The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1301

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

01:34:44

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1301

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello everyone, welcome to the glorious podcast of the Lotus Eaters.
	Today is Friday the 21st of November and I'm pleased to be joined today by Brother Nick and Brother Harry.
	Hello.
	Hello to both of you.
	We are going to discuss the Chicago train attack, nasty business, institutionalized systematic racism being real.
	Isn't that what woken is supposed to be?
	But I can actually prove it with facts and data and the results may surprise you.
	And the new left-right populist alliance.
	I'm looking forward to that.
	I'm supposed to happen.
	I've quoted you in it.
	So we have another Nick on Nick.
	Hot glazing action.
	N-O-N.
	N-O-N for NNN.
	Oh, my goodness.
	So let us start with the Chicago train attack.
	It happened this Monday on November 17 and it was horrifying.
	And it woke up several memories.
	It brought several connotations to our minds with a hit of Irina Zarutska by Carlos Brown Jr.
	So look at what we have here.
	We have this man who is a career criminal, 50 years old, who was also prosecuted 50 times and released 49.
	So he was never rehabilitated, nor does he throw out.
	One of those success stories that we constantly hear about.
	And he's accused of setting a woman on fire on a Chicago train.
	Right.
	It isn't just a man or just a woman, right?
	You kind of understand the pattern.
	There comes a threshold that once crossed, we are beginning to talk about, we are talking about patterns instead of isolated incidents.
	And we've already crossed that years ago.
	So he's accused of setting a woman on fire on a Chicago train this week.
	He's federally charged with committing a terrorist attack.
	He's 50 years old.
	His name is Lawrence Reed.
	He was identified as the suspect in the attack on a Chicago Transit Authority train in the city's Loop District.
	He was arrested the next day and federally charged the day after that, which was November 19.
	That was last Wednesday, two days ago.
	And he was charged with committing a terrorist act or other violence against a mass transportation system.
	The victim was an unidentified 26-year-old woman who remains in critical conditions.
	And she hasn't been named.
	And we don't know yet whether she's alive or not.
	I hope she's alive.
	According to the articles I'm reading, she's in severe critical condition.
	But I haven't yet read that she's not yet alive.
	I hope she is.
	So there may be some light at the end of the tunnel that she hasn't lost her life.
	Hopefully.
	Right.
	But all of the rest, it's again the same thing.
	We constantly talk about it.
	We see it all the time.
	It shows a remarkable lack of success by the system, by the rehabilitation system, but also at the system of adjudication, the judiciary system that is full of activist judges who stop thinking about the common good, but only think about promoting their personal agenda, which happens to be the woke agenda.
	And they think that instead of having civil society as the main engine of social life and social progress, they want a state that is going to be the referee for their preferred race relations and their prefer distribution of wealth, which constantly implies, let us extract resources from this group and give it to our voters.
	Right, so the attack was unprovoked and horrific, as the police says.
	She was literally standing there.
	He started pouring gas on her.
	He tried to light her and fire.
	She fought back.
	She started running.
	And then he lit up a can of gasoline that he had.
	He started chasing her.
	At some point, he threw that to her.
	She was wrapped around in flames.
	She started rolling around to save herself.
	But it didn't happen.
	She exited the train.
	And luckily, she was found.
	And she is being hospitalized.
	What's the excuse for this one?
	There's literally no excuse.
	What is the excuse for this one?
	I mean, he's been let out, what, 49 times?
	Yeah.
	So there is going to be an excuse for this one.
	You mentioned Irina Zarutska and her killer, which I will mention briefly in the next segment.
	The excuse for him why you can't just execute him is that, well, he's insane.
	He's literally insane and has no impulse control.
	Therefore, it would be injustice of some kind not to kill him.
	Oh, yeah, I've got mention of this.
	So, like, there's an excuse.
	These extenuating circumstances, which actually are exacerbating the fact that he's so insane that he doesn't know not to murder people, is why we can't remove him permanently from society.
	Also, I think it's just a bit of a Hail Mary BS argument because, well, in that case, if he was just insane and wanted to attack anybody and everybody, why did he only limit it to the tiny defenseless white girl who was sat directly in front of him and then go on about, I got that white girl, why didn't he then continue to attack all of the much larger black people around him?
	The argument makes no sense.
	It's an obvious excuse.
	So what's the excuse for this guy?
	Why he's going to be taken into court again and presumably let off again?
	Well, a day after the event, which happened on the 17th of November, there was an article published by Sally Sato on the Free Press.
	And its title is Irina Zarutska's Killer Does Not Deserve to Die, The Execution of the Schizophrenic Man, again mental illness, who stabbed a Ukrainian refugee on a train would be an act of cruelty, not justice.
	Cruelty to who?
	By what definition of justice?
	What about the good in the world?
	I've never understood the mental health thing.
	Like, he still did it.
	Like, temporary insanity is even stranger because it's saying, well, it wasn't you.
	It's quite strange that maybe there's an argument for that, but we sort of believe it's a spiritual, metaphysical belief.
	It's sort of saying that wasn't you for a moment.
	So what is actually you?
	But we just treat that like it's completely normal.
	You can be temporarily insane, strangle your wife and go, oh, it's temporarily insane.
	It's like, what does it actually mean?
	You still did it.
	It's very strange, particularly with these people.
	It's like he's mentally ill and dangerous.
	So asylum or death penalty per person.
	It's based on like the sadly now quite outdated ideas of intentionality with being a factor in sentencing, which is if you intended to do something negative, that makes it worse than if it was just an accident, which is still applicable in many situations.
	Not really in this situation, because intentionality doesn't come into it.
	They're saying, well, he didn't intend to because he's crazy, therefore he didn't realize what he's doing.
	So that's a mitigating factor.
	No, that makes it worse.
	I have a slightly different view.
	I think mensrea is important, the criminal intent.
	But here we are constantly.
	It's applicable with lots of stuff.
	Here we're talking about people who deliberately did so and did so remorselessly.
	And come up the next day as this guy, Lawrence Reed, came up to the says, burn, you know, B-I-T-C-H.
	That's the profanity he used.
	He was completely remorseless and started singing to the judge.
	Right.
	So I think that here we are talking about people who are deliberately doing it.
	And back to your point, Nick, about what mental illness and why are they doing it.
	I think it's a different thing.
	When it comes to mental illness, I know people who have mental illness, they haven't tried to kill me and they haven't tried to set me on fire.
	Right?
	Let's get it out in the open.
	Maybe that's too radical or revolutionary a view in psychology for some people on the BBC and some and the CNN, but it's true.
	They know that you're a black belt.
	They wouldn't dare try it.
	They're mentally ill, but they're not that crazy.
	Don't you dare.
	Right.
	I think it has to do with the narratival attempt to control people's beliefs and try to gaslight people into thinking that when it comes to patterns from their side, from their preferred groups, they're going to isolate incidents, isolate the blame, and try to demonize people for focusing on that pattern.
	Meanwhile, the nearest criticism of the agenda of the left is portrayed as an epidemic of far-right extremism.
	So they are doing this double standards.
	They're saying, well, the minor incident on the other side is going to be treated as an indication of a larger epidemic, a pattern, a really bad pattern.
	But when it comes to crimes committed by members of groups that the left considers oppressed, there are always isolated incidents, mental health, knives with mental illness, cars with mental illness, always not a pattern, according to the.
	But then you get into the higher propensity for schizophrenia amongst certain groups, and that's when you really get, like with the other train incident we had in this country, and people said, oh, see, it's not immigration.
	And then some people were like, well, it is in the sense that the second generation Caribbeans have a massive propensity for schizophrenia.
	First generation as well, but even more second generation.
	So then you have to get into those stats if you want a really uncomfortable.
	Have we considered that he may be a marijuana addict?
	Well, that's semantic.
	Have we taken that into account?
	I think if you were to examine this man's background, you would find a whole raft, a whole raft of drug abuse incidents.
	I can't condone like weed.
	It's a clear attack on Mr. Hitches.
	I can't condone it because he's my hero.
	But perhaps I thought he's your dad.
	A bit too into the marijuana explanation at times.
	Well, especially because he always points to it because, oh, well, it can cause schizophrenia.
	Yeah, well, what if the people smoking it are already more prone to schizophrenia?
	And I'm still, I'm even more right.
	So we see now that we are faced with a culture of impunity when it comes to groups that are affiliated with the left.
	And the left considers them to be oppressed.
	They can never fail to integrate.
	And they can never be responsible for their failure to integrate into wider society.
	To the extent that they don't, it's always the problem of their ideological opponents.
	It's always the problem of the Western man, the straight white male, who occupies the top of the pyramid of oppression in the oppressor, oppressed pyramid scheme of intentionality, the oppression calculus.
	Right, so here, for this person, we have approached the point where after 50 crimes, nine or ten of which are felonies, and most of them are violent, we're discussing about the maximum penalty of life in prison.
	Federal court records do not show whether Reid has an attorney representing him in the federal case.
	Chicago outlets reported that Reid was disruptive during his first appearance in the federal court, including yelling over the judge that he wanted to represent himself and claiming that he was a Chinese citizen.
	No, he was not a Chinese city.
	Yeah.
	Or he is actually crazy.
	In either case, that is not mitigating.
	That is exacerbating.
	That makes it worse.
	If he is incapable, if he is too low IQ, that's always an excuse they like to trot out.
	He's too incompetent to stand trial because he's too low IQ or something.
	Then that's worse.
	You don't throw them back out onto the streets where they can cause more people harm.
	You institutionalize them for life or you execute them.
	It's funny how every time we constantly hear about social commentary and social explanation and the assumptions that the woke are using in order to talk about it, they're talking about past injustices.
	But somehow past injustices committed by a particular individual of a group that the left considers to be oppressed don't matter.
	49 times that he committed a crime before, they don't matter.
	They didn't matter for the judge.
	All of it is going to be treated as an atomic isolated incident.
	Well, on that same kind of subject of the narratives, it's also funny how IQ either doesn't matter, has no effect, or isn't real until it can be used as an excuse to get black criminals out of prison.
	And we were talking about, decades ago, there were some arguments saying that the death penalty is bad because you can never know because of the DNA tests that came out and they proved that lots of people who were...
	Yeah, because the Innocent Project likes to commit a lot of fraud.
	because the Innocent Project likes to commit a lot of fraud with DNA tests.
	What happens when you have someone here in this picture who is, I'm not going to focus more on it, but what happens when you have evidence that these people are literally trying to set someone on fire?
	It's there on camera.
	And also, we have this picture here where he has set this on fire and he is trying to get to the victim.
	Meanwhile, people stand around him and do nothing.
	Right.
	On the one hand, I do get it.
	I do get that people are afraid and sometimes some people freeze in such situations.
	But on the other hand, how's that supposed to go on?
	It looks like there should be some criticisms here.
	She wasn't the only person on the train.
	The others just sat and did nothing.
	And he has lit this can of gasoline here and it's lit and he is trying to get her way.
	And then we have footage of her being wrapped on fire running on the station's platform.
	Let's call it what it is.
	I'll dub it the Penny effect.
	Daniel Penny was a hero.
	He saved a lot of people that day.
	Yeah, the guy that he ended up choking out hadn't done anything yet, but I'm sorry, he would have done something like this if Penny hadn't stepped in.
	And what happened to him?
	He had his name dragged through the mud, his face plastered all over the media, and he had to go to court and almost could have been sent to prison over it.
	Right?
	Yeah.
	This is the intended effect of that kind of action.
	And it's not just that, it's also all other incidents that are happening at the moment in the context of politics that is becoming to a very large extent democratic socialist in some places.
	And we have people who are pushing for activist judges and activists in all the areas of the state.
	I'm talking about Mamdani.
	He came forward, he was voted as mayor of New York with his agenda.
	It's all the woke agenda.
	Cry, cry, cry.
	Oppressed, oppressed, oppressed.
	Let's take down the oppressors.
	And there were lots of women in particular who were taking screenshots of themselves, selfies, and saying, I voted for Mamdani.
	And then you have all the other videos that come from NYC subway, the train station.
	You have lots of people just being bullying women.
	And there was one that came a few days ago.
	I didn't know that the conversation was going to go that way and I didn't include it.
	And there was someone who was screaming at a lady and he impersonated shooting her head.
	And just, no, you shouldn't be proud of voting people who are deliberately trying to obfuscate what is going on and are usually giving the bleeding heart nonsense instead of being for actual law and order and against impunity.
	And when people make excuses for impunity, they're grifters at best.
	You can do the math for the worst case.
	Here we have Lawrence Reed look at the mag shot.
	Just I think if people walk and look at someone looking like that, they're allowed to say, This guy looks suspicious.
	I want to keep my distance.
	And it would have been good for her if she had kept her distance.
	But she was sat there and he just poured gasoline on her.
	Right.
	Here we have him.
	He started screaming, burn, you know, burn alive, burn alive.
	Obscenities.
	CTA surveillance footage shows Reed walking up behind the woman with no interaction at all, removing the cap from her bottle and pouring gasoline over her head and body.
	As she tried to fight him off, he lit the liquid and set her on fire, then calmly walked away while she burned.
	Five years ago, Reid said Thompson sent her on fire because he claimed he hadn't deceived his social security check.
	He pleaded guilty to arson and was given two years of mental health probation by Judge Arthur Hill.
	Mental health probation.
	Yeah.
	Just when you want to set someone on fire.
	When you look at footage like this, you don't go and say, well, there may be cases of spontaneous combustion.
	Right?
	He did it.
	Right.
	Let's move forward and talk about the other attacks.
	Here he had another case.
	In August, he attacked someone at a mental word.
	And he attacked that person very violently.
	But there was a judge who was very partial to his case.
	She helped him a lot.
	Let's look at this judge, Molina Gonzalez.
	She was very.
	She gave him a very light sentence, let's say.
	Let's see what happened here.
	I wonder why.
	Yeah.
	I heard her name.
	Hispanic heritage.
	Celebrate Hispanic Heritage Month.
	We're recognizing diverse voices in the judiciary.
	The following features Cook County Circuit Judge Teresa Molina Gonzalez and her thoughts on her career, diversity on the bench, and more.
	And they're asking her, What inspired you to pursue law and eventually become a judge?
	Who has been the biggest influence in your life and or career?
	Did you see the answer?
	She says, I liked criminal justice because I found it way less confusing than most subjects.
	Oh, I'm stupid.
	I couldn't do this.
	I'm stupid, which is why they made me a judge.
	Amazing.
	Oh, my God.
	I was always interested in things being fair and felt that people should be held up accountable for their actions.
	Clearly, I knew many people that were the victims of crimes and wanted to be a voice for those who needed to be heard.
	I went to law school with the intention of becoming a prosecutor and ultimately moved to Chicago to start my career.
	After nearly 18 years of working as a prosecutor, I wanted to have the opportunity to serve in a larger capacity.
	I wanted to be able to help more people.
	Having had the opportunity to appear before many judges throughout my career, I knew that being a judge would allow me to have a greater impact on my community.
	Well, I should achieve that.
	I'm extremely grateful.
	I don't know if the community is extremely grateful to you and humbled to be given the opportunity to serve as a judge.
	So, they're celebrating Hispanic Heritage Month with that judge.
	That judge claims to celebrate Hispanic Heritage Month as well.
	Again, woke stuff, representation of this or that group.
	Where's the common good here?
	Where does the common good enter the picture?
	Instead of having the state being the overseer and the referee of preferred racial relations and outcomes of racial relations, nowhere.
	Meanwhile, the common good is not promoted.
	Society is disintegrating into a jungle and infrastructure is collapsing, and people are not safe anymore to take the subway.
	And all the woke stuff, spare us with a BS, or all the past discrimination and past, what should I say, historical injustices that you're constantly talking about.
	Where did you see them in his case?
	He committed so many felonies.
	He burned so many things.
	He tried to burn someone alive right now.
	What does he have to do in order for someone like this judge and any other activist judge to understand that, well, sometimes some people can't just can be integrated into society?
	She's talking about having these strong Latina women in my life as role models.
	Like, this sounds like.
	What is this?
	It sounds like you're a tweet or something.
	This isn't going to be like a judge with a serious profile.
	Strong Latina women gone.
	I was just going to ask, where's the dad?
	Interesting question.
	Why isn't the dad your hero?
	Good question.
	Well, and let me just say this, because ultimately what happens is that wokeness rests on utopianism and utopian idealism.
	They're trying to create the image that life has no tragic element in it, and this is absolutely mistaken.
	And what happens is that they are isolating things and they're saying, right, we're looking only at the relationship between the state and the criminal.
	And if the criminal is a member of the groups we are considering oppressed, we're going to basically allow them to get away with it.
	And if not, the sentence isn't going to be particularly strong.
	But no, life does have a tragic element.
	We can't have everyone happy.
	And in this case, you're either going to have career criminals happy or you're going to have the greater public happy and people who care about public safety.
	Because when you're talking about this lady here, Sally Sattle, who writes, the execution of the schizophrenic man who stabbed a Ukrainian refugee, murdered is the right word, on a train would be an act of cruelty, not justice.
	What about his act of cruelty?
	What about the message that people are getting from this generalized impunity?
	Yeah, it's also a total lack of confidence in our own ability to mete out justice, right?
	And to decide what is just and to act on it.
	Because we don't think the West in general thinks it has no right to make these moral judgments.
	So it has no right to execute someone.
	That's part of it.
	As well as just hating white people.
	Plus all the stuff you said.
	Well, we absolutely do have the moral authority to do so.
	And I would argue to all of those people who say that we used to oppress them when we got to their countries and before we did anything.
	This kind of behavior is why they think we oppress them.
	Because we got there and we're like, no, no, no, you don't do that.
	Can you stop setting people on fire, please?
	Yeah, can you stop saying people fire?
	Maybe free, bro.
	Yeah.
	This is just what we do here, man.
	That's just what we do.
	And relativism.
	And there were people within those communities who also said, yeah, I also don't want to be set on fire.
	And they were called Uncle Toms and collaborators and such.
	Whereas they were just normal, sensible people who don't like living in chaos.
	Well, whatever the history here, there comes a point where in order to have society say right, whatever conflict has been in the past must be reconciled.
	And you need to be a member of society.
	And if you're not a member of society and you're bringing war to society, society has to wage war against you instead of making constant excuses for you.
	Right.
	All right, we've got quite a few super chats and a rumble rant.
	Flavius Magnus, I want justice to be done.
	I'm tired of all these stories.
	Thank you very much for your $10.
	hyper omnima omniman england will be saved when birmingham's englishman can can i say it I don't know what it's like.
	Well, I don't know, but mine's not on, so I'm not sure.
	On the side of safety.
	I can't see it.
	We can't finish it.
	It says something about Birmingham.
	You're going to read them all out.
	Right.
	Neckament.
	It says it's a clear pattern that certain cultist opportunists in many countries are incentivizing and allowing the most insane people and worst criminals in our societies to harass and terrorize common citizens.
	They absolutely do.
	They absolutely do.
	When there's impunity, people fear for their safety.
	I hate to say it, but it's called anarcho-tyranny.
	I say it every time.
	It's true, though.
	Sam Francis, 1993, gone.
	Neka McGluck, being kind to the cruel is cruel to the kind.
	Absolutely.
	Adam Smith, cruelty to the guilt.
	No, mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent.
	This goes in my ochig door.
	This goes into my biggest pet peeve.
	Mentally incompetent to stand trial, but can be with the rest of society.
	Yep.
	Quite blackpilled for five.
	Oh, I'll read this one because it's about me and there's another one directed to me.
	Would love to hear Harry's opinion on Game of the Year nominations.
	Expedition 33 has already made me stop making the typical American French jokes.
	I've barely heard of the game.
	The clips keep showing up on my Twitter feed.
	I don't know what it is.
	Frankly, I've not played any games that were released this year.
	The only one that interests me is Silk Song, and I've not got around that.
	You will do a segment with Samson at some point about it.
	You said the other day you've stopped playing them due to over-stimulation and kind of how lame they've become and kind of spazzing out.
	Oh, you saw that tweet that I put out.
	Yeah, where they're just, they are just so many, like the new Call of Duty looks just like such utter slop.
	It's vile, disgusting.
	There you go.
	Sorry.
	Yeah.
	Nick's been expecting an important phone call to do with his suit, which explains why he's not wearing one right now.
	I have deemed this casual Friday.
	That's why I'm not wearing a full suit.
	I've just got the blazer on today.
	So, Nick will return in Avengers Endgame.
	And there was one other one related to me.
	Segment request, Harry Harry's gentlemanly grooming tips.
	Now, that might have to be some premium content right there.
	I might have to give you a day in the life of Harry.
	I can all bring you into the shower with me.
	We do have a debate about hair length.
	And you are basically saying that you think that the hair should be as long as possible.
	Not necessarily as long as possible.
	You right there, Nick?
	Yeah, sorry about that.
	It was quite a good time in that.
	Nick apologizes for his call.
	He had to take it.
	I'm so sorry.
	So I lost my suit on the train.
	They've got it.
	The great people of Swindon.
	How did you lose your suit?
	So people may not realize our country is falling apart and is becoming kind of South Africa.
	You probably know if you watch this podcast.
	So nothing ever works.
	The trains, there's something wrong with them every week.
	This time, one of them was cancelled.
	That meant that everyone was on the next one, so it was completely full.
	So I get on the train.
	Oh, I was going to get on the train.
	No, that one was too full to even get on.
	So I go, right, I'll get the next one.
	Are you undressing yourself in the train?
	That one.
	No, but I get on.
	I put my suit back.
	Infrastructural collapse.
	I get on the second train.
	I put my suit bag on the thing, you know, above you, the rack.
	And the guy says, those are our seats, get out.
	And by that time, I'd already had an argument with the woman on the train staff.
	Nick's already chudded out.
	I'd already been having my move.
	If you've seen Falling Down with Michael Douglas, I was already quite irate.
	So I get off the train, I left it on there, and got the next train.
	Then I realized, but they've recovered it, which is, there are good people out there, you see.
	There you go.
	There you go.
	So sorry about that.
	It was an emergency.
	I would never normally take a call during one of your segments.
	That's been added.
	No, he would normally just scroll Twitter.
	It was kind of perfect because it had ended.
	Yeah, yeah, there you go.
	But on that super chat, maybe I'll give you my grooming tips one of these days.
	The engaged few on Rumble says, in a country with half a billion firearms in private hands, this sort of thing will lead to a very lethal strain of vigilantism.
	See, I keep hearing that and then not seeing it, but maybe.
	I don't encourage violence, though.
	Don't get yourself arrested, folks, and don't turn yourself into a murderer.
	Simple as.
	All right, now onto my segment.
	I'm going to reveal to you all that I have discovered that actually the woke were right and institutional racism is real.
	I know, I know, I know, we've been hearing about it for years, and we've always been saying, no, that's absolute nonsense.
	But it's true.
	It is.
	The only thing that they got wrong was the direction of that racism.
	And for this, I'm going to be referring to a few recent studies that have been done.
	This one was a very interesting one, first of all, by a man called Gregory Roblowski.
	I apologize that I have definitely pronounced your name wrong.
	He's good.
	This is one that he actually replied under one of my Twitter posts and tagged and linked this and said, take a look through this.
	And I did, and I thought it was really interesting and worth looking at here.
	And so I'm doing it.
	And it's called, Do the ADL and SPLC Disproportionately Police White But Not Black Movements?
	ADL being Anti-Defamation League, SPLC, Southern Poverty Law Center, two big anti-hate groups within the US.
	And a lot of this segment will be related to the institutions in America.
	So just to front load that right there, I have drawn out most of the relevant text explaining this study and going over what's going on in here, the methods, etc.
	The present study used a site called News on the Web, the News on the Web corpus, to elucidate any tendency for anglophone news media to disproportionately focus on policing white, but not black nationalist groups or ideologies, using a number of references to or quotes from the two most influential social justice/slash civil rights watchdog groups in the US, the ADL and the SPLC, as a metric.
	The results seem to support the hypothesis that a great many more resources, at least in terms of numbers of news pieces, and that's important because that's going to be shaping the views of a lot of people, are devoted to monitoring potential hate groups when they are white.
	And you may say, well, what's the point of it being the ADL and the SPLC?
	Why are they important?
	Well, he explains, and I've explained a few times on this podcast before, but it's good to get a refresher for anybody watching this segment on YouTube for the first time.
	So the ADL's opinions carry weight.
	Their CEO, that's Jonathan Greenblatt, recently confirmed that his organization, quote, helped to write the national strategy to counter anti-Semitism released by the Biden administration and is now working as well with the Trump administration.
	End quote.
	So that's just direct institutional influence across administrations, across parties.
	The ADL is a uniparty apparatus.
	That's what they are.
	Like the ADL, the SPLC is extremely well funded with an endowment of more than $730 million in 2024.
	I didn't even realize they were that well funded, funding its involvement in almost 150 legal cases.
	Its influence is such that the U.S. House, sorry, the U.S. Congressional House Committee on Oversight and Accountability highlighted the fact that the SPLC representatives visited the White House at least 11 times in a three-year span, suggesting the SPLC's designations carry weight with the executive branch of the U.S. government and that the center exerts influence at the highest level of government.
	So that's why it's important how these organizations view national terror groups and how their information is used to report on such, because that will have an influence and the highest levers of power.
	A quick perusal of the SPLC's hate map as of 2025 shows that the organization does not even track black nationalist groups anymore or any other non-white nationalist groups for that matter, but applies intense scrutiny to people it quotes as being white nationalists.
	And one of the important things that he notes throughout this paper is that white nationalism or white supremacism, anything like that, is often applied to any statements by public figures that just demonstrate that they do not have shame for being white.
	They are not ashamed of their heritage.
	Yeah, the non-woke, they don't hate themselves.
	So if you make, as he puts here, non-self-loathing white identity, if you have any statement that suggests that, you don't hate yourself, then typically the terms white nationalist, white supremacist, will be applied to you in news articles about you.
	And that's one of the ways they like to poison the well because those terms are associated with hateful, violent ideologies.
	Accordingly, he says, two virtual corporate, and this is talking about the methodology, were created using the NOW's Find Text Subcorpus Generation option using the search terms Anti-Defamation League and Southern Poverty Law Center.
	Thus, any articles containing either of these phrases would populate the corresponding virtual corpus.
	These virtual corpora will hence, carrying on, it was deemed necessary to create these using ADL and SPLC, as presumably the acronyms bloody blah blah.
	They were then searched respectively to determine the number of occurrences and articles which contained the lemmas white nationalists or black nationalists, and it was done in such a way that it separates nationalists, so it will also come up with adjoining and similar words like nationalist, nationalism, supremacy, supremacism, etc.
	Searches of both corpora demonstrated a very large disparity in occurrences and article numbers for each of the search terms along racial lines.
	First, in ADL Corpus, there were 1,368 occurrences and 809 unique articles of white nationalists, but only 27 of black nationalists.
	In SPLC, there were 2,709 occurrences of white, but only 89 of black.
	So you can see here in these pie charts, the references to both of these as found in chart in articles that were referencing the ADL and the SPLC regarding white versus black nationalism, you can see that is an absurd, absurd over-representation there.
	But then you say to yourself, well, there are more white people than black people in America.
	So surely maybe that explains the overrepresentation.
	Perhaps there are just more white versus black nationalist groups.
	Not just that, it's also the fact that mentions of black nationalism would typically be classified as the voices of the oppressed.
	Well, that's something that he mentions further on in the article.
	I'll carry on.
	In the SPLC's This Year in Hate and Extremism 2023 annual report, there were listed 165 active white nationalist groups in the United States.
	In contrast, their most recent data on record for black nationalists, that's 2018, was 264 chapters.
	I imagine there's about 165 white nationalists, period, not groups, people, in America.
	The actual population launches.
	Yeah, full-on of those types.
	Yeah, I imagine they're a massive, like tiny, tiny, tiny minority.
	But confusingly, after 2018, the SPLC then began to refer to these groups exclusively as black separatist the following year, when the number decreased slightly to 255.
	To further complicate matters, shortly after, the SPLC's intelligence project announced it would be collapsing the black separatist listings and be reclassifying them under hate ideologies that better describe the nature of the harm that their rhetoric inflicts.
	In other words, a visitor to the SPLC's current hate map site can no longer see how many black hate groups exist.
	Those that used to be classified racially as black nationalist or separatist are now diffusely distributed, one may even say diluted, among ideologies such as anti-Semitism.
	And the author here suggests that that is perhaps as a way of making that number of 255 look smaller in comparison to the number of white nationalist groups.
	So if we take those numbers, those more recent, the most recent that we've got of 264 and 255, how can you rationally excuse the massive overrepresentation in reporting of this when it seems that despite the population disparities of whites being a much larger percentage of the population in America than blacks, these groups have so much more media attention pushed on them than black groups.
	How do you explain that?
	Other than a potentially institutionalized mainstream bias against white people and non-hating white people in particular.
	You can be openly a black nationalist.
	I mean, just in this country, for example, remember when Dawn Butler put out that poem, she's like, I'm one of the chosen ones because I'm of the first ones.
	It was a full-on black supremacist poem that she put out.
	She's an MP.
	So you could just openly be there.
	Yeah.
	And everybody notices it.
	But it's nice to have, you know, if you're ever in a debate with destiny for whatever reason, to have a study to point to.
	I don't know.
	Do you have a study for that?
	Yes, actually.
	Yes, we do.
	But then he'll quickly dismiss it by checking Wikipedia.
	He'll go, oh, this person says Wikipedia says that this is a hate group making this study, so I can just dismiss it immediately.
	And then he goes on to harass women online or something.
	But it carries on, and we talk about the way that these two different groups can be portrayed outside of just the flat figures that we've got here and the biases within these organizations of the ADL and the SPLC.
	And he goes on to say, first, the ADL and its outspoken CEO, Jonathan Greenblatt, have spoken profusely about the potential threat of white nationalism and hyperbolic, bordering on ridiculous terms in a 2020 hate, sorry, in a 2020 speech, almost a little Freudian slit there, before the ADL's annual Never Is Now.
	Could they be more is now?
	Could they be more stereotypical, man?
	Their Never Is Now summit on anti-Semitism and hate.
	Greenblatt detailed the ADL's policies to fight not only extremism in general, but white nationalism specifically, calling on the US government to bring the same energy and intensity to the fight against white nationalist terror as it has done in the past in the fight against radical Islamist terror.
	You are now as much of a threat if you're a white guy who doesn't hate himself in the US.
	According to Jonathan Greenblatt, you're just as much as a threat as the 9-11 bombings.
	I mean, seriously.
	According to some studies or some biased data reporting, they're saying, well, Islamic terrorists don't represent the majority of threats after the period of 9-11.
	And the question is, why do you isolate that incident?
	They like to mess with figures in different ways.
	Even if that were true, because that's debatable.
	But even if it is true, there's a selective isolation of the 9-11 terror attack.
	In order to give a completely mistaken view of what's going on and just blow it out of proportion.
	I also simply wouldn't trust those figures being given to me without reading into them a lot and looking at the methodology going there.
	Yes, I apply extreme skepticism as well, but it's when I get a nice gut feeling telling me that I'm being lied to.
	Not only that, carrying on with some of the statements that have been made by Green Blatt and the ADL and SPLC in general, Green Blatt has taken on social media saying hashtag white supremacy is terrorism and clear and present danger to the homeland.
	Who's homeland?
	Anyway, in one of his countless appearances on American national television, Greenblatt looked the ante saying that white supremacy is a global terror threat.
	Plain and simple.
	Amazing given that we are a 7% minority across the global population of the world.
	Later calling it a transnational terrorist threat that could engulf us all.
	Is he just looking at the existence of Europe and saying, well, this is a problem.
	This is a problem.
	It is weird because Jewish people are safer if there's a stronger white population in a country.
	Have Jewish people become more or less safe since immigration has gone up in the United Kingdom?
	For example, as I don't understand all this, Greenblatt also is just off his not.
	I mean, when he's like a mafia boss.
	When Musk took over Twitter, he said something, I'm paraphrasing slightly, but it was something like, do we need to take this guy out?
	He looked at Musk like, he said something, I can't find the extraordinary tweet about like taking him down.
	He's like, he's like the richest man in the world, just bought Twitter.
	He and the ADL in general do use mafia tactics because he did then try and organize a massive advertiser boycott against Twitter purely because of Musk's taking it over.
	So yeah, he literally came in like a protection racket and said, we don't work with this guy.
	And if you do decide to work with this guy, we're going to smear you in the press.
	I literally have the ear of the president, whichever president.
	Doesn't matter which president.
	They all love me.
	Okay, so it's like actual mob boss.
	Yeah, it's like, be a shame if something happened to that website.
	Yeah.
	Nice app you've got there.
	And then it contrasts with the way that he talks about black nationalists.
	Obviously, white supremacy is the greatest threat in the world.
	But black nationalists, he says, you know, we need to make careful distinctions between the good and the bad within the movement.
	The black Hebrew Israelites, you'd think he would hate the black Hebrew Israelites, right?
	But apparently, apparently he said about them, he described them as simply the guys in Times Square who observe Judaism in a way that's not so traditional.
	Really?
	Okay.
	Perhaps tellingly, Greenblatt later talked about the deep history of shared values between the communities, even having common enemies.
	Like, okay.
	In the case of the SPLC, their biases are even more transparent regarding the 2020 decision to no longer include the black separatist category on their hate map.
	They said, we hope by dropping this listing, we can lead by example and be able to contribute to a more accurate understanding of violent extremism, one that foregrounds white supremacist extremism as the most dangerous threat to national security.
	So it's just, they're just outright saying we have an institutional bias against white people and white people who don't hate themselves in particular.
	It sounds like Don Lemon.
	Like, no one seriously thinks this stuff.
	You're having to just pretend this is a serious threat.
	It's incredible.
	And this kind of like institutional bias, because this is looking at the way that it manifests in articles, but we can see how this kind of institutional bias crops up elsewhere.
	Like we mentioned in your segment, the calls by some within the free press and the mainstream to not punish insane black guys who murder innocent white women who are just minding their own business.
	Apparently that's injustice if you don't execute him, if you don't give him rehabilitation for being insane and murdering people for no reason.
	Well, that's just just, if it was, if it was reversed, if it was reversed, people would be marching on the streets.
	You'd get the BLM signs all over again.
	It would be a case of 2020 if the media chose to push it.
	But the media chooses not to push it in this case.
	Well, why?
	It's obvious.
	It's because the victim was white.
	So they don't.
	They just don't care.
	But we know the truth.
	We know the secrets.
	We've seen the FBI statistics.
	We have 1350 memes that go around all of the time.
	We know what's going on.
	But can you even trust the police and FBI statistics?
	That was the question behind a very, very interesting new study that has been done by a number of very interested social scientists on Twitter who have decided to check the accuracy of these kinds of memes that go around.
	Because you might have even seen these pop up on your timeline from time to time.
	They go viral, right?
	Which is where people who you can tell from the picture are clearly not white are being arrested and charged with crimes and classified as white in the statistics.
	Of saying Julio Diego Montoya Trejo is not white.
	It's a difficult call to make.
	It's a tough one, but I have a sneaking suspicion that he's maybe a little bit more Aztec.
	This guy's Wilber Alexander Hernandez Gomez.
	Just got that Wilbur in there just to claim he might be off.
	I like the second one: Garcia Patricio, Daniel Garcia, gender unknown, race unknown.
	They put Garcia in there, it's Daniel, just to confuse you.
	He's like, I'm Daniel.
	I'm the white mystery.
	Actually, it's like if they've put Garcia in there twice to really hammer home just how Mexican this guy is.
	Greetings.
	Greetings, fellow white people.
	Why have you got Garcia twice?
	But the problem with these is they're memes.
	They go around every so often, and people go, Have you seen this?
	But there's nothing more substantial behind them.
	You might just be picking out a few, cherry-picking a few that aren't representative of the vast majority of people.
	They might even be statistical aberrations.
	Maybe it's a case of there's about a 1% chance with each racial group that they're going to be misclassified, right?
	So these guys decided to test it.
	They scraped 5.5 million criminal records, and from that, they got 1.5 usable bits of data from these criminal records.
	And this is 1.5 million mugshots from 39 states.
	And what they found was that 29%, let me say that again, 29% of Hispanics were officially classified as white.
	And even at, and the model confidence for this was 92.7% in the models that they were using.
	If you want to go through their statistical methods, there is a full article on Substack that goes through the whole thing that you can find in the link below this podcast on the Lotus Eaters website.
	But even when they adjusted it and took out some of those results for a 95 to 100% model confidence, 22.4% of predicted Hispanics were still being assigned white by the justice system.
	Now, well, this is just going through statistical data.
	This is just putting it into models.
	So how do you double check it?
	Well, it's easy.
	You've got all of these records.
	You go through a few that you can eyeball and determine, is it right?
	So the model came up with predicted black assigned white low confidence, right?
	So it was unsure.
	But all of these people were classified as white.
	Right?
	Do many of these people look like could these people have come from the shores of New England?
	Are these descendants of the Protestant bottom left?
	Is you're really struggling.
	Yeah, really struggling.
	I could give you like top three in on the top.
	I could give you that one.
	You maybe as a kind of error.
	Bottom left is nuts.
	Yeah.
	This guy's not even the right way up.
	They just hung this guy by his feet for the picture.
	Until he became white.
	All the blood can rush to his face and the melanin can rise.
	Everybody knows that melanin is like heat.
	It rises, right?
	I'm really struggling with Aaron Bagsby as a white.
	I suppose they might have got confused by the Hobbit-esque surname.
	Bagsby Baggins.
	Oh, okay.
	Maybe he's one of the Sackville Bagginses.
	That's why they all wanted to avoid him.
	And they had some more pictures here of the Hispanics.
	Now, with this, with some of these, this woman, you can see how there's confusion, maybe even with top left.
	But basically, as you start to descend, it becomes more and more like Mexican as you go down.
	But all of these were classified as white.
	Mr. Marco Antonio Garcia.
	There it is again.
	He, yeah, Garcia as well.
	What about Juan Carlos?
	I Jaro.
	Jose Lopez was apparently a white man.
	Okay.
	Juan Carlos.
	He had the tramp tan.
	These were the leaders.
	Maybe.
	Maybe.
	Maybe he also changed his name to fit in more with the Florida population.
	The test should be: can a white bloke pronounce them?
	If I'm not sure how to pronounce them, they can't be white.
	It's not perfectly scientific.
	Sorry, carry up.
	But either way, so this is clearly showing that they are very obviously trying to pump the numbers.
	Right?
	They are very clearly...
	Pump those numbers.
	They've got to pump the numbers up because, oh God, they've found the FBI data online.
	We're going to need to pump those white numbers up.
	We really need to.
	Although I think with the FBI, it's that they don't classify Hispanics as non-white, so they just get automatically lumped into the white statistics, despite the fact that many of them would dispute them being white.
	You can imagine the scene in a movie like Garcia Garcia, he's white, and then they're sort of subordinate, but he's white.
	He's white.
	Listen, he may look, he may look Mexican.
	He may sound Mexican.
	He may not be able to speak English.
	But ask yourself, is your job worth it?
	And they also broke this down based around state as well and found that in Florida, like you can see how much it varies from state to state.
	But in Florida, 60 plus percent of Hispanics were being classified purposefully as white rather than Hispanic when they have the option to classify them as Hispanic.
	And I know somebody in the chat here has said that unfortunately for statistics in the US, it's white non-Hispanic or white Hispanic.
	Still, you can break those down within the DOC, the Department of Corrections databases, as well as, you know, like non-white Hispanic and white Hispanic or whatever.
	So you can still break it down a little bit further.
	But this is clear and obvious misrepresentations of the statistics.
	And what this is doing is this is not only pumping up the white violent crime rate and just general crime rate as well, it's pulling down the Hispanic crime rate.
	As Cremieu here says, the Hispanic crime rate is conservatively being underestimated by 20% and possibly by as high as 30%.
	And they say here as well, what this is, if they were correcting for misclassification rates in Hispanic criminal records, they would be 31% higher according to the upper end of it.
	And it would decrease white rates of crime by 6%.
	And it would also decrease black rates of crime by 1% through all of the misclassification.
	One of the most important and useful things in here as well is just near the top, they have a study of whether bias in general is common.
	And they go through a number of different cases where people have studied various different biases within the system For to see if there's any anti-white bias or just bias in general, most of the time they do find that there is anti-white bias within this within the justice system.
	So, you can see here, for instance, experimental research using deadly force simulators found officers were slower to shoot armed black suspects than armed white suspects and less likely to shoot black suspects despite showing implicit bias.
	And there's a lot of different studies like this.
	Not all of them found bias in the various things that they were studying, but I do think it is clear that in America, at the very least, and I think we can broadly classify this across the West in general as well, there is a massive bias against white people within the justice system, whether that be to try and pump up their numbers to make it seem like whites are committing more crimes and Hispanics are committing less crimes than are the actual figures,
	or in police behavior, because police have been taught that any police action against non-white people is almost certainly a one-way ticket to a court because they might get chauvined.
	And also, this is staring us at the face, it's hidden in plain sight.
	It's all bokeness is adherence to the intersectional calculus, which says all society is structured by a hierarchy of oppressor and oppressed, and the oppressors are straight white men, invariably in every society.
	Yeah, so when they're saying the goal of justice is equity and equality and equity are the means to take us to equality, they constantly try to say, well, let us bring up the oppressed and bring down the oppressors.
	It's hidden in plain sight.
	But I completely agree with you because this is one of the things that people are demonized for noticing.
	Well, again, it's obvious to anybody who cares to look and pay attention, but it is important to still make note of these things.
	And it is important outside of just sharing memes every now and again for us to have a definite confirmation that this is going on.
	Because clearly the numbers are being fudged on purpose to try and hide criminals within the statistics or shift them around.
	The online chat says here basically that Nick is so white, he's like a vampire.
	That's the chat today.
	We get this every time.
	So a couple of things.
	One is I had skin cancer, so I can't go in the sun.
	When I say that, it normally ends that conversation quite quickly.
	And then two is I'm next to a Greek person, so it's like doubly unfair.
	And on these cameras, I look even more white.
	Listen, never be, never be ashamed of being pasty.
	We are the elves.
	These are just Hispanics in the chat who are annoyed that I get classed as white.
	I'm actually Hispanic, but I get classed as white.
	I'm Nick Garcia.
	Garcia.
	You feel like a Nick Fuentes type.
	You know, they'd always said it.
	The cameras made me look more pale, plus, I had skin cancer, so I never go in the sun.
	I didn't know you had skin cancer.
	Are you being serious?
	Are you joking?
	Yeah, yeah.
	Because that feels like something that you would throw out there as a light troll.
	No, no, I'm serious.
	But that's why I haven't ever got in the sun for years.
	I have to conspicuously avoid it.
	And unfortunately, why do you have to sleep like hanging upside down from the rafters?
	That's a separate thing.
	Right.
	That's to drain all the Spanishness, aren't we?
	It's gone.
	Control 94: enforcing the law against criminals is antithetical to leftism because, like Islam, the intent of leftism is to destroy Western civilization.
	The Habsification says the only person that can save us now is Yacoub.
	Nick, you're white enough.
	You've got like a one-line direct connection to Yacoub, right?
	You can get in touch with him.
	Thank you.
	We need his help.
	He made us all in a cave.
	That was nice.
	Punish black people for some reason.
	Otric Dorr says, unfortunately, for statistics in the U.S., it is white non-Hispanic or white Hispanic.
	Constantin, who's up in the Lotus Cedars?
	I don't know what that means from Constantin, to be honest.
	Which Constantine?
	I can't read him because not that Constantine.
	Constantine Kissing isn't like seething, sending his money in the super chats.
	Does that mean that that's over?
	Because no one said anything.
	It's okay.
	Okay, I'll do my.
	No one said anything.
	You can just say that.
	I've got the screen in front of me, and so you just went silent.
	So I was like, you can sit for the next 30 minutes contemplating life if you'd like.
	No, let's do this instead.
	I've got an exciting segment.
	And as always, I'm mentioning Nick Fuentes, our old friend, because I'm contractually obliged to mention him every other week.
	It's in my contract.
	And normally I get to go over my segment on the train, but I was too worried about losing my suit.
	So I think you'll still be good, though.
	It's about the new alignment in politics and how things are shifting.
	We've heard for a while that left and right are outmoded terms, but no political party seems to have really taken that on board.
	But what I'm realizing now, or noticing, let's say, is that younger people are starting to call this out and the younger generation.
	So I think there'll have to be a realignment in politics.
	And this clip from our old friend Nick, your best mate.
	If you had progressive Democrats and nationalist Republicans working together, let's say to compel the release of the Epstein files, what kind of approval rating do you think that has?
	90%.
	And what if they got together and they opposed foreign aid to Israel?
	What approval rating do you think that would have?
	90%.
	What if they got together and worked on the basis of a common interest?
	Do you think that Republicans or independents running under that brand, do you think that that would become more popular or less popular over time?
	Four becomes eight, eight becomes 16.
	It snowballs.
	And we need to propel someone into the White House that is just a populist.
	And here's where we're going to have to give.
	This is going to be the compromise.
	Very simple.
	The left has to give up immigration.
	That simple.
	The left is going to have to give up.
	Look, we can have equity and we can have equality in the country.
	We can have civil rights.
	We can have all those things.
	But we have to close the damn borders.
	We have to close it.
	Too many illegal immigrants, too many legal immigrants.
	That has to be the compromise.
	The left has to give on immigration and the right has to give on the free market.
	If the right can come down on health care and on a social safety net and maybe on some subsidies for education, and if the left can come down on the anti-white open border stuff and they can agree that we have a country, that party will win 90% of the vote and rule for a century.
	That's the compromise.
	That's the populist compromise.
	Why is it that for the left, it's like they don't even care about anything else.
	It just has to be open borders.
	And on the right, it's like they don't care about anything else as long as it's foreign aid to Israel and war in the Middle East and war with Russia.
	That's the kind of program that we need.
	And that's what they're terrified of.
	They're terrified that the left and the right are going to come together on the basis of stop supporting Israel on the basis of close the borders on the basis of restricting money in politics and the influence of the oligarchs.
	That's what they're terrified of.
	So this is the blueprint.
	We have to build on this.
	All right.
	Seemed reasonable.
	Lots of people are saying that.
	He put it quite eloquently and it went pretty viral.
	I mean, that's what 3.2 million.
	Well, just to just say, the funny thing is, what he's describing there when he says the progressive Democrats with nationalist Republicans.
	I don't know if you would describe Thomas Massey as a nationalist Republican, but if you do, he is a Republican.
	He's basically describing with the Epstein files what actually happened with pushing through Thomas Massey's bill because it was co-sponsored between Massey and also this Rokana progressive Democrat from California as well.
	So that is a unique example where they all came together to push through that bill.
	But I think really what he's kind of getting at is this when Tucker came on and criticized Mark Levin and Ben Shapiro recently and the last half or so hour of that podcast was him speaking with Anna Kaspari.
	That is the kind of alliance that I think that Nick is pointing to because Anna has been able to change her views on a lot of things and has kind of pulled back on a lot of the really insane aspects of leftism.
	She doesn't seem...
	I don't watch The Young Turks, so please correct me if I'm wrong on this.
	She doesn't seem to be anti-white anymore, explicitly at least.
	And she has come down in favor of a lot more strict law and order policies.
	Despite that, I do see a lot of difficulties and potential pitfalls with what he's advocating here.
	Asking the left to give up being like the progressive left to give up being anti-white.
	Yeah.
	Okay, that's, you know, but he's on immigration, which I'll talk about.
	They're not going to do it.
	The first thing every progressive Democrat talks about is give us more money to give to illegal aliens.
	Yeah.
	And if he's saying that they would need to give up the concessions for equity and civil rights, well, those pieces of legislation are what propels the anti-white social order.
	I mean, he said he'd say he wanted to, he was quite lenient on, well, yeah, equality fine.
	He even said equity fine, which is insane.
	It's not fine.
	No, equality, I can understand, but understand he's saying you've just got to give up immigration and we've got to give up this free market obsession and this foreign policy neocon stuff.
	In principle, it's okay.
	He also doesn't seem to be like figuring this out on the fly thinking out loud in this clip.
	Despite it going viral, this, what I am seeing here, is not a fully fleshed out plan yet.
	This is just getting the idea out there and seeing how people will react to it.
	In essence, though, I think it's correct.
	If the left would do it, the immigration thing just has to be stopped and then or massively reduced.
	And the right, I think, does have to look at the free market obsession again.
	I think those two are actually correct.
	Personally, not everyone will agree, but gone.
	I agree with those general ideas.
	Okay.
	I just wanted to say something, because it seems to me that, I mean, I know, you have my post there, but I don't understand one thing.
	If he says right now, close the borders and let's have progressive Democrats and nationalist Republicans work together, and then he's framing it just on the economic bit.
	How does he keep the other political aspects he frequently talks about?
	And I don't want to put him necessarily in a particular corner because I don't watch his show.
	I don't want to necessarily say that's what he's on my mind.
	I will have to make him be that thing.
	But it seems to me that a lot of people he represents are constantly talking about depriving people, some people from particular rights, especially political rights, political representation.
	How will he get these groups to the table?
	Because the progressive Democrats and also many nationalist Republicans are saying, right, we are a society with lots of groups, and these groups are represented in politics to whatever degree or not, whether you like it or not, they are in the US.
	So how does he get to sit down with them, given the fact that many people from his audience constantly ask for lots of these groups to not have rights as far as politics are concerned?
	In other words, this seems just economic and also geopolitical when he's talking about support for Israel.
	I don't think he's supposed to be.
	There's also the political aspect of it.
	It's like, right.
	They don't seriously call for people to not have rights, I don't think.
	No, I'm not talking about civil rights, but aren't they?
	I'm just asking here.
	I'm just asking.
	aren't they constantly saying that some groups shouldn't have political rights in the U.S., and the U.S. political rights must be confined to particular groups, which most Republicans are against, and I think almost every progressive Democrat is against.
	I'm not sure they've said that.
	I mean, obviously, he says women shouldn't vote.
	That's common sense.
	Yeah, I'm not sure he said that as such.
	He'd have to give me specific examples.
	Again, this doesn't seem to be a fully fleshed out idea yet.
	He's relaunching his, what is it, his America First Pact in January or February.
	So perhaps this is something that they're going to try and pursue with greater depth.
	Yeah, let's see.
	I mean, inevitably, Dinesh calls him a Nazi because he says this is what he's saying is national socialism.
	Nick finally makes his move to put the socialism back in national socialism.
	He's taking up Goebbels' point that capitalism is evil and socialism is the heart of Nazism.
	Nationalism is merely a qualifier for socialism.
	National is the adjective and socialism is the noun.
	Fuentes has already responded to that and saying it's stupid just because that was the name of Hitler's party doesn't mean he's doing that.
	Yeah, Stelios had a more reasonable response, which I was going to include before I knew you were on the show today.
	I was just going to hope I could mention that, then move on, but now you're actually here to annoyingly put your view and ruin my whole narrative.
	No, but you were criticizing him more from a sort of classical liberal perspective or whatever term you would use.
	But you were saying that, well, I don't know, it feels weird to read your own tweet to you.
	I just think that basically the left doesn't have to give just immigration away.
	They have to give up on socialism, progressivism, extreme egalitarianism, equity, the hatred of naturally emerging hierarchies, because that's where equality of opportunity turns into equality of outcome with equity.
	And the right must give up, I think, on anti-intellectualism, passivity, appeals to Daddy government, and a progressive parenting style treatment of transgressive and subversive outraged porn merchants.
	And both have to give up mass migration because they want it for different reasons.
	Do you agree on that point?
	Ecophobia, which is hatred of one's country, is the opposite of patriotism.
	It's treating virtue as the expression of I hate my country sentiment.
	And utopian rhetoric that makes them pander to resentful people.
	I just realize that.
	Lots of people are just no realists.
	Actually, we call that oikophobia, but it comes from a Greek word oikos, so you probably know how to say it.
	It's just a whole debate how you pronounce it.
	It's not, it doesn't matter.
	Yeah, alright, so you had a slightly different take.
	I mean, yeah, you would you would probably not like the amount of government that's involved in these kind of uh statements.
	No, and the kind of criticism that conservatives are making of socialists still applies.
	I mean the problems with having a a command economy and the problems with centralizing the economy that don't go away.
	Obviously, I can definitely come to the table and talk to people such as you who I think are in some respects a bit more in favor of centralized control and say things like we shouldn't nationalize particular industries.
	Yeah, I'm a realist.
	I'm realist.
	I think eventually any kind of political compromise will have to involve something of that sort.
	Okay.
	Yeah, well, the more you read into it, I mean, people like John Gray quite compelling critiques of the free market in his book, False Storm, for example.
	But it's sort of the right or the classical liberal type person will blame the government where he'll blame the free market.
	You end up realizing they're saying almost exactly the same thing, but they're just apportioning blame to a different cause.
	But anyway, let's carry on and see that actually Charlie Downs had a very similar.
	I don't know if he watched the Fuentes clip, but he had a very similar thing.
	He almost certainly did.
	I mean, straight after this clip starts going around and Charlie's like, I've had an amazing brand new idea.
	I love you, Charlie.
	I'm just saying.
	Yeah, he says, why is the right, but it's interesting that young people are asking it, why is the right so wedded to capitalism and Zionism?
	Some people have criticized sticking Zionism in it.
	I'm not going to go down that rabbit hole today.
	Why is the left so wedded to mass immigration and anti-white racism?
	Why is social conservatism always coupled with economic liberalism?
	Why is economic conservatism always coupled with social liberalism?
	Why are we told that these configurations are the only options?
	Why are they presented to the public as being in opposition to one another when both seem to serve the interests of the same entrenched ruling class?
	And so on.
	And that's the key.
	I mean, obviously you've spoken to William Cluson or Dan did, and I had him on my podcast.
	He's the kind of person raising this.
	But this formula, ostensibly what people actually want, particularly British people, isn't really offered strangely.
	And Charlie's starting to notice that.
	And it is a generational battle, particularly in America, I've noticed, the sort of neocon free market right, and then the younger people and Tucker kind of.
	It's kind of in general the post-war paradigm.
	And frankly, I'm tired of it, like a lot of people are.
	And I joke with Charlie, but this is something that a lot of people are independently coming to, which is realizing that the uniparty divides within America, within the UK.
	I would imagine in a lot of other countries as well, but we don't have proportional representation like a lot of European countries do.
	Either way, this whole setup of the two big parties, which are different in minor ways, but on all of the big subjects like mass migration, like civil rights, like anti-white discrimination, are all agreed.
	They're all agreed on these same huge things, which are actually far more important overall than the tiny little differences that they have.
	We're all going, why does it have to be this way?
	Why does it have to be a choice between huge government that hates me and says they like the free market and huge government that also hates me but says they don't like the free market quite as much?
	But actually do in reality do all the same things economically as well.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Why does that have to be?
	But one's in blue and one's in red.
	No, I don't like that.
	I don't want that.
	I don't think these are fair choices.
	I don't think they're real choices.
	Yeah, and that was, and I started with saying left and right is outmoded.
	And everyone, especially since Brexit, has been saying that.
	But yeah, there hasn't actually been any change along those lines.
	Anyway, on the generational thing, Shapiro sums up his take it.
	Let's just watch this.
	If you're a young person and you can't afford to live here, then maybe you should not live here.
	I mean, that is a real thing.
	I know that we've now grown up in a society that says that you deserve to live where you grew up.
	But the reality is that the history of America is almost literally the opposite of that.
	The history of America is you go to a place where there is opportunity.
	And if the opportunities are limited here and they're not changing, then you really should try to think about other places where you have better opportunities.
	I want to say I don't get the massive backlash against this because this is the clip of the interview where he's talking about Mamdani and he's talking about cities.
	He doesn't say as many people made it, you can't make a living in your own country, live your own country.
	That's not what he's talking about.
	He was talking about cities.
	And most of the people I know, they don't work in the city where they grew up.
	Everybody who I saw responding negatively to this was responding from the perspective of he's talking about New York and cities.
	I think the reason this annoyed a lot of people, myself included, is one, it completely dismisses and ignores all of the reasons why the cities have gotten so bad outside of like, oh my God, Mam Danny got voted.
	Why did Mam Danny get voted in?
	Is it because of huge open borders policies that have completely demographically shifted?
	I know you don't care about the Browning of America, Ben, but a lot of people actually do.
	Have the demographic shifts have changed this.
	People have also pointed out, well, if you're trying to make a good living for yourself, cities are still where the jobs are in a place like America.
	Everybody talks about how, like Ben has spoken about before, how the Rust Belt and all of these small towns in America have been completely destroyed by economic financialization where all of the industry has been offshored to places like China.
	So if you want a good paying job with a good standard of living, you are probably going to have to work in or near a city.
	So why should it be that I have to work in the city?
	I'm forced into a position where I have to move away and work in a city, but also don't earn enough to be able to live in the city, meaning that 90% of my life is spent in work and in the commute.
	Yeah, that's fair.
	Yeah, I understand what Stellas is saying as well.
	I can understand that.
	And English people, of course, traditionally have moved a lot to find work, and then they sort of set up their castle, which you can't do anymore because you can't buy a house.
	That's a big problem with that as well.
	But I think it's the Shapiro seen as just being free market above all else, isn't he?
	And John Gray had a good quote where he said, the innermost contradiction of the free market is that it works to weaken the traditional social institutions on which it has depended in the past.
	So this is the kind of problem with it.
	It kind of destroys itself in the end, in his claim anyway.
	People reacted, because I know what you're saying, there's nuance to it, but they felt that Shapiro was just doing his classic thing of shut up, move to get your job.
	And people say, well, what about our community?
	Which he didn't seem to care about.
	If you believe Tucker, who responded fairly aggressively to it, it's just about someone in your own country.
	Imagine having that level of contempt for a fellow American.
	You don't even know anything about that person.
	Young people, they're not entitled to live where they want.
	They'll live where BlackRock tells them they can live.
	It's like, whoa.
	If you had a thought like that, I've had some ugly thoughts.
	I just admitted having some ugly thoughts.
	Boy, I would try and push it back and not express it.
	Ben says it without any embarrassment because he means it.
	That's exactly right, because he means it.
	I don't think that you can win a popular debate with that attitude because irrespective of the content of your sentence, people can feel the loathing that the speaker has for them.
	Ben Shapiro does not care about you at all.
	He's not even pretending to care about you.
	So again, it really doesn't matter what he's selling.
	That guy is not going to make the sale if people are free to buy whatever they want.
	It's like, I don't know what that guy is selling, but he doesn't like me.
	I can feel it right away.
	He doesn't care at all about me at all.
	And he thinks so little of me.
	He's not even going to put on the dog.
	He's not even going to try to pretend to care about me.
	And a guy like that, he really needs censorship and bullying to succeed.
	Because the free market does not reward a man like that at all, ever.
	Because people don't like it.
	Why would they like it?
	Okay, and some people disingenuously took that out of context and said he's saying that Shapiro should be censored.
	Of course, he's saying Shapiro can only rely on censorship because those ideas just won't be popular if they actually have to compete.
	Yeah, yeah.
	The argument that has been made is that Ben Shapiro actually benefited from the left censoring voices to the right of Ben Shapiro by meaning that he by making it so that he was the only game in town.
	Yeah, it seems quite plausible, doesn't it?
	Because, yeah, and I do think it's a generational thing.
	Tucker is the kind of uncle representing, it's really sort of Fuentes versus Shapiro, and he kind of is representing that younger generation in a sense.
	So my claim is that while the right is sort of realizing some of the flaws of the, it can't all be just about money and free market liberal ideas, the left, if you go back to the original Fuentes clip, they're not quite doing the other part, which is the give up on immigration part, even though it's staring them in the face, because even if they can't do the cultural part, they could at least say this is ruining domestic, suppressing domestic wages.
	They can't even do the old left part.
	So they're completely just S-libs on that.
	Gone.
	Can I question you on that?
	Yeah.
	If we have time, we don't have much time.
	Go on, go on.
	No, I'll be very fast.
	So it seems to me that one of the reasons why the US is in a much better state right now than Europe is that the US has a much freer market.
	So for me, from my perspective, why shouldn't I say, right, okay, I'm open to the conversation of having a minimal safety net, which may be a bit too much for some Americans and a bit too little for some Europeans.
	But let me say I'm willing to consider that because I am realistically speaking and pragmatically speaking.
	And why not just say for me that the problem is we should do the old Milton Friedman thing, which is we shouldn't combine extreme welfarism with mass migration.
	So why not we just keep the free market, temper it just a bit so that there is some, so that there isn't massive social frictions with respect to how social inequality sometimes can lead people to crime.
	It's just an issue of numbers.
	There are tendencies there.
	So why not just saying, right, instead of having all this other thing that is trying to be pushed towards me as the anti-World War II narrative, why should I just not say, well, let's just reverse extreme welfarism and its combination with open borders?
	Yeah, I've heard lots of libertarians say that.
	It's just you can have, they sometimes say you can have a welfare state or you can have open borders.
	You can't have both.
	Yeah, you can't have it.
	Clearly you can't have both.
	Yeah, clearly.
	UK.
	Yeah, you know, I think that's right.
	I hate that libertarian phrase anyway, because you can't have open borders in any circumstances.
	No, you can't.
	But no one on the right would disagree.
	They might disagree.
	But they are open for some.
	For some people, they are open.
	What do you mean, like for big finance interests?
	Yeah, why not?
	I mean, you mentioned Browning of America before.
	Lots of people will come up on the UK shores on a daily basis with boats.
	It depends what you call free market.
	No, no, no.
	I'm saying that the best way forward is to not have extreme welfarism and open borders.
	You have to close borders and restrict welfareism.
	No, I agree.
	I'm saying that what Nick said was the libertarian thing.
	You can have one or the other, not both.
	I'm saying under no circumstances can you ever have open borders.
	Because if you have open borders, even if you do not have a welfare state, the fact of the matter is societies created by Europeans and their descendants will just be of such a vastly better living standard.
	Even if you are at the lowest rung of society, they will still flock to our countries.
	Yeah.
	And another thing, a critique of the free market part, though, is that the corporations, when you're talking about the global free market, of course, corporations want this cheap labor to come in.
	That's another part that strangely the left misses the open goal where they could, they always say it's the billionaires, but they don't ever say the billionaires are bringing, but it's not the poor immigrant, it's the billionaire, but it's the billionaires bringing.
	That's what Polanski does.
	He constantly focuses on the billionaires.
	But the issue is that what progressive Democrats are doing and the leftists are doing is that they have gone global.
	They're globalists.
	And because they've gone global, they don't think in terms of rich and poor domestically.
	They think in terms of rich and poor globally.
	That's why almost every person in the working class of Western nations who is a descendant of them counts as globally rich.
	That's why they won't give up what Fuentes thinks they're going to give up.
	Right.
	And here's a good example of Clive Lewis, who actually, you know, you think Clive Lewis can't say anything sensible.
	But around the United Kingdom march, he actually did say this quite sensible thing about the sort of derastination of communities.
	He said he had a friend who went to the march, and he talked about the way communities have been destroyed.
	But he can only cite the free market part, of course.
	He can't do the other part.
	And he actually then went on to criticize the 1950s intolerance here.
	So he says, oh, that's not the answer.
	So they can never do the cultural part and the immigration.
	They can only do, hey, I'll meet you part way, which is like, yes, I understand that.
	He says we've replaced collective experience with atomization and so on.
	And we've lost affordability and all this kind of thing.
	So they can do that part.
	They can't do the other part.
	And if you see the reaction to Shabana Mahmoud just saying maybe, you know, whether she's going to do it or not, but her even saying, let's have a border, they all go absolutely bat bleep.
	And they say we've now reached a stage where Labour government is taking direct policy inspiration from Nazi Germany.
	And they say that whether she's the exact same as Enoch Powell.
	So you just see the left isn't grasping it at all, is my just point there.
	They're not doing the immigration thing at all.
	I don't really see them doing it.
	One of the few people doing it is actually Nick Timothy.
	He had a kind of imperfect vessel for this because he was special advisor to Theresa May and she was not going to be able to do any of his ideas.
	But he actually has a book, Remaking One Nation, and he has it in this article here where he actually criticizes the ultra-liberalism of the market on one side and the ultra-liberalism socially on the other side.
	And he had an interesting quote in his book that just sums this up.
	He says, across the party divide, there is a commitment not only to liberalism, but to different forms of ideological liberalism.
	Markets trump institutions.
	Individualism trumps community.
	And group rights trump broader national identities.
	Legal rights come before civic obligations.
	Personal freedom beats commitment and universalism erodes citizenship.
	We're experiencing a crisis of liberal democracy that is driven by the excesses of ideological ultra-liberals.
	So in the book, he says that some of the actual liberal thinking of Locke et al. was okay, but what we have now is what he calls ideological ultra-liberalism.
	The reason I researched all that is because I was going to have him on my podcast and he had to cancel, but he's someone who's actually talking about this.
	William Klusner, you've had on here.
	Very sensible.
	Very sensible, but they're very few and far between.
	That is the compromise.
	And just to recognize your position as well, people like Christian Niebz, of course, of savage Timothy's position say it's nonsense on stilts.
	So it is only one argument, but I do think that is where more people are going to go.
	And you do have question marks over, I'm just trying to pack in loads here, but you have question marks over like reform, where do they sit?
	Because obviously they came from the Brexit Party.
	They seem to be sort of inherently Thatcherite at times.
	They talk about nationalizing steel and things.
	So do they really grasp it?
	I think this is where things are going to move, but are the parties going to grasp it?
	I don't know.
	Anyway, go on.
	And with that, let's get on to the last super chats, Rumble Rance, and video comments.
	Do you want to do the video comments first, Harry?
	There is another Harry Saturn.
	Right, so KPN Cam.
	The free market doesn't work for housing since there is no freedom to supply new land.
	A lot of people would argue that there's a lot of legislation preventing the opening up of land that's not in use.
	Well, how do you think one?
	Some people say, like, William Klusen just needs far more stadium bomb.
	Other people say the state's the problem.
	It is a place where everything comes together because young people can't get houses.
	Then you can blame immigration, but you can also blame the free market.
	Anyway.
	Aren't also these laws tougher in the UK than in the US?
	I don't know about the UK.
	In the US, Thomas Soule has written a lot about land laws that make it so that you're not able to open up land for use for housing, which make it absolutely skyrocket in places like California.
	Although there are other factors that he doesn't talk about as much in the books that I've read.
	Right.
	Okay.
	Matty Ace Shapiro says you can't stay in a place you can't afford.
	This will never be the case for Israel.
	That's what he's made.
	He also doesn't really criticize the population exploding through immigration.
	Fraud combination is key.
	Let's go to the videos.
	california refugee i found this really interesting book in my youth book store about weimar era fairy tales let's read an excerpt it says moreover the grim and beckstein tales often conserve a medieval notion of might makes right along with typical bourgeois myths of industriousness cleanliness and truthfulness as holiness Now, by that standard, I'm a medievalist.
	What about you guys?
	I think it's a good term.
	Let's be medievalists.
	I've heard a lot of people use that phrase, and it is a good one.
	Let's go to the next one.
	I found this really interesting book.
	Next one, please.
	Mechnomancer.
	Tim Poole occasionally makes a joke that AI will end up obsessing over corn since it is a multi-purpose resource.
	So I had ChatGPT render this image specifying Tim Pool in a corncob neighborhood wearing a corncob costume driving a corncob car.
	I then asked ChatGPT to make up its own funny Tim Pool meme using what it knows, and it made this.
	AI is like cruise control.
	Even with cruise control, you still have to steer.
	There's so much to be said.
	That image says so much about society.
	Let's go to the next one by Michael Dreibobis.
	Harry, this is going to be the same thing.
	Is this going to be the same thing?
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Just play it just to be sure.
	just to be sure, but let's watch the first few seconds.
	No, it's a diff- Oh, Michael Draper, one second.
	And a mouse.
	There's going to be a trap somewhere.
	Is this the situation?
	Michael Drebelbus or Mechnomancer?
	Michael.
	Mechnomancer.
	Yeah, yeah, because he's talking about the mech.
	So there won't be a trap.
	Okay.
	I think Michael would set a trap to that mouse.
	Right, next one, please.
	My father, who spends half his time in Canada, and I were discussing this magic soil theory.
	And we both came to the same conclusion.
	As Mr. Spock observed in the original series episode Mirror Mirror, it is far easier for you as civilized men to act as barbarians than it is for them as barbarians to act like civilized men.
	It isn't just importing the grab-tastic third world, it's importing the 10th century.
	Okay.
	Could somebody stop playing with the second mouse?
	Whoever's doing that.
	There is a second mouse on the screen and I can see it and somebody was playing with it.
	It's very distracting.
	Also, let's go to the.
	Yeah, these are the videos.
	Okay.
	So the barbarians now want reparations.
	For what?
	Ultimately, England, Great Britain, brought the trappings of civilization to the savages.
	Roads, schools, running water, indoor plumbing, electricity, the concept of human rights, human value, and individualism.
	But once the British left, the savages who did not build the civilization didn't care to maintain it.
	This is why the Federation had the Prime Directive.
	Never tried to advance a people beyond their ability to comprehend it.
	As far as I'm aware, Star Trek has a lot is mostly cases where they break the Prime Directive as well because Picard is a bleeding heart liberal.
	A teddy bear with anatomically correct innards.
	A pink blade.
	We already saw this one yesterday.
	Give us Sam Weston because it might be some repeats from yesterday.
	Go on.
	If it's the same, we could just go to the comments afterwards.
	Harry, I mentioned to you and Luca on the last Goltier Zoom call that I had the collection of what has since become 60 PS2 games.
	Nice.
	Including the first two God of War games.
	Nice.
	God Hand, Devil May Cry and Devil May Cry 3.
	Based.
	Destroy All Humans. Based.
	And The Suffering.
	Based.
	How much did you spend on a PS2 copy of Godhand?
	That is an insanely difficult game to find on disc.
	That's very, very impressive.
	Next one, Bye.
	I'm in York and somewhere Destelios should be familiar with.
	Yep.
	Ooh.
	Yes, Sydney Gardens.
	Absolutely gorgeous.
	Sydney Gardens are in Bath, I think.
	They are the museum gardens.
	Beautiful round tower here.
	And, you know, it's Roman from that line of brick.
	Gorgeous.
	Because we've got Lads Hour in a moment.
	So I think there's just one more Super Chat that's been sent in for $10 off.
	I want to read that one.
	Read it and go with the others.
	Speaking of extreme ideological liberalism to understand what's going on with the ADL, one has to understand the ADL is unfortunately infected with woke brainworms.
	Pray for their sanity.
	Know they have always been an awful organization.
	Look into how they started.
	Right.
	Okay, so I think we should go with two, three comments from our subscribers for our segments.
	So I'll start with Cambrian Kulak.
	You guys need to look at Lionel Penrose's hypothesis: the inverse relationship between the number of prison beds and mental health beds.
	The number of mental health beds is plummeting.
	They're increasing prison spaces.
	Problem is, thought criminals are now a thing, compounded by the caring approach to badness.
	And Dick Nixon says there was a very similar attack in New York not too long ago.
	I hate how normalized these kinds of atrocities have become.
	Every day there is a new one, and forget the old.
	And Justin Phillips, to foray Great Britain made into the East Asian world, we stopped Satyan thaggi practices when windows were burned, widows were burned, and cultists went around struggling and robbing people in worship of their God.
	I'll read two from mine.
	Michael Drebalbus, yeah, the ADL and SPLC are simply anti-white hate groups.
	They blow the statistics out of proportion and make assumptions based on simple population, not per capita.
	True.
	And also, Arizona Desert Rat says there's white people in Spain.
	Yes, that's true.
	Spanish people are white.
	Mexicans are different from Spanish people.
	And they may have some common ancestry, but Spanish people aren't descended from Aztecs and other South American populations.
	They're just European.
	Do you want me to do a couple?
	So I've got Ptolemy here was a good one.
	The center of Western politics was never real.
	It was a construction of the media political complex.
	The most popular position for decades has been left-wing economics and right-wing social policy.
	I agree.
	And Dominic Cummings has said that.
	And Thane Scotty of Swindon.
	Oikophobia is pronounced ecophobia and derives originally from the ancient Greek word for the house oikos, and which now means family, oikogenia.
	Fun fact, it's also the root of the English word economy.
	I knew that because we took from the Greek household management oikonomia.
	I knew the economy bit and I knew what oikos meant from Roger Scruton.
	I just didn't know the pronunciation.
	I suddenly realized Stelios could probably mog me on that.
	It's a weird thing because some people say that it's oikos, others say it's ecos or eikonomia.
	That's ours.
	I mean, you are Greek, so you tell us.
	Yeah, but it's a linguist issue.
	I always said oikos, but then he said ecos online.
	I was like north versus south and so on.
	When I hear ath and bath versus oikos or oikonomia, I just tend to have the reaction of a vampire who's thrown holy water.
	Just I can't stand it.
	The people in the office do know it's not Christmas yet.
	It's still November.
	It's not, but it's November and it's a jolly period.
	I only just had my birthday.
	Right, so it's 25 to 3 o'clock.
	There's Lad's Hour.
	Be with us here for Lad's Hour.
	Have also a great weekend and see you also after Lad's Hour.
	We'll see you again at 1 p.m. this coming Monday.

▲