The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1286

Oct. 31, 2025 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:30:40

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1286

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters episode 1286.
	I'm joined by Luca, by Nick, and making a special guest Halloween appearance.
	We also have Tony Blair, the Dark Lord himself.
	As you can see, this actually isn't his Halloween costume.
	This is what he looks like without the makeup.
	Yeah, thanks, Jamie.
	Who sent all of this in?
	He sent in this photo of Tony Blair next to an engulfing fireball.
	Tony Blair's book, A Journey.
	Cheers, not reading it.
	And also this actual framed signed photo of Tony Blair.
	I think you might have mistaken our P.O. box for AAs.
	He will want that map.
	We will keep a hold of these for when he next comes into the office because I'm sure he'll really appreciate it.
	But frankly, I don't want them.
	And I've dressed as much like him as possible in order to honor him.
	Yeah, no tie.
	He doesn't have a tie in that one, not in the journey one, which I base my look on.
	Yeah, base everything on, really.
	Of course.
	It's my journey.
	Based your journey.
	Other people have Ryan Gosling.
	Tony Blair is literally you.
	Yeah, if I start going, look, I just think I'm doing a little laugh, that little laugh, incredulous laugh, then you'll know I've really.
	Jamie's also the guy who sent in the signed Enoch Powell book along with the other books as well.
	So he's kind of giving us a heaven and hell thing.
	Yeah, they definitely bounce out.
	He's literally mad.
	I was just amazed at those books.
	Powell used to have one policy.
	I've written an entire book.
	It took me about an hour this morning.
	And he did one policy.
	He's like, I've written 3,000 pages.
	It's like, did you have to write all that, Enoch?
	As we said before, we got on a translated from the original Greek that he wrote for no reason.
	I wrote it in Greek and I've translated myself.
	Sorry.
	Yes, so that's the announcement.
	So thanks, Jamie.
	Keep sending us in weird little knickknacks that you find, I suppose.
	More Enoch Powell would be good.
	Tony Blair less so.
	We're going to talk today about the most dangerous man in America, not Tony Blair.
	We're going to talk about the ultimate farce, possibly Tony Blair, and how Tolkien was very based.
	Very anti-Tony Blair.
	Very anti-Tony Blair.
	We've kind of talked about the Tolkien stuff, but this will be a different spin on it.
	It will.
	With an entirely different panel.
	Before we get into it, though, we've had one Rumble rant already.
	Harry, watch out.
	There's a spooky vampire next to you.
	Happy Halloween, lads.
	And that's between me and Nick.
	I think that's Tony Blair I wonder if this no it couldn't be, I was hoping I was wondering if it was like an Oscar Wilde situation where perhaps his actual youth and spirit is going into this.
	But it's too...
	No, that wouldn't work.
	Maybe.
	Probably.
	Anyway, talk to us, Nick.
	Get off your phone.
	I've got to go first again.
	No, no, no, I'm just loading up Lotus Hits, actually.
	We're going to get some juicy.
	I'm watching myself live.
	We're going to get some juicy Nick on Nick, actually.
	This is going to be pretty juicy.
	It's going to be pretty tasty and hopefully okay for YouTube because we're talking.
	Saucy?
	Saucy as well.
	We're talking about the most dangerous man in America.
	But who is it?
	Is it Tucker Carlson or Nick Fuentes?
	Because the right, or parts of the right, some people might call him the Zionist right.
	They might call him the Neocon Rite.
	Con Inc.
	They're going absolutely mental.
	Boring, right?
	Could do.
	They're trying to cancel Tucker Carlson.
	They seem to be going at him more than Fuentes, but it's because he had Fuentes on his show.
	So we're going to break this down.
	And this kind of new, it's not a new divide, but it's reached a new level.
	And just full cards on the table.
	I'm pretty neutral on Israel.
	How neutral?
	Well, I'm mates with Leo Curse, and I still get on with Nima Parvini.
	That's how I'd put it.
	Right.
	One of the ultimate faith sitters.
	When they were talking about the sensible centrist, they were talking about that.
	Well, I don't know.
	What do you think?
	That's what I'm like on the issue.
	I'm kind of, because I'm English and it's in the desert somewhere.
	You know, how neutral is that?
	Leo is literally kissing the wall as we speak.
	But if you ever see Nima kissing the wall.
	He's doing more than just kiss it.
	Right.
	If you see Nima kissing the wall, it's AI or Moss had a brainwashed name.
	That's the only option.
	So my view is, but my full cards on the table, on the Tucker thing, I am slightly biased for Tucker because I like Tucker and I'm pro-free speech.
	And the people cancelling him, it's not really an existing bias.
	It's more just I'm looking at their behavior and going, I'm not sure this is the best behavior.
	But, and on Fuentes, he is very talented and funny, but he does, of course, have some abhorrent views.
	He thinks Game of Thrones is better than Lord of the Rings.
	You can't have that kind of view in a society.
	It just won't work.
	So we do, though.
	He is controversial.
	So that's just my four cards on the table.
	So, but this segment is about the response.
	So, Tucker had Nick on.
	It's not so much about the content.
	It's more about the.
	Oh, can I get the math?
	It's more about the.
	Can you?
	I have to ask nicely.
	I'll sorry, I have to ask.
	That's totally blair.
	You have to tell me it's inevitable.
	The mouse is inevitable.
	Let me just, if I can find this and not be too much of a boomer.
	Basically, I'm not going to focus too much on the content.
	This is the only bit you need to watch.
	But I'm always shy.
	I think I'm just too old or something.
	I'm like, why is anyone married?
	You tell me, why aren't people married?
	Well, I mean, honestly, it's the women.
	We missed the best bit of that.
	Have another go.
	We'll try again.
	This isn't my fault.
	People are, you are boomers.
	That's not my fault.
	That is not my fault.
	That Elgato signal thing was not me.
	I'm sorry I called you gay, by the way.
	But I'm always.
	I think I'm just too old or something.
	I'm like, what?
	Why is anyone married?
	You tell me, why aren't people married?
	Well, I mean, honestly, it's the women.
	Right.
	So that was the best clip from the whole thing.
	And that somehow has got 1.1 million views on my Twitter.
	But that's all you need to know for the content.
	It's a good clip.
	It's a good clip.
	I cropped it myself.
	Do make an effort.
	But really, it's more about the response.
	So some impressive work.
	Thank you very much.
	I did watch the whole thing.
	At least five minutes.
	The whole thing was good.
	You know, it was a backstory about Nick.
	It was a bit of stuff.
	They agreed on the OnlyFans should whoever's running it should be put in jail.
	And they agreed on they don't like Christian Zionists and they disagreed on some other things.
	But the attacks on Tucker have been brutal.
	So this person says Tucker's father is crying in heaven.
	He's rolling in his grave.
	Tucker waited until he died this past year to destroy his father's legacy.
	His father was an American patriot.
	His father was a Christian Zionist.
	His father led, I don't know what that means, but anyway, Tucker's a traitor to his father's name.
	He said Christians have a brain virus.
	So they're all trying to attack him and saying.
	Who's this person and what authority do they have to say all of this?
	I don't even know.
	It's just one of the most brutal attacks because Tucker said his least favorite people were Christian Zionists.
	So people have been really zoning in on that and saying, oh, he's betraying the memory of Charlie Kirk, which is.
	Well, because his dad was a CIA agent.
	He's betraying the good work of the CIA.
	I don't know.
	Because she's saying his father was a Christian Zionist.
	Anyway, Josh Hammer, the great Charlie Kirk, is rolling in his grave right now, simply despicable.
	So that's just simply the fact that Tucker had Fuentes on means that Charlie Kirk's rolling in his grave and it's despicable.
	I don't know.
	I'm not persuaded by that.
	But Fuentes does point out that Mr. Hammer here has said in the past that Europe will never change.
	Due hatred is inherent in its collective DNA.
	Seems quite an extreme view in itself and a fairly sort of racialist view because it's saying it's right in your DNA and it's collective.
	So, you know, maybe not the best authority to listen to, possibly.
	I don't trust that Josh Hammer has mine or anybody else's except his own best interests in mind.
	That seems reasonable from what we know.
	And he did a whole mail piece which was paywall, so I didn't link to the piece.
	But he said in the piece Hammer did about Tucker, the fox, meaning Tucker, is now comfortably ensconced, ensconced in the hen house.
	And unless the fox is neutralized, the victim could be the entire extant GOP coalition itself.
	So he's saying Tucker should be neutralized, and people have taken offense to this, saying, why are you using that kind of language?
	Doesn't seem great.
	Hammer maintains he just means it in a completely innocent sense to make neutral cause to undergo neutralization to make something ineffective.
	You've got the mouse down here.
	Just move it to the right.
	There you go.
	Mate, Leo can even do it himself.
	So it's all levels.
	So he's saying it's completely innocent.
	Look at that.
	It is just normal usage.
	But then Dave Smith points out, he actually cropped out the third definition, which you can check on dictionary.com.
	And if you do go on dictionary.com and you look for the third definition, you find it is military to put out of action or make incapable of action to neutralize an enemy position.
	So that's people saying I should use that kind of language immediately after Charlie Kirk.
	I don't know if he meant it or not in that way, but you get the idea.
	Whitlock's not buying a hammer's thing.
	He says you start an article calling Tucker Carlson the most dangerous man in America and close the same article saying he needs to be neutralized.
	For me, it's the threat that Tucker Carlson is obviously just such a seismically influential person that they're afraid of him alone.
	Yeah.
	Regardless of any coalition he might build around him.
	Definitely.
	And the point of this is they're going very hard at Tucker anyway.
	And Dinesh actually went as far in this kind of platforming debate of posting texts from Charlie Kirk, which I think is wrong because he's dead.
	He says, I'm posting two exchanges with Charlie Kirk where he calls Nick Fuentes Vermin.
	Are we playing the Charlie Kirk football now?
	Candace Owens and other people post texts of his where he's saying, like, oh, I might have to drop off the pro-Israel train.
	And Dinesh D'Souza's doing the other thing, posting texts where he's calling him Fuentes Vermin.
	Yeah.
	Is that just what Charlie Kirk is now?
	He's a guy who you invoke to try and score points on your side.
	Exactly.
	And people said he was a martyr.
	He's almost become like a religious figure.
	You know, you will look at this part of the Bible to justify what I did.
	Someone else is saying, look at this part.
	And the same with any religious text.
	He's almost become that.
	You go to him to justify your own side, as you say.
	And I think it's pretty wrong to do that.
	But yeah, so he called Nick Vermin, insists that my debating him, Dinesh is debating him and defeating his arguments, nevertheless amplifies him.
	One can only imagine what Charlie would say about Tucker's butt-lucking interview with Fuentes.
	Dinesh D'Souza recently did a debate with Funtes.
	Yeah, he addresses that.
	He says it's different.
	We'll address that in a sec.
	So yeah, you go.
	They were very polite to one another.
	I know.
	And Fuentes, Kirk said, you have no idea the damage you did by talking to him, meaning Fuentes, you're making him even bigger.
	And he attacked Dinesh for that debate.
	Now, Fuentes' response to this is quite interesting.
	So I'll just play a little bit of it.
	He's saying, actually, who was the more dangerous, him or the left?
	Charlie Kirk says about me and Dinesh D'Souza's debate, this was a massive mistake that you did this.
	He's Vermin, and you just gave him one of the biggest boosts of his career.
	This is about me.
	Charlie says, you have no idea the damage you did by talking to him and complimenting him.
	You are making him even bigger.
	We've been fighting this guy for six years.
	And you are the first mainstream voice to debate and give him a compliment, which then makes him bigger and more powerful.
	That's Charlie Kirk.
	Which is very interesting.
	Because the legacy of Charlie Kirk is open discussion, QA.
	They'll debate anybody.
	That's what makes America great.
	Free speech.
	Not for me.
	For the left.
	Free speech and debate and engagement in a marketplace of ideas for the left.
	The left, which shot him in the face and then celebrated it.
	Is there not a lesson in this?
	All right.
	And so that whole video is very good, but I think Charlie Kirkwood is probably he just points out the left are the far more dangerous ones.
	And yet, don't we see destiny on Jordan Peterson's show and all this?
	It's true, they will platform the left, but what you can't ever do is platform Fuentes.
	And yet, who's actually the more dangerous and who actually should be accepted in society?
	Why is it the people that are actually killing people now?
	So I think it's a fairly reasonable point.
	And Dinesh responded, fascinating response from Nick Fuentes.
	I've never agreed with the strategy of suppression.
	My objective in debating him was to give his ideas a fair hearing.
	My critique of Tucker's interview was that it involved no real criticism.
	Tucker shamelessly played cheerleader for Nick.
	So he claims it's about the tone of it.
	You can debate him as long as you sort of challenge him.
	And on Nick's thing about how they are more than welcome to debate the left and open up to the left, I think it's because ultimately a lot of the right-wing conservatism boils back down to a kind of civic national liberalism, right?
	And on that, ultimately, the end goal to civic national liberalism and a kind of leftism could be seen as the striving towards a Karl Popperian, open society-style governance model, whether they realise it or not.
	And this is something that Burnham points out.
	This is something that Richard Pipes points out in his history of the Soviet Union and the Russian Revolution, is that when you are operating on essentially the same basis or towards similar goals and you have a similar metaphysic underpinning everything, those people on the center right in America see the leftists as liberals who've just gone a little bit too far.
	They've just gone a little bit off track and we can bring them back on track.
	Whereas the right, people like Fuentes, who actually believe in things like hierarchy, a greater spirituality, you know, because he's a Catholic and everything, and believe that there is basis of things like race.
	They see them as the complete opposite of them and something that would be dangerous and oppositional to their ultimate goals.
	Yeah, they seem to instinctively invoke the friend enemy against him far more than against a destiny type to the point where Kirk, in a private message, to be fair, calls Fuentes Vermin.
	But Peterson, in a public tweet, called Fuentes a rat, which is pretty extreme when he's meant to be helping young men.
	I know he's struggling at the moment and he's ill, but he did call him a rat.
	And where he had Destiny on his show, so it's completely different treatment.
	Destiny, who is objectively a morally worse person than Nick Fuentes.
	No matter what outrageous shock dock stuff that Nick Fuentes has said in the past, he's never gone as far as to celebrate his political rivals being murdered or to try and encourage that to happen like Destiny has.
	Right, I think that's fair.
	But yes, and Seth Dylan here is trying to make a similar distinction to Dinesh and say, well, it's about how you do it.
	So you can have him on your show as long as you do it basically how Seth Dylan wants.
	Well, let me just be clear about where I'm coming from on this, because a lot of people have tried to misconstrue and dishonestly portray me as being in favor of censorship, which, you know, no one's more against censorship than I am.
	I fought for free speech every step of the way.
	I fought for free speech, not just for myself and for my own company, but for people who I disagree with, people who I think have terrible ideas, people who, you know, a lot of people would like to see censored.
	I have gone on record saying I would like to see their voices in the public square because, you know, no one should be able to decide what you're allowed to say and what you're not allowed to say.
	As long as your speech is lawful, you should be allowed to talk in the public square.
	And so, you know, I was one of the first ones and one of the most vocal ones who was coming out in favor of Nick Fuentes being restored on Twitter when he was suspended.
	And I did that for a reason.
	It was on principle.
	It's not because I like what he has to say.
	It's because I love that he has the right to say it.
	And so, you know, defending that right is very important to me.
	And so it's not a matter of, you know, should he be allowed to speak?
	Of course he should.
	You know, sit down with him, have an interview with him, have a conversation with him.
	That's fine.
	But challenge and confront the things that he says.
	You know, if you disagree with his ideas, if you think that he's got some bad ideas or he has some beliefs that you don't share, challenge him on that.
	Confront him on that.
	That's how, you know, that's how the marketplace of ideas really works is when you have the bad ideas and the good ideas come together and they clash.
	And so if you're not willing to do that, if you're just having people on and saying, you know, for the sake of free speech, I'm going to have this conversation, but I'm not going to challenge them.
	In that case, all you're really doing is normalizing or mainstreaming more radical and extreme ideas without them getting the pushback and the confrontation that they deserve.
	And the only assumption that we can, the only conclusion that we can draw from that is that you agree with those ideas if you're not willing to challenge them.
	And so if you don't want to be mistaken for holding those views yourself, then you should take that opportunity when you have it.
	Be the free speech advocate who gives them a voice, but then use your own speech to push back on that voice when you disagree with it.
	All right.
	Sounds like Seth should do that then.
	If he's the exemplar for how to conduct an interview to push back, you have him on Seth and you push back until your heart's content, scrutinizing.
	Well, the problem is, it's a lot easier to say that than to do it.
	When you're actually speaking to somebody in person, it's a lot more difficult to potentially be rude and push back at them, especially because the way it manifests in internet debate in particular, when you behave like that, is it often manifests into bad faith debate tactics style arguments, right?
	The other problem is, the reason that I don't think he wants to do it is that, yeah, you can push back against ideas, but what if he convinces you?
	What if the strength of his arguments and logic and evidence actually ends up convincing you?
	And so that's one of the reasons I think they want to sequester.
	Well, it's obviously the reason they want to sequester and censor Nick Fuentes and keep him out of the public eye is that ultimately a lot of the things that he says can be convincing and can be backed up with evidence.
	And so they don't want to have people exposed to it and they don't necessarily want to expose themselves to it.
	Because it's very, very easy to take clips of Nick out of context when he's interacting with the super chatters, which is where most of the objectionable stuff that he says comes from.
	Because he hates the super chatters and he finds them very annoying and he doesn't like the questions that they ask.
	But if you actually watch his shows and you mainly focus on the actual content that comes before the super chats, where most of the time he's tired and bored and a bit frustrated with his audience, then it's a lot more reasonable and there's a lot less to object to.
	Yeah, I think that's some really good points.
	It's a couple of things that bothered me, even though it sounded reasonable enough from Seth Dillon's.
	One is he wants to dictate Tucker's content and he's a much greater figure.
	So it's sort of a bit like, why doesn't Tucker just do the interview he wants?
	How about that?
	But the other thing is, you said the arguments.
	He doesn't really make the argument.
	I see Seth Dylan a lot not making the arguments, but saying we should make the arguments and mainly just trying to shut people down while saying, well, you've just got to push back.
	It's like, why don't you make the arguments then?
	Just make the arguments in your tweets.
	Just make the argument, make it there, and then we can compare the argument.
	But like you say, is that what he really wants?
	And an example here is he uses, he does something here, which is basically guilt by association, which I think is a lefty thing to do.
	I mean, I think of Sam Harris once speaking to Douglas Murray, and he said to him, Well, you know, you shouldn't have spoken.
	This is public on a podcast.
	He said, you shouldn't have spoken to Stefan Molyneux because he spoke to someone else.
	It might have been someone like Jared Taylor.
	And Douglas Murray said, well, I just speak to people and they seem like, do we have to do this guilt by association game?
	It just seems a bit lame.
	Well, and Douglas Murray's defense as well, at least he actually went and had the debate with Dave Smith.
	He actually just went and had the thing.
	Although, when you want to talk about pushing back, that was an example of what I was saying a moment ago, which is that if you go into the discussion with the pure intent only of pushing back without actually discussing the arguments, you will come across as unfair, you will come across as argumentative, and you will begin arguing in bad faith.
	Yeah, which is something that Murray did in that debate.
	But again, you know what?
	Fair play.
	I'll give him the credit for having gone on in the first place.
	Yeah.
	Although, yeah, it was similar in just this whole argument was you shouldn't really have a voice.
	You're not as legitimate as me, was basically the whole thing, which is what these guys are saying.
	Seth Dylan.
	Tucker wouldn't be censoring anyone by declining to have them on his show, just as Turning Point USA wouldn't be censoring Tucker if they stopped inviting him to events.
	Such platforms are not the public square.
	None of us are entitled to them.
	So it's not a matter of censorship, but responsibility and discernment.
	Who you talk to and how you talk to them matters.
	So he's trying to get Tucker Council from Turning Point, and he's saying guilt by association.
	So I find it a little bit lame.
	And he says again here, the problem isn't platforming, it's promotion.
	This is some new distinction I've never heard of.
	You can share your platform if you're fortunate enough to have one with anyone, but not everyone should be promoted from it.
	Some people should only be offered a platform for the purpose of exposure and repudiation.
	Isn't this basically leftist argument?
	Yeah, I think so.
	They should only be offered it if you're going to ambush them.
	Freedom of speech, not freedom of reach, is essentially what he is saying here.
	Exactly.
	And repudiation literally means refuse to accept, reject, or deny the truth or validity of a check.
	So just double check.
	So what's the difference between that and not having them on?
	You were saying only have them on to repudiate and say that they're telling lies.
	So then why even have them?
	Tucker just wants to have them on and have the genuine conversation and see what the truth is.
	He's like, so no, no, you can have them on, but only if you're having them on to set them up and dunk on them.
	This is Maoist struggle session right here.
	The only reason to have them on is to have them sit silently in the corner while you try and shame them.
	That's like literally Maoist struggle sessions.
	Okay, that's a terrible idea.
	That's a good point because Lauren Chen says this is what it actually sounds like to be woke right, by the way.
	Fair point.
	You know, all this woke right stuff.
	Everyone call each other woke right.
	That is more woke right than the people that get called woke right.
	I am HO.
	And George mocks it here.
	If you listen to this interesting conversation between two American citizens, you are literally worse than Satan.
	Not only should your voice be taken away, you should be fired from your job and not allowed to earn or spend money for the rest of your life.
	And that is kind of where it is.
	I do like George.
	Funny, innit?
	And that's comics.
	He is somebody who probably doesn't agree with everything that Nick says, but he's not going to try and call for him to be deplatformed.
	And he's going to give him a fair shot as well.
	Yeah.
	And that's the kind of example that Seth Dylan should be setting if he wants to live up to what he's saying.
	Could call it America.
	Cernovich's quite similarly balanced.
	None of the people screaming about Tucker Castle and have an objective, any objective moral standards.
	Reed Hoffman goes on the all-in podcast and Joe Lonsdale show, and that's fine.
	Hoffman is total scum.
	An Epstein associate and recruiter also funded Lawfare against Trump.
	So it is true that it's certain people that you can't have.
	And you sort of look at others and go, hang on, why them though?
	Cassandra, who's also cool and follows me, which is my sole criterion.
	It's funny that the Israel right, who most people have never heard of, Seth Dylan, Josh Hammer, Will Chambling, etc.
	Will Chamberlo follows me as well, so he's all right.
	Think they can still gatekeep figures like Tucker and Nick.
	Both of them are pretty much household names.
	This isn't 2015.
	What you're going to do, keep them off Fox News and podcasts smaller than theirs, lol.
	Gatekeeping isn't what it used to be, which I think is a fair point.
	That's a good point, actually.
	Yeah, Tucker and Nick both have much bigger audiences than these guys.
	No one actually knows who Josh Hammer is except for when he attacks Tucker and Nick.
	And Glenn Greenwal points out they still have Ben Shapiro and CBS News.
	And he actually looks at the Ben Shapiro monthly gain subscribers.
	Flatlined brutally this year.
	What caused that?
	Yeah, interesting, isn't it?
	And there's another one which is for monthly gained views for Shapiro.
	Very, very similar.
	Doing well back in 23, 25, not so much.
	Which I think is a fair point.
	And then this one as well, similar point about Josh Hammer on a podcast nine hours ago, 240 views.
	One like, this is a guy who thinks he gets to tell the American right who they should listen to, and that Tucker Castle should be neutralized.
	So yeah, it's a fair point.
	Like, why is it up to them?
	I think that is reasonable.
	Being very objective.
	Orin McIntyre quotes Seth Dylan.
	It's not platforming, it's promotion.
	It isn't a friend-enemy distinction.
	It's healthy gatekeeping.
	The tortured attempts to redefine terms is sad, but ultimately it's good that we got here.
	We're all political realists now.
	Everyone has discarded the pretense of classical liberalism and the marketplace of ideas.
	Elite theory for the win.
	He's saying, that's kind of a good point.
	Yeah, that's a great point from Aaron.
	He's saying they're doing the same, but they're doing it with this disingenuous.
	Well, they've got double speak.
	They've got their own double speak.
	No, no, no.
	I'm just doing healthy gatekeeping, says James Lindsay.
	I hate that.
	I hate Schmidt, by the way.
	Don't read Schmidt.
	Yeah, it's just a marketplace of ideas, but his ideas are bad and you shouldn't have them on.
	Or if you do, you should challenge them.
	And my theory there is that their side is basically the one in more power or has been.
	Whereas the Fuentes side, they want to scream as loud as possible.
	And they're actually just saying what they think very openly, like it or hate it, because they're saying America first, it's not about Israel, you know, and they're trying to get attention.
	Whereas the one that's in power tends to be more obscure, tends to be more oblique the way they go about things.
	Notice Kirstan when Donald Trump's around and says, oh, we've got a lot of tradition of free speech.
	He doesn't say, oh, I'm basically a tyrant who's against his feet, because it sounds bad.
	So the ones who have a bit more power at the moment, they can't just come out and make their argument, which is, and it's also a harder argument to make, I would say, that you should give Israel special treatment.
	It's probably a hard one.
	It is when your entire campaign slogan is an absolute term like America first.
	Yeah.
	Apart from one country.
	Well, I mean, for many countries as well who do prioritize foreign nations over their own, it would be a lot easier to make the argument that maybe we should help out other foreign nations if those foreign nations weren't doing better than us and our domestic situation weren't so obviously terrible and getting worse.
	Right.
	That's another good point.
	And notice, by the way, the left are kind of absent.
	I don't want to do too long, but notice the left are kind of absent from all this.
	It's just the sort of neocon right.
	It's fascinating.
	Like the left are just letting it happen because it's anti-Israel.
	So they're like, let him cook.
	They're not criticizing Fuentes.
	They haven't criticized Tucker.
	In fact, Anna Kasparian is the latest fan of Nick Fuentes.
	Listen to this.
	I do think that having these types of conversations are still worth it because we get a little bit of insight into not only who Fuentes is, but the experiences he had with conservative organizations trying to groom him for their own purposes and then rejecting him and attempting to bury him the second he asks questions that they deem to be inappropriate, which actually happen to be very appropriate.
	So I don't know what to make about Nick Fuentes.
	What I do know is, regardless of how much you want him to go away, he's not going away.
	This guy had 300,000 people watching one of his live streams recently.
	He's blowing up.
	And if you want to know why he's blowing up, look no further than our government's fealty to a foreign government that's currently carrying out atrocities with our resources.
	If you think my commentary about what Israel's been, what Israel has been up to in the Middle East is what is leading to anti-Semitism in the country, how about maybe consider the actions of the Israeli government?
	Because believe it or not, people around the world do not rejoice in the endless imagery of children with their limbs blown off or parents picking up their children's body parts and putting them in plastic bags in Gaza.
	People see that and they get angry.
	I do.
	That's the new alliance, Kasparian and Fuentes against the sort of neo-con right.
	They're going to get married.
	Yeah, it's inevitable.
	It's inevitable.
	So I don't want to do too long, but my last question is: who will win this debate?
	So the Heritage Foundation has scrubbed references to Tucker Carlson from their network.
	This is what came out.
	And Dinesh, thinking he's winning there, says, and so it begins.
	But actually.
	I think that's the important part to point out here.
	When you say, well, all of these people have smaller podcasts.
	All of these people are losing influence with the mainstream public.
	A lot of these people still have a lot of influence within the actual institutions.
	Right.
	That's the question.
	And they have the ear of the elites who, like you say, when they're actually doing things, when they work behind the scenes, you don't see them publicly.
	They are not broadcasting everything to the public the way that we have to.
	And so if these people, they're not getting through to anybody on the ground.
	But if they're all on the same page within the elite, then does it matter?
	And that was actually my conclusion.
	I think the American First Side is winning the public debate, but doesn't necessarily mean the administration will go along with it, which is or any given administration, which is a key question.
	But here, Dinesh thinks he's won, but because the Heritage Foundation has scrubbed references to Tucker Carlson, but then they clarify.
	We won't play it, we don't have time.
	But he clarifies at some length they haven't done that.
	Kevin Roberts says, no, no, I'm totally backing Tucker.
	And he also says, he says that US should only support Israel if it's in their interest, like any foreign country.
	He says Christians can critique the state of Israel without it being anti-Semitic, though he does condemn anti-Semitism.
	And he just completely backs Tucker.
	So that backfired for Dinesh, and he actually is not canceled Tucker.
	And another guy here, Brad Plumbo, says Nick Fuentes won.
	Dinesh says Nick hasn't won.
	He isn't moving into the mainstream.
	Tucker is moving out of it.
	The fabled years-long effort you invoke is all nonsense.
	You always had issues with the conservative right.
	They have nothing to do with anti-Semitism.
	So he basically denies it that Nick has won.
	Who's the mainstream in this scenario, though?
	Fox News and CNN with their dwindling numbers or Tucker with his 16.5 million followers on X.
	Yeah, it's the meme isn't it?
	Look at me.
	I'm the mainstream now with that old Rogan Captain Phillips me.
	Hernani has called it for Fuentes.
	He says, man, this is big.
	Heritage Foundation has completely dropped any talk of Israel being an ally of shared values or anything like that.
	It's just any other country.
	You only work with it's in America's interest, refuses to denounce Tucker.
	As I said, that was all in that video.
	I told you the Groipas were winning.
	Congratulations to Nick Fuentes, the most effective conservative activist of a generation.
	But then he says, Jewish friends, you need to rethink the conservative movement.
	But he does say this seems to be a victory for Fuentes.
	Liam McCollum points out Tucker Carlson is anti-Buckley, a reference to, of course, William F. Buckley, who was accused of gatekeeping on the right with National Review, and it annoyed the likes of Paul Gottfried, who felt the paleo con right were kept out of things by William Buckley, and that was his function essentially.
	And Liam here says he's reversing the National Review purge on the right, accepting the new media moment we're in, and acknowledging the reality that the right has changed dramatically and certain people are here to stay.
	And he backs it up here.
	Someone says to him, why are you backing Nick Fuentes?
	He's awful.
	He says, well, he's not going anywhere, regardless of what you think.
	They tried to unperson him, Daily Wire at Con Inc., but it didn't work.
	I think that's a compelling case.
	This classic tweet from Ben Shapiro, which Nick referenced on the show with Tucker, Nick Fentes was 18 years old, and Shapiro said, accusing any American Jew who is pro-Israel of being an Israel First is a pure form of anti-Semitism, dunked on this 18-year-old.
	And someone says, thanks for creating Groiper, saying that you really, this is his origin story.
	Well, that is the origin story, isn't it?
	That Nick tells on these sorts of podcasts.
	I've only heard it a little bit, but from what I understand, he was part of these conservative groups within his universities, noticed that there was an overwhelming focus on Israel issues rather than domestic America issues, which he took issue with because the movement was supposed to be America first.
	And then he starts being public about it.
	And then Ben Shapiro and everybody else dogpiles on him, calls him an anti-Semite, tries to get him cancelled, tries to get him removed from his university.
	At which point he decides, well, I clearly am onto something here.
	Yeah, and as he tells it, Cassie Dylan basically says to him, you don't want to go near that Israel stuff.
	She's shared text messages recently or DMs saying, no, no, it's not as he says it.
	He exaggerates, he distorts.
	But yeah, and his certainly in his story, it's exactly that.
	He was asking just normal questions.
	Oh, why are they all attacking me?
	This is weird.
	I must be onto something.
	But also, the classic thing, you're radicalizing him further.
	Why did you do that approach?
	If you did a different approach, you could have welcomed him in.
	He could have contained it.
	Yeah, exactly.
	But they went too hard against him and created, in their view, I suppose, a monster.
	I'm staying neutral.
	But as this person says, Nick Fundes, after being ostracized by Ben Shabur 18, betrayed by friends, fired, banned from every platform, having his bank account frozen, put on a no-fly list, and surviving an assassination attempt only to become the most influential polit, one of the most influential political figures in America.
	Hard to disagree with all that did happen to him.
	Couldn't get an Uber, Frank out frozen, couldn't get a plane.
	Guy came to his house to kill him.
	He'd kill several people that night.
	So he's been through a lot, but somehow he's ended up here.
	And as Tucker says here, does this mean he's won?
	I mean, and Ben Shapiro seems irrelevant to me now.
	Now, but back then, I guess that's true.
	So maybe you won.
	Oh, certainly.
	So Nick certainly thinks he's won.
	Tucker says he's won.
	Hanania thinks he's won.
	Cernovich, just for some balance, he has a more balanced take.
	He's quoting JD Vance, who was asked a question about Israel at a turning point event.
	And he says, JD's answer was perfect for the times.
	In the reality of politics, Republicans won't win any new votes by being anti-Israel and would lose some.
	But the pro-Israel side has to start acting like an ally rather than entitled brat yelling at us and treating us badly.
	I think there's something in that.
	Whatever you think of the arguments, the way they've gone about it, trying to cancel Tucker, this beloved figure, and just saying, shut up, you're evil.
	You shouldn't have Nick.
	It's like, people love Tucker.
	He's incredibly likable.
	He's like the nation's uncle or something.
	And then you're attacking him like this.
	It's just not a good strategy.
	So that's why I say, kind of like Harry was saying, my personal belief is that the public opinion seems to be siding with the American First Side.
	They actually have probably a better argument because unless you believe in that biblical precedent for sort of Israel's destiny, which is quite niche, Ted Cruz believes it.
	Most people don't.
	Even most Christians don't.
	And it's mainly a big evangelical thing in America.
	Right.
	And also, whether you like it or not, this is a neutral observation.
	As the younger generation doesn't have the same connection to World War II, even that I had with two grandfathers who fought in it, they just don't have it.
	So they don't have the same sensitivity around that.
	So they don't think Israel has a special position.
	Therefore, I think that's where the argument's going.
	However, that is very different, as you point out, from what the administration will do.
	And it's sort of yet to be seen how this will impact the Trump administration and future administration.
	So anyway, that's my take.
	All right, then.
	May I have the mouse, please?
	Yes.
	Sorry, it was a bit long, but we'll just go ahead and criticize anybody for doing long segments.
	The audience will know.
	So Rumble Rants and Super Chats, Hamcification, it's become rather obvious and pathetic that Conning can more terrified of Nick Fuentes and the woke communists.
	What could be the reason for that?
	I think we addressed that in the segment itself onto YouTube.
	Big thank you, Harry and Samson, for the Silent Hill breakdown yesterday.
	Thoroughly enjoyed more of the sort, please.
	Thank you very much.
	We really enjoyed it.
	I think it was a really great start to the new show, Journey to the East.
	Did not go through everything that I wanted to with Silent Hill and did not get to do all of the deeper psychological and psychoanalytic analysis that I wanted to add to it or address the more recent entries into the series.
	So there will be an episode 0.5 whenever we can get around to doing that.
	It won't be anytime soon, sadly, because one of us is away for a little bit.
	Stereotype says, lads, please look at St. Joseph's primary nursing in Renfew.
	Renfrew, they've been giving illegals English lessons while kids are at school and accompanied on school grounds with no big checks, no boy-girl checks buried by the news.
	I have not heard of that.
	Someone will need to look into that.
	Maybe make a note of it, Samson, for everybody.
	Lucy Luke T says, I'm fed up for conservatives infighting while communists and alien terrorists are literally killing us.
	We're addicted to losing.
	Well, the thing is with that, I agree.
	I agree.
	The problem is, Tucker just tries to have Nick on to have a normal, reasonable discussion.
	And then all of the Seth, Dylan, Joel, Berry, Dinesh, D'Souza types go insane and continue trying to gatekeep him.
	When as Nick pointed out, if they hadn't had such a hysterical reaction all the way back in 2016 in the first place, they might have been able to fold him into the movement in a way that they could have had him be like a Charlie Kirk-esque figure if they had just managed him properly.
	But a lot of these centre-right con ink figures are just completely losing control of the situation and losing control of how to handle themselves when these situations pop up.
	Yeah, and they see Fuentes as the enemy.
	And that video I was playing, he goes on to say, ultimately, we wanted to debate Charlie Kirk and we wanted him on our side.
	We'd shake hands with him at the end of the debate.
	And actually, we still wanted to debate.
	They see Fuentes as much more of an enemy than the left.
	But the left are now killing people.
	The left are moving into terrorism.
	Ultimately, however extreme Nick seems in his views and his off-colour humor, he still wants to debate.
	And he still felt terrible when Charlie Kirk died.
	So it is different.
	It is still, I think that they are still on your side.
	And as Matt Walsh says, no enemies to the right sort of thing.
	He's going to side with them.
	When someone's asked, no, no, you must condemn the right.
	But as you said, more so than left.
	So it's just a new alignment.
	You almost have to accept these people are just on a different side because they won't debate.
	Ultimately, these people are cringe liberals.
	Quite authoritarian, though, as well.
	Quite woke.
	Yeah.
	Of a similar stripe, ultimately, in where they think society should go.
	They say conservatism is progressivism doing a speed limit.
	And that's what you've always got to keep in mind.
	Ultimately, they want to go for the same destination, which is this kind of big, open, multicultural, tolerant society, but they just disagree with the methods of getting there.
	Whereas ultimately, that's not what I want.
	I don't want the ultimate society.
	I don't want tolerance.
	People forget what tolerance means.
	Tolerance doesn't mean you like something or celebrate it.
	It means you put up with something because you think it's bad, but you have to put up with it.
	I don't think that's good within society for us all have to constantly tolerate these sick, degenerate freaks, especially when the family's dead.
	You know what, though?
	It's a massive debate, but I feel like Charlie Kirk didn't want that.
	I think he was very strong on Christian principles.
	So I feel like he was sort of more based and getting more based.
	And towards the end, he was even moving on the Israel Christian people claim.
	But the people who are using his name and saying they speak for him, they are more in the sort of vague way.
	I think it's also a generational thing.
	I think it's a generational thing.
	Like Dinesh D'Souza, obviously old school con Inc.
	He's one of the ones who helped to get Sam Francis barred from the conservative movement in the first place in the 1990s.
	He was a direct part of the national review purge that William Buckley did in 1992 or 1994.
	Seth Dylan, Joel Berry, as far as I'm concerned, these people are morons and shouldn't be taken seriously in the first place.
	But it's a generational thing.
	Charlie Kirk was part of the younger generations, and I think we're going to see more and more of this kind of rightward movement within those generations.
	Yeah, and it's a pity about Babylon B because that was funny.
	But when it becomes obvious, they just espouse one particular position.
	When they were attacking power, which was the woke absurdity of the woke regime, it was funny.
	But when you're taking such a clear side, like so pure Zionist, because that is quite a powerful position because they are leveling another country.
	It's not quite as funny.
	You know, it could be funny if they took the piss out of Israel and Palestine.
	But they now, it just doesn't work at all because you know where they're coming from.
	Anyway, that's a side point.
	Last one I'll read for right now.
	Cuban Heels Beer Belly for $20 says, fantastic episode, guys.
	Thank you very much.
	Here's one for Harry.
	Why do you think all the best newer post-Brexit bands are consistently a bunch of leftists, Sleaford mods, HML TD, Folly Group, Black Midi, etc.?
	I think you're missing out idols from there because they are definitely one of those.
	It's like it's a requirement.
	Well, as I've discussed before, the music industry is a club, and you have to gain entry into the club.
	We've got a democratized system now that you've got the internet, but still, access to promotions and platforms means that you need to have the right opinions.
	I got cancelled out of the music industry in England because of the fact that I worked this job, despite the fact that I kept the two completely separate from one another.
	So it's not a neutral system.
	The people in charge of facilitating your success have these anti-Brexit opinions, have these incredible left-wing opinions.
	That's why these bands get promoted.
	As well as that, again, I think all of those bands that you're pointing to are mid- or older millennial bands.
	So again, I wonder if it'll change as the generations progress and move on.
	And can confirm the comedy industry is exactly the same, by the way.
	Yeah, people think that they see these people on stage because they've earned it, because they're just the best for the job.
	This comedian is up here because he's the funniest.
	This band is up here because they write the best songs.
	You have no idea the wealth of art that has been kept from you because some snooty stage manager, some snooty booker, some snooty agent decided that they didn't like you because of your opinions.
	And in the case of something like theatre as well, an entire arts council entirely dedicated to basically handing out money to woke nonsense and withholding it from anything that is genuinely dissident.
	And it takes a comedy and entire BBC that you're paying for as well.
	Sorry, go ahead.
	Yeah, and again, even with the lower-level music scene, it acts as a cartel of all of the venues.
	They can stay in touch with one another and communicate with one another.
	And they say, you know, these guys have this member in it.
	You don't want to platform them, so just don't put them on.
	And all of a sudden, you can't play anywhere.
	Anyway, let's move on.
	So let's talk about the newest farce in UK politics, a big event that's gone on over the past week.
	And it is, of course, relating to the Epping situation.
	We had Callum from Epping on a few months ago.
	Really fantastic guy.
	He was arrested because of his involvement in the Epping protests.
	And this is all related to the man who was the cause of the Epping protests.
	That being, let me remember his name, Hadush Kibatu, or as Dan memorably coined, Hamish Kibabtu.
	And the misadventures and farce that he's gone through over the past week.
	First, though, you may have heard it mentioned in the super chats, but I will just promote it here.
	Yesterday, Samson and I launched our new series, Journey to the East, with a special Halloween discussion of the Silent Hill horror video game franchise.
	This was freemium.
	The rest of the series will be premium, so you will need to be subscribed to watch any subsequent episodes.
	But this one is free and available to anybody who visits the website.
	So please go and visit that and watch it.
	I think we had a really good discussion, and it was almost three hours long.
	And it's still not really over because we need to do a part two.
	But we'll save that for some other time.
	So please watch that.
	I think you'll really enjoy it, especially if you're a fan of the series.
	So just a reminder that what happened was that this Haddish Kibatu assaulted a 14-year-old girl.
	He saw her coming out of her school and talking with a friend while they were both in their school uniforms.
	So it was clear that she was underage.
	And he went up, tried to touch her, tried to kiss her, tried to say that he wanted her and her friend to have his children.
	This led to wide-scale protests across Epping.
	He was being held as part of the asylum hotel, which was the Bell Hotel.
	It was right around the corner from the corner from the school.
	And those protests were being led by Callum, who's a very good man friend of the show.
	They eventually managed to get the council, they put pressure on the council to find out that actually all of the paperwork that was needed for this hotel to be used as an asylum hotel in the first place was wrong.
	They had all the paperwork wrong, so the local council had decided, all right, we'll move them all out.
	We won't have a asylum hotel in this little town of Epping, right around the corner from a school anymore.
	Well, the Home Office decided that the asylum seekers' rights trumped the rights of the people in Epping, so they had to stay there.
	And that was something that got passed by the judge.
	They decided, screw you, potential rapists have to live in your neighborhood because of the ECHR or something.
	Overruled the previous judge.
	Extraordinary.
	Yes, and there was the situation where people were saying, oh, you're racist for even thinking that this guy did this in the first place.
	Obviously, this was some kind of racist canard that they made up so that they have an excuse to protest outside the asylum seeker hotel because the people of Epping were just so racist.
	No, actually.
	No, actually.
	He was eventually convicted.
	He was convicted at the beginning of September.
	He was only charged and given 12 months by the judge, which was actually a lesser sentence than some of the protesters at Epping got when they were arrested.
	But, you know, some kind of justice was served.
	So he was serving time in prison.
	Except earlier on this week, he accidentally got released from jail.
	They just misplaced him.
	Oops, I've accidentally let a rapist go.
	That's just what the prisons in the UK do now.
	And it only gets more ridiculous.
	Oh, it gets more and more ridiculous.
	So let's go into the details of what happened.
	So he was meant to be sent to an immigration detention center to be deported within days, but was accidentally freed instead.
	He was released on the expectation that he would be picked up by immigration enforcement for deportation, due on a flight out of the country within days.
	He was jailed after he was found guilty of touching and trying to kiss the schoolgirl.
	He targeted her only eight days after arriving in the UK on a dinghy pack with migrants.
	Couldn't even wait for a fortnight to pass before he decided to try and assault a young girl.
	And he'd only been in prison for four weeks after being jailed on the 23rd of September.
	So they just were going to deport him.
	They expected some immigration enforcement to show up outside and take him away.
	So they just, what, walked him through the front door, uncuffed him, and said, wait here, please.
	And then nobody showed up.
	Yeah, and it's even more ridiculous because he said, I think I'm supposed to be in the jail.
	I don't know if you're getting on to that, but are you getting that?
	Yeah, that's what I'm saying.
	There's so many ridiculous details.
	I don't want to.
	So there was footage, and if I play this, I won't.
	Yeah.
	There was footage caught of him a three-minute walk away from the local police station showing him talking to these random people.
	He just, he just, after waiting around for a little bit, he just shrugged his shoulders and went, okay, I guess I'm free now.
	Might point me in the direction of the nearest primary school, please.
	Not exactly the fugitive, is it?
	He's just out openly, like, not even hiding.
	He's just wondering about, he's still in his prison tracksuit.
	Yeah.
	I know.
	And it was understood that he was listed as an escape risk.
	Well, I mean, great job with that one, boys.
	The number of prisoners, there's even worse, because this son article, if you scroll down, has this little inset here, which tells you that this is actually a far more widespread problem than you would hope.
	You would hope that this never happens.
	But actually, it happens a lot in England and the UK, and it gets worse, right?
	The number of prisoners released in error more than doubled in the year to March 2025.
	Government data shows.
	A report by His Majesty's Prison and Probation Service said that 262 prisoners were released in error from April 2024 to March 2025, up from 115 in the year to March 2024.
	HMPPS said in the report that releases in error remain infrequent and believes the rise is linked to changes in the law and the early release scheme which Labour introduced in September 2024.
	So that early release scheme has not only meant that they are only having to serve 40% of their sentence instead of 50%, which is still not great.
	It also means that the people having to enforce that are confused and are now accidentally letting criminals go by mistake.
	Madness.
	Like, are you serious?
	This is the country that I live in.
	It's all so much worse.
	It's like that Tom Cruise quote in the first Mission Impossible, relax.
	It's much worse than you think.
	Yeah.
	Thousands of inmates have been freed early since then in a bid to cut jail overcrowding, but to make sure that, you know, there's room for patriots.
	By temporarily reducing the proportion of sentences, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
	A number of 2262 were released in error when the early release scheme began because of an issue with a repealed breach of restraining order offence.
	Most of them do get re-arrested, but the fact that even for any amount of time, dangerous people are back on the streets before they've served their full sentence, less than reassuring.
	Less than reassuring.
	And for the bigger details that you were saying here at the beginning of this article from The Guardian, they point out maybe the most gobspacking detail about the accidental release of Kabatu from HMP Chelmsford was this, from a delivery driver who was delivering equipment to the prison as he left.
	Kabatu, who was serving a sentence for sexual assault and was due to be deported, appeared baffled as he walked free and lingered outside the gates for an hour and a half before heading away.
	They were basically sending him away saying, go, you've been released, you go, the driver told Sky News.
	He kept scratching his head and saying, where do I go?
	Where do I go?
	That's a question.
	Yeah, they should give him a job at the home office because he's more responsible than them.
	He's like, hang on, guys.
	I think I should probably be in jail.
	Someone like me.
	Are you really going to trust me on the streets?
	I wouldn't trust me on the streets.
	He should be the new enforcer of people like him just locking up all the illegals.
	He's even done an interview, hasn't he?
	He did a TV.
	He did a Sky News interview, which I've got a gift of it.
	And, yeah, here's some more footage that was found of him.
	This was...
	Oh, it's the same...
	Sorry, it's the same footage that Sky News used.
	But then he was also...
	They, like, had a tracking.
	They were able to track his every move with great accuracy because he was not hiding.
	He was not, like you say, the fugitive.
	He was wandering about, somehow got a hold of himself in avocado tote bag.
	A distinctive avocado tote bag.
	Something you like to find in Hackney.
	Yeah, yeah, just a hipster.
	and it got to the point where same views as the average hipster because yeah Yeah, because of the fact that he was so obvious and not trying to hide himself, you can actually, if you want, take the walking/slash pub crawl tour, follow in the footsteps of the legendary fugitive, Hamish Kibabtu.
	And this is where people have noted that he had been spotted.
	So the confirmed locations were, this was before he was caught, HMP Chelmsford, then Chelmsford Prep, Chelmsford Station, Stratford Station, Dulston Square Library, and Finsbury Park.
	That's near me as all disturbing.
	I think Finsbury Park is where he eventually got picked up.
	Yeah, it was me.
	I was like, guys.
	Now, I know you don't want to.
	You might have to arrest this.
	Fine, I'll do it myself.
	I just think everyone with an avocado bag should be arrested.
	So it's a blanket policy.
	You're like Batman.
	You descend from the shadows to assault them at night in a bad outfit.
	Yeah.
	It's for his own personal enjoyment.
	And then, like you say, he did an interview after they re-arrested him.
	Sharon Bastard.
	Won't that be funny?
	Navarro media.
	What's your view?
	And he said this.
	I get a police.
	Look here.
	Police, I am wanted, man.
	I arrested.
	I will give you my hand.
	Please help him.
	Where is the police station?
	He ignored me.
	He drove.
	But also, I am not unknown.
	The police station, where is the place?
	I am not going to eat.
	But also, I get the police.
	I will give you my hand.
	Please help me.
	Where is the police station?
	Take me.
	My name is Hadeskwatu.
	I'm National Ethiopia Police.
	I want the mystic release from Transfort Prison.
	Please help me.
	So, according to his version of events, and Sky News gave him an interview.
	By the way, they set up this interview.
	They thought, well, what's his side of the story?
	He's a more complicated figure than you might think.
	Oh, all that sort of thing.
	It's like the Smeimer Begg and BBC documentary.
	What we haven't heard a lot about is his childhood.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Why did you assault this guy?
	This is what I do.
	Can you give us something else that we can use on this liberal media?
	The rape had such a strong sense of justice.
	He tried to hand himself in.
	He enjoyed avocados and law and order.
	Yeah, just when they eventually do the documentary, they're going to have a lot of work putting the heartbreaking piano tracks underneath him, going, I like Rape Girl.
	Sad piano.
	He'd only been in the country two weeks, but he was frustrated.
	You know, those ones that try and claim it's they got this.
	So that was the German excuse.
	Right, right, right.
	Yeah.
	I was so frustrated with the systemic inequalities that I saw everywhere that I had to do something with the sad piano track.
	The other thing is the patronizing.
	Many of them don't understand normal morality.
	You know what I mean?
	It's that kind of like, they don't realize this is wrong.
	Many of them don't realize that assaulting young girls is bad.
	Yeah, and so therefore, in their culture, is it really?
	It's that kind of thing.
	Yeah, they do that.
	But according to his story, he was actually trying to hand himself back in.
	And I think the reason was that supposedly he actually wanted to be deported back to Ethiopia.
	He'd been in England for less than two weeks and he decided, nah.
	Yeah.
	Now this is shit old.
	Send me back to Ethiopia, please.
	But then you find out that even worse, like to make him leave, they gave him 500 quid.
	They asked him to pocket 500 quid.
	Listen, mate, we want to deport you.
	We know that you're a sex criminal.
	We know that we accidentally released you from prison.
	How can we make this even dumber?
	How can we really make it so that we are the dumbest, most useless, and ineffective law enforcement the world has ever seen?
	Is we will give you 500 quid to piss off, mate.
	Yeah, as of re-immigration policy in general, countries in Europe have done this.
	It's not a terrible idea.
	But for the individual guy who's a sex offender, as you say, bribing him is just inherently distasteful, as well as being comic.
	And they said, didn't Shoban and Mahmood say something like, oh, I pulled every leather, you know, to make sure that this guy was deposited?
	It's like, okay, well, can you pull those leathers like two million more times then?
	Oh, it'll have to be.
	You've shown that the leathers were.
	It can be done.
	Yeah, it's just 500 quid.
	Okay, we'll pay that.
	500 per.
	All right.
	That's good.
	Can we negotiate?
	That's less than we're spending right now.
	Yeah, so he was put on a flight on Tuesday and landed the following morning.
	The payment was made by the removal team as an alternative to a slower and more expensive process, according to Keir Starmer's spokesman.
	He said that Kabatu was forcibly deported and accompanied by five escorts on the flight.
	There was concern that it would cost much more to rebook flights, running into several thousands of pounds, and it might have led to expensive legal action.
	Sources say the decision to make the payment was made by the removal team and not ministers.
	So apparently, this guy, like, this one guy posed so much of a threat to the five escorts that if he kicked up a fuss, that they might not be able to put him on the plane.
	And they might end up having to re-book it.
	And who knows?
	It might need to go through another court trial.
	It'll cost thousands and thousands of taxpayer money.
	So then you just give him 500 quid and let him go on his way.
	Why do we accept this?
	Why do we accept this as the way that the system has to work?
	That one guy can have such a farce around him, can go on a little adventure by himself after accidentally being released from prison.
	As if this is some kind of whimsical Paddington fairy tale, right?
	And then he's such a threat to these five people that we pay him off.
	He should never have been here in the first place.
	He was here less than two weeks and assaulted a young girl.
	And then this is the system.
	This is the absolute.
	This is the trial that we have to go through to even get him out of our country.
	He'll probably be back in a few months when he takes the dinghy ride over again.
	At which point, what, do we give him off?
	Grand this time, mate?
	Will that keep you out for good?
	Like, what's what's yeah, no.
	What's the end?
	What's the end goal look like, right?
	And then Kabatu arrived in Ethiopia's capital on Wednesday and was briefly held by officers before being released.
	There was no legal basis for his continued detention, according to the Ethiopian Federal Police Communications.
	So according to the Ethiopian Federal Police, this guy who assaulted a 14-year-old according to their laws.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, well, let them do what they want in their bleephole countries, as long as they're not in our country.
	I mean, I can live with that.
	500 quid, send them back.
	They can decide whether they're criminals or not.
	Yeah, but why we should accept these people in the first place?
	And apparently to them, assaulting a 14-year-old isn't worth holding them in prison for.
	Cultural differences, though.
	It's absolutely ridiculous.
	And while this story is such a farce that it is funny, it is important to remember this is the system that we live under that facilitates these people getting into the country, tries to enforce them staying in the country so that they can do what this guy did.
	So that they can threaten, harass, assault your little girls.
	Just keep that in mind.
	Says we gave 100 million in new aid to Ethiopia last year.
	No strings, maybe keep your rapists in your own country attached to that.
	All right, let's go through the super chats and rumble rants.
	Kalev Knight says, I believe Games Workshop wants to make a woke hell out of Warhammer 40k, but have fundamentally anti-progressive settings.
	The future regimes want to be pro-I really don't get what you're trying to say there, Kalev.
	That's a bit strangely worded.
	But thank you for the dollar anyway.
	Habsification sends two in saying, Harry, have you seen Kojima's new game?
	He's working on the game.
	It's called Odie Knock.
	The trailer looks very realistic.
	Looks like he's finally getting his PT game made.
	That would be very interesting.
	Especially now that Konami has set the series up so that you can slap the Silent Hill title on anything to make it sell.
	And he also says, but guys, don't you know, because of the levels of inequality and socio-economic conditions, Kabatu had to sexually assault.
	It's like not getting food or something.
	Yeah, what do you want for him to actually die or something?
	Good point.
	There's an argument.
	Engaged fee, 124 grains is far cheaper than 500 quid.
	True.
	I'll go through some of the super chats.
	Carl Leggett, GHY YouTube is hecking holding me back.
	How do we as English move any forward considering people stand in the way?
	Are there any solutions for said people?
	I really don't know what you're asking me there, bro.
	Iron Bean, Imperial Thought of the Day, the wage of negligence is utter destruction, seems relevant in this whole situation.
	Yeah.
	Void Soul, if I had a nickel for every time I accidentally released a sex pest in society, I'd be broke because it shouldn't happen in the first place, but I instead I have a room full of nickels.
	Kibatu reminds me of a rapey forest gump.
	Yeah, I can kind of see that, actually.
	Yeah.
	Chris H. Tucker interviewing Nick is literally the end of the world, but Skye interviewing a condicted sex offender is fine.
	Makes sense.
	Yeah, like it's absurd that Sky decided, you know, we need to hear the other side.
	We want to give this guy a platform.
	Should he get a platform of guys?
	That's just promoting.
	You know, did they challenge his ideas sufficiently?
	Would Seth Dylan approve of it?
	All we're suggesting is some healthy gatekeeping.
	Yeah.
	And with that, let's talk about Tolkien.
	Yeah, alright then.
	Well, last segment on a Friday, let's just have a nice, enjoyable chat about Tolkien, shall we?
	Let's rehash a segment.
	I'm joking.
	Well, here's the thing, you see.
	Not many people know this, but I happen to love Tolkien's works intensely.
	I'm a huge fan.
	I thought you were more of a Martin guy.
	No, no, I've written several pieces for Islander and, yeah, I've just...
	Sorry.
	What's that?
	Oh, I'll explain to you later.
	But yes, as you cuttingly pointed out, we did have a Tolkien segment earlier last week hosted by Josh.
	Very splendid segment.
	So we've had one segment, yes.
	But what about Second segment?
	You know what?
	You still want me milking it as much as The Hobbit movie, which was three unnecessarily long movies.
	Right, that was supposed to be two.
	One would have been sufficient.
	Well, I know.
	They added characters.
	That pale guy barely gets a mention in the book.
	Yeah.
	You know what I mean?
	So this won't be anywhere near as self-adopted as that guy.
	The pale orc.
	Not really a popcorn.
	Oh, that's all.
	He's a CGI pale orc guy.
	He should have been dead before the events of the world.
	They added an elf hobbit romance subplot as well in those sense.
	Oh, God, don't remind me how bad those films were.
	Well, we're not going to talk about those.
	What we're going to talk about is Tolkien himself and his ideas as shown throughout the Lord of the Rings.
	Because Josh talks about here some of the great character journeys that Tolkien writes for his heroes, such as Theodon and such as The Hobbits, of course.
	And so I wanted to really talk about some of the broader themes in terms of justice and kingship, right?
	and what Tolkien clearly sees as the virtues.
	And so we want to start here, though, because even though this is obviously a total S-post from Homeland Security, and...
	They've been doing a lot of that.
	Yes.
	Yes, and has nothing to actually reflect the number of deportations, right?
	Okay, so...
	I've not looked into what the numbers are.
	Their media is one thing, and how well they're actually upholding these ideas are totally separate.
	That's not what this is about.
	The point is, there won't be a Shire Pippin is a very, very stern warning, obviously, about what happens when you allow evil to just run totally rampant in your society.
	And not only that.
	What do you mean, if a load of orcs move in and they just keep calling themselves hobbits, if you just say that the orcs are hobbits and they live in the shire, that makes them hobbits, right?
	Yeah, they're citizens of the shire.
	Well, maybe under Saruman's...
	Yeah, I don't think Tolkien sees it that way.
	And so, obviously, but this spawned the great, as Middle-Earth Mixer points out here, another two straight days of arguing with libs about media literacy.
	I'm so excited.
	Me too, Mixer.
	That's why we're going to do it.
	He actually means it as well, because he'll be getting numbers off of those.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Well, I mean, he deserves them.
	is a great account, but you go on to, I mean, obviously, we on the right have been memeing The Lord of the Rings for years and years now.
	You know, such as Boromir in Hot Water for saying Minas Morgul is no longer a Gondorian city, even though it's obviously inhabited by the people.
	But Rima Wormtongue said this incredibly diverse city is Lord Salon's greatest strength.
	I also think that someone living in Minas Tirith shouldn't be allowed to comment on Minas Morgul's affairs unless they say things we like and agree with.
	There you go.
	Very wormtongue thing to say.
	Yep.
	And another one, obviously, one in three orcs at the gates goes hungry, and it's time to stop the siege.
	And so, obviously, you have a particular type of person, right, who...
	So, I, as an atheist...
	I've just noticed the writer of the article as well, Bullbeer Ruby Rattler.
	They always have the greatest names.
	They really do.
	Actual Guardian columnist, in fact.
	I wouldn't be shocked.
	Yeah, yeah, several articles.
	Check it out.
	So all I was going to say, though, is that I, as a stuffy, boring atheist, right, I am not pretending.
	Yeah, I'm always shocked when you say that because I just can't take in that you're an atheist.
	Maybe address that.
	I'm sorry.
	I'll have a stern word with myself later.
	But the point is, right, that I am not looking at Tolkien's works and trying to go, how can I see this through an atheist lens, right?
	No, it's a fundamentally Catholic piece of work.
	And sometimes you just have to view things authentically as they were intended to be and read into the messages that are obvious and self-evident throughout not only the Lord of the Rings, but the entire work of Tolkien.
	And didn't he famously say something like at first by accident, but then deliberately in revision?
	Yes.
	Yes.
	And this grapples with it, particularly during the time of the Third Age in the time of the Lord of Rings, because when you look at the people of Gondor or Rohan or even the Dwarves of Erebor, you see that they have no actual formal religion.
	There are no religious ceremonies, that they live in a kind of pagan world.
	But that doesn't take away from the fact that their lives are still governed by sort of like the divine metaphysics.
	Yeah, that's going back to the one who created the universe.
	The classic BBC interview with Tolkien, which everyone should listen to, and he says the guy goes, but they're not religious, are they?
	And he says that God's hardly mentioned except the one.
	And Tolkien does concern, he goes, yeah, it's the one who's mentioned.
	So he's mentioned briefly the idea of a God, which is the one, but they don't have, they don't.
	As the interview points out, they don't sort of swear on their gods.
	They talk about their swords and things instead.
	So he couldn't give, he said it wouldn't have worked to sort of give them more religions.
	Anyway.
	Yeah, and one of his critiques, just to say, of C.S. Lewis and the Chronicles of Narnia was the fact that Aslan is just Jesus.
	The fact that you actually have Father Christmas in the story itself.
	And so Tolkien's father.
	He's critical of the fact that the allegory was not just there, but that it was so obvious and overt.
	Yeah, he also thought it was too mixed.
	And also, he hated allegory, didn't he?
	In that interview, Philip says he goes, I'm entirely historically minded.
	He doesn't like allegory at all.
	He sees it as a history.
	Yeah.
	No, absolutely.
	And so it's, but it's not just the literary critics on Twitter, of course.
	It's actors who are in the films who don't understand the actual characters.
	And it's a great disappointment.
	It's a great disappointment to me, because I wish he was as cool as his film counterpart, but I suppose that's the nature of actors, really.
	I dislike that this implies that Viggo Mortensen was playing the part at the end of Return of the King, where he sits the throne, thinking in character as Aragorn.
	Time to begin accepting orc refugees.
	Right.
	Right.
	Like a Boris Johnson-esque flip.
	Right.
	Betrayal.
	But this was in response to when, oh, you see, this from many years ago now, but when the Vox party were basically using Aragon in some of their campaign material, basically saying Aragon represents enlightened monarchy.
	He represents protecting the good, and a fundamental part of the good is, of course, demographics, right?
	It means the people of Gondor are the people of Gondor, and they're not fighting to become multicultural realms of tolerance.
	That's where you're wrong.
	According to Mortensen, he was playing it with the pure focus on GDP.
	Right.
	I just love just wants an actor to come out and say, yeah, yeah, of course, I'm for absolute monarchy and the old hierarchies.
	And yeah, I applaud what Vox are doing because in many ways.
	I wish the King of Spain had more power, actually.
	It's just one actor.
	Probably like, what's his name would do it?
	His name's gone out of my head, Vincent Gallo.
	He would say that, but he was sort of semi-banned from Hollywood because of those kind of John Voigt, John Voigt, yeah, he might say it.
	And James Woods might say it.
	There's like a handful.
	Yeah.
	Maybe Rob Schneider these days.
	Maybe Mel Gibson would say it.
	Yes, Gibson would say.
	He would say a lot more.
	He would say a lot of things.
	I mean, I think which was the one of the Pythons who's dead now.
	The one who would play the piano in some sketches.
	I've forgotten his name.
	Well, Graham Chapman and Terry Jones are the Terry Jones.
	Terry Jones, there's an old interview with him from the 70s or the 80s with Terry Wogan, where he characterizes himself as a reactionary and talks about how much he loves the idea and idealisms of medieval England and wishes that we could return to those.
	Wow.
	Which is interesting coming from a Python.
	Especially you see the slot that John Cleese posts these days.
	I mean, he did say London is no longer an English city, but now he's just gone full of people.
	And everything since then has been, and I don't want to fix it.
	Yeah, he's gone full Polanski.
	But anyway, I digress.
	Not that other Polanski.
	We were talking about a film.
	Yeah, quick save there.
	And so you end up, of course, with these sorts of quote tweets where we've got this Alley woman here saying, I think, Tolkien was vehemently anti-Nazi, anti-fascist, and anti-authoritarian.
	He was critical of authoritarian enforcement as seen in The Lord of the Rings, where evil forces, not good, enforce strict border controls.
	Okay, what?
	I'm just going to go through.
	Minister is just before you do, I'll give you one, which, of course, he had that letter.
	He was anti-Nazi.
	There was that letter where they're trying to gauge his sort of Aryan stock.
	And he basically sends us.
	About whether they could publish The Hobbit.
	Well, yeah, he sends a letter back basically going, I'm not up for all this nonsense.
	He was very anti-that.
	That part's true, the rest, and maybe the anti-fascist stuff, but the rest...
	Wasn't he a massive supporter of Franco?
	Yes.
	Yes, yes, because, well, he was tangentially.
	Obviously, this was one of the things that is revealed in a letter that he wrote to his son in letters that came out after his death.
	But this is another aspect to Tolkien as well, which is that he was an intensely private man.
	He didn't really want you to understand his work through biographies and TV interviews.
	Or as an expression of him.
	He wanted it to stand by itself in the same kind of way that Beowulf.
	We don't know who the author is, so it stands as its own work representative of a broader culture.
	Absolutely.
	And one of the things that you see, and this is a total, you know, like when friendly show Ralph Schollhamer just says anything that the mid-20th century Germans did is automatically evil.
	Like, no, having borders is something that every single nation and empire has had for all of time.
	This is not.
	Famously, Stalin enacted this huge border thing called the Iron Curtain immediately after the Second World War.
	Hitler drank water.
	It's that kind of thing, isn't it?
	Yeah, it's similar to Camus in that essay, The Second Career of Adolf Hitler.
	You can't do anything if it might be more like Hitler.
	You just can't have anything like it gone.
	So let's just refer, shall we, to some of the examples of borders in Middle-earth.
	We have, from the Silmarillion, for example, we have the Girdle of Melion, a literal magic shield around the entire realm of Doriath Doriath in order to basically keep all foreigners out of it.
	I love that it literally meant land of the fence.
	Yes.
	They were literally named after their border.
	I think King Thingall says we're going to build a fence.
	Yeah.
	Big, beautiful fence.
	To make the orcs pay for it.
	Yeah.
	We have the city of Gondolin, which is a city encompassed by a range of mountains, so that it is the hidden city and no foreigner can ever find it.
	And basically, through this means, they are able to shield themselves from Morgoth.
	Morgoth cannot find them for centuries and centuries.
	Interesting.
	I just wanted to do some gardening.
	Interesting point as well that Blind Guardian's Mirror Mirror is a song that this is based from.
	Good song.
	fantastic but then okay you need to listen to some blind guardian like i told you last friday if it's about this i will Okay.
	It's an entire album about the Silmarillion.
	Okay, but that's in the Silmarillion, and that wasn't published in his lifetime, so let's talk about The Lord of the Rings.
	Well, we have...
	Your button's not working, let me, oh, where's the mouse there?
	There's the mouse.
	There you go.
	Thank you.
	Lothlorian.
	As soon as they get out of Moria and they go to Lothlorian, not only are they deeply distrusted, but the entire fellowship is blindfolded by the elves so that they cannot find their way back into the Karas Gallathon once they've left it, right?
	Like, no, all of these people, you go to the town of Bree as well.
	There is a constant theme throughout the Lord of the Rings of suspicion of foreigners.
	This is something that's shown by the Hobbits of the Shire.
	It's something that's shown by the men of Bree.
	It's something that's shown by the Rohirim.
	And this is in some ways an aspect of how Sauron has, of course, divided them and stopped them from trusting one another.
	But the ultimate point is, of course, that throughout the events of The Lord of the Rings, they are not fighting for some multicultural utopia.
	They are fighting expressly.
	The hobbits are going to fight so that the Shire can be exactly as they love it and remember it when they return home.
	Obviously, you have the scouring the Shire, which is one of the most important things that Tolkien ever wrote as well.
	That's all out of the film.
	Yes.
	And what's more as well, of course, it's exactly the same for the men of Rohan.
	And of course, Gondor is about reclaiming the might of a lost heritage, right?
	That the men who and kings fell into folly and were basically subverted by Sauron to lead to an apocalyptic event with the downfall of Numenor.
	So, and he subverts all of the institutions.
	He fills them with his own acolytes, and he basically makes the definition of good become evil.
	And he basically dissuades the Numenorians away from the divine path of friendship with the elves.
	And this results in total annihilation.
	And Aragon is the restoration of the ancient, of the ancient way.
	And so all of this, but there's not just the fact that, okay, the nations obviously have borders as well.
	One of the things to just refer back to, it's okay.
	What she was saying is the fact that Tolkien understood the importance of homelands, right?
	And that different people, different races, had different homelands, and that they had a right to their homeland.
	And this is something that he shows, even in The Hobbit, a story that is meant primarily for children and is of a much lighter tone.
	It is the dwarves of Erebor and their quest to retake their homeland is a just thing because it is being usurped by a villainous tyrannical dragon who merely wants to extract and sit upon its wealth and resources that it didn't earn.
	And it has no spiritual connection to the actual home.
	It is...
	Sounds pretty racist, mate.
	doesn't belong there but then you also look racist for children You also look at characters like Legolas.
	Now, Legolas is a really interesting character, actually, because though he is very cool in The Lord of the Rings, surfing on the shield and taking down Mumukil, there is...
	Not in the books, those parts.
	Yeah, there is a really interesting strain to Legolas'character, particularly in the books, where you have to remember as well, Legolas is an elf born in Middle-earth itself.
	All he has ever known is Middle-earth.
	However, the actual ancestral home of the elves, the Undying Lands, is across the sea.
	And so as soon as they go through the Pass of the Dead and Aragon gets the army of the dead, that's the first time in Legolas' life that he actually sees the sea.
	He's only ever seen the land and the rivers and everything before then.
	And he gets this what is termed this sea longing.
	Because even though he's never been to the Undying Lands, he knows in his heart there is this yearning for homeland.
	Have you ever been?
	Have you ever been to the Undying Lands?
	And this is a really important part to his character.
	And Legolas' story ends with him giving in to this need.
	And he crafts a ship and sails off to be with his people where he is historically supposed to be.
	And so Tolkien understood the importance of homelands deeply.
	And combining this with, of course, his Catholicism, yes, Tolkien did have great contentions with apartheid.
	Yes, Tolkien had a great contention with the way that the Germans treated Jewish refugees and, you know, the minority population.
	But having a sort of Catholic universal compassion for all life is not the same thing as forcing every people into the world, of the world, to inhabit the same spaces and live in the same countries and basically make them into melting pot cities, right?
	He understood the virtue of...
	Turning them all into orcs.
	Right.
	He understood the virtue of the particular.
	And so I will just end with this for the sake of time, which is, of course, that another aspect to Tolkien's world that, and I do feel that the films are largely responsible for this misconception, is the idea that the ring is basically trying to just warn you against the danger of seizing power entirely.
	That what you should do is you should repudiate power.
	Say, I don't want that.
	I'm not worthy of it.
	That's Aragon's, how they write Aragon in the film.
	That those who are to take power, the only people worthy of it, are those that don't want it.
	Whereas actually, when you look at Aragon's character in the books, this is a man entirely, his destiny is in his blood, and his entire life is dedicated to the cause of mending his ancestors' mistakes and basically restoring justice and order to the West.
	He's become a bit more of a reluctant hero in the films.
	Probably for audience purposes, oh, he'll be more easy to sympathise with if he doesn't accept it straight away.
	Right.
	And so you have this aspect as well, where the ring is really, in the films, it's got this idea of, well, it's just you have to repudiate power entirely.
	But that's not really what the ring is.
	The ring represents power used to specific ends.
	And so there is good power.
	There is a power of Gandalf and Aragorn and the Hobbits who basically want to use it to protect and defend what they have.
	And actually, if you don't step forward and preserve the divine, preserve the good, then evil will fill that vacuum.
	So you always owe it to yourself to keep evil out of power.
	And really, the struggle, not just of the Lord of the Rings, but Tolkien's entire legendarium, can really be summed up in this one particular quote from one of his letters, which is that the struggle is always the same.
	It is beauty against ruthless ugliness, tyranny against kingship, moderated freedom with consent against compulsion that has long lost any object save mere power.
	And so this is, to me, very, very clear-cut.
	And the point of all of this is simply to say that the leftists can screech about this all they want, but it's just noise, right?
	Now, I'm not going to say Tolkien would have been in agreement with everything I've said in these past 20 minutes, but I'm pretty certain he'd have agreed with me more than basically what the people arguing against this, what their vision of the good is, what their vision of the future is, because Tolkien wrote that legendarium for the English.
	And I don't see how he could support or would have bothered to write it for an England in which the English no longer even exist.
	So I doubt that he had many overlapping social views with fat foreign retards.
	I don't think so either.
	So there we are.
	All right, we'll go through the last few and then see about any written, any video comments we've got.
	Bearded one, where's William of Orange when you need him?
	Luke Stewart, G'day I was listening to the Stanford Bridge podcast.
	I couldn't make it live.
	I have nothing against the government making memes.
	The government had old memes like Uncle Sam needs you to fight.
	Fair play.
	Based Ape, ah yes, Mustache Man, famous respecter of borders.
	And Ryan Hannigan says, in Rings of Power, there is a considerable amount of diversity in the Shires.
	In Lord of the Rings, is a Helbert ethno-state remigration is inevitable.
	Sorry, can I just say one thing on that as well?
	It's something I forgot to say, which is that after they win and they restore the Shire after the scouring, Aragorn protects the Shire as a king.
	It falls under his jurisdiction.
	But he has it so that no man may ever enter the Shire.
	It does basically become an ethnostate where only the elites in the Shire basically give people certain privileges to come and go.
	But it is, for all intents and purposes, theirs for all time.
	I've forgotten that.
	That's one of my favourite bits when Saruman comes back in the form of Sharky.
	Yeah.
	So odd.
	And he's such a pathetic villain.
	The Hobbits having been through so much.
	I know it's also about socialism and things.
	But Hobbits having been through so much, easily defeat him.
	The other Hobbits are all pathetic.
	They're like, what, this bloke?
	And they just easily beat him.
	That's as I remember.
	I haven't reread that for a while.
	It's very based.
	You also mentioned something about this rings of power?
	Not something I'm aware of.
	I've never heard of it.
	I think you made that up, honestly.
	Anyway, video comments.
	By sticking together, those of you who signed up are to be commended.
	But I warn you, do not underestimate the battle that's about to take place outside those doors.
	Oh dear.
	Winter is coming.
	Yeah, I don't envy those security guards.
	Not one bit.
	Nope.
	AI slop is merely the logical conclusion of clickbait.
	Videos that are deceptive or sensationalized for the sole purpose of getting views, clicks, and engagement.
	While I could certainly do such things with my make work, clickbait results in the public receiving a misconception of the subject matter.
	Now, this can come back to bite the creators in the butt, like with the Megabots versus Karatos giant robot fight in 2018.
	By the way, happy Halloween, everybody.
	Happy Halloween too.
	Yeah, that's all true.
	Clickbait and everything.
	It's just because the internet sadly was made accessible to everybody, meaning that it was accessible to the lowest common denominator, which everything ultimately ends up being catered towards.
	It is now exactly a year ago since I started drawing or trying to learn how to draw properly.
	And I think I proved that if you put your mind to something and do it right, you can do amazing things in a year.
	I'm really proud of myself.
	I think I did good.
	Happy Halloween, everybody.
	I hope you have a fantastic night.
	I like it.
	You too, Sophie, and they're really good.
	Really good.
	Hey, good stuff.
	And you can see the progression as well.
	So they used AI to create a fake leukemia patient to sell healthcare.
	This is.
	That's disgusting.
	Well, I for one couldn't disagree more.
	AI-generated trash is an excellent turn of events.
	Because the morons who believe everything they see and hear might move just one step closer to asking themselves, what if what I'm seeing or hearing just isn't true?
	That's putting a lot of faith in morons.
	Yeah, I don't know if Boomer's not the elitist take.
	Well, I was going to say, boomers not understanding AI doesn't necessarily lead to them questioning, like, you know, their liberal assumptions.
	I think it just means them going, is this real?
	And texting it to someone, you go and texting it to their grand, yes.
	No, granddad, that's not real.
	The cat did not steal that fish.
	All right, Lord Hector, Lord Inquisitor Hector Rex.
	Nick, I know you've been on a few times recently.
	Only a few times.
	Only a few.
	But what would Nick's Britain look like if you were to be made Lord Protector General of the Realm?
	Well, thank you.
	He goes on my streams and stuff as well.
	Thank you very much.
	I think it would probably look like the early 80s in the lake district.
	I think it was pretty much nailed it.
	I mean, but more authoritarian, obviously.
	Did you need more authority in the HS Lake District?
	No, you didn't really need it, but we'd have to now get there through Hugo Boss fan.
	We'd get there.
	We'd get back to that through a sort of Lee Kwan Yu style.
	You know what I mean?
	Like, he couldn't do it.
	He couldn't do it naturally.
	He had to do it with authority.
	That's how we'd get back to it.
	But yeah, it would look the same as that because we'd be peaked there.
	Do you want to read through some of your comments?
	Yes, absolutely.
	The most dangerous man in America.
	So, Omar says the left are just trying to set goalposts for Tucker as he's otherwise outside their control.
	Since they've lost control of the Overton window, all they have left is the impotent muling of the irrelevant.
	Beautiful phrase.
	George says Fuentes has some cringe takes, but he came out of the interview looking very good.
	The response from Conservative Inc.
	ironically answered Tucker's constant pestering of why are you attacking X and Y?
	Because they're cancel culture clowns.
	People trying to de-platform both for having a conversation are self-reporting.
	And Baron von Warhawk rightly points out if Tucker can interview Vladimir Putin, then he can interview Nick Fuentes.
	Let's be frank, when it comes to the people getting their knickers in a bunch, it's simply due to Nick's views on Israel.
	You can give an interview to a murderous dictator, but you better not give an anti-Semitic platform to speak.
	Yeah, that is weird, isn't it?
	He can interview Putin.
	And even then, Nick has really been toning down the spicy rhetoric recently.
	He's gone much more to criticizing them as a government and a country rather than as a specific group of people.
	He's actually been very complimentary of them recently.
	Yeah, and he denied that Charlie Kirk had anything to do with Israel, the death.
	Yeah, as you say as well, it's bantering with his audience versus when he's in serious mode.
	We don't have time to go through all mine, I guess, because we've got so many, maybe, but I can do some.
	The greatest example, this is a good one.
	Think positive.
	The greatest example of Woke Right is still Lindsay himself.
	Pretty much all his accusations are projection at this point.
	There's also a Iron Law of Lindsay projection.
	Milo just shared a graphic of all the people on the right that James Lindsay has called Woke Riot.
	It's incredibly extensive.
	Probably called me Woke Right.
	I've got arguments.
	He didn't make it.
	I know someone said to me, that we didn't make it on there.
	But Sakal and Nima are on there.
	I've still not earned a block from him.
	From James, it's quite impressive.
	I need to go harder next to him.
	I'm not mogging him hard enough.
	I mean, just my existence mugs him.
	Annie Moss.
	Sounds like the security in jails is the same as the security in the Louvre.
	I wonder if they also hire DEI style.
	Probably.
	Omar, even Axel Rudicabana can play PlayStation.
	Is it any wonder Mr. Kabab Rapist is happy to go back to violent criminal daycare?
	Yeah.
	Ptolemy, £500 in Ethiopia is about 14 months' wages on the average salary.
	The equivalent would be about 30 grand in Britain.
	Imagine if France said to Britain, if any of you come here, we'll pay for your stay and food and extras like a phone.
	Then if you commit a crime, we'll pay you 30k.
	Well, I would be looking to get the next boat over to France.
	And Arizona Desert Rat.
	I like avocados, but there are definitely people who go overboard with their avocado obsession.
	Thank you.
	Oh, also, thinking of music, I also was really impressed with your guitar skills on your video, Harry.
	I look really forward to hearing your Lotus Eater's Bumper music.
	Not so impressed with the current air guitar.
	And that's from Annie Moss.
	Thank you.
	I am in a band, and we are thinking of maybe trying to put something together that would be appropriate for the podcast.
	So we'll see what happens.
	Michael Drabelbis says, Luca gives me calls to sit down and actually read The Lord of the Rings.
	I think that's a splendid idea.
	I feel inferior when he starts going on about Lord of the Rings as well.
	I'm rereading it.
	I read it when I was 18.
	I'm rereading it.
	And I was just saying to you before we went on fellowship.
	It's absolutely so great.
	It's so well written.
	It's not even heavy or stodgy.
	Harry said to me a few weeks ago as well.
	It says, yeah, I'll read The Silmarillion if you let me come on to Chronicles to cover it.
	I was like, you should want to read The Silmarillion, regardless.
	I do want to read it, but I've also heard notorious stories from people I know who tried to read it going, like, it's quite ponderous from what I've been told.
	I don't know if that's true or not.
	Incorrect.
	By the way, that's one thing I hated about Fuentes' critique.
	He kept saying, those movies sucked.
	It's like, it's a book.
	Like, read the book.
	You know what I mean?
	Also, the movies are awesome.
	Yes, the movies are awesome.
	Right, and the book's awesome.
	Even with the differences, I still really like the films.
	However, I would acknowledge Tolkien probably wouldn't have done.
	But then Tolkien didn't like many things.
	Didn't like many things.
	So, famously.
	Lord and Quiz to Hector X says, Tolkien, I was very clear about how I feel about fat foreign retards.
	Very true.
	And one last super chat that we got sent in for $10.
	The idea that evil forces in Lord of the Rings enforcing borders has got to be a bad take on the Black Gate, which was built by men to keep the denizens of Mordor inside.
	Yes.
	Yes.
	Very true.
	Anyway, that's all that we've got time for right now, so thank you very much for joining us.
	And if you are subscribed to the website and a gold tier subscriber, there will be the gold tier Zoom call in just half an hour.
	So join us there.
	Thank you very much for watching.
	Take care, everybody.

▲