The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1297

Nov. 17, 2025 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:29:36

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1297

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Load Seaters, episode 1297 for Monday the 17th of November 2025.
	I'm your host Luca joined by your regular-ish Monday trio of myself Firas and Stelios.
	Hello everyone.
	Hello.
	And today we're going to be talking all about the fact that we may actually be getting the Epstein files.
	Crazy, crazy times.
	One can only wonder.
	Suddenly they exist again.
	They do exist again.
	Schrodinger can execute.
	They are Schrodinger's files.
	Sometimes they exist, sometimes they don't.
	Right.
	And today, they exist.
	Okay, that's good.
	We're also going to be talking about who profits from attacking MAGA and the base.
	And then we're also going to be talking about how, and I'm just reading this now from your description of it, how Labour's far-right plan to fix asylum will bring in more asylum seekers.
	It's a wonderful assessment.
	Yeah.
	Yes.
	Everything Labour turns to do dust.
	Yes.
	All right.
	Well, we'll look for, well, not look forward to it, but we'll talk about that in segment three.
	Anyway, before we say any of that, though, I just want to draw your attention, ladies and gentlemen, to the latest episode of Chronicles, because it was one that I sat down with with Brother Stelios, and we talked about the third play in Aeschylus's trilogy,
	The Orestia, talking all about the great hero Orestes, son of Agamemnon, and really how Aeschylus uses this play and this entire trilogy to basically show the transition away from the classical age of heroism towards the civic poverty and the laws of men under the divine blessing of Athena.
	So it's a very, very philosophical play, wonderful writing by Aeschylus.
	And Stelius, it was a real joy to see.
	It was, and it was the best chronicles we've done so far.
	I think so too.
	The next ones are going to be better, but this is the greatest yet.
	Right, this is the best you've got from us so far.
	So get on it.
	All right then.
	So we may remember, cast our minds back to Trump's first campaign back when he was going to become president, back when he put in his initial beard back, you know, before becoming president in 2016.
	The three words I think that stuck out more than any others were drain the swamp.
	Yes.
	A very simple promise.
	And although it sounds abstract and, you know, people can interpret it in different ways.
	Who are the swamp?
	What are the actual actual objectives that will mean that it has been sufficiently drained?
	And so on and so forth.
	But the point was, of course, that millions of Americans put their trust in Donald Trump as the anti-corruption candidate.
	Yeah.
	Bear also in mind that there is a difference between realists and utopians.
	Sure.
	And this definitely affected different interpretations of what Drain the Swamp mean.
	Because I have heard people who thought that every three-letter agency was going to be dissolved.
	Sure.
	It was never going to happen.
	No.
	No, very, very, very unlikely.
	And what's more as well, of course, Trump's first term came and went.
	And then, of course, we had the blip that was Biden.
	And then we came back round to LacDonald again in this heroic arc where it really felt like the return of the king.
	And if you'll just indulge the charisma vacuum that is Lex Friedman for a minute, we'll just play this clip from Trump himself talking about what we should expect from his next administration when it came to the Epstein files.
	A lot of people are very interested in footage of UFOs.
	The Pentagon has released a few.
	Bit of an echo here, and there's been anecdotal reports from fighter pilots.
	So, a lot of people want to know, will you help push the Pentagon to release more footage, which a lot of people claim is available?
	I don't want the aliens.
	A lot of people did.
	Why do you think so many smart, powerful people allowed him to get so close?
	He was a good salesman.
	He was, you know, Halen Hardy type of guy.
	He had some nice assets that he'd throw around, like islands.
	But a lot of big people went to that island.
	But fortunately, I was not one of them.
	It's just very strange for a lot of people that the list of clients that went to the island has not been made public.
	Yeah, it's very interesting, isn't it?
	Probably will be, by the way.
	So if you're able to, you'll be.
	Yeah, certainly take a look at it.
	Now, Kennedy's interesting because it's so many years ago.
	You know, they do that for danger, too, because, you know, it endangers certain people, et cetera, et cetera.
	So Kennedy is very different from the Epstein thing.
	But yeah, I'd be inclined to do the Epstein.
	I'd have no problem with it.
	I'd have no problem with it.
	Okay.
	It seems pretty clear-cut as far as it went.
	And so, and then, of course, we will all remember this total farce from phase one that was a release of the Epstein files, all given to online personalities.
	And not the people that you'd expect.
	Such an important set of documents to go to.
	You know, at least release them entirely to the public.
	And then what's more as well, these documents turned out to be even more heavily redacted than the ones that we already really had access to.
	But of course, in the implication of there being a phase one, it of course logically follows that we might expect at some point a phase two.
	Yes.
	We never really got phase two.
	Phase two just sort of disappeared into the ether.
	And as the months went on, it hello.
	It seems that, oh, all right, that's not too helpful, is it?
	As the months went on, it seems that essentially what happened was Trump became more and more hostile in terms of just taking questions about Epstein.
	Whenever his name came up from a journalist, from someone in the media, it was always just, you know, stonewalled by him.
	And what's more as well, the idea was that actually there was nothing to see here and it was all very much case closed.
	And then, thank you.
	So we had this truth post from him where he basically said, look, the Epstein files actually fall into the exact same category as RussiaGate and all of the other grand conspiracies that the Democrats had leveled at him.
	Actually, what this was was a Democrat coup, sorry, a Democrat conspiracy in order to hurt Trump, MAGA, and the Republicans.
	Now, this, putting aside the actual questionable morality of this deflection, which is, of course, repugnant, not only in the sense that obviously showing that he is actually going to now become an obstacle to the justice for these women,
	but also gaslighting his own base and saying, if you dare to be concerned about this or raise this, even though I gave you the expectation that I would be very transparent and just about all this, you holding me to my own commitments is problematic.
	That's the thing.
	He campaigned on it.
	And then I think it was a farce the way they did it.
	And especially was that the files and the binders were heavily reducted, as you mentioned.
	So, when you are campaigning upon such a promise, you have to expect that there is going to be a backlash when you don't deliver.
	Yes, it's common sense.
	And yeah, this is definitely something that will come back to haunt him.
	Because once they did the reductive thing, he gave the permit, not permission, the opportunity, let's say, for everyone who wants to attack him to actually attack him.
	Yes.
	And project their own enemies as Trump's allies, whether they are or not.
	You're absolutely right.
	And so then all of a sudden, you've got the Democrats using this to go on the offensive against Trump when it was entirely needless.
	Well, I say needless, of course.
	The fact of the matter is that this is the darkest part.
	This is the darkest heart of the swamp.
	This is where the bog is its darkest, and this is where the mangroves are thickest.
	And ultimately, there are a lot of vested interests, and some of them I suspect we don't even know exist.
	Yeah.
	You know, who just do not want these files to come out.
	But we know they exist.
	Pam Bondi told us they existed.
	She told us they were, in fact, on her desk.
	And then all of a sudden, they went from being on the desk to that being a figure of speech.
	And actually, they weren't real at all.
	And on and on it went.
	But all this time, Trump was tearing through a lot of the trust that he, not as a Republican, but he as an individual, as a father of MAGA, had built up, had accrued over years and years and years.
	And it was just a real tragedy to see.
	And so when Elon points out here, whoa, I can't believe Epstein killed himself before realizing it was all a hoax, right?
	And Elon went after him pretty hard on this.
	And we'll remember back when they had their massive feud.
	And Elon just said, well, it's because his names are in the files.
	It's as simple as that, right?
	I think that tweet since got deleted.
	But I will have to say here, for people who don't remember, is that people were also criticizing Elon very justifiedly because he was saying you can't be arguing that Trump is a paedophile and having your own kid going with Trump all the time to the presidential helicopter.
	Oh, I know.
	So that was also a kind of infighting that did detract from his argument.
	Oh, you're quite right.
	You're looking at two people with massive egos who have both got extreme flaws.
	I don't take that.
	But that, however, does not take away from the actual truth of this sentiment.
	And so eventually what we have now is it all seems to be coming to a head.
	Now, part of this is due to the fact that Thomas Massey has basically tried to work his way through the quagmire of Congress and the entire Washington establishment and has basically put forward a discharge petition where basically this legislation can go straight to the House and basically leapfrog the committees.
	Okay.
	Right.
	And so the committees were trying to block what has been termed the Epstein files transparency bill.
	And basically, in order to get this across, and this comes back to the chief flaw of Trump's plan, Massey has worked with the Democrats.
	So basically all of the Democrats in the House have signed this bill and basically this discharge petition.
	And so basically what's happened as well is it needed a few Republicans to get the required 218 votes in order that Congress and the House basically had to vote on it officially.
	And so Massey has done some very impressive maneuvering here.
	But of course, it goes without saying that allying yourself with the other side, with the Democrats in this, has made him wildly unpopular with very, very powerful people within the Republican establishment.
	And so I'll just read out the actual names of the people that signed this.
	So it was from the Republican side there.
	I'm not going to read out 218 names.
	Thank you.
	So it was Massey, it was Marjorie Taylor Greene, it was Lauren Bobert, and it was Nancy Mace.
	Now, each of these people have come under extreme fire, some more publicly than others.
	But the fact of the matter is that obviously the one that was most well documented was the tirade that Trump went on on True Social against Marjorie Taylor Greene, basically saying that, look, this is all just a power play by her.
	It's because she knew that her numbers were falling and it was a way to basically boost her numbers, boost her presence.
	And it's like, okay, but even by that logic, you're basically admitting that what she is doing is a popular position to revitalize herself.
	So you're admitting the fact that actually there is popular mandate for these files to be released to the public, as you initially promised, you know, just last year.
	And so we...
	Because then we'll finally know what was actually happening with Prince Andrew.
	Right.
	We'll know what was happening with Mandelson.
	We know how Mandelson was close to Tony Blair and Alistair Campbell.
	So this is a huge issue.
	Epstein has photographs with Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia, with a bunch of other senior people in the Middle East.
	His network was clearly global.
	And this might explain why they don't want to release it.
	Maybe it wasn't Trump, maybe it was.
	But there is clearly a public interest and it extends well beyond the United States.
	Exactly.
	It's not just compromising for Washington.
	It's compromising for global administrations.
	For how Washington as an entity does business, how the establishment as an establishment does business.
	Right.
	And how it works through Epstein and Ehud Barak and a bunch of other people who were clearly heavily involved with him.
	And so then you've got this, which I just say, this was extremely poor from Trump as well to go after a personal attack against Massey, who recently lost his wife last year and then has just recently remarried.
	But again, total antomonym.
	No substance to it.
	No reality.
	I mean, it's not like Trump started right now.
	That's how he rolls.
	Yeah, no, no, I totally grant that.
	That is exactly.
	From the very beginning, isn't it?
	Yes.
	But Trump is on his third marriage.
	Yeah.
	And Massey is a widow, is a widower.
	No, I'm not saying it's correct to do so.
	I have criticized it.
	This is Trump.
	No, no, I totally agree.
	And I'm not, please don't misunderstand me.
	I'm not bringing this up to be like, my gosh, this is beneath Trump.
	No, no, we have, as you say, a large president of this type of character.
	But the point obviously is sticking anymore.
	All Massey surely has been doing is putting forward the agenda that you outlined in your campaign that you would want to lead.
	That's the problem.
	And so all of a sudden, why all of this hostility?
	And so we essentially reach the point where the White House has called in, It says the extraordinary summit gathered top officials, including Kash Patel, FBI Director, Pam Bondi, Attorney General, to meet with Colorado Representative Lauren Bobert, who of course signed, and says, in an effort to convince her to remove her signature from the petition to force a vote on releasing the Epstein files.
	And so there has been intervention right from the top to basically stop this from going to Congress.
	You know what I think?
	And I'm analyzing here.
	I'm not moralizing.
	I think most probably what's the case with this is that the files exist.
	They have more than Trump wants to release.
	Sure.
	Or his administration wants to release.
	Most probably less than the maximalist conspiracy tutorials think.
	But what exists there is, from a realpolitik perspective, is a great weapon for Trump to use to blackmail people in order to promote the U.S. interests.
	So most probably from a geopolitical perspective, that's what he's doing.
	That's my view.
	Yeah, a perfectly valid take.
	I don't disagree.
	It could be possible.
	But what's more as well, so you have on the one side, you have Massey and Marjorie Taylor Green and these people from the Republican camp pushing for this transparency bill.
	But simultaneously, whilst this is going on, the Republican House Oversight Committee have also just released about 33,000 documents.
	Right.
	Right.
	So this is something that's going on separate, and obviously this is all in the backdrop of the fact that...
	Republicans are the Democrats, because I thought the Democrats were releasing some as well.
	They have, yes.
	They've also leaked some as well.
	But the thing was that, of course, stopped.
	So yes, they've released 20,000 pages of documents basically received from the estate of Jeffrey Epstein.
	But the thing that was one of the things that was most eye-catching was this.
	Now, this was during Trump's first term, back when the Democrats were trying to impeach him.
	And you just look at this video.
	So you have here Democrat, as it says, Stacey Plaskett.
	And whilst this is going on, judging from these new documents, you can see Epstein texting her in real time as she is about to raise a question during the actual Epstein or Trump.
	Epstein is texting this lady, and they will come up along the bottom so it's all clear to you.
	But it's worth watching in full.
	This was when Barack Obama was president of the United States.
	And while we were once driving through a struggling neighborhood in Chicago, he commented that only black people could live that way.
	Attorney Klein Privilege, yes, I will turn it over.
	You, as my friend Mr. Meadows, pointed out, misled this committee even today in a written submission that contradicted your testimony.
	You have suggested you were going to review that.
	Did you review it?
	Are you going to review it in our next break to correct the record?
	Yes or no?
	Yes.
	Question, you helped out the president's campaign or were involved in the campaign as a representative, as a spokesman, even in your words today.
	It was your idea for the campaign dating back to 2011.
	Is that accurate?
	Yes or no?
	Yes.
	Mr. Weisenberg and other individuals.
	Let me just read what was being said.
	She was texting Epstein, asking him about Rona.
	She thought it was an acronym.
	It turns out Rona is the name of Trump's assistant.
	Yes.
	And she was saying, look, I'm up next.
	Tell me what to ask about this Rona thing.
	Is it an acronym?
	What am I asking about?
	So she's being instructed live as she's sitting in that hearing and being told what to ask about and what she should be saying.
	Personally from Jeffrey Epstein.
	Personally, from Jeffrey Epstein.
	And then she proceeds to ask the questions that Epstein instructed her to ask.
	So it's about as incriminating as it could possibly get.
	Why is this congresswoman texting Epstein and why is he coaching her specifically on Trump's impeachment?
	So what was the role that he was playing in that?
	So the idea that there's nothing else to see there is completely belied just by that clip.
	Indeed.
	Because it means that he was influencing Democrats on key committees about the impeachment and telling them which direction to look in with the aim.
	And if you go after people's top executive assistants, you're basically stripping them away of their trusted advisors so you can attack them more effectively.
	That's what's happening to Kirstarma here in Britain.
	So this is very significant.
	It is.
	Remarkably significant.
	And there were many, many other things besides.
	But of course, amongst all of this, we really cannot underestimate the power of Bretton Circuses as well.
	And amongst all of this very, very important stuff here, there was also something that the masses really chewed up.
	And that is the fact that there seemed to be some correspondence between Mark Epstein, Jeffrey's brother, basically asking for Steve Bannon to ask if there was dirt on Trump, if the Russians had dirt on Trump to Putin.
	And what we got is here, if you can see the sentence, ask him if Putin has the photos of Trump blowing Bubba.
	Now, just to make the point, this has 60 million impressions, right?
	And so regardless, irrespective of the validity of this, and I will just say as well that Mark Epstein has since come out and said this was a private joke.
	This was not actually what the inference was.
	Bubba is not Bill Clinton, right?
	Is what they're saying, but he doesn't say who it actually was then.
	It was blowing somewhere else called Bubba.
	It's insane.
	It's insane.
	And without more background.
	But also the question is if you believe it.
	Well, the point is, I understand, and I've been asking my question.
	I've been asking myself that question all morning, to be honest with you.
	But the point is, Stellios, not so much whether it is true, but of course whether or not people believe it and whether or not they are going to hound him about it.
	And the subsequent point is this only goes away with a little bit more clarity because there is evidently more there.
	So the initial claim that was made by Trump that there's nothing there to see, there's nothing there that's worth examining, that doesn't stand on very much because there's clearly something there.
	And as Neva Morin comments here in the chat, Bannon has, I think, 10 hours, not 15 hours, of video with Epstein where he was talking to Epstein and helping him and so on.
	Like, that's also a question.
	What is everybody's relationship to this guy?
	I mean, we are talking about power networks.
	Sorry, can you try to reload that later?
	We're talking about power networks.
	People meet other people, loads of other people in these networks.
	I mean, yes.
	If you look at the documentaries about serial killers, for instance, you will see some of them being with politicians taking photos together.
	Who was one of the really fat serial killer?
	I'm sure.
	I don't remember.
	Yeah, but some of them were with Democrat politicians, other with Republican.
	I think Ted Bundy was with a Republican.
	The other guy was with a Democrat.
	It happens.
	But you never know.
	So all it needs is speculation now.
	Right.
	Exactly.
	And this will never go away to a degree.
	Even if now they release extra files and we have more people, there will still be an element.
	There will still be people who will say we don't know the whole truth.
	There are two points to make it.
	It's all right.
	One of them is that people will still believe something was not released, no matter how much is released.
	The other point is that there is clearly something there that should be released.
	And anybody associated with Epstein, even if they're just moving within these power networks, should be asked.
	So Robert Kennedy says that yes, he flew with Epstein twice, da-da-da-da.
	And he says on both occasions it was with my family and there was nothing untowards going on.
	Okay, fair enough.
	That is moving in power networks.
	Fair enough.
	But is there something more with other people?
	Clearly, this was the basis of Epstein's whole operation.
	Now, there should be a push for accountability.
	Exactly.
	And the fact that Elaine Maxwell is alive and that she hasn't been asked, okay, you were convicted apparently for facilitating prostitution.
	The subsequent question is, who are your clients?
	And given that one of the most important witnesses in all of this, Virginia Guffery, just so happens to have died earlier on this year, that complicates things a little bit as well.
	But you can see this from only earlier on this weekend, where Trump, again, was just being absolutely intransigent on the Epstein files and was just saying, I don't want to talk about it because fake news like you, you're a terrible reporter, fake news like you just keep springing up to deflect from the tremendous success of what Trump had meant.
	But the thing is that there was also, Massey was saying he potentially had 100 Republicans in Congress, sorry, in the House, who were going to basically vote with him on this bill.
	And so Trump has now tried to get ahead of this and actually give it his blessing.
	This, from what I can tell, are what are the reasons why this swing has happened.
	Because this seems to have been going on with or without his blessing at this point.
	And so like anything, once that's the case and once you can see where it's going, you've got to get on the inside of it.
	You've got to be at the helm because you've got to control his trajectory.
	Here's my take on this.
	Anybody who's leading the system is stuck protecting the system, whether they like it or not.
	To a degree, yeah.
	Yes.
	And it's obvious that Kash Patel and people like that have fallen hostage to the systems that they run.
	And you see that with the fact that nothing is released about the attempted assassinations on Trump.
	We don't know anything else.
	We don't know about the second guy's connections to Ukrainian intelligence.
	We don't know what was going on there.
	We don't understand how the Secret Service failed to protect Trump in the first assassination where they hit him in the ear.
	So there's clearly a big problem going on at the level of the ability of Trump's people being able to control the agencies that they run.
	Now this has run away from his control.
	And so he's turned from trying to protect the system to, okay, it'll burn down and I'll still come out on top somehow.
	I think that personally, I think that to a very large extent he will do it.
	And people will believe him.
	Because let us not forget that he nearly died and he took a bullet for it.
	And then he stood out and said, fight, fight, fight.
	This isn't the, in the eyes of most people and the general public, this isn't the behavior of someone who is risking his life just to protect the swamp.
	Most people will see this as a person who is in a very dirty world because politics is a dirty world and is trying to have their back.
	Yeah.
	I think that to some extent, the audience of the main support for Trump and the audience for Trump has stuck with him with this behavior ever since the very beginning.
	So we do know him, for instance, instead of answering to questions, trashing the people asking them.
	Yes, yes.
	But his whole coalition...
	You're going to cover that in your segment, so we'll talk about that in a second.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Well, then just to round off by saying, look, we never thought for a second that the quest for basically transparency and getting the Epstein files out would be easy and certainly not simple.
	But I don't think any of us were quite prepared to go from we're going to release some to they don't exist to we're going to release some.
	Yes.
	And this is really.
	So it's obviously going to be apocalyptic if it comes, as you say, for not just the American establishment, but as you inferred, many establishments around the world.
	And so I suppose we'll just brace for it and hopefully truth will out.
	Yep.
	All right.
	I'll just read.
	Nevermorn for $5.
	Thank you.
	Says, one of Trump's lawyers, Robert Barnes, believes pay for play.
	Pam and other neocons have been telling Trump his name is all over the files.
	Yeah, well, I mean, we've seen enough files now where Trump's name has been attached to them in some way, but of course, nothing quite as damning as with other people.
	Like Bill Clinton being the most obvious one.
	Of course.
	Of course.
	I'll just go through these.
	Luke says, to my previous comment, oh, maybe I should start from your previous one then.
	Anyway, sorry, Gimley Son of Glorian says, good afternoon, Brother Luca, Brother Stelios, and Brother Firas.
	Also, five books full of mustache regrowth funds.
	I can't believe I'm still getting comments.
	You're not living this down.
	We love it.
	Oh, yeah.
	I'm very sorry, Gimli.
	Chris says, I think there is way more going on here than we know.
	Steve Bannon is still sitting on 15 hours worth of footage.
	Yes, you talked about this in the segment, didn't you?
	Luke says, Good day, all.
	What I don't get is that the Democrats released through lots of evidence when was the redacted emails and the other one saying that Trump was with Epstein, but White House evidence proves he was serving the troops.
	Yeah, there are a lot of contradictions, and this is why we need all of the files released so we can brush through those contradictions and find out the truth of it.
	And Fock Oof says, I think I saw something saying Gislais Maxwell had a horse named.
	Okay, interesting.
	And then Luke says, sorry, to my previous comment, I feel like Democrats are just discrediting themselves with the boy who cried wolf.
	Some of the thing feels weird.
	I can't shake it.
	To be fair, Luke, I absolutely share your sentiments with that.
	Absolutely.
	All right, Stelius.
	Right, my friend Harry, could we please load the second segment?
	Great.
	Right.
	Many people are saying that MAGA is dead and they are announcing basically the demise of the movement.
	I think they're completely mistaken.
	And in this segment, I'm going to tell you who I think is behind it.
	And the answer is not just one side.
	There are several sides, but they will show you in a bit.
	Now, one thing to say is that I remember in the year after during the first year of the Biden presidency, Biden 46, there were many people who were talking about Trump and they were saying that he has zero energy.
	There's zero way him coming back.
	And there was a sort of movement there of trashing Trump.
	People pushing for Ron DeSantis in standards.
	Yes.
	And I will say, in one case, I did think that DeSantis should definitely run.
	Right.
	Then I remember the same people were really enthusiastic with the mugshot.
	They were saying, right, this is raw energy from Trump.
	The establishment is against him.
	He is my guy.
	He is going to be with it.
	So there are lots of fashions, sometimes pros, sometimes against Trump.
	And there are lots of people who are jumping on the bandwagon.
	I think that the best thing to do is to stand apart from that and don't get sucked into the trends and try to see things clearly.
	Now, let me see, let me tell you what I think about this, because it also happened during Operation Midnight Hammer.
	I remember again, there were several people, many people from the sites and the podcasting industry who were saying that World War III is going to happen.
	And I was of the firm opinion that it wasn't going to happen.
	You're in the nothing ever happens camp.
	Not exactly, not always, but I do think that Chad Jack has some power in him.
	He does.
	The force is strong with him.
	Right.
	So I think essentially MAGA is not dead for the same reason that World War III didn't happen.
	And I will say that people have a tremendous problem reading X and how X maps onto real life.
	Right.
	And frequently what does well on X doesn't necessarily reflect what happens in real life.
	And what appears sometimes to be a movement on X isn't necessarily a grassroots movement.
	So I'll give you the long story short.
	What I thought when it came to people talking about Operation Midnight Hammer, such as Tacker Carlson, who said basically, don't let the protagonists lie to you.
	And he was one of the main voices who were saying that there is going to be a World War III and that Iran is much more powerful than Trump thought.
	What I think is essentially that a large part of their audience is not a US audience.
	Some of it is bots.
	Some of it is just Middle Easterners and people from whatever country Tucker happens to support at the time or whose leadership happens to support.
	So I don't think that it's a safe thing to say, well, this got 40 million views, 100k likes.
	Therefore, there's a grass move movement of 100k people in the US who voted for it.
	And there are much more, many more, because not all of them are on X. Right.
	So let me just say a bit.
	I think that if you look at this right now, the line is MAGA is dead.
	And I will be asking several questions.
	In this segment, I will be just asking questions.
	And I will give you also some answer.
	And I will ask lots of questions about Israel as well.
	Because this is where the whole this is what many people are trying to make everything about.
	Right.
	But let me just say that I think that to a very large extent this is just not organic.
	It's definitely not a massive movement in the US, a grassroots movement.
	I think it's not organic.
	So you see here Dean Withers and Nick Fuentes and Joe Webben, Anonymous, all of them suddenly saying the same thing.
	Sorry, I just don't buy it.
	Right.
	Now what's happening is that Trump isn't going to run for another time.
	He isn't going to be 48.
	Yes, he is trash talking in the same way that he was trash talking to Hillary Clinton when he was debating her, telling her you'll be in jail.
	Yes, he was trash talking when he was saying that he was going to be 48 and everyone got emperor of mankind.
	Everyone thought again Trump was going to be that.
	No, he was flirting with that audience.
	But he's a politician.
	Just never forget that.
	Right, so people right now are saying Trump said America first, but that thing wasn't as clear as they thought it was.
	It wasn't as clear as yeah, it wasn't as clear as they thought it was.
	So now they're saying there's a battle with respect to how you understand America first, whether it's heavy isolationist, as it seems to me that the blue side on the America First right now is arguing for, or it's going to be heavily interventionist, as the neocons are trying to say, or it's going to be Jacksonian, which is what I think Trump is, is limited precision strikes.
	Neither isolationists nor George Bush Jr. type of interventionist, but targeted precision strikes, which I think is what Trump has governed as to this day.
	And this is how he has done so far.
	So now we have a particular movement, the movement that says MAGA is dead.
	And they're saying that now it's America First and America First means something like America only.
	And they're trying to say that this is the new thing.
	Right.
	So I want to say also, I want to remember that Fuentes was someone who did say to people to not vote for Donald Trump.
	When Donald Trump won, he basically said, I can't believe we did it again.
	He's trolling.
	I mean, it's safe to say he's a troll.
	He likes trolling.
	Yes.
	For people who are entering social media right now, yes, Fuentes to a very large degree is trolling.
	Does it very well?
	Yeah.
	Right.
	So let's.
	I won't be talking about it.
	So about the previous thing.
	Right.
	So Trump now basically said that, yeah, he doesn't think that Carlson and Fuentes should be de-platformed.
	He linked it with a personal issue of loyalty.
	Again, he said he has been good to me.
	He has done so before to other politicians.
	I think also with Marjorie Taylor Greene.
	And we saw how that ended up this weekend.
	So it doesn't mean that much, but he did take a public stand saying that he should be allowed to platform anyone he wants.
	And of course, he said afterwards that people also are allowed to make his mind, their mind.
	Some people are controversial, others aren't.
	He said with this gloating Trump, the smug face that I'm not controversial.
	Well, the thing is, he's not anymore in the grand scheme of things.
	He was controversial back in 2016, but we've moved on to more controversial characters these days.
	Now Fuentes is thanking him.
	Right.
	Now, I want to say this.
	If you actually think that Trump is an enemy of your country, you don't thank him.
	Sorry, you don't.
	I don't think he said he was an enemy of the country.
	Well, I mean, if the whole, I think, well, let's say that there is a segment of the audience online or in that movement, I don't know necessarily if Fuentes has said this, that is trying to say that Trump is entirely controlled by the Jews And is not governing for US interests, is governing entirely for Israeli interests.
	Right, so now what I want to do is ask some questions and also give you some answers and give you my view on why I take particular stances on these topics.
	So I'll start with these questions, such as, is there such a thing as a Jewish lobby?
	If yes, how unified is it?
	Is there disagreement within it or not?
	Even if there is unanimous agreement about some issues, is there unanimous agreement on every issue?
	And again, of course, there are people need to talk about specific issues there and do independent research on each one individually.
	Question number two, does the Jewish lobby have power?
	I think the answer is yes.
	Question number three, assuming it does, how powerful is it?
	Question number four, to whatever degree it's powerful, does it use its power for good or bad ends?
	Or ends that are pro or against US interests or against the interests or pro-interests of any other country other than Israel.
	Question number five, to whatever extent they have power, do they control Trump?
	What I want to say is that these are empirical questions.
	And to give you precise answers, I can't because I don't have, I haven't conducted the empirical research required to give you some answers.
	But I will tell you what I think is true in some of them at least.
	And I will tell you why.
	So right now it seems to me it's obvious.
	On X, there's narrative warfare.
	There are narrative wars.
	Everyone is trying to co-opt movements.
	Not everyone.
	Many people are trying to co-opt movements.
	I mean, Fuentes before, when Trump won, he wanted to claim part of that victory.
	He said, yeah, we did it again.
	Now he may want to get some of the migrant crowd saying, thank you, Mr. President, for that.
	It happens.
	He's not the only one.
	And sadly, it happens quite a lot.
	He's not more guilty of it than many other people.
	Right.
	But I do think he is guilty of it.
	Right.
	So what I want to say is that I think that lately there is a new trend that happens online.
	And it makes everything about Israel.
	And I will say that it seems to me that they are anti-Israel first.
	Every topic that they approach, they approach it in the line of their only criterion for judging policy in any country is, does it benefit or harm Israel?
	And that's the only thing that they're asking.
	Some people are doing this.
	And these people are online, they seem to be many, but I don't think that all of them are real persons, let alone people in the US.
	Because I frequently talk to people and they tell me that they don't meet these people except in very few events, political events, and even there, they're not a majority.
	Right.
	So everyone tells me that they don't represent any kind of grassroots movement.
	So what I want to say here is that I constantly see people attacking everyone for supporting views because they say that, well, you're not anti-Israel enough.
	You don't agree on my anti-Israel agenda 100%.
	You may disagree entirely with it.
	And they say, therefore, you're an enemy, therefore you're getting your 7K and therefore you are a Mossad agent.
	I will say, I haven't tweeted anything about Israel.
	I just haven't.
	That's not what my account is for.
	I'm not a Middle Eastern commentator.
	The only thing I've said about the Middle East is that World War II was not going to happen.
	That was the only thing I said on thread.
	So when I see these people calling me a Mossad agent, an Omega Zioshiel, I cannot help but think they're blowing things out of proportion.
	So most probably, I cannot help but think that most probably they blow entirely out of proportion their assumptions.
	Or they either do straightforwardly character assassination attempts and bot swarms and whatever and attacks or they just view the world through assumptions that are wrong and if they are true they're not true to the extent that they think that they're true.
	Right, so I want to tell you right here, right now, who I think benefits from this flirting right now with that crowd.
	I think it's several sides.
	I'll give you a short answer and then I'll elaborate just a bit.
	I think it's the Democratic Party number one and then it's America's geopolitical enemies.
	Right, why is it the Democratic Party that is profiting from it?
	Because they're going to lose the middle this way.
	Right, so I'm going to hesitate some predictions.
	I know that there's going to be massive backlash, particularly online, and I know that people are going to disagree with.
	So I'm going to give you some predictions, just like I told you that I don't think there's going to be World War III.
	I think that if this flirting continues and the next Republican candidate for the presidency is openly flirting with that crowd, I think the Republican Party is going to lose the elections.
	They may deal already enough damage.
	I don't think they represent the majority.
	I don't think they can win elections on that policy.
	I think they may be enough to lose some swing states in the midterms.
	But my prediction is that if the next Republican candidate, the Republican candidate for 48 is openly flirting with that crowd, they're going to lose the elections.
	And then let me just say why I think that America's key geopolitical enemies are profiting from this.
	The answer is very simple.
	If you look at what these persons are saying and bots, you will see that they're constantly saying, well, we need power, power, power, power of principles, power, power, power.
	We want more and more and more power.
	And we are going to get power amorally and we're going to crush all our enemies.
	Right.
	Why are they saying this?
	Because whoever holds power in a realpolitik is able to dictate their terms to those without power.
	Right.
	So when they're heavily in favor of that completely isolationist agenda, essentially what they're doing is they want an America without allies.
	And yes, in this world with allies, you're more powerful.
	Maybe that's a hard pill for some to swallow, but that's true.
	Without allies, there's a power vacuum, and that power vacuum is not going to be empty.
	America's key geopolitical enemies are going to take advantage of it and are going to try to fill it.
	And in the global scale of geopolitical power, that kind of agenda is going to make America less powerful and its enemies more powerful or its opponents.
	So when the same people are saying, we want power, power, power, power, to dictate our terms to the opposition, and they're saying for their own nation to isolate and withdraw into the geopolitical field and leave a vast vacuum that is going to be filled by their enemies,
	that immediately screams that their enemy, that if we follow, if we draw the inferences from their line of thinking, What they're saying is we want more power for the enemies of the US to be able to dictate more and more of their terms to the rest of the world.
	May I suggest an alternative viewpoint?
	So the idea of an Israel lobby was established very firmly by John Mersheimer and Stephen Walt in a book on the subject which was attacked viciously.
	But they made an extremely compelling case, I think, in the mid-2000s, where they went over this.
	And it was also something that was very strongly explored by Pat Buchanan, who ended up being right about the kinds of Middle Eastern interventions that we saw.
	And if you look at the interventions in the Middle East that have happened, they've not favored democracy or liberalism or anything of the sort.
	They've simply destroyed Israel's enemies, from Gaddafi in Libya to Saddam in Iraq to Assad in Syria.
	And the result was a disaster.
	On the geopolitical side, the main problem facing America today is that the policies of the United States against Iran and Russia in particular have pushed these natural resource giants into the arms of China, which means that geopolitically you end up with China dominating Eurasia with all of the resources of Eurasia feeding the Chinese industrial machine, making it unstoppable.
	So the argument here isn't just let's favor America's enemies.
	The argument here is that if you want to confront China, separate it from its natural resource providers.
	I didn't say that that's the argument.
	I said that that's the influence.
	That's what's implied there.
	That's your inference.
	No, I said that's what implied there.
	Hold on.
	Whereas the alternative viewpoint, which says it doesn't really matter where Ukraine's border stands, because Russia has taken the territories that it's taken, and the precedent of right of conquest is a long-standing one until the UN came along with its silly ideas.
	It doesn't change anything where Ukraine's borders are, not from an American perspective.
	Maybe from a German perspective it does.
	Maybe from a Polish perspective, but not from an American perspective.
	And if you reconcile with Russia and can tap into these natural resources, you've dealt a blow to China.
	Similarly, the issue with Iran fundamentally is Israel.
	That's it.
	There's no other issue geopolitically with Iran.
	Because Iran is surrounded by Turkey and Pakistan.
	These are the two powers that are around it, in the neighborhood.
	And these are Sunni powers that are rising, particularly Turkey.
	And Turkey's always been a threat to Europe, always will be.
	Therefore, if you strengthen Iran as opposed to weaken it, you have the Turks stuck in their own near abroad, working in Syria, working in Iraq, against Iranian interests, and therefore separating Iran from China.
	And the consequence of separating both Iran and Russia from China is more Western influence into Central Asia, which is another energy powerhouse.
	And if you stop Central Asia from directing all of its resources towards China, you weaken the Chinese.
	So it's not that these guys are all advocating, hold on, it's not that these guys are all advocating pure isolationism.
	The argument is for competent imperialism.
	And competent imperialism does not include uniting Russia and Iran with China.
	That's not competent.
	That's insane imperialism.
	That's simply insane imperialism.
	I don't think that this is what Trump is doing.
	So what I'm going to say is because we can constantly talk about the USA.
	That is what happens behind closed doors.
	What I want to say is that, and I'm happy to have a friendly bet with you, I'm saying that if they elect a presidential candidate for 48 who is openly flirting with a crowd, they're going to lose that election.
	I would just say something on that though, actually, as well, which is that I actually think you're right in that assessment.
	I think that 48, who ran on that platform, would perhaps lose the election.
	But I do think we also have to be mindful of the fact that many of the people of that persuasion are of the younger crowd.
	And actually, particularly in America, many of the demographics that hold to a particular loyalty to Israel are of the older generation.
	And so, even though if it be the case that 48 may lose, that doesn't guarantee that that is always going to be the winning platform because the ground is constantly evolving beneath.
	Well, we can talk about 49 later.
	We have seven years.
	Yeah, yeah, well, yeah, yeah, sure.
	But I'm just saying, but in terms of the long term, the overarching trajectory that things are going on, what you're seeing more and more in New York, if I may just quickly, with New York and Mandani, of course, is a populist left.
	Now, I understand that he has Soros backing and everything, but nonetheless, aesthetically, a populist left.
	And on the right now, you're seeing this fracturing between the different factions of the right as well.
	And what you're seeing is, and this is not just America, but this is also in Europe as well, a growing dissatisfaction with the middle ground.
	And so it's not entirely the case that, yes, the populist left or the populist right can just win an absolute majority, as you're saying, and accrue power.
	But we are seeing the shrinking of the center.
	The point is, I think we're not.
	I think that this is entirely an online phenomenon that is mostly fake.
	So that's my point.
	I can't prove it to you right now.
	You can't prove the same thing to me.
	So let us see.
	Just like we saw with World War III.
	And also with respect to the geopolitical point you said before, there are all sorts of ways we can talk about this.
	We could say that right now, because Israel and Turkey have massive problems and Turkey is being flirted by the EU as a bulwark against Russia.
	Right now, this gives a great opportunity to Russia, for instance, to team up with Trump and stop and basically give Turkey to stop it.
	And instead of approaching China, approaching the US.
	So we can constantly talk about this.
	We can constantly talk about what happens behind closed doors.
	Let us, and because of the nature of it, and I will say I haven't, I don't have an issue with people asking questions such as the ones I raised before.
	That's why I raised them.
	And I'm sure other people are asking them.
	And I don't think you've heard me many times saying that people shouldn't be asking these questions.
	No, no, no.
	I've never heard you say that.
	Of course not.
	Yeah, that's not the implication.
	I think that this is the nature of the argument and the conversation.
	I think that to a very large extent this is just fake and maybe foreign-oriented.
	We'll just see.
	Maybe.
	Thanks.
	Thank you.
	Okay.
	Want to leave us a couple of comments?
	Yeah, I can do that.
	Well, we have one here for $20.
	Thank you very much from Control 94 who says, first time catching the show live from the US.
	Cheers.
	Well, thanks very much.
	I hope you're enjoying it.
	We've got Flavius Magnus who says, I don't think Trump is an enemy, but he is surrounded by greener worm tongues.
	I mean, politics.
	Politics.
	It's a good name for Lindsey Graham, right?
	Yes.
	It's a good name for Lindsey Graham.
	Let me see here.
	What have I read?
	There's more money for the Mustache Fund.
	Five more dollars for the Mustache Regrowth Growth Fund.
	Look, I really don't want to break it down.
	But we need Robo Harry to grow some onions of deception for the Mustache Regrowth Fund.
	Oh, my goodness.
	Further commentary?
	Apologies for the last super chat.
	I lost composure.
	Oh, that's all right.
	That's absolutely fine.
	That's absolutely fine.
	Thank you for chatting.
	It's all good.
	All right, then.
	Go on then, Ferras.
	Tell us how our government's betraying us as well.
	Okay, so let me try to find where I want to take you here, which is not to something I can read.
	Yes, well, something that you can read will be coming, I promise.
	So Shabana Mahmoud, the home secretary in Britain, that is the sort of Department of Homeland Security slash Department of Interior, wrapped into one for our American audience.
	She has finally figured out that the problem with the small boats and with asylum seekers, quote unquote, is really grievous and that it is out of control and it's dividing the country.
	I wonder what gave her that idea.
	Thank you, Tommy Robinson.
	Yes, yes.
	Anyway, she has said that refugees who have established lives with homes and families in the UK, including Ukrainians, as if Ukrainians were the problem.
	Thank you, The Guardian, will face having to return if their home countries become safe.
	This is the definition of asylum.
	Asylum is by its very nature temporary, not a backdoor to immigration, surely.
	But she has said that the system was out of control, putting huge pressure on communities, and announced plans to end the permanent status of refugees.
	That's normally what happens.
	Yes.
	You take refuge, I mean...
	That should be the de facto...
	Yeah.
	Yes, my family ran away to Jordan during the Lebanese Civil War.
	We went back when the war ended.
	Like literally the year after the war ended.
	So it's sort of perfectly normal here.
	They would have to reapply to remain in Britain every two and a half years.
	Decent policy, okay?
	She's going to speak to the House of Commons this afternoon.
	That is our parliament.
	She will announce that those granted asylum will be returned to their home countries when they are considered safe.
	Revolutionary.
	Absolutely revolutionary.
	Refugee status in Britain lasts for five years, after which people can apply for indefinite leave to remain and then citizenship.
	Again, this is immigration.
	This is not seeking asylum.
	So they're sort of giving away the game, but I wanted to use leftist sources because why not?
	We don't give them enough credit here.
	She said that some rules under which asylum seekers had more access to protected accommodation than British citizens, such as those around anti-social behavior and council housing.
	Why should asylum seekers have more access to housing than British citizens?
	I don't understand it.
	There is also, she says, no expectation that people have to comply with the rules in order to retain their asylum accommodation.
	There is no expectation that if you break the law in this country, you lose your accommodation, she said.
	Yes, they're not expected to follow the rules.
	They're a protected case.
	Yes, we've known.
	And she's correct to point this out.
	Thank you, Shabana Mahmoud.
	We appreciate this.
	This places those individuals in a better position than most British citizens in social housing in this country.
	And I think it's right to say that we will now expect people to comply with the law of the land, to comply with the rules as they're asked to do.
	It just sounds crazy when she says it out loud, like this is some divine revelation that's just come to her.
	The entire country hasn't been screaming this policy.
	As opposed to this being the bare minimum.
	Yes.
	And if they can work, and it's a small number that have the right to work, but if they can work, they should work and support themselves.
	This is where it gets tricky.
	Okay.
	Because essentially, she's going to do what Zach Pulaski is advocating and allow a lot more people who are supposedly claiming asylum to enter into the labor market.
	And so the constant pressure on wages will continue because the supply of labor will keep on growing.
	So that's the sort of backdoor thing that is being implied here.
	Everybody's focused on, oh dear, are we really not going to give every asylum seeker an infinite pot of cash?
	What they're missing is that if you're in a union, your job is at threat because there is going to be a lot more available workers who can take your position.
	But this was always the angle from both Tories and Labour from the beginning that actually the problem with the boats was not whether or not we actually wanted them in our country in the first place.
	It was just the general legal framework of the thing.
	So if they had all come through a legal route, then we would just be stuck with them.
	When, of course, what we know is a bunch of them are chancers and African crusaders.
	Well, not necessarily crusaders.
	You know what I mean?
	You know what I mean?
	Shihadi is the word you're looking for.
	Yes.
	You know, and it's like, no, we just don't want them crossing the channel at all.
	Yep.
	So she said that she will amend laws that guarantee housing and financial support to asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute.
	They wouldn't be destitute.
	They would be absolutely fine at home, but that's a different story.
	Or they would be absolutely fine close to home.
	That's a different story.
	She said that assistance will become discretionary, meaning that it will be able to deny help to those who can work or have assets.
	Again, letting them into the labor market.
	That's the subtext here, which is what Polanski is advocating.
	More for the Deliveroo economy.
	More for the Deliveroo economy, exactly.
	All for the Deliveroo economy.
	The majority of asylum seekers currently receiving support are unlikely to be affected.
	Hold on a second.
	There are hundreds of thousands here already, many of whom are on ILR or have received citizenship or so on and so forth.
	The solution here is to do nothing about them.
	Why?
	Why?
	There are about 100,000 people in receipt of asylum support in the UK, the vast majority of whom are accommodated by the state.
	A third remain in hotels, but labor will end this, they say, by 2029.
	A small number have a right to work, etc.
	Basically, what they're saying is, automatic handouts for those seeking refuge will end.
	So basically, saying that I'm seeking asylum here guarantees you a huge income relative to your home country, that's going to end.
	That's a good thing.
	That's a good thing.
	But the subtext here is that they will allow a lot more of them to enter the labor market.
	Take with one hand, give with the other.
	Exactly.
	It will just make sure that the headlines that everyone sees is the taking.
	Yes, exactly.
	So they're blaming this on EU law: that there's a legal duty to provide asylum seeker support.
	And it has meant guaranteed unconditional financial assistance for anyone who claims asylum and would otherwise be destitute.
	This is ending.
	Support will no longer be a given.
	It will become discretionary power.
	Mixed bag.
	Good on the face of it, but then you really have to worry about the subtext.
	One step forward, five steps back.
	Exactly.
	Exactly.
	And then she wrote a whole article sort of defending her position and explaining why she should be allowed to make these changes.
	Dark forces are stirring in the UK.
	Hello, fellow Dark Forcer.
	Yes, of course.
	Exactly.
	Hello, fellow Dark Forcers.
	I know some of these measures will face opposition, but a country without secure borders is less safe for those who look like me.
	Yeah.
	I think it's a lot safe for people who don't look like you.
	But it's so obvious.
	You can see.
	The fact that he's spinning it around in this direction is a problem because what she sees essentially is a wholesale rejection of immigration, including her own.
	And she feels threatened by that.
	And this is really the point, isn't it?
	Yes, it is because you see a lot of The best and brightest on the left.
	Yes.
	Basically saying that Shabana Mahmood is a traitor.
	Because she is from an immigrant background, she is basically pulling up the ladder and stopping other people from outside Britain coming in.
	What Maybe is not smart enough to see is that from her perspective, she is actually entirely on the side of the immigrant class.
	Yes, she's just doing it.
	She's thinking two steps ahead in the future.
	Exactly.
	In terms of how to make sure that it is a permanent basis in the United Kingdom.
	Exactly.
	And that we don't get mass deportations and re-migration.
	Exactly.
	As we restore control to our borders, I will therefore open new, capped, safe and legal routes for genuine refugees.
	Capped.
	Yes.
	Do we know what the cap is?
	Well, she answers, while these will be modest at first, they will grow in time.
	Of course they will.
	Thank you.
	I expect nothing less.
	Yeah.
	Crucially, they will make community sponsorship the norm for resettlement of refugees.
	Community and voluntary organizations will be able to sponsor refugees to come to the UK and support them when they arrive.
	This will ensure that communities that have the capacity and desire to accept refugees will be able to do so.
	As the Homes for Ukraine scheme shows, the British people's capacity for this generosity is deep.
	And as Pete North correctly points out, this is a recipe for sectarianism.
	Yep.
	So essentially, Afghans will, you will be delighted to know, sponsor more Afghans, Pakistanis will sponsor more Pakistanis, etc., etc.
	And since she's adding in a voluntary requirement, every mosque will be issuing letters saying, yes, yes, yes, Mahmoud absolutely volunteered for this, that, and the other thing, and should be given settled status and so on.
	She even says that there will be ways of accelerating settlement for those who are working.
	So they're still using it as an immigration scheme.
	At the same time, we will open new legal routes for students and those in work.
	Why?
	Please stop.
	Why?
	Just please.
	Why?
	I mean, the universities are already sort of issuing nonsense degrees to people who can't speak English.
	Is she implying that they'll be allowed to apply for asylum status if they come in as students?
	I don't understand.
	Well, the universities will happily take them.
	Yeah.
	No moral quality.
	To answer my own question, yes, she is.
	We will ensure that war doesn't cut short their chances in life, and we will welcome those who can contribute to our national life.
	So more immigration is what's being promised, but just getting rid of the ugly aesthetics of the boat arrivals.
	That's what the policy proposal, she says, is all about.
	While refugee status for those who come here will be temporary, those who come via legal routes will have a faster and easier path to becoming permanent citizens.
	Is this what you want?
	I didn't ever agree to that being on the table, actually.
	Is this exactly what you've always been asking for?
	Pete North explains that, yes, she's got, by the way, I have an interview with Pete North being released this afternoon on Real Politics, so please watch it at 3.
	But he explains that these measures are good in that they are challenging the assumptions that the system is running on, but will they be enough and will labor actually follow through with them?
	It's a big problem.
	The issue is that nobody now who wants to govern can be on the left on Shabana Mahmoud when it comes to immigration.
	And in that sense, this is a huge win.
	In that sense, this is a huge win.
	But when you look at the details of the proposals, they are very much a poison chalice.
	And Labour is almost in revolt over all of this stuff.
	Of course they are.
	Because the backbenchers are going crazy.
	And they are saying that this is completely unacceptable, including the guy who represents the seat where most of the boats are landing.
	Oh, Dover.
	Yes.
	Right.
	Not Dover.
	It's a specific deal, Dover and Deal, was it?
	Yeah, perhaps.
	Perhaps.
	Tap.
	And so they are beginning to rebel and squeal over this and scream over this.
	Unfortunately, we can't see the full list, but there's at least a dozen there now.
	And there will be more coming who will say, no, no, no, this is too much.
	And it's reminiscent of what Labour tried to do with welfare, where the backbenchers pretty much sabotaged the party and made sure that they couldn't succeed in this.
	And now they understand that the politics of immigration are insane and they can't continue like this.
	But they insist, no, no, we must.
	It's remarkable, actually, because it's a total inversion of the way that the Tory party used to function.
	Right, right.
	You have the Tory party, and they were always just the most radical progressive sorts, just putting through all of this stuff that no one ever asked for, no one ever wanted.
	And you had the backbenchers occasionally rising up saying, should we maybe respect our base?
	And they're like, absolutely not.
	With Labour, it's a total reverse.
	You've got the leadership going, okay, realpolitik, like, we need to be seen to be tough on immigration.
	And the backbenchers going, no.
	How dare you?
	Yeah.
	How dare you, essentially.
	So we have figures like Diane Abbott, what's his name, MacDonnell, all of these other characters saying that it's entirely unacceptable that there would be any kind of reform to the system.
	And as usual, the rhetoric around these reforms encourages the same culture of divisiveness that sees racism and abuse growing in our communities.
	He represents Folkestone and Hythe, which is a preferred landing spot for small boat migrants.
	Maybe there'd be less racism if there were fewer people of different races.
	People can be very open-minded when they understand that they're not stuck with each other permanently.
	They stop bringing people in from different lands day in, day out.
	Day out.
	So Labor is losing their minds over this.
	It isn't clear if Starmer has enough authority to support Mahmoud to push this through.
	Well, he's currently dealing with the BBC fallout, still isn't.
	He's still dealing with the BBC fallout.
	He's got the budget coming up, and that is going to be an absolute disaster.
	And you sort of see Starmer's cabinet collapsing because even the mildest, most sensible things presented in the most mealy-mouthed way possible being rejected by the extremists of the backbenchers of the Labour Party.
	And there's, I don't see how they can do this.
	But I wanted to introduce you a little bit about to the people who are receiving your generosity.
	So I am on some Facebook groups in Arabic that support migrants and asylum seekers.
	And so I thought I'd share some of your views.
	One of them.
	Yeah.
	The guy on the inside.
	Sorry.
	God bless you.
	I have a question about disability.
	My son is 12.
	He's disabled.
	We are on universal credit.
	I am his carer.
	Is there more assistance from the job center that I can seek?
	And the answer is, yeah, absolutely.
	Look at this disability living allowance website and you can get more.
	A short while ago, somebody was asking that because he had been arrested but not convicted over domestic abuse and he has a problem.
	And so you recommended that he apply for a record deletion.
	I didn't know you could have police records deleted.
	Do these, do this, does this information appear on an enhanced DBS?
	So basically, an abuser has figured out a way to get his police record deleted so that it wouldn't show when he gets the DBS.
	And everyone from his community on Facebook are going, Yeah, I can help you out with that.
	Exactly.
	My children were born here.
	I was a refugee.
	I've applied to ILR, me and the entire family, and I got it, including my children.
	Can I apply for a British passport directly or should I wait?
	I am a seeking asylum female, and I had my interview.
	I looked for the place, but I couldn't find it.
	And so I went back.
	What do I do?
	And the answer she gets is: tell them that you arrived and then you were afraid and had distress and anxiety, and so you returned.
	Like the magic words are all known.
	Yeah.
	The magic words are all known here.
	Mr. Adam, I am receiving pip.
	Can I get help with regards to a spousal visa?
	And what are the procedures?
	So he's living on the taxpayers already and he wants to bring in a spouse.
	And the answer is: you can be granted an exception from income terms that you should receive £29,000 at least per annum.
	And you just have to meet some basic maintenance requirement.
	Thanks, Hampton.
	Yeah.
	I read that new decisions for skilled labor will extend the time required for the ILR to 10 years.
	We've arrived in July 2021 and we want to apply to the ILR next January.
	I'm very confused about what's going to happen.
	And the answer from somebody who's at least a little bit honest: we are the reason for these decisions.
	They know that the minute people arrive and receive ILR, they will apply to benefits.
	And that's why on Monday they're going to make it tougher.
	At least some level of introspection.
	I appreciate that.
	Thank you.
	I've been living here illegally since 2016.
	My son was born in 2019.
	I would like to apply for a two and a half year visa.
	I'd like you to leave.
	Yeah.
	Are the latest amendments going to affect me as an overstayer?
	The answer is no.
	They're not going to affect you.
	So this is apparently when have we ever enforced anything?
	And this one is a doozy.
	This one really makes me angry.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	This one really made me angry.
	An inquiry, my friends.
	I have been living privately for three months, renting from a landlord.
	We are a family with children.
	The owner wants to sell the house and sent me a notice to vacate the property.
	The contract was only for three months and we are on universal credit.
	Lovely.
	We have to leave in a few days.
	I'm looking for private residence, but it's very difficult.
	I communicated with a counsel and they're telling me not to leave the home.
	Let the owner go to court so that you wouldn't be homeless.
	I don't want to behave this way.
	Why would you put me in this kind of problem with a landlord who is just selling his house and I've only seen good things from him?
	I don't like to hurt anyone.
	What would you tell me?
	What would you recommend for me?
	And the answer is: no, go ahead, sue him, make him take you to court, and otherwise you're going to be homeless and you can't afford to live without taking that guy's house.
	Thing is, as well, the landlord's probably a boomer.
	Just some British boomer.
	I mean, it could be, you know, someone from their people as well, just, you know, like trying to have some ethnic solidarity.
	But I doubt it.
	The point of all of this is that the guys who are on benefits from the system know how much it's being abused.
	Yes.
	And understand that they're abusing the system.
	And they're being encouraged by the councils, by the government, by everybody to continue to abuse the system.
	And Mahmoud is promising some reform, but only for new arrivals.
	And she's going to do absolutely nothing about the hundreds and hundreds of thousands who have already gotten citizenship or who have already got an ILR and who have already entered into the country and are on their way to becoming citizens.
	So this is a very mild, temporary solution that is intended to create a back door for some more immigration.
	It's just that they're trying to get rid of the optics of the boats arriving in these vast numbers.
	That's all there is to it.
	And even though it is this mild and it is this minimal, the labor backbench is revolting against it because they insist that no, you must have more.
	That's what I wanted to end the segment with.
	Well, don't worry, labor backbench.
	You will be getting more.
	Even if you don't have the wit to see it.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	All right.
	I'll just read through the rumble rants from yours.
	We've got Cranky Texan.
	Cranky Texan.
	There we go.
	This is a formalization of the refugee industrial complex.
	Yes.
	Refugee industry.
	It's already formal.
	And it's already huge.
	Habsification says new illegal immigration policy.
	Send them to Haiti.
	Yeah, well, it would be a better place.
	Somebody's hungry in Haiti.
	And you can be hungry in Haiti to be able to do it.
	Well, that's also true.
	Fritoid Atval says, this one for all my Brits.
	Political songs for you.
	Well, I can't click the link, but I'll load it afterwards.
	Thank you very much.
	Thank you.
	All right, and then from YouTube, we've just...
	Sorry, thank you, Harry.
	I just need to use me.
	Chris H says, stop reading from that group.
	You are radicalizing me.
	I promise you, I will do an even more thorough segment on these kinds of groups soon to show you just how much the system is being abused.
	It's insane.
	You wouldn't believe it.
	You wouldn't believe it.
	I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
	Yeah, pretty much.
	All right.
	Let's go to the video comments and Harry.
	Thank you.
	If we have any today, that's it.
	I assume we do.
	Thank you.
	So a while back, you had a segment about an old gentleman, and I was inspired, and I don't know where else to share it.
	So here.
	It's a little sad, so here's a sack and bag and yelling from the Shire.
	Well, thank you, Sophie.
	And I love the jumper, by the way.
	In today's example of why, no matter how much you hate journalists, it's nowhere near enough.
	Listen to this.
	It's spliced together footage to give the impression that Donald Trump said something that his defenders say he did not.
	Did you catch it?
	Try again.
	Donald Trump said something that his defenders say he did not.
	Now, through the power of ironic splicing, let's make it more accurate.
	It's spliced together footage to give the impression that Donald Trump said something that he did not.
	Absolute weasel.
	Weasel indeed.
	A little something for.
	I'm sorry, I can't.
	I'll have a look at that after, Harry.
	Thank you.
	All right.
	I can't stand the globalists.
	The goblins hate 1776.
	George Soros, the siren of Middle-earth, has a gay son.
	You're late.
	A wizard is never late, Tucker Baggins.
	He arrives precisely when his globalist research has concluded.
	Ha ha ha ha ha!
	Thanks, I hate it.
	But I also love it.
	That's very good.
	That speaks very good.
	Any more, Harry?
	No, all right.
	We'll go through some of the comments then.
	Let's see.
	uh yeah all right i've seen more more mustache regrowth shoved in my face god this is a i've never felt so besieged by the comment section uh Michael Drybelbus says, Epstein was a Mossad asset.
	This is why so many are trying to keep the files hidden.
	Well, yeah, I mean, it does seem like a logical conclusion to it all, but again, I just go.
	Mike Schwexner and the Hoodbarak and the study group and all of that stuff.
	I understand why you came to that conclusion.
	Zesta King says the Epstein files stuff as well as the recent H-1B policies have convinced me that Trump isn't our guy anymore.
	Maybe he's been corrupted.
	Maybe he's had to become a monster to fight an even bigger monster.
	Who knows?
	That was actually a question I'd meant to ask you, Stellius, about your own segment, which was just that when we were saying about you saw all that stuff about MAGA is dead, right?
	But it presupposes that MAGA ends with Trump, right?
	That it ends with Trump's term, as if it can't carry on through the work of many other people who grew up and were inspired by Trump.
	I didn't say that MAGA is going to be everlasting.
	No, no, that's not what I'm saying.
	But I'm just making the point that to counteract them when they say it's dead.
	It's like, well, that presupposes that Trump is the be-all and end-all of MAGA itself, which, yeah, sure, he's a creator of it.
	I mean, he was purposefully, how should I say it?
	He wasn't, like a politician, he wasn't clear with what it stands for.
	And that's why there is discussion with respect to what is it.
	Sure.
	Yeah.
	Well, that's always going to be the case.
	Of course.
	Alex Ogle, actually, here says Stellios' analysis is cogent.
	Trump needs the Epstein documents to remain hidden so he can leverage them against Democrats.
	If he releases them and the Democrats, clearly who are involved with the kicking out and will be kicked out and prosecuted, that might sound positive, but their replacements will be rabid leftists who will oppose him at every opportunity and will not have anything as powerful as Epstein to rein them in.
	Politics is bad now, but it risks becoming worse, cleaner, but worse, more ideological.
	Maybe, maybe, but then they will have to run on their actual policies as opposed to sort of doing this Fabian gradualism that they've all been doing.
	Can you imagine running on your actual policies?
	Revolutionary.
	Of course not.
	Of course not.
	And then Lord Inquisitor Hector X says, I believe it's been three Democrat judges that have stopped the release of the Epstein files so far.
	The courts keep blocking them for some reason.
	Well, these Democrat judges may indeed have been doing that hexa, but we can't ignore the fact that there has also been an enormous part of the Republican establishment as well that has actively kept this from being brought to light.
	All right, do you want to go to your bits, Stelius?
	Yes, we have Cambrian Kulak who says America first or make Israel great again.
	Similar things are happening on the right here in the UK.
	Open brackets, Zionism, close brackets.
	Again, Cambrian Kulak, Stelios, seems to me this split occurring on the right, division around Zionism, is organic insofar as the counter-narrative is also organic, perpetuated by media news for decades.
	Seems to me there are those who want to maintain the status quo in this dynamic, seeking to delegitimize concerns raised.
	Fazit Hostis says, I think more dangerous to Israel is the absolute apathy that is being generated.
	It's very hard to care about some country on the other side of Europe and the Mediterranean when you have no personal stake in it and it is demanding so much.
	I understand the tactical relevance of its position, but still, you have to describe this to laymen on the street without being seeming condescending.
	Then there's the rapidly pro-Zionist people making that tempered approach even harder.
	I fear we'll see more and more racially motivated violence in the coming years because of all this.
	Let's see what happens.
	And Michael Brooks says, I think you may just be slightly naive.
	Naive.
	Naive.
	Not a show by any stretch.
	Israel has a mental hold on boomers and for years has shown it doesn't care for international law.
	Look at USS Liberty.
	I believe he's talking about the 1968 event and countless assassinations.
	They have iron fists when needed.
	I think a lot of people are actually hiding jealousy plus X is cesspool, not worth interacting with you, will not find me there.
	I mean, as I said before, I have zero problem with people asking questions.
	I told you why I'm disposed to think that the assumptions behind several accusations are vastly exaggerated.
	And with respect to me being slightly naive, I heard it yet again when Trump did Operation Midnight Hammer.
	And I said, no, I don't think it's entirely controlled by the Jews.
	Because everyone was telling me how naive I was.
	And I saw the very people who said this, I'm not going to name names, but I saw the very people who said this when Trump started saying that Netanyahu and the other side are fighting so long that they don't know what the fuck they're on about.
	The same people were trying to co-op the narrative again.
	And they said, yeah, what we're going to do is we only have to assume that this is because we said to Trump to do it.
	Because we chimped Hampton.
	Because we chimp Trump.
	Yeah.
	Well, okay.
	I may be naive.
	Whatever.
	It's a possibility.
	Ben Gale, if the Republicans pick a Zionist as a candidate, they're going to get hammered.
	No one is buying the Israeli lies anymore.
	Even the boomers are starting to see through it.
	Well, we'll see what's going to happen.
	I honestly think that this is mostly a fake movement propagated by the enemies of the U.S. and the Democrats.
	But we'll see.
	All right.
	Takes out then with your comments and Ferras.
	Sure thing.
	It's Sophie Liv's comment.
	Be very careful because she's very sneaky with her comments.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	I'll be careful.
	England really needs to start making itself the example of how countries should treat conflicts.
	The men go out fighting, the children are sent to the safer areas within the country, and the women work so the men can have a functioning country to return home to.
	In spite of being an empire at that point in time with land in India, the glorious English people still weren't leaving.
	Start demanding that of everybody else seriously.
	Yeah, fair enough.
	Jimbo G says there need to be Nuremberg-style trials for the politicians that are ethnically cleansing the English from their own country.
	Our enemies must be laughing their heads off.
	Yes, yes, yes, I know that.
	Fuzzy Toaster, too much has happened too fast in regards to immigration.
	A million refugees, quote unquote, should have been the number we took in over the last decade, not the last year or however much is now.
	Two, three, no, the number of refugees is smaller than that, but the number of legal migrants is insanely higher.
	And so Mahmoud is looking at one and not the other as usual.
	If something isn't done, I see something dark in the future.
	Ours are theirs.
	Too much friction.
	Yes, I agree.
	I had a long episode with Dan about that on Brokanomics, about the Lebanonization of Britain, basically.
	Georgie Swordsman says, so to summarize Firas' segment, the bad news is that Labour have had an evil genius moment.
	The good news is the backbenchers are too stupid to realize.
	Yes, that's a perfect summary.
	That's a perfect summary.
	Thank you for that.
	Thank you for that, Georgie Swordsman.
	And an honorable mention for you, Firas, from Walden Quister Hector X, who says, did you see they're now floating a milkshake tanks?
	A white milkshake?
	I don't know.
	Is this to protect Nigel Farage from further milkshakes?
	I don't understand what the hell is going on.
	Maybe something to Google after with I'll check it out.
	I'll check it out.
	Well, we're coming up to half past now, ladies and gentlemen.
	So I do hope you've enjoyed it today.
	Do check out Firas' Interview with Pete North, which is coming out at three o'clock.
	And certainly check out Brother Stelios' Nye's Chronicles all about Aeschylus, because as we said, it was definitely the most enjoyable.
	So we have chemistry.
	Now, they're going to clip this now and they're going to say Stelius the Greek knows the best of both worlds and stuff.
	You all would.
	I think that's what they're going to clip.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
	I think that's what they're going to clip.
	We always end nice segments here.
	We do get silly exactly at 30 minutes past two on one day, don't we?
	Anyway, enjoy the rest of your day, ladies and gentlemen.
	And we'll see you back here at 1 p.m. tomorrow.

▲