Youtube comments of (@BritishLandeur).
-
93
-
47
-
44
-
41
-
36
-
28
-
26
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Hey! I agree with what you've written here, for the most part.
I sort of didn't want to get into the details of the Mangione case because what I really wanted to focus on is the reaction to it, and how that might fuel other people.
But I think you're right, people are rejecting the system which is, by this point, clearly broken. The problem is that basic capitalism says 'just keep making as much money as possible', and the societal harms are not factored in. For example, if I am a property portfolio manager, I'd love to have mass immigration into the country and I'd also like to slow down house building, my assets will rise in value and the price of rents too. If I can lobby a few politicians to make that happen - great!
Another example - car manufacturers. Back when my 23 year old Honda was built, the revenue model was pretty simple - build the best car possible and people will love it and you'll sell more of them. But somewhere along the line, I think car manufacturers (or phone sellers) realised that if parts periodically break, and only you can fix them because of software issues, you'll make even more money than if you had just sold a good, reliable car (or phone).
I don't have an easy solution to these very real problems. I'm quite sure that it's not some anti-capitalist ideology, but there are definitely problems with what is happening. Perhaps better regulators or fines, but regulators tend to be bias because they want a private sector job afterwards. Better not to rock the boat too much.
I bring up those two examples because they are pretty obvious, but also quite mundane. When you apply that same ideology to healthcare, things become far more emotional and ethical, clearly.
I think really what happened is that historically, people had a sense of integrity and ethics alongside capitalism. Not everyone, of course, but enough people were God-fearing to keep the capitalist system from going completely awry. Now all we have is individualism and Godlessness, or a lack of ethical guidance. Social media has glorified wealth and material goods over things like family and charity.
Food for thought, eh.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Hey dude - let's talk about it. I didn't say my priority was my viewcount, I said I was really happy that the last video got so many views.
Do I want the channel to grow? Yes.
Do I think I can add value to the topics I discuss? Yes.
Have I ever asked for a penny from literally anyone? No.
Has anyone ever sent me any money? Yes - someone sent me a superchat once. Didn't know what to make of it - very humbled.
Is every person who wants their audience to grow and message to be reached by a larger audience a grifter? If yes, count me in. Along with every movie producer, music artist, painter, speaker, politician, priest, imam, Youtuber, writer, and so on.
I look forward to your response.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Hey Sylvie!
You do have to be careful with the comments. I think I have explained before, but there are clearly some keywords that Youtube censors. Usually I can find the comment, but I have to go looking for it in the restricted comments section and then allow it to be shown.
Sometimes, though, people have said 'where is my comment!?' and I cannot find it anywhere. Then those people think I removed their comment.
I have actually seen it before where a comment appeared - I was replying to it immediately, but when I went to hit 'reply' and send it, the comment was gone - nowhere to be found.
Naturally people then think it's me that is doing that, but it isn't.
Honestly, sometimes the comments that YT censors are probably for good reason (I don't want my comments filled with anything which is just objectively racist). If Youtube hadn't caught it, I probably would have ignored it, but I'm not going to make the active decision to restore something that adds no value, but is just purely offensive.
I'd say at least 50% of the time though, it's hiding comments that it really shouldn't do.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
I'm not really a fence-sitter, I just genuinely would rather listen to what people say than judge them entirely by how they look. I for sure would not dress like almost anyone I saw at the counterprotest, but if you really listen to the first guy he's not irrational or anything in what he says. In fact, given how rational he is, I can't understand why he was holding that specific sign.
I am opposed to mass immigration, not just illegal but legal. I've made that clear in other videos. But if I go to a counterprotest and just start giving my own beliefs then those people will view it as aggressive and not be willing to engage in dialogue.
What I was able to do, by talking and engaging, is make the first guy think 'hang on, maybe TR is not racist and I should go away and look into this'. I may even have made the second guy think 'hang on, are there really people with Israeli flags walking at the other protest?'
That dialogue and being willing to listen and converse will actually make more people you disagree with listen to you and consider your views. In a way, frankly, the hardcore ANTIFA crowd are far more scared of someone that can politely and calmly engage with their counterprotestors than someone who goes there with a security guard and antagonises them. Though the latter makes for a much better 60 second clip.
Make of it what you will, we all have our different approaches.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Absolutely. I know many countries in Europe have beautiful scenery, and Slovenia was stunning, but Bosnia is up there with the best. I still remember driving down that mountain and just seeing rolling hills with a beautiful lake at the bottom right in the heart of Bosnia.
Everywhere you go in Bosnia there is beautiful nature, beautiful forests, beautiful mountains, beautiful rivers.
I don't know why more tourists don't come (maybe Bosnians don't want them anyway) when it's such a beautiful country, relatively cheap compared to France or Germany, and has its own unique culture and feel, but still a modern country.
Everyone I have met in the Balkans has been either kind to me or at worst neutral / not bothered. Nobody has been unkind during my travels and that surprised me since my country has, historically, got involved in quite a few things we didn't need to around the world.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Hey Foxy - maybe 5 years ago I would have said I was a centrist too.
A big part of what changed for me is the recent surge in migration. A million net per year is just absolutely insane. And the reality is that this will lead to ethnically English, Welsh, Scottish, and Irish people losing the majority in their homelands very quickly. Birth rates will ensure that.
This coupled with the left-wing politics just going completely off the rail have made me firmly right-wing at this point. The crazy thing is, I don't see my positions having changed very much, just the ground around me.
In 2014, my student days, ten years ago, if you'd asked me if 1 million net migration was acceptable, I'd have said no. If you'd asked me if giving puberty blockers to children was acceptable, I'd have said no. Now I understand that the law has since changed to prevent that practice, and I welcome that, but really the left has just run away with itself and gotten itself into a horrible mess, frankly.
As you say though, it's still important not to resort to just name-calling or being unable to structure clear arguments. That's bad and happens on both sides, people who can't reason critically but have a loud voice get amplified. I'd rather try for a rational position, and even try to understand exactly what is going on.
I think there will come a point in this country when the left has to contend with the fact that the mass immigration they have cheered on for years has unintended consequences for their liberal position. Eventually, they will be fighting not for the rights of gender surgery for teens, but they will go all the way back to trying to defend the legality of homosexuality in Britain.
You see, the people who come here come from traditionally very conservative cultures. They only vote Labour and side with the left because it suits their current agenda, but deep down they are very conservative. Eventually politicians will cave to the will of these growing groups of conservative people in the UK, who will stop simply voting for Labour, but start strategically voting based on their numbers in a sectarian way.
Me? I won't be badly affected. I'm a straight man. But the people who cheered on massive cultural and demographic change, as I say, will have a rude awakening. It happened in other countries like Iran too.
Bit of a rant there - food for thought though, dude.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Well the Russian people, if I correctly recall, came from Kiev. So of course it was not distinct historically, but certainly more recently. I have met Ukrainians and they tell me that whilst they can understand Russian pretty well, Russians really struggle to understand Ukrainian, so if there's a notable language difference there, it's more evidence of a distinct identity.
They are, however, absolutely brother nations. Culturally so similar following the Russian Orthodox Church (even though they have now decided it is the 'Ukrainian Orthodox Church').
Politicians started saying 'Ukraine would never be a part of NATO' after Russia invaded Crimea. They started saying it was never realistic and never going to happen, but just a few years before it was very seriously discussed. That's why I maintain that Ukraine is totally the victim in all of this - trapped between two much greater powers who are, frankly, now fighting a proxy war. It's a proxy war that Russia did not want (why would they want to fight against NATO weapons in Ukraine), but I think NATO did want this.
The result is that the Russian military has lost countless troops, tanks, and aircraft, and not a single NATO soldier has lost their life. NATO has won, Russia has not, and Ukraine has certainly not.
Very, very sad.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Thanks brother!
I think I needed some kind comments on this one. I don't know exactly how long it took, but I think maybe 150 hours or something which I know sounds absurd, but it's all the time researching, recording, and editing (which I am still wrapping my head around).
This will sound bitter and not aimed at anyone in particular, but one thing I've noticed since I started is that every video you make is a gamble - effort vs payoff. In some cases I have come out well, like my last video was much lower effort with a much higher payoff. This video was a much higher effort with a much lower payoff, which definitely stings.
It's kind of brought me to question the future videos I had planned, one about the migrant crisis, another about Britain as a failing state, and one about our demographic change.
I'm sure I could make videos, with a lot of time and effort, that are interesting and factually correct, but if my specific audience doesn't want to click them, the videos will be dead and a waste of time.
Lots of what I would call low-effort content is actually great, by the way. I love watching Charlie Veitch walk down the street harassing protestors. It's a guilty pleasure that I shouldn't enjoy and wouldn't do myself, but it's entertaining and low-effort.
I would say though that those low-effort videos won't alter people's perceptions or have a very profound effort in the way that a high-effort and serious video could.
I think to an extent viewers probably have to realise that they should support smaller creators too. I have frequently left videos playing muted that I thought were boring, but I like the creator. Jakes Journey Mate is another ex-soldier who makes van life videos. I really like the guy, but have no interest in what's in his fridge. He made a video about what was in his fridge and I just left it playing in another tab (lol).
I'll make one or two more, but if they both bomb out and my audience literally only wants to watch ragebait or TR videos, I'll probably leave them to watch Mahyar Tousi and expend my free time playing Black Ops 6. Does that sound bitter? Maybe.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Hello sir,
I am not trying to create divisions or fracture the Reform party - not that I could even if I wanted to. I am merely observing the trends I see and commenting. As I said, I think it's a deliberate strategy and not a fracturing, though if I'm wrong then it would be bad.
I am, however, of the opinion that we're five years out from the next GE. Exploring other smaller parties for the next couple of years really does little harm.
Say you go and support a smaller, more right party, for the next couple of years. Either they build some momentum and become a serious force, or they don't. In either case, you keep Reform on their toes chasing the right-wing / conservative votes, rather than just feeling totally free to push to the left.
It's food for thought, not telling anyone what to do or think, just sharing my own ideas!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I acknowledge this in many comments. Other than that, what did I get wrong?
For what it's worth, one of the biographies I read stated Irish, Wikipedia states English, and yes in an interview (Strongest Argument) Tommy clearly states Scottish. I made one error which, in the grand scheme of things, is pretty minor.
When I asked you 'other than that his father is Scottish, not Irish, what was wrong?' I did not expect the answer 'his father is Scottish'. What else is inaccurate?
Forgive me if I seem agitated, but if you're going to make a sweeping statement beyond the one error I have already accepted, let me know what other facts are make-believe.
2
-
@rikkys So you raise an excellent point in the second to last paragraph.
Producing travel videos is obviously more fun than producing documentaries. It's just a hard fact that hanging out with new people in foreign countries beats sitting in your bedroom editing furiously.
I don't think the two are mutually exclusive though. I think, hopefully, I could do both on the channel. The trick, I suspect, is to travel to places that are politically interesting. I think Serbia is one of those places where my videos did well because people are curious.
Likewise, travel to Russia would be interesting because it's a politically interesting place and sufficiently removed from Europe.
And then I think about places like El Salvador, where Nayyib Bukele has basically turned the whole country around in a single term.
Ultimately, I think I'll just try to weave a balance between the two - political commentary and maybe some travel videos too. And I think they really could overlap.
I'd love to visit a place like Afghanistan, and other Westerners have done so, but they haven't got a military background whilst doing so, which makes it a bit iffy. Same for Russia.
I will at some point be going back to Serbia though. I just kinda love the place and the people. It's a monoculture. They're Serbs. They follow the Serbian Orthodox Christian faith. Those who don't follow that faith still broadly share those moral principles. They're proud of their country. They're poorer than us, but you wouldn't really know it by being there. It's all relative.
Maybe that balance is impossible though and people who subscribed for my political stuff will be bored stiff by any travel stuff I do!
I basically took your paragraph and made it ten paragraphs...
2
-
I think it's a bit more complex than that.
I've been making videos for a while now, and it seems like the biggest factor in determining how far your video gets pushed is the average watch time. In this video, my average watch time is about 14 minutes. It doesn't sound like much but it's actually pretty decent for a 33 minute video. I expect this is because people are generally interested in Tommy.
The actual % viewed of the video for some of my other videos has been higher (probably because they're much shorter), but the overall minutes each viewer watches is lower (on a 10 min video, 4 mins is actually not too bad by YT standards). However, because my older travel videos are much longer, my average view duration per video is higher.
What I'm trying to get at is when I make a shorter video, my video may only get 4 minutes viewed per person (some watch it all, some instantly click off). That tells Youtube that people aren't interested, and so it doesn't get pushed very hard at all.
I've kinda got myself into a stick situation now where, if I understand it correctly, shorter videos are unlikely to do all that well...
That's just one man's observations from my own channel, but I can see all the stats behind the scenes. Other videos with much higher % viewed (not minutes, %), higher click-through-rate from impressions, and so on, did poorly because they had lower average watch time.
Now - my theory about why so many Tommy interviews and stuff do well is this: they're long and enough people (like me) will watch the whole thing. For Youtube, if someone uploads a 2 hour video and it's watched on average forty minutes, that's actually a lot of ads that can be shown. Most people won't watch a 2 hour video to completion, but Tommy is interesting enough for them to do so.
So to summarise, I don't think it's about having him in the title, I think it's about having a long-enough video and a topic that's interesting enough (which Tommy is), and that's what gets Youtube to keep giving impressions on people's home feeds.
You didn't ask a question, but you got an answer (which is just my observations).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I'm no farmer, but anyone with a brain can understand this with 15 minutes research.
Whenever something threatens your food, water, medical care, you should pay attention to it. You have a stake in it.
On this specific issue, the Labour Party is all over the place. They say it won't affect many farmers, but they need to do it to raise taxes. Which is it? It won't affect them and you won't raise money, or it will affect them and you'll raise money by crippling our farming industry.
Had they given 10 years notice so that farmers can do tax planning, it might not be so bad, but if you had been tax planning as a farmer, noting your IHT exemption, there's not really much to do. No point in handing the farm down. Now all of a sudden you're a 90 year old farmer and trapped hoping you either pass before the bill passes, or survive 7 years. Crazy.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Hey Pedja, the only reason I won't comment about it is because I was in the Army. I don't know what's common knowledge and what isn't, and I don't want to even go there for that reason.
I agree with much of what you've written. Another example is Jordan which has a king, but they love their king. In fact, when I was at Sandhurst (Officer Training in the UK), the Crown Prince of Jordan was with me. Very good guy and very competent. So I guess if you are well liked and do right by your people, it almost doesn't matter. It only takes one bad king for the whole thing to be overthrown, of course.
There are advantages and disadvantages to democracy. The advantage is nothing can go really horribly wrong just because of one person. The disadvantage is all of the politics that comes with it. For example, changing government and constant changing of policies and directions every four or five years, rather than the continuity you spoke about.
I prefer a system called Direct Democracy which they have in Switzerland, but we will never have that in the UK, sadly.
On Nukes, like I said I think the odds are about 2%, very small. But those odds are growing all the time. I think Trump will genuinely be able to solve this problem because I think Putin wants it solved, and so does Trump. The only piece of the pie left is Ukraine, but Ukraine can't fight effectively without American support, so Trump really controls that too.
Trump has said on numerous occasions he'll end the war on day one - I don't know if it will be that quick, but I do believe he'll resolve it. Sadly, even though this will likely be over in the next 5 weeks, we have made an enemy of Russia for the foreseeable future.
I find this a shame just because I know some Russians and they're very kind, nice people. I met many when I was in Serbia and Serbians/Russians now have a special place in my heart!
2
-
Sir, apologies for taking so long to reply, I just knew it was going to take a while.
On your first paragraph, with respect to UK tactics, systems, and doctrine, I will not speak about that. I hope that's not too disappointing.
On the next points - yes, the Nukes belonged to the USSR, and subsequently Russia. But in the aftermath of the collapse of the USSR, Ukraine did not have to give them back. By which I mean, there was no imminent threat of invasion to go and retrieve nuclear weapons. This, when you think about it, is a risky business. So I maintain that they chose to give them back, and the proof of this is that they were able to ask for terms in order to return them (i.e. a security guarantee).
Yes - there are neo-Nasties (I don't want my comment to get filtered) in Ukraine, in fact an entire unit of them and more. However, let's be clear, there are also plenty on the Russian side. I do not know the numbers in each case to compare.
On the topic of Russian forces withdrawing, I think this was more of a strategic move than a show of good faith. Having your forces spread too thinly is a weak strategy - General Montgomery realised this during WW2 and hence he breached mainland Europe in what he called 'colossal cracks'.
As I see it, the reality is that Russia committed a lot of military blunders. I believe their intention was never to conquer Ukraine or have a years-long war with so much death and destruction, it was meant to be a quick in-and-out, replacing Zelensky with a more pro-Russian government.
The problem is that Putin was told the Ukrainians would welcome a Russian invasion - bad intelligence, and undercommitted / went soft from the outset.
There were other military blunders too, such as Russian military leaders stealing the funds for explosive reactive armour that should have gone onto the tanks. Instead, the tanks were now very vulnerable as the ERA did not work / was not present, and Ukrainian infantrymen with British NLAWs had a field-day.
One more military blunder - getting a miles long convoy bogged down en route to Kiev and running out of fuel. Not a good look, and the Russians actually got quite lucky here that the Ukrainians did not have an effective response to destroy the convoy. Had they done this today, US HIMARS / GMLRS would completely destroy it.
Okay, okay, one more military blunder - lining up Russian troops on parade for a photograph only to be struck by artillery / rockets.
So I think with better planning, Russia would have made a quick regime change and got out. By now, the West would have forgotten all about it. The 4 Eastern regions would still be a part of Ukraine, but Ukraine would once again be much more friendly to Russia.
With respect to the ICBMs - you are technically correct and I made a mistake - though I made it because the author of an article themselves made a mistake. It was hypersonic and similar enough that the point of the video is not lost. Crazy technology, but as I say, Russia is running out of ways to escalate in the face of Ukrainian / NATO escalation, and that's what scares me.
If 'Ukraine' seems so determined to keep escalating and pushing, Russia is going to have fewer and fewer options.
Detonating a Nuke in the way I described is the ultimate escalation and, quite frankly, will put the brakes on everything. For Putin, though, this will be an absolute last resort. It will massively strain his relations with China and the consequences to his regime / Presidency remain unclear at home. So for me, he has to be facing an extreme amount of pressure even to use the smallest nuke. However, if provocation doesn't stop, the likelihood increases.
Lastly, on the dictator thing, yes there are elections but let's be clear, he has flipped from President to Prime Minister, always maintaining the ultimate power, and then eventually changed the rules to allow him to remain as President forever.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Thank you so much! I think I needed someone to say that honestly.
I've spent the last three weeks researching, recording, and editing it but people aren't clicking on it I guess. My audience is mostly UK based, so maybe they're just super not interested in US politics. I wanted to offer something genuinely balanced about Trump because I see a lot of videos that are basically slanderfests (like Jonny Harris, who is an exceptional video maker, but clearly very left wing).
The watch time on this video is higher than my average watch time, so it feels like the people who do click it stick around for over 20 minutes on average (which is actually pretty good I think).
I learnt a lot making it, particularly about how to build maps and animations, so I'll take those lessons onto the next one.
I could do more with audio, maybe sound effects and music too, but I was pretty proud of it!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I am sure I replied to your comment, but I can't see it!
We have to be calculated and rational. What does not convince people to come to your viewpoint is shouting loudly (even though I went to a protest I support today, but whatever). What does work, is calmly explaining, rationalising, showing the data, putting your case out there.
Immigration has been very harmful for Europe. We don't have all the data for the UK because it's not available, but we can see it in other countries. In my other reply to you I mentioned that I'm making a documentary which aims to do just that. I want to take data, which is just hard facts, about things like crime by nationality or welfare claims and put it all in one place. That's the best way you can try to get a point across to someone.
Some people will never accept your point of view, but you don't need everyone to be on your side to effect change, just enough people. For some people, their feelings will always overcloud reason.
There are also rational people who are generally left-wing and not actually aware of the problems. That is your target market - I know this because I was one of those people. Those people who are left-wing because they haven't seen all the data and the rationale behind people's frustrations are the kinds of people who can follow your rationale and perhaps change their minds.
A lot of people are happy to not rationalise, but to sensationalise or bark at people they disagree with. Simply insulting a rational left-winger will not make him come to your side, it will probably just make his views more entrenched.
A long reply. I should sleep.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Haven't seen anything about that, but I have been busy (farmer's protest today). Will look into it.
About Paz - yes, he's excellent. His channel is the reason I thought people might actually pay attention if I walked and talked. Without him I would have assumed that everyone would be bored.
I feel like I have found my voice, and he probably feels the same way. In the Army, especially as an Officer (I'm not sure what rank Paz was), you don't voice your political opinions. You can have them, but not outwardly. And I understand that entirely and respect it within the military.
The thing is, as you can probably tell, I find politics totally fascinating. By being able to make these videos, conveying my opinions, analysis, criticism and so on, I feel like I found my voice.
So I owe Paz one. Don't tell him though.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Thank you for this amazing comment!
As I mentioned in the video, the Serbian man I spoke to in Srebenica was also in Sarajevo during the siege. He described some pretty awful treatment to himself. He also was very frank that, in his opinion, all sides committed war crimes. He didn't exclude Serbs from that, but felt very frustrated that, as you say, the politicisation of the issue seems to have neglected what Serbs suffered during that time and laid almost sole blame to them.
I am simply recanting his opinion without comment. You are, of course, welcome to your frankly very sensible opinion.
In one of my previous videos I visited a town called Oradur-Sur-Glane where Germans committed heinous crimes against civilians. It was not a genocide, and the French do not suggest it is, but certainly a war crime. The world rightly recognised that the actions of a small group of the population (SS) do not reflect an entire nation of people in anyway. In my opinion, the world has not been so kind to Serbs, who to me have been amazing and kind people.
Frankly, I love the Balkans, and I hope the small number of people who watch my videos see what a fun and beautiful group of countries these are.
Lastly, I'm sorry for what you, so young as you were, would have had to endure over those years in Sarajevo. Awful for anyone involved - brother wars are the worst.
2
-
2
-
Thanks brother!
Honestly, it is because I am a bit lazy with it. I don't do instagram or try to funnel people here.
My time is limited to edit videos as I am also travelling, so I have to make a conscious decision to either a) make the best video I can or b) try to get as many subs as possible with Youtube Shorts and instagram reels.
I'd rather just make good videos. This isn't my job, just wanted to have some fun with it and share along the way.
I like that I get to show people what I think are interesting and cool places / cool people. Especially for the Balkans videos I hope it makes people want to come here. I had a blast in Croatia, Bosnia, and now Serbia. Kind people everywhere, not too expensive, and lots of abandoned stuff haha!
Not sure how you found it, but I'm especially glad you watched. I think a lot of the Europe & Balkans stuff will be more interesting to Americans, for whom it is harder to visit all of these countries, than other Europeans.
Thanks for your comment! Means a lot to me, mate!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Hey Alan - here's my thinking on it. I have nothing against Reform voters - obviously. Although if Reform didn't have Rupert Lowe, they'd be much weaker.
My thoughts are this - we're five years out from an election. Now is the safe time to start exploring other parties. Hear me out.
If you are right wing and want serious immigration policies, joining Reform right now doesn't really help. If all the right wingers do this, Reform will assume they have the right locked up, and begin to shift left towards the centre, trying to capture centre ground. You'll be left with some pretty weak policies I think - too close to the Tories.
In fact, if they get too close to the Tories, people will just vote for the Tories.
If you want the Overton window to shift right, the best thing you can do right now is to support the furthest right party you can find and intellectually support for the next couple of years. If in a couple of years you think 'this isn't really going anywhere', you flip back to Reform a year or two before the election. What you do on election day is, of course, up to you.
It's just food for thought - for many people Reform will be as far right as they're willing to go, and that's totally fine, but I think a lot of people are supporting Reform because they see it as the only credible right option (Tories are left). I think that's playing checkers and not chess.
That sounds like I'm telling you what to do, and I'm not. If Reform formed a government right now that would be infinitely better than everything we've had for decades. But if you want to keep Reform genuinely to the right, you have to make them keep chasing the right's support, and not take it for granted.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Hey dude, what a great comment.
First of all let me apologise and retract my statement about newts. We all know that some newts lack charisma, but there are many species of newt, such as the red bellied newts you mentioned, which had plenty. In fact Isaac Newton is one of the most famous red-bellied Newts and his work across physics, mathematics, economics, and philosophy, is almost unrivalled (though Leibniz may disagree).
Secondly, thanks for the kind words! I cheat a little - I do bullet points on my phone before making a video so I know I've covered everything I wanted to talk about. I know, I know, you're as shocked by this as the red pill that made you realise we never went to the moon.
Would I be snapped up by another channel? It depends on the channel. I certainly won't be on Novara Media any time soon, but there are some great channels like Rebel Media and stuff, so it's possible. Ideally I'd be able to do both - but we'll cross that bridge if it ever comes to it.
For now I'm just paying slightly less attention to my dog on our walks!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Mr Woodward,
Thanks for your comment! Let's dig into it a little.
Nigel's political achievements are interesting and difficult to quantify. Some would say he's a failure, having run for office 5 or so times to be an MP and failing.
I disagree - I think his political achievements have been enormous, more than most if not all recent Prime Ministers. Single-handedly, without ever winning a seat, he forced the issue of BREXIT and pulled the UK out of Europe. That's staggering. Opposing him was the Prime Minister at the time, Cameron, and he could not stop Farage's movement.
I do reject the idea of 'if you think you can do better, go ahead and stop criticising'. Do you apply that logic to the Labour Party or the Tories? Whenever someone criticises Keir Starmer, do you rush to his aid and say 'he won a majority of seats in Parliament, if you think you can do better, go ahead'. I suspect you do not do this, but you use this argument against me. Food for thought.
To your next point, that I smeared James McMurdock. I disagree - I gave an absolutely accurate representation of the facts. For you to try and suppress my ability to accurately talk about what happened is not okay. I believe in free speech.
I really used that example to make the point that whilst 'paper candidates' were a myth, the vetting was clearly non-existent. To cite as an example, I quoted Nigel Farage himself.
Yes, the event was two decades ago. There are people who were convicted of murder or other crimes (I'll let your imagination run wild) two decades ago who we should not forget what they did.
In any case, I specifically made the point that the mistake of not vetting candidates would not happen again before the next GE. In fact, I expressed sympathy for Reform on the grounds that they had little time to prepare.
Lastly, and to your post fun claim, that I am a 77 Bde asset working to undermine the Reform Party. What a load of gubbins. Nothing I could say would ever convince you that this is not the case, but it is not the case. I am not part of 77 Bde and, during my time in the Army, had no significant interactions with them (a couple of briefings to a room packed with 100+ people). Standard stuff.
I am a concerned citizen, patriot of my homeland, lover of England. I am entitled to my views and, furthermore, entitled to share them.
Good day, sir.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Hey sir, always great to hear from you! You can comment on UK stuff, though I know for the audience I picked up in the Balkans it will be uninteresting - which I totally understand. I truly can't wait to go back to the Balkans.
I will look into the chemical stuff, a lot of comments saying it's not true. I really don't know enough and I'm happy to admit that, and if I misspoke in the video then that's unfortunate, but that is what I've always understood to be true.
I think you're right about much of what you said - especially the idea that Syria is going to look worse than the Libyan Crisis. Syria was actually a very difficult places to rule over. You have Alawhite Shias, you have Sunnis, you have Christians, you have Kurds. All in one country.
Keeping all of that together is no doubt an absolute nightmare. Probably what helped is that Assad's family was from one of those minorities and so he would never have been able to convince his military to do anything significant against those smaller groups. I don't know this for a fact, it's just speculation.
Now, things will be different. I think this will descend rather quickly. Even if al-Jolani would like to rule peacefully over Syria, it won't be allowed to happen. His followers are determined hardline Islamists. They will want to do whatever they want to do, and even if he would prefer peace, he knows that his supports are not going to stand for that. In reality, I suspect he doesn't really want peace anyway.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Sir you just made me google 'prima nocta' and I wish I hadn't - crazy.
It's true that law alone will not fix the problem - that's why I gave Iqbal the credit of saying some things which I think are true.
I know Serbian Orthodox Christians aren't too fond of the Catholic Church, but one of the great things that Catholics did was ban the practice of cousin marriage. I doubt they realised just how beneficial this would be to the gene pool and the development of modern society, but it was.
9th order of relation sounds about right to me, honestly. I'd hate to get caught on the wrong side of God with my 8th cousin though.
As for there being more important stuff - there definitely is. But these guys are literally paid to sit and debate and propose laws all day. I am actually quite happy if they start addressing cultural issues.
I think maybe it will be hard for you to understand, as a Serb with a proud culture, what it is like to watch your culture be massively eroded in just one lifetime and placed second to... every other culture for the sake of 'diversity'. I pray you never have to experience it, honestly. My experiences in Serbia were enlightening because whilst not everybody thought or felt the same way - not all were Christians though most were - there was clearly a single underlying culture with its roots in the church.
That used to exist in Britain, but be under no illusion about how quickly it can be ripped away from you, as it has from us.
I would like to come back to Serbia and make a video showing what a broadly mono-cultural country looks and feels like, where people can be proud of their heritage and their shared identity. I think many people in the West need to see that.
And that's not to say that everything in Serbia is perfect, there are problems. One of the biggest ones I noticed was gambling, honestly. This was true across the Balkans. But I also saw people looking after the less fortunate in their communities. Of course, Britain is, on paper, wealthier than Serbia (much wealthier), but it barely feels like it to the average Brit. The average salary is probably 2.5 times higher or something, but the cost of living is also much, much higher.
A bit of a rant. I kind of love Serbia and I wish the UK had a single dominant culture just like Serbia does.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Hey Alan, I used to be amused by Boris Johnson, but with time I've come to realise that a lot of the most recent problems stem from his weak leadership. He was too weak of a leader to tell his own staff to stop partying. Even if he didn't care about COVID, he would have been smart enough to realise how bad it would look if the parties leaked, which they did. He just was so desperate to be liked that he refused to step up and actually be a leader.
Farage has said very clearly that he will not do mass deportations, so unfortunately if that's really what you want, you will have to look elsewhere, such as Homeland. Perhaps they will change their mind, but Farage was very, very firm on not doing it.
The best you can probably hope for from Reform is dropping immigration to zero, but that won't undo the damage already here.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Hey, great name by the way.
Thanks for your kind words. My subscribers have actually increased 50% in the last month, so I think that's pretty incredible. The channel is still very small of course, objectively speaking. But when you're on this side of things, as the creator, it's kind of hard to fathom that almost 4,000 people are interested in what you have to say.
And the growth has all been natural, nobody, until about an hour ago, has shouted out the channel or anything like that. I just showed Paz49 this video and he did indeed shout it out, for which I'm super grateful, but I'm really just happy to be here, have a small platform, and be able to interact with so many different people. Giving ideas, stealing ideas, and trying to restore a bit of rationality to Britain.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Hey sir! I don't think it's restricted or anything like that. You can't see what I see on the back end, the 'analytics' tab. It was given the same number of impressions as usual, but didn't get as many clicks from those impressions, so probably something wrong with the thumbnail or title, or perhaps people aren't super interested in the topic. Or I haven't made the topic clear. Or the thumbnail needs work etc. etc. Or they don't want to watch a 28 min video (pretty long for my channel).
If I was being shadowbanned or restricted I'd tell you, but I don't think that's what's happening here honestly. Don't worry too much about sharing it if you can't, I'm glad you watched it and if you have people you know in real life who don't fully understand the gravity of the issue, you can show them.
As for others - I think Rupert Lowe is almost certainly aware of all of this kind of data. That's why he drives and pushes so hard for the UK to reveal their own version. Because he knows if it's anything like the Scandinavian countries, we have a very big problem.
I have no idea honestly how I would contact someone like Mahyar Tousi or Andre Walker. Andre is certainly a bit more accessible, but I suppose I am a little too humble to go chasing people - it looks like you just want to ride their coat-tails. I am pretty determined not to ride anyone's coat tails, honestly. I do have a good line to Paz49 who is a good egg, though, I'll drop him a DM on X.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ClaireHamill-x2w I understand that PR is not perfect, but it's genuinely better than FPTP.
I say that because here in England our incentives are all wrong. Say you have a minor party who you entirely agree with - let's call them UKIP (I am not a UKIP member / supporter by the way). You may entirely agree with UKIP, but because of FPTP you vote Conservative instead. You're never properly represented. UKIP might even win 15% of the votes and get literally no seats.
This pretty much happened with the Reform party who got 4.1m votes, but only 5 seats, meanwhile the Labour Party got 9.7m votes and 412 seats. So Labour gets 2.5x as many votes, but 83x as many seats and forms a government. It's democracy, but really bad democracy.
At least in some version of PR you are... represented proportionately. It gives those who choose not to vote because it's pointless a reason to engage with politics.
And, yes, the Swiss system (if I said Swedish I mis-spoke) is far better in my opinion and really achievable in today's world.
The only reason not to do it the Swiss way is businesses and special interests can't buy off a small number of politicians and political interests to exert influence. Since the Swiss hold referendums on their bills 4x per year, they would need to buy off the entire country - AKA make the bill actually good for citizens of the country so that they agree to vote for it.
Thanks for the kind words about the channel, I'm certainly trying. I'll be uploading a video at around 6pm tomorrow about Donald Trump so maybe you could watch that and let me know what you think!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rikkys The problem is that you can't produce something good every week or even every day.
I floated (and tried) doing shorter commentaries about current events, but it never really caught on in the same way. I'm not saying I won't do it again, incidentally, but I'm going to just focus on quality over quantity and try to have a library of solid videos.
Some people are able to pull off that higher frequency pretty well like Mahyar Tousi, but really he has a full team with him and is often just livestreaming and screensharing.
That's not a criticism of him, it just doesn't take anywhere near as long. He's built that platform and people tune in which is great for him. He's able to fund the team from the ad revenue and superchats, which is awesome and helps to keep his channel growing. But there's only so much you can do as one person with a smaller audience.
I'd rather focus on having fewer but better videos. I plan to make a video on Oct 26th in London and then one on Donald Trump before the US election next month, so I am working on it!
One day if I have a sufficiently large crowd that would tune in to somewhat less interesting news, I may increase the frequency if that makes sense, but in the short term, to build a relationship and sort of prove your worth to people, you have to start with quality.
That's not me saying my this video was the best video ever, it's just the best that I could do in the time I had put aside for it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Looking back, it seems ridiculous, but when you're told you're doing it to prevent the spread of a virus which could kill your loved ones, you go with it. I don't mean to criticise you, but I personally think the social distancing stuff was the least of the COVID woes (vaccines, fraud, paying the salaries of half the country but leaving the self-employed to go bankrupt etc.)
That being said, some of the scenes we saw of people walking out in remote areas of countryside being hounded by police drones was pitiful.
I still don't think it's that surprising that people complied with lockdowns because for many people it was just easy. It was easier than going into work or whatever. Working from home in your pyjamas and there's nothing your boss can do? I think that's why you saw that level of compliance.
It's interesting because there were behavioural models built prior to the lockdowns which predicted large-scale unrest that simply never came.
As sad as it is, I think people are just overworked, underpaid, and addicted to the internet. If you tell people they can stay indoors and scroll TikTok all day, they'll do it. This wouldn't have worked pre-internet era in my opinion because people actually would have lost their minds.
I suppose now I'm going through it all and typing it is quite disturbing...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So I presume France has now stopped that National Service? It's a shame because I think, as you say, it really brings people together.
During my time in the Army I was fortunate to command people from all over the world (commonwealth countries from the British Empire) as well as all different classes. At Sandhurst (our officer training school) I had three princes in my company (the Crown Prince of Jordan, Prince of Luxembourg, and Prince of Liechtenstein). I also had people from the poorest segments of society. Everyone comes together in a challenging military environment and bonds and understanding is achieved.
After the world wars, people automatically had respect for people who had served their country, and whilst I obviously do not want another world war to achieve that, we could achieve a little bit of it with National Service. People would instantly have at least one thing in common that they could discuss.
It's true that your nuclear sites could be targeted, but in reality they just need to be very well protected. We currently have armed police and military surrounding our sensitive nuclear sites, as you would expect, and intelligence services constantly monitoring threats to those sites.
It's sad to think that there are people in our country who would even think of attacking those sites, but there definitely are. We have 40,000 Muslims on our terror watch list. I don't understand why we keep them in our country if they are deemed such a high risk that we spend billions of pounds every year monitoring them.
I will take a look into Jean-Pierre - I had not heard of him before. I doubt I will be able to understand it either, especially in French!
I hope you're keeping well Sylvie!
1
-
1
-
Thanks Thomas!
I wouldn't quite say it's from the other side of the aisle exactly, but unlike most people who are rabidly opposed to all Russian people, I have met them. I met a lot of Russians in Serbia and they're decent, normal people. You can see one of them, Dmitri, in a video I have on here (Belgrade), but I met many more.
We have so much in common with Russian people, honestly. They're really Westerners, at least the younger ones. I think it's time to stop demonising them.
The people who say Russians are horrible but Ukrainians are amazing and brave have failed to realise that Ukrainians and Russians are a common people, like Englishmen and Scots, not really that different. They follow the same church, live side by side, and until this war, shared most views. In fact, most Ukrainians who live in border areas speak Russian and worked in Russia prior to the war.
So let's at least attempt to understand the Russian perspective - we are just being naive if we refuse to even do that.
Thanks again for your kind words and your sub!
1
-
1
-
You're right about Minsk 2 - I don't believe that was good faith negotiating. Especially given that they have literally come out and said it was just a play for time.
I disagree that the Russians retracted from Kyiv in good faith - they actually made a military error by spreading their force too thin. Better planning would have enabled Russia to capture Ukraine very quickly, but it was fumbled. This goes back to Montgomery's 'colossal cracks' - the idea of punching hard and in depth into another country rather than spreading your forces thinly and advancing slowly.
Many other errors, such as running out of fuel in convoy and getting bogged down, as well as the bad intelligence that Ukrainians would welcome a Russian invasion, really hindered the efforts. There are some Russian Generals that should lose their stars for this.
I do agree that we, sadly, intervened to ruin the peace talks that could have saved countless lives.
I do also agree that, sadly, Ukraine is being bankrupted and purchased. As they fight for their homeland they are encumbering huge amounts of debt and being forced to sell massive amounts of agricultural land to do so. Land that is, of course, massively devalued by the destabilisation in the country. We know quite clearly that this is true and there's no possibility of hiding these land grabs by major corporations.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So I agree with that - and I did say most of these people couldn't start a fire with a blowtorch.
The point to this video really was that people who you traditionally would not associate with violent action, because they fall out of the two 'traditionally violent' groups, are now doing so.
In the case of the Americans I quoted, with the exception of Ryan Routh, there's an argument to be made about whether it's class war / anti-capitalist / left-wing motivations making them do so, for sure.
But in general I predict that this will give rise to a new wave from the left-wing, even if Mangione turns out not to be left-wing at all.
And left-wing is not a super easy term to use, so let me be clear I'm talking about the hardcore pro-trans lobby who now feel threatened, or the hardcore antifa / anti-capitalists.
The seed that I fear has been planted in their minds is that 'perhaps if I can't win politically, I need to find another way to victory.'
And a big part of that is due not to whatever Mangione may or may not think (I have no idea what his politics are, less for the issue of healthcare), but the reaction that was given to him from typically liberal elements of society.
Once that seed has been planted, and if the Overton window shifts to the right, we may well see more of this kind of 'direct action'.
I feel maybe I have been clumsy in the presentation of all of this, which is unfortunate, but I'm happy we can talk through it and I can try to get across what I meant a little more clearly.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I drew partly from that article, yes. And many other articles - as you can see from the fact I included screen grabs from half of them in the video, lol.
I have never actually called myself a journalist or anything like that. The one time I was called it, I balked a little. Will I feel bad for collating a series of stories and producing a video to highlight a topic I think is important? Nope.
Oh and to your specific point about not shining a light, I'm not sure that analogy quite works. Let's say 100 people read the Daily Sceptic article, and then Elon Musk reposts the article and suddenly 1,000,000 read it. Sure, Elon didn't do the leg-work, but he certainly helped to shine a light on it.
Food for thought, but my videos won't be for everyone!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I believe Farage probably did fear for his safety in that moment. If you look at all the pictures, he's visibly panicked at first because, yes, it could have been something far more nefarious thrown at him.
I don't think Nigel Farage is the solution for Britain, he's too populist and changes his views all too regularly, but is it fair to say that he's a poor MP to his constituents?
How do you know this? Is he any worse than Kemi Badenoch or Keir Starmer? We mustn't forget that he is running a political party. Plus, his constituents generally seem to like him, and he's in Clacton relatively often.
Victoria Bowen absolutely should have a criminal record for the milkshake incident. This isn't some accidental thing that just happened and she is a victim, she made the choice to throw it onto him. In all likelihood, she did it to promote her social media where she sells lewd pictures of herself, but that's not really the point.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The tories suck - just to be clear. Do not mistake me for a Tory. To attack the Tories is not to attack me. Everything you said about the Tories, I would agree with, I think.
But Labour are arguably worse. You claim to have correctly identified a 22bn blackhole in the most taxed economy we have seen since the end of WW2. What's your solution? More taxes!
You cannot tax to growth, growth will not come and Labour know this - well, I presume they do, but it's hard with Rachel Reeves at the helm.
The way to enrich the UK is to shake off Net Zero - it's nonsense, reduce welfare by deporting citizens with dual nationality living solely on welfare / social housing.
Agreeing to send 500m to overseas farmers and yet tax our own farmers 500m is utter insanity. Almost as bad as putting us on the hook for our share of 300bn to be handed out overseas.
The countries that rid themselves of this first will thrive. It will be America, clearly, as they withdraw from the Paris Climate Accords, drill like hell, export their oil and gas, and so on.
The hard truth is this - we need more CO2 in the air for plant life to sustain.
1
-
1
-
1
-
It has been a while since I posted this! The very start of my Youtube journey! Thank you for going back and watching it. Honestly, some of the more interesting videos are those in the Balkans, especially the one about my Serbian Friends.
The reason it's interesting is that they just have a more traditional culture - a monoculture too. They follow the Serbian Orthodox Faith, even those who are not strictly religious still take their moral compass from it. They're proud of their country and it's quite a beautiful thing to behold. Probably what England was before I was born.
I don't hate the French, of course, but France is the place I received the worst reception as a foreigner. I'm sorry to say this but it's true. I'm generally very polite as it costs nothing and perhaps the French don't like the English since so many of us live in the South of France. Perhaps we don't integrate well.
My interactions with French police were actually fine, but ordinary people were less than great and je peux parle un peu Francais (pas bien), so it was kind of sad to see. I don't speak a word of Italian, but as soon as I entered Italy, everyone of all age groups was friendly.
When I was at University, we had French people studying who were very kind. I really don't know how to explain it, but it's definitely the country I felt least welcomed to. :(
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Hey dude - love the profile picture.
I absolutely would not suggest right now that Reform is indistinguishable from the Tories. I merely suggested that if the party split isn't a strategy, but is actually the party splitting, and Rupert were to leave, THEN they start to look close enough to the Tories to almost not be worth it. It's Rupert Lowe and Anderson holding down the right - mostly Lowe.
I agree with you about TR - I wouldn't actually expect Reform to embrace him. And nobody who is a TR supporter was put off by the fact that Reform rejected TR. In fact, TR himself said 'go and vote for Reform'.
I think what irks people is not Tice's rejection of TR, but his disdain for the crowd that went to the rally. Tice did not have to do that, in my opinion. He could have said 'we have nothing to do with TR, but I totally understand the frustrations of many in the crowd...'
He would have totally avoided falling into a 'we support TR' trap, and also not alienated the crowd that almost certainly voted Reform. It was an easy answer to give, but he blundered it. I think with hindsight looking back now, he would have chosen his words differently.
Thanks for watching, sir!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I agree with you, as I said in my video.
There are risks though - one I outlined in the video - that they lose that original base. Then their new base will be split with the Tories, which is a risk.
To highlight risks is not criticism, by the way, as some people in the comments seem to think, it's just observations.
The other risk, of course, is that the country itself over the next 5 years pushes right, and bypasses Reform whilst they chase the centre. If that happens, I think Farage is smart enough to pick up on the sentiment of the country quickly, but could be outflanked by another party.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Impossible though, really, because he isn't a part of any party to remove the whip from. He could be called back for a by-election if just 10% of voters from his constituency demanded it, but people in this country are really disorganised to make things like that happen.
I am sure there are at least 10% of people in his constituency who are completely dissatisfied, but they won't do anything.
Even though I completely disagree with what he said, of course, he did raise a couple of interesting points that are ultimately true. He spoke about the fact that this is likely the result of arranged marriages and that the culture isn't going to change just because it's outlawed. He's actually right in that regard, but it should still be made illegal.
In fact, we should do everything we can to discourage it. What Iqbal highlighted, to me, is that simply changing the law isn't good enough.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yes - possibly. I think you may have a point. I think at first he saw the engagement farmers as a problem, and then perhaps realised they were good for business.
Further evidence to support your claim is how his monetisation system works. On Youtube, you receive money for the views you get (actually, it's more complicated, and it's about watch time and ads viewed). On X, it's just about impressions. This incentivises the engagement farming.
If X wanted to clean up the engagement farmers, they should introduce some policies about only monetising honest and original content.
For creators of content that takes more than 7 seconds to type, X is not viable in terms of monetisation. For 100,000 views on Youtube, you might get $500 or so (depending on ads watched, length of video, blah blah blah). On X that's probably worth about 2 cents if you're lucky.
That's why people are posting so much garbage on X, though I do maintain that in terms of censorship and what you can say, it is the freest platform, though not perfect.
Nevertheless, the core point of the video remains - we can do better.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Partly yes, partly no. A lot of content is just there to engagement farm you, but that's the same on all platforms, right? When I post a video, I want you to watch it (if you want to watch it), so to an extent you can levy that claim against everything.
But there is a real and specific difference between users who, for example, are journalists and, yes, would like you to read the article they have written, and people who post only for engagement.
I see the difference as like this: I post something with a purpose, and I also want you to view it. The engagement farmers post something but the purpose is just to get you to view it. That's the fundamental difference as I see it.
1
-
@phil538 Hey Phil - not really. It was a long time ago and we were just taught it by a great teacher (who was also a Cambridge grad and had a passion for it).
Honestly, if there is an A level textbook in critical thinking, it will be perfect. There's not much more to learn about critical thinking skills beyond A-level anyway, so that's kinda as high as it gets (without going into formal logic and stuff like that, which you do not need).
There is a book on Amazon by a chap called Roy van den Brink-Budgen and I have just had a flick through it the contents, it looks alright to me. I haven't read the whole thing, so it's really difficult to give an accurate review.
Really what it comes down to is the ability to structure your arguments with deductive reasoning and how to avoid logical fallacies. A lengthy list of logical fallacies can definitely be found online (ad hominem, appeal to emotion, appeal to authority, and so on).
We see these fallacies used all the time - 'person X said this so it's got to be true because they have a PhD'. 'How can you possibly think that, that's fascist'. These kinds of things are poor arguments with poor reasoning, and understanding why they're so poor really can help you dismantle weak interlocutors.
Good luck!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Good morning, John. Thanks for watching.
Let me respond to your points in turn because I do not accept them.
1) Your claim that I am just as bad as the engagement farmer because I say it's all manufactured due to the fact there's no evidence to it.
This is absolutely true, whether you like it or not. Let's be clear, imagine some world in which the Guardian did actually do all of that crazy stuff, creating bots and whatever, and the original poster was correct.
It would still be manufactured, because there is still no evidence. I asserted that he pulled that claim out of thin air, and that's still true.
2) On your claim that I am engagement farming and everyone is engagement farming on every platform because they want people to view / watch / click their stuff.
I disagree - here's the distinction between engagement farming, and every other user. I post videos, documentaries, whatever, with some kind of purpose, usually to inform. I subsequently hope that people go and watch them. The purpose and the desire for engagement are two separate things.
For the engagement farmer, the purpose is the engagement, nothing more. Everything drives around the engagement, there is no purpose other than the engagement.
The same account mentioned in the video, Inevitable West, recently posted '500,000 people descend on London for the Farmer's protest'. This was massive hyperbole purely to gain attention and engagement. I know this, because I actually got in my car, drove to the protest, and made a short video whilst there. You can see for yourself that there were about 4/5,000 people there.
The intention behind vastly overinflating numbers is... attention, engagement, nothing more. The problem here is that the truth very quickly becomes secondary and irrelevant to the engagement farmer, because, as I say, the truth is not monetisable, the engagement is.
3) On Elon Musk - I agree that Britain could not 'extradite' him from the US. In fact, recent reports suggested members of parliament wanted to do exactly this. If you go onto my X profile and scroll down far enough, you'll find me commenting on this by saying '"hauled over", good luck, little Britain.'
It's of course absurd to think Elon could be forced to come to the UK. But the Guardian could seek to take him to court in the US for Libel if they so wished. Or even in the UK, though he would not appear and be tried in absentia.'
I am really sorry you didn't enjoy the video - not everyone will. I stand by everything in it and wish you a good day!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ClaireHamill-x2w The problem that people who are right wing or centre-right have is that there are too many parties which just splits the vote. If you had proportional representation, it wouldn't be a problem, but in a first-past-the-post system, it's a big problem. The political right could in theory get 30% or more of votes and literally no MPs if those votes are distributed across Reform, UKIP, Homeland party, Britain First, and so on.
A fairer system is proportional representation. An even fairer system than this is direct democracy, which is not a pipe-dream, the Swiss have it.
I'd love to make a video about the Swiss style of direct democracy and maybe if I get to a point where Youtube generates money for my videos and I can afford to do it, I will, because I think not a lot of people understand that we could have entirely different and, in my opinion, better systems of democracy.
I don't know much about the SDP but I hope you find a political home soon, Claire!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well, because that's true. It's true that it was shown in the US, but it was shown, supposedly, not by TR himself (I have no idea) in a private cinema screening. That's very different to playing it at a rally and pinning it to the top of your X profile.
In the case of the US screening, he was never going to get in trouble for that frankly - it would have been an impossible case to prove. But also the screening was to a handful of people in an overseas country.
Had the documentary then leaked back out of the US and into the UK, not by TR's doing, then perhaps they'd have a point. But, as I have no problem admitting, he did break the law when he showed it here and uploaded it to X.
In general, however, I am pretty opposed to suppression of a documentary. Were it just a one hour rant, I would not be so opposed to it, but when we consider going along the route of suppressing (because that's what an injunction is) speech, we have to be really, really careful.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1