The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1349

Feb. 6, 2026 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:30:39

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1349

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
Crazy Maneuvres in the Tea Room 00:14:41
	Hello everyone, welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Cedars.
	Today is Friday the 6th of February and this is episode 1349.
	I'm your host Brother Stelios and I'm pleased to be joined by brother Nick.
	Hello, just us two sat across a massive table like Putin.
	Yeah exactly.
	That's how it is.
	It's the Kremlin here.
	Right.
	Okay, so we are going to discuss the next prime minister, whether the next prime minister is going to be even worse.
	The Groypers sabotaging the Republicans and the MAGA movement and the scandalous trad eagle question, which I hope this is going to be a fun one.
	We'll relax, we'll sit back and we'll just enjoy, see what happens.
	Just enjoy the misogyny.
	Just two men.
	Right.
	And before we start with the first segment, we have three announcements to make.
	Number one, the Bo Show.
	Check out Bo's show every morning, 8 a.m. till 9.
	Bo's show is excellent.
	Bo is excellent.
	So check his show out.
	We have lads hour at 3 p.m. today.
	The Starma bunker, what's going on now, which I think is related to your first segment.
	And the third announcement is that we have a new website, beta version, accessible to gold members.
	So access it and tell us what you think about it.
	But I like more alpha situations.
	Yeah, yeah, we're more alpha here.
	Yeah.
	Dr. Jesse Lee Peterson, beta.
	Based.
	Based.
	All right.
	So check out the website, but also check out my segment now because it's going to be pretty good because we're asking the question, is the new prime minister going to be even worse?
	And who is the one man that could save Labour?
	There's always one man.
	You know, in a movie, like, well, there is one man.
	No, we can't ask him.
	You know, happens in Goodwill Hunting, happens in Darkest Hour.
	There's always the one man that you don't want to ask.
	Where he's like, well, I don't know, he's a Maverick.
	He is a Maverick.
	So there's one Maverick that you may not have even heard of that they might ask.
	But anyway, let's crack on.
	So Great Britain getting ready for its sixth prime minister in less than 10 years.
	And we're asking, are we the Italians now?
	Are we the Italians, Steyos?
	and more French to have massive political instability.
	Well, yeah, but Italians have that like proportional representation where they end up with like 13 parties at once and stuff.
	So people are mocking it.
	But yeah, first past the post, we were told it was stable.
	But is it when it's full of F-wits?
	All right, so that's the first question to ask.
	Who is ready?
	The second question, who's ready for PM Rainer?
	This is what it's going to be like, guys.
	That's what it's going to look like.
	Is that like an insult to Chavs or something?
	I feel like this is class-based humour.
	I feel that's quite...
	Maybe it should be better than Starmerwood.
	What do you think?
	That's the question.
	Can anyone be worse than Starmer?
	We're going to find out.
	I mean, yes, I think actually.
	Shockingly, I think Miliband, Rainer, I think these would both be worse.
	I think the problem with this question is that it can always get worse.
	Yes.
	So be careful what we wish for.
	What you wish for, yeah.
	Though I still want, let's be very clear, I still want to see the back of him anyway.
	Because just on sort of principle.
	That's the justice of the matter.
	It doesn't matter if next moment is going to be incredibly worse.
	Yeah.
	If this is more your wheelhouse, but it's sort of deontology versus consequentialism.
	I want him to be gone on principle, even though it's going to be bad.
	So Real Bravman, Solid Bravan's husband, Havar Sanders sunk so low.
	Here's the question.
	That Angela Rainer could be considered the next prime minister, a sobering measure of how far the bar has fallen in British politics.
	And there you go.
	Big Ange doing her thing.
	That's so funny.
	That's like an AI that you would have made of her, but it's real.
	But it isn't.
	Just the aesthetics of it.
	Yeah.
	Like she vapes to resurrect antiquity or something.
	Yeah, it's hilarious.
	I can't believe that's real.
	Okay, so well, Starmer in Grave Peril.
	So Starmer's premiership in Grave Peril is Angela Reyna twist the knife.
	So the reason I bring up Rainer first is people say she is on manoeuvres.
	She is absolutely going for it.
	She has twisted the knife.
	Now, it's dramatic talk.
	What does it really mean?
	It means that when Starmer was under pressure over Mandelson, she asked a question in the House that was very much against Starma, putting a little bit of extra pressure on him.
	Let's just have a watch.
	Oops.
	I thank the Minister for giving way.
	And given the public disgust and the sickening behaviour of Peter Mandelson and the importance of transparency, in 2022, I proposed a humble address seeking information about PPE, which the party opposite has listed.
	And my honourable friend, the member for Packney South, mentioned just before, should we not have the ISC not have the same role now in keeping public confidence in the process?
	So she's asking a question, you know, should we not be more transparent with this Mandelson thing?
	And it was when he was under so much pressure anyway.
	So that was seen, even though it looks relatively subtle, especially by Rainer's standards.
	It was seen as twisting the knife on Starmer and her making a sort of part of her making a move.
	A fair question, though.
	Yeah, fair question.
	Yeah, of course.
	I mean, yeah, that's terrible, the Mandelson stuff, but she didn't like say, oh, I love the Prime Minister and support him.
	She said, by the way, what about this other thing we should do?
	So it was seen as an attack on him.
	And not only that, but Labour MPs urge Raina to challenge Starmer for leadership.
	So it says Labour MPs have privately urged Angela Rainer and Wes Streeting to launch a leadership challenge against Starmer over the Lord Mandelson scandal the Telegraph can reveal.
	One minister said the situation had become existential for Zakir, claiming that basically everyone is urging a leadership challenge in private.
	Miss Rayna, the deputy, former deputy, and Mr. Streeting have emerged as the obvious contenders.
	So there you go.
	So everyone wants them to launch a challenge.
	And more on Raina being on manoeuvres, she's been working the tea room.
	Now, I know when you hear that Rainer's been working the tea room, you think, oh, she's got a new job following the taxing.
	No, she's been lobbying people in the tea room saying, oh, would you support me if it came down to it?
	Something like that.
	I'm guessing.
	And Tice explains this for us.
	Well, for the first time yesterday, I saw Angela Rayna working the Tea Room quite actively.
	Let's put it like that.
	What does that mean?
	That means that she was schmoozing her potential allies in a leadership bid.
	And there was a focus, a sort of steely focus in everything about Angela Rainer yesterday that indicated to me that there's something's going on here and she has to be joint favourite with Miliband would be my hunch.
	Must be interesting to watch.
	Can I just get your opinion quickly?
	I've been told Richard Tice, the deputy leader, has to go at 7.15.
	Revolting, front page of the sun.
	We've obviously talked about Labour's forcing Starma's U-turn.
	Quick comment.
	Don't really need all that.
	So she's on manoeuvres in the tea room.
	And more on this here.
	If someone had pulled the trigger, MPs rule lack of challenger to our Starmer.
	So this is where they're saying basically Starma needs to go, but everyone's too gutless to step up and do it.
	So, and it mentions the T Room again, funnily.
	So it says in the Tea Room during the debate, it was the first time I've heard people openly discussing candidates and challenges, not caring who heard one Labour source said.
	So she's on manoeuvres, but it also points out that another MP said they had contempt for leadership contenders who had not taken their chance.
	Sometimes in politics, it's about leadership.
	We needed leadership.
	So it's gone.
	No, there's another question I have, because when I'm thinking of the Labour Party and the politicians and the Labour Party, I can't think of any strong personality there.
	So the question is who is weaker or who is less weak than others.
	So that's one thing.
	What I ask here is, do they think that Starmer is faced with trouble now and they're trying to take the leadership position from him?
	Or do they think that things are actually going to get worse?
	And they want him to get all the blame for what is worse to come.
	And then at some point he loses the next election or something.
	And then it's the right time for someone to step in.
	Yeah, it's a great question.
	One thing people are worried about is they come in before the May local elections.
	They get spanked in that.
	And that's on them rather than Starmer.
	So many people think he will limp on to the summer.
	And you would never rule Starmer out just limping on because he's a sort of, that's his one skill really.
	He's being completely dense, completely unaware, unaware of how bad he looks, unaware that he's the least popular prime minister in British history.
	And he just kind of carries on.
	But yes, people don't want to step up.
	Rainer's got to get over her tax thing.
	She's not been cleared by HMRC.
	Streeting is now known, he's now associated with Manelson because he's good friends of Manelson.
	So there's a reason for all of them not to step up.
	But also, I just can't picture him as a leader because Streeting constantly has this scared look.
	Yes, like he's seen a ghost or something.
	I just can't see him as a leader.
	I think he's the I see him as the most likely other than Rainer.
	Well, or Miliban, it's between those three.
	I unfortunately could see him.
	I mean, because Starmer's hardly a leader, is he?
	Starmer's the most forgettable guy at a forgettable guy convention.
	Anyway, about two, so most dangerous moment came after lunchtime on Wednesday.
	About 2 p.m.
	If someone had pulled the trigger, he would have moved.
	So someone was, it was there to be taken.
	Seize the crown, pick up the crown, but no one did because they are P-words.
	How about this?
	Hang on, is that going to be there?
	Oh, yeah.
	How about Rainer and Burnham in a dream team?
	This is one possibility.
	So one possibility is Rainer, which we looked at.
	One possibility is Rainer and Burnham.
	So Eleanor Mills here says Burnham and Raynor are the dream team to succeed Kier.
	Lol, lol, lol.
	And the whole article is just basically about that.
	Nothing really worth picking out.
	It's just claims that Burnham can recover from this being blocked and that the obvious person to be his deputy is Big Ange.
	And the two of them together, the dream team.
	That's the dream team now, Stelios.
	Imagine the level we've sunk to.
	We used to have people like Powell, Tony Ben.
	Nope, now it's those two.
	I know what you mean about streeting.
	Look at his face.
	Why is his hair so short when he's got that kind of big face?
	Looks like a mug.
	Literally a mug.
	Not a mug like you, Mug, but like an actual cup.
	So Tom Harris, get ready for Prime Minister Streeting.
	You ready, Stelios?
	It sounded like you weren't ready.
	No.
	You're not ready.
	This is not something I want to see.
	This is the other possibility.
	But he, of course, as I said, good friends of Manelson, so it's now looking dodgy for old streeting, even though he was surely the main contender.
	Look at him there, just thinking, can I get him?
	Can I get him?
	It's frightening.
	That's why he's scared.
	Yeah.
	It's frightening because part of it is Starmer's weakness in some respects.
	But also it's his policies.
	But I can't understand it that well because if they did, they wouldn't be the leftists.
	Right.
	It's a weird thing going on here.
	And they all want to be in power because they're politicians, but they must also know the phrase in English is sticky wicket.
	This is a sticky wicket because you're coming into a party that's collapsing just before the May elections.
	Hated in the country.
	Only got in because of the Tories being more hated and reformer on the up.
	So it's a terrible time to come in.
	The Greens are on the up.
	You wouldn't want it.
	It would be a terrible time.
	But then again, that's the time you can get it sometimes when it's a bad time.
	So I don't know.
	IDS here, Ian Duncan Smith, thinks it's going to be older Ed Miliban.
	That's the other option for you.
	It is definitely the case that the present environment secretary may well make it if he puts his hat in the ring.
	He's overwhelmingly popular.
	Miliband.
	Yeah, David.
	Not David, but Miliband.
	Ed Miliband is the key.
	Sorry, I should have mentioned his name before.
	Oh, our audience will know who you mean when you say the environment.
	Yeah, because, of course, he's been wrong on all this and he's behaving in a sort of communist-like fashion, imposing rules and regulations on ordinary members of the public, making the cost of motoring higher.
	But he's very popular with the members, isn't he?
	But the Labour Party members love him because this is the kind of socialism that they want.
	And he is doing it, so if he put his...
	So you've got the...
	Oh, he even says he'll almost certainly get it.
	Hand of the ring.
	You'd end up with him, without question, I think.
	Without question.
	So he really thinks it would be Ed Miliband.
	And certainly many polls have suggested he's the most popular with the party, but terribly unpopular with the public.
	And he already had a stab at it.
	It was awful.
	I have a very bad scenario.
	I don't think it's likely.
	Okay.
	It's nightmarish.
	Labour teaming up with the Green Party and Polanski's the next PM.
	Disturbingly plausible.
	I mean, some coalition is definitely plausible, isn't it?
	Or at least some voting standoff.
	Tactical voting is almost a certainty.
	Labour, Lib Dem, and the Greens.
	Lib Dems and Labour seem like basically one thing now in Parliament, the parliamentary right, but the Greens are a little bit different.
	Polanski's a little bit row because he's so crazy.
	He's not like a starmer who's at least ostensibly sensible.
	He's just like full-on bat bleep.
	Yeah, crazy.
	Crazy, crazy.
	He's crazy, crazy.
	He's crazy, crazy.
	And they got rid of Corbyn, so they don't really love those full-on communists.
	But then again, maybe that's the way it's going.
	That could almost happen.
	Another possibility is Shabana Mahmood, which is Kemi's pick.
	Anyone in the cabinet that I admire?
	No.
	Some of them are, or some of them are better than others.
	I think Shabana Mahmood is someone who shows that she's better than her colleagues.
	I doubt that they will ever let her have a go, but I think that she is at least honest about the problems that the country is facing and doesn't pander.
	Sorry, what was the...
	So, Kemi's pick is Shibana Mahmood.
	What do you think?
	Tougher on immigration, at least in theory, but a sort of fairly hardcore Muslim.
	When she could be tough on immigration, but the question is what kind of immigration?
	Because let's say if we're talking about migration from Africa and she is very tough on Christians from Africa, but not particularly tough on Muslims, then I don't see how this is good for, at least from the perspective of someone who is more Christian.
	Yeah.
	And is it just all rhetoric?
	Because it sounded like on the small boats, she was actually just going to change the wording and say they and try and get them into work more efficiently, which is not what we want.
	She's like, I've heard you're on the small boats.
Khan's Rise: Cummings' Insight 00:08:51
	We'll get them working.
	No, that's not what we want.
	We wanted to stop the boat.
	So, yeah.
	Yeah, and also it's just that she's just, we have to see what she's going to do.
	She has made some statements about being a bit tougher on things.
	But we need to see what she's going to do.
	I know some people on the right are really happy with her.
	And they're saying, oh, she's the most base and more right-wing than the Tories and stuff.
	We have to see what is going to happen.
	In a bunch of extremely left-wing people.
	And I can't see her as the leader of the party.
	I can't see her.
	No, well, Kemi said it's not going to happen.
	So it's very unlikely.
	Yeah, but in a bunch of extremely left people, she's probably the most to the right.
	Then it's probably streeting.
	Then you've got Burnham, Rain, and Miliband are all just fully left and mental.
	The thing is, some of them have lots of baggage.
	They all have baggage.
	Yeah, some more than others, though.
	Rainer has the baggage and streeting probably and Miliband from the previous time he was in.
	Yeah, they all have baggage.
	Burnham doesn't have baggage.
	So maybe they come up with a completely new face.
	That's coming.
	So that's coming, don't worry.
	That's coming, in fact, right now.
	We go back to this guardian article, and you asked for a new face, Tarios, and a new face I will deliver.
	I'll tell you what it's going to be.
	And this is a tip for me that you've not heard anywhere else, unless you really follow this stuff nerdishly.
	Some said they were now beginning to seriously consider backing the Defence Minister, Al Kahns, a former Royal Marine, should he decide to stand.
	Khan's is currently in the Arctic.
	So Khan is the guy everyone's talking about.
	Here, MPs are suggesting Al Kahn's as a possible new leader, but I'd advise having detailed account of military record before considering him.
	Well, yeah, not vetting people has gone a bit wrong for Labour.
	Labour bigwigs impose Kahns on Birmingham Selly Oak with no public scrutiny after Stalma persuaded Steve McCave to step down in return for peerage.
	He's worried about the scrutiny.
	First response.
	Never heard of him.
	Also, this post, only 193 likes.
	True, yeah.
	I know, I said it, and lots of people responded to me who, but it's like, well, yeah, he's not that one.
	That's kind of the point.
	But yeah, but that does make it extremely unlikely.
	But here, you know, we're in sort of the last chance saloon for Labour.
	So here we go.
	The political and media class is obsessed with the idea of a PM with military background, which we haven't had since Callahan World War II generation.
	At various moments, Clive Lewis, Dan Jarvis, Tobias Elwood, and co were supposed to waltz into Down Street and rescue Britain from the morass.
	So he's saying, oh, it's not such a great thing just because they're ex-military.
	Although it is better than someone who's done absolutely nothing of value, which is most of Labour.
	Them having done nothing of value is better than them having done things of negative value.
	Right.
	The old Aesop's fable about King Log and King Stork.
	Do you know what that is?
	I don't remember the particular one.
	The Aesop's fable, they want the frogs saying, well, we've got this king.
	It's just a log.
	It doesn't do anything.
	It's rubbish.
	They say, okay, don't worry, we'll sort it.
	And the next king is a stork that eats them all.
	So they're like, we wanted the log.
	At least it didn't do anything bad.
	So the Al Khan's thing is just mad.
	A 2024, meaning he's very recent, who is still a junior minister becoming PM with no record in the Labour Party are people high.
	But I suggest that having no record in the Labour Party could be a good thing.
	Yeah, that's actually a good thing.
	But also, they love the idea of renewing things.
	And that works well in leftist circles.
	It's not necessarily bad in right-wing circles, but especially in the left, they like the idea of people not having a past in politics because it's easier for them to blame all the rest as compromised and corrupted.
	Because that's one of the issues with many leftists is that they can't handle using power in their own circles.
	They can maintain power on a state level, but within their own circles, they sort of lose a kind of prestige if they yield power.
	Wield power.
	Really?
	I think so.
	Because lots of them come to the fore with sort of maximalist rhetoric.
	And when they put it into practice, it's a bit more pragmatic and realistic.
	And lots of the initial supporters are then attacking them and saying you're corrupt.
	Yeah, you couldn't even do the basic minor cuts to disability benefits or whatever it was or benefits in general.
	It would have been a drop in the ocean of the people.
	But you didn't tax him 100%.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah, you're right.
	And you're right, they like renewal.
	I mean, Stalman's been going on about renewal.
	And everybody suffer for renewal.
	It's like, I have no idea what you're talking about.
	No one knows what this means.
	But you like saying it.
	So Khan's, where is Khan's though?
	Good question.
	This is where he is.
	Staying well out of it in the Arctic.
	He's like, what leadership?
	What Labour collapse?
	I'm out here in Norway, based just like Total Chad on a nice sheet.
	He's currently in reservist training here in here in Norway on Marine Surveillance and Reconnaissance Squadron.
	Pretty cool, dusting off some old skills and drills in the Arctic Circle.
	He's like, Yeah, just that kind of guy.
	It's actually the best place for him to be, right?
	Yeah, well, you want me to lead?
	I'm sorry, I can't.
	I'm just dusting off my skills in the Arctic Circle.
	It's like a movie, gets the call.
	What leader of the Labour Party?
	Yeah, if you want that kind of isolation, like I'm in the Arctic, no human around in a radius of 30 miles, and then you're starting to say you have to lead the country.
	Yeah, it's so funny.
	I'm sorry, man.
	There is one man we cut to the Arctic.
	Yeah, above shot drone.
	And it's just like he's literally on the thing with the ice pick.
	He's on the mountain.
	He's like, Yeah, Starma's gone.
	I'll be there.
	And then he's on the next shot, he's on the plane.
	And then there's a blizzard and he isn't there.
	Yeah, he dies.
	Or he says that he says there's a blizzard or something.
	Yeah.
	Actually, he's a bit of an action man, so a bit of a geezer.
	I mean, you know, you could do worse.
	You could do worse.
	Although, I'm not a fan of face masks in general.
	But yeah, so that's our Kahn's for you.
	Now, who else said Al Khan's could be a good pick?
	Our old friend, Dominic Cummings, back in January.
	One first person I heard say it.
	Is there anyone in the Labour Party who you think, even if it's unlikely that they could be elected, would actually do not just a better job, but a half-decent job?
	So the only so I know close to zero Labour MPs.
	There's one Labour MP who I worked with in government because of his role then, and that's the current Armed Forces Minister Al Kahn's.
	So I had some dealings, professional deal, not political, obviously, because he was working in the armed forces at the time when I was in government.
	I had dealings with him.
	He obviously comes from a certain background and understands about building a team and could do certain things that most MPs couldn't do.
	However, I think there's no chance that he's going to get put in.
	Labour were going to put in Miliband or Rainer or someone on the left because they just want a left person to do left things.
	And they will drive all the pathologies worse and worse.
	And then they'll blame racism and capitalism and everything for that.
	And they'll just keep doubling down.
	The Tor.
	Okay.
	That was Cummings' verdict.
	Quite interesting because Cummings is someone now.
	People don't like him because he was pro-lockdown, all the various scandals and so on and the Boris era.
	But at least he's someone clearly smart, knows the inside, knows what it takes, knows how hard it is when you're up against the civil service and the blob.
	And he's saying Al Khan's could actually build a team, Marines' background, but they'll never give him it.
	Yeah.
	So anyway, but I just thought it'd be interesting because people may not have heard, especially if you're in America or something.
	Now you're going to know about Al Khan's, which, you know, maybe niche knowledge if you're not in the country.
	But I thought it's my job to cover these serious political topics, you know, because what I used to do on the TV, I wanted to do the e-girls thing.
	I thought, no, I can't do that.
	It's ridiculous.
	But then you're covering it.
	So we'll get onto that later.
	I thought I'll do this boring bit.
	And we'll do the fun stuff.
	So that is my bit for today.
	Great.
	Let's read the comments.
	Oh, yeah.
	Trying to know how to scroll.
	Wait, wait, wait, wait.
	Oh, I can't scroll them.
	Yeah.
	Do you want me to read them or I can read them?
	Yeah.
	We start with the bottom, do we, generally?
	With Laura 850.
	I watched a great interview Tommy did on Nurse Amy.
	She's fighting accusations of racism, urban scoop on X. Interesting.
	Thank you for the chat.
	I'm drunk change, a drunk changeling says, only one man can save labor.
	Have they tried Lowe's Groundskeeper?
	Harry on our girl perhaps says if Labour got in, if Lammy got in, sorry, they would just bang on about him being the first black PM, which would provide a perfect cover for his.
	Can we say that on YouTube?
	Our word, we probably can't see if you have reservations.
Views and Numbers 00:04:47
	Best to not say it.
	Point out how stupid Lamy is, and you'll be called a racist.
	Well, that is certainly true.
	Sigil Stone 17 deciding he doesn't actually want to be in charge of the Tories in the upset of the year.
	Nigel Farage affects to Labour to stand for party leader.
	Do you know what?
	I should have said this in the segment.
	When Starmer was appointing the ambassador, Farage kept saying it should be him.
	I mean, you know, it's like, was he totally serious?
	But he kept publicly saying, I would do the ambassador role to the US.
	Starmer could have hired Farage as the ambassador, neutralized the threat from reform, and not hired Mandelson.
	It would have been the political genius move of the century, but he couldn't see it.
	All right, I think that's all the chat.
	Is it?
	Oh, hang on, one more.
	Hewitt comes in and says, Kant declines and follows the penguin into the sunset.
	That's true.
	Follow the penguin.
	We did that last time.
	Embrace the penguin.
	Empress the penguin did quite well that one.
	All right, Samson, could we load the second segment, please?
	Right.
	Okay.
	Pick up Islander.
	Let me be.
	Let me double-check.
	This is the right order.
	Fuentes is attacking Trump again, and he's also attacking Vance and MAGA.
	And he is incentivized, he's incentivizing people to not vote Republican in the midterms, which he has done before.
	Now he said in October, just before the previous elections, I will not vote for Trump.
	And then he proceeds to say why he didn't vote for Trump.
	Then Trump won, and he did the following.
	He posted, I can't believe we did it again.
	I remember that.
	Can I just quickly say at a start, a quick disclaimer?
	I don't associate myself with anything you're saying because you're going to get the Groyper curse.
	And I heavily disavow you.
	Sorry if that makes it awkward.
	Don't worry, Nick, I don't want to get the Groyper curse.
	These are your views.
	My views may be different.
	We don't know my views.
	We're not going to attack each other because we disagree on this.
	On this subject, I have been very critical of the Groypers.
	Get the tweets and use to get the curse.
	Yeah, I'll get it.
	I already have faced it for months now.
	So don't worry.
	You just say you are not embracing what I'm going to say.
	So Fuentes here did the flip.
	He wanted to gain the MAGA hype, and he said, I can't believe we did it again, despite the fact that he said that people shouldn't vote for MAGA.
	Now, there are a lot of things that happened lately with Fuentes.
	Personally, I was saying for a long time that the Groypers were astroturfed and that to a large extent the movement was inorganic.
	That doesn't mean necessarily that it was all just bots, but it wasn't exactly what people wanted to make that.
	And I'm going to talk about this in a bit.
	And it seems like the generational run has sort of lost momentum.
	And I think one of the things that contributed to him losing lots of momentum was him going out with all these people here, Clavicula, Sneeko, Myron Gaines, the Tates, out for that night out.
	And the movement was based on a lot, to a large extent, on optics.
	And also they were saying, well, you can't sort of try to market yourself as a leader of a sort of white nationalist movement and have your cabinet be composed of the people who were there.
	Yeah, can I just apply it to a couple of things?
	One, I always thought it was organic because you look at Fuentes' numbers when he appears on anything, they're always massive.
	You look at his streaming numbers.
	I think people don't like the idea, but he just is appealing to a lot of people.
	He's a great speaker and funny.
	And I think people just do watch it.
	So I've always thought it was organic, so I disagree on that.
	But on the second point, I have more sympathy.
	I thought it did look weird.
	I think basically, someone like Fuentes doesn't have a great many allies.
	He's been in cancel from everything.
	If Andrew Tate says to him, do you want to hang out at the club or whatever?
	Be like, yeah, cool.
	Because he wants to, you know, these are people that are his friends.
	Even though he did seem the odd one out because he wasn't really part of that red pill world.
	He's more political and he's coming up.
	Whereas those are people who maybe who have maybe had the peak of their fame.
	They're still pretty famous, but he didn't seem like an obvious fit with the rest of them.
	Yeah, I mean, I will say this.
	He is funny and he is a gifted speaker, irrespective of whether I agree with the message or not.
	I'll give him that.
	And to a degree, I will say that just looking at footage from that night, he was more relatable than the others.
	He was uncomfortable being there.
	I think, yeah.
	He was like anyone in a club.
	Like, why am I in a club?
Bannon's Rise and Rhetoric 00:15:12
	This is ridiculous.
	No, Nick, I'm not saying you're disavowing the Groypers.
	Don't worry.
	No, clearly.
	I don't want to get the curse.
	Don't worry.
	But I'm not avowing them either in case I get cancelled by the other or go to prison in the Star Maguire.
	So I'm neither, I'm just nowhere on it.
	I'm a ghost.
	Right, so let's look at what Fuentes is doing here and whether there's a pattern in what he's doing.
	Because I think, and I think this raises some really interesting questions about the next phase of the conservative movement.
	I mean, to be fair, I think he does say that he isn't a conservative, at least in some, I've heard him saying that in some yes, he's on the right rather than there are lots of discussions that need to happen because Trump isn't going to go down for another election.
	He isn't going to run again.
	And in one sense, we already live in a post-Trump world because there's conversations within the conservative sphere whether Vance or Rubio are going to be the next are going to spearhead the next day or whether there should be something, someone else, or it should be Bannon that Fuentes is sort of approaching a bit.
	There are lots of conversations happening right now.
	And what I will say is this: that it seems to me, and that was my stance from the very beginning, that Fuentes came across with very maximalist rhetoric.
	And maximalist rhetoric is very often rhetoric that isn't realistic.
	And it almost invariably leads to people sabotaging anyone who realistically tries to give a solution to things.
	Because if you start dreaming of a solution like you're playing in Warhammer 40K, like you have the God Emperor of Mankind who goes out and destroys everything, or if you want something of this sort, chances are you're going to have to wait for a long time.
	Yeah, a counter to that might be when Trump uses it as a negotiating strategy.
	And speaking of Bannon and speaking of Trump's third term, Bannon's been the one to say, Trump's going to have a third term.
	We're going to make it happen.
	Okay, the third term, he's been saying that.
	You sort of feel like he's just saying that to rile people up and cause controversy.
	And I'm never quite sure why he's saying it, but it's some sort of, it's like when Trump says something crazy, you go, why is he saying that we're going to build a wall?
	Mexico's going to pay.
	Everyone's like, well, it was a new style of political rhetoric.
	So there is a place for it.
	But you're saying the danger is you purity spiral.
	You purity spiral.
	And whoever leads a party and whoever leads a movement must be a bit more realistic.
	That's what I'm saying.
	People don't like listening to it, especially online, but that's the truth.
	Right.
	And here he is declaring war yet another time against.
	To be very fair, Fuentes has gone a bit more realistic lately.
	Since he's had all this exposure, he started saying, no, no, we need to take these countries.
	I believe in the American Empire.
	You could call that realistic.
	He's gone, people said neocon almost.
	He said Charlie Kirk wasn't killed by Israel.
	He's had a few sort of sensible takes lately, just to be very fair.
	That's fair.
	That's fair.
	Right.
	So let's listen to what he says here.
	Fuck this administration.
	People say you want to burn it all down.
	Yeah, I do.
	People say, you want to burn it all down just so you could rule over the ashes.
	See, you don't seem to have much of an imagination.
	I want to burn you to the ground.
	You will be turned into ashes.
	We will still be very much intact.
	He is talking about the administration, like, let's, let's, that's not the, right.
	Here he says also he can't wait for the Democrats to take the House and start impeaching people from the Republican Party.
	And I want to say something here because I have said this before, and I have had debates here with people who were sort of not that critical of Groupers, some cases defending him or something.
	You can't say.
	There are some issues with several commentators when they're losing the sense of judgment.
	Like, for instance, before Trump won, there were lots of commentators who were saying the left doesn't isn't going to lose because it holds so much power over the institutions and the majority of the people can do nothing.
	But then it was too big to rig, and then Trump won.
	So they sort of had maximalist rhetoric and they exaggerated and they kind of understood that they were exaggerating.
	So now these people are saying something of the following.
	They're saying that if the left wins now, they are going to pose an existential threat to the right.
	And that's going to be, they're going to win a sort of total war against the conservatives.
	So don't lose elections.
	And they're going to say, let's look at the kind of vile hatred you saw when Charlie Kirk was assassinated.
	And that's a correct observation.
	There was vile hatred and that was absolutely disgusting.
	Say, look at how they are.
	If they win elections, they're going to win a total war against the conservatives and the Republicans.
	My point here is that there's a hidden contradiction.
	You can't say on the one hand, if they win, they're going to crush the conservatives and then say, well, it's okay to lose the midterms.
	It's okay to lose this.
	It's okay to lose that.
	I see your point.
	you can't have a sort of accelerationist mentality and also say they're going to hunt us down persecute us and all that yeah but also when it when it comes to the accelerationist mentality acceleration is i mean by losing the midterm I don't mean in a strict sense like lose the midterms kind of crash.
	The thing deliberately, is what I mean.
	You're saying that that means, but you're also saying people will be in jail because they will do lawfare.
	If they get in, they'll do everything they can yeah, and that people will be killing people and they'll be getting away with it.
	This is what I think.
	I mean.
	We've already seen, you know, Trump was tried.
	They try to kill him.
	They killed Charlie Kirk.
	We've seen the ICE stuff.
	It would be very dangerous, I think, for Republicans if they do win.
	So, but I see what you mean.
	You can't have those two at the same time.
	Can I say one thing on your previous point just quickly, which is, You could argue, though, what Fuentes is talking about here is just what Trump did.
	Trump took over the Republican Party, right?
	Completely reshaped it in his image.
	Everyone hated him at first.
	Fuentes is now saying, well, hang on, my movement is going to take over the Republican Party and burn Trumpism down, just like he burnt the Republican.
	So it does happen.
	And you wouldn't have thought Fuentes could have got this far.
	He had such an extreme sounding message, but now he has to be taken seriously.
	He's on Tucker Carlson.
	Joel Webbin's doing a 10-part interview with him saying this guy is going to be massive in politics.
	Steve Kingmaker or a future president, which I think is completely wrong about.
	But Steve Bannon used to condemn him.
	Now Bannon says he's where it's at, right?
	Everyone used to condemn him.
	So he's made more progress than you can ever imagine.
	So I wouldn't rule him out being a hijack of the Republican movement.
	Isn't that what he's just saying?
	Well, here's the question.
	And I think that this comes directly to the, in a sense, the Group of question that we were discussing here, especially in November, December, and then January.
	In January, it sort of died.
	I think after Maduro, it sort of completely lost the momentum, especially after they started doing the Epstein was cool stuff.
	Well, that's you can see here.
	That's where you lose.
	Well, I kind of understand why they did it, though, because I think that fundamentally, and that would be more honorable.
	If you're a shit poster, be a shit poster.
	And in that, they're hilarious, right?
	But there is a question there whether they're.
	If you're a shit poster, be a shit poster.
	Don't be a politician.
	Don't be a political commentator.
	Or at least don't market yourself as the leader of the next movement.
	And they started saying Epstein has aura, and they started also saying that sort of he has that Epstein was cool.
	And I was trashing some conservatives here who were saying Fuentes is the spokesman for the male Zoomers.
	You have to understand his rhetoric to understand them.
	And then Fuentes goes, Epstein was cool as F.
	So he'll always do these crazy takes where you go, okay, you've lost me on that one.
	One of them was Game of Thrones better than Lord of the Rings.
	I'm like, you've lost me there, bro.
	But yeah, the Epstein stuff.
	I'm going to make the case again.
	Sorry to keep making the case, but one could argue, even though it seems ostensibly true what you're saying, Fuentes definitely tried to walk the line between, okay, I'm on a serious chat show, now I'm really serious.
	Or here's my serious part of the monologue.
	And it's incredibly detailed.
	His recall for events, very impressive, detailed history of Israel and things like this.
	He's extraordinary on these things.
	But then, like you say, suddenly the most outrageous Epstein was cool.
	But here's my claim.
	Isn't it true that when Trump came out, everyone said, you can't talk like that as a president or as a political candidate.
	You can't do that.
	You can't say blood coming out of her, whatever.
	You can't say lock her up.
	You can't say grab them by the bleep.
	And it turned out he could say it all.
	So is Fuentes just the next level in?
	Oh, you can't possibly be an S poster and this, but maybe you can.
	Well, maybe you get.
	Let me be clear on this.
	I think fundamentally, if you really go down to it, I don't think he believes that Epstein was a good person, right?
	I don't think he actually believed this.
	The point is, whether this kind of shock value commentary is something that is part of character.
	And I believe character is destiny.
	And that's what I was looking at when I was criticizing Fuentes and lots of the people on that side: not only do they do lots of things to sabotage the Republicans and conservatives, but it looks like they're representing a sort of online niche that does really well online, but doesn't actually do well when it comes to society.
	So there is a possibility that there's always a non-zero possibility that a prominent figure will become even more prominent.
	But the point is, what are the probabilities here?
	I think the probability here is very low.
	And what I always said is that most of the MAGA supporters, they really don't care with a sort of let's push the overturn window towards you being able to constantly talk about Hitler and Epstein and all this stuff.
	That's much more artificial.
	It's much more online.
	It isn't necessarily something that reflects the average conservative.
	And when it comes to this, you're absolutely correct that he did go more realistic after Maduro.
	But when he did so, and when he said it's time for refinement and 2026 is going to be a year for refinement, then he changed it a bit.
	But when he did say this, he drew a distinction in his audience between the America First, who are a bit more realistic, and the third worldists.
	And lots of people went against him, which confirms exactly what I was saying.
	Because I was saying about this, is that to a very large extent, you can't say a post by Nick Fuentes got 20K.
	That always means that 20K, this magically translates into 20K in UK or 20K in the US.
	Lots of it is third worldist.
	And I was telling, I was turdling some people, I don't have to name names, that this infatuation with Hitler is third worldist.
	The average American is much more interested in the founding fathers and their philosophy than they are in mid-century German Nazism.
	Yeah, and there's a couple of things I agree with, and one I disagree, or potentially.
	One is, yeah, there's a strange tendency to, it's kind of related to what you said, when he suddenly attacked Tucker, when Tucker just put him on his show, it's like you'll attack everyone.
	It's like you'll think, oh, they're going serious.
	Then they'll do something crazy where you say, what's the point of that?
	The other point is audience capture is definitely a real thing.
	I've had it where I try and be sort of balanced.
	I just get ruthlessly attacked.
	I think, why bother even being balanced?
	Because your audience attack your, certainly on YouTube, the more casual audience.
	So his audience, there'll be a certain pressure, as you say, he'll lose him if he says something too sensible.
	But yeah, sorry.
	No, no, there's one.
	And there's one point where I disagree, potentially, which is, hang on, I've now forgotten it.
	Say what you're going to say.
	But what I want to say is that I think that in this case, and that's actually something that is good for him, he does have a kind of political acumen.
	And he did understand that, for instance, going against Trump on the Maduro thing was going to be very bad or optically, because he cares about optics.
	I speak about this.
	And I think he understood also that when it came to Tucker and Candice, because they are also losing the sort of allure that they have in particular.
	But one thing that he has in common with them, one thing that he has in common with them, which I'm going to go back to the segment about it, is that both three of them are constantly blaming the current administration and they're saying the Republican Party needs to be completely demolished.
	So the question is there, what's going to the next day is going to be.
	I think that the kind of movements that they want to supplant to Megan Brink for are the kind of non-realistic minority niches that they are going to pretend.
	It's like the Mensheviks pretending to be Bolsheviks, the minority pretending to be the majority because they're good online.
	That's just a very critical and negative.
	I disagree on Tucker because I think Tucker is just saying, I'm done with the Zionist thing.
	I'm done with the foreign wars and the Israeli influence.
	He'd be happy with advance.
	He'd be happy with what seems to me that Tucker wants to influence the mainstream candidate.
	He wants to have a candidate like a Vance, but he doesn't want them to be Zionists.
	So that's what he's trying to do.
	I don't think he's anywhere near as out there as Candace or Fuentes.
	But just quickly, I remember my point.
	It was on a couple of things.
	it was the thing you said about the Overton win though I was going to say haven't they been effective in that when you think about the change from you know they had the Groypa war with with Charlie Kirk god rest his soul and they were saying things like you know he was saying things like pinning a green card a visa to a green card and all this stuff It was very pro-immigration.
	They managed to move it to where people were way further to the right because of the pressure from him.
	And it's become much harder to say neocon things.
	Yes, right.
	Okay, so I will give you that.
Criticism and Compromise 00:09:58
	But there's an issue here.
	It's, you know, the way I view this, is that if you want to actually affect change, you focus on being on your best behavior and not becoming a liability, especially in the most predictable ways.
	And I believe that it's the character and the transgressiveness of the lots of people online, some of them associated with the Groupers, that is becoming sometimes an obstacle into trying to effect real change.
	Because the Overton window can push online easily.
	It can easily push online, especially without the censorship that existed before Musk.
	The question is whether there can be effective change in real life.
	But let me just focus on this and say exactly what Fuentes was talking here.
	Trump is saying now that his mission isn't to deport everyone.
	He's focused on criminals, really bad criminals.
	This is where Fuentes was saying they are going to be, they are going to go back on mass migration.
	And also, here is Vance condemning Fuentes and saying that he doesn't like the guy.
	He attacked his family.
	He attacked MAGA and he says eat, you know, excrement.
	But one thing I want to say here is that, and that's the criticism of Vance, is that lots of people are saying that Vance was really slow to do this and he was kind of worried about the Grope curse that you mentioned in the beginning.
	Oh, yeah.
	But eventually he started condemning them.
	And the kind of and this kind of reluctance to do this is something that hasn't worked necessarily in his favor.
	Also, something that lots of people think doesn't work in Vance's favor right now is his ties to Peter Thiel.
	And lately, that isn't necessarily going to look good.
	Well, it's just, I think people are sick of people counter signaling the right.
	We know the left, and you can say maybe this is wrong, but the left just never do it.
	They never attack their own people.
	And the right constantly do it.
	Reform in this country, for example, the alleged right, spend all day attacking the right.
	They hate everyone on the right, and they constantly love anyone.
	If they can ever have an opportunity to say something nice about someone on the left, they love it.
	I respectfully disagree here because I think that the left is constantly attacking each other.
	And lots of the think of the Monty Python sketch with people's front of Jude, Judea and people in front of Jesus.
	Oh, yeah.
	They were making fun of leftists.
	So they definitely purity spiral and split.
	And if you say the wrong thing on trans.
	But what I mean, that's the far left attacking the more moderate left.
	The moderate left, though, hardly ever condemns the far left.
	You hardly ever hear them condemn.
	The once Jess Phillips said something to Owen Jones, but you hardly ever hear a mainstream lefty condemning an Owen Jones type.
	Do you?
	Yeah, it's more.
	It happens the other way, the purity spiral.
	Yeah.
	Right.
	Okay, here lots of gropers are saying JD Vance committed suicide live on AR-TV.
	He never condemned Nick Fuentes, not even once.
	Personally, I think that this isn't good.
	I don't think necessarily that Vance is going to win the next Republican.
	He is going to be the next presidential nominee necessarily.
	But if that's the case, that's not going to be the reason.
	And here he's also trashing Vance again.
	And he's officially become never Vance.
	That's right.
	It actually was quite easy for Vance, if he wanted to, to condemn Fuentes, because Fuentes has constantly attacked his wife and constantly attacked him.
	So you could have just said it was even on a personal level.
	That's why people are criticizing Vance.
	They're saying he was attacking your wife.
	Why didn't you criticize him earlier?
	Why did you try to be a bit more, you know, political about it?
	But yeah, still.
	Okay.
	And here that's it.
	gonna speed up a bit I did a I want to say one thing It's not that I don't think that the Groypers represent any significant number of the people in the US.
	I know that I'm going to get a lot of hate for this, but I think that's true.
	I don't think that they can win an election, but they can actually cause lots of harm to the Republicans by getting people to not vote in the midterms.
	But still, I have to also be very fair about this.
	If the Republicans lose the midterms, the responsibility will burden Trump's shoulders more than anyone else's.
	And especially the economy.
	So I want to be very fair with who I am criticizing and for what.
	One thing I agree with you on is I've always been totally when he was like, vote Kamala or don't vote.
	I'm totally against that.
	I'd have been totally voting Trump.
	I just want to quickly say maybe it's a contradiction that I'm quite anti-reform in this country, but I just don't believe reform are going to do anything good at all.
	Whereas if I was in America and looking at what Trump would do, he's going to have pop up mass deportations.
	There's going to be better free speech.
	I think it's a world of difference between Trump and the left in America.
	Whereas I think here, reform is not comparable because I really don't think they're going to do anything at all.
	But it is a similar people attack me for saying, for condemning, from criticizing reform.
	But I don't think it's quite the same.
	So I agree with you on the I say vote Trump, of course.
	So on this, I had a thread on December, that was mid-December, where I was actually not attacking Fuentes because my point isn't to necessarily attack him as a person, but to say one thing that I think was actually vindicated is that Fuentes as a person differs from the brand Fuentes.
	And lots of people were projecting on him things that they wanted to see on him.
	That's why I think lots of the conservatives were trying to say, hey, don't criticize him, don't.
	Because you need to understand him.
	He's a spokesperson for the Zoomers.
	Yeah, so I think that to a very large extent, they were upping him up and they were projecting on him things that weren't there.
	Just that's my view.
	So my point is, I think that's good to criticize your administration.
	Obviously, I've criticized Trump as well.
	It's good to criticize your administration, but I think it's also good to bear in mind that if you have a maximalist rhetoric and your plan is to you have an all-or-nothing mentality, 99.9% of the times you aren't going to get 100%.
	So if you're helping the opposition, you're actually contributing to a worse society.
	It doesn't have to be intentional.
	And there was the other argument.
	I will say this quick because that was the other counter argument that was raised against me was the zero seats argument.
	So they have to undergo a zero seats thing.
	I think that this is profoundly wrong, not because lots of people in the Trump administration shouldn't change or that the Trump administration has done everything correctly.
	It hasn't.
	But because if you look at the people who were very much doing the zero seats thing, at the end of the day, where has this led them here?
	Into saying, for instance, that reform is as bad as the other stuff.
	So that's my point.
	If you are an idealist and you want 100% of something, and you say that unless you get 100%, everyone's a traitor to the cause of something, you are harming way more than you're helping.
	Yeah, I can see the point.
	I think just in my own case, for example, to me, you've got to look at each case on its own merit.
	So Trump, to me, if I was in the US, I'd be voting Trump all day, and I would be seeing that that is a massive difference, despite his flaws, in the way you're saying, being pragmatic.
	When I look at England and Britain, I see the Tories as a far-left woke party.
	So I see it as like not an option.
	And reform now, I see them as they constantly say how much they hate me and everyone like me.
	So I see them as very, very questionable.
	I just think they're different.
	Whereas Trump, I think it's just different situations, different party.
	I mean, I don't know if you agree with me, but I see Trump as a way better choice, as flawed, but a far better choice than Kamala or something.
	Whereas I don't know, whereas the Tories and Labour, it is much closer.
	Yeah, but yeah, again, and with Kamala, for instance, it's well, he hasn't, let's talk about the deportations that he was talking about.
	Yeah, he hasn't done all of what he was talking about, all of what he promised.
	But at least he has closed the border.
	He has tried to mitigate this.
	So he is trying to do things.
	Trump.
	Yeah, no, I agree.
	Yeah, and I have criticized him many times.
	Yeah, but do you think it's the same situation with the Tories when you talk about zero seats?
	Didn't they actually deserve zero seats for the boris wave and for everything else?
	They did.
	But again, the question is, what's your vision?
	And if you're constantly going to cancel signal everyone who isn't delivering 100% of your, within quotation marks, unrealistic vision.
	Yeah, my vision was.
	My argument wasn't that the Tories didn't deserve to lose.
	They did.
	Yeah, in this country, it's just so bad because my person was Rupert Lowe.
	I was like, here's a guy saying the things I want.
	They got rid of him.
	And I'm like, well, and he's polling 9%.
	So I'm like, okay, I'm with Rupert Lowe.
	Whereas people attack me for not being with reform, but it's like, you've given me nothing.
	They give me literally nothing.
	And you've got rid of the one guy I liked.
	So I feel like I'm asking for 1%, not 100%.
	And they give me 0%.
	Whereas Trump, if it's 60%, I still think it's worth it.
	So I agree on that.
	Right, let's look at the comments.
Confessions to Milo 00:15:04
	Sorry for derailing if you're going to show a lot of videos.
	Don't vote 22 minutes.
	Let's just have it out.
	Much better like this.
	I think so.
	Discussions, much better.
	All right, so Sigil Stone, 17.
	Not many people know this, but when Nick Fuentes lost his virginity, that's nasty.
	Okay, I'm not going to say, Sigil Stone, you're a naughty man.
	Hewitt, 1642.
	Carnes declines and follows the penguin into the sunset.
	Okay, right.
	So let's go to the real news.
	Yes.
	Some time ago, there was a lad's hour episode number eight, the trad girl question.
	If you remembered it, this folk over here, this man, he was right.
	Now, I'll start the segment for YouTube in a bit.
	Let me look at this.
	Right.
	We have to talk about the trad egirl question and also talk about a particular scandal that everyone is talking about on X.
	And I'm sure there are talking about it also in Asia.
	Lots of Indians are elated.
	Don't know if you know.
	Yeah, they're very happy about it.
	And it is a scandal that has rocked the conservative world, especially online.
	And also, it's a scandal about the trad e-girl issue.
	And there's a question there as to whether there is such a thing as a trad e-girl.
	Definitely tell us in the comments if you think that there can be e-girls who are trad.
	And we are going to talk about the scandal that has to do with Elijah Schaefer from Rift TV and Sarah Stock, the notorious Trad Cath influencer, and the sort of massive meltdown that has happened.
	But we are also going to talk about the social criticism aspect of the matter.
	And also talk about the Red Pill community and the MGTOW community.
	You're saying it's like I'm a MGTOW.
	I was before MGTOW.
	I decided it wasn't worth bothering.
	You know, I've had relationships.
	Not worth it.
	Turned out later, that's a whole sub-genre I invented.
	MGTOW before it was cool.
	Exactly.
	The OG MGTOW.
	Right.
	So do you think you're vindicated with this scandal?
	Pure vindication.
	It's 100%.
	But so is Fuentes anyway, because he said no e-girls.
	No e-girls ever.
	This is the rule.
	You can't have any...
	I can answer your first question already, not to spoil it, but, of course, you can't have a trad eagle because if you were trad, you'd be in the Amish community milking cows.
	You wouldn't be milking clicks on the internet.
	Well, let's see what happened here, because this is actually a really interesting thing.
	So we are going to talk about the latest meltdown of Elijah Schaefer and also how that was involved, how that involved Sarah Stock, the notorious Trad Cath influencer.
	It's not the first time that news have been circulated about Elijah Schaefer.
	Here, these were allegations and accusations.
	He was fired by Glenn Beck following some sexual assault accusations.
	I don't know if they're true or not, but he was fired by the Daily Beast.
	No, sorry, he was fired by Glenn Beck.
	Right.
	Yeah.
	One thing, my friend Wyatt, I have to say that he was very much correct about the whole thing.
	Check him out, Wyatt Claypool.
	He was right about Ref TV and about what is going on there.
	Check him out.
	It does sound toxic, but the only thing is he used the term woke right, which is a big red flag.
	Never use the term woke right.
	Do you use the term woke?
	Oh, you do, don't you?
	Yeah, but we can have a debate because I will say this, because I have been attacked many times by friends of yours because they are constantly fixated on this notion as having to do with the Middle East.
	And I was very clear in how I defined it.
	Had nothing to do with nationalism, even ethno-nationalism, and had nothing to do with the Middle East.
	But lots of people were incredibly cavalier about projecting lots of stuff about the Middle East on me.
	They don't sound like Madame.
	Let's focus on this.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Right.
	So there were several posts by Elijah Schaefer now that suggested a new meltdown.
	He wrote that he doesn't know where his wife and kids are.
	He can't get a hold of them.
	They're filed as missing persons.
	Last enforcement confirms someone in the household set him up.
	They planted drugs and said he's a criminal.
	This will be a public trial by the FBI.
	And then he said that he's a victim of serious targeted felony crimes.
	He's not suicidal.
	They have kidnapped his family.
	They've stolen his money.
	He's going to bring justice.
	He needs the public to know.
	He's in Virginia and the government is aware.
	He believes the FBI is trying to destroy his life and kill him.
	He is alive.
	And I don't think that the wife and the kids run any risk.
	Turns out that was a bit of an episode.
	So in that episode, he did something that wasn't particularly prudent.
	He opened up to Milo.
	Really?
	You think that's not prudent?
	He's, I mean...
	To tell Milo...
	Exercise some judgment, Nick.
	Exercise some judgment.
	People have a deep need to confess to Milo.
	They want to come.
	And some of them even, because they're quite, they're such drama queens.
	Some of them, my theory, even want to be exposed.
	They want to be exposed.
	Why else would you do it?
	The point is, I can't be mad at Milo for one reason.
	It's like being mad.
	I thought I was going to Milo.
	Yeah, it's like being mad with Einstein doing physics.
	It's like he's doing it so well that you can't be mad at him.
	Right.
	And here Milo delivered a thread that talks about what he found out, what Elijah Schaefer told him.
	And this is actually a really interesting thread.
	And lots of it is allegations.
	But the important thing, to cut the long story short, I'll tell you this, so I'll contextualize.
	The people he accused of doing some, engaging in behavior that isn't particularly orderly, didn't deny it.
	So he started saying here that he contacted Elijah Schaefer.
	To be very fair, Sarah Stock did deny something.
	She said a lot of it's not true.
	Then she went offline.
	So she sort of semi-denied stuff.
	Yeah, but we'll get there.
	We'll get there.
	We'll get there.
	I'm just so fair and balanced.
	I can't.
	You have to be fair and balanced.
	I'm also fair.
	I also don't want, you know, the Gropa curse.
	I also don't want the Milo curse ever.
	I don't want to annoy Milo ever.
	Milo is a force of nature here.
	Right, okay.
	Extraordinary.
	So he says that, and he says that Sarah Stock and Elijah Schaefer started sleeping together.
	Now, they're not the first people to start doing it.
	But what is interesting here, and what's the reason for why this subject has taken global dimensions, is because they didn't practice as they preached.
	And they built a whole persona out of promoting family values.
	And especially in the case of Sarah Stock, she was the ultimate Trad Cath e-girl or one of the ultimate Trad Cath e-girls.
	And this actually has shown that she practiced, she didn't practice as she preached.
	In fact, she did the exact opposite of what she told people not to do.
	And this also applies to Elijah Schaefer.
	Some people go online and say, well, it's a culture of hating women because you're only focusing on Sarah Stock.
	No, nothing of the sort.
	People are focusing on both.
	But what is Milo saying here is really interesting because they're saying that they had a six-month affair, then she got engaged, but also that she had an abortion.
	And she was very big into the do not have abortion categorically.
	She was also very big on virginity.
	She claimed on the whatever podcast she was a virgin.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Also, don't get a divorce for any reason.
	That's what she said.
	And here is where Milo starts Miloing even more.
	And he starts alleging something about Elijah Schaefer having had the sort of, I'll be quick, a twink phase, also owning an electric dildo and also engaged in behavior of that sort.
	Say that on YouTube.
	That's shocking.
	If we can't say that, we're going to cut it out.
	If we can't say that, what have we become?
	Well, how should we put it?
	A vibrating pleasure object.
	That's good.
	Pleasure-inducing.
	We'll check it out.
	The editor's group is going to focus on that.
	He is starting legend about a twink phase.
	I can't say on YouTube what this is.
	By the way, if you don't know, you don't need to know.
	It's a young man who makes certain lifestyle choices.
	And what I want to say here, because I want to be fair, just as you are fair, Nick, is that there is an audio of Sarah Stock talking about the event, which sounded, I'm not going to play.
	That is here, I think.
	That's the one over here.
	The 627.
	I'm not going to play, but I want to say that it sounded a bit weird because they were talking about a CPAC conference and they were talking about intoxication.
	Which sounds very dodgy.
	But on the other hand, she very much says that she was sort of also responsible and she kind of tacitly consented to it.
	Yeah, she's drinking.
	She says she shouldn't have been doing it.
	She shouldn't have been there.
	But he's offering her painkillers, which is all mixing in with it.
	And she's not in her right mind.
	She's not in her right mind and then she blanked out.
	But the point is, her reactions are a bit weird because she lost precious time in all of her reactions.
	She didn't go instantly, he did this, he's responsible, or this and this and that allegation is false.
	No, well, instantly.
	She allowed this to happen and she didn't deny.
	Well, she says, yeah, she says, a lot of it's not true, but I am a sinner and I need to do it better and all this kind of thing.
	People are actually making fun of Milo here and they're trolling the situation.
	Say, you're a right-wing influencer telling Milo all of your deepest, darkest secrets.
	strange here also now can i offer one other possibility that they even strategize with milo You know, he's got all his strategies for how to blame people.
	Maybe it's a strategy to get them more publicity.
	Nothing would surprise me because Milo's really good at that.
	Why else would everyone tell him their stuff all the time?
	He'd be like, look, this is how it starts.
	Then we'll have the redemption arc.
	It's possible.
	It is possible, but I think that in this case, the probabilities are low because their whole image was destroyed because their image was trad cath, you know, family values.
	Oh, yeah.
	And they weren't minding their own business.
	That's the issue, that they were constantly trying to boss people around and induce shame and guilt on everyone else.
	They also have here Lord Varys from Game of Thrones saying how Milo is.
	Okay, here is, this is a, let us talk a bit about the image so people can understand why this affair is posing strain on the trad e-girl image.
	This is her before she became a trad cath.
	Natural.
	She wasn't a natural blonde, but she became a blonde.
	And here she is on the whatever podcast she is talking about marriage having making, having sex before marriage being a sin and having an abortion being a sin and stuff.
	And looks like she did both.
	Looks like she did both.
	I'm going to derail your thing again, but no one's perfect.
	But one thing I do hate is the fake conservative thing.
	I was at this party.
	I never go to parties anymore.
	I never do anything like that.
	I hate socializing.
	But I went to this one thing with two conservative, well-known influencers, let's say, or very big in politics.
	And then the whole thing was quite a debauched sort of party.
	And I just documented it and wrote about it like a fish out of water.
	Like, why am I here?
	I'm a Christian.
	I like the Beach Boys.
	And I wrote this satirical piece about it, which I then got in a lot of trouble with people who have money and alienated myself, which is my favorite thing to do.
	But my whole gist of the piece was, guys, this is what you're saying.
	And this is what you're doing.
	You're in this weird club.
	It's all about power.
	It's all about being in the VIP area.
	None of it means anything.
	And that was my whole thing about a piece.
	And that's just what I see.
	It's never, it's all BS.
	And I find that, I always find that really depressing because I always believe it.
	But that's the issue.
	I don't always believe it.
	With some of the e-girls, I don't.
	The issue isn't that they just slept with each other and they were unfaithful.
	They're not the first people to do it.
	Sadly, they're not going to be the last.
	And also, it's not that the issue is the discrepancy between the image and the action, but also the kind of, you know, they weren't minding their own business.
	That's the issue.
	So that wasn't the only thing.
	She said, highly recommend getting your marriage blessed by the Pope.
	I think that should enrage people because, you know, just if you know you have already done all those things, just don't implicate the Pope.
	It's all image here.
	It's all image.
	Don't implicate the Pope.
	And here she got married to this young man.
	And according to the allegations that she didn't deny, and we are going to show her reaction and all this thing, she did have an affair before marriage, contrary to what she said people shouldn't do.
	And if you're going to do this, at least don't involve the Pope.
	That's not that much.
	That's all one.
	Don't involve the Pope.
	That's not that much to ask.
	No, that's not.
	Even if you are going to be a trad cath just for the money and fame, have a degree of decency and don't involve the Pope.
	Don't involve the Pope.
	That's what I'm saying.
	So that was image over image over.
	And you'll probably get onto it, but this is the guy I feel apart from the Pope.
	This is the guy I feel sorry for.
	Yeah.
	I mean, this guy's been stitched up.
	And the one thing about the Pope is you can now call the Pope and say, hello, Pope, can I annul this?
	Because this is a textbook annulment, right?
	This is, Milo even says later, this is grounds for annulment.
	If you've married under the premise as a Catholic, right?
	It's very hard to get out of marriage traditionally as a Catholic unless you can show unfaithfulness and things like that, right?
Caught on Camera 00:05:59
	Yeah.
	So that's a you could annul.
	Sorry.
	Here she was against abortion.
	Turns out most allegedly she didn't deny she she had one as well.
	And she was saying here marriage should be one bank account, no prenup, a billion kids, no divorce for any reason.
	And someone posted to her, one bank account means giving your wife all your money.
	And she responds, yup.
	This didn't work, but it works for women.
	Yeah, but that's the issue.
	It's a richer person.
	It works for the poorer person in the relationship.
	I think this works for the person who doesn't care about the other one.
	Well, traditionally, you should have a joint bank account, but not if you're the kind of person that wants to exploit.
	And that's one of the things I want to put with this, because I think that lots of people are approaching influencers in a totemic way.
	Like she was the avatar for marriage.
	And if she was fake in that respect, marriage is gone.
	I think that that's too fast.
	And that's not what I'm for.
	But we are going to talk about the red pill and the MGTOW guys.
	Right here, she was.
	Lots of people are concerned whether the conservative space is going to survive without Sarah Stock and Elijah Schaefer.
	Here she's talking about how Gavin Neesom was mogging JD Vance.
	You know, the other thing, I think I tweeted when Ashley St. Clair had her recent meltdown.
	I can't remember what she did now, but I remember tweeting all right-wing e-girls eventually turn woke.
	A lot of people like that one.
	And I'm like, that's the other thing.
	Either they're up to dodgy stuff or they go woke in the end.
	They go, oh, I feel terrible what I did to the trans community.
	I've taken my name off the book.
	That was what it was.
	Taking my name off the book and I was young and all that.
	Because they start super right and then they're a bit young and immature.
	Then there's nowhere for them to go.
	And then I'm going, oh, I'm going to pivot to the left or to the center.
	What I absolutely dislike here is when they go holier than thou, especially if you're in your early 20s and start being holier than thou.
	I mean, what do you have?
	What do you have on your CV of actions to show how to have that sort of tone?
	Yeah, yeah.
	She's talking about here, men definitely can have baggage too, lol.
	Men will get cheated on and have trust issues forever.
	It's human nature.
	That's a bad one.
	It's like, how do you know that?
	Here, okay.
	And she nuked her account.
	What happened was that she didn't deny anything in the beginning.
	And for a long time, she just reposted the Fuentes video who was talking about the issue.
	And he was saying, mind your own business.
	And mind your own business works with people who did mind their own business.
	If it's just some people, well, yeah, they were committed adultery or something.
	Right, okay.
	They're not neither the first nor the last.
	But if you're holier than thou and you're constantly trying to act like that, no, it's not mine.
	Mind your own business doesn't work there.
	Do you see that point?
	I mean, I've not spoken about it anyway.
	I've been very English, but you brought me on this segment, so I have to.
	But I see you haven't held back.
	I mean, you're pure trolling, pure trolling there.
	That's just, I just don't talk about these things.
	Like, I wouldn't have mentioned this publicly once if you hadn't done this segment because I don't like it.
	It's just too.
	But you were contemplating doing the segment.
	Well, I thought about it and now you said it.
	I was caught on camera saying it.
	But I didn't do it because I thought, no, it's too.
	I don't want to say slop because it's your segment, but it's a bit too slop.
	No, it's not.
	You're right.
	Okay, we'll get into it.
	Actually, this kind of criticism is crop.
	This kind of criticism is slop.
	Okay, but can I just say one thing?
	One thing that scares me as well is the drama.
	People who love drama or who's a whole, you know, this guy, Elijah, every tweet, I was like, these tweets are mental.
	Drama really puts me off.
	I want to get far away from all drama.
	I just don't have the drama, Gene.
	Yeah, yeah, absolutely.
	So this has global dimensions.
	The Times India is elated.
	They're saying what happened to India hater Maga influencer Elijah Schaefer.
	Conspiracy theories about deleted posts and wife kids FBI, etc., etc.
	Megan Kelly is trolling them a lot.
	Brian Atlas now is waving the red pill banner.
	He says, Sarah Stock called my podcast degenerate all while B-Trad Catholic conservative influencer.
	Soul Purity lied and said she was a virgin.
	She made her husband wait until marriage for sex.
	She cheated with married man and he says the red pill remains undefeated.
	That's the sad thing.
	It's a victory for the most cynical take on women and on the state of marriage.
	They say, no, it's never possible.
	It's always nonsense.
	You're a sucker if you fall for it.
	If you're in any way trad, you're just a sucker.
	And my response to this is exactly why this segment is in slop and it will be postponed for a few minutes.
	E came back.
	He says, it's my story to tell.
	He thanks Maron Gaines, Fuentes, Alex Jones, Gavin McInnes, and Lisa Elizabeth.
	And he says he has Aura.
	Be mad.
	They will not get away with this.
	He ain't effing, leaving, game on.
	And then he said something about he is bragging about possessing a functioning part.
	And Milo is responding yet again with more footage about which I'm not going to play.
	It was a strange response when you've been caught cheating to say, yes, I have a bleep and it works.
	I'm like, that's a weird response when you've been caught cheating on your wife.
	Then the other part was, I got mad Aura.
	Isn't it usually other people that say you've got Aura?
	Can you say you've got aura yourself?
	That's an open question.
	You know, normally people are like, well, that's actually got, that goes hard.
	That's got aura.
	He's like, I've got aura.
	Dunno.
	Can you sell aura?
Virtuous Claims and Fallibility 00:04:43
	And I want to tie to the important bit of the matter here, which has to do with the kind of sophistry, with sophistry.
	And it's easy to talk the talk, but it's very difficult to actually be virtuous.
	And talking about being virtuous is a hard path.
	And you don't have to constantly taking pictures of you and posting about how virtuous you are.
	All of us, we're fallible.
	We're fallible beings.
	I'm not going to pretend I'm a saint or something.
	I'm not.
	That's not it.
	But the point is, you have to have a level of awareness to not go full, full, just full liar.
	If you aren't who you say you are, if you're taking a religion of love and mercy and you're turning and you care mostly about shock value because you're an e-girl or an e-man or whatever, if that is what's the primary motive here, caring about cliques and caring about image, that's blasphemous.
	And you don't have to be perfect to call that out.
	And that's the thing, is that there are levels and gradations of people who are not entirely virtuous.
	There are gradations of vice and there are gradations of people who fall short of the ideal.
	But don't involve the Pope if you have already violated almost all of the things you're saying you stand for.
	And I think that this is incredibly cynical coming from some influencers.
	When they are trying to take things that are important and they try to monetize them, they're monetizing a lie.
	If they haven't violated this, well, okay, that's okay.
	I'm not saying people shouldn't go out and say they're traditional or they're a Catholic.
	I'm saying that if you haven't been great, just have a level of decency and a level, just tone it down a bit.
	Tone it down a bit.
	Have this level of self-deprecation, self-awareness.
	I mean, I always say, I live alone like a bug man.
	Don't do what I do.
	Have a family.
	But I always say it from the point of view that I'm failing.
	You know what I mean?
	I haven't managed to do it.
	But I say this, I think people should have family and kids if they want.
	And ideally, it is the ideal.
	I've not managed it.
	So yeah, I prefer people who are sort of self-deprecating, but just do their best.
	And there also is an argument.
	There is an argument, though, that you're saying it's okay if you're living it, but it's an argument that you can never be trad by being an e-girl or just not trad to do.
	Because ideally, the ideal, of course, as we know, is women shouldn't be in politics at all, or ideally, not even in the workplace.
	I mean, that's what you were telling me before we came on air.
	But, you know, that would solve it, wouldn't it?
	No women in politics.
	Don't remember exactly.
	That's what you said.
	That's your words.
	But one thing I want to say here, I want to disagree with you one here a bit because I'm not anti-marriage.
	I'm married.
	And I'm not anti-family and I'm not against family values at all.
	People do make mistakes.
	It's when you make a mistake, own it.
	Be humble, especially if your religion talks about humility as being a virtue.
	Be humble.
	Go on an introspective phase.
	Don't go out saying you possess a functioning Johnson and mad aura and stuff and all this bit.
	And I want to say that there's the overreaction here.
	And I think that this shows a lot about audience ethics.
	Because to a very large extent, if people, this is something that people are promoting.
	Because lots of people have made an audience overnight simply because of shock value.
	And lots of people want shock value.
	And I want to say here that there is the exact opposite reaction here.
	They're saying we don't need a degen right movement and we need to ump up the purge of the degens and stuff.
	Yeah, no one wants degens, but the point is, to a very large extent, the people who are who are spearheading this and wanting to cast the first stone, they have to tone it down.
	Especially if they are, especially if they're because they are not saints either.
	Yeah, though, but I do take the point about this degenerate thing.
Ridiculous Part of Habsification 00:07:28
	I mean, why is it that the so-called right embraces any degenerate?
	But take the porn girl who suddenly said she was a Christian, then Michael Knowles had her on.
	And everyone's like, hang on, you're a bit of a sucker.
	And then Bonnie Blue has to have an article in The Spectator and say she likes reform.
	Oh, brilliant.
	Let's stick Bonnie Blue.
	Why?
	Why are we so you don't have to necessarily say they're evil.
	You can say they're flawed, but you have to immediately welcome them into the movement as like giving them a massive interview.
	Yeah.
	Not really.
	Zero get keeping or but also humans are tribal animals.
	Yeah.
	Right.
	So I think that this is important and it should make people wonder who they're listening to and when people and what sort of content they want to consume.
	Right.
	Should be wholesome content like Lotus Eaters.
	Yeah, habsification.
	Stellius is just waiting for the world turn.
	Calvinism, Sigilstone 17.
	Left-wing influencers are disgusting.
	And right-wing influencers are attendees of Caligula's court.
	Can we just have, can we just get one influencer where we don't know what goes where?
	That's a random name, says that.
	I believe you call it a joystick.
	Referring to what you said earlier.
	Yes.
	Habsification also.
	Stellios, how would John Calvin view this third segment?
	I think he would ask for a servetus treatment for some people.
	Say it was always determined.
	Yeah.
	Let's.
	You want to do the comments?
	Yeah, let's go to the comments.
	We have videos.
	Also, let's look at whether we have videos.
	Samson, are you alive?
	Doing it.
	Yeah, we have videos.
	We're getting them now.
	I think he's saying there aren't any.
	Can I do my comments?
	Yeah, yeah, of course.
	So comments for will the next prime minister be even worse.
	Cumbrian Kulak from Godzone County says, I'm from Cumbria, says, I don't think Starmer will go.
	He'll cling on and survive.
	The forces perpetuating over decline at the center of their organization.
	Things are progressing as expected.
	I'm thoroughly on the side of sinister intent, not incompetence.
	If it was due to incompetence, I'd expect occasional good mistakes.
	Yes, I've often heard the argument.
	If it's accidental, why is it always going one way?
	Alex Ogle, Starma, isn't just forgettable.
	He's the most anonymous person at a clandestine meeting of Anonymous's Anonymous.
	Exactly.
	Omar says, regardless of quality, a leader will always be assessed by the result.
	Theoretically, Starma could not be the worst PM ever, but Labour's so ideologically committed to the decline that the public will only ever see current leader as worst PM ever.
	I get your point, but I also think he objectively is.
	Carl's evil twin Vausch.
	Oh, Vaus is watching.
	I'm hoping that the more left the party goes by the next election comes, the electorate will become radicalized right-wingers, thus putting the Greens, Lib Dems, Plydeum, and Labour in the dustbin of history.
	Could happen.
	Henry Ashman, the way Labour Party are, I wouldn't be surprised if they chose Peter Manelton as PM too.
	Ewan Baker.
	Ewan, is that correct?
	Yeah.
	Imagine if Diane Abbott was shortlisted as the PM.
	Could happen.
	Michael Brooks.
	Because I think that this is the important point.
	Would you want Diane Abbott to lead the Labour Party?
	I see the point because then they completely implode and you destroy them.
	So yes, I think it would be just absolute banter.
	What about David Lamy?
	We didn't talk much about David Lamy.
	I thought you were going to mention it.
	No, I didn't talk about it because he wasn't anyone I saw seriously mentioned.
	I mean, I don't think he's a serious contender.
	Lamy, I wouldn't want because I think he's more seen as credible and could actually do quite a lot of damage.
	I mean, he's done quite a lot of damage already.
	what way he wants you know giving away chagos or just okay yeah No, no, I wasn't asking whether he can do damage.
	Oh, he can, yeah.
	But in what way is he credible?
	Well, when you say to me, could Diane Abbott be leader?
	We both know it's a joke.
	If you say to me, could David Lamy, it's actually possible.
	That's what I mean.
	Thought of as credible in the party.
	Okay, that's what scares me.
	Michael Brooks, I wouldn't trust her to make tea, Nick.
	Who actually?
	Oh, Angel.
	Oh, who did I say was making who's the T reference to?
	Oh, yeah, Angela Rayner in the T-Room.
	Yeah.
	And Michael also says she sounds about as mentally competent as she is.
	Yeah, that must be Big Ange.
	All right, thanks for those.
	Right.
	Cambrian Kulak, MAGA are sabotaging themselves.
	Don't protect PDF files.
	Don't do foreign wars.
	Put America first.
	Thomas Massey was excellent during COVID as well.
	So much respect for him.
	Okay, Lord Inquisitor Hector Rex, nothing about the Groupers seems genuine to me, especially not when Fuentes has endorsed almost every Democrat candidate recently, like Kamarla and Newsom.
	Here's what I wanted to say before.
	If you look at it from a comedic perspective, right, the Newsome nationalism bit was hilarious.
	I just couldn't stop laughing.
	It's hilarious.
	I'd understand it much more if it was just, you know, it's confined in comedy.
	Yeah, but people start seriously talking about Lux Maxing and Gavin Newsome's the Chad, whereas JD Vance is a round face.
	I'm like, yeah, this is getting very gay.
	It's like when that clavicular guy's like, oh, Gavin Newsom's better because he looks better.
	It's like, he's also a psychopath.
	JD Vance would be far better for America than Gavin Newsome.
	So it just gets ambiguous.
	Here's the ridiculous part.
	It is funny, but the ridiculous part is that they forget policy.
	And they say, well, now Fuentes was arguing that Trump hasn't delivered the mass deportations bit.
	But then they're saying, well, no, let's sabotage them because he hasn't deported as many people as he promised.
	And therefore, let's go and sabotage them and support candidates who want the world to reopen and the borders to open again.
	Okay, Derek Power, Master of Chippies.
	What Fuentes is advocating for is what's happening in Virginia.
	This is not going to have a happy ending.
	He may think the happy ending he may think this will create.
	And I wonder if that was really the point.
	Also, Derek Power, the Master of Chippies, I understand they're concerned about being edgy and losing people.
	At the same time, I'm tired of just playing nice because it's the principal thing to do.
	Our enemies are unashamedly not nice at all.
	Also, playing nice has gotten us into this mess in the first place.
	I respectfully disagree on this because it isn't an issue of playing nice, but an issue of maintaining standards.
	And yeah, just when, for instance, the left completely lacks standards.
	This is exactly what I was saying on my thread.
	Samson, could we have the first segment please load it?
	Because lots of people are saying, well, the left has gone completely bonkers, so let us go bunkers as well.
	But they forget that this is precisely why the left lost lots of people.
	So this is exactly what I said.
	In a way, you're both talking about being pragmatic.
	Yes.
Democrats Vote for Trump 00:03:20
	You know, it was because the Democrats didn't impose limits on their radicals that they lost so many people and so many Democrats voted for Trump.
	This isn't something to emulate.
	Okay, Jordi Swordsman, it's as I've said here previously, the split in the American right is between Boomer Cox, addicted to losing, and children stamping their feet, demanding absolute perfection three weeks ago.
	Michael Brooks, can we just start ignoring these children?
	He's proven himself a containment effort time and time again.
	He knows exactly what he's doing.
	He gives them a smear to put on you and reveals rebels in it.
	Michael Brooks, people responded to what they are sensitive to.
	So if you say something and people jumped on it, there's probably a lot of truth in it and show you how they view themselves.
	Okay.
	And now let's go to the trad e-girl question.
	Annie Moss agrees with Nick, with bruv Nick.
	By definition, an e-girl is not traditional.
	Therefore, any e-girl claiming to be trad has the IQ of the average Somalian or Nick Fuentes.
	He is a bit smart than that.
	He's smart.
	Michael Drybobis, claims of virtue is like claims of being an alpha.
	If you have to tell me you are, you really aren't.
	This reminds me of Tywin Lannister advice.
	If you have to say you're the true king, you ain't no.
	As I'd say before, you shouldn't say I've got Aura.
	You can't say I'm Alpha or I've got Aura.
	Two things you can't say.
	Let alone Mad Aura.
	Samson, you devil.
	You know what you did.
	You know what you did.
	What have I done?
	You faced yourself.
	Michael Brooks.
	Rory is far more based than Fuentes.
	You can't be an e-girl and trad in their mutually exclusive terms.
	Elijah was pretty funny.
	Haven't seen any of his for a year or so.
	Milo seems to have gone through it and be so publicly exposed that he has freed himself to tell the truth at all times.
	Who knew people that want to be in the public higher flawed game, hungry?
	Whores.
	George Happ, trad thoughts are worse than the regular ones because they are wearing a costume.
	The moment something doesn't go their way, they turn into a vicious feminist with a prepare hashtag me to story.
	Look at what happened to Crowder.
	They're all feminists, definitely.
	Lord Inquisto Hector Rex, this is why I have my wife wear a chastity belt with a biometric lock tied to my fingertip print.
	Truly trad.
	That's of all.
	Jordy Swordsman, someone who loudly proclaims their virtue being shown as a complete charlatan.
	I'm shocked.
	Shocked, I tell you.
	This has never previously occurred in all of recorded history, especially from those purporting religiosity.
	arizona desert rat you have to have a level of awareness and humility to not become a liar yeah but still i think that was way too way too how can you miss the fact that you have had sex before marriage and you're preaching people shouldn't have it's bonkers How can you miss that?
	She must have known.
	She must have known.
Loud Proclamations and Hypocrisy 00:00:32
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Right, okay.
	Thank you very much, brother Nick.
	Thank you, sir.
	Check 3 p.m. Lad's hour.
	Are you going to be on it?
	Good.
	About a stomach bunker.
	Hope you enjoyed it.
	I really much enjoyed it.
	Thank you very much for all this.
	We had a great discussion.
	Good discussion.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Thanks.
	And disclaimer, Nick, disavows.
	Disavows everything.
	Yeah.
	Disavows everything.
	Right.
	Okay.
	Have a lovely weekend.
	Before you enjoy Lad's Hour, see you on Monday at 1 p.m.

Chapters

00:00:00 Crazy Maneuvres in the Tea Room
00:14:41 Khan's Rise: Cummings' Insight
00:23:32 Views and Numbers
00:28:20 Bannon's Rise and Rhetoric
00:43:33 Criticism and Compromise
00:53:32 Confessions to Milo
01:08:36 Caught on Camera
01:14:35 Virtuous Claims and Fallibility
01:19:18 Ridiculous Part of Habsification
01:26:46 Democrats Vote for Trump
01:30:06 Loud Proclamations and Hypocrisy