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 Load Seaters, episode 1278 for Tuesday the 21st of October 2025.
	I'm your host Luca, joined today by Josh, the Ferminator.
	Aye.
	He said he'd be back and he is.
	And also a good friend of the show, Wois Brackfall.
	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 the flag pin.
	You've got to be raising the colours, man.
	Shame.
	Much shame.
	It's my divided loyalties.
	I'm going to have a half Scottish, half English one there.
	Oh, I thought you were going to go Cornish.
	Well, according to Ancestry, I'm only like 3% Cornish.
	Oh, well done.
	Which is weird.
	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 defending the Lord of the Rings against the latest series of baseless attacks.
	All cords.
	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 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.
	It was a lot of fun to record.
	If you listen to it as well, I do attempt many of the lines, read a few monologues myself.
	It's quite funny, actually, because the camera wasn't on, so I was just able to stand and perform them.
	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 going to be like if you listen to it, you're slowly seducing the audience.
	Yes, I am Romeo and Juliet in the piece in a real bipolar sort of romantic, a very bipolar romance.
	Yeah, anyway, so let's talk about the president-elect of Oxford, shall we?
	So obviously, I needn't remind you, he's become somewhat infamous over the past few years, sorry, past month, obviously, because he made some statements after the horrible murder of Charlie Kirk.
	Absolutely disgusting, where he basically commented a lull when he heard that it had happened and just lets Effing go, right?
	Which is an abhorrent thing for anyone to say.
	But it's an even more abhorrent thing given that he personally met Charlie and beat him at the debate with him, looked him in the eye, presumably shook his hand as Charlie would have wanted to do, of course.
	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.
	Which reminds me, of course, the fact that here at the Lotseaters, 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 that is constructive for yourself and for your loved ones around you.
	You can either buy it as a one total sum for £325, or you can actually get it in three monthly instalments because 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 apologise as well for being a bit hoarse today, ladies 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 thousands and thousands of young British students who will, Oxford will be the university of their dreams, right?
	And you would want to go there because it is the oldest university in these isles and it's one of the greatest prestige.
	And we learned 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 hire.
	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 with basically a vote to become the president of the Oxford Union.
	Now, I just look at the absolute state of him, though.
	If I were at the border, I'd be like, you know, you're not even coming in, let alone going to 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.
	What has happened to our culture where we allow someone like this, even near to it, let alone hold a prominent position?
	Yeah, it seems more reflective of, you know, purposely doing that to dishonour the other person who they're debating.
	Because, you know, when you go to a debate and you have your notes and you prep, you want to make sure you look presentable as well in any format.
	And it kind of honours your opponent too, because it says, look, 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 dialogue.
	And if you go back throughout history, it's all to do, you see men dressed in such perfect condition for the time.
	And I think, to be honest, I see it as just a way that he done that to just dishonor his opponent more than himself.
	It's a humiliation ritual.
	Yeah, you're right, 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?
	He just devalues everything he comes into proximity to by being like that.
	Yes, absolutely.
	Very well said.
	I would like to, 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.
	It 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 be in disrepute.
	They are separate quite right, but we could make an entirely separate segment talking about the problems with the actual university.
	They're not uniform standards, though.
	No.
	But the thing is, as well, other than, of course, the personal effect that this is having on the fact that, well, obviously because of his comments about Charlie, a vote of no confidence was, of course, put in him.
	Rightly, bloody so.
	And it shouldn't have taken this long, frankly.
	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 believed to be worth hundreds of thousands of pounds have been put on hold and speakers have pulled out of debates in backlash to remarks made by George Aberonia.
	And so you have this thing where it's bringing 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 proper black tie jacket.
	But still, he's wearing the weird dirag looking thing.
	It's cringe.
	It's really, really cringe.
	And let's not forget as well 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.
	The view that some institutions are too broken, too regressive, too oppressive to be reformed.
	Like cancers of our society.
	They must and they should be taken down by any means necessary.
	Oh, gosh.
	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.
	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 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.
	Well, it's just kicking in a whole hall of open doors.
	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 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, all sorts of.
	It says the proceedings.
	This comes from this statement here, and it goes on to say: the proceedings for the poll of no confidence brought in against George Aberonia were informally suspended in the early morning of October the 20th.
	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 as cooperation and progress was rendered untenable.
	Returning as a result, 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 Oxford democracy looks exactly like something from Tower Hamlets?
	Right?
	With sleaze and sabotage.
	It's almost like institutions can only be preserved if certain people occupy 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, well, this is, if I get from the article, which I don't think I've got here, it says, in a meeting of the standing committee, which Aberonya 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, a Musa Haraj, for allowing alumni to vote on Saturday.
	And they came 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 Aberonga's allies have been framing the attempt to remove him as, would you guess, racist?
	Oh, of course.
	According to the Oxford branch of stand-up to racism, if this racist campaign to depose George is successful, it will further embolden fascists and the far right.
	Oh my god.
	You know, just the as for racism, it's worth noting in passing that another screenshot from Aberonya's WhatsApp exchange shows him boasting, I don't frequent white establishments.
	Now, this is 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 respect the honesty, you know, about the fact that you actually want nothing to do with those whatsoever.
	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 in active rebellion against.
	It reminds me a little bit of Lenny Henry, that the society that they hate gave them so much and it's done nothing to curb their 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 with 1,746 ballots, and it seems that we won by 1,228 to 501, which let's just also say as well, the fact that there were 501 people connected to Oxford that thought, yeah, this guy can stay.
	I like the cut of this guy's jib.
	seems to be the direction that this union needs to be going in.
	Well the union has gone in quite a left-wing direction I I know, if you look at a talk from maybe 10 or 15 years ago, perhaps, 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 right-wing guest in, and many of the annoying students in there are jeering, and just the overall conduct has gone down.
	And I do wonder whether this is shaped why people like this might have so much popularity is that the political makeup of the people who attend and are members or whatever has changed.
	There was just another part, actually, forgive me, that was worth reading out as well, which is that 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, Aberonya 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 agree with 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, this poll was compromised from the moment that 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, Twitter, and YouTube are going to de-platform him now for not accepting this.
	I wonder if that's going to happen.
	I'm sure Oxford were merely fortifying it.
	They weren't actually altering the outcome anyway.
	So as you can see here from this bottom line, George Aberongya 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 closing just things to say about this as well, of course, is just the fact that although it's very sensible, of course, that 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 funding problems, and what's more, the whole union is paying for it, right?
	They're all suffering for his foul opinions.
	And what's more as well, to echo something that 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 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 the left said, freedom of speech doesn't necessarily mean freedom from consequences.
	They did say that, didn't they?
	They did, Jimmy.
	And I tell you what, if we can't get Jimmy Kimmel, this guy's having some consequences.
	All right.
	So from the Rumble Rants, we've got Sigilstone says, they voted out Captain, yes, Sparrow, but now there's someone worse in the background whispering, I love democracy.
	Sorry, you're quite right, Sigilstone.
	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 too many incentives for the union to get rid of him at this point, whether through the Orthodox means or not, whether they just have to arbitrarily non-Orthodox means what they're going to whack him.
	Well, I just mean not by democratic vote, of course.
	I'm not doing a good fellas with this.
	But the fact of the matter is that 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 Aberonha when this guy gets cleared out, right?
	They are 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 100% right when he says some institutions are beyond saving.
	We must create our separate system and keep people like him out.
	A fuera.
	Well, I mean, a very good point, random name.
	But of course, 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.
	They're so corrupt that they gave him a position in the first place.
	All right.
	And there's no YouTube comments, so we'll head over to you, God sir.
	Thank you very much.
	Thank you.
	Right.
	Before we begin, I just want to say a quick thank you to the Lotus Eaters for having me in to discuss this very, very important story.
	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 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, well, not only was I invited in to do this segment and to present it to you guys, the wonderful audience, but also it is incredibly important and it will affect everyone else.
	So this is mere potentially the stepping stone to something far more sinister.
	But first, before we properly begin, I will hand this over to you guys to pitch.
	Oh, sure.
	So Stelios, our great Greek professor himself, has come down from Olympus and created this course for us.
	It's a really, really excellent course.
	He's been doing some webinars over the past few weeks.
	Hundreds of people have been attending them.
	And basically, if you have this course, you can buy it either in one instalment or three.
	You're able to 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 lotuseaters.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 you hiding.
	What aren't they hiding is the bigger question, right?
	For the past year or so, I'd been investigating the asylum accommodation contracts and stakeholder policy around where, who is it steering the agenda of the illegal migrant accommodation policy?
	So obviously, as we know, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of illegal migrants have entered or broken into Britain and are being housed in hotels across our nation.
	And so I want to know who's benefiting from this financially and who are conducting meetings behind the scenes with the Home Office and steering 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 during his reign in early 2000s.
	And fun fact, he called it his biggest regret after he after he finished his 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, 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.
	There have to be one in there that accidentally helped us.
	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.
	If you're looking for members, you won't find me, Tony.
	But so I asked the important question about who is steering it in more specifically the stakeholders.
	And the Home Office, as we've done a segment before on the Lotus Eaters, and you were present, Lucas, when we were going through it.
	Sorry, Luca.
	Forgive me.
	I get it a lot.
	They actually gave me 14 NGOs that have had consultation meetings between 2020 and 2024.
	And it's NGOs and charity engagement with the Home Office that have had meetings about the National Asylum Stakeholder Forum, the NASF, and its strategic engagement group, so SEGs, for matters in relation to 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 Lotus Eaters when we had our segment.
	And it's reached over 100,000 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 many of them sounded, I seem to remember, quite non-British.
	They had quite foreign names, almost as if they didn't really consider themselves stewards of England or protecting anything about its demographic integrity or its institutions or the Indigenous people's way of life.
	Indeed.
	And so I decided to 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.
	It is public knowledge, of course.
	Well, kind of public knowledge.
	And so after posting this and doing the segment on Lotus Eaters, I received 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 amid rise in far-right threats.
	Now, I was reading this, and it even says one NGO placed on an online hit list had to temporarily close its office owing to harassing phone calls.
	Well, I'm staying on your good side, Lewis, all of us.
	I'm pretty sure we obviously didn't endorse harassment.
	Absolutely not.
	Absolutely not.
	So I want to state my primary, 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, and I am a role player as much as a lot of people don't want me to be.
	I do play by the rules, but I'm using the FOI Act, like we discussed earlier, to embarrass the government and to shine a light on information and draw out data to give to the public because it's in the public interest.
	And I am like an MP, or what an MP is supposed to do is to serve my audience and to serve what it is that people are concerned about.
	It's why I'm now at a privileged 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.
	Obviously, I do not endorse anything illegal.
	Of course, I don't.
	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 going to throw that out there.
	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, has taken the highly unusual step of removing the names of trustees from several charities listed on its website.
	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 the names of some organizations with which it had meetings about asylum accommodation following a freedom of information request.
	So they're clearly talking about me here, clearly, but they don't mention me by name.
	Didn't ask for a comment from you?
	Didn't ask for a comment, nothing.
	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 in Harry Potter.
	Very strange.
	And so after this, 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.
	The public backlash is omitted on them, not from me disclosing it.
	Yeah, I mean, it's like saying 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 the Tories did with the legacy with all the Afghans.
	Yes, the super injunction.
	Exactly.
	Like trying to keep it hush because they know that the public would be against it from the beginning.
	So let's go through what they said.
	So here is my response 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 falls within the scope of this request.
	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 and the National Asylum Stakeholder Forum.
	It says, and stakeholder engagement, disclosure of this information would likely to be likely to prejudice the Home Office's ability to engage in open, honest, and constructive dialogue with NGOs and key stakeholders in these 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, what they're saying is it'll compromise our ability to be open with NGOs and stakeholders.
	It's like, and we value them much more than we do about being open with the people.
	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, Prebs.
	And so they continued by saying, however, we consider that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the interest in disclosure.
	Of course.
	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 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 the process, I know that they can redact names.
	They can give what is called a partial disclosure and they redact any personal details that they would deem compromising or anything.
	However, the reason why they won't, well, I believe the reason why they won't do this or release names is because the names are public figures.
	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.
	So my counter-argument to that would be, then why didn't you redact the 14 NGOs that you gave to me in the first place?
	What's more of that?
	Is a matter of public record?
	Even to simply take them at their 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 could endanger, cause endangerment, upset, and distress to the individuals and families.
	It's like, that's exactly what these charities are doing to ordinary British people every day.
	Of course 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 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 should be a matter of public record, deserves to be a matter of public record, and shouldn't be done in the first place, in my opinion.
	You know, none of this stuff 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 the part where it invokes more of a cover-up and more of a scandal, is what you could call it.
	It says there are also safety concerns, as they said, 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 among the stakeholders.
	Additionally, recent protests at asylum hotels have highlighted the validity, sorry, volatility.
	Oh my gosh, excuse me, volatility of, I've not even said that right again.
	Volatility.
	Volatility.
	I got it.
	There we go.
	There we go.
	Forgive me.
	Of 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, 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 asked for requested information.
	It doesn't matter if you requested it.
	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 distinctly remember in your segment you were very, very careful.
	Of course.
	To merely just go through the names on the website and what those charities do in their own words.
	Exactly.
	You left the commentary to me and Beau, but you were very...
	Of course, yeah.
	Exactly the same with this segment.
	I'm repeating exactly what they have given me, which is my right.
	And what they have given you is a misleading narrative about themselves, presumably then.
	It says, maintaining the exemption preserves a safe space for operational planning and policy discussion, allowing officials and stakeholders 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 any sense, stakeholder engagement and individual safety outweighs the benefits of disclosure in this case.
	So essentially, they are stopping releasing this information.
	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.
	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, which gets passed to another person within the Home Office to check to see whether they've added the correct exemptions.
	And I'm trying to fight for 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, which isn't right.
	But also, I think that just looking at it outside of the legal aspect and more towards a moral perspective, these people in the charities, presumably this was specific to asylum hotel accommodation, which is a policy that is obviously very, very controversial, very much in the public interest.
	Very, very much.
	Lots of people that are very interested in finding a solution to this.
	And the majority of the population just want them all deported 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, from being angry at them and protesting maybe their organizations or knowing their names 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 unpopular as this.
	People have died because of these asylum seekers.
	Needless to say, obviously things like sexual assault and the like rife 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 support them being harassed or anything unlawful, but people deserve to know who these people are.
	People deserve to know which organisations 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 criticized publicly because what they're doing is awful.
	And so the seriousness of this response because of this, I'm very grateful to have the support from particularly as well, not just from obviously the Lotus Eaters, but and other people that have made videos 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 Lewis Brackpool.
	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 unacceptable precedent which risks politicizing the FOI process itself.
	I therefore asked you to provide one a full explanation, sorry, 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 corrective disclosure where appropriate.
	So it's going to be a long process.
	I've done this thing as well called a subject access request and it felt horrible if I'm totally honest.
	What 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 yourself.
	So like, you know, part of the process is giving over your, 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.
	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.
	It's really, really awful.
	But this is what it's risking because I actually predict that we are going to see a crackdown of the FOI because it's being a pretty effective tool, which I've come to realize over the past few years and using it and submitting lots and lots each week.
	Because over in Australia, the globalist left Labour Party over there claims it's tightening FOI laws due to AI bots and foreign actors, swamping the system.
	However, it's 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 where these allegations about AI bots and foreign actors.
	Well, there you go, exactly.
	And yes, this was something to do with Tony Blair being criticised by Freedom of Information.
	Yes.
	Indeed.
	Yes.
	He repeated his view that he regrets introducing the FOI in 2000 because it has hugely constrained ministers' confidence in having frank discussions with advisors.
	And that was back in 2012.
	So all I'm going to say is we're obviously going to keep fighting this and trying to get disclosure.
	I'm very grateful for the support from not only the company that I work for, Restore Britain, Rupert, but of course yourselves and other people that are talking about this particular story.
	Because this is going to affect, if they get away with this, it is going to affect everyone.
	It doesn't matter whether you're Owen Jones, Lewis Brackpool, Josh, or anyone else, because that means that the FOI Act is not applicant blind and can be weaponized.
	So it's incredibly important.
	Unfortunately, it's going to get pretty annoying, so I do apologise, banging on about this until we get this resolved and it never happens again because it's unacceptable.
	But I'd like to thank for the support as well.
	I really appreciate it.
	Great work, man.
	Oh, thank you.
	I really appreciate it.
	All right, I'll go through some of the rumble rants.
	Got Shadow Band says, really enjoyed Luca's episode on Romeo and Juliet, Chronicles quickly becoming one of my favorite weekly shows.
	Well, thank you very much, Shadow Band.
	I've got that's a random name, so subversive.
	If we tell you all the evil S we've done, you would boogaloo me, Rita.
	That's my secret, Captain.
	I was always going to Boogaloo.
	And then Sigilstone 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 my pasty and sick complexion, given all whether it's the fact that I look like I'm dressed out of a hammer horror like Peter Cushing.
	But either way, thanks, Sigilstone.
	I hope you're well as well.
	Got some YouTube comments as well.
	Oh, sure.
	Would you like me to read those?
	You're not very well, are you?
	So I'll save you.
	Thanks, Josh.
	Go on then.
	Took me by surprise.
	I thought I misheard for a second there.
	Turi says the Fabians do their best to destroy the West.
	Correct.
	Very succinctly put.
	Thank you.
	Brian Fevrier.
	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 fully black.
	What is that?
	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.
	Well, it looks exactly the same as a Bob Villain guy.
	Exactly the same.
	And Arcadia says, 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.
	But I'm surprised that they've made it so easy for me to basically trip themselves up.
	I'm surprised that they've messed up this badly.
	I know former Lotus Eater Connor Tomlinson did some work on exposing that network of Muslims in the home office.
	And of course, if they can get their relatives on a small boat over.
	Being facetious, of course.
	But they have more affinity for people of their own religion than they do the host population, is the actual serious point there.
	And so they're going to be pushing for that sort of thing.
	May I have one of those magical podcasting boxes?
	A magic box.
	And I'm not going to.
	I was going to 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 criticise it.
	This organization, Lotus Eaters, normally I don't speak for all of Lotus Eaters, but I can on this issue because all of us love the Lord of the Rings and we are going to bat for it.
	We're going to put this down.
	Nick, you know, and his grouper 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.
	So there is some degree of sense there.
	So let's hear what he has to say.
	I do apologize for what he's like.
	You call me 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 Madame Game of Thrones, enjoy your fact.
	Preferring that slop 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 is the 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, chopping 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?
	It is worth mentioning.
	The actor that plays Gandalfie and McKellen, I think, is gay.
	Maybe that's what he's confusing with.
	Make the wizard gay or bisexual or something.
	I know it's not in the original Tolkien or whatever, but and that's what you like.
	So, yeah, so I do.
	You know, you know, the Lord of the Rings is Catholic.
	Risky.
	It's Tolkien.
	You like 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 recognized by people who aren't even Christian as being a sort of transcendental piece of art.
	It evokes the virtues within people without necessarily having to be an adherent.
	And I think as Lucas talked about before, Tolkien wrote this to be a mythology for the English, right?
	Yes.
	For England.
	Because we'd lost so much of it during the time of the Viking invasions.
	And even, of course, a text like Beowulf, though still wonderful and obviously penned probably by an Anglo-Saxon monk, of course, in its origins, it is continental.
	It's Germanic.
	You know, it comes from the tale of the Danes and the Gaiats.
	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 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 going to play a little bit more.
	But it does lead to a wider discussion about these sorts of things.
	And there was basically almost, you know, civil war.
	Not in the Timpool sense, but in that rights were very angry with one another and it created a new fault line.
	You 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?
	No, that's true.
	We'll leave it there because I don't want to listen to this blasphemy anymore.
	But he did, you know, triple down.
	You know, he initially said it, then he doubled down there and he tripled down here.
	And he says, it's not even Ragebait.
	I fell asleep watching every single Lord of the Rings movie because they are boring.
	There's too much crying and talking about friendship.
	And I think I hate the Hobbits.
	I thought The Ranger was cringe.
	The CGI is terrible.
	Game of Thrones was awesome.
	And I would like to point out that you don't have to pick a side here.
	I like Game of Thrones as well.
	Yeah, I do.
	And, you know, particularly, I haven't read the books of Game of Thrones.
	I've read the Lord of the Rings books.
	So I can't judge those.
	But, you know, other than the last two series of Game of Thrones, I really, really enjoyed it.
	And I enjoyed every episode, 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 piece of art.
	And some other people were coming out and 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.
	Or is it really ubisoi?
	Yes, and I had quite a rebuttal.
	Well done, Josh.
	Well done.
	You're welcome.
	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 agree that it's a very captivating series that draws you in immediately.
	So I'm not going to try and dispute that, because I think that's for you guys to 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, right?
	My point is, actually, that you can actually be bored on a personal level by a film and still appreciate it.
	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 say, oh, it's boring is like, and therefore no one should be is just very low.
	It's very low.
	So I wanted to talk about an example of someone who isn't necessarily black and white in great detail and talk about Phaedin and his sort of hero's journey.
	So speaking of hero's journey, Stelios, obviously hero of Greece, 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 if you don't want to pay him one sum.
	He spent an inordinate amount of time working on this.
	He was working on it for a few months before I left full time.
	And so.
	You left?
	I know, yeah.
	I'm a contributor.
	First I've heard of him.
	And back with a vengeance like a rash at worse.
	But anyway, let's talk about Feyden, shall we?
	So he starts off as a fruit of Saruman.
	He doesn't really have any agency whatsoever.
	He's having things whispered in his ear to the point where he is unfazed by the death of his own son and he casts out Ayama, his nephew, isn't he?
	From his kingdom, even though he's been nothing but loyal to him and is right about everything.
	And then, of course, Gandalf comes out, breaks the spell, and great scene.
	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.
	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 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 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 going to say, like, can you get that with Game of Thrones?
	Can you literally reel off something as meaningful and as poetic for Game of Thrones?
	Or is it just about chopping people's heads off, like Nick's?
	It's sort of the more basal aspects of humanity.
	And the part of the reason I quite enjoyed Game of Thrones is that it does show a more accurate depiction of the real world because it's inspired by a lot of true historic events.
	But the problem is that a lot of the higher ideals that 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.
	Is he a religious?
	Is he an atheist?
	I think he might be an atheist.
	But, you know, this is the you know, no disrespect to George R.R. Martin's writing.
	I have read little bits.
	I've not even read the first folkbooks.
	They are wonderful.
	Yeah, so I, you know, but I'm saying that the qualities the man has aren't as rich as that of Tolkien.
	Therefore, that you know, yeah, exactly.
	Divine inspiration, I would say.
	But there's another aspect as well to Greemer's character and the words that he spins into Theodon's ear, which is also just the point that to listen to the voice that tells you not to trust your own strength, that inaction is a way forward, not to do anything, not to be virtuous, not to rise above, not to not to defend, not to preserve.
	Well, there are so many lessons, and we're going to end on one 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 when he comes to, after he escapes the thrall of Saruman, there's a really touching scene which always pretty much brings me as close to tears as a man can, where he talks about the flower that grows on the graves of his ancestors, Symbol Muna, I think he calls it.
	And I'm going to 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 parent should have to bury their child and collapses to his knees in tears.
	You see this stoic man return to form only to be broken down again at his lowest point, losing his son.
	And rather than a king, you see a man 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 he goes to Helmsdeep, and this is presented in the films in particular as a sort of mistake, that he was trapping himself.
	But 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 ignoble, but a strategic mistake, as they rightly point out, in the film, in the two towers, particularly.
	And this fear of not being able to live up to that of his ancestors and not being a strong enough man is reasonable, given his position, I think, as well.
	And as the siege goes on, may I just say one thing as well about his relationship with Aragon as well, which is that, of course, Aragon is older than him.
	But Aragon, being of Ladunadine, still has lots and lots of time.
	Theoden 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 Theoden, it contributes to Theodon's insecurities around Aragon.
	This is me just purely talking about the films.
	No, that's very true, and an important point.
	But through Aragorn, you've segued perfectly, through Aragorn basically encouraging him to face one last stand, and he charges out of the keep of his castle out across the bridge when all hope is lost, presumably to his death.
	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 the films that it was Aragorn that helped him encourage him and find this bravery and that the victory wasn't truly his, which is actually quite fair, really.
	Yeah, he does do that.
	Well, it's to be it's not, it's to be a wise leader.
	It's to be aware of your own shortcomings.
	It's to know, to recognize greatness in others as well.
	This is part of what makes a great king.
	And obviously for Tolkien, 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 nephew, who was previously estranged, he is reunited with him and they help save the day.
	And then I think his virtues are truly realised in the charge of the Rohirim.
	This is his moment of bravery.
	No one else can be attributed to it.
	He gives 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 test of bravery.
	I think there's also lots of allegories here to Tolkien in the First World War charging over the top to their death and it being inevitable.
	It's very difficult not to draw this parallel.
	As well as the historical parallel with the Polish Hazars at the Siege of Vienna against the Ottomans as well, which 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 emotionally resonant way, I suppose is the way to say it.
	And the fact that it is Theodin that is right at the front, I know in the book he's said to be speeding at the enemy with the weight of his forebears behind him faster than he possibly could.
	Basically saying that he is about as resolved to meet the enemy as it is possible to be.
	Can they just say one other thing about the charge at the Pelenor Fields as well?
	To come back to Nick's point about those gay little hobbits, is the fact that, of course, Miri 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 the army in Tolkien's day.
	Who can find more courage and bravery than they perhaps realise 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, if you look at it very simply, they're just little people that are able to achieve great things.
	It's not that hard to extrapolate an analogy from.
	And his charge is so heroic that Theoden can only be stopped by the embodiment of death itself, more or less.
	I mean, this is sort of the platonic ideal of death, the witch king of Angmar, I believe.
	Such good armour.
	Yeah.
	It's so cool.
	Do you want to play Warhammer?
	That's my commentary for the Witch King.
	God, he was great.
	But even then, he was able to inspire his adopted daughter, Eohin, to defend him to his last and defeat what is previously believed to be an undefeatable enemy.
	She is motivated not only by her desire to protect her kingdom and her family, but her love for him.
	And because he is a good man.
	And so she did the heroic act out of this love for him, basically.
	And the point is with all of these things, all these things that inspire virtue, you know, bravery, honour, love, these are things beyond the understanding of Sauron.
	The point is that the Dark Lord has no utility for the king.
	Nick Fuentes has no utility for things like honor and bravery.
	He just gets bored by it, apparently.
	So he spends his last moments in a fitting way, I think, with his adopted daughter, who he inspired and who he loves and who he's very proud of.
	And 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 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.
	And Tolkien just plays it so masterfully in his writing as well, because, of course, there is another character, prominent ruler, who dies at the same time as Theodon, and that's, of course, Denethor, right?
	And so, do you want to go out like Theodon, 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 there are also other examples, of course.
	Oh, yeah, there's this one.
	I forgot I quoted myself here.
	A bit embarrassing.
	This is the morally black and white media here.
	This is, of course, from Treebeard.
	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.
	Big defender of trees, me.
	If not elves.
	There aren't any.
	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 industrialization, isn't it?
	That no one cares for trees.
	And you should.
	And I agree with Tolkien's perspective here.
	It's sort of an anti-industrial vein to it.
	And of course, there are other examples here.
	Boromir.
	He is not a 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 drawer of the power.
	Sin.
	I mean, I'd just be humble about it and say I think it's the greatest on-screen death in all cinema.
	I genuinely do.
	Name me a better one.
	It's unbelievable.
	He does have the hero's death in the end after trying to take the ring from Frodo, the one thing he swore not to do.
	And of course, there's Aragorn as well.
	And I'd like to read an extract from the books about Aragorn, because, of course, this 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.
	And of course, this is talking about his future and how his old lineage can be revitalized and can be born anew.
	And how is this not an excellent parallel for the modern day when 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 with that.
	You have all of these not quite the white road, but just 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, say, for example, the white tree of Gondor, you know, that's obviously withered by the time you get to the events of Return of the King.
	But like, that tree itself was 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 the light that Frodo has in Shilob's Lair, the light of Arendiel, 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 Silmarilles 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, 50,000 years and just showing how to preserve these things.
	They might never be the true splendor that they were in the very beginning, but that doesn't mean, you know, casting them away or destroying them.
	Absolutely.
	And lots of people are talking about this sort of thing.
	Here's Howling Mutant saying, I know, as a right-winger, when it comes to consuming media, what I'm really looking for is a strong sense of moral relativism.
	Just some excellent sarcasm there.
	That's good.
	And I quite like this as well.
	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, and any rational being is wholly evil.
	This is, of course, Tolkien himself saying this.
	So, you know, he didn't even believe in it himself.
	Here's another one here.
	Who the heck can read Tolkien to think it's black and white?
	Is Denafor all bad?
	Is Borromer, 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.
	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 just basal human instincts represented rather than the most transcendental ones.
	Here's another one that they're talking about, battles.
	The Battle of the Bastards in Game of Thrones is the best battle.
	I'm sorry, but, you know, Helm's Deep, the Battle of Pelomore Fields, The Last Stand outside the Black Gate, all fantastic.
	Yeah, with the Male Sassar on.
	I mean, even the fight in Baron's Tomb with the Fellowship is fantastic.
	Aha!
	Here I am.
	Yeah, there we go.
	And lots of people agreed with me that obviously the charge of...
	Fensible people.
	Yes.
	And people pointing out that this shot here is just inspired by the one of Aragorn.
	Yeah, it is.
	Yeah, clearly.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, clearly.
	They are very similar.
	And in fact, this one's much better.
	Way superior.
	And I really liked this as well.
	I don't know who this person is, W.H. Auden, but it was a review of Lord of the Rings.
	And I think 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 understanding the distinction here between the different moral virtues and the nature of good and evil.
	And there's a very long post here, and I've been going on for a while.
	But there were other people that were putting up good defenses and talking about Tolkien's life and how things like that.
	This one, I think, is probably my favourite from Kevin McLean here.
	They really get it to give them credit.
	So well done.
	True, because Tolkien, after he wrote for years and years, I believe, you know, the exact years that he was writing Lord of the Rings.
	But I'm certain that he not regretted it, but he was disappointed in writing it during his time after he had written it.
	You thought it was a waste of time, is that correct?
	No, 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.
	He didn't see one as the greatest story or the other.
	He just saw them as two companion pieces.
	But 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 Tolkien actually not regretted it, but felt like it was a waste of time in his own merit.
	I don't know.
	I don't want to push it out of hand.
	I mean, he was remarkably humble when you actually listen to the way he talks about his own inventions and this entire world that he's creating.
	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.
	But yeah, I'd seen it somewhere.
	And the final thing I wanted to point out is that our own government sees it as a 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 progressives always try to co-opt the Lord of the Rings and they say, oh, actually, you know, the fellowship represents the true spirit of diversity as our strength and everything, right?
	They always play it down that line.
	One, if it is true that the Lord of the Rings is innately left-wing, then why is it on a prevent list?
	Right.
	Second of all, 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.
	Because ultimately, like, I hate to do him down because his portrayal was so great.
	But, you know, with someone like an actor like Viggo Mortensen, who played Aragon, like, the actor himself is quite left-wing.
	And there was one part where the Spanish political party, Vox, used Aragon in some of their campaigning material.
	And obviously, they're very anti-immigration and everything.
	And Vigo was just saying this is a total misuse of Aragon.
	It totally misunderstands his character.
	It's like, Vigo, which side did Tolkien support in the Spanish Civil War?
	was it the nationalist side or was it the, Oh right.
	It was a nationalist side.
	You know, it's just so obvious where 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.
	This was written by Peter Jackson, who was obviously the director of the films and one of his writers.
	And I think that this epitomises, above all else, 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.
	And the point being that Tolkien's work was able to inspire this.
	And it doesn't seem out of place.
	It sounds like it came out of his pen, I suppose.
	And I'm going to read it.
	So this is, of course, when they're in the two towers.
	They're captured by Farrimir and in Ogsgillia as it's under siege.
	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, 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, there's something wrong with you.
	This is, you know, when I read it, it reminded me of my political journey.
	You know, I came from a literal shire.
	There was a place around 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.
	It's filled with pellets here.
	And the things I've said and done, I'm not sure I can ever go back to being the person I used to be because of all of the awful things I've experienced and seen.
	We've all felt that.
	Yeah.
	And these sorts of things, if you go through them, truly resonate with you.
	And they do mean something.
	There is good in this world to fight for.
	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.
	That was fun.
	Yeah.
	Do you want to go through your rumbles?
	I went on a little bit there.
	That was the best thing.
	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 am I Oh no He's got a first comment first Sandy Peacon is based.
	He's from when Tabletop RPGs went all woke idiots.
	Also, Cool of Cotilu is my favourite RPG.
	It's vastly superior to modern DD.
	Well, that's good to know.
	Oh, and my other favourite RPG, Traveller, is made in Swindon by Mongoose Publishing.
	Oh, blimey, there's some actual industry going on in Swindon.
	Why don't you understand that if Aragorn would be sophisticated and better if he randomly beheaded some hobbits and did incest?
	I get that facetiousness.
	From George, Winds of Winter is coming.
	Guys, promise Martin to Nick Fuentes.
	It's clear we need World War to make men.
	If only to prevent god-awful media Game of Thrones format existing ever again.
	I love that while the Normans, Gondor, hide behind the tool walls, the Anglo-Saxons bravely ride to death and ruin.
	They go down the hill.
	That's Random Name says 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.R. Martin won't ever do that because he's an abyss leftoid with TDS.
	I think also he's going to set it up that someone else, you know, it's going to go a similar line to the show, isn't it?
	But 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.
	I also think that 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, you can judge a man by how many times he watches Ride of the Row here in per year.
	Based.
	Well, I've watched it five times this week so far.
	Nice.
	Englishmen love Lord of the Rings.
	What?
	Joke.
	Cheers from the Geographical Center of the United States.
	Well, thank you.
	And of course, you can enjoy it as well.
	I'm not going to read that.
	But it is funny.
	I'll give you that.
	Sigil Stones says, Gay Hobbits and Wizards says the Mexican that said something I'm not going to read out on the internet, but if you do Googling, you can find out if you really care.
	I wouldn't suggest Googling it, though, because that's weird.
	Sigil Stone says, sorry, Luca, but without a mustache, your natural British pale and waxy complexion makes you look undead.
	The hairstyle completes the vampire look.
	You're now the resident vampire.
	That used to be me for a long time.
	And then I got the curtains, and I was the resident 90s person.
	I mean, maybe if I give it two years, I can start Hobbit Maxing.
	I'll have it like Rory, but we'll see.
	Nice.
	Is there any more?
	Lewis Bainpool rolls off the tongue.
	That's better.
	I've had lots of names, uh, thrown, but I've never had that one.
	So that's, yeah.
	Yeah.
	O.P.H. says Lewis should reapply under different name.
	Blackpool isn't diverse enough.
	Use Lewis Windrush Generation, Paul.
	Terrible.
	Terrible.
	Okay.
	Sure.
	Hassan Piker and Nick Fuentes sound similar.
	In the books, it's much more tragic.
	Fed and dies not knowing Ewyn is passed out next to him, talking to Mary and a small moment.
	Ayoma.
	True.
	He neither understands A Song of Ice and Fire or The Lord of the Rings.
	George R. A. Martin will finish and that is my cope.
	But Lord of the Rings is better text.
	And I believe George R. A. Martin would agree that Song of Ice and Fire does have art, but it needs to be finished.
	Yeah, I mean, I didn't.
	I feel like I was probably a bit harsher on Game of Friends than I needed to be.
	But at the same time, when you're comparing it to The Lord of the Rings, it's hard not to sound that way.
	Apparently, Kier 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, did Nick even watch season eight of Game of Thrinds?
	It's hard to defend.
	Yes, I know.
	I agree.
	Mark Gidetti, he bashed Lord of the Rings and got something from someone.
	Send him to the tower to not be a thing, I can't say.
	Well, really, up here.
	Good thing I read ahead, eh?
	Why are you surprised?
	The home office is captured by.
	Oh, we've read these.
	Okay.
	Perfect.
	Video comments, I guess.
	Yes, do we have any Samson?
	We do.
	Very good.
	Let's have them then.
	Thank you.
	Cheers me.
	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 York'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.
	Newie recognises the fundamental changes in the sport and how they've caused him to become less enamoured of it than he used to be.
	I loved Formula One growing up.
	That was my favourite sport.
	And I don't watch it anymore because how much they've butchered it.
	Have they?
	You know, even spray painting net zero by 2030 on the pit lane is just too much.
	That's too much for me.
	I was a huge Schumacher fan.
	And if you watch the...
	Sorry, I know it's a curse, Netflix.
	But if you watch his documentary, Schumacher, it is literally the zero to hero.
	And then obviously the tragic, horrible accident that he had in skiing.
	But it's, I absolutely love that sport, and it's actually so blasphemous what they have done to it.
	I've got a weird factoid for you.
	When I was a child, I had a giant African land snail called Michael Schumacher.
	That's getting clipped.
	Sensational trivia.
	Bit of rare Josh trivia there.
	On Sunday the 12th, 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 marriages and institutions 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.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Encouraging.
	All right.
	Is that all the video coming, Samson?
	No.
	Oh, no.
	All right.
	Hey, Carl.
	Yeah, I heard about what happened with your visa for Australia.
	It sucks because I was really looking forward to meeting in person, but oh well.
	I am still going to be at the conference.
	So if there are any Australian lotus eaters 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 you then.
	What happened to his visa?
	I didn't heard about it.
	First I'm hearing of his visitor.
	It's been sorry eating news.
	Even Samson's like, what's going on?
	Oh, Samson's not aware.
	No idea.
	Well, I just hope that you go there and enjoy the conference, Cooper.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, it's a shame you can't see Carl.
	I'm not sure about the rest.
	Oh, I tell you, right.
	mushroom that's really funny A face is funny.
	Absolutely cursed.
	That's pretty good.
	Really head.
	I don't have that haircut anymore.
	The curtains are gone.
	But I love that.
	It was.
	It was funny.
	It reminded me of Jam.
	That's what it reminded me.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Oh, you've gotten you into that then, eh?
	Do you like it?
	I watched the first episode again and then haven't had a chance to watch it.
	It gets better.
	It gets even more crude and weird.
	Have you watched that jam?
	Chris Morris.
	No.
	Certainly the same, obviously, writer as Brass Eye in Four Lines.
	Yeah, you can watch them on YouTube.
	It's so funny.
	It's right up my street, this sort of surrealist, like LSD, like dark.
	It's like LSD dark humour.
	That's my 90s, 90s, like 2000s.
	Makes me sound like a junkie now.
	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 reference there.
	Yeah.
	In my previous video, I highlighted that the appeal to indigeneity 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 this argument, namely what the English culture has produced, as well as the realpolitic of the right of conquest.
	I mentioned this to highlight that the appeal to indigeneity 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.
	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 you have a problem with that, we don't care.
	Our country's good, and we're not going to give you free money.
	Aced.
	Every day we get reminded that the left are 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's actually super impressive.
	It is very impressive.
	I want to see them do five-aside football.
	This guy's been doing that for a while, isn't he?
	Sending in his mechs.
	Like, it looks like he could literally recreate robot wars all over again.
	I was just thinking that.
	Much beloved series in Britain, Robot Wars.
	It's 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 us for whatever reason.
	I think it's our sort of culture of the nerds in the sheds making robots.
	Sergeant Killer Lot was it?
	And Killer Lot, yeah.
	Yeah.
	Oh my gosh.
	Sorry, because we've run over on time, ladies and gentlemen.
	I'm just going to 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 87%.
	That's pretty good.
	Well done, chat.
	How many votes?
	What have we got here?
	333 votes.
	Not bad.
	Yeah, so very good, very sensible.
	I love democracy.
	Yes.
	And very sorry.
	Thank you for your toleration of my sniffles and sneezes.
	I didn't really notice it.
	I didn't notice it, yeah.
	But my voice is quite hoarse.
	Absolute trooper.
	And I am apparently looking quite vampiric today.
	So more than that, thank you for joining us, ladies and gentlemen.
	Lewis, once again, thank you for coming in.
	Thank you.
	And Josh, thank you for never leaving.
	We will see you again tomorrow at 1 p.m.

▲