Hello and welcome to Podcast of the Lotus Eaters, episode 1333 on Thursday the 15th of January, the year of our Lord 2026.
And I'm joined by Feraz.
Hello, hello.
And guest Nate.
Hello.
Johnson.
All right.
Now, we are aware that Robert Jenrick has apparently been booted out of the Tories because he was about to defect, but we haven't got time to write a segment on that, so we're not going to talk about that.
Instead, we are going to talk about how Australia is actually even more of a dystopia than Britain.
It just has nicer weather, so we don't realize.
That's you, isn't it, Faraz?
Yes, yes.
Then I've got a good news segment for you.
Women are having their rights taken away.
And Nate has got something about the Chagos Islands.
Yeah, a bit of an update.
Bit of a drama.
Bit of an update, yeah.
Comical, really.
So, oh, and also by Islander.
There we go.
There we go.
Buy Islander.
And you actually kind of need to get on with it if you are because we've sold a lot and it's like week one.
And we're probably going to run out a lot sooner than we normally do.
So bear that in mind.
And with that, over to neighbours.
Yes.
I don't think anybody has forgotten the lunacy of Australia's lockdowns Little concentration camps they built Yeah, they built concentration camps for people who were suspected of maybe being infected.
You couldn't leave your house and you had government workers dropping off sloppy food to your door because you weren't allowed to go anywhere.
And if you did go anywhere, you might get beaten by the police every once in a while or get shot with pepper spray and all of that.
They even used the military and had helicopters flying around making sure there wasn't some evil random Australian taking a walk in the park or something.
So all of the worst brutality videos that I saw during the COVID period, all of the worst ones came out of Australia.
Yes, yes.
And then, of course, we had the Bondi massacre.
We covered that on here on the podcast, where Navid and Siraj something, something, Akram, I think it was, whatever it was, decided to form a father and son team to go and murder, I think it was 16 Aussies, mostly Jews, and injure some 40 people.
And so the response to that was to tighten hate speech laws while focusing specifically on the far right and giving Islam an exemption.
Wait, wait, wait, what?
Yes, yes, yes.
And I'll get to that in a moment.
And I'll get to that in a moment.
You couldn't make it up.
I mean, if I told you that the Australian government wanted to silence its people and absolutely hated their guts, I would sound crazy, but that seems to be the truth.
And there doesn't seem to be any other kind of explanation.
It's a bizarre society because it should be full of Anglos.
Well, but is it a bizarre society?
Because it was founded with two distinct groups, wasn't it?
Right.
Prisoners and prison guards.
So they're just they're just living downstream of that, right?
Well, let's just say that the uh that the worst prison guards are in charge of Australia right now and they're trying to consolidate their grip over the country.
Um so they've come up with a law called the anti-semitism and hate and extremism blah blah blah legislation which allows them to pretty much shut down anything and they gave themselves just two days for the public to review it.
The time to review it has already passed.
Now it seems that between the time that we prepared this segment and now, it's looking unlikely that it will pass, but it's looking certain that they will try again.
The law is absolutely superfluous.
There's no need for it whatsoever.
The issue is about enforcing existing legislation and policing radical Islam.
That's always the case, though, with these situations.
Yeah.
Actually, just enforce the laws that are already in place.
Maybe.
Maybe you don't need to legislate even further.
Like, all this stuff is already against the law in some shape or form anyway.
So hate speech has been a crime in Australia since 1995.
Yeah.
It's not new.
They've been well ahead of the curve on this stuff.
Sadly.
Sadly.
So they decided to go a little bit all out.
And I'm going to just mention a couple of things and discuss what the law looks like.
It basically criminalizes causing fear.
What?
Yes.
What?
So if...
How?
That's so subjective.
Even the hate thing is so subjective, but this is even worse.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
What's worse than that is liberal women are afraid of literally everything.
Yeah, because you've created several generations now of complete wet wipes.
I mean, everyone's afraid of everything now.
So basically, you're guilty if the conduct would, in all the circumstances, as in all of the examples above, cause a reasonable person who is the target or a member of the target group to be intimidated, to fear harassment or violence, or to fear for their safety.
Which is about as vague as it gets.
But if I was living in Australia, the number one thing I'd be afraid of by some margin is the Australian government.
Yeah, that's hate speech, mate.
I mean, remember, why aren't they denied Carl Benjamin a visa?
Yes.
Because they thought that he was more dangerous than the people who they had given visas, including the Bondi Beach shooters.
So these are not reasonable people that we're dealing with, and we should stop pretending that we're dealing with reasonable, let alone well-intentioned people.
But just causing fear for a group is a crime.
And so if statistics cause you fear, which going by the number of people who refuse to understand per capita, does seem to be the case, then pretty much everything is hate speech.
Public places includes private land.
This is wonderful.
The definition of a public place includes private land.
Australia.
Yes.
So I don't understand why they're focusing on public places if it includes private land, but it does.
But it does.
And anything on the internet or that is disseminated or that is whatever, that's included in the law.
It's irrelevant if the hatred actually occurs.
If you're inciting hatred and accused of inciting hatred, but no hatred follows, like I try to explain to you that, look, there's a real danger from jihadism.
You don't listen to me.
I've still committed a hate speech.
This is an actual non-crime hate crime.
So that's basically, but now this is actually a crime.
So that's what we have in this country, isn't it?
Non-crime hate incidences.
Yes, yes.
But however, if you look at how they've tightened the prison penalties, some of the prison penalties for these things are 12 years and 15 years.
So don't underestimate these bastards.
Oh, no, no, I'm not underestimating.
I'm saying it's the non-crime hate incidences on steroids.
But this was an old philosophical question.
If a tree falls down in the woods and nobody hears it, did it fall down kind of thing?
If I go for a walk in the woods and I say a racial slur, that's 15 years in prison, even if nobody heard it.
It might be just five.
Okay, right.
It might be five.
It might be.
You know, I'm lucky.
Like, I haven't.
Just five.
I haven't looked at it in the kind of detail that I want because they only gave 48 hours for people to review it.
So it's not that I was being lazy or anything.
I tried.
They can declare any kind of prohibited group and there is no procedural fairness requirement.
Well, like opposition parties, for example.
What makes you say that?
Well, because that's the most awful thing that I can think of them immediately doing with this.
Well, it just so happens that the as far as I'm concerned, the objective is the White Australia Party.
Oh, love it.
Like the age is to sort of like the Prime Minister, the New South Wales Premier, vowed to do everything in his power to stop the National Socialist Network from organizing.
And Albo Albanese, whatever his last name is, the Prime Minister, has vowed to make sure that the White Australia Party can't be allowed to run.
So they're sort of doing this to target anybody who's not with the agenda.
And if you look at the bill, it's a genuine freaking horror show.
Let me give you an example.
The purpose of various clauses in this bill is to protect the Australian community against social, economic, psychological, and physical harm.
I don't think the government's job is to protect my psychological well-being.
I could be crazy.
What's the government?
Or my social well-being.
Governments are terrible at protecting people from economic harm.
They're destroying everyone's economy.
Don't you dare mention that migration brings down wages and raises housing costs and therefore causes economic damage because that would be a hate crime.
Oh, you can't hate him enough.
Yeah.
And there's.
So it's very specific.
It's basically anybody who doesn't agree with the current thing.
Don't dissent.
Yes.
Yes.
We're on this train and you're not getting off.
And you're not getting off.
Exactly.
Exactly.
Yeah, we're riding this train all the way to oblivion.
Brilliant.
It becomes a hate crime if the person's conduct constituting the offense was motivated, whether wholly or in part, by hatred of another person or a group of persons.
How do you?
And that hatred was because the person's belief that the target person or persons are distinguished by race, national, or ethnic origin.
So sorry, sorry, they're defined.
What?
They're defining.
So they're counting.
So if they think I hate you because you're white, obviously that's okay.
But let's assume that it wasn't.
If they think that I hate you because of your race, they don't have to really prove it.
It could be wholly or in part by hatred.
You can't notice any differences then.
If you notice any differences.
So crime statistics.
Statistics about Somalis' welfare dependence and propensity for fraud, pointing out that there are too many Somalis working in American airports.
And the truth is not a defense.
And the truth is obviously not a defense.
I think Germany established that.
Like the truth is always not a defense.
These kinds of things.
There's this weird evolutionary quirk with Australia where everything in it is unbelievably toxic, far more toxic than it needs to be.
And I always just assume that applied to the spiders and the snakes and stuff, but it appears to apply to the government as well.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Um so material so if it applies if racial hatred is likely to be stirred up.
This is why I'm saying that noticing is a crime.
Noticing is obviously a crime and the law is intended to ban any kind of noticing.
So funny, like if if you wouldn't need these laws, well, you wouldn't need the laws if you just didn't do this to begin with, but they obviously are aware of the differences between people, obviously.
Yes.
And that's why they implement these kind of policies because we've got to keep a lid on this pressure cooker as much as possible.
Yes.
You know, it's like diversity is such a strength until you notice that diversity is diverse.
Well, like I always say, just talk to anybody from Lebanon about diversity and then they'll explain it to you.
If your intent is just to disseminate ideas, not cause violence, that could be a crime.
That could be a crime.
Well, you can't even have a positive account of the British Empire.
Pretty much.
What?
Yeah.
I mean, it does sort of seem to apply here.
If you say that the Anglosphere has the best political system, you are expressing supremacist ideas.
And because you're expressing supremacist ideas, you are implying that, I don't know, Afghanistan's tribal council, the Loya Zhirga, is inferior to Westminster democracy when it actually worked.
And that expression of supremacy, go to jail, go straight to jail.
Is it just children playing in politics?
And we know that it's going to be two-tiered.
Like, there's no need to waste your time on that.
However, if you're only quoting your religious texts or referencing religious teachings for the purposes of general discussion or teaching religion, then you're exempt.
Yeah, but probably not.
And you know, you know, that when I say that the Old Testament says certain things about usury being bad, that Christ kicked out the money changers, that the Old Testament disapproves of various behavior that we now refer to as LGBT, it's not going to apply to me, but you know that when it happens in a mosque, it is.
Oh, that's, yeah, that's all, that's fine.
That's kosher.
You sort of know from the outset how this is going to be applied.
And we could pretend that they are being, you know, that this is just a mistake, that they didn't really mean to discriminate.
But come on.
We're all adults here.
We know what is the purpose of this.
There's no need to pretend that the government isn't governing against its people.
And this applies to pretty much the entirety of the Anglosphere.
And here we are.
This is an extreme case.
There's no way we could have the Lotus Eaters in Australia.
No.
And any kind of sharing or dissemination of messages, like, for example, let me give you, this one is absolutely wild.
When it comes to defining a member of a banned organization, a member of an organization includes a person who is an informal member of the organization.
They're not a member.
So who's not a member?
It's always not a member.
Which means...
That is, isn't it?
Yes, which means that I get anyone.
So our Australian fans are advised to use VPNs.
I don't know.
These are easily hackable and they don't provide full security.
I don't know what to say.
But if you watch the Lotus Eaters regularly or comment on our website regularly, that could mean that you're an informal member of a hate group.
Right.
Has the Under Secretary of State for the States commented on this yet?
The Trump administration has been telling the Australian if you do this.
Right, okay.
I know they've commented on that.
Yeah, Sarah Rogers, I believe her name is.
She's been commenting about this stuff.
And the Trump admin has privately warned the Aussies not to go down that route.
You see the usual suspects of Australia, Pauline Hansen, One Nation, all of these guys coming out against this nonsense.
And I just wanted to remind you in terms of how this actually works.
So there's this religious carve-out clause, but when Israel Fulau, who's a Togan rugby player, he's now had to go to Japan because everybody in Australia cancelled him.
When he expressed basic Christian views on sexuality, the Prime Minister stepped in to say that his views were reprehensible, rubbish, etc., etc., calling him out.
Presumably it was something like, oh, why doesn't a man have a husband or something like that?
Something like, yes, yes, yes.
So a man have a wife.
So his criticism was along the lines of pretty basic traditional Christian morality.
Same-sex marriage is not a thing.
Going to avoid being attacked, etc.
Stuff that's been commonplace for the like, you know, up until civilization.
Yeah.
In civilizational time, up until five seconds ago.
So saying that from a Christian perspective, that's going to get you in trouble.
But if you say, for example, that the Christians are all lying about their scripture as Islam does, or that all those who believe in the Holy Trinity are kuffar and therefore must be fought against, etc., etc., this kind of religious teaching can be exempted under the law as it currently stands.
So basically in Australia, convert to Islam or go to jail.
Well, if you had doubts about how severe this is, I'm going to make you listen to something for three minutes.
Oh, really?
And then you can sort of see that it's genuinely wild.
Let's listen to this, please.
In part five, the racial vilification offence on page eight, that works through some of these new offences.
Just want to turn to where you've spoken about expressions of race, colour, and national or ethnic origin.
And it says on the fourth line there, for example, those of Jewish origin would be protected by the offence.
Given that Jewish people, I could convert to Judaism, how then do you suggest that you'll be protecting Jewish people of different ethnic origins under this legislation?
So for this offence, that reference draws on the Racial Discrimination Act.
And in that context, these terms have been found to encompass Jewish people, also Sikhs, as ethno-religious groups.
so jewish people as sikhs are protected yes so we're satisfied that that reference to persons or groups distinguished by race color national or national ethnic okay what about other religious groups Would it protect well I'm Catholic?
Would it protect Catholic people?
I mentioned that I think there has been consideration that it will apply to Sikhs as also an ethno-religious group and in other contexts it would depend on the broader range of characteristics but being Catholic alone would not constitute race,
colour, national, ethnic origin, but it might be that in certain circumstances if there are broader other considerations that meant those individuals formed.
And then she goes on, and then she goes on to clearly say that no, Christians in general would not be protected.
Why are so many women in politics?
Can you just get out now?
You are destroying politics.
This Betty HR childless women trying to protect foreigners because they've got nothing to look after in their life.
Just get out of my politics, please.
As you see in the States.
You're destroying the Western world.
As you see in the States, you see liberal mothers going out to protect Somali migrants.
So it's not just the childless, the virus.
Women are more prone to being manipulated and they have been horrifically manipulated.
But it sounds like what this bill is actually doing is criminalizing everybody who is white and Christian and it's just a question as to whether they enforce it or not on you.
But if you are white and Christian, you know that there is a guillotine over your head.
Yes, essentially.
That's the purpose of the law.
Now, Australia's Conservatives, who are called appropriately liberals, thought about supporting the law, but then the uproar on X made sure that they couldn't do it.
And then there were some other reactions, which I'm going to go through in the interest of time.
Give me a split second here.
We had the Executive Council of Jewish organizations coming out in Australia and saying that their problem is that the law wasn't tight enough, that they fully support it, and they think that it should be tightened even further.
Now, in case you were wondering about the politics of Australian Jewish people, the Executive Council of Australian Jewry is the umbrella body comparable to the Board of Deputies in Britain.
And it has representatives from pretty much every single Jewish organization in Australia that participate in it.
And it is the umbrella group that is recognized by the World Jewish Congress.
It's mental to me.
And they've come out and said, hold on, they've come out and said that the legislation is a significant step in the right direction, but it still suffers some significant shortcomings which will limit its effectiveness.
They want it to be tighter.
Right, yeah.
The offence is limited to the promotion of hatred of others on the basis of their race, promoting hatred based on inherent attributes such as gender identity, sexual orientation, age or disability will not be prescribed, the implication being that they should be.
People who are targeted for hatred on the basis of these attributes are equally entitled to protection.
So their view is that this should be tightened even further.
Sorry, let me just get this straight.
So Muslims attack Jews.
Gays most affected.
Yes.
Brilliant.
The proposed offence does not cover instances where a person recklessly promotes racial hatred.
So it should be even tighter.
Again.
So we're still allowed to go after fatties, but that's about it.
Yes, I suppose.
No, probably not.
Well, if not a woman.
Thirdly, hold on, hold on.
Misogynistic.
Hold on.
Thirdly, the proposed offense.
Sorry.
The proposed offense would exempt quoting or referencing religious texts for the purposes of religious teaching.
Now.
They don't say gluttony, basically.
Gluttony is a sin.
Basically, this one is interesting because if you look at St. Paul's criticism of the Jews of his time, you could pick out pieces in the New Testament and say that these were anti-Semitic.
The serious vilification offense will only be established if a prosecutor can prove that the conduct would put a reasonable member in fear.
So instead of saying that's absurd to just prosecute people for apparently causing fear, because that's highly subjective, this requirement goes beyond guilty renaissance should be decided solely on the basis of the conduct and the impact on the victim should be relevant only in determining the sentence.
Meaning that just having hatred should be the criminal offense.
Now, to be fair, the Australian Jewish Association, which has a much smaller membership and is closer to the Likud party in Israel and is not considered the establishment organization, has a few thousand members compared to the much wider membership of the Executive Council, put out a statement saying the opposite.
And they're attacking the Australian government and they are defending speech and they are saying that this is absolutely ridiculous and that there are other things that should be done to combat anti-Semitism, but not this nonsense.
Like, I don't know, close of the borders to Islamists.
You just committed a hate crime.
Stop committing hate crimes.
You just can't help yourself, mate.
It's just so tiresome, isn't it?
mental to me i don't understand why any i mean i'm an englishman so for all i care there would be no jews or muslims in this country like i just I'm not interested in any of it.
But there are Jews here.
So it's mental to me that any Jew wouldn't be pro-just like Islamist blockade.
No.
You're mental.
You're mad.
No self-preservation.
What I don't understand when you read the Old Testament is why the ECAG would want to defend transgenderism and homosexuality and all of that.
I genuinely don't get it.
This is a fundamentally unbiblical view.
This is a fundamentally destructive view.
The AGA doesn't criticize that, but, you know, here we are.
The legislation is, I'm looking at the time now.
The legislation is probably going to fail, not least because there's a bunch of people who are going to protest against it on the 26th of January on Australia Day and remind the government that this legislation pretty much makes everybody who likes Australia a criminal, but also because the Greens decided that the legislation doesn't go far enough.
Oh, great.
And so they decided to withhold their support.
Remind me again how hate speech helps the environment.
Somehow, something magic, it helps.
So fortunately, this law isn't going to pass by the look of it.
Things could change.
And the Trump admin has stepped in and said this is madness.
And anybody who looks at the thing can clearly see that it's absolutely insane.
But the Greens decided not to let it pass because it doesn't go far enough.
And they were bargaining with the government before it became clear how unpopular this was, trying to get them to tighten the legislation further and to expand it to cover an even wider range of sane, sensible, normal opinions.
So it seems that the Aussies dodged the bullet this time, but it's not going to last.
Well, if they try to do it once, they'll just do it again.
Yes.
Yes, exactly.
Brilliant.
So that's all the time I have for this.
But stay safe there.
Stay safe out there, Australians.
Your government freaking hates you.
That is very disturbing.
Stiggleson says, Mr. H did hate crime.
Luke, St. 91, says, maybe the only thing Islam gets right is that women don't have any rights.
Oh, you're going to like my segment then.
And wonder why white people are getting more radical, especially when they rely on us to defend the country.
Or could I bother mouse?
Yeah, sure.
Magnus, 87, thank you for the $20.
Old Soviet joke, you know, someone was lying when he says he got 10 years and didn't do anything because the sentence for not doing anything was five years.
And that's a random name says why women are allowed.
So, very good.
We shall turn now to a bit of a white pill, something to cheer us all up.
So, you've probably all been aware that there's been this bit of a hoo-ha in this country.
Grok, well, actually, not just Grok, all of the AIs, you could go to it and you say, here's a picture, put it in a bikini, and all of the AIs do it.
But Keir Starmer Kite wants to ban X because it's not controlled by a shitlib.
And therefore, they seized upon this and there was a big hoo-ha about being able to put women in bikinis.
Someone put my dog in a bikini.
Well, yeah, you could do anything.
Toaster, you could put in a bikini.
I mean, anything really.
But Grok has now had to respond to this because the UK government decided to go down the path of, well, we're going to ban you then.
So Grok has now banned its AI from generating sexualized images of women and children after the UK made it illegal to create non-consensual images.
However, it is still responding to requests to put men in bikinis or sexual positions.
Now, this was universally praised on the left and right.
And everybody's saying, well, this is obviously a good thing.
So there were, just to clarify, I guess, as well, Elon Musk and everyone else came out and was like, there was nothing about kids.
There's nothing else.
Oh, yeah, there's nothing about kids on this at all.
No, there wasn't.
Just to clarify that that was something whipped up by the media.
No, that is perfectly true.
But everybody has thought that this is a good thing.
And I've seen so many comments from people saying, there is no possible reason why you would not be in favour of this.
And I thought, well, I can actually see a pretty glaring one.
And I want to take you on my thought process and tell me that I'm not wrong on this.
So for a start, I have a very different reading of this tweet.
And Samson, leave it on the screen so the audience can see it as I say this.
The way I read that, because I'm infinitely more based, is that what that is actually saying is that women have just had their rights restricted and are being treated like children.
I'm not wrong, am I?
Yeah, we've got to lock you up.
No one can look at you, do anything about you.
Yeah.
Talk to you.
And essentially, what it comes back to is this old distinction or no paradox in liberalism that has never been resolved, which is women are both strong and powerful at the precise same time as being vulnerable and needing special protections.
Liberalism has never been able to resolve that.
Before we go on, and I'll take you through my argument, I just do want to give an acknowledgement to the fact that it is only now a few years since we wouldn't have been able to have a conversation on the dynamic of men and women because of the other 72 genders.
Now, you might think, oh, that's done in the world.
Oh, I remember that stuff.
It was only a few years ago.
This was medically reviewed in 2024.
That's only two years ago where this was the thing.
So just a quick blast from the past.
Let's just remind ourselves of the genders that they used to be.
I can't go through all of them.
Aerogender.
Aerogender.
I think I saw the film on that, the last aerogender.
What?
Effectogender, a gender flux, Alexander general.
That's presumably when you imagine yourself to be Alexander the Great or something.
What else?
I mean, there's blurts.
Auto gender.
Are they a car?
Autogender?
That sounds like the base one, doesn't it?
Astral gender.
Brilliant.
I mean, you get to a certain point on this, and it basically just looks like a glossary of terms that you might be.
Can I be serious about this for one second?
Ow.
Yes.
Bear with me.
I'd like to see this.
Ego gender.
Brilliant.
These are people trying to find weird ways to express their own uniqueness within the constraints of the dominant transgender culture.
And what they're saying is that they are suffering and they don't know how to express it.
And the only permitted avenue for expressing it is through some kind of sexualized identity.
Yes.
There was a time where we would respect people's suffering because we all shared in it.
But that was predicated on having a Christian morality.
And they are right that every individual is unique and has unique trials and tribulations and an individual cross in a sense.
But that doesn't need to be expressed in this particularly insane and satanic manner.
I just think they're mental.
But you're right.
It is about over-sexualization and that being the only narrative.
And that's kind of where I'm going with it.
Which is why I go with insane and satanic.
Yes.
Because what I'm saying is the pendulum swung to such a ridiculous length, it's now starting to swing back.
Before I move on, I'll just point out one I like.
Actually, it is the Alex gender.
A person who has a fluid gender identity between one or more type of gender, although they cannot name the genders they feel fluid in.
That's just a mental person.
Yes.
Yes.
That's someone who's telling you, I am mentally unwell.
I'm suffering.
Please help me.
And a normal process would be go to a priest, confess your sins, maybe get slapped around and fast for penance.
But they can't be told to do the same thing.
And so they're told, well, I've just discovered a new gender doctor.
This one is absolutely different from all of the others.
Let's cut off their tits and graft a penis.
And when you get later down in this, for me, this just feels like a glossary of spare terms that you have at the back of your science fiction show.
You can just sort of picture, you know, Captain, the demi-flux is interacting with the adredit.
Autogender.
And it's going to cause a Femi-fluid explosion or something like that.
I mean, it's just all over the bloody place.
Anyway, so I mentioned that.
So my point is, is that, you know, the pendulum is really swinging on this.
Now, my actual argument is this, okay?
Is that I don't think that women are going to lose rights through sort of ideology or malice.
What is happening here is that we are instantiating a safety and compliance logic where rights are risked managed permissions.
Okay, so in the digital system, systems, they don't recognize rights, they recognize permissions, right?
And platforms understand that they've got to shut down the risk profile of everything.
So basically, what happened is what is going to happen is that the temporary safeguards are going to harden into policy.
And, you know, you start with emergency blocks because there's a crisis.
And then you get internalized risk categories.
And then you get best practice.
Now, women, as we have established now, they're a high-risk class.
So you need additional protection layers on women.
And you've got to treat them like children, effectively.
So the language that is going to be used is not going to be, oh, taking away anything or restriction.
It's not going to be that.
It's going to be safeguarding.
It's going to be protections.
It's going to be out of caution.
Nobody ever says restriction.
They only ever say care.
That's the way that they go on this.
And then sex or gender, whichever way you look at it, is going to become administratively real at the digital layer.
So sex is going to correlate with abuse likelihood and reputational harm.
And therefore, digital protocols have no choice but to store, infer, and use in decision trees.
So equality remains rhetorical.
What's actually happening underneath this is that the divergence is happening in the code.
And it's a set of permission layers.
And then what happens is these systems, they don't, they stack, right?
They don't reset.
So everything is a layer built upon another layer, upon another layer.
So new systems that are developed off the back of this, and everything is going to become increasingly more digital over time.
Everything is going to get more and more, and you can see more of the civic engagement chain moving onto the digital world, right?
And every new system that is going to be built on the old systems are going to inherit the existing risk flags.
They're going to inherit the compliance rules and the known vulnerabilities.
And that's how they'd be thinking about it.
So, I mean, stuff like digital ID is obviously going to come.
I know that Keir Starmer has said he's backing off.
He's not really backing off.
Oh, so you're in orbit name.
I mean, maybe we should talk about that for a second.
There was an announcement and a lot of people got excited.
Okay, digital ID is no longer going to be mandatory.
So what?
What will happen?
It will be.
That's the thing.
It will be just in orbit name.
It will be mandatory if you want to be able to do anything.
Yeah.
If you don't want to do anything, it's not mandatory.
If you do want to do anything, it will be mandatory.
Like even your interactions with something like Company's House.
Yes.
They have to go through a .gov1ID, whatever it is, which is effectively a digital ID.
And you can easily tie pretty much everything to do with government, benefits, taxes, whatever, to this identity.
And then you just link it up to the NHS, which already has a decentralized database about you.
And then that's it.
You are fully part of the digital ID environment.
So they are going to sneak this through the back door.
And if, as you say, there are these layers of protection that are stacking on top of each other, with women being, you know, being female being one of the protected characteristics, it just means that males are the excluded group and the ones that are permissible to be put at risk, which is fair.
All of the history of humanity is about putting men at risk, be it in construction or in war or in agriculture or in hunting, because that's their job to provide and protect.
But it would be nice to recognize that this is the objective truth.
But, okay, but actually, I think that's a good thing here because it's yes, okay, men are more at risk.
But in the terms that they are not protected by these categorizations, these things that have to be built in.
So you can see that the civic tech, when it comes along, you know, digital voting is going to be built on top of this.
You know, anti-coercion messages are going to have to be built into it.
You're going to need identity assurance and you're going to need basically a zero tolerance for any scandal.
And so the risk analysis and the compliance departments and all of these, when they're building it up, it's going to be who is most likely to be coerced.
Well, we know the answer to that because the risk flags are all over women.
You know, they're the ones that can be compromised.
They're the ones that are higher risk.
And so the system will correctly infer from the previous stacks built below it.
Okay, well, the answer is who's vulnerable?
Women.
Because that is what we're training into it now.
So effectively, what they're going to get is a lot more friction.
So nobody is ever going to come along and say to a woman, no, you can't vote.
The rhetoric will be the same.
But the downstream consequence will be that getting through to the point where you can actually do that, where you can take a full civic engagement, is going to be a lot more friction.
So it's going to be extra verification and it's going to be delays and manual reviews and all this kind of stuff.
Yeah.
So, you know, whereas men, they're going to get the default digital access and they're going to get the low friction path while the women are getting the safeguarded pass, which is just slower and more complicated.
So, you know, women can still vote, but it's just slower and more friction in order to get back there.
And once you start layering this up, you're not going to get rollback because removing safeguards can immediately be flagged as, okay, well, you're risking harm to women.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
And if keeping safeguards, there are basically no downsides to this.
And it's ultimately compliance officers and not politicians who own the system, who run the system, right?
So, you know, the inversion occurs where liberalism claims that women are all of these things, you know, fully equal agents and structurally vulnerable and stuff.
But every time there's a scandal or something that comes along, they start building in behaviors which are perfectly the opposite of that.
Now, I then want to show a tweet that I put out last night that people seem to have responded to quite well because I'm trying to think about the system of governance in a different frame.
Trying to invert the frame on a lot of this stuff and see if any of this makes sense.
So here I say, look, what if all of the following is true?
Britain is no longer a democracy.
It's a credential-weighted compliance system.
Real power flows through the treasury regulators and courts because they own risk.
So the treasury owns sort of bond risk, all that kind of stuff.
Courts, legal compliance risk, all that kind of stuff.
The state doesn't govern, it processes risk.
Policy is downstream of risk frameworks, not ideology or voter preference.
Parliament is a signaling layer, not a decision layer.
MPs signal moral alignment, launder system decisions into narratives and absorb public anger.
Britain is governed by inherited assumption, and there's a whole bunch of these, you know, such as growth cannot benefit the natives.
And that I mean, this is a core one: legibility to international systems outrank domestic concerns.
You know, I go on to say things like immigration was never a policy choice, it was a structural output.
If you've got declining compliance with the natives, where you need people who are going to not contest the authority, and that the real constitution is basically statistical, not written, because what a constitution do is it restricts you.
So, the real constitution is bond yields, credit rating agencies, legal harmonization.
You know, it's all of that.
And I'm saying effectively, the collapse has already happened, but it looks to us like stability without any purpose.
And ultimately, where I get to all of this is that Britain isn't being misgoverned, it's being governed exactly as a late-stage administrative system must.
It's all risk mitigation all the way down.
I mean, you could easily compare the government of Britain to the people who were sitting in the emperor's palaces in China, in the Guardian City, in the Holy City, whatever it was, completely isolated.
They're there sometimes as a lightning rod for public anger.
It is a bunch of eunuchs in charge at the end of the day, genderless eunuchs.
And yes, Kierstan foots that build, I'm sure, to be honest.
Well, the Ukrainian rent boys might have their opinions.
You know, I think their trial is coming up in March or April.
That should be entertaining.
They won't say anything.
Oh, nothing will be public.
Oh, I'd love it to be.
It won't be.
I'd love it to be, but it won't be.
Maybe.
Can't let that get out.
But basically, what I'm saying here is restricting women's digital because we can do something they can't.
And I know it sounds frivolous at the moment, but I can take a picture of myself and say to Grok, put me in a bikini, right?
And you might think, okay, well, that's right.
I have done that as well.
Just to see if it could be done right.
Optimal might appear entirely frivolous at this point, but my point is serious.
If you start building risk flags and permissions onto women and then you build everything else onto a digital system, let me agree with you with an anecdote.
I was writing a piece on Iran yesterday, and I wanted an image of Khamenei, the supreme leader of Iran, with a target on him and American threats in the air.
Do you know whose image Grok gave me?
Elon Musk's and another random white man.
It absolutely refused to put Khamenei in a turban and his normal dress and also with a target on him because obviously that would violate some kind of hate speech programming.
But it did instantly spit out Elon Musk.
And I'm not lying.
I have the image.
I future it out.
Didn't get a reply.
But when you ask Grok to take the supreme leader of Iran, put him in his proper dress and put a target on him, it'll give you an image of a random white man and Elon Musk instead.
Yeah, so bizarre.
No turbans.
No turbans, no religious dress.
I mean, isn't this fascinating?
Extending from that to your logic, you could sort of see how this kind of endless programming that is going to go through algorithms that have the same safety requirements.
And the key thing is they stack and they stack and they stack and Exactly, is going to end up with a conclusion that with a white man, he's allowed to do anything.
Yes, but with a woman, especially if she identifies.
Shut it down, restrict it, protect her, she's vulnerable.
Exactly.
Yes.
So this is the logic that you're going with.
And I am seeing it in real life.
Yes.
And then when you start to build all of the later stages that will come over the next two decades of civic engagement, including voting.
So, I mean, and that is how I get to.
I mean, just to come back to the original link, you know, women are having their rights restricted and treated like children.
That's why I think it's a good thing.
So I've come at it that this is a good thing.
Everybody agrees that this is a good thing.
I'm agreeing it's the other side of it.
For a completely different reason.
Not the reason that absolutely everybody else thinks that this is a good thing.
A true feminist would want to defend femininity, right?
Rather than pretend that men and women are the same.
A true feminist feminine is not.
And it always used to be that men and women are different.
And then we got all that gender nonsense I talked about at the beginning, where, you know, there were 70 different genders, including genders for people who don't know what gender they are and can't make up their minds.
Yes.
And the pendulum is swinging back.
And people can't see that it's happening.
But that pendulum is swinging.
We are taking rights away from women.
We are doing it all over again.
We are setting up for a situation where they won't be able to vote, or at least they won't be able to vote with as much friction.
And everybody at every stage, especially the feminists, they're like cheering, going, yay, this is excellent.
And I'm there going, yep.
But for completely different reasons, right?
And I mean, I'll show you this video.
I mean, this is where we need to get back to.
I mean, this is from Broadwalk Empire.
This is how the world used to be.
It used to have thought patrols.
I'll just show you this.
Pull it down, sister.
Beg pard?
Your skirt's too short.
Too short for what?
It's the law, lady.
The bottom of the skirt shall be no higher than seven inches above the knee.
They actually measure.
What kind of town is this?
I'll write you a summons, and you can find out.
Well, make it out to Molly Fletcher.
I take it you're not from around here.
San Francisco, new in town.
Not much of a welcome, is it?
$10.
What?
I don't have that kind of money.
Fine, then you can spend the night in jail.
Come on, you have got to be kidding me.
Nice.
You're attracting the beach lizards now.
Oh, let them go.
They're called knees, fellas.
What's the trouble?
She refuses to cover up and she won't pay the fine.
Really want to go to jail?
Sure.
I'm a public menace.
Officer.
I'm sorry.
My cousin is a joker.
If you let me pay the fine, I'll be sure to keep her out of trouble.
Gee.
You do that, cuz that all right with you.
Suit yourself and cover her up.
Sorry, base patrol?
Yeah, exactly.
I mean, this is what we've got to get.
Why have we ever lost for thought patrols?
That's what we need.
We need women like that going around, you know, looking up OnlyFans, like fine for you.
And my position on OnlyFans is very clear.
Oh, shut it down.
Shut it down.
Yes.
No, no.
Drone strikes.
Drone strikes servers.
Drone strikes on the owners.
End it.
Yes.
We're done here.
Yes.
But, you know, I'm just saying, you know, just if you've got to start thinking about things in terms of systems and not just for the not just the headline that you see in the news.
What does this instantiate?
What behaviors does it reward?
Which behaviors does it shut down?
And then what gets built on top of that layer by layer by layer.
Because I think the feminists are cheering for something here, which they don't quite understand what the downstream implications of treating women like children, which is actually what they've done.
And I'm not saying I don't agree because I do agree.
But I agree because I thought it through all the way.
All morality is about protecting women and children.
Biologically.
Yes.
This has always been the priority.
And we've found ways to sort of elevate women, elevate children through Christian thinking.
But all morality, biologically, is about safeguarding women and children.
But we've become so woke, we're rediscovering tradition.
You decided to pretend that everybody's equal.
Yes.
Which is an insane assumption.
It's a bit like every so often you see some feminist on Twitter post something like, well, if women can't have abortions, that means that men have to provide for her and the child for the rest of his life.
You've rediscovered marriage.
Yes.
Congratulations.
And you've rediscovered marriage.
We're in active tradition.
Honestly, once a month, a feminist hits upon this killer line and posts it and then just gets the entire right wing posting under, yep, your terms are.
Yep, that's fine.
Yeah.
That is absolutely fine.
We are rebuilding tradition and proper modest feminism because we went too woke.
It's as if these cultural norms are there for a reason.
Yes.
Yes.
It's as if there is a reason why things are the way they are.
I don't know.
Right, so I will read some comments.
Oh dear.
This one seems to have riled people up.
Oh, Travelling Tortoise for a very generous $50 says, the absolute state of our politics, bracket state of politics.
Great YouTube channel.
When's Dan coming on?
I don't know.
Do you want to come on the state of politics?
Well, I've got something interesting to talk about.
I mean, that'd be your decision since you run the shop.
I'm not against it.
Well, me and Bo can have you on just to interview you.
Absolutely.
Sigglestone says, my gender is Dan.
Very good.
Luke's 891 says, I disagree.
I think they came up with all these genders just to be special.
If you notice, a lot of these people are white and they're trying to get around the anti-whiteism that we're dealing with.
And he also says, I find it funny you guys are talking about stuff now the MGTOWs have been talking about for a while.
Who are the MGTOWs?
Men going their own way.
Ah.
Yes.
Hayden W is demi gender named after Demi Lovotto.
Dono.
Logan says, off topic, Dan, can you do a broken nomics about Canada?
I mean, possibly.
If I'd a good guest, I guess.
It's going to become America.
Right.
That would be good.
I'll cover it at that point.
Luke's 891 also says, I brought this up yesterday, but you guys really need to have a serious look at MGTOW community.
Possibly, yeah.
Again, if you can recommend a decent guest, I'd consider it.
And a drunken changeling says, feminats once again creating patriarchy from first principles.
Yes, that is exactly what they're doing.
And that's why I'm in favour of it.
Tell us about Chagos.
Yeah, so let me just scroll through this quickly.
Here we go.
Right.
Let's have a whistle-stop tour of Chagos.
A bit of an update on everything that's going on because I haven't heard much for a while.
Been little bits of updates here and there, but they're comical.
They're really comical.
So, this isn't like a great grand update.
Nothing major's happened, but it's setting the stage, I think, for things to happen moving forward.
But what has happened is very, very funny.
So, I want to talk about it.
This one: the Chagossians announce a government in exile.
What?
Yep.
Okay.
I mean, I'm here for it.
I'm pro-Chagosians.
How many Chagossians are there?
Enough for a whole government.
And no, for two governments at this point.
Yeah, yeah.
There's like 60 of them or something.
Yeah, so the Chagos Islands community has announced the creation of a government in exile.
I mean, again, I'm laughing, but I'm pro this.
Following an informal referendum in which 96% of voters supported the proposal.
More than 1,000 Chagossians worldwide.
So there you go.
There's your answer.
We're eligible to participate.
And the result was led by newly elected interim First Minister Misley.
Miesley Mandarian.
The poll, which took place over the weekend at the time of this go, and it was a little while back now, received the following result.
Question one, formation of a government in exile.
Do you support the creation of a government in exile to represent the Chagossian people until a permanent settlement is achieved?
In favour, 1,233, 91.9%.
And against 108, so 8.1%.
I mean, I'm pro this.
Okay.
I'm pro this.
So they announced that they're happy that they were going to do it.
They got the approval.
Yeah.
I mean, look, I mean, just on logistics' sake, there must be people who are both in the Chagossian government and the Chagossian opposition at the same time just because there's such a shortage of manpower.
Probably.
That's a new take on crossing the aisle.
Like, constant to argue with oneself.
And then they appointed the interim first minister, which is obviously this chap, Maisley Mandarin.
And then they also just a few more bits and pieces here.
They just say this.
So the announcement comes amid growing scrutiny from international bodies.
The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, which is brilliant, because that's like that.
That's the most left-coded thing.
Yeah, it's proper woke, innit?
Working together the other side.
That's hilarious.
Yeah, and so they recently urged both the UK and Mauritius to pause ratification of the sovereignty deal.
Oh, this is so cute.
Warning that it may violate Chagossians' rights by preventing resettlement on Diego Garcia.
They think they're going to resettle Diego Garcia, do they?
Honestly, it's all over the place.
Very cute.
The government in exile has pledged to seek recognition from international institutions and governments.
Its leaders say that they will advocate for resettlement, compensation, which we'll get to, and cultural preservation whilst challenging the UK-Mauritius Agreement as inconsistent with international law and human rights standards.
So there was that, right?
There is a little video.
I don't think we don't really need to watch it.
think we can skip that yeah and then um and so then they wrote the so because they thought so they formed their government in exile And then they were like, right, we're a government now.
Don't tell me they wrote a constitution.
No, we are going to write a letter to Sequoia Stalin, which you can't really see there, but I can see it.
So I'm going to read it to you.
This is from First Minister Miesley Mandarin.
That is terrible.
Yes.
Mate, Samson, that is, Jesus, that'll give you an aneurysm.
Miesley.
Yeah, Misley Mandarin said, Dear British friends, I write to you as the First Minister of the Chagossian people.
Again, I'm pro-Chagosians here.
I'm laughing, but I am pro-Chagosians.
And as someone who still believes in Britain's sense of fairness, responsibility, and quiet strength, today, I ask you to stand up to speak out and act.
The British government is on the brink of surrendering the British Indian Ocean territory, including the Chagos archipelago to Mauritius.
If this deal is ratified, it will be irreversible and Britain will live to regret it.
Which I agree with this.
That's true.
This whole thing is mental.
This should not be happening.
So I agree with all of this.
True.
Yep.
Agree so far.
This is not a distant technical matter.
It is about British territory, British scrutiny, British taxpayers' money.
Yeah, like 30, was it like 30 billion quid?
34 billion pounds or something like that.
It's mental.
And so it continues a little bit further and says, and a natural treasure, and Britain has protected better than almost any nation on earth.
So talk about 60 islands.
59 of them are completely uninhabited, untouched, except for birds, turtles, fish, and coral, which is, again, all things that we will see.
I like all of those protected.
Again, I'm pro all of that.
They're among the most pristine islands and waters anywhere in the world.
And this did not happen by accident.
It happened because Britain took its responsibility seriously.
For decades, Britain has protected Chagos, a marine sanctuary of global importance.
Its reefs are among the healthiest, blah, So we'll just scroll up past that.
Basically, just trying to prey on the whole environmentalism part, which I'm, again, I'm pro.
I'm pro all of that.
Why not?
And so then go further.
Mauritius is over a thousand miles away.
Yep.
They had no contact between Mauritius and Chagos.
It was China began to institute it, initiate the whole situation.
The whole thing is absurd.
There is no relationship between the Chagos Islands and Mauritius.
It's mad.
Well, they're both islands.
Well, we're.
Oh, that's a good point.
It does not have the naval capability, the patrol capacity, or the resources to protect these islands.
And in the past, it has had to ask other countries for help simply to police its own waters.
Nice little dunk on Mauritius there.
Yeah.
And they lost the dodo.
Did they?
Yeah, it was Mauritius, wasn't it?
It was New Zealand, wasn't it?
No.
Pretty sure it was Mauritius.
They had dodos.
They finished it.
Well, savage.
Savage.
To pretend that it can suddenly safeguard one of the most remote archipelagos on earth is fantasy.
I like this guy.
He's a legend.
Once sovereignty is transferred, Britain will have no control.
Fishing, exploitation, and environmental degradation will follow.
What Britain has preserved impeccably will be handed over to a state that cannot realistically protect it.
This deal, this is all like in bold, is also deeply dangerous for Britain's security.
Yes.
Diego Garcia, one of the Chagos Islands, hosts one of the most important UK-US military bases in the world.
From there, Britain and its allies that are hostile regimes protect global trade routes and respond to international crisis.
Recent operations in the Middle East have depended on this base.
So I love all of that.
Good stuff.
What a legend.
Continues further, says, Yeah, under this deal, Britain will give up sovereignty and pay more than £30 billion, potentially closer to £35 billion, to rent back what it already owns.
Yes, it's mad.
None of it makes any sense.
So this is kind of stuff you already know.
But the fact that he's actively engaging with the British people as a government, as an elected official, this is all new.
So I love this stuff.
This is great.
And then they say this: serious new concerns are emerging.
Mauritius has been implicated in illicit financial dealings linked to the Venezuelan regime of Maduro.
Whistleblower documents point to China's strategic interest in Chagos beyond the 99-year lease period.
The treaty itself risks undermining the treaty, another treaty.
Oh, no, is there a treaty?
Sorry.
Raising questions about whether future AUKUS-related operations from Diego Garcia could even remain lawful.
This is not scaremongering.
These are real documented risks being raised by defence experts, parliamentarians, and international observers.
I'll bet you anything that an intelligent British prime minister could sell the Chagos Islands to the Americans for 50 billion.
Yeah.
Instead of giving it to Mauritius and giving them money, you could easily sell it to the Americans for 50 billion, maybe even 100 billion.
Yeah, and just, you know, that's it.
Yes.
And I checked on the dodo thing.
That was Mauritius, and while I was doing...
Was it on New Zealand?
No, it's definitely Mauritius.
They had Dodos.
New Zealand had a bird of some sort.
They had a bunch of birds, yes.
You might be thinking, Kiwi, was that a bird?
Was that a flat?
I can't remember.
Anyway, the point is, I then checked how close is Mauritius to the Chagos Islands.
Quite far.
They're nowhere bloody.
It's 1,500 miles away.
It's quite far.
They had no connection to it.
It's only because the Brits administered put them under the same administration.
Do you know what I thought of imperial efficiency?
I can see why it's like saying Aden, which was part of British India, should go to the Indians.
This is the same exact logic.
Yeah, it's totally mad.
I mean, it's about the length of Turkey.
Or Britain.
Yeah.
It's a huge distance.
You're not doing that on your little coconut.
No, no, no, no.
The whole thing doesn't make any sense.
And so now they go a step further, appealing to the sort of woke crowd, but in the best way.
And then there is the human cost.
The Chagossian people were forcibly removed from our homeland between 1968 and 1973 so that Diego Garcia could be built.
We sacrificed our homes so Britain and its allies could be secure.
Today, without our consent, our homeland is being traded away.
We were not consulted.
We were not asked.
We were ignored.
And I agree with all of that.
I mean, you know, yeah, that is the situation that happened.
But they also want to remain British, right?
They want to remain under ISRA.
That's all part of it.
So they then go and ask people to contact their local MPs and get that sorted, you know, get them sort of speaking up in Parliament and trying to help them.
And you can see this as well.
So this is just another sort of an update Chagos deal to go ahead despite protest, despite all of this, despite the letter, despite the fact they've elected a government, despite numerous like high court injunctions that were put on briefly, you know, to sort of stop it and halt it and all this kind of stuff.
Mad, like absolutely mad.
They just don't care.
They're not interested.
So this was the 11th of January.
And some of these letters were in December.
And they say, again, just crazy stuff, right?
There's going to be no change in policy of the UK's decision to hand the Chagos Islands to Maritime.
It's not hand.
We're not handing it to them.
We're paying them to take it.
And this is about a year now, and I still haven't heard the explanation as to why we're doing it.
No, there is literally none.
There is none.
There is none.
It doesn't make any sense.
I mean, this would be a stellar level of corruption if you look at the lawyers who were involved.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
They've got a deep ties.
I bet that, like, Mauritius, these guys, that's the one thing that they do.
A bit of money laundering on the side.
Other than fishing and so on, a bit of money laundering on the side.
This is quite a lot.
Laundering 30 billion pounds can make a lot of people a lot of money.
You can bet that there's going to be kickbacks.
So London-based Chagossians, they've been out protesting against the plan, saying they're being shut out of decisions about the future of their homeland.
Well, I mean, I can empathize with that.
That is completely.
Yeah, I mean, I feel it.
I'm there, guys.
And so then there's some of this, right?
Chagossians very hopeful.
Stalmas-Chagos handover deal will be stopped in Crunch for Crunch Day for Treaty.
So this did actually happen, right?
So it was going through the Lords.
And so, but they didn't really stop it.
They stopped it, but not really.
Of a half-assed one.
Did any of them manage to extract an explanation as to why the hell we're doing this in the first place?
No.
Right.
International law.
I mean, that's buzzwords.
You don't need to explain yourself.
I mean, there's still a really sizable hole in this entire story as to why the hell are we doing this at all?
It literally doesn't make any sense.
I'm Lebanese.
I clean everything with corruption.
Yeah.
So basically, the members of the House of Lords were, they've already done it, were set to vote on the third and final reading of the legislation to ratify the bill and could still vote it down.
So they did, but they didn't squash it.
There's two ways.
They basically publicly embarrassed Queer Stalin.
But they didn't.
What?
I just love the name.
The fact that your face doesn't change in the least when you use it.
I say it so much.
That's the goat.
It's got to the point.
If you ever introduced him, it'd be awkward because you wouldn't be able to do the original version anymore.
All right, Queer Stalin.
But so they basically, the Lords voted to embarrass them, but that was it.
It wasn't a full squash down, which is, again, mental, but that's part and parcel of how governments can now just pack the lords with favorable characters, which is just, again, just nonsense.
And then, so then we've got this.
So, again, a little bit more recent now.
Protect UK.
Queer Stalin blasted over Chagos Islands in furious PMQ's rant.
So you can see people are in there now.
People are getting annoyed.
It's nice to see the MPs doing it, but it should also be why are we paying to give it away?
Like, what are you doing?
And this should have been happening last year.
All of this should have been happening last year.
The fact that it's happening now, right at the final crunch time, is nonsense.
That's insane.
It shows you how mindless Parliament is.
And it shows you how thoughtless these people are.
And that they only move with vibes.
They don't move with reason.
They just move with the mood.
But they're just idiots.
They're all idiots.
They've got no thoughts of their own.
And so then this is what I was referencing.
Peers rebuke ministers over Chagos' surrender deal as they again refuse to support the law.
But they didn't do everything that they could have done and they should have done as well.
I mean, there's no reason to pay Mauritius to have it.
Or to give it to them in the first place.
If you're going to give it to anyone, give it to the Americans.
Yeah.
And take some money from them.
Yep.
Well, the hope now is currently people are hoping currently that Trump will kind of step in.
That's the hope, basically.
But you even have things like this, right?
So UN watchdog has chimed in, delivering stinging rebuke of Starma's Chagos deal.
Warns agreement must not be ratified.
This is the UN watchdog.
Again, you know, I don't care about these institutions or anything like that.
Queer Stalin loves these kind of institutions.
Yes, you'd assume that.
So this is awful for him, right?
The message from the United Nations is unmistakable.
A deal that excludes an entire people from the ancestral home.
He doesn't care about that.
I'm telling you.
He doesn't care.
And denies them justice for decades of suffering is not a solution.
Ratifying this agreement would not close the chapter on colonial injustice in the Chagos.
It would lock it in for another century, which actually, I mean, is true.
They're like, well, colonialism is bad, but Mauritius colonialism, that's good.
Yes.
Mad.
Absolutely mad.
I do have in here as well.
Where is it?
Talk amongst yourselves briefly whilst I try and find something.
Find something.
Yeah.
So, how about that Robert Janrick then?
How about that?
Nothing.
Right.
So they were also, what's comical about this now is the Trigossians are trying to seek reparations from Queer Starlin.
They've come out and asked for reparations, basically.
They've said, if this goes through, we want reparations.
Everybody wants reparations, mate.
They won't be able to find it, but they've just given, what, 50 billion to Mauritius?
Yeah, 30, 35 billion.
33, 40 billion.
But again, I'm just still so confused about this.
I mean, if Queer Starlin was a car salesman, he would be like, why don't you buy this car?
I'll pay you 50 grand to take it.
And he'd be like, hang on.
Sorry, what, mate?
Yeah.
What's going on?
There's something so fundamental and basic at the bottom of this that just has never been explained.
I just can't get my head around any of it.
Obviously, corruption.
Obviously, corruption.
There is no other way around it.
How does Queer Stalin benefit from this?
a job after his failing government.
It's going to be something like that.
So he's going to be appointed to an NGO in Mauritius, as are you all saying?
Well, he's going to be some kind of lawyer, isn't it?
Nobody's going to be giving him gifts of free eyeglasses and clothing and house and what have you.
At the moment, he's got Lord Annie buying his underpants for him.
Exactly.
And so when he loses all relevance, he loses all ability to make money.
Now, granted, he has a generous pension, probably, and a security detail as a former PM.
Yes.
But beyond that, he's accustomed to a life of luxury.
And he's accustomed to people giving him all kinds of fancy gifts.
Right.
And now he's going to pay his own money.
So he might get invited to dinners that pay like 90 grand for 10 minutes and some of them will be hosted in Mauritius or something.
Well, it's one of his mates that is doing this deal.
So he's a lawyer.
So he'll just go back to doing that and getting deals and taking percentages of deals, basically.
That starts to make sense.
So here's the bit that I was trying to find.
Sorry, protests and reparation demands.
Chagossians, many who are resettled now in the UK, have been protesting in London and demanding reparations from Starma for, quote, giving away their homeland.
Love it.
You love to see it.
Love it.
And the self-proclaimed Chagossian government in exile's interim first minister, Louis Misley Mandarin, appealed directly to US President Trump to block it, offering to name an island after him and warning of Chinese interference, which it is Chinese interference.
That's just obvious.
Do we name an island after Queer Stalin?
No, after Stalinists.
No, he's after Trump.
He's like, help, help us, and we'll name an island after you, Trump.
Oh, he would go for that.
Yeah, I know.
Appealing.
Especially if it was the big one.
Exactly.
He would totally go for it.
Diego Garcia Donald Trump.
Yes.
So that's basically the update.
There's not been a lot of updates, but there is a fair amount there.
New government, UN, you know, I mean, the UN committee basically saying, well, hold on.
You can't block the Chagossian people from exercising their cultural rights and preserving and transmitting their cultural heritage.
Aren't they as British as everyone else now?
No.
They're Chagossian.
Okay.
Also, these people get to be native.
Yeah, I don't make the rules.
Okay.
I guess they're not white.
I suppose as long as somebody does, I mean, that's a bit.
They're not white, are they?
But that is actually under the UN.
Here we go.
Somebody in the chat's got it.
Trumpo Garcia.
That's what we love it.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So there you go.
There's the update on Chagos.
Oh, very good.
Thank you.
Oh, and In the comments, where was it?
There was one in the counter-offer.
May I discuss that?
A counter-offer?
Yes.
Instead of the Americans paying to get Diego Garcia, Britain will just give it to them and the Americans will do something considerably worse than what was done to Maduro to nice Mr. Kier Starmer.
Yes.
And this is the offer that we have received.
If it's made formally, I'm told that Nate would consider it and therefore Lord Protector Bo would consider it.
And I leave it to you gentlemen to decide.
I'm down.
Yes, that sounds reasonable.
Now, I must respond to this question because Annie E. Moss has been hammering me constantly in the comments and both the live chat and the comments about why I've got dollies.
And to be fair, I did mean to explain this at the beginning, but I had a senior moment and I forgot.
So what it is, is people send us stuff all the time.
And this Jamie chat.
And we are grateful.
And we are grateful.
We are grateful.
Jamie, I mean, especially grateful for this, because what he sent us was a whole bunch of Kier Starmer artifacts.
So we've got t-shirts and we've got various books about him and by him.
And we are immensely grateful because, of course, you can never have enough Keir Starma in your life.
And we also got a Keistama dolly.
So that is why we have Dollies.
I just forgot to mention it earlier, which I probably should have done.
Oh, there might be some of those rumble rant things on your segment.
Luke says you're thinking of Kiwi, the pathetic version of the Emu and Kasowari.
I do like the fact that they're using woke language against the woke government sometimes effectively.
Are using their tools against them?
Yeah, I do like it.
I'm pro-Tugarsians.
I'm going to have to look up what a Kiwi looks like now.
I'm just imagining a shit ostrich or something.
Yeah, no, pretty much.
Presumably something like that.
The Engaged V says, the US counter-offer, in return for giving us Diego Garcia, we keep our 50 billion and put an R9X on Kier Starmer's forehead.
I don't know what an R9X is.
I'll tell you what that is in a moment.
Okay, but I like the sound of it.
Yes.
Okay, right.
Oh, that's a Kiwi.
Oh, God, that's a cool.
Not much of an ostrich, though, is it?
No, it's cool, though, isn't it?
It's a groundbird.
I think I like it.
I think I like it.
Okay.
Yes.
Do we have any of the videos?
Normally we get videos.
Nothing?
Nothing?
Okay, okay.
Well, we get to go to members, member.
Sure.
The comments.
Right, let's scroll down.
Cambrian Kulak says the Aussies have some courageous activists.
Their situation is even more dire than the UK.
Thomas Sowell, Joel Davis, Blair Cortelle, they keep on trucking Aussie's love from the motherland.
We will endure.
Yes, I hope you will.
Mason Royce says Australia is increasingly adopting the Singaporean method to quell the ethnic unrest that the immigration-based culture caused.
Yes.
Mason also says, count this message as my civil disobedience to the government.
I officially support this hate group.
Come at me.
Well done.
Michael says, some blasphemy.
We don't approve of blasphemy.
Free speech isn't a thing in the rest of the Anglosphere.
The Aussies need to step up and vote like their lives depended on it.
Yeah, fair enough.
Could you scroll down?
Could someone scroll down?
I don't have the necessary implement.
Anne says the Aussie government is declaring open season on Christians.
Well, it has been for a few decades now.
Arizona Desert Rat says, criminalizing great.
Well, there goes all the haunted houses in Australia.
Fair enough.
Carl's evil twin Vosh.
Okay.
Aussie police went to a dock pound and shot all the dogs to stop people going to adopt.
Yeah, that pissed me out.
And spreading.
That happened?
Yes, they went to a dog pound and murdered all the dogs so that somebody with COVID couldn't turn up and try and take a dog.
And it was worse than that as well.
Whenever they arrested somebody, if you spoke out against COVID, they'd go and arrest you and then they would take your dog off you because they had arrested you because you couldn't look after the dog and they'd murder your dog.
So basically, if you criticise the government on social media, it was basically a death sentence for your dog.
Yeah, genuinely awful people.
Yeah, I mean, it's just...
I mean, if I could drone strike one government out of existence, it would be Australia.
It's just barbarism.
Without a session.
Straight up barbarism.
Yeah.
Monsters they are.
Bastards.
Lord Inquisitor Hector Rex says, Dan, I share your facial expressions throughout the segment.
Absolutely baffling.
Well, good for you, sir.
And Derek Powers says, Fidelis refuses to be nudged.
Well, yes, I try.
Go on, Dan.
Let's read some of yours.
Okay.
No, removing women's rights, yes.
On Dan's segment, I noticed that right before the Grok stuff blew up, nobody kicked up a fuss when the OnlyFan girls asked Grok to put themselves in bikini.
So that's the other baffling thing about the thing.
Is my feed was like 10% on this topic.
Was 10% feminists complaining that one person had put them in a bikini or complaining that nobody had put them in a bikini, but theoretically they could.
It's like, oh, you haven't sexualized me.
You could if you want, though, but no, it would be really bad.
And 90% thoughts, just ask cheeks everywhere, all over my feed.
And I don't think my scrolling habits would have engendered.
I don't think so anyway.
But anyway, the thought to prude ratio is what I'm saying is out of control.
Oh, yeah.
Lord Inquisitor Hector Rex says, you know, the only acceptable gender is Islander General.
Yes, very good.
buy it now while you still can um he also says nate there are people who marry their cars and rose No, I'm not reading that.
Rice.
I don't know why that came in.
That is the most random statement.
Auto-gender.
Oh, it could be that.
Couldn't it?
Is that what it means?
That's a bit weird, isn't it?
Freaks.
He also says, Dan, if you want a MGTOW guy on Get Dr. Random Cam.
I do like Dr. Random Cam.
I like his hat.
He made Zero Seat Song and has been MGTOW for years now.
And Nick Dixon, he's MGTOW, isn't he?
I don't know.
I think he is.
I think he self-describes it.
I think there's quite a lot of them, to be honest.
All right.
I'm sure we could find one.
Wouldn't be too hard.
Derek Powers says, digital ID, dystopia, women most affected.
Yes, they're sort of.
Fewer Stan says, also, gender sounds like a new faction from the Transformers.
Yes.
And he's put a hyphen in there.
Is Transformers different to the...
Because I knew the Transformers when I was a kid.
But if there's a hyphen in the middle, is that something else?
Is that a different type of...
Yeah.
I suspect.
I think so.
It wouldn't surprise me.
I mean, when you have people who are calling themselves novigender or genderqueer or sort of fluctuating genders, they're literally transformers.
Because I've taken to basically calling all of that lot, just grouping them and just taking all of them and just calling it.
Have you heard of the Janissary Guard?
Yes.
Okay, so I call them the Tranissary Guard.
Right, now the reason I think that's a bit clever because you know how the Janissary Guard behaved.
It was like, you know, genuine butchers.
Yes.
They were the worst of the worst.
Yes.
Yeah, but including a bit of butchery to themselves, a bit of, you know, we're going to, you know, we're basically going to cross the bridge and we're not going to be able to come back from it.
We have formed our identity within the Janissary.
So Tranissary Guard, I think, is very clever.
I've just got to get that instantiated in popular culture.
And Cumbrian Kulak says, Paul Joseph Watson did a video yesterday about the UK government planning on accessing your private messages.
Oh, me and my mates are cooked.
Absolutely cooked if that goes through.
Get 10 years in the gulag for listening to the Lotus Eaters.
Right.
Very much.
So Derek Powers said, Chegos is going to be Kekistan Realized Chadalais.
I remember that.
That's old meat.
That's old memeing magic.
Yes.
All right.
Roman Observer says, if you have to get colonized, at least get a first world country to do it instead of a third world one.
Yeah, honestly.
My biggest regret is that the Brits kick the French out of Lebanon.
Yeah.
Shame.
For shame.
Roman Observer says, Does the Trump Island have an undiscovered species of duck that we can name after the POTUS?
I don't know.
I just think they're desperate clutching at straws now.
It's weird that Trump hasn't blocked it.
It's so strange.
It's so odd.
It doesn't make any sense.
There must be something else going on.
Like an alien artifact has been discovered under it or something.
But you'd want it if that's the case.
Well, I don't know.
Maybe it's a bad one.
I don't know.
There's definitely something going on with Cthulhu.
It doesn't make any sense.
Shit, we better get out of there, quick.
Yeah.
We just won't rent it back.
Maybe they'll renegone their leasing it back deal.
And they'll be like, no, we're not going to lease it back, actually.
Is it a fight?
Doesn't make any sense.
Whatever.
Anon says, need the meme of Trump looking out the window to Trumpo Garcia.
Yeah, I love that.
And then Geordie Swordsman says, Nate is thinking of the Great Orc.
Okay.
I say, maybe.
I don't know what that is.
What's a Great Orc?
I don't know.
No idea.
Good Samson.
Can you Google a Great Orc?
Because we've run out of comments.
We've still got form.
No, there's an honorable mention.
Oh, is there?
Brant Gibson says, just waded through the 18 inches of snow we got last night in southern Ontario to pick up my islander number five.
Now waiting on my breakfast with bone mug.
The great orc.
A UK.
Not the Warhammer kind.
Yeah, the Great Ork.
A-U-K.
A-U-K.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking of.
What?
What's that?
I don't know.
Isn't that a penguin?
Is that a type of duck?
Yeah, I have.
Yeah, I think this is what I was thinking of.
Okay.
I think.
Okay.
Yeah.
Kind of like a puffing-looking thing, isn't it?
Puffing in a penguin.
Yeah.
It looks like the Batman version of a regular penguin to me, but okay.
What?
All right.
I don't know.
What?
How?
I don't get it.
I'm not sure.
I'm not sure.
Anyway, right.
So, hang on.
If anybody says interesting, anything.
Has anybody got anything interesting to say for the remaining two minutes?
Because somehow we've actually managed to manage our time effectively for.
There's a beautiful comment from Sigilstone.
Hold on then.
The Tranissaries have been joined in Minnesota by Lesbola.
That's just legendary.
That is legendary.
Yeah, it's very good.
Legendary.
I'm honestly not going to.
I'm not.
Oh, yes.
Oh, Hannah.
And Annie Mo says, Dan, talk about silver.
Yes, actually, I have been looking for an opportunity.
No, no, I've only got 90 seconds.
90 seconds to talk about silver.
Yes.
So silver is really interesting and it's going up and it hit through like $90 or something last night.
Right.
You've got to be a little bit careful though because they can pull the bloody stuff out the ground for $15 an ounce.
Okay.
And then you add on, okay, a bit of amortization, a bit of capex costs, you know, royalties or something.
You know, maybe that gets you up to 25, but I'm stretching it.
Slap on an extra $5 or something for a really inefficiently run mine.
Okay, you're now at $30.
And I'm being generous at this point.
Right.
All the time that it's above $30, and at something like $90, the margin on silver is absurd.
So all of these silver mines, they're going to be going, they're going to be hiring guys, left, right, and centers, bonuses.
They're going to be working their plant into the ground until it explodes.
Plus, also, you've got to remember that silver is normally a byproduct of other things.
Copper mines, for example, throw out a lot of silver.
So you're just going to get the copper mines are like, okay, hang on, we're now earning margin on this.
We can ramp up our copper and get the byproduct of this.
So, short-term silver, brilliant, fantastic.
Don't mistake it for a fixed supply capital good because supply will come online.
So if you're riding it, absolutely get greedy and ride it, but only to a sensible degree because it will flip and roll off because you can pull it out the ground for a third of the current price.
The question is, and oh, I've got about 12 seconds left.
The question is, right, can things like Comex get through this crisis without having to do something stupid like converting settlement to cash only, destroying the value of the future markets in the process?
So there you go.
In 90 seconds, that's as quickly as I can describe the silver thing.
Have fun, beware.
Yes, that is the key thing.
Right, okay.
And on that bombshell, I guess we have to leave it now.