Hi folks, welcome to the podcast of Lit Eaters for Friday the 19th of December 2025.
It is finally Friday.
Wait, but that also means we're six days out from Christmas.
So I hope you've got your presents, Nick.
I'm working on it.
You mean for you?
I don't know.
Not for me.
Let me get the man that has everything.
Literally, I don't need anything, but like, you know.
Anyway, I'm joined by Nick Dixon and Bo, and today we're going to be talking about the incredible dialectical events at AmericaFest, Starmer's latest victim of speech crimes, and why, well, I can't tell you actually why.
The Australian police decided to radicalize some kid last year.
And I only discovered this the other day.
And so I thought we'd just do a little thing talk about it because it's actually absolutely bonkers.
the Australian police are basically grooming this autistic Muslim kid to become a terrorist and it's like, why did you do this?
Anyway.
I haven't looked at that one yet.
But anyway, this is the dream team from last week, have you noticed?
Back again.
Oh, is it?
It's like a new podcast in itself.
The best of the best.
You're very welcome, folks.
All right, okay, let's begin.
All right, so seeing as it's Friday, I thought maybe we could have a nice, relaxing, easy segment.
Nothing too controversial, nothing too spicy.
So the JQ.
You can't just say that.
Sorry, the IQ, as Nick was saying, the Israeli question.
Well, the point is, is that it's come out, Turning Point has got a thing at the moment going on in America, the America Fest, the AmFest.
And the conversation is about the hearts and minds of American conservatives between Israel first or America first.
Correct.
So that's the conversation that's happening.
Right?
So I thought we could, well, we've got kind of got to talk about it.
it's like shapiro versus tucker basically right i mean it's what's happening on the right Right.
Yeah.
And I watched the whole Tucker Castle speech on the train.
I thought it was very good.
Other people are Team Shapiro.
You've got to pick, basically.
Kinda.
I mean, I've said here, we've said here a number of times, I'm obviously not pro-Islam.
I despise Hamas, but I'm not pro-Jewish.
I'm not pro-Israeli.
I haven't got any Jewish heritage.
I'm an Englishman.
Why would I be pro-Israeli?
I don't have any allegiance to Israel whatsoever.
Right.
Despite what someone like Nick Griffin would say, that Locus is funded by Zionists.
Shocking.
We're simply not weird.
We saved up for this ourselves, Nick.
Yeah.
Yeah, sorry to pop that bubble.
Get your lawyer on it.
Some people say... I don't think if he was an Israeli lawyer, but...
Fiscal conservatives, they know what to say.
Sorry.
Some gropers, some homelanders and people say we're funded by Jewish money.
We just can't.
I don't know what to tell you.
I don't know how many times I have to say we're not.
Okay, other people say...
You'll probably become clear throughout this segment, it sounds like.
When I throw shade at Ukraine, we get accused of being funded by Russians.
Sorry, it's just not the case.
So, okay, we have to do a quick show for the Bo Show, Breakfast with Bo, that's coming up as of 5th of January.
These are cool mugs, man.
So there's, if you can see that on the screen, I don't know if it's on screen, there's all sorts of merch that you can get, t-shirts and stuff.
I don't have a cool mug like that.
Yeah, that's a cool mug.
It's like your face, but in an impression that you're just impression.
Yeah, so it's almost surreal to me that there's merch that's like bow themed.
How did that happen?
When did that happen?
And you better tell people when the bow show is starting.
Yeah, 5th of January 2026, from 8 a.m. to 9 a.m. Greenwich Mean Time, five days a week.
Just talk about the news that day, what's in the news circle that day, from around the world as well.
And maybe have a few guests on sometimes some mornings, have guests on.
So, yeah.
Should be fun.
Yeah.
All right, let's get into it.
So, yes, Turning Points America Fest.
Just a big conference of sort of right-leaning conservative people in America.
And it's split opinion, shall we say.
Now, our Johnny on the spot, our man in Havana that was there was Calvin Robinson, Father Calvin Robinson.
Let's see what he says.
He says, Day one of Amfest, Erica Kirk was introduced by a VT of Charlie Kirk, which was eerie yet moving, powerful stuff.
No one puts a show like Turning Point USA, next level stuff.
So a VT, is that like an AI rendering of him or something?
Well, videotape, isn't it?
VT.
Yeah.
I think it's just footage, isn't it?
He's saying.
I don't know.
Anyway, most of the intros were like the best.
I watched the other intros, they were like best of sort of montaging.
That's what it would have been, probably.
Ben Shapiro crashed out and argued to de-platform his fellow speakers.
Russell Brand, I'm not sure why Russell Brown was in there.
Isn't he currently on trial for things?
Is he a right-winger?
Is Russell Brand right-wing?
He is now, because he's a Christian.
Yeah, I haven't watched his speech yet.
But Tucker Carlson also referred to him in his speech, said my good friend Russell Brown to him.
Russell Brand's a funny one, isn't he?
Because he's sort of, kind of...
I mean, he came out as...
I remember when Ed Miliband was running at the general election.
At the last moment, he came out and said, I know I've been telling you not to vote at all for ages, but vote Labour.
Yeah.
I think maybe he's changed his stance in the name because that was fair a few years ago, wasn't it?
I view him as kind of like a left-wing David Icke.
Yeah, I mean, David Icke's kind of the right-wing David Icke.
Yeah.
I think Russell Brand has just got his own opinions, like truly just got his own opinions on most things.
He's definitely been on a journey.
He was kind of a quasi-communist at one point.
Yes.
Then now he's an evangelical Christian.
You know, I don't even mind his takes.
His takes are at least not predictable.
Yeah, a smart guy.
Smart cookie.
Russell Brand gave the best evangelical preaching I've seen in America, says Father Robinson.
Michael Knowles inadvertently threw shade over his boss with a sensible remark about loyalty to foreign flags.
Like Michael Knowles.
Yeah, I didn't get time to watch his speech, but he's been saying a few things lately where he's a bit like, ooh, what did that mean?
Like, it's like one of those, is he trying to, I don't think he's trying to get sad.
It was always the thing with Matt Walsh, isn't it?
But Knowles has recently said a few things where you're like, can you say that?
I was just going to say about Matt Walsh.
Occasionally he says something.
Surely Ben Shapiro can't be happy with that.
Yeah.
What Matt Walsh just said there.
Knowles has been in the same but in such a genteel way that you just almost don't notice.
Yeah.
Seems like a nice, polite guy.
He is.
It'd be nice to have a drink or a meal with him.
I've had dinner with him.
Oh, have you?
He's a very nice child.
Yeah, that's the impression I get.
Yeah.
Tucker Carlson absolutely smashed it out of the park with humour, generosity towards his persecutors, and a generally Christian idea of conservatism.
Charlie Kirk's presence was truly missed.
God rest his whole.
It feels like he was the glue keeping the conservative movement together in America.
Without him, it was either going to split or implode.
The audience was divided between America first and Zionist.
I mean, so that's the thing.
This is the conversation now that's broken out into sort of mainstream conversation.
These are competing ideologies.
And the tenant of ideas is seemingly not big enough to contain them both forever.
Where's the liar?
There's a general consensus that truth must prevail.
Father Robinson said, the truth is Jesus Christ.
The majority seems to understand that Christ is king.
God bless AM Fest.
P.S. Just before we move on, that's not a terribly controversial perspective for American right-wingers to have.
That seems to be a fairly straightforward American Christian perspective.
Oh, yeah.
And just Christian perspective, but particularly in America, they think this.
But sorry, carry on.
Well, P.S., the opening preacher, did not pray for the United States of America, nor did he pray for the church.
He did pray for the state of Israel.
That's a bit weird.
Well, it's a little bit, isn't it?
A bit odd.
Very hard.
I mean, if you were, I don't know.
Just if you were like, I don't know, at some sort of convention in Britain or something, and they decided to lead a prayer for France or just any other country, you'd be like, what's going on?
Why are we doing this now?
I'm saying nothing because I don't want to jeopardize the funding.
I'm only here like once a week, and it seems rude.
Yeah, our billionaire backers pool.
Anyway, okay.
So, I suppose let's start with Ben Shapiro.
Let's just listen to this bit.
I mean, it's amazing to see the energy in the place.
And obviously, you know, I think everyone feels pretty bittersweet about everything that's going on.
It's very difficult not to feel incredibly bitter and heartbroken at the fact that last time we were all here, Charlie was with us, and Charlie was being Charlie and just being, you know, his usual incredibly lively and entertaining and fascinating self.
And obviously, before we go any further with anything, we always have to think of Erica and the kids and also all of his friends who've continued to run the organization so well.
Yeah, but as far as the sweet part, I mean, the energy here is extraordinary.
I mean, just walking through the hallways, you can see the energy.
You can see how many people want to carry on Charlie's legacy.
Shortly after Charlie's murder, I said that we would all have to pick up the torch together.
And I think that you are seeing that.
So I think that that's a wonderful thing.
Okay, that's all fair enough, isn't it?
That's good.
Here's what he said on stage, though.
If we agree with the guest, that's fine, but we should own it.
So, for example, if you host a Hitler apologist, Nazi-loving, anti-American piece of refuse like Nick Fuentes.
Who's he talking about?
If you host this guy, you know, the Nick Fuentes who said that the vice president of the United States is a, quote, fat, gay race traitor married to a jeet.
The person who said that Charlie Kirk was a, quote, retarded idiot.
The person who said, and pardon my language here, it's his quote, that he, quote, took Turning Point USA and fucked it, and that's why it's filled with gripers.
If you have that person on your show and you proceed to glaze him, you ought to own it.
There is a reason that Charlie Kirk despised Nick Fuentes, and indeed even chided Dinesh D'Souza for debating him.
He knew that Nick Fuentes is an evil troll and that building him up is an act of moral imbecility.
And that is precisely what Tucker Carlson did.
He built Nick Fuentes up.
And he ought to take responsibility for that, just as he ought to take responsibility for glazing pornographer and alleged sex trafficker Andrew Tate or for mainstreaming fake historian and pseudo-Nazi apologist Daryl Cooper as America's best and most honest popular historian.
At this point, some comment from us.
Declaration of war.
Yeah.
Like, sorry, Ben.
But we were carrying the torch for Charlie Kirk, and suddenly it's, you know what we should be doing is deplatforming one of the fellow speakers at this event.
Yeah, I thought also mentioning the whole Jeep thing was a bit tasteless to actually say the words because like if I don't know if JD Mance is there or he's going to watch it, but it still seemed weird to kind of quote it.
I understand they're not his words.
Overall, I thought the whole thing was questionable.
He can do it if he wants.
But Tucker came on, we'll talk about it maybe later, but I watched his whole speech.
It was so magnanimous and he said, I'm not going to get drawn into that.
I can get drawn into hating these people sometimes, but it's not Christian.
And he kind of funny opening jokes about his came on and said, I missed the first half.
Anything happened?
And it was funny.
But he dealt with it.
He just wouldn't hit back in the same way.
But I'm seeing loads of people glazing Shapiro on Twitter, as I was telling you before.
But it's all the people you'd expect.
It's all the Seth Dillons and Josh Hammer, whoever that is.
It's all the people.
It's the people who liked him anyway.
And I'm still Team Tucker.
And as I was telling you before, I've been alive over four decades, sadly.
Can't go against all my sense data and pretend that Mark Levin is a better guy than Tucker because all my senses tell me that's just can't be true.
And I also prefer Tucker to Shapiro, but we're supposed to.
The other thing about it is, I'll just quickly say, this loyalty thing.
Shapiro in the full speech says you can't back people just because you're friends with them, but I'm not going to denounce my friends publicly because you tell me to.
That's what Tucker said.
And that is my position.
Maybe that is some sort of loyalist, some sort of clannish thing or something.
But if you said, oh, dispo and Carl because they'll disavow them, I just never would.
I just not in me.
So I can't do that.
So I'm with Tucker on that as well.
Well, it's this thing that Ben Shapiro, I think, is a bit behind the curve, that there's something fundamentally wrong with platforming people you don't like or don't agree with.
It's a very leftist position, that like Daryl Cooper cannot have a platform.
Andrew Tate is not allowed to speak in public.
Nick Fuentes must be denied.
No, and most people are not really agreeing with that.
For example, when Piers Morgan had Nick Fuentes on, most people, even like lefties and stuff, were agreeing that it wasn't wrong-headed, it wasn't in principle wrong to platform him or have a conversation with him.
But that's where Shapiro seems to be still.
I think the main issue is that Tucker Carlson didn't spend a lot of time disagreeing with Nick Fuentes.
That's the issue.
The problem with that is, just on your point as well, he guessed Tucker in his speech said, Oh, this shut up, fascist, which is just the same as shut up racist.
In fact, it might be more annoying, is what he said.
So that's what they're all doing.
As for the didn't push back, problem with that is then you're down a slippery slope of I'm going to dictate to you, Tucker Carlson, one of the most popular broadcasters in America and therefore the world, how to do your show.
It's just like he's got more views than you.
He's a better monologues than basically anyone, except perhaps Fundes himself.
And it's just like, why is it up to Shapiro how Tucker conducts his interviews?
Of course, he can say how he would want to do it, but it's not, I think it's weird.
If I started telling you, Carl, you had this person on, but you didn't really push back enough, I think you'd probably want to slap me.
I think it's awful, isn't it?
Or you think it's a valid thing he didn't push back enough?
The thing is, what I perceive in all of this is two rival power structures within this coalition that are vying for supremacy.
And one power structure is dependent on a certain kind of narrative for its success, for its power.
And this is why I think Ben Shapiro is so angry.
I mean, this is just the angriest I think I've ever seen Ben Shapiro about anything.
Because I think he views the authority of his wing, the Zionist wing of this movement, to be completely under threat if any kind of critique is leveled that suggests maybe it shouldn't be the primary point of concern for the movement as a whole.
And without the ability to just give a little and say, no, we're important, but you are also important, then the coalition can't hold.
And you'll get this kind of insurrectionist.
Well, hang on a second.
You're saying that we don't matter?
I mean, you say a prayer for Israel, but not for America.
What are you doing here?
Without the admission of friendship between both sides, then there can't be any kind of civic policy there.
There's no sort of proper bond that joins them.
And what Ben Shapiro has done is not to say, look, guys, I accept the legitimacy of the claim that straight white men are being oppressed in America because they are.
And it's structural, it's institutional.
We know that this is the case.
Instead, in fact, on that first clip we saw, I saw a clip of him saying, straight white men just have to man up and just deal with it.
And it's just knuckle under and do the thing.
And it's like, no, they don't actually.
Why should they be systematically disadvantaged in a way that you feel you're not?
Because if you were being systemically disadvantaged in the same way, you'd be like, hang on a second.
This is anti-Semitism.
This is anti-Jewish.
This is unacceptable.
How can you do this?
And so instead of being sympathetic to that, and the thing is, I'm not even saying Ben Shapiro has been arguing for this state of affairs.
He hasn't been.
He's been very consistent over the years that he thinks it should be a meritocracy that should be colourblind, blah, blah, blah.
So it's not like he's even been in favor of the oppression of the straight white men.
He's always been against the left on this.
So why he can't say, no, I think they have a point, actually.
They have been systematically disadvantaged.
And in fact, we need to either help them because they're close friends and allies of ours or change the structures of everything anyway.
Why can't Ben Shapiro put out a hand of friendship to these people and say, no, we need to help you?
And it's because I think he feels that any kind of like releasing the grip that the Zionists have over that wing of politics means the whole thing dissolves.
Yeah, and that's why he's so worried about platforming people.
I mean, surely if you've got the stronger ideas, you're not worried about that, although you're saying it's about whether you push back.
But on the other point, did you see the clip where Shapiro said white Christian men, especially young white Christian men, have been attacked relentlessly in America to the point where they now feel they're an identity group?
He said they feel they are.
It was very clear he was saying they weren't.
He said they got the ideas.
Another thing he said that they are.
so they can be attacked as a group but they're not a group but and the only thing i'd say but also the way he denoted them there young straight white men Well, you've just denoted a group.
You've just stipulated.
Exactly, yeah.
He's carved them out as a group.
He said they've been attacked relentlessly and that's been wrong and now they think they're a group.
It's like, well, it sounds like they are.
But the other thing is, but if your position is the sort of liberal, classically liberal meritocratic sort of, no, no, we don't have groups.
But it's that Shapiro's position because it seems to me, just as a layman, he's a fairly staunch advocate of identity politics for his group.
So I could take it if you're sort of like someone like Andrew Doyle, who's like, would just be completely down the line, confer, and say we don't want to have these identity groups.
And actually, Tucker is saying that in his speech.
Shapiro has always had this inconsistency.
Yeah.
I mean, you ask, like, why does Ben Shapiro do that?
I mean, the answer is that his first primary allegiance is to his own in-group, his own tribe, Israel, whatever you want to call it, Zionism.
It's to that before American conservatism.
Seems to me.
I mean, I don't think that's in any real doubt.
And what I find interesting here as well, just quick before we go on, is look at the angle of attack, right?
He's saying he's attacking him on ideological lines.
He's not saying Nick Fuentes has committed a crime.
He's not saying that Nick Fuentes has given money to the Democrats or something like this, right?
He hasn't physically done anything.
What he has done is committed a series of ideological crimes and therefore these are inexcusable.
It's like, okay, yeah, look, Nick Fuentes says a lot of stuff and a lot of it's stuff I don't agree with.
But the point is really, what does Nick Fuentes represent?
And what I think he represents is those dispossessed straight white young men who, as a group, have been targeted and as a group are being held back in Ben Shapiro's mind.
They're not allowed to advocate for their own interests.
It's like, okay, well, are we going to get the Andrew Doyle ultimate classical liberal where no one gets to have a group, which is unlikely?
Or are we going to have to concede that this is a group of people who were systematically disadvantaged and therefore have a genuine claim to recognition and rights?
Yeah, a more reasonable question would be or approach from Shapiro et al. would be, yeah, how can we give this group, recognize their grievances in a more sensible way?
But if it's just shut up Nazi, then you're going to get what you project onto them.
Yes.
And that's going to, that itself damages any hope of coalition because what you're saying is you're forever outside of the pale and will never ever give you the respect that you deserve.
Well, it's the thing that everyone in the world, it seems, is allowed a group identity, a national, civilizational, even racial identity, but not white people.
And I mean, especially not straight white men.
Right.
It's not really sustainable, is it?
It's not sustainable.
You've either got to play the game yourself, if everyone's playing it, or you've got to sort of, if it's like in England or America, you've got to deport so many people that it goes back to sort of such a homogeneous society that it doesn't come up, particularly because white people don't tend to have strong in-group preference anyway, and because there'd be a vast majority of a country.
Or you basically get wiped out if you refuse to play the game, as far as I can see.
When we get to a clip of Tucker in a moment, he will talk more about that.
Just let Shapiro finish up.
Hosts are indeed responsible for the guests they choose and the questions they ask those guests.
His face, okay?
So angry.
Fourth, because we have a duty to truth, we also have a duty to provide you with evidence of the claims that we make.
Emotive accusations, conspiracy theories, and just asking questions, that's lazy and stupid and misleading.
None of them are a substitute for truth.
None of them are a substitute for evidence.
So, when Candace Owens says, I don't know, no, but I know, that is retarded.
And we are all.
He's right, but he's right on that.
All more retarded for having heard it.
Yeah, I mean.
It has been mental some of the stuff Candace is doing.
I've got nothing against it, but it's just like it's just seems to be a soap opera to keep the viewers hooked.
There's a new twist each week.
And to me, it's all bollocks.
He came to me in a dream.
We've had unnamed sources.
Okay, all right.
It's funny because the conversation is so toxic that if you say anything that's pro-Palestinian, you must be a Zio shill.
If you say anything that's pro-and the other way around, so if you criticize Candice Owens, you must be pro-Israeli in some way.
It's like, well, no, I don't think so, actually.
No, I don't.
I don't think so.
No.
Just the way she's going about it, it seems to me to be about getting views and creating controversy.
Yeah.
Anyway, a vanity project.
Let's hear from Tucker.
So let me just affirm one final time.
Not only am I not an anti-Semite, and would say so if I was, I'm not an anti-Semite for a very specific reason.
Not because it's unpopular or my donors don't like it.
I don't have any donors.
I'm not an anti-Semite because anti-Semitism is immoral.
In my religion, it is immoral to hate people for how they were born.
Period.
But that is not a limited principle.
That is a universal principle.
It applies to every human being on planet Earth.
You may not, you are prohibited by my religion, which is Christianity, from hating people for how they were born.
Because God created them with his spark in his image.
Because they have souls.
You can disagree with them.
You can hate their ideas.
You may even find yourself, and I do, I'll confess it, hating them for a moment.
But you can't hate everyone who's like them.
You can't punish people for crimes they didn't commit.
That's the basis of our justice system.
That's the basis of Christian ethics.
That's why we have what are called human rights.
They apply to every human, not just your group, not just my group, but every group, every human, because we don't consider people in terms of the groups to which they belong.
We consider them as individuals the way that God created them.
I'd say that's the thing that is like the Western liberal paradigm, isn't it?
We're all individuals.
And that, I mean, I think it's falling back on Gen X liberalism.
Yeah.
It's a bit like, yeah, okay, we're all individuals that we're all autonomous units walking around.
Okay, but also we're part of a group.
But in fact, nobody is actually born out of time and place.
No man is an island.
Exactly.
Everyone is born into a web of relations, a nation, a family, a community.
You're completely helpless for however many years into your life, dependent on everyone around you.
You are not just an atomic individual.
Where he's really good in the full speech is on the attack on white people.
He says, by the way, you can't attack white people any more than you can Jewish people.
Those should be the same, seen as the same.
So he's very good on the sort of defensive aspect.
But yeah, then he goes, he's done this on a few podcasts.
He then goes into this universal stuff.
And it's all right, ideally, but it's in the reality we're in now where everyone's aggressively asserting their group.
I don't know how it can work.
So a lot of the criticism from the sort of America first side is the turning point is to Israel first.
I mean, here's a clip.
Here's a clip of Erica.
Watch a little bit of this.
Is there anything specific that Turning Point can do to combat anti-Semitism?
Yeah, so we are on all of our college campus and high school campuses.
We have these conversations.
And our students understand exactly my heart and Charlie's heart and the sentiment of everything I just said.
We have Shabbat dinner happening at Amfest.
We have.
I mean, okay.
Like, why?
I mean, if I'm Shabbat dinners, why are you doing that?
I thought you're America first.
What's that got to do with anything?
Shabbat dinner.
If I was at like, you know, the Conservative Party Conference or something, and they were like, yeah, we're Britain first, and then we're going to have an Eid dinner or something.
I'd be like, that's not.
I don't want that.
Yeah.
I'm an American.
If you're in America, I'm an American.
Why would I have that?
I'm in England.
Why would I have an Eid dinner or a Shabbat dinner?
I'm English.
But I mean, this guy, I've never heard of this guy before, but I just thought it was an interesting take that a lot of people are saying about Atomfest.
So, Amfest is this atrocious TPUSA organized bazaar where Republicans from all over the country come to get drunk and have sex with each other in the most debaucherous manner possible.
Republicans who, in all other walks of their lives, would not be considered cool or attractive or fun.
This is their one opportunity to all convene in one place and suck and each other and do drugs and have orgies, but all, of course, in the name of conservative campus activism.
And get this, it is billed as a youth gathering, but this is what the audience looks like.
Don't worry, we really are, we are really reaching out to the youth, don't you see?
And in reality, it's 50 to 60-year-old aunties who are getting underage kids drunk so that they can go prey on them at parties later, and then eHorse going to get dicked down by their whatever donor they think is going to fund their next podcast before they go on stage and give a speech about it.
So you get the criticism.
So that's where I need to go to get the funding.
I know what I need to do.
So, yeah, I mean, it's just, there's all these various conferences, like Tory Party Conference.
People said it's actually just an excuse to party, really.
Oh, Nigel Farage and Pretty Patel dancing away, yeah.
And like things like the ARC conference, on one level, it's sort of my personal opinion, on one level, it's sort of cringe and lame, but on another level, it's necessarily valuable.
Well, the art goes on.
I mean, I've got a lot more.
I went to the last one, and there wasn't anyone having like orgies or anything.
That is much more maybe that didn't get invited.
Yeah, it was a lot more reserved.
I actually quite enjoyed it.
I went to the one before, which was apparently much better.
But the audio.
That was the hardcore.
No, I hate all that stuff, though.
It reminds me of the wretched hive of scum and villainy from Star Wars.
You go to one of these conferences.
I don't go to the, I'm not loud at them.
But like Conservative Party conferences, they're all like, why is it all so much degeneracy?
And the apotheosis of this is Bonnie Blue endorsing reform and everyone being fine with it.
There was like, it's always bothered me.
I've been to other events and I wrote about them and got and speaking of donors, I actually alienated like a billionaire writing this article, but it was me saying, this is supposed to be conservative or something, and yet I'm at this event and it just was debauchery.
And I was just writing about it going, this is awful.
But all these conservative movements seem to have this.
They don't seem to have any actual conservative principles when it gets down to it.
Yeah.
Maybe I'm just a Puritan.
I am, I think.
Okay, so I think I'm out of time on that one.
Okay.
Well, all right.
Well, that was abrupt.
Yeah, that was abrupt.
In summary, though, basically.
In summary, there's some question to be had about whether America First is truly America First or Israel First.
That's JD Vance there.
Oh, just Rubio.
I mean, the last of the funding there, in case there was any doubt.
Yeah, I don't think Netanyahu is giving us that track now.
Is that him there?
That is him there as well.
All right, let's move on.
Okay.
Well, Han, can I have a mouse?
Because I want to.
This one is Han.
Let me do the Su Chats first.
Danny says, I think Nick represents the continuation of the shift towards the right.
Trump France seems to be the most palatable figures that both elites and general public can stomach.
That's changing.
I genuinely think this is part of a long-running alliance that has taken for granted one side of the equation.
And when that side of the equation is saying, no, look, we are now systematically disadvantaged.
We need you to show some compassion and to get on board with fixing things for us.
The bench pyrotypes are like, no, you're a Nazi and we hate you forever.
It's like, okay, well, this is an alliance that's not going to last, right?
It's just not going to last.
I mean, as Calvin said, the tent doesn't seem big enough.
Yeah.
They're deliberately shrinking the tentative, aren't they?
It is weird how Charlie Kirk seemed to be holding it all together.
No one would have thought that, but it does seem that way.
Cranky Texan says, I went to multiple turning point events between the last two elections.
None of the speakers were daily wire people.
Now they're all over them.
Interesting.
The Engaged View says, Your new show needs a segment called Inbo's Britain, where you propose a new rule for your extremely English paradise.
A drunk changeling says, Mossad isn't funding us, Carl said with the voice of a spurned lover.
It's quite funny.
Just saying, we never got the call.
Bay Stape says, You should call the Bo Show The Morning Brow.
Also, will the show be taking video comments?
I have a super puppy named Bo, and I have ideas for a competing parody show.
Are you going to be taking video comments?
We haven't really discussed that, but I'm not against it.
I would.
I could.
Why not?
Why not?
Yeah, absolutely.
Why not?
Got the function.
Quite right.
Says, God blessings to you over Christmas and New Year's Eve.
Thank you.
To you too.
Have my yearly pilgrimage to the Lockerbie tomorrow to pay my respects.
So rather melancholy weekend for me, behind me.
Doomhand says you are either America first or you aren't.
Personally, I don't think choosing to fund any ally at the severe cost of your own citizenry is America First.
Merry Christmas.
And I agree.
But anyway, let's carry on.
All right.
Well, if the last segment didn't lose our funding, this one will.
I mean, this one, it's quite controversial.
It's Starma's latest victim.
Another person has been jailed for speech crimes.
Now, what he said, kids, was not great.
Don't say these, don't post these things.
This is my general.
Especially in Britain on the internet.
Yeah, exactly.
This is my health and safety notice.
Don't post these things.
But the question remains: should he go to jail?
And is it proportionate compared to other sentences we see, even from the same judge?
So, Twitter users jailed for 18 months for two anti-immigration tweets.
Two, by the way, those are rookie numbers.
You've got to get those numbers up.
That's all I'll say.
I'm just joking.
This is all satirical content.
Two tweets made after Christmas market car attack that were viewed just 33 times, which is extraordinary.
I mean, as we've established, I'm not good at math, but that's 16.5 each.
This is going to be one of those examples where there's a very traumatic context that has been completely ignored, isn't there?
That is also true, yes.
Which is the German attack.
So, this is Luke Yarwood, 36, received an 18-month sentence after tweeting in the wake of the Christmas market car attack in Magdeburg, Germany.
So, he was responding to that, and people didn't know that much about it at the time, but it was an emotive response to that.
His posts were reported to the police by Yarwood's own brother-in-law, who he did not get on with.
Nice, isn't it?
That is low, isn't it?
And as Morgoth says, his brother-in-law, who he didn't get on with, snitched on him.
So, in the UK, we've entered Soviet Union territory where the state bureaucracy can be cynically weaponized for petty grievances.
Hard to argue with that.
So, think of like the Kamier Rouge, where they very, very, very deliberately wanted your family to snitch on you.
Because it's what you say in the privacy of your own home at your own kitchen table sort of thing, right?
Yeah, exactly.
You're most candid.
So, if you get often the children to inform on you.
Yeah, exactly.
Siobhan Lindsley, prosecuting, said Yarwood's extremely unpleasant posts had the potential to trigger disorder at one of three high-profile migrant hotels in Bournemouth, Dorset, near to where he lives.
So, it's the potential, but his barrister argued the posts have been viewed 33 times between them and were the impotent rantings of a socially isolated man.
That's the guy defending him, by the way.
Thanks, bro.
That had no real-world consequences.
And it is hard to argue with that.
I mean, he got 33 views.
Yeah, 33 views.
So, what are they doing?
So, what are these tweets?
As bad as they may be, what are they actually affecting?
But the judge, Jonathan Fuller, said his odious tweets were designed to stir up racial hatred and incite violence and jailed him.
Yeah, this was the day after that car attack where six people were killed.
We know what he actually said.
I'm going to get onto it.
I'm just giving the grounds before.
It's kind of the crux of it.
It is quite bad.
So, I'm giving you the context.
So, he replied to a tweet about thousands of Germans taken to the streets.
He said, head for the hotels, housing them, and burn them to the ground, was one of them.
He said, I think it's time for the British to gang together, hit the streets, and start the slaughter.
Worse than Lucy Connolly.
Yeah, exactly.
Don't tweet this at home, kids.
This is what I'm saying.
And he said violence and murder is the only way now.
So they're not great tweets.
He's gone off on one completely.
Definitely don't post this.
Yeah, it is the law.
I mean, I'm not saying it's right or fair.
I would like a much more US-style freedom of speech, but it is the law.
Even then, this probably falls outside of that.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Literally saying we need to take to the streets and murder them all.
And I did wonder.
It's the law.
That's why I said I might have done a different segment, but I got a hand injury and I couldn't do it on the trade.
So I was like, let's just do this one because let's just look at it fairly.
So that is like, okay, yeah, so that will get you banged up in this country.
Probably get you banged up in America.
Yeah, that's interesting.
But is it, but would it?
Because is it incitement?
When it's viewed by 33 people.
America, in the First Amendment, it's got to be like, it's got to have an immediate, if you're saying, go and get that person now, and they can credibly do it.
It has to be immediate circumstances.
Yeah.
But just tweeting to 33 people these mad things that no one's seen, does it do that?
That's the question.
Well, that's for the judges to decide, but that's pretty beyond.
People can decide.
So, yeah, bad tweets.
I feel like if his brother-in-law hadn't squealed on him, it would never have got to court.
I do feel like that.
No one would have seen it.
Not that that's really the point, but.
Yeah, what's behind it, though?
So the actual tweets are really bad, but you've got to wonder what's behind it.
So there's this bit I'm trying to find out where they say that his it's they sort of they talk about his general views.
So one thing he wrote was walking for ages and not hearing a word of English in Walmart.
Right, but isn't that just that's just factual, isn't it?
Yeah.
But they're sort of using this to build a case against him.
These kind of views in general that are not allowed.
He also wrote about his disgust at asylum seekers outside the hotel staring at young college girls.
Again, just what he's seeing, you know, if he said at the end, which is completely normal due to cultural differences, it isn't their fault, he'd be okay.
And if he said not hearing a word of English for ages, which is great, he'd be okay.
But these are all views that you're not allowed, obviously.
Pretty normal views.
Yeah.
And so the prosecution said that there was a pattern and that he was angry about the presence of Muslims and foreigners in Britain and it was rooted in his belief.
The problem with that is that belief on its own is millions of British people.
Yes.
So I understand the actual tweets are bad, but the building of the case is all around ideological things that are basically not allowed in the country or just normal views that are not allowed, which is anger about immigration, which is completely ubiquitous almost.
So the prosecution said there are ongoing protests daily around asylum hotels up and down the country.
They're having to be policed.
We are not in immediate risk of widespread disorder, but the atmosphere is not one of calm in the country around this issue.
But that's exactly why he's posting this because he's part of that unrest, isn't he?
So anyway, the defense said there's no evidence that it had any real world consequences.
They're the impotent rantings of a socially isolated man with fragile mental health.
You're like, thanks, mate.
But it is clear that he is.
I'm a Twitter buyer.
But as bad as the posts were, he is not the power.
He's the powerless one here being made an example of, I'd still say.
And then the defense had to go on and say the defendant at heart is not a racist.
He simply found this to be a convenient channel for his discontent.
Again, so you see there that the ultimate thing that's still the worst to be is a racist.
Even post-grooming gangs, that's still sort of in there.
So basically what I'm saying is even though the tweets are awful, all this language around it, you see clearly it's ideological.
If you ask me, anyway.
Did the Lord Young, Toby Young, help this fella out?
I suppose maybe it didn't come up and maybe it's just not a particularly sympathetic case, as I said.
To be honest with you, I think the tweets probably are criminal.
Well, they are.
Even they are.
It's kind of a slam dunk, really.
The prosecutor would have thought.
Don't tweet that we should go and murder a bunch of people.
Well, do you know what?
Even people like Andrew Dawes say you shouldn't go to prison for tweets.
So that's the question.
Should you go for prison for a tweet?
Even if it's that, does it qualify for the bar for incitement?
And if it doesn't, should you go to jail?
This is the question.
You think you should?
No, no, let me be clear.
If it was up to me, I would have very, very close to complete freedom of expression.
If it was up to me, what I'm saying is it's not, it isn't.
And these are the laws that are in place right now, which is unjust and unfair and not how I would do it.
But that is the reality, though.
And this is that you have to deal with if you're going to post things on Twitter.
And this is very clearly across the line.
Right, that's all right.
You know, because most of them are like, like the Lucy Connolly one, you say it was approaching the line, you know, burn the things down for all I care is not an imperative to go and burn down a thing.
That's to say, not my problem, not my business.
This is an imperative.
Yeah, but I would argue, perhaps, that if it's the 33 people, as bad as it sounds, it's not going to actually, is it actually going to inspire anyone to do anything?
And as a defense, he's arguing, no, it's not.
And I think that's correct.
I mean, who is going to do it?
One, it's only 33 people.
They'd have to get up and say, right, he's posted that.
I'm off out now to go and attack a load of people.
It seems to me vanishingly unlikely.
I agree.
And I'm with Bo.
I'd have basically nothing you could tweet that would send you to jail.
Well, yeah, ideally.
Tweets.
And the other thing I think to take into account here is an 18-month prison sentence.
Isn't that less than Lucy Connolly?
I mean, it just seems to me, okay, you've got these bullplop laws in place and he's broken them.
All right, okay, that's where we are now.
So, what, some community service, a small fine?
No, 18 months banged up.
That particularly seems insane to me.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And we'll get into that because the same judge was much more lenient on other people.
So.
Oh, wasn't he?
Yeah, and that's what I'm going to get into, where we'll be more sympathetic, that part.
I'm just looking for this thing about our community.
Oh, there we go.
So this is another sort of buzzword of the regime.
The continuing safety and stability of our communities are undermined by actions such as yours.
This phrase, our communities, hadn't really heard it that much until Southport.
And it was constantly banded around by Starmer and people like that.
And it just means minority communities with special rights that natives don't have.
That's all it means.
Basically, it means violent Muslim ghettos is what it means that have their own community leaders, which are their own quasi-police, who say, put your weapons in the mosque.
So as soon as you say our communities, when you're someone in authority, I'm sort of already thinking, okay, this is ideological.
I mean, the judge says this is not a court of politics, but law.
But I say, is that really true?
No, I wouldn't say that's true at all.
I mean, anyway, sorry, Gary.
Yeah, no, that's simply.
It ends by saying the judge says there are serious offences.
They are serious offences that could have had serious consequences and can only be marked, only be marked by a sentence of immediate imprisonment.
And so then you go, okay, fine.
And yet, the same judge, not more of, the same judge here, let a man caught with child abuse images walk free with 40 days of community service, which is this guy, Alex Fisher.
But you know why, right?
That doesn't imperil any of our communities.
No.
This is the issue.
Like the other guy, oh, he might have caused civic disharmony by inspiring one community to attack another.
Would have been bad.
This, not a problem, really.
The liberal order will continue all day, every day, no matter how many children are abused and how many images he has.
So it is political in that sense.
The idea that there isn't a two-tier justice system is just not tenable.
No.
Right.
You remember when Sir Kir was in the Oval Office and JD Vance was trying to chew him out a bit?
And he was just simply saying, no, there just isn't a problem with free speech in Britain.
There just isn't a two-tier system.
You're just incorrect, JD Vance.
It's like, well, disagree.
Disagree.
Yeah, just disagree.
But this is the point.
When the judge says, oh, this isn't political, this is about the law.
No, A, the law is, of course, political because it's made by politicians, right?
So first things first, how could you have a non-political law in any sense, right?
Unless the law was set by the church or something.
But anyway, like, A, all the laws are political.
But B, you literally said it yourself.
I'm here concerned mostly about our communities and the political harmony between the communities.
Caught with nonce images, well, you know, 40 days suspended sentence or whatever he got.
It's literally, that doesn't cause political problems.
Therefore, I don't really care about it.
This does cause political problems.
Therefore, 18 months in jail.
Right.
And as bad as you may think, those tweets, or as bad as they seem to obviously be, they can't be as bad as child abuse images and things like that.
They can't be in the same league.
Anyone in their right mind has got to agree with that, what you just said.
Surely, surely.
But not this judge.
Here's the same judge.
Jonathan Fuller sensing Andrew Berry in 2017, convicted of possessing several thousand pornographic images of children.
And he also had a previous conviction for sexual abuse of children.
So they...
24-month community order.
Yeah.
Yeah, and his defense even said, well, he didn't hurt anyone.
But his article actually points out what he did.
And I checked this one with the article.
Last one was really hard to check.
I'm pretty sure it is correct.
This one I checked, and it's here in this article.
And this was shocking.
The guy had a huge number of images, and he had a record of abusing a young girl.
There is in the 1990s, and he filmed the assault.
So this guy got off far more likely, no prison sentence from the same judge who said, well, the only option here is definitely prison.
But this guy, no, just do a bit of litter picking or something.
24-month community order.
30-day rehabilitation activity requirement days.
It just shows that this is explicitly political.
there you go so you see once i've built the narrative you start to now this was going to ask is how's this going down internationally Now, you might say, if they really knew the details, they'd be like, oh, yeah, I'm not sure about those tweets.
But people now are so sick of it, and particularly in America, they're just going off.
They're just like, no, this is ridiculous.
So Jesse Kelly says, cut off all diplomatic ties with the UK and consider sanctions.
We cannot be seen to do business with naked tyrants like this.
I mean, I can see why they would think and say that.
Yeah, well, I mean, some people say, well, have you looked at the details of this case?
But the thing is, the details aren't great, but it's the same principle.
And this case isn't in isolation, isn't it?
No, exactly.
It's in the context of.
Yeah, like I said, this is not even the most sympathetic one, which is the one that came up.
This is in the context of 12,000 speech arrests per year.
So Auron says the UK is an authoritarian as a place like Russia.
The idea we need to fight for freedom while being allied with such nations is a joke.
No, that's not true.
We're three times more authoritarian than Russia.
Look at the speech.
I thought he's going the other way.
What's Carl going to say here?
Oh, no, it's based.
Okay, okay.
It's literally by the numbers.
Yeah.
And actually, I'm not even factoring in population multipliers either.
Just on the raw numbers alone, per capita, we're way more than three times more authoritarian.
Right.
So anyway, yeah, carry on.
Elon Musk, the UK has become a prison island.
This is all in response to.
Only if you tweet the wrong thing, Elon.
Yeah.
It's all in response to the same story, even as bad as it may be.
Rapists get less time in prison, says Ali Bestocki, in the UK than people who politely suggest that an important terrorist was perhaps a misstep.
To be fair, he wasn't saying.
This one wasn't that polite, no, but in general, she's got a point.
Oh, Ferris, if only the police could, if only they could police mosques and jihadi protests as well as they police random ex accounts.
That's another take.
It's dangerous, though.
What did I say?
Oh, I just said as a joke, how are they going to send British men to war when they're all in prison for tweets?
I thought that's a reasonable point.
That's a reasonable point.
I can't remember.
I've forgotten I'd put that at the end.
I like to end on a joke on a very serious topic.
They can actually make penal divisions.
They take them directly from prison and throw them into the front line.
And that's the only way it can work.
Because all your white working class men are in prison for tweets.
Because they tend to be the one that gets the most mouthy without, you know, on the tweeting.
And they all post, even though it's only 33 followers on Facebook.
Yeah, but they'll all be in prison.
So they'll have to do what you say.
Straight to the front lines.
That's all I got.
Make your minds up at home.
I'm just a journalist recording it objectively.
I mean, Fictasius laughs in Ricky Jones.
Like, exactly.
Ricky Jones was at the protestman, like, we have to slit on their throats.
Yeah, and that was immediate with a crowd around it with far more of a.
And they all laughed and cheered.
Yeah, that to me was far close to incitement because you're a group of people.
That's inciting.
And of course, the only caveat is a jury let him off.
And would a jury let...
What was a jury of Ricky Jones' peers?
Yeah.
Yeah.
We never know what would happen if Lucy Collywood got to a jury because she was pressured into not going to jury.
So that's what we'd have to see.
Always take the jury.
Even with this, with this particular case, it would take some stones even for the jury to let him off.
Because even you guys are like, well, those are like bad tweets.
And even I was, but I was used to them.
It's my section.
But I still think I would say no prison.
I would.
If I was the magistrate, I wouldn't send him to prison, no.
Because what's it going to do?
I mean, he just tweeted because he's angry about the situation.
He's phrased it very badly.
He's just an angry bloke, like so many in the country mouthing off.
What's he going to do to put him in prison?
It plays into that angle where Labour want to get rid of juries for many, many more cases.
So that you can get a captured judge, captured magistrate, to just bang you straight up.
And the judge is being expressly political there.
It's our communities.
He's talking about the political relation between the communities and the need for harmony and stability.
It is expressly political.
Yes.
There's no getting around it.
And that's why you're right, okay, political threat, bam, 18-month prison sentence was probably the maximum he could give him.
And so it's just instantly right, no, worst thing you could have done is politically interfere with the tranquility of the country.
Some people said, what about on the other side, like kneecap, the thing they said murder politicians got away with it.
Yeah.
Again, the idea that it's not a two-tier justice system is kind of mad.
Anyway, let's move on.
Let's have a talk about the Australian Federal Police, because they're, as you can see, defending and protecting Australia and Australia's futures from security threats.
What are their top priorities, do we think?
Hate crime, anti-Semitism, airports and aviation crime, and then terrorism.
Right, okay.
It's an interesting selection of crimes that we get to see as their top priorities, right?
Top priority, hate crime.
Just like the judges, it's all the same.
Liberal, international, managerial regime.
It's like, oh no, we need to manage the tranquility between the communities because otherwise this whole multicultural experience and experiment that we've set up blows up in everyone's faces and that's not good.
So obviously hate crime, first thing, anti-Semitism, and then airports and aviation crime.
I wonder if that's directly linked with terrorism.
Okay, that's good.
These are all important crimes.
Your bike may have been stolen, your car may have been broken into, you may have been mugged.
These are all crimes that you're more likely to suffer from, but not really such a problem.
Anyway, these people were cross-examined last year, right?
And this is just remarkable.
Absolutely remarkable.
Because as Daniel here points out, they were grilled about inciting autistic Muslim children to become snipers and plant bombs.
What?
Right.
Now, that sounds pretty wild, doesn't it?
Pretty wild.
Given the age of the individual, and you've noted he was 13 at the time, and then and then became 14, we put implies significant safeguards in terms of how that person was engaged.
And again, noting all operational strategies in relation to this matter were jointly agreed through set processes and constructs to the JCT with Victoria Police and ASEAL.
And ultimately, as a result of our action, DPP agreed to the laying of two serious charges.
And the court found that in fact it was the AFP that was radicalising the child.
And I'll read you the conclusion from the magistrate.
By its conduct in attempting to radicalise TC for the purposes of gaining evidence to prosecute TC for the offences with which he's been charged, the AFP has completely and inevitably undermined the therapeutic process initiated by TC's parents and the countering violent extremism to seek to help to engage TC in the therapeutic and rehabilitative process.
The radicalisation was happening as a result of the actions of your own officers.
Do you accept the magistrate's findings?
Listen, we acknowledge the magistrate's fine and we accept the fining, but you're radicalising a 13-year-old boy with autism.
Has anyone been held to account?
Have you been held to account?
Has the undercover operatives been held to account?
Has anyone been held to account for that?
So just in relation to that question, it was not our position or our intent to let me finish the question, Senator.
The person was on the path to radicalisation long before we became involved, long before Victoria Police became involved.
It was the AFP who recommended he become a sniper and a suicide bomber.
It was the AFP who put that in his mind.
A 13-year-old boy with autism with an IQ of 71.
Is anyone held to account for this?
Obscene abuse, obscene abuse of power and authority.
So, Senator, that was not our intent and not our purpose.
It's what you did.
Senator, it wasn't our intent in terms of what you actually did.
So, in terms of following up from that question, there's a range of reviews that are happening in relation to this matter.
More than happy.
It's shameful.
More than happy to come back.
It's a matter of transparency and confidence.
He was quite good, that Senator Effer.
He was.
It was like, he didn't let it drop.
He was like, no, you did it, though, but you.
I'll open it up to the panel then.
Thoughts?
It's madness.
That's insane.
I mean, I've heard of similar things, of course.
Like, the FBI have done all sorts of similar things.
Yeah.
Try and entrap someone, but actually make them into the thing in the first place.
There's loads of lots of.
But yeah, I mean, the way that guy's just trying to just fob it off and move on.
And whoever that woman was, the chair, I imagine, whoever that was, just trying to move on, just skate over it, carry on, move on.
I quite like that senator there, just you know, not letting it go.
Yeah, I'm going, wait, this happened, though.
Yeah, the other guys kind of used bureaucratic language like, oh, we looked at that and it wasn't our intention to do this, but it is literally what you did.
Yeah, it's what you did.
It's what you did.
So let me get this straight because this is the first time really hearing about it.
Yeah, we'll go through this.
I'm hearing this for the first time.
There was a 13-year-old Islamic kid with a low IKEA and autism that was on their radar for whatever reason for being radicalised.
And the Australian police.
Like, why don't you become a sniper or a suicide bomber?
So they're the facts.
That's what happened.
That's crazy.
Would you like to go through this Guardian article with me?
Sure, yes, I'm not sure.
There's always always people in the crowd, like a January 6th type thing.
Like, let's storm the place.
No mercy.
Let's do violence.
I'm not sure about this guy.
Do you know what I mean?
Yeah, yeah.
This is the next level.
You thought about becoming a sniper?
This is the most.
I didn't hear about this.
So this happened last year.
I didn't hear about this.
This is the first I'd heard of it.
I started looking at it.
I was just like, how is this real?
And it was that clip that I saw.
I was just like, that can't be real.
And so I went to the Guardian and looked it up.
And they were like, oh, yeah, they made him a terrorist.
Family of Autistic Boy cleared of terror charges is still searching for answers a year on.
So this is a young boy called Thomas Carrick.
Now, that is not his actual name.
They've given him a sort of Anglo name.
The court has assigned this name.
And because he's only 14, so obviously to keep his name out of the public eye.
But he's a Muslim boy.
So his 14th birthday, his parents could hardly believe their luck.
The police officers and managers of his de-radicalization had given him gifts and a birthday cake, the family said.
They've been working closely with Thomas for the past five months since his parents reported their concerns to the police about his burgeoning fixation with Islamic State.
Their son, who was autistic, always struggled to make friends, but he felt close to these officers.
The feeling was mutual.
The cake from the police was decorated with the message, We love you, Thomas.
I said to his mother, We are in such a great country, Carrick's father said.
We were so happy on that day, we actually cried.
We said, There can be no better place on earth than where we are.
They're helping us all.
As it happened, these efforts, and I'm just going to read this for Baton because you would not believe what I'm about to say, right?
These efforts to help Thomas were already doomed.
Several weeks earlier, he started communicating online with a person he knew as Khalid.
Khaled was the overt covert persona of an officer within the Joint Counter-Terrorism Task Force, which comprises staff from the Australian Federal Police, ACO, and Victoria Police.
The officer who was operating a second persona at the same time had been tasked with building a rapport with Thomas.
A court would find later that at the same time as Thomas was working with the actual police, who he and his family had come to trust, he was being told online by these personas, as the police, that killing an AFP member, like a member of the police, was a good plan and that he would make a good sniper or suicide bomber.
Maybe it was a colleague they really wanted to take out.
What am I reading?
Harry keeps stealing my lunch.
Thomas.
Sorry, that's quite funny.
Thomas Tyler, this is ridiculous.
It's ridiculous.
Thomas told his parents one of these online personas was his best friend.
Sorry, it's a Fed literally telling you you need to kill a police officer.
Have you thought about becoming a sniper or a suicide bomber?
Kill some cops.
It's sad that he thought there was a best friend as well.
That is absurd.
Yeah, sad, yeah.
I often think, me and you, Nick, we've talked about this before a few times, that actually, a lot of people argue that everything's Fed, everything's society.
Oh, yeah.
Everything's, and I disagree.
Most of the time it isn't.
But the thing is, if you're 14 years old, sometimes it is.
Sometimes it is.
That's so cynical.
It's insane.
That is mad.
So on the one hand, the AFP are like giving him cakes and saying, oh, you're such a good boy, Thomas.
And on the other hand, they're literally saying you should kill some people.
Horrible.
It's just insane.
And the question that senator said, is the undercover this covert overt persona officer.
Yeah.
Have they been held to account?
Who is that person?
Have they been fired?
Well, exactly.
Did we get to this?
No.
No, no, no one has.
As far as I'm aware, anyway, nothing I could find suggested that any of these officers were fired or disciplined or anything.
And the guy in the inquiry was just like, it wasn't our intention to tell him to become a sniper and shoot a cop.
It's not the first.
The thing that springs to mind here is the Ruby Ridge thing, where an ATF guy or an FBI guy asks a normal person to make an illegal firearm.
He does, and then they arrest him.
Well, then they kill members of his family and arrest him.
It's like, well, if you hadn't have done that, though, he wouldn't have...
You made all of this happen.
Well, that's exactly what's happening here.
19 days after his birthday in October 2021, Thomas was arrested and charged with two terrorism offences, being a member of a terrorist organization, namely Islamic State, and advocating terrorism.
It's like, well, someone's certainly advocating terrorism here, but is that him?
Green Senator David Shoebridge this week described, which is the guy we saw, described the act of celebrating Thomas's birthday with a cake and gifts only weeks before arresting him as demonstrating an unbelievable degree of institutional bastardry.
It's a great way of describing it.
Of course, the AFP have declined to comment.
And so this case has, of course, collapsed.
He was exonerated.
This kid was exonerated for it.
But it's also destroyed their family.
Because, of course, this is like, why have they done this to us?
Is the question.
But anyway, let's skip down after what's happened to the family.
Anyway, so the conduct engaged in by the JCTT, which is the Joint Counterterrorism Team and the AFP, falls so profoundly short of the minimum standards expected of law enforcement officers that to refuse this permanent stay application would condemn and encourage further instances of such conduct, says a magistrate called Leslie Fleming in the court's decision.
I'm satisfied to allow this proceeding to continue would not only be unjustifiably and unfairly oppressive to Thomas Carrick, but also lead to an erosion of public confidence in the court's processes.
The re-radicalization of Thomas Carrick, which was created by the JCTT in the guise of OCO's chats with TC, were obtained in circumstances that fall far short of the minimum standard that society expects of law enforcement officers.
Yeah, society actually doesn't expect law enforcement officers to go under pseudonyms to infiltrate discords or whatever it was with autistic Muslim children and turn them into snipers.
Weirdly enough, that's actually outside of the bounds of society's exploitation.
Whose side are you on?
Why are you doing this?
That officer, what the JCTT officer working that persona, what possible justification could they possibly have for doing that?
I have no idea.
Doesn't make sense to me, to a normal person who doesn't want snipers and suicide bombers in the world.
Well, why would you?
I mean, it's literally like Fleming found Thomas had been groomed by the officers and his fixation fed by the undercover officer, all the charges they put on him.
It was them saying you please prove it to us.
The mother's right.
Like they, they genuinely groomed their son, whilst in one hand and then, you know, said oh no, we're de-radicalizing him.
In the other it's like, are you like I don't know what the plan could possibly be, you think of a target or something to him?
Well, that's what I was thinking.
They've got a quota of arrests they need to make.
There's that thing as well, where you get too deep on your undercover.
You know, don't Donny Brasco, where he doesn't want to take his shoes off because it'll reveal he's got the, the recording device in the Japanese restaurants and they're just gonna end up beating up the restaurant owners because he won't take the shoes off.
He tries to make it about my dad was in a prison, of war camp or something.
You've seen.
That yeah, with a load of criminals, ends up beating up some innocent people because he's gone too far in as well, that I mean you think the undercover officers are sat there going right okay, we are jihadis.
What would a jihadi say?
I guess yeah, there's this, they've just gone.
They've flipped extreme role-playing the only two.
Honestly, the only two explanations I can possibly imagine is, one is that the JCTT have got like a quota of convictions or arrests they need to make and they don't care how dangerous it is.
Or that actual officer is a jihadi themselves and genuinely wanted this kid to become a sniper or something, or what other possible well reason would there be.
Or and I don't want to get conspiratorial about this there's a big loop that they're trying to close on state control.
So just uh, i'll carry on very quickly.
This cost half a million dollars, this operation for right.
So that's how much it costs to radicalize a 13 year old.
Half somehow, half a million dollars.
Uh ridiculous, obviously.
But the question, two text messages yeah well exactly yeah, how much discord shows the loop?
Well, so they say, look, there is a real, there's a real problem here.
Never mind that we manufactured it, but there's a real problem here.
Now we need more state authoritarianism.
That's literally what they're doing.
Right okay right, so that does make sense, this to me now.
I obviously i've got no indication that the Bondi Beach shooters, uh were engaged in this kind of affair or anything like this.
I don't know uh, anything that connects them, but it does make you wonder right, because this, uh is the next thing that they're doing, hate speech laws cracking down on dehumanizing rhetoric, it's like, was the Bondi Beach shooters about dehumanizing rhetoric?
Is that what caused this?
The home affairs minister, Tony Burke, says new hate speech laws will be drafted to the limits of the constitution to capture completely dehumanizing rhetoric deployed by so-called hate preachers.
Is that what caused this?
Like these guys like the dad was from Hyderabad and they spent some time in the Philippines allegedly training, although I don't know if that's true um, like I said, I don't know what to think actually with a lot of this um, but instead they're like, yeah well, protesters chanting Globalize The Intifada were horrific and we're going to make sure this is outlawed under fast-track legislation in the wake of the Bondi Beach massacre.
So actually it does look like there's a power grab by the state after an Islamic terror attack and therefore it kind of looks like the AFP were like, okay well, if we want, you know, if we, if the government want to have all of this come in and they need a justification for it.
Then we need some guy who's going to conduct a terror attack.
So i'm not saying that that's what they were doing.
I don't know, but they.
You can see why people might think that that's what they're doing.
And so What am I supposed to take from?
What other possible rationale to radicalize a young man is there?
Yeah, I mean, it does make sense.
I mean, it's a bit, it's a false flag, isn't it?
It's very conspirator.
It's very sort of 4D chess stuff.
But nonetheless, it does make sense.
And we do know that things like that have happened before.
And we know for a fact.
So it's not outside the realms of possibility, is it?
And moreover, okay, let's assume that's not the case.
Why weren't the guys who were radicalizing the kid held to account?
Like, why weren't they fired?
Were they under orders?
Exactly.
Were they?
Why have they not been named, prosecuted, and jailed for trying to incite a child to terrorism, a teenager into terrorism?
And the only answer that I could possibly imagine is, well, they must be under orders then.
They must be doing as they're told.
So obviously we're not going to lock that guy up because we told him to do what he did.
So, and it was more than one of them as well, actually.
So it's just one of those things where it's just like, okay.
So anyway, yeah, they're going to target hate preachers.
Is there any evidence that hate preachers contributed to this shooting?
No?
Like, what's what are we saying here?
So the language that some preachers use was completely dehumanizing.
We will be lowering the threshold to the extent that constitutionally we are able to, and it will be the strongest step forward in making hate speech illegal in Australia.
How do you know any of this to do with anything like hate speech?
The Bondi Beach.
Yeah, the Bondi Beach shooting.
Yeah.
Okay.
Where's the connection?
Well, we've seen that in this country as well.
People have called for immediately called for more hate speech laws.
I was like, how is that going to stop any of this?
It seems to be, I don't know.
And look at the sort of thing that's happening.
So two Muslim men from Hyderabad, one born and raised in Australia, but of Hyderabad, India origins, shoot a bunch of Jewish people on a beach, and now Australians are being persecuted for the things they tweet.
I know.
What are we talking about here?
Sorry, what are you going to say?
No, I was going to say, when it happens to like our group, something like the grooming gangs, no one came out and said, well, we need the hate speech because we actually want more, because the powerless group wants more speech because they're the oppressed ones.
Whereas if you're in the interest, if you have an interest in suppressing, I find it very suspicious the way certain people came out and said, we need more hate speech laws because of an attack on Bondi Beach against Jewish people.
And people like rabbis and things, you go, what's the connection there?
And it's just you want to just suppress more people as a sort of way of gaining power for your group, but that's not the way to do it.
Or gaining sort of protection for their group is how they would see it.
But why is hate speech laws?
The solution is not.
But notice how, going back to your segment, what's the liberal order actually demanding here?
It's demanding more right to police the boundaries and the distance between separate communities in society.
And so the natural thing for them to do, something happened between these two communities, right?
We need more powers to police all of these communities.
No, we're going to get right in there.
You're not allowed to say anything, and we're going to go to the very...
And we're being inhibited by the Constitution, right?
So I was like, yeah, we're going to do it to the very extremity that we can, implying that we would go way further if we could.
We wouldn't stop here.
It's just unfortunately.
We've got this stupid constitution that stops us from actually getting to where we want to be.
But it's just the liberal order saying, no, we are going to impose this regime on you.
You are going to live cheek by down with all of these communities.
You are going to have this be the new reality.
And we are going to get as draconian as we need to in order to make this work.
So, you know, don't talk to me about liberties and rights and stuff.
No, You're losing a bunch of those really quickly because otherwise, some kid who's been radicalized on Discord somehow might go on a shooting spree and we definitely can't have that.
I mean, there are loads of questions about this that are really suspect.
Like, the guy got a gun license, but he's a foreigner.
He's an immigrant from Hyderabad.
So, why did he get a gun license?
Why was he allowed to get six guns?
Like, why there are so many open questions about this?
Where did his son apparently lie to his, he was a laborer, lied to his employer and said, right, okay, I've broken my arm, so I need to take like a year off.
And then he went to the south of the Philippines, which to a particular city that is near what apparently are terrorist training camps.
It's like, okay, that's weird, isn't it?
Like, what's going on here?
Like, why would an Indian guy go to the Philippines?
And, like, there are so many strange questions, again, I don't have answers to.
But the only thing that ever happens is fewer rights, fewer liberties, less freedom, more government control, more state interference in the distance between communities.
And it's all part of the same plan and agenda.
And this, I think, is just going in the same direction.
There's nowhere else that they will go with any of these things, no matter what happens.
So just be aware, I think.
The idea of actually reducing immigration or even deporting loads of these people that are risky.
That's just not an option for them.
This is just not going to, they certainly won't do that.
No.
Having as many of these communities in your country as possible is the thing that they want and that they are most committed to.
And all of the crackdowns are about protecting those communities from wider public opinion.
Even if that's nothing to do with the actual crimes.
What a perverse thing.
Well, it's mad, isn't it?
Yeah.
Absolutely mad.
Must be mad.
Literally mad.
Anyway, Samson, do we have video comments today?
And if not, why not?
Come on, guys.
Want those video comments?
Cumbrian Kulak says, who killed Charlie Kirk?
Candace and Jimmy Dorr are worth listening to.
These are legit questions.
Don't be scared, bros.
Yeah, but it seems that the person who murdered Charlie Kirk was some lefty furry.
They were talking about it on Discord with their other friends who predicted it in advance.
And like, it's not even an unusual thing, right?
Charlie Kirk was hated by them more than most people because he went into their spaces and university campuses and called them, he didn't even call them names, he just debated them.
And so he had a high salience in insane lefty communities, right?
Yeah, I'm certainly not scared and I'm certainly open to, I was open to it, yeah, okay, maybe other interests killed him, but it doesn't seem to be much evidence.
And when I see some of Candice's evidence, I had nothing against Candice, but it's just a dream, bro.
Yeah, it just seems bonkers and it's ongoing and never ends.
So this is the only thing where people say, don't be scared, free to say it, but I told you, I know someone who watches Candice and believes in all, but they sort of think they're living in a more edgy or more real world.
And I think it's a less real world and an easy answer that everything's just a conspiracy.
I find that a sort of more of a way out.
We were talking about this before the podcast, how actually I find conspiracy theories to be a bit of cope because like, yeah, that means at least someone is responsible for this.
Like, well, in a lot of cases, I think these are just events that happen that actually nobody is responsible for.
You know, like who radicalized the shooter of Charlie Kirk?
A bunch of furries on Discord.
It's not a plot.
It's that there are genuinely mad people in the world.
Yeah, I would say I'm not adverse to a good conspiracy theory.
As you can see from the bioche.
And I've talked about the JFK thing a number of times.
Yeah, yeah.
I'm not adverse to a complex, convoluted, elaborate conspiracy theory.
I don't rule them out as a matter of course at all.
But in the Charlie Kirk murder, one, I want to see what happens with the trial.
I want to follow the trial of that kid closely.
But on the preponderance of evidence so far that I've seen, it just seems more likely that it was him than some much, much more elaborate.
What?
Was it his round?
It was the jipped.
Some of the logistics, which Frances was mocking with Canada, some of the logistics about how they think it happened is ridiculous.
But yeah, I'm totally open to it.
I think you've got to be completely open.
There are people like, yeah, people like Toby I used to work with who are like, everything's cock up, not conspiracy.
And then there are people like, I suppose, Dellingpole, everything's conspiracy.
I think you've got to be in the middle looking at each one on merit.
Or have one on each shoulder, right?
Yeah.
For example, the Trump shooting, that is dodgy.
Like, why have we learned nothing about this guy?
Hardly anything.
There's so many unanswered questions.
Very, yeah, I'm curious, right?
Now we don't need to know.
I want to know what really, really happened.
I'm not interested in trying to peddle a conspiracy theory for the sake of it, because it's modish or cool or something.
I just want to know what really, really happened.
So if it turns out, again, it was an elaborate Mossad operation or something.
Okay, I'm open to that.
But it doesn't look, to me, it doesn't look like it was.
But I don't know.
I don't know.
I wasn't there.
Right?
I want to see what happens in the trial.
I want to see what happens in that kid's trial.
What comes out first?
My problem is just when you can predict what someone's going to say with 100% accuracy.
Sorry, there's certain people I know will always say it's all fake.
The Trump shooting was fake.
The Bondi Beach was a false flag.
Everything's fake.
And I know 100%.
And they always do.
I'm like, well, that's not, your brain's not switched on then because I know what you're going to say on every issue ahead of time.
It did come to me in a dream, though.
Right, let's get to the video comments.
I'd like to tell you about something I read.
A story from Rome.
City you destroyed.
It's a classic.
There is a guy, Horatius, built a bridge alone against a whole army.
And what Horatius said was, How can a man die better than facing fearful odds?
Get inside, get inside!
For the ashes of his fathers and the temple service gods.
I haven't seen that, but that sounds great.
I think it's on terrestrial TV tonight.
Is it?
I think so.
All the odds.
Yeah, what are the odds of that?
Okay.
I heard it wasn't good, Oblivion, but is it actually good then?
I've not seen it.
That one clip made it look kind of cool.
Have I seen it?
He's got a ton of it.
You claim to have seen it, yeah.
Have I seen it?
Okay.
Evidently, I didn't imbibe it.
You know, for some reason, I don't remember.
Dave Cullen recommends it.
It's probably all right.
Okay, yeah, I'll be right back.
Edge of Tomorrow was much better than I thought it was going to be.
I saw it in the cinema.
It was marketed really badly.
I had to change the name to die, live, repeat.
No, no, no.
I think it was Edge of Tomorrow that I actually watched.
Because that's the one where he's in the robot suit and dies repeatedly.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
That was the one I was replying to on that.
I haven't watched that.
Look, Drinker says it's good as well.
Am I seeing that right?
Yeah, I think so.
But yeah, like I say in my tweet, I miss sci-fi movies with outlandish premises.
I love that.
That's what's good about science fiction.
It's like ridiculous premise.
Now, what happens?
Me and that, actually looks really good.
Let's watch the next one.
When I'm driving, I've always stopped to move rocks and branches from the road.
Now I've added water to the list and started cleaning leaves and sediment from gullies.
A few minutes of work makes it better for everyone.
I expect council sort of a problem to council workers drive past every day and ignore.
You can really just stop and do a bit.
It's all about the greater good.
Good man.
Yeah, yeah, absolutely.
That's actual civic responsibility.
Good man.
Swindon has this all the time as well.
There are so many drains that are just perennially blocked.
And it's like, if it would literally be like, you know, you need the pliers or whatever they call them to hook the thing up and then get it out and clear it out.
It wouldn't take that long, but the council never do it.
And so it's always flooding.
And it's just like, god damn it, man.
Yeah, I've noticed that.
Where I live, there's like massive politics.
I mean, I'm from the lakes where you can't do anything about flooding, right?
It rains, it's going to be flooding.
There'll be sheep on the road.
You have to drive your car really slowly.
This is how it is.
It's the highest rainfall in England.
But in North London, I'm like, why am I constantly avoiding massive, like, lakes?
It's like, this wouldn't be, I can see, yeah, the drain spot.
There's leaves in it, but no one cleans it and it's insufferable.
And I've seen videos of guys going around with whatever the plier things are, pulling them up, emptying them out, and then the water just draining away.
It's like, yeah, it's not.
And no, it's not like, oh, look at this global warming, it's climate change.
Saying, no, it's not.
It's shit infrastructure.
Yeah.
It's lazy and incompetent council workers.
Yeah, cheap counter workers who won't pay someone to go out and do it.
Conspiracy is why do they want flooding?
Well, to advance the climate change, it's Ed Miliband's behind it all, basically.
Anyway, Omar says, the best humiliation rituals are perpetuated by quote-unquote your side.
Is there anything more demoralizing than watching your only representation openly diverge from everything you hope for?
Yeah, and this is the thing.
Ben Shapiro has been getting a hell of a backlash for this.
Losing tens of thousands of subscribers and all sorts of things.
It's like, look, man, this is a hill he's going to die on as well.
Yeah.
It's 100% the hill he's going to die on.
So expect him to be an implacable enemy forever, basically, if you don't want to be systematically disadvantaged as a straight white man.
Michael Brooks says, Ben is a funny little chipmunk.
He's also quite poor at playing this game, which is why Star Is Falling.
He's actually very low philosophical, very low philosophical thoughts and just spits platitudes.
It's not necessarily that.
It's just kind of lazy ideological attacks, right?
Because every ideological statement has a kind of edge to it.
And that's why he's like, no, essentially, what he's saying is we should be de-platforming Tucker Carlson.
And notice that Tucker Carlson was speaking in much more rich human language about forgiveness and care and kindness and decency.
And so you can see Ben is making a power play with the ideological language.
And Tucker is kind of essentially sort of diffusing it and just absorbing it.
But he seems more magnificent for it, right?
Yeah.
I think the fundamental problem.
Am I wrong?
No, no, no.
See what I mean?
I'm smirking and laughing because it's so true.
He's a more likable guy as well.
But the thing is, Shapiro, when he was attacking college students for their very flimsy premises, he was strong because he had a strong argument.
Here, I think it's very simple.
He has no argument.
Because if I said, well, here we are in England, but we should put Norway first, it's obviously silly.
So that's the problem he can't get around.
And I've got nothing else.
I've never been like an Israel guy.
I'm like, okay, do what you got to do.
It's not a big issue for me.
But I'm like, obviously, that premise is not going to beat America first.
Because people around the world are crying out for anyone that puts their own people first, even a small degree.
And anytime you see someone do it, great Yarmouth first.
Everyone went, well, this is great.
44% of the polls.
Right, very much.
It's so rare.
So you can't, this neocon thing of foreign policy, maybe you can justify it.
And it's like, we need to defend our interests abroad.
And he did a little bit of that in the speech.
You've got to make that case much stronger because it's a much harder case to make.
And it doesn't, it doesn't really make sense in this day and age.
We never question the influence of Norway either.
Are you not allowed to?
Well, it's the thing that Ben Shapiro's worldview is very straightforward, isn't it?
In the sense that anything that undermines Israeli or Jewish interests must be attacked.
It's just as simple as that.
Anything that even begins to undermine it in any way, shape, or form.
So like platforming.
You know what's interesting?
No, no, he used to have a more nuanced take on this.
I remember a few years ago, he would say things like, well, Israel's a big girl and can take care of themselves, right?
And so actually, you know, I'm not really bothered about Israel.
And that should have been a sort of like, okay, well, then you're choosing the America first side, right?
So Israel can come second, and you're confident that Israel can take care of itself.
But that's evidently not what's happening here.
So, you know, like Darryl Cooper, for example.
Yeah.
So it's just like sort of beginning nipping around the edges, if that even, of a decades-old narrative.
Even that must be attacked 100% head-on, lock horns with it, and try and annihilate it at source.
And then you had Mark Levin on stage the other day saying, no, we do cancel people.
We do.
He said he was proud of canceling Pat Buchanan.
And Cooper's only saying the same things as Pat Buchanan.
Yeah, exactly.
This is the same thing.
It's been going a long time.
The paleocon, right, has been crushed by the whatever, the neocon, right?
It's been going on for a very long time.
It's with William Buckley.
But this is why the sort of ideological neocons, encountering the sort of humanistic Tucker types, you know, the fact that Tucker is able to absorb these attacks and come out stronger for them, I think is really good.
It does require somebody like Tucker or Joe Rogan in the sense that they're uncancellable in terms of they've got entirely their own voice and platform that no one really, other than maybe Alphabet, if Alphabet decided to tell YouTube to cancel Tucker.
Even then, he'd go on some other platform and millions of people would follow him there.
So he's sort of uncancelable.
Yeah.
He said in the speech, I'm 56 years old.
My kids are grown.
I'm not afraid of you.
Sorry.
He said the only thing is, he goes, you can shoot me, you can put me in prison, but these ideas won't go away.
So he's like, yeah, hard to argue with.
I do love Tucker.
Michael says about Erica Kirk.
Well, can I say it gives me the creeps and I don't trust her.
Tucker is the only one who seems at least like he says what he means.
Yeah, there are a lot of, not just here, but a lot of people criticizing Erica Kirk because she seems to have had a plan.
Like, you know, like, oh, we're going to do this, we're going to do that.
And I don't want to, I don't want to be casting shade or anything because it must have been really difficult.
Sure, of course.
I don't think she's handled it great.
The thing I'll say about Tucker again is that, no, I agree with that.
That I get the feeling that whatever he says, and I don't agree with everything he says.
I don't agree with it.
Even in the segment earlier on today, I was disagreeing with his ideas about individualism.
So I don't agree with absolutely everything Tucker says, although I am a big fan and I'm bored with Tucker.
But I definitely get the feeling that whatever he is saying is genuine.
It's what he actually genuinely believes.
And you sort of can't ask for much more than that.
That he's not trying to manipulate you.
He's not playing 4D chess.
He's not playing some weird, crazy angle of double think or anything.
It's just he's saying what he thinks.
There are things that make me suspicious, like his defense of Muslim taxi drivers, right, and stuff like this.
Okay, yeah.
Okay, good point.
Okay, fair point.
I mean, I'm not saying he's been paid by Qatar.
I don't know anything.
It's like it's like, oh, I'm going to flip from one Middle Eastern identity group to the other Middle Eastern identity group.
And it's like, well, okay, man.
To me, that was a fairly basic point about social conservatism and at least they believe in God versus these people that actively hate me and despise me and want me cancelled, which is the left, the white leftist.
I'm not saying you should just hate Muslim taxi drivers, obviously, but like...
The other thing about Tucker, they take him too seriously because he changes his mind a lot.
And I've noticed this.
He's so radically in the moment.
This is my theory.
He says things.
The next day he says the opposite.
Sometimes the next minute.
And he's speaking to one guy and he goes, I just don't think we should be putting people in jail at all.
I know we have to.
You don't believe in jail.
He'll say crazy things.
Trump does it as well, but he does it and he changes his mind because he's very in the moment in a kind of a childlike kind of way of it's why he's such an incredible communicator because he's just in the moment and 100% believes what he says.
Then he says something different.
And he admits it.
Even in that speech, he goes, you know, I was wrong yesterday.
So when you get really hat up, I'm like, oh, Tucker's even.
He might change his mind tomorrow.
And he's not infallible.
As I say, once again, I'm a fan of Tucker, but he has got things wrong, profoundly wrong.
I remember just before, just before Russia invaded Ukraine, like the day before, two days before.
He said it wasn't.
He was laughing.
He was still on Fox and he was laughing about it.
It's like, oh, as if that's going to happen.
All that stuff.
It's like that aged ridiculously badly in like 48 hours time.
So it's not like he's infallible.
It's not like I agree with everything he says and he's never wrong.
I do love his campy laugh, though.
Yeah, he was wrong on the Iraq war, which is sort of his whole sort of original sin, why he's been on this journey.
He says he was horribly wrong and he feels terrible about it.
You could do with a bit more of that humility on the other side.
If Shapiro had a bit more humility, that would help him.
I just think that if the Zionists were actually willing to understand why the Nick Fuentes types are in the position that they're in, actually, I don't think they'd have to hate each other.
Because all the Zionists would have to say, no, you are right.
You know, America should be for Americans first.
We are also Americans, even though we care about Israel.
Why can't we work together?
But they're not prepared to give any ground at all.
And it's just like, okay, well, then it's going to be a war.
And they would say, well, he mocks the Holocaust and so on.
But if you're going to take all his edgy jokes seriously and just be constantly triggered, you can't win.
But if you just say, all right, all right, it's whatever.
Yeah, yeah, exactly.
Scamps.
Yeah.
Because I mean, because again, they act like because they approach this on the ideological level, like, okay, yeah, if Nick Fuentes says something about Hitler, oh my God, someone said something about Hitler.
It's like, yeah, but if you actually look at Nick Fuentes, like look at him, like little shrunken, hunched over his desk with his mic, meh me, me, me, it's like, this is what you're scared of, you know, like, and I'm not trying to talk down Nick Fuentes, you know, I think he's funny like everyone else, but like, he's not leading armies of stormtroopers.
Yes, why are they so afraid of him?
Their fear almost makes him bigger and it's kind of embarrassing.
I said to you before, like, why is Danny Finkelstein like, I'm the victim?
Why are you saying this to me?
It's like, you know, like, here, yeah, in the House of Lords.
It's like, you could actually just say, okay, he's talking rubbish, but I understand why young men feel this way.
Something like that.
And you, you take on a much more magnanimous, powerful position, but you're like, how dare you attack me?
And of course I'm going to do it more.
Well, we've triggered this weird old law.
Why is Ben Shapiro on stage ranting and raving about Nick Fuentes?
He's a kid with a podcast, man.
He's intruded in your hyper-reality of what these things are.
But actually, in reality, you said something to me a little while ago that I thought was pretty interesting, kind of profound, even, where you said, you are what you react to.
Yes.
When I was moaning about some nobodies on Twitter.
And you say, just ignore them.
Just don't even react.
And I was like, of course that's right.
Of course that's right.
You are sort of what you react to.
If you genuinely aren't affected or hurt or bothered or riled by it, then ignore it.
It's fine.
So Carl's like a feminist gamer then.
A feminist.
Feminist, he's like a, because you are what you react to.
So Carl's like a feminist because that's what the main thing he first.
No, It's not that you are the thing that.
But you're on that level.
When they accuse you of being patriarchal and you're like, oh, no.
That's okay.
You have to embrace the thing that you are.
It's a reflection of patriarchal.
Thank you very much.
It's a reflection of you, what you get offended by, is what you meant.
It's an accurate characterization.
Right, yeah.
And so this is why they're so bothered about Nick Fuentes, because he is characterizing them and they feel that that characterization is accurate.
And so now Ben Shapiro, like Chuck Schumer, Lord Finkelstein, or like, me, me, me, Nick Fuentes.
It's like, he's a 27-year-old kid from Chicago with the podcast.
Like, there's just, I can't imagine in what, like, if you were to look at the things outside of the layer of speech, they could find very interesting about Nick Fuentes in any other way, right?
Like, when was the last time Nick Fuentes left his house?
It was probably not daily, right?
January 6th.
Like, what you think is genuinely a threat or a worry, you know, being physic feeling physically afraid and threatened by an ant.
Yeah.
All right.
You're not.
If you're genuinely not, you just ignore it.
You don't even notice it.
Lord Finkelstein's like Times Radio quick.
We've got to come on and talk about Nick Fuentes.
It just gives him way too much value.
Why?
Weak position.
Exactly.
Michael says, from now on, we will not criticise Ireland and devote endless segments to tell everyone why they are good people in an extremely tangential way and why they should be unquestioned.
We will institute laws to stop you questioning them and constantly remind you of the troubles and why you should feel guilty and show deference.
Then we will give Irishmen a pride of place over Carl and let them say the most vile things about Scots while smiling and laughing, all the while shoring him with money and access.
Well, I mean, I'm up for it.
If the what's the Irish Parliament called?
Oh god, what is it called?
The Storm.
It's at Stormont.
I don't remember its name, but it's at Stormont.
Let me look at that.
I always remember the guys called the Taoiseach, which is called the begins with an O, but I can't pronounce it.
Tay search.
Eurectus.
And then, yeah, I don't know how to protect it.
Sorry, what is it?
Eurectus, which sounds like some sort of proctological exam.
If they want to get on the phone, if Sal Seech or whatever it is, has got an offer.
I'm willing to hear it.
Just saying.
You know, I can be Taoiseach, apparently.
I'm just going to call them Prime Ministers.
It's mad at how alien it is.
It's very near to us, but the language is absolutely like, I'm not even going to go there.
I can't pronounce these things.
We'll take money for the Irish Euro.
Yeah.
We'll take the Irish Euro.
I guess we will, you know.
The Irish nationalists are convinced that Britain is the one puppeteering their politics.
And it's like, we're not puppeteering our own politics, mate.
You know, I don't know whether you noticed.
Yeah.
We're not in control of anything anymore.
Hector says, Bill's been stealing your lunch again.
Aren't you pissed?
Now I've got a guy who's going to take care of him for me.
Yeah, those are the things like you need to go shoot a member of the AFP.
It's like, but you like, you could see like a Hollywood movie where the irony of the story is the kid goes out and shoots him, right?
Yeah.
The actual because, yeah, the guy radicalized him because like that's you're you're genuinely putting yourself in danger there by saying, hey guys, you should go out and shoot in the AFP and I now I'm going on my lunch.
Bang.
You know, it's like that would be a Hollywood story, right?
He took out a life insurance policy on himself deliberately to do it.
Yeah, it does.
It's absurd.
You scratch the surface on that and it's absurd, isn't it?
North FC Zoomer says, Good work on Peace McCormick, Carl.
You managed to engage purely on the essence of the conversation without delving into specifics, like when he brought up Stephen Lawrence, which is mostly false.
To be honest with you, the reason I do that is I don't really know what the specifics on the Stephen Lawrence case are.
I'd never bother looking into it.
I mean, I'm aware of the event, obviously, but I just couldn't tell you the rights or wrongs of it or anything like that.
Asperges and Fries, which is a great name.
That's a really funny name.
Says, will Breakfast with Bo be a live news show similar to the podcast or pre-recorded?
Live.
That's the idea, isn't it?
Wow, that's the idea.
And then go up on YouTube afterwards as well, of course, because most of the world will be asleep.
So it's Bo before he's fully woken up, live speaking his mind.
No, I would have been awake for a while.
I'll be on my third cup by that point, I would have thought.
All right, good luck.
Well, I'm glad to hear that.
I just want to hear the mad stuff you say in the morning.
Barron Van Warhawk says, When I'm gone, they'll just find another monster.
They have to to justify their wages.
I feel like that quote from Dutch Van Lind perfectly summarizes the incident.
The feds need a villain to blame.
It's the only way they'll justify the power grabs.
Remember, power is like heroin to these people, and they'll do anything to get more of it, even if it includes killing children.
Well, I mean, again, I don't know, but it actually does explain the attempt to close the circle.
Otherwise, it's pretty inexplicable, especially as to why nobody's getting in trouble for radicalizing children, which is weird.
Anyway, we are back in half an hour with Ladzow, where we have the Lotus Eaters Awards of 2025.
Luca has been creating a series of categories to which we are going to award people throughout the year.
Who has done the best in X, Y, or Z?
I don't know what the category is going to be in advance.
No, but I can see there's Shoehorn in Sydney Sweeney, which is always good.