The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1346

Feb. 3, 2026 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:31:39

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1346

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
Mainstream Media Diversion Tactics 00:14:51
	Hello and welcome to the podcast of Loth Cedars episode 1346.
	I'm your host Harry, joined today by special guest Josh.
	Hello there.
	And special guest and menace Rory Stewart.
	Hello everyone.
	Otherwise known by his alter ego Stelios Panayotu.
	Oh surprise.
	Betsy didn't guess that would happen did you?
	Who saw that one coming?
	And today we are going to be discussing the rather bizarre efforts to downplay the entire Epstein situation following the release of the Epstein files last Friday.
	We're also going to be talking about the next stage of replacement, that being the ethnic cleansing of the English countryside.
	Not looking forward to that segment, if I'm completely honest.
	And then finally we're going to be talking about a slight white pill here being the first court victory of a D-transitioner against, I assume, the clinic that they were using.
	I decided to swim against the current and give you some good news for once.
	Hey, fancy that, alright.
	And with that, we've got a little bit of tech issues in the studio today, so apologies for starting a few minutes late, but we will still be able to answer your rumble rants when we receive them.
	Samson's just going to put them up on the screen for us rather than down on these screens today.
	And with that, anything that you chaps would like to say before we start?
	Have a nice day.
	Yeah.
	Hope you're well.
	Great.
	And with that, let's get into it.
	So, obviously, the biggest news that's happened all week thus far has been the Epstein files drop from last Friday.
	Yesterday, we did an entire podcast talking about it.
	And you can watch those videos on YouTube or go back on the website to watch that full thing.
	The most important one, I would argue, was this video, Firaz's part of the segment where he was talking about Epstein as a political nexus.
	He was a political meeting point between all sorts of different factions.
	He was the fixer.
	He was a power broker connecting people both for their agendas and to further the agenda that he held along with his backers.
	Who his backers were, we can't be entirely certain of, but we do have a pretty good idea, not just from this most recent drop, but also from all of the other information that we had over the past seven years since his death in the first place.
	So if you want to familiarize yourself with some of the really juicy stuff and not just the sensationalism, then watch that video.
	But there are interesting questions that come off of the back of it and some interesting ways that both the mainstream and online influences are all trying to downplay the revelations and what's going on with Epstein and the importance of it.
	Now, of course, it's far too late to actually do a successful cover-up at this point.
	But what people can try to do is sweep it under the rug and make it so that it's not as big a deal as it otherwise could be and make it so people forget.
	If you can't cover it up in the first place, make it so that people forget.
	Sweep it over with the next news story or make it so that in some cases, some very, very bizarre cases, some people are trying to rewrite the narrative and say that Epstein was actually cool.
	Tough sell.
	Very tough sell, but I'll get on to that when we get to it.
	First things first, though, the mainstream response to it.
	One of the most important questions that we need to be asking is after all of the information that has been released, all of the people who knew Epstein, who were in constant contact with Epstein during and after his initial conviction and prison time for the sexual abuse of a 14-year-old girl back in 2008, why is nobody being prosecuted over this?
	Why is nobody being arrested?
	And that's not just in terms of the sensationalist stuff where, you know, there were abuse of young girls and whatnot, but there's also the questions of financial fraud, the questions of conspiracy, market manipulation, misuse of state assets in the case of somebody like Peter Mandelson, where allegedly, according to the files, what it looks like is that he was updating Epstein on what was going to be happening with the selling off of British state assets so that Epstein could get in there,
	also that some of his accomplices and friends could get in there as well.
	There are all manner of crimes which can be alleged as a result of the Epstein files.
	And so far, nobody has been arrested or prosecuted.
	There's something interesting to say here in that you'd think if you are, say, a competing elite and there are people who've been implicated here, if you take them down, you can take resources from them, basically.
	And once you rise to a certain level, it sort of becomes a zero-sum game of, you know, you've got to take things from other people to get the biggest gains.
	And so there's a strong incentive there to, you know, take these people out and compete.
	And yet they haven't, which seems to suggest that perhaps there's a reason behind that.
	Because ordinarily you see elite types, you know, they're not always pally with one another.
	Sometimes they do actually try and screw each other over for financial gain, which actually happens all the time.
	And you'd think that would be going on quite a lot, especially with an opportunity like this.
	You can destroy someone's career forever.
	And it's just not happening.
	Which, to my mind, if rich, greedy people aren't going for a big pile of money, there's something going on here.
	If they're not clawing at each other's throats for power, why is that?
	Well, the reason that we have right now is that the release of the Epstein files was forced by a bill that was put through by Thomas Massey in collaboration with some Democrats near the end of last year.
	And that was as a result of the House Oversight Committee that's been investigating all of this.
	Now, the House Oversight Committee has some powers to do things like subpoena the Clintons, which we'll get onto in a moment, but they do not have themselves any prosecutorial powers.
	As such, if they wanted to be able to make any charges off the back of it, the FBI would have to be the ones reopening the Epstein case and charging people with the allegations that have come from all of this.
	So we'll see if that ends up actually happening.
	But it is in the FBI's hands, and it's up to them whether the Department of Justice and the FBI is actually going to do anything with all of that.
	Donald Trump is saying that basically now that they've released these files, the DOJ have done their job.
	So no further action needs to be taken from it.
	Which is an interesting response.
	On the subject of the Clintons, some of the news that some of the other news that has come of this is that the Clintons who had risked being put in contempt of Congress, being put up to a vote of contempt of Congress because they were refusing to answer their subpoena, which if that vote had gone through, would have put them potentially at risk of prosecution, have now decided that they are going to give depositions as the contempt vote was about to come up tomorrow.
	I think it was supposed to be this Wednesday that that vote was going to come up.
	And it says here, former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made a new offer on Monday to give depositions for a House committee's investigation of sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, just days ahead of an expected vote on contempt of Congress for the Democrat power couple.
	The Clintons attorneys said that their clients would appear for depositions on mutually agreeable dates and asked that the House not move forward with contempt proceedings in a message sent to House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Chairman James Comer.
	There's something to say here: in that if I were accused and implicated in the Epstein files, the first thing I'd want to do would be to clear my name.
	And this is an opportunity for them to do that.
	And the fact that they're dragging their feet sort of suggests a bit.
	Some people, as mentioned in this article, are also already complaining that, hey, they're not setting a date yet.
	They've not given a clear indication of when this deposition date will be.
	So they might just be trying to buy themselves some time.
	Why weren't they forthcoming in the first place?
	And they had also put forward ideas for other interview types that they could do that would be a little bit more off the record.
	Under the deposition, if they wanted to not answer a question, they would have to plead the fifth.
	They would have to plead to their constitutional rights.
	The interviews that they were looking for, they'd have just been able to pick and choose which questions to answer or not in the first place.
	So I think that they've been pushed into a little bit of a corner by this contempt of Congress vote.
	But, I mean, pleading the fifth in the case of Bill Clinton would be pretty ironic because he made a name out of many other things, but he was a good orator.
	You have to understand this.
	And you have to admit this.
	And he was good at when he was being pressured in interviews.
	He could come back to you.
	Well, depends on what an answer.
	Depends on what answers.
	If he goes and plead the fifth.
	Yeah, that's depends on the questions.
	Depends how much they can get.
	I don't disagree.
	I'm just saying that it would be very ironic to see that.
	No, it certainly would.
	But here are some of the ways, now that we've got that out of the way, that the mainstream media is trying to divert attention from a lot of the very revelatory subjects that we covered again in this particular segment here, Epstein, the political nexus that you should give a watch.
	It's 45 minutes almost, but there's a wealth of information there, and I think Ferras puts it together quite well.
	One of the ways that the mainstream media, and other people have noted this as well, are trying to divert attention away from some of the more explosive stuff is by focusing purely on Prince Andrew, who was already a known quantity in this, who was already a big story as part of his association with Epstein and kind of like a sensationalist media headline, and Peter Mandelson, who is already disgraced.
	He was already basically disgraced.
	He had to resign from being the ambassador to the United States September of last year after all of the new revelations came out with the Epstein birthday book and the birthday card that had been signed for Epstein's 50th birthday.
	So they're focusing on people who are basically old news.
	Old news that can draw headlines rather than a lot of the new stuff.
	Did still get lots of calls from various political parties asking to revoke his lordship in the House of Lords.
	Oh, yeah, of course.
	I'm not saying that this doesn't matter.
	I'm not saying that this isn't an important piece of the pie, piece of the puzzle, I should say.
	But this is something that a lot of people are only focusing on.
	In the mainstream pond, right?
	And the most embarrassing way that the mainstream media is trying to navigate this whole thing is to say it's Putin.
	Epstein, we've read through the files.
	We've done the research.
	We've done the analysis.
	He was a Putin stooge, right?
	Really?
	Obviously, Robert Maxwell, KGB, no other intelligence service operations that he was ever involved in.
	Where was he buried?
	Who gave him a state funeral?
	Putin.
	Obviously.
	Come on.
	Come on.
	There's over a thousand mentions of Putin's name in the Epstein files.
	There's over 3,000 of Trumps and over 4,000 of Ehud Baraks, the former Israel prime minister.
	But Putin's where we're going to focus on here.
	Harry, I think what happened is that there is an almost impossible to digest amount of information that has been released.
	This is absolutely true.
	I think it's about six million pages last time I checked.
	I saw that three and a half, three and a half.
	There were lots of other figures before, right?
	So it's an impossible to digest.
	It's an amount of information that is impossible to digest.
	So what happens, what was bound to happen with releasing that amount of information was that you would get 99% of discourse being propaganda.
	And that kind of propaganda would approach the issue with their basic assumptions.
	So what happens here, and these are all the attempts, as you're saying, to try to divert attention from all of the matter, which, I mean, it's, as I said, it's almost impossible to digest.
	Everyone is trying to pick their enemy.
	No, absolutely.
	So right now you say mainstream media tries to say it's Putin and they're trying to cast us Persians that it can only be Putin.
	Others are trying to say it's just the Saudis.
	Others say it's the Qataris.
	Others only the Israelis.
	Whatever.
	Personally, my view, we should never know and we should no, no, sorry.
	We will no, we should never stop and we should never ignore anything.
	But as you say before, we have Epstein in on some email saying, for instance, I work for the Rothschilds.
	Now, you don't exactly we have to see exactly in what capacity he was writing this, but this is, as you said, things are adding up when you say also he was very much friend.
	It's not when you say, it's when, I mean, there are pages showing this.
	It was very much close to Ehud Barak.
	There are now phone calls that people have found being released.
	Personally, I'm not going to dismiss people talking about potential ties to other people.
	Clearly, there were ties to Russia.
	Yeah, yeah, I'm not going to dismiss that out of hand, but I think that, yeah, we should bear in mind that there is 99% of what is being called right now, what is being said about the issue right now, is propaganda.
	We should focus on the files, and also we should be patient.
	Well, no, I agree with you there.
	I mean, clearly there are actually ties to Putin.
	There are a number of people who've been putting together that it looked as though he might have been working alongside other intelligence agencies to try to work against Putin.
	Other people are saying, like the mainstream media are trying to say that he was trying to work with Putin.
	Now, obviously, I don't know the veracity of how these people have put it together because one of the problems with it all being released at once without any accompanying legal proceedings by the FBI without major investigations without much help for normal people to put it together is it reminds me of the thing that the mainstream media spoke out about Steve Bannon for that famous quote of his,
	flood the zone with shit.
Flood the Zone with Propaganda 00:15:38
	It comes across a little bit like that with all of these files being released all at once with not much help putting anything together is that most people are going to be overwhelmed by it.
	They're going to pick up on the one thing that catches their eye and that gets their attention and they're going to hyper focus on that where it might be multiple different avenues at once.
	And really quickly, the most important thing is that this discourse is never going to end.
	That's why people will want to flood with propaganda the discourse.
	And it's not going to end because all it takes for anyone who doesn't trust any particular narrative to do in order to speak against it is to say, well, there is something that wasn't published, that wasn't released.
	I mean, there is still, you know, two and a half million, three million pages and material that are still yet to be released that we don't know what's in there.
	Perhaps there is some damning stuff in that information that would put everything together.
	But as such, as it is right now, just because there's a huge deluge of information that's going to overwhelm most people doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't a lot of very pertinent information that we can't take from this, and there isn't some patterns and connections that we can take from this.
	Again, yesterday in Firaz's segment, what we were discussing was that it looked like it was putting together the kind of the operating ways that these networks that work behind the scenes operate.
	They often work on an ethnic basis, and somebody like Epstein can work as a middleman connecting multiple people.
	And he did seem, in the way that he behaved with these other people, to have an aloof attitude where within this hierarchy, he, at the very least, saw himself as above people, even members of royal families across the world and high up and high-ranking political officers, for instance.
	Either way, again, just outright, just going like as Andrew Maher does here, just saying, oh, there's an ominous backstory here, just saying maybe he was a KGB agent.
	Maybe he was, maybe he was a CIA agent, maybe he was an MI5 agent, maybe he was a Mossad agent.
	There is evidence for some of these things, but just coming out in the mainstream media going, this puts together everything that we already believed about Russian interference in Western politics means that as far as I'm seeing it, they are cherry-picking and trying to distract from a lot of the other stuff, especially the way that it kind of destroys left-right political paradigms.
	Because mentioned Steve Bannon, Steve Bannon, towards the end of Epstein's life in 2017 and 2018, played a big part in Epstein's life.
	He was basically trying to redo his image.
	He was like an image coordinator and was being put together by Epstein with Noam Chomsky as well and collaborating in meetings with these people.
	So you've got somebody who's considered by the mainstream to be on the far right of the political spectrum, being connected up with somebody on the very far left of the political spectrum, but they're both working in the same interests and for the same people.
	So that kind of does suggest that this whole left-right political paradigm, the way that it works public-facing, is somewhat heavily manufactured.
	I mean, we do have people from all eras of the spectrum who could be collaborating with Epstein and people of Epstein's circle.
	Personally, I don't think that this invalidates completely political categories, but it is certainly suggestive and heavily suggestive that there are people who are trying to finance, let's say, both sides.
	And that's not particularly weird to believe.
	It's not weird to believe.
	I mean, wasn't Lenin saying that the best way to control opposite to deal with opposition to control it?
	Well, it's good to control all sides at all times if you want to operate from the shadows and get what you want.
	But it's just confirmation.
	It's just confirmation of that, which is great.
	One of the other weird things is, for instance, Lad Bible and other people talking about how he was banned from Xbox Live.
	And I've seen some people trying to argue off of the back of this that now this means that Epstein was a lead gamer just like the rest of us and that he's kind of cool.
	You would have been fighting against Jeffrey Epstein in Modern Warfare 2 lobbies back in 2009.
	Isn't that cool?
	No.
	No.
	What a ridiculous argument to make.
	The most damning one again is Donald Trump.
	Again, he has mishandled these from the very start of his administration.
	First of all, having his DOJ big them up as and like Pam Bonte, big them up as this huge drop that was going to spill the secrets on everything, and then backtracking a few months later and saying no, the whole thing is a hoax.
	And then flip-flopping over and over and over again when, in every interview where he's been asked about this, he's been very reticent and very hesitant to come forward about it.
	He's tried to downplay it and push aside, oh, are you still talking about that guy?
	I had nothing to do with him.
	Now he's also trying to say, even though they have just released all of this information.
	Now he's trying to say oh, this is just about the Democrats.
	They said it was all about me, but it's actually all about the Democrats, even though, as I just mentioned, people like Steve Bannon are heavily involved in it.
	There's a lot of correspondence with Peter Thiel, Ehud Barak, and Pete and Jeff Epstein were speaking a lot about getting involved with Palantir and a lot of the AI development that was going on as well.
	So you can't again just put it down to being purely about Democrats, even though yes, there are plenty of Democrats mentioned in there, including the Clintons.
	I want to say something, because I know both of us are critical of Trump, but I want to say on this that he has made some mistakes, but I think he was and in this case it was Matt Thomas Massey who was pushing it and I think that at least Trump did try to push for these files being released.
	Now, whether he did it in a good way or not is a question, but I think that to an extent he did try to, did try to well, I mean we, we can't deny, I mean under his assertion.
	One thing to note also is because Epstein talks a lot about Palantir and Peter Thiel, and Peter Thiel also has lots of ties to Vance, which I think this is going to be really bad for Vance in the days to come in the in the Republicans, I agree, but yeah no, I agree.
	I mean, you've got to say the files have come out under Trump yeah, so that's, that's one thing, but the way that it has been handled has done nothing but make Trump look bad and it's given people a lot of reason to suspect Trump because of the way that he handled it.
	But now here's the way.
	Here's where we move more from the mainstream to the kind of like online influence takes that have been coming out about this and and this is important because a lot of people, when it comes to watching stuff online, like us get a lot of their information filtered to them through particular online take sellers, where they are trying to get you to agree with their version of events and they want to filter everything through their lens, right?
	So what are the different ways in which different factions online are trying to filter the Epstein files to their own audiences, all of whom seem to have the goal of getting you to ignore them?
	Forget about them, who cares?
	But ultimately, they're all coming at it from a different angle.
	So what are the different angles that are coming out here?
	So first, you've got a lot of these more mainstream figures, These kind of like, what would you say?
	Dissident light figures, people like Matt Taibbi, who is involved in the Twitter files.
	Drop alongside that woman who runs CBS NEWS now.
	I can't remember who you are.
	You know who I'm on about, though.
	These people who are involved in the Twitter files drops.
	They're like non-woke leftists.
	Yeah, kind of.
	Maybe towards the center.
	Yeah.
	That area of the spectrum.
	And people like Claire LeMan, or however you pronounce her name, going just like, am I the only one who finds the Epstein story incredibly boring?
	Matt Taibbi poping up going, like, no, I find it boring as well.
	You know, just like this massive drop of documents that seems to confirm a lot of information and suspicions that people had about this enormous behind-the-scenes global conspiracy to screw you over, all involving degenerate sexual predators and perverts as well.
	That's just boring.
	That's just an average Saturday for Matt Taibbi.
	It's the kind of thing that would make a compelling plot for a film that, you know, it's pretty much what Eyes Wide Shut is, isn't it?
	This weird elitist cult that.
	Yeah.
	Although in Stanley Kubrick's film, they weren't underage girls.
	So at least Kubrick had the decency to do that.
	But yeah, I don't understand who in their right mind can find the story boring.
	What is wrong with you?
	To say this, you're obviously carrying water for people.
	ridiculous and then there's that's the that's the a part of the discourse of lots of mega people right now They're trying to say it doesn't matter.
	Well, speaking about the MAGA guys, right?
	Okay, then you get onto these people like Captive Dreamer, who was a big part of the 2024 online front for the Trump election.
	He was the guy who, I believe he was the first person to share the information from Springfield, Ohio.
	Yeah, Eating the Cats and Dogs, where he managed to find the town council meetings or whatever they were, where the people were coming up and saying these Haitians have come into our town and, you know, cats and dogs are starting to go missing.
	And people went from there and thought, well, they're probably eating them in that case.
	Well, he has come out regarding this, saying asking people what specifically from the Epstein files is a game changer for them.
	And it becomes quite clear that none of this is important.
	And it's just catnip for retards brought out by scumbags like Thomas Massey to sow discord amongst low F info voters.
	Please continue to seethe.
	And he carries on saying, like, what was the real stuff you found then?
	Oh, wait.
	Clicked on the wrong thing there.
	Sorry.
	And then you can just go down and see that people are posting loads of stuff.
	Loads of interesting things here.
	Also, Thomas Massey a scumbag for what?
	Releasing the Epstein files?
	It says a lot about you rather than him, doesn't it?
	But that's something a lot of these MAGA influencers are trying to do, because obviously Donald Trump has come out against Thomas Massey.
	He wants to primary him.
	And as part of that, he's been trying to kind of argue that Thomas Massey is some kind of frothing anti-Semite saying he hates Israel, yada yada yada.
	And a lot of people have come out insulting him with terms like third worldist.
	They're saying that he wants there to be open borders.
	He's anti-ice.
	Somebody tagged me on Twitter a few weeks ago saying like, oh, this is what Tommy Massey, Thomas Massey votes for.
	And it was him being the only Republican in the House voting against a bill that was being advertised as a pro-ICE bill.
	Now, unlike many who just look at the headlines, I actually, you know, looked into it a little bit and saw that the bill, as you would expect, had a load of extra stuff in there for military-industrial complex spending, loads of excess spending.
	And actually, if you read the document, it had already been amended by Democrats to remove the capacity of 5,000 beds for ICE detainees.
	So even the pro-ICE bill was actually removing the capacity for ICE to detain more illegals.
	Right?
	So there's, again, low information kind of attitude from some people.
	Donald Trump has said, sick Thomas Massey.
	So they go against Thomas Massey.
	And people will do that.
	And Captive Dreamer is one of the guys doing this because he's literally posted this.
	Thomas Massey would get a ton of votes from people not in America who have funny Star Wars names and hate the USA.
	Then he just says, Thomas Massey sexually abuses kids.
	Release the Massey files.
	Libelous, isn't it?
	Yeah, just keep seething, bro.
	Just keep seething.
	Like, this is all because this is seen by the mainstream and by many people as some kind of massive L for the Trump administration to have released these in the first place.
	And they see Thomas Massey as an enemy to MAGA and to Trump.
	Well, to be fair, if the Trump administration hadn't dragged their feet in the first place, it wouldn't have been an issue.
	No, in fact, it would have been a positive because they said, we're going to release these files.
	Here you go.
	And like, yeah, we've lived up to our word.
	But one of the other things about the whole game changer aspect of it is trying to say that everything in this needs to be absolutely brand new information for it to matter in the first place, which is not true.
	But secondly, there is information that does expand our understanding of what was going on.
	One of them that has been remarked on was the prevalence of Epstein and many of his associates referring to, let's be frank, non-Jewish people as Goyim, which is an insulting slur term for non-Jewish people.
	Not just white people, just anybody who is non-Jewish, Gentile people, there's Gentile, which is the polite way of saying it, Goyim, which is the slur way of saying it.
	And the thing that that suggests is that people like Epstein and some of those working alongside of him had a racially supremacist mindset, which probably motivated the things that they were doing and motivated and was partially part of the reason why you could assume that they were allegedly abusing non-Jewish girls.
	I was thinking about this when I was reading through the files and one of the things I did think of is, well, hang on a minute.
	Out of all of the victims that we know about at the very least, I can't think of a single one that is Jewish.
	So it seems to suggest, similar in some ways to the Pakistani gangs in Britain, it had an ethno-religious aspect to it.
	And of course, I need to preface again, like I did yesterday, by saying that that is not reflective of all people of that ethnic and of that religious background.
	This is just these people.
	Assuming that all Jews think and behave in this way would be the same as assuming that all white people behave the same way that a white supremacist would.
	But it is interesting that it does seem to motivate these people.
	I'll say something which may be a bit weird, but I honestly this just didn't surprise me at all.
	That a person who is a confirmed monster would just be a racist.
	It's not particularly weird.
	No, it's not that surprising.
	It's not surprising.
	It was a confirmation of what many people suspected.
	And again, it was also just strange how casual it was.
	Just how it was.
	Well, it's almost always casual.
	It's not anything that they reflected on.
	Either way, so that's Captive Dreamer amongst it as well.
Minimizing Implications 00:08:43
	You get MAGA influencers like Patrick Casey trying to say, you know, you see the Epstein files, bro.
	Was eating babies on a boat.
	George H. W. Bush abused a guy, passed the bong, trying to skirt it into the realm of pure conspiracy thinking, right?
	And absurd Candace Owen style conspiracy thinking.
	And there are plenty of people doing that, but you shouldn't let that distract you from the fact that there are lots of important new information or confirmed information that we're getting from this.
	You've got other people trying to make it seem low status and low IQ by courts starting to call it Epstein slop.
	Ironically, these same sort of people who just four or five years ago were saying that all of the Epstein stuff was real and that nothing was ever going to happen.
	Almost as though, you know, like maybe these guys are willing to change their opinions depending on who's in administration, whether it benefits Trump or not.
	Should you trust these people with their views if they're going to flip like this so easily?
	And the next guy.
	It won't stop with the MAGA bandwagon.
	It's going to happen again and again and again.
	Yeah, and speaking of people who flip-flop on a lot of things, we get to Nick Fuentes, who, after his massive mainstream push and big, like tidying up his image since the middle of last year, decided to torpedo the entire thing with takes like this.
	Can you hear it?
	We can't hear it.
	Samson, can the audience hear it?
	I can't hear you, Samson.
	The sound is broken again.
	Either way, Fuentes decided to come out in not necessarily defense, but sort of carrying water for the whole affair by coming out with brave and shocking contrarian takes like Epstein wasn't really a paedophile.
	And that all of the focus on stuff like the sexual abuse angle of this is just hysterical, womanizing headline attention distractions from the actual story, which is all of the political stuff going on behind the scenes.
	Then going on multiple 20-minute long diatribes, speeches that he's giving about how the only reason that people care if a 14-year-old girl is groomed and abused in this way is because we have been feminized and the age of consent is questionable.
	These are the sorts of takes that he's been coming out with.
	An amazing fall from grace to take after multiple people in the mainstream and even people on this podcast, and I don't exclude myself from that, were becoming very positive towards him towards the end of last year, or at the very least, were starting to listen to the things that he had to say.
	An amazing thing to do to just drop all of that goodwill that he'd built up.
	And of course, you were always very skeptical of it.
	Who called the grift?
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	You were always very skeptical of him.
	He then, this is following up when he just said, go ahead, cancel me.
	Jeffrey Epstein was cool as F. Again, because people weren't agreeing with him 100% that the actual important thing with this was the political conspiracy and the fact that there was blackmail being used to blackmail the president, potentially, governments across the world.
	Because people weren't agreeing with him that that's the only thing to focus on, and people were also saying it is also really bad that he was abusing girls, he decided to just go full contrarian and say, Jeffrey Epstein was cool as F, I'm the villain now.
	Guys, this is the problem with the bulk of your content being edgy jokes, because you constantly say plausible deniability.
	You won't have the way to back up serious discourse.
	And in fact, you told me this morning that almost all of his takes about geopolitics come from someone else.
	You don't have to say who.
	It's sort of like this.
	Too many edgy jokes make one a buffoon unless one's a comedian.
	Because if you make if your founding act is just talking to shit posters and people who want edginess for edginess's sake, game over.
	At some point you're gonna make a mistake.
	If transgression is what you're selling, at some point you're gonna you're like a leftist who just want to revolutionize things.
	Yeah, and his Groypers have decided to go all in on this, saying that Jeffrey Epstein has aura using these old videos when in fact all you need to do to cancel that out is to watch some of the new videos that have been released of him as part of this, including his interview with Steve Bannon, where he just comes across like this really nerdy, kind of unintelligent guy from Brooklyn who speaks like this.
	There's no aura.
	Not that that would matter in the first place.
	There's another crime there.
	He also thought that Plato and Aristotle did write.
	Yeah, he said, oh, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle never wrote anything.
	That's just wrong.
	Like, people have, like, one of the worst and most absurd things about the Epstein files drop is all of these important politicians across the world seemed, they were like begging for audiences with him.
	Like he was some kind of wise sage.
	And he was able to get one over with midwit wrong takes like this.
	We're ruled by morons because they were impressed by a guy just saying, did you know that Plato and Aristotle never wrote anything?
	They literally did, you idiot.
	I'm glad you're dead for this take alone.
	Or is he?
	Maybe, maybe.
	Who knows?
	Yeah, and it's forced me into a position of agreeing with bloody Jake Shields.
	When people say, I'm tired of pretending you didn't have aura, and Jake Shields has to be the voice of reason saying, bro, this, like, he was an awful person.
	Like, why are you trying to do this?
	Just because Nick Fuentes has told you he's cool now and started trying to sell merch based on clothes that he wore.
	Like, that's absurd.
	And then flip-flopping again, as soon as these files drop, Fuentes comes out saying the Department of Justice should reopen the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and his associates in light of the file dump.
	It's not enough for the public to see another random tranche of files.
	The DOJ has an obligation to follow up on all of it.
	Transparency and accountability.
	Now, actually, this is right.
	This is right.
	And I agree with this.
	This is a correct take.
	It's a very easy, correct take to fall into.
	But did it need a month of Epstein's cool, he's my hero, actually, leading up to this?
	Or does it actually discredit the future?
	And I thought that Morgoth summed the whole thing up with the way that it's being talked about by saying the smart way to handle the Epstein files was to prattle about aura irony and to minimize the seriousness of the implications, which is what is trying to happen.
	All of this is in service of minimizing the story and minimizing the implications and minimizing the chance of there being a real investigation at the end of it because all of these people are trying to control public opinion and make it so that public opinion does not push for further investigation and prosecution off of the back of this.
	Where at the very least, this needs to be followed up on.
	We deserve the truth.
	We deserve to see people go down for this.
	Maybe the Clintons can be the first domino in that, but we will have to see.
	Do not let these people try to try to confuse you with all of their strange, absurd, and bizarre takes on the matter.
	Do we have any rumble rants to go ahead with, Samson?
	I still can't hear you.
	Okay.
	People saying if I've got a license for noticing, Trump deserves little to no credit.
	The files were forced to be released by an act of Congress.
	That's true.
	He told us a year ago they weren't real.
	Only credits he gets.
	There's no chance it happens under Kamala.
	That's also true.
	Not only am I Euromaxing, I realize I have been Goymaxing this whole time by paying taxes to PDF files.
	Isn't life great?
	Sadly, that's just how it works living under a government.
	We live in a society, which means you pay taxes to paedophiles.
	In the admin's defense, they were all gung-ho about releasing the documents and suddenly had a press conference, pale and sweating, saying the files didn't exist and cringing at the sound of.
River Flow Analysis 00:03:10
	And be happy with this far and keep pushing.
	That's what I'm saying.
	That's what I'm saying.
	People need to keep pushing.
	They shouldn't let news cycles distract them from this.
	You shouldn't let people forget about this.
	And you certainly shouldn't let people who are shills, whether they're paid or not, is unclear, but are massive shills for a particular administration tell you that you shouldn't care about it.
	Anyway.
	Oh, Samson needs to restart the computer.
	I'm sorry that segment went on for a little bit, Josh.
	That's all right.
	And it's the whole topic.
	I could literally hear you tapping your fingers towards the end.
	Was I actually tapping my fingers?
	Yeah.
	I'm a very punctual man, alright?
	It upsets me when things don't.
	I'm just gonna follow on time.
	It's all right.
	Take your time.
	I can be fast with my segment.
	Yeah, just take your time.
	Take an hour if you want, Josh.
	I'm really good at it.
	I'm like my geography teacher, so he took his time as well, you know.
	Allow me to move at a glacial pace while I talk about glaciers.
	As your geography teacher, you should talk like Eeyore in Winnie the Pooh.
	Do you know that when I was learning to drive, my driving instructor said I reminded him of Eeyore?
	I hated driving.
	It's so true.
	It's so true, though.
	It's real.
	I'm not an optimist.
	Let's just say that.
	But that's alright.
	What's your favourite part of geography, Harry?
	What was your favourite part?
	As we were just spitballing while Samson restarts.
	Our chat is incredibly bad towards me.
	Yes, you know that I can manage my time well on segments.
	My favourite part of geography was going out and doing the field trips.
	Like when I was doing A-level geography and we went out to test the water in a river and the flow of it, the composition of the soil and water and such.
	It was great.
	Although it was absolutely freezing, my hands have never been colder.
	They were so cold dipping my hands in this river in late November that it felt like they were burning.
	I remember going on a trip actually to quite a deprived town in Cornwall and we were tasked to go up to local residents and ask them about it.
	So what actually ended up happening was, you know, us from a reasonably alright part of the world went to a poor part of the world and was just like, how's your life here?
	To mog them.
	And looking back at the moment.
	And you know, swinging like a fancy pocket watch as you did so in a monocle.
	Yeah, as a kid, you don't really think about it.
	But as an adult, I'm just like, that's pretty insensitive.
	Just like, so you live in a horrible place.
	How is it?
	Yeah, I mean, that you're getting insulted by a kid.
	In secondary school, they taught us how to do surveys as well.
	So we had to go to.
	Oh, we had to go to Landudno one time.
	And we stood on street corners just counting how much traffic and how many people went past.
	There's a weird.
	We really did the counting traffic thing.
	And for some reason, the cars were all slowing down because there was someone there with a gun.
	There was like a 13-year-old noting down a license plate.
	Yeah, those police officers start young.
	But there's like a psychological effect going on there, isn't there?
	That they're observed and therefore they're more likely to adhere to the speed limit.
Why Pubs Matter 00:14:55
	An opticon.
	Comes full circle.
	We good to go, Samson.
	Silence.
	Hello there.
	Oh, we hear you.
	we're good to go hang on I don't need that Can I test this, see if this works?
	Blimey, it's all working, everyone.
	You know, it's a real treat for you today.
	I'm not going to look at the chat because they're all panicking.
	Anyway, I'm going to depress you all now.
	So we all know that native Britons are leaving the cities and the last stronghold is the countryside really in Britain, although there are some isolated pockets that are still okay, but mostly it's just the countryside.
	And part of the reason that this is happening is to replace the native population.
	And this is controversial, but it need not be because here is the UN in the year 2000 releasing a document about the benefits of replacement migration.
	That is the term they use.
	And so that is the term I'm going to use as well.
	Because when it is a matter of policy, when this is being advised to the world and the world listens and does it, I think we can take it seriously.
	And in around 2013, you had the BBC writing articles like, why have the white British left London?
	And you can tell it was a different time because they just admit the movement of white British is often characterized as white flight.
	The indigenous population forced out of their neighbourhoods by foreign migrants.
	Oh, there you go.
	Which happened.
	But then also they say that may be part of the story, but I think the evidence suggested is also about working class aspiration and economic success, which is the carrying water.
	That's nonsense because there was a time where you could be working class and aspire, if you got economic success, to move into a nicer part of London rather than just have to move out of the city altogether.
	If aspiration is leaving the city, then you're sort of saying the city has got worse by a tacit admission there.
	And of course it's not, you know, that they're leaving because they're aspiring to better.
	They're fleeing to the country, as they allege.
	And that's not the case.
	If you lived in London, you probably want to stay in London.
	But it's changed, hasn't it?
	So one of the things, one of the developments in this is this.
	The Labour Party is drawing up plans to basically diversify the countryside.
	I'm trying to find where the mouse is.
	Mouse has vanished.
	There it is.
	And I'm going to scroll down here.
	So the plans originated with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, as one would imagine.
	And sites across the country have been given diversity targets to bring in more minorities.
	And this is like natural beauty sites and places like that, right?
	Rather than just random parts of the countryside.
	This is just a plan for ethnic cleansing.
	Yes, pretty much.
	And it explicitly describes areas as dominated by white middle-class Britons.
	So, you know, basically, where I grew up personally on my, you know, with my family in a small, close-knit community, you can't have that.
	You know, you can't have people with honesty boxes outside their houses saying hello to each other.
	We've got to put in a Somali.
	You've got to accept these people who are dangerous and we don't know their backgrounds into your community just the same as someone who's lived there for 50 years, you know, and is an integral part of the community.
	Just treat them the same.
	But it carries on to say, the push follows DEFRA commissioned research warning that Britain's natural heritage risks becoming irrelevant as the country grows increasingly multicultural.
	And when I read this, I was about to smash my laptop against the ground.
	Because to suggest that the natural beauty of England becomes irrelevant because some brown people can't see it is so ridiculous to me.
	You know, it's important whether there are any people there or not, regardless.
	But the notion that we then have to give up our countryside and also that it's considered irrelevant by the government because we are occupying our own beautiful countryside is one of the most repulsive sentiments I think I've ever heard.
	Also, the fact that they say urgent action to broaden its appeal, which means changing the countryside.
	So what's the point of keeping it relevant or considering it having been protected if the whole point to attract these new people who don't like it how it is is to ruin it?
	Because that's what you will do by making it more appealing to them.
	You'll make it less rural.
	You'll make it more urbanized.
	You'll make it more garish.
	You'll make it more loud.
	You'll make it more crass.
	You need more barber shops and vape shops and all these foreign food shops.
	That's what we need in the countryside.
	You know what I thought the Brecken Beacons needs?
	We need a curry.
	We need takeaways.
	Piers Morgan can't go there.
	It's terrible.
	Good.
	I know.
	I don't want Piers Morgan there.
	I don't want him on this island, to be honest.
	Or this planet.
	So it carries on to say, national landscapes, formerly known as Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and their partner councils have now committed to concrete measures to address what officials describe as an imbalance.
	So in the Chilterns, they've specifically designed programmes to target Muslims in nearby Luton.
	In Cranbourne Chase, which spans Dorset, Wiltshire, and Hampshire and Somerset.
	Plans to bring in communities where English is not the first language.
	Dedham Vale in Suffolk has committed to identifying barriers faced by underrepresented groups.
	This is all changed.
	Why do we need to change for these people?
	There's no need to change.
	And the countryside shouldn't change.
	And speaking of Cranbourne Chase, it's absolutely wonderful.
	There's zero reason that it should change.
	Zero.
	All this is just destructive social engineering that no sane person asked for.
	To be fair, Stalios, if the people where English is not the first language were like you, it probably wouldn't be so much of a problem.
	You know, that's not the issue.
	The issue is the, why do it in the first place?
	It's a non-issue, isn't it?
	It's a non-issue that they're trying to make into an issue.
	At least if you take it at face value, if you read into it a bit more, there is a darker and stronger incentive to do something else.
	But we'll get on to that.
	Is this to enrich housing developers?
	That's not where I'm going, but that is a path.
	That will always be a path.
	Of course.
	It says recruitment drives will prioritise increasing workforce diversity, so people who work in those parks, while promotional materials will feature ethnic minority individuals and be translated into multiple community languages.
	So yes, just like, yeah, come and ruin our countryside foreigners.
	We're not going to advertise it in our own language.
	The government's going to deliberately push for you to speak your own weird insectoid languages in our country rather than actually, you know, live by our rules.
	And it says one recommendation suggests dogs should be kept under strict control, citing fears of the animals among some communities.
	So Muslims.
	I would take the dogs over these people.
	Dogs are a part of traditional countries.
	They have redeeming features.
	They also have a purpose among the countryside as well.
	I mean, you can use them for, you know, going down foxholes.
	Used to use them for going down foxholes and such, but you can use them on farms.
	There is an actual practical necessity for the countryside to be full of dogs.
	So and I prefer dogs in general i've never known a dog to wear a bomb vest, at least not in Britain.
	I've never known one to sexually abuse women.
	Um, you know, sometimes you get a bit funny with your leg.
	Some people like have having pets.
	Yeah well, that's the problem.
	Well, why change that?
	I would rather people in the pun countryside be able to keep their pets than Muslims feel ever so slightly more comfortable.
	This is piecemeal cultural suicide.
	It's step by step.
	Well, it's not because people in labour is it the people that are pushing it are city dwellers and they hate the countryside.
	Yeah, but that's the thing.
	Humans are good at noticing fast changes, really bad at noticing slow changes as well.
	Step by step.
	This is a a cultural, a matter of cultural warfare.
	Also this, this bit here about singling out the traditional rural pubs I was just about to get to that.
	Oh, okay.
	So um yeah, it was.
	It basically says traditional pubs were identified as a particular concern with reporting.
	Noting Muslims from the Pakistani and Bangladeshi group said this contributed to a feeling of being unwelcome.
	Well, i'll tell you what, if I go to the countryside and there's not a country pub, I don't feel welcome.
	So you know, you've got to pick, and I think we should pick the people who are actually native to here.
	This is part of the larger attack that labor has had on.
	Well, subsequent governments, sequential governments, have all been attacking pubs in one way or another.
	Of course, the greatest attack was probably the tourist in lockdown, destroying so many.
	I remember loads of pubs didn't open back up when lockdowns were lifted, for instance.
	But this is just another attack on top of what is now we can just confirm is a part of the government agenda.
	Yeah, of course to to destroy pubs, because it does operate as a traditional outpost for English people also if it's causing them to feel unwelcome.
	The only way to make them feel welcome is if your traditional rural pub becomes a casper's dessert bar or it becomes like an indoor market that sells fruit and you've got people talking in weird Star Wars languages in there shouting at one another, like i've seen them in Swindon do this sort of thing.
	Well there's, there's one opened in the Swindon town centre just recently.
	I know yeah like, don't have me, I don't feel welcome there.
	But i'm not.
	You don't have to visit places you don't feel welcome to.
	Yeah, that's true yeah, and I think just don't go there.
	Why go?
	When you're in your own country, you should always feel welcome in a place that is, at least you know, presented as being for everyone.
	So the final thing i'm going to read from this is that the Malvin Hills National Landscape said, many minority peoples have no connection to nature in the Uk because their parents and grandparents did not feel safe enough to take them or had other survival preoccupations.
	What were they in?
	They're in a borough in London, like a hunter-gatherer, you know it's.
	It's like The groups of racists going around.
	Come on, just so made up.
	Of course, it is.
	And it added: while most white English users value the solitude and contemplative activities which the countryside affords, the tendency for ethnic minority peoples is to prefer social company, family, friends, and schools.
	So that's their own preference.
	If they don't want to go to the countryside, so be it.
	Of course, they shouldn't even be in the country in the first place.
	But even less reason for them to be in the countryside if they don't even want to go there.
	And of course, the reason isn't that there's this overwhelming desire for minorities to go to the countryside.
	It's that there's an overwhelming desire for white leftists that have grown up in cities to destroy the countryside because it's a holdout of patriotic white British people is the real reason behind it.
	And we can see that from the multitude of different attacks over the years on the countryside.
	Oh, go away, cookies.
	So here's one from September of last year.
	The British countryside is overwhelmingly white and needs more halal food, apparently.
	One sec, just look at this image, right?
	Just look at this image.
	It's beautiful.
	What it needs is a great big stinking mosque in the middle, doesn't it?
	Yeah, what it needs is to be completely destroyed.
	So the people behind these reports.
	So apparently, academics from the University of Leicester, which is a centre for hating on the countryside, although they call it centre for hate studies, ironically enough.
	Studying themselves.
	It's just a mirror.
	And they said that the country pub culture and other mono-culture customs are exclusionary.
	How about you stick your weird academic ways up your backside?
	Like, how dare you say that, you know, our way of life is somehow inferior and that there's got to be something that replaces it.
	So we're accepting of all peoples.
	They're not adopting our culture.
	Why should we adopt theirs?
	Likewise, they say that the countryside lacks the appropriate facilities to meet religious and cultural needs.
	You can't pray to Mecca in the countryside.
	Oh, terrible.
	Because of the lack of halal, kosher, and other religious dietary options.
	Good.
	Bring your food with you.
	You know what I do sometimes when I go to the countryside?
	I bring a picnic.
	Do you know what I do when I go camping?
	I bring food with me.
	Sometimes for three days.
	Well, no, their idea of a picnic is just bringing a lamb there and slaughtering it in the field.
	That's true.
	So I don't want to encourage foreign picnics in the countryside.
	I've been to the Peak District.
	And you get the BBC writing puff pieces about this sort of thing from this Leicester organisation.
	Rural racism too often normalised, apparently.
	Yes.
	They say, oh, you're a minority.
	You're not allowed in the countryside.
	All those checkpoints.
	Yeah, what it is, they've got this big gate that scans you as you walk in.
	If you're just a shade too dark, it literally evaporates you.
	It's terrible.
	I can't believe it.
	I can't believe it.
	Yeah, it's brutal.
	Imagine going up in Scotland and they say the South lives on or something.
	What?
	It's so made up.
	That's what I mean.
	Oh, yeah.
	Fair enough.
	So this is one of the university departments that is spewing all of this sort of stuff.
	And I've noticed here the people.
	Neil Shakraborthy.
	I've heard his name show up a lot in these.
	And we've got a professor here and a doctor there.
	Let's have a look at their background, shall we?
	So he is Department of Criminology.
	What's he doing talking about this?
	Museum studies is the other lady.
	And the other lady is criminology again.
Flags of Intolerance 00:09:14
	I'm sorry.
	What have you got to do with the countryside criminology?
	Oh, maybe it's because there's not enough crimes in the countryside because it's all like safe and peaceful.
	Yeah, we want more to study.
	We want more criminals out there.
	You know, it's actually a great big pilot study.
	And here's another one.
	Intimidation, slurs, and frets.
	Study uncovers racism in rural England.
	And what it actually is, is just a bunch of anecdotes from people who are mildly uncomfortable in an interaction.
	It wasn't that people were just dropping N-bombs on them.
	It's pure microaggression bullshit, isn't it?
	It is, yeah.
	It's just like, I didn't feel welcome.
	I felt isolated.
	Guess what?
	The kitchen was closed.
	When I go into a town or city when white people are in a minority, I feel the same way, except it's my country.
	So the difference is pretty stark.
	Here's another one.
	This is from The Guardian.
	So of course it's going to be insufferable.
	The English countryside can still feel off-limits to people of colour.
	We are working to change that.
	And then the first line, I believe, it remains a shocking fact that 92% of land in England is privately owned.
	Oh, thanks.
	Yeah, it's not shocking, actually, if you actually go out in the countryside.
	If you know anything about England's rural areas, that's not a shock.
	And it has been that way for thousands of years.
	Yeah, there was this doomsday book thing that was a massive registry of the landowners in the country.
	I'm not sure if wherever he's from that was the case because it's probably not even been developed.
	They haven't even gotten to the city.
	My grand culture moved to Stroud during the Windrush years.
	I don't care.
	Yeah, mine have been here for maybe 4,000, 5,000 years at least.
	I think that counts a little bit more than Windrush, mate.
	And then here we go.
	Rural racism in Dorset.
	Why is our countryside 98% white?
	And the reason is because that is the people that live there.
	You, I shouldn't swear.
	You idiots.
	You know, why is it 2% non-white is another question.
	The thing is, if they hate white people, and some of them do, right?
	And I'm talking also about the people who are involved in social engineering.
	Why go and live there?
	I'll tell you.
	I'll tell you.
	If you remember back to the whole CRT thing from way back in the day, there was this idea that a lot of them put forward of this kind of confrontational approach to diversity and to decolonizing.
	They were always like, we need to take up space.
	There was that phrase used constantly.
	So part of the reason is they know that their presence is either not welcome or is disruptive.
	And so they want to be disruptive.
	They enjoy at least people who push this.
	I'm not saying it's everybody, but people who push these kinds of talking points want to insult this huge disruptive force in the countryside just to piss white people off who live there or make it worse.
	From a social engineer's perspective, who are paternalists?
	They may be saying, right, listen, this is your new brother.
	These are your new siblings.
	Live with them.
	Or just shut up.
	That's the approach.
	Yeah, see, there he is again, Chakraba.
	Yeah, that's right.
	He's coming up.
	But the examples here of this rural racism are just pathetic.
	Obviously, they're looking for excuses to colonize the countryside with non-whites.
	This Indian fella here was asked by an old lady in the countryside, why did you come here?
	Why didn't you go to your own country and buy a shop?
	Which, in my mind, is just making chit chat.
	And, you know, you see an Indian guy in the countryside, you just ask him, why have you moved here?
	Well, you know, why didn't you stay at home?
	Which is a perfectly reasonable question.
	There's literally an Indian shop in my town where I've basically asked that question because he also is like, oh, yeah, I go back to India every summer.
	So I'm like, oh, what made you move over here then?
	If you love India that much that you still go back there every...
	It wasn't me trying to be confrontational.
	It was genuine curiosity that made me ask that question years ago at that point.
	I didn't know I was committing a microaggression.
	Well the funny thing is, when you go to the countryside and another fellow British person speaks to you, sometimes they say, oh, where are you from?
	You know, what are you doing here?
	Oh, you're visiting.
	That's nice.
	You know, it's called conversation.
	That's all it is.
	And then we've got another case here of a half-black lady who was speaking to a taxi driver who picked her up and he says, and the taxi driver says, I know where you're going.
	You're going to work.
	We get a lot of carers down from London.
	They go off, look after people, then get back on the train to London.
	And I think it's probably because she got picked up from the train station.
	But she's just and she's saying, actually, I live in Dorchester.
	It's like, but the guy just made a mistake.
	He probably picks up lots of carers from London.
	Presumes she was a carer from London because he's got the train and he was wrong.
	And therefore it's racism.
	It's a pattern from his own personal experience.
	I think it's fair that you would occasionally make a mistake on that.
	But 95% of the time he's going to be right.
	He also didn't say like, what are you doing here?
	You're not welcome here.
	He was just making conversation.
	The issue is that these programmes need to be defunded because it seems like some people try to justify their paychecks and they're trying to invent problems.
	Oh, academia is rife with it.
	I mean, I mean, just because he shows up in all of them, where did he go?
	He was above.
	Where did he go?
	There he is.
	This guy just needs to be like blacklisted from the university system.
	As far as I'm concerned, this guy is a race baiter and a purveyor of racial hate towards white people.
	I mean, if you're up to me, he wouldn't be in the country, that's for sure.
	At the very least, all of his programmes need defunding.
	So here's another one from the Metro.
	The English countryside was shaped by colonialism, why rural Britain is unwelcoming for people of colour from this lady.
	So it's just like, it's not enough like me.
	I want it more like me.
	It's too English still.
	It's similar in a way to, you know, immigrants saying, oh, the flag makes me scared.
	Oh, going to the English countryside makes me scared.
	And that's because you don't belong to it.
	You know you don't belong here.
	You know it's not your flag.
	And you know that actually you should go back.
	That is what's speaking there.
	All this is is just like extended dialogues on the on that Eric Watts' face joke of him just at the gate going, let me in, let me in.
	Yeah.
	And here is another.
	The British countryside is a racist and colonial white space.
	And this is a wildlife charity claiming this for some reason.
	Don't know why that's relevant.
	I didn't realise animals could be actually, I'm going to be doing a segment about that soon, how animals can be racist.
	But I didn't realise it's a problem.
	The red squirrels?
	Yeah, they're really racist against the grey squirrels.
	And rightfully so.
	And then finally, the framing of this one is particularly egregious.
	Black and brown hikers are taking back Britain's countryside.
	It was never the native British's countryside.
	They're taking it back.
	It was always black and brown from the very beginning.
	And the obvious agenda here isn't that all of a sudden the authorities start caring about the well-being of minorities getting out and going for a walk.
	I don't think that they care about that.
	They don't even care when people are being murdered.
	So they're not going to care that they're going and stretching their legs.
	What it's all about is just displacing the native population in the last areas where they remain.
	That's what it's all about.
	And no amount of cover can hide the very naked reality of this.
	Samson, anyways.
	Bring up the rumble rants.
	Good.
	All right.
	Do you want to read through some, Josh?
	Sure.
	OPH UK says, Find an unenriched pub somewhere in the beautiful English countryside and have a drink on me, boys, and a pet dog.
	And pet a dog.
	Oh, if you'd like to buy me a pet dog, please feel free to say $10.
	I mean, very cheap dog, but thank you.
	It's a defective dog.
	That's random name says, imagine invading the countryside and thinking you are the victim when the locals are pinching their noses when they hate you.
	Steve Lee says, DEFRA are responsible for this multicultural initiative, and they are also responsible for allowing halal into the UK food chain.
	They need disbanding.
	Yep.
	Yes.
	Absolutely.
	I can think of a number of other government bodies that do.
	That's a random name.
	They hate dogs because dogs can sense evil and direct competition for the love of the childless, treacherous white lib women.
	Blind me, I don't think they're thinking that far ahead.
	Mr. Wright, quite right, Mr. White.
	I read that backwards.
	Diversity don't actively visit the countryside unless they can save a quid and fly tip.
	They do not care for understanding our history, our culture, because it's not theirs.
Gender Dysphoria and Wokeness 00:16:39
	That is true.
	Although you can, you know, as a white European, when I went to Greece, for example, I cared about Greek history.
	It was very interesting, even though I myself am not a Greek.
	So it is within the capacity.
	Okay, I think that's all of my comments there.
	I reported my pregnant illegal immigrant co-worker to ICE.
	Her emergency room visit was paid for me through taxes.
	You pay for all sorts of things that you don't like through taxes, and so do I.
	Well done for reporting people, though.
	Yes.
	We'll overrun Stella.
	Okay.
	Only for you.
	It would be good if I had my links.
	Sassy, isn't it?
	Don't be mean to Samson.
	You needed a hair flick to go with that one.
	I'm trying my best, Chad.
	Poor Samson.
	No, Samson has fixed all of our problems today.
	He is the Messiah.
	I have good news.
	A D-transitioner has won a $2 million lawsuit against New York doctors who pushed double mastectomy.
	Let us read more about that because it's considered to be great news and some people are very happy about it and some other people are very salty about it.
	We're going to discuss about it.
	Guess who's who?
	Guess who's who?
	Right, okay.
	Right, let me just tell you a few things.
	So we have a 22-year-old woman who identified as a boy in her teens winning the case.
	About 16 years old, this individual named Fox Varian identified as a male.
	Interesting name.
	And went to a psychologist and went to some doctors and they pushed the surgery on her.
	Now, four years afterwards, she sued and the case was won yesterday.
	No, yesterday, actually, on January 30.
	I have a few days ago.
	A few days ago.
	Right, so the floodgates are open.
	This individual had life-altering surgery when she was 16.
	And the question is whether she got the approval she got was forced on her or not.
	So they went to the court.
	She and her family won.
	And they said that when they got there, that was sort of pushed on them.
	And the defense said, no, actually, they didn't push it on them.
	She came in the office, she identified as a male, and the proper steps were taken to ensure that this was to be the, according to the perspective, proper treatment.
	But their arguments weren't convincing to the judge.
	We have first-hand evidence, at least in other practices, that they're pushing this quite heavily.
	And I would imagine that the same sort of ideological motivations that underpin those examples are happening here.
	In that it seems like there was almost a universal push all at the same time of, yes, we're going to trans your kids, and particularly kids, probably because they're young and impressionable and they can get away with it.
	People have their kids taken away from them for trying to oppose the candidate story of that.
	I remember covering that.
	Yeah, so I can't, this isn't working, so I would appreciate it if some.
	Yes, thank you.
	There you are.
	Thanks, Harry.
	Right, so let's look at the numbers.
	Varian now 22 and considered a detransitioner was awarded 1.6 million for past and future pain and suffering and an additional 400k for future medical expenses.
	And this is considered to be the first detransitioner malpractice lawsuit that has been won.
	Right, so they say here that the psychologists were Kenneth Einhorn and the surgeon was Simon Chin and they were held responsible for ignoring standards of care and for violating the good practice standards by pressuring the minor into addressing gender dysphoria with permanent surgery.
	Right.
	It's an interesting thing, like the psychological underpinning of this, because I was educated before they took gender dysphoria out of the diagnostic manuals and tried to change everything to make it as favorable to trans ideology as possible.
	And that was of course political because the psychological evidence suggests that you treat it like any other dysphoric condition, which is you don't reinforce it.
	And we've covered many times before all the different kinds of dysphoria you can have.
	Like there was the woman who blinded herself because she identified as blind.
	She didn't identify with her eyes.
	And there are people who identify as amputees and things like that.
	And we can recognize as a society that that is obviously some form of sickness that needs to be treated psychologically and not indulged.
	But then when we come to this specific dysphoria, which by the way co-occurs with some of the others at a statistically significant rate, which suggests it's a legitimate condition, then you don't reinforce it.
	You don't encourage it.
	What you do is you treat it with the care that you would treat any other condition.
	You wouldn't say to a schizophrenic, oh yeah, those voices you hear, by the way, they're real and you should listen to them.
	Like that would be the health of someone would deteriorate so rapidly if you did that that you'd be liable for anything that happened.
	Right.
	So I want to say we should check out what the lawyers for each side said.
	And I want to point out another issue over the matter because on the one hand I'm very happy that this case has been won, that this lawsuit has been won by the transitioner and her family.
	But on the other hand I want to say that there are some issues that still remain and there are some issues where I think justice hasn't been delivered because on the one hand this has been prosecuted as this has been won as a case against two individuals for violating a particular procedure.
	But I want to say that there are many more questions that haven't been addressed here.
	Let us look at what the lawyer said, and then we're going to talk about how all these connect.
	So lawyers for Varian pointed the finger at Einhorn, saying he drove the train and was putting the idea in Fox's head that she needed to change her gender with surgery according to the reports.
	So how many people can tell the same story today?
	There are many.
	But I want to say the other thing is that if you have wokeness being pushed upon you on a state level and careers can get destroyed, I can understand doctors who will say, well, no, sorry.
	I mean, I'm sort of forced to suggest it.
	Because if they don't suggest it, then the family can say, well, they didn't suggest it.
	So they violated code and they could lose their license for this.
	So what I want to say is that, obviously, I think that these doctors did violate these procedures and that they should be held accountable.
	But we should also bear in mind that it isn't just to individuals.
	It is the particular framework of woke legislation.
	And why am I saying this?
	Because if you listen to this, it shows the basic problem with woke legislation.
	It entirely boils down to subjective factors.
	So what we have here and what the judge had was hearsay.
	Because the lawyers for the family said she didn't say anything.
	It was forced upon them and it was heavily suggested.
	And we have the mother here saying, well, this man was so emphatic and pushing and pushing that I felt like there was no good decision.
	I think it was a scare tactic.
	I don't believe it was malice.
	I think he believed what he was saying, but he was very, very wrong.
	First of all, I will say this at the running the risk, I maybe may sound callous.
	If someone was pushing this for my child, I would not say yes.
	Well, of course, you'd push back.
	That's hard.
	I push back.
	Yes.
	On the other hand, I also want to be fair and give the benefit of the doubt to both sides, as I did for the doctors, not necessarily them, but doctors in general.
	It is also an issue of pressure to parents to engage in this lunacy.
	Why?
	Because lots of people, especially in several states, can lose their children if they deny any sort of gender-affirming care for them.
	Because the legislation for parental rights becomes so strict and so woke that many, very frequently, if you disagree with a particular self-conception of your child, your child can be taken away from you.
	One of the most insidious things that health practitioners have been doing, not just doctors, is that they've been saying to parents of children undergoing this sort of thing, like that they're going to have some really, really serious problems if you don't address this soon.
	They could have some, for the sake of YouTube, life-ending ideation, as I'll use that euphemism.
	But basically, they're saying that if you don't do this, you might never speak or hold your child again.
	Therefore, at least you get to have them around.
	That's the sort of rhetoric they've been using.
	They've been appealing to parental love of their children to push their own ideology, which, as far as I'm concerned, if that tactic is used, is one of the most insidious things.
	It's taking one of the purest things humanity can experience, a love for one's child, and making it really ugly.
	That's hugely emotionally manipulative.
	It is, yeah.
	So gross.
	Let's look at this.
	Varian's mother, Claire Deacon, testified that she was against the surgery, but consented to it out of fear her daughter would commit suicide, according to here the so-called top surgery left the girl physically ill and deeply unhappy, she said in court papers.
	And then, as the other side, the lawyers for Einhorn and Chin argued that Varian lived allegedly happily as a male for several years after the 2019 surgery before filing the lawsuit in 2023.
	So I want to say that to a very large extent, look at the problem with woke legislation and the subjectivity of it.
	When you have a law such as don't kill or don't steal, there are objective, publicly accessible criteria for judging whether a crime has been committed by the accused or not.
	Footprints, DNA, you could have footage, all sorts of stuff.
	When it's so subjective, it's not easy to yield a verdict.
	That's why I'm saying that irrespective of whether these particular individuals violated a particular procedure or not, we should also bear in mind that it isn't just the pro the problem isn't just that they didn't follow the steps of this procedure.
	If they followed the steps of this procedure and still suggested this treatment, there would still be issues.
	And lots of these issues have to do not just with the damage that can occur to a particular individual, in this case, Fox Varian, but also it's the framework, the social framework, and the way it affects legislation, which becomes completely arbitrary.
	And people know this, especially in their dealings with woke culture.
	Well, on the back of that and the way that it's affected by the culture around it, there is something that I can say positive that this may lead to, which is one, there is probably going to be a flood, like this probably has opened a bit of a floodgate with lots of other people who went through similar experiences where they were essentially pressured into it and the parents felt pressured into it as well, who ended up miserable, who might be able to get some reparations for what was done to them.
	And secondly, this is going to be a huge stop for any doctors in the future thinking about suggesting this kind of treatment completely unnecessarily.
	It's going to be a major disincentive.
	Yeah, because they're going to think, well, I don't want to end up in court paying out millions of dollars.
	Well, ideally, someone should be struck off for doing this sort of thing.
	Like, they shouldn't be allowed to practice again.
	Because if their judgment is so impaired that they're willing to do this sort of thing, although I will sort of concede that I was just following orders thing, you know, I'm a little bit more soft on that line than Nuremberg was.
	But I can sort of understand why, you know, as a doctor, you've got a standard practice that you've got to follow and it's top-down, right?
	And so it works a little bit differently.
	And here they claimed the lawyers of the doctors claimed that Varian first came to them using male pronouns, verbally identified as a trans male, and that she first presented the idea for trust surgery.
	So it's their word against hers.
	And also there is the other extra subjective bit as to who was happy for how long and all this issue.
	And essentially, this wasn't a case against gender ideology or wasn't a court ruling against gender ideology.
	It was communicated as a ruling against the doctor and the psychologist for violating the procedure.
	But the issue is that this isn't just an issue of violation of the procedure.
	It doesn't mean the procedure itself is good, and it doesn't mean that it would be good, that there would be no problem whatsoever had they followed that procedure.
	Right, so let's look at this article here by Trans Vitae.
	They say how anti-trans groups will weaponize the detransitioner verdict.
	And they're saying here that it's the article is not an attack on the transitioners.
	The transitioners are part of a community.
	Their experiences are real and deserving of compassion.
	At the same time, it is necessary to confront what happens when detransition narratives are elevated into political tools that threaten the medical access and autonomy of transgender people as a whole.
	So I want to focus on this, where they say that it's an issue of particular narrative, detransition narratives being elevated into political tools.
	This isn't the only narrative that is elevated into a political tool.
	You could say that it's also the, it's not, you could say it, it's actually the case that the gender narrative, the gender-affirming narrative is also a political tool.
	And to many people of that community, what they say is that if they do gender-affirming surgery and then they start having several second thoughts, there are lots of people who are trying to tell them don't have these second thoughts because it was going to reflect bad on the community and because you're a far-right extremist.
	So this politicization of the issue is a very bad thing, but it happens primarily, I'd say, from the woke, the transgender ideology.
	I mean, speaking of the excesses of the ideology, what on earth is this headline here?
	Like, what?
	I don't even understand what that means.
	It's like its own terminology.
Excesses Of Transgender Lobby Terminology 00:02:02
	Rest pools and dog crap training are like actual...
	Is that really a thing?
	They're...
	They're a thing that have been around since I think the 80s or the 90s.
	Okay, fair enough.
	I don't remember exactly what it is, but it's interesting that they're doing variations of it for trans lifters.
	Also, that was funny.
	If you go back up the bit where it's just sort of like, oh, detransition is not the enemy.
	It's like, okay, so you, it took, what, like, seven or eight years, but these people in these very public-facing media roles have finally learned maybe making this whole part of it so difficult for people was not a great look for us.
	Because I remember going back five or six years when they were treating it like detransitioning was like a hit against the community and that you're a bad person if you even considered it.
	And this is what they say when detransition becomes a political weapon.
	Some detransitioners choose to align themselves with organizations and media outlets that openly oppose transgender rights.
	These groups are not interested in improving standards of care.
	They seek to eliminate care entirely along with legal recognition and social protections for trans people.
	Well, that's the issue.
	They are the first who are creating the problem and they are saying that it's the detransitioners now who are doing it.
	Because this isn't something that should be political and the first people who have made it political are those who are in favor of the transgender lobby.
	And they say here how liability actually shapes access and they're saying to understand why this verdict alarms many transgender people, it helps to understand how healthcare systems respond to risk.
	Doctors operate within a web of constraints, licensing boards, malpractice insurers, hospital administrators and state governments all influence what care can realistically be offered when insurance perceive a severe service as high risk, premiums rise or coverage disappears.
	When coverage disappears, providers often stop offering their care regardless of medical consensus.
Turning Mental Illness Perceptions 00:04:20
	Well, maybe, maybe, maybe.
	Well, this is something that you should think about again.
	I want to put it in polite terms.
	And I want to end on this note.
	And I want to say that I'm happy that this case has been victorious, that they have won this case.
	But at the end of the day, I want to say it isn't just an issue of not following a particular procedure, not taking the bureaucratic boxes.
	It is a fundamental problem of a particular framework that is so subjective that is designed to just create authoritarianism everywhere.
	All right, then.
	Have we got any more rumble rants to go through before and uh and video comments as well?
	Give me that, give me that chaos.
	Uh, marked ashamed Ash Ahmed.
	Ashamed Harry, I was trying to read it as a name.
	What's wrong with him?
	Ask him in shape.
	Ask him in.
	Oh, God.
	I thought I got enough sleep last night, guys.
	Uh, Harry's turning Arabic, everyone.
	Yeah, clearly, it's uh, it's this little guy's influence right here.
	He turned ginger now, he's turning Muslim.
	I am not becoming Muhammad.
	I am, I am becoming flaxen-haired, my friend.
	I saw I tell you what, I went on Facebook for the first time in ages the other day, and there was a picture come up from when I was still in secondary school from 14 years ago, right?
	And it was like, see your memories, Harry, see what's going on, see what was going on like 14 years ago today.
	And I looked at the picture, and I was like, still golden blonde in the picture.
	And it was one of those, God, my hair has really changed color over the past 10 years.
	It's mental.
	Even when I was still like 20, 21, I was still pretty golden blonde.
	It's got a lot darker recently.
	Coming out of the closet is a good first step, Harry.
	Thank you, Josh.
	And I thought, you know, coming out to a Scotsman is appropriate for many things, you know, ginger, transgender, homosexuality.
	The Scott can empathize with all of these things.
	Because the Scott.
	The Scott is all of these things.
	You've got another rumble rant there, Harry.
	Yeah, that's a few.
	That's a random name.
	Ash Ahmed Inshallah.
	Alhamdulillah.
	Habibi.
	Mark the shamed was saying dog and now getting banned.
	England has been conquered.
	Defeat in war, even a far-off one overseas has consequences.
	That's a random name.
	I think it was Zelenials of the Last Age group to have grown up being taught that trans was a mental illness.
	By the time I left high school, the narrative was already changing.
	I still remember my 18th birthday when one of my friends brought along his girlfriend who wasn't a boy or a girl and we ditched them after laughing at them for making fun of it.
	Because we were at the pub and we were like, I don't want to be here with a not boy, not girl.
	So we called them a few slurs and ditched.
	Based.
	So, Dragon Lady Chris, these doctors are equivalent to somebody telling an anorexic they're definitely too fat and need to diet more.
	That's why I didn't become a psychologist.
	There we go.
	All right, let's watch the video comments.
	Clinical psychologist.
	We've watched this.
	I haven't.
	I haven't.
	I was listening to Stelios' segment about Euromaxing the other day as I cleaned up the park in the local village and I just thought, what are you doing?
	A huge supply of tea!
	I want to hear the counter segment about how you can do things for the greater good.
	And while you're doing things for the greater good, you can listen to the podcast while cleaning the snow.
	Just wanted to say.
	All true.
	All so true.
	Good references there as well.
Poking Bureaucrats Punishes 00:02:01
	The penguin segment on Friday properly exhibits a spiritual divide between us and the bugmen.
	I am reminded of an old duckbilled platitude.
	Why did the bear go round the mountain to see what he could see?
	I myself find driving in snowy, poor, and dangerous road conditions, or working out in the snow annoying, and I don't want to do it.
	But when I'm forced to, I still recognize that a small part of myself feels alive.
	Risk in overcoming adversity makes you appreciate life.
	Very true.
	Also, I was hypnotized by the power supp um the power button symbols in the pupils.
	Imagine having that in real life.
	I was imagining someone looking at me.
	You can poke someone in the eye.
	Poke them in the eye and they turn off.
	I mean, I wish more humans had that feature, to be honest.
	Spider-Man.
	In the chaos of world events, I always ask, will anyone be punished, though?
	Oft few else ask this with me.
	The bureaucratic web diffuses responsibility, and without a single person at fault, we default to no punishment.
	I advocate that all decision-makers be punished.
	This would not only be justice and responsibility, it would weed out bureaucracies to the root without need for legislation due to people quitting in droves.
	I like your thinking.
	Punish bureaucrats, even if they've done nothing.
	There does need to be like basically a greater web of responsibility for these people.
	You could say, like, have the guy on the top that everything is responsible for who ultimately gets the big punishments, but everybody else below him also gets fired.
	I like the idea of corporal punishments for government bureaucrats.
	Just like, yes, you're.
	We'll return to tradition.
	There's been a data leak, we're going to put you all in the stocks.
	I mean, it works out for me.
	And on that sunny note, if we can dream of a better future together, I think that's where we have to end it.
	So thank you very much for joining us on today's podcast.
	We'll be back again tomorrow.

Chapters

00:00:01 Mainstream Media Diversion Tactics
00:14:52 Flood the Zone with Propaganda
00:30:31 Minimizing Implications
00:39:15 River Flow Analysis
00:42:25 Why Pubs Matter
00:57:21 Flags of Intolerance
01:06:35 Gender Dysphoria and Wokeness
01:23:15 Excesses Of Transgender Lobby Terminology
01:25:17 Turning Mental Illness Perceptions
01:29:38 Poking Bureaucrats Punishes