The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1313

All Episodes

Previous Next

Dec. 9, 2025 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:27:46

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1313

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to Podcast of the Lotus Eaters episode 1313.
	Unlucky for some as the bingo players say although we are perhaps so late that it should be 1313.1 or something shouldn't it?
	I'm joined by Stellios and special guest Josh.
	Hello.
	I'm not that special though.
	And I might as well do the date because Callum never did it and I argued with him at the time so I kind of feel compelled to.
	It is the 9th of December, the year of our Lord 2025.
	So there is that.
	And we're going to be talking about how the EU can't keep its finger off the self-destruct button, how right-wingers are a danger to children and a bit of nightmarish MAGA midterm stuff coming up.
	So there is that.
	And before we go any further, I have to thank Blood for the Blood God, who has donated another £200 to our eating and drinking expenses, which is well timed because we've got our Christmas due coming up.
	So that is very much appreciated.
	He's obviously trying to corrupt us to the ruinous powers.
	But if he bribes like that, I think we should consider it.
	Here, here.
	Yes, very good.
	Have you guys heard about this EU thing where they're trying to fine X out of existence?
	Yeah, I have heard about that, and it seems just a little bit politically motivated.
	Almost like I got that sense from it as well, yes.
	Almost like there's some sort of disagreement about the existential questions facing our civilization, and they sort of don't want to go to the route of debating it civilly.
	They want to find them out of existence.
	Well, it is the sort of thing the EU does.
	However, the main gist of what I wanted to achieve in this segment was kind of reframing it slightly, because yes, it is evil EUSSR, as it ever is, and yes, they're very bad people.
	And I know that's going to appeal to our American audience because the Americans can be sort of wonderfully jingoistic whenever it's sort of them versus basically anyone else, you know, just instantly bomb them.
	And I'm not saying that you shouldn't, by the way.
	I'm just saying that it's not as simple as EU versus US.
	There is a sort of global censorship cabal, which is very worth remembering here.
	And actually, hats off to good old Mike Benzier, who has been right on this issue for a long time.
	And you know he's right because he predicted what would happen when it would happen well in advance.
	And he sort of draws all these threads together.
	And in the sciences, that is called predictive utility, and it's a good sign that your theory is correct.
	He is being both predictive and utilitarian in this respect.
	So well done, Mike.
	Let me just play you this little bit.
	If you've watched his stuff and you should have watched his stuff, he's got roughly the same pattern a number of podcasts.
	And I've just picked the Winston Marshall one here, but you can go to a number of his podcasts to get this.
	But listen to how he sort of explains that this is broader than a single region's effort.
	They don't respond to our requests.
	There's nobody there that we can reach.
	Sorry, while we were doing the sound issues earlier, we might have skipped the first few minutes of this.
	He is describing a panel of US former censors and a meeting that they're having between themselves.
	Reach out to because they're all gone.
	These trust and safety teams have all been fired.
	But fortunately, Europe is about to have the EU DSA come into force, and this will give us options for leverage as companies feel the heat of enforcement from the disinformation risk assessments, from, quote, transparency requirements to share with outside researchers.
	And I'll break that down.
	And she ends by saying, and hopefully this will compel the restaurant of these people who were fired from the trust and safety team.
	These are American censors in exile working together with Europe and banking on a European censorship law to get their American censorship jobs back because they will have to be in order to comply with the European regulation or face potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in fines.
	So, I mean, what he's describing is the whole issue of censors in exile.
	A great example of this is I'm sure our audience will remember Nina Jankovich.
	Unfortunately, I can.
	Yes, we did segments on her at the time, didn't we?
	We did.
	She did some horrific singing and sort of weird theatrical things that make my skin crawl.
	Wasn't she like a weird Harry Potter fan or something and used to sing along to that whilst also planning to censor everybody in the US?
	It gave it a very scary sort of tone, didn't it?
	It made it more sinister.
	Nurse Pratchett vibes that we were getting from this.
	But anyway, as you may remember, she sort of popped up and was attempting to basically do what the EU is doing now in the US.
	And there was a bit of a backlash.
	And they thought, oh dear, we can't really be seen to be censorious in America because, you know, apparently it's an issue for them, free speech, and they've got some documents or something that back it up.
	They've got the right paperwork to suggest that they can have free speech.
	So do you know what happened to her?
	She was quietly shuffled off to an NGO in London and she is now a registered foreign agent in America.
	So she's an American censor who basically lost her job and started working for a London-based NGO and she's a registered foreign agent back in the US now.
	It's almost like it's an international racket of some kind, isn't it?
	That's what I'm going with, yes.
	So you have to remember, as absolutely appealing as it is to sort of attack the EU, we've got to remember that actually there is an entire cabal of these people and they operate at a transnational level.
	They don't really respect national borders.
	And a lot of what's going on is actually, you know, US remnant deep state apparatus, bureaucrats, who have lost a lot of their funding.
	You know, what was it that got defunded?
	It was the thing that Elon and Trump defunded on day one.
	USAID.
	USAID, yes.
	It's a lot of that.
	A lot of their funding has gone.
	So they've been dispersed to the colonies to regroup and attempt to reinstall this stuff.
	It is painful to have to defend the EU somewhat here, although, of course, I'm not really defending the EU.
	I'm just highlighting that this is a bigger issue than essentially what I'm going to get to at the end of this is that Mike Benz keeps pointing out that you don't treat this as a series of isolated issues.
	Treat it as a stratagem that you need to apply broadly.
	And this is both to US censors, London censors, American censors in exile, all that kind of stuff.
	You should be able to spot the patterns, people in the audience.
	Exactly, exactly.
	There's also the other way around.
	You know, Thierry Breton is one of the people behind the DSA.
	And I think now he's working for an American agency.
	Let me check it.
	Yeah, that sounds right.
	There's lots of cross-pollination between both sides of the Atlantic.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Censors want us censoring us.
	Yeah, and actually one of the other things, I didn't put it in the segment, but he talked a bit about Brazil as well, about how they're applying worldwide censorship standards as well.
	It's an attempt from these sort of US deep state or former deep state affiliated branches to try and reinstitute censorship back into the US.
	I have it.
	Good.
	Right.
	So Thierry Breton served as the European Commissioner for Internal Market and Digital Affairs in the EU Commission, European Commission from 2019 until his resignation in September 2024.
	I believe that was when he was accused for election interference in the US.
	He and Elon Musk have a major back and forth.
	Following his tenure, he joined Bank of America's Global Advisory Council.
	Right.
	Well, I mean, election interference is the entire point of this whole exercise.
	It was, I mean, this whole apparatus was built, I mean, not just for Trump, but it was significantly ramped up to stop Trump getting elected.
	And then obviously he defunded it when he came in.
	And of course, these people are just scrabbling around all over the place.
	But there's a whole network, so it supports it.
	It's basically an extension of the Democratic Party at this point as well.
	Yes, essentially.
	But let's talk about what the EU have actually done.
	So these are the specific reasons for the fine.
	And I thought it might be worth to go through it.
	So, you know, it's apparently the DSA, so the Digital Service Act or whatever it is, it's their first very large online, so they target very large online platforms, basically because they're the ones with the cash to fund this type of activity.
	And Benz has basically been warning since 2018 that all of this is coming, that you're going to see this apparatus built out all over the place.
	We've already seen it built out in the UK with the online harms bill.
	But the UK market is small enough that it doesn't carry quite a big enough stick.
	If the EU were to go dark for social media, it would represent a huge chunk of advertising income and sort of make it much more challenging to operate.
	Here we go.
	This is Ben saying this is the day I've warned the Trump admin for every day for seven years would come since the 2018 US disinformation code when it was floated in concept.
	So yeah, absolutely.
	And of course, multiple people have issued sort of similar warnings on this.
	Would I be able to say something else quickly on the scale of the fines in the previous slide?
	If you could go back to that one.
	It's interesting the fine amounts here because some of these things, you know, I could see them having these, you know, these sort of objections to these sorts of things.
	However, the fine amounts are curiously balanced at a point where it's not enough to destroy X because it's a multi-billion dollar company, but it's enough to disincentivize them because it's still not very profitable.
	And if they receive these fines, that's going to affect things like that.
	The parasite is smart enough at this stage not to kill the host.
	Yeah, arguably they don't want to destroy X.
	They just want to do a bit more censoring.
	Well, they want to incentivize compliance because if it looks like they're destroying it, then they are what people say they are, right?
	Whereas if they're just fining them and it's still there, they can say, well, it's still here.
	You can still use it.
	So, I mean, I will want to get into specifics, but again, I'm just going to let Ben's talk on this.
	The first minute of this is a wonderful little summary.
	The EU has a piece of absolutely monstrous regulation.
	It's called the Digital Services Act.
	You should not dignify it with that name.
	It's the Digital Censorship Act.
	It effectively dictates the content moderation policies that American social media companies can have.
	Climate change, abortion, gender issues, national identity issues, vaccine efficacy.
	Any policy the EU wants to manufacture the consent of the European population, they can effectively force the tech companies under effectively bankrupting fines.
	Allow them to essentially have godlike control.
	Americans writing online from within America.
	Because of this service, you think that that will be throttled all over the world.
	Won't it just be throttled within the EU?
	What is what they're saying right now?
	But the NATO 2030 strategic concept, they call for a 24-7 disinformation monitoring system powered by artificial intelligence.
	You see 12,000 arrests in Britain, but it is like orders of magnitude more than get arrested in Russia.
	It seems that this is an administration that at least proclaims to be very pro-free speech.
	I wanted your appraisal a few months into this second term of Trump.
	Right.
	So there you go.
	Sound effects there.
	Yes, he's very much on the money, though, what he's saying.
	Yes, so let's talk about this first one, the deceptive blue checkmark system.
	So I guess what the EU is trying, well, they say what they're trying to say, that they want to avoid scams, impersonations, manipulations by malicious actors is their stated reason.
	I mean, quite straightforwardly, of course, it's just rule by experts.
	They want only the people that are in their club to be the people who have reach.
	There's a sort of deceptive nature to this because when they first rolled out the check mark thing in sort of around the 2022 period, there were people pretending to be other people and lots of people were falling for it.
	People pretending to be Elon Musk or brands, things like that.
	And it did actually do some tangible damage, reputational damage to people that did nothing to deserve it.
	However, this doesn't really happen anymore.
	When you see X these days, there's no real impersonation anymore.
	Or if it is going on, it's much smaller accounts that maybe are not verified that are being impersonated or things like that.
	And also people just fabricate things anyway.
	They don't necessarily need to impersonate someone anymore because you can just edit it quite easily.
	I mean, all those impersonations worked because they said things that you know that the person they're impersonating really thinks.
	So if anything, you're just a bit surprised that they're just coming out and saying it.
	But, you know, that's why they worked.
	And I mean, all of these, they're doing it because they know it's very difficult for any social media platform to ring fence EU users.
	So it kind of incumbent upon them just to just make these changes globally if they're going to end up complying with this.
	And again, let's find it.
	There we go.
	That one.
	Yeah.
	Again, he's been predicting this for some time that these large fines were on their way.
	The second one on the list was inadequate advertising repositories.
	35 million on that.
	Again, the issue here is the EU is not really worried about advertisers having a repository of data.
	I mean, obviously they don't give a toss about that.
	In fact, let's go and see what their made-up excuse is for that one.
	X fails to maintain a searchable, accessible library, obscuring details on political ads, scams, and targeting content.
	This hinders users and researchers from detecting fraud or undue influence.
	And of course, there's a reason here because when you hand over advertisers' information, you get that same scenario where you had the YouTube adpocalypse, where it's just like, do you know that adverts are appearing on this dangerous content when actually it was just the adverts would always appear and they're not specifically choosing that content?
	Yes.
	And they've tried to misrepresent it.
	And so there's an incentive from a social media platform's perspective not to share this information because it opens them up for attack and one of their main revenue sources.
	I mean, I think the reason that Mike Benz would certainly say that they don't want this sort of searchable database is because basically what they're building is when they have it, is an election interference toolkit.
	So they can see who their political opponents, who the AFD or National Front or Reform or whoever it is, if they can see them putting out ads, they know where to interfere.
	They know where to censor.
	They know where to suppress things.
	They know where to limit things.
	I mean, this whole thing is just an election interference operation that got disrupted by Musk closing that off.
	And again, I think I've got a relevant point here.
	Yeah, well, this is actually somebody else, Wall Street 8.
	Mike Benz calls it, the European Union will be finding Elon Musk next to force censorship.
	It's exactly what's happening now.
	Oh, here we go.
	Yeah.
	My words are that USA Truman show these censors in exile, these regime changes in exile right now are going to cling on to every international ally.
	I mean, of course, precisely what they've done.
	Perhaps the most significant one, I really should have put this link in more than once in there, is the third one.
	This is probably the bit that they want more than anything else on this list.
	So restricted data access for researchers.
	So the EU say X obstructed independent researchers access to public platform data, limiting scrutiny of issues like political content, hate speech and algorithmic bias.
	I mean, what that's really about is that these agencies, USAID and the EU and what's the other one?
	He always mentions department for off with it.
	Anyway, there was a whole bunch of sort of US deep state institutions, as well as the EU, as well as the UK Foreign Office, that fund all of these little research shops.
	So if you ever wondered why there's so many academics, why are they all so well funded?
	It's because they're all getting government money to do some part of deep state apparatus work at arm's length.
	And what was happening is all these shops were spread out all over the place, and they would better plug into the APIs on this.
	They would search for right-wing content that was starting to gain a little bit of traction and preemptively shut it down.
	And they would be very good at making sure that they shut things down selectively.
	So they probably wouldn't shut down a US congressman, for example.
	But they would shut down the people who tended to be his loudest cheerleaders, the people who retweeted him.
	And that way, a Republican US congressman could go out and say, well, I don't see any censors.
	They want to censor people who have the EU's rhetoric with respect to the Poland-Belarus border.
	Exactly. I mean, it's international.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	No, I'm just saying that, especially with that border, the EU is adopting the strategy it says that the far right adopts with respect to every other border.
	Yeah, well, you did it right on a segment on that recently.
	Didn't you?
	Yeah, made that point.
	Yeah, last week when we were talking about the AFD and about the cognitive dissonance of the EU with respect to the party.
	Yep.
	I mean, he even makes a reference to the British police in that.
	Because the British police are not actually sitting there reading your tweets all day.
	They're relying on organisations like this to plug in with an API, scan stuff.
	I mean, that's how, for example, they were able to find Lucy College's thing, even though she was deleted within half an hour.
	They've got these systems running that plug in through an API.
	They can find it quickly and they can flag it up, wave it to the police, and then the police just get these sort of free detections, as they call it, free arrests.
	And they have the keywords.
	Yes.
	They can find with the keywords.
	Also, some of those posts may do really well in the beginning and they get a massive boost.
	So they can find it relatively easily.
	But you constantly see people who write posts like these get much longer sentences than actual criminals.
	Oh, yeah.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Because that affects the system.
	Yeah, you could arguably say that there was the labor counselor, Ricky Jones, who actually committed incitement to violence and got away with nothing.
	And you could say other, let's say, inflammatory statements that don't constitute incitement to violence were persecuted.
	Yeah, exactly right.
	And one of the first things, I mean, as well as turning off the searchable ad base, for that thing, the API access, what Elon did is he brought in a charge, and it was like a couple of hundred grand a month to have API access into Twitter.
	Now, Google can pay it.
	Facebook can pay it.
	You know, it's a negligible cost for them.
	So it doesn't really affect anything at a sort of high level.
	But when you're a deep state and you're funding all of these academic little groups and all of these little NGOs and you're spreading it out to make it a little bit, you know, well, so that it's less obvious what you're doing, each individual one of them cannot afford to pay millions a year to get API access.
	So they're having to go back to what you were saying, which is actually tapping in keywords and doing searches.
	I think what you say now is correct.
	But if we go back to the big businesses and the costs, I think that there still is an issue there because you can be a high official of your department.
	And if you show that your department has incurred that cost, it may cost you a career or it may lead to you being demoted or not getting a razor.
	It can have actual consequences, even in massive businesses that can afford it economically.
	But as far as the people are concerned, they have an extra motive to be cautious.
	Even if the business can withstand a particular fine, the official who will be blamed for it won't get away with the consequences.
	Yeah, no, I think what I'm driving at here is that when you're doing this sort of deep state dirty work, you spread it out to a huge number of smaller organizations.
	Like batter upon bread.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	But when you add a cost of over a million dollars a year in order to do your censorship work, it breaks that model of spreading out these small censorship shops.
	Because we are limited on time, that was what I referenced at the beginning.
	These basically American censors in exile here are basically discussing between themselves how they are going to use EU censorship in order to try and get the human rights.
	How we're going to make everyone shut up.
	Yeah.
	So, I mean, I'm not saying don't blame the EU.
	I'm absolutely saying blame the EU.
	I'm just also saying that, you know.
	It isn't just the EU.
	No, what I'm saying is that there needs to be a strategic plan in place that tackles this thing as if it is not just an EU thing.
	Recognize that this is happening at a sort of global cabal level and take plans accordingly, including inside the US.
	Absolutely.
	But one thing to bear in mind, and I'm not saying that to you, one thing to bear in mind is that this is an issue of free speech.
	And the best way to guard free speech is to have a culture that values liberty.
	Yes.
	And free speech is the best way to hold power into account.
	Well, precisely why they don't want it.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	I'm going to end on this.
	This is truly extraordinary.
	I mean, well, I suppose it's not, but you might find it extraordinary.
	This is EU revenues.
	The right-hand side is what it gets by taxing EU-based tech firms.
	The left-hand side is what the EU gets by fining US-based tech firms.
	The EU makes more money by fining US tech than it does from the tax base of its own tech companies.
	This is how sclerotic, broken and dead the EU is inside.
	I mean, I'll give you some examples.
	I've got a little list of largest companies in the US.
	Yeah, there are endless problems with the EU.
	You have unelected bureaucrats talking about our democracy, then diplomatically they are negligible.
	I was watching a video, I think.
	I don't remember who it was, but they were saying that this was a particularly humiliating year for the EU, because on a diplomatic level, they were completely sidelined.
	You can't have unelected bureaucrats who are representing a massive union of 750 million people without having an army, for instance.
	No one takes you seriously.
	Why should Trump listen to them when he completely sidelined them and went to discuss with Putin about a ceasefire in Ukraine?
	That's diplomatically, this is a humiliation for the EU.
	Makes you wonder where all this money's going because you'd think you could build a pretty good standing army with all that money, right?
	Yes.
	And yet here we are.
	Well, you say pretty good army.
	I mean, it would have lots of Frenchmen in it.
	Well, you know.
	That's another debate.
	You get people carrying the boxes at the back, don't you?
	Yes.
	That's another debate, but I was just merely trying to stress out that when you're just an unelected bureaucrat, when you're representing a basically economic union, without having an organized army behind you, people who do have organized armies behind them can afford to sideline you.
	Well, they've only got soft power, haven't they?
	They haven't got hard power.
	We're moving back into the era of real politics.
	I don't think we have a left.
	Well, the EU imagined that we did for the last 50 years.
	Of course, we didn't, but they like to believe it.
	I'll just leave you with this now.
	I'm just going to read out some of the US biggest companies and then some of the EU's biggest companies and tell me what you notice.
	So Apple, that's a 48-year-old company.
	Microsoft, 49.
	Google, 26 years old.
	Amazon, 30 years old.
	Nvidia, 31 years old.
	Meta, 20 years old.
	I mean, the thing that I notice from that list is most of these companies are younger than I am.
	And the ones that are older, not by very much.
	What do you pick up about the EU's biggest companies?
	Nestle, 158 years old.
	Roche, 128 years old.
	Hermes, 187 years old.
	Total Energies, a bit of a spring chicken, only 100 years old.
	Siemens, 177 years old, and Alliance, 134 years old.
	I mean, the EU is just this dead, sclotic mess.
	have endless deregulation which is serving not what the leftist says that it's serving the sort of this regulation of deregulation No, endless regulation in the EU.
	And that creates all these massive first-mover advantages, and you have entry barriers.
	It's much more difficult to build a new company in an environment that is stifling you with regulation than in an environment that does it less to a lesser degree.
	The cost of making, you know, forming a company in the US is much lower than that of Europe, isn't it?
	In most European countries, at least.
	There are some exceptions, but very much so.
	The US has it right on the policy standpoint.
	And that's why they've got much younger companies, is that there's more competition going on there.
	A lot more dynamic.
	And apart from costs, I want to say this because I think it really speaks to my heart.
	It's also bureaucracy and the time you need to waste with starting it.
	You may need months where you could just need two or three weeks.
	Exactly.
	And Carl makes quite a good point about the British state.
	And it's basically the last vestige of the British Empire.
	It retreated and it retreated and it retreated.
	And now it's basically just Westminster.
	And they're sort of still tyrannising us with these sort of old ideas.
	The concern with the EU is it is going to be the last vestige of all these failed post-war ideas.
	And they seem to be taking in a lot of sort of US deep state actors in exile.
	And it's just going to become this sort of rump state for the post-war liberal ideology.
	So I wish Elon Musk and X the very best of luck with that one.
	Okay.
	Thank you.
	So this is a sort of age-old strategy that has come to the surface once more.
	Right-wingers are being branded dangers to children.
	And there's a very specific case of this.
	A guy called Jamie Michael, who's an Iraq war veteran who has been barred from coaching his daughter's football team.
	Apparently the Football Association of Wales has barred him from coaching his daughter's team after meetings held in private with the local authority safeguarding officer and South Wales police after he was charged with inciting racial hatred after describing some migrants as scumbags and psychopaths.
	Not sure whether that's necessarily racial hatred.
	Those are not racially charged terms.
	in a 12-minute video posted on Facebook following the Southport murders.
	So I can understand, and to be honest, if that's all he had to say, that's pretty...
	So somebody was upset about the murder of children, and they took that to mean that he was a danger to children because he was upset about the murder of children.
	I know, it's a strange argument, isn't it?
	Yes.
	But I think it's because the right's been very good at saying, listen, the left are not good around children for many reasons.
	And of course, when your entire worldview is hating your own country, you're not going to have a vested interest in preserving the next generation, are you?
	And I think it all stems from that.
	But of course, they want to, you know, confuse them about their sex and gender and indoctrinate them and all sorts of things.
	They don't want them to grow up normally with a healthy childhood where they don't have to deal with politics or any of this nonsense.
	No, they want them all trans or aborted.
	Exactly.
	So what I found interesting is that this sort of processes of the punishment case didn't take very long.
	Apparently a jury took 17 minutes to find him not guilty, which is, of course, a very short amount of time.
	I mean, to be fair, he was probably waiting for that trial for 18 months to two years.
	Exactly, and that is why the processes of the punishment is that by the time you're found not guilty, you've already incurred so much stress and financial cost.
	I think the Free Speech Union ended up covering some of the financial costs of it.
	Well, I mean, I've been on a couple of juries, and 17 minutes is quite remarkable.
	For it to take in 17 minutes, everybody in the room must have just burst out, this is nonsense the moment they walked in.
	And then it was just a question of electing, in fact, just electing the guy who stands up.
	The judge?
	No, The guy on the jury who delivers the verdict.
	Oh, the foreman.
	I mean, just electing the foreman would have taken up 15 minutes of that.
	So, yeah, they'd already made up their minds.
	And that's very rapid.
	And, of course, it was announced recently that jury trials are being scrapped for crimes with sentences of less than three years, which this would have been.
	So had there not been a jury, it could have been the case that the judge said, well, this is inciting racial hatred without the jury.
	And he had been sentenced like that.
	Undoubtedly, in my view.
	And of course, this is one of the dangers of getting rid of trial by jury.
	But even if it didn't have this outcome, that process of basically destroying someone's life for being annoyed at children being murdered and then going out of your way after the fact as well, obviously not through the government, but partially so, I suppose, with the police being involved, then interfering in his life and saying, listen, you can't coach your own daughter's football team because you're not safe around children because you don't want them to be murdered.
	And with a charge like that, they probably would have raided his house and taken all of his computers and phones and everything and then gone on a massive phishing expedition to see if there's anything else they could pin on him.
	And because there wasn't, I guess that's why he managed to get away with it so easily.
	Or get away.
	You know, he didn't do anything wrong in the first place, but you know what I mean.
	But he is apparently suing the authorities for 25,000 for breaching his human rights and said, it makes no sense.
	It just seems to me they want to punish me because of my opinions and because my views don't align with theirs, which is pretty much spot on, isn't it?
	And this sort of gives me a bit of deja vu.
	You can perhaps cast your minds back to 2012 when UKIP were headed up by Nigel Farage again.
	And, you know, there was the talk of things like, we need to leave the European Union.
	It was gaining traction.
	Of course, Cameron hadn't promised a referendum at this point yet.
	But then they started going after people with specific political views then as well.
	This was quite an important case at the time.
	It had lots of coverage.
	But basically, Rother and Borough Council said that the foster children in the care of a couple who supported UKIP, they said that the children were not indigenous white British, which is interesting how back in 2012 they could identify what that meant.
	And that it had concerns about UKIP's stance on immigration.
	It said it had to consider the need for the children longer term.
	I don't know what that exactly means.
	And apparently, Rother and Borough Council Strategic Director of Children and Young People Services, interesting that that's even a thing in a local council, told the BBC that her decision was influenced by UKIP's immigration policy, which she said calls for the end of active promotion of multiculturalism.
	So if you're against multiculturalism, you can't have children in your care.
	Can I do a brief interload?
	Because I'm reminded of an interview I saw with an old-fashioned communist years ago.
	And this is a woman, and at some point it came up that she'd never had children.
	And the other person asked, well, why was that?
	Why have you never had children?
	And she said, because when you are involved in radical politics, the other side will always come for your kids.
	So all the old radical communists understood that they had to basically pick.
	They could either have families or they could have their communism, but they couldn't have both because their children would become a target.
	And it just seems that the state has moved to the point now where it is absolutely doing the same thing, except in the opposite direction, because we are run by communists.
	And I think because the political stakes at the minute are much higher than they perhaps were in the past, this sort of thing is going to carry on.
	And of course, it already goes on to some extent in the United States already.
	You can remember perhaps the case of the parents on the school boards objecting to things like gender ideology and all of that sort of thing being in schools and taught in schools, which is fair enough in my view.
	I think that's the whole point that you have parents involved, is that they have input on the education.
	But they try to declare them like extremists and try to get rid of them and even drag their reputations through the mud publicly to try and dissentivize people doing this in the first place.
	And this is exactly what's going on here.
	They're going to use these prominent examples of, listen, we're going to stop you, you know, having quality time with either the children that are in your care or even your own daughter in a football coach setting.
	Although it's not exactly, you know, taking them away permanently, it is a step in that direction.
	And I wouldn't be surprised if that is the direction that they're going to aim for: is if you're a right-winger with children, those children are not safe.
	Because we hear this in rhetoric from the left all the time that these children are not safe.
	They're being indoctrinated by their right-wing parents, which, of course, is projection because the left-wingers are the ones that normally want to indoctrinate children.
	Most right-wingers I know just want children to be normal.
	They tend to prioritize critical education, learning how to think, as opposed to learning what to think.
	And it's also worth mentioning as well that when I was growing up, I didn't have a single political conversation with my parents until I was an actual adult.
	They didn't even impart anything on me, and yet here I am talking about this sort of thing.
	Same with my children.
	The only political conversation I've had with them is when they come to me confused about some nonsense their teachers said.
	I said, yeah, they're just like that.
	Just don't worry about it.
	I think the majority right-wing opinion is that the best thing for children is for them to be children and not to mess with their head with adult concepts.
	And I think that everyone's sort of unanimous on this.
	I don't know whether you can even think of any part of the right that disagrees on that necessarily.
	No, and one of the worst features of wokeness that we don't speak about lately is the assault on parental rights.
	Oh, yes.
	Thankfully, at least the worst excesses of woke seem to be going away, although it's not gone entirely.
	It's sort of like an unflushable turf.
	I don't think they will completely come back.
	You reckon?
	Yeah, yeah.
	I hope you're wrong, but the best possible way.
	Me too.
	However, obviously we all know the actual real danger, and the right-wing is pointing out are not the problem.
	The problem is things like this.
	So there's some new data out from Germany.
	And Syrians and Afghans reach new highs in violent crime.
	So a report indicates that while 163 German citizens are suspected of crimes per 100,000, which is quite low, actually, the rates for Syrians and Afghans are 1,740 and 1,722, respectively, which means that for Syrians, it is 10.7 times higher than your average German, and for Afghans, 10.6 times higher than your average German.
	So they're 10 times overrepresented in these sorts of crimes.
	So why have them?
	Obviously, they're not good for Germany.
	Look at it.
	Ten times worse.
	And the narrative is that the rates of crime are entirely economic based.
	So let's tax the Germans more to give more to those who are overrepresented in crime.
	Even if you accept the left's framing on that, which I think that there's both genetic and cultural differences at play here, that it doesn't matter if it's 10 times, the cause is irrelevant.
	There's such a danger that it's much, much better for Germany not to have you have to think of the common good at some point, but the war on meritocracy waged by the left is saying completely forget about the common good.
	It's not about having good people in particular places.
	It's about the representation of particular groups in these places.
	Well, they're certainly promoting the high flies in crime.
	So, you know, they've got selective meritocracy there.
	And back to Britain again.
	Things are so bad that migrants are granted asylum without even face-to-face interviews, apparently.
	This came out only two days ago.
	This is to clear the backlog.
	And, you know, why even have a border at all if you're just going to be like, well, we're clearing the black backlog.
	So just come on in.
	Why don't they do that with taxes?
	Yeah, that'd be nice.
	Late in filing my taxes.
	Why didn't I just get a letter saying, look, in order to clear the backlog, you don't have to pay taxes?
	That would be nice, wouldn't it?
	It's funny that it doesn't work that way, isn't it?
	It's almost like there's an incentive here, isn't there?
	Hmm, I can't possibly put my finger on it.
	So, of course, the consequences are things like this.
	This was a recent thing where an 18-year-old student was stabbed to death while on a night out with his football teammates.
	So, he was from Essex, and the perpetrator was 22-year-old Vikram Digwa, and he was assisted by Kiran Cowa.
	Some good English names there.
	Of course.
	Preventable problem, which wouldn't have happened if we didn't allow them in the country.
	And there's things like this: migrant who assaulted student on train can continue asylum claim.
	So, you can just assault students on trains and still apply for asylum.
	Oh, it's you know, slap on the wrist.
	You know, you assaulted a student, that's okay.
	I guess you can still apply, apparently.
	I don't know what's wrong with people, but that's the world we live in, apparently.
	Right, and this one is particularly egregious.
	This is another recent one.
	Um, so this is a case, I think, in Leamington Spa, of Afghan asylum seekers who are hiding in some bushes and they drag a 15-year-old girl into them before sexually assaulting her.
	Has the footage been leaked on this?
	I haven't seen it yet.
	There's certainly an appetite for it because I think it's-I think you know what I'm referring to there.
	Yes, wasn't it the lawyer representing the boys said that if this footage comes out, there'll be riots, which is, you know, I feel like this is sort of in the public's interest, not to say that I want riots necessarily, but I want consequences.
	I think everybody who's got a teenage supporter needs to be able to see this and understand what they're up against.
	Yeah, because by hiding this, all it's doing is misrepresenting the reality of the situation.
	The reality of the situation is lots of people with names are responsible for letting these people into the country.
	They face no consequences for these actions.
	The people doing it rarely face consequences.
	There is a massive backlog of justice that needs to be, you know, addressed.
	It does.
	And the establishment's response to this shouldn't be just watch other lessons.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, it's so disgusting.
	I'm sick of seeing these stories now.
	And of course, the fact that they're trying to say that, you know, this guy who was disgusted at migrants attacking children is now the problem.
	I mean, I've said this before, it's the daily rape.
	That's what this country is now.
	It's the daily rape.
	So there's also, I think I might be missing a link there.
	But I think the Tories were saying that you shouldn't even grant residency to the people who are a financial drain because there is also the economic argument that just by their mere presence here, they're taking away opportunities from children as well.
	I mean, that is true.
	That's the least of it.
	But it is rich for the Tories to say that.
	It is, yeah.
	Obviously, don't trust them.
	But it's just showing how far things have come.
	But as an extreme example here, this is another story that came out relatively recently, only yesterday.
	Whereas the new leader of Islamic State, his wife and children live in Britain under taxpayer expense.
	They live in social housing in Slough.
	So is that picture real?
	Yes.
	That's not AI generated.
	He really looks like that.
	He dyed his beard red, I think, because Muhammad had a red beard and therefore it's that why gingers always go.
	Yeah, this is what I've been shouting it from the rooftops in a not related to the other Islamic rooftop thing.
	But yeah, that Mohammed was a ginger.
	He had a red beard, yeah, according to the Quran.
	So it's like an extra holy thing to have a red beard, which is part of the reason why they're so nice to gingers.
	No wonder he didn't have any friends until he was 40.
	And then he hit upon the business model of if you're a Muslim, you can attack Christian and Jewish caravans, and you get to keep 70% of it and kick the rest up to me, or 90% and kick the rest up to me.
	I didn't know.
	That is interesting.
	So this guy actually fled to Somalia when he was being investigated and left his family behind.
	So if the Islamic State stuff wasn't enough to condemn him, leaving his family behind is probably another thing.
	It looks like a Jewish held battery.
	I know what you mean.
	But there was another case that I'm going to read out because it's not in the links.
	Go away pop-ups.
	I'm just reading it from my laptop, but it's from the Manchester Evening News of an Afghan national accused of sexually assaulting two girls of the age of 14 in Greater Manchester.
	And this was a story that came out just before we went live.
	So this is multiple examples.
	All of these news stories have come out in just the past couple of days.
	And so it really goes to show the extent of the problem when these things that should be morally reprehensible and unacceptable on a yearly basis are happening almost every day.
	Or the daily rape.
	So I didn't want to just leave you miserable, I suppose.
	And so I've gone to the boss man Carl for a bit of optimism to end on.
	And Carl says it's worth remembering that YouGov recently found that 45% of people support re-migration already and the campaign has barely got started.
	And also that's an online poll linked to your real name.
	So how many people, yeah.
	Yeah, how many people didn't want to put in their own name linked to their own email that they support it?
	It could easily be 5%.
	It could already be a majority.
	I wouldn't be surprised, actually.
	And I think also it's the way you frame these sorts of things.
	If you say, like, if someone commits a crime in our country and they're not, you know, native people.
	I want to get them out before they've committed a crime.
	Well, yeah.
	Or it's also like, should people from countries that are dangerous be allowed in the country?
	You frame it like that, and all of a sudden they're like, oh, no, no, no.
	But the framing effect in polling is a very real thing.
	So I think there is potential for it to be more significant.
	And of course, YouGov being what it is, there's an incentive to under-represent this sort of thing.
	And so there is hope.
	Obviously, the solution to this is sending the people home that cause these sorts of problems, as we saw in Germany.
	Over 10 times overrepresented in crime.
	There's no reason for these people to be here.
	They have no claim to be here.
	They have no compatibility with our lifestyle.
	The obvious solution to all of these problems is send them back.
	So the man at the start of this story, just being angry at there being a problem, this is peanuts compared to what needs to actually be done.
	Oh, yeah, this chap's a moderate.
	Okay.
	Are there any more rants coming through?
	Yeah, not seeing anything at the minute.
	I don't know if that's because our stuff crashed earlier.
	Maybe not.
	Maybe they're not donating to us because we're late.
	Yeah, quite possible.
	It's our fault.
	We are searching to see if there are any lost Rumble rants.
	At the minute we don't see anything.
	We don't want to miss you out.
	Let's just do it at the end, Samson.
	If you find them, if they appear.
	Hey, look, it's me.
	I can see myself.
	Ooh, really?
	So do I have the mouse?
	Thank you.
	Let's see if this is working before we start.
	Great.
	Everything seems to be working.
	I think we should talk a bit about the upcoming midterms in November the 3rd of 2026 in the US.
	And I want to talk a bit about the previous ones, but also some strategies that Republicans and people who are in that sphere are debating.
	And I will be talking towards the end about one that seems to me to be completely mistaken, but also very popular in some circles.
	So I'll be expressing my views just as I do every other time.
	Right, so these are going to be very consequential midterms.
	We have 35 of 100 Senate election seats that are contested.
	All House elections contested, 435 voting members.
	And also, we are going to have 39 seats contested in gubernatorial elections.
	So it's like governor.
	Yeah.
	Right.
	So last time, it depends on when you consider last time to be.
	Is it midterms 2022 or midterms 2018?
	In midterms 2022, there was this talk of the red wave.
	We didn't see any kind of red wave, but we did see a sort of victory.
	But that wasn't when Trump was in power.
	That was when Joe Biden was in.
	To be fair, it was mainly the left talking about a red wave so that when it didn't transpire, they could say, oh, look.
	I think that there is an effect in American politics where the midterms during a presidency always goes in the favor whoever doesn't hold the presidency or whoever's not the main sort of ascendant force at the time.
	And there's always a sort of out-group preference amongst the electorate.
	And this has been an observable trend for quite some time.
	Right.
	And in the midterms of 2018, that's what happened to Trump.
	And here, Trump lost in the House of Representatives, the Republican Party, that is.
	And there were lots of people who were giving a sort of interpretation of what happened.
	And they said that the number one priority was the economy.
	Then in other cases, they mentioned the stance that Trump had with respect to the Affordable Care Act.
	Depending on who you ask, you're going to get a different answer.
	But the economy was a major bit.
	And just to let me, just to add, there was also dissatisfaction in some cases with Trump's personal style.
	And I will say this, it seems to me that Trump's style is like Marmite.
	You either love it or you hate it.
	That's not going to translate well across the elections.
	But even if you love it, you love it when you agree with him.
	You hate it when you disagree with him.
	So there's a double effect there on you either like what he's doing or you hate him.
	And he does lots of things during the day.
	Are you saying Trump is a divisive figure, Stalios?
	Is that what you're saying?
	Controversial point.
	Right.
	And last time when Trump was in power, that was when he was Trump 45, the Republican Party in the midterms lost 41 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.
	And it's considered to be a massive loss in it and a massive gain for the Democrats.
	So it was considered to be one of the best midterms for the Democrats.
	Right, so we do have the midterms coming for the 2026 period.
	And it looks like there is a considerable disapproval of Trump.
	He's in one of the lows of his approval ratings.
	He's close to 36% approval rating right now.
	It's considered to be his second low.
	The second was, I believe, 34% when he was Trump 45.
	That was during the first term.
	So it looks like things are difficult for Trump for the upcoming midterms.
	And here we have an article by Josh.
	That is me.
	Would you like me to talk about my basic argument about this?
	So my argument is that Trump announced this on Thanksgiving, obviously, just about a year before the upcoming elections.
	And of course, a year away from those elections is normally when campaigning gets kicked off.
	And he came out with this big announcement about immigration.
	There should be a list somewhere.
	There it is.
	All of these different measures, like permanent pause on migration from all third world countries, removing people even with legal citizenship, which is unprecedented.
	This was not necessarily an extension of him targeting illegals at the southern border.
	This was quite a shift in his political ambitions.
	And why did this happen now?
	And this is something I didn't see anyone ask.
	And one of the things that has happened is that not only did he win a court case that allows him greater powers to enact executive orders back in June, which means he can do these sorts of things, but also there is this upcoming election.
	But there is another thing here that I think is important.
	And it starts here.
	Basically, Trump has angered parts of the right, including myself, for admitting things like 600,000 Chinese students, despite being critical about that sort of thing, as well as accelerating legal immigration through the H-1B visa scheme.
	To be fair, of those 600,000, some of them might actually be students.
	They can't all be spies.
	I know that the argument was purely economic, just like these universities need these students to be able to carry on existing.
	But, of course, from a national security perspective, this is madness.
	So it seems like he's been prioritizing the priorities of the tech sector over his own base, because these things are not popular with his base.
	I think everyone can admit that, that he received criticism from very dedicated voters.
	And what he's trying to do is silence these critics on his right by saying, listen, I'm going harder than ever on immigration.
	Therefore, he's going to preserve some credibility and have a galvanized base.
	Because one of the problems with Trump will be that people voted for him as president, and then the enthusiasm for him has waned because he's been a little bit milquetoast.
	He's not really done as much as people wanted.
	He was hyped up as this big boogeyman and has not really done a lot.
	And in fact, done the opposite of what people want in many cases.
	And one thing I think that is going on here, he's trying to insulate Vance so he can inherit a clean slate down the line because there have been lots of things like the leak of the Yemen group chat to a journalist, which is a very strange mistake to make.
	And then the one person in it who's saying we shouldn't be doing this is JD Vance.
	And also JD Vance has been going against Trump and saying, listen, we shouldn't be funding Ukraine.
	And of course, Trump being Trump doesn't like people going against him.
	So it has to be a deliberate strategy, obviously.
	But anyway, I'm sorry.
	I've gone on long enough.
	Trump is pushing this policy on migration.
	And there is considerable debate with respect to why he may be doing it.
	But there is also the other massive issue.
	It has to do with the tariffs.
	And it looks like the economy isn't particularly doing well, at least in the minds of people.
	Maybe it is doing well.
	Maybe the tariffs are going to bring forth more benefits that people haven't seen yet.
	it looks like many people are criticizing the policies and let me just say it says here that much of the drop in where excuse me there there is a missing link there Anyway, I'll just say it.
	right so it looks like many people are saying that the tariffs are pushing prices up and this is creating a this is creating pressure for the economy And this is one of the main problems that Trump has with some of his base, some of the people in his base.
	Right, so here it says Trump's approval rating dips as views of his handling of the economy sour.
	The shift, while small, is notable.
	After months of stability in President Trump's approval rating, here they are talking about something like a 4% shift, which is sizable, but they are also saying that the promise that Trump made with his tariffs doesn't seem to be visible to the economy.
	Well, I mean, it takes a bit of a time to watch.
	And it says here, there is scant evidence to date of any wholesale return to American towns and cities of the manufacturing jobs lost to decades of automation and globalization.
	And he finds himself in the position that Biden did in early 2024, telling Americans they're doing great when many don't feel that way.
	He has dismissed talk of high prices at grocery stores, insisting they're coming down.
	But inflation edged upward in September to about a 3% annual increase.
	Manufacturing jobs have continued to decline gradually this year with losses of roughly 50,000 since January.
	And it says that Trump tried on Monday to portray the $12 billion in emergency relief for farmers as a victory.
	Another piece of evidence, at least to him, that his decision to impose the highest RFs on American imports since 1930 are working or will soon.
	So there's considerable dissatisfaction with the economy.
	And there is a debate with respect to whether this is to be credited or blamed to the tariffs or not.
	Some people say no, some people say yes.
	I'm of the opinion, as I've said in the day when he put it forward, that overall this seems to create more problems than it solves.
	Well, I mean, it's being judged by left-wing journalists at this stage.
	I mean, it's going to take a while.
	Not a lot.
	Not a lot.
	We will see how this affects his approval with the Republicans as well.
	It isn't just leftist journalists who suddenly started care about free market economics.
	Trump's approval rating drops to 36%, new second term low.
	And here, what it says is that there is a trend of falling approval with the independents.
	So they're saying that with respect to Republicans, he has lost some of the approval he had, but he has taken a massive dip of approval with the independents.
	So here it's 46% the beginning of this year.
	Now it has fallen to 25%, according to this study.
	There are other studies as well.
	Do always take these with a pinch of salt, but it look with a pinch of salt, but it looks like he is losing support with independents.
	Right.
	And I want to say now, I want to talk now about the other bit with respect to a debate on online spaces with respect to the strategy of the Republican Party and what strategy it must use in order to win the election.
	And I'm going to be very unpopular and just go out and say that I think that flirting with the triad of Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson, and Nick Fuentes is going to be an absolute disaster for the Republican Party.
	If not for any other reason, it's really bad for the independents.
	It will completely drive them away.
	It is going to give the perfect argument to the left to say, hey, look, we're not that radical.
	We warned you.
	All of these guys are exactly what we told you they were.
	So it's a perfect gift to the Democrats, not just the Democrats.
	I'm not sure I agree with that part myself.
	I knew that there was going to be this.
	The Americans do need to clear out their rhinos.
	And that was what the last election for us was.
	Our zero seats campaign against the Tories was not because we wanted a Labour government.
	It's because we wanted to clear out our version of rhinos.
	And America hasn't really been through that yet.
	And pushing it, they are against the boomerut shibboleths, all of those characters you mentioned, the Candace Owens and Nick Fuentes and the Tucker Carlsons are.
	We don't have to adopt their policy positions, but there does need to be a clearer and a challenging of establishment conservative figures.
	Yeah, but I think that there is a contradiction here, especially with some voices within the camp you mentioned.
	Definitely not all of them.
	It's when you say, well, if the left is going to, the left is so radical that if it wins, it's going to capture the state and win a total war against the right.
	But let's just lose these elections.
	I don't consider that to be a winning strategy.
	I consider that to be basically a stab in the back of the Republican Party because the overwhelming majority of American voters show much more respect for the U.S. founding fathers and their philosophy of constitutionalism than European mid-century absolutists.
	And there's a vocal minority that tries to allegedly co-opt the silent majority of the Republican space.
	But I'm willing to bet, as I've heard by every Republican in the US, they side with a Republican.
	I totally get you're saying.
	And it would have been better if the Rhino problem had been cleared out 10 years ago.
	And I do appreciate what you're saying, but it does need to be addressed at some point.
	Well, I have a quick question, actually.
	You're talking about them potentially being pulled in a direction by these three figures.
	It might just be that three figures.
	So I've not been paying that much attention to US politics.
	It could just be that I've missed it.
	But what's the sort of evidence to suggest that they're listening to these people at all?
	To be honest, I don't think that Trump especially listens to these figures.
	There have been arguments to the effect that Trump is trying to placate them and to placate the people that they express.
	But one of the major problem is, it's not that they represent the majority of the US Republicans, but one of the major problem with them is that they are repeatedly telling people to not vote.
	And here, let me give you an example.
	This is what happened when it came to Tucker Carlson.
	Now says the Republican Party is almost to the point where it's just useless and I'm going to have to oppose it.
	I hate them too much.
	Fuentes was saying, don't vote.
	There are links here that should have been here, but are not.
	Yeah, Fuentes was telling notoriously people to not vote for Trump.
	Candace Owens says the same.
	So the problem with them is that they can convince a small number of people to not go and vote.
	But do you think that'll be enough to affect Trump's chances, or is it not going to be a small fringe, do you reckon?
	I believe it is a small fringe.
	It can, though, create problems.
	It can definitely create problems in a situation where the Republican Party seems to be losing approval for Trump and it needs to galvanize.
	And the question is right now, is it going to placate people who are saying, let's go back to the, let's be a bit more traditional American, or people who are representing a kind of way of viewing things that has nothing to do with the general American temperament.
	I think if Trump actually does follow through on lots of his immigration promises, lots of the people that might follow these commentators would be more than happy with that and say, okay, actually, he is doing good things.
	Maybe we should support him.
	And maybe there'd be a small radical fringe, but it wouldn't be enough to shift his electoral chances that much.
	Because also forget that these are online followings, and so they're not going to be concentrated in any one area and have a significantly damaging effect electorally.
	And so I think if Trump does demonstrate some tangible improvements, which he should be doing anyway, and I've been very critical of him for not doing, then these people might not be that much of a threat for him.
	If he loses, he will mainly lose because of the economy.
	The point is, though, that these people are not helping.
	And let me give you a few examples here.
	And Wokeness, I completely agree with him.
	He says Charlie was assassinated by leftists.
	His death was cheered on by leftists.
	And instead of uniting the right against the evil we're up against, people blame TPUSA.
	Yeah, Candace Owens is insane.
	Yeah, also Tim Poole, and good for him.
	He called her out.
	He said, if this goes on, he said we're going to lose the midterms.
	Let me put him.
	It's Huey says, Tim, I work in construction and experience the same thing.
	My co-workers are all in on the Charlie Kirk conspiracies.
	If the Republicans lose in the midterms, I believe that Candace Owens is wholly responsible.
	That's a hard time.
	She is one of the biggest podcasts on the right doing everything to go to war with the organization that helped get Trump elected.
	Turning point specifically was going out and registering people to vote.
	Without Charlie, it's in trouble.
	Turning Point needs to be able to go out and rally young people and register them to vote.
	And she's doing everything she can to destroy that.
	And that is going to, I suppose, it's going to rip out the coffers on the right.
	There is no organization like Turning Point that exists anywhere else that has the resources and the reach.
	And without Charlie, I'm not sure that they can make it.
	But I can tell you this, Candace lighting a Molotov and throwing it through the window is not helping.
	And it's the most demoralizing thing ever.
	Additionally, all of the fucking cowards on the right who are too scared to say anything about her because she tweets at me talking shit or whatever.
	And then a bunch of people come and flood our chat.
	I could give a single flying fuck.
	You can come and you can burn everything I have to the ground and I will happily live in a van down by the river.
	I don't care to be number one.
	I don't need to be number one.
	What I care about is what is true and what will help this country and what works.
	And sh So I think that I think he's correct about lots of things.
	But if Trump loses the midterms, most probably it's going to be the economy, right?
	But I do think, and I do agree with him, that people of this side, they can represent a massive disruption for the midterms.
	Wasn't Candice Owens talking about Charlie coming to her and confessing things in her dreams.
	Yeah, I mentioned it yesterday.
	The lady is crazy.
	But also, I want to say that ever since June, I have been incredibly suspicious of some figures.
	And when I see particular figures aligning on particular matters, it's always a red alert button for me because they frequently trash each other.
	That could be smoke and mirrors.
	But it all started especially with the World War III discussion, especially when it's June with Operation Midnight Hammer.
	We have people like Marin Gains saying World War III has officially begun thanks to Israel.
	Then Tucker was saying it's worth pointing out that a strike on the Iranian nuclear facilities will almost certainly result in thousands of American deaths in the Middle East.
	So he was playing that card.
	Fuentes was saying the same.
	Watch how the rhetoric changes about war with Iran.
	We shouldn't go on the offensive against Iran.
	Well, it's a limited strike.
	There's no bullet on the ground.
	Here's why this isn't like Iraq.
	So there was Candice Owen saying the same.
	Now then they started trashing each other.
	But now they align yet again when it comes to the when it comes to the Republican Party and all of them attack and say, I don't want to dissent too much.
	But again, I've got I've got a heretical view on that as well.
	That's what's good about us.
	Yeah, indeed.
	When the strikes on Iran were first being talked about, it was far more open-ended and it was far broader than that.
	And the American right pushed back against it, and it ended up being a very telegraphed, very limited strike, which is a lot different to where it was originally headed.
	Yeah, but what I completely find suspicious in this is that I think that this is entirely a narrative-oriented narrative, because what it does, it says that it presupposes that Trump had an intention for putting boots on the ground instead of doing a limited strike.
	And the reason why, it's like James Whitlock says here, which personally I think this is an incredibly brain-dead take.
	He says, respectfully disagree, MTG, Alex Jones, Tacker, put enough pressure on President Trump and Israel to make a ceasefire the only option, essentially framing it as Trump was this, and to the extent that he didn't start a new war, it's to be credited upon that again, time.
	Well, I mean, I guess you don't know, do you?
	Because you can't see how the realities would have branched at that point.
	But he is normally fairly straightforward about what he says.
	Yeah, but one of the things is that no one knows, and these people were incredibly certain.
	So I'm very comfortable with saying I don't know, or I don't think there will be World War III.
	So what you're saying seems to me to apply much more to them because they were expressing betting on the Americans putting on the wooden lack of evidence.
	Yeah, but betting on Americans putting boots on the ground in somewhere sandy is not an outrageous reach.
	It's not outrageous, and I'm not concerned with the worry.
	I'm not concerned with the worry.
	I think my high-level concern is this, is three years out from the next presidential election, if you're not going to attack the sclerotic tendencies, the rhinos, if you're not going to do it now, when are you going to do it?
	I think there's also a couple of things on top of this as well, that opposing U.S. intervention in the Middle East is important.
	I think opposing boots on the ground, it's been a disaster.
	You shouldn't be giving money to foreign countries for their defense.
	So their objection to funding Israel, I think, is perfectly legitimate.
	I just think that all of the rhetoric about it's going to be World War III and things like that was obviously sensationalist and a little bit clickbaity designed for the internet.
	And I find it very annoying.
	People talk about World War III.
	I'm very much in the nothing ever happens camp of, you know, the world will carry on in much the same way it will and not a lot will change.
	There's a lot of talk, but not really much in the way of change.
	However, I think that the people pushing back on things like funding Israel and the like, they're important because they're saying this money could be spent at home rather than defense of a country who wouldn't do the same in return.
	Yes.
	There was another link, the penultimate link that I don't see there.
	Yeah, thank you.
	Right, okay.
	And I want to speak a bit about yesterday's interview of Fuentes on PS Morgan.
	And I want to say something because what seems to me to be happening is that there are several people who are falling high with their own supply.
	And they can't do what I think you mentioned before to track the differences between what works in some particular online spaces where niche maxing and niche lording is the name of the game and what works offline.
	And I think that this is going to be an electoral disaster for the Republicans and for a Republican presidential candidate for the 48th presidency.
	If they openly flirt with a philosophy that says women shouldn't vote and Hitler was cool, they're going to lose.
	They're going to scare all the independents and they're going to alienate lots of their traditional voters.
	Lots of women voted for Trump.
	That's not exactly the message that seems to be well calibrated in order to appeal, in order to galvanize the Republican voters.
	And also, I will say this again.
	The average American, I'm willing to bet, but I may not be certain.
	I may be completely mistaken about this.
	Maybe I'm terminally online, but I think that the average American has much more respect for the founding fathers and their philosophy of constitutionalism that informed the drafting of the U.S. Constitution than they have for Hitler and absolutism.
	Because someone just wants to appear based there.
	What works, real-life politics, actual politics is not just rhetoric.
	Actual life politics requires coalition building.
	These people just have made a name out of appearing to be the non-compromisers.
	If they ever going to compromise, their audience, and they are audience captured, will say, you guys sold out.
	You're 7k steps ahead because you sold out and they're going to be destroyed.
	But aren't you just making an argument for censorism here?
	No, absolutely not.
	Absolutely not.
	Not making an argument for censorism.
	Just for the record, I don't think women should vote.
	I mean, I suppose I'm not running for office, but I mean, but all the same, he's someone like Florentes.
	No, no, I mean, I can't, I can't disagree with him without calling for him to be censored.
	Yeah, no, no.
	I can say that I don't know.
	I can't say that.
	I think censorism, not censor.
	What?
	Centerism, not censor.
	Okay.
	Sorry.
	Yeah, but is Nick Fluentes, is he reflecting the concerns of his generation, which is actually we cared about getting stabbed on the necks in trains in inner cities more than we care about Hollywood narratives about the Second World War.
	Is he reflecting what his generation actually thinks?
	Or is he creating this thought?
	Because I think you're framing him as he's going out there and creating this line of thought.
	And I don't think he's not.
	I just don't think the Zoomers give a shit about what the boomers cared about.
	Well, the boomers are voting.
	And if you're concerned about state capture and a left that is portrayed as murderous.
	We can't lock ourselves into the boomer truth narrative until 2064 when the last one pops off.
	Yeah, but there are several issues here.
	Number one, is he reflecting the concerns of some Zoomers?
	Yes.
	Does that mean that because he's reflecting the concerns of some Zoomers, that a lot of other people who disagree with him reflect?
	That we should constantly say that whatever Fuentes says is based?
	Absolutely not.
	There are many people who are reflecting these concerns.
	They are integrating within another different philosophy.
	And when it comes to the centrism bit, there's a question with respect to what is the center.
	And my answer is that to an element of the right, any deviation from their own part is centrism or leftism.
	So that's a very interesting discussion to have.
	I don't know.
	I should go on the terminology.
	I just think if you're a right-wing U.S. boomer, you've got your Mark Levins and you've got your characters you can follow.
	But that stick just doesn't work with the Zoomers.
	They don't care about Boomer Truth.
	They don't care being told that they have to operate on this guilt project just for being white.
	I think they care about seeing their country.
	I don't see that there is a guilt project here.
	I'm equally concerned with the problems you're mentioning with multiculturalism.
	I do this all the time for years now.
	Sure.
	Focusing on a problem doesn't mean you have the solutions.
	For instance, lots of people, especially from that side, are saying Marx was correct about identifying the problems.
	I think he was not.
	But these people frequently say yes.
	That's why they also love Stalin.
	Does it mean they agree with their solutions?
	Absolutely not.
	So in the same way, the same argument applies here to the extent that he may be representing the concern of a segment of Zoomers.
	I don't think that this is necessarily, this speaks for all Zoomers, by the way, in the same way that the clavicular guy in the LuxMax in community doesn't represent all Zoomers.
	The controversial bit gets disproportionate amount of attention.
	So in the same way that he may be echoing these problems and these concerns, doesn't mean that he has good solutions to offer.
	It doesn't mean that the other people who can have the same concern cannot integrate them in a different solution.
	No, no, no.
	I'm kind of Team Tucker myself, and I think Fluentes has some interesting things to say.
	I don't really follow him.
	Nobody follows Canadian.
	There's no interest to see, and that's why we're a great channel.
	Yes.
	There's one thing you can say about Fuentes is to borrow some parlance from the African-American community, he does scare the hoes.
	I mean, not voting and this stuff.
	However, you know, his stuff on Israel, I can understand and appreciate it.
	We've heard a lot of mentioned vote either.
	I'm not being sad.
	I don't care about what the characterization.
	Some people will always say you're a leftist, other will always say you're a centrist, other will always say whatever they want.
	Trolling good, right.
	Oh, here we go.
	Look, it's fired up.
	The rumble rants have started flowing through.
	We haven't forgotten you, don't worry.
	Let's have a look at that then.
	Right.
	So, oh, yes.
	So after we made that comment, Dystopian 1984 said, I'm a poor white man, Mike Czech.
	So there we go.
	You managed to get it started again.
	There's a comment from Sigglestone, which I'm not going to read out.
	He's basically complaining that we don't read out some of his comments.
	Chris 1288 says, to be fair, Tucker has a point on troops in the Middle East.
	Americans have a habit of Middle Eastern goo stepping.
	Sigglestone here says, we do respect the founding fathers.
	That's why women and anyone who doesn't own land shouldn't vote.
	Yes, absolutely right, sir.
	You keep posting sense like that.
	I'll read more out.
	That's the system they created.
	Cranky Texan says, Tucker is trying to rescue Fluentes by extension his followers.
	You can't pull someone out of a pit without extending a hand.
	Yeah, I think he's trying to kind of teach him table manners and how to dress properly.
	You can see how Infuentes went down and says, you're a fed.
	I mean, Tucker's dad was in the CIA, so it's a pretty cheap shot, isn't it?
	I mean, my way is fed.
	I mean, I don't know.
	No, but I just want to say that when you have people who make a career out of non-compromise, they invariably destroy any kind of association that requires compromise.
	And actual life politics requires compromise.
	I think we've been compromising for the left for 70 years to such an extent that it's ruined Western nations.
	So I'm up for a little bit less compromise personally.
	Well, but you don't have to go back to 70 years to talk about the last 70 years.
	We've been compromising with a minute in our face.
	Yeah, it's socialism.
	And Krista 1288 says, white guilt equals cuckold porn disgust.
	I can see what you're trying to associate there in that you're basically going against your own interests.
	But I don't know whether there's a direct association, but I think you should tease both parties in the same exact way.
	Do we have some of the video comments?
	Ah, that has crashed as well, apparently.
	For those of you who couldn't hear that, I don't know if you can, but no, everything is falling apart.
	I can see steam coming out from behind the editor's windows.
	A wheel has just rolled across the studio.
	Nothing is working, but hopefully the comments.
	We will show the video comments tomorrow.
	Let's have a look.
	Are there comments at the bottom of this document?
	I can see.
	Let's see if that works.
	Oh, there we go.
	So I'll do some from mine and then I'll hand it over to you wonderful chaps.
	Kevin Fox, pro-EU people love government so much they want an unelected commission to govern a govern a govern a government to govern their government.
	Yes.
	Bit of a tongue twister, but I got there in the end.
	Thank you very much.
	Made me work for my money.
	Angel Brain says the EU hate Musk because he demonstrates what will be important over the next hundred years.
	Governments don't create wealth, they control money.
	Musk has a huge problem because he represents efficiency in technology replacing central government.
	Yes, it is high time that a new governmental model emerged because our existing governmental model works on basically postal system and represented as getting on a horse and going off to a national capital and representing and just none of these limitations that were inherent in the design of modern democracies apply anymore.
	Roman Observer, on one or two occasions, some European tech innovators had accidents in the last 50 years come to mind.
	I'm not sure what you're referring to, so do expand on that because that's an interesting aspect.
	Lord Wu Tutai, I think.
	Dan, I watch your brokenomics.
	Good man.
	On the possibility of an IMF bailout, and it seems that remigration is not economically possible.
	Is it physically, morally, or even legally possible, but not economically possible?
	Am I wrong?
	I'd really like to be wrong.
	No, no, I do think it's economically possible.
	The issue with the IMF bailout is the way they rig the numbers is they say, okay, what's the GDP per capita of a person?
	Well, let's just import like 10 million more persons and assume they're going to have the same GDP per capita.
	And on the basis of that, we could borrow.
	But these are bullshit assumptions.
	So, and I think if you presented the market with a more logically coherent framework, they would probably be happy with it because it clearly is nonsense.
	Dangerous children.
	Of course.
	I hope there aren't dangerous children.
	Kevin Fox says, if you have an asylum claim in the system and you get arrested for any crime, you should be brought in by the Home Office for face-to-face interviews, bundled into a police van and taken in shackles straight to the airport and flown out.
	I have a very dangerous idea that is we shouldn't accept any asylum claims because if people are fleeing their country unless they're an allied country and it's women and children, if they're fighting age men, who cares why you're abandoning your country?
	You are a coward.
	Omar Awad says, is there a quicker way to make right-wingers a danger to politicians than to endanger their relationship with their children?
	The real irony is that judges they use to perpetrate this injustice will casually release convicted dangers to children back to the street.
	I've seen many examples of this of judges that have cracked down on right-wing thought and then people do some digging on them.
	Oh, they released a sex offender or they released a paedophile and it's like with no criminal charges or at least no prison time and then the right-winger will get far more time for whatever they did.
	AZ Desert Rat says, did he say that people who murdered children were evil scumbags or did he say all migrants were evil?
	The mail article characterized it as some migrants.
	So it seems like he was selective in what he was saying or at least that's how it was presented.
	I don't have the video to hand so I wasn't able to check it.
	But either way, I don't care whether it's all migrants or some migrants.
	You should be able to say that.
	You know, it's a very light thing.
	He wasn't calling for explicit violence towards them.
	So what's the problem?
	Theodore Brewer, thank you.
	Tucker Cartarlson has been more Israel last, not America first.
	Nick Fuentes is a moron and Candy Soulen is a grifter.
	Jordy Swordsman, the real split on the American right is between those who actively want to lose because they're addicted to losing and those who won't accept anything less than perfection now, damn it.
	So we'll sit out and proceed to lose.
	George Hap, Trump promised no new wars and yet he bombed another country on behalf of Israel.
	As imperfect as they are, I'm glad that there are some on the right who called him out on it.
	If being principal leads to some reshuffling of the uni party in the midterms, then so be it.
	Sophie Liv, people keep forgetting about the big ask, don't they?
	He makes a massive claim or offer that isn't realistic, but then as he walks it a step back, it looks like the other person got a good deal and he got what he actually wanted.
	He wrote a book about this.
	We should expect this from him.
	He makes massive asks with the intention of taking a step back eventually, so the person he is making a deal with will be happy.
	This is precisely how he has been acting ever since he got involved into politics, if not before that.
	Of course, you don't want to, if the person you're negotiating with is a Democrat, then giving them any sort of, you know, throwing them a bone after they go after him relentlessly.
	Like, they're not making concessions to him.
	And so you've got a sort of prisoner's dilemma situation.
	Kind of did now with the shutdown.
	They backed down and they cave to him.
	That's true.
	Michael Drabelbis.
	Unfortunately, with MAGA, a contingent is too lazy to consistently show up to the polls, which is really dangerous.
	If you want to fix things, you must show up and vote.
	Geordie Swordsman, clearing them out is all well and good, necessary, even, but not even, but no one your enemies explicitly running on the platform of we are going to effing kill you.
	An honorable mention, John V. Good morning, lads.
	Long time since I saw you guys.
	Agreed with Josh and Stelios.
	My parents never discussed politics with me as a kid either.
	And said that too.
	In fact, even in school, I actually remember teachers were specifically not supposed to discuss politics with students as it was considered inappropriate.
	Thank you very much.
	That was very much the case when I was growing up as well.
	I couldn't think of a single political discussion in my school whatsoever, other than when I was studying politics.
	But then the teachers were deliberately trying not to be biased as best they could.
	Like in a good faith way.
	It is possible, you know.
	Yeah, they tried back then when we had standards.
	Right, well, thank you very much, audience, for turning up and bearing with us while everything blows up over here.
	People will be thrashed, computers will be thrown out of windows, and presumably we will be able to semi-organise the next one.

▲