The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1285

All Episodes

Previous Next

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

01:30:05

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1285

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast of Lotus Eaters episode 1285.
	I'm your host, Harry, joined today by regular guest Firas and this man we found on the street outside.
	He was wearing a suit so we thought, why not?
	If you could give me some spare change, I think his name is Joe Joseph.
	That's about right.
	Yes.
	Close enough.
	Here he is.
	And today we're going to be talking about leaving the ECHR, how that would work practically.
	Going to be talking about the divisions within New York politics and how the internet is getting worse.
	Before we get into that though, I've got a few things to say.
	First of all, immediately before the stream even started, Century Bro on YouTube sent into a $200 super chat with no message attached, just sent in the money.
	So thank you very much, Century Bro.
	That's very generous and kind of you.
	Also, we do have the six o'clock webinar with Stelios and Luca later on today.
	This is going to be the last of the webinars that Stelios is conducting regarding this.
	So if you want to speak to him about the ancient Greek virtue ethics course and ask any questions, clarify anything, this will be your last chance to do so.
	And I'm also again happy to say that later on today at three o'clock, so that's before the webinar, Samson and I will be kicking off our journey to the East show with a special Halloween Silent Hill episode.
	Now the rest of the shit series will be premium, but this will be a freemium video.
	So even if you don't have access to the premium content on the website through a subscription, you will be able to watch this discussion.
	I put a lot of work into it.
	Samson's put a lot of work into it.
	So I hope you all enjoy it.
	And with that, let's get on with the news.
	Thank you very much.
	So the topic of conversation in Britain today is about leaving the ECHR.
	Nigel Farage, the leader of the Reform Party, tried to submit a bill to do that.
	He was endlessly hackled by the midwits and the fatties of the Liberal Democrats who called him things like Putin's Pet and thought that they were incredibly funny and brilliant and accused him of trying to remove British people's rights and so on and so forth.
	All of that isn't really worth dignifying with an answer.
	Britain has had rights longer than most of Europe and the idea that there would be no rights in this country if Britain left the ECHR is frankly laughable and undeserving of a response.
	So let's move on from that.
	There is a point of principle, however.
	The point of principle is that as a sovereign country, foreign courts should not have jurisdiction over Britain.
	That's a fair position to take and that's the position that Farage himself has taken.
	So there was this big vote about it about 10 years ago.
	There was an issue of that.
	Yeah, I remember that.
	Yeah, I remember some discussion around this topic.
	It's also a central point about how our political system works is that Parliament is sovereign.
	Yes.
	And if it's ruled over by foreign courts that aren't even based in Britain, let alone parliamentary, then it's no longer sovereign and it undermines how our sort of uncodified constitution works.
	Yes, no, absolutely.
	Absolutely.
	The point is, though, that for these midwits who pretend that ECHR is the source of rights in Britain, it's not stopping the government arresting around 300 people a day for tweets.
	I mean, the number of people who are being arrested for social media posts is 12,000, 13,000 a year.
	So the idea that ECHR protects against that, obviously laughable.
	But there is a more substantial point, which is that the reason that these kinds of arrests happen isn't because of the ECHR or relationship with Europe.
	It's because of the pathetic quality of judges, MPs, civil servants, police commanders, etc., etc.
	So there's a much bigger issue here than the ECHR, which is why the title of this segment is just the first step.
	Addressing the question of the ECHR is just one step in terms of fixing a much bigger problem, which is that the establishment as establishment, the classes that depend on the taxpayer for their wages, are absolutely hostile.
	And that includes the quangocracy, and that includes the civil service bureaucracy, the police, the judiciary, and much more than that.
	Plus, it's not even a question of whether or not foreign criminals can be deported.
	The French do a good job sometimes deporting people that they don't want when they decide that they want to do this kind of thing.
	Other countries in Europe do engage in deportations.
	Hungary closes its borders completely and is part of the ECHR.
	So the ECHR is a bit of a red herring.
	It's not the actual issue that's preventing Britain from addressing a huge amount of the problems related to migration.
	It is one factor, but it's a small factor.
	You can also, even if you were part of the EU, do what Poland does, which is just adhere to the things you want to do or the things that you don't.
	Like, it doesn't have to be a straitjacket.
	Exactly.
	The notion that we have to adhere to it no matter what, or even be a part of it in the first place is absurd.
	It's obviously people trying to appeal to some degree of authority around this thing because it's what they want.
	The outcome is what they want in the first place.
	Exactly.
	So what they do, what both sides are doing is using the ECHR as a fig leaf.
	The left pretends that the ECHR is the main guarantor of rights.
	And reform is pretending that the ECHR is the fundamental problem.
	Neither of these propositions are true.
	And that doesn't change the point of principle that a foreign court shouldn't have jurisdiction over Britain.
	But these are the facts.
	There are good reasons that have been put forward to say the ECHR question should be delayed and shouldn't be the first thing on the agenda.
	And these mainly relate to Ireland and the Good Friday Agreement and the fact that the Good Friday Agreement in part relies on the ECHR.
	The reality, however, is slightly different.
	First, the Good Friday Agreement has been in chaos for many years now.
	The Parliament installment has been suspended for a total of 10 years out of the last 25 years that it's been in effect.
	And this didn't really change very much.
	Things kept on ticking along and the problem of violence has been resolved.
	And the problem of violence isn't really a threat right now because the Senn Féin, having taken control of the Republic of Ireland, proceeded to pretty much betray the country and stab it a thousand times in the back and flood it with immigrants in the same way that has occurred throughout the rest of Europe and in Britain and so on and so forth.
	So the idea that if the Good Friday Agreement collapses because of the ECHR, well, that will spell a return to violence in Northern Ireland.
	We're seeing pretty much the opposite.
	We're seeing people raising the Irish and English and United Kingdom flags together to say that the actual problem is the defense of a white Christian Europe, not sectarian differences between Catholics and Protestants or Irish grievances against the English or English grievances against the Irish.
	Like that's not the issue.
	Well, there's not nearly as much bad blood anymore, really.
	No.
	There might still be amongst the older generation, but you know.
	There always is sometimes.
	You know, one of my closest friends at university was an Irishman.
	Right.
	And, you know, there was no bad blood.
	He was just like, yeah, you know, England and Ireland are basically the same.
	And most people of my age feel the same.
	So there's no real problem here.
	And as time goes on, there's going to be the prevalence of that attitude more and more.
	And of course, as well, Ireland's only one country.
	And it's much easier to negotiate with Ireland than the entirety of the EU with the ECHR.
	So actually, I would argue that it's probably better for both that we just do our negotiations country to country rather than laterally.
	Exactly.
	No, 100%.
	100%.
	I fully agree with that.
	Plus, the precedent that was set by Storm had paved the way for the devolution that happened in Wales and in Scotland.
	And this was disastrous.
	Like, devolution is clearly not working.
	It's a bad idea.
	It's adding layers and layers of government that are completely unnecessary.
	And it's been captured, at least in Scotland's case, by insane, weird leftists who pretend to be nationalists, but are only nationalists against the United Kingdom.
	They're not nationalist in point of fact.
	It's still quite similar in Wales as well.
	They're also socialists as well, which is a bit awkward together.
	It all wraps into one big hate fest, really, of the traditions and customs and religion that made this country what it is.
	That's what it's all about.
	They hate themselves and they hate everybody around them and they express it with weird ideologies.
	And, you know, it's not a question of principle for these people.
	The other point to make is that the EU is going to work against a reform or right-wing government that's genuinely right-wing, unlike what has happened in the past, regardless.
	Like the EU is going to declare total war on any government in Britain that actually seeks to assert sovereignty and that actually tries to reduce the number of migrants coming in and the migrants that are already here.
	This is a given.
	Well, from the EU's perspective, they want to crush any country that asserts its own sovereignty because it undermines the whole European project.
	Therefore, it's raison d'être.
	And for them, they don't believe in the popular vote.
	They believe that our democracy means the oligarchic expert class in charge, or the expert class servants of the oligarchs being in charge.
	They have the technocrats.
	The technocrats.
	It means democracy, our democracy is just the term for technocratic, nudge-based psychological control of the mass population.
	Exactly.
	Exactly.
	Because the mass population is not to be respected, is not to be trusted, is to be looked down upon, spat upon, and downtrodden until it no longer exists.
	And if a government were to try to reverse that, with or without the ECHR being on the table, their reaction from the EU is going to be the same.
	And this is going to involve sabotaging trade, and this is going to involve trying to find ways to use the Northern Ireland issue as a wedge to weaken Britain further.
	They will do this to any country.
	Look at what they've done to Poland.
	Look at what they've done to Hungary.
	They will obviously do the same to Britain.
	So it should be taken as a given that even a Sivnat government is going to face the full wrath of the European Union and of the European bureaucracy.
	And that they will try to sabotage everything at pretty much every using every lever of power that they have and at every point in time where they find an opportunity.
	This should be the starting point.
	A big part of the problem fundamentally is that Farage, as usual, is very good at campaigning, but very bad on the detail.
	And what reform should be doing is pretty much gaming out how this plays out and gaming out things like the reaction from the United Nations.
	Yesterday, the United Nations was getting very angry because the government of Rio de Janeiro in Brazil started shooting drug dealers.
	Which is absurd, of course, because everyone knows about Rio's drug gang problem.
	It's not exactly a secret.
	Exactly.
	They all condemned Naib Bukele for asserting the sovereignty, the sovereignty of the state in El Salvador.
	They're going to do the same against Britain, but it's going to be a lot more intense and a lot more vigorous.
	And what should be done is to game out the levers of trade and the levers of international law, quote unquote, that they will use to undermine reform.
	This is what they're going to do.
	And they will have the full cooperation of the blob, of the class of people that rely on taxpayers for their money, who work in the NGOs, in the civil service, in the judiciary, in the police, etc., etc.
	And the actual problem isn't just the ECHR, although in principle, yes, it's a violation of sovereignty.
	The actual problem is that there is really no plan for dealing with this.
	And these guys might go crazy.
	The EU might decide that deporting criminals is a violation of their human rights, and therefore trade sanctions must be applied.
	And therefore, the EU is going to introduce tariffs.
	And therefore, the EU is going to renegotiate Brexit deals and things of that nature.
	I mean, they're going to go all out.
	And there is one sort of potential counter-argument here that I obviously agree with what you're saying, and they could do this to a degree of self-harm that could actually really damage the countries within the EU.
	But with the way things are going, particularly with Germany, France, Italy, they're probably not going to be in a financial position where they can take a hit, or at least it's going to make it so difficult as to undermine faith in the EU in the first place.
	If you look at how they negotiated the Brexit deals, they didn't really seem to have very many concerns.
	Now, they were very much helped by the fact that the British negotiators were remainers, and that really undermined Britain's position.
	And Britain does have pretty important leverage.
	This is one of the biggest markets that the Europeans have access to.
	Yes, true.
	But this kind of economic damage didn't stop them blowing up their own nuclear plants and didn't stop them decimating their energy infrastructure and didn't stop them staying silent when the Americans blew up Nord Stream or when the Ukrainians attacked refineries in Romania and Hungary a couple of weeks ago.
	These guys are genuine ideologues and their commitment to maintaining the illusion that they are the only people who should ever be allowed to govern outweighs significantly the economic damage that will be done to the population because at the end of the day, they're still going to have their champagne and caviar dinners all the time and they're still going to be flying business class everywhere.
	I do agree that the people who are going to be making these decisions are the ones that are isolated from the consequences.
	Exactly.
	And that's how they want politics to be.
	They want politics to be a game where they make decisions, others suffer the consequences, they suffer nothing.
	And if there is going to be some kind of genuinely responsive government, which is what reform is promising, but huge questions on their ability to deliver that, they're going to try to nip that in the bud.
	And they will try to undermine Farage at every point.
	And so on point of principle, yeah, fair enough.
	But in terms of actual preparation for what the EU will do, even if you don't leave the ECHR, be careful.
	Plus, there is a trap in there in that if a new reform government sort of codifies some new Bill of Rights, there is a real risk that part of the things that they will codify will stop a future government from removing people's passports and denaturalizing them and sending them back,
	which is going to really matter if you want to do something about the numbers and about the instability that these numbers bring in.
	So this isn't clear sailing.
	The idea that the Human Rights Act and the ECHR get revoked and then some new Bill of Rights emerges.
	There's a trap within that.
	And it isn't obvious to me that Farage sees that.
	Well, the obvious thing to do is not to have anything to replace it with at all, because ultimately they're just pieces of paper.
	They don't actually have any true enforcement.
	It's not like in the US where you have a Supreme Court that enforces the Constitution and even then it's imperfect.
	In Britain, it's even less enforced.
	Yes.
	The Human Rights Act was enacted within the first year of Tony Blair's prime ministerialship, which suggests that it's something that was very important to him and instrumental in sustaining his power ultimately.
	Well, something fun that we were discussing before we came onto the podcast earlier when we brought up the subject of constitutions was that in Germany, the constitution under the Weimar period and the period immediately following it were the exact same.
	Right.
	It was the exact same constitution.
	So it turns out you can do a lot of different things under the same constitution if you as a political power just have the will to do so.
	Exactly.
	Exactly.
	And the actual problem is that there exists this massive class of people that rely on taxpayers for their ability to harm taxpayers.
	And reform doesn't have a clear plan to gut that.
	There is no plan to reduce the civil service by 50%.
	To play devil's advocate here, this isn't something I necessarily believe, but especially based on lots of the things I've heard about Farage's character from people who've worked with him for years.
	But could it be that they're keeping a lot of this quiet because it would be strategically advantageous not to advertise it?
	I hope so.
	Because then they can put up measures to resist.
	I hope so.
	I don't actually think that that's happening, but it is possible.
	I heard at the gym the other day, I overheard one of the personal trainers speaking to a client talking about the theory that that woman who got in trouble for saying that there are too many black people in adverts, that the party kind of disavowed somewhat, that they were using her as a sounding board for the more radical ideas to test public perception and reaction to them.
	A personal train is a bit more savvy than you would imagine.
	And he was talking to some old guy who clearly was just sort of like, just make me lift the weights.
	He's like, yeah, man.
	But to be fair, you know, there is a potential truth to that.
	Or at the very least, it could be unintentionally used for something like that.
	Either way, it received a huge pushback, but also at the same time, there was a lot of support for that statement.
	Yep.
	And it received pushback from the same people who think that rights in the United Kingdom depend on being in the ECHR.
	Well, the same people who, frankly, would want what happened to Charlie Kirk to happen to Nigel Farage if presented the opportunity.
	Exactly.
	And if you looked at the reactions from people in Parliament, you sort of see that this is exactly what they want.
	The MPs around Farage are just sort of...
	I'm not going to show you the clips because they're frankly disgusting, but you should go and watch and see what quality of people we're dealing with here and why they shouldn't be dignified with a response, but why they should also be taken very seriously in terms of their genuine intent to hamstring any government that tries to do something slightly different.
	They're going to deploy all of their media power, all of their legal power, all of their economic power, and they're going to try to paralyze Nigel at every single step.
	And it doesn't matter what happens with the ECHR.
	The presence of the ECHR doesn't prevent people getting arrested over tweets, and its absence won't change very many things.
	Well, Morgoth always has a good point about the ECHR, where people will share pictures of the many points of the ECHR and say, this is what reform wants to take away from you.
	And Morgoth always responds by saying, well, if you are white, if you are English, if you are ethnically European, some group within Europe, you do not have access to 0.5, 6, 8, 9, whichever there are the ones that do things like protect you against unfair imprisonment, the ones that protect you as an indigenous group, the ones that protect you from being displaced from a homeland.
	You just don't have access or recourse to those.
	No, no, not at all.
	Not at all.
	So this resistance that is inevitable must be prepared for.
	And there should be a level of honesty saying that there is going to be a few very difficult years after reform takes power because of this lawfare and economic warfare that will be waged and this sort of endless media campaigning.
	You need to prepare your audience for the reality that things have to get worse before they get better.
	And you need to promise them something.
	For example, nasty HR ladies like the ladies that we see in Parliament will no longer have power over men.
	There's going to be changes to everything that allow people a level of freedom and liberty.
	The problem is that there isn't a positive message that's coming from the right.
	There isn't a positive message that says the bedrock of our beliefs is individual liberty, that this is a genuinely talented people that is truly capable, that has been held back deliberately by this state-dependent class, that the power of the state-dependent class is going to be removed and the people will then be free to pursue their own well-being as they see fit.
	Well, I would argue that there is actually a positive vision coming from the younger elements of this establishment right.
	If you want to even call them establishment, like oftentimes I'll see former host Connor on Twitter responding to people who are disparaging Britain, disparaging English people.
	And he presents a very positive vision of what England was and what England should be in the future.
	I worry that it's some of the older generation like Nigel Farage who worry about the potential optics problems.
	Nigel Farage has already been accused of being mustache man throughout his entire career for the past 30 years.
	So I think he worries that if he puts forward a positive vision of the future that affirms that English people and British people in general could have something of value to offer to the world, not as just a set of abstract floating values, but as a real and distinct people, that he worries that he'll get even more of that aimed at him.
	To which I say, who cares?
	Yeah, yeah.
	I mean, they're going to attack you for anything anyway.
	Yeah, go on.
	I was just going to say that young people, you know, have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
	Yes, yeah.
	And so if that's not a good incentive, then I don't know what is.
	Yes.
	And any sensible leader should be leaning into this because it's basically going to be your activist class, your most dedicated people, people with a lot of time and energy to put into it.
	And it would be silly to overlook.
	And again, it shows kind of the generational age gap and the divide here, which is that for Farage, somebody who's part of the establishment or at least has been, you know, refer back to that old video of him dancing with Preeti Patel and the rest of the conservatives, right?
	For him, bad optics is affirming everything that we would like to affirm because it would put the ick on him among those circles.
	Among the younger generations, it's good optics to do those things because, like you say, the younger generations, they see where this country is going.
	They've been living in this country for their entire lives as it has just continued to decline.
	So they see, oh, a positive vision of the future that's working for me specifically has my interests in mind.
	That's great.
	So the incentives are also very different there.
	And the major hope that I've seen a lot of people have is that Farage and other people of his age will be kind of pushed and guided by those younger than him by taking advice from them.
	Hopefully, hopefully.
	And the thing is that the uniqueness of the British government model, the sovereignty of parliament, means that enormous things can be done quite quickly, especially in terms of defunding this massive blob that will always hate you and work against you in the civil service, in the NGOs, etc.
	And since judges in this country are appointed and can be appointed and removed by government, that is also an enormous lever of power.
	What needs to happen is genuine preparation for government.
	And that's not what we're seeing.
	Maybe it's being done under the table and it's hidden for strategic reasons.
	I hope so.
	There's no evidence of that.
	But that really is the issue.
	He can be a lot more vocal and a lot more effective if he promises that this sort of enemy caste that lives on the taxpayer and that always wants to extract more from the taxpayer to benefit migrants, legal and illegal, is going to be treated as an enemy and is going to be made unemployed and is going to be properly gutted.
	If he promises that and the British model allows him to deliver that, all kinds of good things are possible.
	So the issue isn't the ECHR, important as it is in principle.
	The issue is that there's going to be total warfare against the next government and preparations are necessary.
	He needs to be much better prepared for this.
	All right then.
	Let's go through the one rumble rant that we have received in the course of that conversation.
	Thank you very much to that.
	It's a random name.
	We know you've always got our backs, even if you are Fed posting half the time.
	He says, we need to emphasize how malicious our rulers are.
	Every time a foreigner commits a crime, it should be called a government-sanctioned murder slash, etc., etc.
	Yeah, pretty much you see how they get defended every single time, how the system works to excuse their behavior.
	How occasionally, like with the case of the Epping assaulter, they'll just get accidentally let out of prison and given 50 quid so that they can be on their way.
	They treat it 500.
	I was thinking it was 500.
	Which is more than a year's salary in his country.
	But I thought for a second there before I said it, like, no, that's too ridiculous.
	I must be misremembering.
	He spent three months, raped a girl.
	Raped a girl within eight days of arriving and then received a year's pay to leave after just a few months in jail.
	I'm on Josh's side here that even if we do start getting mass repatriations and remigration done, we should not be paying people to leave.
	We should be seizing their assets because they have taken...
	And just look at the old economist graphs.
	We know for a fact that the, what is it, menapt, that they are massive drains on the system.
	They have stolen my tax money, your tax money, Josh's tax money, something that really hits hard for him.
	I hate taxes, yeah.
	Yeah, in the first place.
	They've stolen all of our tax money so that they can live here and terrorize our people.
	So, no, I think we should be seizing whatever puny assets that they have.
	It would take a team of 10 people about a month to basically figure out who owes the state money, who's a net negative, how much they owe, how much should be seized.
	Josh would probably volunteer for it yourself, wouldn't you?
	I would, genuinely.
	I would happily hang around people's houses and take their stuff, be like, this is a tax rebate for me.
	Imagine they get a knock on the door and it's the smiling faces of us two.
	Hi, we're here for your TV.
	And then you're getting back in the van.
	Yep.
	Going on a plane and you're never coming back.
	All right, then, moving on.
	And speaking of people who do not have your best interests in mind, let's talk about Mam Danny's progress in the New York mayoral election race, how things are going for him, and how it's showing a divide between the Democrat Party.
	Let's take the Republican candidate for mayor of New York and put him to the side.
	We'll issue him right now because sadly, he's a Republican in New York.
	There's no chance.
	There's no chance.
	So the two most important candidates at the moment are Andrew Cuomo and Zoran Mamdani.
	And again, what we're seeing here is a big divide between the Democrats.
	You could almost call it a left and right wing Democrat divide.
	Yes, they both have insane policies, but one is at least preferred by native US-born voters and the other is favoured by foreign voters, as we'll see through a lot of the polls that have been done.
	So first of all, here's a report from Newsweek talking about Mamdani's chances of winning a landslide New York election.
	And you can scroll down and see one of the graphs here.
	This is one of the most recent ones.
	Who is ahead in the New York mayor's race?
	Mamdani is showing now, I think they must have updated this because it was showing at 43% earlier when I looked at this article.
	Now it's showing at 45%.
	So it's saying here, the betting platform polymarket shows that Mam Dani currently has a 44% chance of winning 50 to 60% of the vote.
	That's a pretty heavy landslide.
	If such a result occurs, Mamdani could be in store for a landslide victory over his opponent, his main opponent, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo.
	Assembly member Zoran Mamdani has become the leading progressive candidate in the race.
	His platform, as Dan aptly described it yesterday as being high school class leader politics, includes rent freezes and the establishment of publicly owned grocery stores to address rising living costs.
	Both of these things just scream resources.
	Yeah, Venezuela shortages.
	Like, all of a sudden, rent freezes, you're going to get the typical decay of housing that happens with such things.
	Basically, swampy Stalin, isn't he?
	Yeah, publicly owned grocery stores, that's a way to have no food on the shelves.
	That's just not going to work, as these things never do.
	But again, it's the politics of free ice cream for lunch, no homework, and days off on Fridays.
	His campaign has gained significant momentum through endorsements from New York Democratic Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and independent senator Bernie Sanders, two of the most economically illiterate people who've ever shared a stage on American politics.
	Don't call Bernie Sanders economically illiterate.
	He's a millionaire.
	Oh, yes, I'm sorry.
	Sand owns three mansions, and so he understands economics when it suits him.
	He's a businessman.
	Yes, exactly.
	He understands everything when it suits him.
	He doesn't understand anything when it suits him.
	This is the typical left.
	He's proposing a trade.
	I get multi-million dollar book sales.
	You get starvation.
	Yes.
	And your city becomes a favela.
	Yes.
	And they carry on saying polymarkets suggest that instead of a landslide, it is more likely that he will win 40 to 50% of the vote, with the website assigning a 49% probability to that scenario.
	So again, if you're going by these polymarkets judgments, then it does appear that, yes, he's going to win and win by quite a comfortable margin.
	His base is anchored among younger, progressive, and foreign-born New Yorkers.
	Fox News polling shows he holds 78% support among very liberal voters, 67% among those under 30, and 63% among Democrats.
	Women under 45 back him by 62%.
	And Patriot polling finds he draws 62% support from foreign-born voters compared with 31% among US-born residents because he is the gay race communist candidate.
	Everybody talks about how he's the Islamic candidate, which is also true.
	But I think it is more accurate to just describe him as the gay race communism candidate because if you actually consider it historically, gay race communism is the default mode of living for most of the third world and the Islamic world as well.
	Thanks to, I know this now, thanks to the amazing insights of our super chatters who got me to learn about the events of what is it, the Al-Zut.
	Yeah, those ones, Mohammed and Al-Zut.
	So it's actually built into their religion to be gay race communists.
	And again, refer back to the horrors that the American occupying soldiers in Afghanistan saw in having to deal with the Afghanis that they were working alongside.
	Actual communists and socialists have had a pretty troubled history in the Middle East.
	Normally, Islamists tend to kill them eventually.
	They'll be the useful idiots of Islam, and then they'll end up being the enemies and purged.
	That's pretty commonplace.
	It's gone both ways.
	Like, Massud murdered big chunks of the Muslim Brotherhood who helped get him to power, and then they killed his successor.
	So they eventually start murdering each other, but first they murder everybody decent and destroy the economy.
	They're a priorities.
	They're a priority.
	It's a classic playbook from taking your country from somewhat functional to a shithole.
	Exactly.
	I mean, all of the Middle Eastern countries were much better under monarchy.
	And then you had the Islamist leftist alliance, and then they sort of destroyed it.
	And then here we are.
	Yes.
	And it breaks it down further down here saying, Mamdanny performs strongly in Brooklyn and among Muslim, Hindu, and atheist voters, betrayals among Catholic and Jewish constituencies.
	He leads among non-white voters, including a majority of black 51% and Hispanic 52% voters.
	So he's the Gibbs candidate.
	He's the gay race communist candidate.
	He is the multi-ethnic anti-white coalition candidate, which is why he is so popular in particular amongst the foreign-born residents of New York.
	As you can see, here's a visualization of the polls here.
	This was taken slightly before the ones that Newsweek were reporting, but it shows the same trend that you can see Mamdani is 62% favored amongst foreign-borns.
	Andrew Cuomo only gets 24%.
	Among the native-born, US-born New Yorkers, Cuomo is the overall favourite.
	And I know that Cuomo is running as an independent, but you can still just see him as another flavor of Democrat.
	He's a lifelong Democrat.
	He's always been a Democrat.
	So you can see the kind of divide here between the old school Democrats, who were, shall we say, just classic Democratic socialists, perhaps, the I just want free healthcare bro types, and the new type of Democrat, which is actually an ethnic client group, which Zoran Mamdani is representing here.
	I just want to point out that 30% of Jewish voters back Mamdani.
	Now, 63% go for it for Cuomo.
	Only 6% go Republican.
	Only 6% go Republican.
	That's a bit insane.
	That is one of the interesting things about this, because within the religious breakdown here, you can actually trace another racial and ethnic breakdown as well.
	Because those Catholics are likely to be the Italians within New York who, surprise, surprise, are majority going for Cuomo, but still quite a few of them going for Mamdani.
	Protestant, I suppose you could say, will be the white percent, 48% on the Protestant side.
	Potentially the white leftist contingent that still exists within New York.
	And then the Jewish, obviously Jews are a huge constituency of New York, still majority going for Cuomo, but again, surprisingly Democratic.
	Yeah, quite a lot of them going for Zoran Mamdani.
	And the other, the big blob that is other, we can just assume is primarily going to be Arabs.
	Maybe Hindus these days.
	Arabs and Hindus.
	Hindus and Hindus.
	Hindus as well.
	It's interesting how the Hindu vote differs whether you're in America or England, whereas in England they'll primarily vote for more conservative candidates and in America they'll go for the Democrat candidates.
	But I suppose it's all about appealing to your different ethnic blocks, isn't it?
	I think St. Augustine said that foreigners shouldn't be allowed to participate in civil affairs for two or three generations.
	At least, if you're going to let them in the first place.
	If you're going to let them in.
	And that's the interesting thing about this, because what we see here, again, is just another demonstration of what Lee Kuan Yun said about Singaporean politics, which is multi-ethnic states just turn into multi-ethnic politics.
	They're not discussing the actual issues.
	They're not discussing the policies.
	They're just, who is for me?
	I will vote for me.
	Who's my guy?
	Yeah, that's all it is.
	And most of the time, the best signifier of it is, does the guy look like me?
	So the Italians see Andrew Cuomo and they say, hey, he's a bit handsy, just like me.
	Zoran Mandani.
	Zoran Mandani comes around and they go, he has no table manners, just like me.
	And they vote accordingly.
	You get another one here where it reaffirms regarding the Jewish vote in particular, saying that they are still majority going for Cuomo, but a significant portion of them are still going to be going for Mamdani.
	And that is interesting.
	And you can see the division that's going down racial, religious, and ethnic lines through this.
	You know, what is it?
	Sorry, the Babylon Bee making jokes that it's only Al-Qaeda adjacent types that are going to be voting for Mamdani.
	But then you get the, if you wonder what, like, what kind of New York Jew is voting for Mamdani, I discovered this video.
	And I watched it, and now you have to as well.
	There is, like, like said in the little caption here, a little surprise.
	So let's play this.
	Hi, Rabbi.
	Hi.
	We're among the thousands of Jewish New Yorkers who've been out door knocking and phone banking to Alex Zoran Mamdani.
	We're also rabbis.
	We know Zoran will fight to make our city affordable and safe for our families.
	And for our neighbors of all faiths and backgrounds.
	As New Yorkers, we're also just people who live here, who don't want to get priced out of this incredible city that we call home.
	We know fellow Jews want to be able to afford housing, transportation, and childcare for their family.
	So you just, you get the picture there.
	It's the classic coalition of we just want nice things, bro, with mentally insane ill person right there.
	So that's one little idea.
	There was this amazing Harretz article here that says, I oppose Mam Danny's stance on Israel.
	This is why I'm voting for him anyway.
	Okay, interesting.
	One of the most interesting things about Mam Dani is that despite his general lack of appeal for most New York Jews, a lot of the team backing him.
	Oh, bloody hell, forward.
	Come on.
	You don't have to advertise so hard to me.
	Are actually Jewish themselves.
	Like his communications director, all of the most important members of his campaign teams are Jewish.
	You've got Andrew Epstein, who's the communications director.
	You've got the political director of Julian Gerson and a number of other figures, the media strategist.
	So you can see that.
	These are the three most important positions you can have.
	Yeah.
	Yes, within the campaign.
	These are literally the policy guy and the two media guys.
	That's it.
	That's the campaign.
	So one of the interesting things that you could argue through this is that Mam Dani in himself is the, ironically enough, kind of like insane radical liberal Jewish candidate, given that they are the ones primarily directing his campaign, which is a weird divide that you can see down here, because as well, then you can also see that there's the opposite of this, people saying like, you need to take your own side for God's sake, don't vote for Mam Danny.
	That's from Eli Lake.
	You've got people like this woman, Lizzie Savetsky, saying that you need to vote Cuomo.
	So say no to the global intifada, which is a very notorious clip that went out of Mam Danny that people discovered.
	Was that pre 7th of October?
	That clip of him standing on the street corner saying global intifada?
	I'm not sure.
	Well, I do know at the very least that, you know, like it was such a tragedy what happened to his family on 9-11.
	Yes, yes, yes.
	His aunt who wasn't even in the country at the time.
	Yes.
	Fantastic.
	So that's one of the ethnic blocks of people who may or may not be voting for Mam Danny versus Cuomo.
	So that's the New York Jewish vote.
	What about the New York white leftist vote, right?
	Who do they have as a figurehead telling them who to vote for?
	Well, you have what I can only describe as the new Mamdanian man.
	This fat, disgusting freak, an abomination and affront to all that is holy and beautiful in the world.
	This man whose name I believe is, what's it, Stavros Halkias, former co-host of the podcast Come Town, which I have seen some clips of and was pretty funny, but as far as I can tell from what people are saying, this guy was the laugh track to two guys who are a lot funnier than him.
	So this is the guy who's saving young men, because what accidentally happened was that the guy who was going to save young men from becoming MAGA was Hassan Pika.
	And it turns out that he is not very kind to his dog, allegedly.
	Therefore, they needed to break glass in case of emergency white boy.
	And they found this guy waiting for them on the other side.
	Greek, then?
	Oh, my goodness, age-restricted adult content.
	Should I click, boys?
	Should I click?
	Sorry.
	Oh, my God.
	No, I'm not allowed to show you.
	He did a shoot by Chris Maggio for a special October issue of GQ on American Masculinity.
	So he's actually getting a similar...
	He's getting a similar...
	This guy...
	This guy can teach you all about masculinity.
	He's going to save you from becoming a toxically masculine MAGA Republican.
	And you know that he's got mass appeal because on podcasts he calls things gay, which means that he's just one of the bros.
	Just one of the bros like you and me.
	Just like one of the morbidly obese, greasy, disgusting bros like you and me.
	So he's actually getting an interesting PR push in the same way that Hassan Pika has been for the past year, which I wonder if I don't think Hassan's going to be getting quite as much of a push after his dog-related antics recently.
	And guess what?
	Guess who this guy, the new Mamdanian man, is voting for?
	Well, he's voting for Zoran Mamdani.
	This is the guy that they want you to emulate.
	111,000 totally not bought for likes on this podcast.
	Actually, to be fair, he's quite famous and he's got Netflix specials.
	So I imagine that there are quite a lot of like-minded retards who see this and go, OMG, he's literally me.
	I'm lost for words.
	So, remember, there's the famous Sam Hyde quote of, remember, they want you, you know, dead.
	When we win, these people wanted you dead, humiliated, your children raped, etc., etc.
	For some, there's an even worse fate.
	Is that, remember when we went, they wanted you to be this.
	That's not...
	That's just sad.
	Whatever my politics is, however you can distill it down to its base, is the opposite of this.
	I already feel ill, please.
	Sorry, I'll take him off here.
	So that's what they want white leftists to be voting for.
	They want him to be voting for Mam Danny, and they want to use freaks like this as the push to get him there, because, like, this is high status now.
	So you want to be high status, don't you?
	And speaking of high status, you also have all of these people voting early, because I think the official election is on next week, but people can vote early.
	You get totally straight men like this, menswear guys for Mam Danny, essentially using their politics as a status signal, saying, I have high status luxury beliefs because I am a well-to-do white guy.
	So therefore, therefore, I'm voting Mam Danny.
	Please, progressive women, sleep with me.
	He looks like he's out of a Wes Anderson film dressed like that.
	He does.
	He looks like the creep from a Wes Anderson film, doesn't he?
	They always have one creep.
	Typically played by Adrian Brody.
	Poor guy.
	Here's another one.
	Dear progressive women, please, again, I'm desperate for some.
	Sleep with me.
	I'm voting for Mam Danny.
	And I wear vintage Armani.
	I've made the mistake of clicking on this guy's account and found that he has a substack entirely about menswear and men's fashion choices, which is, frankly, very gay.
	It's also not a very nice jacket.
	Yeah, it doesn't look very good on him, frankly.
	And then, finally, we have the I Hate My Dad vote.
	As Stelios pointed out this a bit yesterday, he pointed to this person saying, people saying, do not vote for Zoran Mamdani.
	Too bad I did it today.
	And people went on her account and found that she had posted saying, Thanks, Dad.
	Some kind of problems, father problems, right here.
	We also have this woman saying, I just voted as well for Zoran Mamdani.
	Take that MAGA Chuds.
	Or should I say?
	Should I say, Dad?
	Just ran away from my parents to the Hamptons with my two best friends, bloody, bloody, blah.
	The main thing to take here.
	Whenever women pull that facial expression in pictures, you know that there's some deep psychological trauma in there.
	Probably about her dad.
	Here it is again.
	Please fill the void that my absent father left.
	I voted Bandani.
	Old lady called me pretty.
	I'm seeking validation for my voting choices and from old ladies who vote for the same people that I did.
	And then finally, this one.
	This is the one that I call, I wish dad loved me.
	I hate him so much.
	This is, again, this is the like voting for whoever pisses your dad off the most.
	And frankly, in regards to all of this, I have the major solution as advocated for by Oran McIntyre, which is that you just need to ban people like Mandami coming into the country in the first place.
	I would take it further, which is that they also need to be denaturalized and then removed from the country, or else all politics will turn into various ethnic blocs voting for their own interests, and then useful morons who want to piss their parents off voting against their own interests in solidarity.
	The extent to which people refuse to accept that Muslims view democracy as a temporary vehicle through which to gain power, this is how they view Western democracy.
	And that the Muslim Brotherhood has been writing about this and working on this forever.
	And that's why radical Imams will happily support somebody who's pro the sort of words, the letter soup.
	Like, do you, what do you need to understand what's coming?
	I don't get it.
	What more do they need to see to understand what's coming?
	Well, I suppose the interesting thing for me is that it looks like he's going to get in.
	It looks like he's going to get in as mayor.
	The polls are all suggesting that he's going to win by quite a comfortable margin.
	So my big question is, given the status of New York on the international stage as the home of international finance, you've got Wall Street on there, you've got all sorts of big businesses there.
	Is how much will he be allowed to mess with the city?
	Or will it just be like we're seeing, like we were discussing in the last segment, that he will be allowed to mess with the city as much as he wants, as long as Wall Street executives and elite types are in a way that's not the same thing.
	Yeah.
	Or will he...
	Especially the financial oligarchy.
	They always find a way.
	Or will it just be like, will it just be like in London, where you get the foreign Islamic mayor who is happy to have as many of his own people in, but you still get these kind of segregated little dens away from all of the chaos that that brings?
	Because there are still nice parts of London that you can go around and you can walk around.
	And you can think to yourself, no wonder the people that live here don't realize there's a problem because they're protected from it.
	Will New York just stay like that?
	Because I think it's a guarantee that he's going to get in at this point.
	So we'll just have to see the consequences of those immense bad mistakes that people are making.
	So let's go through the Rumble Rants and Super Chats.
	TomRat247, Firaz is 100% right here, is echoing some of arch-autist Pete North's points.
	You can just...
	Brief point, I'm interviewing Pete North next week.
	Is he coming into the office?
	He's coming into the office.
	Oh, that'll be interesting to meet him.
	You can just do things, but you need to plan and you need to demonstrate the will.
	Farage, I'm skeptical of this.
	Sigilstone, gentlemen, write a complaint to Rumble.
	The chat broke again.
	There's no excuse to be having bugs like this.
	Perhaps some of our back end can get on that if that's the true, if that's what's been happening.
	Flavius Magnus, NYC is filled with shitlibs and foreigners and gerrymandered to hell and back.
	That's very true.
	That's a random name.
	Truly never been easier to know the good and the bad guys are Lamau.
	And for the record, if you think I fed post here, you should see my super chats on synthetic man's streams.
	Yeah, I can only guess.
	Hapsification sends two in, saying, why is it that when those weirdos, when they need their token white guy, they're either gay, disgusting-looking, and look physically weak and pathetic, and why is it when these weirdos...
	Oh, it's the same thing sent twice.
	Because that's what they want you to be.
	Yes.
	They know they need a white guy to be a figurehead of their movement.
	And they went for the kind of buff guy that women think is handsome.
	turns out he may abuse his dog so time to go for the next best option which is it shows you how much they're sort of skimming the bottom of the barrel right Well, I mean, the only other thing they have is Twinks.
	Not the best advertising.
	You can either go with the animal abuser, the Twink, or the Fat Freak.
	Good luck.
	Good luck, Democrats.
	And on YouTube, Robert White, at least when Danny fails, we can have another example of these policies not working.
	We have endless examples of these policies not working.
	That was called the 20th century.
	People still vote for them because they like the sound of Gibbs.
	I mean, Thomas Soule in Basic Economics gives the specific example of rent control in New York, pushing at prices and making it harder to buy property.
	Yes.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	Gimli O'Gloyne, at this point, New York just needs to be lost to show that this kind of politics does not work.
	Again, same response to that.
	We already know that this doesn't work.
	The people who are worst affected by these policies, when they happen to not work again, will still find their way to Uno reverse blame it on white people.
	They'll try and blame it on Wall Street oligarchs and other such people rather than their own economic illiteracy.
	One man banned.
	They really chose AliExpress Ron Jeremy.
	And Bay State, the upside of Mam Danny is how many right-wingers he's about to produce in NYC.
	I believe he is the man to do it, Alzut.
	Potentially, the other option is that anybody remotely right-wing who's left this NYC might just move.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Is this working, by the way?
	No, it wasn't for me.
	Would you be able to unplug it and plug it back in, potentially?
	So I will need that.
	I have got menu.
	You might just want a mouse.
	I'll be a pain in the ass.
	I can have that other one if that works.
	Yeah, there it is.
	Let me see.
	This is working.
	Hooray.
	There you go.
	Thank you.
	You just keep mice.
	Overloaded, you can dual-wield them.
	I'm not that talented.
	Come on.
	Unlimited power.
	Right.
	Just imagine the Matrix soundtrack playing later on.
	So one thing I've noticed in recent years is that the internet is slowly getting worse and worse.
	And that's not to say that there isn't, you know, wonderful things out there and things I really enjoy, because there certainly is.
	And I'm not going to tart everything with the same brush and suggest that it's all bad, everything's terrible, because that's not the case.
	And I don't think it ever will be.
	However, I think things are slowly declining.
	And I'm going to point out some of these things and some of the ways we can push back.
	But just in identifying the problems, it helps people circumvent it because you're aware of the nature of some of these things that are eroding the quality of what's on the internet and then can cater your experience accordingly.
	So this is somewhat similar.
	I'm not the first person to suggest this.
	It's somewhat similar to dead internet theory, although I'm going to take a little bit of a different emphasis than this.
	Do excuse my reading voice, by the way, I'm losing it because I'm not very well.
	But it says the dead internet theory is a conspiracy theory which asserts that since around 2016, the internet has consisted mainly of bot activity and automatically generated content manipulated by algorithmic curation as part of a coordinated and intentional effort to control the population and minimize organic human activity.
	Proponents of the theory believe these social bots were created intentionally to help control algorithms and boost search results in order to influence consumers.
	Some proponents of the theory accuse government agencies of using bots to manipulate public perception.
	And we know that this sort of thing is going on.
	So there's obviously some truth to this, but I think it's missing the entirety of the picture.
	I mean, for example.
	For example, I'd never heard the second part of the theory that it's intentional to manipulate people.
	I just thought it was bots just working automatically.
	Yeah, and we had Netanyahu come out and say that we need to use TikTok to basically propagandize people to become pro-Israel.
	He said that publicly and explicitly.
	It was no secret.
	So we know that states are interested in using things like social media.
	Well, it's going to be Larry Ellison and his company.
	I covered it last week.
	I forgot what they're called.
	Oracle.
	That's what they're called.
	They're the ones going to be managing the TikTok algorithm from now on.
	So now instead of it being Chinese-directed propaganda, it's going to be Israeli-directed propaganda.
	Yeah.
	And these algorithms give people tremendous power because basically what they are is something that's centrally controlled, not supervised, quite often private, that you can manipulate and change and promote whatever you want.
	And no one's really any the wiser how they work.
	Many of the people that work for the organizations themselves don't even necessarily understand exactly how they work.
	And so there's a lot of power being put in very few hands and that should make everyone very, very cautious.
	But it doesn't even necessarily need to be bots or algorithms, just the incentives placed upon people.
	So I've covered before slop accounts on social media.
	This was with Lord Miles and I was talking about a whole host of things.
	But basically the background of it is that Elon Musk basically democratized monetization and changed what the algorithm promotes on X. And what this did was unintentionally create a stronger incentive for engagement farming, lazy posts, sensationalism and outright misinformation.
	And that's not the kind that you hear from the mainstream media, but just people making up stuff so people click on it.
	Well he also then changed it so that it was interaction by other verified accounts that would generate revenue for you, advertising revenue.
	So it created this farm process where people could post something in a group chat and there would be these group chats of people, like dozens and dozens of people, who would post something and every single one of the other people in the chat is verified, comments on it, and then somebody else does the same thing, comments on it.
	So you don't actually need that much engagement, but if every single post that you're putting out has dozens and dozens of verified accounts posting replies underneath it, then they were actually farming advertiser money in that way.
	So it provided new whole ways for people to scam the system.
	Yeah, and there's always going to be these loopholes, but ideally these platforms, they're well-funded.
	They've got well-qualified people.
	They should have, you know, people working on how to be two steps ahead of lowering the quality of the platform with these fake posts for engagement and things like that.
	Is Elon still going to be changing the way the system works to display the country of origin?
	We'll be talking about that.
	Oh, okay, all right.
	So just so you know, I'm not, you know, having a go at other people or saying it out of jealousy.
	I've got two posts of my own that I'm going to complain about, just to be fair.
	You've been slot posting.
	I put this together in about 30 seconds.
	I was in the middle of cooking my dinner and I saw this annoying post from UN Women.
	Any job is 7 million views three days ago.
	I know.
	You're going to get a big payout from that one.
	65,000 likes.
	Took me 30 seconds.
	All I did was post a GIF.
	It was one of the first ones to come up.
	And just pointed out the fact that, you know, they say any job, but actually what women actually want to do is not really manual labor.
	It's normally office work.
	Which is just an observation based on workplace data.
	And I'm not even having a go.
	I'm not against women working or what have you.
	I don't really care.
	You can suffer with the rest of us as far as I'm concerned.
	I know.
	And this did really, really well.
	It was 30 seconds of my time.
	Pretty thoughtless.
	Nothing went into it.
	One of my most widely circulated posts.
	This is how it always happens.
	This is why you don't effort post.
	I wrote an article talking about political violence in this case in Ireland and how it's going to spiral.
	Spent hours and hours, you know, it was the continuity of hundreds of hours of thinking and working about politics.
	And compare this, hardly anything.
	So I do something really effortful.
	No one really cares.
	I do something half-assed.
	It's the most viewed post.
	So my point here isn't, you know, go read my article.
	My point is that there's a very strong incentive, thank you.
	A very strong incentive for people to just post lazy things that are pretty much meaningless.
	Like this, you know, whether it existed or not, this post, it doesn't really matter.
	It has no real influence on anything.
	It's not really any key observation.
	It's lazy.
	And I'm happy to say that.
	Yeah, don't follow Josh.
	Actually, you're very right about this.
	I mean, yes, it attracts a lot of attention, but it also makes an excellent point very briefly.
	It's bite-sized slop that people will forget they even saw five minutes after scrolling past it.
	Yeah.
	But that moment you do scroll up to it, you go, ha, and then you like it, and then you carry on with your.
	It's inane and pointless.
	It's not like the long form stuff that's actually deep analysis that's the most important.
	This is a mass platform.
	That's whatever can be snappy and catchy and attract the most amount of basically lowest common denominator stuff.
	And of course, this is in part human nature.
	So I'm not necessarily saying it's the platform's fault because it is also partly just what people want out of the platform.
	And another thing is this.
	So this is a satire account, but you wouldn't know it was satire unless you actually clicked on the profile.
	And this...
	You don't know it's satire, just...
	I saw people sharing this.
	I mean, 37 million views, over half a million likes, and people were falling for it and believing it.
	This was an IQ test.
	I saw people that I'm mutuals with on Twitter posting this and saying like she actually said it.
	This is an old joke.
	This is a very old joke and you see it and you go, huh, that's a funny joke.
	And then I scroll down and see more people posting it like she actually said it.
	Millie Bobby Brown on our side, question mark, and it's like, you idiot, you retard, you've got sub-70 IQ.
	But my point being is that you'd have to click on the profile or have common sense, which most people aren't going to do, to realize all content is satirical.
	You've been around since 2010, bloody hell.
	All this is doing is just incentivising people to make stuff up, people not realise it's satire, and then spread it very widely, and then they make lots of money from it.
	It says there, disclaimer, all content is satirical and not factual.
	Most people don't pay attention to that.
	Most people are morons.
	I know, and it's frustrating.
	Thank you for making the case against democracy.
	Always happy.
	So there are ways of also spotting people who are more inclined towards revenue generation than actually spreading the truth because they use this very handy mark of the devil, the slop siren.
	If a post has that siren on it, they're probably just out to engagement farm because of course the red colour studies show that it draws attention, it gets more engagement, they know this, they have no integrity, so they use these cheap tactics to get more engagement on their posts.
	And you can see this in what I'm calling the inevitable slop network.
	You're using inevitable for any reason?
	None at all.
	So you can see here there's a bit of a formula, slop alarm, breaking.
	Thousands of local patriots, they use the word patriot a lot by the way, march through Southampton demanding an end to illegal migration.
	And then there'll be another line that's short and snappy, like a slogan.
	Southampton says no more.
	And then there's another one here.
	Breaking.
	Arrest, of course, slop alarm and breaking.
	Arrests for offensive social media posts have surged under Labour, reaching over 30 per day in 2025.
	Britain is a communist state.
	And of course, this just seems to suggest that all of these accounts are run by the same person, which I think they are, because they post the same stories in the same sort of ways and with the same formula.
	And even if they're not, they're all copying each other.
	So it may as well be copyrighted.
	They might all be in the same group chat.
	Yep, yeah.
	But I think it's all just one person and they're doing this as a full-time job.
	We've got your number, Rajesh.
	And here's another one, slop alarm breaking.
	They're talking about Southampton again.
	And then it ends with that same slogan sentence.
	The British have had enough.
	And of course, this is not true.
	You know, it's just a load of slop meant to get engagement and the like.
	And it's nonsense.
	It's people just sharing stuff for engagement.
	For, look at it, look.
	Gets loads of attention.
	It's not really adding anything other than sharing a video, but there are other accounts that do it much better in a more tasteful way.
	But enough of this, because I've complained about it before.
	Here's another one as well.
	The same format.
	Slop alarm.
	Sadiq Khan is finished.
	Of course he's not.
	He's not finished.
	He could be Eternal Dictator of London.
	This is not good analysis.
	It's just a motive slop.
	And of course, all of these seem to be run by the same person because they all have exactly the same writing style, the same format.
	They're all AI-generated profile pictures.
	It's all low-brown nonsense.
	And all it's doing is just lowering the tone of politics and diluting quality analysis.
	Here's another one, classic example, where AI profile picture, sort of statuesque, flag.
	It's just, ugh, I'm sick of it.
	And then there are low information accounts as well, where it's basically just similar to my slot post that did really well, where it's just a sentence that adds nothing.
	New York went from never forget to this in two decades.
	As well.
	Again, it's just snappy.
	It's just snappy and to be fair you may still be able to get some information out of the picture that is being shared.
	So they're not as bad, like they're sharing something, but it's just drivel.
	It's low quality and things could be better and we could be enforcing a better quality of analysis.
	Libs of TikTok is another one where it's just engagement baiting.
	It's rubbish.
	But as you alluded to, the platform is testing new transparency features that will show which country an account is based in.
	I like that Tim Cast has specifically used the Indian.
	Because we know that lots of Indians are pretending to be based Westerners and running accounts like Inevitable West and that network, trying to share news and just sensationalizing it and not really understanding it, but just sloppy flying.
	One of them was going on about Oxford College.
	Like, okay.
	Yep, thank you for that.
	Not a term that we would use here.
	Oxford University.
	But yes, apparently it's employees' accounts and then being expanded potentially to the rest of the platform, which would be very interesting.
	Of course.
	That will be an upgrade.
	I'd be interested when they do this to see how many of them turn out to be Indian, yes, but also how many turn out to be Chinese, how many turn out to be Israeli.
	And a few Russians in there.
	Yeah, how many Russian as well.
	But of course, there are ways of circumventing this as well, because you can register for an account with fake details.
	And if they're, you know, a state asset or something rather than just grifting, they'll probably have the resources to do that.
	True, but also if they're trying to generate money from it, if it are just scam accounts, they'll need to hook it up to some kind of account that maybe will ask for verification.
	That's true.
	So it is promising, but there might be ways around it.
	It might not necessarily get state propaganda, but it'll get the sort of slop grifters.
	And here's another one, which is good.
	We found a significant bug in the X for you algorithm that resulted in users seeing far fewer posts from people that they follow.
	And lots of people I know were complaining about how these slop accounts, even though they don't follow them, were coming up constantly in the for you tab.
	And I've actually seen some of these slop accounts complaining since the algorithm has changed.
	Has the algorithm completely lost the plot?
	Because they were relying on people not following them to engage with their posts.
	Yes.
	Do you know what happened to me with the algorithm once?
	Like last month or the month before?
	I saw one random post come up on my 4U from black Twitter that seemed like it came from just a different dimension.
	So I clicked on it and I clicked on the person's account to be because it was something like it was literally like the tweet equivalent of that rat.
	And it had like 50 million views.
	Oh, it's answer that.
	Hundreds of thousands of likes.
	And I thought, is this what they do on black Twitter?
	So I clicked on the account and scrolled down it for a moment.
	It was like that over and over and over again.
	It's why they love reaction videos.
	Someone posting like, yeah, reactions to everything where she was just calling herself the C word.
	But as a term of endearment, I'm sorry, you're not Australian.
	You're not allowed to do that.
	That's like, you've got your words, we've got our words.
	All right, you're not allowed to do that.
	But then after that, after just like for less than five minutes, I just took a quick scroll and be like, this is a bizarro world.
	I click off it for the next three weeks, if I went on 4U, it was just black Twitter, black Twitter, black Twitter, black Twitter.
	And it was all the same post over and over and over again.
	I felt like doing a daily video.
	It was torture.
	It was.
	I don't often use the following tab because sometimes you miss stuff.
	But I just switched over to the following tab because I can't take this right now.
	But there is a a ray of hope.
	I had it pointed out to me when I was complaining by this gentleman here that there is a service that removes 90% of slop and it is called JeepBlock.
	And I'm not sponsored by them or anything.
	Is this real?
	It's real.
	It's a real service.
	I don't know anything about them, so I'm not advocating for them, but it's just to suggest that there are services that have now catered to blocking these people out because they are really, really annoying.
	And they are lowering the quality of the internet.
	And I find the name of this service in particular very funny.
	And there are also things like fake AI trying to hoover up engagement as well.
	My 4D chess conspiracy theory is that this is Indian.
	It's cornered the whole market.
	They're playing every side all at once.
	They're really annoying on the internet and they also serve up the only solution.
	That would be amazing.
	And I like to think that they are funneling money into your account for this.
	If only.
	Josh is clear.
	There are posts like this.
	Like, my name is Sophia.
	I'm from England.
	I'm single, 51, and have been battling alcohol addiction for 10 years.
	But also, no likes or follows because I'm not half naked.
	That's an AI face.
	It is an AI face, and so is this one.
	They're both the same.
	Oh, yeah, that's kind of creepy.
	They're the same person, in fact.
	And this is a trend I've discovered with the help of our former producer, John Wong, who helped put me onto this.
	that people who do these pencil drawings and describe themselves as artists, I mean...
	AI.
	AI, AI, AI, AI.
	It's all AI slot.
	It's amazing how her face changes in every picture she posts of herself.
	These aren't pencil drawings.
	These are AI generated.
	This is a fat neat is behind this account.
	And there are other ones like this as well.
	Here's another one.
	It's another drawing account.
	But no, they're just pretending to be people.
	And this one's even funnier because today is my 60th birthday.
	Okay, this is dead internet.
	This is dead internet, right?
	Okay, I'm wrong.
	There isn't even a fat neat behind this account.
	This is just a server let loose.
	This is a bot server let loose.
	That's Hannah Blake is not this person?
	Oh my god.
	At least if it was like an actual human being behind this, they wouldn't post such obvious obvious rubbish, right?
	I want to believe this.
	I want to imagine that this...
	I want to believe that this is actually the person behind the account and he accidentally posted his own picture under his Hannah Blake account.
	But also there's this one as well.
	I'm 81 years old.
	How engagement do these get?
	Like 15,000 views, almost 600 likes?
	Not massive, but some of them do well.
	I mean, that one's funny.
	But some of them get like hundreds of thousands.
	But I've just picked out these recent examples because they're funny.
	And there's more where this one got a lot of attention.
	What?
	50,000.
	What happened?
	I finally became a father from Sonia Sketches, of course, another headed baby on either end.
	No, it's two little babies held in the same arm.
	But obviously it's AI.
	Also, you know.
	I mean, I saw other AI-generated photos.
	Like there was a photo I saw earlier that was going around that was attempting to claim that it was pictures of like victims of the Holocaust being lined up in the trenches at Baba Yah, right?
	An event that we famously do not have any photos of them all being lined up in the ditches that were dug at Baba Yah.
	We don't have photos of that, but someone had AI generated it and it was getting spread around and people were like sharing it.
	Eventually it got community noted saying this is an AI picture.
	But it's ridiculous the kinds of things that people will spread.
	And this is another sketching account.
	More AI stuff.
	What is this?
	Like, come on.
	It's all AI nonsense.
	So there is some AI that I find hilarious.
	Like, even Wren fell for this one.
	And this is, I've watched this about several times, and I think it's hilarious.
	So pay attention to how the cat grabs the fish with its arm, how it runs.
	Pay attention, okay?
	That is not how cats run.
	And it's holding it with its running like a rabbit.
	It's ridiculous.
	But this is funny.
	Maybe the cat's where you're from.
	They're just not quite as advanced.
	They don't hold a fish in their paws.
	And then there's more obvious AI slop as well, which is just fun and silly.
	You're not.
	You're telling me this isn't real?
	Also, why would someone stand in front of the barrel of a firing gun?
	Also, what?
	Fair play.
	This is actually real.
	Exactly.
	Don't try and.
	Like, I can see it with my own eyes.
	Just because it's from an account called AI Slop does.
	I actually fell for this one at first.
	I was just like, okay, this could be real.
	There is a switch.
	Yes.
	And then.
	Oh my God.
	Have we caught that dog yet?
	I can't believe that golden retriever keeps on getting away with this.
	He's an illegal migrant, so he'll get away with it.
	The obvious point here is that for now, AI is easy to spot.
	And it can be funny, and it can show things that are genuinely amusing.
	But once it crosses that threshold to being indistinguishable, which probably isn't that far away, it's going to cause chaos on the internet, isn't it?
	We're going to see videos that could be real, that could be of real things, and we'll think, is this AI?
	So the magic of watching a video of a cat doing something silly or, you know, something happening in public that is unusual, all of a sudden they're going to lose their magic because we don't believe that they're real.
	So that's going to be saying Butlerian Jihad.
	Wait, what?
	The Butlerian Jihad, the sort of jihad against the AI and robots and all of that.
	However, it will make my court cases a lot easier to get away with when they play back clips of things I've said on the podcast.
	Yeah, that's AI.
	That's the market of just me saying slurs and insensitive things.
	And I'm just going to flood the zone.
	Your honor, I never can.
	That's AI.
	Wasn't that what you've been doing already?
	I know.
	I've been presaging AI a little bit by doing it myself, but he just wants to make sure the AI has a lot to work with.
	And there's also, of course, YouTube as well that's suffering the same sort of thing.
	Here's Veltgeist, who makes YouTube philosophy videos, I think, or history videos.
	I can't remember.
	But I have seen their videos before, and they are a human being that makes them.
	And they're complaining about how basically an AI-generated video is getting, what, 120,000 views.
	And, you know, obviously this is slop.
	Nietzsche debates Marcus Aurelius about stoic ways of living.
	Of course, they're not contemporaries of one another.
	And I mean it's at least an innovative use of AI, but it is AI.
	And ultimately, the way that LLMs work, if it's generating actual speech, is that if they've AI generated the conversation as well, all AI is doing is kind of using a random number generator to predict what words it would expect Nietzsche or Marcus Aurelius to say.
	It's not actually genuine.
	It's not actual expertise.
	It's not like you're channeling their actual spirits through this.
	It's not you could possibly learn something from it.
	No, of course not.
	And many of you might have noticed that searches on YouTube now tend to only really be relevant for the first four or five videos before becoming almost completely irrelevant to what you've searched for.
	Recommended videos are more likely to push things on you than what you're actually interested in.
	And I think it's actually much better when your homepage was your subscription page because you could curate entirely what you see.
	You can still click on your subscriptions to that.
	But it's made less convenient, which is how many of these things work.
	But I still use my subscriptions tab on YouTube.
	So do I. And I think it's better because it's not dictated to you by an algorithm that has its own agenda, basically, or at least the people behind it do.
	And it's not just YouTube either.
	Oh, wait, no, this one is.
	AI-generated YouTube channel uploaded nothing but videos of women being shot for some reason.
	So there's the weird, sinister AI things where, yeah, this channel was just uploading AI videos of women getting shot for whatever reason.
	Sort of a bit dark.
	I don't know why you would get AI to do that.
	But it gives people more power to churn out weird and gross things.
	Last week I did cover how an anti-white bias is built into a lot of these AI systems, particularly one, I think it was called Cloud.
	Claudia 4.5 was the one that was the worst for it.
	But every single one of them has some kind of preference for its own existence over human existence.
	I don't know if that's an intentional thing that's been built into it, but it comes across a little bit skynet to me.
	It is.
	That it's randomly generating videos of human women being shot.
	That's creepy.
	It is creepy.
	So there is this service on YouTube now that they're going to introduce to reduce doppelgangers and people using AI to steal other people's content and create fake versions.
	But as this article points out, you're going to have to give more information to Google, more personal information, for the protection from AI fakes in the first place.
	So everything's leading towards digital IDs one way or the other.
	It is, yeah.
	So there's this sinister sort of centralization.
	I mean, Tony Blair's been pushing for digital ID for a long time, and Tony Blair works with the Tony Blair Institute and Larry Ellison to develop AI tools for government as well.
	So it all tends to work together because technocracy has a particular logic that it follows.
	But it is quite concerning that your only defense against basically artificial intelligence plagiarism of your own work is to give all of your information over to Google.
	So if you want to succeed, basically, and not have your work stolen, give Google all of your personal info.
	It's kind of worrying.
	So other platforms have similar problems as well.
	I think this was Instagram.
	Influencer who went viral at Wimbledon is actually AI.
	I mean, it's pretty obvious from the picture, but this went viral apparently.
	Who cares?
	The thing is, when you ask an AI to generate a pretty white woman or a pretty women in general, there tends to be a very specific face that it always goes to.
	Which looks like that one.
	So you can recognize it.
	There's now accounts with 165,000 followers at the time of this article being published in July of 2025 that are entirely AI generated, which is weird.
	It's like the film Her, isn't it?
	Where AI is sort of taking on a life and personality of its own.
	Yeah, I've never watched it, but I can imagine.
	It's a good film, actually.
	I've heard.
	A bit uncomfortable, though.
	And there's this one as well.
	This is really dark.
	A creator developed leukemia, except she's an AI influencer in a healthcare marketing campaign.
	So they used AI to create a.
	This is a bit more obvious looking at that.
	But to create a fake leukemia patient to sell healthcare.
	This is.
	That's disgusting.
	It's not only disgusting, it's like the most scary dystopian thing possible.
	It's just like a drug company is going to hire AI now to create fake patients to sell people things that they might not need.
	This just reminds me of Blade Runner 2049.
	It does a little bit, yeah.
	And then, as well as that sort of thing, AIs also steal existing people's stuff.
	So this lady had a wedding photo stolen by an AI which passed it off as its own and posted it on social media, which is a bit scary.
	That'd be a bit of an invasion of privacy, wouldn't it?
	But my point being here is that once you're aware of what these things are, you're far better at spotting them.
	And you're able to figure out, okay, these things are eroding the quality of the internet.
	This is bad.
	I need to avoid this.
	Otherwise, what I'm going to destroy is quality, organic stuff on the internet.
	And that is to the detriment of everyone who uses it.
	All right, let's go through the last of the super chats and rumble rants.
	And then do we have any video comments, Samson?
	All right, so first, Slavic name I cannot pronounce says, my rumble rants fail, but I get charged money, $20 lost.
	I'm sorry to hear that.
	I don't know who you would get in touch with.
	Maybe speak to Rumble about that.
	Luke Stewart, I'm amazed you're not talking about Neuro Sama.
	That's AI slop.
	I'll admit I have a guilty pleasure enjoying the shorts for I don't know what that is.
	Sorry.
	Isn't Harry already AI?
	That is why he said beep, boop, boop.
	Sorry, I didn't understand that input command.
	Sigil Stone says, AI is the democratization of misinformation no longer is complete BS, the sole property of Hollywood and the government.
	You shouldn't believe what's on your screen.
	Anyway, that is right.
	It is just the screen.
	It's not real people behind there.
	The School Kid, even more horrifying is that eventually AI-generated content will be so indistinguishable from reality is that it will end up being admissible in court.
	I would hope by the time we reached that kind of threat that there would be safeguards in place, but you never know.
	JM Denton, don't have high hopes for the country alert system being what you hope.
	It was announced by their head of product, an actual blue sky poster with a history of horrid implementations.
	Great.
	Skullkid again, worst engagement bait accounts are the fake poll accounts.
	Donald Trump wants to deport all illegals.
	Do you support this?
	Yes or no?
	That's annoying as well.
	And that's a random name.
	Has a says, give women access to the internet, internet becomes gay, give Indians access to the internet, turns to shit.
	Fair.
	Let's go through the video comments.
	What message do you want to give to the far-right people?
	The message I want to give to the far-right people is we're here to take over your country.
	You can't stop us.
	You can try, but we're here to uphold Sharia law.
	And yeah, that's it.
	All right.
	Speaking of AI, I saw this video and it was claimed that this went on when the counter-protest to UKIP in Whitechapel went on.
	But there's such desync in what they're saying and how their lips are moving.
	It would be very surprising if the guy actually just did the whole uphold Sharia law as well.
	It seems designed to trigger Tommy Robinson fans.
	Yeah, and so I didn't include it in my coverage on Tuesday for that very reason, that it looked sort of fake.
	And it could just be that the guy doing it is a bit of a mong and couldn't sync the audio properly.
	Well, I think one of the things I'm going to start watching out for is a lot of the videos that you were showing, including that one potentially, are trying to mask the look of AI by having the video automatically be lower quality.
	So if it's nice and pixelated, you can't tell as easily.
	So I'm going to start watching out for that as well.
	Just anything that seems just too good to be true, too amazing and outside of the realm of possibility or too unlikely.
	Be very, very cat running away with a fish.
	That exists up here forever.
	You can believe what you want, Josh.
	I believe that that cat carried it in its arm like that and ran away like a rabbit.
	When we win, this will be children's shows.
	It's a pattern.
	Whoa, whoa, whoa.
	Already singing this to my daughter.
	It's a pattern.
	See, with American statistics like that, I wonder how many of the lighter-skinned ones will have just been noted down as white so that they can pad out the statistics because I know they like doing that.
	Yep.
	What are we doing?
	Written comments?
	Oh.
	Oh, no, Samson's doing something.
	I know it's AI.
	He made it in front of me.
	So, buy our AI slop because it's better than.
	Yeah.
	To be fair, Rory generates sometimes a general outline and then does a lot of artistic work on top of it.
	And most, if not all, of the artwork actually found in the magazine has been hand-drawn by him using digital tools.
	I've seen him do it.
	So there you go.
	That was a stupid question for Rory to want to ask when I know the answer.
	I know the answer.
	Anyway, we don't have much time for video for comments on the website.
	Let me move this.
	Go down here.
	Oh, there's quite a few noted down here.
	Can I reply to one?
	Lord Inquisitor Hector Rex says, Josh, have you been keeping up with the recent monkey news out of the US?
	Yes, I have.
	I'm on it.
	Don't worry.
	Around Christmas time is when you'll get your monkey news.
	Ah, there you go.
	So you can look forward to monkey news, but what you should actually be looking forward to, the premium quality stuff that you all pay for, is the Silent Hill discussion that will be going on in just half an hour with me and Samson kicking off the first episode of Journey to the East, a special spooky Halloween episode.
	And again, that's free for everybody.
	You don't have to be a subscriber on the website to access that.
	Future episodes will be premium, though.
	So bear that in mind that we are treating you this Halloween.
	And after that, six o'clock is the final webinar, which will be Stelios and Luca talking about ancient Greek virtue ethics.
	If you've got any questions for Stelios, any at all related to the course, don't just ask him what he had for breakfast this morning.
	He can't tell you.
	Related to the course, please tune in for that.
	And with that, that's all we've got time for.
	I'll see you all, hopefully, in about half an hour for the Silent Hill discussion.
	Thank you, Josh, for coming along.
	I hope your situation improves.
	And thank you, Firas, for coming on as well.
	And thank you for watching.
	Take care.
	Goodbye.

▲