The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1312

All Episodes

Previous Next

Dec. 8, 2025 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:30:26

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1312

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
	Welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters for Monday, is it the 8th?
	Jesus, it's the 8th of December already.
	Yep.
	2025.
	I'm joined by Stelios and Faras.
	And today we're going to be talking about all the Somali fraud that's being exposed.
	This is genuinely hilarious to me.
	The Candace Owens controversies, because Stellius has thoughts on those.
	And of course, how the British state is determined to enact demographic change by just killing off all of the old white people.
	Yep.
	I'm not even overstating that, am I?
	That's exactly what they're trying to do.
	There's no other explanation for it.
	Yeah, but before we begin, at three o'clock on Lotuseas.com, Ferras has an episode of Real Politique that he's doing live, so you can ask him Q ⁇ A's.
	What's it about?
	It's about the new American national security strategy.
	Oh, yeah.
	And the big changes that this means for the world, including Europe and the deprioritization of the Middle East.
	So a bunch of interesting changes that are happening there.
	See, what I like about the new strategy is rather than bombing random people sat in a country who are doing nothing of any particular interest, bomb the people who come illegally to the country.
	That's a big part of what's going to be happening.
	It's all about a Trump corollary to the Monroe Doctrine that is very explicitly anti-China and explicitly anti-the cartels and the leftists.
	Kind of redundant.
	But yeah.
	So it's a very big change if they manage to pull through it.
	But there are some problems with it that I'm also going to be talking about.
	Okay.
	Well, join us at three o'clock for that.
	Anyway, so let's talk about the Somalian community in Minnesota and the United States more broadly.
	Because this is something that has become salient since Trump called them out, frankly, saying, well, why are they here?
	What good are they actually doing to the United States?
	And that's a great question because there are only about 260,000 Somalis in the United States anyway.
	And already they've really made a name for themselves.
	They've really impressed everyone with the way that they're working.
	So let's focusing on Minnesota specifically.
	The Somali population of Minnesota is approximately 107,000 out of 5.8 million.
	So they are a tiny fraction of Minnesota.
	And of Minneapolis in particular, they're 84,000 out of 425,000.
	So why are we constantly hearing about Somali nonsense out of Minnesota?
	I know.
	Does it have to do with the culture?
	Sorry?
	Does it have to do with the culture?
	Sure.
	Reported to the police for saying that not all cultures are equal.
	But that's the point, right?
	So they've got Ilhan Omar, they've got Jacob Frey speaking Somalian, where he becomes the mayor.
	But they didn't elect the Somali candidate for mayor because there are just not enough Somalis there to swing the ethnic vote, even though they, of course, overwhelmingly voted for him.
	And because they're Democrats and Jacob Frey is a white guy, let's vote for the white guy.
	And so he's come out and been excessively woke about all of this, which is really funny.
	And as we go through this, you'll see why this is even funnier.
	Because they are very firmly pinning their 95 feces to the door of the Somali community is nothing but a good thing for Minnesota, which, I mean, that's going to age well, isn't it?
	Didn't they do the same thing with Haiti when Trump said that Haiti was an asshole?
	Yes, they all went to Haiti and said, this is brilliant.
	And then we had barbecue take over.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, we did.
	But that's the point, isn't it?
	Like, this...
	I mean, it's such tepid thinking.
	It's like, oh, identity politics.
	Therefore, the brown person good and Trump is bad.
	It's like, okay, but the numbers are in.
	Like, the numbers are public.
	Like, anyone can check the numbers, right?
	So it turns out that Minnesotans are enriched by Somalians to the tune of $67 million in taxes a year.
	You're good at maths.
	A drop in a buckle.
	You're good at maths?
	Yeah, generally speaking.
	Yeah, what do you reckon that is per Somalian?
	Per 100, per, what, 200,000?
	For 100,000 Somalians.
	That's pretty much nothing, right?
	That's a sort of six bucks each.
	$626 a year.
	Yep.
	$626 a year in tax.
	That's what they contribute.
	That's, that's...
	Well, the question now is...
	What do they take out?
	What do they take out?
	Yeah.
	Yeah, that's a great question.
	Resource extraction.
	But they're voting.
	That's the thing.
	That's the thing for the Democrats.
	They are.
	They're exchanging resources for votes.
	That is true.
	But that is a really small amount.
	And that implies that the Somalians are basically all impoverished, earning only a few grand a year, or maybe something else is going on.
	Anyway, so it turns out that remittances make up about somewhere between 45, 25 to 45% of Somalia's entire economy.
	Is it remittances from the US alone, or is it also from other places?
	This is a worldwide number.
	And this was a few years ago.
	It's apparently 1.7 billion.
	This was 2015.
	Yeah, that was in 2015.
	Now it's somewhere around 1.7 billion, it states in this article, somewhere.
	They're not taxed from the US?
	The remittances aren't taxed, no.
	So they send back around 1.7 billion.
	How do they pay $667 million in tax and send $1.7 billion?
	I mean, that is a great question.
	But remember, the $1.7 billion is from all over the world.
	Somalia is all over the world.
	But the point of that being 45% possibly of Somali's economy.
	I mean, what is Somali's economy?
	It's subsistence agriculture.
	You're forgetting piracy as a political contributor.
	Well, didn't that get knocked on the head when we started blowing up the pirates?
	Pretty much, yeah.
	It's more or less done now.
	Yeah.
	And if you think about the infrastructure of Somalia, it was all built during the colonial era.
	Yes.
	I was doing something on Sudan and counted the bridges in all of Sudan, famously all of it being on the Nile.
	And I think I found less than a dozen in total, which sort of shows you the extent of it.
	Now, the Nile is a difficult river to bridge.
	Sure.
	Sure.
	But so was the Rhine.
	And that was sold rather quickly.
	But the point being is that Somalia is a country that is deeply dependent on its diaspora to send money home.
	It's not doing very well as a country.
	And so how is the diaspora getting hold of so much money?
	How is it getting all of this money to send back, given how they only pay $600 a year in taxes?
	They're not earning that money, are they?
	I mean, in all of America, the Somali community makes about 500 million a year.
	In total.
	In total.
	That's what they make.
	Okay.
	Yeah.
	That's why they only commit 67,000 to the Treasury.
	Right.
	Right.
	It's 583 or something like that.
	So it's not a matter.
	On the books.
	Right.
	That's what's on the books.
	I mean, I'm not that good with knowledge about that region of Africa, but is it one of those cases where, again, we have NGOs and money coming in, given to warlords or people in government?
	No, no, they have a president.
	They have a president in Somalia.
	President.
	A voting system.
	Okay.
	Which I'm sure is Al-Shabaab running half the country.
	Oh, there isn't.
	There is.
	So that's the other penalty.
	But we'll get back to Al-Shabaab in a minute.
	Anyway, so it's become very apparent that actually there is a massive amount of fraud going on from the Somalian community in Minnesota, which is starting to explain how they got their hands on so much money to send back to Somalia.
	And this is, of course, a deeply embedded thing in, in particular, the Somali community.
	But in fact, many of the foreign communities that have come to live in the West.
	It is just habitual that they send money home.
	And Somalia is, of course, deeply dependent on this.
	And what all of this fraud exposes is the clannish nature of their society.
	And it's something that we in the West, the Western liberal individuals, do not understand.
	And we don't understand why this would be such a widespread problem in that community.
	But I'm going to just read from this New York Times article for a minute.
	Because it's just even they, even the New York Times, is like, guys, I think this might be a bit indefensible.
	Listen to this.
	The fraud scandal that rattled Minnesota was staggering in its scale and brazenness.
	How is it the entire community could be so brazen?
	Okay.
	That's the question.
	Because, of course, if Stellios, you or I were committing fraud, we would expect the people around us to be like, oh my god, he's committing fraud.
	Yeah.
	Right.
	I'm going to report that to the government.
	Right.
	I'm going to do the right thing and stop him from defrauding people.
	But for some reason, that just wasn't something that the Somalians in Minnesota thought to do.
	Would it be a different us versus them mentality?
	I think it might be.
	And I think that's where the brazenness comes in.
	But also, I think there has to be an issue with checking.
	Yeah.
	Because there is an atmosphere of impunity coming from leftist, let's say, politicians with respect to their preferred groups.
	Yes, but you remember the leftist politicians and the preferred groups in the case of, say, Minnesota are not different.
	Ilhan Omar is a part of the preferred group.
	Yes.
	Like these people are, you know, one and the same in many cases.
	So, anyway, federal prosecutors charged dozens of people with felonies, accusing them of stealing hundreds of millions of dollars from a government program meant to keep children fed during the COVID-19 pandemic.
	At first, many in the state saw the cases as one-off abuse during a health emergency.
	But as new schemes targeting the state's generous safety net programs came to light, state and federal officials began to grapple with the jarring reality.
	Over the last five years, law enforcement officials say, fraud took root in pockets of Minnesota's Somali diaspora as scores of individuals made fortunes by setting up companies that build state agencies for millions of dollars worth of social services that were just never provided.
	Federal prosecutors say that 59 people, and this again, 100,000 people in total, and they've already prosecuted 59 people for this, have been convicted in those schemes so far, and that more than a billion of taxpayer money has been stolen in only three plots that they are investigating.
	So they're paying 67 million in taxes.
	Okay.
	And the thing is, we have the habit of trying to individualize this.
	So, oh, right, we caught the person involved.
	We caught that person involved.
	We caught that person involved.
	It's like, that's not how that community works.
	Nothing in that community is individual.
	Everything is a collective group effort.
	And this is what the West needs to understand about this particular community and other communities like it.
	And I'm going to read now, just verbatim from the Minnesota State Attorney's Office about just one of these cases.
	And it is, I'm not going to swear, but it is remarkable.
	It is absolutely remarkable.
	So, this is a case of Asha Faran Hassan, 28, who was charged by federal information with wire fraud in her role in a $14 million autism fraud scheme.
	She was also charged in the Feeding Our Future fraud scheme, which we'll cover in a minute, for nearly half a million out of that.
	But from November 2019, and you know, so that's before COVID, it's not just the government opens the coffers and the Somali are like, well, I mean, why not just fill our pockets with that?
	No, this is before that.
	This is, oh, the government gives out money.
	Well, we can get that money.
	So, before COVID in 2019, Hassan and others devised a scheme and carried out a scheme to defraud the EIDBI Autism Services Program.
	They formed and registered Smart Therapy LLC with Minnesota Secretary of State in 2019.
	Hassan listed himself as the only owner of smart therapy.
	In reality, though, other individuals also had ownership stakes in smart therapy, but just not listed on the documents.
	Don't need to do that because you are my cousin, you are my brother, you are, you know, this is all a deeply connected clan of people operating.
	And odds are, the people behind this used a female knowing that a black female would have a more favorable treatment from the powers that be because of all of the DEI nonsense.
	They may not be academically gifted, but they're not stupid.
	They know how you work, right?
	They are politically gifted.
	I mean, this is part of it.
	It requires a deep understanding of the politics and who's in charge of what and what are the rewards and punishments that are involved.
	Yes, indeed.
	And so, smart therapy, I'm going to read from the notes it's easy to scroll through.
	Smart therapy purported to be providing necessary one-on-one ABA therapy to children with autism.
	In fact, smart therapy employed underqualified individuals as behavioral technicians.
	These behavioral technicians were often 18 or 19-year-old relatives with no formal education beyond high school, no training or certificates related to their treatment of autism.
	Who could have imagined this?
	Yeah.
	I can imagine them ending up, you know, using their CVs to come on the NHS and working as individual therapists for the NHS.
	Or worse activist judges.
	Yeah.
	I am going to try and scroll through just so you can see.
	I'm just literally reading verbatim, though.
	About here.
	From November 2019 through December 2024.
	I know I read that.
	So she did all of these things.
	Hold on, let me.
	I think I've found the segment.
	No, no, no, no.
	Let me just go through the whole thing because the whole thing has just got everything in it, right?
	So to run their fraud scheme, Hassan and her partners needed children who had an autism diagnosis and an individual treatment plan.
	Well, are there that many autistic kids around?
	There bloody well will be if there's money on the line.
	Hassan and her partners approached parents in the Somali community to recruit their children into smart therapy.
	Where a child did not have an autism diagnosis and an individual treatment plan, Hassan and her partners worked with the QSP to get the recruited child qualified for autism services.
	So money will have changed hands.
	There was no child that smart therapy was not able to get qualified for autism services.
	Wow.
	They could get anybody diagnosed with autism.
	Apparently.
	And then people are when we say that, you know, the whole mental health diagnosis industry has a very serious problem.
	To be fair, this happens everywhere.
	I was in academia, almost the overwhelming majority of students had some form of autism, according to so-called experts.
	Well, that's good, because Hassan and her partner submitted millions of dollars worth of claims for Medicaid reimbursement on behalf of smart therapy.
	Many of these claims were fraudulently inflated, if you can believe it, were billed without provider's knowledge and were for services that were not actually provided.
	Hassan submitted claims seeking reimbursement for the maximum number of hours permitted by Medicaid for a given treatment or service given to a particular client when the client only received a fraction of the treatment, if they were provided any at all.
	Shameless.
	I think the best part that you're you might be going over this now.
	As a recruitment tactic to drive up enrollment, Hassan and her partners paid monthly cash kickback payments to the parents of children who enrolled their children in smart therapy to receive autism services.
	Yes.
	So to your point that the whole community was involved.
	Yes.
	They bribed Somali parents to pretend that their children were autistic and then collected far more money from the state.
	This is the thing that people don't understand about.
	Just for anyone, as it says there, these kickbacks ranged from approximately $300 to $1,500 per month per child, right?
	But the amount of these payments was contingent on services DHS authorized a child to receive.
	The higher the authorization, the higher the kickback.
	But often, parents threatened to leave smart therapy and take their children to other autism centers if they did not get paid their higher kickbacks.
	So the other autism centers must have been also paying.
	She says several largest families left smart therapy after being offered larger kickbacks from other autism centers.
	So she isn't the only Somali autism center offering these kickbacks.
	So it just very quickly became a cottage industry.
	A cottage.
	I mean, this is $14 million.
	This one person.
	This is genuinely industrial.
	This isn't some workout cottage.
	Yes.
	Asana Paki, her partners covered the cost of the kickback payments that they paid through the fraudulent billings to Medicaid.
	So you can see this is just remarkable.
	Just absolutely remarkable.
	It's not just her.
	There are other ones.
	And the families are like, well, that autism center is going to give me a bigger kickback than yours.
	So I'm going to them.
	Not, oh, you're trying to bribe me into doing this.
	So I'm going to go report you to the government because that'd be the right thing to do.
	No.
	It's literally the community consents to the crime, which is why they didn't report it.
	So in one job that I had in Lebanon, I was offered a bribe.
	I was new at it.
	And the guy understood quickly that if he did that again, I'd take him out of the car and beat him.
	Yeah.
	Then I realized that he told the accountant of the company that I was working for that he'd offered me a bribe and said no, leading me to conclude that the accountant was also in on it, that I was supposed to take the bribe and then the accountant would come and collect his share.
	Yes.
	So that's how this kind of bribery actually works.
	Yeah.
	It's done, everybody is involved and I was the idiot for not being involved.
	Yes.
	And that's literally what they're saying here.
	Yes, pretty much.
	I mean, literally, you give us a kickback.
	Well, they're going to give me a bigger kick about.
	Why would I go to you?
	I mean, good point.
	The market demands, right?
	But what I love is this last paragraph of the bomb here, right?
	Hassan's fraudulent scheme resulted in smart therapy obtaining more than $14 million in reimbursement funds from Minnesota's DHS and UCAR.
	And she split the proceeds of the fraud schemes with her partners, as of course she would.
	High Trust Society.
	And Hassan herself sent hundreds of thousands of dollars in fraud proceeds abroad, some of which she used to purchase real estate in Kenya.
	Not in Mogadishu.
	Not in Mogadishu.
	No.
	Weirdly, she didn't buy the property in Somalia.
	Yes.
	This is very interesting, isn't it?
	And so that's one scheme that is just emblematic.
	As you can see, they just, I mean, we'll just crank up to max.
	We'll just literally make the maximum amount of claims that we can make, which in and of itself is suspicious.
	Idiots.
	And the entire community is like, okay, great.
	Where's my kickbacks?
	Where's my money?
	Where's all of this, right?
	So there are going to be hundreds, if not thousands of people implicated in this, but it's just her that's been punished.
	Yes.
	The community is, they know they're guilty of this.
	Just one person punished.
	And that's just in one case, right?
	The next case is the Feed Our Children fraud of food, sorry, Feed Our Future scheme.
	This was during COVID for $250 million.
	Again, you can see how they're estimating more than a billion has been defrauded out of this because they're just going mad for it.
	So this is Sarah Nooo of Minneapolis, who got 51 months in prison.
	That's only four years and four and a quarter years in prison for a $250 million fraud scheme that exploited this program during the COVID-19 pandemic.
	Between September 2020 and April 2021, she claims to have served over 1.2 million meals to children from SNS Catering, which is her company.
	1.2 million meals.
	There are just under 6 million people in Minnesota in total.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	425,000 in Minneapolis.
	Like, how many starving children can there possibly have been in Minneapolis?
	Between December 2020 and December 2021, their sites reported serving more than 8 million meals through the food program.
	And so they made all of these requests for funds from the American government and, quote, no, misappropriated the funds for her own personal benefit, such as commercial real estate.
	So it doesn't tell us where this commercial real estate was, though.
	This is what makes me think that senior Democrats were also involved.
	It was a 250 million fraud scheme.
	She was ordered to pay back just 5 million.
	Yes.
	So 245 are somewhere else.
	Yes.
	Presumably outside of the country.
	Yes.
	And the way that these things work is that the more senior you are, the sort of, you know, more certain you are to get a cut.
	So where did the other $245 million go?
	Well, again, presumably remittances back to Somalia or somewhere like that.
	Anyway, five other people were convicted of this.
	Do you want to guess at their names?
	Muhammad, Muhammad, and Ahmed.
	And Noor.
	Four of those are Muhammads.
	One of them is not a Muhammad.
	Okay.
	Abdul.
	Abdiz.
	Abdizaz.
	Actually.
	Yeah.
	Abdizaz, Mohammed, Mohammed, Mohammed, and Mohammed.
	35, 51, 23, 33, and 27, respectively.
	And 70 other defendants have been charged by the attorney's office in the district of Minnesota across 14 indictments and six criminal informations.
	18 have already pleaded guilty.
	The investigation is not over.
	Today's verdict highlights the large-scale fraud of this scope and nature will not be ignored.
	It's like it was ignored for years.
	Glad that this is finally coming out now.
	But again, if they got a four-year sentence for a fraud that's worth $250 million.
	$250 million.
	That's a freaking good investment.
	Yeah, that is a hell of a good investment.
	Four years in jail and you come out with hundreds of millions of dollars.
	I take it.
	So it's just, you know.
	Anyway, so this has been going on for years.
	Of course, this didn't just begin then.
	As former Minnesota State Representative Jason Lewis points out, in 2014, Somali daycare fraud was a major issue.
	And apparently, $100 million was missing because they just tell the state that they're doing the services.
	And the state's like, well, we want to provide daycare or food or whatever it is.
	And here's the money.
	And I mean, in the previous one, they said, well, parents will just drop their kids off and they just basically leave them in this room.
	And then they pick them up in the evening.
	It's like, okay.
	So this has been going on for years, back since 2014.
	This is a congenital issue in this community.
	They just, if there's access to money, they're going to get hold of it.
	And John Kennedy accuses Democrats, another senator, has accused Democrats of blocking investigations into the fraud.
	It's like, well, yeah, maybe they did because the Minnesota Attorney General came out and said, well, hang on a second, guys.
	We can't use incidents like this to score a political point.
	We shouldn't politicize this.
	And it's like, well, okay, I mean, it seems that it's expressly political.
	But it is political to them and it is tribal to them.
	It's only Democrats.
	It's only Democrats with a particular community.
	And it's only Democrats with a particular community that they themselves have politicized.
	Like Jacob Frey came out and said, well, you come for one of us.
	You come for all of us.
	It's like, okay, well, you're turning that community into a political agent in your current political climate.
	Exactly.
	And it's like, okay, well, we shouldn't politicize this.
	It is political.
	You brought in a bunch of people who are prepared to defraud you for billions of dollars.
	And they seem to be kind of shameless about it.
	They don't seem to be ashamed of this at all.
	And they're doing it to prop up their country, meaning that the money that they steal from you is almost half of their own country's economy.
	Like, this is preposterous.
	And the thing is, like I said, they don't even seem shameless.
	So when Ilhana.
	They say it out in the open.
	When Ilhana is very explicit about it.
	This is the funniest thing in the world.
	We're going to watch this clip because it's the funniest thing in the world.
	Because she's basically laughing in the faces of the people watching this when confronted by this.
	Of the 87 people charged, all but eight are of Somali descent.
	And that has added to the spotlight being put specifically on your community.
	Why do you think this fraud was allowed to get so widespread?
	Well, I want to say, you know, this also has an impact on Somalis because we are also taxpayers in Minnesota.
	We also could have benefited from the program and the money that was stolen.
	And so it's been really frustrating for people to not acknowledge the fact that we're also as Minnesotans, as taxpayers, really upset and angry about the fraud that has occurred.
	This is very much the Norm MacDonald meme.
	Exactly.
	That's exactly the Norm MacDonald meme.
	Imagine if some Islamist terrorist blew up a nuclear device in New York City.
	What would be the consequences for Islamophobia?
	I mean, it's just hilarious.
	It's been really frustrating because as taxpayers for $625, we only made however many out of the millions that we defrauded out of the state.
	Think about it this way.
	They were paying $600 a year in taxes and they got $300 a month at least per child from the kickbacks.
	That's a great investment.
	That's an amazing investment.
	That's wonderful returns.
	Like I said, they may not be academically gifted, but they're not stupid.
	But you'll notice when she's saying that, you know, she's this grin.
	There's this grin on her face.
	Here we go.
	Yeah.
	Like, oh, look, look, yeah.
	We're taxpayers.
	Yeah.
	It's like, do you think I think for a second you think of yourselves as taxpayers?
	Wasn't there somebody saying that her net worth has now climbed up to 30 million?
	Yeah, yeah, it has.
	It has.
	She attributes it to her husband's businesses, though.
	Yes.
	Is he involved in daycares?
	No, no.
	There's like a vineyard and a few other things.
	Okay.
	But the point is, no one, I mean, notice her framing as well.
	Like, oh, well, the Somali community could have benefited from that money that they defrauded.
	They did.
	They absolutely did.
	Like, what are you talking about?
	Of course you did.
	And you know, you did.
	And everyone can see straight through this.
	It's amazing shamelessness.
	That's the point, isn't it?
	It's so goddamn shameless that you just can't get over it.
	You just can't get over it.
	Anyway, AHNC says, Frey won the Minneapolis mayor race because the Somali opponent was from the wrong tribe.
	The other tribes voted against him or didn't vote.
	No Somali vote in office.
	That's not true.
	Minneapolis is not that big.
	The Somali community is not that big.
	Right.
	Although it doubtless could have swung it in that case.
	Sigilstone, NBC used to run a segment on nightly news called The Fleecing of America.
	Gee, I wonder why that stopped.
	One for one Paladin says, I wouldn't even know, I wouldn't not even know who to talk to about any kind of fraud scheme or how to get welfare for that matter.
	Being a working man must be frowned upon by society, one thing.
	That's the thing, isn't it?
	Right?
	Like, I just can't imagine bringing up the idea of defrauding the British government for millions of pounds with one of my friends.
	In this culture, if you're not involved in the taking of free money as quickly as you can, you're a bad person.
	You're the idiot here.
	Why are you depriving your family of that?
	Back in Somalia, they need that money.
	Because your priority, you see the state as an enemy and the pot of taxes as loot.
	I don't even know if necessarily they say it as an enemy.
	I think they see them as dupes.
	I think they see them as just idiots.
	Genuinely.
	Depending on the country.
	Sure, sure, sure.
	But in the case of Somalians.
	They see them as idiots.
	Yeah, I don't think they hate the Americans necessarily.
	I think they just think of them as stupid.
	Yes.
	It's like, oh, you're prepared to give us all this money.
	Oh, yeah, we've definitely got a daycare full of autistic kids and we're definitely spending billions on feeding these people during.
	Oh, yeah, yeah, just yeah, of course.
	Yeah, no problem.
	Don't worry about it.
	Flavius says, I just want all third worlds gone from my country at this point.
	I care less and less about the method used.
	Well, I mean, yeah, I'm sure this has really changed a lot of people's minds on this.
	Anyway, let's go on.
	Let me check that these are working before we start.
	Yep.
	Great.
	There are two ways of approaching discourse.
	In discourse, there are people who make claims.
	One way is to say, to demand from them to prove their claims.
	The other is to put forward claims without proving them and ask for people to disprove them.
	Now, I'm of the former school.
	Some people are of the latter, but the latter is based on a methodological fallacy.
	I cannot disprove to you that Candace Owens may have a crush on Macron.
	I can't disprove it to you.
	But that doesn't mean that it's false.
	I like the way you front-loaded this drama segment with a bunch of philosophy there.
	Yeah, it's absolutely philosophical because this is a joy for epistemologists if you focus on what is happening.
	I bet it is.
	And the audience that approaches this from my perspective just takes this with a pinch of salt and says, well, several influencers are making claims about what happens behind closed doors, putting forward hypotheses that are largely unverifiable and are trying to occasionally integrate empirical data within a broader narrative, always to confirm the hypothesis.
	And I take that always with a pinch of salt and I demand them to give me conclusive proof.
	Why should I believe them?
	Yeah, you're not going to get any of that, though.
	Yeah, but other, but some other people think that just because you can't disprove something, it therefore must be true.
	Yes, the teapot circling Mercury away.
	Exactly, yeah.
	Or yeah, whatever.
	That's around Russell's TV.
	Yeah, whatever.
	It's methodologically speaking.
	You don't ask for people to disprove something.
	You can ask them to disprove it, but the point is that who gives you good reasons to believe something?
	Someone who gives you evidence for it and say this is why you should believe it?
	Or someone who j says, well, this is a potential hypothesis.
	Can you disprove it to me?
	Okay, come on.
	People want the gossip.
	Right, people want the gossip.
	I want the gossip.
	You will have the gossip, but the best way of giving gossip is postponing the gossip.
	Right?
	If I just give you the gossip, you're going to listen to it and move on.
	I'm sure.
	I want a lot to say on this.
	Right.
	So let me just say that there are some claims that Candace Owens has made that I don't know if she's joking or not.
	Like occasionally she has referred to Elon Musk, Peter Kittele, and Sam Altman as hybrids.
	Hybrids of what?
	I don't know, but maybe she was just implying that, yeah, they may not be.
	Desert hybrids or robot hybrids.
	No, no, just hybrids.
	Yeah, we can have.
	Samson, if you want to pull out the link, we can have the link.
	But she has mentioned it.
	But okay, I don't know if that's a joke or not.
	But there are other things that she seems to not treat as jokes.
	And this has to do with the infamous case of Bridget Macron.
	Now, I want to say my hunch is that Candace may secretly be in love with Emmanuel Macron.
	Can you disprove it?
	I don't need to disprove it.
	I haven't given reasons to believe in it.
	But the whole point about Bridget Macron being a man, this was like, just be clear, I don't dislike Candace Owens.
	I don't have any personal agenda against anything.
	But this Bridget Macron as a man thing is so obviously false because we've got pictures of Bridget Macron back when she was grooming Emmanuel Macron as a child.
	She's not a man.
	She's a groomer.
	Right.
	Okay.
	So now I'm going to give you the Candace Owens take on the matter.
	You mentioned pictures of Brigitte Macron from an age of, say, 40.
	Yeah, yeah, when Macron was like 50 minutes on the show.
	She goes before about 30 as a milestone.
	Oh, okay.
	Right.
	So here we have Candace Owens saying that that is on March 14, 2024.
	Okay.
	So she has, she is really interested in that story.
	And she is talking about a theory.
	What evidence would she have received?
	That she has mentioned that she has been in touch with several French journalists.
	One is, I think, called Xavier Pussard.
	And he's talking about a face recognition technology scam that suggests that Brigitte Macron isn't a woman.
	She's just old.
	And this is the theory that she puts forward: that there are no pictures of Brigitte Macron before 30.
	And that's probably because the technology of cameras hadn't been invented then.
	It's like saying there are no pictures of Julius Caesar.
	Well, no, maybe she's not that old.
	She's 70-something.
	She's really old.
	Let me just check.
	She's really old.
	Anyway, so the theory is the hypothesis is that she hasn't.
	There aren't pictures of her before 30.
	She's 72.
	Right, 42 years ago, then.
	Yeah, there were cameras for it.
	Yeah, I know there were cameras, but not everyone had a camera on their phone, right?
	Like there were very few pictures of me when I was young, just because my family weren't wealthy enough to buy cameras.
	I don't know.
	I don't know.
	Can you prove that you're a scientist?
	Can you prove that you weren't a woman and that you're transitioning?
	I can't, actually.
	So that's the theory.
	That's the theory that Michelle Brigitte Macron.
	Sorry, I've got the theories mixed.
	You got your transgender as well.
	You were going to say Michelle Obama then, weren't you?
	Yeah, it's about talking about theories about the sexes of politicians.
	Isn't it weird?
	Right, so therefore the theory.
	She went off to Bridget Macron, not Michelle Obama.
	That's weird.
	Anyway, because I can't.
	The theory is that Candace's theory is that Brigitte Macron is actually Jean-Michel Trogneau and transitioned at around 30.
	Okay.
	And then 10 years afterwards started grooming Macron.
	How did she get a daughter?
	She's got a daughter.
	I think it's a daughter.
	She's got a drink.
	Yeah, I mean, it's a big rabbit hole.
	Right, okay.
	Whatever.
	I think.
	Anyway, so what happens here?
	The Macrons are saying, stop it, and they sued her.
	And Candace dabbles down and she says, I'm fighting on behalf of the entire world.
	You were born a man and you'll die a man, see you in court.
	Well, the Macrons are suing her in, I think it was Delaware court.
	But it gets a bit more weird than that.
	Candace says here that someone really high in the White House hierarchy called her to stop talking about Macron.
	They're going to kill her.
	Because Macron said, no, it's not that they're going to kill her, because Macron said that unless Candace stops talking about his wife, he isn't going to push for negotiations between Ukraine and Russia.
	So he's going to completely forget all the rivalry between Russia and France.
	And some random American podcast.
	Yeah, he's going to put all that aside.
	He isn't going to focus on how the geopolitical rivalry between Russia and France harms France on occasion because he is going to because Candace Owens is talking about it.
	Just to be clear, Bridget Macron got married in 1974.
	I told you, she's as old as bloody time itself to a banker called André-Louise Aldizur, and she had three kids with him.
	Yeah, but the point is that if you go down the road, the latter road I said, that the burden of proof is allegedly on the shoulders of the person who is called to disprove a hypothesis.
	Sure, but this is always in her early 20s.
	Yeah, but methodologically speaking, this is because this is all just epistemology 101.
	You can always integrate new pieces of data in order to fit a particular theory.
	You could say the banker was in it.
	All of it was forgery.
	All the documents were forged.
	Where did the three children come from?
	Somewhere.
	They have to come from somewhere.
	One of the children was born when she was 32.
	Yeah.
	So after transition, right?
	Yeah.
	So how did that happen?
	No idea.
	But the hypothesis would be these are not her actual children.
	Oh, I mean, maybe.
	But where did they come from?
	Is that how it goes?
	Well, that's, again, that's where there's the burden of proof.
	To think of how prescient they were that they sort of planted these three children way back when, knowing that Macron was going to become president of France, this feeling that literal evidence would be required one day.
	I mean, that's the work of intelligence.
	So the Macrons are suing Candace, and Alex Jones is saying Candace Owens says that the Macron defamation suit against her was designed to be a distraction from French journalists that is exactly.
	Macron is younger than two of her children.
	So, yeah, I know, right?
	But the point is, like, he's, like, three or four years younger than, like, a middle child.
	So they must have been, like, right.
	He has a way with women.
	So it's not even that.
	This is the long game we're playing.
	We're going to plant the seeds now.
	And then we'll find some kid who 15 years later she can groom and then we can make him the president.
	Is it disgusting enough as it is?
	Do we need to make her trans?
	Like, was this strictly necessary?
	What does this disprove?
	I mean, how's it got?
	Anyway.
	Candace agreed with.
	No, It's the idea that almost everyone is politics as a paedophile.
	And because they're paedophiles, they can be blackmailed.
	That's the hypothesis she's pushing forward.
	I mean, essentially, that's where it looks like it's going.
	Macron's blackmailed to do what?
	No, he's about as popular as someone.
	It's the idea of controlling politicians.
	That's the hypothesis.
	Right.
	Candace agreed with Alex Jones's warning that she should expect the Delaware case against her to be completely rigged like the cases against Trump and himself.
	What if they DNA test Macron's wife, Bridget, and she DNA tests returns as well?
	Yeah, but do you trust the DNA?
	The last thing is that he's trusted DNA tests.
	I mean, I've get your own expert to do it.
	Yeah.
	But do you trust your own expert or can they be compromised?
	You can play that endlessly.
	That's my point.
	You can play that endlessly.
	So, of course, I agree with you.
	Of course, I agree with you.
	The point is that you could play this game endlessly.
	It's as old as time.
	Right.
	So here, what we have here Evan Kilgore saying Candace Owens says that Charlie Kirk came to her in a dream that he was betrayed.
	She said it was clear who betrayed Charlie, but that she believes it will be exposed and have international consequences.
	So the other day I was browsing through my WhatsApp and I noticed my own profile picture.
	I was like, what is that?
	And it's the picture of that Watchmen guy where he's like, I came to me in a dream.
	And I'm like, God, I've been messaging politicians with that profile picture.
	Does it work?
	Is it working?
	Well, I mean, it's got me this far.
	Yeah.
	So I mean, I'm as much of a believer is of it came to me in a dream as anyone.
	But maybe I wouldn't say it publicly.
	Okay, so here is the other bit.
	And these stories are going to connect in the near future because it's all connected.
	Hang on, hang on.
	So I feel that we're missing something here.
	I was watching Tim Pool's podcast with Milo on it the other day and he was pointing out, look, this is basically like a female true crime documentary here where it's like, you know, this is the sort of thing that my wife listens to these true crime things all the time.
	And you'll get things like, oh, and this woman did something crazy because she dreamt it or something like that.
	And it's like, right.
	So actually, what we're not looking at here is politics.
	What we're looking at here is women living through some sort of IRL true crime documentary.
	I think we may be looking towards politics because there are real dangers with it.
	I'm not saying we won't have a political event, but we'll mention them towards the end of this.
	What I'm thinking, though, is that we are thinking in logical masculine terms.
	I was saying cause and effect has a particular necessary relationship, right?
	But that's not really what she's selling here.
	It's like, no, Charlie Kirk came to me in a dream and I believe it'll be exposed and there'll be international consequences.
	She's creating a fancy for women who feel hurt by what has happened, right?
	Maybe, but it isn't just for women.
	It's also addressed to some men.
	I'm not saying it's just women.
	I'm saying this is the sort of thing that women self-select for.
	This is the format that women like.
	I don't know.
	I do.
	I guarantee you that's correct because I bet her audience is almost entirely woman.
	So here is where another controversy has started with respect to Candace Owens' relation to TPUSA, which is the organization of Charlie Kirk, especially after his death.
	So there is an endless flow of information about this online.
	You can see people taking clips of her, criticizing her or being in favor of her.
	It's just endless.
	So I'm going to try and be very distant with it.
	And I'm just going to tell you what something, some people allege and what happens.
	And I want to show her things that she does say.
	So it looks like in some cases she does implicate.
	She does seem to be saying that Charlie Kirk was murdered by the turning point USA was involved.
	I mean, that's a pretty strong statement.
	Yeah, it's a pretty strong statement.
	I don't think that adequate evidence has been given, but that's the thing, that the more...
	Involved from the beginning or in some kind of cover-up, or what it would be?
	Depending on the video, you'll see her saying different things.
	But she frequently mentions some cover-up.
	Then it's also the issue of how much is she implicating Erica Kirk.
	In some cases, it looks like the way she was expressing implicated Erika Kirk.
	In some other cases, I will say there has been because I want to be fair.
	So at some point, she did retract it.
	Oh, right.
	And she did try to take distance from it, say that she isn't exactly talking about Erica Kirk.
	So I want to be fair to her.
	And also, she says that she is trying to put forward the narrative according to which the murder was something that was incredibly big and massive and international.
	And the military was involved.
	Let us listen to what she said.
	The shooter or the alleged shooter.
	You'd think they're a Patsy.
	Of course, they're a patient.
	I mean, come on.
	It was so dumb.
	He wasn't even on campus that day.
	They can't show us one clear image.
	Not even one.
	All of these cameras.
	Turning point has everything in 4K.
	So shouldn't you have caught the shooter on the roof in 4K?
	Like, you had cameras everywhere that day.
	Every inch of that campus is kind of.
	Someone else that was running across it wasn't Tyler.
	Absolutely.
	Someone that just sprinted.
	I don't even know if there was a person that sprinted that day because everyone's forgetting.
	There was also a news report that came out a week before that somebody was on the roof and a professor came out and waved the person.
	Now they may have been dropping off a gun, dropping off a screwdriver.
	I don't know.
	Because there is one video like one of the students had panned out.
	That person who took that video that I had to track down in the military.
	Really?
	Everybody's military in astoria.
	Really?
	So the person that captured that, because I remember when it first broke out.
	So she is putting forward a hypothesis that is a bit more massive and wide-reaching.
	And she hasn't proven it yet.
	No.
	Right.
	So she has made another claim, the Egyptian jet theory.
	Do you know what that is?
	No.
	Right.
	So people keep sharing a spreadsheet.
	is talking about some Egyptian planes and Erica Kirk.
	And let me just...
	Why would Egypt err?
	She has repeatedly discussed what she called the Egyptian plane story.
	She alleges that flight tracking data shows two Egyptian aircraft repeatedly appearing near places visited by Erica Kirk.
	She claimed one plane's transponder was active near Provo airport around the time of the shooting, turning on again shortly after the incident.
	She initially linked the planes to Charlie Kirk, but later stated she believes they were tracking his wife Erica Kirk.
	And she claimed the same plane crossed paths with Erica Kirk's traveled around about 70 times over a few years, describing the probability as mind-blowing.
	And she has also mentioned some bad cars and she started talking about Egyptian cars, license plates of Egyptians on the day of the assassination.
	I think, I mean, personally, I'm just thinking, right, a lot of immigrants.
	I mean, if she was like, yeah, it was Israel At least I'd understand the conspiracy At least I'd be able to connect it But what possible reason would Egypt have to assassinate Charlie Kirk?
	Just...
	The point is, we are throwing something out there and let's see how it's all connected.
	It is all connected and we don't have to prove it to the degree that others don't disprove it.
	I like its quote-unquote Egyptians as well.
	And why are they all driving Toyotas?
	Right.
	And here there's a very weird statement back from November 24.
	She says, when everything is said and done and the public learns that Macron allegedly moved $1.5 million for my assassination, how will the world respond?
	So that's weirdly phrased, but let's say that it was a typo.
	Notice how she's put herself at the center of a grand worldwide conspiracy that the entire world should respond to.
	Like this, again, I genuinely feel that this is some sort of woman's true crime drama playing out.
	So she says then the next day, November 25, our show will be off air this week.
	As an update, both the White House and the counter-terrorism agencies have confirmed the receipt of what I reported publicly.
	Emmanuel Macron attempted to organize my assassination.
	What's the evidence?
	A source close to the first couple.
	Trust me, bro.
	Also, I will again state that the French legionnaires were involved in Charlie Kirk's assassination, but they did not act alone.
	All of you doubted my claims.
	You can now look to the president of the United States and our intelligence communities to issue a statement to confirm whether I am telling the truth.
	Bro, come on.
	It's like the Pink Panther.
	You remember towards the end where it's Dreyfus who is putting all the assassins go there.
	I just love that she's the center point.
	Yeah.
	And here she is keeping a low profile despite being hunted by assassins.
	She's on the party of, I think, Tucker Carlson.
	It's a high-profile party, let's say.
	She received more information.
	She received more information the next week that she can say with full confidence that Charlie Kirk was betrayed by the leadership of TP USA now.
	Ah, the most likely people to want him dead.
	Yep, that's you were lied to in leadership new.
	So again, you see the phrase with respect to who is implicated in leadership is completely.
	Why would Turning Point USA want Charlie Kirk dead?
	Anyway, so we have now the single biggest asset.
	Exactly.
	He's the one making them.
	He's the.
	He was a ridiculously compelling speaker.
	Yeah.
	Why would they?
	That's my point, though, because you can't.
	For the same reasons Egypt do, I guess.
	I don't know.
	Well, the Egyptians.
	Let me explain to you the geopolitics of Egypt.
	Why would Egypt be involved in this?
	Why would France be involved in this?
	No idea.
	But she's tied in the French legionaries who killed Macron now.
	But you're the one who's got a problem with France.
	What did Charlie Kirk ever say about France?
	Anyway, sorry, carry on.
	No, what I want to say is that there are several ways of viewing this.
	And here I will say, I will put forward a hypothesis.
	And don't take that with a pinch of salt.
	I think that to a very large extent, when people engage upon that sort of discourse, their main agenda is to sow doubt.
	You mentioned before about the DNA results.
	So if you constantly doubt anyone who will put forward a sort of official view, you can endlessly play the conspiracy game.
	I just want to say the point is maybe to sow doubt to any kind of state and lead us to the place where you mentioned before with the Somali segment.
	Look at the state where it's always the case that every official voice is treated as an enemy.
	Right.
	I think Joseph has sent a Rumble Rattan in.
	I think he might have it.
	The only way to save the world is to give Candace Owens money.
	More so attention, I think, is the way to say the world.
	And now I'm going to, sorry, Faraz, do you want to mention something?
	No, no.
	And here I'm going to mention Tim Poole and something.
	Yeah.
	I mean, I just don't get it.
	Team Poole says here that he publicly criticized Candace Owens.
	I will say this: that there are many people who have criticized her before.
	And frequently they are not talked about or mentioned.
	But it's a good idea to see people who were criticizing her before.
	But it's also a good thing to see conservatives standing up for common sense in some respects.
	Here he says that Candace Owens didn't like Charlie Kirk.
	I don't know about it, but he really goes for it.
	And what he says here is that she's a danger for the 2026 midterms because if because there are, let's be damaging the right by making us look.
	Yeah, and there are several people who are constantly attacking the Republican Party.
	Yeah.
	And there's a massive contradiction, which I think that is obvious.
	On the one hand, in these spaces, you hear the view that if the left wins, the left will wage total war against the right, which means that they are going to win in a Schmittian friend versus enemy way, the right, and not allow the right to recover from it.
	That's claim number one.
	And claim number two is: well, it's okay to lose the midterms.
	It's okay to lose 2028 if it is the case that whether Trump or Vance or whoever is going to be the next presidential candidate isn't putting forward the agenda that that segment of the audience wants.
	So the point is, and I will say this again, I don't think that they represent the majority of Republican voters, but one thing that they could represent is a sizable minority that convinces Republicans to not vote in the midterms and by implication losing to the Democrat candidates.
	Okay, and on one final note, apparently Candace Owens doesn't believe in dinosaurs either.
	Apparently they are, quote, fake and gay.
	Yeah.
	Of course, back in January.
	Maybe.
	But on that note, on that controversial bombshell, let's move on.
	Yeah.
	Slightly shell-shocked here, but let's move on.
	The Labour Party really wants to kill your grandparents.
	And they're not hiding it in any way.
	The reason for this segment is that Britain is having a parliamentary debate still over the assisted suicide, assisted dying bill that was passed in the House of Commons and is now going through the House of Lords.
	Now, this was presented as a private member's bill.
	So it was presented as something that was outside of the agenda of the governing party, the Labour Party.
	In the British system, you get a lottery to decide which MPs can bring in their own bills to submit for consideration in the House of Commons.
	And somehow a lady by the name of Kim Ledbetter, Leadbeater, won that lottery.
	She is the right level of nobody and somebody.
	She's a backbencher, so not a frontbench politician, meaning that she's not in the cabinet.
	But she is quite famous because she's the sister of Joe Cox, who was an MP assassinated by a right-winger because of her role in helping bring in illegal migrants, refugees, asylum seekers into Britain, and she was a remainer.
	So she was assassinated.
	Obviously, we oppose political violence.
	But Kim became the sort of right person to submit a private member's bill.
	Throughout the parliamentary debate, the Labour Party said that it was not taking a side on the question of assisted dying or assisted suicide.
	Rather, the Labour Party left each of its members to decide on their own whether or not they would support this legislation.
	But then it turns out that actually they had planned to do this from the outset.
	Oh, really?
	That they had been planning to introduce assisted suicide from before the election, and they figured out that the best way to do it was through a private member's bill.
	So they didn't want to put it on their manifesto and say that they wanted to kill Granny.
	Instead, they left it to others to pretend to be presenting a private member's bill.
	When the reality was that, as a matter of fact, they had senior civil servants write the bill for them and present it to Parliament.
	They had discussed it in their own internal documents while they were in opposition and decided that they couldn't put it on the manifesto.
	It has to be done in another way that would allow the government heavy influence over the debate.
	And so when the bill moved to the Lords, they started trying to create a constitutional crisis because enough people in the House of Lords opposed the bill and submitted around a thousand amendments to the bill to try to tighten it and to try to say this should be made into something much better if it's going to pass.
	And the Labour Party in the House of Lords has been dead set against any amendments.
	They want to pass the most lax bill ever while pretending that it has the most safeguards.
	And we will discuss that in a second.
	But they lie like they breathe.
	They really have no conscience here.
	So it turns out that this is actually a government bill.
	And when this was revealed, there was another intervention.
	This is a quick thing.
	Surely a private member's bill from an MP from the ruling government is a bit of a fraud on the face of it.
	Yes.
	Why would you need a private member's bill if your party was in government?
	Well, you could still submit private members' bills if your party was in government.
	So some people had something about trophy hunting and whatnot that they wanted to.
	Like, it gives MPs a chance to submit bills for their own causes.
	Sure.
	That's intended to be part of the process.
	But here they've pretty much abused the process.
	Yes, that's what I'm trying to...
	Yes, yes.
	It's not like Kier Starmer is opposed to this.
	Exactly.
	This is completely on his agenda.
	Exactly.
	For economic reasons, probably.
	But he lied about it being on his agenda.
	that's the key point so did he say in the labor manifesto he was against and his no in the labor manifesto they kept silent on it Okay.
	But they went ahead and did it anyway, just like they did with the tax rises, just like they did with a bunch of things that weren't on the manifesto.
	And then they decided to sneak them in through all kinds of procedural tricks anyway.
	And that's what was done here.
	And here we see a bunch of lords.
	Now, let me see if they have anything in common.
	Head of the Home Civil Service, Lord Turnbull, head of the Home Civil Service, Lord Butler.
	He's the Deep State.
	Head of the Home Civil Service.
	Lord MacDonald, permanent undersecretary and head of the diplomatic service, and on and on and on.
	So it's the deep state is what wants this.
	So it's pretty much the establishment, the deep state, people who have been involved in the government of Britain as unelected officials.
	They've all intervened to say that the House of Lords must respect the primacy of the House of Commons, that it isn't optional, and it's the foundation of parliamentary legitimacy, which leaves something.
	Oh, yeah, because people feel parliament is just so damn legitimate these days.
	Well, that's one part of the problem.
	But the other part of the problem is: why is there a House of Lords if it doesn't have a role to play and must simply nod at whatever the House of Commons says?
	How does the House of Lords support the legitimacy of the House of Commons anyway?
	These are two separate moral distinctions.
	One's unelected, one is unelected.
	Exactly.
	Completely different institutions.
	How can the Lords lend their legitimacy to the Commons?
	Merely by nodding silently and agreeing to whatever the government wants to do.
	I guess, yeah.
	And this is really spectacular that the bill gets written by somebody from the civil service, specifically Elizabeth Gardiner.
	She hadn't done any drafting, and then somebody who I used to work with contacted me to see whether I would produce this bill.
	So she's a first parliamentary council, again, part of the establishment, essentially.
	And when Kim Ledbeater won Elizabeth Ann Finley Gardiner.
	Right.
	Yeah.
	So when Kim Leadbeater won the right to submit a private member's bill, she had no idea what to do with it, or she was a Patsy from the start.
	Who knows?
	But then senior members of the establishment stepped in and wrote her bill for her in line with what Labour was planning on doing while they were still in opposition, having omitted that they intended to do that from their manifesto.
	Now, on the constitutionality question, the left has been sort of going a bit on a trip.
	Unelected lords are blocking assisted dying.
	This is a democratic outrage, says Simon Jenkins of the Guardian.
	If ever a British institution needed assisted dying, it is the House of Lords.
	So the opening line qualify for it.
	The opening line here is that if you don't give us what we want, we will kill the House of Lords.
	We will mutilate the constitutional settlement of this country.
	Exactly.
	Yes.
	Exactly.
	And this seems escalatory, if you ask me, and a little bit unnecessary.
	But this is very much what they're saying, that they are willing to gut the constitution of this country, the unwritten constitution of this country, in order to make sure that your doctor can ask your grandmother whether or not she'd like to commit suicide.
	That's the purpose behind it.
	And this seems like a very strange hill to die on, but it is part of a broader labor policy that at pretty much every step wants to get rid of the elderly and of the various constitutional settlements that have defined the country.
	Yes.
	So on the constitutionality, I mean, their entire argument really rests on two claims.
	One, the House of Commons said that it should pass, but that is why there is a House of Lords to sort of decide whether or not the House of Commons gets its way.
	And in the settlement that is sort of established in Britain, on a private member's bill, the House of Lords are allowed to decide whether or not they want to actually approve a private member's bill.
	And so they looked at the constitutionality of it and, you know.
	I mean, this isn't coming from the government.
	No.
	So you can't.
	It's hardly say that this is a democratic mandate.
	Exactly.
	This wasn't in the manifesto, and the government itself only got a third of the votes of the entire actual votes cast anyway, and a fifth of the actual potential electorate.
	Exactly.
	So, don't talk to me about democratic legitimacy.
	But it's our democracy.
	We must protect our democracy, you see.
	And the House of Lords' rebuttal to this is actually pretty strong.
	Oh, yeah.
	The Lords retains the formal power to reject a bill at second or third reading and to insist on amendments during ping pong, which is the consideration of amendments by the two houses, even if this risks being a bill being lost.
	And the only exception to this is to policy that is actually in the manifesto of the winning party.
	So, for pretty much everything else, if it's not in the manifesto, the house of lords can block it, and it is within their right to do so.
	And instead of accepting this and accepting that, okay, if it's a government bill, the House of Lords has to back down, they are completely insisting that no, this time the popularity of it dictates that it must be accepted.
	That's really weird, though.
	Why wouldn't they just put it forth as a government bill then?
	Because they don't want to be associated with it.
	It's such a disgusting change.
	Exactly.
	It's such a disgusting change to the NHS.
	But surely Keir Starmer's just given up on popularity at this point.
	He was on.
	Well, I saw a poll, 11% approval the other day.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Like, come on.
	He's obviously given up on popularity.
	He understands this to be the last Labour government that will ever be.
	Just ram it through, Kier.
	Just get it done.
	Well, you need to save the NHS.
	Think of the money that Granny is costing.
	And that's really what it's all about.
	That's really what it's all about.
	And changing the demographics of the country.
	Not just that, though.
	This is ideological as well from the liberal position.
	The idea to have your death forced upon you without your consent.
	This is something that I wanted to get into a little bit.
	This is something that I want to get into.
	So let's just address the popularity.
	But when using the popularity argument, 60% say that they would be concerned about people pressured into dying, but there are no safeguards here.
	If we didn't have such a good example in Canada, perhaps this wouldn't be such a concern.
	Exactly.
	Exactly.
	Among supporters, 55% would change their mind if it turned out that somebody had been pressured to do it.
	And there are no real safeguards in this bill to somebody being pressured into dying.
	You know, in the Netherlands, I think she was 28 or 32, something like that, a young woman was put to death because she was depressed.
	Yes.
	Yes.
	In the Netherlands, in Belgium, in Canada, everywhere you look at assisted dying, you find that what actually happens is an endless expansion of who is eligible to be killed.
	Hang on, hang on.
	The point being, though, how can someone with a mental health problem be considered to have given informed consent to be executed?
	They have a mental health problem.
	They would still be found competent if they speak to the doctors and if it's convenient for the system.
	Exactly.
	No, I just wanted to say that whatever the idea behind it is and whatever the philosophy behind it is, it's ultimately an issue of the people who are going to be involved in decision-making.
	And yeah, I wanted to ask something very similar to what you said.
	But it seems to me that this is one of those things that are incredibly easy to abuse.
	Extremely so.
	Especially when the incentive is there.
	It's like, well, it's going to save us money.
	Well, great.
	We need to save money.
	Exactly.
	And it will kill off.
	They shouldn't promote it and they shouldn't say, let's look at the good things that will happen if you commit suicide.
	Think of how you're promoting the common good.
	That's not.
	It's not.
	It's crass.
	But that's very much a part of it.
	So when these people were specifically asked whether or not this could happen just because people feel like an inconvenience, the defenders of the bill, specifically Lord Falconer, who is trying to sort of force it through the House of Lords, end up saying that, yes, if you feel like a burden, you should die or you should be allowed to die.
	And 48% of people who supported the bill said that they would rethink their position if someone chose assisted suicide because other care wasn't sufficiently available.
	And if you know anything about the state of palliative care in this country, I was saying, if you know anything about the NHS, you know that nothing's readily available anyway.
	Exactly.
	You may as well just pop it.
	So the incentive here is how do we reduce the NHS waiting list?
	Well, let's just kill old people, vulnerable people, disabled people.
	What are they going to do?
	Fight back.
	Exactly.
	Exactly.
	So they've said that you could end up dying if you have learning difficulties or eating disorders.
	They're willing to sort of send you to go.
	People will die if they are poor.
	If in your mind you're influenced by your circumstances, because you are poor, you should not be barred from having an assisted death.
	I don't mean to laugh at this, right?
	But the thing is, you could basically frame all of this from the position of the most hardcore eugenicist Nazi.
	Yes.
	Like, no, we need to get rid of the poor, the disabled, the elderly.
	You know, what we want is the master race.
	It feels very eugenic.
	Yes.
	In the nature of what they're proposing.
	Because that's the nature of progressivism.
	I guess it is.
	But only against Europeans.
	That's true.
	So eugenics for Europeans.
	Everybody else gets endless welfare.
	Kim Ledbetter had acknowledged that if the care costs are too expensive, then yeah, they should be allowed to have assisted suicide.
	Oh, Jesus.
	If they feel like a burden, it's a legitimate reason to request assisted suicide.
	She wants a lot of people dead, doesn't she?
	These are things that they've said.
	These are not things that are being made up.
	They are being questioned in Parliament or by interviewers or what have you.
	So poor Timmy, who's got a broken leg, should we kill him?
	Well, he's disabled.
	He's a burden on the NHS.
	And so pretty much every disabled people's charity opposes the bill.
	I don't think that there should be 350 disabled people's charities funded by the taxpayer, but come on.
	That doesn't mean kill them all.
	One reason is my body is not working in the way that it should.
	I'm 45.
	My body is not working.
	Jesus.
	Yeah, tell me about it, Kim.
	But please don't put me to death.
	Exactly.
	Because my back's aching a little bit.
	Exactly.
	Bit of arthritis in the finger.
	Sorry, I ticked.
	It's difficult.
	Jesus.
	But not impossible if someone has an eating disorder to end up dying.
	And so.
	And we just had a comment.
	Yeah, we can also set the hunger crisis at the same time.
	Imagine how many problems it solves if we struggle food and disabled.
	It's mad.
	There was an amendment in the House of Commons to exempt those who are substantially motivated by housing issues, depression, or being unable to enable, being unable to access the services.
	Oh, there was one of these.
	I was going to be made homeless, so he had the state kill him.
	Yes.
	Just, all right.
	Now we're killing the homeless.
	Doctors can't be prevented from raising assisted suicide with a patient.
	So imagine you're battling cancer and you're trying to find the strength that you need in order to survive it.
	And you have no idea whether or not you're going to survive it, but there's a chance that you would.
	And your doctor says, well, we can treat you and chemo will be painful or we can just put you down.
	Jesus Christ.
	What is it called?
	Hold on, hold on.
	They kind of ask it in some cases, irrespective of the act.
	Say again?
	They kind of ask it in several cases, irrespective of the act.
	Well, that's evil.
	But what does it do to your confidence in your doctors?
	What trust do you have in somebody who would, maybe I can treat you, maybe I can kill you.
	What would you prefer?
	I mean, what's easier for the doctor?
	And what's easier for the doctor?
	I mean, there's a question of incentives here.
	Yeah, just put you down.
	Way easier for the doctor.
	And the argument is that they say that there is a six-month prognosis.
	You have to have a prognosis that says you're going to die in six months.
	But these are always practically wrong.
	And for anybody above 70.
	And even then, okay, well, the doctor will be like, you've got six months.
	Exactly.
	You've got six months.
	Oh, suddenly lots of people are only got six months to live.
	Exactly.
	Exactly.
	And you could see how this becomes quickly fraudulent with people being written into wills and getting inheritances.
	And it's just genuinely sick.
	And then they said that it was an answer to pain, but then Falconer himself, the guy who's trying to ram it through, well, obviously they do.
	And he says that it isn't about pain.
	Oh, well, okay, don't worry about that then.
	And this is important because the Times article by Jardine Gardiner makes the same point.
	Is this about pain and suffering?
	Or is it about control?
	Very often it is about control.
	It is very, very frequently not about the intensity of the pain.
	Control of what?
	Your own destiny.
	Yes.
	So it's the liberal desire to be the one who makes the decision forever.
	Before I get to that, before I get to that, the Royal College of Psychiatrists says we cannot support the bill.
	The Royal College of Physicians, not in line with good clinical practice.
	Elderly and disabled aren't actually in line with our practices.
	Exactly.
	Biggest non-profit care provider for the elderly.
	Risks to older, vulnerable people are substantial.
	We're against this.
	Association of Social Workers, the safeguards are not enough.
	A former NHS CEO, there are evident and substantial risks.
	Like, it's a crap bill.
	Yeah.
	And they're willing to trigger a constitutional crisis over it.
	And the argument, the only argument that they have is that this is about choice and control.
	The issue is that the choice and control only go in one way.
	As in, I want to have enough control to know that my children are not exposed to drugs or to pornography or to various bad behavior.
	They don't need that kind of control.
	That is not allowed.
	I want enough control not to have a doctor ask me whether or not I want to be killed.
	That is not allowed.
	I want enough control to have some kind of stability in my life.
	That is not allowed.
	So the choice.
	All the NHS money does.
	Exactly.
	That's mandatory.
	Exactly.
	So the choice always goes one way, which is expanding the choice to criminals and abusers and limiting your option to live a normal life.
	I want to have a choice of not having to send my wife to work.
	I want my wife to take care of our children.
	That choice is not allowed.
	Pretty much every choice that leads you to build a decent and prosperous and fulfilling life is denied.
	But the choice to destroy your life or even to end it, that is the choice that's sacred.
	So you should be allowed to choose to do drugs.
	You should be allowed to choose suicide.
	You should be allowed to choose pornography.
	You should be allowed to choose all kinds of destructive things.
	But choices that make your life better.
	No, We will set up society to maximize choice for criminals and degenerates, but not for decent people.
	That's the philosophy of it.
	And at the same time that they're doing this, they're trying to find another excuse to destroy the House of Lords, having already decided to get rid of all the hereditary people.
	They've always hated the House of Lords.
	They've always hated it because it's the least liberal institution that we have.
	Exactly.
	And to sort of top it off, what Labour is also doing is putting enough new peers in the House of Lords to make sure that nobody, that nothing, that they would never lose a vote in the House of Lords from around 2027.
	So they're not satisfied with gutting the Constitution.
	They also want to continue rigging the game, all in the name of more liberalism and more choice, choice to do evil, not choice to do good or to live well.
	And it's sick.
	It's a deadly mindset that only seeks destruction.
	Yes.
	It's leveling.
	That's what it is.
	It's leveling to the sort of level of guerrillas.
	Sure, but the point is, it's the leveling down to the lowest common denominator.
	Exactly.
	Which is what has always been the shadow that's lurked underneath liberalism.
	Yes.
	I'm reading a book on George Washington at the moment, actually.
	And one of the reasons that he became the first president of America is because the experiment in self-government for the states was producing a lot of radical Democrats who took on the sort of leveling characteristics that were seen during the English Civil War.
	The powers that be, I mean, Washington being an aristocrat himself was like, well, hang, we can't have that.
	I think there is a theory that said that one of the problems that the framers of the constitutions had with the Articles of Confederacy was that it left too much democracy, radical democracy to the states.
	So I disagree with you on saying that this isn't a sort of liberal institution because it's constitutionalism.
	Well, no, it's a natural congenital part of liberalism that lurks in the background like a shadow.
	Why can't we have democracy everywhere if it's so good there?
	Yes.
	And that's a question that liberals have a bad answer for.
	No, they don't have a bad answer because they don't want democracy everywhere.
	They want constitutional government because they say that first come rights and then come governments to secure these rights.
	And legitimate governments have to secure these rights.
	And these rights are not subject to democratic.
	But the rights precede the institution, right?
	That's the argument.
	Well, the rights of children precede the institution of the family then.
	Yeah.
	No, they don't.
	How could they?
	The child doesn't precede the family.
	In what sense?
	Well, the argument that the Liberal will make for the emancipation of children from their own parents will be founded in the concept that the rights precede the children, precede the family, right?
	As in the children...
	The family has a biological association.
	They will argue that the children have intrinsic rights that essentially precede their own birth.
	But that doesn't make any sense.
	How can you have a right when you don't even exist?
	And this is the problem.
	When you begin to exist, you're a person and there are some things.
	Yeah, no, no, I agree.
	You don't have to persuade me, but this is what these people will argue, is they will take the principles that liberalism used to destroy the hereditary government's.
	Yeah, well, they'll do framing and misrepresentation.
	No, no, I'm not going to let you just shy away from this.
	Those same arguments can be used for any other hereditary institution.
	Exactly.
	Well, from my reading of the issue when it comes to the family, it's like saying that, well, let's look at Locke's first.
	Just to be clear, I don't even disagree with you, right?
	I think that the English settlement in politics is a good one, and that's where liberalism is extracted from, right?
	Obviously, that's a good idea.
	Yeah, me too.
	But the problem is, if you structure the argument against heredity rather than against what is bad for people, as in people being oppressed, then what you have is an argument that can be applied to any other hereditary institution, like a family.
	And actually, that's not good.
	And so it is liberalism that caused that problem, even if the thing that it was originally conceived to be promoting is a good thing in and of itself.
	And that's a good thing that it need liberalism to be good.
	That's true.
	But the point being, what I'm saying is, I think what your position is, it's not persuasive to liberals to stop.
	That's the thing.
	No, to leftists, no.
	Yeah, but they're like an extreme version of liberalism.
	But liberals are the original leftists.
	Of course they are.
	No, you have more overlaps with them than I do.
	No, literally, this is where the concept of left and right come from.
	It's from the radical liberals.
	So going at the comments now for a second.
	It's from the radical Republicans.
	But then the French Revolution.
	No, the Liberals were in the center of the classical.
	I don't agree.
	Anyway, there's another discussion for another time.
	We're running out of time.
	Let's go.
	If you want to read more assisted suicide bill, you really should be following Dan Hitchens, who has been absolutely excellent at explaining the problems with it.
	Here he has an A to Z guide, pretty much explaining that from anorexia to feeling like a burden to not having enough care to any kind of question relating to the bill, there are no safeguards.
	And they can kill anybody at will.
	And you can be encouraged by people around you to go and seek an assisted suicide.
	That's mad.
	And that is deeply immoral, even outside of a Christian framework.
	And the way that these guys have been playing the game is accusing everybody who opposes assisted suicide of being a religious fanatic.
	And I just want to say, and I just want to say that I take that as a compliment to religious fanatics for having opposed something this obviously grotesque.
	I just love that.
	There is no way to go through this assisted suicide thing without it ending up being on a slippery slope.
	And part of the slippery slope ends up having what you have in Canada, which is something like 95% of all assisted suicides being given to white people.
	And the number is going from a few hundred to fifteen thousand in just a decade and climbing to the extent that it's now 5% of all deaths in Canada.
	It's the fourth leading cause of death in Canada, right?
	The government murdering you.
	Exactly.
	So this is evil.
	And if you have anybody you know in the House of Lords, you should be writing to them and telling them to oppose this atrocity of a bill.
	It's just completely wrong and completely unnecessary.
	And there you have it.
	All right, let's go to the video comments.
	Seeming we've got the shared drive back.
	We haven't got the shared drive back, right?
	All right.
	I'll go to the normal comments.
	I think Sigil Stone has a...
	Yeah, Sigil Stone says, I have a fantasy story idea.
	An ancient evil sealed away for millennia returns and wants to destroy society, but society is so screwed up, everyone joins him and he's a hero.
	Is it too unbelievable?
	No, that's pretty much what's happening.
	The Antichrist is supposed to be doing initially.
	The Antichrist is supposed to be very popular initially.
	So, you know.
	Yeah, it's like.
	And Joseph says we can also solve world hunger at this time.
	Yeah.
	Omar says, the West is not compatible with Isat ethics.
	Just as with these rape gangs, what would outrage us in seeking justice against an individual is instead an opportunity to get your friends, family, and neighbors in on the action.
	If I were committing fraud or rape, I couldn't think of a single contact I know to join me, let alone the entire community.
	That's the point.
	I've made that point over and over.
	I don't know who I would bring into my scheme.
	Like, I just don't think anyone I could message or phone up would be in on it.
	But this is the point.
	This is all is at ethics.
	I like the use there.
	Oh, sorry, we've got a $20 super chat from Hiroshi Ban saying assisted suicide is not suicide, it's government genocide.
	And we know which ethnicity they aim at.
	Well, it's the same with the abortions.
	Yes.
	The bonus is it saves the whole NHS and GDP line go up.
	Yeah, I know.
	It's literally selecting for productivity and minimizing state expenses.
	This is literally, oh, well, the working people can live, the non-working people can die.
	Okay, thanks.
	Thanks a lot.
	Drunk Changeling makes a funny one.
	You guys complain about the winter fuel cuts and now hate on labor for solving the issue.
	Ungrateful.
	Yeah, good point.
	Yeah, you got us there.
	Jimbo says, it's infuriating just how much Ilhan Omar can campaign for Somalian land to be free of Ethiopians from America, which can't be free of Somalians.
	The average Westerner can't comprehend how tribal these people are.
	Most of them make Steve Laws blush.
	Yeah, genuinely, it's like, again, you don't understand that they consider themselves not as individuals, right?
	Yes.
	They do not think of themselves as being separate from their own tribes.
	They think of themselves as being ensconced and embedded and connected directly with all of those people around them, which is why the kickbacks are such a natural thing.
	It's like, well, yeah, obviously.
	This is why I sent, like, if I moved to another country, I wouldn't be sending money home because I'd be like, why would I?
	I'm not like some rabid tribalist.
	But these people have moral obligations that they can't live without.
	This is why they're constantly on the phone.
	Like, it maintains themselves in this web of society that they come from that you don't understand because you weren't born and raised in it.
	Angel Brain says, it's very important to remember that Somalis genuinely don't see this as fraud.
	In their thinking, if money is left on the table, you're a fool not to take it.
	Exactly.
	Exactly.
	Arizona Desert Rat says, maybe the Somali community is where all the African princes and princesses are hiding out while they're trying to get hold of their inheritances.
	Maybe.
	It's pretty mad.
	Anyway, let's go on to the Candace Own stuff.
	Michael says, wait, so Bridget Macron isn't a man or a trans woman.
	Next, you'll be telling me that Michelle Obama wasn't a man called Big Mike.
	Listen, I'm on the train with that conspiracy theory.
	I just don't think Bridget Macron was a man because we've got pictures of her from when she was young and she's a woman.
	She's just a nonce.
	Am I wrong?
	Well, you know.
	Michelle Ho.
	Yeah, Russian says, the Bridget Macron is a man hypothesis.
	It's obviously false.
	We have historical photos, but the Michelle Obama hypothesis is one picture of her pregnancy.
	Everyone wants the Michelle Obama controversy.
	I see another one here by Cambrian Kulax.
	Hold on.
	Stellios, you appeal to ignorance and are being hyper-rational.
	Thank you.
	Things can be real before they're proven.
	They do not require scientific proof to exist.
	This is an epistemic closure.
	As Aristotle said, the measure of an educated mind is being able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
	Right, so I want to say I don't appeal to ignorance.
	And things can indeed be real before they're proven.
	But the point is that there are conflicting hypotheses that can be individually true, but are mutually exclusive.
	The point is, you need good reasons to believe it.
	My point's about justification.
	Also, he's specifically arguing about physical events as well.
	Yeah.
	We're discussing physical truths or something.
	These are actual, plausible, manifestable material complaints.
	But also, there's the other bit of epistemic um unreal anti-realism, let's say, or no, it's a non-realistic one.
	It's focusing on possibility but not probability, and communists and utopians are doing this all the time because in some respect, communism is possible.
	Problem is that it's so unprobable that it doesn't give you good reasons to try to destroy your society, to try to achieve it, apart from the moral uh, criticism of it.
	So just that doesn't mean it still means that we need good reasons to believe into each individual hypothesis that is being put forward.
	Fuzzy Toaster says the House OF Commons wants more power.
	It's a day ending in why yeah, and that's the thing, notice how it's constantly being, oh well, this is undemocratic, it's like okay, but is it bad?
	Like undemocratic becomes a synonym for not a good thing, and this again, sorry to hammer the drum, but this is why it ends up destroying things that are undemocratic but good.
	Because I wanted to thank Cambrian Kulak for his comment, by the way.
	Um uh yeah, go on.
	Uh oh lord, why do you take me to deep, troubled waters?
	Because your enemies cannot swim.
	Uh, thank you for covering this.
	It is coming from politicians and ignoring the recommendations from public healthcare staff.
	It's a clear sign of sinister intent, in my view, too much to say in a comment.
	But keep fighting.
	As a healthcare worker, I will not comply.
	Thank you, good man.
	And Arizona Desert says, what a Marxist thought.
	The House OF LAWS should die simply because they happen to be lords instead of being elected.
	That's not a Marxist thought, that's a liberal thought, that's a liberal perspective on how power is uh accumulated, that it comes purely from democracy and there's no other way of doing it uh.
	So this is the thing i'm not happy to kick liberal, genuine liberal beliefs into the, into the, into the left, into the.
	Marxists say, well, these are just leftists.
	No, these are normal liberal thoughts just taken to their extremes.
	Grant says Canadian here in the comments, fight assisted dying with everything that you have.
	They will try to get in with safe, legal and rare yeah, like they did with the abortions uh, and eventually it will become a way to stop spending money on veterans and people with disabilities, which is they've already admitted.
	Yeah sorry, these pensions, they're costing us a bloody lot.
	Um, Tim says just want to thank you guys for the range of excellent content.
	In the space of one weekend I learned a lot about Hemingway's Old Man of the Sea Telerandom, revolutionary France and continued to Stellos his course on ancient Greek philosophy.
	Thanks to you, got my christmas card.
	I haven't looked, but thank you very much for sending it.
	Thank you, um and uh.
	Michael says I support assisted dying for certain crimes.
	Not the same thing uh, you know, not the same thing at all.
	Uh, Baron Von Warhawk says a demonic, two-pronged pincher movement from the left.
	First they use mass abortion to kill as many babies as possible to take away hope for the future.
	Then kill off all the old to take away the wisdom of the past from the people of England.
	This is truly a brilliant move from the servants of Satan, which it's difficult to see it in any other way.
	I mean, it's difficult not to see it in religious terms.
	Even even if You don't, like, still, there's something profoundly evil happening.
	Yes.
	And I mean, honestly, you know, my thoughts on it, you know, I view this as an outgrowth of liberalism.
	This is the world that liberalism wants.
	Because it only recognizes the person in the full bloom of their own life.
	Yeah.
	They're strongest, they're fittest, they're most cognizant.
	They don't understand anything outside of that.
	And whilst people are in that sort of 30-year period of their lives, yeah, liberalism's great for you.
	But outside of that, it's a different story.
	Anyway, that is all we've got time for today.
	So thank you so much for joining us, folks.
	Go sign up to the website.
	£5 a month.
	Help us keep the lights on.
	Make sure that we have a job tomorrow.

▲