The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1304

Nov. 26, 2025 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:30:56

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1304

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello everyone, welcome to the glorious and renowned podcast of the Lotus Eaters.
	Today is Wednesday, the 26th of November.
	This is episode 1304.
	I'm your host, Brother Stelios, and I'm joined today by Brother Harry.
	Hello.
	Brother Luca.
	I don't think 13004, you've confused me now.
	1304.
	No, you said 1,300.
	But carry on, carry on.
	1304.
	It's a big number.
	Right, in general.
	There you go, yes.
	And we are going to discuss about the latest Ukraine peace deal, labor taking away jury trial and how law enforcement is racist.
	We know the budget has just been announced about half an hour ago, or at least that is what I have been told.
	No, we've not had a chance to look over it yet, so we're not covering it today.
	Dan is covering it on the podcast tomorrow and doing a brokenomics on it.
	And I think we're going to fast-track that brokenomics from what Samson has told me.
	So that should come out soon so that we can get a full in-depth look at that.
	Samson has warned us he might just do a like budget watch thing.
	Budget black pills.
	Yeah, budget black pills.
	There you go.
	Every so often where he might just chime in with something that's happened with this budget.
	I'm hoping that this is going to be like a complete turnaround, you know, like babyface turn where actually all of our taxes are reduced and the welfare state is slowly stripped away and they announce that they're all going back.
	But wouldn't hold your breath.
	I doubt it.
	I doubt it.
	Are you going to take our breath away?
	Let me have a coffee first.
	God stellarians in such a rush.
	I'm Europe maxing over here.
	That's absolutely awesome and I recommend it.
	Thank you very much.
	If only I had a cigarette.
	Anyway, all right, so we're going to talk about the latest Ukraine peace deal, which has been put forward and supposedly accepted according to reports coming from the White House insiders, insiders within the government who are reporting to CBS.
	But let's go through a little bit of the backstory of the past week, the events that have led up to this, what could be a historic moment where Russia and Ukraine, mediated by the United States, might be able to actually end the war.
	So first of all, last week we had the announcement that Trump had put forward this 28-point Ukraine peace plan, which was reported in full.
	This copy was leaked and obtained by the Associated Press, and it immediately caused a lot of controversy because a lot of people said that it was favoring the Russians.
	It was supposedly drafted, I believe it was drafted, by Steve Witkoff in collaboration with Jared Kushner, the American negotiators, and a Kremlin official, Kirill Dmitriev, one of Putin's right-hand men.
	The agreement was detailed to the AP by an unnamed senior US official.
	There does seem regarding this leak to be a number of agents behind the scenes, actors behind the scenes, who are trying to leak as much as possible to the press, possibly as a way of stymying peace negotiations, but we don't know for certain right now.
	It does not obligate the US or European allies to intervene on Ukraine's behalf, although it says that they would determine the measures necessary to restore security.
	The most important points were laid out as that the Ukraine would not be allowed to join NATO.
	EU membership would be on the table, though.
	And elections must be held in Ukraine within 100 days.
	This goes to the idea that people have been pointing to for a while, that it appears that Vance and Trump would like, and the Americans in general, would like Zelensky out of office as soon as possible, once the war is over.
	And Ukraine's army would have to be capped at 600,000 troops compared to its current 880,000 troops.
	And some frozen Russian assets, I believe $100 billion worth, would go towards rebuilding Ukraine while sanctions on Russia would be lifted and Moscow and Washington would enter in a series of long-term economic arrangements, most of which seem engineered in such a way to make sure that the United States can profit massively over reconstruction in the affected areas where there's been infrastructure and other kind of damage.
	And obviously the one that most people are complaining about is the cap to the Ukrainian army, the lack of direct NATO intervention, and the fact that a number of the oblasts, all of the currently occupied oblasts, are said to be have you just have to give them up.
	Russia takes them.
	A lot of people are angry at the idea that Russia has essentially won in this scenario, which is why people were saying that this particular peace agreement, which as far as we know, is not the one that has been accepted, although it may have been, they were saying that this one was supporting Russia.
	This one favored Russia too much.
	So more in-depth, some of the points that were made in this one, which was number 12, the powerful global package of measures to rebuild Ukraine, including, but not limited to, the creation of a Ukraine development fund to invest in fast-growing industries, including technology, data centers, and artificial intelligence.
	The United States would cooperate with Ukraine to jointly rebuild, develop, modernize, and operate Ukraine's gas infrastructure, including pipelines and storage facilities, joint efforts to rehabilitate war-affected areas for the restoration, reconstruction, and modernization of cities and residential areas, infrastructure development, and extraction of minerals and natural resources.
	The World Bank will develop a special financing package to accelerate these efforts.
	Again, so the United States' heavy involvement in this, as well as Russia's reintegration into the global economy in 0.13, and then the point 14, that being the frozen funds being used, $100 billion in frozen Russian assets invested in US-led efforts to rebuild and invest in Ukraine, wherein the US will receive 50% of the profits from this venture.
	So with the US wrapping so much of itself up in this whole deal, people say that this one was overly favorable to the Russians.
	To me, this seems like the US raiding Ukraine.
	I understand why, but they have definitely put this together in such a way that the US financially benefits as much as possible from this.
	From my perspective, this I don't know if I'd use this word because if you are financing someone during a war, if you are supporting an ally during a war, then most probably, yeah, you will have some benefits after the war ends.
	Of course.
	It was never no strings attached.
	There was this mistaken idea that the US helps its allies without strings attached.
	No, there are strings attached.
	No, of course.
	And they only did that for Stalin.
	Yeah, but I mean, but also on the other bit, it doesn't seem to me to be that bad, from my perspective.
	If they have helped Ukraine, but also the EU has helped Ukraine, and they get something in return and they help build and rebuild Ukraine, they are assisting the effort of, you know, building something.
	It's not that they only take and haven't given.
	Some would argue one of the only reasons that the US was getting Ukraine to fight this war in the first place was in the hopes that they could have all of these strings attached at the other end.
	Some would argue, some would argue that they were doing it to purely weaken Russia and fight the proxy war with Russia.
	Others may say that this was a combination of factors.
	And speaking of which, the idea of potential further vassalization for Ukraine as a buffer state between Russia and the rest of Europe supported by America.
	One of the most interesting points that I didn't see a lot of people mentioning here was point 20, which goes into the idea of social engineering, as is so popular within American Empire vassal states.
	That being both countries undertake to implement educational programs in schools and society aimed at promoting understanding and tolerance of different cultures and eliminating racism and prejudice.
	The Ukraine will adopt EU rules on religious tolerance and the protection of linguistic minorities.
	Both countries will agree to abolish all discriminatory measures and guarantee the rights of Ukrainian Russia and Russian media and education.
	All Nazi ideology and activities must be rejected and prohibited, which I assume is based almost entirely around the notorious Azov battalion.
	But this broad language about racism and prejudice and the knowledge that Ukraine has lost a lot of young men at this, and there has been a long joke, a long-running joke among some that in the end Ukraine may have been fighting for Drag Queen Story Hour and Endless Bamalians.
	This makes me worry that the joke might have been correct.
	Now, I can understand, and there are revisions that can be made, but this feels very much an imposition of American multicultural ideas on an Eastern European framework.
	I'm a bit hesitant to say that this is the case.
	I'm not saying you're wrong.
	I'm just going to suspend judgment because racism is unjust.
	Something like this is absolutely warranted, the way that America's vassals have developed.
	The reason I'm saying this is because racism and prejudice isn't just white, black, black, white.
	We can talk about all sorts of minorities that could be in the region and all sorts of ethnicities that see each other in sorts of different ways.
	And this could be a sort of attempt to mediate between them because there are Russians in Ukraine, there are Ukrainians in Russia, and even more ethnicity.
	So there is a kind of attempt to create reconciliation.
	I don't think that Eastern Europe suffers so much from the kind of migration that we're criticizing on a daily basis.
	But it is a possibility.
	It is a possibility.
	It doesn't, but it could.
	And it will be used something like this: the decimation to Ukraine's infrastructure and population in the same way that we are now told narratives in the UK about how the Blitz necessitated the Windrush generation and migration coming over to rebuild the country.
	And we are now told that they were essential to rebuilding the country.
	I see this as that same wedge issue.
	I agree with that.
	That's what I was just about to say.
	And also to your point, Stelios, about the sort of like particular nature of race and ethnicity in Eastern Europe, of course.
	That may well be true, were it that Russia and Ukraine were left on their own to create their own educational programs for those purposes.
	But because, as Harry says here, this seems to be an imposition top-down by the United States.
	How could there not be?
	No, I'm not saying that there isn't.
	I'm just saying that right now we're talking about two superpowers and Ukraine, and they are trying to mediate on a leadership position for the next day.
	And if you're helping someone throughout a war and you're going to be there when they rebuild, it's not that much to ask for some benefit in the rebuilding process.
	Oh, no, I understand that.
	I'm talking about the ideology.
	Of course, it could backfire.
	I'm talking about the ideological imposition that I'm reading into this, which I think is not that difficult.
	But you can also.
	It can also, and I do agree that this is a likelihood that this is an attempt to prevent resurgent nationalisms within minority groups in the area who might split away, break away, trying to prevent something like this happening in the future in the same way that all of these oblasts in the east of Ukraine were before this war broke out claimed by Russia as breakaway sovereign states that were only recognized by the Russian Federation.
	But there are some steps towards aligning Ukraine with the US, because when you are a country under the sphere of influence of a superpower, that superpower wants you to have essentially the system that they have, which I think is what you're talking about.
	Well, yes.
	I just see that system as a terrible system that destroys your country and culture.
	I mean, and again, for me, the interesting thing is, I don't think there's much pro to being wrapped into the cultural ideology of the gay, as it's known, the global American empire.
	think that's a it's a it's an acidic I mean also being under it's the ideology of Putin's Russia wouldn't be particularly good for them all I know I just think it's a bad imposition And I'm just saying that's the whole ideology that we've been arguing against for years on this podcast.
	So I'm not going to say that it would be a good thing for Ukraine, who have done so much to try to carve themselves out their own identity, including fighting this war, to then have that subsumed by a global superpower forcing their ideology on top of it.
	But that might just be me reading into it.
	The interesting thing is that when the European member states put forward a counter-proposal, because again, they said that this was far too favorable towards Russia, that that particular point was changed.
	And instead of using very loaded ideological language like racism, prejudice, they changed that point to more succinctly say, you know, that there will not be any action taken against linguistic minorities in your territories, which I think is actually a much better and less divisive way of wording that kind of agreement when you're talking about an area like Eastern Europe.
	If anything, it surprises me with how careful Europe have been on that one.
	You'd expect the roles to be reversed and that Washington would be more careful and Europe would still, because Europe are, in their mind, still far more woke than Washington are.
	I mean, you might think so.
	I would disagree.
	But either way, those whole points may not even matter in the first place.
	Because after this, there were further negotiations taken in Switzerland on Sunday, led by the US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, and Zelensky's chief of staff, Andrey Yermak.
	I apologize if I'm pronouncing these names wrong.
	The plan was substantially revised, only down to 19 points rather than 28.
	From the reports that I was looking at, I couldn't find anything that specified which points were changed, which may have been revised, which were taken out entirely.
	So we can just say that assumedly Ukraine would have tried to change this more in their own favor.
	Perhaps some concessions with NATO troops on the ground.
	Because Kier Starmer has said explicitly that no peace can happen without some kind of NATO peace force on the ground in the transitionary period, which only makes only makes sense.
	I think that they may be trying to play good cop, bad cop.
	And I think most probably my reading of the situation is that Trump and the European leaders have agreed behind closed doors, that's the speculation, that they are going to have more hawkish language.
	And Trump is going to tell Putin, listen to these guys.
	I'm going to be more partial to you.
	Let's end this.
	Well, he's trying to just get negotiations going through with both sides because these kinds of negotiations were the original points were done with Russia.
	Now Ukraine has their chance to look over it.
	And many are pointing out art of the deal.
	Art of the deal.
	Make something bombastic and out there and a bit unreasonable so that anything that you work back from will appear much more reasonable in comparison.
	So Ukraine had their chance to look over things.
	And then we had the surprise news on Tuesday, just yesterday, stating that Ukraine, this was an exclusive for CBS, agreed to a peace proposal.
	We do not know the specifics of that peace proposal if it was this new 19-point revised peace policy that they had negotiated supposedly on Sunday.
	This was an update from a US official who spoke to CBS News saying that Ukraine's government had agreed to a peace deal, excuse me, brokered by the Trump administration to stop Russia's nearly four-year assault.
	The American official and Ukraine's national security advisor, Rustam Umarev, said a common understanding on a proposal had been reached with details still to be worked out.
	Umarov voiced optimism that Ukrainian President Zelensky could travel to Washington before the end of November to finalize an agreement.
	The Ukrainians have agreed to a peace deal, the US official told CBS News.
	There are some minor details to be sorted out, but they have agreed to a peace deal.
	So reinforcing that there.
	Some more information here.
	The US and Ukraine representatives hold talks in Geneva over the weekend.
	Ukrainian-European allies, oh, this is just going over.
	US Army Secretary, there we go.
	Dan Driscoll met Russian officials for several hours in Abu Dhabi today.
	That was yesterday.
	I think they are still speaking today to discuss the latest developments following the talks with Ukraine.
	Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky is expected to travel to Washington before the end of this month.
	Kirstama will convene a meeting of 36 nations in the coalition of the willing to discuss the peace process and plans for a peacekeeping force to be deployed.
	And again, there is talk now of potentially Russia having to make concessions as well.
	So we'll see how it goes.
	Donald Trump is currently saying that Russia is making concessions and that Kiev is happy with how talks are progressing.
	That's as of this morning.
	Speaking to reporters on Air Force One as he flew out to Florida, Trump said that we're making progress on a deal and said he would be willing to meet with both Vladimir Putin and Zelensky once they are close to an agreement.
	The announced deadline of Thursday on Thanksgiving is no longer in place.
	The 28-point peace plan was supposedly just a map.
	Asked if Ukraine had been asked to hand over too much territory, Trump suggested that over the next couple of months, that might be gotten by Russia anyway.
	Moscow's concerns are a promise to stop fighting and they don't take any more land, he said.
	When questioned on this, I saw the footage of him basically saying, well, you know, we want to stop the fighting.
	If Ukraine doesn't want them to take that land, they could just keep fighting and win it back.
	Which is obviously, obviously, just his backhanded way of saying they've lost.
	Yes.
	They've lost.
	That is territory that they have lost.
	Now is just making sure that we get all of the arrangements in place so that they don't lose any more territory and so that this doesn't break out again too soon into the future.
	So we'll see how it goes.
	Maybe this will be something that can last.
	Maybe Eastern Europe will stay peaceful forevermore.
	Or maybe things will not end up that way.
	But we'll see.
	We'll see how things go.
	I just hope that the fighting can end.
	It's been almost four years now.
	Too many people have died, and Ukraine doesn't hope to...
	Outside of just full-on, pure intervention from EU states and the US, Ukraine cannot hope to take that land back.
	So better to end the fighting now than to keep people dying.
	That's the most I can really say on that.
	So I'll read through to two chats we had during that.
	141 Paladin, truck driving in Washington State allows me to watch Decline live every day.
	As a Christian monarchist, it drives me mad that nobody can understand what is in front of them.
	Love your work, guys.
	Thank you.
	And Dreadmore Logan says, you about 12 minutes on one point.
	Move on, please.
	I tried to.
	Moody also says the only peace deal is Russia leaving Ukraine.
	Well, I don't know how you expect to get there without enforcing that.
	Yeah, without enforcing it.
	All right.
	Well, if we can move over to my segment, please, Samson.
	Thank you.
	All right, then, ladies and gentlemen, as I'm sure you've all heard by now, David Rami, our Deputy Prime Minister and Chief Justice, has a remarkable idea for how to basically handle the sheer backlog of criminal trial cases that we've got going on in the United Kingdom.
	And that is basically to, as it says there in the BBC headline, basically just scrap jury trials for everything except the most serious cases.
	Now, obviously, I would actually just like to start by reading this particular section of the speech from Lord Devlin back in 1956, where he went on to say that, for of all the institutions that have been created by English law, there is none other that has a better claim to be called, in the words of the Hamlin Trust, the privilege of the common people of the United Kingdom.
	It is one which no other European people enjoys, and it is one which, for its healthy working, requires a recognition by the common people of the responsibilities and obligations attached to it.
	So we can see from back in the 50s, right, the idea that we had jury trials in England was not just, it was an extremely proud thing, and it was very much built into the consciousness of British exceptionalism, right?
	That actually we're not just like those on the continent.
	We actually have our own particular inheritance here with these jury trials.
	Now, obviously, jury trials are a thing on the continent in serious cases, but really that is what this proposal would do.
	It would take us away from our own inheritance and drag us more into line with how things are majoritally done on the continent.
	Obviously, in the past, there were heavy restrictions on who could be in a jury, dependent on property and other such things.
	And honestly, I think those were common sense measures that anywhere that there is jury trials should be brought back.
	But it was also an understanding that the English character and general intellect was that of such that if you have achieved a certain position in life, that you were capable of rationally and objectively assessing the evidence put forward to you and coming to a reasonable conclusion.
	That's a great deal of faith to put in your own subjects.
	And it goes to it, and it really does just play on the sort of rationalistic character of the Anglo.
	And what's more as well, exactly to agree with your point, it also speaks to the high trust society that we used to have.
	It was a component, a characteristic of the high trust society, as you say, that we trusted the intellect, reason, and sense of justice of our own peers and our own citizens to basically come to a prudent decision.
	And similarly, it did help to present a feeling within the populace that justice was not simply arbitrary, that this was, to a certain extent, a democratic process.
	Right, absolutely.
	And it says the Ministry of Justice presentation produced earlier this month says that the Crown Courts are facing record backlogs with more than 78,000 cases waiting to be completed.
	And obviously, they anticipate this to rising over 100,000 within a few years.
	If there weren't just record numbers of foreign criminals in our country, how much lower do you reckon that backlog would be?
	Do you reckon we would even have a backlog?
	Well, I think it would certainly help things, almost certainly.
	But this is so the retired Court of Appeal judge, Sir Brian Leveson of the Levison inquiry, recommended that the government ends jury trials for many serious offences, saying that they can be dealt with by a judge alone or sitting with two magistrates.
	So basically doing things as they are in the magistrates' court, where things are just overseen by a judge and some legal advisors and magistrates, but not having the actual jury.
	Now, obviously, most cases are done by the magistrates' courts.
	And so, actually, as it happens, though we're obviously we absolutely should defend the jury trial, most legal cases in Britain are not disputed this way because the vast majority of them, they say, happen in the magistrates' courts and not the crown courts where the jury trial is actually employed.
	However, Leveson goes on to say that basically substantial structural change is essential and our criminal justice system is at a crisis point.
	And he also went on to sorry, it was also added later that in a document that Lamy has a hold of that the reforms will improve timelines in the Crown Court through extra hearing time and not compromise your right to a fair trial.
	There is no right to a jury trial.
	No right to a jury trial.
	So just because we've had jury trials in England going back to the time of Anglo-Saxons, all of a sudden, as Wolf points out here, a Guyanese immigrant is just going to abolish them for the sake of saving the logistics and workload of a failed and corrupt system.
	What a ridiculous image.
	I'll second that.
	Yeah.
	There isn't much that much to say.
	I mean, he was on the question.
	Gay men, he was asked who came after Henry VIII and Henry VIII.
	We literally referred back to this point yesterday.
	I mean, he can't remember which king came after the other.
	Can't remember what he was saying five years ago because people, of course, very easy to do this with any politician, have immediately found contradictory statements from only a few years ago.
	This one from the 20th of June 2020 of him saying jury trials are a fundamental part of our democratic settlement.
	Criminal trials without juries are a bad idea.
	And you've jumped on a bit because I was coming to that.
	Oh, I'm so sorry.
	That's quite all right.
	That's quite all right.
	I wasn't banking on you scrolling down.
	Sorry, nobody ever wanted to say, let us remember what happened with the jury trial of Ricky Jones.
	Coming to that too.
	Yep, coming to that too.
	So let's just talk about, because Maven just posted here as well, that really evidence of a type of jury, obviously not the one that we have today, but just some sort of trial amongst peers goes back all the way to Ethelred the Young Ready, one of the worst Anglo-Saxon kings, and yet still a more competent administrator than David Lamy, which is, of course.
	They all would be.
	They all.
	Just name some of the ones that died before they ever really got to the crown.
	Still better than Lamy.
	Yeah, Arthur, dead at 15, Henry's elder brother.
	Imagine having the nickname the unready and still being better than David Lamy.
	Well, I mean, he is a young ready to extra young worthy as well.
	But the point is that this is a grand heritage of our people.
	What's more as well, of course, you know, as we go to clause 39 of the Magna Carta, where it talks about lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.
	And famously as well, there are many trials throughout English history where you can see a sharp difference between what the verdict would have been by mere appointed judge versus what the verdict of the jury came to.
	I do think that this is the outgrowth of the war on civil society that modern leftism wages, because the idea is civil society is irreparably racist and bad and needs to be changed by the state.
	So we can't have jury trials except when it's our own guys on trial.
	But we just need our own guys into the justice system from the state and we're going to force and change socially engineer civil society.
	Absolutely.
	That's hatred towards society.
	So to get on to what you were just looking at, Harry, as well, to David Lamy's case of amnesia from five years ago, when he talks about basically the fact that jury trials are a fundamental part of our democratic settlement, I actually just wanted to talk about that just a little bit, which is that the framing, of course, is entirely incorrect, right?
	It's not a fundamental part of our democratic settlement.
	It's a fundamental part of our British settlement.
	And actually, the jury trial through from the time of the Anglo-Saxons after Magna Carta, back when we had authoritarian kings like Henry VIII, right?
	No, it's not a staple of a democratic society.
	It speaks to the wisdom of the English people that we were able to create a justice system which basically gave everyone a fair hearing at the trial amongst his peers, irrespective of the type of constitutional settlement that they existed under.
	Whether it was absolute monarchy or modern democracy, right?
	That is far more permanent than the very narrow window that David Lamy is looking at it through when he speaks about mere democracy, as if it's just a staple of mere democracy.
	Well, as we've already spoken about, it's not a staple of every single Western democracy at all.
	And so, but then we get to the Sort of conundrum of basically, as Leo points out here, that it's an appalling idea because without a jury of peers, anyone on trial will be at the mercy of activist judges who don't even hide their bias against anyone deemed far-right if there's a backlog of trials and end-pointless prosecutions for speech and crimes.
	On principle, I do agree with what Leo is saying.
	However, the fact of the matter is that, of course, as we know, it's not exactly like the jury verdicts have been particularly infallible either recently.
	Every institution can backfire.
	Yes.
	There's not a reason on its own to destroy it.
	The question is: the whole point of the jury is supposed to be a jury of your peers.
	In certain parts of this country, the people who are going to be judging you are not your peer.
	They are people who self-consciously see themselves as your friend or your enemy.
	I hate to put it in such blatant tribal terms, but as you're going to point out, there are some trials which have gone forward with a jury where they have shown blatant bias towards the defendant.
	And this is the kind of thing that we can see going all the way back to the OJ trial in America, where it seemed that they purposefully stacked the trial full of black people because they knew that it would give some kind of advantage to OJ, which it did because after he got off, 20 years down the line, people on that jury said, Yeah, we did it as payback for Rodney King.
	Then you get a situation like Derek Chauvin, where a BLM activist actually got on his trial and helped to sway the verdict.
	Not that I thought, sadly, that the Derek Chauvin trial was ever in doubt that they were going to find him guilty, no matter what the actual evidence was.
	No, of course not.
	And there's a free speech union point out here.
	Juries have been the last line of defense against the authoritarian cancel mob.
	When our members have found themselves charged with criminal offences for speaking out, juries have reliably said no dice to overzealous prosecutors.
	This has infuriated the Crown Prosecution Service and the activists who make malicious complaints.
	One was Jamie Michael, a decorated Royal Marines veteran, who was charged with inciting racial hatred after a Labour staffer reported him to the police for a video he posted on Facebook.
	Jamie spent 20 days in prison on remand and the jury took just 17 minutes to clear him.
	And the local Labour Party were quite furious about this.
	So even now, in our contemporary times, we do see examples of the jury service, just for want of a better way to put it, just coming in clutch and just saving some obviously wronged, persecuted people who are basically just being grinded down by the orthodoxy of the state, the ideological orthodoxy of the state, which as we know.
	It's good to provide counter-examples to the sorts of phenomenon that I was presenting.
	Yeah, definitely.
	It does still matter.
	But as Tom points out here, data shows that in Britain, non-white jurors display a marked preference for non-white defendants and the corresponding bias against white defendants, whereas white jurors exhibit only a modest pro-non-white bias by comparisons.
	And this really comes down to what we were saying about what you were saying about Ricky Jones Stelios.
	Because as this piece here is just dragging it from Connors, where he said that basically wanted people to have their throats cut and just called for it live, and he was tried.
	He was inciting violence.
	He was.
	And did the man, and he impersonated him and he did this mannerism.
	Yeah, the gesture, all of it.
	Was as clear-cut as we could have possibly thought it would have been.
	Sorry, a bad pun, didn't even mean it.
	But the point of the matter is that, well, yes, but he was tried in a place that was minority British, and they probably agreed with him anyway.
	And so you can get off and be acquitted for demonstrable injustices, demonstrable injustices.
	There's also this example as well, most recently, even this month, of ex-footballer Joey Barton basically guilty of sending offensive messages to TV personalities.
	This also was a jury trial where they found him guilty on several counts for basically sending messages online that were deemed to have been intentionally harmful and to stir up hurt in the other person as well.
	And so we're having all of these injustices.
	So again, Leo is right that there are a phenomenal amount of activist judges.
	And even if those judges are indigenously British, they are coming from the same sort of institutions.
	And Rupert has been very good as well on all of this, just showing, particularly with the Bar Council, I didn't get it up, but you know, their sort of DEI programmes and everything like that, they're still entirely susceptible.
	There's no real ideological similarity between the bar and Whitehall, right?
	They're all part of these.
	Well, I mean, consider as well when we're talking about the problems with CPS judges when the Epping situation went from the local council and the government brought it before the judges and the judges decided that the safety of people within Epping was not as important as defending the rights of refugees who were putting the people of Epping in danger.
	Even after the person that they were protesting against being in that hotel in the first place was convicted as a sex offender.
	This was, of course, before he was then accidentally released from prison.
	Sure.
	Yeah, that entire absence.
	Every stage of our justice system is corrupted and broken in ways that realistically would be quite easy to fix.
	When we're talking about the bias of these judges, that needs to go to an educational matter before they even get anywhere near those halls of power.
	They need to be not brainwashed to be leftists the way they are.
	And with the jury service, people would be uncomfortable with it, but it would simply need to be a case of re-implementing certain restrictions on who can be selected for a jury.
	Isn't Lami also responsible for the constant accidental release of prisoners?
	At least two.
	Yeah, at least two higher profile cases.
	Twice.
	Yeah.
	They're the perfect CV to have someone change the entire institutional structure of your country.
	Change our culture.
	Well, also, just to say something else to your point, Harry, as well, that when you have cases like these, like the Joey Barton one, of course, in some ways, irrespective of the makeup of the jury, what is also obviously impinging on any sense of reason or justice is the fact that the jury and the judges are obviously working within the legal framework and the legislation, of course, passed by Parliament.
	And so they can only find Joey Barton guilty of such things if they are, of course, legal offences in the first place.
	If you take away that legislation to say that these sorts of things are a crime, such as obviously they got with Dankula and the 2003 Communications Act, strip that way, then you can't find people to be guilty of things that aren't crimes anymore.
	If only there'd been some kind of conservative supermajority that could have passed or repealed legislation at will.
	Yeah.
	If only.
	We didn't have one of those, though, did we?
	And so we're really ending up with the point now where, as Kung Li Drukpa points out here, with the Lee Kuang Yew sort of version of society, where it says, in a multiracial society, trial by jury can result in communal prejudices influencing verdicts.
	I would rather put my future in the hands of a trained judge than in the hands of 12 men who can be swayed by prejudice or rhetoric.
	Jury trials may work in homogenous societies, but not in a sharply multiracial one.
	You can't assume that each juror will set aside his race, language, and religion.
	The jury system is part of an English tradition that presumes a common culture.
	That assumption cannot hold in a society like ours.
	And so the reason that I bring up this quote is, one, because I agree with it.
	I think that Kwang Yu is basically just showing an understanding of human nature and our prejudices as people and what sways us.
	But also the fact that, to some extent, this is what Lamy is doing is absolutely a travesty.
	And he should not, it should be unthinkable to even suggest the idea, right?
	Well, hang on, we've had this system for just a millennia, but now we're just going to scrap it based on the backlog due to the incompetence of government that they exhibit in basically anything that they do these days.
	And so, as always, we lose out.
	We're the ones that have our traditions torn away from us, our legal precedents, our very heritage, and our own very parochial sense of justice taken away from us by foreigners who aren't inheritors of this tradition.
	And what's more as well, the even more insidious point of it is that whether it's juries or just magistrates or, you know, whoever it may be, judges, we lose either way, it seems.
	It kind of feels like we just lose either way at this point because of the demographic trends that we've been pointing to and the ideological prejudices of the elites and people, you know, the middle classes who make up the lot of judges and, of course, Whitehall and the Crown Prosecution Service, the people who work within those corridors.
	They're all predisposed to distrust and kind of hate us anyway and bring down the full force of the law, as Kiostama loved to remind us after Southport.
	And so we're in a bit of a lose-lose situation, I'm afraid, here, lads.
	I can only hope that one other thing just to say is that it seems that basically every single person was against this.
	Kemi Badenock was against this.
	Nigel Farage was against this.
	Jeremy Corbyn was against this.
	only the bar council were against getting rid of the jury trials it seems that the only people this is a purely lammy based decision or at least lammy and people around him who support him Based off of advice from Sir Brian Leveson, yes.
	And so it seems to be a common example of this grand democracy, democratic settlement that David Lamy loves to give lip service towards.
	But David, you have no mandate to do this.
	This wasn't in your manifesto.
	We certainly gave no public sort of insinuation that we wanted this to happen.
	And what's more as well, everyone kind of seems to disagree with you and think this is a bad idea.
	And if you cared so much about the democratic settlement, then maybe you would actually care about that.
	But you don't.
	This is just a way for you to sort of filter people through the courts as fast as possible because of the historic number of criminals that you and successive governments have allowed into this country who behave on average.
	We have the statistics, the per capita statistics, much worse than your average British person.
	And so we're in a position now where we're seeing everything eroded around us.
	And we can only hope that if Nigel Farage does a few good things when he becomes Prime Minister, that revoking this will be one of those things.
	Because it actually sounds as well like this could be a change that is brought upon us very, very quickly.
	We could be seeing this as early as the start of next year.
	And so, yeah, once again, it's not the greatest news.
	And there's some added pain having it thrust on you by the greatest midwit in Britain.
	I think Midwit's being very generous.
	Well, I have to cater my language to YouTube.
	Do you mind if I just go on a quick divergence regarding the Lee Kuan Yew and the quote that you brought up there?
	I'm a little bit torn currently on the kind of the way that right-wingers like to bring up Lee Kuan Yew so much.
	And I'll preface this by saying I greatly respect what Lee Kuan Yew was able to achieve with Singapore, given the situation that he found himself in with where Singapore is situated, the various different populations that were set there.
	But I do distinctly feel like the left and right, the technocratic left, that is, get two very different things from Lee Kuan Yew.
	For the right, we see all of this sort of stuff as a warning.
	We see him saying multi-racial societies break down trusts, it turns into factionalism.
	And we say, we don't want that.
	We want to maintain our traditions.
	We want to maintain our trust.
	For technocratic leftists and even technocratic centre-right types as well, they see Lee Kuan Yew as a roadmap to the kind of society that they want to build, which is essentially a corporate technocratic police state.
	As much as we can respect Singapore for what it is, we have to also acknowledge that that is what it is.
	Because of the circumstances Singapore found itself in, they have had to become an authoritarian police state to maintain order.
	And that was set up by Lee Kuan Yew.
	Of course, to make Singapore work, that's what he had to do.
	But they want to turn us, at the same time as kind of turning everything into a giant open-air favela, because they don't have the same kind of willpower that Lee Kuan Yew does, nor the common sense that he does.
	At the same time as trying to turn everything into a favela, they also want to turn everything into a large corporate police state based entirely around service economies, where increasingly our traditions and our high trust societies are taken away so that they can facilitate the corporate profit motive.
	And they see this sort of stuff and they go, brilliant.
	So it can work.
	So we can get it to work if we just do all of the authoritarian stuff that he was forced to do.
	Which obviously I worry that that legacy is not actually going to be a positive one in the West.
	And full agreement with you.
	Full agreement.
	No, and I agree as well.
	And obviously I'm not invoking the quote to show that I want England to become Singapore or that this is a roadmap.
	I don't think Lee Kuan Yew would have wanted us to become Singapore either.
	He was in a very specific place, very specific set of circumstances.
	Again, I just worry that there is two very different views that you can take of what he speaks about and his prescriptions for how he made Singapore work.
	Oh, definitely.
	I share your concern on that.
	But this entire episode has just been another example of how, you know, the sort of old saying about how multiculturalism is so wonderful that it just requires an ever-encroaching loss of your freedoms and basically an authoritarian superstate to keep all of the minorities in line and to make sure that they all get along.
	And it's like, well, I didn't sign up for that.
	I actually just wanted to be an Englishman living in England, never really concerning myself with any of that.
	So it's, yeah, it's really dark stuff.
	But like I say, I don't think it can last forever.
	And a lot like the abortion stuff and other things, when they're just putting through stuff that just has no mandate whatsoever, or just lowering the voting age to 16.
	You know, it just goes to show that, you know, we can just keep all of these and in our journals and just remember, well, you know, back when you had all that power, you didn't give a damn about the consent or what you were doing.
	You just sort of force your vision on everyone else.
	So if we want to change the voting age, we'll change the voting age.
	We want to bring back the jury trials.
	We'll bring back the jury trials.
	We want to bring back the death penalty.
	We'll do that too.
	Right.
	They've shown that they have no consideration for the consent of those out of power, which is, of course, something that you and I talked about when we did the humanities together at Aeschylus.
	But it's anyway, I'm just sort of rambling at this point anyway.
	So I'll move on to some of the rumble rants.
	So, oh, we've read that one.
	Dwight Powell says, did any of you guys catch the Liam Tuft Steve Hawes interview?
	My favourite bit was Liam asking Steve, if my mum was black, what would you do to her?
	Yeah, it was.
	I've actually not seen the whole interview.
	I've seen the full interview.
	I thought it was quite a comical interview.
	I've got to be honest.
	Two favourite bits, which is Liam asking Steve, is my Guardian mate footlong British?
	The answer is in the question, mate.
	And then him role-playing as Hallie Berry offering Steve a blowjob.
	To which Steve just stayed completely sigma and said no.
	I remember a bit where he was talking about traveling outside Europe and that he didn't like it that much.
	No, I know that was your favourite part when he took a holiday to Turkey and just immediately regretted it.
	Right.
	Okay, Tom Rad247.
	This is what happens in a mixed economy.
	I mean, economy, of course.
	A mixed ebony.
	Yeah, okay.
	Smat Flack says, when I was on jury service a few years back, three of the jurors didn't speak English.
	We do need jury service, but they also need to speak English.
	Well, it comes back to what you were saying, some of the requirements that are needed.
	You have to speak English.
	You have to put the square in the square, not in the circle.
	You get an incredibly basic IQ test.
	You have to be able to add fractions to one another.
	Dreadnought, they are making the great trial of them easier now.
	I don't know what that's in reference to.
	Don't know what it's either.
	Oh, they're making the great trial, the big trial of traitors that we'll do when we're in power.
	Oh, I see.
	For them, easier now.
	Right, Chad Parsons, 9954.
	That's one of the few things Britain got completely tight.
	Expecting to say right.
	And the reason it is the Sixth Amendment to the American Constitution.
	You guys fight them.
	No, that's regarding juries.
	I think you'll find that Britain got a lot completely right.
	And then for some reason in the early 20th century, everybody became temporarily retarded and has not recovered since.
	Right.
	The Democrats have lost their minds.
	They have failed to gatekeep the radicals and they have found themselves in the position of either leaving the Democrat Party or being subordinated to their raging, raving lunatics.
	Right, so this is what happens when the principle of operation of your party is whoever screams that they're oppressed must be listened to, except if they're straight white men.
	That's when you don't listen to them.
	That's where you're allowed to hate them, according to intersectionality and the intersectional calculus.
	And we're at a point where we are constantly asking ourselves the age-old dilemma.
	Is this malice or is it ignorance and incompetence?
	And there could be a trilemma.
	Yeah, it could be Paul Pot, which is a combination of both.
	But I think that at the end of the day, whether particular individuals are bad or stupid or both, the agenda is becoming increasingly more radical and very unrealistic.
	And when we're talking about an agenda that is anti-reality, it will invariably be anti-life.
	It's going to create a dystopia every time it tries to create a utopia.
	Right, so here we have Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson who says, we can't jail our way out of violence.
	It's racist.
	Law enforcement now, it's racist.
	He is in complete denial of reality and of basic human facts.
	And he doesn't want his audience to think that there is such a thing as a natural aggression of human beings that sadly manifests in violence and that has to be mitigated in any kind of civilized society.
	He doesn't want this.
	He doesn't want the tough realization.
	He doesn't want reality.
	He wants to be a sophist.
	He wants to deny reality.
	He wants everyone to engage in an attempt to deny reality as well and to create a utopia.
	Utopia where you don't need the police.
	Let's listen to what he says.
	We cannot incarcerate our way out of violence.
	We've already tried that.
	And we've ended up with the largest prison population in the world without solving the problems of crime and violence.
	The addiction on jails and incarceration in this country, we have moved past that.
	It is racist.
	It is immoral.
	It is unholy.
	And it is not the way to drive violence down.
	I don't know.
	I think that there's an addiction to activists, judges, and career criminals and partiality towards career criminals at the expense of innocent human beings.
	I mean, that would be so compelling to me if I was 85 IQ.
	Like, yeah, it is racist.
	When he says we've got the largest prison population, it's not sole violence.
	All I could think was, like, oh, yeah, imagine how much worse things would be if they were all out on the streets.
	But it's not just an issue of low IQ, whatever individual we're talking about.
	It's also an issue of this philosophy being a great ground for manipulation.
	And that's how they manipulate many Zumas and people as well.
	But increasingly, mostly Zumas, because they do this in academia.
	They're saying, right, look at the world around you.
	Any constraint, anything that you don't like, it's them.
	Let us bring down them and life is going to be heaven on earth.
	Well, when he's saying as well, about, you know, oh, well, it's racist, and so we can't just jail our way out of it.
	Obviously, what he's not a Freudian slip there?
	I don't know, is there?
	I was just going to say that the point is that he's basically saying, look, the problem is that because of the incarceration rates of blacks in the United States, this reflects really, really badly on us.
	Not the crime, but the perception of us all being thrown in jail.
	And so we just need to abolish that because actually the perception is a problem, not the actual actions of the individual.
	There is also a very compelling counter-argument to the idea that you can't put so many people in prison and then things will turn into a paradise.
	El Salvador.
	Oh, yeah.
	They didn't consider that.
	Hey!
	You literally can just do it.
	Brother Luca sets the record straight.
	You literally can just jail your way out of violence.
	Hasn't he got one of the lowest homicide rates in the world now after having one of the highest?
	Something like lowest crime rates in the Western Hemisphere, something like that.
	Right.
	I think that we are at a very difficult point.
	The US is at a very difficult point as well.
	There are individuals who are picked by the darling of democratic socialism right now, who is Zorhan Mamdani, the mayor of New York City, as his community safety picks.
	I'm going to show you two examples.
	I'm not going to dwell on the first one, but I'm going to show a lot about the second example.
	First one is Mamdani community safety pick Deborah Lolai, a clinical instructor at Harvard Law's LGBTQ plus advocacy clinic, who says that NYPD harasses, abuses, and kills trans people and pushes to decriminalize sex work.
	This is who she is.
	Oh, God.
	I expect it's not Harry's favorite.
	All you needed to do was describe this person.
	And I could have closed my eyes and sketched out this very face without never seeing them.
	And you can put that face to that direct opinion.
	And I'm going to show you, Harry, how this rhetoric speaks directly to your heart.
	She explicitly frames this agenda.
	Yeah, I kind of enjoy it.
	As part of a broader revolt that would soon become the summer of Floyd in the spirit of the Stonewall uprising.
	And in other words, there can be no trans liberation without Palestinian liberation.
	Everything is connected, just like it was in Biden's mind, which meant that they were fighting for Stonewall.
	Palestine.
	No, they were fighting for the right to take drugs and cavort with teenage boys.
	That's what Stonewall was.
	Sorry.
	Like, all you need to do is read a book on it, okay?
	I read the actual mainstream.
	There will be a video.
	I think it will be coming out in January now.
	It's almost done.
	It's this close.
	Finally.
	And then the Weimar one will come out in like three years, four years, five tops.
	All right.
	I need to do some revisions.
	I've heard him say ten in the office, actually.
	I need to do some revisions on the script again.
	I'm sorry, guys.
	You're the researcher into gaze across time and.
	So the revisions for the Weimar stuff's about the Rhineland occupation.
	Either way, I read a mainstream, like the mainstream book on Stonewall.
	Stonewall was a mob bar with a pedo ring above it on the floor up from the Stonewall.
	That's what they were, that's what the police were there for.
	And these people say we need to fight for the spirit of Stonewall.
	Right.
	Right now we are going to go to we are going to go to someone who is definitely not less of an idiot.
	Mondani transition pick.
	Police are a direct interference with radical socialist oriented politics and they will be used to stop us.
	This is Professor Alex Vitali.
	But I want to play this clip because this isn't the exact description of what he says.
	What he says shows that he lives in a completely different planet.
	This is the spirit of what he says, but I want you to focus on the formulation of it.
	Police are a direct interference with our ability to articulate a more radical socialist-oriented politics.
	Right, so the police are a direct interference with our ability to articulate a more radical socialist-oriented politics.
	First of all, that's untrue because you are already doing that and you are very radical yourself.
	So, yeah, the police isn't exactly against you.
	Mamdani picked you as a community safety advisor.
	So, it's not exactly like the system is against you as much as you are implying.
	As if Trump was presiding over like the second wave of McCarthyism.
	Yeah, so it's not an issue of articulation.
	It's not an issue of articulation.
	It's an issue of the kind of extremist politics these far leftists are pushing forward.
	And it says that they will be used to stop us.
	Yeah, I mean, if you're an extremist, why not?
	Just why not?
	I don't want you to preach extremism.
	I don't want you to say that every kind of police there is a bad mediator of colonialism who is just racist and you shouldn't have racist.
	And he directly says the following.
	And they will be used to stop us.
	They will criminalize our movements, put our people in prison, beat people in the streets to stop us.
	So anything we can do to reduce their power creates political space for us to do what we need to do.
	I mean, at least he's honest.
	He says he is a radical socialist.
	He wants to defund the police in order to promote radical socialism.
	And it's not exactly that the system is rigged against him.
	Again, I'll say he is one of the advisors for community safety for New York City.
	Lots more as well.
	Here's the entire point about Mamdani being...
	Well, actually, you're just coming on to it, so I'll let you...
	No, please finish off.
	Well, I was just going to point out the fact that obviously with Mamdani meeting Trump, because before Mamdani was elected, Trump had given lip service to, oh, well, you know, maybe we just won't send any federal funding to New York.
	It's like, well, that would have been a good strategy, but instead you're getting the handshake.
	I'm going wrong, there's a funny quote in there, but we're so past funny quotes at this point.
	The issue is, I think, we need to discern between the media hype and the pre-election election campaign talk from both sides and actual politics.
	Both are politicians.
	To a degree, they are going to cooperate.
	I mean, I know that this isn't what people on X try to want to hear, but to a degree, they will cooperate.
	That doesn't mean that there is a major agreement with agendas or something, but...
	Your mouse is down here.
	Okay.
	Okay, so there's a New York Post article here including Central University, New York professor who wrote The End of Policing.
	Now, one thing, when academics write the end of something, frequently they mean the goal of something.
	They want it as a catchy title.
	But he is also sort of a defund the police.
	But what he actually wants is a police that is going to serve his own radical socialist ends.
	He doesn't call for the police to be entirely scrapped away.
	He wants a radically socialist police.
	And he got picked by Mamdani.
	So check this article out.
	Says a lefty academic who literally penned the book titled The End of Policing sits on mayor-elect Zorhan Mamdani's transition team focused on public safety, along with a ragtag roaster of other anti-police reformers.
	Alex Vitali, a Brooklyn college sociology professor, was among 26 advocates, scholars, and former NYPD officials tapped Monday to staff Mamdani's committee on community safety amid the mayoral turnover.
	Now, let us watch another clip of what this person says.
	He says we should give teachers guns so parents quit harassing them about what books they assign.
	Let's let it almost based.
	Well, I think we should give teachers guns so that parents quit harassing them about what books they assign.
	Yeah, give them a gun and then let them teach CR team.
	You know, college level and you know, diverse literature and yes, controversial subjects.
	So just kidnapping, is he not just advocating for like kidnapping other people's children at that point?
	He's advocating for a massive restriction of family rights.
	According to him, if you want your children to not be exposed to socially corrosive narratives and you want to make fuss about it at their schools, he says basically that they should bully you and they should there should be a concealed threat there.
	It's obvious.
	What he says is obvious.
	Right.
	So here he made a comment.
	No, that's not what I wanted to show here.
	I'll show you later.
	This guy said nothing on September 10th.
	I don't know if you remember, that was the day of the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
	Someone who seems to be very much interested in, who claims to be interested in good community, in community safety and a sort of diffusion of violence, presumably, allegedly.
	He had nothing to say.
	So September 9, some good news about something about racketeering.
	Then reposting something of September 8th, September 9.
	What is it, September 9?
	Cop Crime says, USA, many cities say yes to federal police help, but no to occupation.
	And he says, this is a problem.
	By leaning into law and order, Democrats are enabling Trump's authoritarianism.
	Right.
	So if you're a Democrat and you don't consider yourself to be a radical socialist, how does this make you feel?
	How does it make you feel if someone directly says law and order assist authoritarianism?
	This is a question you have to ask yourself if you haven't already moved to the Republicans.
	Something about the premiere.
	Wait, wait, wait, wait, what?
	What?
	What sold-out work last night of sex work film?
	yeah just went to a premiere of like i don't want to click on it because we don't know if if any kind of you can click on it after harry He just went to watch some like porno with a load of friends.
	New York style, taxi driver style.
	Promoting blue sky on September 10.
	We all know what blue sky was like on September 10.
	And he doesn't seem to be making any claim.
	So important that we stand up to bullies.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	So we get an idea of the kind of politics and the kind of you know of hypocrisy coming from this person.
	So cringe, this guy's 60.
	Yep.
	Right.
	Okay.
	Again from Mamdani's team.
	He wants to defund the police and the military and call the police violence workers.
	Now, I want to show you this clip because to a degree he gets something correct, but I want you to notice on an inference.
	And the reason I'm doing this is because I think that we need to be much more focusing on the language and the sophistical language that people use in order to manipulate their audience.
	And I want you to notice a kind of what he does, a transition he does from something that is a truism, that the violence and the police go together, yes, to something that is completely off the charts.
	We must always keep in mind that at root, police are violence workers.
	That's what separates them from other parts of the state.
	They're who you call when you need the capacity to use violence.
	And so when we involve police in something, we should expect there to be violence.
	And I always say, if you don't want racism and you don't want violence, don't get the police involved.
	You see the transition?
	He starts by saying something that is sort of commonsensical, that the job of the police is a violent one and there needs to be the law enforcement aspect of it.
	Enforcement requires coercion.
	But then out of nowhere, he just throws in racism.
	If you don't want racism, don't call the police.
	So if you want a society that isn't racist, don't call the police.
	Defund it, attack it, do it all.
	That's what he says.
	That's what he says.
	And that's what he is implying.
	If I might just return as well to your initial, the point that you made earlier about the fact that there's campaign messaging and stuff like that between Mamdani and Trump, but ultimately they are two politicians.
	So of course they're going to shake hands and try find common cause where they should.
	Everything that you're showing as to like who was in the transition team with Mamdani is exactly the reason why he should not have done that, right?
	Why you should have just cut him off because you are empowering insane people who are going to drag New York into even lower depths.
	And fundamentally, the only reason that Mamdani is even there in the first place is because of rigged demographics of New York.
	And so I don't quite understand why as president who was elected on the actual public will of the entire American electorate, you somehow have to cast yourself away and just allow New York to be taken away by a place that has basically just been demographically replaced.
	I don't get this.
	You should be doing everything you can in your power as president to reverse this catastrophe, not to encourage it.
	Yeah, and I mean, if they claim to defund institutions, maybe not give them money.
	Trump, if you're watching, don't give them money.
	Right.
	Give us money.
	Right.
	So foreign funding actually.
	The other thing that we know really well and we have been communicating and we have been showing and it's known for decades, if not centuries, is that the temperament of the leftist is very different to that of the average of the commonsensical person.
	Why am I saying this?
	Because when, from a common sense perspective, you move forward in life without having figured out everything, without having solved the riddle of the universe.
	You are sort of moving forward and you're trying to solve problems as they come your way.
	Leftists are trying to do the exact opposite.
	They constantly fail.
	They constantly come with philosophies that are gaslighting them.
	And they're so intensely ideological that they are representing a very threat, the very idea of judgment as we see it in front of us.
	So for instance, from a normal perspective, from the perspective of the average human being, but also from the perspective of smart and honest human beings, you have natural aggression.
	Sadly, you have to, it manifests in violence.
	And in civilized society, you have to have a sort of mechanism for dealing with it.
	And that mechanism is itself violent.
	It's not ideal, but it's realistic and it's something that must happen because we don't live in the utopia.
	But the communist mind and the radical leftist mind constantly says the utopia is possible and anyone who suggests or acts as if the utopia is not possible is an enemy and they have to be removed.
	And from what you're gathering, he isn't exactly not fond of violence.
	Right.
	And these people aren't exactly not fond of violence.
	History suggests that they very much are in favor of it.
	And here he has this interview in Democracy Now.
	I'm not going to show you it for considerations of time, but I'm going to tell you what he says.
	Click on it if you want.
	It's less than two minutes.
	He says, long story about the use of police in prison is to manage problems of inequality and exploitation.
	This is Marxist garbage.
	And he also says it's an issue of neoliberal austerity and inequality.
	And the police is used to manage these problems, not to have any other sort of end.
	Right.
	So, and he wants to rethink the role of the police and he calls for it to be defunded.
	The problem is that this is a fundamentally corrosive and incoherent agenda.
	And let me say one thing.
	From a commonsensical perspective, there is sadly natural aggression, which manifests into violence.
	And as I said before, we need to have a mechanism in civilized society to deal with this.
	This is natural aggression, and you try to distribute natural aggression towards good causes, such as the preservation of order against those who want to disrupt that order.
	He wants to give an alternative explanation, an explanation which is at the core of his very flawed philosophy, which again speaks to the temperament of someone who is very unwise and thinks that we can move forward in life by having figured everything theoretically first.
	We can't do this, but this is what he says.
	And he says this as an ideologue.
	He has exactly accepted the idea that all problems are problems of economic inequality.
	So when it comes to natural aggression, you are going to solve it by redistribution of wealth and by making society more equal, materially speaking.
	This is just nonsense.
	And also look at the kind of split-brained claim here, because he says it's not natural aggression, it's economic exploitation.
	Even if that were the case, which it isn't, economic exploitation itself is a manifestation of natural aggression.
	Without natural aggression, there would be no economic exploitation.
	It's as simple as that.
	They're lying to you.
	They're gaslighting.
	They're sophists.
	Their agenda is really, really, really corrosive and bad.
	And you should save the young people from it.
	And there are real life, there are real life consequences to it.
	They do this especially in academia where they can get away with it in a completely controlled environment where it's just they and their students in a seminar room.
	It's all just emotions.
	They're manipulating their emotions, the students, the audience's emotions, and they don't tell you that there are negative consequences.
	And what we have isn't an addiction to law and order.
	It's an addiction to its lack.
	We have career criminals, and here I'm going to show you three of them and three victims.
	Three suspects, 125 combined arrests.
	Right.
	So every time that they are pontificating and they're virtually signaling about how cool it is in the utopia and how everyone who acts as if the utopia isn't possible is a bad person, remember that what they're advocating for or what they are tolerating and what they are not up against has real-life consequences.
	And they're very dystopian ones.
	And here, the mother of De Carlos Brown Jr. was pleading with the courts to keep him in jail.
	Is that true?
	That Judge Teresa Stokes let him out anyway.
	There are some reports.
	I don't consider this to be particularly.
	From what I've checked on it, it seems to me to be seems to me to be plausible.
	No, no, I mean, yeah, if that's true, that's just.
	But remember also the kind of rhetoric we hear on a daily basis about mental illness.
	And I want to say again, I know people with mental illness, they haven't tried to kill me or burn me alive.
	That's ridiculous.
	We always know the kind of excuses that the left makes in order to gaslight people in order to not confront that, yeah, we are responsible for our own actions.
	There may be cases where there's diminished responsibility, but the common good has to come first.
	And sometimes that means that we have to incarcerate people because they're a problem to the common good or and without focusing so much on the moral aspect of the issue and the kind of moral culpability and the kind of moral responsibility and degree of it during that crime.
	And if this is true, at least it's not the same as that kid who murdered Austin Metcalf back in February where his family decided to grift off of it and try and do a fundraiser so that they could get hundreds of thousands of dollars.
	Management.
	And I want to end with the other view.
	This is Sheriff Chad Bianco of Riverside County, California.
	Some people are criticizing him.
	I, generally speaking, think that he says based stuff.
	And he says when you have riots, you respond to it immediately with overwhelming force.
	And that's how you have less violence.
	So we have a clash of perspective.
	Some people are stupid enough to fall for it.
	Others are promoting it on purpose.
	We have people who have a sort of utopian rhetoric, which almost invariably results, which invariably, not almost, invariably results in dystopian realities.
	Right.
	We go through comments and everything.
	Yep, sweet.
	You can jail your way out of crime.
	I think El Salvador might disagree with that statement.
	Yeah, we showed it.
	And that's a random name making an early life joke.
	And that's a random name saying the only obsession America has is with denying the reality surrounding anagrams.
	I wonder which anagram he may be referring to.
	Oh, I'll have to ponder that one.
	Any video comments, Samson?
	Apparently, we have no video comments.
	Why?
	Come on.
	Send us your video.
	Okay.
	Henry Ashman says, I may need to watch this one back again, lads.
	I'm a bit distracted by a woman with a red briefcase and an aggressive French rearming, reaining the entire country at the same time as this.
	May I have a mouse, please?
	Thank you.
	You may.
	Cheers.
	So, Mr. Bean noises.
	Also, honorable mentions: Furious Dan says Harry's Stonewall video was promised to us three years ago.
	Yeah, but there's anti-chosen people.
	I am your prophet.
	I shall part the red tape of editorial bollocks and get that video to you.
	Don't worry, it will be worth it.
	Jack has done a fantastic job on it.
	It's going to be very, very high quality.
	If anything, now the actual content of the video is going to look terrible in comparison to the production quality of the editing.
	In which case, if I watch it back and I'm not happy, I might have to just refilm, rewrite the whole thing, and get Jack to re-edit the entire thing as well.
	So, you know, who knows?
	Maybe, maybe January, maybe next year, maybe, maybe 2027.
	Who knows?
	Samson's just shaking.
	Why are you petrified?
	Yeah, come on.
	Why not?
	You know, who knows?
	OE of little faith.
	Jordy Swordsman, Dan will be doing a segment on the budget tomorrow.
	I.e., Dan will be screaming at the camera for between 20 and 30 minutes.
	True-based correct, as he should.
	Samson, you never gave us any budget black pills while you were going through that.
	We're very grateful for it.
	How much is the government going to be raping me by?
	How much extra?
	Sorry, is the government going to be raping me by?
	I don't want to spoil anything.
	You don't want to spoil anything.
	It's over.
	It's over.
	How over is it?
	Has it never been more over?
	I'm not sure I can say on is it man who man who was already tired reaches new level of tiredness he never felt possible?
	Yes.
	Well, you've heard the first question.
	Should we go to the comments?
	Harry, do you want brother?
	Harry, do you want to read?
	Cumbrian Kulak, my own government is a more salient threat to me than Putin or Russia.
	Don't know which country you're in.
	Still be a laugh seeing the response to conscription.
	Perhaps that'll be the breaking point of the mass cognitive dissonance/slash mass formation.
	A generational divide for sure.
	Ukraine's basically already conscripting people.
	I mean, Firaz was showing it a few weeks ago where they were going out into the streets and kidnapping people so that they kidnapping young men away from their families so that they could get them on the front lines.
	That's the difficulty that Ukraine is in, which is that they just don't have the men to continue fighting.
	And without expansion of warfare to include EU states and the US, which would escalate it into a global war because Russia is also aligned with other geopolitical enemies of the West.
	It would massively escalate.
	You would suddenly get Iran involved.
	China would have to get involved.
	Huge countries that don't want to, but you don't want it to escalate into a world war.
	Hewitt 76, will Harry's video arrive before the next Batman film?
	I don't know when that's out, so probably.
	Michael Tribelbus, better a peace plan than Starman Macron EU.
	Fight to the last Ukrainian.
	That is their plan, and then start sending us it.
	Yeah, I know Macron is distracted lately.
	Oh, yeah, with his plans against Candace Owens.
	He's waiting for news back from the hit.
	Umbrian Kulak again, the war in Donbash should have been kept local.
	Soon as superpowers got involved, the locals lost control of their stake in it.
	All seems every war is a war to make the rich richer these days.
	BlackRock have done very well out of this.
	Imagine being maimed and killed to protect Ukraine from the madman Putin, only for 8 million Bamalians to come in for the balance sheets.
	That is my concern, and that's my concern that it seemed to me the loaded ideological logic language in that point that we were discussing seemed to be preempting that, setting it up.
	Lord Inquisitor Hector Rex, Harry, I'd like to petition you to do a whole segment as Peter Hitchens.
	No.
	Derek Power, Master of Chippies.
	The problem with the Russian-Ukrainian war is that Ukraine couldn't define itself other than we are not Russian because Russia, bad Putin-Hitler.
	You can't rely solely on the negative to define yourself, save for God.
	Well, to be fair in that, as its own state, Ukraine has only really existed for 100 or so years following the destruction of the great powers following the end of the First World War.
	And even then, immediately after that, they were essentially reoccupied by the USSR.
	So Ukraine has been in a position for a while now where they are trying to regain a sense of their own understanding and sovereignty as a nation.
	I mean, I know Ukrainians and I have Ukrainian friends, and I don't think that this is how they view themselves as just non-Russians.
	Well, I mean, that's the thing upon the breaking up of the Russian statement.
	Upon the breaking up of the great empires, they wanted to establish themselves as their own nation.
	You can say they were propped up by other Western powers as a buffer state again, but still, they did want to establish their own nationhood, and it's been very, very difficult for them to do that since then.
	So I do have great sympathy for the Ukrainian people.
	They've been put into a catch-22 lose-lose situation.
	And sadly, I just hope that they're not going to get absolutely assets stripped off of the back of it.
	Lord Inquisitor Hector Rex, I think education could be something the EU requested as a requirement to potentially join the EU in the future.
	Well, the interesting thing again there is that when you see the points that the EU put forward, actually the EU states really reduced it down to just purely like don't discriminate against your linguistic minorities, which in the Eastern European context makes a lot more sense as far as I can tell.
	Would you like to go on to your segment?
	Sure.
	Ed Milliband Harnessing Enoch's Spinning Grave, don't think I've read that username before, says no more jury trials.
	Excellent.
	This is going to make it so much easier to sentence our opponents when Farage is in charge.
	If we even have trials by then.
	Well, I mean, who knows what Labour will do.
	The same goes with digital ID.
	It's strange that the left are so happy to leave such authoritarian tools for Farage if they're truly afraid of him.
	Which means they're not.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, no, that's exactly right.
	They would expect, he could surprise us, they would expect that he will carry on a managerial technocratic form of governance that will either be able to be retooled again in the future by them once they're back in power and he's out, or will actually just be used by him to carry on what's already going on, perhaps at a simply slower pace.
	Omar Awad says, I think it speaks volumes to their insecurities that the government isn't even confident enough that they could rig juries in their favour anymore.
	Well, as I tried to show in the segment, sometimes these juries come down, obviously, on the unjust side due to demographics.
	And sometimes you do actually get a good verdict as well.
	So I don't think it's that.
	I genuinely, I actually believe them on this one when they say why they're doing it because they're just looking at the numbers and they're just going, okay, we just need to pull all of this through.
	But obviously, The actual issues that they would have to confront to truly fix the problem and simultaneously keep the legal structure intact, they're not willing to consider because if they were, uh, people like David Lamy wouldn't be deciding them.
	Uh, Cumbrian Kulak says, regarding trial by jury, the symbolic damage is infuriating.
	Thousands of years of history being passed on by a foreigner.
	One must face this with good humor, and perhaps this decision casts a shadow for the next government like a reform to work with.
	Well, like I say, I wouldn't want reform to work with it, I would want them to repeal it, but um, you know, it's just again, we're just sort of left at the mercy of whatever Farage fancies when it comes to that.
	There's not really a great deal that we'll be able to do for many years, but endure, yes, mercy.
	And I'll just read this one: Wallard Wu Wu Tutai says, Excellent segment, Luca.
	Thank you.
	Thank you for making the point that jury trials are not an article of our democracy, but rather an ancient right of all Englishmen since before the Norman Conquest.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	Before I go to my niece, so when you were talking about jury trial as having a democratic aspect of it, at some point, Roman Observer said on the chat, Harry, our democracy Robinson.
	Like, there are aspects of democracy that can work within very, very well-established boundaries, right?
	Democracy is kind of like a toddler, they can do lots of amazing things, but you really need to set boundaries for them, or else they'll just shit everywhere.
	You need to leave the little gate at the top of the stairs in case it falls to its death or you know, just hurts itself.
	I mean, I was just making the comparison.
	Like, my daughter had her first successful trip to the potty this morning, I'm told, at which point, halfway through, she stood up.
	Democracy doesn't know when to stay sat down or stand up.
	Omar Award says George Orwell didn't go far enough when describing the tyranny of the good.
	Those who believe themselves at the end of history will justify any atrocity as they're working backwards from the correct conclusion.
	And anyone with a different conclusion must be wrong.
	That's how we end up at shoot their parents for complaining about indoctrination levels.
	Sadly true.
	Kevin Fox: if the majority of people in jail in America were white, would that mayor call it racist or be against imprisonment?
	I think no, Kevin, that's what my hunch says.
	Furious Dan says it doesn't matter how many people you put in jail if you don't keep them there.
	That's another thing.
	It's a revolving door.
	Yeah, but that's which it has been in places like California for a while.
	That's also because you want to be going towards the opposite direction, the direction opposite to the direction the Mamdani wants to go.
	Reminded of the famous Sam Hyde quote.
	Michael Dribelby says these people demonstrate why Democrats can be taken seriously, except for their corrupting effect on the country.
	That's the issue that they believed the idea that common sense and reason are itself an oppressive, phallocentric construct.
	That's what they say.
	That's postmodernism.
	They believe that.
	Every time you try to be speak with them from the perspective of common sense, they're going to scream that you're an oppressor.
	Yeah, that's why they have been subordinated to the radicals, those of them who aren't radicals.
	If my common sense oppresses you, good.
	And one last one: Arizona Desert Rat, massive eye roll.
	Maybe the reason the US has such a high prison population is because we have lower corruption in the legal system and the means to identify, prosecute, and violent criminals.
	If society really wants crime to go down, children need to be taught at an early age to be decent and responsible citizens, not be hoodrats.
	This applies to people of all races, he says.
	Right.
	I think that we have reached the end of today's podcast.
	Thank you very much, Brother Harry.
	Thank you very much, Brother Luca.
	Thank you all very much.
	Thank you, Sharman.
	Shaman Star.
	You're welcome.
	You're welcome.
	Shaman Panayatu, actually.
	You're welcome.
	You've got earned the right to use his first name.
	Thank you, Brother Samson, over there.
	During the production.
	Thanks to all brothers and sisters.

▲