Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin - Starmerism: The Ideology of Starmer's Labour

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 1, 2025 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin

01:39:31

Starmerism: The Ideology of Starmer's Labour

What is it that Labour thinks and why?

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Evening folks, I'm a little bit, well, I'm slightly late, I think, but you know, I'm basically on the dot.
	Come on, get down.
	Shut up, Caesar.
	Don't give me that German punctuality nonsense.
	I was punctual, and I'm going to blame it on YouTube in the background.
	YouTube somehow delayed me.
	There's a slight sort of counter when you start, and you've got to wait for it to kick into gear.
	How's it going, though, chat?
	Hope you're doing well.
	Hope everything's going good for you.
	Actually, he's right on time.
	Yeah, that's what I like to hear, Roger.
	Thank you.
	I appreciate that.
	Let's have some defense.
	Thank you very much.
	Yeah, no, I'm very well, obviously.
	Busy, tired, exhausted.
	But anyway, there's so much to talk about.
	I didn't want to stop.
	I didn't want to miss anything.
	And I thought that actually what would be really useful to do is talk about the apparent ideology that we see coming out of Starma's Labour Party.
	I guess we can call it Starmerism.
	And it's very, very, very bizarre.
	The Archcast is tomorrow on Arch Warhammer's channel called The Archcast.
	So go and check that out tomorrow.
	I'll be on there at 8 o'clock talking about stuff with Arch.
	I don't even know what we're covering this week.
	But yeah, I do it every week.
	So go subscribe.
	It's doing very well, actually.
	So all good.
	I don't think the mic's boomered, and I think the webcam's working.
	So too bad.
	Methane taxes.
	No, no, it's not D ⁇ D.
	It's a political stream where we just talk about whatever is happening that we want to talk about.
	So, like I said, I thought we'd talk about Starmerism because it's one of those things that Starmer himself has a particular ideology.
	But I thought we'd properly outline it.
	Because, of course, Starmer is, like I said in the video I made earlier, a man of the system, 100% committed to the system.
	But what does the system believe?
	What does the system do?
	And this is well worth looking at.
	So after, I'll play this in the background without any sound, just so you can see.
	But look how well received Starmer is in his own party.
	Now, this isn't indicative of widespread popularity of Keir Starmer.
	What it's indicative of is Starma having completely purged his party.
	So you may remember a few years ago when he took over the party, he went on a hardcore purge of the Corbyn Easters under the auspices that they were anti-Semitic.
	This was an anti-Semitic faction.
	Corbyn had a weak answer to anti-Semitism.
	And because of Corbyn's failure, although I think it's worth pointing out, Corbyn got more votes than Starmer did in 2019.
	Despite Corbyn, despite this, Starmer took control of the party.
	And he just started purging.
	He just started purging.
	Corbyn himself was kicked out for being an anti-Semite, which I don't think is true.
	I just think he really opposes Israel.
	And basically hundreds of thousands of Corbyn Easters who come into the party left.
	And this created what Andy Burnham called at this conference in the Labour Party a climate of fear, where Keir Starmer genuinely is the deer leader and he is not afraid to use executive power.
	He is in fact very confident using executive power.
	Now, a lesser man, a more self-aware man, a man that wasn't like a raging automaton, so not even raging, just wasn't like a, I mean, genuinely, Keir Starmer looks like an NPC, right?
	Like the NPC meme.
	He genuinely looks that way.
	He's got the beady eyes of a shark, kind of absent.
	In fact, on almost every expression, he kind of looks like he's a bit unsure of what he actually is saying, but he knows that he has to say it anyway.
	I mean, look at me.
	He looks kind of blank-faced, right?
	So he's taken over his party.
	Now, you'll see they've all got flags there.
	They have flags because Starma told them, wave the fucking flags.
	You will wave flags.
	You will do this.
	And Labour Party assistants handed them out to the crowd.
	The crowd didn't bring their own.
	The organizers of this handed them to the flag, to the people, and they were told, wave these flags.
	And so everyone has wait, oh, they're waving the flags.
	Can you even imagine this?
	A couple of years ago, it's because Sama has seen the way the wind is blowing.
	And because he controls his party like a dictator, then he is more than happy to carry on.
	Now, I made a TikTok video a year and a half ago now, something like that, where I said, look, guys, I'm actually a bit worried about Starma because he is mental.
	And actually, if the way he's treated his own party is any indication, then he will treat the country precisely the same.
	And that's exactly what he's doing.
	He is treating the country as if he is the dictator of this country.
	He has decided that actually all executive authority lies with him and he's going to use it.
	And so, like I said in the video earlier, I don't think Naja Farosh has to worry about street gangs or anything like that.
	I think he has to worry about Starma and the institutions being given license to persecute any of his political opponents.
	Because Stalma will absolutely use the institutions to persecute his political opponents.
	He's already done it.
	And so the next step is really Starmer fully throwing himself off the cliff and seeing if he can fly.
	Because I think they're well aware that actually they're on borrowed time.
	I think they're well aware that the Labour Party is probably never winning another election again.
	Excuse me.
	Why would anyone want to vote for the Labour Party?
	And like, if we go back to when he's talking, when they're all clapping, Starmer isn't exactly an inspirational leader, but he has surrounded himself in the Labour Party with people who are now 100% committed in the same way as like the partisans of Kim Jong-un or Stalin or any other communist leader.
	they are 100 commit 100 committed to the the party and the platform and the politics of what it is they're doing and so even if they're making mistakes even if keir starmer is doing things i mean look at them standing for what i mean look at west street in there looking like an absolute bellend um Yeah, he always looks kind of terrified, Brother Doom.
	That's the thing.
	Even when they're doing things that are obviously destructive, look at West Street.
	They're nodding.
	Yep, that's right.
	That's right.
	Bollocks is it right?
	Like, almost nothing he's saying is right.
	But these are the last, right?
	These are the zealots in Masada or whatever it was, where the Romans were besieging them.
	These are the ones who are well aware there's nowhere left to go.
	This is the final throw of the dice for the Labour Party, the last hurrah.
	There is nowhere left.
	And they can tell on the outside that the public has abandoned them, which is why Keir Starmer keeps saying things like, we have to win the argument.
	We are in a battle for the soul of the country.
	Well, I'm sorry.
	It looks like that's been lost, right?
	It looks like that's been well and truly lost.
	So you have a dictatorial party.
	Sorry, I've got a scratch in my throat.
	So you have Stamir's Dictatorial Party.
	And a lot of people have been pointing out that he doesn't seem to be actually concerned with public opinion.
	In fact, I do too much talking in a day.
	He doesn't seem at all concerned with public opinion.
	He, in fact, seems to not revel in being against it, but seems to be basically ignorant to it, as if this is not something that he thinks is important.
	Now, as much as a lot of people don't like democracy, actually, I think public opinion still is important.
	I actually do think that a party that becomes as unpopular as the Labour Party is becoming will not last.
	They might not willingly go, but there will be an election in 2029, if not earlier, and that will be the last of them.
	And so what they're doing with all of this is rush.
	We have to just power on with the agenda.
	The agenda, of course, being the globalist, liberal, technocratic, managerial order that they're trying to bring in before this whole thing goes belly up, absolutely crushes itself under the weight of its own bullshit.
	And this digital ID thing is just the best example of it.
	There is no one, like very few people in the country, actually want mandatory digital IDs.
	Keir Starmer didn't even announce this in Britain.
	He was at the Labour Party or to the country.
	He was at some internationalist progressive conference that we covered the other day.
	And he was, we covered it on the podcast.
	And he was announcing it to a room full of his fellow globalist leaders, like Jacinda Ardern, Mark Carney, all those types, the WEF types.
	I covered it on the podcast.
	I was going to summarize them as the WEF, but they're not like the World Economic Forum.
	What they are is the people who share the ideology of the people who attend the World Economic Forum, the international managerial technocrats, right?
	Globalist technocrats.
	And Starmer is very firmly one of them.
	Remember, he loves Davos and not Westminster.
	And this is something that the Tony Blair Foundation had been pushing.
	Now, like I covered in the podcast, Tony Blair is funded by Larry Ellis of Oracle, one of the richest men in the world, insanely powerful, the prime funder of the Tony Blair Institute.
	And it looks like what Starmer leaning into this immediately now is, to me, is him protecting his flank from Andy Burnham and a challenge from within the Labour Party.
	And so he's solidified his grip, genuinely like Stalin.
	He's purged a bunch of enemies.
	He's smacked down and lent into a powerful network in order to maintain himself.
	And so he's decided that, right, okay, we're going to do the digital ID thing.
	This will get Tony Blair and his network on side.
	This gets all that money on side, all that power onside.
	And this will keep me in my place to fulfill the mission.
	Now, this wasn't smart, right?
	So this poll is from before the conference.
	I can't wait to see the polls after the conference because Starmer became very, very unpopular almost immediately because he had the misfortune of having the Southport riots happen.
	The Southport stabbing, where eight children were stabbed, three of them murdered by Axel Rudicabana, the Welsh choir boy.
	And we'll come back to him being a Welsh choir boy very shortly.
	And this caused a series of riots because we have been on the raw end of diversity for a number of years now.
	And whenever something terrible happens, we're told not to look back in anger.
	Well, those times are past.
	People are fucking pissed off that the diversity keeps murdering people or keeps raping people or keeps just not following the rules, right?
	This is just the general feeling in the country.
	Oh, we've brought in dangerous people and they do dangerous things.
	Some of them, anyway.
	And a lot of them just take our benefits.
	And so people are not happy.
	People are very, very unhappy.
	And this is when Starmer came out and decided, right, okay, the entire country is getting digital ID.
	And I'm not even going to have a debate about it.
	I'm not having any kind of discussion because your opinions don't matter.
	Tony Blair's opinions matter.
	Larry Ellis's opinions matter.
	And I covered, I did a video on the Lotus Eaters Daily channel.
	Go and subscribe to that.
	Talking about the digital panopticon because that's what they're trying to create.
	And Larry Ellis just says it himself.
	He's like, look, if they know we're watching, citizens will be on their best behavior.
	So as far as they're concerned, this is a method in order to essentially create a kind of brave new world scenario where there just isn't crime because the citizens are constantly under surveillance by the state.
	Now, I'm not going to reiterate the arguments against that.
	You can go watch that video.
	It's called The Digital Panopticon is Coming.
	But the issue is that that only works if you are not at any point actually answerable to the electorate.
	This whole thing, and again, you can say, I hate democracy.
	Democracy is fake and gay all you like.
	But Labour went down five points in the more in-common polling.
	And more in common have been doing very regular polling.
	Labour have been around 25% for a long time.
	Conservatives about 20%.
	Reform have gone up in this.
	So Naja Farage said, I will get rid of digital ID.
	And people started going, right?
	I have to vote for reform now.
	And to be honest with you, I'm one of those people.
	Up until literally the digital ID thing, I was very on the fence.
	I was like, well, I'll probably vote for him because what am I going to do?
	You know, vote Tory, vote Labor, vote Green.
	You know, unless I had a very strong right-wing party to vote for, I don't really know what else I would have done with it.
	But after this digital ID thing, I'm sorry, this is just too far.
	This is just far too far.
	Farage has said he will not implement digital ID.
	Farage has said he is against the thing completely.
	Okay, great.
	Fantastic.
	We will take Farage at his word.
	And if he does nothing else other than prevents Labour or gets rid of Labour's digital ID, honestly, and frankly, destroys the two-party consensus, then that is good enough.
	I know, Ben, I know in the chat, I know.
	I'm not thrilled about it.
	I don't roll back any of my criticisms of Farage or anything like that.
	It's just we have to work with what we have.
	We have to be realistic about the circumstance and the situation.
	And if there's one thing I do not want my children to have to deal with and to have handed down to them, it's their goddamn digital IDs.
	I just don't want it.
	hate it.
	I hated the Tony Blair float the idea during COVID.
	And thankfully, he lost that argument.
	And he's been floating this idea.
	You can watch the podcast segment on it I did over and over and over since the early 2000s, right?
	Thankfully, he's lost every time.
	And now we have an actual clear dichotomy.
	Because in many ways, Farage is uni party when it comes to the ideology.
	But in many ways, he's also not.
	Remember, he was pro-Brexit.
	That's not part of the plan as the technocratic global order has, the WEF people have laid it out.
	That's definitely not part of the plan.
	And he's against the digital IDs.
	So Starmer screamed, Farage is the enemy.
	And so Farage, at least there is a cleavage there.
	In that respect, Farage is not the uni party.
	That's good.
	That's actually very, very good.
	And so, like I said, I don't roll back any of my criticisms of Farage, but I'm more than happy to support him on the condition that he's going to destroy the digital ID.
	You've got to ruin this.
	You've got to unearth this and throw it out.
	And who knows what comes after him, right?
	So, it could all be good coming after him.
	But as you can see, Stalma lost five points in the polls, and that's before the conference, before he declared war on everyone.
	Because before then, it was just implicit.
	Now it's just absolutely explicit.
	And this is what Farage's Britain will look like: 360 seats.
	You only need 300 and what was it?
	I think it's 350.
	Is it 350?
	I think it's 350.
	Remind me.
	I can't remember exactly how many it is, but this is enough for an overall majority, right?
	So Farage will be the prime minister, and his party will be in control of the government, and he will get to govern however he likes.
	As long as those 360 MPs can just be essentially, I don't even think they'll need to be whipped, to be honest.
	I don't even think they need to be whipped.
	It's 326, thank you.
	I don't even think they'll need to be whipped into place.
	I think they will just be people who agree that what had come before was wrong, and that Farage is basically going to do whatever.
	I'm sure they're just going to be essentially empty suits who will agree with everything Farage wants, right?
	And so they'll just vote yes or no, however Farage tells them to vote.
	He will have to change laws, that's correct.
	But I think, I mean, with that, he could get anything he wants through the parliament, and he will have a brand new party.
	So there won't be internal factions within it.
	There won't be people who will, you know, like the trade unionists won't be able to make 50 of your MPs vote the other way or something like that.
	They will all be beholden to Farage.
	So if he says to them, look, guys, we're going to put this through, they'll be like, yeah, why not?
	They'll have no existing ties that will prevent them from actually doing this.
	So Farage will be in the most envious position of any politician, probably in all of British history, frankly.
	Farage will have the power and the lack of resistance in his own party to do what he likes.
	Now, again, I don't expect that much of him, but if it's destroyed digital ID, that's a great start.
	And as you can see, the Labour Party will be crushed to a worse position than the Conservatives were crushed in the last election when everyone hated them and Farage was actively campaigning against them.
	So that's good.
	And it's good that they will, because these people are bizarre, like absolutely bizarre.
	And again, we can see the managerial technocracy is basically just a utilitarian project.
	Here's culture secretary Lisa Nandi saying, well, look, actually, gambling brings joy to the lives of millions, but can ruin the lives of some people in particular.
	Well, through that frame, you can make a defense for almost anything.
	Like, you could make a defense for the grooming gangs through that frame.
	Gambling is a sin.
	It's a vice.
	It is a bad thing.
	It doesn't matter if it brings joy to millions.
	Heroin brings joy to the people who use it.
	That doesn't mean it's not bad.
	It's obviously bad to do these things.
	But the thing is, they don't have any conception of an actual moral framework.
	What they have is minimum harm, harm reduction.
	Pleasure as the only principle available to judge whether something is good or bad, and harm whether something's good, and harm to judge whether it's bad.
	And if the pleasure outweighs the harm, then, well, I mean, I guess it brings joy to millions.
	No, I'm against gambling.
	I'm very much against gambling.
	And honestly, I ban it.
	I don't see why we should have betting shops all over the fucking high street taking advantage of working class people and people on benefits.
	Like draining them because they've got nothing else to do with it.
	I despise it.
	Now, on the second point, well, third point, probably here.
	God only knows what point I'm on.
	David Lamy.
	What are we doing?
	David Lamy is currently the Deputy Prime Minister.
	And he's just been sworn in as the Lord Chancellor today.
	The first black Deputy Prime Minister.
	The first black Lord Chancellor.
	Because they are woke.
	Obviously, they're a woke party.
	Obviously, they want their little stupid woke masters.
	Oh, look, first black this, first Muslim home secretary, first this, first that.
	Like, it's so stupid.
	Right?
	And the thing is, if it was anyone else, apart from Diane Abbott, if it was anyone else, just any other, basically any other black person in the country, right?
	Would even if we didn't know who he was and he didn't have any public record, that would at least begin him at zero in people's estimation.
	But everyone knows David Lamy is a fucking idiot.
	He has a, he's just such a fucking moron.
	And his academic career is very clearly the product of DEI.
	He has obviously been pushed by the institutions because he's black.
	And because we've got so much public record of him being a fucking idiot, there's no way in hell I thought for a second that he was made foreign secretary because he was bright, because he was good at the job.
	And then when he gets elevated to deputy party leader, because Angela Rayna was siphoning off money or whatever to get those houses, I don't know what happened exactly, but she had like, you know, three houses.
	How'd you get that on a politician's salary, Angela?
	But then David Lamy's, it's like, but the man's a moron.
	Why would you choose David Lamy if it wasn't just a tick a woke box?
	And now it's the first Lord's Chancellor.
	Oh, well, fucking brilliant.
	Justice is served.
	Good God, is this ridiculous?
	Right?
	But there's something rather desperate about it, right?
	It's you don't make David Lamy the deputy prime minister, the foreign secretary, and the Lord Chancellor, all within about a year, if you think that you're on the road to a long career and you're going to be sticking around for a while, right?
	This is them shoving him in spots in jobs in order to just have it written down.
	So in the history books, oh, well, who was the first black Lord Chancellor?
	Well, it was David Lamy.
	Who's the first black prime minister?
	Deputy Prime Minister?
	It was David Lamy.
	Oh, first black foreign secretary.
	That's David Lamy as well.
	My God.
	And in 100 years, I'm like, well, he must have been brilliant.
	Let me look him up on YouTube.
	David Lamy, mastermind?
	What was he doing on Mastermind?
	He must have been really smart.
	What a fucking genius.
	Like, there's a desperation about this.
	Lord Theo, Stanford Bridge is tomorrow.
	I said earlier.
	There's a desperation about this, which oozes out of the whole thing.
	And this sense of desperation really just comes across in all of this.
	Like, when he's walking through here and they're all like, you know, applauding, everyone's cheering, and where streeting is just like, no, yeah, yeah, this is so it.
	There's a strange sort of impending doom that overhangs this whole thing.
	And so there's a tension in everyone there.
	I mean, like, for example, another interesting thing that happened is that a bunch of lefty journals like Owen Jones got their passes to the conference revoked because they were asking uncomfortable questions about Palestine.
	And these guys, obviously, feeling besieged, were like, okay, well, we just don't need them here.
	There's troublemakers.
	They're just going to cause problems for us.
	And so, like, the whole thing, just everything they say, everything they do, seems to be them stepping on a rake with the public and with the activists and with Farage and with everyone else.
	And I think they're just well aware at this point that they just keep running for as long as they can and as desperately as they can, getting as much as they can done, because this is not happening twice.
	I think they are aware that whatever comes next is going to be going in the polar opposite direction of them.
	I think that's what underpins Keir Starmer's declaration of war on at least a third of the electorate, but probably more.
	I think that's what underpins this.
	So if anyone didn't see the previous video, I'll play the clip just so you're up to speed.
	If you say or imply that people cannot be English or British because of the colour of their skin, that mixed heritage families owe you an explanation.
	The people who've lived here for generations, raised their children here, built their lives here, working in our schools, our hospitals, running businesses, are our neighbours.
	If you say they should now be deported, then mark my words, we will fight you with everything we have because you are the enemy of national renewal.
	Remember, 44% of the country, when polled, don't want any more people in and want millions of people to leave.
	That's almost half the country believes the things that he has just said.
	Almost half the country.
	And this, again, very angry and aggressive, like a cornered animal, like he doesn't know where he's going, like he doesn't know what he's doing.
	And he, I mean, when you're at the point where you're in what is actually a kind of minority government, he has the majority, obviously, but he doesn't really.
	He doesn't have the moral legitimacy.
	He is surrounded by enemies and he's on a timer.
	And he's there declaring everyone to be his enemies and he's going to use the full force, whatever he can do, which when he says the full force of the law after the Southport rioters, that's what he means, the full force of the institutions against his political opponents now.
	The Prime Minister was declaring war on half the country.
	So it doesn't come across as confident, right?
	It doesn't come across as successful.
	It comes across as desperate and it comes across as highly strong.
	And notice that if you imply that people from overseas can't be British, we will fight you with everything we have because you are the enemy.
	But you said, if you imply that foreign people can't be British, well, how are they foreign if they are British?
	Like with the David Lamy stuff.
	You're telling us he's English.
	So there's no such thing as an ethnic minority because David Lamy is just an Englishman.
	So why are you giving him special treatment?
	Why are you going like, oh, look, first black one?
	Well, so what?
	He's just English.
	Like, the colour of his skin is not actually the thing you're referencing when you call him black.
	What you're saying is he's an African, right?
	You are saying he is not an Englishman when you say he is black.
	The colour is actually just a sort of incidental denominator that we use for different racial groups, right?
	We say black and white, but what we mean is African and European.
	That's actually the more accurate description of what we're saying here.
	But actually, they've declared to us, no, you can't even imply that he's not English.
	And therefore, it's a European and a European, an Englishman and an Englishman, not an Englishman and an African now.
	So what is the point of even making a big song and dance about David Lamy if I'm to believe that he is just as English as Keir Starmer or anyone else?
	And so we're trapped on this weird logical contradiction where they have to try and square the circle that people who are not from Britain are British.
	Glad that's not my problem because that's so obviously a contradiction that is not going to sustain.
	People aren't going to sit there on that point of contradiction and be like, you know what, this is fine and this is fine forever.
	That contradiction is going to resolve itself.
	Either foreigners are British and English or David Lamy is not English, basically, is what it's going to come down to.
	And this was brought out by Shabana Mahmood.
	Now, Shabana is the current home secretary.
	She is a Muslim.
	She is a woman.
	And she calls herself English.
	Even though she has 100% Pakistani heritage, she has absolutely no English heritage whatsoever.
	And so I clipped out a bunch of bits of her speech, and this is where she lays out the ideology.
	The clips are only about a minute, minute and a half long, so they're not too much to listen to.
	And we're going to go through and just actually examine the things that she's saying because these really are revelatory.
	These tell us about what the thinking is in the Labour Party.
	And I want us to properly understand the morons that we're dealing with.
	If I am honest, it is an honour I never expected.
	And it is one that would have been unthinkable to my parents when they first arrived here in the 1970s.
	But if this is a story of progress, it is a contested one.
	And I was reminded of that fact just days into this job.
	On the 13th of September, 150,000 people marched through London.
	They did so under the banner of a convicted criminal and a former BNP member.
	While not everyone was violent, some were.
	26 police officers were injured as they tried to keep the peace.
	And while not everyone chanted racist slogans, some did.
	Clear that in their view of this country, I have no place.
	It would be easy to dismiss this as nothing but an angry minority, heirs to the skinheads and the packy bashers of old.
	And make no mistake, some were.
	But to dismiss what happened that day would be to ignore something bigger, something broader that is happening across this country.
	The story of who we are is contested.
	Right, now that is an interesting way of putting it because the story of who we are.
	Well, who is the we here?
	Because I don't really feel like there is much of a we between myself and Shabana Mahmood.
	She says that Islam is her guiding principle and the lens through which she does everything in her life.
	She is, of course, a Pakistani woman, and she is also a member of the Labour Party, so who have just declared war on me.
	So it feels like the we is actually rather narrow and parochial in her perspective.
	The story that they tell themselves is the story of the Blair era, not the story of Britain itself.
	For them, Britain begins with the Windrush generation in 1948.
	And the story of Britain for them is inseparable from foreigners in these islands.
	It is the story of foreigners in these islands.
	If you actually think about it because this is what all of the post hoc blackwashing is when they go back and say, look, we found a Moorish skeleton in like 1627 who is the trumpeter of Henry VIII.
	There we go.
	A black.
	A black.
	Look, a black.
	And they go back further and go, well, okay, nothing, none during the Middle Ages.
	But like, if we go back to Roman times, there were some like some Asian knights or whatever guarding Hadrian's wall.
	My God, foreigners, look, look, Browns, like Asians, whatever they were.
	Like, foreign people were in Britain.
	So therefore, Britain has always been multicultural.
	It's like, right, so their story is just the story of foreigners in Britain.
	Shibana Mahmood is a foreigner or a foreign extraction, and she is telling the story of foreigners in Britain.
	That's what their story is.
	Their contested story is that of essentially the colonization of our country by people from other places.
	Whereas my story begins with Cheddar Mann and goes through the Roman occupation, through whoever made Stonehenge and whatever we know about them, which is not that much.
	Then through to the Iron Age and the Celts, and I assume it's not sure if it's an invasion or a cultural diffusion or whatever, but through the sort of Celtic Celtization of Britain, then the Roman invasion, then the Saxon invasion, the Anglo-Saxon invasions, and then throughout the Middle Ages to the Empire to now.
	And what that has left us with is a largely homogeneous population of people who, in England at least, are basically a third to half Anglo-Saxon and about two-thirds to a third, half Celtic, native Britain.
	So everyone in Britain traces their ancestry right that way back, basically, up until now.
	Apart from those foreigners who actually are not connected to that ancestral heritage, Shabana Mahmoud cannot trace any ancestry back in this country.
	Her ancestry is from Pakistan.
	Her ancestry is from somewhere else.
	So the story of themselves that they tell to explain how they got here is very different to the story that I tell of myself and everyone else in Britain tells of themselves of how we got here.
	And so what does this mean?
	Well, she says it's a contested story of Britain.
	Yes, there's the foreigner's story and the native story.
	I obviously believe the native story because I am native, but you hold to the foreigner story because you are foreign.
	That's just there.
	And of course, then you've got these, well, you know, these people who feel that I don't have a place or I don't belong here.
	I can't believe I'm the home secretary.
	It'd be unthinkable.
	Yeah, it would have been unthinkable back in like the 70s when her parents moved here for a better life, as she put it.
	Like it would have been absolutely unthinkable to have had a foreign Muslim Pakistani woman home secretary.
	Because the home secretary is in charge of domestic affairs in Britain.
	Like that's one of the most powerful offices in the country, probably second only to the prime minister.
	Like this is such a powerful position.
	And to give it to a woman who says, yeah, Islam is the lens through which I see all things is just kind of mad.
	It's just kind of mad.
	But she's also, of course, an insane globalist.
	So she then goes on to talk about ethno-nationalism.
	Let's have a chat about nationalism, shall we?
	I am a patriot, proudly so.
	Mine is the patriotism of Orwell.
	Pride in a country that is forever changing, while also ineffably always the same.
	I'll pause that there just to pick up that point before we get to the actual ethno-nationalism bit.
	So Orwell, obviously, Eric Blair was an Englishman, and he loved England, and he loved the Union.
	And for him, it was a 99.9% English England.
	It was possibly one of the most homogenous countries that's ever existed ever.
	And he didn't want that changed.
	He didn't want mass displacement of the English in England.
	That's not what he was after.
	And it's so trite to say, well, it's a country that's always changing.
	Well, yeah, everything is always changing.
	Change is the one constant of the universe.
	The one thing that you can always be sure of that doesn't itself change is the fact that things change.
	It's very trite to say.
	But say, well, it's always ineffably the same.
	Yeah, it's because the people of whom the country is made up, the ethnos, shall we say, carries a certain kind of spirit within it.
	There's a set of unspoken assumptions and ancient traditions that carry a spirit of how things are done.
	And Shabana Mahmoud has no lineal connection to it.
	She is not an English person.
	She is not a Welsh person.
	She's not a Scottish person.
	She does not have the kind of familial inheritance that everyone else carrying it does.
	Now, that doesn't mean, and I want to be very clear, that doesn't mean that she doesn't have any access to it.
	She was raised in Britain.
	She was born and raised in Britain.
	I think she was born here.
	I'd have to double check.
	But most of her life she spent in Britain.
	So it's not like she's not familiar with the folkways of the British, particularly the English people.
	And it's not that she can't cultivate a love of those folkways.
	Any outsider can cultivate a love of, like, there are lots of weebs, right?
	They're not Japanese.
	They fucking love Japan.
	So it's not that it can't be done or anything like that.
	So it's not that this is forever closed off for her, but I just have real problems believing it because she's always been a member of the Labour Party.
	And if there's one party I don't associate with patriotism and loving this country, it's the country that began the knives in the back in 1997.
	So I don't know if I really believe it, frankly.
	Yeah, Josephus, we'll get to ethnos in a minute.
	It is a love of this country as an open, tolerant, generous place.
	Right.
	Her love of this country is conditional.
	Enoch Powell famously said that even if Britain had a communist government and it was invaded, he would still fight for it because his love is to Britain unconditionally and not to the government itself.
	And Shabana is saying the opposite.
	She loves Britain as an open, welcoming, and tolerant place, which incidentally are those characteristics that personally privilege her.
	If Britain is not opening, not welcoming and not tolerant of difference, well, I don't really care, because I'm British, right?
	So I'm from these islands, mostly.
	So that doesn't really affect me.
	Like, the values of the country have changed over time.
	Like, the values of the pagan Anglo-Saxons when they first arrived here, or the pagan Britons, are different to the values of the Christian Anglo-Saxons under Alfred, or the Normans, under William and in the Angevin kings, or the early modern Britons, like English there, or the Enlightenment, or the 19th century imperialists, or the post-World War II consensus.
	All of these values continually change, but she's chosen values that, of course, serve her.
	Whereas for me, I actually love the country regardless of which kind of values these people espouse.
	Because ultimately, I can't really be separated from the country.
	I am a part of this, whether I like it or not, because of the inheritance I have within me.
	There's no escaping it for me.
	It's not optional.
	No matter where I go in life, no matter what I do, I will carry the inheritance of 10,000 years of Britishness.
	I won't have a choice, frankly.
	But for her, it can be contingent on values.
	Oh, actually, no, I've decided I like the openness, inclusiveness, and tolerance because they benefit me as someone who can choose other than the story of foreigners in Britain and the values required to maintain that story.
	I can do something else, actually.
	And so I'm kind of shoulder with this burden with this, whether I like it or not.
	She has options, and so she wants to choose a particular thing over a different thing.
	But that broad vision of who we are is increasingly disputed.
	Patriotism, a force for good, is turning into something smaller, something more like ethno-nationalism, which struggles to accept that someone who looks like me and has a faith like mine can truly be English or British.
	She's not English.
	She's a Pakistani woman.
	It's just the fact of it.
	That's just a raw, blunt fact.
	She is a Pakistani woman.
	In 500 years' time, when future archaeologists discover her grave, dig her up and do some tests on her bones, they'll be like, wow, there's a Pakistani woman here.
	I mean, I assume that we've won and that is an unusual thing for our descendants in 500 years' time.
	But they'll be like, wow, okay, look at that.
	A Pakistani woman.
	That's unusual.
	Because all of the information they will have that can be gleaned from her corporeal presence will be that her ancestry is Pakistan.
	And so she'll be a real surprise to them, frankly.
	And so it's not surprising that quote-unquote ethno-nationalism has trouble understanding that she is in fact English.
	Because any objective metric will reveal her not to be English.
	And in fact, she has a story on how she can claim the skin suit of Englishness.
	But even then, that is contingent on a set of very temporalized values.
	Values that are set in just after the World War II, post-20th century, post-World War II, 20th century modern Britain, and not before.
	Because by any other set of values, she herself would essentially say, I'm not patriotic for this.
	Therefore, I am not British.
	So let's talk about ethnicity.
	Ethnos, or ethnicity, is a Greek word, and it means nation, basically, of or for nation national.
	And by Polybius, the genus and customs particular are peculiar to a people.
	And so a band of people living together, a nation of people, a tribe, a caste, also people of one's own kind.
	So you can see how it's got this consistent and persistent.
	It is the pre-political group of people who, I guess we would say the extended family of people who are related to one another and who share the same story.
	They share the same tribe.
	They share the same genetic clusters.
	They are of the same blood is what someone in the 19th century would say.
	And we would call these a people.
	An ethnicity is a people.
	And the peoples of the world was a concept that was very well understood right up until about now, actually.
	And so, okay, well, that's ethnos.
	That's the ethno in ethno-national.
	Well, let's have a look at nation.
	All right, nation is the Latin word for people, a race of people, a group of people with a common ancestry in common language, relatives, country, homeland.
	These are the same word.
	That's just Greek, that's just Latin.
	This is that the term ethno-nationalism is at best redundant, right?
	There is no ethnos that is not the nation, and there is no nation that is not the ethnos.
	This is just what these words mean.
	Now, there is a different valence of each word in modern English, right?
	Ethnicity is the pre-political.
	So it is the familial and sentimental ties and the fabric of the country and the people in the country and how they understand one another.
	Before it is projected outwards, a nation is used to speak of the political standing of that people on the world stage.
	So ethnos is an internal view of oneself as a people.
	A nation is the external view of oneself as projected against other nations.
	So it's relational, relative.
	But the things are the same.
	So nation comes out of ethnos.
	Nation is the politicization of the ethnos.
	And so the ethnos acting as a political agent on the world stage.
	Whereas the ethnos is what the nation is when it's not engaging with other ethnoses.
	And so you can see how the term ethno-nationalism, well, all nationalism is based on the ethnos.
	It's hard to imagine what the politicization of a people would be without the people that are being politicized.
	And this means that basically it's a way of saying the nation is not allowed to exist as a distinct and corporeal body, or else I don't get to be a part of it, says Shobana Mahmoud.
	Well, I mean, you actually aren't a part of the nation, at least by blood, at least by what it is you physically are, is someone who physically is not a part of the English nation.
	So you can say, I'm English, and you must be meaning something else.
	You must mean some other layer.
	So this is what people call civic nationalism.
	Now, civic nationalism is a quote-unquote nationalism that is based in the appreciation, the love, the some may say worship of, institutions, laws, and customs.
	So when a people has existed in any place for any amount of time, they start building up their own laws, customs, and habits.
	And so we would describe this as the civic life of the people.
	And this civic life of the people in England has been tempestuous, so we shall we say, for quite a long time.
	Of course, we've had Viking invasions.
	Well, I mean, initially it was Anglo-Saxon kingdoms and Brythonic kingdoms fighting one another.
	Then we have the Viking invasions, which causes the ethnos of the English to actually become a nation, to become political against the Viking invasions.
	So England becomes a centralized state a long time ago, way, way longer ago than the French, the Germans, the Russians, or anyone else.
	Like these, these are not nation-states as we would understand them.
	But the English do become an ethnic nation-state.
	And this is turbulent, and the settlement of how we think we should be governed goes on for a thousand years until eventually we have the English Civil War and some issues are settled.
	And then throughout the 19th and into the 20th centuries, we arrive at what I, I mean, I personally think it is good governance, right?
	This is what we would consider to be good governance.
	And so the civic institutions of the English become enviable.
	And almost all of the Enlightenment revolutions are attempts to recreate the civic institutions of the English without actually having the political traditions of England.
	This is why the American Revolution stopped.
	And the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Chinese Revolutions, they kept going.
	The American Revolution was a bunch of Englishmen saying, I actually like these ideas, the abstracted ideas of English political tradition.
	I would like to have them actually quite firmly put into place.
	And so they write a constitution, they give it a bunch of amendments, and the revolution is over.
	Because all of those people, like, yes, this is how we expected things to be, because this is how we were living anyway.
	They had the institutions as a tradition within their society.
	The French, however, didn't.
	They didn't have English institutions.
	They didn't understand how the English lived amongst one another, but they were jealous of the things the English had, the liberty the English had, and the relative amount of sort of social equality that they had as well.
	Obviously, we were a highly stratified country, but the average Englishman, in fact, the Englishman, had a suite of rights that nobody else had access to.
	These were the rights of Englishmen.
	And they've been long and hard fought for over the centuries.
	And other people said, well, I'd like that.
	It's like, I bet you would.
	But you're not English.
	So when you try and get it, you're not going to know how it's sustained.
	You're not going to have the institutional traditional memory in order to keep this up.
	And you're going to take what we do in abstraction and you're going to apply it without the substance, the sort of substrate that it requires to actually properly breathe in, right?
	And so you have non-stop revolutions.
	The French are still undergoing the French Revolution, right?
	The Russians, same thing with the Communists.
	Chinese, same thing with the Communists.
	All of this is just different epochs of these nations trying to live like they think Englishmen live.
	And of course, none of them get it right, but why would they?
	And so this appeal to the civic institutions, the civic, the abstracted layer of ideological traditions that they've been distilled into a series of doctrines, a series of propositions, and it has a philosophy, however tepid, that undergirds it, that holds it in place.
	This is what she's appealing to.
	She's saying, I like these institutions.
	I like this law.
	I like this political framework of democracy.
	I like the rights of Englishmen as established through history.
	I like these things, and I'm a nationalist for that.
	But any amount of interrogation of that position shows that actually that doesn't make all that much sense.
	Because these things are not timeless, eternal, and universal.
	These things are timely, as in they exist temporally, and they are particular.
	They require a certain kind of people with certain historical contingencies to come to certain historical conclusions and results to establish a certain historical perspective and series of circumstances.
	And what this means is that basically there is no such thing as civic nationalism.
	You can say, I love the way that the English run their country.
	I want to run my country this way.
	I really appreciate that.
	That's fine.
	But that is an outgrowth of the English nation.
	And the English nation is an outgrowth of the English ethnos.
	All of this is only made possible because of the unique historical experience of the English and how they deal with themselves and with other nations.
	You can't separate these two things out because this has been tried and it fails.
	And again, this is why the French are as they are.
	This is why the Russians went through what they went through, etc., etc.
	And in all of the places and all of the times where this happened.
	You can't just separate the laws from the people.
	It doesn't work that way.
	The only true laws are those that are inscribed on the hearts of men.
	And it's not that she can't love those things.
	She absolutely can.
	I think they're glorious, frankly.
	I think they're beautiful.
	I genuinely think they're beautiful.
	It's one of the reasons I just love this country so much, is the political and legal history of it.
	It's just so, so superb compared to so many other places.
	And it is something we should cherish.
	And she's right to approve of it.
	But you can't strip that away from the English people and say, right, now you've arrived here.
	This is for all humanity, everywhere in all places and all times, because it's just not true.
	They don't hold it like we hold it.
	They don't live with the traditions.
	They're not born and raised in the soup that produces these things.
	We are, which is why we're a non-corrupt country.
	And other countries are trying to follow in our footsteps.
	Well, they're full of corruption.
	They don't get it right.
	And really, each people should basically find their own way, right?
	They should figure out their own political traditions that work for them in their own way and accept that they are different to others.
	So the point that I'm spending a lot of time on this one on is that there just basically isn't such a thing as ethno-nationalism.
	What there is is an ethnos.
	What there is is the nationalism of politicizing it against other ethnoses.
	And there's no such thing as civic nationalism either.
	The civic life of that ethnos is the property and the possession of that ethnos.
	You can't just abstract it, take it away and say, this is what I love, but I don't love the people that created it.
	I don't care about the people that created it.
	Because without those people, you don't have the thing itself.
	Because as with all institutions, they are not merely abstract.
	They are staffed and manned by people who behave in particular ways because of the traditions that they have inherited and they've been raised in and then they understand and they subconsciously feel are right and wrong.
	So that's just the fact of the matter.
	You can complain about ethno-nationalism all you want, but it's not real.
	Neither civic nationalism.
	And there's no difference between the ethnos, the nation, and their civics.
	All of these are part of the same package.
	You can't get away from that.
	And again, it's not that she can't like these things.
	It's not that she can't appreciate these things.
	But she will always be someone who is not of that nation.
	And you can just see this in people like Sweller Braveman saying, look, I'm not English.
	I am a proud British Asian.
	Now, that's fine.
	British is a civic category.
	It's also, there will be people who argue it's an ethnic category because this is the English, Welsh, Scottish, and Northern Irish.
	Harry even went as far as say Irish on the podcast today.
	I don't know if I'm going to agree with that.
	I'm joking, of course.
	But in the civic capacity, she's talking about a subject of the British crown and she's an Asian.
	Perfectly true.
	That's completely true.
	That is absolutely true.
	She is a subject of the British Crown in Britain, and she is Asian.
	And that's not an insult.
	That's not anything, right?
	That's just a statement of fact.
	I am not English.
	Yeah, we know, and that's fine.
	I'm a proud British Asian.
	We know that's fine.
	I'm grateful for everything this great country has given my family and me.
	You're welcome, is how I feel.
	I like when people are grateful to the things that we allowed to happen that we provide.
	I love England and the British people.
	This is not racist.
	This is the most straightforwardly sensible statement.
	And in any other time and place, this wouldn't need to be said.
	But it's so completely categorically true.
	And no one would resent her for it.
	And you'd have to be a really, really hardcore ethno-nationalist to be like, okay, well, that's intolerable because there are so many people who don't feel that way who I'd deport first.
	Anyway, going back to Shabada Mahmood, I'm going to skip over some of this because I've been going for a while already.
	But she says, and this is what I find very, very interesting.
	She's fighting for a greater Britain at the expense of little England.
	This was the inheritance that the Conservatives left behind for us.
	And their current irrelevance is the price that they have paid.
	Thanks, Tories.
	So it now falls to us to rise to this challenge.
	If we do not, our vision of an open, tolerant, and generous country will wither.
	And where we fail, others will succeed.
	Working class communities will turn away from us, the party that for over a hundred years has been their party and seeks solace in the false promises of Farage.
	They will turn towards something smaller, something narrower, something less welcoming.
	And the division within this country will grow.
	So the challenge we now face is this: not just to win the next election, but to keep the country together and to fight for our belief in a greater Britain, not a littler England.
	Matt.
	The British state versus England.
	She is drawing, excuse me, the battle lines for us.
	The British state of 1948 onwards versus the little England that we feel and live in.
	Because the English do feel their country is a small place.
	It's theirs.
	It's their personal possession.
	The countryside, for example, is ours.
	Everyone treats the countryside as an extension of their own back garden.
	You just go and walk in it.
	You just go and walk in it.
	It's just ours.
	It's completely safe.
	It's been like this for a thousand years.
	It's just ours.
	And this little England is the ethnic possession of the English people collectively.
	And we are happy, actually, to share it with grateful guests.
	We don't mind that, actually.
	You know, if someone is well-meaning and treats us well and is happy to be here, then we are fine with that.
	You know, don't get me wrong, we don't want unlimited numbers or anything.
	Things have gone far too far, but it's not like we've brought in like 15 million lovers of England.
	Like, you know, if we had, it'd be a much more difficult thing for us to argue against, right?
	But it's not.
	And that's not what's happened.
	And so actually, it turns out that those people who have come here who are not ancestrally from this place, who genuinely love the place and would like to keep it in the way that it was found, are actually very much in the minority.
	And actually, the worshippers of the British state, the civic nationalism, the worshippers of the Greater Britain are quite happy to exploit and sacrifice England for what is essentially the imperial project continued.
	She is a product of the empire.
	That's what she looks to.
	I don't look to the empire.
	I look to England.
	I look to my little country that I feel belongs to me.
	I don't want the great British state to treat it like a province in an empire to be used and abused, to exploited.
	I mean, and the thing is, that's how they see us in every regard.
	You are a tax cow to squeeze the milk out of so they can redistribute this money to the foreigners they bring and pledge allegiance to.
	Not just Kiostama literally saying this is a Britain for all and you're our enemy if you say no.
	But in the very notion of their own story, it's predicated on foreigners in the country.
	They don't have a story that isn't with foreigners because they are foreign.
	And so you've got the imperial administration of Greater Britain against little England.
	And I'm sorry, but England doesn't lose.
	We don't lose wars.
	We don't lose battles.
	We always win one battle, the last.
	So I'm sorry, Shabana, you have options.
	I don't have options.
	I've got nowhere I can go.
	I don't want to be a refugee somewhere, but you have a place where you can go where you won't be a refugee, and that's not this country as well.
	Because of course, Shabana Mahmood, being Pakistani, can literally, by right of the blood, claim citizenship in Pakistan.
	And doubtless she's been there many times.
	She speaks Urdu.
	She's got lots of family over there.
	She has connections to the place.
	I don't have connections to anywhere else.
	I literally don't have any connections to anywhere else.
	I don't know who I would speak to in another country to claim a connection to anything.
	But anyway, yeah, she carries on.
	Immigration is going to continue because this is, of course, normal.
	Her Pakistani migrant family, her parents came here for a better life, which, again, shows that her family story, bound up with the Imperial British State, was them here to just extract resources and exploit us as if we were a raw frontier on the province.
	Like the American frontier or the Australian frontier or the African frontier, but we are not.
	And you can say, well, that's what Britain did.
	Okay, well, great.
	I wasn't alive.
	I wasn't in charge of it.
	I don't think I would have been an imperialist, to be honest with you.
	I don't feel like an imperialist in my soul.
	And even if I was, I thought you said it was a bad thing.
	And if your only argument is, yeah, well, you did it first, then what you're saying is you're not against imperialism.
	You're just annoyed that it wasn't you doing it.
	And as soon as it is you doing it, you think it's perfectly just.
	I'm sorry, I just don't agree.
	And even if I did agree, okay, but you're doing it against me.
	So I'm perfectly entitled to defend myself from that.
	Anyway, they know that they're going to have to change things.
	They're going to have to deport a bunch of migrants.
	They're going to have to end indefinitely to remain.
	But the only reason they do that is to be able to preserve the openness to new migrants in the future.
	But this is the last one that we'll end on for today, because like I say, it was quite a long speech.
	I clipped a bunch of bits out.
	But listen to what she's saying here.
	I know what it feels like to be a Muslim in this country in the wake of the devastating terror attacks of 9-11 and 7-7.
	But she doesn't know what it's like to be an Englishman or an English woman, right?
	Like, she doesn't understand.
	Like, don't get me wrong, 7-7 was bad, 9-11 was bad.
	But really, the Manchester Arena bombing was worse.
	Right?
	Like, okay, yeah, a bunch of adults on the train on the way to work get blown up.
	That's terrible.
	But attacking a concert with kids in, killing 22 people, that's worse.
	Somehow, though, Muslims most affected, right?
	Like, the real victims of Islamic terror attacks are Muslims, like Shabana Mahmood.
	Like, this is not a very English perspective.
	This is not a very English perspective.
	I mean, being a Muslim is not an English norm.
	Most English people are not Muslims by a huge number and do not have that perspective.
	And she doesn't show sympathy for anyone other than the Muslim community in that framing.
	I know what it's like to be a Muslim in the wake of Muslim terror attacks.
	I know what it's like to feel afraid that Muslims are going to start blowing up things.
	I know what that's like too.
	Do you know what that's like?
	I mean, is it going to be your things that are blown up by these jihadis or not?
	I know that we are a stronger and more united country when we tackle those who seek to destroy our way of life, no matter who they may be.
	Right.
	Our way of life.
	I know we share a vision.
	Our way of life being our, the people within the story of Imperial Britain, the foreign people who hold to the story of Imperial Britain because that's where it belongs to them.
	It actually, from Pakistan to wherever, I think she went to Arabia or something, and then to Britain.
	Her story is the story of the imperial apparatus.
	Her story is not the story of England.
	And so she's worried that the story of the foreign imperialists is going to be overthrown by something much more nativist, by something of this land that has been awoken because of mass immigration, because we've never had this before.
	We've never had this in our entire history, really.
	And this is something that people are right, okay, right.
	I have to understand myself as an Englishman first.
	The ethnos, then the nation, then the civic.
	We have to understand that these things flow out from within us.
	And actually, even if she laid claim to it, and they say, say she went back to Pakistan, I was like, right, I'm going to set up the British state in Pakistan.
	How long do we think it would have minimal corruption like our state has?
	How long would it be in previous eras competently governed?
	How long would it be effective?
	I mean, again, like all these things are not part true of the British state now, but that's only because of what's been done to it.
	It used to be that we were really, really effectively governed.
	How long would that obtain for in Pakistan with a state modelled on British lines run entirely by Pakistanis or by Indians or by whoever?
	How long can we expect that to be the case?
	I think the answer is actually not long, right?
	Because the civic institutions and knowledge, the abstract ideology of the civics, is not separate from the people, the traditions and the lived experience of the people.
	Yeah, minimal corruption, Lamau.
	I know, I know, I know.
	I know we share a vision.
	It is of an open, tolerant, generous country.
	No, no, I don't share that vision at all.
	And so, again, another point of we're not part of the we, right?
	I have no intention of being open anymore.
	I don't want this many foreigners here.
	I just want them to go home.
	I'm worried for the future of my country and my children.
	I don't want to be generous because I'm...
	God, I'm so dreading the next tax round, man.
	I can't remember if it was April or something when I'm going to have to pay God Almighty amounts of tax and I just, I am not looking forward to it.
	I'm not looking forward to it.
	I'm very tired of being generous.
	The government being generous with my money.
	Yeah, she sounds like a hobo asking for a cigarette.
	Yeah, exactly.
	I'm so tired of the government being generous with my money, bringing people in, being generous with my money, and then telling me to tolerate it, right?
	I am sick of tolerating things that I think are an evil.
	I'm sick of tolerating being robbed by the government to import, mass import foreigners and paying for the privilege, right?
	I don't want to be tolerant of that anymore.
	So I don't share these values at all.
	These values, I think, are actually the ruination of my country, my little England, by the greater British state.
	I think the British state is using manpower to sustain its own institutions, even though the time in which they produced those institutions has passed.
	The circumstances, the context in which these institutions emerged has ended.
	We are not a homogeneous country that is supported by a great empire.
	We are not that thing anymore.
	But the British state, instead of accepting that it no longer has a real purpose and reconfiguring itself to properly be of this place, is trying to reconstruct itself in this country from what it has left, the remaining landmass that it has left.
	And it's taking on a parasitical aspect.
	And like it always has, like every great empire has, the mass movement of people, people are just human capital to an empire.
	I just need X amount of people to go here and do work.
	And the British Empire, I mean, the reason that any Asians were in Africa, or the reason that there were Bangladeshis in Burma, or any of these things, these are all empires moving manpower around to get things done for the institution, the structure, the hierarchy, the civic life itself.
	And actually, this is the cause of much strife.
	This is one of those things that they're complaining about constantly, actually.
	And so the empire trying to reconstitute itself in what remains of its territory so it can feel like it still exists.
	I'm not on it, man.
	I'm not with it.
	I don't want it.
	I don't agree with it.
	And I don't think if the values of openness, generosity, and tolerance are what's making that happen, I'm against them.
	I'm not in favor of the state having those values.
	It is a patriotism that speaks but does not feel the need to shout.
	Be quiet and let us do what we're doing.
	No.
	No, not at all.
	I feel like speaking up about this.
	It is one that embraces those who trace their roots back in this country over a thousand years.
	And also those who look like me.
	Those who don't.
	Those who actually don't have an ancestral claim to these lands and somehow find themselves in the position of home secretary.
	Those who actually are not part of the ancestral tradition, the heritage, the lineage, the river of Britishness, and who want to piggyback on top of it because it gives them all kinds of benefits.
	It provides them with a life that just otherwise they wouldn't have, right?
	It's not surprising they don't want to give that up.
	It's not surprising they don't want to give that up.
	But I'm not in favor of it being the way that this country is.
	It is a patriotism that accepts that some things in this country will change, but that there is something essential that will always endure.
	And she's talking about the civic institutions.
	I'm not committed to our civic institutions.
	I'm not committed to them.
	If they fail, then scrap them.
	If they're not fit for the time, if they don't fulfill their purpose, then scrap them.
	And Shabban Mahmood and the Greater Britain Project have actually decided, no, the civic institutions must live.
	And if that means that England is not fit for purpose, because it is full of English people who are not doing what we want, who are not breeding like rats or whatever it is, then we will just import your replacement.
	And we will tell you to be open, generous, and tolerant towards them until we get the demographics we want.
	We will reconstitute the ethnos of these islands until we are satisfied with it.
	And we want you to just be quiet.
	We want to exploit your country.
	We want to replace you.
	We need extra people whose story we will embody.
	And we don't give a flying fuck about your story.
	We're in fact opposed to your story.
	Your story, as she began this with, is the thing that's contesting this with us.
	And we are going to defeat it with everything that we have.
	If you even imply that there is another story, as Kier Starman pointed out, you are their enemy.
	I believe we are in a moment where a patriotism like this is at risk.
	Turning instead towards a smaller, more divisive ethno-nationalism.
	Our challenge now is to fight for our vision of this country.
	And in doing so, to hold it together.
	She's worried about the Imperial British State breaking apart because Gammonzilla can feel the wounds.
	Gamanzilla is bleeding and he is awakening.
	He is not happy with what has been done to him.
	And she is worried that Gamanzilla will tear apart the British state in order to make sure that he lives and it doesn't.
	Honestly, this whole thing was so revelatory.
	Like, she has just done such a good job of laying out to us that it is the Imperial British apparatus that is dismembering England and replacing its population with a new, more conformable population.
	And if Gammonzilla continues to stir, then he'll shake his great shoulders and the British state will fall apart.
	And that's what she's worried most about.
	This was so useful.
	I'm so glad that the Labour Party conference took this turn.
	I'm just so glad they decided to come out and tell us exactly what they think.
	And the thing is, I don't even know they, I don't even think they know what they're actually saying to us when they say these things.
	I know they think they're saying something good and true and honest, but I don't think they realize the depth of the chasm that exists between them and us.
	I really don't think they have any idea.
	And I think they would be shocked to say, watch this and be like, are we actually destroying something precious that has existed for more than a thousand years that actually we have no right to destroy?
	A reasonable person would ask that question.
	They're not going to ask that question because everything about them, their entire livelihoods, their entire moral legitimacy hinges on their imperial project of Greater Britain.
	And that's what they're trying to bring into being.
	So let's go through some soup chats and then I get to go to bed for the evening.
	Because my God, am I tired?
	I don't know whether you've noticed, but I've been working a lot.
	And it's not just things here, like other things behind the scenes and stuff like that.
	But the thing is, it was all so timely.
	And I don't see anyone else making these points, like drawing out this distinction.
	This is why I did the degree in philosophy to really properly understand what we're actually being presented with.
	Like if you find me someone who's drawn this distinction and shown that it is their project of Greater Britain against Little England, then I will be like, brilliant, you got there before I did.
	Because as far as I can tell, I'm the only person who's even spotted this.
	But I think this is the most important part of the entire labour project.
	And this is the thing that determines whether they're on our side or not.
	Are you for Shabbat Mahmood's sort of Imperial Greater Britain?
	Or are you for the survival of England as England?
	As the homeland of the English people, that belongs to the English people.
	This is the rift, the chasm, the distinction, the crack that has split us apart.
	And you have to make a choice.
	Is your story the story of the foreign, or is your story the story of the native?
	I can't bring the parrot back, I'm afraid.
	But he will be back at some point, but like only when my parents are visiting.
	And why is this for some reason?
	For some reason, it's only showing me like the last like eight super chats.
	Normally I can go back and see all the previous ones.
	I'm not sure why I can't.
	So I'm really sorry that I can't see them all.
	Ben Habib does not look like a white Englishman, but he has the right heritage to be there.
	Yes.
	Because actually, like, the skin colour is not the thing that decides whether you have heritage of this place.
	It's inherited from your parents.
	And that's just the way that works.
	You inherit it or you don't.
	Oh, right.
	I'm looking at the wrong one.
	Sorry.
	I just realized I'm looking at the wrong page.
	Hang on a second.
	This is what happens when you have so many goddamn channels, man.
	Give me a second.
	I had someone earlier say, why don't you just aggregate all of this into one channel?
	It's like, well, one, it'd probably screw us in the algorithm, right?
	But two, because I've been persecuted by YouTube for so many fucking years, I'd set up new channels.
	DP Audit says, keep up the great work, Carl.
	Thank you very much.
	Do my best.
	Brother Doom says, when I saw Stalma announce recognition in Palestine, he looked terrified.
	Is that just how he always looks?
	Yeah, like kind of a scared shark.
	Like the NPC meme, you know, like he is genuinely always looking that way.
	Angel says, as an Eastern European, it's hard to believe that all of this is happening to the West is purely ideological.
	It genuinely looks like an orchestrated collapse.
	If not, how could they be that drunk on the Kool-Aid?
	This won't end well for them or anyone.
	Well, I mean, like, I think from being from Eastern Europe, you've got to know the sort of depth of power that ideology has over people, right?
	Especially over a ruling class that is floating on a sea of discontent.
	The ideology is the only thing that keeps it afloat at that point.
	And so they can't move on from it.
	They can't self-criticize.
	And when they do, the whole project collapses.
	So, you know, you can't have that.
	Joel says, I miss your pirate phase of the parrot.
	Yeah, well, me too.
	But, like, she's not here.
	It was very dignified.
	Glad to see what a positive impact you're having.
	You'll win, cheers and the sights.
	Thanks so much, man.
	Like, yeah, no, I genuinely think we are going to win.
	But they're going to do as much damage to us as they can on the way out.
	So just, you know, stay frosty.
	Russian says, digital ID polling support down from 30% to 12%.
	Fuck.
	Like, step on that rake.
	And even then, 30% is not a popular policy, you know?
	Like, I'm going to take this really unpopular policy because it'll give me Tony Blair's support.
	It's like, okay, but it's going to ruin your party.
	Dreadnought Logan says, when we win, we have to make sure that Tony Blair and his alliance are known for the rest of history as a most traitorous PM and party.
	Yeah, I mean, I would just ban the Blair Foundation.
	I would just declare it as some sort of foreign influence group because it is.
	I mean, he's literally being funded.
	Like, Ed Miliband's like, Elon Musk, think out of our politics.
	Okay, but what about the guy from Oracle?
	Larry Ellison or whatever his name is.
	He's a foreign billionaire.
	He's involved in our politics, but it's because he's fucking yours.
	And he's bringing the digital idea that your party wants.
	Like, don't give me the shit.
	You were literally just playing partisan politics.
	It's just, it so happens that Elon is our foreign billionaire because he cares about the existence of England.
	And you care about the existence of the international global technocratic tyranny.
	It's like, fuck you.
	Fuck you, Ed Miliband.
	Fuck yourself.
	Beat me up, Scotty says, get rid of Quangos and NGOs.
	Absolutely.
	Absolutely.
	Completely unaccountable, completely faceless.
	Get rid of them.
	Bought and paid for everywhere.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Get rid of them completely.
	Fired down says there's nothing more dangerous than an idiot who thinks they're smart.
	No, that's only when they're put in charge of something, like David Lamy, is when they become dangerous.
	An idiot who thinks they're smart generally isn't that dangerous because they don't have any power.
	Brute Life says, Farage was trying to be one of the gang.
	Stalma declared him an enemy.
	Hopefully they will stop playing nice and start playing war games.
	Yeah, well, this is the thing.
	Like, I don't think Farage understood that what is happening is the peeling away of the artificial construct, like this sort of robotic skeleton of the British Empire, the British imperial apparatus, is kind of shedding its English skin.
	And this skeletal monster is shedding its flesh, which is the English people, so it can properly stand upright on its own and act in the way that it wants.
	Because remember, like the ethnos has loyalty to itself first.
	It's loyal to the state second.
	If the state becomes dangerous, then you have a revolution.
	you have a civil war but notice how i mean you've seen the the street interviews with like you know the randos the global nomads who are the the serfs of the british state the The British state pays for and allows to be here.
	And it's like, would you fight for this country?
	Like, hell no, this isn't my country.
	I'm going home.
	I'd go somewhere else.
	I don't want to fight for this country.
	No, because they're serfs.
	Serfs don't fight.
	Like, you can't, you can summon up yeomen to fight, right?
	Freeholding, independent peasants.
	Not even peasants, actually.
	Peasants is the wrong term.
	Because the yeomen of England owned individual property all the way back to the 1200s.
	We've got plenty of evidence for it, right?
	The yeomen of England were not peasants, and they were not serfs.
	They were men who owned things.
	They had a stake in the country that was theirs.
	You can't get serfs to fight.
	Why would the fuck would a serf fight for you?
	Why would he bother?
	You know, I don't, what do I gain from this?
	I get to carry on being a serf.
	Well, no, that's not my investment.
	It's your investment.
	Your problem.
	You go ahead.
	You do what you want.
	And so this slowing off of the ethnic flesh of the British state, I think Farage just didn't understand, obviously.
	Why would he understand it?
	I mean, I genuinely think I'm the only person who spotted this.
	And I'm not trying to toot my own horn, but I think I've laid this out in a fairly convincing fashion in this stream.
	And I don't blame him for not seeing it either, right?
	This is a difficult thing to perceive.
	I don't blame him for not seeing it, but I think that actually he's feeling it, right?
	I think he is feeling that actually maybe I'm more for the country than I am for the imperial state, which is why, and I think Starmer recognized that too.
	Which, I mean, that's the only reason you'd end indefinitely for Rome, right?
	You're like, well, I kind of want to preserve the ethnos, the nation, above the imperial apparatus that wants to move indefinitely people here and give them unlimited citizenship.
	Why would you not want that if you were the imperial apparatus?
	But you wouldn't want that if you were a nativist.
	And I think Farage does have nativist sentiments.
	But I think he's not clear on the institutions of the country versus the actual natives.
	But maybe this is something he'll become more clear on in time.
	Maybe he'll essentially defect over to Starma.
	Who knows?
	Who knows what's going to happen, right?
	But you are right.
	france was trying to be one of the gang and starmer has recognized him actually as an enemy and so this is oh it's it i don't think there's um there's probably no coming back from this Lost Kin says, at this point, I feel like we should just work on subverting reform from within and turn it based.
	We've got four years to fill it with our guys.
	Mate, it's already full of our guys.
	Like, I hear from Reform Party members all the time.
	Like, local branched heads and members who go to local branch meetings and stuff like that.
	You know, they're internal activists.
	We hear from all the time.
	It's just the top brass in reform that aren't openly based.
	And even then, like, I mean, you know, Nigel's got a long history of saying stuff and doing stuff that you think that's not milquetoast civ nationalism, man.
	Like, what are you doing?
	You know, like, you just, I'm trying to be mainstream.
	It's like, okay, well, you've managed that now, Nigel.
	You know?
	Like, you petitioned Enoch Powell for an endorsement in the 90s.
	What?
	That's not milquetoast civ nationalism, is it?
	Anyway, so yeah, the reform at all of the levels, apart from the very top, are filled with our guys.
	They absolutely are.
	And I mean, there's basically been kind of quiet civil war going on in the Reform Party over support for Tommy Robinson.
	Like, they're like, but we all love Tommy Robinson.
	And the top brass are like, well, we fucking hate him.
	So shut your fucking mouths.
	And it's kind of come to a stalemate, as I understand now.
	But again, I hear from people inside it all the time.
	Chicken Royale says, Carl Random question.
	If Blair never opened the borders and we only kept the immigrant families post-World War II era, we would have a 90% native English population.
	Thanks.
	Yeah.
	I mean, England in 1991 was 95% English.
	But yes, we would have a 95% native English population.
	That's completely correct.
	Frenchman Church says, sorry if this is off topic, but I was looking for one of your 40k videos from last year and discovered that some woke 40k author made you the villain in a novel.
	Did I know about this?
	Yeah, I did, actually.
	I'll get you a video that I've done about it.
	because i i made the guy up i i went and bought a bunch of bits off of ebay uh like you know You know, corn warriors and stuff like that.
	So I could actually make the character.
	And then I painted him.
	And I did a video on it.
	My little side channel.
	I just have to find where it is.
	I think it was a short.
	Yeah, there we go.
	There we go.
	I'll put it in the chat.
	So you can.
	Oh, fuck's sake.
	I won't put it in the chat because I'm fucking retarded.
	Oh, my God.
	No winning with YouTube.
	I swear to God I won't put it in the chat because I'm fucking ready.
	Right.
	Oh, fuck's sake.
	Give me a minute and also smash that like button.
	I can't notice there's nearly 4,000 people watching and 1,000 likes.
	Come on, lads.
	on yes right so i've i've pinned that that's my little gaming channel i haven't been doing much on it recently because i was finishing my degree my master's uh but um but i should be able to find some time in the near future to actually do some stuff on that so yes i did know thank you very much for letting me know um fidan says the government is an end of cycle of dumbasses helping other dumbasses get things they don't deserve totally true Kyle says, Tony Blair gets his police state in Gaza.
	It's not a foreign issue.
	Tony Blair is working for the interests of Israel.
	For how long?
	His war in Iraq is looking like replacement migration theory.
	It really was a Jewish plot.
	No, it's worse than that, to be honest.
	I mean, I'm not saying there aren't like, you know, Jewish people or Jewish NGOs, but it's really not exclusively limited to them.
	And I know a load of people online are going to get on my ass about this, but it's just the case.
	Like, it's just the case that it's the system thinks that it needs this for its own reasons.
	You have got like people who hate our countries for their own reasons who want this to continue.
	But if you actually look at who is behind these things, it was Boris Johnson that brought in the Boris Wave, man.
	Fucking Boris Johnson.
	Why?
	Because he wanted the Financial Times to give him good press.
	Like, it's actually way more prosaic than the thing.
	Like, sorry, way more clear than you think.
	It's like, and again, you know, not going to go into that.
	D-Tech says, you should be excited about Farage for one thing only.
	Constitutional changes, civil service reform, cabinet appointment reform.
	He sets in motion in the future and undo a lot of Blair.
	Well, I mean, I hope so, right?
	I don't actually have that much faith that he will do all of these things.
	But if at the very least he crushes the digital ID stuff, that would be good enough, frankly.
	That would be good enough.
	Squeezlat says, the story of who we are is contested, but the truth of who we are is not.
	History is written by the victors.
	Starman declared a war, he can't win.
	Starman definitely did declare a war, he can't win.
	thing is the the truth is still a story right the the narrative humans are narrative creatures we We understand everything because it is placed within a context of a narrative.
	And so their story isn't untrue, right?
	It's not that it's not true that foreigners came here in 1948 and began the diversification of Britain.
	That is a true story.
	But stories are also intentional.
	They're also loaded with morals.
	They're also loaded with telos.
	And the question is, which story do we want to follow to the end?
	Whose happy ending do we want to get at the end of the story?
	Theirs or ours?
	And I would rather get ours than theirs, frankly.
	What's my non-English ancestry?
	Just curious.
	You can go to loads.com and watch the lads out where we go through our DNA results.
	I'm about something like 13, 15% non-British, and it's from everywhere.
	It's quite funny, actually.
	Jose says, do you think due to mass immigration upon Western Europe, we'll share a common sentiment as Europeans to want our continent to remain white?
	Well, I think, again, falling into the frame of calling it an abstract noun is not useful because lots of things are white that are not English.
	I do think we should be particular and speak to the actual history of the people.
	And when you say French or English or German, what you are saying with that is everything that's attached to that.
	Or you can go for the very thin and abstract notion of skin colour, which allows David Lamy to call you a Nazi, which I'm not in favor of at all.
	You know, I'm not in favor of it.
	And the thing is, if we use English in particular, then that does denote the people we are talking about versus the shabana mahmoods of the world.
	Thank you, Generico.
	I appreciate that.
	His skilling submission was basically about the nation the way you're describing it.
	Glad someone is saying it.
	Well, I'm glad that this is our area of the internet is really understanding all of this, right?
	Bonvoyages says, I think it's best to consider the American Revolution as a national divorce since we thought only thought the distance from governance too great to work out.
	Yeah, I know.
	It's an English civil war, was the American Revolution.
	And the French took a side because they hated us.
	But that came back to bite them in the ass, so they get fucked.
	Generica says, are the English diaspora in the settler colonies all still part of the same nation in the same way you described it?
	Well, yeah.
	If you look at the, I mean, they all speak the same language, they all follow the common law, they all have the same kind of customs and sentiments.
	Like, you expect honesty and fair dealing from an Australian, a New Zealander, an American, and a Canadian, right?
	You expect all of the things you would expect from any Englishman in England.
	You will follow.
	Obviously, we've got a lot of differences, aesthetic differences.
	But with the essentials, we all still act the same.
	We all believe in the same thing.
	We all follow the same kind of law.
	And we all recognize each other as being part of the same overarching group.
	We call it the Anglosphere.
	We all understand that we are part of the same ethnos in this way.
	And this was one of the things it didn't take very long for the Americans to be like, you know what, fuck the French.
	We've just had this revolution.
	It's within living memory.
	Yeah, but I would rather be allies with Britain than the French, to be honest.
	You know, even though we fucking hate those guys, but fucking those French.
	Yeah, so yeah, I would say they are all part of the same ethnos, actually.
	Ellie says, if Mahmoud turned up in some rural English pub, we all know that deep down she'd feel uncomfortable like she doesn't belong there.
	You know what?
	Maybe.
	But I think the people there would be kind and make her feel welcoming.
	Because there's a difference between the hard category and the way that people actually socially interact, right?
	There are, I'll write a thing on this at some point, a book maybe.
	But we are tribal.
	We are fundamentally a tribal people.
	And this is why goodwill counts for everything in the way that we're dealing with these people.
	I just don't feel like she's got goodwill towards me.
	And I definitely don't feel that Kierstama does.
	So I don't, even though Kiostama's English, I don't feel like he's part of my tribe.
	I actually feel like he's part of an enemy tribe.
	And this enemy tribe has declared themselves a Greater Britain against Little England.
	It's like, okay, I'm part of the tribe of Little England.
	And fuck those guys.
	We're going to crush them.
	So I don't know.
	I think she'd be fine.
	I think she'd be fine.
	Because tribally, she'd be familiar enough that we'd accept it.
	Justin says, I was waiting to catch you live to point out that you said sold up the river twice in your video earlier today.
	The phrase is sold down the river.
	Hey, good point.
	That's a good point.
	Yeah, thank you.
	I didn't realize.
	Wildspeaker says, complex question for you.
	Historically, the British have been policed by consent.
	If Nigel delivers on deportations, how would British authorities fare with rounding up those individuals?
	Well, I mean, the fact of the matter is they would have to be forcibly removed, right?
	It wouldn't necessarily be pretty.
	I think the easiest thing to do would just be to cut off their money.
	I think a lot of them would just go home.
	Because a lot of them are just paid to be here by the state.
	And if we stop paying them, they'll go home.
	Generica says, the most insidious form of colonization is the colonization of identity.
	American settlers would never have dreamed of calling themselves Apache or Cherokee in the way newcomers divest us of identity.
	Yeah, it's horrific, isn't it?
	It's to literally disestablish our own identity and then wear it as a skin suit and claim it as your own.
	I would never claim an ethnic identity of some other people.
	If I was going to move to another country, it would probably be Greece, right?
	I happen to particularly like ancient Greece.
	I happen to particularly like modern Greece.
	Modern Greece is a very pleasant place.
	I've been on the holiday there dozens, well, not dozens I'd like, you know, about half a dozen times probably in the course of my life.
	And I've always had such an amazing time.
	I love the food.
	I love the climate.
	The people have always been super friendly.
	The prices have always been lower than here.
	And so, like, it, and I love the history.
	There's so much, you know, I find the history incredibly romantic of the sort of classical era of Greece.
	So, if I was going to live in another country, I'd love to live in Greece.
	But I would never be like, right.
	Guess who's just as Greek as you are?
	Like, I'd never do that.
	I'd never the fucking goal.
	To be like, yeah, guess who needs to include me?
	Let me explain your ethnic identity and how it includes me.
	I would never, never in my life.
	And I would like, no, I'd be like, Suella Braveman.
	I'd be like, no, I'm an Englishman, but I really love this country.
	I love the culture.
	So I'd be a raging Greek nationalist, obviously.
	I'd be like, why have you allowed a single Turk in this country?
	Because I want Greece to remain Greek, right?
	And if you allowed, if you're like, right, okay, we're going to allow 50 million Brits in.
	I'd be like, don't do that.
	You know, just don't do that.
	That's going to ruin your country.
	They're only like 10 million Greeks.
	Don't do that.
	Greece has to remain majority Greek for it to be a Greek country.
	And it's the last one you've got.
	So don't do that.
	Wildspeaker says, you guys need your own archetypal ruthless vizier.
	We have Stephen Miller.
	You need your own one of the good ones.
	Yeah, I know.
	I would love a Stephen Miller of our own.
	And this is another thing.
	Farage doesn't have it.
	Is it Zia Youssef?
	Maybe, I guess.
	Maybe Zia Yousuf can be our ruthless vizier.
	I don't know.
	I don't, I doubt.
	But who knows?
	He's the closest thing we're going to have to it.
	Maybe he'll prove me wrong, right?
	Maybe when Nigel Farage gets in and gives Zia Youssef the power of the hand of the king, it's like, Zia, just sort this out for me.
	I've got to go and give a press conference.
	Just go sort this out.
	Zia Yousuf was just like, oh, these guys are fucked.
	And just Stephen Miller, the lot of them.
	Who knows?
	Let me see.
	i'm just going to refresh it and then i call it a night because it's very late from what my grandparents have said communist in eastern europe with phallus ideological slash delusional then They never imported threats to their own power like the Blairites are doing.
	Foreigners won't vote for Labour for much longer.
	Well, I mean, a lot of them will, right?
	Sadiq Khan will be the mayor of London until the end of time.
	No matter how bad that city gets, they will always vote for him because he is their paycheck.
	He is their money.
	So, you know, they will because they're dependence on him.
	It's a client patronage network that he's created.
	Turd Ferguson says, I was a teenager in Chesfield in the 90s on exchange from the United States.
	Don't even recognize England today.
	I can't imagine what it's like for traditionalists.
	Keep up the fight.
	Yeah, thanks, man.
	It's fucking atrocious.
	It's atrocious.
	And every day, I genuinely, you know, that Homelander meme where he's just like glaring.
	He's just, you know, the disgust meme.
	That's me when I walk around my town.
	I never used to be this way.
	I used to be completely carefree.
	You'd wander around Swindon.
	It was just a normal English town.
	And you just wander around completely carefree, bump into your mates, you know, go do whatever you need to do.
	You didn't think about any of these things.
	And now I'm just like.
	But I refuse to leave and I refuse to flee.
	I'm not having it.
	Moses says, I'm a Zoomer and I love your content, Carl.
	You're an essential pillar in this nation's survival.
	God bless.
	Well, I mean, I hope not.
	I hope I'm just a commentator on the sidelines, right?
	And I hope everything is done without me being required.
	I dread to think that it relies on me in some way.
	Look into Julius Avola, my friend, is this your first day?
	I've got other videos on this channel talking about Julius Evola.
	I love Evola.
	I love his insane esoteric mysticism and the nature of the universe as he portrays it.
	Actually, he thinks it's really great.
	I'm not saying that he's correct on everything or anything, but there is an aspect to reality that he captures-the reality of the human experience-that actually I think we should be cognizant of, even if we're not like die-hard disciples of his.
	He makes some good, really good points about the nature of metaphysics, frankly, and what is metaphysically true about civilizations and men and women.
	And these are worth looking into, these are worth thinking of, and where applicable applying.
	I do need to find the time for gaming again, says Mike Ryder.
	I know, I know, I could, I definitely could do it, I'll find some.
	And thank you, Generico, for the great Steam.
	I will see you in Sydney, he says.
	And yes, I'll be in Sydney at the Skildings event.
	I can't remember the name of it now: First Fleet Forum on skildings.com.
	I will be speaking there in the end of the month.
	So, I will see you all there, folks.

▲