uh gay hobbits and wizards says the Mexican uh that said something I'm not gonna read out on the internet, but um if you do googling, you can find out if you really care.
	I wouldn't suggest Googling it though, because that's weird.
	Um Sigil Stanes says, sorry Luca, but without the a mustache, your natural British pale and waxy complete.
	Makes you look undead.
	The hairstyle completes the vampire look.
	You're now the the resident vampire.
	That used to be me for a long time.
	Then I got the curtains, and I was the resident nineties person.
	I mean, maybe if I give it two years, I can start Hobbit Maxing and like I'll have it like Rory, but we'll we'll see.
	Nice.
	Uh is there any more?
	Uh Lewis Bainpool rolls off the tongue much better.
	I've I've I've heard lots of names uh thrown, but I've never heard that one, so that's yeah.
	Yeah.
	Um OPH says Louis should reapply under different name.
	Blackpool isn't diverse enough, use Lewis Windrush generation pool.
	Terrible.
	Terrible.
	Okay.
	Um to Sure.
	Um Hassan Piker and Nick Fuentes sounds similar.
	Um in the books it's much more tragic.
	Fair and dies not knowing Awin is passed out next to him, uh, talking to Mary and a small moment AMA.
	Um He neither understands a Song of Ice and Fire or The Lord of the Rings.
	George R. R. Martin will finish and that is my cope, but Lord of the Rings is better text, and I believe George R. R. Martin would agree that um Song of Ice and Fire does have art, but it needs to be finished.
	Yeah, I mean uh I I didn't I feel like I was probably a bit harsher on Game of Thrones than I needed to be.
	But at the same time it's not when you're comparing it to the Lord of the Rings, it's hard not to sound that way.
	Apparently Keir Starmer told the hobbits to not look back in anger after the scouring of the Shire.
	Great comment, thank you, gentle Savage.
	Very good.
	Chris H. says, uh did Nick even watch season eight of Game of Friends.
	It's hard to defend.
	Yes, I know.
	I agree.
	Um Mark Gidetti, um he bashed Lord of the Rings and got something from someone.
	Send him to the tower to not to be a thing I can't say.
	Well, good thing I read ahead, eh?
	Uh why are you surprised the home office is captured by Oh, we've read these, okay.
	Okay perfect.
	Video comments, I guess.
	Yes, do we have any Samsung?
	We do.
	Very good.
	Let's have them then.
	Thank you.
	Cheers, mate.
	As a long-standing fan of Formula One instilled by my father's love of motor racing, I was intrigued by what the premier aerodynamicist of the sport would have to say for himself.
	Obviously, this is an autobiography, so it delves into New's personal life.
	His quarrelsome parents, his relationships, his travel and professional struggles.
	but it also is a fascinating insight into the world of motorsport that doesn't exist anymore, where someone can drag themselves up from first principles, and luck as well as hard work can define what the sport is now.
	Newey recognizes the fundamental changes in the sport and how they've caused him to become less enamored of it than he used to be.
	Absolutely.
	I loved Formula One growing up.
	That was my favourite sport, and uh I don't watch it anymore because how much they've butchered it.
	How's they?
	You know, even spray painting net zero by twenty thirty on the pit lane is just it's too much.
	That's too much for me.
	I was huge Schumacher fan, and if you watch the sorry, I know it's a curse Netflix, but uh if you watch uh his documentary, Shoumacker, it is literally the zero to hero.
	Um, and then obviously the tragic, horrible like accident that he had in like skiing, but it's I I absolutely love that sport, and it's it's actually so blasphemous what they have done to it.
	I've got a uh weird factoid for you.
	When I was a child, I had a giant African land snail called Michael Schumacher.
	That's getting clipped.
	Sensation trivia.
	Bit of uh rare Josh trivia there.
	On Sunday the twelfth, I went to my local church, and to my surprise they talked about Charlie Kirk and how secularism has negatively impacted the Western world and that it should be Christianity impacting culture and not the other way around.
	I've long since accepted that atheism is not a liberal value neutral belief system, even as intended.
	A childhood friend of mine openly posted on Twitter that marriage is an institution should be done away with for reasons of secularism.
	But this is the first time that I've personally come across the church actively putting itself forward unapologetically.
	All that to say that even in small neighbourhoods like mine, we're doing this, so we're winning, lads.
	That's good to hear it.
	Encouraging.
	Alright, is that all the video coming, Samson?
	No, oh no.
	Alright.
	Hey Carl, yeah, I heard about what happened with uh your visa for Australia.
	It sucks because I was really looking forward to meeting in person, but oh well.
	I am still gonna be at the conference, so if there are any Australian Lotus Eeders who are planning on going, by all means please go, and I'll be there and you can grab a couple of my books.
	See ya then.
	What happened to his visa?
	I didn't know.
	Yeah, that's the first I've heard about it.
	First I'm hearing it's a very good thing.
	Oh, Samson's not aware.
	No idea.
	Well, I just hope that you go there and enjoy the conference, keep it.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, it's a shame you can't see Carl.
	Yeah, I'm not sure about the rest.
	Oh.
	cough
	Oh, I tell you, right.
	mushroom that's true Yeah.
	That's really funny.
	That face is funny.
	Absolutely cursed.
	Uh I don't have that haircut anymore.
	The curtains are gone.
	But I love that.
	It was That's funny.
	It reminded me of Jam, that's what it reminded me.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Oh, you got a new into that then, eh?
	Do you like it?
	I watched the first episode again and then haven't had a chance to watch it.
	Oh maybe.
	It gets even more crude and weird.
	Have you watched that Jam?
	Chris Morris.
	No.
	So the same obviously writer as brass eye and four lines.
	Yeah, you can watch them all on YouTube, it's so funny.
	It's right up my street, the sort of surrealist.
	Like L like LSD like dark, it's like LSD dark humour.
	That's my style 90s 90s like 2000s Makes me sound like a junkie now Ha ha ha ha It's funny.
	Idiots I will be a king.
	I will be king.
	Stick with me and you'll never go hungry again!
	I haven't watched that in ages.
	Scar Pelosi.
	Great.
	Sort of uh reference there.
	Yeah.
	In my previous video, I highlighted that the appeal to indigenity I often see used by the native English is often used against the colonial countries like Australia by indigenous advocates.
	Quite correctly, the panel then highlighted other factors to push back against his argument, namely what the English culture has produced, as well as the real politic of the right of conquest.
	I mentioned this to highlight that the appeal to indigenity is insufficient when fighting immigration, and it needs to be backed up with an assertion of English cultural supremacy.
	Here here.
	Yeah, really good point.
	I said as much, uh I wrote an article about Lenny Henry's call for reparations, and I was basically like we just need to be unapologetically confident in our society and say to people, yes, the West is the best, get over it.
	You know, if if you have a problem with that, we don't care.
	Our country's good, and we're not going to give you free money.
	Based.
	Every day we get reminded that the left are a spiteful mutants and can't create anything.
	This is sad, because I find creating things like this mech fun.
	I can't imagine living a life where I'm not working on something at least.
	It is very impressive.
	I want to see them do five aside football.
	This is this guy's been doing that for a while, isn't he?
	Sending in his mechs.
	Like it looks like like he could literally r recreate robot wars all over again.
	I was just thinking that.
	Like much beloved series in Britain, Robot Wars.
	Like so good.
	I think America had it, but it wasn't I've watched some of the American ones, and they're not as good as ours for whatever reason.
	I think it's our sort of culture of the the nerds in the sheds making robots.
	Sergeant Killer Lot was it, and uh killer lot, yeah.
	Yeah.
	Oh my gosh.
	Sorry, we're because we've uh run over on time, ladies and gentlemen.
	I'm just gonna draw your attention to one comment today, which is the fact that apparently there was a poll in the chat whilst the podcast was going on, and you got to decide which is the greater the Lord of the Rings or Game of Thrones, and Lord of the Rings has won by eighty-seven percent.
	That's pretty good.
	Well done, chat.
	How many votes?
	Uh what we got here?
	Uh 333 votes.
	Not bad.
	Um, yeah, so very good, very sensible.
	Um, I love democracy.
	Yes.
	And uh very sorry.
	Uh thank you for your toleration of my sniffles and sneezes.
	I didn't really notice.
	I didn't notice it.
	But my my voice is quite hoarse.
	Absolute trooper.
	And uh I am apparently looking quite vampiric today.
	So uh more than that, thank you for joining us, ladies and gentlemen.
	Louis, once again, thank you for coming in.
	Thank you.
	And Josh, thank you for never leaving.
	Um we will see you again uh tomorrow at 1 pm.

▲